From micha at aishdas.org Sun Oct 1 11:10:33 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Sun, 1 Oct 2017 14:10:33 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Writing on Yom Tov In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20171001181033.GC31024@aishdas.org> On Sat, Sep 30, 2017 at 10:18:58PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : So... back to my question: To whatever extent "writing" in the "Book of : Life" is a melacha, should it matter whether it is Shabbos or Yom Tov? Before we take the Barditcher Rebbe's words too literally, let us remember that wind routinely blows things to roll more than 4 amos on a reshus harabbim, lightning ignites trees on Shabbos, people die on Shabbos, etc... IOW, first explain to me what a claim that the RBSO avoids melakhos means altogether in light of the evidence, and then perhaps I could participate in your intended conversation. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger One who kills his inclination is as though he micha at aishdas.org brought an offering. But to bring an offering, http://www.aishdas.org you must know where to slaughter and what Fax: (270) 514-1507 parts to offer. - R' Simcha Zissel Ziv From akivagmiller at gmail.com Sun Oct 1 17:52:44 2017 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Sun, 1 Oct 2017 20:52:44 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Not hadar is pasul Message-ID: . This thread may be running into a vocabulary problem. My understanding is that "hadar" and "mehudar" mean two different things, and some people tend to confuse the two. "Hadar" refers to the absolute minimum requirements, without which the minim are posul, and "mehudar" refers to things which Chazal consider as making the minim even more beautiful. "Hadar" is required, and "mehudar" is desirable. I was not able to find a source for this in my seforim, but a post from R' Moshe Feldman in Avodah 10:9 (fifteen years ago) seems to support it: > The chiluk between psulei hadar (learned from the word "hadar") > and the idea of buying a mehudar esrog--deriving from the din > of zeh Keli v'anveihu (and applicable to other mitzvos as well) > is discussed at length in Mikra'ei Kodesh (Succos vol 2) siman > 26, esp. p. 119 (quote from Raavad) and pp. 122-123 in Harirei > Kodesh. It would seem from his discussion that buying a mehudar > esrog has no relationship to the word "hadar." Of course, there are many differing views about what is in each category, and this will vary by posek, by first day / not first day, and by lechatchila / bdieved. I'm just explaining the definitions of these easily-confused terms. Akiva Miller From zev at sero.name Sun Oct 1 23:02:00 2017 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2017 02:02:00 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Not hadar is pasul In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <454d729c-5e9d-e0b0-d0cb-f625592cd49f@sero.name> On 01/10/17 20:52, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > This thread may be running into a vocabulary problem. My understanding > is that "hadar" and "mehudar" mean two different things, and some > people tend to confuse the two. > > "Hadar" refers to the absolute minimum requirements, without which the > minim are posul, and "mehudar" refers to things which Chazal consider > as making the minim even more beautiful. "Hadar" is required, and > "mehudar" is desirable. I don't think they're two very different things, they're just degrees of the same thing. From "pri etz hadar" we learn that beauty is a base requirement, at least for the first day. If it's not beautiful it's not kosher. From "zeh keli ve'anvehu" we learn that we should want all mitzvos, including this one, to be as beautiful as we can make them, given our resources. But baseline beauty itself requires more than the bare minimum that would otherwise apply; an esrog that is exactly as big as an egg fits the basic shiur, but the poskim think it obvious that to do the bare minimum is not beautiful, so they say hadar means it must be at least a bit bigger, if possible. If it's not possible, then we make do with the bare shiur. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From micha at aishdas.org Mon Oct 2 03:58:53 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2017 06:58:53 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] expensive etrog In-Reply-To: <2c96c2fe-0e11-f9ca-66d5-28e79f983bbb@zahav.net.il> References: <2c96c2fe-0e11-f9ca-66d5-28e79f983bbb@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <20171002105852.GB30968@aishdas.org> On Fri, Sep 29, 2017 at 02:05:15PM +0200, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: : In OH 656 the Mechaber writes that if one is shopping for an etrog : and sees two etrogim, one more mehudar than the other, you need to : buy the mehudar (either it is mitzvah or possibly a chiyuv). : However, this only applies if the mehudar etrog is no more than 33% : more expensive. The language that the Mechaber uses in the "yesh : omrim" is "ein meyakrim oto yoter m'shlish".... There is a machloqes whether the shelish is milevar (Ran, arguing from the Rif's silence, on Rif Sukkah 16a; Yam shel Shelomom #24), in which case it's 50% -- 1/3 of the total 150%; or if the shelish is milegav (Rosh 1:7), i.e. 1/3 in the Western sense, with a total of 4/3 the original price. The SA (OC 656:1) holds like the Rosh, lequla, but accoring to the BY, he was doing so only on the ground of safeiq derabbanan lequla. Hiddur mitzvah is derabbanan. My first thought was -- what? It's a word in the pasuq WRT esrog -- "peri eitz hadar"! That looks more like peshat than asmachta for a derabbanan! But I realized something. Even though this din is being discussed WRT esrog, the kelal of kehadeir bemitzvah ad shelish is not specific to 4 minim. As in Rashi (9b "behidur") invoking "ze keili ve'anveihu" to tell you to buy the more expensive ST if it is up to shelish more pricey than your other choice. (So that according to Rashi, if you have only two choices -- mehudas or very mehudar, and they differ by less than a shelish, you are to by the very mehudar. Tosafos disagree. This tangent is discussed in the Shitah Mequbetzer.) Anyway, the SA calling milegav a qula implies that he sees up to 1/3 as a chiyuv derabbanan, and beyond could well be reshus. If it were reshus up to a shelish and assur beyond that, then he'd be making lesser expenditures assur -- a chumerah. Personally, given the number of Jews who wouldn't spend the money on a 4 minim set, I like spending the 1/3 exactly, and using any other money I wish to use to fulfill the mitzvah of 4 minim to subsidize someone else's. (Looking at the archives, it seems I've tried marketing this idea most years since 1999.) Of course, there are so many Jews who can't afford yom tov, and I'd like to help with that.... In the end, the calculus of how to triage that money can get SO difficult. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger For those with faith there are no questions. micha at aishdas.org For those who lack faith there are no answers. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yaakov of Radzimin Fax: (270) 514-1507 From basserh at queensu.ca Wed Oct 4 12:21:12 2017 From: basserh at queensu.ca (Herbert Basser) Date: Wed, 4 Oct 2017 19:21:12 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] RE Expensive etrog inter alia Message-ID: There is yerushalmi Peah 1:1 where someone had the ugliest etrog but bragged and showed it to everyone saying it was the most beautiful etrog in the whole world. It took him just a second to purchase it without really checking it for hiddurim-- he didnt waste his valuable resources (time) on petty matters but learned instead--that was its incredible beauty for him. also see shmos rabba 30:9 for hashem's observance of halacha (I have a discussion of the inyan on reseachrgate.net) Hag Sameach! zvi -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From zev at sero.name Sat Oct 7 18:11:15 2017 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Sat, 7 Oct 2017 21:11:15 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] RE Expensive etrog inter alia In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 04/10/17 15:21, Herbert Basser via Avodah wrote: > There is yerushalmi Peah 1:1 where someone had the ugliest etrog but > bragged and showed it to everyone saying it was the most beautiful etrog > in the whole world. It took him just a second to purchase it without > really checking it for hiddurim-- he didnt waste his valuable resources > (time) on petty matters but learned instead--that was its incredible > beauty for him. Where in that halacha is this? I couldn't find it, and also searched the entire perek for the word "etrog" and it doesn't seem to exist (though "lulav" appears twice). -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From hmaryles at mail.yahoo.com Sat Oct 7 23:54:54 2017 From: hmaryles at mail.yahoo.com (Harry Maryles) Date: Sun, 8 Oct 2017 09:54:54 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] going to the amud In-Reply-To: <9d0df5d1c05c43e297d3055f6e617065@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <9d0df5d1c05c43e297d3055f6e617065@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <369A143A-9C11-4243-93D2-7F756A3D147A@yahoo.com> On Oct 8, 2017, at 5:10 AM, Rich, Joel wrote: > I note the following practices at a chareidi shul in RBS which has > multiple minyanim You must be talking about Maasas Mordechai. That is where I've been Davening since I got here just before Yom Kippur. During Chol Hamoed, I will be davening shachris at the Vasiken minyan (6:10am). My son Davens there. If you are at that minyan, come on over and say hello. > At the appointed starting time for each minyan, there > is often not a "volunteer" to lead the services. The amount of time > that it takes to start varies as everyone looks at each other trying to > influence someone to start. If there is a young bar mitzvah boy, he is > often sent for mincha/maariv. > I'm not sure what the community thinking is... To answer your question, I just asked my son about it. He said it's just a practical matter. Most boys are more willing to go to the Amud. All of the married men that are there just shake off the requests to be the Shaliach Tzibur for some reason. HM From ben1456 at zahav.net.il Sun Oct 8 12:40:42 2017 From: ben1456 at zahav.net.il (Ben Waxman) Date: Sun, 08 Oct 2017 21:40:42 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] going to the amud In-Reply-To: <9d0df5d1c05c43e297d3055f6e617065@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <9d0df5d1c05c43e297d3055f6e617065@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <5deb9535-86be-8ea7-4561-242363c8eb92@zahav.net.il> I saw similar practices during Shacharit when I used to go to Sadigora in Jerusalem. However, often the teen would quit right before starting chazarat hashaz. That always got interesting. Ben On 10/8/2017 4:10 AM, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: > I note the following practices at a chareidi shul in RBS which has > multiple minyanim: At the appointed starting time for each minyan, > there is often not a ?volunteer? to lead the services. The amount of > time that it takes to start varies as everyone looks at each other > trying to influence someone to start. If there is a young bar mitzvah > boy, he is often sent for mincha/maariv. > I?m not sure what the community thinking is, perhaps humility to avoid > the amud, but I?m struck by the amount of bittul torah caused and > wonder how this trade-off was decided upon. I also wonder about why > the practice of sending youngsters up developed given the S?A?s psak > concerning the priorities for a chazzan. Thoughts? From micha at aishdas.org Sun Oct 8 15:50:13 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Sun, 8 Oct 2017 18:50:13 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] going to the amud In-Reply-To: <9d0df5d1c05c43e297d3055f6e617065@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <9d0df5d1c05c43e297d3055f6e617065@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20171008225013.GB19523@aishdas.org> On Sun, Oct 08, 2017 at 02:10:14AM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : At the appointed starting time for each minyan, there : is often not a "volunteer" to lead the services. The amount of time : that it takes to start varies as everyone looks at each other trying : to influence someone to start. If there is a young bar mitzvah boy, : he is often sent for mincha/maariv. Going backwards (who ever said I am a chakham bound to answer al rishon rishon?)... The kid is not as likely to declien the gabbai, because an adult carries more authority in the kid's eyes. Besides, it's good practice. As for the adults declining... Two possiblities, and I would bet that in most cases, they both come into play. 1- The more positive issue is that there is actually a din to decline the amud, accepting only on the third request. I have no idea how this was expected to be implemented in a minyan where people are expected to know the din. A rachmanus on the gabbaim! Still, we see an ethic of tzenius, and halevai people internalize it! 2- The following is Ashkenazocentric. The way we teach davening, it's really a personal affair. A person is encouraged to go as slowly as he needs, having his own kavvanos. The notion of tefillah betzibbur is layered on top of that, but not in a way that explains what that means about how I daven. That means that being shatz becomes a tircha, a call to say the words in a manner that robs me of any chance of getting value out of tefillah in the ways I was taught how. So of course men (who aren't cowed by being asked by a grown-up) choose to decline! Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger You will never "find" time for anything. micha at aishdas.org If you want time, you must make it. http://www.aishdas.org - Charles Buxton Fax: (270) 514-1507 From JRich at sibson.com Sat Oct 7 19:10:14 2017 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Sun, 8 Oct 2017 02:10:14 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] going to the amud Message-ID: <9d0df5d1c05c43e297d3055f6e617065@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> I note the following practices at a chareidi shul in RBS which has multiple minyanim: At the appointed starting time for each minyan, there is often not a "volunteer" to lead the services. The amount of time that it takes to start varies as everyone looks at each other trying to influence someone to start. If there is a young bar mitzvah boy, he is often sent for mincha/maariv. I'm not sure what the community thinking is, perhaps humility to avoid the amud, but I'm struck by the amount of bittul torah caused and wonder how this trade-off was decided upon. I also wonder about why the practice of sending youngsters up developed given the S"A's psak concerning the priorities for a chazzan. Thoughts? GT 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: From zev at sero.name Sat Oct 7 20:42:36 2017 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Sat, 7 Oct 2017 23:42:36 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] going to the amud In-Reply-To: <9d0df5d1c05c43e297d3055f6e617065@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <9d0df5d1c05c43e297d3055f6e617065@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: On 07/10/17 22:10, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: > I note the following practices at a chareidi shul in RBS which has > multiple minyanim: At the appointed starting time for each minyan, there > is often not a ?volunteer? to lead the services. [...] Thoughts? My first thought is to be happy that this shul doesn't have enough avelim to make the issue moot. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From basserh at queensu.ca Sun Oct 8 15:32:52 2017 From: basserh at queensu.ca (Herbert Basser) Date: Sun, 8 Oct 2017 22:32:52 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] RE Expensive etrog inter alia In-Reply-To: References: , Message-ID: You're right-- I thought it was y peah. But obviously not. A number of years ago I tired to discover when the first mention of looking at many esrogim was. I remember looking at the yerushalmi and its commentaries and thought it was there --obviously not. Now I have no idea-- ________________________________ : Zev Sero on behalf of Zev Sero Sent: October 7, 2017 9:11 PM To: The Avodah Torah Discussion Group Cc: Herbert Basser Subject: Re: [Avodah] RE Expensive etrog inter alia On 04/10/17 15:21, Herbert Basser via Avodah wrote: > There is yerushalmi Peah 1:1 where someone had the ugliest etrog but > bragged and showed it to everyone saying it was the most beautiful etrog > in the whole world. It took him just a second to purchase it without > really checking it for hiddurim-- he didnt waste his valuable resources > (time) on petty matters but learned instead--that was its incredible > beauty for him. Where in that halacha is this? I couldn't find it, and also searched the entire perek for the word "etrog" and it doesn't seem to exist (though "lulav" appears twice). -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Mon Oct 9 14:45:50 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2017 17:45:50 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Critique of the OU paper on leadership/ordination for women In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20171009214550.GA4315@aishdas.org> On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 03:17:36PM -0500, Noam Stadlan via Avodah wrote: : JOFA has published my critique of the paper comissioned by the OU on the : topic of leadership/ordination for women.... Speaking of the full essay . Your article has proven to be a slow read for me. I keep on being pulled into "polemic mode" (apologies for talking like a programmer, but...) and when I do, I stop, put it down, and wait until I could give it a fairer read, to actually hear what you're trying to say rather than just listening for points to refute. Here are my first set of reactions. Of course, they're all points of disagreement; trying to take the time to understand what you were writing before objecting doesn't mean I stopped objecting. 1- You open with Earlier this year, 7 highly respected rabbis authored a position paper on the ordination of women and on the possibility of women serving as clergy. [1] Individually and collectively, they represent great learning, personal piety, and years of leadership. It would seem presumptuous for someone who will never achieve anything near their learning or stature to comment or critique. However, no one person or group has a monopoly on facts and logic. And, as will be demonstrated, Torah learning sometimes is not the sole or even dominant factor in a person's opinion on these issues. There appears to be an underlyuing assumption that halachic arguments, even meta-halachic ones, are entirely formal, rather than containing a strong element of ineffible art. (See #2, below) If halakhah deals with determinations like that of which poetic forms "sound right" then their "great learning, personal piety, and years of leadership" provide experience at the art of pesaq that your response simply lacks. The gemara requires shimush before one attempts to pasqen. A poseiq needs not only the abstract facts and logic, but also the skill he can only pick up with experience. Recently, my Arukh haShulachan Yomi schedule brought me to EhE 145:6. The topic is whether a shechiv-meira who gives a gett "meihayom im meisi" made the gett as-of the moment of giving, a colloquial use of "today", or if we cannot assume the gett is chal before the end of the day (R' Tam in Tosafos 72b). R' Elchanan (Tos' ad loc) says "nachon lehachmir". The AhS's assessment of the "facts and logic" leads him to conclude "vehagam chumerah yeseirah hi". And yet he continues to close the se'if with "mikol maqom chalalilah lehaqeil bedavar sheR' Tam nistapeiq bo". RYME knew that a decision of a more skilled artisan is too likely correct even in the face of his own reasoning. And there are other factors that go into halachic decisions other than the merits of the argument -- both those we can articulate and those someone could only feel by practice. Things like acharei rabim lehatos. I am not saying defer to the OU's panel because they outnumber you. I am just pointing out that logical argument isn't the only source of legal authority. Another, more relevant, is nispasheit bechol yisrael (see #8, below). The notion that your paper is of value beyond lehalakhah velo lemaaseh is an example of the American valuation of autonomy that can itself be at odds with ancient AND mesoretic values. (See #7, about not framing the discussion in terms of rights or privileges.) 2- You offer your own translation of Mesorah, which is only valid if you can show that's how the authors of the paper intended the term. >From your pg 4: > We can broadly define it as the content of our tradition that is > passed from one generation to another. That tradition contains Mitzvot > and opinion on the value of Mitzvot. Frequently a situation occurs > where one must choose between emphasizing one mitzvah or a different > mitzvah. Our Mesorah therefore contains not only the Mitzvot, but also > attitudes or values that help us choose between Mitzvot when they come > into conflict. One could cogently argue that the values are in fact > Mitzvot in and of themselves, but for the purpose of this discussion that > is a distinction without a difference. Ultimately what this analysis > is concerned with is how, within the confines of our legal tradition, > are values embraced or shunted to the side. However, RYBS and RHS both use the term mesorah to refer to the ineffible side of the art of pesaq. I argue this with examples at http://www.torahmusings.com/2015/08/what-does-masorah-mean I therefore think it is likely the sense intended by the entire OU Panel. Or at the very least (not that I want to fully concede this, but have to admit it's plausible) heavily colored by this notion. Skipping the somwhat longer quote from RYBS, here are quotes I had found from RHS, one of the panel members: Jewish Action, Fall 1910: Mesorah is not primarily a corpus of knowledge to master but a process of accessing a chain of student-teacher relationships that reaches back to Sinai. Moshe received the Torah and transmitted it to his student, Yehoshua, who in turn taught it to his students and so on, continuing through today. The nature of transmission of the mesorah is instruction from a rebbe to his student. We connect to the mesorah, to the sacred structure of laws, beliefs and attitudes, through our teachers. And a bit further in the article, "Who Is Authorized to Institute Change?": Changes in practice require delicate evaluations that only a master Torah scholar, a gadol baTorah, can properly conduct. Only someone with a broad knowledge and a deep understanding of the corpus of halachah, with an intimate familiarity with both the letter and the spirit of the law, with a mastery of both the rules and the attitudes of the mesorah, can determine when a change is acceptable or even required. The more wide-reaching the proposed change, the greater the expertise required to approve it. The evaluator must not only be a master of the mesorah, but he must also be able to consider new practices based solely on values internal to the mesorah, removing external influences from the deliberation. Rav Schachter then applies this topic to feminism itself in a teshuvah: Indeed, the Rav would often say (see drasha to Parshas Korach), that every person must recognize that he needs a Rav or a Rebbe. Even a Talmid Chochom whose Rebbe had passed away must constantly ask himself in truth (when they present questions to him) what his Rebbe would have said in such a scase, and what stance he would have taken.... Still, most of your examples of how change was permitted despite mesorah would be valid even if you were discussing the same topic I believe the authors to whom you're responding are. I think, though, your response would have been stronger if it reflected our discussions both my Torah Musings post and here. 3- But you shift criteria for legitimate change in moral value. Page 2: This paper will illustrate that 'modern values' are intrinsically neither 2 good nor bad, and that our Mesorah has always incorporated 'modern values' that found resonance in the Mesorah. Furthermore, according to great and highly respected Modern Orthodox authorities, a hallmark of Modern Orthodoxy is the willingness to acknowledge some 'modern values' as previously under-recognized religious values. I think you're again arguing against a point the OU paper isn't making. They aren't saying there is a problem with appropriating 'modern values' in-and-of itself, but that there is a problem with changing halakhah to fit 'modern values' simply because they are the values living in the modern world means being immersed in. What happened to checking for that "resonance in the Mesorah"? This being another phrasing of my origin objection here on Avodah from the days of the initial announcement of Yeshivat Maharat. I do not see discussion of how we know that this is a change the values of the Torah would imply are positive. Regardless of the outcome of that discussion, can the change be legitimate without that procedural step? Anyway, you tone down the need for resonance when you open the door to assessing for yourself which values count. From the closing paragraph of section I, on mesorah, pg 13: ... The major issue is distinguishing between timeless values and ancient values. As has been demonstrated, our Mesorah over time, consciously or unconsciously, has addressed the perceived conflict between ancient values and modern values. Certainly there are modern values that have been appropriately rejected. Frequently however, ancient values have been rejected or perhaps more accurately assigned a reduced role of importance. And the modern values have been the impetus for the re-evaluation. At this point, I fear, the hunt for resonance goes out the window. IIUC, you are making the case that resonance need only be between actual Torah values, and not all ancient values actually qualify. This is actually more problematic given your definition of Mesorah than the one I think the OU's authors intended. After all, if mesorah is a mimetic transmisison of values, than any ancient value is mesoretic. But the problem I have with this statement is that it reads like you're saying that (1) we need to assess which Torah values are real, and therefore which do not bow to movern values; and (2) we use said modern values to drive that assessment. That can't be your intent. Please clarify. Continuing the paragraph from where I left off: As discussed in the Part II, the Halakhic arguments, taken at face value, are in favor of ordination for women. The values of eliminating unnecessary restrictions, encouraging full expression of potential to serve the community, fairness, and others also point towards ordination. There are specific Halakhic restrictions in place governing the behavior of men and women. The question that needs to be answered is: What timeless principles (or values) are served by imposing restrictions on women that are not justified by a fair reading of the Halacha and the sources? Are they truly Timeless and justifiably dominant in our Mesorah, or just ancient? ... If I were to use halakhah to make that determination, I would ask whether those "specific Halakhic restrictions" that were historically / traditionally explained in terms of those ancient values can be otherwise explained. Since they do appear to be of the same cloth, this is a sizable burden of proof on your part. This is the challenge in the OU paper you quote on pg 29: Gender differences have, historically, been particularly evident in the arena of public service. We believe that these distinctions are not merely a relic of times bygone; instead, they reflect a Torah ethos -- a /Mesorah/ -- of different avenues and emphases by which men and women are to achieve identical goals -- the service of G-d and the perpetuation of the Jewish people. 4- You cite and dismiss "nashim daatan kalos", but do not note that it's part of a richer picture of gender differences alongside "binah yeseirah nitenah lahen". 5- You quote RAL at the bottom of pg 8, an essay about using English Literary sources to enhance and color values that we cannot find in our own tradition: Nor should we be deterred by the illusion that we can find everything we need within our own tradition. As Arnold insisted, one must seek "the best that has been thought and said in the world," and if, in many areas, much of that best is of foreign origin, we should expand our horizons rather than exclude it. He is talking about broadening the search in the case of silence; that we can learn more from TIDE than Torah alone. A discussion of what to do when we can't "find everything we need within in our Tradition" has nothing to to with real or apparent conflicts when we do find an answer -- ancient or traditional -- before looking elsewhere. 6- You wuote R/Dr Shalom Carmy, describing R Eliezer Berkovitz, that his moral ends derive from internal Jewish sources.dissatisfaction with mainstream Halakhah regarding women is rooted, not in the pressures of contemporary egalitarianism, but in his judgment about biblical conceptions of justice, While that may well be true of REB, it has to be actually be shown that the same is true of Torah observant Jews who join an organization with the word "feminism" in its name. You write: The authors of the paper in fact state something quite egalitarian: The Torah affirms the absolute equal value of men and women as individuals and as ovdei Hashem. This is not the view of the Talmud. The Mishnah (Horiyot 13:1) states: "A man takes precedence over a woman, in matters concerning the saving of life... a Cohen takes precedence over a Levi...." Clearly the lives are not of equal value in the eyes of the Talmud. Arguments about the validity of what you think the misnhah is "clearly" saying aside... You are treating equality of value as synonymous with egalitarianism. The people you are responding to do not. They view is as more akin to the implication of JOFA's talking about "feminism" -- seeking value in the same sorts of roles and activities. A square can be equal in area to a triangle without insisting the square and the triangle are congruent. 7- "Usena es harabbanus". Leadership isn't about my "desire for maximal participation within Halacha", as you put it in a sentence shortly before the previous quote (pg 10). It's about my duties toward the community. Your entire phrasing of the discussion in terms of right or privileges, people getting an opportunity, depriving of that opportunity being unjust (as you present REB's position), is itself a HUGE drift from how halakhah even discusses values; never mind the content of that discussion. Self-expression is like the tassles emerging from the windings of the tzitzis. (RSRH's metaphor in CW vol 3.) It is how we express ourselves within the framework of Torah; but not the windings themselves. What makes me a fan of Bach's music is his ability to conform to the strict structural rules of the music of his era. And yet he still produced pieces that could express sublime religious passion or Majesty. (Until Beethoven invented Conservative Judaism. ) Halakhah's role is to channel such expression constructively -- like the windings of the tzitzis. As RSRH continues, there is a reason why the free part of the tassle is ideally twice was long as the wound portion; this metaphor isn't against expression. The second you frame halakhah in terms of every getting their fair opportunity, I hear an evaluation based on a framework very alien to an internally resonant analysis. 9- Somewhat more tangentially, but it's the first case of something I might raise other examples of in a future email. (Assuming I ever want to go retail rather than stick to meta-issues.) On pg 3, fn 3: There are other stated facts in the OU paper that require discussion but are beyond the scope of this paper. For example, one of the points emphasized in the OU paper is the issue of women as ritual slaughterers (shochtim). Some authorities such as R. Jacob Landau and R. Moshe Isserles wrote that since women did not do it, there was a custom for women not to do so. But that was factually erroneous. "Female ritual slaughterers were to be found in most of the Jewish Diasporas... In Renaissance Italy, the phenomenon of shohatot was very common. Another source also documents that female shochtim were found in areas of Italy where they adequately educated. See Grossman, Avraham... I am willing to agree with the conclusion that the Agur and the Rama were wrong on the historical facts, and simply didn't know what was going on in other parts of the golah. Still... You don't touch the point the OU paper cites it for -- that the Rama, a halachic source we cannot simply ignore -- is one of a number of sources that WERE willing to suggest that a practice being absent from the mesorah can mean there is a mesorah that it ought to be absent. That statement bothers me too. But because you dismissed the quote based on a tangent, you don't address the central problem it raises! Perhaps there'll be more after I really read section II onward. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "I think, therefore I am." - Renne Descartes micha at aishdas.org "I am thought about, therefore I am - http://www.aishdas.org my existence depends upon the thought of a Fax: (270) 514-1507 Supreme Being Who thinks me." - R' SR Hirsch From akivagmiller at gmail.com Mon Oct 9 09:44:27 2017 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2017 12:44:27 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Eruv Tavshilin - who makes it? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: My wife and I have recently discovered that among our friends, it is invariably the husband who makes the Eruv Tavshilin. This surprises us, and we are wondering what other families do, and if there are any sources for one preference or the other. Essentially, the Eruv Tavshilin means that in this particular instance, the Shabbos cooking cannot wait for Friday, but must be done on Erev Yom Tov too. With such an intimate connection to the Shabbos cooking, it was intuitively obvious to both my wife and myself that this is NOT similar to other mitzvos (mezuza is a good example) which might be done by the husband for gender-role reasons. Rather, it is the beginning of the cooking, and should therefore be done by whoever does the cooking. In our family, that's the wife. Eruv Tavshilin was not assigned to each and every individual, like kiddush was. It is a reminder. Granted that the rishonim have varying explanations of this mitzvah, but it seems that to all of these explanations, the object of this reminding is the person who does the cooking. So my question to the chevra is: In your family, who makes the eruv, and why? And do any sources discuss this? Note: I admit there's a certain weakness in everything that I've written above. Namely, the idea that one can rely on the Eruv Tavshilin that was made by the rav of the town. Let's set aside the fact that this is not the best way of doing the eruv, and that various conditions are imposed on one who wants to rely on it. Let's focus on the fact that it is valid *at* *all*. How does the eruv made by someone outside of my home help me? What sort of *reminder* does his eruv provide? I have never understood this, nor have I heard any explanation of it, only assertions that it does work. Any help in this area would be appreciated. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From michaelpoppers at gmail.com Mon Oct 9 18:59:58 2017 From: michaelpoppers at gmail.com (Michael Poppers) Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2017 21:59:58 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] going to the amud Message-ID: In Avodah V35n119, RJR wrote: > I also wonder about why the practice of sending youngsters up developed given the S?A?s psak concerning the priorities for a chazzan. < (RJR made other points that listmembers have responded to; I thought this point, for which the latest digest listed no response, was worthy of a response.) In many *shuls*, much less *minyanim*, so perhaps in the noted "chareidi shul in RBS", those "priorities" (married, beard, age, etc.) are seemingly (except for the Yamim Noraim) secondary to the hierarchy of "*chiyuvim*"...but one "priority", being "*m'rutzah laqahal*", might be upheld when appointing/allowing a young adult to lead the *tzibbur*.... *Gut Moeid*/*Mo'adim l'Simcha!* and all the best from *Michael Poppers* * Elizabeth, NJ, USA -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From akivagmiller at gmail.com Tue Oct 10 03:47:36 2017 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2017 06:47:36 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Eruv Tavshilin - who makes it? Message-ID: . I asked how one could ever rely on the Rav's eruv: > How does the eruv made by someone outside of my home > help me? What sort of *reminder* does his eruv provide? R' Zev Sero answered: > ... that it's wrong to rely entirely on leftovers, and one > must prepare at least one thing just for Shabbos. According > to this explanation, the fact that one must ask the rabbi > (or the neighbor, or whomever) before relying on their eruv > accomplishes the same thing. One has provided for Shabbos, > not by cooking but by arranging an invitation to eat out. I don't follow this logic at all. One who relies on this did NOT "prepare at least one thing just for Shabbos." If you respond that the one thing he prepared was "arranging an invitation to eat out", I will say that he did NOT arrange such an invitation; he is merely aware that the rabbi/neighbor had him in mind. You write about "the fact that one must ask the rabbi", but I never saw such a halacha. One does not need to do any sort of action at all, not even speaking. All one needs is to be aware that the rabbi/neighbor had him in mind. So what is being accomplished? > The second explanation is that originally there was no ha'arama; > it was permitted to openly cook on Yomtov for Shabbos. Chazal > legislated that one must save Yomtov's face by pretending to be > cooking for that day. According to this explanation it's very > simple; the important thing is not the eruv itself, but the need > for the ha'arama. The eruv's function is merely to give the > ha'arama some surface plausibility. So it makes no difference > whose eruv one uses; the fact that one is pretending not to be > cooking for Shabbos *is* the kevod Yomtov that Chazal required. > The enabling notion that on Shabbos one will be eating the rabbi's > eruv is only barely less plausible than the one that one will be > subsisting on ones own eruv. Focusing on the last sentence here, we agree that relying on the rabbi's eruv is indeed less plausible than one's own. I think our disagreement is that you feel it has a sufficient shiur of plausibility, and I don't. Alternatively, you feel that relying on the rabbi constitutes "pretending to be cooking for that day", but I think it doesn't even constitute "pretending". And this is especially true in the case where one genuinely forgot to make the eruv, and remembered on Yom Tov; surely you'll agree with me that this person did absolutely *nothing* before Yom Tov as a Shabbos preparation, right? Not even to ask the rabbi to have him in mind! Akiva Miller From micha at aishdas.org Tue Oct 10 06:18:05 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2017 09:18:05 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Eruv Tavshilin - who makes it? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20171010131805.GA8572@aishdas.org> On Tue, Oct 10, 2017 at 06:47:36AM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : You write about "the fact that one must ask the rabbi", but I never : saw such a halacha. One does not need to do any sort of action at all, : not even speaking. All one needs is to be aware that the : rabbi/neighbor had him in mind. So what is being accomplished? Beqitzur: "be aware" is sufficient for heker. Can't we ask the same thing of a neighborhood eiruv? How many people think about the eruv every week? The Rambam (Shevisas YT 6:2) seems to me to be the reason for calling eiruv tavshilin an "eiruv" is merely by comparison to eruv chatzeiros. Both are hekerim: There (ECh), so that people would thing that carrying from reshus to reshus is mutar on shabbos. Here (ET), that it is okay to cook on YT even if it's not for YT. Awareness that the rabbi (or whomever) had me in mind means I am thinking about eiruvin and there is a recognition (heker) that there is an issur. It seems the Rambam holds like R' Ashi (that ET is to reinforce melakhah on YT) over Rava (it's to reinforce Shabbos prep). But even according to Rava, that moment of awareness of the rabbi's eruv is sypposed to reserve as a reminder to make something nice for se'udos Shabbos. I would agree with Zev that the plausibility requirement is quite low, as all we're doing is a mnemonic. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger None of us will leave this place alive. micha at aishdas.org All that is left to us is http://www.aishdas.org to be as human as possible while we are here. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Anonymous MD, while a Nazi prisoner From noamstadlan at gmail.com Mon Oct 9 18:26:41 2017 From: noamstadlan at gmail.com (Noam Stadlan) Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2017 20:26:41 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] OU paper Message-ID: R. Micha- thank you for taking the time to read the paper. Having read your list of criticisms, I think that in your search for reasons to oppose, you missed many of the points completely. Poskim are certainly entitled to their opinions. They are not entitled to their own facts. If their logic doesn't hold up, it is reasonable to call them on the lack of logic. Which is why the paper is NOT about my opinions versus the OU 7, but about the lack of facts and logic. Furthermore, I illustrated that what poskim hold regarding these issues isn't always or exclusively a result of all their learning and shimmush. It is a demonstrable fact that many attitudes reflect what they grew up with and were indoctrinated with early on, not the list of influences that they write about. You dismiss my quote regarding REB, and claim that it is my responsibility to prove what the motives are or aren't. This is ridiculous. The OU authors did not talk to any of the principles involved. Since when is it acceptable for any responsible posek or beit din to make important judgments without making absolutely sure regarding the facts? Especially when they are making a significant deal about motivation and it would have been a very simple matter of making a phone call or two. Isn't that a basic obligation of a posek? And then to claim that it is my responsibility to prove that they were wrong? And, by the way, since I personally know many of the people involved, I have a much greater familiarity with what people involved think. I suggest that if you think that an organization with 'feminism' in its name is inherently problematic, we may be starting from basic assumptions far to wide apart to see any common ground. The OU paper wrote about Mesorah versus modern values. I was just using their words and addressing the role of modern values in how Halacha and values have changed. The fact that they define Mesorah a bit differently doesn't change the issue nor change the fact that modern values have always been incorporated into the Halakhah and Halakhic values(in case you dont want to use the word Mesorah). And to counter your point, some of the ancient values have gone out the window, whether you want to call them mesoretic or not. I didn't have time to get into all the particulars of the halachic aspects of the Rama and shechittah, R. Brody and Broyde address and dismiss the argument in their paper(I am pretty sure that is in a footnote somewhere). I thought it was adequate to illustrate that he was factually wrong. I could go on and on but I sense that in the end it will not matter. I would have to go through each and every line of your critique and point out where your assumptions are wrong. For example "JOFA....seeking value in the same sorts of roles and activities". NO, that is not what JOFA is about. It is about not creating Halachic boundaries when there shouldn't be any, and the women can decide what roles and activities they can and should assume(within Halacha of course, just like the men). And what is wrong with anyone finding value in learning Torah, teaching Torah, helping people celebrate s'machot, organizing davening, etc? women should not find value in that???? Thank you again for taking the time to read the paper. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From zev at sero.name Mon Oct 9 21:49:31 2017 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2017 00:49:31 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Eruv Tavshilin - who makes it? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <928305ea-1e57-b3bd-da9c-b3acb1281e04@sero.name> On 09/10/17 12:44, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > Note: I admit there's a certain weakness in everything that I've written > above. Namely, the idea that one can rely on the Eruv Tavshilin that was > made by the rav of the town. Let's set aside the fact that this is not > the best way of doing the eruv, and that various conditions are imposed > on one who wants to rely on it. Let's focus on the fact that it is valid > *at* *all*. How does the eruv made by someone outside of my home help > me? What sort of *reminder* does his eruv provide? I have never > understood this, nor have I heard any explanation of it, only assertions > that it does work. Any help in this area would be appreciated. IIRC the gemara offers two explanations for ET. Either it was made lichvod Shabbos or lichvod Yomtov. The first explanation is that cooking on Yomtov for Shabbos was always done by pretending to be cooking for a late Friday meal, but Chazal felt about the Shabbos after Yomtov the way many nowadays do about the Shabbos after Thanksgiving: that it's wrong to rely entirely on leftovers, and one must prepare at least one thing just for Shabbos. According to this explanation, the fact that one must ask the rabbi (or the neighbor, or whomever) before relying on their eruv accomplishes the same thing. One has provided for Shabbos, not by cooking but by arranging an invitation to eat out. The second explanation is that originally there was no ha`arama; it was permitted to openly cook on Yomtov for Shabbos. Chazal legislated that one must save Yomtov's face by pretending to be cooking for that day. According to this explanation it's very simple; the important thing is not the eruv itself, but the need for the ha`arama. The eruv's function is merely to give the ha`arama some surface plausibility. So it makes no difference whose eruv one uses; the fact that one is pretending not to be cooking for Shabbos *is* the kevod Yomtov that Chazal required. The enabling notion that on Shabbos one will be eating the rabbi's eruv is only barely less plausible than the one that one will be subsisting on ones own eruv. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From micha at aishdas.org Tue Oct 10 13:25:47 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2017 16:25:47 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] OU paper In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20171010202547.GC6565@aishdas.org> Take 2. I didn't like what I read in the Avodah queue, so I rejected my first version and elaborated. On Tue, Oct 10, 2017 at 10:53:24AM -0500, Noam Stadlan via Avodah wrote: :> 1- Feminism assumes egalitarianism, not only equality, as it assumes that :> roles historically closed to women as "men's roles" should be open to all. :> Equality only assumes that everyone should be eligible for roles of equal :> value. (For some measure of value.) : This is starting off on the wrong foot. I dont claim to speak for all : Orthodox Feminists. But the first question to be asked is why is a role : 'historically closed to women?' ... I see this as an equally valid question, but who is to say which ought to be asked first? REBerkowitz rightly deprecates the modification of halakhah out of concern for external values. He dismisses the role of the "pressures of contemporary egalitarianism." (As RSC put it.) This puts REB in a different place than people who unite under the word "feminism" are indeed advocating halachic change. What he denies being a valid motive JOFA is putting in their organizational name. : It is very reasonable, just like in : the cases of the chereish, slavery etc, to investigate why it is : 'historically closed." ... Which you fail to actually do. You rebut your understanding of some arguments for why the clsure is grounded in mesorah. After all, this is a rebuttal paper. The one mention of an alternative motive for change, rather than a lack of motive for status quo, is one that is inconsistent with feminism, as above. : litany of reasons as to why women were forbidden to do things and he : himself agreed that those reasons have gone by the wayside. If you want to : say that something is historically closed, and therefore it is assur- : fine. Now you dont need an Halachic reasons, because historically closed : is the final word.... Strawman. I am not asserting that we have to hold like the Rama that being historically closed means the option is halachically closed; identifying history with mesorah, and thus absence of tradition with tradition of absence. I would say, though, that if you want to buck the Rama, you have to make an argument for doing so, and not just dismiss his rule because he applied it to a misunderstood case. : everyone seems to be giving Halachicly justification, both pro and con, : then it means that historically closed is open for discussion, and it is on : the plane of halacha, not history. So the bottom line is that if there is : Halachic justification for particular gender roles- of course that trumps : everything. But it also means that stating something is historically assur : is not the end of the story. history is not Halacha. That is what I : illustrated in part one. Because you could also make the same argument : that the chereish shouldn't have an aliyyah... Yes, I agreed with your formulation of the problem in terms of resonant values, and at times a contemporary value can highlight the neglect of a Torah one. But you don't follow through with it. Instead you end up altogether rejecting the say of mesoretic values to decide which halachic innovations are proper. I would add that at times a contemporary value can change expectations, and thus change the morality of an act. After all, it may be okay to do something to someone when they expect it, but not if it violates assumptions behind things they committed to. I could see making that argument WRT monogyny and the validity of cheirem deR Gershom. Mental images of what marriage should be changed, and so it's only moral to satisfy the resulting emotional need rather than some older definition of marriage. As long as the definition itself isn't inferior. To take that poorly explained idea and possibly be clearer by making it less general and more about our case: Perhaps one could form the argument that while it was moral for women not to be eligable for the rabbinate in the past because it was less likely for the option to cross their minds. Such a practice would cause fewer feelings of deprevation. But now that women can become CEO, such a position does mesoretically-wrongly create feelings of deprivation. And so societal change causes a change in application of values; just as it can an application of law. This is pretty close to an argument you do indeed make. Just (as below), I don't think having a role is a right, because I do not believe religious roles are as much opportunities as they are duties. Unlike secular roles, which could be either, depending on how the society in question chooses to frame them. Your neglect of the "how", which changes are valid and which not, reminds me of the argument of non-O rabbis who point to pruzbul and heter isqa as justifications for their radical changes. It's not the same thing by a lng shot. But half-way through you make the same error of considering proof that there are valid kinds of change as proof that the topic in question provides no barriers to change altogether. As you say in this same paragraph (!): : Any role that is historically : closed to any group that isn't Halachically assur is open for discussion as : to what the Halacha actually mandates and why exactly it was closed in the : first place.... So, it's black-letter law closure, or the change is allowed? No "resonance of values" needed after all? And the problem with demanding "resonance of values" is that it takes the autonomy out of it for most of us. Because by enlarging the problem beyond black letter halakhah we guarantee there is a non-formal aspect to the answer, one that is for the practiced artist rather than any bright researcher. And the notion that one is validating a value system that then sets the person up for a very hard collision with the actual not-so-glass ceiling black-letter halakhah defines is very related to this. The mere existence of such a ceiling implies the likelihood of non-resonant values. The concept of asei lekha rav, having a poseiq, moves us away from autonomy in our behavioral decisions, and forces a heteronomy of a manner that too violates contemporary values. :> 2- Feminism assumes Locke's language of rights and priviledge. Why should :> someone *be deprived* of the opportunity to be an .... -- in our case, to :> serve as rabbi? But halachic values aren't framed in these terms... : Being a rabbi is fulfilling the mitzvah of service to the community, talmud : torah etc. Whether it is a burden or an opportunity, it is a mitzvah and : a choice of profession and communal service... But asking about opportunity and opening doors is inherently asking different value questions than the mesoretic ones. It's not just ancient that we frame our moral choices in terms of duty to others and the Other, it's mesoretic. : Furthermore, the OU paper went way beyond opposing rabbis. they forbid a : woman from officiating at a baby naming or other things. that too is a : burden that women should be forbidden from shouldering? This misses my point. When I spoke of rights vs duties I am talking about the entire framing of questions of values, not this specific decision. If the rabbinate, baby naming or whatever is a duty rather than a right, the whole question of "limiting their options unneccessarily" goes off the table. It's not about the right to choose a boon. Your whole question is framed non-traditionally. Looking at feminism as a goal is an inherently un-mesoretic way of framing the question. Rather, the nearest mesoretic equivalent would be to ask whether men have a duty that can only be discharged by sharing the pulpit, "officiating at a baby naming of other things". Feminism doesn't enter the mesoretic discussion because there is no door to be opened or closed, there is no region of personal-expression space to discuss whether someone is given too much or too little. The Torah is a beris, not a bill of rights. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When one truly looks at everyone's good side, micha at aishdas.org others come to love him very naturally, and http://www.aishdas.org he does not need even a speck of flattery. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rabbi AY Kook From micha at aishdas.org Tue Oct 10 14:04:28 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2017 17:04:28 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Oseh Hashalom In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20171010210428.GC21284@aishdas.org> On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 10:34:34PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : I went looking at the siddurim that were common in the shuls that I : grew up in, and I noticed an interesting pattern: Every single one : gave Oseh Hashalom as the closing bracha at the end of the Amidah; not : even one suggested saying Hamevarech like the rest of the year. : Further, every single one used the words Oseh Shalom at the ends of : Kaddish and Elokai N'tzor; not even one suggested saying Oseh Hashalom : during the Aseres Yemei Teshuva. ... : My questions are these: If you're old enough to remember davening : Ashkenaz in the 1970s or before, do you remember what was said during : Aseres Yemei Teshuva? And do you know of any siddur from that era : which included the newfangled text? I know my father was saying "hamvarekh" at this time. However, our minhagim are a hodge-podge of practices from those retained from the Ottoman Empire before my ancestor's arrival in Litta, mainline Litvish, R/Dr Mirsky's idiosyncricies (my grandfather came to America as a teen, and so the rav who met him at Ellis Island was became rav of his shul determined much of what he did), and what my father picked up Tues nights (and from YU alumni friends) from RYBS. I did some restoration of pre-American Biergehr minhag based on R Dovid Lifshitz's memories of what it was. AND that brings me to a theory... Minhagim that Chabad, Talmidei haGra and Sepharadim have in common are bound to become Minhag EY. And Minhag EY is bound to be known globally, at least by the 1970s. Maybe this is just a thing that universalized faster. Anecodtally, I notice fewer and fewer people wearing tefillin on ch"m each year. Although Passaic, a neighborhood with some 40% BT rate, is going to have weaker ties to minhag than ones in which more people have childhood memories of what dad does. I also noticed more an more shuls moving Shir shel Yom and Hoshanos from the end of mussaf to before leining. One thing all three of the communities that dominated the Yishuv haYashan had in common was an attachment to Qabbalah. We may be seeing more and more Tzefat-originating practices coming to the fore in the comming years as a new Minhag EY (and ch"v if galus lasts long enough Minhag America) emerges. Much to R' Ovadiah's poshumous dismay, I would presume. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "I hear, then I forget; I see, then I remember; micha at aishdas.org I do, then I understand." - Confucius http://www.aishdas.org "Hearing doesn't compare to seeing." - Mechilta Fax: (270) 514-1507 "We will do and we will listen." - Israelites From micha at aishdas.org Tue Oct 10 08:18:49 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2017 11:18:49 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] OU paper In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20171010151849.GB32729@aishdas.org> On Mon, Oct 09, 2017 at 08:26:41PM -0500, Noam Stadlan via Avodah wrote: : R. Micha- thank you for taking the time to read the paper. Having read : your list of criticisms, I think that in your search for reasons to oppose, : you missed many of the points completely... As I wrote, the reply was delayed by my attempt to put down the paper every time I thought I was reading solely for the sake of finding points to oppose. "Fisking", as it's called. Admittedly, I could still have failed. : Poskim are certainly entitled to : their opinions. They are not entitled to their own facts. Which is why I didn't dispute claims of fact, such as whether women were shochetim in Italy. I did dispute your use of a fact turning that Rama's point into a hypothetical to deny his whole "[if] we [hadn't] ever seen women as shochetim, we have a mesorah that woman aren't to serve as shochetim". Yes, his given is false, but we do see the implication statement in the Agur and the Rama. So, how do you dismiss applying the parallel syllogism here -- since we do not have a history of women rabbis, wouldn't the Rama's methodology mean that there is a mesorah not to ordain women? At least -- doesn't this topic need addressing, rather than writing that one can ignore the whole flow of logic because the antecedent is false? : Furthermore, I illustrated that what poskim hold : regarding these issues isn't always or exclusively a result of all their : learning and shimmush. It is a demonstrable fact that many attitudes : reflect what they grew up with and were indoctrinated with early on, not : the list of influences that they write about. But you gave up on the question of which new values pass the resonance test mention early in the paperr and which do not. My argument is that : You dismiss my quote regarding REB, and claim that it is my responsibility : to prove what the motives are or aren't. I dismiss the quote as necessarily applying to anyone but REB. It is not like he's the communal leader or primary poseiq of the people in question. In particular because of the word "feminism" in JOFA's name. To which you replied: : I suggest that if you think that an organization with 'feminism' in its : name is inherently problematic, we may be starting from basic assumptions : far to wide apart to see any common ground. RCS summarized REB's position (on your pg 10), as being of "moral ends derive from internal Jewish sources.... dissatisfaction with mainstream Halakhah regarding women is rooted, not in the pressures of contemporary egalitarianism, in his judgment about biblical conceptions of justice." (ellision yours) But JOFA's name is taken from "contemporary egalitarianism". I am not saying it's inherently problematic. I am saying it creates the likelihood of a gap between REB's position and JOFA's attitude, one that then creates a burden of proof you didn't take up. In short I am saying that: 1- Feminism assumes egalitarianism, not only equality, as it assumes that roles historically closed to women as "men's roles" should be open to all. Equality only assumes that everyone should be eligible for roles of equal value. (For some measure of value.) 2- Feminism assumes Locke's language of rights and priviledge. Why should someone *be deprived* of the opportunity to be an .... -- in our case, to serve as rabbi? But halachic values aren't framed in these terms. (At least not in general; I can think of notions like geneivas da'as, gezel shinah or tovas han'ah as exceptions.) Rather, the rabbinate is supposed to be a burden. Even if it is really being treated as an honor, the value which would differentiate between a positive halachic change and one that is anti-mesoretic would be that of duty, not opportunity. 3- Making the argument that feminist egalitarian opportunity is or is not resonant with mesoretic values requires those guys with shimush, as it is an art. Your counter-argument is on the wrong plane for discussing the topic of the first section of your paper -- "mesorah". ... And we don't even agree on how RIETS-trained rabbis are most likely to use the word "mesorah" to agree on what we're debating! Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Man is equipped with such far-reaching vision, micha at aishdas.org yet the smallest coin can obstruct his view. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yisrael Salanter Fax: (270) 514-1507 From noamstadlan at mail.gmail.com Tue Oct 10 08:53:24 2017 From: noamstadlan at mail.gmail.com (Noam Stadlan) Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2017 10:53:24 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] OU paper In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: multipart/alternative Size: 3823 bytes Desc: not available URL: From micha at aishdas.org Tue Oct 10 14:12:25 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2017 17:12:25 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] =?cp1255?q?=93Timtum_Ha-Lev=94_Redux?= In-Reply-To: <7aef6b22a7e348ffa09f6c3e61bde74f@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <7aef6b22a7e348ffa09f6c3e61bde74f@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20171010211225.GD21284@aishdas.org> On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 06:30:33PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : From R' Aviner Dulling of the Heart to Save One's Life ... : A: No. Maran Ha-Rav Kook writes in his book "Musar Avicha" (p. 19) : that the dulling of one's heart comes from violating a prohibition : and not from the food itself (Yoma 39a. And see Meharsha on : Shabbat 33a).... Yay! Finally I have sources to look at. "Vehayisa akh sameiach" just became a little easier. Does anyone have "Mussar Avikha", "Uvdos veHanhagos miBeis Brisk" (vol II p 50) and/or "Orchos Yosheir" (#13)? Do any of them discuss mezuzah and the consequent shemirah, or any of the other related segulah-like effects of mitzvos we've tied in to previous iterations? Look at that list of names: I'm not wrong, just Litvish! Tangent: The Gra said that "vehayisa akh sameiach" is the hardest mitzvah in the Torah. "Veyahisa sameiach" is one thing, but "akh sameiach"? To be nothing but happy, with no other moods ambivalently mixed in for 8 days (9 in chu"l) straight? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The fittingness of your matzos [for the seder] micha at aishdas.org isn't complete with being careful in the laws http://www.aishdas.org of Passover. One must also be very careful in Fax: (270) 514-1507 the laws of business. - Rav Yisrael Salanter From hankman at bell.net Tue Oct 10 22:24:18 2017 From: hankman at bell.net (hankman) Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2017 01:24:18 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] R. Akiva, Bar Kochba and Zecharya HaNovi Message-ID: <5AFE790709AC4B0B9FDDB6A6102B7005@hankPC> How could R. Akiva have mistaken Bar Kochba for Moshiach, since non of the nevuos of Zecharya HaNovi that we read in the recent haftorah (splitting of Har HaZeitim etc., etc) for the period precedent to Moshiach had yet occurred? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Tue Oct 10 13:51:59 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2017 16:51:59 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] future impact of deeds In-Reply-To: <781196aefdb44054b2f0e69678999858@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <781196aefdb44054b2f0e69678999858@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20171010205159.GB21284@aishdas.org> On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 06:29:05PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : In one of his shiurim, R'Reisman questioned a common (my) understanding : of how those who are no longer with us could be judged based on the : future impact of their deeds on an ongoing basis. The specific example : was two individuals (A & B) separately caused two other individuals (C & : D, who were totally equivalent) to become religious. C dies a day later, : while D lives a long, productive, and fruitful life. Does it make sense : that A gets more credit(schar) than B? : : My answer is no, but this does not refute the basic premise. The schar : is based on the % of their potential that C & D actualized-only HKB"H : knows that, so, in this case in fact, A might even get more credit than B. Who said that sekhar is indeed based on actualized potential? "Lefum tz'ara agra", not "lefum tzalach". And wouldn't judging someone by something out of their control violate Middas haDin? HOWEVER, perhaps (thinking out loud) we could invoke megalgalim zekhus al yedei zakai to say that hashgachah peratis's choice of D's long life includes among an infinite other factors, the ways in which his mashpia was mora zekai. But personally, I would question your conclusion. (But in a personal-belief sense. Not that it doesn't require understanding in an eilu-va'eilu way.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Rescue me from the desire to win every micha at aishdas.org argument and to always be right. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Nassan of Breslav Fax: (270) 514-1507 Likutei Tefilos 94:964 From zev at sero.name Wed Oct 11 03:30:27 2017 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2017 06:30:27 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] R. Akiva, Bar Kochba and Zecharya HaNovi In-Reply-To: <5AFE790709AC4B0B9FDDB6A6102B7005@hankPC> References: <5AFE790709AC4B0B9FDDB6A6102B7005@hankPC> Message-ID: <0278980f-97ca-2755-caa3-89461ed64e50@sero.name> On 11/10/17 01:24, hankman via Avodah wrote: > How could R. Akiva have mistaken Bar Kochba for Moshiach, since non of > the nevuos of Zecharya HaNovi that we read in the recent haftorah > (splitting of Har HaZeitim etc., etc) for the period precedent to > Moshiach had yet occurred? The Rambam, whose shita is based on R Akiva, explicitly paskens that none of these nevuos need to be fulfilled literally. Any that aren't can be interpreted metaphorically to fit whatever political and military events actually do take place around the geulah. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From akivagmiller at gmail.com Wed Oct 11 06:41:32 2017 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2017 09:41:32 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Questioning Authority In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I have no hidden agenda here. This post is my response to the current "OU paper" thread, and to many other threads we've had over the decades, where we have wondered how any given posek could hold a certain way on any particular question. It is also relevant to threads we've had abput *becoming* a posek, and the importance of shimush in addition to book knowledge. This is something I would not have written, or even have thought of, until about 10 years ago or so. But as I have matured, I have come to see things in a new perspective. Becoming a parent, and a grandparent, has given me a tremendous insight into Hashem's relationship with us. I have always felt that it is (or ought to be) possible and permissible to *question* authority without challenging or rejecting authority. It is very natural to want to understand the reasons behind the rules that we must live by. Wanting to understand those rules is not the same as rejecting those rules. Wanting to understand the rules, I believe, is a major component of the Mitzvah of Talmud Torah, and is thus highly commendable. A chavrusa once challenged me to explain my position on a certain subject. He said to me, "If you can't explain it to me in simple terms, then you don't really understand it well enough yourself." I accepted that rule wholeheartedly, and used it myself for many decades. But recently have I begun to see the cracks in that rule. A parent tells the child to do something, or to not do something. The child asks why, not out of rebellion, but because he sincerely wants to understand what's going on. Sometimes, the parent cannot give an answer better than "Because I said so." The child now thinks that the parent is being arbitrary, and sometimes, the parent might even agree. But frequently, the truth is that the parent has very good reasons for what he says. It's just that he's unable to put those reasons into clear words. He can't even explain it to himself in simple terms, because it is simply a gut feeling that he has, based on experience and intuition, he sees that this is the action or inaction which must be followed in this particular situation. I think this is analogous to Torah leaders and Torah followers. When the leaders tell the followers what to do, or what to avoid, it is entirely reasonable for the followers to request explanations from the leaders. This is especially so, if the explanation will help them comply with the directive, or teach them how to apply the directive to other situations. But these requests must be made respectfully, carefully, and only up to a certain point. Consider when a parent explains himself to the child, and the child responds with a dozen reasonable challenges to the parent's logic. Sometimes the parent will realize that he was in error, and back down. Sometimes the parent will realize that he was in error, but will stick to his guns as a show of power (rightly or wrongly). But sometimes, the parent will understand that - despite the child's persuasive comments - the directive must still be followed, because ... Well, the parent himself might not be able to articulate his reasoning, not even to himself. But he relies on his understanding and his experience and his common sense, and he knows that this is how it must be. So too, our leaders adopt certain positions on certain issues, and often they will attempt to explain themselves to us. Sometimes those explanations may appear flawed to us, maybe even severely flawed. Like the child who thinks his parent's explanation is nonsense, the flaws do not necessarily invalidate the leader's conclusion or his decision. Of course, none of this suggests that our leaders (or parents) are infallible. And they can certainly benefit from reviewing their positions among their peers. The only point I'm trying to make in this long post is this: Similar to a Chok from the Torah, sometimes our leaders issue pronouncements that we are not capable of fully understanding, and we should not let that stand in the way of following them. Akiva Miller NB: A critical word in this post is "sometimes". The difficult (sometimes impossible) task is to figure out which times are which. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From zev at sero.name Wed Oct 11 07:40:40 2017 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2017 10:40:40 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] R. Akiva, Bar Kochba and Zecharya HaNovi In-Reply-To: <20171011143003.GA21995@aishdas.org> References: <5AFE790709AC4B0B9FDDB6A6102B7005@hankPC> <0278980f-97ca-2755-caa3-89461ed64e50@sero.name> <20171011143003.GA21995@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 11/10/17 10:30, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > While the Rambam cites R' Aqiva's following Bar Koziba (H Melahim 11:2) > as proof that the melekh hamoshiach doesn't have to do miracles, is his > position really "based on" R Aqiva's? For example, in 11:4 he describes > the moshiach as being "hogeh baTorah ve'oseiq bemitzvos keDavid aviv" > which I don't think fit Bar Kokhva even in his hayday. What makes you suppose this? On the contrary, the fact that the Rambam says "since BK didn't do any miracles, we know that Moshiach doesn't have to", proves that when he says Moshiach *does* have to be a TCh and a tzadik he assumes BK *did* fulfil this requirement. If he didn't, that would prove to the Rambam that this isn't necessary. > Nor had "veyakhof kol Yisrael leileikh bah" yet either -- the > Perushim were in the minority. Were they? Who was in the majority, if not them? And why would the majority even matter? BK was the king, and he made halacha the law of the land, whether the majority liked it or not. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From micha at aishdas.org Wed Oct 11 07:30:03 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2017 10:30:03 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] R. Akiva, Bar Kochba and Zecharya HaNovi In-Reply-To: <0278980f-97ca-2755-caa3-89461ed64e50@sero.name> References: <5AFE790709AC4B0B9FDDB6A6102B7005@hankPC> <0278980f-97ca-2755-caa3-89461ed64e50@sero.name> Message-ID: <20171011143003.GA21995@aishdas.org> On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 06:30:27AM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : On 11/10/17 01:24, hankman via Avodah wrote: :> How could R. Akiva have mistaken Bar Kochba for Moshiach, since :> non of the nevuos of Zecharya HaNovi that we read in the recent :> haftorah (splitting of Har HaZeitim etc., etc) for the period :> precedent to Moshiach had yet occurred? : The Rambam, whose shita is based on R Akiva, explicitly paskens that : none of these nevuos need to be fulfilled literally. Any that : aren't can be interpreted metaphorically to fit whatever political : and military events actually do take place around the geulah. While the Rambam cites R' Aqiva's following Bar Koziba (H Melahim 11:2) as proof that the melekh hamoshiach doesn't have to do miracles, is his position really "based on" R Aqiva's? For example, in 11:4 he describes the moshiach as being "hogeh baTorah ve'oseiq bemitzvos keDavid aviv" which I don't think fit Bar Kokhva even in his hayday. Nor had "veyakhof kol Yisrael leileikh bah" yet either -- the Perushim were in the minority. More clearly is his basing himself on Shemu'el (Sanhedrin 91b) when he quotes him in 12:2, "Chakhamim said: ein bein ha'olam hazeh liymos hamoshiach ela shib'ud malkhios bilvad." It's interesting that rather than repeating the quote beshrim omero -- a funny thing to do when discussing the ge'ula le'lam that giving the source is supposed to bring -- he attributes the quote to Chakhamim, as though he knew it was consensus and Rav's position deprecated. After all, the Rambam himself says that we can't decide machloqesim in these thingxs. So it could be that the Rambam did indeed base himself on R Aqiva, but then we would have to say that the Rambam held that R Aqiva was waiting for the rest of the nevu'ah to come true. Or not -- maybe his basic source was Shemu'el, and this one proof doesn't imply derivation. And given that the BK Revolt was c. 132-135 CE, it is likely that R' Aqiva expected the war to go on 7 years, as per statements in the gemara about chevlei moshiach. This would time the end of the war with 70 years after the churban, like the return after churban bayis 1. But whether that conjecture is true or not, the relevant idea that R Aqiva could be backing BK thinking the rest of the expectations about the moshiach simply hadn't happened /yet/. Which the Rambam would have to invoke even for his more mundane list of things the moshiach will accomplish. In 12:1 the Rambam denies the literalness of Yeshaiah's and Yirmiyahu's description of the messianic era in terms of wolves, leopards and lions going vegetarian. But since the splitting of Har haZeirim need not be lemaalah min hateva, do we know whether the Rambam would have placed it in the same rule? If not, the "expected it will happen in the future" answer could cover that earthquake (?) as much as it can cover BK spending all his spare time learning and doing mitzvos or his being meqareiv the vast majority of Kelal Yisrael. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger A sick person never rejects a healing procedure micha at aishdas.org as "unbefitting." Why, then, do we care what http://www.aishdas.org other people think when dealing with spiritual Fax: (270) 514-1507 matters? - Rav Yisrael Salanter From zev at sero.name Wed Oct 11 09:02:55 2017 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2017 12:02:55 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] R. Akiva, Bar Kochba and Zecharya HaNovi In-Reply-To: <20171011154231.GA6170@aishdas.org> References: <5AFE790709AC4B0B9FDDB6A6102B7005@hankPC> <0278980f-97ca-2755-caa3-89461ed64e50@sero.name> <20171011143003.GA21995@aishdas.org> <20171011154231.GA6170@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <0e95d039-c074-ae7f-f3ba-3cee64a3d191@sero.name> On 11/10/17 11:42, Micha Berger wrote: > > The man described in the Y-mi Taanis 24b (4:5) doesn't sound personally > observant. The Rambam clearly doesn't hold like the Yerushalmi's version of the story, because he holds that the Chachamim stuck with BK until he was killed "ba`avonos". That word is ambiguous (whose sins, his or the people's) but later he says a presumptive Moshiach who's killed is "kechol malchei beis Dovid hash'leimim vehak'sheirim", so we can assume he holds that BK was killed for the generation's sins, not for his own, hence "ba`avonos", not "ba`avonosav". > This is also why in both R' Aqiva's world as well as R' Meir's and R' > Shim'on's -- before and after BK's revolt -- it is taken for granted > that most Jews are amei ha'aretz. Amei Haaretz were in the Perushim "denomination". They kept Perushi halacha as well as they understood it, even if they despised the Chaverim who taught it. They made up their own invalid leniencies in maasros, and weren't careful all year with taharos, but they were careful with terumah and never told lies on Shabbos. In any case, the question isn't what the majority would have done on their own, but whether BK forced them to obey halacha, and the Rambam assumes he did. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From micha at aishdas.org Wed Oct 11 10:11:32 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2017 13:11:32 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] R. Akiva, Bar Kochba and Zecharya HaNovi In-Reply-To: <0e95d039-c074-ae7f-f3ba-3cee64a3d191@sero.name> References: <5AFE790709AC4B0B9FDDB6A6102B7005@hankPC> <0278980f-97ca-2755-caa3-89461ed64e50@sero.name> <20171011143003.GA21995@aishdas.org> <20171011154231.GA6170@aishdas.org> <0e95d039-c074-ae7f-f3ba-3cee64a3d191@sero.name> Message-ID: <20171011171132.GA1028@aishdas.org> On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 12:02:55PM -0400, Zev Sero wrote: : On 11/10/17 11:42, Micha Berger wrote: : >The man described in the Y-mi Taanis 24b (4:5) doesn't sound personally : >observant. : : The Rambam clearly doesn't hold like the Yerushalmi's version of the : story, because he holds that the Chachamim stuck with BK until he : was killed "ba`avonos"... How does this conflict with the Y-mi's picture of a less than ideal Bar Kokhva? If anything, it reinforces my suggestion that R' Aqiva was awaiting the rest of the nevu'ah. And once he is waiting for the things the Rambam mentions, then it's possible the Rambem would expect Zerkhariah's nevu'os to happen literally, but also something R' Aqiva was awaiting. It's possible the Rambam would consider the potentially natural cataclysms in Zekhariah to be non-allegory, as the examples of non-literal nevu'os he gives would have been lema'alah min hateva if literal. I don't know where he's drawing the line; nevi'ah qua nevu'ah is bederekh mashal, or only the phantastical stories should be dismissed. (This is a sibling to our discussion of the Rambam on midrashic stories. I claim he is saying that no medrash was repeated for historical content. Therefore any medrash can be ahistorical, but the fantastical stories you should take for granted as being ahistorical. You have been limiting the Rambam's denial of historicity for the fantastical stories. s/medrash/nevu'ah/g -- where do you stand?) : That word is ambiguous (whose sins, his or : the people's) but later he says a presumptive Moshiach who's killed : is "kechol malchei beis Dovid hash'leimim vehak'sheirim", so we can : assume he holds that BK was killed for the generation's sins, not : for his own, hence "ba`avonos", not "ba`avonosav". But either way -- whether he or the generation was sinful -- it would show that BK didn't fit the Rambam's descrition of moshiach. For obvious reasons, I'll add: ... at least not yet. If the generation sinned too much to merit redemption, BK wasn't too good at bringing the masses to observance. Besides, being like a kosher and shaleim member of beis David could mean "even if", we still know he wasn't the moshiach. : >This is also why in both R' Aqiva's world as well as R' Meir's and R' : >Shim'on's -- before and after BK's revolt -- it is taken for granted : >that most Jews are amei ha'aretz. : : Amei Haaretz were in the Perushim "denomination". They kept Perushi : halacha as well as they understood it, even if they despised the : Chaverim who taught it... Actually, I thought they were denominationless, as likely to follow anyone's dictates. A pagan notion of listening to every holy man, rather than picking sides. But in any case, if that's your description of the masses, you still have BK not yet succeeding in that regard at the time of his death. : in maasros, and weren't careful all year with taharos, but they were : careful with terumah and never told lies on Shabbos... They were also careful with maaser, more often than not. Demai is a gezeira; if tevel were the norm, it would be azlinan basar ruba, or at best safeiq deOraisa lehachmir. : the question isn't what the majority would have done on their own, : but whether BK forced them to obey halacha, and the Rambam assumes : he did. The Rambam doesn't say so. That's your deduction. It requires assuming that the Rambam agrees with R' Aqiva over what the grounds for presuming (making a chazqah) that someone is moshiach. He doesn't say R' Aqiva is indeed his source. And it also requires assuming R Aqiva was following BK because of a chazaqah, rather than probability and rov. You haven't addressed my "maybe" of R Aqiva following BK without BK having yet fulfilled all of the moshiach's role becuase of an expectation that BK would be getting there. My added "not yet". Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Between stimulus & response, there is a space. micha at aishdas.org In that space is our power to choose our http://www.aishdas.org response. In our response lies our growth Fax: (270) 514-1507 and our freedom. - Victor Frankl, (MSfM) From zev at sero.name Sat Oct 14 19:44:53 2017 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2017 22:44:53 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] R. Akiva, Bar Kochba and Zecharya HaNovi In-Reply-To: <20171011171132.GA1028@aishdas.org> References: <5AFE790709AC4B0B9FDDB6A6102B7005@hankPC> <0278980f-97ca-2755-caa3-89461ed64e50@sero.name> <20171011143003.GA21995@aishdas.org> <20171011154231.GA6170@aishdas.org> <0e95d039-c074-ae7f-f3ba-3cee64a3d191@sero.name> <20171011171132.GA1028@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 11/10/17 13:11, Micha Berger wrote: > On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 12:02:55PM -0400, Zev Sero wrote: > : On 11/10/17 11:42, Micha Berger wrote: > : >The man described in the Y-mi Taanis 24b (4:5) doesn't sound personally > : >observant. > : > : The Rambam clearly doesn't hold like the Yerushalmi's version of the > : story, because he holds that the Chachamim stuck with BK until he > : was killed "ba`avonos"... > > How does this conflict with the Y-mi's picture of a less than ideal > Bar Kokhva? It conflicts because the Y'mi's version of the story has the Chachamim abandoning BK *before* his fall. The Rambam clearly does not agree with that whole version of the story. In his version BK was and remained a tzadik until his tragic end, which happened not for his own sins but for those of others. > It's possible the Rambam would consider the potentially natural cataclysms > in Zekhariah to be non-allegory, as the examples of non-literal nevu'os > he gives would have been lema'alah min hateva if literal. I don't know > where he's drawing the line; nevi'ah qua nevu'ah is bederekh mashal, > or only the phantastical stories should be dismissed. He doesn't draw a line at all. He carefully doesn't say that Moshiach *won't* perform miracles, but merely that he *needn't*, because BK didn't and yet was assumed to be Moshiach. Which further contradicts the Y'mi's version, which says he was rejected because he could not judge people by smelling whether they're right or wrong, a feat of which the True Moshiach(tm) must be capable. > > : That word is ambiguous (whose sins, his or > : the people's) but later he says a presumptive Moshiach who's killed > : is "kechol malchei beis Dovid hash'leimim vehak'sheirim", so we can > : assume he holds that BK was killed for the generation's sins, not > : for his own, hence "ba`avonos", not "ba`avonosav". > > But either way -- whether he or the generation was sinful -- it would > show that BK didn't fit the Rambam's descrition of moshiach. How so? He was righteous, and forced people to keep Torah, but they didn't listen, just like Yoshiyahu. > But in any case, if that's your description of the masses, you still > have BK not yet succeeding in that regard at the time of his death. Again, how so? The requirement is that he forces all Israel to follow it and to reinforce its breaches. Not that he educates them, or makes them enthusiastic, but simply that he makes the Shulchan Aruch the law of the land, punishing those who break it. There are always lawbreakers; one would not therefore say that the government is not forcing people to obey the law. > : the question isn't what the majority would have done on their own, > : but whether BK forced them to obey halacha, and the Rambam assumes > : he did. > > The Rambam doesn't say so. That's your deduction. It requires assuming > that the Rambam agrees with R' Aqiva over what the grounds for presuming > (making a chazqah) that someone is moshiach. He doesn't say R' Aqiva is > indeed his source. He explicitly uses him as his source that Moshiach needn't perform miracles. How could he do so if his vision of Moshiach's qualifications were different from R Akiva's? If he holds that Moshiach must be a tzadik but RA didn't, then how does he know that Moshiach needn't perform miracles just because R Akiva thought so? > And it also requires assuming R Aqiva was following BK because of a > chazaqah, rather than probability and rov. You haven't addressed my > "maybe" of R Aqiva following BK without BK having yet fulfilled all of > the moshiach's role becuase of an expectation that BK would be getting > there. My added "not yet". Again, this is impossible because if so how does he know R Akiva didn't indeed require Moshiach to perform miracles, and was expecting them to happen any day now? How can he say that Moshiach need *never* perform miracles, and if he achieves everything he's supposed to without the need for miracles we will still have to accept him as Vadai Moshiach? Clearly he understands that R Akiva was *not* expecting any miracles, and that this didn't bother him, because it isn't a requirement. None of which rules out the actual Moshiach, when he does come, performing miracles. The Rambam's position on this, unlike the Y'mi's, is neutral. He might perform miracles or he might not. Some or all of the nevuos might turn out literally, but some or all might not. The nevuos he says can't be literal, at least in the initial stage of Yemos Hamoshiach, are not ones about miracles but about permanent changes in nature. Chazal said that Ein Bein Olam Hazeh Liymos Hamoshiach Ela... so nevuos about a change in nature must either be metaphorical or refer to Olam Haba. But nevuos about miracles may or may not happen literally, we won't know until we get there. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From motti.yarchinai at yahoo.com.au Sun Oct 15 01:00:51 2017 From: motti.yarchinai at yahoo.com.au (Motti Yarchinai) Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2017 08:00:51 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Avodah] Psak source wanted References: <1857240052.122258.1508054451353.ref@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1857240052.122258.1508054451353@mail.yahoo.com> Dear Avodah members, Can anyone help me with a source for this psak: It is similar to what the Rambam wrote in Hilchot Kiddush Hachodesh, saying that in all calendric matters, we follow the lead of the chachmei eretz yisrael, and even though the anshei hagolah know the calculations used by them, it is not on our own calculations that we rely, we only use those calculations because we know that they are the same as the calculations used by the chachmei eretz yisrael, and we must all follow the rulings of the latter, in all calendric matters. Another posek (possibly the Tifferet Yisrael in Shvilei Harakia, but I'm not sure of that), writes something similar but couched in even more dramatic terms. The following is not a verbatim quote (since the original is in Hebrew) but something very close to it: "And even if the residents of eretz yisrael are all ignoramuses and peasants, and the authorities of chutz la'aretz are great scholars and knowledgable in Torah and halachah, in calendric matters we follow the peasants and ignoramuses, not the scholars of chutz la'aretz." Does anyone recognise this and remember where it's from? Thank you.Motti -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From akivagmiller at gmail.com Sun Oct 15 13:02:06 2017 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2017 16:02:06 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Zecher Liytzias Mitzrayim and Shmini Atzeres Message-ID: . What is the Zecher Liytzias Mitzrayim of Shmini Atzeres?We say it in Kiddush and in the Amidah. There must be something about this chag that connects to, and/or reminds us about, Yetzias Mitzrayim. It sounds like such a basic question that I'm surprised that I don't remember hearing it in the past. If anyone has an answer, please share it. Meanwhile, here's what I came up with: Shavuos is about one particular event in the midbar. Sukkos is about the whole 40 years in the midbar. Pesach and Shmini Atzeres are bookends: Pesach is about entering the midbar, and Shmini Atzeres is about leaving the midbar.If Sukkos is about the Ananei Hakavod and all the other nissim that accompanied us, then Shmini Atzeres is about re-entering the natural world. I played "word association" with six random people: When I said "yetzias mitzrayim," five of them responded, "Pesach". This is not wrong, but it is a distortion. Yetzias Mitzrayim was not a short event in Nissan; Shavuos and Sukkos prove that it was a process that took 40 years. My suggestion is simply that the last day is no less worthy of a chag than the first. Rashi (B'midbar 29:35) famously tells us that Shmini Atzeres is a special time, with just Hashem and Bnei Yisrael together, alone, with no other nations around. I'm merely pointing out that it is not just the nations who are gone: The lulav is gone. The sukkah is gone. Nothing remains but us and Hashem, when we left the comfort of the miraculous sukkah, trading it for being at home in Eretz Yisrael. Akiva Miller Postscript: An easy challenge to this post could be that Tishre 22 was NOT the day that we crossed from the midbar into Eretz Yisrael. I will respond in advance by pointing out that Shavuos too is not necessarily celebrated on the same day as the event it reminds us of. The Zecher can be poetic and emotional, and need not be so mathematically rigorous. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hankman at bell.net Sun Oct 15 14:41:04 2017 From: hankman at bell.net (hankman) Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2017 17:41:04 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] eitz hachaim Message-ID: Hi, What exactly was the eitz hachaim all about. The simple pshat doesn?t make any sense. If the purpose of the Gan was to serve Adam then when would (could) he make use of the eitz hachaim? Kodem hacheit he was not a bar misah so he had no need of it, after the cheit he was prevented from accessing it! So when would it ever be useful to Adam? Kol tuv Chaim Manaster -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hankman at bell.net Sun Oct 15 14:48:11 2017 From: hankman at bell.net (hankman) Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2017 17:48:11 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Vayehi erev Message-ID: Hi, If you look at days 3, 4 & 5 tou will find that they close with Vayehi erev vayehi boker yom X as a complete passuk. But on days 1, 2 & 6 the vayehi erev is only the completion of a larger passuk and not a passuk on its own. Finally on Shabbos the final closing of vayehi erev is omitted completely. Do any of the medrashing or meforshing explain this? Kol tuv Chaim Manaster -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Sun Oct 15 14:31:16 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2017 17:31:16 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Zecher Liytzias Mitzrayim and Shmini Atzeres In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20171015213116.GA14924@aishdas.org> On Sun, Oct 15, 2017 at 04:02:06PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : What is the Zecher Liytzias Mitzrayim of Shmini Atzeres? ... What's the ZlYM of Shabbos? : Shavuos is about one particular event in the midbar. Sukkos is about the : whole 40 years in the midbar... Unless Sukkos is about the return of the ananei hakavod. The Gra puts 2 and 2 (and 2) together: The ananei hakavod left with the Cheit haEigel. When Moshe returned with the 2nd luchos, completing his 3rd 40-day day atop Har Sinai, he gave Benei Yisrael instructions including those for donating the materials and building the Mishkan. So that actual construction began on 15 Nissan -- and that's when the ananim returned. The Meshekh Chimah adds to this that it explains the oconstrast between Sukkos as described in Mishpatim 23:16, where all we learn about the timing in the fall is that it's Chag haAsif. This was before Cheit haEigel, never mind the eventual return. But in parashas Re'eih, the holiday makes its appearance as Chag haSukkos, refering to the returned sukkos of ananei hakavod. : Pesach is about entering the midbar, and Shmini Atzeres is about leaving : the midbar.If Sukkos is about the Ananei Hakavod and all the other nissim : that accompanied us, then Shmini Atzeres is about re-entering the natural : world. My own mental image of the structure of the year: The qiymu veqiblu haYhudim of Purim is the further development of the theme of Shavous (a/k/a Atzeres). And similarly the zikhronos of Rosh haShanah is the further development of the theme of Shemini Atzeres -- the beris. In Shemini Atzeres this creates a need for a 71st par for qorban mussaf, as well as the naturalness of our turning SA into Simchas Torah. On RH we ask for clemency if not for our sake, than for the sake of seeing the beris to fruition. So that each season has a central holiday -- Sukkos or Pesach -- which is what underlies the gezeira shava tes-vav - tes-vav. Then the season is introduced with a something (Purim or Yamim Noraim) to prepare us for the holiday. The bounty of Sukkos has to be earned; Tishrei is about middas hadin after all. The freedom of Pesach needs a context. (And Putim is derabbanan bececause the ultimate qabbalas ol mitzvos hd to come from us.) And then the theme is culminated in an Atzeres, a day to stop, pack it up, and take it with us for the next half-year. That said, I like your idead of SA as reentering the natural world. It's experientially very true, after all that holiday. It also gives more significance to the timing of Tefillas Geshem. "Qasheh alei pereidaskhem" does refer to that return; aalthough I think you need to work on the difference between our return to the natural world and Hashem making the day itself to *delay* the return. Jews and G-d without the rest of the world. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger What we do for ourselves dies with us. micha at aishdas.org What we do for others and the world, http://www.aishdas.org remains and is immortal. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Albert Pine From micha at aishdas.org Sun Oct 15 15:21:26 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2017 18:21:26 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] R. Akiva, Bar Kochba and Zecharya HaNovi In-Reply-To: References: <5AFE790709AC4B0B9FDDB6A6102B7005@hankPC> <0278980f-97ca-2755-caa3-89461ed64e50@sero.name> <20171011143003.GA21995@aishdas.org> <20171011154231.GA6170@aishdas.org> <0e95d039-c074-ae7f-f3ba-3cee64a3d191@sero.name> <20171011171132.GA1028@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20171015222126.GB14924@aishdas.org> On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 10:44:53PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: :> How does this conflict with the Y-mi's picture of a less than ideal :> Bar Kokhva? : : It conflicts because the Y'mi's version of the story has the : Chachamim abandoning BK *before* his fall. The Rambam clearly does : not agree with that whole version of the story... The Y-mi does not say that R' Aqiva was among those who left early. : In his version BK : was and remained a tzadik until his tragic end, which happened not : for his own sins but for those of others. My whole point is that the Rambam doesn't describe him as a tzadiq anywhere. He says in one place that BK could be taken to be the moshiach despite a lack of miracles and another place that when someone from beis david who is hogeh ve'oseiq bemitzvos keDavid aviv... vehakhos kol Yisrael leileikh bah... and fights Hashem's wars, then this person can be presumed to be mashiach. Not that BK had such a chazaqah; the "pesaq" of the tannaim needn't have been based on this particular chazaqah or any chazaqah. As I said, there is nothing in the Rambam to rule out them following BK out of the expectation that he would eventually get there, rather than his being hogeh ve'oseiq bemitzvos already. And then you don't need to make the Rambam ignore a Yerushalmi. : He doesn't draw a line at all. He carefully doesn't say that : Moshiach *won't* perform miracles, but merely that he *needn't*, 12:1: Al ya'aleh aal leiv shebiymos hamoshiach yibateil davar miminhago shel olam... ela olam keminhago noheig. This doesn't really rule out miracles, but it does rule out ones that leave a permanent change in the natural orer. There is a line. Which is how he rules out the historicity of "vegar ze'eiv im keves..." etc... They don't mearly "needn't" happen, he rules out the possibility of their literal meaning being part of the future, because they cross his line of olam keminhago noheig". : >But either way -- whether he or the generation was sinful -- it would : >show that BK didn't fit the Rambam's descrition of moshiach. : How so? He was righteous, and forced people to keep Torah, but : they didn't listen, just like Yoshiyahu. "Veyakhof" includes "tried and failed"??? That's not quite what the Rambam says. : Again, how so? The requirement is that he forces all Israel to : follow it and to reinforce its breaches. Not that he educates them, : or makes them enthusiastic, but simply that he makes the Shulchan : Aruch the law of the land, punishing those who break it... Which he didn't. The Sanhedrin doesn't get reorgonized and put on Har haBayis. In fact, he doesn't get the backing of the majority of the day's posqim to be able to be associated with a 2nd century religious revival through legal enforcement, even if he there had been one. (Which there is no record of.) Again, this is only a problem for you because you assume that the Rambam's chazaqah in 11:4 must be the reason for R' Aqiva and other tannaim followed BK. But he uses the expression "vedimah hu vekhol chakhmei doro" -- which is a little weak for following a chazaqah as per a chiyuv. The Y-mi (in the adorementiond &T Taanis 4:5 24b) quotes R' Aqiva as telling R' Yochanan ben Torta "Din hu malka meshikha", an idiom usually used to refer to a qal vachomer. BTW, where does the Rambam get that "kol chakhmei doro" followed Bar Koziva? Is there any indication Rabban Gamliel ever did? R Yochanan b Torta replied (in an oft repeated line) "Aqiva, yaalu asavim belechaikh ve'adayin ben David lo ba." : >The Rambam doesn't say so. That's your deduction. It requires assuming : >that the Rambam agrees with R' Aqiva over what the grounds for presuming : >(making a chazqah) that someone is moshiach. He doesn't say R' Aqiva is : >indeed his source. : : He explicitly uses him as his source that Moshiach needn't perform : miracles. How could he do so if his vision of Moshiach's : qualifications were different from R Akiva's? ... R' Aqiva proves that not performing miracles doesn't rule out someone being the moshiach. He doesn't prove what it takes to actually qualify as being one. And even beyond the difference between deriving one negative statement about the mashiach and assuming he got all his positive statements from the same source, you're missing the difference between noting R' Aqiva reached a conclusion and the Rambam pasqening that in a certain situation we are obligated by the rules of chazaqah to reach that same conclusion. : Again, this is impossible because if so how does he know R Akiva : didn't indeed require Moshiach to perform miracles, and was : expecting them to happen any day now? ... Who said he didn't? He uses R' Aqiva to rule out waiting for a miracle before following a potential. Not that moshiach won't perform miracles. 12:2 quotes Shemu'el to back up the point in 12:1 that olam beminhago holeikh. Which is minimally a particular kind of miracle, although it plausibly includes even miracles that are only momentary breaks in minhag olam. He doesn't mention R' Aqiva when ruling out these miracles from the entire mission. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "Man wants to achieve greatness overnight, micha at aishdas.org and he wants to sleep well that night too." http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yosef Yozel Horwitz, Alter of Novarodok Fax: (270) 514-1507 From hankman at bell.net Sun Oct 15 15:59:44 2017 From: hankman at bell.net (hankman) Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2017 18:59:44 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Torah precheit? Message-ID: Hi, I have been trying to understand what the geshtalt of Torah was precheit of the eitz hadaas. It could not have resembled anything that we ( I ) would recognize today. Consider: There was but one mitzva. Most if not all the mitzvos of the Torah we are familiar with could not have existed, at least as we understand them today. Had Adam been successful in his one day tafkid the purpose of the bria would have been accomplished and Adam (mankind) would have gone to olom haba ? mission accomplished nothing more to follow but for reward in olom haba. The many consequences seem to be as follows: there would be no avdus in Mitzrayim, therefore no yetzias Mitzrayim, therefore no regolim, that are all built on the idea of zecher l?yitzias Mitzrayim nor their issurei melocho . So there would not me any korban Pesach, no matzo, no maror etc. There would be no lulav and esrog, no succah etc. There would be no krobanos of shavous, no Yom Kippur and all its avoda and all its inuiyim as the cheit haeigel would never occur. Not sure about Rosh Hashana as the 6th day was the first RH perhaps as a yom hadin to pasken that Adam succeeded in his task and is deserving of olom haba. I could assume that Shabbos would also be present as it was in that first week with a kedushas Shabbos. The mussafim of all these yomim tovim would also be non existent as the yomim tovim themself seem in doubt. Much of the korbanos relating to cheit would seemingly have no purpose. the existance of the mikdash and all related mitzvot would likewise be in doubt. The mikdosh would have been Adam himself or perhaps after day 7 the mikdash would have come down in fire from heaven like we await today shibaneh beis hamikdash? As there would never be an Eretz Yisroel, then there would not be all the mitzvot hateltuot ba?aretz ? trumos, masros etc., etc. There would be no issurei arayos as there was just Adam and Chava. Not quite sure here as there was Kayin and Hevel and their twin sisters were there in the latter part of day 6. So perhaps a few of the arayaos would have been possible, mainly mother, father, son, daughter, aishes ish (Adam and Chava, but not sure about the kids as could kedushin be tofeis in a sister even if mutar for kium olam? Mishkav zachar was possible, but mishkav behama might not have been assur if one reads the medroshim kepshutom which the Maharal tell us NOT to do when Adam was seeking his mate before Chava was created. Still one has to deal with the fact that while these might have been possible, there was but ONE commandment ? not to eat from the eitz hadaas and none of the possible arayos I consider above. There was no mitzva of mila for Adam or Kayin and Hevel. Perhaps Adam was created mahul and Kayin and Hevel were nolod mahul? (Still today would need hatafas dam bris). Kibud Av vaAim would only be possible for Kain and Hevel but not for Adam or Chava who were not yilud isha. Mitzvot like korcho lameis would not be possible for beings who were not bar misa. Tumas meis would not be possible. With no rabim, mitzvot like melech, korban nossi, Ir haNidachas etc would not be possible. No mechias Amalek, or shiva ammim or kivush ha?aretz etc Rosh Chodes and its dinim would never happen as the world would end after one week. Most of choshen Mishpat would be superfluous if you own the entire world (Adam ? not sure if his kids would own anything as Adam would never die so they would never yarshan the world from him? (not sure if I am in the realm of Purim torah or not?). I could go on for most of taryag that would not have been possible. But the bottom line, possible or not, there was only ONE commandment ? the eitz hadaas! So what is the nature of Torah in such a world. How do we see it as an ever constant ever present and unchanging Torah? How does a Torah with but ONE mitzva look? How does it still identify with a Torah with 613 mitzvot? Sorry if my thoughts were very rambling. I just typed as things came to mind ? maybe not always a good idea! Kol tuv Chaim Manaster -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From zev at sero.name Sun Oct 15 22:15:48 2017 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2017 01:15:48 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] R. Akiva, Bar Kochba and Zecharya HaNovi In-Reply-To: <20171015222126.GB14924@aishdas.org> References: <5AFE790709AC4B0B9FDDB6A6102B7005@hankPC> <0278980f-97ca-2755-caa3-89461ed64e50@sero.name> <20171011143003.GA21995@aishdas.org> <20171011154231.GA6170@aishdas.org> <0e95d039-c074-ae7f-f3ba-3cee64a3d191@sero.name> <20171011171132.GA1028@aishdas.org> <20171015222126.GB14924@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 15/10/17 18:21, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 10:44:53PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > : It conflicts because the Y'mi's version of the story has the > : Chachamim abandoning BK *before* his fall. The Rambam clearly does > : not agree with that whole version of the story... > > The Y-mi does not say that R' Aqiva was among those who left early. The Rambam says that R Akiva *and all the sages of his generation* imagined BK was Moshiach, *until he was killed*. This is not consistent with the Y'mi. > As I said, there is nothing in the Rambam to rule out them following BK > out of the expectation that he would eventually get there, rather than his > being hogeh ve'oseiq bemitzvos already. Then why can't they also have expected him to eventually do miracles? How does their belief in him, and his lack of miracles, prove that Moshiach needn't do any? The fact that the Rambam uses their belief in him as proof that miracles aren't a requirement shows that they believed in him only because he *had* fulfilled all the *genuine* requirements for the stage he was at. > : >But either way -- whether he or the generation was sinful -- it would > : >show that BK didn't fit the Rambam's descrition of moshiach. > > : How so? He was righteous, and forced people to keep Torah, but > : they didn't listen, just like Yoshiyahu. > > "Veyakhof" includes "tried and failed"??? That's not quite what the > Rambam says. Yachof means to force, to make it the law of the land, and those who disobey are punished. It doesn't preclude people breaking the law when they think they can get away with it. Our current government forces us to live without drugs, and yet many people don't. > > : Again, how so? The requirement is that he forces all Israel to > : follow it and to reinforce its breaches. Not that he educates them, > : or makes them enthusiastic, but simply that he makes the Shulchan > : Aruch the law of the land, punishing those who break it... > > Which he didn't. The Sanhedrin doesn't get reorgonized and put on Har > haBayis. The Sanhedrin was already organized. There's no requirement that they return to Lishkas Hagazis until there *is* one, which he does eventually have to do, but it comes *after* chezkas Moshiach and fighting the war, which is the stage he was at. > In fact, he doesn't get the backing of the majority of the day's > posqim He certainly did, according to the Rambam. > to be able to be associated with a 2nd century religious revival > through legal enforcement, even if he there had been one. (Which there > is no record of.) Again, a "religious revival" means inspiring people to *want* to keep mitzvos, which is unrelated to *forcing* them to do so. > Again, this is only a problem for you because you assume that the Rambam's > chazaqah in 11:4 must be the reason for R' Aqiva and other tannaim > followed BK. What else could it be? He goes directly from saying that miracles are not a requirement to listing what things *are* requirements. Therefore he must have done those things. > But he uses the expression "vedimah hu vekhol chakhmei doro" > -- which is a little weak for following a chazaqah as per a chiyuv. What's weak about it? They must have had a reason for this imagination. What else but the chazaka? And if they thought he hadn't yet reached that stage then how do we know miracles aren't required to reach it? > > The Y-mi (in the adorementiond &T Taanis 4:5 24b) quotes R' Aqiva as > telling R' Yochanan ben Torta "Din hu malka meshikha", an idiom usually > used to refer to a qal vachomer. You're misreading it. It's not "din", it's *dein*. Dein hu malka meshicha, this is the Annointed King. > BTW, where does the Rambam get that "kol chakhmei doro" followed Bar > Koziva? Is there any indication Rabban Gamliel ever did? R Yochanan b > Torta replied (in an oft repeated line) "Aqiva, yaalu asavim belechaikh > ve'adayin ben David lo ba." He was the lone exception, or nearly so. Because *he* held that the miracle of judging by smell *was* required, even at the beginning. The Rambam paskens against him. > : >The Rambam doesn't say so. That's your deduction. It requires assuming > : >that the Rambam agrees with R' Aqiva over what the grounds for presuming > : >(making a chazqah) that someone is moshiach. He doesn't say R' Aqiva is > : >indeed his source. > : > : He explicitly uses him as his source that Moshiach needn't perform > : miracles. How could he do so if his vision of Moshiach's > : qualifications were different from R Akiva's? ... > > R' Aqiva proves that not performing miracles doesn't rule out someone being > the moshiach. He doesn't prove what it takes to actually qualify as being > one. This makes no sense. Either the Rambam agrees with R Akiva's criteria or he doesn't. If he doesn't then how can R Akiva's not requiring miracles prove that they're truly not required? If he was wrong about other criteria, how do we know he was right about this one? No, the fact that the Rambam uses him as proof means the Rambam adopts his view totally, and holds it is the halacha. In Chapter 12 he rules out not miracles but changes in nature. A miracle doesn't change nature, it breaks the rules of nature. Water continues to run downhill, but this water doesn't, not because its nature is different but because it's ignoring nature. That, he says, may or may not happen. Changes in nature won't, because Chazal say so. Chazal are silent on whether Moshiach will perform miracles, so we don't know. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From michaelpoppers at gmail.com Sun Oct 15 19:22:08 2017 From: michaelpoppers at gmail.com (Michael Poppers) Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2017 22:22:08 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] =?utf-8?b?4oCcVGltdHVtIEhhLUxlduKAnSBSZWR1eA==?= Message-ID: In Avodah V35n121, R'Micha wrote: > Tangent: The Gra said that "vehayisa akh sameiach" is the hardest mitzvah in the Torah. "Veyahisa sameiach" is one thing, but "akh sameiach"? To be nothing but happy, with no other moods ambivalently mixed in for 8 days (9 in chu"l) straight? < Tangents to the tangent: (a) Perhaps someone can quote "Ma'asei Rav" or the like, but what I've seen quoted *b'sheim GRA* is that the "ach" *d'rasha* in BT Sukka means that on Shmini Chag haAtzeres we're *b'simcha* with H' w/out any *cheftza shel mitzva*, e.g. see here : Perhaps the answer lies in a comment from the Vilna Gaon on the pasuk of ?v?hayisa ach sameiach.? The Gemara (Succah 48a) derives from this pasuk that Shemini Atzeres is included in the mitzvah of simchah. But the word ach generally limits what is being discussed. What are we limiting with ach sameiach? The Gaon explains that whereas Succos requires many mitzvah objects ? a succah, lulav and esrog, hoshanas ? Shemini Atzeres does not require any physical items. We only need to be sameiach. This is the inherent gift of the last day of the Yom Tov. We can?t take the succah and lulav with us after Yom Tov. But the simchah that comes from dveikus with Hashem requires nothing but ourselves, and it is something we can take along with us. (b) Translating "ach" as "nothing but" doesn't explain the YhK "ach" (P'Emor). (c) Another thought on "v'samachta b'chagecha...v'hayisa ach sameach" is that the latter mandate of *simcha* ("ach" or no "ach") seems superfluous and can be considered as a mandate for the entire year (i.e. not just "b'chagecha"). All the best from *Michael Poppers* * Elizabeth, NJ, USA -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From lisa at starways.net Mon Oct 16 00:51:28 2017 From: lisa at starways.net (Lisa Liel) Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2017 10:51:28 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] eitz hachaim In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <61f0b606-b859-4475-eef8-a10489e74f1c@starways.net> On 10/16/2017 12:41 AM, hankman via Avodah wrote: > What exactly was the eitz hachaim all about. The simple pshat doesn't > make any sense. If the purpose of the Gan was to serve Adam then when > would (could) he make use of the eitz hachaim? Kodem hacheit he was > not a bar misah so he had no need of it, after the cheit he was > prevented from accessing it! So when would it ever be useful to Adam? I don't understand the question. He was prevented from accessing it *because* of the cheit. Had he not sinned, you say he would have had no need for it, but who is to say that its only function was to make him live forever. Maybe that's just the function it has for a bar mitah. Or maybe that was its function, and that's *why* he wasn't a bar mitah. Because the eitz ha-chaim was there, and permissible for him to eat. It was only after he'd eaten from the eitz ha-daat that he could no longer be permitted to live forever. That what eating that did to him made eternal life for him a Bad Thing. Lisa From seinfeld at jsli.org Mon Oct 16 07:02:10 2017 From: seinfeld at jsli.org (Alexander Seinfeld) Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2017 10:02:10 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Zecher Liytzias Mitzrayim and Shmini Atzeres In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: It?s a nice vort but couldn?t you ask the same about Shabbos and Rosh Hashana? Isn?t every Yomtov is a Zecher Yetzias Mitzrayim, not for historical reasons but because Yetzias Mitzrayim is the foundation of our emunah (not Har Sinai)? > >>Rashi (B'midbar 29:35) famously tells us that Shmini Atzeres is a special >>time, with just Hashem and Bnei Yisrael together, alone, with no other >>nations around. I'm merely pointing out that it is not just the nations >>who >>are gone: The lulav is gone. The sukkah is gone. Nothing remains but us >>and >>Hashem, when we left the comfort of the miraculous sukkah, trading it for >>being at home in Eretz Yisrael. >> >>Akiva Miller >> >>Postscript: An easy challenge to this post could be that Tishre 22 was >>NOT >>the day that we crossed from the midbar into Eretz Yisrael. I will >>respond >>in advance by pointing out that Shavuos too is not necessarily celebrated >>on the same day as the event it reminds us of. The Zecher can be poetic >>and >>emotional, and need not be so mathematically rigorous. From micha at aishdas.org Mon Oct 16 11:35:11 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2017 14:35:11 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] R. Akiva, Bar Kochba and Zecharya HaNovi In-Reply-To: References: <5AFE790709AC4B0B9FDDB6A6102B7005@hankPC> <0278980f-97ca-2755-caa3-89461ed64e50@sero.name> <20171011143003.GA21995@aishdas.org> <20171011154231.GA6170@aishdas.org> <0e95d039-c074-ae7f-f3ba-3cee64a3d191@sero.name> <20171011171132.GA1028@aishdas.org> <20171015222126.GB14924@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20171016183511.GA2496@aishdas.org> On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 01:15:48AM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : On 15/10/17 18:21, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: :> On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 10:44:53PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: :>: It conflicts because the Y'mi's version of the story has the :>: Chachamim abandoning BK *before* his fall. The Rambam clearly does :>: not agree with that whole version of the story... :> The Y-mi does not say that R' Aqiva was among those who left early. : The Rambam says that R Akiva *and all the sages of his generation* : imagined BK was Moshiach, *until he was killed*. This is not : consistent with the Y'mi. I see what you mean. Again, it is interesting to find out where the Rambam's alternate picture comes from. Just as his "kol" in "vekhol chakhmei dodo" doesn't seem to be Chazal's picture in either shas. E.g. Sanhedrin 93b, "nechzei anan i moreiach veda'ain..." They were still checking out the validity of BK's claim at the time of his death. :> As I said, there is nothing in the Rambam to rule out them following BK :> out of the expectation that he would eventually get there, rather than his :> being hogeh ve'oseiq bemitzvos already. : Then why can't they also have expected him to eventually do : miracles? How does their belief in him, and his lack of miracles, : prove that Moshiach needn't do any? ... To repeat myself: 11:3 talks about following someone despite a lack of miracles. 12:1-2 talks about the necessary absense of at least a particular kind of miracle -- the start of a new natural order -- if not miracles altogether. If you want to talk about needn't do... then you're looking at R' Aqiva and pereq 11. If you want to talk about won't do... then you're looking at pereq 12 and his assumption of Shemu'el's "ein bein" over Rav's shitah. And the list of things that won't happen is necessarily a subset of things that one needn't wait to happen before following the candidate. Possibly a strict subset, possibly identical sets. :>:> But either way -- whether he or the generation was sinful -- it would :>:> show that BK didn't fit the Rambam's descrition of moshiach. :>: How so? He was righteous, and forced people to keep Torah, but :>: they didn't listen, just like Yoshiyahu. :> "Veyakhof" includes "tried and failed"??? That's not quite what the :> Rambam says. : Yachof means to force, to make it the law of the land, and those who : disobey are punished... You're just repeating the insistance that "vayakhof" could include trying to force people and failing. If the punishments don't actually get the majority observing, is it kefiyah? And we have no evidence or even claim of BK ever even having set up a punishment system. Although this too could be part of the picture the Rambam draws that I don't know the sourece for. After all, as per the above, the picture you get from CHazal is that the Sanhedrin and its enforcement system was *not* behind BK, but the Rambam would have them aligned. ... :> Which he didn't. The Sanhedrin doesn't get reorgonized and put on Har :> haBayis. : The Sanhedrin was already organized. There's no requirement that : they return to Lishkas Hagazis until there *is* one, which he does : eventually have to do, but it comes *after* chezkas Moshiach and : fighting the war, which is the stage he was at. Actually, there is strong evidence he at least started building a BHMQ. And while I suppose they didn't have to move in yet, Anshei Keneses haGedolah moved in to a "lishkah" demarkated by curtains! "Chezqas moshiach" isn't a state in-and-of-itself. It's a chazaqah, a legal presumption, that someone is moshiach. A presumption of a status, not a status. IOW, it is likely that among all of beis David, only the mashiach would be hogeh in Torah and oseif bemitzvos, bring the Jews to observance (minimally: by compulsion) "leileikh bahh ulchazeiq bidqah". And therefore, if we find a member of beis David succeeding at these things, we are obligated to act with the understanding that he is mashiach. Thus, it is meaningless to talk about what happens before or after chezqas mashiach, as though it were a real state change. : Again, a "religious revival" means inspiring people to *want* to : keep mitzvos, which is unrelated to *forcing* them to do so. That's yhour own creative read of what kefiyah means. Forcing or not, it implies actual follow-through. BK didn't risk (and in fact lose) the backing of the majority to get a minority sect to join his support. He didn't get the majority to observe -- or even want to keep mitzvos (as per TSBP). :> Again, this is only a problem for you because you assume that the Rambam's :> chazaqah in 11:4 must be the reason for R' Aqiva and other tannaim :> followed BK. : What else could it be? He goes directly from saying that miracles : are not a requirement to listing what things *are* requirements. : Therefore he must have done those things. Requirements for building a chazaqah that the candidate is indeed moshiach. Which is a measure of confidence in BK the Rambam doesn't claim R' Aqiva and his generation reached -- they only reached as far as "hu hayah omer alav" and "vedimah hu". No mention of a chazaqah they were chayavim to follow; in fact, the lashon ("dimah") implied its lack. Chazaqah isn't imagination; it's a presumption strong enough to obligate our acting upon. : What's weak about it? They must have had a reason for this : imagination. What else but the chazaka? And if they thought he : hadn't yet reached that stage then how do we know miracles aren't : required to reach it? Miracles aren't required. Full stop. 12:1 could even be saying they are ruled out. "What else other than the chazaqah"? Indicators that are short of a chazaqah. Don't we follow umdena, ruba deleisa leqaman, and other notions of likelihood without going as far as having a chazaqah in a lot of halachic topics? : You're misreading it. It's not "din", it's *dein*. Dein hu malka : meshicha, this is the Annointed King. "Hadein hu"? Not that important for the main topic, since dimah isn't an expression I would picture the Rambam using for a mandatory following of a chazaqah. :> BTW, where does the Rambam get that "kol chakhmei doro" followed Bar :> Koziva? Is there any indication Rabban Gamliel ever did? R Yochanan b :> Torta replied (in an oft repeated line) "Aqiva, yaalu asavim belechaikh :> ve'adayin ben David lo ba." : He was the lone exception, or nearly so. Because *he* held that : the miracle of judging by smell *was* required, even at the : beginning. The Rambam paskens against him. That is against the stam bavli (in Sanhedrin 93b, quoted above), which says it's Rabbanan. ... : This makes no sense. Either the Rambam agrees with R Akiva's : criteria or he doesn't... Critria for what? I still find you mixing apples and oranges. He uses R' Aqiva's following of BK despite the lack of a chazaqah as proof that we too shouldn't wait for a miracle before following a likely moshiach. He used Shemu'el's position to rule out miracles (or to be generous, maybe only one kind of miracle) being part of the messianic dream altogether. Very consistent picture, IMHO. : In Chapter 12 he rules out not miracles but changes in nature. A : miracle doesn't change nature, it breaks the rules of nature... It is a bitul of something miminhago shel olam, albeit a temporary one. But I have consistently left open the door to saying he's only talking about a subset of miracles; those that leave the running of things changed. I don't find it likely that the Rambam's "yibatel davar" means only permanent bitul, doubly so since it would be redundant with the next line, "o yihyeh sham chidush bemaaseh bereishis". Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger People were created to be loved. micha at aishdas.org Things were created to be used. http://www.aishdas.org The reason why the world is in chaos is that Fax: (270) 514-1507 things are being loved, people are being used. From cantorwolberg at cox.net Wed Oct 18 06:37:17 2017 From: cantorwolberg at cox.net (Richard Wolberg) Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2017 09:37:17 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Interesting Insight on Noach Message-ID: <36805007-8186-42B4-9042-51439D2BB204@cox.net> It has always bothered me that Noah was considered the only righteous person (along with his family) and that everyone else was evil. However, just today as I was studying various commentaries, I came across the following amazing account in Tanchuma, R?eh, 3. From the moment that God gave the Torah, it is only he who sins that will be punished, though before that, the whole generation was responsible for the sin of the individual. Thus there were many righteous men swept away with the deluge in the time of Noah. Hence, since Noah was the ?most? righteous, he was spared although the other righteous were not, as a consequence of collective guilt at that time. rw Inside each of us, there is the seed of both good and evil. It's a constant struggle as to which one will win. And one cannot exist without the other. Eric Burdon > > ?If you live for people?s acceptance, you will > die from their rejection.? > Anonymous From zev at sero.name Wed Oct 18 07:43:32 2017 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2017 10:43:32 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Interesting Insight on Noach In-Reply-To: <36805007-8186-42B4-9042-51439D2BB204@cox.net> References: <36805007-8186-42B4-9042-51439D2BB204@cox.net> Message-ID: On 18/10/17 09:37, Richard Wolberg via Avodah wrote: > However, just today > as I was studying various commentaries, I came across the following amazing > account in Tanchuma, R?eh, 3. > > From the moment that God gave the Torah, it is only he who sins that will be punished, > though before that, the whole generation was responsible for the sin of the individual. > Thus there were many righteous men swept away with the deluge in the time of Noah. > Hence, since Noah was the ?most? righteous, he was spared although the other righteous > were not, as a consequence of collective guilt at that time. According to R Avin, what was Avraham's argument, "chalila lach"? If that had been Hashem's SOP for the past 2050 years, and would be for another 400, why didn't He just tell Avraham "Yes, this is how I do things"? -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From micha at aishdas.org Wed Oct 18 13:25:27 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2017 16:25:27 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Interesting Insight on Noach In-Reply-To: <36805007-8186-42B4-9042-51439D2BB204@cox.net> References: <36805007-8186-42B4-9042-51439D2BB204@cox.net> Message-ID: <20171018202527.GA27560@aishdas.org> On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 09:37:17AM -0400, Richard Wolberg via Avodah wrote: : ... account in Tanchuma, R?eh, 3: :> From the moment that God gave the Torah, it is only he who sins that will :> be punished, though before that, the whole generation was responsible :> for the sin of the individual. Thus there were many righteous men swept :> away with the deluge in the time of Noah. Hence, since Noah was the :> "most" righteous, he was spared although the other righteous were not, :> as a consequence of collective guilt at that time. The text is available at or The siman opens with quoting Eikhah 3:38, "miPi Elyon lo seitzei hara'os vehatov" and then immediately starts with this statement from R' Avin. However, the quote has that after Matan Torah, whomever sins, "HQBH poreia mimenu", and before that, the whole generation "meshaleim chet'o". Arguably this translation might be missing something by leaving the language of Hashem collecting, as though on a debt. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger One doesn't learn mussar to be a tzaddik, micha at aishdas.org but to become a tzaddik. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yisrael Salanter Fax: (270) 514-1507 From hankman at bell.net Wed Oct 18 08:12:50 2017 From: hankman at bell.net (hankman) Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2017 11:12:50 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] R. Akiva, Bar Kochba and Zecharya HaNovi Message-ID: <7B0712E6569740909873C2AD4F89F435@hankPC> R. Micha Berger wrote: ?This doesn't really rule out miracles, but it does rule out ones that leave a permanent change in the natural orer. There is a line. Which is how he rules out the historicity of "vegar ze'eiv im keves..." etc... They don't mearly "needn't" happen, he rules out the possibility of their literal meaning being part of the future, because they cross his line of olam keminhago noheig".? Kodem cheit Adam haReshon, not just Adam was only permitted to eat plant life but so too was the nature of ALL animals that they too only subsisted from plant life ? ie., much like "vegar ze'eiv im keves..." So perhaps olam keminhago noheig means keminhago KODEM HACHET without requiring any change to the ORIGINAL natural order. Kol tuv Chaim Manaster -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hankman at bell.net Wed Oct 18 08:44:50 2017 From: hankman at bell.net (hankman) Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2017 11:44:50 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] =?utf-8?q?=E2=80=9Cthe_miracle_of_judging_by_smell?= =?utf-8?q?=E2=80=9D_was__=28Re=3A__R=2E_Akiva=2C_Bar_Kochba_and_Ze?= =?utf-8?q?charya_HaNovi=29?= Message-ID: ?the miracle of judging by smell? Really should be a knew thread. When we learned this sugia recently in the daf yomi I asked the magid shiur that lechora this was keneged torah which requires eidim for most judgements. He answered that perhaps it means that one smell from Moshiach would be enough to get the person to be modeh al ha?emes. I replied that would only work for judgments in choshen mishpot (hodoas bal din) but not for cases involving arayos, malkos, or misah where two eidim are required and we are not permitted to accept his confession as ein adam meisim atzmo rasha. How would this ?miracle? allow for a proper halachik judgment? That is where we left it for now. Could this meimre of chazal be limited to just cases involving choshen mishpot? I imagine many meforshim address this issue, can anyone clarify? Kol tuv Chaim Manaster -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From JRich at sibson.com Wed Oct 18 08:48:56 2017 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2017 15:48:56 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Shliach Tzibbur Message-ID: <5b1d039d5958444d94f6c90a4607ee17@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> The S"A in O"C 53 discusses what to look for in a Shliach Tzibbur. We seem to not fully actualize these recommendations (rationalizations include the fact that he is no longer being motzi those who can't pray). Do you think this result is sociological or halachic driven? Does an individual (e.g., avel) who pushes to be a shatz, etc., when there are more qualified individuals (or especially if they are not qualified), accomplish more good or bad? See especially Aruch Hashulchan 53:5. KT 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: From micha at aishdas.org Wed Oct 18 14:25:50 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2017 17:25:50 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] R. Akiva, Bar Kochba and Zecharya HaNovi In-Reply-To: <7B0712E6569740909873C2AD4F89F435@hankPC> References: <7B0712E6569740909873C2AD4F89F435@hankPC> Message-ID: <20171018212550.GB27560@aishdas.org> On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 11:12:50AM -0400, hankman via Avodah wrote: : R. Micha Berger wrote: :> This doesn't really rule out miracles, but it does rule out ones that :> leave a permanent change in the natural order. There is a line. Which is :> how he rules out the historicity of "vegar ze'eiv im keves..." etc... ... : Kodem cheit Adam haReshon, not just Adam was only permitted to eat plant : life but so too was the nature of ALL animals that they too only subsisted : from plant life -- ie., much like "vegar ze'eiv im keves..." I doubt the Rambam, the "he" I am trying to understand in the text you quoted, would agree with this premise about animals before the eitz hada'as. On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 11:44:50AM -0400, hankman via Avodah wrote: :> the miracle of judging by smell : Really should be a new thread. : When we learned this sugia recently in the daf yomi I asked the magid : shiur that lechora this was keneged torah which requires eidim for : most judgements. He answered that perhaps it means that one smell from : Moshiach would be enough to get the person to be modeh al ha'emes.... I think it HAS to be be its own thread, because this too works with assumptions the Rambam would not agree with. Odds are the Rambam wouldn't take "demorach" literally. See Lecham Yehudah on Hil' Melakhim 11:3, aveilable at . But to get back on topic to the original thread (which is why I'm posting it here): Notice that the BLY (R Yehudah Iyash, Levorno mid-18th cent) assumes that such guilt-smelling would defy the Rambam's "chidush bema'aseh bereishis" rule, and thus couldn't be literal. Even though it's a localized miracle / revelation and not a permanent change in the natural order. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Every child comes with the message micha at aishdas.org that God is not yet discouraged with http://www.aishdas.org humanity. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rabindranath Tagore From jmeisner at mail.gmail.com Wed Oct 18 15:38:14 2017 From: jmeisner at mail.gmail.com (Joshua Meisner) Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2017 18:38:14 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] "the miracle of judging by smell" was (Re: R. Akiva, Bar Kochba and Zecharya HaNovi) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7C3544D0-F571-4A7C-B067-FDC0308CBD65@gmail.com> On Oct 18, 2017, at 11:44am, hankman wrote: > When we learned this sugia recently in the daf yomi I asked the magid > shiur that lechora this was keneged torah which requires eidim for > most judgements. He answered that perhaps it means that one smell from > Moshiach would be enough to get the person to be modeh al ha'emes. I > replied that would only work for judgments in choshen mishpot (hodoas > bal din) but not for cases involving arayos, malkos, or misah where two > eidim are required and we are not permitted to accept his confession as > ein adam meisim atzmo rasha... Reaching a correct psak in any area of halacha requires obtaining a full picture of the situation, including all relevant details and the particular context. This requires that the posek have skill in asking questions that will clarify these points and recognizing when, intentionally or not, the answers he is receiving do not reflect the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Perhaps it is this sense that the navi is referring to. Joshua Meisner From hankman at bell.net Wed Oct 18 15:58:01 2017 From: hankman at bell.net (hankman) Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2017 18:58:01 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] =?utf-8?q?=E2=80=9Cthe_miracle_of_judging_by_smell?= =?utf-8?q?=E2=80=9D_was__=28Re=3A__R=2E_Akiva=2C_Bar_Kochba_and_Ze?= =?utf-8?q?charya_HaNovi=29?= Message-ID: <83ADB68D660C4A8BA5E0F3D19339FF76@hankPC> R. J. Meisner wrote: ? Reaching a correct psak in any area of halacha requires obtaining a full picture of the situation, including all relevant details and the particular context. This requires that the posek have skill in asking questions that will clarify these points and recognizing when, intentionally or not, the answers he is receiving do not reflect the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Perhaps it is this sense that the navi is referring to. Joshua Meisner? But no matter how skilled the judge is at getting at the truth, even if all he need so is be moreiach, this still does not lessen the requirement of 2 eidim for many judgments. While reading your response to me, another thought occurred to me and upon reflection it may be that this is also what you meant. Perhaps when the gemara stated that he can be moreaiach veda?in that the gemara meant not that he would only need to question the defendant, and could smell whether he is guilty or not and pasken based on the surety of his conclusion, but perhaps the gemara meant that when questioning the EIDIM he was able merely smell them and then judge the credibility of the eidim whether he should accept them as credible or not and thus pasken the case accordingly. Kol tuv Chaim Manaster -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hankman at bell.net Wed Oct 18 15:44:42 2017 From: hankman at bell.net (hankman) Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2017 18:44:42 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] R. Akiva, Bar Kochba and Zecharya HaNovi Message-ID: <36062433D0904BE5ABD5156C727C7A6D@hankPC> R. Micha Berger wrote: ?I doubt the Rambam, the "he" I am trying to understand in the text you quoted, would agree with this premise about animals before the eitz hada'as.? So how does the Rambam explain Bereishis 1:30? Kol tuv Chaim Manaster -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From akivagmiller at gmail.com Thu Oct 19 02:47:09 2017 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2017 05:47:09 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Torah precheit? Message-ID: . R' Chaim Manaster asked: > I have been trying to understand what the geshtalt of Torah > was precheit of the eitz hadaas. It could not have resembled > anything that we ( I ) would recognize today. Consider: > There was but one mitzva. Most if not all the mitzvos of the > Torah we are familiar with could not have existed, at least > as we understand them today. Had Adam been successful in his > one day tafkid the purpose of the bria would have been > accomplished and Adam (mankind) would have gone to olom haba > ? mission accomplished nothing more to follow but for reward > in olom haba. > > The many consequences seem to be as follows: there would be > no avdus in Mitzrayim, therefore no ... ... One can ask similar questions about other turning-points in history. What if Kayin had not killed Hevel? What if the world has not gone to Avodah Zara a few generations later? What if Yishmael and/or Esav had not gone of the derech? What if Moshe Rabenu had acted differently by the rock? I believe that people are too hung up on the idea that "Torah" and the Chumash are identical. They are not. "The Torah has 70 faces", and ONE of them is the written scroll that we read from in shul. Another is the Torah Sheb'al Peh. Another was that one singular mitzvah that Adam HaRishon was given. None is less holy than any other. They are but different facets of the same diamond. And there are yet others. Torah manifests itself differently to a kohen than to a levi, and differently to a woman than to a man. And so on. For example: > As there would never be an Eretz Yisroel, then there would not > be all the mitzvot hateltuot ba?aretz ? trumos, masros etc., etc. Or perhaps Gan Eden would have had that status. Eretz Yisrael is actually a great example: Consider the idea that true nevuah can exist only in Eretz Yisrael. But also consider that this restriction only started when EY got its kedushah - prior to that point one could have nevuah elsewhere too. Logically, I would think that the kedusha of EY enabled this thing that couldn't exist without such intense kedusha; but counter-intuitively, this thing that has long existed is now suddenly restricted to a specific area. Because times change, and people change; the Torah stays the same but it shows a different face. We are so used to how things are today, that we think things have always been this way. But it ain't so. > So what is the nature of Torah in such a world. How do we > see it as an ever constant ever present and unchanging > Torah? How does a Torah with but ONE mitzva look? How does > it still identify with a Torah with 613 mitzvot? There are many mitzvos that apply only at specifc times and under specific circumstances. Consider the back-and-forth of when bamos were allowed and not allowed. We went for quite a few centuries with choosing a human king. I am deliberately trying to avoid mitzvos that have sociological criteria, like the existence of a Sanhedrin, or whether or not we are capable of tochacha. Rather, my point goes to this "Torah with 613 mitzvot" that you refer to. It doesn't exist today, and I don't know if it ever has existed. There has certainly never been a person to whom they all applied, and I wonder whether there was ever a generation when they were all in force. > Sorry if my thoughts were very rambling. I just typed as > things came to mind ? maybe not always a good idea! On the contrary, brainstorming is often a fruitful way of developing new thoughts! Personally, it was many decades ago that someone asked me, "If there is life on other planets, might they possibly have a Torah? But Mitzrayim doesn't exist there, and Moshe never lived there!" That question bothered me for a very long time, until I realized that even on *this* planet, Noach had his version of Torah, and that was centuries before Mitzrayim or Moshe came to be. (To conflate two threads, I think what I'm saying here is very similar to what R"n Lisa Liel wrote in the "eitz hachaim" thread. These things aren't static; their roles change to fit the situation.) Akiva Miller From zev at sero.name Wed Oct 18 20:54:50 2017 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2017 23:54:50 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] =?utf-8?q?=E2=80=9Cthe_miracle_of_judging_by_smell?= =?utf-8?q?=E2=80=9D_was_=28Re=3A_R=2E_Akiva=2C_Bar_Kochba_and_Zecharya_Ha?= =?utf-8?q?Novi=29?= In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <209038db-6620-b1cf-4e52-1b093803ac7d@sero.name> On 18/10/17 11:44, hankman via Avodah wrote: > ?the miracle of judging by smell? > Really should be a knew thread. > When we learned this sugia recently in the daf yomi I asked the magid > shiur that lechora this was keneged torah which requires eidim for most > judgements. Moshiach is a melech, and not bound by the rules of a beis din. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From micha at aishdas.org Wed Oct 18 19:40:28 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2017 22:40:28 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] R. Akiva, Bar Kochba and Zecharya HaNovi In-Reply-To: <36062433D0904BE5ABD5156C727C7A6D@hankPC> References: <36062433D0904BE5ABD5156C727C7A6D@hankPC> Message-ID: <20171019024028.GB20212@aishdas.org> On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 06:44:42PM -0400, hankman via Avodah wrote: : R. Micha Berger wrote: :> I doubt the Rambam, the "he" I am trying to understand in the text :> you quoted, would agree with this premise about animals before the :> eitz hada'as. : So how does the Rambam explain Bereishis 1:30? Well, if you look at Moreh 1:30, you'll see that the Rambam considers maaseh bereishis to be atemporal, 6 logical stages of unfolding of reality, not steps separated in time. So I don't know if I should assume anything about how he reads pasuq 30. But I do note that if taken literally, the pasuq merely says that Hashem gave the plants to the animals for food. A statement about one of the functions of plantsl and that Adam can't hord all the plants for himself, since animals need it too. It needn't mean that only plants served a food. The statement from Chazal (quoted by Rashi) is a derashah. The Ohr haChaim spends time justifying it, if you want to see the medrashic steps in detail. But it's not peshat, and therefore not necessarily the Rambam would take literally. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger There's only one corner of the universe micha at aishdas.org you can be certain of improving, http://www.aishdas.org and that's your own self. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Aldous Huxley From zev at sero.name Wed Oct 18 21:51:32 2017 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2017 00:51:32 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Interesting Insight on Noach In-Reply-To: <2E736CF9-84CD-41DB-9963-8E38B681DC20@cox.net> References: <36805007-8186-42B4-9042-51439D2BB204@cox.net> <2E736CF9-84CD-41DB-9963-8E38B681DC20@cox.net> Message-ID: <18439702-d4ae-0f50-3350-a8b5cd433fb5@sero.name> On 18/10/17 11:09, Richard Wolberg wrote: > What I?m saying is that our theology is fraught with inconsistencies and > contradictions > and we have plenty of ?teikusl? ?You?re a black and white person and > don?t see shades. > Not everything can be reconciled. Impossible. Toras Hashem Temima, and can't contradict itself. If there are two pesukim that seem to contradict each other, there's a third pasuk that resolves it and makes sense of both. It's not possible that R Avin was unaware of Avraham's statement, nor is it possible that he would dismiss Avraham's view as mistaken. Therefore there must be something in R Avin's view that's not what it appears. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From JRich at sibson.com Fri Oct 20 05:37:21 2017 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2017 12:37:21 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] empiricism Message-ID: <17851b0cb6514f5a8fac7543e7d86493@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Rabbi Jason Weiner's, "Jewish Guide to Practical Medical Decision-Making" - "The Talmudic sages performed post-mortem examinations and had considerable knowledge of anatomy and pathology. Indeed, the rabbis of the Talmud were among the first people in history to operate on corpses in order to learn medical information that had halakhic ramifications. See Tosefta Niddah 4:17, Niddah 30b, bekhorot 45A . . ". Wiki s- Initially, the Ancient Greek philosophers did not believe in empiricism, and saw measurements, such as geometry, as the domain of craftsmen and artisans. Philosophers, such as Plato, believed that all knowledge could be obtained through pure reasoning, and that there was no need to actually go out and measure anything. Please look at the three sources quoted by R'Weiner, are they support or really maaseh lstormaaseh l'stor as to a general approach? Kt 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: From emteitz at gmail.com Fri Oct 20 14:49:21 2017 From: emteitz at gmail.com (elazar teitz) Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2017 17:49:21 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] the miracle of judging by smell Message-ID: On this topic, the comment was made that "Moshiach is a melech, and not bound by the rules of a beis din." However, other than moreid b'malchus, this is only true for r'tzicha, not other capital punishment cases, as is indicated in Rambam Hilchos M'lachim 3:10 (as it is understood by most m'farshim). EMT -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From isaac at balb.in Sat Oct 21 04:07:43 2017 From: isaac at balb.in (Isaac Balbin) Date: Sat, 21 Oct 2017 11:07:43 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] ?the miracle of judging by smell? was (Re: R. Akiva, Bar Kochba and Zecharya HaNovi) Message-ID: From: Zev Sero > > On 18/10/17 11:44, hankman via Avodah wrote: >> When we learned this sugia recently in the daf yomi I asked the magid >> shiur that lechora this was keneged torah which requires eidim for most >> judgements. Zev responded > Moshiach is a melech, and not bound by the rules of a beis din. Indeed. His position therefore also invalidates Moshiach from being a formal witness, although that's clearly not for trust/smell issues. From micha at aishdas.org Sun Oct 22 07:20:34 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2017 10:20:34 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Long Lifespans in Bereishis Message-ID: <20171022142033.GA669@aishdas.org> Our old chaver R' Rich Wolpoe posted this article by R/Dr Mitchell First. It's a nice survey of opinions about all those long lifespans in seifer Bereishis : NishmaBlog From RRW Guest Blogger: Mitchell First Thursday, 19 October 2017 The Long Lifespans in Genesis The Longevity of the Ancients Recorded in Genesis ... Josephus (late 1st century). Here is his statement in Antiquities, book I: " ...For, in the first place, they were beloved of God and the creatures of God himself; their diet too was more conducive to longevity: it was then natural that they should live so long. Again, alike for their merits and to promote the utility of their discoveries in astronomy and geometry, God would accord them a longer life...." Now I will survey the views of our Geonim and Rishonim. R. Saadiah Gaon (10th cent.) discusses this issue in his introduction to Tehillim. He writes that the longevity of these early generations was part of God's plan for the rapid proliferation of mankind on the earth..... R. Yehudah Ha-Levi (12th cent.) discusses the issue in the Kuzari (sec. 95). He believes that it was only the individuals listed who lived long. Each of the individuals listed was the heart and essence of his generation and was physically and spiritually perfect. The Divine Flow was transmitted from one generation to another through these exceptional individuals. Rambam, in a famous passage in the Guide to the Perplexed (II, chap. 47) writes: "I say that only the persons named lived so long, whilst other people enjoyed the ordinary length of life. The men named were exceptions, either in consequence of different causes, as e.g., their food or mode of living, or by way of miracle." Ramban (comm. to Gen. 5:4) quotes Rambam's view and then disagrees, ... individuals with long lifespans named in the Bible were not exceptional in their lifespans. Rather, the entire world had long lifespans before the Flood. But after the Flood, the world atmosphere changed and this caused the gradual reduction in lifespans. Most of the Rishonim who discussed the issue thereafter followed the approach of either the Rambam or the Ramban. Either way, they were taking the Genesis lifespan numbers literally. (An underlying factor that motivated Rishonim to accept the Genesis lifespan numbers literally was that the count from creation was calculated based on these numbers.) Josephus had mentioned that one of the reasons that God allowed their longevity was to promote the utility of their discoveries in astronomy and geometry. This idea of longevity to enable the acquisition of knowledge and make discoveries (and write them to be passed down) is also included in several of our Rishonim. See, e.g., the commentary of the Radak to Gen. 5:4 and of the Ralbag to Gen. chap. 5 (p. 136), and the Rashbatz (R. Shimon b. Tzemach Duran, Magen Avot, comm. to Avot 5:21). Rashbatz also mentions the idea that the early generations were close in time to Adam and Adam ... was made by God from the earth.... Another idea found in some of our Rishonim is that those early individuals did not chase after "ta'avat ha-guf," which reduces the lifespan. See, e.g., the commentary of the Radak to Gen. 5:4. ... ... R. Moses Ibn Tibbon (late 13th cent.) He suggests that the years given for people's lives were actually the years of "malkhutam ve-nimuseihim," i.e., the dynasties and/or customs that they established. ... R. Levi ben Hayyim (early 14th cent.).... concludes that in his opinion the names mentioned were just roshei avot. In other words, the number of years given for each individual reflects the total of the years of the several generations of individuals named for that first individual. R. Nissim of Marseilles (early 14th century) ... took the same approach as R. Moses Ibn Tibbon. The numbers ... included the total years of the descendants who followed his customs and lifestyle. The most interesting approach I saw was that of R. Eleazar Ashkenazi ben Nathan ha-Bavli (14th century), in his work Tzafnat Paneach, pp. 29-30. ... First, R. Eleazar refers to the view that perhaps the individual numbers were not to be taken literally, and points to other statements in the Torah that were not meant to be taken literally, e.g., 1) the Land of Israel was "flowing with milk and honey," and 2) the cities in Canaan were "fortified up to the Heaven" (Deut. 1:28). (See further Moreh Nevuchim, II,47.) But then R. Eleazar suggests the following creative approach. In listing these individual numbers, the Torah was merely recording the legends about these figures, even though they were not accurate. The important thing was to provide data from which the total years from Creation to Matan Torah could be derived, so that the people would be able to know the length of time between these two periods. Even though the numbers for the individual lifespans were not accurate, the Torah made sure that the total that would be arrived at would be accurate.... ... Prof. Natan Aviezer of Bar-Ilan University.... in a post at the Bar Ilan University weekly parshah site for parshat Noach, 1998... explains that modern science has figured out that aging is largely caused by genes, and not by a wearing out of our bodies. He then suggests that when God stated at Gen. 6:3 that man would be limited to 120 years, this was when God first introduced the gene for aging into the human gene pool. If you have not found any of the above answers satisfying, I have some good news. R. Saadiah Gaon writes (Emunot Ve-Deot, end of chap. 7) that in the era of the redemption the human lifespan will be approximately 500 years. Presumably, at that time we won't be bothered by those long lifespans in Genesis anymore! (Note that Radak, comm. to Is. 65:20, is a bit stingier. He predicts lifespans of only 300 to 500 years. See also his commentary to Ps. 92:15. But the 12th century Babylonian Gaon R. Samuel b. Ali predicts lifespans closer to 1000 years!) I would like to acknowledge that most of the material above came from an article by Prof. Daniel Lasker of Ben-Gurion University, in Mechkarim Be-Halakha U-Be-Mishpat Ha-Ivri, vol. 26-27 (2009-10). Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger I slept and dreamt that life was joy. micha at aishdas.org I awoke and found that life was duty. http://www.aishdas.org I worked and, behold -- duty is joy. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rabindranath Tagore From micha at aishdas.org Sun Oct 22 09:13:16 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2017 12:13:16 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Beris Milah on Shabbos when Father isn't Jewish Message-ID: <20171022161316.GA32328@aishdas.org> I mentioned in the past I had this question halakhah lemaaseh. I knew of an intermarried couple who lived nowhere near the nearest Jewish community. They would have just had the boy circumcized in the hospital rather than to pay what one of the nearer mohalim wanted to come down for the weekend. Yes, the nearest Chabad house had a mohel, who (of course) would come at cost... IFF he hadn't had a beris in his own minhan that same Shabbos. So the question I asked was whether I should donate (or raise donations) for the beris to be bizmano. My LOR asked his rav... long story short, as I best remember at a little more than two decades later: The pasuq says "bayom hashemini yimol besar arlaso" -- it's the father who is told "on the eight day", even if it's on Shabbos. Implied: If the father has no chiyuv, such as our case or if r"l the father didn't survive to see his son's beris, there is no one whose chiyuv overrides Shabbos. (If the father is alive but not there, you'd still violate Shabbos.) Well, someone asked R' Asher Weiss. . He didn't rule the same way, but does mention that is -- or at least was -- a machloqes amoraim. However, RAW holds a consensus has emerged to do the beris. Perhaps RDC didn't think the consensus was solid enough to warrant my spending or raising that kind of money for someone else's beris. Or perhaps it was closer to the way I remembered it and RDC doesn't agree with how the consensus emerged. Brit mila on Shabbos when father is non Jew Posted by: Rabbi Akiva Dershowitz Question: Does everyone agree that a brit is done on Shabbat even if the father is a goy? ... Answer: No, this is a dispute among the achronim [halachic authorities of the last 500 years]. The halachic ruling is that we do in fact perform the bris mila on Shabbos. See Derisha Y:D 266:20, Nachalas Shiva [kuntress hamila siman 1], Shu't Binyan Tzion [Vol. 1:21]. The nearest I could find in Hebrew (as the Hebrew always has more discussion) is "Beris beShabbos leVen Me'uberes sheNisgayrah" at . There the question is whether the velad's milah is a normal beris or lesheim geirus, and RAW still holds the milah should be on Shabbos. It's a fun sugya, worth a read. But doesn't focus on our question. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger You cannot propel yourself forward micha at aishdas.org by patting yourself on the back. http://www.aishdas.org -Anonymous Fax: (270) 514-1507 From hankman at bell.net Sun Oct 22 13:15:49 2017 From: hankman at bell.net (hankman) Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2017 16:15:49 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Torah precheit? Message-ID: <39266980A1C24F078B1904F1783BA1C0@hankPC> R. Akiva Miller wrote: ?One can ask similar questions about other turning-points in history. What if Kayin had not killed Hevel? What if the world has not gone to Avodah Zara a few generations later? What if Yishmael and/or Esav had not gone of the derech? What if Moshe Rabenu had acted differently by the rock?? Actually I had thoughts along similar lines that you express. The most prominent such turning point was the cheit ha?eigel, where again, had they succeeded, that again would have been the end for man?s tafkid and correction the cheit of Adam, direct route to eretz Yisroel, no forty years in the midbar and presumably Moshe R. would have been the final moshiach and on to the final gemul. The reason these two stick in my mind more than the other forks in history you point to, is that these would have been endpoints to the tafkid in this world and led directly to olom haba with no continuation of the ?Torah? story we are familiar with. The moments in history you point to would have been forks in the road but not endpoints. So if say Esau/Yishmoel had made good choices and been more like his brother Yaakov/Yitzchok, the story would have had a different twist to it, but the overall gestalt to the Torah could still have been quite similar. What we have now, with some changes. But we would have no problem imagining all (perhaps most) of the mitzvos as we know them. These two, cheit of Adam and cheit ha?eigel, were fundamentally different than the other ?forks? in the road as what we know to have followed would never happen. So Regalim, and avdus in Mitzrayim, etc, etc are ideas that seem not to have a place in such a reality had Adam succeeded while the other forks would have led to a variation on a theme we are familiar with and can at least readily imagine. The idea you mention of ?70 panim latorah? would have to be expanded greatly if for every fork on the possible choices made in the biblical period (by this I mean the time through the end of the forty years bamidbar that were recorded in chumash). If every possible choice made at every fork (say N) resulted in a diff version of Torah, then that would result in 2 to the N panim laTorah ? with N being very large! Perhaps 70 is just a synonym for ?many?? When we say that there are 70 umos, I always wondered how that was defined, as it seems to me that there are many more and that the number would change for different periods in history. If 70 here too means ?many? that would clear that up. But then the precise number of 70 for the parei hachag might be a problem unless for some reason that may have been fixed symbolically, or perhaps to coincide with the original number at some early point in history as say per the list of the 70 nations Art Scroll makes in its chumash at the end of this weeks parsha (Noach). Basically it is a listing of certain of the names of descendants of Noach. Have you ever heard of a nation called Ever (or most of the other names they list)? So is the ?essence? of Torah something beyond our ken. Is all we can see just a single facet of the 70 panim laTorah? (This of course is not the normal meaning to 70 panim laTorah, which usually is applied to differing explanations to our ?current? Torah, and not the other ?possible? ?Toros? as you are suggesting. Is this so far off the beaten path that this might even be an accidental trip into thought that might be apikursus or a credible notion within the daas? (Torah lo yehai moochlefes). I have no idea! R. Akiva Miller wrote: ?Torah manifests itself differently to a kohen than to a levi, and differently to a woman than to a man.? There is a fundamental difference between a mitzvoh only applying to some vs the concept not existing. Even if I am a Yisroel I can still be oseik in torah of the mitvos of a cohen ? it is still a part of Torah given to all of us even if not all of it pertains to me. R. Akiva Miller wrote: ?Or perhaps Gan Eden would have had that status.? I actually had a thought similar to yours as well on this idea. When I thought a little more about it, I had difficulty putting it all together. so what kind of meaning would trummos and massros have. What would orlo mean. Without aniyim, what is the point of leket shichacha upei?a? (or tzedaka in general, or even more broadly of gemila chasadim in such a world?) The mitzvos hatelyuous ba?aretz only make sense in an agricultural society, not in a world of olam haba where there are no farmers or farms. No need for orei miklat in a world without a yetzer. On another thought, would the notion of baal tigra in the world of only one mitzva leave you with no mitvos at all? That would make one a kofer bekol haTorah koola? Also there would be no need for lo tassur yamin usemol for gezeirot derabanan in such a world (though perhaps it might have stopped Chava if such a takana existed to protect the only mitzvoh they had). R. Akiva Miller wrote: ?"If there is life on other planets, might they possibly have a Torah? But Mitzrayim doesn't exist there, and Moshe never lived there!" That question bothered me for a very long time,? Strangely enough, I had similar thoughts years back. As a young bachur in yeshivo, my rebbi was teaching us that their was a period during which the progenitor of kelal Yisroel would happen. I asked what would have happened if there had been another deep thinker who came to the same realization and belief that Avraham did. He answered that there would have been two (or more) chosen peoples to eventually be mekabel Torah. It didn?t occur to me at the time to ask, would they each have the ?same? Torah or each get a tailored version to their (eventual) am? Or, would there be one Torah that talks of both of the chosen peoples? Years later when discussing what is the purpose to us of the trillions of stars and galaxies so distant that they could never possibly affect us here on Earth? Then it occurred to me, what if those stars had planets with intelligent beings on them and they too went through a similar period wherein they too had some allien being come to the same conclusions as Avraham did and they then became the chosen people of that planet and received a Torah possibly tailored to their experiences and appropriate there etc.? This almost makes sense of the questions the malachim asked Moshe when he went lamorom to accept Torah. They too wanted Torah in a version suitable to them which would deflect all of Moshe?s responses. If memory serves, I think some meforshim try to make sense of the malachim in such a manner. Just some more rambling thoughts. Kol tuv Chaim Manaster -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hankman at bell.net Sun Oct 22 23:25:10 2017 From: hankman at bell.net (hankman) Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2017 02:25:10 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] =?utf-8?q?=E2=80=9Cthe_miracle_of_judging_by_smell?= =?utf-8?q?=E2=80=9D_was_=28Re=3A_R=2E_Akiva=2C_Bar_Kochba_and_Zech?= =?utf-8?q?arya_HaNovi=29?= Message-ID: <7D7387F31006477FA724C733A37A100B@hankPC> R. Zev Sero wrote: ?Moshiach is a melech, and not bound by the rules of a beis din.? You are obviously referring to Rambam, Melachim P. 3: 8, 10. However this refers to judgments that are within the scope of the Melech such as a moreid, or letakein ha?olom kefi ma shehasho?o tzricha. This does not however give him the right to usurp ordinary judgments that normally would fall to a beis din (and disregard such niceties as eidus that the Torah requires), unless he is the av beis din (possible for malchei beis Dovid) and does follow the rules of Torah for eidus like any other beis din and does not simply follow his nose in these judgments. Furthermore, in the category of cases like moreid and shehasho?o tzricha, all the Melech needs to do is simply assert his position as he feels correct for ANY Melech ? he does not even need the power of moreiach veda?in to prove his position. So mimonafshoch, in either case he either may not, or has no need of the power to be moreiach veda?in. Kol tuv Chaim Manaster -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Mon Oct 23 13:16:56 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2017 16:16:56 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] =?cp1255?q?=93the_miracle_of_judging_by_smell=94_was_?= =?cp1255?q?=28Re=3A_R=2E_Akiva=2C_Bar_Kochba_and_Zecharya_HaNovi=29?= In-Reply-To: <7D7387F31006477FA724C733A37A100B@hankPC> References: <7D7387F31006477FA724C733A37A100B@hankPC> Message-ID: <20171023201656.GA13749@aishdas.org> On Mon, Oct 23, 2017 at 02:25:10AM -0400, hankman via Avodah wrote: : . Furthermore, : in the category of cases like moreid and shehasho'o tzricha, all the : Melech needs to do is simply assert his position as he feels correct : for ANY Melech -- he does not even need the power of moreiach veda'in to : prove his position. So mimonafshoch, in either case he either may not, : or has no need of the power to be moreiach veda'in. If I understood the Rambam this way: It would be good to have a king who knows with certainty which dinim need shoring up because he can smell that their violation is rampant. Or, in determining the convicted's guilt: Let's say some sin became common place, and hasha'ah zerikhah that the king enforce a capital punishment for it. But say I understand him as per REMT's post, noting that in 3:10 the Rambam singles out the king's power to kill murderers (eg without hasda'ah, where there was only eid echad, etc...) -- implying that retzichah yes, other issurim, the king could not. (Mikelal lav...) 3:8 really only discussed rebellion and lesse majeste (moreid bemekeh and mevazeh es hamelekh o hamchorfo). I don't see hasha'ah tzeikhah in the Rambam; I'm taking your word for it. Still, I can ask the parallel question: Wouldn't if be far far better if the melekh hamashiach had a supernal ability to know who is really guilty, and not kill the wrong guy? He might not legally need the power, but it would be a good thing for a king to have in order to be effective and fair. So I'm not sure your argument holds. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Every child comes with the message micha at aishdas.org that God is not yet discouraged with http://www.aishdas.org humanity. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rabindranath Tagore From micha at aishdas.org Mon Oct 23 18:51:25 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2017 21:51:25 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] No Barrier Between Religion and Science Message-ID: <20171024015125.GA13043@aishdas.org> See this article on Real Clear Science or http://www.realclearscience.com/articles/2017/10/16/philosophy_rebuts_key_barrier_between_science_and_religion_110422.htmlh Here is Mosaic Magazine's snippet: Kuhn's [argument] is that students learn first by imitation and practice and -- assuming they receive a good education -- once they strike out on their own, they will have been successfully inculcated into a particular scientific tradition. They will thus be prepared to recognize, pose, and solve scientific problems. If we take tradition to be antithetical to scientific rationality, Kuhn's conclusions will appear disquieting. And, indeed, Kuhn's critics rejected his arguments as "irrationalist." But if, on the contrary, we take tradition to be essential to rationality, then Kuhn's conclusions will be not only acceptable but also unsurprising. According to the moral philosopher Alasdair MacIntyre, before we can begin to reason at all, we must first acquire the habits necessary to recognize and, ultimately, to replicate rational behavior. To do so, there must first be exemplars that we take to be authoritative -- in the moral domain these will be exceptionally virtuous people, in the scientific domain, exceptionally good scientists. To become rational, in other words, one must be educated within a tradition of inquiry. Science, on this view, is not Cartesian -- at least as far as [the rejection of received ideas] is concerned -- even if it remains eminently rational. Where does this leave us?... [T]he fact that religious beliefs are not entirely reducible to empirical experience and partly depend upon tradition doesn't make them irrational or even anti-scientific. Thus a popular way of opposing science and religion starts to look untenable. This hardly means the two become indistinguishable. But it does suggest that science and religion could be conceived of as distinct -- but possibly harmonious, even sometimes mutually beneficial -- traditions of rational inquiry. The truth is that science has little to say about where a hypothesis come from. It gives little guidance for deciding what features are worth observing, what we should give our attention to. And once we see a pattern that needs explanation, it is left to human creativity to come up with a hypothesis. Science is a means of weeding out subjectivity from possible answers, but the means of coming up with those answers are very human. In particular, the entire enteprise of science rests on a tradition of theism -- whether the personal beliefs of an Aristotle or Newton, or the culture that produced an Einstein. Without a personal reason for assuming that the universe opperates reasonably, rather than attributing lightning to Thor's or Zeus's moods, can that hypothesis invention get started. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Good decisions come from experience; micha at aishdas.org Experience comes from bad decisions. http://www.aishdas.org - Djoha, from a Sepharadi fable Fax: (270) 514-1507 From hankman at bell.net Mon Oct 23 20:57:36 2017 From: hankman at bell.net (hankman) Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2017 23:57:36 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] "the miracle of judging by smell" was (Re: R. Akiva, Bar Kochba and Zecharya HaNovi) In-Reply-To: <20171023201656.GA13749@aishdas.org> References: <7D7387F31006477FA724C733A37A100B@hankPC> <20171023201656.GA13749@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <7FA394F42CCE44ECBB668DFA42362B96@hankPC> From: Micha Berger Sent: Monday, October 23, 2017 4:16 PM > But say I understand him as per REMT's post, noting that in 3:10 the > Rambam singles out the king's power to kill murderers (eg without > hasda'ah, where there was only eid echad, etc...) -- implying that > retzichah yes, other issurim, the king could not. (Mikelal lav...) > 3:8 really only discussed rebellion and lesse majeste (moreid bemekeh > and mevazeh es hamelekh o hamchorfo). I don't see hasha'ah tzeikhah in > the Rambam; I'm taking your word for it. Still, I can ask the parallel > question: > Wouldn't if be far far better if the melekh hamashiach had a supernal > ability to know who is really guilty, and not kill the wrong guy? > He might not legally need the power, but it would be a good thing for a > king to have in order to be effective and fair. My own initial impression unlike REMT is that the Rambam in 3:10 was not limiting this to only rotzeach, but dealing with case of max punishment or similar punishment and kal vechomer for cases of lesser punishment, however on rereading the Rambam after reading REMT I can see his point of view, but I am not sure I am fully convinced. I did a quick look around and found that the Or Sameiach on the Rambam at 3:10 has a long discussion on this issue as to whether the melech only has this power for a rotzeach where it is a danger to the rabim but not to enforce laxity of bein adam lamokom such as dinei shabbos, or if there was a breach even in these other areas whether the melech could act extra judicially there as well. There is a reference to a Y. Sanhedrin that implies that Dovid hamelech wold have executed for mishkav behama al pi eid echod -- so not just rotzeiach. See also the Rambam H. Rotzeiach P 2:4-5 where he broadens this extra judicial power to beis din as well but under horoas sha'o rather than takonas olam. (Not sure if the different label implies a difference in the respective extra judicial powers or not). See the Kesef Mishna there who mentions a case of chilul Shabbos. My simple reading there is that the Rambam seem to equate the reach of the extra judicial power of b"d to that of the melech to punish when found necessary either due to horo'as shao or takonas olam respectively. (Not clear to me if the different reasons lead to a different scope or not). But it seems that yeish lekan veyeish lekan. I hear your point about moreiach being a good reassurance that his pesak is correct even if not really necessary to render his judgment. Kol tuv Chaim Manaster From micha at aishdas.org Tue Oct 24 06:38:55 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2017 09:38:55 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Psak source wanted In-Reply-To: <1857240052.122258.1508054451353@mail.yahoo.com> References: <1857240052.122258.1508054451353.ref@mail.yahoo.com> <1857240052.122258.1508054451353@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20171024133855.GB25244@aishdas.org> On Sun, Oct 15, 2017 at 08:00:51AM +0000, Motti Yarchinai via Avodah wrote: : It is similar to what the Rambam wrote in Hilchot Kiddush Hachodesh, : saying that in all calendric matters, we follow the lead of the chachmei : eretz yisrael, and even though the anshei hagolah know the calculations : used by them, it is not on our own calculations that we rely, we only : use those calculations because we know that they are the same as the : calculations used by the chachmei eretz yisrael... : Another posek (possibly the Tifferet Yisrael in Shvilei Harakia, but : I'm not sure of that), writes something similar... Did you ever find a source? Google, Bar Ilan and I didn't turn anything up. In practice, we follow the calculations of R' Saaadia Gaon, who was in Aleppo at the time, and not R Aaron Ben-Meir in Y-m ih"q. The big debate of 922 was the topic of an article by RYGB and RAZZ reposted here . The Rambam (Qiddush haChodesh 1:8) limits the authority to someone in EY ("ki miTzion teitzei Sorah...") or if the one clearly most able to do it received semichah in EY, he can continue setting the months and ibur shanos in chu"l -- until someone of comparable stature arises in EY. This seems taylor-made for R Saadia Gaon, who went to yeshiva in Teveriah. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Never must we think that the Jewish element micha at aishdas.org in us could exist without the human element http://www.aishdas.org or vice versa. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch From sholom at aishdas.org Tue Oct 24 12:50:00 2017 From: sholom at aishdas.org (Sholom Simon) Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2017 15:50:00 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Long Lifespans in Bereishis In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <588c56c0dc1eedd39e7bb464810c5cea@aishdas.org> Thanks, RMB, for posting that article. Re the views of R. Moses Ibn Tibbon, et al, who don't take those ages literally on a single person -- is that (along the lines of an off-line conversation we had) a "kosher view" these days? Or, is it one of those views that, the way R Noson Slifkin puts it: they are allowed to have those views, but we aren't? On a different, but related issue, to the chevra: The list of generations in parshas Bereshis are generally of the form: * X was 50 years old when he fathered Y. * X lived 450 years after he fathered Y and had sons and daughters * X lived to the age of 500 years. Doesn't that seem a bit redundant? And, in fact, most (all?) of the generations listed in parshas Noach skip the third phrase. Thoughts? -- Sholom -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hankman at bell.net Tue Oct 24 15:28:28 2017 From: hankman at bell.net (hankman) Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2017 18:28:28 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Long Lifespans in Bereishis Message-ID: <9DE9360C549C46879FBF7291563A9387@hankPC> >From the summary of opinions posted by RMB on lifespans in Bereishis and some comments: ?R. Saadiah Gaon (10th cent.) discusses this issue in his introduction to Tehillim. He writes that the longevity of these early generations was part of God's plan for the rapid proliferation of mankind on the earth.....? Not the biggest kashe in the world, but why then would they start to have children at an advanced age if rapid proliferation was the goal? Perhaps with great longevity came a much longer period for sexual maturation? If true would that also mean that intellectual maturation took much longer as well? ?R. Yehudah Ha-Levi (12th cent.) discusses the issue in the Kuzari (sec. 95). He believes that it was only the individuals listed who lived long. Each of the individuals listed was the heart and essence of his generation and was physically and spiritually perfect. The Divine Flow was transmitted from one generation to another through these exceptional individuals.? How does R. Yehudah Ha-Levi deal with Terach who was an idolator? Clearly he was not spiritually perfect. ?... R. Moses Ibn Tibbon (late 13th cent.) He suggests that the years given for people's lives were actually the years of "malkhutam ve-nimuseihim," i.e., the dynasties and/or customs that they established.? This comment will apply to R. Nissim of Marseilles as well. I presume they held that people had what we today would consider a normal life span. this would mean they were not having the first born at the advanced age of over one hundred. Thus the named son must have been a later generation descendant. (I assume that they did not generate a son in their old age and die shortly thereafter as was the case with Boaz). So if their life spans were similar to ours then was Shes really not a son of Adam but really a descendant several generations down? Ditto for Ennosh, was he really a great ... grandson of Sheis? But this notion of the the years given in Bereishis not pertaining to one single man, but to a dynasty of several generations of normal life span, runs into difficulty with Noach and his 3 sons. If we follow suit with this notion then Shem, Cham and Yefes were not his sons but descendants born 500 years later. Yet they all went into the Teiva together? So how is that a normal life span for Noach? Why weren?t the generations between Noach and Shem, Cham and Yefes saved as well? When the Torah says ?vayoled es X? that is not to be taken literally but just to mean a later descendant chosen to be named in the lineage? ? R. Saadiah Gaon writes (Emunot Ve-Deot, end of chap. 7) that in the era of the redemption the human lifespan will be approximately 500 years. Presumably, at that time we won't be bothered by those long lifespans in Genesis anymore! (Note that Radak, comm. to Is. 65:20, is a bit stingier. He predicts lifespans of only 300 to 500 years. See also his commentary to Ps. 92:15. But the 12th century Babylonian Gaon R. Samuel b. Ali predicts lifespans closer to 1000 years!)? This quote leads to an issue I will expand upon slightly in another post. But the basic issue is if the world is Charuv at 6000 years and yemos Moshiach are before the olom is charuv, (while olom keminhago noheig) there is not enough time left (we are now 5778) for a life span of 300 to 500 years let alone 1000 years. Kol tuv Chaim Manaster -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Wed Oct 25 04:13:32 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2017 07:13:32 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Long Lifespans in Bereishis In-Reply-To: <9DE9360C549C46879FBF7291563A9387@hankPC> References: <9DE9360C549C46879FBF7291563A9387@hankPC> Message-ID: <20171025111332.GC22254@aishdas.org> On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 06:28:28PM -0400, hankman (RVM) wrote: : > (Note that Radak, comm. to Is. 65:20, is a bit stingier. He predicts : > lifespans of only 300 to 500 years. See also his commentary to : > Ps. 92:15. But the 12th century Babylonian Gaon R. Samuel b. Ali : > predicts lifespans closer to 1000 years!)" : This quote leads to an issue I will expand upon slightly in another : post. But the basic issue is if the world is Charuv at 6000 years and : yemos Moshiach are before the olom is charuv, (while olom keminhago : noheig) there is not enough time left (we are now 5778) for a life span : of 300 to 500 years let alone 1000 years. This all depends on the machloqes about defining olam haba and whether techiyas hameisim is permanent. As well as any machloqesin as to whether yemos hamoshiach starts with techiyas hameisim or ends with a new era, that itself starts with teshiyas hameisim. Rambam: olam haba means the non-physical world a neshamah is in between life and teshiyas hameisim, as well as after a second death. Since olam haba is the ultimate form of existence, defining that ultimate as the place souls go when dead necessitates a second death after techiyas hameisim. The Rambam (and the Iqarim, and others, I just picked on name for thumbnail-sketch reasons) then has to explain what the point of the second life is. Ramban (similarly, among others): olam haba, the ultimate existence, is body together with guf after techiyas hameisim. And therefore the post-th"m life must be external. According to the first shitah, it could be that post-th"m life is in gan eden is Adam's sense and thus life lasts as long as his could have. But then there's the question of whether your assumed dates hold.... My point is mainly that I think there are too many unknowns to even ask your question. I just anded up belaboring the one unknown I once wrote about. on how this machloqes may impact what is the point of Brikhas Gevurah ("Atah Gibor"). BTW, I just noticed, underlying that machloqes about what is olam haba and techiyas hameisim might be a difference in the definition of a person. It looks to me like the Rambam is saying a person is a soul who lives in a body. And therefore the ultimate in existence is not to have that body interpolated between me and experiencing Hashem's Presence. Whereas the Ramban is saying that a person is a synthesis of body and soul, and therefore cannot enjoy the rewards of their efforts when the two halves are separated. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger If a person does not recognize one's own worth, micha at aishdas.org how can he appreciate the worth of another? http://www.aishdas.org - Rabbi Yaakov Yosef of Polnoye, Fax: (270) 514-1507 author of Toldos Yaakov Yosef From hankman at bell.net Wed Oct 25 07:40:29 2017 From: hankman at bell.net (hankman) Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2017 10:40:29 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Long Lifespans in Bereishis In-Reply-To: <20171025111332.GC22254@aishdas.org> References: <9DE9360C549C46879FBF7291563A9387@hankPC> <20171025111332.GC22254@aishdas.org> Message-ID: R.Miciha Berger wrote: "On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 06:28:28PM -0400, hankman (RVM) wrote: :if the world is Charuv at 6000 years and : yemos Moshiach are before the olom is charuv, (while olom keminhago : noheig) there is not enough time left (we are now 5778) for a life span : of 300 to 500 years let alone 1000 years. This all depends on the machloqes about defining olam haba and whether techiyas hameisim is permanent. As well as any machloqesin as to whether yemos hamoshiach starts with techiyas hameisim or ends with a new era, that itself starts with teshiyas hameisim. ...." You also need to fit in when exactly in the sequence of these events Yom Hadin Hagodol happens according to each of these shitos. So the many events of "Achris Hatomim" that one need consider to compile a chronology of this mysterious period would include Gog uMagog, Moshiach be Yosef, coming of Eliyahu, yitaka bashofor gadol (before moshiach, or yom hadin hagodol, or techias hameisim?), the nevuos of Zecharyahu and other nevi'im about this period, Bayis shelishi, Kibutz golios, Moshiach ben Dovid (including how long is this period), vanquishing of the yetzer, Techias Hameisim (before Moshiach or before yom hadin or before both?), Yom hadin hagodol, yom hadin hakoton (after death?) Olom charuv (and to what extent it is charuv and why), Gan Eden, Olom haneshamos, Olam haba (final gemul, with or without a guf, and the ultimate purpose of creation so Hashem can be meitiv lezuloso). After writing this I checked out your "Mesukim Midevash" and apparently there will be at least four versions of this chronology (which you began to build in your article) lefi the Rambam, Ramban, Rav Saadia Gaon and the Ikkarim but needs some fleshing out. R Micha Berger wrote: "Ramban (similarly, among others): olam haba, the ultimate existence, is body together with guf after techiyas hameisim. And therefore the post-th"m life must be external. .... But then there's the question of whether your assumed dates hold.... My point is mainly that I think there are too many unknowns to even ask your question...." It is not clear to me what "assumed dates" or what the "unknowns" are that you mention? I only mentioned 5778. Is that date in doubt?? R. Micha Berger wrote: "BTW, I just noticed, underlying that machloqes about what is olam haba and techiyas hameisim might be a difference in the definition of a person. It looks to me like the Rambam is saying a person is a soul who lives in a body. And therefore the ultimate in existence is not to have that body interpolated between me and experiencing Hashem's Presence. Whereas the Ramban is saying that a person is a synthesis of body and soul, and therefore cannot enjoy the rewards of their efforts when the two halves are separated. Tir'u baTov! -Micha" The gemara in Sanhedrin that talks about the need for both the neshama and the guf to be together at yom hadin, works well with your peshat in the Ramban and could be a possible source for his position, but your explanation of the Rambam with the guf just being something donned by the neshama as necessary for its trip to this world, much like a diver dons scuba gear to enable him to function in this temporary environment, then much as it makes no senses to require the scuba gear at the divers trial, so too this gemara requiring the presence of the guf at the yom hadin doesn't really make much sense. Kol tuv Chaim Manaster From ben1456 at zahav.net.il Wed Oct 25 10:48:54 2017 From: ben1456 at zahav.net.il (Ben Waxman) Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2017 19:48:54 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] offering a higher salary Message-ID: <6ca926d4-2984-813b-af3a-e5fb0e765062@zahav.net.il> I've seen posts claiming that it is forbidden to offer cleaners a higher salary to work for you. While I can understand that it makes sense to say that no one can break a specific agreement for a specific day of work, why should it be forbidden to offer a higher salary to someone who has a long term agreement?? A, this is the common practice in the high tech world and I have never heard anyone say "Assur". It would seem that there is general agreement that this halacha simply doesn't apply today. Second, how can anyone be meshuabad in such a way to one person? Does a person wanting a higher salary have to simply quit without any idea about having another job? Ben From motti.yarchinai at mail.yahoo.com.au Wed Oct 25 12:39:33 2017 From: motti.yarchinai at mail.yahoo.com.au (Motti Yarchinai) Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2017 19:39:33 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Avodah] Psak source wanted In-Reply-To: <1857240052.122258.1508054451353@mail.yahoo.com> References: <1857240052.122258.1508054451353.ref@mail.yahoo.com> <1857240052.122258.1508054451353@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <270346387.4768895.1508960373045@mail.yahoo.com> Dear Micha and Avodah members, Thank you Micha for your reply and your attempts to locate a source. On Sun, Oct 15, 2017 at 08:00:51AM +0000, Motti Yarchinai via Avodah wrote: > Can anyone help me with a source for this psak: It is similar to what > the Rambam wrote... > Another posek writes something similar but couched in even more dramatic > terms. The following is not a verbatim quote (since the original is in > Hebrew) but something very close to it: > "And even if the residents of eretz yisrael are all ignoramuses > and peasants, and the authorities of chutz la'aretz are great > scholars and knowledgable in Torah and halachah, in calendric > matters we follow the peasants and ignoramuses, not the scholars > of chutz la'aretz." Micha replied: > Did you ever find a source? Google, Bar Ilan and I didn't turn > anything up.... No, I have not found it yet, but my memory of it is that I saw it in print, and, to my annoyance, I can't find the sefer, but it is bound to turn up sooner or later. When it does, I will repost with the source and quote. Meanwhile, if someone recognises it, please do let me know. Motti From sholom at aishdas.org Wed Oct 25 13:48:29 2017 From: sholom at aishdas.org (Sholom Simon) Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2017 16:48:29 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] A Great Name Message-ID: <20171025204831.CKZV22111.fed1rmfepo202.cox.net@fed1rmimpo210.cox.net> One of the implicit criticisms of Migdal Bavel was that they wanted to make a name for themselves. Then, at the beginning of Lech L'cha, H' tells Avram that he will make his name great. There must be something there . . . anybody have any thoughts? -- Sholom From zev at sero.name Wed Oct 25 20:57:37 2017 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2017 23:57:37 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] offering a higher salary In-Reply-To: <6ca926d4-2984-813b-af3a-e5fb0e765062@zahav.net.il> References: <6ca926d4-2984-813b-af3a-e5fb0e765062@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <03900eea-9674-1896-0842-5cba504a0eed@sero.name> On 25/10/17 13:48, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > I've seen posts claiming that it is forbidden to offer cleaners a higher > salary to work for you. I believe this halacha is a subset of "hasagas gevul", not in the Biblical sense, but in the commonly-used sense, which in in turn a subset of the obligation of ahavas yisrael. "Hasagas gevul" basically means that if you with to start a business and you have a choice between doing it somewhere that will harm me and somewhere that will not, then all else being equal you are obligated to take the second option out of consideration for me, because ve'ahavta lere`acha kamocha. Similarly, if I am renting a forest or an inn from a nochri, from which I make my living, and you offer him a higher rent, you are violating your obligation to value my interests equally with your own. It should be obvious, however, that if the landlord is also "re`acha" then this does not apply, because you have the same obligation to him as to me; if he could be getting more rent from his property then you should make him that offer, though he should give me a chance to match it, since I am the "bar metzra". I think the same thing is going on with the cleaners. If I have a nochris who is willing to clean for me for $N, you have no right to lure her away by offering more. But if she is "re`acha" then aderaba you have a mitzvah to offer her a chance to improve her income, but before taking your offer she should offer me the chance to match it. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From JRich at sibson.com Thu Oct 26 05:08:27 2017 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2017 12:08:27 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Jewish Action Message-ID: Since I can sometimes be critical of organizations (not here where I usually manage not to say anything negative [HT - My Mom ZLL"HH - "If you have nothing nice to say, don't say anything]), I want to give a shout out to the OU Fall Jewish Action. 1.) Moshe Baine poses the two questions I use as an individual/community test (i) How often do we factor God into our daily decisions, both large and small? [Me - how central is the Ratzon Hashem in our lives?] (ii) What are we prepared to "give up" to comply with what we perceive as God's wishes? [Me - does God always seem to agree with what you want?] 2.) Allen Fagin asks "whether we as a community view Yishuv Haaretz as a basic tenet of our spiritual aspirations? [Me - Tell me how often it's discussed or how many folks yearn (while we're at it, how many really yearn for the Beit Hamikdash?)] Now what do we do as a community and as individuals about any perceived shortfalls in these two areas is an old Avodah question but maybe it is gaining traction? KT 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: From micha at aishdas.org Thu Oct 26 07:13:06 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2017 10:13:06 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Jewish Action In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20171026141306.GA15203@aishdas.org> On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 12:08:27PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : 1.) Moshe Baine poses the two questions I use as an individual/community : test (i) How often do we factor God into our daily decisions, both large : and small? [Me - how central is the Ratzon Hashem in our lives?] (ii) : What are we prepared to "give up" to comply with what we perceive as : God's wishes? [Me - does God always seem to agree with what you want?] What you call question (i) gets a scathing answer in that recent and hotly discussed blog post, "Modern Orthodoxy from a Teenager's Perspective" by Eitan Gross. The-future-R Gross opines that it is common knowledge in MO circles that we dont make Ratzon Hashem central enough for MO to succeed. Modern Orthodoxy tries to create a balance that, at the moment, cannot work because we have no drive to be with Hashem and lack the philosophical and hashkafic perspective to articulate why we should be Jewish in a world with an assortment of other options. Therefore, we need to take a fresh look at education and schooling. There needs to be an emphasis on the truth of the tenets of Judaism, as well as an inspirational approach that creates a yearning and desire in the student to be closer to Hashem. And When I tried to publish this essay at a local Jewish newspaper they said "We cant publish this piece, it's too much for us. Plus you're only a senior in high school, so you don't have the authority to have a say in the current situation." Although they were against putting this essay to print, the head of the paper still agreed with me, "Modern Orthodoxy has major flaws and everyone knows it." If "everyone knows it", but no one does anything then it must be that they think Modern Orthodoxy is too big to change.... I think he means the Modern Orthodox community has major flaws, not the contept "Modern Orthodoxy" itself -- or why would he be so concerned with being able to save it? I need to add, this being Avodah, that this problem of the confusion between halakhah as a means and halakhah as an ends in-and-of-itself has symptoms in all our communities. Quoting myself, from my "manifesto" Tools and Goals ... How would this play out communally? One possible outcome is that we would find a community of very committed, very observant Jews, but who do not show all the signs of the holiness the Torah is supposed to bring us to. This could happen if there is insufficient attention to the entire notion of a goal beyond the halakhah, so that black letter halakhah -- that which can be measured, laid out in clear obligated or prohibited terms -- takes center seat without any attempt to become the kind of person more capable of fulfilling the full breadth of its commandments. There would be mixed reports of business ethics, scandals of respected rabbis committing fiscal crimes, others unable to control their lust, yet others abusing their power over their students in other ways. Another possible outcome is an idealistic community, but one whose ideals are not Torah derived. In such a community ideals would be taken from some segment of the surrounding culture, and halakhah would be reduced to a means of "blessing" goals that we assimilated from the outside, that at times will resemble the holiness Hashem has readied for us, and at times will differ. A third possibility is particular to a community that teaches the need to engage the world around it, to risk the battle of its challenges in order to use what's positive in the surrounding society to further our sanctity. Without a firm eye and a constant striving toward an ideal, the energy it takes to maintain this delicate balance too easily collapses into a life of compromise. And so, for too many in this community the negative elements of modernity are incorporated into their lives, and also for many strict observance itself suffers. Do these portraits sound familiar? The problem has another symptom which is less problematic -- the rise of Brisk over other darkhei halimmud. A culture in which O means following black-letter Shulchan Arukh will naturally gravitate toward a derekh halimmud that shuns explanations that are in terms of first principles that come before halakhah. RYBS's Halakhic Man denies they even exist. That said, R' Chaim Brisker's own life was more about values and acts of chessed than Arukh Chaim or Yoreh Dei'ah. The family noted this -- for all his lomdus, RCB's mateivah reads "Rav haChesed". The problem is not inherent to Brisk. Therefore, it will be interesting to see how MO evolves, and whether this remains their most pressing problem. YU now has a mashpiah, classes in the Aish Qodesh, Tanya, R' Nachman, it has singing minyanim. Within the halls of YU, Halakhic Man is facing growing competition. Lenaar al pi darko -- this diversity is healthy. But with more semichah students looking to the goals rather than stopping at the halachic tools, MO culture is bound to change in a way that reduces this issue. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When faced with a decision ask yourself, micha at aishdas.org "How would I decide if it were Ne'ilah now, http://www.aishdas.org at the closing moments of Yom Kippur?" Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From JRich at sibson.com Thu Oct 26 05:05:45 2017 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2017 12:05:45 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Timtum Halev Message-ID: There was an interesting article in the Journal "Ohr Yisrael" #16 by R'Avraham Rubin on Timtum Halev (spiritual pollution). His general conclusion was that eating something that would be classified as "forbidden foods," if you know it is such, will cause timtum halev (spiritual character defects) even if you are permitted to eat it in your case (e.g., pikuach nefesh - life-threatening situation). However, if you eat a "factually forbidden food" based on a mistaken halachic decision by an authorized halachic source, no such damage will occur. Interesting that this IIUC would yield the result that one could be halachically required to eat the "forbidden food" (rather than commit suicide by starving to death), yet still develop character defects because of it. Seems non-halachic man to me . I know we've discussed before-I submit a data point in that discussion. KT 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: From micha at aishdas.org Thu Oct 26 09:04:55 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2017 12:04:55 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Timtum Halev In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20171026160455.GD15203@aishdas.org> On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 12:05:45PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : ... "Ohr Yisrael" #16 by R'Avraham Rubin ... general conclusion was : that eating something that would be classified as "forbidden foods," : if you know it is such, will cause timtum halev (spiritual character : defects) even if you are permitted to eat it in your case (e.g., pikuach : nefesh - life-threatening situation). However, if you eat a "factually : forbidden food" based on a mistaken halachic decision by an authorized : halachic source, no such damage will occur. I invite RMRabi to comment on that last sentence. He and I debated for most of a year whether the Maharal would agree that someone who follows a mistaken pesaq is different in kind than someone who makes the mistake themselves. I presume that if eating because of "a mistaken halachic decision by an authorized halachic source" does not cause timtum heleiv, R Avraham Rubin would say that all the more so, eating food that as a matter of unknown fact happens to be kosher but we correctly rule may be eaten because of rov, chazaqah, bitul or whatever would not damage. I would think RAR is coming down on the side of saying that it's the sin, not the substance, which causes the spiritual damage. To my mind -- a hashkafically simpler position, since there is Justice to life being worse due to a sin than due to something premitted. In which case, RAR's opening ruling, that the person starting to death who eats the only available edible which happens to be non-kosher, would seem to be based on ruling that saving one's life overrides the prohibition (making it petura), not that the eating is actually permissible (hutra). For if it were hutra, how would the case differ from correctly following received pesaq? And if it is because of peturah, that the prohibition is being broken, but the violation is permissible for the sake of a greater value, then I can understand how its Just even if we were to say the cause is the substance. The sin is happening, and we know it's happening; we just chose the lesser sin. Lemah hadavar domeh: chemo is poison. For the sake of the greater danger, cancer, a person may take chemo. But the poison still does its effect. The person did what was medically recommended, and the recommendation was made knowing there was a self-destructive element to the act. : Interesting that this IIUC would yield the result that one could be : halachically required to eat the "forbidden food" (rather than commit : suicide by starving to death), yet still develop character defects : because of it. Seems non-halachic man to me.... Halachic man wouldn't ask the question of timtum haleiv to begin with. It is not a halachic category. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The fittingness of your matzos [for the seder] micha at aishdas.org isn't complete with being careful in the laws http://www.aishdas.org of Passover. One must also be very careful in Fax: (270) 514-1507 the laws of business. - Rav Yisrael Salanter From emteitz at gmail.com Thu Oct 26 09:58:57 2017 From: emteitz at gmail.com (elazar teitz) Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2017 12:58:57 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] offering a higher salary Message-ID: >If I have a nochris who is willing to clean for me for $N, you have no right to lure >her away by offering more. But if she is "re`acha" then aderaba you >have a mitzvah to offer her a chance to improve her income, but before >taking your offer she should offer me the chance to match it. Is it a mitzva to help improve a Jew's income, if it is at the expense of another Jew (especially when it is not done with the intent of helping the employee, but rather to help oneself)? EMT -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From zev at sero.name Thu Oct 26 15:06:37 2017 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2017 18:06:37 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] offering a higher salary In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 26/10/17 12:58, elazar teitz via Avodah wrote: >> If I have a nochris who is willing to clean for me for $N, you have no >> right to lure her away by offering more.? But if she is "re`acha" then >> aderaba you have a mitzvah to offer her a chance to improve her income, >> but before taking your offer she should offer me the chance to match it. > Is it a mitzva to help improve a Jew's income, if it is at the > expense of another Jew (especially when it is not done with the intent > of helping the employee, but rather to help oneself)? (1) You have the same mitzvah to love both of us, so whichever one you help is a mitzvah (2) She is probably (though not definitely) in more need than I am (3) If you're willing to pay more for her work then by definition that makes her work *worth* more, since the value of anything is defined as whatever it will fetch, so by making her the offer you're not hurting me, you're merely preventing me from (unbeknownst to either of us) getting an unwarranted benefit at her expense. Basically our arrangement is ona'ah, we're both in error about the value of her labour, and you're in a position to prevent it, so shouldn't you do so? (4) Your intent shouldn't matter. Tzedakah doesn't depend at all on kavanah. If someone is helped, it's a mitzvah even if you didn't mean it (cf shikcha), while if you meant to help someone and it didn't happen there's no mitzvah (cf Bava Basra 8b etc) -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From marty.bluke at gmail.com Sun Oct 29 03:15:35 2017 From: marty.bluke at gmail.com (Marty Bluke) Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2017 12:15:35 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Long Lifespans in Bereishis Message-ID: R' Chaim Manaster pointed out: "But the basic issue is if the world is Charuv at 6000 years and yemos Moshiach are before the olom is charuv, (while olom keminhago noheig) there is not enough time left (we are now 5778) for a life span of 300 to 500 years let alone 1000 years." The gemara (Sanhedrin 99) offers the following suggestions for how long the Messianic period will last: R' Eliezer - 40 years R' Dosa - 400 years Rebbi - 365 years Avimi - 7000 years R' Yehuda - the amount of time from creation until the Messiah comes R' Nachman Bar Yitzchak - the amount of time from the flood until the Messiah comes Interestingly enough the Gemara earlier stated that the world will last 6000 years, Sanhedrin 96B - Six thousand years were decreed upon the world: 2000 years of emptiness (without Torah), 2000 years of Torah, and 2000 years for Mashi'ach. This opinion of 6000 years is generally accepted, however, opinions 4-6 above clearly disagree with this. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ben1456 at zahav.net.il Sun Oct 29 22:34:43 2017 From: ben1456 at zahav.net.il (Ben Waxman) Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2017 07:34:43 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] offering a higher salary In-Reply-To: <6ca926d4-2984-813b-af3a-e5fb0e765062@zahav.net.il> References: <6ca926d4-2984-813b-af3a-e5fb0e765062@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <2e3529d9-23b9-3377-c2f6-ec65d4340f1a@zahav.net.il> After look a bit, I saw that the Aruch HaShulchan CM 237:3 paskens that this law only applies to a poor person. A poor person who finds something that he needs, you can't come along and offer more money for it. But if a rich person finds something that he wants (or employs someone) and this item is available, then the prohibition doesn't apply. It would seem that anyone who can hire a maid does not qualify as poor and I am willing to bet that there is a good supply of people willing to work. Ben On 10/25/2017 7:48 PM, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > I've seen posts claiming that it is forbidden to offer cleaners a > higher salary to work for you. While I can understand that it makes > sense to say that no one can break a specific agreement for a specific > day of work, why should it be forbidden to offer a higher salary to > someone who has a long term agreement?? A, this is the common practice > in the high tech world and I have never heard anyone say "Assur". It > would seem that there is general agreement that this halacha simply > doesn't apply today. From lisa at starways.net Mon Oct 30 03:39:03 2017 From: lisa at starways.net (Lisa Liel) Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2017 12:39:03 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] offering a higher salary In-Reply-To: <2e3529d9-23b9-3377-c2f6-ec65d4340f1a@zahav.net.il> References: <6ca926d4-2984-813b-af3a-e5fb0e765062@zahav.net.il> <2e3529d9-23b9-3377-c2f6-ec65d4340f1a@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <611bec39-509c-b161-d74f-63dbb523906e@starways.net> On 10/30/2017 7:34 AM, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > After look a bit, I saw that the Aruch HaShulchan CM 237:3 paskens > that this law only applies to a poor person. A poor person who finds > something that he needs, you can't come along and offer more money for > it.... > It would seem that anyone who can hire a maid does not qualify as poor > and I am willing to bet that there is a good supply of people willing > to work. Poor in halakha means not having what you're accustomed to have. It isn't an objective benchmark or a comparison to other people. Lisa From ben1456 at zahav.net.il Mon Oct 30 12:58:56 2017 From: ben1456 at zahav.net.il (Ben Waxman) Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2017 21:58:56 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] offering a higher salary In-Reply-To: <611bec39-509c-b161-d74f-63dbb523906e@starways.net> References: <6ca926d4-2984-813b-af3a-e5fb0e765062@zahav.net.il> <2e3529d9-23b9-3377-c2f6-ec65d4340f1a@zahav.net.il> <611bec39-509c-b161-d74f-63dbb523906e@starways.net> Message-ID: <8355ddf5-ae06-1774-b30d-dd05b89814a9@zahav.net.il> You think that these people would be willing to apply the word "poor" to themselves, even in regards to only this halacha? On 10/30/2017 12:39 PM, Lisa Liel wrote: > Poor in halakha means not having what you're accustomed to have.? It > isn't an objective benchmark or a comparison to other people. From bdbradley70 at hotmail.com Mon Oct 30 14:41:44 2017 From: bdbradley70 at hotmail.com (Ben Bradley) Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2017 21:41:44 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] offering a higher salary In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Poor in halakha means not having what you're accustomed to have. It isn't an objective benchmark or a comparison to other people. Lisa I don't believe it's as clear cut as that. It's true with regard to giving tzedaka, that the kehilla is required to maintain someone at the standard they were used to. But when it comes to the definition of an oni who's entitled to take from communal funds, the mishna in terumos or maasros defines it as someone who has a specific and objective amount of food or money in their possession. AFAIR halacha l'maaseh follows suit, and there are objective criteria before allowing someone to accept communal tzedaka funds. Regards Ben -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hankman at bell.net Mon Oct 30 12:03:44 2017 From: hankman at bell.net (hankman) Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2017 15:03:44 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Long Lifespans in Bereishis Message-ID: R. Marty Bluke wrote: ?The gemara (Sanhedrin 99) offers the following suggestions for how long the Messianic period will last: ... R' Dosa - 400 years Rebbi - 365 years Avimi - 7000 years R' Yehuda - the amount of time from creation until the Messiah comes R' Nachman Bar Yitzchak - the amount of time from the flood until the Messiah comes ....? Actually my original kasheh occurred to me during that recent daf yomi you refer to in Sanhedrin which was when I asked the same question you pose here. The question I posted on Avodah (basically the same idea) was just in reference to a previous post here and its remarks ? I just did not feel the need to broaden the kasheh ? perhaps I should have, just to be more comprehensive. Kol tuv Chaim Manaster -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From saulguberman at gmail.com Tue Oct 31 09:57:00 2017 From: saulguberman at gmail.com (Saul Guberman) Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2017 12:57:00 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] chopsticks Message-ID: Is it permissible to break apart chopsticks on shabbat at the meal to eat your sushi? Someone claimed it is makeh b'patish and just use a fork or stab with the chopsticks still together. Others thought that tzorech ochel nefesh might allow them to be broken and used , as it is all disposable anyway. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From JRich at sibson.com Thu Nov 2 05:12:05 2017 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2017 12:12:05 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] TEXTUAL JUDAISM AND THE LIVING TORAH Message-ID: <9e51a7f4ea644e829db8503f8f0451fe@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> An old Avodah favorite :) KT Joel Rich http://etzion.org.il/en/siman-114-prayers-wind-rain-and-dew TEXTUAL JUDAISM AND THE LIVING TORAH In his introduction to the Beit Yosef, R. Yosef Karo clearly asserts that since it is impossible for someone of his stature to set himself up as arbiter among the great Rishonim, for his rulings will be based on the majority of the opinions of the Rif, the Rambam, and the Rosh. Yet, here we have a case where the Rambam and the Rosh agree that an entire country which needs rain can mention and ask for rain in the summer, while the Rif does not dispute this ruling since he does not relate to this case. Although the Rambam's ruling is in the commentary to the Mishna, this has the same status as the Mishneh Torah - so I understand from Kesef Mishneh, also written by R. Yosef Karo, to Hilkhot Talmud Torah 3:10 at the end - and in addition, the Beit Yosef on our siman claims that the Mishneh Torah also rules like the commentary to the Mishna. How can the Beit Yosef rule against them?! The Beit Yosef emphasizes that the custom of the entire world contradicts the Rosh's ruling. He also suggests that this ruling was never accepted in practice. How can we weigh these factors against the authority of the written sources? There is a general difference in approach among poskim regarding how to weigh local custom against textual authority. The Tosafot in many places endeavor to reconcile the text with the custom (see for excample, Shabbat 48a d.h. De-zeitim); other sages more readily condemn custom on the authority of the plain sense of the text. It seems that several factors bear on the relative importance: 1. How universal is the custom? Responsa frequently point out that the reaction to a seldom-encountered situation can not be considered a "custom" - merely a precedent. 2. Among whom is the custom widespread? If we are certain that even scholars and meticulous people conducted themselves in a certain way, this has more weight than the behavior of the common people, pious though they may be. 3. Are opinions opposing the custom recognized? Sometimes we find statements to the effect that if a community had been aware that a great authority opposed their custom, they would not have adopted it. Conversely, a custom may be defended by pointing out that it was upheld even though opposing views were clearly known. 4. Perhaps in an area of halakha whose basis is in custom, though it subsequently achieved the status of binding halakha, we should give greater weight to custom. In our case, the Beit Yosef perceived that the custom of going according to Eretz Yisrael was universal, even among scholars, and even among people who were certainly aware of the statements of the Rambam and the Rosh. In addition, he may have considered the "customary" aspect of prayer to have special importance - the fact that we pray as a community renders special importance to community customs. Therefore, even though the Beit Yosef is, according to his own assertion, an extreme "textualist," in this case he was persuaded to rule in accordance with custom. Almost all Acharonim are extremely reluctant to dispute Rishonim - though there are notable exceptions, such as the Maharshal (who lived, in any case, close to the era of the Rishonim). However, many later scholars do feel that however unworthy they may be, it is their responsibility as decisors to decide AMONG the Rishonim. The Beit Yosef's reticence in this regard is far from universal. A lot of noise is still being made regarding an article written a couple of years ago by a leading scholar of Judaism (who is also a Talmid Chakham, though the two do not always go together) who posits that only recently have texts taken such a central role in Jewish life. He claims that before World War II custom was king, and accepted customs of respectable communities were not scrutinized in the light of codes. I can not comment on the historical reality of three generations ago, but I think we should keep in mind that the tension between custom and written authority is an ancient one, and the "advocacy" of texts is hardly a new idea. 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: From zev at sero.name Thu Nov 2 20:38:21 2017 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2017 23:38:21 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] TEXTUAL JUDAISM AND THE LIVING TORAH In-Reply-To: <9e51a7f4ea644e829db8503f8f0451fe@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <9e51a7f4ea644e829db8503f8f0451fe@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: On 02/11/17 08:12, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: > The Beit Yosef emphasizes that the custom of the entire world > contradicts the Rosh's ruling. Not the entire world. The Rosh himself reported that he was gratified to discover, while travelling through Provence on his way from Germany to Spain, that they did it the right way. This reinforced him in his determination to try to change the practice in Spain. > In our case, the Beit Yosef perceived that the custom of going > according to Eretz Yisrael was universal, On the contrary, *nobody* goes according to EY. The universal custom is to go according to Iraq. The Rosh wanted all Mediterranean Jews, who share EY's climate, to follow EY, as the Provencals did, but they refused. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From meirabi at gmail.com Thu Nov 2 22:38:08 2017 From: meirabi at gmail.com (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi) Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2017 16:38:08 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] Avraham A Cooked, Angels Ate - Bassar BeChalav Message-ID: Avraham Avinu entertained three angels masquerading as human visitors; feeding them goat flesh cooked with milk. Generations later, due to this meal, the angels? protest, that the Torah ought not be given to the Jews, was quashed. There are 3 issues that require clarification: ++ Let?s say the angels sinned by eating flesh cooked with milk [which seems to be the plain meaning of the Medrash] how does that silence their protest? ++ Furthermore, flesh cooked with milk would not have been served to the guests: ++ Avraham Avinu did not cook goat with milk since he adhered to all Mitzvos of the Torah. ++ Even if it was cooked inadvertently, he would not have offered it to the visitors since no benefit may be derived from it. Reb Meir Simcha of Dvinsk explains in Meshech Chochmah, that no sin was transgressed since it was BP flesh, which may be cooked with milk. The angels? protests were silenced because they accepted that Avraham Avinu was Jewish and therefore able to Shecht. Had they considered him not Jewish, they would not have eaten because Shechita cannot be performed by a non-Jew. Thus, the angels had already conceded that Avraham Avinu had an inalienable connection to the Torah and therefore was able to Shecht and create a Kosher BP. That being the case, they could not question nor protest his chosen children?s rights to that heritage. Of all aspects of BP this particular Halacha is so counter-intuitive, and such a shock to our expectations, that even when Reb Chaim Kanievsky said that cooking BP flesh with milk, is "Kosher VeYosher" (more than 100%) Rabbanim who were with me and heard him say this, will not publicly admit to it. Rav Moshe Sternbuch responded upon being asked if this was a DaAs Yachid (a lone opinion), "Who argues?" - R Moshe quotes this Meshech Chochmah MoAdim UzManim [?"? ??' ??"?] and thereby suggests another reason for eating dairy on Shavuos - after all, it was via dairy that we succeeded to silence the angels? protests. However, my son Yehudah, argues - in that case, we really ought to be eating BBPbCh [Basar BP beChalav] on Shavuos. That the BP may be cooked with milk is so obvious to Reb Meir Simcha, that he does not bother to bring proof or expand upon the point. Clearly, BP is utterly unlike any regular cow sheep or goat that may not be cooked with dairy. = = = According to our traditions, Avraham Avinu maintained all the laws of the Torah and also all the Rabbinic enactments. Rashi, Genesis 26:5; Yevamos 21. Accordingly, our Sages explain that Avraham did not offer the bread [Rashi, Genesis 18:8; BMetzia 87] to his guests because Sara had miraculously rejuvenated and become ritually unclean, making the bread unclean. Although no more than a stringency Avraham Avinu would not serve it to his non Jewish guests - presumably, if Avraham Avinu would not eat it himself, he would not serve it to his guests - makes one pause and contemplate about those who Kosher certify various foods and establishments but will not eat that food themselves. = = = There are some who try to squeeze into the words of the MChochmah that it is the milk which is not dairy because meat may be cooked with milk collected from a Shechted beast, Chalav Shechuta, and a BP is deemed to be a Shechuta. There is a contrary argument however - some propose that Chalav Shechuta is not ?mother?s milk?, meaning milk from a beast that can potentially be a mother, whereas a BP can certainly be a mother, so its milk is not Chalav Shechuta and may not be cooked with meat. Either way, the argument collapses completely because Avraham Avinu would not violate the Rabbinic law that prohibits cooking with Chalav Shechuta [or deer or giraffe milk] Best, Meir G. Rabi 0423 207 837 +61 423 207 837 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Fri Nov 3 03:24:28 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2017 06:24:28 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Avraham A Cooked, Angels Ate - Bassar BeChalav In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20171103102428.GB3833@aishdas.org> On Fri, Nov 03, 2017 at 04:38:08PM +1100, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: : Avraham Avinu entertained three angels masquerading as human visitors; : feeding them goat flesh cooked with milk. Generations later, due to this : meal, the angels' protest, that the Torah ought not be given to the Jews, : was quashed. Where's this medrash? Tosafists (Daas Zeqeinim, Bereishis 18:8) note the contradiction between it and the medrash that the avos observe all of halakhah (even eiruv tavshilin) and suggests the following. It is also the Sifsei Chakhamim's and Bekhor Shor's take on the pasuq. The chumash says, "vayiqach chem'ah vechalav uven habaqar asher asah". There is no indication in the peshat that the veal was made in the butter and/or milk. And in fact, the milk is mentioned first. Leading to the opinion that Avraham even served them in a way that kept them from consuming dairy immediately after meat! The SC says he served them the milk so that they wouldn't have to wait while hungrily for the veal while it was shechted and cooked. The Radaq gives a different sesolution: Avraham prepared both so as to give them a choice of what to eat. : Reb Meir Simcha of Dvinsk explains in Meshech Chochmah, that no sin was : transgressed since it was BP flesh, which may be cooked with milk. Lo zakhisi lehavin haRav Meir Simcha haKohein, nor R' Kanievsky. Isn't that only mutar deRabbanan if it is killed before it can even stands up, so as to avoid mar'is ayin, like shechitah? And the gemara's example of the avos keeping kol haTorah kulah is Avraham keeping eiruv -- so that that aggadita means to include derabbanans. And even if we're saying that we're talking about BP without the taqanos, And if it is ben paqua and thus didn't need shechitah, why does the asame medrash make a point of Avraham shechting it? The tradition that Avraham Avinu authored seifer haYetzirah (for which I also have no source) includes the resolution that a calf made through ShY ("uven havaqar ASHER ASAH"), rather than invoking BP. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger A person lives with himself for seventy years, micha at aishdas.org and after it is all over, he still does not http://www.aishdas.org know himself. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From zev at sero.name Fri Nov 3 08:27:40 2017 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2017 11:27:40 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Avraham A Cooked, Angels Ate - Bassar BeChalav In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4ed7f10d-c1ee-c201-6de4-61e0564f59fd@sero.name> On 03/11/17 01:38, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: > feeding them goat flesh cooked with milk Since when? He fed them beef, together with cream (or butter) and milk, separately but simultaneously. > The angels? protests were silenced because they accepted that Avraham > Avinu was Jewish and therefore able to Shecht. Had they considered him > not Jewish, they would not have eaten because Shechita cannot be > performed by a non-Jew. Thus, the angels had already conceded that > Avraham Avinu had an inalienable connection to the Torah and therefore > was able to Shecht and create a Kosher BP. That being the case, they > could not question nor protest his chosen children?s rights to that > heritage. If so then why bring the milk into it at all? Simply by eating meat he'd shechted (or rather that his son Yishma`el had shechted) they had conceded all that (according to this explanation) was required. Why complicate the matter with questions of basar bechalav? Therefore it's clear that that was not the issue. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From micha at aishdas.org Fri Nov 3 05:44:11 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2017 08:44:11 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] TEXTUAL JUDAISM AND THE LIVING TORAH In-Reply-To: References: <9e51a7f4ea644e829db8503f8f0451fe@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20171103124411.GC23679@aishdas.org> On Thu, Nov 02, 2017 at 11:38:21PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : On 02/11/17 08:12, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: :>The Beit Yosef emphasizes that the custom of the entire world :>contradicts the Rosh's ruling. : Not the entire world. The Rosh himself reported that he was : gratified to discover, while travelling through Provence on his way : from Germany to Spain, that they did it the right way... Are you disagreeing with the BY (no citation so I can't check myself), with RJR's presentation of the BY? Or, are we ignoring the fact that the Rosh lived well before the BY and could have seen a Provincial minhag that had died by the mechaber's time. The BY could well be wrong. We have other examples of famous rishonim and acharonim who didn't know some minhag of other communities and thought regional norm was universal. I just want to understand which of the above we're discussing. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger We are what we repeatedly do. micha at aishdas.org Thus excellence is not an event, http://www.aishdas.org but a habit. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Aristotle From zev at sero.name Fri Nov 3 09:02:59 2017 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2017 12:02:59 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] TEXTUAL JUDAISM AND THE LIVING TORAH In-Reply-To: <20171103124411.GC23679@aishdas.org> References: <9e51a7f4ea644e829db8503f8f0451fe@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> <20171103124411.GC23679@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 03/11/17 08:44, Micha Berger wrote: > On Thu, Nov 02, 2017 at 11:38:21PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > : On 02/11/17 08:12, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: > :>The Beit Yosef emphasizes that the custom of the entire world > :>contradicts the Rosh's ruling. > > : Not the entire world. The Rosh himself reported that he was > : gratified to discover, while travelling through Provence on his way > : from Germany to Spain, that they did it the right way... > > Are you disagreeing with the BY (no citation so I can't check > myself), with RJR's presentation of the BY? Not disagreeing so much as pointing out that "the entire world" doesn't mean quite that. In fact the Tur on which the BY is commenting also quotes his father's report about the minhag in Provence. And the BY further quotes the Rosh that "uchvar nahagu gam kein biktzat mekomot" to start on the 7th. So later when he says "shelo nitkablu divrei haRosh, vechol ha`olam lo nahagu kein", I think this must be understood as a generalization, just as we do when we say "der velt" does this or that, and we clearly don't mean literally everyone. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From sholom at aishdas.org Fri Nov 3 11:32:44 2017 From: sholom at aishdas.org (Sholom Simon) Date: Fri, 03 Nov 2017 14:32:44 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] VAYERA ? WHO IS HKBH TALKING TO? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20171103183247.KRPQ6746.fed1rmfepo102.cox.net@fed1rmimpo109.cox.net> Rabbi Meir G. Rabi notes/asks: >Sara laughs [18:12] Gd is not happy > >[18:13] HKBH confronts Avraham, ?Why did Sara laugh off the blessing >that she have a child? Am I not able to arrange she give birth? I >assure you, I?ll be back and you?ll see she will have a child.? > >But why is HKBH asking this of Avraham? Does HKBH expect Avraham to >be able to explain? > >It seems this question is really an indictment of sorts. > >Is Avraham being blamed for Sara?s weakness? > >Why does Avraham confront [18:19] Sara? He does not doubt what HKBH >has told him? > >And when Sara denies it, why does Avraham rebuke her? Is it >Avraham?s responsibility to ensure she confesses? I just heard a shiur (YUTorah!) from RHS who addressed this. He also threw in the question: why is H" telling loshon harah to Avraham? RMF brings that In the Gemara (somewhere) it says that it's permissible to tell loshon harah to the subject's rebbe, so that the rebbe can give tochacha or musar to the subject, and RMF (or RHS) says that's what's happenning here (viewing Avraham as Sarah's rebbe, in a way). -- Sholom From akivagmiller at gmail.com Fri Nov 3 14:05:30 2017 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2017 17:05:30 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] chopsticks Message-ID: . R" Saul Guberman asked: > Is it permissible to break apart chopsticks on shabbat at the > meal to eat your sushi? Someone claimed it is makeh b'patish > and just use a fork or stab with the chopsticks still > together. Others thought that tzorech ochel nefesh might > allow them to be broken and used, as it is all disposable > anyway. Rabbi Doniel Neustadt raises a similar question at https://torah.org/torah-portion/weekly-halacha-5772-beshalach/ I would think that the situations are similar; even if they aren't identical, looking up the sources may help to find the answer about chopsticks. > Question: Leben or yogurt cups sometimes come attached to each > other and must be separated along a perforated line before > they can be eaten individually. Is that permitted to be done > on Shabbos? > > Discussion: Contemporary poskim debate whether or not it is > permitted to separate attached yogurt or leben cups from each > other. Some consider it a violation of Mechatech and Makeh > b?patish[21] while others hold it is permitted altogether[22]. > > 21. Rav Y.S. Elyashiv (Orchos Shabbos 12:12, Me?or ha-Shabbos, > vol. 2, pg. 551). > > 22. Rav S.Z. Auerbach (Orchos Shabbos 12:18. note 31, Shulchan > Shelomo 314:13-3). Akiva Miller From meirabi at mail.gmail.com Sat Nov 4 05:45:14 2017 From: meirabi at mail.gmail.com (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi) Date: Sat, 4 Nov 2017 23:45:14 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] Avraham A Cooked, Angels Ate - Bassar BeChalav Message-ID: 1] no one disputes that the Meshech Chochmah says what he says 2] there are many explanations to resolve the meat and milk issue, we are not disputing them, just explaining one of them 3] there is [surprisingly] no Issur of Maris Ayin preventing cooking some iterations of BP meat with milk - the proof is from this episode as presented by this Medrash and explained by the MChochma. 4] The decree that after the BP has stood up, Hifris AGKarka, it requires Shechitah [and presumably is also Assur to cook with milk] does not apply to a BP that is found as a non fully gestated, Lo KaLu Lo Chadashav. 5] Avraham did not Shecht it - on the contrary he directed Yishmael to prepare it - Furthermore, because it was a BP it did not require Shechita which is why he could direct Yishmael to kill it, and there was also no problem of Bassar SheNisAlem Min HaAyin. 6] Indeed, even had the angels eaten plain meat Shechted by AAvinu, there would have been adequate proof that they accepted his status of Kedushas Yisrael, it just so happened that AAvinu wanted to serve his visitors a delicacy, Beef Stroganoff. 7] I really do not know why I assumed it was a goat From zev at sero.name Sat Nov 4 16:10:52 2017 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Sat, 4 Nov 2017 19:10:52 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Avraham A Cooked, Angels Ate - Bassar BeChalav In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <0d614669-3c79-3c22-d137-b4b21530183f@sero.name> On 04/11/17 08:45, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi wrote: > 6] Indeed, even had the angels eaten plain meat Shechted by AAvinu, > there would have been adequate proof that they accepted his status of > Kedushas Yisrael, it just so happened that AAvinu wanted to serve his > visitors a delicacy, Beef Stroganoff. Except that Rashi explicitly says otherwise, that the delicacy he served was tongue in mustard, for which he needed *three* animals. There is no hint of any cooking in milk. The Meshech Chochma needs a mokor for this. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From meirabi at mail.gmail.com Sat Nov 4 05:56:05 2017 From: meirabi at mail.gmail.com (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi) Date: Sat, 4 Nov 2017 23:56:05 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] VAYERA ? WHO IS HKBH TALKING TO? Message-ID: Furthermore, HKBH is transgressing Lashon Hara by disclosing to Avraham that Sara laughed. It is pretty clear that Sara's indiscretion was disclosed to Avraham because it was necessary for AAvinu to know, as we see, he rebuked Sara for laughing. Avraham was responsible for this shortcoming of Sara - this properly explains all these Qs HKBH expected Avraham to respond as he did. The question is really an indictment of sorts. Avraham is blamed for Sara's indiscretion? Therefore, Avraham confronts [18:19] Sara. And when Sara denies it, Avraham rebukes her. It is Avraham's responsibility to ensure she confesses. Best, Meir G. Rabi From meirabi at mail.gmail.com Mon Nov 6 12:30:23 2017 From: meirabi at mail.gmail.com (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi) Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2017 07:30:23 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] HKBH Rebukes Avraham for Sara's Shortcomings In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: continuing from prev post - > Sara laughs [18:12] Gd is not happy > [18:13] HKBH confronts Avraham, ... Preserving harmony [Yevamos 65b, in this case between Araham and Sara] compels HKBH to lie to Avraham [HKBH reported that Sara said, "I am too old to have children", when in fact she said, "my master is old"] and yet HKBH, rather than remaining silent to preserve peace, reports Sara's indiscretion to Avraham. Furthermore, aside from being likely to cause strife between Avraham and Sara, this report is a horribly demeaning Lashon Hara. Scoffing at HKBH's ability to grant her a child, in spite of it being uttered by what might easily have been described as a foolish visitor, is a blight upon Sara which HKBH held against her. And she understood the correctness of the criticism and felt shamed, as we see that she [apparently] instinctively and immediately denied it [18:15] It seems clear that HKBH reported this to Avraham, rather than directly or indirectly to Sara, not only to correct Sara but also to rebuke Avraham. HKBH was criticising Avraham for Sara's shortcoming. From micha at aishdas.org Mon Nov 6 17:55:31 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2017 20:55:31 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Questioning Authority In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20171107015531.GC12418@aishdas.org> On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 09:41:32AM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : I have always felt that it is (or ought to be) possible and permissible to : *question* authority without challenging or rejecting authority... I would have said "to ask questions", as to me "to question" something is indeed to challenge. But that's just an English or perhaps English dialect issue. What's nice is that we don't have this issue in halachic jargon: there is a clear difference between 1- a she'eilah, asking for information, ibua'ei lehu / miba'ei on the oe hand, and 2- a qushya ("qasha"), tiyuvta, meisivei, where we challenge the given statement. .... : But frequently, the truth is that the parent has very good reasons for what : he says. It's just that he's unable to put those reasons into clear words. : He can't even explain it to himself in simple terms, because it is simply a : gut feeling that he has, based on experience and intuition, he sees that : this is the action or inaction which must be followed in this particular : situation. As far as I can tell, this is what RYBS calls "mesorah", and the same notion of "mesorah" RHS invokves when arguing against ordaining women or women leading inessential portions of davening? (As opposed to those who think of "mesorah" as referring to mimeticism.) : I think this is analogous to Torah leaders and Torah followers. When the : leaders tell the followers what to do, or what to avoid, it is entirely : reasonable for the followers to request explanations from the leaders. This : is especially so, if the explanation will help them comply with the : directive, or teach them how to apply the directive to other situations. : But these requests must be made respectfully, carefully, and only up to a : certain point. We ask a poseiq a she'eilah, not a qushya. And -- as noted by the Maharal in the Beer haGolah RMRabi and I beat to death -- we should be expecting to understand rather than blindly follow. The limit you speak of comes for the fact that a feel for how the halakhah ought to be inherently can't be articulated. To repply R/Dr Moshe Koppel's metaphor for halakhah, as much as halakhah runs like a legal system, it also works like a language. People who only know English as a second language could know rules of conjugation, but it takes serious immersion in the language to know what kinds of poetic license works and what violates the limits of acceptible English. We native speakers know what "sounds right". But if an immigrant were to ask why "the red big ball" sounds weird but "the big red ball" sounds normal, how many of us could explain it? And if we did come up with an explanation, isn't it a post-facto construct rather than the more by-feel way the determination was really made? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger For those with faith there are no questions. micha at aishdas.org For those who lack faith there are no answers. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yaakov of Radzimin Fax: (270) 514-1507 From micha at aishdas.org Mon Nov 6 18:30:37 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2017 21:30:37 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] eitz hachaim In-Reply-To: <61f0b606-b859-4475-eef8-a10489e74f1c@starways.net> References: <61f0b606-b859-4475-eef8-a10489e74f1c@starways.net> Message-ID: <20171107023037.GE12418@aishdas.org> On Sun, Oct 15, 2017 at 05:41:04PM -0400, hankman via Avodah wrote: : What exactly was the eitz hachaim all about. The simple pshat doesn't : make any sense. ... Kodem hacheit he was not : a bar misah so he had no need of it, after the cheit he was prevented : from accessing it! So when would it ever be useful to Adam? On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 10:51:28AM +0300, Lisa Liel via Avodah wrote: : I don't understand the question. He was prevented from accessing it : *because* of the cheit. Had he not sinned, you say he would have had : no need for it, but who is to say that its only function was to make : him live forever..... Note how the Torah is also called "eitz chaim (hi lamachaziqim bahh)." So I think Lisa's notion that the eitz chaim likely had another function is quite probable. Likely its primary function was to provide the da'as that would lead to arichas yamim. Like the Torah does -- even if its arichas yamim appears not to be in olam hazeh. There is also the idea that there was only one tree in the iddle of the garden, an eitz hachaim upon which grew a branch bearing the peri eitz hada'as tov vara. Or maybe that the eitz vhaim was the rooots from which the eitz hadaas grew. I don't know -- I only heard about it second-hand (multiple times) by people quoting "sifrei qabbalah" (as though that counts as a citation). Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger If you won't be better tomorrow micha at aishdas.org than you were today, http://www.aishdas.org then what need do you have for tomorrow? Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rebbe Nachman of Breslov From micha at aishdas.org Mon Nov 6 18:04:55 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2017 21:04:55 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] A Great Name In-Reply-To: <20171025204831.CKZV22111.fed1rmfepo202.cox.net@fed1rmimpo210.cox.net> References: <20171025204831.CKZV22111.fed1rmfepo202.cox.net@fed1rmimpo210.cox.net> Message-ID: <20171107020455.GD12418@aishdas.org> On Wed, Oct 25, 2017 at 04:48:29PM -0400, Sholom Simon via Avodah wrote: : One of the implicit criticisms of Migdal Bavel was that they wanted : to make a name for themselves. Then, at the beginning of Lech L'cha, : H' tells Avram that he will make his name great. : There must be something there... anybody have any thoughts? First question... If all of humanity was participating (minus two epople -- Avraham and Ashur), who exactly were they trying to build up their reputation for? Whereas after the Haflagah, man was split into numerous communities, the notion of being known broadly makes sense. And if you want to spread your teachings, such fame is useful. Yes, I think the contrast is meaningful -- the people who got caught up in ego to the point of irrationality wanted fame for its own sake. After all, it had no logical value in their context. Whereas Afraham was granted fame as part of Hashem aiding his success, and fame is positive. It's not a question, it's the point. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Between stimulus & response, there is a space. micha at aishdas.org In that space is our power to choose our http://www.aishdas.org response. In our response lies our growth Fax: (270) 514-1507 and our freedom. - Victor Frankl, (MSfM) From cantorwolberg at cox.net Mon Nov 6 23:30:51 2017 From: cantorwolberg at cox.net (Richard Wolberg) Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2017 02:30:51 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Gilgul Hanefesh Message-ID: I have heard many conflicting opinions about our belief in reincarnation. I hope and pray it is not true. ?One life is enough!? Is there a definitive Jewish belief? I have even heard some believe in ?Transmigration of the Soul? which is even more scary. As an impressionable kid, I once had a rabbi tell me that if you don?t wash netilat yadayim prior to eating, you will come back as a dog. The following is an excerpt by an article in the Aish.com Newsletter by Sara Yoheved Rigler. there are hints to reincarnation in the Bible and early commentaries (1), while in Kabbalah, Judaism?s mystical tradition, overt references to reincarnation abound. The Zohar, the basic text of Jewish mysticism (attributed to Rabbi Shimon Bar Yochai, a 1st century sage) assumes gilgul neshamot [the recycling of souls] as a given, and the Ari, the greatest of all Kabbalists, whose 16th teachings are recorded in, Shaar HaGilgulim, traced the reincarnations of many Biblical figures. While some authorities, such as Saadia Gaon (10th century) denied reincarnation as a Jewish concept, from the 17th century onward, leading rabbis of normative Judaism, such as the Gaon of Vilna and the Chafetz Chaim (2), referred to gilgul neshamot as a fact. (1)? See Deut. 33:6, and Targum Onkeles and Targum Yonosson on that verse. Also see Isaiah 22:14. (2)? Mishnah Berurah 23:5 and Shaar HaTzion 622:6 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From lisa at starways.net Tue Nov 7 02:43:04 2017 From: lisa at starways.net (Lisa Liel) Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2017 12:43:04 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Gilgul Hanefesh In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3ad8c297-8019-3aa5-de3b-800ffe91d6c9@starways.net> On 11/7/2017 9:30 AM, Richard Wolberg via Avodah wrote: ... > Is there a definitive Jewish belief? > I have even heard some believe in "Transmigration of the Soul" which > is even more scary. As an impressionable kid, I once had a rabbi tell me > that if you don't wash netilat yadayim prior to eating, you will come > back as a dog. As I understand it, gilgul neshamot is not the same as the eastern idea of reincarnation, where one person's soul literally incarnates again in another body and lives another life. Rather, on a spiritual level, the soul of one person can "match" the soul of someone who lived previously. Either by harmony or dissonance, to use a musical metaphor. In Seder HaDorot, it talks incessantly about how some person or other was the gilgul, or tikkun, of a previous person. But it sometimes has multiple people as the gilgul or tikkun of a previous person, which makes more sense given the "match" concept. Kabbalistically, at least according to R' Aryeh Kaplan, the spiritual dimension is one of similarities and differences. Two things that are more similar are "closer" and two things that are less similar are "further apart". So if your soul is very similar to that of someone who lived before, you could have such a "match". You might even dream memories that the previous soul experienced. That doesn't make you that person. And since the state of a person's soul changes throughout their life, their "match" to someone who lived previously can come and go as well. To give an example, Seder HaDorot says that Rabbi Akiva was the gilgul/tikkun of Zimri ben Salu. The 24K Bnei Shimon who died in the plague following Zimri's actions match the 24K talmidim of Rabbi Akiva, for example. But while Zimri took Kosbi b'issur, Rabbi Akiva married the wife of Tyrannus Rufus b'heter, after she converted. Hence restoring a balance that Zimri had violated. I don't buy the "reincarnated as a dog" or "as a fish" stuff. Those who do, I suppose they have on whom to rely, but you don't have to buy into it yourself. (NB: While Googling to see if there was a website that talked about this, I found this article from Aish, which was very interesting. It included Shechem and Dina in the equation as well. http://www.aish.com/tp/i/moha/97291469.html) Lisa From micha at aishdas.org Tue Nov 7 13:54:20 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2017 16:54:20 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] 17 Marcheshvan Message-ID: <20171107215420.GA15523@aishdas.org> Yesterday, the 17th Marcheshvan, was the anniversary of two events: 1- The rain of the mabul began; and 2- 2 Nov 1917, the day the British Foreign Secretary, Lord Alfred Balfour, sent the famous letter to Baron Lionel Walter Rothchild. Anyone want to connect the dots between the two? Two things I did notice: - Both were first steps, far from the final yeshu'ah. - Both were first followed by major destruction before anything positive could be seen from them. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger I have great faith in optimism as a philosophy, micha at aishdas.org if only because it offers us the opportunity of http://www.aishdas.org self-fulfilling prophecy. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Arthur C. Clarke From micha at aishdas.org Tue Nov 7 14:54:02 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2017 17:54:02 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Torah precheit? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20171107225402.GA26849@aishdas.org> On Thu, Oct 19, 2017 at 05:47:09AM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : R' Chaim Manaster asked: :> I have been trying to understand what the geshtalt of Torah :> was precheit of the eitz hadaas... ... :> The many consequences seem to be as follows: there would be :> no avdus in Mitzrayim, therefore no...... : One can ask similar questions about other turning-points in history. : What if Kayin had not killed Hevel? What if the world has not gone to : Avodah Zara a few generations later? What if Yishmael and/or Esav had : not gone of the derech? What if Moshe Rabenu had acted differently by : the rock? To get really confused... The Torah, like it's Author, is lemaaleh min hazman. What aspect of the Torah we mean by that aside for a moment, that means it wasn't written before the eitz hadaas, Kayin killing Hevel, Dor Enosh, galus Mitzrayim, etc... Torah doesn't enter the timeline until it is revealed at Har Sinai. Which means that there is no question about Hashem's "foreknowledge" and bechirah chafshi about anything written in the Torah that happens before Matan Torah. We can't talk about Hashem Knowing what we *will* decide until that Knowledge enters the timeline. There is no "before" or after to His knowing, only to when He informs others of it. So, for events that precede Har Sinai, the Torah can contain those decisions. There is no "what if" because Hashem Knows that that what wouldn't. No more a problem than if the Torah were written /after/ those events. Hey, I warned you I was opening the door to confusion. Then there is the question of the supernal Torah vs the form we got. As per the Ramban about the Torah without the letters separated into the words we have now. (Tangent: If one were to take that shitas haRamban at face value, there is meaning to the pesuqim with the words redivided. So, why isn't that one of the Middos shehaTorah Nidreshes Bahen?) : And there are yet others. Torah manifests itself differently to a : kohen than to a levi, and differently to a woman than to a man. And so : on... And on Sun, Oct 22, 2017 at 04:15:49PM -0400, RCM replied: : R. Akiva Miller wrote: ""If there is life on other planets, might they : possibly have a Torah? But Mitzrayim doesn't exist there, and Moshe : never lived there!" That question bothered me for a very long time," : Strangely enough, I had similar thoughts years back. As a young bachur : in yeshivo, my rebbi was teaching us that their was a period during : which the progenitor of kelal Yisroel would happen. I asked what would : have happened if there had been another deep thinker who came to the : same realization and belief that Avraham did. He answered that there : would have been two (or more) chosen peoples to eventually be mekabel : Torah. It didn't occur to me at the time to ask, would they each have the : "same" Torah or each get a tailored version to their (eventual) am? Or, : would there be one Torah that talks of both of the chosen peoples? Is there on some planet far away, an intelligent alien species with their Am haNivchar? How would the Torah be manifest to them? And if they didn't have a Migdal Bavel like event, did Hashem do that whole Mamlekhes Kohanim model, with castes within the alien Am haNivchar, or castes with everyone "nivchar"? Would they have a Holy Land? If we made contact with these creatures, would we recognize their perception of the Torah as another expression of Yahadus, or would it be too alien? I know this example seems less serious than yours; I meant it as a test case on which to check these ideas that doesn't have to involve "what if" histories that Hashem timelessly knows didn't / aren't / won't happen. : Years : later when discussing what is the purpose to us of the trillions of stars : and galaxies so distant that they could never possibly affect us here : on Earth? Then it occurred to me, what if those stars had planets with : intelligent beings on them and they too went through a similar period : wherein they too had some allien being come to the same conclusions as : Avraham did and they then became the chosen people of that planet and : received a Torah possibly tailored to their experiences and appropriate : there etc.? ... Or maybe they do affect our lives here on earth. Omphalists believe that the universe was created at some point in the nearer past, eg 5778 years ago -- or Last Thursday -- and everything before that is fake. And this is the position of the LR and R' Avigdor Miller. (Although Last Thursdayism is a mock-religion posed by atheists trying to ridicule their position.) The usual challenge by those who like to be more rationalist is that this would imply Hashem is out to fool us, creating light en route from stars to make it look like they shown billions of years ago, tragectories that if you work backward converge from a Big Bang, geological and archological records, fossils, cave paintings, remains of pre-Adamic farming... But there is a more thoughtful response: Perhaps the only way we can have teva today is if the universe we have now looks like it always ran by teva. Otherwise, the effects of nissim would still be causing anomolies we could pick up today. So much for hesteir Panim. In which case, we need a universe that is so big that our place is in looks like some unnoticable backwater. We need a universe that looks like it had a Big Bang and Inflation area in order for us to live with the set of laws of nature we have. And then their existence does impact us. : Moshe when he went lamorom to accept Torah. They too wanted Torah in a : version suitable to them which would deflect all of Moshe's responses. If : memory serves, I think some meforshim try to make sense of the malachim : in such a manner. Unlike RAM's or my hypothetical aliens, mal'akhim have no free will. Without having that much Tzelem E-lokim, would they qualify for revelation? I think the problem with the mal'akhim that the medrashic Moshe highlights in his response to their claim on the Torah is that they do Retzon haBorei automatically, they lack the challenges one would need the Torah to address. Without challenges, they cannot grow into more than they are; there is no need for a Torah to help show them how. Jumping back to RAM's post: :> As there would never be an Eretz Yisroel, then there would not :> be all the mitzvot hateltuot ba'aretz -- trumos, masros etc., etc. : : Or perhaps Gan Eden would have had that status. Eretz Yisrael is : actually a great example: Consider the idea that true nevuah can exist : only in Eretz Yisrael... Tangent: Yechezqeil? Yonah's qiqayon was outside Nineveh. Etc... : .... Rather, my point goes to : this "Torah with 613 mitzvot" that you refer to. It doesn't exist : today, and I don't know if it ever has existed. There has certainly : never been a person to whom they all applied, and I wonder whether : there was ever a generation when they were all in force. There is also the idea of mitzvos that were never expected to be applied. Like the gemara suggests about ben soreir umoreh and ir hanidachas. Perhaps they exist because history could have played out differently and these mitzvos would have had an applicability beyond derosh veqabel sekhar. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger None of us will leave this place alive. micha at aishdas.org All that is left to us is http://www.aishdas.org to be as human as possible while we are here. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Anonymous MD, while a Nazi prisoner From akivagmiller at gmail.com Wed Nov 8 04:57:26 2017 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2017 07:57:26 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Torah precheit? Message-ID: . R' Micha Berger asked: > Is there on some planet far away, an intelligent alien > species with their Am haNivchar? How would the Torah be > manifest to them? And if they didn't have a Migdal Bavel > like event, did Hashem do that whole Mamlekhes Kohanim > model, with castes within the alien Am haNivchar, or > castes with everyone "nivchar"? Would they have a > Holy Land? > > If we made contact with these creatures, would we > recognize their perception of the Torah as another > expression of Yahadus, or would it be too alien? My focus is on the word "too" in the phrase "too alien". I feel that while such beings would indeed be extremely alien to us, the degree of alien-ness is absolutely irrelevant to the question at hand: Any mashehu of alien-ness (I suspect) puts them outside the pale. In our modern way of thinking, in which "Eretz" means not only this planet but the entire physical universe, and in which "Shamayim" does NOT include planets and stars but only the metaphysical universe, - Why would martians have a different status than any other foreigners? I can easily see a discussion of whether the martians count as people or as animals, but that is a separate issue. The issue here is that if they claimed to have some sort of Revelation from the One True G-d, then would we accept it as being another facet of the Shiv'im Panim LaTorah? And my answer is: What would we say if a group of earthly *humans* claimed to have some sort of Revelation from the One True G-d? Would we accept *that* as being another facet of the Shiv'im Panim LaTorah? My guess is that our response would be: That's very nice, and you are a sincere group of righeous Bnei Noach... and then we'd pretty much ignore them. Not out of malice, but because their message is not directed towards us. Here's a litmus test for whether or not I am close to correct: If I'm not mistaken, when a person claims to be a Navi, there are specific tests for whether or not he is believed, and if he passes those tests, and he has a message from Hashem for us, then we are obligated to follow that message. Is Jewishness among those criteria? If Ovadia had not converted, would his nevua be any less true or any less obligatory? > If we made contact with these creatures, would we > recognize their perception of the Torah as another > expression of Yahadus, or would it be too alien? I suppose one answer might be: The word "Yahadus" is too restrictive. Try replacing it with "Ratzon Hashem". Akiva Miller From zev at sero.name Wed Nov 8 08:12:06 2017 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2017 11:12:06 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Torah precheit? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 08/11/17 07:57, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > I can easily see a discussion of whether the martians count as people > or as animals, but that is a separate issue. The issue here is that if > they claimed to have some sort of Revelation from the One True G-d, > then would we accept it as being another facet of the Shiv'im Panim > LaTorah? And my answer is: What would we say if a group of earthly > *humans* claimed to have some sort of Revelation from the One True > G-d? Would we accept*that* as being another facet of the Shiv'im > Panim LaTorah? > > My guess is that our response would be: That's very nice, and you are > a sincere group of righeous Bnei Noach... and then we'd pretty much > ignore them. Not out of malice, but because their message is not > directed towards us. > If all they claimed was to have once had a navi, whose nevuah didn't contradict our Torah in any way, then perhaps we might accept it as valid. But if they were to claim to have had their own matan torah I think we would have to reject it. It's fundamental to our faith that matan torah was an event that could only happen once. It's also fundamental that Hashem chose avraham from *all* humanity, and us from *all* the nations, so if someone else -- on this planet or any other -- were to make such a claim we could not accept it. as for how Hashem could leave them without a Torah to guide them, how are they different from any remote people who had no contact with anyone who had even heard of the Torah until the 19th or 20th century? If the New Guinea Highlanders (some of whom have *still* never had any contact with the world outside their valleys) could wait until now to hear about the Torah, why can't the Tau Cetians, or whoever, wait until the 25th or 30th century? (assuming the 6000 years thing to be some sort of metaphor, of course, or there won't be a 30th century.) -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From zvilampel at gmail.com Wed Nov 8 08:53:24 2017 From: zvilampel at gmail.com (H Lampel) Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2017 11:53:24 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Torah precheit? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 11/7/2017 6:05 PM, MIcha Berger wrote: > ... that the universe was created at some point in the nearer > past, eg 5778 years ago -- or Last Thursday -- and everything before that is > fake. ...is the position of ... R' Avigdor Miller. He certainly is not of the opinion of last-Thursday-ism. (I suspect RMB did not really mean that.) His opinion is based on the mesora. Re: ''and everything before that is fake. ...is the position of ... R' Avigdor Miller'' To clarify, R' Avigdor Miller's position is not that fossils, for example, were planted merely as a test of our emunah. > Why should the [dinosaurs] need explanation any more than the dodo, the passenger pigeon, or any of the other species which > have become extinct, some even in our time? The huge > animals of ancient times, as well as many small animals, > became extinct each in the due time decreed by the timetable > of Heaven. ... Their existence is a fact which does > not help th theory of Evolution in any manner. (Rejoice O Youth, pp. 47-48) However, that Adam was created as a 30-year-old (as Chazal say), with, for example, a full mouth of teeth? Yes. Because: > ''Creation means that the Universe began at once in full-blown development. > The First Man immediately had trees whose fruit he could eat. > But fruit trees must beforehand be pollinated by bees, and bees need beehives with all their > paraphernalia. So you understand that Creation implies that > everything came into existence without benefit of time." > > "Trees have in their trunks a number of concentric rings, > each ring denoting a year of existence. If the First Man had > sawed off a tree, would he have found rings inside?" > > "Since he had trees, they were what we know a tree > to be." > > ...thousand-year redwood trees...?" > > "Creation included everything. Just as the First Man > had mature fruit trees at the first moment, so also the world > possessed mature lumber trees which were created at the > same time." > > "[So]... all animals and insects and bacteria were created, > including those which need rotting old logs and crumbling old > rocks for their habitat or sustenance. Thus, it is self? > explanatory that the world possessed 'aged' materials from the > very outset, including vegetation and animal carcasses with low > carbon-14 content and rocks with heavy lead content.'' > > (Ibid. pp 45-46) Zvi Lampel PS--Again, this is to clarify Rav Miller's position, and hopefully will not evolve (;)) into a discussion of it. Been there, done that, and no time. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Wed Nov 8 13:59:13 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2017 16:59:13 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Torah precheit? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20171108215913.GB3342@aishdas.org> On Wed, Nov 08, 2017 at 07:57:26AM -0500, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: :> If we made contact with these creatures, would we :> recognize their perception of the Torah as another :> expression of Yahadus, or would it be too alien? : My focus is on the word "too" in the phrase "too alien". I feel that : while such beings would indeed be extremely alien to us, the degree of : alien-ness is absolutely irrelevant to the question at hand: Any : mashehu of alien-ness (I suspect) puts them outside the pale. Actually, when I said "too alien" I was thinking not of ways their book of Retzon haBorei different from our Torah but ways in which their existence is so different from ours that we can't event compare. It's one thing to discuss what hilkhos geirus might look like if they had a hahaflagah but they already live in a liquid. It's another to discuss what halakhah as a whole would look like if they didn't experience time as a linear past-present-future the way we do. This discussion also reminds me of my Issacharism thought experiment. Positing that sheivet Yissachar survived, and had its own development of halakhah since the fall of Malkhus Yisrael. Its own Sanhedrin, no Anshei Keneses haGdfolah, etc... The same beris Sinai, but an entirely different development of 3,000 of application of kelalei pesaq, different gezeiros and taqanos... And to make it harder, let's say their population of shomerei Torah uMizvos has been roughly the same as ours all these years. So there are no grounds for saying one set of Sanhedrins is more authorivative than the other. : In our modern way of thinking, in which "Eretz" means not only this : planet but the entire physical universe, and in which "Shamayim" does : NOT include planets and stars but only the metaphysical universe, - : Why would martians have a different status than any other foreigners? Because it's possible that if Vulcans existed, HQBH would have provided them with /their/ mamlekhes kohanim. Yes, I can't guess what HQBH would do -- He could equally have wanted their spiritual development to wait until *we* get there. Like some aboriginal people on this planet, who never heard of us or even Ibrahimic religions relatively recently. Possibly relevant is the Rambam's shitah that chasidei umos ha'olam are only those who keep the 7 mitzvos because they were given at Sinai. Perhaps this gives more reason for a Vulcan am hanivchar. If anyone who does the right thing because it's logically the right thing accomplished their goal in life, then perhaps not every kind of being with bekhirah needs access to a revelation. : The issue here is that if : they claimed to have some sort of Revelation from the One True G-d, : then would we accept it as being another facet of the Shiv'im Panim : LaTorah? And my answer is: What would we say if a group of earthly : *humans* claimed to have some sort of Revelation from the One True : G-d? Would we accept *that* as being another facet of the Shiv'im : Panim LaTorah? We are a segulah mikol ha'amim, beni bekhori Yisrael. We know we recieved a unique revelation. The discussion is whether it's unique for all of humanity, or full-stop unique universally. : My guess is that our response would be: That's very nice, and you are : a sincere group of righeous Bnei Noach... and then we'd pretty much : ignore them... I agree with the "ignore" part, though. Accept for the academics and their journals. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Despair is the worst of ailments. No worries micha at aishdas.org are justified except: "Why am I so worried?" http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yisrael Salanter Fax: (270) 514-1507 From seinfeld at daasbooks.com Wed Nov 8 18:00:29 2017 From: seinfeld at daasbooks.com (Alexander Seinfeld) Date: Wed, 08 Nov 2017 21:00:29 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Torah precheit? Message-ID: > > > >But there is a more thoughtful response: Perhaps the only way we can >have teva today is if the universe we have now looks like it always >ran by teva. Otherwise, the effects of nissim would still be causing >anomolies we could pick up today. So much for hesteir Panim. > >In which case, we need a universe that is so big that our place is in >looks like some unnoticable backwater. We need a universe that looks >like it had a Big Bang and Inflation area in order for us to live with >the set of laws of nature we have. > >And then their existence does impact us. Just want to point out, or remind, that there are two independent questions here that often become conflated. 1. Can a rational person believe in ?young Earth? (i.e., >6,000 years old)? 2. Why would God create a universe making it look like it is far older than it really is? The basis of answering yes to #1 has nothing to do with #2. I do not need to know why in order to examine the evidence for #1 and conclude that He did probably make the world 5,778 years ago. The fact that I cannot answer #2 should not be entered as evidence against #1. This is the m?haleich of R? Dovid Gottlieb. The fallacy of the skeptics is to mock #1 based on #2, when in fact it is irrelevant. My own personal belief is merely that the vastness of space and time give us the opportunity with our puny minds to have an analogy for God?s infiniteness. From afolger at aishdas.org Mon Nov 13 04:05:02 2017 From: afolger at aishdas.org (Arie Folger) Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2017 13:05:02 +0100 Subject: [Avodah] Torah precheit Message-ID: RAM and RMB have been arguing about whether aliens somewhere out there could have received a Revelation akin to ours and whether theirs would be one of shiv'im panim la-Torah. My USD0.02c: I believe that it is not unimportant that according to present theories of physics, we are constrained by how far we could ever travel. Even if we were to remain happy with slower than light travel, travelling at the phenomenal speeds necessary to get anywhere else in our own galaxy where aliens might live, i.e. in another star system with planets in the habitable zone, would use up phenomenal amounts of energy. Furthermore, the distances are so vast, that we would need enormous (what's the trendy word variant, ginormous?) amounts of time, and we still hardly would get anywhere. Bottom line, there very well may exist intelligent aliens out there, but we are near 100% sure that we will never ever be able to meet them. Which leads me to the following observation: If there are aliens out there which we will one day meet, then we could not accept their *competing* Revelation. There is only one 'am hanivchar. We would indeed need to see them as a special kind of Noachides with a possible true revelation that is, however, subordinate to ours and can never contradict it. If, however, we consider aliens whom we will never ever be able to meet, I see no reason why they couldn't have their own Revelation, with their own Torah, which, while it surely will agree in all iqarim, may nonetheless, through a variety of mechanisms suggested by mefarshim throughout the ages (including but not limited to the Ramban's Torah without spaces, and the expansion thereof by later mequbalim that the Heavenly Torah has 23 letters, of which we only see 22), be quite different from ours. I do wonder though, can there be an alien civilization we will one day encounter in person, which has exactly the same Torah as we do. It would seem extremely improbable for them to have had an Avraham, Yitzchak & Yaakov, Shevatim & galut Mitzrayim, but hey, if this is predetermined in part, then why not? The question will then be, are they and us the same people (in the assumption that it is even physically possible to intermarry)? I consider this whole possibility even less likely than the one about meeting any aliens anywhere, so this is just an thought experiment. Kol tuv, -- Arie Folger -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From akivagmiller at gmail.com Mon Nov 13 17:45:22 2017 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2017 20:45:22 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Gifts on Shabbos Message-ID: . I am trying to get a more precise understanding of when it is assur/mutar to give someone a gift on Shabbos. Orach Chayim 306 is about all sorts of business activities. Gifts are a subset of this topic, and Mishne Berura 306:33 writes, "It is also assur to give a gift to one's friend, because it is similar to buying and selling, because it leaves his ownership [reshus]. But a gift is mutar when it is L'tzorech Shabbos V'Yom Tov - as written in 323:7 - and likewise for L'tzorech Mitzvah... And it also wrote that according to that, the practice of giving keilim as a gift to a Chasan is improper..." When I turn to Shulchan Aruch 323:7, Mechaber doesn't say anything about the general laws of giving gifts on Shabbos. He only gives one particular case: That if one forgot to tovel a keli before Shabbos, so it cannot be used on Shabbos, he is allowed to give it to a non-Jew as a gift, and then borrow it back for Shabbos use. Mishne Brura 323:34 explains: "Even though it is assur to give gifts on Shabbos as written in Siman 306, here it is allowed because of Tzorech Shabbos." The logic is somewhat circular, I think: 306 refers to 323, and 323 refers to 306. The only clear heter is an interesting one: On the one hand, it is for a NON-food item (though it is food-related); on the other hand, it seems to be a b'dieved solution for the person who either forgot to tovel it before Shabbos, or somehow acquired it from a non-Jew on Shabbos. I don't see any clear heter to deliberately give a food gift on Shabbos, and I also don't see any clear prohibition that non-foods are excluded from being "L'tzorech Shabbos". Mishne Berurah 306:33 says that it is wrong to give "keilim" as gifts to a chasan. Rabbi Dovid Ribiat ("The 39 Melochos", page 961) includes "presenting a Bar Mitzvah boy with a Sefer" in this category. These examples suggest two rules to me: (1) If the gift will not be used until after Shabbos (quite likely for the bar mitzvah boy's sefer, though I have no idea which "kelim" the chasan would receive), then it is not "letzorech Shabbos". (2) The chasan (or bar mitzvah boy) presumably gets hanaah from receiving the gift, but that amount of Oneg Shabbos is not significant enough to count as "letzorech Shabbos". I offer two specific examples for discussion: (1) Many shuls offer printed material, such as parsha sheets, weekly shul bulletins, and even newspapers and magazines. Or someone might attend a shiur, where the teacher distributes printed handouts of the source material. Can I take these home to read or learn from on Shabbos afternoon? Wouldn't this be a Tzorech Shabbos? (2) Suppose someone is invited to a friend for a Shabbos meal, and he brings a challah or wine as a gift for the host. The host was not expecting it and has other food that he was planning to use. Is this enough of a tzorech Shabbos to transfer ownership? If this host accepts the gift, is he required to serve the food? In other words, if "tzorech Shabbos" is indeed a carte blanche for food gifts, does the food have to actually be eaten? Akiva Miller Postscript: It seems to me that this issur of giving gifts applies only on Shabbos, and *not* on Yom Tov. Consider: You can send a living behema to your friend on YT, even through a Reshus Harabim, even if you know that the friend won't shecht it, and the heter is contingent only on the fact that the friend COULD shecht it. (MB 516:1) You can even send a pair of tefillin to your friend even though it is not needed at all for Yom Tov; the only requirements are that the tefillin are ready-for-use, and that friend gets hanaa from receiving the gift (MB 516:11-12) That whole siman seems to deal with issues of hotzaah and muktzeh, and doesn't even mention kinyanim (at least, I didn't see any such mention). This is very puzzling: Why would there be a difference between giving gifts on Shabbos and on Yom Tov? If this could be answered, it might shed light on what "L'tzorech Shabbos" means. From micha at aishdas.org Tue Nov 14 08:39:28 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2017 11:39:28 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Gilgul Hanefesh In-Reply-To: <3ad8c297-8019-3aa5-de3b-800ffe91d6c9@starways.net> References: <3ad8c297-8019-3aa5-de3b-800ffe91d6c9@starways.net> Message-ID: <20171114163928.GD29616@aishdas.org> On Tue, Nov 07, 2017 at 12:43:04PM +0200, Lisa Liel via Avodah wrote: : As I understand it, gilgul neshamot is not the same as the eastern : idea of reincarnation, where one person's soul literally incarnates : again in another body and lives another life... RSGaon says in (Emunos veDei'os 6:8 tr R' Yosef el-Qafeh, "Kapach"; emphasis mine): Venineini omer ki anashim, mimi SHENIQRA'IM YEHUDIM, matzasim ma'aminim begilgul veqor'in oso haha'ataqus. I left that in Hebrew because I want to be medayeiq in lashon in a moment. To continue, with my translation from the Hebrew: The matter to their minds is that the ruach of Re'uvein will be in Shim'on, and after that in Leivi, and after that in Yehudah. And from them, or most of them figure that it could be that the ruach of a person will be in an animal, and the ruach of an anumal in a person. And a lot of such delusions and confusion. And then the rest of the chapter lists their errors. RYeQ footnotes that R' Uzziel concluded that the people who are "called Jews" who believe such things are the Qaraim. Anan (the founder) picked up this idea from the Greeks. I do not know the original Arabic, but in this translation, notice that it's possible to read RSG as being against people to take the idea of gilgul and call it "ha'ataqus" and describe it as souls migrating from person to person or even to animal, etc... But not against gilgul itself. Which would support Lisa's understanding. This read has two open questions to resolve, not that I am saying they're unanswerable: 1- RSG does use the same Arabic again at the end of the chapter (and ma'amar) that R "Kapach" translates to "gilgul" -- "And I say: what does this say that teaches about gilgul?..." Perhaps it should be read: How do they think those pesuqim indicate that gilgul means ha'ataqah -- they don't talk about gilgul altogether? 2- My bigger problem is that RSG would then be spending all this time on a heretical misunderstanding of gilgul, without even one sentence saying, "But what gilgul *really* means..."? It would even be an important point of the ma'amar's discussion of souls and afterlife. This omission I find highly unlikely. As to how they would differ. The kind of people who talk about gilgul also talk about Naran and sometimes even Naran Chai -- Nefesh Ruach Neshamah, which are the penimios aspects of the soul, and Chayah and Yechidah. For that matter, RSG discusses Naran in the very same ma'amar (6:3 ) as three kochos. To RSG, they are an indisible singularity that has three abilities. But in more Qabbalistic sources, they are described as parts even as the soul's unitary nature is also asserted. If ruach and nashamah are indeed parts, then there is a huge difference between 1- Gilgul nashamos: The neshamah -- and according to the Ari, even "sparks" of a neshamah rather than a whole one -- "revolves" from one life in one body to another. And 2- Ha'ataqa: where the ruach migrates. Neshamah is much less associated with the notion of "self" than ruach is. E.g. "Neshamah shanasati bi, tehorah hi." The "bi -- in me" receives a neshamah. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger It isn't what you have, or who you are, or where micha at aishdas.org you are, or what you are doing, that makes you http://www.aishdas.org happy or unhappy. It's what you think about. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Dale Carnegie From micha at aishdas.org Tue Nov 14 09:31:55 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2017 12:31:55 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Torah precheit? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20171114173155.GE29616@aishdas.org> On Wed, Nov 08, 2017 at 11:53:24AM -0500, H Lampel via Avodah wrote: : On 11/7/2017 6:05 PM, Micha Berger wrote: :> ... that the universe was created at some point in the nearer :> past, eg 5778 years ago -- or Last Thursday -- and everything before that is :> fake. ...is the position of ... R' Avigdor Miller. : He certainly is not of the opinion of last-Thursday-ism. (I suspect RMB did not really mean that.) His opinion is based on the mesora. I meant omphalism. Which is not based on the mesora, it's based on pashut peshat in a pasuq. A pasuq that we don't really have much mesorah saying actually hyas a pashut peshat, at least not one we can comprehend. : Re: "and everything before that is fake. ...is the position of ... R' : Avigdor Miller" : To clarify, R' Avigdor Miller's position is not that fossils, for example, : were planted merely as a test of our emunah. Which is why I didn't say that. Continuing with RZL's quote of RAM's Rejoice O Youth (pp. 47-48): :> Why should the [dinosaurs] need explanation any more than the :> dodo, the passenger pigeon, or any of the other species which :> have become extinct, some even in our time? The huge :> animals of ancient times, as well as many small animals, :> became extinct each in the due time decreed by the timetable :> of Heaven. ... Their existence is a fact which does :> not help th theory of Evolution in any manner. So he says it's simply incomprehensible. I also gave a different explanation than "test of our emunah" -- necessary for having a sensible and detectable teva. My point was to defend the viability of omphalism of both RAM's and the LR's sorts. Asking "Why would Hashem be so cruel as to create all that to mislead, at best to test" question presumes a strawman. : However, that Adam was created as a 30-year-old (as Chazal say), with, : for example, a full mouth of teeth? Yes. Because: :> "Creation means that the Universe began at once in full-blown development. :> The First Man immediately had trees whose fruit he could eat. .... :> (Ibid. pp 45-46) See Bereishis Rabba 14:7 ). According to R Yehudah bar Shimon says that "ofer olam" was created in his fullness. R' Elazar b Shimon says that Chava was too. R' Yochanan says they were creates as 20 (quibble: not 30) year olds. And then down in 14:10, R Yehudah says that Adam was made with a tail, but it was removed for the sake of his kavod. Evolution anywone? BUT: The month that Adam was born in is part of the greater machloqes between R' Yehoshua and R' Eliezer about Nissan vs Tishrei (RH 11a). Meaning, if the world was created in Tishrei, when "the earth brings forth plants and trees full of fruit", then yes, this medrash stands. But if the world was created in Nissan, when the plants start growing and the fruit is emerging from the tree (as the gemara puts it), then perhaps not. In any case, the meaning thereby ascribed to saying the world was made in Nissan is that the universe was created at its start. Regardless of Adam's development when born. So I would have said "one opinion in Chazal", not "as Chazal say". Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Friendship is like stone. A stone has no value, micha at aishdas.org but by rubbing one stone against another, http://www.aishdas.org sparks of fire emerge. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Mordechai of Lechovitz From micha at aishdas.org Tue Nov 14 10:38:37 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2017 13:38:37 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Gifts on Shabbos In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20171114183837.GF29616@aishdas.org> On Mon, Nov 13, 2017 at 08:45:22PM -0500, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : I am trying to get a more precise understanding of when it is : assur/mutar to give someone a gift on Shabbos. ... : The logic is somewhat circular, I think: 306 refers to 323, and 323 : refers to 306... The Mishnah Berurah has mutual references between 306:33 and 323:34. But I don't see the logic itself being circular. 306 spells out the theory, and 323 is an example of that theory and at each place he shows you the other half of the picture. Giving gifts is assur (derabbanan) on Shabbos, except when the purpose of the gift is letzorekh Shabbos, or another mitzvah. Thus, it includes giving a non-toveled keli to a non-Jew so that it can be borrowed back and used *for Shabbos*. But not a wedding gift, which (as per R' Ribiat's bar mitzvah boy) presumably isn't needed by the chasan on Shabbos. And apparently claiming simchas chasan being a mitzvah isn't sufficient to say the gift is letzorekh mitzvah. Which you note as well, although you phrase it in terms of hana'ah and oneg Shabbos, ie lezorekh Shabbos. Perhaps this is because there are other ways to provide simchah or oneg, so it's not "letzorekh". : (1) Many shuls offer printed material, such as parsha sheets, weekly : shul bulletins, and even newspapers and magazines. Or someone might : attend a shiur, where the teacher distributes printed handouts of the : source material. Can I take these home to read or learn from on : Shabbos afternoon? Wouldn't this be a Tzorech Shabbos? I would think so. Why any less than a gift of food? In both cases, the recipient already owns alternatives. So why would something to eat be more letzorekh Shabbos than something to learn? This is unlike the bar mitzvah boy recieving a sefer (acc to R' Ribiat), in that the purpose isn't learning on Shabbos. Implied: A guest who knows the host won't use the food (eg he recommends waiting until the wine is chilled) shouldn't be giving even usable food. Is this the halakhah? Also, I found that ROY (Yechaveh Da'as 3:21) DOES allow giving the bar mitzvah boy that seifer because it provides chizuq. And there is no greater letzorekh mitzvah than that! : (2) Suppose someone is invited to a friend for a Shabbos meal, and he : brings a challah or wine as a gift for the host. The host was not : expecting it and has other food that he was planning to use. Is this : enough of a tzorech Shabbos to transfer ownership? ... Or, in the SA's case... can you give the non-toveled keli to a nakhri when you have just as good or nearly as good alternatives? That you already had thoughts of using? I took it for granted yes, since if not, the SA is oddly missing an important half of the story. Which is why above I only asked about a case where the guest gives something in a way that rules out its use, rather than just left to the host's choice. When I am the guest in this situation, I am zokheh lo shelo befanav and transfer ownership on Friday. Came in handy a couple of times when the host refused the gift. "Well, if you don't want it, you can regift it. Because it's yours already and you aren't allowed to give it back" right now, at least. : Postscript: It seems to me that this issur of giving gifts applies : only on Shabbos, and *not* on Yom Tov... Then why "letzorekh Shabbos or YT"? When do you have something that is letzorekh YT in particular when it's also Shabbos? : (MB 516:1) You can : even send a pair of tefillin to your friend even though it is not : needed at all for Yom Tov; the only requirements are that the tefillin : are ready-for-use, and that friend gets hanaa from receiving the gift : (MB 516:11-12) And the bar mitzvah boy doesn't get the same kind of hana'ah (speaking quality, not quantity) from his uncle's gift of a set of Rambam? Now I'm confused again. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "The worst thing that can happen to a micha at aishdas.org person is to remain asleep and untamed." http://www.aishdas.org - Rabbi Simcha Zissel Ziv, Alter of Kelm Fax: (270) 514-1507 From micha at aishdas.org Tue Nov 14 10:48:32 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2017 13:48:32 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Torah precheit In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20171114184832.GI29616@aishdas.org> On Mon, Nov 13, 2017 at 01:05:02PM +0100, Arie Folger via Avodah wrote: : Bottom line, there very well may exist intelligent aliens out there, but we : are near 100% sure that we will never ever be able to meet them. Nice chiluq! : Which leads me to the following observation: If there are aliens out there : which we will one day meet, then we could not accept their *competing* : Revelation. There is only one 'am hanivchar... Who said that "nivchar mibein ha'amim" means anything beyond benei Adam, amim as caused by Migdal Bavel? Perhaps their revelation isn't so much competing as the RBSO providing them a chance at redemption before Yom Hashem haGadol vehanora, or at least before whenever it is we get there? : them as a special kind of Noachides with a possible true revelation that : is, however, subordinate to ours and can never contradict it. This is itself the question I was trying to keep under discussion. Could we even recognize a contradiction? After all, the appearance of Retzon haBorei to creatures very different than us isn't likely to have many points where we can contradict. Assuming they are ethical monotheists, that is. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger It's never too late micha at aishdas.org to become the person http://www.aishdas.org you might have been. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - George Eliot From meirabi at gmail.com Thu Nov 16 16:11:31 2017 From: meirabi at gmail.com (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi) Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2017 11:11:31 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] How Much Salt for Kashering? Message-ID: Kosher meat must have all traces of blood removed. This procedure is known as 'Kashering' and requires very precise procedures and timing of rinsing, soaking, salting and finally removal of the salt and blood via rinsing and washing. Halachah provides no precise measure of salt to be used for Kashering and although insisting that all surfaces must be covered with salt, does not differentiate between small and large surface area to volume ratios, i.e. thick or thin pieces of meat. In other words a large circular hunk of meat [small ratio of surface area to volume] requires the identical amount of surface salt and time for Kashering as does a thin piece [large ratio of surface area to volume] Furthermore, a 20cm thick piece of meat will be Kashered when salted on both sides, meaning the salt will extract blood from a depth of 10 cm, but a 4cm thick piece of meat salted only on one side will not be Kosher. It seems like the process has been standardised to accommodate all cases. Nevertheless, although Halachah permits various shortcuts when Kashering for emergency situations, it does not advise Kashering thin slices to reduce preparation time. Meat that was cooked before it was Kashered will make everything in the pot it is cooked with non-Kosher. Halacha asserts there is as much blood in the piece of meat as the mass of meat. If however, there is enough Kosher food in the pot to render the blood insignificant, the food will be Kosher. Halachah requires 60 units of Kosher food to neutralise every unit of blood [1 gram of blood requires 60 grams of Kosher food] In other words, a 100 gram piece of meat will require 6kg to neutralise the blood. However, meat that was cooked after Kashering but before the blood and salt was washed off, requires only 60 times the salt and blood on the surface of the meat i.e. soaked into the salt. The blood that was in the meat has been removed by the salting. Some authorities [a note in the ShaArei Dura] assert that every piece of meat is itself large enough to neutralise the salt whilst others [the Rama 69:9] assert it provides only half the mass required. ????? ??"? - ??? ????? ???? ??? ????? ?????? ?????? ???? ??? ???? ???? ???? ??? ??? ??? ???? ?? ??? ?? ?? ???? ????? ??? ??? ????? ?? ??? ?? ??? ????? ????? ???? ??? ????? ??? ??? ?? ???? ???? ?? ??? ???? The Rama however disagrees with the ratio - "there can be no question that if the pot contains as much as the mass of the meat, it is certainly more than 60 times the salt ...." See Shach that BeDiAvad, we may rely upon the lenient opinion particularly if it is a thick piece. ????? ???? ??????????? ?''? ?????? ?????????? ??????????? ????? ??????, ?????? ??????, ?????????? ?????? ????????? ????? ???????? ?????? ?????????? ????????????? ???????? ?????????? ???? ?????????? ????? ???????? ?????????, (????????? ?????? ?''? ?''? To the best of my knowledge, this is the only source that provides an empiric measurement of how much salt is to be used for Kashering. Keep in mind that since this is a general ruling it must encompass all cases, the guidelines must reflect the maximum amount of salt that would be applied and that would remain until the meat is ready for its final washdown. In the words of the Rama, "there can be no question that if the pot contains as much as the mass of the meat, it is certainly more than 60 times the salt ...." The Halacha must provide the maximum safety margin and must therefore assume that the maximum amount of salt was applied and remains on the meat when it is added to the pot. Further, the Halacha must accommodate the largest surface area to meat ratio [ChAdam 32:4] and the heaviest salting hand. In other words, every possible variant that increases the amount of salt used is turned up to the max - and in this worst possible case scenario, we can be certain that the salt is no more than one thirtieth of the mass of the meat. In other words, an average sized steak, 300 - 400 gms, requires no more than 2 teaspoonfuls of salt for Kashering. Another thing that is certain - all Kosher agencies apply far more salt for Kashering than one thirtieth. Does it make a difference? Well, these days, the cost of disposing of contaminants is rising dramatically and salt is deemed a nasty contaminant and is becoming more expensive to dispose. It already adds a significant cost to production. Best, Meir G. Rabi 0423 207 837 +61 423 207 837 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From meirabi at gmail.com Sat Nov 18 13:25:21 2017 From: meirabi at gmail.com (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi) Date: Sun, 19 Nov 2017 08:25:21 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] Sedra Toldos - Balance, When Parents Favour One Child Message-ID: Our actions are pretty much prompted by Life's circumstances, we are mostly provoked to react. We do [many/most] things to counter a perceived imbalance, an injustice. Perhaps, with this in mind, we can better understand Yitzchak, Rivkah and Eisav as they are portrayed in this week's Sedra. Isaac favoured Eisav, because he was "Tzayid BeFiv", Rivkah favoured YaAkov [25:28] We are told why Yitzchak favours Eisav but not why Rivkah favours YaAkov. Yitzchak favours Eisav because Eisav is a "Tzayid BeFiv" lit. hunted with his mouth. Rashi explains this as either [or both] - he deceived his father like a hunter lying in ambush or stalking prey and catching it at a vulnerable moment, i.e. feeding Yitchak fake news to present himself as exceedingly Gd fearing; or, he fed Yitzchak tasty food, "Make me the tasty food I enjoy ... so that I might bless you before I die." [27:4] But Eisav was not a better cook than Rivkah - "she made him a delicious dish just as he liked" [27:14] [unless she had him on a healthy food diet and Eisav was Yitzchak's secret steak supplier] Eisav loved his father and he loved hunting [25:27]. He desperately sought his father's approval. He pursued this as he best knew, by hunting and even by lying. We might even say that he felt as though he was hunting for his father's love. Yitzchak understood, he encouraged Eisav to hunt and cook for him. He even reminded Eisav to take his hunting weapons when he instructs him to hunt and prepare food before he blesses him - Yitzchak wants Eisav to be engaged in the hunting and preparation of the food, because it is this engagement that is their link and best encapsulates his approval of his son Eisav. In other words, "It's not the food I want, for that I could ask your mother or you could grab an animal from our flock - it would be much quicker. No, I want you to be of service to me. Knowing that you have hunted to provide for me makes me happy and I enjoy the food more." Eisav knew that his mother was capable of and willing to provide her husband with all the tasty food he could stomach. He got the message that it was not food that Yitzchak wanted. Yitzchak was reaching out to Eisav, knowing how desperately Eisav sought his approval. Eisav learned how to cook in order to express his love. He even deceived Yitchak, painting himself as the Gd fearing son in order to win his father's approval. Best, Meir G. Rabi 0423 207 837 +61 423 207 837 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From akivagmiller at gmail.com Sat Nov 18 19:23:18 2017 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Sat, 18 Nov 2017 22:23:18 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] T'hay Message-ID: There is a word spelled tav-heh-aleph, pronounced "t'hay". Is this word Hebrew or Aramaic? >From context and sound, I have always presumed that it means something very similar to "yihyeh". Is that correct? If they are indeed similar in meaning, then I imgine that they is still some slight shade of difference. If they meant the exact same thing, wouldn't authors use the more common word (yihyeh) instead? This would be the case even if t'hay is Hebrew, and it would certainly be true if t'hay is Aramaic. The reason I'm asking these questions is because I have found a surprising number of paragraphs in my siddur, where all the words are obviously Hebrew, except for this one word. Including a foreign word in a text is not unheard of (there's a Latin word in Nachem, for example), but this is generally done because there is no native word with the precise meaning that the author is aiming for. And I can't imagine why "yihyeh" doesn't work in these cases: Hamapil: "us'hay mitasi shleima l'fanecha" Birkas Hamazon, near the end: "zechus shet'hay l'mishmeres shalom" Birkas Hamazon on Shabbos: "shelo t'hay tzara" Birkas Hachodesh: "chayim shet'hay banu ahavas torah" Avinu Malkenu: "t'hay hashaah hazos" Yizkor: "bis'char zeh t'hay nafsho" Yom Kippur Musaf, the Kohen Gadol's tefila: "shet'hay hashana hazos" Kel Malay Rachamim: "b'gan eden t'hay menuchaso" (I have omitted parts of the siddur that are taken from the Mishna (such as Bameh Madlikin and Pitum Haketores) because it is the nature of the Mishna to mix Hebrew and Aramaic, so use of the word "t'hay" isn't a glaring exception the way it is in the rest of the siddur. Also, I note that my examples were all taken from Nusach Ashkenaz; other nuschaos may have more or fewer instances of this word.) Thank you, Akiva Miller From simon.montagu at gmail.com Mon Nov 20 00:38:38 2017 From: simon.montagu at gmail.com (Simon Montagu) Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2017 10:38:38 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] T'hay In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sun, Nov 19, 2017 at 5:23 AM, Akiva Miller via Avodah < avodah at lists.aishdas.org> wrote: > There is a word spelled tav-heh-aleph, pronounced "t'hay". Is this > word Hebrew or Aramaic? > Hebrew. I believe the Aramaic equivalent would be tehevi. > > From context and sound, I have always presumed that it means something > very similar to "yihyeh". Is that correct? > > If they are indeed similar in meaning, then I imgine that they is > still some slight shade of difference. If they meant the exact same > thing, wouldn't authors use the more common word (yihyeh) instead? > This would be the case even if t'hay is Hebrew, and it would certainly > be true if t'hay is Aramaic. > > The reason I'm asking these questions is because I have found a > surprising number of paragraphs in my siddur, where all the words are > obviously Hebrew, except for this one word. Including a foreign word > in a text is not unheard of (there's a Latin word in Nachem, for > example), but this is generally done because there is no native word > with the precise meaning that the author is aiming for. And I can't > imagine why "yihyeh" doesn't work in these cases: (At any rate it would be "tihyeh" in the cases you quote, which are all in the feminine) In my siddur (Singer's) all the examples you give are "tehi" with a yud, which is Biblical Hebrew, as in "Tehi ala benotenu" in last week's parasha (Bereshit 26:28). The difference between yihyeh/yehi and tihyeh/tehi is that the first is future and the second is jussive (though the future can be used in a jussive sense). I assume the form with alef is Rabbinic Hebrew. How it comes to be used in the siddur, or in which nushaot exactly, I don't know. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jay at m5.chicago.il.us Mon Nov 20 05:12:52 2017 From: jay at m5.chicago.il.us (Jay F. Shachter) Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2017 13:12:52 +0000 (WET) Subject: [Avodah] How Much Salt for Kashering? In-Reply-To: from "avodah-request@lists.aishdas.org" at Nov 16, 2017 06:40:58 pm Message-ID: <15112051720.1Acb3A518.50843@lsd.chicago.il.us.chicago.il.us> > > Kosher meat must have all traces of blood removed. > No, it does not. This is true only if you are going to cook the meat before eating it. Jay F. ("Yaakov") Shachter 6424 N Whipple St Chicago IL 60645-4111 (1-773)7613784 landline (1-410)9964737 GoogleVoice jay at m5.chicago.il.us http://m5.chicago.il.us "Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur" From lisa at starways.net Mon Nov 20 04:02:11 2017 From: lisa at starways.net (Lisa Liel) Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2017 14:02:11 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] T'hay In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <91877a4d-0aeb-1a75-d7b1-78f399a2746e@starways.net> I'm not sure.? We have "yehei ra'ava kadamach" in Brich Shmei d'Marei Alma, which is definitely Aramaic.? The yehei is the same as tehei. I think what's happening here is that there's a certain amount of bleed-over between Hebrew and Aramaic.? In addition, there were different dialects of Aramaic in Eretz Yisrael and Bavel.? So while tehevei may be the correct Aramaic, tehei may be as well. Lisa On 11/20/2017 10:38 AM, Simon Montagu via Avodah wrote: > On Sun, Nov 19, 2017 at 5:23 AM, Akiva Miller via Avodah > > wrote: > > There is a word spelled tav-heh-aleph, pronounced "t'hay". Is this > word Hebrew or Aramaic? > > > Hebrew. I believe the Aramaic equivalent would be tehevi. > From micha at aishdas.org Mon Nov 20 10:24:50 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2017 13:24:50 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Sedra Toldos - Balance, When Parents Favour One Child In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20171120182450.GA24872@aishdas.org> On Sun, Nov 19, 2017 at 08:25:21AM +1100, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: : But Eisav was not a better cook than Rivkah - "she made him a delicious : dish just as he liked" [27:14] [unless she had him on a healthy food diet : and Eisav was Yitzchak's secret steak supplier] Or the hunter was usually the one who prepared the game, whereas Rivqa tended to be cooking the animals they farmed. ... : Yitzchak understood, he encouraged Eisav to hunt and cook for him. He even : reminded Eisav to take his hunting weapons when he instructs him to hunt : and prepare food before he blesses him - Yitzchak wants Eisav to be engaged : in the hunting and preparation of the food, because it is this engagement : that is their link and best encapsulates his approval of his son Eisav... Perhaps this is the whole point of the Torah's not saying why Rivqa preferred Yaaqov. Yitzchaq's additional love of Esav was teluyah bedavar, and that fact impacted Eisav's choices. Rivqa love Yaaqov, full stop, not for some reason. There is also an idea I heard from RYBS and often utilized in Gush circles that had things turned out more positively, Eisav would have been the physical arm of the same project as Yaaqv's Torah. Eisav's children would have supported and protected Yaaqov's. According to the Qedushas Levi's version of this idea, Yitzchaq knew Eisav had failings, but felt that the person who was supposed to go out into the real world was bound to be the tzadiq who "falls 7 times and arises" (to quote Shelomo haMelekh). What Yaaqov missed was the nevu'ah "ushnei le'umim mimei'ayikh yipareidu". He thought that the ideal plan, Esav and Yaaqov together without such pirud, was still how history was going to play out. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Spirituality is like a bird: if you tighten micha at aishdas.org your grip on it, it chokes; slacken your grip, http://www.aishdas.org and it flies away. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From micha at aishdas.org Mon Nov 20 11:11:25 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2017 14:11:25 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Hutrah and Dechuyah in Yibum Message-ID: <20171120191124.GB24872@aishdas.org> The topic of EhE 165 is whether yibum or chalitzah is the preferred choice. The Rambam and Rif side with yibum (in cases when yibum is in the almanah's best interest), as per the mishnah rishonah and possibly repeated by the chakhamim in the gemara (Yevamos 39b). Whereas R' Tam, R' Chananel & the Smag hold like Abba Shaul, that since it's too likely the yavam has other things than reestablishing his brother's bayis in mind, chalitzah is the better choice, bizman hazeh. The AhS has an interesting take. First, in se'if 5, he rules out the issue being mitzvos tzerikhos kavanah. If AS gave preference to chalitzah because yibum requires kavanah, then it would be the Rambam and the Rif -- the rishonim who more often hold mitzvos tzerichos kavanah -- who would be siding with him. The AhS (se'if 6) proposes that the machloqes is huterah vs dechuyah. If yibum is a matir for eishes ach, there is no problem doing the mitzvah of yibum even if the yavam's interest is in his new wife solely for her own qualities. However, if it is only docheh eishes ach, then any other kavanah for performing yibum is desire for a sin, and thus should be avoided by choosing chalitzah. And that this is the norm today. I noticed that happens to parallel who holds piquach nefesh is matir melekhes Shabbos vs who holds it is docheh it. There too Sepharadi rishonim don't feel a need to minimize melakhah (huterah), whereas the Ashk rishonim try to (because it's only dechuyah). Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger I thank God for my handicaps, for, through them, micha at aishdas.org I have found myself, my work, and my God. http://www.aishdas.org - Helen Keller Fax: (270) 514-1507 From meirabi at gmail.com Mon Nov 20 14:35:03 2017 From: meirabi at gmail.com (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi) Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2017 09:35:03 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] Sedra Toldos - Balance, When Parents Favour One Child In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I prefer not to be so speculative about the motivations, Eisav had failings, but Yitzchak felt that the person who was supposed to go out into the real world, But what I proposed does not exclude that possibility. Although, giving the blessings to someone with known failings seems unlikely. Depends I suppose on how extensive those failings are or how well they were known to Yitzchak. Or it might just be that he was the Bechor, HKBH's choice. Should Yitzchak challenge HKBH? I wrote - Yitzchak understood, he encouraged Eisav to hunt and cook for him. He even reminded Eisav .... Eisav loved his father and he loved hunting [25:27]. He desperately sought his father's approval. He pursued this as he best knew, by hunting and even by lying. We might even say that he felt as though he was hunting for his father's love. Yitzchak understood, he encouraged Eisav to hunt and cook for him. He even reminded Eisav to take his hunting weapons when he instructs him to hunt and prepare food before he blesses him - Yitzchak wants Eisav to be engaged in the hunting and preparation of the food, because it is this engagement that is their link and best encapsulates his approval of his son Eisav. In other words, "It's not the food I want, for that I could ask your mother or you could grab an animal from our flock - it would be much quicker. No, I want you to be of service to me. Knowing that you have hunted to provide for me makes me happy and I enjoy the food more." Eisav knew that his mother was capable of and willing to provide her husband with all the tasty food he could stomach. He got the message that it was not food that Yitzchak wanted. Yitzchak was reaching out to Eisav, knowing how desperately Eisav sought his approval. Eisav learned how to cook in order to express his love. He even deceived Yitchak, painting himself as the Gd fearing son in order to win his father's approval. Best, M -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Mon Nov 20 14:10:27 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2017 17:10:27 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] How Much Salt for Kashering? In-Reply-To: <15112051720.1Acb3A518.50843@lsd.chicago.il.us.chicago.il.us> References: <15112051720.1Acb3A518.50843@lsd.chicago.il.us.chicago.il.us> Message-ID: <20171120221027.GD24830@aishdas.org> On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 01:12:52PM +0000, Jay F. Shachter via Avodah wrote: :> Kosher meat must have all traces of blood removed. Dam here means blood in the circulatory system. Not blood within tissue. Problem with translations; there often isn't a 1:1. Particularly in cases of terms of art, like "dam" in this context. : No, it does not. This is true only if you are going to cook the meat : before eating it. SA YD 27:2 does say you don't need salting. (See limitations in 3-4.) But... this is because all the dam can be removed by removing the veins, and simple rinsing. So, in the same sense that cooked meat needs melichah to remove all traces of dam, so too does raw "[k]osher meat must have all traces of [dam] removed." Seems Tir'u baTov! -Micha From micha at aishdas.org Mon Nov 20 13:37:22 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2017 16:37:22 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Fwd [Aspaqlaria]: Post-Modern Orthodoxy Message-ID: <20171120213722.GB24830@aishdas.org> My most recent blog post, in which I argue that Post-Modern Orthodoxy is a contradiction of terms. -micha Post-Modern Orthodoxy micha - Published Mon, Nov 20, 2017 Modern Orthodoxy is based on an integration of Orthodoxy with life in the modern world. However, with R' JB Soloveitchik's passing, the movement was left without a luminary who analyzes and discusses matters of worldview. Consequently, Modern Orthodoxy's thought is that of the mid 20th century, when Neo-Kantian and Existential answers addressed the kinds of religious questions people on the street were confronting. And so, the argument is today, that there is a need for someone to articulate a Post-Modern Orthodoxy. This is why there was much discussion in some Modern Orthodox circles with the publication of a selection of R' Shimon Gershon Rosenburg -- "Rav Shagar"`s -- essays in English. "Faith Shattered and Restored: Judaism in the Postmodern Age", edited by Rabbi Dr. Zohar Maor, was published by Maggid Books this past June. Dr. Alan Brill, on his blog, carried numerous translations of R' Shagar since, as well as analysis of his thought. In particular, see this post of notes that Dr Brill compiled while teaching R' Shagar's thought, "Rav Shagar: To be connected to Eyn -- Living in a Postmodern World". Times of Israel had an interview with R/Dr Maor, "Israel's paradoxical man of faith, deconstructed". And recently, R Gil Perl, an alumnus of Yeshivat Har Etzion ("Gush") who became a student of Rav Shagar, wrote an essay about why R' Shagar's thought spoke to him in a way that the teachings of R' Aharon Lichtenstein of Gush couldn't in the long run. See "Postmodern Orthodoxy: Giving Voice to a New Generation". To give you an idea of R Shagar's thought, he likens Deconstructionism to Sheviras haKeilim -- the Qabbalistic idea that Creation involved the breaking of vessels, and the post-modern's inability to consider an idea to be objectively true. He builds a case for the condition of having difficulty with belief and therefore believing in nothing and turns it into a Ism of believing in Nothing. Identifying that lower-case-n nothing with the Ayin, the capital-N Nothingness from which G-d made Yeish, something (indeed, everything). Me, I think it doesn't work. Post-Modernism is a confusion of the subjectivity of my justification for knowing something with the subjectivity of the known. Meaning, I can know objective truths for entirely personal and subjective reasons. I can be convinced of halakhah because of my personal experience of the beauty of Shabbos. Not from my liking Shabbos; from that about the Shabbos experience I find beautiful, likable, meaningful, and True. I know that hilkhos Shabbos as we have them today really did objectively speaking come from the Creator by way of my personal experience of Shabbos. Objective truth, subjective justification. In contrast, in Post-Modern thought, since I have no guarantee of objectively proving anything to anyone else, the notion of objective truth is entirely denied. There isn't "the truth" as much a "his truth" or "her truth", narratives people and societies construct for themselves. And this touches everything on the college campus from religious beliefs to defending the Palestinian because we have our narrative and they have theirs. (There is room for every narrative but those that exclude other narratives.) In the real world outside those ivory towers, though, you won't find too many people with Post-Modern notions of science, declaring (eg) that math or physics are merely social constructs. But certainly outside the realm of the scientifically provable Post-Modern thinking has become part of the zeitgeist. My problem with "Postmodern Orthodoxy" is that Post-Modernism (as I just described it) is inherently incompatible with the notion of a lower-case-o orthodoxy, including our case, capital-O Orthodox Judaism. I often said on Facebook that one reason why more are going OTD in this generation than in mine is that Post-Modernism has become part of the common culture. It is impossible to maintain any orthodoxy, including O, if one believes that there are no objective truths, or even that there is nothing one could ever assert as objectively true. There is a profound difference between believing there is an absolute truth that I personally do not fully know or understand -- which R' Gil Perl presented as R' Lichtenstein's position, and believing that all truths are human conditioned. Between a personal nothing and an ideal of Nothingness. And yet, R Shagar says just that. To repeat a quote of Rav Shagar used in R Perl's article, "All truths may be the product of human conditioning, but such conditioning constitutes the medium through which the divine manifests in the world." Rav Shagar's position strikes me as internally inconsistent. For example, to This presupposes that there is a Divine which is manifest in the world, and any claim that says otherwise would defy that Truth. So, there is at least that one central Truth that is necessarily true, regardless of human conditioning. The entire notion of considering any of the Articles of Faith human conditioned, true only from our perspective, enters the heretical. Another example, R Shagar's Post-Modern Orthodox Jew will speak of revelation "though he knows there are varying and conflicting revelations, the contradictions do not paralyze him." If one does not believe the revelation via Moshe and the revelation of the Torah are unique, are they not koferim baTorah according to the Rambam? How many rabbanim would allow you to use the wine of someone who believes that the only reason to embrace the Torah's message is because it's "the faith of our fathers" (as R' Shagar describes it) and not different in kind than the message of the New Testament or the Qur'an? There are two ways we can speak of the ideal human: we can describe life on the mountain peak, the person who has perfect generosity, perfect patience, perfect faith, a perfect relationship with G-d and other people, etc... But we know that actualize perfection is unachievable for anyone bug G-d. So, the true ideal human is one constantly working toward having those perfect relationships, trying their best, constantly growing. But they are two different things -- the ideal in the sense of the goal to strive for, and the ideal of being a striver. We need to learn to separate these notions. Ayin is part of the ideology. A crisis of faith, those times of nothingness, is part of the reach to internalize that ideology. The ideal life for most of us will be struggling with the ideology; but once one makes that struggle part of the ideology itself, I fear one crossed the line. From afolger at aishdas.org Tue Nov 21 01:28:58 2017 From: afolger at aishdas.org (Arie Folger) Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2017 10:28:58 +0100 Subject: [Avodah] Torah precheit Message-ID: A little postscript to my statement, that regarding aliens we might one day meet, that we cold not accept any competing revelation, only one that is of a kind of Noachide revelation, subordinate to ours, well... Let me admit that in stating that, I was displaying a human bias: I unreasonably assumed that aliens would be a kind of otherworldly humans. However, insofar as they are radically different species (which would be likely), then I see no problem of them having their own revelation and their own 'am hanivchar, *as* *long* *as* *their* *revelation* *doesn't* *contradict* *ours*, i.e. we could not accept a revelation that claims that 'avoda zara is muttar, that murder is muttar or that assumes the existence of several deities. -- Arie Folger -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hmaryles at yahoo.com Tue Nov 21 07:30:45 2017 From: hmaryles at yahoo.com (Harry Maryles) Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2017 15:30:45 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Avodah] Fwd [Aspaqlaria]: Post-Modern Orthodoxy In-Reply-To: <20171120213722.GB24830@aishdas.org> References: <20171120213722.GB24830@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <570709339.403139.1511278245922@mail.yahoo.com> I read Gil Perl's article and I don't understand why the idea of? RAL's not knowing or being able to know but nonetheless believing doesn't speak to him. I find all the talk about there being no objective truth to be irrelevant. Truth goes beyond provable fact. It even goes beyond the contradictions to belief by newly discovered scientific truths which by definition are subject to change with new discoveries. In the Lonely Man of Faith, RYBS explains that there are no cognitive categories in which the total commitment of the man of faith could be spelled out. The commitment is rooted not in one dimension, such as the rational one, but in the whole personality of the man of faith. The whole human being; the rational as well as the non-rational is committed to God. Hence the magnitude of commitment is beyond the comprehension of the logos and the ethos. The intellect does not chart the course of the man of faith. It is a function not only of the logic of the mind. It is also a function of the logic of the heart. An apriori awareness that becomes an axiom - a conclusion that cannot rely on solely rational considerations.? HM Want Emes and Emunah in your life? Try this: http://haemtza.blogspot.com/ On Monday, November 20, 2017, 7:25:20 PM CST, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: My most recent blog post, in which I argue that Post-Modern Orthodoxy is a contradiction of terms. -micha Post-Modern Orthodoxy micha - Published Mon, Nov 20, 2017 Modern Orthodoxy is based on an integration of Orthodoxy with life in the modern world. However, with R' JB Soloveitchik's passing, the movement was left without a luminary who analyzes and discusses matters of worldview. Consequently, Modern Orthodoxy's thought is that of the mid 20th century, when Neo-Kantian and Existential answers addressed the kinds of religious questions people on the street were confronting. And so, the argument is today, that there is a need for someone to articulate a Post-Modern Orthodoxy. This is why there was much discussion in some Modern Orthodox circles with the publication of a selection of R' Shimon Gershon Rosenburg -- "Rav Shagar"`s -- essays in English. "Faith Shattered and Restored: Judaism in the Postmodern Age", edited by Rabbi Dr. Zohar Maor, was published by Maggid Books this past June. Dr. Alan Brill, on his blog, carried numerous translations of R' Shagar since, as well as analysis of his thought. In particular, see this post of notes that Dr Brill compiled while teaching R' Shagar's thought, "Rav Shagar: To be connected to Eyn -- Living in a Postmodern World". Times of Israel had an interview with R/Dr Maor, "Israel's paradoxical man of faith, deconstructed". And recently, R Gil Perl, an alumnus of Yeshivat Har Etzion ("Gush") who became a student of Rav Shagar, wrote an essay about why R' Shagar's thought spoke to him in a way that the teachings of R' Aharon Lichtenstein of Gush couldn't in the long run. See "Postmodern Orthodoxy: Giving Voice to a New Generation". To give you an idea of R Shagar's thought, he likens Deconstructionism to Sheviras haKeilim -- the Qabbalistic idea that Creation involved the breaking of vessels, and the post-modern's inability to consider an idea to be objectively true. He builds a case for the condition of having difficulty with belief and therefore believing in nothing and turns it into a Ism of believing in Nothing. Identifying that lower-case-n nothing with the Ayin, the capital-N Nothingness from which G-d made Yeish, something (indeed, everything). Me, I think it doesn't work. Post-Modernism is a confusion of the subjectivity of my justification for knowing something with the subjectivity of the known. Meaning, I can know objective truths for entirely personal and subjective reasons. I can be convinced of halakhah because of my personal experience of the beauty of Shabbos. Not from my liking Shabbos; from that about the Shabbos experience I find beautiful, likable, meaningful, and True. I know that hilkhos Shabbos as we have them today really did objectively speaking come from the Creator by way of my personal experience of Shabbos. Objective truth, subjective justification. In contrast, in Post-Modern thought, since I have no guarantee of objectively proving anything to anyone else, the notion of objective truth is entirely denied. There isn't "the truth" as much a "his truth" or "her truth", narratives people and societies construct for themselves. And this touches everything on the college campus from religious beliefs to defending the Palestinian because we have our narrative and they have theirs. (There is room for every narrative but those that exclude other narratives.) In the real world outside those ivory towers, though, you won't find too many people with Post-Modern notions of science, declaring (eg) that math or physics are merely social constructs. But certainly outside the realm of the scientifically provable Post-Modern thinking has become part of the zeitgeist. My problem with "Postmodern Orthodoxy" is that Post-Modernism (as I just described it) is inherently incompatible with the notion of a lower-case-o orthodoxy, including our case, capital-O Orthodox Judaism. I often said on Facebook that one reason why more are going OTD in this generation than in mine is that Post-Modernism has become part of the common culture. It is impossible to maintain any orthodoxy, including O, if one believes that there are no objective truths, or even that there is nothing one could ever assert as objectively true. There is a profound difference between believing there is an absolute truth that I personally do not fully know or understand -- which R' Gil Perl presented as R' Lichtenstein's position, and believing that all truths are human conditioned. Between a personal nothing and an ideal of Nothingness. And yet, R Shagar says just that. To repeat a quote of Rav Shagar used in R Perl's article, "All truths may be the product of human conditioning, but such conditioning constitutes the medium through which the divine manifests in the world." Rav Shagar's position strikes me as internally inconsistent. For example, to This presupposes that there is a Divine which is manifest in the world, and any claim that says otherwise would defy that Truth. So, there is at least that one central Truth that is necessarily true, regardless of human conditioning. The entire notion of considering any of the Articles of Faith human conditioned, true only from our perspective, enters the heretical. Another example, R Shagar's Post-Modern Orthodox Jew will speak of revelation "though he knows there are varying and conflicting revelations, the contradictions do not paralyze him." If one does not believe the revelation via Moshe and the revelation of the Torah are unique, are they not koferim baTorah according to the Rambam? How many rabbanim would allow you to use the wine of someone who believes that the only reason to embrace the Torah's message is because it's "the faith of our fathers" (as R' Shagar describes it) and not different in kind than the message of the New Testament or the Qur'an? There are two ways we can speak of the ideal human: we can describe life on the mountain peak, the person who has perfect generosity, perfect patience, perfect faith, a perfect relationship with G-d and other people, etc... But we know that actualize perfection is unachievable for anyone bug G-d. So, the true ideal human is one constantly working toward having those perfect relationships, trying their best, constantly growing. But they are two different things -- the ideal in the sense of the goal to strive for, and the ideal of being a striver. We need to learn to separate these notions. Ayin is part of the ideology. A crisis of faith, those times of nothingness, is part of the reach to internalize that ideology. The ideal life for most of us will be struggling with the ideology; but once one makes that struggle part of the ideology itself, I fear one crossed the line. _______________________________________________ Avodah mailing list Avodah at lists.aishdas.org http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Tue Nov 21 06:25:15 2017 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2017 14:25:15 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Notes on RSRH's Philosopy of Judaism Message-ID: <1511274314342.40161@stevens.edu> Please see the pdf file at http://www.halakhah.com/rst/hirsch.pdf YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Tue Nov 21 05:54:15 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2017 08:54:15 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] T'hay In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20171121135414.GB15991@aishdas.org> On Sat, Nov 18, 2017 at 10:23:18PM -0500, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : There is a word spelled tav-heh-aleph, pronounced "t'hay". Is this : word Hebrew or Aramaic? Sidenote, just to complicate things. Assuming that when someone with the last name "Miller" speaks of what he finds "in my siddur" is looking in an Ashkenazi one... RSM found in manuscripts that earlier Ashkenazi siddurim honed much closer to leshon Chazal than we do. The example I usually cite is "vesein chleqeinu beSorasakh, sab'einu mituvakh..." as Sepharadim have it. Your siddur probably consistently has "Sha'atah", not "she'atah". This is a "correction" to the form that appears in seifer Sofetim. One holdover is "Modim anachnu Lakh", instead of "Lekha"... but then followed by "Sha'atah". It appears to be largely the work of one person, R' Shelomo Zalman Hanau (Katz), author of the Binyan Shalomo. He then compiles a siddur, Shaarei Tefillah. R' Yaaqov Emden's Lueach Eresh is a rebuttal of the Razah's grammatical theories, and kedarko beqodesh, he doesn't pull punches. For example, the Binyan Shelomo was printed with a hasqamah from R' Tzvi Ashkenazi; RYE wrote that his father's hasqamah was forged. The Alter Rebbe, in composing Nusach haAri, was heavily influenced by the Razah's theory of diqduq. And slowly other Ashkenazim switched from leshon Chazal to leshon Tanakh. Even RZBaer and the Yekkes. So, with a siddur that is partially in one version of Hebrew and partially in another, who knows how any word settled on one set of diqduq rules or the other. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "I hear, then I forget; I see, then I remember; micha at aishdas.org I do, then I understand." - Confucius http://www.aishdas.org "Hearing doesn't compare to seeing." - Mechilta Fax: (270) 514-1507 "We will do and we will listen." - Israelites From meirabi at gmail.com Tue Nov 21 15:38:02 2017 From: meirabi at gmail.com (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi) Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2017 10:38:02 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] Kosher meat must have all traces of blood removed Message-ID: I am happy to amend to Before cooking, Kosher meat must have all traces of blood removed Best, Meir G. Rabi 0423 207 837 +61 423 207 837 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From larry62341 at optonline.net Wed Nov 22 06:20:47 2017 From: larry62341 at optonline.net (Prof. Levine) Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2017 09:20:47 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Sedra Toldos - Balance, When Parents Favour One Child In-Reply-To: <56bc7b19424c44b7aec48fc7014df583@exchng03.campus.stevens-t ech.edu> References: <56bc7b19424c44b7aec48fc7014df583@exchng03.campus.stevens-tech.edu> Message-ID: <7E.4D.03148.0C7851A5@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> At 10:52 AM 11/21/2017, R Micha Berger wrote: >Perhaps this is the whole point of the Torah's not saying why Rivqa >preferred Yaaqov. Yitzchaq's additional love of Esav was teluyah bedavar, >and that fact impacted Eisav's choices. Rivqa love Yaaqov, full stop, >not for some reason. I suggest you read RSRH's essay Lessons From Jacob and Esau (Collected Writings VII) YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From JRich at sibson.com Wed Nov 22 21:54:08 2017 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2017 05:54:08 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] sefer torah's path Message-ID: <7df4daee86e84ff48f391450b891c5f0@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> From R' Aviner: Bringing the Torah to People to Kiss Q: Is it permissible to bring the Sefer Torah in the Shul towards people who want to kiss it? A: No. This is a disgrace to the Sefer Torah. They should approach the Sefer Torah. Piskei Teshuvot 134:6. I have been to more than a few shuls that particularly on Shabbat take the long road - any ideas on who they are relying on? (not to mention those who lower the sefer torah so the kids can kiss it too) KT 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: From marty.bluke at gmail.com Sat Nov 25 12:27:38 2017 From: marty.bluke at gmail.com (Marty Bluke) Date: Sat, 25 Nov 2017 22:27:38 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] How can R' Yochanan and Resh Lakish argue about the tradition of a Gezera Shava? Message-ID: The Gemara in Makos(14b) has a dispute between R' Yochanan and Resh Lakish which revolves around a gezera shava. R' Yochanan has the gezera shava and Resh Lakish does not, Rashi explains that Resh Lakish did not get this gezera shava from his rebbeim. This seems very difficult because the gemara in Bava Metzia (84a) describes how Resh Lakish was the head of a group of bandits and R' Yochanan persuaded hm to learn Torah and was clearly Rabo Muvhak. In fact, they were so close that after Resh Lakish's death, R' Yochanan lost his mind and died. Given this, how can it be that R' Yochanan had a gezera shava and Resh Lakish didn't because lo kiblu merabo, R' Yochanan was his Rebbe so why wouldn't R' Yochanan have taught him this gezera shava? R' Yochanan clearly had a kabbala on this gezera shava so why wouldn't his talmid muvhak Resh Lakish have gotten this kabbala from his rebbe? The answer can't be that Resh Lakish argued on this because gezera shava's are a kabbala from your rebbe, period. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Thu Nov 23 15:55:59 2017 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2017 23:55:59 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] More on Yaakov, sheep and the rods Message-ID: <1511481358587.99267@stevens.edu> The following is from RSRH's commentary on Bereishis 30:37 Ya'akov then took for himself rods of fresh aspen and hazelnut and chestnut trees, and peeled white streaks in them by uncovering the white on the rods. After all this, Ya'akov's initiative with the rods would have been fully justified, even had it constituted a tried and tested expedient - a supposition that surely will not be borne out by experiment. >From the continuation of the story we know that Lavan altered the terms of the agreement ten times (see below, 31:7), setting new conditions regarding the form of the speckles and spots. It is difficult to assume that, because of a general action such as setting up the rods in the sight of the sheep, the sheep would bring forth young that were this time speckled, the next time spotted, and the next time marked on the feet. Ya'akov's success can be attributed only to a special intervention of Divine providence - as attested to by Ya'akov himself. The expedient of the rods was only an extremely weak substitute for the breeding animals Lavan had wrongfully removed. Nevertheless, Ya'akov did not refrain from seeking the aid of this expedient; since ain somchin al haness (see Pesachim 64b), he was obligated to do his part. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hankman at bell.net Sun Nov 26 10:02:44 2017 From: hankman at bell.net (hankman) Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2017 13:02:44 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] More on Yaakov, sheep and the rods Message-ID: <440B31203B1C40479ABF364797C2B58A@hankPC> Prof. L. Levine wrote?": ?It is difficult to assume that, because of a general action such as setting up the rods in the sight of the sheep, the sheep would bring forth young that were this time speckled, the next time spotted, and the next time marked on the feet. Ya'akov's success can be attributed only to a special intervention of Divine providence - as attested to by Ya'akov himself. The expedient of the rods was only an extremely weak substitute for the breeding animals Lavan had wrongfully removed. Nevertheless, Ya'akov did not refrain from seeking the aid of this expedient; since ain somchin al haness (see Pesachim 64b), he was obligated to do his part...? As everyone who had genetics 101 will realize, if you eliminate 100% of the phenotype, and breed the remainder you will still get some of that phenotype in the next generation with recessive genes. So it always bothered me why was all the hokus pokus by Yaakov necessary. Even more so the pasook itself seems to ascribe the results as caused by the sticks even though a simple natural explanation for the reappearance of the phenotype in the next generation is quite simple. The only explanation I could come up with is that the percentages were much higher than one would expect as a result of genetic calculations thus the nes (and Yaakov?s efforts [hishtadlus] to produce it) is described at great length. Kol tuv Chaim Manaster -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From akivagmiller at gmail.com Sat Nov 25 17:51:31 2017 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Sat, 25 Nov 2017 20:51:31 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] sefer torah's path Message-ID: . R' Joel Rich asked: > From R? Aviner: Bringing the Torah to People to Kiss > Q: Is it permissible to bring the Sefer Torah in the Shul > towards people who want to kiss it? > A: No. This is a disgrace to the Sefer Torah. They should > approach the Sefer Torah. Piskei Teshuvot 134:6. > > I have been to more than a few shuls that particularly on > Shabbat take the long road ? any ideas on who they are > relying on? (not to mention those who lower the sefer torah > so the kids can kiss it too) Maybe the masses simply disagree with the logic of the Piskei Teshuvot? Maybe people feel that bringing the Torah to Amcha is NOT a disgrace? Personally, I can easily understand that lowering it could be a bizayon, but what's wrong with taking the long way around? If the short route is taken, then (depending on the shul's layout) it is possible (or even probable) that many (or most) will simply be unable to get close enough to kiss it -- and if this is true on the men's side of the mechitza, it is even more true on the women's side! There are SO many things that we allow for no reason other than allowing the people to show their love and kavod for the Torah!!! Compared to the bells that ring on Shabbos, or the multitude of aliyos on Simchas Torah, this seems exceeding minor, in my opinion. Akiva Miller From brothke at gmail.com Sat Nov 25 18:20:23 2017 From: brothke at gmail.com (Ben Rothke) Date: Sat, 25 Nov 2017 21:20:23 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Gid ha'nasheh and 'therefore' Message-ID: In the coming week?s parsha, it has the story of Yaakov wrestling and then concludes: ? ???-???? ???-???????? ?????-?????????? ???-????? ????????? I am trying to figure out the connection between the wrestling injury and klal Yisroel not eating gid hanasheh. The term '???-????' implies consequently, to which I don?t see the consequence. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From JRich at sibson.com Sat Nov 25 21:47:06 2017 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2017 05:47:06 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] How can R' Yochanan and Resh Lakish argue about the tradition of a Gezera Shava? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: The answer can't be that Resh Lakish argued on this because gezera shava's are a kabbala from your rebbe, period. > ______________________________________________ 1. This begs the broader question as to why an Amira having a gs doesn't automatically trump one that doesn't 2.this also assumes only a rebbi muvhak counts as rabo for purposes of mesora Kt 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. From JRich at sibson.com Sun Nov 26 05:28:50 2017 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2017 13:28:50 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] eilu v'eilu Message-ID: <6b52bc1475284ba2a6aa3d7734cb8de7@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> http://www.yutorah.org/lectures/lecture.cfm/889447/rabbi-assaf-bednarsh/pluralism-and-halacha-what-is-truth,-and-who-has-it/ Rabbi Assaf Bednarsh--Pluralism and Halacha: What is Truth, and Who Has It Interesting shiur on an old Avodah favorite KT 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: From lisa at starways.net Sun Nov 26 14:37:13 2017 From: lisa at starways.net (Lisa Liel) Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2017 00:37:13 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Gid ha'nasheh and 'therefore' In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I don't think al ken denotes causation.? In most cases, it seems to mean "How correct it is that..."? For example, the two times we're told "al ken", the city is called Beersheva.? They can't both be the cause. Lisa On 11/26/2017 4:20 AM, Ben Rothke via Avodah wrote: > > In the coming week?s parsha, it has the story of Yaakov wrestling and > then concludes: > > ? ???-???? ???-???????? ?????-?????????? ???-????? ????????? > > I am trying to figure out the connection between the wrestling injury > and klal Yisroel not eating gid hanasheh. > > The term '???-????' implies consequently, to which I don?t see the > consequence. > > --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From micha at aishdas.org Sun Nov 26 15:09:41 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2017 18:09:41 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Gid ha'nasheh and 'therefore' In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20171126230941.GA24539@aishdas.org> On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 12:37:13AM +0200, Lisa Liel via Avodah wrote: : On 11/26/2017 4:20 AM, Ben Rothke via Avodah wrote: : >In the coming week's parsha, it has the story of Yaakov wrestling : >and then concludes: "Al kein lo yokhlu BY es gid hanasheh." : >I am trying to figure out the connection between the wrestling : >injury and klal Yisroel not eating gid hanasheh. : >The term '[al kein]' implies consequently, to which I don't see the : >consequence. : I don't think al ken denotes causation.? In most cases, it seems to : mean "How correct it is that..."? For example, the two times we're : told "al ken", the city is called Beersheva.? They can't both be the : cause. Why not? It could be that each were necessary but insufficient causes, so that the name "Be'er-Sheva" is the consequence of both being true. Or it could be that each were sufficient cause, and the name Be'er-Sheva was justified by either alone -- but equally so. And thus the city's name represents both. But to answer RBR's question, I don't think al kein implies sufficient causality. Rather, because of the fight, HQBH had an opportunity to turn eating thigh meat into a ritual that reminds one of the fight, and thus of the Jew's ability to act on the level of (in the sense of: interact with) angels. Without the fight, the mitzvah would lack that historical symbolism; so it's a cause, but of a different sort than it seems from your question that you are thinking of. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger It is our choices...that show what we truly are, micha at aishdas.org far more than our abilities. http://www.aishdas.org - J. K. Rowling Fax: (270) 514-1507 From micha at aishdas.org Sun Nov 26 14:58:57 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2017 17:58:57 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] How can R' Yochanan and Resh Lakish argue about the tradition of a Gezera Shava? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20171126225857.GA9115@aishdas.org> On Sat, Nov 25, 2017 at 10:27:38PM +0200, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: : The Gemara in Makos(14b) has a dispute between R' Yochanan and Resh Lakish : which revolves around a gezera shava. R' Yochanan has the gezera shava and : Resh Lakish does not, Rashi explains that Resh Lakish did not get this : gezera shava from his rebbeim. : : This seems very difficult because the gemara in Bava Metzia (84a) describes : how Resh Lakish was the head of a group of bandits and R' Yochanan : persuaded hm to learn Torah and was clearly Rabo Muvhak... So, he had a mesorah from a rebbe other than his rebbe muvhaq or any of his own rabbeim -- maybe just a shiur from someone else he sat in once... (Which is similar to RHR's #2.) Or... If "Moavi velo Mo'avis" was darsehened first by Boaz's court, then we know of at least one gezeira shava -- from Amon to Moav -- that Boaz invoked withtout a tradition of its existence dating back from Sinai. For that matter, if the Rambam assumed that the rule about no new gezeiros shava really was in place from day one, then he would have to assert that like [other] halakhos leMoshe miSinai, there couldn't be machloqesin in any of them. I would therefore deduce from the Rambam's silence in the face of numerous such machloqesin, he must have thought that gezeiros shava could be invented (or as other riahonim would have it: discovered) without a mesorah. It would seem the idea that GS requires a mesorah has a loophole. Perhaps the notion is that the textual connection must have a mesorah, but the lesson taken from it could be left to the later generation to find. Also, it is interesting that the contrast in Pesachim 66a to the mesorah needed for GS is the qal vachomer. A rule of logic that a person truly could make on their own in a way that doesn't apply to another of the other midos sheheTorah nidreshes bahen. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When faced with a decision ask yourself, micha at aishdas.org "How would I decide if it were Ne'ilah now, http://www.aishdas.org at the closing moments of Yom Kippur?" Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From marty.bluke at gmail.com Mon Nov 27 02:10:10 2017 From: marty.bluke at gmail.com (Marty Bluke) Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2017 12:10:10 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] How can R' Yochanan and Resh Lakish argue about the tradition of a Gezera Shava? In-Reply-To: <20171126225857.GA9115@aishdas.org> References: <20171126225857.GA9115@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 12:58 AM, Micha Berger wrote: > On Sat, Nov 25, 2017 at 10:27:38PM +0200, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: > : The Gemara in Makos(14b) has a dispute between R' Yochanan and Resh > Lakish > : which revolves around a gezera shava. R' Yochanan has the gezera shava > and > : Resh Lakish does not, Rashi explains that Resh Lakish did not get this > : gezera shava from his rebbeim. > : > : This seems very difficult because the gemara in Bava Metzia (84a) > describes > : how Resh Lakish was the head of a group of bandits and R' Yochanan > : persuaded hm to learn Torah and was clearly Rabo Muvhak... > > So, he had a mesorah from a rebbe other than his rebbe muvhaq or any > of his own rabbeim -- maybe just a shiur from someone else he sat in > once... (Which is similar to RHR's #2.) > What other mesora? It's not that Resh Lakish had a gezera shava that R' Yochanan didn't have that he could have learned from someone else. The Gemara says that he didn't have a kabbala on a gezera shava that R' Yochanan had. > > Or... > > If "Moavi velo Mo'avis" was darsehened first by Boaz's court, then we > know of at least one gezeira shava -- from Amon to Moav -- that Boaz > invoked withtout a tradition of its existence dating back from Sinai. > That was a gezera shava? In any case the Gemara in Nidda (19b) states that ayn adam dan gezera shava meatzmo, says Rashi he needs a kabbala from his rebbe halacha l'moshe misinai. For that matter, if the Rambam assumed that the rule about no new gezeiros > shava really was in place from day one, then he would have to assert that > like [other] halakhos leMoshe miSinai, there couldn't be machloqesin in > any of them. I would therefore deduce from the Rambam's silence in the > face of numerous such machloqesin, he must have thought that gezeiros > shava could be invented (or as other riahonim would have it: discovered) > without a mesorah. > It would seem the idea that GS requires a mesorah has a loophole. Perhaps > the notion is that the textual connection must have a mesorah, but > the lesson taken from it could be left to the later generation to find. > Tosafos in Shabbos (97a) states that they had a mesora on the number of gezera shavas and therefore they had to reconcile the various traditions with the number of gezera shavas. This would seem to come to address the question of why certain Tannaim/Amoraim had a gezera shava and others didn't. However, it doesn't answer the question on Resh Lakish who must have gotten the number from Rabo Muvhak R' Yochanan. The Rishonim/Acharonim in Nida (22b) are bothered by the question that the Gemara says that a gezera shava that is mufne mi tzad echad lmeidin umeshivin and mufne mishnei tz'dadim lmeidim vayn m'shivim. If there was a kabala on the gezera shava then why does it need to be mufne and if there was no kabbala then why should it be accepted even if it is mufne? The Ramban on the Sefer Hamitzvos (Shoresh 2) based on this question rejects the simple understanding of ayn adam dan gezera shava meiatzmo that all the details of the gezera shavas were received at Har Sinai by Moshe. Rather, they had a kabbala that there was a gezera shava with a certain word pair but not which set of those words and what halacha is learned from it and therefore it is up to the chachamim to decide based on the principles that they received to decide what exactly the gezera shava was and therefore there is machlokes. This is what the Gemara in Nidda is discussing, the principles relating to figuring out what exactly the gezera shava is. Unfortunately, this does not really answer all of the Gemara's and disputes about gezera shavas. > > Also, it is interesting that the contrast in Pesachim 66a to the mesorah > needed for GS is the qal vachomer. A rule of logic that a person truly > could make on their own in a way that doesn't apply to another of the > other midos sheheTorah nidreshes bahen. > There is a machlokes Rashi and Tosafos whether it is only a kal vachomer that adam dan meatzmo or all the middos except for gezera shava. > > Tir'u baTov! > -Micha > > -- > Micha Berger When faced with a decision ask yourself, > micha at aishdas.org "How would I decide if it were Ne'ilah now, > http://www.aishdas.org at the closing moments of Yom Kippur?" > Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From lisa at starways.net Mon Nov 27 02:55:35 2017 From: lisa at starways.net (Lisa Liel) Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2017 12:55:35 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] How can R' Yochanan and Resh Lakish argue about the tradition of a Gezera Shava? In-Reply-To: <20171126225857.GA9115@aishdas.org> References: <20171126225857.GA9115@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <2e55bd0b-bb70-45dd-093f-a9ca79fa0760@starways.net> On 11/27/2017 12:58 AM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > If "Moavi velo Mo'avis" was darsehened first by Boaz's court, then we > know of at least one gezeira shava -- from Amon to Moav -- that Boaz > invoked withtout a tradition of its existence dating back from Sinai. > How was that a gezeira shava? Lisa --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From micha at aishdas.org Mon Nov 27 13:21:42 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2017 16:21:42 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] How can R' Yochanan and Resh Lakish argue about the tradition of a Gezera Shava? In-Reply-To: <2e55bd0b-bb70-45dd-093f-a9ca79fa0760@starways.net> References: <20171126225857.GA9115@aishdas.org> <2e55bd0b-bb70-45dd-093f-a9ca79fa0760@starways.net> Message-ID: <20171127212142.GA26403@aishdas.org> On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 12:10:10PM +0200, Marty Bluke wrote: : > So, he had a mesorah from a rebbe other than his rebbe muvhaq or any : > of his own rabbeim -- maybe just a shiur from someone else he sat in : > once... (Which is similar to RJR's #2.) : What other mesora? It's not that Resh Lakish had a gezera shava that R' : Yochanan didn't have that he could have learned from someone else. The : Gemara says that he didn't have a kabbala on a gezera shava that R' : Yochanan had. This wasn't the ikar of my answer; I was just ammending RJR's answer to reflect the fact that the gemara says "rabosav" not "rabo". But it seems to me now you are saying the OP was asking how it's possible that R' Yochanan knew something that he didn't pass on to Reish Laqish. Or more accurately, where would RL learn something to have him question a GS when R Yochanan told him of it the first time. In which case, my intended answer works even better -- the presmise that every GS is a tradition dating back to Sinai is false. A conclusion the other RMB gives far more sources for than I did. :> Or... :> If "Moavi velo Mo'avis" was darsehened first by Boaz's court, then we :> know of at least one gezeira shava -- from Amon to Moav -- that Boaz :> invoked withtout a tradition of its existence dating back from Sinai. : That was a gezera shava? In any case the Gemara in Nidda (19b) states that : ayn adam dan gezera shava meatzmo, says Rashi he needs a kabbala from his : rebbe halacha l'moshe misinai. Not every "halakhah leMoshe MiSinai" is literally so. R' Avohu on Kesuvos 7b says that Boaz collected 10 men in "lemidrash 'amoni velo amonis, moavi velo moavis." How does he know it wasn't for 7 berakhos (R' Nachman's shitah)? Because of the need to get "miziqnei ha'ir". Why 10? [I presume -- and not a BD of 3:] lefirsumei milsa. Similarly, Rus Rabba 7:9 states that Peloni didn't know *shenischadshah* din zu. As for "that was a GS?" (A question Lisa also asks...) Amoni velo Amonis is justified because the Amoni ddidn't bring food or water when we came to their land. And it is the men we would have expected to recieve or even buy such previsions from. Moav velo Moavis would be a pretty arbitrary time to insist a word be read as specifically male instead of gender-neutral if it weren't by GS to Amoni. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Here is the test to find whether your mission micha at aishdas.org on Earth is finished: http://www.aishdas.org if you're alive, it isn't. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Richard Bach From zev at sero.name Mon Nov 27 15:10:29 2017 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2017 18:10:29 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] How can R' Yochanan and Resh Lakish argue about the tradition of a Gezera Shava? In-Reply-To: <20171127212142.GA26403@aishdas.org> References: <20171126225857.GA9115@aishdas.org> <2e55bd0b-bb70-45dd-093f-a9ca79fa0760@starways.net> <20171127212142.GA26403@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 27/11/17 16:21, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > As for "that was a GS?" (A question Lisa also asks...) Amoni velo Amonis > is justified because the Amoni ddidn't bring food or water when we > came to their land. And it is the men we would have expected to recieve > or even buy such previsions from. Moav velo Moavis would be a pretty > arbitrary time to insist a word be read as specifically male instead > of gender-neutral if it weren't by GS to Amoni. Could you please explain this? Where do you get that there is any limmud from Ammon to Moav? The Torah says *both* Amonim and Moavim are banned because they didn't welcome us with bread and water. You seem to be claiming that Amonim are banned for this reason, and then Moavim by some sort of gezera shava from Amonim. Where is this coming from? -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From marty.bluke at gmail.com Thu Nov 30 02:11:31 2017 From: marty.bluke at gmail.com (Marty Bluke) Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2017 12:11:31 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] What are the main mitzvos to focus on? Message-ID: The last daf in Makos (24a) states that the Neviim took the 613 mitzvos and reduced them to a smaller set for people to focus on. Michah gave three Mitzvos for people to focus on - "Asos Mishpat..." "Asos Mishpat" is monetary laws; "Ahavas Chesed" is bestowing Chesed; "V'Hatzne'a Leches Im Elokecha" is escorting the dead and bringing a Kalah to Chupah; Yeshayah later gave two primary Mitzvos - "Shimru Mishpat va'Asu Tzedakah." The mitzva of learning Torah which we understand to be the most important and fundamental mitzva does not appear in these lists. How do we explain the omission of learning Torah in these lists? Additionally, these lists seem to consist solely of mitzvos bein adam lachaveiro, are there no mitzvos ben adam lamakom that are important enought to appear on these lists? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From seinfeld at daasbooks.com Thu Nov 30 09:20:44 2017 From: seinfeld at daasbooks.com (Alexander Seinfeld) Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2017 12:20:44 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] More on Yaakov, sheep and the rods Message-ID: <50458059-A03F-4E6E-B54B-F1612B0E7E5B@jsli.org> Why not just interpret this as an example of phenotypic plasticity, meaning the genetic potential is there in every generation, and the environmental factors stimulate its expression? As everyone who had genetics 101 will realize, if you eliminate 100% of the phenotype, and breed the remainder you will still get some of that phenotype in the next generation with recessive genes. So it always bothered me why was all the hokus pokus by Yaakov necessary. Even more so the pasook itself seems to ascribe the results as caused by the sticks even though a simple natural explanation for the reappearance of the phenotype in the next generation is quite simple. The only explanation I could come up with is that the percentages were much higher than one would expect as a result of genetic calculations thus the nes (and Yaakov?s efforts [hishtadlus] to produce it) is described at great length. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From chaim.tatel at gmail.com Thu Nov 30 09:30:37 2017 From: chaim.tatel at gmail.com (Chaim Tatel) Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2017 09:30:37 -0800 Subject: [Avodah] Gid ha'nasheh Message-ID: When I was studying Zoology in college back in the 70s, I did some research on Yaakov?s battle with the malach. The big question I had was ?why should Yaakov Avinu get hit in the gid hanasheh (sciatic nerve)? Why not somewhere else in the body?? As I learned in my Anatomy and Physiology class, there are several nerves that branch off from the sciatic nerve. One of these is the pudendal nerve. This is one of the nerves responsible for sexual function (and other actions). Current research follows: The pudendal nerve is found in the pelvis. It is the biggest division of the pudendal plexus (a network of nerves) and is located behind the sacrospinous ligament, near the tailbone. The nerve extends from the sacral plexus, through the pudendal canal, the perineum, and the gluteal area. These are structures located near the genital, rectal, and gluteal (buttock) regions. (see: https://www.healthline.com/human-body-maps/pudendal-nerve) The peripheral nerves supply the bladder, anal canal, and perineal skin. The pudendal nerve is the primary somatic nerve to this region. Motor fibers in the pudendal nerve innervate the bulbocavernosus muscle, external urethral sphincter, external anal sphincter, and pelvic floor muscles. (see: www.humanneurophysiology.com/sacralmonitoring.htm) I also remember that one of the meforshim (commentators) on Chumash had a similar answer. (Sorry, I can?t remember where I saw this, it?s been over 40 years). At any rate, it makes sense that Yaakov would be hit there, as a reminder that his marriage to Rachel after his marriage to her sister Leah would not hold up when he entered Eretz Yisrael. (not long after this episode, Rachel died in childbirth of Binyamin). Aside from feeling the psychological pain of Rachel?s death, perhaps Yaakov also had to feel physical pain. Chaim Tatel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From lisa at starways.net Sat Dec 2 12:56:18 2017 From: lisa at starways.net (Lisa Liel) Date: Sat, 2 Dec 2017 22:56:18 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] knife sharpeners Message-ID: <62debe36-f9a2-7cab-d4cb-a60320a1ec83@starways.net> Are knife sharpeners mekabel taam?? And noten taam?? Do you need different onces for meat, dairy, pesach, etc? --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From zev at sero.name Sat Dec 2 17:01:31 2017 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Sat, 2 Dec 2017 20:01:31 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] knife sharpeners In-Reply-To: <62debe36-f9a2-7cab-d4cb-a60320a1ec83@starways.net> References: <62debe36-f9a2-7cab-d4cb-a60320a1ec83@starways.net> Message-ID: <0115756c-ad5a-dc19-dfdc-aba2138a2858@sero.name> On 02/12/17 15:56, Lisa Liel via Avodah wrote: > Are knife sharpeners mekabel taam?? And noten taam?? Do you need > different onces for meat, dairy, pesach, etc? Since they don't ever contact food, I don't see how they could. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From JRich at sibson.com Sat Dec 2 22:40:43 2017 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Sun, 3 Dec 2017 06:40:43 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Women and Torah Study Message-ID: <9f94d416d3154585a6bb71a2df12c54e@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> My comment to a recent post on Lehrhaus on women and intensive talmud study: Is encouraging intensive study of Talmud for women a community priority or is the priority to make such study available for those who choose to avail themselves of the opportunity? Especially if the former, where does it stand in relation to other community priorities and how does the answer differ from study for men? IMHO these questions have not been sufficiently addressed. Do my concern resonate at all? KT 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: From marty.bluke at gmail.com Sun Dec 3 01:13:00 2017 From: marty.bluke at gmail.com (Marty Bluke) Date: Sun, 3 Dec 2017 11:13:00 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] The 13 middos Message-ID: The Gemara in Shavuos (4b) discusses who the Tanna of the Mishna is and brings down a fundamental machlokes tannaim about the 13 middos. R' Yishmael darshens klal uprat and R' Akiva darshens ribuy umiut. The Acharonim point out that these are mutually exclusive and every Tanna darshens one or the other but they cannot be mixed (e.g. a Tanna sometimes darshens ribuy umiut and sometimes klal uprat). The question is how can something so fundamental as the 13 middos be a matter of dispute? Weren't the 13 middos given to Moshe at Har Sinai? How could they forget such a basic thing? It is very difficult to say that both are right (e.g. elu v'elu) because they are mutually exclusive and come to different conclusions. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Sun Dec 3 06:18:20 2017 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Sun, 3 Dec 2017 14:18:20 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Davening on Airplanes Message-ID: <1512310700373.25771@stevens.edu> Very often people make minyanimm on flights to Israel. The following if from https://goo.gl/j8hdXR and is a quote from Rabbi Hershel Schachter. Another common mistake people make is regarding davening with a minyan (on a plane). The Talmud emphasizes the importance of tefillah btzibur; and one who davens with a minyan stands a much better chance of having his prayers answered than one who lacks a minyan. However, it is highly improper for the chazzan of a minyan on an airplane to shout at the top of his lungs to enable the other mispalelim to hear him over the airplane noise, and thereby wake up all the passengers around him. It is true that there is a halachic principle of kofin al hamitzvos, i.e. that beis din has an obligation to force people to observe the mitzvos even when they're not interested in doing so, but this only applies when pressuring an individual will result in his becoming observant. However, when Orthodox Jews disturb non-observant Jewish passengers with their davening, the non-observant passengers sill remain non-observant and now just have another point about which to be upset with the Orthodox. The practice of the Orthodox passengers under such circumstances appears simply as an act of harassment. Rather than having accomplished the hidur mitzvah of davening tefillah btzibur, they have violated lifnei iver by causing the non-observant passengers to become more antagonistic towards shemiras hamitzvos. The shouting tone of voice employed by the shaliach tzibbur to overcome the noise on the airplane clearly does not constitute a kavod hatefillah. The halacha states that when traveling, if it is too difficult to stand for shemoneh esrei even the "amidah" may be recited while seated. On a short flight of an hour and a half to Canada it is more correct to daven the entire tefillah while still buckled in, in a sitting position. On the long flight to Eretz Yisroel it is healthier to not sit the entire time; walking around somewhat helps the blood circulation in one's legs. As such, there is nothing wrong with standing for shemoneh esrei, provided that there's no turbulence at that time. However, it is still not proper to gather a minyan together near the washrooms, disturbing all the other passengers and the stewardesses. As much as various Torah giants of our generation have expressed their opposition to such minyanim on airplanes[2], their message has not yet been accepted. We wish everyone a chag kasher v'sameach, and all those traveling to Eretz Yisroel should have a safe trip, but keep in mind - these minyanim are shelo b'ratzon chachomim! [2] Rav Shlomo Wahrman ( She'eiris Yosef vol. 7, siman 3) quotes Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach (Halichos Shlomo, page 75), Rav Moshe Feinstein (Igros Moshe Orach Chaim vol. 4 siman 20), Rav Ovadiah Yosef, and Rav Shmuel Wosner all objecting to minyanim on airplanes that disturb other passengers -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Sun Dec 3 07:15:20 2017 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Sun, 3 Dec 2017 15:15:20 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] The Forces That Have Shaped World History Message-ID: <1512314120420.4485@stevens.edu> The following is from RSRH's commentary on Bereishis 30:8 Ya'akov was very much afraid and distressed, so he divided the peoplewho were with him, as well as the flocks, cattle and camels, into two camps. We can put ourselves in Ya'akov's place, and we are especially obligated to do so, considering the significance of the impending meeting; for, because of this meeting, Ya'akov experienced a revelation whose memory is forever linked with the daily meal of the man of Israel. Just as Ya'akov and Esav oppose each other here, so they continue to stand opposed to one another unto this very day. Ya'akov is the family man blessed with children; hard-working, serving, weighed down by cares. Esav is the "finished and accomplished" man (cf. Commentary above, 25:25). Ya'akov now returns as the independent head of a family. Even now, having overcome all the obstacles, this privilege is, to him, the highest prize, the greatest achievement. But to attain it, he had to toil and struggle for twenty years, despite the fact that he had already received the blessing and the birthright. Others, however, take this privilege for granted; it is given to them from birth. Esav, the "finished and accomplished" man, already possessed it in full measure when Ya'akov first left home. While Ya'akov, through hard work, succeeded in establishing a family, Esav became a political force, the leader of an army, an aluf at the head of his troops. Thus the external contrast between Ya'akov, who held on to his brother's heel when they were born, and Esav, the "accomplished" man. In Ya'akov and Esav, two opposing principles confront each other. The struggle between them, and the outcome of this struggle, are the forces that have shaped world history. Ya'akov represents family life, happiness and making others happy. Esav represents the glitter of political power and might. This conflict has raged for thousands of years: Is it sufficient just to be a human being, and are political power and social creativity of no significance unless they lead to the loftiest of all human aspirations, or, on the contrary, does everything that is human in man, in home, and in family life exist only to serve the purposes of political triumph? How different from his attitude toward Lavan is Ya'akov's attitude toward Esav. We know how steadfast is the power of one who is sure of his own integrity, and how oppressive is the feeling of guilt, even if only imagined. It is easier to suffer wrong and injustice for twenty years than to face for one minute a person whom we know was offended by us and who cannot understand our motives, which do not justify our actions but at least excuse them. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Mon Dec 4 07:55:38 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2017 10:55:38 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] knife sharpeners In-Reply-To: <0115756c-ad5a-dc19-dfdc-aba2138a2858@sero.name> References: <62debe36-f9a2-7cab-d4cb-a60320a1ec83@starways.net> <0115756c-ad5a-dc19-dfdc-aba2138a2858@sero.name> Message-ID: <20171204155538.GC26551@aishdas.org> On Sat, Dec 02, 2017 at 08:01:31PM -0500, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : On 02/12/17 15:56, Lisa Liel via Avodah wrote: : >Are knife sharpeners mekabel taam?? And noten taam?? Do you need : >different onces for meat, dairy, pesach, etc? : : Since they don't ever contact food, I don't see how they could. Since they are in heated contact with the knife, aren't there potential na"t bar na"t issues? Tir'u baTov! -Micha From ari.brodsky at utoronto.ca Mon Dec 4 10:03:48 2017 From: ari.brodsky at utoronto.ca (Ari Meir Brodsky) Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2017 20:03:48 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Tonight (Monday evening) begin Prayer for Rain Message-ID: Dear Friends, It's that time of year again, when I know many of you are expecting my annual friendly reminder.... Jews outside of Israel should include the request for rain in daily prayers, beginning with Maariv tonight (Monday evening), December 4, 2017, corresponding to the evening of 17 Kislev, 5778. The phrase *??? ?? ???? ?????* "Veten tal umatar livracha" - "Give us dew and rain for a blessing" is inserted into the 9th blessing of the weekday shemone esrei, from now until Pesach. [Sephardim replace the entire blessing of ????? with the alternate text beginning ??? ????? - thanks to Prof. Lasker for the reminder.] I encourage everyone to remind friends and family members of this event, especially those who may not be in shul at that time. Diaspora Jews begin requesting rain on the 60th day of the fall season, as approximated by Shmuel in the Talmud (Taanit 10a, Eiruvin 56a). For more information about this calculation, follow the link below, to a fascinating article giving a (very brief) introduction to the Jewish calendar, followed by a discussion on why we begin praying for rain when we do: http://www.lookstein.org/articles/veten_tal.htm (Thanks to Russell Levy for providing the link.) Wishing everyone a happy Chanukka, -Ari Meir Brodsky --------------------- Ari M. Brodsky ari.brodsky at utoronto.ca -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mirskym at gmail.com Mon Dec 4 10:02:39 2017 From: mirskym at gmail.com (Michael Mirsky) Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2017 21:02:39 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Davening on Airplanes In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: In all the discussions of this topic that I have seen, I haven't seen anyone address the issue of someone who is in his year of aveilut and needs a minyan to say kaddish. Do the objections to the possible disturbance a minyan might cause override this need? Michael Mirsky -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From larry62341 at optonline.net Mon Dec 4 10:17:47 2017 From: larry62341 at optonline.net (Prof. Levine) Date: Mon, 04 Dec 2017 13:17:47 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Knife Sharpening Message-ID: The following is from an article posted on the CRC web site at https://goo.gl/ispg9T Food service establishments regularly send out their knives for sharpening, and it appears that there are three potential kashrus concerns with this practice, as follows: * The sharpening company may give the establishment different knives than the ones which the establishment gave them for sharpening. This is an especially likely in cases where the sharpening company actually owns the knives and lends them to the establishment in exchange for the rights to sharpen them. This issue can be avoided if the Mashgiach has a tevias ayin on the knives and/or marks them. * Knives are typically very dirty when they arrive at the sharpening facility, and therefore all knives are washed in hot water or a dishwasher before the sharpening begins. This potentially allows non-kosher b?lios to get into the kosher knives. See below for more on this. * The same machine is used to sharpen the (clean) kosher and non-kosher knives, and the friction created by the process does heat up the knives somewhat. If that heat would be above yad soledes bo, there would be a potential for b?lios to transfer between the machinery and knives. However, in tests which Rabbi Neustadt performed in one sharpening company, the sharpening wheel and the cooling water (where that was used) were consistently cooler than 100? F and were not hot to the touch. As such, it appears that this does not pose a serious concern. See the above URL for more. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Mon Dec 4 11:53:58 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2017 14:53:58 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] What are the main mitzvos to focus on? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20171204195358.GC2323@aishdas.org> On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 12:11:31PM +0200, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: : The last daf in Makos (24a) states that the Neviim took the 613 mitzvos and : reduced them to a smaller set for people to focus on. : Michah gave three Mitzvos for people to focus on - "Asos Mishpat..." : "Asos Mishpat" is monetary laws; : "Ahavas Chesed" is bestowing Chesed; Is "din" necessarily a reference to monetary laws? Din vs chessed is a recurring dialectic. As in sheim Elokus vs sheim Havayah. : "V'Hatzne'a Leches Im Elokecha" is escorting the dead and bringing a Kalah : to Chupah; I saw the gemara differently, emphasizing tzeni'us itself. As it explains, one should walk with one's G-d modestly even when doing these two mitzvos, which normally happen in public. And then the gemara continues with a qal vachomer al achas kamah vekamah those which are normally done betzin'ah. So it seems to be closer to the words of the pasuq than the identification with two specific acts of chessed (one of which is famously "chesed shel emes") the gemara begins its explanation with. After all, chessed is already covered in the previous item in the list. (Parallel gemara at Sukkah 49b.) : Yeshayah later gave two primary Mitzvos - "Shimru Mishpat va'Asu Tzedakah." Tangent: You'll notice that Yeshaiah is listed twice, once before Mikhah (giving 6 principles), and once after. As they were contemporaries whose nevu'os overlap in content, R' Simla'i's intent is likely chronological order. : The mitzva of learning Torah which we understand to be the most important : and fundamental mitzva does not appear in these lists.... I think the "we" in your sentence are simply following a hashkafah which isn't majority opinion. Not only does R' Simla'i skip them, in favor of living to emulate HQBH's din and chessed, but - Hillel famously defines all of Torah in terms of using one's empathy to avoiding doing what one's chaver would loathe. Rashi ad loc includes avoiding what one's Chaver would loathe, but in his other discussions of the quote, this aspect is missing. - R' Aqiva and Ben Azzai argue over which pasuq better captures the Torah's kelal gadol, and both are interpersonal. - In both shasin, "Torah lishmah" is discussed in terms of al menas la'asos and/or al menas lelameid. Not knowing for its own sake. See also Meshekh Chokhmah (Devarim 218:61) which I blog about at So, who amongst Chazal really does make learning the central goal of a Jewish man's life? Jumping ahead to the Isms that today's O world is trying to build from: - In chassidus, talmud Torah is a means to deveiqus. - The discussion in Nefesh haChaim sha'ar 4 which denies the previous bullet item might be the earliest source for the position you describe as what "we understand" was written by the same RCV about whom his son says (in the haqadmah to NhC, emphasis mine): He regularly rebuked me, because he saw that I did not participate in the pain of others. And these were his constant words to me: This is the entire person. One is not created for himself, but to benefit others with the full extent of his powers. (SHEZEH KOL HA'ADAM: lo le'atzmo nivra, RAQ LEHO'IL LE'ACHRINI...) So, while sha'ar 4 waxes poetic about the chiyus talmud Torah gives the world, RCV didn't mean to say that therefore learning is the It of life. (And yeshivos tend not to learn shaar 1's discussion of the power of maaseh nor shaar 2's discussion of dibbur. Which also yeilds an imbalance in how one sees the NhC shaar 4's description of machashavah.) - Similarly, while we remember R' Chaim Brisker for inventing Brisker lomdus, he said his main job was to be a baal chessed. And his family agreed; the praise on his matzeivah simply reads "rav chessed". Apparently the Pulmus haMussar was about the proper means to come to embody the ideal, and not what the ideal actually is. This notion that learning is the ends rather than a central part of the means is arguably idiosyncratic. It is far easier to argue that the central mitzvah is to emulate the Meitiv and bring His Tov to others. : Additionally, these lists : seem to consist solely of mitzvos bein adam lachaveiro, are there no : mitzvos ben adam lamakom that are important enought to appear on these : lists? As per what I said above, mitzvos bein adam laMaqom -- or R' Yisrael Salanter's third category of mitzvos being adam le'atzmo, which includes talmud Torah as an act of self-refinement -- is more caring for the goose than the goose's actual laying of the golden eggs. Rather than a question mark, just end with an exclamation point. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger We are great, and our foibles are great, micha at aishdas.org and therefore our troubles are great -- http://www.aishdas.org but our consolations will also be great. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rabbi AY Kook From micha at aishdas.org Mon Dec 4 11:55:56 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2017 14:55:56 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Davening on Airplanes In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20171204195556.GD2323@aishdas.org> On Mon, Dec 04, 2017 at 09:02:39PM +0300, Michael Mirsky via Avodah wrote: : In all the discussions of this topic that I have seen, I haven't seen : anyone address the issue of someone who is in his year of aveilut and needs : a minyan to say kaddish. Do the objections to the possible disturbance a : minyan might cause override this need? How can it be a zekhus to the niftar to say Qaddish in a way that the BALC violations make it a net minus? Tir'u baTov! -Micha From saulguberman at gmail.com Mon Dec 4 12:00:16 2017 From: saulguberman at gmail.com (Saul Guberman) Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2017 15:00:16 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Davening on Airplanes In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: My understanding is that kaddish needs to be said once a day. It is said multi times a day as a hiddur. So, missing one davening should be OK and the zchus of not disturbing other passengers and crew and not creating a chillul hashem should make up for the missed kaddish. On Mon, Dec 4, 2017 at 1:02 PM, Michael Mirsky via Avodah < avodah at lists.aishdas.org> wrote: > In all the discussions of this topic that I have seen, I haven't seen > anyone address the issue of someone who is in his year of aveilut and needs > a minyan to say kaddish. Do the objections to the possible disturbance a > minyan might cause override this need? > > Michael Mirsky > > _______________________________________________ > Avodah mailing list > Avodah at lists.aishdas.org > http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From zev at sero.name Mon Dec 4 12:14:53 2017 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2017 15:14:53 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] knife sharpeners In-Reply-To: <20171204155538.GC26551@aishdas.org> References: <62debe36-f9a2-7cab-d4cb-a60320a1ec83@starways.net> <0115756c-ad5a-dc19-dfdc-aba2138a2858@sero.name> <20171204155538.GC26551@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 04/12/17 10:55, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > On Sat, Dec 02, 2017 at 08:01:31PM -0500, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > : On 02/12/17 15:56, Lisa Liel via Avodah wrote: > : >Are knife sharpeners mekabel taam?? And noten taam?? Do you need > : >different onces for meat, dairy, pesach, etc? > : > : Since they don't ever contact food, I don't see how they could. > > Since they are in heated contact with the knife, aren't there potential > na"t bar na"t issues? Knives are sharpened while hot?! With water? -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From micha at aishdas.org Mon Dec 4 12:48:38 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2017 15:48:38 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Davening on Airplanes In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20171204204838.GA1334@aishdas.org> On Mon, Dec 04, 2017 at 03:00:16PM -0500, Saul Guberman via Avodah wrote: : My understanding is that kaddish needs to be said once a day. It is said : multi times a day as a hiddur... See YD 376:4. The Rama discusses it in terms of a minhag, actually a variety of whatever is "minhag qavu'ah ba'ir". : the zchus of not disturbing other passengers and crew and not creating a : chillul hashem should make up for the missed kaddish. Especially since it's the avoidance of an actual issur vs a medieval or post-medieval minhag. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Life isn't about finding yourself. micha at aishdas.org Life is about creating yourself. http://www.aishdas.org - George Bernard Shaw Fax: (270) 514-1507 From micha at aishdas.org Mon Dec 4 13:34:04 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2017 16:34:04 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Letzareif Message-ID: <20171204213404.GA32594@aishdas.org> In Bereishis Rabb 44:1, Rav says Lo nitenu hamitzvos ela letzarei bahen es haberios And what does it matter to HQBH who shechtas from the throat and who shechts from the back of the neck? Havei: lo nitenu hamitzvos ela letzarei bahen es haberios Letzareif is a metaphor of melting. The problem is, whether we mean smelting / refining, or to meld to thing together (as in "mitzrareif")? Are we being told that mitzvos were given to refine people, or to connect them? Or is the word chosen in order to intentionally carry both meanings? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger If you're going through hell micha at aishdas.org keep going. http://www.aishdas.org - Winston Churchill Fax: (270) 514-1507 From bdbradley70 at hotmail.com Mon Dec 4 14:03:37 2017 From: bdbradley70 at hotmail.com (Ben Bradley) Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2017 22:03:37 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] knife sharpeners In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: ': On 02/12/17 15:56, Lisa Liel via Avodah wrote: : >Are knife sharpeners mekabel taam?? And noten taam?? Do you need : >different onces for meat, dairy, pesach, etc? : : Since they don't ever contact food, I don't see how they could. Since they are in heated contact with the knife, aren't there potential na"t bar na"t issues?' Knife sharpeners get hot? What kind of sharpeners are we talking about here? I've never seen a domestic knife sharpener which gets beyond slightly warm. But even if it did, the food would be na't to the knife, the knife to the sharpener, the sharpener to the second knife and thence to the food again. Which is na't bar na't bar na't bar na't. I thought that's not a problem in hilchos basar b'chalav? BW Ben -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Mon Dec 4 14:29:08 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2017 17:29:08 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] The 13 middos In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20171204222908.GA10223@aishdas.org> On Sun, Dec 03, 2017 at 11:13:00AM +0200, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: : The Gemara in Shavuos (4b) discusses who the Tanna of the Mishna is and : brings down a fundamental machlokes tannaim about the 13 middos. R' : Yishmael darshens klal uprat and R' Akiva darshens ribuy umiut. The : Acharonim point out that these are mutually exclusive and every Tanna : darshens one or the other but they cannot be mixed (e.g. a Tanna sometimes : darshens ribuy umiut and sometimes klal uprat). ... I do not understand this paranthetic comment, as it refers to a kind of mixture, a tanna who uses both styles of derashah, as an example of how they cannot be mixed. The willingness of the two batei midrash to use the others' methodology is stated outright on Bekhoros 51a. One such tanna is R' Aqiva himself, eg Yerushalmi Sotah 8:1 (vilna 34a). See RSRH's discussion in Collected Writings V pg 170. : something so fundamental as the 13 middos be a matter of dispute? Weren't : the 13 middos given to Moshe at Har Sinai? How could they forget such a : basic thing? ... The methodology could have been in use informally before Hillel started the meta-Torah of the study and formalization of rules to describe that methodology. Just as people can use proper grammar before anyone makes a formal study of the language's grammatical rules. Since each did use the others' rules, the formalized rule system doesn't actually define the list of inherited laws. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger None of us will leave this place alive. micha at aishdas.org All that is left to us is http://www.aishdas.org to be as human as possible while we are here. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Anonymous MD, while a Nazi prisoner From marty.bluke at gmail.com Mon Dec 4 21:15:42 2017 From: marty.bluke at gmail.com (Marty Bluke) Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2017 07:15:42 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] The 13 middos In-Reply-To: <20171204222908.GA10223@aishdas.org> References: <20171204222908.GA10223@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Tuesday, December 5, 2017, Micha Berger wrote:... > > > I do not understand this paranthetic comment, as it refers to a kind of > mixture, a tanna who uses both styles of derashah, as an example of how > they cannot be mixed. The willingness of the two batei midrash to use the > others' methodology is stated outright on Bekhoros 51a. > > One such tanna is R' Aqiva himself, eg Yerushalmi Sotah 8:1 (vilna 34a). > > See RSRH's discussion in Collected Writings V pg 170. See the Mishne Lamelech avadim 3:9 where he states that it is either or and the 2 styles cannot be mixed, and his main proof is from the Gemara Shavuos 4b where the Gemara asks on Rebbe how can he darshen a ribui umiut like R Akiva if in general he darshens Klal Uprat. We see clearly that the Gemara assumes you darshen 1 or the other but not both otherwise the Gemara would have no question. See also tosafos nidda 30a s.v. Ushma mina where tosafos says that we pasken that we darshen Klal uprat and not ribui umiut. That only makes sense if they are mutually exclusive. See also tosafos shavuos 25a s.v. Rav who also assumes that it is either or. Regarding the Gemara in bechoros 51a it is actually a proof the other way. The Gemara says that this case is an exception because it is not written in the normal way of a Klal uprat and therefore in this case only Rebbe can learn a ribui umiut but in general someone who learns Klal uprat could not use ribui umiut. > > Tir'u baTov! > -Micha > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From JRich at sibson.com Mon Dec 4 22:13:31 2017 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2017 06:13:31 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Davening on Airplanes In-Reply-To: <20171204204838.GA1334@aishdas.org> References: , <20171204204838.GA1334@aishdas.org> Message-ID: > > Especially since it's the avoidance of an actual issur vs a medieval or > post-medieval ---------- All very true, yet the Hamon am has invested Kaddish with great importance. Does that investiture have a halachic chalot? It seems it does at least in terms of kavod Kt Joel 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. From akivagmiller at gmail.com Tue Dec 5 03:22:57 2017 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2017 06:22:57 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Gid ha'nasheh Message-ID: . R' Chaim Tatel wrote: > At any rate, it makes sense that Yaakov would be hit there, > as a reminder that his marriage to Rachel after his marriage > to her sister Leah would not hold up when he entered Eretz > Yisrael. (not long after this episode, Rachel died in childbirth > of Binyamin). > > Aside from feeling the psychological pain of Rachel?s death, > perhaps Yaakov also had to feel physical pain. I draw a distinction between "consequences" and "punishments". I have heard in the past that Eretz Yisrael was unable to tolerate Yaakov's being married to two sisters, and that Rachel's death was a consequence of that. But RCT writes that Yaakov was given a reminder of that consequence, and that he had to feel pain as well. Now it sounds like Yaakov was being punished. If he was punished, it must be that he was punished for some choice that he made. What choice was that? What did he do wrong? If he could do it all over again, what ought he do differently? Specifically: After having married Leah, should he have not married Rachel? Alternatively, (according to those who say that he was not fooled but knew that Leah had the simanim,) should he have not married Leah? Or should he have protested and annuled the marriage to Leah? If he was punished, what did he do wrong? Akiva Miller From akivagmiller at gmail.com Tue Dec 5 03:33:20 2017 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2017 06:33:20 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Davening on Airplanes Message-ID: . R' Michael Mirsky asked: > In all the discussions of this topic that I have seen, I > haven't seen anyone address the issue of someone who is in > his year of aveilut and needs a minyan to say kaddish. Do the > objections to the possible disturbance a minyan might cause > override this need? RMM seems to be suggesting that this individual's need to say kaddish is greater than the usual need to daven Tefila B'Tzibur. I have heard other people express this feeling, but I've never seen any evidence for it in seforim or elsewhere. I'll express it another way: I am well aware that there are many many people who are somewhat lax in their minyan attendance in general, but for yahrzeit or aveilus they are much more meticulous. This is not a bad thing; whatever will help get people into shul is good. But I do think that their values might be misplaced. Akiva Miller From larry62341 at optonline.net Tue Dec 5 05:12:22 2017 From: larry62341 at optonline.net (Prof. Levine) Date: Tue, 05 Dec 2017 08:12:22 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] How often to day kaddish Message-ID: <2E.1E.03203.73B962A5@mta4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> Saul Guberman wrote: My understanding is that kaddish needs to be said once a day. It is said multi times a day as a hiddur. So, missing one davening should be OK and the zchus of not disturbing other passengers and crew and not creating a chillul hashem should make up for the missed kaddish. ________________________________________________________ According to the original din only, only one person said kaddish at a time. (This is still what is done in some places like KAJ and Bais Hatalmud). Thus, if there are many people saying kaddish in a shul that keeps the original din, it is conceivable that one might not get to say kaddish every day or even longer. Hence I do not think that one needs to say kaddish once a day. YL From akivagmiller at gmail.com Tue Dec 5 04:53:47 2017 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2017 07:53:47 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Letzareif Message-ID: . R' Micha Berger wrote: > Lo nitenu hamitzvos ela letzarei bahen es haberios > ... > Letzareif is a metaphor of melting. The problem is, whether > we mean smelting / refining, or to meld to thing together (as > in "mitzrareif")? > Are we being told that mitzvos were given to refine people, > or to connect them? Or is the word chosen in order to > intentionally carry both meanings? "Ratzah HKBH l'zakos es Yisrael..." Does "zakos" mean to purify, or to give zechus? I perceive a similar poetry in both l'tzaref and l'zakos, but I'm not much of a poet, so I'll leave this thought for the rest of y'all to ponder and expand uon. Akiva Miller From marty.bluke at gmail.com Tue Dec 5 01:10:14 2017 From: marty.bluke at gmail.com (Marty Bluke) Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2017 11:10:14 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] What are the main mitzvos to focus on? In-Reply-To: <20171204195358.GC2323@aishdas.org> References: <20171204195358.GC2323@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Mon, Dec 4, 2017 at 9:53 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 12:11:31PM +0200, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: > : The last daf in Makos (24a) states that the Neviim took the 613 mitzvos > and > : reduced them to a smaller set for people to focus on. > > : ... > > : The mitzva of learning Torah which we understand to be the most important > : and fundamental mitzva does not appear in these lists.... > > I think the "we" in your sentence are simply following a hashkafah which > isn't majority opinion. > ... > So, who amongst Chazal really does make learning the central goal of a > Jewish man's life? > > ... > This notion that learning is the ends rather than a central part of > the means is arguably idiosyncratic. It is far easier to argue that the > central mitzvah is to emulate the Meitiv and bring His Tov to others. > > Tir'u baTov! > -Micha So basically you are saying that the current Charedi hashkafa/lifestyle of Torah only and Torah learning being the ultimate purpose of life is not a majority opinion in Chazal and in fact you can't find anyone among Chazal who says this. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Tue Dec 5 09:02:00 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2017 12:02:00 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] What are the main mitzvos to focus on? In-Reply-To: References: <20171204195358.GC2323@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20171205170200.GB5251@aishdas.org> On Tue, Dec 05, 2017 at 11:10:14AM +0200, Marty Bluke wrote: : So basically you are saying that the current Charedi hashkafa/lifestyle of : Torah only and Torah learning being the ultimate purpose of life is not a : majority opinion in Chazal and in fact you can't find anyone among Chazal : who says this. I intentionally avoided stating it that confrontationally, but yes. Although not "chareidi", "yeshivish". Excluding most chassidim but including the large population of MO who are taking yeshivish hashkafah and harmonizing it with modernity. (Eg RYBS as understood by many of his students.) See, for example, R Tzevi Sinsky's currently running series out of YHE ("Gush") "Talmud Torah: The Mitzva of Torah Study". He draws heavily from R' Yehudah Amital and R' N Lamm (whom RZS calls "mori uzeqeini"); his perspective is that of DL and MO, not "chareidim". Here's the web abstract for the opening shiur: In this introductory shiur, we explore the centrality of Torah study in the thought of the Rabbis. From Noach to Ezra, prominent Jewish leaders throughout the biblical period are portrayed as Torah scholars, and this mitzva is ascribed paramount importance in every aspect of life. In particular, shiur 3 discusses the purpose of talmud Torah, discussing various approached. The section "Approach #1 -- Instrumentalism" quotes pesuqim, mishayos, Toseftra, gemaros, before getting to rishonim (Rashi, Rambam, Ramban, Chinukh, Me'iri, Or H'. See also RNSlifkin's long list of quotes from rishonim at .) In contrast, "Approach #2 -- Cultivating a Halakhic Ethos" opens with the Chazon Ish then mentions R' Chaim Brisker as desribed in Halakhic Man. "Approach #3 -- Variations on Deveikut" starts with the Rambam leveraging a Sifrei (who I do not see as giving their description of /the/ purpose of learning), but focuses on Chassidus, R' Kook and R' Amital. Notice that learning being primarily valuable instrumentally is the shitah for which RZS can find overwhelming evidence in chazal and rishonim, the others being johnny-come-latelies of the last centuries. As for my own opinion, I wouldn't call approach #2 the cultivation of a "halachic ethos". I think this reflects Brisk's tendency to conflate halakhah with kol haTorah kulah, downplaying the import of aggadita. And yet, this wording does emphasize how approach 1 includes approach 2. If we are obligated in hilkhos dei'os / chovos halvavos / ve'asisa hayashar vehatov / to develop a *Torah* ethos, then #2 is also instrumental. We learn Mes' Sukkah to know how to fulfill the mitzvah of sukkah, and we learn Mes' Pirqei Avos to know to to fulfill the mitzvah of vehalakhta bidrakhav. See, it's instrumental! The difference boils down to what I believe was the central chiluq behind the pulmus haMussar: In the Brisker worldview, when RCVolozhiner compares talmud Torah to immersion in a miqvah, he means it descriptively. Learn halakhah as an end in itself, an it will leave a roshem of taharah. Even if the causality involved is mystical and non-obvious. Whereas R Yisrael Salanter looked at the actual metzi'us of the society he was in -- and all the moreso ours -- and concluded that this couldn't have been RCV's intent. Rather, RCV was speaking descriptively; when one learns correctly, one is learning in a way that leaves a roshem of taharah, even if the material itself is never understood or gets forgotten. And RYS had the lifestyle of RCV's talmid, R' Zundel Salanter, as indication of what Nefesh haChaim was intending to describe. Thus, to a mussarist, RCV was describing how to learn. Don't just learn nega'im to find chiluqim with which to explain machloqesin and non-obvious dinim. Rather, in addition one must spend the time driving home the roshem of how bad LH and ga'avah are, that HQBH felt it worth aiding teshuvah in these areas. And those two topics are far more connected in Telzher derekh than Brisker, but I think I've ranged far enough. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Spirituality is like a bird: if you tighten micha at aishdas.org your grip on it, it chokes; slacken your grip, http://www.aishdas.org and it flies away. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From micha at aishdas.org Tue Dec 5 10:39:48 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2017 13:39:48 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Davening on Airplanes In-Reply-To: References: <20171204204838.GA1334@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20171205183948.GA31307@aishdas.org> On Tue, Dec 05, 2017 at 06:13:31AM +0000, Rich, Joel wrote: :> Especially since it's the avoidance of an actual issur vs a medieval or :> post-medieval : All very true, yet the Hamon am has invested Kaddish with great : importance. Does that investiture have a halachic chalot? It seems it : does at least in terms of kavod Reading the kesuvah under the chuppah is just a stall while we wait some gap of time to separate qiddushin and nissuin. A maaseh kof. And yet because it is time in the spot-light, common practice is to treat it as the second greatest kibud, often what you give the other rav you might have made mesader qiddushin. When it comes to kibud, public treatment does indeed matter. And logically enough; after all, being mekhubad is an issue of seeing others display feelings of kavod. How we display it /should/ be secondary. All logical. However, here we are talking about someone in the olam ha'emes. So they know that while on the plane you have that actual issur keeping you from fulfilling the minhag of saying qaddish. For that matter, hopefully and typically said parent worked really hard at trying to get the avel to respect others. And if not, again, at this point the soul of even the worst parent would know better. So I do not think it's likely the neshamah would mind the lack of kibud as much as they would mind the misplacement of values. I would therefore not draw any conclusions from the logical linkage of kibud with intent and norms. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Between stimulus & response, there is a space. micha at aishdas.org In that space is our power to choose our http://www.aishdas.org response. In our response lies our growth Fax: (270) 514-1507 and our freedom. - Victor Frankl, (MSfM) From llevine at stevens.edu Wed Dec 6 01:39:18 2017 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2017 09:39:18 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Gambling in Halachah Message-ID: <7b63aab9b65f4c589d76fe326bd18f97@exchng03.campus.stevens-tech.edu> Click here to download "Gambling in Halachah" [That's the Kof-K's Halachically Speaking vol 13, issue 18, dedicated to this topic. -micha] From micha at aishdas.org Wed Dec 6 11:36:19 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2017 14:36:19 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Gid ha'nasheh In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20171206193619.GB12102@aishdas.org> On Tue, Dec 05, 2017 at 06:22:57AM -0500, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: :> Aside from feeling the psychological pain of Rachel?s death, :> perhaps Yaakov also had to feel physical pain. : : I draw a distinction between "consequences" and "punishments"... For those who don't remember from prior iterations, I don't. I think the difference between callins an onesh a consequence and calling it a punishment (or even "corrective") is whether one views sekhar va'onesh as a system that HQBH set up when He set up the universe or as a set of responses He has to our actions. "Chai gever al chata'av" implies one, our tefillos on yamim nora'im frequently imply the other. But both are simply simplified models of the incomprehensible Truth of how Hashem runs the universe. Since He is lemaalah min hazeman, we can't talk about whether the decision was made in maaseh bereishis or in response to our action -- both are ascribing times to a timeless Action (for want of a better word). We can only speak of a when for the effects of Divine Action, as they enter our timefull experience. : I have : heard in the past that Eretz Yisrael was unable to tolerate Yaakov's : being married to two sisters, and that Rachel's death was a : consequence of that. ... which is typical of an onesh -- a sin causes its own punishment. The two explanations are not mutually exclusive. To say that it was the land's qedushah causing something that wasn't in line with justice, one has to explain why there are rules that hide Hashem's Justice that aren't part of the hesteir panim necessary for free will. We need laws of nature to plan how to execute a decision, but laws of metaphysics? ... : If he was punished, it must be that he was punished for some choice : that he made. What choice was that? What did he do wrong? If he could : do it all over again, what ought he do differently? Specifically: : After having married Leah, should he have not married Rachel? Well, isn't that the halakhah? Or maybe the issur was in whatever it was that had him marrying a woman without noticing that her eyes were rakos (whatever that means). Perhaps the mistake was due to a criminal level of negligence. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Man is equipped with such far-reaching vision, micha at aishdas.org yet the smallest coin can obstruct his view. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yisrael Salanter Fax: (270) 514-1507 From micha at aishdas.org Wed Dec 6 11:23:17 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2017 14:23:17 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] The 13 middos In-Reply-To: References: <20171204222908.GA10223@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20171206192317.GA12102@aishdas.org> On Tue, Dec 05, 2017 at 07:15:42AM +0200, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: : See the Mishne Lamelech avadim 3:9 where he states that it is either or and : the 2 styles cannot be mixed, and his main proof is from the Gemara Shavuos : 4b where the Gemara asks on Rebbe how can he darshen a ribui umiut like R : Akiva if in general he darshens Klal Uprat... And yet the conclution on 5a is that he holds like R' Yishma'el's beis medrash who holds the derashah is not kelal uperat but ribui umi'ut ("ribah umi'at"). R Yisma'el, the one who codified the rules of kelal uperat is the one who here uses ribui umi'ut!? So is the gemara really saying that Rebbe is not crossing the line, as it seems to be saying. Or is it intentionally also implying there is no line to cross? Tosafos there ("detana Devei R' Yishma'el") might be saying the latter; it is too terse for me to be sure of intent. And yet further down on 5a, we have "Hashta de'amres... -- Now that you say that Rebbe darshans kelal uperat, you are forced into a question about shavu'os...?" IOW, reassuming the line. In any case, I am totally lost. In a discussion of how no one uses both sets of rules, it cites the school that created one set using the other set, and not saying anything about it. There is more going on here than I comprehend so far. As RSRH said (Collected Writings vol V pg 170), there are many such cases of R' Yishmael and R' Aqiva uses the other's rules. RSRH treats the rule as a tendency, rather than a line one may not cross. I wish I knew his interpretation of the gemara in Shavuos. But it's not like the MlM, nor the ba'al Atzmos Yoseif (whom the MlM is discussing), and does acknowledge the actual positions taken across both shasin. Just thinking out loud... Maybe the gemaros we're looking at are bothered because these are all cases where both kelalim apply and in each case they imply different dinim. IOW, it is not a question of Rebbe (or devei R Yismael) using ribui umi'ut, but of favoring the derashah that he tends not to OVER the derashah that is his norm. And to handle RSRH's observation, in a case where it is not a choice between conflicting kinds of derashos, no one would be asking why Rebbe used a kelal uperat, as such line-crossing is normal. : See also tosafos nidda 30a s.v. Ushma mina where tosafos says that we : pasken that we darshen Klal uprat and not ribui umiut... Nidda 30a "ushma minah tevilah bizmanah mitzvah" is about holding like Beis Shammai, and doesn't mention derashos. The previous d"h, "shema minah telas" (a near match) also isn't on topic. Could you please fix the citation for me? : Regarding the Gemara in bechoros 51a it is actually a proof the other way. : The Gemara says that this case is an exception because it is not written in : the normal way of a Klal uprat and therefore in this case only... This is a 2nd variant of the same sugya as Shavu'os. (To clarify for those moderately interested, but not sufficiently so to look for themselves.) Rashi ("hakha"), who says it's a general rule: kelal uperat ukelal isn't judged as a kelal uperat but as a ribui umi'ut. IIUC, Rashi is saying that Rebbe is staying within his usual rule set, but this is a case where both rule sets include the same derashah, just under different names. Thanks to RMTorczyner (CCed) : > Choosing between using "Kelal/Perat" and "Ribuy/Miut": Eruvin 27b-28a; > Succah 50b; Kiddushin 21b The first two don't really deal with tannaim using only one rule set, but Qiddush 21b is a third version of our sugya. I didn't see anything to add to the discussion beyond a way to rope RMT in, and perhaps he'll talk to R' Jonathan Ziring about the question. (RMT is the Rosh Beit Midrash of the YU-Torah Mitzion Zichron Dov Beit Midrash of Toronto, RJZ is the segan. Back when RJZ was in the kollel at YHE ["Gush"], he gave a series of shiurim on meta-halakhah. I thought I had RJZ's address, as we had a short correspondance, but since I didn't find it, I figured that once I was bothering RMT for his opinion...) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger I always give much away, micha at aishdas.org and so gather happiness instead of pleasure. http://www.aishdas.org - Rachel Levin Varnhagen Fax: (270) 514-1507 From micha at aishdas.org Wed Dec 6 12:06:08 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2017 15:06:08 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] TEXTUAL JUDAISM AND THE LIVING TORAH In-Reply-To: <9e51a7f4ea644e829db8503f8f0451fe@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <9e51a7f4ea644e829db8503f8f0451fe@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20171206200608.GC12102@aishdas.org> On Thu, Nov 02, 2017 at 12:12:05PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : http://etzion.org.il/en/siman-114-prayers-wind-rain-and-dew : :> TEXTUAL JUDAISM AND THE LIVING TORAH : :> In his introduction to the Beit Yosef... ... I think there are two things we need to keep in mind, that R' Asher Meir does not touch upon: 1- The question isn't whether the BY or some other poseiq does or doesn't consider the extent to which a particular pesaq was nispasheit. But rather something less boolean: how much weight does any given poseiq give mimeticism, and in comparison to which other factors. A number of years ago I proposed a model (then modified it in a later iteration) of 4 classes of factors a poseiq needs to weigh. And that one of the leading reasons why pesaq is an art rather than an algorithm is that their can't be formal rules for comparing the magnitudes of apples and oranges -- and bananas and parsimons? Here's what I came up with: - textual logic: which sevara do you find most compelling? Litvaks typically put most of the emphasis - textual authority: rules like azlinan basar ruba, or giving more weight to the Rambam's or Rosh's pinion than to some Baal Tosafos we rarely hear of. This seems to be ROY's favorite territory. - minhag avos / mimeticism - hashkafic concerns (including philosophy, qaballah): like when chassidim and talmidei haGra stopped putting on tefillin on ch"m because it is qotzeitz binti'os. No one would place hashkafic concerns high on the list. Ein dorshin taamei hamizvos. A poseiq only leaves formal halachic analysis when multiple opinions are defensible, which "right answer" does one choose? But different posqim still give it different weight; requiring more or less equity between the halachic analysis of the different possible pesaqim before being willing to let the hashkafah tip the scales. 2- The BY is a text. To really talk about mimeticism, we're talking about what people do naturally. A poseiq may need to factor in which pesaq was nispasheit, but by doing so he is not being a mimetic. The AhS is more likely to find justifications for mimetic practice while the MB is more likely to recommend changing practice. But deciding to follow either is choosing textuallism over mimeticism. Mimeticism is following the same pesaq the AhS just defended because that's what everone does, it's the example your parents and/or your peers set, not because it's a pesaq with a sevara and sources. Still, it's interesting to find an example of the BY overriding his triumverate and clearly stating a reason that is at odds with his haqdamah. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Take time, micha at aishdas.org be exact, http://www.aishdas.org unclutter the mind. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rabbi Simcha Zissel Ziv, Alter of Kelm From micha at aishdas.org Wed Dec 6 13:40:04 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2017 16:40:04 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] More on Yaakov, sheep and the rods In-Reply-To: <50458059-A03F-4E6E-B54B-F1612B0E7E5B@jsli.org> References: <50458059-A03F-4E6E-B54B-F1612B0E7E5B@jsli.org> Message-ID: <20171206214004.GD12102@aishdas.org> On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 12:20:44PM -0500, Alexander Seinfeld via Avodah wrote: : Why not just interpret this as an example of phenotypic plasticity, : meaning the genetic potential is there in every generation, and the : environmental factors stimulate its expression? : : As everyone who had genetics 101 will realize, if you eliminate 100% : of the phenotype, and breed the remainder you will still get some of : that phenotype in the next generation with recessive genes. So it always : bothered me why was all the hokus pokus by Yaakov necessary.... I would learn from this incident in Bereishis that one is obligated to do whatever hishtadlus is possible by the best understanding of teva available to you. And not to worry about what the current theory may get replaced by. Along similar lines: R Avigdor Miller taught that since HQBH is Rofei kol basar, medicine doesn't actually heal. The role of doctors and medicine is to prevent Hashem's cure from requiring a neis nigleh. And, he explains, this is why people actually survived despite medical theories involving 4 humours and bloodletting, or whatnot. Any accepted theory is equally usable. I don't buy into this, because if true, medicine would never need to advance, in fact, accepted medical theory would never be disproved. Still, I find the idea intriguing. It fits the notion, which might be the Ramban's (depending on how you fit multiple comments together) and is definitely REED's that teva is not a real "thing", but the patterns Hashem uses to hide His Action behind. It's all neis nistar, really Now, if one were to apply the same idea to parnasah, one could explain the purpose of Yaakov's efforts. And even if RAvigdorM's theory is hard to see as how teva works for the rest of us, it's easier to apply to someone who is as neis-worthy, including neis-nistar-worthy, as Yaaqov avinu. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger You want to know how to paint a perfect micha at aishdas.org painting? It's easy. http://www.aishdas.org Make yourself perfect and then just paint Fax: (270) 514-1507 naturally. -Robert Pirsig From akivagmiller at gmail.com Wed Dec 6 15:10:18 2017 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2017 18:10:18 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Gid ha'nasheh Message-ID: . I asked: : If he was punished, it must be that he was punished for some choice : that he made. What choice was that? What did he do wrong? If he could : do it all over again, what ought he do differently? Specifically: : After having married Leah, should he have not married Rachel? and R' Micha Berger responded: > Well, isn't that the halakhah? I want to publicly thank RMB for a beautiful post, and for reminding me of some very important concepts. We learn so much of the machinations of what went on in this incident, how each step was important and necessary in various ways, that I was a bit shocked to hear it suggested that Yaakov Avinu was being punished for his choices here. But truth be told, the line between punishment and consequence can be arbitrary, subjective .... or even imaginary. We DO accept the reality of a "necessary evil", or a "greater good". It's not all black and white. "Well, isn't that the halakhah?" Indeed, the halacha prescribes The Way To Go, but that is no guarantee that there won't be unpleasant side effects. If the Kohen Gadol happens upon a Mes Mitzvah on Yom Kippur morning, the halacha is clear that he must get involved, even if that means that the day's avodah won't go as planned. So too, Yaakov Avinu and Rachel Imenu married each other because Klal Yisrael needed it, and if such a releationship was incompatible with Kedushas Haaretz, well, unfortunately, they'll have to endure the consequences. Akiva Miller From meirabi at gmail.com Wed Dec 6 18:07:12 2017 From: meirabi at gmail.com (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi) Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2017 13:07:12 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] =?utf-8?q?SEDRA_VAYEISHEV_=E2=80=93_TIME_TO_LOOK_IN_THE_?= =?utf-8?q?MIRROR?= Message-ID: When the little kid threatens a bouncer ? we all laugh. It is funny precisely because it is so silly and impossible. DJT, a buffoon, a bumbling, blithering bad-boy, could not possibly win the presidency. It was the standing joke that never grew stale ? until he became POTUS. Our Sages say, we are truly unmasked by Kiso Koso & KaAso ? by what we?re like when feeling liberated: # deciding how to use our valuables i.e. by what we consider to be important # intoxicated [not necessarily by alcohol] # we are agitated i.e. by what presses our buttons. Yosef tells his brothers about his dream ? expecting them to laugh it off and he gives them a second chance after they?ve had an opportunity to reconsider their response. When we get offended and mock ? it?s time to look in the mirror. Best, Meir G. Rabi 0423 207 837 +61 423 207 837 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From marty.bluke at gmail.com Thu Dec 7 02:27:17 2017 From: marty.bluke at gmail.com (Marty Bluke) Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2017 12:27:17 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] The 13 middos In-Reply-To: <20171206192317.GA12102@aishdas.org> References: <20171204222908.GA10223@aishdas.org> <20171206192317.GA12102@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 9:23 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > On Tue, Dec 05, 2017 at 07:15:42AM +0200, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: > : See the Mishne Lamelech avadim 3:9 where he states that it is either or > and > : the 2 styles cannot be mixed, and his main proof is from the Gemara > Shavuos > : 4b where the Gemara asks on Rebbe how can he darshen a ribui umiut like R > : Akiva if in general he darshens Klal Uprat... > > And yet the conclution on 5a is that he holds like R' Yishma'el's beis > medrash who holds the derashah is not kelal uperat but ribui umi'ut > ("ribah umi'at"). R Yisma'el, the one who codified the rules of kelal > uperat is the one who here uses ribui umi'ut!? > The Gemara says that this case is an exception because it is not written in the normal way of a Klal uprat and therefore in this case ONLY Rebbe can learn a ribui umiut but in general someone who learns Klal uprat could not use ribui umiut. > ... > > : See also tosafos nidda 30a s.v. Ushma mina where tosafos says that we > : pasken that we darshen Klal uprat and not ribui umiut... > > Nidda 30a "ushma minah tevilah bizmanah mitzvah" is about holding > like Beis Shammai, and doesn't mention derashos. The previous d"h, > "shema minah telas" (a near match) also isn't on topic. Could you > please fix the citation for me? > See the last 2 lines in the Tosafos that I quoted, Tosafos states "d'darish ribui umiut, V'Kayma lan d'darshinan klali uprati" Tosafos paskens that we darshen klal uprat not ribui umiut, that strongly implies that they are mutuallt exclusive > > > > > Tir'u baTov! > -Micha > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From JRich at sibson.com Wed Dec 6 21:49:36 2017 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2017 05:49:36 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] zmanim Message-ID: <550be79bd779462fa5534e6b58fba249@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> As sunrise got later I was at a minyan where the earliest time for tallit was approximately the same as the minyan starting time. I watched as everybody watched their cell phones for the exact time to start from Myzmanim. (Of course that website says not to rely on to it to the minute) I was wondering whether this close watch was a subset of a broader need of man modern man to have exactitude in life versus living with gray. (Sort of a desire to be Newtonian in a quantum world) I was also wondering whether the advent of the railroad table approach now requires us to halachically follow that exactness rather than that the "it looks right to me" approach of Chazal? Thoughts? KT 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: From larry62341 at optonline.net Thu Dec 7 03:09:25 2017 From: larry62341 at optonline.net (Prof. Levine) Date: Thu, 07 Dec 2017 06:09:25 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Davening on Airplanes In-Reply-To: <900051a759eb4fd1a58d4fda4d74fca6@exchng03.campus.stevens-t ech.edu> References: <900051a759eb4fd1a58d4fda4d74fca6@exchng03.campus.stevens-tech.edu> Message-ID: <32.C2.03752.761292A5@mta3.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> At 08:12 PM 12/6/2017, R Micha Berger wrote: >When it comes to kibud, public treatment does indeed matter... >However, here we are talking about someone in the olam ha'emes. So they >know that while on the plane you have that actual issur keeping you from >fulfilling the minhag of saying qaddish... >So I do not think it's likely the neshamah would mind the lack of kibud >as much as they would mind the misplacement of values. I would therefore >not draw any conclusions from the logical linkage of kibud with intent >and norms. From The Mussar Movement, Volume 1, Part 2 pages 248 - 249. On one of the anniversaries of his father's death, R. Israel was in Memel. He was informed that someone else in the synagogue wished to say Kaddish. Now R. Israel was very insistent that only one person at a time be allowed to recite the Kaddish at the services [28] and apparently this congregation had complied with his ruling. Reb Yitzchak Isaacson was observing the jahrzeit of a daughter who had died very young. Now the Halachah gives precedence to a son observing the jahrzeit of a parent on these occasions, and R. Israel was obviously entitled to the privilege. Sensing the grief he would cause the father by depriving him of the opportunity to say Kaddish for his daughter, R. Israel went up to him and said: "You sir, will say Kaddish." The worshippers expressed their surprise. Not only had R. Israel yielded his own right, but also overlooked the duty of honoring his father, since he was, by law, obliged to say Kaddish. He explained to them that the merit of extending kindness (gemi- lut chesed) to a fellow Jew possessed far greater value than the saying of Kaddish.[29] [28.] See R. Naftali Amsterdam's will, published in Or Hamusar No. 13. See Vol. II of the Hebrew edition of this series, Tenu'at Hamusar, II, Chap. 25. [29.] Ernile Benjamin, op. cit., p. 25. From seinfeld at daasbooks.com Thu Dec 7 06:50:16 2017 From: seinfeld at daasbooks.com (Alexander Seinfeld) Date: Thu, 07 Dec 2017 09:50:16 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Gid ha'nasheh Message-ID: It seems to me there are two plausible answers, and both may be correct. 1. Yes, he should not have married Rachel. This is in fact what Leah tells her, ?You stole my husband.? He was tricked, but he accepted Leah, did not annul the marriage, so too bad for Rachel. She?s the one who gave away the password. 2. He wasn?t yet Yisroel. He was still a ben Noach. When he becomes Yisroel, he is now required to keep the Taryag Mitzvos. It is right after this name change that she dies. I?m not sure why she doesn?t die immediately (in Beit-El) rather en route to Efrat. But this delay may have sown doubt into his mind about his status - maybe he is still a ben Noach. His sons consider themselves Bnai Yisroel, which is why they are eating meat that for a ben-Noach would be eiver-min-ha-chai, and which is part of the lashon hara that Yoseph brings back to Yaakov. But his judgment that they are Bnai Noach is not merely academic, it is personal, because it has implications in Rachel?s death. > >If he was punished, it must be that he was punished for some choice >that he made. What choice was that? What did he do wrong? If he could >do it all over again, what ought he do differently? Specifically: >After having married Leah, should he have not married Rachel? >Alternatively, (according to those who say that he was not fooled but >knew that Leah had the simanim,) should he have not married Leah? Or >should he have protested and annuled the marriage to Leah? > >If he was punished, what did he do wrong? From micha at aishdas.org Thu Dec 7 11:06:53 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2017 14:06:53 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Gid ha'nasheh In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20171207190653.GB26083@aishdas.org> On Wed, Dec 06, 2017 at 06:10:18PM -0500, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : We DO accept the reality of a "necessary evil", or a "greater good". : It's not all black and white. "Well, isn't that the halakhah?" Indeed, : the halacha prescribes The Way To Go, but that is no guarantee that : there won't be unpleasant side effects... A number of rishonim (eg Ramban, Seforno) deal with the problem of miracles. Since HQBH is Perfect and is capable of a perfect creation, why would He make a world in which He occasionally would have to step in and override teva? This is where the Ramban comes in with the idea that not only the miraculous items listed in Pirqei Avos created during Maaseh Bereishis, every "exception" to the laws of nature are actually special cases written into the law. I'll pause here to remind of what I said last email about "at the time of creation" and "in response to the situation" both being oversimplifications caused by us temporal beings trying to think about Hashem's "Action" which is lemaalah min hazeman and has no "when". Similarly, one can ask about His Authorship of halakhah. Since Hashem is capable of writing a system of laws to fit the universe in a way where obeying the law never has "unpleasant side effects", why wouldn't He? One backstep... I just realized you mean something broader by "side effects" than I was talking about. As you later write: : upon a Mes Mitzvah on Yom Kippur morning, the halacha is clear that he : must get involved, even if that means that the day's avodah won't go : as planned... Similarly, if piquach nefesh is docheh Shabbos, rather than Shabbos being huterah, one may have the misfortune of having to violate Shabbos. But that's not sekhar va'onesh, and my question "but what about Divine Justice?" doesn't apply. Not unless the "unpleasant side effect" is -- as in the case of Yaaqov's widowerhood or his hip -- painful (physically and/or emotionally). There is also another issue... Sekhar mitzvos behai alma leiqa. Not everything in this world is sekhar va'onesh. Li nir'eh, everything in this world is to draw us to a state of being able to receive more of Hashem's tov. Onesh, only when we have a chance of it getting us to choose more constructively. Which is why the mishnah talks about tzadiqim getting onesh in olam hazah to spare them in olam haba. Not because pain in olam hazeh pays off the accoun t early, but because a tzadiq will use the pain to draw closer to HQBH / to his ideal self. And similarly, resha'im who wouldn't respond constructively to the challenge... Well, HQBH would share with them his Tov in the here-and-now rather than not at all. This takes us away from insisting that the universe must be set up so that every sin contains its own onesh as a consequence. (If we're using the consequence model to look at things.) Instead, we can look at the universe as tending toward tov. And therefore every step away from tov will as a consequence cause a pull back toward it. (Which could well be onesh, but in olam hazeh, it could be getting us connected back to the Meitiv in some other way.) And applying this back to Yaaqov's marrying two wives... Perhaps it's not an onesh, but the consequent path closer to the Meitiv in a world where the aretz was made tamei. And it's even possible that the challenges of this harder path lead to a closer place than without. So that overall, the net is maximize sekhar. Lefum tza'ara. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger We look forward to the time micha at aishdas.org when the power to love http://www.aishdas.org will replace the love of power. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - William Ewart Gladstone From micha at aishdas.org Thu Dec 7 11:12:14 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2017 14:12:14 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] zmanim In-Reply-To: <550be79bd779462fa5534e6b58fba249@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <550be79bd779462fa5534e6b58fba249@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20171207191214.GC26083@aishdas.org> On Thu, Dec 07, 2017 at 05:49:36AM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : I was wondering whether this close watch was a subset of a broader : need of man modern man to have exactitude in life versus living with : gray... Or maybe we were always mechuyavim to be as precise as possible. : wondering whether the advent of the railroad table approach now requires : us to halachically follow that exactness rather than that the "it looks : right to me" approach of Chazal? Thoughts? Li nir'eh there is value to the "in sync with nature" approach of Chazal that we lose when we think about clock time rather than the cycles of the sun (a/k/a the earth's spin). Much the way we lose a lot of what the yamim tovim mean because we aren't living in agrarian communities, and don't feel the joy of new wheat and barley when we celebrate our birth as a people, or the joy of bringing in the year's fruit when we celebrate how HQBH sustained us in the midbar. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From seinfeld at daasbooks.com Thu Dec 7 20:42:27 2017 From: seinfeld at daasbooks.com (Alexander Seinfeld) Date: Thu, 07 Dec 2017 23:42:27 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] What are the main mitzvos to focus on? Message-ID: :: So basically you are saying that the current Charedi hashkafa/lifestyle of :: Torah only and Torah learning being the ultimate purpose of life is not a :: majority opinion in Chazal and in fact you can't find anyone among Chazal :: who says this. : I intentionally avoided stating it that confrontationally, but yes. Forgive me, this may be a side issue to your main point about the 2 ways/reasons to learn, but I feel it should be clarified what you mean. How do you understand the Shulchan Aruch - Orach Chaim 155-156 - go immediately from davening to learning, make Torah your ikkar and malacha your arai; minimize work to only what you need [Be?er Heiteiv, Mishna Berura] not more??? Not mainstream? Breaking with Chazal? It?s a verbatim quotation from Gemara Berachos 35b. And maybe related to Taanis 24b (Chanina ben Dosa and his wife.) Now, let?s think sociologically for a moment. Why did the Mechaber choose to state this halacha the way he does? It seems to me that in his time (as in all times) there were Jews who were pulled to the needs and attractions of parnasa and spending the vast majority of their time and energy on it and in his view not in the proper balance. The fact that he has to state this halacha implies that not everyone was behaving that way. So the fact that not everyone behaves this way today is no proof whatsoever against the halacha. But anyone who wonders on what basis do some Orthodox Jews forsake full-time jobs and toil in Torah should read the Beur Halacha on Siman 155.1 - ?Eis lilmode? > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Fri Dec 8 02:55:11 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Fri, 8 Dec 2017 05:55:11 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] What are the main mitzvos to focus on? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20171208105511.GA13704@aishdas.org> On Thu, Dec 07, 2017 at 11:42:27PM -0500, Alexander Seinfeld via Avodah wrote: ::: So basically you are saying that the current Charedi hashkafa/lifestyle of ::: Torah only and Torah learning being the ultimate purpose of life is not a ::: majority opinion in Chazal and in fact you can't find anyone among Chazal ::: who says this. :: I intentionally avoided stating it that confrontationally, but yes. : Forgive me, this may be a side issue to your main point about the 2 : ways/reasons to learn, but I feel it should be clarified what you mean. : How do you understand the Shulchan Aruch - Orach Chaim 155-156 - go : immediately from davening to learning, make Torah your ikkar and malacha : your arai; minimize work to only what you need [Be?er Heiteiv, Mishna : Berura] not more??? You are shifting topics. I wrote about the reasons to learn, and asserted "Torah only and Torah learning being the ultimate purpose of life... you can't find anyone among Chazal who says this." Torah learning should well be the anchor of your day in comparison to earning a parnasah. (Although if one is learning rather than going to teach, other mitzvos are dochim.) But not as an ends, as a means. The hashkafah is new, the priorities not. But the new hashkafah changes the weighting to be even more in favor of learning. For example: I don't know what's going on today, but in my day Neir Yisrael / Baltimore was unique among American "yeshivish" yeshivos in encouraging talmidim to volunteer to staff kiruv shabbatonim. (Most/all YU RY were very proactively pro becoming an NCSY advisor.) The others felt that at this time in their lives, bachurim shouldn't be distracted from learning. This, despite the fact that adolescents respond better if there are peer-teachers rather than full grownups of a different generation, and the program was begging for them. This is one of the reasons JEP failed. That's the worldview of the American and Israeli "Litvisher" yeshiva. Now let's look at actual pre-war Litvisher gedolim. And I don't mean the obvious mussarists. `Would the aforementioned Meshekh Chokhmah have agreed with this decision? Is it in concert with RCV's admonition to his son? What about R' Shimon Shkop, who opens Shaarei Yosher's haqdamah with (empshasis added): Yisbarakh HaBorei Veyis'alah HaYotzeir who created us in His "Image" and in the likeness of His "Structure" VECHAYEI OLAM NATA BESOKHAINU such that our greated desire should be to benefit others to the indivindual and the masses, now and in the future, in imitation of the Creator (kevayachol). Ikkar doesn't mean "ultimate purpose", and making learning one's ultimate purpose does push one to go beyond making it the day's ikkar. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Brains to the lazy micha at aishdas.org are like a torch to the blind -- http://www.aishdas.org a useless burden. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Bechinas haOlam From micha at aishdas.org Fri Dec 8 06:11:58 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Fri, 8 Dec 2017 09:11:58 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Your Ancestors Message-ID: <20171208141158.GA20389@aishdas.org> R' Mike Gerver posted to Mail-Jewish in 1994 a request to help him collect more date to tighten an argument that odds are, every Jew alive either: - is a geir or all his ancestry are from geirim recently enough for him to know, or - descends from Rashi. (Or anyone else of that era or earlier.) See Calculations involve estimating rate of marriage across social strata, between towns, and between eidot. All Jews. Even Teimanim. (Ethiopians weren't a discussion yet, odds are no.) Well, this article makes that all the more probable: http://bigthink.com/stephen-johnson/why-youre-probably-related-to-nefertiti-and-confucius Why You're Probably Related to Nefertiti, Confucius, and Socrates December 7, 2017 by Stephen Johnson .... [J]ust how far back do humans need to go to find a common ancestor of their own: a person to whom all living people are related? The answer, for people of European descent at least, is surprisingly recent: 600 years. The common ancestor for every single person alive on the planet today, no matter where, lived approximately 3,600 years ago. That means Confucius, Nefertiti, Socrates, and any figure from ancient history that had children, is in some way your ancestor. Then, quoting Adam Rutherfore's new book, A Brief History of Everyone Who Ever Lived: "We are all special, which also means that none of us is," writes Rutherford in the book. "This is merely a numbers game. You have two parents, four grandparents, eight great-grandparents, and so on. Each generation back the number of ancestors you have doubles. But this ancestral expansion is not borne back ceaselessly into the past. If it were, your family tree when Charlemagne was Le Grand Fromage would harbor around 137,438,953,472 individuals on it -- more people than were alive then, now, or in total." So, why not? "You can be, and in fact are, descended from the same individual many times over," Rutherford writes. "Your great-great-great-great-great-grandmother might hold that position in your family tree twice, or many times, as her lines of descent branch out from her, but collapse onto you. The further back through time we go, the more these lines will coalesce on fewer individuals." The startling discovery that all Europeans might share a common ancestor who walked the Earth just 600 years ago was first proposed in 1999 by a Yale statistician named Joseph Chang. In his paper Recent Common Ancestors of All Present-Day Individuals," Chang used complex mathematical conceptslike Poisson distributions and Markov chainsto show how webbed pedigrees can overlap to produce common ancestors. If that is true of Europeans in 600 years, Jews over 800 years lo kol shekein? :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger We are great, and our foibles are great, micha at aishdas.org and therefore our troubles are great -- http://www.aishdas.org but our consolations will also be great. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rabbi AY Kook From jziring at torontotorah.com Wed Dec 6 19:40:58 2017 From: jziring at torontotorah.com (Jonathan Ziring) Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2017 22:40:58 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] The 13 middos In-Reply-To: References: <20171204222908.GA10223@aishdas.org> <20171206192317.GA12102@aishdas.org> Message-ID: [I had to edit this post significantly to fit Avodah's format constaints. -micha] Shalom, I'm touched to be asked. I have wondered about this (and have again this week due to Daf Yomi). I can't say I have strongly formed opinions on it, but the sugyot do seem to imply that these are more tendencies rather than rules, at lease re: Klal UPrat vs. Ribbui and Miut. The drashot of vavim and the like seem more absolute (X is not doresh vav). Yaakov Elman makes that point in his article on Ribbui. A few articles that deal with the topic that I've glanced through are: The Formal Development of [Kelal uPerat uKelal] Michael Chernick Tarbiz, pp. 393-410 Towards a History of "Ribbuy" in the Babylonian Talmud and Yaakov Elman Proceedings of the World Congress of Jewish Studies Vol. 11, Division C: Thought and Literature, Volume I: Rabbinic and Talmudic Literature (1993), pp. 87-94 In general, Michael Chernick and devoted much time to this. A few other relevant articles by him: The Development of Ribbuim and Mi 'utim Hermeneutics," PAAJR",1982-3. "The Use of Ribbuyim and Mi'utim in the Halakic Midrash ofR. Ishmael," JQK, 1979. "The Hermeneutic Kelal u-Ferat u-Kelal: Its History and Development," AAJR Annual Meeting, 1980 I think this will spur me to think more systematically about this. If I come up with anything, I will definitely share it. Jonathan From simon.montagu at gmail.com Sat Dec 9 08:27:13 2017 From: simon.montagu at gmail.com (Simon Montagu) Date: Sat, 9 Dec 2017 18:27:13 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Your Ancestors In-Reply-To: <20171208141158.GA20389@aishdas.org> References: <20171208141158.GA20389@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Fri, Dec 8, 2017 at 4:11 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah < avodah at lists.aishdas.org> wrote: > > http://bigthink.com/stephen-johnson/why-youre-probably- > related-to-nefertiti-and-confucius > Why You're Probably Related to Nefertiti, Confucius, and Socrates > December 7, 2017 by Stephen Johnson > .... > [J]ust how far back do humans need to go to find a common ancestor > of their own: a person to whom all living people are related? > > The answer, for people of European descent at least, is surprisingly > recent: 600 years. The common ancestor for every single person alive > on the planet today, no matter where, lived approximately 3,600 years > ago. That means Confucius, Nefertiti, Socrates, and any figure from > ancient history that had children, is in some way your ancestor. Unless I'm missing something, those last two sentences are a huge non sequitur. I have a slightly different take-away from the article: it says that everybody has a common ancestor who lived approximately 3,600 years ago. Isn't that exactly what the Torah says? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ben1456 at zahav.net.il Sat Dec 9 12:20:41 2017 From: ben1456 at zahav.net.il (Ben Waxman) Date: Sat, 09 Dec 2017 22:20:41 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Rambam Hilchot Shivtat Assur 3:3 Message-ID: Rambam Hilchot Shivtat Assur 3:3: The Rambam writes a clal: A minhag can not cancel something that is assur. A minhag can only prohibit something that is permitted. Is this rule seen as a veto or are there indeed issurim which have been become muttar via the power of minhag? From micha at aishdas.org Sat Dec 9 16:07:31 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Sat, 9 Dec 2017 19:07:31 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Your Ancestors In-Reply-To: References: <20171208141158.GA20389@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20171210000731.GB20169@aishdas.org> On Sat, Dec 09, 2017 at 06:27:13PM +0200, Simon Montagu via Avodah wrote: : > The answer, for people of European descent at least, is surprisingly : > recent: 600 years. The common ancestor for every single person alive : > on the planet today, no matter where, lived approximately 3,600 years : > ago. That means Confucius, Nefertiti, Socrates, and any figure from : > ancient history that had children, is in some way your ancestor. : Unless I'm missing something, those last two sentences are a huge non : sequitur. The author is just saying that the same model that giver the result of 600 years for Euopeans gives a result of 3,600 for all of humanity. : I have a slightly different take-away from the article: it says that : everybody has a common ancestor who lived approximately 3,600 years ago. : Isn't that exactly what the Torah says? Well, really the model says that everyone who is alive today almost certainly (this is statistics, after all) descended from everyone who was alive 3,600 who has /any/ living descendents. Not that there was one such ancestor. Gut Voch! -Micha -- Micha Berger What you get by achieving your goals micha at aishdas.org is not as important as http://www.aishdas.org what you become by achieving your goals. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Henry David Thoreau From ben1456 at zahav.net.il Sat Dec 9 12:59:26 2017 From: ben1456 at zahav.net.il (Ben Waxman) Date: Sat, 09 Dec 2017 22:59:26 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Rambam Hilchot Kiddush Hachodesh Message-ID: 1) Rambam Hilchot Kiddush Hachodesh 3:1 makes it clear that anyone who sees the new moon and can get to Jerusalem by the following evening should go. How would that work today given that basically means that every male in Israel who sees the moon should go (maybe men in Eilat who don't own a car would be patur). Were most (or even a small minority of) Israeli Jewish males above the age of 13 to look, there is no way that the Beit Din could even question all of these men, even if they only asked a couple of questions. Is there any problem in making sure that you don't see the moon? Just stay in for the evening. Rambam doesn't say that there is a chiyuv to look. Or since the Beit Din only takes testimony from trusted witnesses, can someone just say "I never got any type of certification that I am a good witness, therefore I don't need to go". Or how about having a few (say 100) men in each major city or region entrusted with the job and they would be the designated possible witnesses. 2) Rambam Hilchot Kiddush Hachodes 2:10 says clearly that once the beit din declares the new month, that is it, even if they know that they made a mistake. Yet in 3:15 and 16 Rambam writes that in the situation where no witnesses came on the 30th, if witnesses come later in the month and are able to prove that they did see the moon come out on the 29th, that month's calendar is redone. Is this not an obvious contradiction? I assume that I am reading 3:15 and 16 incorrectly or that I am getting something wrong here. 3) Later in the book Rambam goes on at length and in extreme detail about how to calculate the moon's position. He adds that we know these calculations from science and that since we no longer have a tradition about this matter from the nevi'im, it is fine to use outside sources. Seeing this made me wonder why we don't apply this rule in other areas. For example, I had read that we don't make matza from barley because we don't have a tradition as to how it takes barley to become chameitz. So why not measure it? Ben From simon.montagu at gmail.com Sat Dec 9 21:57:52 2017 From: simon.montagu at gmail.com (Simon Montagu) Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2017 07:57:52 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Your Ancestors In-Reply-To: <20171210000731.GB20169@aishdas.org> References: <20171208141158.GA20389@aishdas.org> <20171210000731.GB20169@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Sun, Dec 10, 2017 at 2:07 AM, Micha Berger wrote: > On Sat, Dec 09, 2017 at 06:27:13PM +0200, Simon Montagu via Avodah wrote: > : > The answer, for people of European descent at least, is > surprisingly > : > recent: 600 years. The common ancestor for every single person > alive > : > on the planet today, no matter where, lived approximately 3,600 > years > : > ago. That means Confucius, Nefertiti, Socrates, and any figure > from > : > ancient history that had children, is in some way your ancestor. > > : Unless I'm missing something, those last two sentences are a huge non > : sequitur. > > The author is just saying that the same model that giver the result > of 600 years for Euopeans gives a result of 3,600 for all of humanity. > > That's not the non sequitur. The non sequitur is going from "we have a common ancestor 3,600 years ago" to "Confucius and Socrates are your ancestors". Confucius and Socrates lived around 2500 years ago, and how does the author know that they had any living descendants? > : I have a slightly different take-away from the article: it says that > : everybody has a common ancestor who lived approximately 3,600 years ago. > : Isn't that exactly what the Torah says? > > Well, really the model says that everyone who is alive today almost > certainly (this is statistics, after all) descended from everyone who > was alive 3,600 who has /any/ living descendents. > Not that there was one such ancestor. > I haven't read the model, but the article you linked to talks several times about "/a/ common ancestor", "/a/" person to whom all living people are related", etc. > > Gut Voch! > -Micha > > -- > Micha Berger What you get by achieving your goals > micha at aishdas.org is not as important as > http://www.aishdas.org what you become by achieving your goals. > Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Henry David Thoreau > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From bdbradley70 at hotmail.com Sun Dec 10 14:22:59 2017 From: bdbradley70 at hotmail.com (Ben Bradley) Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2017 22:22:59 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] What are the main mitzvos to focus on? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I don't recall everything I've read on this subject of the purpose of talmud torah, but the conversation here so far seems to be missing a crucial piece, namely the transformative aspect of talmud torah on the individual learning it. The problem with the instrumental view is that it doesn't account for a number of aspects of the way chazal unanimously viewed talmud torah. If it was just about knowing how to keep the mitzvos then, I think, we'd have trouble with the following off the top of my head 1. The intensive way chazal went about talmud torah - the lack of sleep involved, the amora who sat on his hands until they bled, disappearing from family for years at a time 2. The viewing of talmud torah as a unending project 3. The depth and incisiveness of analysis expected in learning gemara. Eg being able to metaher a sheret 4. the lack of differentiation between learning issues of practical use and those which you will never need to know from a practical point of view Maybe I'm missing something, but knowing how to keep the mitzvos per se need not involve any of these. There are clear indications of the transformative nature of talmud torah in chazal, even if these aren't stated as its purpose explicitly. Perhaps there's a distinction between its purpose and the meaning of lishma. So learning torah lishma, whatever that means, is transformative, which is a primary purpose if not the only one. That would also bring talmud torah in line with the other mitzvos, since they all have a transformative benefit to the individual. It would also set it apart since it is more transformative than all the others, ie kneged kulam. It is the most transformative, and thus the most important. That said, considerations other than personal growth give priority to other mitzvos in many situations. Ben -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hankman at bell.net Mon Dec 11 06:11:22 2017 From: hankman at bell.net (hankman) Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2017 09:11:22 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Purpose of distant galaxies? Message-ID: <83F7EA9337D54E08891E46C1032C89FE@hankPC> I have just been watching a show on Discovery Science about a lay version of quantum mechanics. At one point the moderator was talking about the notion of entanglement and explained how in theory this involves the connection of entangled particles over any distance instantaneously. He then continued to say that given the big bang theory, all of existence was at a single point and then expanded (inflated) from then to the great distances, billions of light years, we witness today. But at the initial moment after the singularity, all the particles of the universe were close enough to possibly become entangled with some other, but then after the expansion, the partner entangled particle might have ended up in some distant far removed galaxy and but thereby still be related to its entangled partner particle perhaps now in our body here on Earth. I then thought back to some of the earlier discussions here on Avodah about the purpose of these distant galaxies that could never affect us here on Earth and that we did not even know existed until recently. Perhaps this possibility of entanglement with distant particles of those galaxies from the time of creation may provide some logic to the purpose of the existence of those distant galaxies? Happy Chanukah veKol tuv Chaim Manaster -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Mon Dec 11 09:33:33 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2017 12:33:33 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Rambam Hilchot Shivtat Assur 3:3 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20171211173333.GE15573@aishdas.org> On Sat, Dec 09, 2017 at 10:20:41PM +0200, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: : Rambam Hilchot Shivtat Assur 3:3: The Rambam writes a clal: A minhag : can not cancel something that is assur. A minhag can only prohibit : something that is permitted. Isn't the very definition of a minhag ta'us one that promotes doing an issur, or violating an asei? At least, violating an asei actively; I don't know if I would include a minhag not to fulfil an asei besheiv ve'al ta'aseh. That kind of thing would require more research. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Worrying is like a rocking chair: micha at aishdas.org it gives you something to do for a while, http://www.aishdas.org but in the end it gets you nowhere. Fax: (270) 514-1507 From micha at aishdas.org Tue Dec 12 13:53:43 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2017 16:53:43 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Women and Torah Study In-Reply-To: <9f94d416d3154585a6bb71a2df12c54e@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <9f94d416d3154585a6bb71a2df12c54e@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20171212215343.GA13817@aishdas.org> On Sun, Dec 03, 2017 at 06:40:43AM +0000, RJR reposted here a comment of his on a recent post on Lehrhaus: : Is encouraging intensive study of Talmud for women a community priority : or is the priority to make such study available for those who choose to : avail themselves of the opportunity? Especially if the former, where : does it stand in relation to other community priorities and how does : the answer differ from study for men? IMHO these questions have not been : sufficiently addressed. Do my concern resonate at all? Mod-Yeshivish (in contrast to other forms of MO) may argue that since learning primarily means shas and lomdus, and the iqar method for refining one's soul is learning, now that women are given the toolds to be able to make sense of Talmud, making it available to them is a community priority. To quote RALichtenstein from : What is the cardinal principle that lies at the heart, on the one hand, of Yeshiva education and, on the other hand, is the lynchpin of liberal education. It is, first and foremost, the notion that one is concerned with molding the person and only secondarily with preparing or training for the fulfillment of a certain role. John Cardinal Newman's statement, that "we are men by nature, geometrists only by chance," epitomizes this approach and it is one with respect to which, I have indicated, the Yeshiva world and the world of liberal education at its best coincide. Of course, that is not to suggest that preparing for a role, be it a domestic role, a professional role, or a communal role, is not important. It is important, but secondary. The first principle, I think, with regard to education generally, and which needs to be particularly emphasized in the field of women's education, is that first and foremost one needs to mold the person as an individual in all respects, with regard to character, personality, intellectual ability, and above all, of course, in religious terms, as an oved Hashem. ... If we ask ourselves: Here are the goals! "[leyir'ah, le'avah, la'avod, lishmor, ledavqah, lalekhet bekhol derakhav]," to fear [God], to love [God], to serve [God], to cling [to Him] to go in all His ways." What are the means? Traditionally, over the centuries, there has been a fairly sharp dichotomy precisely regarding this very issue, namely the means to be employed in relation to men versus women... This is not the occasion to examine whether that was justified historically. What is clear, however, is that notwithstanding how one judges the past retrospectively, in our present historical and social setting we need to view the teaching and the learning of girls and women as both a major challenge, as well as a primary need. ... But this is creating a role for halakhah study out of whole cloth that is really RAL's chiddush. After all, historically curricula for girls' and women did include character-shaping material, but OVERTLY so -- mussar, hashkafah and the lessons in each taken from studying Tanakh. And leave halakhah to learning the job, rather than liberal arts. And I would repeat a point made by RYGB when asked about this topic: Where is the evidence that our current boys' curriculum works so well that we're in a rush to make the curriculum for girls' more similar to it? In general, the yeshivish -- including the ModY -- take NhC shaar 4 to mean that learning refines the soul in some mystical way. Just learn, and the problem will solve itself. Whereas I personally think the data points the other way. And that the NhC intended that statement prescriptively -- true talmud Torah is learning in a way that consciously aims to refine the soul. Which is why there is all that Mussar and Middos talk around AishDas and its web site. My own inclination, and this really just translates to "my parents provided a RWMO upbrining" (with some variety thrown in in the form of school choices), would be that we can't prioritize providing talmud study for women over clear-cut chiyuvim. Talmud study should be made available, but for those women who feel a need for talmud study. Which puts me in the same camp as the LR's effective position. Women coming to kiruv with egalitarian leanings were encouraged by the LR to learn Talmud if they wish to. But you wont find a gemara class in Beis Rivka. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "And you shall love H' your G-d with your whole micha at aishdas.org heart, your entire soul, and all you own." http://www.aishdas.org Love is not two who look at each other, Fax: (270) 514-1507 It is two who look in the same direction. From micha at aishdas.org Wed Dec 13 03:30:34 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2017 06:30:34 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Rambam Hilchot Kiddush Hachodesh In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20171213113034.GB7576@aishdas.org> On Sat, Dec 09, 2017 at 10:59:26PM +0200, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: : 1) Rambam Hilchot Kiddush Hachodesh 3:1 makes it clear that anyone : who sees the new moon and can get to Jerusalem by the following : evening should go. How would that work today.... And then think what happens if the calculations were for a long month. The guy invests all that effort just to get to locked Lishkas haGazis doors. I would be frustrated. But to get to your question. I think that's a taqanah in order to insure that there is eidus. Rather than everyone saying someone else will go. There is no how that would work today, since you need a Sanhedrin to make it work. But isn't this a derabbnan, to make sure all those who see the moon don't assume someone else will go, and there ends up not having 2 kosher eidim? So, if the the next Sanhedrin finds that too many people are coming / would come and we're far from needing such a guarantee, they can repeal this din. : 2) Rambam Hilchot Kiddush Hachodes 2:10 says clearly that once the : beit din declares the new month, that is it, even if they know that : they made a mistake. Yet in 3:15 and 16 Rambam writes that in the : situation where no witnesses came on the 30th, if witnesses come : later in the month and are able to prove that they did see the moon : come out on the 29th, that month's calendar is redone. Is this not : an obvious contradiction? I assume that I am reading 3:15 and 16 : incorrectly or that I am getting something wrong here. The famous story of the calendar dispute between Rabban Gamliel and R' Yehoshua (RH 2:8-9) includes R' Aqiva saying, "Eileh mo'adei H' asher tiqre'u osam" -- bein bizmanan, bein shelo bizmanan, ein Li mo'ados ela eilu. Which is what the Rambam is saying in 2:10. He quotes R' Aqiva's prooftext. In that mishnah, both R' Gamliel and R' Yehoshua knew the metzi'us, they were arguing over whether to accept the eidim despite a flaw in their story. They may have even been arguing about the cheshbon, and whether there was a need to accept whatever eidim one had. The beginning of mishnah 9 has R' Gamliel ordering R' Yehoshua to show up "beyom haKippurim shechal lihyos *becheshbonkha*". There may be a difference between making a mistake in terms of decision-making and making one because they were working with bad or incomplete data. 2:20 is about their decision being wrong, 3:15-16 is about a lack of eidus. An error in the cheshbon or perhaps decision in general vs an error in facts. While this guess about p' 2 is less than compelling, it would seem that in p' 3 he is empowering a BD to go back to their cheshbon when they were forced by a lack of testimony to lengthen the month despite it. After all, 3:15 describes BD sitting all of the 30th, meaning wanting a short month, without witnesses comming. So I feel more comfortable with that part of the guess. Maybe R' Yehoshua would have renegged without needing R' Aqiva had other eidim arrived days later to corroborate the first two. : 3) Later in the book Rambam goes on at length and in extreme detail : about how to calculate the moon's position. He adds that we know : these calculations from science and that since we no longer have a : tradition about this matter from the nevi'im, it is fine to use : outside sources. Seeing this made me wonder why we don't apply this : rule in other areas. For example, I had read that we don't make : matza from barley because we don't have a tradition as to how it : takes barley to become chameitz. So why not measure it? But lemaaseh we don't, because we need a Sanhedrin to make a RC. For that matter, we even pad when we say Qiddush Levanah, making the one day difference irrelevent. So what halakhah lemaaseh is the Rambam talking about, that relies on the calculations? Giving license to the next Sanhedrin? I am not even sure we know the scientific difference between chameitz and sirchah. Or even if there is one. Why is dough made with 100% juice a different thing than if the juice were diluted, or if it were all water? If we don't know what it is we should measure, how can we use science to measure it? I think it has to be something like that, because the lack of barley matzah isn't a modern issue. And the ability to measure rising doesn't require some modern measuring equipment. So, why was the question left unsolved by centuries of acharonim if it were resolable? Similarly, we know the medical communities' various definitions of death. (They're all pretty similar.) But we don't know if halachic misah would use the same definition. But even those who stick with heart death would use the latest scientific tools to determine whether or not the person had their last heartbeat (lo aleinu). So I would posit the issue is a chiluq between using science to determine the physical state vs having a pesaq as to what physical state needs determining. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Like a bird, man can reach undreamed-of micha at aishdas.org heights as long as he works his wings. http://www.aishdas.org But if he relaxes them for but one minute, Fax: (270) 514-1507 he plummets downward. - Rav Yisrael Salanter From JRich at sibson.com Wed Dec 13 21:39:28 2017 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2017 05:39:28 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] S"A Principles Message-ID: Question: I note that the S"A O"C 158:10 (Hand Washing) quotes the Gemara (R'Chisda) in support of using more than the minimum required amount of water for hand washing. Given the Mechaber's goal that the Shulchan Aruch be a halachic summary of his magnum opus, the Beit Yosef, does anyone know of a theory as to why the Mechaber in some cases quotes Talmudic sources (or Torah or Rishonim) and in others just states the halacha? Any study of the frequency of such quotes? KT 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: From akivagmiller at gmail.com Wed Dec 13 19:40:54 2017 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2017 22:40:54 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Rambam Hilchot Kiddush Hachodesh Message-ID: . (I don't know if this post will help understand Kiddush Hachodesh or not. If yes, I'm glad I could help. If not, I apologize for the distraction.) R' Micha Berger asked: > I am not even sure we know the scientific difference between > chameitz and sirchah. Or even if there is one. Why is dough > made with 100% juice a different thing than if the juice were > diluted, or if it were all water? If we don't know what it is > we should measure, how can we use science to measure it? I agree that WE don't know the scientific difference between chametz and sirchon, but it seems clear to me that such a difference does exist, and Chazal understood it. See the very beginning of Yerushalmi Challah, page 1b1 in the ArtScroll English version. "Badku Umatz'u" - They tested various grains, to see what happens when their flour is mixed with water. They found that The Five Grains underwent "chimutz", while *most* other grains fermented in the manner called "sirchon". (For some grains, the tests were inconclusive.) There is no Kabala From Sinai that defines these processes in terms of the grains, the liquids, or anything else. If you knew what to look for, you could look at a dough and tell whether it was chometz - without even knowing the ingredients. > I think it has to be something like that, because the lack of > barley matzah isn't a modern issue. And the ability to measure > rising doesn't require some modern measuring equipment. So, > why was the question left unsolved by centuries of acharonim > if it were resolvable? The problem isn't in the equipment. It's knowing what to look for. The tamay birds are all listed in Parshas Shmini. You don't need a degree in genetics to determine whether the bird in your hand is on the list or not. The only problem is that no one today knows what those words mean. Just like we don't really understand the difference between chimutz and sirchon. And no amount of pilpul among the "centuries of acharonim" is gonna help. Akiva Miller From micha at aishdas.org Thu Dec 14 03:27:18 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2017 06:27:18 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Rambam Hilchot Kiddush Hachodesh In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20171214112718.GA11145@aishdas.org> On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 10:40:54PM -0500, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : See the very beginning of Yerushalmi Challah, page [16]b1 in the : ArtScroll English version. "Badku Umatz'u" - They tested various : grains, to see what happens when their flour is mixed with water. They : found that The Five Grains underwent "chimutz", while *most* other : grains fermented in the manner called "sirchon". (For some grains, the : tests were inconclusive.) (Artscroll must have just one page of 16b, since that's near the bottom of the amud.) Assuming you understand the machloqes aa being about metzi'us. Which I did not. Aside from a reluctance to pin machloqesin on matters of fact even in the Y-mi, where there are cases it seems unaviodable. There are other problems: 1- EVERY other grain but these 5 produced something in between chimutz and sirchon that only R Yochanan b Nuri thought looked like chimutz? Not one of the experiments had another dissenter? 2- Why wouldn't later generations try to get clarity by repeating the experiment? As I took it (and wrote as much in prior iterations), R Yochanan b Nuri and the chakhamim were arguing over where the line is between chimutz and sirchon. They agreed on what happened when you mix a grain other than the 5 with water -- the gemara describes the experimental result as "ushe'ar kol haminim einan ba'in liydei matzah vechameitz elas sirchon." Then it continues the machloqes (running onto 17a), this time asking about qeramis in particular. And the gemara asks: Why they don't just check it? The first check's results were written open-and-shut. Here we are given RYBN differing obseration. As I took it, RYBN disagreed only in that he considers sirchon prohibited as chameitz. They argue about which side of the line sirchon is on because the machloqes is about where the line is. Which is why the gemara is so clear cut on the first test. And this is is why I lunped it together with other cases of halakhah deciding where in the gray area set of physical cases halakhah draws the line. : There is no Kabala From Sinai that defines these processes in terms of : the grains, the liquids, or anything else. If you knew what to look : for, you could look at a dough and tell whether it was chometz - : without even knowing the ingredients. ... and we don't know what to look for. :> I think it has to be something like that, because the lack of :> barley matzah isn't a modern issue. And the ability to measure :> rising doesn't require some modern measuring equipment. So, :> why was the question left unsolved by centuries of acharonim :> if it were resolvable? : The problem isn't in the equipment. It's knowing what to look for. As I said, it "has to be something like that", since the physical question could have been resolved, or at the very least repeatedly attempted to be resolved. You appear to be arguing against the hava amina I took pains to reject. But, unlike rice, where miSinai we could have known whether its sitchon qualifies as chameitz or not or the machloqes could have arisen later, with barley we know the uncertainty is caused by lost information. : The tamay birds are all listed in Parshas Shmini. You don't need a : degree in genetics to determine whether the bird in your hand is on : the list or not.,,, Ironically, defining a "min" is not settled halakhah either. Ask the Israelis debating whether we know that any breed of chicken other than the breakel chicken (or, I would guess the American campine) is halachically chicken and within the mesorah. Or the counter-arguers, who want to pasl braekel chickens... I am not saying I understand the metzi'us of the debate, but it does highlight how hard it is to draw halachic lines in the physical sand. So, even if we could translate the name of every min in parashas Shemini, we could still not know whether the bird in my hand is included in one of the minim on the list or not. As we could argue whether the genetic test found something on one side of the line defining the min, or the other -- because we don't know where the line is. A lichtikn un freilechn Chanukah! -Micha -- Micha Berger When we are no longer able to change a situation micha at aishdas.org -- just think of an incurable disease such as http://www.aishdas.org inoperable cancer -- we are challenged to change Fax: (270) 514-1507 ourselves. - Victor Frankl (MSfM) From Aryeh.Frimer at biu.ac.il Thu Dec 14 05:03:04 2017 From: Aryeh.Frimer at biu.ac.il (Aryeh Frimer) Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2017 13:03:04 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Tevilat Kelim Message-ID: Has anyone seen a discussion regarding one who said "al haTevila" (which women recite when going to mikva) instead of "Al tevilat Kelim." Is the Berakha valid be-Di-avad? A Freilichen Hanukah!! -------------------------------------------------- Dr. Aryeh A. Frimer Ethel and David Resnick Professor Emeritus of Active Oxygen Chemistry Chemistry Dept., Bar-Ilan University Ramat Gan 5290002, ISRAEL E-mail (office): Aryeh.Frimer at biu.ac.il Homepage http://ch.biu.ac.il/frimer E-mail (home): FrimerA at zahav.net.il From ben1456 at zahav.net.il Fri Dec 15 02:45:55 2017 From: ben1456 at zahav.net.il (Ben Waxman) Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2017 12:45:55 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Rambam Hilchot Kiddush Hachodesh In-Reply-To: <20171213113034.GB7576@aishdas.org> References: <20171213113034.GB7576@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <3554ff1b-2c53-bf1d-b688-0202a1eae13a@zahav.net.il> It must be something like that. After reading through Kiddush Hachodesh I was left with a huge question as to the incredible detail; 100 times more detailed than say his Hilchot Pesach. Ben On 12/13/2017 1:30 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > So what halakhah lemaaseh is the Rambam > talking about, that relies on the calculations? Giving license to > the next Sanhedrin? From michaelpoppers at gmail.com Thu Dec 14 18:17:15 2017 From: michaelpoppers at gmail.com (Michael Poppers) Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2017 21:17:15 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] zmanim Message-ID: >From R'Micha: > Li nir'eh there is value to the "in sync with nature" approach of Chazal that we lose when we think about clock time rather than the cycles of the sun (a/k/a the earth's spin). ? > ? Much the way we lose a lot of what the yamim tovim mean because we aren't living in agrarian communities, and don't feel the joy of new wheat and barley when we celebrate our birth as a people, or the joy of bringing in the year's fruit when we celebrate how HQBH sustained us in the midbar. < ...or the meaning of "Yotzer Or", etc. because we're not davening those pre- *Shma* *b'rachos* at the "right" time w/ a view of the brightening sky. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Fri Dec 15 06:55:30 2017 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2017 14:55:30 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Why does Yosef command the Egyptians to circumcise Message-ID: <1513349727386.22540@stevens.edu> See https://goo.gl/1AP3eB Rashi on Bereshis 41:55 says what he tells you, do: Since Joseph had ordered them to circumcise themselves, and when they came to Pharaoh and said, "This is what he said to us," he (Pharaoh) said to them, "Why didn't you gather grain? Didn't he announce to you that years of famine were coming?" They replied, "We gathered much, but it rotted." He (Pharaoh) replied,"If so, do whatever he tells you. He issued a decree upon the grain, and it rotted. What if he issues a decree upon us and we die?" - [from Mid. Tanchuma Mikeitz 7, Gen. Rabbah 91:5] Why did Yosef order them to do that? See the above URL for three explanations. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Fri Dec 15 06:57:57 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2017 09:57:57 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Rambam Hilchot Kiddush Hachodesh In-Reply-To: <3554ff1b-2c53-bf1d-b688-0202a1eae13a@zahav.net.il> References: <20171213113034.GB7576@aishdas.org> <3554ff1b-2c53-bf1d-b688-0202a1eae13a@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <20171215145757.GB28181@aishdas.org> On Fri, Dec 15, 2017 at 12:45:55PM +0200, Ben Waxman wrote: : On 12/13/2017 1:30 PM, Micha Berger wrote: :> So what halakhah lemaaseh is the Rambam :> talking about, that relies on the calculations? Giving license to :> the next Sanhedrin? : It must be something like that. After reading through Kiddush : Hachodesh I was left with a huge question as to the incredible : detail; 100 times more detailed than say his Hilchot Pesach. My guess, and I hope it's not too lesse majest for a public posting: The Rambam was a math geek who simply enjoyed this kind of stuff. It cannot be that the Rambam thought the future chavrei Sanhedrin would need his text for this more than his usual coverage. Leshitaso, one wouldn't be qualified to be a dayan without a strong background in all 7 chokhmos. That last line being an opening to a Chanukah tangent about Chokhmah Yevanis being a necessary study for a member of the Sanhedrin. So, Chanukah celebrates a victory over Yavan (in the sense of Hellenism) and a step toward reestablishing the Sanhedrin, who were expected to utilize "yaft E-lokim leYefes, veyishkon be'ohalei Sheim". An enlightening and happy Chanukah and :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Brains to the lazy micha at aishdas.org are like a torch to the blind -- http://www.aishdas.org a useless burden. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Bechinas haOlam From micha at aishdas.org Sat Dec 16 16:09:45 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2017 19:09:45 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Mamlekhat Chimyar Message-ID: <20171217000945.GA16968@aishdas.org> I stumbled across reference to the Humyarite Kingdom, which existed from 110 bce - 525 ce. Based in Yemen, ruled over much of the Arabian Peninsula. It seems that they went Jewish. (Shades of the Khazars.) See : > The Himyarite kings appear to have abandoned polytheism and converted > to Judaism around the year 380, several decades after the conversion of > the Ethiopian Kingdom of Aksum to Christianity (340), though no changes > occurred in its script, calendar, or language (unlike Aksum).[7] This > date marks the end of an era in which numerous inscriptions record the > names and deeds of kings, and dedicate buildings to local (e.g. Wagal > and Simyada) and major (e.g. Almaqah) gods. From the 380s, temples were > abandoned and dedications to the old gods ceased, replaced by references > to Rahmanan, "the Lord of Heaven" or "Lord of Heaven and Earth".[8] The > political context for this conversion may have been Arabia's interest > in maintaining neutrality and good trade relations with the competing > empires of Byzantium, which first adopted Christianity under Constantine > the Great and the Sasanian Empire, which alternated between Zurvanism > and Manichaeism.[9] ... > During this period, references to pagan gods disappeared from royal > inscriptions and texts on public buildings, and were replaced by > references to a single deity. Inscriptions in the Sabean language, and > sometimes Hebrew, called this deity Rahman (the Merciful), "Lord of the > Heavens and Earth," the "God of Israel" and "Lord of the Jews." Prayers > invoking Rahman's blessings on the "people of Israel" often ended with > the Hebrew words shalom and amen. [16] I wonder about the kashrus of the conversion, and did it pose a rei'usa when discussing the Jewishness of Teimani immigrants to Israel. A lichtikn un freilechn Chanukah un a gutt voch! -Micha -- Micha Berger Life isn't about finding yourself micha at aishdas.org Life is about creating yourself. http://www.aishdas.org - Bernard Shaw Fax: (270) 514-1507 From micha at aishdas.org Sun Dec 17 05:51:57 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2017 08:51:57 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] New Cancer Treatment Message-ID: <20171217135058.GC5@aishdas.org> This news story showed up in two of my RSS subscriptions: Hijacked sperm carry chemo drugs to cervical cancer cells https://www.newscientist.com/article/2156525-hijacked-sperm-carry-chemo-drugs-to-cervical-cancer-cells or http://j.mp/2yLROJ1 and Killing Cancer with Spermbots http://bigthink.com/robby-berman/killing-cancer-with-spermbots In my neck of the O woods, everyone holds like R' Moshe, that children produced by IVF-donor would not be mamzeirim. BUT... according to the machmirim (eg the Satmar Rav), would an eishes kohein who recieved this treatment have to get divorced? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger You are not a human being in search micha at aishdas.org of a spiritual experience. You are a http://www.aishdas.org spiritual being immersed in a human Fax: (270) 514-1507 experience. - Pierre Teilhard de Chardin From larry62341 at optonline.net Sun Dec 17 06:22:06 2017 From: larry62341 at optonline.net (Prof. Levine) Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2017 09:22:06 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] The Downtown Chanukiah Message-ID: Please see the video at https://goo.gl/dgSTLv In this video Rabbi Anthony Manning discusses the halachic aspects of where one should light the Chanukah menorah at home as well as the Chabad practice of lighting menorahs in public places and whether or not the person lighting such a menorah should make a bracha. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From zev at sero.name Sun Dec 17 06:20:59 2017 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2017 09:20:59 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] New Cancer Treatment In-Reply-To: <20171217135058.GC5@aishdas.org> References: <20171217135058.GC5@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <8550baa4-198d-536a-b249-d5c2d207bb86@sero.name> On 17/12/17 08:51, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > BUT... according to the machmirim (eg the Satmar Rav), would an eishes > kohein who recieved this treatment have to get divorced? I wouldn't think so. There's still no act of zenus. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From micha at aishdas.org Sun Dec 17 11:53:27 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2017 14:53:27 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] New Cancer Treatment In-Reply-To: <8550baa4-198d-536a-b249-d5c2d207bb86@sero.name> References: <20171217135058.GC5@aishdas.org> <8550baa4-198d-536a-b249-d5c2d207bb86@sero.name> Message-ID: <20171217195326.GD5@aishdas.org> On Sun, Dec 17, 2017 at 09:20:59AM -0500, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : On 17/12/17 08:51, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: :>BUT... according to the machmirim (eg the Satmar Rav), would an eishes :>kohein who recieved this treatment have to get divorced? : I wouldn't think so. There's still no act of zenus. There is a machloqes Chakhamim and R' Aqiva as to whether only issurei kareis (except niddah) create mamzeirim, or any issur. And yet the Satmar Rav holds that IE-D creates mamzeirim. And one could equally argue there is no act of zenus. So, I parked my intuition at the door when trying to understand his shitah. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The thought of happiness that comes from outside micha at aishdas.org the person, brings him sadness. But realizing http://www.aishdas.org the value of one's will and the freedom brought Fax: (270) 514-1507 by uplifting its, brings great joy. - R' Kook From zev at sero.name Sun Dec 17 12:20:24 2017 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2017 15:20:24 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] New Cancer Treatment In-Reply-To: <20171217195326.GD5@aishdas.org> References: <20171217135058.GC5@aishdas.org> <8550baa4-198d-536a-b249-d5c2d207bb86@sero.name> <20171217195326.GD5@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <5862ca9f-c908-4756-d082-0b20f6dc428f@sero.name> On 17/12/17 14:53, Micha Berger wrote: > There is a machloqes Chakhamim and R' Aqiva as to whether only issurei > kareis (except niddah) create mamzeirim, or any issur. And yet the > Satmar Rav holds that IE-D creates mamzeirim. And one could equally > argue there is no act of zenus. > > So, I parked my intuition at the door when trying to understand his > shitah. as I understand the machlokes, it's precisely over whether an act of zenus is necessary to create a mamzer. The SR (aiui) holds it is not, therefore although no issur was done with IED the child is nevertheless a mamzer. Here too, the SR would presumably hold that although there's no act of zenus, and therefore the treatment is permitted, should any child result it would be a mamzer. But I haven't seen the SR's shitah inside, so I'm relying on 3rd-hand transmission which may have garbled important points. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From llevine at stevens.edu Sun Dec 17 13:35:04 2017 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2017 21:35:04 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] How did Yosef showing his circumcision prove anything? Message-ID: <1513546500734.24127@stevens.edu> From https://goo.gl/L634gH Rashi to 45:4 says that when Yosef told his brothers to approach him, it was to show them his circumcision (presumably to prove he was Jewish). But how would that prove anything? All of Egypt had been circumcised already, as Rashi says on 41:55. If his showing his circumcision wasn't to prove he was Jewish, why did he do it? See the above URL for answers. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cantorwolberg at cox.net Sun Dec 17 11:40:31 2017 From: cantorwolberg at cox.net (Richard Wolberg) Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2017 14:40:31 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Vayigash Message-ID: The first three words of the Sidra: Vayigash eilav Yehuda mean that Judah approached Joseph to speak to him. The m?forshim bring out that they communicated through interpreters since officially, (the brothers thought) Joseph didn?t speak Hebrew and the brothers didn?t speak Egyptian. The baal haturim and the m?forshim point out the last letter of the first three words (shin, vov, hey) spell shaveh which means ?equal.? Judah is implying to Joseph: ?I am equal to you. You think you?re a king; I?m also a king.? According to this interpretation, Judah spoke very sharply to Joseph. The Vilna Gaon brings out a fascinating insight on the trope of the first six words which is kadma v?azla r?vi?I, zarka, munach segol. The Vilna Gaon explains that the trope here explains the meaning of these words. Kadma v?azla in Aramaic meaning kadam v?awzal, he (Judah) stepped forward, Yehudah has a r?vi?i, since Judah was the fourth son. So why the fourth son? Because zarka, he was going to be thrown out, munach segol from being able to rest in Gan Eden. Since Judah cursed himself that if he doesn?t bring Binyamin back, he would be damned in both worlds ? in this world and in the world to come. (Segula which means ?treasure? from Segol comes to mean here Gan Eden). When the sons finally tell Jacob that Joseph still lives (45:26), the m?forshim resolve a theological problem that arose in parashas Vayeshev (37:35). For there we read about Jacob: ?and his sons and daughters wished to comfort him and he refused to be consoled.? Isn?t it one of the basic articles of faith to accept God?s judgment and to welcome the comforting offered by others. Why did Jacob refuse? Our Sages sensed this anomaly and gave a brilliant answer, ?For no condolences are accepted over the living" (see Rashi on 37:35). Yes, Jacob refused to accept condolences because he had a faint ray of hope that Joseph might be alive. A psychologist might explain it as ?wishful thinking.? In any event, his ray of hope was vindicated when he found out that Joseph was indeed alive (and that is why he originally refused to accept the condolences offered by all the people). Hope is being able to see that there is light despite all of the darkness. Desmond Tutu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cantorwolberg at cox.net Sun Dec 17 16:16:32 2017 From: cantorwolberg at cox.net (Richard Wolberg) Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2017 19:16:32 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] S"A Principles Message-ID: <8A9BD2E2-0BDC-4728-B1B3-792480A73CEE@cox.net> Reb Joel asks: does anyone know of a theory as to why the Mechaber in some cases quotes Talmudic sources (or Torah or Rishonim) and in others just states the halacha? My theory is that when it is either a well known halacha and no reason to question it or at least, when the Mechaber thought it to be indisputable, then it was felt there was no reason to quote sources. OTOH, if was felt that there would be many questioning it, then the sources quoted would obviate that from occurring. From micha at aishdas.org Sun Dec 17 17:15:28 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2017 20:15:28 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] [Tvunah] Teabag on Shabbos Message-ID: <20171218011528.GA22955@aishdas.org> This pesaq by R' Asher Weiss surprised me. Tea Bag on Shabbos Tvunah in English by Rabbi Akiva Dershowitz Question: Does a tea bag [used in a kli shlishi] need to be removed from the cup with a spoon on Shabbos, to avoid issues of borrer? What about holding it over the cup to avoid dripping on the table, to allow drips to fall into the cup? Answer: The tea bag may be removed normally, and may be held to allow drips to fall back in to the cup. I was told at a young age to take the teabag out by spoon, making sure to take tea out along with the bag. For boreier reasons. So, as I said, I found this pesaq surprising. The actual teshuvah in Hebrew is on that page. RAW finds a precedent in Rashi on Shabbos 140a, who discusses the mishnah allowing one to put straw in a sieve in a feed trough. Rashi says "even though the motz will fall on our own, as it's a davar she'ein miskavein -- and the mishnah holds like R' Shim'on. And see SA OC 319:8, who makes it clear (which it isnt' from Rashi, see teshuvah) that even if the boreir will certainly occur, it's still mutar. Pesiq reishei, but not melekhes machasheves, and still mutar. Similarly in Nishmas Adam 18:2. An enlightening and anjoyable Chanukah! -Micha -- Micha Berger We look forward to the time micha at aishdas.org when the power to love http://www.aishdas.org will replace the love of power. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - William Ewart Gladstone From Aryeh.Frimer at biu.ac.il Sun Dec 17 23:09:04 2017 From: Aryeh.Frimer at biu.ac.il (Aryeh Frimer) Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2017 07:09:04 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Using "Al haTevila" for tevilat Kelim Message-ID: Rav Zvi Cohen, in his Encyclopedic Tevilat Kelim: Rules that be-Di-avad Al haTevila is valid. I was surprised by this since the Mehaber in Bet Yosef explicitly rules against this shita (for le-khatehilla) and holds in SA that one should say "Al Tevilat Kelim." Having done so, to say "Al haTevilah" would not be "Matbe'ah sheTavu Hakhamim." Any ideas? -------------------------------------------------- Dr. Aryeh A. Frimer Ethel and David Resnick Professor Emeritus of Active Oxygen Chemistry Chemistry Dept., Bar-Ilan University Ramat Gan 5290002, ISRAEL E-mail (office): Aryeh.Frimer at biu.ac.il Homepage http://ch.biu.ac.il/frimer Tel: 972-3-5318610; Fax: 972-3-7384053 Tel Home: 972-8-9473819/9470834 E-mail (home): FrimerA at zahav.net.il Cellphone: 972-54-7540761 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hankman at bell.net Mon Dec 18 06:16:44 2017 From: hankman at bell.net (hankman) Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2017 09:16:44 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Rambam Hilchot Kiddush Hachodesh -- on "min" Message-ID: <0C71CBB0F1E145B89D102DAA516AF81A@hankPC> R. Micha Berger wrote: ?Ironically, defining a "min" is not settled halakhah either.? CM asks: If I am not mistaken the modern secular definition of ?species? is based on whether the populations can interbreed or not. Do we know with any certainty that the Torah rejects this criteria as a determinant of ?min?? Kol tuv Chaim Manaster --- This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. http://www.avg.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Mon Dec 18 07:05:39 2017 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2017 15:05:39 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Yehudah Speaking to Yosef Message-ID: <1513609536405.23616@stevens.edu> In what l language did Yehudah speak to Yosef. Was it Hebrew and was the translator present to "translate" for Yosef? The Chumash does not mention a translator in this week's parasha. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jont at traumatic.us Mon Dec 18 11:56:26 2017 From: jont at traumatic.us (Jonathan Traum) Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2017 14:56:26 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Rambam Hilchot Kiddush Hachodesh In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <622ffda5-c446-82f3-45b0-18da6c93f6da@traumatic.us> On 12/09/2017 03:59 PM, Ben Waxman wrote: > 1) Rambam Hilchot Kiddush Hachodesh 3:1 makes it clear that anyone who > sees the new moon and can get to Jerusalem by the following evening > should go. ... > [snip] > Is there any problem in making sure that you don't see the moon? Just > stay in for the evening. Rambam doesn't say that there is a chiyuv to > look. I imagine that most people wouldn't have to worry about it.? On the 30th day after the previous Rosh Hodesh, the tiny crescent moon would only be visible for a short time after sunset and before moonset, and only to those who have an unobstructed view of the western horizon. Jonathan Traum From zev at sero.name Mon Dec 18 13:02:48 2017 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2017 16:02:48 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Using "Al haTevila" for tevilat Kelim In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <725ae5c3-d6de-7ce1-60c9-1defc191ac9d@sero.name> On 18/12/17 02:09, Aryeh Frimer via Avodah wrote: > ?Rav Zvi *Cohen*,?in his Encyclopedic *Tevilat Kelim*: Rules that > be-Di-avad Al haTevila is valid. > > I was surprised by this since the Mehaber in Bet Yosef explicitly rules > against this shita ?(for le-khatehilla) and holds in SA? that one should > say ?Al Tevilat Kelim.??? Having done so, to say ?Al haTevilah? would > not be ?Matbe?ah sheTavu Hakhamim.?? ?Any ideas? > "Al hatevilah" *is* a coinage of the chachamim, just not the one they prescribed for this occasion. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From llevine at stevens.edu Mon Dec 18 23:37:41 2017 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2017 07:37:41 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Did the Patriarchs Speak Hebrew? Message-ID: <1513669061621.40139@stevens.edu> >From the article at https://goo.gl/Z3QWs2 Ramban says: It is possible that he said this to them simply as a means of pacifying them, for there was no proof [that he was Joseph] in the fact that someone in Egypt should speak in the Holy Tongue. In my opinion, Hebrew was a Canaanite language. For Abraham did not bring it from Ur of the Chaldees [in Mesopotamia] and from Haran, for there they spoke Aramaic, as the incident of the pile of stones erected by Laban and Jacob proves [see Gen. 31:47]. And it was not a private language spoken by a single person but a language of Canaan, and many people in Egypt knew it for the countries were close together--particularly the ruler, for it is customary for kings and rulers to know several languages. For his assertion that Hebrew is "a Canannite language" Ramban makes reference to Isaiah, who does thus refer to Hebrew: "On that day there will be five cities in the land of Egypt that speak the language of Canaan and swear by the Lord of hosts" (Isa. 19:18). That the original language of the Patriarchs (Abraham, Isaac and Jacob) was Aramaic is proved to Ramban's mind by virtue of the fact that Laban gave the name "Yegar-sahaduta" to what Jacob called "Gal-ed" (Gen. 31:47), The former had remained in Mesopotamia and continued to speak Aramaic (which Ramban thinks was spoken in Ur and in Haran), while Jacob, who had grown up in Canaan, had learnt the local language. Please see the above URL for much more on this topic. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gershonseif at mail.yahoo.com Tue Dec 19 08:23:45 2017 From: gershonseif at mail.yahoo.com (Gershon Seif) Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2017 16:23:45 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Avodah] Did the Patriarchs Speak Hebrew? In-Reply-To: <1513669061621.40139@stevens.edu> References: <1513669061621.40139@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <949360216.1197555.1513700625794@mail.yahoo.com> Leavining Avraham Avinu aside, what is the Ramban's view about the language spoken by Adam HaRishon? ie. Naming his wife Chava and assigning names to all the animals?If the Ramban concurs that these names were given in lashon hakodesh, then he agrees that it was the first language. No? Unless you say that lashon hakodesh was one of at least 2 languages that Adam spoke and he reserved it for holy purposes only, such as giving these names. And I suppose that would be along the lines of the other Ramban quoted there which says that it's called Lashon Hakodesh because it's the language that Hashem used to convey the Torah. On Tuesday, December 19, 2017 1:37 AM, Professor L. Levine wrote: > From the article at https://goo.gl/Z3QWs2 > Ramban says: >> It is possible that he said this to them simply as a means of >> pacifying them, for there was no proof [that he was Joseph] in the fact >> that someone in Egypt should speak in the Holy Tongue. In my opinion, >> Hebrew was a Canaanite language. For Abraham did not bring it from Ur >> of the Chaldees [in Mesopotamia] and from Haran, for there they spoke >> Aramaic... From micha at aishdas.org Tue Dec 19 09:05:08 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2017 12:05:08 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Did the Patriarchs Speak Hebrew? In-Reply-To: <1513669061621.40139@stevens.edu> References: <1513669061621.40139@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20171219170508.GC27362@aishdas.org> On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 07:37:41AM +0000, Professor L. Levine via Avodah wrote: : From the article at : https://goo.gl/Z3QWs2 : : Ramban says: : : It is possible that he said this to them simply as a means of : pacifying them, for there was no proof [that he was Joseph] in : the fact that someone in Egypt should speak in the Holy Tongue. In : my opinion, Hebrew was a Canaanite language... ... and yet also lashon haqodesh. And to the Ramban (on "sheqel haqodesh" in parashas Sheqalim), this is because it's the language in which Hashem created the world and in which the Torah and Nakh were written. And leshitaso, the letters of the Torah, if not their breakup into words, preceded creation. The notion that the avos spoke Aramaic is in Vayiqra Rabba on 32:5. The Medrash Peliyah (#166) concludes that even Adam did! This is a comment about Sarah's death in "Qiryas Araba". The Niv Sefasayim explains that the medrash is getting this from the use of the Aramaic term "qirya". But I don't see how we know this was the name of the cite from back when Adam and Chava were buried there; or how else this moved the line to any time before Efron. R Yonasan Eibschitz (Tif'eres Yehonasan on Bereishis 11:1) that Adam spoke LhQ before the cheit, and Aramaic after. Fore that matter, Medrash Tanchuma (beginning of Devarim in Buber) and Medrash Seikhel Tov (Shemos 4:11) say Adam spoke all 70 languages. Requires a new peshat in what happened at Migdal Bavel, no? I am not to clear on the whole thing. Languages evolve, so that if one were to trace them out over time, one would draw a tree or a bush. Adam's proto-Semitic, or proto-proto-proto... everything is an ancestor of all language. I could call it early Hebrew if I wanted, and claim that Hebrew is the trunk from which other languages branched off. But that's just a decision about how to draw the tree. I could pick another run from root to twig and pull it straight, and say that Adam spoke proto-...proto-Mandarin, and all the other languages branched off. For languages as similar as Hebrew and Aramaic, where neither could have drifted from the original significanly more than the other, doesn't the whole discussion of whether Adam's language was a predecessar to the language of the chumash, Nakh, Chazal, etc... or of Aramaic in its evolutions all kind of arbitrary? I wonder if the Ramban understands the name of Kesav Ashuris to mean "Assyrian Script", rather than "Enriched Script" (from "osher". YMMV on the definition of osher.) After all, he seems to have no problem saying that Hashem left holy things in the hands of other peoples for us to find and use. For that matter, Eretz Yisrael was also given to the Kenaanim to hold until we got there... It might also be leshitaso -- but this may be a stretch -- with the Ramban's take on rainbows. The Ramban says that rainbows existed since Maaseh Bereishis. Nature didn't change in this regard with the Mabul. Rather, the already existing phenomenon was made a symbol when HQBH made the beris with Noach. Again, something put in place naturally so that when the time came it would be available take on its full significance. : Canaan, and many people in Egypt knew it for the countries were close : together--particularly the ruler, for it is customary for kings and : rulers to know several languages. : : For his assertion that Hebrew is "a Canannite language" Ramban makes : reference to Isaiah, who does thus refer to Hebrew: "On that day there : will be five cities in the land of Egypt that speak the language of : Canaan and swear by the Lord of hosts" (Isa. 19:18). That the original : language of the Patriarchs (Abraham, Isaac and Jacob) was Aramaic is : proved to Ramban's mind by virtue of the fact that Laban gave the name : "Yegar-sahaduta" to what Jacob called "Gal-ed" (Gen. 31:47), The former : had remained in Mesopotamia and continued to speak Aramaic (which Ramban : thinks was spoken in Ur and in Haran), while Jacob, who had grown up in : Canaan, had learnt the local language. : : Please see the above URL for much more on this topic. Have a Great Month, and a enlightening and enjoyable Chanukah! -Micha -- Micha Berger The greatest discovery of all time is that micha at aishdas.org a person can change their future http://www.aishdas.org by merely changing their attitude. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Oprah Winfrey From zev at sero.name Tue Dec 19 09:12:45 2017 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2017 12:12:45 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Did the Patriarchs Speak Hebrew? In-Reply-To: <20171219170508.GC27362@aishdas.org> References: <1513669061621.40139@stevens.edu> <20171219170508.GC27362@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <45f78c92-f0ed-6df8-9a80-01c96d6dd007@sero.name> On 19/12/17 12:05, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > I wonder if the Ramban understands the name of Kesav Ashuris to mean > "Assyrian Script", rather than "Enriched Script" (from "osher". YMMV > on the definition of osher.) You associate osher with an alef and `osher with an `ayin? -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From micha at aishdas.org Tue Dec 19 10:59:01 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2017 13:59:01 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Did the Patriarchs Speak Hebrew? In-Reply-To: <45f78c92-f0ed-6df8-9a80-01c96d6dd007@sero.name> References: <1513669061621.40139@stevens.edu> <20171219170508.GC27362@aishdas.org> <45f78c92-f0ed-6df8-9a80-01c96d6dd007@sero.name> Message-ID: <20171219185901.GE31888@aishdas.org> On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 12:12:45PM -0500, Zev Sero wrote: : On 19/12/17 12:05, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: : >I wonder if the Ramban understands the name of Kesav Ashuris to mean : >"Assyrian Script", rather than "Enriched Script" (from "osher". YMMV : >on the definition of osher.) : You associate osher with an alef and `osher with an `ayin? RSRH does, as he does all alef-ayin pairs. Also osher with asher. But I used enriched because in common usage, it refers to someone having a gift. We say that a cereal is enriched with vitamins. We far more rarely speak of a CEO being enriched. At least, not anymore. And what about yiysher kochakha, assuming the correct niqud isn't yeyasher? Reish Laqish (Shabbos 87a) says "asher shibarta" is an allusion to "yiyshar kochakha", so that's connected as well. RSRH himself uses "being in successful progress" (eg Bereishis 30:30), which R/Dr Mattiyahu Clark's Hirschian dictionary gives as its 1st definition. Chodesh tov, un a lichtikn un freilechn Chanukah! -Micha -- Micha Berger The trick is learning to be passionate in one's micha at aishdas.org ideals, but compassionate to one's peers. http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From mandels at ou.org Tue Dec 19 09:46:51 2017 From: mandels at ou.org (Mandel, Seth) Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2017 17:46:51 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Did the Patriarchs Speak Hebrew? In-Reply-To: <1513669061621.40139@stevens.edu> References: <1513669061621.40139@stevens.edu> Message-ID: There is no proof that anyone spoke Hebrew. Chazal say that dibb'ra Torah bilshon b'nei odom, and the Torah was written in Hebrew because that is what the Jews understood at the time of Moshe Rabbeinu and the N'vi'im. This is clear from last weeks Parsha, where Par'oh speaks to Yosef, kavyakhol in Hebrew. However, just as much as there is no proof at all from the T'NaKh that lots of people spoke Hebrew, even though the T'NaKh records them in Hebrew, there is also no proof at all that certain people did not speak Hebrew. The Ramban quotes the story of Lovon and Ya'akov to "prove" that Lovon did not speak Hebrew. That is probable, but what did Yaakov and Lovon speak together? What did Yaakov speak to Rochel and Leah, who had never been in EY? OK, they all spoke what was spoken in Aram Naharayim. Probably. But Yaakov and the Ovos must have learned the language of K'na'an for Avrohom to speak to b'nei Het to buy the Cave of the Patriarchs. So what exactly did Avrohom Ovinu say in the language of Aram, whence he came, and what in the language of K'na'an? QED that one cannot know from the T'NaKh who spoke what when and where. The only thing we know is the Masorah, that HQBH dictated the Torah to Moshe Rabbeinu in the eponymous Biblical Hebrew. People ask whether Odom hoRishon spoke Hebrew. That is a question that has no meaning. We do not know exactly what he spoke, nor is it relevant. It might have been a precursor of Hebrew, IOW a language like Hebrew, but a much older form. It could have been something else. But, scientifically, it could not have been the same as the Hebrew spoken in the time of Y'tzi'as Mitzrayim, because it has been proven that all languages change over time. Rabbi Dr. Seth Mandel From micha at aishdas.org Tue Dec 19 14:10:58 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2017 17:10:58 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Did the Patriarchs Speak Hebrew? In-Reply-To: References: <1513669061621.40139@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20171219221058.GA3159@aishdas.org> On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 05:46:51PM +0000, Mandel, Seth via Avodah wrote: : There is no proof that anyone spoke Hebrew. Chazal say that dibb'ra Torah : bilshon b'nei odom... Well.... R' Yishmael says it. And it appears to be an argument for his rules of derashah, which do not include looking for magic words like "akh" (mi'ut), "raq" (mi'ut), "kol" (ribui) or even "es", but darshens the meaning of terms, whether ribui or mi'ut. The Rambam really sloganeers (like the CS's "chadash assur min haTorah") when he uses it to explain that anthropomorphic descriptions of HQBH are idioms, not to be taken overly literally. The point may be true, but it has nothing to do with the quote. The maqor is nothing remotely like: : the Torah was written in Hebrew because that is : what the Jews understood at the time of Moshe Rabbeinu and the N'vi'im. And besides, R' Aqiva disagrees! Chodesh tov, un a lichtikn un freilechn Chanukah! -Micha -- Micha Berger One doesn't learn mussar to be a tzaddik, micha at aishdas.org but to become a tzaddik. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yisrael Salanter Fax: (270) 514-1507 From llevine at stevens.edu Wed Dec 20 01:27:34 2017 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2017 09:27:34 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Yehudah Spoke Egyptian Message-ID: <1513762054084.88548@stevens.edu> Rabbi Yitzchok D. Frankel, Rav of the Agudah of the Five Towns, in Cedarhurst, NY, asserts in his sefer Machat shel Yad. Bereishis vol.2 (Back of Vayikrah) Parshas VaYigash. that Yehudah did indeed speak Egyptian. See http://personal.stevens.edu/~llevine/yehudah_egyptian.pdf for his argument. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cantorwolberg at cox.net Wed Dec 20 09:32:33 2017 From: cantorwolberg at cox.net (Richard Wolberg) Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2017 12:32:33 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Question on 48:1 Message-ID: In Vay?chi first sentence of Ch.48, why is ?choleh? spelled without a vov? Nowhere have I found an explanation. From zev at sero.name Wed Dec 20 06:01:31 2017 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2017 09:01:31 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Did the Patriarchs Speak Hebrew? In-Reply-To: References: <1513669061621.40139@stevens.edu> <8b9c1a71-a4fe-ecf5-e066-0a640a78bfec@sero.name> Message-ID: <130e52aa-14f1-24b6-9478-9244543e628c@sero.name> On 19/12/17 02:37, Professor L. Levine via Avodah wrote: > . And it was not a private language spoken by a single person but a > language of Canaan, and many people in Egypt knew it for the countries > were close together--particularly the ruler, for it is customary for > kings and rulers to know several languages. Then how is it that Yosef could pretend not to know it and need an interpreter. More, how is it that Par'oh, who knew all the other languages, didn't know this one? [Email #2. -micha] On 19/12/17 12:46, Mandel, Seth via Avodah wrote: > There is no proof that anyone spoke Hebrew. Chazal say that dibb'ra Torah > bilshon b'nei odom, and the Torah was written in Hebrew because that is > what the Jews understood at the time of Moshe Rabbeinu and the N'vi'im. Rashi Bereshis 2:23 Bereshis Rabbah 18:4 [Eamil #3. -micha] On 20/12/17 08:56, Mandel, Seth wrote: > I am talking objective proof, from the T'NaKh and other documents. > Medrashim of Chazal teaches us important ideas, but are not meant to be > literally true. They do not intend to be a historical document, but > rather contain important moral and ethical teachings which are 'emes in > the spiritual sense. 1. This medrash is clearly intended literally. Not only does it not contain any important moral or ethical teaching, it cites a simple linguistic proof (albeit based on a very small sample of languages). 2. Rashi only cites those medroshim that he believes are necessary for pshat. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From mandels at ou.org Wed Dec 20 07:39:30 2017 From: mandels at ou.org (Mandel, Seth) Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2017 15:39:30 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Did the Patriarchs Speak Hebrew? In-Reply-To: <130e52aa-14f1-24b6-9478-9244543e628c@sero.name> References: <1513669061621.40139@stevens.edu> <8b9c1a71-a4fe-ecf5-e066-0a640a78bfec@sero.name> , <130e52aa-14f1-24b6-9478-9244543e628c@sero.name> Message-ID: From: Zev Sero Sent: Wednesday, December 20, 2017 7:45 AM > On 19/12/17 12:46, Mandel, Seth via Avodah wrote: >> There is no proof that anyone spoke Hebrew. Chazal say that dibb'ra Torah >> bilshon b'nei odom, and the Torah was written in Hebrew because that is >> what the Jews understood at the time of Moshe Rabbeinu and the N'vi'im. > Rashi Bereshis 2:23 > Bereshis Rabbah 18:4 I am talking objective proof, from the T'NaKh and other documents. Medrashim of Chazal teaches us important ideas, but are not meant to be literally true. They do not intend to be a historical document, but rather contain important moral and ethical teachings which are 'emes in the spiritual sense. There are plenty of Medrashim that have ideas that seem to indicate that HQBH or the angels spoke Hebrew. But, as the Rambam indicates, HQBH does not have a mouth and does not speak as people speak. Rather, all the p'sukim saying that HQBH spoke to Moshe or Aharon mean that He communicated with them directly to their mind, not that He spoke acoustic sounds that they heard with their physical ears. The argument that Prof. Levine brought in the name of R. Frankel, OTOH, does indeed show that Yehudah must have been speaking Egyptian, but yet the Torah quotes him in Hebrew. [Email #2. -micha] From: Zev Sero on behalf of Zev Sero Sent: Wednesday, December 20, 2017 9:01:31 AM > 1. This medrash is clearly intended literally. Not only does it not > contain any important moral or ethical teaching, it cites a simple > linguistic proof (albeit based on a very small sample of languages). > 2. Rashi only cites those medroshim that he believes are necessary for > pshat. This is not a conversation that is worth continuing. I have the greatest respect for Jews who learn and seek to understand. But there are certain discussions where the locutors speak past each other for no benefit to either. However, for others in the group that may be curious: if you understand what the Rambam says in his introduction to Chapter 10 of Mas. Sanhedrin regarding three approaches to what Chazal say, you will understand that there is no point in one group arguing with the other group. A similar case would be that there would be no point in the Rambam arguing with Rashi or Rabbeinu Tam about whether demons exist or whether the Earth is flat or round. The basic assumptions about the way things work are too far apart. I have said what I meant about medrashim, and the medrash that R. Zev quotes does not contradict in my mind my statement that there is no proof about the actual historical language used in anything in the Torah. Nor does Rashi's use of the medrash contradict what I said. It would be impossible to convince R. Tam's belief that the Earth is flat, since in his understanding of the universe everything points to the world being flat, and he can find statements in the G'moro that seem to him to prove his case, and all scientists from his culture "knew" that the Earth is flat. I challenge those who believe that illnesses are caused by bacteria or viruses to bring me one proof that they are; most rishonim knew that they were caused by evil spirits or bodily humors. What a person believes is based on some basic assumptions, and different Rishonim held very different assumptions in certain matters. People might and did challenge the Rambam that it appears from their point of view that the Rambam did not believe what Chazal say, or that I do not believe what Chazal say. The Rambam believed that everything that Chazal said is 'emes, but read his comments in the Perush haMishnayos to see that absolute Truth means different things in different approaches. Another example is how to reconcile the Truth that HQBH gave men free will with the fact that HQBH knows everything that will happen. That can only be explained if people understand certain assumptions about space and time. Rabbi Dr. Seth Mandel Rabbinic Coordinator The Orthodox Union From office at etzion.org.il Thu Dec 21 02:25:30 2017 From: office at etzion.org.il (Yeshivat Har Etzion) Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2017 12:25:30 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] VBM - Avodat Hashem #51: The Mitzva of Mezuza (Part I) Message-ID: <5A3B8C1A.4030506@etzion.org.il> PHILOSOPHY > Avodat Hashem - Foundations of Divine Service > Shiur #51: The Mitzva of Mezuza (Part I) Harav Baruch Gigi Yeshivat Har Etzion I. The Protection Offered by a Mezuza We are currently engaged in a clarification of the system of mitzvot, in the framework of the transition in Keriyat Shema from matters pertaining to the Rambam's Sefer Mada to matters pertaining to his Sefer Ahava. Thus far, we have studied the mitzva of tefillin and its unique meanings. Now, let us turn to a closely-related mitzva - the mitzva of mezuza. One of the central ideas relating to mezuza is the idea of protection. When one affixes a mezuza to the entrance of his home, his house and household are protected from all trouble and damage. This idea is expressed by Chazal in several contexts, and it is based, as we will demonstrate, on a connection that is already rooted in the verses of the Torah. At the end of the passage of Ve-haya im shamo'a, it is stated: And you shall write them upon the doorposts of your house and upon your gates; that your days may be multiplied, and the days of your children, upon the land which the Lord swore to your fathers to give them, as the days of the heavens above the earth. (Devarim 11:20-21) At first glance, it seems that the Torah's promise of longevity relates to all that was stated in this passage concerning one who obeys all of God's commandments and follows His ways. However, Chazal linked this promise directly to the mitzva of mezuza. Two talmudic passages establish a connection between longevity and the mitzva of mezuza. In tractate Shabbat (32b), it is taught that a person's children die because of a failure to fulfill the mitzva of mezuza.[1] This is learned from the juxtaposition of the commandment of mezuza to the verse that promises that "your days will be multiplied, and the days of your children." In a positive formulation, the Tur writes: Whoever is careful about it, his days and the days of his children will be lengthened, as it is written: "That your days may be multiplied, and the days of your children." (Tur, Yoreh De'ah 285) In tractate Kiddushin (34a), the gemara discusses the possibility of exempting women from the mitzva of mezuza. At first, the gemara is of the opinion that women are exempt, in view of the Torah's juxtaposition of the mitzva of mezuza to the mitzva of Torah study, from which women are exempt. However, the gemara rejects this possibility with the following argument: You cannot think so, because it is written: ["And You shall write them upon the doorposts of your house...] that your days may be multiplied." Do men only need life, and not women? (Kiddushin 34a) In this gemara as well, we clearly see that the promise of longevity in relation to the mitzva of mezuza is so central that there is no room even to entertain the possibility that women may be exempt from it. For by removing women from the mitzva of mezuza you would be removing them from the basic desire of existence, of life. The Tur adds: Moreover, one's house is protected by it, as they expounded the verse: "The Lord is your keeper; the Lord is your shade upon your right hand" (Tehillim 121:5). (Tur, ibid.) II. The Rambam's View The Rambam famously writes: It is a common custom to write [God's name] Shaddai on the outside of a mezuza, opposite the empty space left between the two passages. There is no difficulty in this, since the addition is made on the outside. However, those who write the names of angels, other sacred names, verses, or forms,[2] on the inside [of a mezuza] are among those who do not have a portion in the World-to-Come. Not only do these fools nullify the mitzva, but furthermore, they make from a great mitzva that reflects the unity of the name of the Holy One, blessed be He, the love of Him, and the service of Him, a talisman for their own benefit. They, in their foolish conception, think that this will help them regarding the vanities of the world. (Hilkhot Tefillin U-Mezuza 5:4) The Kesef Mishneh (ad loc.) cites the objection raised by the Ramach against the Rambam based on the gemara in Avoda Zara (11a). The gemara there records a story about Onkelos, who became a proselyte, and the emperor sent a contingent of soldiers after him. Among other things, it is stated there: Again he sent another cohort ordering them not to enter into any conversation whatever with him. So they took hold of him; and as they were walking on, he saw the mezuza that was fixed on the door frame and he placed his hand on it saying to them, "Now what is this?" And they replied, "You tell us then." He said to them, "According to universal custom, the mortal king dwells within, and his servants keep guard on him without; but [in the case of] the Holy One, blessed is He, it is His servants who dwell within while He keeps guard on them from without, as it is stated: `The Lord shall guard your going out and your coming in from this time forth and for evermore' (Tehillim 121:8)." Then they, too, were converted to Judaism. (Avoda Zara 11a) >From the difficulty raised by the Ramach, it may be concluded that in his opinion the Rambam rejects the idea of protection that is attributed to the mezuza. The Rambam views the mezuza as an expression of man's connection to God, in that he declares at the entrance to his house his faith in His unity and his love for Him, two of the foundations of His service. According to the Ramach, the Rambam rejects the talismanic qualities that were attributed to the mezuza by the ancients. The Ramach attacks the Rambam's position, as he understood it, on the grounds that the idea of protection is brought in the gemara itself: For in tractate Avoda Zara it is implied from that which Onkelos said to the Roman contingent that the Holy One, blessed is He, makes the mezuza to protect Israel from the outside. And one can force an answer that it was Onkelos who said this in order give importance to Israel. (Ramach, ad loc.) In light of this, the Ramach struggles to reconcile the Rambam's position, arguing that Onkelos said this to the Romans only in order to praise Israel in their eyes. Onkelos told the Romans that the mezuza symbolizes God's protection, as it were, over the houses of Israel. In truth, however, the mitzva of mezuza is not a matter of God's protection, but rather an expression of a person's faith in God's unity and service. It stands to reason, however, that the Rambam does not challenge the very idea of the protection offered by a mezuza. Thus writes the Kesef Mishneh in light of the fact that the gemara in Menachot uses this principle to determine the halakha regarding the proper placement of a mezuza: For in chapter Ha-Kometz (33b), regarding the rule that a mezuza must be placed in the handbreadth adjacent to the public domain, R. Huna said: "What is the reason? So that it may protect him."[3] Therefore you must say that in fact a mezuza protects the house when it is written properly. (Kesef Mishneh) In the Kesef Mishneh's opinion, the Rambam rejects only those actions that expanded the talismanic element of a mezuza - namely, the insertion of the names of the angels into the mezuza. The Rambam sees the protective quality of a mezuza in the connection between man and God and his belief in Him and His unity. In the continuation of our discussion, we will explain the idea of the protection offered by a mezuza with greater precision and in greater depth. III. Additional Sources The Yerushalmi states in tractate Pe'ah: Artaban sent to our holy Rabbi an invaluably precious pearl. He said to him: Send me something which is similarly precious. He sent him a mezuza. He said to him: What I have sent you is something priceless, but you have sent me something which is only worth one follis. He [Rabbi] said to him: Your treasures and my treasures are incomparable. And moreover, you have sent me something that I have to guard, while I have sent you something which guards you when you sleep, as it is written: "When you walk, it will lead you; when you lie down, it will watch over you; and when you awake, it will talk to you" (Mishlei 6:22). (Yerushalmi, Pe'ah 1:1) Similarly, the Tur writes in Hilkhot Mezuza: Moreover, one's house is protected by it, as they expounded the verse: "The Lord is your keeper; the Lord is your shade upon your right hand" (Tehillim 121:5). A mortal king dwells within, and his servants keep guard on him without; but you sleep in your beds and the Holy One, blessed is He, guards you from without. Therefore, it should be placed in the outermost handbreadth, so that the entire house be within it and under its protection. (Tur, Yoreh De'ah 285) The prevalent custom to write on the outside of the mezuza parchment the name ShaDaY - which is expounded as an abbreviation for the words: Shomer Delatot Yisrael, "Who guards the doors of Israel"[4] - also reinforces this idea of a mezuza as protecting a person's home. As stated, the basis of this idea is already found in the verses of the Torah. Even though the Torah does not mention the idea of protection in direct connection to the mitzva of mezuza, it is mentioned in connection with another mezuza. In Parashat Bo, God commands the people of Israel to place the blood of the paschal lamb on the two doorposts and lintel. The reason for this is explained as follows: And the blood shall be to you for a token upon the houses where you are; and when I see the blood, I will pass over you, and there shall no plague be upon you to destroy you, when I smite the land of Egypt. (Shemot 12:13) And later in the same chapter: For the Lord will pass through to smite the Egyptians; and when He sees the blood upon the lintel and on the two doorposts, the Lord will pass over the door, and will not suffer the destroyer to come in to your houses to smite you. (Shemot 12:23) It is further stated at the end of that chapter: It was a night of watching to the Lord for bringing them out from the land of Egypt; this same night is a night of watching to the Lord for all the children of Israel throughout their generations. (Shemot 12:42) Rashi writes: "A night of watching to the Lord for all the children of Israel throughout their generations" - This night is protected, and comes as such from ages past, against all destructive forces, as it is stated: "And He will not suffer the destroyer to enter your houses" (v. 33). (Rashi, ad loc.) IV. The Mezuza and the Paschal Offering On the night of the exodus from Egypt, God protected the houses of the people of Israel by way of the sign of the blood on the doorposts and lintels, and because of this the night became a night of watching for all generations.[5] At first glance, it seems that the common denominator between the mitzva of mezuza and the paschal offering is that in both cases we are commanded to place a specific thing on the doorpost, thereby securing the protection of the house and its inhabitants. On the deeper level, it seems that the connection between the mitzva of mezuza and the paschal offering is more substantive. What is the significance of placing blood on the doorposts and lintel of one's house? The paschal offering that the people of Israel brought in Egypt was sacrificed as a family offering, a sheep for each family, at the entrance to each family's home. In Egypt, of course, there was no Temple and no altar. Therefore, it seems that the meaning of the blood was to distinguish between the houses of the Israelites and the houses of the Egyptians, in order to prevent the destroyer from coming into the homes of the Israelites to attack. However, the possibility that the blood was meant to distinguish between the houses of Israel and the houses of Egypt raises a great difficulty, in light of the midrashim of Chazal, which indicate that God Himself passed through the land of Egypt. He certainly did not need a distinguishing sign. So writes the Beit Yosef in his book, Maggid Meisharim: As for the difficulty with the verse, "And when I see the blood, I will pass over you," why was a sign needed, for surely everything is revealed to Him? It may be suggested that a sign was needed for the angels who came with Him. It may further be objected that this sign was with blood, which is a sign of death, the opposite of what they wanted. And furthermore, the sign should have been on the outside, and this sign was on the inside. But the secret of the matter is that the Holy One, blessed be He, wanted them to trust in Him and place the blood on the door from the inside. This is what is written: "And the blood shall be to you for a token." And instead of being afraid when they see the blood on the door, on the contrary they should trust their Master who commanded them to do this, so that He would be a salvation for them. This merit of trusting God would protect them. This is the meaning of what is written: "And the blood shall be to you for a token upon the houses where you are; and when I see the blood, I will pass over you." That is to say, I will see the merit of your trust, that the blood that is a sign of death will be for you a sign of life when you trust the words of your Master. And for this reason, "when I see the blood, I will pass over you." (Maggid Meisharim, Parashat Bo) It seems that trust in God involves not only doing the action required by God on the simple level. What we have here is an important and profound principle, in light of the gemara in Pesachim: R. Yosef taught: There were three altars there, on the lintel and on the two doorposts. (Pesachim 96a) A broader picture emerges from the gemara. The paschal offering brought in Egypt was a sacrifice offered at the entrance of a person's house, his house serving as the Temple, and the entrance to his house being the altar. While Chazal speak of three altars, it seems more accurate to say that they are referring to the three corners of the altar. The people of Israel are commanded to see their homes as the house of God. With their trust in God, they express the strength of their connection to Him by seeing their homes as God's house. And if their house is the house of God, then the entrance to the house is an altar, and they put of the blood on the three corners of the altar - the lintel and the two doorposts. This view, which sanctifies the houses of the people of Israel as the Temple, is similar to what is stated: "In every place where I cause My name to be mentioned I will come to you and bless you" (Shemot 20:20). In this way, the house becomes the basis of the covenant that is being formed between God and His people, by virtue of their seeking His presence within them. If we are correct, it stands to reason that the idea of the protection offered by a mezuza has a more fundamental and inner meaning. A person turns his house into a house of God, and a house of God is protected, as is stated in Tehillim: A Song of Ascents; of Shelomo. Except the Lord build the house, they labor in vain that build it; except the Lord keep the city, the watchman wakes but in vain. (Tehillim 127:1) God's protection is protection, and there is no other, it alone being considered true protection. These words connect with the words of the Rambam in Hilkhot Beit Ha-Bechira, that the guarding in the Temple was merely a display of honor, and not needed for the protection it offered, since the house of God is not in need of protection: There is a positive mitzva to guard the Temple. [This mitzvah applies] even though there is no fear of enemies or thieves, for the guarding [of the Temple] is an expression of respect for it. A palace with guards is [much more impressive] than a palace without guards. (Rambam, Hilkhot Beit Ha-Bechira 8:1) (Translated by David Strauss) _______________________ [1] The gemara there states as follows: "R. Chiya bar Abba and R. Yose disagree. One says: It is for the sin of neglect of mezuza [that a person's children die]; while the other says: It is for the sin of the neglect of Torah... It is well according to the one who says: It is for the sin of the neglect of mezuza, for it is written: 'And you shall write them upon the doorposts of your house,' which is followed by: 'that your days may be multiplied, and the days of your children'" (Shabbat 32b). [2] The Rambam is referring here to the ancient practice of inserting all kinds of additions into the mezuza. Rabbeinu Eliezer of Metz writes as follows: "It is common practice to add seals and the names of the angels at the end of the Bible verses contained in the mezuza for the sake of the increased security of the home. This is not indispensible, nor even a mitzva, but simply serves as additional protection" (Yere'im 400). He then spells out in great detail the names of the angels and where precisely they were inserted in the mezuza. [3] According to the Ramach's understanding of the Rambam, it may be suggested that this does not mean that a mezuza protects a person, but rather that a person should be reminded of the principles of his faith whenever he goes in or out of his house. [4] See Kolbo: "The reason that we write this name more than the others is that it is an abbreviation for Shomer Dirat Yisrael, "Who guards the dwelling of Israel" (Kolbo, Mezuza 90). [5] Establishing this night as a night of watching has halakhic ramifications in a number of contexts. This is true regarding the recitation of Shema before going to sleep and regarding the Me-Ein Sheva blessing on the night of the Seder when it falls out on Friday night. Many halakhic authorities rule that one should not say the Me-Ein Sheva blessing on the night of the Seder, since it is a night of watching that does not require protection. From bdbradley70 at hotmail.com Sat Dec 23 13:33:10 2017 From: bdbradley70 at hotmail.com (Ben Bradley) Date: Sat, 23 Dec 2017 21:33:10 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Midrash Tanchuma Message-ID: I'd be grateful to know if anyone here is sufficiently familiar with different editions of midrash tanchuma to help me out. I acquired a copy of the Tanchuma from a second hand book shop, very inexpensively, a number of years ago. I was a poor student at the time. It was printed in 5645, ie 1885, by one Shlomo Buber (Bober?) in Lvov from manuscripts acquired from Oxford and the Vatican. I must admit I'd never paid much attention to these details until now, but It's just come to my attention that it my copy is hugely different to the standard one. For example, this week in Vayigash, my copy has 12 simanim, compared to the 11 in the standard edition. But only 4 of these are the same (8-11 in mine corresponding to 9-12 in the standard), all the others are utterly different. By which I mean they are simply different midrashim, not just variants. Can anyone shed light on such a huge difference between what seems to be the standard edition and mine? Best wishes Ben -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From meirabi at gmail.com Sat Dec 23 16:49:35 2017 From: meirabi at gmail.com (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi) Date: Sun, 24 Dec 2017 11:49:35 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] Did the Patriarchs Speak Hebrew? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Speak means communication, there were 10 communications with which HKBH created the universe There were 10 communications broadcast at Har Sinai - I'm pretty sure it wasn't Polish or Hungarian. The Rishonim argue about the nature of prophesy, is it an actual voice (meaning stimulation of the human hearing facility of the ear - not necessarily stimulated by an actual sound) or just a voice in the head but TTBOMKnowledge, none question the language. Anyway, does it make any difference? Either way the brain is receiving a signal. Perhaps the type of language is irrelevant, what's important is that the message is received and understood. That the parties are connected. I have seen, but could not re-find a comment by the MaOr VeShemesh (I think connected to Ish Mitzi HiTzilanu) that Yidden spoke Mitzi, and the meaning of Lo Shinu LeShonom is that they spoke with a Yiddishe style, with dignity and kindness - and this is what set us apart. Clearly a Derasha designed to direct the listeners and readers towards a more dignified language, but at the same time reflecting an ultimate truth, the language does not make the man, it's the style that's important. I also recall hearing is a RaMBaN or a Siforno - a child exposed from birth to no external language inputs, would naturally speak Lashon HaKodesh. This seems to be a fairly old consideration amongst philosophers, see Frederick's Experiment, and Gong Mahal. HKBH looked into the Torah and created the universe, speaks volumes about the centrality of Torah, not about it's language, although it's not easy separating the two. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From driceman at optimum.net Sat Dec 23 16:53:36 2017 From: driceman at optimum.net (David Riceman) Date: Sat, 23 Dec 2017 19:53:36 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Did the Patriarchs Speak Hebrew? Message-ID: See Melachim 2 18:26 [Email #2. -micha] And see Gen. 31:47 DR Sent from my iPad From zev at sero.name Sat Dec 23 19:46:46 2017 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Sat, 23 Dec 2017 22:46:46 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Midrash Tanchuma In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 23/12/17 16:33, Ben Bradley via Avodah wrote: > It was printed in 5645, ie 1885, by one Shlomo Buber (Bober?) in Lvov > from manuscripts acquired from Oxford and the Vatican. > I must admit I'd never paid much attention to these details until now, > but It's just come to my attention that it my copy is hugely different > to the standard one. Yes, the Buber Tanchuma is a different sefer from the standard Tanchuma. Citations to "Tanchuma" stam refer to the old edition, while ones to this edition are given as "Tanchuma (Buber)". Buber claimed that he had found the original version, and that the one published in the 16th century is a much later one. Not everyone was convinced. There was also something the rishonim called "Medrash Yelamdeinu", which may have been a third version which is now lost, or may simply have been the name by which they referred to one or the other of these two versions. http://bit.ly/2C5u4FL -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From akivagmiller at gmail.com Sat Dec 23 18:39:15 2017 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Sat, 23 Dec 2017 21:39:15 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Did the Patriarchs Speak Hebrew? Message-ID: . R' Seth Mandel wrote: > There is no proof that anyone spoke Hebrew. and R' Zev Sero responded: > Rashi Bereshis 2:23 That Rashi does not mention Hebrew. What Rashi says there is that the olam was created via "Lashon Hakodesh". "Lashon Hakodesh" may or may not be the same thing as what we refer to as "Hebrew". One cannot discuss this topic meaningfully unless he is careful to make this distinction. For a very in-depth (yet also readable and in English) treatment of these and related topics, I recommend "Lashon Hakodesh - History, Holiness, & Hebrew" by Rabbi Reuven Chaim Klein. Akiva Miller From zvilampel at gmail.com Sat Dec 23 21:41:29 2017 From: zvilampel at gmail.com (H Lampel) Date: Sun, 24 Dec 2017 00:41:29 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Historicity of Aggadta In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Under the subject line of Re: [Avodah] Did the Patriarchs Speak Hebrew?, RSM raises a claim that RMB and I have argued over in the past. He writes, > Medrashim of Chazal teaches us important ideas, but are not meant to > be literally true. They do not intend to be a historical document, > but rather contain important moral and ethical teachings which are > 'emes in the spiritual sense. > > ... if you understand > what the Rambam says in his introduction to Chapter 10 of Mas. Sanhedrin > regarding three approaches to what Chazal say But the Rambam also writes there: And? I will yet compose a work in which I will gather all the drashos found in the Talmud and elsewhere...and I will reveal what of the drashos are [meant in] a literal way, and which of them are [meant as] mashal, and which of them were [describing something seen only] in a dream but was stated in a purely absolute way, as if it were [experienced] in a state of wakefulness... So, the Rambam does not maintain that the literal meaning of? /all/ drashos is to be rejected. Some are indeed meant literally, and some are not. (The Rambam never wrote this work. As he explains in Moreh Nevuchim, since much of it would be dealing with the meaning of drashos whose meanings were valuable lessons too precious to be shared with those who would not appreciate them appropriately, he would be forced to merely substitute the drashos' figurative expressions with his own figurative expressions. But in several works he does provide the key that they are not meant literally when the literal meaning would contradict realia, logic, fundamentals or pesukim.) His son Avraham, in his maamer on Drashos Chazal writes similarly regarding the maasiyos reported in the Talmud. R. Yehuda HaLevy (1:68) understood the midrashic maasiyos attributing the Hebrew language to the patriarchs as a historic reality that carried an important lesson, and considered the Torah as presenting evidence thereof. According to tradition it is the language in which G-d spoke to Adam and Eve, and in which the latter conversed. It is proved by the derivation of Adam from /adamah/, /ishshah/ from /ish/; /Chava/__from Chay; /Cain/ from /Kannisi/; /Shes/ from /shas/, and Noach from /yenachamenu/. This is supported by the evidence of the Torah. The whole is traced back to Eber, Noach and Adam. It is the language of Eber after whom it was called /Hebrew/, because after the confusion of tongues it was he who retained it. Abraham was an Aramaean of /Ur Kasdim/, because the language of the Chaldaeans was Aramaic. He employed Hebrew as a specially holy language andAramaic for everyday use. .. Zvi Lampel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From familyp2 at actcom.net.il Sun Dec 24 03:05:02 2017 From: familyp2 at actcom.net.il (Simi Peters) Date: Sun, 24 Dec 2017 13:05:02 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] tanhuma buber Message-ID: <001a01d37ca7$16b17e70$44147b50$@actcom.net.il> Your edition of Tanhuma is indeed vastly different from the standard printed edition. It was published by Buber from a Cairo Geniza manuscript (or possibly several manuscripts-not sure about the details.) There is some overlap, but there is a lot of material in Tanhuma Buber that does not appear in the standard editions and vice versa. It's good to have both. Unless you're interested in trying to reconstruct an ur-edition of Tanhuma, you can just treat them as separate works and mine each for its interesting material. Kol tuv, Simi Peters --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From zvilampel at gmail.com Sun Dec 24 06:43:33 2017 From: zvilampel at gmail.com (H Lampel) Date: Sun, 24 Dec 2017 09:43:33 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Historicity of Aggadta In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1f584d28-51c5-aa2f-2eb7-e97d1cd32aef@gmail.com> On 12/24/2017 12:41 AM, Z?? Lampel wrote: > R. Yehuda HaLevy (1:68) Should be: R. Yehuda Halevy (Kuzari 2:68). Zvi Lampel From marty.bluke at gmail.com Sun Dec 24 04:32:45 2017 From: marty.bluke at gmail.com (Marty Bluke) Date: Sun, 24 Dec 2017 14:32:45 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] New Cancer Treatment Message-ID: RHS in his sefer (Eretz Hatzvi) points out that it seems to be 2 opinions in Tosafos whether a mamzer can be created without a bias issur. The Gemara in Yevamos 16b brings the opinion that eved v'akum haba al bas yisrael havlad mamzer. Tosafos there asks the following question. They understand how there can be an opinion that an eved creates mamzerus because there is a specific issur for a Jewish woman to have biah with an eved. However, they ask, by a Goy there is no issur biah min hatorah and therefore how can anyone hold that the product of the biah of a goy and a Jewish woman would create a mamzer? Tosafos gives 2 answers: 1. Even though there is no bias issur since kiddushin are not tofsin it creates mamzerus. 2. A Goy and a Jewish woman do not create a mamzer min hatorah only midrabbanan If we apply these 2 opinions to IVF, according to the first answer since kiddushin are not tofsin (since she is married) the child would be a mamzer even though there was no bias issur. On the other hand, the second answer holds that the determining factor of mamzerus is a bias issur and therefore since in the case of IVF there is no bias issur there would be no mamzerus. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Sun Dec 24 06:24:17 2017 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Sun, 24 Dec 2017 14:24:17 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] The Nature of Egyptian Society Message-ID: <1514125453560.29445@stevens.edu> The following is from RSRH" commentary on Bereishis 46:33 Now, when Pharaoh calls you and asks, What is your occupation? 33 In a state like Egypt, the individual is completely identified with his occupation. Children are not born as human beings but as artisans, peasants, soldiers, and so forth. Accordingly, Pharaoh's first question to Yosef 's brothers would naturally concern their occupation. They were instructed to answer Pharaoh's question candidly, to tell him the truth, even though it would be unpleasant. For the Egyptians' loathing for the brothers' occupation and, in general, the nations' aversion to the Jews were to serve as primary factors in the survival of this race, which was destined to journey through the ages in isolation. As long as the moral morn had not dawned for the nations, the barriers they erected to isolate the Jews served to protect the Jews from becoming infected with the barbarism and demoralization of the people in whose midst they had to walk for hundreds of years. Yosef therefore immediately emphasizes the aspect that will arouse the aversion of the Egyptians. His clear intention is that, as a result, his brothers will be allocated a separate province in which to dwell. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cantorwolberg at cox.net Sat Dec 23 19:30:04 2017 From: cantorwolberg at cox.net (Richard Wolberg) Date: Sat, 23 Dec 2017 22:30:04 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Vay'chi Message-ID: <89600AC2-DFEA-44AA-A5AE-9C4493ED11F4@cox.net> There?s an interesting medrash the k?li yakar brings down. It doesn?t say Vayik?r?vu Yisroel Lamus, that Yisroel came close to die,? rather it says: ?Vayik?r?vu Y?MEI Yisroel lamus,? that the DAYS of Yisroel came close to die. And the medresh says, the DAYS died, not the person. This goes in line with Vay?chi Ya?akov, and Jacob LIVED. In other words, his body died but not he, himself. (The question has been asked: Do you have a soul? The answer is NO, you ARE a soul with a body). In the first pasuk (vs.28) the name Yaakov is used twice and then in vs.29 we see the name Yisroel used. The question is asked why does the name change from Ya?akov to Yisroel. One answer is that Yisroel symbolizes the prophecy of Ya?akov. And that?s how he knew he was going to die because in prophecy he understood and divinely inspired, he understood that he was going to die. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From larry62341 at optonline.net Sun Dec 24 02:38:32 2017 From: larry62341 at optonline.net (Prof. Levine) Date: Sun, 24 Dec 2017 05:38:32 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] The Protection Offered by a Mezuza Message-ID: At 06:58 PM 12/23/2017, Harav Baruch Gigi wrote: The following is from RSRH's commentary on Devorim 6:9 And write them upon the [door-] posts of your house and upon your gates. The mezuzah is not an amulet; in and of itself, it does not protect the house. Only insofar as they shape their lives in accordance with the mezuzah 's content can the people within the house expect help and protection from God, the "All-Sovereign and All-Sufficing," in all the vicissitudes of domestic life. With this intent it is our custom to adorn the outside of the mezuzah with the Name shin-daled-yud. From ben1456 at zahav.net.il Sun Dec 24 10:55:39 2017 From: ben1456 at zahav.net.il (Ben Waxman) Date: Sun, 24 Dec 2017 20:55:39 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Rambam ,Hilchot Hannuka Message-ID: A few take aways from Rambam Hilchot Hanukka Chapter 3 1) For the Rambam, Hallel is the ikkar element of Hanukka, not the candles (given that details Hallel first and only then goes on to the candles). 2) The Rambam gives a long detailed description on how to properly say Hallel in beit knesset. However the last halacha in the chapter basically says "I've been in a lot batei knesset and everyone does something different'. Meaning - you want to do a musical Hallel, different tunes, no tunes, responsive, everyone together, whatever you like - it is fine. 3) The Rambam raises the possibility of a woman or child or slave reading Hallel and everyone repeating what she or he said word by word. However, he doesn't add in the famous curse given in the Gemara. Meaning - the Rambam didn't hold by? Tavo Ma'arah (spelling?) (at least not here). Ben From lisa at starways.net Sun Dec 24 11:27:31 2017 From: lisa at starways.net (Lisa Liel) Date: Sun, 24 Dec 2017 21:27:31 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] The Protection Offered by a Mezuza In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2cfbbfce-e0d9-fc05-140c-969d4b5f18a1@starways.net> On 12/24/2017 12:38 PM, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: > At 06:58 PM 12/23/2017, Harav Baruch Gigi wrote: ... > The mezuzah is not an amulet; in and of itself, it does not protect the > house. Only insofar as they shape their lives in accordance with the mezuzah's > content can the people within the house expect help and protection... I know a mezuzah isn't an amulet, but when my apartment burned down back in the 90s, the fire burned through two sides of the apartment and jumped over my room only, which was the only one with a mezuzah.? I'm not saying it couldn't be a coincidence, I'm just saying that I didn't take it that way. Lisa From zev at sero.name Sun Dec 24 14:10:20 2017 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Sun, 24 Dec 2017 17:10:20 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] The Protection Offered by a Mezuza In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2d108449-ec4d-0e35-d888-0ccdd8b113be@sero.name> On 24/12/17 05:38, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: > At 06:58 PM 12/23/2017, Harav Baruch Gigi wrote: > The following is from RSRH's commentary on Devorim 6:9 And write > them upon the [door-] > posts of your house and upon your gates. > > The mezuzah is not an amulet; in and of itself, it does not protect the > house. Only insofar as they shape their lives in accordance with the mezuzah 's > content can the people within the house expect help and protection > from God, the "All-Sovereign and All-Sufficing," in all the vicissitudes > of domestic life. That may be RSRH's opinion, but if so it contradicts Chazal and millennia of Jewish belief and practise. No, the mezuzah is not an amulet; if it were not a mitzvah it would have no inherent power. But the *mitzvah* of mezuzah protects regardless of how those within the house "shape their lives". Even a goy who puts up a mezuzah, choosing to voluntarily fulfil this mitzvah, can expect this protection. The mitzvah protects those who fulfil it not only when they are inside the house it adorns, but wherever they are. And, most astonishingly, although it is true that a mezuzah itself is not an amulet, there are legitimate grounds to believe that carrying it around "zecher lamitzvah" *does* give some level of protection, even though no mitzvah is being fulfilled. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From ben1456 at zahav.net.il Sun Dec 24 19:58:42 2017 From: ben1456 at zahav.net.il (Ben Waxman) Date: Mon, 25 Dec 2017 05:58:42 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] The Protection Offered by a Mezuza In-Reply-To: <2d108449-ec4d-0e35-d888-0ccdd8b113be@sero.name> References: <2d108449-ec4d-0e35-d888-0ccdd8b113be@sero.name> Message-ID: <80f92bd4-b7af-1b26-1d03-0f3ce7a67edf@zahav.net.il> I seriously doubt that anyone could come up with any statistical analysis showing this point to be true. Ben On 12/25/2017 12:10 AM, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > But the *mitzvah* of mezuzah protects regardless of how those within the house "shape their lives". From zvilampel at gmail.com Mon Dec 25 07:28:21 2017 From: zvilampel at gmail.com (H Lampel) Date: Mon, 25 Dec 2017 10:28:21 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Did the Patriarchs Speak Hebrew? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > Tue, 19 Dec 2017 "Mandel, Seth" wrote: > > There is no proof that anyone spoke Hebrew. ... the Torah was written in Hebrew because that is > what the Jews understood at the time of Moshe Rabbeinu and the N'vi'im. > ... What did Yaakov speak to Rochel and > Leah, who had never been in EY? ... > one cannot know from the T'NaKh who spoke what when and where. Well, at least when the matriarchs and patriarchs stated the reasons for the names they gave their children, they were obviously speaking the same Hebrew spoken in the times of Moshe Rabbeinu. The only way to question this would be to suggest that originally Yitzchak, for instance was called "HeShallLaugh" in some other language, and over the next 5 centuries the bnei Yisrael (or the descendants of HeWillStriveWithG-d, or whatever), knowing the meaning of the name, changed it to Yitzchak.And did the same with each one of all the other names given in the chronologies, which are also clearly contractions of Mattan Torah time Hebrew words. And a similar convoluted explanation would have to be made when an allegedly unHebrew-speaking Eisav cracked ''Ha-chi kara shmo Yaakov--Vayak-veini zeh pa'amayyim...?!" I think all that is extremely unlikely, even without invoking the masorah (of no less import than the Masorah that HQBH dictated the Torah to Moshe Rabbeinu in the eponymous Biblical Hebrew) that the shevatim in Moshe Rabbeinu's time retained the names given to their ancestors (cited in many places including BeMidbar Rabbah 13:20 s.v. Bayom HaShishi and Midrash Tehillim 114:4). Zvi Lampel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mcohen at touchlogic.com Mon Dec 25 07:39:55 2017 From: mcohen at touchlogic.com (M Cohen) Date: Mon, 25 Dec 2017 10:39:55 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Did the Patriarchs Speak Hebrew? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <00bd01d37d96$9d1ebc80$d75c3580$@com> Fyi that the best sefer that I have seen on the subject of Hebrew and ancient Hebrew history is Lashon HaKodesh: History, Holiness & Hebrew by Rabbi Reuven Chaim Klein. Feldheim. http://www.feldheim.com/lashon-hakodesh.html Haskomos from R Leff, R Breitowitz, R Lopiansky It deals with the subject of ancient Hebrew history, using both on chazal and current linguistic and archeological sources Did Adam harishon speak Hebrew ? Did the world speak Hebrew until tower of Babel? Did Avraham speak Hebrew ? Foreign influences on Hebrew Hebrew vs Aramaic. Sources. History. Development. You will find exhaustive source material and answers there. Mordechai Cohen ======= Email scanned by PC Tools - No viruses or spyware found. (Email Guard: 9.1.0.2894, Virus/Spyware Database: 6.22240) http://free.pctools.com/ ======= From zev at sero.name Sun Dec 24 23:16:16 2017 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Mon, 25 Dec 2017 02:16:16 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] The Protection Offered by a Mezuza In-Reply-To: <80f92bd4-b7af-1b26-1d03-0f3ce7a67edf@zahav.net.il> References: <2d108449-ec4d-0e35-d888-0ccdd8b113be@sero.name> <80f92bd4-b7af-1b26-1d03-0f3ce7a67edf@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <1ba30a45-ba01-d7d5-2b67-843f9f22ed8b@sero.name> On 24/12/17 22:58, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > On 12/25/2017 12:10 AM, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: >> But the *mitzvah* of mezuzah protects regardless of how those within >> the house "shape their lives". > I seriously doubt that anyone could come up with any statistical > analysis showing this point to be true. Why do we need statistical analysis? Judaism tell us it's true, therefore it is. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From llevine at stevens.edu Mon Dec 25 12:00:57 2017 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Mon, 25 Dec 2017 20:00:57 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Bishul Akum - Specific Products Message-ID: <0ae98ef4eb3a4dbeaa39a0bbc1e50abf@exchng03.campus.stevens-tech.edu> Please see the file at https://goo.gl/LnRQjF YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Mon Dec 25 12:30:23 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 25 Dec 2017 15:30:23 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] The Protection Offered by a Mezuza In-Reply-To: <80f92bd4-b7af-1b26-1d03-0f3ce7a67edf@zahav.net.il> References: <2d108449-ec4d-0e35-d888-0ccdd8b113be@sero.name> <80f92bd4-b7af-1b26-1d03-0f3ce7a67edf@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <20171225203023.GA9557@aishdas.org> On Mon, Dec 25, 2017 at 05:58am IST, Ben Waxman wrote: : On 12/25/2017 12:10 AM, Zev Sero wrote: :> But the *mitzvah* of mezuzah protects regardless of how those :> within the house "shape their lives". : I seriously doubt that anyone could come up with any statistical : analysis showing this point to be true. (I won't bother arguing against Zev's inability to acknowledge the existence of other shitos than his. "[I]t contradicts Chazal and millennia of Jewish belief and practise." "Judaism tell us it's true" indeed. It's a machloqes of the Rambam and the Ramach, with various teirutzim given for the Rambam. Not open-and-shut at all.) You want to statistically decide which hashkafah is true??? I lean the way you do. But it's a machloqes. I already pointed to , a discussion of sources both ways. It would be weird to think it boils down to a machloqes in metzi'us. You remind me of a problem I have saying a particular line of Tehillim (37:25) with kavanah, and it comes up at the appendix to bentching, "Naar hayisi..." But I have seen a tzadiq whose kids miss meals and have to beg. Haven't you? The best I can do, rather than tamper with the minhag of saying it, is to focus on the word "ne'ezav" -- so, his kids don't have food, but it's not because HQBH abandoned the tzadiq. But I can't really feel that's peshat in the pasuq. It allows me to saven with qavanah, but as an answer -- the question is better than this resolution. Bitachon and emunah that actually fit the data can be more challenging than if we just shut off critical thought. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "As long as the candle is still burning, micha at aishdas.org it is still possible to accomplish and to http://www.aishdas.org mend." Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Anonymous shoemaker to R' Yisrael Salanter From micha at aishdas.org Mon Dec 25 12:34:01 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 25 Dec 2017 15:34:01 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Historicity of Aggadta In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20171225203401.GB9557@aishdas.org> On Sun, Dec 24, 2017 at 12:41:29AM -0500, H Lampel via Avodah wrote: : Under the subject line of Re: [Avodah] Did the Patriarchs Speak Hebrew?, : RSM raises a claim that RMB and I have argued over in the past. He writes, : : > Medrashim of Chazal teaches us important ideas, but are not meant to : > be literally true. They do not intend to be a historical document, : > but rather contain important moral and ethical teachings which are : > 'emes in the spiritual sense. Which need not say anything about the story's lilterally truth. Just that the story isn't *about* its literal historical claim, and therefore doesn't testify to history one way or the other. And so, I agree with: : So, the Rambam does not maintain that the literal meaning of /all/ : drashos is to be rejected. Some are indeed meant literally, and some are : not. And yet still won't bother worrying about contradicting any medrash's historical claims. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Life is a stage and we are the actors, micha at aishdas.org but only some of us have the script. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Menachem Nissel Fax: (270) 514-1507 From zvilampel at gmail.com Mon Dec 25 15:53:28 2017 From: zvilampel at gmail.com (H Lampel) Date: Mon, 25 Dec 2017 18:53:28 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Historicity of Aggadta In-Reply-To: <20171225203401.GB9557@aishdas.org> References: <20171225203401.GB9557@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 12/25/2017 3:34 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > And so, I agree with: > : So, the Rambam does not maintain that the literal meaning of /all/ > : drashos is to be rejected. Some are indeed meant literally, and some are > : not. > > And yet still won't bother worrying about contradicting any medrash's > historical claims. I already stated that the Rambam holds the intent of? a medrash is not literal if he holds it contradicts realia, logic, fundamentals or pesukim. And I should add, if it contradicts what he considers the consensus of Chazal. And in past iterations I submitted examples where the Rambam cites midrashic reports of history apparently qua history. You may insist that he (contra the Kuzari regarding Adam and the patricarchs speaking Hebrew) doesn't care about whether they are historically factual. But if you have examples of the Rambam not bothering to worry about contradicting a medrash's historical reports despite the above caveats, please provide them. Zvi Lampel From micha at aishdas.org Mon Dec 25 17:21:19 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 25 Dec 2017 20:21:19 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Historicity of Aggadta In-Reply-To: References: <20171225203401.GB9557@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20171226012119.GH24733@aishdas.org> On Mon, Dec 25, 2017 at 06:53:28PM -0500, H Lampel wrote: :> And yet still won't bother worrying about contradicting any medrash's :> historical claims. : I already stated that the Rambam holds the intent of? a medrash is : not literal if he holds it contradicts realia, logic, fundamentals : or pesukim... Yes, but you know I disagree. The Rambam says that the intent of a medrash is not literal. They might also be literal. A mashal or melitzah -- as he discusses from Mishlei at length -- can be pulled from history or stam crafted as a story, but in either case "mimah shenimtza bikhlal divreihem morim al inyanim amitiyim me'od." However, if the story does contradict what is known, we know it's a pure mashal, ahistorical. And therefore don't become like someone of the first two katim, believing stupidity or ridiculing chazal for their allegedly teaching stupidity. But he doesn't ever say that if the story is plausible, that's the point of the story. Nor that it's sufficient reason to assume it's true on a literal level. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "Fortunate indeed, is the man who takes micha at aishdas.org exactly the right measure of himself, and http://www.aishdas.org holds a just balance between what he can Fax: (270) 514-1507 acquire and what he can use." - Peter Latham From micha at aishdas.org Sun Dec 24 14:11:31 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Sun, 24 Dec 2017 17:11:31 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Please help me fund my book! Message-ID: <20171224221131.GA26480@aishdas.org> My manuscript just went to the publishers. For the second time; I retracted my first version because I didn't like the idea that the book was all theory without any pragmatics. What's the value of exploring the meaning of Torah and life based on haRav Shimon haKohein Shkop without anything about how to align one's life with those ideals? If you want some sense of what the book is about, the text that it's a commentary / elaboration on is available at http://www.aishdas.org/asp/ShaareiYosher.pdf -- although I have made some improvements to the readability of that translation since that PDF. If you would like to help me make this dream happen, whether because you were always looking for a way to thank me for these email lists, you like me or some of the things you've seen me write in the past, you like Rav Shimon's hashkafah, or simply think *any* sefer that gets more Orthodox Jews thinking about the big picture and why are we doing it all is worth existing, please let me know. Initial reactions are excited: "This may IY'H attract some serious attention -- books like this don't come out every day." "Very chashuv, unique sefer." "Wow. what an impressive work!" "Right up our alley, as well. Torah, important -- but kind of unique. For thinking people." "I think the subject, approach and writing are gevaldik." "I am excited as well, but they tell me the hardest part of the job still lays ahead." The sefarim market cannot consume books to the extent where publication will make a profit. So, at least when it comes to the business and funding models, all the houses expect fundraising and sponsorship to make a book happen. But it is not "vanity press". The publisher adds significant value to the book -- fact checking, editing, layout and other aesthetics, etc. The publisher I am going with uses Feldheim as their distribution channel, so my sefer could reach every Anglo sefarim store. And they have to pay the people who do all that, not to mention feed their own families. They put their name on the book, the book is their product. They need that good name for future marketing and distribution. So, they won't take on a book that would harm their business. They're willing to invest those man-hours, and when done, to stand behind my work. So, I have to rely heavily on word-of-mouth to raise that money. Including hitting up everyone here on Areivim/Avodah. I am using a foundation established in memory of my grandparents to clear the money in a manner that is tax-deductible. Email me for details if you are interested in chipping in. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger For those with faith there are no questions. micha at aishdas.org For those who lack faith there are no answers. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yaakov of Radzimin Fax: (270) 514-1507 From zvilampel at gmail.com Mon Dec 25 19:55:18 2017 From: zvilampel at gmail.com (H Lampel) Date: Mon, 25 Dec 2017 22:55:18 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Diberah Torah Kil-shon bnei adam In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Under the heading, Re: [Avodah] Did the Patriarchs Speak Hebrew?, Tue, 19 Dec 2017 From: Micha Berger > Mandel, Seth via Avodah wrote: > : There is no proof that anyone spoke Hebrew. Chazal say that dibb'ra Torah > : bilshon b'nei odom... > > RMB: Well.... R' Yishmael says it [the dictum ''dibb'ra Torah > bilshon b'nei odom.''] And it appears to be an argument for his > rules of derashah, which do not include looking for magic words like > "akh" (mi'ut), "raq" (mi'ut), "kol" (ribui) or even "es", but darshens > the meaning of terms, whether ribui or mi'ut....And besides, R' Aqiva disagrees! RSRH (Collected Writings Vol. V, p. 170), citing 30 cases,? points out that, ''R. Ishmael, no less than R. Akiba (and......all of R. Akiva's predecessors...)...considered particles [including of ''akh,'' ''raq'' and ''ess'] and superfluities ..in the Biblical text...subject to interpretations.'' He explains (p. 177) that ''R. Ishmael disagrees with R. Akiba only with regard to one very specific form of redundancy, namely, repetitions of the same expression; e.g.,...yidor nedder,...hasheiv heishiv, or the repetition of the same noun (ish ish). However, R. Ishmael interprets other redundancies in exactly the same manner as does R. Akiba.'' This leads me to propose an explanation for the phenomenon described by RMB as that... > The Rambam really sloganeers (like the CS's "chadash assur min haTorah") > when he uses it to explain that anthropomorphic descriptions of HQBH > are idioms, not to be taken overly literally. Rambam was not the first (and of course not the last*) to understand that Chazal intended by ''dibrah Torah kil-shon bnei adam'' a wider meaning than the one in dispute between R. Akiva and R.Yishmael, and even wider than the one RSRH shows both agreed to. Rav Hai Gaon (Teshuvas HaGaonim #98), too, used it to explain anthropomorphisms ("all the words of our Sages that have anthropomorphic descriptions ... are not to be understood literally but are metaphors or allegory. ... the Torah speaks in the language of man.)'' So did Chovos Halevavos (Shaar HaYichud 1:1:10). And Sefer HaKuzari (5:27) used it to explain? what the Torah means when it says that blowing the chatzotzros will result in ''v-hayu lachem l-zikaron lifnei H','' which seems to imply that H' requires reminders. Raavad (Sefer HaEmunah 1:7) applied the dictum to explain why the rewards and punishments the Torah' explicitly references are only those in this world, and not the next.? He explained that speaking of spiritual rewards would confuse the common people, ''v'al zeh ne'emar dibrah Torah b-lashon bnei adam.'' (Semi-off topic: In Maamar Techiyyas HaMeisim, Rambam gives a similar, if not identical reason for no explicit reference to techiyyas hameisim, without invoking the dictum.) So I propose that the Geonim and rishonim understood that the intent of Chazal's dictum? ''dibrah Torah kil-ashon bnei adam'' was a wide one, which includes the Torah's use of anthropomorphism. And that R. Yishmael, contra R. Akiva,? /extended/? it even to repetitions of the same expression; e.g.,...yidor nedder,...hasheiv heishiv, or the repetition of the same noun (ish ish). But nobody, including R. Yishmael, extended it even further, to other apparently extra words or particles such as"akh", "raq", "kol" and "ess". Those are meant for interpretation according to all. This would explain why even though the rule is that we follow R. Akiva when he argues with R. Yishmael, , the rishonim embraced the dictum of "dibrah Torah kil-shon bnei adam." Because they embraced it in the sense that all Chazal agreed to. And this applies to anthropomorphisms. It is only regarding whether to extended the dictum's application to certain types of expressions that R. Yishmael and R. Akiva argue. *Ibn Ezra--numerous times, such as on Breishis 6:6) Radak (numerous times, such as on Breishis 9:15 Ramban (Breishis 6:6) Hizkuni (Devarim 5:26) Rabbeynu Bechaye (numerous times, such as on Breishis 1:26) Ralbag (Shoftim 10:16) Akeidas Yitzchak numerous times, such as on Vayeria Shaar 19 sv Va'ani ain) Zvi Lampel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From JRich at sibson.com Mon Dec 25 22:00:57 2017 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2017 06:00:57 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] The Protection Offered by a Mezuza In-Reply-To: <20171225203023.GA9557@aishdas.org> References: <2d108449-ec4d-0e35-d888-0ccdd8b113be@sero.name> <80f92bd4-b7af-1b26-1d03-0f3ce7a67edf@zahav.net.il>, <20171225203023.GA9557@aishdas.org> Message-ID: > > You want to statistically decide which hashkafah is true??? > ------------ > > > You remind me of a problem I have saying a particular line of Tehillim > (37:25) with kavanah, and it comes up at the appendix to bentching, > "Naar hayisi..." But I have seen a tzadiq whose kids miss meals and have > to beg. Haven't you? > -------------- It also bothered the gedolim who struggled to explain why the simple meaning of the segula of being a sandek didn't seem to be statistically fulfilled Kt 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. From lisa at starways.net Tue Dec 26 00:10:52 2017 From: lisa at starways.net (Lisa Liel) Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2017 10:10:52 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Historicity of Aggadta In-Reply-To: <20171226012119.GH24733@aishdas.org> References: <20171225203401.GB9557@aishdas.org> <20171226012119.GH24733@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 12/26/2017 3:21 AM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > However, if the story does contradict what is known, we know it's a pure > mashal, ahistorical. I'd like to revise that to say that if the story contradicts what is *currently* known, we are entitled (or perhaps required) to consider it a pure mashal *at that time*, with the understanding that our knowledge may change. Lisa --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From zvilampel at gmail.com Mon Dec 25 20:41:54 2017 From: zvilampel at gmail.com (H Lampel) Date: Mon, 25 Dec 2017 23:41:54 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Historicity of Aggadta In-Reply-To: <20171226012119.GH24733@aishdas.org> References: <20171225203401.GB9557@aishdas.org> <20171226012119.GH24733@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <057fcda7-0e48-53f8-c0ec-135a112bb534@gmail.com> On 12/25/2017 8:21 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > ...But he doesn't ever say that if the story is plausible, that's the point > of the story. Nor that it's sufficient reason to assume it's true on a > literal level. The historical mentions the Rambam's makes, treating the plausible Midrashim as history without making any qualifications, indicates otherwise. But specifically on the topic this discussion came from now: Regarding the Midrashic reports that Adam and the Avos spoke Ivris/Lashon Hakadosh, which I assume you agree the Kuzari accepts as historical fact (which of course teaches in its historicity an important thing to know)... Is your default position that the Rambam doesn't care whether it's historically so? Zvi Lampel From sholom at aishdas.org Mon Dec 25 22:08:38 2017 From: sholom at aishdas.org (Sholom Simon) Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2017 01:08:38 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Rashi on kol hanefesh (Bereshis 46:26) Message-ID: <20171226060849.GQIH4561.fed1rmfepo102.cox.net@fed1rmimpo209.cox.net> Kol hanefesh . . . shvi'im. Rashi says "I found in Vayikra Rabba" . . . a statement that Eisav had (with him) six, and the word nafashos (plural) was used; but here with Yaakov, kol hanafesh . . . shevi'im, nefesh is in the singular. This is a hint that Eisav engaged in A"Z (plural gods), while Yaakov served one G-d. But don't we (almost?) always see (in Torah) the singular being used for a noun when the count is larger than 10? How can one darshen from something that follows the general grammatic rule? What am I missing here? -- Sholom From lisa at starways.net Tue Dec 26 00:08:21 2017 From: lisa at starways.net (Lisa Liel) Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2017 10:08:21 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] The Protection Offered by a Mezuza In-Reply-To: <20171225203023.GA9557@aishdas.org> References: <2d108449-ec4d-0e35-d888-0ccdd8b113be@sero.name> <80f92bd4-b7af-1b26-1d03-0f3ce7a67edf@zahav.net.il> <20171225203023.GA9557@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <282dcbac-59e9-be81-ee8e-f1faf4991682@starways.net> On 12/25/2017 10:30 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > You remind me of a problem I have saying a particular line of Tehillim > (37:25) with kavanah, and it comes up at the appendix to bentching, > "Naar hayisi..." But I have seen a tzadiq whose kids miss meals and have > to beg. Haven't you? I always understood it to mean that either he's quick to give tzedaka so as to prevent there being a tzaddik neezav v'zar'o mevakesh lachem, or that we aren't talking about literal aziva and lack of food, but rather aziva by Hashem and lack of Torah. Lisa --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From zvilampel at gmail.com Tue Dec 26 07:09:06 2017 From: zvilampel at gmail.com (H Lampel) Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2017 10:09:06 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Historicity of Aggadta In-Reply-To: <057fcda7-0e48-53f8-c0ec-135a112bb534@gmail.com> References: <20171225203401.GB9557@aishdas.org> <20171226012119.GH24733@aishdas.org> <057fcda7-0e48-53f8-c0ec-135a112bb534@gmail.com> Message-ID: <53d98237-ecd0-93ee-7927-d9edb71b28ca@gmail.com> On 12/25/2017 11:41 PM, H Lampel wrote: > > > On 12/25/2017 8:21 PM, Micha Berger wrote: >> ...But he doesn't ever say that if the story is plausible, that's the >> point >> of the story. Nor that it's sufficient reason to assume it's true on a >> literal level. The first statement is of course true. The reason a story is told is to make a point. Thus the citations where the Rambam says that all the maamerei Chazal impart valuable lessons. The second statement is where we diverge. I understand that the Rambam does take the plausible reports of happenings (reported of course because they impart something worthy to know) to be historically true. In other words, that's the default position. He never says that we may deny the historic factuality of events Chazal presented as factual historical events. I understand the citations you bring where Rambam invokes Mishlei to defend interpreting maamarei Chazal non-literally to? be saying that even the implausible ones really have valuable lessons but must be interpreted non-literally to understand them. So I would still ask you for examples of the Rambam not bothering to worry about contradicting a medrash's plausible historical reports. I previously remarked that the historical mentions the Rambam's makes, treating the plausible Midrashim as history without making any qualifications, without explaining why he takes them as historical fact (for example, the neis of the pach shemen, and the military victory of the Chashmonaim), indicates he took them as historical fact, which thereby provides the lessons to be learned therefrom. I quoted a passage from Rambam's Hakdama to Perek Cheilek (originally to counteract the face-value meaning of RSM's declaration that the Rambam holds that every Medrash is meant non-literally), where the Rambam makes clear that some reports are meant non-literally, but some are meant literally. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that your take can be worded as follows: Chazal and Rambam did not care whether the historical events they learned lessons from, really occurred. All Chazal's statements are only for the sake of the lessons. Some of the lessons must be extracted by understanding the statements in a non-literal way, particularly if at face value they are implausible. Of the plausible reports, the lessons to be learned from them can be gleaned from a literal understanding, meaning the message is clear without needing to give unusual meanings to its the words. But that does not mean that they were meant to be historically factual. They are meant literally, but not historically. I.e., the Rambam held that although lessons Chazal intended were ostensibly learned from, or reinforced by, events they reported, it is irrelevant whether the events did actually occur, and indeed they may not have. But I think his words indicate otherwise. Here they are again: ??? And I will yet compose a work in which I will gather all the ??? drashos found in the Talmud and elsewhere...and I will reveal what ??? of the drashos are [meant in] a literal way, and which of them are ??? [meant as] mashal, and which of them were [describing something seen ??? only] in a dream but was stated in a purely absolute way, as if it ??? were [experienced] in a state of wakefulness... If the Rambam considered it irrelevant whether the events did actually occur, and held that indeed they may not have occurred, why is he concerned with whether the report occurred in a dream? Why would he invoke a dream, if he considered the actuality of all reported events irrelevant? After all, its only the lesson that is relevant! But if you accept that the Rambam considered the default position to be that reported events are meant to be understood as actually occurring, and that while some are merely mashal but others are real, then it makes sense that he felt it important to exclude implausible reports and explain which were pure mashal and which were experienced in a dream. And describing the report as "stated in a purely absolute way, as if it were [experienced] in a state of wakefulness," implies that, had it not been implausible, being stated in an absolute way would imply that it was indeed experienced in a state of wakefulness. Zvi Lampel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: ???? ???? ????? ???? ?? ?? ?????? ??????? ?????? ??????.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 215599 bytes Desc: not available URL: From micha at aishdas.org Tue Dec 26 08:06:50 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2017 11:06:50 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Historicity of Aggadta In-Reply-To: <057fcda7-0e48-53f8-c0ec-135a112bb534@gmail.com> References: <20171225203401.GB9557@aishdas.org> <20171226012119.GH24733@aishdas.org> <057fcda7-0e48-53f8-c0ec-135a112bb534@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20171226160650.GC15636@aishdas.org> On Mon, Dec 25, 2017 at 11:41:54PM -0500, H Lampel wrote: : The historical mentions the Rambam's makes, treating the plausible : Midrashim as history without making any qualifications, indicates : otherwise. It indicates that some medrashim which both didn't defy evidence or his philosophy that the Rambam felt had a literal point worth making. Not that plauisible medrashim should be assumed to be literal history. He spends so much time telling you they're all statements of the deepest truths, and quoting Shelomo, that chakhamim conduct such discussions via mashal and melitzah. The fact that some deepest truths has historical impact doesn't give us license to ignore paragraphs of writing. : Regarding the Midrashic reports that Adam and the Avos spoke : Ivris/Lashon Hakadosh, which I assume you agree the Kuzari accepts : as historical fact (which of course teaches in its historicity an : important thing to know)... Is your default position that the Rambam : doesn't care whether it's historically so? That's the default. Perhaps the Rambam agrees with the Rihal that the history of Ivris is a significant statement, and would be meant literally even under his view. Perhaps not. I can't guess, and am willing to entertain anything. But there are also reports that they spoke Aramaic, or even that Adam spoke all 70 leshonos. See the sources I gave in as well as Sanhedrin 38b (R Yehudah amar Rav: Adam haRishon spoke Aramaic). Not to mention historical evidence. So there is no reason for me to make the Rambam's life difficult. To complete repeating myself, my own instinct is to say that Adam spoke some proto-Semitic, and therefore spoke a language which could be considered both ancient Hebrew AND ancient Aramaic, or proto-everything and thus an ancestor to all 70 languages. And this would explain the medrashim as well as allow us to identify Adam's speech with Leshon haQodesh. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "I think, therefore I am." - Renne Descartes micha at aishdas.org "I am thought about, therefore I am - http://www.aishdas.org my existence depends upon the thought of a Fax: (270) 514-1507 Supreme Being Who thinks me." - R' SR Hirsch From eliturkel at mail.gmail.com Mon Dec 25 13:40:32 2017 From: eliturkel at mail.gmail.com (Eli Turkel) Date: Mon, 25 Dec 2017 23:40:32 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] shabbes candles Message-ID: A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: multipart/alternative Size: 1277 bytes Desc: not available URL: From chaim.tatel at mail.gmail.com Mon Dec 25 15:43:58 2017 From: chaim.tatel at mail.gmail.com (Chaim Tatel) Date: Mon, 25 Dec 2017 15:43:58 -0800 Subject: [Avodah] shabbes candles Message-ID: A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: multipart/alternative Size: 4006 bytes Desc: not available URL: From JRich at sibson.com Wed Dec 27 01:51:45 2017 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Wed, 27 Dec 2017 09:51:45 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] birur vs hanhaga in other legal systems Message-ID: <9ec665e80cbd4e97be6b4bcc8b7221d8@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> There's a lot of "Brisker Torah" on the differentiation between halachically resolving doubts by birur (clarification/resolution of doubt) versus hanhaga (we still have a doubt but must move forward while not resolving the doubt). One practical difference would be that doubts resolved by birur are considered resolved retroactively while those resolved by hanhaga are only prospective in nature. Is anyone aware of any parallels to this differentiation in other legal systems? KT 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: From micha at aishdas.org Thu Dec 28 08:03:25 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2017 11:03:25 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Body and Soul In-Reply-To: <89600AC2-DFEA-44AA-A5AE-9C4493ED11F4@cox.net> References: <89600AC2-DFEA-44AA-A5AE-9C4493ED11F4@cox.net> Message-ID: <20171228160325.GA31137@aishdas.org> On Sat, Dec 23, 2017 at 10:30pm EST, Richard Wolberg wrote in a post titled "Vay'chi": : (The question has been asked: Do you have a soul? The answer is NO, : you ARE a soul with a body). I write about this in my manuscript. Here's a version I put up on Mi Yodeya about a year ago. So, it is slightly adapted, lacks a year of editing, and there will be someone else editing the manuscript before it is a book (assuming I raise the money). On Mi Yodeya, "Gabriel12" asked about E-lokai Neshmah, and the phrases "shanasata bi... nefachtahh bi... meshammerahh beqirbi... littela mimmenni, ulhachzirahh bi le'asid lavo". He asks: Here, when I say me, I'm referring to my body. And I'm thanking G-d for giving me back my soul. But why is the body "me"? Shouldn't the soul be the real "me"? Am I the soul or the body? My answer: As for E-lokai Neshamah and Hashem putting a soul within me, my own intent when saying these words is based on the Vilna Gaon's taxonomy of prayer: Prayers that express an ideal to be repeated and internalized are what we call "tefillah" in Hebrew. Tefillos are consistently written in the plural, as our connection to the community is part of that ideal. Prayers written in the singular are therefore of a different sort, "tachanunim", expressions of what already exists in our hearts. This is how the Gaon explains the line in Qaddish, "tisqabel tzelosehon uva'usehon -- accept the tefillos and requests (tachanunim) of all of the House of Israel..." We say this when closing the Amidah -- which is such a paragon of tefillah our Sages called it simply "Tefillah", E-lokai Netzor -- tachanunim, (note that it's written about "I" and "mine", not "we" and "our"), and Tachanun. "Elokai, neshamah -- My G-d, the soul which you placed in me" is similarly tachanunim. Therefore, it's not a place to look for how we ought to see our self-definition, but how things feel to most of us first thing in the morning. The prayer reflects the fact that most people do in practice identify with our body most consistently, and only at times with their soul. But to answer the philosophical question... There is a machlokes, a dispute among the rabbis, as to how to view man. One side, found often among books of Mussar, views a person as a soul who inhabits a body, or perhaps controls it as a rider upon a donkey. As Elifaz describes humanity in the book of [61]Iyov (4:10), "shochnei batei chomer - dwellers in homes of matter." When Rav Yitzchak Isaac Scher (Cheshbon haNefesh, Slaboka Alumni ed., intro.) speaks of man's physical side being an animal, we mean that literally, not merely like an animal. Since much of our yeitzer hara comes from our living in a mammalian body, R' Scher recommends the very same strategies one uses for taming and being able to use the eyesight of a bird, the strength of an ox, the load bearing abilities of a donkey or the speed of a horse are applicable to gaining mastery over our bodies. Like any other animal, a person's animal soul has no ability to plan toward a goal, it simply responds to whatever urge is most triggered in the moment. The animal soul must be saddled by the godly soul and guided. And Rabbi Sherr points out with the example of a trained elephant, "next to whom a person like his trainer seems little more than an ant", to maximize its utility it must neither be overburdened or neglected, nor underused and let remind wild - and this is how we are to treat our body and our animal souls. Last and most importantly, neither an animal nor the animal within can be educated, but trained through habit and acclimation. This notion is a key symbol in the Gra's interpretation system -- when one finds a chamor / donkey in a narrative, it is generally a symbol for the person's chomer / physicality. Avraham at the Akeidah or the mashiach come in riding on a donkey as a way to indicate to us their mastery over their own physicality. In contrast, we speak of Bil'am's donkey, but the Torah consistently calls it a different kind of animal; he does not harness a chamor, showing self-control over the animal's urges of the moment, Bil'am rides an ason ([62]Bamidbar 22:23,25,27,28,29,33). In this viewpoint, a person is a rider of an animal, or to use a metaphor that may resonate better with our more modern lifestyles - the soul who is wearing a body. Another stream of thought includes the body in the definition of person. Rather than a person's more human side that rides his body as a master over an animal, in this model man is seen as a fusion of body and soul. For example when the gemara ([63]Sanhedrin 91a) explains one purpose of the eventual resurrection of the dead by comparing a sinner to a blind man and a lame man who conspire to steal fruit from an orchard. They are caught and brought to court, but each of the accused claims innocence. The blind man says he must be innocent, for he was incapable of even finding the fruit, never mind stealing them. The lame man also claims innocence; after all, he had no way to reach it. Neither alone could commit the theft, so each of the accused points to the other as the critical element for the sin, the guilty party. The judge responds by putting one atop the other, recreating the unit that was capable of sin, and judges the pair. So too, the gemara explains, the soul could claim it couldn't have sinned without the body giving it the opportunity for action, and the body could claim that the planning and execution of the sin are the fault of the soul. In order to judge us for our sins, Hashem will bodily resurrect the sinner to reconstruct the person as they were then. As the Ramchal writes, "Man is different from any other creature. He is a combination of two completely diverse and dissimilar elements, namely, the body and soul." (Derech Hashem 3:1:1) The dispute is not necessarily about which is true, it could well be that both definitions of "person" are equally valid. The dispute is more prescriptive: When is it more productive to think of my physical aspect as an outsider, which would weaken the relative weight I would give the call of physical drives? And when am I better off not thinking of myself as purely soul, because then I'm not fully blaming myself for "stealing the fruit"? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The goal isn't to live forever, micha at aishdas.org the goal is to create so mething that will. http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From ben1456 at zahav.net.il Thu Dec 28 11:57:46 2017 From: ben1456 at zahav.net.il (Ben Waxman) Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2017 21:57:46 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Foreshadow Message-ID: Is the break up of the united kingdom (Israel and Yehuda) somehow foreseen in the brothers? Was the reconciliation between Yosef and the brothers (and especially Yosef and Yehuda) not complete? Was splitting responsibility between Yehuda (he set up Goshen's beit midrash) and Yosef (he supplied the food) a mistake? Is there anything in Yehuda's personality that foreshadows David and Shlomo's failure to truly unite the tribes or is the fault with the latter two only? Ben From JRich at sibson.com Fri Dec 29 02:09:15 2017 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2017 10:09:15 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] FW: Rav Moshe on Smoking In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2eb7119fe3ff4a0f8394f494ae14fde8@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> FYI-An old Avodah topic. KT Joel Rich In the attached file, there is a newly-published teshuvah from Rav Moshe which basically confirms the rumors that he retracted his teshuvah about smoking and would indeed forbid it. Kol Tuv, Reuven Chaim Klein Beitar Illit, Israel Check out my book Lashon HaKodesh: History, Holiness, & Hebrew [Lashon HaKodesh: History, Holiness, & Hebrew (Mosaica Press) on Amazon][Academia.edu][Google Scholar][LinkedIN][https://docs.google.com/uc?export=download&id=0B1NJHmIXg4QJTWZsRUpZblJpWE0&revid=0B1NJHmIXg4QJcXQxRU1kN0JWZ3pQVmZsdlYrVlljRUdSb2ZvPQ][Rabbi Reuven Chaim Klein on TorahDownloads.com] [https://my-email-signature.link/signature.gif?u=93822&e=15367987&v=592df626366a9255517be8f9bb3b802cdc17522127137d175bd71108e063b3e1] 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: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 480.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 2037389 bytes Desc: 480.pdf URL: From JRich at sibson.com Fri Dec 29 01:36:06 2017 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2017 09:36:06 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] truth telling Message-ID: <3852cda5a1f348b8ba9b17c3cd9d8079@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Thought experiment: 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? KT 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: From JRich at sibson.com Fri Dec 29 01:35:14 2017 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2017 09:35:14 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Birchat Cohanim Message-ID: <12830183c04c422ca904affc50bac0b7@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> One is in Eretz Yisrael and davens shacharit in a minyan which often does not have Cohanim to duchen. Is he required to seek a minyan which has Cohanim? If he isn't required, is it preferable? KT 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: From JRich at sibson.com Fri Dec 29 02:09:15 2017 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2017 10:09:15 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] FW: Rav Moshe on Smoking In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: [Take 2. File stripped off for the sake of text digest recipients and moved to . Fixed formatting. -micha] FYI-An old Avodah topic. KT Joel Rich In the attached file, there is a newly-published teshuvah from Rav Moshe which basically confirms the rumors that he retracted his teshuvah about smoking and would indeed forbid it. Kol Tuv, Reuven Chaim Klein Beitar Illit, Israel Check out my book Lashon HaKodesh: History, Holiness, & Hebrew [Lashon HaKodesh: History, Holiness, & Hebrew (Mosaica Press) on Amazon] >> [Academia.edu] [Google Scholar] [LinkedIN] [https://docs.google.com/uc?export=download&id=0B1NJHmIXg4QJTWZsRUpZblJpWE0&revid=0B1NJHmIXg4QJcXQxRU1kN0JWZ3pQVmZsdlYrVlljRUdSb2ZvPQ] [Rabbi Reuven Chaim Klein on TorahDownloads.com] From lisa at starways.net Fri Dec 29 06:19:45 2017 From: lisa at starways.net (Lisa Liel) Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2017 16:19:45 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] truth telling In-Reply-To: <3852cda5a1f348b8ba9b17c3cd9d8079@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <3852cda5a1f348b8ba9b17c3cd9d8079@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: You'll have to define "truth".? I know a lot of self-Identified frum Jews who consider it "truth" that the Exodus didn't happen.? That the Mabul was a metaphor.? That the text of the Torah she'bichtav we have now is not the one given to Moshe at Sinai in an actual, factual, historical event.? It's never good for them to tell that "truth" to their children. If by truth you mean the truths stated in Judaism, then it's a matter of judgment.? If you're considering telling your children about Amnon and Tamar, their age would enter into the decision.? If the truth you want to tell them is about the molesters in the frum community who were respected leaders, again, age matters.? But I wouldn't withhold the facts from my child if they were old enough to hear it and it seemed relevant. Lisa On 12/29/2017 11:36 AM, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: > Thought experiment: 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? > KT > Joel Rich > --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From micha at aishdas.org Fri Dec 29 06:34:31 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2017 09:34:31 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] truth telling In-Reply-To: <3852cda5a1f348b8ba9b17c3cd9d8079@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <3852cda5a1f348b8ba9b17c3cd9d8079@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20171229143431.GD9936@aishdas.org> On Fri, Dec 29, 2017 at 09:36:06AM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : Thought experiment: 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? I understand the point of your question as being about the relative value of emes and of yir'as Shamayim. But... I can't bend my head around the case for balebatishe reasons. Is it not inevitable that many of our children would eventually learn of the lie and lose confidence in the whole concept of mesorah? And wouldn't that percentage inevitably be greater than Y, the additionaly percentage who are only staying because they believe the non-truth? To address the comparison behind the question: According to the Rambam, emunah is defined by emes. Unproven faith isn't emunah. So, he would say that the Y% of the children who believe because of a lie aren't necessarily saved. If we modernize the Rambam's position, then we would still need some kind of valid justification. Even if modern philosophy believes (accuratly, AISI) that theological proof is a meaningless concept, there are other valid ways to reach a conclusion. Those of us blessed with children are certain we love your chidren even though I never developed a proof for it. BUT, I don't think too many people hold like a modern version of the Rambam, which ties redemption to knowledge, and ethics is a lower level of perfection necessary for true knowledge og G-d. Let's take a more typical modern hashkafah, which gives priority to sheleimos or experiential deveiqus. Perhaps the non-truth would indeed be justified, if I thought your case were possible. Just as shalom justifies tactfully bending the truth. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Man can aspire to spiritual-moral greatness micha at aishdas.org which is seldom fully achieved and easily lost http://www.aishdas.org again. Fulfillment lies not in a final goal, Fax: (270) 514-1507 but in an eternal striving for perfection. -RSRH From zev at sero.name Fri Dec 29 09:50:13 2017 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2017 12:50:13 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] FW: Rav Moshe on Smoking In-Reply-To: <2eb7119fe3ff4a0f8394f494ae14fde8@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <2eb7119fe3ff4a0f8394f494ae14fde8@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <2c41ffe6-418e-8a53-6b6f-72547edfcf91@sero.name> On 29/12/17 05:09, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: > In the attached file, there is a newly-published teshuvah from Rav Moshe > which basically confirms the rumors that he retracted his teshuvah about > smoking and would indeed forbid it. > One has to wonder, then, why he never chose to include this in any of the three volumes of IM that he published after this date. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From bdbradley70 at hotmail.com Sat Dec 30 11:30:10 2017 From: bdbradley70 at hotmail.com (Ben Bradley) Date: Sat, 30 Dec 2017 19:30:10 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Foreshadow In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Is that not explicitly the message of the haftara for vayigash? That the split of Yehdua and Efraim (Yosef) is the the same issue as the split in the nation to reconcile the one is to reconcile the other. It's clear from the end of vayechi that there's still broad daylight between Yosef and the brothers. They are still wary of him and he still see the need to try to bring them close. There are many midrashim assuming it's all the same issue, a basic split in Klal Yisrael manifestation over history. The Bnei Yissaschar on Chanuka deals with this a lot and the best treatment I've seen in one place is Rav Matis Weinberg's book on Chanuka. In any case, even without aggadta the cycle of galus is consistently a result of this split, be it to Mitzrayim or to Ashur. Geula has the same dynamic, thus a moshiach both from Yosef and from David (Yehuda). BW Ben -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From JRich at sibson.com Sat Dec 30 14:48:34 2017 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Sat, 30 Dec 2017 22:48:34 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] truth telling In-Reply-To: <20171229143431.GD9936@aishdas.org> References: <3852cda5a1f348b8ba9b17c3cd9d8079@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> <20171229143431.GD9936@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <714290ea035646beb5044c62d3186c46@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Perhaps the non-truth would indeed be justified, if I thought your case were possible. Just as shalom justifies tactfully bending the truth. :-)BBii! -Micha --------------------------------------------------- That's what I wonder about, can belief ever be built on sheker. I've heard drush on not (e.g. why didn't the Chashmonaim not use shemen tamei) but istm it is being done In general I agree that it doesn't work. KT 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. From meirabi at gmail.com Sat Dec 30 17:31:32 2017 From: meirabi at gmail.com (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi) Date: Sun, 31 Dec 2017 12:31:32 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] HELP - Why is there an Issur BBCh on a Nefel/Shellil? Message-ID: I have yet to find anyone asking this Q - the Nefel and Shelil seem to be the same thing it is a Neneilah yet it is Assur to eat as BBCh - why is there no Ein Issur Chal Al Issur? MAssuros 4:1 - one who eats flesh of a dead non-Shechted Kosher beast transgresses the prohibition of eating Neveilah MAssuros 4:4 - one who eats flesh of a Nefel [a non-fully gestated foetus] transgresses the prohibition of eating Neveilah Even [according to the careful reading of the RaMBaM] if it is not dead MAssuros 9:7 - one who cooks a Shelil with milk or eats it transgresses the prohibition of eating BBCh MAssuros 9:6 - one who cooks Cheilev or Neveilah or similar, with milk, transgresses the prohibition of BBCh but not when eating it because a second prohibition cannot take effect upon a item that is already prohibited Best, Meir G. Rabi 0423 207 837 +61 423 207 837 Best, Meir G. Rabi 0423 207 837 +61 423 207 837 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From menu at inter.net.il Sun Dec 31 00:12:21 2017 From: menu at inter.net.il (menucha) Date: Sun, 31 Dec 2017 10:12:21 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Foreshadow In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > > Bereshit Rabba 84 sees foreshadowing of Yeravam ben Nevat starting with Yosef's dreams. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From akivagmiller at gmail.com Sun Dec 31 08:10:04 2017 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Sun, 31 Dec 2017 11:10:04 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Merchavyah Message-ID: . There is a pasuk in Hallel (Tehillim 118:5) that begins "Min hamaytzar". In RSR Hirsch's siddur, the last word of that pasuk is "merchavyah". In his perush on Tehillim, there too, the last word is "merchavyah", and in the perush he writes that "According to Pesahim 117a, merchavyah is one word, like halleluyah." My understanding of that gemara is that R Yochanan, Rav, and Raba all hold "merchavyah" to be one single word. Although Rav Chisda quoted R Yochanan to that effect, the Gemara is unsure how Rav Chisda held personally on this issue, and leaves that as a "tayku". However - When I look in various Tanachs, Tehillims, Siddurim, and Hagados, almost all of them (there *are* a few exceptions) print this as two separate words: "merchav yah". Obviously, there must be someone who either argues against this gemara, or understands the gemara differently than how Rav Hirsch understands it. The Minchas Shai on this pasuk refers to this gemara. If I'm reading it correctly, he seems to feel that the gemara is an unresolved machlokes, and I suppose that's why he tries to resolve it by looking at whatever manuscripts he had, both here and in Beshalach (where there's a similar question on Kes Y-ah). In my very unlearned and inexperienced view, it is not reasonable to consider these as two words, which is an unproven opinion that the gemara left as a tayku, and reject the combined weight of R Yochanan, Rav, and Raba, who all clearly held this to be a single word. Can anyone help me out? Akiva Miller From cantorwolberg at cox.net Sat Dec 30 20:25:17 2017 From: cantorwolberg at cox.net (Richard Wolberg) Date: Sat, 30 Dec 2017 23:25:17 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Sh'mos Message-ID: It is brought down that the place where the Burning Bush occurred was Har Sinai. The talmud asks why did it occur in a thorn bush and the answer: God says "when the Jews are suffering, I am suffering, too." A midrash relates that taking the Jews out of Egypt was nowhere near as difficult as taking ?Egypt? out of the Jews. Aish.com Mayanot Wellsprings bring out: The longest private conversation recorded in the Torah between God and a human individual takes place in our parsha. It takes God 39 long verses (from Exodus 3:1 to 4:17) to persuade Moses to accept the mission of serving as the savior of the Jewish people. In a wide-ranging conversation that covers many topics, God patiently responds to Moses' many objections and queries before Moses finally caves in to the Divine will and accepts. It reminds me that the Shulchan Aruch says if you are asked to be a ba'al tefilla, you should first politely refuse (out of modesty). If you are asked a second time, you should still refuse. But if you are asked a third time, you must accept. It's a not such a well known minhag and is just another example of menschlechkeit, sensitivity and humility for the time it was written. ?The Bible is meant to be OUR critic, not we, ITS critic!" -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From zev at sero.name Sun Dec 31 09:51:47 2017 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Sun, 31 Dec 2017 12:51:47 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Merchavyah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <26d7c7af-67e8-e1d6-3fd7-00aca9fcbef4@sero.name> For one thing, the Keter Aram Tzovah has it as two words. -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 2018 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From micha at aishdas.org Sun Oct 1 11:10:33 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Sun, 1 Oct 2017 14:10:33 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Writing on Yom Tov In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20171001181033.GC31024@aishdas.org> On Sat, Sep 30, 2017 at 10:18:58PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : So... back to my question: To whatever extent "writing" in the "Book of : Life" is a melacha, should it matter whether it is Shabbos or Yom Tov? Before we take the Barditcher Rebbe's words too literally, let us remember that wind routinely blows things to roll more than 4 amos on a reshus harabbim, lightning ignites trees on Shabbos, people die on Shabbos, etc... IOW, first explain to me what a claim that the RBSO avoids melakhos means altogether in light of the evidence, and then perhaps I could participate in your intended conversation. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger One who kills his inclination is as though he micha at aishdas.org brought an offering. But to bring an offering, http://www.aishdas.org you must know where to slaughter and what Fax: (270) 514-1507 parts to offer. - R' Simcha Zissel Ziv From akivagmiller at gmail.com Sun Oct 1 17:52:44 2017 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Sun, 1 Oct 2017 20:52:44 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Not hadar is pasul Message-ID: . This thread may be running into a vocabulary problem. My understanding is that "hadar" and "mehudar" mean two different things, and some people tend to confuse the two. "Hadar" refers to the absolute minimum requirements, without which the minim are posul, and "mehudar" refers to things which Chazal consider as making the minim even more beautiful. "Hadar" is required, and "mehudar" is desirable. I was not able to find a source for this in my seforim, but a post from R' Moshe Feldman in Avodah 10:9 (fifteen years ago) seems to support it: > The chiluk between psulei hadar (learned from the word "hadar") > and the idea of buying a mehudar esrog--deriving from the din > of zeh Keli v'anveihu (and applicable to other mitzvos as well) > is discussed at length in Mikra'ei Kodesh (Succos vol 2) siman > 26, esp. p. 119 (quote from Raavad) and pp. 122-123 in Harirei > Kodesh. It would seem from his discussion that buying a mehudar > esrog has no relationship to the word "hadar." Of course, there are many differing views about what is in each category, and this will vary by posek, by first day / not first day, and by lechatchila / bdieved. I'm just explaining the definitions of these easily-confused terms. Akiva Miller From zev at sero.name Sun Oct 1 23:02:00 2017 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2017 02:02:00 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Not hadar is pasul In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <454d729c-5e9d-e0b0-d0cb-f625592cd49f@sero.name> On 01/10/17 20:52, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > This thread may be running into a vocabulary problem. My understanding > is that "hadar" and "mehudar" mean two different things, and some > people tend to confuse the two. > > "Hadar" refers to the absolute minimum requirements, without which the > minim are posul, and "mehudar" refers to things which Chazal consider > as making the minim even more beautiful. "Hadar" is required, and > "mehudar" is desirable. I don't think they're two very different things, they're just degrees of the same thing. From "pri etz hadar" we learn that beauty is a base requirement, at least for the first day. If it's not beautiful it's not kosher. From "zeh keli ve'anvehu" we learn that we should want all mitzvos, including this one, to be as beautiful as we can make them, given our resources. But baseline beauty itself requires more than the bare minimum that would otherwise apply; an esrog that is exactly as big as an egg fits the basic shiur, but the poskim think it obvious that to do the bare minimum is not beautiful, so they say hadar means it must be at least a bit bigger, if possible. If it's not possible, then we make do with the bare shiur. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From micha at aishdas.org Mon Oct 2 03:58:53 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2017 06:58:53 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] expensive etrog In-Reply-To: <2c96c2fe-0e11-f9ca-66d5-28e79f983bbb@zahav.net.il> References: <2c96c2fe-0e11-f9ca-66d5-28e79f983bbb@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <20171002105852.GB30968@aishdas.org> On Fri, Sep 29, 2017 at 02:05:15PM +0200, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: : In OH 656 the Mechaber writes that if one is shopping for an etrog : and sees two etrogim, one more mehudar than the other, you need to : buy the mehudar (either it is mitzvah or possibly a chiyuv). : However, this only applies if the mehudar etrog is no more than 33% : more expensive. The language that the Mechaber uses in the "yesh : omrim" is "ein meyakrim oto yoter m'shlish".... There is a machloqes whether the shelish is milevar (Ran, arguing from the Rif's silence, on Rif Sukkah 16a; Yam shel Shelomom #24), in which case it's 50% -- 1/3 of the total 150%; or if the shelish is milegav (Rosh 1:7), i.e. 1/3 in the Western sense, with a total of 4/3 the original price. The SA (OC 656:1) holds like the Rosh, lequla, but accoring to the BY, he was doing so only on the ground of safeiq derabbanan lequla. Hiddur mitzvah is derabbanan. My first thought was -- what? It's a word in the pasuq WRT esrog -- "peri eitz hadar"! That looks more like peshat than asmachta for a derabbanan! But I realized something. Even though this din is being discussed WRT esrog, the kelal of kehadeir bemitzvah ad shelish is not specific to 4 minim. As in Rashi (9b "behidur") invoking "ze keili ve'anveihu" to tell you to buy the more expensive ST if it is up to shelish more pricey than your other choice. (So that according to Rashi, if you have only two choices -- mehudas or very mehudar, and they differ by less than a shelish, you are to by the very mehudar. Tosafos disagree. This tangent is discussed in the Shitah Mequbetzer.) Anyway, the SA calling milegav a qula implies that he sees up to 1/3 as a chiyuv derabbanan, and beyond could well be reshus. If it were reshus up to a shelish and assur beyond that, then he'd be making lesser expenditures assur -- a chumerah. Personally, given the number of Jews who wouldn't spend the money on a 4 minim set, I like spending the 1/3 exactly, and using any other money I wish to use to fulfill the mitzvah of 4 minim to subsidize someone else's. (Looking at the archives, it seems I've tried marketing this idea most years since 1999.) Of course, there are so many Jews who can't afford yom tov, and I'd like to help with that.... In the end, the calculus of how to triage that money can get SO difficult. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger For those with faith there are no questions. micha at aishdas.org For those who lack faith there are no answers. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yaakov of Radzimin Fax: (270) 514-1507 From basserh at queensu.ca Wed Oct 4 12:21:12 2017 From: basserh at queensu.ca (Herbert Basser) Date: Wed, 4 Oct 2017 19:21:12 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] RE Expensive etrog inter alia Message-ID: There is yerushalmi Peah 1:1 where someone had the ugliest etrog but bragged and showed it to everyone saying it was the most beautiful etrog in the whole world. It took him just a second to purchase it without really checking it for hiddurim-- he didnt waste his valuable resources (time) on petty matters but learned instead--that was its incredible beauty for him. also see shmos rabba 30:9 for hashem's observance of halacha (I have a discussion of the inyan on reseachrgate.net) Hag Sameach! zvi -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From zev at sero.name Sat Oct 7 18:11:15 2017 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Sat, 7 Oct 2017 21:11:15 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] RE Expensive etrog inter alia In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 04/10/17 15:21, Herbert Basser via Avodah wrote: > There is yerushalmi Peah 1:1 where someone had the ugliest etrog but > bragged and showed it to everyone saying it was the most beautiful etrog > in the whole world. It took him just a second to purchase it without > really checking it for hiddurim-- he didnt waste his valuable resources > (time) on petty matters but learned instead--that was its incredible > beauty for him. Where in that halacha is this? I couldn't find it, and also searched the entire perek for the word "etrog" and it doesn't seem to exist (though "lulav" appears twice). -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From hmaryles at mail.yahoo.com Sat Oct 7 23:54:54 2017 From: hmaryles at mail.yahoo.com (Harry Maryles) Date: Sun, 8 Oct 2017 09:54:54 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] going to the amud In-Reply-To: <9d0df5d1c05c43e297d3055f6e617065@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <9d0df5d1c05c43e297d3055f6e617065@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <369A143A-9C11-4243-93D2-7F756A3D147A@yahoo.com> On Oct 8, 2017, at 5:10 AM, Rich, Joel wrote: > I note the following practices at a chareidi shul in RBS which has > multiple minyanim You must be talking about Maasas Mordechai. That is where I've been Davening since I got here just before Yom Kippur. During Chol Hamoed, I will be davening shachris at the Vasiken minyan (6:10am). My son Davens there. If you are at that minyan, come on over and say hello. > At the appointed starting time for each minyan, there > is often not a "volunteer" to lead the services. The amount of time > that it takes to start varies as everyone looks at each other trying to > influence someone to start. If there is a young bar mitzvah boy, he is > often sent for mincha/maariv. > I'm not sure what the community thinking is... To answer your question, I just asked my son about it. He said it's just a practical matter. Most boys are more willing to go to the Amud. All of the married men that are there just shake off the requests to be the Shaliach Tzibur for some reason. HM From ben1456 at zahav.net.il Sun Oct 8 12:40:42 2017 From: ben1456 at zahav.net.il (Ben Waxman) Date: Sun, 08 Oct 2017 21:40:42 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] going to the amud In-Reply-To: <9d0df5d1c05c43e297d3055f6e617065@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <9d0df5d1c05c43e297d3055f6e617065@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <5deb9535-86be-8ea7-4561-242363c8eb92@zahav.net.il> I saw similar practices during Shacharit when I used to go to Sadigora in Jerusalem. However, often the teen would quit right before starting chazarat hashaz. That always got interesting. Ben On 10/8/2017 4:10 AM, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: > I note the following practices at a chareidi shul in RBS which has > multiple minyanim: At the appointed starting time for each minyan, > there is often not a ?volunteer? to lead the services. The amount of > time that it takes to start varies as everyone looks at each other > trying to influence someone to start. If there is a young bar mitzvah > boy, he is often sent for mincha/maariv. > I?m not sure what the community thinking is, perhaps humility to avoid > the amud, but I?m struck by the amount of bittul torah caused and > wonder how this trade-off was decided upon. I also wonder about why > the practice of sending youngsters up developed given the S?A?s psak > concerning the priorities for a chazzan. Thoughts? From micha at aishdas.org Sun Oct 8 15:50:13 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Sun, 8 Oct 2017 18:50:13 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] going to the amud In-Reply-To: <9d0df5d1c05c43e297d3055f6e617065@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <9d0df5d1c05c43e297d3055f6e617065@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20171008225013.GB19523@aishdas.org> On Sun, Oct 08, 2017 at 02:10:14AM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : At the appointed starting time for each minyan, there : is often not a "volunteer" to lead the services. The amount of time : that it takes to start varies as everyone looks at each other trying : to influence someone to start. If there is a young bar mitzvah boy, : he is often sent for mincha/maariv. Going backwards (who ever said I am a chakham bound to answer al rishon rishon?)... The kid is not as likely to declien the gabbai, because an adult carries more authority in the kid's eyes. Besides, it's good practice. As for the adults declining... Two possiblities, and I would bet that in most cases, they both come into play. 1- The more positive issue is that there is actually a din to decline the amud, accepting only on the third request. I have no idea how this was expected to be implemented in a minyan where people are expected to know the din. A rachmanus on the gabbaim! Still, we see an ethic of tzenius, and halevai people internalize it! 2- The following is Ashkenazocentric. The way we teach davening, it's really a personal affair. A person is encouraged to go as slowly as he needs, having his own kavvanos. The notion of tefillah betzibbur is layered on top of that, but not in a way that explains what that means about how I daven. That means that being shatz becomes a tircha, a call to say the words in a manner that robs me of any chance of getting value out of tefillah in the ways I was taught how. So of course men (who aren't cowed by being asked by a grown-up) choose to decline! Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger You will never "find" time for anything. micha at aishdas.org If you want time, you must make it. http://www.aishdas.org - Charles Buxton Fax: (270) 514-1507 From JRich at sibson.com Sat Oct 7 19:10:14 2017 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Sun, 8 Oct 2017 02:10:14 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] going to the amud Message-ID: <9d0df5d1c05c43e297d3055f6e617065@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> I note the following practices at a chareidi shul in RBS which has multiple minyanim: At the appointed starting time for each minyan, there is often not a "volunteer" to lead the services. The amount of time that it takes to start varies as everyone looks at each other trying to influence someone to start. If there is a young bar mitzvah boy, he is often sent for mincha/maariv. I'm not sure what the community thinking is, perhaps humility to avoid the amud, but I'm struck by the amount of bittul torah caused and wonder how this trade-off was decided upon. I also wonder about why the practice of sending youngsters up developed given the S"A's psak concerning the priorities for a chazzan. Thoughts? GT 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: From zev at sero.name Sat Oct 7 20:42:36 2017 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Sat, 7 Oct 2017 23:42:36 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] going to the amud In-Reply-To: <9d0df5d1c05c43e297d3055f6e617065@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <9d0df5d1c05c43e297d3055f6e617065@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: On 07/10/17 22:10, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: > I note the following practices at a chareidi shul in RBS which has > multiple minyanim: At the appointed starting time for each minyan, there > is often not a ?volunteer? to lead the services. [...] Thoughts? My first thought is to be happy that this shul doesn't have enough avelim to make the issue moot. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From basserh at queensu.ca Sun Oct 8 15:32:52 2017 From: basserh at queensu.ca (Herbert Basser) Date: Sun, 8 Oct 2017 22:32:52 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] RE Expensive etrog inter alia In-Reply-To: References: , Message-ID: You're right-- I thought it was y peah. But obviously not. A number of years ago I tired to discover when the first mention of looking at many esrogim was. I remember looking at the yerushalmi and its commentaries and thought it was there --obviously not. Now I have no idea-- ________________________________ : Zev Sero on behalf of Zev Sero Sent: October 7, 2017 9:11 PM To: The Avodah Torah Discussion Group Cc: Herbert Basser Subject: Re: [Avodah] RE Expensive etrog inter alia On 04/10/17 15:21, Herbert Basser via Avodah wrote: > There is yerushalmi Peah 1:1 where someone had the ugliest etrog but > bragged and showed it to everyone saying it was the most beautiful etrog > in the whole world. It took him just a second to purchase it without > really checking it for hiddurim-- he didnt waste his valuable resources > (time) on petty matters but learned instead--that was its incredible > beauty for him. Where in that halacha is this? I couldn't find it, and also searched the entire perek for the word "etrog" and it doesn't seem to exist (though "lulav" appears twice). -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Mon Oct 9 14:45:50 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2017 17:45:50 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Critique of the OU paper on leadership/ordination for women In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20171009214550.GA4315@aishdas.org> On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 03:17:36PM -0500, Noam Stadlan via Avodah wrote: : JOFA has published my critique of the paper comissioned by the OU on the : topic of leadership/ordination for women.... Speaking of the full essay . Your article has proven to be a slow read for me. I keep on being pulled into "polemic mode" (apologies for talking like a programmer, but...) and when I do, I stop, put it down, and wait until I could give it a fairer read, to actually hear what you're trying to say rather than just listening for points to refute. Here are my first set of reactions. Of course, they're all points of disagreement; trying to take the time to understand what you were writing before objecting doesn't mean I stopped objecting. 1- You open with Earlier this year, 7 highly respected rabbis authored a position paper on the ordination of women and on the possibility of women serving as clergy. [1] Individually and collectively, they represent great learning, personal piety, and years of leadership. It would seem presumptuous for someone who will never achieve anything near their learning or stature to comment or critique. However, no one person or group has a monopoly on facts and logic. And, as will be demonstrated, Torah learning sometimes is not the sole or even dominant factor in a person's opinion on these issues. There appears to be an underlyuing assumption that halachic arguments, even meta-halachic ones, are entirely formal, rather than containing a strong element of ineffible art. (See #2, below) If halakhah deals with determinations like that of which poetic forms "sound right" then their "great learning, personal piety, and years of leadership" provide experience at the art of pesaq that your response simply lacks. The gemara requires shimush before one attempts to pasqen. A poseiq needs not only the abstract facts and logic, but also the skill he can only pick up with experience. Recently, my Arukh haShulachan Yomi schedule brought me to EhE 145:6. The topic is whether a shechiv-meira who gives a gett "meihayom im meisi" made the gett as-of the moment of giving, a colloquial use of "today", or if we cannot assume the gett is chal before the end of the day (R' Tam in Tosafos 72b). R' Elchanan (Tos' ad loc) says "nachon lehachmir". The AhS's assessment of the "facts and logic" leads him to conclude "vehagam chumerah yeseirah hi". And yet he continues to close the se'if with "mikol maqom chalalilah lehaqeil bedavar sheR' Tam nistapeiq bo". RYME knew that a decision of a more skilled artisan is too likely correct even in the face of his own reasoning. And there are other factors that go into halachic decisions other than the merits of the argument -- both those we can articulate and those someone could only feel by practice. Things like acharei rabim lehatos. I am not saying defer to the OU's panel because they outnumber you. I am just pointing out that logical argument isn't the only source of legal authority. Another, more relevant, is nispasheit bechol yisrael (see #8, below). The notion that your paper is of value beyond lehalakhah velo lemaaseh is an example of the American valuation of autonomy that can itself be at odds with ancient AND mesoretic values. (See #7, about not framing the discussion in terms of rights or privileges.) 2- You offer your own translation of Mesorah, which is only valid if you can show that's how the authors of the paper intended the term. >From your pg 4: > We can broadly define it as the content of our tradition that is > passed from one generation to another. That tradition contains Mitzvot > and opinion on the value of Mitzvot. Frequently a situation occurs > where one must choose between emphasizing one mitzvah or a different > mitzvah. Our Mesorah therefore contains not only the Mitzvot, but also > attitudes or values that help us choose between Mitzvot when they come > into conflict. One could cogently argue that the values are in fact > Mitzvot in and of themselves, but for the purpose of this discussion that > is a distinction without a difference. Ultimately what this analysis > is concerned with is how, within the confines of our legal tradition, > are values embraced or shunted to the side. However, RYBS and RHS both use the term mesorah to refer to the ineffible side of the art of pesaq. I argue this with examples at http://www.torahmusings.com/2015/08/what-does-masorah-mean I therefore think it is likely the sense intended by the entire OU Panel. Or at the very least (not that I want to fully concede this, but have to admit it's plausible) heavily colored by this notion. Skipping the somwhat longer quote from RYBS, here are quotes I had found from RHS, one of the panel members: Jewish Action, Fall 1910: Mesorah is not primarily a corpus of knowledge to master but a process of accessing a chain of student-teacher relationships that reaches back to Sinai. Moshe received the Torah and transmitted it to his student, Yehoshua, who in turn taught it to his students and so on, continuing through today. The nature of transmission of the mesorah is instruction from a rebbe to his student. We connect to the mesorah, to the sacred structure of laws, beliefs and attitudes, through our teachers. And a bit further in the article, "Who Is Authorized to Institute Change?": Changes in practice require delicate evaluations that only a master Torah scholar, a gadol baTorah, can properly conduct. Only someone with a broad knowledge and a deep understanding of the corpus of halachah, with an intimate familiarity with both the letter and the spirit of the law, with a mastery of both the rules and the attitudes of the mesorah, can determine when a change is acceptable or even required. The more wide-reaching the proposed change, the greater the expertise required to approve it. The evaluator must not only be a master of the mesorah, but he must also be able to consider new practices based solely on values internal to the mesorah, removing external influences from the deliberation. Rav Schachter then applies this topic to feminism itself in a teshuvah: Indeed, the Rav would often say (see drasha to Parshas Korach), that every person must recognize that he needs a Rav or a Rebbe. Even a Talmid Chochom whose Rebbe had passed away must constantly ask himself in truth (when they present questions to him) what his Rebbe would have said in such a scase, and what stance he would have taken.... Still, most of your examples of how change was permitted despite mesorah would be valid even if you were discussing the same topic I believe the authors to whom you're responding are. I think, though, your response would have been stronger if it reflected our discussions both my Torah Musings post and here. 3- But you shift criteria for legitimate change in moral value. Page 2: This paper will illustrate that 'modern values' are intrinsically neither 2 good nor bad, and that our Mesorah has always incorporated 'modern values' that found resonance in the Mesorah. Furthermore, according to great and highly respected Modern Orthodox authorities, a hallmark of Modern Orthodoxy is the willingness to acknowledge some 'modern values' as previously under-recognized religious values. I think you're again arguing against a point the OU paper isn't making. They aren't saying there is a problem with appropriating 'modern values' in-and-of itself, but that there is a problem with changing halakhah to fit 'modern values' simply because they are the values living in the modern world means being immersed in. What happened to checking for that "resonance in the Mesorah"? This being another phrasing of my origin objection here on Avodah from the days of the initial announcement of Yeshivat Maharat. I do not see discussion of how we know that this is a change the values of the Torah would imply are positive. Regardless of the outcome of that discussion, can the change be legitimate without that procedural step? Anyway, you tone down the need for resonance when you open the door to assessing for yourself which values count. From the closing paragraph of section I, on mesorah, pg 13: ... The major issue is distinguishing between timeless values and ancient values. As has been demonstrated, our Mesorah over time, consciously or unconsciously, has addressed the perceived conflict between ancient values and modern values. Certainly there are modern values that have been appropriately rejected. Frequently however, ancient values have been rejected or perhaps more accurately assigned a reduced role of importance. And the modern values have been the impetus for the re-evaluation. At this point, I fear, the hunt for resonance goes out the window. IIUC, you are making the case that resonance need only be between actual Torah values, and not all ancient values actually qualify. This is actually more problematic given your definition of Mesorah than the one I think the OU's authors intended. After all, if mesorah is a mimetic transmisison of values, than any ancient value is mesoretic. But the problem I have with this statement is that it reads like you're saying that (1) we need to assess which Torah values are real, and therefore which do not bow to movern values; and (2) we use said modern values to drive that assessment. That can't be your intent. Please clarify. Continuing the paragraph from where I left off: As discussed in the Part II, the Halakhic arguments, taken at face value, are in favor of ordination for women. The values of eliminating unnecessary restrictions, encouraging full expression of potential to serve the community, fairness, and others also point towards ordination. There are specific Halakhic restrictions in place governing the behavior of men and women. The question that needs to be answered is: What timeless principles (or values) are served by imposing restrictions on women that are not justified by a fair reading of the Halacha and the sources? Are they truly Timeless and justifiably dominant in our Mesorah, or just ancient? ... If I were to use halakhah to make that determination, I would ask whether those "specific Halakhic restrictions" that were historically / traditionally explained in terms of those ancient values can be otherwise explained. Since they do appear to be of the same cloth, this is a sizable burden of proof on your part. This is the challenge in the OU paper you quote on pg 29: Gender differences have, historically, been particularly evident in the arena of public service. We believe that these distinctions are not merely a relic of times bygone; instead, they reflect a Torah ethos -- a /Mesorah/ -- of different avenues and emphases by which men and women are to achieve identical goals -- the service of G-d and the perpetuation of the Jewish people. 4- You cite and dismiss "nashim daatan kalos", but do not note that it's part of a richer picture of gender differences alongside "binah yeseirah nitenah lahen". 5- You quote RAL at the bottom of pg 8, an essay about using English Literary sources to enhance and color values that we cannot find in our own tradition: Nor should we be deterred by the illusion that we can find everything we need within our own tradition. As Arnold insisted, one must seek "the best that has been thought and said in the world," and if, in many areas, much of that best is of foreign origin, we should expand our horizons rather than exclude it. He is talking about broadening the search in the case of silence; that we can learn more from TIDE than Torah alone. A discussion of what to do when we can't "find everything we need within in our Tradition" has nothing to to with real or apparent conflicts when we do find an answer -- ancient or traditional -- before looking elsewhere. 6- You wuote R/Dr Shalom Carmy, describing R Eliezer Berkovitz, that his moral ends derive from internal Jewish sources.dissatisfaction with mainstream Halakhah regarding women is rooted, not in the pressures of contemporary egalitarianism, but in his judgment about biblical conceptions of justice, While that may well be true of REB, it has to be actually be shown that the same is true of Torah observant Jews who join an organization with the word "feminism" in its name. You write: The authors of the paper in fact state something quite egalitarian: The Torah affirms the absolute equal value of men and women as individuals and as ovdei Hashem. This is not the view of the Talmud. The Mishnah (Horiyot 13:1) states: "A man takes precedence over a woman, in matters concerning the saving of life... a Cohen takes precedence over a Levi...." Clearly the lives are not of equal value in the eyes of the Talmud. Arguments about the validity of what you think the misnhah is "clearly" saying aside... You are treating equality of value as synonymous with egalitarianism. The people you are responding to do not. They view is as more akin to the implication of JOFA's talking about "feminism" -- seeking value in the same sorts of roles and activities. A square can be equal in area to a triangle without insisting the square and the triangle are congruent. 7- "Usena es harabbanus". Leadership isn't about my "desire for maximal participation within Halacha", as you put it in a sentence shortly before the previous quote (pg 10). It's about my duties toward the community. Your entire phrasing of the discussion in terms of right or privileges, people getting an opportunity, depriving of that opportunity being unjust (as you present REB's position), is itself a HUGE drift from how halakhah even discusses values; never mind the content of that discussion. Self-expression is like the tassles emerging from the windings of the tzitzis. (RSRH's metaphor in CW vol 3.) It is how we express ourselves within the framework of Torah; but not the windings themselves. What makes me a fan of Bach's music is his ability to conform to the strict structural rules of the music of his era. And yet he still produced pieces that could express sublime religious passion or Majesty. (Until Beethoven invented Conservative Judaism. ) Halakhah's role is to channel such expression constructively -- like the windings of the tzitzis. As RSRH continues, there is a reason why the free part of the tassle is ideally twice was long as the wound portion; this metaphor isn't against expression. The second you frame halakhah in terms of every getting their fair opportunity, I hear an evaluation based on a framework very alien to an internally resonant analysis. 9- Somewhat more tangentially, but it's the first case of something I might raise other examples of in a future email. (Assuming I ever want to go retail rather than stick to meta-issues.) On pg 3, fn 3: There are other stated facts in the OU paper that require discussion but are beyond the scope of this paper. For example, one of the points emphasized in the OU paper is the issue of women as ritual slaughterers (shochtim). Some authorities such as R. Jacob Landau and R. Moshe Isserles wrote that since women did not do it, there was a custom for women not to do so. But that was factually erroneous. "Female ritual slaughterers were to be found in most of the Jewish Diasporas... In Renaissance Italy, the phenomenon of shohatot was very common. Another source also documents that female shochtim were found in areas of Italy where they adequately educated. See Grossman, Avraham... I am willing to agree with the conclusion that the Agur and the Rama were wrong on the historical facts, and simply didn't know what was going on in other parts of the golah. Still... You don't touch the point the OU paper cites it for -- that the Rama, a halachic source we cannot simply ignore -- is one of a number of sources that WERE willing to suggest that a practice being absent from the mesorah can mean there is a mesorah that it ought to be absent. That statement bothers me too. But because you dismissed the quote based on a tangent, you don't address the central problem it raises! Perhaps there'll be more after I really read section II onward. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "I think, therefore I am." - Renne Descartes micha at aishdas.org "I am thought about, therefore I am - http://www.aishdas.org my existence depends upon the thought of a Fax: (270) 514-1507 Supreme Being Who thinks me." - R' SR Hirsch From akivagmiller at gmail.com Mon Oct 9 09:44:27 2017 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2017 12:44:27 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Eruv Tavshilin - who makes it? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: My wife and I have recently discovered that among our friends, it is invariably the husband who makes the Eruv Tavshilin. This surprises us, and we are wondering what other families do, and if there are any sources for one preference or the other. Essentially, the Eruv Tavshilin means that in this particular instance, the Shabbos cooking cannot wait for Friday, but must be done on Erev Yom Tov too. With such an intimate connection to the Shabbos cooking, it was intuitively obvious to both my wife and myself that this is NOT similar to other mitzvos (mezuza is a good example) which might be done by the husband for gender-role reasons. Rather, it is the beginning of the cooking, and should therefore be done by whoever does the cooking. In our family, that's the wife. Eruv Tavshilin was not assigned to each and every individual, like kiddush was. It is a reminder. Granted that the rishonim have varying explanations of this mitzvah, but it seems that to all of these explanations, the object of this reminding is the person who does the cooking. So my question to the chevra is: In your family, who makes the eruv, and why? And do any sources discuss this? Note: I admit there's a certain weakness in everything that I've written above. Namely, the idea that one can rely on the Eruv Tavshilin that was made by the rav of the town. Let's set aside the fact that this is not the best way of doing the eruv, and that various conditions are imposed on one who wants to rely on it. Let's focus on the fact that it is valid *at* *all*. How does the eruv made by someone outside of my home help me? What sort of *reminder* does his eruv provide? I have never understood this, nor have I heard any explanation of it, only assertions that it does work. Any help in this area would be appreciated. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From michaelpoppers at gmail.com Mon Oct 9 18:59:58 2017 From: michaelpoppers at gmail.com (Michael Poppers) Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2017 21:59:58 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] going to the amud Message-ID: In Avodah V35n119, RJR wrote: > I also wonder about why the practice of sending youngsters up developed given the S?A?s psak concerning the priorities for a chazzan. < (RJR made other points that listmembers have responded to; I thought this point, for which the latest digest listed no response, was worthy of a response.) In many *shuls*, much less *minyanim*, so perhaps in the noted "chareidi shul in RBS", those "priorities" (married, beard, age, etc.) are seemingly (except for the Yamim Noraim) secondary to the hierarchy of "*chiyuvim*"...but one "priority", being "*m'rutzah laqahal*", might be upheld when appointing/allowing a young adult to lead the *tzibbur*.... *Gut Moeid*/*Mo'adim l'Simcha!* and all the best from *Michael Poppers* * Elizabeth, NJ, USA -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From akivagmiller at gmail.com Tue Oct 10 03:47:36 2017 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2017 06:47:36 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Eruv Tavshilin - who makes it? Message-ID: . I asked how one could ever rely on the Rav's eruv: > How does the eruv made by someone outside of my home > help me? What sort of *reminder* does his eruv provide? R' Zev Sero answered: > ... that it's wrong to rely entirely on leftovers, and one > must prepare at least one thing just for Shabbos. According > to this explanation, the fact that one must ask the rabbi > (or the neighbor, or whomever) before relying on their eruv > accomplishes the same thing. One has provided for Shabbos, > not by cooking but by arranging an invitation to eat out. I don't follow this logic at all. One who relies on this did NOT "prepare at least one thing just for Shabbos." If you respond that the one thing he prepared was "arranging an invitation to eat out", I will say that he did NOT arrange such an invitation; he is merely aware that the rabbi/neighbor had him in mind. You write about "the fact that one must ask the rabbi", but I never saw such a halacha. One does not need to do any sort of action at all, not even speaking. All one needs is to be aware that the rabbi/neighbor had him in mind. So what is being accomplished? > The second explanation is that originally there was no ha'arama; > it was permitted to openly cook on Yomtov for Shabbos. Chazal > legislated that one must save Yomtov's face by pretending to be > cooking for that day. According to this explanation it's very > simple; the important thing is not the eruv itself, but the need > for the ha'arama. The eruv's function is merely to give the > ha'arama some surface plausibility. So it makes no difference > whose eruv one uses; the fact that one is pretending not to be > cooking for Shabbos *is* the kevod Yomtov that Chazal required. > The enabling notion that on Shabbos one will be eating the rabbi's > eruv is only barely less plausible than the one that one will be > subsisting on ones own eruv. Focusing on the last sentence here, we agree that relying on the rabbi's eruv is indeed less plausible than one's own. I think our disagreement is that you feel it has a sufficient shiur of plausibility, and I don't. Alternatively, you feel that relying on the rabbi constitutes "pretending to be cooking for that day", but I think it doesn't even constitute "pretending". And this is especially true in the case where one genuinely forgot to make the eruv, and remembered on Yom Tov; surely you'll agree with me that this person did absolutely *nothing* before Yom Tov as a Shabbos preparation, right? Not even to ask the rabbi to have him in mind! Akiva Miller From micha at aishdas.org Tue Oct 10 06:18:05 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2017 09:18:05 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Eruv Tavshilin - who makes it? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20171010131805.GA8572@aishdas.org> On Tue, Oct 10, 2017 at 06:47:36AM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : You write about "the fact that one must ask the rabbi", but I never : saw such a halacha. One does not need to do any sort of action at all, : not even speaking. All one needs is to be aware that the : rabbi/neighbor had him in mind. So what is being accomplished? Beqitzur: "be aware" is sufficient for heker. Can't we ask the same thing of a neighborhood eiruv? How many people think about the eruv every week? The Rambam (Shevisas YT 6:2) seems to me to be the reason for calling eiruv tavshilin an "eiruv" is merely by comparison to eruv chatzeiros. Both are hekerim: There (ECh), so that people would thing that carrying from reshus to reshus is mutar on shabbos. Here (ET), that it is okay to cook on YT even if it's not for YT. Awareness that the rabbi (or whomever) had me in mind means I am thinking about eiruvin and there is a recognition (heker) that there is an issur. It seems the Rambam holds like R' Ashi (that ET is to reinforce melakhah on YT) over Rava (it's to reinforce Shabbos prep). But even according to Rava, that moment of awareness of the rabbi's eruv is sypposed to reserve as a reminder to make something nice for se'udos Shabbos. I would agree with Zev that the plausibility requirement is quite low, as all we're doing is a mnemonic. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger None of us will leave this place alive. micha at aishdas.org All that is left to us is http://www.aishdas.org to be as human as possible while we are here. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Anonymous MD, while a Nazi prisoner From noamstadlan at gmail.com Mon Oct 9 18:26:41 2017 From: noamstadlan at gmail.com (Noam Stadlan) Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2017 20:26:41 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] OU paper Message-ID: R. Micha- thank you for taking the time to read the paper. Having read your list of criticisms, I think that in your search for reasons to oppose, you missed many of the points completely. Poskim are certainly entitled to their opinions. They are not entitled to their own facts. If their logic doesn't hold up, it is reasonable to call them on the lack of logic. Which is why the paper is NOT about my opinions versus the OU 7, but about the lack of facts and logic. Furthermore, I illustrated that what poskim hold regarding these issues isn't always or exclusively a result of all their learning and shimmush. It is a demonstrable fact that many attitudes reflect what they grew up with and were indoctrinated with early on, not the list of influences that they write about. You dismiss my quote regarding REB, and claim that it is my responsibility to prove what the motives are or aren't. This is ridiculous. The OU authors did not talk to any of the principles involved. Since when is it acceptable for any responsible posek or beit din to make important judgments without making absolutely sure regarding the facts? Especially when they are making a significant deal about motivation and it would have been a very simple matter of making a phone call or two. Isn't that a basic obligation of a posek? And then to claim that it is my responsibility to prove that they were wrong? And, by the way, since I personally know many of the people involved, I have a much greater familiarity with what people involved think. I suggest that if you think that an organization with 'feminism' in its name is inherently problematic, we may be starting from basic assumptions far to wide apart to see any common ground. The OU paper wrote about Mesorah versus modern values. I was just using their words and addressing the role of modern values in how Halacha and values have changed. The fact that they define Mesorah a bit differently doesn't change the issue nor change the fact that modern values have always been incorporated into the Halakhah and Halakhic values(in case you dont want to use the word Mesorah). And to counter your point, some of the ancient values have gone out the window, whether you want to call them mesoretic or not. I didn't have time to get into all the particulars of the halachic aspects of the Rama and shechittah, R. Brody and Broyde address and dismiss the argument in their paper(I am pretty sure that is in a footnote somewhere). I thought it was adequate to illustrate that he was factually wrong. I could go on and on but I sense that in the end it will not matter. I would have to go through each and every line of your critique and point out where your assumptions are wrong. For example "JOFA....seeking value in the same sorts of roles and activities". NO, that is not what JOFA is about. It is about not creating Halachic boundaries when there shouldn't be any, and the women can decide what roles and activities they can and should assume(within Halacha of course, just like the men). And what is wrong with anyone finding value in learning Torah, teaching Torah, helping people celebrate s'machot, organizing davening, etc? women should not find value in that???? Thank you again for taking the time to read the paper. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From zev at sero.name Mon Oct 9 21:49:31 2017 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2017 00:49:31 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Eruv Tavshilin - who makes it? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <928305ea-1e57-b3bd-da9c-b3acb1281e04@sero.name> On 09/10/17 12:44, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > Note: I admit there's a certain weakness in everything that I've written > above. Namely, the idea that one can rely on the Eruv Tavshilin that was > made by the rav of the town. Let's set aside the fact that this is not > the best way of doing the eruv, and that various conditions are imposed > on one who wants to rely on it. Let's focus on the fact that it is valid > *at* *all*. How does the eruv made by someone outside of my home help > me? What sort of *reminder* does his eruv provide? I have never > understood this, nor have I heard any explanation of it, only assertions > that it does work. Any help in this area would be appreciated. IIRC the gemara offers two explanations for ET. Either it was made lichvod Shabbos or lichvod Yomtov. The first explanation is that cooking on Yomtov for Shabbos was always done by pretending to be cooking for a late Friday meal, but Chazal felt about the Shabbos after Yomtov the way many nowadays do about the Shabbos after Thanksgiving: that it's wrong to rely entirely on leftovers, and one must prepare at least one thing just for Shabbos. According to this explanation, the fact that one must ask the rabbi (or the neighbor, or whomever) before relying on their eruv accomplishes the same thing. One has provided for Shabbos, not by cooking but by arranging an invitation to eat out. The second explanation is that originally there was no ha`arama; it was permitted to openly cook on Yomtov for Shabbos. Chazal legislated that one must save Yomtov's face by pretending to be cooking for that day. According to this explanation it's very simple; the important thing is not the eruv itself, but the need for the ha`arama. The eruv's function is merely to give the ha`arama some surface plausibility. So it makes no difference whose eruv one uses; the fact that one is pretending not to be cooking for Shabbos *is* the kevod Yomtov that Chazal required. The enabling notion that on Shabbos one will be eating the rabbi's eruv is only barely less plausible than the one that one will be subsisting on ones own eruv. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From micha at aishdas.org Tue Oct 10 13:25:47 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2017 16:25:47 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] OU paper In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20171010202547.GC6565@aishdas.org> Take 2. I didn't like what I read in the Avodah queue, so I rejected my first version and elaborated. On Tue, Oct 10, 2017 at 10:53:24AM -0500, Noam Stadlan via Avodah wrote: :> 1- Feminism assumes egalitarianism, not only equality, as it assumes that :> roles historically closed to women as "men's roles" should be open to all. :> Equality only assumes that everyone should be eligible for roles of equal :> value. (For some measure of value.) : This is starting off on the wrong foot. I dont claim to speak for all : Orthodox Feminists. But the first question to be asked is why is a role : 'historically closed to women?' ... I see this as an equally valid question, but who is to say which ought to be asked first? REBerkowitz rightly deprecates the modification of halakhah out of concern for external values. He dismisses the role of the "pressures of contemporary egalitarianism." (As RSC put it.) This puts REB in a different place than people who unite under the word "feminism" are indeed advocating halachic change. What he denies being a valid motive JOFA is putting in their organizational name. : It is very reasonable, just like in : the cases of the chereish, slavery etc, to investigate why it is : 'historically closed." ... Which you fail to actually do. You rebut your understanding of some arguments for why the clsure is grounded in mesorah. After all, this is a rebuttal paper. The one mention of an alternative motive for change, rather than a lack of motive for status quo, is one that is inconsistent with feminism, as above. : litany of reasons as to why women were forbidden to do things and he : himself agreed that those reasons have gone by the wayside. If you want to : say that something is historically closed, and therefore it is assur- : fine. Now you dont need an Halachic reasons, because historically closed : is the final word.... Strawman. I am not asserting that we have to hold like the Rama that being historically closed means the option is halachically closed; identifying history with mesorah, and thus absence of tradition with tradition of absence. I would say, though, that if you want to buck the Rama, you have to make an argument for doing so, and not just dismiss his rule because he applied it to a misunderstood case. : everyone seems to be giving Halachicly justification, both pro and con, : then it means that historically closed is open for discussion, and it is on : the plane of halacha, not history. So the bottom line is that if there is : Halachic justification for particular gender roles- of course that trumps : everything. But it also means that stating something is historically assur : is not the end of the story. history is not Halacha. That is what I : illustrated in part one. Because you could also make the same argument : that the chereish shouldn't have an aliyyah... Yes, I agreed with your formulation of the problem in terms of resonant values, and at times a contemporary value can highlight the neglect of a Torah one. But you don't follow through with it. Instead you end up altogether rejecting the say of mesoretic values to decide which halachic innovations are proper. I would add that at times a contemporary value can change expectations, and thus change the morality of an act. After all, it may be okay to do something to someone when they expect it, but not if it violates assumptions behind things they committed to. I could see making that argument WRT monogyny and the validity of cheirem deR Gershom. Mental images of what marriage should be changed, and so it's only moral to satisfy the resulting emotional need rather than some older definition of marriage. As long as the definition itself isn't inferior. To take that poorly explained idea and possibly be clearer by making it less general and more about our case: Perhaps one could form the argument that while it was moral for women not to be eligable for the rabbinate in the past because it was less likely for the option to cross their minds. Such a practice would cause fewer feelings of deprevation. But now that women can become CEO, such a position does mesoretically-wrongly create feelings of deprivation. And so societal change causes a change in application of values; just as it can an application of law. This is pretty close to an argument you do indeed make. Just (as below), I don't think having a role is a right, because I do not believe religious roles are as much opportunities as they are duties. Unlike secular roles, which could be either, depending on how the society in question chooses to frame them. Your neglect of the "how", which changes are valid and which not, reminds me of the argument of non-O rabbis who point to pruzbul and heter isqa as justifications for their radical changes. It's not the same thing by a lng shot. But half-way through you make the same error of considering proof that there are valid kinds of change as proof that the topic in question provides no barriers to change altogether. As you say in this same paragraph (!): : Any role that is historically : closed to any group that isn't Halachically assur is open for discussion as : to what the Halacha actually mandates and why exactly it was closed in the : first place.... So, it's black-letter law closure, or the change is allowed? No "resonance of values" needed after all? And the problem with demanding "resonance of values" is that it takes the autonomy out of it for most of us. Because by enlarging the problem beyond black letter halakhah we guarantee there is a non-formal aspect to the answer, one that is for the practiced artist rather than any bright researcher. And the notion that one is validating a value system that then sets the person up for a very hard collision with the actual not-so-glass ceiling black-letter halakhah defines is very related to this. The mere existence of such a ceiling implies the likelihood of non-resonant values. The concept of asei lekha rav, having a poseiq, moves us away from autonomy in our behavioral decisions, and forces a heteronomy of a manner that too violates contemporary values. :> 2- Feminism assumes Locke's language of rights and priviledge. Why should :> someone *be deprived* of the opportunity to be an .... -- in our case, to :> serve as rabbi? But halachic values aren't framed in these terms... : Being a rabbi is fulfilling the mitzvah of service to the community, talmud : torah etc. Whether it is a burden or an opportunity, it is a mitzvah and : a choice of profession and communal service... But asking about opportunity and opening doors is inherently asking different value questions than the mesoretic ones. It's not just ancient that we frame our moral choices in terms of duty to others and the Other, it's mesoretic. : Furthermore, the OU paper went way beyond opposing rabbis. they forbid a : woman from officiating at a baby naming or other things. that too is a : burden that women should be forbidden from shouldering? This misses my point. When I spoke of rights vs duties I am talking about the entire framing of questions of values, not this specific decision. If the rabbinate, baby naming or whatever is a duty rather than a right, the whole question of "limiting their options unneccessarily" goes off the table. It's not about the right to choose a boon. Your whole question is framed non-traditionally. Looking at feminism as a goal is an inherently un-mesoretic way of framing the question. Rather, the nearest mesoretic equivalent would be to ask whether men have a duty that can only be discharged by sharing the pulpit, "officiating at a baby naming of other things". Feminism doesn't enter the mesoretic discussion because there is no door to be opened or closed, there is no region of personal-expression space to discuss whether someone is given too much or too little. The Torah is a beris, not a bill of rights. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When one truly looks at everyone's good side, micha at aishdas.org others come to love him very naturally, and http://www.aishdas.org he does not need even a speck of flattery. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rabbi AY Kook From micha at aishdas.org Tue Oct 10 14:04:28 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2017 17:04:28 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Oseh Hashalom In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20171010210428.GC21284@aishdas.org> On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 10:34:34PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : I went looking at the siddurim that were common in the shuls that I : grew up in, and I noticed an interesting pattern: Every single one : gave Oseh Hashalom as the closing bracha at the end of the Amidah; not : even one suggested saying Hamevarech like the rest of the year. : Further, every single one used the words Oseh Shalom at the ends of : Kaddish and Elokai N'tzor; not even one suggested saying Oseh Hashalom : during the Aseres Yemei Teshuva. ... : My questions are these: If you're old enough to remember davening : Ashkenaz in the 1970s or before, do you remember what was said during : Aseres Yemei Teshuva? And do you know of any siddur from that era : which included the newfangled text? I know my father was saying "hamvarekh" at this time. However, our minhagim are a hodge-podge of practices from those retained from the Ottoman Empire before my ancestor's arrival in Litta, mainline Litvish, R/Dr Mirsky's idiosyncricies (my grandfather came to America as a teen, and so the rav who met him at Ellis Island was became rav of his shul determined much of what he did), and what my father picked up Tues nights (and from YU alumni friends) from RYBS. I did some restoration of pre-American Biergehr minhag based on R Dovid Lifshitz's memories of what it was. AND that brings me to a theory... Minhagim that Chabad, Talmidei haGra and Sepharadim have in common are bound to become Minhag EY. And Minhag EY is bound to be known globally, at least by the 1970s. Maybe this is just a thing that universalized faster. Anecodtally, I notice fewer and fewer people wearing tefillin on ch"m each year. Although Passaic, a neighborhood with some 40% BT rate, is going to have weaker ties to minhag than ones in which more people have childhood memories of what dad does. I also noticed more an more shuls moving Shir shel Yom and Hoshanos from the end of mussaf to before leining. One thing all three of the communities that dominated the Yishuv haYashan had in common was an attachment to Qabbalah. We may be seeing more and more Tzefat-originating practices coming to the fore in the comming years as a new Minhag EY (and ch"v if galus lasts long enough Minhag America) emerges. Much to R' Ovadiah's poshumous dismay, I would presume. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "I hear, then I forget; I see, then I remember; micha at aishdas.org I do, then I understand." - Confucius http://www.aishdas.org "Hearing doesn't compare to seeing." - Mechilta Fax: (270) 514-1507 "We will do and we will listen." - Israelites From micha at aishdas.org Tue Oct 10 08:18:49 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2017 11:18:49 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] OU paper In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20171010151849.GB32729@aishdas.org> On Mon, Oct 09, 2017 at 08:26:41PM -0500, Noam Stadlan via Avodah wrote: : R. Micha- thank you for taking the time to read the paper. Having read : your list of criticisms, I think that in your search for reasons to oppose, : you missed many of the points completely... As I wrote, the reply was delayed by my attempt to put down the paper every time I thought I was reading solely for the sake of finding points to oppose. "Fisking", as it's called. Admittedly, I could still have failed. : Poskim are certainly entitled to : their opinions. They are not entitled to their own facts. Which is why I didn't dispute claims of fact, such as whether women were shochetim in Italy. I did dispute your use of a fact turning that Rama's point into a hypothetical to deny his whole "[if] we [hadn't] ever seen women as shochetim, we have a mesorah that woman aren't to serve as shochetim". Yes, his given is false, but we do see the implication statement in the Agur and the Rama. So, how do you dismiss applying the parallel syllogism here -- since we do not have a history of women rabbis, wouldn't the Rama's methodology mean that there is a mesorah not to ordain women? At least -- doesn't this topic need addressing, rather than writing that one can ignore the whole flow of logic because the antecedent is false? : Furthermore, I illustrated that what poskim hold : regarding these issues isn't always or exclusively a result of all their : learning and shimmush. It is a demonstrable fact that many attitudes : reflect what they grew up with and were indoctrinated with early on, not : the list of influences that they write about. But you gave up on the question of which new values pass the resonance test mention early in the paperr and which do not. My argument is that : You dismiss my quote regarding REB, and claim that it is my responsibility : to prove what the motives are or aren't. I dismiss the quote as necessarily applying to anyone but REB. It is not like he's the communal leader or primary poseiq of the people in question. In particular because of the word "feminism" in JOFA's name. To which you replied: : I suggest that if you think that an organization with 'feminism' in its : name is inherently problematic, we may be starting from basic assumptions : far to wide apart to see any common ground. RCS summarized REB's position (on your pg 10), as being of "moral ends derive from internal Jewish sources.... dissatisfaction with mainstream Halakhah regarding women is rooted, not in the pressures of contemporary egalitarianism, in his judgment about biblical conceptions of justice." (ellision yours) But JOFA's name is taken from "contemporary egalitarianism". I am not saying it's inherently problematic. I am saying it creates the likelihood of a gap between REB's position and JOFA's attitude, one that then creates a burden of proof you didn't take up. In short I am saying that: 1- Feminism assumes egalitarianism, not only equality, as it assumes that roles historically closed to women as "men's roles" should be open to all. Equality only assumes that everyone should be eligible for roles of equal value. (For some measure of value.) 2- Feminism assumes Locke's language of rights and priviledge. Why should someone *be deprived* of the opportunity to be an .... -- in our case, to serve as rabbi? But halachic values aren't framed in these terms. (At least not in general; I can think of notions like geneivas da'as, gezel shinah or tovas han'ah as exceptions.) Rather, the rabbinate is supposed to be a burden. Even if it is really being treated as an honor, the value which would differentiate between a positive halachic change and one that is anti-mesoretic would be that of duty, not opportunity. 3- Making the argument that feminist egalitarian opportunity is or is not resonant with mesoretic values requires those guys with shimush, as it is an art. Your counter-argument is on the wrong plane for discussing the topic of the first section of your paper -- "mesorah". ... And we don't even agree on how RIETS-trained rabbis are most likely to use the word "mesorah" to agree on what we're debating! Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Man is equipped with such far-reaching vision, micha at aishdas.org yet the smallest coin can obstruct his view. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yisrael Salanter Fax: (270) 514-1507 From noamstadlan at mail.gmail.com Tue Oct 10 08:53:24 2017 From: noamstadlan at mail.gmail.com (Noam Stadlan) Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2017 10:53:24 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] OU paper In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: multipart/alternative Size: 3823 bytes Desc: not available URL: From micha at aishdas.org Tue Oct 10 14:12:25 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2017 17:12:25 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] =?cp1255?q?=93Timtum_Ha-Lev=94_Redux?= In-Reply-To: <7aef6b22a7e348ffa09f6c3e61bde74f@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <7aef6b22a7e348ffa09f6c3e61bde74f@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20171010211225.GD21284@aishdas.org> On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 06:30:33PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : From R' Aviner Dulling of the Heart to Save One's Life ... : A: No. Maran Ha-Rav Kook writes in his book "Musar Avicha" (p. 19) : that the dulling of one's heart comes from violating a prohibition : and not from the food itself (Yoma 39a. And see Meharsha on : Shabbat 33a).... Yay! Finally I have sources to look at. "Vehayisa akh sameiach" just became a little easier. Does anyone have "Mussar Avikha", "Uvdos veHanhagos miBeis Brisk" (vol II p 50) and/or "Orchos Yosheir" (#13)? Do any of them discuss mezuzah and the consequent shemirah, or any of the other related segulah-like effects of mitzvos we've tied in to previous iterations? Look at that list of names: I'm not wrong, just Litvish! Tangent: The Gra said that "vehayisa akh sameiach" is the hardest mitzvah in the Torah. "Veyahisa sameiach" is one thing, but "akh sameiach"? To be nothing but happy, with no other moods ambivalently mixed in for 8 days (9 in chu"l) straight? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The fittingness of your matzos [for the seder] micha at aishdas.org isn't complete with being careful in the laws http://www.aishdas.org of Passover. One must also be very careful in Fax: (270) 514-1507 the laws of business. - Rav Yisrael Salanter From hankman at bell.net Tue Oct 10 22:24:18 2017 From: hankman at bell.net (hankman) Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2017 01:24:18 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] R. Akiva, Bar Kochba and Zecharya HaNovi Message-ID: <5AFE790709AC4B0B9FDDB6A6102B7005@hankPC> How could R. Akiva have mistaken Bar Kochba for Moshiach, since non of the nevuos of Zecharya HaNovi that we read in the recent haftorah (splitting of Har HaZeitim etc., etc) for the period precedent to Moshiach had yet occurred? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Tue Oct 10 13:51:59 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2017 16:51:59 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] future impact of deeds In-Reply-To: <781196aefdb44054b2f0e69678999858@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <781196aefdb44054b2f0e69678999858@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20171010205159.GB21284@aishdas.org> On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 06:29:05PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : In one of his shiurim, R'Reisman questioned a common (my) understanding : of how those who are no longer with us could be judged based on the : future impact of their deeds on an ongoing basis. The specific example : was two individuals (A & B) separately caused two other individuals (C & : D, who were totally equivalent) to become religious. C dies a day later, : while D lives a long, productive, and fruitful life. Does it make sense : that A gets more credit(schar) than B? : : My answer is no, but this does not refute the basic premise. The schar : is based on the % of their potential that C & D actualized-only HKB"H : knows that, so, in this case in fact, A might even get more credit than B. Who said that sekhar is indeed based on actualized potential? "Lefum tz'ara agra", not "lefum tzalach". And wouldn't judging someone by something out of their control violate Middas haDin? HOWEVER, perhaps (thinking out loud) we could invoke megalgalim zekhus al yedei zakai to say that hashgachah peratis's choice of D's long life includes among an infinite other factors, the ways in which his mashpia was mora zekai. But personally, I would question your conclusion. (But in a personal-belief sense. Not that it doesn't require understanding in an eilu-va'eilu way.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Rescue me from the desire to win every micha at aishdas.org argument and to always be right. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Nassan of Breslav Fax: (270) 514-1507 Likutei Tefilos 94:964 From zev at sero.name Wed Oct 11 03:30:27 2017 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2017 06:30:27 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] R. Akiva, Bar Kochba and Zecharya HaNovi In-Reply-To: <5AFE790709AC4B0B9FDDB6A6102B7005@hankPC> References: <5AFE790709AC4B0B9FDDB6A6102B7005@hankPC> Message-ID: <0278980f-97ca-2755-caa3-89461ed64e50@sero.name> On 11/10/17 01:24, hankman via Avodah wrote: > How could R. Akiva have mistaken Bar Kochba for Moshiach, since non of > the nevuos of Zecharya HaNovi that we read in the recent haftorah > (splitting of Har HaZeitim etc., etc) for the period precedent to > Moshiach had yet occurred? The Rambam, whose shita is based on R Akiva, explicitly paskens that none of these nevuos need to be fulfilled literally. Any that aren't can be interpreted metaphorically to fit whatever political and military events actually do take place around the geulah. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From akivagmiller at gmail.com Wed Oct 11 06:41:32 2017 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2017 09:41:32 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Questioning Authority In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I have no hidden agenda here. This post is my response to the current "OU paper" thread, and to many other threads we've had over the decades, where we have wondered how any given posek could hold a certain way on any particular question. It is also relevant to threads we've had abput *becoming* a posek, and the importance of shimush in addition to book knowledge. This is something I would not have written, or even have thought of, until about 10 years ago or so. But as I have matured, I have come to see things in a new perspective. Becoming a parent, and a grandparent, has given me a tremendous insight into Hashem's relationship with us. I have always felt that it is (or ought to be) possible and permissible to *question* authority without challenging or rejecting authority. It is very natural to want to understand the reasons behind the rules that we must live by. Wanting to understand those rules is not the same as rejecting those rules. Wanting to understand the rules, I believe, is a major component of the Mitzvah of Talmud Torah, and is thus highly commendable. A chavrusa once challenged me to explain my position on a certain subject. He said to me, "If you can't explain it to me in simple terms, then you don't really understand it well enough yourself." I accepted that rule wholeheartedly, and used it myself for many decades. But recently have I begun to see the cracks in that rule. A parent tells the child to do something, or to not do something. The child asks why, not out of rebellion, but because he sincerely wants to understand what's going on. Sometimes, the parent cannot give an answer better than "Because I said so." The child now thinks that the parent is being arbitrary, and sometimes, the parent might even agree. But frequently, the truth is that the parent has very good reasons for what he says. It's just that he's unable to put those reasons into clear words. He can't even explain it to himself in simple terms, because it is simply a gut feeling that he has, based on experience and intuition, he sees that this is the action or inaction which must be followed in this particular situation. I think this is analogous to Torah leaders and Torah followers. When the leaders tell the followers what to do, or what to avoid, it is entirely reasonable for the followers to request explanations from the leaders. This is especially so, if the explanation will help them comply with the directive, or teach them how to apply the directive to other situations. But these requests must be made respectfully, carefully, and only up to a certain point. Consider when a parent explains himself to the child, and the child responds with a dozen reasonable challenges to the parent's logic. Sometimes the parent will realize that he was in error, and back down. Sometimes the parent will realize that he was in error, but will stick to his guns as a show of power (rightly or wrongly). But sometimes, the parent will understand that - despite the child's persuasive comments - the directive must still be followed, because ... Well, the parent himself might not be able to articulate his reasoning, not even to himself. But he relies on his understanding and his experience and his common sense, and he knows that this is how it must be. So too, our leaders adopt certain positions on certain issues, and often they will attempt to explain themselves to us. Sometimes those explanations may appear flawed to us, maybe even severely flawed. Like the child who thinks his parent's explanation is nonsense, the flaws do not necessarily invalidate the leader's conclusion or his decision. Of course, none of this suggests that our leaders (or parents) are infallible. And they can certainly benefit from reviewing their positions among their peers. The only point I'm trying to make in this long post is this: Similar to a Chok from the Torah, sometimes our leaders issue pronouncements that we are not capable of fully understanding, and we should not let that stand in the way of following them. Akiva Miller NB: A critical word in this post is "sometimes". The difficult (sometimes impossible) task is to figure out which times are which. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From zev at sero.name Wed Oct 11 07:40:40 2017 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2017 10:40:40 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] R. Akiva, Bar Kochba and Zecharya HaNovi In-Reply-To: <20171011143003.GA21995@aishdas.org> References: <5AFE790709AC4B0B9FDDB6A6102B7005@hankPC> <0278980f-97ca-2755-caa3-89461ed64e50@sero.name> <20171011143003.GA21995@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 11/10/17 10:30, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > While the Rambam cites R' Aqiva's following Bar Koziba (H Melahim 11:2) > as proof that the melekh hamoshiach doesn't have to do miracles, is his > position really "based on" R Aqiva's? For example, in 11:4 he describes > the moshiach as being "hogeh baTorah ve'oseiq bemitzvos keDavid aviv" > which I don't think fit Bar Kokhva even in his hayday. What makes you suppose this? On the contrary, the fact that the Rambam says "since BK didn't do any miracles, we know that Moshiach doesn't have to", proves that when he says Moshiach *does* have to be a TCh and a tzadik he assumes BK *did* fulfil this requirement. If he didn't, that would prove to the Rambam that this isn't necessary. > Nor had "veyakhof kol Yisrael leileikh bah" yet either -- the > Perushim were in the minority. Were they? Who was in the majority, if not them? And why would the majority even matter? BK was the king, and he made halacha the law of the land, whether the majority liked it or not. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From micha at aishdas.org Wed Oct 11 07:30:03 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2017 10:30:03 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] R. Akiva, Bar Kochba and Zecharya HaNovi In-Reply-To: <0278980f-97ca-2755-caa3-89461ed64e50@sero.name> References: <5AFE790709AC4B0B9FDDB6A6102B7005@hankPC> <0278980f-97ca-2755-caa3-89461ed64e50@sero.name> Message-ID: <20171011143003.GA21995@aishdas.org> On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 06:30:27AM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : On 11/10/17 01:24, hankman via Avodah wrote: :> How could R. Akiva have mistaken Bar Kochba for Moshiach, since :> non of the nevuos of Zecharya HaNovi that we read in the recent :> haftorah (splitting of Har HaZeitim etc., etc) for the period :> precedent to Moshiach had yet occurred? : The Rambam, whose shita is based on R Akiva, explicitly paskens that : none of these nevuos need to be fulfilled literally. Any that : aren't can be interpreted metaphorically to fit whatever political : and military events actually do take place around the geulah. While the Rambam cites R' Aqiva's following Bar Koziba (H Melahim 11:2) as proof that the melekh hamoshiach doesn't have to do miracles, is his position really "based on" R Aqiva's? For example, in 11:4 he describes the moshiach as being "hogeh baTorah ve'oseiq bemitzvos keDavid aviv" which I don't think fit Bar Kokhva even in his hayday. Nor had "veyakhof kol Yisrael leileikh bah" yet either -- the Perushim were in the minority. More clearly is his basing himself on Shemu'el (Sanhedrin 91b) when he quotes him in 12:2, "Chakhamim said: ein bein ha'olam hazeh liymos hamoshiach ela shib'ud malkhios bilvad." It's interesting that rather than repeating the quote beshrim omero -- a funny thing to do when discussing the ge'ula le'lam that giving the source is supposed to bring -- he attributes the quote to Chakhamim, as though he knew it was consensus and Rav's position deprecated. After all, the Rambam himself says that we can't decide machloqesim in these thingxs. So it could be that the Rambam did indeed base himself on R Aqiva, but then we would have to say that the Rambam held that R Aqiva was waiting for the rest of the nevu'ah to come true. Or not -- maybe his basic source was Shemu'el, and this one proof doesn't imply derivation. And given that the BK Revolt was c. 132-135 CE, it is likely that R' Aqiva expected the war to go on 7 years, as per statements in the gemara about chevlei moshiach. This would time the end of the war with 70 years after the churban, like the return after churban bayis 1. But whether that conjecture is true or not, the relevant idea that R Aqiva could be backing BK thinking the rest of the expectations about the moshiach simply hadn't happened /yet/. Which the Rambam would have to invoke even for his more mundane list of things the moshiach will accomplish. In 12:1 the Rambam denies the literalness of Yeshaiah's and Yirmiyahu's description of the messianic era in terms of wolves, leopards and lions going vegetarian. But since the splitting of Har haZeirim need not be lemaalah min hateva, do we know whether the Rambam would have placed it in the same rule? If not, the "expected it will happen in the future" answer could cover that earthquake (?) as much as it can cover BK spending all his spare time learning and doing mitzvos or his being meqareiv the vast majority of Kelal Yisrael. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger A sick person never rejects a healing procedure micha at aishdas.org as "unbefitting." Why, then, do we care what http://www.aishdas.org other people think when dealing with spiritual Fax: (270) 514-1507 matters? - Rav Yisrael Salanter From zev at sero.name Wed Oct 11 09:02:55 2017 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2017 12:02:55 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] R. Akiva, Bar Kochba and Zecharya HaNovi In-Reply-To: <20171011154231.GA6170@aishdas.org> References: <5AFE790709AC4B0B9FDDB6A6102B7005@hankPC> <0278980f-97ca-2755-caa3-89461ed64e50@sero.name> <20171011143003.GA21995@aishdas.org> <20171011154231.GA6170@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <0e95d039-c074-ae7f-f3ba-3cee64a3d191@sero.name> On 11/10/17 11:42, Micha Berger wrote: > > The man described in the Y-mi Taanis 24b (4:5) doesn't sound personally > observant. The Rambam clearly doesn't hold like the Yerushalmi's version of the story, because he holds that the Chachamim stuck with BK until he was killed "ba`avonos". That word is ambiguous (whose sins, his or the people's) but later he says a presumptive Moshiach who's killed is "kechol malchei beis Dovid hash'leimim vehak'sheirim", so we can assume he holds that BK was killed for the generation's sins, not for his own, hence "ba`avonos", not "ba`avonosav". > This is also why in both R' Aqiva's world as well as R' Meir's and R' > Shim'on's -- before and after BK's revolt -- it is taken for granted > that most Jews are amei ha'aretz. Amei Haaretz were in the Perushim "denomination". They kept Perushi halacha as well as they understood it, even if they despised the Chaverim who taught it. They made up their own invalid leniencies in maasros, and weren't careful all year with taharos, but they were careful with terumah and never told lies on Shabbos. In any case, the question isn't what the majority would have done on their own, but whether BK forced them to obey halacha, and the Rambam assumes he did. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From micha at aishdas.org Wed Oct 11 10:11:32 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2017 13:11:32 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] R. Akiva, Bar Kochba and Zecharya HaNovi In-Reply-To: <0e95d039-c074-ae7f-f3ba-3cee64a3d191@sero.name> References: <5AFE790709AC4B0B9FDDB6A6102B7005@hankPC> <0278980f-97ca-2755-caa3-89461ed64e50@sero.name> <20171011143003.GA21995@aishdas.org> <20171011154231.GA6170@aishdas.org> <0e95d039-c074-ae7f-f3ba-3cee64a3d191@sero.name> Message-ID: <20171011171132.GA1028@aishdas.org> On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 12:02:55PM -0400, Zev Sero wrote: : On 11/10/17 11:42, Micha Berger wrote: : >The man described in the Y-mi Taanis 24b (4:5) doesn't sound personally : >observant. : : The Rambam clearly doesn't hold like the Yerushalmi's version of the : story, because he holds that the Chachamim stuck with BK until he : was killed "ba`avonos"... How does this conflict with the Y-mi's picture of a less than ideal Bar Kokhva? If anything, it reinforces my suggestion that R' Aqiva was awaiting the rest of the nevu'ah. And once he is waiting for the things the Rambam mentions, then it's possible the Rambem would expect Zerkhariah's nevu'os to happen literally, but also something R' Aqiva was awaiting. It's possible the Rambam would consider the potentially natural cataclysms in Zekhariah to be non-allegory, as the examples of non-literal nevu'os he gives would have been lema'alah min hateva if literal. I don't know where he's drawing the line; nevi'ah qua nevu'ah is bederekh mashal, or only the phantastical stories should be dismissed. (This is a sibling to our discussion of the Rambam on midrashic stories. I claim he is saying that no medrash was repeated for historical content. Therefore any medrash can be ahistorical, but the fantastical stories you should take for granted as being ahistorical. You have been limiting the Rambam's denial of historicity for the fantastical stories. s/medrash/nevu'ah/g -- where do you stand?) : That word is ambiguous (whose sins, his or : the people's) but later he says a presumptive Moshiach who's killed : is "kechol malchei beis Dovid hash'leimim vehak'sheirim", so we can : assume he holds that BK was killed for the generation's sins, not : for his own, hence "ba`avonos", not "ba`avonosav". But either way -- whether he or the generation was sinful -- it would show that BK didn't fit the Rambam's descrition of moshiach. For obvious reasons, I'll add: ... at least not yet. If the generation sinned too much to merit redemption, BK wasn't too good at bringing the masses to observance. Besides, being like a kosher and shaleim member of beis David could mean "even if", we still know he wasn't the moshiach. : >This is also why in both R' Aqiva's world as well as R' Meir's and R' : >Shim'on's -- before and after BK's revolt -- it is taken for granted : >that most Jews are amei ha'aretz. : : Amei Haaretz were in the Perushim "denomination". They kept Perushi : halacha as well as they understood it, even if they despised the : Chaverim who taught it... Actually, I thought they were denominationless, as likely to follow anyone's dictates. A pagan notion of listening to every holy man, rather than picking sides. But in any case, if that's your description of the masses, you still have BK not yet succeeding in that regard at the time of his death. : in maasros, and weren't careful all year with taharos, but they were : careful with terumah and never told lies on Shabbos... They were also careful with maaser, more often than not. Demai is a gezeira; if tevel were the norm, it would be azlinan basar ruba, or at best safeiq deOraisa lehachmir. : the question isn't what the majority would have done on their own, : but whether BK forced them to obey halacha, and the Rambam assumes : he did. The Rambam doesn't say so. That's your deduction. It requires assuming that the Rambam agrees with R' Aqiva over what the grounds for presuming (making a chazqah) that someone is moshiach. He doesn't say R' Aqiva is indeed his source. And it also requires assuming R Aqiva was following BK because of a chazaqah, rather than probability and rov. You haven't addressed my "maybe" of R Aqiva following BK without BK having yet fulfilled all of the moshiach's role becuase of an expectation that BK would be getting there. My added "not yet". Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Between stimulus & response, there is a space. micha at aishdas.org In that space is our power to choose our http://www.aishdas.org response. In our response lies our growth Fax: (270) 514-1507 and our freedom. - Victor Frankl, (MSfM) From zev at sero.name Sat Oct 14 19:44:53 2017 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2017 22:44:53 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] R. Akiva, Bar Kochba and Zecharya HaNovi In-Reply-To: <20171011171132.GA1028@aishdas.org> References: <5AFE790709AC4B0B9FDDB6A6102B7005@hankPC> <0278980f-97ca-2755-caa3-89461ed64e50@sero.name> <20171011143003.GA21995@aishdas.org> <20171011154231.GA6170@aishdas.org> <0e95d039-c074-ae7f-f3ba-3cee64a3d191@sero.name> <20171011171132.GA1028@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 11/10/17 13:11, Micha Berger wrote: > On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 12:02:55PM -0400, Zev Sero wrote: > : On 11/10/17 11:42, Micha Berger wrote: > : >The man described in the Y-mi Taanis 24b (4:5) doesn't sound personally > : >observant. > : > : The Rambam clearly doesn't hold like the Yerushalmi's version of the > : story, because he holds that the Chachamim stuck with BK until he > : was killed "ba`avonos"... > > How does this conflict with the Y-mi's picture of a less than ideal > Bar Kokhva? It conflicts because the Y'mi's version of the story has the Chachamim abandoning BK *before* his fall. The Rambam clearly does not agree with that whole version of the story. In his version BK was and remained a tzadik until his tragic end, which happened not for his own sins but for those of others. > It's possible the Rambam would consider the potentially natural cataclysms > in Zekhariah to be non-allegory, as the examples of non-literal nevu'os > he gives would have been lema'alah min hateva if literal. I don't know > where he's drawing the line; nevi'ah qua nevu'ah is bederekh mashal, > or only the phantastical stories should be dismissed. He doesn't draw a line at all. He carefully doesn't say that Moshiach *won't* perform miracles, but merely that he *needn't*, because BK didn't and yet was assumed to be Moshiach. Which further contradicts the Y'mi's version, which says he was rejected because he could not judge people by smelling whether they're right or wrong, a feat of which the True Moshiach(tm) must be capable. > > : That word is ambiguous (whose sins, his or > : the people's) but later he says a presumptive Moshiach who's killed > : is "kechol malchei beis Dovid hash'leimim vehak'sheirim", so we can > : assume he holds that BK was killed for the generation's sins, not > : for his own, hence "ba`avonos", not "ba`avonosav". > > But either way -- whether he or the generation was sinful -- it would > show that BK didn't fit the Rambam's descrition of moshiach. How so? He was righteous, and forced people to keep Torah, but they didn't listen, just like Yoshiyahu. > But in any case, if that's your description of the masses, you still > have BK not yet succeeding in that regard at the time of his death. Again, how so? The requirement is that he forces all Israel to follow it and to reinforce its breaches. Not that he educates them, or makes them enthusiastic, but simply that he makes the Shulchan Aruch the law of the land, punishing those who break it. There are always lawbreakers; one would not therefore say that the government is not forcing people to obey the law. > : the question isn't what the majority would have done on their own, > : but whether BK forced them to obey halacha, and the Rambam assumes > : he did. > > The Rambam doesn't say so. That's your deduction. It requires assuming > that the Rambam agrees with R' Aqiva over what the grounds for presuming > (making a chazqah) that someone is moshiach. He doesn't say R' Aqiva is > indeed his source. He explicitly uses him as his source that Moshiach needn't perform miracles. How could he do so if his vision of Moshiach's qualifications were different from R Akiva's? If he holds that Moshiach must be a tzadik but RA didn't, then how does he know that Moshiach needn't perform miracles just because R Akiva thought so? > And it also requires assuming R Aqiva was following BK because of a > chazaqah, rather than probability and rov. You haven't addressed my > "maybe" of R Aqiva following BK without BK having yet fulfilled all of > the moshiach's role becuase of an expectation that BK would be getting > there. My added "not yet". Again, this is impossible because if so how does he know R Akiva didn't indeed require Moshiach to perform miracles, and was expecting them to happen any day now? How can he say that Moshiach need *never* perform miracles, and if he achieves everything he's supposed to without the need for miracles we will still have to accept him as Vadai Moshiach? Clearly he understands that R Akiva was *not* expecting any miracles, and that this didn't bother him, because it isn't a requirement. None of which rules out the actual Moshiach, when he does come, performing miracles. The Rambam's position on this, unlike the Y'mi's, is neutral. He might perform miracles or he might not. Some or all of the nevuos might turn out literally, but some or all might not. The nevuos he says can't be literal, at least in the initial stage of Yemos Hamoshiach, are not ones about miracles but about permanent changes in nature. Chazal said that Ein Bein Olam Hazeh Liymos Hamoshiach Ela... so nevuos about a change in nature must either be metaphorical or refer to Olam Haba. But nevuos about miracles may or may not happen literally, we won't know until we get there. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From motti.yarchinai at yahoo.com.au Sun Oct 15 01:00:51 2017 From: motti.yarchinai at yahoo.com.au (Motti Yarchinai) Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2017 08:00:51 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Avodah] Psak source wanted References: <1857240052.122258.1508054451353.ref@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1857240052.122258.1508054451353@mail.yahoo.com> Dear Avodah members, Can anyone help me with a source for this psak: It is similar to what the Rambam wrote in Hilchot Kiddush Hachodesh, saying that in all calendric matters, we follow the lead of the chachmei eretz yisrael, and even though the anshei hagolah know the calculations used by them, it is not on our own calculations that we rely, we only use those calculations because we know that they are the same as the calculations used by the chachmei eretz yisrael, and we must all follow the rulings of the latter, in all calendric matters. Another posek (possibly the Tifferet Yisrael in Shvilei Harakia, but I'm not sure of that), writes something similar but couched in even more dramatic terms. The following is not a verbatim quote (since the original is in Hebrew) but something very close to it: "And even if the residents of eretz yisrael are all ignoramuses and peasants, and the authorities of chutz la'aretz are great scholars and knowledgable in Torah and halachah, in calendric matters we follow the peasants and ignoramuses, not the scholars of chutz la'aretz." Does anyone recognise this and remember where it's from? Thank you.Motti -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From akivagmiller at gmail.com Sun Oct 15 13:02:06 2017 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2017 16:02:06 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Zecher Liytzias Mitzrayim and Shmini Atzeres Message-ID: . What is the Zecher Liytzias Mitzrayim of Shmini Atzeres?We say it in Kiddush and in the Amidah. There must be something about this chag that connects to, and/or reminds us about, Yetzias Mitzrayim. It sounds like such a basic question that I'm surprised that I don't remember hearing it in the past. If anyone has an answer, please share it. Meanwhile, here's what I came up with: Shavuos is about one particular event in the midbar. Sukkos is about the whole 40 years in the midbar. Pesach and Shmini Atzeres are bookends: Pesach is about entering the midbar, and Shmini Atzeres is about leaving the midbar.If Sukkos is about the Ananei Hakavod and all the other nissim that accompanied us, then Shmini Atzeres is about re-entering the natural world. I played "word association" with six random people: When I said "yetzias mitzrayim," five of them responded, "Pesach". This is not wrong, but it is a distortion. Yetzias Mitzrayim was not a short event in Nissan; Shavuos and Sukkos prove that it was a process that took 40 years. My suggestion is simply that the last day is no less worthy of a chag than the first. Rashi (B'midbar 29:35) famously tells us that Shmini Atzeres is a special time, with just Hashem and Bnei Yisrael together, alone, with no other nations around. I'm merely pointing out that it is not just the nations who are gone: The lulav is gone. The sukkah is gone. Nothing remains but us and Hashem, when we left the comfort of the miraculous sukkah, trading it for being at home in Eretz Yisrael. Akiva Miller Postscript: An easy challenge to this post could be that Tishre 22 was NOT the day that we crossed from the midbar into Eretz Yisrael. I will respond in advance by pointing out that Shavuos too is not necessarily celebrated on the same day as the event it reminds us of. The Zecher can be poetic and emotional, and need not be so mathematically rigorous. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hankman at bell.net Sun Oct 15 14:41:04 2017 From: hankman at bell.net (hankman) Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2017 17:41:04 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] eitz hachaim Message-ID: Hi, What exactly was the eitz hachaim all about. The simple pshat doesn?t make any sense. If the purpose of the Gan was to serve Adam then when would (could) he make use of the eitz hachaim? Kodem hacheit he was not a bar misah so he had no need of it, after the cheit he was prevented from accessing it! So when would it ever be useful to Adam? Kol tuv Chaim Manaster -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hankman at bell.net Sun Oct 15 14:48:11 2017 From: hankman at bell.net (hankman) Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2017 17:48:11 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Vayehi erev Message-ID: Hi, If you look at days 3, 4 & 5 tou will find that they close with Vayehi erev vayehi boker yom X as a complete passuk. But on days 1, 2 & 6 the vayehi erev is only the completion of a larger passuk and not a passuk on its own. Finally on Shabbos the final closing of vayehi erev is omitted completely. Do any of the medrashing or meforshing explain this? Kol tuv Chaim Manaster -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Sun Oct 15 14:31:16 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2017 17:31:16 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Zecher Liytzias Mitzrayim and Shmini Atzeres In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20171015213116.GA14924@aishdas.org> On Sun, Oct 15, 2017 at 04:02:06PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : What is the Zecher Liytzias Mitzrayim of Shmini Atzeres? ... What's the ZlYM of Shabbos? : Shavuos is about one particular event in the midbar. Sukkos is about the : whole 40 years in the midbar... Unless Sukkos is about the return of the ananei hakavod. The Gra puts 2 and 2 (and 2) together: The ananei hakavod left with the Cheit haEigel. When Moshe returned with the 2nd luchos, completing his 3rd 40-day day atop Har Sinai, he gave Benei Yisrael instructions including those for donating the materials and building the Mishkan. So that actual construction began on 15 Nissan -- and that's when the ananim returned. The Meshekh Chimah adds to this that it explains the oconstrast between Sukkos as described in Mishpatim 23:16, where all we learn about the timing in the fall is that it's Chag haAsif. This was before Cheit haEigel, never mind the eventual return. But in parashas Re'eih, the holiday makes its appearance as Chag haSukkos, refering to the returned sukkos of ananei hakavod. : Pesach is about entering the midbar, and Shmini Atzeres is about leaving : the midbar.If Sukkos is about the Ananei Hakavod and all the other nissim : that accompanied us, then Shmini Atzeres is about re-entering the natural : world. My own mental image of the structure of the year: The qiymu veqiblu haYhudim of Purim is the further development of the theme of Shavous (a/k/a Atzeres). And similarly the zikhronos of Rosh haShanah is the further development of the theme of Shemini Atzeres -- the beris. In Shemini Atzeres this creates a need for a 71st par for qorban mussaf, as well as the naturalness of our turning SA into Simchas Torah. On RH we ask for clemency if not for our sake, than for the sake of seeing the beris to fruition. So that each season has a central holiday -- Sukkos or Pesach -- which is what underlies the gezeira shava tes-vav - tes-vav. Then the season is introduced with a something (Purim or Yamim Noraim) to prepare us for the holiday. The bounty of Sukkos has to be earned; Tishrei is about middas hadin after all. The freedom of Pesach needs a context. (And Putim is derabbanan bececause the ultimate qabbalas ol mitzvos hd to come from us.) And then the theme is culminated in an Atzeres, a day to stop, pack it up, and take it with us for the next half-year. That said, I like your idead of SA as reentering the natural world. It's experientially very true, after all that holiday. It also gives more significance to the timing of Tefillas Geshem. "Qasheh alei pereidaskhem" does refer to that return; aalthough I think you need to work on the difference between our return to the natural world and Hashem making the day itself to *delay* the return. Jews and G-d without the rest of the world. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger What we do for ourselves dies with us. micha at aishdas.org What we do for others and the world, http://www.aishdas.org remains and is immortal. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Albert Pine From micha at aishdas.org Sun Oct 15 15:21:26 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2017 18:21:26 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] R. Akiva, Bar Kochba and Zecharya HaNovi In-Reply-To: References: <5AFE790709AC4B0B9FDDB6A6102B7005@hankPC> <0278980f-97ca-2755-caa3-89461ed64e50@sero.name> <20171011143003.GA21995@aishdas.org> <20171011154231.GA6170@aishdas.org> <0e95d039-c074-ae7f-f3ba-3cee64a3d191@sero.name> <20171011171132.GA1028@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20171015222126.GB14924@aishdas.org> On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 10:44:53PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: :> How does this conflict with the Y-mi's picture of a less than ideal :> Bar Kokhva? : : It conflicts because the Y'mi's version of the story has the : Chachamim abandoning BK *before* his fall. The Rambam clearly does : not agree with that whole version of the story... The Y-mi does not say that R' Aqiva was among those who left early. : In his version BK : was and remained a tzadik until his tragic end, which happened not : for his own sins but for those of others. My whole point is that the Rambam doesn't describe him as a tzadiq anywhere. He says in one place that BK could be taken to be the moshiach despite a lack of miracles and another place that when someone from beis david who is hogeh ve'oseiq bemitzvos keDavid aviv... vehakhos kol Yisrael leileikh bah... and fights Hashem's wars, then this person can be presumed to be mashiach. Not that BK had such a chazaqah; the "pesaq" of the tannaim needn't have been based on this particular chazaqah or any chazaqah. As I said, there is nothing in the Rambam to rule out them following BK out of the expectation that he would eventually get there, rather than his being hogeh ve'oseiq bemitzvos already. And then you don't need to make the Rambam ignore a Yerushalmi. : He doesn't draw a line at all. He carefully doesn't say that : Moshiach *won't* perform miracles, but merely that he *needn't*, 12:1: Al ya'aleh aal leiv shebiymos hamoshiach yibateil davar miminhago shel olam... ela olam keminhago noheig. This doesn't really rule out miracles, but it does rule out ones that leave a permanent change in the natural orer. There is a line. Which is how he rules out the historicity of "vegar ze'eiv im keves..." etc... They don't mearly "needn't" happen, he rules out the possibility of their literal meaning being part of the future, because they cross his line of olam keminhago noheig". : >But either way -- whether he or the generation was sinful -- it would : >show that BK didn't fit the Rambam's descrition of moshiach. : How so? He was righteous, and forced people to keep Torah, but : they didn't listen, just like Yoshiyahu. "Veyakhof" includes "tried and failed"??? That's not quite what the Rambam says. : Again, how so? The requirement is that he forces all Israel to : follow it and to reinforce its breaches. Not that he educates them, : or makes them enthusiastic, but simply that he makes the Shulchan : Aruch the law of the land, punishing those who break it... Which he didn't. The Sanhedrin doesn't get reorgonized and put on Har haBayis. In fact, he doesn't get the backing of the majority of the day's posqim to be able to be associated with a 2nd century religious revival through legal enforcement, even if he there had been one. (Which there is no record of.) Again, this is only a problem for you because you assume that the Rambam's chazaqah in 11:4 must be the reason for R' Aqiva and other tannaim followed BK. But he uses the expression "vedimah hu vekhol chakhmei doro" -- which is a little weak for following a chazaqah as per a chiyuv. The Y-mi (in the adorementiond &T Taanis 4:5 24b) quotes R' Aqiva as telling R' Yochanan ben Torta "Din hu malka meshikha", an idiom usually used to refer to a qal vachomer. BTW, where does the Rambam get that "kol chakhmei doro" followed Bar Koziva? Is there any indication Rabban Gamliel ever did? R Yochanan b Torta replied (in an oft repeated line) "Aqiva, yaalu asavim belechaikh ve'adayin ben David lo ba." : >The Rambam doesn't say so. That's your deduction. It requires assuming : >that the Rambam agrees with R' Aqiva over what the grounds for presuming : >(making a chazqah) that someone is moshiach. He doesn't say R' Aqiva is : >indeed his source. : : He explicitly uses him as his source that Moshiach needn't perform : miracles. How could he do so if his vision of Moshiach's : qualifications were different from R Akiva's? ... R' Aqiva proves that not performing miracles doesn't rule out someone being the moshiach. He doesn't prove what it takes to actually qualify as being one. And even beyond the difference between deriving one negative statement about the mashiach and assuming he got all his positive statements from the same source, you're missing the difference between noting R' Aqiva reached a conclusion and the Rambam pasqening that in a certain situation we are obligated by the rules of chazaqah to reach that same conclusion. : Again, this is impossible because if so how does he know R Akiva : didn't indeed require Moshiach to perform miracles, and was : expecting them to happen any day now? ... Who said he didn't? He uses R' Aqiva to rule out waiting for a miracle before following a potential. Not that moshiach won't perform miracles. 12:2 quotes Shemu'el to back up the point in 12:1 that olam beminhago holeikh. Which is minimally a particular kind of miracle, although it plausibly includes even miracles that are only momentary breaks in minhag olam. He doesn't mention R' Aqiva when ruling out these miracles from the entire mission. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "Man wants to achieve greatness overnight, micha at aishdas.org and he wants to sleep well that night too." http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yosef Yozel Horwitz, Alter of Novarodok Fax: (270) 514-1507 From hankman at bell.net Sun Oct 15 15:59:44 2017 From: hankman at bell.net (hankman) Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2017 18:59:44 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Torah precheit? Message-ID: Hi, I have been trying to understand what the geshtalt of Torah was precheit of the eitz hadaas. It could not have resembled anything that we ( I ) would recognize today. Consider: There was but one mitzva. Most if not all the mitzvos of the Torah we are familiar with could not have existed, at least as we understand them today. Had Adam been successful in his one day tafkid the purpose of the bria would have been accomplished and Adam (mankind) would have gone to olom haba ? mission accomplished nothing more to follow but for reward in olom haba. The many consequences seem to be as follows: there would be no avdus in Mitzrayim, therefore no yetzias Mitzrayim, therefore no regolim, that are all built on the idea of zecher l?yitzias Mitzrayim nor their issurei melocho . So there would not me any korban Pesach, no matzo, no maror etc. There would be no lulav and esrog, no succah etc. There would be no krobanos of shavous, no Yom Kippur and all its avoda and all its inuiyim as the cheit haeigel would never occur. Not sure about Rosh Hashana as the 6th day was the first RH perhaps as a yom hadin to pasken that Adam succeeded in his task and is deserving of olom haba. I could assume that Shabbos would also be present as it was in that first week with a kedushas Shabbos. The mussafim of all these yomim tovim would also be non existent as the yomim tovim themself seem in doubt. Much of the korbanos relating to cheit would seemingly have no purpose. the existance of the mikdash and all related mitzvot would likewise be in doubt. The mikdosh would have been Adam himself or perhaps after day 7 the mikdash would have come down in fire from heaven like we await today shibaneh beis hamikdash? As there would never be an Eretz Yisroel, then there would not be all the mitzvot hateltuot ba?aretz ? trumos, masros etc., etc. There would be no issurei arayos as there was just Adam and Chava. Not quite sure here as there was Kayin and Hevel and their twin sisters were there in the latter part of day 6. So perhaps a few of the arayaos would have been possible, mainly mother, father, son, daughter, aishes ish (Adam and Chava, but not sure about the kids as could kedushin be tofeis in a sister even if mutar for kium olam? Mishkav zachar was possible, but mishkav behama might not have been assur if one reads the medroshim kepshutom which the Maharal tell us NOT to do when Adam was seeking his mate before Chava was created. Still one has to deal with the fact that while these might have been possible, there was but ONE commandment ? not to eat from the eitz hadaas and none of the possible arayos I consider above. There was no mitzva of mila for Adam or Kayin and Hevel. Perhaps Adam was created mahul and Kayin and Hevel were nolod mahul? (Still today would need hatafas dam bris). Kibud Av vaAim would only be possible for Kain and Hevel but not for Adam or Chava who were not yilud isha. Mitzvot like korcho lameis would not be possible for beings who were not bar misa. Tumas meis would not be possible. With no rabim, mitzvot like melech, korban nossi, Ir haNidachas etc would not be possible. No mechias Amalek, or shiva ammim or kivush ha?aretz etc Rosh Chodes and its dinim would never happen as the world would end after one week. Most of choshen Mishpat would be superfluous if you own the entire world (Adam ? not sure if his kids would own anything as Adam would never die so they would never yarshan the world from him? (not sure if I am in the realm of Purim torah or not?). I could go on for most of taryag that would not have been possible. But the bottom line, possible or not, there was only ONE commandment ? the eitz hadaas! So what is the nature of Torah in such a world. How do we see it as an ever constant ever present and unchanging Torah? How does a Torah with but ONE mitzva look? How does it still identify with a Torah with 613 mitzvot? Sorry if my thoughts were very rambling. I just typed as things came to mind ? maybe not always a good idea! Kol tuv Chaim Manaster -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From zev at sero.name Sun Oct 15 22:15:48 2017 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2017 01:15:48 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] R. Akiva, Bar Kochba and Zecharya HaNovi In-Reply-To: <20171015222126.GB14924@aishdas.org> References: <5AFE790709AC4B0B9FDDB6A6102B7005@hankPC> <0278980f-97ca-2755-caa3-89461ed64e50@sero.name> <20171011143003.GA21995@aishdas.org> <20171011154231.GA6170@aishdas.org> <0e95d039-c074-ae7f-f3ba-3cee64a3d191@sero.name> <20171011171132.GA1028@aishdas.org> <20171015222126.GB14924@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 15/10/17 18:21, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 10:44:53PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > : It conflicts because the Y'mi's version of the story has the > : Chachamim abandoning BK *before* his fall. The Rambam clearly does > : not agree with that whole version of the story... > > The Y-mi does not say that R' Aqiva was among those who left early. The Rambam says that R Akiva *and all the sages of his generation* imagined BK was Moshiach, *until he was killed*. This is not consistent with the Y'mi. > As I said, there is nothing in the Rambam to rule out them following BK > out of the expectation that he would eventually get there, rather than his > being hogeh ve'oseiq bemitzvos already. Then why can't they also have expected him to eventually do miracles? How does their belief in him, and his lack of miracles, prove that Moshiach needn't do any? The fact that the Rambam uses their belief in him as proof that miracles aren't a requirement shows that they believed in him only because he *had* fulfilled all the *genuine* requirements for the stage he was at. > : >But either way -- whether he or the generation was sinful -- it would > : >show that BK didn't fit the Rambam's descrition of moshiach. > > : How so? He was righteous, and forced people to keep Torah, but > : they didn't listen, just like Yoshiyahu. > > "Veyakhof" includes "tried and failed"??? That's not quite what the > Rambam says. Yachof means to force, to make it the law of the land, and those who disobey are punished. It doesn't preclude people breaking the law when they think they can get away with it. Our current government forces us to live without drugs, and yet many people don't. > > : Again, how so? The requirement is that he forces all Israel to > : follow it and to reinforce its breaches. Not that he educates them, > : or makes them enthusiastic, but simply that he makes the Shulchan > : Aruch the law of the land, punishing those who break it... > > Which he didn't. The Sanhedrin doesn't get reorgonized and put on Har > haBayis. The Sanhedrin was already organized. There's no requirement that they return to Lishkas Hagazis until there *is* one, which he does eventually have to do, but it comes *after* chezkas Moshiach and fighting the war, which is the stage he was at. > In fact, he doesn't get the backing of the majority of the day's > posqim He certainly did, according to the Rambam. > to be able to be associated with a 2nd century religious revival > through legal enforcement, even if he there had been one. (Which there > is no record of.) Again, a "religious revival" means inspiring people to *want* to keep mitzvos, which is unrelated to *forcing* them to do so. > Again, this is only a problem for you because you assume that the Rambam's > chazaqah in 11:4 must be the reason for R' Aqiva and other tannaim > followed BK. What else could it be? He goes directly from saying that miracles are not a requirement to listing what things *are* requirements. Therefore he must have done those things. > But he uses the expression "vedimah hu vekhol chakhmei doro" > -- which is a little weak for following a chazaqah as per a chiyuv. What's weak about it? They must have had a reason for this imagination. What else but the chazaka? And if they thought he hadn't yet reached that stage then how do we know miracles aren't required to reach it? > > The Y-mi (in the adorementiond &T Taanis 4:5 24b) quotes R' Aqiva as > telling R' Yochanan ben Torta "Din hu malka meshikha", an idiom usually > used to refer to a qal vachomer. You're misreading it. It's not "din", it's *dein*. Dein hu malka meshicha, this is the Annointed King. > BTW, where does the Rambam get that "kol chakhmei doro" followed Bar > Koziva? Is there any indication Rabban Gamliel ever did? R Yochanan b > Torta replied (in an oft repeated line) "Aqiva, yaalu asavim belechaikh > ve'adayin ben David lo ba." He was the lone exception, or nearly so. Because *he* held that the miracle of judging by smell *was* required, even at the beginning. The Rambam paskens against him. > : >The Rambam doesn't say so. That's your deduction. It requires assuming > : >that the Rambam agrees with R' Aqiva over what the grounds for presuming > : >(making a chazqah) that someone is moshiach. He doesn't say R' Aqiva is > : >indeed his source. > : > : He explicitly uses him as his source that Moshiach needn't perform > : miracles. How could he do so if his vision of Moshiach's > : qualifications were different from R Akiva's? ... > > R' Aqiva proves that not performing miracles doesn't rule out someone being > the moshiach. He doesn't prove what it takes to actually qualify as being > one. This makes no sense. Either the Rambam agrees with R Akiva's criteria or he doesn't. If he doesn't then how can R Akiva's not requiring miracles prove that they're truly not required? If he was wrong about other criteria, how do we know he was right about this one? No, the fact that the Rambam uses him as proof means the Rambam adopts his view totally, and holds it is the halacha. In Chapter 12 he rules out not miracles but changes in nature. A miracle doesn't change nature, it breaks the rules of nature. Water continues to run downhill, but this water doesn't, not because its nature is different but because it's ignoring nature. That, he says, may or may not happen. Changes in nature won't, because Chazal say so. Chazal are silent on whether Moshiach will perform miracles, so we don't know. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From michaelpoppers at gmail.com Sun Oct 15 19:22:08 2017 From: michaelpoppers at gmail.com (Michael Poppers) Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2017 22:22:08 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] =?utf-8?b?4oCcVGltdHVtIEhhLUxlduKAnSBSZWR1eA==?= Message-ID: In Avodah V35n121, R'Micha wrote: > Tangent: The Gra said that "vehayisa akh sameiach" is the hardest mitzvah in the Torah. "Veyahisa sameiach" is one thing, but "akh sameiach"? To be nothing but happy, with no other moods ambivalently mixed in for 8 days (9 in chu"l) straight? < Tangents to the tangent: (a) Perhaps someone can quote "Ma'asei Rav" or the like, but what I've seen quoted *b'sheim GRA* is that the "ach" *d'rasha* in BT Sukka means that on Shmini Chag haAtzeres we're *b'simcha* with H' w/out any *cheftza shel mitzva*, e.g. see here : Perhaps the answer lies in a comment from the Vilna Gaon on the pasuk of ?v?hayisa ach sameiach.? The Gemara (Succah 48a) derives from this pasuk that Shemini Atzeres is included in the mitzvah of simchah. But the word ach generally limits what is being discussed. What are we limiting with ach sameiach? The Gaon explains that whereas Succos requires many mitzvah objects ? a succah, lulav and esrog, hoshanas ? Shemini Atzeres does not require any physical items. We only need to be sameiach. This is the inherent gift of the last day of the Yom Tov. We can?t take the succah and lulav with us after Yom Tov. But the simchah that comes from dveikus with Hashem requires nothing but ourselves, and it is something we can take along with us. (b) Translating "ach" as "nothing but" doesn't explain the YhK "ach" (P'Emor). (c) Another thought on "v'samachta b'chagecha...v'hayisa ach sameach" is that the latter mandate of *simcha* ("ach" or no "ach") seems superfluous and can be considered as a mandate for the entire year (i.e. not just "b'chagecha"). All the best from *Michael Poppers* * Elizabeth, NJ, USA -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From lisa at starways.net Mon Oct 16 00:51:28 2017 From: lisa at starways.net (Lisa Liel) Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2017 10:51:28 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] eitz hachaim In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <61f0b606-b859-4475-eef8-a10489e74f1c@starways.net> On 10/16/2017 12:41 AM, hankman via Avodah wrote: > What exactly was the eitz hachaim all about. The simple pshat doesn't > make any sense. If the purpose of the Gan was to serve Adam then when > would (could) he make use of the eitz hachaim? Kodem hacheit he was > not a bar misah so he had no need of it, after the cheit he was > prevented from accessing it! So when would it ever be useful to Adam? I don't understand the question. He was prevented from accessing it *because* of the cheit. Had he not sinned, you say he would have had no need for it, but who is to say that its only function was to make him live forever. Maybe that's just the function it has for a bar mitah. Or maybe that was its function, and that's *why* he wasn't a bar mitah. Because the eitz ha-chaim was there, and permissible for him to eat. It was only after he'd eaten from the eitz ha-daat that he could no longer be permitted to live forever. That what eating that did to him made eternal life for him a Bad Thing. Lisa From seinfeld at jsli.org Mon Oct 16 07:02:10 2017 From: seinfeld at jsli.org (Alexander Seinfeld) Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2017 10:02:10 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Zecher Liytzias Mitzrayim and Shmini Atzeres In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: It?s a nice vort but couldn?t you ask the same about Shabbos and Rosh Hashana? Isn?t every Yomtov is a Zecher Yetzias Mitzrayim, not for historical reasons but because Yetzias Mitzrayim is the foundation of our emunah (not Har Sinai)? > >>Rashi (B'midbar 29:35) famously tells us that Shmini Atzeres is a special >>time, with just Hashem and Bnei Yisrael together, alone, with no other >>nations around. I'm merely pointing out that it is not just the nations >>who >>are gone: The lulav is gone. The sukkah is gone. Nothing remains but us >>and >>Hashem, when we left the comfort of the miraculous sukkah, trading it for >>being at home in Eretz Yisrael. >> >>Akiva Miller >> >>Postscript: An easy challenge to this post could be that Tishre 22 was >>NOT >>the day that we crossed from the midbar into Eretz Yisrael. I will >>respond >>in advance by pointing out that Shavuos too is not necessarily celebrated >>on the same day as the event it reminds us of. The Zecher can be poetic >>and >>emotional, and need not be so mathematically rigorous. From micha at aishdas.org Mon Oct 16 11:35:11 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2017 14:35:11 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] R. Akiva, Bar Kochba and Zecharya HaNovi In-Reply-To: References: <5AFE790709AC4B0B9FDDB6A6102B7005@hankPC> <0278980f-97ca-2755-caa3-89461ed64e50@sero.name> <20171011143003.GA21995@aishdas.org> <20171011154231.GA6170@aishdas.org> <0e95d039-c074-ae7f-f3ba-3cee64a3d191@sero.name> <20171011171132.GA1028@aishdas.org> <20171015222126.GB14924@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20171016183511.GA2496@aishdas.org> On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 01:15:48AM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : On 15/10/17 18:21, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: :> On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 10:44:53PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: :>: It conflicts because the Y'mi's version of the story has the :>: Chachamim abandoning BK *before* his fall. The Rambam clearly does :>: not agree with that whole version of the story... :> The Y-mi does not say that R' Aqiva was among those who left early. : The Rambam says that R Akiva *and all the sages of his generation* : imagined BK was Moshiach, *until he was killed*. This is not : consistent with the Y'mi. I see what you mean. Again, it is interesting to find out where the Rambam's alternate picture comes from. Just as his "kol" in "vekhol chakhmei dodo" doesn't seem to be Chazal's picture in either shas. E.g. Sanhedrin 93b, "nechzei anan i moreiach veda'ain..." They were still checking out the validity of BK's claim at the time of his death. :> As I said, there is nothing in the Rambam to rule out them following BK :> out of the expectation that he would eventually get there, rather than his :> being hogeh ve'oseiq bemitzvos already. : Then why can't they also have expected him to eventually do : miracles? How does their belief in him, and his lack of miracles, : prove that Moshiach needn't do any? ... To repeat myself: 11:3 talks about following someone despite a lack of miracles. 12:1-2 talks about the necessary absense of at least a particular kind of miracle -- the start of a new natural order -- if not miracles altogether. If you want to talk about needn't do... then you're looking at R' Aqiva and pereq 11. If you want to talk about won't do... then you're looking at pereq 12 and his assumption of Shemu'el's "ein bein" over Rav's shitah. And the list of things that won't happen is necessarily a subset of things that one needn't wait to happen before following the candidate. Possibly a strict subset, possibly identical sets. :>:> But either way -- whether he or the generation was sinful -- it would :>:> show that BK didn't fit the Rambam's descrition of moshiach. :>: How so? He was righteous, and forced people to keep Torah, but :>: they didn't listen, just like Yoshiyahu. :> "Veyakhof" includes "tried and failed"??? That's not quite what the :> Rambam says. : Yachof means to force, to make it the law of the land, and those who : disobey are punished... You're just repeating the insistance that "vayakhof" could include trying to force people and failing. If the punishments don't actually get the majority observing, is it kefiyah? And we have no evidence or even claim of BK ever even having set up a punishment system. Although this too could be part of the picture the Rambam draws that I don't know the sourece for. After all, as per the above, the picture you get from CHazal is that the Sanhedrin and its enforcement system was *not* behind BK, but the Rambam would have them aligned. ... :> Which he didn't. The Sanhedrin doesn't get reorgonized and put on Har :> haBayis. : The Sanhedrin was already organized. There's no requirement that : they return to Lishkas Hagazis until there *is* one, which he does : eventually have to do, but it comes *after* chezkas Moshiach and : fighting the war, which is the stage he was at. Actually, there is strong evidence he at least started building a BHMQ. And while I suppose they didn't have to move in yet, Anshei Keneses haGedolah moved in to a "lishkah" demarkated by curtains! "Chezqas moshiach" isn't a state in-and-of-itself. It's a chazaqah, a legal presumption, that someone is moshiach. A presumption of a status, not a status. IOW, it is likely that among all of beis David, only the mashiach would be hogeh in Torah and oseif bemitzvos, bring the Jews to observance (minimally: by compulsion) "leileikh bahh ulchazeiq bidqah". And therefore, if we find a member of beis David succeeding at these things, we are obligated to act with the understanding that he is mashiach. Thus, it is meaningless to talk about what happens before or after chezqas mashiach, as though it were a real state change. : Again, a "religious revival" means inspiring people to *want* to : keep mitzvos, which is unrelated to *forcing* them to do so. That's yhour own creative read of what kefiyah means. Forcing or not, it implies actual follow-through. BK didn't risk (and in fact lose) the backing of the majority to get a minority sect to join his support. He didn't get the majority to observe -- or even want to keep mitzvos (as per TSBP). :> Again, this is only a problem for you because you assume that the Rambam's :> chazaqah in 11:4 must be the reason for R' Aqiva and other tannaim :> followed BK. : What else could it be? He goes directly from saying that miracles : are not a requirement to listing what things *are* requirements. : Therefore he must have done those things. Requirements for building a chazaqah that the candidate is indeed moshiach. Which is a measure of confidence in BK the Rambam doesn't claim R' Aqiva and his generation reached -- they only reached as far as "hu hayah omer alav" and "vedimah hu". No mention of a chazaqah they were chayavim to follow; in fact, the lashon ("dimah") implied its lack. Chazaqah isn't imagination; it's a presumption strong enough to obligate our acting upon. : What's weak about it? They must have had a reason for this : imagination. What else but the chazaka? And if they thought he : hadn't yet reached that stage then how do we know miracles aren't : required to reach it? Miracles aren't required. Full stop. 12:1 could even be saying they are ruled out. "What else other than the chazaqah"? Indicators that are short of a chazaqah. Don't we follow umdena, ruba deleisa leqaman, and other notions of likelihood without going as far as having a chazaqah in a lot of halachic topics? : You're misreading it. It's not "din", it's *dein*. Dein hu malka : meshicha, this is the Annointed King. "Hadein hu"? Not that important for the main topic, since dimah isn't an expression I would picture the Rambam using for a mandatory following of a chazaqah. :> BTW, where does the Rambam get that "kol chakhmei doro" followed Bar :> Koziva? Is there any indication Rabban Gamliel ever did? R Yochanan b :> Torta replied (in an oft repeated line) "Aqiva, yaalu asavim belechaikh :> ve'adayin ben David lo ba." : He was the lone exception, or nearly so. Because *he* held that : the miracle of judging by smell *was* required, even at the : beginning. The Rambam paskens against him. That is against the stam bavli (in Sanhedrin 93b, quoted above), which says it's Rabbanan. ... : This makes no sense. Either the Rambam agrees with R Akiva's : criteria or he doesn't... Critria for what? I still find you mixing apples and oranges. He uses R' Aqiva's following of BK despite the lack of a chazaqah as proof that we too shouldn't wait for a miracle before following a likely moshiach. He used Shemu'el's position to rule out miracles (or to be generous, maybe only one kind of miracle) being part of the messianic dream altogether. Very consistent picture, IMHO. : In Chapter 12 he rules out not miracles but changes in nature. A : miracle doesn't change nature, it breaks the rules of nature... It is a bitul of something miminhago shel olam, albeit a temporary one. But I have consistently left open the door to saying he's only talking about a subset of miracles; those that leave the running of things changed. I don't find it likely that the Rambam's "yibatel davar" means only permanent bitul, doubly so since it would be redundant with the next line, "o yihyeh sham chidush bemaaseh bereishis". Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger People were created to be loved. micha at aishdas.org Things were created to be used. http://www.aishdas.org The reason why the world is in chaos is that Fax: (270) 514-1507 things are being loved, people are being used. From cantorwolberg at cox.net Wed Oct 18 06:37:17 2017 From: cantorwolberg at cox.net (Richard Wolberg) Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2017 09:37:17 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Interesting Insight on Noach Message-ID: <36805007-8186-42B4-9042-51439D2BB204@cox.net> It has always bothered me that Noah was considered the only righteous person (along with his family) and that everyone else was evil. However, just today as I was studying various commentaries, I came across the following amazing account in Tanchuma, R?eh, 3. From the moment that God gave the Torah, it is only he who sins that will be punished, though before that, the whole generation was responsible for the sin of the individual. Thus there were many righteous men swept away with the deluge in the time of Noah. Hence, since Noah was the ?most? righteous, he was spared although the other righteous were not, as a consequence of collective guilt at that time. rw Inside each of us, there is the seed of both good and evil. It's a constant struggle as to which one will win. And one cannot exist without the other. Eric Burdon > > ?If you live for people?s acceptance, you will > die from their rejection.? > Anonymous From zev at sero.name Wed Oct 18 07:43:32 2017 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2017 10:43:32 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Interesting Insight on Noach In-Reply-To: <36805007-8186-42B4-9042-51439D2BB204@cox.net> References: <36805007-8186-42B4-9042-51439D2BB204@cox.net> Message-ID: On 18/10/17 09:37, Richard Wolberg via Avodah wrote: > However, just today > as I was studying various commentaries, I came across the following amazing > account in Tanchuma, R?eh, 3. > > From the moment that God gave the Torah, it is only he who sins that will be punished, > though before that, the whole generation was responsible for the sin of the individual. > Thus there were many righteous men swept away with the deluge in the time of Noah. > Hence, since Noah was the ?most? righteous, he was spared although the other righteous > were not, as a consequence of collective guilt at that time. According to R Avin, what was Avraham's argument, "chalila lach"? If that had been Hashem's SOP for the past 2050 years, and would be for another 400, why didn't He just tell Avraham "Yes, this is how I do things"? -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From micha at aishdas.org Wed Oct 18 13:25:27 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2017 16:25:27 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Interesting Insight on Noach In-Reply-To: <36805007-8186-42B4-9042-51439D2BB204@cox.net> References: <36805007-8186-42B4-9042-51439D2BB204@cox.net> Message-ID: <20171018202527.GA27560@aishdas.org> On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 09:37:17AM -0400, Richard Wolberg via Avodah wrote: : ... account in Tanchuma, R?eh, 3: :> From the moment that God gave the Torah, it is only he who sins that will :> be punished, though before that, the whole generation was responsible :> for the sin of the individual. Thus there were many righteous men swept :> away with the deluge in the time of Noah. Hence, since Noah was the :> "most" righteous, he was spared although the other righteous were not, :> as a consequence of collective guilt at that time. The text is available at or The siman opens with quoting Eikhah 3:38, "miPi Elyon lo seitzei hara'os vehatov" and then immediately starts with this statement from R' Avin. However, the quote has that after Matan Torah, whomever sins, "HQBH poreia mimenu", and before that, the whole generation "meshaleim chet'o". Arguably this translation might be missing something by leaving the language of Hashem collecting, as though on a debt. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger One doesn't learn mussar to be a tzaddik, micha at aishdas.org but to become a tzaddik. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yisrael Salanter Fax: (270) 514-1507 From hankman at bell.net Wed Oct 18 08:12:50 2017 From: hankman at bell.net (hankman) Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2017 11:12:50 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] R. Akiva, Bar Kochba and Zecharya HaNovi Message-ID: <7B0712E6569740909873C2AD4F89F435@hankPC> R. Micha Berger wrote: ?This doesn't really rule out miracles, but it does rule out ones that leave a permanent change in the natural orer. There is a line. Which is how he rules out the historicity of "vegar ze'eiv im keves..." etc... They don't mearly "needn't" happen, he rules out the possibility of their literal meaning being part of the future, because they cross his line of olam keminhago noheig".? Kodem cheit Adam haReshon, not just Adam was only permitted to eat plant life but so too was the nature of ALL animals that they too only subsisted from plant life ? ie., much like "vegar ze'eiv im keves..." So perhaps olam keminhago noheig means keminhago KODEM HACHET without requiring any change to the ORIGINAL natural order. Kol tuv Chaim Manaster -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hankman at bell.net Wed Oct 18 08:44:50 2017 From: hankman at bell.net (hankman) Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2017 11:44:50 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] =?utf-8?q?=E2=80=9Cthe_miracle_of_judging_by_smell?= =?utf-8?q?=E2=80=9D_was__=28Re=3A__R=2E_Akiva=2C_Bar_Kochba_and_Ze?= =?utf-8?q?charya_HaNovi=29?= Message-ID: ?the miracle of judging by smell? Really should be a knew thread. When we learned this sugia recently in the daf yomi I asked the magid shiur that lechora this was keneged torah which requires eidim for most judgements. He answered that perhaps it means that one smell from Moshiach would be enough to get the person to be modeh al ha?emes. I replied that would only work for judgments in choshen mishpot (hodoas bal din) but not for cases involving arayos, malkos, or misah where two eidim are required and we are not permitted to accept his confession as ein adam meisim atzmo rasha. How would this ?miracle? allow for a proper halachik judgment? That is where we left it for now. Could this meimre of chazal be limited to just cases involving choshen mishpot? I imagine many meforshim address this issue, can anyone clarify? Kol tuv Chaim Manaster -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From JRich at sibson.com Wed Oct 18 08:48:56 2017 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2017 15:48:56 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Shliach Tzibbur Message-ID: <5b1d039d5958444d94f6c90a4607ee17@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> The S"A in O"C 53 discusses what to look for in a Shliach Tzibbur. We seem to not fully actualize these recommendations (rationalizations include the fact that he is no longer being motzi those who can't pray). Do you think this result is sociological or halachic driven? Does an individual (e.g., avel) who pushes to be a shatz, etc., when there are more qualified individuals (or especially if they are not qualified), accomplish more good or bad? See especially Aruch Hashulchan 53:5. KT 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: From micha at aishdas.org Wed Oct 18 14:25:50 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2017 17:25:50 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] R. Akiva, Bar Kochba and Zecharya HaNovi In-Reply-To: <7B0712E6569740909873C2AD4F89F435@hankPC> References: <7B0712E6569740909873C2AD4F89F435@hankPC> Message-ID: <20171018212550.GB27560@aishdas.org> On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 11:12:50AM -0400, hankman via Avodah wrote: : R. Micha Berger wrote: :> This doesn't really rule out miracles, but it does rule out ones that :> leave a permanent change in the natural order. There is a line. Which is :> how he rules out the historicity of "vegar ze'eiv im keves..." etc... ... : Kodem cheit Adam haReshon, not just Adam was only permitted to eat plant : life but so too was the nature of ALL animals that they too only subsisted : from plant life -- ie., much like "vegar ze'eiv im keves..." I doubt the Rambam, the "he" I am trying to understand in the text you quoted, would agree with this premise about animals before the eitz hada'as. On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 11:44:50AM -0400, hankman via Avodah wrote: :> the miracle of judging by smell : Really should be a new thread. : When we learned this sugia recently in the daf yomi I asked the magid : shiur that lechora this was keneged torah which requires eidim for : most judgements. He answered that perhaps it means that one smell from : Moshiach would be enough to get the person to be modeh al ha'emes.... I think it HAS to be be its own thread, because this too works with assumptions the Rambam would not agree with. Odds are the Rambam wouldn't take "demorach" literally. See Lecham Yehudah on Hil' Melakhim 11:3, aveilable at . But to get back on topic to the original thread (which is why I'm posting it here): Notice that the BLY (R Yehudah Iyash, Levorno mid-18th cent) assumes that such guilt-smelling would defy the Rambam's "chidush bema'aseh bereishis" rule, and thus couldn't be literal. Even though it's a localized miracle / revelation and not a permanent change in the natural order. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Every child comes with the message micha at aishdas.org that God is not yet discouraged with http://www.aishdas.org humanity. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rabindranath Tagore From jmeisner at mail.gmail.com Wed Oct 18 15:38:14 2017 From: jmeisner at mail.gmail.com (Joshua Meisner) Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2017 18:38:14 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] "the miracle of judging by smell" was (Re: R. Akiva, Bar Kochba and Zecharya HaNovi) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7C3544D0-F571-4A7C-B067-FDC0308CBD65@gmail.com> On Oct 18, 2017, at 11:44am, hankman wrote: > When we learned this sugia recently in the daf yomi I asked the magid > shiur that lechora this was keneged torah which requires eidim for > most judgements. He answered that perhaps it means that one smell from > Moshiach would be enough to get the person to be modeh al ha'emes. I > replied that would only work for judgments in choshen mishpot (hodoas > bal din) but not for cases involving arayos, malkos, or misah where two > eidim are required and we are not permitted to accept his confession as > ein adam meisim atzmo rasha... Reaching a correct psak in any area of halacha requires obtaining a full picture of the situation, including all relevant details and the particular context. This requires that the posek have skill in asking questions that will clarify these points and recognizing when, intentionally or not, the answers he is receiving do not reflect the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Perhaps it is this sense that the navi is referring to. Joshua Meisner From hankman at bell.net Wed Oct 18 15:58:01 2017 From: hankman at bell.net (hankman) Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2017 18:58:01 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] =?utf-8?q?=E2=80=9Cthe_miracle_of_judging_by_smell?= =?utf-8?q?=E2=80=9D_was__=28Re=3A__R=2E_Akiva=2C_Bar_Kochba_and_Ze?= =?utf-8?q?charya_HaNovi=29?= Message-ID: <83ADB68D660C4A8BA5E0F3D19339FF76@hankPC> R. J. Meisner wrote: ? Reaching a correct psak in any area of halacha requires obtaining a full picture of the situation, including all relevant details and the particular context. This requires that the posek have skill in asking questions that will clarify these points and recognizing when, intentionally or not, the answers he is receiving do not reflect the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Perhaps it is this sense that the navi is referring to. Joshua Meisner? But no matter how skilled the judge is at getting at the truth, even if all he need so is be moreiach, this still does not lessen the requirement of 2 eidim for many judgments. While reading your response to me, another thought occurred to me and upon reflection it may be that this is also what you meant. Perhaps when the gemara stated that he can be moreaiach veda?in that the gemara meant not that he would only need to question the defendant, and could smell whether he is guilty or not and pasken based on the surety of his conclusion, but perhaps the gemara meant that when questioning the EIDIM he was able merely smell them and then judge the credibility of the eidim whether he should accept them as credible or not and thus pasken the case accordingly. Kol tuv Chaim Manaster -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hankman at bell.net Wed Oct 18 15:44:42 2017 From: hankman at bell.net (hankman) Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2017 18:44:42 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] R. Akiva, Bar Kochba and Zecharya HaNovi Message-ID: <36062433D0904BE5ABD5156C727C7A6D@hankPC> R. Micha Berger wrote: ?I doubt the Rambam, the "he" I am trying to understand in the text you quoted, would agree with this premise about animals before the eitz hada'as.? So how does the Rambam explain Bereishis 1:30? Kol tuv Chaim Manaster -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From akivagmiller at gmail.com Thu Oct 19 02:47:09 2017 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2017 05:47:09 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Torah precheit? Message-ID: . R' Chaim Manaster asked: > I have been trying to understand what the geshtalt of Torah > was precheit of the eitz hadaas. It could not have resembled > anything that we ( I ) would recognize today. Consider: > There was but one mitzva. Most if not all the mitzvos of the > Torah we are familiar with could not have existed, at least > as we understand them today. Had Adam been successful in his > one day tafkid the purpose of the bria would have been > accomplished and Adam (mankind) would have gone to olom haba > ? mission accomplished nothing more to follow but for reward > in olom haba. > > The many consequences seem to be as follows: there would be > no avdus in Mitzrayim, therefore no ... ... One can ask similar questions about other turning-points in history. What if Kayin had not killed Hevel? What if the world has not gone to Avodah Zara a few generations later? What if Yishmael and/or Esav had not gone of the derech? What if Moshe Rabenu had acted differently by the rock? I believe that people are too hung up on the idea that "Torah" and the Chumash are identical. They are not. "The Torah has 70 faces", and ONE of them is the written scroll that we read from in shul. Another is the Torah Sheb'al Peh. Another was that one singular mitzvah that Adam HaRishon was given. None is less holy than any other. They are but different facets of the same diamond. And there are yet others. Torah manifests itself differently to a kohen than to a levi, and differently to a woman than to a man. And so on. For example: > As there would never be an Eretz Yisroel, then there would not > be all the mitzvot hateltuot ba?aretz ? trumos, masros etc., etc. Or perhaps Gan Eden would have had that status. Eretz Yisrael is actually a great example: Consider the idea that true nevuah can exist only in Eretz Yisrael. But also consider that this restriction only started when EY got its kedushah - prior to that point one could have nevuah elsewhere too. Logically, I would think that the kedusha of EY enabled this thing that couldn't exist without such intense kedusha; but counter-intuitively, this thing that has long existed is now suddenly restricted to a specific area. Because times change, and people change; the Torah stays the same but it shows a different face. We are so used to how things are today, that we think things have always been this way. But it ain't so. > So what is the nature of Torah in such a world. How do we > see it as an ever constant ever present and unchanging > Torah? How does a Torah with but ONE mitzva look? How does > it still identify with a Torah with 613 mitzvot? There are many mitzvos that apply only at specifc times and under specific circumstances. Consider the back-and-forth of when bamos were allowed and not allowed. We went for quite a few centuries with choosing a human king. I am deliberately trying to avoid mitzvos that have sociological criteria, like the existence of a Sanhedrin, or whether or not we are capable of tochacha. Rather, my point goes to this "Torah with 613 mitzvot" that you refer to. It doesn't exist today, and I don't know if it ever has existed. There has certainly never been a person to whom they all applied, and I wonder whether there was ever a generation when they were all in force. > Sorry if my thoughts were very rambling. I just typed as > things came to mind ? maybe not always a good idea! On the contrary, brainstorming is often a fruitful way of developing new thoughts! Personally, it was many decades ago that someone asked me, "If there is life on other planets, might they possibly have a Torah? But Mitzrayim doesn't exist there, and Moshe never lived there!" That question bothered me for a very long time, until I realized that even on *this* planet, Noach had his version of Torah, and that was centuries before Mitzrayim or Moshe came to be. (To conflate two threads, I think what I'm saying here is very similar to what R"n Lisa Liel wrote in the "eitz hachaim" thread. These things aren't static; their roles change to fit the situation.) Akiva Miller From zev at sero.name Wed Oct 18 20:54:50 2017 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2017 23:54:50 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] =?utf-8?q?=E2=80=9Cthe_miracle_of_judging_by_smell?= =?utf-8?q?=E2=80=9D_was_=28Re=3A_R=2E_Akiva=2C_Bar_Kochba_and_Zecharya_Ha?= =?utf-8?q?Novi=29?= In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <209038db-6620-b1cf-4e52-1b093803ac7d@sero.name> On 18/10/17 11:44, hankman via Avodah wrote: > ?the miracle of judging by smell? > Really should be a knew thread. > When we learned this sugia recently in the daf yomi I asked the magid > shiur that lechora this was keneged torah which requires eidim for most > judgements. Moshiach is a melech, and not bound by the rules of a beis din. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From micha at aishdas.org Wed Oct 18 19:40:28 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2017 22:40:28 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] R. Akiva, Bar Kochba and Zecharya HaNovi In-Reply-To: <36062433D0904BE5ABD5156C727C7A6D@hankPC> References: <36062433D0904BE5ABD5156C727C7A6D@hankPC> Message-ID: <20171019024028.GB20212@aishdas.org> On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 06:44:42PM -0400, hankman via Avodah wrote: : R. Micha Berger wrote: :> I doubt the Rambam, the "he" I am trying to understand in the text :> you quoted, would agree with this premise about animals before the :> eitz hada'as. : So how does the Rambam explain Bereishis 1:30? Well, if you look at Moreh 1:30, you'll see that the Rambam considers maaseh bereishis to be atemporal, 6 logical stages of unfolding of reality, not steps separated in time. So I don't know if I should assume anything about how he reads pasuq 30. But I do note that if taken literally, the pasuq merely says that Hashem gave the plants to the animals for food. A statement about one of the functions of plantsl and that Adam can't hord all the plants for himself, since animals need it too. It needn't mean that only plants served a food. The statement from Chazal (quoted by Rashi) is a derashah. The Ohr haChaim spends time justifying it, if you want to see the medrashic steps in detail. But it's not peshat, and therefore not necessarily the Rambam would take literally. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger There's only one corner of the universe micha at aishdas.org you can be certain of improving, http://www.aishdas.org and that's your own self. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Aldous Huxley From zev at sero.name Wed Oct 18 21:51:32 2017 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2017 00:51:32 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Interesting Insight on Noach In-Reply-To: <2E736CF9-84CD-41DB-9963-8E38B681DC20@cox.net> References: <36805007-8186-42B4-9042-51439D2BB204@cox.net> <2E736CF9-84CD-41DB-9963-8E38B681DC20@cox.net> Message-ID: <18439702-d4ae-0f50-3350-a8b5cd433fb5@sero.name> On 18/10/17 11:09, Richard Wolberg wrote: > What I?m saying is that our theology is fraught with inconsistencies and > contradictions > and we have plenty of ?teikusl? ?You?re a black and white person and > don?t see shades. > Not everything can be reconciled. Impossible. Toras Hashem Temima, and can't contradict itself. If there are two pesukim that seem to contradict each other, there's a third pasuk that resolves it and makes sense of both. It's not possible that R Avin was unaware of Avraham's statement, nor is it possible that he would dismiss Avraham's view as mistaken. Therefore there must be something in R Avin's view that's not what it appears. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From JRich at sibson.com Fri Oct 20 05:37:21 2017 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2017 12:37:21 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] empiricism Message-ID: <17851b0cb6514f5a8fac7543e7d86493@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Rabbi Jason Weiner's, "Jewish Guide to Practical Medical Decision-Making" - "The Talmudic sages performed post-mortem examinations and had considerable knowledge of anatomy and pathology. Indeed, the rabbis of the Talmud were among the first people in history to operate on corpses in order to learn medical information that had halakhic ramifications. See Tosefta Niddah 4:17, Niddah 30b, bekhorot 45A . . ". Wiki s- Initially, the Ancient Greek philosophers did not believe in empiricism, and saw measurements, such as geometry, as the domain of craftsmen and artisans. Philosophers, such as Plato, believed that all knowledge could be obtained through pure reasoning, and that there was no need to actually go out and measure anything. Please look at the three sources quoted by R'Weiner, are they support or really maaseh lstormaaseh l'stor as to a general approach? Kt 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: From emteitz at gmail.com Fri Oct 20 14:49:21 2017 From: emteitz at gmail.com (elazar teitz) Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2017 17:49:21 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] the miracle of judging by smell Message-ID: On this topic, the comment was made that "Moshiach is a melech, and not bound by the rules of a beis din." However, other than moreid b'malchus, this is only true for r'tzicha, not other capital punishment cases, as is indicated in Rambam Hilchos M'lachim 3:10 (as it is understood by most m'farshim). EMT -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From isaac at balb.in Sat Oct 21 04:07:43 2017 From: isaac at balb.in (Isaac Balbin) Date: Sat, 21 Oct 2017 11:07:43 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] ?the miracle of judging by smell? was (Re: R. Akiva, Bar Kochba and Zecharya HaNovi) Message-ID: From: Zev Sero > > On 18/10/17 11:44, hankman via Avodah wrote: >> When we learned this sugia recently in the daf yomi I asked the magid >> shiur that lechora this was keneged torah which requires eidim for most >> judgements. Zev responded > Moshiach is a melech, and not bound by the rules of a beis din. Indeed. His position therefore also invalidates Moshiach from being a formal witness, although that's clearly not for trust/smell issues. From micha at aishdas.org Sun Oct 22 07:20:34 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2017 10:20:34 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Long Lifespans in Bereishis Message-ID: <20171022142033.GA669@aishdas.org> Our old chaver R' Rich Wolpoe posted this article by R/Dr Mitchell First. It's a nice survey of opinions about all those long lifespans in seifer Bereishis : NishmaBlog From RRW Guest Blogger: Mitchell First Thursday, 19 October 2017 The Long Lifespans in Genesis The Longevity of the Ancients Recorded in Genesis ... Josephus (late 1st century). Here is his statement in Antiquities, book I: " ...For, in the first place, they were beloved of God and the creatures of God himself; their diet too was more conducive to longevity: it was then natural that they should live so long. Again, alike for their merits and to promote the utility of their discoveries in astronomy and geometry, God would accord them a longer life...." Now I will survey the views of our Geonim and Rishonim. R. Saadiah Gaon (10th cent.) discusses this issue in his introduction to Tehillim. He writes that the longevity of these early generations was part of God's plan for the rapid proliferation of mankind on the earth..... R. Yehudah Ha-Levi (12th cent.) discusses the issue in the Kuzari (sec. 95). He believes that it was only the individuals listed who lived long. Each of the individuals listed was the heart and essence of his generation and was physically and spiritually perfect. The Divine Flow was transmitted from one generation to another through these exceptional individuals. Rambam, in a famous passage in the Guide to the Perplexed (II, chap. 47) writes: "I say that only the persons named lived so long, whilst other people enjoyed the ordinary length of life. The men named were exceptions, either in consequence of different causes, as e.g., their food or mode of living, or by way of miracle." Ramban (comm. to Gen. 5:4) quotes Rambam's view and then disagrees, ... individuals with long lifespans named in the Bible were not exceptional in their lifespans. Rather, the entire world had long lifespans before the Flood. But after the Flood, the world atmosphere changed and this caused the gradual reduction in lifespans. Most of the Rishonim who discussed the issue thereafter followed the approach of either the Rambam or the Ramban. Either way, they were taking the Genesis lifespan numbers literally. (An underlying factor that motivated Rishonim to accept the Genesis lifespan numbers literally was that the count from creation was calculated based on these numbers.) Josephus had mentioned that one of the reasons that God allowed their longevity was to promote the utility of their discoveries in astronomy and geometry. This idea of longevity to enable the acquisition of knowledge and make discoveries (and write them to be passed down) is also included in several of our Rishonim. See, e.g., the commentary of the Radak to Gen. 5:4 and of the Ralbag to Gen. chap. 5 (p. 136), and the Rashbatz (R. Shimon b. Tzemach Duran, Magen Avot, comm. to Avot 5:21). Rashbatz also mentions the idea that the early generations were close in time to Adam and Adam ... was made by God from the earth.... Another idea found in some of our Rishonim is that those early individuals did not chase after "ta'avat ha-guf," which reduces the lifespan. See, e.g., the commentary of the Radak to Gen. 5:4. ... ... R. Moses Ibn Tibbon (late 13th cent.) He suggests that the years given for people's lives were actually the years of "malkhutam ve-nimuseihim," i.e., the dynasties and/or customs that they established. ... R. Levi ben Hayyim (early 14th cent.).... concludes that in his opinion the names mentioned were just roshei avot. In other words, the number of years given for each individual reflects the total of the years of the several generations of individuals named for that first individual. R. Nissim of Marseilles (early 14th century) ... took the same approach as R. Moses Ibn Tibbon. The numbers ... included the total years of the descendants who followed his customs and lifestyle. The most interesting approach I saw was that of R. Eleazar Ashkenazi ben Nathan ha-Bavli (14th century), in his work Tzafnat Paneach, pp. 29-30. ... First, R. Eleazar refers to the view that perhaps the individual numbers were not to be taken literally, and points to other statements in the Torah that were not meant to be taken literally, e.g., 1) the Land of Israel was "flowing with milk and honey," and 2) the cities in Canaan were "fortified up to the Heaven" (Deut. 1:28). (See further Moreh Nevuchim, II,47.) But then R. Eleazar suggests the following creative approach. In listing these individual numbers, the Torah was merely recording the legends about these figures, even though they were not accurate. The important thing was to provide data from which the total years from Creation to Matan Torah could be derived, so that the people would be able to know the length of time between these two periods. Even though the numbers for the individual lifespans were not accurate, the Torah made sure that the total that would be arrived at would be accurate.... ... Prof. Natan Aviezer of Bar-Ilan University.... in a post at the Bar Ilan University weekly parshah site for parshat Noach, 1998... explains that modern science has figured out that aging is largely caused by genes, and not by a wearing out of our bodies. He then suggests that when God stated at Gen. 6:3 that man would be limited to 120 years, this was when God first introduced the gene for aging into the human gene pool. If you have not found any of the above answers satisfying, I have some good news. R. Saadiah Gaon writes (Emunot Ve-Deot, end of chap. 7) that in the era of the redemption the human lifespan will be approximately 500 years. Presumably, at that time we won't be bothered by those long lifespans in Genesis anymore! (Note that Radak, comm. to Is. 65:20, is a bit stingier. He predicts lifespans of only 300 to 500 years. See also his commentary to Ps. 92:15. But the 12th century Babylonian Gaon R. Samuel b. Ali predicts lifespans closer to 1000 years!) I would like to acknowledge that most of the material above came from an article by Prof. Daniel Lasker of Ben-Gurion University, in Mechkarim Be-Halakha U-Be-Mishpat Ha-Ivri, vol. 26-27 (2009-10). Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger I slept and dreamt that life was joy. micha at aishdas.org I awoke and found that life was duty. http://www.aishdas.org I worked and, behold -- duty is joy. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rabindranath Tagore From micha at aishdas.org Sun Oct 22 09:13:16 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2017 12:13:16 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Beris Milah on Shabbos when Father isn't Jewish Message-ID: <20171022161316.GA32328@aishdas.org> I mentioned in the past I had this question halakhah lemaaseh. I knew of an intermarried couple who lived nowhere near the nearest Jewish community. They would have just had the boy circumcized in the hospital rather than to pay what one of the nearer mohalim wanted to come down for the weekend. Yes, the nearest Chabad house had a mohel, who (of course) would come at cost... IFF he hadn't had a beris in his own minhan that same Shabbos. So the question I asked was whether I should donate (or raise donations) for the beris to be bizmano. My LOR asked his rav... long story short, as I best remember at a little more than two decades later: The pasuq says "bayom hashemini yimol besar arlaso" -- it's the father who is told "on the eight day", even if it's on Shabbos. Implied: If the father has no chiyuv, such as our case or if r"l the father didn't survive to see his son's beris, there is no one whose chiyuv overrides Shabbos. (If the father is alive but not there, you'd still violate Shabbos.) Well, someone asked R' Asher Weiss. . He didn't rule the same way, but does mention that is -- or at least was -- a machloqes amoraim. However, RAW holds a consensus has emerged to do the beris. Perhaps RDC didn't think the consensus was solid enough to warrant my spending or raising that kind of money for someone else's beris. Or perhaps it was closer to the way I remembered it and RDC doesn't agree with how the consensus emerged. Brit mila on Shabbos when father is non Jew Posted by: Rabbi Akiva Dershowitz Question: Does everyone agree that a brit is done on Shabbat even if the father is a goy? ... Answer: No, this is a dispute among the achronim [halachic authorities of the last 500 years]. The halachic ruling is that we do in fact perform the bris mila on Shabbos. See Derisha Y:D 266:20, Nachalas Shiva [kuntress hamila siman 1], Shu't Binyan Tzion [Vol. 1:21]. The nearest I could find in Hebrew (as the Hebrew always has more discussion) is "Beris beShabbos leVen Me'uberes sheNisgayrah" at . There the question is whether the velad's milah is a normal beris or lesheim geirus, and RAW still holds the milah should be on Shabbos. It's a fun sugya, worth a read. But doesn't focus on our question. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger You cannot propel yourself forward micha at aishdas.org by patting yourself on the back. http://www.aishdas.org -Anonymous Fax: (270) 514-1507 From hankman at bell.net Sun Oct 22 13:15:49 2017 From: hankman at bell.net (hankman) Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2017 16:15:49 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Torah precheit? Message-ID: <39266980A1C24F078B1904F1783BA1C0@hankPC> R. Akiva Miller wrote: ?One can ask similar questions about other turning-points in history. What if Kayin had not killed Hevel? What if the world has not gone to Avodah Zara a few generations later? What if Yishmael and/or Esav had not gone of the derech? What if Moshe Rabenu had acted differently by the rock?? Actually I had thoughts along similar lines that you express. The most prominent such turning point was the cheit ha?eigel, where again, had they succeeded, that again would have been the end for man?s tafkid and correction the cheit of Adam, direct route to eretz Yisroel, no forty years in the midbar and presumably Moshe R. would have been the final moshiach and on to the final gemul. The reason these two stick in my mind more than the other forks in history you point to, is that these would have been endpoints to the tafkid in this world and led directly to olom haba with no continuation of the ?Torah? story we are familiar with. The moments in history you point to would have been forks in the road but not endpoints. So if say Esau/Yishmoel had made good choices and been more like his brother Yaakov/Yitzchok, the story would have had a different twist to it, but the overall gestalt to the Torah could still have been quite similar. What we have now, with some changes. But we would have no problem imagining all (perhaps most) of the mitzvos as we know them. These two, cheit of Adam and cheit ha?eigel, were fundamentally different than the other ?forks? in the road as what we know to have followed would never happen. So Regalim, and avdus in Mitzrayim, etc, etc are ideas that seem not to have a place in such a reality had Adam succeeded while the other forks would have led to a variation on a theme we are familiar with and can at least readily imagine. The idea you mention of ?70 panim latorah? would have to be expanded greatly if for every fork on the possible choices made in the biblical period (by this I mean the time through the end of the forty years bamidbar that were recorded in chumash). If every possible choice made at every fork (say N) resulted in a diff version of Torah, then that would result in 2 to the N panim laTorah ? with N being very large! Perhaps 70 is just a synonym for ?many?? When we say that there are 70 umos, I always wondered how that was defined, as it seems to me that there are many more and that the number would change for different periods in history. If 70 here too means ?many? that would clear that up. But then the precise number of 70 for the parei hachag might be a problem unless for some reason that may have been fixed symbolically, or perhaps to coincide with the original number at some early point in history as say per the list of the 70 nations Art Scroll makes in its chumash at the end of this weeks parsha (Noach). Basically it is a listing of certain of the names of descendants of Noach. Have you ever heard of a nation called Ever (or most of the other names they list)? So is the ?essence? of Torah something beyond our ken. Is all we can see just a single facet of the 70 panim laTorah? (This of course is not the normal meaning to 70 panim laTorah, which usually is applied to differing explanations to our ?current? Torah, and not the other ?possible? ?Toros? as you are suggesting. Is this so far off the beaten path that this might even be an accidental trip into thought that might be apikursus or a credible notion within the daas? (Torah lo yehai moochlefes). I have no idea! R. Akiva Miller wrote: ?Torah manifests itself differently to a kohen than to a levi, and differently to a woman than to a man.? There is a fundamental difference between a mitzvoh only applying to some vs the concept not existing. Even if I am a Yisroel I can still be oseik in torah of the mitvos of a cohen ? it is still a part of Torah given to all of us even if not all of it pertains to me. R. Akiva Miller wrote: ?Or perhaps Gan Eden would have had that status.? I actually had a thought similar to yours as well on this idea. When I thought a little more about it, I had difficulty putting it all together. so what kind of meaning would trummos and massros have. What would orlo mean. Without aniyim, what is the point of leket shichacha upei?a? (or tzedaka in general, or even more broadly of gemila chasadim in such a world?) The mitzvos hatelyuous ba?aretz only make sense in an agricultural society, not in a world of olam haba where there are no farmers or farms. No need for orei miklat in a world without a yetzer. On another thought, would the notion of baal tigra in the world of only one mitzva leave you with no mitvos at all? That would make one a kofer bekol haTorah koola? Also there would be no need for lo tassur yamin usemol for gezeirot derabanan in such a world (though perhaps it might have stopped Chava if such a takana existed to protect the only mitzvoh they had). R. Akiva Miller wrote: ?"If there is life on other planets, might they possibly have a Torah? But Mitzrayim doesn't exist there, and Moshe never lived there!" That question bothered me for a very long time,? Strangely enough, I had similar thoughts years back. As a young bachur in yeshivo, my rebbi was teaching us that their was a period during which the progenitor of kelal Yisroel would happen. I asked what would have happened if there had been another deep thinker who came to the same realization and belief that Avraham did. He answered that there would have been two (or more) chosen peoples to eventually be mekabel Torah. It didn?t occur to me at the time to ask, would they each have the ?same? Torah or each get a tailored version to their (eventual) am? Or, would there be one Torah that talks of both of the chosen peoples? Years later when discussing what is the purpose to us of the trillions of stars and galaxies so distant that they could never possibly affect us here on Earth? Then it occurred to me, what if those stars had planets with intelligent beings on them and they too went through a similar period wherein they too had some allien being come to the same conclusions as Avraham did and they then became the chosen people of that planet and received a Torah possibly tailored to their experiences and appropriate there etc.? This almost makes sense of the questions the malachim asked Moshe when he went lamorom to accept Torah. They too wanted Torah in a version suitable to them which would deflect all of Moshe?s responses. If memory serves, I think some meforshim try to make sense of the malachim in such a manner. Just some more rambling thoughts. Kol tuv Chaim Manaster -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hankman at bell.net Sun Oct 22 23:25:10 2017 From: hankman at bell.net (hankman) Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2017 02:25:10 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] =?utf-8?q?=E2=80=9Cthe_miracle_of_judging_by_smell?= =?utf-8?q?=E2=80=9D_was_=28Re=3A_R=2E_Akiva=2C_Bar_Kochba_and_Zech?= =?utf-8?q?arya_HaNovi=29?= Message-ID: <7D7387F31006477FA724C733A37A100B@hankPC> R. Zev Sero wrote: ?Moshiach is a melech, and not bound by the rules of a beis din.? You are obviously referring to Rambam, Melachim P. 3: 8, 10. However this refers to judgments that are within the scope of the Melech such as a moreid, or letakein ha?olom kefi ma shehasho?o tzricha. This does not however give him the right to usurp ordinary judgments that normally would fall to a beis din (and disregard such niceties as eidus that the Torah requires), unless he is the av beis din (possible for malchei beis Dovid) and does follow the rules of Torah for eidus like any other beis din and does not simply follow his nose in these judgments. Furthermore, in the category of cases like moreid and shehasho?o tzricha, all the Melech needs to do is simply assert his position as he feels correct for ANY Melech ? he does not even need the power of moreiach veda?in to prove his position. So mimonafshoch, in either case he either may not, or has no need of the power to be moreiach veda?in. Kol tuv Chaim Manaster -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Mon Oct 23 13:16:56 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2017 16:16:56 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] =?cp1255?q?=93the_miracle_of_judging_by_smell=94_was_?= =?cp1255?q?=28Re=3A_R=2E_Akiva=2C_Bar_Kochba_and_Zecharya_HaNovi=29?= In-Reply-To: <7D7387F31006477FA724C733A37A100B@hankPC> References: <7D7387F31006477FA724C733A37A100B@hankPC> Message-ID: <20171023201656.GA13749@aishdas.org> On Mon, Oct 23, 2017 at 02:25:10AM -0400, hankman via Avodah wrote: : . Furthermore, : in the category of cases like moreid and shehasho'o tzricha, all the : Melech needs to do is simply assert his position as he feels correct : for ANY Melech -- he does not even need the power of moreiach veda'in to : prove his position. So mimonafshoch, in either case he either may not, : or has no need of the power to be moreiach veda'in. If I understood the Rambam this way: It would be good to have a king who knows with certainty which dinim need shoring up because he can smell that their violation is rampant. Or, in determining the convicted's guilt: Let's say some sin became common place, and hasha'ah zerikhah that the king enforce a capital punishment for it. But say I understand him as per REMT's post, noting that in 3:10 the Rambam singles out the king's power to kill murderers (eg without hasda'ah, where there was only eid echad, etc...) -- implying that retzichah yes, other issurim, the king could not. (Mikelal lav...) 3:8 really only discussed rebellion and lesse majeste (moreid bemekeh and mevazeh es hamelekh o hamchorfo). I don't see hasha'ah tzeikhah in the Rambam; I'm taking your word for it. Still, I can ask the parallel question: Wouldn't if be far far better if the melekh hamashiach had a supernal ability to know who is really guilty, and not kill the wrong guy? He might not legally need the power, but it would be a good thing for a king to have in order to be effective and fair. So I'm not sure your argument holds. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Every child comes with the message micha at aishdas.org that God is not yet discouraged with http://www.aishdas.org humanity. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rabindranath Tagore From micha at aishdas.org Mon Oct 23 18:51:25 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2017 21:51:25 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] No Barrier Between Religion and Science Message-ID: <20171024015125.GA13043@aishdas.org> See this article on Real Clear Science or http://www.realclearscience.com/articles/2017/10/16/philosophy_rebuts_key_barrier_between_science_and_religion_110422.htmlh Here is Mosaic Magazine's snippet: Kuhn's [argument] is that students learn first by imitation and practice and -- assuming they receive a good education -- once they strike out on their own, they will have been successfully inculcated into a particular scientific tradition. They will thus be prepared to recognize, pose, and solve scientific problems. If we take tradition to be antithetical to scientific rationality, Kuhn's conclusions will appear disquieting. And, indeed, Kuhn's critics rejected his arguments as "irrationalist." But if, on the contrary, we take tradition to be essential to rationality, then Kuhn's conclusions will be not only acceptable but also unsurprising. According to the moral philosopher Alasdair MacIntyre, before we can begin to reason at all, we must first acquire the habits necessary to recognize and, ultimately, to replicate rational behavior. To do so, there must first be exemplars that we take to be authoritative -- in the moral domain these will be exceptionally virtuous people, in the scientific domain, exceptionally good scientists. To become rational, in other words, one must be educated within a tradition of inquiry. Science, on this view, is not Cartesian -- at least as far as [the rejection of received ideas] is concerned -- even if it remains eminently rational. Where does this leave us?... [T]he fact that religious beliefs are not entirely reducible to empirical experience and partly depend upon tradition doesn't make them irrational or even anti-scientific. Thus a popular way of opposing science and religion starts to look untenable. This hardly means the two become indistinguishable. But it does suggest that science and religion could be conceived of as distinct -- but possibly harmonious, even sometimes mutually beneficial -- traditions of rational inquiry. The truth is that science has little to say about where a hypothesis come from. It gives little guidance for deciding what features are worth observing, what we should give our attention to. And once we see a pattern that needs explanation, it is left to human creativity to come up with a hypothesis. Science is a means of weeding out subjectivity from possible answers, but the means of coming up with those answers are very human. In particular, the entire enteprise of science rests on a tradition of theism -- whether the personal beliefs of an Aristotle or Newton, or the culture that produced an Einstein. Without a personal reason for assuming that the universe opperates reasonably, rather than attributing lightning to Thor's or Zeus's moods, can that hypothesis invention get started. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Good decisions come from experience; micha at aishdas.org Experience comes from bad decisions. http://www.aishdas.org - Djoha, from a Sepharadi fable Fax: (270) 514-1507 From hankman at bell.net Mon Oct 23 20:57:36 2017 From: hankman at bell.net (hankman) Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2017 23:57:36 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] "the miracle of judging by smell" was (Re: R. Akiva, Bar Kochba and Zecharya HaNovi) In-Reply-To: <20171023201656.GA13749@aishdas.org> References: <7D7387F31006477FA724C733A37A100B@hankPC> <20171023201656.GA13749@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <7FA394F42CCE44ECBB668DFA42362B96@hankPC> From: Micha Berger Sent: Monday, October 23, 2017 4:16 PM > But say I understand him as per REMT's post, noting that in 3:10 the > Rambam singles out the king's power to kill murderers (eg without > hasda'ah, where there was only eid echad, etc...) -- implying that > retzichah yes, other issurim, the king could not. (Mikelal lav...) > 3:8 really only discussed rebellion and lesse majeste (moreid bemekeh > and mevazeh es hamelekh o hamchorfo). I don't see hasha'ah tzeikhah in > the Rambam; I'm taking your word for it. Still, I can ask the parallel > question: > Wouldn't if be far far better if the melekh hamashiach had a supernal > ability to know who is really guilty, and not kill the wrong guy? > He might not legally need the power, but it would be a good thing for a > king to have in order to be effective and fair. My own initial impression unlike REMT is that the Rambam in 3:10 was not limiting this to only rotzeach, but dealing with case of max punishment or similar punishment and kal vechomer for cases of lesser punishment, however on rereading the Rambam after reading REMT I can see his point of view, but I am not sure I am fully convinced. I did a quick look around and found that the Or Sameiach on the Rambam at 3:10 has a long discussion on this issue as to whether the melech only has this power for a rotzeach where it is a danger to the rabim but not to enforce laxity of bein adam lamokom such as dinei shabbos, or if there was a breach even in these other areas whether the melech could act extra judicially there as well. There is a reference to a Y. Sanhedrin that implies that Dovid hamelech wold have executed for mishkav behama al pi eid echod -- so not just rotzeiach. See also the Rambam H. Rotzeiach P 2:4-5 where he broadens this extra judicial power to beis din as well but under horoas sha'o rather than takonas olam. (Not sure if the different label implies a difference in the respective extra judicial powers or not). See the Kesef Mishna there who mentions a case of chilul Shabbos. My simple reading there is that the Rambam seem to equate the reach of the extra judicial power of b"d to that of the melech to punish when found necessary either due to horo'as shao or takonas olam respectively. (Not clear to me if the different reasons lead to a different scope or not). But it seems that yeish lekan veyeish lekan. I hear your point about moreiach being a good reassurance that his pesak is correct even if not really necessary to render his judgment. Kol tuv Chaim Manaster From micha at aishdas.org Tue Oct 24 06:38:55 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2017 09:38:55 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Psak source wanted In-Reply-To: <1857240052.122258.1508054451353@mail.yahoo.com> References: <1857240052.122258.1508054451353.ref@mail.yahoo.com> <1857240052.122258.1508054451353@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20171024133855.GB25244@aishdas.org> On Sun, Oct 15, 2017 at 08:00:51AM +0000, Motti Yarchinai via Avodah wrote: : It is similar to what the Rambam wrote in Hilchot Kiddush Hachodesh, : saying that in all calendric matters, we follow the lead of the chachmei : eretz yisrael, and even though the anshei hagolah know the calculations : used by them, it is not on our own calculations that we rely, we only : use those calculations because we know that they are the same as the : calculations used by the chachmei eretz yisrael... : Another posek (possibly the Tifferet Yisrael in Shvilei Harakia, but : I'm not sure of that), writes something similar... Did you ever find a source? Google, Bar Ilan and I didn't turn anything up. In practice, we follow the calculations of R' Saaadia Gaon, who was in Aleppo at the time, and not R Aaron Ben-Meir in Y-m ih"q. The big debate of 922 was the topic of an article by RYGB and RAZZ reposted here . The Rambam (Qiddush haChodesh 1:8) limits the authority to someone in EY ("ki miTzion teitzei Sorah...") or if the one clearly most able to do it received semichah in EY, he can continue setting the months and ibur shanos in chu"l -- until someone of comparable stature arises in EY. This seems taylor-made for R Saadia Gaon, who went to yeshiva in Teveriah. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Never must we think that the Jewish element micha at aishdas.org in us could exist without the human element http://www.aishdas.org or vice versa. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch From sholom at aishdas.org Tue Oct 24 12:50:00 2017 From: sholom at aishdas.org (Sholom Simon) Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2017 15:50:00 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Long Lifespans in Bereishis In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <588c56c0dc1eedd39e7bb464810c5cea@aishdas.org> Thanks, RMB, for posting that article. Re the views of R. Moses Ibn Tibbon, et al, who don't take those ages literally on a single person -- is that (along the lines of an off-line conversation we had) a "kosher view" these days? Or, is it one of those views that, the way R Noson Slifkin puts it: they are allowed to have those views, but we aren't? On a different, but related issue, to the chevra: The list of generations in parshas Bereshis are generally of the form: * X was 50 years old when he fathered Y. * X lived 450 years after he fathered Y and had sons and daughters * X lived to the age of 500 years. Doesn't that seem a bit redundant? And, in fact, most (all?) of the generations listed in parshas Noach skip the third phrase. Thoughts? -- Sholom -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hankman at bell.net Tue Oct 24 15:28:28 2017 From: hankman at bell.net (hankman) Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2017 18:28:28 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Long Lifespans in Bereishis Message-ID: <9DE9360C549C46879FBF7291563A9387@hankPC> >From the summary of opinions posted by RMB on lifespans in Bereishis and some comments: ?R. Saadiah Gaon (10th cent.) discusses this issue in his introduction to Tehillim. He writes that the longevity of these early generations was part of God's plan for the rapid proliferation of mankind on the earth.....? Not the biggest kashe in the world, but why then would they start to have children at an advanced age if rapid proliferation was the goal? Perhaps with great longevity came a much longer period for sexual maturation? If true would that also mean that intellectual maturation took much longer as well? ?R. Yehudah Ha-Levi (12th cent.) discusses the issue in the Kuzari (sec. 95). He believes that it was only the individuals listed who lived long. Each of the individuals listed was the heart and essence of his generation and was physically and spiritually perfect. The Divine Flow was transmitted from one generation to another through these exceptional individuals.? How does R. Yehudah Ha-Levi deal with Terach who was an idolator? Clearly he was not spiritually perfect. ?... R. Moses Ibn Tibbon (late 13th cent.) He suggests that the years given for people's lives were actually the years of "malkhutam ve-nimuseihim," i.e., the dynasties and/or customs that they established.? This comment will apply to R. Nissim of Marseilles as well. I presume they held that people had what we today would consider a normal life span. this would mean they were not having the first born at the advanced age of over one hundred. Thus the named son must have been a later generation descendant. (I assume that they did not generate a son in their old age and die shortly thereafter as was the case with Boaz). So if their life spans were similar to ours then was Shes really not a son of Adam but really a descendant several generations down? Ditto for Ennosh, was he really a great ... grandson of Sheis? But this notion of the the years given in Bereishis not pertaining to one single man, but to a dynasty of several generations of normal life span, runs into difficulty with Noach and his 3 sons. If we follow suit with this notion then Shem, Cham and Yefes were not his sons but descendants born 500 years later. Yet they all went into the Teiva together? So how is that a normal life span for Noach? Why weren?t the generations between Noach and Shem, Cham and Yefes saved as well? When the Torah says ?vayoled es X? that is not to be taken literally but just to mean a later descendant chosen to be named in the lineage? ? R. Saadiah Gaon writes (Emunot Ve-Deot, end of chap. 7) that in the era of the redemption the human lifespan will be approximately 500 years. Presumably, at that time we won't be bothered by those long lifespans in Genesis anymore! (Note that Radak, comm. to Is. 65:20, is a bit stingier. He predicts lifespans of only 300 to 500 years. See also his commentary to Ps. 92:15. But the 12th century Babylonian Gaon R. Samuel b. Ali predicts lifespans closer to 1000 years!)? This quote leads to an issue I will expand upon slightly in another post. But the basic issue is if the world is Charuv at 6000 years and yemos Moshiach are before the olom is charuv, (while olom keminhago noheig) there is not enough time left (we are now 5778) for a life span of 300 to 500 years let alone 1000 years. Kol tuv Chaim Manaster -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Wed Oct 25 04:13:32 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2017 07:13:32 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Long Lifespans in Bereishis In-Reply-To: <9DE9360C549C46879FBF7291563A9387@hankPC> References: <9DE9360C549C46879FBF7291563A9387@hankPC> Message-ID: <20171025111332.GC22254@aishdas.org> On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 06:28:28PM -0400, hankman (RVM) wrote: : > (Note that Radak, comm. to Is. 65:20, is a bit stingier. He predicts : > lifespans of only 300 to 500 years. See also his commentary to : > Ps. 92:15. But the 12th century Babylonian Gaon R. Samuel b. Ali : > predicts lifespans closer to 1000 years!)" : This quote leads to an issue I will expand upon slightly in another : post. But the basic issue is if the world is Charuv at 6000 years and : yemos Moshiach are before the olom is charuv, (while olom keminhago : noheig) there is not enough time left (we are now 5778) for a life span : of 300 to 500 years let alone 1000 years. This all depends on the machloqes about defining olam haba and whether techiyas hameisim is permanent. As well as any machloqesin as to whether yemos hamoshiach starts with techiyas hameisim or ends with a new era, that itself starts with teshiyas hameisim. Rambam: olam haba means the non-physical world a neshamah is in between life and teshiyas hameisim, as well as after a second death. Since olam haba is the ultimate form of existence, defining that ultimate as the place souls go when dead necessitates a second death after techiyas hameisim. The Rambam (and the Iqarim, and others, I just picked on name for thumbnail-sketch reasons) then has to explain what the point of the second life is. Ramban (similarly, among others): olam haba, the ultimate existence, is body together with guf after techiyas hameisim. And therefore the post-th"m life must be external. According to the first shitah, it could be that post-th"m life is in gan eden is Adam's sense and thus life lasts as long as his could have. But then there's the question of whether your assumed dates hold.... My point is mainly that I think there are too many unknowns to even ask your question. I just anded up belaboring the one unknown I once wrote about. on how this machloqes may impact what is the point of Brikhas Gevurah ("Atah Gibor"). BTW, I just noticed, underlying that machloqes about what is olam haba and techiyas hameisim might be a difference in the definition of a person. It looks to me like the Rambam is saying a person is a soul who lives in a body. And therefore the ultimate in existence is not to have that body interpolated between me and experiencing Hashem's Presence. Whereas the Ramban is saying that a person is a synthesis of body and soul, and therefore cannot enjoy the rewards of their efforts when the two halves are separated. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger If a person does not recognize one's own worth, micha at aishdas.org how can he appreciate the worth of another? http://www.aishdas.org - Rabbi Yaakov Yosef of Polnoye, Fax: (270) 514-1507 author of Toldos Yaakov Yosef From hankman at bell.net Wed Oct 25 07:40:29 2017 From: hankman at bell.net (hankman) Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2017 10:40:29 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Long Lifespans in Bereishis In-Reply-To: <20171025111332.GC22254@aishdas.org> References: <9DE9360C549C46879FBF7291563A9387@hankPC> <20171025111332.GC22254@aishdas.org> Message-ID: R.Miciha Berger wrote: "On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 06:28:28PM -0400, hankman (RVM) wrote: :if the world is Charuv at 6000 years and : yemos Moshiach are before the olom is charuv, (while olom keminhago : noheig) there is not enough time left (we are now 5778) for a life span : of 300 to 500 years let alone 1000 years. This all depends on the machloqes about defining olam haba and whether techiyas hameisim is permanent. As well as any machloqesin as to whether yemos hamoshiach starts with techiyas hameisim or ends with a new era, that itself starts with teshiyas hameisim. ...." You also need to fit in when exactly in the sequence of these events Yom Hadin Hagodol happens according to each of these shitos. So the many events of "Achris Hatomim" that one need consider to compile a chronology of this mysterious period would include Gog uMagog, Moshiach be Yosef, coming of Eliyahu, yitaka bashofor gadol (before moshiach, or yom hadin hagodol, or techias hameisim?), the nevuos of Zecharyahu and other nevi'im about this period, Bayis shelishi, Kibutz golios, Moshiach ben Dovid (including how long is this period), vanquishing of the yetzer, Techias Hameisim (before Moshiach or before yom hadin or before both?), Yom hadin hagodol, yom hadin hakoton (after death?) Olom charuv (and to what extent it is charuv and why), Gan Eden, Olom haneshamos, Olam haba (final gemul, with or without a guf, and the ultimate purpose of creation so Hashem can be meitiv lezuloso). After writing this I checked out your "Mesukim Midevash" and apparently there will be at least four versions of this chronology (which you began to build in your article) lefi the Rambam, Ramban, Rav Saadia Gaon and the Ikkarim but needs some fleshing out. R Micha Berger wrote: "Ramban (similarly, among others): olam haba, the ultimate existence, is body together with guf after techiyas hameisim. And therefore the post-th"m life must be external. .... But then there's the question of whether your assumed dates hold.... My point is mainly that I think there are too many unknowns to even ask your question...." It is not clear to me what "assumed dates" or what the "unknowns" are that you mention? I only mentioned 5778. Is that date in doubt?? R. Micha Berger wrote: "BTW, I just noticed, underlying that machloqes about what is olam haba and techiyas hameisim might be a difference in the definition of a person. It looks to me like the Rambam is saying a person is a soul who lives in a body. And therefore the ultimate in existence is not to have that body interpolated between me and experiencing Hashem's Presence. Whereas the Ramban is saying that a person is a synthesis of body and soul, and therefore cannot enjoy the rewards of their efforts when the two halves are separated. Tir'u baTov! -Micha" The gemara in Sanhedrin that talks about the need for both the neshama and the guf to be together at yom hadin, works well with your peshat in the Ramban and could be a possible source for his position, but your explanation of the Rambam with the guf just being something donned by the neshama as necessary for its trip to this world, much like a diver dons scuba gear to enable him to function in this temporary environment, then much as it makes no senses to require the scuba gear at the divers trial, so too this gemara requiring the presence of the guf at the yom hadin doesn't really make much sense. Kol tuv Chaim Manaster From ben1456 at zahav.net.il Wed Oct 25 10:48:54 2017 From: ben1456 at zahav.net.il (Ben Waxman) Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2017 19:48:54 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] offering a higher salary Message-ID: <6ca926d4-2984-813b-af3a-e5fb0e765062@zahav.net.il> I've seen posts claiming that it is forbidden to offer cleaners a higher salary to work for you. While I can understand that it makes sense to say that no one can break a specific agreement for a specific day of work, why should it be forbidden to offer a higher salary to someone who has a long term agreement?? A, this is the common practice in the high tech world and I have never heard anyone say "Assur". It would seem that there is general agreement that this halacha simply doesn't apply today. Second, how can anyone be meshuabad in such a way to one person? Does a person wanting a higher salary have to simply quit without any idea about having another job? Ben From motti.yarchinai at mail.yahoo.com.au Wed Oct 25 12:39:33 2017 From: motti.yarchinai at mail.yahoo.com.au (Motti Yarchinai) Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2017 19:39:33 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Avodah] Psak source wanted In-Reply-To: <1857240052.122258.1508054451353@mail.yahoo.com> References: <1857240052.122258.1508054451353.ref@mail.yahoo.com> <1857240052.122258.1508054451353@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <270346387.4768895.1508960373045@mail.yahoo.com> Dear Micha and Avodah members, Thank you Micha for your reply and your attempts to locate a source. On Sun, Oct 15, 2017 at 08:00:51AM +0000, Motti Yarchinai via Avodah wrote: > Can anyone help me with a source for this psak: It is similar to what > the Rambam wrote... > Another posek writes something similar but couched in even more dramatic > terms. The following is not a verbatim quote (since the original is in > Hebrew) but something very close to it: > "And even if the residents of eretz yisrael are all ignoramuses > and peasants, and the authorities of chutz la'aretz are great > scholars and knowledgable in Torah and halachah, in calendric > matters we follow the peasants and ignoramuses, not the scholars > of chutz la'aretz." Micha replied: > Did you ever find a source? Google, Bar Ilan and I didn't turn > anything up.... No, I have not found it yet, but my memory of it is that I saw it in print, and, to my annoyance, I can't find the sefer, but it is bound to turn up sooner or later. When it does, I will repost with the source and quote. Meanwhile, if someone recognises it, please do let me know. Motti From sholom at aishdas.org Wed Oct 25 13:48:29 2017 From: sholom at aishdas.org (Sholom Simon) Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2017 16:48:29 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] A Great Name Message-ID: <20171025204831.CKZV22111.fed1rmfepo202.cox.net@fed1rmimpo210.cox.net> One of the implicit criticisms of Migdal Bavel was that they wanted to make a name for themselves. Then, at the beginning of Lech L'cha, H' tells Avram that he will make his name great. There must be something there . . . anybody have any thoughts? -- Sholom From zev at sero.name Wed Oct 25 20:57:37 2017 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2017 23:57:37 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] offering a higher salary In-Reply-To: <6ca926d4-2984-813b-af3a-e5fb0e765062@zahav.net.il> References: <6ca926d4-2984-813b-af3a-e5fb0e765062@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <03900eea-9674-1896-0842-5cba504a0eed@sero.name> On 25/10/17 13:48, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > I've seen posts claiming that it is forbidden to offer cleaners a higher > salary to work for you. I believe this halacha is a subset of "hasagas gevul", not in the Biblical sense, but in the commonly-used sense, which in in turn a subset of the obligation of ahavas yisrael. "Hasagas gevul" basically means that if you with to start a business and you have a choice between doing it somewhere that will harm me and somewhere that will not, then all else being equal you are obligated to take the second option out of consideration for me, because ve'ahavta lere`acha kamocha. Similarly, if I am renting a forest or an inn from a nochri, from which I make my living, and you offer him a higher rent, you are violating your obligation to value my interests equally with your own. It should be obvious, however, that if the landlord is also "re`acha" then this does not apply, because you have the same obligation to him as to me; if he could be getting more rent from his property then you should make him that offer, though he should give me a chance to match it, since I am the "bar metzra". I think the same thing is going on with the cleaners. If I have a nochris who is willing to clean for me for $N, you have no right to lure her away by offering more. But if she is "re`acha" then aderaba you have a mitzvah to offer her a chance to improve her income, but before taking your offer she should offer me the chance to match it. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From JRich at sibson.com Thu Oct 26 05:08:27 2017 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2017 12:08:27 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Jewish Action Message-ID: Since I can sometimes be critical of organizations (not here where I usually manage not to say anything negative [HT - My Mom ZLL"HH - "If you have nothing nice to say, don't say anything]), I want to give a shout out to the OU Fall Jewish Action. 1.) Moshe Baine poses the two questions I use as an individual/community test (i) How often do we factor God into our daily decisions, both large and small? [Me - how central is the Ratzon Hashem in our lives?] (ii) What are we prepared to "give up" to comply with what we perceive as God's wishes? [Me - does God always seem to agree with what you want?] 2.) Allen Fagin asks "whether we as a community view Yishuv Haaretz as a basic tenet of our spiritual aspirations? [Me - Tell me how often it's discussed or how many folks yearn (while we're at it, how many really yearn for the Beit Hamikdash?)] Now what do we do as a community and as individuals about any perceived shortfalls in these two areas is an old Avodah question but maybe it is gaining traction? KT 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: From micha at aishdas.org Thu Oct 26 07:13:06 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2017 10:13:06 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Jewish Action In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20171026141306.GA15203@aishdas.org> On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 12:08:27PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : 1.) Moshe Baine poses the two questions I use as an individual/community : test (i) How often do we factor God into our daily decisions, both large : and small? [Me - how central is the Ratzon Hashem in our lives?] (ii) : What are we prepared to "give up" to comply with what we perceive as : God's wishes? [Me - does God always seem to agree with what you want?] What you call question (i) gets a scathing answer in that recent and hotly discussed blog post, "Modern Orthodoxy from a Teenager's Perspective" by Eitan Gross. The-future-R Gross opines that it is common knowledge in MO circles that we dont make Ratzon Hashem central enough for MO to succeed. Modern Orthodoxy tries to create a balance that, at the moment, cannot work because we have no drive to be with Hashem and lack the philosophical and hashkafic perspective to articulate why we should be Jewish in a world with an assortment of other options. Therefore, we need to take a fresh look at education and schooling. There needs to be an emphasis on the truth of the tenets of Judaism, as well as an inspirational approach that creates a yearning and desire in the student to be closer to Hashem. And When I tried to publish this essay at a local Jewish newspaper they said "We cant publish this piece, it's too much for us. Plus you're only a senior in high school, so you don't have the authority to have a say in the current situation." Although they were against putting this essay to print, the head of the paper still agreed with me, "Modern Orthodoxy has major flaws and everyone knows it." If "everyone knows it", but no one does anything then it must be that they think Modern Orthodoxy is too big to change.... I think he means the Modern Orthodox community has major flaws, not the contept "Modern Orthodoxy" itself -- or why would he be so concerned with being able to save it? I need to add, this being Avodah, that this problem of the confusion between halakhah as a means and halakhah as an ends in-and-of-itself has symptoms in all our communities. Quoting myself, from my "manifesto" Tools and Goals ... How would this play out communally? One possible outcome is that we would find a community of very committed, very observant Jews, but who do not show all the signs of the holiness the Torah is supposed to bring us to. This could happen if there is insufficient attention to the entire notion of a goal beyond the halakhah, so that black letter halakhah -- that which can be measured, laid out in clear obligated or prohibited terms -- takes center seat without any attempt to become the kind of person more capable of fulfilling the full breadth of its commandments. There would be mixed reports of business ethics, scandals of respected rabbis committing fiscal crimes, others unable to control their lust, yet others abusing their power over their students in other ways. Another possible outcome is an idealistic community, but one whose ideals are not Torah derived. In such a community ideals would be taken from some segment of the surrounding culture, and halakhah would be reduced to a means of "blessing" goals that we assimilated from the outside, that at times will resemble the holiness Hashem has readied for us, and at times will differ. A third possibility is particular to a community that teaches the need to engage the world around it, to risk the battle of its challenges in order to use what's positive in the surrounding society to further our sanctity. Without a firm eye and a constant striving toward an ideal, the energy it takes to maintain this delicate balance too easily collapses into a life of compromise. And so, for too many in this community the negative elements of modernity are incorporated into their lives, and also for many strict observance itself suffers. Do these portraits sound familiar? The problem has another symptom which is less problematic -- the rise of Brisk over other darkhei halimmud. A culture in which O means following black-letter Shulchan Arukh will naturally gravitate toward a derekh halimmud that shuns explanations that are in terms of first principles that come before halakhah. RYBS's Halakhic Man denies they even exist. That said, R' Chaim Brisker's own life was more about values and acts of chessed than Arukh Chaim or Yoreh Dei'ah. The family noted this -- for all his lomdus, RCB's mateivah reads "Rav haChesed". The problem is not inherent to Brisk. Therefore, it will be interesting to see how MO evolves, and whether this remains their most pressing problem. YU now has a mashpiah, classes in the Aish Qodesh, Tanya, R' Nachman, it has singing minyanim. Within the halls of YU, Halakhic Man is facing growing competition. Lenaar al pi darko -- this diversity is healthy. But with more semichah students looking to the goals rather than stopping at the halachic tools, MO culture is bound to change in a way that reduces this issue. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When faced with a decision ask yourself, micha at aishdas.org "How would I decide if it were Ne'ilah now, http://www.aishdas.org at the closing moments of Yom Kippur?" Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From JRich at sibson.com Thu Oct 26 05:05:45 2017 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2017 12:05:45 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Timtum Halev Message-ID: There was an interesting article in the Journal "Ohr Yisrael" #16 by R'Avraham Rubin on Timtum Halev (spiritual pollution). His general conclusion was that eating something that would be classified as "forbidden foods," if you know it is such, will cause timtum halev (spiritual character defects) even if you are permitted to eat it in your case (e.g., pikuach nefesh - life-threatening situation). However, if you eat a "factually forbidden food" based on a mistaken halachic decision by an authorized halachic source, no such damage will occur. Interesting that this IIUC would yield the result that one could be halachically required to eat the "forbidden food" (rather than commit suicide by starving to death), yet still develop character defects because of it. Seems non-halachic man to me . I know we've discussed before-I submit a data point in that discussion. KT 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: From micha at aishdas.org Thu Oct 26 09:04:55 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2017 12:04:55 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Timtum Halev In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20171026160455.GD15203@aishdas.org> On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 12:05:45PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : ... "Ohr Yisrael" #16 by R'Avraham Rubin ... general conclusion was : that eating something that would be classified as "forbidden foods," : if you know it is such, will cause timtum halev (spiritual character : defects) even if you are permitted to eat it in your case (e.g., pikuach : nefesh - life-threatening situation). However, if you eat a "factually : forbidden food" based on a mistaken halachic decision by an authorized : halachic source, no such damage will occur. I invite RMRabi to comment on that last sentence. He and I debated for most of a year whether the Maharal would agree that someone who follows a mistaken pesaq is different in kind than someone who makes the mistake themselves. I presume that if eating because of "a mistaken halachic decision by an authorized halachic source" does not cause timtum heleiv, R Avraham Rubin would say that all the more so, eating food that as a matter of unknown fact happens to be kosher but we correctly rule may be eaten because of rov, chazaqah, bitul or whatever would not damage. I would think RAR is coming down on the side of saying that it's the sin, not the substance, which causes the spiritual damage. To my mind -- a hashkafically simpler position, since there is Justice to life being worse due to a sin than due to something premitted. In which case, RAR's opening ruling, that the person starting to death who eats the only available edible which happens to be non-kosher, would seem to be based on ruling that saving one's life overrides the prohibition (making it petura), not that the eating is actually permissible (hutra). For if it were hutra, how would the case differ from correctly following received pesaq? And if it is because of peturah, that the prohibition is being broken, but the violation is permissible for the sake of a greater value, then I can understand how its Just even if we were to say the cause is the substance. The sin is happening, and we know it's happening; we just chose the lesser sin. Lemah hadavar domeh: chemo is poison. For the sake of the greater danger, cancer, a person may take chemo. But the poison still does its effect. The person did what was medically recommended, and the recommendation was made knowing there was a self-destructive element to the act. : Interesting that this IIUC would yield the result that one could be : halachically required to eat the "forbidden food" (rather than commit : suicide by starving to death), yet still develop character defects : because of it. Seems non-halachic man to me.... Halachic man wouldn't ask the question of timtum haleiv to begin with. It is not a halachic category. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The fittingness of your matzos [for the seder] micha at aishdas.org isn't complete with being careful in the laws http://www.aishdas.org of Passover. One must also be very careful in Fax: (270) 514-1507 the laws of business. - Rav Yisrael Salanter From emteitz at gmail.com Thu Oct 26 09:58:57 2017 From: emteitz at gmail.com (elazar teitz) Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2017 12:58:57 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] offering a higher salary Message-ID: >If I have a nochris who is willing to clean for me for $N, you have no right to lure >her away by offering more. But if she is "re`acha" then aderaba you >have a mitzvah to offer her a chance to improve her income, but before >taking your offer she should offer me the chance to match it. Is it a mitzva to help improve a Jew's income, if it is at the expense of another Jew (especially when it is not done with the intent of helping the employee, but rather to help oneself)? EMT -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From zev at sero.name Thu Oct 26 15:06:37 2017 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2017 18:06:37 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] offering a higher salary In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 26/10/17 12:58, elazar teitz via Avodah wrote: >> If I have a nochris who is willing to clean for me for $N, you have no >> right to lure her away by offering more.? But if she is "re`acha" then >> aderaba you have a mitzvah to offer her a chance to improve her income, >> but before taking your offer she should offer me the chance to match it. > Is it a mitzva to help improve a Jew's income, if it is at the > expense of another Jew (especially when it is not done with the intent > of helping the employee, but rather to help oneself)? (1) You have the same mitzvah to love both of us, so whichever one you help is a mitzvah (2) She is probably (though not definitely) in more need than I am (3) If you're willing to pay more for her work then by definition that makes her work *worth* more, since the value of anything is defined as whatever it will fetch, so by making her the offer you're not hurting me, you're merely preventing me from (unbeknownst to either of us) getting an unwarranted benefit at her expense. Basically our arrangement is ona'ah, we're both in error about the value of her labour, and you're in a position to prevent it, so shouldn't you do so? (4) Your intent shouldn't matter. Tzedakah doesn't depend at all on kavanah. If someone is helped, it's a mitzvah even if you didn't mean it (cf shikcha), while if you meant to help someone and it didn't happen there's no mitzvah (cf Bava Basra 8b etc) -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From marty.bluke at gmail.com Sun Oct 29 03:15:35 2017 From: marty.bluke at gmail.com (Marty Bluke) Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2017 12:15:35 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Long Lifespans in Bereishis Message-ID: R' Chaim Manaster pointed out: "But the basic issue is if the world is Charuv at 6000 years and yemos Moshiach are before the olom is charuv, (while olom keminhago noheig) there is not enough time left (we are now 5778) for a life span of 300 to 500 years let alone 1000 years." The gemara (Sanhedrin 99) offers the following suggestions for how long the Messianic period will last: R' Eliezer - 40 years R' Dosa - 400 years Rebbi - 365 years Avimi - 7000 years R' Yehuda - the amount of time from creation until the Messiah comes R' Nachman Bar Yitzchak - the amount of time from the flood until the Messiah comes Interestingly enough the Gemara earlier stated that the world will last 6000 years, Sanhedrin 96B - Six thousand years were decreed upon the world: 2000 years of emptiness (without Torah), 2000 years of Torah, and 2000 years for Mashi'ach. This opinion of 6000 years is generally accepted, however, opinions 4-6 above clearly disagree with this. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ben1456 at zahav.net.il Sun Oct 29 22:34:43 2017 From: ben1456 at zahav.net.il (Ben Waxman) Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2017 07:34:43 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] offering a higher salary In-Reply-To: <6ca926d4-2984-813b-af3a-e5fb0e765062@zahav.net.il> References: <6ca926d4-2984-813b-af3a-e5fb0e765062@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <2e3529d9-23b9-3377-c2f6-ec65d4340f1a@zahav.net.il> After look a bit, I saw that the Aruch HaShulchan CM 237:3 paskens that this law only applies to a poor person. A poor person who finds something that he needs, you can't come along and offer more money for it. But if a rich person finds something that he wants (or employs someone) and this item is available, then the prohibition doesn't apply. It would seem that anyone who can hire a maid does not qualify as poor and I am willing to bet that there is a good supply of people willing to work. Ben On 10/25/2017 7:48 PM, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > I've seen posts claiming that it is forbidden to offer cleaners a > higher salary to work for you. While I can understand that it makes > sense to say that no one can break a specific agreement for a specific > day of work, why should it be forbidden to offer a higher salary to > someone who has a long term agreement?? A, this is the common practice > in the high tech world and I have never heard anyone say "Assur". It > would seem that there is general agreement that this halacha simply > doesn't apply today. From lisa at starways.net Mon Oct 30 03:39:03 2017 From: lisa at starways.net (Lisa Liel) Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2017 12:39:03 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] offering a higher salary In-Reply-To: <2e3529d9-23b9-3377-c2f6-ec65d4340f1a@zahav.net.il> References: <6ca926d4-2984-813b-af3a-e5fb0e765062@zahav.net.il> <2e3529d9-23b9-3377-c2f6-ec65d4340f1a@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <611bec39-509c-b161-d74f-63dbb523906e@starways.net> On 10/30/2017 7:34 AM, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > After look a bit, I saw that the Aruch HaShulchan CM 237:3 paskens > that this law only applies to a poor person. A poor person who finds > something that he needs, you can't come along and offer more money for > it.... > It would seem that anyone who can hire a maid does not qualify as poor > and I am willing to bet that there is a good supply of people willing > to work. Poor in halakha means not having what you're accustomed to have. It isn't an objective benchmark or a comparison to other people. Lisa From ben1456 at zahav.net.il Mon Oct 30 12:58:56 2017 From: ben1456 at zahav.net.il (Ben Waxman) Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2017 21:58:56 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] offering a higher salary In-Reply-To: <611bec39-509c-b161-d74f-63dbb523906e@starways.net> References: <6ca926d4-2984-813b-af3a-e5fb0e765062@zahav.net.il> <2e3529d9-23b9-3377-c2f6-ec65d4340f1a@zahav.net.il> <611bec39-509c-b161-d74f-63dbb523906e@starways.net> Message-ID: <8355ddf5-ae06-1774-b30d-dd05b89814a9@zahav.net.il> You think that these people would be willing to apply the word "poor" to themselves, even in regards to only this halacha? On 10/30/2017 12:39 PM, Lisa Liel wrote: > Poor in halakha means not having what you're accustomed to have.? It > isn't an objective benchmark or a comparison to other people. From bdbradley70 at hotmail.com Mon Oct 30 14:41:44 2017 From: bdbradley70 at hotmail.com (Ben Bradley) Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2017 21:41:44 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] offering a higher salary In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Poor in halakha means not having what you're accustomed to have. It isn't an objective benchmark or a comparison to other people. Lisa I don't believe it's as clear cut as that. It's true with regard to giving tzedaka, that the kehilla is required to maintain someone at the standard they were used to. But when it comes to the definition of an oni who's entitled to take from communal funds, the mishna in terumos or maasros defines it as someone who has a specific and objective amount of food or money in their possession. AFAIR halacha l'maaseh follows suit, and there are objective criteria before allowing someone to accept communal tzedaka funds. Regards Ben -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hankman at bell.net Mon Oct 30 12:03:44 2017 From: hankman at bell.net (hankman) Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2017 15:03:44 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Long Lifespans in Bereishis Message-ID: R. Marty Bluke wrote: ?The gemara (Sanhedrin 99) offers the following suggestions for how long the Messianic period will last: ... R' Dosa - 400 years Rebbi - 365 years Avimi - 7000 years R' Yehuda - the amount of time from creation until the Messiah comes R' Nachman Bar Yitzchak - the amount of time from the flood until the Messiah comes ....? Actually my original kasheh occurred to me during that recent daf yomi you refer to in Sanhedrin which was when I asked the same question you pose here. The question I posted on Avodah (basically the same idea) was just in reference to a previous post here and its remarks ? I just did not feel the need to broaden the kasheh ? perhaps I should have, just to be more comprehensive. Kol tuv Chaim Manaster -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From saulguberman at gmail.com Tue Oct 31 09:57:00 2017 From: saulguberman at gmail.com (Saul Guberman) Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2017 12:57:00 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] chopsticks Message-ID: Is it permissible to break apart chopsticks on shabbat at the meal to eat your sushi? Someone claimed it is makeh b'patish and just use a fork or stab with the chopsticks still together. Others thought that tzorech ochel nefesh might allow them to be broken and used , as it is all disposable anyway. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From JRich at sibson.com Thu Nov 2 05:12:05 2017 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2017 12:12:05 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] TEXTUAL JUDAISM AND THE LIVING TORAH Message-ID: <9e51a7f4ea644e829db8503f8f0451fe@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> An old Avodah favorite :) KT Joel Rich http://etzion.org.il/en/siman-114-prayers-wind-rain-and-dew TEXTUAL JUDAISM AND THE LIVING TORAH In his introduction to the Beit Yosef, R. Yosef Karo clearly asserts that since it is impossible for someone of his stature to set himself up as arbiter among the great Rishonim, for his rulings will be based on the majority of the opinions of the Rif, the Rambam, and the Rosh. Yet, here we have a case where the Rambam and the Rosh agree that an entire country which needs rain can mention and ask for rain in the summer, while the Rif does not dispute this ruling since he does not relate to this case. Although the Rambam's ruling is in the commentary to the Mishna, this has the same status as the Mishneh Torah - so I understand from Kesef Mishneh, also written by R. Yosef Karo, to Hilkhot Talmud Torah 3:10 at the end - and in addition, the Beit Yosef on our siman claims that the Mishneh Torah also rules like the commentary to the Mishna. How can the Beit Yosef rule against them?! The Beit Yosef emphasizes that the custom of the entire world contradicts the Rosh's ruling. He also suggests that this ruling was never accepted in practice. How can we weigh these factors against the authority of the written sources? There is a general difference in approach among poskim regarding how to weigh local custom against textual authority. The Tosafot in many places endeavor to reconcile the text with the custom (see for excample, Shabbat 48a d.h. De-zeitim); other sages more readily condemn custom on the authority of the plain sense of the text. It seems that several factors bear on the relative importance: 1. How universal is the custom? Responsa frequently point out that the reaction to a seldom-encountered situation can not be considered a "custom" - merely a precedent. 2. Among whom is the custom widespread? If we are certain that even scholars and meticulous people conducted themselves in a certain way, this has more weight than the behavior of the common people, pious though they may be. 3. Are opinions opposing the custom recognized? Sometimes we find statements to the effect that if a community had been aware that a great authority opposed their custom, they would not have adopted it. Conversely, a custom may be defended by pointing out that it was upheld even though opposing views were clearly known. 4. Perhaps in an area of halakha whose basis is in custom, though it subsequently achieved the status of binding halakha, we should give greater weight to custom. In our case, the Beit Yosef perceived that the custom of going according to Eretz Yisrael was universal, even among scholars, and even among people who were certainly aware of the statements of the Rambam and the Rosh. In addition, he may have considered the "customary" aspect of prayer to have special importance - the fact that we pray as a community renders special importance to community customs. Therefore, even though the Beit Yosef is, according to his own assertion, an extreme "textualist," in this case he was persuaded to rule in accordance with custom. Almost all Acharonim are extremely reluctant to dispute Rishonim - though there are notable exceptions, such as the Maharshal (who lived, in any case, close to the era of the Rishonim). However, many later scholars do feel that however unworthy they may be, it is their responsibility as decisors to decide AMONG the Rishonim. The Beit Yosef's reticence in this regard is far from universal. A lot of noise is still being made regarding an article written a couple of years ago by a leading scholar of Judaism (who is also a Talmid Chakham, though the two do not always go together) who posits that only recently have texts taken such a central role in Jewish life. He claims that before World War II custom was king, and accepted customs of respectable communities were not scrutinized in the light of codes. I can not comment on the historical reality of three generations ago, but I think we should keep in mind that the tension between custom and written authority is an ancient one, and the "advocacy" of texts is hardly a new idea. 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: From zev at sero.name Thu Nov 2 20:38:21 2017 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2017 23:38:21 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] TEXTUAL JUDAISM AND THE LIVING TORAH In-Reply-To: <9e51a7f4ea644e829db8503f8f0451fe@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <9e51a7f4ea644e829db8503f8f0451fe@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: On 02/11/17 08:12, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: > The Beit Yosef emphasizes that the custom of the entire world > contradicts the Rosh's ruling. Not the entire world. The Rosh himself reported that he was gratified to discover, while travelling through Provence on his way from Germany to Spain, that they did it the right way. This reinforced him in his determination to try to change the practice in Spain. > In our case, the Beit Yosef perceived that the custom of going > according to Eretz Yisrael was universal, On the contrary, *nobody* goes according to EY. The universal custom is to go according to Iraq. The Rosh wanted all Mediterranean Jews, who share EY's climate, to follow EY, as the Provencals did, but they refused. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From meirabi at gmail.com Thu Nov 2 22:38:08 2017 From: meirabi at gmail.com (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi) Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2017 16:38:08 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] Avraham A Cooked, Angels Ate - Bassar BeChalav Message-ID: Avraham Avinu entertained three angels masquerading as human visitors; feeding them goat flesh cooked with milk. Generations later, due to this meal, the angels? protest, that the Torah ought not be given to the Jews, was quashed. There are 3 issues that require clarification: ++ Let?s say the angels sinned by eating flesh cooked with milk [which seems to be the plain meaning of the Medrash] how does that silence their protest? ++ Furthermore, flesh cooked with milk would not have been served to the guests: ++ Avraham Avinu did not cook goat with milk since he adhered to all Mitzvos of the Torah. ++ Even if it was cooked inadvertently, he would not have offered it to the visitors since no benefit may be derived from it. Reb Meir Simcha of Dvinsk explains in Meshech Chochmah, that no sin was transgressed since it was BP flesh, which may be cooked with milk. The angels? protests were silenced because they accepted that Avraham Avinu was Jewish and therefore able to Shecht. Had they considered him not Jewish, they would not have eaten because Shechita cannot be performed by a non-Jew. Thus, the angels had already conceded that Avraham Avinu had an inalienable connection to the Torah and therefore was able to Shecht and create a Kosher BP. That being the case, they could not question nor protest his chosen children?s rights to that heritage. Of all aspects of BP this particular Halacha is so counter-intuitive, and such a shock to our expectations, that even when Reb Chaim Kanievsky said that cooking BP flesh with milk, is "Kosher VeYosher" (more than 100%) Rabbanim who were with me and heard him say this, will not publicly admit to it. Rav Moshe Sternbuch responded upon being asked if this was a DaAs Yachid (a lone opinion), "Who argues?" - R Moshe quotes this Meshech Chochmah MoAdim UzManim [?"? ??' ??"?] and thereby suggests another reason for eating dairy on Shavuos - after all, it was via dairy that we succeeded to silence the angels? protests. However, my son Yehudah, argues - in that case, we really ought to be eating BBPbCh [Basar BP beChalav] on Shavuos. That the BP may be cooked with milk is so obvious to Reb Meir Simcha, that he does not bother to bring proof or expand upon the point. Clearly, BP is utterly unlike any regular cow sheep or goat that may not be cooked with dairy. = = = According to our traditions, Avraham Avinu maintained all the laws of the Torah and also all the Rabbinic enactments. Rashi, Genesis 26:5; Yevamos 21. Accordingly, our Sages explain that Avraham did not offer the bread [Rashi, Genesis 18:8; BMetzia 87] to his guests because Sara had miraculously rejuvenated and become ritually unclean, making the bread unclean. Although no more than a stringency Avraham Avinu would not serve it to his non Jewish guests - presumably, if Avraham Avinu would not eat it himself, he would not serve it to his guests - makes one pause and contemplate about those who Kosher certify various foods and establishments but will not eat that food themselves. = = = There are some who try to squeeze into the words of the MChochmah that it is the milk which is not dairy because meat may be cooked with milk collected from a Shechted beast, Chalav Shechuta, and a BP is deemed to be a Shechuta. There is a contrary argument however - some propose that Chalav Shechuta is not ?mother?s milk?, meaning milk from a beast that can potentially be a mother, whereas a BP can certainly be a mother, so its milk is not Chalav Shechuta and may not be cooked with meat. Either way, the argument collapses completely because Avraham Avinu would not violate the Rabbinic law that prohibits cooking with Chalav Shechuta [or deer or giraffe milk] Best, Meir G. Rabi 0423 207 837 +61 423 207 837 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Fri Nov 3 03:24:28 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2017 06:24:28 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Avraham A Cooked, Angels Ate - Bassar BeChalav In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20171103102428.GB3833@aishdas.org> On Fri, Nov 03, 2017 at 04:38:08PM +1100, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: : Avraham Avinu entertained three angels masquerading as human visitors; : feeding them goat flesh cooked with milk. Generations later, due to this : meal, the angels' protest, that the Torah ought not be given to the Jews, : was quashed. Where's this medrash? Tosafists (Daas Zeqeinim, Bereishis 18:8) note the contradiction between it and the medrash that the avos observe all of halakhah (even eiruv tavshilin) and suggests the following. It is also the Sifsei Chakhamim's and Bekhor Shor's take on the pasuq. The chumash says, "vayiqach chem'ah vechalav uven habaqar asher asah". There is no indication in the peshat that the veal was made in the butter and/or milk. And in fact, the milk is mentioned first. Leading to the opinion that Avraham even served them in a way that kept them from consuming dairy immediately after meat! The SC says he served them the milk so that they wouldn't have to wait while hungrily for the veal while it was shechted and cooked. The Radaq gives a different sesolution: Avraham prepared both so as to give them a choice of what to eat. : Reb Meir Simcha of Dvinsk explains in Meshech Chochmah, that no sin was : transgressed since it was BP flesh, which may be cooked with milk. Lo zakhisi lehavin haRav Meir Simcha haKohein, nor R' Kanievsky. Isn't that only mutar deRabbanan if it is killed before it can even stands up, so as to avoid mar'is ayin, like shechitah? And the gemara's example of the avos keeping kol haTorah kulah is Avraham keeping eiruv -- so that that aggadita means to include derabbanans. And even if we're saying that we're talking about BP without the taqanos, And if it is ben paqua and thus didn't need shechitah, why does the asame medrash make a point of Avraham shechting it? The tradition that Avraham Avinu authored seifer haYetzirah (for which I also have no source) includes the resolution that a calf made through ShY ("uven havaqar ASHER ASAH"), rather than invoking BP. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger A person lives with himself for seventy years, micha at aishdas.org and after it is all over, he still does not http://www.aishdas.org know himself. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From zev at sero.name Fri Nov 3 08:27:40 2017 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2017 11:27:40 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Avraham A Cooked, Angels Ate - Bassar BeChalav In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4ed7f10d-c1ee-c201-6de4-61e0564f59fd@sero.name> On 03/11/17 01:38, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: > feeding them goat flesh cooked with milk Since when? He fed them beef, together with cream (or butter) and milk, separately but simultaneously. > The angels? protests were silenced because they accepted that Avraham > Avinu was Jewish and therefore able to Shecht. Had they considered him > not Jewish, they would not have eaten because Shechita cannot be > performed by a non-Jew. Thus, the angels had already conceded that > Avraham Avinu had an inalienable connection to the Torah and therefore > was able to Shecht and create a Kosher BP. That being the case, they > could not question nor protest his chosen children?s rights to that > heritage. If so then why bring the milk into it at all? Simply by eating meat he'd shechted (or rather that his son Yishma`el had shechted) they had conceded all that (according to this explanation) was required. Why complicate the matter with questions of basar bechalav? Therefore it's clear that that was not the issue. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From micha at aishdas.org Fri Nov 3 05:44:11 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2017 08:44:11 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] TEXTUAL JUDAISM AND THE LIVING TORAH In-Reply-To: References: <9e51a7f4ea644e829db8503f8f0451fe@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20171103124411.GC23679@aishdas.org> On Thu, Nov 02, 2017 at 11:38:21PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : On 02/11/17 08:12, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: :>The Beit Yosef emphasizes that the custom of the entire world :>contradicts the Rosh's ruling. : Not the entire world. The Rosh himself reported that he was : gratified to discover, while travelling through Provence on his way : from Germany to Spain, that they did it the right way... Are you disagreeing with the BY (no citation so I can't check myself), with RJR's presentation of the BY? Or, are we ignoring the fact that the Rosh lived well before the BY and could have seen a Provincial minhag that had died by the mechaber's time. The BY could well be wrong. We have other examples of famous rishonim and acharonim who didn't know some minhag of other communities and thought regional norm was universal. I just want to understand which of the above we're discussing. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger We are what we repeatedly do. micha at aishdas.org Thus excellence is not an event, http://www.aishdas.org but a habit. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Aristotle From zev at sero.name Fri Nov 3 09:02:59 2017 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2017 12:02:59 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] TEXTUAL JUDAISM AND THE LIVING TORAH In-Reply-To: <20171103124411.GC23679@aishdas.org> References: <9e51a7f4ea644e829db8503f8f0451fe@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> <20171103124411.GC23679@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 03/11/17 08:44, Micha Berger wrote: > On Thu, Nov 02, 2017 at 11:38:21PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > : On 02/11/17 08:12, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: > :>The Beit Yosef emphasizes that the custom of the entire world > :>contradicts the Rosh's ruling. > > : Not the entire world. The Rosh himself reported that he was > : gratified to discover, while travelling through Provence on his way > : from Germany to Spain, that they did it the right way... > > Are you disagreeing with the BY (no citation so I can't check > myself), with RJR's presentation of the BY? Not disagreeing so much as pointing out that "the entire world" doesn't mean quite that. In fact the Tur on which the BY is commenting also quotes his father's report about the minhag in Provence. And the BY further quotes the Rosh that "uchvar nahagu gam kein biktzat mekomot" to start on the 7th. So later when he says "shelo nitkablu divrei haRosh, vechol ha`olam lo nahagu kein", I think this must be understood as a generalization, just as we do when we say "der velt" does this or that, and we clearly don't mean literally everyone. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From sholom at aishdas.org Fri Nov 3 11:32:44 2017 From: sholom at aishdas.org (Sholom Simon) Date: Fri, 03 Nov 2017 14:32:44 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] VAYERA ? WHO IS HKBH TALKING TO? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20171103183247.KRPQ6746.fed1rmfepo102.cox.net@fed1rmimpo109.cox.net> Rabbi Meir G. Rabi notes/asks: >Sara laughs [18:12] Gd is not happy > >[18:13] HKBH confronts Avraham, ?Why did Sara laugh off the blessing >that she have a child? Am I not able to arrange she give birth? I >assure you, I?ll be back and you?ll see she will have a child.? > >But why is HKBH asking this of Avraham? Does HKBH expect Avraham to >be able to explain? > >It seems this question is really an indictment of sorts. > >Is Avraham being blamed for Sara?s weakness? > >Why does Avraham confront [18:19] Sara? He does not doubt what HKBH >has told him? > >And when Sara denies it, why does Avraham rebuke her? Is it >Avraham?s responsibility to ensure she confesses? I just heard a shiur (YUTorah!) from RHS who addressed this. He also threw in the question: why is H" telling loshon harah to Avraham? RMF brings that In the Gemara (somewhere) it says that it's permissible to tell loshon harah to the subject's rebbe, so that the rebbe can give tochacha or musar to the subject, and RMF (or RHS) says that's what's happenning here (viewing Avraham as Sarah's rebbe, in a way). -- Sholom From akivagmiller at gmail.com Fri Nov 3 14:05:30 2017 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2017 17:05:30 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] chopsticks Message-ID: . R" Saul Guberman asked: > Is it permissible to break apart chopsticks on shabbat at the > meal to eat your sushi? Someone claimed it is makeh b'patish > and just use a fork or stab with the chopsticks still > together. Others thought that tzorech ochel nefesh might > allow them to be broken and used, as it is all disposable > anyway. Rabbi Doniel Neustadt raises a similar question at https://torah.org/torah-portion/weekly-halacha-5772-beshalach/ I would think that the situations are similar; even if they aren't identical, looking up the sources may help to find the answer about chopsticks. > Question: Leben or yogurt cups sometimes come attached to each > other and must be separated along a perforated line before > they can be eaten individually. Is that permitted to be done > on Shabbos? > > Discussion: Contemporary poskim debate whether or not it is > permitted to separate attached yogurt or leben cups from each > other. Some consider it a violation of Mechatech and Makeh > b?patish[21] while others hold it is permitted altogether[22]. > > 21. Rav Y.S. Elyashiv (Orchos Shabbos 12:12, Me?or ha-Shabbos, > vol. 2, pg. 551). > > 22. Rav S.Z. Auerbach (Orchos Shabbos 12:18. note 31, Shulchan > Shelomo 314:13-3). Akiva Miller From meirabi at mail.gmail.com Sat Nov 4 05:45:14 2017 From: meirabi at mail.gmail.com (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi) Date: Sat, 4 Nov 2017 23:45:14 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] Avraham A Cooked, Angels Ate - Bassar BeChalav Message-ID: 1] no one disputes that the Meshech Chochmah says what he says 2] there are many explanations to resolve the meat and milk issue, we are not disputing them, just explaining one of them 3] there is [surprisingly] no Issur of Maris Ayin preventing cooking some iterations of BP meat with milk - the proof is from this episode as presented by this Medrash and explained by the MChochma. 4] The decree that after the BP has stood up, Hifris AGKarka, it requires Shechitah [and presumably is also Assur to cook with milk] does not apply to a BP that is found as a non fully gestated, Lo KaLu Lo Chadashav. 5] Avraham did not Shecht it - on the contrary he directed Yishmael to prepare it - Furthermore, because it was a BP it did not require Shechita which is why he could direct Yishmael to kill it, and there was also no problem of Bassar SheNisAlem Min HaAyin. 6] Indeed, even had the angels eaten plain meat Shechted by AAvinu, there would have been adequate proof that they accepted his status of Kedushas Yisrael, it just so happened that AAvinu wanted to serve his visitors a delicacy, Beef Stroganoff. 7] I really do not know why I assumed it was a goat From zev at sero.name Sat Nov 4 16:10:52 2017 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Sat, 4 Nov 2017 19:10:52 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Avraham A Cooked, Angels Ate - Bassar BeChalav In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <0d614669-3c79-3c22-d137-b4b21530183f@sero.name> On 04/11/17 08:45, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi wrote: > 6] Indeed, even had the angels eaten plain meat Shechted by AAvinu, > there would have been adequate proof that they accepted his status of > Kedushas Yisrael, it just so happened that AAvinu wanted to serve his > visitors a delicacy, Beef Stroganoff. Except that Rashi explicitly says otherwise, that the delicacy he served was tongue in mustard, for which he needed *three* animals. There is no hint of any cooking in milk. The Meshech Chochma needs a mokor for this. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From meirabi at mail.gmail.com Sat Nov 4 05:56:05 2017 From: meirabi at mail.gmail.com (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi) Date: Sat, 4 Nov 2017 23:56:05 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] VAYERA ? WHO IS HKBH TALKING TO? Message-ID: Furthermore, HKBH is transgressing Lashon Hara by disclosing to Avraham that Sara laughed. It is pretty clear that Sara's indiscretion was disclosed to Avraham because it was necessary for AAvinu to know, as we see, he rebuked Sara for laughing. Avraham was responsible for this shortcoming of Sara - this properly explains all these Qs HKBH expected Avraham to respond as he did. The question is really an indictment of sorts. Avraham is blamed for Sara's indiscretion? Therefore, Avraham confronts [18:19] Sara. And when Sara denies it, Avraham rebukes her. It is Avraham's responsibility to ensure she confesses. Best, Meir G. Rabi From meirabi at mail.gmail.com Mon Nov 6 12:30:23 2017 From: meirabi at mail.gmail.com (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi) Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2017 07:30:23 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] HKBH Rebukes Avraham for Sara's Shortcomings In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: continuing from prev post - > Sara laughs [18:12] Gd is not happy > [18:13] HKBH confronts Avraham, ... Preserving harmony [Yevamos 65b, in this case between Araham and Sara] compels HKBH to lie to Avraham [HKBH reported that Sara said, "I am too old to have children", when in fact she said, "my master is old"] and yet HKBH, rather than remaining silent to preserve peace, reports Sara's indiscretion to Avraham. Furthermore, aside from being likely to cause strife between Avraham and Sara, this report is a horribly demeaning Lashon Hara. Scoffing at HKBH's ability to grant her a child, in spite of it being uttered by what might easily have been described as a foolish visitor, is a blight upon Sara which HKBH held against her. And she understood the correctness of the criticism and felt shamed, as we see that she [apparently] instinctively and immediately denied it [18:15] It seems clear that HKBH reported this to Avraham, rather than directly or indirectly to Sara, not only to correct Sara but also to rebuke Avraham. HKBH was criticising Avraham for Sara's shortcoming. From micha at aishdas.org Mon Nov 6 17:55:31 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2017 20:55:31 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Questioning Authority In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20171107015531.GC12418@aishdas.org> On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 09:41:32AM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : I have always felt that it is (or ought to be) possible and permissible to : *question* authority without challenging or rejecting authority... I would have said "to ask questions", as to me "to question" something is indeed to challenge. But that's just an English or perhaps English dialect issue. What's nice is that we don't have this issue in halachic jargon: there is a clear difference between 1- a she'eilah, asking for information, ibua'ei lehu / miba'ei on the oe hand, and 2- a qushya ("qasha"), tiyuvta, meisivei, where we challenge the given statement. .... : But frequently, the truth is that the parent has very good reasons for what : he says. It's just that he's unable to put those reasons into clear words. : He can't even explain it to himself in simple terms, because it is simply a : gut feeling that he has, based on experience and intuition, he sees that : this is the action or inaction which must be followed in this particular : situation. As far as I can tell, this is what RYBS calls "mesorah", and the same notion of "mesorah" RHS invokves when arguing against ordaining women or women leading inessential portions of davening? (As opposed to those who think of "mesorah" as referring to mimeticism.) : I think this is analogous to Torah leaders and Torah followers. When the : leaders tell the followers what to do, or what to avoid, it is entirely : reasonable for the followers to request explanations from the leaders. This : is especially so, if the explanation will help them comply with the : directive, or teach them how to apply the directive to other situations. : But these requests must be made respectfully, carefully, and only up to a : certain point. We ask a poseiq a she'eilah, not a qushya. And -- as noted by the Maharal in the Beer haGolah RMRabi and I beat to death -- we should be expecting to understand rather than blindly follow. The limit you speak of comes for the fact that a feel for how the halakhah ought to be inherently can't be articulated. To repply R/Dr Moshe Koppel's metaphor for halakhah, as much as halakhah runs like a legal system, it also works like a language. People who only know English as a second language could know rules of conjugation, but it takes serious immersion in the language to know what kinds of poetic license works and what violates the limits of acceptible English. We native speakers know what "sounds right". But if an immigrant were to ask why "the red big ball" sounds weird but "the big red ball" sounds normal, how many of us could explain it? And if we did come up with an explanation, isn't it a post-facto construct rather than the more by-feel way the determination was really made? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger For those with faith there are no questions. micha at aishdas.org For those who lack faith there are no answers. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yaakov of Radzimin Fax: (270) 514-1507 From micha at aishdas.org Mon Nov 6 18:30:37 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2017 21:30:37 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] eitz hachaim In-Reply-To: <61f0b606-b859-4475-eef8-a10489e74f1c@starways.net> References: <61f0b606-b859-4475-eef8-a10489e74f1c@starways.net> Message-ID: <20171107023037.GE12418@aishdas.org> On Sun, Oct 15, 2017 at 05:41:04PM -0400, hankman via Avodah wrote: : What exactly was the eitz hachaim all about. The simple pshat doesn't : make any sense. ... Kodem hacheit he was not : a bar misah so he had no need of it, after the cheit he was prevented : from accessing it! So when would it ever be useful to Adam? On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 10:51:28AM +0300, Lisa Liel via Avodah wrote: : I don't understand the question. He was prevented from accessing it : *because* of the cheit. Had he not sinned, you say he would have had : no need for it, but who is to say that its only function was to make : him live forever..... Note how the Torah is also called "eitz chaim (hi lamachaziqim bahh)." So I think Lisa's notion that the eitz chaim likely had another function is quite probable. Likely its primary function was to provide the da'as that would lead to arichas yamim. Like the Torah does -- even if its arichas yamim appears not to be in olam hazeh. There is also the idea that there was only one tree in the iddle of the garden, an eitz hachaim upon which grew a branch bearing the peri eitz hada'as tov vara. Or maybe that the eitz vhaim was the rooots from which the eitz hadaas grew. I don't know -- I only heard about it second-hand (multiple times) by people quoting "sifrei qabbalah" (as though that counts as a citation). Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger If you won't be better tomorrow micha at aishdas.org than you were today, http://www.aishdas.org then what need do you have for tomorrow? Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rebbe Nachman of Breslov From micha at aishdas.org Mon Nov 6 18:04:55 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2017 21:04:55 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] A Great Name In-Reply-To: <20171025204831.CKZV22111.fed1rmfepo202.cox.net@fed1rmimpo210.cox.net> References: <20171025204831.CKZV22111.fed1rmfepo202.cox.net@fed1rmimpo210.cox.net> Message-ID: <20171107020455.GD12418@aishdas.org> On Wed, Oct 25, 2017 at 04:48:29PM -0400, Sholom Simon via Avodah wrote: : One of the implicit criticisms of Migdal Bavel was that they wanted : to make a name for themselves. Then, at the beginning of Lech L'cha, : H' tells Avram that he will make his name great. : There must be something there... anybody have any thoughts? First question... If all of humanity was participating (minus two epople -- Avraham and Ashur), who exactly were they trying to build up their reputation for? Whereas after the Haflagah, man was split into numerous communities, the notion of being known broadly makes sense. And if you want to spread your teachings, such fame is useful. Yes, I think the contrast is meaningful -- the people who got caught up in ego to the point of irrationality wanted fame for its own sake. After all, it had no logical value in their context. Whereas Afraham was granted fame as part of Hashem aiding his success, and fame is positive. It's not a question, it's the point. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Between stimulus & response, there is a space. micha at aishdas.org In that space is our power to choose our http://www.aishdas.org response. In our response lies our growth Fax: (270) 514-1507 and our freedom. - Victor Frankl, (MSfM) From cantorwolberg at cox.net Mon Nov 6 23:30:51 2017 From: cantorwolberg at cox.net (Richard Wolberg) Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2017 02:30:51 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Gilgul Hanefesh Message-ID: I have heard many conflicting opinions about our belief in reincarnation. I hope and pray it is not true. ?One life is enough!? Is there a definitive Jewish belief? I have even heard some believe in ?Transmigration of the Soul? which is even more scary. As an impressionable kid, I once had a rabbi tell me that if you don?t wash netilat yadayim prior to eating, you will come back as a dog. The following is an excerpt by an article in the Aish.com Newsletter by Sara Yoheved Rigler. there are hints to reincarnation in the Bible and early commentaries (1), while in Kabbalah, Judaism?s mystical tradition, overt references to reincarnation abound. The Zohar, the basic text of Jewish mysticism (attributed to Rabbi Shimon Bar Yochai, a 1st century sage) assumes gilgul neshamot [the recycling of souls] as a given, and the Ari, the greatest of all Kabbalists, whose 16th teachings are recorded in, Shaar HaGilgulim, traced the reincarnations of many Biblical figures. While some authorities, such as Saadia Gaon (10th century) denied reincarnation as a Jewish concept, from the 17th century onward, leading rabbis of normative Judaism, such as the Gaon of Vilna and the Chafetz Chaim (2), referred to gilgul neshamot as a fact. (1)? See Deut. 33:6, and Targum Onkeles and Targum Yonosson on that verse. Also see Isaiah 22:14. (2)? Mishnah Berurah 23:5 and Shaar HaTzion 622:6 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From lisa at starways.net Tue Nov 7 02:43:04 2017 From: lisa at starways.net (Lisa Liel) Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2017 12:43:04 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Gilgul Hanefesh In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3ad8c297-8019-3aa5-de3b-800ffe91d6c9@starways.net> On 11/7/2017 9:30 AM, Richard Wolberg via Avodah wrote: ... > Is there a definitive Jewish belief? > I have even heard some believe in "Transmigration of the Soul" which > is even more scary. As an impressionable kid, I once had a rabbi tell me > that if you don't wash netilat yadayim prior to eating, you will come > back as a dog. As I understand it, gilgul neshamot is not the same as the eastern idea of reincarnation, where one person's soul literally incarnates again in another body and lives another life. Rather, on a spiritual level, the soul of one person can "match" the soul of someone who lived previously. Either by harmony or dissonance, to use a musical metaphor. In Seder HaDorot, it talks incessantly about how some person or other was the gilgul, or tikkun, of a previous person. But it sometimes has multiple people as the gilgul or tikkun of a previous person, which makes more sense given the "match" concept. Kabbalistically, at least according to R' Aryeh Kaplan, the spiritual dimension is one of similarities and differences. Two things that are more similar are "closer" and two things that are less similar are "further apart". So if your soul is very similar to that of someone who lived before, you could have such a "match". You might even dream memories that the previous soul experienced. That doesn't make you that person. And since the state of a person's soul changes throughout their life, their "match" to someone who lived previously can come and go as well. To give an example, Seder HaDorot says that Rabbi Akiva was the gilgul/tikkun of Zimri ben Salu. The 24K Bnei Shimon who died in the plague following Zimri's actions match the 24K talmidim of Rabbi Akiva, for example. But while Zimri took Kosbi b'issur, Rabbi Akiva married the wife of Tyrannus Rufus b'heter, after she converted. Hence restoring a balance that Zimri had violated. I don't buy the "reincarnated as a dog" or "as a fish" stuff. Those who do, I suppose they have on whom to rely, but you don't have to buy into it yourself. (NB: While Googling to see if there was a website that talked about this, I found this article from Aish, which was very interesting. It included Shechem and Dina in the equation as well. http://www.aish.com/tp/i/moha/97291469.html) Lisa From micha at aishdas.org Tue Nov 7 13:54:20 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2017 16:54:20 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] 17 Marcheshvan Message-ID: <20171107215420.GA15523@aishdas.org> Yesterday, the 17th Marcheshvan, was the anniversary of two events: 1- The rain of the mabul began; and 2- 2 Nov 1917, the day the British Foreign Secretary, Lord Alfred Balfour, sent the famous letter to Baron Lionel Walter Rothchild. Anyone want to connect the dots between the two? Two things I did notice: - Both were first steps, far from the final yeshu'ah. - Both were first followed by major destruction before anything positive could be seen from them. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger I have great faith in optimism as a philosophy, micha at aishdas.org if only because it offers us the opportunity of http://www.aishdas.org self-fulfilling prophecy. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Arthur C. Clarke From micha at aishdas.org Tue Nov 7 14:54:02 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2017 17:54:02 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Torah precheit? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20171107225402.GA26849@aishdas.org> On Thu, Oct 19, 2017 at 05:47:09AM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : R' Chaim Manaster asked: :> I have been trying to understand what the geshtalt of Torah :> was precheit of the eitz hadaas... ... :> The many consequences seem to be as follows: there would be :> no avdus in Mitzrayim, therefore no...... : One can ask similar questions about other turning-points in history. : What if Kayin had not killed Hevel? What if the world has not gone to : Avodah Zara a few generations later? What if Yishmael and/or Esav had : not gone of the derech? What if Moshe Rabenu had acted differently by : the rock? To get really confused... The Torah, like it's Author, is lemaaleh min hazman. What aspect of the Torah we mean by that aside for a moment, that means it wasn't written before the eitz hadaas, Kayin killing Hevel, Dor Enosh, galus Mitzrayim, etc... Torah doesn't enter the timeline until it is revealed at Har Sinai. Which means that there is no question about Hashem's "foreknowledge" and bechirah chafshi about anything written in the Torah that happens before Matan Torah. We can't talk about Hashem Knowing what we *will* decide until that Knowledge enters the timeline. There is no "before" or after to His knowing, only to when He informs others of it. So, for events that precede Har Sinai, the Torah can contain those decisions. There is no "what if" because Hashem Knows that that what wouldn't. No more a problem than if the Torah were written /after/ those events. Hey, I warned you I was opening the door to confusion. Then there is the question of the supernal Torah vs the form we got. As per the Ramban about the Torah without the letters separated into the words we have now. (Tangent: If one were to take that shitas haRamban at face value, there is meaning to the pesuqim with the words redivided. So, why isn't that one of the Middos shehaTorah Nidreshes Bahen?) : And there are yet others. Torah manifests itself differently to a : kohen than to a levi, and differently to a woman than to a man. And so : on... And on Sun, Oct 22, 2017 at 04:15:49PM -0400, RCM replied: : R. Akiva Miller wrote: ""If there is life on other planets, might they : possibly have a Torah? But Mitzrayim doesn't exist there, and Moshe : never lived there!" That question bothered me for a very long time," : Strangely enough, I had similar thoughts years back. As a young bachur : in yeshivo, my rebbi was teaching us that their was a period during : which the progenitor of kelal Yisroel would happen. I asked what would : have happened if there had been another deep thinker who came to the : same realization and belief that Avraham did. He answered that there : would have been two (or more) chosen peoples to eventually be mekabel : Torah. It didn't occur to me at the time to ask, would they each have the : "same" Torah or each get a tailored version to their (eventual) am? Or, : would there be one Torah that talks of both of the chosen peoples? Is there on some planet far away, an intelligent alien species with their Am haNivchar? How would the Torah be manifest to them? And if they didn't have a Migdal Bavel like event, did Hashem do that whole Mamlekhes Kohanim model, with castes within the alien Am haNivchar, or castes with everyone "nivchar"? Would they have a Holy Land? If we made contact with these creatures, would we recognize their perception of the Torah as another expression of Yahadus, or would it be too alien? I know this example seems less serious than yours; I meant it as a test case on which to check these ideas that doesn't have to involve "what if" histories that Hashem timelessly knows didn't / aren't / won't happen. : Years : later when discussing what is the purpose to us of the trillions of stars : and galaxies so distant that they could never possibly affect us here : on Earth? Then it occurred to me, what if those stars had planets with : intelligent beings on them and they too went through a similar period : wherein they too had some allien being come to the same conclusions as : Avraham did and they then became the chosen people of that planet and : received a Torah possibly tailored to their experiences and appropriate : there etc.? ... Or maybe they do affect our lives here on earth. Omphalists believe that the universe was created at some point in the nearer past, eg 5778 years ago -- or Last Thursday -- and everything before that is fake. And this is the position of the LR and R' Avigdor Miller. (Although Last Thursdayism is a mock-religion posed by atheists trying to ridicule their position.) The usual challenge by those who like to be more rationalist is that this would imply Hashem is out to fool us, creating light en route from stars to make it look like they shown billions of years ago, tragectories that if you work backward converge from a Big Bang, geological and archological records, fossils, cave paintings, remains of pre-Adamic farming... But there is a more thoughtful response: Perhaps the only way we can have teva today is if the universe we have now looks like it always ran by teva. Otherwise, the effects of nissim would still be causing anomolies we could pick up today. So much for hesteir Panim. In which case, we need a universe that is so big that our place is in looks like some unnoticable backwater. We need a universe that looks like it had a Big Bang and Inflation area in order for us to live with the set of laws of nature we have. And then their existence does impact us. : Moshe when he went lamorom to accept Torah. They too wanted Torah in a : version suitable to them which would deflect all of Moshe's responses. If : memory serves, I think some meforshim try to make sense of the malachim : in such a manner. Unlike RAM's or my hypothetical aliens, mal'akhim have no free will. Without having that much Tzelem E-lokim, would they qualify for revelation? I think the problem with the mal'akhim that the medrashic Moshe highlights in his response to their claim on the Torah is that they do Retzon haBorei automatically, they lack the challenges one would need the Torah to address. Without challenges, they cannot grow into more than they are; there is no need for a Torah to help show them how. Jumping back to RAM's post: :> As there would never be an Eretz Yisroel, then there would not :> be all the mitzvot hateltuot ba'aretz -- trumos, masros etc., etc. : : Or perhaps Gan Eden would have had that status. Eretz Yisrael is : actually a great example: Consider the idea that true nevuah can exist : only in Eretz Yisrael... Tangent: Yechezqeil? Yonah's qiqayon was outside Nineveh. Etc... : .... Rather, my point goes to : this "Torah with 613 mitzvot" that you refer to. It doesn't exist : today, and I don't know if it ever has existed. There has certainly : never been a person to whom they all applied, and I wonder whether : there was ever a generation when they were all in force. There is also the idea of mitzvos that were never expected to be applied. Like the gemara suggests about ben soreir umoreh and ir hanidachas. Perhaps they exist because history could have played out differently and these mitzvos would have had an applicability beyond derosh veqabel sekhar. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger None of us will leave this place alive. micha at aishdas.org All that is left to us is http://www.aishdas.org to be as human as possible while we are here. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Anonymous MD, while a Nazi prisoner From akivagmiller at gmail.com Wed Nov 8 04:57:26 2017 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2017 07:57:26 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Torah precheit? Message-ID: . R' Micha Berger asked: > Is there on some planet far away, an intelligent alien > species with their Am haNivchar? How would the Torah be > manifest to them? And if they didn't have a Migdal Bavel > like event, did Hashem do that whole Mamlekhes Kohanim > model, with castes within the alien Am haNivchar, or > castes with everyone "nivchar"? Would they have a > Holy Land? > > If we made contact with these creatures, would we > recognize their perception of the Torah as another > expression of Yahadus, or would it be too alien? My focus is on the word "too" in the phrase "too alien". I feel that while such beings would indeed be extremely alien to us, the degree of alien-ness is absolutely irrelevant to the question at hand: Any mashehu of alien-ness (I suspect) puts them outside the pale. In our modern way of thinking, in which "Eretz" means not only this planet but the entire physical universe, and in which "Shamayim" does NOT include planets and stars but only the metaphysical universe, - Why would martians have a different status than any other foreigners? I can easily see a discussion of whether the martians count as people or as animals, but that is a separate issue. The issue here is that if they claimed to have some sort of Revelation from the One True G-d, then would we accept it as being another facet of the Shiv'im Panim LaTorah? And my answer is: What would we say if a group of earthly *humans* claimed to have some sort of Revelation from the One True G-d? Would we accept *that* as being another facet of the Shiv'im Panim LaTorah? My guess is that our response would be: That's very nice, and you are a sincere group of righeous Bnei Noach... and then we'd pretty much ignore them. Not out of malice, but because their message is not directed towards us. Here's a litmus test for whether or not I am close to correct: If I'm not mistaken, when a person claims to be a Navi, there are specific tests for whether or not he is believed, and if he passes those tests, and he has a message from Hashem for us, then we are obligated to follow that message. Is Jewishness among those criteria? If Ovadia had not converted, would his nevua be any less true or any less obligatory? > If we made contact with these creatures, would we > recognize their perception of the Torah as another > expression of Yahadus, or would it be too alien? I suppose one answer might be: The word "Yahadus" is too restrictive. Try replacing it with "Ratzon Hashem". Akiva Miller From zev at sero.name Wed Nov 8 08:12:06 2017 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2017 11:12:06 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Torah precheit? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 08/11/17 07:57, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > I can easily see a discussion of whether the martians count as people > or as animals, but that is a separate issue. The issue here is that if > they claimed to have some sort of Revelation from the One True G-d, > then would we accept it as being another facet of the Shiv'im Panim > LaTorah? And my answer is: What would we say if a group of earthly > *humans* claimed to have some sort of Revelation from the One True > G-d? Would we accept*that* as being another facet of the Shiv'im > Panim LaTorah? > > My guess is that our response would be: That's very nice, and you are > a sincere group of righeous Bnei Noach... and then we'd pretty much > ignore them. Not out of malice, but because their message is not > directed towards us. > If all they claimed was to have once had a navi, whose nevuah didn't contradict our Torah in any way, then perhaps we might accept it as valid. But if they were to claim to have had their own matan torah I think we would have to reject it. It's fundamental to our faith that matan torah was an event that could only happen once. It's also fundamental that Hashem chose avraham from *all* humanity, and us from *all* the nations, so if someone else -- on this planet or any other -- were to make such a claim we could not accept it. as for how Hashem could leave them without a Torah to guide them, how are they different from any remote people who had no contact with anyone who had even heard of the Torah until the 19th or 20th century? If the New Guinea Highlanders (some of whom have *still* never had any contact with the world outside their valleys) could wait until now to hear about the Torah, why can't the Tau Cetians, or whoever, wait until the 25th or 30th century? (assuming the 6000 years thing to be some sort of metaphor, of course, or there won't be a 30th century.) -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From zvilampel at gmail.com Wed Nov 8 08:53:24 2017 From: zvilampel at gmail.com (H Lampel) Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2017 11:53:24 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Torah precheit? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 11/7/2017 6:05 PM, MIcha Berger wrote: > ... that the universe was created at some point in the nearer > past, eg 5778 years ago -- or Last Thursday -- and everything before that is > fake. ...is the position of ... R' Avigdor Miller. He certainly is not of the opinion of last-Thursday-ism. (I suspect RMB did not really mean that.) His opinion is based on the mesora. Re: ''and everything before that is fake. ...is the position of ... R' Avigdor Miller'' To clarify, R' Avigdor Miller's position is not that fossils, for example, were planted merely as a test of our emunah. > Why should the [dinosaurs] need explanation any more than the dodo, the passenger pigeon, or any of the other species which > have become extinct, some even in our time? The huge > animals of ancient times, as well as many small animals, > became extinct each in the due time decreed by the timetable > of Heaven. ... Their existence is a fact which does > not help th theory of Evolution in any manner. (Rejoice O Youth, pp. 47-48) However, that Adam was created as a 30-year-old (as Chazal say), with, for example, a full mouth of teeth? Yes. Because: > ''Creation means that the Universe began at once in full-blown development. > The First Man immediately had trees whose fruit he could eat. > But fruit trees must beforehand be pollinated by bees, and bees need beehives with all their > paraphernalia. So you understand that Creation implies that > everything came into existence without benefit of time." > > "Trees have in their trunks a number of concentric rings, > each ring denoting a year of existence. If the First Man had > sawed off a tree, would he have found rings inside?" > > "Since he had trees, they were what we know a tree > to be." > > ...thousand-year redwood trees...?" > > "Creation included everything. Just as the First Man > had mature fruit trees at the first moment, so also the world > possessed mature lumber trees which were created at the > same time." > > "[So]... all animals and insects and bacteria were created, > including those which need rotting old logs and crumbling old > rocks for their habitat or sustenance. Thus, it is self? > explanatory that the world possessed 'aged' materials from the > very outset, including vegetation and animal carcasses with low > carbon-14 content and rocks with heavy lead content.'' > > (Ibid. pp 45-46) Zvi Lampel PS--Again, this is to clarify Rav Miller's position, and hopefully will not evolve (;)) into a discussion of it. Been there, done that, and no time. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Wed Nov 8 13:59:13 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2017 16:59:13 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Torah precheit? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20171108215913.GB3342@aishdas.org> On Wed, Nov 08, 2017 at 07:57:26AM -0500, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: :> If we made contact with these creatures, would we :> recognize their perception of the Torah as another :> expression of Yahadus, or would it be too alien? : My focus is on the word "too" in the phrase "too alien". I feel that : while such beings would indeed be extremely alien to us, the degree of : alien-ness is absolutely irrelevant to the question at hand: Any : mashehu of alien-ness (I suspect) puts them outside the pale. Actually, when I said "too alien" I was thinking not of ways their book of Retzon haBorei different from our Torah but ways in which their existence is so different from ours that we can't event compare. It's one thing to discuss what hilkhos geirus might look like if they had a hahaflagah but they already live in a liquid. It's another to discuss what halakhah as a whole would look like if they didn't experience time as a linear past-present-future the way we do. This discussion also reminds me of my Issacharism thought experiment. Positing that sheivet Yissachar survived, and had its own development of halakhah since the fall of Malkhus Yisrael. Its own Sanhedrin, no Anshei Keneses haGdfolah, etc... The same beris Sinai, but an entirely different development of 3,000 of application of kelalei pesaq, different gezeiros and taqanos... And to make it harder, let's say their population of shomerei Torah uMizvos has been roughly the same as ours all these years. So there are no grounds for saying one set of Sanhedrins is more authorivative than the other. : In our modern way of thinking, in which "Eretz" means not only this : planet but the entire physical universe, and in which "Shamayim" does : NOT include planets and stars but only the metaphysical universe, - : Why would martians have a different status than any other foreigners? Because it's possible that if Vulcans existed, HQBH would have provided them with /their/ mamlekhes kohanim. Yes, I can't guess what HQBH would do -- He could equally have wanted their spiritual development to wait until *we* get there. Like some aboriginal people on this planet, who never heard of us or even Ibrahimic religions relatively recently. Possibly relevant is the Rambam's shitah that chasidei umos ha'olam are only those who keep the 7 mitzvos because they were given at Sinai. Perhaps this gives more reason for a Vulcan am hanivchar. If anyone who does the right thing because it's logically the right thing accomplished their goal in life, then perhaps not every kind of being with bekhirah needs access to a revelation. : The issue here is that if : they claimed to have some sort of Revelation from the One True G-d, : then would we accept it as being another facet of the Shiv'im Panim : LaTorah? And my answer is: What would we say if a group of earthly : *humans* claimed to have some sort of Revelation from the One True : G-d? Would we accept *that* as being another facet of the Shiv'im : Panim LaTorah? We are a segulah mikol ha'amim, beni bekhori Yisrael. We know we recieved a unique revelation. The discussion is whether it's unique for all of humanity, or full-stop unique universally. : My guess is that our response would be: That's very nice, and you are : a sincere group of righeous Bnei Noach... and then we'd pretty much : ignore them... I agree with the "ignore" part, though. Accept for the academics and their journals. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Despair is the worst of ailments. No worries micha at aishdas.org are justified except: "Why am I so worried?" http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yisrael Salanter Fax: (270) 514-1507 From seinfeld at daasbooks.com Wed Nov 8 18:00:29 2017 From: seinfeld at daasbooks.com (Alexander Seinfeld) Date: Wed, 08 Nov 2017 21:00:29 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Torah precheit? Message-ID: > > > >But there is a more thoughtful response: Perhaps the only way we can >have teva today is if the universe we have now looks like it always >ran by teva. Otherwise, the effects of nissim would still be causing >anomolies we could pick up today. So much for hesteir Panim. > >In which case, we need a universe that is so big that our place is in >looks like some unnoticable backwater. We need a universe that looks >like it had a Big Bang and Inflation area in order for us to live with >the set of laws of nature we have. > >And then their existence does impact us. Just want to point out, or remind, that there are two independent questions here that often become conflated. 1. Can a rational person believe in ?young Earth? (i.e., >6,000 years old)? 2. Why would God create a universe making it look like it is far older than it really is? The basis of answering yes to #1 has nothing to do with #2. I do not need to know why in order to examine the evidence for #1 and conclude that He did probably make the world 5,778 years ago. The fact that I cannot answer #2 should not be entered as evidence against #1. This is the m?haleich of R? Dovid Gottlieb. The fallacy of the skeptics is to mock #1 based on #2, when in fact it is irrelevant. My own personal belief is merely that the vastness of space and time give us the opportunity with our puny minds to have an analogy for God?s infiniteness. From afolger at aishdas.org Mon Nov 13 04:05:02 2017 From: afolger at aishdas.org (Arie Folger) Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2017 13:05:02 +0100 Subject: [Avodah] Torah precheit Message-ID: RAM and RMB have been arguing about whether aliens somewhere out there could have received a Revelation akin to ours and whether theirs would be one of shiv'im panim la-Torah. My USD0.02c: I believe that it is not unimportant that according to present theories of physics, we are constrained by how far we could ever travel. Even if we were to remain happy with slower than light travel, travelling at the phenomenal speeds necessary to get anywhere else in our own galaxy where aliens might live, i.e. in another star system with planets in the habitable zone, would use up phenomenal amounts of energy. Furthermore, the distances are so vast, that we would need enormous (what's the trendy word variant, ginormous?) amounts of time, and we still hardly would get anywhere. Bottom line, there very well may exist intelligent aliens out there, but we are near 100% sure that we will never ever be able to meet them. Which leads me to the following observation: If there are aliens out there which we will one day meet, then we could not accept their *competing* Revelation. There is only one 'am hanivchar. We would indeed need to see them as a special kind of Noachides with a possible true revelation that is, however, subordinate to ours and can never contradict it. If, however, we consider aliens whom we will never ever be able to meet, I see no reason why they couldn't have their own Revelation, with their own Torah, which, while it surely will agree in all iqarim, may nonetheless, through a variety of mechanisms suggested by mefarshim throughout the ages (including but not limited to the Ramban's Torah without spaces, and the expansion thereof by later mequbalim that the Heavenly Torah has 23 letters, of which we only see 22), be quite different from ours. I do wonder though, can there be an alien civilization we will one day encounter in person, which has exactly the same Torah as we do. It would seem extremely improbable for them to have had an Avraham, Yitzchak & Yaakov, Shevatim & galut Mitzrayim, but hey, if this is predetermined in part, then why not? The question will then be, are they and us the same people (in the assumption that it is even physically possible to intermarry)? I consider this whole possibility even less likely than the one about meeting any aliens anywhere, so this is just an thought experiment. Kol tuv, -- Arie Folger -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From akivagmiller at gmail.com Mon Nov 13 17:45:22 2017 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2017 20:45:22 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Gifts on Shabbos Message-ID: . I am trying to get a more precise understanding of when it is assur/mutar to give someone a gift on Shabbos. Orach Chayim 306 is about all sorts of business activities. Gifts are a subset of this topic, and Mishne Berura 306:33 writes, "It is also assur to give a gift to one's friend, because it is similar to buying and selling, because it leaves his ownership [reshus]. But a gift is mutar when it is L'tzorech Shabbos V'Yom Tov - as written in 323:7 - and likewise for L'tzorech Mitzvah... And it also wrote that according to that, the practice of giving keilim as a gift to a Chasan is improper..." When I turn to Shulchan Aruch 323:7, Mechaber doesn't say anything about the general laws of giving gifts on Shabbos. He only gives one particular case: That if one forgot to tovel a keli before Shabbos, so it cannot be used on Shabbos, he is allowed to give it to a non-Jew as a gift, and then borrow it back for Shabbos use. Mishne Brura 323:34 explains: "Even though it is assur to give gifts on Shabbos as written in Siman 306, here it is allowed because of Tzorech Shabbos." The logic is somewhat circular, I think: 306 refers to 323, and 323 refers to 306. The only clear heter is an interesting one: On the one hand, it is for a NON-food item (though it is food-related); on the other hand, it seems to be a b'dieved solution for the person who either forgot to tovel it before Shabbos, or somehow acquired it from a non-Jew on Shabbos. I don't see any clear heter to deliberately give a food gift on Shabbos, and I also don't see any clear prohibition that non-foods are excluded from being "L'tzorech Shabbos". Mishne Berurah 306:33 says that it is wrong to give "keilim" as gifts to a chasan. Rabbi Dovid Ribiat ("The 39 Melochos", page 961) includes "presenting a Bar Mitzvah boy with a Sefer" in this category. These examples suggest two rules to me: (1) If the gift will not be used until after Shabbos (quite likely for the bar mitzvah boy's sefer, though I have no idea which "kelim" the chasan would receive), then it is not "letzorech Shabbos". (2) The chasan (or bar mitzvah boy) presumably gets hanaah from receiving the gift, but that amount of Oneg Shabbos is not significant enough to count as "letzorech Shabbos". I offer two specific examples for discussion: (1) Many shuls offer printed material, such as parsha sheets, weekly shul bulletins, and even newspapers and magazines. Or someone might attend a shiur, where the teacher distributes printed handouts of the source material. Can I take these home to read or learn from on Shabbos afternoon? Wouldn't this be a Tzorech Shabbos? (2) Suppose someone is invited to a friend for a Shabbos meal, and he brings a challah or wine as a gift for the host. The host was not expecting it and has other food that he was planning to use. Is this enough of a tzorech Shabbos to transfer ownership? If this host accepts the gift, is he required to serve the food? In other words, if "tzorech Shabbos" is indeed a carte blanche for food gifts, does the food have to actually be eaten? Akiva Miller Postscript: It seems to me that this issur of giving gifts applies only on Shabbos, and *not* on Yom Tov. Consider: You can send a living behema to your friend on YT, even through a Reshus Harabim, even if you know that the friend won't shecht it, and the heter is contingent only on the fact that the friend COULD shecht it. (MB 516:1) You can even send a pair of tefillin to your friend even though it is not needed at all for Yom Tov; the only requirements are that the tefillin are ready-for-use, and that friend gets hanaa from receiving the gift (MB 516:11-12) That whole siman seems to deal with issues of hotzaah and muktzeh, and doesn't even mention kinyanim (at least, I didn't see any such mention). This is very puzzling: Why would there be a difference between giving gifts on Shabbos and on Yom Tov? If this could be answered, it might shed light on what "L'tzorech Shabbos" means. From micha at aishdas.org Tue Nov 14 08:39:28 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2017 11:39:28 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Gilgul Hanefesh In-Reply-To: <3ad8c297-8019-3aa5-de3b-800ffe91d6c9@starways.net> References: <3ad8c297-8019-3aa5-de3b-800ffe91d6c9@starways.net> Message-ID: <20171114163928.GD29616@aishdas.org> On Tue, Nov 07, 2017 at 12:43:04PM +0200, Lisa Liel via Avodah wrote: : As I understand it, gilgul neshamot is not the same as the eastern : idea of reincarnation, where one person's soul literally incarnates : again in another body and lives another life... RSGaon says in (Emunos veDei'os 6:8 tr R' Yosef el-Qafeh, "Kapach"; emphasis mine): Venineini omer ki anashim, mimi SHENIQRA'IM YEHUDIM, matzasim ma'aminim begilgul veqor'in oso haha'ataqus. I left that in Hebrew because I want to be medayeiq in lashon in a moment. To continue, with my translation from the Hebrew: The matter to their minds is that the ruach of Re'uvein will be in Shim'on, and after that in Leivi, and after that in Yehudah. And from them, or most of them figure that it could be that the ruach of a person will be in an animal, and the ruach of an anumal in a person. And a lot of such delusions and confusion. And then the rest of the chapter lists their errors. RYeQ footnotes that R' Uzziel concluded that the people who are "called Jews" who believe such things are the Qaraim. Anan (the founder) picked up this idea from the Greeks. I do not know the original Arabic, but in this translation, notice that it's possible to read RSG as being against people to take the idea of gilgul and call it "ha'ataqus" and describe it as souls migrating from person to person or even to animal, etc... But not against gilgul itself. Which would support Lisa's understanding. This read has two open questions to resolve, not that I am saying they're unanswerable: 1- RSG does use the same Arabic again at the end of the chapter (and ma'amar) that R "Kapach" translates to "gilgul" -- "And I say: what does this say that teaches about gilgul?..." Perhaps it should be read: How do they think those pesuqim indicate that gilgul means ha'ataqah -- they don't talk about gilgul altogether? 2- My bigger problem is that RSG would then be spending all this time on a heretical misunderstanding of gilgul, without even one sentence saying, "But what gilgul *really* means..."? It would even be an important point of the ma'amar's discussion of souls and afterlife. This omission I find highly unlikely. As to how they would differ. The kind of people who talk about gilgul also talk about Naran and sometimes even Naran Chai -- Nefesh Ruach Neshamah, which are the penimios aspects of the soul, and Chayah and Yechidah. For that matter, RSG discusses Naran in the very same ma'amar (6:3 ) as three kochos. To RSG, they are an indisible singularity that has three abilities. But in more Qabbalistic sources, they are described as parts even as the soul's unitary nature is also asserted. If ruach and nashamah are indeed parts, then there is a huge difference between 1- Gilgul nashamos: The neshamah -- and according to the Ari, even "sparks" of a neshamah rather than a whole one -- "revolves" from one life in one body to another. And 2- Ha'ataqa: where the ruach migrates. Neshamah is much less associated with the notion of "self" than ruach is. E.g. "Neshamah shanasati bi, tehorah hi." The "bi -- in me" receives a neshamah. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger It isn't what you have, or who you are, or where micha at aishdas.org you are, or what you are doing, that makes you http://www.aishdas.org happy or unhappy. It's what you think about. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Dale Carnegie From micha at aishdas.org Tue Nov 14 09:31:55 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2017 12:31:55 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Torah precheit? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20171114173155.GE29616@aishdas.org> On Wed, Nov 08, 2017 at 11:53:24AM -0500, H Lampel via Avodah wrote: : On 11/7/2017 6:05 PM, Micha Berger wrote: :> ... that the universe was created at some point in the nearer :> past, eg 5778 years ago -- or Last Thursday -- and everything before that is :> fake. ...is the position of ... R' Avigdor Miller. : He certainly is not of the opinion of last-Thursday-ism. (I suspect RMB did not really mean that.) His opinion is based on the mesora. I meant omphalism. Which is not based on the mesora, it's based on pashut peshat in a pasuq. A pasuq that we don't really have much mesorah saying actually hyas a pashut peshat, at least not one we can comprehend. : Re: "and everything before that is fake. ...is the position of ... R' : Avigdor Miller" : To clarify, R' Avigdor Miller's position is not that fossils, for example, : were planted merely as a test of our emunah. Which is why I didn't say that. Continuing with RZL's quote of RAM's Rejoice O Youth (pp. 47-48): :> Why should the [dinosaurs] need explanation any more than the :> dodo, the passenger pigeon, or any of the other species which :> have become extinct, some even in our time? The huge :> animals of ancient times, as well as many small animals, :> became extinct each in the due time decreed by the timetable :> of Heaven. ... Their existence is a fact which does :> not help th theory of Evolution in any manner. So he says it's simply incomprehensible. I also gave a different explanation than "test of our emunah" -- necessary for having a sensible and detectable teva. My point was to defend the viability of omphalism of both RAM's and the LR's sorts. Asking "Why would Hashem be so cruel as to create all that to mislead, at best to test" question presumes a strawman. : However, that Adam was created as a 30-year-old (as Chazal say), with, : for example, a full mouth of teeth? Yes. Because: :> "Creation means that the Universe began at once in full-blown development. :> The First Man immediately had trees whose fruit he could eat. .... :> (Ibid. pp 45-46) See Bereishis Rabba 14:7 ). According to R Yehudah bar Shimon says that "ofer olam" was created in his fullness. R' Elazar b Shimon says that Chava was too. R' Yochanan says they were creates as 20 (quibble: not 30) year olds. And then down in 14:10, R Yehudah says that Adam was made with a tail, but it was removed for the sake of his kavod. Evolution anywone? BUT: The month that Adam was born in is part of the greater machloqes between R' Yehoshua and R' Eliezer about Nissan vs Tishrei (RH 11a). Meaning, if the world was created in Tishrei, when "the earth brings forth plants and trees full of fruit", then yes, this medrash stands. But if the world was created in Nissan, when the plants start growing and the fruit is emerging from the tree (as the gemara puts it), then perhaps not. In any case, the meaning thereby ascribed to saying the world was made in Nissan is that the universe was created at its start. Regardless of Adam's development when born. So I would have said "one opinion in Chazal", not "as Chazal say". Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Friendship is like stone. A stone has no value, micha at aishdas.org but by rubbing one stone against another, http://www.aishdas.org sparks of fire emerge. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Mordechai of Lechovitz From micha at aishdas.org Tue Nov 14 10:38:37 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2017 13:38:37 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Gifts on Shabbos In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20171114183837.GF29616@aishdas.org> On Mon, Nov 13, 2017 at 08:45:22PM -0500, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : I am trying to get a more precise understanding of when it is : assur/mutar to give someone a gift on Shabbos. ... : The logic is somewhat circular, I think: 306 refers to 323, and 323 : refers to 306... The Mishnah Berurah has mutual references between 306:33 and 323:34. But I don't see the logic itself being circular. 306 spells out the theory, and 323 is an example of that theory and at each place he shows you the other half of the picture. Giving gifts is assur (derabbanan) on Shabbos, except when the purpose of the gift is letzorekh Shabbos, or another mitzvah. Thus, it includes giving a non-toveled keli to a non-Jew so that it can be borrowed back and used *for Shabbos*. But not a wedding gift, which (as per R' Ribiat's bar mitzvah boy) presumably isn't needed by the chasan on Shabbos. And apparently claiming simchas chasan being a mitzvah isn't sufficient to say the gift is letzorekh mitzvah. Which you note as well, although you phrase it in terms of hana'ah and oneg Shabbos, ie lezorekh Shabbos. Perhaps this is because there are other ways to provide simchah or oneg, so it's not "letzorekh". : (1) Many shuls offer printed material, such as parsha sheets, weekly : shul bulletins, and even newspapers and magazines. Or someone might : attend a shiur, where the teacher distributes printed handouts of the : source material. Can I take these home to read or learn from on : Shabbos afternoon? Wouldn't this be a Tzorech Shabbos? I would think so. Why any less than a gift of food? In both cases, the recipient already owns alternatives. So why would something to eat be more letzorekh Shabbos than something to learn? This is unlike the bar mitzvah boy recieving a sefer (acc to R' Ribiat), in that the purpose isn't learning on Shabbos. Implied: A guest who knows the host won't use the food (eg he recommends waiting until the wine is chilled) shouldn't be giving even usable food. Is this the halakhah? Also, I found that ROY (Yechaveh Da'as 3:21) DOES allow giving the bar mitzvah boy that seifer because it provides chizuq. And there is no greater letzorekh mitzvah than that! : (2) Suppose someone is invited to a friend for a Shabbos meal, and he : brings a challah or wine as a gift for the host. The host was not : expecting it and has other food that he was planning to use. Is this : enough of a tzorech Shabbos to transfer ownership? ... Or, in the SA's case... can you give the non-toveled keli to a nakhri when you have just as good or nearly as good alternatives? That you already had thoughts of using? I took it for granted yes, since if not, the SA is oddly missing an important half of the story. Which is why above I only asked about a case where the guest gives something in a way that rules out its use, rather than just left to the host's choice. When I am the guest in this situation, I am zokheh lo shelo befanav and transfer ownership on Friday. Came in handy a couple of times when the host refused the gift. "Well, if you don't want it, you can regift it. Because it's yours already and you aren't allowed to give it back" right now, at least. : Postscript: It seems to me that this issur of giving gifts applies : only on Shabbos, and *not* on Yom Tov... Then why "letzorekh Shabbos or YT"? When do you have something that is letzorekh YT in particular when it's also Shabbos? : (MB 516:1) You can : even send a pair of tefillin to your friend even though it is not : needed at all for Yom Tov; the only requirements are that the tefillin : are ready-for-use, and that friend gets hanaa from receiving the gift : (MB 516:11-12) And the bar mitzvah boy doesn't get the same kind of hana'ah (speaking quality, not quantity) from his uncle's gift of a set of Rambam? Now I'm confused again. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "The worst thing that can happen to a micha at aishdas.org person is to remain asleep and untamed." http://www.aishdas.org - Rabbi Simcha Zissel Ziv, Alter of Kelm Fax: (270) 514-1507 From micha at aishdas.org Tue Nov 14 10:48:32 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2017 13:48:32 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Torah precheit In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20171114184832.GI29616@aishdas.org> On Mon, Nov 13, 2017 at 01:05:02PM +0100, Arie Folger via Avodah wrote: : Bottom line, there very well may exist intelligent aliens out there, but we : are near 100% sure that we will never ever be able to meet them. Nice chiluq! : Which leads me to the following observation: If there are aliens out there : which we will one day meet, then we could not accept their *competing* : Revelation. There is only one 'am hanivchar... Who said that "nivchar mibein ha'amim" means anything beyond benei Adam, amim as caused by Migdal Bavel? Perhaps their revelation isn't so much competing as the RBSO providing them a chance at redemption before Yom Hashem haGadol vehanora, or at least before whenever it is we get there? : them as a special kind of Noachides with a possible true revelation that : is, however, subordinate to ours and can never contradict it. This is itself the question I was trying to keep under discussion. Could we even recognize a contradiction? After all, the appearance of Retzon haBorei to creatures very different than us isn't likely to have many points where we can contradict. Assuming they are ethical monotheists, that is. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger It's never too late micha at aishdas.org to become the person http://www.aishdas.org you might have been. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - George Eliot From meirabi at gmail.com Thu Nov 16 16:11:31 2017 From: meirabi at gmail.com (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi) Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2017 11:11:31 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] How Much Salt for Kashering? Message-ID: Kosher meat must have all traces of blood removed. This procedure is known as 'Kashering' and requires very precise procedures and timing of rinsing, soaking, salting and finally removal of the salt and blood via rinsing and washing. Halachah provides no precise measure of salt to be used for Kashering and although insisting that all surfaces must be covered with salt, does not differentiate between small and large surface area to volume ratios, i.e. thick or thin pieces of meat. In other words a large circular hunk of meat [small ratio of surface area to volume] requires the identical amount of surface salt and time for Kashering as does a thin piece [large ratio of surface area to volume] Furthermore, a 20cm thick piece of meat will be Kashered when salted on both sides, meaning the salt will extract blood from a depth of 10 cm, but a 4cm thick piece of meat salted only on one side will not be Kosher. It seems like the process has been standardised to accommodate all cases. Nevertheless, although Halachah permits various shortcuts when Kashering for emergency situations, it does not advise Kashering thin slices to reduce preparation time. Meat that was cooked before it was Kashered will make everything in the pot it is cooked with non-Kosher. Halacha asserts there is as much blood in the piece of meat as the mass of meat. If however, there is enough Kosher food in the pot to render the blood insignificant, the food will be Kosher. Halachah requires 60 units of Kosher food to neutralise every unit of blood [1 gram of blood requires 60 grams of Kosher food] In other words, a 100 gram piece of meat will require 6kg to neutralise the blood. However, meat that was cooked after Kashering but before the blood and salt was washed off, requires only 60 times the salt and blood on the surface of the meat i.e. soaked into the salt. The blood that was in the meat has been removed by the salting. Some authorities [a note in the ShaArei Dura] assert that every piece of meat is itself large enough to neutralise the salt whilst others [the Rama 69:9] assert it provides only half the mass required. ????? ??"? - ??? ????? ???? ??? ????? ?????? ?????? ???? ??? ???? ???? ???? ??? ??? ??? ???? ?? ??? ?? ?? ???? ????? ??? ??? ????? ?? ??? ?? ??? ????? ????? ???? ??? ????? ??? ??? ?? ???? ???? ?? ??? ???? The Rama however disagrees with the ratio - "there can be no question that if the pot contains as much as the mass of the meat, it is certainly more than 60 times the salt ...." See Shach that BeDiAvad, we may rely upon the lenient opinion particularly if it is a thick piece. ????? ???? ??????????? ?''? ?????? ?????????? ??????????? ????? ??????, ?????? ??????, ?????????? ?????? ????????? ????? ???????? ?????? ?????????? ????????????? ???????? ?????????? ???? ?????????? ????? ???????? ?????????, (????????? ?????? ?''? ?''? To the best of my knowledge, this is the only source that provides an empiric measurement of how much salt is to be used for Kashering. Keep in mind that since this is a general ruling it must encompass all cases, the guidelines must reflect the maximum amount of salt that would be applied and that would remain until the meat is ready for its final washdown. In the words of the Rama, "there can be no question that if the pot contains as much as the mass of the meat, it is certainly more than 60 times the salt ...." The Halacha must provide the maximum safety margin and must therefore assume that the maximum amount of salt was applied and remains on the meat when it is added to the pot. Further, the Halacha must accommodate the largest surface area to meat ratio [ChAdam 32:4] and the heaviest salting hand. In other words, every possible variant that increases the amount of salt used is turned up to the max - and in this worst possible case scenario, we can be certain that the salt is no more than one thirtieth of the mass of the meat. In other words, an average sized steak, 300 - 400 gms, requires no more than 2 teaspoonfuls of salt for Kashering. Another thing that is certain - all Kosher agencies apply far more salt for Kashering than one thirtieth. Does it make a difference? Well, these days, the cost of disposing of contaminants is rising dramatically and salt is deemed a nasty contaminant and is becoming more expensive to dispose. It already adds a significant cost to production. Best, Meir G. Rabi 0423 207 837 +61 423 207 837 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From meirabi at gmail.com Sat Nov 18 13:25:21 2017 From: meirabi at gmail.com (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi) Date: Sun, 19 Nov 2017 08:25:21 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] Sedra Toldos - Balance, When Parents Favour One Child Message-ID: Our actions are pretty much prompted by Life's circumstances, we are mostly provoked to react. We do [many/most] things to counter a perceived imbalance, an injustice. Perhaps, with this in mind, we can better understand Yitzchak, Rivkah and Eisav as they are portrayed in this week's Sedra. Isaac favoured Eisav, because he was "Tzayid BeFiv", Rivkah favoured YaAkov [25:28] We are told why Yitzchak favours Eisav but not why Rivkah favours YaAkov. Yitzchak favours Eisav because Eisav is a "Tzayid BeFiv" lit. hunted with his mouth. Rashi explains this as either [or both] - he deceived his father like a hunter lying in ambush or stalking prey and catching it at a vulnerable moment, i.e. feeding Yitchak fake news to present himself as exceedingly Gd fearing; or, he fed Yitzchak tasty food, "Make me the tasty food I enjoy ... so that I might bless you before I die." [27:4] But Eisav was not a better cook than Rivkah - "she made him a delicious dish just as he liked" [27:14] [unless she had him on a healthy food diet and Eisav was Yitzchak's secret steak supplier] Eisav loved his father and he loved hunting [25:27]. He desperately sought his father's approval. He pursued this as he best knew, by hunting and even by lying. We might even say that he felt as though he was hunting for his father's love. Yitzchak understood, he encouraged Eisav to hunt and cook for him. He even reminded Eisav to take his hunting weapons when he instructs him to hunt and prepare food before he blesses him - Yitzchak wants Eisav to be engaged in the hunting and preparation of the food, because it is this engagement that is their link and best encapsulates his approval of his son Eisav. In other words, "It's not the food I want, for that I could ask your mother or you could grab an animal from our flock - it would be much quicker. No, I want you to be of service to me. Knowing that you have hunted to provide for me makes me happy and I enjoy the food more." Eisav knew that his mother was capable of and willing to provide her husband with all the tasty food he could stomach. He got the message that it was not food that Yitzchak wanted. Yitzchak was reaching out to Eisav, knowing how desperately Eisav sought his approval. Eisav learned how to cook in order to express his love. He even deceived Yitchak, painting himself as the Gd fearing son in order to win his father's approval. Best, Meir G. Rabi 0423 207 837 +61 423 207 837 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From akivagmiller at gmail.com Sat Nov 18 19:23:18 2017 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Sat, 18 Nov 2017 22:23:18 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] T'hay Message-ID: There is a word spelled tav-heh-aleph, pronounced "t'hay". Is this word Hebrew or Aramaic? >From context and sound, I have always presumed that it means something very similar to "yihyeh". Is that correct? If they are indeed similar in meaning, then I imgine that they is still some slight shade of difference. If they meant the exact same thing, wouldn't authors use the more common word (yihyeh) instead? This would be the case even if t'hay is Hebrew, and it would certainly be true if t'hay is Aramaic. The reason I'm asking these questions is because I have found a surprising number of paragraphs in my siddur, where all the words are obviously Hebrew, except for this one word. Including a foreign word in a text is not unheard of (there's a Latin word in Nachem, for example), but this is generally done because there is no native word with the precise meaning that the author is aiming for. And I can't imagine why "yihyeh" doesn't work in these cases: Hamapil: "us'hay mitasi shleima l'fanecha" Birkas Hamazon, near the end: "zechus shet'hay l'mishmeres shalom" Birkas Hamazon on Shabbos: "shelo t'hay tzara" Birkas Hachodesh: "chayim shet'hay banu ahavas torah" Avinu Malkenu: "t'hay hashaah hazos" Yizkor: "bis'char zeh t'hay nafsho" Yom Kippur Musaf, the Kohen Gadol's tefila: "shet'hay hashana hazos" Kel Malay Rachamim: "b'gan eden t'hay menuchaso" (I have omitted parts of the siddur that are taken from the Mishna (such as Bameh Madlikin and Pitum Haketores) because it is the nature of the Mishna to mix Hebrew and Aramaic, so use of the word "t'hay" isn't a glaring exception the way it is in the rest of the siddur. Also, I note that my examples were all taken from Nusach Ashkenaz; other nuschaos may have more or fewer instances of this word.) Thank you, Akiva Miller From simon.montagu at gmail.com Mon Nov 20 00:38:38 2017 From: simon.montagu at gmail.com (Simon Montagu) Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2017 10:38:38 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] T'hay In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sun, Nov 19, 2017 at 5:23 AM, Akiva Miller via Avodah < avodah at lists.aishdas.org> wrote: > There is a word spelled tav-heh-aleph, pronounced "t'hay". Is this > word Hebrew or Aramaic? > Hebrew. I believe the Aramaic equivalent would be tehevi. > > From context and sound, I have always presumed that it means something > very similar to "yihyeh". Is that correct? > > If they are indeed similar in meaning, then I imgine that they is > still some slight shade of difference. If they meant the exact same > thing, wouldn't authors use the more common word (yihyeh) instead? > This would be the case even if t'hay is Hebrew, and it would certainly > be true if t'hay is Aramaic. > > The reason I'm asking these questions is because I have found a > surprising number of paragraphs in my siddur, where all the words are > obviously Hebrew, except for this one word. Including a foreign word > in a text is not unheard of (there's a Latin word in Nachem, for > example), but this is generally done because there is no native word > with the precise meaning that the author is aiming for. And I can't > imagine why "yihyeh" doesn't work in these cases: (At any rate it would be "tihyeh" in the cases you quote, which are all in the feminine) In my siddur (Singer's) all the examples you give are "tehi" with a yud, which is Biblical Hebrew, as in "Tehi ala benotenu" in last week's parasha (Bereshit 26:28). The difference between yihyeh/yehi and tihyeh/tehi is that the first is future and the second is jussive (though the future can be used in a jussive sense). I assume the form with alef is Rabbinic Hebrew. How it comes to be used in the siddur, or in which nushaot exactly, I don't know. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jay at m5.chicago.il.us Mon Nov 20 05:12:52 2017 From: jay at m5.chicago.il.us (Jay F. Shachter) Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2017 13:12:52 +0000 (WET) Subject: [Avodah] How Much Salt for Kashering? In-Reply-To: from "avodah-request@lists.aishdas.org" at Nov 16, 2017 06:40:58 pm Message-ID: <15112051720.1Acb3A518.50843@lsd.chicago.il.us.chicago.il.us> > > Kosher meat must have all traces of blood removed. > No, it does not. This is true only if you are going to cook the meat before eating it. Jay F. ("Yaakov") Shachter 6424 N Whipple St Chicago IL 60645-4111 (1-773)7613784 landline (1-410)9964737 GoogleVoice jay at m5.chicago.il.us http://m5.chicago.il.us "Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur" From lisa at starways.net Mon Nov 20 04:02:11 2017 From: lisa at starways.net (Lisa Liel) Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2017 14:02:11 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] T'hay In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <91877a4d-0aeb-1a75-d7b1-78f399a2746e@starways.net> I'm not sure.? We have "yehei ra'ava kadamach" in Brich Shmei d'Marei Alma, which is definitely Aramaic.? The yehei is the same as tehei. I think what's happening here is that there's a certain amount of bleed-over between Hebrew and Aramaic.? In addition, there were different dialects of Aramaic in Eretz Yisrael and Bavel.? So while tehevei may be the correct Aramaic, tehei may be as well. Lisa On 11/20/2017 10:38 AM, Simon Montagu via Avodah wrote: > On Sun, Nov 19, 2017 at 5:23 AM, Akiva Miller via Avodah > > wrote: > > There is a word spelled tav-heh-aleph, pronounced "t'hay". Is this > word Hebrew or Aramaic? > > > Hebrew. I believe the Aramaic equivalent would be tehevi. > From micha at aishdas.org Mon Nov 20 10:24:50 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2017 13:24:50 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Sedra Toldos - Balance, When Parents Favour One Child In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20171120182450.GA24872@aishdas.org> On Sun, Nov 19, 2017 at 08:25:21AM +1100, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: : But Eisav was not a better cook than Rivkah - "she made him a delicious : dish just as he liked" [27:14] [unless she had him on a healthy food diet : and Eisav was Yitzchak's secret steak supplier] Or the hunter was usually the one who prepared the game, whereas Rivqa tended to be cooking the animals they farmed. ... : Yitzchak understood, he encouraged Eisav to hunt and cook for him. He even : reminded Eisav to take his hunting weapons when he instructs him to hunt : and prepare food before he blesses him - Yitzchak wants Eisav to be engaged : in the hunting and preparation of the food, because it is this engagement : that is their link and best encapsulates his approval of his son Eisav... Perhaps this is the whole point of the Torah's not saying why Rivqa preferred Yaaqov. Yitzchaq's additional love of Esav was teluyah bedavar, and that fact impacted Eisav's choices. Rivqa love Yaaqov, full stop, not for some reason. There is also an idea I heard from RYBS and often utilized in Gush circles that had things turned out more positively, Eisav would have been the physical arm of the same project as Yaaqv's Torah. Eisav's children would have supported and protected Yaaqov's. According to the Qedushas Levi's version of this idea, Yitzchaq knew Eisav had failings, but felt that the person who was supposed to go out into the real world was bound to be the tzadiq who "falls 7 times and arises" (to quote Shelomo haMelekh). What Yaaqov missed was the nevu'ah "ushnei le'umim mimei'ayikh yipareidu". He thought that the ideal plan, Esav and Yaaqov together without such pirud, was still how history was going to play out. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Spirituality is like a bird: if you tighten micha at aishdas.org your grip on it, it chokes; slacken your grip, http://www.aishdas.org and it flies away. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From micha at aishdas.org Mon Nov 20 11:11:25 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2017 14:11:25 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Hutrah and Dechuyah in Yibum Message-ID: <20171120191124.GB24872@aishdas.org> The topic of EhE 165 is whether yibum or chalitzah is the preferred choice. The Rambam and Rif side with yibum (in cases when yibum is in the almanah's best interest), as per the mishnah rishonah and possibly repeated by the chakhamim in the gemara (Yevamos 39b). Whereas R' Tam, R' Chananel & the Smag hold like Abba Shaul, that since it's too likely the yavam has other things than reestablishing his brother's bayis in mind, chalitzah is the better choice, bizman hazeh. The AhS has an interesting take. First, in se'if 5, he rules out the issue being mitzvos tzerikhos kavanah. If AS gave preference to chalitzah because yibum requires kavanah, then it would be the Rambam and the Rif -- the rishonim who more often hold mitzvos tzerichos kavanah -- who would be siding with him. The AhS (se'if 6) proposes that the machloqes is huterah vs dechuyah. If yibum is a matir for eishes ach, there is no problem doing the mitzvah of yibum even if the yavam's interest is in his new wife solely for her own qualities. However, if it is only docheh eishes ach, then any other kavanah for performing yibum is desire for a sin, and thus should be avoided by choosing chalitzah. And that this is the norm today. I noticed that happens to parallel who holds piquach nefesh is matir melekhes Shabbos vs who holds it is docheh it. There too Sepharadi rishonim don't feel a need to minimize melakhah (huterah), whereas the Ashk rishonim try to (because it's only dechuyah). Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger I thank God for my handicaps, for, through them, micha at aishdas.org I have found myself, my work, and my God. http://www.aishdas.org - Helen Keller Fax: (270) 514-1507 From meirabi at gmail.com Mon Nov 20 14:35:03 2017 From: meirabi at gmail.com (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi) Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2017 09:35:03 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] Sedra Toldos - Balance, When Parents Favour One Child In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I prefer not to be so speculative about the motivations, Eisav had failings, but Yitzchak felt that the person who was supposed to go out into the real world, But what I proposed does not exclude that possibility. Although, giving the blessings to someone with known failings seems unlikely. Depends I suppose on how extensive those failings are or how well they were known to Yitzchak. Or it might just be that he was the Bechor, HKBH's choice. Should Yitzchak challenge HKBH? I wrote - Yitzchak understood, he encouraged Eisav to hunt and cook for him. He even reminded Eisav .... Eisav loved his father and he loved hunting [25:27]. He desperately sought his father's approval. He pursued this as he best knew, by hunting and even by lying. We might even say that he felt as though he was hunting for his father's love. Yitzchak understood, he encouraged Eisav to hunt and cook for him. He even reminded Eisav to take his hunting weapons when he instructs him to hunt and prepare food before he blesses him - Yitzchak wants Eisav to be engaged in the hunting and preparation of the food, because it is this engagement that is their link and best encapsulates his approval of his son Eisav. In other words, "It's not the food I want, for that I could ask your mother or you could grab an animal from our flock - it would be much quicker. No, I want you to be of service to me. Knowing that you have hunted to provide for me makes me happy and I enjoy the food more." Eisav knew that his mother was capable of and willing to provide her husband with all the tasty food he could stomach. He got the message that it was not food that Yitzchak wanted. Yitzchak was reaching out to Eisav, knowing how desperately Eisav sought his approval. Eisav learned how to cook in order to express his love. He even deceived Yitchak, painting himself as the Gd fearing son in order to win his father's approval. Best, M -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Mon Nov 20 14:10:27 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2017 17:10:27 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] How Much Salt for Kashering? In-Reply-To: <15112051720.1Acb3A518.50843@lsd.chicago.il.us.chicago.il.us> References: <15112051720.1Acb3A518.50843@lsd.chicago.il.us.chicago.il.us> Message-ID: <20171120221027.GD24830@aishdas.org> On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 01:12:52PM +0000, Jay F. Shachter via Avodah wrote: :> Kosher meat must have all traces of blood removed. Dam here means blood in the circulatory system. Not blood within tissue. Problem with translations; there often isn't a 1:1. Particularly in cases of terms of art, like "dam" in this context. : No, it does not. This is true only if you are going to cook the meat : before eating it. SA YD 27:2 does say you don't need salting. (See limitations in 3-4.) But... this is because all the dam can be removed by removing the veins, and simple rinsing. So, in the same sense that cooked meat needs melichah to remove all traces of dam, so too does raw "[k]osher meat must have all traces of [dam] removed." Seems Tir'u baTov! -Micha From micha at aishdas.org Mon Nov 20 13:37:22 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2017 16:37:22 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Fwd [Aspaqlaria]: Post-Modern Orthodoxy Message-ID: <20171120213722.GB24830@aishdas.org> My most recent blog post, in which I argue that Post-Modern Orthodoxy is a contradiction of terms. -micha Post-Modern Orthodoxy micha - Published Mon, Nov 20, 2017 Modern Orthodoxy is based on an integration of Orthodoxy with life in the modern world. However, with R' JB Soloveitchik's passing, the movement was left without a luminary who analyzes and discusses matters of worldview. Consequently, Modern Orthodoxy's thought is that of the mid 20th century, when Neo-Kantian and Existential answers addressed the kinds of religious questions people on the street were confronting. And so, the argument is today, that there is a need for someone to articulate a Post-Modern Orthodoxy. This is why there was much discussion in some Modern Orthodox circles with the publication of a selection of R' Shimon Gershon Rosenburg -- "Rav Shagar"`s -- essays in English. "Faith Shattered and Restored: Judaism in the Postmodern Age", edited by Rabbi Dr. Zohar Maor, was published by Maggid Books this past June. Dr. Alan Brill, on his blog, carried numerous translations of R' Shagar since, as well as analysis of his thought. In particular, see this post of notes that Dr Brill compiled while teaching R' Shagar's thought, "Rav Shagar: To be connected to Eyn -- Living in a Postmodern World". Times of Israel had an interview with R/Dr Maor, "Israel's paradoxical man of faith, deconstructed". And recently, R Gil Perl, an alumnus of Yeshivat Har Etzion ("Gush") who became a student of Rav Shagar, wrote an essay about why R' Shagar's thought spoke to him in a way that the teachings of R' Aharon Lichtenstein of Gush couldn't in the long run. See "Postmodern Orthodoxy: Giving Voice to a New Generation". To give you an idea of R Shagar's thought, he likens Deconstructionism to Sheviras haKeilim -- the Qabbalistic idea that Creation involved the breaking of vessels, and the post-modern's inability to consider an idea to be objectively true. He builds a case for the condition of having difficulty with belief and therefore believing in nothing and turns it into a Ism of believing in Nothing. Identifying that lower-case-n nothing with the Ayin, the capital-N Nothingness from which G-d made Yeish, something (indeed, everything). Me, I think it doesn't work. Post-Modernism is a confusion of the subjectivity of my justification for knowing something with the subjectivity of the known. Meaning, I can know objective truths for entirely personal and subjective reasons. I can be convinced of halakhah because of my personal experience of the beauty of Shabbos. Not from my liking Shabbos; from that about the Shabbos experience I find beautiful, likable, meaningful, and True. I know that hilkhos Shabbos as we have them today really did objectively speaking come from the Creator by way of my personal experience of Shabbos. Objective truth, subjective justification. In contrast, in Post-Modern thought, since I have no guarantee of objectively proving anything to anyone else, the notion of objective truth is entirely denied. There isn't "the truth" as much a "his truth" or "her truth", narratives people and societies construct for themselves. And this touches everything on the college campus from religious beliefs to defending the Palestinian because we have our narrative and they have theirs. (There is room for every narrative but those that exclude other narratives.) In the real world outside those ivory towers, though, you won't find too many people with Post-Modern notions of science, declaring (eg) that math or physics are merely social constructs. But certainly outside the realm of the scientifically provable Post-Modern thinking has become part of the zeitgeist. My problem with "Postmodern Orthodoxy" is that Post-Modernism (as I just described it) is inherently incompatible with the notion of a lower-case-o orthodoxy, including our case, capital-O Orthodox Judaism. I often said on Facebook that one reason why more are going OTD in this generation than in mine is that Post-Modernism has become part of the common culture. It is impossible to maintain any orthodoxy, including O, if one believes that there are no objective truths, or even that there is nothing one could ever assert as objectively true. There is a profound difference between believing there is an absolute truth that I personally do not fully know or understand -- which R' Gil Perl presented as R' Lichtenstein's position, and believing that all truths are human conditioned. Between a personal nothing and an ideal of Nothingness. And yet, R Shagar says just that. To repeat a quote of Rav Shagar used in R Perl's article, "All truths may be the product of human conditioning, but such conditioning constitutes the medium through which the divine manifests in the world." Rav Shagar's position strikes me as internally inconsistent. For example, to This presupposes that there is a Divine which is manifest in the world, and any claim that says otherwise would defy that Truth. So, there is at least that one central Truth that is necessarily true, regardless of human conditioning. The entire notion of considering any of the Articles of Faith human conditioned, true only from our perspective, enters the heretical. Another example, R Shagar's Post-Modern Orthodox Jew will speak of revelation "though he knows there are varying and conflicting revelations, the contradictions do not paralyze him." If one does not believe the revelation via Moshe and the revelation of the Torah are unique, are they not koferim baTorah according to the Rambam? How many rabbanim would allow you to use the wine of someone who believes that the only reason to embrace the Torah's message is because it's "the faith of our fathers" (as R' Shagar describes it) and not different in kind than the message of the New Testament or the Qur'an? There are two ways we can speak of the ideal human: we can describe life on the mountain peak, the person who has perfect generosity, perfect patience, perfect faith, a perfect relationship with G-d and other people, etc... But we know that actualize perfection is unachievable for anyone bug G-d. So, the true ideal human is one constantly working toward having those perfect relationships, trying their best, constantly growing. But they are two different things -- the ideal in the sense of the goal to strive for, and the ideal of being a striver. We need to learn to separate these notions. Ayin is part of the ideology. A crisis of faith, those times of nothingness, is part of the reach to internalize that ideology. The ideal life for most of us will be struggling with the ideology; but once one makes that struggle part of the ideology itself, I fear one crossed the line. From afolger at aishdas.org Tue Nov 21 01:28:58 2017 From: afolger at aishdas.org (Arie Folger) Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2017 10:28:58 +0100 Subject: [Avodah] Torah precheit Message-ID: A little postscript to my statement, that regarding aliens we might one day meet, that we cold not accept any competing revelation, only one that is of a kind of Noachide revelation, subordinate to ours, well... Let me admit that in stating that, I was displaying a human bias: I unreasonably assumed that aliens would be a kind of otherworldly humans. However, insofar as they are radically different species (which would be likely), then I see no problem of them having their own revelation and their own 'am hanivchar, *as* *long* *as* *their* *revelation* *doesn't* *contradict* *ours*, i.e. we could not accept a revelation that claims that 'avoda zara is muttar, that murder is muttar or that assumes the existence of several deities. -- Arie Folger -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hmaryles at yahoo.com Tue Nov 21 07:30:45 2017 From: hmaryles at yahoo.com (Harry Maryles) Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2017 15:30:45 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Avodah] Fwd [Aspaqlaria]: Post-Modern Orthodoxy In-Reply-To: <20171120213722.GB24830@aishdas.org> References: <20171120213722.GB24830@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <570709339.403139.1511278245922@mail.yahoo.com> I read Gil Perl's article and I don't understand why the idea of? RAL's not knowing or being able to know but nonetheless believing doesn't speak to him. I find all the talk about there being no objective truth to be irrelevant. Truth goes beyond provable fact. It even goes beyond the contradictions to belief by newly discovered scientific truths which by definition are subject to change with new discoveries. In the Lonely Man of Faith, RYBS explains that there are no cognitive categories in which the total commitment of the man of faith could be spelled out. The commitment is rooted not in one dimension, such as the rational one, but in the whole personality of the man of faith. The whole human being; the rational as well as the non-rational is committed to God. Hence the magnitude of commitment is beyond the comprehension of the logos and the ethos. The intellect does not chart the course of the man of faith. It is a function not only of the logic of the mind. It is also a function of the logic of the heart. An apriori awareness that becomes an axiom - a conclusion that cannot rely on solely rational considerations.? HM Want Emes and Emunah in your life? Try this: http://haemtza.blogspot.com/ On Monday, November 20, 2017, 7:25:20 PM CST, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: My most recent blog post, in which I argue that Post-Modern Orthodoxy is a contradiction of terms. -micha Post-Modern Orthodoxy micha - Published Mon, Nov 20, 2017 Modern Orthodoxy is based on an integration of Orthodoxy with life in the modern world. However, with R' JB Soloveitchik's passing, the movement was left without a luminary who analyzes and discusses matters of worldview. Consequently, Modern Orthodoxy's thought is that of the mid 20th century, when Neo-Kantian and Existential answers addressed the kinds of religious questions people on the street were confronting. And so, the argument is today, that there is a need for someone to articulate a Post-Modern Orthodoxy. This is why there was much discussion in some Modern Orthodox circles with the publication of a selection of R' Shimon Gershon Rosenburg -- "Rav Shagar"`s -- essays in English. "Faith Shattered and Restored: Judaism in the Postmodern Age", edited by Rabbi Dr. Zohar Maor, was published by Maggid Books this past June. Dr. Alan Brill, on his blog, carried numerous translations of R' Shagar since, as well as analysis of his thought. In particular, see this post of notes that Dr Brill compiled while teaching R' Shagar's thought, "Rav Shagar: To be connected to Eyn -- Living in a Postmodern World". Times of Israel had an interview with R/Dr Maor, "Israel's paradoxical man of faith, deconstructed". And recently, R Gil Perl, an alumnus of Yeshivat Har Etzion ("Gush") who became a student of Rav Shagar, wrote an essay about why R' Shagar's thought spoke to him in a way that the teachings of R' Aharon Lichtenstein of Gush couldn't in the long run. See "Postmodern Orthodoxy: Giving Voice to a New Generation". To give you an idea of R Shagar's thought, he likens Deconstructionism to Sheviras haKeilim -- the Qabbalistic idea that Creation involved the breaking of vessels, and the post-modern's inability to consider an idea to be objectively true. He builds a case for the condition of having difficulty with belief and therefore believing in nothing and turns it into a Ism of believing in Nothing. Identifying that lower-case-n nothing with the Ayin, the capital-N Nothingness from which G-d made Yeish, something (indeed, everything). Me, I think it doesn't work. Post-Modernism is a confusion of the subjectivity of my justification for knowing something with the subjectivity of the known. Meaning, I can know objective truths for entirely personal and subjective reasons. I can be convinced of halakhah because of my personal experience of the beauty of Shabbos. Not from my liking Shabbos; from that about the Shabbos experience I find beautiful, likable, meaningful, and True. I know that hilkhos Shabbos as we have them today really did objectively speaking come from the Creator by way of my personal experience of Shabbos. Objective truth, subjective justification. In contrast, in Post-Modern thought, since I have no guarantee of objectively proving anything to anyone else, the notion of objective truth is entirely denied. There isn't "the truth" as much a "his truth" or "her truth", narratives people and societies construct for themselves. And this touches everything on the college campus from religious beliefs to defending the Palestinian because we have our narrative and they have theirs. (There is room for every narrative but those that exclude other narratives.) In the real world outside those ivory towers, though, you won't find too many people with Post-Modern notions of science, declaring (eg) that math or physics are merely social constructs. But certainly outside the realm of the scientifically provable Post-Modern thinking has become part of the zeitgeist. My problem with "Postmodern Orthodoxy" is that Post-Modernism (as I just described it) is inherently incompatible with the notion of a lower-case-o orthodoxy, including our case, capital-O Orthodox Judaism. I often said on Facebook that one reason why more are going OTD in this generation than in mine is that Post-Modernism has become part of the common culture. It is impossible to maintain any orthodoxy, including O, if one believes that there are no objective truths, or even that there is nothing one could ever assert as objectively true. There is a profound difference between believing there is an absolute truth that I personally do not fully know or understand -- which R' Gil Perl presented as R' Lichtenstein's position, and believing that all truths are human conditioned. Between a personal nothing and an ideal of Nothingness. And yet, R Shagar says just that. To repeat a quote of Rav Shagar used in R Perl's article, "All truths may be the product of human conditioning, but such conditioning constitutes the medium through which the divine manifests in the world." Rav Shagar's position strikes me as internally inconsistent. For example, to This presupposes that there is a Divine which is manifest in the world, and any claim that says otherwise would defy that Truth. So, there is at least that one central Truth that is necessarily true, regardless of human conditioning. The entire notion of considering any of the Articles of Faith human conditioned, true only from our perspective, enters the heretical. Another example, R Shagar's Post-Modern Orthodox Jew will speak of revelation "though he knows there are varying and conflicting revelations, the contradictions do not paralyze him." If one does not believe the revelation via Moshe and the revelation of the Torah are unique, are they not koferim baTorah according to the Rambam? How many rabbanim would allow you to use the wine of someone who believes that the only reason to embrace the Torah's message is because it's "the faith of our fathers" (as R' Shagar describes it) and not different in kind than the message of the New Testament or the Qur'an? There are two ways we can speak of the ideal human: we can describe life on the mountain peak, the person who has perfect generosity, perfect patience, perfect faith, a perfect relationship with G-d and other people, etc... But we know that actualize perfection is unachievable for anyone bug G-d. So, the true ideal human is one constantly working toward having those perfect relationships, trying their best, constantly growing. But they are two different things -- the ideal in the sense of the goal to strive for, and the ideal of being a striver. We need to learn to separate these notions. Ayin is part of the ideology. A crisis of faith, those times of nothingness, is part of the reach to internalize that ideology. The ideal life for most of us will be struggling with the ideology; but once one makes that struggle part of the ideology itself, I fear one crossed the line. _______________________________________________ Avodah mailing list Avodah at lists.aishdas.org http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Tue Nov 21 06:25:15 2017 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2017 14:25:15 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Notes on RSRH's Philosopy of Judaism Message-ID: <1511274314342.40161@stevens.edu> Please see the pdf file at http://www.halakhah.com/rst/hirsch.pdf YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Tue Nov 21 05:54:15 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2017 08:54:15 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] T'hay In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20171121135414.GB15991@aishdas.org> On Sat, Nov 18, 2017 at 10:23:18PM -0500, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : There is a word spelled tav-heh-aleph, pronounced "t'hay". Is this : word Hebrew or Aramaic? Sidenote, just to complicate things. Assuming that when someone with the last name "Miller" speaks of what he finds "in my siddur" is looking in an Ashkenazi one... RSM found in manuscripts that earlier Ashkenazi siddurim honed much closer to leshon Chazal than we do. The example I usually cite is "vesein chleqeinu beSorasakh, sab'einu mituvakh..." as Sepharadim have it. Your siddur probably consistently has "Sha'atah", not "she'atah". This is a "correction" to the form that appears in seifer Sofetim. One holdover is "Modim anachnu Lakh", instead of "Lekha"... but then followed by "Sha'atah". It appears to be largely the work of one person, R' Shelomo Zalman Hanau (Katz), author of the Binyan Shalomo. He then compiles a siddur, Shaarei Tefillah. R' Yaaqov Emden's Lueach Eresh is a rebuttal of the Razah's grammatical theories, and kedarko beqodesh, he doesn't pull punches. For example, the Binyan Shelomo was printed with a hasqamah from R' Tzvi Ashkenazi; RYE wrote that his father's hasqamah was forged. The Alter Rebbe, in composing Nusach haAri, was heavily influenced by the Razah's theory of diqduq. And slowly other Ashkenazim switched from leshon Chazal to leshon Tanakh. Even RZBaer and the Yekkes. So, with a siddur that is partially in one version of Hebrew and partially in another, who knows how any word settled on one set of diqduq rules or the other. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "I hear, then I forget; I see, then I remember; micha at aishdas.org I do, then I understand." - Confucius http://www.aishdas.org "Hearing doesn't compare to seeing." - Mechilta Fax: (270) 514-1507 "We will do and we will listen." - Israelites From meirabi at gmail.com Tue Nov 21 15:38:02 2017 From: meirabi at gmail.com (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi) Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2017 10:38:02 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] Kosher meat must have all traces of blood removed Message-ID: I am happy to amend to Before cooking, Kosher meat must have all traces of blood removed Best, Meir G. Rabi 0423 207 837 +61 423 207 837 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From larry62341 at optonline.net Wed Nov 22 06:20:47 2017 From: larry62341 at optonline.net (Prof. Levine) Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2017 09:20:47 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Sedra Toldos - Balance, When Parents Favour One Child In-Reply-To: <56bc7b19424c44b7aec48fc7014df583@exchng03.campus.stevens-t ech.edu> References: <56bc7b19424c44b7aec48fc7014df583@exchng03.campus.stevens-tech.edu> Message-ID: <7E.4D.03148.0C7851A5@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> At 10:52 AM 11/21/2017, R Micha Berger wrote: >Perhaps this is the whole point of the Torah's not saying why Rivqa >preferred Yaaqov. Yitzchaq's additional love of Esav was teluyah bedavar, >and that fact impacted Eisav's choices. Rivqa love Yaaqov, full stop, >not for some reason. I suggest you read RSRH's essay Lessons From Jacob and Esau (Collected Writings VII) YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From JRich at sibson.com Wed Nov 22 21:54:08 2017 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2017 05:54:08 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] sefer torah's path Message-ID: <7df4daee86e84ff48f391450b891c5f0@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> From R' Aviner: Bringing the Torah to People to Kiss Q: Is it permissible to bring the Sefer Torah in the Shul towards people who want to kiss it? A: No. This is a disgrace to the Sefer Torah. They should approach the Sefer Torah. Piskei Teshuvot 134:6. I have been to more than a few shuls that particularly on Shabbat take the long road - any ideas on who they are relying on? (not to mention those who lower the sefer torah so the kids can kiss it too) KT 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: From marty.bluke at gmail.com Sat Nov 25 12:27:38 2017 From: marty.bluke at gmail.com (Marty Bluke) Date: Sat, 25 Nov 2017 22:27:38 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] How can R' Yochanan and Resh Lakish argue about the tradition of a Gezera Shava? Message-ID: The Gemara in Makos(14b) has a dispute between R' Yochanan and Resh Lakish which revolves around a gezera shava. R' Yochanan has the gezera shava and Resh Lakish does not, Rashi explains that Resh Lakish did not get this gezera shava from his rebbeim. This seems very difficult because the gemara in Bava Metzia (84a) describes how Resh Lakish was the head of a group of bandits and R' Yochanan persuaded hm to learn Torah and was clearly Rabo Muvhak. In fact, they were so close that after Resh Lakish's death, R' Yochanan lost his mind and died. Given this, how can it be that R' Yochanan had a gezera shava and Resh Lakish didn't because lo kiblu merabo, R' Yochanan was his Rebbe so why wouldn't R' Yochanan have taught him this gezera shava? R' Yochanan clearly had a kabbala on this gezera shava so why wouldn't his talmid muvhak Resh Lakish have gotten this kabbala from his rebbe? The answer can't be that Resh Lakish argued on this because gezera shava's are a kabbala from your rebbe, period. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Thu Nov 23 15:55:59 2017 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2017 23:55:59 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] More on Yaakov, sheep and the rods Message-ID: <1511481358587.99267@stevens.edu> The following is from RSRH's commentary on Bereishis 30:37 Ya'akov then took for himself rods of fresh aspen and hazelnut and chestnut trees, and peeled white streaks in them by uncovering the white on the rods. After all this, Ya'akov's initiative with the rods would have been fully justified, even had it constituted a tried and tested expedient - a supposition that surely will not be borne out by experiment. >From the continuation of the story we know that Lavan altered the terms of the agreement ten times (see below, 31:7), setting new conditions regarding the form of the speckles and spots. It is difficult to assume that, because of a general action such as setting up the rods in the sight of the sheep, the sheep would bring forth young that were this time speckled, the next time spotted, and the next time marked on the feet. Ya'akov's success can be attributed only to a special intervention of Divine providence - as attested to by Ya'akov himself. The expedient of the rods was only an extremely weak substitute for the breeding animals Lavan had wrongfully removed. Nevertheless, Ya'akov did not refrain from seeking the aid of this expedient; since ain somchin al haness (see Pesachim 64b), he was obligated to do his part. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hankman at bell.net Sun Nov 26 10:02:44 2017 From: hankman at bell.net (hankman) Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2017 13:02:44 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] More on Yaakov, sheep and the rods Message-ID: <440B31203B1C40479ABF364797C2B58A@hankPC> Prof. L. Levine wrote?": ?It is difficult to assume that, because of a general action such as setting up the rods in the sight of the sheep, the sheep would bring forth young that were this time speckled, the next time spotted, and the next time marked on the feet. Ya'akov's success can be attributed only to a special intervention of Divine providence - as attested to by Ya'akov himself. The expedient of the rods was only an extremely weak substitute for the breeding animals Lavan had wrongfully removed. Nevertheless, Ya'akov did not refrain from seeking the aid of this expedient; since ain somchin al haness (see Pesachim 64b), he was obligated to do his part...? As everyone who had genetics 101 will realize, if you eliminate 100% of the phenotype, and breed the remainder you will still get some of that phenotype in the next generation with recessive genes. So it always bothered me why was all the hokus pokus by Yaakov necessary. Even more so the pasook itself seems to ascribe the results as caused by the sticks even though a simple natural explanation for the reappearance of the phenotype in the next generation is quite simple. The only explanation I could come up with is that the percentages were much higher than one would expect as a result of genetic calculations thus the nes (and Yaakov?s efforts [hishtadlus] to produce it) is described at great length. Kol tuv Chaim Manaster -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From akivagmiller at gmail.com Sat Nov 25 17:51:31 2017 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Sat, 25 Nov 2017 20:51:31 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] sefer torah's path Message-ID: . R' Joel Rich asked: > From R? Aviner: Bringing the Torah to People to Kiss > Q: Is it permissible to bring the Sefer Torah in the Shul > towards people who want to kiss it? > A: No. This is a disgrace to the Sefer Torah. They should > approach the Sefer Torah. Piskei Teshuvot 134:6. > > I have been to more than a few shuls that particularly on > Shabbat take the long road ? any ideas on who they are > relying on? (not to mention those who lower the sefer torah > so the kids can kiss it too) Maybe the masses simply disagree with the logic of the Piskei Teshuvot? Maybe people feel that bringing the Torah to Amcha is NOT a disgrace? Personally, I can easily understand that lowering it could be a bizayon, but what's wrong with taking the long way around? If the short route is taken, then (depending on the shul's layout) it is possible (or even probable) that many (or most) will simply be unable to get close enough to kiss it -- and if this is true on the men's side of the mechitza, it is even more true on the women's side! There are SO many things that we allow for no reason other than allowing the people to show their love and kavod for the Torah!!! Compared to the bells that ring on Shabbos, or the multitude of aliyos on Simchas Torah, this seems exceeding minor, in my opinion. Akiva Miller From brothke at gmail.com Sat Nov 25 18:20:23 2017 From: brothke at gmail.com (Ben Rothke) Date: Sat, 25 Nov 2017 21:20:23 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Gid ha'nasheh and 'therefore' Message-ID: In the coming week?s parsha, it has the story of Yaakov wrestling and then concludes: ? ???-???? ???-???????? ?????-?????????? ???-????? ????????? I am trying to figure out the connection between the wrestling injury and klal Yisroel not eating gid hanasheh. The term '???-????' implies consequently, to which I don?t see the consequence. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From JRich at sibson.com Sat Nov 25 21:47:06 2017 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2017 05:47:06 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] How can R' Yochanan and Resh Lakish argue about the tradition of a Gezera Shava? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: The answer can't be that Resh Lakish argued on this because gezera shava's are a kabbala from your rebbe, period. > ______________________________________________ 1. This begs the broader question as to why an Amira having a gs doesn't automatically trump one that doesn't 2.this also assumes only a rebbi muvhak counts as rabo for purposes of mesora Kt 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. From JRich at sibson.com Sun Nov 26 05:28:50 2017 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2017 13:28:50 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] eilu v'eilu Message-ID: <6b52bc1475284ba2a6aa3d7734cb8de7@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> http://www.yutorah.org/lectures/lecture.cfm/889447/rabbi-assaf-bednarsh/pluralism-and-halacha-what-is-truth,-and-who-has-it/ Rabbi Assaf Bednarsh--Pluralism and Halacha: What is Truth, and Who Has It Interesting shiur on an old Avodah favorite KT 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: From lisa at starways.net Sun Nov 26 14:37:13 2017 From: lisa at starways.net (Lisa Liel) Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2017 00:37:13 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Gid ha'nasheh and 'therefore' In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I don't think al ken denotes causation.? In most cases, it seems to mean "How correct it is that..."? For example, the two times we're told "al ken", the city is called Beersheva.? They can't both be the cause. Lisa On 11/26/2017 4:20 AM, Ben Rothke via Avodah wrote: > > In the coming week?s parsha, it has the story of Yaakov wrestling and > then concludes: > > ? ???-???? ???-???????? ?????-?????????? ???-????? ????????? > > I am trying to figure out the connection between the wrestling injury > and klal Yisroel not eating gid hanasheh. > > The term '???-????' implies consequently, to which I don?t see the > consequence. > > --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From micha at aishdas.org Sun Nov 26 15:09:41 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2017 18:09:41 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Gid ha'nasheh and 'therefore' In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20171126230941.GA24539@aishdas.org> On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 12:37:13AM +0200, Lisa Liel via Avodah wrote: : On 11/26/2017 4:20 AM, Ben Rothke via Avodah wrote: : >In the coming week's parsha, it has the story of Yaakov wrestling : >and then concludes: "Al kein lo yokhlu BY es gid hanasheh." : >I am trying to figure out the connection between the wrestling : >injury and klal Yisroel not eating gid hanasheh. : >The term '[al kein]' implies consequently, to which I don't see the : >consequence. : I don't think al ken denotes causation.? In most cases, it seems to : mean "How correct it is that..."? For example, the two times we're : told "al ken", the city is called Beersheva.? They can't both be the : cause. Why not? It could be that each were necessary but insufficient causes, so that the name "Be'er-Sheva" is the consequence of both being true. Or it could be that each were sufficient cause, and the name Be'er-Sheva was justified by either alone -- but equally so. And thus the city's name represents both. But to answer RBR's question, I don't think al kein implies sufficient causality. Rather, because of the fight, HQBH had an opportunity to turn eating thigh meat into a ritual that reminds one of the fight, and thus of the Jew's ability to act on the level of (in the sense of: interact with) angels. Without the fight, the mitzvah would lack that historical symbolism; so it's a cause, but of a different sort than it seems from your question that you are thinking of. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger It is our choices...that show what we truly are, micha at aishdas.org far more than our abilities. http://www.aishdas.org - J. K. Rowling Fax: (270) 514-1507 From micha at aishdas.org Sun Nov 26 14:58:57 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2017 17:58:57 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] How can R' Yochanan and Resh Lakish argue about the tradition of a Gezera Shava? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20171126225857.GA9115@aishdas.org> On Sat, Nov 25, 2017 at 10:27:38PM +0200, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: : The Gemara in Makos(14b) has a dispute between R' Yochanan and Resh Lakish : which revolves around a gezera shava. R' Yochanan has the gezera shava and : Resh Lakish does not, Rashi explains that Resh Lakish did not get this : gezera shava from his rebbeim. : : This seems very difficult because the gemara in Bava Metzia (84a) describes : how Resh Lakish was the head of a group of bandits and R' Yochanan : persuaded hm to learn Torah and was clearly Rabo Muvhak... So, he had a mesorah from a rebbe other than his rebbe muvhaq or any of his own rabbeim -- maybe just a shiur from someone else he sat in once... (Which is similar to RHR's #2.) Or... If "Moavi velo Mo'avis" was darsehened first by Boaz's court, then we know of at least one gezeira shava -- from Amon to Moav -- that Boaz invoked withtout a tradition of its existence dating back from Sinai. For that matter, if the Rambam assumed that the rule about no new gezeiros shava really was in place from day one, then he would have to assert that like [other] halakhos leMoshe miSinai, there couldn't be machloqesin in any of them. I would therefore deduce from the Rambam's silence in the face of numerous such machloqesin, he must have thought that gezeiros shava could be invented (or as other riahonim would have it: discovered) without a mesorah. It would seem the idea that GS requires a mesorah has a loophole. Perhaps the notion is that the textual connection must have a mesorah, but the lesson taken from it could be left to the later generation to find. Also, it is interesting that the contrast in Pesachim 66a to the mesorah needed for GS is the qal vachomer. A rule of logic that a person truly could make on their own in a way that doesn't apply to another of the other midos sheheTorah nidreshes bahen. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When faced with a decision ask yourself, micha at aishdas.org "How would I decide if it were Ne'ilah now, http://www.aishdas.org at the closing moments of Yom Kippur?" Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From marty.bluke at gmail.com Mon Nov 27 02:10:10 2017 From: marty.bluke at gmail.com (Marty Bluke) Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2017 12:10:10 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] How can R' Yochanan and Resh Lakish argue about the tradition of a Gezera Shava? In-Reply-To: <20171126225857.GA9115@aishdas.org> References: <20171126225857.GA9115@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 12:58 AM, Micha Berger wrote: > On Sat, Nov 25, 2017 at 10:27:38PM +0200, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: > : The Gemara in Makos(14b) has a dispute between R' Yochanan and Resh > Lakish > : which revolves around a gezera shava. R' Yochanan has the gezera shava > and > : Resh Lakish does not, Rashi explains that Resh Lakish did not get this > : gezera shava from his rebbeim. > : > : This seems very difficult because the gemara in Bava Metzia (84a) > describes > : how Resh Lakish was the head of a group of bandits and R' Yochanan > : persuaded hm to learn Torah and was clearly Rabo Muvhak... > > So, he had a mesorah from a rebbe other than his rebbe muvhaq or any > of his own rabbeim -- maybe just a shiur from someone else he sat in > once... (Which is similar to RHR's #2.) > What other mesora? It's not that Resh Lakish had a gezera shava that R' Yochanan didn't have that he could have learned from someone else. The Gemara says that he didn't have a kabbala on a gezera shava that R' Yochanan had. > > Or... > > If "Moavi velo Mo'avis" was darsehened first by Boaz's court, then we > know of at least one gezeira shava -- from Amon to Moav -- that Boaz > invoked withtout a tradition of its existence dating back from Sinai. > That was a gezera shava? In any case the Gemara in Nidda (19b) states that ayn adam dan gezera shava meatzmo, says Rashi he needs a kabbala from his rebbe halacha l'moshe misinai. For that matter, if the Rambam assumed that the rule about no new gezeiros > shava really was in place from day one, then he would have to assert that > like [other] halakhos leMoshe miSinai, there couldn't be machloqesin in > any of them. I would therefore deduce from the Rambam's silence in the > face of numerous such machloqesin, he must have thought that gezeiros > shava could be invented (or as other riahonim would have it: discovered) > without a mesorah. > It would seem the idea that GS requires a mesorah has a loophole. Perhaps > the notion is that the textual connection must have a mesorah, but > the lesson taken from it could be left to the later generation to find. > Tosafos in Shabbos (97a) states that they had a mesora on the number of gezera shavas and therefore they had to reconcile the various traditions with the number of gezera shavas. This would seem to come to address the question of why certain Tannaim/Amoraim had a gezera shava and others didn't. However, it doesn't answer the question on Resh Lakish who must have gotten the number from Rabo Muvhak R' Yochanan. The Rishonim/Acharonim in Nida (22b) are bothered by the question that the Gemara says that a gezera shava that is mufne mi tzad echad lmeidin umeshivin and mufne mishnei tz'dadim lmeidim vayn m'shivim. If there was a kabala on the gezera shava then why does it need to be mufne and if there was no kabbala then why should it be accepted even if it is mufne? The Ramban on the Sefer Hamitzvos (Shoresh 2) based on this question rejects the simple understanding of ayn adam dan gezera shava meiatzmo that all the details of the gezera shavas were received at Har Sinai by Moshe. Rather, they had a kabbala that there was a gezera shava with a certain word pair but not which set of those words and what halacha is learned from it and therefore it is up to the chachamim to decide based on the principles that they received to decide what exactly the gezera shava was and therefore there is machlokes. This is what the Gemara in Nidda is discussing, the principles relating to figuring out what exactly the gezera shava is. Unfortunately, this does not really answer all of the Gemara's and disputes about gezera shavas. > > Also, it is interesting that the contrast in Pesachim 66a to the mesorah > needed for GS is the qal vachomer. A rule of logic that a person truly > could make on their own in a way that doesn't apply to another of the > other midos sheheTorah nidreshes bahen. > There is a machlokes Rashi and Tosafos whether it is only a kal vachomer that adam dan meatzmo or all the middos except for gezera shava. > > Tir'u baTov! > -Micha > > -- > Micha Berger When faced with a decision ask yourself, > micha at aishdas.org "How would I decide if it were Ne'ilah now, > http://www.aishdas.org at the closing moments of Yom Kippur?" > Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From lisa at starways.net Mon Nov 27 02:55:35 2017 From: lisa at starways.net (Lisa Liel) Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2017 12:55:35 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] How can R' Yochanan and Resh Lakish argue about the tradition of a Gezera Shava? In-Reply-To: <20171126225857.GA9115@aishdas.org> References: <20171126225857.GA9115@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <2e55bd0b-bb70-45dd-093f-a9ca79fa0760@starways.net> On 11/27/2017 12:58 AM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > If "Moavi velo Mo'avis" was darsehened first by Boaz's court, then we > know of at least one gezeira shava -- from Amon to Moav -- that Boaz > invoked withtout a tradition of its existence dating back from Sinai. > How was that a gezeira shava? Lisa --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From micha at aishdas.org Mon Nov 27 13:21:42 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2017 16:21:42 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] How can R' Yochanan and Resh Lakish argue about the tradition of a Gezera Shava? In-Reply-To: <2e55bd0b-bb70-45dd-093f-a9ca79fa0760@starways.net> References: <20171126225857.GA9115@aishdas.org> <2e55bd0b-bb70-45dd-093f-a9ca79fa0760@starways.net> Message-ID: <20171127212142.GA26403@aishdas.org> On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 12:10:10PM +0200, Marty Bluke wrote: : > So, he had a mesorah from a rebbe other than his rebbe muvhaq or any : > of his own rabbeim -- maybe just a shiur from someone else he sat in : > once... (Which is similar to RJR's #2.) : What other mesora? It's not that Resh Lakish had a gezera shava that R' : Yochanan didn't have that he could have learned from someone else. The : Gemara says that he didn't have a kabbala on a gezera shava that R' : Yochanan had. This wasn't the ikar of my answer; I was just ammending RJR's answer to reflect the fact that the gemara says "rabosav" not "rabo". But it seems to me now you are saying the OP was asking how it's possible that R' Yochanan knew something that he didn't pass on to Reish Laqish. Or more accurately, where would RL learn something to have him question a GS when R Yochanan told him of it the first time. In which case, my intended answer works even better -- the presmise that every GS is a tradition dating back to Sinai is false. A conclusion the other RMB gives far more sources for than I did. :> Or... :> If "Moavi velo Mo'avis" was darsehened first by Boaz's court, then we :> know of at least one gezeira shava -- from Amon to Moav -- that Boaz :> invoked withtout a tradition of its existence dating back from Sinai. : That was a gezera shava? In any case the Gemara in Nidda (19b) states that : ayn adam dan gezera shava meatzmo, says Rashi he needs a kabbala from his : rebbe halacha l'moshe misinai. Not every "halakhah leMoshe MiSinai" is literally so. R' Avohu on Kesuvos 7b says that Boaz collected 10 men in "lemidrash 'amoni velo amonis, moavi velo moavis." How does he know it wasn't for 7 berakhos (R' Nachman's shitah)? Because of the need to get "miziqnei ha'ir". Why 10? [I presume -- and not a BD of 3:] lefirsumei milsa. Similarly, Rus Rabba 7:9 states that Peloni didn't know *shenischadshah* din zu. As for "that was a GS?" (A question Lisa also asks...) Amoni velo Amonis is justified because the Amoni ddidn't bring food or water when we came to their land. And it is the men we would have expected to recieve or even buy such previsions from. Moav velo Moavis would be a pretty arbitrary time to insist a word be read as specifically male instead of gender-neutral if it weren't by GS to Amoni. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Here is the test to find whether your mission micha at aishdas.org on Earth is finished: http://www.aishdas.org if you're alive, it isn't. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Richard Bach From zev at sero.name Mon Nov 27 15:10:29 2017 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2017 18:10:29 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] How can R' Yochanan and Resh Lakish argue about the tradition of a Gezera Shava? In-Reply-To: <20171127212142.GA26403@aishdas.org> References: <20171126225857.GA9115@aishdas.org> <2e55bd0b-bb70-45dd-093f-a9ca79fa0760@starways.net> <20171127212142.GA26403@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 27/11/17 16:21, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > As for "that was a GS?" (A question Lisa also asks...) Amoni velo Amonis > is justified because the Amoni ddidn't bring food or water when we > came to their land. And it is the men we would have expected to recieve > or even buy such previsions from. Moav velo Moavis would be a pretty > arbitrary time to insist a word be read as specifically male instead > of gender-neutral if it weren't by GS to Amoni. Could you please explain this? Where do you get that there is any limmud from Ammon to Moav? The Torah says *both* Amonim and Moavim are banned because they didn't welcome us with bread and water. You seem to be claiming that Amonim are banned for this reason, and then Moavim by some sort of gezera shava from Amonim. Where is this coming from? -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From marty.bluke at gmail.com Thu Nov 30 02:11:31 2017 From: marty.bluke at gmail.com (Marty Bluke) Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2017 12:11:31 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] What are the main mitzvos to focus on? Message-ID: The last daf in Makos (24a) states that the Neviim took the 613 mitzvos and reduced them to a smaller set for people to focus on. Michah gave three Mitzvos for people to focus on - "Asos Mishpat..." "Asos Mishpat" is monetary laws; "Ahavas Chesed" is bestowing Chesed; "V'Hatzne'a Leches Im Elokecha" is escorting the dead and bringing a Kalah to Chupah; Yeshayah later gave two primary Mitzvos - "Shimru Mishpat va'Asu Tzedakah." The mitzva of learning Torah which we understand to be the most important and fundamental mitzva does not appear in these lists. How do we explain the omission of learning Torah in these lists? Additionally, these lists seem to consist solely of mitzvos bein adam lachaveiro, are there no mitzvos ben adam lamakom that are important enought to appear on these lists? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From seinfeld at daasbooks.com Thu Nov 30 09:20:44 2017 From: seinfeld at daasbooks.com (Alexander Seinfeld) Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2017 12:20:44 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] More on Yaakov, sheep and the rods Message-ID: <50458059-A03F-4E6E-B54B-F1612B0E7E5B@jsli.org> Why not just interpret this as an example of phenotypic plasticity, meaning the genetic potential is there in every generation, and the environmental factors stimulate its expression? As everyone who had genetics 101 will realize, if you eliminate 100% of the phenotype, and breed the remainder you will still get some of that phenotype in the next generation with recessive genes. So it always bothered me why was all the hokus pokus by Yaakov necessary. Even more so the pasook itself seems to ascribe the results as caused by the sticks even though a simple natural explanation for the reappearance of the phenotype in the next generation is quite simple. The only explanation I could come up with is that the percentages were much higher than one would expect as a result of genetic calculations thus the nes (and Yaakov?s efforts [hishtadlus] to produce it) is described at great length. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From chaim.tatel at gmail.com Thu Nov 30 09:30:37 2017 From: chaim.tatel at gmail.com (Chaim Tatel) Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2017 09:30:37 -0800 Subject: [Avodah] Gid ha'nasheh Message-ID: When I was studying Zoology in college back in the 70s, I did some research on Yaakov?s battle with the malach. The big question I had was ?why should Yaakov Avinu get hit in the gid hanasheh (sciatic nerve)? Why not somewhere else in the body?? As I learned in my Anatomy and Physiology class, there are several nerves that branch off from the sciatic nerve. One of these is the pudendal nerve. This is one of the nerves responsible for sexual function (and other actions). Current research follows: The pudendal nerve is found in the pelvis. It is the biggest division of the pudendal plexus (a network of nerves) and is located behind the sacrospinous ligament, near the tailbone. The nerve extends from the sacral plexus, through the pudendal canal, the perineum, and the gluteal area. These are structures located near the genital, rectal, and gluteal (buttock) regions. (see: https://www.healthline.com/human-body-maps/pudendal-nerve) The peripheral nerves supply the bladder, anal canal, and perineal skin. The pudendal nerve is the primary somatic nerve to this region. Motor fibers in the pudendal nerve innervate the bulbocavernosus muscle, external urethral sphincter, external anal sphincter, and pelvic floor muscles. (see: www.humanneurophysiology.com/sacralmonitoring.htm) I also remember that one of the meforshim (commentators) on Chumash had a similar answer. (Sorry, I can?t remember where I saw this, it?s been over 40 years). At any rate, it makes sense that Yaakov would be hit there, as a reminder that his marriage to Rachel after his marriage to her sister Leah would not hold up when he entered Eretz Yisrael. (not long after this episode, Rachel died in childbirth of Binyamin). Aside from feeling the psychological pain of Rachel?s death, perhaps Yaakov also had to feel physical pain. Chaim Tatel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From lisa at starways.net Sat Dec 2 12:56:18 2017 From: lisa at starways.net (Lisa Liel) Date: Sat, 2 Dec 2017 22:56:18 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] knife sharpeners Message-ID: <62debe36-f9a2-7cab-d4cb-a60320a1ec83@starways.net> Are knife sharpeners mekabel taam?? And noten taam?? Do you need different onces for meat, dairy, pesach, etc? --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From zev at sero.name Sat Dec 2 17:01:31 2017 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Sat, 2 Dec 2017 20:01:31 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] knife sharpeners In-Reply-To: <62debe36-f9a2-7cab-d4cb-a60320a1ec83@starways.net> References: <62debe36-f9a2-7cab-d4cb-a60320a1ec83@starways.net> Message-ID: <0115756c-ad5a-dc19-dfdc-aba2138a2858@sero.name> On 02/12/17 15:56, Lisa Liel via Avodah wrote: > Are knife sharpeners mekabel taam?? And noten taam?? Do you need > different onces for meat, dairy, pesach, etc? Since they don't ever contact food, I don't see how they could. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From JRich at sibson.com Sat Dec 2 22:40:43 2017 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Sun, 3 Dec 2017 06:40:43 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Women and Torah Study Message-ID: <9f94d416d3154585a6bb71a2df12c54e@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> My comment to a recent post on Lehrhaus on women and intensive talmud study: Is encouraging intensive study of Talmud for women a community priority or is the priority to make such study available for those who choose to avail themselves of the opportunity? Especially if the former, where does it stand in relation to other community priorities and how does the answer differ from study for men? IMHO these questions have not been sufficiently addressed. Do my concern resonate at all? KT 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: From marty.bluke at gmail.com Sun Dec 3 01:13:00 2017 From: marty.bluke at gmail.com (Marty Bluke) Date: Sun, 3 Dec 2017 11:13:00 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] The 13 middos Message-ID: The Gemara in Shavuos (4b) discusses who the Tanna of the Mishna is and brings down a fundamental machlokes tannaim about the 13 middos. R' Yishmael darshens klal uprat and R' Akiva darshens ribuy umiut. The Acharonim point out that these are mutually exclusive and every Tanna darshens one or the other but they cannot be mixed (e.g. a Tanna sometimes darshens ribuy umiut and sometimes klal uprat). The question is how can something so fundamental as the 13 middos be a matter of dispute? Weren't the 13 middos given to Moshe at Har Sinai? How could they forget such a basic thing? It is very difficult to say that both are right (e.g. elu v'elu) because they are mutually exclusive and come to different conclusions. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Sun Dec 3 06:18:20 2017 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Sun, 3 Dec 2017 14:18:20 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Davening on Airplanes Message-ID: <1512310700373.25771@stevens.edu> Very often people make minyanimm on flights to Israel. The following if from https://goo.gl/j8hdXR and is a quote from Rabbi Hershel Schachter. Another common mistake people make is regarding davening with a minyan (on a plane). The Talmud emphasizes the importance of tefillah btzibur; and one who davens with a minyan stands a much better chance of having his prayers answered than one who lacks a minyan. However, it is highly improper for the chazzan of a minyan on an airplane to shout at the top of his lungs to enable the other mispalelim to hear him over the airplane noise, and thereby wake up all the passengers around him. It is true that there is a halachic principle of kofin al hamitzvos, i.e. that beis din has an obligation to force people to observe the mitzvos even when they're not interested in doing so, but this only applies when pressuring an individual will result in his becoming observant. However, when Orthodox Jews disturb non-observant Jewish passengers with their davening, the non-observant passengers sill remain non-observant and now just have another point about which to be upset with the Orthodox. The practice of the Orthodox passengers under such circumstances appears simply as an act of harassment. Rather than having accomplished the hidur mitzvah of davening tefillah btzibur, they have violated lifnei iver by causing the non-observant passengers to become more antagonistic towards shemiras hamitzvos. The shouting tone of voice employed by the shaliach tzibbur to overcome the noise on the airplane clearly does not constitute a kavod hatefillah. The halacha states that when traveling, if it is too difficult to stand for shemoneh esrei even the "amidah" may be recited while seated. On a short flight of an hour and a half to Canada it is more correct to daven the entire tefillah while still buckled in, in a sitting position. On the long flight to Eretz Yisroel it is healthier to not sit the entire time; walking around somewhat helps the blood circulation in one's legs. As such, there is nothing wrong with standing for shemoneh esrei, provided that there's no turbulence at that time. However, it is still not proper to gather a minyan together near the washrooms, disturbing all the other passengers and the stewardesses. As much as various Torah giants of our generation have expressed their opposition to such minyanim on airplanes[2], their message has not yet been accepted. We wish everyone a chag kasher v'sameach, and all those traveling to Eretz Yisroel should have a safe trip, but keep in mind - these minyanim are shelo b'ratzon chachomim! [2] Rav Shlomo Wahrman ( She'eiris Yosef vol. 7, siman 3) quotes Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach (Halichos Shlomo, page 75), Rav Moshe Feinstein (Igros Moshe Orach Chaim vol. 4 siman 20), Rav Ovadiah Yosef, and Rav Shmuel Wosner all objecting to minyanim on airplanes that disturb other passengers -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Sun Dec 3 07:15:20 2017 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Sun, 3 Dec 2017 15:15:20 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] The Forces That Have Shaped World History Message-ID: <1512314120420.4485@stevens.edu> The following is from RSRH's commentary on Bereishis 30:8 Ya'akov was very much afraid and distressed, so he divided the peoplewho were with him, as well as the flocks, cattle and camels, into two camps. We can put ourselves in Ya'akov's place, and we are especially obligated to do so, considering the significance of the impending meeting; for, because of this meeting, Ya'akov experienced a revelation whose memory is forever linked with the daily meal of the man of Israel. Just as Ya'akov and Esav oppose each other here, so they continue to stand opposed to one another unto this very day. Ya'akov is the family man blessed with children; hard-working, serving, weighed down by cares. Esav is the "finished and accomplished" man (cf. Commentary above, 25:25). Ya'akov now returns as the independent head of a family. Even now, having overcome all the obstacles, this privilege is, to him, the highest prize, the greatest achievement. But to attain it, he had to toil and struggle for twenty years, despite the fact that he had already received the blessing and the birthright. Others, however, take this privilege for granted; it is given to them from birth. Esav, the "finished and accomplished" man, already possessed it in full measure when Ya'akov first left home. While Ya'akov, through hard work, succeeded in establishing a family, Esav became a political force, the leader of an army, an aluf at the head of his troops. Thus the external contrast between Ya'akov, who held on to his brother's heel when they were born, and Esav, the "accomplished" man. In Ya'akov and Esav, two opposing principles confront each other. The struggle between them, and the outcome of this struggle, are the forces that have shaped world history. Ya'akov represents family life, happiness and making others happy. Esav represents the glitter of political power and might. This conflict has raged for thousands of years: Is it sufficient just to be a human being, and are political power and social creativity of no significance unless they lead to the loftiest of all human aspirations, or, on the contrary, does everything that is human in man, in home, and in family life exist only to serve the purposes of political triumph? How different from his attitude toward Lavan is Ya'akov's attitude toward Esav. We know how steadfast is the power of one who is sure of his own integrity, and how oppressive is the feeling of guilt, even if only imagined. It is easier to suffer wrong and injustice for twenty years than to face for one minute a person whom we know was offended by us and who cannot understand our motives, which do not justify our actions but at least excuse them. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Mon Dec 4 07:55:38 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2017 10:55:38 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] knife sharpeners In-Reply-To: <0115756c-ad5a-dc19-dfdc-aba2138a2858@sero.name> References: <62debe36-f9a2-7cab-d4cb-a60320a1ec83@starways.net> <0115756c-ad5a-dc19-dfdc-aba2138a2858@sero.name> Message-ID: <20171204155538.GC26551@aishdas.org> On Sat, Dec 02, 2017 at 08:01:31PM -0500, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : On 02/12/17 15:56, Lisa Liel via Avodah wrote: : >Are knife sharpeners mekabel taam?? And noten taam?? Do you need : >different onces for meat, dairy, pesach, etc? : : Since they don't ever contact food, I don't see how they could. Since they are in heated contact with the knife, aren't there potential na"t bar na"t issues? Tir'u baTov! -Micha From ari.brodsky at utoronto.ca Mon Dec 4 10:03:48 2017 From: ari.brodsky at utoronto.ca (Ari Meir Brodsky) Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2017 20:03:48 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Tonight (Monday evening) begin Prayer for Rain Message-ID: Dear Friends, It's that time of year again, when I know many of you are expecting my annual friendly reminder.... Jews outside of Israel should include the request for rain in daily prayers, beginning with Maariv tonight (Monday evening), December 4, 2017, corresponding to the evening of 17 Kislev, 5778. The phrase *??? ?? ???? ?????* "Veten tal umatar livracha" - "Give us dew and rain for a blessing" is inserted into the 9th blessing of the weekday shemone esrei, from now until Pesach. [Sephardim replace the entire blessing of ????? with the alternate text beginning ??? ????? - thanks to Prof. Lasker for the reminder.] I encourage everyone to remind friends and family members of this event, especially those who may not be in shul at that time. Diaspora Jews begin requesting rain on the 60th day of the fall season, as approximated by Shmuel in the Talmud (Taanit 10a, Eiruvin 56a). For more information about this calculation, follow the link below, to a fascinating article giving a (very brief) introduction to the Jewish calendar, followed by a discussion on why we begin praying for rain when we do: http://www.lookstein.org/articles/veten_tal.htm (Thanks to Russell Levy for providing the link.) Wishing everyone a happy Chanukka, -Ari Meir Brodsky --------------------- Ari M. Brodsky ari.brodsky at utoronto.ca -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mirskym at gmail.com Mon Dec 4 10:02:39 2017 From: mirskym at gmail.com (Michael Mirsky) Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2017 21:02:39 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Davening on Airplanes In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: In all the discussions of this topic that I have seen, I haven't seen anyone address the issue of someone who is in his year of aveilut and needs a minyan to say kaddish. Do the objections to the possible disturbance a minyan might cause override this need? Michael Mirsky -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From larry62341 at optonline.net Mon Dec 4 10:17:47 2017 From: larry62341 at optonline.net (Prof. Levine) Date: Mon, 04 Dec 2017 13:17:47 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Knife Sharpening Message-ID: The following is from an article posted on the CRC web site at https://goo.gl/ispg9T Food service establishments regularly send out their knives for sharpening, and it appears that there are three potential kashrus concerns with this practice, as follows: * The sharpening company may give the establishment different knives than the ones which the establishment gave them for sharpening. This is an especially likely in cases where the sharpening company actually owns the knives and lends them to the establishment in exchange for the rights to sharpen them. This issue can be avoided if the Mashgiach has a tevias ayin on the knives and/or marks them. * Knives are typically very dirty when they arrive at the sharpening facility, and therefore all knives are washed in hot water or a dishwasher before the sharpening begins. This potentially allows non-kosher b?lios to get into the kosher knives. See below for more on this. * The same machine is used to sharpen the (clean) kosher and non-kosher knives, and the friction created by the process does heat up the knives somewhat. If that heat would be above yad soledes bo, there would be a potential for b?lios to transfer between the machinery and knives. However, in tests which Rabbi Neustadt performed in one sharpening company, the sharpening wheel and the cooling water (where that was used) were consistently cooler than 100? F and were not hot to the touch. As such, it appears that this does not pose a serious concern. See the above URL for more. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Mon Dec 4 11:53:58 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2017 14:53:58 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] What are the main mitzvos to focus on? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20171204195358.GC2323@aishdas.org> On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 12:11:31PM +0200, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: : The last daf in Makos (24a) states that the Neviim took the 613 mitzvos and : reduced them to a smaller set for people to focus on. : Michah gave three Mitzvos for people to focus on - "Asos Mishpat..." : "Asos Mishpat" is monetary laws; : "Ahavas Chesed" is bestowing Chesed; Is "din" necessarily a reference to monetary laws? Din vs chessed is a recurring dialectic. As in sheim Elokus vs sheim Havayah. : "V'Hatzne'a Leches Im Elokecha" is escorting the dead and bringing a Kalah : to Chupah; I saw the gemara differently, emphasizing tzeni'us itself. As it explains, one should walk with one's G-d modestly even when doing these two mitzvos, which normally happen in public. And then the gemara continues with a qal vachomer al achas kamah vekamah those which are normally done betzin'ah. So it seems to be closer to the words of the pasuq than the identification with two specific acts of chessed (one of which is famously "chesed shel emes") the gemara begins its explanation with. After all, chessed is already covered in the previous item in the list. (Parallel gemara at Sukkah 49b.) : Yeshayah later gave two primary Mitzvos - "Shimru Mishpat va'Asu Tzedakah." Tangent: You'll notice that Yeshaiah is listed twice, once before Mikhah (giving 6 principles), and once after. As they were contemporaries whose nevu'os overlap in content, R' Simla'i's intent is likely chronological order. : The mitzva of learning Torah which we understand to be the most important : and fundamental mitzva does not appear in these lists.... I think the "we" in your sentence are simply following a hashkafah which isn't majority opinion. Not only does R' Simla'i skip them, in favor of living to emulate HQBH's din and chessed, but - Hillel famously defines all of Torah in terms of using one's empathy to avoiding doing what one's chaver would loathe. Rashi ad loc includes avoiding what one's Chaver would loathe, but in his other discussions of the quote, this aspect is missing. - R' Aqiva and Ben Azzai argue over which pasuq better captures the Torah's kelal gadol, and both are interpersonal. - In both shasin, "Torah lishmah" is discussed in terms of al menas la'asos and/or al menas lelameid. Not knowing for its own sake. See also Meshekh Chokhmah (Devarim 218:61) which I blog about at So, who amongst Chazal really does make learning the central goal of a Jewish man's life? Jumping ahead to the Isms that today's O world is trying to build from: - In chassidus, talmud Torah is a means to deveiqus. - The discussion in Nefesh haChaim sha'ar 4 which denies the previous bullet item might be the earliest source for the position you describe as what "we understand" was written by the same RCV about whom his son says (in the haqadmah to NhC, emphasis mine): He regularly rebuked me, because he saw that I did not participate in the pain of others. And these were his constant words to me: This is the entire person. One is not created for himself, but to benefit others with the full extent of his powers. (SHEZEH KOL HA'ADAM: lo le'atzmo nivra, RAQ LEHO'IL LE'ACHRINI...) So, while sha'ar 4 waxes poetic about the chiyus talmud Torah gives the world, RCV didn't mean to say that therefore learning is the It of life. (And yeshivos tend not to learn shaar 1's discussion of the power of maaseh nor shaar 2's discussion of dibbur. Which also yeilds an imbalance in how one sees the NhC shaar 4's description of machashavah.) - Similarly, while we remember R' Chaim Brisker for inventing Brisker lomdus, he said his main job was to be a baal chessed. And his family agreed; the praise on his matzeivah simply reads "rav chessed". Apparently the Pulmus haMussar was about the proper means to come to embody the ideal, and not what the ideal actually is. This notion that learning is the ends rather than a central part of the means is arguably idiosyncratic. It is far easier to argue that the central mitzvah is to emulate the Meitiv and bring His Tov to others. : Additionally, these lists : seem to consist solely of mitzvos bein adam lachaveiro, are there no : mitzvos ben adam lamakom that are important enought to appear on these : lists? As per what I said above, mitzvos bein adam laMaqom -- or R' Yisrael Salanter's third category of mitzvos being adam le'atzmo, which includes talmud Torah as an act of self-refinement -- is more caring for the goose than the goose's actual laying of the golden eggs. Rather than a question mark, just end with an exclamation point. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger We are great, and our foibles are great, micha at aishdas.org and therefore our troubles are great -- http://www.aishdas.org but our consolations will also be great. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rabbi AY Kook From micha at aishdas.org Mon Dec 4 11:55:56 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2017 14:55:56 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Davening on Airplanes In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20171204195556.GD2323@aishdas.org> On Mon, Dec 04, 2017 at 09:02:39PM +0300, Michael Mirsky via Avodah wrote: : In all the discussions of this topic that I have seen, I haven't seen : anyone address the issue of someone who is in his year of aveilut and needs : a minyan to say kaddish. Do the objections to the possible disturbance a : minyan might cause override this need? How can it be a zekhus to the niftar to say Qaddish in a way that the BALC violations make it a net minus? Tir'u baTov! -Micha From saulguberman at gmail.com Mon Dec 4 12:00:16 2017 From: saulguberman at gmail.com (Saul Guberman) Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2017 15:00:16 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Davening on Airplanes In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: My understanding is that kaddish needs to be said once a day. It is said multi times a day as a hiddur. So, missing one davening should be OK and the zchus of not disturbing other passengers and crew and not creating a chillul hashem should make up for the missed kaddish. On Mon, Dec 4, 2017 at 1:02 PM, Michael Mirsky via Avodah < avodah at lists.aishdas.org> wrote: > In all the discussions of this topic that I have seen, I haven't seen > anyone address the issue of someone who is in his year of aveilut and needs > a minyan to say kaddish. Do the objections to the possible disturbance a > minyan might cause override this need? > > Michael Mirsky > > _______________________________________________ > Avodah mailing list > Avodah at lists.aishdas.org > http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From zev at sero.name Mon Dec 4 12:14:53 2017 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2017 15:14:53 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] knife sharpeners In-Reply-To: <20171204155538.GC26551@aishdas.org> References: <62debe36-f9a2-7cab-d4cb-a60320a1ec83@starways.net> <0115756c-ad5a-dc19-dfdc-aba2138a2858@sero.name> <20171204155538.GC26551@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 04/12/17 10:55, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > On Sat, Dec 02, 2017 at 08:01:31PM -0500, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > : On 02/12/17 15:56, Lisa Liel via Avodah wrote: > : >Are knife sharpeners mekabel taam?? And noten taam?? Do you need > : >different onces for meat, dairy, pesach, etc? > : > : Since they don't ever contact food, I don't see how they could. > > Since they are in heated contact with the knife, aren't there potential > na"t bar na"t issues? Knives are sharpened while hot?! With water? -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From micha at aishdas.org Mon Dec 4 12:48:38 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2017 15:48:38 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Davening on Airplanes In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20171204204838.GA1334@aishdas.org> On Mon, Dec 04, 2017 at 03:00:16PM -0500, Saul Guberman via Avodah wrote: : My understanding is that kaddish needs to be said once a day. It is said : multi times a day as a hiddur... See YD 376:4. The Rama discusses it in terms of a minhag, actually a variety of whatever is "minhag qavu'ah ba'ir". : the zchus of not disturbing other passengers and crew and not creating a : chillul hashem should make up for the missed kaddish. Especially since it's the avoidance of an actual issur vs a medieval or post-medieval minhag. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Life isn't about finding yourself. micha at aishdas.org Life is about creating yourself. http://www.aishdas.org - George Bernard Shaw Fax: (270) 514-1507 From micha at aishdas.org Mon Dec 4 13:34:04 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2017 16:34:04 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Letzareif Message-ID: <20171204213404.GA32594@aishdas.org> In Bereishis Rabb 44:1, Rav says Lo nitenu hamitzvos ela letzarei bahen es haberios And what does it matter to HQBH who shechtas from the throat and who shechts from the back of the neck? Havei: lo nitenu hamitzvos ela letzarei bahen es haberios Letzareif is a metaphor of melting. The problem is, whether we mean smelting / refining, or to meld to thing together (as in "mitzrareif")? Are we being told that mitzvos were given to refine people, or to connect them? Or is the word chosen in order to intentionally carry both meanings? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger If you're going through hell micha at aishdas.org keep going. http://www.aishdas.org - Winston Churchill Fax: (270) 514-1507 From bdbradley70 at hotmail.com Mon Dec 4 14:03:37 2017 From: bdbradley70 at hotmail.com (Ben Bradley) Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2017 22:03:37 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] knife sharpeners In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: ': On 02/12/17 15:56, Lisa Liel via Avodah wrote: : >Are knife sharpeners mekabel taam?? And noten taam?? Do you need : >different onces for meat, dairy, pesach, etc? : : Since they don't ever contact food, I don't see how they could. Since they are in heated contact with the knife, aren't there potential na"t bar na"t issues?' Knife sharpeners get hot? What kind of sharpeners are we talking about here? I've never seen a domestic knife sharpener which gets beyond slightly warm. But even if it did, the food would be na't to the knife, the knife to the sharpener, the sharpener to the second knife and thence to the food again. Which is na't bar na't bar na't bar na't. I thought that's not a problem in hilchos basar b'chalav? BW Ben -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Mon Dec 4 14:29:08 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2017 17:29:08 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] The 13 middos In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20171204222908.GA10223@aishdas.org> On Sun, Dec 03, 2017 at 11:13:00AM +0200, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: : The Gemara in Shavuos (4b) discusses who the Tanna of the Mishna is and : brings down a fundamental machlokes tannaim about the 13 middos. R' : Yishmael darshens klal uprat and R' Akiva darshens ribuy umiut. The : Acharonim point out that these are mutually exclusive and every Tanna : darshens one or the other but they cannot be mixed (e.g. a Tanna sometimes : darshens ribuy umiut and sometimes klal uprat). ... I do not understand this paranthetic comment, as it refers to a kind of mixture, a tanna who uses both styles of derashah, as an example of how they cannot be mixed. The willingness of the two batei midrash to use the others' methodology is stated outright on Bekhoros 51a. One such tanna is R' Aqiva himself, eg Yerushalmi Sotah 8:1 (vilna 34a). See RSRH's discussion in Collected Writings V pg 170. : something so fundamental as the 13 middos be a matter of dispute? Weren't : the 13 middos given to Moshe at Har Sinai? How could they forget such a : basic thing? ... The methodology could have been in use informally before Hillel started the meta-Torah of the study and formalization of rules to describe that methodology. Just as people can use proper grammar before anyone makes a formal study of the language's grammatical rules. Since each did use the others' rules, the formalized rule system doesn't actually define the list of inherited laws. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger None of us will leave this place alive. micha at aishdas.org All that is left to us is http://www.aishdas.org to be as human as possible while we are here. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Anonymous MD, while a Nazi prisoner From marty.bluke at gmail.com Mon Dec 4 21:15:42 2017 From: marty.bluke at gmail.com (Marty Bluke) Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2017 07:15:42 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] The 13 middos In-Reply-To: <20171204222908.GA10223@aishdas.org> References: <20171204222908.GA10223@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Tuesday, December 5, 2017, Micha Berger wrote:... > > > I do not understand this paranthetic comment, as it refers to a kind of > mixture, a tanna who uses both styles of derashah, as an example of how > they cannot be mixed. The willingness of the two batei midrash to use the > others' methodology is stated outright on Bekhoros 51a. > > One such tanna is R' Aqiva himself, eg Yerushalmi Sotah 8:1 (vilna 34a). > > See RSRH's discussion in Collected Writings V pg 170. See the Mishne Lamelech avadim 3:9 where he states that it is either or and the 2 styles cannot be mixed, and his main proof is from the Gemara Shavuos 4b where the Gemara asks on Rebbe how can he darshen a ribui umiut like R Akiva if in general he darshens Klal Uprat. We see clearly that the Gemara assumes you darshen 1 or the other but not both otherwise the Gemara would have no question. See also tosafos nidda 30a s.v. Ushma mina where tosafos says that we pasken that we darshen Klal uprat and not ribui umiut. That only makes sense if they are mutually exclusive. See also tosafos shavuos 25a s.v. Rav who also assumes that it is either or. Regarding the Gemara in bechoros 51a it is actually a proof the other way. The Gemara says that this case is an exception because it is not written in the normal way of a Klal uprat and therefore in this case only Rebbe can learn a ribui umiut but in general someone who learns Klal uprat could not use ribui umiut. > > Tir'u baTov! > -Micha > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From JRich at sibson.com Mon Dec 4 22:13:31 2017 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2017 06:13:31 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Davening on Airplanes In-Reply-To: <20171204204838.GA1334@aishdas.org> References: , <20171204204838.GA1334@aishdas.org> Message-ID: > > Especially since it's the avoidance of an actual issur vs a medieval or > post-medieval ---------- All very true, yet the Hamon am has invested Kaddish with great importance. Does that investiture have a halachic chalot? It seems it does at least in terms of kavod Kt Joel 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. From akivagmiller at gmail.com Tue Dec 5 03:22:57 2017 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2017 06:22:57 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Gid ha'nasheh Message-ID: . R' Chaim Tatel wrote: > At any rate, it makes sense that Yaakov would be hit there, > as a reminder that his marriage to Rachel after his marriage > to her sister Leah would not hold up when he entered Eretz > Yisrael. (not long after this episode, Rachel died in childbirth > of Binyamin). > > Aside from feeling the psychological pain of Rachel?s death, > perhaps Yaakov also had to feel physical pain. I draw a distinction between "consequences" and "punishments". I have heard in the past that Eretz Yisrael was unable to tolerate Yaakov's being married to two sisters, and that Rachel's death was a consequence of that. But RCT writes that Yaakov was given a reminder of that consequence, and that he had to feel pain as well. Now it sounds like Yaakov was being punished. If he was punished, it must be that he was punished for some choice that he made. What choice was that? What did he do wrong? If he could do it all over again, what ought he do differently? Specifically: After having married Leah, should he have not married Rachel? Alternatively, (according to those who say that he was not fooled but knew that Leah had the simanim,) should he have not married Leah? Or should he have protested and annuled the marriage to Leah? If he was punished, what did he do wrong? Akiva Miller From akivagmiller at gmail.com Tue Dec 5 03:33:20 2017 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2017 06:33:20 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Davening on Airplanes Message-ID: . R' Michael Mirsky asked: > In all the discussions of this topic that I have seen, I > haven't seen anyone address the issue of someone who is in > his year of aveilut and needs a minyan to say kaddish. Do the > objections to the possible disturbance a minyan might cause > override this need? RMM seems to be suggesting that this individual's need to say kaddish is greater than the usual need to daven Tefila B'Tzibur. I have heard other people express this feeling, but I've never seen any evidence for it in seforim or elsewhere. I'll express it another way: I am well aware that there are many many people who are somewhat lax in their minyan attendance in general, but for yahrzeit or aveilus they are much more meticulous. This is not a bad thing; whatever will help get people into shul is good. But I do think that their values might be misplaced. Akiva Miller From larry62341 at optonline.net Tue Dec 5 05:12:22 2017 From: larry62341 at optonline.net (Prof. Levine) Date: Tue, 05 Dec 2017 08:12:22 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] How often to day kaddish Message-ID: <2E.1E.03203.73B962A5@mta4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> Saul Guberman wrote: My understanding is that kaddish needs to be said once a day. It is said multi times a day as a hiddur. So, missing one davening should be OK and the zchus of not disturbing other passengers and crew and not creating a chillul hashem should make up for the missed kaddish. ________________________________________________________ According to the original din only, only one person said kaddish at a time. (This is still what is done in some places like KAJ and Bais Hatalmud). Thus, if there are many people saying kaddish in a shul that keeps the original din, it is conceivable that one might not get to say kaddish every day or even longer. Hence I do not think that one needs to say kaddish once a day. YL From akivagmiller at gmail.com Tue Dec 5 04:53:47 2017 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2017 07:53:47 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Letzareif Message-ID: . R' Micha Berger wrote: > Lo nitenu hamitzvos ela letzarei bahen es haberios > ... > Letzareif is a metaphor of melting. The problem is, whether > we mean smelting / refining, or to meld to thing together (as > in "mitzrareif")? > Are we being told that mitzvos were given to refine people, > or to connect them? Or is the word chosen in order to > intentionally carry both meanings? "Ratzah HKBH l'zakos es Yisrael..." Does "zakos" mean to purify, or to give zechus? I perceive a similar poetry in both l'tzaref and l'zakos, but I'm not much of a poet, so I'll leave this thought for the rest of y'all to ponder and expand uon. Akiva Miller From marty.bluke at gmail.com Tue Dec 5 01:10:14 2017 From: marty.bluke at gmail.com (Marty Bluke) Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2017 11:10:14 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] What are the main mitzvos to focus on? In-Reply-To: <20171204195358.GC2323@aishdas.org> References: <20171204195358.GC2323@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Mon, Dec 4, 2017 at 9:53 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 12:11:31PM +0200, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: > : The last daf in Makos (24a) states that the Neviim took the 613 mitzvos > and > : reduced them to a smaller set for people to focus on. > > : ... > > : The mitzva of learning Torah which we understand to be the most important > : and fundamental mitzva does not appear in these lists.... > > I think the "we" in your sentence are simply following a hashkafah which > isn't majority opinion. > ... > So, who amongst Chazal really does make learning the central goal of a > Jewish man's life? > > ... > This notion that learning is the ends rather than a central part of > the means is arguably idiosyncratic. It is far easier to argue that the > central mitzvah is to emulate the Meitiv and bring His Tov to others. > > Tir'u baTov! > -Micha So basically you are saying that the current Charedi hashkafa/lifestyle of Torah only and Torah learning being the ultimate purpose of life is not a majority opinion in Chazal and in fact you can't find anyone among Chazal who says this. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Tue Dec 5 09:02:00 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2017 12:02:00 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] What are the main mitzvos to focus on? In-Reply-To: References: <20171204195358.GC2323@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20171205170200.GB5251@aishdas.org> On Tue, Dec 05, 2017 at 11:10:14AM +0200, Marty Bluke wrote: : So basically you are saying that the current Charedi hashkafa/lifestyle of : Torah only and Torah learning being the ultimate purpose of life is not a : majority opinion in Chazal and in fact you can't find anyone among Chazal : who says this. I intentionally avoided stating it that confrontationally, but yes. Although not "chareidi", "yeshivish". Excluding most chassidim but including the large population of MO who are taking yeshivish hashkafah and harmonizing it with modernity. (Eg RYBS as understood by many of his students.) See, for example, R Tzevi Sinsky's currently running series out of YHE ("Gush") "Talmud Torah: The Mitzva of Torah Study". He draws heavily from R' Yehudah Amital and R' N Lamm (whom RZS calls "mori uzeqeini"); his perspective is that of DL and MO, not "chareidim". Here's the web abstract for the opening shiur: In this introductory shiur, we explore the centrality of Torah study in the thought of the Rabbis. From Noach to Ezra, prominent Jewish leaders throughout the biblical period are portrayed as Torah scholars, and this mitzva is ascribed paramount importance in every aspect of life. In particular, shiur 3 discusses the purpose of talmud Torah, discussing various approached. The section "Approach #1 -- Instrumentalism" quotes pesuqim, mishayos, Toseftra, gemaros, before getting to rishonim (Rashi, Rambam, Ramban, Chinukh, Me'iri, Or H'. See also RNSlifkin's long list of quotes from rishonim at .) In contrast, "Approach #2 -- Cultivating a Halakhic Ethos" opens with the Chazon Ish then mentions R' Chaim Brisker as desribed in Halakhic Man. "Approach #3 -- Variations on Deveikut" starts with the Rambam leveraging a Sifrei (who I do not see as giving their description of /the/ purpose of learning), but focuses on Chassidus, R' Kook and R' Amital. Notice that learning being primarily valuable instrumentally is the shitah for which RZS can find overwhelming evidence in chazal and rishonim, the others being johnny-come-latelies of the last centuries. As for my own opinion, I wouldn't call approach #2 the cultivation of a "halachic ethos". I think this reflects Brisk's tendency to conflate halakhah with kol haTorah kulah, downplaying the import of aggadita. And yet, this wording does emphasize how approach 1 includes approach 2. If we are obligated in hilkhos dei'os / chovos halvavos / ve'asisa hayashar vehatov / to develop a *Torah* ethos, then #2 is also instrumental. We learn Mes' Sukkah to know how to fulfill the mitzvah of sukkah, and we learn Mes' Pirqei Avos to know to to fulfill the mitzvah of vehalakhta bidrakhav. See, it's instrumental! The difference boils down to what I believe was the central chiluq behind the pulmus haMussar: In the Brisker worldview, when RCVolozhiner compares talmud Torah to immersion in a miqvah, he means it descriptively. Learn halakhah as an end in itself, an it will leave a roshem of taharah. Even if the causality involved is mystical and non-obvious. Whereas R Yisrael Salanter looked at the actual metzi'us of the society he was in -- and all the moreso ours -- and concluded that this couldn't have been RCV's intent. Rather, RCV was speaking descriptively; when one learns correctly, one is learning in a way that leaves a roshem of taharah, even if the material itself is never understood or gets forgotten. And RYS had the lifestyle of RCV's talmid, R' Zundel Salanter, as indication of what Nefesh haChaim was intending to describe. Thus, to a mussarist, RCV was describing how to learn. Don't just learn nega'im to find chiluqim with which to explain machloqesin and non-obvious dinim. Rather, in addition one must spend the time driving home the roshem of how bad LH and ga'avah are, that HQBH felt it worth aiding teshuvah in these areas. And those two topics are far more connected in Telzher derekh than Brisker, but I think I've ranged far enough. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Spirituality is like a bird: if you tighten micha at aishdas.org your grip on it, it chokes; slacken your grip, http://www.aishdas.org and it flies away. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From micha at aishdas.org Tue Dec 5 10:39:48 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2017 13:39:48 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Davening on Airplanes In-Reply-To: References: <20171204204838.GA1334@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20171205183948.GA31307@aishdas.org> On Tue, Dec 05, 2017 at 06:13:31AM +0000, Rich, Joel wrote: :> Especially since it's the avoidance of an actual issur vs a medieval or :> post-medieval : All very true, yet the Hamon am has invested Kaddish with great : importance. Does that investiture have a halachic chalot? It seems it : does at least in terms of kavod Reading the kesuvah under the chuppah is just a stall while we wait some gap of time to separate qiddushin and nissuin. A maaseh kof. And yet because it is time in the spot-light, common practice is to treat it as the second greatest kibud, often what you give the other rav you might have made mesader qiddushin. When it comes to kibud, public treatment does indeed matter. And logically enough; after all, being mekhubad is an issue of seeing others display feelings of kavod. How we display it /should/ be secondary. All logical. However, here we are talking about someone in the olam ha'emes. So they know that while on the plane you have that actual issur keeping you from fulfilling the minhag of saying qaddish. For that matter, hopefully and typically said parent worked really hard at trying to get the avel to respect others. And if not, again, at this point the soul of even the worst parent would know better. So I do not think it's likely the neshamah would mind the lack of kibud as much as they would mind the misplacement of values. I would therefore not draw any conclusions from the logical linkage of kibud with intent and norms. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Between stimulus & response, there is a space. micha at aishdas.org In that space is our power to choose our http://www.aishdas.org response. In our response lies our growth Fax: (270) 514-1507 and our freedom. - Victor Frankl, (MSfM) From llevine at stevens.edu Wed Dec 6 01:39:18 2017 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2017 09:39:18 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Gambling in Halachah Message-ID: <7b63aab9b65f4c589d76fe326bd18f97@exchng03.campus.stevens-tech.edu> Click here to download "Gambling in Halachah" [That's the Kof-K's Halachically Speaking vol 13, issue 18, dedicated to this topic. -micha] From micha at aishdas.org Wed Dec 6 11:36:19 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2017 14:36:19 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Gid ha'nasheh In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20171206193619.GB12102@aishdas.org> On Tue, Dec 05, 2017 at 06:22:57AM -0500, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: :> Aside from feeling the psychological pain of Rachel?s death, :> perhaps Yaakov also had to feel physical pain. : : I draw a distinction between "consequences" and "punishments"... For those who don't remember from prior iterations, I don't. I think the difference between callins an onesh a consequence and calling it a punishment (or even "corrective") is whether one views sekhar va'onesh as a system that HQBH set up when He set up the universe or as a set of responses He has to our actions. "Chai gever al chata'av" implies one, our tefillos on yamim nora'im frequently imply the other. But both are simply simplified models of the incomprehensible Truth of how Hashem runs the universe. Since He is lemaalah min hazeman, we can't talk about whether the decision was made in maaseh bereishis or in response to our action -- both are ascribing times to a timeless Action (for want of a better word). We can only speak of a when for the effects of Divine Action, as they enter our timefull experience. : I have : heard in the past that Eretz Yisrael was unable to tolerate Yaakov's : being married to two sisters, and that Rachel's death was a : consequence of that. ... which is typical of an onesh -- a sin causes its own punishment. The two explanations are not mutually exclusive. To say that it was the land's qedushah causing something that wasn't in line with justice, one has to explain why there are rules that hide Hashem's Justice that aren't part of the hesteir panim necessary for free will. We need laws of nature to plan how to execute a decision, but laws of metaphysics? ... : If he was punished, it must be that he was punished for some choice : that he made. What choice was that? What did he do wrong? If he could : do it all over again, what ought he do differently? Specifically: : After having married Leah, should he have not married Rachel? Well, isn't that the halakhah? Or maybe the issur was in whatever it was that had him marrying a woman without noticing that her eyes were rakos (whatever that means). Perhaps the mistake was due to a criminal level of negligence. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Man is equipped with such far-reaching vision, micha at aishdas.org yet the smallest coin can obstruct his view. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yisrael Salanter Fax: (270) 514-1507 From micha at aishdas.org Wed Dec 6 11:23:17 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2017 14:23:17 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] The 13 middos In-Reply-To: References: <20171204222908.GA10223@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20171206192317.GA12102@aishdas.org> On Tue, Dec 05, 2017 at 07:15:42AM +0200, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: : See the Mishne Lamelech avadim 3:9 where he states that it is either or and : the 2 styles cannot be mixed, and his main proof is from the Gemara Shavuos : 4b where the Gemara asks on Rebbe how can he darshen a ribui umiut like R : Akiva if in general he darshens Klal Uprat... And yet the conclution on 5a is that he holds like R' Yishma'el's beis medrash who holds the derashah is not kelal uperat but ribui umi'ut ("ribah umi'at"). R Yisma'el, the one who codified the rules of kelal uperat is the one who here uses ribui umi'ut!? So is the gemara really saying that Rebbe is not crossing the line, as it seems to be saying. Or is it intentionally also implying there is no line to cross? Tosafos there ("detana Devei R' Yishma'el") might be saying the latter; it is too terse for me to be sure of intent. And yet further down on 5a, we have "Hashta de'amres... -- Now that you say that Rebbe darshans kelal uperat, you are forced into a question about shavu'os...?" IOW, reassuming the line. In any case, I am totally lost. In a discussion of how no one uses both sets of rules, it cites the school that created one set using the other set, and not saying anything about it. There is more going on here than I comprehend so far. As RSRH said (Collected Writings vol V pg 170), there are many such cases of R' Yishmael and R' Aqiva uses the other's rules. RSRH treats the rule as a tendency, rather than a line one may not cross. I wish I knew his interpretation of the gemara in Shavuos. But it's not like the MlM, nor the ba'al Atzmos Yoseif (whom the MlM is discussing), and does acknowledge the actual positions taken across both shasin. Just thinking out loud... Maybe the gemaros we're looking at are bothered because these are all cases where both kelalim apply and in each case they imply different dinim. IOW, it is not a question of Rebbe (or devei R Yismael) using ribui umi'ut, but of favoring the derashah that he tends not to OVER the derashah that is his norm. And to handle RSRH's observation, in a case where it is not a choice between conflicting kinds of derashos, no one would be asking why Rebbe used a kelal uperat, as such line-crossing is normal. : See also tosafos nidda 30a s.v. Ushma mina where tosafos says that we : pasken that we darshen Klal uprat and not ribui umiut... Nidda 30a "ushma minah tevilah bizmanah mitzvah" is about holding like Beis Shammai, and doesn't mention derashos. The previous d"h, "shema minah telas" (a near match) also isn't on topic. Could you please fix the citation for me? : Regarding the Gemara in bechoros 51a it is actually a proof the other way. : The Gemara says that this case is an exception because it is not written in : the normal way of a Klal uprat and therefore in this case only... This is a 2nd variant of the same sugya as Shavu'os. (To clarify for those moderately interested, but not sufficiently so to look for themselves.) Rashi ("hakha"), who says it's a general rule: kelal uperat ukelal isn't judged as a kelal uperat but as a ribui umi'ut. IIUC, Rashi is saying that Rebbe is staying within his usual rule set, but this is a case where both rule sets include the same derashah, just under different names. Thanks to RMTorczyner (CCed) : > Choosing between using "Kelal/Perat" and "Ribuy/Miut": Eruvin 27b-28a; > Succah 50b; Kiddushin 21b The first two don't really deal with tannaim using only one rule set, but Qiddush 21b is a third version of our sugya. I didn't see anything to add to the discussion beyond a way to rope RMT in, and perhaps he'll talk to R' Jonathan Ziring about the question. (RMT is the Rosh Beit Midrash of the YU-Torah Mitzion Zichron Dov Beit Midrash of Toronto, RJZ is the segan. Back when RJZ was in the kollel at YHE ["Gush"], he gave a series of shiurim on meta-halakhah. I thought I had RJZ's address, as we had a short correspondance, but since I didn't find it, I figured that once I was bothering RMT for his opinion...) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger I always give much away, micha at aishdas.org and so gather happiness instead of pleasure. http://www.aishdas.org - Rachel Levin Varnhagen Fax: (270) 514-1507 From micha at aishdas.org Wed Dec 6 12:06:08 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2017 15:06:08 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] TEXTUAL JUDAISM AND THE LIVING TORAH In-Reply-To: <9e51a7f4ea644e829db8503f8f0451fe@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <9e51a7f4ea644e829db8503f8f0451fe@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20171206200608.GC12102@aishdas.org> On Thu, Nov 02, 2017 at 12:12:05PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : http://etzion.org.il/en/siman-114-prayers-wind-rain-and-dew : :> TEXTUAL JUDAISM AND THE LIVING TORAH : :> In his introduction to the Beit Yosef... ... I think there are two things we need to keep in mind, that R' Asher Meir does not touch upon: 1- The question isn't whether the BY or some other poseiq does or doesn't consider the extent to which a particular pesaq was nispasheit. But rather something less boolean: how much weight does any given poseiq give mimeticism, and in comparison to which other factors. A number of years ago I proposed a model (then modified it in a later iteration) of 4 classes of factors a poseiq needs to weigh. And that one of the leading reasons why pesaq is an art rather than an algorithm is that their can't be formal rules for comparing the magnitudes of apples and oranges -- and bananas and parsimons? Here's what I came up with: - textual logic: which sevara do you find most compelling? Litvaks typically put most of the emphasis - textual authority: rules like azlinan basar ruba, or giving more weight to the Rambam's or Rosh's pinion than to some Baal Tosafos we rarely hear of. This seems to be ROY's favorite territory. - minhag avos / mimeticism - hashkafic concerns (including philosophy, qaballah): like when chassidim and talmidei haGra stopped putting on tefillin on ch"m because it is qotzeitz binti'os. No one would place hashkafic concerns high on the list. Ein dorshin taamei hamizvos. A poseiq only leaves formal halachic analysis when multiple opinions are defensible, which "right answer" does one choose? But different posqim still give it different weight; requiring more or less equity between the halachic analysis of the different possible pesaqim before being willing to let the hashkafah tip the scales. 2- The BY is a text. To really talk about mimeticism, we're talking about what people do naturally. A poseiq may need to factor in which pesaq was nispasheit, but by doing so he is not being a mimetic. The AhS is more likely to find justifications for mimetic practice while the MB is more likely to recommend changing practice. But deciding to follow either is choosing textuallism over mimeticism. Mimeticism is following the same pesaq the AhS just defended because that's what everone does, it's the example your parents and/or your peers set, not because it's a pesaq with a sevara and sources. Still, it's interesting to find an example of the BY overriding his triumverate and clearly stating a reason that is at odds with his haqdamah. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Take time, micha at aishdas.org be exact, http://www.aishdas.org unclutter the mind. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rabbi Simcha Zissel Ziv, Alter of Kelm From micha at aishdas.org Wed Dec 6 13:40:04 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2017 16:40:04 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] More on Yaakov, sheep and the rods In-Reply-To: <50458059-A03F-4E6E-B54B-F1612B0E7E5B@jsli.org> References: <50458059-A03F-4E6E-B54B-F1612B0E7E5B@jsli.org> Message-ID: <20171206214004.GD12102@aishdas.org> On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 12:20:44PM -0500, Alexander Seinfeld via Avodah wrote: : Why not just interpret this as an example of phenotypic plasticity, : meaning the genetic potential is there in every generation, and the : environmental factors stimulate its expression? : : As everyone who had genetics 101 will realize, if you eliminate 100% : of the phenotype, and breed the remainder you will still get some of : that phenotype in the next generation with recessive genes. So it always : bothered me why was all the hokus pokus by Yaakov necessary.... I would learn from this incident in Bereishis that one is obligated to do whatever hishtadlus is possible by the best understanding of teva available to you. And not to worry about what the current theory may get replaced by. Along similar lines: R Avigdor Miller taught that since HQBH is Rofei kol basar, medicine doesn't actually heal. The role of doctors and medicine is to prevent Hashem's cure from requiring a neis nigleh. And, he explains, this is why people actually survived despite medical theories involving 4 humours and bloodletting, or whatnot. Any accepted theory is equally usable. I don't buy into this, because if true, medicine would never need to advance, in fact, accepted medical theory would never be disproved. Still, I find the idea intriguing. It fits the notion, which might be the Ramban's (depending on how you fit multiple comments together) and is definitely REED's that teva is not a real "thing", but the patterns Hashem uses to hide His Action behind. It's all neis nistar, really Now, if one were to apply the same idea to parnasah, one could explain the purpose of Yaakov's efforts. And even if RAvigdorM's theory is hard to see as how teva works for the rest of us, it's easier to apply to someone who is as neis-worthy, including neis-nistar-worthy, as Yaaqov avinu. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger You want to know how to paint a perfect micha at aishdas.org painting? It's easy. http://www.aishdas.org Make yourself perfect and then just paint Fax: (270) 514-1507 naturally. -Robert Pirsig From akivagmiller at gmail.com Wed Dec 6 15:10:18 2017 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2017 18:10:18 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Gid ha'nasheh Message-ID: . I asked: : If he was punished, it must be that he was punished for some choice : that he made. What choice was that? What did he do wrong? If he could : do it all over again, what ought he do differently? Specifically: : After having married Leah, should he have not married Rachel? and R' Micha Berger responded: > Well, isn't that the halakhah? I want to publicly thank RMB for a beautiful post, and for reminding me of some very important concepts. We learn so much of the machinations of what went on in this incident, how each step was important and necessary in various ways, that I was a bit shocked to hear it suggested that Yaakov Avinu was being punished for his choices here. But truth be told, the line between punishment and consequence can be arbitrary, subjective .... or even imaginary. We DO accept the reality of a "necessary evil", or a "greater good". It's not all black and white. "Well, isn't that the halakhah?" Indeed, the halacha prescribes The Way To Go, but that is no guarantee that there won't be unpleasant side effects. If the Kohen Gadol happens upon a Mes Mitzvah on Yom Kippur morning, the halacha is clear that he must get involved, even if that means that the day's avodah won't go as planned. So too, Yaakov Avinu and Rachel Imenu married each other because Klal Yisrael needed it, and if such a releationship was incompatible with Kedushas Haaretz, well, unfortunately, they'll have to endure the consequences. Akiva Miller From meirabi at gmail.com Wed Dec 6 18:07:12 2017 From: meirabi at gmail.com (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi) Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2017 13:07:12 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] =?utf-8?q?SEDRA_VAYEISHEV_=E2=80=93_TIME_TO_LOOK_IN_THE_?= =?utf-8?q?MIRROR?= Message-ID: When the little kid threatens a bouncer ? we all laugh. It is funny precisely because it is so silly and impossible. DJT, a buffoon, a bumbling, blithering bad-boy, could not possibly win the presidency. It was the standing joke that never grew stale ? until he became POTUS. Our Sages say, we are truly unmasked by Kiso Koso & KaAso ? by what we?re like when feeling liberated: # deciding how to use our valuables i.e. by what we consider to be important # intoxicated [not necessarily by alcohol] # we are agitated i.e. by what presses our buttons. Yosef tells his brothers about his dream ? expecting them to laugh it off and he gives them a second chance after they?ve had an opportunity to reconsider their response. When we get offended and mock ? it?s time to look in the mirror. Best, Meir G. Rabi 0423 207 837 +61 423 207 837 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From marty.bluke at gmail.com Thu Dec 7 02:27:17 2017 From: marty.bluke at gmail.com (Marty Bluke) Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2017 12:27:17 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] The 13 middos In-Reply-To: <20171206192317.GA12102@aishdas.org> References: <20171204222908.GA10223@aishdas.org> <20171206192317.GA12102@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 9:23 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > On Tue, Dec 05, 2017 at 07:15:42AM +0200, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: > : See the Mishne Lamelech avadim 3:9 where he states that it is either or > and > : the 2 styles cannot be mixed, and his main proof is from the Gemara > Shavuos > : 4b where the Gemara asks on Rebbe how can he darshen a ribui umiut like R > : Akiva if in general he darshens Klal Uprat... > > And yet the conclution on 5a is that he holds like R' Yishma'el's beis > medrash who holds the derashah is not kelal uperat but ribui umi'ut > ("ribah umi'at"). R Yisma'el, the one who codified the rules of kelal > uperat is the one who here uses ribui umi'ut!? > The Gemara says that this case is an exception because it is not written in the normal way of a Klal uprat and therefore in this case ONLY Rebbe can learn a ribui umiut but in general someone who learns Klal uprat could not use ribui umiut. > ... > > : See also tosafos nidda 30a s.v. Ushma mina where tosafos says that we > : pasken that we darshen Klal uprat and not ribui umiut... > > Nidda 30a "ushma minah tevilah bizmanah mitzvah" is about holding > like Beis Shammai, and doesn't mention derashos. The previous d"h, > "shema minah telas" (a near match) also isn't on topic. Could you > please fix the citation for me? > See the last 2 lines in the Tosafos that I quoted, Tosafos states "d'darish ribui umiut, V'Kayma lan d'darshinan klali uprati" Tosafos paskens that we darshen klal uprat not ribui umiut, that strongly implies that they are mutuallt exclusive > > > > > Tir'u baTov! > -Micha > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From JRich at sibson.com Wed Dec 6 21:49:36 2017 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2017 05:49:36 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] zmanim Message-ID: <550be79bd779462fa5534e6b58fba249@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> As sunrise got later I was at a minyan where the earliest time for tallit was approximately the same as the minyan starting time. I watched as everybody watched their cell phones for the exact time to start from Myzmanim. (Of course that website says not to rely on to it to the minute) I was wondering whether this close watch was a subset of a broader need of man modern man to have exactitude in life versus living with gray. (Sort of a desire to be Newtonian in a quantum world) I was also wondering whether the advent of the railroad table approach now requires us to halachically follow that exactness rather than that the "it looks right to me" approach of Chazal? Thoughts? KT 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: From larry62341 at optonline.net Thu Dec 7 03:09:25 2017 From: larry62341 at optonline.net (Prof. Levine) Date: Thu, 07 Dec 2017 06:09:25 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Davening on Airplanes In-Reply-To: <900051a759eb4fd1a58d4fda4d74fca6@exchng03.campus.stevens-t ech.edu> References: <900051a759eb4fd1a58d4fda4d74fca6@exchng03.campus.stevens-tech.edu> Message-ID: <32.C2.03752.761292A5@mta3.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> At 08:12 PM 12/6/2017, R Micha Berger wrote: >When it comes to kibud, public treatment does indeed matter... >However, here we are talking about someone in the olam ha'emes. So they >know that while on the plane you have that actual issur keeping you from >fulfilling the minhag of saying qaddish... >So I do not think it's likely the neshamah would mind the lack of kibud >as much as they would mind the misplacement of values. I would therefore >not draw any conclusions from the logical linkage of kibud with intent >and norms. From The Mussar Movement, Volume 1, Part 2 pages 248 - 249. On one of the anniversaries of his father's death, R. Israel was in Memel. He was informed that someone else in the synagogue wished to say Kaddish. Now R. Israel was very insistent that only one person at a time be allowed to recite the Kaddish at the services [28] and apparently this congregation had complied with his ruling. Reb Yitzchak Isaacson was observing the jahrzeit of a daughter who had died very young. Now the Halachah gives precedence to a son observing the jahrzeit of a parent on these occasions, and R. Israel was obviously entitled to the privilege. Sensing the grief he would cause the father by depriving him of the opportunity to say Kaddish for his daughter, R. Israel went up to him and said: "You sir, will say Kaddish." The worshippers expressed their surprise. Not only had R. Israel yielded his own right, but also overlooked the duty of honoring his father, since he was, by law, obliged to say Kaddish. He explained to them that the merit of extending kindness (gemi- lut chesed) to a fellow Jew possessed far greater value than the saying of Kaddish.[29] [28.] See R. Naftali Amsterdam's will, published in Or Hamusar No. 13. See Vol. II of the Hebrew edition of this series, Tenu'at Hamusar, II, Chap. 25. [29.] Ernile Benjamin, op. cit., p. 25. From seinfeld at daasbooks.com Thu Dec 7 06:50:16 2017 From: seinfeld at daasbooks.com (Alexander Seinfeld) Date: Thu, 07 Dec 2017 09:50:16 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Gid ha'nasheh Message-ID: It seems to me there are two plausible answers, and both may be correct. 1. Yes, he should not have married Rachel. This is in fact what Leah tells her, ?You stole my husband.? He was tricked, but he accepted Leah, did not annul the marriage, so too bad for Rachel. She?s the one who gave away the password. 2. He wasn?t yet Yisroel. He was still a ben Noach. When he becomes Yisroel, he is now required to keep the Taryag Mitzvos. It is right after this name change that she dies. I?m not sure why she doesn?t die immediately (in Beit-El) rather en route to Efrat. But this delay may have sown doubt into his mind about his status - maybe he is still a ben Noach. His sons consider themselves Bnai Yisroel, which is why they are eating meat that for a ben-Noach would be eiver-min-ha-chai, and which is part of the lashon hara that Yoseph brings back to Yaakov. But his judgment that they are Bnai Noach is not merely academic, it is personal, because it has implications in Rachel?s death. > >If he was punished, it must be that he was punished for some choice >that he made. What choice was that? What did he do wrong? If he could >do it all over again, what ought he do differently? Specifically: >After having married Leah, should he have not married Rachel? >Alternatively, (according to those who say that he was not fooled but >knew that Leah had the simanim,) should he have not married Leah? Or >should he have protested and annuled the marriage to Leah? > >If he was punished, what did he do wrong? From micha at aishdas.org Thu Dec 7 11:06:53 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2017 14:06:53 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Gid ha'nasheh In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20171207190653.GB26083@aishdas.org> On Wed, Dec 06, 2017 at 06:10:18PM -0500, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : We DO accept the reality of a "necessary evil", or a "greater good". : It's not all black and white. "Well, isn't that the halakhah?" Indeed, : the halacha prescribes The Way To Go, but that is no guarantee that : there won't be unpleasant side effects... A number of rishonim (eg Ramban, Seforno) deal with the problem of miracles. Since HQBH is Perfect and is capable of a perfect creation, why would He make a world in which He occasionally would have to step in and override teva? This is where the Ramban comes in with the idea that not only the miraculous items listed in Pirqei Avos created during Maaseh Bereishis, every "exception" to the laws of nature are actually special cases written into the law. I'll pause here to remind of what I said last email about "at the time of creation" and "in response to the situation" both being oversimplifications caused by us temporal beings trying to think about Hashem's "Action" which is lemaalah min hazeman and has no "when". Similarly, one can ask about His Authorship of halakhah. Since Hashem is capable of writing a system of laws to fit the universe in a way where obeying the law never has "unpleasant side effects", why wouldn't He? One backstep... I just realized you mean something broader by "side effects" than I was talking about. As you later write: : upon a Mes Mitzvah on Yom Kippur morning, the halacha is clear that he : must get involved, even if that means that the day's avodah won't go : as planned... Similarly, if piquach nefesh is docheh Shabbos, rather than Shabbos being huterah, one may have the misfortune of having to violate Shabbos. But that's not sekhar va'onesh, and my question "but what about Divine Justice?" doesn't apply. Not unless the "unpleasant side effect" is -- as in the case of Yaaqov's widowerhood or his hip -- painful (physically and/or emotionally). There is also another issue... Sekhar mitzvos behai alma leiqa. Not everything in this world is sekhar va'onesh. Li nir'eh, everything in this world is to draw us to a state of being able to receive more of Hashem's tov. Onesh, only when we have a chance of it getting us to choose more constructively. Which is why the mishnah talks about tzadiqim getting onesh in olam hazah to spare them in olam haba. Not because pain in olam hazeh pays off the accoun t early, but because a tzadiq will use the pain to draw closer to HQBH / to his ideal self. And similarly, resha'im who wouldn't respond constructively to the challenge... Well, HQBH would share with them his Tov in the here-and-now rather than not at all. This takes us away from insisting that the universe must be set up so that every sin contains its own onesh as a consequence. (If we're using the consequence model to look at things.) Instead, we can look at the universe as tending toward tov. And therefore every step away from tov will as a consequence cause a pull back toward it. (Which could well be onesh, but in olam hazeh, it could be getting us connected back to the Meitiv in some other way.) And applying this back to Yaaqov's marrying two wives... Perhaps it's not an onesh, but the consequent path closer to the Meitiv in a world where the aretz was made tamei. And it's even possible that the challenges of this harder path lead to a closer place than without. So that overall, the net is maximize sekhar. Lefum tza'ara. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger We look forward to the time micha at aishdas.org when the power to love http://www.aishdas.org will replace the love of power. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - William Ewart Gladstone From micha at aishdas.org Thu Dec 7 11:12:14 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2017 14:12:14 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] zmanim In-Reply-To: <550be79bd779462fa5534e6b58fba249@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <550be79bd779462fa5534e6b58fba249@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20171207191214.GC26083@aishdas.org> On Thu, Dec 07, 2017 at 05:49:36AM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : I was wondering whether this close watch was a subset of a broader : need of man modern man to have exactitude in life versus living with : gray... Or maybe we were always mechuyavim to be as precise as possible. : wondering whether the advent of the railroad table approach now requires : us to halachically follow that exactness rather than that the "it looks : right to me" approach of Chazal? Thoughts? Li nir'eh there is value to the "in sync with nature" approach of Chazal that we lose when we think about clock time rather than the cycles of the sun (a/k/a the earth's spin). Much the way we lose a lot of what the yamim tovim mean because we aren't living in agrarian communities, and don't feel the joy of new wheat and barley when we celebrate our birth as a people, or the joy of bringing in the year's fruit when we celebrate how HQBH sustained us in the midbar. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From seinfeld at daasbooks.com Thu Dec 7 20:42:27 2017 From: seinfeld at daasbooks.com (Alexander Seinfeld) Date: Thu, 07 Dec 2017 23:42:27 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] What are the main mitzvos to focus on? Message-ID: :: So basically you are saying that the current Charedi hashkafa/lifestyle of :: Torah only and Torah learning being the ultimate purpose of life is not a :: majority opinion in Chazal and in fact you can't find anyone among Chazal :: who says this. : I intentionally avoided stating it that confrontationally, but yes. Forgive me, this may be a side issue to your main point about the 2 ways/reasons to learn, but I feel it should be clarified what you mean. How do you understand the Shulchan Aruch - Orach Chaim 155-156 - go immediately from davening to learning, make Torah your ikkar and malacha your arai; minimize work to only what you need [Be?er Heiteiv, Mishna Berura] not more??? Not mainstream? Breaking with Chazal? It?s a verbatim quotation from Gemara Berachos 35b. And maybe related to Taanis 24b (Chanina ben Dosa and his wife.) Now, let?s think sociologically for a moment. Why did the Mechaber choose to state this halacha the way he does? It seems to me that in his time (as in all times) there were Jews who were pulled to the needs and attractions of parnasa and spending the vast majority of their time and energy on it and in his view not in the proper balance. The fact that he has to state this halacha implies that not everyone was behaving that way. So the fact that not everyone behaves this way today is no proof whatsoever against the halacha. But anyone who wonders on what basis do some Orthodox Jews forsake full-time jobs and toil in Torah should read the Beur Halacha on Siman 155.1 - ?Eis lilmode? > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Fri Dec 8 02:55:11 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Fri, 8 Dec 2017 05:55:11 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] What are the main mitzvos to focus on? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20171208105511.GA13704@aishdas.org> On Thu, Dec 07, 2017 at 11:42:27PM -0500, Alexander Seinfeld via Avodah wrote: ::: So basically you are saying that the current Charedi hashkafa/lifestyle of ::: Torah only and Torah learning being the ultimate purpose of life is not a ::: majority opinion in Chazal and in fact you can't find anyone among Chazal ::: who says this. :: I intentionally avoided stating it that confrontationally, but yes. : Forgive me, this may be a side issue to your main point about the 2 : ways/reasons to learn, but I feel it should be clarified what you mean. : How do you understand the Shulchan Aruch - Orach Chaim 155-156 - go : immediately from davening to learning, make Torah your ikkar and malacha : your arai; minimize work to only what you need [Be?er Heiteiv, Mishna : Berura] not more??? You are shifting topics. I wrote about the reasons to learn, and asserted "Torah only and Torah learning being the ultimate purpose of life... you can't find anyone among Chazal who says this." Torah learning should well be the anchor of your day in comparison to earning a parnasah. (Although if one is learning rather than going to teach, other mitzvos are dochim.) But not as an ends, as a means. The hashkafah is new, the priorities not. But the new hashkafah changes the weighting to be even more in favor of learning. For example: I don't know what's going on today, but in my day Neir Yisrael / Baltimore was unique among American "yeshivish" yeshivos in encouraging talmidim to volunteer to staff kiruv shabbatonim. (Most/all YU RY were very proactively pro becoming an NCSY advisor.) The others felt that at this time in their lives, bachurim shouldn't be distracted from learning. This, despite the fact that adolescents respond better if there are peer-teachers rather than full grownups of a different generation, and the program was begging for them. This is one of the reasons JEP failed. That's the worldview of the American and Israeli "Litvisher" yeshiva. Now let's look at actual pre-war Litvisher gedolim. And I don't mean the obvious mussarists. `Would the aforementioned Meshekh Chokhmah have agreed with this decision? Is it in concert with RCV's admonition to his son? What about R' Shimon Shkop, who opens Shaarei Yosher's haqdamah with (empshasis added): Yisbarakh HaBorei Veyis'alah HaYotzeir who created us in His "Image" and in the likeness of His "Structure" VECHAYEI OLAM NATA BESOKHAINU such that our greated desire should be to benefit others to the indivindual and the masses, now and in the future, in imitation of the Creator (kevayachol). Ikkar doesn't mean "ultimate purpose", and making learning one's ultimate purpose does push one to go beyond making it the day's ikkar. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Brains to the lazy micha at aishdas.org are like a torch to the blind -- http://www.aishdas.org a useless burden. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Bechinas haOlam From micha at aishdas.org Fri Dec 8 06:11:58 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Fri, 8 Dec 2017 09:11:58 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Your Ancestors Message-ID: <20171208141158.GA20389@aishdas.org> R' Mike Gerver posted to Mail-Jewish in 1994 a request to help him collect more date to tighten an argument that odds are, every Jew alive either: - is a geir or all his ancestry are from geirim recently enough for him to know, or - descends from Rashi. (Or anyone else of that era or earlier.) See Calculations involve estimating rate of marriage across social strata, between towns, and between eidot. All Jews. Even Teimanim. (Ethiopians weren't a discussion yet, odds are no.) Well, this article makes that all the more probable: http://bigthink.com/stephen-johnson/why-youre-probably-related-to-nefertiti-and-confucius Why You're Probably Related to Nefertiti, Confucius, and Socrates December 7, 2017 by Stephen Johnson .... [J]ust how far back do humans need to go to find a common ancestor of their own: a person to whom all living people are related? The answer, for people of European descent at least, is surprisingly recent: 600 years. The common ancestor for every single person alive on the planet today, no matter where, lived approximately 3,600 years ago. That means Confucius, Nefertiti, Socrates, and any figure from ancient history that had children, is in some way your ancestor. Then, quoting Adam Rutherfore's new book, A Brief History of Everyone Who Ever Lived: "We are all special, which also means that none of us is," writes Rutherford in the book. "This is merely a numbers game. You have two parents, four grandparents, eight great-grandparents, and so on. Each generation back the number of ancestors you have doubles. But this ancestral expansion is not borne back ceaselessly into the past. If it were, your family tree when Charlemagne was Le Grand Fromage would harbor around 137,438,953,472 individuals on it -- more people than were alive then, now, or in total." So, why not? "You can be, and in fact are, descended from the same individual many times over," Rutherford writes. "Your great-great-great-great-great-grandmother might hold that position in your family tree twice, or many times, as her lines of descent branch out from her, but collapse onto you. The further back through time we go, the more these lines will coalesce on fewer individuals." The startling discovery that all Europeans might share a common ancestor who walked the Earth just 600 years ago was first proposed in 1999 by a Yale statistician named Joseph Chang. In his paper Recent Common Ancestors of All Present-Day Individuals," Chang used complex mathematical conceptslike Poisson distributions and Markov chainsto show how webbed pedigrees can overlap to produce common ancestors. If that is true of Europeans in 600 years, Jews over 800 years lo kol shekein? :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger We are great, and our foibles are great, micha at aishdas.org and therefore our troubles are great -- http://www.aishdas.org but our consolations will also be great. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rabbi AY Kook From jziring at torontotorah.com Wed Dec 6 19:40:58 2017 From: jziring at torontotorah.com (Jonathan Ziring) Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2017 22:40:58 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] The 13 middos In-Reply-To: References: <20171204222908.GA10223@aishdas.org> <20171206192317.GA12102@aishdas.org> Message-ID: [I had to edit this post significantly to fit Avodah's format constaints. -micha] Shalom, I'm touched to be asked. I have wondered about this (and have again this week due to Daf Yomi). I can't say I have strongly formed opinions on it, but the sugyot do seem to imply that these are more tendencies rather than rules, at lease re: Klal UPrat vs. Ribbui and Miut. The drashot of vavim and the like seem more absolute (X is not doresh vav). Yaakov Elman makes that point in his article on Ribbui. A few articles that deal with the topic that I've glanced through are: The Formal Development of [Kelal uPerat uKelal] Michael Chernick Tarbiz, pp. 393-410 Towards a History of "Ribbuy" in the Babylonian Talmud and Yaakov Elman Proceedings of the World Congress of Jewish Studies Vol. 11, Division C: Thought and Literature, Volume I: Rabbinic and Talmudic Literature (1993), pp. 87-94 In general, Michael Chernick and devoted much time to this. A few other relevant articles by him: The Development of Ribbuim and Mi 'utim Hermeneutics," PAAJR",1982-3. "The Use of Ribbuyim and Mi'utim in the Halakic Midrash ofR. Ishmael," JQK, 1979. "The Hermeneutic Kelal u-Ferat u-Kelal: Its History and Development," AAJR Annual Meeting, 1980 I think this will spur me to think more systematically about this. If I come up with anything, I will definitely share it. Jonathan From simon.montagu at gmail.com Sat Dec 9 08:27:13 2017 From: simon.montagu at gmail.com (Simon Montagu) Date: Sat, 9 Dec 2017 18:27:13 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Your Ancestors In-Reply-To: <20171208141158.GA20389@aishdas.org> References: <20171208141158.GA20389@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Fri, Dec 8, 2017 at 4:11 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah < avodah at lists.aishdas.org> wrote: > > http://bigthink.com/stephen-johnson/why-youre-probably- > related-to-nefertiti-and-confucius > Why You're Probably Related to Nefertiti, Confucius, and Socrates > December 7, 2017 by Stephen Johnson > .... > [J]ust how far back do humans need to go to find a common ancestor > of their own: a person to whom all living people are related? > > The answer, for people of European descent at least, is surprisingly > recent: 600 years. The common ancestor for every single person alive > on the planet today, no matter where, lived approximately 3,600 years > ago. That means Confucius, Nefertiti, Socrates, and any figure from > ancient history that had children, is in some way your ancestor. Unless I'm missing something, those last two sentences are a huge non sequitur. I have a slightly different take-away from the article: it says that everybody has a common ancestor who lived approximately 3,600 years ago. Isn't that exactly what the Torah says? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ben1456 at zahav.net.il Sat Dec 9 12:20:41 2017 From: ben1456 at zahav.net.il (Ben Waxman) Date: Sat, 09 Dec 2017 22:20:41 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Rambam Hilchot Shivtat Assur 3:3 Message-ID: Rambam Hilchot Shivtat Assur 3:3: The Rambam writes a clal: A minhag can not cancel something that is assur. A minhag can only prohibit something that is permitted. Is this rule seen as a veto or are there indeed issurim which have been become muttar via the power of minhag? From micha at aishdas.org Sat Dec 9 16:07:31 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Sat, 9 Dec 2017 19:07:31 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Your Ancestors In-Reply-To: References: <20171208141158.GA20389@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20171210000731.GB20169@aishdas.org> On Sat, Dec 09, 2017 at 06:27:13PM +0200, Simon Montagu via Avodah wrote: : > The answer, for people of European descent at least, is surprisingly : > recent: 600 years. The common ancestor for every single person alive : > on the planet today, no matter where, lived approximately 3,600 years : > ago. That means Confucius, Nefertiti, Socrates, and any figure from : > ancient history that had children, is in some way your ancestor. : Unless I'm missing something, those last two sentences are a huge non : sequitur. The author is just saying that the same model that giver the result of 600 years for Euopeans gives a result of 3,600 for all of humanity. : I have a slightly different take-away from the article: it says that : everybody has a common ancestor who lived approximately 3,600 years ago. : Isn't that exactly what the Torah says? Well, really the model says that everyone who is alive today almost certainly (this is statistics, after all) descended from everyone who was alive 3,600 who has /any/ living descendents. Not that there was one such ancestor. Gut Voch! -Micha -- Micha Berger What you get by achieving your goals micha at aishdas.org is not as important as http://www.aishdas.org what you become by achieving your goals. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Henry David Thoreau From ben1456 at zahav.net.il Sat Dec 9 12:59:26 2017 From: ben1456 at zahav.net.il (Ben Waxman) Date: Sat, 09 Dec 2017 22:59:26 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Rambam Hilchot Kiddush Hachodesh Message-ID: 1) Rambam Hilchot Kiddush Hachodesh 3:1 makes it clear that anyone who sees the new moon and can get to Jerusalem by the following evening should go. How would that work today given that basically means that every male in Israel who sees the moon should go (maybe men in Eilat who don't own a car would be patur). Were most (or even a small minority of) Israeli Jewish males above the age of 13 to look, there is no way that the Beit Din could even question all of these men, even if they only asked a couple of questions. Is there any problem in making sure that you don't see the moon? Just stay in for the evening. Rambam doesn't say that there is a chiyuv to look. Or since the Beit Din only takes testimony from trusted witnesses, can someone just say "I never got any type of certification that I am a good witness, therefore I don't need to go". Or how about having a few (say 100) men in each major city or region entrusted with the job and they would be the designated possible witnesses. 2) Rambam Hilchot Kiddush Hachodes 2:10 says clearly that once the beit din declares the new month, that is it, even if they know that they made a mistake. Yet in 3:15 and 16 Rambam writes that in the situation where no witnesses came on the 30th, if witnesses come later in the month and are able to prove that they did see the moon come out on the 29th, that month's calendar is redone. Is this not an obvious contradiction? I assume that I am reading 3:15 and 16 incorrectly or that I am getting something wrong here. 3) Later in the book Rambam goes on at length and in extreme detail about how to calculate the moon's position. He adds that we know these calculations from science and that since we no longer have a tradition about this matter from the nevi'im, it is fine to use outside sources. Seeing this made me wonder why we don't apply this rule in other areas. For example, I had read that we don't make matza from barley because we don't have a tradition as to how it takes barley to become chameitz. So why not measure it? Ben From simon.montagu at gmail.com Sat Dec 9 21:57:52 2017 From: simon.montagu at gmail.com (Simon Montagu) Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2017 07:57:52 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Your Ancestors In-Reply-To: <20171210000731.GB20169@aishdas.org> References: <20171208141158.GA20389@aishdas.org> <20171210000731.GB20169@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Sun, Dec 10, 2017 at 2:07 AM, Micha Berger wrote: > On Sat, Dec 09, 2017 at 06:27:13PM +0200, Simon Montagu via Avodah wrote: > : > The answer, for people of European descent at least, is > surprisingly > : > recent: 600 years. The common ancestor for every single person > alive > : > on the planet today, no matter where, lived approximately 3,600 > years > : > ago. That means Confucius, Nefertiti, Socrates, and any figure > from > : > ancient history that had children, is in some way your ancestor. > > : Unless I'm missing something, those last two sentences are a huge non > : sequitur. > > The author is just saying that the same model that giver the result > of 600 years for Euopeans gives a result of 3,600 for all of humanity. > > That's not the non sequitur. The non sequitur is going from "we have a common ancestor 3,600 years ago" to "Confucius and Socrates are your ancestors". Confucius and Socrates lived around 2500 years ago, and how does the author know that they had any living descendants? > : I have a slightly different take-away from the article: it says that > : everybody has a common ancestor who lived approximately 3,600 years ago. > : Isn't that exactly what the Torah says? > > Well, really the model says that everyone who is alive today almost > certainly (this is statistics, after all) descended from everyone who > was alive 3,600 who has /any/ living descendents. > Not that there was one such ancestor. > I haven't read the model, but the article you linked to talks several times about "/a/ common ancestor", "/a/" person to whom all living people are related", etc. > > Gut Voch! > -Micha > > -- > Micha Berger What you get by achieving your goals > micha at aishdas.org is not as important as > http://www.aishdas.org what you become by achieving your goals. > Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Henry David Thoreau > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From bdbradley70 at hotmail.com Sun Dec 10 14:22:59 2017 From: bdbradley70 at hotmail.com (Ben Bradley) Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2017 22:22:59 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] What are the main mitzvos to focus on? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I don't recall everything I've read on this subject of the purpose of talmud torah, but the conversation here so far seems to be missing a crucial piece, namely the transformative aspect of talmud torah on the individual learning it. The problem with the instrumental view is that it doesn't account for a number of aspects of the way chazal unanimously viewed talmud torah. If it was just about knowing how to keep the mitzvos then, I think, we'd have trouble with the following off the top of my head 1. The intensive way chazal went about talmud torah - the lack of sleep involved, the amora who sat on his hands until they bled, disappearing from family for years at a time 2. The viewing of talmud torah as a unending project 3. The depth and incisiveness of analysis expected in learning gemara. Eg being able to metaher a sheret 4. the lack of differentiation between learning issues of practical use and those which you will never need to know from a practical point of view Maybe I'm missing something, but knowing how to keep the mitzvos per se need not involve any of these. There are clear indications of the transformative nature of talmud torah in chazal, even if these aren't stated as its purpose explicitly. Perhaps there's a distinction between its purpose and the meaning of lishma. So learning torah lishma, whatever that means, is transformative, which is a primary purpose if not the only one. That would also bring talmud torah in line with the other mitzvos, since they all have a transformative benefit to the individual. It would also set it apart since it is more transformative than all the others, ie kneged kulam. It is the most transformative, and thus the most important. That said, considerations other than personal growth give priority to other mitzvos in many situations. Ben -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hankman at bell.net Mon Dec 11 06:11:22 2017 From: hankman at bell.net (hankman) Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2017 09:11:22 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Purpose of distant galaxies? Message-ID: <83F7EA9337D54E08891E46C1032C89FE@hankPC> I have just been watching a show on Discovery Science about a lay version of quantum mechanics. At one point the moderator was talking about the notion of entanglement and explained how in theory this involves the connection of entangled particles over any distance instantaneously. He then continued to say that given the big bang theory, all of existence was at a single point and then expanded (inflated) from then to the great distances, billions of light years, we witness today. But at the initial moment after the singularity, all the particles of the universe were close enough to possibly become entangled with some other, but then after the expansion, the partner entangled particle might have ended up in some distant far removed galaxy and but thereby still be related to its entangled partner particle perhaps now in our body here on Earth. I then thought back to some of the earlier discussions here on Avodah about the purpose of these distant galaxies that could never affect us here on Earth and that we did not even know existed until recently. Perhaps this possibility of entanglement with distant particles of those galaxies from the time of creation may provide some logic to the purpose of the existence of those distant galaxies? Happy Chanukah veKol tuv Chaim Manaster -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Mon Dec 11 09:33:33 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2017 12:33:33 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Rambam Hilchot Shivtat Assur 3:3 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20171211173333.GE15573@aishdas.org> On Sat, Dec 09, 2017 at 10:20:41PM +0200, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: : Rambam Hilchot Shivtat Assur 3:3: The Rambam writes a clal: A minhag : can not cancel something that is assur. A minhag can only prohibit : something that is permitted. Isn't the very definition of a minhag ta'us one that promotes doing an issur, or violating an asei? At least, violating an asei actively; I don't know if I would include a minhag not to fulfil an asei besheiv ve'al ta'aseh. That kind of thing would require more research. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Worrying is like a rocking chair: micha at aishdas.org it gives you something to do for a while, http://www.aishdas.org but in the end it gets you nowhere. Fax: (270) 514-1507 From micha at aishdas.org Tue Dec 12 13:53:43 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2017 16:53:43 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Women and Torah Study In-Reply-To: <9f94d416d3154585a6bb71a2df12c54e@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <9f94d416d3154585a6bb71a2df12c54e@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20171212215343.GA13817@aishdas.org> On Sun, Dec 03, 2017 at 06:40:43AM +0000, RJR reposted here a comment of his on a recent post on Lehrhaus: : Is encouraging intensive study of Talmud for women a community priority : or is the priority to make such study available for those who choose to : avail themselves of the opportunity? Especially if the former, where : does it stand in relation to other community priorities and how does : the answer differ from study for men? IMHO these questions have not been : sufficiently addressed. Do my concern resonate at all? Mod-Yeshivish (in contrast to other forms of MO) may argue that since learning primarily means shas and lomdus, and the iqar method for refining one's soul is learning, now that women are given the toolds to be able to make sense of Talmud, making it available to them is a community priority. To quote RALichtenstein from : What is the cardinal principle that lies at the heart, on the one hand, of Yeshiva education and, on the other hand, is the lynchpin of liberal education. It is, first and foremost, the notion that one is concerned with molding the person and only secondarily with preparing or training for the fulfillment of a certain role. John Cardinal Newman's statement, that "we are men by nature, geometrists only by chance," epitomizes this approach and it is one with respect to which, I have indicated, the Yeshiva world and the world of liberal education at its best coincide. Of course, that is not to suggest that preparing for a role, be it a domestic role, a professional role, or a communal role, is not important. It is important, but secondary. The first principle, I think, with regard to education generally, and which needs to be particularly emphasized in the field of women's education, is that first and foremost one needs to mold the person as an individual in all respects, with regard to character, personality, intellectual ability, and above all, of course, in religious terms, as an oved Hashem. ... If we ask ourselves: Here are the goals! "[leyir'ah, le'avah, la'avod, lishmor, ledavqah, lalekhet bekhol derakhav]," to fear [God], to love [God], to serve [God], to cling [to Him] to go in all His ways." What are the means? Traditionally, over the centuries, there has been a fairly sharp dichotomy precisely regarding this very issue, namely the means to be employed in relation to men versus women... This is not the occasion to examine whether that was justified historically. What is clear, however, is that notwithstanding how one judges the past retrospectively, in our present historical and social setting we need to view the teaching and the learning of girls and women as both a major challenge, as well as a primary need. ... But this is creating a role for halakhah study out of whole cloth that is really RAL's chiddush. After all, historically curricula for girls' and women did include character-shaping material, but OVERTLY so -- mussar, hashkafah and the lessons in each taken from studying Tanakh. And leave halakhah to learning the job, rather than liberal arts. And I would repeat a point made by RYGB when asked about this topic: Where is the evidence that our current boys' curriculum works so well that we're in a rush to make the curriculum for girls' more similar to it? In general, the yeshivish -- including the ModY -- take NhC shaar 4 to mean that learning refines the soul in some mystical way. Just learn, and the problem will solve itself. Whereas I personally think the data points the other way. And that the NhC intended that statement prescriptively -- true talmud Torah is learning in a way that consciously aims to refine the soul. Which is why there is all that Mussar and Middos talk around AishDas and its web site. My own inclination, and this really just translates to "my parents provided a RWMO upbrining" (with some variety thrown in in the form of school choices), would be that we can't prioritize providing talmud study for women over clear-cut chiyuvim. Talmud study should be made available, but for those women who feel a need for talmud study. Which puts me in the same camp as the LR's effective position. Women coming to kiruv with egalitarian leanings were encouraged by the LR to learn Talmud if they wish to. But you wont find a gemara class in Beis Rivka. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "And you shall love H' your G-d with your whole micha at aishdas.org heart, your entire soul, and all you own." http://www.aishdas.org Love is not two who look at each other, Fax: (270) 514-1507 It is two who look in the same direction. From micha at aishdas.org Wed Dec 13 03:30:34 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2017 06:30:34 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Rambam Hilchot Kiddush Hachodesh In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20171213113034.GB7576@aishdas.org> On Sat, Dec 09, 2017 at 10:59:26PM +0200, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: : 1) Rambam Hilchot Kiddush Hachodesh 3:1 makes it clear that anyone : who sees the new moon and can get to Jerusalem by the following : evening should go. How would that work today.... And then think what happens if the calculations were for a long month. The guy invests all that effort just to get to locked Lishkas haGazis doors. I would be frustrated. But to get to your question. I think that's a taqanah in order to insure that there is eidus. Rather than everyone saying someone else will go. There is no how that would work today, since you need a Sanhedrin to make it work. But isn't this a derabbnan, to make sure all those who see the moon don't assume someone else will go, and there ends up not having 2 kosher eidim? So, if the the next Sanhedrin finds that too many people are coming / would come and we're far from needing such a guarantee, they can repeal this din. : 2) Rambam Hilchot Kiddush Hachodes 2:10 says clearly that once the : beit din declares the new month, that is it, even if they know that : they made a mistake. Yet in 3:15 and 16 Rambam writes that in the : situation where no witnesses came on the 30th, if witnesses come : later in the month and are able to prove that they did see the moon : come out on the 29th, that month's calendar is redone. Is this not : an obvious contradiction? I assume that I am reading 3:15 and 16 : incorrectly or that I am getting something wrong here. The famous story of the calendar dispute between Rabban Gamliel and R' Yehoshua (RH 2:8-9) includes R' Aqiva saying, "Eileh mo'adei H' asher tiqre'u osam" -- bein bizmanan, bein shelo bizmanan, ein Li mo'ados ela eilu. Which is what the Rambam is saying in 2:10. He quotes R' Aqiva's prooftext. In that mishnah, both R' Gamliel and R' Yehoshua knew the metzi'us, they were arguing over whether to accept the eidim despite a flaw in their story. They may have even been arguing about the cheshbon, and whether there was a need to accept whatever eidim one had. The beginning of mishnah 9 has R' Gamliel ordering R' Yehoshua to show up "beyom haKippurim shechal lihyos *becheshbonkha*". There may be a difference between making a mistake in terms of decision-making and making one because they were working with bad or incomplete data. 2:20 is about their decision being wrong, 3:15-16 is about a lack of eidus. An error in the cheshbon or perhaps decision in general vs an error in facts. While this guess about p' 2 is less than compelling, it would seem that in p' 3 he is empowering a BD to go back to their cheshbon when they were forced by a lack of testimony to lengthen the month despite it. After all, 3:15 describes BD sitting all of the 30th, meaning wanting a short month, without witnesses comming. So I feel more comfortable with that part of the guess. Maybe R' Yehoshua would have renegged without needing R' Aqiva had other eidim arrived days later to corroborate the first two. : 3) Later in the book Rambam goes on at length and in extreme detail : about how to calculate the moon's position. He adds that we know : these calculations from science and that since we no longer have a : tradition about this matter from the nevi'im, it is fine to use : outside sources. Seeing this made me wonder why we don't apply this : rule in other areas. For example, I had read that we don't make : matza from barley because we don't have a tradition as to how it : takes barley to become chameitz. So why not measure it? But lemaaseh we don't, because we need a Sanhedrin to make a RC. For that matter, we even pad when we say Qiddush Levanah, making the one day difference irrelevent. So what halakhah lemaaseh is the Rambam talking about, that relies on the calculations? Giving license to the next Sanhedrin? I am not even sure we know the scientific difference between chameitz and sirchah. Or even if there is one. Why is dough made with 100% juice a different thing than if the juice were diluted, or if it were all water? If we don't know what it is we should measure, how can we use science to measure it? I think it has to be something like that, because the lack of barley matzah isn't a modern issue. And the ability to measure rising doesn't require some modern measuring equipment. So, why was the question left unsolved by centuries of acharonim if it were resolable? Similarly, we know the medical communities' various definitions of death. (They're all pretty similar.) But we don't know if halachic misah would use the same definition. But even those who stick with heart death would use the latest scientific tools to determine whether or not the person had their last heartbeat (lo aleinu). So I would posit the issue is a chiluq between using science to determine the physical state vs having a pesaq as to what physical state needs determining. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Like a bird, man can reach undreamed-of micha at aishdas.org heights as long as he works his wings. http://www.aishdas.org But if he relaxes them for but one minute, Fax: (270) 514-1507 he plummets downward. - Rav Yisrael Salanter From JRich at sibson.com Wed Dec 13 21:39:28 2017 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2017 05:39:28 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] S"A Principles Message-ID: Question: I note that the S"A O"C 158:10 (Hand Washing) quotes the Gemara (R'Chisda) in support of using more than the minimum required amount of water for hand washing. Given the Mechaber's goal that the Shulchan Aruch be a halachic summary of his magnum opus, the Beit Yosef, does anyone know of a theory as to why the Mechaber in some cases quotes Talmudic sources (or Torah or Rishonim) and in others just states the halacha? Any study of the frequency of such quotes? KT 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: From akivagmiller at gmail.com Wed Dec 13 19:40:54 2017 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2017 22:40:54 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Rambam Hilchot Kiddush Hachodesh Message-ID: . (I don't know if this post will help understand Kiddush Hachodesh or not. If yes, I'm glad I could help. If not, I apologize for the distraction.) R' Micha Berger asked: > I am not even sure we know the scientific difference between > chameitz and sirchah. Or even if there is one. Why is dough > made with 100% juice a different thing than if the juice were > diluted, or if it were all water? If we don't know what it is > we should measure, how can we use science to measure it? I agree that WE don't know the scientific difference between chametz and sirchon, but it seems clear to me that such a difference does exist, and Chazal understood it. See the very beginning of Yerushalmi Challah, page 1b1 in the ArtScroll English version. "Badku Umatz'u" - They tested various grains, to see what happens when their flour is mixed with water. They found that The Five Grains underwent "chimutz", while *most* other grains fermented in the manner called "sirchon". (For some grains, the tests were inconclusive.) There is no Kabala From Sinai that defines these processes in terms of the grains, the liquids, or anything else. If you knew what to look for, you could look at a dough and tell whether it was chometz - without even knowing the ingredients. > I think it has to be something like that, because the lack of > barley matzah isn't a modern issue. And the ability to measure > rising doesn't require some modern measuring equipment. So, > why was the question left unsolved by centuries of acharonim > if it were resolvable? The problem isn't in the equipment. It's knowing what to look for. The tamay birds are all listed in Parshas Shmini. You don't need a degree in genetics to determine whether the bird in your hand is on the list or not. The only problem is that no one today knows what those words mean. Just like we don't really understand the difference between chimutz and sirchon. And no amount of pilpul among the "centuries of acharonim" is gonna help. Akiva Miller From micha at aishdas.org Thu Dec 14 03:27:18 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2017 06:27:18 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Rambam Hilchot Kiddush Hachodesh In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20171214112718.GA11145@aishdas.org> On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 10:40:54PM -0500, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : See the very beginning of Yerushalmi Challah, page [16]b1 in the : ArtScroll English version. "Badku Umatz'u" - They tested various : grains, to see what happens when their flour is mixed with water. They : found that The Five Grains underwent "chimutz", while *most* other : grains fermented in the manner called "sirchon". (For some grains, the : tests were inconclusive.) (Artscroll must have just one page of 16b, since that's near the bottom of the amud.) Assuming you understand the machloqes aa being about metzi'us. Which I did not. Aside from a reluctance to pin machloqesin on matters of fact even in the Y-mi, where there are cases it seems unaviodable. There are other problems: 1- EVERY other grain but these 5 produced something in between chimutz and sirchon that only R Yochanan b Nuri thought looked like chimutz? Not one of the experiments had another dissenter? 2- Why wouldn't later generations try to get clarity by repeating the experiment? As I took it (and wrote as much in prior iterations), R Yochanan b Nuri and the chakhamim were arguing over where the line is between chimutz and sirchon. They agreed on what happened when you mix a grain other than the 5 with water -- the gemara describes the experimental result as "ushe'ar kol haminim einan ba'in liydei matzah vechameitz elas sirchon." Then it continues the machloqes (running onto 17a), this time asking about qeramis in particular. And the gemara asks: Why they don't just check it? The first check's results were written open-and-shut. Here we are given RYBN differing obseration. As I took it, RYBN disagreed only in that he considers sirchon prohibited as chameitz. They argue about which side of the line sirchon is on because the machloqes is about where the line is. Which is why the gemara is so clear cut on the first test. And this is is why I lunped it together with other cases of halakhah deciding where in the gray area set of physical cases halakhah draws the line. : There is no Kabala From Sinai that defines these processes in terms of : the grains, the liquids, or anything else. If you knew what to look : for, you could look at a dough and tell whether it was chometz - : without even knowing the ingredients. ... and we don't know what to look for. :> I think it has to be something like that, because the lack of :> barley matzah isn't a modern issue. And the ability to measure :> rising doesn't require some modern measuring equipment. So, :> why was the question left unsolved by centuries of acharonim :> if it were resolvable? : The problem isn't in the equipment. It's knowing what to look for. As I said, it "has to be something like that", since the physical question could have been resolved, or at the very least repeatedly attempted to be resolved. You appear to be arguing against the hava amina I took pains to reject. But, unlike rice, where miSinai we could have known whether its sitchon qualifies as chameitz or not or the machloqes could have arisen later, with barley we know the uncertainty is caused by lost information. : The tamay birds are all listed in Parshas Shmini. You don't need a : degree in genetics to determine whether the bird in your hand is on : the list or not.,,, Ironically, defining a "min" is not settled halakhah either. Ask the Israelis debating whether we know that any breed of chicken other than the breakel chicken (or, I would guess the American campine) is halachically chicken and within the mesorah. Or the counter-arguers, who want to pasl braekel chickens... I am not saying I understand the metzi'us of the debate, but it does highlight how hard it is to draw halachic lines in the physical sand. So, even if we could translate the name of every min in parashas Shemini, we could still not know whether the bird in my hand is included in one of the minim on the list or not. As we could argue whether the genetic test found something on one side of the line defining the min, or the other -- because we don't know where the line is. A lichtikn un freilechn Chanukah! -Micha -- Micha Berger When we are no longer able to change a situation micha at aishdas.org -- just think of an incurable disease such as http://www.aishdas.org inoperable cancer -- we are challenged to change Fax: (270) 514-1507 ourselves. - Victor Frankl (MSfM) From Aryeh.Frimer at biu.ac.il Thu Dec 14 05:03:04 2017 From: Aryeh.Frimer at biu.ac.il (Aryeh Frimer) Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2017 13:03:04 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Tevilat Kelim Message-ID: Has anyone seen a discussion regarding one who said "al haTevila" (which women recite when going to mikva) instead of "Al tevilat Kelim." Is the Berakha valid be-Di-avad? A Freilichen Hanukah!! -------------------------------------------------- Dr. Aryeh A. Frimer Ethel and David Resnick Professor Emeritus of Active Oxygen Chemistry Chemistry Dept., Bar-Ilan University Ramat Gan 5290002, ISRAEL E-mail (office): Aryeh.Frimer at biu.ac.il Homepage http://ch.biu.ac.il/frimer E-mail (home): FrimerA at zahav.net.il From ben1456 at zahav.net.il Fri Dec 15 02:45:55 2017 From: ben1456 at zahav.net.il (Ben Waxman) Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2017 12:45:55 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Rambam Hilchot Kiddush Hachodesh In-Reply-To: <20171213113034.GB7576@aishdas.org> References: <20171213113034.GB7576@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <3554ff1b-2c53-bf1d-b688-0202a1eae13a@zahav.net.il> It must be something like that. After reading through Kiddush Hachodesh I was left with a huge question as to the incredible detail; 100 times more detailed than say his Hilchot Pesach. Ben On 12/13/2017 1:30 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > So what halakhah lemaaseh is the Rambam > talking about, that relies on the calculations? Giving license to > the next Sanhedrin? From michaelpoppers at gmail.com Thu Dec 14 18:17:15 2017 From: michaelpoppers at gmail.com (Michael Poppers) Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2017 21:17:15 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] zmanim Message-ID: >From R'Micha: > Li nir'eh there is value to the "in sync with nature" approach of Chazal that we lose when we think about clock time rather than the cycles of the sun (a/k/a the earth's spin). ? > ? Much the way we lose a lot of what the yamim tovim mean because we aren't living in agrarian communities, and don't feel the joy of new wheat and barley when we celebrate our birth as a people, or the joy of bringing in the year's fruit when we celebrate how HQBH sustained us in the midbar. < ...or the meaning of "Yotzer Or", etc. because we're not davening those pre- *Shma* *b'rachos* at the "right" time w/ a view of the brightening sky. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Fri Dec 15 06:55:30 2017 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2017 14:55:30 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Why does Yosef command the Egyptians to circumcise Message-ID: <1513349727386.22540@stevens.edu> See https://goo.gl/1AP3eB Rashi on Bereshis 41:55 says what he tells you, do: Since Joseph had ordered them to circumcise themselves, and when they came to Pharaoh and said, "This is what he said to us," he (Pharaoh) said to them, "Why didn't you gather grain? Didn't he announce to you that years of famine were coming?" They replied, "We gathered much, but it rotted." He (Pharaoh) replied,"If so, do whatever he tells you. He issued a decree upon the grain, and it rotted. What if he issues a decree upon us and we die?" - [from Mid. Tanchuma Mikeitz 7, Gen. Rabbah 91:5] Why did Yosef order them to do that? See the above URL for three explanations. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Fri Dec 15 06:57:57 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2017 09:57:57 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Rambam Hilchot Kiddush Hachodesh In-Reply-To: <3554ff1b-2c53-bf1d-b688-0202a1eae13a@zahav.net.il> References: <20171213113034.GB7576@aishdas.org> <3554ff1b-2c53-bf1d-b688-0202a1eae13a@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <20171215145757.GB28181@aishdas.org> On Fri, Dec 15, 2017 at 12:45:55PM +0200, Ben Waxman wrote: : On 12/13/2017 1:30 PM, Micha Berger wrote: :> So what halakhah lemaaseh is the Rambam :> talking about, that relies on the calculations? Giving license to :> the next Sanhedrin? : It must be something like that. After reading through Kiddush : Hachodesh I was left with a huge question as to the incredible : detail; 100 times more detailed than say his Hilchot Pesach. My guess, and I hope it's not too lesse majest for a public posting: The Rambam was a math geek who simply enjoyed this kind of stuff. It cannot be that the Rambam thought the future chavrei Sanhedrin would need his text for this more than his usual coverage. Leshitaso, one wouldn't be qualified to be a dayan without a strong background in all 7 chokhmos. That last line being an opening to a Chanukah tangent about Chokhmah Yevanis being a necessary study for a member of the Sanhedrin. So, Chanukah celebrates a victory over Yavan (in the sense of Hellenism) and a step toward reestablishing the Sanhedrin, who were expected to utilize "yaft E-lokim leYefes, veyishkon be'ohalei Sheim". An enlightening and happy Chanukah and :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Brains to the lazy micha at aishdas.org are like a torch to the blind -- http://www.aishdas.org a useless burden. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Bechinas haOlam From micha at aishdas.org Sat Dec 16 16:09:45 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2017 19:09:45 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Mamlekhat Chimyar Message-ID: <20171217000945.GA16968@aishdas.org> I stumbled across reference to the Humyarite Kingdom, which existed from 110 bce - 525 ce. Based in Yemen, ruled over much of the Arabian Peninsula. It seems that they went Jewish. (Shades of the Khazars.) See : > The Himyarite kings appear to have abandoned polytheism and converted > to Judaism around the year 380, several decades after the conversion of > the Ethiopian Kingdom of Aksum to Christianity (340), though no changes > occurred in its script, calendar, or language (unlike Aksum).[7] This > date marks the end of an era in which numerous inscriptions record the > names and deeds of kings, and dedicate buildings to local (e.g. Wagal > and Simyada) and major (e.g. Almaqah) gods. From the 380s, temples were > abandoned and dedications to the old gods ceased, replaced by references > to Rahmanan, "the Lord of Heaven" or "Lord of Heaven and Earth".[8] The > political context for this conversion may have been Arabia's interest > in maintaining neutrality and good trade relations with the competing > empires of Byzantium, which first adopted Christianity under Constantine > the Great and the Sasanian Empire, which alternated between Zurvanism > and Manichaeism.[9] ... > During this period, references to pagan gods disappeared from royal > inscriptions and texts on public buildings, and were replaced by > references to a single deity. Inscriptions in the Sabean language, and > sometimes Hebrew, called this deity Rahman (the Merciful), "Lord of the > Heavens and Earth," the "God of Israel" and "Lord of the Jews." Prayers > invoking Rahman's blessings on the "people of Israel" often ended with > the Hebrew words shalom and amen. [16] I wonder about the kashrus of the conversion, and did it pose a rei'usa when discussing the Jewishness of Teimani immigrants to Israel. A lichtikn un freilechn Chanukah un a gutt voch! -Micha -- Micha Berger Life isn't about finding yourself micha at aishdas.org Life is about creating yourself. http://www.aishdas.org - Bernard Shaw Fax: (270) 514-1507 From micha at aishdas.org Sun Dec 17 05:51:57 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2017 08:51:57 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] New Cancer Treatment Message-ID: <20171217135058.GC5@aishdas.org> This news story showed up in two of my RSS subscriptions: Hijacked sperm carry chemo drugs to cervical cancer cells https://www.newscientist.com/article/2156525-hijacked-sperm-carry-chemo-drugs-to-cervical-cancer-cells or http://j.mp/2yLROJ1 and Killing Cancer with Spermbots http://bigthink.com/robby-berman/killing-cancer-with-spermbots In my neck of the O woods, everyone holds like R' Moshe, that children produced by IVF-donor would not be mamzeirim. BUT... according to the machmirim (eg the Satmar Rav), would an eishes kohein who recieved this treatment have to get divorced? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger You are not a human being in search micha at aishdas.org of a spiritual experience. You are a http://www.aishdas.org spiritual being immersed in a human Fax: (270) 514-1507 experience. - Pierre Teilhard de Chardin From larry62341 at optonline.net Sun Dec 17 06:22:06 2017 From: larry62341 at optonline.net (Prof. Levine) Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2017 09:22:06 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] The Downtown Chanukiah Message-ID: Please see the video at https://goo.gl/dgSTLv In this video Rabbi Anthony Manning discusses the halachic aspects of where one should light the Chanukah menorah at home as well as the Chabad practice of lighting menorahs in public places and whether or not the person lighting such a menorah should make a bracha. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From zev at sero.name Sun Dec 17 06:20:59 2017 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2017 09:20:59 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] New Cancer Treatment In-Reply-To: <20171217135058.GC5@aishdas.org> References: <20171217135058.GC5@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <8550baa4-198d-536a-b249-d5c2d207bb86@sero.name> On 17/12/17 08:51, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > BUT... according to the machmirim (eg the Satmar Rav), would an eishes > kohein who recieved this treatment have to get divorced? I wouldn't think so. There's still no act of zenus. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From micha at aishdas.org Sun Dec 17 11:53:27 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2017 14:53:27 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] New Cancer Treatment In-Reply-To: <8550baa4-198d-536a-b249-d5c2d207bb86@sero.name> References: <20171217135058.GC5@aishdas.org> <8550baa4-198d-536a-b249-d5c2d207bb86@sero.name> Message-ID: <20171217195326.GD5@aishdas.org> On Sun, Dec 17, 2017 at 09:20:59AM -0500, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : On 17/12/17 08:51, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: :>BUT... according to the machmirim (eg the Satmar Rav), would an eishes :>kohein who recieved this treatment have to get divorced? : I wouldn't think so. There's still no act of zenus. There is a machloqes Chakhamim and R' Aqiva as to whether only issurei kareis (except niddah) create mamzeirim, or any issur. And yet the Satmar Rav holds that IE-D creates mamzeirim. And one could equally argue there is no act of zenus. So, I parked my intuition at the door when trying to understand his shitah. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The thought of happiness that comes from outside micha at aishdas.org the person, brings him sadness. But realizing http://www.aishdas.org the value of one's will and the freedom brought Fax: (270) 514-1507 by uplifting its, brings great joy. - R' Kook From zev at sero.name Sun Dec 17 12:20:24 2017 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2017 15:20:24 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] New Cancer Treatment In-Reply-To: <20171217195326.GD5@aishdas.org> References: <20171217135058.GC5@aishdas.org> <8550baa4-198d-536a-b249-d5c2d207bb86@sero.name> <20171217195326.GD5@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <5862ca9f-c908-4756-d082-0b20f6dc428f@sero.name> On 17/12/17 14:53, Micha Berger wrote: > There is a machloqes Chakhamim and R' Aqiva as to whether only issurei > kareis (except niddah) create mamzeirim, or any issur. And yet the > Satmar Rav holds that IE-D creates mamzeirim. And one could equally > argue there is no act of zenus. > > So, I parked my intuition at the door when trying to understand his > shitah. as I understand the machlokes, it's precisely over whether an act of zenus is necessary to create a mamzer. The SR (aiui) holds it is not, therefore although no issur was done with IED the child is nevertheless a mamzer. Here too, the SR would presumably hold that although there's no act of zenus, and therefore the treatment is permitted, should any child result it would be a mamzer. But I haven't seen the SR's shitah inside, so I'm relying on 3rd-hand transmission which may have garbled important points. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From llevine at stevens.edu Sun Dec 17 13:35:04 2017 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2017 21:35:04 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] How did Yosef showing his circumcision prove anything? Message-ID: <1513546500734.24127@stevens.edu> From https://goo.gl/L634gH Rashi to 45:4 says that when Yosef told his brothers to approach him, it was to show them his circumcision (presumably to prove he was Jewish). But how would that prove anything? All of Egypt had been circumcised already, as Rashi says on 41:55. If his showing his circumcision wasn't to prove he was Jewish, why did he do it? See the above URL for answers. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cantorwolberg at cox.net Sun Dec 17 11:40:31 2017 From: cantorwolberg at cox.net (Richard Wolberg) Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2017 14:40:31 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Vayigash Message-ID: The first three words of the Sidra: Vayigash eilav Yehuda mean that Judah approached Joseph to speak to him. The m?forshim bring out that they communicated through interpreters since officially, (the brothers thought) Joseph didn?t speak Hebrew and the brothers didn?t speak Egyptian. The baal haturim and the m?forshim point out the last letter of the first three words (shin, vov, hey) spell shaveh which means ?equal.? Judah is implying to Joseph: ?I am equal to you. You think you?re a king; I?m also a king.? According to this interpretation, Judah spoke very sharply to Joseph. The Vilna Gaon brings out a fascinating insight on the trope of the first six words which is kadma v?azla r?vi?I, zarka, munach segol. The Vilna Gaon explains that the trope here explains the meaning of these words. Kadma v?azla in Aramaic meaning kadam v?awzal, he (Judah) stepped forward, Yehudah has a r?vi?i, since Judah was the fourth son. So why the fourth son? Because zarka, he was going to be thrown out, munach segol from being able to rest in Gan Eden. Since Judah cursed himself that if he doesn?t bring Binyamin back, he would be damned in both worlds ? in this world and in the world to come. (Segula which means ?treasure? from Segol comes to mean here Gan Eden). When the sons finally tell Jacob that Joseph still lives (45:26), the m?forshim resolve a theological problem that arose in parashas Vayeshev (37:35). For there we read about Jacob: ?and his sons and daughters wished to comfort him and he refused to be consoled.? Isn?t it one of the basic articles of faith to accept God?s judgment and to welcome the comforting offered by others. Why did Jacob refuse? Our Sages sensed this anomaly and gave a brilliant answer, ?For no condolences are accepted over the living" (see Rashi on 37:35). Yes, Jacob refused to accept condolences because he had a faint ray of hope that Joseph might be alive. A psychologist might explain it as ?wishful thinking.? In any event, his ray of hope was vindicated when he found out that Joseph was indeed alive (and that is why he originally refused to accept the condolences offered by all the people). Hope is being able to see that there is light despite all of the darkness. Desmond Tutu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cantorwolberg at cox.net Sun Dec 17 16:16:32 2017 From: cantorwolberg at cox.net (Richard Wolberg) Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2017 19:16:32 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] S"A Principles Message-ID: <8A9BD2E2-0BDC-4728-B1B3-792480A73CEE@cox.net> Reb Joel asks: does anyone know of a theory as to why the Mechaber in some cases quotes Talmudic sources (or Torah or Rishonim) and in others just states the halacha? My theory is that when it is either a well known halacha and no reason to question it or at least, when the Mechaber thought it to be indisputable, then it was felt there was no reason to quote sources. OTOH, if was felt that there would be many questioning it, then the sources quoted would obviate that from occurring. From micha at aishdas.org Sun Dec 17 17:15:28 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2017 20:15:28 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] [Tvunah] Teabag on Shabbos Message-ID: <20171218011528.GA22955@aishdas.org> This pesaq by R' Asher Weiss surprised me. Tea Bag on Shabbos Tvunah in English by Rabbi Akiva Dershowitz Question: Does a tea bag [used in a kli shlishi] need to be removed from the cup with a spoon on Shabbos, to avoid issues of borrer? What about holding it over the cup to avoid dripping on the table, to allow drips to fall into the cup? Answer: The tea bag may be removed normally, and may be held to allow drips to fall back in to the cup. I was told at a young age to take the teabag out by spoon, making sure to take tea out along with the bag. For boreier reasons. So, as I said, I found this pesaq surprising. The actual teshuvah in Hebrew is on that page. RAW finds a precedent in Rashi on Shabbos 140a, who discusses the mishnah allowing one to put straw in a sieve in a feed trough. Rashi says "even though the motz will fall on our own, as it's a davar she'ein miskavein -- and the mishnah holds like R' Shim'on. And see SA OC 319:8, who makes it clear (which it isnt' from Rashi, see teshuvah) that even if the boreir will certainly occur, it's still mutar. Pesiq reishei, but not melekhes machasheves, and still mutar. Similarly in Nishmas Adam 18:2. An enlightening and anjoyable Chanukah! -Micha -- Micha Berger We look forward to the time micha at aishdas.org when the power to love http://www.aishdas.org will replace the love of power. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - William Ewart Gladstone From Aryeh.Frimer at biu.ac.il Sun Dec 17 23:09:04 2017 From: Aryeh.Frimer at biu.ac.il (Aryeh Frimer) Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2017 07:09:04 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Using "Al haTevila" for tevilat Kelim Message-ID: Rav Zvi Cohen, in his Encyclopedic Tevilat Kelim: Rules that be-Di-avad Al haTevila is valid. I was surprised by this since the Mehaber in Bet Yosef explicitly rules against this shita (for le-khatehilla) and holds in SA that one should say "Al Tevilat Kelim." Having done so, to say "Al haTevilah" would not be "Matbe'ah sheTavu Hakhamim." Any ideas? -------------------------------------------------- Dr. Aryeh A. Frimer Ethel and David Resnick Professor Emeritus of Active Oxygen Chemistry Chemistry Dept., Bar-Ilan University Ramat Gan 5290002, ISRAEL E-mail (office): Aryeh.Frimer at biu.ac.il Homepage http://ch.biu.ac.il/frimer Tel: 972-3-5318610; Fax: 972-3-7384053 Tel Home: 972-8-9473819/9470834 E-mail (home): FrimerA at zahav.net.il Cellphone: 972-54-7540761 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hankman at bell.net Mon Dec 18 06:16:44 2017 From: hankman at bell.net (hankman) Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2017 09:16:44 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Rambam Hilchot Kiddush Hachodesh -- on "min" Message-ID: <0C71CBB0F1E145B89D102DAA516AF81A@hankPC> R. Micha Berger wrote: ?Ironically, defining a "min" is not settled halakhah either.? CM asks: If I am not mistaken the modern secular definition of ?species? is based on whether the populations can interbreed or not. Do we know with any certainty that the Torah rejects this criteria as a determinant of ?min?? Kol tuv Chaim Manaster --- This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. http://www.avg.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Mon Dec 18 07:05:39 2017 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2017 15:05:39 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Yehudah Speaking to Yosef Message-ID: <1513609536405.23616@stevens.edu> In what l language did Yehudah speak to Yosef. Was it Hebrew and was the translator present to "translate" for Yosef? The Chumash does not mention a translator in this week's parasha. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jont at traumatic.us Mon Dec 18 11:56:26 2017 From: jont at traumatic.us (Jonathan Traum) Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2017 14:56:26 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Rambam Hilchot Kiddush Hachodesh In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <622ffda5-c446-82f3-45b0-18da6c93f6da@traumatic.us> On 12/09/2017 03:59 PM, Ben Waxman wrote: > 1) Rambam Hilchot Kiddush Hachodesh 3:1 makes it clear that anyone who > sees the new moon and can get to Jerusalem by the following evening > should go. ... > [snip] > Is there any problem in making sure that you don't see the moon? Just > stay in for the evening. Rambam doesn't say that there is a chiyuv to > look. I imagine that most people wouldn't have to worry about it.? On the 30th day after the previous Rosh Hodesh, the tiny crescent moon would only be visible for a short time after sunset and before moonset, and only to those who have an unobstructed view of the western horizon. Jonathan Traum From zev at sero.name Mon Dec 18 13:02:48 2017 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2017 16:02:48 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Using "Al haTevila" for tevilat Kelim In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <725ae5c3-d6de-7ce1-60c9-1defc191ac9d@sero.name> On 18/12/17 02:09, Aryeh Frimer via Avodah wrote: > ?Rav Zvi *Cohen*,?in his Encyclopedic *Tevilat Kelim*: Rules that > be-Di-avad Al haTevila is valid. > > I was surprised by this since the Mehaber in Bet Yosef explicitly rules > against this shita ?(for le-khatehilla) and holds in SA? that one should > say ?Al Tevilat Kelim.??? Having done so, to say ?Al haTevilah? would > not be ?Matbe?ah sheTavu Hakhamim.?? ?Any ideas? > "Al hatevilah" *is* a coinage of the chachamim, just not the one they prescribed for this occasion. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From llevine at stevens.edu Mon Dec 18 23:37:41 2017 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2017 07:37:41 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Did the Patriarchs Speak Hebrew? Message-ID: <1513669061621.40139@stevens.edu> >From the article at https://goo.gl/Z3QWs2 Ramban says: It is possible that he said this to them simply as a means of pacifying them, for there was no proof [that he was Joseph] in the fact that someone in Egypt should speak in the Holy Tongue. In my opinion, Hebrew was a Canaanite language. For Abraham did not bring it from Ur of the Chaldees [in Mesopotamia] and from Haran, for there they spoke Aramaic, as the incident of the pile of stones erected by Laban and Jacob proves [see Gen. 31:47]. And it was not a private language spoken by a single person but a language of Canaan, and many people in Egypt knew it for the countries were close together--particularly the ruler, for it is customary for kings and rulers to know several languages. For his assertion that Hebrew is "a Canannite language" Ramban makes reference to Isaiah, who does thus refer to Hebrew: "On that day there will be five cities in the land of Egypt that speak the language of Canaan and swear by the Lord of hosts" (Isa. 19:18). That the original language of the Patriarchs (Abraham, Isaac and Jacob) was Aramaic is proved to Ramban's mind by virtue of the fact that Laban gave the name "Yegar-sahaduta" to what Jacob called "Gal-ed" (Gen. 31:47), The former had remained in Mesopotamia and continued to speak Aramaic (which Ramban thinks was spoken in Ur and in Haran), while Jacob, who had grown up in Canaan, had learnt the local language. Please see the above URL for much more on this topic. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gershonseif at mail.yahoo.com Tue Dec 19 08:23:45 2017 From: gershonseif at mail.yahoo.com (Gershon Seif) Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2017 16:23:45 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Avodah] Did the Patriarchs Speak Hebrew? In-Reply-To: <1513669061621.40139@stevens.edu> References: <1513669061621.40139@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <949360216.1197555.1513700625794@mail.yahoo.com> Leavining Avraham Avinu aside, what is the Ramban's view about the language spoken by Adam HaRishon? ie. Naming his wife Chava and assigning names to all the animals?If the Ramban concurs that these names were given in lashon hakodesh, then he agrees that it was the first language. No? Unless you say that lashon hakodesh was one of at least 2 languages that Adam spoke and he reserved it for holy purposes only, such as giving these names. And I suppose that would be along the lines of the other Ramban quoted there which says that it's called Lashon Hakodesh because it's the language that Hashem used to convey the Torah. On Tuesday, December 19, 2017 1:37 AM, Professor L. Levine wrote: > From the article at https://goo.gl/Z3QWs2 > Ramban says: >> It is possible that he said this to them simply as a means of >> pacifying them, for there was no proof [that he was Joseph] in the fact >> that someone in Egypt should speak in the Holy Tongue. In my opinion, >> Hebrew was a Canaanite language. For Abraham did not bring it from Ur >> of the Chaldees [in Mesopotamia] and from Haran, for there they spoke >> Aramaic... From micha at aishdas.org Tue Dec 19 09:05:08 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2017 12:05:08 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Did the Patriarchs Speak Hebrew? In-Reply-To: <1513669061621.40139@stevens.edu> References: <1513669061621.40139@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20171219170508.GC27362@aishdas.org> On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 07:37:41AM +0000, Professor L. Levine via Avodah wrote: : From the article at : https://goo.gl/Z3QWs2 : : Ramban says: : : It is possible that he said this to them simply as a means of : pacifying them, for there was no proof [that he was Joseph] in : the fact that someone in Egypt should speak in the Holy Tongue. In : my opinion, Hebrew was a Canaanite language... ... and yet also lashon haqodesh. And to the Ramban (on "sheqel haqodesh" in parashas Sheqalim), this is because it's the language in which Hashem created the world and in which the Torah and Nakh were written. And leshitaso, the letters of the Torah, if not their breakup into words, preceded creation. The notion that the avos spoke Aramaic is in Vayiqra Rabba on 32:5. The Medrash Peliyah (#166) concludes that even Adam did! This is a comment about Sarah's death in "Qiryas Araba". The Niv Sefasayim explains that the medrash is getting this from the use of the Aramaic term "qirya". But I don't see how we know this was the name of the cite from back when Adam and Chava were buried there; or how else this moved the line to any time before Efron. R Yonasan Eibschitz (Tif'eres Yehonasan on Bereishis 11:1) that Adam spoke LhQ before the cheit, and Aramaic after. Fore that matter, Medrash Tanchuma (beginning of Devarim in Buber) and Medrash Seikhel Tov (Shemos 4:11) say Adam spoke all 70 languages. Requires a new peshat in what happened at Migdal Bavel, no? I am not to clear on the whole thing. Languages evolve, so that if one were to trace them out over time, one would draw a tree or a bush. Adam's proto-Semitic, or proto-proto-proto... everything is an ancestor of all language. I could call it early Hebrew if I wanted, and claim that Hebrew is the trunk from which other languages branched off. But that's just a decision about how to draw the tree. I could pick another run from root to twig and pull it straight, and say that Adam spoke proto-...proto-Mandarin, and all the other languages branched off. For languages as similar as Hebrew and Aramaic, where neither could have drifted from the original significanly more than the other, doesn't the whole discussion of whether Adam's language was a predecessar to the language of the chumash, Nakh, Chazal, etc... or of Aramaic in its evolutions all kind of arbitrary? I wonder if the Ramban understands the name of Kesav Ashuris to mean "Assyrian Script", rather than "Enriched Script" (from "osher". YMMV on the definition of osher.) After all, he seems to have no problem saying that Hashem left holy things in the hands of other peoples for us to find and use. For that matter, Eretz Yisrael was also given to the Kenaanim to hold until we got there... It might also be leshitaso -- but this may be a stretch -- with the Ramban's take on rainbows. The Ramban says that rainbows existed since Maaseh Bereishis. Nature didn't change in this regard with the Mabul. Rather, the already existing phenomenon was made a symbol when HQBH made the beris with Noach. Again, something put in place naturally so that when the time came it would be available take on its full significance. : Canaan, and many people in Egypt knew it for the countries were close : together--particularly the ruler, for it is customary for kings and : rulers to know several languages. : : For his assertion that Hebrew is "a Canannite language" Ramban makes : reference to Isaiah, who does thus refer to Hebrew: "On that day there : will be five cities in the land of Egypt that speak the language of : Canaan and swear by the Lord of hosts" (Isa. 19:18). That the original : language of the Patriarchs (Abraham, Isaac and Jacob) was Aramaic is : proved to Ramban's mind by virtue of the fact that Laban gave the name : "Yegar-sahaduta" to what Jacob called "Gal-ed" (Gen. 31:47), The former : had remained in Mesopotamia and continued to speak Aramaic (which Ramban : thinks was spoken in Ur and in Haran), while Jacob, who had grown up in : Canaan, had learnt the local language. : : Please see the above URL for much more on this topic. Have a Great Month, and a enlightening and enjoyable Chanukah! -Micha -- Micha Berger The greatest discovery of all time is that micha at aishdas.org a person can change their future http://www.aishdas.org by merely changing their attitude. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Oprah Winfrey From zev at sero.name Tue Dec 19 09:12:45 2017 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2017 12:12:45 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Did the Patriarchs Speak Hebrew? In-Reply-To: <20171219170508.GC27362@aishdas.org> References: <1513669061621.40139@stevens.edu> <20171219170508.GC27362@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <45f78c92-f0ed-6df8-9a80-01c96d6dd007@sero.name> On 19/12/17 12:05, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > I wonder if the Ramban understands the name of Kesav Ashuris to mean > "Assyrian Script", rather than "Enriched Script" (from "osher". YMMV > on the definition of osher.) You associate osher with an alef and `osher with an `ayin? -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From micha at aishdas.org Tue Dec 19 10:59:01 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2017 13:59:01 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Did the Patriarchs Speak Hebrew? In-Reply-To: <45f78c92-f0ed-6df8-9a80-01c96d6dd007@sero.name> References: <1513669061621.40139@stevens.edu> <20171219170508.GC27362@aishdas.org> <45f78c92-f0ed-6df8-9a80-01c96d6dd007@sero.name> Message-ID: <20171219185901.GE31888@aishdas.org> On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 12:12:45PM -0500, Zev Sero wrote: : On 19/12/17 12:05, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: : >I wonder if the Ramban understands the name of Kesav Ashuris to mean : >"Assyrian Script", rather than "Enriched Script" (from "osher". YMMV : >on the definition of osher.) : You associate osher with an alef and `osher with an `ayin? RSRH does, as he does all alef-ayin pairs. Also osher with asher. But I used enriched because in common usage, it refers to someone having a gift. We say that a cereal is enriched with vitamins. We far more rarely speak of a CEO being enriched. At least, not anymore. And what about yiysher kochakha, assuming the correct niqud isn't yeyasher? Reish Laqish (Shabbos 87a) says "asher shibarta" is an allusion to "yiyshar kochakha", so that's connected as well. RSRH himself uses "being in successful progress" (eg Bereishis 30:30), which R/Dr Mattiyahu Clark's Hirschian dictionary gives as its 1st definition. Chodesh tov, un a lichtikn un freilechn Chanukah! -Micha -- Micha Berger The trick is learning to be passionate in one's micha at aishdas.org ideals, but compassionate to one's peers. http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From mandels at ou.org Tue Dec 19 09:46:51 2017 From: mandels at ou.org (Mandel, Seth) Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2017 17:46:51 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Did the Patriarchs Speak Hebrew? In-Reply-To: <1513669061621.40139@stevens.edu> References: <1513669061621.40139@stevens.edu> Message-ID: There is no proof that anyone spoke Hebrew. Chazal say that dibb'ra Torah bilshon b'nei odom, and the Torah was written in Hebrew because that is what the Jews understood at the time of Moshe Rabbeinu and the N'vi'im. This is clear from last weeks Parsha, where Par'oh speaks to Yosef, kavyakhol in Hebrew. However, just as much as there is no proof at all from the T'NaKh that lots of people spoke Hebrew, even though the T'NaKh records them in Hebrew, there is also no proof at all that certain people did not speak Hebrew. The Ramban quotes the story of Lovon and Ya'akov to "prove" that Lovon did not speak Hebrew. That is probable, but what did Yaakov and Lovon speak together? What did Yaakov speak to Rochel and Leah, who had never been in EY? OK, they all spoke what was spoken in Aram Naharayim. Probably. But Yaakov and the Ovos must have learned the language of K'na'an for Avrohom to speak to b'nei Het to buy the Cave of the Patriarchs. So what exactly did Avrohom Ovinu say in the language of Aram, whence he came, and what in the language of K'na'an? QED that one cannot know from the T'NaKh who spoke what when and where. The only thing we know is the Masorah, that HQBH dictated the Torah to Moshe Rabbeinu in the eponymous Biblical Hebrew. People ask whether Odom hoRishon spoke Hebrew. That is a question that has no meaning. We do not know exactly what he spoke, nor is it relevant. It might have been a precursor of Hebrew, IOW a language like Hebrew, but a much older form. It could have been something else. But, scientifically, it could not have been the same as the Hebrew spoken in the time of Y'tzi'as Mitzrayim, because it has been proven that all languages change over time. Rabbi Dr. Seth Mandel From micha at aishdas.org Tue Dec 19 14:10:58 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2017 17:10:58 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Did the Patriarchs Speak Hebrew? In-Reply-To: References: <1513669061621.40139@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20171219221058.GA3159@aishdas.org> On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 05:46:51PM +0000, Mandel, Seth via Avodah wrote: : There is no proof that anyone spoke Hebrew. Chazal say that dibb'ra Torah : bilshon b'nei odom... Well.... R' Yishmael says it. And it appears to be an argument for his rules of derashah, which do not include looking for magic words like "akh" (mi'ut), "raq" (mi'ut), "kol" (ribui) or even "es", but darshens the meaning of terms, whether ribui or mi'ut. The Rambam really sloganeers (like the CS's "chadash assur min haTorah") when he uses it to explain that anthropomorphic descriptions of HQBH are idioms, not to be taken overly literally. The point may be true, but it has nothing to do with the quote. The maqor is nothing remotely like: : the Torah was written in Hebrew because that is : what the Jews understood at the time of Moshe Rabbeinu and the N'vi'im. And besides, R' Aqiva disagrees! Chodesh tov, un a lichtikn un freilechn Chanukah! -Micha -- Micha Berger One doesn't learn mussar to be a tzaddik, micha at aishdas.org but to become a tzaddik. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yisrael Salanter Fax: (270) 514-1507 From llevine at stevens.edu Wed Dec 20 01:27:34 2017 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2017 09:27:34 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Yehudah Spoke Egyptian Message-ID: <1513762054084.88548@stevens.edu> Rabbi Yitzchok D. Frankel, Rav of the Agudah of the Five Towns, in Cedarhurst, NY, asserts in his sefer Machat shel Yad. Bereishis vol.2 (Back of Vayikrah) Parshas VaYigash. that Yehudah did indeed speak Egyptian. See http://personal.stevens.edu/~llevine/yehudah_egyptian.pdf for his argument. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cantorwolberg at cox.net Wed Dec 20 09:32:33 2017 From: cantorwolberg at cox.net (Richard Wolberg) Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2017 12:32:33 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Question on 48:1 Message-ID: In Vay?chi first sentence of Ch.48, why is ?choleh? spelled without a vov? Nowhere have I found an explanation. From zev at sero.name Wed Dec 20 06:01:31 2017 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2017 09:01:31 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Did the Patriarchs Speak Hebrew? In-Reply-To: References: <1513669061621.40139@stevens.edu> <8b9c1a71-a4fe-ecf5-e066-0a640a78bfec@sero.name> Message-ID: <130e52aa-14f1-24b6-9478-9244543e628c@sero.name> On 19/12/17 02:37, Professor L. Levine via Avodah wrote: > . And it was not a private language spoken by a single person but a > language of Canaan, and many people in Egypt knew it for the countries > were close together--particularly the ruler, for it is customary for > kings and rulers to know several languages. Then how is it that Yosef could pretend not to know it and need an interpreter. More, how is it that Par'oh, who knew all the other languages, didn't know this one? [Email #2. -micha] On 19/12/17 12:46, Mandel, Seth via Avodah wrote: > There is no proof that anyone spoke Hebrew. Chazal say that dibb'ra Torah > bilshon b'nei odom, and the Torah was written in Hebrew because that is > what the Jews understood at the time of Moshe Rabbeinu and the N'vi'im. Rashi Bereshis 2:23 Bereshis Rabbah 18:4 [Eamil #3. -micha] On 20/12/17 08:56, Mandel, Seth wrote: > I am talking objective proof, from the T'NaKh and other documents. > Medrashim of Chazal teaches us important ideas, but are not meant to be > literally true. They do not intend to be a historical document, but > rather contain important moral and ethical teachings which are 'emes in > the spiritual sense. 1. This medrash is clearly intended literally. Not only does it not contain any important moral or ethical teaching, it cites a simple linguistic proof (albeit based on a very small sample of languages). 2. Rashi only cites those medroshim that he believes are necessary for pshat. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From mandels at ou.org Wed Dec 20 07:39:30 2017 From: mandels at ou.org (Mandel, Seth) Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2017 15:39:30 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Did the Patriarchs Speak Hebrew? In-Reply-To: <130e52aa-14f1-24b6-9478-9244543e628c@sero.name> References: <1513669061621.40139@stevens.edu> <8b9c1a71-a4fe-ecf5-e066-0a640a78bfec@sero.name> , <130e52aa-14f1-24b6-9478-9244543e628c@sero.name> Message-ID: From: Zev Sero Sent: Wednesday, December 20, 2017 7:45 AM > On 19/12/17 12:46, Mandel, Seth via Avodah wrote: >> There is no proof that anyone spoke Hebrew. Chazal say that dibb'ra Torah >> bilshon b'nei odom, and the Torah was written in Hebrew because that is >> what the Jews understood at the time of Moshe Rabbeinu and the N'vi'im. > Rashi Bereshis 2:23 > Bereshis Rabbah 18:4 I am talking objective proof, from the T'NaKh and other documents. Medrashim of Chazal teaches us important ideas, but are not meant to be literally true. They do not intend to be a historical document, but rather contain important moral and ethical teachings which are 'emes in the spiritual sense. There are plenty of Medrashim that have ideas that seem to indicate that HQBH or the angels spoke Hebrew. But, as the Rambam indicates, HQBH does not have a mouth and does not speak as people speak. Rather, all the p'sukim saying that HQBH spoke to Moshe or Aharon mean that He communicated with them directly to their mind, not that He spoke acoustic sounds that they heard with their physical ears. The argument that Prof. Levine brought in the name of R. Frankel, OTOH, does indeed show that Yehudah must have been speaking Egyptian, but yet the Torah quotes him in Hebrew. [Email #2. -micha] From: Zev Sero on behalf of Zev Sero Sent: Wednesday, December 20, 2017 9:01:31 AM > 1. This medrash is clearly intended literally. Not only does it not > contain any important moral or ethical teaching, it cites a simple > linguistic proof (albeit based on a very small sample of languages). > 2. Rashi only cites those medroshim that he believes are necessary for > pshat. This is not a conversation that is worth continuing. I have the greatest respect for Jews who learn and seek to understand. But there are certain discussions where the locutors speak past each other for no benefit to either. However, for others in the group that may be curious: if you understand what the Rambam says in his introduction to Chapter 10 of Mas. Sanhedrin regarding three approaches to what Chazal say, you will understand that there is no point in one group arguing with the other group. A similar case would be that there would be no point in the Rambam arguing with Rashi or Rabbeinu Tam about whether demons exist or whether the Earth is flat or round. The basic assumptions about the way things work are too far apart. I have said what I meant about medrashim, and the medrash that R. Zev quotes does not contradict in my mind my statement that there is no proof about the actual historical language used in anything in the Torah. Nor does Rashi's use of the medrash contradict what I said. It would be impossible to convince R. Tam's belief that the Earth is flat, since in his understanding of the universe everything points to the world being flat, and he can find statements in the G'moro that seem to him to prove his case, and all scientists from his culture "knew" that the Earth is flat. I challenge those who believe that illnesses are caused by bacteria or viruses to bring me one proof that they are; most rishonim knew that they were caused by evil spirits or bodily humors. What a person believes is based on some basic assumptions, and different Rishonim held very different assumptions in certain matters. People might and did challenge the Rambam that it appears from their point of view that the Rambam did not believe what Chazal say, or that I do not believe what Chazal say. The Rambam believed that everything that Chazal said is 'emes, but read his comments in the Perush haMishnayos to see that absolute Truth means different things in different approaches. Another example is how to reconcile the Truth that HQBH gave men free will with the fact that HQBH knows everything that will happen. That can only be explained if people understand certain assumptions about space and time. Rabbi Dr. Seth Mandel Rabbinic Coordinator The Orthodox Union From office at etzion.org.il Thu Dec 21 02:25:30 2017 From: office at etzion.org.il (Yeshivat Har Etzion) Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2017 12:25:30 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] VBM - Avodat Hashem #51: The Mitzva of Mezuza (Part I) Message-ID: <5A3B8C1A.4030506@etzion.org.il> PHILOSOPHY > Avodat Hashem - Foundations of Divine Service > Shiur #51: The Mitzva of Mezuza (Part I) Harav Baruch Gigi Yeshivat Har Etzion I. The Protection Offered by a Mezuza We are currently engaged in a clarification of the system of mitzvot, in the framework of the transition in Keriyat Shema from matters pertaining to the Rambam's Sefer Mada to matters pertaining to his Sefer Ahava. Thus far, we have studied the mitzva of tefillin and its unique meanings. Now, let us turn to a closely-related mitzva - the mitzva of mezuza. One of the central ideas relating to mezuza is the idea of protection. When one affixes a mezuza to the entrance of his home, his house and household are protected from all trouble and damage. This idea is expressed by Chazal in several contexts, and it is based, as we will demonstrate, on a connection that is already rooted in the verses of the Torah. At the end of the passage of Ve-haya im shamo'a, it is stated: And you shall write them upon the doorposts of your house and upon your gates; that your days may be multiplied, and the days of your children, upon the land which the Lord swore to your fathers to give them, as the days of the heavens above the earth. (Devarim 11:20-21) At first glance, it seems that the Torah's promise of longevity relates to all that was stated in this passage concerning one who obeys all of God's commandments and follows His ways. However, Chazal linked this promise directly to the mitzva of mezuza. Two talmudic passages establish a connection between longevity and the mitzva of mezuza. In tractate Shabbat (32b), it is taught that a person's children die because of a failure to fulfill the mitzva of mezuza.[1] This is learned from the juxtaposition of the commandment of mezuza to the verse that promises that "your days will be multiplied, and the days of your children." In a positive formulation, the Tur writes: Whoever is careful about it, his days and the days of his children will be lengthened, as it is written: "That your days may be multiplied, and the days of your children." (Tur, Yoreh De'ah 285) In tractate Kiddushin (34a), the gemara discusses the possibility of exempting women from the mitzva of mezuza. At first, the gemara is of the opinion that women are exempt, in view of the Torah's juxtaposition of the mitzva of mezuza to the mitzva of Torah study, from which women are exempt. However, the gemara rejects this possibility with the following argument: You cannot think so, because it is written: ["And You shall write them upon the doorposts of your house...] that your days may be multiplied." Do men only need life, and not women? (Kiddushin 34a) In this gemara as well, we clearly see that the promise of longevity in relation to the mitzva of mezuza is so central that there is no room even to entertain the possibility that women may be exempt from it. For by removing women from the mitzva of mezuza you would be removing them from the basic desire of existence, of life. The Tur adds: Moreover, one's house is protected by it, as they expounded the verse: "The Lord is your keeper; the Lord is your shade upon your right hand" (Tehillim 121:5). (Tur, ibid.) II. The Rambam's View The Rambam famously writes: It is a common custom to write [God's name] Shaddai on the outside of a mezuza, opposite the empty space left between the two passages. There is no difficulty in this, since the addition is made on the outside. However, those who write the names of angels, other sacred names, verses, or forms,[2] on the inside [of a mezuza] are among those who do not have a portion in the World-to-Come. Not only do these fools nullify the mitzva, but furthermore, they make from a great mitzva that reflects the unity of the name of the Holy One, blessed be He, the love of Him, and the service of Him, a talisman for their own benefit. They, in their foolish conception, think that this will help them regarding the vanities of the world. (Hilkhot Tefillin U-Mezuza 5:4) The Kesef Mishneh (ad loc.) cites the objection raised by the Ramach against the Rambam based on the gemara in Avoda Zara (11a). The gemara there records a story about Onkelos, who became a proselyte, and the emperor sent a contingent of soldiers after him. Among other things, it is stated there: Again he sent another cohort ordering them not to enter into any conversation whatever with him. So they took hold of him; and as they were walking on, he saw the mezuza that was fixed on the door frame and he placed his hand on it saying to them, "Now what is this?" And they replied, "You tell us then." He said to them, "According to universal custom, the mortal king dwells within, and his servants keep guard on him without; but [in the case of] the Holy One, blessed is He, it is His servants who dwell within while He keeps guard on them from without, as it is stated: `The Lord shall guard your going out and your coming in from this time forth and for evermore' (Tehillim 121:8)." Then they, too, were converted to Judaism. (Avoda Zara 11a) >From the difficulty raised by the Ramach, it may be concluded that in his opinion the Rambam rejects the idea of protection that is attributed to the mezuza. The Rambam views the mezuza as an expression of man's connection to God, in that he declares at the entrance to his house his faith in His unity and his love for Him, two of the foundations of His service. According to the Ramach, the Rambam rejects the talismanic qualities that were attributed to the mezuza by the ancients. The Ramach attacks the Rambam's position, as he understood it, on the grounds that the idea of protection is brought in the gemara itself: For in tractate Avoda Zara it is implied from that which Onkelos said to the Roman contingent that the Holy One, blessed is He, makes the mezuza to protect Israel from the outside. And one can force an answer that it was Onkelos who said this in order give importance to Israel. (Ramach, ad loc.) In light of this, the Ramach struggles to reconcile the Rambam's position, arguing that Onkelos said this to the Romans only in order to praise Israel in their eyes. Onkelos told the Romans that the mezuza symbolizes God's protection, as it were, over the houses of Israel. In truth, however, the mitzva of mezuza is not a matter of God's protection, but rather an expression of a person's faith in God's unity and service. It stands to reason, however, that the Rambam does not challenge the very idea of the protection offered by a mezuza. Thus writes the Kesef Mishneh in light of the fact that the gemara in Menachot uses this principle to determine the halakha regarding the proper placement of a mezuza: For in chapter Ha-Kometz (33b), regarding the rule that a mezuza must be placed in the handbreadth adjacent to the public domain, R. Huna said: "What is the reason? So that it may protect him."[3] Therefore you must say that in fact a mezuza protects the house when it is written properly. (Kesef Mishneh) In the Kesef Mishneh's opinion, the Rambam rejects only those actions that expanded the talismanic element of a mezuza - namely, the insertion of the names of the angels into the mezuza. The Rambam sees the protective quality of a mezuza in the connection between man and God and his belief in Him and His unity. In the continuation of our discussion, we will explain the idea of the protection offered by a mezuza with greater precision and in greater depth. III. Additional Sources The Yerushalmi states in tractate Pe'ah: Artaban sent to our holy Rabbi an invaluably precious pearl. He said to him: Send me something which is similarly precious. He sent him a mezuza. He said to him: What I have sent you is something priceless, but you have sent me something which is only worth one follis. He [Rabbi] said to him: Your treasures and my treasures are incomparable. And moreover, you have sent me something that I have to guard, while I have sent you something which guards you when you sleep, as it is written: "When you walk, it will lead you; when you lie down, it will watch over you; and when you awake, it will talk to you" (Mishlei 6:22). (Yerushalmi, Pe'ah 1:1) Similarly, the Tur writes in Hilkhot Mezuza: Moreover, one's house is protected by it, as they expounded the verse: "The Lord is your keeper; the Lord is your shade upon your right hand" (Tehillim 121:5). A mortal king dwells within, and his servants keep guard on him without; but you sleep in your beds and the Holy One, blessed is He, guards you from without. Therefore, it should be placed in the outermost handbreadth, so that the entire house be within it and under its protection. (Tur, Yoreh De'ah 285) The prevalent custom to write on the outside of the mezuza parchment the name ShaDaY - which is expounded as an abbreviation for the words: Shomer Delatot Yisrael, "Who guards the doors of Israel"[4] - also reinforces this idea of a mezuza as protecting a person's home. As stated, the basis of this idea is already found in the verses of the Torah. Even though the Torah does not mention the idea of protection in direct connection to the mitzva of mezuza, it is mentioned in connection with another mezuza. In Parashat Bo, God commands the people of Israel to place the blood of the paschal lamb on the two doorposts and lintel. The reason for this is explained as follows: And the blood shall be to you for a token upon the houses where you are; and when I see the blood, I will pass over you, and there shall no plague be upon you to destroy you, when I smite the land of Egypt. (Shemot 12:13) And later in the same chapter: For the Lord will pass through to smite the Egyptians; and when He sees the blood upon the lintel and on the two doorposts, the Lord will pass over the door, and will not suffer the destroyer to come in to your houses to smite you. (Shemot 12:23) It is further stated at the end of that chapter: It was a night of watching to the Lord for bringing them out from the land of Egypt; this same night is a night of watching to the Lord for all the children of Israel throughout their generations. (Shemot 12:42) Rashi writes: "A night of watching to the Lord for all the children of Israel throughout their generations" - This night is protected, and comes as such from ages past, against all destructive forces, as it is stated: "And He will not suffer the destroyer to enter your houses" (v. 33). (Rashi, ad loc.) IV. The Mezuza and the Paschal Offering On the night of the exodus from Egypt, God protected the houses of the people of Israel by way of the sign of the blood on the doorposts and lintels, and because of this the night became a night of watching for all generations.[5] At first glance, it seems that the common denominator between the mitzva of mezuza and the paschal offering is that in both cases we are commanded to place a specific thing on the doorpost, thereby securing the protection of the house and its inhabitants. On the deeper level, it seems that the connection between the mitzva of mezuza and the paschal offering is more substantive. What is the significance of placing blood on the doorposts and lintel of one's house? The paschal offering that the people of Israel brought in Egypt was sacrificed as a family offering, a sheep for each family, at the entrance to each family's home. In Egypt, of course, there was no Temple and no altar. Therefore, it seems that the meaning of the blood was to distinguish between the houses of the Israelites and the houses of the Egyptians, in order to prevent the destroyer from coming into the homes of the Israelites to attack. However, the possibility that the blood was meant to distinguish between the houses of Israel and the houses of Egypt raises a great difficulty, in light of the midrashim of Chazal, which indicate that God Himself passed through the land of Egypt. He certainly did not need a distinguishing sign. So writes the Beit Yosef in his book, Maggid Meisharim: As for the difficulty with the verse, "And when I see the blood, I will pass over you," why was a sign needed, for surely everything is revealed to Him? It may be suggested that a sign was needed for the angels who came with Him. It may further be objected that this sign was with blood, which is a sign of death, the opposite of what they wanted. And furthermore, the sign should have been on the outside, and this sign was on the inside. But the secret of the matter is that the Holy One, blessed be He, wanted them to trust in Him and place the blood on the door from the inside. This is what is written: "And the blood shall be to you for a token." And instead of being afraid when they see the blood on the door, on the contrary they should trust their Master who commanded them to do this, so that He would be a salvation for them. This merit of trusting God would protect them. This is the meaning of what is written: "And the blood shall be to you for a token upon the houses where you are; and when I see the blood, I will pass over you." That is to say, I will see the merit of your trust, that the blood that is a sign of death will be for you a sign of life when you trust the words of your Master. And for this reason, "when I see the blood, I will pass over you." (Maggid Meisharim, Parashat Bo) It seems that trust in God involves not only doing the action required by God on the simple level. What we have here is an important and profound principle, in light of the gemara in Pesachim: R. Yosef taught: There were three altars there, on the lintel and on the two doorposts. (Pesachim 96a) A broader picture emerges from the gemara. The paschal offering brought in Egypt was a sacrifice offered at the entrance of a person's house, his house serving as the Temple, and the entrance to his house being the altar. While Chazal speak of three altars, it seems more accurate to say that they are referring to the three corners of the altar. The people of Israel are commanded to see their homes as the house of God. With their trust in God, they express the strength of their connection to Him by seeing their homes as God's house. And if their house is the house of God, then the entrance to the house is an altar, and they put of the blood on the three corners of the altar - the lintel and the two doorposts. This view, which sanctifies the houses of the people of Israel as the Temple, is similar to what is stated: "In every place where I cause My name to be mentioned I will come to you and bless you" (Shemot 20:20). In this way, the house becomes the basis of the covenant that is being formed between God and His people, by virtue of their seeking His presence within them. If we are correct, it stands to reason that the idea of the protection offered by a mezuza has a more fundamental and inner meaning. A person turns his house into a house of God, and a house of God is protected, as is stated in Tehillim: A Song of Ascents; of Shelomo. Except the Lord build the house, they labor in vain that build it; except the Lord keep the city, the watchman wakes but in vain. (Tehillim 127:1) God's protection is protection, and there is no other, it alone being considered true protection. These words connect with the words of the Rambam in Hilkhot Beit Ha-Bechira, that the guarding in the Temple was merely a display of honor, and not needed for the protection it offered, since the house of God is not in need of protection: There is a positive mitzva to guard the Temple. [This mitzvah applies] even though there is no fear of enemies or thieves, for the guarding [of the Temple] is an expression of respect for it. A palace with guards is [much more impressive] than a palace without guards. (Rambam, Hilkhot Beit Ha-Bechira 8:1) (Translated by David Strauss) _______________________ [1] The gemara there states as follows: "R. Chiya bar Abba and R. Yose disagree. One says: It is for the sin of neglect of mezuza [that a person's children die]; while the other says: It is for the sin of the neglect of Torah... It is well according to the one who says: It is for the sin of the neglect of mezuza, for it is written: 'And you shall write them upon the doorposts of your house,' which is followed by: 'that your days may be multiplied, and the days of your children'" (Shabbat 32b). [2] The Rambam is referring here to the ancient practice of inserting all kinds of additions into the mezuza. Rabbeinu Eliezer of Metz writes as follows: "It is common practice to add seals and the names of the angels at the end of the Bible verses contained in the mezuza for the sake of the increased security of the home. This is not indispensible, nor even a mitzva, but simply serves as additional protection" (Yere'im 400). He then spells out in great detail the names of the angels and where precisely they were inserted in the mezuza. [3] According to the Ramach's understanding of the Rambam, it may be suggested that this does not mean that a mezuza protects a person, but rather that a person should be reminded of the principles of his faith whenever he goes in or out of his house. [4] See Kolbo: "The reason that we write this name more than the others is that it is an abbreviation for Shomer Dirat Yisrael, "Who guards the dwelling of Israel" (Kolbo, Mezuza 90). [5] Establishing this night as a night of watching has halakhic ramifications in a number of contexts. This is true regarding the recitation of Shema before going to sleep and regarding the Me-Ein Sheva blessing on the night of the Seder when it falls out on Friday night. Many halakhic authorities rule that one should not say the Me-Ein Sheva blessing on the night of the Seder, since it is a night of watching that does not require protection. From bdbradley70 at hotmail.com Sat Dec 23 13:33:10 2017 From: bdbradley70 at hotmail.com (Ben Bradley) Date: Sat, 23 Dec 2017 21:33:10 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Midrash Tanchuma Message-ID: I'd be grateful to know if anyone here is sufficiently familiar with different editions of midrash tanchuma to help me out. I acquired a copy of the Tanchuma from a second hand book shop, very inexpensively, a number of years ago. I was a poor student at the time. It was printed in 5645, ie 1885, by one Shlomo Buber (Bober?) in Lvov from manuscripts acquired from Oxford and the Vatican. I must admit I'd never paid much attention to these details until now, but It's just come to my attention that it my copy is hugely different to the standard one. For example, this week in Vayigash, my copy has 12 simanim, compared to the 11 in the standard edition. But only 4 of these are the same (8-11 in mine corresponding to 9-12 in the standard), all the others are utterly different. By which I mean they are simply different midrashim, not just variants. Can anyone shed light on such a huge difference between what seems to be the standard edition and mine? Best wishes Ben -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From meirabi at gmail.com Sat Dec 23 16:49:35 2017 From: meirabi at gmail.com (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi) Date: Sun, 24 Dec 2017 11:49:35 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] Did the Patriarchs Speak Hebrew? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Speak means communication, there were 10 communications with which HKBH created the universe There were 10 communications broadcast at Har Sinai - I'm pretty sure it wasn't Polish or Hungarian. The Rishonim argue about the nature of prophesy, is it an actual voice (meaning stimulation of the human hearing facility of the ear - not necessarily stimulated by an actual sound) or just a voice in the head but TTBOMKnowledge, none question the language. Anyway, does it make any difference? Either way the brain is receiving a signal. Perhaps the type of language is irrelevant, what's important is that the message is received and understood. That the parties are connected. I have seen, but could not re-find a comment by the MaOr VeShemesh (I think connected to Ish Mitzi HiTzilanu) that Yidden spoke Mitzi, and the meaning of Lo Shinu LeShonom is that they spoke with a Yiddishe style, with dignity and kindness - and this is what set us apart. Clearly a Derasha designed to direct the listeners and readers towards a more dignified language, but at the same time reflecting an ultimate truth, the language does not make the man, it's the style that's important. I also recall hearing is a RaMBaN or a Siforno - a child exposed from birth to no external language inputs, would naturally speak Lashon HaKodesh. This seems to be a fairly old consideration amongst philosophers, see Frederick's Experiment, and Gong Mahal. HKBH looked into the Torah and created the universe, speaks volumes about the centrality of Torah, not about it's language, although it's not easy separating the two. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From driceman at optimum.net Sat Dec 23 16:53:36 2017 From: driceman at optimum.net (David Riceman) Date: Sat, 23 Dec 2017 19:53:36 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Did the Patriarchs Speak Hebrew? Message-ID: See Melachim 2 18:26 [Email #2. -micha] And see Gen. 31:47 DR Sent from my iPad From zev at sero.name Sat Dec 23 19:46:46 2017 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Sat, 23 Dec 2017 22:46:46 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Midrash Tanchuma In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 23/12/17 16:33, Ben Bradley via Avodah wrote: > It was printed in 5645, ie 1885, by one Shlomo Buber (Bober?) in Lvov > from manuscripts acquired from Oxford and the Vatican. > I must admit I'd never paid much attention to these details until now, > but It's just come to my attention that it my copy is hugely different > to the standard one. Yes, the Buber Tanchuma is a different sefer from the standard Tanchuma. Citations to "Tanchuma" stam refer to the old edition, while ones to this edition are given as "Tanchuma (Buber)". Buber claimed that he had found the original version, and that the one published in the 16th century is a much later one. Not everyone was convinced. There was also something the rishonim called "Medrash Yelamdeinu", which may have been a third version which is now lost, or may simply have been the name by which they referred to one or the other of these two versions. http://bit.ly/2C5u4FL -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From akivagmiller at gmail.com Sat Dec 23 18:39:15 2017 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Sat, 23 Dec 2017 21:39:15 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Did the Patriarchs Speak Hebrew? Message-ID: . R' Seth Mandel wrote: > There is no proof that anyone spoke Hebrew. and R' Zev Sero responded: > Rashi Bereshis 2:23 That Rashi does not mention Hebrew. What Rashi says there is that the olam was created via "Lashon Hakodesh". "Lashon Hakodesh" may or may not be the same thing as what we refer to as "Hebrew". One cannot discuss this topic meaningfully unless he is careful to make this distinction. For a very in-depth (yet also readable and in English) treatment of these and related topics, I recommend "Lashon Hakodesh - History, Holiness, & Hebrew" by Rabbi Reuven Chaim Klein. Akiva Miller From zvilampel at gmail.com Sat Dec 23 21:41:29 2017 From: zvilampel at gmail.com (H Lampel) Date: Sun, 24 Dec 2017 00:41:29 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Historicity of Aggadta In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Under the subject line of Re: [Avodah] Did the Patriarchs Speak Hebrew?, RSM raises a claim that RMB and I have argued over in the past. He writes, > Medrashim of Chazal teaches us important ideas, but are not meant to > be literally true. They do not intend to be a historical document, > but rather contain important moral and ethical teachings which are > 'emes in the spiritual sense. > > ... if you understand > what the Rambam says in his introduction to Chapter 10 of Mas. Sanhedrin > regarding three approaches to what Chazal say But the Rambam also writes there: And? I will yet compose a work in which I will gather all the drashos found in the Talmud and elsewhere...and I will reveal what of the drashos are [meant in] a literal way, and which of them are [meant as] mashal, and which of them were [describing something seen only] in a dream but was stated in a purely absolute way, as if it were [experienced] in a state of wakefulness... So, the Rambam does not maintain that the literal meaning of? /all/ drashos is to be rejected. Some are indeed meant literally, and some are not. (The Rambam never wrote this work. As he explains in Moreh Nevuchim, since much of it would be dealing with the meaning of drashos whose meanings were valuable lessons too precious to be shared with those who would not appreciate them appropriately, he would be forced to merely substitute the drashos' figurative expressions with his own figurative expressions. But in several works he does provide the key that they are not meant literally when the literal meaning would contradict realia, logic, fundamentals or pesukim.) His son Avraham, in his maamer on Drashos Chazal writes similarly regarding the maasiyos reported in the Talmud. R. Yehuda HaLevy (1:68) understood the midrashic maasiyos attributing the Hebrew language to the patriarchs as a historic reality that carried an important lesson, and considered the Torah as presenting evidence thereof. According to tradition it is the language in which G-d spoke to Adam and Eve, and in which the latter conversed. It is proved by the derivation of Adam from /adamah/, /ishshah/ from /ish/; /Chava/__from Chay; /Cain/ from /Kannisi/; /Shes/ from /shas/, and Noach from /yenachamenu/. This is supported by the evidence of the Torah. The whole is traced back to Eber, Noach and Adam. It is the language of Eber after whom it was called /Hebrew/, because after the confusion of tongues it was he who retained it. Abraham was an Aramaean of /Ur Kasdim/, because the language of the Chaldaeans was Aramaic. He employed Hebrew as a specially holy language andAramaic for everyday use. .. Zvi Lampel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From familyp2 at actcom.net.il Sun Dec 24 03:05:02 2017 From: familyp2 at actcom.net.il (Simi Peters) Date: Sun, 24 Dec 2017 13:05:02 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] tanhuma buber Message-ID: <001a01d37ca7$16b17e70$44147b50$@actcom.net.il> Your edition of Tanhuma is indeed vastly different from the standard printed edition. It was published by Buber from a Cairo Geniza manuscript (or possibly several manuscripts-not sure about the details.) There is some overlap, but there is a lot of material in Tanhuma Buber that does not appear in the standard editions and vice versa. It's good to have both. Unless you're interested in trying to reconstruct an ur-edition of Tanhuma, you can just treat them as separate works and mine each for its interesting material. Kol tuv, Simi Peters --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From zvilampel at gmail.com Sun Dec 24 06:43:33 2017 From: zvilampel at gmail.com (H Lampel) Date: Sun, 24 Dec 2017 09:43:33 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Historicity of Aggadta In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1f584d28-51c5-aa2f-2eb7-e97d1cd32aef@gmail.com> On 12/24/2017 12:41 AM, Z?? Lampel wrote: > R. Yehuda HaLevy (1:68) Should be: R. Yehuda Halevy (Kuzari 2:68). Zvi Lampel From marty.bluke at gmail.com Sun Dec 24 04:32:45 2017 From: marty.bluke at gmail.com (Marty Bluke) Date: Sun, 24 Dec 2017 14:32:45 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] New Cancer Treatment Message-ID: RHS in his sefer (Eretz Hatzvi) points out that it seems to be 2 opinions in Tosafos whether a mamzer can be created without a bias issur. The Gemara in Yevamos 16b brings the opinion that eved v'akum haba al bas yisrael havlad mamzer. Tosafos there asks the following question. They understand how there can be an opinion that an eved creates mamzerus because there is a specific issur for a Jewish woman to have biah with an eved. However, they ask, by a Goy there is no issur biah min hatorah and therefore how can anyone hold that the product of the biah of a goy and a Jewish woman would create a mamzer? Tosafos gives 2 answers: 1. Even though there is no bias issur since kiddushin are not tofsin it creates mamzerus. 2. A Goy and a Jewish woman do not create a mamzer min hatorah only midrabbanan If we apply these 2 opinions to IVF, according to the first answer since kiddushin are not tofsin (since she is married) the child would be a mamzer even though there was no bias issur. On the other hand, the second answer holds that the determining factor of mamzerus is a bias issur and therefore since in the case of IVF there is no bias issur there would be no mamzerus. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Sun Dec 24 06:24:17 2017 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Sun, 24 Dec 2017 14:24:17 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] The Nature of Egyptian Society Message-ID: <1514125453560.29445@stevens.edu> The following is from RSRH" commentary on Bereishis 46:33 Now, when Pharaoh calls you and asks, What is your occupation? 33 In a state like Egypt, the individual is completely identified with his occupation. Children are not born as human beings but as artisans, peasants, soldiers, and so forth. Accordingly, Pharaoh's first question to Yosef 's brothers would naturally concern their occupation. They were instructed to answer Pharaoh's question candidly, to tell him the truth, even though it would be unpleasant. For the Egyptians' loathing for the brothers' occupation and, in general, the nations' aversion to the Jews were to serve as primary factors in the survival of this race, which was destined to journey through the ages in isolation. As long as the moral morn had not dawned for the nations, the barriers they erected to isolate the Jews served to protect the Jews from becoming infected with the barbarism and demoralization of the people in whose midst they had to walk for hundreds of years. Yosef therefore immediately emphasizes the aspect that will arouse the aversion of the Egyptians. His clear intention is that, as a result, his brothers will be allocated a separate province in which to dwell. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cantorwolberg at cox.net Sat Dec 23 19:30:04 2017 From: cantorwolberg at cox.net (Richard Wolberg) Date: Sat, 23 Dec 2017 22:30:04 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Vay'chi Message-ID: <89600AC2-DFEA-44AA-A5AE-9C4493ED11F4@cox.net> There?s an interesting medrash the k?li yakar brings down. It doesn?t say Vayik?r?vu Yisroel Lamus, that Yisroel came close to die,? rather it says: ?Vayik?r?vu Y?MEI Yisroel lamus,? that the DAYS of Yisroel came close to die. And the medresh says, the DAYS died, not the person. This goes in line with Vay?chi Ya?akov, and Jacob LIVED. In other words, his body died but not he, himself. (The question has been asked: Do you have a soul? The answer is NO, you ARE a soul with a body). In the first pasuk (vs.28) the name Yaakov is used twice and then in vs.29 we see the name Yisroel used. The question is asked why does the name change from Ya?akov to Yisroel. One answer is that Yisroel symbolizes the prophecy of Ya?akov. And that?s how he knew he was going to die because in prophecy he understood and divinely inspired, he understood that he was going to die. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From larry62341 at optonline.net Sun Dec 24 02:38:32 2017 From: larry62341 at optonline.net (Prof. Levine) Date: Sun, 24 Dec 2017 05:38:32 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] The Protection Offered by a Mezuza Message-ID: At 06:58 PM 12/23/2017, Harav Baruch Gigi wrote: The following is from RSRH's commentary on Devorim 6:9 And write them upon the [door-] posts of your house and upon your gates. The mezuzah is not an amulet; in and of itself, it does not protect the house. Only insofar as they shape their lives in accordance with the mezuzah 's content can the people within the house expect help and protection from God, the "All-Sovereign and All-Sufficing," in all the vicissitudes of domestic life. With this intent it is our custom to adorn the outside of the mezuzah with the Name shin-daled-yud. From ben1456 at zahav.net.il Sun Dec 24 10:55:39 2017 From: ben1456 at zahav.net.il (Ben Waxman) Date: Sun, 24 Dec 2017 20:55:39 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Rambam ,Hilchot Hannuka Message-ID: A few take aways from Rambam Hilchot Hanukka Chapter 3 1) For the Rambam, Hallel is the ikkar element of Hanukka, not the candles (given that details Hallel first and only then goes on to the candles). 2) The Rambam gives a long detailed description on how to properly say Hallel in beit knesset. However the last halacha in the chapter basically says "I've been in a lot batei knesset and everyone does something different'. Meaning - you want to do a musical Hallel, different tunes, no tunes, responsive, everyone together, whatever you like - it is fine. 3) The Rambam raises the possibility of a woman or child or slave reading Hallel and everyone repeating what she or he said word by word. However, he doesn't add in the famous curse given in the Gemara. Meaning - the Rambam didn't hold by? Tavo Ma'arah (spelling?) (at least not here). Ben From lisa at starways.net Sun Dec 24 11:27:31 2017 From: lisa at starways.net (Lisa Liel) Date: Sun, 24 Dec 2017 21:27:31 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] The Protection Offered by a Mezuza In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2cfbbfce-e0d9-fc05-140c-969d4b5f18a1@starways.net> On 12/24/2017 12:38 PM, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: > At 06:58 PM 12/23/2017, Harav Baruch Gigi wrote: ... > The mezuzah is not an amulet; in and of itself, it does not protect the > house. Only insofar as they shape their lives in accordance with the mezuzah's > content can the people within the house expect help and protection... I know a mezuzah isn't an amulet, but when my apartment burned down back in the 90s, the fire burned through two sides of the apartment and jumped over my room only, which was the only one with a mezuzah.? I'm not saying it couldn't be a coincidence, I'm just saying that I didn't take it that way. Lisa From zev at sero.name Sun Dec 24 14:10:20 2017 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Sun, 24 Dec 2017 17:10:20 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] The Protection Offered by a Mezuza In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2d108449-ec4d-0e35-d888-0ccdd8b113be@sero.name> On 24/12/17 05:38, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: > At 06:58 PM 12/23/2017, Harav Baruch Gigi wrote: > The following is from RSRH's commentary on Devorim 6:9 And write > them upon the [door-] > posts of your house and upon your gates. > > The mezuzah is not an amulet; in and of itself, it does not protect the > house. Only insofar as they shape their lives in accordance with the mezuzah 's > content can the people within the house expect help and protection > from God, the "All-Sovereign and All-Sufficing," in all the vicissitudes > of domestic life. That may be RSRH's opinion, but if so it contradicts Chazal and millennia of Jewish belief and practise. No, the mezuzah is not an amulet; if it were not a mitzvah it would have no inherent power. But the *mitzvah* of mezuzah protects regardless of how those within the house "shape their lives". Even a goy who puts up a mezuzah, choosing to voluntarily fulfil this mitzvah, can expect this protection. The mitzvah protects those who fulfil it not only when they are inside the house it adorns, but wherever they are. And, most astonishingly, although it is true that a mezuzah itself is not an amulet, there are legitimate grounds to believe that carrying it around "zecher lamitzvah" *does* give some level of protection, even though no mitzvah is being fulfilled. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From ben1456 at zahav.net.il Sun Dec 24 19:58:42 2017 From: ben1456 at zahav.net.il (Ben Waxman) Date: Mon, 25 Dec 2017 05:58:42 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] The Protection Offered by a Mezuza In-Reply-To: <2d108449-ec4d-0e35-d888-0ccdd8b113be@sero.name> References: <2d108449-ec4d-0e35-d888-0ccdd8b113be@sero.name> Message-ID: <80f92bd4-b7af-1b26-1d03-0f3ce7a67edf@zahav.net.il> I seriously doubt that anyone could come up with any statistical analysis showing this point to be true. Ben On 12/25/2017 12:10 AM, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > But the *mitzvah* of mezuzah protects regardless of how those within the house "shape their lives". From zvilampel at gmail.com Mon Dec 25 07:28:21 2017 From: zvilampel at gmail.com (H Lampel) Date: Mon, 25 Dec 2017 10:28:21 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Did the Patriarchs Speak Hebrew? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > Tue, 19 Dec 2017 "Mandel, Seth" wrote: > > There is no proof that anyone spoke Hebrew. ... the Torah was written in Hebrew because that is > what the Jews understood at the time of Moshe Rabbeinu and the N'vi'im. > ... What did Yaakov speak to Rochel and > Leah, who had never been in EY? ... > one cannot know from the T'NaKh who spoke what when and where. Well, at least when the matriarchs and patriarchs stated the reasons for the names they gave their children, they were obviously speaking the same Hebrew spoken in the times of Moshe Rabbeinu. The only way to question this would be to suggest that originally Yitzchak, for instance was called "HeShallLaugh" in some other language, and over the next 5 centuries the bnei Yisrael (or the descendants of HeWillStriveWithG-d, or whatever), knowing the meaning of the name, changed it to Yitzchak.And did the same with each one of all the other names given in the chronologies, which are also clearly contractions of Mattan Torah time Hebrew words. And a similar convoluted explanation would have to be made when an allegedly unHebrew-speaking Eisav cracked ''Ha-chi kara shmo Yaakov--Vayak-veini zeh pa'amayyim...?!" I think all that is extremely unlikely, even without invoking the masorah (of no less import than the Masorah that HQBH dictated the Torah to Moshe Rabbeinu in the eponymous Biblical Hebrew) that the shevatim in Moshe Rabbeinu's time retained the names given to their ancestors (cited in many places including BeMidbar Rabbah 13:20 s.v. Bayom HaShishi and Midrash Tehillim 114:4). Zvi Lampel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mcohen at touchlogic.com Mon Dec 25 07:39:55 2017 From: mcohen at touchlogic.com (M Cohen) Date: Mon, 25 Dec 2017 10:39:55 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Did the Patriarchs Speak Hebrew? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <00bd01d37d96$9d1ebc80$d75c3580$@com> Fyi that the best sefer that I have seen on the subject of Hebrew and ancient Hebrew history is Lashon HaKodesh: History, Holiness & Hebrew by Rabbi Reuven Chaim Klein. Feldheim. http://www.feldheim.com/lashon-hakodesh.html Haskomos from R Leff, R Breitowitz, R Lopiansky It deals with the subject of ancient Hebrew history, using both on chazal and current linguistic and archeological sources Did Adam harishon speak Hebrew ? Did the world speak Hebrew until tower of Babel? Did Avraham speak Hebrew ? Foreign influences on Hebrew Hebrew vs Aramaic. Sources. History. Development. You will find exhaustive source material and answers there. Mordechai Cohen ======= Email scanned by PC Tools - No viruses or spyware found. (Email Guard: 9.1.0.2894, Virus/Spyware Database: 6.22240) http://free.pctools.com/ ======= From zev at sero.name Sun Dec 24 23:16:16 2017 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Mon, 25 Dec 2017 02:16:16 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] The Protection Offered by a Mezuza In-Reply-To: <80f92bd4-b7af-1b26-1d03-0f3ce7a67edf@zahav.net.il> References: <2d108449-ec4d-0e35-d888-0ccdd8b113be@sero.name> <80f92bd4-b7af-1b26-1d03-0f3ce7a67edf@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <1ba30a45-ba01-d7d5-2b67-843f9f22ed8b@sero.name> On 24/12/17 22:58, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > On 12/25/2017 12:10 AM, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: >> But the *mitzvah* of mezuzah protects regardless of how those within >> the house "shape their lives". > I seriously doubt that anyone could come up with any statistical > analysis showing this point to be true. Why do we need statistical analysis? Judaism tell us it's true, therefore it is. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From llevine at stevens.edu Mon Dec 25 12:00:57 2017 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Mon, 25 Dec 2017 20:00:57 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Bishul Akum - Specific Products Message-ID: <0ae98ef4eb3a4dbeaa39a0bbc1e50abf@exchng03.campus.stevens-tech.edu> Please see the file at https://goo.gl/LnRQjF YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Mon Dec 25 12:30:23 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 25 Dec 2017 15:30:23 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] The Protection Offered by a Mezuza In-Reply-To: <80f92bd4-b7af-1b26-1d03-0f3ce7a67edf@zahav.net.il> References: <2d108449-ec4d-0e35-d888-0ccdd8b113be@sero.name> <80f92bd4-b7af-1b26-1d03-0f3ce7a67edf@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <20171225203023.GA9557@aishdas.org> On Mon, Dec 25, 2017 at 05:58am IST, Ben Waxman wrote: : On 12/25/2017 12:10 AM, Zev Sero wrote: :> But the *mitzvah* of mezuzah protects regardless of how those :> within the house "shape their lives". : I seriously doubt that anyone could come up with any statistical : analysis showing this point to be true. (I won't bother arguing against Zev's inability to acknowledge the existence of other shitos than his. "[I]t contradicts Chazal and millennia of Jewish belief and practise." "Judaism tell us it's true" indeed. It's a machloqes of the Rambam and the Ramach, with various teirutzim given for the Rambam. Not open-and-shut at all.) You want to statistically decide which hashkafah is true??? I lean the way you do. But it's a machloqes. I already pointed to , a discussion of sources both ways. It would be weird to think it boils down to a machloqes in metzi'us. You remind me of a problem I have saying a particular line of Tehillim (37:25) with kavanah, and it comes up at the appendix to bentching, "Naar hayisi..." But I have seen a tzadiq whose kids miss meals and have to beg. Haven't you? The best I can do, rather than tamper with the minhag of saying it, is to focus on the word "ne'ezav" -- so, his kids don't have food, but it's not because HQBH abandoned the tzadiq. But I can't really feel that's peshat in the pasuq. It allows me to saven with qavanah, but as an answer -- the question is better than this resolution. Bitachon and emunah that actually fit the data can be more challenging than if we just shut off critical thought. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "As long as the candle is still burning, micha at aishdas.org it is still possible to accomplish and to http://www.aishdas.org mend." Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Anonymous shoemaker to R' Yisrael Salanter From micha at aishdas.org Mon Dec 25 12:34:01 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 25 Dec 2017 15:34:01 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Historicity of Aggadta In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20171225203401.GB9557@aishdas.org> On Sun, Dec 24, 2017 at 12:41:29AM -0500, H Lampel via Avodah wrote: : Under the subject line of Re: [Avodah] Did the Patriarchs Speak Hebrew?, : RSM raises a claim that RMB and I have argued over in the past. He writes, : : > Medrashim of Chazal teaches us important ideas, but are not meant to : > be literally true. They do not intend to be a historical document, : > but rather contain important moral and ethical teachings which are : > 'emes in the spiritual sense. Which need not say anything about the story's lilterally truth. Just that the story isn't *about* its literal historical claim, and therefore doesn't testify to history one way or the other. And so, I agree with: : So, the Rambam does not maintain that the literal meaning of /all/ : drashos is to be rejected. Some are indeed meant literally, and some are : not. And yet still won't bother worrying about contradicting any medrash's historical claims. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Life is a stage and we are the actors, micha at aishdas.org but only some of us have the script. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Menachem Nissel Fax: (270) 514-1507 From zvilampel at gmail.com Mon Dec 25 15:53:28 2017 From: zvilampel at gmail.com (H Lampel) Date: Mon, 25 Dec 2017 18:53:28 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Historicity of Aggadta In-Reply-To: <20171225203401.GB9557@aishdas.org> References: <20171225203401.GB9557@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 12/25/2017 3:34 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > And so, I agree with: > : So, the Rambam does not maintain that the literal meaning of /all/ > : drashos is to be rejected. Some are indeed meant literally, and some are > : not. > > And yet still won't bother worrying about contradicting any medrash's > historical claims. I already stated that the Rambam holds the intent of? a medrash is not literal if he holds it contradicts realia, logic, fundamentals or pesukim. And I should add, if it contradicts what he considers the consensus of Chazal. And in past iterations I submitted examples where the Rambam cites midrashic reports of history apparently qua history. You may insist that he (contra the Kuzari regarding Adam and the patricarchs speaking Hebrew) doesn't care about whether they are historically factual. But if you have examples of the Rambam not bothering to worry about contradicting a medrash's historical reports despite the above caveats, please provide them. Zvi Lampel From micha at aishdas.org Mon Dec 25 17:21:19 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 25 Dec 2017 20:21:19 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Historicity of Aggadta In-Reply-To: References: <20171225203401.GB9557@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20171226012119.GH24733@aishdas.org> On Mon, Dec 25, 2017 at 06:53:28PM -0500, H Lampel wrote: :> And yet still won't bother worrying about contradicting any medrash's :> historical claims. : I already stated that the Rambam holds the intent of? a medrash is : not literal if he holds it contradicts realia, logic, fundamentals : or pesukim... Yes, but you know I disagree. The Rambam says that the intent of a medrash is not literal. They might also be literal. A mashal or melitzah -- as he discusses from Mishlei at length -- can be pulled from history or stam crafted as a story, but in either case "mimah shenimtza bikhlal divreihem morim al inyanim amitiyim me'od." However, if the story does contradict what is known, we know it's a pure mashal, ahistorical. And therefore don't become like someone of the first two katim, believing stupidity or ridiculing chazal for their allegedly teaching stupidity. But he doesn't ever say that if the story is plausible, that's the point of the story. Nor that it's sufficient reason to assume it's true on a literal level. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "Fortunate indeed, is the man who takes micha at aishdas.org exactly the right measure of himself, and http://www.aishdas.org holds a just balance between what he can Fax: (270) 514-1507 acquire and what he can use." - Peter Latham From micha at aishdas.org Sun Dec 24 14:11:31 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Sun, 24 Dec 2017 17:11:31 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Please help me fund my book! Message-ID: <20171224221131.GA26480@aishdas.org> My manuscript just went to the publishers. For the second time; I retracted my first version because I didn't like the idea that the book was all theory without any pragmatics. What's the value of exploring the meaning of Torah and life based on haRav Shimon haKohein Shkop without anything about how to align one's life with those ideals? If you want some sense of what the book is about, the text that it's a commentary / elaboration on is available at http://www.aishdas.org/asp/ShaareiYosher.pdf -- although I have made some improvements to the readability of that translation since that PDF. If you would like to help me make this dream happen, whether because you were always looking for a way to thank me for these email lists, you like me or some of the things you've seen me write in the past, you like Rav Shimon's hashkafah, or simply think *any* sefer that gets more Orthodox Jews thinking about the big picture and why are we doing it all is worth existing, please let me know. Initial reactions are excited: "This may IY'H attract some serious attention -- books like this don't come out every day." "Very chashuv, unique sefer." "Wow. what an impressive work!" "Right up our alley, as well. Torah, important -- but kind of unique. For thinking people." "I think the subject, approach and writing are gevaldik." "I am excited as well, but they tell me the hardest part of the job still lays ahead." The sefarim market cannot consume books to the extent where publication will make a profit. So, at least when it comes to the business and funding models, all the houses expect fundraising and sponsorship to make a book happen. But it is not "vanity press". The publisher adds significant value to the book -- fact checking, editing, layout and other aesthetics, etc. The publisher I am going with uses Feldheim as their distribution channel, so my sefer could reach every Anglo sefarim store. And they have to pay the people who do all that, not to mention feed their own families. They put their name on the book, the book is their product. They need that good name for future marketing and distribution. So, they won't take on a book that would harm their business. They're willing to invest those man-hours, and when done, to stand behind my work. So, I have to rely heavily on word-of-mouth to raise that money. Including hitting up everyone here on Areivim/Avodah. I am using a foundation established in memory of my grandparents to clear the money in a manner that is tax-deductible. Email me for details if you are interested in chipping in. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger For those with faith there are no questions. micha at aishdas.org For those who lack faith there are no answers. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yaakov of Radzimin Fax: (270) 514-1507 From zvilampel at gmail.com Mon Dec 25 19:55:18 2017 From: zvilampel at gmail.com (H Lampel) Date: Mon, 25 Dec 2017 22:55:18 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Diberah Torah Kil-shon bnei adam In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Under the heading, Re: [Avodah] Did the Patriarchs Speak Hebrew?, Tue, 19 Dec 2017 From: Micha Berger > Mandel, Seth via Avodah wrote: > : There is no proof that anyone spoke Hebrew. Chazal say that dibb'ra Torah > : bilshon b'nei odom... > > RMB: Well.... R' Yishmael says it [the dictum ''dibb'ra Torah > bilshon b'nei odom.''] And it appears to be an argument for his > rules of derashah, which do not include looking for magic words like > "akh" (mi'ut), "raq" (mi'ut), "kol" (ribui) or even "es", but darshens > the meaning of terms, whether ribui or mi'ut....And besides, R' Aqiva disagrees! RSRH (Collected Writings Vol. V, p. 170), citing 30 cases,? points out that, ''R. Ishmael, no less than R. Akiba (and......all of R. Akiva's predecessors...)...considered particles [including of ''akh,'' ''raq'' and ''ess'] and superfluities ..in the Biblical text...subject to interpretations.'' He explains (p. 177) that ''R. Ishmael disagrees with R. Akiba only with regard to one very specific form of redundancy, namely, repetitions of the same expression; e.g.,...yidor nedder,...hasheiv heishiv, or the repetition of the same noun (ish ish). However, R. Ishmael interprets other redundancies in exactly the same manner as does R. Akiba.'' This leads me to propose an explanation for the phenomenon described by RMB as that... > The Rambam really sloganeers (like the CS's "chadash assur min haTorah") > when he uses it to explain that anthropomorphic descriptions of HQBH > are idioms, not to be taken overly literally. Rambam was not the first (and of course not the last*) to understand that Chazal intended by ''dibrah Torah kil-shon bnei adam'' a wider meaning than the one in dispute between R. Akiva and R.Yishmael, and even wider than the one RSRH shows both agreed to. Rav Hai Gaon (Teshuvas HaGaonim #98), too, used it to explain anthropomorphisms ("all the words of our Sages that have anthropomorphic descriptions ... are not to be understood literally but are metaphors or allegory. ... the Torah speaks in the language of man.)'' So did Chovos Halevavos (Shaar HaYichud 1:1:10). And Sefer HaKuzari (5:27) used it to explain? what the Torah means when it says that blowing the chatzotzros will result in ''v-hayu lachem l-zikaron lifnei H','' which seems to imply that H' requires reminders. Raavad (Sefer HaEmunah 1:7) applied the dictum to explain why the rewards and punishments the Torah' explicitly references are only those in this world, and not the next.? He explained that speaking of spiritual rewards would confuse the common people, ''v'al zeh ne'emar dibrah Torah b-lashon bnei adam.'' (Semi-off topic: In Maamar Techiyyas HaMeisim, Rambam gives a similar, if not identical reason for no explicit reference to techiyyas hameisim, without invoking the dictum.) So I propose that the Geonim and rishonim understood that the intent of Chazal's dictum? ''dibrah Torah kil-ashon bnei adam'' was a wide one, which includes the Torah's use of anthropomorphism. And that R. Yishmael, contra R. Akiva,? /extended/? it even to repetitions of the same expression; e.g.,...yidor nedder,...hasheiv heishiv, or the repetition of the same noun (ish ish). But nobody, including R. Yishmael, extended it even further, to other apparently extra words or particles such as"akh", "raq", "kol" and "ess". Those are meant for interpretation according to all. This would explain why even though the rule is that we follow R. Akiva when he argues with R. Yishmael, , the rishonim embraced the dictum of "dibrah Torah kil-shon bnei adam." Because they embraced it in the sense that all Chazal agreed to. And this applies to anthropomorphisms. It is only regarding whether to extended the dictum's application to certain types of expressions that R. Yishmael and R. Akiva argue. *Ibn Ezra--numerous times, such as on Breishis 6:6) Radak (numerous times, such as on Breishis 9:15 Ramban (Breishis 6:6) Hizkuni (Devarim 5:26) Rabbeynu Bechaye (numerous times, such as on Breishis 1:26) Ralbag (Shoftim 10:16) Akeidas Yitzchak numerous times, such as on Vayeria Shaar 19 sv Va'ani ain) Zvi Lampel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From JRich at sibson.com Mon Dec 25 22:00:57 2017 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2017 06:00:57 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] The Protection Offered by a Mezuza In-Reply-To: <20171225203023.GA9557@aishdas.org> References: <2d108449-ec4d-0e35-d888-0ccdd8b113be@sero.name> <80f92bd4-b7af-1b26-1d03-0f3ce7a67edf@zahav.net.il>, <20171225203023.GA9557@aishdas.org> Message-ID: > > You want to statistically decide which hashkafah is true??? > ------------ > > > You remind me of a problem I have saying a particular line of Tehillim > (37:25) with kavanah, and it comes up at the appendix to bentching, > "Naar hayisi..." But I have seen a tzadiq whose kids miss meals and have > to beg. Haven't you? > -------------- It also bothered the gedolim who struggled to explain why the simple meaning of the segula of being a sandek didn't seem to be statistically fulfilled Kt 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. From lisa at starways.net Tue Dec 26 00:10:52 2017 From: lisa at starways.net (Lisa Liel) Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2017 10:10:52 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Historicity of Aggadta In-Reply-To: <20171226012119.GH24733@aishdas.org> References: <20171225203401.GB9557@aishdas.org> <20171226012119.GH24733@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 12/26/2017 3:21 AM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > However, if the story does contradict what is known, we know it's a pure > mashal, ahistorical. I'd like to revise that to say that if the story contradicts what is *currently* known, we are entitled (or perhaps required) to consider it a pure mashal *at that time*, with the understanding that our knowledge may change. Lisa --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From zvilampel at gmail.com Mon Dec 25 20:41:54 2017 From: zvilampel at gmail.com (H Lampel) Date: Mon, 25 Dec 2017 23:41:54 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Historicity of Aggadta In-Reply-To: <20171226012119.GH24733@aishdas.org> References: <20171225203401.GB9557@aishdas.org> <20171226012119.GH24733@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <057fcda7-0e48-53f8-c0ec-135a112bb534@gmail.com> On 12/25/2017 8:21 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > ...But he doesn't ever say that if the story is plausible, that's the point > of the story. Nor that it's sufficient reason to assume it's true on a > literal level. The historical mentions the Rambam's makes, treating the plausible Midrashim as history without making any qualifications, indicates otherwise. But specifically on the topic this discussion came from now: Regarding the Midrashic reports that Adam and the Avos spoke Ivris/Lashon Hakadosh, which I assume you agree the Kuzari accepts as historical fact (which of course teaches in its historicity an important thing to know)... Is your default position that the Rambam doesn't care whether it's historically so? Zvi Lampel From sholom at aishdas.org Mon Dec 25 22:08:38 2017 From: sholom at aishdas.org (Sholom Simon) Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2017 01:08:38 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Rashi on kol hanefesh (Bereshis 46:26) Message-ID: <20171226060849.GQIH4561.fed1rmfepo102.cox.net@fed1rmimpo209.cox.net> Kol hanefesh . . . shvi'im. Rashi says "I found in Vayikra Rabba" . . . a statement that Eisav had (with him) six, and the word nafashos (plural) was used; but here with Yaakov, kol hanafesh . . . shevi'im, nefesh is in the singular. This is a hint that Eisav engaged in A"Z (plural gods), while Yaakov served one G-d. But don't we (almost?) always see (in Torah) the singular being used for a noun when the count is larger than 10? How can one darshen from something that follows the general grammatic rule? What am I missing here? -- Sholom From lisa at starways.net Tue Dec 26 00:08:21 2017 From: lisa at starways.net (Lisa Liel) Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2017 10:08:21 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] The Protection Offered by a Mezuza In-Reply-To: <20171225203023.GA9557@aishdas.org> References: <2d108449-ec4d-0e35-d888-0ccdd8b113be@sero.name> <80f92bd4-b7af-1b26-1d03-0f3ce7a67edf@zahav.net.il> <20171225203023.GA9557@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <282dcbac-59e9-be81-ee8e-f1faf4991682@starways.net> On 12/25/2017 10:30 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > You remind me of a problem I have saying a particular line of Tehillim > (37:25) with kavanah, and it comes up at the appendix to bentching, > "Naar hayisi..." But I have seen a tzadiq whose kids miss meals and have > to beg. Haven't you? I always understood it to mean that either he's quick to give tzedaka so as to prevent there being a tzaddik neezav v'zar'o mevakesh lachem, or that we aren't talking about literal aziva and lack of food, but rather aziva by Hashem and lack of Torah. Lisa --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From zvilampel at gmail.com Tue Dec 26 07:09:06 2017 From: zvilampel at gmail.com (H Lampel) Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2017 10:09:06 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Historicity of Aggadta In-Reply-To: <057fcda7-0e48-53f8-c0ec-135a112bb534@gmail.com> References: <20171225203401.GB9557@aishdas.org> <20171226012119.GH24733@aishdas.org> <057fcda7-0e48-53f8-c0ec-135a112bb534@gmail.com> Message-ID: <53d98237-ecd0-93ee-7927-d9edb71b28ca@gmail.com> On 12/25/2017 11:41 PM, H Lampel wrote: > > > On 12/25/2017 8:21 PM, Micha Berger wrote: >> ...But he doesn't ever say that if the story is plausible, that's the >> point >> of the story. Nor that it's sufficient reason to assume it's true on a >> literal level. The first statement is of course true. The reason a story is told is to make a point. Thus the citations where the Rambam says that all the maamerei Chazal impart valuable lessons. The second statement is where we diverge. I understand that the Rambam does take the plausible reports of happenings (reported of course because they impart something worthy to know) to be historically true. In other words, that's the default position. He never says that we may deny the historic factuality of events Chazal presented as factual historical events. I understand the citations you bring where Rambam invokes Mishlei to defend interpreting maamarei Chazal non-literally to? be saying that even the implausible ones really have valuable lessons but must be interpreted non-literally to understand them. So I would still ask you for examples of the Rambam not bothering to worry about contradicting a medrash's plausible historical reports. I previously remarked that the historical mentions the Rambam's makes, treating the plausible Midrashim as history without making any qualifications, without explaining why he takes them as historical fact (for example, the neis of the pach shemen, and the military victory of the Chashmonaim), indicates he took them as historical fact, which thereby provides the lessons to be learned therefrom. I quoted a passage from Rambam's Hakdama to Perek Cheilek (originally to counteract the face-value meaning of RSM's declaration that the Rambam holds that every Medrash is meant non-literally), where the Rambam makes clear that some reports are meant non-literally, but some are meant literally. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that your take can be worded as follows: Chazal and Rambam did not care whether the historical events they learned lessons from, really occurred. All Chazal's statements are only for the sake of the lessons. Some of the lessons must be extracted by understanding the statements in a non-literal way, particularly if at face value they are implausible. Of the plausible reports, the lessons to be learned from them can be gleaned from a literal understanding, meaning the message is clear without needing to give unusual meanings to its the words. But that does not mean that they were meant to be historically factual. They are meant literally, but not historically. I.e., the Rambam held that although lessons Chazal intended were ostensibly learned from, or reinforced by, events they reported, it is irrelevant whether the events did actually occur, and indeed they may not have. But I think his words indicate otherwise. Here they are again: ??? And I will yet compose a work in which I will gather all the ??? drashos found in the Talmud and elsewhere...and I will reveal what ??? of the drashos are [meant in] a literal way, and which of them are ??? [meant as] mashal, and which of them were [describing something seen ??? only] in a dream but was stated in a purely absolute way, as if it ??? were [experienced] in a state of wakefulness... If the Rambam considered it irrelevant whether the events did actually occur, and held that indeed they may not have occurred, why is he concerned with whether the report occurred in a dream? Why would he invoke a dream, if he considered the actuality of all reported events irrelevant? After all, its only the lesson that is relevant! But if you accept that the Rambam considered the default position to be that reported events are meant to be understood as actually occurring, and that while some are merely mashal but others are real, then it makes sense that he felt it important to exclude implausible reports and explain which were pure mashal and which were experienced in a dream. And describing the report as "stated in a purely absolute way, as if it were [experienced] in a state of wakefulness," implies that, had it not been implausible, being stated in an absolute way would imply that it was indeed experienced in a state of wakefulness. Zvi Lampel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: ???? ???? ????? ???? ?? ?? ?????? ??????? ?????? ??????.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 215599 bytes Desc: not available URL: From micha at aishdas.org Tue Dec 26 08:06:50 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2017 11:06:50 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Historicity of Aggadta In-Reply-To: <057fcda7-0e48-53f8-c0ec-135a112bb534@gmail.com> References: <20171225203401.GB9557@aishdas.org> <20171226012119.GH24733@aishdas.org> <057fcda7-0e48-53f8-c0ec-135a112bb534@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20171226160650.GC15636@aishdas.org> On Mon, Dec 25, 2017 at 11:41:54PM -0500, H Lampel wrote: : The historical mentions the Rambam's makes, treating the plausible : Midrashim as history without making any qualifications, indicates : otherwise. It indicates that some medrashim which both didn't defy evidence or his philosophy that the Rambam felt had a literal point worth making. Not that plauisible medrashim should be assumed to be literal history. He spends so much time telling you they're all statements of the deepest truths, and quoting Shelomo, that chakhamim conduct such discussions via mashal and melitzah. The fact that some deepest truths has historical impact doesn't give us license to ignore paragraphs of writing. : Regarding the Midrashic reports that Adam and the Avos spoke : Ivris/Lashon Hakadosh, which I assume you agree the Kuzari accepts : as historical fact (which of course teaches in its historicity an : important thing to know)... Is your default position that the Rambam : doesn't care whether it's historically so? That's the default. Perhaps the Rambam agrees with the Rihal that the history of Ivris is a significant statement, and would be meant literally even under his view. Perhaps not. I can't guess, and am willing to entertain anything. But there are also reports that they spoke Aramaic, or even that Adam spoke all 70 leshonos. See the sources I gave in as well as Sanhedrin 38b (R Yehudah amar Rav: Adam haRishon spoke Aramaic). Not to mention historical evidence. So there is no reason for me to make the Rambam's life difficult. To complete repeating myself, my own instinct is to say that Adam spoke some proto-Semitic, and therefore spoke a language which could be considered both ancient Hebrew AND ancient Aramaic, or proto-everything and thus an ancestor to all 70 languages. And this would explain the medrashim as well as allow us to identify Adam's speech with Leshon haQodesh. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "I think, therefore I am." - Renne Descartes micha at aishdas.org "I am thought about, therefore I am - http://www.aishdas.org my existence depends upon the thought of a Fax: (270) 514-1507 Supreme Being Who thinks me." - R' SR Hirsch From eliturkel at mail.gmail.com Mon Dec 25 13:40:32 2017 From: eliturkel at mail.gmail.com (Eli Turkel) Date: Mon, 25 Dec 2017 23:40:32 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] shabbes candles Message-ID: A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: multipart/alternative Size: 1277 bytes Desc: not available URL: From chaim.tatel at mail.gmail.com Mon Dec 25 15:43:58 2017 From: chaim.tatel at mail.gmail.com (Chaim Tatel) Date: Mon, 25 Dec 2017 15:43:58 -0800 Subject: [Avodah] shabbes candles Message-ID: A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: multipart/alternative Size: 4006 bytes Desc: not available URL: From JRich at sibson.com Wed Dec 27 01:51:45 2017 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Wed, 27 Dec 2017 09:51:45 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] birur vs hanhaga in other legal systems Message-ID: <9ec665e80cbd4e97be6b4bcc8b7221d8@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> There's a lot of "Brisker Torah" on the differentiation between halachically resolving doubts by birur (clarification/resolution of doubt) versus hanhaga (we still have a doubt but must move forward while not resolving the doubt). One practical difference would be that doubts resolved by birur are considered resolved retroactively while those resolved by hanhaga are only prospective in nature. Is anyone aware of any parallels to this differentiation in other legal systems? KT 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: From micha at aishdas.org Thu Dec 28 08:03:25 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2017 11:03:25 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Body and Soul In-Reply-To: <89600AC2-DFEA-44AA-A5AE-9C4493ED11F4@cox.net> References: <89600AC2-DFEA-44AA-A5AE-9C4493ED11F4@cox.net> Message-ID: <20171228160325.GA31137@aishdas.org> On Sat, Dec 23, 2017 at 10:30pm EST, Richard Wolberg wrote in a post titled "Vay'chi": : (The question has been asked: Do you have a soul? The answer is NO, : you ARE a soul with a body). I write about this in my manuscript. Here's a version I put up on Mi Yodeya about a year ago. So, it is slightly adapted, lacks a year of editing, and there will be someone else editing the manuscript before it is a book (assuming I raise the money). On Mi Yodeya, "Gabriel12" asked about E-lokai Neshmah, and the phrases "shanasata bi... nefachtahh bi... meshammerahh beqirbi... littela mimmenni, ulhachzirahh bi le'asid lavo". He asks: Here, when I say me, I'm referring to my body. And I'm thanking G-d for giving me back my soul. But why is the body "me"? Shouldn't the soul be the real "me"? Am I the soul or the body? My answer: As for E-lokai Neshamah and Hashem putting a soul within me, my own intent when saying these words is based on the Vilna Gaon's taxonomy of prayer: Prayers that express an ideal to be repeated and internalized are what we call "tefillah" in Hebrew. Tefillos are consistently written in the plural, as our connection to the community is part of that ideal. Prayers written in the singular are therefore of a different sort, "tachanunim", expressions of what already exists in our hearts. This is how the Gaon explains the line in Qaddish, "tisqabel tzelosehon uva'usehon -- accept the tefillos and requests (tachanunim) of all of the House of Israel..." We say this when closing the Amidah -- which is such a paragon of tefillah our Sages called it simply "Tefillah", E-lokai Netzor -- tachanunim, (note that it's written about "I" and "mine", not "we" and "our"), and Tachanun. "Elokai, neshamah -- My G-d, the soul which you placed in me" is similarly tachanunim. Therefore, it's not a place to look for how we ought to see our self-definition, but how things feel to most of us first thing in the morning. The prayer reflects the fact that most people do in practice identify with our body most consistently, and only at times with their soul. But to answer the philosophical question... There is a machlokes, a dispute among the rabbis, as to how to view man. One side, found often among books of Mussar, views a person as a soul who inhabits a body, or perhaps controls it as a rider upon a donkey. As Elifaz describes humanity in the book of [61]Iyov (4:10), "shochnei batei chomer - dwellers in homes of matter." When Rav Yitzchak Isaac Scher (Cheshbon haNefesh, Slaboka Alumni ed., intro.) speaks of man's physical side being an animal, we mean that literally, not merely like an animal. Since much of our yeitzer hara comes from our living in a mammalian body, R' Scher recommends the very same strategies one uses for taming and being able to use the eyesight of a bird, the strength of an ox, the load bearing abilities of a donkey or the speed of a horse are applicable to gaining mastery over our bodies. Like any other animal, a person's animal soul has no ability to plan toward a goal, it simply responds to whatever urge is most triggered in the moment. The animal soul must be saddled by the godly soul and guided. And Rabbi Sherr points out with the example of a trained elephant, "next to whom a person like his trainer seems little more than an ant", to maximize its utility it must neither be overburdened or neglected, nor underused and let remind wild - and this is how we are to treat our body and our animal souls. Last and most importantly, neither an animal nor the animal within can be educated, but trained through habit and acclimation. This notion is a key symbol in the Gra's interpretation system -- when one finds a chamor / donkey in a narrative, it is generally a symbol for the person's chomer / physicality. Avraham at the Akeidah or the mashiach come in riding on a donkey as a way to indicate to us their mastery over their own physicality. In contrast, we speak of Bil'am's donkey, but the Torah consistently calls it a different kind of animal; he does not harness a chamor, showing self-control over the animal's urges of the moment, Bil'am rides an ason ([62]Bamidbar 22:23,25,27,28,29,33). In this viewpoint, a person is a rider of an animal, or to use a metaphor that may resonate better with our more modern lifestyles - the soul who is wearing a body. Another stream of thought includes the body in the definition of person. Rather than a person's more human side that rides his body as a master over an animal, in this model man is seen as a fusion of body and soul. For example when the gemara ([63]Sanhedrin 91a) explains one purpose of the eventual resurrection of the dead by comparing a sinner to a blind man and a lame man who conspire to steal fruit from an orchard. They are caught and brought to court, but each of the accused claims innocence. The blind man says he must be innocent, for he was incapable of even finding the fruit, never mind stealing them. The lame man also claims innocence; after all, he had no way to reach it. Neither alone could commit the theft, so each of the accused points to the other as the critical element for the sin, the guilty party. The judge responds by putting one atop the other, recreating the unit that was capable of sin, and judges the pair. So too, the gemara explains, the soul could claim it couldn't have sinned without the body giving it the opportunity for action, and the body could claim that the planning and execution of the sin are the fault of the soul. In order to judge us for our sins, Hashem will bodily resurrect the sinner to reconstruct the person as they were then. As the Ramchal writes, "Man is different from any other creature. He is a combination of two completely diverse and dissimilar elements, namely, the body and soul." (Derech Hashem 3:1:1) The dispute is not necessarily about which is true, it could well be that both definitions of "person" are equally valid. The dispute is more prescriptive: When is it more productive to think of my physical aspect as an outsider, which would weaken the relative weight I would give the call of physical drives? And when am I better off not thinking of myself as purely soul, because then I'm not fully blaming myself for "stealing the fruit"? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The goal isn't to live forever, micha at aishdas.org the goal is to create so mething that will. http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From ben1456 at zahav.net.il Thu Dec 28 11:57:46 2017 From: ben1456 at zahav.net.il (Ben Waxman) Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2017 21:57:46 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Foreshadow Message-ID: Is the break up of the united kingdom (Israel and Yehuda) somehow foreseen in the brothers? Was the reconciliation between Yosef and the brothers (and especially Yosef and Yehuda) not complete? Was splitting responsibility between Yehuda (he set up Goshen's beit midrash) and Yosef (he supplied the food) a mistake? Is there anything in Yehuda's personality that foreshadows David and Shlomo's failure to truly unite the tribes or is the fault with the latter two only? Ben From JRich at sibson.com Fri Dec 29 02:09:15 2017 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2017 10:09:15 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] FW: Rav Moshe on Smoking In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2eb7119fe3ff4a0f8394f494ae14fde8@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> FYI-An old Avodah topic. KT Joel Rich In the attached file, there is a newly-published teshuvah from Rav Moshe which basically confirms the rumors that he retracted his teshuvah about smoking and would indeed forbid it. Kol Tuv, Reuven Chaim Klein Beitar Illit, Israel Check out my book Lashon HaKodesh: History, Holiness, & Hebrew [Lashon HaKodesh: History, Holiness, & Hebrew (Mosaica Press) on Amazon][Academia.edu][Google Scholar][LinkedIN][https://docs.google.com/uc?export=download&id=0B1NJHmIXg4QJTWZsRUpZblJpWE0&revid=0B1NJHmIXg4QJcXQxRU1kN0JWZ3pQVmZsdlYrVlljRUdSb2ZvPQ][Rabbi Reuven Chaim Klein on TorahDownloads.com] [https://my-email-signature.link/signature.gif?u=93822&e=15367987&v=592df626366a9255517be8f9bb3b802cdc17522127137d175bd71108e063b3e1] 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: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 480.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 2037389 bytes Desc: 480.pdf URL: From JRich at sibson.com Fri Dec 29 01:36:06 2017 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2017 09:36:06 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] truth telling Message-ID: <3852cda5a1f348b8ba9b17c3cd9d8079@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Thought experiment: 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? KT 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: From JRich at sibson.com Fri Dec 29 01:35:14 2017 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2017 09:35:14 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Birchat Cohanim Message-ID: <12830183c04c422ca904affc50bac0b7@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> One is in Eretz Yisrael and davens shacharit in a minyan which often does not have Cohanim to duchen. Is he required to seek a minyan which has Cohanim? If he isn't required, is it preferable? KT 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: From JRich at sibson.com Fri Dec 29 02:09:15 2017 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2017 10:09:15 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] FW: Rav Moshe on Smoking In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: [Take 2. File stripped off for the sake of text digest recipients and moved to . Fixed formatting. -micha] FYI-An old Avodah topic. KT Joel Rich In the attached file, there is a newly-published teshuvah from Rav Moshe which basically confirms the rumors that he retracted his teshuvah about smoking and would indeed forbid it. Kol Tuv, Reuven Chaim Klein Beitar Illit, Israel Check out my book Lashon HaKodesh: History, Holiness, & Hebrew [Lashon HaKodesh: History, Holiness, & Hebrew (Mosaica Press) on Amazon] >> [Academia.edu] [Google Scholar] [LinkedIN] [https://docs.google.com/uc?export=download&id=0B1NJHmIXg4QJTWZsRUpZblJpWE0&revid=0B1NJHmIXg4QJcXQxRU1kN0JWZ3pQVmZsdlYrVlljRUdSb2ZvPQ] [Rabbi Reuven Chaim Klein on TorahDownloads.com] From lisa at starways.net Fri Dec 29 06:19:45 2017 From: lisa at starways.net (Lisa Liel) Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2017 16:19:45 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] truth telling In-Reply-To: <3852cda5a1f348b8ba9b17c3cd9d8079@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <3852cda5a1f348b8ba9b17c3cd9d8079@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: You'll have to define "truth".? I know a lot of self-Identified frum Jews who consider it "truth" that the Exodus didn't happen.? That the Mabul was a metaphor.? That the text of the Torah she'bichtav we have now is not the one given to Moshe at Sinai in an actual, factual, historical event.? It's never good for them to tell that "truth" to their children. If by truth you mean the truths stated in Judaism, then it's a matter of judgment.? If you're considering telling your children about Amnon and Tamar, their age would enter into the decision.? If the truth you want to tell them is about the molesters in the frum community who were respected leaders, again, age matters.? But I wouldn't withhold the facts from my child if they were old enough to hear it and it seemed relevant. Lisa On 12/29/2017 11:36 AM, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: > Thought experiment: 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? > KT > Joel Rich > --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From micha at aishdas.org Fri Dec 29 06:34:31 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2017 09:34:31 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] truth telling In-Reply-To: <3852cda5a1f348b8ba9b17c3cd9d8079@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <3852cda5a1f348b8ba9b17c3cd9d8079@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20171229143431.GD9936@aishdas.org> On Fri, Dec 29, 2017 at 09:36:06AM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : Thought experiment: 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? I understand the point of your question as being about the relative value of emes and of yir'as Shamayim. But... I can't bend my head around the case for balebatishe reasons. Is it not inevitable that many of our children would eventually learn of the lie and lose confidence in the whole concept of mesorah? And wouldn't that percentage inevitably be greater than Y, the additionaly percentage who are only staying because they believe the non-truth? To address the comparison behind the question: According to the Rambam, emunah is defined by emes. Unproven faith isn't emunah. So, he would say that the Y% of the children who believe because of a lie aren't necessarily saved. If we modernize the Rambam's position, then we would still need some kind of valid justification. Even if modern philosophy believes (accuratly, AISI) that theological proof is a meaningless concept, there are other valid ways to reach a conclusion. Those of us blessed with children are certain we love your chidren even though I never developed a proof for it. BUT, I don't think too many people hold like a modern version of the Rambam, which ties redemption to knowledge, and ethics is a lower level of perfection necessary for true knowledge og G-d. Let's take a more typical modern hashkafah, which gives priority to sheleimos or experiential deveiqus. Perhaps the non-truth would indeed be justified, if I thought your case were possible. Just as shalom justifies tactfully bending the truth. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Man can aspire to spiritual-moral greatness micha at aishdas.org which is seldom fully achieved and easily lost http://www.aishdas.org again. Fulfillment lies not in a final goal, Fax: (270) 514-1507 but in an eternal striving for perfection. -RSRH From zev at sero.name Fri Dec 29 09:50:13 2017 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2017 12:50:13 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] FW: Rav Moshe on Smoking In-Reply-To: <2eb7119fe3ff4a0f8394f494ae14fde8@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <2eb7119fe3ff4a0f8394f494ae14fde8@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <2c41ffe6-418e-8a53-6b6f-72547edfcf91@sero.name> On 29/12/17 05:09, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: > In the attached file, there is a newly-published teshuvah from Rav Moshe > which basically confirms the rumors that he retracted his teshuvah about > smoking and would indeed forbid it. > One has to wonder, then, why he never chose to include this in any of the three volumes of IM that he published after this date. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From bdbradley70 at hotmail.com Sat Dec 30 11:30:10 2017 From: bdbradley70 at hotmail.com (Ben Bradley) Date: Sat, 30 Dec 2017 19:30:10 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Foreshadow In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Is that not explicitly the message of the haftara for vayigash? That the split of Yehdua and Efraim (Yosef) is the the same issue as the split in the nation to reconcile the one is to reconcile the other. It's clear from the end of vayechi that there's still broad daylight between Yosef and the brothers. They are still wary of him and he still see the need to try to bring them close. There are many midrashim assuming it's all the same issue, a basic split in Klal Yisrael manifestation over history. The Bnei Yissaschar on Chanuka deals with this a lot and the best treatment I've seen in one place is Rav Matis Weinberg's book on Chanuka. In any case, even without aggadta the cycle of galus is consistently a result of this split, be it to Mitzrayim or to Ashur. Geula has the same dynamic, thus a moshiach both from Yosef and from David (Yehuda). BW Ben -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From JRich at sibson.com Sat Dec 30 14:48:34 2017 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Sat, 30 Dec 2017 22:48:34 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] truth telling In-Reply-To: <20171229143431.GD9936@aishdas.org> References: <3852cda5a1f348b8ba9b17c3cd9d8079@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> <20171229143431.GD9936@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <714290ea035646beb5044c62d3186c46@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Perhaps the non-truth would indeed be justified, if I thought your case were possible. Just as shalom justifies tactfully bending the truth. :-)BBii! -Micha --------------------------------------------------- That's what I wonder about, can belief ever be built on sheker. I've heard drush on not (e.g. why didn't the Chashmonaim not use shemen tamei) but istm it is being done In general I agree that it doesn't work. KT 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. From meirabi at gmail.com Sat Dec 30 17:31:32 2017 From: meirabi at gmail.com (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi) Date: Sun, 31 Dec 2017 12:31:32 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] HELP - Why is there an Issur BBCh on a Nefel/Shellil? Message-ID: I have yet to find anyone asking this Q - the Nefel and Shelil seem to be the same thing it is a Neneilah yet it is Assur to eat as BBCh - why is there no Ein Issur Chal Al Issur? MAssuros 4:1 - one who eats flesh of a dead non-Shechted Kosher beast transgresses the prohibition of eating Neveilah MAssuros 4:4 - one who eats flesh of a Nefel [a non-fully gestated foetus] transgresses the prohibition of eating Neveilah Even [according to the careful reading of the RaMBaM] if it is not dead MAssuros 9:7 - one who cooks a Shelil with milk or eats it transgresses the prohibition of eating BBCh MAssuros 9:6 - one who cooks Cheilev or Neveilah or similar, with milk, transgresses the prohibition of BBCh but not when eating it because a second prohibition cannot take effect upon a item that is already prohibited Best, Meir G. Rabi 0423 207 837 +61 423 207 837 Best, Meir G. Rabi 0423 207 837 +61 423 207 837 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From menu at inter.net.il Sun Dec 31 00:12:21 2017 From: menu at inter.net.il (menucha) Date: Sun, 31 Dec 2017 10:12:21 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Foreshadow In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > > Bereshit Rabba 84 sees foreshadowing of Yeravam ben Nevat starting with Yosef's dreams. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From akivagmiller at gmail.com Sun Dec 31 08:10:04 2017 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Sun, 31 Dec 2017 11:10:04 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Merchavyah Message-ID: . There is a pasuk in Hallel (Tehillim 118:5) that begins "Min hamaytzar". In RSR Hirsch's siddur, the last word of that pasuk is "merchavyah". In his perush on Tehillim, there too, the last word is "merchavyah", and in the perush he writes that "According to Pesahim 117a, merchavyah is one word, like halleluyah." My understanding of that gemara is that R Yochanan, Rav, and Raba all hold "merchavyah" to be one single word. Although Rav Chisda quoted R Yochanan to that effect, the Gemara is unsure how Rav Chisda held personally on this issue, and leaves that as a "tayku". However - When I look in various Tanachs, Tehillims, Siddurim, and Hagados, almost all of them (there *are* a few exceptions) print this as two separate words: "merchav yah". Obviously, there must be someone who either argues against this gemara, or understands the gemara differently than how Rav Hirsch understands it. The Minchas Shai on this pasuk refers to this gemara. If I'm reading it correctly, he seems to feel that the gemara is an unresolved machlokes, and I suppose that's why he tries to resolve it by looking at whatever manuscripts he had, both here and in Beshalach (where there's a similar question on Kes Y-ah). In my very unlearned and inexperienced view, it is not reasonable to consider these as two words, which is an unproven opinion that the gemara left as a tayku, and reject the combined weight of R Yochanan, Rav, and Raba, who all clearly held this to be a single word. Can anyone help me out? Akiva Miller From cantorwolberg at cox.net Sat Dec 30 20:25:17 2017 From: cantorwolberg at cox.net (Richard Wolberg) Date: Sat, 30 Dec 2017 23:25:17 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Sh'mos Message-ID: It is brought down that the place where the Burning Bush occurred was Har Sinai. The talmud asks why did it occur in a thorn bush and the answer: God says "when the Jews are suffering, I am suffering, too." A midrash relates that taking the Jews out of Egypt was nowhere near as difficult as taking ?Egypt? out of the Jews. Aish.com Mayanot Wellsprings bring out: The longest private conversation recorded in the Torah between God and a human individual takes place in our parsha. It takes God 39 long verses (from Exodus 3:1 to 4:17) to persuade Moses to accept the mission of serving as the savior of the Jewish people. In a wide-ranging conversation that covers many topics, God patiently responds to Moses' many objections and queries before Moses finally caves in to the Divine will and accepts. It reminds me that the Shulchan Aruch says if you are asked to be a ba'al tefilla, you should first politely refuse (out of modesty). If you are asked a second time, you should still refuse. But if you are asked a third time, you must accept. It's a not such a well known minhag and is just another example of menschlechkeit, sensitivity and humility for the time it was written. ?The Bible is meant to be OUR critic, not we, ITS critic!" -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From zev at sero.name Sun Dec 31 09:51:47 2017 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Sun, 31 Dec 2017 12:51:47 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Merchavyah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <26d7c7af-67e8-e1d6-3fd7-00aca9fcbef4@sero.name> For one thing, the Keter Aram Tzovah has it as two words. -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 2018 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From micha at aishdas.org Sun Oct 1 11:10:33 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Sun, 1 Oct 2017 14:10:33 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Writing on Yom Tov In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20171001181033.GC31024@aishdas.org> On Sat, Sep 30, 2017 at 10:18:58PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : So... back to my question: To whatever extent "writing" in the "Book of : Life" is a melacha, should it matter whether it is Shabbos or Yom Tov? Before we take the Barditcher Rebbe's words too literally, let us remember that wind routinely blows things to roll more than 4 amos on a reshus harabbim, lightning ignites trees on Shabbos, people die on Shabbos, etc... IOW, first explain to me what a claim that the RBSO avoids melakhos means altogether in light of the evidence, and then perhaps I could participate in your intended conversation. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger One who kills his inclination is as though he micha at aishdas.org brought an offering. But to bring an offering, http://www.aishdas.org you must know where to slaughter and what Fax: (270) 514-1507 parts to offer. - R' Simcha Zissel Ziv From akivagmiller at gmail.com Sun Oct 1 17:52:44 2017 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Sun, 1 Oct 2017 20:52:44 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Not hadar is pasul Message-ID: . This thread may be running into a vocabulary problem. My understanding is that "hadar" and "mehudar" mean two different things, and some people tend to confuse the two. "Hadar" refers to the absolute minimum requirements, without which the minim are posul, and "mehudar" refers to things which Chazal consider as making the minim even more beautiful. "Hadar" is required, and "mehudar" is desirable. I was not able to find a source for this in my seforim, but a post from R' Moshe Feldman in Avodah 10:9 (fifteen years ago) seems to support it: > The chiluk between psulei hadar (learned from the word "hadar") > and the idea of buying a mehudar esrog--deriving from the din > of zeh Keli v'anveihu (and applicable to other mitzvos as well) > is discussed at length in Mikra'ei Kodesh (Succos vol 2) siman > 26, esp. p. 119 (quote from Raavad) and pp. 122-123 in Harirei > Kodesh. It would seem from his discussion that buying a mehudar > esrog has no relationship to the word "hadar." Of course, there are many differing views about what is in each category, and this will vary by posek, by first day / not first day, and by lechatchila / bdieved. I'm just explaining the definitions of these easily-confused terms. Akiva Miller From zev at sero.name Sun Oct 1 23:02:00 2017 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2017 02:02:00 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Not hadar is pasul In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <454d729c-5e9d-e0b0-d0cb-f625592cd49f@sero.name> On 01/10/17 20:52, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > This thread may be running into a vocabulary problem. My understanding > is that "hadar" and "mehudar" mean two different things, and some > people tend to confuse the two. > > "Hadar" refers to the absolute minimum requirements, without which the > minim are posul, and "mehudar" refers to things which Chazal consider > as making the minim even more beautiful. "Hadar" is required, and > "mehudar" is desirable. I don't think they're two very different things, they're just degrees of the same thing. From "pri etz hadar" we learn that beauty is a base requirement, at least for the first day. If it's not beautiful it's not kosher. From "zeh keli ve'anvehu" we learn that we should want all mitzvos, including this one, to be as beautiful as we can make them, given our resources. But baseline beauty itself requires more than the bare minimum that would otherwise apply; an esrog that is exactly as big as an egg fits the basic shiur, but the poskim think it obvious that to do the bare minimum is not beautiful, so they say hadar means it must be at least a bit bigger, if possible. If it's not possible, then we make do with the bare shiur. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From micha at aishdas.org Mon Oct 2 03:58:53 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2017 06:58:53 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] expensive etrog In-Reply-To: <2c96c2fe-0e11-f9ca-66d5-28e79f983bbb@zahav.net.il> References: <2c96c2fe-0e11-f9ca-66d5-28e79f983bbb@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <20171002105852.GB30968@aishdas.org> On Fri, Sep 29, 2017 at 02:05:15PM +0200, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: : In OH 656 the Mechaber writes that if one is shopping for an etrog : and sees two etrogim, one more mehudar than the other, you need to : buy the mehudar (either it is mitzvah or possibly a chiyuv). : However, this only applies if the mehudar etrog is no more than 33% : more expensive. The language that the Mechaber uses in the "yesh : omrim" is "ein meyakrim oto yoter m'shlish".... There is a machloqes whether the shelish is milevar (Ran, arguing from the Rif's silence, on Rif Sukkah 16a; Yam shel Shelomom #24), in which case it's 50% -- 1/3 of the total 150%; or if the shelish is milegav (Rosh 1:7), i.e. 1/3 in the Western sense, with a total of 4/3 the original price. The SA (OC 656:1) holds like the Rosh, lequla, but accoring to the BY, he was doing so only on the ground of safeiq derabbanan lequla. Hiddur mitzvah is derabbanan. My first thought was -- what? It's a word in the pasuq WRT esrog -- "peri eitz hadar"! That looks more like peshat than asmachta for a derabbanan! But I realized something. Even though this din is being discussed WRT esrog, the kelal of kehadeir bemitzvah ad shelish is not specific to 4 minim. As in Rashi (9b "behidur") invoking "ze keili ve'anveihu" to tell you to buy the more expensive ST if it is up to shelish more pricey than your other choice. (So that according to Rashi, if you have only two choices -- mehudas or very mehudar, and they differ by less than a shelish, you are to by the very mehudar. Tosafos disagree. This tangent is discussed in the Shitah Mequbetzer.) Anyway, the SA calling milegav a qula implies that he sees up to 1/3 as a chiyuv derabbanan, and beyond could well be reshus. If it were reshus up to a shelish and assur beyond that, then he'd be making lesser expenditures assur -- a chumerah. Personally, given the number of Jews who wouldn't spend the money on a 4 minim set, I like spending the 1/3 exactly, and using any other money I wish to use to fulfill the mitzvah of 4 minim to subsidize someone else's. (Looking at the archives, it seems I've tried marketing this idea most years since 1999.) Of course, there are so many Jews who can't afford yom tov, and I'd like to help with that.... In the end, the calculus of how to triage that money can get SO difficult. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger For those with faith there are no questions. micha at aishdas.org For those who lack faith there are no answers. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yaakov of Radzimin Fax: (270) 514-1507 From basserh at queensu.ca Wed Oct 4 12:21:12 2017 From: basserh at queensu.ca (Herbert Basser) Date: Wed, 4 Oct 2017 19:21:12 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] RE Expensive etrog inter alia Message-ID: There is yerushalmi Peah 1:1 where someone had the ugliest etrog but bragged and showed it to everyone saying it was the most beautiful etrog in the whole world. It took him just a second to purchase it without really checking it for hiddurim-- he didnt waste his valuable resources (time) on petty matters but learned instead--that was its incredible beauty for him. also see shmos rabba 30:9 for hashem's observance of halacha (I have a discussion of the inyan on reseachrgate.net) Hag Sameach! zvi -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From zev at sero.name Sat Oct 7 18:11:15 2017 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Sat, 7 Oct 2017 21:11:15 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] RE Expensive etrog inter alia In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 04/10/17 15:21, Herbert Basser via Avodah wrote: > There is yerushalmi Peah 1:1 where someone had the ugliest etrog but > bragged and showed it to everyone saying it was the most beautiful etrog > in the whole world. It took him just a second to purchase it without > really checking it for hiddurim-- he didnt waste his valuable resources > (time) on petty matters but learned instead--that was its incredible > beauty for him. Where in that halacha is this? I couldn't find it, and also searched the entire perek for the word "etrog" and it doesn't seem to exist (though "lulav" appears twice). -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From hmaryles at mail.yahoo.com Sat Oct 7 23:54:54 2017 From: hmaryles at mail.yahoo.com (Harry Maryles) Date: Sun, 8 Oct 2017 09:54:54 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] going to the amud In-Reply-To: <9d0df5d1c05c43e297d3055f6e617065@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <9d0df5d1c05c43e297d3055f6e617065@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <369A143A-9C11-4243-93D2-7F756A3D147A@yahoo.com> On Oct 8, 2017, at 5:10 AM, Rich, Joel wrote: > I note the following practices at a chareidi shul in RBS which has > multiple minyanim You must be talking about Maasas Mordechai. That is where I've been Davening since I got here just before Yom Kippur. During Chol Hamoed, I will be davening shachris at the Vasiken minyan (6:10am). My son Davens there. If you are at that minyan, come on over and say hello. > At the appointed starting time for each minyan, there > is often not a "volunteer" to lead the services. The amount of time > that it takes to start varies as everyone looks at each other trying to > influence someone to start. If there is a young bar mitzvah boy, he is > often sent for mincha/maariv. > I'm not sure what the community thinking is... To answer your question, I just asked my son about it. He said it's just a practical matter. Most boys are more willing to go to the Amud. All of the married men that are there just shake off the requests to be the Shaliach Tzibur for some reason. HM From ben1456 at zahav.net.il Sun Oct 8 12:40:42 2017 From: ben1456 at zahav.net.il (Ben Waxman) Date: Sun, 08 Oct 2017 21:40:42 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] going to the amud In-Reply-To: <9d0df5d1c05c43e297d3055f6e617065@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <9d0df5d1c05c43e297d3055f6e617065@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <5deb9535-86be-8ea7-4561-242363c8eb92@zahav.net.il> I saw similar practices during Shacharit when I used to go to Sadigora in Jerusalem. However, often the teen would quit right before starting chazarat hashaz. That always got interesting. Ben On 10/8/2017 4:10 AM, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: > I note the following practices at a chareidi shul in RBS which has > multiple minyanim: At the appointed starting time for each minyan, > there is often not a ?volunteer? to lead the services. The amount of > time that it takes to start varies as everyone looks at each other > trying to influence someone to start. If there is a young bar mitzvah > boy, he is often sent for mincha/maariv. > I?m not sure what the community thinking is, perhaps humility to avoid > the amud, but I?m struck by the amount of bittul torah caused and > wonder how this trade-off was decided upon. I also wonder about why > the practice of sending youngsters up developed given the S?A?s psak > concerning the priorities for a chazzan. Thoughts? From micha at aishdas.org Sun Oct 8 15:50:13 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Sun, 8 Oct 2017 18:50:13 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] going to the amud In-Reply-To: <9d0df5d1c05c43e297d3055f6e617065@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <9d0df5d1c05c43e297d3055f6e617065@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20171008225013.GB19523@aishdas.org> On Sun, Oct 08, 2017 at 02:10:14AM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : At the appointed starting time for each minyan, there : is often not a "volunteer" to lead the services. The amount of time : that it takes to start varies as everyone looks at each other trying : to influence someone to start. If there is a young bar mitzvah boy, : he is often sent for mincha/maariv. Going backwards (who ever said I am a chakham bound to answer al rishon rishon?)... The kid is not as likely to declien the gabbai, because an adult carries more authority in the kid's eyes. Besides, it's good practice. As for the adults declining... Two possiblities, and I would bet that in most cases, they both come into play. 1- The more positive issue is that there is actually a din to decline the amud, accepting only on the third request. I have no idea how this was expected to be implemented in a minyan where people are expected to know the din. A rachmanus on the gabbaim! Still, we see an ethic of tzenius, and halevai people internalize it! 2- The following is Ashkenazocentric. The way we teach davening, it's really a personal affair. A person is encouraged to go as slowly as he needs, having his own kavvanos. The notion of tefillah betzibbur is layered on top of that, but not in a way that explains what that means about how I daven. That means that being shatz becomes a tircha, a call to say the words in a manner that robs me of any chance of getting value out of tefillah in the ways I was taught how. So of course men (who aren't cowed by being asked by a grown-up) choose to decline! Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger You will never "find" time for anything. micha at aishdas.org If you want time, you must make it. http://www.aishdas.org - Charles Buxton Fax: (270) 514-1507 From JRich at sibson.com Sat Oct 7 19:10:14 2017 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Sun, 8 Oct 2017 02:10:14 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] going to the amud Message-ID: <9d0df5d1c05c43e297d3055f6e617065@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> I note the following practices at a chareidi shul in RBS which has multiple minyanim: At the appointed starting time for each minyan, there is often not a "volunteer" to lead the services. The amount of time that it takes to start varies as everyone looks at each other trying to influence someone to start. If there is a young bar mitzvah boy, he is often sent for mincha/maariv. I'm not sure what the community thinking is, perhaps humility to avoid the amud, but I'm struck by the amount of bittul torah caused and wonder how this trade-off was decided upon. I also wonder about why the practice of sending youngsters up developed given the S"A's psak concerning the priorities for a chazzan. Thoughts? GT 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: From zev at sero.name Sat Oct 7 20:42:36 2017 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Sat, 7 Oct 2017 23:42:36 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] going to the amud In-Reply-To: <9d0df5d1c05c43e297d3055f6e617065@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <9d0df5d1c05c43e297d3055f6e617065@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: On 07/10/17 22:10, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: > I note the following practices at a chareidi shul in RBS which has > multiple minyanim: At the appointed starting time for each minyan, there > is often not a ?volunteer? to lead the services. [...] Thoughts? My first thought is to be happy that this shul doesn't have enough avelim to make the issue moot. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From basserh at queensu.ca Sun Oct 8 15:32:52 2017 From: basserh at queensu.ca (Herbert Basser) Date: Sun, 8 Oct 2017 22:32:52 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] RE Expensive etrog inter alia In-Reply-To: References: , Message-ID: You're right-- I thought it was y peah. But obviously not. A number of years ago I tired to discover when the first mention of looking at many esrogim was. I remember looking at the yerushalmi and its commentaries and thought it was there --obviously not. Now I have no idea-- ________________________________ : Zev Sero on behalf of Zev Sero Sent: October 7, 2017 9:11 PM To: The Avodah Torah Discussion Group Cc: Herbert Basser Subject: Re: [Avodah] RE Expensive etrog inter alia On 04/10/17 15:21, Herbert Basser via Avodah wrote: > There is yerushalmi Peah 1:1 where someone had the ugliest etrog but > bragged and showed it to everyone saying it was the most beautiful etrog > in the whole world. It took him just a second to purchase it without > really checking it for hiddurim-- he didnt waste his valuable resources > (time) on petty matters but learned instead--that was its incredible > beauty for him. Where in that halacha is this? I couldn't find it, and also searched the entire perek for the word "etrog" and it doesn't seem to exist (though "lulav" appears twice). -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Mon Oct 9 14:45:50 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2017 17:45:50 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Critique of the OU paper on leadership/ordination for women In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20171009214550.GA4315@aishdas.org> On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 03:17:36PM -0500, Noam Stadlan via Avodah wrote: : JOFA has published my critique of the paper comissioned by the OU on the : topic of leadership/ordination for women.... Speaking of the full essay . Your article has proven to be a slow read for me. I keep on being pulled into "polemic mode" (apologies for talking like a programmer, but...) and when I do, I stop, put it down, and wait until I could give it a fairer read, to actually hear what you're trying to say rather than just listening for points to refute. Here are my first set of reactions. Of course, they're all points of disagreement; trying to take the time to understand what you were writing before objecting doesn't mean I stopped objecting. 1- You open with Earlier this year, 7 highly respected rabbis authored a position paper on the ordination of women and on the possibility of women serving as clergy. [1] Individually and collectively, they represent great learning, personal piety, and years of leadership. It would seem presumptuous for someone who will never achieve anything near their learning or stature to comment or critique. However, no one person or group has a monopoly on facts and logic. And, as will be demonstrated, Torah learning sometimes is not the sole or even dominant factor in a person's opinion on these issues. There appears to be an underlyuing assumption that halachic arguments, even meta-halachic ones, are entirely formal, rather than containing a strong element of ineffible art. (See #2, below) If halakhah deals with determinations like that of which poetic forms "sound right" then their "great learning, personal piety, and years of leadership" provide experience at the art of pesaq that your response simply lacks. The gemara requires shimush before one attempts to pasqen. A poseiq needs not only the abstract facts and logic, but also the skill he can only pick up with experience. Recently, my Arukh haShulachan Yomi schedule brought me to EhE 145:6. The topic is whether a shechiv-meira who gives a gett "meihayom im meisi" made the gett as-of the moment of giving, a colloquial use of "today", or if we cannot assume the gett is chal before the end of the day (R' Tam in Tosafos 72b). R' Elchanan (Tos' ad loc) says "nachon lehachmir". The AhS's assessment of the "facts and logic" leads him to conclude "vehagam chumerah yeseirah hi". And yet he continues to close the se'if with "mikol maqom chalalilah lehaqeil bedavar sheR' Tam nistapeiq bo". RYME knew that a decision of a more skilled artisan is too likely correct even in the face of his own reasoning. And there are other factors that go into halachic decisions other than the merits of the argument -- both those we can articulate and those someone could only feel by practice. Things like acharei rabim lehatos. I am not saying defer to the OU's panel because they outnumber you. I am just pointing out that logical argument isn't the only source of legal authority. Another, more relevant, is nispasheit bechol yisrael (see #8, below). The notion that your paper is of value beyond lehalakhah velo lemaaseh is an example of the American valuation of autonomy that can itself be at odds with ancient AND mesoretic values. (See #7, about not framing the discussion in terms of rights or privileges.) 2- You offer your own translation of Mesorah, which is only valid if you can show that's how the authors of the paper intended the term. >From your pg 4: > We can broadly define it as the content of our tradition that is > passed from one generation to another. That tradition contains Mitzvot > and opinion on the value of Mitzvot. Frequently a situation occurs > where one must choose between emphasizing one mitzvah or a different > mitzvah. Our Mesorah therefore contains not only the Mitzvot, but also > attitudes or values that help us choose between Mitzvot when they come > into conflict. One could cogently argue that the values are in fact > Mitzvot in and of themselves, but for the purpose of this discussion that > is a distinction without a difference. Ultimately what this analysis > is concerned with is how, within the confines of our legal tradition, > are values embraced or shunted to the side. However, RYBS and RHS both use the term mesorah to refer to the ineffible side of the art of pesaq. I argue this with examples at http://www.torahmusings.com/2015/08/what-does-masorah-mean I therefore think it is likely the sense intended by the entire OU Panel. Or at the very least (not that I want to fully concede this, but have to admit it's plausible) heavily colored by this notion. Skipping the somwhat longer quote from RYBS, here are quotes I had found from RHS, one of the panel members: Jewish Action, Fall 1910: Mesorah is not primarily a corpus of knowledge to master but a process of accessing a chain of student-teacher relationships that reaches back to Sinai. Moshe received the Torah and transmitted it to his student, Yehoshua, who in turn taught it to his students and so on, continuing through today. The nature of transmission of the mesorah is instruction from a rebbe to his student. We connect to the mesorah, to the sacred structure of laws, beliefs and attitudes, through our teachers. And a bit further in the article, "Who Is Authorized to Institute Change?": Changes in practice require delicate evaluations that only a master Torah scholar, a gadol baTorah, can properly conduct. Only someone with a broad knowledge and a deep understanding of the corpus of halachah, with an intimate familiarity with both the letter and the spirit of the law, with a mastery of both the rules and the attitudes of the mesorah, can determine when a change is acceptable or even required. The more wide-reaching the proposed change, the greater the expertise required to approve it. The evaluator must not only be a master of the mesorah, but he must also be able to consider new practices based solely on values internal to the mesorah, removing external influences from the deliberation. Rav Schachter then applies this topic to feminism itself in a teshuvah: Indeed, the Rav would often say (see drasha to Parshas Korach), that every person must recognize that he needs a Rav or a Rebbe. Even a Talmid Chochom whose Rebbe had passed away must constantly ask himself in truth (when they present questions to him) what his Rebbe would have said in such a scase, and what stance he would have taken.... Still, most of your examples of how change was permitted despite mesorah would be valid even if you were discussing the same topic I believe the authors to whom you're responding are. I think, though, your response would have been stronger if it reflected our discussions both my Torah Musings post and here. 3- But you shift criteria for legitimate change in moral value. Page 2: This paper will illustrate that 'modern values' are intrinsically neither 2 good nor bad, and that our Mesorah has always incorporated 'modern values' that found resonance in the Mesorah. Furthermore, according to great and highly respected Modern Orthodox authorities, a hallmark of Modern Orthodoxy is the willingness to acknowledge some 'modern values' as previously under-recognized religious values. I think you're again arguing against a point the OU paper isn't making. They aren't saying there is a problem with appropriating 'modern values' in-and-of itself, but that there is a problem with changing halakhah to fit 'modern values' simply because they are the values living in the modern world means being immersed in. What happened to checking for that "resonance in the Mesorah"? This being another phrasing of my origin objection here on Avodah from the days of the initial announcement of Yeshivat Maharat. I do not see discussion of how we know that this is a change the values of the Torah would imply are positive. Regardless of the outcome of that discussion, can the change be legitimate without that procedural step? Anyway, you tone down the need for resonance when you open the door to assessing for yourself which values count. From the closing paragraph of section I, on mesorah, pg 13: ... The major issue is distinguishing between timeless values and ancient values. As has been demonstrated, our Mesorah over time, consciously or unconsciously, has addressed the perceived conflict between ancient values and modern values. Certainly there are modern values that have been appropriately rejected. Frequently however, ancient values have been rejected or perhaps more accurately assigned a reduced role of importance. And the modern values have been the impetus for the re-evaluation. At this point, I fear, the hunt for resonance goes out the window. IIUC, you are making the case that resonance need only be between actual Torah values, and not all ancient values actually qualify. This is actually more problematic given your definition of Mesorah than the one I think the OU's authors intended. After all, if mesorah is a mimetic transmisison of values, than any ancient value is mesoretic. But the problem I have with this statement is that it reads like you're saying that (1) we need to assess which Torah values are real, and therefore which do not bow to movern values; and (2) we use said modern values to drive that assessment. That can't be your intent. Please clarify. Continuing the paragraph from where I left off: As discussed in the Part II, the Halakhic arguments, taken at face value, are in favor of ordination for women. The values of eliminating unnecessary restrictions, encouraging full expression of potential to serve the community, fairness, and others also point towards ordination. There are specific Halakhic restrictions in place governing the behavior of men and women. The question that needs to be answered is: What timeless principles (or values) are served by imposing restrictions on women that are not justified by a fair reading of the Halacha and the sources? Are they truly Timeless and justifiably dominant in our Mesorah, or just ancient? ... If I were to use halakhah to make that determination, I would ask whether those "specific Halakhic restrictions" that were historically / traditionally explained in terms of those ancient values can be otherwise explained. Since they do appear to be of the same cloth, this is a sizable burden of proof on your part. This is the challenge in the OU paper you quote on pg 29: Gender differences have, historically, been particularly evident in the arena of public service. We believe that these distinctions are not merely a relic of times bygone; instead, they reflect a Torah ethos -- a /Mesorah/ -- of different avenues and emphases by which men and women are to achieve identical goals -- the service of G-d and the perpetuation of the Jewish people. 4- You cite and dismiss "nashim daatan kalos", but do not note that it's part of a richer picture of gender differences alongside "binah yeseirah nitenah lahen". 5- You quote RAL at the bottom of pg 8, an essay about using English Literary sources to enhance and color values that we cannot find in our own tradition: Nor should we be deterred by the illusion that we can find everything we need within our own tradition. As Arnold insisted, one must seek "the best that has been thought and said in the world," and if, in many areas, much of that best is of foreign origin, we should expand our horizons rather than exclude it. He is talking about broadening the search in the case of silence; that we can learn more from TIDE than Torah alone. A discussion of what to do when we can't "find everything we need within in our Tradition" has nothing to to with real or apparent conflicts when we do find an answer -- ancient or traditional -- before looking elsewhere. 6- You wuote R/Dr Shalom Carmy, describing R Eliezer Berkovitz, that his moral ends derive from internal Jewish sources.dissatisfaction with mainstream Halakhah regarding women is rooted, not in the pressures of contemporary egalitarianism, but in his judgment about biblical conceptions of justice, While that may well be true of REB, it has to be actually be shown that the same is true of Torah observant Jews who join an organization with the word "feminism" in its name. You write: The authors of the paper in fact state something quite egalitarian: The Torah affirms the absolute equal value of men and women as individuals and as ovdei Hashem. This is not the view of the Talmud. The Mishnah (Horiyot 13:1) states: "A man takes precedence over a woman, in matters concerning the saving of life... a Cohen takes precedence over a Levi...." Clearly the lives are not of equal value in the eyes of the Talmud. Arguments about the validity of what you think the misnhah is "clearly" saying aside... You are treating equality of value as synonymous with egalitarianism. The people you are responding to do not. They view is as more akin to the implication of JOFA's talking about "feminism" -- seeking value in the same sorts of roles and activities. A square can be equal in area to a triangle without insisting the square and the triangle are congruent. 7- "Usena es harabbanus". Leadership isn't about my "desire for maximal participation within Halacha", as you put it in a sentence shortly before the previous quote (pg 10). It's about my duties toward the community. Your entire phrasing of the discussion in terms of right or privileges, people getting an opportunity, depriving of that opportunity being unjust (as you present REB's position), is itself a HUGE drift from how halakhah even discusses values; never mind the content of that discussion. Self-expression is like the tassles emerging from the windings of the tzitzis. (RSRH's metaphor in CW vol 3.) It is how we express ourselves within the framework of Torah; but not the windings themselves. What makes me a fan of Bach's music is his ability to conform to the strict structural rules of the music of his era. And yet he still produced pieces that could express sublime religious passion or Majesty. (Until Beethoven invented Conservative Judaism. ) Halakhah's role is to channel such expression constructively -- like the windings of the tzitzis. As RSRH continues, there is a reason why the free part of the tassle is ideally twice was long as the wound portion; this metaphor isn't against expression. The second you frame halakhah in terms of every getting their fair opportunity, I hear an evaluation based on a framework very alien to an internally resonant analysis. 9- Somewhat more tangentially, but it's the first case of something I might raise other examples of in a future email. (Assuming I ever want to go retail rather than stick to meta-issues.) On pg 3, fn 3: There are other stated facts in the OU paper that require discussion but are beyond the scope of this paper. For example, one of the points emphasized in the OU paper is the issue of women as ritual slaughterers (shochtim). Some authorities such as R. Jacob Landau and R. Moshe Isserles wrote that since women did not do it, there was a custom for women not to do so. But that was factually erroneous. "Female ritual slaughterers were to be found in most of the Jewish Diasporas... In Renaissance Italy, the phenomenon of shohatot was very common. Another source also documents that female shochtim were found in areas of Italy where they adequately educated. See Grossman, Avraham... I am willing to agree with the conclusion that the Agur and the Rama were wrong on the historical facts, and simply didn't know what was going on in other parts of the golah. Still... You don't touch the point the OU paper cites it for -- that the Rama, a halachic source we cannot simply ignore -- is one of a number of sources that WERE willing to suggest that a practice being absent from the mesorah can mean there is a mesorah that it ought to be absent. That statement bothers me too. But because you dismissed the quote based on a tangent, you don't address the central problem it raises! Perhaps there'll be more after I really read section II onward. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "I think, therefore I am." - Renne Descartes micha at aishdas.org "I am thought about, therefore I am - http://www.aishdas.org my existence depends upon the thought of a Fax: (270) 514-1507 Supreme Being Who thinks me." - R' SR Hirsch From akivagmiller at gmail.com Mon Oct 9 09:44:27 2017 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2017 12:44:27 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Eruv Tavshilin - who makes it? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: My wife and I have recently discovered that among our friends, it is invariably the husband who makes the Eruv Tavshilin. This surprises us, and we are wondering what other families do, and if there are any sources for one preference or the other. Essentially, the Eruv Tavshilin means that in this particular instance, the Shabbos cooking cannot wait for Friday, but must be done on Erev Yom Tov too. With such an intimate connection to the Shabbos cooking, it was intuitively obvious to both my wife and myself that this is NOT similar to other mitzvos (mezuza is a good example) which might be done by the husband for gender-role reasons. Rather, it is the beginning of the cooking, and should therefore be done by whoever does the cooking. In our family, that's the wife. Eruv Tavshilin was not assigned to each and every individual, like kiddush was. It is a reminder. Granted that the rishonim have varying explanations of this mitzvah, but it seems that to all of these explanations, the object of this reminding is the person who does the cooking. So my question to the chevra is: In your family, who makes the eruv, and why? And do any sources discuss this? Note: I admit there's a certain weakness in everything that I've written above. Namely, the idea that one can rely on the Eruv Tavshilin that was made by the rav of the town. Let's set aside the fact that this is not the best way of doing the eruv, and that various conditions are imposed on one who wants to rely on it. Let's focus on the fact that it is valid *at* *all*. How does the eruv made by someone outside of my home help me? What sort of *reminder* does his eruv provide? I have never understood this, nor have I heard any explanation of it, only assertions that it does work. Any help in this area would be appreciated. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From michaelpoppers at gmail.com Mon Oct 9 18:59:58 2017 From: michaelpoppers at gmail.com (Michael Poppers) Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2017 21:59:58 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] going to the amud Message-ID: In Avodah V35n119, RJR wrote: > I also wonder about why the practice of sending youngsters up developed given the S?A?s psak concerning the priorities for a chazzan. < (RJR made other points that listmembers have responded to; I thought this point, for which the latest digest listed no response, was worthy of a response.) In many *shuls*, much less *minyanim*, so perhaps in the noted "chareidi shul in RBS", those "priorities" (married, beard, age, etc.) are seemingly (except for the Yamim Noraim) secondary to the hierarchy of "*chiyuvim*"...but one "priority", being "*m'rutzah laqahal*", might be upheld when appointing/allowing a young adult to lead the *tzibbur*.... *Gut Moeid*/*Mo'adim l'Simcha!* and all the best from *Michael Poppers* * Elizabeth, NJ, USA -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From akivagmiller at gmail.com Tue Oct 10 03:47:36 2017 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2017 06:47:36 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Eruv Tavshilin - who makes it? Message-ID: . I asked how one could ever rely on the Rav's eruv: > How does the eruv made by someone outside of my home > help me? What sort of *reminder* does his eruv provide? R' Zev Sero answered: > ... that it's wrong to rely entirely on leftovers, and one > must prepare at least one thing just for Shabbos. According > to this explanation, the fact that one must ask the rabbi > (or the neighbor, or whomever) before relying on their eruv > accomplishes the same thing. One has provided for Shabbos, > not by cooking but by arranging an invitation to eat out. I don't follow this logic at all. One who relies on this did NOT "prepare at least one thing just for Shabbos." If you respond that the one thing he prepared was "arranging an invitation to eat out", I will say that he did NOT arrange such an invitation; he is merely aware that the rabbi/neighbor had him in mind. You write about "the fact that one must ask the rabbi", but I never saw such a halacha. One does not need to do any sort of action at all, not even speaking. All one needs is to be aware that the rabbi/neighbor had him in mind. So what is being accomplished? > The second explanation is that originally there was no ha'arama; > it was permitted to openly cook on Yomtov for Shabbos. Chazal > legislated that one must save Yomtov's face by pretending to be > cooking for that day. According to this explanation it's very > simple; the important thing is not the eruv itself, but the need > for the ha'arama. The eruv's function is merely to give the > ha'arama some surface plausibility. So it makes no difference > whose eruv one uses; the fact that one is pretending not to be > cooking for Shabbos *is* the kevod Yomtov that Chazal required. > The enabling notion that on Shabbos one will be eating the rabbi's > eruv is only barely less plausible than the one that one will be > subsisting on ones own eruv. Focusing on the last sentence here, we agree that relying on the rabbi's eruv is indeed less plausible than one's own. I think our disagreement is that you feel it has a sufficient shiur of plausibility, and I don't. Alternatively, you feel that relying on the rabbi constitutes "pretending to be cooking for that day", but I think it doesn't even constitute "pretending". And this is especially true in the case where one genuinely forgot to make the eruv, and remembered on Yom Tov; surely you'll agree with me that this person did absolutely *nothing* before Yom Tov as a Shabbos preparation, right? Not even to ask the rabbi to have him in mind! Akiva Miller From micha at aishdas.org Tue Oct 10 06:18:05 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2017 09:18:05 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Eruv Tavshilin - who makes it? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20171010131805.GA8572@aishdas.org> On Tue, Oct 10, 2017 at 06:47:36AM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : You write about "the fact that one must ask the rabbi", but I never : saw such a halacha. One does not need to do any sort of action at all, : not even speaking. All one needs is to be aware that the : rabbi/neighbor had him in mind. So what is being accomplished? Beqitzur: "be aware" is sufficient for heker. Can't we ask the same thing of a neighborhood eiruv? How many people think about the eruv every week? The Rambam (Shevisas YT 6:2) seems to me to be the reason for calling eiruv tavshilin an "eiruv" is merely by comparison to eruv chatzeiros. Both are hekerim: There (ECh), so that people would thing that carrying from reshus to reshus is mutar on shabbos. Here (ET), that it is okay to cook on YT even if it's not for YT. Awareness that the rabbi (or whomever) had me in mind means I am thinking about eiruvin and there is a recognition (heker) that there is an issur. It seems the Rambam holds like R' Ashi (that ET is to reinforce melakhah on YT) over Rava (it's to reinforce Shabbos prep). But even according to Rava, that moment of awareness of the rabbi's eruv is sypposed to reserve as a reminder to make something nice for se'udos Shabbos. I would agree with Zev that the plausibility requirement is quite low, as all we're doing is a mnemonic. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger None of us will leave this place alive. micha at aishdas.org All that is left to us is http://www.aishdas.org to be as human as possible while we are here. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Anonymous MD, while a Nazi prisoner From noamstadlan at gmail.com Mon Oct 9 18:26:41 2017 From: noamstadlan at gmail.com (Noam Stadlan) Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2017 20:26:41 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] OU paper Message-ID: R. Micha- thank you for taking the time to read the paper. Having read your list of criticisms, I think that in your search for reasons to oppose, you missed many of the points completely. Poskim are certainly entitled to their opinions. They are not entitled to their own facts. If their logic doesn't hold up, it is reasonable to call them on the lack of logic. Which is why the paper is NOT about my opinions versus the OU 7, but about the lack of facts and logic. Furthermore, I illustrated that what poskim hold regarding these issues isn't always or exclusively a result of all their learning and shimmush. It is a demonstrable fact that many attitudes reflect what they grew up with and were indoctrinated with early on, not the list of influences that they write about. You dismiss my quote regarding REB, and claim that it is my responsibility to prove what the motives are or aren't. This is ridiculous. The OU authors did not talk to any of the principles involved. Since when is it acceptable for any responsible posek or beit din to make important judgments without making absolutely sure regarding the facts? Especially when they are making a significant deal about motivation and it would have been a very simple matter of making a phone call or two. Isn't that a basic obligation of a posek? And then to claim that it is my responsibility to prove that they were wrong? And, by the way, since I personally know many of the people involved, I have a much greater familiarity with what people involved think. I suggest that if you think that an organization with 'feminism' in its name is inherently problematic, we may be starting from basic assumptions far to wide apart to see any common ground. The OU paper wrote about Mesorah versus modern values. I was just using their words and addressing the role of modern values in how Halacha and values have changed. The fact that they define Mesorah a bit differently doesn't change the issue nor change the fact that modern values have always been incorporated into the Halakhah and Halakhic values(in case you dont want to use the word Mesorah). And to counter your point, some of the ancient values have gone out the window, whether you want to call them mesoretic or not. I didn't have time to get into all the particulars of the halachic aspects of the Rama and shechittah, R. Brody and Broyde address and dismiss the argument in their paper(I am pretty sure that is in a footnote somewhere). I thought it was adequate to illustrate that he was factually wrong. I could go on and on but I sense that in the end it will not matter. I would have to go through each and every line of your critique and point out where your assumptions are wrong. For example "JOFA....seeking value in the same sorts of roles and activities". NO, that is not what JOFA is about. It is about not creating Halachic boundaries when there shouldn't be any, and the women can decide what roles and activities they can and should assume(within Halacha of course, just like the men). And what is wrong with anyone finding value in learning Torah, teaching Torah, helping people celebrate s'machot, organizing davening, etc? women should not find value in that???? Thank you again for taking the time to read the paper. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From zev at sero.name Mon Oct 9 21:49:31 2017 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2017 00:49:31 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Eruv Tavshilin - who makes it? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <928305ea-1e57-b3bd-da9c-b3acb1281e04@sero.name> On 09/10/17 12:44, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > Note: I admit there's a certain weakness in everything that I've written > above. Namely, the idea that one can rely on the Eruv Tavshilin that was > made by the rav of the town. Let's set aside the fact that this is not > the best way of doing the eruv, and that various conditions are imposed > on one who wants to rely on it. Let's focus on the fact that it is valid > *at* *all*. How does the eruv made by someone outside of my home help > me? What sort of *reminder* does his eruv provide? I have never > understood this, nor have I heard any explanation of it, only assertions > that it does work. Any help in this area would be appreciated. IIRC the gemara offers two explanations for ET. Either it was made lichvod Shabbos or lichvod Yomtov. The first explanation is that cooking on Yomtov for Shabbos was always done by pretending to be cooking for a late Friday meal, but Chazal felt about the Shabbos after Yomtov the way many nowadays do about the Shabbos after Thanksgiving: that it's wrong to rely entirely on leftovers, and one must prepare at least one thing just for Shabbos. According to this explanation, the fact that one must ask the rabbi (or the neighbor, or whomever) before relying on their eruv accomplishes the same thing. One has provided for Shabbos, not by cooking but by arranging an invitation to eat out. The second explanation is that originally there was no ha`arama; it was permitted to openly cook on Yomtov for Shabbos. Chazal legislated that one must save Yomtov's face by pretending to be cooking for that day. According to this explanation it's very simple; the important thing is not the eruv itself, but the need for the ha`arama. The eruv's function is merely to give the ha`arama some surface plausibility. So it makes no difference whose eruv one uses; the fact that one is pretending not to be cooking for Shabbos *is* the kevod Yomtov that Chazal required. The enabling notion that on Shabbos one will be eating the rabbi's eruv is only barely less plausible than the one that one will be subsisting on ones own eruv. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From micha at aishdas.org Tue Oct 10 13:25:47 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2017 16:25:47 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] OU paper In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20171010202547.GC6565@aishdas.org> Take 2. I didn't like what I read in the Avodah queue, so I rejected my first version and elaborated. On Tue, Oct 10, 2017 at 10:53:24AM -0500, Noam Stadlan via Avodah wrote: :> 1- Feminism assumes egalitarianism, not only equality, as it assumes that :> roles historically closed to women as "men's roles" should be open to all. :> Equality only assumes that everyone should be eligible for roles of equal :> value. (For some measure of value.) : This is starting off on the wrong foot. I dont claim to speak for all : Orthodox Feminists. But the first question to be asked is why is a role : 'historically closed to women?' ... I see this as an equally valid question, but who is to say which ought to be asked first? REBerkowitz rightly deprecates the modification of halakhah out of concern for external values. He dismisses the role of the "pressures of contemporary egalitarianism." (As RSC put it.) This puts REB in a different place than people who unite under the word "feminism" are indeed advocating halachic change. What he denies being a valid motive JOFA is putting in their organizational name. : It is very reasonable, just like in : the cases of the chereish, slavery etc, to investigate why it is : 'historically closed." ... Which you fail to actually do. You rebut your understanding of some arguments for why the clsure is grounded in mesorah. After all, this is a rebuttal paper. The one mention of an alternative motive for change, rather than a lack of motive for status quo, is one that is inconsistent with feminism, as above. : litany of reasons as to why women were forbidden to do things and he : himself agreed that those reasons have gone by the wayside. If you want to : say that something is historically closed, and therefore it is assur- : fine. Now you dont need an Halachic reasons, because historically closed : is the final word.... Strawman. I am not asserting that we have to hold like the Rama that being historically closed means the option is halachically closed; identifying history with mesorah, and thus absence of tradition with tradition of absence. I would say, though, that if you want to buck the Rama, you have to make an argument for doing so, and not just dismiss his rule because he applied it to a misunderstood case. : everyone seems to be giving Halachicly justification, both pro and con, : then it means that historically closed is open for discussion, and it is on : the plane of halacha, not history. So the bottom line is that if there is : Halachic justification for particular gender roles- of course that trumps : everything. But it also means that stating something is historically assur : is not the end of the story. history is not Halacha. That is what I : illustrated in part one. Because you could also make the same argument : that the chereish shouldn't have an aliyyah... Yes, I agreed with your formulation of the problem in terms of resonant values, and at times a contemporary value can highlight the neglect of a Torah one. But you don't follow through with it. Instead you end up altogether rejecting the say of mesoretic values to decide which halachic innovations are proper. I would add that at times a contemporary value can change expectations, and thus change the morality of an act. After all, it may be okay to do something to someone when they expect it, but not if it violates assumptions behind things they committed to. I could see making that argument WRT monogyny and the validity of cheirem deR Gershom. Mental images of what marriage should be changed, and so it's only moral to satisfy the resulting emotional need rather than some older definition of marriage. As long as the definition itself isn't inferior. To take that poorly explained idea and possibly be clearer by making it less general and more about our case: Perhaps one could form the argument that while it was moral for women not to be eligable for the rabbinate in the past because it was less likely for the option to cross their minds. Such a practice would cause fewer feelings of deprevation. But now that women can become CEO, such a position does mesoretically-wrongly create feelings of deprivation. And so societal change causes a change in application of values; just as it can an application of law. This is pretty close to an argument you do indeed make. Just (as below), I don't think having a role is a right, because I do not believe religious roles are as much opportunities as they are duties. Unlike secular roles, which could be either, depending on how the society in question chooses to frame them. Your neglect of the "how", which changes are valid and which not, reminds me of the argument of non-O rabbis who point to pruzbul and heter isqa as justifications for their radical changes. It's not the same thing by a lng shot. But half-way through you make the same error of considering proof that there are valid kinds of change as proof that the topic in question provides no barriers to change altogether. As you say in this same paragraph (!): : Any role that is historically : closed to any group that isn't Halachically assur is open for discussion as : to what the Halacha actually mandates and why exactly it was closed in the : first place.... So, it's black-letter law closure, or the change is allowed? No "resonance of values" needed after all? And the problem with demanding "resonance of values" is that it takes the autonomy out of it for most of us. Because by enlarging the problem beyond black letter halakhah we guarantee there is a non-formal aspect to the answer, one that is for the practiced artist rather than any bright researcher. And the notion that one is validating a value system that then sets the person up for a very hard collision with the actual not-so-glass ceiling black-letter halakhah defines is very related to this. The mere existence of such a ceiling implies the likelihood of non-resonant values. The concept of asei lekha rav, having a poseiq, moves us away from autonomy in our behavioral decisions, and forces a heteronomy of a manner that too violates contemporary values. :> 2- Feminism assumes Locke's language of rights and priviledge. Why should :> someone *be deprived* of the opportunity to be an .... -- in our case, to :> serve as rabbi? But halachic values aren't framed in these terms... : Being a rabbi is fulfilling the mitzvah of service to the community, talmud : torah etc. Whether it is a burden or an opportunity, it is a mitzvah and : a choice of profession and communal service... But asking about opportunity and opening doors is inherently asking different value questions than the mesoretic ones. It's not just ancient that we frame our moral choices in terms of duty to others and the Other, it's mesoretic. : Furthermore, the OU paper went way beyond opposing rabbis. they forbid a : woman from officiating at a baby naming or other things. that too is a : burden that women should be forbidden from shouldering? This misses my point. When I spoke of rights vs duties I am talking about the entire framing of questions of values, not this specific decision. If the rabbinate, baby naming or whatever is a duty rather than a right, the whole question of "limiting their options unneccessarily" goes off the table. It's not about the right to choose a boon. Your whole question is framed non-traditionally. Looking at feminism as a goal is an inherently un-mesoretic way of framing the question. Rather, the nearest mesoretic equivalent would be to ask whether men have a duty that can only be discharged by sharing the pulpit, "officiating at a baby naming of other things". Feminism doesn't enter the mesoretic discussion because there is no door to be opened or closed, there is no region of personal-expression space to discuss whether someone is given too much or too little. The Torah is a beris, not a bill of rights. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When one truly looks at everyone's good side, micha at aishdas.org others come to love him very naturally, and http://www.aishdas.org he does not need even a speck of flattery. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rabbi AY Kook From micha at aishdas.org Tue Oct 10 14:04:28 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2017 17:04:28 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Oseh Hashalom In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20171010210428.GC21284@aishdas.org> On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 10:34:34PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : I went looking at the siddurim that were common in the shuls that I : grew up in, and I noticed an interesting pattern: Every single one : gave Oseh Hashalom as the closing bracha at the end of the Amidah; not : even one suggested saying Hamevarech like the rest of the year. : Further, every single one used the words Oseh Shalom at the ends of : Kaddish and Elokai N'tzor; not even one suggested saying Oseh Hashalom : during the Aseres Yemei Teshuva. ... : My questions are these: If you're old enough to remember davening : Ashkenaz in the 1970s or before, do you remember what was said during : Aseres Yemei Teshuva? And do you know of any siddur from that era : which included the newfangled text? I know my father was saying "hamvarekh" at this time. However, our minhagim are a hodge-podge of practices from those retained from the Ottoman Empire before my ancestor's arrival in Litta, mainline Litvish, R/Dr Mirsky's idiosyncricies (my grandfather came to America as a teen, and so the rav who met him at Ellis Island was became rav of his shul determined much of what he did), and what my father picked up Tues nights (and from YU alumni friends) from RYBS. I did some restoration of pre-American Biergehr minhag based on R Dovid Lifshitz's memories of what it was. AND that brings me to a theory... Minhagim that Chabad, Talmidei haGra and Sepharadim have in common are bound to become Minhag EY. And Minhag EY is bound to be known globally, at least by the 1970s. Maybe this is just a thing that universalized faster. Anecodtally, I notice fewer and fewer people wearing tefillin on ch"m each year. Although Passaic, a neighborhood with some 40% BT rate, is going to have weaker ties to minhag than ones in which more people have childhood memories of what dad does. I also noticed more an more shuls moving Shir shel Yom and Hoshanos from the end of mussaf to before leining. One thing all three of the communities that dominated the Yishuv haYashan had in common was an attachment to Qabbalah. We may be seeing more and more Tzefat-originating practices coming to the fore in the comming years as a new Minhag EY (and ch"v if galus lasts long enough Minhag America) emerges. Much to R' Ovadiah's poshumous dismay, I would presume. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "I hear, then I forget; I see, then I remember; micha at aishdas.org I do, then I understand." - Confucius http://www.aishdas.org "Hearing doesn't compare to seeing." - Mechilta Fax: (270) 514-1507 "We will do and we will listen." - Israelites From micha at aishdas.org Tue Oct 10 08:18:49 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2017 11:18:49 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] OU paper In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20171010151849.GB32729@aishdas.org> On Mon, Oct 09, 2017 at 08:26:41PM -0500, Noam Stadlan via Avodah wrote: : R. Micha- thank you for taking the time to read the paper. Having read : your list of criticisms, I think that in your search for reasons to oppose, : you missed many of the points completely... As I wrote, the reply was delayed by my attempt to put down the paper every time I thought I was reading solely for the sake of finding points to oppose. "Fisking", as it's called. Admittedly, I could still have failed. : Poskim are certainly entitled to : their opinions. They are not entitled to their own facts. Which is why I didn't dispute claims of fact, such as whether women were shochetim in Italy. I did dispute your use of a fact turning that Rama's point into a hypothetical to deny his whole "[if] we [hadn't] ever seen women as shochetim, we have a mesorah that woman aren't to serve as shochetim". Yes, his given is false, but we do see the implication statement in the Agur and the Rama. So, how do you dismiss applying the parallel syllogism here -- since we do not have a history of women rabbis, wouldn't the Rama's methodology mean that there is a mesorah not to ordain women? At least -- doesn't this topic need addressing, rather than writing that one can ignore the whole flow of logic because the antecedent is false? : Furthermore, I illustrated that what poskim hold : regarding these issues isn't always or exclusively a result of all their : learning and shimmush. It is a demonstrable fact that many attitudes : reflect what they grew up with and were indoctrinated with early on, not : the list of influences that they write about. But you gave up on the question of which new values pass the resonance test mention early in the paperr and which do not. My argument is that : You dismiss my quote regarding REB, and claim that it is my responsibility : to prove what the motives are or aren't. I dismiss the quote as necessarily applying to anyone but REB. It is not like he's the communal leader or primary poseiq of the people in question. In particular because of the word "feminism" in JOFA's name. To which you replied: : I suggest that if you think that an organization with 'feminism' in its : name is inherently problematic, we may be starting from basic assumptions : far to wide apart to see any common ground. RCS summarized REB's position (on your pg 10), as being of "moral ends derive from internal Jewish sources.... dissatisfaction with mainstream Halakhah regarding women is rooted, not in the pressures of contemporary egalitarianism, in his judgment about biblical conceptions of justice." (ellision yours) But JOFA's name is taken from "contemporary egalitarianism". I am not saying it's inherently problematic. I am saying it creates the likelihood of a gap between REB's position and JOFA's attitude, one that then creates a burden of proof you didn't take up. In short I am saying that: 1- Feminism assumes egalitarianism, not only equality, as it assumes that roles historically closed to women as "men's roles" should be open to all. Equality only assumes that everyone should be eligible for roles of equal value. (For some measure of value.) 2- Feminism assumes Locke's language of rights and priviledge. Why should someone *be deprived* of the opportunity to be an .... -- in our case, to serve as rabbi? But halachic values aren't framed in these terms. (At least not in general; I can think of notions like geneivas da'as, gezel shinah or tovas han'ah as exceptions.) Rather, the rabbinate is supposed to be a burden. Even if it is really being treated as an honor, the value which would differentiate between a positive halachic change and one that is anti-mesoretic would be that of duty, not opportunity. 3- Making the argument that feminist egalitarian opportunity is or is not resonant with mesoretic values requires those guys with shimush, as it is an art. Your counter-argument is on the wrong plane for discussing the topic of the first section of your paper -- "mesorah". ... And we don't even agree on how RIETS-trained rabbis are most likely to use the word "mesorah" to agree on what we're debating! Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Man is equipped with such far-reaching vision, micha at aishdas.org yet the smallest coin can obstruct his view. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yisrael Salanter Fax: (270) 514-1507 From noamstadlan at mail.gmail.com Tue Oct 10 08:53:24 2017 From: noamstadlan at mail.gmail.com (Noam Stadlan) Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2017 10:53:24 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] OU paper In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: multipart/alternative Size: 3823 bytes Desc: not available URL: From micha at aishdas.org Tue Oct 10 14:12:25 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2017 17:12:25 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] =?cp1255?q?=93Timtum_Ha-Lev=94_Redux?= In-Reply-To: <7aef6b22a7e348ffa09f6c3e61bde74f@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <7aef6b22a7e348ffa09f6c3e61bde74f@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20171010211225.GD21284@aishdas.org> On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 06:30:33PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : From R' Aviner Dulling of the Heart to Save One's Life ... : A: No. Maran Ha-Rav Kook writes in his book "Musar Avicha" (p. 19) : that the dulling of one's heart comes from violating a prohibition : and not from the food itself (Yoma 39a. And see Meharsha on : Shabbat 33a).... Yay! Finally I have sources to look at. "Vehayisa akh sameiach" just became a little easier. Does anyone have "Mussar Avikha", "Uvdos veHanhagos miBeis Brisk" (vol II p 50) and/or "Orchos Yosheir" (#13)? Do any of them discuss mezuzah and the consequent shemirah, or any of the other related segulah-like effects of mitzvos we've tied in to previous iterations? Look at that list of names: I'm not wrong, just Litvish! Tangent: The Gra said that "vehayisa akh sameiach" is the hardest mitzvah in the Torah. "Veyahisa sameiach" is one thing, but "akh sameiach"? To be nothing but happy, with no other moods ambivalently mixed in for 8 days (9 in chu"l) straight? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The fittingness of your matzos [for the seder] micha at aishdas.org isn't complete with being careful in the laws http://www.aishdas.org of Passover. One must also be very careful in Fax: (270) 514-1507 the laws of business. - Rav Yisrael Salanter From hankman at bell.net Tue Oct 10 22:24:18 2017 From: hankman at bell.net (hankman) Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2017 01:24:18 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] R. Akiva, Bar Kochba and Zecharya HaNovi Message-ID: <5AFE790709AC4B0B9FDDB6A6102B7005@hankPC> How could R. Akiva have mistaken Bar Kochba for Moshiach, since non of the nevuos of Zecharya HaNovi that we read in the recent haftorah (splitting of Har HaZeitim etc., etc) for the period precedent to Moshiach had yet occurred? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Tue Oct 10 13:51:59 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2017 16:51:59 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] future impact of deeds In-Reply-To: <781196aefdb44054b2f0e69678999858@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <781196aefdb44054b2f0e69678999858@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20171010205159.GB21284@aishdas.org> On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 06:29:05PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : In one of his shiurim, R'Reisman questioned a common (my) understanding : of how those who are no longer with us could be judged based on the : future impact of their deeds on an ongoing basis. The specific example : was two individuals (A & B) separately caused two other individuals (C & : D, who were totally equivalent) to become religious. C dies a day later, : while D lives a long, productive, and fruitful life. Does it make sense : that A gets more credit(schar) than B? : : My answer is no, but this does not refute the basic premise. The schar : is based on the % of their potential that C & D actualized-only HKB"H : knows that, so, in this case in fact, A might even get more credit than B. Who said that sekhar is indeed based on actualized potential? "Lefum tz'ara agra", not "lefum tzalach". And wouldn't judging someone by something out of their control violate Middas haDin? HOWEVER, perhaps (thinking out loud) we could invoke megalgalim zekhus al yedei zakai to say that hashgachah peratis's choice of D's long life includes among an infinite other factors, the ways in which his mashpia was mora zekai. But personally, I would question your conclusion. (But in a personal-belief sense. Not that it doesn't require understanding in an eilu-va'eilu way.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Rescue me from the desire to win every micha at aishdas.org argument and to always be right. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Nassan of Breslav Fax: (270) 514-1507 Likutei Tefilos 94:964 From zev at sero.name Wed Oct 11 03:30:27 2017 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2017 06:30:27 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] R. Akiva, Bar Kochba and Zecharya HaNovi In-Reply-To: <5AFE790709AC4B0B9FDDB6A6102B7005@hankPC> References: <5AFE790709AC4B0B9FDDB6A6102B7005@hankPC> Message-ID: <0278980f-97ca-2755-caa3-89461ed64e50@sero.name> On 11/10/17 01:24, hankman via Avodah wrote: > How could R. Akiva have mistaken Bar Kochba for Moshiach, since non of > the nevuos of Zecharya HaNovi that we read in the recent haftorah > (splitting of Har HaZeitim etc., etc) for the period precedent to > Moshiach had yet occurred? The Rambam, whose shita is based on R Akiva, explicitly paskens that none of these nevuos need to be fulfilled literally. Any that aren't can be interpreted metaphorically to fit whatever political and military events actually do take place around the geulah. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From akivagmiller at gmail.com Wed Oct 11 06:41:32 2017 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2017 09:41:32 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Questioning Authority In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I have no hidden agenda here. This post is my response to the current "OU paper" thread, and to many other threads we've had over the decades, where we have wondered how any given posek could hold a certain way on any particular question. It is also relevant to threads we've had abput *becoming* a posek, and the importance of shimush in addition to book knowledge. This is something I would not have written, or even have thought of, until about 10 years ago or so. But as I have matured, I have come to see things in a new perspective. Becoming a parent, and a grandparent, has given me a tremendous insight into Hashem's relationship with us. I have always felt that it is (or ought to be) possible and permissible to *question* authority without challenging or rejecting authority. It is very natural to want to understand the reasons behind the rules that we must live by. Wanting to understand those rules is not the same as rejecting those rules. Wanting to understand the rules, I believe, is a major component of the Mitzvah of Talmud Torah, and is thus highly commendable. A chavrusa once challenged me to explain my position on a certain subject. He said to me, "If you can't explain it to me in simple terms, then you don't really understand it well enough yourself." I accepted that rule wholeheartedly, and used it myself for many decades. But recently have I begun to see the cracks in that rule. A parent tells the child to do something, or to not do something. The child asks why, not out of rebellion, but because he sincerely wants to understand what's going on. Sometimes, the parent cannot give an answer better than "Because I said so." The child now thinks that the parent is being arbitrary, and sometimes, the parent might even agree. But frequently, the truth is that the parent has very good reasons for what he says. It's just that he's unable to put those reasons into clear words. He can't even explain it to himself in simple terms, because it is simply a gut feeling that he has, based on experience and intuition, he sees that this is the action or inaction which must be followed in this particular situation. I think this is analogous to Torah leaders and Torah followers. When the leaders tell the followers what to do, or what to avoid, it is entirely reasonable for the followers to request explanations from the leaders. This is especially so, if the explanation will help them comply with the directive, or teach them how to apply the directive to other situations. But these requests must be made respectfully, carefully, and only up to a certain point. Consider when a parent explains himself to the child, and the child responds with a dozen reasonable challenges to the parent's logic. Sometimes the parent will realize that he was in error, and back down. Sometimes the parent will realize that he was in error, but will stick to his guns as a show of power (rightly or wrongly). But sometimes, the parent will understand that - despite the child's persuasive comments - the directive must still be followed, because ... Well, the parent himself might not be able to articulate his reasoning, not even to himself. But he relies on his understanding and his experience and his common sense, and he knows that this is how it must be. So too, our leaders adopt certain positions on certain issues, and often they will attempt to explain themselves to us. Sometimes those explanations may appear flawed to us, maybe even severely flawed. Like the child who thinks his parent's explanation is nonsense, the flaws do not necessarily invalidate the leader's conclusion or his decision. Of course, none of this suggests that our leaders (or parents) are infallible. And they can certainly benefit from reviewing their positions among their peers. The only point I'm trying to make in this long post is this: Similar to a Chok from the Torah, sometimes our leaders issue pronouncements that we are not capable of fully understanding, and we should not let that stand in the way of following them. Akiva Miller NB: A critical word in this post is "sometimes". The difficult (sometimes impossible) task is to figure out which times are which. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From zev at sero.name Wed Oct 11 07:40:40 2017 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2017 10:40:40 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] R. Akiva, Bar Kochba and Zecharya HaNovi In-Reply-To: <20171011143003.GA21995@aishdas.org> References: <5AFE790709AC4B0B9FDDB6A6102B7005@hankPC> <0278980f-97ca-2755-caa3-89461ed64e50@sero.name> <20171011143003.GA21995@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 11/10/17 10:30, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > While the Rambam cites R' Aqiva's following Bar Koziba (H Melahim 11:2) > as proof that the melekh hamoshiach doesn't have to do miracles, is his > position really "based on" R Aqiva's? For example, in 11:4 he describes > the moshiach as being "hogeh baTorah ve'oseiq bemitzvos keDavid aviv" > which I don't think fit Bar Kokhva even in his hayday. What makes you suppose this? On the contrary, the fact that the Rambam says "since BK didn't do any miracles, we know that Moshiach doesn't have to", proves that when he says Moshiach *does* have to be a TCh and a tzadik he assumes BK *did* fulfil this requirement. If he didn't, that would prove to the Rambam that this isn't necessary. > Nor had "veyakhof kol Yisrael leileikh bah" yet either -- the > Perushim were in the minority. Were they? Who was in the majority, if not them? And why would the majority even matter? BK was the king, and he made halacha the law of the land, whether the majority liked it or not. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From micha at aishdas.org Wed Oct 11 07:30:03 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2017 10:30:03 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] R. Akiva, Bar Kochba and Zecharya HaNovi In-Reply-To: <0278980f-97ca-2755-caa3-89461ed64e50@sero.name> References: <5AFE790709AC4B0B9FDDB6A6102B7005@hankPC> <0278980f-97ca-2755-caa3-89461ed64e50@sero.name> Message-ID: <20171011143003.GA21995@aishdas.org> On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 06:30:27AM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : On 11/10/17 01:24, hankman via Avodah wrote: :> How could R. Akiva have mistaken Bar Kochba for Moshiach, since :> non of the nevuos of Zecharya HaNovi that we read in the recent :> haftorah (splitting of Har HaZeitim etc., etc) for the period :> precedent to Moshiach had yet occurred? : The Rambam, whose shita is based on R Akiva, explicitly paskens that : none of these nevuos need to be fulfilled literally. Any that : aren't can be interpreted metaphorically to fit whatever political : and military events actually do take place around the geulah. While the Rambam cites R' Aqiva's following Bar Koziba (H Melahim 11:2) as proof that the melekh hamoshiach doesn't have to do miracles, is his position really "based on" R Aqiva's? For example, in 11:4 he describes the moshiach as being "hogeh baTorah ve'oseiq bemitzvos keDavid aviv" which I don't think fit Bar Kokhva even in his hayday. Nor had "veyakhof kol Yisrael leileikh bah" yet either -- the Perushim were in the minority. More clearly is his basing himself on Shemu'el (Sanhedrin 91b) when he quotes him in 12:2, "Chakhamim said: ein bein ha'olam hazeh liymos hamoshiach ela shib'ud malkhios bilvad." It's interesting that rather than repeating the quote beshrim omero -- a funny thing to do when discussing the ge'ula le'lam that giving the source is supposed to bring -- he attributes the quote to Chakhamim, as though he knew it was consensus and Rav's position deprecated. After all, the Rambam himself says that we can't decide machloqesim in these thingxs. So it could be that the Rambam did indeed base himself on R Aqiva, but then we would have to say that the Rambam held that R Aqiva was waiting for the rest of the nevu'ah to come true. Or not -- maybe his basic source was Shemu'el, and this one proof doesn't imply derivation. And given that the BK Revolt was c. 132-135 CE, it is likely that R' Aqiva expected the war to go on 7 years, as per statements in the gemara about chevlei moshiach. This would time the end of the war with 70 years after the churban, like the return after churban bayis 1. But whether that conjecture is true or not, the relevant idea that R Aqiva could be backing BK thinking the rest of the expectations about the moshiach simply hadn't happened /yet/. Which the Rambam would have to invoke even for his more mundane list of things the moshiach will accomplish. In 12:1 the Rambam denies the literalness of Yeshaiah's and Yirmiyahu's description of the messianic era in terms of wolves, leopards and lions going vegetarian. But since the splitting of Har haZeirim need not be lemaalah min hateva, do we know whether the Rambam would have placed it in the same rule? If not, the "expected it will happen in the future" answer could cover that earthquake (?) as much as it can cover BK spending all his spare time learning and doing mitzvos or his being meqareiv the vast majority of Kelal Yisrael. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger A sick person never rejects a healing procedure micha at aishdas.org as "unbefitting." Why, then, do we care what http://www.aishdas.org other people think when dealing with spiritual Fax: (270) 514-1507 matters? - Rav Yisrael Salanter From zev at sero.name Wed Oct 11 09:02:55 2017 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2017 12:02:55 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] R. Akiva, Bar Kochba and Zecharya HaNovi In-Reply-To: <20171011154231.GA6170@aishdas.org> References: <5AFE790709AC4B0B9FDDB6A6102B7005@hankPC> <0278980f-97ca-2755-caa3-89461ed64e50@sero.name> <20171011143003.GA21995@aishdas.org> <20171011154231.GA6170@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <0e95d039-c074-ae7f-f3ba-3cee64a3d191@sero.name> On 11/10/17 11:42, Micha Berger wrote: > > The man described in the Y-mi Taanis 24b (4:5) doesn't sound personally > observant. The Rambam clearly doesn't hold like the Yerushalmi's version of the story, because he holds that the Chachamim stuck with BK until he was killed "ba`avonos". That word is ambiguous (whose sins, his or the people's) but later he says a presumptive Moshiach who's killed is "kechol malchei beis Dovid hash'leimim vehak'sheirim", so we can assume he holds that BK was killed for the generation's sins, not for his own, hence "ba`avonos", not "ba`avonosav". > This is also why in both R' Aqiva's world as well as R' Meir's and R' > Shim'on's -- before and after BK's revolt -- it is taken for granted > that most Jews are amei ha'aretz. Amei Haaretz were in the Perushim "denomination". They kept Perushi halacha as well as they understood it, even if they despised the Chaverim who taught it. They made up their own invalid leniencies in maasros, and weren't careful all year with taharos, but they were careful with terumah and never told lies on Shabbos. In any case, the question isn't what the majority would have done on their own, but whether BK forced them to obey halacha, and the Rambam assumes he did. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From micha at aishdas.org Wed Oct 11 10:11:32 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2017 13:11:32 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] R. Akiva, Bar Kochba and Zecharya HaNovi In-Reply-To: <0e95d039-c074-ae7f-f3ba-3cee64a3d191@sero.name> References: <5AFE790709AC4B0B9FDDB6A6102B7005@hankPC> <0278980f-97ca-2755-caa3-89461ed64e50@sero.name> <20171011143003.GA21995@aishdas.org> <20171011154231.GA6170@aishdas.org> <0e95d039-c074-ae7f-f3ba-3cee64a3d191@sero.name> Message-ID: <20171011171132.GA1028@aishdas.org> On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 12:02:55PM -0400, Zev Sero wrote: : On 11/10/17 11:42, Micha Berger wrote: : >The man described in the Y-mi Taanis 24b (4:5) doesn't sound personally : >observant. : : The Rambam clearly doesn't hold like the Yerushalmi's version of the : story, because he holds that the Chachamim stuck with BK until he : was killed "ba`avonos"... How does this conflict with the Y-mi's picture of a less than ideal Bar Kokhva? If anything, it reinforces my suggestion that R' Aqiva was awaiting the rest of the nevu'ah. And once he is waiting for the things the Rambam mentions, then it's possible the Rambem would expect Zerkhariah's nevu'os to happen literally, but also something R' Aqiva was awaiting. It's possible the Rambam would consider the potentially natural cataclysms in Zekhariah to be non-allegory, as the examples of non-literal nevu'os he gives would have been lema'alah min hateva if literal. I don't know where he's drawing the line; nevi'ah qua nevu'ah is bederekh mashal, or only the phantastical stories should be dismissed. (This is a sibling to our discussion of the Rambam on midrashic stories. I claim he is saying that no medrash was repeated for historical content. Therefore any medrash can be ahistorical, but the fantastical stories you should take for granted as being ahistorical. You have been limiting the Rambam's denial of historicity for the fantastical stories. s/medrash/nevu'ah/g -- where do you stand?) : That word is ambiguous (whose sins, his or : the people's) but later he says a presumptive Moshiach who's killed : is "kechol malchei beis Dovid hash'leimim vehak'sheirim", so we can : assume he holds that BK was killed for the generation's sins, not : for his own, hence "ba`avonos", not "ba`avonosav". But either way -- whether he or the generation was sinful -- it would show that BK didn't fit the Rambam's descrition of moshiach. For obvious reasons, I'll add: ... at least not yet. If the generation sinned too much to merit redemption, BK wasn't too good at bringing the masses to observance. Besides, being like a kosher and shaleim member of beis David could mean "even if", we still know he wasn't the moshiach. : >This is also why in both R' Aqiva's world as well as R' Meir's and R' : >Shim'on's -- before and after BK's revolt -- it is taken for granted : >that most Jews are amei ha'aretz. : : Amei Haaretz were in the Perushim "denomination". They kept Perushi : halacha as well as they understood it, even if they despised the : Chaverim who taught it... Actually, I thought they were denominationless, as likely to follow anyone's dictates. A pagan notion of listening to every holy man, rather than picking sides. But in any case, if that's your description of the masses, you still have BK not yet succeeding in that regard at the time of his death. : in maasros, and weren't careful all year with taharos, but they were : careful with terumah and never told lies on Shabbos... They were also careful with maaser, more often than not. Demai is a gezeira; if tevel were the norm, it would be azlinan basar ruba, or at best safeiq deOraisa lehachmir. : the question isn't what the majority would have done on their own, : but whether BK forced them to obey halacha, and the Rambam assumes : he did. The Rambam doesn't say so. That's your deduction. It requires assuming that the Rambam agrees with R' Aqiva over what the grounds for presuming (making a chazqah) that someone is moshiach. He doesn't say R' Aqiva is indeed his source. And it also requires assuming R Aqiva was following BK because of a chazaqah, rather than probability and rov. You haven't addressed my "maybe" of R Aqiva following BK without BK having yet fulfilled all of the moshiach's role becuase of an expectation that BK would be getting there. My added "not yet". Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Between stimulus & response, there is a space. micha at aishdas.org In that space is our power to choose our http://www.aishdas.org response. In our response lies our growth Fax: (270) 514-1507 and our freedom. - Victor Frankl, (MSfM) From zev at sero.name Sat Oct 14 19:44:53 2017 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2017 22:44:53 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] R. Akiva, Bar Kochba and Zecharya HaNovi In-Reply-To: <20171011171132.GA1028@aishdas.org> References: <5AFE790709AC4B0B9FDDB6A6102B7005@hankPC> <0278980f-97ca-2755-caa3-89461ed64e50@sero.name> <20171011143003.GA21995@aishdas.org> <20171011154231.GA6170@aishdas.org> <0e95d039-c074-ae7f-f3ba-3cee64a3d191@sero.name> <20171011171132.GA1028@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 11/10/17 13:11, Micha Berger wrote: > On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 12:02:55PM -0400, Zev Sero wrote: > : On 11/10/17 11:42, Micha Berger wrote: > : >The man described in the Y-mi Taanis 24b (4:5) doesn't sound personally > : >observant. > : > : The Rambam clearly doesn't hold like the Yerushalmi's version of the > : story, because he holds that the Chachamim stuck with BK until he > : was killed "ba`avonos"... > > How does this conflict with the Y-mi's picture of a less than ideal > Bar Kokhva? It conflicts because the Y'mi's version of the story has the Chachamim abandoning BK *before* his fall. The Rambam clearly does not agree with that whole version of the story. In his version BK was and remained a tzadik until his tragic end, which happened not for his own sins but for those of others. > It's possible the Rambam would consider the potentially natural cataclysms > in Zekhariah to be non-allegory, as the examples of non-literal nevu'os > he gives would have been lema'alah min hateva if literal. I don't know > where he's drawing the line; nevi'ah qua nevu'ah is bederekh mashal, > or only the phantastical stories should be dismissed. He doesn't draw a line at all. He carefully doesn't say that Moshiach *won't* perform miracles, but merely that he *needn't*, because BK didn't and yet was assumed to be Moshiach. Which further contradicts the Y'mi's version, which says he was rejected because he could not judge people by smelling whether they're right or wrong, a feat of which the True Moshiach(tm) must be capable. > > : That word is ambiguous (whose sins, his or > : the people's) but later he says a presumptive Moshiach who's killed > : is "kechol malchei beis Dovid hash'leimim vehak'sheirim", so we can > : assume he holds that BK was killed for the generation's sins, not > : for his own, hence "ba`avonos", not "ba`avonosav". > > But either way -- whether he or the generation was sinful -- it would > show that BK didn't fit the Rambam's descrition of moshiach. How so? He was righteous, and forced people to keep Torah, but they didn't listen, just like Yoshiyahu. > But in any case, if that's your description of the masses, you still > have BK not yet succeeding in that regard at the time of his death. Again, how so? The requirement is that he forces all Israel to follow it and to reinforce its breaches. Not that he educates them, or makes them enthusiastic, but simply that he makes the Shulchan Aruch the law of the land, punishing those who break it. There are always lawbreakers; one would not therefore say that the government is not forcing people to obey the law. > : the question isn't what the majority would have done on their own, > : but whether BK forced them to obey halacha, and the Rambam assumes > : he did. > > The Rambam doesn't say so. That's your deduction. It requires assuming > that the Rambam agrees with R' Aqiva over what the grounds for presuming > (making a chazqah) that someone is moshiach. He doesn't say R' Aqiva is > indeed his source. He explicitly uses him as his source that Moshiach needn't perform miracles. How could he do so if his vision of Moshiach's qualifications were different from R Akiva's? If he holds that Moshiach must be a tzadik but RA didn't, then how does he know that Moshiach needn't perform miracles just because R Akiva thought so? > And it also requires assuming R Aqiva was following BK because of a > chazaqah, rather than probability and rov. You haven't addressed my > "maybe" of R Aqiva following BK without BK having yet fulfilled all of > the moshiach's role becuase of an expectation that BK would be getting > there. My added "not yet". Again, this is impossible because if so how does he know R Akiva didn't indeed require Moshiach to perform miracles, and was expecting them to happen any day now? How can he say that Moshiach need *never* perform miracles, and if he achieves everything he's supposed to without the need for miracles we will still have to accept him as Vadai Moshiach? Clearly he understands that R Akiva was *not* expecting any miracles, and that this didn't bother him, because it isn't a requirement. None of which rules out the actual Moshiach, when he does come, performing miracles. The Rambam's position on this, unlike the Y'mi's, is neutral. He might perform miracles or he might not. Some or all of the nevuos might turn out literally, but some or all might not. The nevuos he says can't be literal, at least in the initial stage of Yemos Hamoshiach, are not ones about miracles but about permanent changes in nature. Chazal said that Ein Bein Olam Hazeh Liymos Hamoshiach Ela... so nevuos about a change in nature must either be metaphorical or refer to Olam Haba. But nevuos about miracles may or may not happen literally, we won't know until we get there. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From motti.yarchinai at yahoo.com.au Sun Oct 15 01:00:51 2017 From: motti.yarchinai at yahoo.com.au (Motti Yarchinai) Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2017 08:00:51 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Avodah] Psak source wanted References: <1857240052.122258.1508054451353.ref@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1857240052.122258.1508054451353@mail.yahoo.com> Dear Avodah members, Can anyone help me with a source for this psak: It is similar to what the Rambam wrote in Hilchot Kiddush Hachodesh, saying that in all calendric matters, we follow the lead of the chachmei eretz yisrael, and even though the anshei hagolah know the calculations used by them, it is not on our own calculations that we rely, we only use those calculations because we know that they are the same as the calculations used by the chachmei eretz yisrael, and we must all follow the rulings of the latter, in all calendric matters. Another posek (possibly the Tifferet Yisrael in Shvilei Harakia, but I'm not sure of that), writes something similar but couched in even more dramatic terms. The following is not a verbatim quote (since the original is in Hebrew) but something very close to it: "And even if the residents of eretz yisrael are all ignoramuses and peasants, and the authorities of chutz la'aretz are great scholars and knowledgable in Torah and halachah, in calendric matters we follow the peasants and ignoramuses, not the scholars of chutz la'aretz." Does anyone recognise this and remember where it's from? Thank you.Motti -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From akivagmiller at gmail.com Sun Oct 15 13:02:06 2017 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2017 16:02:06 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Zecher Liytzias Mitzrayim and Shmini Atzeres Message-ID: . What is the Zecher Liytzias Mitzrayim of Shmini Atzeres?We say it in Kiddush and in the Amidah. There must be something about this chag that connects to, and/or reminds us about, Yetzias Mitzrayim. It sounds like such a basic question that I'm surprised that I don't remember hearing it in the past. If anyone has an answer, please share it. Meanwhile, here's what I came up with: Shavuos is about one particular event in the midbar. Sukkos is about the whole 40 years in the midbar. Pesach and Shmini Atzeres are bookends: Pesach is about entering the midbar, and Shmini Atzeres is about leaving the midbar.If Sukkos is about the Ananei Hakavod and all the other nissim that accompanied us, then Shmini Atzeres is about re-entering the natural world. I played "word association" with six random people: When I said "yetzias mitzrayim," five of them responded, "Pesach". This is not wrong, but it is a distortion. Yetzias Mitzrayim was not a short event in Nissan; Shavuos and Sukkos prove that it was a process that took 40 years. My suggestion is simply that the last day is no less worthy of a chag than the first. Rashi (B'midbar 29:35) famously tells us that Shmini Atzeres is a special time, with just Hashem and Bnei Yisrael together, alone, with no other nations around. I'm merely pointing out that it is not just the nations who are gone: The lulav is gone. The sukkah is gone. Nothing remains but us and Hashem, when we left the comfort of the miraculous sukkah, trading it for being at home in Eretz Yisrael. Akiva Miller Postscript: An easy challenge to this post could be that Tishre 22 was NOT the day that we crossed from the midbar into Eretz Yisrael. I will respond in advance by pointing out that Shavuos too is not necessarily celebrated on the same day as the event it reminds us of. The Zecher can be poetic and emotional, and need not be so mathematically rigorous. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hankman at bell.net Sun Oct 15 14:41:04 2017 From: hankman at bell.net (hankman) Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2017 17:41:04 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] eitz hachaim Message-ID: Hi, What exactly was the eitz hachaim all about. The simple pshat doesn?t make any sense. If the purpose of the Gan was to serve Adam then when would (could) he make use of the eitz hachaim? Kodem hacheit he was not a bar misah so he had no need of it, after the cheit he was prevented from accessing it! So when would it ever be useful to Adam? Kol tuv Chaim Manaster -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hankman at bell.net Sun Oct 15 14:48:11 2017 From: hankman at bell.net (hankman) Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2017 17:48:11 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Vayehi erev Message-ID: Hi, If you look at days 3, 4 & 5 tou will find that they close with Vayehi erev vayehi boker yom X as a complete passuk. But on days 1, 2 & 6 the vayehi erev is only the completion of a larger passuk and not a passuk on its own. Finally on Shabbos the final closing of vayehi erev is omitted completely. Do any of the medrashing or meforshing explain this? Kol tuv Chaim Manaster -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Sun Oct 15 14:31:16 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2017 17:31:16 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Zecher Liytzias Mitzrayim and Shmini Atzeres In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20171015213116.GA14924@aishdas.org> On Sun, Oct 15, 2017 at 04:02:06PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : What is the Zecher Liytzias Mitzrayim of Shmini Atzeres? ... What's the ZlYM of Shabbos? : Shavuos is about one particular event in the midbar. Sukkos is about the : whole 40 years in the midbar... Unless Sukkos is about the return of the ananei hakavod. The Gra puts 2 and 2 (and 2) together: The ananei hakavod left with the Cheit haEigel. When Moshe returned with the 2nd luchos, completing his 3rd 40-day day atop Har Sinai, he gave Benei Yisrael instructions including those for donating the materials and building the Mishkan. So that actual construction began on 15 Nissan -- and that's when the ananim returned. The Meshekh Chimah adds to this that it explains the oconstrast between Sukkos as described in Mishpatim 23:16, where all we learn about the timing in the fall is that it's Chag haAsif. This was before Cheit haEigel, never mind the eventual return. But in parashas Re'eih, the holiday makes its appearance as Chag haSukkos, refering to the returned sukkos of ananei hakavod. : Pesach is about entering the midbar, and Shmini Atzeres is about leaving : the midbar.If Sukkos is about the Ananei Hakavod and all the other nissim : that accompanied us, then Shmini Atzeres is about re-entering the natural : world. My own mental image of the structure of the year: The qiymu veqiblu haYhudim of Purim is the further development of the theme of Shavous (a/k/a Atzeres). And similarly the zikhronos of Rosh haShanah is the further development of the theme of Shemini Atzeres -- the beris. In Shemini Atzeres this creates a need for a 71st par for qorban mussaf, as well as the naturalness of our turning SA into Simchas Torah. On RH we ask for clemency if not for our sake, than for the sake of seeing the beris to fruition. So that each season has a central holiday -- Sukkos or Pesach -- which is what underlies the gezeira shava tes-vav - tes-vav. Then the season is introduced with a something (Purim or Yamim Noraim) to prepare us for the holiday. The bounty of Sukkos has to be earned; Tishrei is about middas hadin after all. The freedom of Pesach needs a context. (And Putim is derabbanan bececause the ultimate qabbalas ol mitzvos hd to come from us.) And then the theme is culminated in an Atzeres, a day to stop, pack it up, and take it with us for the next half-year. That said, I like your idead of SA as reentering the natural world. It's experientially very true, after all that holiday. It also gives more significance to the timing of Tefillas Geshem. "Qasheh alei pereidaskhem" does refer to that return; aalthough I think you need to work on the difference between our return to the natural world and Hashem making the day itself to *delay* the return. Jews and G-d without the rest of the world. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger What we do for ourselves dies with us. micha at aishdas.org What we do for others and the world, http://www.aishdas.org remains and is immortal. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Albert Pine From micha at aishdas.org Sun Oct 15 15:21:26 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2017 18:21:26 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] R. Akiva, Bar Kochba and Zecharya HaNovi In-Reply-To: References: <5AFE790709AC4B0B9FDDB6A6102B7005@hankPC> <0278980f-97ca-2755-caa3-89461ed64e50@sero.name> <20171011143003.GA21995@aishdas.org> <20171011154231.GA6170@aishdas.org> <0e95d039-c074-ae7f-f3ba-3cee64a3d191@sero.name> <20171011171132.GA1028@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20171015222126.GB14924@aishdas.org> On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 10:44:53PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: :> How does this conflict with the Y-mi's picture of a less than ideal :> Bar Kokhva? : : It conflicts because the Y'mi's version of the story has the : Chachamim abandoning BK *before* his fall. The Rambam clearly does : not agree with that whole version of the story... The Y-mi does not say that R' Aqiva was among those who left early. : In his version BK : was and remained a tzadik until his tragic end, which happened not : for his own sins but for those of others. My whole point is that the Rambam doesn't describe him as a tzadiq anywhere. He says in one place that BK could be taken to be the moshiach despite a lack of miracles and another place that when someone from beis david who is hogeh ve'oseiq bemitzvos keDavid aviv... vehakhos kol Yisrael leileikh bah... and fights Hashem's wars, then this person can be presumed to be mashiach. Not that BK had such a chazaqah; the "pesaq" of the tannaim needn't have been based on this particular chazaqah or any chazaqah. As I said, there is nothing in the Rambam to rule out them following BK out of the expectation that he would eventually get there, rather than his being hogeh ve'oseiq bemitzvos already. And then you don't need to make the Rambam ignore a Yerushalmi. : He doesn't draw a line at all. He carefully doesn't say that : Moshiach *won't* perform miracles, but merely that he *needn't*, 12:1: Al ya'aleh aal leiv shebiymos hamoshiach yibateil davar miminhago shel olam... ela olam keminhago noheig. This doesn't really rule out miracles, but it does rule out ones that leave a permanent change in the natural orer. There is a line. Which is how he rules out the historicity of "vegar ze'eiv im keves..." etc... They don't mearly "needn't" happen, he rules out the possibility of their literal meaning being part of the future, because they cross his line of olam keminhago noheig". : >But either way -- whether he or the generation was sinful -- it would : >show that BK didn't fit the Rambam's descrition of moshiach. : How so? He was righteous, and forced people to keep Torah, but : they didn't listen, just like Yoshiyahu. "Veyakhof" includes "tried and failed"??? That's not quite what the Rambam says. : Again, how so? The requirement is that he forces all Israel to : follow it and to reinforce its breaches. Not that he educates them, : or makes them enthusiastic, but simply that he makes the Shulchan : Aruch the law of the land, punishing those who break it... Which he didn't. The Sanhedrin doesn't get reorgonized and put on Har haBayis. In fact, he doesn't get the backing of the majority of the day's posqim to be able to be associated with a 2nd century religious revival through legal enforcement, even if he there had been one. (Which there is no record of.) Again, this is only a problem for you because you assume that the Rambam's chazaqah in 11:4 must be the reason for R' Aqiva and other tannaim followed BK. But he uses the expression "vedimah hu vekhol chakhmei doro" -- which is a little weak for following a chazaqah as per a chiyuv. The Y-mi (in the adorementiond &T Taanis 4:5 24b) quotes R' Aqiva as telling R' Yochanan ben Torta "Din hu malka meshikha", an idiom usually used to refer to a qal vachomer. BTW, where does the Rambam get that "kol chakhmei doro" followed Bar Koziva? Is there any indication Rabban Gamliel ever did? R Yochanan b Torta replied (in an oft repeated line) "Aqiva, yaalu asavim belechaikh ve'adayin ben David lo ba." : >The Rambam doesn't say so. That's your deduction. It requires assuming : >that the Rambam agrees with R' Aqiva over what the grounds for presuming : >(making a chazqah) that someone is moshiach. He doesn't say R' Aqiva is : >indeed his source. : : He explicitly uses him as his source that Moshiach needn't perform : miracles. How could he do so if his vision of Moshiach's : qualifications were different from R Akiva's? ... R' Aqiva proves that not performing miracles doesn't rule out someone being the moshiach. He doesn't prove what it takes to actually qualify as being one. And even beyond the difference between deriving one negative statement about the mashiach and assuming he got all his positive statements from the same source, you're missing the difference between noting R' Aqiva reached a conclusion and the Rambam pasqening that in a certain situation we are obligated by the rules of chazaqah to reach that same conclusion. : Again, this is impossible because if so how does he know R Akiva : didn't indeed require Moshiach to perform miracles, and was : expecting them to happen any day now? ... Who said he didn't? He uses R' Aqiva to rule out waiting for a miracle before following a potential. Not that moshiach won't perform miracles. 12:2 quotes Shemu'el to back up the point in 12:1 that olam beminhago holeikh. Which is minimally a particular kind of miracle, although it plausibly includes even miracles that are only momentary breaks in minhag olam. He doesn't mention R' Aqiva when ruling out these miracles from the entire mission. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "Man wants to achieve greatness overnight, micha at aishdas.org and he wants to sleep well that night too." http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yosef Yozel Horwitz, Alter of Novarodok Fax: (270) 514-1507 From hankman at bell.net Sun Oct 15 15:59:44 2017 From: hankman at bell.net (hankman) Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2017 18:59:44 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Torah precheit? Message-ID: Hi, I have been trying to understand what the geshtalt of Torah was precheit of the eitz hadaas. It could not have resembled anything that we ( I ) would recognize today. Consider: There was but one mitzva. Most if not all the mitzvos of the Torah we are familiar with could not have existed, at least as we understand them today. Had Adam been successful in his one day tafkid the purpose of the bria would have been accomplished and Adam (mankind) would have gone to olom haba ? mission accomplished nothing more to follow but for reward in olom haba. The many consequences seem to be as follows: there would be no avdus in Mitzrayim, therefore no yetzias Mitzrayim, therefore no regolim, that are all built on the idea of zecher l?yitzias Mitzrayim nor their issurei melocho . So there would not me any korban Pesach, no matzo, no maror etc. There would be no lulav and esrog, no succah etc. There would be no krobanos of shavous, no Yom Kippur and all its avoda and all its inuiyim as the cheit haeigel would never occur. Not sure about Rosh Hashana as the 6th day was the first RH perhaps as a yom hadin to pasken that Adam succeeded in his task and is deserving of olom haba. I could assume that Shabbos would also be present as it was in that first week with a kedushas Shabbos. The mussafim of all these yomim tovim would also be non existent as the yomim tovim themself seem in doubt. Much of the korbanos relating to cheit would seemingly have no purpose. the existance of the mikdash and all related mitzvot would likewise be in doubt. The mikdosh would have been Adam himself or perhaps after day 7 the mikdash would have come down in fire from heaven like we await today shibaneh beis hamikdash? As there would never be an Eretz Yisroel, then there would not be all the mitzvot hateltuot ba?aretz ? trumos, masros etc., etc. There would be no issurei arayos as there was just Adam and Chava. Not quite sure here as there was Kayin and Hevel and their twin sisters were there in the latter part of day 6. So perhaps a few of the arayaos would have been possible, mainly mother, father, son, daughter, aishes ish (Adam and Chava, but not sure about the kids as could kedushin be tofeis in a sister even if mutar for kium olam? Mishkav zachar was possible, but mishkav behama might not have been assur if one reads the medroshim kepshutom which the Maharal tell us NOT to do when Adam was seeking his mate before Chava was created. Still one has to deal with the fact that while these might have been possible, there was but ONE commandment ? not to eat from the eitz hadaas and none of the possible arayos I consider above. There was no mitzva of mila for Adam or Kayin and Hevel. Perhaps Adam was created mahul and Kayin and Hevel were nolod mahul? (Still today would need hatafas dam bris). Kibud Av vaAim would only be possible for Kain and Hevel but not for Adam or Chava who were not yilud isha. Mitzvot like korcho lameis would not be possible for beings who were not bar misa. Tumas meis would not be possible. With no rabim, mitzvot like melech, korban nossi, Ir haNidachas etc would not be possible. No mechias Amalek, or shiva ammim or kivush ha?aretz etc Rosh Chodes and its dinim would never happen as the world would end after one week. Most of choshen Mishpat would be superfluous if you own the entire world (Adam ? not sure if his kids would own anything as Adam would never die so they would never yarshan the world from him? (not sure if I am in the realm of Purim torah or not?). I could go on for most of taryag that would not have been possible. But the bottom line, possible or not, there was only ONE commandment ? the eitz hadaas! So what is the nature of Torah in such a world. How do we see it as an ever constant ever present and unchanging Torah? How does a Torah with but ONE mitzva look? How does it still identify with a Torah with 613 mitzvot? Sorry if my thoughts were very rambling. I just typed as things came to mind ? maybe not always a good idea! Kol tuv Chaim Manaster -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From zev at sero.name Sun Oct 15 22:15:48 2017 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2017 01:15:48 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] R. Akiva, Bar Kochba and Zecharya HaNovi In-Reply-To: <20171015222126.GB14924@aishdas.org> References: <5AFE790709AC4B0B9FDDB6A6102B7005@hankPC> <0278980f-97ca-2755-caa3-89461ed64e50@sero.name> <20171011143003.GA21995@aishdas.org> <20171011154231.GA6170@aishdas.org> <0e95d039-c074-ae7f-f3ba-3cee64a3d191@sero.name> <20171011171132.GA1028@aishdas.org> <20171015222126.GB14924@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 15/10/17 18:21, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 10:44:53PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > : It conflicts because the Y'mi's version of the story has the > : Chachamim abandoning BK *before* his fall. The Rambam clearly does > : not agree with that whole version of the story... > > The Y-mi does not say that R' Aqiva was among those who left early. The Rambam says that R Akiva *and all the sages of his generation* imagined BK was Moshiach, *until he was killed*. This is not consistent with the Y'mi. > As I said, there is nothing in the Rambam to rule out them following BK > out of the expectation that he would eventually get there, rather than his > being hogeh ve'oseiq bemitzvos already. Then why can't they also have expected him to eventually do miracles? How does their belief in him, and his lack of miracles, prove that Moshiach needn't do any? The fact that the Rambam uses their belief in him as proof that miracles aren't a requirement shows that they believed in him only because he *had* fulfilled all the *genuine* requirements for the stage he was at. > : >But either way -- whether he or the generation was sinful -- it would > : >show that BK didn't fit the Rambam's descrition of moshiach. > > : How so? He was righteous, and forced people to keep Torah, but > : they didn't listen, just like Yoshiyahu. > > "Veyakhof" includes "tried and failed"??? That's not quite what the > Rambam says. Yachof means to force, to make it the law of the land, and those who disobey are punished. It doesn't preclude people breaking the law when they think they can get away with it. Our current government forces us to live without drugs, and yet many people don't. > > : Again, how so? The requirement is that he forces all Israel to > : follow it and to reinforce its breaches. Not that he educates them, > : or makes them enthusiastic, but simply that he makes the Shulchan > : Aruch the law of the land, punishing those who break it... > > Which he didn't. The Sanhedrin doesn't get reorgonized and put on Har > haBayis. The Sanhedrin was already organized. There's no requirement that they return to Lishkas Hagazis until there *is* one, which he does eventually have to do, but it comes *after* chezkas Moshiach and fighting the war, which is the stage he was at. > In fact, he doesn't get the backing of the majority of the day's > posqim He certainly did, according to the Rambam. > to be able to be associated with a 2nd century religious revival > through legal enforcement, even if he there had been one. (Which there > is no record of.) Again, a "religious revival" means inspiring people to *want* to keep mitzvos, which is unrelated to *forcing* them to do so. > Again, this is only a problem for you because you assume that the Rambam's > chazaqah in 11:4 must be the reason for R' Aqiva and other tannaim > followed BK. What else could it be? He goes directly from saying that miracles are not a requirement to listing what things *are* requirements. Therefore he must have done those things. > But he uses the expression "vedimah hu vekhol chakhmei doro" > -- which is a little weak for following a chazaqah as per a chiyuv. What's weak about it? They must have had a reason for this imagination. What else but the chazaka? And if they thought he hadn't yet reached that stage then how do we know miracles aren't required to reach it? > > The Y-mi (in the adorementiond &T Taanis 4:5 24b) quotes R' Aqiva as > telling R' Yochanan ben Torta "Din hu malka meshikha", an idiom usually > used to refer to a qal vachomer. You're misreading it. It's not "din", it's *dein*. Dein hu malka meshicha, this is the Annointed King. > BTW, where does the Rambam get that "kol chakhmei doro" followed Bar > Koziva? Is there any indication Rabban Gamliel ever did? R Yochanan b > Torta replied (in an oft repeated line) "Aqiva, yaalu asavim belechaikh > ve'adayin ben David lo ba." He was the lone exception, or nearly so. Because *he* held that the miracle of judging by smell *was* required, even at the beginning. The Rambam paskens against him. > : >The Rambam doesn't say so. That's your deduction. It requires assuming > : >that the Rambam agrees with R' Aqiva over what the grounds for presuming > : >(making a chazqah) that someone is moshiach. He doesn't say R' Aqiva is > : >indeed his source. > : > : He explicitly uses him as his source that Moshiach needn't perform > : miracles. How could he do so if his vision of Moshiach's > : qualifications were different from R Akiva's? ... > > R' Aqiva proves that not performing miracles doesn't rule out someone being > the moshiach. He doesn't prove what it takes to actually qualify as being > one. This makes no sense. Either the Rambam agrees with R Akiva's criteria or he doesn't. If he doesn't then how can R Akiva's not requiring miracles prove that they're truly not required? If he was wrong about other criteria, how do we know he was right about this one? No, the fact that the Rambam uses him as proof means the Rambam adopts his view totally, and holds it is the halacha. In Chapter 12 he rules out not miracles but changes in nature. A miracle doesn't change nature, it breaks the rules of nature. Water continues to run downhill, but this water doesn't, not because its nature is different but because it's ignoring nature. That, he says, may or may not happen. Changes in nature won't, because Chazal say so. Chazal are silent on whether Moshiach will perform miracles, so we don't know. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From michaelpoppers at gmail.com Sun Oct 15 19:22:08 2017 From: michaelpoppers at gmail.com (Michael Poppers) Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2017 22:22:08 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] =?utf-8?b?4oCcVGltdHVtIEhhLUxlduKAnSBSZWR1eA==?= Message-ID: In Avodah V35n121, R'Micha wrote: > Tangent: The Gra said that "vehayisa akh sameiach" is the hardest mitzvah in the Torah. "Veyahisa sameiach" is one thing, but "akh sameiach"? To be nothing but happy, with no other moods ambivalently mixed in for 8 days (9 in chu"l) straight? < Tangents to the tangent: (a) Perhaps someone can quote "Ma'asei Rav" or the like, but what I've seen quoted *b'sheim GRA* is that the "ach" *d'rasha* in BT Sukka means that on Shmini Chag haAtzeres we're *b'simcha* with H' w/out any *cheftza shel mitzva*, e.g. see here : Perhaps the answer lies in a comment from the Vilna Gaon on the pasuk of ?v?hayisa ach sameiach.? The Gemara (Succah 48a) derives from this pasuk that Shemini Atzeres is included in the mitzvah of simchah. But the word ach generally limits what is being discussed. What are we limiting with ach sameiach? The Gaon explains that whereas Succos requires many mitzvah objects ? a succah, lulav and esrog, hoshanas ? Shemini Atzeres does not require any physical items. We only need to be sameiach. This is the inherent gift of the last day of the Yom Tov. We can?t take the succah and lulav with us after Yom Tov. But the simchah that comes from dveikus with Hashem requires nothing but ourselves, and it is something we can take along with us. (b) Translating "ach" as "nothing but" doesn't explain the YhK "ach" (P'Emor). (c) Another thought on "v'samachta b'chagecha...v'hayisa ach sameach" is that the latter mandate of *simcha* ("ach" or no "ach") seems superfluous and can be considered as a mandate for the entire year (i.e. not just "b'chagecha"). All the best from *Michael Poppers* * Elizabeth, NJ, USA -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From lisa at starways.net Mon Oct 16 00:51:28 2017 From: lisa at starways.net (Lisa Liel) Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2017 10:51:28 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] eitz hachaim In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <61f0b606-b859-4475-eef8-a10489e74f1c@starways.net> On 10/16/2017 12:41 AM, hankman via Avodah wrote: > What exactly was the eitz hachaim all about. The simple pshat doesn't > make any sense. If the purpose of the Gan was to serve Adam then when > would (could) he make use of the eitz hachaim? Kodem hacheit he was > not a bar misah so he had no need of it, after the cheit he was > prevented from accessing it! So when would it ever be useful to Adam? I don't understand the question. He was prevented from accessing it *because* of the cheit. Had he not sinned, you say he would have had no need for it, but who is to say that its only function was to make him live forever. Maybe that's just the function it has for a bar mitah. Or maybe that was its function, and that's *why* he wasn't a bar mitah. Because the eitz ha-chaim was there, and permissible for him to eat. It was only after he'd eaten from the eitz ha-daat that he could no longer be permitted to live forever. That what eating that did to him made eternal life for him a Bad Thing. Lisa From seinfeld at jsli.org Mon Oct 16 07:02:10 2017 From: seinfeld at jsli.org (Alexander Seinfeld) Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2017 10:02:10 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Zecher Liytzias Mitzrayim and Shmini Atzeres In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: It?s a nice vort but couldn?t you ask the same about Shabbos and Rosh Hashana? Isn?t every Yomtov is a Zecher Yetzias Mitzrayim, not for historical reasons but because Yetzias Mitzrayim is the foundation of our emunah (not Har Sinai)? > >>Rashi (B'midbar 29:35) famously tells us that Shmini Atzeres is a special >>time, with just Hashem and Bnei Yisrael together, alone, with no other >>nations around. I'm merely pointing out that it is not just the nations >>who >>are gone: The lulav is gone. The sukkah is gone. Nothing remains but us >>and >>Hashem, when we left the comfort of the miraculous sukkah, trading it for >>being at home in Eretz Yisrael. >> >>Akiva Miller >> >>Postscript: An easy challenge to this post could be that Tishre 22 was >>NOT >>the day that we crossed from the midbar into Eretz Yisrael. I will >>respond >>in advance by pointing out that Shavuos too is not necessarily celebrated >>on the same day as the event it reminds us of. The Zecher can be poetic >>and >>emotional, and need not be so mathematically rigorous. From micha at aishdas.org Mon Oct 16 11:35:11 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2017 14:35:11 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] R. Akiva, Bar Kochba and Zecharya HaNovi In-Reply-To: References: <5AFE790709AC4B0B9FDDB6A6102B7005@hankPC> <0278980f-97ca-2755-caa3-89461ed64e50@sero.name> <20171011143003.GA21995@aishdas.org> <20171011154231.GA6170@aishdas.org> <0e95d039-c074-ae7f-f3ba-3cee64a3d191@sero.name> <20171011171132.GA1028@aishdas.org> <20171015222126.GB14924@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20171016183511.GA2496@aishdas.org> On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 01:15:48AM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : On 15/10/17 18:21, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: :> On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 10:44:53PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: :>: It conflicts because the Y'mi's version of the story has the :>: Chachamim abandoning BK *before* his fall. The Rambam clearly does :>: not agree with that whole version of the story... :> The Y-mi does not say that R' Aqiva was among those who left early. : The Rambam says that R Akiva *and all the sages of his generation* : imagined BK was Moshiach, *until he was killed*. This is not : consistent with the Y'mi. I see what you mean. Again, it is interesting to find out where the Rambam's alternate picture comes from. Just as his "kol" in "vekhol chakhmei dodo" doesn't seem to be Chazal's picture in either shas. E.g. Sanhedrin 93b, "nechzei anan i moreiach veda'ain..." They were still checking out the validity of BK's claim at the time of his death. :> As I said, there is nothing in the Rambam to rule out them following BK :> out of the expectation that he would eventually get there, rather than his :> being hogeh ve'oseiq bemitzvos already. : Then why can't they also have expected him to eventually do : miracles? How does their belief in him, and his lack of miracles, : prove that Moshiach needn't do any? ... To repeat myself: 11:3 talks about following someone despite a lack of miracles. 12:1-2 talks about the necessary absense of at least a particular kind of miracle -- the start of a new natural order -- if not miracles altogether. If you want to talk about needn't do... then you're looking at R' Aqiva and pereq 11. If you want to talk about won't do... then you're looking at pereq 12 and his assumption of Shemu'el's "ein bein" over Rav's shitah. And the list of things that won't happen is necessarily a subset of things that one needn't wait to happen before following the candidate. Possibly a strict subset, possibly identical sets. :>:> But either way -- whether he or the generation was sinful -- it would :>:> show that BK didn't fit the Rambam's descrition of moshiach. :>: How so? He was righteous, and forced people to keep Torah, but :>: they didn't listen, just like Yoshiyahu. :> "Veyakhof" includes "tried and failed"??? That's not quite what the :> Rambam says. : Yachof means to force, to make it the law of the land, and those who : disobey are punished... You're just repeating the insistance that "vayakhof" could include trying to force people and failing. If the punishments don't actually get the majority observing, is it kefiyah? And we have no evidence or even claim of BK ever even having set up a punishment system. Although this too could be part of the picture the Rambam draws that I don't know the sourece for. After all, as per the above, the picture you get from CHazal is that the Sanhedrin and its enforcement system was *not* behind BK, but the Rambam would have them aligned. ... :> Which he didn't. The Sanhedrin doesn't get reorgonized and put on Har :> haBayis. : The Sanhedrin was already organized. There's no requirement that : they return to Lishkas Hagazis until there *is* one, which he does : eventually have to do, but it comes *after* chezkas Moshiach and : fighting the war, which is the stage he was at. Actually, there is strong evidence he at least started building a BHMQ. And while I suppose they didn't have to move in yet, Anshei Keneses haGedolah moved in to a "lishkah" demarkated by curtains! "Chezqas moshiach" isn't a state in-and-of-itself. It's a chazaqah, a legal presumption, that someone is moshiach. A presumption of a status, not a status. IOW, it is likely that among all of beis David, only the mashiach would be hogeh in Torah and oseif bemitzvos, bring the Jews to observance (minimally: by compulsion) "leileikh bahh ulchazeiq bidqah". And therefore, if we find a member of beis David succeeding at these things, we are obligated to act with the understanding that he is mashiach. Thus, it is meaningless to talk about what happens before or after chezqas mashiach, as though it were a real state change. : Again, a "religious revival" means inspiring people to *want* to : keep mitzvos, which is unrelated to *forcing* them to do so. That's yhour own creative read of what kefiyah means. Forcing or not, it implies actual follow-through. BK didn't risk (and in fact lose) the backing of the majority to get a minority sect to join his support. He didn't get the majority to observe -- or even want to keep mitzvos (as per TSBP). :> Again, this is only a problem for you because you assume that the Rambam's :> chazaqah in 11:4 must be the reason for R' Aqiva and other tannaim :> followed BK. : What else could it be? He goes directly from saying that miracles : are not a requirement to listing what things *are* requirements. : Therefore he must have done those things. Requirements for building a chazaqah that the candidate is indeed moshiach. Which is a measure of confidence in BK the Rambam doesn't claim R' Aqiva and his generation reached -- they only reached as far as "hu hayah omer alav" and "vedimah hu". No mention of a chazaqah they were chayavim to follow; in fact, the lashon ("dimah") implied its lack. Chazaqah isn't imagination; it's a presumption strong enough to obligate our acting upon. : What's weak about it? They must have had a reason for this : imagination. What else but the chazaka? And if they thought he : hadn't yet reached that stage then how do we know miracles aren't : required to reach it? Miracles aren't required. Full stop. 12:1 could even be saying they are ruled out. "What else other than the chazaqah"? Indicators that are short of a chazaqah. Don't we follow umdena, ruba deleisa leqaman, and other notions of likelihood without going as far as having a chazaqah in a lot of halachic topics? : You're misreading it. It's not "din", it's *dein*. Dein hu malka : meshicha, this is the Annointed King. "Hadein hu"? Not that important for the main topic, since dimah isn't an expression I would picture the Rambam using for a mandatory following of a chazaqah. :> BTW, where does the Rambam get that "kol chakhmei doro" followed Bar :> Koziva? Is there any indication Rabban Gamliel ever did? R Yochanan b :> Torta replied (in an oft repeated line) "Aqiva, yaalu asavim belechaikh :> ve'adayin ben David lo ba." : He was the lone exception, or nearly so. Because *he* held that : the miracle of judging by smell *was* required, even at the : beginning. The Rambam paskens against him. That is against the stam bavli (in Sanhedrin 93b, quoted above), which says it's Rabbanan. ... : This makes no sense. Either the Rambam agrees with R Akiva's : criteria or he doesn't... Critria for what? I still find you mixing apples and oranges. He uses R' Aqiva's following of BK despite the lack of a chazaqah as proof that we too shouldn't wait for a miracle before following a likely moshiach. He used Shemu'el's position to rule out miracles (or to be generous, maybe only one kind of miracle) being part of the messianic dream altogether. Very consistent picture, IMHO. : In Chapter 12 he rules out not miracles but changes in nature. A : miracle doesn't change nature, it breaks the rules of nature... It is a bitul of something miminhago shel olam, albeit a temporary one. But I have consistently left open the door to saying he's only talking about a subset of miracles; those that leave the running of things changed. I don't find it likely that the Rambam's "yibatel davar" means only permanent bitul, doubly so since it would be redundant with the next line, "o yihyeh sham chidush bemaaseh bereishis". Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger People were created to be loved. micha at aishdas.org Things were created to be used. http://www.aishdas.org The reason why the world is in chaos is that Fax: (270) 514-1507 things are being loved, people are being used. From cantorwolberg at cox.net Wed Oct 18 06:37:17 2017 From: cantorwolberg at cox.net (Richard Wolberg) Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2017 09:37:17 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Interesting Insight on Noach Message-ID: <36805007-8186-42B4-9042-51439D2BB204@cox.net> It has always bothered me that Noah was considered the only righteous person (along with his family) and that everyone else was evil. However, just today as I was studying various commentaries, I came across the following amazing account in Tanchuma, R?eh, 3. From the moment that God gave the Torah, it is only he who sins that will be punished, though before that, the whole generation was responsible for the sin of the individual. Thus there were many righteous men swept away with the deluge in the time of Noah. Hence, since Noah was the ?most? righteous, he was spared although the other righteous were not, as a consequence of collective guilt at that time. rw Inside each of us, there is the seed of both good and evil. It's a constant struggle as to which one will win. And one cannot exist without the other. Eric Burdon > > ?If you live for people?s acceptance, you will > die from their rejection.? > Anonymous From zev at sero.name Wed Oct 18 07:43:32 2017 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2017 10:43:32 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Interesting Insight on Noach In-Reply-To: <36805007-8186-42B4-9042-51439D2BB204@cox.net> References: <36805007-8186-42B4-9042-51439D2BB204@cox.net> Message-ID: On 18/10/17 09:37, Richard Wolberg via Avodah wrote: > However, just today > as I was studying various commentaries, I came across the following amazing > account in Tanchuma, R?eh, 3. > > From the moment that God gave the Torah, it is only he who sins that will be punished, > though before that, the whole generation was responsible for the sin of the individual. > Thus there were many righteous men swept away with the deluge in the time of Noah. > Hence, since Noah was the ?most? righteous, he was spared although the other righteous > were not, as a consequence of collective guilt at that time. According to R Avin, what was Avraham's argument, "chalila lach"? If that had been Hashem's SOP for the past 2050 years, and would be for another 400, why didn't He just tell Avraham "Yes, this is how I do things"? -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From micha at aishdas.org Wed Oct 18 13:25:27 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2017 16:25:27 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Interesting Insight on Noach In-Reply-To: <36805007-8186-42B4-9042-51439D2BB204@cox.net> References: <36805007-8186-42B4-9042-51439D2BB204@cox.net> Message-ID: <20171018202527.GA27560@aishdas.org> On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 09:37:17AM -0400, Richard Wolberg via Avodah wrote: : ... account in Tanchuma, R?eh, 3: :> From the moment that God gave the Torah, it is only he who sins that will :> be punished, though before that, the whole generation was responsible :> for the sin of the individual. Thus there were many righteous men swept :> away with the deluge in the time of Noah. Hence, since Noah was the :> "most" righteous, he was spared although the other righteous were not, :> as a consequence of collective guilt at that time. The text is available at or The siman opens with quoting Eikhah 3:38, "miPi Elyon lo seitzei hara'os vehatov" and then immediately starts with this statement from R' Avin. However, the quote has that after Matan Torah, whomever sins, "HQBH poreia mimenu", and before that, the whole generation "meshaleim chet'o". Arguably this translation might be missing something by leaving the language of Hashem collecting, as though on a debt. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger One doesn't learn mussar to be a tzaddik, micha at aishdas.org but to become a tzaddik. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yisrael Salanter Fax: (270) 514-1507 From hankman at bell.net Wed Oct 18 08:12:50 2017 From: hankman at bell.net (hankman) Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2017 11:12:50 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] R. Akiva, Bar Kochba and Zecharya HaNovi Message-ID: <7B0712E6569740909873C2AD4F89F435@hankPC> R. Micha Berger wrote: ?This doesn't really rule out miracles, but it does rule out ones that leave a permanent change in the natural orer. There is a line. Which is how he rules out the historicity of "vegar ze'eiv im keves..." etc... They don't mearly "needn't" happen, he rules out the possibility of their literal meaning being part of the future, because they cross his line of olam keminhago noheig".? Kodem cheit Adam haReshon, not just Adam was only permitted to eat plant life but so too was the nature of ALL animals that they too only subsisted from plant life ? ie., much like "vegar ze'eiv im keves..." So perhaps olam keminhago noheig means keminhago KODEM HACHET without requiring any change to the ORIGINAL natural order. Kol tuv Chaim Manaster -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hankman at bell.net Wed Oct 18 08:44:50 2017 From: hankman at bell.net (hankman) Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2017 11:44:50 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] =?utf-8?q?=E2=80=9Cthe_miracle_of_judging_by_smell?= =?utf-8?q?=E2=80=9D_was__=28Re=3A__R=2E_Akiva=2C_Bar_Kochba_and_Ze?= =?utf-8?q?charya_HaNovi=29?= Message-ID: ?the miracle of judging by smell? Really should be a knew thread. When we learned this sugia recently in the daf yomi I asked the magid shiur that lechora this was keneged torah which requires eidim for most judgements. He answered that perhaps it means that one smell from Moshiach would be enough to get the person to be modeh al ha?emes. I replied that would only work for judgments in choshen mishpot (hodoas bal din) but not for cases involving arayos, malkos, or misah where two eidim are required and we are not permitted to accept his confession as ein adam meisim atzmo rasha. How would this ?miracle? allow for a proper halachik judgment? That is where we left it for now. Could this meimre of chazal be limited to just cases involving choshen mishpot? I imagine many meforshim address this issue, can anyone clarify? Kol tuv Chaim Manaster -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From JRich at sibson.com Wed Oct 18 08:48:56 2017 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2017 15:48:56 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Shliach Tzibbur Message-ID: <5b1d039d5958444d94f6c90a4607ee17@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> The S"A in O"C 53 discusses what to look for in a Shliach Tzibbur. We seem to not fully actualize these recommendations (rationalizations include the fact that he is no longer being motzi those who can't pray). Do you think this result is sociological or halachic driven? Does an individual (e.g., avel) who pushes to be a shatz, etc., when there are more qualified individuals (or especially if they are not qualified), accomplish more good or bad? See especially Aruch Hashulchan 53:5. KT 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: From micha at aishdas.org Wed Oct 18 14:25:50 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2017 17:25:50 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] R. Akiva, Bar Kochba and Zecharya HaNovi In-Reply-To: <7B0712E6569740909873C2AD4F89F435@hankPC> References: <7B0712E6569740909873C2AD4F89F435@hankPC> Message-ID: <20171018212550.GB27560@aishdas.org> On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 11:12:50AM -0400, hankman via Avodah wrote: : R. Micha Berger wrote: :> This doesn't really rule out miracles, but it does rule out ones that :> leave a permanent change in the natural order. There is a line. Which is :> how he rules out the historicity of "vegar ze'eiv im keves..." etc... ... : Kodem cheit Adam haReshon, not just Adam was only permitted to eat plant : life but so too was the nature of ALL animals that they too only subsisted : from plant life -- ie., much like "vegar ze'eiv im keves..." I doubt the Rambam, the "he" I am trying to understand in the text you quoted, would agree with this premise about animals before the eitz hada'as. On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 11:44:50AM -0400, hankman via Avodah wrote: :> the miracle of judging by smell : Really should be a new thread. : When we learned this sugia recently in the daf yomi I asked the magid : shiur that lechora this was keneged torah which requires eidim for : most judgements. He answered that perhaps it means that one smell from : Moshiach would be enough to get the person to be modeh al ha'emes.... I think it HAS to be be its own thread, because this too works with assumptions the Rambam would not agree with. Odds are the Rambam wouldn't take "demorach" literally. See Lecham Yehudah on Hil' Melakhim 11:3, aveilable at . But to get back on topic to the original thread (which is why I'm posting it here): Notice that the BLY (R Yehudah Iyash, Levorno mid-18th cent) assumes that such guilt-smelling would defy the Rambam's "chidush bema'aseh bereishis" rule, and thus couldn't be literal. Even though it's a localized miracle / revelation and not a permanent change in the natural order. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Every child comes with the message micha at aishdas.org that God is not yet discouraged with http://www.aishdas.org humanity. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rabindranath Tagore From jmeisner at mail.gmail.com Wed Oct 18 15:38:14 2017 From: jmeisner at mail.gmail.com (Joshua Meisner) Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2017 18:38:14 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] "the miracle of judging by smell" was (Re: R. Akiva, Bar Kochba and Zecharya HaNovi) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7C3544D0-F571-4A7C-B067-FDC0308CBD65@gmail.com> On Oct 18, 2017, at 11:44am, hankman wrote: > When we learned this sugia recently in the daf yomi I asked the magid > shiur that lechora this was keneged torah which requires eidim for > most judgements. He answered that perhaps it means that one smell from > Moshiach would be enough to get the person to be modeh al ha'emes. I > replied that would only work for judgments in choshen mishpot (hodoas > bal din) but not for cases involving arayos, malkos, or misah where two > eidim are required and we are not permitted to accept his confession as > ein adam meisim atzmo rasha... Reaching a correct psak in any area of halacha requires obtaining a full picture of the situation, including all relevant details and the particular context. This requires that the posek have skill in asking questions that will clarify these points and recognizing when, intentionally or not, the answers he is receiving do not reflect the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Perhaps it is this sense that the navi is referring to. Joshua Meisner From hankman at bell.net Wed Oct 18 15:58:01 2017 From: hankman at bell.net (hankman) Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2017 18:58:01 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] =?utf-8?q?=E2=80=9Cthe_miracle_of_judging_by_smell?= =?utf-8?q?=E2=80=9D_was__=28Re=3A__R=2E_Akiva=2C_Bar_Kochba_and_Ze?= =?utf-8?q?charya_HaNovi=29?= Message-ID: <83ADB68D660C4A8BA5E0F3D19339FF76@hankPC> R. J. Meisner wrote: ? Reaching a correct psak in any area of halacha requires obtaining a full picture of the situation, including all relevant details and the particular context. This requires that the posek have skill in asking questions that will clarify these points and recognizing when, intentionally or not, the answers he is receiving do not reflect the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Perhaps it is this sense that the navi is referring to. Joshua Meisner? But no matter how skilled the judge is at getting at the truth, even if all he need so is be moreiach, this still does not lessen the requirement of 2 eidim for many judgments. While reading your response to me, another thought occurred to me and upon reflection it may be that this is also what you meant. Perhaps when the gemara stated that he can be moreaiach veda?in that the gemara meant not that he would only need to question the defendant, and could smell whether he is guilty or not and pasken based on the surety of his conclusion, but perhaps the gemara meant that when questioning the EIDIM he was able merely smell them and then judge the credibility of the eidim whether he should accept them as credible or not and thus pasken the case accordingly. Kol tuv Chaim Manaster -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hankman at bell.net Wed Oct 18 15:44:42 2017 From: hankman at bell.net (hankman) Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2017 18:44:42 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] R. Akiva, Bar Kochba and Zecharya HaNovi Message-ID: <36062433D0904BE5ABD5156C727C7A6D@hankPC> R. Micha Berger wrote: ?I doubt the Rambam, the "he" I am trying to understand in the text you quoted, would agree with this premise about animals before the eitz hada'as.? So how does the Rambam explain Bereishis 1:30? Kol tuv Chaim Manaster -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From akivagmiller at gmail.com Thu Oct 19 02:47:09 2017 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2017 05:47:09 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Torah precheit? Message-ID: . R' Chaim Manaster asked: > I have been trying to understand what the geshtalt of Torah > was precheit of the eitz hadaas. It could not have resembled > anything that we ( I ) would recognize today. Consider: > There was but one mitzva. Most if not all the mitzvos of the > Torah we are familiar with could not have existed, at least > as we understand them today. Had Adam been successful in his > one day tafkid the purpose of the bria would have been > accomplished and Adam (mankind) would have gone to olom haba > ? mission accomplished nothing more to follow but for reward > in olom haba. > > The many consequences seem to be as follows: there would be > no avdus in Mitzrayim, therefore no ... ... One can ask similar questions about other turning-points in history. What if Kayin had not killed Hevel? What if the world has not gone to Avodah Zara a few generations later? What if Yishmael and/or Esav had not gone of the derech? What if Moshe Rabenu had acted differently by the rock? I believe that people are too hung up on the idea that "Torah" and the Chumash are identical. They are not. "The Torah has 70 faces", and ONE of them is the written scroll that we read from in shul. Another is the Torah Sheb'al Peh. Another was that one singular mitzvah that Adam HaRishon was given. None is less holy than any other. They are but different facets of the same diamond. And there are yet others. Torah manifests itself differently to a kohen than to a levi, and differently to a woman than to a man. And so on. For example: > As there would never be an Eretz Yisroel, then there would not > be all the mitzvot hateltuot ba?aretz ? trumos, masros etc., etc. Or perhaps Gan Eden would have had that status. Eretz Yisrael is actually a great example: Consider the idea that true nevuah can exist only in Eretz Yisrael. But also consider that this restriction only started when EY got its kedushah - prior to that point one could have nevuah elsewhere too. Logically, I would think that the kedusha of EY enabled this thing that couldn't exist without such intense kedusha; but counter-intuitively, this thing that has long existed is now suddenly restricted to a specific area. Because times change, and people change; the Torah stays the same but it shows a different face. We are so used to how things are today, that we think things have always been this way. But it ain't so. > So what is the nature of Torah in such a world. How do we > see it as an ever constant ever present and unchanging > Torah? How does a Torah with but ONE mitzva look? How does > it still identify with a Torah with 613 mitzvot? There are many mitzvos that apply only at specifc times and under specific circumstances. Consider the back-and-forth of when bamos were allowed and not allowed. We went for quite a few centuries with choosing a human king. I am deliberately trying to avoid mitzvos that have sociological criteria, like the existence of a Sanhedrin, or whether or not we are capable of tochacha. Rather, my point goes to this "Torah with 613 mitzvot" that you refer to. It doesn't exist today, and I don't know if it ever has existed. There has certainly never been a person to whom they all applied, and I wonder whether there was ever a generation when they were all in force. > Sorry if my thoughts were very rambling. I just typed as > things came to mind ? maybe not always a good idea! On the contrary, brainstorming is often a fruitful way of developing new thoughts! Personally, it was many decades ago that someone asked me, "If there is life on other planets, might they possibly have a Torah? But Mitzrayim doesn't exist there, and Moshe never lived there!" That question bothered me for a very long time, until I realized that even on *this* planet, Noach had his version of Torah, and that was centuries before Mitzrayim or Moshe came to be. (To conflate two threads, I think what I'm saying here is very similar to what R"n Lisa Liel wrote in the "eitz hachaim" thread. These things aren't static; their roles change to fit the situation.) Akiva Miller From zev at sero.name Wed Oct 18 20:54:50 2017 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2017 23:54:50 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] =?utf-8?q?=E2=80=9Cthe_miracle_of_judging_by_smell?= =?utf-8?q?=E2=80=9D_was_=28Re=3A_R=2E_Akiva=2C_Bar_Kochba_and_Zecharya_Ha?= =?utf-8?q?Novi=29?= In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <209038db-6620-b1cf-4e52-1b093803ac7d@sero.name> On 18/10/17 11:44, hankman via Avodah wrote: > ?the miracle of judging by smell? > Really should be a knew thread. > When we learned this sugia recently in the daf yomi I asked the magid > shiur that lechora this was keneged torah which requires eidim for most > judgements. Moshiach is a melech, and not bound by the rules of a beis din. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From micha at aishdas.org Wed Oct 18 19:40:28 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2017 22:40:28 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] R. Akiva, Bar Kochba and Zecharya HaNovi In-Reply-To: <36062433D0904BE5ABD5156C727C7A6D@hankPC> References: <36062433D0904BE5ABD5156C727C7A6D@hankPC> Message-ID: <20171019024028.GB20212@aishdas.org> On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 06:44:42PM -0400, hankman via Avodah wrote: : R. Micha Berger wrote: :> I doubt the Rambam, the "he" I am trying to understand in the text :> you quoted, would agree with this premise about animals before the :> eitz hada'as. : So how does the Rambam explain Bereishis 1:30? Well, if you look at Moreh 1:30, you'll see that the Rambam considers maaseh bereishis to be atemporal, 6 logical stages of unfolding of reality, not steps separated in time. So I don't know if I should assume anything about how he reads pasuq 30. But I do note that if taken literally, the pasuq merely says that Hashem gave the plants to the animals for food. A statement about one of the functions of plantsl and that Adam can't hord all the plants for himself, since animals need it too. It needn't mean that only plants served a food. The statement from Chazal (quoted by Rashi) is a derashah. The Ohr haChaim spends time justifying it, if you want to see the medrashic steps in detail. But it's not peshat, and therefore not necessarily the Rambam would take literally. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger There's only one corner of the universe micha at aishdas.org you can be certain of improving, http://www.aishdas.org and that's your own self. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Aldous Huxley From zev at sero.name Wed Oct 18 21:51:32 2017 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2017 00:51:32 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Interesting Insight on Noach In-Reply-To: <2E736CF9-84CD-41DB-9963-8E38B681DC20@cox.net> References: <36805007-8186-42B4-9042-51439D2BB204@cox.net> <2E736CF9-84CD-41DB-9963-8E38B681DC20@cox.net> Message-ID: <18439702-d4ae-0f50-3350-a8b5cd433fb5@sero.name> On 18/10/17 11:09, Richard Wolberg wrote: > What I?m saying is that our theology is fraught with inconsistencies and > contradictions > and we have plenty of ?teikusl? ?You?re a black and white person and > don?t see shades. > Not everything can be reconciled. Impossible. Toras Hashem Temima, and can't contradict itself. If there are two pesukim that seem to contradict each other, there's a third pasuk that resolves it and makes sense of both. It's not possible that R Avin was unaware of Avraham's statement, nor is it possible that he would dismiss Avraham's view as mistaken. Therefore there must be something in R Avin's view that's not what it appears. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From JRich at sibson.com Fri Oct 20 05:37:21 2017 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2017 12:37:21 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] empiricism Message-ID: <17851b0cb6514f5a8fac7543e7d86493@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Rabbi Jason Weiner's, "Jewish Guide to Practical Medical Decision-Making" - "The Talmudic sages performed post-mortem examinations and had considerable knowledge of anatomy and pathology. Indeed, the rabbis of the Talmud were among the first people in history to operate on corpses in order to learn medical information that had halakhic ramifications. See Tosefta Niddah 4:17, Niddah 30b, bekhorot 45A . . ". Wiki s- Initially, the Ancient Greek philosophers did not believe in empiricism, and saw measurements, such as geometry, as the domain of craftsmen and artisans. Philosophers, such as Plato, believed that all knowledge could be obtained through pure reasoning, and that there was no need to actually go out and measure anything. Please look at the three sources quoted by R'Weiner, are they support or really maaseh lstormaaseh l'stor as to a general approach? Kt 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: From emteitz at gmail.com Fri Oct 20 14:49:21 2017 From: emteitz at gmail.com (elazar teitz) Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2017 17:49:21 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] the miracle of judging by smell Message-ID: On this topic, the comment was made that "Moshiach is a melech, and not bound by the rules of a beis din." However, other than moreid b'malchus, this is only true for r'tzicha, not other capital punishment cases, as is indicated in Rambam Hilchos M'lachim 3:10 (as it is understood by most m'farshim). EMT -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From isaac at balb.in Sat Oct 21 04:07:43 2017 From: isaac at balb.in (Isaac Balbin) Date: Sat, 21 Oct 2017 11:07:43 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] ?the miracle of judging by smell? was (Re: R. Akiva, Bar Kochba and Zecharya HaNovi) Message-ID: From: Zev Sero > > On 18/10/17 11:44, hankman via Avodah wrote: >> When we learned this sugia recently in the daf yomi I asked the magid >> shiur that lechora this was keneged torah which requires eidim for most >> judgements. Zev responded > Moshiach is a melech, and not bound by the rules of a beis din. Indeed. His position therefore also invalidates Moshiach from being a formal witness, although that's clearly not for trust/smell issues. From micha at aishdas.org Sun Oct 22 07:20:34 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2017 10:20:34 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Long Lifespans in Bereishis Message-ID: <20171022142033.GA669@aishdas.org> Our old chaver R' Rich Wolpoe posted this article by R/Dr Mitchell First. It's a nice survey of opinions about all those long lifespans in seifer Bereishis : NishmaBlog From RRW Guest Blogger: Mitchell First Thursday, 19 October 2017 The Long Lifespans in Genesis The Longevity of the Ancients Recorded in Genesis ... Josephus (late 1st century). Here is his statement in Antiquities, book I: " ...For, in the first place, they were beloved of God and the creatures of God himself; their diet too was more conducive to longevity: it was then natural that they should live so long. Again, alike for their merits and to promote the utility of their discoveries in astronomy and geometry, God would accord them a longer life...." Now I will survey the views of our Geonim and Rishonim. R. Saadiah Gaon (10th cent.) discusses this issue in his introduction to Tehillim. He writes that the longevity of these early generations was part of God's plan for the rapid proliferation of mankind on the earth..... R. Yehudah Ha-Levi (12th cent.) discusses the issue in the Kuzari (sec. 95). He believes that it was only the individuals listed who lived long. Each of the individuals listed was the heart and essence of his generation and was physically and spiritually perfect. The Divine Flow was transmitted from one generation to another through these exceptional individuals. Rambam, in a famous passage in the Guide to the Perplexed (II, chap. 47) writes: "I say that only the persons named lived so long, whilst other people enjoyed the ordinary length of life. The men named were exceptions, either in consequence of different causes, as e.g., their food or mode of living, or by way of miracle." Ramban (comm. to Gen. 5:4) quotes Rambam's view and then disagrees, ... individuals with long lifespans named in the Bible were not exceptional in their lifespans. Rather, the entire world had long lifespans before the Flood. But after the Flood, the world atmosphere changed and this caused the gradual reduction in lifespans. Most of the Rishonim who discussed the issue thereafter followed the approach of either the Rambam or the Ramban. Either way, they were taking the Genesis lifespan numbers literally. (An underlying factor that motivated Rishonim to accept the Genesis lifespan numbers literally was that the count from creation was calculated based on these numbers.) Josephus had mentioned that one of the reasons that God allowed their longevity was to promote the utility of their discoveries in astronomy and geometry. This idea of longevity to enable the acquisition of knowledge and make discoveries (and write them to be passed down) is also included in several of our Rishonim. See, e.g., the commentary of the Radak to Gen. 5:4 and of the Ralbag to Gen. chap. 5 (p. 136), and the Rashbatz (R. Shimon b. Tzemach Duran, Magen Avot, comm. to Avot 5:21). Rashbatz also mentions the idea that the early generations were close in time to Adam and Adam ... was made by God from the earth.... Another idea found in some of our Rishonim is that those early individuals did not chase after "ta'avat ha-guf," which reduces the lifespan. See, e.g., the commentary of the Radak to Gen. 5:4. ... ... R. Moses Ibn Tibbon (late 13th cent.) He suggests that the years given for people's lives were actually the years of "malkhutam ve-nimuseihim," i.e., the dynasties and/or customs that they established. ... R. Levi ben Hayyim (early 14th cent.).... concludes that in his opinion the names mentioned were just roshei avot. In other words, the number of years given for each individual reflects the total of the years of the several generations of individuals named for that first individual. R. Nissim of Marseilles (early 14th century) ... took the same approach as R. Moses Ibn Tibbon. The numbers ... included the total years of the descendants who followed his customs and lifestyle. The most interesting approach I saw was that of R. Eleazar Ashkenazi ben Nathan ha-Bavli (14th century), in his work Tzafnat Paneach, pp. 29-30. ... First, R. Eleazar refers to the view that perhaps the individual numbers were not to be taken literally, and points to other statements in the Torah that were not meant to be taken literally, e.g., 1) the Land of Israel was "flowing with milk and honey," and 2) the cities in Canaan were "fortified up to the Heaven" (Deut. 1:28). (See further Moreh Nevuchim, II,47.) But then R. Eleazar suggests the following creative approach. In listing these individual numbers, the Torah was merely recording the legends about these figures, even though they were not accurate. The important thing was to provide data from which the total years from Creation to Matan Torah could be derived, so that the people would be able to know the length of time between these two periods. Even though the numbers for the individual lifespans were not accurate, the Torah made sure that the total that would be arrived at would be accurate.... ... Prof. Natan Aviezer of Bar-Ilan University.... in a post at the Bar Ilan University weekly parshah site for parshat Noach, 1998... explains that modern science has figured out that aging is largely caused by genes, and not by a wearing out of our bodies. He then suggests that when God stated at Gen. 6:3 that man would be limited to 120 years, this was when God first introduced the gene for aging into the human gene pool. If you have not found any of the above answers satisfying, I have some good news. R. Saadiah Gaon writes (Emunot Ve-Deot, end of chap. 7) that in the era of the redemption the human lifespan will be approximately 500 years. Presumably, at that time we won't be bothered by those long lifespans in Genesis anymore! (Note that Radak, comm. to Is. 65:20, is a bit stingier. He predicts lifespans of only 300 to 500 years. See also his commentary to Ps. 92:15. But the 12th century Babylonian Gaon R. Samuel b. Ali predicts lifespans closer to 1000 years!) I would like to acknowledge that most of the material above came from an article by Prof. Daniel Lasker of Ben-Gurion University, in Mechkarim Be-Halakha U-Be-Mishpat Ha-Ivri, vol. 26-27 (2009-10). Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger I slept and dreamt that life was joy. micha at aishdas.org I awoke and found that life was duty. http://www.aishdas.org I worked and, behold -- duty is joy. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rabindranath Tagore From micha at aishdas.org Sun Oct 22 09:13:16 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2017 12:13:16 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Beris Milah on Shabbos when Father isn't Jewish Message-ID: <20171022161316.GA32328@aishdas.org> I mentioned in the past I had this question halakhah lemaaseh. I knew of an intermarried couple who lived nowhere near the nearest Jewish community. They would have just had the boy circumcized in the hospital rather than to pay what one of the nearer mohalim wanted to come down for the weekend. Yes, the nearest Chabad house had a mohel, who (of course) would come at cost... IFF he hadn't had a beris in his own minhan that same Shabbos. So the question I asked was whether I should donate (or raise donations) for the beris to be bizmano. My LOR asked his rav... long story short, as I best remember at a little more than two decades later: The pasuq says "bayom hashemini yimol besar arlaso" -- it's the father who is told "on the eight day", even if it's on Shabbos. Implied: If the father has no chiyuv, such as our case or if r"l the father didn't survive to see his son's beris, there is no one whose chiyuv overrides Shabbos. (If the father is alive but not there, you'd still violate Shabbos.) Well, someone asked R' Asher Weiss. . He didn't rule the same way, but does mention that is -- or at least was -- a machloqes amoraim. However, RAW holds a consensus has emerged to do the beris. Perhaps RDC didn't think the consensus was solid enough to warrant my spending or raising that kind of money for someone else's beris. Or perhaps it was closer to the way I remembered it and RDC doesn't agree with how the consensus emerged. Brit mila on Shabbos when father is non Jew Posted by: Rabbi Akiva Dershowitz Question: Does everyone agree that a brit is done on Shabbat even if the father is a goy? ... Answer: No, this is a dispute among the achronim [halachic authorities of the last 500 years]. The halachic ruling is that we do in fact perform the bris mila on Shabbos. See Derisha Y:D 266:20, Nachalas Shiva [kuntress hamila siman 1], Shu't Binyan Tzion [Vol. 1:21]. The nearest I could find in Hebrew (as the Hebrew always has more discussion) is "Beris beShabbos leVen Me'uberes sheNisgayrah" at . There the question is whether the velad's milah is a normal beris or lesheim geirus, and RAW still holds the milah should be on Shabbos. It's a fun sugya, worth a read. But doesn't focus on our question. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger You cannot propel yourself forward micha at aishdas.org by patting yourself on the back. http://www.aishdas.org -Anonymous Fax: (270) 514-1507 From hankman at bell.net Sun Oct 22 13:15:49 2017 From: hankman at bell.net (hankman) Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2017 16:15:49 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Torah precheit? Message-ID: <39266980A1C24F078B1904F1783BA1C0@hankPC> R. Akiva Miller wrote: ?One can ask similar questions about other turning-points in history. What if Kayin had not killed Hevel? What if the world has not gone to Avodah Zara a few generations later? What if Yishmael and/or Esav had not gone of the derech? What if Moshe Rabenu had acted differently by the rock?? Actually I had thoughts along similar lines that you express. The most prominent such turning point was the cheit ha?eigel, where again, had they succeeded, that again would have been the end for man?s tafkid and correction the cheit of Adam, direct route to eretz Yisroel, no forty years in the midbar and presumably Moshe R. would have been the final moshiach and on to the final gemul. The reason these two stick in my mind more than the other forks in history you point to, is that these would have been endpoints to the tafkid in this world and led directly to olom haba with no continuation of the ?Torah? story we are familiar with. The moments in history you point to would have been forks in the road but not endpoints. So if say Esau/Yishmoel had made good choices and been more like his brother Yaakov/Yitzchok, the story would have had a different twist to it, but the overall gestalt to the Torah could still have been quite similar. What we have now, with some changes. But we would have no problem imagining all (perhaps most) of the mitzvos as we know them. These two, cheit of Adam and cheit ha?eigel, were fundamentally different than the other ?forks? in the road as what we know to have followed would never happen. So Regalim, and avdus in Mitzrayim, etc, etc are ideas that seem not to have a place in such a reality had Adam succeeded while the other forks would have led to a variation on a theme we are familiar with and can at least readily imagine. The idea you mention of ?70 panim latorah? would have to be expanded greatly if for every fork on the possible choices made in the biblical period (by this I mean the time through the end of the forty years bamidbar that were recorded in chumash). If every possible choice made at every fork (say N) resulted in a diff version of Torah, then that would result in 2 to the N panim laTorah ? with N being very large! Perhaps 70 is just a synonym for ?many?? When we say that there are 70 umos, I always wondered how that was defined, as it seems to me that there are many more and that the number would change for different periods in history. If 70 here too means ?many? that would clear that up. But then the precise number of 70 for the parei hachag might be a problem unless for some reason that may have been fixed symbolically, or perhaps to coincide with the original number at some early point in history as say per the list of the 70 nations Art Scroll makes in its chumash at the end of this weeks parsha (Noach). Basically it is a listing of certain of the names of descendants of Noach. Have you ever heard of a nation called Ever (or most of the other names they list)? So is the ?essence? of Torah something beyond our ken. Is all we can see just a single facet of the 70 panim laTorah? (This of course is not the normal meaning to 70 panim laTorah, which usually is applied to differing explanations to our ?current? Torah, and not the other ?possible? ?Toros? as you are suggesting. Is this so far off the beaten path that this might even be an accidental trip into thought that might be apikursus or a credible notion within the daas? (Torah lo yehai moochlefes). I have no idea! R. Akiva Miller wrote: ?Torah manifests itself differently to a kohen than to a levi, and differently to a woman than to a man.? There is a fundamental difference between a mitzvoh only applying to some vs the concept not existing. Even if I am a Yisroel I can still be oseik in torah of the mitvos of a cohen ? it is still a part of Torah given to all of us even if not all of it pertains to me. R. Akiva Miller wrote: ?Or perhaps Gan Eden would have had that status.? I actually had a thought similar to yours as well on this idea. When I thought a little more about it, I had difficulty putting it all together. so what kind of meaning would trummos and massros have. What would orlo mean. Without aniyim, what is the point of leket shichacha upei?a? (or tzedaka in general, or even more broadly of gemila chasadim in such a world?) The mitzvos hatelyuous ba?aretz only make sense in an agricultural society, not in a world of olam haba where there are no farmers or farms. No need for orei miklat in a world without a yetzer. On another thought, would the notion of baal tigra in the world of only one mitzva leave you with no mitvos at all? That would make one a kofer bekol haTorah koola? Also there would be no need for lo tassur yamin usemol for gezeirot derabanan in such a world (though perhaps it might have stopped Chava if such a takana existed to protect the only mitzvoh they had). R. Akiva Miller wrote: ?"If there is life on other planets, might they possibly have a Torah? But Mitzrayim doesn't exist there, and Moshe never lived there!" That question bothered me for a very long time,? Strangely enough, I had similar thoughts years back. As a young bachur in yeshivo, my rebbi was teaching us that their was a period during which the progenitor of kelal Yisroel would happen. I asked what would have happened if there had been another deep thinker who came to the same realization and belief that Avraham did. He answered that there would have been two (or more) chosen peoples to eventually be mekabel Torah. It didn?t occur to me at the time to ask, would they each have the ?same? Torah or each get a tailored version to their (eventual) am? Or, would there be one Torah that talks of both of the chosen peoples? Years later when discussing what is the purpose to us of the trillions of stars and galaxies so distant that they could never possibly affect us here on Earth? Then it occurred to me, what if those stars had planets with intelligent beings on them and they too went through a similar period wherein they too had some allien being come to the same conclusions as Avraham did and they then became the chosen people of that planet and received a Torah possibly tailored to their experiences and appropriate there etc.? This almost makes sense of the questions the malachim asked Moshe when he went lamorom to accept Torah. They too wanted Torah in a version suitable to them which would deflect all of Moshe?s responses. If memory serves, I think some meforshim try to make sense of the malachim in such a manner. Just some more rambling thoughts. Kol tuv Chaim Manaster -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hankman at bell.net Sun Oct 22 23:25:10 2017 From: hankman at bell.net (hankman) Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2017 02:25:10 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] =?utf-8?q?=E2=80=9Cthe_miracle_of_judging_by_smell?= =?utf-8?q?=E2=80=9D_was_=28Re=3A_R=2E_Akiva=2C_Bar_Kochba_and_Zech?= =?utf-8?q?arya_HaNovi=29?= Message-ID: <7D7387F31006477FA724C733A37A100B@hankPC> R. Zev Sero wrote: ?Moshiach is a melech, and not bound by the rules of a beis din.? You are obviously referring to Rambam, Melachim P. 3: 8, 10. However this refers to judgments that are within the scope of the Melech such as a moreid, or letakein ha?olom kefi ma shehasho?o tzricha. This does not however give him the right to usurp ordinary judgments that normally would fall to a beis din (and disregard such niceties as eidus that the Torah requires), unless he is the av beis din (possible for malchei beis Dovid) and does follow the rules of Torah for eidus like any other beis din and does not simply follow his nose in these judgments. Furthermore, in the category of cases like moreid and shehasho?o tzricha, all the Melech needs to do is simply assert his position as he feels correct for ANY Melech ? he does not even need the power of moreiach veda?in to prove his position. So mimonafshoch, in either case he either may not, or has no need of the power to be moreiach veda?in. Kol tuv Chaim Manaster -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Mon Oct 23 13:16:56 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2017 16:16:56 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] =?cp1255?q?=93the_miracle_of_judging_by_smell=94_was_?= =?cp1255?q?=28Re=3A_R=2E_Akiva=2C_Bar_Kochba_and_Zecharya_HaNovi=29?= In-Reply-To: <7D7387F31006477FA724C733A37A100B@hankPC> References: <7D7387F31006477FA724C733A37A100B@hankPC> Message-ID: <20171023201656.GA13749@aishdas.org> On Mon, Oct 23, 2017 at 02:25:10AM -0400, hankman via Avodah wrote: : . Furthermore, : in the category of cases like moreid and shehasho'o tzricha, all the : Melech needs to do is simply assert his position as he feels correct : for ANY Melech -- he does not even need the power of moreiach veda'in to : prove his position. So mimonafshoch, in either case he either may not, : or has no need of the power to be moreiach veda'in. If I understood the Rambam this way: It would be good to have a king who knows with certainty which dinim need shoring up because he can smell that their violation is rampant. Or, in determining the convicted's guilt: Let's say some sin became common place, and hasha'ah zerikhah that the king enforce a capital punishment for it. But say I understand him as per REMT's post, noting that in 3:10 the Rambam singles out the king's power to kill murderers (eg without hasda'ah, where there was only eid echad, etc...) -- implying that retzichah yes, other issurim, the king could not. (Mikelal lav...) 3:8 really only discussed rebellion and lesse majeste (moreid bemekeh and mevazeh es hamelekh o hamchorfo). I don't see hasha'ah tzeikhah in the Rambam; I'm taking your word for it. Still, I can ask the parallel question: Wouldn't if be far far better if the melekh hamashiach had a supernal ability to know who is really guilty, and not kill the wrong guy? He might not legally need the power, but it would be a good thing for a king to have in order to be effective and fair. So I'm not sure your argument holds. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Every child comes with the message micha at aishdas.org that God is not yet discouraged with http://www.aishdas.org humanity. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rabindranath Tagore From micha at aishdas.org Mon Oct 23 18:51:25 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2017 21:51:25 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] No Barrier Between Religion and Science Message-ID: <20171024015125.GA13043@aishdas.org> See this article on Real Clear Science or http://www.realclearscience.com/articles/2017/10/16/philosophy_rebuts_key_barrier_between_science_and_religion_110422.htmlh Here is Mosaic Magazine's snippet: Kuhn's [argument] is that students learn first by imitation and practice and -- assuming they receive a good education -- once they strike out on their own, they will have been successfully inculcated into a particular scientific tradition. They will thus be prepared to recognize, pose, and solve scientific problems. If we take tradition to be antithetical to scientific rationality, Kuhn's conclusions will appear disquieting. And, indeed, Kuhn's critics rejected his arguments as "irrationalist." But if, on the contrary, we take tradition to be essential to rationality, then Kuhn's conclusions will be not only acceptable but also unsurprising. According to the moral philosopher Alasdair MacIntyre, before we can begin to reason at all, we must first acquire the habits necessary to recognize and, ultimately, to replicate rational behavior. To do so, there must first be exemplars that we take to be authoritative -- in the moral domain these will be exceptionally virtuous people, in the scientific domain, exceptionally good scientists. To become rational, in other words, one must be educated within a tradition of inquiry. Science, on this view, is not Cartesian -- at least as far as [the rejection of received ideas] is concerned -- even if it remains eminently rational. Where does this leave us?... [T]he fact that religious beliefs are not entirely reducible to empirical experience and partly depend upon tradition doesn't make them irrational or even anti-scientific. Thus a popular way of opposing science and religion starts to look untenable. This hardly means the two become indistinguishable. But it does suggest that science and religion could be conceived of as distinct -- but possibly harmonious, even sometimes mutually beneficial -- traditions of rational inquiry. The truth is that science has little to say about where a hypothesis come from. It gives little guidance for deciding what features are worth observing, what we should give our attention to. And once we see a pattern that needs explanation, it is left to human creativity to come up with a hypothesis. Science is a means of weeding out subjectivity from possible answers, but the means of coming up with those answers are very human. In particular, the entire enteprise of science rests on a tradition of theism -- whether the personal beliefs of an Aristotle or Newton, or the culture that produced an Einstein. Without a personal reason for assuming that the universe opperates reasonably, rather than attributing lightning to Thor's or Zeus's moods, can that hypothesis invention get started. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Good decisions come from experience; micha at aishdas.org Experience comes from bad decisions. http://www.aishdas.org - Djoha, from a Sepharadi fable Fax: (270) 514-1507 From hankman at bell.net Mon Oct 23 20:57:36 2017 From: hankman at bell.net (hankman) Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2017 23:57:36 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] "the miracle of judging by smell" was (Re: R. Akiva, Bar Kochba and Zecharya HaNovi) In-Reply-To: <20171023201656.GA13749@aishdas.org> References: <7D7387F31006477FA724C733A37A100B@hankPC> <20171023201656.GA13749@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <7FA394F42CCE44ECBB668DFA42362B96@hankPC> From: Micha Berger Sent: Monday, October 23, 2017 4:16 PM > But say I understand him as per REMT's post, noting that in 3:10 the > Rambam singles out the king's power to kill murderers (eg without > hasda'ah, where there was only eid echad, etc...) -- implying that > retzichah yes, other issurim, the king could not. (Mikelal lav...) > 3:8 really only discussed rebellion and lesse majeste (moreid bemekeh > and mevazeh es hamelekh o hamchorfo). I don't see hasha'ah tzeikhah in > the Rambam; I'm taking your word for it. Still, I can ask the parallel > question: > Wouldn't if be far far better if the melekh hamashiach had a supernal > ability to know who is really guilty, and not kill the wrong guy? > He might not legally need the power, but it would be a good thing for a > king to have in order to be effective and fair. My own initial impression unlike REMT is that the Rambam in 3:10 was not limiting this to only rotzeach, but dealing with case of max punishment or similar punishment and kal vechomer for cases of lesser punishment, however on rereading the Rambam after reading REMT I can see his point of view, but I am not sure I am fully convinced. I did a quick look around and found that the Or Sameiach on the Rambam at 3:10 has a long discussion on this issue as to whether the melech only has this power for a rotzeach where it is a danger to the rabim but not to enforce laxity of bein adam lamokom such as dinei shabbos, or if there was a breach even in these other areas whether the melech could act extra judicially there as well. There is a reference to a Y. Sanhedrin that implies that Dovid hamelech wold have executed for mishkav behama al pi eid echod -- so not just rotzeiach. See also the Rambam H. Rotzeiach P 2:4-5 where he broadens this extra judicial power to beis din as well but under horoas sha'o rather than takonas olam. (Not sure if the different label implies a difference in the respective extra judicial powers or not). See the Kesef Mishna there who mentions a case of chilul Shabbos. My simple reading there is that the Rambam seem to equate the reach of the extra judicial power of b"d to that of the melech to punish when found necessary either due to horo'as shao or takonas olam respectively. (Not clear to me if the different reasons lead to a different scope or not). But it seems that yeish lekan veyeish lekan. I hear your point about moreiach being a good reassurance that his pesak is correct even if not really necessary to render his judgment. Kol tuv Chaim Manaster From micha at aishdas.org Tue Oct 24 06:38:55 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2017 09:38:55 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Psak source wanted In-Reply-To: <1857240052.122258.1508054451353@mail.yahoo.com> References: <1857240052.122258.1508054451353.ref@mail.yahoo.com> <1857240052.122258.1508054451353@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20171024133855.GB25244@aishdas.org> On Sun, Oct 15, 2017 at 08:00:51AM +0000, Motti Yarchinai via Avodah wrote: : It is similar to what the Rambam wrote in Hilchot Kiddush Hachodesh, : saying that in all calendric matters, we follow the lead of the chachmei : eretz yisrael, and even though the anshei hagolah know the calculations : used by them, it is not on our own calculations that we rely, we only : use those calculations because we know that they are the same as the : calculations used by the chachmei eretz yisrael... : Another posek (possibly the Tifferet Yisrael in Shvilei Harakia, but : I'm not sure of that), writes something similar... Did you ever find a source? Google, Bar Ilan and I didn't turn anything up. In practice, we follow the calculations of R' Saaadia Gaon, who was in Aleppo at the time, and not R Aaron Ben-Meir in Y-m ih"q. The big debate of 922 was the topic of an article by RYGB and RAZZ reposted here . The Rambam (Qiddush haChodesh 1:8) limits the authority to someone in EY ("ki miTzion teitzei Sorah...") or if the one clearly most able to do it received semichah in EY, he can continue setting the months and ibur shanos in chu"l -- until someone of comparable stature arises in EY. This seems taylor-made for R Saadia Gaon, who went to yeshiva in Teveriah. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Never must we think that the Jewish element micha at aishdas.org in us could exist without the human element http://www.aishdas.org or vice versa. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch From sholom at aishdas.org Tue Oct 24 12:50:00 2017 From: sholom at aishdas.org (Sholom Simon) Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2017 15:50:00 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Long Lifespans in Bereishis In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <588c56c0dc1eedd39e7bb464810c5cea@aishdas.org> Thanks, RMB, for posting that article. Re the views of R. Moses Ibn Tibbon, et al, who don't take those ages literally on a single person -- is that (along the lines of an off-line conversation we had) a "kosher view" these days? Or, is it one of those views that, the way R Noson Slifkin puts it: they are allowed to have those views, but we aren't? On a different, but related issue, to the chevra: The list of generations in parshas Bereshis are generally of the form: * X was 50 years old when he fathered Y. * X lived 450 years after he fathered Y and had sons and daughters * X lived to the age of 500 years. Doesn't that seem a bit redundant? And, in fact, most (all?) of the generations listed in parshas Noach skip the third phrase. Thoughts? -- Sholom -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hankman at bell.net Tue Oct 24 15:28:28 2017 From: hankman at bell.net (hankman) Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2017 18:28:28 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Long Lifespans in Bereishis Message-ID: <9DE9360C549C46879FBF7291563A9387@hankPC> >From the summary of opinions posted by RMB on lifespans in Bereishis and some comments: ?R. Saadiah Gaon (10th cent.) discusses this issue in his introduction to Tehillim. He writes that the longevity of these early generations was part of God's plan for the rapid proliferation of mankind on the earth.....? Not the biggest kashe in the world, but why then would they start to have children at an advanced age if rapid proliferation was the goal? Perhaps with great longevity came a much longer period for sexual maturation? If true would that also mean that intellectual maturation took much longer as well? ?R. Yehudah Ha-Levi (12th cent.) discusses the issue in the Kuzari (sec. 95). He believes that it was only the individuals listed who lived long. Each of the individuals listed was the heart and essence of his generation and was physically and spiritually perfect. The Divine Flow was transmitted from one generation to another through these exceptional individuals.? How does R. Yehudah Ha-Levi deal with Terach who was an idolator? Clearly he was not spiritually perfect. ?... R. Moses Ibn Tibbon (late 13th cent.) He suggests that the years given for people's lives were actually the years of "malkhutam ve-nimuseihim," i.e., the dynasties and/or customs that they established.? This comment will apply to R. Nissim of Marseilles as well. I presume they held that people had what we today would consider a normal life span. this would mean they were not having the first born at the advanced age of over one hundred. Thus the named son must have been a later generation descendant. (I assume that they did not generate a son in their old age and die shortly thereafter as was the case with Boaz). So if their life spans were similar to ours then was Shes really not a son of Adam but really a descendant several generations down? Ditto for Ennosh, was he really a great ... grandson of Sheis? But this notion of the the years given in Bereishis not pertaining to one single man, but to a dynasty of several generations of normal life span, runs into difficulty with Noach and his 3 sons. If we follow suit with this notion then Shem, Cham and Yefes were not his sons but descendants born 500 years later. Yet they all went into the Teiva together? So how is that a normal life span for Noach? Why weren?t the generations between Noach and Shem, Cham and Yefes saved as well? When the Torah says ?vayoled es X? that is not to be taken literally but just to mean a later descendant chosen to be named in the lineage? ? R. Saadiah Gaon writes (Emunot Ve-Deot, end of chap. 7) that in the era of the redemption the human lifespan will be approximately 500 years. Presumably, at that time we won't be bothered by those long lifespans in Genesis anymore! (Note that Radak, comm. to Is. 65:20, is a bit stingier. He predicts lifespans of only 300 to 500 years. See also his commentary to Ps. 92:15. But the 12th century Babylonian Gaon R. Samuel b. Ali predicts lifespans closer to 1000 years!)? This quote leads to an issue I will expand upon slightly in another post. But the basic issue is if the world is Charuv at 6000 years and yemos Moshiach are before the olom is charuv, (while olom keminhago noheig) there is not enough time left (we are now 5778) for a life span of 300 to 500 years let alone 1000 years. Kol tuv Chaim Manaster -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Wed Oct 25 04:13:32 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2017 07:13:32 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Long Lifespans in Bereishis In-Reply-To: <9DE9360C549C46879FBF7291563A9387@hankPC> References: <9DE9360C549C46879FBF7291563A9387@hankPC> Message-ID: <20171025111332.GC22254@aishdas.org> On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 06:28:28PM -0400, hankman (RVM) wrote: : > (Note that Radak, comm. to Is. 65:20, is a bit stingier. He predicts : > lifespans of only 300 to 500 years. See also his commentary to : > Ps. 92:15. But the 12th century Babylonian Gaon R. Samuel b. Ali : > predicts lifespans closer to 1000 years!)" : This quote leads to an issue I will expand upon slightly in another : post. But the basic issue is if the world is Charuv at 6000 years and : yemos Moshiach are before the olom is charuv, (while olom keminhago : noheig) there is not enough time left (we are now 5778) for a life span : of 300 to 500 years let alone 1000 years. This all depends on the machloqes about defining olam haba and whether techiyas hameisim is permanent. As well as any machloqesin as to whether yemos hamoshiach starts with techiyas hameisim or ends with a new era, that itself starts with teshiyas hameisim. Rambam: olam haba means the non-physical world a neshamah is in between life and teshiyas hameisim, as well as after a second death. Since olam haba is the ultimate form of existence, defining that ultimate as the place souls go when dead necessitates a second death after techiyas hameisim. The Rambam (and the Iqarim, and others, I just picked on name for thumbnail-sketch reasons) then has to explain what the point of the second life is. Ramban (similarly, among others): olam haba, the ultimate existence, is body together with guf after techiyas hameisim. And therefore the post-th"m life must be external. According to the first shitah, it could be that post-th"m life is in gan eden is Adam's sense and thus life lasts as long as his could have. But then there's the question of whether your assumed dates hold.... My point is mainly that I think there are too many unknowns to even ask your question. I just anded up belaboring the one unknown I once wrote about. on how this machloqes may impact what is the point of Brikhas Gevurah ("Atah Gibor"). BTW, I just noticed, underlying that machloqes about what is olam haba and techiyas hameisim might be a difference in the definition of a person. It looks to me like the Rambam is saying a person is a soul who lives in a body. And therefore the ultimate in existence is not to have that body interpolated between me and experiencing Hashem's Presence. Whereas the Ramban is saying that a person is a synthesis of body and soul, and therefore cannot enjoy the rewards of their efforts when the two halves are separated. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger If a person does not recognize one's own worth, micha at aishdas.org how can he appreciate the worth of another? http://www.aishdas.org - Rabbi Yaakov Yosef of Polnoye, Fax: (270) 514-1507 author of Toldos Yaakov Yosef From hankman at bell.net Wed Oct 25 07:40:29 2017 From: hankman at bell.net (hankman) Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2017 10:40:29 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Long Lifespans in Bereishis In-Reply-To: <20171025111332.GC22254@aishdas.org> References: <9DE9360C549C46879FBF7291563A9387@hankPC> <20171025111332.GC22254@aishdas.org> Message-ID: R.Miciha Berger wrote: "On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 06:28:28PM -0400, hankman (RVM) wrote: :if the world is Charuv at 6000 years and : yemos Moshiach are before the olom is charuv, (while olom keminhago : noheig) there is not enough time left (we are now 5778) for a life span : of 300 to 500 years let alone 1000 years. This all depends on the machloqes about defining olam haba and whether techiyas hameisim is permanent. As well as any machloqesin as to whether yemos hamoshiach starts with techiyas hameisim or ends with a new era, that itself starts with teshiyas hameisim. ...." You also need to fit in when exactly in the sequence of these events Yom Hadin Hagodol happens according to each of these shitos. So the many events of "Achris Hatomim" that one need consider to compile a chronology of this mysterious period would include Gog uMagog, Moshiach be Yosef, coming of Eliyahu, yitaka bashofor gadol (before moshiach, or yom hadin hagodol, or techias hameisim?), the nevuos of Zecharyahu and other nevi'im about this period, Bayis shelishi, Kibutz golios, Moshiach ben Dovid (including how long is this period), vanquishing of the yetzer, Techias Hameisim (before Moshiach or before yom hadin or before both?), Yom hadin hagodol, yom hadin hakoton (after death?) Olom charuv (and to what extent it is charuv and why), Gan Eden, Olom haneshamos, Olam haba (final gemul, with or without a guf, and the ultimate purpose of creation so Hashem can be meitiv lezuloso). After writing this I checked out your "Mesukim Midevash" and apparently there will be at least four versions of this chronology (which you began to build in your article) lefi the Rambam, Ramban, Rav Saadia Gaon and the Ikkarim but needs some fleshing out. R Micha Berger wrote: "Ramban (similarly, among others): olam haba, the ultimate existence, is body together with guf after techiyas hameisim. And therefore the post-th"m life must be external. .... But then there's the question of whether your assumed dates hold.... My point is mainly that I think there are too many unknowns to even ask your question...." It is not clear to me what "assumed dates" or what the "unknowns" are that you mention? I only mentioned 5778. Is that date in doubt?? R. Micha Berger wrote: "BTW, I just noticed, underlying that machloqes about what is olam haba and techiyas hameisim might be a difference in the definition of a person. It looks to me like the Rambam is saying a person is a soul who lives in a body. And therefore the ultimate in existence is not to have that body interpolated between me and experiencing Hashem's Presence. Whereas the Ramban is saying that a person is a synthesis of body and soul, and therefore cannot enjoy the rewards of their efforts when the two halves are separated. Tir'u baTov! -Micha" The gemara in Sanhedrin that talks about the need for both the neshama and the guf to be together at yom hadin, works well with your peshat in the Ramban and could be a possible source for his position, but your explanation of the Rambam with the guf just being something donned by the neshama as necessary for its trip to this world, much like a diver dons scuba gear to enable him to function in this temporary environment, then much as it makes no senses to require the scuba gear at the divers trial, so too this gemara requiring the presence of the guf at the yom hadin doesn't really make much sense. Kol tuv Chaim Manaster From ben1456 at zahav.net.il Wed Oct 25 10:48:54 2017 From: ben1456 at zahav.net.il (Ben Waxman) Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2017 19:48:54 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] offering a higher salary Message-ID: <6ca926d4-2984-813b-af3a-e5fb0e765062@zahav.net.il> I've seen posts claiming that it is forbidden to offer cleaners a higher salary to work for you. While I can understand that it makes sense to say that no one can break a specific agreement for a specific day of work, why should it be forbidden to offer a higher salary to someone who has a long term agreement?? A, this is the common practice in the high tech world and I have never heard anyone say "Assur". It would seem that there is general agreement that this halacha simply doesn't apply today. Second, how can anyone be meshuabad in such a way to one person? Does a person wanting a higher salary have to simply quit without any idea about having another job? Ben From motti.yarchinai at mail.yahoo.com.au Wed Oct 25 12:39:33 2017 From: motti.yarchinai at mail.yahoo.com.au (Motti Yarchinai) Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2017 19:39:33 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Avodah] Psak source wanted In-Reply-To: <1857240052.122258.1508054451353@mail.yahoo.com> References: <1857240052.122258.1508054451353.ref@mail.yahoo.com> <1857240052.122258.1508054451353@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <270346387.4768895.1508960373045@mail.yahoo.com> Dear Micha and Avodah members, Thank you Micha for your reply and your attempts to locate a source. On Sun, Oct 15, 2017 at 08:00:51AM +0000, Motti Yarchinai via Avodah wrote: > Can anyone help me with a source for this psak: It is similar to what > the Rambam wrote... > Another posek writes something similar but couched in even more dramatic > terms. The following is not a verbatim quote (since the original is in > Hebrew) but something very close to it: > "And even if the residents of eretz yisrael are all ignoramuses > and peasants, and the authorities of chutz la'aretz are great > scholars and knowledgable in Torah and halachah, in calendric > matters we follow the peasants and ignoramuses, not the scholars > of chutz la'aretz." Micha replied: > Did you ever find a source? Google, Bar Ilan and I didn't turn > anything up.... No, I have not found it yet, but my memory of it is that I saw it in print, and, to my annoyance, I can't find the sefer, but it is bound to turn up sooner or later. When it does, I will repost with the source and quote. Meanwhile, if someone recognises it, please do let me know. Motti From sholom at aishdas.org Wed Oct 25 13:48:29 2017 From: sholom at aishdas.org (Sholom Simon) Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2017 16:48:29 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] A Great Name Message-ID: <20171025204831.CKZV22111.fed1rmfepo202.cox.net@fed1rmimpo210.cox.net> One of the implicit criticisms of Migdal Bavel was that they wanted to make a name for themselves. Then, at the beginning of Lech L'cha, H' tells Avram that he will make his name great. There must be something there . . . anybody have any thoughts? -- Sholom From zev at sero.name Wed Oct 25 20:57:37 2017 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2017 23:57:37 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] offering a higher salary In-Reply-To: <6ca926d4-2984-813b-af3a-e5fb0e765062@zahav.net.il> References: <6ca926d4-2984-813b-af3a-e5fb0e765062@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <03900eea-9674-1896-0842-5cba504a0eed@sero.name> On 25/10/17 13:48, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > I've seen posts claiming that it is forbidden to offer cleaners a higher > salary to work for you. I believe this halacha is a subset of "hasagas gevul", not in the Biblical sense, but in the commonly-used sense, which in in turn a subset of the obligation of ahavas yisrael. "Hasagas gevul" basically means that if you with to start a business and you have a choice between doing it somewhere that will harm me and somewhere that will not, then all else being equal you are obligated to take the second option out of consideration for me, because ve'ahavta lere`acha kamocha. Similarly, if I am renting a forest or an inn from a nochri, from which I make my living, and you offer him a higher rent, you are violating your obligation to value my interests equally with your own. It should be obvious, however, that if the landlord is also "re`acha" then this does not apply, because you have the same obligation to him as to me; if he could be getting more rent from his property then you should make him that offer, though he should give me a chance to match it, since I am the "bar metzra". I think the same thing is going on with the cleaners. If I have a nochris who is willing to clean for me for $N, you have no right to lure her away by offering more. But if she is "re`acha" then aderaba you have a mitzvah to offer her a chance to improve her income, but before taking your offer she should offer me the chance to match it. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From JRich at sibson.com Thu Oct 26 05:08:27 2017 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2017 12:08:27 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Jewish Action Message-ID: Since I can sometimes be critical of organizations (not here where I usually manage not to say anything negative [HT - My Mom ZLL"HH - "If you have nothing nice to say, don't say anything]), I want to give a shout out to the OU Fall Jewish Action. 1.) Moshe Baine poses the two questions I use as an individual/community test (i) How often do we factor God into our daily decisions, both large and small? [Me - how central is the Ratzon Hashem in our lives?] (ii) What are we prepared to "give up" to comply with what we perceive as God's wishes? [Me - does God always seem to agree with what you want?] 2.) Allen Fagin asks "whether we as a community view Yishuv Haaretz as a basic tenet of our spiritual aspirations? [Me - Tell me how often it's discussed or how many folks yearn (while we're at it, how many really yearn for the Beit Hamikdash?)] Now what do we do as a community and as individuals about any perceived shortfalls in these two areas is an old Avodah question but maybe it is gaining traction? KT 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: From micha at aishdas.org Thu Oct 26 07:13:06 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2017 10:13:06 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Jewish Action In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20171026141306.GA15203@aishdas.org> On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 12:08:27PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : 1.) Moshe Baine poses the two questions I use as an individual/community : test (i) How often do we factor God into our daily decisions, both large : and small? [Me - how central is the Ratzon Hashem in our lives?] (ii) : What are we prepared to "give up" to comply with what we perceive as : God's wishes? [Me - does God always seem to agree with what you want?] What you call question (i) gets a scathing answer in that recent and hotly discussed blog post, "Modern Orthodoxy from a Teenager's Perspective" by Eitan Gross. The-future-R Gross opines that it is common knowledge in MO circles that we dont make Ratzon Hashem central enough for MO to succeed. Modern Orthodoxy tries to create a balance that, at the moment, cannot work because we have no drive to be with Hashem and lack the philosophical and hashkafic perspective to articulate why we should be Jewish in a world with an assortment of other options. Therefore, we need to take a fresh look at education and schooling. There needs to be an emphasis on the truth of the tenets of Judaism, as well as an inspirational approach that creates a yearning and desire in the student to be closer to Hashem. And When I tried to publish this essay at a local Jewish newspaper they said "We cant publish this piece, it's too much for us. Plus you're only a senior in high school, so you don't have the authority to have a say in the current situation." Although they were against putting this essay to print, the head of the paper still agreed with me, "Modern Orthodoxy has major flaws and everyone knows it." If "everyone knows it", but no one does anything then it must be that they think Modern Orthodoxy is too big to change.... I think he means the Modern Orthodox community has major flaws, not the contept "Modern Orthodoxy" itself -- or why would he be so concerned with being able to save it? I need to add, this being Avodah, that this problem of the confusion between halakhah as a means and halakhah as an ends in-and-of-itself has symptoms in all our communities. Quoting myself, from my "manifesto" Tools and Goals ... How would this play out communally? One possible outcome is that we would find a community of very committed, very observant Jews, but who do not show all the signs of the holiness the Torah is supposed to bring us to. This could happen if there is insufficient attention to the entire notion of a goal beyond the halakhah, so that black letter halakhah -- that which can be measured, laid out in clear obligated or prohibited terms -- takes center seat without any attempt to become the kind of person more capable of fulfilling the full breadth of its commandments. There would be mixed reports of business ethics, scandals of respected rabbis committing fiscal crimes, others unable to control their lust, yet others abusing their power over their students in other ways. Another possible outcome is an idealistic community, but one whose ideals are not Torah derived. In such a community ideals would be taken from some segment of the surrounding culture, and halakhah would be reduced to a means of "blessing" goals that we assimilated from the outside, that at times will resemble the holiness Hashem has readied for us, and at times will differ. A third possibility is particular to a community that teaches the need to engage the world around it, to risk the battle of its challenges in order to use what's positive in the surrounding society to further our sanctity. Without a firm eye and a constant striving toward an ideal, the energy it takes to maintain this delicate balance too easily collapses into a life of compromise. And so, for too many in this community the negative elements of modernity are incorporated into their lives, and also for many strict observance itself suffers. Do these portraits sound familiar? The problem has another symptom which is less problematic -- the rise of Brisk over other darkhei halimmud. A culture in which O means following black-letter Shulchan Arukh will naturally gravitate toward a derekh halimmud that shuns explanations that are in terms of first principles that come before halakhah. RYBS's Halakhic Man denies they even exist. That said, R' Chaim Brisker's own life was more about values and acts of chessed than Arukh Chaim or Yoreh Dei'ah. The family noted this -- for all his lomdus, RCB's mateivah reads "Rav haChesed". The problem is not inherent to Brisk. Therefore, it will be interesting to see how MO evolves, and whether this remains their most pressing problem. YU now has a mashpiah, classes in the Aish Qodesh, Tanya, R' Nachman, it has singing minyanim. Within the halls of YU, Halakhic Man is facing growing competition. Lenaar al pi darko -- this diversity is healthy. But with more semichah students looking to the goals rather than stopping at the halachic tools, MO culture is bound to change in a way that reduces this issue. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When faced with a decision ask yourself, micha at aishdas.org "How would I decide if it were Ne'ilah now, http://www.aishdas.org at the closing moments of Yom Kippur?" Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From JRich at sibson.com Thu Oct 26 05:05:45 2017 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2017 12:05:45 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Timtum Halev Message-ID: There was an interesting article in the Journal "Ohr Yisrael" #16 by R'Avraham Rubin on Timtum Halev (spiritual pollution). His general conclusion was that eating something that would be classified as "forbidden foods," if you know it is such, will cause timtum halev (spiritual character defects) even if you are permitted to eat it in your case (e.g., pikuach nefesh - life-threatening situation). However, if you eat a "factually forbidden food" based on a mistaken halachic decision by an authorized halachic source, no such damage will occur. Interesting that this IIUC would yield the result that one could be halachically required to eat the "forbidden food" (rather than commit suicide by starving to death), yet still develop character defects because of it. Seems non-halachic man to me . I know we've discussed before-I submit a data point in that discussion. KT 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: From micha at aishdas.org Thu Oct 26 09:04:55 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2017 12:04:55 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Timtum Halev In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20171026160455.GD15203@aishdas.org> On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 12:05:45PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : ... "Ohr Yisrael" #16 by R'Avraham Rubin ... general conclusion was : that eating something that would be classified as "forbidden foods," : if you know it is such, will cause timtum halev (spiritual character : defects) even if you are permitted to eat it in your case (e.g., pikuach : nefesh - life-threatening situation). However, if you eat a "factually : forbidden food" based on a mistaken halachic decision by an authorized : halachic source, no such damage will occur. I invite RMRabi to comment on that last sentence. He and I debated for most of a year whether the Maharal would agree that someone who follows a mistaken pesaq is different in kind than someone who makes the mistake themselves. I presume that if eating because of "a mistaken halachic decision by an authorized halachic source" does not cause timtum heleiv, R Avraham Rubin would say that all the more so, eating food that as a matter of unknown fact happens to be kosher but we correctly rule may be eaten because of rov, chazaqah, bitul or whatever would not damage. I would think RAR is coming down on the side of saying that it's the sin, not the substance, which causes the spiritual damage. To my mind -- a hashkafically simpler position, since there is Justice to life being worse due to a sin than due to something premitted. In which case, RAR's opening ruling, that the person starting to death who eats the only available edible which happens to be non-kosher, would seem to be based on ruling that saving one's life overrides the prohibition (making it petura), not that the eating is actually permissible (hutra). For if it were hutra, how would the case differ from correctly following received pesaq? And if it is because of peturah, that the prohibition is being broken, but the violation is permissible for the sake of a greater value, then I can understand how its Just even if we were to say the cause is the substance. The sin is happening, and we know it's happening; we just chose the lesser sin. Lemah hadavar domeh: chemo is poison. For the sake of the greater danger, cancer, a person may take chemo. But the poison still does its effect. The person did what was medically recommended, and the recommendation was made knowing there was a self-destructive element to the act. : Interesting that this IIUC would yield the result that one could be : halachically required to eat the "forbidden food" (rather than commit : suicide by starving to death), yet still develop character defects : because of it. Seems non-halachic man to me.... Halachic man wouldn't ask the question of timtum haleiv to begin with. It is not a halachic category. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The fittingness of your matzos [for the seder] micha at aishdas.org isn't complete with being careful in the laws http://www.aishdas.org of Passover. One must also be very careful in Fax: (270) 514-1507 the laws of business. - Rav Yisrael Salanter From emteitz at gmail.com Thu Oct 26 09:58:57 2017 From: emteitz at gmail.com (elazar teitz) Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2017 12:58:57 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] offering a higher salary Message-ID: >If I have a nochris who is willing to clean for me for $N, you have no right to lure >her away by offering more. But if she is "re`acha" then aderaba you >have a mitzvah to offer her a chance to improve her income, but before >taking your offer she should offer me the chance to match it. Is it a mitzva to help improve a Jew's income, if it is at the expense of another Jew (especially when it is not done with the intent of helping the employee, but rather to help oneself)? EMT -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From zev at sero.name Thu Oct 26 15:06:37 2017 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2017 18:06:37 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] offering a higher salary In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 26/10/17 12:58, elazar teitz via Avodah wrote: >> If I have a nochris who is willing to clean for me for $N, you have no >> right to lure her away by offering more.? But if she is "re`acha" then >> aderaba you have a mitzvah to offer her a chance to improve her income, >> but before taking your offer she should offer me the chance to match it. > Is it a mitzva to help improve a Jew's income, if it is at the > expense of another Jew (especially when it is not done with the intent > of helping the employee, but rather to help oneself)? (1) You have the same mitzvah to love both of us, so whichever one you help is a mitzvah (2) She is probably (though not definitely) in more need than I am (3) If you're willing to pay more for her work then by definition that makes her work *worth* more, since the value of anything is defined as whatever it will fetch, so by making her the offer you're not hurting me, you're merely preventing me from (unbeknownst to either of us) getting an unwarranted benefit at her expense. Basically our arrangement is ona'ah, we're both in error about the value of her labour, and you're in a position to prevent it, so shouldn't you do so? (4) Your intent shouldn't matter. Tzedakah doesn't depend at all on kavanah. If someone is helped, it's a mitzvah even if you didn't mean it (cf shikcha), while if you meant to help someone and it didn't happen there's no mitzvah (cf Bava Basra 8b etc) -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From marty.bluke at gmail.com Sun Oct 29 03:15:35 2017 From: marty.bluke at gmail.com (Marty Bluke) Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2017 12:15:35 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Long Lifespans in Bereishis Message-ID: R' Chaim Manaster pointed out: "But the basic issue is if the world is Charuv at 6000 years and yemos Moshiach are before the olom is charuv, (while olom keminhago noheig) there is not enough time left (we are now 5778) for a life span of 300 to 500 years let alone 1000 years." The gemara (Sanhedrin 99) offers the following suggestions for how long the Messianic period will last: R' Eliezer - 40 years R' Dosa - 400 years Rebbi - 365 years Avimi - 7000 years R' Yehuda - the amount of time from creation until the Messiah comes R' Nachman Bar Yitzchak - the amount of time from the flood until the Messiah comes Interestingly enough the Gemara earlier stated that the world will last 6000 years, Sanhedrin 96B - Six thousand years were decreed upon the world: 2000 years of emptiness (without Torah), 2000 years of Torah, and 2000 years for Mashi'ach. This opinion of 6000 years is generally accepted, however, opinions 4-6 above clearly disagree with this. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ben1456 at zahav.net.il Sun Oct 29 22:34:43 2017 From: ben1456 at zahav.net.il (Ben Waxman) Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2017 07:34:43 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] offering a higher salary In-Reply-To: <6ca926d4-2984-813b-af3a-e5fb0e765062@zahav.net.il> References: <6ca926d4-2984-813b-af3a-e5fb0e765062@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <2e3529d9-23b9-3377-c2f6-ec65d4340f1a@zahav.net.il> After look a bit, I saw that the Aruch HaShulchan CM 237:3 paskens that this law only applies to a poor person. A poor person who finds something that he needs, you can't come along and offer more money for it. But if a rich person finds something that he wants (or employs someone) and this item is available, then the prohibition doesn't apply. It would seem that anyone who can hire a maid does not qualify as poor and I am willing to bet that there is a good supply of people willing to work. Ben On 10/25/2017 7:48 PM, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > I've seen posts claiming that it is forbidden to offer cleaners a > higher salary to work for you. While I can understand that it makes > sense to say that no one can break a specific agreement for a specific > day of work, why should it be forbidden to offer a higher salary to > someone who has a long term agreement?? A, this is the common practice > in the high tech world and I have never heard anyone say "Assur". It > would seem that there is general agreement that this halacha simply > doesn't apply today. From lisa at starways.net Mon Oct 30 03:39:03 2017 From: lisa at starways.net (Lisa Liel) Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2017 12:39:03 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] offering a higher salary In-Reply-To: <2e3529d9-23b9-3377-c2f6-ec65d4340f1a@zahav.net.il> References: <6ca926d4-2984-813b-af3a-e5fb0e765062@zahav.net.il> <2e3529d9-23b9-3377-c2f6-ec65d4340f1a@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <611bec39-509c-b161-d74f-63dbb523906e@starways.net> On 10/30/2017 7:34 AM, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > After look a bit, I saw that the Aruch HaShulchan CM 237:3 paskens > that this law only applies to a poor person. A poor person who finds > something that he needs, you can't come along and offer more money for > it.... > It would seem that anyone who can hire a maid does not qualify as poor > and I am willing to bet that there is a good supply of people willing > to work. Poor in halakha means not having what you're accustomed to have. It isn't an objective benchmark or a comparison to other people. Lisa From ben1456 at zahav.net.il Mon Oct 30 12:58:56 2017 From: ben1456 at zahav.net.il (Ben Waxman) Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2017 21:58:56 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] offering a higher salary In-Reply-To: <611bec39-509c-b161-d74f-63dbb523906e@starways.net> References: <6ca926d4-2984-813b-af3a-e5fb0e765062@zahav.net.il> <2e3529d9-23b9-3377-c2f6-ec65d4340f1a@zahav.net.il> <611bec39-509c-b161-d74f-63dbb523906e@starways.net> Message-ID: <8355ddf5-ae06-1774-b30d-dd05b89814a9@zahav.net.il> You think that these people would be willing to apply the word "poor" to themselves, even in regards to only this halacha? On 10/30/2017 12:39 PM, Lisa Liel wrote: > Poor in halakha means not having what you're accustomed to have.? It > isn't an objective benchmark or a comparison to other people. From bdbradley70 at hotmail.com Mon Oct 30 14:41:44 2017 From: bdbradley70 at hotmail.com (Ben Bradley) Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2017 21:41:44 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] offering a higher salary In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Poor in halakha means not having what you're accustomed to have. It isn't an objective benchmark or a comparison to other people. Lisa I don't believe it's as clear cut as that. It's true with regard to giving tzedaka, that the kehilla is required to maintain someone at the standard they were used to. But when it comes to the definition of an oni who's entitled to take from communal funds, the mishna in terumos or maasros defines it as someone who has a specific and objective amount of food or money in their possession. AFAIR halacha l'maaseh follows suit, and there are objective criteria before allowing someone to accept communal tzedaka funds. Regards Ben -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hankman at bell.net Mon Oct 30 12:03:44 2017 From: hankman at bell.net (hankman) Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2017 15:03:44 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Long Lifespans in Bereishis Message-ID: R. Marty Bluke wrote: ?The gemara (Sanhedrin 99) offers the following suggestions for how long the Messianic period will last: ... R' Dosa - 400 years Rebbi - 365 years Avimi - 7000 years R' Yehuda - the amount of time from creation until the Messiah comes R' Nachman Bar Yitzchak - the amount of time from the flood until the Messiah comes ....? Actually my original kasheh occurred to me during that recent daf yomi you refer to in Sanhedrin which was when I asked the same question you pose here. The question I posted on Avodah (basically the same idea) was just in reference to a previous post here and its remarks ? I just did not feel the need to broaden the kasheh ? perhaps I should have, just to be more comprehensive. Kol tuv Chaim Manaster -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From saulguberman at gmail.com Tue Oct 31 09:57:00 2017 From: saulguberman at gmail.com (Saul Guberman) Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2017 12:57:00 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] chopsticks Message-ID: Is it permissible to break apart chopsticks on shabbat at the meal to eat your sushi? Someone claimed it is makeh b'patish and just use a fork or stab with the chopsticks still together. Others thought that tzorech ochel nefesh might allow them to be broken and used , as it is all disposable anyway. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From JRich at sibson.com Thu Nov 2 05:12:05 2017 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2017 12:12:05 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] TEXTUAL JUDAISM AND THE LIVING TORAH Message-ID: <9e51a7f4ea644e829db8503f8f0451fe@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> An old Avodah favorite :) KT Joel Rich http://etzion.org.il/en/siman-114-prayers-wind-rain-and-dew TEXTUAL JUDAISM AND THE LIVING TORAH In his introduction to the Beit Yosef, R. Yosef Karo clearly asserts that since it is impossible for someone of his stature to set himself up as arbiter among the great Rishonim, for his rulings will be based on the majority of the opinions of the Rif, the Rambam, and the Rosh. Yet, here we have a case where the Rambam and the Rosh agree that an entire country which needs rain can mention and ask for rain in the summer, while the Rif does not dispute this ruling since he does not relate to this case. Although the Rambam's ruling is in the commentary to the Mishna, this has the same status as the Mishneh Torah - so I understand from Kesef Mishneh, also written by R. Yosef Karo, to Hilkhot Talmud Torah 3:10 at the end - and in addition, the Beit Yosef on our siman claims that the Mishneh Torah also rules like the commentary to the Mishna. How can the Beit Yosef rule against them?! The Beit Yosef emphasizes that the custom of the entire world contradicts the Rosh's ruling. He also suggests that this ruling was never accepted in practice. How can we weigh these factors against the authority of the written sources? There is a general difference in approach among poskim regarding how to weigh local custom against textual authority. The Tosafot in many places endeavor to reconcile the text with the custom (see for excample, Shabbat 48a d.h. De-zeitim); other sages more readily condemn custom on the authority of the plain sense of the text. It seems that several factors bear on the relative importance: 1. How universal is the custom? Responsa frequently point out that the reaction to a seldom-encountered situation can not be considered a "custom" - merely a precedent. 2. Among whom is the custom widespread? If we are certain that even scholars and meticulous people conducted themselves in a certain way, this has more weight than the behavior of the common people, pious though they may be. 3. Are opinions opposing the custom recognized? Sometimes we find statements to the effect that if a community had been aware that a great authority opposed their custom, they would not have adopted it. Conversely, a custom may be defended by pointing out that it was upheld even though opposing views were clearly known. 4. Perhaps in an area of halakha whose basis is in custom, though it subsequently achieved the status of binding halakha, we should give greater weight to custom. In our case, the Beit Yosef perceived that the custom of going according to Eretz Yisrael was universal, even among scholars, and even among people who were certainly aware of the statements of the Rambam and the Rosh. In addition, he may have considered the "customary" aspect of prayer to have special importance - the fact that we pray as a community renders special importance to community customs. Therefore, even though the Beit Yosef is, according to his own assertion, an extreme "textualist," in this case he was persuaded to rule in accordance with custom. Almost all Acharonim are extremely reluctant to dispute Rishonim - though there are notable exceptions, such as the Maharshal (who lived, in any case, close to the era of the Rishonim). However, many later scholars do feel that however unworthy they may be, it is their responsibility as decisors to decide AMONG the Rishonim. The Beit Yosef's reticence in this regard is far from universal. A lot of noise is still being made regarding an article written a couple of years ago by a leading scholar of Judaism (who is also a Talmid Chakham, though the two do not always go together) who posits that only recently have texts taken such a central role in Jewish life. He claims that before World War II custom was king, and accepted customs of respectable communities were not scrutinized in the light of codes. I can not comment on the historical reality of three generations ago, but I think we should keep in mind that the tension between custom and written authority is an ancient one, and the "advocacy" of texts is hardly a new idea. 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: From zev at sero.name Thu Nov 2 20:38:21 2017 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2017 23:38:21 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] TEXTUAL JUDAISM AND THE LIVING TORAH In-Reply-To: <9e51a7f4ea644e829db8503f8f0451fe@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <9e51a7f4ea644e829db8503f8f0451fe@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: On 02/11/17 08:12, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: > The Beit Yosef emphasizes that the custom of the entire world > contradicts the Rosh's ruling. Not the entire world. The Rosh himself reported that he was gratified to discover, while travelling through Provence on his way from Germany to Spain, that they did it the right way. This reinforced him in his determination to try to change the practice in Spain. > In our case, the Beit Yosef perceived that the custom of going > according to Eretz Yisrael was universal, On the contrary, *nobody* goes according to EY. The universal custom is to go according to Iraq. The Rosh wanted all Mediterranean Jews, who share EY's climate, to follow EY, as the Provencals did, but they refused. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From meirabi at gmail.com Thu Nov 2 22:38:08 2017 From: meirabi at gmail.com (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi) Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2017 16:38:08 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] Avraham A Cooked, Angels Ate - Bassar BeChalav Message-ID: Avraham Avinu entertained three angels masquerading as human visitors; feeding them goat flesh cooked with milk. Generations later, due to this meal, the angels? protest, that the Torah ought not be given to the Jews, was quashed. There are 3 issues that require clarification: ++ Let?s say the angels sinned by eating flesh cooked with milk [which seems to be the plain meaning of the Medrash] how does that silence their protest? ++ Furthermore, flesh cooked with milk would not have been served to the guests: ++ Avraham Avinu did not cook goat with milk since he adhered to all Mitzvos of the Torah. ++ Even if it was cooked inadvertently, he would not have offered it to the visitors since no benefit may be derived from it. Reb Meir Simcha of Dvinsk explains in Meshech Chochmah, that no sin was transgressed since it was BP flesh, which may be cooked with milk. The angels? protests were silenced because they accepted that Avraham Avinu was Jewish and therefore able to Shecht. Had they considered him not Jewish, they would not have eaten because Shechita cannot be performed by a non-Jew. Thus, the angels had already conceded that Avraham Avinu had an inalienable connection to the Torah and therefore was able to Shecht and create a Kosher BP. That being the case, they could not question nor protest his chosen children?s rights to that heritage. Of all aspects of BP this particular Halacha is so counter-intuitive, and such a shock to our expectations, that even when Reb Chaim Kanievsky said that cooking BP flesh with milk, is "Kosher VeYosher" (more than 100%) Rabbanim who were with me and heard him say this, will not publicly admit to it. Rav Moshe Sternbuch responded upon being asked if this was a DaAs Yachid (a lone opinion), "Who argues?" - R Moshe quotes this Meshech Chochmah MoAdim UzManim [?"? ??' ??"?] and thereby suggests another reason for eating dairy on Shavuos - after all, it was via dairy that we succeeded to silence the angels? protests. However, my son Yehudah, argues - in that case, we really ought to be eating BBPbCh [Basar BP beChalav] on Shavuos. That the BP may be cooked with milk is so obvious to Reb Meir Simcha, that he does not bother to bring proof or expand upon the point. Clearly, BP is utterly unlike any regular cow sheep or goat that may not be cooked with dairy. = = = According to our traditions, Avraham Avinu maintained all the laws of the Torah and also all the Rabbinic enactments. Rashi, Genesis 26:5; Yevamos 21. Accordingly, our Sages explain that Avraham did not offer the bread [Rashi, Genesis 18:8; BMetzia 87] to his guests because Sara had miraculously rejuvenated and become ritually unclean, making the bread unclean. Although no more than a stringency Avraham Avinu would not serve it to his non Jewish guests - presumably, if Avraham Avinu would not eat it himself, he would not serve it to his guests - makes one pause and contemplate about those who Kosher certify various foods and establishments but will not eat that food themselves. = = = There are some who try to squeeze into the words of the MChochmah that it is the milk which is not dairy because meat may be cooked with milk collected from a Shechted beast, Chalav Shechuta, and a BP is deemed to be a Shechuta. There is a contrary argument however - some propose that Chalav Shechuta is not ?mother?s milk?, meaning milk from a beast that can potentially be a mother, whereas a BP can certainly be a mother, so its milk is not Chalav Shechuta and may not be cooked with meat. Either way, the argument collapses completely because Avraham Avinu would not violate the Rabbinic law that prohibits cooking with Chalav Shechuta [or deer or giraffe milk] Best, Meir G. Rabi 0423 207 837 +61 423 207 837 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Fri Nov 3 03:24:28 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2017 06:24:28 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Avraham A Cooked, Angels Ate - Bassar BeChalav In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20171103102428.GB3833@aishdas.org> On Fri, Nov 03, 2017 at 04:38:08PM +1100, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: : Avraham Avinu entertained three angels masquerading as human visitors; : feeding them goat flesh cooked with milk. Generations later, due to this : meal, the angels' protest, that the Torah ought not be given to the Jews, : was quashed. Where's this medrash? Tosafists (Daas Zeqeinim, Bereishis 18:8) note the contradiction between it and the medrash that the avos observe all of halakhah (even eiruv tavshilin) and suggests the following. It is also the Sifsei Chakhamim's and Bekhor Shor's take on the pasuq. The chumash says, "vayiqach chem'ah vechalav uven habaqar asher asah". There is no indication in the peshat that the veal was made in the butter and/or milk. And in fact, the milk is mentioned first. Leading to the opinion that Avraham even served them in a way that kept them from consuming dairy immediately after meat! The SC says he served them the milk so that they wouldn't have to wait while hungrily for the veal while it was shechted and cooked. The Radaq gives a different sesolution: Avraham prepared both so as to give them a choice of what to eat. : Reb Meir Simcha of Dvinsk explains in Meshech Chochmah, that no sin was : transgressed since it was BP flesh, which may be cooked with milk. Lo zakhisi lehavin haRav Meir Simcha haKohein, nor R' Kanievsky. Isn't that only mutar deRabbanan if it is killed before it can even stands up, so as to avoid mar'is ayin, like shechitah? And the gemara's example of the avos keeping kol haTorah kulah is Avraham keeping eiruv -- so that that aggadita means to include derabbanans. And even if we're saying that we're talking about BP without the taqanos, And if it is ben paqua and thus didn't need shechitah, why does the asame medrash make a point of Avraham shechting it? The tradition that Avraham Avinu authored seifer haYetzirah (for which I also have no source) includes the resolution that a calf made through ShY ("uven havaqar ASHER ASAH"), rather than invoking BP. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger A person lives with himself for seventy years, micha at aishdas.org and after it is all over, he still does not http://www.aishdas.org know himself. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From zev at sero.name Fri Nov 3 08:27:40 2017 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2017 11:27:40 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Avraham A Cooked, Angels Ate - Bassar BeChalav In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4ed7f10d-c1ee-c201-6de4-61e0564f59fd@sero.name> On 03/11/17 01:38, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: > feeding them goat flesh cooked with milk Since when? He fed them beef, together with cream (or butter) and milk, separately but simultaneously. > The angels? protests were silenced because they accepted that Avraham > Avinu was Jewish and therefore able to Shecht. Had they considered him > not Jewish, they would not have eaten because Shechita cannot be > performed by a non-Jew. Thus, the angels had already conceded that > Avraham Avinu had an inalienable connection to the Torah and therefore > was able to Shecht and create a Kosher BP. That being the case, they > could not question nor protest his chosen children?s rights to that > heritage. If so then why bring the milk into it at all? Simply by eating meat he'd shechted (or rather that his son Yishma`el had shechted) they had conceded all that (according to this explanation) was required. Why complicate the matter with questions of basar bechalav? Therefore it's clear that that was not the issue. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From micha at aishdas.org Fri Nov 3 05:44:11 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2017 08:44:11 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] TEXTUAL JUDAISM AND THE LIVING TORAH In-Reply-To: References: <9e51a7f4ea644e829db8503f8f0451fe@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20171103124411.GC23679@aishdas.org> On Thu, Nov 02, 2017 at 11:38:21PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : On 02/11/17 08:12, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: :>The Beit Yosef emphasizes that the custom of the entire world :>contradicts the Rosh's ruling. : Not the entire world. The Rosh himself reported that he was : gratified to discover, while travelling through Provence on his way : from Germany to Spain, that they did it the right way... Are you disagreeing with the BY (no citation so I can't check myself), with RJR's presentation of the BY? Or, are we ignoring the fact that the Rosh lived well before the BY and could have seen a Provincial minhag that had died by the mechaber's time. The BY could well be wrong. We have other examples of famous rishonim and acharonim who didn't know some minhag of other communities and thought regional norm was universal. I just want to understand which of the above we're discussing. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger We are what we repeatedly do. micha at aishdas.org Thus excellence is not an event, http://www.aishdas.org but a habit. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Aristotle From zev at sero.name Fri Nov 3 09:02:59 2017 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2017 12:02:59 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] TEXTUAL JUDAISM AND THE LIVING TORAH In-Reply-To: <20171103124411.GC23679@aishdas.org> References: <9e51a7f4ea644e829db8503f8f0451fe@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> <20171103124411.GC23679@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 03/11/17 08:44, Micha Berger wrote: > On Thu, Nov 02, 2017 at 11:38:21PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > : On 02/11/17 08:12, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: > :>The Beit Yosef emphasizes that the custom of the entire world > :>contradicts the Rosh's ruling. > > : Not the entire world. The Rosh himself reported that he was > : gratified to discover, while travelling through Provence on his way > : from Germany to Spain, that they did it the right way... > > Are you disagreeing with the BY (no citation so I can't check > myself), with RJR's presentation of the BY? Not disagreeing so much as pointing out that "the entire world" doesn't mean quite that. In fact the Tur on which the BY is commenting also quotes his father's report about the minhag in Provence. And the BY further quotes the Rosh that "uchvar nahagu gam kein biktzat mekomot" to start on the 7th. So later when he says "shelo nitkablu divrei haRosh, vechol ha`olam lo nahagu kein", I think this must be understood as a generalization, just as we do when we say "der velt" does this or that, and we clearly don't mean literally everyone. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From sholom at aishdas.org Fri Nov 3 11:32:44 2017 From: sholom at aishdas.org (Sholom Simon) Date: Fri, 03 Nov 2017 14:32:44 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] VAYERA ? WHO IS HKBH TALKING TO? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20171103183247.KRPQ6746.fed1rmfepo102.cox.net@fed1rmimpo109.cox.net> Rabbi Meir G. Rabi notes/asks: >Sara laughs [18:12] Gd is not happy > >[18:13] HKBH confronts Avraham, ?Why did Sara laugh off the blessing >that she have a child? Am I not able to arrange she give birth? I >assure you, I?ll be back and you?ll see she will have a child.? > >But why is HKBH asking this of Avraham? Does HKBH expect Avraham to >be able to explain? > >It seems this question is really an indictment of sorts. > >Is Avraham being blamed for Sara?s weakness? > >Why does Avraham confront [18:19] Sara? He does not doubt what HKBH >has told him? > >And when Sara denies it, why does Avraham rebuke her? Is it >Avraham?s responsibility to ensure she confesses? I just heard a shiur (YUTorah!) from RHS who addressed this. He also threw in the question: why is H" telling loshon harah to Avraham? RMF brings that In the Gemara (somewhere) it says that it's permissible to tell loshon harah to the subject's rebbe, so that the rebbe can give tochacha or musar to the subject, and RMF (or RHS) says that's what's happenning here (viewing Avraham as Sarah's rebbe, in a way). -- Sholom From akivagmiller at gmail.com Fri Nov 3 14:05:30 2017 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2017 17:05:30 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] chopsticks Message-ID: . R" Saul Guberman asked: > Is it permissible to break apart chopsticks on shabbat at the > meal to eat your sushi? Someone claimed it is makeh b'patish > and just use a fork or stab with the chopsticks still > together. Others thought that tzorech ochel nefesh might > allow them to be broken and used, as it is all disposable > anyway. Rabbi Doniel Neustadt raises a similar question at https://torah.org/torah-portion/weekly-halacha-5772-beshalach/ I would think that the situations are similar; even if they aren't identical, looking up the sources may help to find the answer about chopsticks. > Question: Leben or yogurt cups sometimes come attached to each > other and must be separated along a perforated line before > they can be eaten individually. Is that permitted to be done > on Shabbos? > > Discussion: Contemporary poskim debate whether or not it is > permitted to separate attached yogurt or leben cups from each > other. Some consider it a violation of Mechatech and Makeh > b?patish[21] while others hold it is permitted altogether[22]. > > 21. Rav Y.S. Elyashiv (Orchos Shabbos 12:12, Me?or ha-Shabbos, > vol. 2, pg. 551). > > 22. Rav S.Z. Auerbach (Orchos Shabbos 12:18. note 31, Shulchan > Shelomo 314:13-3). Akiva Miller From meirabi at mail.gmail.com Sat Nov 4 05:45:14 2017 From: meirabi at mail.gmail.com (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi) Date: Sat, 4 Nov 2017 23:45:14 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] Avraham A Cooked, Angels Ate - Bassar BeChalav Message-ID: 1] no one disputes that the Meshech Chochmah says what he says 2] there are many explanations to resolve the meat and milk issue, we are not disputing them, just explaining one of them 3] there is [surprisingly] no Issur of Maris Ayin preventing cooking some iterations of BP meat with milk - the proof is from this episode as presented by this Medrash and explained by the MChochma. 4] The decree that after the BP has stood up, Hifris AGKarka, it requires Shechitah [and presumably is also Assur to cook with milk] does not apply to a BP that is found as a non fully gestated, Lo KaLu Lo Chadashav. 5] Avraham did not Shecht it - on the contrary he directed Yishmael to prepare it - Furthermore, because it was a BP it did not require Shechita which is why he could direct Yishmael to kill it, and there was also no problem of Bassar SheNisAlem Min HaAyin. 6] Indeed, even had the angels eaten plain meat Shechted by AAvinu, there would have been adequate proof that they accepted his status of Kedushas Yisrael, it just so happened that AAvinu wanted to serve his visitors a delicacy, Beef Stroganoff. 7] I really do not know why I assumed it was a goat From zev at sero.name Sat Nov 4 16:10:52 2017 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Sat, 4 Nov 2017 19:10:52 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Avraham A Cooked, Angels Ate - Bassar BeChalav In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <0d614669-3c79-3c22-d137-b4b21530183f@sero.name> On 04/11/17 08:45, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi wrote: > 6] Indeed, even had the angels eaten plain meat Shechted by AAvinu, > there would have been adequate proof that they accepted his status of > Kedushas Yisrael, it just so happened that AAvinu wanted to serve his > visitors a delicacy, Beef Stroganoff. Except that Rashi explicitly says otherwise, that the delicacy he served was tongue in mustard, for which he needed *three* animals. There is no hint of any cooking in milk. The Meshech Chochma needs a mokor for this. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From meirabi at mail.gmail.com Sat Nov 4 05:56:05 2017 From: meirabi at mail.gmail.com (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi) Date: Sat, 4 Nov 2017 23:56:05 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] VAYERA ? WHO IS HKBH TALKING TO? Message-ID: Furthermore, HKBH is transgressing Lashon Hara by disclosing to Avraham that Sara laughed. It is pretty clear that Sara's indiscretion was disclosed to Avraham because it was necessary for AAvinu to know, as we see, he rebuked Sara for laughing. Avraham was responsible for this shortcoming of Sara - this properly explains all these Qs HKBH expected Avraham to respond as he did. The question is really an indictment of sorts. Avraham is blamed for Sara's indiscretion? Therefore, Avraham confronts [18:19] Sara. And when Sara denies it, Avraham rebukes her. It is Avraham's responsibility to ensure she confesses. Best, Meir G. Rabi From meirabi at mail.gmail.com Mon Nov 6 12:30:23 2017 From: meirabi at mail.gmail.com (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi) Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2017 07:30:23 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] HKBH Rebukes Avraham for Sara's Shortcomings In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: continuing from prev post - > Sara laughs [18:12] Gd is not happy > [18:13] HKBH confronts Avraham, ... Preserving harmony [Yevamos 65b, in this case between Araham and Sara] compels HKBH to lie to Avraham [HKBH reported that Sara said, "I am too old to have children", when in fact she said, "my master is old"] and yet HKBH, rather than remaining silent to preserve peace, reports Sara's indiscretion to Avraham. Furthermore, aside from being likely to cause strife between Avraham and Sara, this report is a horribly demeaning Lashon Hara. Scoffing at HKBH's ability to grant her a child, in spite of it being uttered by what might easily have been described as a foolish visitor, is a blight upon Sara which HKBH held against her. And she understood the correctness of the criticism and felt shamed, as we see that she [apparently] instinctively and immediately denied it [18:15] It seems clear that HKBH reported this to Avraham, rather than directly or indirectly to Sara, not only to correct Sara but also to rebuke Avraham. HKBH was criticising Avraham for Sara's shortcoming. From micha at aishdas.org Mon Nov 6 17:55:31 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2017 20:55:31 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Questioning Authority In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20171107015531.GC12418@aishdas.org> On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 09:41:32AM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : I have always felt that it is (or ought to be) possible and permissible to : *question* authority without challenging or rejecting authority... I would have said "to ask questions", as to me "to question" something is indeed to challenge. But that's just an English or perhaps English dialect issue. What's nice is that we don't have this issue in halachic jargon: there is a clear difference between 1- a she'eilah, asking for information, ibua'ei lehu / miba'ei on the oe hand, and 2- a qushya ("qasha"), tiyuvta, meisivei, where we challenge the given statement. .... : But frequently, the truth is that the parent has very good reasons for what : he says. It's just that he's unable to put those reasons into clear words. : He can't even explain it to himself in simple terms, because it is simply a : gut feeling that he has, based on experience and intuition, he sees that : this is the action or inaction which must be followed in this particular : situation. As far as I can tell, this is what RYBS calls "mesorah", and the same notion of "mesorah" RHS invokves when arguing against ordaining women or women leading inessential portions of davening? (As opposed to those who think of "mesorah" as referring to mimeticism.) : I think this is analogous to Torah leaders and Torah followers. When the : leaders tell the followers what to do, or what to avoid, it is entirely : reasonable for the followers to request explanations from the leaders. This : is especially so, if the explanation will help them comply with the : directive, or teach them how to apply the directive to other situations. : But these requests must be made respectfully, carefully, and only up to a : certain point. We ask a poseiq a she'eilah, not a qushya. And -- as noted by the Maharal in the Beer haGolah RMRabi and I beat to death -- we should be expecting to understand rather than blindly follow. The limit you speak of comes for the fact that a feel for how the halakhah ought to be inherently can't be articulated. To repply R/Dr Moshe Koppel's metaphor for halakhah, as much as halakhah runs like a legal system, it also works like a language. People who only know English as a second language could know rules of conjugation, but it takes serious immersion in the language to know what kinds of poetic license works and what violates the limits of acceptible English. We native speakers know what "sounds right". But if an immigrant were to ask why "the red big ball" sounds weird but "the big red ball" sounds normal, how many of us could explain it? And if we did come up with an explanation, isn't it a post-facto construct rather than the more by-feel way the determination was really made? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger For those with faith there are no questions. micha at aishdas.org For those who lack faith there are no answers. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yaakov of Radzimin Fax: (270) 514-1507 From micha at aishdas.org Mon Nov 6 18:30:37 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2017 21:30:37 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] eitz hachaim In-Reply-To: <61f0b606-b859-4475-eef8-a10489e74f1c@starways.net> References: <61f0b606-b859-4475-eef8-a10489e74f1c@starways.net> Message-ID: <20171107023037.GE12418@aishdas.org> On Sun, Oct 15, 2017 at 05:41:04PM -0400, hankman via Avodah wrote: : What exactly was the eitz hachaim all about. The simple pshat doesn't : make any sense. ... Kodem hacheit he was not : a bar misah so he had no need of it, after the cheit he was prevented : from accessing it! So when would it ever be useful to Adam? On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 10:51:28AM +0300, Lisa Liel via Avodah wrote: : I don't understand the question. He was prevented from accessing it : *because* of the cheit. Had he not sinned, you say he would have had : no need for it, but who is to say that its only function was to make : him live forever..... Note how the Torah is also called "eitz chaim (hi lamachaziqim bahh)." So I think Lisa's notion that the eitz chaim likely had another function is quite probable. Likely its primary function was to provide the da'as that would lead to arichas yamim. Like the Torah does -- even if its arichas yamim appears not to be in olam hazeh. There is also the idea that there was only one tree in the iddle of the garden, an eitz hachaim upon which grew a branch bearing the peri eitz hada'as tov vara. Or maybe that the eitz vhaim was the rooots from which the eitz hadaas grew. I don't know -- I only heard about it second-hand (multiple times) by people quoting "sifrei qabbalah" (as though that counts as a citation). Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger If you won't be better tomorrow micha at aishdas.org than you were today, http://www.aishdas.org then what need do you have for tomorrow? Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rebbe Nachman of Breslov From micha at aishdas.org Mon Nov 6 18:04:55 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2017 21:04:55 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] A Great Name In-Reply-To: <20171025204831.CKZV22111.fed1rmfepo202.cox.net@fed1rmimpo210.cox.net> References: <20171025204831.CKZV22111.fed1rmfepo202.cox.net@fed1rmimpo210.cox.net> Message-ID: <20171107020455.GD12418@aishdas.org> On Wed, Oct 25, 2017 at 04:48:29PM -0400, Sholom Simon via Avodah wrote: : One of the implicit criticisms of Migdal Bavel was that they wanted : to make a name for themselves. Then, at the beginning of Lech L'cha, : H' tells Avram that he will make his name great. : There must be something there... anybody have any thoughts? First question... If all of humanity was participating (minus two epople -- Avraham and Ashur), who exactly were they trying to build up their reputation for? Whereas after the Haflagah, man was split into numerous communities, the notion of being known broadly makes sense. And if you want to spread your teachings, such fame is useful. Yes, I think the contrast is meaningful -- the people who got caught up in ego to the point of irrationality wanted fame for its own sake. After all, it had no logical value in their context. Whereas Afraham was granted fame as part of Hashem aiding his success, and fame is positive. It's not a question, it's the point. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Between stimulus & response, there is a space. micha at aishdas.org In that space is our power to choose our http://www.aishdas.org response. In our response lies our growth Fax: (270) 514-1507 and our freedom. - Victor Frankl, (MSfM) From cantorwolberg at cox.net Mon Nov 6 23:30:51 2017 From: cantorwolberg at cox.net (Richard Wolberg) Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2017 02:30:51 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Gilgul Hanefesh Message-ID: I have heard many conflicting opinions about our belief in reincarnation. I hope and pray it is not true. ?One life is enough!? Is there a definitive Jewish belief? I have even heard some believe in ?Transmigration of the Soul? which is even more scary. As an impressionable kid, I once had a rabbi tell me that if you don?t wash netilat yadayim prior to eating, you will come back as a dog. The following is an excerpt by an article in the Aish.com Newsletter by Sara Yoheved Rigler. there are hints to reincarnation in the Bible and early commentaries (1), while in Kabbalah, Judaism?s mystical tradition, overt references to reincarnation abound. The Zohar, the basic text of Jewish mysticism (attributed to Rabbi Shimon Bar Yochai, a 1st century sage) assumes gilgul neshamot [the recycling of souls] as a given, and the Ari, the greatest of all Kabbalists, whose 16th teachings are recorded in, Shaar HaGilgulim, traced the reincarnations of many Biblical figures. While some authorities, such as Saadia Gaon (10th century) denied reincarnation as a Jewish concept, from the 17th century onward, leading rabbis of normative Judaism, such as the Gaon of Vilna and the Chafetz Chaim (2), referred to gilgul neshamot as a fact. (1)? See Deut. 33:6, and Targum Onkeles and Targum Yonosson on that verse. Also see Isaiah 22:14. (2)? Mishnah Berurah 23:5 and Shaar HaTzion 622:6 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From lisa at starways.net Tue Nov 7 02:43:04 2017 From: lisa at starways.net (Lisa Liel) Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2017 12:43:04 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Gilgul Hanefesh In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3ad8c297-8019-3aa5-de3b-800ffe91d6c9@starways.net> On 11/7/2017 9:30 AM, Richard Wolberg via Avodah wrote: ... > Is there a definitive Jewish belief? > I have even heard some believe in "Transmigration of the Soul" which > is even more scary. As an impressionable kid, I once had a rabbi tell me > that if you don't wash netilat yadayim prior to eating, you will come > back as a dog. As I understand it, gilgul neshamot is not the same as the eastern idea of reincarnation, where one person's soul literally incarnates again in another body and lives another life. Rather, on a spiritual level, the soul of one person can "match" the soul of someone who lived previously. Either by harmony or dissonance, to use a musical metaphor. In Seder HaDorot, it talks incessantly about how some person or other was the gilgul, or tikkun, of a previous person. But it sometimes has multiple people as the gilgul or tikkun of a previous person, which makes more sense given the "match" concept. Kabbalistically, at least according to R' Aryeh Kaplan, the spiritual dimension is one of similarities and differences. Two things that are more similar are "closer" and two things that are less similar are "further apart". So if your soul is very similar to that of someone who lived before, you could have such a "match". You might even dream memories that the previous soul experienced. That doesn't make you that person. And since the state of a person's soul changes throughout their life, their "match" to someone who lived previously can come and go as well. To give an example, Seder HaDorot says that Rabbi Akiva was the gilgul/tikkun of Zimri ben Salu. The 24K Bnei Shimon who died in the plague following Zimri's actions match the 24K talmidim of Rabbi Akiva, for example. But while Zimri took Kosbi b'issur, Rabbi Akiva married the wife of Tyrannus Rufus b'heter, after she converted. Hence restoring a balance that Zimri had violated. I don't buy the "reincarnated as a dog" or "as a fish" stuff. Those who do, I suppose they have on whom to rely, but you don't have to buy into it yourself. (NB: While Googling to see if there was a website that talked about this, I found this article from Aish, which was very interesting. It included Shechem and Dina in the equation as well. http://www.aish.com/tp/i/moha/97291469.html) Lisa From micha at aishdas.org Tue Nov 7 13:54:20 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2017 16:54:20 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] 17 Marcheshvan Message-ID: <20171107215420.GA15523@aishdas.org> Yesterday, the 17th Marcheshvan, was the anniversary of two events: 1- The rain of the mabul began; and 2- 2 Nov 1917, the day the British Foreign Secretary, Lord Alfred Balfour, sent the famous letter to Baron Lionel Walter Rothchild. Anyone want to connect the dots between the two? Two things I did notice: - Both were first steps, far from the final yeshu'ah. - Both were first followed by major destruction before anything positive could be seen from them. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger I have great faith in optimism as a philosophy, micha at aishdas.org if only because it offers us the opportunity of http://www.aishdas.org self-fulfilling prophecy. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Arthur C. Clarke From micha at aishdas.org Tue Nov 7 14:54:02 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2017 17:54:02 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Torah precheit? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20171107225402.GA26849@aishdas.org> On Thu, Oct 19, 2017 at 05:47:09AM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : R' Chaim Manaster asked: :> I have been trying to understand what the geshtalt of Torah :> was precheit of the eitz hadaas... ... :> The many consequences seem to be as follows: there would be :> no avdus in Mitzrayim, therefore no...... : One can ask similar questions about other turning-points in history. : What if Kayin had not killed Hevel? What if the world has not gone to : Avodah Zara a few generations later? What if Yishmael and/or Esav had : not gone of the derech? What if Moshe Rabenu had acted differently by : the rock? To get really confused... The Torah, like it's Author, is lemaaleh min hazman. What aspect of the Torah we mean by that aside for a moment, that means it wasn't written before the eitz hadaas, Kayin killing Hevel, Dor Enosh, galus Mitzrayim, etc... Torah doesn't enter the timeline until it is revealed at Har Sinai. Which means that there is no question about Hashem's "foreknowledge" and bechirah chafshi about anything written in the Torah that happens before Matan Torah. We can't talk about Hashem Knowing what we *will* decide until that Knowledge enters the timeline. There is no "before" or after to His knowing, only to when He informs others of it. So, for events that precede Har Sinai, the Torah can contain those decisions. There is no "what if" because Hashem Knows that that what wouldn't. No more a problem than if the Torah were written /after/ those events. Hey, I warned you I was opening the door to confusion. Then there is the question of the supernal Torah vs the form we got. As per the Ramban about the Torah without the letters separated into the words we have now. (Tangent: If one were to take that shitas haRamban at face value, there is meaning to the pesuqim with the words redivided. So, why isn't that one of the Middos shehaTorah Nidreshes Bahen?) : And there are yet others. Torah manifests itself differently to a : kohen than to a levi, and differently to a woman than to a man. And so : on... And on Sun, Oct 22, 2017 at 04:15:49PM -0400, RCM replied: : R. Akiva Miller wrote: ""If there is life on other planets, might they : possibly have a Torah? But Mitzrayim doesn't exist there, and Moshe : never lived there!" That question bothered me for a very long time," : Strangely enough, I had similar thoughts years back. As a young bachur : in yeshivo, my rebbi was teaching us that their was a period during : which the progenitor of kelal Yisroel would happen. I asked what would : have happened if there had been another deep thinker who came to the : same realization and belief that Avraham did. He answered that there : would have been two (or more) chosen peoples to eventually be mekabel : Torah. It didn't occur to me at the time to ask, would they each have the : "same" Torah or each get a tailored version to their (eventual) am? Or, : would there be one Torah that talks of both of the chosen peoples? Is there on some planet far away, an intelligent alien species with their Am haNivchar? How would the Torah be manifest to them? And if they didn't have a Migdal Bavel like event, did Hashem do that whole Mamlekhes Kohanim model, with castes within the alien Am haNivchar, or castes with everyone "nivchar"? Would they have a Holy Land? If we made contact with these creatures, would we recognize their perception of the Torah as another expression of Yahadus, or would it be too alien? I know this example seems less serious than yours; I meant it as a test case on which to check these ideas that doesn't have to involve "what if" histories that Hashem timelessly knows didn't / aren't / won't happen. : Years : later when discussing what is the purpose to us of the trillions of stars : and galaxies so distant that they could never possibly affect us here : on Earth? Then it occurred to me, what if those stars had planets with : intelligent beings on them and they too went through a similar period : wherein they too had some allien being come to the same conclusions as : Avraham did and they then became the chosen people of that planet and : received a Torah possibly tailored to their experiences and appropriate : there etc.? ... Or maybe they do affect our lives here on earth. Omphalists believe that the universe was created at some point in the nearer past, eg 5778 years ago -- or Last Thursday -- and everything before that is fake. And this is the position of the LR and R' Avigdor Miller. (Although Last Thursdayism is a mock-religion posed by atheists trying to ridicule their position.) The usual challenge by those who like to be more rationalist is that this would imply Hashem is out to fool us, creating light en route from stars to make it look like they shown billions of years ago, tragectories that if you work backward converge from a Big Bang, geological and archological records, fossils, cave paintings, remains of pre-Adamic farming... But there is a more thoughtful response: Perhaps the only way we can have teva today is if the universe we have now looks like it always ran by teva. Otherwise, the effects of nissim would still be causing anomolies we could pick up today. So much for hesteir Panim. In which case, we need a universe that is so big that our place is in looks like some unnoticable backwater. We need a universe that looks like it had a Big Bang and Inflation area in order for us to live with the set of laws of nature we have. And then their existence does impact us. : Moshe when he went lamorom to accept Torah. They too wanted Torah in a : version suitable to them which would deflect all of Moshe's responses. If : memory serves, I think some meforshim try to make sense of the malachim : in such a manner. Unlike RAM's or my hypothetical aliens, mal'akhim have no free will. Without having that much Tzelem E-lokim, would they qualify for revelation? I think the problem with the mal'akhim that the medrashic Moshe highlights in his response to their claim on the Torah is that they do Retzon haBorei automatically, they lack the challenges one would need the Torah to address. Without challenges, they cannot grow into more than they are; there is no need for a Torah to help show them how. Jumping back to RAM's post: :> As there would never be an Eretz Yisroel, then there would not :> be all the mitzvot hateltuot ba'aretz -- trumos, masros etc., etc. : : Or perhaps Gan Eden would have had that status. Eretz Yisrael is : actually a great example: Consider the idea that true nevuah can exist : only in Eretz Yisrael... Tangent: Yechezqeil? Yonah's qiqayon was outside Nineveh. Etc... : .... Rather, my point goes to : this "Torah with 613 mitzvot" that you refer to. It doesn't exist : today, and I don't know if it ever has existed. There has certainly : never been a person to whom they all applied, and I wonder whether : there was ever a generation when they were all in force. There is also the idea of mitzvos that were never expected to be applied. Like the gemara suggests about ben soreir umoreh and ir hanidachas. Perhaps they exist because history could have played out differently and these mitzvos would have had an applicability beyond derosh veqabel sekhar. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger None of us will leave this place alive. micha at aishdas.org All that is left to us is http://www.aishdas.org to be as human as possible while we are here. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Anonymous MD, while a Nazi prisoner From akivagmiller at gmail.com Wed Nov 8 04:57:26 2017 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2017 07:57:26 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Torah precheit? Message-ID: . R' Micha Berger asked: > Is there on some planet far away, an intelligent alien > species with their Am haNivchar? How would the Torah be > manifest to them? And if they didn't have a Migdal Bavel > like event, did Hashem do that whole Mamlekhes Kohanim > model, with castes within the alien Am haNivchar, or > castes with everyone "nivchar"? Would they have a > Holy Land? > > If we made contact with these creatures, would we > recognize their perception of the Torah as another > expression of Yahadus, or would it be too alien? My focus is on the word "too" in the phrase "too alien". I feel that while such beings would indeed be extremely alien to us, the degree of alien-ness is absolutely irrelevant to the question at hand: Any mashehu of alien-ness (I suspect) puts them outside the pale. In our modern way of thinking, in which "Eretz" means not only this planet but the entire physical universe, and in which "Shamayim" does NOT include planets and stars but only the metaphysical universe, - Why would martians have a different status than any other foreigners? I can easily see a discussion of whether the martians count as people or as animals, but that is a separate issue. The issue here is that if they claimed to have some sort of Revelation from the One True G-d, then would we accept it as being another facet of the Shiv'im Panim LaTorah? And my answer is: What would we say if a group of earthly *humans* claimed to have some sort of Revelation from the One True G-d? Would we accept *that* as being another facet of the Shiv'im Panim LaTorah? My guess is that our response would be: That's very nice, and you are a sincere group of righeous Bnei Noach... and then we'd pretty much ignore them. Not out of malice, but because their message is not directed towards us. Here's a litmus test for whether or not I am close to correct: If I'm not mistaken, when a person claims to be a Navi, there are specific tests for whether or not he is believed, and if he passes those tests, and he has a message from Hashem for us, then we are obligated to follow that message. Is Jewishness among those criteria? If Ovadia had not converted, would his nevua be any less true or any less obligatory? > If we made contact with these creatures, would we > recognize their perception of the Torah as another > expression of Yahadus, or would it be too alien? I suppose one answer might be: The word "Yahadus" is too restrictive. Try replacing it with "Ratzon Hashem". Akiva Miller From zev at sero.name Wed Nov 8 08:12:06 2017 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2017 11:12:06 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Torah precheit? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 08/11/17 07:57, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > I can easily see a discussion of whether the martians count as people > or as animals, but that is a separate issue. The issue here is that if > they claimed to have some sort of Revelation from the One True G-d, > then would we accept it as being another facet of the Shiv'im Panim > LaTorah? And my answer is: What would we say if a group of earthly > *humans* claimed to have some sort of Revelation from the One True > G-d? Would we accept*that* as being another facet of the Shiv'im > Panim LaTorah? > > My guess is that our response would be: That's very nice, and you are > a sincere group of righeous Bnei Noach... and then we'd pretty much > ignore them. Not out of malice, but because their message is not > directed towards us. > If all they claimed was to have once had a navi, whose nevuah didn't contradict our Torah in any way, then perhaps we might accept it as valid. But if they were to claim to have had their own matan torah I think we would have to reject it. It's fundamental to our faith that matan torah was an event that could only happen once. It's also fundamental that Hashem chose avraham from *all* humanity, and us from *all* the nations, so if someone else -- on this planet or any other -- were to make such a claim we could not accept it. as for how Hashem could leave them without a Torah to guide them, how are they different from any remote people who had no contact with anyone who had even heard of the Torah until the 19th or 20th century? If the New Guinea Highlanders (some of whom have *still* never had any contact with the world outside their valleys) could wait until now to hear about the Torah, why can't the Tau Cetians, or whoever, wait until the 25th or 30th century? (assuming the 6000 years thing to be some sort of metaphor, of course, or there won't be a 30th century.) -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From zvilampel at gmail.com Wed Nov 8 08:53:24 2017 From: zvilampel at gmail.com (H Lampel) Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2017 11:53:24 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Torah precheit? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 11/7/2017 6:05 PM, MIcha Berger wrote: > ... that the universe was created at some point in the nearer > past, eg 5778 years ago -- or Last Thursday -- and everything before that is > fake. ...is the position of ... R' Avigdor Miller. He certainly is not of the opinion of last-Thursday-ism. (I suspect RMB did not really mean that.) His opinion is based on the mesora. Re: ''and everything before that is fake. ...is the position of ... R' Avigdor Miller'' To clarify, R' Avigdor Miller's position is not that fossils, for example, were planted merely as a test of our emunah. > Why should the [dinosaurs] need explanation any more than the dodo, the passenger pigeon, or any of the other species which > have become extinct, some even in our time? The huge > animals of ancient times, as well as many small animals, > became extinct each in the due time decreed by the timetable > of Heaven. ... Their existence is a fact which does > not help th theory of Evolution in any manner. (Rejoice O Youth, pp. 47-48) However, that Adam was created as a 30-year-old (as Chazal say), with, for example, a full mouth of teeth? Yes. Because: > ''Creation means that the Universe began at once in full-blown development. > The First Man immediately had trees whose fruit he could eat. > But fruit trees must beforehand be pollinated by bees, and bees need beehives with all their > paraphernalia. So you understand that Creation implies that > everything came into existence without benefit of time." > > "Trees have in their trunks a number of concentric rings, > each ring denoting a year of existence. If the First Man had > sawed off a tree, would he have found rings inside?" > > "Since he had trees, they were what we know a tree > to be." > > ...thousand-year redwood trees...?" > > "Creation included everything. Just as the First Man > had mature fruit trees at the first moment, so also the world > possessed mature lumber trees which were created at the > same time." > > "[So]... all animals and insects and bacteria were created, > including those which need rotting old logs and crumbling old > rocks for their habitat or sustenance. Thus, it is self? > explanatory that the world possessed 'aged' materials from the > very outset, including vegetation and animal carcasses with low > carbon-14 content and rocks with heavy lead content.'' > > (Ibid. pp 45-46) Zvi Lampel PS--Again, this is to clarify Rav Miller's position, and hopefully will not evolve (;)) into a discussion of it. Been there, done that, and no time. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Wed Nov 8 13:59:13 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2017 16:59:13 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Torah precheit? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20171108215913.GB3342@aishdas.org> On Wed, Nov 08, 2017 at 07:57:26AM -0500, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: :> If we made contact with these creatures, would we :> recognize their perception of the Torah as another :> expression of Yahadus, or would it be too alien? : My focus is on the word "too" in the phrase "too alien". I feel that : while such beings would indeed be extremely alien to us, the degree of : alien-ness is absolutely irrelevant to the question at hand: Any : mashehu of alien-ness (I suspect) puts them outside the pale. Actually, when I said "too alien" I was thinking not of ways their book of Retzon haBorei different from our Torah but ways in which their existence is so different from ours that we can't event compare. It's one thing to discuss what hilkhos geirus might look like if they had a hahaflagah but they already live in a liquid. It's another to discuss what halakhah as a whole would look like if they didn't experience time as a linear past-present-future the way we do. This discussion also reminds me of my Issacharism thought experiment. Positing that sheivet Yissachar survived, and had its own development of halakhah since the fall of Malkhus Yisrael. Its own Sanhedrin, no Anshei Keneses haGdfolah, etc... The same beris Sinai, but an entirely different development of 3,000 of application of kelalei pesaq, different gezeiros and taqanos... And to make it harder, let's say their population of shomerei Torah uMizvos has been roughly the same as ours all these years. So there are no grounds for saying one set of Sanhedrins is more authorivative than the other. : In our modern way of thinking, in which "Eretz" means not only this : planet but the entire physical universe, and in which "Shamayim" does : NOT include planets and stars but only the metaphysical universe, - : Why would martians have a different status than any other foreigners? Because it's possible that if Vulcans existed, HQBH would have provided them with /their/ mamlekhes kohanim. Yes, I can't guess what HQBH would do -- He could equally have wanted their spiritual development to wait until *we* get there. Like some aboriginal people on this planet, who never heard of us or even Ibrahimic religions relatively recently. Possibly relevant is the Rambam's shitah that chasidei umos ha'olam are only those who keep the 7 mitzvos because they were given at Sinai. Perhaps this gives more reason for a Vulcan am hanivchar. If anyone who does the right thing because it's logically the right thing accomplished their goal in life, then perhaps not every kind of being with bekhirah needs access to a revelation. : The issue here is that if : they claimed to have some sort of Revelation from the One True G-d, : then would we accept it as being another facet of the Shiv'im Panim : LaTorah? And my answer is: What would we say if a group of earthly : *humans* claimed to have some sort of Revelation from the One True : G-d? Would we accept *that* as being another facet of the Shiv'im : Panim LaTorah? We are a segulah mikol ha'amim, beni bekhori Yisrael. We know we recieved a unique revelation. The discussion is whether it's unique for all of humanity, or full-stop unique universally. : My guess is that our response would be: That's very nice, and you are : a sincere group of righeous Bnei Noach... and then we'd pretty much : ignore them... I agree with the "ignore" part, though. Accept for the academics and their journals. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Despair is the worst of ailments. No worries micha at aishdas.org are justified except: "Why am I so worried?" http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yisrael Salanter Fax: (270) 514-1507 From seinfeld at daasbooks.com Wed Nov 8 18:00:29 2017 From: seinfeld at daasbooks.com (Alexander Seinfeld) Date: Wed, 08 Nov 2017 21:00:29 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Torah precheit? Message-ID: > > > >But there is a more thoughtful response: Perhaps the only way we can >have teva today is if the universe we have now looks like it always >ran by teva. Otherwise, the effects of nissim would still be causing >anomolies we could pick up today. So much for hesteir Panim. > >In which case, we need a universe that is so big that our place is in >looks like some unnoticable backwater. We need a universe that looks >like it had a Big Bang and Inflation area in order for us to live with >the set of laws of nature we have. > >And then their existence does impact us. Just want to point out, or remind, that there are two independent questions here that often become conflated. 1. Can a rational person believe in ?young Earth? (i.e., >6,000 years old)? 2. Why would God create a universe making it look like it is far older than it really is? The basis of answering yes to #1 has nothing to do with #2. I do not need to know why in order to examine the evidence for #1 and conclude that He did probably make the world 5,778 years ago. The fact that I cannot answer #2 should not be entered as evidence against #1. This is the m?haleich of R? Dovid Gottlieb. The fallacy of the skeptics is to mock #1 based on #2, when in fact it is irrelevant. My own personal belief is merely that the vastness of space and time give us the opportunity with our puny minds to have an analogy for God?s infiniteness. From afolger at aishdas.org Mon Nov 13 04:05:02 2017 From: afolger at aishdas.org (Arie Folger) Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2017 13:05:02 +0100 Subject: [Avodah] Torah precheit Message-ID: RAM and RMB have been arguing about whether aliens somewhere out there could have received a Revelation akin to ours and whether theirs would be one of shiv'im panim la-Torah. My USD0.02c: I believe that it is not unimportant that according to present theories of physics, we are constrained by how far we could ever travel. Even if we were to remain happy with slower than light travel, travelling at the phenomenal speeds necessary to get anywhere else in our own galaxy where aliens might live, i.e. in another star system with planets in the habitable zone, would use up phenomenal amounts of energy. Furthermore, the distances are so vast, that we would need enormous (what's the trendy word variant, ginormous?) amounts of time, and we still hardly would get anywhere. Bottom line, there very well may exist intelligent aliens out there, but we are near 100% sure that we will never ever be able to meet them. Which leads me to the following observation: If there are aliens out there which we will one day meet, then we could not accept their *competing* Revelation. There is only one 'am hanivchar. We would indeed need to see them as a special kind of Noachides with a possible true revelation that is, however, subordinate to ours and can never contradict it. If, however, we consider aliens whom we will never ever be able to meet, I see no reason why they couldn't have their own Revelation, with their own Torah, which, while it surely will agree in all iqarim, may nonetheless, through a variety of mechanisms suggested by mefarshim throughout the ages (including but not limited to the Ramban's Torah without spaces, and the expansion thereof by later mequbalim that the Heavenly Torah has 23 letters, of which we only see 22), be quite different from ours. I do wonder though, can there be an alien civilization we will one day encounter in person, which has exactly the same Torah as we do. It would seem extremely improbable for them to have had an Avraham, Yitzchak & Yaakov, Shevatim & galut Mitzrayim, but hey, if this is predetermined in part, then why not? The question will then be, are they and us the same people (in the assumption that it is even physically possible to intermarry)? I consider this whole possibility even less likely than the one about meeting any aliens anywhere, so this is just an thought experiment. Kol tuv, -- Arie Folger -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From akivagmiller at gmail.com Mon Nov 13 17:45:22 2017 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2017 20:45:22 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Gifts on Shabbos Message-ID: . I am trying to get a more precise understanding of when it is assur/mutar to give someone a gift on Shabbos. Orach Chayim 306 is about all sorts of business activities. Gifts are a subset of this topic, and Mishne Berura 306:33 writes, "It is also assur to give a gift to one's friend, because it is similar to buying and selling, because it leaves his ownership [reshus]. But a gift is mutar when it is L'tzorech Shabbos V'Yom Tov - as written in 323:7 - and likewise for L'tzorech Mitzvah... And it also wrote that according to that, the practice of giving keilim as a gift to a Chasan is improper..." When I turn to Shulchan Aruch 323:7, Mechaber doesn't say anything about the general laws of giving gifts on Shabbos. He only gives one particular case: That if one forgot to tovel a keli before Shabbos, so it cannot be used on Shabbos, he is allowed to give it to a non-Jew as a gift, and then borrow it back for Shabbos use. Mishne Brura 323:34 explains: "Even though it is assur to give gifts on Shabbos as written in Siman 306, here it is allowed because of Tzorech Shabbos." The logic is somewhat circular, I think: 306 refers to 323, and 323 refers to 306. The only clear heter is an interesting one: On the one hand, it is for a NON-food item (though it is food-related); on the other hand, it seems to be a b'dieved solution for the person who either forgot to tovel it before Shabbos, or somehow acquired it from a non-Jew on Shabbos. I don't see any clear heter to deliberately give a food gift on Shabbos, and I also don't see any clear prohibition that non-foods are excluded from being "L'tzorech Shabbos". Mishne Berurah 306:33 says that it is wrong to give "keilim" as gifts to a chasan. Rabbi Dovid Ribiat ("The 39 Melochos", page 961) includes "presenting a Bar Mitzvah boy with a Sefer" in this category. These examples suggest two rules to me: (1) If the gift will not be used until after Shabbos (quite likely for the bar mitzvah boy's sefer, though I have no idea which "kelim" the chasan would receive), then it is not "letzorech Shabbos". (2) The chasan (or bar mitzvah boy) presumably gets hanaah from receiving the gift, but that amount of Oneg Shabbos is not significant enough to count as "letzorech Shabbos". I offer two specific examples for discussion: (1) Many shuls offer printed material, such as parsha sheets, weekly shul bulletins, and even newspapers and magazines. Or someone might attend a shiur, where the teacher distributes printed handouts of the source material. Can I take these home to read or learn from on Shabbos afternoon? Wouldn't this be a Tzorech Shabbos? (2) Suppose someone is invited to a friend for a Shabbos meal, and he brings a challah or wine as a gift for the host. The host was not expecting it and has other food that he was planning to use. Is this enough of a tzorech Shabbos to transfer ownership? If this host accepts the gift, is he required to serve the food? In other words, if "tzorech Shabbos" is indeed a carte blanche for food gifts, does the food have to actually be eaten? Akiva Miller Postscript: It seems to me that this issur of giving gifts applies only on Shabbos, and *not* on Yom Tov. Consider: You can send a living behema to your friend on YT, even through a Reshus Harabim, even if you know that the friend won't shecht it, and the heter is contingent only on the fact that the friend COULD shecht it. (MB 516:1) You can even send a pair of tefillin to your friend even though it is not needed at all for Yom Tov; the only requirements are that the tefillin are ready-for-use, and that friend gets hanaa from receiving the gift (MB 516:11-12) That whole siman seems to deal with issues of hotzaah and muktzeh, and doesn't even mention kinyanim (at least, I didn't see any such mention). This is very puzzling: Why would there be a difference between giving gifts on Shabbos and on Yom Tov? If this could be answered, it might shed light on what "L'tzorech Shabbos" means. From micha at aishdas.org Tue Nov 14 08:39:28 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2017 11:39:28 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Gilgul Hanefesh In-Reply-To: <3ad8c297-8019-3aa5-de3b-800ffe91d6c9@starways.net> References: <3ad8c297-8019-3aa5-de3b-800ffe91d6c9@starways.net> Message-ID: <20171114163928.GD29616@aishdas.org> On Tue, Nov 07, 2017 at 12:43:04PM +0200, Lisa Liel via Avodah wrote: : As I understand it, gilgul neshamot is not the same as the eastern : idea of reincarnation, where one person's soul literally incarnates : again in another body and lives another life... RSGaon says in (Emunos veDei'os 6:8 tr R' Yosef el-Qafeh, "Kapach"; emphasis mine): Venineini omer ki anashim, mimi SHENIQRA'IM YEHUDIM, matzasim ma'aminim begilgul veqor'in oso haha'ataqus. I left that in Hebrew because I want to be medayeiq in lashon in a moment. To continue, with my translation from the Hebrew: The matter to their minds is that the ruach of Re'uvein will be in Shim'on, and after that in Leivi, and after that in Yehudah. And from them, or most of them figure that it could be that the ruach of a person will be in an animal, and the ruach of an anumal in a person. And a lot of such delusions and confusion. And then the rest of the chapter lists their errors. RYeQ footnotes that R' Uzziel concluded that the people who are "called Jews" who believe such things are the Qaraim. Anan (the founder) picked up this idea from the Greeks. I do not know the original Arabic, but in this translation, notice that it's possible to read RSG as being against people to take the idea of gilgul and call it "ha'ataqus" and describe it as souls migrating from person to person or even to animal, etc... But not against gilgul itself. Which would support Lisa's understanding. This read has two open questions to resolve, not that I am saying they're unanswerable: 1- RSG does use the same Arabic again at the end of the chapter (and ma'amar) that R "Kapach" translates to "gilgul" -- "And I say: what does this say that teaches about gilgul?..." Perhaps it should be read: How do they think those pesuqim indicate that gilgul means ha'ataqah -- they don't talk about gilgul altogether? 2- My bigger problem is that RSG would then be spending all this time on a heretical misunderstanding of gilgul, without even one sentence saying, "But what gilgul *really* means..."? It would even be an important point of the ma'amar's discussion of souls and afterlife. This omission I find highly unlikely. As to how they would differ. The kind of people who talk about gilgul also talk about Naran and sometimes even Naran Chai -- Nefesh Ruach Neshamah, which are the penimios aspects of the soul, and Chayah and Yechidah. For that matter, RSG discusses Naran in the very same ma'amar (6:3 ) as three kochos. To RSG, they are an indisible singularity that has three abilities. But in more Qabbalistic sources, they are described as parts even as the soul's unitary nature is also asserted. If ruach and nashamah are indeed parts, then there is a huge difference between 1- Gilgul nashamos: The neshamah -- and according to the Ari, even "sparks" of a neshamah rather than a whole one -- "revolves" from one life in one body to another. And 2- Ha'ataqa: where the ruach migrates. Neshamah is much less associated with the notion of "self" than ruach is. E.g. "Neshamah shanasati bi, tehorah hi." The "bi -- in me" receives a neshamah. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger It isn't what you have, or who you are, or where micha at aishdas.org you are, or what you are doing, that makes you http://www.aishdas.org happy or unhappy. It's what you think about. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Dale Carnegie From micha at aishdas.org Tue Nov 14 09:31:55 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2017 12:31:55 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Torah precheit? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20171114173155.GE29616@aishdas.org> On Wed, Nov 08, 2017 at 11:53:24AM -0500, H Lampel via Avodah wrote: : On 11/7/2017 6:05 PM, Micha Berger wrote: :> ... that the universe was created at some point in the nearer :> past, eg 5778 years ago -- or Last Thursday -- and everything before that is :> fake. ...is the position of ... R' Avigdor Miller. : He certainly is not of the opinion of last-Thursday-ism. (I suspect RMB did not really mean that.) His opinion is based on the mesora. I meant omphalism. Which is not based on the mesora, it's based on pashut peshat in a pasuq. A pasuq that we don't really have much mesorah saying actually hyas a pashut peshat, at least not one we can comprehend. : Re: "and everything before that is fake. ...is the position of ... R' : Avigdor Miller" : To clarify, R' Avigdor Miller's position is not that fossils, for example, : were planted merely as a test of our emunah. Which is why I didn't say that. Continuing with RZL's quote of RAM's Rejoice O Youth (pp. 47-48): :> Why should the [dinosaurs] need explanation any more than the :> dodo, the passenger pigeon, or any of the other species which :> have become extinct, some even in our time? The huge :> animals of ancient times, as well as many small animals, :> became extinct each in the due time decreed by the timetable :> of Heaven. ... Their existence is a fact which does :> not help th theory of Evolution in any manner. So he says it's simply incomprehensible. I also gave a different explanation than "test of our emunah" -- necessary for having a sensible and detectable teva. My point was to defend the viability of omphalism of both RAM's and the LR's sorts. Asking "Why would Hashem be so cruel as to create all that to mislead, at best to test" question presumes a strawman. : However, that Adam was created as a 30-year-old (as Chazal say), with, : for example, a full mouth of teeth? Yes. Because: :> "Creation means that the Universe began at once in full-blown development. :> The First Man immediately had trees whose fruit he could eat. .... :> (Ibid. pp 45-46) See Bereishis Rabba 14:7 ). According to R Yehudah bar Shimon says that "ofer olam" was created in his fullness. R' Elazar b Shimon says that Chava was too. R' Yochanan says they were creates as 20 (quibble: not 30) year olds. And then down in 14:10, R Yehudah says that Adam was made with a tail, but it was removed for the sake of his kavod. Evolution anywone? BUT: The month that Adam was born in is part of the greater machloqes between R' Yehoshua and R' Eliezer about Nissan vs Tishrei (RH 11a). Meaning, if the world was created in Tishrei, when "the earth brings forth plants and trees full of fruit", then yes, this medrash stands. But if the world was created in Nissan, when the plants start growing and the fruit is emerging from the tree (as the gemara puts it), then perhaps not. In any case, the meaning thereby ascribed to saying the world was made in Nissan is that the universe was created at its start. Regardless of Adam's development when born. So I would have said "one opinion in Chazal", not "as Chazal say". Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Friendship is like stone. A stone has no value, micha at aishdas.org but by rubbing one stone against another, http://www.aishdas.org sparks of fire emerge. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Mordechai of Lechovitz From micha at aishdas.org Tue Nov 14 10:38:37 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2017 13:38:37 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Gifts on Shabbos In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20171114183837.GF29616@aishdas.org> On Mon, Nov 13, 2017 at 08:45:22PM -0500, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : I am trying to get a more precise understanding of when it is : assur/mutar to give someone a gift on Shabbos. ... : The logic is somewhat circular, I think: 306 refers to 323, and 323 : refers to 306... The Mishnah Berurah has mutual references between 306:33 and 323:34. But I don't see the logic itself being circular. 306 spells out the theory, and 323 is an example of that theory and at each place he shows you the other half of the picture. Giving gifts is assur (derabbanan) on Shabbos, except when the purpose of the gift is letzorekh Shabbos, or another mitzvah. Thus, it includes giving a non-toveled keli to a non-Jew so that it can be borrowed back and used *for Shabbos*. But not a wedding gift, which (as per R' Ribiat's bar mitzvah boy) presumably isn't needed by the chasan on Shabbos. And apparently claiming simchas chasan being a mitzvah isn't sufficient to say the gift is letzorekh mitzvah. Which you note as well, although you phrase it in terms of hana'ah and oneg Shabbos, ie lezorekh Shabbos. Perhaps this is because there are other ways to provide simchah or oneg, so it's not "letzorekh". : (1) Many shuls offer printed material, such as parsha sheets, weekly : shul bulletins, and even newspapers and magazines. Or someone might : attend a shiur, where the teacher distributes printed handouts of the : source material. Can I take these home to read or learn from on : Shabbos afternoon? Wouldn't this be a Tzorech Shabbos? I would think so. Why any less than a gift of food? In both cases, the recipient already owns alternatives. So why would something to eat be more letzorekh Shabbos than something to learn? This is unlike the bar mitzvah boy recieving a sefer (acc to R' Ribiat), in that the purpose isn't learning on Shabbos. Implied: A guest who knows the host won't use the food (eg he recommends waiting until the wine is chilled) shouldn't be giving even usable food. Is this the halakhah? Also, I found that ROY (Yechaveh Da'as 3:21) DOES allow giving the bar mitzvah boy that seifer because it provides chizuq. And there is no greater letzorekh mitzvah than that! : (2) Suppose someone is invited to a friend for a Shabbos meal, and he : brings a challah or wine as a gift for the host. The host was not : expecting it and has other food that he was planning to use. Is this : enough of a tzorech Shabbos to transfer ownership? ... Or, in the SA's case... can you give the non-toveled keli to a nakhri when you have just as good or nearly as good alternatives? That you already had thoughts of using? I took it for granted yes, since if not, the SA is oddly missing an important half of the story. Which is why above I only asked about a case where the guest gives something in a way that rules out its use, rather than just left to the host's choice. When I am the guest in this situation, I am zokheh lo shelo befanav and transfer ownership on Friday. Came in handy a couple of times when the host refused the gift. "Well, if you don't want it, you can regift it. Because it's yours already and you aren't allowed to give it back" right now, at least. : Postscript: It seems to me that this issur of giving gifts applies : only on Shabbos, and *not* on Yom Tov... Then why "letzorekh Shabbos or YT"? When do you have something that is letzorekh YT in particular when it's also Shabbos? : (MB 516:1) You can : even send a pair of tefillin to your friend even though it is not : needed at all for Yom Tov; the only requirements are that the tefillin : are ready-for-use, and that friend gets hanaa from receiving the gift : (MB 516:11-12) And the bar mitzvah boy doesn't get the same kind of hana'ah (speaking quality, not quantity) from his uncle's gift of a set of Rambam? Now I'm confused again. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "The worst thing that can happen to a micha at aishdas.org person is to remain asleep and untamed." http://www.aishdas.org - Rabbi Simcha Zissel Ziv, Alter of Kelm Fax: (270) 514-1507 From micha at aishdas.org Tue Nov 14 10:48:32 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2017 13:48:32 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Torah precheit In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20171114184832.GI29616@aishdas.org> On Mon, Nov 13, 2017 at 01:05:02PM +0100, Arie Folger via Avodah wrote: : Bottom line, there very well may exist intelligent aliens out there, but we : are near 100% sure that we will never ever be able to meet them. Nice chiluq! : Which leads me to the following observation: If there are aliens out there : which we will one day meet, then we could not accept their *competing* : Revelation. There is only one 'am hanivchar... Who said that "nivchar mibein ha'amim" means anything beyond benei Adam, amim as caused by Migdal Bavel? Perhaps their revelation isn't so much competing as the RBSO providing them a chance at redemption before Yom Hashem haGadol vehanora, or at least before whenever it is we get there? : them as a special kind of Noachides with a possible true revelation that : is, however, subordinate to ours and can never contradict it. This is itself the question I was trying to keep under discussion. Could we even recognize a contradiction? After all, the appearance of Retzon haBorei to creatures very different than us isn't likely to have many points where we can contradict. Assuming they are ethical monotheists, that is. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger It's never too late micha at aishdas.org to become the person http://www.aishdas.org you might have been. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - George Eliot From meirabi at gmail.com Thu Nov 16 16:11:31 2017 From: meirabi at gmail.com (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi) Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2017 11:11:31 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] How Much Salt for Kashering? Message-ID: Kosher meat must have all traces of blood removed. This procedure is known as 'Kashering' and requires very precise procedures and timing of rinsing, soaking, salting and finally removal of the salt and blood via rinsing and washing. Halachah provides no precise measure of salt to be used for Kashering and although insisting that all surfaces must be covered with salt, does not differentiate between small and large surface area to volume ratios, i.e. thick or thin pieces of meat. In other words a large circular hunk of meat [small ratio of surface area to volume] requires the identical amount of surface salt and time for Kashering as does a thin piece [large ratio of surface area to volume] Furthermore, a 20cm thick piece of meat will be Kashered when salted on both sides, meaning the salt will extract blood from a depth of 10 cm, but a 4cm thick piece of meat salted only on one side will not be Kosher. It seems like the process has been standardised to accommodate all cases. Nevertheless, although Halachah permits various shortcuts when Kashering for emergency situations, it does not advise Kashering thin slices to reduce preparation time. Meat that was cooked before it was Kashered will make everything in the pot it is cooked with non-Kosher. Halacha asserts there is as much blood in the piece of meat as the mass of meat. If however, there is enough Kosher food in the pot to render the blood insignificant, the food will be Kosher. Halachah requires 60 units of Kosher food to neutralise every unit of blood [1 gram of blood requires 60 grams of Kosher food] In other words, a 100 gram piece of meat will require 6kg to neutralise the blood. However, meat that was cooked after Kashering but before the blood and salt was washed off, requires only 60 times the salt and blood on the surface of the meat i.e. soaked into the salt. The blood that was in the meat has been removed by the salting. Some authorities [a note in the ShaArei Dura] assert that every piece of meat is itself large enough to neutralise the salt whilst others [the Rama 69:9] assert it provides only half the mass required. ????? ??"? - ??? ????? ???? ??? ????? ?????? ?????? ???? ??? ???? ???? ???? ??? ??? ??? ???? ?? ??? ?? ?? ???? ????? ??? ??? ????? ?? ??? ?? ??? ????? ????? ???? ??? ????? ??? ??? ?? ???? ???? ?? ??? ???? The Rama however disagrees with the ratio - "there can be no question that if the pot contains as much as the mass of the meat, it is certainly more than 60 times the salt ...." See Shach that BeDiAvad, we may rely upon the lenient opinion particularly if it is a thick piece. ????? ???? ??????????? ?''? ?????? ?????????? ??????????? ????? ??????, ?????? ??????, ?????????? ?????? ????????? ????? ???????? ?????? ?????????? ????????????? ???????? ?????????? ???? ?????????? ????? ???????? ?????????, (????????? ?????? ?''? ?''? To the best of my knowledge, this is the only source that provides an empiric measurement of how much salt is to be used for Kashering. Keep in mind that since this is a general ruling it must encompass all cases, the guidelines must reflect the maximum amount of salt that would be applied and that would remain until the meat is ready for its final washdown. In the words of the Rama, "there can be no question that if the pot contains as much as the mass of the meat, it is certainly more than 60 times the salt ...." The Halacha must provide the maximum safety margin and must therefore assume that the maximum amount of salt was applied and remains on the meat when it is added to the pot. Further, the Halacha must accommodate the largest surface area to meat ratio [ChAdam 32:4] and the heaviest salting hand. In other words, every possible variant that increases the amount of salt used is turned up to the max - and in this worst possible case scenario, we can be certain that the salt is no more than one thirtieth of the mass of the meat. In other words, an average sized steak, 300 - 400 gms, requires no more than 2 teaspoonfuls of salt for Kashering. Another thing that is certain - all Kosher agencies apply far more salt for Kashering than one thirtieth. Does it make a difference? Well, these days, the cost of disposing of contaminants is rising dramatically and salt is deemed a nasty contaminant and is becoming more expensive to dispose. It already adds a significant cost to production. Best, Meir G. Rabi 0423 207 837 +61 423 207 837 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From meirabi at gmail.com Sat Nov 18 13:25:21 2017 From: meirabi at gmail.com (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi) Date: Sun, 19 Nov 2017 08:25:21 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] Sedra Toldos - Balance, When Parents Favour One Child Message-ID: Our actions are pretty much prompted by Life's circumstances, we are mostly provoked to react. We do [many/most] things to counter a perceived imbalance, an injustice. Perhaps, with this in mind, we can better understand Yitzchak, Rivkah and Eisav as they are portrayed in this week's Sedra. Isaac favoured Eisav, because he was "Tzayid BeFiv", Rivkah favoured YaAkov [25:28] We are told why Yitzchak favours Eisav but not why Rivkah favours YaAkov. Yitzchak favours Eisav because Eisav is a "Tzayid BeFiv" lit. hunted with his mouth. Rashi explains this as either [or both] - he deceived his father like a hunter lying in ambush or stalking prey and catching it at a vulnerable moment, i.e. feeding Yitchak fake news to present himself as exceedingly Gd fearing; or, he fed Yitzchak tasty food, "Make me the tasty food I enjoy ... so that I might bless you before I die." [27:4] But Eisav was not a better cook than Rivkah - "she made him a delicious dish just as he liked" [27:14] [unless she had him on a healthy food diet and Eisav was Yitzchak's secret steak supplier] Eisav loved his father and he loved hunting [25:27]. He desperately sought his father's approval. He pursued this as he best knew, by hunting and even by lying. We might even say that he felt as though he was hunting for his father's love. Yitzchak understood, he encouraged Eisav to hunt and cook for him. He even reminded Eisav to take his hunting weapons when he instructs him to hunt and prepare food before he blesses him - Yitzchak wants Eisav to be engaged in the hunting and preparation of the food, because it is this engagement that is their link and best encapsulates his approval of his son Eisav. In other words, "It's not the food I want, for that I could ask your mother or you could grab an animal from our flock - it would be much quicker. No, I want you to be of service to me. Knowing that you have hunted to provide for me makes me happy and I enjoy the food more." Eisav knew that his mother was capable of and willing to provide her husband with all the tasty food he could stomach. He got the message that it was not food that Yitzchak wanted. Yitzchak was reaching out to Eisav, knowing how desperately Eisav sought his approval. Eisav learned how to cook in order to express his love. He even deceived Yitchak, painting himself as the Gd fearing son in order to win his father's approval. Best, Meir G. Rabi 0423 207 837 +61 423 207 837 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From akivagmiller at gmail.com Sat Nov 18 19:23:18 2017 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Sat, 18 Nov 2017 22:23:18 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] T'hay Message-ID: There is a word spelled tav-heh-aleph, pronounced "t'hay". Is this word Hebrew or Aramaic? >From context and sound, I have always presumed that it means something very similar to "yihyeh". Is that correct? If they are indeed similar in meaning, then I imgine that they is still some slight shade of difference. If they meant the exact same thing, wouldn't authors use the more common word (yihyeh) instead? This would be the case even if t'hay is Hebrew, and it would certainly be true if t'hay is Aramaic. The reason I'm asking these questions is because I have found a surprising number of paragraphs in my siddur, where all the words are obviously Hebrew, except for this one word. Including a foreign word in a text is not unheard of (there's a Latin word in Nachem, for example), but this is generally done because there is no native word with the precise meaning that the author is aiming for. And I can't imagine why "yihyeh" doesn't work in these cases: Hamapil: "us'hay mitasi shleima l'fanecha" Birkas Hamazon, near the end: "zechus shet'hay l'mishmeres shalom" Birkas Hamazon on Shabbos: "shelo t'hay tzara" Birkas Hachodesh: "chayim shet'hay banu ahavas torah" Avinu Malkenu: "t'hay hashaah hazos" Yizkor: "bis'char zeh t'hay nafsho" Yom Kippur Musaf, the Kohen Gadol's tefila: "shet'hay hashana hazos" Kel Malay Rachamim: "b'gan eden t'hay menuchaso" (I have omitted parts of the siddur that are taken from the Mishna (such as Bameh Madlikin and Pitum Haketores) because it is the nature of the Mishna to mix Hebrew and Aramaic, so use of the word "t'hay" isn't a glaring exception the way it is in the rest of the siddur. Also, I note that my examples were all taken from Nusach Ashkenaz; other nuschaos may have more or fewer instances of this word.) Thank you, Akiva Miller From simon.montagu at gmail.com Mon Nov 20 00:38:38 2017 From: simon.montagu at gmail.com (Simon Montagu) Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2017 10:38:38 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] T'hay In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sun, Nov 19, 2017 at 5:23 AM, Akiva Miller via Avodah < avodah at lists.aishdas.org> wrote: > There is a word spelled tav-heh-aleph, pronounced "t'hay". Is this > word Hebrew or Aramaic? > Hebrew. I believe the Aramaic equivalent would be tehevi. > > From context and sound, I have always presumed that it means something > very similar to "yihyeh". Is that correct? > > If they are indeed similar in meaning, then I imgine that they is > still some slight shade of difference. If they meant the exact same > thing, wouldn't authors use the more common word (yihyeh) instead? > This would be the case even if t'hay is Hebrew, and it would certainly > be true if t'hay is Aramaic. > > The reason I'm asking these questions is because I have found a > surprising number of paragraphs in my siddur, where all the words are > obviously Hebrew, except for this one word. Including a foreign word > in a text is not unheard of (there's a Latin word in Nachem, for > example), but this is generally done because there is no native word > with the precise meaning that the author is aiming for. And I can't > imagine why "yihyeh" doesn't work in these cases: (At any rate it would be "tihyeh" in the cases you quote, which are all in the feminine) In my siddur (Singer's) all the examples you give are "tehi" with a yud, which is Biblical Hebrew, as in "Tehi ala benotenu" in last week's parasha (Bereshit 26:28). The difference between yihyeh/yehi and tihyeh/tehi is that the first is future and the second is jussive (though the future can be used in a jussive sense). I assume the form with alef is Rabbinic Hebrew. How it comes to be used in the siddur, or in which nushaot exactly, I don't know. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jay at m5.chicago.il.us Mon Nov 20 05:12:52 2017 From: jay at m5.chicago.il.us (Jay F. Shachter) Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2017 13:12:52 +0000 (WET) Subject: [Avodah] How Much Salt for Kashering? In-Reply-To: from "avodah-request@lists.aishdas.org" at Nov 16, 2017 06:40:58 pm Message-ID: <15112051720.1Acb3A518.50843@lsd.chicago.il.us.chicago.il.us> > > Kosher meat must have all traces of blood removed. > No, it does not. This is true only if you are going to cook the meat before eating it. Jay F. ("Yaakov") Shachter 6424 N Whipple St Chicago IL 60645-4111 (1-773)7613784 landline (1-410)9964737 GoogleVoice jay at m5.chicago.il.us http://m5.chicago.il.us "Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur" From lisa at starways.net Mon Nov 20 04:02:11 2017 From: lisa at starways.net (Lisa Liel) Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2017 14:02:11 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] T'hay In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <91877a4d-0aeb-1a75-d7b1-78f399a2746e@starways.net> I'm not sure.? We have "yehei ra'ava kadamach" in Brich Shmei d'Marei Alma, which is definitely Aramaic.? The yehei is the same as tehei. I think what's happening here is that there's a certain amount of bleed-over between Hebrew and Aramaic.? In addition, there were different dialects of Aramaic in Eretz Yisrael and Bavel.? So while tehevei may be the correct Aramaic, tehei may be as well. Lisa On 11/20/2017 10:38 AM, Simon Montagu via Avodah wrote: > On Sun, Nov 19, 2017 at 5:23 AM, Akiva Miller via Avodah > > wrote: > > There is a word spelled tav-heh-aleph, pronounced "t'hay". Is this > word Hebrew or Aramaic? > > > Hebrew. I believe the Aramaic equivalent would be tehevi. > From micha at aishdas.org Mon Nov 20 10:24:50 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2017 13:24:50 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Sedra Toldos - Balance, When Parents Favour One Child In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20171120182450.GA24872@aishdas.org> On Sun, Nov 19, 2017 at 08:25:21AM +1100, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: : But Eisav was not a better cook than Rivkah - "she made him a delicious : dish just as he liked" [27:14] [unless she had him on a healthy food diet : and Eisav was Yitzchak's secret steak supplier] Or the hunter was usually the one who prepared the game, whereas Rivqa tended to be cooking the animals they farmed. ... : Yitzchak understood, he encouraged Eisav to hunt and cook for him. He even : reminded Eisav to take his hunting weapons when he instructs him to hunt : and prepare food before he blesses him - Yitzchak wants Eisav to be engaged : in the hunting and preparation of the food, because it is this engagement : that is their link and best encapsulates his approval of his son Eisav... Perhaps this is the whole point of the Torah's not saying why Rivqa preferred Yaaqov. Yitzchaq's additional love of Esav was teluyah bedavar, and that fact impacted Eisav's choices. Rivqa love Yaaqov, full stop, not for some reason. There is also an idea I heard from RYBS and often utilized in Gush circles that had things turned out more positively, Eisav would have been the physical arm of the same project as Yaaqv's Torah. Eisav's children would have supported and protected Yaaqov's. According to the Qedushas Levi's version of this idea, Yitzchaq knew Eisav had failings, but felt that the person who was supposed to go out into the real world was bound to be the tzadiq who "falls 7 times and arises" (to quote Shelomo haMelekh). What Yaaqov missed was the nevu'ah "ushnei le'umim mimei'ayikh yipareidu". He thought that the ideal plan, Esav and Yaaqov together without such pirud, was still how history was going to play out. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Spirituality is like a bird: if you tighten micha at aishdas.org your grip on it, it chokes; slacken your grip, http://www.aishdas.org and it flies away. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From micha at aishdas.org Mon Nov 20 11:11:25 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2017 14:11:25 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Hutrah and Dechuyah in Yibum Message-ID: <20171120191124.GB24872@aishdas.org> The topic of EhE 165 is whether yibum or chalitzah is the preferred choice. The Rambam and Rif side with yibum (in cases when yibum is in the almanah's best interest), as per the mishnah rishonah and possibly repeated by the chakhamim in the gemara (Yevamos 39b). Whereas R' Tam, R' Chananel & the Smag hold like Abba Shaul, that since it's too likely the yavam has other things than reestablishing his brother's bayis in mind, chalitzah is the better choice, bizman hazeh. The AhS has an interesting take. First, in se'if 5, he rules out the issue being mitzvos tzerikhos kavanah. If AS gave preference to chalitzah because yibum requires kavanah, then it would be the Rambam and the Rif -- the rishonim who more often hold mitzvos tzerichos kavanah -- who would be siding with him. The AhS (se'if 6) proposes that the machloqes is huterah vs dechuyah. If yibum is a matir for eishes ach, there is no problem doing the mitzvah of yibum even if the yavam's interest is in his new wife solely for her own qualities. However, if it is only docheh eishes ach, then any other kavanah for performing yibum is desire for a sin, and thus should be avoided by choosing chalitzah. And that this is the norm today. I noticed that happens to parallel who holds piquach nefesh is matir melekhes Shabbos vs who holds it is docheh it. There too Sepharadi rishonim don't feel a need to minimize melakhah (huterah), whereas the Ashk rishonim try to (because it's only dechuyah). Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger I thank God for my handicaps, for, through them, micha at aishdas.org I have found myself, my work, and my God. http://www.aishdas.org - Helen Keller Fax: (270) 514-1507 From meirabi at gmail.com Mon Nov 20 14:35:03 2017 From: meirabi at gmail.com (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi) Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2017 09:35:03 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] Sedra Toldos - Balance, When Parents Favour One Child In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I prefer not to be so speculative about the motivations, Eisav had failings, but Yitzchak felt that the person who was supposed to go out into the real world, But what I proposed does not exclude that possibility. Although, giving the blessings to someone with known failings seems unlikely. Depends I suppose on how extensive those failings are or how well they were known to Yitzchak. Or it might just be that he was the Bechor, HKBH's choice. Should Yitzchak challenge HKBH? I wrote - Yitzchak understood, he encouraged Eisav to hunt and cook for him. He even reminded Eisav .... Eisav loved his father and he loved hunting [25:27]. He desperately sought his father's approval. He pursued this as he best knew, by hunting and even by lying. We might even say that he felt as though he was hunting for his father's love. Yitzchak understood, he encouraged Eisav to hunt and cook for him. He even reminded Eisav to take his hunting weapons when he instructs him to hunt and prepare food before he blesses him - Yitzchak wants Eisav to be engaged in the hunting and preparation of the food, because it is this engagement that is their link and best encapsulates his approval of his son Eisav. In other words, "It's not the food I want, for that I could ask your mother or you could grab an animal from our flock - it would be much quicker. No, I want you to be of service to me. Knowing that you have hunted to provide for me makes me happy and I enjoy the food more." Eisav knew that his mother was capable of and willing to provide her husband with all the tasty food he could stomach. He got the message that it was not food that Yitzchak wanted. Yitzchak was reaching out to Eisav, knowing how desperately Eisav sought his approval. Eisav learned how to cook in order to express his love. He even deceived Yitchak, painting himself as the Gd fearing son in order to win his father's approval. Best, M -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Mon Nov 20 14:10:27 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2017 17:10:27 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] How Much Salt for Kashering? In-Reply-To: <15112051720.1Acb3A518.50843@lsd.chicago.il.us.chicago.il.us> References: <15112051720.1Acb3A518.50843@lsd.chicago.il.us.chicago.il.us> Message-ID: <20171120221027.GD24830@aishdas.org> On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 01:12:52PM +0000, Jay F. Shachter via Avodah wrote: :> Kosher meat must have all traces of blood removed. Dam here means blood in the circulatory system. Not blood within tissue. Problem with translations; there often isn't a 1:1. Particularly in cases of terms of art, like "dam" in this context. : No, it does not. This is true only if you are going to cook the meat : before eating it. SA YD 27:2 does say you don't need salting. (See limitations in 3-4.) But... this is because all the dam can be removed by removing the veins, and simple rinsing. So, in the same sense that cooked meat needs melichah to remove all traces of dam, so too does raw "[k]osher meat must have all traces of [dam] removed." Seems Tir'u baTov! -Micha From micha at aishdas.org Mon Nov 20 13:37:22 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2017 16:37:22 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Fwd [Aspaqlaria]: Post-Modern Orthodoxy Message-ID: <20171120213722.GB24830@aishdas.org> My most recent blog post, in which I argue that Post-Modern Orthodoxy is a contradiction of terms. -micha Post-Modern Orthodoxy micha - Published Mon, Nov 20, 2017 Modern Orthodoxy is based on an integration of Orthodoxy with life in the modern world. However, with R' JB Soloveitchik's passing, the movement was left without a luminary who analyzes and discusses matters of worldview. Consequently, Modern Orthodoxy's thought is that of the mid 20th century, when Neo-Kantian and Existential answers addressed the kinds of religious questions people on the street were confronting. And so, the argument is today, that there is a need for someone to articulate a Post-Modern Orthodoxy. This is why there was much discussion in some Modern Orthodox circles with the publication of a selection of R' Shimon Gershon Rosenburg -- "Rav Shagar"`s -- essays in English. "Faith Shattered and Restored: Judaism in the Postmodern Age", edited by Rabbi Dr. Zohar Maor, was published by Maggid Books this past June. Dr. Alan Brill, on his blog, carried numerous translations of R' Shagar since, as well as analysis of his thought. In particular, see this post of notes that Dr Brill compiled while teaching R' Shagar's thought, "Rav Shagar: To be connected to Eyn -- Living in a Postmodern World". Times of Israel had an interview with R/Dr Maor, "Israel's paradoxical man of faith, deconstructed". And recently, R Gil Perl, an alumnus of Yeshivat Har Etzion ("Gush") who became a student of Rav Shagar, wrote an essay about why R' Shagar's thought spoke to him in a way that the teachings of R' Aharon Lichtenstein of Gush couldn't in the long run. See "Postmodern Orthodoxy: Giving Voice to a New Generation". To give you an idea of R Shagar's thought, he likens Deconstructionism to Sheviras haKeilim -- the Qabbalistic idea that Creation involved the breaking of vessels, and the post-modern's inability to consider an idea to be objectively true. He builds a case for the condition of having difficulty with belief and therefore believing in nothing and turns it into a Ism of believing in Nothing. Identifying that lower-case-n nothing with the Ayin, the capital-N Nothingness from which G-d made Yeish, something (indeed, everything). Me, I think it doesn't work. Post-Modernism is a confusion of the subjectivity of my justification for knowing something with the subjectivity of the known. Meaning, I can know objective truths for entirely personal and subjective reasons. I can be convinced of halakhah because of my personal experience of the beauty of Shabbos. Not from my liking Shabbos; from that about the Shabbos experience I find beautiful, likable, meaningful, and True. I know that hilkhos Shabbos as we have them today really did objectively speaking come from the Creator by way of my personal experience of Shabbos. Objective truth, subjective justification. In contrast, in Post-Modern thought, since I have no guarantee of objectively proving anything to anyone else, the notion of objective truth is entirely denied. There isn't "the truth" as much a "his truth" or "her truth", narratives people and societies construct for themselves. And this touches everything on the college campus from religious beliefs to defending the Palestinian because we have our narrative and they have theirs. (There is room for every narrative but those that exclude other narratives.) In the real world outside those ivory towers, though, you won't find too many people with Post-Modern notions of science, declaring (eg) that math or physics are merely social constructs. But certainly outside the realm of the scientifically provable Post-Modern thinking has become part of the zeitgeist. My problem with "Postmodern Orthodoxy" is that Post-Modernism (as I just described it) is inherently incompatible with the notion of a lower-case-o orthodoxy, including our case, capital-O Orthodox Judaism. I often said on Facebook that one reason why more are going OTD in this generation than in mine is that Post-Modernism has become part of the common culture. It is impossible to maintain any orthodoxy, including O, if one believes that there are no objective truths, or even that there is nothing one could ever assert as objectively true. There is a profound difference between believing there is an absolute truth that I personally do not fully know or understand -- which R' Gil Perl presented as R' Lichtenstein's position, and believing that all truths are human conditioned. Between a personal nothing and an ideal of Nothingness. And yet, R Shagar says just that. To repeat a quote of Rav Shagar used in R Perl's article, "All truths may be the product of human conditioning, but such conditioning constitutes the medium through which the divine manifests in the world." Rav Shagar's position strikes me as internally inconsistent. For example, to This presupposes that there is a Divine which is manifest in the world, and any claim that says otherwise would defy that Truth. So, there is at least that one central Truth that is necessarily true, regardless of human conditioning. The entire notion of considering any of the Articles of Faith human conditioned, true only from our perspective, enters the heretical. Another example, R Shagar's Post-Modern Orthodox Jew will speak of revelation "though he knows there are varying and conflicting revelations, the contradictions do not paralyze him." If one does not believe the revelation via Moshe and the revelation of the Torah are unique, are they not koferim baTorah according to the Rambam? How many rabbanim would allow you to use the wine of someone who believes that the only reason to embrace the Torah's message is because it's "the faith of our fathers" (as R' Shagar describes it) and not different in kind than the message of the New Testament or the Qur'an? There are two ways we can speak of the ideal human: we can describe life on the mountain peak, the person who has perfect generosity, perfect patience, perfect faith, a perfect relationship with G-d and other people, etc... But we know that actualize perfection is unachievable for anyone bug G-d. So, the true ideal human is one constantly working toward having those perfect relationships, trying their best, constantly growing. But they are two different things -- the ideal in the sense of the goal to strive for, and the ideal of being a striver. We need to learn to separate these notions. Ayin is part of the ideology. A crisis of faith, those times of nothingness, is part of the reach to internalize that ideology. The ideal life for most of us will be struggling with the ideology; but once one makes that struggle part of the ideology itself, I fear one crossed the line. From afolger at aishdas.org Tue Nov 21 01:28:58 2017 From: afolger at aishdas.org (Arie Folger) Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2017 10:28:58 +0100 Subject: [Avodah] Torah precheit Message-ID: A little postscript to my statement, that regarding aliens we might one day meet, that we cold not accept any competing revelation, only one that is of a kind of Noachide revelation, subordinate to ours, well... Let me admit that in stating that, I was displaying a human bias: I unreasonably assumed that aliens would be a kind of otherworldly humans. However, insofar as they are radically different species (which would be likely), then I see no problem of them having their own revelation and their own 'am hanivchar, *as* *long* *as* *their* *revelation* *doesn't* *contradict* *ours*, i.e. we could not accept a revelation that claims that 'avoda zara is muttar, that murder is muttar or that assumes the existence of several deities. -- Arie Folger -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hmaryles at yahoo.com Tue Nov 21 07:30:45 2017 From: hmaryles at yahoo.com (Harry Maryles) Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2017 15:30:45 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Avodah] Fwd [Aspaqlaria]: Post-Modern Orthodoxy In-Reply-To: <20171120213722.GB24830@aishdas.org> References: <20171120213722.GB24830@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <570709339.403139.1511278245922@mail.yahoo.com> I read Gil Perl's article and I don't understand why the idea of? RAL's not knowing or being able to know but nonetheless believing doesn't speak to him. I find all the talk about there being no objective truth to be irrelevant. Truth goes beyond provable fact. It even goes beyond the contradictions to belief by newly discovered scientific truths which by definition are subject to change with new discoveries. In the Lonely Man of Faith, RYBS explains that there are no cognitive categories in which the total commitment of the man of faith could be spelled out. The commitment is rooted not in one dimension, such as the rational one, but in the whole personality of the man of faith. The whole human being; the rational as well as the non-rational is committed to God. Hence the magnitude of commitment is beyond the comprehension of the logos and the ethos. The intellect does not chart the course of the man of faith. It is a function not only of the logic of the mind. It is also a function of the logic of the heart. An apriori awareness that becomes an axiom - a conclusion that cannot rely on solely rational considerations.? HM Want Emes and Emunah in your life? Try this: http://haemtza.blogspot.com/ On Monday, November 20, 2017, 7:25:20 PM CST, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: My most recent blog post, in which I argue that Post-Modern Orthodoxy is a contradiction of terms. -micha Post-Modern Orthodoxy micha - Published Mon, Nov 20, 2017 Modern Orthodoxy is based on an integration of Orthodoxy with life in the modern world. However, with R' JB Soloveitchik's passing, the movement was left without a luminary who analyzes and discusses matters of worldview. Consequently, Modern Orthodoxy's thought is that of the mid 20th century, when Neo-Kantian and Existential answers addressed the kinds of religious questions people on the street were confronting. And so, the argument is today, that there is a need for someone to articulate a Post-Modern Orthodoxy. This is why there was much discussion in some Modern Orthodox circles with the publication of a selection of R' Shimon Gershon Rosenburg -- "Rav Shagar"`s -- essays in English. "Faith Shattered and Restored: Judaism in the Postmodern Age", edited by Rabbi Dr. Zohar Maor, was published by Maggid Books this past June. Dr. Alan Brill, on his blog, carried numerous translations of R' Shagar since, as well as analysis of his thought. In particular, see this post of notes that Dr Brill compiled while teaching R' Shagar's thought, "Rav Shagar: To be connected to Eyn -- Living in a Postmodern World". Times of Israel had an interview with R/Dr Maor, "Israel's paradoxical man of faith, deconstructed". And recently, R Gil Perl, an alumnus of Yeshivat Har Etzion ("Gush") who became a student of Rav Shagar, wrote an essay about why R' Shagar's thought spoke to him in a way that the teachings of R' Aharon Lichtenstein of Gush couldn't in the long run. See "Postmodern Orthodoxy: Giving Voice to a New Generation". To give you an idea of R Shagar's thought, he likens Deconstructionism to Sheviras haKeilim -- the Qabbalistic idea that Creation involved the breaking of vessels, and the post-modern's inability to consider an idea to be objectively true. He builds a case for the condition of having difficulty with belief and therefore believing in nothing and turns it into a Ism of believing in Nothing. Identifying that lower-case-n nothing with the Ayin, the capital-N Nothingness from which G-d made Yeish, something (indeed, everything). Me, I think it doesn't work. Post-Modernism is a confusion of the subjectivity of my justification for knowing something with the subjectivity of the known. Meaning, I can know objective truths for entirely personal and subjective reasons. I can be convinced of halakhah because of my personal experience of the beauty of Shabbos. Not from my liking Shabbos; from that about the Shabbos experience I find beautiful, likable, meaningful, and True. I know that hilkhos Shabbos as we have them today really did objectively speaking come from the Creator by way of my personal experience of Shabbos. Objective truth, subjective justification. In contrast, in Post-Modern thought, since I have no guarantee of objectively proving anything to anyone else, the notion of objective truth is entirely denied. There isn't "the truth" as much a "his truth" or "her truth", narratives people and societies construct for themselves. And this touches everything on the college campus from religious beliefs to defending the Palestinian because we have our narrative and they have theirs. (There is room for every narrative but those that exclude other narratives.) In the real world outside those ivory towers, though, you won't find too many people with Post-Modern notions of science, declaring (eg) that math or physics are merely social constructs. But certainly outside the realm of the scientifically provable Post-Modern thinking has become part of the zeitgeist. My problem with "Postmodern Orthodoxy" is that Post-Modernism (as I just described it) is inherently incompatible with the notion of a lower-case-o orthodoxy, including our case, capital-O Orthodox Judaism. I often said on Facebook that one reason why more are going OTD in this generation than in mine is that Post-Modernism has become part of the common culture. It is impossible to maintain any orthodoxy, including O, if one believes that there are no objective truths, or even that there is nothing one could ever assert as objectively true. There is a profound difference between believing there is an absolute truth that I personally do not fully know or understand -- which R' Gil Perl presented as R' Lichtenstein's position, and believing that all truths are human conditioned. Between a personal nothing and an ideal of Nothingness. And yet, R Shagar says just that. To repeat a quote of Rav Shagar used in R Perl's article, "All truths may be the product of human conditioning, but such conditioning constitutes the medium through which the divine manifests in the world." Rav Shagar's position strikes me as internally inconsistent. For example, to This presupposes that there is a Divine which is manifest in the world, and any claim that says otherwise would defy that Truth. So, there is at least that one central Truth that is necessarily true, regardless of human conditioning. The entire notion of considering any of the Articles of Faith human conditioned, true only from our perspective, enters the heretical. Another example, R Shagar's Post-Modern Orthodox Jew will speak of revelation "though he knows there are varying and conflicting revelations, the contradictions do not paralyze him." If one does not believe the revelation via Moshe and the revelation of the Torah are unique, are they not koferim baTorah according to the Rambam? How many rabbanim would allow you to use the wine of someone who believes that the only reason to embrace the Torah's message is because it's "the faith of our fathers" (as R' Shagar describes it) and not different in kind than the message of the New Testament or the Qur'an? There are two ways we can speak of the ideal human: we can describe life on the mountain peak, the person who has perfect generosity, perfect patience, perfect faith, a perfect relationship with G-d and other people, etc... But we know that actualize perfection is unachievable for anyone bug G-d. So, the true ideal human is one constantly working toward having those perfect relationships, trying their best, constantly growing. But they are two different things -- the ideal in the sense of the goal to strive for, and the ideal of being a striver. We need to learn to separate these notions. Ayin is part of the ideology. A crisis of faith, those times of nothingness, is part of the reach to internalize that ideology. The ideal life for most of us will be struggling with the ideology; but once one makes that struggle part of the ideology itself, I fear one crossed the line. _______________________________________________ Avodah mailing list Avodah at lists.aishdas.org http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Tue Nov 21 06:25:15 2017 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2017 14:25:15 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Notes on RSRH's Philosopy of Judaism Message-ID: <1511274314342.40161@stevens.edu> Please see the pdf file at http://www.halakhah.com/rst/hirsch.pdf YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Tue Nov 21 05:54:15 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2017 08:54:15 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] T'hay In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20171121135414.GB15991@aishdas.org> On Sat, Nov 18, 2017 at 10:23:18PM -0500, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : There is a word spelled tav-heh-aleph, pronounced "t'hay". Is this : word Hebrew or Aramaic? Sidenote, just to complicate things. Assuming that when someone with the last name "Miller" speaks of what he finds "in my siddur" is looking in an Ashkenazi one... RSM found in manuscripts that earlier Ashkenazi siddurim honed much closer to leshon Chazal than we do. The example I usually cite is "vesein chleqeinu beSorasakh, sab'einu mituvakh..." as Sepharadim have it. Your siddur probably consistently has "Sha'atah", not "she'atah". This is a "correction" to the form that appears in seifer Sofetim. One holdover is "Modim anachnu Lakh", instead of "Lekha"... but then followed by "Sha'atah". It appears to be largely the work of one person, R' Shelomo Zalman Hanau (Katz), author of the Binyan Shalomo. He then compiles a siddur, Shaarei Tefillah. R' Yaaqov Emden's Lueach Eresh is a rebuttal of the Razah's grammatical theories, and kedarko beqodesh, he doesn't pull punches. For example, the Binyan Shelomo was printed with a hasqamah from R' Tzvi Ashkenazi; RYE wrote that his father's hasqamah was forged. The Alter Rebbe, in composing Nusach haAri, was heavily influenced by the Razah's theory of diqduq. And slowly other Ashkenazim switched from leshon Chazal to leshon Tanakh. Even RZBaer and the Yekkes. So, with a siddur that is partially in one version of Hebrew and partially in another, who knows how any word settled on one set of diqduq rules or the other. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "I hear, then I forget; I see, then I remember; micha at aishdas.org I do, then I understand." - Confucius http://www.aishdas.org "Hearing doesn't compare to seeing." - Mechilta Fax: (270) 514-1507 "We will do and we will listen." - Israelites From meirabi at gmail.com Tue Nov 21 15:38:02 2017 From: meirabi at gmail.com (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi) Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2017 10:38:02 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] Kosher meat must have all traces of blood removed Message-ID: I am happy to amend to Before cooking, Kosher meat must have all traces of blood removed Best, Meir G. Rabi 0423 207 837 +61 423 207 837 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From larry62341 at optonline.net Wed Nov 22 06:20:47 2017 From: larry62341 at optonline.net (Prof. Levine) Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2017 09:20:47 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Sedra Toldos - Balance, When Parents Favour One Child In-Reply-To: <56bc7b19424c44b7aec48fc7014df583@exchng03.campus.stevens-t ech.edu> References: <56bc7b19424c44b7aec48fc7014df583@exchng03.campus.stevens-tech.edu> Message-ID: <7E.4D.03148.0C7851A5@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> At 10:52 AM 11/21/2017, R Micha Berger wrote: >Perhaps this is the whole point of the Torah's not saying why Rivqa >preferred Yaaqov. Yitzchaq's additional love of Esav was teluyah bedavar, >and that fact impacted Eisav's choices. Rivqa love Yaaqov, full stop, >not for some reason. I suggest you read RSRH's essay Lessons From Jacob and Esau (Collected Writings VII) YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From JRich at sibson.com Wed Nov 22 21:54:08 2017 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2017 05:54:08 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] sefer torah's path Message-ID: <7df4daee86e84ff48f391450b891c5f0@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> From R' Aviner: Bringing the Torah to People to Kiss Q: Is it permissible to bring the Sefer Torah in the Shul towards people who want to kiss it? A: No. This is a disgrace to the Sefer Torah. They should approach the Sefer Torah. Piskei Teshuvot 134:6. I have been to more than a few shuls that particularly on Shabbat take the long road - any ideas on who they are relying on? (not to mention those who lower the sefer torah so the kids can kiss it too) KT 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: From marty.bluke at gmail.com Sat Nov 25 12:27:38 2017 From: marty.bluke at gmail.com (Marty Bluke) Date: Sat, 25 Nov 2017 22:27:38 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] How can R' Yochanan and Resh Lakish argue about the tradition of a Gezera Shava? Message-ID: The Gemara in Makos(14b) has a dispute between R' Yochanan and Resh Lakish which revolves around a gezera shava. R' Yochanan has the gezera shava and Resh Lakish does not, Rashi explains that Resh Lakish did not get this gezera shava from his rebbeim. This seems very difficult because the gemara in Bava Metzia (84a) describes how Resh Lakish was the head of a group of bandits and R' Yochanan persuaded hm to learn Torah and was clearly Rabo Muvhak. In fact, they were so close that after Resh Lakish's death, R' Yochanan lost his mind and died. Given this, how can it be that R' Yochanan had a gezera shava and Resh Lakish didn't because lo kiblu merabo, R' Yochanan was his Rebbe so why wouldn't R' Yochanan have taught him this gezera shava? R' Yochanan clearly had a kabbala on this gezera shava so why wouldn't his talmid muvhak Resh Lakish have gotten this kabbala from his rebbe? The answer can't be that Resh Lakish argued on this because gezera shava's are a kabbala from your rebbe, period. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Thu Nov 23 15:55:59 2017 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2017 23:55:59 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] More on Yaakov, sheep and the rods Message-ID: <1511481358587.99267@stevens.edu> The following is from RSRH's commentary on Bereishis 30:37 Ya'akov then took for himself rods of fresh aspen and hazelnut and chestnut trees, and peeled white streaks in them by uncovering the white on the rods. After all this, Ya'akov's initiative with the rods would have been fully justified, even had it constituted a tried and tested expedient - a supposition that surely will not be borne out by experiment. >From the continuation of the story we know that Lavan altered the terms of the agreement ten times (see below, 31:7), setting new conditions regarding the form of the speckles and spots. It is difficult to assume that, because of a general action such as setting up the rods in the sight of the sheep, the sheep would bring forth young that were this time speckled, the next time spotted, and the next time marked on the feet. Ya'akov's success can be attributed only to a special intervention of Divine providence - as attested to by Ya'akov himself. The expedient of the rods was only an extremely weak substitute for the breeding animals Lavan had wrongfully removed. Nevertheless, Ya'akov did not refrain from seeking the aid of this expedient; since ain somchin al haness (see Pesachim 64b), he was obligated to do his part. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hankman at bell.net Sun Nov 26 10:02:44 2017 From: hankman at bell.net (hankman) Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2017 13:02:44 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] More on Yaakov, sheep and the rods Message-ID: <440B31203B1C40479ABF364797C2B58A@hankPC> Prof. L. Levine wrote?": ?It is difficult to assume that, because of a general action such as setting up the rods in the sight of the sheep, the sheep would bring forth young that were this time speckled, the next time spotted, and the next time marked on the feet. Ya'akov's success can be attributed only to a special intervention of Divine providence - as attested to by Ya'akov himself. The expedient of the rods was only an extremely weak substitute for the breeding animals Lavan had wrongfully removed. Nevertheless, Ya'akov did not refrain from seeking the aid of this expedient; since ain somchin al haness (see Pesachim 64b), he was obligated to do his part...? As everyone who had genetics 101 will realize, if you eliminate 100% of the phenotype, and breed the remainder you will still get some of that phenotype in the next generation with recessive genes. So it always bothered me why was all the hokus pokus by Yaakov necessary. Even more so the pasook itself seems to ascribe the results as caused by the sticks even though a simple natural explanation for the reappearance of the phenotype in the next generation is quite simple. The only explanation I could come up with is that the percentages were much higher than one would expect as a result of genetic calculations thus the nes (and Yaakov?s efforts [hishtadlus] to produce it) is described at great length. Kol tuv Chaim Manaster -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From akivagmiller at gmail.com Sat Nov 25 17:51:31 2017 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Sat, 25 Nov 2017 20:51:31 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] sefer torah's path Message-ID: . R' Joel Rich asked: > From R? Aviner: Bringing the Torah to People to Kiss > Q: Is it permissible to bring the Sefer Torah in the Shul > towards people who want to kiss it? > A: No. This is a disgrace to the Sefer Torah. They should > approach the Sefer Torah. Piskei Teshuvot 134:6. > > I have been to more than a few shuls that particularly on > Shabbat take the long road ? any ideas on who they are > relying on? (not to mention those who lower the sefer torah > so the kids can kiss it too) Maybe the masses simply disagree with the logic of the Piskei Teshuvot? Maybe people feel that bringing the Torah to Amcha is NOT a disgrace? Personally, I can easily understand that lowering it could be a bizayon, but what's wrong with taking the long way around? If the short route is taken, then (depending on the shul's layout) it is possible (or even probable) that many (or most) will simply be unable to get close enough to kiss it -- and if this is true on the men's side of the mechitza, it is even more true on the women's side! There are SO many things that we allow for no reason other than allowing the people to show their love and kavod for the Torah!!! Compared to the bells that ring on Shabbos, or the multitude of aliyos on Simchas Torah, this seems exceeding minor, in my opinion. Akiva Miller From brothke at gmail.com Sat Nov 25 18:20:23 2017 From: brothke at gmail.com (Ben Rothke) Date: Sat, 25 Nov 2017 21:20:23 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Gid ha'nasheh and 'therefore' Message-ID: In the coming week?s parsha, it has the story of Yaakov wrestling and then concludes: ? ???-???? ???-???????? ?????-?????????? ???-????? ????????? I am trying to figure out the connection between the wrestling injury and klal Yisroel not eating gid hanasheh. The term '???-????' implies consequently, to which I don?t see the consequence. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From JRich at sibson.com Sat Nov 25 21:47:06 2017 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2017 05:47:06 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] How can R' Yochanan and Resh Lakish argue about the tradition of a Gezera Shava? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: The answer can't be that Resh Lakish argued on this because gezera shava's are a kabbala from your rebbe, period. > ______________________________________________ 1. This begs the broader question as to why an Amira having a gs doesn't automatically trump one that doesn't 2.this also assumes only a rebbi muvhak counts as rabo for purposes of mesora Kt 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. From JRich at sibson.com Sun Nov 26 05:28:50 2017 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2017 13:28:50 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] eilu v'eilu Message-ID: <6b52bc1475284ba2a6aa3d7734cb8de7@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> http://www.yutorah.org/lectures/lecture.cfm/889447/rabbi-assaf-bednarsh/pluralism-and-halacha-what-is-truth,-and-who-has-it/ Rabbi Assaf Bednarsh--Pluralism and Halacha: What is Truth, and Who Has It Interesting shiur on an old Avodah favorite KT 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: From lisa at starways.net Sun Nov 26 14:37:13 2017 From: lisa at starways.net (Lisa Liel) Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2017 00:37:13 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Gid ha'nasheh and 'therefore' In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I don't think al ken denotes causation.? In most cases, it seems to mean "How correct it is that..."? For example, the two times we're told "al ken", the city is called Beersheva.? They can't both be the cause. Lisa On 11/26/2017 4:20 AM, Ben Rothke via Avodah wrote: > > In the coming week?s parsha, it has the story of Yaakov wrestling and > then concludes: > > ? ???-???? ???-???????? ?????-?????????? ???-????? ????????? > > I am trying to figure out the connection between the wrestling injury > and klal Yisroel not eating gid hanasheh. > > The term '???-????' implies consequently, to which I don?t see the > consequence. > > --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From micha at aishdas.org Sun Nov 26 15:09:41 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2017 18:09:41 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Gid ha'nasheh and 'therefore' In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20171126230941.GA24539@aishdas.org> On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 12:37:13AM +0200, Lisa Liel via Avodah wrote: : On 11/26/2017 4:20 AM, Ben Rothke via Avodah wrote: : >In the coming week's parsha, it has the story of Yaakov wrestling : >and then concludes: "Al kein lo yokhlu BY es gid hanasheh." : >I am trying to figure out the connection between the wrestling : >injury and klal Yisroel not eating gid hanasheh. : >The term '[al kein]' implies consequently, to which I don't see the : >consequence. : I don't think al ken denotes causation.? In most cases, it seems to : mean "How correct it is that..."? For example, the two times we're : told "al ken", the city is called Beersheva.? They can't both be the : cause. Why not? It could be that each were necessary but insufficient causes, so that the name "Be'er-Sheva" is the consequence of both being true. Or it could be that each were sufficient cause, and the name Be'er-Sheva was justified by either alone -- but equally so. And thus the city's name represents both. But to answer RBR's question, I don't think al kein implies sufficient causality. Rather, because of the fight, HQBH had an opportunity to turn eating thigh meat into a ritual that reminds one of the fight, and thus of the Jew's ability to act on the level of (in the sense of: interact with) angels. Without the fight, the mitzvah would lack that historical symbolism; so it's a cause, but of a different sort than it seems from your question that you are thinking of. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger It is our choices...that show what we truly are, micha at aishdas.org far more than our abilities. http://www.aishdas.org - J. K. Rowling Fax: (270) 514-1507 From micha at aishdas.org Sun Nov 26 14:58:57 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2017 17:58:57 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] How can R' Yochanan and Resh Lakish argue about the tradition of a Gezera Shava? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20171126225857.GA9115@aishdas.org> On Sat, Nov 25, 2017 at 10:27:38PM +0200, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: : The Gemara in Makos(14b) has a dispute between R' Yochanan and Resh Lakish : which revolves around a gezera shava. R' Yochanan has the gezera shava and : Resh Lakish does not, Rashi explains that Resh Lakish did not get this : gezera shava from his rebbeim. : : This seems very difficult because the gemara in Bava Metzia (84a) describes : how Resh Lakish was the head of a group of bandits and R' Yochanan : persuaded hm to learn Torah and was clearly Rabo Muvhak... So, he had a mesorah from a rebbe other than his rebbe muvhaq or any of his own rabbeim -- maybe just a shiur from someone else he sat in once... (Which is similar to RHR's #2.) Or... If "Moavi velo Mo'avis" was darsehened first by Boaz's court, then we know of at least one gezeira shava -- from Amon to Moav -- that Boaz invoked withtout a tradition of its existence dating back from Sinai. For that matter, if the Rambam assumed that the rule about no new gezeiros shava really was in place from day one, then he would have to assert that like [other] halakhos leMoshe miSinai, there couldn't be machloqesin in any of them. I would therefore deduce from the Rambam's silence in the face of numerous such machloqesin, he must have thought that gezeiros shava could be invented (or as other riahonim would have it: discovered) without a mesorah. It would seem the idea that GS requires a mesorah has a loophole. Perhaps the notion is that the textual connection must have a mesorah, but the lesson taken from it could be left to the later generation to find. Also, it is interesting that the contrast in Pesachim 66a to the mesorah needed for GS is the qal vachomer. A rule of logic that a person truly could make on their own in a way that doesn't apply to another of the other midos sheheTorah nidreshes bahen. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When faced with a decision ask yourself, micha at aishdas.org "How would I decide if it were Ne'ilah now, http://www.aishdas.org at the closing moments of Yom Kippur?" Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From marty.bluke at gmail.com Mon Nov 27 02:10:10 2017 From: marty.bluke at gmail.com (Marty Bluke) Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2017 12:10:10 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] How can R' Yochanan and Resh Lakish argue about the tradition of a Gezera Shava? In-Reply-To: <20171126225857.GA9115@aishdas.org> References: <20171126225857.GA9115@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 12:58 AM, Micha Berger wrote: > On Sat, Nov 25, 2017 at 10:27:38PM +0200, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: > : The Gemara in Makos(14b) has a dispute between R' Yochanan and Resh > Lakish > : which revolves around a gezera shava. R' Yochanan has the gezera shava > and > : Resh Lakish does not, Rashi explains that Resh Lakish did not get this > : gezera shava from his rebbeim. > : > : This seems very difficult because the gemara in Bava Metzia (84a) > describes > : how Resh Lakish was the head of a group of bandits and R' Yochanan > : persuaded hm to learn Torah and was clearly Rabo Muvhak... > > So, he had a mesorah from a rebbe other than his rebbe muvhaq or any > of his own rabbeim -- maybe just a shiur from someone else he sat in > once... (Which is similar to RHR's #2.) > What other mesora? It's not that Resh Lakish had a gezera shava that R' Yochanan didn't have that he could have learned from someone else. The Gemara says that he didn't have a kabbala on a gezera shava that R' Yochanan had. > > Or... > > If "Moavi velo Mo'avis" was darsehened first by Boaz's court, then we > know of at least one gezeira shava -- from Amon to Moav -- that Boaz > invoked withtout a tradition of its existence dating back from Sinai. > That was a gezera shava? In any case the Gemara in Nidda (19b) states that ayn adam dan gezera shava meatzmo, says Rashi he needs a kabbala from his rebbe halacha l'moshe misinai. For that matter, if the Rambam assumed that the rule about no new gezeiros > shava really was in place from day one, then he would have to assert that > like [other] halakhos leMoshe miSinai, there couldn't be machloqesin in > any of them. I would therefore deduce from the Rambam's silence in the > face of numerous such machloqesin, he must have thought that gezeiros > shava could be invented (or as other riahonim would have it: discovered) > without a mesorah. > It would seem the idea that GS requires a mesorah has a loophole. Perhaps > the notion is that the textual connection must have a mesorah, but > the lesson taken from it could be left to the later generation to find. > Tosafos in Shabbos (97a) states that they had a mesora on the number of gezera shavas and therefore they had to reconcile the various traditions with the number of gezera shavas. This would seem to come to address the question of why certain Tannaim/Amoraim had a gezera shava and others didn't. However, it doesn't answer the question on Resh Lakish who must have gotten the number from Rabo Muvhak R' Yochanan. The Rishonim/Acharonim in Nida (22b) are bothered by the question that the Gemara says that a gezera shava that is mufne mi tzad echad lmeidin umeshivin and mufne mishnei tz'dadim lmeidim vayn m'shivim. If there was a kabala on the gezera shava then why does it need to be mufne and if there was no kabbala then why should it be accepted even if it is mufne? The Ramban on the Sefer Hamitzvos (Shoresh 2) based on this question rejects the simple understanding of ayn adam dan gezera shava meiatzmo that all the details of the gezera shavas were received at Har Sinai by Moshe. Rather, they had a kabbala that there was a gezera shava with a certain word pair but not which set of those words and what halacha is learned from it and therefore it is up to the chachamim to decide based on the principles that they received to decide what exactly the gezera shava was and therefore there is machlokes. This is what the Gemara in Nidda is discussing, the principles relating to figuring out what exactly the gezera shava is. Unfortunately, this does not really answer all of the Gemara's and disputes about gezera shavas. > > Also, it is interesting that the contrast in Pesachim 66a to the mesorah > needed for GS is the qal vachomer. A rule of logic that a person truly > could make on their own in a way that doesn't apply to another of the > other midos sheheTorah nidreshes bahen. > There is a machlokes Rashi and Tosafos whether it is only a kal vachomer that adam dan meatzmo or all the middos except for gezera shava. > > Tir'u baTov! > -Micha > > -- > Micha Berger When faced with a decision ask yourself, > micha at aishdas.org "How would I decide if it were Ne'ilah now, > http://www.aishdas.org at the closing moments of Yom Kippur?" > Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From lisa at starways.net Mon Nov 27 02:55:35 2017 From: lisa at starways.net (Lisa Liel) Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2017 12:55:35 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] How can R' Yochanan and Resh Lakish argue about the tradition of a Gezera Shava? In-Reply-To: <20171126225857.GA9115@aishdas.org> References: <20171126225857.GA9115@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <2e55bd0b-bb70-45dd-093f-a9ca79fa0760@starways.net> On 11/27/2017 12:58 AM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > If "Moavi velo Mo'avis" was darsehened first by Boaz's court, then we > know of at least one gezeira shava -- from Amon to Moav -- that Boaz > invoked withtout a tradition of its existence dating back from Sinai. > How was that a gezeira shava? Lisa --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From micha at aishdas.org Mon Nov 27 13:21:42 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2017 16:21:42 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] How can R' Yochanan and Resh Lakish argue about the tradition of a Gezera Shava? In-Reply-To: <2e55bd0b-bb70-45dd-093f-a9ca79fa0760@starways.net> References: <20171126225857.GA9115@aishdas.org> <2e55bd0b-bb70-45dd-093f-a9ca79fa0760@starways.net> Message-ID: <20171127212142.GA26403@aishdas.org> On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 12:10:10PM +0200, Marty Bluke wrote: : > So, he had a mesorah from a rebbe other than his rebbe muvhaq or any : > of his own rabbeim -- maybe just a shiur from someone else he sat in : > once... (Which is similar to RJR's #2.) : What other mesora? It's not that Resh Lakish had a gezera shava that R' : Yochanan didn't have that he could have learned from someone else. The : Gemara says that he didn't have a kabbala on a gezera shava that R' : Yochanan had. This wasn't the ikar of my answer; I was just ammending RJR's answer to reflect the fact that the gemara says "rabosav" not "rabo". But it seems to me now you are saying the OP was asking how it's possible that R' Yochanan knew something that he didn't pass on to Reish Laqish. Or more accurately, where would RL learn something to have him question a GS when R Yochanan told him of it the first time. In which case, my intended answer works even better -- the presmise that every GS is a tradition dating back to Sinai is false. A conclusion the other RMB gives far more sources for than I did. :> Or... :> If "Moavi velo Mo'avis" was darsehened first by Boaz's court, then we :> know of at least one gezeira shava -- from Amon to Moav -- that Boaz :> invoked withtout a tradition of its existence dating back from Sinai. : That was a gezera shava? In any case the Gemara in Nidda (19b) states that : ayn adam dan gezera shava meatzmo, says Rashi he needs a kabbala from his : rebbe halacha l'moshe misinai. Not every "halakhah leMoshe MiSinai" is literally so. R' Avohu on Kesuvos 7b says that Boaz collected 10 men in "lemidrash 'amoni velo amonis, moavi velo moavis." How does he know it wasn't for 7 berakhos (R' Nachman's shitah)? Because of the need to get "miziqnei ha'ir". Why 10? [I presume -- and not a BD of 3:] lefirsumei milsa. Similarly, Rus Rabba 7:9 states that Peloni didn't know *shenischadshah* din zu. As for "that was a GS?" (A question Lisa also asks...) Amoni velo Amonis is justified because the Amoni ddidn't bring food or water when we came to their land. And it is the men we would have expected to recieve or even buy such previsions from. Moav velo Moavis would be a pretty arbitrary time to insist a word be read as specifically male instead of gender-neutral if it weren't by GS to Amoni. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Here is the test to find whether your mission micha at aishdas.org on Earth is finished: http://www.aishdas.org if you're alive, it isn't. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Richard Bach From zev at sero.name Mon Nov 27 15:10:29 2017 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2017 18:10:29 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] How can R' Yochanan and Resh Lakish argue about the tradition of a Gezera Shava? In-Reply-To: <20171127212142.GA26403@aishdas.org> References: <20171126225857.GA9115@aishdas.org> <2e55bd0b-bb70-45dd-093f-a9ca79fa0760@starways.net> <20171127212142.GA26403@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 27/11/17 16:21, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > As for "that was a GS?" (A question Lisa also asks...) Amoni velo Amonis > is justified because the Amoni ddidn't bring food or water when we > came to their land. And it is the men we would have expected to recieve > or even buy such previsions from. Moav velo Moavis would be a pretty > arbitrary time to insist a word be read as specifically male instead > of gender-neutral if it weren't by GS to Amoni. Could you please explain this? Where do you get that there is any limmud from Ammon to Moav? The Torah says *both* Amonim and Moavim are banned because they didn't welcome us with bread and water. You seem to be claiming that Amonim are banned for this reason, and then Moavim by some sort of gezera shava from Amonim. Where is this coming from? -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From marty.bluke at gmail.com Thu Nov 30 02:11:31 2017 From: marty.bluke at gmail.com (Marty Bluke) Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2017 12:11:31 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] What are the main mitzvos to focus on? Message-ID: The last daf in Makos (24a) states that the Neviim took the 613 mitzvos and reduced them to a smaller set for people to focus on. Michah gave three Mitzvos for people to focus on - "Asos Mishpat..." "Asos Mishpat" is monetary laws; "Ahavas Chesed" is bestowing Chesed; "V'Hatzne'a Leches Im Elokecha" is escorting the dead and bringing a Kalah to Chupah; Yeshayah later gave two primary Mitzvos - "Shimru Mishpat va'Asu Tzedakah." The mitzva of learning Torah which we understand to be the most important and fundamental mitzva does not appear in these lists. How do we explain the omission of learning Torah in these lists? Additionally, these lists seem to consist solely of mitzvos bein adam lachaveiro, are there no mitzvos ben adam lamakom that are important enought to appear on these lists? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From seinfeld at daasbooks.com Thu Nov 30 09:20:44 2017 From: seinfeld at daasbooks.com (Alexander Seinfeld) Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2017 12:20:44 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] More on Yaakov, sheep and the rods Message-ID: <50458059-A03F-4E6E-B54B-F1612B0E7E5B@jsli.org> Why not just interpret this as an example of phenotypic plasticity, meaning the genetic potential is there in every generation, and the environmental factors stimulate its expression? As everyone who had genetics 101 will realize, if you eliminate 100% of the phenotype, and breed the remainder you will still get some of that phenotype in the next generation with recessive genes. So it always bothered me why was all the hokus pokus by Yaakov necessary. Even more so the pasook itself seems to ascribe the results as caused by the sticks even though a simple natural explanation for the reappearance of the phenotype in the next generation is quite simple. The only explanation I could come up with is that the percentages were much higher than one would expect as a result of genetic calculations thus the nes (and Yaakov?s efforts [hishtadlus] to produce it) is described at great length. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From chaim.tatel at gmail.com Thu Nov 30 09:30:37 2017 From: chaim.tatel at gmail.com (Chaim Tatel) Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2017 09:30:37 -0800 Subject: [Avodah] Gid ha'nasheh Message-ID: When I was studying Zoology in college back in the 70s, I did some research on Yaakov?s battle with the malach. The big question I had was ?why should Yaakov Avinu get hit in the gid hanasheh (sciatic nerve)? Why not somewhere else in the body?? As I learned in my Anatomy and Physiology class, there are several nerves that branch off from the sciatic nerve. One of these is the pudendal nerve. This is one of the nerves responsible for sexual function (and other actions). Current research follows: The pudendal nerve is found in the pelvis. It is the biggest division of the pudendal plexus (a network of nerves) and is located behind the sacrospinous ligament, near the tailbone. The nerve extends from the sacral plexus, through the pudendal canal, the perineum, and the gluteal area. These are structures located near the genital, rectal, and gluteal (buttock) regions. (see: https://www.healthline.com/human-body-maps/pudendal-nerve) The peripheral nerves supply the bladder, anal canal, and perineal skin. The pudendal nerve is the primary somatic nerve to this region. Motor fibers in the pudendal nerve innervate the bulbocavernosus muscle, external urethral sphincter, external anal sphincter, and pelvic floor muscles. (see: www.humanneurophysiology.com/sacralmonitoring.htm) I also remember that one of the meforshim (commentators) on Chumash had a similar answer. (Sorry, I can?t remember where I saw this, it?s been over 40 years). At any rate, it makes sense that Yaakov would be hit there, as a reminder that his marriage to Rachel after his marriage to her sister Leah would not hold up when he entered Eretz Yisrael. (not long after this episode, Rachel died in childbirth of Binyamin). Aside from feeling the psychological pain of Rachel?s death, perhaps Yaakov also had to feel physical pain. Chaim Tatel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From lisa at starways.net Sat Dec 2 12:56:18 2017 From: lisa at starways.net (Lisa Liel) Date: Sat, 2 Dec 2017 22:56:18 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] knife sharpeners Message-ID: <62debe36-f9a2-7cab-d4cb-a60320a1ec83@starways.net> Are knife sharpeners mekabel taam?? And noten taam?? Do you need different onces for meat, dairy, pesach, etc? --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From zev at sero.name Sat Dec 2 17:01:31 2017 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Sat, 2 Dec 2017 20:01:31 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] knife sharpeners In-Reply-To: <62debe36-f9a2-7cab-d4cb-a60320a1ec83@starways.net> References: <62debe36-f9a2-7cab-d4cb-a60320a1ec83@starways.net> Message-ID: <0115756c-ad5a-dc19-dfdc-aba2138a2858@sero.name> On 02/12/17 15:56, Lisa Liel via Avodah wrote: > Are knife sharpeners mekabel taam?? And noten taam?? Do you need > different onces for meat, dairy, pesach, etc? Since they don't ever contact food, I don't see how they could. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From JRich at sibson.com Sat Dec 2 22:40:43 2017 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Sun, 3 Dec 2017 06:40:43 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Women and Torah Study Message-ID: <9f94d416d3154585a6bb71a2df12c54e@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> My comment to a recent post on Lehrhaus on women and intensive talmud study: Is encouraging intensive study of Talmud for women a community priority or is the priority to make such study available for those who choose to avail themselves of the opportunity? Especially if the former, where does it stand in relation to other community priorities and how does the answer differ from study for men? IMHO these questions have not been sufficiently addressed. Do my concern resonate at all? KT 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: From marty.bluke at gmail.com Sun Dec 3 01:13:00 2017 From: marty.bluke at gmail.com (Marty Bluke) Date: Sun, 3 Dec 2017 11:13:00 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] The 13 middos Message-ID: The Gemara in Shavuos (4b) discusses who the Tanna of the Mishna is and brings down a fundamental machlokes tannaim about the 13 middos. R' Yishmael darshens klal uprat and R' Akiva darshens ribuy umiut. The Acharonim point out that these are mutually exclusive and every Tanna darshens one or the other but they cannot be mixed (e.g. a Tanna sometimes darshens ribuy umiut and sometimes klal uprat). The question is how can something so fundamental as the 13 middos be a matter of dispute? Weren't the 13 middos given to Moshe at Har Sinai? How could they forget such a basic thing? It is very difficult to say that both are right (e.g. elu v'elu) because they are mutually exclusive and come to different conclusions. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Sun Dec 3 06:18:20 2017 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Sun, 3 Dec 2017 14:18:20 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Davening on Airplanes Message-ID: <1512310700373.25771@stevens.edu> Very often people make minyanimm on flights to Israel. The following if from https://goo.gl/j8hdXR and is a quote from Rabbi Hershel Schachter. Another common mistake people make is regarding davening with a minyan (on a plane). The Talmud emphasizes the importance of tefillah btzibur; and one who davens with a minyan stands a much better chance of having his prayers answered than one who lacks a minyan. However, it is highly improper for the chazzan of a minyan on an airplane to shout at the top of his lungs to enable the other mispalelim to hear him over the airplane noise, and thereby wake up all the passengers around him. It is true that there is a halachic principle of kofin al hamitzvos, i.e. that beis din has an obligation to force people to observe the mitzvos even when they're not interested in doing so, but this only applies when pressuring an individual will result in his becoming observant. However, when Orthodox Jews disturb non-observant Jewish passengers with their davening, the non-observant passengers sill remain non-observant and now just have another point about which to be upset with the Orthodox. The practice of the Orthodox passengers under such circumstances appears simply as an act of harassment. Rather than having accomplished the hidur mitzvah of davening tefillah btzibur, they have violated lifnei iver by causing the non-observant passengers to become more antagonistic towards shemiras hamitzvos. The shouting tone of voice employed by the shaliach tzibbur to overcome the noise on the airplane clearly does not constitute a kavod hatefillah. The halacha states that when traveling, if it is too difficult to stand for shemoneh esrei even the "amidah" may be recited while seated. On a short flight of an hour and a half to Canada it is more correct to daven the entire tefillah while still buckled in, in a sitting position. On the long flight to Eretz Yisroel it is healthier to not sit the entire time; walking around somewhat helps the blood circulation in one's legs. As such, there is nothing wrong with standing for shemoneh esrei, provided that there's no turbulence at that time. However, it is still not proper to gather a minyan together near the washrooms, disturbing all the other passengers and the stewardesses. As much as various Torah giants of our generation have expressed their opposition to such minyanim on airplanes[2], their message has not yet been accepted. We wish everyone a chag kasher v'sameach, and all those traveling to Eretz Yisroel should have a safe trip, but keep in mind - these minyanim are shelo b'ratzon chachomim! [2] Rav Shlomo Wahrman ( She'eiris Yosef vol. 7, siman 3) quotes Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach (Halichos Shlomo, page 75), Rav Moshe Feinstein (Igros Moshe Orach Chaim vol. 4 siman 20), Rav Ovadiah Yosef, and Rav Shmuel Wosner all objecting to minyanim on airplanes that disturb other passengers -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Sun Dec 3 07:15:20 2017 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Sun, 3 Dec 2017 15:15:20 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] The Forces That Have Shaped World History Message-ID: <1512314120420.4485@stevens.edu> The following is from RSRH's commentary on Bereishis 30:8 Ya'akov was very much afraid and distressed, so he divided the peoplewho were with him, as well as the flocks, cattle and camels, into two camps. We can put ourselves in Ya'akov's place, and we are especially obligated to do so, considering the significance of the impending meeting; for, because of this meeting, Ya'akov experienced a revelation whose memory is forever linked with the daily meal of the man of Israel. Just as Ya'akov and Esav oppose each other here, so they continue to stand opposed to one another unto this very day. Ya'akov is the family man blessed with children; hard-working, serving, weighed down by cares. Esav is the "finished and accomplished" man (cf. Commentary above, 25:25). Ya'akov now returns as the independent head of a family. Even now, having overcome all the obstacles, this privilege is, to him, the highest prize, the greatest achievement. But to attain it, he had to toil and struggle for twenty years, despite the fact that he had already received the blessing and the birthright. Others, however, take this privilege for granted; it is given to them from birth. Esav, the "finished and accomplished" man, already possessed it in full measure when Ya'akov first left home. While Ya'akov, through hard work, succeeded in establishing a family, Esav became a political force, the leader of an army, an aluf at the head of his troops. Thus the external contrast between Ya'akov, who held on to his brother's heel when they were born, and Esav, the "accomplished" man. In Ya'akov and Esav, two opposing principles confront each other. The struggle between them, and the outcome of this struggle, are the forces that have shaped world history. Ya'akov represents family life, happiness and making others happy. Esav represents the glitter of political power and might. This conflict has raged for thousands of years: Is it sufficient just to be a human being, and are political power and social creativity of no significance unless they lead to the loftiest of all human aspirations, or, on the contrary, does everything that is human in man, in home, and in family life exist only to serve the purposes of political triumph? How different from his attitude toward Lavan is Ya'akov's attitude toward Esav. We know how steadfast is the power of one who is sure of his own integrity, and how oppressive is the feeling of guilt, even if only imagined. It is easier to suffer wrong and injustice for twenty years than to face for one minute a person whom we know was offended by us and who cannot understand our motives, which do not justify our actions but at least excuse them. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Mon Dec 4 07:55:38 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2017 10:55:38 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] knife sharpeners In-Reply-To: <0115756c-ad5a-dc19-dfdc-aba2138a2858@sero.name> References: <62debe36-f9a2-7cab-d4cb-a60320a1ec83@starways.net> <0115756c-ad5a-dc19-dfdc-aba2138a2858@sero.name> Message-ID: <20171204155538.GC26551@aishdas.org> On Sat, Dec 02, 2017 at 08:01:31PM -0500, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : On 02/12/17 15:56, Lisa Liel via Avodah wrote: : >Are knife sharpeners mekabel taam?? And noten taam?? Do you need : >different onces for meat, dairy, pesach, etc? : : Since they don't ever contact food, I don't see how they could. Since they are in heated contact with the knife, aren't there potential na"t bar na"t issues? Tir'u baTov! -Micha From ari.brodsky at utoronto.ca Mon Dec 4 10:03:48 2017 From: ari.brodsky at utoronto.ca (Ari Meir Brodsky) Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2017 20:03:48 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Tonight (Monday evening) begin Prayer for Rain Message-ID: Dear Friends, It's that time of year again, when I know many of you are expecting my annual friendly reminder.... Jews outside of Israel should include the request for rain in daily prayers, beginning with Maariv tonight (Monday evening), December 4, 2017, corresponding to the evening of 17 Kislev, 5778. The phrase *??? ?? ???? ?????* "Veten tal umatar livracha" - "Give us dew and rain for a blessing" is inserted into the 9th blessing of the weekday shemone esrei, from now until Pesach. [Sephardim replace the entire blessing of ????? with the alternate text beginning ??? ????? - thanks to Prof. Lasker for the reminder.] I encourage everyone to remind friends and family members of this event, especially those who may not be in shul at that time. Diaspora Jews begin requesting rain on the 60th day of the fall season, as approximated by Shmuel in the Talmud (Taanit 10a, Eiruvin 56a). For more information about this calculation, follow the link below, to a fascinating article giving a (very brief) introduction to the Jewish calendar, followed by a discussion on why we begin praying for rain when we do: http://www.lookstein.org/articles/veten_tal.htm (Thanks to Russell Levy for providing the link.) Wishing everyone a happy Chanukka, -Ari Meir Brodsky --------------------- Ari M. Brodsky ari.brodsky at utoronto.ca -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mirskym at gmail.com Mon Dec 4 10:02:39 2017 From: mirskym at gmail.com (Michael Mirsky) Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2017 21:02:39 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Davening on Airplanes In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: In all the discussions of this topic that I have seen, I haven't seen anyone address the issue of someone who is in his year of aveilut and needs a minyan to say kaddish. Do the objections to the possible disturbance a minyan might cause override this need? Michael Mirsky -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From larry62341 at optonline.net Mon Dec 4 10:17:47 2017 From: larry62341 at optonline.net (Prof. Levine) Date: Mon, 04 Dec 2017 13:17:47 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Knife Sharpening Message-ID: The following is from an article posted on the CRC web site at https://goo.gl/ispg9T Food service establishments regularly send out their knives for sharpening, and it appears that there are three potential kashrus concerns with this practice, as follows: * The sharpening company may give the establishment different knives than the ones which the establishment gave them for sharpening. This is an especially likely in cases where the sharpening company actually owns the knives and lends them to the establishment in exchange for the rights to sharpen them. This issue can be avoided if the Mashgiach has a tevias ayin on the knives and/or marks them. * Knives are typically very dirty when they arrive at the sharpening facility, and therefore all knives are washed in hot water or a dishwasher before the sharpening begins. This potentially allows non-kosher b?lios to get into the kosher knives. See below for more on this. * The same machine is used to sharpen the (clean) kosher and non-kosher knives, and the friction created by the process does heat up the knives somewhat. If that heat would be above yad soledes bo, there would be a potential for b?lios to transfer between the machinery and knives. However, in tests which Rabbi Neustadt performed in one sharpening company, the sharpening wheel and the cooling water (where that was used) were consistently cooler than 100? F and were not hot to the touch. As such, it appears that this does not pose a serious concern. See the above URL for more. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Mon Dec 4 11:53:58 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2017 14:53:58 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] What are the main mitzvos to focus on? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20171204195358.GC2323@aishdas.org> On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 12:11:31PM +0200, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: : The last daf in Makos (24a) states that the Neviim took the 613 mitzvos and : reduced them to a smaller set for people to focus on. : Michah gave three Mitzvos for people to focus on - "Asos Mishpat..." : "Asos Mishpat" is monetary laws; : "Ahavas Chesed" is bestowing Chesed; Is "din" necessarily a reference to monetary laws? Din vs chessed is a recurring dialectic. As in sheim Elokus vs sheim Havayah. : "V'Hatzne'a Leches Im Elokecha" is escorting the dead and bringing a Kalah : to Chupah; I saw the gemara differently, emphasizing tzeni'us itself. As it explains, one should walk with one's G-d modestly even when doing these two mitzvos, which normally happen in public. And then the gemara continues with a qal vachomer al achas kamah vekamah those which are normally done betzin'ah. So it seems to be closer to the words of the pasuq than the identification with two specific acts of chessed (one of which is famously "chesed shel emes") the gemara begins its explanation with. After all, chessed is already covered in the previous item in the list. (Parallel gemara at Sukkah 49b.) : Yeshayah later gave two primary Mitzvos - "Shimru Mishpat va'Asu Tzedakah." Tangent: You'll notice that Yeshaiah is listed twice, once before Mikhah (giving 6 principles), and once after. As they were contemporaries whose nevu'os overlap in content, R' Simla'i's intent is likely chronological order. : The mitzva of learning Torah which we understand to be the most important : and fundamental mitzva does not appear in these lists.... I think the "we" in your sentence are simply following a hashkafah which isn't majority opinion. Not only does R' Simla'i skip them, in favor of living to emulate HQBH's din and chessed, but - Hillel famously defines all of Torah in terms of using one's empathy to avoiding doing what one's chaver would loathe. Rashi ad loc includes avoiding what one's Chaver would loathe, but in his other discussions of the quote, this aspect is missing. - R' Aqiva and Ben Azzai argue over which pasuq better captures the Torah's kelal gadol, and both are interpersonal. - In both shasin, "Torah lishmah" is discussed in terms of al menas la'asos and/or al menas lelameid. Not knowing for its own sake. See also Meshekh Chokhmah (Devarim 218:61) which I blog about at So, who amongst Chazal really does make learning the central goal of a Jewish man's life? Jumping ahead to the Isms that today's O world is trying to build from: - In chassidus, talmud Torah is a means to deveiqus. - The discussion in Nefesh haChaim sha'ar 4 which denies the previous bullet item might be the earliest source for the position you describe as what "we understand" was written by the same RCV about whom his son says (in the haqadmah to NhC, emphasis mine): He regularly rebuked me, because he saw that I did not participate in the pain of others. And these were his constant words to me: This is the entire person. One is not created for himself, but to benefit others with the full extent of his powers. (SHEZEH KOL HA'ADAM: lo le'atzmo nivra, RAQ LEHO'IL LE'ACHRINI...) So, while sha'ar 4 waxes poetic about the chiyus talmud Torah gives the world, RCV didn't mean to say that therefore learning is the It of life. (And yeshivos tend not to learn shaar 1's discussion of the power of maaseh nor shaar 2's discussion of dibbur. Which also yeilds an imbalance in how one sees the NhC shaar 4's description of machashavah.) - Similarly, while we remember R' Chaim Brisker for inventing Brisker lomdus, he said his main job was to be a baal chessed. And his family agreed; the praise on his matzeivah simply reads "rav chessed". Apparently the Pulmus haMussar was about the proper means to come to embody the ideal, and not what the ideal actually is. This notion that learning is the ends rather than a central part of the means is arguably idiosyncratic. It is far easier to argue that the central mitzvah is to emulate the Meitiv and bring His Tov to others. : Additionally, these lists : seem to consist solely of mitzvos bein adam lachaveiro, are there no : mitzvos ben adam lamakom that are important enought to appear on these : lists? As per what I said above, mitzvos bein adam laMaqom -- or R' Yisrael Salanter's third category of mitzvos being adam le'atzmo, which includes talmud Torah as an act of self-refinement -- is more caring for the goose than the goose's actual laying of the golden eggs. Rather than a question mark, just end with an exclamation point. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger We are great, and our foibles are great, micha at aishdas.org and therefore our troubles are great -- http://www.aishdas.org but our consolations will also be great. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rabbi AY Kook From micha at aishdas.org Mon Dec 4 11:55:56 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2017 14:55:56 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Davening on Airplanes In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20171204195556.GD2323@aishdas.org> On Mon, Dec 04, 2017 at 09:02:39PM +0300, Michael Mirsky via Avodah wrote: : In all the discussions of this topic that I have seen, I haven't seen : anyone address the issue of someone who is in his year of aveilut and needs : a minyan to say kaddish. Do the objections to the possible disturbance a : minyan might cause override this need? How can it be a zekhus to the niftar to say Qaddish in a way that the BALC violations make it a net minus? Tir'u baTov! -Micha From saulguberman at gmail.com Mon Dec 4 12:00:16 2017 From: saulguberman at gmail.com (Saul Guberman) Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2017 15:00:16 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Davening on Airplanes In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: My understanding is that kaddish needs to be said once a day. It is said multi times a day as a hiddur. So, missing one davening should be OK and the zchus of not disturbing other passengers and crew and not creating a chillul hashem should make up for the missed kaddish. On Mon, Dec 4, 2017 at 1:02 PM, Michael Mirsky via Avodah < avodah at lists.aishdas.org> wrote: > In all the discussions of this topic that I have seen, I haven't seen > anyone address the issue of someone who is in his year of aveilut and needs > a minyan to say kaddish. Do the objections to the possible disturbance a > minyan might cause override this need? > > Michael Mirsky > > _______________________________________________ > Avodah mailing list > Avodah at lists.aishdas.org > http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From zev at sero.name Mon Dec 4 12:14:53 2017 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2017 15:14:53 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] knife sharpeners In-Reply-To: <20171204155538.GC26551@aishdas.org> References: <62debe36-f9a2-7cab-d4cb-a60320a1ec83@starways.net> <0115756c-ad5a-dc19-dfdc-aba2138a2858@sero.name> <20171204155538.GC26551@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 04/12/17 10:55, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > On Sat, Dec 02, 2017 at 08:01:31PM -0500, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > : On 02/12/17 15:56, Lisa Liel via Avodah wrote: > : >Are knife sharpeners mekabel taam?? And noten taam?? Do you need > : >different onces for meat, dairy, pesach, etc? > : > : Since they don't ever contact food, I don't see how they could. > > Since they are in heated contact with the knife, aren't there potential > na"t bar na"t issues? Knives are sharpened while hot?! With water? -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From micha at aishdas.org Mon Dec 4 12:48:38 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2017 15:48:38 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Davening on Airplanes In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20171204204838.GA1334@aishdas.org> On Mon, Dec 04, 2017 at 03:00:16PM -0500, Saul Guberman via Avodah wrote: : My understanding is that kaddish needs to be said once a day. It is said : multi times a day as a hiddur... See YD 376:4. The Rama discusses it in terms of a minhag, actually a variety of whatever is "minhag qavu'ah ba'ir". : the zchus of not disturbing other passengers and crew and not creating a : chillul hashem should make up for the missed kaddish. Especially since it's the avoidance of an actual issur vs a medieval or post-medieval minhag. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Life isn't about finding yourself. micha at aishdas.org Life is about creating yourself. http://www.aishdas.org - George Bernard Shaw Fax: (270) 514-1507 From micha at aishdas.org Mon Dec 4 13:34:04 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2017 16:34:04 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Letzareif Message-ID: <20171204213404.GA32594@aishdas.org> In Bereishis Rabb 44:1, Rav says Lo nitenu hamitzvos ela letzarei bahen es haberios And what does it matter to HQBH who shechtas from the throat and who shechts from the back of the neck? Havei: lo nitenu hamitzvos ela letzarei bahen es haberios Letzareif is a metaphor of melting. The problem is, whether we mean smelting / refining, or to meld to thing together (as in "mitzrareif")? Are we being told that mitzvos were given to refine people, or to connect them? Or is the word chosen in order to intentionally carry both meanings? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger If you're going through hell micha at aishdas.org keep going. http://www.aishdas.org - Winston Churchill Fax: (270) 514-1507 From bdbradley70 at hotmail.com Mon Dec 4 14:03:37 2017 From: bdbradley70 at hotmail.com (Ben Bradley) Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2017 22:03:37 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] knife sharpeners In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: ': On 02/12/17 15:56, Lisa Liel via Avodah wrote: : >Are knife sharpeners mekabel taam?? And noten taam?? Do you need : >different onces for meat, dairy, pesach, etc? : : Since they don't ever contact food, I don't see how they could. Since they are in heated contact with the knife, aren't there potential na"t bar na"t issues?' Knife sharpeners get hot? What kind of sharpeners are we talking about here? I've never seen a domestic knife sharpener which gets beyond slightly warm. But even if it did, the food would be na't to the knife, the knife to the sharpener, the sharpener to the second knife and thence to the food again. Which is na't bar na't bar na't bar na't. I thought that's not a problem in hilchos basar b'chalav? BW Ben -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Mon Dec 4 14:29:08 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2017 17:29:08 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] The 13 middos In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20171204222908.GA10223@aishdas.org> On Sun, Dec 03, 2017 at 11:13:00AM +0200, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: : The Gemara in Shavuos (4b) discusses who the Tanna of the Mishna is and : brings down a fundamental machlokes tannaim about the 13 middos. R' : Yishmael darshens klal uprat and R' Akiva darshens ribuy umiut. The : Acharonim point out that these are mutually exclusive and every Tanna : darshens one or the other but they cannot be mixed (e.g. a Tanna sometimes : darshens ribuy umiut and sometimes klal uprat). ... I do not understand this paranthetic comment, as it refers to a kind of mixture, a tanna who uses both styles of derashah, as an example of how they cannot be mixed. The willingness of the two batei midrash to use the others' methodology is stated outright on Bekhoros 51a. One such tanna is R' Aqiva himself, eg Yerushalmi Sotah 8:1 (vilna 34a). See RSRH's discussion in Collected Writings V pg 170. : something so fundamental as the 13 middos be a matter of dispute? Weren't : the 13 middos given to Moshe at Har Sinai? How could they forget such a : basic thing? ... The methodology could have been in use informally before Hillel started the meta-Torah of the study and formalization of rules to describe that methodology. Just as people can use proper grammar before anyone makes a formal study of the language's grammatical rules. Since each did use the others' rules, the formalized rule system doesn't actually define the list of inherited laws. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger None of us will leave this place alive. micha at aishdas.org All that is left to us is http://www.aishdas.org to be as human as possible while we are here. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Anonymous MD, while a Nazi prisoner From marty.bluke at gmail.com Mon Dec 4 21:15:42 2017 From: marty.bluke at gmail.com (Marty Bluke) Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2017 07:15:42 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] The 13 middos In-Reply-To: <20171204222908.GA10223@aishdas.org> References: <20171204222908.GA10223@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Tuesday, December 5, 2017, Micha Berger wrote:... > > > I do not understand this paranthetic comment, as it refers to a kind of > mixture, a tanna who uses both styles of derashah, as an example of how > they cannot be mixed. The willingness of the two batei midrash to use the > others' methodology is stated outright on Bekhoros 51a. > > One such tanna is R' Aqiva himself, eg Yerushalmi Sotah 8:1 (vilna 34a). > > See RSRH's discussion in Collected Writings V pg 170. See the Mishne Lamelech avadim 3:9 where he states that it is either or and the 2 styles cannot be mixed, and his main proof is from the Gemara Shavuos 4b where the Gemara asks on Rebbe how can he darshen a ribui umiut like R Akiva if in general he darshens Klal Uprat. We see clearly that the Gemara assumes you darshen 1 or the other but not both otherwise the Gemara would have no question. See also tosafos nidda 30a s.v. Ushma mina where tosafos says that we pasken that we darshen Klal uprat and not ribui umiut. That only makes sense if they are mutually exclusive. See also tosafos shavuos 25a s.v. Rav who also assumes that it is either or. Regarding the Gemara in bechoros 51a it is actually a proof the other way. The Gemara says that this case is an exception because it is not written in the normal way of a Klal uprat and therefore in this case only Rebbe can learn a ribui umiut but in general someone who learns Klal uprat could not use ribui umiut. > > Tir'u baTov! > -Micha > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From JRich at sibson.com Mon Dec 4 22:13:31 2017 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2017 06:13:31 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Davening on Airplanes In-Reply-To: <20171204204838.GA1334@aishdas.org> References: , <20171204204838.GA1334@aishdas.org> Message-ID: > > Especially since it's the avoidance of an actual issur vs a medieval or > post-medieval ---------- All very true, yet the Hamon am has invested Kaddish with great importance. Does that investiture have a halachic chalot? It seems it does at least in terms of kavod Kt Joel 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. From akivagmiller at gmail.com Tue Dec 5 03:22:57 2017 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2017 06:22:57 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Gid ha'nasheh Message-ID: . R' Chaim Tatel wrote: > At any rate, it makes sense that Yaakov would be hit there, > as a reminder that his marriage to Rachel after his marriage > to her sister Leah would not hold up when he entered Eretz > Yisrael. (not long after this episode, Rachel died in childbirth > of Binyamin). > > Aside from feeling the psychological pain of Rachel?s death, > perhaps Yaakov also had to feel physical pain. I draw a distinction between "consequences" and "punishments". I have heard in the past that Eretz Yisrael was unable to tolerate Yaakov's being married to two sisters, and that Rachel's death was a consequence of that. But RCT writes that Yaakov was given a reminder of that consequence, and that he had to feel pain as well. Now it sounds like Yaakov was being punished. If he was punished, it must be that he was punished for some choice that he made. What choice was that? What did he do wrong? If he could do it all over again, what ought he do differently? Specifically: After having married Leah, should he have not married Rachel? Alternatively, (according to those who say that he was not fooled but knew that Leah had the simanim,) should he have not married Leah? Or should he have protested and annuled the marriage to Leah? If he was punished, what did he do wrong? Akiva Miller From akivagmiller at gmail.com Tue Dec 5 03:33:20 2017 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2017 06:33:20 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Davening on Airplanes Message-ID: . R' Michael Mirsky asked: > In all the discussions of this topic that I have seen, I > haven't seen anyone address the issue of someone who is in > his year of aveilut and needs a minyan to say kaddish. Do the > objections to the possible disturbance a minyan might cause > override this need? RMM seems to be suggesting that this individual's need to say kaddish is greater than the usual need to daven Tefila B'Tzibur. I have heard other people express this feeling, but I've never seen any evidence for it in seforim or elsewhere. I'll express it another way: I am well aware that there are many many people who are somewhat lax in their minyan attendance in general, but for yahrzeit or aveilus they are much more meticulous. This is not a bad thing; whatever will help get people into shul is good. But I do think that their values might be misplaced. Akiva Miller From larry62341 at optonline.net Tue Dec 5 05:12:22 2017 From: larry62341 at optonline.net (Prof. Levine) Date: Tue, 05 Dec 2017 08:12:22 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] How often to day kaddish Message-ID: <2E.1E.03203.73B962A5@mta4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> Saul Guberman wrote: My understanding is that kaddish needs to be said once a day. It is said multi times a day as a hiddur. So, missing one davening should be OK and the zchus of not disturbing other passengers and crew and not creating a chillul hashem should make up for the missed kaddish. ________________________________________________________ According to the original din only, only one person said kaddish at a time. (This is still what is done in some places like KAJ and Bais Hatalmud). Thus, if there are many people saying kaddish in a shul that keeps the original din, it is conceivable that one might not get to say kaddish every day or even longer. Hence I do not think that one needs to say kaddish once a day. YL From akivagmiller at gmail.com Tue Dec 5 04:53:47 2017 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2017 07:53:47 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Letzareif Message-ID: . R' Micha Berger wrote: > Lo nitenu hamitzvos ela letzarei bahen es haberios > ... > Letzareif is a metaphor of melting. The problem is, whether > we mean smelting / refining, or to meld to thing together (as > in "mitzrareif")? > Are we being told that mitzvos were given to refine people, > or to connect them? Or is the word chosen in order to > intentionally carry both meanings? "Ratzah HKBH l'zakos es Yisrael..." Does "zakos" mean to purify, or to give zechus? I perceive a similar poetry in both l'tzaref and l'zakos, but I'm not much of a poet, so I'll leave this thought for the rest of y'all to ponder and expand uon. Akiva Miller From marty.bluke at gmail.com Tue Dec 5 01:10:14 2017 From: marty.bluke at gmail.com (Marty Bluke) Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2017 11:10:14 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] What are the main mitzvos to focus on? In-Reply-To: <20171204195358.GC2323@aishdas.org> References: <20171204195358.GC2323@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Mon, Dec 4, 2017 at 9:53 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 12:11:31PM +0200, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: > : The last daf in Makos (24a) states that the Neviim took the 613 mitzvos > and > : reduced them to a smaller set for people to focus on. > > : ... > > : The mitzva of learning Torah which we understand to be the most important > : and fundamental mitzva does not appear in these lists.... > > I think the "we" in your sentence are simply following a hashkafah which > isn't majority opinion. > ... > So, who amongst Chazal really does make learning the central goal of a > Jewish man's life? > > ... > This notion that learning is the ends rather than a central part of > the means is arguably idiosyncratic. It is far easier to argue that the > central mitzvah is to emulate the Meitiv and bring His Tov to others. > > Tir'u baTov! > -Micha So basically you are saying that the current Charedi hashkafa/lifestyle of Torah only and Torah learning being the ultimate purpose of life is not a majority opinion in Chazal and in fact you can't find anyone among Chazal who says this. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Tue Dec 5 09:02:00 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2017 12:02:00 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] What are the main mitzvos to focus on? In-Reply-To: References: <20171204195358.GC2323@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20171205170200.GB5251@aishdas.org> On Tue, Dec 05, 2017 at 11:10:14AM +0200, Marty Bluke wrote: : So basically you are saying that the current Charedi hashkafa/lifestyle of : Torah only and Torah learning being the ultimate purpose of life is not a : majority opinion in Chazal and in fact you can't find anyone among Chazal : who says this. I intentionally avoided stating it that confrontationally, but yes. Although not "chareidi", "yeshivish". Excluding most chassidim but including the large population of MO who are taking yeshivish hashkafah and harmonizing it with modernity. (Eg RYBS as understood by many of his students.) See, for example, R Tzevi Sinsky's currently running series out of YHE ("Gush") "Talmud Torah: The Mitzva of Torah Study". He draws heavily from R' Yehudah Amital and R' N Lamm (whom RZS calls "mori uzeqeini"); his perspective is that of DL and MO, not "chareidim". Here's the web abstract for the opening shiur: In this introductory shiur, we explore the centrality of Torah study in the thought of the Rabbis. From Noach to Ezra, prominent Jewish leaders throughout the biblical period are portrayed as Torah scholars, and this mitzva is ascribed paramount importance in every aspect of life. In particular, shiur 3 discusses the purpose of talmud Torah, discussing various approached. The section "Approach #1 -- Instrumentalism" quotes pesuqim, mishayos, Toseftra, gemaros, before getting to rishonim (Rashi, Rambam, Ramban, Chinukh, Me'iri, Or H'. See also RNSlifkin's long list of quotes from rishonim at .) In contrast, "Approach #2 -- Cultivating a Halakhic Ethos" opens with the Chazon Ish then mentions R' Chaim Brisker as desribed in Halakhic Man. "Approach #3 -- Variations on Deveikut" starts with the Rambam leveraging a Sifrei (who I do not see as giving their description of /the/ purpose of learning), but focuses on Chassidus, R' Kook and R' Amital. Notice that learning being primarily valuable instrumentally is the shitah for which RZS can find overwhelming evidence in chazal and rishonim, the others being johnny-come-latelies of the last centuries. As for my own opinion, I wouldn't call approach #2 the cultivation of a "halachic ethos". I think this reflects Brisk's tendency to conflate halakhah with kol haTorah kulah, downplaying the import of aggadita. And yet, this wording does emphasize how approach 1 includes approach 2. If we are obligated in hilkhos dei'os / chovos halvavos / ve'asisa hayashar vehatov / to develop a *Torah* ethos, then #2 is also instrumental. We learn Mes' Sukkah to know how to fulfill the mitzvah of sukkah, and we learn Mes' Pirqei Avos to know to to fulfill the mitzvah of vehalakhta bidrakhav. See, it's instrumental! The difference boils down to what I believe was the central chiluq behind the pulmus haMussar: In the Brisker worldview, when RCVolozhiner compares talmud Torah to immersion in a miqvah, he means it descriptively. Learn halakhah as an end in itself, an it will leave a roshem of taharah. Even if the causality involved is mystical and non-obvious. Whereas R Yisrael Salanter looked at the actual metzi'us of the society he was in -- and all the moreso ours -- and concluded that this couldn't have been RCV's intent. Rather, RCV was speaking descriptively; when one learns correctly, one is learning in a way that leaves a roshem of taharah, even if the material itself is never understood or gets forgotten. And RYS had the lifestyle of RCV's talmid, R' Zundel Salanter, as indication of what Nefesh haChaim was intending to describe. Thus, to a mussarist, RCV was describing how to learn. Don't just learn nega'im to find chiluqim with which to explain machloqesin and non-obvious dinim. Rather, in addition one must spend the time driving home the roshem of how bad LH and ga'avah are, that HQBH felt it worth aiding teshuvah in these areas. And those two topics are far more connected in Telzher derekh than Brisker, but I think I've ranged far enough. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Spirituality is like a bird: if you tighten micha at aishdas.org your grip on it, it chokes; slacken your grip, http://www.aishdas.org and it flies away. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From micha at aishdas.org Tue Dec 5 10:39:48 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2017 13:39:48 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Davening on Airplanes In-Reply-To: References: <20171204204838.GA1334@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20171205183948.GA31307@aishdas.org> On Tue, Dec 05, 2017 at 06:13:31AM +0000, Rich, Joel wrote: :> Especially since it's the avoidance of an actual issur vs a medieval or :> post-medieval : All very true, yet the Hamon am has invested Kaddish with great : importance. Does that investiture have a halachic chalot? It seems it : does at least in terms of kavod Reading the kesuvah under the chuppah is just a stall while we wait some gap of time to separate qiddushin and nissuin. A maaseh kof. And yet because it is time in the spot-light, common practice is to treat it as the second greatest kibud, often what you give the other rav you might have made mesader qiddushin. When it comes to kibud, public treatment does indeed matter. And logically enough; after all, being mekhubad is an issue of seeing others display feelings of kavod. How we display it /should/ be secondary. All logical. However, here we are talking about someone in the olam ha'emes. So they know that while on the plane you have that actual issur keeping you from fulfilling the minhag of saying qaddish. For that matter, hopefully and typically said parent worked really hard at trying to get the avel to respect others. And if not, again, at this point the soul of even the worst parent would know better. So I do not think it's likely the neshamah would mind the lack of kibud as much as they would mind the misplacement of values. I would therefore not draw any conclusions from the logical linkage of kibud with intent and norms. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Between stimulus & response, there is a space. micha at aishdas.org In that space is our power to choose our http://www.aishdas.org response. In our response lies our growth Fax: (270) 514-1507 and our freedom. - Victor Frankl, (MSfM) From llevine at stevens.edu Wed Dec 6 01:39:18 2017 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2017 09:39:18 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Gambling in Halachah Message-ID: <7b63aab9b65f4c589d76fe326bd18f97@exchng03.campus.stevens-tech.edu> Click here to download "Gambling in Halachah" [That's the Kof-K's Halachically Speaking vol 13, issue 18, dedicated to this topic. -micha] From micha at aishdas.org Wed Dec 6 11:36:19 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2017 14:36:19 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Gid ha'nasheh In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20171206193619.GB12102@aishdas.org> On Tue, Dec 05, 2017 at 06:22:57AM -0500, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: :> Aside from feeling the psychological pain of Rachel?s death, :> perhaps Yaakov also had to feel physical pain. : : I draw a distinction between "consequences" and "punishments"... For those who don't remember from prior iterations, I don't. I think the difference between callins an onesh a consequence and calling it a punishment (or even "corrective") is whether one views sekhar va'onesh as a system that HQBH set up when He set up the universe or as a set of responses He has to our actions. "Chai gever al chata'av" implies one, our tefillos on yamim nora'im frequently imply the other. But both are simply simplified models of the incomprehensible Truth of how Hashem runs the universe. Since He is lemaalah min hazeman, we can't talk about whether the decision was made in maaseh bereishis or in response to our action -- both are ascribing times to a timeless Action (for want of a better word). We can only speak of a when for the effects of Divine Action, as they enter our timefull experience. : I have : heard in the past that Eretz Yisrael was unable to tolerate Yaakov's : being married to two sisters, and that Rachel's death was a : consequence of that. ... which is typical of an onesh -- a sin causes its own punishment. The two explanations are not mutually exclusive. To say that it was the land's qedushah causing something that wasn't in line with justice, one has to explain why there are rules that hide Hashem's Justice that aren't part of the hesteir panim necessary for free will. We need laws of nature to plan how to execute a decision, but laws of metaphysics? ... : If he was punished, it must be that he was punished for some choice : that he made. What choice was that? What did he do wrong? If he could : do it all over again, what ought he do differently? Specifically: : After having married Leah, should he have not married Rachel? Well, isn't that the halakhah? Or maybe the issur was in whatever it was that had him marrying a woman without noticing that her eyes were rakos (whatever that means). Perhaps the mistake was due to a criminal level of negligence. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Man is equipped with such far-reaching vision, micha at aishdas.org yet the smallest coin can obstruct his view. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yisrael Salanter Fax: (270) 514-1507 From micha at aishdas.org Wed Dec 6 11:23:17 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2017 14:23:17 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] The 13 middos In-Reply-To: References: <20171204222908.GA10223@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20171206192317.GA12102@aishdas.org> On Tue, Dec 05, 2017 at 07:15:42AM +0200, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: : See the Mishne Lamelech avadim 3:9 where he states that it is either or and : the 2 styles cannot be mixed, and his main proof is from the Gemara Shavuos : 4b where the Gemara asks on Rebbe how can he darshen a ribui umiut like R : Akiva if in general he darshens Klal Uprat... And yet the conclution on 5a is that he holds like R' Yishma'el's beis medrash who holds the derashah is not kelal uperat but ribui umi'ut ("ribah umi'at"). R Yisma'el, the one who codified the rules of kelal uperat is the one who here uses ribui umi'ut!? So is the gemara really saying that Rebbe is not crossing the line, as it seems to be saying. Or is it intentionally also implying there is no line to cross? Tosafos there ("detana Devei R' Yishma'el") might be saying the latter; it is too terse for me to be sure of intent. And yet further down on 5a, we have "Hashta de'amres... -- Now that you say that Rebbe darshans kelal uperat, you are forced into a question about shavu'os...?" IOW, reassuming the line. In any case, I am totally lost. In a discussion of how no one uses both sets of rules, it cites the school that created one set using the other set, and not saying anything about it. There is more going on here than I comprehend so far. As RSRH said (Collected Writings vol V pg 170), there are many such cases of R' Yishmael and R' Aqiva uses the other's rules. RSRH treats the rule as a tendency, rather than a line one may not cross. I wish I knew his interpretation of the gemara in Shavuos. But it's not like the MlM, nor the ba'al Atzmos Yoseif (whom the MlM is discussing), and does acknowledge the actual positions taken across both shasin. Just thinking out loud... Maybe the gemaros we're looking at are bothered because these are all cases where both kelalim apply and in each case they imply different dinim. IOW, it is not a question of Rebbe (or devei R Yismael) using ribui umi'ut, but of favoring the derashah that he tends not to OVER the derashah that is his norm. And to handle RSRH's observation, in a case where it is not a choice between conflicting kinds of derashos, no one would be asking why Rebbe used a kelal uperat, as such line-crossing is normal. : See also tosafos nidda 30a s.v. Ushma mina where tosafos says that we : pasken that we darshen Klal uprat and not ribui umiut... Nidda 30a "ushma minah tevilah bizmanah mitzvah" is about holding like Beis Shammai, and doesn't mention derashos. The previous d"h, "shema minah telas" (a near match) also isn't on topic. Could you please fix the citation for me? : Regarding the Gemara in bechoros 51a it is actually a proof the other way. : The Gemara says that this case is an exception because it is not written in : the normal way of a Klal uprat and therefore in this case only... This is a 2nd variant of the same sugya as Shavu'os. (To clarify for those moderately interested, but not sufficiently so to look for themselves.) Rashi ("hakha"), who says it's a general rule: kelal uperat ukelal isn't judged as a kelal uperat but as a ribui umi'ut. IIUC, Rashi is saying that Rebbe is staying within his usual rule set, but this is a case where both rule sets include the same derashah, just under different names. Thanks to RMTorczyner (CCed) : > Choosing between using "Kelal/Perat" and "Ribuy/Miut": Eruvin 27b-28a; > Succah 50b; Kiddushin 21b The first two don't really deal with tannaim using only one rule set, but Qiddush 21b is a third version of our sugya. I didn't see anything to add to the discussion beyond a way to rope RMT in, and perhaps he'll talk to R' Jonathan Ziring about the question. (RMT is the Rosh Beit Midrash of the YU-Torah Mitzion Zichron Dov Beit Midrash of Toronto, RJZ is the segan. Back when RJZ was in the kollel at YHE ["Gush"], he gave a series of shiurim on meta-halakhah. I thought I had RJZ's address, as we had a short correspondance, but since I didn't find it, I figured that once I was bothering RMT for his opinion...) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger I always give much away, micha at aishdas.org and so gather happiness instead of pleasure. http://www.aishdas.org - Rachel Levin Varnhagen Fax: (270) 514-1507 From micha at aishdas.org Wed Dec 6 12:06:08 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2017 15:06:08 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] TEXTUAL JUDAISM AND THE LIVING TORAH In-Reply-To: <9e51a7f4ea644e829db8503f8f0451fe@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <9e51a7f4ea644e829db8503f8f0451fe@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20171206200608.GC12102@aishdas.org> On Thu, Nov 02, 2017 at 12:12:05PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : http://etzion.org.il/en/siman-114-prayers-wind-rain-and-dew : :> TEXTUAL JUDAISM AND THE LIVING TORAH : :> In his introduction to the Beit Yosef... ... I think there are two things we need to keep in mind, that R' Asher Meir does not touch upon: 1- The question isn't whether the BY or some other poseiq does or doesn't consider the extent to which a particular pesaq was nispasheit. But rather something less boolean: how much weight does any given poseiq give mimeticism, and in comparison to which other factors. A number of years ago I proposed a model (then modified it in a later iteration) of 4 classes of factors a poseiq needs to weigh. And that one of the leading reasons why pesaq is an art rather than an algorithm is that their can't be formal rules for comparing the magnitudes of apples and oranges -- and bananas and parsimons? Here's what I came up with: - textual logic: which sevara do you find most compelling? Litvaks typically put most of the emphasis - textual authority: rules like azlinan basar ruba, or giving more weight to the Rambam's or Rosh's pinion than to some Baal Tosafos we rarely hear of. This seems to be ROY's favorite territory. - minhag avos / mimeticism - hashkafic concerns (including philosophy, qaballah): like when chassidim and talmidei haGra stopped putting on tefillin on ch"m because it is qotzeitz binti'os. No one would place hashkafic concerns high on the list. Ein dorshin taamei hamizvos. A poseiq only leaves formal halachic analysis when multiple opinions are defensible, which "right answer" does one choose? But different posqim still give it different weight; requiring more or less equity between the halachic analysis of the different possible pesaqim before being willing to let the hashkafah tip the scales. 2- The BY is a text. To really talk about mimeticism, we're talking about what people do naturally. A poseiq may need to factor in which pesaq was nispasheit, but by doing so he is not being a mimetic. The AhS is more likely to find justifications for mimetic practice while the MB is more likely to recommend changing practice. But deciding to follow either is choosing textuallism over mimeticism. Mimeticism is following the same pesaq the AhS just defended because that's what everone does, it's the example your parents and/or your peers set, not because it's a pesaq with a sevara and sources. Still, it's interesting to find an example of the BY overriding his triumverate and clearly stating a reason that is at odds with his haqdamah. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Take time, micha at aishdas.org be exact, http://www.aishdas.org unclutter the mind. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rabbi Simcha Zissel Ziv, Alter of Kelm From micha at aishdas.org Wed Dec 6 13:40:04 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2017 16:40:04 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] More on Yaakov, sheep and the rods In-Reply-To: <50458059-A03F-4E6E-B54B-F1612B0E7E5B@jsli.org> References: <50458059-A03F-4E6E-B54B-F1612B0E7E5B@jsli.org> Message-ID: <20171206214004.GD12102@aishdas.org> On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 12:20:44PM -0500, Alexander Seinfeld via Avodah wrote: : Why not just interpret this as an example of phenotypic plasticity, : meaning the genetic potential is there in every generation, and the : environmental factors stimulate its expression? : : As everyone who had genetics 101 will realize, if you eliminate 100% : of the phenotype, and breed the remainder you will still get some of : that phenotype in the next generation with recessive genes. So it always : bothered me why was all the hokus pokus by Yaakov necessary.... I would learn from this incident in Bereishis that one is obligated to do whatever hishtadlus is possible by the best understanding of teva available to you. And not to worry about what the current theory may get replaced by. Along similar lines: R Avigdor Miller taught that since HQBH is Rofei kol basar, medicine doesn't actually heal. The role of doctors and medicine is to prevent Hashem's cure from requiring a neis nigleh. And, he explains, this is why people actually survived despite medical theories involving 4 humours and bloodletting, or whatnot. Any accepted theory is equally usable. I don't buy into this, because if true, medicine would never need to advance, in fact, accepted medical theory would never be disproved. Still, I find the idea intriguing. It fits the notion, which might be the Ramban's (depending on how you fit multiple comments together) and is definitely REED's that teva is not a real "thing", but the patterns Hashem uses to hide His Action behind. It's all neis nistar, really Now, if one were to apply the same idea to parnasah, one could explain the purpose of Yaakov's efforts. And even if RAvigdorM's theory is hard to see as how teva works for the rest of us, it's easier to apply to someone who is as neis-worthy, including neis-nistar-worthy, as Yaaqov avinu. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger You want to know how to paint a perfect micha at aishdas.org painting? It's easy. http://www.aishdas.org Make yourself perfect and then just paint Fax: (270) 514-1507 naturally. -Robert Pirsig From akivagmiller at gmail.com Wed Dec 6 15:10:18 2017 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2017 18:10:18 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Gid ha'nasheh Message-ID: . I asked: : If he was punished, it must be that he was punished for some choice : that he made. What choice was that? What did he do wrong? If he could : do it all over again, what ought he do differently? Specifically: : After having married Leah, should he have not married Rachel? and R' Micha Berger responded: > Well, isn't that the halakhah? I want to publicly thank RMB for a beautiful post, and for reminding me of some very important concepts. We learn so much of the machinations of what went on in this incident, how each step was important and necessary in various ways, that I was a bit shocked to hear it suggested that Yaakov Avinu was being punished for his choices here. But truth be told, the line between punishment and consequence can be arbitrary, subjective .... or even imaginary. We DO accept the reality of a "necessary evil", or a "greater good". It's not all black and white. "Well, isn't that the halakhah?" Indeed, the halacha prescribes The Way To Go, but that is no guarantee that there won't be unpleasant side effects. If the Kohen Gadol happens upon a Mes Mitzvah on Yom Kippur morning, the halacha is clear that he must get involved, even if that means that the day's avodah won't go as planned. So too, Yaakov Avinu and Rachel Imenu married each other because Klal Yisrael needed it, and if such a releationship was incompatible with Kedushas Haaretz, well, unfortunately, they'll have to endure the consequences. Akiva Miller From meirabi at gmail.com Wed Dec 6 18:07:12 2017 From: meirabi at gmail.com (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi) Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2017 13:07:12 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] =?utf-8?q?SEDRA_VAYEISHEV_=E2=80=93_TIME_TO_LOOK_IN_THE_?= =?utf-8?q?MIRROR?= Message-ID: When the little kid threatens a bouncer ? we all laugh. It is funny precisely because it is so silly and impossible. DJT, a buffoon, a bumbling, blithering bad-boy, could not possibly win the presidency. It was the standing joke that never grew stale ? until he became POTUS. Our Sages say, we are truly unmasked by Kiso Koso & KaAso ? by what we?re like when feeling liberated: # deciding how to use our valuables i.e. by what we consider to be important # intoxicated [not necessarily by alcohol] # we are agitated i.e. by what presses our buttons. Yosef tells his brothers about his dream ? expecting them to laugh it off and he gives them a second chance after they?ve had an opportunity to reconsider their response. When we get offended and mock ? it?s time to look in the mirror. Best, Meir G. Rabi 0423 207 837 +61 423 207 837 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From marty.bluke at gmail.com Thu Dec 7 02:27:17 2017 From: marty.bluke at gmail.com (Marty Bluke) Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2017 12:27:17 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] The 13 middos In-Reply-To: <20171206192317.GA12102@aishdas.org> References: <20171204222908.GA10223@aishdas.org> <20171206192317.GA12102@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 9:23 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > On Tue, Dec 05, 2017 at 07:15:42AM +0200, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: > : See the Mishne Lamelech avadim 3:9 where he states that it is either or > and > : the 2 styles cannot be mixed, and his main proof is from the Gemara > Shavuos > : 4b where the Gemara asks on Rebbe how can he darshen a ribui umiut like R > : Akiva if in general he darshens Klal Uprat... > > And yet the conclution on 5a is that he holds like R' Yishma'el's beis > medrash who holds the derashah is not kelal uperat but ribui umi'ut > ("ribah umi'at"). R Yisma'el, the one who codified the rules of kelal > uperat is the one who here uses ribui umi'ut!? > The Gemara says that this case is an exception because it is not written in the normal way of a Klal uprat and therefore in this case ONLY Rebbe can learn a ribui umiut but in general someone who learns Klal uprat could not use ribui umiut. > ... > > : See also tosafos nidda 30a s.v. Ushma mina where tosafos says that we > : pasken that we darshen Klal uprat and not ribui umiut... > > Nidda 30a "ushma minah tevilah bizmanah mitzvah" is about holding > like Beis Shammai, and doesn't mention derashos. The previous d"h, > "shema minah telas" (a near match) also isn't on topic. Could you > please fix the citation for me? > See the last 2 lines in the Tosafos that I quoted, Tosafos states "d'darish ribui umiut, V'Kayma lan d'darshinan klali uprati" Tosafos paskens that we darshen klal uprat not ribui umiut, that strongly implies that they are mutuallt exclusive > > > > > Tir'u baTov! > -Micha > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From JRich at sibson.com Wed Dec 6 21:49:36 2017 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2017 05:49:36 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] zmanim Message-ID: <550be79bd779462fa5534e6b58fba249@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> As sunrise got later I was at a minyan where the earliest time for tallit was approximately the same as the minyan starting time. I watched as everybody watched their cell phones for the exact time to start from Myzmanim. (Of course that website says not to rely on to it to the minute) I was wondering whether this close watch was a subset of a broader need of man modern man to have exactitude in life versus living with gray. (Sort of a desire to be Newtonian in a quantum world) I was also wondering whether the advent of the railroad table approach now requires us to halachically follow that exactness rather than that the "it looks right to me" approach of Chazal? Thoughts? KT 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: From larry62341 at optonline.net Thu Dec 7 03:09:25 2017 From: larry62341 at optonline.net (Prof. Levine) Date: Thu, 07 Dec 2017 06:09:25 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Davening on Airplanes In-Reply-To: <900051a759eb4fd1a58d4fda4d74fca6@exchng03.campus.stevens-t ech.edu> References: <900051a759eb4fd1a58d4fda4d74fca6@exchng03.campus.stevens-tech.edu> Message-ID: <32.C2.03752.761292A5@mta3.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> At 08:12 PM 12/6/2017, R Micha Berger wrote: >When it comes to kibud, public treatment does indeed matter... >However, here we are talking about someone in the olam ha'emes. So they >know that while on the plane you have that actual issur keeping you from >fulfilling the minhag of saying qaddish... >So I do not think it's likely the neshamah would mind the lack of kibud >as much as they would mind the misplacement of values. I would therefore >not draw any conclusions from the logical linkage of kibud with intent >and norms. From The Mussar Movement, Volume 1, Part 2 pages 248 - 249. On one of the anniversaries of his father's death, R. Israel was in Memel. He was informed that someone else in the synagogue wished to say Kaddish. Now R. Israel was very insistent that only one person at a time be allowed to recite the Kaddish at the services [28] and apparently this congregation had complied with his ruling. Reb Yitzchak Isaacson was observing the jahrzeit of a daughter who had died very young. Now the Halachah gives precedence to a son observing the jahrzeit of a parent on these occasions, and R. Israel was obviously entitled to the privilege. Sensing the grief he would cause the father by depriving him of the opportunity to say Kaddish for his daughter, R. Israel went up to him and said: "You sir, will say Kaddish." The worshippers expressed their surprise. Not only had R. Israel yielded his own right, but also overlooked the duty of honoring his father, since he was, by law, obliged to say Kaddish. He explained to them that the merit of extending kindness (gemi- lut chesed) to a fellow Jew possessed far greater value than the saying of Kaddish.[29] [28.] See R. Naftali Amsterdam's will, published in Or Hamusar No. 13. See Vol. II of the Hebrew edition of this series, Tenu'at Hamusar, II, Chap. 25. [29.] Ernile Benjamin, op. cit., p. 25. From seinfeld at daasbooks.com Thu Dec 7 06:50:16 2017 From: seinfeld at daasbooks.com (Alexander Seinfeld) Date: Thu, 07 Dec 2017 09:50:16 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Gid ha'nasheh Message-ID: It seems to me there are two plausible answers, and both may be correct. 1. Yes, he should not have married Rachel. This is in fact what Leah tells her, ?You stole my husband.? He was tricked, but he accepted Leah, did not annul the marriage, so too bad for Rachel. She?s the one who gave away the password. 2. He wasn?t yet Yisroel. He was still a ben Noach. When he becomes Yisroel, he is now required to keep the Taryag Mitzvos. It is right after this name change that she dies. I?m not sure why she doesn?t die immediately (in Beit-El) rather en route to Efrat. But this delay may have sown doubt into his mind about his status - maybe he is still a ben Noach. His sons consider themselves Bnai Yisroel, which is why they are eating meat that for a ben-Noach would be eiver-min-ha-chai, and which is part of the lashon hara that Yoseph brings back to Yaakov. But his judgment that they are Bnai Noach is not merely academic, it is personal, because it has implications in Rachel?s death. > >If he was punished, it must be that he was punished for some choice >that he made. What choice was that? What did he do wrong? If he could >do it all over again, what ought he do differently? Specifically: >After having married Leah, should he have not married Rachel? >Alternatively, (according to those who say that he was not fooled but >knew that Leah had the simanim,) should he have not married Leah? Or >should he have protested and annuled the marriage to Leah? > >If he was punished, what did he do wrong? From micha at aishdas.org Thu Dec 7 11:06:53 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2017 14:06:53 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Gid ha'nasheh In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20171207190653.GB26083@aishdas.org> On Wed, Dec 06, 2017 at 06:10:18PM -0500, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : We DO accept the reality of a "necessary evil", or a "greater good". : It's not all black and white. "Well, isn't that the halakhah?" Indeed, : the halacha prescribes The Way To Go, but that is no guarantee that : there won't be unpleasant side effects... A number of rishonim (eg Ramban, Seforno) deal with the problem of miracles. Since HQBH is Perfect and is capable of a perfect creation, why would He make a world in which He occasionally would have to step in and override teva? This is where the Ramban comes in with the idea that not only the miraculous items listed in Pirqei Avos created during Maaseh Bereishis, every "exception" to the laws of nature are actually special cases written into the law. I'll pause here to remind of what I said last email about "at the time of creation" and "in response to the situation" both being oversimplifications caused by us temporal beings trying to think about Hashem's "Action" which is lemaalah min hazeman and has no "when". Similarly, one can ask about His Authorship of halakhah. Since Hashem is capable of writing a system of laws to fit the universe in a way where obeying the law never has "unpleasant side effects", why wouldn't He? One backstep... I just realized you mean something broader by "side effects" than I was talking about. As you later write: : upon a Mes Mitzvah on Yom Kippur morning, the halacha is clear that he : must get involved, even if that means that the day's avodah won't go : as planned... Similarly, if piquach nefesh is docheh Shabbos, rather than Shabbos being huterah, one may have the misfortune of having to violate Shabbos. But that's not sekhar va'onesh, and my question "but what about Divine Justice?" doesn't apply. Not unless the "unpleasant side effect" is -- as in the case of Yaaqov's widowerhood or his hip -- painful (physically and/or emotionally). There is also another issue... Sekhar mitzvos behai alma leiqa. Not everything in this world is sekhar va'onesh. Li nir'eh, everything in this world is to draw us to a state of being able to receive more of Hashem's tov. Onesh, only when we have a chance of it getting us to choose more constructively. Which is why the mishnah talks about tzadiqim getting onesh in olam hazah to spare them in olam haba. Not because pain in olam hazeh pays off the accoun t early, but because a tzadiq will use the pain to draw closer to HQBH / to his ideal self. And similarly, resha'im who wouldn't respond constructively to the challenge... Well, HQBH would share with them his Tov in the here-and-now rather than not at all. This takes us away from insisting that the universe must be set up so that every sin contains its own onesh as a consequence. (If we're using the consequence model to look at things.) Instead, we can look at the universe as tending toward tov. And therefore every step away from tov will as a consequence cause a pull back toward it. (Which could well be onesh, but in olam hazeh, it could be getting us connected back to the Meitiv in some other way.) And applying this back to Yaaqov's marrying two wives... Perhaps it's not an onesh, but the consequent path closer to the Meitiv in a world where the aretz was made tamei. And it's even possible that the challenges of this harder path lead to a closer place than without. So that overall, the net is maximize sekhar. Lefum tza'ara. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger We look forward to the time micha at aishdas.org when the power to love http://www.aishdas.org will replace the love of power. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - William Ewart Gladstone From micha at aishdas.org Thu Dec 7 11:12:14 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2017 14:12:14 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] zmanim In-Reply-To: <550be79bd779462fa5534e6b58fba249@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <550be79bd779462fa5534e6b58fba249@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20171207191214.GC26083@aishdas.org> On Thu, Dec 07, 2017 at 05:49:36AM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : I was wondering whether this close watch was a subset of a broader : need of man modern man to have exactitude in life versus living with : gray... Or maybe we were always mechuyavim to be as precise as possible. : wondering whether the advent of the railroad table approach now requires : us to halachically follow that exactness rather than that the "it looks : right to me" approach of Chazal? Thoughts? Li nir'eh there is value to the "in sync with nature" approach of Chazal that we lose when we think about clock time rather than the cycles of the sun (a/k/a the earth's spin). Much the way we lose a lot of what the yamim tovim mean because we aren't living in agrarian communities, and don't feel the joy of new wheat and barley when we celebrate our birth as a people, or the joy of bringing in the year's fruit when we celebrate how HQBH sustained us in the midbar. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From seinfeld at daasbooks.com Thu Dec 7 20:42:27 2017 From: seinfeld at daasbooks.com (Alexander Seinfeld) Date: Thu, 07 Dec 2017 23:42:27 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] What are the main mitzvos to focus on? Message-ID: :: So basically you are saying that the current Charedi hashkafa/lifestyle of :: Torah only and Torah learning being the ultimate purpose of life is not a :: majority opinion in Chazal and in fact you can't find anyone among Chazal :: who says this. : I intentionally avoided stating it that confrontationally, but yes. Forgive me, this may be a side issue to your main point about the 2 ways/reasons to learn, but I feel it should be clarified what you mean. How do you understand the Shulchan Aruch - Orach Chaim 155-156 - go immediately from davening to learning, make Torah your ikkar and malacha your arai; minimize work to only what you need [Be?er Heiteiv, Mishna Berura] not more??? Not mainstream? Breaking with Chazal? It?s a verbatim quotation from Gemara Berachos 35b. And maybe related to Taanis 24b (Chanina ben Dosa and his wife.) Now, let?s think sociologically for a moment. Why did the Mechaber choose to state this halacha the way he does? It seems to me that in his time (as in all times) there were Jews who were pulled to the needs and attractions of parnasa and spending the vast majority of their time and energy on it and in his view not in the proper balance. The fact that he has to state this halacha implies that not everyone was behaving that way. So the fact that not everyone behaves this way today is no proof whatsoever against the halacha. But anyone who wonders on what basis do some Orthodox Jews forsake full-time jobs and toil in Torah should read the Beur Halacha on Siman 155.1 - ?Eis lilmode? > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Fri Dec 8 02:55:11 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Fri, 8 Dec 2017 05:55:11 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] What are the main mitzvos to focus on? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20171208105511.GA13704@aishdas.org> On Thu, Dec 07, 2017 at 11:42:27PM -0500, Alexander Seinfeld via Avodah wrote: ::: So basically you are saying that the current Charedi hashkafa/lifestyle of ::: Torah only and Torah learning being the ultimate purpose of life is not a ::: majority opinion in Chazal and in fact you can't find anyone among Chazal ::: who says this. :: I intentionally avoided stating it that confrontationally, but yes. : Forgive me, this may be a side issue to your main point about the 2 : ways/reasons to learn, but I feel it should be clarified what you mean. : How do you understand the Shulchan Aruch - Orach Chaim 155-156 - go : immediately from davening to learning, make Torah your ikkar and malacha : your arai; minimize work to only what you need [Be?er Heiteiv, Mishna : Berura] not more??? You are shifting topics. I wrote about the reasons to learn, and asserted "Torah only and Torah learning being the ultimate purpose of life... you can't find anyone among Chazal who says this." Torah learning should well be the anchor of your day in comparison to earning a parnasah. (Although if one is learning rather than going to teach, other mitzvos are dochim.) But not as an ends, as a means. The hashkafah is new, the priorities not. But the new hashkafah changes the weighting to be even more in favor of learning. For example: I don't know what's going on today, but in my day Neir Yisrael / Baltimore was unique among American "yeshivish" yeshivos in encouraging talmidim to volunteer to staff kiruv shabbatonim. (Most/all YU RY were very proactively pro becoming an NCSY advisor.) The others felt that at this time in their lives, bachurim shouldn't be distracted from learning. This, despite the fact that adolescents respond better if there are peer-teachers rather than full grownups of a different generation, and the program was begging for them. This is one of the reasons JEP failed. That's the worldview of the American and Israeli "Litvisher" yeshiva. Now let's look at actual pre-war Litvisher gedolim. And I don't mean the obvious mussarists. `Would the aforementioned Meshekh Chokhmah have agreed with this decision? Is it in concert with RCV's admonition to his son? What about R' Shimon Shkop, who opens Shaarei Yosher's haqdamah with (empshasis added): Yisbarakh HaBorei Veyis'alah HaYotzeir who created us in His "Image" and in the likeness of His "Structure" VECHAYEI OLAM NATA BESOKHAINU such that our greated desire should be to benefit others to the indivindual and the masses, now and in the future, in imitation of the Creator (kevayachol). Ikkar doesn't mean "ultimate purpose", and making learning one's ultimate purpose does push one to go beyond making it the day's ikkar. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Brains to the lazy micha at aishdas.org are like a torch to the blind -- http://www.aishdas.org a useless burden. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Bechinas haOlam From micha at aishdas.org Fri Dec 8 06:11:58 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Fri, 8 Dec 2017 09:11:58 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Your Ancestors Message-ID: <20171208141158.GA20389@aishdas.org> R' Mike Gerver posted to Mail-Jewish in 1994 a request to help him collect more date to tighten an argument that odds are, every Jew alive either: - is a geir or all his ancestry are from geirim recently enough for him to know, or - descends from Rashi. (Or anyone else of that era or earlier.) See Calculations involve estimating rate of marriage across social strata, between towns, and between eidot. All Jews. Even Teimanim. (Ethiopians weren't a discussion yet, odds are no.) Well, this article makes that all the more probable: http://bigthink.com/stephen-johnson/why-youre-probably-related-to-nefertiti-and-confucius Why You're Probably Related to Nefertiti, Confucius, and Socrates December 7, 2017 by Stephen Johnson .... [J]ust how far back do humans need to go to find a common ancestor of their own: a person to whom all living people are related? The answer, for people of European descent at least, is surprisingly recent: 600 years. The common ancestor for every single person alive on the planet today, no matter where, lived approximately 3,600 years ago. That means Confucius, Nefertiti, Socrates, and any figure from ancient history that had children, is in some way your ancestor. Then, quoting Adam Rutherfore's new book, A Brief History of Everyone Who Ever Lived: "We are all special, which also means that none of us is," writes Rutherford in the book. "This is merely a numbers game. You have two parents, four grandparents, eight great-grandparents, and so on. Each generation back the number of ancestors you have doubles. But this ancestral expansion is not borne back ceaselessly into the past. If it were, your family tree when Charlemagne was Le Grand Fromage would harbor around 137,438,953,472 individuals on it -- more people than were alive then, now, or in total." So, why not? "You can be, and in fact are, descended from the same individual many times over," Rutherford writes. "Your great-great-great-great-great-grandmother might hold that position in your family tree twice, or many times, as her lines of descent branch out from her, but collapse onto you. The further back through time we go, the more these lines will coalesce on fewer individuals." The startling discovery that all Europeans might share a common ancestor who walked the Earth just 600 years ago was first proposed in 1999 by a Yale statistician named Joseph Chang. In his paper Recent Common Ancestors of All Present-Day Individuals," Chang used complex mathematical conceptslike Poisson distributions and Markov chainsto show how webbed pedigrees can overlap to produce common ancestors. If that is true of Europeans in 600 years, Jews over 800 years lo kol shekein? :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger We are great, and our foibles are great, micha at aishdas.org and therefore our troubles are great -- http://www.aishdas.org but our consolations will also be great. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rabbi AY Kook From jziring at torontotorah.com Wed Dec 6 19:40:58 2017 From: jziring at torontotorah.com (Jonathan Ziring) Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2017 22:40:58 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] The 13 middos In-Reply-To: References: <20171204222908.GA10223@aishdas.org> <20171206192317.GA12102@aishdas.org> Message-ID: [I had to edit this post significantly to fit Avodah's format constaints. -micha] Shalom, I'm touched to be asked. I have wondered about this (and have again this week due to Daf Yomi). I can't say I have strongly formed opinions on it, but the sugyot do seem to imply that these are more tendencies rather than rules, at lease re: Klal UPrat vs. Ribbui and Miut. The drashot of vavim and the like seem more absolute (X is not doresh vav). Yaakov Elman makes that point in his article on Ribbui. A few articles that deal with the topic that I've glanced through are: The Formal Development of [Kelal uPerat uKelal] Michael Chernick Tarbiz, pp. 393-410 Towards a History of "Ribbuy" in the Babylonian Talmud and Yaakov Elman Proceedings of the World Congress of Jewish Studies Vol. 11, Division C: Thought and Literature, Volume I: Rabbinic and Talmudic Literature (1993), pp. 87-94 In general, Michael Chernick and devoted much time to this. A few other relevant articles by him: The Development of Ribbuim and Mi 'utim Hermeneutics," PAAJR",1982-3. "The Use of Ribbuyim and Mi'utim in the Halakic Midrash ofR. Ishmael," JQK, 1979. "The Hermeneutic Kelal u-Ferat u-Kelal: Its History and Development," AAJR Annual Meeting, 1980 I think this will spur me to think more systematically about this. If I come up with anything, I will definitely share it. Jonathan From simon.montagu at gmail.com Sat Dec 9 08:27:13 2017 From: simon.montagu at gmail.com (Simon Montagu) Date: Sat, 9 Dec 2017 18:27:13 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Your Ancestors In-Reply-To: <20171208141158.GA20389@aishdas.org> References: <20171208141158.GA20389@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Fri, Dec 8, 2017 at 4:11 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah < avodah at lists.aishdas.org> wrote: > > http://bigthink.com/stephen-johnson/why-youre-probably- > related-to-nefertiti-and-confucius > Why You're Probably Related to Nefertiti, Confucius, and Socrates > December 7, 2017 by Stephen Johnson > .... > [J]ust how far back do humans need to go to find a common ancestor > of their own: a person to whom all living people are related? > > The answer, for people of European descent at least, is surprisingly > recent: 600 years. The common ancestor for every single person alive > on the planet today, no matter where, lived approximately 3,600 years > ago. That means Confucius, Nefertiti, Socrates, and any figure from > ancient history that had children, is in some way your ancestor. Unless I'm missing something, those last two sentences are a huge non sequitur. I have a slightly different take-away from the article: it says that everybody has a common ancestor who lived approximately 3,600 years ago. Isn't that exactly what the Torah says? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ben1456 at zahav.net.il Sat Dec 9 12:20:41 2017 From: ben1456 at zahav.net.il (Ben Waxman) Date: Sat, 09 Dec 2017 22:20:41 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Rambam Hilchot Shivtat Assur 3:3 Message-ID: Rambam Hilchot Shivtat Assur 3:3: The Rambam writes a clal: A minhag can not cancel something that is assur. A minhag can only prohibit something that is permitted. Is this rule seen as a veto or are there indeed issurim which have been become muttar via the power of minhag? From micha at aishdas.org Sat Dec 9 16:07:31 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Sat, 9 Dec 2017 19:07:31 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Your Ancestors In-Reply-To: References: <20171208141158.GA20389@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20171210000731.GB20169@aishdas.org> On Sat, Dec 09, 2017 at 06:27:13PM +0200, Simon Montagu via Avodah wrote: : > The answer, for people of European descent at least, is surprisingly : > recent: 600 years. The common ancestor for every single person alive : > on the planet today, no matter where, lived approximately 3,600 years : > ago. That means Confucius, Nefertiti, Socrates, and any figure from : > ancient history that had children, is in some way your ancestor. : Unless I'm missing something, those last two sentences are a huge non : sequitur. The author is just saying that the same model that giver the result of 600 years for Euopeans gives a result of 3,600 for all of humanity. : I have a slightly different take-away from the article: it says that : everybody has a common ancestor who lived approximately 3,600 years ago. : Isn't that exactly what the Torah says? Well, really the model says that everyone who is alive today almost certainly (this is statistics, after all) descended from everyone who was alive 3,600 who has /any/ living descendents. Not that there was one such ancestor. Gut Voch! -Micha -- Micha Berger What you get by achieving your goals micha at aishdas.org is not as important as http://www.aishdas.org what you become by achieving your goals. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Henry David Thoreau From ben1456 at zahav.net.il Sat Dec 9 12:59:26 2017 From: ben1456 at zahav.net.il (Ben Waxman) Date: Sat, 09 Dec 2017 22:59:26 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Rambam Hilchot Kiddush Hachodesh Message-ID: 1) Rambam Hilchot Kiddush Hachodesh 3:1 makes it clear that anyone who sees the new moon and can get to Jerusalem by the following evening should go. How would that work today given that basically means that every male in Israel who sees the moon should go (maybe men in Eilat who don't own a car would be patur). Were most (or even a small minority of) Israeli Jewish males above the age of 13 to look, there is no way that the Beit Din could even question all of these men, even if they only asked a couple of questions. Is there any problem in making sure that you don't see the moon? Just stay in for the evening. Rambam doesn't say that there is a chiyuv to look. Or since the Beit Din only takes testimony from trusted witnesses, can someone just say "I never got any type of certification that I am a good witness, therefore I don't need to go". Or how about having a few (say 100) men in each major city or region entrusted with the job and they would be the designated possible witnesses. 2) Rambam Hilchot Kiddush Hachodes 2:10 says clearly that once the beit din declares the new month, that is it, even if they know that they made a mistake. Yet in 3:15 and 16 Rambam writes that in the situation where no witnesses came on the 30th, if witnesses come later in the month and are able to prove that they did see the moon come out on the 29th, that month's calendar is redone. Is this not an obvious contradiction? I assume that I am reading 3:15 and 16 incorrectly or that I am getting something wrong here. 3) Later in the book Rambam goes on at length and in extreme detail about how to calculate the moon's position. He adds that we know these calculations from science and that since we no longer have a tradition about this matter from the nevi'im, it is fine to use outside sources. Seeing this made me wonder why we don't apply this rule in other areas. For example, I had read that we don't make matza from barley because we don't have a tradition as to how it takes barley to become chameitz. So why not measure it? Ben From simon.montagu at gmail.com Sat Dec 9 21:57:52 2017 From: simon.montagu at gmail.com (Simon Montagu) Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2017 07:57:52 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Your Ancestors In-Reply-To: <20171210000731.GB20169@aishdas.org> References: <20171208141158.GA20389@aishdas.org> <20171210000731.GB20169@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Sun, Dec 10, 2017 at 2:07 AM, Micha Berger wrote: > On Sat, Dec 09, 2017 at 06:27:13PM +0200, Simon Montagu via Avodah wrote: > : > The answer, for people of European descent at least, is > surprisingly > : > recent: 600 years. The common ancestor for every single person > alive > : > on the planet today, no matter where, lived approximately 3,600 > years > : > ago. That means Confucius, Nefertiti, Socrates, and any figure > from > : > ancient history that had children, is in some way your ancestor. > > : Unless I'm missing something, those last two sentences are a huge non > : sequitur. > > The author is just saying that the same model that giver the result > of 600 years for Euopeans gives a result of 3,600 for all of humanity. > > That's not the non sequitur. The non sequitur is going from "we have a common ancestor 3,600 years ago" to "Confucius and Socrates are your ancestors". Confucius and Socrates lived around 2500 years ago, and how does the author know that they had any living descendants? > : I have a slightly different take-away from the article: it says that > : everybody has a common ancestor who lived approximately 3,600 years ago. > : Isn't that exactly what the Torah says? > > Well, really the model says that everyone who is alive today almost > certainly (this is statistics, after all) descended from everyone who > was alive 3,600 who has /any/ living descendents. > Not that there was one such ancestor. > I haven't read the model, but the article you linked to talks several times about "/a/ common ancestor", "/a/" person to whom all living people are related", etc. > > Gut Voch! > -Micha > > -- > Micha Berger What you get by achieving your goals > micha at aishdas.org is not as important as > http://www.aishdas.org what you become by achieving your goals. > Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Henry David Thoreau > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From bdbradley70 at hotmail.com Sun Dec 10 14:22:59 2017 From: bdbradley70 at hotmail.com (Ben Bradley) Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2017 22:22:59 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] What are the main mitzvos to focus on? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I don't recall everything I've read on this subject of the purpose of talmud torah, but the conversation here so far seems to be missing a crucial piece, namely the transformative aspect of talmud torah on the individual learning it. The problem with the instrumental view is that it doesn't account for a number of aspects of the way chazal unanimously viewed talmud torah. If it was just about knowing how to keep the mitzvos then, I think, we'd have trouble with the following off the top of my head 1. The intensive way chazal went about talmud torah - the lack of sleep involved, the amora who sat on his hands until they bled, disappearing from family for years at a time 2. The viewing of talmud torah as a unending project 3. The depth and incisiveness of analysis expected in learning gemara. Eg being able to metaher a sheret 4. the lack of differentiation between learning issues of practical use and those which you will never need to know from a practical point of view Maybe I'm missing something, but knowing how to keep the mitzvos per se need not involve any of these. There are clear indications of the transformative nature of talmud torah in chazal, even if these aren't stated as its purpose explicitly. Perhaps there's a distinction between its purpose and the meaning of lishma. So learning torah lishma, whatever that means, is transformative, which is a primary purpose if not the only one. That would also bring talmud torah in line with the other mitzvos, since they all have a transformative benefit to the individual. It would also set it apart since it is more transformative than all the others, ie kneged kulam. It is the most transformative, and thus the most important. That said, considerations other than personal growth give priority to other mitzvos in many situations. Ben -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hankman at bell.net Mon Dec 11 06:11:22 2017 From: hankman at bell.net (hankman) Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2017 09:11:22 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Purpose of distant galaxies? Message-ID: <83F7EA9337D54E08891E46C1032C89FE@hankPC> I have just been watching a show on Discovery Science about a lay version of quantum mechanics. At one point the moderator was talking about the notion of entanglement and explained how in theory this involves the connection of entangled particles over any distance instantaneously. He then continued to say that given the big bang theory, all of existence was at a single point and then expanded (inflated) from then to the great distances, billions of light years, we witness today. But at the initial moment after the singularity, all the particles of the universe were close enough to possibly become entangled with some other, but then after the expansion, the partner entangled particle might have ended up in some distant far removed galaxy and but thereby still be related to its entangled partner particle perhaps now in our body here on Earth. I then thought back to some of the earlier discussions here on Avodah about the purpose of these distant galaxies that could never affect us here on Earth and that we did not even know existed until recently. Perhaps this possibility of entanglement with distant particles of those galaxies from the time of creation may provide some logic to the purpose of the existence of those distant galaxies? Happy Chanukah veKol tuv Chaim Manaster -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Mon Dec 11 09:33:33 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2017 12:33:33 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Rambam Hilchot Shivtat Assur 3:3 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20171211173333.GE15573@aishdas.org> On Sat, Dec 09, 2017 at 10:20:41PM +0200, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: : Rambam Hilchot Shivtat Assur 3:3: The Rambam writes a clal: A minhag : can not cancel something that is assur. A minhag can only prohibit : something that is permitted. Isn't the very definition of a minhag ta'us one that promotes doing an issur, or violating an asei? At least, violating an asei actively; I don't know if I would include a minhag not to fulfil an asei besheiv ve'al ta'aseh. That kind of thing would require more research. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Worrying is like a rocking chair: micha at aishdas.org it gives you something to do for a while, http://www.aishdas.org but in the end it gets you nowhere. Fax: (270) 514-1507 From micha at aishdas.org Tue Dec 12 13:53:43 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2017 16:53:43 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Women and Torah Study In-Reply-To: <9f94d416d3154585a6bb71a2df12c54e@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <9f94d416d3154585a6bb71a2df12c54e@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20171212215343.GA13817@aishdas.org> On Sun, Dec 03, 2017 at 06:40:43AM +0000, RJR reposted here a comment of his on a recent post on Lehrhaus: : Is encouraging intensive study of Talmud for women a community priority : or is the priority to make such study available for those who choose to : avail themselves of the opportunity? Especially if the former, where : does it stand in relation to other community priorities and how does : the answer differ from study for men? IMHO these questions have not been : sufficiently addressed. Do my concern resonate at all? Mod-Yeshivish (in contrast to other forms of MO) may argue that since learning primarily means shas and lomdus, and the iqar method for refining one's soul is learning, now that women are given the toolds to be able to make sense of Talmud, making it available to them is a community priority. To quote RALichtenstein from : What is the cardinal principle that lies at the heart, on the one hand, of Yeshiva education and, on the other hand, is the lynchpin of liberal education. It is, first and foremost, the notion that one is concerned with molding the person and only secondarily with preparing or training for the fulfillment of a certain role. John Cardinal Newman's statement, that "we are men by nature, geometrists only by chance," epitomizes this approach and it is one with respect to which, I have indicated, the Yeshiva world and the world of liberal education at its best coincide. Of course, that is not to suggest that preparing for a role, be it a domestic role, a professional role, or a communal role, is not important. It is important, but secondary. The first principle, I think, with regard to education generally, and which needs to be particularly emphasized in the field of women's education, is that first and foremost one needs to mold the person as an individual in all respects, with regard to character, personality, intellectual ability, and above all, of course, in religious terms, as an oved Hashem. ... If we ask ourselves: Here are the goals! "[leyir'ah, le'avah, la'avod, lishmor, ledavqah, lalekhet bekhol derakhav]," to fear [God], to love [God], to serve [God], to cling [to Him] to go in all His ways." What are the means? Traditionally, over the centuries, there has been a fairly sharp dichotomy precisely regarding this very issue, namely the means to be employed in relation to men versus women... This is not the occasion to examine whether that was justified historically. What is clear, however, is that notwithstanding how one judges the past retrospectively, in our present historical and social setting we need to view the teaching and the learning of girls and women as both a major challenge, as well as a primary need. ... But this is creating a role for halakhah study out of whole cloth that is really RAL's chiddush. After all, historically curricula for girls' and women did include character-shaping material, but OVERTLY so -- mussar, hashkafah and the lessons in each taken from studying Tanakh. And leave halakhah to learning the job, rather than liberal arts. And I would repeat a point made by RYGB when asked about this topic: Where is the evidence that our current boys' curriculum works so well that we're in a rush to make the curriculum for girls' more similar to it? In general, the yeshivish -- including the ModY -- take NhC shaar 4 to mean that learning refines the soul in some mystical way. Just learn, and the problem will solve itself. Whereas I personally think the data points the other way. And that the NhC intended that statement prescriptively -- true talmud Torah is learning in a way that consciously aims to refine the soul. Which is why there is all that Mussar and Middos talk around AishDas and its web site. My own inclination, and this really just translates to "my parents provided a RWMO upbrining" (with some variety thrown in in the form of school choices), would be that we can't prioritize providing talmud study for women over clear-cut chiyuvim. Talmud study should be made available, but for those women who feel a need for talmud study. Which puts me in the same camp as the LR's effective position. Women coming to kiruv with egalitarian leanings were encouraged by the LR to learn Talmud if they wish to. But you wont find a gemara class in Beis Rivka. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "And you shall love H' your G-d with your whole micha at aishdas.org heart, your entire soul, and all you own." http://www.aishdas.org Love is not two who look at each other, Fax: (270) 514-1507 It is two who look in the same direction. From micha at aishdas.org Wed Dec 13 03:30:34 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2017 06:30:34 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Rambam Hilchot Kiddush Hachodesh In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20171213113034.GB7576@aishdas.org> On Sat, Dec 09, 2017 at 10:59:26PM +0200, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: : 1) Rambam Hilchot Kiddush Hachodesh 3:1 makes it clear that anyone : who sees the new moon and can get to Jerusalem by the following : evening should go. How would that work today.... And then think what happens if the calculations were for a long month. The guy invests all that effort just to get to locked Lishkas haGazis doors. I would be frustrated. But to get to your question. I think that's a taqanah in order to insure that there is eidus. Rather than everyone saying someone else will go. There is no how that would work today, since you need a Sanhedrin to make it work. But isn't this a derabbnan, to make sure all those who see the moon don't assume someone else will go, and there ends up not having 2 kosher eidim? So, if the the next Sanhedrin finds that too many people are coming / would come and we're far from needing such a guarantee, they can repeal this din. : 2) Rambam Hilchot Kiddush Hachodes 2:10 says clearly that once the : beit din declares the new month, that is it, even if they know that : they made a mistake. Yet in 3:15 and 16 Rambam writes that in the : situation where no witnesses came on the 30th, if witnesses come : later in the month and are able to prove that they did see the moon : come out on the 29th, that month's calendar is redone. Is this not : an obvious contradiction? I assume that I am reading 3:15 and 16 : incorrectly or that I am getting something wrong here. The famous story of the calendar dispute between Rabban Gamliel and R' Yehoshua (RH 2:8-9) includes R' Aqiva saying, "Eileh mo'adei H' asher tiqre'u osam" -- bein bizmanan, bein shelo bizmanan, ein Li mo'ados ela eilu. Which is what the Rambam is saying in 2:10. He quotes R' Aqiva's prooftext. In that mishnah, both R' Gamliel and R' Yehoshua knew the metzi'us, they were arguing over whether to accept the eidim despite a flaw in their story. They may have even been arguing about the cheshbon, and whether there was a need to accept whatever eidim one had. The beginning of mishnah 9 has R' Gamliel ordering R' Yehoshua to show up "beyom haKippurim shechal lihyos *becheshbonkha*". There may be a difference between making a mistake in terms of decision-making and making one because they were working with bad or incomplete data. 2:20 is about their decision being wrong, 3:15-16 is about a lack of eidus. An error in the cheshbon or perhaps decision in general vs an error in facts. While this guess about p' 2 is less than compelling, it would seem that in p' 3 he is empowering a BD to go back to their cheshbon when they were forced by a lack of testimony to lengthen the month despite it. After all, 3:15 describes BD sitting all of the 30th, meaning wanting a short month, without witnesses comming. So I feel more comfortable with that part of the guess. Maybe R' Yehoshua would have renegged without needing R' Aqiva had other eidim arrived days later to corroborate the first two. : 3) Later in the book Rambam goes on at length and in extreme detail : about how to calculate the moon's position. He adds that we know : these calculations from science and that since we no longer have a : tradition about this matter from the nevi'im, it is fine to use : outside sources. Seeing this made me wonder why we don't apply this : rule in other areas. For example, I had read that we don't make : matza from barley because we don't have a tradition as to how it : takes barley to become chameitz. So why not measure it? But lemaaseh we don't, because we need a Sanhedrin to make a RC. For that matter, we even pad when we say Qiddush Levanah, making the one day difference irrelevent. So what halakhah lemaaseh is the Rambam talking about, that relies on the calculations? Giving license to the next Sanhedrin? I am not even sure we know the scientific difference between chameitz and sirchah. Or even if there is one. Why is dough made with 100% juice a different thing than if the juice were diluted, or if it were all water? If we don't know what it is we should measure, how can we use science to measure it? I think it has to be something like that, because the lack of barley matzah isn't a modern issue. And the ability to measure rising doesn't require some modern measuring equipment. So, why was the question left unsolved by centuries of acharonim if it were resolable? Similarly, we know the medical communities' various definitions of death. (They're all pretty similar.) But we don't know if halachic misah would use the same definition. But even those who stick with heart death would use the latest scientific tools to determine whether or not the person had their last heartbeat (lo aleinu). So I would posit the issue is a chiluq between using science to determine the physical state vs having a pesaq as to what physical state needs determining. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Like a bird, man can reach undreamed-of micha at aishdas.org heights as long as he works his wings. http://www.aishdas.org But if he relaxes them for but one minute, Fax: (270) 514-1507 he plummets downward. - Rav Yisrael Salanter From JRich at sibson.com Wed Dec 13 21:39:28 2017 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2017 05:39:28 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] S"A Principles Message-ID: Question: I note that the S"A O"C 158:10 (Hand Washing) quotes the Gemara (R'Chisda) in support of using more than the minimum required amount of water for hand washing. Given the Mechaber's goal that the Shulchan Aruch be a halachic summary of his magnum opus, the Beit Yosef, does anyone know of a theory as to why the Mechaber in some cases quotes Talmudic sources (or Torah or Rishonim) and in others just states the halacha? Any study of the frequency of such quotes? KT 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: From akivagmiller at gmail.com Wed Dec 13 19:40:54 2017 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2017 22:40:54 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Rambam Hilchot Kiddush Hachodesh Message-ID: . (I don't know if this post will help understand Kiddush Hachodesh or not. If yes, I'm glad I could help. If not, I apologize for the distraction.) R' Micha Berger asked: > I am not even sure we know the scientific difference between > chameitz and sirchah. Or even if there is one. Why is dough > made with 100% juice a different thing than if the juice were > diluted, or if it were all water? If we don't know what it is > we should measure, how can we use science to measure it? I agree that WE don't know the scientific difference between chametz and sirchon, but it seems clear to me that such a difference does exist, and Chazal understood it. See the very beginning of Yerushalmi Challah, page 1b1 in the ArtScroll English version. "Badku Umatz'u" - They tested various grains, to see what happens when their flour is mixed with water. They found that The Five Grains underwent "chimutz", while *most* other grains fermented in the manner called "sirchon". (For some grains, the tests were inconclusive.) There is no Kabala From Sinai that defines these processes in terms of the grains, the liquids, or anything else. If you knew what to look for, you could look at a dough and tell whether it was chometz - without even knowing the ingredients. > I think it has to be something like that, because the lack of > barley matzah isn't a modern issue. And the ability to measure > rising doesn't require some modern measuring equipment. So, > why was the question left unsolved by centuries of acharonim > if it were resolvable? The problem isn't in the equipment. It's knowing what to look for. The tamay birds are all listed in Parshas Shmini. You don't need a degree in genetics to determine whether the bird in your hand is on the list or not. The only problem is that no one today knows what those words mean. Just like we don't really understand the difference between chimutz and sirchon. And no amount of pilpul among the "centuries of acharonim" is gonna help. Akiva Miller From micha at aishdas.org Thu Dec 14 03:27:18 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2017 06:27:18 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Rambam Hilchot Kiddush Hachodesh In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20171214112718.GA11145@aishdas.org> On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 10:40:54PM -0500, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : See the very beginning of Yerushalmi Challah, page [16]b1 in the : ArtScroll English version. "Badku Umatz'u" - They tested various : grains, to see what happens when their flour is mixed with water. They : found that The Five Grains underwent "chimutz", while *most* other : grains fermented in the manner called "sirchon". (For some grains, the : tests were inconclusive.) (Artscroll must have just one page of 16b, since that's near the bottom of the amud.) Assuming you understand the machloqes aa being about metzi'us. Which I did not. Aside from a reluctance to pin machloqesin on matters of fact even in the Y-mi, where there are cases it seems unaviodable. There are other problems: 1- EVERY other grain but these 5 produced something in between chimutz and sirchon that only R Yochanan b Nuri thought looked like chimutz? Not one of the experiments had another dissenter? 2- Why wouldn't later generations try to get clarity by repeating the experiment? As I took it (and wrote as much in prior iterations), R Yochanan b Nuri and the chakhamim were arguing over where the line is between chimutz and sirchon. They agreed on what happened when you mix a grain other than the 5 with water -- the gemara describes the experimental result as "ushe'ar kol haminim einan ba'in liydei matzah vechameitz elas sirchon." Then it continues the machloqes (running onto 17a), this time asking about qeramis in particular. And the gemara asks: Why they don't just check it? The first check's results were written open-and-shut. Here we are given RYBN differing obseration. As I took it, RYBN disagreed only in that he considers sirchon prohibited as chameitz. They argue about which side of the line sirchon is on because the machloqes is about where the line is. Which is why the gemara is so clear cut on the first test. And this is is why I lunped it together with other cases of halakhah deciding where in the gray area set of physical cases halakhah draws the line. : There is no Kabala From Sinai that defines these processes in terms of : the grains, the liquids, or anything else. If you knew what to look : for, you could look at a dough and tell whether it was chometz - : without even knowing the ingredients. ... and we don't know what to look for. :> I think it has to be something like that, because the lack of :> barley matzah isn't a modern issue. And the ability to measure :> rising doesn't require some modern measuring equipment. So, :> why was the question left unsolved by centuries of acharonim :> if it were resolvable? : The problem isn't in the equipment. It's knowing what to look for. As I said, it "has to be something like that", since the physical question could have been resolved, or at the very least repeatedly attempted to be resolved. You appear to be arguing against the hava amina I took pains to reject. But, unlike rice, where miSinai we could have known whether its sitchon qualifies as chameitz or not or the machloqes could have arisen later, with barley we know the uncertainty is caused by lost information. : The tamay birds are all listed in Parshas Shmini. You don't need a : degree in genetics to determine whether the bird in your hand is on : the list or not.,,, Ironically, defining a "min" is not settled halakhah either. Ask the Israelis debating whether we know that any breed of chicken other than the breakel chicken (or, I would guess the American campine) is halachically chicken and within the mesorah. Or the counter-arguers, who want to pasl braekel chickens... I am not saying I understand the metzi'us of the debate, but it does highlight how hard it is to draw halachic lines in the physical sand. So, even if we could translate the name of every min in parashas Shemini, we could still not know whether the bird in my hand is included in one of the minim on the list or not. As we could argue whether the genetic test found something on one side of the line defining the min, or the other -- because we don't know where the line is. A lichtikn un freilechn Chanukah! -Micha -- Micha Berger When we are no longer able to change a situation micha at aishdas.org -- just think of an incurable disease such as http://www.aishdas.org inoperable cancer -- we are challenged to change Fax: (270) 514-1507 ourselves. - Victor Frankl (MSfM) From Aryeh.Frimer at biu.ac.il Thu Dec 14 05:03:04 2017 From: Aryeh.Frimer at biu.ac.il (Aryeh Frimer) Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2017 13:03:04 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Tevilat Kelim Message-ID: Has anyone seen a discussion regarding one who said "al haTevila" (which women recite when going to mikva) instead of "Al tevilat Kelim." Is the Berakha valid be-Di-avad? A Freilichen Hanukah!! -------------------------------------------------- Dr. Aryeh A. Frimer Ethel and David Resnick Professor Emeritus of Active Oxygen Chemistry Chemistry Dept., Bar-Ilan University Ramat Gan 5290002, ISRAEL E-mail (office): Aryeh.Frimer at biu.ac.il Homepage http://ch.biu.ac.il/frimer E-mail (home): FrimerA at zahav.net.il From ben1456 at zahav.net.il Fri Dec 15 02:45:55 2017 From: ben1456 at zahav.net.il (Ben Waxman) Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2017 12:45:55 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Rambam Hilchot Kiddush Hachodesh In-Reply-To: <20171213113034.GB7576@aishdas.org> References: <20171213113034.GB7576@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <3554ff1b-2c53-bf1d-b688-0202a1eae13a@zahav.net.il> It must be something like that. After reading through Kiddush Hachodesh I was left with a huge question as to the incredible detail; 100 times more detailed than say his Hilchot Pesach. Ben On 12/13/2017 1:30 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > So what halakhah lemaaseh is the Rambam > talking about, that relies on the calculations? Giving license to > the next Sanhedrin? From michaelpoppers at gmail.com Thu Dec 14 18:17:15 2017 From: michaelpoppers at gmail.com (Michael Poppers) Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2017 21:17:15 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] zmanim Message-ID: >From R'Micha: > Li nir'eh there is value to the "in sync with nature" approach of Chazal that we lose when we think about clock time rather than the cycles of the sun (a/k/a the earth's spin). ? > ? Much the way we lose a lot of what the yamim tovim mean because we aren't living in agrarian communities, and don't feel the joy of new wheat and barley when we celebrate our birth as a people, or the joy of bringing in the year's fruit when we celebrate how HQBH sustained us in the midbar. < ...or the meaning of "Yotzer Or", etc. because we're not davening those pre- *Shma* *b'rachos* at the "right" time w/ a view of the brightening sky. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Fri Dec 15 06:55:30 2017 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2017 14:55:30 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Why does Yosef command the Egyptians to circumcise Message-ID: <1513349727386.22540@stevens.edu> See https://goo.gl/1AP3eB Rashi on Bereshis 41:55 says what he tells you, do: Since Joseph had ordered them to circumcise themselves, and when they came to Pharaoh and said, "This is what he said to us," he (Pharaoh) said to them, "Why didn't you gather grain? Didn't he announce to you that years of famine were coming?" They replied, "We gathered much, but it rotted." He (Pharaoh) replied,"If so, do whatever he tells you. He issued a decree upon the grain, and it rotted. What if he issues a decree upon us and we die?" - [from Mid. Tanchuma Mikeitz 7, Gen. Rabbah 91:5] Why did Yosef order them to do that? See the above URL for three explanations. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Fri Dec 15 06:57:57 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2017 09:57:57 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Rambam Hilchot Kiddush Hachodesh In-Reply-To: <3554ff1b-2c53-bf1d-b688-0202a1eae13a@zahav.net.il> References: <20171213113034.GB7576@aishdas.org> <3554ff1b-2c53-bf1d-b688-0202a1eae13a@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <20171215145757.GB28181@aishdas.org> On Fri, Dec 15, 2017 at 12:45:55PM +0200, Ben Waxman wrote: : On 12/13/2017 1:30 PM, Micha Berger wrote: :> So what halakhah lemaaseh is the Rambam :> talking about, that relies on the calculations? Giving license to :> the next Sanhedrin? : It must be something like that. After reading through Kiddush : Hachodesh I was left with a huge question as to the incredible : detail; 100 times more detailed than say his Hilchot Pesach. My guess, and I hope it's not too lesse majest for a public posting: The Rambam was a math geek who simply enjoyed this kind of stuff. It cannot be that the Rambam thought the future chavrei Sanhedrin would need his text for this more than his usual coverage. Leshitaso, one wouldn't be qualified to be a dayan without a strong background in all 7 chokhmos. That last line being an opening to a Chanukah tangent about Chokhmah Yevanis being a necessary study for a member of the Sanhedrin. So, Chanukah celebrates a victory over Yavan (in the sense of Hellenism) and a step toward reestablishing the Sanhedrin, who were expected to utilize "yaft E-lokim leYefes, veyishkon be'ohalei Sheim". An enlightening and happy Chanukah and :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Brains to the lazy micha at aishdas.org are like a torch to the blind -- http://www.aishdas.org a useless burden. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Bechinas haOlam From micha at aishdas.org Sat Dec 16 16:09:45 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2017 19:09:45 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Mamlekhat Chimyar Message-ID: <20171217000945.GA16968@aishdas.org> I stumbled across reference to the Humyarite Kingdom, which existed from 110 bce - 525 ce. Based in Yemen, ruled over much of the Arabian Peninsula. It seems that they went Jewish. (Shades of the Khazars.) See : > The Himyarite kings appear to have abandoned polytheism and converted > to Judaism around the year 380, several decades after the conversion of > the Ethiopian Kingdom of Aksum to Christianity (340), though no changes > occurred in its script, calendar, or language (unlike Aksum).[7] This > date marks the end of an era in which numerous inscriptions record the > names and deeds of kings, and dedicate buildings to local (e.g. Wagal > and Simyada) and major (e.g. Almaqah) gods. From the 380s, temples were > abandoned and dedications to the old gods ceased, replaced by references > to Rahmanan, "the Lord of Heaven" or "Lord of Heaven and Earth".[8] The > political context for this conversion may have been Arabia's interest > in maintaining neutrality and good trade relations with the competing > empires of Byzantium, which first adopted Christianity under Constantine > the Great and the Sasanian Empire, which alternated between Zurvanism > and Manichaeism.[9] ... > During this period, references to pagan gods disappeared from royal > inscriptions and texts on public buildings, and were replaced by > references to a single deity. Inscriptions in the Sabean language, and > sometimes Hebrew, called this deity Rahman (the Merciful), "Lord of the > Heavens and Earth," the "God of Israel" and "Lord of the Jews." Prayers > invoking Rahman's blessings on the "people of Israel" often ended with > the Hebrew words shalom and amen. [16] I wonder about the kashrus of the conversion, and did it pose a rei'usa when discussing the Jewishness of Teimani immigrants to Israel. A lichtikn un freilechn Chanukah un a gutt voch! -Micha -- Micha Berger Life isn't about finding yourself micha at aishdas.org Life is about creating yourself. http://www.aishdas.org - Bernard Shaw Fax: (270) 514-1507 From micha at aishdas.org Sun Dec 17 05:51:57 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2017 08:51:57 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] New Cancer Treatment Message-ID: <20171217135058.GC5@aishdas.org> This news story showed up in two of my RSS subscriptions: Hijacked sperm carry chemo drugs to cervical cancer cells https://www.newscientist.com/article/2156525-hijacked-sperm-carry-chemo-drugs-to-cervical-cancer-cells or http://j.mp/2yLROJ1 and Killing Cancer with Spermbots http://bigthink.com/robby-berman/killing-cancer-with-spermbots In my neck of the O woods, everyone holds like R' Moshe, that children produced by IVF-donor would not be mamzeirim. BUT... according to the machmirim (eg the Satmar Rav), would an eishes kohein who recieved this treatment have to get divorced? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger You are not a human being in search micha at aishdas.org of a spiritual experience. You are a http://www.aishdas.org spiritual being immersed in a human Fax: (270) 514-1507 experience. - Pierre Teilhard de Chardin From larry62341 at optonline.net Sun Dec 17 06:22:06 2017 From: larry62341 at optonline.net (Prof. Levine) Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2017 09:22:06 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] The Downtown Chanukiah Message-ID: Please see the video at https://goo.gl/dgSTLv In this video Rabbi Anthony Manning discusses the halachic aspects of where one should light the Chanukah menorah at home as well as the Chabad practice of lighting menorahs in public places and whether or not the person lighting such a menorah should make a bracha. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From zev at sero.name Sun Dec 17 06:20:59 2017 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2017 09:20:59 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] New Cancer Treatment In-Reply-To: <20171217135058.GC5@aishdas.org> References: <20171217135058.GC5@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <8550baa4-198d-536a-b249-d5c2d207bb86@sero.name> On 17/12/17 08:51, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > BUT... according to the machmirim (eg the Satmar Rav), would an eishes > kohein who recieved this treatment have to get divorced? I wouldn't think so. There's still no act of zenus. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From micha at aishdas.org Sun Dec 17 11:53:27 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2017 14:53:27 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] New Cancer Treatment In-Reply-To: <8550baa4-198d-536a-b249-d5c2d207bb86@sero.name> References: <20171217135058.GC5@aishdas.org> <8550baa4-198d-536a-b249-d5c2d207bb86@sero.name> Message-ID: <20171217195326.GD5@aishdas.org> On Sun, Dec 17, 2017 at 09:20:59AM -0500, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : On 17/12/17 08:51, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: :>BUT... according to the machmirim (eg the Satmar Rav), would an eishes :>kohein who recieved this treatment have to get divorced? : I wouldn't think so. There's still no act of zenus. There is a machloqes Chakhamim and R' Aqiva as to whether only issurei kareis (except niddah) create mamzeirim, or any issur. And yet the Satmar Rav holds that IE-D creates mamzeirim. And one could equally argue there is no act of zenus. So, I parked my intuition at the door when trying to understand his shitah. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The thought of happiness that comes from outside micha at aishdas.org the person, brings him sadness. But realizing http://www.aishdas.org the value of one's will and the freedom brought Fax: (270) 514-1507 by uplifting its, brings great joy. - R' Kook From zev at sero.name Sun Dec 17 12:20:24 2017 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2017 15:20:24 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] New Cancer Treatment In-Reply-To: <20171217195326.GD5@aishdas.org> References: <20171217135058.GC5@aishdas.org> <8550baa4-198d-536a-b249-d5c2d207bb86@sero.name> <20171217195326.GD5@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <5862ca9f-c908-4756-d082-0b20f6dc428f@sero.name> On 17/12/17 14:53, Micha Berger wrote: > There is a machloqes Chakhamim and R' Aqiva as to whether only issurei > kareis (except niddah) create mamzeirim, or any issur. And yet the > Satmar Rav holds that IE-D creates mamzeirim. And one could equally > argue there is no act of zenus. > > So, I parked my intuition at the door when trying to understand his > shitah. as I understand the machlokes, it's precisely over whether an act of zenus is necessary to create a mamzer. The SR (aiui) holds it is not, therefore although no issur was done with IED the child is nevertheless a mamzer. Here too, the SR would presumably hold that although there's no act of zenus, and therefore the treatment is permitted, should any child result it would be a mamzer. But I haven't seen the SR's shitah inside, so I'm relying on 3rd-hand transmission which may have garbled important points. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From llevine at stevens.edu Sun Dec 17 13:35:04 2017 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2017 21:35:04 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] How did Yosef showing his circumcision prove anything? Message-ID: <1513546500734.24127@stevens.edu> From https://goo.gl/L634gH Rashi to 45:4 says that when Yosef told his brothers to approach him, it was to show them his circumcision (presumably to prove he was Jewish). But how would that prove anything? All of Egypt had been circumcised already, as Rashi says on 41:55. If his showing his circumcision wasn't to prove he was Jewish, why did he do it? See the above URL for answers. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cantorwolberg at cox.net Sun Dec 17 11:40:31 2017 From: cantorwolberg at cox.net (Richard Wolberg) Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2017 14:40:31 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Vayigash Message-ID: The first three words of the Sidra: Vayigash eilav Yehuda mean that Judah approached Joseph to speak to him. The m?forshim bring out that they communicated through interpreters since officially, (the brothers thought) Joseph didn?t speak Hebrew and the brothers didn?t speak Egyptian. The baal haturim and the m?forshim point out the last letter of the first three words (shin, vov, hey) spell shaveh which means ?equal.? Judah is implying to Joseph: ?I am equal to you. You think you?re a king; I?m also a king.? According to this interpretation, Judah spoke very sharply to Joseph. The Vilna Gaon brings out a fascinating insight on the trope of the first six words which is kadma v?azla r?vi?I, zarka, munach segol. The Vilna Gaon explains that the trope here explains the meaning of these words. Kadma v?azla in Aramaic meaning kadam v?awzal, he (Judah) stepped forward, Yehudah has a r?vi?i, since Judah was the fourth son. So why the fourth son? Because zarka, he was going to be thrown out, munach segol from being able to rest in Gan Eden. Since Judah cursed himself that if he doesn?t bring Binyamin back, he would be damned in both worlds ? in this world and in the world to come. (Segula which means ?treasure? from Segol comes to mean here Gan Eden). When the sons finally tell Jacob that Joseph still lives (45:26), the m?forshim resolve a theological problem that arose in parashas Vayeshev (37:35). For there we read about Jacob: ?and his sons and daughters wished to comfort him and he refused to be consoled.? Isn?t it one of the basic articles of faith to accept God?s judgment and to welcome the comforting offered by others. Why did Jacob refuse? Our Sages sensed this anomaly and gave a brilliant answer, ?For no condolences are accepted over the living" (see Rashi on 37:35). Yes, Jacob refused to accept condolences because he had a faint ray of hope that Joseph might be alive. A psychologist might explain it as ?wishful thinking.? In any event, his ray of hope was vindicated when he found out that Joseph was indeed alive (and that is why he originally refused to accept the condolences offered by all the people). Hope is being able to see that there is light despite all of the darkness. Desmond Tutu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cantorwolberg at cox.net Sun Dec 17 16:16:32 2017 From: cantorwolberg at cox.net (Richard Wolberg) Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2017 19:16:32 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] S"A Principles Message-ID: <8A9BD2E2-0BDC-4728-B1B3-792480A73CEE@cox.net> Reb Joel asks: does anyone know of a theory as to why the Mechaber in some cases quotes Talmudic sources (or Torah or Rishonim) and in others just states the halacha? My theory is that when it is either a well known halacha and no reason to question it or at least, when the Mechaber thought it to be indisputable, then it was felt there was no reason to quote sources. OTOH, if was felt that there would be many questioning it, then the sources quoted would obviate that from occurring. From micha at aishdas.org Sun Dec 17 17:15:28 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2017 20:15:28 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] [Tvunah] Teabag on Shabbos Message-ID: <20171218011528.GA22955@aishdas.org> This pesaq by R' Asher Weiss surprised me. Tea Bag on Shabbos Tvunah in English by Rabbi Akiva Dershowitz Question: Does a tea bag [used in a kli shlishi] need to be removed from the cup with a spoon on Shabbos, to avoid issues of borrer? What about holding it over the cup to avoid dripping on the table, to allow drips to fall into the cup? Answer: The tea bag may be removed normally, and may be held to allow drips to fall back in to the cup. I was told at a young age to take the teabag out by spoon, making sure to take tea out along with the bag. For boreier reasons. So, as I said, I found this pesaq surprising. The actual teshuvah in Hebrew is on that page. RAW finds a precedent in Rashi on Shabbos 140a, who discusses the mishnah allowing one to put straw in a sieve in a feed trough. Rashi says "even though the motz will fall on our own, as it's a davar she'ein miskavein -- and the mishnah holds like R' Shim'on. And see SA OC 319:8, who makes it clear (which it isnt' from Rashi, see teshuvah) that even if the boreir will certainly occur, it's still mutar. Pesiq reishei, but not melekhes machasheves, and still mutar. Similarly in Nishmas Adam 18:2. An enlightening and anjoyable Chanukah! -Micha -- Micha Berger We look forward to the time micha at aishdas.org when the power to love http://www.aishdas.org will replace the love of power. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - William Ewart Gladstone From Aryeh.Frimer at biu.ac.il Sun Dec 17 23:09:04 2017 From: Aryeh.Frimer at biu.ac.il (Aryeh Frimer) Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2017 07:09:04 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Using "Al haTevila" for tevilat Kelim Message-ID: Rav Zvi Cohen, in his Encyclopedic Tevilat Kelim: Rules that be-Di-avad Al haTevila is valid. I was surprised by this since the Mehaber in Bet Yosef explicitly rules against this shita (for le-khatehilla) and holds in SA that one should say "Al Tevilat Kelim." Having done so, to say "Al haTevilah" would not be "Matbe'ah sheTavu Hakhamim." Any ideas? -------------------------------------------------- Dr. Aryeh A. Frimer Ethel and David Resnick Professor Emeritus of Active Oxygen Chemistry Chemistry Dept., Bar-Ilan University Ramat Gan 5290002, ISRAEL E-mail (office): Aryeh.Frimer at biu.ac.il Homepage http://ch.biu.ac.il/frimer Tel: 972-3-5318610; Fax: 972-3-7384053 Tel Home: 972-8-9473819/9470834 E-mail (home): FrimerA at zahav.net.il Cellphone: 972-54-7540761 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hankman at bell.net Mon Dec 18 06:16:44 2017 From: hankman at bell.net (hankman) Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2017 09:16:44 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Rambam Hilchot Kiddush Hachodesh -- on "min" Message-ID: <0C71CBB0F1E145B89D102DAA516AF81A@hankPC> R. Micha Berger wrote: ?Ironically, defining a "min" is not settled halakhah either.? CM asks: If I am not mistaken the modern secular definition of ?species? is based on whether the populations can interbreed or not. Do we know with any certainty that the Torah rejects this criteria as a determinant of ?min?? Kol tuv Chaim Manaster --- This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. http://www.avg.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Mon Dec 18 07:05:39 2017 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2017 15:05:39 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Yehudah Speaking to Yosef Message-ID: <1513609536405.23616@stevens.edu> In what l language did Yehudah speak to Yosef. Was it Hebrew and was the translator present to "translate" for Yosef? The Chumash does not mention a translator in this week's parasha. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jont at traumatic.us Mon Dec 18 11:56:26 2017 From: jont at traumatic.us (Jonathan Traum) Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2017 14:56:26 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Rambam Hilchot Kiddush Hachodesh In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <622ffda5-c446-82f3-45b0-18da6c93f6da@traumatic.us> On 12/09/2017 03:59 PM, Ben Waxman wrote: > 1) Rambam Hilchot Kiddush Hachodesh 3:1 makes it clear that anyone who > sees the new moon and can get to Jerusalem by the following evening > should go. ... > [snip] > Is there any problem in making sure that you don't see the moon? Just > stay in for the evening. Rambam doesn't say that there is a chiyuv to > look. I imagine that most people wouldn't have to worry about it.? On the 30th day after the previous Rosh Hodesh, the tiny crescent moon would only be visible for a short time after sunset and before moonset, and only to those who have an unobstructed view of the western horizon. Jonathan Traum From zev at sero.name Mon Dec 18 13:02:48 2017 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2017 16:02:48 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Using "Al haTevila" for tevilat Kelim In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <725ae5c3-d6de-7ce1-60c9-1defc191ac9d@sero.name> On 18/12/17 02:09, Aryeh Frimer via Avodah wrote: > ?Rav Zvi *Cohen*,?in his Encyclopedic *Tevilat Kelim*: Rules that > be-Di-avad Al haTevila is valid. > > I was surprised by this since the Mehaber in Bet Yosef explicitly rules > against this shita ?(for le-khatehilla) and holds in SA? that one should > say ?Al Tevilat Kelim.??? Having done so, to say ?Al haTevilah? would > not be ?Matbe?ah sheTavu Hakhamim.?? ?Any ideas? > "Al hatevilah" *is* a coinage of the chachamim, just not the one they prescribed for this occasion. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From llevine at stevens.edu Mon Dec 18 23:37:41 2017 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2017 07:37:41 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Did the Patriarchs Speak Hebrew? Message-ID: <1513669061621.40139@stevens.edu> >From the article at https://goo.gl/Z3QWs2 Ramban says: It is possible that he said this to them simply as a means of pacifying them, for there was no proof [that he was Joseph] in the fact that someone in Egypt should speak in the Holy Tongue. In my opinion, Hebrew was a Canaanite language. For Abraham did not bring it from Ur of the Chaldees [in Mesopotamia] and from Haran, for there they spoke Aramaic, as the incident of the pile of stones erected by Laban and Jacob proves [see Gen. 31:47]. And it was not a private language spoken by a single person but a language of Canaan, and many people in Egypt knew it for the countries were close together--particularly the ruler, for it is customary for kings and rulers to know several languages. For his assertion that Hebrew is "a Canannite language" Ramban makes reference to Isaiah, who does thus refer to Hebrew: "On that day there will be five cities in the land of Egypt that speak the language of Canaan and swear by the Lord of hosts" (Isa. 19:18). That the original language of the Patriarchs (Abraham, Isaac and Jacob) was Aramaic is proved to Ramban's mind by virtue of the fact that Laban gave the name "Yegar-sahaduta" to what Jacob called "Gal-ed" (Gen. 31:47), The former had remained in Mesopotamia and continued to speak Aramaic (which Ramban thinks was spoken in Ur and in Haran), while Jacob, who had grown up in Canaan, had learnt the local language. Please see the above URL for much more on this topic. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gershonseif at mail.yahoo.com Tue Dec 19 08:23:45 2017 From: gershonseif at mail.yahoo.com (Gershon Seif) Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2017 16:23:45 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Avodah] Did the Patriarchs Speak Hebrew? In-Reply-To: <1513669061621.40139@stevens.edu> References: <1513669061621.40139@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <949360216.1197555.1513700625794@mail.yahoo.com> Leavining Avraham Avinu aside, what is the Ramban's view about the language spoken by Adam HaRishon? ie. Naming his wife Chava and assigning names to all the animals?If the Ramban concurs that these names were given in lashon hakodesh, then he agrees that it was the first language. No? Unless you say that lashon hakodesh was one of at least 2 languages that Adam spoke and he reserved it for holy purposes only, such as giving these names. And I suppose that would be along the lines of the other Ramban quoted there which says that it's called Lashon Hakodesh because it's the language that Hashem used to convey the Torah. On Tuesday, December 19, 2017 1:37 AM, Professor L. Levine wrote: > From the article at https://goo.gl/Z3QWs2 > Ramban says: >> It is possible that he said this to them simply as a means of >> pacifying them, for there was no proof [that he was Joseph] in the fact >> that someone in Egypt should speak in the Holy Tongue. In my opinion, >> Hebrew was a Canaanite language. For Abraham did not bring it from Ur >> of the Chaldees [in Mesopotamia] and from Haran, for there they spoke >> Aramaic... From micha at aishdas.org Tue Dec 19 09:05:08 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2017 12:05:08 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Did the Patriarchs Speak Hebrew? In-Reply-To: <1513669061621.40139@stevens.edu> References: <1513669061621.40139@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20171219170508.GC27362@aishdas.org> On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 07:37:41AM +0000, Professor L. Levine via Avodah wrote: : From the article at : https://goo.gl/Z3QWs2 : : Ramban says: : : It is possible that he said this to them simply as a means of : pacifying them, for there was no proof [that he was Joseph] in : the fact that someone in Egypt should speak in the Holy Tongue. In : my opinion, Hebrew was a Canaanite language... ... and yet also lashon haqodesh. And to the Ramban (on "sheqel haqodesh" in parashas Sheqalim), this is because it's the language in which Hashem created the world and in which the Torah and Nakh were written. And leshitaso, the letters of the Torah, if not their breakup into words, preceded creation. The notion that the avos spoke Aramaic is in Vayiqra Rabba on 32:5. The Medrash Peliyah (#166) concludes that even Adam did! This is a comment about Sarah's death in "Qiryas Araba". The Niv Sefasayim explains that the medrash is getting this from the use of the Aramaic term "qirya". But I don't see how we know this was the name of the cite from back when Adam and Chava were buried there; or how else this moved the line to any time before Efron. R Yonasan Eibschitz (Tif'eres Yehonasan on Bereishis 11:1) that Adam spoke LhQ before the cheit, and Aramaic after. Fore that matter, Medrash Tanchuma (beginning of Devarim in Buber) and Medrash Seikhel Tov (Shemos 4:11) say Adam spoke all 70 languages. Requires a new peshat in what happened at Migdal Bavel, no? I am not to clear on the whole thing. Languages evolve, so that if one were to trace them out over time, one would draw a tree or a bush. Adam's proto-Semitic, or proto-proto-proto... everything is an ancestor of all language. I could call it early Hebrew if I wanted, and claim that Hebrew is the trunk from which other languages branched off. But that's just a decision about how to draw the tree. I could pick another run from root to twig and pull it straight, and say that Adam spoke proto-...proto-Mandarin, and all the other languages branched off. For languages as similar as Hebrew and Aramaic, where neither could have drifted from the original significanly more than the other, doesn't the whole discussion of whether Adam's language was a predecessar to the language of the chumash, Nakh, Chazal, etc... or of Aramaic in its evolutions all kind of arbitrary? I wonder if the Ramban understands the name of Kesav Ashuris to mean "Assyrian Script", rather than "Enriched Script" (from "osher". YMMV on the definition of osher.) After all, he seems to have no problem saying that Hashem left holy things in the hands of other peoples for us to find and use. For that matter, Eretz Yisrael was also given to the Kenaanim to hold until we got there... It might also be leshitaso -- but this may be a stretch -- with the Ramban's take on rainbows. The Ramban says that rainbows existed since Maaseh Bereishis. Nature didn't change in this regard with the Mabul. Rather, the already existing phenomenon was made a symbol when HQBH made the beris with Noach. Again, something put in place naturally so that when the time came it would be available take on its full significance. : Canaan, and many people in Egypt knew it for the countries were close : together--particularly the ruler, for it is customary for kings and : rulers to know several languages. : : For his assertion that Hebrew is "a Canannite language" Ramban makes : reference to Isaiah, who does thus refer to Hebrew: "On that day there : will be five cities in the land of Egypt that speak the language of : Canaan and swear by the Lord of hosts" (Isa. 19:18). That the original : language of the Patriarchs (Abraham, Isaac and Jacob) was Aramaic is : proved to Ramban's mind by virtue of the fact that Laban gave the name : "Yegar-sahaduta" to what Jacob called "Gal-ed" (Gen. 31:47), The former : had remained in Mesopotamia and continued to speak Aramaic (which Ramban : thinks was spoken in Ur and in Haran), while Jacob, who had grown up in : Canaan, had learnt the local language. : : Please see the above URL for much more on this topic. Have a Great Month, and a enlightening and enjoyable Chanukah! -Micha -- Micha Berger The greatest discovery of all time is that micha at aishdas.org a person can change their future http://www.aishdas.org by merely changing their attitude. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Oprah Winfrey From zev at sero.name Tue Dec 19 09:12:45 2017 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2017 12:12:45 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Did the Patriarchs Speak Hebrew? In-Reply-To: <20171219170508.GC27362@aishdas.org> References: <1513669061621.40139@stevens.edu> <20171219170508.GC27362@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <45f78c92-f0ed-6df8-9a80-01c96d6dd007@sero.name> On 19/12/17 12:05, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > I wonder if the Ramban understands the name of Kesav Ashuris to mean > "Assyrian Script", rather than "Enriched Script" (from "osher". YMMV > on the definition of osher.) You associate osher with an alef and `osher with an `ayin? -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From micha at aishdas.org Tue Dec 19 10:59:01 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2017 13:59:01 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Did the Patriarchs Speak Hebrew? In-Reply-To: <45f78c92-f0ed-6df8-9a80-01c96d6dd007@sero.name> References: <1513669061621.40139@stevens.edu> <20171219170508.GC27362@aishdas.org> <45f78c92-f0ed-6df8-9a80-01c96d6dd007@sero.name> Message-ID: <20171219185901.GE31888@aishdas.org> On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 12:12:45PM -0500, Zev Sero wrote: : On 19/12/17 12:05, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: : >I wonder if the Ramban understands the name of Kesav Ashuris to mean : >"Assyrian Script", rather than "Enriched Script" (from "osher". YMMV : >on the definition of osher.) : You associate osher with an alef and `osher with an `ayin? RSRH does, as he does all alef-ayin pairs. Also osher with asher. But I used enriched because in common usage, it refers to someone having a gift. We say that a cereal is enriched with vitamins. We far more rarely speak of a CEO being enriched. At least, not anymore. And what about yiysher kochakha, assuming the correct niqud isn't yeyasher? Reish Laqish (Shabbos 87a) says "asher shibarta" is an allusion to "yiyshar kochakha", so that's connected as well. RSRH himself uses "being in successful progress" (eg Bereishis 30:30), which R/Dr Mattiyahu Clark's Hirschian dictionary gives as its 1st definition. Chodesh tov, un a lichtikn un freilechn Chanukah! -Micha -- Micha Berger The trick is learning to be passionate in one's micha at aishdas.org ideals, but compassionate to one's peers. http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From mandels at ou.org Tue Dec 19 09:46:51 2017 From: mandels at ou.org (Mandel, Seth) Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2017 17:46:51 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Did the Patriarchs Speak Hebrew? In-Reply-To: <1513669061621.40139@stevens.edu> References: <1513669061621.40139@stevens.edu> Message-ID: There is no proof that anyone spoke Hebrew. Chazal say that dibb'ra Torah bilshon b'nei odom, and the Torah was written in Hebrew because that is what the Jews understood at the time of Moshe Rabbeinu and the N'vi'im. This is clear from last weeks Parsha, where Par'oh speaks to Yosef, kavyakhol in Hebrew. However, just as much as there is no proof at all from the T'NaKh that lots of people spoke Hebrew, even though the T'NaKh records them in Hebrew, there is also no proof at all that certain people did not speak Hebrew. The Ramban quotes the story of Lovon and Ya'akov to "prove" that Lovon did not speak Hebrew. That is probable, but what did Yaakov and Lovon speak together? What did Yaakov speak to Rochel and Leah, who had never been in EY? OK, they all spoke what was spoken in Aram Naharayim. Probably. But Yaakov and the Ovos must have learned the language of K'na'an for Avrohom to speak to b'nei Het to buy the Cave of the Patriarchs. So what exactly did Avrohom Ovinu say in the language of Aram, whence he came, and what in the language of K'na'an? QED that one cannot know from the T'NaKh who spoke what when and where. The only thing we know is the Masorah, that HQBH dictated the Torah to Moshe Rabbeinu in the eponymous Biblical Hebrew. People ask whether Odom hoRishon spoke Hebrew. That is a question that has no meaning. We do not know exactly what he spoke, nor is it relevant. It might have been a precursor of Hebrew, IOW a language like Hebrew, but a much older form. It could have been something else. But, scientifically, it could not have been the same as the Hebrew spoken in the time of Y'tzi'as Mitzrayim, because it has been proven that all languages change over time. Rabbi Dr. Seth Mandel From micha at aishdas.org Tue Dec 19 14:10:58 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2017 17:10:58 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Did the Patriarchs Speak Hebrew? In-Reply-To: References: <1513669061621.40139@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20171219221058.GA3159@aishdas.org> On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 05:46:51PM +0000, Mandel, Seth via Avodah wrote: : There is no proof that anyone spoke Hebrew. Chazal say that dibb'ra Torah : bilshon b'nei odom... Well.... R' Yishmael says it. And it appears to be an argument for his rules of derashah, which do not include looking for magic words like "akh" (mi'ut), "raq" (mi'ut), "kol" (ribui) or even "es", but darshens the meaning of terms, whether ribui or mi'ut. The Rambam really sloganeers (like the CS's "chadash assur min haTorah") when he uses it to explain that anthropomorphic descriptions of HQBH are idioms, not to be taken overly literally. The point may be true, but it has nothing to do with the quote. The maqor is nothing remotely like: : the Torah was written in Hebrew because that is : what the Jews understood at the time of Moshe Rabbeinu and the N'vi'im. And besides, R' Aqiva disagrees! Chodesh tov, un a lichtikn un freilechn Chanukah! -Micha -- Micha Berger One doesn't learn mussar to be a tzaddik, micha at aishdas.org but to become a tzaddik. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yisrael Salanter Fax: (270) 514-1507 From llevine at stevens.edu Wed Dec 20 01:27:34 2017 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2017 09:27:34 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Yehudah Spoke Egyptian Message-ID: <1513762054084.88548@stevens.edu> Rabbi Yitzchok D. Frankel, Rav of the Agudah of the Five Towns, in Cedarhurst, NY, asserts in his sefer Machat shel Yad. Bereishis vol.2 (Back of Vayikrah) Parshas VaYigash. that Yehudah did indeed speak Egyptian. See http://personal.stevens.edu/~llevine/yehudah_egyptian.pdf for his argument. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cantorwolberg at cox.net Wed Dec 20 09:32:33 2017 From: cantorwolberg at cox.net (Richard Wolberg) Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2017 12:32:33 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Question on 48:1 Message-ID: In Vay?chi first sentence of Ch.48, why is ?choleh? spelled without a vov? Nowhere have I found an explanation. From zev at sero.name Wed Dec 20 06:01:31 2017 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2017 09:01:31 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Did the Patriarchs Speak Hebrew? In-Reply-To: References: <1513669061621.40139@stevens.edu> <8b9c1a71-a4fe-ecf5-e066-0a640a78bfec@sero.name> Message-ID: <130e52aa-14f1-24b6-9478-9244543e628c@sero.name> On 19/12/17 02:37, Professor L. Levine via Avodah wrote: > . And it was not a private language spoken by a single person but a > language of Canaan, and many people in Egypt knew it for the countries > were close together--particularly the ruler, for it is customary for > kings and rulers to know several languages. Then how is it that Yosef could pretend not to know it and need an interpreter. More, how is it that Par'oh, who knew all the other languages, didn't know this one? [Email #2. -micha] On 19/12/17 12:46, Mandel, Seth via Avodah wrote: > There is no proof that anyone spoke Hebrew. Chazal say that dibb'ra Torah > bilshon b'nei odom, and the Torah was written in Hebrew because that is > what the Jews understood at the time of Moshe Rabbeinu and the N'vi'im. Rashi Bereshis 2:23 Bereshis Rabbah 18:4 [Eamil #3. -micha] On 20/12/17 08:56, Mandel, Seth wrote: > I am talking objective proof, from the T'NaKh and other documents. > Medrashim of Chazal teaches us important ideas, but are not meant to be > literally true. They do not intend to be a historical document, but > rather contain important moral and ethical teachings which are 'emes in > the spiritual sense. 1. This medrash is clearly intended literally. Not only does it not contain any important moral or ethical teaching, it cites a simple linguistic proof (albeit based on a very small sample of languages). 2. Rashi only cites those medroshim that he believes are necessary for pshat. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From mandels at ou.org Wed Dec 20 07:39:30 2017 From: mandels at ou.org (Mandel, Seth) Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2017 15:39:30 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Did the Patriarchs Speak Hebrew? In-Reply-To: <130e52aa-14f1-24b6-9478-9244543e628c@sero.name> References: <1513669061621.40139@stevens.edu> <8b9c1a71-a4fe-ecf5-e066-0a640a78bfec@sero.name> , <130e52aa-14f1-24b6-9478-9244543e628c@sero.name> Message-ID: From: Zev Sero Sent: Wednesday, December 20, 2017 7:45 AM > On 19/12/17 12:46, Mandel, Seth via Avodah wrote: >> There is no proof that anyone spoke Hebrew. Chazal say that dibb'ra Torah >> bilshon b'nei odom, and the Torah was written in Hebrew because that is >> what the Jews understood at the time of Moshe Rabbeinu and the N'vi'im. > Rashi Bereshis 2:23 > Bereshis Rabbah 18:4 I am talking objective proof, from the T'NaKh and other documents. Medrashim of Chazal teaches us important ideas, but are not meant to be literally true. They do not intend to be a historical document, but rather contain important moral and ethical teachings which are 'emes in the spiritual sense. There are plenty of Medrashim that have ideas that seem to indicate that HQBH or the angels spoke Hebrew. But, as the Rambam indicates, HQBH does not have a mouth and does not speak as people speak. Rather, all the p'sukim saying that HQBH spoke to Moshe or Aharon mean that He communicated with them directly to their mind, not that He spoke acoustic sounds that they heard with their physical ears. The argument that Prof. Levine brought in the name of R. Frankel, OTOH, does indeed show that Yehudah must have been speaking Egyptian, but yet the Torah quotes him in Hebrew. [Email #2. -micha] From: Zev Sero on behalf of Zev Sero Sent: Wednesday, December 20, 2017 9:01:31 AM > 1. This medrash is clearly intended literally. Not only does it not > contain any important moral or ethical teaching, it cites a simple > linguistic proof (albeit based on a very small sample of languages). > 2. Rashi only cites those medroshim that he believes are necessary for > pshat. This is not a conversation that is worth continuing. I have the greatest respect for Jews who learn and seek to understand. But there are certain discussions where the locutors speak past each other for no benefit to either. However, for others in the group that may be curious: if you understand what the Rambam says in his introduction to Chapter 10 of Mas. Sanhedrin regarding three approaches to what Chazal say, you will understand that there is no point in one group arguing with the other group. A similar case would be that there would be no point in the Rambam arguing with Rashi or Rabbeinu Tam about whether demons exist or whether the Earth is flat or round. The basic assumptions about the way things work are too far apart. I have said what I meant about medrashim, and the medrash that R. Zev quotes does not contradict in my mind my statement that there is no proof about the actual historical language used in anything in the Torah. Nor does Rashi's use of the medrash contradict what I said. It would be impossible to convince R. Tam's belief that the Earth is flat, since in his understanding of the universe everything points to the world being flat, and he can find statements in the G'moro that seem to him to prove his case, and all scientists from his culture "knew" that the Earth is flat. I challenge those who believe that illnesses are caused by bacteria or viruses to bring me one proof that they are; most rishonim knew that they were caused by evil spirits or bodily humors. What a person believes is based on some basic assumptions, and different Rishonim held very different assumptions in certain matters. People might and did challenge the Rambam that it appears from their point of view that the Rambam did not believe what Chazal say, or that I do not believe what Chazal say. The Rambam believed that everything that Chazal said is 'emes, but read his comments in the Perush haMishnayos to see that absolute Truth means different things in different approaches. Another example is how to reconcile the Truth that HQBH gave men free will with the fact that HQBH knows everything that will happen. That can only be explained if people understand certain assumptions about space and time. Rabbi Dr. Seth Mandel Rabbinic Coordinator The Orthodox Union From office at etzion.org.il Thu Dec 21 02:25:30 2017 From: office at etzion.org.il (Yeshivat Har Etzion) Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2017 12:25:30 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] VBM - Avodat Hashem #51: The Mitzva of Mezuza (Part I) Message-ID: <5A3B8C1A.4030506@etzion.org.il> PHILOSOPHY > Avodat Hashem - Foundations of Divine Service > Shiur #51: The Mitzva of Mezuza (Part I) Harav Baruch Gigi Yeshivat Har Etzion I. The Protection Offered by a Mezuza We are currently engaged in a clarification of the system of mitzvot, in the framework of the transition in Keriyat Shema from matters pertaining to the Rambam's Sefer Mada to matters pertaining to his Sefer Ahava. Thus far, we have studied the mitzva of tefillin and its unique meanings. Now, let us turn to a closely-related mitzva - the mitzva of mezuza. One of the central ideas relating to mezuza is the idea of protection. When one affixes a mezuza to the entrance of his home, his house and household are protected from all trouble and damage. This idea is expressed by Chazal in several contexts, and it is based, as we will demonstrate, on a connection that is already rooted in the verses of the Torah. At the end of the passage of Ve-haya im shamo'a, it is stated: And you shall write them upon the doorposts of your house and upon your gates; that your days may be multiplied, and the days of your children, upon the land which the Lord swore to your fathers to give them, as the days of the heavens above the earth. (Devarim 11:20-21) At first glance, it seems that the Torah's promise of longevity relates to all that was stated in this passage concerning one who obeys all of God's commandments and follows His ways. However, Chazal linked this promise directly to the mitzva of mezuza. Two talmudic passages establish a connection between longevity and the mitzva of mezuza. In tractate Shabbat (32b), it is taught that a person's children die because of a failure to fulfill the mitzva of mezuza.[1] This is learned from the juxtaposition of the commandment of mezuza to the verse that promises that "your days will be multiplied, and the days of your children." In a positive formulation, the Tur writes: Whoever is careful about it, his days and the days of his children will be lengthened, as it is written: "That your days may be multiplied, and the days of your children." (Tur, Yoreh De'ah 285) In tractate Kiddushin (34a), the gemara discusses the possibility of exempting women from the mitzva of mezuza. At first, the gemara is of the opinion that women are exempt, in view of the Torah's juxtaposition of the mitzva of mezuza to the mitzva of Torah study, from which women are exempt. However, the gemara rejects this possibility with the following argument: You cannot think so, because it is written: ["And You shall write them upon the doorposts of your house...] that your days may be multiplied." Do men only need life, and not women? (Kiddushin 34a) In this gemara as well, we clearly see that the promise of longevity in relation to the mitzva of mezuza is so central that there is no room even to entertain the possibility that women may be exempt from it. For by removing women from the mitzva of mezuza you would be removing them from the basic desire of existence, of life. The Tur adds: Moreover, one's house is protected by it, as they expounded the verse: "The Lord is your keeper; the Lord is your shade upon your right hand" (Tehillim 121:5). (Tur, ibid.) II. The Rambam's View The Rambam famously writes: It is a common custom to write [God's name] Shaddai on the outside of a mezuza, opposite the empty space left between the two passages. There is no difficulty in this, since the addition is made on the outside. However, those who write the names of angels, other sacred names, verses, or forms,[2] on the inside [of a mezuza] are among those who do not have a portion in the World-to-Come. Not only do these fools nullify the mitzva, but furthermore, they make from a great mitzva that reflects the unity of the name of the Holy One, blessed be He, the love of Him, and the service of Him, a talisman for their own benefit. They, in their foolish conception, think that this will help them regarding the vanities of the world. (Hilkhot Tefillin U-Mezuza 5:4) The Kesef Mishneh (ad loc.) cites the objection raised by the Ramach against the Rambam based on the gemara in Avoda Zara (11a). The gemara there records a story about Onkelos, who became a proselyte, and the emperor sent a contingent of soldiers after him. Among other things, it is stated there: Again he sent another cohort ordering them not to enter into any conversation whatever with him. So they took hold of him; and as they were walking on, he saw the mezuza that was fixed on the door frame and he placed his hand on it saying to them, "Now what is this?" And they replied, "You tell us then." He said to them, "According to universal custom, the mortal king dwells within, and his servants keep guard on him without; but [in the case of] the Holy One, blessed is He, it is His servants who dwell within while He keeps guard on them from without, as it is stated: `The Lord shall guard your going out and your coming in from this time forth and for evermore' (Tehillim 121:8)." Then they, too, were converted to Judaism. (Avoda Zara 11a) >From the difficulty raised by the Ramach, it may be concluded that in his opinion the Rambam rejects the idea of protection that is attributed to the mezuza. The Rambam views the mezuza as an expression of man's connection to God, in that he declares at the entrance to his house his faith in His unity and his love for Him, two of the foundations of His service. According to the Ramach, the Rambam rejects the talismanic qualities that were attributed to the mezuza by the ancients. The Ramach attacks the Rambam's position, as he understood it, on the grounds that the idea of protection is brought in the gemara itself: For in tractate Avoda Zara it is implied from that which Onkelos said to the Roman contingent that the Holy One, blessed is He, makes the mezuza to protect Israel from the outside. And one can force an answer that it was Onkelos who said this in order give importance to Israel. (Ramach, ad loc.) In light of this, the Ramach struggles to reconcile the Rambam's position, arguing that Onkelos said this to the Romans only in order to praise Israel in their eyes. Onkelos told the Romans that the mezuza symbolizes God's protection, as it were, over the houses of Israel. In truth, however, the mitzva of mezuza is not a matter of God's protection, but rather an expression of a person's faith in God's unity and service. It stands to reason, however, that the Rambam does not challenge the very idea of the protection offered by a mezuza. Thus writes the Kesef Mishneh in light of the fact that the gemara in Menachot uses this principle to determine the halakha regarding the proper placement of a mezuza: For in chapter Ha-Kometz (33b), regarding the rule that a mezuza must be placed in the handbreadth adjacent to the public domain, R. Huna said: "What is the reason? So that it may protect him."[3] Therefore you must say that in fact a mezuza protects the house when it is written properly. (Kesef Mishneh) In the Kesef Mishneh's opinion, the Rambam rejects only those actions that expanded the talismanic element of a mezuza - namely, the insertion of the names of the angels into the mezuza. The Rambam sees the protective quality of a mezuza in the connection between man and God and his belief in Him and His unity. In the continuation of our discussion, we will explain the idea of the protection offered by a mezuza with greater precision and in greater depth. III. Additional Sources The Yerushalmi states in tractate Pe'ah: Artaban sent to our holy Rabbi an invaluably precious pearl. He said to him: Send me something which is similarly precious. He sent him a mezuza. He said to him: What I have sent you is something priceless, but you have sent me something which is only worth one follis. He [Rabbi] said to him: Your treasures and my treasures are incomparable. And moreover, you have sent me something that I have to guard, while I have sent you something which guards you when you sleep, as it is written: "When you walk, it will lead you; when you lie down, it will watch over you; and when you awake, it will talk to you" (Mishlei 6:22). (Yerushalmi, Pe'ah 1:1) Similarly, the Tur writes in Hilkhot Mezuza: Moreover, one's house is protected by it, as they expounded the verse: "The Lord is your keeper; the Lord is your shade upon your right hand" (Tehillim 121:5). A mortal king dwells within, and his servants keep guard on him without; but you sleep in your beds and the Holy One, blessed is He, guards you from without. Therefore, it should be placed in the outermost handbreadth, so that the entire house be within it and under its protection. (Tur, Yoreh De'ah 285) The prevalent custom to write on the outside of the mezuza parchment the name ShaDaY - which is expounded as an abbreviation for the words: Shomer Delatot Yisrael, "Who guards the doors of Israel"[4] - also reinforces this idea of a mezuza as protecting a person's home. As stated, the basis of this idea is already found in the verses of the Torah. Even though the Torah does not mention the idea of protection in direct connection to the mitzva of mezuza, it is mentioned in connection with another mezuza. In Parashat Bo, God commands the people of Israel to place the blood of the paschal lamb on the two doorposts and lintel. The reason for this is explained as follows: And the blood shall be to you for a token upon the houses where you are; and when I see the blood, I will pass over you, and there shall no plague be upon you to destroy you, when I smite the land of Egypt. (Shemot 12:13) And later in the same chapter: For the Lord will pass through to smite the Egyptians; and when He sees the blood upon the lintel and on the two doorposts, the Lord will pass over the door, and will not suffer the destroyer to come in to your houses to smite you. (Shemot 12:23) It is further stated at the end of that chapter: It was a night of watching to the Lord for bringing them out from the land of Egypt; this same night is a night of watching to the Lord for all the children of Israel throughout their generations. (Shemot 12:42) Rashi writes: "A night of watching to the Lord for all the children of Israel throughout their generations" - This night is protected, and comes as such from ages past, against all destructive forces, as it is stated: "And He will not suffer the destroyer to enter your houses" (v. 33). (Rashi, ad loc.) IV. The Mezuza and the Paschal Offering On the night of the exodus from Egypt, God protected the houses of the people of Israel by way of the sign of the blood on the doorposts and lintels, and because of this the night became a night of watching for all generations.[5] At first glance, it seems that the common denominator between the mitzva of mezuza and the paschal offering is that in both cases we are commanded to place a specific thing on the doorpost, thereby securing the protection of the house and its inhabitants. On the deeper level, it seems that the connection between the mitzva of mezuza and the paschal offering is more substantive. What is the significance of placing blood on the doorposts and lintel of one's house? The paschal offering that the people of Israel brought in Egypt was sacrificed as a family offering, a sheep for each family, at the entrance to each family's home. In Egypt, of course, there was no Temple and no altar. Therefore, it seems that the meaning of the blood was to distinguish between the houses of the Israelites and the houses of the Egyptians, in order to prevent the destroyer from coming into the homes of the Israelites to attack. However, the possibility that the blood was meant to distinguish between the houses of Israel and the houses of Egypt raises a great difficulty, in light of the midrashim of Chazal, which indicate that God Himself passed through the land of Egypt. He certainly did not need a distinguishing sign. So writes the Beit Yosef in his book, Maggid Meisharim: As for the difficulty with the verse, "And when I see the blood, I will pass over you," why was a sign needed, for surely everything is revealed to Him? It may be suggested that a sign was needed for the angels who came with Him. It may further be objected that this sign was with blood, which is a sign of death, the opposite of what they wanted. And furthermore, the sign should have been on the outside, and this sign was on the inside. But the secret of the matter is that the Holy One, blessed be He, wanted them to trust in Him and place the blood on the door from the inside. This is what is written: "And the blood shall be to you for a token." And instead of being afraid when they see the blood on the door, on the contrary they should trust their Master who commanded them to do this, so that He would be a salvation for them. This merit of trusting God would protect them. This is the meaning of what is written: "And the blood shall be to you for a token upon the houses where you are; and when I see the blood, I will pass over you." That is to say, I will see the merit of your trust, that the blood that is a sign of death will be for you a sign of life when you trust the words of your Master. And for this reason, "when I see the blood, I will pass over you." (Maggid Meisharim, Parashat Bo) It seems that trust in God involves not only doing the action required by God on the simple level. What we have here is an important and profound principle, in light of the gemara in Pesachim: R. Yosef taught: There were three altars there, on the lintel and on the two doorposts. (Pesachim 96a) A broader picture emerges from the gemara. The paschal offering brought in Egypt was a sacrifice offered at the entrance of a person's house, his house serving as the Temple, and the entrance to his house being the altar. While Chazal speak of three altars, it seems more accurate to say that they are referring to the three corners of the altar. The people of Israel are commanded to see their homes as the house of God. With their trust in God, they express the strength of their connection to Him by seeing their homes as God's house. And if their house is the house of God, then the entrance to the house is an altar, and they put of the blood on the three corners of the altar - the lintel and the two doorposts. This view, which sanctifies the houses of the people of Israel as the Temple, is similar to what is stated: "In every place where I cause My name to be mentioned I will come to you and bless you" (Shemot 20:20). In this way, the house becomes the basis of the covenant that is being formed between God and His people, by virtue of their seeking His presence within them. If we are correct, it stands to reason that the idea of the protection offered by a mezuza has a more fundamental and inner meaning. A person turns his house into a house of God, and a house of God is protected, as is stated in Tehillim: A Song of Ascents; of Shelomo. Except the Lord build the house, they labor in vain that build it; except the Lord keep the city, the watchman wakes but in vain. (Tehillim 127:1) God's protection is protection, and there is no other, it alone being considered true protection. These words connect with the words of the Rambam in Hilkhot Beit Ha-Bechira, that the guarding in the Temple was merely a display of honor, and not needed for the protection it offered, since the house of God is not in need of protection: There is a positive mitzva to guard the Temple. [This mitzvah applies] even though there is no fear of enemies or thieves, for the guarding [of the Temple] is an expression of respect for it. A palace with guards is [much more impressive] than a palace without guards. (Rambam, Hilkhot Beit Ha-Bechira 8:1) (Translated by David Strauss) _______________________ [1] The gemara there states as follows: "R. Chiya bar Abba and R. Yose disagree. One says: It is for the sin of neglect of mezuza [that a person's children die]; while the other says: It is for the sin of the neglect of Torah... It is well according to the one who says: It is for the sin of the neglect of mezuza, for it is written: 'And you shall write them upon the doorposts of your house,' which is followed by: 'that your days may be multiplied, and the days of your children'" (Shabbat 32b). [2] The Rambam is referring here to the ancient practice of inserting all kinds of additions into the mezuza. Rabbeinu Eliezer of Metz writes as follows: "It is common practice to add seals and the names of the angels at the end of the Bible verses contained in the mezuza for the sake of the increased security of the home. This is not indispensible, nor even a mitzva, but simply serves as additional protection" (Yere'im 400). He then spells out in great detail the names of the angels and where precisely they were inserted in the mezuza. [3] According to the Ramach's understanding of the Rambam, it may be suggested that this does not mean that a mezuza protects a person, but rather that a person should be reminded of the principles of his faith whenever he goes in or out of his house. [4] See Kolbo: "The reason that we write this name more than the others is that it is an abbreviation for Shomer Dirat Yisrael, "Who guards the dwelling of Israel" (Kolbo, Mezuza 90). [5] Establishing this night as a night of watching has halakhic ramifications in a number of contexts. This is true regarding the recitation of Shema before going to sleep and regarding the Me-Ein Sheva blessing on the night of the Seder when it falls out on Friday night. Many halakhic authorities rule that one should not say the Me-Ein Sheva blessing on the night of the Seder, since it is a night of watching that does not require protection. From bdbradley70 at hotmail.com Sat Dec 23 13:33:10 2017 From: bdbradley70 at hotmail.com (Ben Bradley) Date: Sat, 23 Dec 2017 21:33:10 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Midrash Tanchuma Message-ID: I'd be grateful to know if anyone here is sufficiently familiar with different editions of midrash tanchuma to help me out. I acquired a copy of the Tanchuma from a second hand book shop, very inexpensively, a number of years ago. I was a poor student at the time. It was printed in 5645, ie 1885, by one Shlomo Buber (Bober?) in Lvov from manuscripts acquired from Oxford and the Vatican. I must admit I'd never paid much attention to these details until now, but It's just come to my attention that it my copy is hugely different to the standard one. For example, this week in Vayigash, my copy has 12 simanim, compared to the 11 in the standard edition. But only 4 of these are the same (8-11 in mine corresponding to 9-12 in the standard), all the others are utterly different. By which I mean they are simply different midrashim, not just variants. Can anyone shed light on such a huge difference between what seems to be the standard edition and mine? Best wishes Ben -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From meirabi at gmail.com Sat Dec 23 16:49:35 2017 From: meirabi at gmail.com (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi) Date: Sun, 24 Dec 2017 11:49:35 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] Did the Patriarchs Speak Hebrew? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Speak means communication, there were 10 communications with which HKBH created the universe There were 10 communications broadcast at Har Sinai - I'm pretty sure it wasn't Polish or Hungarian. The Rishonim argue about the nature of prophesy, is it an actual voice (meaning stimulation of the human hearing facility of the ear - not necessarily stimulated by an actual sound) or just a voice in the head but TTBOMKnowledge, none question the language. Anyway, does it make any difference? Either way the brain is receiving a signal. Perhaps the type of language is irrelevant, what's important is that the message is received and understood. That the parties are connected. I have seen, but could not re-find a comment by the MaOr VeShemesh (I think connected to Ish Mitzi HiTzilanu) that Yidden spoke Mitzi, and the meaning of Lo Shinu LeShonom is that they spoke with a Yiddishe style, with dignity and kindness - and this is what set us apart. Clearly a Derasha designed to direct the listeners and readers towards a more dignified language, but at the same time reflecting an ultimate truth, the language does not make the man, it's the style that's important. I also recall hearing is a RaMBaN or a Siforno - a child exposed from birth to no external language inputs, would naturally speak Lashon HaKodesh. This seems to be a fairly old consideration amongst philosophers, see Frederick's Experiment, and Gong Mahal. HKBH looked into the Torah and created the universe, speaks volumes about the centrality of Torah, not about it's language, although it's not easy separating the two. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From driceman at optimum.net Sat Dec 23 16:53:36 2017 From: driceman at optimum.net (David Riceman) Date: Sat, 23 Dec 2017 19:53:36 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Did the Patriarchs Speak Hebrew? Message-ID: See Melachim 2 18:26 [Email #2. -micha] And see Gen. 31:47 DR Sent from my iPad From zev at sero.name Sat Dec 23 19:46:46 2017 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Sat, 23 Dec 2017 22:46:46 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Midrash Tanchuma In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 23/12/17 16:33, Ben Bradley via Avodah wrote: > It was printed in 5645, ie 1885, by one Shlomo Buber (Bober?) in Lvov > from manuscripts acquired from Oxford and the Vatican. > I must admit I'd never paid much attention to these details until now, > but It's just come to my attention that it my copy is hugely different > to the standard one. Yes, the Buber Tanchuma is a different sefer from the standard Tanchuma. Citations to "Tanchuma" stam refer to the old edition, while ones to this edition are given as "Tanchuma (Buber)". Buber claimed that he had found the original version, and that the one published in the 16th century is a much later one. Not everyone was convinced. There was also something the rishonim called "Medrash Yelamdeinu", which may have been a third version which is now lost, or may simply have been the name by which they referred to one or the other of these two versions. http://bit.ly/2C5u4FL -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From akivagmiller at gmail.com Sat Dec 23 18:39:15 2017 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Sat, 23 Dec 2017 21:39:15 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Did the Patriarchs Speak Hebrew? Message-ID: . R' Seth Mandel wrote: > There is no proof that anyone spoke Hebrew. and R' Zev Sero responded: > Rashi Bereshis 2:23 That Rashi does not mention Hebrew. What Rashi says there is that the olam was created via "Lashon Hakodesh". "Lashon Hakodesh" may or may not be the same thing as what we refer to as "Hebrew". One cannot discuss this topic meaningfully unless he is careful to make this distinction. For a very in-depth (yet also readable and in English) treatment of these and related topics, I recommend "Lashon Hakodesh - History, Holiness, & Hebrew" by Rabbi Reuven Chaim Klein. Akiva Miller From zvilampel at gmail.com Sat Dec 23 21:41:29 2017 From: zvilampel at gmail.com (H Lampel) Date: Sun, 24 Dec 2017 00:41:29 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Historicity of Aggadta In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Under the subject line of Re: [Avodah] Did the Patriarchs Speak Hebrew?, RSM raises a claim that RMB and I have argued over in the past. He writes, > Medrashim of Chazal teaches us important ideas, but are not meant to > be literally true. They do not intend to be a historical document, > but rather contain important moral and ethical teachings which are > 'emes in the spiritual sense. > > ... if you understand > what the Rambam says in his introduction to Chapter 10 of Mas. Sanhedrin > regarding three approaches to what Chazal say But the Rambam also writes there: And? I will yet compose a work in which I will gather all the drashos found in the Talmud and elsewhere...and I will reveal what of the drashos are [meant in] a literal way, and which of them are [meant as] mashal, and which of them were [describing something seen only] in a dream but was stated in a purely absolute way, as if it were [experienced] in a state of wakefulness... So, the Rambam does not maintain that the literal meaning of? /all/ drashos is to be rejected. Some are indeed meant literally, and some are not. (The Rambam never wrote this work. As he explains in Moreh Nevuchim, since much of it would be dealing with the meaning of drashos whose meanings were valuable lessons too precious to be shared with those who would not appreciate them appropriately, he would be forced to merely substitute the drashos' figurative expressions with his own figurative expressions. But in several works he does provide the key that they are not meant literally when the literal meaning would contradict realia, logic, fundamentals or pesukim.) His son Avraham, in his maamer on Drashos Chazal writes similarly regarding the maasiyos reported in the Talmud. R. Yehuda HaLevy (1:68) understood the midrashic maasiyos attributing the Hebrew language to the patriarchs as a historic reality that carried an important lesson, and considered the Torah as presenting evidence thereof. According to tradition it is the language in which G-d spoke to Adam and Eve, and in which the latter conversed. It is proved by the derivation of Adam from /adamah/, /ishshah/ from /ish/; /Chava/__from Chay; /Cain/ from /Kannisi/; /Shes/ from /shas/, and Noach from /yenachamenu/. This is supported by the evidence of the Torah. The whole is traced back to Eber, Noach and Adam. It is the language of Eber after whom it was called /Hebrew/, because after the confusion of tongues it was he who retained it. Abraham was an Aramaean of /Ur Kasdim/, because the language of the Chaldaeans was Aramaic. He employed Hebrew as a specially holy language andAramaic for everyday use. .. Zvi Lampel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From familyp2 at actcom.net.il Sun Dec 24 03:05:02 2017 From: familyp2 at actcom.net.il (Simi Peters) Date: Sun, 24 Dec 2017 13:05:02 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] tanhuma buber Message-ID: <001a01d37ca7$16b17e70$44147b50$@actcom.net.il> Your edition of Tanhuma is indeed vastly different from the standard printed edition. It was published by Buber from a Cairo Geniza manuscript (or possibly several manuscripts-not sure about the details.) There is some overlap, but there is a lot of material in Tanhuma Buber that does not appear in the standard editions and vice versa. It's good to have both. Unless you're interested in trying to reconstruct an ur-edition of Tanhuma, you can just treat them as separate works and mine each for its interesting material. Kol tuv, Simi Peters --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From zvilampel at gmail.com Sun Dec 24 06:43:33 2017 From: zvilampel at gmail.com (H Lampel) Date: Sun, 24 Dec 2017 09:43:33 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Historicity of Aggadta In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1f584d28-51c5-aa2f-2eb7-e97d1cd32aef@gmail.com> On 12/24/2017 12:41 AM, Z?? Lampel wrote: > R. Yehuda HaLevy (1:68) Should be: R. Yehuda Halevy (Kuzari 2:68). Zvi Lampel From marty.bluke at gmail.com Sun Dec 24 04:32:45 2017 From: marty.bluke at gmail.com (Marty Bluke) Date: Sun, 24 Dec 2017 14:32:45 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] New Cancer Treatment Message-ID: RHS in his sefer (Eretz Hatzvi) points out that it seems to be 2 opinions in Tosafos whether a mamzer can be created without a bias issur. The Gemara in Yevamos 16b brings the opinion that eved v'akum haba al bas yisrael havlad mamzer. Tosafos there asks the following question. They understand how there can be an opinion that an eved creates mamzerus because there is a specific issur for a Jewish woman to have biah with an eved. However, they ask, by a Goy there is no issur biah min hatorah and therefore how can anyone hold that the product of the biah of a goy and a Jewish woman would create a mamzer? Tosafos gives 2 answers: 1. Even though there is no bias issur since kiddushin are not tofsin it creates mamzerus. 2. A Goy and a Jewish woman do not create a mamzer min hatorah only midrabbanan If we apply these 2 opinions to IVF, according to the first answer since kiddushin are not tofsin (since she is married) the child would be a mamzer even though there was no bias issur. On the other hand, the second answer holds that the determining factor of mamzerus is a bias issur and therefore since in the case of IVF there is no bias issur there would be no mamzerus. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Sun Dec 24 06:24:17 2017 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Sun, 24 Dec 2017 14:24:17 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] The Nature of Egyptian Society Message-ID: <1514125453560.29445@stevens.edu> The following is from RSRH" commentary on Bereishis 46:33 Now, when Pharaoh calls you and asks, What is your occupation? 33 In a state like Egypt, the individual is completely identified with his occupation. Children are not born as human beings but as artisans, peasants, soldiers, and so forth. Accordingly, Pharaoh's first question to Yosef 's brothers would naturally concern their occupation. They were instructed to answer Pharaoh's question candidly, to tell him the truth, even though it would be unpleasant. For the Egyptians' loathing for the brothers' occupation and, in general, the nations' aversion to the Jews were to serve as primary factors in the survival of this race, which was destined to journey through the ages in isolation. As long as the moral morn had not dawned for the nations, the barriers they erected to isolate the Jews served to protect the Jews from becoming infected with the barbarism and demoralization of the people in whose midst they had to walk for hundreds of years. Yosef therefore immediately emphasizes the aspect that will arouse the aversion of the Egyptians. His clear intention is that, as a result, his brothers will be allocated a separate province in which to dwell. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cantorwolberg at cox.net Sat Dec 23 19:30:04 2017 From: cantorwolberg at cox.net (Richard Wolberg) Date: Sat, 23 Dec 2017 22:30:04 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Vay'chi Message-ID: <89600AC2-DFEA-44AA-A5AE-9C4493ED11F4@cox.net> There?s an interesting medrash the k?li yakar brings down. It doesn?t say Vayik?r?vu Yisroel Lamus, that Yisroel came close to die,? rather it says: ?Vayik?r?vu Y?MEI Yisroel lamus,? that the DAYS of Yisroel came close to die. And the medresh says, the DAYS died, not the person. This goes in line with Vay?chi Ya?akov, and Jacob LIVED. In other words, his body died but not he, himself. (The question has been asked: Do you have a soul? The answer is NO, you ARE a soul with a body). In the first pasuk (vs.28) the name Yaakov is used twice and then in vs.29 we see the name Yisroel used. The question is asked why does the name change from Ya?akov to Yisroel. One answer is that Yisroel symbolizes the prophecy of Ya?akov. And that?s how he knew he was going to die because in prophecy he understood and divinely inspired, he understood that he was going to die. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From larry62341 at optonline.net Sun Dec 24 02:38:32 2017 From: larry62341 at optonline.net (Prof. Levine) Date: Sun, 24 Dec 2017 05:38:32 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] The Protection Offered by a Mezuza Message-ID: At 06:58 PM 12/23/2017, Harav Baruch Gigi wrote: The following is from RSRH's commentary on Devorim 6:9 And write them upon the [door-] posts of your house and upon your gates. The mezuzah is not an amulet; in and of itself, it does not protect the house. Only insofar as they shape their lives in accordance with the mezuzah 's content can the people within the house expect help and protection from God, the "All-Sovereign and All-Sufficing," in all the vicissitudes of domestic life. With this intent it is our custom to adorn the outside of the mezuzah with the Name shin-daled-yud. From ben1456 at zahav.net.il Sun Dec 24 10:55:39 2017 From: ben1456 at zahav.net.il (Ben Waxman) Date: Sun, 24 Dec 2017 20:55:39 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Rambam ,Hilchot Hannuka Message-ID: A few take aways from Rambam Hilchot Hanukka Chapter 3 1) For the Rambam, Hallel is the ikkar element of Hanukka, not the candles (given that details Hallel first and only then goes on to the candles). 2) The Rambam gives a long detailed description on how to properly say Hallel in beit knesset. However the last halacha in the chapter basically says "I've been in a lot batei knesset and everyone does something different'. Meaning - you want to do a musical Hallel, different tunes, no tunes, responsive, everyone together, whatever you like - it is fine. 3) The Rambam raises the possibility of a woman or child or slave reading Hallel and everyone repeating what she or he said word by word. However, he doesn't add in the famous curse given in the Gemara. Meaning - the Rambam didn't hold by? Tavo Ma'arah (spelling?) (at least not here). Ben From lisa at starways.net Sun Dec 24 11:27:31 2017 From: lisa at starways.net (Lisa Liel) Date: Sun, 24 Dec 2017 21:27:31 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] The Protection Offered by a Mezuza In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2cfbbfce-e0d9-fc05-140c-969d4b5f18a1@starways.net> On 12/24/2017 12:38 PM, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: > At 06:58 PM 12/23/2017, Harav Baruch Gigi wrote: ... > The mezuzah is not an amulet; in and of itself, it does not protect the > house. Only insofar as they shape their lives in accordance with the mezuzah's > content can the people within the house expect help and protection... I know a mezuzah isn't an amulet, but when my apartment burned down back in the 90s, the fire burned through two sides of the apartment and jumped over my room only, which was the only one with a mezuzah.? I'm not saying it couldn't be a coincidence, I'm just saying that I didn't take it that way. Lisa From zev at sero.name Sun Dec 24 14:10:20 2017 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Sun, 24 Dec 2017 17:10:20 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] The Protection Offered by a Mezuza In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2d108449-ec4d-0e35-d888-0ccdd8b113be@sero.name> On 24/12/17 05:38, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: > At 06:58 PM 12/23/2017, Harav Baruch Gigi wrote: > The following is from RSRH's commentary on Devorim 6:9 And write > them upon the [door-] > posts of your house and upon your gates. > > The mezuzah is not an amulet; in and of itself, it does not protect the > house. Only insofar as they shape their lives in accordance with the mezuzah 's > content can the people within the house expect help and protection > from God, the "All-Sovereign and All-Sufficing," in all the vicissitudes > of domestic life. That may be RSRH's opinion, but if so it contradicts Chazal and millennia of Jewish belief and practise. No, the mezuzah is not an amulet; if it were not a mitzvah it would have no inherent power. But the *mitzvah* of mezuzah protects regardless of how those within the house "shape their lives". Even a goy who puts up a mezuzah, choosing to voluntarily fulfil this mitzvah, can expect this protection. The mitzvah protects those who fulfil it not only when they are inside the house it adorns, but wherever they are. And, most astonishingly, although it is true that a mezuzah itself is not an amulet, there are legitimate grounds to believe that carrying it around "zecher lamitzvah" *does* give some level of protection, even though no mitzvah is being fulfilled. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From ben1456 at zahav.net.il Sun Dec 24 19:58:42 2017 From: ben1456 at zahav.net.il (Ben Waxman) Date: Mon, 25 Dec 2017 05:58:42 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] The Protection Offered by a Mezuza In-Reply-To: <2d108449-ec4d-0e35-d888-0ccdd8b113be@sero.name> References: <2d108449-ec4d-0e35-d888-0ccdd8b113be@sero.name> Message-ID: <80f92bd4-b7af-1b26-1d03-0f3ce7a67edf@zahav.net.il> I seriously doubt that anyone could come up with any statistical analysis showing this point to be true. Ben On 12/25/2017 12:10 AM, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > But the *mitzvah* of mezuzah protects regardless of how those within the house "shape their lives". From zvilampel at gmail.com Mon Dec 25 07:28:21 2017 From: zvilampel at gmail.com (H Lampel) Date: Mon, 25 Dec 2017 10:28:21 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Did the Patriarchs Speak Hebrew? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > Tue, 19 Dec 2017 "Mandel, Seth" wrote: > > There is no proof that anyone spoke Hebrew. ... the Torah was written in Hebrew because that is > what the Jews understood at the time of Moshe Rabbeinu and the N'vi'im. > ... What did Yaakov speak to Rochel and > Leah, who had never been in EY? ... > one cannot know from the T'NaKh who spoke what when and where. Well, at least when the matriarchs and patriarchs stated the reasons for the names they gave their children, they were obviously speaking the same Hebrew spoken in the times of Moshe Rabbeinu. The only way to question this would be to suggest that originally Yitzchak, for instance was called "HeShallLaugh" in some other language, and over the next 5 centuries the bnei Yisrael (or the descendants of HeWillStriveWithG-d, or whatever), knowing the meaning of the name, changed it to Yitzchak.And did the same with each one of all the other names given in the chronologies, which are also clearly contractions of Mattan Torah time Hebrew words. And a similar convoluted explanation would have to be made when an allegedly unHebrew-speaking Eisav cracked ''Ha-chi kara shmo Yaakov--Vayak-veini zeh pa'amayyim...?!" I think all that is extremely unlikely, even without invoking the masorah (of no less import than the Masorah that HQBH dictated the Torah to Moshe Rabbeinu in the eponymous Biblical Hebrew) that the shevatim in Moshe Rabbeinu's time retained the names given to their ancestors (cited in many places including BeMidbar Rabbah 13:20 s.v. Bayom HaShishi and Midrash Tehillim 114:4). Zvi Lampel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mcohen at touchlogic.com Mon Dec 25 07:39:55 2017 From: mcohen at touchlogic.com (M Cohen) Date: Mon, 25 Dec 2017 10:39:55 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Did the Patriarchs Speak Hebrew? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <00bd01d37d96$9d1ebc80$d75c3580$@com> Fyi that the best sefer that I have seen on the subject of Hebrew and ancient Hebrew history is Lashon HaKodesh: History, Holiness & Hebrew by Rabbi Reuven Chaim Klein. Feldheim. http://www.feldheim.com/lashon-hakodesh.html Haskomos from R Leff, R Breitowitz, R Lopiansky It deals with the subject of ancient Hebrew history, using both on chazal and current linguistic and archeological sources Did Adam harishon speak Hebrew ? Did the world speak Hebrew until tower of Babel? Did Avraham speak Hebrew ? Foreign influences on Hebrew Hebrew vs Aramaic. Sources. History. Development. You will find exhaustive source material and answers there. Mordechai Cohen ======= Email scanned by PC Tools - No viruses or spyware found. (Email Guard: 9.1.0.2894, Virus/Spyware Database: 6.22240) http://free.pctools.com/ ======= From zev at sero.name Sun Dec 24 23:16:16 2017 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Mon, 25 Dec 2017 02:16:16 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] The Protection Offered by a Mezuza In-Reply-To: <80f92bd4-b7af-1b26-1d03-0f3ce7a67edf@zahav.net.il> References: <2d108449-ec4d-0e35-d888-0ccdd8b113be@sero.name> <80f92bd4-b7af-1b26-1d03-0f3ce7a67edf@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <1ba30a45-ba01-d7d5-2b67-843f9f22ed8b@sero.name> On 24/12/17 22:58, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > On 12/25/2017 12:10 AM, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: >> But the *mitzvah* of mezuzah protects regardless of how those within >> the house "shape their lives". > I seriously doubt that anyone could come up with any statistical > analysis showing this point to be true. Why do we need statistical analysis? Judaism tell us it's true, therefore it is. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From llevine at stevens.edu Mon Dec 25 12:00:57 2017 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Mon, 25 Dec 2017 20:00:57 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Bishul Akum - Specific Products Message-ID: <0ae98ef4eb3a4dbeaa39a0bbc1e50abf@exchng03.campus.stevens-tech.edu> Please see the file at https://goo.gl/LnRQjF YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Mon Dec 25 12:30:23 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 25 Dec 2017 15:30:23 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] The Protection Offered by a Mezuza In-Reply-To: <80f92bd4-b7af-1b26-1d03-0f3ce7a67edf@zahav.net.il> References: <2d108449-ec4d-0e35-d888-0ccdd8b113be@sero.name> <80f92bd4-b7af-1b26-1d03-0f3ce7a67edf@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <20171225203023.GA9557@aishdas.org> On Mon, Dec 25, 2017 at 05:58am IST, Ben Waxman wrote: : On 12/25/2017 12:10 AM, Zev Sero wrote: :> But the *mitzvah* of mezuzah protects regardless of how those :> within the house "shape their lives". : I seriously doubt that anyone could come up with any statistical : analysis showing this point to be true. (I won't bother arguing against Zev's inability to acknowledge the existence of other shitos than his. "[I]t contradicts Chazal and millennia of Jewish belief and practise." "Judaism tell us it's true" indeed. It's a machloqes of the Rambam and the Ramach, with various teirutzim given for the Rambam. Not open-and-shut at all.) You want to statistically decide which hashkafah is true??? I lean the way you do. But it's a machloqes. I already pointed to , a discussion of sources both ways. It would be weird to think it boils down to a machloqes in metzi'us. You remind me of a problem I have saying a particular line of Tehillim (37:25) with kavanah, and it comes up at the appendix to bentching, "Naar hayisi..." But I have seen a tzadiq whose kids miss meals and have to beg. Haven't you? The best I can do, rather than tamper with the minhag of saying it, is to focus on the word "ne'ezav" -- so, his kids don't have food, but it's not because HQBH abandoned the tzadiq. But I can't really feel that's peshat in the pasuq. It allows me to saven with qavanah, but as an answer -- the question is better than this resolution. Bitachon and emunah that actually fit the data can be more challenging than if we just shut off critical thought. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "As long as the candle is still burning, micha at aishdas.org it is still possible to accomplish and to http://www.aishdas.org mend." Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Anonymous shoemaker to R' Yisrael Salanter From micha at aishdas.org Mon Dec 25 12:34:01 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 25 Dec 2017 15:34:01 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Historicity of Aggadta In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20171225203401.GB9557@aishdas.org> On Sun, Dec 24, 2017 at 12:41:29AM -0500, H Lampel via Avodah wrote: : Under the subject line of Re: [Avodah] Did the Patriarchs Speak Hebrew?, : RSM raises a claim that RMB and I have argued over in the past. He writes, : : > Medrashim of Chazal teaches us important ideas, but are not meant to : > be literally true. They do not intend to be a historical document, : > but rather contain important moral and ethical teachings which are : > 'emes in the spiritual sense. Which need not say anything about the story's lilterally truth. Just that the story isn't *about* its literal historical claim, and therefore doesn't testify to history one way or the other. And so, I agree with: : So, the Rambam does not maintain that the literal meaning of /all/ : drashos is to be rejected. Some are indeed meant literally, and some are : not. And yet still won't bother worrying about contradicting any medrash's historical claims. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Life is a stage and we are the actors, micha at aishdas.org but only some of us have the script. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Menachem Nissel Fax: (270) 514-1507 From zvilampel at gmail.com Mon Dec 25 15:53:28 2017 From: zvilampel at gmail.com (H Lampel) Date: Mon, 25 Dec 2017 18:53:28 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Historicity of Aggadta In-Reply-To: <20171225203401.GB9557@aishdas.org> References: <20171225203401.GB9557@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 12/25/2017 3:34 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > And so, I agree with: > : So, the Rambam does not maintain that the literal meaning of /all/ > : drashos is to be rejected. Some are indeed meant literally, and some are > : not. > > And yet still won't bother worrying about contradicting any medrash's > historical claims. I already stated that the Rambam holds the intent of? a medrash is not literal if he holds it contradicts realia, logic, fundamentals or pesukim. And I should add, if it contradicts what he considers the consensus of Chazal. And in past iterations I submitted examples where the Rambam cites midrashic reports of history apparently qua history. You may insist that he (contra the Kuzari regarding Adam and the patricarchs speaking Hebrew) doesn't care about whether they are historically factual. But if you have examples of the Rambam not bothering to worry about contradicting a medrash's historical reports despite the above caveats, please provide them. Zvi Lampel From micha at aishdas.org Mon Dec 25 17:21:19 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 25 Dec 2017 20:21:19 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Historicity of Aggadta In-Reply-To: References: <20171225203401.GB9557@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20171226012119.GH24733@aishdas.org> On Mon, Dec 25, 2017 at 06:53:28PM -0500, H Lampel wrote: :> And yet still won't bother worrying about contradicting any medrash's :> historical claims. : I already stated that the Rambam holds the intent of? a medrash is : not literal if he holds it contradicts realia, logic, fundamentals : or pesukim... Yes, but you know I disagree. The Rambam says that the intent of a medrash is not literal. They might also be literal. A mashal or melitzah -- as he discusses from Mishlei at length -- can be pulled from history or stam crafted as a story, but in either case "mimah shenimtza bikhlal divreihem morim al inyanim amitiyim me'od." However, if the story does contradict what is known, we know it's a pure mashal, ahistorical. And therefore don't become like someone of the first two katim, believing stupidity or ridiculing chazal for their allegedly teaching stupidity. But he doesn't ever say that if the story is plausible, that's the point of the story. Nor that it's sufficient reason to assume it's true on a literal level. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "Fortunate indeed, is the man who takes micha at aishdas.org exactly the right measure of himself, and http://www.aishdas.org holds a just balance between what he can Fax: (270) 514-1507 acquire and what he can use." - Peter Latham From micha at aishdas.org Sun Dec 24 14:11:31 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Sun, 24 Dec 2017 17:11:31 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Please help me fund my book! Message-ID: <20171224221131.GA26480@aishdas.org> My manuscript just went to the publishers. For the second time; I retracted my first version because I didn't like the idea that the book was all theory without any pragmatics. What's the value of exploring the meaning of Torah and life based on haRav Shimon haKohein Shkop without anything about how to align one's life with those ideals? If you want some sense of what the book is about, the text that it's a commentary / elaboration on is available at http://www.aishdas.org/asp/ShaareiYosher.pdf -- although I have made some improvements to the readability of that translation since that PDF. If you would like to help me make this dream happen, whether because you were always looking for a way to thank me for these email lists, you like me or some of the things you've seen me write in the past, you like Rav Shimon's hashkafah, or simply think *any* sefer that gets more Orthodox Jews thinking about the big picture and why are we doing it all is worth existing, please let me know. Initial reactions are excited: "This may IY'H attract some serious attention -- books like this don't come out every day." "Very chashuv, unique sefer." "Wow. what an impressive work!" "Right up our alley, as well. Torah, important -- but kind of unique. For thinking people." "I think the subject, approach and writing are gevaldik." "I am excited as well, but they tell me the hardest part of the job still lays ahead." The sefarim market cannot consume books to the extent where publication will make a profit. So, at least when it comes to the business and funding models, all the houses expect fundraising and sponsorship to make a book happen. But it is not "vanity press". The publisher adds significant value to the book -- fact checking, editing, layout and other aesthetics, etc. The publisher I am going with uses Feldheim as their distribution channel, so my sefer could reach every Anglo sefarim store. And they have to pay the people who do all that, not to mention feed their own families. They put their name on the book, the book is their product. They need that good name for future marketing and distribution. So, they won't take on a book that would harm their business. They're willing to invest those man-hours, and when done, to stand behind my work. So, I have to rely heavily on word-of-mouth to raise that money. Including hitting up everyone here on Areivim/Avodah. I am using a foundation established in memory of my grandparents to clear the money in a manner that is tax-deductible. Email me for details if you are interested in chipping in. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger For those with faith there are no questions. micha at aishdas.org For those who lack faith there are no answers. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yaakov of Radzimin Fax: (270) 514-1507 From zvilampel at gmail.com Mon Dec 25 19:55:18 2017 From: zvilampel at gmail.com (H Lampel) Date: Mon, 25 Dec 2017 22:55:18 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Diberah Torah Kil-shon bnei adam In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Under the heading, Re: [Avodah] Did the Patriarchs Speak Hebrew?, Tue, 19 Dec 2017 From: Micha Berger > Mandel, Seth via Avodah wrote: > : There is no proof that anyone spoke Hebrew. Chazal say that dibb'ra Torah > : bilshon b'nei odom... > > RMB: Well.... R' Yishmael says it [the dictum ''dibb'ra Torah > bilshon b'nei odom.''] And it appears to be an argument for his > rules of derashah, which do not include looking for magic words like > "akh" (mi'ut), "raq" (mi'ut), "kol" (ribui) or even "es", but darshens > the meaning of terms, whether ribui or mi'ut....And besides, R' Aqiva disagrees! RSRH (Collected Writings Vol. V, p. 170), citing 30 cases,? points out that, ''R. Ishmael, no less than R. Akiba (and......all of R. Akiva's predecessors...)...considered particles [including of ''akh,'' ''raq'' and ''ess'] and superfluities ..in the Biblical text...subject to interpretations.'' He explains (p. 177) that ''R. Ishmael disagrees with R. Akiba only with regard to one very specific form of redundancy, namely, repetitions of the same expression; e.g.,...yidor nedder,...hasheiv heishiv, or the repetition of the same noun (ish ish). However, R. Ishmael interprets other redundancies in exactly the same manner as does R. Akiba.'' This leads me to propose an explanation for the phenomenon described by RMB as that... > The Rambam really sloganeers (like the CS's "chadash assur min haTorah") > when he uses it to explain that anthropomorphic descriptions of HQBH > are idioms, not to be taken overly literally. Rambam was not the first (and of course not the last*) to understand that Chazal intended by ''dibrah Torah kil-shon bnei adam'' a wider meaning than the one in dispute between R. Akiva and R.Yishmael, and even wider than the one RSRH shows both agreed to. Rav Hai Gaon (Teshuvas HaGaonim #98), too, used it to explain anthropomorphisms ("all the words of our Sages that have anthropomorphic descriptions ... are not to be understood literally but are metaphors or allegory. ... the Torah speaks in the language of man.)'' So did Chovos Halevavos (Shaar HaYichud 1:1:10). And Sefer HaKuzari (5:27) used it to explain? what the Torah means when it says that blowing the chatzotzros will result in ''v-hayu lachem l-zikaron lifnei H','' which seems to imply that H' requires reminders. Raavad (Sefer HaEmunah 1:7) applied the dictum to explain why the rewards and punishments the Torah' explicitly references are only those in this world, and not the next.? He explained that speaking of spiritual rewards would confuse the common people, ''v'al zeh ne'emar dibrah Torah b-lashon bnei adam.'' (Semi-off topic: In Maamar Techiyyas HaMeisim, Rambam gives a similar, if not identical reason for no explicit reference to techiyyas hameisim, without invoking the dictum.) So I propose that the Geonim and rishonim understood that the intent of Chazal's dictum? ''dibrah Torah kil-ashon bnei adam'' was a wide one, which includes the Torah's use of anthropomorphism. And that R. Yishmael, contra R. Akiva,? /extended/? it even to repetitions of the same expression; e.g.,...yidor nedder,...hasheiv heishiv, or the repetition of the same noun (ish ish). But nobody, including R. Yishmael, extended it even further, to other apparently extra words or particles such as"akh", "raq", "kol" and "ess". Those are meant for interpretation according to all. This would explain why even though the rule is that we follow R. Akiva when he argues with R. Yishmael, , the rishonim embraced the dictum of "dibrah Torah kil-shon bnei adam." Because they embraced it in the sense that all Chazal agreed to. And this applies to anthropomorphisms. It is only regarding whether to extended the dictum's application to certain types of expressions that R. Yishmael and R. Akiva argue. *Ibn Ezra--numerous times, such as on Breishis 6:6) Radak (numerous times, such as on Breishis 9:15 Ramban (Breishis 6:6) Hizkuni (Devarim 5:26) Rabbeynu Bechaye (numerous times, such as on Breishis 1:26) Ralbag (Shoftim 10:16) Akeidas Yitzchak numerous times, such as on Vayeria Shaar 19 sv Va'ani ain) Zvi Lampel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From JRich at sibson.com Mon Dec 25 22:00:57 2017 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2017 06:00:57 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] The Protection Offered by a Mezuza In-Reply-To: <20171225203023.GA9557@aishdas.org> References: <2d108449-ec4d-0e35-d888-0ccdd8b113be@sero.name> <80f92bd4-b7af-1b26-1d03-0f3ce7a67edf@zahav.net.il>, <20171225203023.GA9557@aishdas.org> Message-ID: > > You want to statistically decide which hashkafah is true??? > ------------ > > > You remind me of a problem I have saying a particular line of Tehillim > (37:25) with kavanah, and it comes up at the appendix to bentching, > "Naar hayisi..." But I have seen a tzadiq whose kids miss meals and have > to beg. Haven't you? > -------------- It also bothered the gedolim who struggled to explain why the simple meaning of the segula of being a sandek didn't seem to be statistically fulfilled Kt 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. From lisa at starways.net Tue Dec 26 00:10:52 2017 From: lisa at starways.net (Lisa Liel) Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2017 10:10:52 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Historicity of Aggadta In-Reply-To: <20171226012119.GH24733@aishdas.org> References: <20171225203401.GB9557@aishdas.org> <20171226012119.GH24733@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 12/26/2017 3:21 AM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > However, if the story does contradict what is known, we know it's a pure > mashal, ahistorical. I'd like to revise that to say that if the story contradicts what is *currently* known, we are entitled (or perhaps required) to consider it a pure mashal *at that time*, with the understanding that our knowledge may change. Lisa --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From zvilampel at gmail.com Mon Dec 25 20:41:54 2017 From: zvilampel at gmail.com (H Lampel) Date: Mon, 25 Dec 2017 23:41:54 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Historicity of Aggadta In-Reply-To: <20171226012119.GH24733@aishdas.org> References: <20171225203401.GB9557@aishdas.org> <20171226012119.GH24733@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <057fcda7-0e48-53f8-c0ec-135a112bb534@gmail.com> On 12/25/2017 8:21 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > ...But he doesn't ever say that if the story is plausible, that's the point > of the story. Nor that it's sufficient reason to assume it's true on a > literal level. The historical mentions the Rambam's makes, treating the plausible Midrashim as history without making any qualifications, indicates otherwise. But specifically on the topic this discussion came from now: Regarding the Midrashic reports that Adam and the Avos spoke Ivris/Lashon Hakadosh, which I assume you agree the Kuzari accepts as historical fact (which of course teaches in its historicity an important thing to know)... Is your default position that the Rambam doesn't care whether it's historically so? Zvi Lampel From sholom at aishdas.org Mon Dec 25 22:08:38 2017 From: sholom at aishdas.org (Sholom Simon) Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2017 01:08:38 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Rashi on kol hanefesh (Bereshis 46:26) Message-ID: <20171226060849.GQIH4561.fed1rmfepo102.cox.net@fed1rmimpo209.cox.net> Kol hanefesh . . . shvi'im. Rashi says "I found in Vayikra Rabba" . . . a statement that Eisav had (with him) six, and the word nafashos (plural) was used; but here with Yaakov, kol hanafesh . . . shevi'im, nefesh is in the singular. This is a hint that Eisav engaged in A"Z (plural gods), while Yaakov served one G-d. But don't we (almost?) always see (in Torah) the singular being used for a noun when the count is larger than 10? How can one darshen from something that follows the general grammatic rule? What am I missing here? -- Sholom From lisa at starways.net Tue Dec 26 00:08:21 2017 From: lisa at starways.net (Lisa Liel) Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2017 10:08:21 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] The Protection Offered by a Mezuza In-Reply-To: <20171225203023.GA9557@aishdas.org> References: <2d108449-ec4d-0e35-d888-0ccdd8b113be@sero.name> <80f92bd4-b7af-1b26-1d03-0f3ce7a67edf@zahav.net.il> <20171225203023.GA9557@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <282dcbac-59e9-be81-ee8e-f1faf4991682@starways.net> On 12/25/2017 10:30 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > You remind me of a problem I have saying a particular line of Tehillim > (37:25) with kavanah, and it comes up at the appendix to bentching, > "Naar hayisi..." But I have seen a tzadiq whose kids miss meals and have > to beg. Haven't you? I always understood it to mean that either he's quick to give tzedaka so as to prevent there being a tzaddik neezav v'zar'o mevakesh lachem, or that we aren't talking about literal aziva and lack of food, but rather aziva by Hashem and lack of Torah. Lisa --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From zvilampel at gmail.com Tue Dec 26 07:09:06 2017 From: zvilampel at gmail.com (H Lampel) Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2017 10:09:06 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Historicity of Aggadta In-Reply-To: <057fcda7-0e48-53f8-c0ec-135a112bb534@gmail.com> References: <20171225203401.GB9557@aishdas.org> <20171226012119.GH24733@aishdas.org> <057fcda7-0e48-53f8-c0ec-135a112bb534@gmail.com> Message-ID: <53d98237-ecd0-93ee-7927-d9edb71b28ca@gmail.com> On 12/25/2017 11:41 PM, H Lampel wrote: > > > On 12/25/2017 8:21 PM, Micha Berger wrote: >> ...But he doesn't ever say that if the story is plausible, that's the >> point >> of the story. Nor that it's sufficient reason to assume it's true on a >> literal level. The first statement is of course true. The reason a story is told is to make a point. Thus the citations where the Rambam says that all the maamerei Chazal impart valuable lessons. The second statement is where we diverge. I understand that the Rambam does take the plausible reports of happenings (reported of course because they impart something worthy to know) to be historically true. In other words, that's the default position. He never says that we may deny the historic factuality of events Chazal presented as factual historical events. I understand the citations you bring where Rambam invokes Mishlei to defend interpreting maamarei Chazal non-literally to? be saying that even the implausible ones really have valuable lessons but must be interpreted non-literally to understand them. So I would still ask you for examples of the Rambam not bothering to worry about contradicting a medrash's plausible historical reports. I previously remarked that the historical mentions the Rambam's makes, treating the plausible Midrashim as history without making any qualifications, without explaining why he takes them as historical fact (for example, the neis of the pach shemen, and the military victory of the Chashmonaim), indicates he took them as historical fact, which thereby provides the lessons to be learned therefrom. I quoted a passage from Rambam's Hakdama to Perek Cheilek (originally to counteract the face-value meaning of RSM's declaration that the Rambam holds that every Medrash is meant non-literally), where the Rambam makes clear that some reports are meant non-literally, but some are meant literally. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that your take can be worded as follows: Chazal and Rambam did not care whether the historical events they learned lessons from, really occurred. All Chazal's statements are only for the sake of the lessons. Some of the lessons must be extracted by understanding the statements in a non-literal way, particularly if at face value they are implausible. Of the plausible reports, the lessons to be learned from them can be gleaned from a literal understanding, meaning the message is clear without needing to give unusual meanings to its the words. But that does not mean that they were meant to be historically factual. They are meant literally, but not historically. I.e., the Rambam held that although lessons Chazal intended were ostensibly learned from, or reinforced by, events they reported, it is irrelevant whether the events did actually occur, and indeed they may not have. But I think his words indicate otherwise. Here they are again: ??? And I will yet compose a work in which I will gather all the ??? drashos found in the Talmud and elsewhere...and I will reveal what ??? of the drashos are [meant in] a literal way, and which of them are ??? [meant as] mashal, and which of them were [describing something seen ??? only] in a dream but was stated in a purely absolute way, as if it ??? were [experienced] in a state of wakefulness... If the Rambam considered it irrelevant whether the events did actually occur, and held that indeed they may not have occurred, why is he concerned with whether the report occurred in a dream? Why would he invoke a dream, if he considered the actuality of all reported events irrelevant? After all, its only the lesson that is relevant! But if you accept that the Rambam considered the default position to be that reported events are meant to be understood as actually occurring, and that while some are merely mashal but others are real, then it makes sense that he felt it important to exclude implausible reports and explain which were pure mashal and which were experienced in a dream. And describing the report as "stated in a purely absolute way, as if it were [experienced] in a state of wakefulness," implies that, had it not been implausible, being stated in an absolute way would imply that it was indeed experienced in a state of wakefulness. Zvi Lampel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: ???? ???? ????? ???? ?? ?? ?????? ??????? ?????? ??????.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 215599 bytes Desc: not available URL: From micha at aishdas.org Tue Dec 26 08:06:50 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2017 11:06:50 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Historicity of Aggadta In-Reply-To: <057fcda7-0e48-53f8-c0ec-135a112bb534@gmail.com> References: <20171225203401.GB9557@aishdas.org> <20171226012119.GH24733@aishdas.org> <057fcda7-0e48-53f8-c0ec-135a112bb534@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20171226160650.GC15636@aishdas.org> On Mon, Dec 25, 2017 at 11:41:54PM -0500, H Lampel wrote: : The historical mentions the Rambam's makes, treating the plausible : Midrashim as history without making any qualifications, indicates : otherwise. It indicates that some medrashim which both didn't defy evidence or his philosophy that the Rambam felt had a literal point worth making. Not that plauisible medrashim should be assumed to be literal history. He spends so much time telling you they're all statements of the deepest truths, and quoting Shelomo, that chakhamim conduct such discussions via mashal and melitzah. The fact that some deepest truths has historical impact doesn't give us license to ignore paragraphs of writing. : Regarding the Midrashic reports that Adam and the Avos spoke : Ivris/Lashon Hakadosh, which I assume you agree the Kuzari accepts : as historical fact (which of course teaches in its historicity an : important thing to know)... Is your default position that the Rambam : doesn't care whether it's historically so? That's the default. Perhaps the Rambam agrees with the Rihal that the history of Ivris is a significant statement, and would be meant literally even under his view. Perhaps not. I can't guess, and am willing to entertain anything. But there are also reports that they spoke Aramaic, or even that Adam spoke all 70 leshonos. See the sources I gave in as well as Sanhedrin 38b (R Yehudah amar Rav: Adam haRishon spoke Aramaic). Not to mention historical evidence. So there is no reason for me to make the Rambam's life difficult. To complete repeating myself, my own instinct is to say that Adam spoke some proto-Semitic, and therefore spoke a language which could be considered both ancient Hebrew AND ancient Aramaic, or proto-everything and thus an ancestor to all 70 languages. And this would explain the medrashim as well as allow us to identify Adam's speech with Leshon haQodesh. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "I think, therefore I am." - Renne Descartes micha at aishdas.org "I am thought about, therefore I am - http://www.aishdas.org my existence depends upon the thought of a Fax: (270) 514-1507 Supreme Being Who thinks me." - R' SR Hirsch From eliturkel at mail.gmail.com Mon Dec 25 13:40:32 2017 From: eliturkel at mail.gmail.com (Eli Turkel) Date: Mon, 25 Dec 2017 23:40:32 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] shabbes candles Message-ID: A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: multipart/alternative Size: 1277 bytes Desc: not available URL: From chaim.tatel at mail.gmail.com Mon Dec 25 15:43:58 2017 From: chaim.tatel at mail.gmail.com (Chaim Tatel) Date: Mon, 25 Dec 2017 15:43:58 -0800 Subject: [Avodah] shabbes candles Message-ID: A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: multipart/alternative Size: 4006 bytes Desc: not available URL: From JRich at sibson.com Wed Dec 27 01:51:45 2017 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Wed, 27 Dec 2017 09:51:45 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] birur vs hanhaga in other legal systems Message-ID: <9ec665e80cbd4e97be6b4bcc8b7221d8@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> There's a lot of "Brisker Torah" on the differentiation between halachically resolving doubts by birur (clarification/resolution of doubt) versus hanhaga (we still have a doubt but must move forward while not resolving the doubt). One practical difference would be that doubts resolved by birur are considered resolved retroactively while those resolved by hanhaga are only prospective in nature. Is anyone aware of any parallels to this differentiation in other legal systems? KT 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: From micha at aishdas.org Thu Dec 28 08:03:25 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2017 11:03:25 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Body and Soul In-Reply-To: <89600AC2-DFEA-44AA-A5AE-9C4493ED11F4@cox.net> References: <89600AC2-DFEA-44AA-A5AE-9C4493ED11F4@cox.net> Message-ID: <20171228160325.GA31137@aishdas.org> On Sat, Dec 23, 2017 at 10:30pm EST, Richard Wolberg wrote in a post titled "Vay'chi": : (The question has been asked: Do you have a soul? The answer is NO, : you ARE a soul with a body). I write about this in my manuscript. Here's a version I put up on Mi Yodeya about a year ago. So, it is slightly adapted, lacks a year of editing, and there will be someone else editing the manuscript before it is a book (assuming I raise the money). On Mi Yodeya, "Gabriel12" asked about E-lokai Neshmah, and the phrases "shanasata bi... nefachtahh bi... meshammerahh beqirbi... littela mimmenni, ulhachzirahh bi le'asid lavo". He asks: Here, when I say me, I'm referring to my body. And I'm thanking G-d for giving me back my soul. But why is the body "me"? Shouldn't the soul be the real "me"? Am I the soul or the body? My answer: As for E-lokai Neshamah and Hashem putting a soul within me, my own intent when saying these words is based on the Vilna Gaon's taxonomy of prayer: Prayers that express an ideal to be repeated and internalized are what we call "tefillah" in Hebrew. Tefillos are consistently written in the plural, as our connection to the community is part of that ideal. Prayers written in the singular are therefore of a different sort, "tachanunim", expressions of what already exists in our hearts. This is how the Gaon explains the line in Qaddish, "tisqabel tzelosehon uva'usehon -- accept the tefillos and requests (tachanunim) of all of the House of Israel..." We say this when closing the Amidah -- which is such a paragon of tefillah our Sages called it simply "Tefillah", E-lokai Netzor -- tachanunim, (note that it's written about "I" and "mine", not "we" and "our"), and Tachanun. "Elokai, neshamah -- My G-d, the soul which you placed in me" is similarly tachanunim. Therefore, it's not a place to look for how we ought to see our self-definition, but how things feel to most of us first thing in the morning. The prayer reflects the fact that most people do in practice identify with our body most consistently, and only at times with their soul. But to answer the philosophical question... There is a machlokes, a dispute among the rabbis, as to how to view man. One side, found often among books of Mussar, views a person as a soul who inhabits a body, or perhaps controls it as a rider upon a donkey. As Elifaz describes humanity in the book of [61]Iyov (4:10), "shochnei batei chomer - dwellers in homes of matter." When Rav Yitzchak Isaac Scher (Cheshbon haNefesh, Slaboka Alumni ed., intro.) speaks of man's physical side being an animal, we mean that literally, not merely like an animal. Since much of our yeitzer hara comes from our living in a mammalian body, R' Scher recommends the very same strategies one uses for taming and being able to use the eyesight of a bird, the strength of an ox, the load bearing abilities of a donkey or the speed of a horse are applicable to gaining mastery over our bodies. Like any other animal, a person's animal soul has no ability to plan toward a goal, it simply responds to whatever urge is most triggered in the moment. The animal soul must be saddled by the godly soul and guided. And Rabbi Sherr points out with the example of a trained elephant, "next to whom a person like his trainer seems little more than an ant", to maximize its utility it must neither be overburdened or neglected, nor underused and let remind wild - and this is how we are to treat our body and our animal souls. Last and most importantly, neither an animal nor the animal within can be educated, but trained through habit and acclimation. This notion is a key symbol in the Gra's interpretation system -- when one finds a chamor / donkey in a narrative, it is generally a symbol for the person's chomer / physicality. Avraham at the Akeidah or the mashiach come in riding on a donkey as a way to indicate to us their mastery over their own physicality. In contrast, we speak of Bil'am's donkey, but the Torah consistently calls it a different kind of animal; he does not harness a chamor, showing self-control over the animal's urges of the moment, Bil'am rides an ason ([62]Bamidbar 22:23,25,27,28,29,33). In this viewpoint, a person is a rider of an animal, or to use a metaphor that may resonate better with our more modern lifestyles - the soul who is wearing a body. Another stream of thought includes the body in the definition of person. Rather than a person's more human side that rides his body as a master over an animal, in this model man is seen as a fusion of body and soul. For example when the gemara ([63]Sanhedrin 91a) explains one purpose of the eventual resurrection of the dead by comparing a sinner to a blind man and a lame man who conspire to steal fruit from an orchard. They are caught and brought to court, but each of the accused claims innocence. The blind man says he must be innocent, for he was incapable of even finding the fruit, never mind stealing them. The lame man also claims innocence; after all, he had no way to reach it. Neither alone could commit the theft, so each of the accused points to the other as the critical element for the sin, the guilty party. The judge responds by putting one atop the other, recreating the unit that was capable of sin, and judges the pair. So too, the gemara explains, the soul could claim it couldn't have sinned without the body giving it the opportunity for action, and the body could claim that the planning and execution of the sin are the fault of the soul. In order to judge us for our sins, Hashem will bodily resurrect the sinner to reconstruct the person as they were then. As the Ramchal writes, "Man is different from any other creature. He is a combination of two completely diverse and dissimilar elements, namely, the body and soul." (Derech Hashem 3:1:1) The dispute is not necessarily about which is true, it could well be that both definitions of "person" are equally valid. The dispute is more prescriptive: When is it more productive to think of my physical aspect as an outsider, which would weaken the relative weight I would give the call of physical drives? And when am I better off not thinking of myself as purely soul, because then I'm not fully blaming myself for "stealing the fruit"? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The goal isn't to live forever, micha at aishdas.org the goal is to create so mething that will. http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From ben1456 at zahav.net.il Thu Dec 28 11:57:46 2017 From: ben1456 at zahav.net.il (Ben Waxman) Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2017 21:57:46 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Foreshadow Message-ID: Is the break up of the united kingdom (Israel and Yehuda) somehow foreseen in the brothers? Was the reconciliation between Yosef and the brothers (and especially Yosef and Yehuda) not complete? Was splitting responsibility between Yehuda (he set up Goshen's beit midrash) and Yosef (he supplied the food) a mistake? Is there anything in Yehuda's personality that foreshadows David and Shlomo's failure to truly unite the tribes or is the fault with the latter two only? Ben From JRich at sibson.com Fri Dec 29 02:09:15 2017 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2017 10:09:15 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] FW: Rav Moshe on Smoking In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2eb7119fe3ff4a0f8394f494ae14fde8@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> FYI-An old Avodah topic. KT Joel Rich In the attached file, there is a newly-published teshuvah from Rav Moshe which basically confirms the rumors that he retracted his teshuvah about smoking and would indeed forbid it. Kol Tuv, Reuven Chaim Klein Beitar Illit, Israel Check out my book Lashon HaKodesh: History, Holiness, & Hebrew [Lashon HaKodesh: History, Holiness, & Hebrew (Mosaica Press) on Amazon][Academia.edu][Google Scholar][LinkedIN][https://docs.google.com/uc?export=download&id=0B1NJHmIXg4QJTWZsRUpZblJpWE0&revid=0B1NJHmIXg4QJcXQxRU1kN0JWZ3pQVmZsdlYrVlljRUdSb2ZvPQ][Rabbi Reuven Chaim Klein on TorahDownloads.com] [https://my-email-signature.link/signature.gif?u=93822&e=15367987&v=592df626366a9255517be8f9bb3b802cdc17522127137d175bd71108e063b3e1] 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: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 480.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 2037389 bytes Desc: 480.pdf URL: From JRich at sibson.com Fri Dec 29 01:36:06 2017 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2017 09:36:06 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] truth telling Message-ID: <3852cda5a1f348b8ba9b17c3cd9d8079@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Thought experiment: 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? KT 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: From JRich at sibson.com Fri Dec 29 01:35:14 2017 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2017 09:35:14 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Birchat Cohanim Message-ID: <12830183c04c422ca904affc50bac0b7@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> One is in Eretz Yisrael and davens shacharit in a minyan which often does not have Cohanim to duchen. Is he required to seek a minyan which has Cohanim? If he isn't required, is it preferable? KT 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: From JRich at sibson.com Fri Dec 29 02:09:15 2017 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2017 10:09:15 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] FW: Rav Moshe on Smoking In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: [Take 2. File stripped off for the sake of text digest recipients and moved to . Fixed formatting. -micha] FYI-An old Avodah topic. KT Joel Rich In the attached file, there is a newly-published teshuvah from Rav Moshe which basically confirms the rumors that he retracted his teshuvah about smoking and would indeed forbid it. Kol Tuv, Reuven Chaim Klein Beitar Illit, Israel Check out my book Lashon HaKodesh: History, Holiness, & Hebrew [Lashon HaKodesh: History, Holiness, & Hebrew (Mosaica Press) on Amazon] >> [Academia.edu] [Google Scholar] [LinkedIN] [https://docs.google.com/uc?export=download&id=0B1NJHmIXg4QJTWZsRUpZblJpWE0&revid=0B1NJHmIXg4QJcXQxRU1kN0JWZ3pQVmZsdlYrVlljRUdSb2ZvPQ] [Rabbi Reuven Chaim Klein on TorahDownloads.com] From lisa at starways.net Fri Dec 29 06:19:45 2017 From: lisa at starways.net (Lisa Liel) Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2017 16:19:45 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] truth telling In-Reply-To: <3852cda5a1f348b8ba9b17c3cd9d8079@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <3852cda5a1f348b8ba9b17c3cd9d8079@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: You'll have to define "truth".? I know a lot of self-Identified frum Jews who consider it "truth" that the Exodus didn't happen.? That the Mabul was a metaphor.? That the text of the Torah she'bichtav we have now is not the one given to Moshe at Sinai in an actual, factual, historical event.? It's never good for them to tell that "truth" to their children. If by truth you mean the truths stated in Judaism, then it's a matter of judgment.? If you're considering telling your children about Amnon and Tamar, their age would enter into the decision.? If the truth you want to tell them is about the molesters in the frum community who were respected leaders, again, age matters.? But I wouldn't withhold the facts from my child if they were old enough to hear it and it seemed relevant. Lisa On 12/29/2017 11:36 AM, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: > Thought experiment: 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? > KT > Joel Rich > --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From micha at aishdas.org Fri Dec 29 06:34:31 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2017 09:34:31 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] truth telling In-Reply-To: <3852cda5a1f348b8ba9b17c3cd9d8079@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <3852cda5a1f348b8ba9b17c3cd9d8079@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20171229143431.GD9936@aishdas.org> On Fri, Dec 29, 2017 at 09:36:06AM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : Thought experiment: 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? I understand the point of your question as being about the relative value of emes and of yir'as Shamayim. But... I can't bend my head around the case for balebatishe reasons. Is it not inevitable that many of our children would eventually learn of the lie and lose confidence in the whole concept of mesorah? And wouldn't that percentage inevitably be greater than Y, the additionaly percentage who are only staying because they believe the non-truth? To address the comparison behind the question: According to the Rambam, emunah is defined by emes. Unproven faith isn't emunah. So, he would say that the Y% of the children who believe because of a lie aren't necessarily saved. If we modernize the Rambam's position, then we would still need some kind of valid justification. Even if modern philosophy believes (accuratly, AISI) that theological proof is a meaningless concept, there are other valid ways to reach a conclusion. Those of us blessed with children are certain we love your chidren even though I never developed a proof for it. BUT, I don't think too many people hold like a modern version of the Rambam, which ties redemption to knowledge, and ethics is a lower level of perfection necessary for true knowledge og G-d. Let's take a more typical modern hashkafah, which gives priority to sheleimos or experiential deveiqus. Perhaps the non-truth would indeed be justified, if I thought your case were possible. Just as shalom justifies tactfully bending the truth. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Man can aspire to spiritual-moral greatness micha at aishdas.org which is seldom fully achieved and easily lost http://www.aishdas.org again. Fulfillment lies not in a final goal, Fax: (270) 514-1507 but in an eternal striving for perfection. -RSRH From zev at sero.name Fri Dec 29 09:50:13 2017 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2017 12:50:13 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] FW: Rav Moshe on Smoking In-Reply-To: <2eb7119fe3ff4a0f8394f494ae14fde8@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <2eb7119fe3ff4a0f8394f494ae14fde8@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <2c41ffe6-418e-8a53-6b6f-72547edfcf91@sero.name> On 29/12/17 05:09, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: > In the attached file, there is a newly-published teshuvah from Rav Moshe > which basically confirms the rumors that he retracted his teshuvah about > smoking and would indeed forbid it. > One has to wonder, then, why he never chose to include this in any of the three volumes of IM that he published after this date. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From bdbradley70 at hotmail.com Sat Dec 30 11:30:10 2017 From: bdbradley70 at hotmail.com (Ben Bradley) Date: Sat, 30 Dec 2017 19:30:10 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Foreshadow In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Is that not explicitly the message of the haftara for vayigash? That the split of Yehdua and Efraim (Yosef) is the the same issue as the split in the nation to reconcile the one is to reconcile the other. It's clear from the end of vayechi that there's still broad daylight between Yosef and the brothers. They are still wary of him and he still see the need to try to bring them close. There are many midrashim assuming it's all the same issue, a basic split in Klal Yisrael manifestation over history. The Bnei Yissaschar on Chanuka deals with this a lot and the best treatment I've seen in one place is Rav Matis Weinberg's book on Chanuka. In any case, even without aggadta the cycle of galus is consistently a result of this split, be it to Mitzrayim or to Ashur. Geula has the same dynamic, thus a moshiach both from Yosef and from David (Yehuda). BW Ben -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From JRich at sibson.com Sat Dec 30 14:48:34 2017 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Sat, 30 Dec 2017 22:48:34 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] truth telling In-Reply-To: <20171229143431.GD9936@aishdas.org> References: <3852cda5a1f348b8ba9b17c3cd9d8079@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> <20171229143431.GD9936@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <714290ea035646beb5044c62d3186c46@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Perhaps the non-truth would indeed be justified, if I thought your case were possible. Just as shalom justifies tactfully bending the truth. :-)BBii! -Micha --------------------------------------------------- That's what I wonder about, can belief ever be built on sheker. I've heard drush on not (e.g. why didn't the Chashmonaim not use shemen tamei) but istm it is being done In general I agree that it doesn't work. KT 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. From meirabi at gmail.com Sat Dec 30 17:31:32 2017 From: meirabi at gmail.com (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi) Date: Sun, 31 Dec 2017 12:31:32 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] HELP - Why is there an Issur BBCh on a Nefel/Shellil? Message-ID: I have yet to find anyone asking this Q - the Nefel and Shelil seem to be the same thing it is a Neneilah yet it is Assur to eat as BBCh - why is there no Ein Issur Chal Al Issur? MAssuros 4:1 - one who eats flesh of a dead non-Shechted Kosher beast transgresses the prohibition of eating Neveilah MAssuros 4:4 - one who eats flesh of a Nefel [a non-fully gestated foetus] transgresses the prohibition of eating Neveilah Even [according to the careful reading of the RaMBaM] if it is not dead MAssuros 9:7 - one who cooks a Shelil with milk or eats it transgresses the prohibition of eating BBCh MAssuros 9:6 - one who cooks Cheilev or Neveilah or similar, with milk, transgresses the prohibition of BBCh but not when eating it because a second prohibition cannot take effect upon a item that is already prohibited Best, Meir G. Rabi 0423 207 837 +61 423 207 837 Best, Meir G. Rabi 0423 207 837 +61 423 207 837 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From menu at inter.net.il Sun Dec 31 00:12:21 2017 From: menu at inter.net.il (menucha) Date: Sun, 31 Dec 2017 10:12:21 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Foreshadow In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > > Bereshit Rabba 84 sees foreshadowing of Yeravam ben Nevat starting with Yosef's dreams. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From akivagmiller at gmail.com Sun Dec 31 08:10:04 2017 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Sun, 31 Dec 2017 11:10:04 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Merchavyah Message-ID: . There is a pasuk in Hallel (Tehillim 118:5) that begins "Min hamaytzar". In RSR Hirsch's siddur, the last word of that pasuk is "merchavyah". In his perush on Tehillim, there too, the last word is "merchavyah", and in the perush he writes that "According to Pesahim 117a, merchavyah is one word, like halleluyah." My understanding of that gemara is that R Yochanan, Rav, and Raba all hold "merchavyah" to be one single word. Although Rav Chisda quoted R Yochanan to that effect, the Gemara is unsure how Rav Chisda held personally on this issue, and leaves that as a "tayku". However - When I look in various Tanachs, Tehillims, Siddurim, and Hagados, almost all of them (there *are* a few exceptions) print this as two separate words: "merchav yah". Obviously, there must be someone who either argues against this gemara, or understands the gemara differently than how Rav Hirsch understands it. The Minchas Shai on this pasuk refers to this gemara. If I'm reading it correctly, he seems to feel that the gemara is an unresolved machlokes, and I suppose that's why he tries to resolve it by looking at whatever manuscripts he had, both here and in Beshalach (where there's a similar question on Kes Y-ah). In my very unlearned and inexperienced view, it is not reasonable to consider these as two words, which is an unproven opinion that the gemara left as a tayku, and reject the combined weight of R Yochanan, Rav, and Raba, who all clearly held this to be a single word. Can anyone help me out? Akiva Miller From cantorwolberg at cox.net Sat Dec 30 20:25:17 2017 From: cantorwolberg at cox.net (Richard Wolberg) Date: Sat, 30 Dec 2017 23:25:17 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Sh'mos Message-ID: It is brought down that the place where the Burning Bush occurred was Har Sinai. The talmud asks why did it occur in a thorn bush and the answer: God says "when the Jews are suffering, I am suffering, too." A midrash relates that taking the Jews out of Egypt was nowhere near as difficult as taking ?Egypt? out of the Jews. Aish.com Mayanot Wellsprings bring out: The longest private conversation recorded in the Torah between God and a human individual takes place in our parsha. It takes God 39 long verses (from Exodus 3:1 to 4:17) to persuade Moses to accept the mission of serving as the savior of the Jewish people. In a wide-ranging conversation that covers many topics, God patiently responds to Moses' many objections and queries before Moses finally caves in to the Divine will and accepts. It reminds me that the Shulchan Aruch says if you are asked to be a ba'al tefilla, you should first politely refuse (out of modesty). If you are asked a second time, you should still refuse. But if you are asked a third time, you must accept. It's a not such a well known minhag and is just another example of menschlechkeit, sensitivity and humility for the time it was written. ?The Bible is meant to be OUR critic, not we, ITS critic!" -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From zev at sero.name Sun Dec 31 09:51:47 2017 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Sun, 31 Dec 2017 12:51:47 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Merchavyah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <26d7c7af-67e8-e1d6-3fd7-00aca9fcbef4@sero.name> For one thing, the Keter Aram Tzovah has it as two words. -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 2018 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From micha at aishdas.org Sun Oct 1 11:10:33 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Sun, 1 Oct 2017 14:10:33 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Writing on Yom Tov In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20171001181033.GC31024@aishdas.org> On Sat, Sep 30, 2017 at 10:18:58PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : So... back to my question: To whatever extent "writing" in the "Book of : Life" is a melacha, should it matter whether it is Shabbos or Yom Tov? Before we take the Barditcher Rebbe's words too literally, let us remember that wind routinely blows things to roll more than 4 amos on a reshus harabbim, lightning ignites trees on Shabbos, people die on Shabbos, etc... IOW, first explain to me what a claim that the RBSO avoids melakhos means altogether in light of the evidence, and then perhaps I could participate in your intended conversation. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger One who kills his inclination is as though he micha at aishdas.org brought an offering. But to bring an offering, http://www.aishdas.org you must know where to slaughter and what Fax: (270) 514-1507 parts to offer. - R' Simcha Zissel Ziv From akivagmiller at gmail.com Sun Oct 1 17:52:44 2017 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Sun, 1 Oct 2017 20:52:44 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Not hadar is pasul Message-ID: . This thread may be running into a vocabulary problem. My understanding is that "hadar" and "mehudar" mean two different things, and some people tend to confuse the two. "Hadar" refers to the absolute minimum requirements, without which the minim are posul, and "mehudar" refers to things which Chazal consider as making the minim even more beautiful. "Hadar" is required, and "mehudar" is desirable. I was not able to find a source for this in my seforim, but a post from R' Moshe Feldman in Avodah 10:9 (fifteen years ago) seems to support it: > The chiluk between psulei hadar (learned from the word "hadar") > and the idea of buying a mehudar esrog--deriving from the din > of zeh Keli v'anveihu (and applicable to other mitzvos as well) > is discussed at length in Mikra'ei Kodesh (Succos vol 2) siman > 26, esp. p. 119 (quote from Raavad) and pp. 122-123 in Harirei > Kodesh. It would seem from his discussion that buying a mehudar > esrog has no relationship to the word "hadar." Of course, there are many differing views about what is in each category, and this will vary by posek, by first day / not first day, and by lechatchila / bdieved. I'm just explaining the definitions of these easily-confused terms. Akiva Miller From zev at sero.name Sun Oct 1 23:02:00 2017 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2017 02:02:00 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Not hadar is pasul In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <454d729c-5e9d-e0b0-d0cb-f625592cd49f@sero.name> On 01/10/17 20:52, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > This thread may be running into a vocabulary problem. My understanding > is that "hadar" and "mehudar" mean two different things, and some > people tend to confuse the two. > > "Hadar" refers to the absolute minimum requirements, without which the > minim are posul, and "mehudar" refers to things which Chazal consider > as making the minim even more beautiful. "Hadar" is required, and > "mehudar" is desirable. I don't think they're two very different things, they're just degrees of the same thing. From "pri etz hadar" we learn that beauty is a base requirement, at least for the first day. If it's not beautiful it's not kosher. From "zeh keli ve'anvehu" we learn that we should want all mitzvos, including this one, to be as beautiful as we can make them, given our resources. But baseline beauty itself requires more than the bare minimum that would otherwise apply; an esrog that is exactly as big as an egg fits the basic shiur, but the poskim think it obvious that to do the bare minimum is not beautiful, so they say hadar means it must be at least a bit bigger, if possible. If it's not possible, then we make do with the bare shiur. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From micha at aishdas.org Mon Oct 2 03:58:53 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2017 06:58:53 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] expensive etrog In-Reply-To: <2c96c2fe-0e11-f9ca-66d5-28e79f983bbb@zahav.net.il> References: <2c96c2fe-0e11-f9ca-66d5-28e79f983bbb@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <20171002105852.GB30968@aishdas.org> On Fri, Sep 29, 2017 at 02:05:15PM +0200, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: : In OH 656 the Mechaber writes that if one is shopping for an etrog : and sees two etrogim, one more mehudar than the other, you need to : buy the mehudar (either it is mitzvah or possibly a chiyuv). : However, this only applies if the mehudar etrog is no more than 33% : more expensive. The language that the Mechaber uses in the "yesh : omrim" is "ein meyakrim oto yoter m'shlish".... There is a machloqes whether the shelish is milevar (Ran, arguing from the Rif's silence, on Rif Sukkah 16a; Yam shel Shelomom #24), in which case it's 50% -- 1/3 of the total 150%; or if the shelish is milegav (Rosh 1:7), i.e. 1/3 in the Western sense, with a total of 4/3 the original price. The SA (OC 656:1) holds like the Rosh, lequla, but accoring to the BY, he was doing so only on the ground of safeiq derabbanan lequla. Hiddur mitzvah is derabbanan. My first thought was -- what? It's a word in the pasuq WRT esrog -- "peri eitz hadar"! That looks more like peshat than asmachta for a derabbanan! But I realized something. Even though this din is being discussed WRT esrog, the kelal of kehadeir bemitzvah ad shelish is not specific to 4 minim. As in Rashi (9b "behidur") invoking "ze keili ve'anveihu" to tell you to buy the more expensive ST if it is up to shelish more pricey than your other choice. (So that according to Rashi, if you have only two choices -- mehudas or very mehudar, and they differ by less than a shelish, you are to by the very mehudar. Tosafos disagree. This tangent is discussed in the Shitah Mequbetzer.) Anyway, the SA calling milegav a qula implies that he sees up to 1/3 as a chiyuv derabbanan, and beyond could well be reshus. If it were reshus up to a shelish and assur beyond that, then he'd be making lesser expenditures assur -- a chumerah. Personally, given the number of Jews who wouldn't spend the money on a 4 minim set, I like spending the 1/3 exactly, and using any other money I wish to use to fulfill the mitzvah of 4 minim to subsidize someone else's. (Looking at the archives, it seems I've tried marketing this idea most years since 1999.) Of course, there are so many Jews who can't afford yom tov, and I'd like to help with that.... In the end, the calculus of how to triage that money can get SO difficult. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger For those with faith there are no questions. micha at aishdas.org For those who lack faith there are no answers. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yaakov of Radzimin Fax: (270) 514-1507 From basserh at queensu.ca Wed Oct 4 12:21:12 2017 From: basserh at queensu.ca (Herbert Basser) Date: Wed, 4 Oct 2017 19:21:12 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] RE Expensive etrog inter alia Message-ID: There is yerushalmi Peah 1:1 where someone had the ugliest etrog but bragged and showed it to everyone saying it was the most beautiful etrog in the whole world. It took him just a second to purchase it without really checking it for hiddurim-- he didnt waste his valuable resources (time) on petty matters but learned instead--that was its incredible beauty for him. also see shmos rabba 30:9 for hashem's observance of halacha (I have a discussion of the inyan on reseachrgate.net) Hag Sameach! zvi -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From zev at sero.name Sat Oct 7 18:11:15 2017 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Sat, 7 Oct 2017 21:11:15 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] RE Expensive etrog inter alia In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 04/10/17 15:21, Herbert Basser via Avodah wrote: > There is yerushalmi Peah 1:1 where someone had the ugliest etrog but > bragged and showed it to everyone saying it was the most beautiful etrog > in the whole world. It took him just a second to purchase it without > really checking it for hiddurim-- he didnt waste his valuable resources > (time) on petty matters but learned instead--that was its incredible > beauty for him. Where in that halacha is this? I couldn't find it, and also searched the entire perek for the word "etrog" and it doesn't seem to exist (though "lulav" appears twice). -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From hmaryles at mail.yahoo.com Sat Oct 7 23:54:54 2017 From: hmaryles at mail.yahoo.com (Harry Maryles) Date: Sun, 8 Oct 2017 09:54:54 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] going to the amud In-Reply-To: <9d0df5d1c05c43e297d3055f6e617065@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <9d0df5d1c05c43e297d3055f6e617065@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <369A143A-9C11-4243-93D2-7F756A3D147A@yahoo.com> On Oct 8, 2017, at 5:10 AM, Rich, Joel wrote: > I note the following practices at a chareidi shul in RBS which has > multiple minyanim You must be talking about Maasas Mordechai. That is where I've been Davening since I got here just before Yom Kippur. During Chol Hamoed, I will be davening shachris at the Vasiken minyan (6:10am). My son Davens there. If you are at that minyan, come on over and say hello. > At the appointed starting time for each minyan, there > is often not a "volunteer" to lead the services. The amount of time > that it takes to start varies as everyone looks at each other trying to > influence someone to start. If there is a young bar mitzvah boy, he is > often sent for mincha/maariv. > I'm not sure what the community thinking is... To answer your question, I just asked my son about it. He said it's just a practical matter. Most boys are more willing to go to the Amud. All of the married men that are there just shake off the requests to be the Shaliach Tzibur for some reason. HM From ben1456 at zahav.net.il Sun Oct 8 12:40:42 2017 From: ben1456 at zahav.net.il (Ben Waxman) Date: Sun, 08 Oct 2017 21:40:42 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] going to the amud In-Reply-To: <9d0df5d1c05c43e297d3055f6e617065@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <9d0df5d1c05c43e297d3055f6e617065@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <5deb9535-86be-8ea7-4561-242363c8eb92@zahav.net.il> I saw similar practices during Shacharit when I used to go to Sadigora in Jerusalem. However, often the teen would quit right before starting chazarat hashaz. That always got interesting. Ben On 10/8/2017 4:10 AM, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: > I note the following practices at a chareidi shul in RBS which has > multiple minyanim: At the appointed starting time for each minyan, > there is often not a ?volunteer? to lead the services. The amount of > time that it takes to start varies as everyone looks at each other > trying to influence someone to start. If there is a young bar mitzvah > boy, he is often sent for mincha/maariv. > I?m not sure what the community thinking is, perhaps humility to avoid > the amud, but I?m struck by the amount of bittul torah caused and > wonder how this trade-off was decided upon. I also wonder about why > the practice of sending youngsters up developed given the S?A?s psak > concerning the priorities for a chazzan. Thoughts? From micha at aishdas.org Sun Oct 8 15:50:13 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Sun, 8 Oct 2017 18:50:13 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] going to the amud In-Reply-To: <9d0df5d1c05c43e297d3055f6e617065@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <9d0df5d1c05c43e297d3055f6e617065@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20171008225013.GB19523@aishdas.org> On Sun, Oct 08, 2017 at 02:10:14AM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : At the appointed starting time for each minyan, there : is often not a "volunteer" to lead the services. The amount of time : that it takes to start varies as everyone looks at each other trying : to influence someone to start. If there is a young bar mitzvah boy, : he is often sent for mincha/maariv. Going backwards (who ever said I am a chakham bound to answer al rishon rishon?)... The kid is not as likely to declien the gabbai, because an adult carries more authority in the kid's eyes. Besides, it's good practice. As for the adults declining... Two possiblities, and I would bet that in most cases, they both come into play. 1- The more positive issue is that there is actually a din to decline the amud, accepting only on the third request. I have no idea how this was expected to be implemented in a minyan where people are expected to know the din. A rachmanus on the gabbaim! Still, we see an ethic of tzenius, and halevai people internalize it! 2- The following is Ashkenazocentric. The way we teach davening, it's really a personal affair. A person is encouraged to go as slowly as he needs, having his own kavvanos. The notion of tefillah betzibbur is layered on top of that, but not in a way that explains what that means about how I daven. That means that being shatz becomes a tircha, a call to say the words in a manner that robs me of any chance of getting value out of tefillah in the ways I was taught how. So of course men (who aren't cowed by being asked by a grown-up) choose to decline! Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger You will never "find" time for anything. micha at aishdas.org If you want time, you must make it. http://www.aishdas.org - Charles Buxton Fax: (270) 514-1507 From JRich at sibson.com Sat Oct 7 19:10:14 2017 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Sun, 8 Oct 2017 02:10:14 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] going to the amud Message-ID: <9d0df5d1c05c43e297d3055f6e617065@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> I note the following practices at a chareidi shul in RBS which has multiple minyanim: At the appointed starting time for each minyan, there is often not a "volunteer" to lead the services. The amount of time that it takes to start varies as everyone looks at each other trying to influence someone to start. If there is a young bar mitzvah boy, he is often sent for mincha/maariv. I'm not sure what the community thinking is, perhaps humility to avoid the amud, but I'm struck by the amount of bittul torah caused and wonder how this trade-off was decided upon. I also wonder about why the practice of sending youngsters up developed given the S"A's psak concerning the priorities for a chazzan. Thoughts? GT 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: From zev at sero.name Sat Oct 7 20:42:36 2017 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Sat, 7 Oct 2017 23:42:36 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] going to the amud In-Reply-To: <9d0df5d1c05c43e297d3055f6e617065@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <9d0df5d1c05c43e297d3055f6e617065@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: On 07/10/17 22:10, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: > I note the following practices at a chareidi shul in RBS which has > multiple minyanim: At the appointed starting time for each minyan, there > is often not a ?volunteer? to lead the services. [...] Thoughts? My first thought is to be happy that this shul doesn't have enough avelim to make the issue moot. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From basserh at queensu.ca Sun Oct 8 15:32:52 2017 From: basserh at queensu.ca (Herbert Basser) Date: Sun, 8 Oct 2017 22:32:52 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] RE Expensive etrog inter alia In-Reply-To: References: , Message-ID: You're right-- I thought it was y peah. But obviously not. A number of years ago I tired to discover when the first mention of looking at many esrogim was. I remember looking at the yerushalmi and its commentaries and thought it was there --obviously not. Now I have no idea-- ________________________________ : Zev Sero on behalf of Zev Sero Sent: October 7, 2017 9:11 PM To: The Avodah Torah Discussion Group Cc: Herbert Basser Subject: Re: [Avodah] RE Expensive etrog inter alia On 04/10/17 15:21, Herbert Basser via Avodah wrote: > There is yerushalmi Peah 1:1 where someone had the ugliest etrog but > bragged and showed it to everyone saying it was the most beautiful etrog > in the whole world. It took him just a second to purchase it without > really checking it for hiddurim-- he didnt waste his valuable resources > (time) on petty matters but learned instead--that was its incredible > beauty for him. Where in that halacha is this? I couldn't find it, and also searched the entire perek for the word "etrog" and it doesn't seem to exist (though "lulav" appears twice). -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Mon Oct 9 14:45:50 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2017 17:45:50 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Critique of the OU paper on leadership/ordination for women In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20171009214550.GA4315@aishdas.org> On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 03:17:36PM -0500, Noam Stadlan via Avodah wrote: : JOFA has published my critique of the paper comissioned by the OU on the : topic of leadership/ordination for women.... Speaking of the full essay . Your article has proven to be a slow read for me. I keep on being pulled into "polemic mode" (apologies for talking like a programmer, but...) and when I do, I stop, put it down, and wait until I could give it a fairer read, to actually hear what you're trying to say rather than just listening for points to refute. Here are my first set of reactions. Of course, they're all points of disagreement; trying to take the time to understand what you were writing before objecting doesn't mean I stopped objecting. 1- You open with Earlier this year, 7 highly respected rabbis authored a position paper on the ordination of women and on the possibility of women serving as clergy. [1] Individually and collectively, they represent great learning, personal piety, and years of leadership. It would seem presumptuous for someone who will never achieve anything near their learning or stature to comment or critique. However, no one person or group has a monopoly on facts and logic. And, as will be demonstrated, Torah learning sometimes is not the sole or even dominant factor in a person's opinion on these issues. There appears to be an underlyuing assumption that halachic arguments, even meta-halachic ones, are entirely formal, rather than containing a strong element of ineffible art. (See #2, below) If halakhah deals with determinations like that of which poetic forms "sound right" then their "great learning, personal piety, and years of leadership" provide experience at the art of pesaq that your response simply lacks. The gemara requires shimush before one attempts to pasqen. A poseiq needs not only the abstract facts and logic, but also the skill he can only pick up with experience. Recently, my Arukh haShulachan Yomi schedule brought me to EhE 145:6. The topic is whether a shechiv-meira who gives a gett "meihayom im meisi" made the gett as-of the moment of giving, a colloquial use of "today", or if we cannot assume the gett is chal before the end of the day (R' Tam in Tosafos 72b). R' Elchanan (Tos' ad loc) says "nachon lehachmir". The AhS's assessment of the "facts and logic" leads him to conclude "vehagam chumerah yeseirah hi". And yet he continues to close the se'if with "mikol maqom chalalilah lehaqeil bedavar sheR' Tam nistapeiq bo". RYME knew that a decision of a more skilled artisan is too likely correct even in the face of his own reasoning. And there are other factors that go into halachic decisions other than the merits of the argument -- both those we can articulate and those someone could only feel by practice. Things like acharei rabim lehatos. I am not saying defer to the OU's panel because they outnumber you. I am just pointing out that logical argument isn't the only source of legal authority. Another, more relevant, is nispasheit bechol yisrael (see #8, below). The notion that your paper is of value beyond lehalakhah velo lemaaseh is an example of the American valuation of autonomy that can itself be at odds with ancient AND mesoretic values. (See #7, about not framing the discussion in terms of rights or privileges.) 2- You offer your own translation of Mesorah, which is only valid if you can show that's how the authors of the paper intended the term. >From your pg 4: > We can broadly define it as the content of our tradition that is > passed from one generation to another. That tradition contains Mitzvot > and opinion on the value of Mitzvot. Frequently a situation occurs > where one must choose between emphasizing one mitzvah or a different > mitzvah. Our Mesorah therefore contains not only the Mitzvot, but also > attitudes or values that help us choose between Mitzvot when they come > into conflict. One could cogently argue that the values are in fact > Mitzvot in and of themselves, but for the purpose of this discussion that > is a distinction without a difference. Ultimately what this analysis > is concerned with is how, within the confines of our legal tradition, > are values embraced or shunted to the side. However, RYBS and RHS both use the term mesorah to refer to the ineffible side of the art of pesaq. I argue this with examples at http://www.torahmusings.com/2015/08/what-does-masorah-mean I therefore think it is likely the sense intended by the entire OU Panel. Or at the very least (not that I want to fully concede this, but have to admit it's plausible) heavily colored by this notion. Skipping the somwhat longer quote from RYBS, here are quotes I had found from RHS, one of the panel members: Jewish Action, Fall 1910: Mesorah is not primarily a corpus of knowledge to master but a process of accessing a chain of student-teacher relationships that reaches back to Sinai. Moshe received the Torah and transmitted it to his student, Yehoshua, who in turn taught it to his students and so on, continuing through today. The nature of transmission of the mesorah is instruction from a rebbe to his student. We connect to the mesorah, to the sacred structure of laws, beliefs and attitudes, through our teachers. And a bit further in the article, "Who Is Authorized to Institute Change?": Changes in practice require delicate evaluations that only a master Torah scholar, a gadol baTorah, can properly conduct. Only someone with a broad knowledge and a deep understanding of the corpus of halachah, with an intimate familiarity with both the letter and the spirit of the law, with a mastery of both the rules and the attitudes of the mesorah, can determine when a change is acceptable or even required. The more wide-reaching the proposed change, the greater the expertise required to approve it. The evaluator must not only be a master of the mesorah, but he must also be able to consider new practices based solely on values internal to the mesorah, removing external influences from the deliberation. Rav Schachter then applies this topic to feminism itself in a teshuvah: Indeed, the Rav would often say (see drasha to Parshas Korach), that every person must recognize that he needs a Rav or a Rebbe. Even a Talmid Chochom whose Rebbe had passed away must constantly ask himself in truth (when they present questions to him) what his Rebbe would have said in such a scase, and what stance he would have taken.... Still, most of your examples of how change was permitted despite mesorah would be valid even if you were discussing the same topic I believe the authors to whom you're responding are. I think, though, your response would have been stronger if it reflected our discussions both my Torah Musings post and here. 3- But you shift criteria for legitimate change in moral value. Page 2: This paper will illustrate that 'modern values' are intrinsically neither 2 good nor bad, and that our Mesorah has always incorporated 'modern values' that found resonance in the Mesorah. Furthermore, according to great and highly respected Modern Orthodox authorities, a hallmark of Modern Orthodoxy is the willingness to acknowledge some 'modern values' as previously under-recognized religious values. I think you're again arguing against a point the OU paper isn't making. They aren't saying there is a problem with appropriating 'modern values' in-and-of itself, but that there is a problem with changing halakhah to fit 'modern values' simply because they are the values living in the modern world means being immersed in. What happened to checking for that "resonance in the Mesorah"? This being another phrasing of my origin objection here on Avodah from the days of the initial announcement of Yeshivat Maharat. I do not see discussion of how we know that this is a change the values of the Torah would imply are positive. Regardless of the outcome of that discussion, can the change be legitimate without that procedural step? Anyway, you tone down the need for resonance when you open the door to assessing for yourself which values count. From the closing paragraph of section I, on mesorah, pg 13: ... The major issue is distinguishing between timeless values and ancient values. As has been demonstrated, our Mesorah over time, consciously or unconsciously, has addressed the perceived conflict between ancient values and modern values. Certainly there are modern values that have been appropriately rejected. Frequently however, ancient values have been rejected or perhaps more accurately assigned a reduced role of importance. And the modern values have been the impetus for the re-evaluation. At this point, I fear, the hunt for resonance goes out the window. IIUC, you are making the case that resonance need only be between actual Torah values, and not all ancient values actually qualify. This is actually more problematic given your definition of Mesorah than the one I think the OU's authors intended. After all, if mesorah is a mimetic transmisison of values, than any ancient value is mesoretic. But the problem I have with this statement is that it reads like you're saying that (1) we need to assess which Torah values are real, and therefore which do not bow to movern values; and (2) we use said modern values to drive that assessment. That can't be your intent. Please clarify. Continuing the paragraph from where I left off: As discussed in the Part II, the Halakhic arguments, taken at face value, are in favor of ordination for women. The values of eliminating unnecessary restrictions, encouraging full expression of potential to serve the community, fairness, and others also point towards ordination. There are specific Halakhic restrictions in place governing the behavior of men and women. The question that needs to be answered is: What timeless principles (or values) are served by imposing restrictions on women that are not justified by a fair reading of the Halacha and the sources? Are they truly Timeless and justifiably dominant in our Mesorah, or just ancient? ... If I were to use halakhah to make that determination, I would ask whether those "specific Halakhic restrictions" that were historically / traditionally explained in terms of those ancient values can be otherwise explained. Since they do appear to be of the same cloth, this is a sizable burden of proof on your part. This is the challenge in the OU paper you quote on pg 29: Gender differences have, historically, been particularly evident in the arena of public service. We believe that these distinctions are not merely a relic of times bygone; instead, they reflect a Torah ethos -- a /Mesorah/ -- of different avenues and emphases by which men and women are to achieve identical goals -- the service of G-d and the perpetuation of the Jewish people. 4- You cite and dismiss "nashim daatan kalos", but do not note that it's part of a richer picture of gender differences alongside "binah yeseirah nitenah lahen". 5- You quote RAL at the bottom of pg 8, an essay about using English Literary sources to enhance and color values that we cannot find in our own tradition: Nor should we be deterred by the illusion that we can find everything we need within our own tradition. As Arnold insisted, one must seek "the best that has been thought and said in the world," and if, in many areas, much of that best is of foreign origin, we should expand our horizons rather than exclude it. He is talking about broadening the search in the case of silence; that we can learn more from TIDE than Torah alone. A discussion of what to do when we can't "find everything we need within in our Tradition" has nothing to to with real or apparent conflicts when we do find an answer -- ancient or traditional -- before looking elsewhere. 6- You wuote R/Dr Shalom Carmy, describing R Eliezer Berkovitz, that his moral ends derive from internal Jewish sources.dissatisfaction with mainstream Halakhah regarding women is rooted, not in the pressures of contemporary egalitarianism, but in his judgment about biblical conceptions of justice, While that may well be true of REB, it has to be actually be shown that the same is true of Torah observant Jews who join an organization with the word "feminism" in its name. You write: The authors of the paper in fact state something quite egalitarian: The Torah affirms the absolute equal value of men and women as individuals and as ovdei Hashem. This is not the view of the Talmud. The Mishnah (Horiyot 13:1) states: "A man takes precedence over a woman, in matters concerning the saving of life... a Cohen takes precedence over a Levi...." Clearly the lives are not of equal value in the eyes of the Talmud. Arguments about the validity of what you think the misnhah is "clearly" saying aside... You are treating equality of value as synonymous with egalitarianism. The people you are responding to do not. They view is as more akin to the implication of JOFA's talking about "feminism" -- seeking value in the same sorts of roles and activities. A square can be equal in area to a triangle without insisting the square and the triangle are congruent. 7- "Usena es harabbanus". Leadership isn't about my "desire for maximal participation within Halacha", as you put it in a sentence shortly before the previous quote (pg 10). It's about my duties toward the community. Your entire phrasing of the discussion in terms of right or privileges, people getting an opportunity, depriving of that opportunity being unjust (as you present REB's position), is itself a HUGE drift from how halakhah even discusses values; never mind the content of that discussion. Self-expression is like the tassles emerging from the windings of the tzitzis. (RSRH's metaphor in CW vol 3.) It is how we express ourselves within the framework of Torah; but not the windings themselves. What makes me a fan of Bach's music is his ability to conform to the strict structural rules of the music of his era. And yet he still produced pieces that could express sublime religious passion or Majesty. (Until Beethoven invented Conservative Judaism. ) Halakhah's role is to channel such expression constructively -- like the windings of the tzitzis. As RSRH continues, there is a reason why the free part of the tassle is ideally twice was long as the wound portion; this metaphor isn't against expression. The second you frame halakhah in terms of every getting their fair opportunity, I hear an evaluation based on a framework very alien to an internally resonant analysis. 9- Somewhat more tangentially, but it's the first case of something I might raise other examples of in a future email. (Assuming I ever want to go retail rather than stick to meta-issues.) On pg 3, fn 3: There are other stated facts in the OU paper that require discussion but are beyond the scope of this paper. For example, one of the points emphasized in the OU paper is the issue of women as ritual slaughterers (shochtim). Some authorities such as R. Jacob Landau and R. Moshe Isserles wrote that since women did not do it, there was a custom for women not to do so. But that was factually erroneous. "Female ritual slaughterers were to be found in most of the Jewish Diasporas... In Renaissance Italy, the phenomenon of shohatot was very common. Another source also documents that female shochtim were found in areas of Italy where they adequately educated. See Grossman, Avraham... I am willing to agree with the conclusion that the Agur and the Rama were wrong on the historical facts, and simply didn't know what was going on in other parts of the golah. Still... You don't touch the point the OU paper cites it for -- that the Rama, a halachic source we cannot simply ignore -- is one of a number of sources that WERE willing to suggest that a practice being absent from the mesorah can mean there is a mesorah that it ought to be absent. That statement bothers me too. But because you dismissed the quote based on a tangent, you don't address the central problem it raises! Perhaps there'll be more after I really read section II onward. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "I think, therefore I am." - Renne Descartes micha at aishdas.org "I am thought about, therefore I am - http://www.aishdas.org my existence depends upon the thought of a Fax: (270) 514-1507 Supreme Being Who thinks me." - R' SR Hirsch From akivagmiller at gmail.com Mon Oct 9 09:44:27 2017 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2017 12:44:27 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Eruv Tavshilin - who makes it? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: My wife and I have recently discovered that among our friends, it is invariably the husband who makes the Eruv Tavshilin. This surprises us, and we are wondering what other families do, and if there are any sources for one preference or the other. Essentially, the Eruv Tavshilin means that in this particular instance, the Shabbos cooking cannot wait for Friday, but must be done on Erev Yom Tov too. With such an intimate connection to the Shabbos cooking, it was intuitively obvious to both my wife and myself that this is NOT similar to other mitzvos (mezuza is a good example) which might be done by the husband for gender-role reasons. Rather, it is the beginning of the cooking, and should therefore be done by whoever does the cooking. In our family, that's the wife. Eruv Tavshilin was not assigned to each and every individual, like kiddush was. It is a reminder. Granted that the rishonim have varying explanations of this mitzvah, but it seems that to all of these explanations, the object of this reminding is the person who does the cooking. So my question to the chevra is: In your family, who makes the eruv, and why? And do any sources discuss this? Note: I admit there's a certain weakness in everything that I've written above. Namely, the idea that one can rely on the Eruv Tavshilin that was made by the rav of the town. Let's set aside the fact that this is not the best way of doing the eruv, and that various conditions are imposed on one who wants to rely on it. Let's focus on the fact that it is valid *at* *all*. How does the eruv made by someone outside of my home help me? What sort of *reminder* does his eruv provide? I have never understood this, nor have I heard any explanation of it, only assertions that it does work. Any help in this area would be appreciated. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From michaelpoppers at gmail.com Mon Oct 9 18:59:58 2017 From: michaelpoppers at gmail.com (Michael Poppers) Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2017 21:59:58 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] going to the amud Message-ID: In Avodah V35n119, RJR wrote: > I also wonder about why the practice of sending youngsters up developed given the S?A?s psak concerning the priorities for a chazzan. < (RJR made other points that listmembers have responded to; I thought this point, for which the latest digest listed no response, was worthy of a response.) In many *shuls*, much less *minyanim*, so perhaps in the noted "chareidi shul in RBS", those "priorities" (married, beard, age, etc.) are seemingly (except for the Yamim Noraim) secondary to the hierarchy of "*chiyuvim*"...but one "priority", being "*m'rutzah laqahal*", might be upheld when appointing/allowing a young adult to lead the *tzibbur*.... *Gut Moeid*/*Mo'adim l'Simcha!* and all the best from *Michael Poppers* * Elizabeth, NJ, USA -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From akivagmiller at gmail.com Tue Oct 10 03:47:36 2017 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2017 06:47:36 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Eruv Tavshilin - who makes it? Message-ID: . I asked how one could ever rely on the Rav's eruv: > How does the eruv made by someone outside of my home > help me? What sort of *reminder* does his eruv provide? R' Zev Sero answered: > ... that it's wrong to rely entirely on leftovers, and one > must prepare at least one thing just for Shabbos. According > to this explanation, the fact that one must ask the rabbi > (or the neighbor, or whomever) before relying on their eruv > accomplishes the same thing. One has provided for Shabbos, > not by cooking but by arranging an invitation to eat out. I don't follow this logic at all. One who relies on this did NOT "prepare at least one thing just for Shabbos." If you respond that the one thing he prepared was "arranging an invitation to eat out", I will say that he did NOT arrange such an invitation; he is merely aware that the rabbi/neighbor had him in mind. You write about "the fact that one must ask the rabbi", but I never saw such a halacha. One does not need to do any sort of action at all, not even speaking. All one needs is to be aware that the rabbi/neighbor had him in mind. So what is being accomplished? > The second explanation is that originally there was no ha'arama; > it was permitted to openly cook on Yomtov for Shabbos. Chazal > legislated that one must save Yomtov's face by pretending to be > cooking for that day. According to this explanation it's very > simple; the important thing is not the eruv itself, but the need > for the ha'arama. The eruv's function is merely to give the > ha'arama some surface plausibility. So it makes no difference > whose eruv one uses; the fact that one is pretending not to be > cooking for Shabbos *is* the kevod Yomtov that Chazal required. > The enabling notion that on Shabbos one will be eating the rabbi's > eruv is only barely less plausible than the one that one will be > subsisting on ones own eruv. Focusing on the last sentence here, we agree that relying on the rabbi's eruv is indeed less plausible than one's own. I think our disagreement is that you feel it has a sufficient shiur of plausibility, and I don't. Alternatively, you feel that relying on the rabbi constitutes "pretending to be cooking for that day", but I think it doesn't even constitute "pretending". And this is especially true in the case where one genuinely forgot to make the eruv, and remembered on Yom Tov; surely you'll agree with me that this person did absolutely *nothing* before Yom Tov as a Shabbos preparation, right? Not even to ask the rabbi to have him in mind! Akiva Miller From micha at aishdas.org Tue Oct 10 06:18:05 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2017 09:18:05 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Eruv Tavshilin - who makes it? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20171010131805.GA8572@aishdas.org> On Tue, Oct 10, 2017 at 06:47:36AM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : You write about "the fact that one must ask the rabbi", but I never : saw such a halacha. One does not need to do any sort of action at all, : not even speaking. All one needs is to be aware that the : rabbi/neighbor had him in mind. So what is being accomplished? Beqitzur: "be aware" is sufficient for heker. Can't we ask the same thing of a neighborhood eiruv? How many people think about the eruv every week? The Rambam (Shevisas YT 6:2) seems to me to be the reason for calling eiruv tavshilin an "eiruv" is merely by comparison to eruv chatzeiros. Both are hekerim: There (ECh), so that people would thing that carrying from reshus to reshus is mutar on shabbos. Here (ET), that it is okay to cook on YT even if it's not for YT. Awareness that the rabbi (or whomever) had me in mind means I am thinking about eiruvin and there is a recognition (heker) that there is an issur. It seems the Rambam holds like R' Ashi (that ET is to reinforce melakhah on YT) over Rava (it's to reinforce Shabbos prep). But even according to Rava, that moment of awareness of the rabbi's eruv is sypposed to reserve as a reminder to make something nice for se'udos Shabbos. I would agree with Zev that the plausibility requirement is quite low, as all we're doing is a mnemonic. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger None of us will leave this place alive. micha at aishdas.org All that is left to us is http://www.aishdas.org to be as human as possible while we are here. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Anonymous MD, while a Nazi prisoner From noamstadlan at gmail.com Mon Oct 9 18:26:41 2017 From: noamstadlan at gmail.com (Noam Stadlan) Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2017 20:26:41 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] OU paper Message-ID: R. Micha- thank you for taking the time to read the paper. Having read your list of criticisms, I think that in your search for reasons to oppose, you missed many of the points completely. Poskim are certainly entitled to their opinions. They are not entitled to their own facts. If their logic doesn't hold up, it is reasonable to call them on the lack of logic. Which is why the paper is NOT about my opinions versus the OU 7, but about the lack of facts and logic. Furthermore, I illustrated that what poskim hold regarding these issues isn't always or exclusively a result of all their learning and shimmush. It is a demonstrable fact that many attitudes reflect what they grew up with and were indoctrinated with early on, not the list of influences that they write about. You dismiss my quote regarding REB, and claim that it is my responsibility to prove what the motives are or aren't. This is ridiculous. The OU authors did not talk to any of the principles involved. Since when is it acceptable for any responsible posek or beit din to make important judgments without making absolutely sure regarding the facts? Especially when they are making a significant deal about motivation and it would have been a very simple matter of making a phone call or two. Isn't that a basic obligation of a posek? And then to claim that it is my responsibility to prove that they were wrong? And, by the way, since I personally know many of the people involved, I have a much greater familiarity with what people involved think. I suggest that if you think that an organization with 'feminism' in its name is inherently problematic, we may be starting from basic assumptions far to wide apart to see any common ground. The OU paper wrote about Mesorah versus modern values. I was just using their words and addressing the role of modern values in how Halacha and values have changed. The fact that they define Mesorah a bit differently doesn't change the issue nor change the fact that modern values have always been incorporated into the Halakhah and Halakhic values(in case you dont want to use the word Mesorah). And to counter your point, some of the ancient values have gone out the window, whether you want to call them mesoretic or not. I didn't have time to get into all the particulars of the halachic aspects of the Rama and shechittah, R. Brody and Broyde address and dismiss the argument in their paper(I am pretty sure that is in a footnote somewhere). I thought it was adequate to illustrate that he was factually wrong. I could go on and on but I sense that in the end it will not matter. I would have to go through each and every line of your critique and point out where your assumptions are wrong. For example "JOFA....seeking value in the same sorts of roles and activities". NO, that is not what JOFA is about. It is about not creating Halachic boundaries when there shouldn't be any, and the women can decide what roles and activities they can and should assume(within Halacha of course, just like the men). And what is wrong with anyone finding value in learning Torah, teaching Torah, helping people celebrate s'machot, organizing davening, etc? women should not find value in that???? Thank you again for taking the time to read the paper. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From zev at sero.name Mon Oct 9 21:49:31 2017 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2017 00:49:31 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Eruv Tavshilin - who makes it? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <928305ea-1e57-b3bd-da9c-b3acb1281e04@sero.name> On 09/10/17 12:44, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > Note: I admit there's a certain weakness in everything that I've written > above. Namely, the idea that one can rely on the Eruv Tavshilin that was > made by the rav of the town. Let's set aside the fact that this is not > the best way of doing the eruv, and that various conditions are imposed > on one who wants to rely on it. Let's focus on the fact that it is valid > *at* *all*. How does the eruv made by someone outside of my home help > me? What sort of *reminder* does his eruv provide? I have never > understood this, nor have I heard any explanation of it, only assertions > that it does work. Any help in this area would be appreciated. IIRC the gemara offers two explanations for ET. Either it was made lichvod Shabbos or lichvod Yomtov. The first explanation is that cooking on Yomtov for Shabbos was always done by pretending to be cooking for a late Friday meal, but Chazal felt about the Shabbos after Yomtov the way many nowadays do about the Shabbos after Thanksgiving: that it's wrong to rely entirely on leftovers, and one must prepare at least one thing just for Shabbos. According to this explanation, the fact that one must ask the rabbi (or the neighbor, or whomever) before relying on their eruv accomplishes the same thing. One has provided for Shabbos, not by cooking but by arranging an invitation to eat out. The second explanation is that originally there was no ha`arama; it was permitted to openly cook on Yomtov for Shabbos. Chazal legislated that one must save Yomtov's face by pretending to be cooking for that day. According to this explanation it's very simple; the important thing is not the eruv itself, but the need for the ha`arama. The eruv's function is merely to give the ha`arama some surface plausibility. So it makes no difference whose eruv one uses; the fact that one is pretending not to be cooking for Shabbos *is* the kevod Yomtov that Chazal required. The enabling notion that on Shabbos one will be eating the rabbi's eruv is only barely less plausible than the one that one will be subsisting on ones own eruv. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From micha at aishdas.org Tue Oct 10 13:25:47 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2017 16:25:47 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] OU paper In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20171010202547.GC6565@aishdas.org> Take 2. I didn't like what I read in the Avodah queue, so I rejected my first version and elaborated. On Tue, Oct 10, 2017 at 10:53:24AM -0500, Noam Stadlan via Avodah wrote: :> 1- Feminism assumes egalitarianism, not only equality, as it assumes that :> roles historically closed to women as "men's roles" should be open to all. :> Equality only assumes that everyone should be eligible for roles of equal :> value. (For some measure of value.) : This is starting off on the wrong foot. I dont claim to speak for all : Orthodox Feminists. But the first question to be asked is why is a role : 'historically closed to women?' ... I see this as an equally valid question, but who is to say which ought to be asked first? REBerkowitz rightly deprecates the modification of halakhah out of concern for external values. He dismisses the role of the "pressures of contemporary egalitarianism." (As RSC put it.) This puts REB in a different place than people who unite under the word "feminism" are indeed advocating halachic change. What he denies being a valid motive JOFA is putting in their organizational name. : It is very reasonable, just like in : the cases of the chereish, slavery etc, to investigate why it is : 'historically closed." ... Which you fail to actually do. You rebut your understanding of some arguments for why the clsure is grounded in mesorah. After all, this is a rebuttal paper. The one mention of an alternative motive for change, rather than a lack of motive for status quo, is one that is inconsistent with feminism, as above. : litany of reasons as to why women were forbidden to do things and he : himself agreed that those reasons have gone by the wayside. If you want to : say that something is historically closed, and therefore it is assur- : fine. Now you dont need an Halachic reasons, because historically closed : is the final word.... Strawman. I am not asserting that we have to hold like the Rama that being historically closed means the option is halachically closed; identifying history with mesorah, and thus absence of tradition with tradition of absence. I would say, though, that if you want to buck the Rama, you have to make an argument for doing so, and not just dismiss his rule because he applied it to a misunderstood case. : everyone seems to be giving Halachicly justification, both pro and con, : then it means that historically closed is open for discussion, and it is on : the plane of halacha, not history. So the bottom line is that if there is : Halachic justification for particular gender roles- of course that trumps : everything. But it also means that stating something is historically assur : is not the end of the story. history is not Halacha. That is what I : illustrated in part one. Because you could also make the same argument : that the chereish shouldn't have an aliyyah... Yes, I agreed with your formulation of the problem in terms of resonant values, and at times a contemporary value can highlight the neglect of a Torah one. But you don't follow through with it. Instead you end up altogether rejecting the say of mesoretic values to decide which halachic innovations are proper. I would add that at times a contemporary value can change expectations, and thus change the morality of an act. After all, it may be okay to do something to someone when they expect it, but not if it violates assumptions behind things they committed to. I could see making that argument WRT monogyny and the validity of cheirem deR Gershom. Mental images of what marriage should be changed, and so it's only moral to satisfy the resulting emotional need rather than some older definition of marriage. As long as the definition itself isn't inferior. To take that poorly explained idea and possibly be clearer by making it less general and more about our case: Perhaps one could form the argument that while it was moral for women not to be eligable for the rabbinate in the past because it was less likely for the option to cross their minds. Such a practice would cause fewer feelings of deprevation. But now that women can become CEO, such a position does mesoretically-wrongly create feelings of deprivation. And so societal change causes a change in application of values; just as it can an application of law. This is pretty close to an argument you do indeed make. Just (as below), I don't think having a role is a right, because I do not believe religious roles are as much opportunities as they are duties. Unlike secular roles, which could be either, depending on how the society in question chooses to frame them. Your neglect of the "how", which changes are valid and which not, reminds me of the argument of non-O rabbis who point to pruzbul and heter isqa as justifications for their radical changes. It's not the same thing by a lng shot. But half-way through you make the same error of considering proof that there are valid kinds of change as proof that the topic in question provides no barriers to change altogether. As you say in this same paragraph (!): : Any role that is historically : closed to any group that isn't Halachically assur is open for discussion as : to what the Halacha actually mandates and why exactly it was closed in the : first place.... So, it's black-letter law closure, or the change is allowed? No "resonance of values" needed after all? And the problem with demanding "resonance of values" is that it takes the autonomy out of it for most of us. Because by enlarging the problem beyond black letter halakhah we guarantee there is a non-formal aspect to the answer, one that is for the practiced artist rather than any bright researcher. And the notion that one is validating a value system that then sets the person up for a very hard collision with the actual not-so-glass ceiling black-letter halakhah defines is very related to this. The mere existence of such a ceiling implies the likelihood of non-resonant values. The concept of asei lekha rav, having a poseiq, moves us away from autonomy in our behavioral decisions, and forces a heteronomy of a manner that too violates contemporary values. :> 2- Feminism assumes Locke's language of rights and priviledge. Why should :> someone *be deprived* of the opportunity to be an .... -- in our case, to :> serve as rabbi? But halachic values aren't framed in these terms... : Being a rabbi is fulfilling the mitzvah of service to the community, talmud : torah etc. Whether it is a burden or an opportunity, it is a mitzvah and : a choice of profession and communal service... But asking about opportunity and opening doors is inherently asking different value questions than the mesoretic ones. It's not just ancient that we frame our moral choices in terms of duty to others and the Other, it's mesoretic. : Furthermore, the OU paper went way beyond opposing rabbis. they forbid a : woman from officiating at a baby naming or other things. that too is a : burden that women should be forbidden from shouldering? This misses my point. When I spoke of rights vs duties I am talking about the entire framing of questions of values, not this specific decision. If the rabbinate, baby naming or whatever is a duty rather than a right, the whole question of "limiting their options unneccessarily" goes off the table. It's not about the right to choose a boon. Your whole question is framed non-traditionally. Looking at feminism as a goal is an inherently un-mesoretic way of framing the question. Rather, the nearest mesoretic equivalent would be to ask whether men have a duty that can only be discharged by sharing the pulpit, "officiating at a baby naming of other things". Feminism doesn't enter the mesoretic discussion because there is no door to be opened or closed, there is no region of personal-expression space to discuss whether someone is given too much or too little. The Torah is a beris, not a bill of rights. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When one truly looks at everyone's good side, micha at aishdas.org others come to love him very naturally, and http://www.aishdas.org he does not need even a speck of flattery. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rabbi AY Kook From micha at aishdas.org Tue Oct 10 14:04:28 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2017 17:04:28 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Oseh Hashalom In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20171010210428.GC21284@aishdas.org> On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 10:34:34PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : I went looking at the siddurim that were common in the shuls that I : grew up in, and I noticed an interesting pattern: Every single one : gave Oseh Hashalom as the closing bracha at the end of the Amidah; not : even one suggested saying Hamevarech like the rest of the year. : Further, every single one used the words Oseh Shalom at the ends of : Kaddish and Elokai N'tzor; not even one suggested saying Oseh Hashalom : during the Aseres Yemei Teshuva. ... : My questions are these: If you're old enough to remember davening : Ashkenaz in the 1970s or before, do you remember what was said during : Aseres Yemei Teshuva? And do you know of any siddur from that era : which included the newfangled text? I know my father was saying "hamvarekh" at this time. However, our minhagim are a hodge-podge of practices from those retained from the Ottoman Empire before my ancestor's arrival in Litta, mainline Litvish, R/Dr Mirsky's idiosyncricies (my grandfather came to America as a teen, and so the rav who met him at Ellis Island was became rav of his shul determined much of what he did), and what my father picked up Tues nights (and from YU alumni friends) from RYBS. I did some restoration of pre-American Biergehr minhag based on R Dovid Lifshitz's memories of what it was. AND that brings me to a theory... Minhagim that Chabad, Talmidei haGra and Sepharadim have in common are bound to become Minhag EY. And Minhag EY is bound to be known globally, at least by the 1970s. Maybe this is just a thing that universalized faster. Anecodtally, I notice fewer and fewer people wearing tefillin on ch"m each year. Although Passaic, a neighborhood with some 40% BT rate, is going to have weaker ties to minhag than ones in which more people have childhood memories of what dad does. I also noticed more an more shuls moving Shir shel Yom and Hoshanos from the end of mussaf to before leining. One thing all three of the communities that dominated the Yishuv haYashan had in common was an attachment to Qabbalah. We may be seeing more and more Tzefat-originating practices coming to the fore in the comming years as a new Minhag EY (and ch"v if galus lasts long enough Minhag America) emerges. Much to R' Ovadiah's poshumous dismay, I would presume. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "I hear, then I forget; I see, then I remember; micha at aishdas.org I do, then I understand." - Confucius http://www.aishdas.org "Hearing doesn't compare to seeing." - Mechilta Fax: (270) 514-1507 "We will do and we will listen." - Israelites From micha at aishdas.org Tue Oct 10 08:18:49 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2017 11:18:49 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] OU paper In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20171010151849.GB32729@aishdas.org> On Mon, Oct 09, 2017 at 08:26:41PM -0500, Noam Stadlan via Avodah wrote: : R. Micha- thank you for taking the time to read the paper. Having read : your list of criticisms, I think that in your search for reasons to oppose, : you missed many of the points completely... As I wrote, the reply was delayed by my attempt to put down the paper every time I thought I was reading solely for the sake of finding points to oppose. "Fisking", as it's called. Admittedly, I could still have failed. : Poskim are certainly entitled to : their opinions. They are not entitled to their own facts. Which is why I didn't dispute claims of fact, such as whether women were shochetim in Italy. I did dispute your use of a fact turning that Rama's point into a hypothetical to deny his whole "[if] we [hadn't] ever seen women as shochetim, we have a mesorah that woman aren't to serve as shochetim". Yes, his given is false, but we do see the implication statement in the Agur and the Rama. So, how do you dismiss applying the parallel syllogism here -- since we do not have a history of women rabbis, wouldn't the Rama's methodology mean that there is a mesorah not to ordain women? At least -- doesn't this topic need addressing, rather than writing that one can ignore the whole flow of logic because the antecedent is false? : Furthermore, I illustrated that what poskim hold : regarding these issues isn't always or exclusively a result of all their : learning and shimmush. It is a demonstrable fact that many attitudes : reflect what they grew up with and were indoctrinated with early on, not : the list of influences that they write about. But you gave up on the question of which new values pass the resonance test mention early in the paperr and which do not. My argument is that : You dismiss my quote regarding REB, and claim that it is my responsibility : to prove what the motives are or aren't. I dismiss the quote as necessarily applying to anyone but REB. It is not like he's the communal leader or primary poseiq of the people in question. In particular because of the word "feminism" in JOFA's name. To which you replied: : I suggest that if you think that an organization with 'feminism' in its : name is inherently problematic, we may be starting from basic assumptions : far to wide apart to see any common ground. RCS summarized REB's position (on your pg 10), as being of "moral ends derive from internal Jewish sources.... dissatisfaction with mainstream Halakhah regarding women is rooted, not in the pressures of contemporary egalitarianism, in his judgment about biblical conceptions of justice." (ellision yours) But JOFA's name is taken from "contemporary egalitarianism". I am not saying it's inherently problematic. I am saying it creates the likelihood of a gap between REB's position and JOFA's attitude, one that then creates a burden of proof you didn't take up. In short I am saying that: 1- Feminism assumes egalitarianism, not only equality, as it assumes that roles historically closed to women as "men's roles" should be open to all. Equality only assumes that everyone should be eligible for roles of equal value. (For some measure of value.) 2- Feminism assumes Locke's language of rights and priviledge. Why should someone *be deprived* of the opportunity to be an .... -- in our case, to serve as rabbi? But halachic values aren't framed in these terms. (At least not in general; I can think of notions like geneivas da'as, gezel shinah or tovas han'ah as exceptions.) Rather, the rabbinate is supposed to be a burden. Even if it is really being treated as an honor, the value which would differentiate between a positive halachic change and one that is anti-mesoretic would be that of duty, not opportunity. 3- Making the argument that feminist egalitarian opportunity is or is not resonant with mesoretic values requires those guys with shimush, as it is an art. Your counter-argument is on the wrong plane for discussing the topic of the first section of your paper -- "mesorah". ... And we don't even agree on how RIETS-trained rabbis are most likely to use the word "mesorah" to agree on what we're debating! Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Man is equipped with such far-reaching vision, micha at aishdas.org yet the smallest coin can obstruct his view. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yisrael Salanter Fax: (270) 514-1507 From noamstadlan at mail.gmail.com Tue Oct 10 08:53:24 2017 From: noamstadlan at mail.gmail.com (Noam Stadlan) Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2017 10:53:24 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] OU paper In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: multipart/alternative Size: 3823 bytes Desc: not available URL: From micha at aishdas.org Tue Oct 10 14:12:25 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2017 17:12:25 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] =?cp1255?q?=93Timtum_Ha-Lev=94_Redux?= In-Reply-To: <7aef6b22a7e348ffa09f6c3e61bde74f@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <7aef6b22a7e348ffa09f6c3e61bde74f@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20171010211225.GD21284@aishdas.org> On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 06:30:33PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : From R' Aviner Dulling of the Heart to Save One's Life ... : A: No. Maran Ha-Rav Kook writes in his book "Musar Avicha" (p. 19) : that the dulling of one's heart comes from violating a prohibition : and not from the food itself (Yoma 39a. And see Meharsha on : Shabbat 33a).... Yay! Finally I have sources to look at. "Vehayisa akh sameiach" just became a little easier. Does anyone have "Mussar Avikha", "Uvdos veHanhagos miBeis Brisk" (vol II p 50) and/or "Orchos Yosheir" (#13)? Do any of them discuss mezuzah and the consequent shemirah, or any of the other related segulah-like effects of mitzvos we've tied in to previous iterations? Look at that list of names: I'm not wrong, just Litvish! Tangent: The Gra said that "vehayisa akh sameiach" is the hardest mitzvah in the Torah. "Veyahisa sameiach" is one thing, but "akh sameiach"? To be nothing but happy, with no other moods ambivalently mixed in for 8 days (9 in chu"l) straight? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The fittingness of your matzos [for the seder] micha at aishdas.org isn't complete with being careful in the laws http://www.aishdas.org of Passover. One must also be very careful in Fax: (270) 514-1507 the laws of business. - Rav Yisrael Salanter From hankman at bell.net Tue Oct 10 22:24:18 2017 From: hankman at bell.net (hankman) Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2017 01:24:18 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] R. Akiva, Bar Kochba and Zecharya HaNovi Message-ID: <5AFE790709AC4B0B9FDDB6A6102B7005@hankPC> How could R. Akiva have mistaken Bar Kochba for Moshiach, since non of the nevuos of Zecharya HaNovi that we read in the recent haftorah (splitting of Har HaZeitim etc., etc) for the period precedent to Moshiach had yet occurred? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Tue Oct 10 13:51:59 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2017 16:51:59 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] future impact of deeds In-Reply-To: <781196aefdb44054b2f0e69678999858@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <781196aefdb44054b2f0e69678999858@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20171010205159.GB21284@aishdas.org> On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 06:29:05PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : In one of his shiurim, R'Reisman questioned a common (my) understanding : of how those who are no longer with us could be judged based on the : future impact of their deeds on an ongoing basis. The specific example : was two individuals (A & B) separately caused two other individuals (C & : D, who were totally equivalent) to become religious. C dies a day later, : while D lives a long, productive, and fruitful life. Does it make sense : that A gets more credit(schar) than B? : : My answer is no, but this does not refute the basic premise. The schar : is based on the % of their potential that C & D actualized-only HKB"H : knows that, so, in this case in fact, A might even get more credit than B. Who said that sekhar is indeed based on actualized potential? "Lefum tz'ara agra", not "lefum tzalach". And wouldn't judging someone by something out of their control violate Middas haDin? HOWEVER, perhaps (thinking out loud) we could invoke megalgalim zekhus al yedei zakai to say that hashgachah peratis's choice of D's long life includes among an infinite other factors, the ways in which his mashpia was mora zekai. But personally, I would question your conclusion. (But in a personal-belief sense. Not that it doesn't require understanding in an eilu-va'eilu way.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Rescue me from the desire to win every micha at aishdas.org argument and to always be right. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Nassan of Breslav Fax: (270) 514-1507 Likutei Tefilos 94:964 From zev at sero.name Wed Oct 11 03:30:27 2017 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2017 06:30:27 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] R. Akiva, Bar Kochba and Zecharya HaNovi In-Reply-To: <5AFE790709AC4B0B9FDDB6A6102B7005@hankPC> References: <5AFE790709AC4B0B9FDDB6A6102B7005@hankPC> Message-ID: <0278980f-97ca-2755-caa3-89461ed64e50@sero.name> On 11/10/17 01:24, hankman via Avodah wrote: > How could R. Akiva have mistaken Bar Kochba for Moshiach, since non of > the nevuos of Zecharya HaNovi that we read in the recent haftorah > (splitting of Har HaZeitim etc., etc) for the period precedent to > Moshiach had yet occurred? The Rambam, whose shita is based on R Akiva, explicitly paskens that none of these nevuos need to be fulfilled literally. Any that aren't can be interpreted metaphorically to fit whatever political and military events actually do take place around the geulah. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From akivagmiller at gmail.com Wed Oct 11 06:41:32 2017 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2017 09:41:32 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Questioning Authority In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I have no hidden agenda here. This post is my response to the current "OU paper" thread, and to many other threads we've had over the decades, where we have wondered how any given posek could hold a certain way on any particular question. It is also relevant to threads we've had abput *becoming* a posek, and the importance of shimush in addition to book knowledge. This is something I would not have written, or even have thought of, until about 10 years ago or so. But as I have matured, I have come to see things in a new perspective. Becoming a parent, and a grandparent, has given me a tremendous insight into Hashem's relationship with us. I have always felt that it is (or ought to be) possible and permissible to *question* authority without challenging or rejecting authority. It is very natural to want to understand the reasons behind the rules that we must live by. Wanting to understand those rules is not the same as rejecting those rules. Wanting to understand the rules, I believe, is a major component of the Mitzvah of Talmud Torah, and is thus highly commendable. A chavrusa once challenged me to explain my position on a certain subject. He said to me, "If you can't explain it to me in simple terms, then you don't really understand it well enough yourself." I accepted that rule wholeheartedly, and used it myself for many decades. But recently have I begun to see the cracks in that rule. A parent tells the child to do something, or to not do something. The child asks why, not out of rebellion, but because he sincerely wants to understand what's going on. Sometimes, the parent cannot give an answer better than "Because I said so." The child now thinks that the parent is being arbitrary, and sometimes, the parent might even agree. But frequently, the truth is that the parent has very good reasons for what he says. It's just that he's unable to put those reasons into clear words. He can't even explain it to himself in simple terms, because it is simply a gut feeling that he has, based on experience and intuition, he sees that this is the action or inaction which must be followed in this particular situation. I think this is analogous to Torah leaders and Torah followers. When the leaders tell the followers what to do, or what to avoid, it is entirely reasonable for the followers to request explanations from the leaders. This is especially so, if the explanation will help them comply with the directive, or teach them how to apply the directive to other situations. But these requests must be made respectfully, carefully, and only up to a certain point. Consider when a parent explains himself to the child, and the child responds with a dozen reasonable challenges to the parent's logic. Sometimes the parent will realize that he was in error, and back down. Sometimes the parent will realize that he was in error, but will stick to his guns as a show of power (rightly or wrongly). But sometimes, the parent will understand that - despite the child's persuasive comments - the directive must still be followed, because ... Well, the parent himself might not be able to articulate his reasoning, not even to himself. But he relies on his understanding and his experience and his common sense, and he knows that this is how it must be. So too, our leaders adopt certain positions on certain issues, and often they will attempt to explain themselves to us. Sometimes those explanations may appear flawed to us, maybe even severely flawed. Like the child who thinks his parent's explanation is nonsense, the flaws do not necessarily invalidate the leader's conclusion or his decision. Of course, none of this suggests that our leaders (or parents) are infallible. And they can certainly benefit from reviewing their positions among their peers. The only point I'm trying to make in this long post is this: Similar to a Chok from the Torah, sometimes our leaders issue pronouncements that we are not capable of fully understanding, and we should not let that stand in the way of following them. Akiva Miller NB: A critical word in this post is "sometimes". The difficult (sometimes impossible) task is to figure out which times are which. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From zev at sero.name Wed Oct 11 07:40:40 2017 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2017 10:40:40 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] R. Akiva, Bar Kochba and Zecharya HaNovi In-Reply-To: <20171011143003.GA21995@aishdas.org> References: <5AFE790709AC4B0B9FDDB6A6102B7005@hankPC> <0278980f-97ca-2755-caa3-89461ed64e50@sero.name> <20171011143003.GA21995@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 11/10/17 10:30, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > While the Rambam cites R' Aqiva's following Bar Koziba (H Melahim 11:2) > as proof that the melekh hamoshiach doesn't have to do miracles, is his > position really "based on" R Aqiva's? For example, in 11:4 he describes > the moshiach as being "hogeh baTorah ve'oseiq bemitzvos keDavid aviv" > which I don't think fit Bar Kokhva even in his hayday. What makes you suppose this? On the contrary, the fact that the Rambam says "since BK didn't do any miracles, we know that Moshiach doesn't have to", proves that when he says Moshiach *does* have to be a TCh and a tzadik he assumes BK *did* fulfil this requirement. If he didn't, that would prove to the Rambam that this isn't necessary. > Nor had "veyakhof kol Yisrael leileikh bah" yet either -- the > Perushim were in the minority. Were they? Who was in the majority, if not them? And why would the majority even matter? BK was the king, and he made halacha the law of the land, whether the majority liked it or not. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From micha at aishdas.org Wed Oct 11 07:30:03 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2017 10:30:03 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] R. Akiva, Bar Kochba and Zecharya HaNovi In-Reply-To: <0278980f-97ca-2755-caa3-89461ed64e50@sero.name> References: <5AFE790709AC4B0B9FDDB6A6102B7005@hankPC> <0278980f-97ca-2755-caa3-89461ed64e50@sero.name> Message-ID: <20171011143003.GA21995@aishdas.org> On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 06:30:27AM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : On 11/10/17 01:24, hankman via Avodah wrote: :> How could R. Akiva have mistaken Bar Kochba for Moshiach, since :> non of the nevuos of Zecharya HaNovi that we read in the recent :> haftorah (splitting of Har HaZeitim etc., etc) for the period :> precedent to Moshiach had yet occurred? : The Rambam, whose shita is based on R Akiva, explicitly paskens that : none of these nevuos need to be fulfilled literally. Any that : aren't can be interpreted metaphorically to fit whatever political : and military events actually do take place around the geulah. While the Rambam cites R' Aqiva's following Bar Koziba (H Melahim 11:2) as proof that the melekh hamoshiach doesn't have to do miracles, is his position really "based on" R Aqiva's? For example, in 11:4 he describes the moshiach as being "hogeh baTorah ve'oseiq bemitzvos keDavid aviv" which I don't think fit Bar Kokhva even in his hayday. Nor had "veyakhof kol Yisrael leileikh bah" yet either -- the Perushim were in the minority. More clearly is his basing himself on Shemu'el (Sanhedrin 91b) when he quotes him in 12:2, "Chakhamim said: ein bein ha'olam hazeh liymos hamoshiach ela shib'ud malkhios bilvad." It's interesting that rather than repeating the quote beshrim omero -- a funny thing to do when discussing the ge'ula le'lam that giving the source is supposed to bring -- he attributes the quote to Chakhamim, as though he knew it was consensus and Rav's position deprecated. After all, the Rambam himself says that we can't decide machloqesim in these thingxs. So it could be that the Rambam did indeed base himself on R Aqiva, but then we would have to say that the Rambam held that R Aqiva was waiting for the rest of the nevu'ah to come true. Or not -- maybe his basic source was Shemu'el, and this one proof doesn't imply derivation. And given that the BK Revolt was c. 132-135 CE, it is likely that R' Aqiva expected the war to go on 7 years, as per statements in the gemara about chevlei moshiach. This would time the end of the war with 70 years after the churban, like the return after churban bayis 1. But whether that conjecture is true or not, the relevant idea that R Aqiva could be backing BK thinking the rest of the expectations about the moshiach simply hadn't happened /yet/. Which the Rambam would have to invoke even for his more mundane list of things the moshiach will accomplish. In 12:1 the Rambam denies the literalness of Yeshaiah's and Yirmiyahu's description of the messianic era in terms of wolves, leopards and lions going vegetarian. But since the splitting of Har haZeirim need not be lemaalah min hateva, do we know whether the Rambam would have placed it in the same rule? If not, the "expected it will happen in the future" answer could cover that earthquake (?) as much as it can cover BK spending all his spare time learning and doing mitzvos or his being meqareiv the vast majority of Kelal Yisrael. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger A sick person never rejects a healing procedure micha at aishdas.org as "unbefitting." Why, then, do we care what http://www.aishdas.org other people think when dealing with spiritual Fax: (270) 514-1507 matters? - Rav Yisrael Salanter From zev at sero.name Wed Oct 11 09:02:55 2017 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2017 12:02:55 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] R. Akiva, Bar Kochba and Zecharya HaNovi In-Reply-To: <20171011154231.GA6170@aishdas.org> References: <5AFE790709AC4B0B9FDDB6A6102B7005@hankPC> <0278980f-97ca-2755-caa3-89461ed64e50@sero.name> <20171011143003.GA21995@aishdas.org> <20171011154231.GA6170@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <0e95d039-c074-ae7f-f3ba-3cee64a3d191@sero.name> On 11/10/17 11:42, Micha Berger wrote: > > The man described in the Y-mi Taanis 24b (4:5) doesn't sound personally > observant. The Rambam clearly doesn't hold like the Yerushalmi's version of the story, because he holds that the Chachamim stuck with BK until he was killed "ba`avonos". That word is ambiguous (whose sins, his or the people's) but later he says a presumptive Moshiach who's killed is "kechol malchei beis Dovid hash'leimim vehak'sheirim", so we can assume he holds that BK was killed for the generation's sins, not for his own, hence "ba`avonos", not "ba`avonosav". > This is also why in both R' Aqiva's world as well as R' Meir's and R' > Shim'on's -- before and after BK's revolt -- it is taken for granted > that most Jews are amei ha'aretz. Amei Haaretz were in the Perushim "denomination". They kept Perushi halacha as well as they understood it, even if they despised the Chaverim who taught it. They made up their own invalid leniencies in maasros, and weren't careful all year with taharos, but they were careful with terumah and never told lies on Shabbos. In any case, the question isn't what the majority would have done on their own, but whether BK forced them to obey halacha, and the Rambam assumes he did. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From micha at aishdas.org Wed Oct 11 10:11:32 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2017 13:11:32 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] R. Akiva, Bar Kochba and Zecharya HaNovi In-Reply-To: <0e95d039-c074-ae7f-f3ba-3cee64a3d191@sero.name> References: <5AFE790709AC4B0B9FDDB6A6102B7005@hankPC> <0278980f-97ca-2755-caa3-89461ed64e50@sero.name> <20171011143003.GA21995@aishdas.org> <20171011154231.GA6170@aishdas.org> <0e95d039-c074-ae7f-f3ba-3cee64a3d191@sero.name> Message-ID: <20171011171132.GA1028@aishdas.org> On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 12:02:55PM -0400, Zev Sero wrote: : On 11/10/17 11:42, Micha Berger wrote: : >The man described in the Y-mi Taanis 24b (4:5) doesn't sound personally : >observant. : : The Rambam clearly doesn't hold like the Yerushalmi's version of the : story, because he holds that the Chachamim stuck with BK until he : was killed "ba`avonos"... How does this conflict with the Y-mi's picture of a less than ideal Bar Kokhva? If anything, it reinforces my suggestion that R' Aqiva was awaiting the rest of the nevu'ah. And once he is waiting for the things the Rambam mentions, then it's possible the Rambem would expect Zerkhariah's nevu'os to happen literally, but also something R' Aqiva was awaiting. It's possible the Rambam would consider the potentially natural cataclysms in Zekhariah to be non-allegory, as the examples of non-literal nevu'os he gives would have been lema'alah min hateva if literal. I don't know where he's drawing the line; nevi'ah qua nevu'ah is bederekh mashal, or only the phantastical stories should be dismissed. (This is a sibling to our discussion of the Rambam on midrashic stories. I claim he is saying that no medrash was repeated for historical content. Therefore any medrash can be ahistorical, but the fantastical stories you should take for granted as being ahistorical. You have been limiting the Rambam's denial of historicity for the fantastical stories. s/medrash/nevu'ah/g -- where do you stand?) : That word is ambiguous (whose sins, his or : the people's) but later he says a presumptive Moshiach who's killed : is "kechol malchei beis Dovid hash'leimim vehak'sheirim", so we can : assume he holds that BK was killed for the generation's sins, not : for his own, hence "ba`avonos", not "ba`avonosav". But either way -- whether he or the generation was sinful -- it would show that BK didn't fit the Rambam's descrition of moshiach. For obvious reasons, I'll add: ... at least not yet. If the generation sinned too much to merit redemption, BK wasn't too good at bringing the masses to observance. Besides, being like a kosher and shaleim member of beis David could mean "even if", we still know he wasn't the moshiach. : >This is also why in both R' Aqiva's world as well as R' Meir's and R' : >Shim'on's -- before and after BK's revolt -- it is taken for granted : >that most Jews are amei ha'aretz. : : Amei Haaretz were in the Perushim "denomination". They kept Perushi : halacha as well as they understood it, even if they despised the : Chaverim who taught it... Actually, I thought they were denominationless, as likely to follow anyone's dictates. A pagan notion of listening to every holy man, rather than picking sides. But in any case, if that's your description of the masses, you still have BK not yet succeeding in that regard at the time of his death. : in maasros, and weren't careful all year with taharos, but they were : careful with terumah and never told lies on Shabbos... They were also careful with maaser, more often than not. Demai is a gezeira; if tevel were the norm, it would be azlinan basar ruba, or at best safeiq deOraisa lehachmir. : the question isn't what the majority would have done on their own, : but whether BK forced them to obey halacha, and the Rambam assumes : he did. The Rambam doesn't say so. That's your deduction. It requires assuming that the Rambam agrees with R' Aqiva over what the grounds for presuming (making a chazqah) that someone is moshiach. He doesn't say R' Aqiva is indeed his source. And it also requires assuming R Aqiva was following BK because of a chazaqah, rather than probability and rov. You haven't addressed my "maybe" of R Aqiva following BK without BK having yet fulfilled all of the moshiach's role becuase of an expectation that BK would be getting there. My added "not yet". Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Between stimulus & response, there is a space. micha at aishdas.org In that space is our power to choose our http://www.aishdas.org response. In our response lies our growth Fax: (270) 514-1507 and our freedom. - Victor Frankl, (MSfM) From zev at sero.name Sat Oct 14 19:44:53 2017 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2017 22:44:53 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] R. Akiva, Bar Kochba and Zecharya HaNovi In-Reply-To: <20171011171132.GA1028@aishdas.org> References: <5AFE790709AC4B0B9FDDB6A6102B7005@hankPC> <0278980f-97ca-2755-caa3-89461ed64e50@sero.name> <20171011143003.GA21995@aishdas.org> <20171011154231.GA6170@aishdas.org> <0e95d039-c074-ae7f-f3ba-3cee64a3d191@sero.name> <20171011171132.GA1028@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 11/10/17 13:11, Micha Berger wrote: > On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 12:02:55PM -0400, Zev Sero wrote: > : On 11/10/17 11:42, Micha Berger wrote: > : >The man described in the Y-mi Taanis 24b (4:5) doesn't sound personally > : >observant. > : > : The Rambam clearly doesn't hold like the Yerushalmi's version of the > : story, because he holds that the Chachamim stuck with BK until he > : was killed "ba`avonos"... > > How does this conflict with the Y-mi's picture of a less than ideal > Bar Kokhva? It conflicts because the Y'mi's version of the story has the Chachamim abandoning BK *before* his fall. The Rambam clearly does not agree with that whole version of the story. In his version BK was and remained a tzadik until his tragic end, which happened not for his own sins but for those of others. > It's possible the Rambam would consider the potentially natural cataclysms > in Zekhariah to be non-allegory, as the examples of non-literal nevu'os > he gives would have been lema'alah min hateva if literal. I don't know > where he's drawing the line; nevi'ah qua nevu'ah is bederekh mashal, > or only the phantastical stories should be dismissed. He doesn't draw a line at all. He carefully doesn't say that Moshiach *won't* perform miracles, but merely that he *needn't*, because BK didn't and yet was assumed to be Moshiach. Which further contradicts the Y'mi's version, which says he was rejected because he could not judge people by smelling whether they're right or wrong, a feat of which the True Moshiach(tm) must be capable. > > : That word is ambiguous (whose sins, his or > : the people's) but later he says a presumptive Moshiach who's killed > : is "kechol malchei beis Dovid hash'leimim vehak'sheirim", so we can > : assume he holds that BK was killed for the generation's sins, not > : for his own, hence "ba`avonos", not "ba`avonosav". > > But either way -- whether he or the generation was sinful -- it would > show that BK didn't fit the Rambam's descrition of moshiach. How so? He was righteous, and forced people to keep Torah, but they didn't listen, just like Yoshiyahu. > But in any case, if that's your description of the masses, you still > have BK not yet succeeding in that regard at the time of his death. Again, how so? The requirement is that he forces all Israel to follow it and to reinforce its breaches. Not that he educates them, or makes them enthusiastic, but simply that he makes the Shulchan Aruch the law of the land, punishing those who break it. There are always lawbreakers; one would not therefore say that the government is not forcing people to obey the law. > : the question isn't what the majority would have done on their own, > : but whether BK forced them to obey halacha, and the Rambam assumes > : he did. > > The Rambam doesn't say so. That's your deduction. It requires assuming > that the Rambam agrees with R' Aqiva over what the grounds for presuming > (making a chazqah) that someone is moshiach. He doesn't say R' Aqiva is > indeed his source. He explicitly uses him as his source that Moshiach needn't perform miracles. How could he do so if his vision of Moshiach's qualifications were different from R Akiva's? If he holds that Moshiach must be a tzadik but RA didn't, then how does he know that Moshiach needn't perform miracles just because R Akiva thought so? > And it also requires assuming R Aqiva was following BK because of a > chazaqah, rather than probability and rov. You haven't addressed my > "maybe" of R Aqiva following BK without BK having yet fulfilled all of > the moshiach's role becuase of an expectation that BK would be getting > there. My added "not yet". Again, this is impossible because if so how does he know R Akiva didn't indeed require Moshiach to perform miracles, and was expecting them to happen any day now? How can he say that Moshiach need *never* perform miracles, and if he achieves everything he's supposed to without the need for miracles we will still have to accept him as Vadai Moshiach? Clearly he understands that R Akiva was *not* expecting any miracles, and that this didn't bother him, because it isn't a requirement. None of which rules out the actual Moshiach, when he does come, performing miracles. The Rambam's position on this, unlike the Y'mi's, is neutral. He might perform miracles or he might not. Some or all of the nevuos might turn out literally, but some or all might not. The nevuos he says can't be literal, at least in the initial stage of Yemos Hamoshiach, are not ones about miracles but about permanent changes in nature. Chazal said that Ein Bein Olam Hazeh Liymos Hamoshiach Ela... so nevuos about a change in nature must either be metaphorical or refer to Olam Haba. But nevuos about miracles may or may not happen literally, we won't know until we get there. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From motti.yarchinai at yahoo.com.au Sun Oct 15 01:00:51 2017 From: motti.yarchinai at yahoo.com.au (Motti Yarchinai) Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2017 08:00:51 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Avodah] Psak source wanted References: <1857240052.122258.1508054451353.ref@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1857240052.122258.1508054451353@mail.yahoo.com> Dear Avodah members, Can anyone help me with a source for this psak: It is similar to what the Rambam wrote in Hilchot Kiddush Hachodesh, saying that in all calendric matters, we follow the lead of the chachmei eretz yisrael, and even though the anshei hagolah know the calculations used by them, it is not on our own calculations that we rely, we only use those calculations because we know that they are the same as the calculations used by the chachmei eretz yisrael, and we must all follow the rulings of the latter, in all calendric matters. Another posek (possibly the Tifferet Yisrael in Shvilei Harakia, but I'm not sure of that), writes something similar but couched in even more dramatic terms. The following is not a verbatim quote (since the original is in Hebrew) but something very close to it: "And even if the residents of eretz yisrael are all ignoramuses and peasants, and the authorities of chutz la'aretz are great scholars and knowledgable in Torah and halachah, in calendric matters we follow the peasants and ignoramuses, not the scholars of chutz la'aretz." Does anyone recognise this and remember where it's from? Thank you.Motti -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From akivagmiller at gmail.com Sun Oct 15 13:02:06 2017 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2017 16:02:06 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Zecher Liytzias Mitzrayim and Shmini Atzeres Message-ID: . What is the Zecher Liytzias Mitzrayim of Shmini Atzeres?We say it in Kiddush and in the Amidah. There must be something about this chag that connects to, and/or reminds us about, Yetzias Mitzrayim. It sounds like such a basic question that I'm surprised that I don't remember hearing it in the past. If anyone has an answer, please share it. Meanwhile, here's what I came up with: Shavuos is about one particular event in the midbar. Sukkos is about the whole 40 years in the midbar. Pesach and Shmini Atzeres are bookends: Pesach is about entering the midbar, and Shmini Atzeres is about leaving the midbar.If Sukkos is about the Ananei Hakavod and all the other nissim that accompanied us, then Shmini Atzeres is about re-entering the natural world. I played "word association" with six random people: When I said "yetzias mitzrayim," five of them responded, "Pesach". This is not wrong, but it is a distortion. Yetzias Mitzrayim was not a short event in Nissan; Shavuos and Sukkos prove that it was a process that took 40 years. My suggestion is simply that the last day is no less worthy of a chag than the first. Rashi (B'midbar 29:35) famously tells us that Shmini Atzeres is a special time, with just Hashem and Bnei Yisrael together, alone, with no other nations around. I'm merely pointing out that it is not just the nations who are gone: The lulav is gone. The sukkah is gone. Nothing remains but us and Hashem, when we left the comfort of the miraculous sukkah, trading it for being at home in Eretz Yisrael. Akiva Miller Postscript: An easy challenge to this post could be that Tishre 22 was NOT the day that we crossed from the midbar into Eretz Yisrael. I will respond in advance by pointing out that Shavuos too is not necessarily celebrated on the same day as the event it reminds us of. The Zecher can be poetic and emotional, and need not be so mathematically rigorous. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hankman at bell.net Sun Oct 15 14:41:04 2017 From: hankman at bell.net (hankman) Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2017 17:41:04 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] eitz hachaim Message-ID: Hi, What exactly was the eitz hachaim all about. The simple pshat doesn?t make any sense. If the purpose of the Gan was to serve Adam then when would (could) he make use of the eitz hachaim? Kodem hacheit he was not a bar misah so he had no need of it, after the cheit he was prevented from accessing it! So when would it ever be useful to Adam? Kol tuv Chaim Manaster -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hankman at bell.net Sun Oct 15 14:48:11 2017 From: hankman at bell.net (hankman) Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2017 17:48:11 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Vayehi erev Message-ID: Hi, If you look at days 3, 4 & 5 tou will find that they close with Vayehi erev vayehi boker yom X as a complete passuk. But on days 1, 2 & 6 the vayehi erev is only the completion of a larger passuk and not a passuk on its own. Finally on Shabbos the final closing of vayehi erev is omitted completely. Do any of the medrashing or meforshing explain this? Kol tuv Chaim Manaster -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Sun Oct 15 14:31:16 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2017 17:31:16 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Zecher Liytzias Mitzrayim and Shmini Atzeres In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20171015213116.GA14924@aishdas.org> On Sun, Oct 15, 2017 at 04:02:06PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : What is the Zecher Liytzias Mitzrayim of Shmini Atzeres? ... What's the ZlYM of Shabbos? : Shavuos is about one particular event in the midbar. Sukkos is about the : whole 40 years in the midbar... Unless Sukkos is about the return of the ananei hakavod. The Gra puts 2 and 2 (and 2) together: The ananei hakavod left with the Cheit haEigel. When Moshe returned with the 2nd luchos, completing his 3rd 40-day day atop Har Sinai, he gave Benei Yisrael instructions including those for donating the materials and building the Mishkan. So that actual construction began on 15 Nissan -- and that's when the ananim returned. The Meshekh Chimah adds to this that it explains the oconstrast between Sukkos as described in Mishpatim 23:16, where all we learn about the timing in the fall is that it's Chag haAsif. This was before Cheit haEigel, never mind the eventual return. But in parashas Re'eih, the holiday makes its appearance as Chag haSukkos, refering to the returned sukkos of ananei hakavod. : Pesach is about entering the midbar, and Shmini Atzeres is about leaving : the midbar.If Sukkos is about the Ananei Hakavod and all the other nissim : that accompanied us, then Shmini Atzeres is about re-entering the natural : world. My own mental image of the structure of the year: The qiymu veqiblu haYhudim of Purim is the further development of the theme of Shavous (a/k/a Atzeres). And similarly the zikhronos of Rosh haShanah is the further development of the theme of Shemini Atzeres -- the beris. In Shemini Atzeres this creates a need for a 71st par for qorban mussaf, as well as the naturalness of our turning SA into Simchas Torah. On RH we ask for clemency if not for our sake, than for the sake of seeing the beris to fruition. So that each season has a central holiday -- Sukkos or Pesach -- which is what underlies the gezeira shava tes-vav - tes-vav. Then the season is introduced with a something (Purim or Yamim Noraim) to prepare us for the holiday. The bounty of Sukkos has to be earned; Tishrei is about middas hadin after all. The freedom of Pesach needs a context. (And Putim is derabbanan bececause the ultimate qabbalas ol mitzvos hd to come from us.) And then the theme is culminated in an Atzeres, a day to stop, pack it up, and take it with us for the next half-year. That said, I like your idead of SA as reentering the natural world. It's experientially very true, after all that holiday. It also gives more significance to the timing of Tefillas Geshem. "Qasheh alei pereidaskhem" does refer to that return; aalthough I think you need to work on the difference between our return to the natural world and Hashem making the day itself to *delay* the return. Jews and G-d without the rest of the world. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger What we do for ourselves dies with us. micha at aishdas.org What we do for others and the world, http://www.aishdas.org remains and is immortal. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Albert Pine From micha at aishdas.org Sun Oct 15 15:21:26 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2017 18:21:26 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] R. Akiva, Bar Kochba and Zecharya HaNovi In-Reply-To: References: <5AFE790709AC4B0B9FDDB6A6102B7005@hankPC> <0278980f-97ca-2755-caa3-89461ed64e50@sero.name> <20171011143003.GA21995@aishdas.org> <20171011154231.GA6170@aishdas.org> <0e95d039-c074-ae7f-f3ba-3cee64a3d191@sero.name> <20171011171132.GA1028@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20171015222126.GB14924@aishdas.org> On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 10:44:53PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: :> How does this conflict with the Y-mi's picture of a less than ideal :> Bar Kokhva? : : It conflicts because the Y'mi's version of the story has the : Chachamim abandoning BK *before* his fall. The Rambam clearly does : not agree with that whole version of the story... The Y-mi does not say that R' Aqiva was among those who left early. : In his version BK : was and remained a tzadik until his tragic end, which happened not : for his own sins but for those of others. My whole point is that the Rambam doesn't describe him as a tzadiq anywhere. He says in one place that BK could be taken to be the moshiach despite a lack of miracles and another place that when someone from beis david who is hogeh ve'oseiq bemitzvos keDavid aviv... vehakhos kol Yisrael leileikh bah... and fights Hashem's wars, then this person can be presumed to be mashiach. Not that BK had such a chazaqah; the "pesaq" of the tannaim needn't have been based on this particular chazaqah or any chazaqah. As I said, there is nothing in the Rambam to rule out them following BK out of the expectation that he would eventually get there, rather than his being hogeh ve'oseiq bemitzvos already. And then you don't need to make the Rambam ignore a Yerushalmi. : He doesn't draw a line at all. He carefully doesn't say that : Moshiach *won't* perform miracles, but merely that he *needn't*, 12:1: Al ya'aleh aal leiv shebiymos hamoshiach yibateil davar miminhago shel olam... ela olam keminhago noheig. This doesn't really rule out miracles, but it does rule out ones that leave a permanent change in the natural orer. There is a line. Which is how he rules out the historicity of "vegar ze'eiv im keves..." etc... They don't mearly "needn't" happen, he rules out the possibility of their literal meaning being part of the future, because they cross his line of olam keminhago noheig". : >But either way -- whether he or the generation was sinful -- it would : >show that BK didn't fit the Rambam's descrition of moshiach. : How so? He was righteous, and forced people to keep Torah, but : they didn't listen, just like Yoshiyahu. "Veyakhof" includes "tried and failed"??? That's not quite what the Rambam says. : Again, how so? The requirement is that he forces all Israel to : follow it and to reinforce its breaches. Not that he educates them, : or makes them enthusiastic, but simply that he makes the Shulchan : Aruch the law of the land, punishing those who break it... Which he didn't. The Sanhedrin doesn't get reorgonized and put on Har haBayis. In fact, he doesn't get the backing of the majority of the day's posqim to be able to be associated with a 2nd century religious revival through legal enforcement, even if he there had been one. (Which there is no record of.) Again, this is only a problem for you because you assume that the Rambam's chazaqah in 11:4 must be the reason for R' Aqiva and other tannaim followed BK. But he uses the expression "vedimah hu vekhol chakhmei doro" -- which is a little weak for following a chazaqah as per a chiyuv. The Y-mi (in the adorementiond &T Taanis 4:5 24b) quotes R' Aqiva as telling R' Yochanan ben Torta "Din hu malka meshikha", an idiom usually used to refer to a qal vachomer. BTW, where does the Rambam get that "kol chakhmei doro" followed Bar Koziva? Is there any indication Rabban Gamliel ever did? R Yochanan b Torta replied (in an oft repeated line) "Aqiva, yaalu asavim belechaikh ve'adayin ben David lo ba." : >The Rambam doesn't say so. That's your deduction. It requires assuming : >that the Rambam agrees with R' Aqiva over what the grounds for presuming : >(making a chazqah) that someone is moshiach. He doesn't say R' Aqiva is : >indeed his source. : : He explicitly uses him as his source that Moshiach needn't perform : miracles. How could he do so if his vision of Moshiach's : qualifications were different from R Akiva's? ... R' Aqiva proves that not performing miracles doesn't rule out someone being the moshiach. He doesn't prove what it takes to actually qualify as being one. And even beyond the difference between deriving one negative statement about the mashiach and assuming he got all his positive statements from the same source, you're missing the difference between noting R' Aqiva reached a conclusion and the Rambam pasqening that in a certain situation we are obligated by the rules of chazaqah to reach that same conclusion. : Again, this is impossible because if so how does he know R Akiva : didn't indeed require Moshiach to perform miracles, and was : expecting them to happen any day now? ... Who said he didn't? He uses R' Aqiva to rule out waiting for a miracle before following a potential. Not that moshiach won't perform miracles. 12:2 quotes Shemu'el to back up the point in 12:1 that olam beminhago holeikh. Which is minimally a particular kind of miracle, although it plausibly includes even miracles that are only momentary breaks in minhag olam. He doesn't mention R' Aqiva when ruling out these miracles from the entire mission. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "Man wants to achieve greatness overnight, micha at aishdas.org and he wants to sleep well that night too." http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yosef Yozel Horwitz, Alter of Novarodok Fax: (270) 514-1507 From hankman at bell.net Sun Oct 15 15:59:44 2017 From: hankman at bell.net (hankman) Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2017 18:59:44 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Torah precheit? Message-ID: Hi, I have been trying to understand what the geshtalt of Torah was precheit of the eitz hadaas. It could not have resembled anything that we ( I ) would recognize today. Consider: There was but one mitzva. Most if not all the mitzvos of the Torah we are familiar with could not have existed, at least as we understand them today. Had Adam been successful in his one day tafkid the purpose of the bria would have been accomplished and Adam (mankind) would have gone to olom haba ? mission accomplished nothing more to follow but for reward in olom haba. The many consequences seem to be as follows: there would be no avdus in Mitzrayim, therefore no yetzias Mitzrayim, therefore no regolim, that are all built on the idea of zecher l?yitzias Mitzrayim nor their issurei melocho . So there would not me any korban Pesach, no matzo, no maror etc. There would be no lulav and esrog, no succah etc. There would be no krobanos of shavous, no Yom Kippur and all its avoda and all its inuiyim as the cheit haeigel would never occur. Not sure about Rosh Hashana as the 6th day was the first RH perhaps as a yom hadin to pasken that Adam succeeded in his task and is deserving of olom haba. I could assume that Shabbos would also be present as it was in that first week with a kedushas Shabbos. The mussafim of all these yomim tovim would also be non existent as the yomim tovim themself seem in doubt. Much of the korbanos relating to cheit would seemingly have no purpose. the existance of the mikdash and all related mitzvot would likewise be in doubt. The mikdosh would have been Adam himself or perhaps after day 7 the mikdash would have come down in fire from heaven like we await today shibaneh beis hamikdash? As there would never be an Eretz Yisroel, then there would not be all the mitzvot hateltuot ba?aretz ? trumos, masros etc., etc. There would be no issurei arayos as there was just Adam and Chava. Not quite sure here as there was Kayin and Hevel and their twin sisters were there in the latter part of day 6. So perhaps a few of the arayaos would have been possible, mainly mother, father, son, daughter, aishes ish (Adam and Chava, but not sure about the kids as could kedushin be tofeis in a sister even if mutar for kium olam? Mishkav zachar was possible, but mishkav behama might not have been assur if one reads the medroshim kepshutom which the Maharal tell us NOT to do when Adam was seeking his mate before Chava was created. Still one has to deal with the fact that while these might have been possible, there was but ONE commandment ? not to eat from the eitz hadaas and none of the possible arayos I consider above. There was no mitzva of mila for Adam or Kayin and Hevel. Perhaps Adam was created mahul and Kayin and Hevel were nolod mahul? (Still today would need hatafas dam bris). Kibud Av vaAim would only be possible for Kain and Hevel but not for Adam or Chava who were not yilud isha. Mitzvot like korcho lameis would not be possible for beings who were not bar misa. Tumas meis would not be possible. With no rabim, mitzvot like melech, korban nossi, Ir haNidachas etc would not be possible. No mechias Amalek, or shiva ammim or kivush ha?aretz etc Rosh Chodes and its dinim would never happen as the world would end after one week. Most of choshen Mishpat would be superfluous if you own the entire world (Adam ? not sure if his kids would own anything as Adam would never die so they would never yarshan the world from him? (not sure if I am in the realm of Purim torah or not?). I could go on for most of taryag that would not have been possible. But the bottom line, possible or not, there was only ONE commandment ? the eitz hadaas! So what is the nature of Torah in such a world. How do we see it as an ever constant ever present and unchanging Torah? How does a Torah with but ONE mitzva look? How does it still identify with a Torah with 613 mitzvot? Sorry if my thoughts were very rambling. I just typed as things came to mind ? maybe not always a good idea! Kol tuv Chaim Manaster -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From zev at sero.name Sun Oct 15 22:15:48 2017 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2017 01:15:48 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] R. Akiva, Bar Kochba and Zecharya HaNovi In-Reply-To: <20171015222126.GB14924@aishdas.org> References: <5AFE790709AC4B0B9FDDB6A6102B7005@hankPC> <0278980f-97ca-2755-caa3-89461ed64e50@sero.name> <20171011143003.GA21995@aishdas.org> <20171011154231.GA6170@aishdas.org> <0e95d039-c074-ae7f-f3ba-3cee64a3d191@sero.name> <20171011171132.GA1028@aishdas.org> <20171015222126.GB14924@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 15/10/17 18:21, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 10:44:53PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > : It conflicts because the Y'mi's version of the story has the > : Chachamim abandoning BK *before* his fall. The Rambam clearly does > : not agree with that whole version of the story... > > The Y-mi does not say that R' Aqiva was among those who left early. The Rambam says that R Akiva *and all the sages of his generation* imagined BK was Moshiach, *until he was killed*. This is not consistent with the Y'mi. > As I said, there is nothing in the Rambam to rule out them following BK > out of the expectation that he would eventually get there, rather than his > being hogeh ve'oseiq bemitzvos already. Then why can't they also have expected him to eventually do miracles? How does their belief in him, and his lack of miracles, prove that Moshiach needn't do any? The fact that the Rambam uses their belief in him as proof that miracles aren't a requirement shows that they believed in him only because he *had* fulfilled all the *genuine* requirements for the stage he was at. > : >But either way -- whether he or the generation was sinful -- it would > : >show that BK didn't fit the Rambam's descrition of moshiach. > > : How so? He was righteous, and forced people to keep Torah, but > : they didn't listen, just like Yoshiyahu. > > "Veyakhof" includes "tried and failed"??? That's not quite what the > Rambam says. Yachof means to force, to make it the law of the land, and those who disobey are punished. It doesn't preclude people breaking the law when they think they can get away with it. Our current government forces us to live without drugs, and yet many people don't. > > : Again, how so? The requirement is that he forces all Israel to > : follow it and to reinforce its breaches. Not that he educates them, > : or makes them enthusiastic, but simply that he makes the Shulchan > : Aruch the law of the land, punishing those who break it... > > Which he didn't. The Sanhedrin doesn't get reorgonized and put on Har > haBayis. The Sanhedrin was already organized. There's no requirement that they return to Lishkas Hagazis until there *is* one, which he does eventually have to do, but it comes *after* chezkas Moshiach and fighting the war, which is the stage he was at. > In fact, he doesn't get the backing of the majority of the day's > posqim He certainly did, according to the Rambam. > to be able to be associated with a 2nd century religious revival > through legal enforcement, even if he there had been one. (Which there > is no record of.) Again, a "religious revival" means inspiring people to *want* to keep mitzvos, which is unrelated to *forcing* them to do so. > Again, this is only a problem for you because you assume that the Rambam's > chazaqah in 11:4 must be the reason for R' Aqiva and other tannaim > followed BK. What else could it be? He goes directly from saying that miracles are not a requirement to listing what things *are* requirements. Therefore he must have done those things. > But he uses the expression "vedimah hu vekhol chakhmei doro" > -- which is a little weak for following a chazaqah as per a chiyuv. What's weak about it? They must have had a reason for this imagination. What else but the chazaka? And if they thought he hadn't yet reached that stage then how do we know miracles aren't required to reach it? > > The Y-mi (in the adorementiond &T Taanis 4:5 24b) quotes R' Aqiva as > telling R' Yochanan ben Torta "Din hu malka meshikha", an idiom usually > used to refer to a qal vachomer. You're misreading it. It's not "din", it's *dein*. Dein hu malka meshicha, this is the Annointed King. > BTW, where does the Rambam get that "kol chakhmei doro" followed Bar > Koziva? Is there any indication Rabban Gamliel ever did? R Yochanan b > Torta replied (in an oft repeated line) "Aqiva, yaalu asavim belechaikh > ve'adayin ben David lo ba." He was the lone exception, or nearly so. Because *he* held that the miracle of judging by smell *was* required, even at the beginning. The Rambam paskens against him. > : >The Rambam doesn't say so. That's your deduction. It requires assuming > : >that the Rambam agrees with R' Aqiva over what the grounds for presuming > : >(making a chazqah) that someone is moshiach. He doesn't say R' Aqiva is > : >indeed his source. > : > : He explicitly uses him as his source that Moshiach needn't perform > : miracles. How could he do so if his vision of Moshiach's > : qualifications were different from R Akiva's? ... > > R' Aqiva proves that not performing miracles doesn't rule out someone being > the moshiach. He doesn't prove what it takes to actually qualify as being > one. This makes no sense. Either the Rambam agrees with R Akiva's criteria or he doesn't. If he doesn't then how can R Akiva's not requiring miracles prove that they're truly not required? If he was wrong about other criteria, how do we know he was right about this one? No, the fact that the Rambam uses him as proof means the Rambam adopts his view totally, and holds it is the halacha. In Chapter 12 he rules out not miracles but changes in nature. A miracle doesn't change nature, it breaks the rules of nature. Water continues to run downhill, but this water doesn't, not because its nature is different but because it's ignoring nature. That, he says, may or may not happen. Changes in nature won't, because Chazal say so. Chazal are silent on whether Moshiach will perform miracles, so we don't know. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From michaelpoppers at gmail.com Sun Oct 15 19:22:08 2017 From: michaelpoppers at gmail.com (Michael Poppers) Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2017 22:22:08 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] =?utf-8?b?4oCcVGltdHVtIEhhLUxlduKAnSBSZWR1eA==?= Message-ID: In Avodah V35n121, R'Micha wrote: > Tangent: The Gra said that "vehayisa akh sameiach" is the hardest mitzvah in the Torah. "Veyahisa sameiach" is one thing, but "akh sameiach"? To be nothing but happy, with no other moods ambivalently mixed in for 8 days (9 in chu"l) straight? < Tangents to the tangent: (a) Perhaps someone can quote "Ma'asei Rav" or the like, but what I've seen quoted *b'sheim GRA* is that the "ach" *d'rasha* in BT Sukka means that on Shmini Chag haAtzeres we're *b'simcha* with H' w/out any *cheftza shel mitzva*, e.g. see here : Perhaps the answer lies in a comment from the Vilna Gaon on the pasuk of ?v?hayisa ach sameiach.? The Gemara (Succah 48a) derives from this pasuk that Shemini Atzeres is included in the mitzvah of simchah. But the word ach generally limits what is being discussed. What are we limiting with ach sameiach? The Gaon explains that whereas Succos requires many mitzvah objects ? a succah, lulav and esrog, hoshanas ? Shemini Atzeres does not require any physical items. We only need to be sameiach. This is the inherent gift of the last day of the Yom Tov. We can?t take the succah and lulav with us after Yom Tov. But the simchah that comes from dveikus with Hashem requires nothing but ourselves, and it is something we can take along with us. (b) Translating "ach" as "nothing but" doesn't explain the YhK "ach" (P'Emor). (c) Another thought on "v'samachta b'chagecha...v'hayisa ach sameach" is that the latter mandate of *simcha* ("ach" or no "ach") seems superfluous and can be considered as a mandate for the entire year (i.e. not just "b'chagecha"). All the best from *Michael Poppers* * Elizabeth, NJ, USA -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From lisa at starways.net Mon Oct 16 00:51:28 2017 From: lisa at starways.net (Lisa Liel) Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2017 10:51:28 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] eitz hachaim In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <61f0b606-b859-4475-eef8-a10489e74f1c@starways.net> On 10/16/2017 12:41 AM, hankman via Avodah wrote: > What exactly was the eitz hachaim all about. The simple pshat doesn't > make any sense. If the purpose of the Gan was to serve Adam then when > would (could) he make use of the eitz hachaim? Kodem hacheit he was > not a bar misah so he had no need of it, after the cheit he was > prevented from accessing it! So when would it ever be useful to Adam? I don't understand the question. He was prevented from accessing it *because* of the cheit. Had he not sinned, you say he would have had no need for it, but who is to say that its only function was to make him live forever. Maybe that's just the function it has for a bar mitah. Or maybe that was its function, and that's *why* he wasn't a bar mitah. Because the eitz ha-chaim was there, and permissible for him to eat. It was only after he'd eaten from the eitz ha-daat that he could no longer be permitted to live forever. That what eating that did to him made eternal life for him a Bad Thing. Lisa From seinfeld at jsli.org Mon Oct 16 07:02:10 2017 From: seinfeld at jsli.org (Alexander Seinfeld) Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2017 10:02:10 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Zecher Liytzias Mitzrayim and Shmini Atzeres In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: It?s a nice vort but couldn?t you ask the same about Shabbos and Rosh Hashana? Isn?t every Yomtov is a Zecher Yetzias Mitzrayim, not for historical reasons but because Yetzias Mitzrayim is the foundation of our emunah (not Har Sinai)? > >>Rashi (B'midbar 29:35) famously tells us that Shmini Atzeres is a special >>time, with just Hashem and Bnei Yisrael together, alone, with no other >>nations around. I'm merely pointing out that it is not just the nations >>who >>are gone: The lulav is gone. The sukkah is gone. Nothing remains but us >>and >>Hashem, when we left the comfort of the miraculous sukkah, trading it for >>being at home in Eretz Yisrael. >> >>Akiva Miller >> >>Postscript: An easy challenge to this post could be that Tishre 22 was >>NOT >>the day that we crossed from the midbar into Eretz Yisrael. I will >>respond >>in advance by pointing out that Shavuos too is not necessarily celebrated >>on the same day as the event it reminds us of. The Zecher can be poetic >>and >>emotional, and need not be so mathematically rigorous. From micha at aishdas.org Mon Oct 16 11:35:11 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2017 14:35:11 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] R. Akiva, Bar Kochba and Zecharya HaNovi In-Reply-To: References: <5AFE790709AC4B0B9FDDB6A6102B7005@hankPC> <0278980f-97ca-2755-caa3-89461ed64e50@sero.name> <20171011143003.GA21995@aishdas.org> <20171011154231.GA6170@aishdas.org> <0e95d039-c074-ae7f-f3ba-3cee64a3d191@sero.name> <20171011171132.GA1028@aishdas.org> <20171015222126.GB14924@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20171016183511.GA2496@aishdas.org> On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 01:15:48AM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : On 15/10/17 18:21, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: :> On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 10:44:53PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: :>: It conflicts because the Y'mi's version of the story has the :>: Chachamim abandoning BK *before* his fall. The Rambam clearly does :>: not agree with that whole version of the story... :> The Y-mi does not say that R' Aqiva was among those who left early. : The Rambam says that R Akiva *and all the sages of his generation* : imagined BK was Moshiach, *until he was killed*. This is not : consistent with the Y'mi. I see what you mean. Again, it is interesting to find out where the Rambam's alternate picture comes from. Just as his "kol" in "vekhol chakhmei dodo" doesn't seem to be Chazal's picture in either shas. E.g. Sanhedrin 93b, "nechzei anan i moreiach veda'ain..." They were still checking out the validity of BK's claim at the time of his death. :> As I said, there is nothing in the Rambam to rule out them following BK :> out of the expectation that he would eventually get there, rather than his :> being hogeh ve'oseiq bemitzvos already. : Then why can't they also have expected him to eventually do : miracles? How does their belief in him, and his lack of miracles, : prove that Moshiach needn't do any? ... To repeat myself: 11:3 talks about following someone despite a lack of miracles. 12:1-2 talks about the necessary absense of at least a particular kind of miracle -- the start of a new natural order -- if not miracles altogether. If you want to talk about needn't do... then you're looking at R' Aqiva and pereq 11. If you want to talk about won't do... then you're looking at pereq 12 and his assumption of Shemu'el's "ein bein" over Rav's shitah. And the list of things that won't happen is necessarily a subset of things that one needn't wait to happen before following the candidate. Possibly a strict subset, possibly identical sets. :>:> But either way -- whether he or the generation was sinful -- it would :>:> show that BK didn't fit the Rambam's descrition of moshiach. :>: How so? He was righteous, and forced people to keep Torah, but :>: they didn't listen, just like Yoshiyahu. :> "Veyakhof" includes "tried and failed"??? That's not quite what the :> Rambam says. : Yachof means to force, to make it the law of the land, and those who : disobey are punished... You're just repeating the insistance that "vayakhof" could include trying to force people and failing. If the punishments don't actually get the majority observing, is it kefiyah? And we have no evidence or even claim of BK ever even having set up a punishment system. Although this too could be part of the picture the Rambam draws that I don't know the sourece for. After all, as per the above, the picture you get from CHazal is that the Sanhedrin and its enforcement system was *not* behind BK, but the Rambam would have them aligned. ... :> Which he didn't. The Sanhedrin doesn't get reorgonized and put on Har :> haBayis. : The Sanhedrin was already organized. There's no requirement that : they return to Lishkas Hagazis until there *is* one, which he does : eventually have to do, but it comes *after* chezkas Moshiach and : fighting the war, which is the stage he was at. Actually, there is strong evidence he at least started building a BHMQ. And while I suppose they didn't have to move in yet, Anshei Keneses haGedolah moved in to a "lishkah" demarkated by curtains! "Chezqas moshiach" isn't a state in-and-of-itself. It's a chazaqah, a legal presumption, that someone is moshiach. A presumption of a status, not a status. IOW, it is likely that among all of beis David, only the mashiach would be hogeh in Torah and oseif bemitzvos, bring the Jews to observance (minimally: by compulsion) "leileikh bahh ulchazeiq bidqah". And therefore, if we find a member of beis David succeeding at these things, we are obligated to act with the understanding that he is mashiach. Thus, it is meaningless to talk about what happens before or after chezqas mashiach, as though it were a real state change. : Again, a "religious revival" means inspiring people to *want* to : keep mitzvos, which is unrelated to *forcing* them to do so. That's yhour own creative read of what kefiyah means. Forcing or not, it implies actual follow-through. BK didn't risk (and in fact lose) the backing of the majority to get a minority sect to join his support. He didn't get the majority to observe -- or even want to keep mitzvos (as per TSBP). :> Again, this is only a problem for you because you assume that the Rambam's :> chazaqah in 11:4 must be the reason for R' Aqiva and other tannaim :> followed BK. : What else could it be? He goes directly from saying that miracles : are not a requirement to listing what things *are* requirements. : Therefore he must have done those things. Requirements for building a chazaqah that the candidate is indeed moshiach. Which is a measure of confidence in BK the Rambam doesn't claim R' Aqiva and his generation reached -- they only reached as far as "hu hayah omer alav" and "vedimah hu". No mention of a chazaqah they were chayavim to follow; in fact, the lashon ("dimah") implied its lack. Chazaqah isn't imagination; it's a presumption strong enough to obligate our acting upon. : What's weak about it? They must have had a reason for this : imagination. What else but the chazaka? And if they thought he : hadn't yet reached that stage then how do we know miracles aren't : required to reach it? Miracles aren't required. Full stop. 12:1 could even be saying they are ruled out. "What else other than the chazaqah"? Indicators that are short of a chazaqah. Don't we follow umdena, ruba deleisa leqaman, and other notions of likelihood without going as far as having a chazaqah in a lot of halachic topics? : You're misreading it. It's not "din", it's *dein*. Dein hu malka : meshicha, this is the Annointed King. "Hadein hu"? Not that important for the main topic, since dimah isn't an expression I would picture the Rambam using for a mandatory following of a chazaqah. :> BTW, where does the Rambam get that "kol chakhmei doro" followed Bar :> Koziva? Is there any indication Rabban Gamliel ever did? R Yochanan b :> Torta replied (in an oft repeated line) "Aqiva, yaalu asavim belechaikh :> ve'adayin ben David lo ba." : He was the lone exception, or nearly so. Because *he* held that : the miracle of judging by smell *was* required, even at the : beginning. The Rambam paskens against him. That is against the stam bavli (in Sanhedrin 93b, quoted above), which says it's Rabbanan. ... : This makes no sense. Either the Rambam agrees with R Akiva's : criteria or he doesn't... Critria for what? I still find you mixing apples and oranges. He uses R' Aqiva's following of BK despite the lack of a chazaqah as proof that we too shouldn't wait for a miracle before following a likely moshiach. He used Shemu'el's position to rule out miracles (or to be generous, maybe only one kind of miracle) being part of the messianic dream altogether. Very consistent picture, IMHO. : In Chapter 12 he rules out not miracles but changes in nature. A : miracle doesn't change nature, it breaks the rules of nature... It is a bitul of something miminhago shel olam, albeit a temporary one. But I have consistently left open the door to saying he's only talking about a subset of miracles; those that leave the running of things changed. I don't find it likely that the Rambam's "yibatel davar" means only permanent bitul, doubly so since it would be redundant with the next line, "o yihyeh sham chidush bemaaseh bereishis". Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger People were created to be loved. micha at aishdas.org Things were created to be used. http://www.aishdas.org The reason why the world is in chaos is that Fax: (270) 514-1507 things are being loved, people are being used. From cantorwolberg at cox.net Wed Oct 18 06:37:17 2017 From: cantorwolberg at cox.net (Richard Wolberg) Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2017 09:37:17 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Interesting Insight on Noach Message-ID: <36805007-8186-42B4-9042-51439D2BB204@cox.net> It has always bothered me that Noah was considered the only righteous person (along with his family) and that everyone else was evil. However, just today as I was studying various commentaries, I came across the following amazing account in Tanchuma, R?eh, 3. From the moment that God gave the Torah, it is only he who sins that will be punished, though before that, the whole generation was responsible for the sin of the individual. Thus there were many righteous men swept away with the deluge in the time of Noah. Hence, since Noah was the ?most? righteous, he was spared although the other righteous were not, as a consequence of collective guilt at that time. rw Inside each of us, there is the seed of both good and evil. It's a constant struggle as to which one will win. And one cannot exist without the other. Eric Burdon > > ?If you live for people?s acceptance, you will > die from their rejection.? > Anonymous From zev at sero.name Wed Oct 18 07:43:32 2017 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2017 10:43:32 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Interesting Insight on Noach In-Reply-To: <36805007-8186-42B4-9042-51439D2BB204@cox.net> References: <36805007-8186-42B4-9042-51439D2BB204@cox.net> Message-ID: On 18/10/17 09:37, Richard Wolberg via Avodah wrote: > However, just today > as I was studying various commentaries, I came across the following amazing > account in Tanchuma, R?eh, 3. > > From the moment that God gave the Torah, it is only he who sins that will be punished, > though before that, the whole generation was responsible for the sin of the individual. > Thus there were many righteous men swept away with the deluge in the time of Noah. > Hence, since Noah was the ?most? righteous, he was spared although the other righteous > were not, as a consequence of collective guilt at that time. According to R Avin, what was Avraham's argument, "chalila lach"? If that had been Hashem's SOP for the past 2050 years, and would be for another 400, why didn't He just tell Avraham "Yes, this is how I do things"? -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From micha at aishdas.org Wed Oct 18 13:25:27 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2017 16:25:27 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Interesting Insight on Noach In-Reply-To: <36805007-8186-42B4-9042-51439D2BB204@cox.net> References: <36805007-8186-42B4-9042-51439D2BB204@cox.net> Message-ID: <20171018202527.GA27560@aishdas.org> On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 09:37:17AM -0400, Richard Wolberg via Avodah wrote: : ... account in Tanchuma, R?eh, 3: :> From the moment that God gave the Torah, it is only he who sins that will :> be punished, though before that, the whole generation was responsible :> for the sin of the individual. Thus there were many righteous men swept :> away with the deluge in the time of Noah. Hence, since Noah was the :> "most" righteous, he was spared although the other righteous were not, :> as a consequence of collective guilt at that time. The text is available at or The siman opens with quoting Eikhah 3:38, "miPi Elyon lo seitzei hara'os vehatov" and then immediately starts with this statement from R' Avin. However, the quote has that after Matan Torah, whomever sins, "HQBH poreia mimenu", and before that, the whole generation "meshaleim chet'o". Arguably this translation might be missing something by leaving the language of Hashem collecting, as though on a debt. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger One doesn't learn mussar to be a tzaddik, micha at aishdas.org but to become a tzaddik. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yisrael Salanter Fax: (270) 514-1507 From hankman at bell.net Wed Oct 18 08:12:50 2017 From: hankman at bell.net (hankman) Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2017 11:12:50 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] R. Akiva, Bar Kochba and Zecharya HaNovi Message-ID: <7B0712E6569740909873C2AD4F89F435@hankPC> R. Micha Berger wrote: ?This doesn't really rule out miracles, but it does rule out ones that leave a permanent change in the natural orer. There is a line. Which is how he rules out the historicity of "vegar ze'eiv im keves..." etc... They don't mearly "needn't" happen, he rules out the possibility of their literal meaning being part of the future, because they cross his line of olam keminhago noheig".? Kodem cheit Adam haReshon, not just Adam was only permitted to eat plant life but so too was the nature of ALL animals that they too only subsisted from plant life ? ie., much like "vegar ze'eiv im keves..." So perhaps olam keminhago noheig means keminhago KODEM HACHET without requiring any change to the ORIGINAL natural order. Kol tuv Chaim Manaster -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hankman at bell.net Wed Oct 18 08:44:50 2017 From: hankman at bell.net (hankman) Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2017 11:44:50 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] =?utf-8?q?=E2=80=9Cthe_miracle_of_judging_by_smell?= =?utf-8?q?=E2=80=9D_was__=28Re=3A__R=2E_Akiva=2C_Bar_Kochba_and_Ze?= =?utf-8?q?charya_HaNovi=29?= Message-ID: ?the miracle of judging by smell? Really should be a knew thread. When we learned this sugia recently in the daf yomi I asked the magid shiur that lechora this was keneged torah which requires eidim for most judgements. He answered that perhaps it means that one smell from Moshiach would be enough to get the person to be modeh al ha?emes. I replied that would only work for judgments in choshen mishpot (hodoas bal din) but not for cases involving arayos, malkos, or misah where two eidim are required and we are not permitted to accept his confession as ein adam meisim atzmo rasha. How would this ?miracle? allow for a proper halachik judgment? That is where we left it for now. Could this meimre of chazal be limited to just cases involving choshen mishpot? I imagine many meforshim address this issue, can anyone clarify? Kol tuv Chaim Manaster -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From JRich at sibson.com Wed Oct 18 08:48:56 2017 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2017 15:48:56 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Shliach Tzibbur Message-ID: <5b1d039d5958444d94f6c90a4607ee17@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> The S"A in O"C 53 discusses what to look for in a Shliach Tzibbur. We seem to not fully actualize these recommendations (rationalizations include the fact that he is no longer being motzi those who can't pray). Do you think this result is sociological or halachic driven? Does an individual (e.g., avel) who pushes to be a shatz, etc., when there are more qualified individuals (or especially if they are not qualified), accomplish more good or bad? See especially Aruch Hashulchan 53:5. KT 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: From micha at aishdas.org Wed Oct 18 14:25:50 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2017 17:25:50 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] R. Akiva, Bar Kochba and Zecharya HaNovi In-Reply-To: <7B0712E6569740909873C2AD4F89F435@hankPC> References: <7B0712E6569740909873C2AD4F89F435@hankPC> Message-ID: <20171018212550.GB27560@aishdas.org> On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 11:12:50AM -0400, hankman via Avodah wrote: : R. Micha Berger wrote: :> This doesn't really rule out miracles, but it does rule out ones that :> leave a permanent change in the natural order. There is a line. Which is :> how he rules out the historicity of "vegar ze'eiv im keves..." etc... ... : Kodem cheit Adam haReshon, not just Adam was only permitted to eat plant : life but so too was the nature of ALL animals that they too only subsisted : from plant life -- ie., much like "vegar ze'eiv im keves..." I doubt the Rambam, the "he" I am trying to understand in the text you quoted, would agree with this premise about animals before the eitz hada'as. On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 11:44:50AM -0400, hankman via Avodah wrote: :> the miracle of judging by smell : Really should be a new thread. : When we learned this sugia recently in the daf yomi I asked the magid : shiur that lechora this was keneged torah which requires eidim for : most judgements. He answered that perhaps it means that one smell from : Moshiach would be enough to get the person to be modeh al ha'emes.... I think it HAS to be be its own thread, because this too works with assumptions the Rambam would not agree with. Odds are the Rambam wouldn't take "demorach" literally. See Lecham Yehudah on Hil' Melakhim 11:3, aveilable at . But to get back on topic to the original thread (which is why I'm posting it here): Notice that the BLY (R Yehudah Iyash, Levorno mid-18th cent) assumes that such guilt-smelling would defy the Rambam's "chidush bema'aseh bereishis" rule, and thus couldn't be literal. Even though it's a localized miracle / revelation and not a permanent change in the natural order. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Every child comes with the message micha at aishdas.org that God is not yet discouraged with http://www.aishdas.org humanity. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rabindranath Tagore From jmeisner at mail.gmail.com Wed Oct 18 15:38:14 2017 From: jmeisner at mail.gmail.com (Joshua Meisner) Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2017 18:38:14 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] "the miracle of judging by smell" was (Re: R. Akiva, Bar Kochba and Zecharya HaNovi) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7C3544D0-F571-4A7C-B067-FDC0308CBD65@gmail.com> On Oct 18, 2017, at 11:44am, hankman wrote: > When we learned this sugia recently in the daf yomi I asked the magid > shiur that lechora this was keneged torah which requires eidim for > most judgements. He answered that perhaps it means that one smell from > Moshiach would be enough to get the person to be modeh al ha'emes. I > replied that would only work for judgments in choshen mishpot (hodoas > bal din) but not for cases involving arayos, malkos, or misah where two > eidim are required and we are not permitted to accept his confession as > ein adam meisim atzmo rasha... Reaching a correct psak in any area of halacha requires obtaining a full picture of the situation, including all relevant details and the particular context. This requires that the posek have skill in asking questions that will clarify these points and recognizing when, intentionally or not, the answers he is receiving do not reflect the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Perhaps it is this sense that the navi is referring to. Joshua Meisner From hankman at bell.net Wed Oct 18 15:58:01 2017 From: hankman at bell.net (hankman) Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2017 18:58:01 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] =?utf-8?q?=E2=80=9Cthe_miracle_of_judging_by_smell?= =?utf-8?q?=E2=80=9D_was__=28Re=3A__R=2E_Akiva=2C_Bar_Kochba_and_Ze?= =?utf-8?q?charya_HaNovi=29?= Message-ID: <83ADB68D660C4A8BA5E0F3D19339FF76@hankPC> R. J. Meisner wrote: ? Reaching a correct psak in any area of halacha requires obtaining a full picture of the situation, including all relevant details and the particular context. This requires that the posek have skill in asking questions that will clarify these points and recognizing when, intentionally or not, the answers he is receiving do not reflect the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Perhaps it is this sense that the navi is referring to. Joshua Meisner? But no matter how skilled the judge is at getting at the truth, even if all he need so is be moreiach, this still does not lessen the requirement of 2 eidim for many judgments. While reading your response to me, another thought occurred to me and upon reflection it may be that this is also what you meant. Perhaps when the gemara stated that he can be moreaiach veda?in that the gemara meant not that he would only need to question the defendant, and could smell whether he is guilty or not and pasken based on the surety of his conclusion, but perhaps the gemara meant that when questioning the EIDIM he was able merely smell them and then judge the credibility of the eidim whether he should accept them as credible or not and thus pasken the case accordingly. Kol tuv Chaim Manaster -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hankman at bell.net Wed Oct 18 15:44:42 2017 From: hankman at bell.net (hankman) Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2017 18:44:42 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] R. Akiva, Bar Kochba and Zecharya HaNovi Message-ID: <36062433D0904BE5ABD5156C727C7A6D@hankPC> R. Micha Berger wrote: ?I doubt the Rambam, the "he" I am trying to understand in the text you quoted, would agree with this premise about animals before the eitz hada'as.? So how does the Rambam explain Bereishis 1:30? Kol tuv Chaim Manaster -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From akivagmiller at gmail.com Thu Oct 19 02:47:09 2017 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2017 05:47:09 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Torah precheit? Message-ID: . R' Chaim Manaster asked: > I have been trying to understand what the geshtalt of Torah > was precheit of the eitz hadaas. It could not have resembled > anything that we ( I ) would recognize today. Consider: > There was but one mitzva. Most if not all the mitzvos of the > Torah we are familiar with could not have existed, at least > as we understand them today. Had Adam been successful in his > one day tafkid the purpose of the bria would have been > accomplished and Adam (mankind) would have gone to olom haba > ? mission accomplished nothing more to follow but for reward > in olom haba. > > The many consequences seem to be as follows: there would be > no avdus in Mitzrayim, therefore no ... ... One can ask similar questions about other turning-points in history. What if Kayin had not killed Hevel? What if the world has not gone to Avodah Zara a few generations later? What if Yishmael and/or Esav had not gone of the derech? What if Moshe Rabenu had acted differently by the rock? I believe that people are too hung up on the idea that "Torah" and the Chumash are identical. They are not. "The Torah has 70 faces", and ONE of them is the written scroll that we read from in shul. Another is the Torah Sheb'al Peh. Another was that one singular mitzvah that Adam HaRishon was given. None is less holy than any other. They are but different facets of the same diamond. And there are yet others. Torah manifests itself differently to a kohen than to a levi, and differently to a woman than to a man. And so on. For example: > As there would never be an Eretz Yisroel, then there would not > be all the mitzvot hateltuot ba?aretz ? trumos, masros etc., etc. Or perhaps Gan Eden would have had that status. Eretz Yisrael is actually a great example: Consider the idea that true nevuah can exist only in Eretz Yisrael. But also consider that this restriction only started when EY got its kedushah - prior to that point one could have nevuah elsewhere too. Logically, I would think that the kedusha of EY enabled this thing that couldn't exist without such intense kedusha; but counter-intuitively, this thing that has long existed is now suddenly restricted to a specific area. Because times change, and people change; the Torah stays the same but it shows a different face. We are so used to how things are today, that we think things have always been this way. But it ain't so. > So what is the nature of Torah in such a world. How do we > see it as an ever constant ever present and unchanging > Torah? How does a Torah with but ONE mitzva look? How does > it still identify with a Torah with 613 mitzvot? There are many mitzvos that apply only at specifc times and under specific circumstances. Consider the back-and-forth of when bamos were allowed and not allowed. We went for quite a few centuries with choosing a human king. I am deliberately trying to avoid mitzvos that have sociological criteria, like the existence of a Sanhedrin, or whether or not we are capable of tochacha. Rather, my point goes to this "Torah with 613 mitzvot" that you refer to. It doesn't exist today, and I don't know if it ever has existed. There has certainly never been a person to whom they all applied, and I wonder whether there was ever a generation when they were all in force. > Sorry if my thoughts were very rambling. I just typed as > things came to mind ? maybe not always a good idea! On the contrary, brainstorming is often a fruitful way of developing new thoughts! Personally, it was many decades ago that someone asked me, "If there is life on other planets, might they possibly have a Torah? But Mitzrayim doesn't exist there, and Moshe never lived there!" That question bothered me for a very long time, until I realized that even on *this* planet, Noach had his version of Torah, and that was centuries before Mitzrayim or Moshe came to be. (To conflate two threads, I think what I'm saying here is very similar to what R"n Lisa Liel wrote in the "eitz hachaim" thread. These things aren't static; their roles change to fit the situation.) Akiva Miller From zev at sero.name Wed Oct 18 20:54:50 2017 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2017 23:54:50 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] =?utf-8?q?=E2=80=9Cthe_miracle_of_judging_by_smell?= =?utf-8?q?=E2=80=9D_was_=28Re=3A_R=2E_Akiva=2C_Bar_Kochba_and_Zecharya_Ha?= =?utf-8?q?Novi=29?= In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <209038db-6620-b1cf-4e52-1b093803ac7d@sero.name> On 18/10/17 11:44, hankman via Avodah wrote: > ?the miracle of judging by smell? > Really should be a knew thread. > When we learned this sugia recently in the daf yomi I asked the magid > shiur that lechora this was keneged torah which requires eidim for most > judgements. Moshiach is a melech, and not bound by the rules of a beis din. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From micha at aishdas.org Wed Oct 18 19:40:28 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2017 22:40:28 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] R. Akiva, Bar Kochba and Zecharya HaNovi In-Reply-To: <36062433D0904BE5ABD5156C727C7A6D@hankPC> References: <36062433D0904BE5ABD5156C727C7A6D@hankPC> Message-ID: <20171019024028.GB20212@aishdas.org> On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 06:44:42PM -0400, hankman via Avodah wrote: : R. Micha Berger wrote: :> I doubt the Rambam, the "he" I am trying to understand in the text :> you quoted, would agree with this premise about animals before the :> eitz hada'as. : So how does the Rambam explain Bereishis 1:30? Well, if you look at Moreh 1:30, you'll see that the Rambam considers maaseh bereishis to be atemporal, 6 logical stages of unfolding of reality, not steps separated in time. So I don't know if I should assume anything about how he reads pasuq 30. But I do note that if taken literally, the pasuq merely says that Hashem gave the plants to the animals for food. A statement about one of the functions of plantsl and that Adam can't hord all the plants for himself, since animals need it too. It needn't mean that only plants served a food. The statement from Chazal (quoted by Rashi) is a derashah. The Ohr haChaim spends time justifying it, if you want to see the medrashic steps in detail. But it's not peshat, and therefore not necessarily the Rambam would take literally. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger There's only one corner of the universe micha at aishdas.org you can be certain of improving, http://www.aishdas.org and that's your own self. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Aldous Huxley From zev at sero.name Wed Oct 18 21:51:32 2017 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2017 00:51:32 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Interesting Insight on Noach In-Reply-To: <2E736CF9-84CD-41DB-9963-8E38B681DC20@cox.net> References: <36805007-8186-42B4-9042-51439D2BB204@cox.net> <2E736CF9-84CD-41DB-9963-8E38B681DC20@cox.net> Message-ID: <18439702-d4ae-0f50-3350-a8b5cd433fb5@sero.name> On 18/10/17 11:09, Richard Wolberg wrote: > What I?m saying is that our theology is fraught with inconsistencies and > contradictions > and we have plenty of ?teikusl? ?You?re a black and white person and > don?t see shades. > Not everything can be reconciled. Impossible. Toras Hashem Temima, and can't contradict itself. If there are two pesukim that seem to contradict each other, there's a third pasuk that resolves it and makes sense of both. It's not possible that R Avin was unaware of Avraham's statement, nor is it possible that he would dismiss Avraham's view as mistaken. Therefore there must be something in R Avin's view that's not what it appears. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From JRich at sibson.com Fri Oct 20 05:37:21 2017 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2017 12:37:21 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] empiricism Message-ID: <17851b0cb6514f5a8fac7543e7d86493@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Rabbi Jason Weiner's, "Jewish Guide to Practical Medical Decision-Making" - "The Talmudic sages performed post-mortem examinations and had considerable knowledge of anatomy and pathology. Indeed, the rabbis of the Talmud were among the first people in history to operate on corpses in order to learn medical information that had halakhic ramifications. See Tosefta Niddah 4:17, Niddah 30b, bekhorot 45A . . ". Wiki s- Initially, the Ancient Greek philosophers did not believe in empiricism, and saw measurements, such as geometry, as the domain of craftsmen and artisans. Philosophers, such as Plato, believed that all knowledge could be obtained through pure reasoning, and that there was no need to actually go out and measure anything. Please look at the three sources quoted by R'Weiner, are they support or really maaseh lstormaaseh l'stor as to a general approach? Kt 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: From emteitz at gmail.com Fri Oct 20 14:49:21 2017 From: emteitz at gmail.com (elazar teitz) Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2017 17:49:21 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] the miracle of judging by smell Message-ID: On this topic, the comment was made that "Moshiach is a melech, and not bound by the rules of a beis din." However, other than moreid b'malchus, this is only true for r'tzicha, not other capital punishment cases, as is indicated in Rambam Hilchos M'lachim 3:10 (as it is understood by most m'farshim). EMT -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From isaac at balb.in Sat Oct 21 04:07:43 2017 From: isaac at balb.in (Isaac Balbin) Date: Sat, 21 Oct 2017 11:07:43 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] ?the miracle of judging by smell? was (Re: R. Akiva, Bar Kochba and Zecharya HaNovi) Message-ID: From: Zev Sero > > On 18/10/17 11:44, hankman via Avodah wrote: >> When we learned this sugia recently in the daf yomi I asked the magid >> shiur that lechora this was keneged torah which requires eidim for most >> judgements. Zev responded > Moshiach is a melech, and not bound by the rules of a beis din. Indeed. His position therefore also invalidates Moshiach from being a formal witness, although that's clearly not for trust/smell issues. From micha at aishdas.org Sun Oct 22 07:20:34 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2017 10:20:34 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Long Lifespans in Bereishis Message-ID: <20171022142033.GA669@aishdas.org> Our old chaver R' Rich Wolpoe posted this article by R/Dr Mitchell First. It's a nice survey of opinions about all those long lifespans in seifer Bereishis : NishmaBlog From RRW Guest Blogger: Mitchell First Thursday, 19 October 2017 The Long Lifespans in Genesis The Longevity of the Ancients Recorded in Genesis ... Josephus (late 1st century). Here is his statement in Antiquities, book I: " ...For, in the first place, they were beloved of God and the creatures of God himself; their diet too was more conducive to longevity: it was then natural that they should live so long. Again, alike for their merits and to promote the utility of their discoveries in astronomy and geometry, God would accord them a longer life...." Now I will survey the views of our Geonim and Rishonim. R. Saadiah Gaon (10th cent.) discusses this issue in his introduction to Tehillim. He writes that the longevity of these early generations was part of God's plan for the rapid proliferation of mankind on the earth..... R. Yehudah Ha-Levi (12th cent.) discusses the issue in the Kuzari (sec. 95). He believes that it was only the individuals listed who lived long. Each of the individuals listed was the heart and essence of his generation and was physically and spiritually perfect. The Divine Flow was transmitted from one generation to another through these exceptional individuals. Rambam, in a famous passage in the Guide to the Perplexed (II, chap. 47) writes: "I say that only the persons named lived so long, whilst other people enjoyed the ordinary length of life. The men named were exceptions, either in consequence of different causes, as e.g., their food or mode of living, or by way of miracle." Ramban (comm. to Gen. 5:4) quotes Rambam's view and then disagrees, ... individuals with long lifespans named in the Bible were not exceptional in their lifespans. Rather, the entire world had long lifespans before the Flood. But after the Flood, the world atmosphere changed and this caused the gradual reduction in lifespans. Most of the Rishonim who discussed the issue thereafter followed the approach of either the Rambam or the Ramban. Either way, they were taking the Genesis lifespan numbers literally. (An underlying factor that motivated Rishonim to accept the Genesis lifespan numbers literally was that the count from creation was calculated based on these numbers.) Josephus had mentioned that one of the reasons that God allowed their longevity was to promote the utility of their discoveries in astronomy and geometry. This idea of longevity to enable the acquisition of knowledge and make discoveries (and write them to be passed down) is also included in several of our Rishonim. See, e.g., the commentary of the Radak to Gen. 5:4 and of the Ralbag to Gen. chap. 5 (p. 136), and the Rashbatz (R. Shimon b. Tzemach Duran, Magen Avot, comm. to Avot 5:21). Rashbatz also mentions the idea that the early generations were close in time to Adam and Adam ... was made by God from the earth.... Another idea found in some of our Rishonim is that those early individuals did not chase after "ta'avat ha-guf," which reduces the lifespan. See, e.g., the commentary of the Radak to Gen. 5:4. ... ... R. Moses Ibn Tibbon (late 13th cent.) He suggests that the years given for people's lives were actually the years of "malkhutam ve-nimuseihim," i.e., the dynasties and/or customs that they established. ... R. Levi ben Hayyim (early 14th cent.).... concludes that in his opinion the names mentioned were just roshei avot. In other words, the number of years given for each individual reflects the total of the years of the several generations of individuals named for that first individual. R. Nissim of Marseilles (early 14th century) ... took the same approach as R. Moses Ibn Tibbon. The numbers ... included the total years of the descendants who followed his customs and lifestyle. The most interesting approach I saw was that of R. Eleazar Ashkenazi ben Nathan ha-Bavli (14th century), in his work Tzafnat Paneach, pp. 29-30. ... First, R. Eleazar refers to the view that perhaps the individual numbers were not to be taken literally, and points to other statements in the Torah that were not meant to be taken literally, e.g., 1) the Land of Israel was "flowing with milk and honey," and 2) the cities in Canaan were "fortified up to the Heaven" (Deut. 1:28). (See further Moreh Nevuchim, II,47.) But then R. Eleazar suggests the following creative approach. In listing these individual numbers, the Torah was merely recording the legends about these figures, even though they were not accurate. The important thing was to provide data from which the total years from Creation to Matan Torah could be derived, so that the people would be able to know the length of time between these two periods. Even though the numbers for the individual lifespans were not accurate, the Torah made sure that the total that would be arrived at would be accurate.... ... Prof. Natan Aviezer of Bar-Ilan University.... in a post at the Bar Ilan University weekly parshah site for parshat Noach, 1998... explains that modern science has figured out that aging is largely caused by genes, and not by a wearing out of our bodies. He then suggests that when God stated at Gen. 6:3 that man would be limited to 120 years, this was when God first introduced the gene for aging into the human gene pool. If you have not found any of the above answers satisfying, I have some good news. R. Saadiah Gaon writes (Emunot Ve-Deot, end of chap. 7) that in the era of the redemption the human lifespan will be approximately 500 years. Presumably, at that time we won't be bothered by those long lifespans in Genesis anymore! (Note that Radak, comm. to Is. 65:20, is a bit stingier. He predicts lifespans of only 300 to 500 years. See also his commentary to Ps. 92:15. But the 12th century Babylonian Gaon R. Samuel b. Ali predicts lifespans closer to 1000 years!) I would like to acknowledge that most of the material above came from an article by Prof. Daniel Lasker of Ben-Gurion University, in Mechkarim Be-Halakha U-Be-Mishpat Ha-Ivri, vol. 26-27 (2009-10). Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger I slept and dreamt that life was joy. micha at aishdas.org I awoke and found that life was duty. http://www.aishdas.org I worked and, behold -- duty is joy. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rabindranath Tagore From micha at aishdas.org Sun Oct 22 09:13:16 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2017 12:13:16 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Beris Milah on Shabbos when Father isn't Jewish Message-ID: <20171022161316.GA32328@aishdas.org> I mentioned in the past I had this question halakhah lemaaseh. I knew of an intermarried couple who lived nowhere near the nearest Jewish community. They would have just had the boy circumcized in the hospital rather than to pay what one of the nearer mohalim wanted to come down for the weekend. Yes, the nearest Chabad house had a mohel, who (of course) would come at cost... IFF he hadn't had a beris in his own minhan that same Shabbos. So the question I asked was whether I should donate (or raise donations) for the beris to be bizmano. My LOR asked his rav... long story short, as I best remember at a little more than two decades later: The pasuq says "bayom hashemini yimol besar arlaso" -- it's the father who is told "on the eight day", even if it's on Shabbos. Implied: If the father has no chiyuv, such as our case or if r"l the father didn't survive to see his son's beris, there is no one whose chiyuv overrides Shabbos. (If the father is alive but not there, you'd still violate Shabbos.) Well, someone asked R' Asher Weiss. . He didn't rule the same way, but does mention that is -- or at least was -- a machloqes amoraim. However, RAW holds a consensus has emerged to do the beris. Perhaps RDC didn't think the consensus was solid enough to warrant my spending or raising that kind of money for someone else's beris. Or perhaps it was closer to the way I remembered it and RDC doesn't agree with how the consensus emerged. Brit mila on Shabbos when father is non Jew Posted by: Rabbi Akiva Dershowitz Question: Does everyone agree that a brit is done on Shabbat even if the father is a goy? ... Answer: No, this is a dispute among the achronim [halachic authorities of the last 500 years]. The halachic ruling is that we do in fact perform the bris mila on Shabbos. See Derisha Y:D 266:20, Nachalas Shiva [kuntress hamila siman 1], Shu't Binyan Tzion [Vol. 1:21]. The nearest I could find in Hebrew (as the Hebrew always has more discussion) is "Beris beShabbos leVen Me'uberes sheNisgayrah" at . There the question is whether the velad's milah is a normal beris or lesheim geirus, and RAW still holds the milah should be on Shabbos. It's a fun sugya, worth a read. But doesn't focus on our question. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger You cannot propel yourself forward micha at aishdas.org by patting yourself on the back. http://www.aishdas.org -Anonymous Fax: (270) 514-1507 From hankman at bell.net Sun Oct 22 13:15:49 2017 From: hankman at bell.net (hankman) Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2017 16:15:49 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Torah precheit? Message-ID: <39266980A1C24F078B1904F1783BA1C0@hankPC> R. Akiva Miller wrote: ?One can ask similar questions about other turning-points in history. What if Kayin had not killed Hevel? What if the world has not gone to Avodah Zara a few generations later? What if Yishmael and/or Esav had not gone of the derech? What if Moshe Rabenu had acted differently by the rock?? Actually I had thoughts along similar lines that you express. The most prominent such turning point was the cheit ha?eigel, where again, had they succeeded, that again would have been the end for man?s tafkid and correction the cheit of Adam, direct route to eretz Yisroel, no forty years in the midbar and presumably Moshe R. would have been the final moshiach and on to the final gemul. The reason these two stick in my mind more than the other forks in history you point to, is that these would have been endpoints to the tafkid in this world and led directly to olom haba with no continuation of the ?Torah? story we are familiar with. The moments in history you point to would have been forks in the road but not endpoints. So if say Esau/Yishmoel had made good choices and been more like his brother Yaakov/Yitzchok, the story would have had a different twist to it, but the overall gestalt to the Torah could still have been quite similar. What we have now, with some changes. But we would have no problem imagining all (perhaps most) of the mitzvos as we know them. These two, cheit of Adam and cheit ha?eigel, were fundamentally different than the other ?forks? in the road as what we know to have followed would never happen. So Regalim, and avdus in Mitzrayim, etc, etc are ideas that seem not to have a place in such a reality had Adam succeeded while the other forks would have led to a variation on a theme we are familiar with and can at least readily imagine. The idea you mention of ?70 panim latorah? would have to be expanded greatly if for every fork on the possible choices made in the biblical period (by this I mean the time through the end of the forty years bamidbar that were recorded in chumash). If every possible choice made at every fork (say N) resulted in a diff version of Torah, then that would result in 2 to the N panim laTorah ? with N being very large! Perhaps 70 is just a synonym for ?many?? When we say that there are 70 umos, I always wondered how that was defined, as it seems to me that there are many more and that the number would change for different periods in history. If 70 here too means ?many? that would clear that up. But then the precise number of 70 for the parei hachag might be a problem unless for some reason that may have been fixed symbolically, or perhaps to coincide with the original number at some early point in history as say per the list of the 70 nations Art Scroll makes in its chumash at the end of this weeks parsha (Noach). Basically it is a listing of certain of the names of descendants of Noach. Have you ever heard of a nation called Ever (or most of the other names they list)? So is the ?essence? of Torah something beyond our ken. Is all we can see just a single facet of the 70 panim laTorah? (This of course is not the normal meaning to 70 panim laTorah, which usually is applied to differing explanations to our ?current? Torah, and not the other ?possible? ?Toros? as you are suggesting. Is this so far off the beaten path that this might even be an accidental trip into thought that might be apikursus or a credible notion within the daas? (Torah lo yehai moochlefes). I have no idea! R. Akiva Miller wrote: ?Torah manifests itself differently to a kohen than to a levi, and differently to a woman than to a man.? There is a fundamental difference between a mitzvoh only applying to some vs the concept not existing. Even if I am a Yisroel I can still be oseik in torah of the mitvos of a cohen ? it is still a part of Torah given to all of us even if not all of it pertains to me. R. Akiva Miller wrote: ?Or perhaps Gan Eden would have had that status.? I actually had a thought similar to yours as well on this idea. When I thought a little more about it, I had difficulty putting it all together. so what kind of meaning would trummos and massros have. What would orlo mean. Without aniyim, what is the point of leket shichacha upei?a? (or tzedaka in general, or even more broadly of gemila chasadim in such a world?) The mitzvos hatelyuous ba?aretz only make sense in an agricultural society, not in a world of olam haba where there are no farmers or farms. No need for orei miklat in a world without a yetzer. On another thought, would the notion of baal tigra in the world of only one mitzva leave you with no mitvos at all? That would make one a kofer bekol haTorah koola? Also there would be no need for lo tassur yamin usemol for gezeirot derabanan in such a world (though perhaps it might have stopped Chava if such a takana existed to protect the only mitzvoh they had). R. Akiva Miller wrote: ?"If there is life on other planets, might they possibly have a Torah? But Mitzrayim doesn't exist there, and Moshe never lived there!" That question bothered me for a very long time,? Strangely enough, I had similar thoughts years back. As a young bachur in yeshivo, my rebbi was teaching us that their was a period during which the progenitor of kelal Yisroel would happen. I asked what would have happened if there had been another deep thinker who came to the same realization and belief that Avraham did. He answered that there would have been two (or more) chosen peoples to eventually be mekabel Torah. It didn?t occur to me at the time to ask, would they each have the ?same? Torah or each get a tailored version to their (eventual) am? Or, would there be one Torah that talks of both of the chosen peoples? Years later when discussing what is the purpose to us of the trillions of stars and galaxies so distant that they could never possibly affect us here on Earth? Then it occurred to me, what if those stars had planets with intelligent beings on them and they too went through a similar period wherein they too had some allien being come to the same conclusions as Avraham did and they then became the chosen people of that planet and received a Torah possibly tailored to their experiences and appropriate there etc.? This almost makes sense of the questions the malachim asked Moshe when he went lamorom to accept Torah. They too wanted Torah in a version suitable to them which would deflect all of Moshe?s responses. If memory serves, I think some meforshim try to make sense of the malachim in such a manner. Just some more rambling thoughts. Kol tuv Chaim Manaster -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hankman at bell.net Sun Oct 22 23:25:10 2017 From: hankman at bell.net (hankman) Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2017 02:25:10 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] =?utf-8?q?=E2=80=9Cthe_miracle_of_judging_by_smell?= =?utf-8?q?=E2=80=9D_was_=28Re=3A_R=2E_Akiva=2C_Bar_Kochba_and_Zech?= =?utf-8?q?arya_HaNovi=29?= Message-ID: <7D7387F31006477FA724C733A37A100B@hankPC> R. Zev Sero wrote: ?Moshiach is a melech, and not bound by the rules of a beis din.? You are obviously referring to Rambam, Melachim P. 3: 8, 10. However this refers to judgments that are within the scope of the Melech such as a moreid, or letakein ha?olom kefi ma shehasho?o tzricha. This does not however give him the right to usurp ordinary judgments that normally would fall to a beis din (and disregard such niceties as eidus that the Torah requires), unless he is the av beis din (possible for malchei beis Dovid) and does follow the rules of Torah for eidus like any other beis din and does not simply follow his nose in these judgments. Furthermore, in the category of cases like moreid and shehasho?o tzricha, all the Melech needs to do is simply assert his position as he feels correct for ANY Melech ? he does not even need the power of moreiach veda?in to prove his position. So mimonafshoch, in either case he either may not, or has no need of the power to be moreiach veda?in. Kol tuv Chaim Manaster -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Mon Oct 23 13:16:56 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2017 16:16:56 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] =?cp1255?q?=93the_miracle_of_judging_by_smell=94_was_?= =?cp1255?q?=28Re=3A_R=2E_Akiva=2C_Bar_Kochba_and_Zecharya_HaNovi=29?= In-Reply-To: <7D7387F31006477FA724C733A37A100B@hankPC> References: <7D7387F31006477FA724C733A37A100B@hankPC> Message-ID: <20171023201656.GA13749@aishdas.org> On Mon, Oct 23, 2017 at 02:25:10AM -0400, hankman via Avodah wrote: : . Furthermore, : in the category of cases like moreid and shehasho'o tzricha, all the : Melech needs to do is simply assert his position as he feels correct : for ANY Melech -- he does not even need the power of moreiach veda'in to : prove his position. So mimonafshoch, in either case he either may not, : or has no need of the power to be moreiach veda'in. If I understood the Rambam this way: It would be good to have a king who knows with certainty which dinim need shoring up because he can smell that their violation is rampant. Or, in determining the convicted's guilt: Let's say some sin became common place, and hasha'ah zerikhah that the king enforce a capital punishment for it. But say I understand him as per REMT's post, noting that in 3:10 the Rambam singles out the king's power to kill murderers (eg without hasda'ah, where there was only eid echad, etc...) -- implying that retzichah yes, other issurim, the king could not. (Mikelal lav...) 3:8 really only discussed rebellion and lesse majeste (moreid bemekeh and mevazeh es hamelekh o hamchorfo). I don't see hasha'ah tzeikhah in the Rambam; I'm taking your word for it. Still, I can ask the parallel question: Wouldn't if be far far better if the melekh hamashiach had a supernal ability to know who is really guilty, and not kill the wrong guy? He might not legally need the power, but it would be a good thing for a king to have in order to be effective and fair. So I'm not sure your argument holds. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Every child comes with the message micha at aishdas.org that God is not yet discouraged with http://www.aishdas.org humanity. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rabindranath Tagore From micha at aishdas.org Mon Oct 23 18:51:25 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2017 21:51:25 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] No Barrier Between Religion and Science Message-ID: <20171024015125.GA13043@aishdas.org> See this article on Real Clear Science or http://www.realclearscience.com/articles/2017/10/16/philosophy_rebuts_key_barrier_between_science_and_religion_110422.htmlh Here is Mosaic Magazine's snippet: Kuhn's [argument] is that students learn first by imitation and practice and -- assuming they receive a good education -- once they strike out on their own, they will have been successfully inculcated into a particular scientific tradition. They will thus be prepared to recognize, pose, and solve scientific problems. If we take tradition to be antithetical to scientific rationality, Kuhn's conclusions will appear disquieting. And, indeed, Kuhn's critics rejected his arguments as "irrationalist." But if, on the contrary, we take tradition to be essential to rationality, then Kuhn's conclusions will be not only acceptable but also unsurprising. According to the moral philosopher Alasdair MacIntyre, before we can begin to reason at all, we must first acquire the habits necessary to recognize and, ultimately, to replicate rational behavior. To do so, there must first be exemplars that we take to be authoritative -- in the moral domain these will be exceptionally virtuous people, in the scientific domain, exceptionally good scientists. To become rational, in other words, one must be educated within a tradition of inquiry. Science, on this view, is not Cartesian -- at least as far as [the rejection of received ideas] is concerned -- even if it remains eminently rational. Where does this leave us?... [T]he fact that religious beliefs are not entirely reducible to empirical experience and partly depend upon tradition doesn't make them irrational or even anti-scientific. Thus a popular way of opposing science and religion starts to look untenable. This hardly means the two become indistinguishable. But it does suggest that science and religion could be conceived of as distinct -- but possibly harmonious, even sometimes mutually beneficial -- traditions of rational inquiry. The truth is that science has little to say about where a hypothesis come from. It gives little guidance for deciding what features are worth observing, what we should give our attention to. And once we see a pattern that needs explanation, it is left to human creativity to come up with a hypothesis. Science is a means of weeding out subjectivity from possible answers, but the means of coming up with those answers are very human. In particular, the entire enteprise of science rests on a tradition of theism -- whether the personal beliefs of an Aristotle or Newton, or the culture that produced an Einstein. Without a personal reason for assuming that the universe opperates reasonably, rather than attributing lightning to Thor's or Zeus's moods, can that hypothesis invention get started. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Good decisions come from experience; micha at aishdas.org Experience comes from bad decisions. http://www.aishdas.org - Djoha, from a Sepharadi fable Fax: (270) 514-1507 From hankman at bell.net Mon Oct 23 20:57:36 2017 From: hankman at bell.net (hankman) Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2017 23:57:36 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] "the miracle of judging by smell" was (Re: R. Akiva, Bar Kochba and Zecharya HaNovi) In-Reply-To: <20171023201656.GA13749@aishdas.org> References: <7D7387F31006477FA724C733A37A100B@hankPC> <20171023201656.GA13749@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <7FA394F42CCE44ECBB668DFA42362B96@hankPC> From: Micha Berger Sent: Monday, October 23, 2017 4:16 PM > But say I understand him as per REMT's post, noting that in 3:10 the > Rambam singles out the king's power to kill murderers (eg without > hasda'ah, where there was only eid echad, etc...) -- implying that > retzichah yes, other issurim, the king could not. (Mikelal lav...) > 3:8 really only discussed rebellion and lesse majeste (moreid bemekeh > and mevazeh es hamelekh o hamchorfo). I don't see hasha'ah tzeikhah in > the Rambam; I'm taking your word for it. Still, I can ask the parallel > question: > Wouldn't if be far far better if the melekh hamashiach had a supernal > ability to know who is really guilty, and not kill the wrong guy? > He might not legally need the power, but it would be a good thing for a > king to have in order to be effective and fair. My own initial impression unlike REMT is that the Rambam in 3:10 was not limiting this to only rotzeach, but dealing with case of max punishment or similar punishment and kal vechomer for cases of lesser punishment, however on rereading the Rambam after reading REMT I can see his point of view, but I am not sure I am fully convinced. I did a quick look around and found that the Or Sameiach on the Rambam at 3:10 has a long discussion on this issue as to whether the melech only has this power for a rotzeach where it is a danger to the rabim but not to enforce laxity of bein adam lamokom such as dinei shabbos, or if there was a breach even in these other areas whether the melech could act extra judicially there as well. There is a reference to a Y. Sanhedrin that implies that Dovid hamelech wold have executed for mishkav behama al pi eid echod -- so not just rotzeiach. See also the Rambam H. Rotzeiach P 2:4-5 where he broadens this extra judicial power to beis din as well but under horoas sha'o rather than takonas olam. (Not sure if the different label implies a difference in the respective extra judicial powers or not). See the Kesef Mishna there who mentions a case of chilul Shabbos. My simple reading there is that the Rambam seem to equate the reach of the extra judicial power of b"d to that of the melech to punish when found necessary either due to horo'as shao or takonas olam respectively. (Not clear to me if the different reasons lead to a different scope or not). But it seems that yeish lekan veyeish lekan. I hear your point about moreiach being a good reassurance that his pesak is correct even if not really necessary to render his judgment. Kol tuv Chaim Manaster From micha at aishdas.org Tue Oct 24 06:38:55 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2017 09:38:55 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Psak source wanted In-Reply-To: <1857240052.122258.1508054451353@mail.yahoo.com> References: <1857240052.122258.1508054451353.ref@mail.yahoo.com> <1857240052.122258.1508054451353@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20171024133855.GB25244@aishdas.org> On Sun, Oct 15, 2017 at 08:00:51AM +0000, Motti Yarchinai via Avodah wrote: : It is similar to what the Rambam wrote in Hilchot Kiddush Hachodesh, : saying that in all calendric matters, we follow the lead of the chachmei : eretz yisrael, and even though the anshei hagolah know the calculations : used by them, it is not on our own calculations that we rely, we only : use those calculations because we know that they are the same as the : calculations used by the chachmei eretz yisrael... : Another posek (possibly the Tifferet Yisrael in Shvilei Harakia, but : I'm not sure of that), writes something similar... Did you ever find a source? Google, Bar Ilan and I didn't turn anything up. In practice, we follow the calculations of R' Saaadia Gaon, who was in Aleppo at the time, and not R Aaron Ben-Meir in Y-m ih"q. The big debate of 922 was the topic of an article by RYGB and RAZZ reposted here . The Rambam (Qiddush haChodesh 1:8) limits the authority to someone in EY ("ki miTzion teitzei Sorah...") or if the one clearly most able to do it received semichah in EY, he can continue setting the months and ibur shanos in chu"l -- until someone of comparable stature arises in EY. This seems taylor-made for R Saadia Gaon, who went to yeshiva in Teveriah. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Never must we think that the Jewish element micha at aishdas.org in us could exist without the human element http://www.aishdas.org or vice versa. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch From sholom at aishdas.org Tue Oct 24 12:50:00 2017 From: sholom at aishdas.org (Sholom Simon) Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2017 15:50:00 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Long Lifespans in Bereishis In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <588c56c0dc1eedd39e7bb464810c5cea@aishdas.org> Thanks, RMB, for posting that article. Re the views of R. Moses Ibn Tibbon, et al, who don't take those ages literally on a single person -- is that (along the lines of an off-line conversation we had) a "kosher view" these days? Or, is it one of those views that, the way R Noson Slifkin puts it: they are allowed to have those views, but we aren't? On a different, but related issue, to the chevra: The list of generations in parshas Bereshis are generally of the form: * X was 50 years old when he fathered Y. * X lived 450 years after he fathered Y and had sons and daughters * X lived to the age of 500 years. Doesn't that seem a bit redundant? And, in fact, most (all?) of the generations listed in parshas Noach skip the third phrase. Thoughts? -- Sholom -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hankman at bell.net Tue Oct 24 15:28:28 2017 From: hankman at bell.net (hankman) Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2017 18:28:28 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Long Lifespans in Bereishis Message-ID: <9DE9360C549C46879FBF7291563A9387@hankPC> >From the summary of opinions posted by RMB on lifespans in Bereishis and some comments: ?R. Saadiah Gaon (10th cent.) discusses this issue in his introduction to Tehillim. He writes that the longevity of these early generations was part of God's plan for the rapid proliferation of mankind on the earth.....? Not the biggest kashe in the world, but why then would they start to have children at an advanced age if rapid proliferation was the goal? Perhaps with great longevity came a much longer period for sexual maturation? If true would that also mean that intellectual maturation took much longer as well? ?R. Yehudah Ha-Levi (12th cent.) discusses the issue in the Kuzari (sec. 95). He believes that it was only the individuals listed who lived long. Each of the individuals listed was the heart and essence of his generation and was physically and spiritually perfect. The Divine Flow was transmitted from one generation to another through these exceptional individuals.? How does R. Yehudah Ha-Levi deal with Terach who was an idolator? Clearly he was not spiritually perfect. ?... R. Moses Ibn Tibbon (late 13th cent.) He suggests that the years given for people's lives were actually the years of "malkhutam ve-nimuseihim," i.e., the dynasties and/or customs that they established.? This comment will apply to R. Nissim of Marseilles as well. I presume they held that people had what we today would consider a normal life span. this would mean they were not having the first born at the advanced age of over one hundred. Thus the named son must have been a later generation descendant. (I assume that they did not generate a son in their old age and die shortly thereafter as was the case with Boaz). So if their life spans were similar to ours then was Shes really not a son of Adam but really a descendant several generations down? Ditto for Ennosh, was he really a great ... grandson of Sheis? But this notion of the the years given in Bereishis not pertaining to one single man, but to a dynasty of several generations of normal life span, runs into difficulty with Noach and his 3 sons. If we follow suit with this notion then Shem, Cham and Yefes were not his sons but descendants born 500 years later. Yet they all went into the Teiva together? So how is that a normal life span for Noach? Why weren?t the generations between Noach and Shem, Cham and Yefes saved as well? When the Torah says ?vayoled es X? that is not to be taken literally but just to mean a later descendant chosen to be named in the lineage? ? R. Saadiah Gaon writes (Emunot Ve-Deot, end of chap. 7) that in the era of the redemption the human lifespan will be approximately 500 years. Presumably, at that time we won't be bothered by those long lifespans in Genesis anymore! (Note that Radak, comm. to Is. 65:20, is a bit stingier. He predicts lifespans of only 300 to 500 years. See also his commentary to Ps. 92:15. But the 12th century Babylonian Gaon R. Samuel b. Ali predicts lifespans closer to 1000 years!)? This quote leads to an issue I will expand upon slightly in another post. But the basic issue is if the world is Charuv at 6000 years and yemos Moshiach are before the olom is charuv, (while olom keminhago noheig) there is not enough time left (we are now 5778) for a life span of 300 to 500 years let alone 1000 years. Kol tuv Chaim Manaster -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Wed Oct 25 04:13:32 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2017 07:13:32 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Long Lifespans in Bereishis In-Reply-To: <9DE9360C549C46879FBF7291563A9387@hankPC> References: <9DE9360C549C46879FBF7291563A9387@hankPC> Message-ID: <20171025111332.GC22254@aishdas.org> On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 06:28:28PM -0400, hankman (RVM) wrote: : > (Note that Radak, comm. to Is. 65:20, is a bit stingier. He predicts : > lifespans of only 300 to 500 years. See also his commentary to : > Ps. 92:15. But the 12th century Babylonian Gaon R. Samuel b. Ali : > predicts lifespans closer to 1000 years!)" : This quote leads to an issue I will expand upon slightly in another : post. But the basic issue is if the world is Charuv at 6000 years and : yemos Moshiach are before the olom is charuv, (while olom keminhago : noheig) there is not enough time left (we are now 5778) for a life span : of 300 to 500 years let alone 1000 years. This all depends on the machloqes about defining olam haba and whether techiyas hameisim is permanent. As well as any machloqesin as to whether yemos hamoshiach starts with techiyas hameisim or ends with a new era, that itself starts with teshiyas hameisim. Rambam: olam haba means the non-physical world a neshamah is in between life and teshiyas hameisim, as well as after a second death. Since olam haba is the ultimate form of existence, defining that ultimate as the place souls go when dead necessitates a second death after techiyas hameisim. The Rambam (and the Iqarim, and others, I just picked on name for thumbnail-sketch reasons) then has to explain what the point of the second life is. Ramban (similarly, among others): olam haba, the ultimate existence, is body together with guf after techiyas hameisim. And therefore the post-th"m life must be external. According to the first shitah, it could be that post-th"m life is in gan eden is Adam's sense and thus life lasts as long as his could have. But then there's the question of whether your assumed dates hold.... My point is mainly that I think there are too many unknowns to even ask your question. I just anded up belaboring the one unknown I once wrote about. on how this machloqes may impact what is the point of Brikhas Gevurah ("Atah Gibor"). BTW, I just noticed, underlying that machloqes about what is olam haba and techiyas hameisim might be a difference in the definition of a person. It looks to me like the Rambam is saying a person is a soul who lives in a body. And therefore the ultimate in existence is not to have that body interpolated between me and experiencing Hashem's Presence. Whereas the Ramban is saying that a person is a synthesis of body and soul, and therefore cannot enjoy the rewards of their efforts when the two halves are separated. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger If a person does not recognize one's own worth, micha at aishdas.org how can he appreciate the worth of another? http://www.aishdas.org - Rabbi Yaakov Yosef of Polnoye, Fax: (270) 514-1507 author of Toldos Yaakov Yosef From hankman at bell.net Wed Oct 25 07:40:29 2017 From: hankman at bell.net (hankman) Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2017 10:40:29 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Long Lifespans in Bereishis In-Reply-To: <20171025111332.GC22254@aishdas.org> References: <9DE9360C549C46879FBF7291563A9387@hankPC> <20171025111332.GC22254@aishdas.org> Message-ID: R.Miciha Berger wrote: "On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 06:28:28PM -0400, hankman (RVM) wrote: :if the world is Charuv at 6000 years and : yemos Moshiach are before the olom is charuv, (while olom keminhago : noheig) there is not enough time left (we are now 5778) for a life span : of 300 to 500 years let alone 1000 years. This all depends on the machloqes about defining olam haba and whether techiyas hameisim is permanent. As well as any machloqesin as to whether yemos hamoshiach starts with techiyas hameisim or ends with a new era, that itself starts with teshiyas hameisim. ...." You also need to fit in when exactly in the sequence of these events Yom Hadin Hagodol happens according to each of these shitos. So the many events of "Achris Hatomim" that one need consider to compile a chronology of this mysterious period would include Gog uMagog, Moshiach be Yosef, coming of Eliyahu, yitaka bashofor gadol (before moshiach, or yom hadin hagodol, or techias hameisim?), the nevuos of Zecharyahu and other nevi'im about this period, Bayis shelishi, Kibutz golios, Moshiach ben Dovid (including how long is this period), vanquishing of the yetzer, Techias Hameisim (before Moshiach or before yom hadin or before both?), Yom hadin hagodol, yom hadin hakoton (after death?) Olom charuv (and to what extent it is charuv and why), Gan Eden, Olom haneshamos, Olam haba (final gemul, with or without a guf, and the ultimate purpose of creation so Hashem can be meitiv lezuloso). After writing this I checked out your "Mesukim Midevash" and apparently there will be at least four versions of this chronology (which you began to build in your article) lefi the Rambam, Ramban, Rav Saadia Gaon and the Ikkarim but needs some fleshing out. R Micha Berger wrote: "Ramban (similarly, among others): olam haba, the ultimate existence, is body together with guf after techiyas hameisim. And therefore the post-th"m life must be external. .... But then there's the question of whether your assumed dates hold.... My point is mainly that I think there are too many unknowns to even ask your question...." It is not clear to me what "assumed dates" or what the "unknowns" are that you mention? I only mentioned 5778. Is that date in doubt?? R. Micha Berger wrote: "BTW, I just noticed, underlying that machloqes about what is olam haba and techiyas hameisim might be a difference in the definition of a person. It looks to me like the Rambam is saying a person is a soul who lives in a body. And therefore the ultimate in existence is not to have that body interpolated between me and experiencing Hashem's Presence. Whereas the Ramban is saying that a person is a synthesis of body and soul, and therefore cannot enjoy the rewards of their efforts when the two halves are separated. Tir'u baTov! -Micha" The gemara in Sanhedrin that talks about the need for both the neshama and the guf to be together at yom hadin, works well with your peshat in the Ramban and could be a possible source for his position, but your explanation of the Rambam with the guf just being something donned by the neshama as necessary for its trip to this world, much like a diver dons scuba gear to enable him to function in this temporary environment, then much as it makes no senses to require the scuba gear at the divers trial, so too this gemara requiring the presence of the guf at the yom hadin doesn't really make much sense. Kol tuv Chaim Manaster From ben1456 at zahav.net.il Wed Oct 25 10:48:54 2017 From: ben1456 at zahav.net.il (Ben Waxman) Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2017 19:48:54 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] offering a higher salary Message-ID: <6ca926d4-2984-813b-af3a-e5fb0e765062@zahav.net.il> I've seen posts claiming that it is forbidden to offer cleaners a higher salary to work for you. While I can understand that it makes sense to say that no one can break a specific agreement for a specific day of work, why should it be forbidden to offer a higher salary to someone who has a long term agreement?? A, this is the common practice in the high tech world and I have never heard anyone say "Assur". It would seem that there is general agreement that this halacha simply doesn't apply today. Second, how can anyone be meshuabad in such a way to one person? Does a person wanting a higher salary have to simply quit without any idea about having another job? Ben From motti.yarchinai at mail.yahoo.com.au Wed Oct 25 12:39:33 2017 From: motti.yarchinai at mail.yahoo.com.au (Motti Yarchinai) Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2017 19:39:33 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Avodah] Psak source wanted In-Reply-To: <1857240052.122258.1508054451353@mail.yahoo.com> References: <1857240052.122258.1508054451353.ref@mail.yahoo.com> <1857240052.122258.1508054451353@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <270346387.4768895.1508960373045@mail.yahoo.com> Dear Micha and Avodah members, Thank you Micha for your reply and your attempts to locate a source. On Sun, Oct 15, 2017 at 08:00:51AM +0000, Motti Yarchinai via Avodah wrote: > Can anyone help me with a source for this psak: It is similar to what > the Rambam wrote... > Another posek writes something similar but couched in even more dramatic > terms. The following is not a verbatim quote (since the original is in > Hebrew) but something very close to it: > "And even if the residents of eretz yisrael are all ignoramuses > and peasants, and the authorities of chutz la'aretz are great > scholars and knowledgable in Torah and halachah, in calendric > matters we follow the peasants and ignoramuses, not the scholars > of chutz la'aretz." Micha replied: > Did you ever find a source? Google, Bar Ilan and I didn't turn > anything up.... No, I have not found it yet, but my memory of it is that I saw it in print, and, to my annoyance, I can't find the sefer, but it is bound to turn up sooner or later. When it does, I will repost with the source and quote. Meanwhile, if someone recognises it, please do let me know. Motti From sholom at aishdas.org Wed Oct 25 13:48:29 2017 From: sholom at aishdas.org (Sholom Simon) Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2017 16:48:29 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] A Great Name Message-ID: <20171025204831.CKZV22111.fed1rmfepo202.cox.net@fed1rmimpo210.cox.net> One of the implicit criticisms of Migdal Bavel was that they wanted to make a name for themselves. Then, at the beginning of Lech L'cha, H' tells Avram that he will make his name great. There must be something there . . . anybody have any thoughts? -- Sholom From zev at sero.name Wed Oct 25 20:57:37 2017 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2017 23:57:37 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] offering a higher salary In-Reply-To: <6ca926d4-2984-813b-af3a-e5fb0e765062@zahav.net.il> References: <6ca926d4-2984-813b-af3a-e5fb0e765062@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <03900eea-9674-1896-0842-5cba504a0eed@sero.name> On 25/10/17 13:48, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > I've seen posts claiming that it is forbidden to offer cleaners a higher > salary to work for you. I believe this halacha is a subset of "hasagas gevul", not in the Biblical sense, but in the commonly-used sense, which in in turn a subset of the obligation of ahavas yisrael. "Hasagas gevul" basically means that if you with to start a business and you have a choice between doing it somewhere that will harm me and somewhere that will not, then all else being equal you are obligated to take the second option out of consideration for me, because ve'ahavta lere`acha kamocha. Similarly, if I am renting a forest or an inn from a nochri, from which I make my living, and you offer him a higher rent, you are violating your obligation to value my interests equally with your own. It should be obvious, however, that if the landlord is also "re`acha" then this does not apply, because you have the same obligation to him as to me; if he could be getting more rent from his property then you should make him that offer, though he should give me a chance to match it, since I am the "bar metzra". I think the same thing is going on with the cleaners. If I have a nochris who is willing to clean for me for $N, you have no right to lure her away by offering more. But if she is "re`acha" then aderaba you have a mitzvah to offer her a chance to improve her income, but before taking your offer she should offer me the chance to match it. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From JRich at sibson.com Thu Oct 26 05:08:27 2017 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2017 12:08:27 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Jewish Action Message-ID: Since I can sometimes be critical of organizations (not here where I usually manage not to say anything negative [HT - My Mom ZLL"HH - "If you have nothing nice to say, don't say anything]), I want to give a shout out to the OU Fall Jewish Action. 1.) Moshe Baine poses the two questions I use as an individual/community test (i) How often do we factor God into our daily decisions, both large and small? [Me - how central is the Ratzon Hashem in our lives?] (ii) What are we prepared to "give up" to comply with what we perceive as God's wishes? [Me - does God always seem to agree with what you want?] 2.) Allen Fagin asks "whether we as a community view Yishuv Haaretz as a basic tenet of our spiritual aspirations? [Me - Tell me how often it's discussed or how many folks yearn (while we're at it, how many really yearn for the Beit Hamikdash?)] Now what do we do as a community and as individuals about any perceived shortfalls in these two areas is an old Avodah question but maybe it is gaining traction? KT 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: From micha at aishdas.org Thu Oct 26 07:13:06 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2017 10:13:06 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Jewish Action In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20171026141306.GA15203@aishdas.org> On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 12:08:27PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : 1.) Moshe Baine poses the two questions I use as an individual/community : test (i) How often do we factor God into our daily decisions, both large : and small? [Me - how central is the Ratzon Hashem in our lives?] (ii) : What are we prepared to "give up" to comply with what we perceive as : God's wishes? [Me - does God always seem to agree with what you want?] What you call question (i) gets a scathing answer in that recent and hotly discussed blog post, "Modern Orthodoxy from a Teenager's Perspective" by Eitan Gross. The-future-R Gross opines that it is common knowledge in MO circles that we dont make Ratzon Hashem central enough for MO to succeed. Modern Orthodoxy tries to create a balance that, at the moment, cannot work because we have no drive to be with Hashem and lack the philosophical and hashkafic perspective to articulate why we should be Jewish in a world with an assortment of other options. Therefore, we need to take a fresh look at education and schooling. There needs to be an emphasis on the truth of the tenets of Judaism, as well as an inspirational approach that creates a yearning and desire in the student to be closer to Hashem. And When I tried to publish this essay at a local Jewish newspaper they said "We cant publish this piece, it's too much for us. Plus you're only a senior in high school, so you don't have the authority to have a say in the current situation." Although they were against putting this essay to print, the head of the paper still agreed with me, "Modern Orthodoxy has major flaws and everyone knows it." If "everyone knows it", but no one does anything then it must be that they think Modern Orthodoxy is too big to change.... I think he means the Modern Orthodox community has major flaws, not the contept "Modern Orthodoxy" itself -- or why would he be so concerned with being able to save it? I need to add, this being Avodah, that this problem of the confusion between halakhah as a means and halakhah as an ends in-and-of-itself has symptoms in all our communities. Quoting myself, from my "manifesto" Tools and Goals ... How would this play out communally? One possible outcome is that we would find a community of very committed, very observant Jews, but who do not show all the signs of the holiness the Torah is supposed to bring us to. This could happen if there is insufficient attention to the entire notion of a goal beyond the halakhah, so that black letter halakhah -- that which can be measured, laid out in clear obligated or prohibited terms -- takes center seat without any attempt to become the kind of person more capable of fulfilling the full breadth of its commandments. There would be mixed reports of business ethics, scandals of respected rabbis committing fiscal crimes, others unable to control their lust, yet others abusing their power over their students in other ways. Another possible outcome is an idealistic community, but one whose ideals are not Torah derived. In such a community ideals would be taken from some segment of the surrounding culture, and halakhah would be reduced to a means of "blessing" goals that we assimilated from the outside, that at times will resemble the holiness Hashem has readied for us, and at times will differ. A third possibility is particular to a community that teaches the need to engage the world around it, to risk the battle of its challenges in order to use what's positive in the surrounding society to further our sanctity. Without a firm eye and a constant striving toward an ideal, the energy it takes to maintain this delicate balance too easily collapses into a life of compromise. And so, for too many in this community the negative elements of modernity are incorporated into their lives, and also for many strict observance itself suffers. Do these portraits sound familiar? The problem has another symptom which is less problematic -- the rise of Brisk over other darkhei halimmud. A culture in which O means following black-letter Shulchan Arukh will naturally gravitate toward a derekh halimmud that shuns explanations that are in terms of first principles that come before halakhah. RYBS's Halakhic Man denies they even exist. That said, R' Chaim Brisker's own life was more about values and acts of chessed than Arukh Chaim or Yoreh Dei'ah. The family noted this -- for all his lomdus, RCB's mateivah reads "Rav haChesed". The problem is not inherent to Brisk. Therefore, it will be interesting to see how MO evolves, and whether this remains their most pressing problem. YU now has a mashpiah, classes in the Aish Qodesh, Tanya, R' Nachman, it has singing minyanim. Within the halls of YU, Halakhic Man is facing growing competition. Lenaar al pi darko -- this diversity is healthy. But with more semichah students looking to the goals rather than stopping at the halachic tools, MO culture is bound to change in a way that reduces this issue. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When faced with a decision ask yourself, micha at aishdas.org "How would I decide if it were Ne'ilah now, http://www.aishdas.org at the closing moments of Yom Kippur?" Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From JRich at sibson.com Thu Oct 26 05:05:45 2017 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2017 12:05:45 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Timtum Halev Message-ID: There was an interesting article in the Journal "Ohr Yisrael" #16 by R'Avraham Rubin on Timtum Halev (spiritual pollution). His general conclusion was that eating something that would be classified as "forbidden foods," if you know it is such, will cause timtum halev (spiritual character defects) even if you are permitted to eat it in your case (e.g., pikuach nefesh - life-threatening situation). However, if you eat a "factually forbidden food" based on a mistaken halachic decision by an authorized halachic source, no such damage will occur. Interesting that this IIUC would yield the result that one could be halachically required to eat the "forbidden food" (rather than commit suicide by starving to death), yet still develop character defects because of it. Seems non-halachic man to me . I know we've discussed before-I submit a data point in that discussion. KT 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: From micha at aishdas.org Thu Oct 26 09:04:55 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2017 12:04:55 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Timtum Halev In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20171026160455.GD15203@aishdas.org> On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 12:05:45PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : ... "Ohr Yisrael" #16 by R'Avraham Rubin ... general conclusion was : that eating something that would be classified as "forbidden foods," : if you know it is such, will cause timtum halev (spiritual character : defects) even if you are permitted to eat it in your case (e.g., pikuach : nefesh - life-threatening situation). However, if you eat a "factually : forbidden food" based on a mistaken halachic decision by an authorized : halachic source, no such damage will occur. I invite RMRabi to comment on that last sentence. He and I debated for most of a year whether the Maharal would agree that someone who follows a mistaken pesaq is different in kind than someone who makes the mistake themselves. I presume that if eating because of "a mistaken halachic decision by an authorized halachic source" does not cause timtum heleiv, R Avraham Rubin would say that all the more so, eating food that as a matter of unknown fact happens to be kosher but we correctly rule may be eaten because of rov, chazaqah, bitul or whatever would not damage. I would think RAR is coming down on the side of saying that it's the sin, not the substance, which causes the spiritual damage. To my mind -- a hashkafically simpler position, since there is Justice to life being worse due to a sin than due to something premitted. In which case, RAR's opening ruling, that the person starting to death who eats the only available edible which happens to be non-kosher, would seem to be based on ruling that saving one's life overrides the prohibition (making it petura), not that the eating is actually permissible (hutra). For if it were hutra, how would the case differ from correctly following received pesaq? And if it is because of peturah, that the prohibition is being broken, but the violation is permissible for the sake of a greater value, then I can understand how its Just even if we were to say the cause is the substance. The sin is happening, and we know it's happening; we just chose the lesser sin. Lemah hadavar domeh: chemo is poison. For the sake of the greater danger, cancer, a person may take chemo. But the poison still does its effect. The person did what was medically recommended, and the recommendation was made knowing there was a self-destructive element to the act. : Interesting that this IIUC would yield the result that one could be : halachically required to eat the "forbidden food" (rather than commit : suicide by starving to death), yet still develop character defects : because of it. Seems non-halachic man to me.... Halachic man wouldn't ask the question of timtum haleiv to begin with. It is not a halachic category. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The fittingness of your matzos [for the seder] micha at aishdas.org isn't complete with being careful in the laws http://www.aishdas.org of Passover. One must also be very careful in Fax: (270) 514-1507 the laws of business. - Rav Yisrael Salanter From emteitz at gmail.com Thu Oct 26 09:58:57 2017 From: emteitz at gmail.com (elazar teitz) Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2017 12:58:57 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] offering a higher salary Message-ID: >If I have a nochris who is willing to clean for me for $N, you have no right to lure >her away by offering more. But if she is "re`acha" then aderaba you >have a mitzvah to offer her a chance to improve her income, but before >taking your offer she should offer me the chance to match it. Is it a mitzva to help improve a Jew's income, if it is at the expense of another Jew (especially when it is not done with the intent of helping the employee, but rather to help oneself)? EMT -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From zev at sero.name Thu Oct 26 15:06:37 2017 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2017 18:06:37 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] offering a higher salary In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 26/10/17 12:58, elazar teitz via Avodah wrote: >> If I have a nochris who is willing to clean for me for $N, you have no >> right to lure her away by offering more.? But if she is "re`acha" then >> aderaba you have a mitzvah to offer her a chance to improve her income, >> but before taking your offer she should offer me the chance to match it. > Is it a mitzva to help improve a Jew's income, if it is at the > expense of another Jew (especially when it is not done with the intent > of helping the employee, but rather to help oneself)? (1) You have the same mitzvah to love both of us, so whichever one you help is a mitzvah (2) She is probably (though not definitely) in more need than I am (3) If you're willing to pay more for her work then by definition that makes her work *worth* more, since the value of anything is defined as whatever it will fetch, so by making her the offer you're not hurting me, you're merely preventing me from (unbeknownst to either of us) getting an unwarranted benefit at her expense. Basically our arrangement is ona'ah, we're both in error about the value of her labour, and you're in a position to prevent it, so shouldn't you do so? (4) Your intent shouldn't matter. Tzedakah doesn't depend at all on kavanah. If someone is helped, it's a mitzvah even if you didn't mean it (cf shikcha), while if you meant to help someone and it didn't happen there's no mitzvah (cf Bava Basra 8b etc) -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From marty.bluke at gmail.com Sun Oct 29 03:15:35 2017 From: marty.bluke at gmail.com (Marty Bluke) Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2017 12:15:35 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Long Lifespans in Bereishis Message-ID: R' Chaim Manaster pointed out: "But the basic issue is if the world is Charuv at 6000 years and yemos Moshiach are before the olom is charuv, (while olom keminhago noheig) there is not enough time left (we are now 5778) for a life span of 300 to 500 years let alone 1000 years." The gemara (Sanhedrin 99) offers the following suggestions for how long the Messianic period will last: R' Eliezer - 40 years R' Dosa - 400 years Rebbi - 365 years Avimi - 7000 years R' Yehuda - the amount of time from creation until the Messiah comes R' Nachman Bar Yitzchak - the amount of time from the flood until the Messiah comes Interestingly enough the Gemara earlier stated that the world will last 6000 years, Sanhedrin 96B - Six thousand years were decreed upon the world: 2000 years of emptiness (without Torah), 2000 years of Torah, and 2000 years for Mashi'ach. This opinion of 6000 years is generally accepted, however, opinions 4-6 above clearly disagree with this. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ben1456 at zahav.net.il Sun Oct 29 22:34:43 2017 From: ben1456 at zahav.net.il (Ben Waxman) Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2017 07:34:43 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] offering a higher salary In-Reply-To: <6ca926d4-2984-813b-af3a-e5fb0e765062@zahav.net.il> References: <6ca926d4-2984-813b-af3a-e5fb0e765062@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <2e3529d9-23b9-3377-c2f6-ec65d4340f1a@zahav.net.il> After look a bit, I saw that the Aruch HaShulchan CM 237:3 paskens that this law only applies to a poor person. A poor person who finds something that he needs, you can't come along and offer more money for it. But if a rich person finds something that he wants (or employs someone) and this item is available, then the prohibition doesn't apply. It would seem that anyone who can hire a maid does not qualify as poor and I am willing to bet that there is a good supply of people willing to work. Ben On 10/25/2017 7:48 PM, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > I've seen posts claiming that it is forbidden to offer cleaners a > higher salary to work for you. While I can understand that it makes > sense to say that no one can break a specific agreement for a specific > day of work, why should it be forbidden to offer a higher salary to > someone who has a long term agreement?? A, this is the common practice > in the high tech world and I have never heard anyone say "Assur". It > would seem that there is general agreement that this halacha simply > doesn't apply today. From lisa at starways.net Mon Oct 30 03:39:03 2017 From: lisa at starways.net (Lisa Liel) Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2017 12:39:03 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] offering a higher salary In-Reply-To: <2e3529d9-23b9-3377-c2f6-ec65d4340f1a@zahav.net.il> References: <6ca926d4-2984-813b-af3a-e5fb0e765062@zahav.net.il> <2e3529d9-23b9-3377-c2f6-ec65d4340f1a@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <611bec39-509c-b161-d74f-63dbb523906e@starways.net> On 10/30/2017 7:34 AM, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > After look a bit, I saw that the Aruch HaShulchan CM 237:3 paskens > that this law only applies to a poor person. A poor person who finds > something that he needs, you can't come along and offer more money for > it.... > It would seem that anyone who can hire a maid does not qualify as poor > and I am willing to bet that there is a good supply of people willing > to work. Poor in halakha means not having what you're accustomed to have. It isn't an objective benchmark or a comparison to other people. Lisa From ben1456 at zahav.net.il Mon Oct 30 12:58:56 2017 From: ben1456 at zahav.net.il (Ben Waxman) Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2017 21:58:56 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] offering a higher salary In-Reply-To: <611bec39-509c-b161-d74f-63dbb523906e@starways.net> References: <6ca926d4-2984-813b-af3a-e5fb0e765062@zahav.net.il> <2e3529d9-23b9-3377-c2f6-ec65d4340f1a@zahav.net.il> <611bec39-509c-b161-d74f-63dbb523906e@starways.net> Message-ID: <8355ddf5-ae06-1774-b30d-dd05b89814a9@zahav.net.il> You think that these people would be willing to apply the word "poor" to themselves, even in regards to only this halacha? On 10/30/2017 12:39 PM, Lisa Liel wrote: > Poor in halakha means not having what you're accustomed to have.? It > isn't an objective benchmark or a comparison to other people. From bdbradley70 at hotmail.com Mon Oct 30 14:41:44 2017 From: bdbradley70 at hotmail.com (Ben Bradley) Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2017 21:41:44 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] offering a higher salary In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Poor in halakha means not having what you're accustomed to have. It isn't an objective benchmark or a comparison to other people. Lisa I don't believe it's as clear cut as that. It's true with regard to giving tzedaka, that the kehilla is required to maintain someone at the standard they were used to. But when it comes to the definition of an oni who's entitled to take from communal funds, the mishna in terumos or maasros defines it as someone who has a specific and objective amount of food or money in their possession. AFAIR halacha l'maaseh follows suit, and there are objective criteria before allowing someone to accept communal tzedaka funds. Regards Ben -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hankman at bell.net Mon Oct 30 12:03:44 2017 From: hankman at bell.net (hankman) Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2017 15:03:44 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Long Lifespans in Bereishis Message-ID: R. Marty Bluke wrote: ?The gemara (Sanhedrin 99) offers the following suggestions for how long the Messianic period will last: ... R' Dosa - 400 years Rebbi - 365 years Avimi - 7000 years R' Yehuda - the amount of time from creation until the Messiah comes R' Nachman Bar Yitzchak - the amount of time from the flood until the Messiah comes ....? Actually my original kasheh occurred to me during that recent daf yomi you refer to in Sanhedrin which was when I asked the same question you pose here. The question I posted on Avodah (basically the same idea) was just in reference to a previous post here and its remarks ? I just did not feel the need to broaden the kasheh ? perhaps I should have, just to be more comprehensive. Kol tuv Chaim Manaster -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From saulguberman at gmail.com Tue Oct 31 09:57:00 2017 From: saulguberman at gmail.com (Saul Guberman) Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2017 12:57:00 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] chopsticks Message-ID: Is it permissible to break apart chopsticks on shabbat at the meal to eat your sushi? Someone claimed it is makeh b'patish and just use a fork or stab with the chopsticks still together. Others thought that tzorech ochel nefesh might allow them to be broken and used , as it is all disposable anyway. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From JRich at sibson.com Thu Nov 2 05:12:05 2017 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2017 12:12:05 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] TEXTUAL JUDAISM AND THE LIVING TORAH Message-ID: <9e51a7f4ea644e829db8503f8f0451fe@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> An old Avodah favorite :) KT Joel Rich http://etzion.org.il/en/siman-114-prayers-wind-rain-and-dew TEXTUAL JUDAISM AND THE LIVING TORAH In his introduction to the Beit Yosef, R. Yosef Karo clearly asserts that since it is impossible for someone of his stature to set himself up as arbiter among the great Rishonim, for his rulings will be based on the majority of the opinions of the Rif, the Rambam, and the Rosh. Yet, here we have a case where the Rambam and the Rosh agree that an entire country which needs rain can mention and ask for rain in the summer, while the Rif does not dispute this ruling since he does not relate to this case. Although the Rambam's ruling is in the commentary to the Mishna, this has the same status as the Mishneh Torah - so I understand from Kesef Mishneh, also written by R. Yosef Karo, to Hilkhot Talmud Torah 3:10 at the end - and in addition, the Beit Yosef on our siman claims that the Mishneh Torah also rules like the commentary to the Mishna. How can the Beit Yosef rule against them?! The Beit Yosef emphasizes that the custom of the entire world contradicts the Rosh's ruling. He also suggests that this ruling was never accepted in practice. How can we weigh these factors against the authority of the written sources? There is a general difference in approach among poskim regarding how to weigh local custom against textual authority. The Tosafot in many places endeavor to reconcile the text with the custom (see for excample, Shabbat 48a d.h. De-zeitim); other sages more readily condemn custom on the authority of the plain sense of the text. It seems that several factors bear on the relative importance: 1. How universal is the custom? Responsa frequently point out that the reaction to a seldom-encountered situation can not be considered a "custom" - merely a precedent. 2. Among whom is the custom widespread? If we are certain that even scholars and meticulous people conducted themselves in a certain way, this has more weight than the behavior of the common people, pious though they may be. 3. Are opinions opposing the custom recognized? Sometimes we find statements to the effect that if a community had been aware that a great authority opposed their custom, they would not have adopted it. Conversely, a custom may be defended by pointing out that it was upheld even though opposing views were clearly known. 4. Perhaps in an area of halakha whose basis is in custom, though it subsequently achieved the status of binding halakha, we should give greater weight to custom. In our case, the Beit Yosef perceived that the custom of going according to Eretz Yisrael was universal, even among scholars, and even among people who were certainly aware of the statements of the Rambam and the Rosh. In addition, he may have considered the "customary" aspect of prayer to have special importance - the fact that we pray as a community renders special importance to community customs. Therefore, even though the Beit Yosef is, according to his own assertion, an extreme "textualist," in this case he was persuaded to rule in accordance with custom. Almost all Acharonim are extremely reluctant to dispute Rishonim - though there are notable exceptions, such as the Maharshal (who lived, in any case, close to the era of the Rishonim). However, many later scholars do feel that however unworthy they may be, it is their responsibility as decisors to decide AMONG the Rishonim. The Beit Yosef's reticence in this regard is far from universal. A lot of noise is still being made regarding an article written a couple of years ago by a leading scholar of Judaism (who is also a Talmid Chakham, though the two do not always go together) who posits that only recently have texts taken such a central role in Jewish life. He claims that before World War II custom was king, and accepted customs of respectable communities were not scrutinized in the light of codes. I can not comment on the historical reality of three generations ago, but I think we should keep in mind that the tension between custom and written authority is an ancient one, and the "advocacy" of texts is hardly a new idea. 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: From zev at sero.name Thu Nov 2 20:38:21 2017 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2017 23:38:21 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] TEXTUAL JUDAISM AND THE LIVING TORAH In-Reply-To: <9e51a7f4ea644e829db8503f8f0451fe@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <9e51a7f4ea644e829db8503f8f0451fe@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: On 02/11/17 08:12, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: > The Beit Yosef emphasizes that the custom of the entire world > contradicts the Rosh's ruling. Not the entire world. The Rosh himself reported that he was gratified to discover, while travelling through Provence on his way from Germany to Spain, that they did it the right way. This reinforced him in his determination to try to change the practice in Spain. > In our case, the Beit Yosef perceived that the custom of going > according to Eretz Yisrael was universal, On the contrary, *nobody* goes according to EY. The universal custom is to go according to Iraq. The Rosh wanted all Mediterranean Jews, who share EY's climate, to follow EY, as the Provencals did, but they refused. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From meirabi at gmail.com Thu Nov 2 22:38:08 2017 From: meirabi at gmail.com (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi) Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2017 16:38:08 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] Avraham A Cooked, Angels Ate - Bassar BeChalav Message-ID: Avraham Avinu entertained three angels masquerading as human visitors; feeding them goat flesh cooked with milk. Generations later, due to this meal, the angels? protest, that the Torah ought not be given to the Jews, was quashed. There are 3 issues that require clarification: ++ Let?s say the angels sinned by eating flesh cooked with milk [which seems to be the plain meaning of the Medrash] how does that silence their protest? ++ Furthermore, flesh cooked with milk would not have been served to the guests: ++ Avraham Avinu did not cook goat with milk since he adhered to all Mitzvos of the Torah. ++ Even if it was cooked inadvertently, he would not have offered it to the visitors since no benefit may be derived from it. Reb Meir Simcha of Dvinsk explains in Meshech Chochmah, that no sin was transgressed since it was BP flesh, which may be cooked with milk. The angels? protests were silenced because they accepted that Avraham Avinu was Jewish and therefore able to Shecht. Had they considered him not Jewish, they would not have eaten because Shechita cannot be performed by a non-Jew. Thus, the angels had already conceded that Avraham Avinu had an inalienable connection to the Torah and therefore was able to Shecht and create a Kosher BP. That being the case, they could not question nor protest his chosen children?s rights to that heritage. Of all aspects of BP this particular Halacha is so counter-intuitive, and such a shock to our expectations, that even when Reb Chaim Kanievsky said that cooking BP flesh with milk, is "Kosher VeYosher" (more than 100%) Rabbanim who were with me and heard him say this, will not publicly admit to it. Rav Moshe Sternbuch responded upon being asked if this was a DaAs Yachid (a lone opinion), "Who argues?" - R Moshe quotes this Meshech Chochmah MoAdim UzManim [?"? ??' ??"?] and thereby suggests another reason for eating dairy on Shavuos - after all, it was via dairy that we succeeded to silence the angels? protests. However, my son Yehudah, argues - in that case, we really ought to be eating BBPbCh [Basar BP beChalav] on Shavuos. That the BP may be cooked with milk is so obvious to Reb Meir Simcha, that he does not bother to bring proof or expand upon the point. Clearly, BP is utterly unlike any regular cow sheep or goat that may not be cooked with dairy. = = = According to our traditions, Avraham Avinu maintained all the laws of the Torah and also all the Rabbinic enactments. Rashi, Genesis 26:5; Yevamos 21. Accordingly, our Sages explain that Avraham did not offer the bread [Rashi, Genesis 18:8; BMetzia 87] to his guests because Sara had miraculously rejuvenated and become ritually unclean, making the bread unclean. Although no more than a stringency Avraham Avinu would not serve it to his non Jewish guests - presumably, if Avraham Avinu would not eat it himself, he would not serve it to his guests - makes one pause and contemplate about those who Kosher certify various foods and establishments but will not eat that food themselves. = = = There are some who try to squeeze into the words of the MChochmah that it is the milk which is not dairy because meat may be cooked with milk collected from a Shechted beast, Chalav Shechuta, and a BP is deemed to be a Shechuta. There is a contrary argument however - some propose that Chalav Shechuta is not ?mother?s milk?, meaning milk from a beast that can potentially be a mother, whereas a BP can certainly be a mother, so its milk is not Chalav Shechuta and may not be cooked with meat. Either way, the argument collapses completely because Avraham Avinu would not violate the Rabbinic law that prohibits cooking with Chalav Shechuta [or deer or giraffe milk] Best, Meir G. Rabi 0423 207 837 +61 423 207 837 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Fri Nov 3 03:24:28 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2017 06:24:28 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Avraham A Cooked, Angels Ate - Bassar BeChalav In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20171103102428.GB3833@aishdas.org> On Fri, Nov 03, 2017 at 04:38:08PM +1100, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: : Avraham Avinu entertained three angels masquerading as human visitors; : feeding them goat flesh cooked with milk. Generations later, due to this : meal, the angels' protest, that the Torah ought not be given to the Jews, : was quashed. Where's this medrash? Tosafists (Daas Zeqeinim, Bereishis 18:8) note the contradiction between it and the medrash that the avos observe all of halakhah (even eiruv tavshilin) and suggests the following. It is also the Sifsei Chakhamim's and Bekhor Shor's take on the pasuq. The chumash says, "vayiqach chem'ah vechalav uven habaqar asher asah". There is no indication in the peshat that the veal was made in the butter and/or milk. And in fact, the milk is mentioned first. Leading to the opinion that Avraham even served them in a way that kept them from consuming dairy immediately after meat! The SC says he served them the milk so that they wouldn't have to wait while hungrily for the veal while it was shechted and cooked. The Radaq gives a different sesolution: Avraham prepared both so as to give them a choice of what to eat. : Reb Meir Simcha of Dvinsk explains in Meshech Chochmah, that no sin was : transgressed since it was BP flesh, which may be cooked with milk. Lo zakhisi lehavin haRav Meir Simcha haKohein, nor R' Kanievsky. Isn't that only mutar deRabbanan if it is killed before it can even stands up, so as to avoid mar'is ayin, like shechitah? And the gemara's example of the avos keeping kol haTorah kulah is Avraham keeping eiruv -- so that that aggadita means to include derabbanans. And even if we're saying that we're talking about BP without the taqanos, And if it is ben paqua and thus didn't need shechitah, why does the asame medrash make a point of Avraham shechting it? The tradition that Avraham Avinu authored seifer haYetzirah (for which I also have no source) includes the resolution that a calf made through ShY ("uven havaqar ASHER ASAH"), rather than invoking BP. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger A person lives with himself for seventy years, micha at aishdas.org and after it is all over, he still does not http://www.aishdas.org know himself. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From zev at sero.name Fri Nov 3 08:27:40 2017 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2017 11:27:40 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Avraham A Cooked, Angels Ate - Bassar BeChalav In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4ed7f10d-c1ee-c201-6de4-61e0564f59fd@sero.name> On 03/11/17 01:38, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: > feeding them goat flesh cooked with milk Since when? He fed them beef, together with cream (or butter) and milk, separately but simultaneously. > The angels? protests were silenced because they accepted that Avraham > Avinu was Jewish and therefore able to Shecht. Had they considered him > not Jewish, they would not have eaten because Shechita cannot be > performed by a non-Jew. Thus, the angels had already conceded that > Avraham Avinu had an inalienable connection to the Torah and therefore > was able to Shecht and create a Kosher BP. That being the case, they > could not question nor protest his chosen children?s rights to that > heritage. If so then why bring the milk into it at all? Simply by eating meat he'd shechted (or rather that his son Yishma`el had shechted) they had conceded all that (according to this explanation) was required. Why complicate the matter with questions of basar bechalav? Therefore it's clear that that was not the issue. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From micha at aishdas.org Fri Nov 3 05:44:11 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2017 08:44:11 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] TEXTUAL JUDAISM AND THE LIVING TORAH In-Reply-To: References: <9e51a7f4ea644e829db8503f8f0451fe@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20171103124411.GC23679@aishdas.org> On Thu, Nov 02, 2017 at 11:38:21PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : On 02/11/17 08:12, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: :>The Beit Yosef emphasizes that the custom of the entire world :>contradicts the Rosh's ruling. : Not the entire world. The Rosh himself reported that he was : gratified to discover, while travelling through Provence on his way : from Germany to Spain, that they did it the right way... Are you disagreeing with the BY (no citation so I can't check myself), with RJR's presentation of the BY? Or, are we ignoring the fact that the Rosh lived well before the BY and could have seen a Provincial minhag that had died by the mechaber's time. The BY could well be wrong. We have other examples of famous rishonim and acharonim who didn't know some minhag of other communities and thought regional norm was universal. I just want to understand which of the above we're discussing. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger We are what we repeatedly do. micha at aishdas.org Thus excellence is not an event, http://www.aishdas.org but a habit. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Aristotle From zev at sero.name Fri Nov 3 09:02:59 2017 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2017 12:02:59 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] TEXTUAL JUDAISM AND THE LIVING TORAH In-Reply-To: <20171103124411.GC23679@aishdas.org> References: <9e51a7f4ea644e829db8503f8f0451fe@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> <20171103124411.GC23679@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 03/11/17 08:44, Micha Berger wrote: > On Thu, Nov 02, 2017 at 11:38:21PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > : On 02/11/17 08:12, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: > :>The Beit Yosef emphasizes that the custom of the entire world > :>contradicts the Rosh's ruling. > > : Not the entire world. The Rosh himself reported that he was > : gratified to discover, while travelling through Provence on his way > : from Germany to Spain, that they did it the right way... > > Are you disagreeing with the BY (no citation so I can't check > myself), with RJR's presentation of the BY? Not disagreeing so much as pointing out that "the entire world" doesn't mean quite that. In fact the Tur on which the BY is commenting also quotes his father's report about the minhag in Provence. And the BY further quotes the Rosh that "uchvar nahagu gam kein biktzat mekomot" to start on the 7th. So later when he says "shelo nitkablu divrei haRosh, vechol ha`olam lo nahagu kein", I think this must be understood as a generalization, just as we do when we say "der velt" does this or that, and we clearly don't mean literally everyone. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From sholom at aishdas.org Fri Nov 3 11:32:44 2017 From: sholom at aishdas.org (Sholom Simon) Date: Fri, 03 Nov 2017 14:32:44 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] VAYERA ? WHO IS HKBH TALKING TO? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20171103183247.KRPQ6746.fed1rmfepo102.cox.net@fed1rmimpo109.cox.net> Rabbi Meir G. Rabi notes/asks: >Sara laughs [18:12] Gd is not happy > >[18:13] HKBH confronts Avraham, ?Why did Sara laugh off the blessing >that she have a child? Am I not able to arrange she give birth? I >assure you, I?ll be back and you?ll see she will have a child.? > >But why is HKBH asking this of Avraham? Does HKBH expect Avraham to >be able to explain? > >It seems this question is really an indictment of sorts. > >Is Avraham being blamed for Sara?s weakness? > >Why does Avraham confront [18:19] Sara? He does not doubt what HKBH >has told him? > >And when Sara denies it, why does Avraham rebuke her? Is it >Avraham?s responsibility to ensure she confesses? I just heard a shiur (YUTorah!) from RHS who addressed this. He also threw in the question: why is H" telling loshon harah to Avraham? RMF brings that In the Gemara (somewhere) it says that it's permissible to tell loshon harah to the subject's rebbe, so that the rebbe can give tochacha or musar to the subject, and RMF (or RHS) says that's what's happenning here (viewing Avraham as Sarah's rebbe, in a way). -- Sholom From akivagmiller at gmail.com Fri Nov 3 14:05:30 2017 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2017 17:05:30 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] chopsticks Message-ID: . R" Saul Guberman asked: > Is it permissible to break apart chopsticks on shabbat at the > meal to eat your sushi? Someone claimed it is makeh b'patish > and just use a fork or stab with the chopsticks still > together. Others thought that tzorech ochel nefesh might > allow them to be broken and used, as it is all disposable > anyway. Rabbi Doniel Neustadt raises a similar question at https://torah.org/torah-portion/weekly-halacha-5772-beshalach/ I would think that the situations are similar; even if they aren't identical, looking up the sources may help to find the answer about chopsticks. > Question: Leben or yogurt cups sometimes come attached to each > other and must be separated along a perforated line before > they can be eaten individually. Is that permitted to be done > on Shabbos? > > Discussion: Contemporary poskim debate whether or not it is > permitted to separate attached yogurt or leben cups from each > other. Some consider it a violation of Mechatech and Makeh > b?patish[21] while others hold it is permitted altogether[22]. > > 21. Rav Y.S. Elyashiv (Orchos Shabbos 12:12, Me?or ha-Shabbos, > vol. 2, pg. 551). > > 22. Rav S.Z. Auerbach (Orchos Shabbos 12:18. note 31, Shulchan > Shelomo 314:13-3). Akiva Miller From meirabi at mail.gmail.com Sat Nov 4 05:45:14 2017 From: meirabi at mail.gmail.com (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi) Date: Sat, 4 Nov 2017 23:45:14 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] Avraham A Cooked, Angels Ate - Bassar BeChalav Message-ID: 1] no one disputes that the Meshech Chochmah says what he says 2] there are many explanations to resolve the meat and milk issue, we are not disputing them, just explaining one of them 3] there is [surprisingly] no Issur of Maris Ayin preventing cooking some iterations of BP meat with milk - the proof is from this episode as presented by this Medrash and explained by the MChochma. 4] The decree that after the BP has stood up, Hifris AGKarka, it requires Shechitah [and presumably is also Assur to cook with milk] does not apply to a BP that is found as a non fully gestated, Lo KaLu Lo Chadashav. 5] Avraham did not Shecht it - on the contrary he directed Yishmael to prepare it - Furthermore, because it was a BP it did not require Shechita which is why he could direct Yishmael to kill it, and there was also no problem of Bassar SheNisAlem Min HaAyin. 6] Indeed, even had the angels eaten plain meat Shechted by AAvinu, there would have been adequate proof that they accepted his status of Kedushas Yisrael, it just so happened that AAvinu wanted to serve his visitors a delicacy, Beef Stroganoff. 7] I really do not know why I assumed it was a goat From zev at sero.name Sat Nov 4 16:10:52 2017 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Sat, 4 Nov 2017 19:10:52 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Avraham A Cooked, Angels Ate - Bassar BeChalav In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <0d614669-3c79-3c22-d137-b4b21530183f@sero.name> On 04/11/17 08:45, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi wrote: > 6] Indeed, even had the angels eaten plain meat Shechted by AAvinu, > there would have been adequate proof that they accepted his status of > Kedushas Yisrael, it just so happened that AAvinu wanted to serve his > visitors a delicacy, Beef Stroganoff. Except that Rashi explicitly says otherwise, that the delicacy he served was tongue in mustard, for which he needed *three* animals. There is no hint of any cooking in milk. The Meshech Chochma needs a mokor for this. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From meirabi at mail.gmail.com Sat Nov 4 05:56:05 2017 From: meirabi at mail.gmail.com (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi) Date: Sat, 4 Nov 2017 23:56:05 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] VAYERA ? WHO IS HKBH TALKING TO? Message-ID: Furthermore, HKBH is transgressing Lashon Hara by disclosing to Avraham that Sara laughed. It is pretty clear that Sara's indiscretion was disclosed to Avraham because it was necessary for AAvinu to know, as we see, he rebuked Sara for laughing. Avraham was responsible for this shortcoming of Sara - this properly explains all these Qs HKBH expected Avraham to respond as he did. The question is really an indictment of sorts. Avraham is blamed for Sara's indiscretion? Therefore, Avraham confronts [18:19] Sara. And when Sara denies it, Avraham rebukes her. It is Avraham's responsibility to ensure she confesses. Best, Meir G. Rabi From meirabi at mail.gmail.com Mon Nov 6 12:30:23 2017 From: meirabi at mail.gmail.com (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi) Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2017 07:30:23 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] HKBH Rebukes Avraham for Sara's Shortcomings In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: continuing from prev post - > Sara laughs [18:12] Gd is not happy > [18:13] HKBH confronts Avraham, ... Preserving harmony [Yevamos 65b, in this case between Araham and Sara] compels HKBH to lie to Avraham [HKBH reported that Sara said, "I am too old to have children", when in fact she said, "my master is old"] and yet HKBH, rather than remaining silent to preserve peace, reports Sara's indiscretion to Avraham. Furthermore, aside from being likely to cause strife between Avraham and Sara, this report is a horribly demeaning Lashon Hara. Scoffing at HKBH's ability to grant her a child, in spite of it being uttered by what might easily have been described as a foolish visitor, is a blight upon Sara which HKBH held against her. And she understood the correctness of the criticism and felt shamed, as we see that she [apparently] instinctively and immediately denied it [18:15] It seems clear that HKBH reported this to Avraham, rather than directly or indirectly to Sara, not only to correct Sara but also to rebuke Avraham. HKBH was criticising Avraham for Sara's shortcoming. From micha at aishdas.org Mon Nov 6 17:55:31 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2017 20:55:31 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Questioning Authority In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20171107015531.GC12418@aishdas.org> On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 09:41:32AM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : I have always felt that it is (or ought to be) possible and permissible to : *question* authority without challenging or rejecting authority... I would have said "to ask questions", as to me "to question" something is indeed to challenge. But that's just an English or perhaps English dialect issue. What's nice is that we don't have this issue in halachic jargon: there is a clear difference between 1- a she'eilah, asking for information, ibua'ei lehu / miba'ei on the oe hand, and 2- a qushya ("qasha"), tiyuvta, meisivei, where we challenge the given statement. .... : But frequently, the truth is that the parent has very good reasons for what : he says. It's just that he's unable to put those reasons into clear words. : He can't even explain it to himself in simple terms, because it is simply a : gut feeling that he has, based on experience and intuition, he sees that : this is the action or inaction which must be followed in this particular : situation. As far as I can tell, this is what RYBS calls "mesorah", and the same notion of "mesorah" RHS invokves when arguing against ordaining women or women leading inessential portions of davening? (As opposed to those who think of "mesorah" as referring to mimeticism.) : I think this is analogous to Torah leaders and Torah followers. When the : leaders tell the followers what to do, or what to avoid, it is entirely : reasonable for the followers to request explanations from the leaders. This : is especially so, if the explanation will help them comply with the : directive, or teach them how to apply the directive to other situations. : But these requests must be made respectfully, carefully, and only up to a : certain point. We ask a poseiq a she'eilah, not a qushya. And -- as noted by the Maharal in the Beer haGolah RMRabi and I beat to death -- we should be expecting to understand rather than blindly follow. The limit you speak of comes for the fact that a feel for how the halakhah ought to be inherently can't be articulated. To repply R/Dr Moshe Koppel's metaphor for halakhah, as much as halakhah runs like a legal system, it also works like a language. People who only know English as a second language could know rules of conjugation, but it takes serious immersion in the language to know what kinds of poetic license works and what violates the limits of acceptible English. We native speakers know what "sounds right". But if an immigrant were to ask why "the red big ball" sounds weird but "the big red ball" sounds normal, how many of us could explain it? And if we did come up with an explanation, isn't it a post-facto construct rather than the more by-feel way the determination was really made? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger For those with faith there are no questions. micha at aishdas.org For those who lack faith there are no answers. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yaakov of Radzimin Fax: (270) 514-1507 From micha at aishdas.org Mon Nov 6 18:30:37 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2017 21:30:37 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] eitz hachaim In-Reply-To: <61f0b606-b859-4475-eef8-a10489e74f1c@starways.net> References: <61f0b606-b859-4475-eef8-a10489e74f1c@starways.net> Message-ID: <20171107023037.GE12418@aishdas.org> On Sun, Oct 15, 2017 at 05:41:04PM -0400, hankman via Avodah wrote: : What exactly was the eitz hachaim all about. The simple pshat doesn't : make any sense. ... Kodem hacheit he was not : a bar misah so he had no need of it, after the cheit he was prevented : from accessing it! So when would it ever be useful to Adam? On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 10:51:28AM +0300, Lisa Liel via Avodah wrote: : I don't understand the question. He was prevented from accessing it : *because* of the cheit. Had he not sinned, you say he would have had : no need for it, but who is to say that its only function was to make : him live forever..... Note how the Torah is also called "eitz chaim (hi lamachaziqim bahh)." So I think Lisa's notion that the eitz chaim likely had another function is quite probable. Likely its primary function was to provide the da'as that would lead to arichas yamim. Like the Torah does -- even if its arichas yamim appears not to be in olam hazeh. There is also the idea that there was only one tree in the iddle of the garden, an eitz hachaim upon which grew a branch bearing the peri eitz hada'as tov vara. Or maybe that the eitz vhaim was the rooots from which the eitz hadaas grew. I don't know -- I only heard about it second-hand (multiple times) by people quoting "sifrei qabbalah" (as though that counts as a citation). Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger If you won't be better tomorrow micha at aishdas.org than you were today, http://www.aishdas.org then what need do you have for tomorrow? Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rebbe Nachman of Breslov From micha at aishdas.org Mon Nov 6 18:04:55 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2017 21:04:55 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] A Great Name In-Reply-To: <20171025204831.CKZV22111.fed1rmfepo202.cox.net@fed1rmimpo210.cox.net> References: <20171025204831.CKZV22111.fed1rmfepo202.cox.net@fed1rmimpo210.cox.net> Message-ID: <20171107020455.GD12418@aishdas.org> On Wed, Oct 25, 2017 at 04:48:29PM -0400, Sholom Simon via Avodah wrote: : One of the implicit criticisms of Migdal Bavel was that they wanted : to make a name for themselves. Then, at the beginning of Lech L'cha, : H' tells Avram that he will make his name great. : There must be something there... anybody have any thoughts? First question... If all of humanity was participating (minus two epople -- Avraham and Ashur), who exactly were they trying to build up their reputation for? Whereas after the Haflagah, man was split into numerous communities, the notion of being known broadly makes sense. And if you want to spread your teachings, such fame is useful. Yes, I think the contrast is meaningful -- the people who got caught up in ego to the point of irrationality wanted fame for its own sake. After all, it had no logical value in their context. Whereas Afraham was granted fame as part of Hashem aiding his success, and fame is positive. It's not a question, it's the point. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Between stimulus & response, there is a space. micha at aishdas.org In that space is our power to choose our http://www.aishdas.org response. In our response lies our growth Fax: (270) 514-1507 and our freedom. - Victor Frankl, (MSfM) From cantorwolberg at cox.net Mon Nov 6 23:30:51 2017 From: cantorwolberg at cox.net (Richard Wolberg) Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2017 02:30:51 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Gilgul Hanefesh Message-ID: I have heard many conflicting opinions about our belief in reincarnation. I hope and pray it is not true. ?One life is enough!? Is there a definitive Jewish belief? I have even heard some believe in ?Transmigration of the Soul? which is even more scary. As an impressionable kid, I once had a rabbi tell me that if you don?t wash netilat yadayim prior to eating, you will come back as a dog. The following is an excerpt by an article in the Aish.com Newsletter by Sara Yoheved Rigler. there are hints to reincarnation in the Bible and early commentaries (1), while in Kabbalah, Judaism?s mystical tradition, overt references to reincarnation abound. The Zohar, the basic text of Jewish mysticism (attributed to Rabbi Shimon Bar Yochai, a 1st century sage) assumes gilgul neshamot [the recycling of souls] as a given, and the Ari, the greatest of all Kabbalists, whose 16th teachings are recorded in, Shaar HaGilgulim, traced the reincarnations of many Biblical figures. While some authorities, such as Saadia Gaon (10th century) denied reincarnation as a Jewish concept, from the 17th century onward, leading rabbis of normative Judaism, such as the Gaon of Vilna and the Chafetz Chaim (2), referred to gilgul neshamot as a fact. (1)? See Deut. 33:6, and Targum Onkeles and Targum Yonosson on that verse. Also see Isaiah 22:14. (2)? Mishnah Berurah 23:5 and Shaar HaTzion 622:6 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From lisa at starways.net Tue Nov 7 02:43:04 2017 From: lisa at starways.net (Lisa Liel) Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2017 12:43:04 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Gilgul Hanefesh In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3ad8c297-8019-3aa5-de3b-800ffe91d6c9@starways.net> On 11/7/2017 9:30 AM, Richard Wolberg via Avodah wrote: ... > Is there a definitive Jewish belief? > I have even heard some believe in "Transmigration of the Soul" which > is even more scary. As an impressionable kid, I once had a rabbi tell me > that if you don't wash netilat yadayim prior to eating, you will come > back as a dog. As I understand it, gilgul neshamot is not the same as the eastern idea of reincarnation, where one person's soul literally incarnates again in another body and lives another life. Rather, on a spiritual level, the soul of one person can "match" the soul of someone who lived previously. Either by harmony or dissonance, to use a musical metaphor. In Seder HaDorot, it talks incessantly about how some person or other was the gilgul, or tikkun, of a previous person. But it sometimes has multiple people as the gilgul or tikkun of a previous person, which makes more sense given the "match" concept. Kabbalistically, at least according to R' Aryeh Kaplan, the spiritual dimension is one of similarities and differences. Two things that are more similar are "closer" and two things that are less similar are "further apart". So if your soul is very similar to that of someone who lived before, you could have such a "match". You might even dream memories that the previous soul experienced. That doesn't make you that person. And since the state of a person's soul changes throughout their life, their "match" to someone who lived previously can come and go as well. To give an example, Seder HaDorot says that Rabbi Akiva was the gilgul/tikkun of Zimri ben Salu. The 24K Bnei Shimon who died in the plague following Zimri's actions match the 24K talmidim of Rabbi Akiva, for example. But while Zimri took Kosbi b'issur, Rabbi Akiva married the wife of Tyrannus Rufus b'heter, after she converted. Hence restoring a balance that Zimri had violated. I don't buy the "reincarnated as a dog" or "as a fish" stuff. Those who do, I suppose they have on whom to rely, but you don't have to buy into it yourself. (NB: While Googling to see if there was a website that talked about this, I found this article from Aish, which was very interesting. It included Shechem and Dina in the equation as well. http://www.aish.com/tp/i/moha/97291469.html) Lisa From micha at aishdas.org Tue Nov 7 13:54:20 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2017 16:54:20 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] 17 Marcheshvan Message-ID: <20171107215420.GA15523@aishdas.org> Yesterday, the 17th Marcheshvan, was the anniversary of two events: 1- The rain of the mabul began; and 2- 2 Nov 1917, the day the British Foreign Secretary, Lord Alfred Balfour, sent the famous letter to Baron Lionel Walter Rothchild. Anyone want to connect the dots between the two? Two things I did notice: - Both were first steps, far from the final yeshu'ah. - Both were first followed by major destruction before anything positive could be seen from them. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger I have great faith in optimism as a philosophy, micha at aishdas.org if only because it offers us the opportunity of http://www.aishdas.org self-fulfilling prophecy. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Arthur C. Clarke From micha at aishdas.org Tue Nov 7 14:54:02 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2017 17:54:02 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Torah precheit? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20171107225402.GA26849@aishdas.org> On Thu, Oct 19, 2017 at 05:47:09AM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : R' Chaim Manaster asked: :> I have been trying to understand what the geshtalt of Torah :> was precheit of the eitz hadaas... ... :> The many consequences seem to be as follows: there would be :> no avdus in Mitzrayim, therefore no...... : One can ask similar questions about other turning-points in history. : What if Kayin had not killed Hevel? What if the world has not gone to : Avodah Zara a few generations later? What if Yishmael and/or Esav had : not gone of the derech? What if Moshe Rabenu had acted differently by : the rock? To get really confused... The Torah, like it's Author, is lemaaleh min hazman. What aspect of the Torah we mean by that aside for a moment, that means it wasn't written before the eitz hadaas, Kayin killing Hevel, Dor Enosh, galus Mitzrayim, etc... Torah doesn't enter the timeline until it is revealed at Har Sinai. Which means that there is no question about Hashem's "foreknowledge" and bechirah chafshi about anything written in the Torah that happens before Matan Torah. We can't talk about Hashem Knowing what we *will* decide until that Knowledge enters the timeline. There is no "before" or after to His knowing, only to when He informs others of it. So, for events that precede Har Sinai, the Torah can contain those decisions. There is no "what if" because Hashem Knows that that what wouldn't. No more a problem than if the Torah were written /after/ those events. Hey, I warned you I was opening the door to confusion. Then there is the question of the supernal Torah vs the form we got. As per the Ramban about the Torah without the letters separated into the words we have now. (Tangent: If one were to take that shitas haRamban at face value, there is meaning to the pesuqim with the words redivided. So, why isn't that one of the Middos shehaTorah Nidreshes Bahen?) : And there are yet others. Torah manifests itself differently to a : kohen than to a levi, and differently to a woman than to a man. And so : on... And on Sun, Oct 22, 2017 at 04:15:49PM -0400, RCM replied: : R. Akiva Miller wrote: ""If there is life on other planets, might they : possibly have a Torah? But Mitzrayim doesn't exist there, and Moshe : never lived there!" That question bothered me for a very long time," : Strangely enough, I had similar thoughts years back. As a young bachur : in yeshivo, my rebbi was teaching us that their was a period during : which the progenitor of kelal Yisroel would happen. I asked what would : have happened if there had been another deep thinker who came to the : same realization and belief that Avraham did. He answered that there : would have been two (or more) chosen peoples to eventually be mekabel : Torah. It didn't occur to me at the time to ask, would they each have the : "same" Torah or each get a tailored version to their (eventual) am? Or, : would there be one Torah that talks of both of the chosen peoples? Is there on some planet far away, an intelligent alien species with their Am haNivchar? How would the Torah be manifest to them? And if they didn't have a Migdal Bavel like event, did Hashem do that whole Mamlekhes Kohanim model, with castes within the alien Am haNivchar, or castes with everyone "nivchar"? Would they have a Holy Land? If we made contact with these creatures, would we recognize their perception of the Torah as another expression of Yahadus, or would it be too alien? I know this example seems less serious than yours; I meant it as a test case on which to check these ideas that doesn't have to involve "what if" histories that Hashem timelessly knows didn't / aren't / won't happen. : Years : later when discussing what is the purpose to us of the trillions of stars : and galaxies so distant that they could never possibly affect us here : on Earth? Then it occurred to me, what if those stars had planets with : intelligent beings on them and they too went through a similar period : wherein they too had some allien being come to the same conclusions as : Avraham did and they then became the chosen people of that planet and : received a Torah possibly tailored to their experiences and appropriate : there etc.? ... Or maybe they do affect our lives here on earth. Omphalists believe that the universe was created at some point in the nearer past, eg 5778 years ago -- or Last Thursday -- and everything before that is fake. And this is the position of the LR and R' Avigdor Miller. (Although Last Thursdayism is a mock-religion posed by atheists trying to ridicule their position.) The usual challenge by those who like to be more rationalist is that this would imply Hashem is out to fool us, creating light en route from stars to make it look like they shown billions of years ago, tragectories that if you work backward converge from a Big Bang, geological and archological records, fossils, cave paintings, remains of pre-Adamic farming... But there is a more thoughtful response: Perhaps the only way we can have teva today is if the universe we have now looks like it always ran by teva. Otherwise, the effects of nissim would still be causing anomolies we could pick up today. So much for hesteir Panim. In which case, we need a universe that is so big that our place is in looks like some unnoticable backwater. We need a universe that looks like it had a Big Bang and Inflation area in order for us to live with the set of laws of nature we have. And then their existence does impact us. : Moshe when he went lamorom to accept Torah. They too wanted Torah in a : version suitable to them which would deflect all of Moshe's responses. If : memory serves, I think some meforshim try to make sense of the malachim : in such a manner. Unlike RAM's or my hypothetical aliens, mal'akhim have no free will. Without having that much Tzelem E-lokim, would they qualify for revelation? I think the problem with the mal'akhim that the medrashic Moshe highlights in his response to their claim on the Torah is that they do Retzon haBorei automatically, they lack the challenges one would need the Torah to address. Without challenges, they cannot grow into more than they are; there is no need for a Torah to help show them how. Jumping back to RAM's post: :> As there would never be an Eretz Yisroel, then there would not :> be all the mitzvot hateltuot ba'aretz -- trumos, masros etc., etc. : : Or perhaps Gan Eden would have had that status. Eretz Yisrael is : actually a great example: Consider the idea that true nevuah can exist : only in Eretz Yisrael... Tangent: Yechezqeil? Yonah's qiqayon was outside Nineveh. Etc... : .... Rather, my point goes to : this "Torah with 613 mitzvot" that you refer to. It doesn't exist : today, and I don't know if it ever has existed. There has certainly : never been a person to whom they all applied, and I wonder whether : there was ever a generation when they were all in force. There is also the idea of mitzvos that were never expected to be applied. Like the gemara suggests about ben soreir umoreh and ir hanidachas. Perhaps they exist because history could have played out differently and these mitzvos would have had an applicability beyond derosh veqabel sekhar. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger None of us will leave this place alive. micha at aishdas.org All that is left to us is http://www.aishdas.org to be as human as possible while we are here. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Anonymous MD, while a Nazi prisoner From akivagmiller at gmail.com Wed Nov 8 04:57:26 2017 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2017 07:57:26 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Torah precheit? Message-ID: . R' Micha Berger asked: > Is there on some planet far away, an intelligent alien > species with their Am haNivchar? How would the Torah be > manifest to them? And if they didn't have a Migdal Bavel > like event, did Hashem do that whole Mamlekhes Kohanim > model, with castes within the alien Am haNivchar, or > castes with everyone "nivchar"? Would they have a > Holy Land? > > If we made contact with these creatures, would we > recognize their perception of the Torah as another > expression of Yahadus, or would it be too alien? My focus is on the word "too" in the phrase "too alien". I feel that while such beings would indeed be extremely alien to us, the degree of alien-ness is absolutely irrelevant to the question at hand: Any mashehu of alien-ness (I suspect) puts them outside the pale. In our modern way of thinking, in which "Eretz" means not only this planet but the entire physical universe, and in which "Shamayim" does NOT include planets and stars but only the metaphysical universe, - Why would martians have a different status than any other foreigners? I can easily see a discussion of whether the martians count as people or as animals, but that is a separate issue. The issue here is that if they claimed to have some sort of Revelation from the One True G-d, then would we accept it as being another facet of the Shiv'im Panim LaTorah? And my answer is: What would we say if a group of earthly *humans* claimed to have some sort of Revelation from the One True G-d? Would we accept *that* as being another facet of the Shiv'im Panim LaTorah? My guess is that our response would be: That's very nice, and you are a sincere group of righeous Bnei Noach... and then we'd pretty much ignore them. Not out of malice, but because their message is not directed towards us. Here's a litmus test for whether or not I am close to correct: If I'm not mistaken, when a person claims to be a Navi, there are specific tests for whether or not he is believed, and if he passes those tests, and he has a message from Hashem for us, then we are obligated to follow that message. Is Jewishness among those criteria? If Ovadia had not converted, would his nevua be any less true or any less obligatory? > If we made contact with these creatures, would we > recognize their perception of the Torah as another > expression of Yahadus, or would it be too alien? I suppose one answer might be: The word "Yahadus" is too restrictive. Try replacing it with "Ratzon Hashem". Akiva Miller From zev at sero.name Wed Nov 8 08:12:06 2017 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2017 11:12:06 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Torah precheit? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 08/11/17 07:57, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > I can easily see a discussion of whether the martians count as people > or as animals, but that is a separate issue. The issue here is that if > they claimed to have some sort of Revelation from the One True G-d, > then would we accept it as being another facet of the Shiv'im Panim > LaTorah? And my answer is: What would we say if a group of earthly > *humans* claimed to have some sort of Revelation from the One True > G-d? Would we accept*that* as being another facet of the Shiv'im > Panim LaTorah? > > My guess is that our response would be: That's very nice, and you are > a sincere group of righeous Bnei Noach... and then we'd pretty much > ignore them. Not out of malice, but because their message is not > directed towards us. > If all they claimed was to have once had a navi, whose nevuah didn't contradict our Torah in any way, then perhaps we might accept it as valid. But if they were to claim to have had their own matan torah I think we would have to reject it. It's fundamental to our faith that matan torah was an event that could only happen once. It's also fundamental that Hashem chose avraham from *all* humanity, and us from *all* the nations, so if someone else -- on this planet or any other -- were to make such a claim we could not accept it. as for how Hashem could leave them without a Torah to guide them, how are they different from any remote people who had no contact with anyone who had even heard of the Torah until the 19th or 20th century? If the New Guinea Highlanders (some of whom have *still* never had any contact with the world outside their valleys) could wait until now to hear about the Torah, why can't the Tau Cetians, or whoever, wait until the 25th or 30th century? (assuming the 6000 years thing to be some sort of metaphor, of course, or there won't be a 30th century.) -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From zvilampel at gmail.com Wed Nov 8 08:53:24 2017 From: zvilampel at gmail.com (H Lampel) Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2017 11:53:24 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Torah precheit? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 11/7/2017 6:05 PM, MIcha Berger wrote: > ... that the universe was created at some point in the nearer > past, eg 5778 years ago -- or Last Thursday -- and everything before that is > fake. ...is the position of ... R' Avigdor Miller. He certainly is not of the opinion of last-Thursday-ism. (I suspect RMB did not really mean that.) His opinion is based on the mesora. Re: ''and everything before that is fake. ...is the position of ... R' Avigdor Miller'' To clarify, R' Avigdor Miller's position is not that fossils, for example, were planted merely as a test of our emunah. > Why should the [dinosaurs] need explanation any more than the dodo, the passenger pigeon, or any of the other species which > have become extinct, some even in our time? The huge > animals of ancient times, as well as many small animals, > became extinct each in the due time decreed by the timetable > of Heaven. ... Their existence is a fact which does > not help th theory of Evolution in any manner. (Rejoice O Youth, pp. 47-48) However, that Adam was created as a 30-year-old (as Chazal say), with, for example, a full mouth of teeth? Yes. Because: > ''Creation means that the Universe began at once in full-blown development. > The First Man immediately had trees whose fruit he could eat. > But fruit trees must beforehand be pollinated by bees, and bees need beehives with all their > paraphernalia. So you understand that Creation implies that > everything came into existence without benefit of time." > > "Trees have in their trunks a number of concentric rings, > each ring denoting a year of existence. If the First Man had > sawed off a tree, would he have found rings inside?" > > "Since he had trees, they were what we know a tree > to be." > > ...thousand-year redwood trees...?" > > "Creation included everything. Just as the First Man > had mature fruit trees at the first moment, so also the world > possessed mature lumber trees which were created at the > same time." > > "[So]... all animals and insects and bacteria were created, > including those which need rotting old logs and crumbling old > rocks for their habitat or sustenance. Thus, it is self? > explanatory that the world possessed 'aged' materials from the > very outset, including vegetation and animal carcasses with low > carbon-14 content and rocks with heavy lead content.'' > > (Ibid. pp 45-46) Zvi Lampel PS--Again, this is to clarify Rav Miller's position, and hopefully will not evolve (;)) into a discussion of it. Been there, done that, and no time. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Wed Nov 8 13:59:13 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2017 16:59:13 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Torah precheit? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20171108215913.GB3342@aishdas.org> On Wed, Nov 08, 2017 at 07:57:26AM -0500, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: :> If we made contact with these creatures, would we :> recognize their perception of the Torah as another :> expression of Yahadus, or would it be too alien? : My focus is on the word "too" in the phrase "too alien". I feel that : while such beings would indeed be extremely alien to us, the degree of : alien-ness is absolutely irrelevant to the question at hand: Any : mashehu of alien-ness (I suspect) puts them outside the pale. Actually, when I said "too alien" I was thinking not of ways their book of Retzon haBorei different from our Torah but ways in which their existence is so different from ours that we can't event compare. It's one thing to discuss what hilkhos geirus might look like if they had a hahaflagah but they already live in a liquid. It's another to discuss what halakhah as a whole would look like if they didn't experience time as a linear past-present-future the way we do. This discussion also reminds me of my Issacharism thought experiment. Positing that sheivet Yissachar survived, and had its own development of halakhah since the fall of Malkhus Yisrael. Its own Sanhedrin, no Anshei Keneses haGdfolah, etc... The same beris Sinai, but an entirely different development of 3,000 of application of kelalei pesaq, different gezeiros and taqanos... And to make it harder, let's say their population of shomerei Torah uMizvos has been roughly the same as ours all these years. So there are no grounds for saying one set of Sanhedrins is more authorivative than the other. : In our modern way of thinking, in which "Eretz" means not only this : planet but the entire physical universe, and in which "Shamayim" does : NOT include planets and stars but only the metaphysical universe, - : Why would martians have a different status than any other foreigners? Because it's possible that if Vulcans existed, HQBH would have provided them with /their/ mamlekhes kohanim. Yes, I can't guess what HQBH would do -- He could equally have wanted their spiritual development to wait until *we* get there. Like some aboriginal people on this planet, who never heard of us or even Ibrahimic religions relatively recently. Possibly relevant is the Rambam's shitah that chasidei umos ha'olam are only those who keep the 7 mitzvos because they were given at Sinai. Perhaps this gives more reason for a Vulcan am hanivchar. If anyone who does the right thing because it's logically the right thing accomplished their goal in life, then perhaps not every kind of being with bekhirah needs access to a revelation. : The issue here is that if : they claimed to have some sort of Revelation from the One True G-d, : then would we accept it as being another facet of the Shiv'im Panim : LaTorah? And my answer is: What would we say if a group of earthly : *humans* claimed to have some sort of Revelation from the One True : G-d? Would we accept *that* as being another facet of the Shiv'im : Panim LaTorah? We are a segulah mikol ha'amim, beni bekhori Yisrael. We know we recieved a unique revelation. The discussion is whether it's unique for all of humanity, or full-stop unique universally. : My guess is that our response would be: That's very nice, and you are : a sincere group of righeous Bnei Noach... and then we'd pretty much : ignore them... I agree with the "ignore" part, though. Accept for the academics and their journals. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Despair is the worst of ailments. No worries micha at aishdas.org are justified except: "Why am I so worried?" http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yisrael Salanter Fax: (270) 514-1507 From seinfeld at daasbooks.com Wed Nov 8 18:00:29 2017 From: seinfeld at daasbooks.com (Alexander Seinfeld) Date: Wed, 08 Nov 2017 21:00:29 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Torah precheit? Message-ID: > > > >But there is a more thoughtful response: Perhaps the only way we can >have teva today is if the universe we have now looks like it always >ran by teva. Otherwise, the effects of nissim would still be causing >anomolies we could pick up today. So much for hesteir Panim. > >In which case, we need a universe that is so big that our place is in >looks like some unnoticable backwater. We need a universe that looks >like it had a Big Bang and Inflation area in order for us to live with >the set of laws of nature we have. > >And then their existence does impact us. Just want to point out, or remind, that there are two independent questions here that often become conflated. 1. Can a rational person believe in ?young Earth? (i.e., >6,000 years old)? 2. Why would God create a universe making it look like it is far older than it really is? The basis of answering yes to #1 has nothing to do with #2. I do not need to know why in order to examine the evidence for #1 and conclude that He did probably make the world 5,778 years ago. The fact that I cannot answer #2 should not be entered as evidence against #1. This is the m?haleich of R? Dovid Gottlieb. The fallacy of the skeptics is to mock #1 based on #2, when in fact it is irrelevant. My own personal belief is merely that the vastness of space and time give us the opportunity with our puny minds to have an analogy for God?s infiniteness. From afolger at aishdas.org Mon Nov 13 04:05:02 2017 From: afolger at aishdas.org (Arie Folger) Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2017 13:05:02 +0100 Subject: [Avodah] Torah precheit Message-ID: RAM and RMB have been arguing about whether aliens somewhere out there could have received a Revelation akin to ours and whether theirs would be one of shiv'im panim la-Torah. My USD0.02c: I believe that it is not unimportant that according to present theories of physics, we are constrained by how far we could ever travel. Even if we were to remain happy with slower than light travel, travelling at the phenomenal speeds necessary to get anywhere else in our own galaxy where aliens might live, i.e. in another star system with planets in the habitable zone, would use up phenomenal amounts of energy. Furthermore, the distances are so vast, that we would need enormous (what's the trendy word variant, ginormous?) amounts of time, and we still hardly would get anywhere. Bottom line, there very well may exist intelligent aliens out there, but we are near 100% sure that we will never ever be able to meet them. Which leads me to the following observation: If there are aliens out there which we will one day meet, then we could not accept their *competing* Revelation. There is only one 'am hanivchar. We would indeed need to see them as a special kind of Noachides with a possible true revelation that is, however, subordinate to ours and can never contradict it. If, however, we consider aliens whom we will never ever be able to meet, I see no reason why they couldn't have their own Revelation, with their own Torah, which, while it surely will agree in all iqarim, may nonetheless, through a variety of mechanisms suggested by mefarshim throughout the ages (including but not limited to the Ramban's Torah without spaces, and the expansion thereof by later mequbalim that the Heavenly Torah has 23 letters, of which we only see 22), be quite different from ours. I do wonder though, can there be an alien civilization we will one day encounter in person, which has exactly the same Torah as we do. It would seem extremely improbable for them to have had an Avraham, Yitzchak & Yaakov, Shevatim & galut Mitzrayim, but hey, if this is predetermined in part, then why not? The question will then be, are they and us the same people (in the assumption that it is even physically possible to intermarry)? I consider this whole possibility even less likely than the one about meeting any aliens anywhere, so this is just an thought experiment. Kol tuv, -- Arie Folger -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From akivagmiller at gmail.com Mon Nov 13 17:45:22 2017 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2017 20:45:22 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Gifts on Shabbos Message-ID: . I am trying to get a more precise understanding of when it is assur/mutar to give someone a gift on Shabbos. Orach Chayim 306 is about all sorts of business activities. Gifts are a subset of this topic, and Mishne Berura 306:33 writes, "It is also assur to give a gift to one's friend, because it is similar to buying and selling, because it leaves his ownership [reshus]. But a gift is mutar when it is L'tzorech Shabbos V'Yom Tov - as written in 323:7 - and likewise for L'tzorech Mitzvah... And it also wrote that according to that, the practice of giving keilim as a gift to a Chasan is improper..." When I turn to Shulchan Aruch 323:7, Mechaber doesn't say anything about the general laws of giving gifts on Shabbos. He only gives one particular case: That if one forgot to tovel a keli before Shabbos, so it cannot be used on Shabbos, he is allowed to give it to a non-Jew as a gift, and then borrow it back for Shabbos use. Mishne Brura 323:34 explains: "Even though it is assur to give gifts on Shabbos as written in Siman 306, here it is allowed because of Tzorech Shabbos." The logic is somewhat circular, I think: 306 refers to 323, and 323 refers to 306. The only clear heter is an interesting one: On the one hand, it is for a NON-food item (though it is food-related); on the other hand, it seems to be a b'dieved solution for the person who either forgot to tovel it before Shabbos, or somehow acquired it from a non-Jew on Shabbos. I don't see any clear heter to deliberately give a food gift on Shabbos, and I also don't see any clear prohibition that non-foods are excluded from being "L'tzorech Shabbos". Mishne Berurah 306:33 says that it is wrong to give "keilim" as gifts to a chasan. Rabbi Dovid Ribiat ("The 39 Melochos", page 961) includes "presenting a Bar Mitzvah boy with a Sefer" in this category. These examples suggest two rules to me: (1) If the gift will not be used until after Shabbos (quite likely for the bar mitzvah boy's sefer, though I have no idea which "kelim" the chasan would receive), then it is not "letzorech Shabbos". (2) The chasan (or bar mitzvah boy) presumably gets hanaah from receiving the gift, but that amount of Oneg Shabbos is not significant enough to count as "letzorech Shabbos". I offer two specific examples for discussion: (1) Many shuls offer printed material, such as parsha sheets, weekly shul bulletins, and even newspapers and magazines. Or someone might attend a shiur, where the teacher distributes printed handouts of the source material. Can I take these home to read or learn from on Shabbos afternoon? Wouldn't this be a Tzorech Shabbos? (2) Suppose someone is invited to a friend for a Shabbos meal, and he brings a challah or wine as a gift for the host. The host was not expecting it and has other food that he was planning to use. Is this enough of a tzorech Shabbos to transfer ownership? If this host accepts the gift, is he required to serve the food? In other words, if "tzorech Shabbos" is indeed a carte blanche for food gifts, does the food have to actually be eaten? Akiva Miller Postscript: It seems to me that this issur of giving gifts applies only on Shabbos, and *not* on Yom Tov. Consider: You can send a living behema to your friend on YT, even through a Reshus Harabim, even if you know that the friend won't shecht it, and the heter is contingent only on the fact that the friend COULD shecht it. (MB 516:1) You can even send a pair of tefillin to your friend even though it is not needed at all for Yom Tov; the only requirements are that the tefillin are ready-for-use, and that friend gets hanaa from receiving the gift (MB 516:11-12) That whole siman seems to deal with issues of hotzaah and muktzeh, and doesn't even mention kinyanim (at least, I didn't see any such mention). This is very puzzling: Why would there be a difference between giving gifts on Shabbos and on Yom Tov? If this could be answered, it might shed light on what "L'tzorech Shabbos" means. From micha at aishdas.org Tue Nov 14 08:39:28 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2017 11:39:28 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Gilgul Hanefesh In-Reply-To: <3ad8c297-8019-3aa5-de3b-800ffe91d6c9@starways.net> References: <3ad8c297-8019-3aa5-de3b-800ffe91d6c9@starways.net> Message-ID: <20171114163928.GD29616@aishdas.org> On Tue, Nov 07, 2017 at 12:43:04PM +0200, Lisa Liel via Avodah wrote: : As I understand it, gilgul neshamot is not the same as the eastern : idea of reincarnation, where one person's soul literally incarnates : again in another body and lives another life... RSGaon says in (Emunos veDei'os 6:8 tr R' Yosef el-Qafeh, "Kapach"; emphasis mine): Venineini omer ki anashim, mimi SHENIQRA'IM YEHUDIM, matzasim ma'aminim begilgul veqor'in oso haha'ataqus. I left that in Hebrew because I want to be medayeiq in lashon in a moment. To continue, with my translation from the Hebrew: The matter to their minds is that the ruach of Re'uvein will be in Shim'on, and after that in Leivi, and after that in Yehudah. And from them, or most of them figure that it could be that the ruach of a person will be in an animal, and the ruach of an anumal in a person. And a lot of such delusions and confusion. And then the rest of the chapter lists their errors. RYeQ footnotes that R' Uzziel concluded that the people who are "called Jews" who believe such things are the Qaraim. Anan (the founder) picked up this idea from the Greeks. I do not know the original Arabic, but in this translation, notice that it's possible to read RSG as being against people to take the idea of gilgul and call it "ha'ataqus" and describe it as souls migrating from person to person or even to animal, etc... But not against gilgul itself. Which would support Lisa's understanding. This read has two open questions to resolve, not that I am saying they're unanswerable: 1- RSG does use the same Arabic again at the end of the chapter (and ma'amar) that R "Kapach" translates to "gilgul" -- "And I say: what does this say that teaches about gilgul?..." Perhaps it should be read: How do they think those pesuqim indicate that gilgul means ha'ataqah -- they don't talk about gilgul altogether? 2- My bigger problem is that RSG would then be spending all this time on a heretical misunderstanding of gilgul, without even one sentence saying, "But what gilgul *really* means..."? It would even be an important point of the ma'amar's discussion of souls and afterlife. This omission I find highly unlikely. As to how they would differ. The kind of people who talk about gilgul also talk about Naran and sometimes even Naran Chai -- Nefesh Ruach Neshamah, which are the penimios aspects of the soul, and Chayah and Yechidah. For that matter, RSG discusses Naran in the very same ma'amar (6:3 ) as three kochos. To RSG, they are an indisible singularity that has three abilities. But in more Qabbalistic sources, they are described as parts even as the soul's unitary nature is also asserted. If ruach and nashamah are indeed parts, then there is a huge difference between 1- Gilgul nashamos: The neshamah -- and according to the Ari, even "sparks" of a neshamah rather than a whole one -- "revolves" from one life in one body to another. And 2- Ha'ataqa: where the ruach migrates. Neshamah is much less associated with the notion of "self" than ruach is. E.g. "Neshamah shanasati bi, tehorah hi." The "bi -- in me" receives a neshamah. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger It isn't what you have, or who you are, or where micha at aishdas.org you are, or what you are doing, that makes you http://www.aishdas.org happy or unhappy. It's what you think about. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Dale Carnegie From micha at aishdas.org Tue Nov 14 09:31:55 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2017 12:31:55 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Torah precheit? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20171114173155.GE29616@aishdas.org> On Wed, Nov 08, 2017 at 11:53:24AM -0500, H Lampel via Avodah wrote: : On 11/7/2017 6:05 PM, Micha Berger wrote: :> ... that the universe was created at some point in the nearer :> past, eg 5778 years ago -- or Last Thursday -- and everything before that is :> fake. ...is the position of ... R' Avigdor Miller. : He certainly is not of the opinion of last-Thursday-ism. (I suspect RMB did not really mean that.) His opinion is based on the mesora. I meant omphalism. Which is not based on the mesora, it's based on pashut peshat in a pasuq. A pasuq that we don't really have much mesorah saying actually hyas a pashut peshat, at least not one we can comprehend. : Re: "and everything before that is fake. ...is the position of ... R' : Avigdor Miller" : To clarify, R' Avigdor Miller's position is not that fossils, for example, : were planted merely as a test of our emunah. Which is why I didn't say that. Continuing with RZL's quote of RAM's Rejoice O Youth (pp. 47-48): :> Why should the [dinosaurs] need explanation any more than the :> dodo, the passenger pigeon, or any of the other species which :> have become extinct, some even in our time? The huge :> animals of ancient times, as well as many small animals, :> became extinct each in the due time decreed by the timetable :> of Heaven. ... Their existence is a fact which does :> not help th theory of Evolution in any manner. So he says it's simply incomprehensible. I also gave a different explanation than "test of our emunah" -- necessary for having a sensible and detectable teva. My point was to defend the viability of omphalism of both RAM's and the LR's sorts. Asking "Why would Hashem be so cruel as to create all that to mislead, at best to test" question presumes a strawman. : However, that Adam was created as a 30-year-old (as Chazal say), with, : for example, a full mouth of teeth? Yes. Because: :> "Creation means that the Universe began at once in full-blown development. :> The First Man immediately had trees whose fruit he could eat. .... :> (Ibid. pp 45-46) See Bereishis Rabba 14:7 ). According to R Yehudah bar Shimon says that "ofer olam" was created in his fullness. R' Elazar b Shimon says that Chava was too. R' Yochanan says they were creates as 20 (quibble: not 30) year olds. And then down in 14:10, R Yehudah says that Adam was made with a tail, but it was removed for the sake of his kavod. Evolution anywone? BUT: The month that Adam was born in is part of the greater machloqes between R' Yehoshua and R' Eliezer about Nissan vs Tishrei (RH 11a). Meaning, if the world was created in Tishrei, when "the earth brings forth plants and trees full of fruit", then yes, this medrash stands. But if the world was created in Nissan, when the plants start growing and the fruit is emerging from the tree (as the gemara puts it), then perhaps not. In any case, the meaning thereby ascribed to saying the world was made in Nissan is that the universe was created at its start. Regardless of Adam's development when born. So I would have said "one opinion in Chazal", not "as Chazal say". Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Friendship is like stone. A stone has no value, micha at aishdas.org but by rubbing one stone against another, http://www.aishdas.org sparks of fire emerge. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Mordechai of Lechovitz From micha at aishdas.org Tue Nov 14 10:38:37 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2017 13:38:37 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Gifts on Shabbos In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20171114183837.GF29616@aishdas.org> On Mon, Nov 13, 2017 at 08:45:22PM -0500, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : I am trying to get a more precise understanding of when it is : assur/mutar to give someone a gift on Shabbos. ... : The logic is somewhat circular, I think: 306 refers to 323, and 323 : refers to 306... The Mishnah Berurah has mutual references between 306:33 and 323:34. But I don't see the logic itself being circular. 306 spells out the theory, and 323 is an example of that theory and at each place he shows you the other half of the picture. Giving gifts is assur (derabbanan) on Shabbos, except when the purpose of the gift is letzorekh Shabbos, or another mitzvah. Thus, it includes giving a non-toveled keli to a non-Jew so that it can be borrowed back and used *for Shabbos*. But not a wedding gift, which (as per R' Ribiat's bar mitzvah boy) presumably isn't needed by the chasan on Shabbos. And apparently claiming simchas chasan being a mitzvah isn't sufficient to say the gift is letzorekh mitzvah. Which you note as well, although you phrase it in terms of hana'ah and oneg Shabbos, ie lezorekh Shabbos. Perhaps this is because there are other ways to provide simchah or oneg, so it's not "letzorekh". : (1) Many shuls offer printed material, such as parsha sheets, weekly : shul bulletins, and even newspapers and magazines. Or someone might : attend a shiur, where the teacher distributes printed handouts of the : source material. Can I take these home to read or learn from on : Shabbos afternoon? Wouldn't this be a Tzorech Shabbos? I would think so. Why any less than a gift of food? In both cases, the recipient already owns alternatives. So why would something to eat be more letzorekh Shabbos than something to learn? This is unlike the bar mitzvah boy recieving a sefer (acc to R' Ribiat), in that the purpose isn't learning on Shabbos. Implied: A guest who knows the host won't use the food (eg he recommends waiting until the wine is chilled) shouldn't be giving even usable food. Is this the halakhah? Also, I found that ROY (Yechaveh Da'as 3:21) DOES allow giving the bar mitzvah boy that seifer because it provides chizuq. And there is no greater letzorekh mitzvah than that! : (2) Suppose someone is invited to a friend for a Shabbos meal, and he : brings a challah or wine as a gift for the host. The host was not : expecting it and has other food that he was planning to use. Is this : enough of a tzorech Shabbos to transfer ownership? ... Or, in the SA's case... can you give the non-toveled keli to a nakhri when you have just as good or nearly as good alternatives? That you already had thoughts of using? I took it for granted yes, since if not, the SA is oddly missing an important half of the story. Which is why above I only asked about a case where the guest gives something in a way that rules out its use, rather than just left to the host's choice. When I am the guest in this situation, I am zokheh lo shelo befanav and transfer ownership on Friday. Came in handy a couple of times when the host refused the gift. "Well, if you don't want it, you can regift it. Because it's yours already and you aren't allowed to give it back" right now, at least. : Postscript: It seems to me that this issur of giving gifts applies : only on Shabbos, and *not* on Yom Tov... Then why "letzorekh Shabbos or YT"? When do you have something that is letzorekh YT in particular when it's also Shabbos? : (MB 516:1) You can : even send a pair of tefillin to your friend even though it is not : needed at all for Yom Tov; the only requirements are that the tefillin : are ready-for-use, and that friend gets hanaa from receiving the gift : (MB 516:11-12) And the bar mitzvah boy doesn't get the same kind of hana'ah (speaking quality, not quantity) from his uncle's gift of a set of Rambam? Now I'm confused again. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "The worst thing that can happen to a micha at aishdas.org person is to remain asleep and untamed." http://www.aishdas.org - Rabbi Simcha Zissel Ziv, Alter of Kelm Fax: (270) 514-1507 From micha at aishdas.org Tue Nov 14 10:48:32 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2017 13:48:32 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Torah precheit In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20171114184832.GI29616@aishdas.org> On Mon, Nov 13, 2017 at 01:05:02PM +0100, Arie Folger via Avodah wrote: : Bottom line, there very well may exist intelligent aliens out there, but we : are near 100% sure that we will never ever be able to meet them. Nice chiluq! : Which leads me to the following observation: If there are aliens out there : which we will one day meet, then we could not accept their *competing* : Revelation. There is only one 'am hanivchar... Who said that "nivchar mibein ha'amim" means anything beyond benei Adam, amim as caused by Migdal Bavel? Perhaps their revelation isn't so much competing as the RBSO providing them a chance at redemption before Yom Hashem haGadol vehanora, or at least before whenever it is we get there? : them as a special kind of Noachides with a possible true revelation that : is, however, subordinate to ours and can never contradict it. This is itself the question I was trying to keep under discussion. Could we even recognize a contradiction? After all, the appearance of Retzon haBorei to creatures very different than us isn't likely to have many points where we can contradict. Assuming they are ethical monotheists, that is. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger It's never too late micha at aishdas.org to become the person http://www.aishdas.org you might have been. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - George Eliot From meirabi at gmail.com Thu Nov 16 16:11:31 2017 From: meirabi at gmail.com (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi) Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2017 11:11:31 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] How Much Salt for Kashering? Message-ID: Kosher meat must have all traces of blood removed. This procedure is known as 'Kashering' and requires very precise procedures and timing of rinsing, soaking, salting and finally removal of the salt and blood via rinsing and washing. Halachah provides no precise measure of salt to be used for Kashering and although insisting that all surfaces must be covered with salt, does not differentiate between small and large surface area to volume ratios, i.e. thick or thin pieces of meat. In other words a large circular hunk of meat [small ratio of surface area to volume] requires the identical amount of surface salt and time for Kashering as does a thin piece [large ratio of surface area to volume] Furthermore, a 20cm thick piece of meat will be Kashered when salted on both sides, meaning the salt will extract blood from a depth of 10 cm, but a 4cm thick piece of meat salted only on one side will not be Kosher. It seems like the process has been standardised to accommodate all cases. Nevertheless, although Halachah permits various shortcuts when Kashering for emergency situations, it does not advise Kashering thin slices to reduce preparation time. Meat that was cooked before it was Kashered will make everything in the pot it is cooked with non-Kosher. Halacha asserts there is as much blood in the piece of meat as the mass of meat. If however, there is enough Kosher food in the pot to render the blood insignificant, the food will be Kosher. Halachah requires 60 units of Kosher food to neutralise every unit of blood [1 gram of blood requires 60 grams of Kosher food] In other words, a 100 gram piece of meat will require 6kg to neutralise the blood. However, meat that was cooked after Kashering but before the blood and salt was washed off, requires only 60 times the salt and blood on the surface of the meat i.e. soaked into the salt. The blood that was in the meat has been removed by the salting. Some authorities [a note in the ShaArei Dura] assert that every piece of meat is itself large enough to neutralise the salt whilst others [the Rama 69:9] assert it provides only half the mass required. ????? ??"? - ??? ????? ???? ??? ????? ?????? ?????? ???? ??? ???? ???? ???? ??? ??? ??? ???? ?? ??? ?? ?? ???? ????? ??? ??? ????? ?? ??? ?? ??? ????? ????? ???? ??? ????? ??? ??? ?? ???? ???? ?? ??? ???? The Rama however disagrees with the ratio - "there can be no question that if the pot contains as much as the mass of the meat, it is certainly more than 60 times the salt ...." See Shach that BeDiAvad, we may rely upon the lenient opinion particularly if it is a thick piece. ????? ???? ??????????? ?''? ?????? ?????????? ??????????? ????? ??????, ?????? ??????, ?????????? ?????? ????????? ????? ???????? ?????? ?????????? ????????????? ???????? ?????????? ???? ?????????? ????? ???????? ?????????, (????????? ?????? ?''? ?''? To the best of my knowledge, this is the only source that provides an empiric measurement of how much salt is to be used for Kashering. Keep in mind that since this is a general ruling it must encompass all cases, the guidelines must reflect the maximum amount of salt that would be applied and that would remain until the meat is ready for its final washdown. In the words of the Rama, "there can be no question that if the pot contains as much as the mass of the meat, it is certainly more than 60 times the salt ...." The Halacha must provide the maximum safety margin and must therefore assume that the maximum amount of salt was applied and remains on the meat when it is added to the pot. Further, the Halacha must accommodate the largest surface area to meat ratio [ChAdam 32:4] and the heaviest salting hand. In other words, every possible variant that increases the amount of salt used is turned up to the max - and in this worst possible case scenario, we can be certain that the salt is no more than one thirtieth of the mass of the meat. In other words, an average sized steak, 300 - 400 gms, requires no more than 2 teaspoonfuls of salt for Kashering. Another thing that is certain - all Kosher agencies apply far more salt for Kashering than one thirtieth. Does it make a difference? Well, these days, the cost of disposing of contaminants is rising dramatically and salt is deemed a nasty contaminant and is becoming more expensive to dispose. It already adds a significant cost to production. Best, Meir G. Rabi 0423 207 837 +61 423 207 837 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From meirabi at gmail.com Sat Nov 18 13:25:21 2017 From: meirabi at gmail.com (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi) Date: Sun, 19 Nov 2017 08:25:21 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] Sedra Toldos - Balance, When Parents Favour One Child Message-ID: Our actions are pretty much prompted by Life's circumstances, we are mostly provoked to react. We do [many/most] things to counter a perceived imbalance, an injustice. Perhaps, with this in mind, we can better understand Yitzchak, Rivkah and Eisav as they are portrayed in this week's Sedra. Isaac favoured Eisav, because he was "Tzayid BeFiv", Rivkah favoured YaAkov [25:28] We are told why Yitzchak favours Eisav but not why Rivkah favours YaAkov. Yitzchak favours Eisav because Eisav is a "Tzayid BeFiv" lit. hunted with his mouth. Rashi explains this as either [or both] - he deceived his father like a hunter lying in ambush or stalking prey and catching it at a vulnerable moment, i.e. feeding Yitchak fake news to present himself as exceedingly Gd fearing; or, he fed Yitzchak tasty food, "Make me the tasty food I enjoy ... so that I might bless you before I die." [27:4] But Eisav was not a better cook than Rivkah - "she made him a delicious dish just as he liked" [27:14] [unless she had him on a healthy food diet and Eisav was Yitzchak's secret steak supplier] Eisav loved his father and he loved hunting [25:27]. He desperately sought his father's approval. He pursued this as he best knew, by hunting and even by lying. We might even say that he felt as though he was hunting for his father's love. Yitzchak understood, he encouraged Eisav to hunt and cook for him. He even reminded Eisav to take his hunting weapons when he instructs him to hunt and prepare food before he blesses him - Yitzchak wants Eisav to be engaged in the hunting and preparation of the food, because it is this engagement that is their link and best encapsulates his approval of his son Eisav. In other words, "It's not the food I want, for that I could ask your mother or you could grab an animal from our flock - it would be much quicker. No, I want you to be of service to me. Knowing that you have hunted to provide for me makes me happy and I enjoy the food more." Eisav knew that his mother was capable of and willing to provide her husband with all the tasty food he could stomach. He got the message that it was not food that Yitzchak wanted. Yitzchak was reaching out to Eisav, knowing how desperately Eisav sought his approval. Eisav learned how to cook in order to express his love. He even deceived Yitchak, painting himself as the Gd fearing son in order to win his father's approval. Best, Meir G. Rabi 0423 207 837 +61 423 207 837 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From akivagmiller at gmail.com Sat Nov 18 19:23:18 2017 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Sat, 18 Nov 2017 22:23:18 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] T'hay Message-ID: There is a word spelled tav-heh-aleph, pronounced "t'hay". Is this word Hebrew or Aramaic? >From context and sound, I have always presumed that it means something very similar to "yihyeh". Is that correct? If they are indeed similar in meaning, then I imgine that they is still some slight shade of difference. If they meant the exact same thing, wouldn't authors use the more common word (yihyeh) instead? This would be the case even if t'hay is Hebrew, and it would certainly be true if t'hay is Aramaic. The reason I'm asking these questions is because I have found a surprising number of paragraphs in my siddur, where all the words are obviously Hebrew, except for this one word. Including a foreign word in a text is not unheard of (there's a Latin word in Nachem, for example), but this is generally done because there is no native word with the precise meaning that the author is aiming for. And I can't imagine why "yihyeh" doesn't work in these cases: Hamapil: "us'hay mitasi shleima l'fanecha" Birkas Hamazon, near the end: "zechus shet'hay l'mishmeres shalom" Birkas Hamazon on Shabbos: "shelo t'hay tzara" Birkas Hachodesh: "chayim shet'hay banu ahavas torah" Avinu Malkenu: "t'hay hashaah hazos" Yizkor: "bis'char zeh t'hay nafsho" Yom Kippur Musaf, the Kohen Gadol's tefila: "shet'hay hashana hazos" Kel Malay Rachamim: "b'gan eden t'hay menuchaso" (I have omitted parts of the siddur that are taken from the Mishna (such as Bameh Madlikin and Pitum Haketores) because it is the nature of the Mishna to mix Hebrew and Aramaic, so use of the word "t'hay" isn't a glaring exception the way it is in the rest of the siddur. Also, I note that my examples were all taken from Nusach Ashkenaz; other nuschaos may have more or fewer instances of this word.) Thank you, Akiva Miller From simon.montagu at gmail.com Mon Nov 20 00:38:38 2017 From: simon.montagu at gmail.com (Simon Montagu) Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2017 10:38:38 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] T'hay In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sun, Nov 19, 2017 at 5:23 AM, Akiva Miller via Avodah < avodah at lists.aishdas.org> wrote: > There is a word spelled tav-heh-aleph, pronounced "t'hay". Is this > word Hebrew or Aramaic? > Hebrew. I believe the Aramaic equivalent would be tehevi. > > From context and sound, I have always presumed that it means something > very similar to "yihyeh". Is that correct? > > If they are indeed similar in meaning, then I imgine that they is > still some slight shade of difference. If they meant the exact same > thing, wouldn't authors use the more common word (yihyeh) instead? > This would be the case even if t'hay is Hebrew, and it would certainly > be true if t'hay is Aramaic. > > The reason I'm asking these questions is because I have found a > surprising number of paragraphs in my siddur, where all the words are > obviously Hebrew, except for this one word. Including a foreign word > in a text is not unheard of (there's a Latin word in Nachem, for > example), but this is generally done because there is no native word > with the precise meaning that the author is aiming for. And I can't > imagine why "yihyeh" doesn't work in these cases: (At any rate it would be "tihyeh" in the cases you quote, which are all in the feminine) In my siddur (Singer's) all the examples you give are "tehi" with a yud, which is Biblical Hebrew, as in "Tehi ala benotenu" in last week's parasha (Bereshit 26:28). The difference between yihyeh/yehi and tihyeh/tehi is that the first is future and the second is jussive (though the future can be used in a jussive sense). I assume the form with alef is Rabbinic Hebrew. How it comes to be used in the siddur, or in which nushaot exactly, I don't know. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jay at m5.chicago.il.us Mon Nov 20 05:12:52 2017 From: jay at m5.chicago.il.us (Jay F. Shachter) Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2017 13:12:52 +0000 (WET) Subject: [Avodah] How Much Salt for Kashering? In-Reply-To: from "avodah-request@lists.aishdas.org" at Nov 16, 2017 06:40:58 pm Message-ID: <15112051720.1Acb3A518.50843@lsd.chicago.il.us.chicago.il.us> > > Kosher meat must have all traces of blood removed. > No, it does not. This is true only if you are going to cook the meat before eating it. Jay F. ("Yaakov") Shachter 6424 N Whipple St Chicago IL 60645-4111 (1-773)7613784 landline (1-410)9964737 GoogleVoice jay at m5.chicago.il.us http://m5.chicago.il.us "Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur" From lisa at starways.net Mon Nov 20 04:02:11 2017 From: lisa at starways.net (Lisa Liel) Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2017 14:02:11 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] T'hay In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <91877a4d-0aeb-1a75-d7b1-78f399a2746e@starways.net> I'm not sure.? We have "yehei ra'ava kadamach" in Brich Shmei d'Marei Alma, which is definitely Aramaic.? The yehei is the same as tehei. I think what's happening here is that there's a certain amount of bleed-over between Hebrew and Aramaic.? In addition, there were different dialects of Aramaic in Eretz Yisrael and Bavel.? So while tehevei may be the correct Aramaic, tehei may be as well. Lisa On 11/20/2017 10:38 AM, Simon Montagu via Avodah wrote: > On Sun, Nov 19, 2017 at 5:23 AM, Akiva Miller via Avodah > > wrote: > > There is a word spelled tav-heh-aleph, pronounced "t'hay". Is this > word Hebrew or Aramaic? > > > Hebrew. I believe the Aramaic equivalent would be tehevi. > From micha at aishdas.org Mon Nov 20 10:24:50 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2017 13:24:50 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Sedra Toldos - Balance, When Parents Favour One Child In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20171120182450.GA24872@aishdas.org> On Sun, Nov 19, 2017 at 08:25:21AM +1100, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: : But Eisav was not a better cook than Rivkah - "she made him a delicious : dish just as he liked" [27:14] [unless she had him on a healthy food diet : and Eisav was Yitzchak's secret steak supplier] Or the hunter was usually the one who prepared the game, whereas Rivqa tended to be cooking the animals they farmed. ... : Yitzchak understood, he encouraged Eisav to hunt and cook for him. He even : reminded Eisav to take his hunting weapons when he instructs him to hunt : and prepare food before he blesses him - Yitzchak wants Eisav to be engaged : in the hunting and preparation of the food, because it is this engagement : that is their link and best encapsulates his approval of his son Eisav... Perhaps this is the whole point of the Torah's not saying why Rivqa preferred Yaaqov. Yitzchaq's additional love of Esav was teluyah bedavar, and that fact impacted Eisav's choices. Rivqa love Yaaqov, full stop, not for some reason. There is also an idea I heard from RYBS and often utilized in Gush circles that had things turned out more positively, Eisav would have been the physical arm of the same project as Yaaqv's Torah. Eisav's children would have supported and protected Yaaqov's. According to the Qedushas Levi's version of this idea, Yitzchaq knew Eisav had failings, but felt that the person who was supposed to go out into the real world was bound to be the tzadiq who "falls 7 times and arises" (to quote Shelomo haMelekh). What Yaaqov missed was the nevu'ah "ushnei le'umim mimei'ayikh yipareidu". He thought that the ideal plan, Esav and Yaaqov together without such pirud, was still how history was going to play out. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Spirituality is like a bird: if you tighten micha at aishdas.org your grip on it, it chokes; slacken your grip, http://www.aishdas.org and it flies away. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From micha at aishdas.org Mon Nov 20 11:11:25 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2017 14:11:25 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Hutrah and Dechuyah in Yibum Message-ID: <20171120191124.GB24872@aishdas.org> The topic of EhE 165 is whether yibum or chalitzah is the preferred choice. The Rambam and Rif side with yibum (in cases when yibum is in the almanah's best interest), as per the mishnah rishonah and possibly repeated by the chakhamim in the gemara (Yevamos 39b). Whereas R' Tam, R' Chananel & the Smag hold like Abba Shaul, that since it's too likely the yavam has other things than reestablishing his brother's bayis in mind, chalitzah is the better choice, bizman hazeh. The AhS has an interesting take. First, in se'if 5, he rules out the issue being mitzvos tzerikhos kavanah. If AS gave preference to chalitzah because yibum requires kavanah, then it would be the Rambam and the Rif -- the rishonim who more often hold mitzvos tzerichos kavanah -- who would be siding with him. The AhS (se'if 6) proposes that the machloqes is huterah vs dechuyah. If yibum is a matir for eishes ach, there is no problem doing the mitzvah of yibum even if the yavam's interest is in his new wife solely for her own qualities. However, if it is only docheh eishes ach, then any other kavanah for performing yibum is desire for a sin, and thus should be avoided by choosing chalitzah. And that this is the norm today. I noticed that happens to parallel who holds piquach nefesh is matir melekhes Shabbos vs who holds it is docheh it. There too Sepharadi rishonim don't feel a need to minimize melakhah (huterah), whereas the Ashk rishonim try to (because it's only dechuyah). Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger I thank God for my handicaps, for, through them, micha at aishdas.org I have found myself, my work, and my God. http://www.aishdas.org - Helen Keller Fax: (270) 514-1507 From meirabi at gmail.com Mon Nov 20 14:35:03 2017 From: meirabi at gmail.com (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi) Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2017 09:35:03 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] Sedra Toldos - Balance, When Parents Favour One Child In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I prefer not to be so speculative about the motivations, Eisav had failings, but Yitzchak felt that the person who was supposed to go out into the real world, But what I proposed does not exclude that possibility. Although, giving the blessings to someone with known failings seems unlikely. Depends I suppose on how extensive those failings are or how well they were known to Yitzchak. Or it might just be that he was the Bechor, HKBH's choice. Should Yitzchak challenge HKBH? I wrote - Yitzchak understood, he encouraged Eisav to hunt and cook for him. He even reminded Eisav .... Eisav loved his father and he loved hunting [25:27]. He desperately sought his father's approval. He pursued this as he best knew, by hunting and even by lying. We might even say that he felt as though he was hunting for his father's love. Yitzchak understood, he encouraged Eisav to hunt and cook for him. He even reminded Eisav to take his hunting weapons when he instructs him to hunt and prepare food before he blesses him - Yitzchak wants Eisav to be engaged in the hunting and preparation of the food, because it is this engagement that is their link and best encapsulates his approval of his son Eisav. In other words, "It's not the food I want, for that I could ask your mother or you could grab an animal from our flock - it would be much quicker. No, I want you to be of service to me. Knowing that you have hunted to provide for me makes me happy and I enjoy the food more." Eisav knew that his mother was capable of and willing to provide her husband with all the tasty food he could stomach. He got the message that it was not food that Yitzchak wanted. Yitzchak was reaching out to Eisav, knowing how desperately Eisav sought his approval. Eisav learned how to cook in order to express his love. He even deceived Yitchak, painting himself as the Gd fearing son in order to win his father's approval. Best, M -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Mon Nov 20 14:10:27 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2017 17:10:27 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] How Much Salt for Kashering? In-Reply-To: <15112051720.1Acb3A518.50843@lsd.chicago.il.us.chicago.il.us> References: <15112051720.1Acb3A518.50843@lsd.chicago.il.us.chicago.il.us> Message-ID: <20171120221027.GD24830@aishdas.org> On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 01:12:52PM +0000, Jay F. Shachter via Avodah wrote: :> Kosher meat must have all traces of blood removed. Dam here means blood in the circulatory system. Not blood within tissue. Problem with translations; there often isn't a 1:1. Particularly in cases of terms of art, like "dam" in this context. : No, it does not. This is true only if you are going to cook the meat : before eating it. SA YD 27:2 does say you don't need salting. (See limitations in 3-4.) But... this is because all the dam can be removed by removing the veins, and simple rinsing. So, in the same sense that cooked meat needs melichah to remove all traces of dam, so too does raw "[k]osher meat must have all traces of [dam] removed." Seems Tir'u baTov! -Micha From micha at aishdas.org Mon Nov 20 13:37:22 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2017 16:37:22 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Fwd [Aspaqlaria]: Post-Modern Orthodoxy Message-ID: <20171120213722.GB24830@aishdas.org> My most recent blog post, in which I argue that Post-Modern Orthodoxy is a contradiction of terms. -micha Post-Modern Orthodoxy micha - Published Mon, Nov 20, 2017 Modern Orthodoxy is based on an integration of Orthodoxy with life in the modern world. However, with R' JB Soloveitchik's passing, the movement was left without a luminary who analyzes and discusses matters of worldview. Consequently, Modern Orthodoxy's thought is that of the mid 20th century, when Neo-Kantian and Existential answers addressed the kinds of religious questions people on the street were confronting. And so, the argument is today, that there is a need for someone to articulate a Post-Modern Orthodoxy. This is why there was much discussion in some Modern Orthodox circles with the publication of a selection of R' Shimon Gershon Rosenburg -- "Rav Shagar"`s -- essays in English. "Faith Shattered and Restored: Judaism in the Postmodern Age", edited by Rabbi Dr. Zohar Maor, was published by Maggid Books this past June. Dr. Alan Brill, on his blog, carried numerous translations of R' Shagar since, as well as analysis of his thought. In particular, see this post of notes that Dr Brill compiled while teaching R' Shagar's thought, "Rav Shagar: To be connected to Eyn -- Living in a Postmodern World". Times of Israel had an interview with R/Dr Maor, "Israel's paradoxical man of faith, deconstructed". And recently, R Gil Perl, an alumnus of Yeshivat Har Etzion ("Gush") who became a student of Rav Shagar, wrote an essay about why R' Shagar's thought spoke to him in a way that the teachings of R' Aharon Lichtenstein of Gush couldn't in the long run. See "Postmodern Orthodoxy: Giving Voice to a New Generation". To give you an idea of R Shagar's thought, he likens Deconstructionism to Sheviras haKeilim -- the Qabbalistic idea that Creation involved the breaking of vessels, and the post-modern's inability to consider an idea to be objectively true. He builds a case for the condition of having difficulty with belief and therefore believing in nothing and turns it into a Ism of believing in Nothing. Identifying that lower-case-n nothing with the Ayin, the capital-N Nothingness from which G-d made Yeish, something (indeed, everything). Me, I think it doesn't work. Post-Modernism is a confusion of the subjectivity of my justification for knowing something with the subjectivity of the known. Meaning, I can know objective truths for entirely personal and subjective reasons. I can be convinced of halakhah because of my personal experience of the beauty of Shabbos. Not from my liking Shabbos; from that about the Shabbos experience I find beautiful, likable, meaningful, and True. I know that hilkhos Shabbos as we have them today really did objectively speaking come from the Creator by way of my personal experience of Shabbos. Objective truth, subjective justification. In contrast, in Post-Modern thought, since I have no guarantee of objectively proving anything to anyone else, the notion of objective truth is entirely denied. There isn't "the truth" as much a "his truth" or "her truth", narratives people and societies construct for themselves. And this touches everything on the college campus from religious beliefs to defending the Palestinian because we have our narrative and they have theirs. (There is room for every narrative but those that exclude other narratives.) In the real world outside those ivory towers, though, you won't find too many people with Post-Modern notions of science, declaring (eg) that math or physics are merely social constructs. But certainly outside the realm of the scientifically provable Post-Modern thinking has become part of the zeitgeist. My problem with "Postmodern Orthodoxy" is that Post-Modernism (as I just described it) is inherently incompatible with the notion of a lower-case-o orthodoxy, including our case, capital-O Orthodox Judaism. I often said on Facebook that one reason why more are going OTD in this generation than in mine is that Post-Modernism has become part of the common culture. It is impossible to maintain any orthodoxy, including O, if one believes that there are no objective truths, or even that there is nothing one could ever assert as objectively true. There is a profound difference between believing there is an absolute truth that I personally do not fully know or understand -- which R' Gil Perl presented as R' Lichtenstein's position, and believing that all truths are human conditioned. Between a personal nothing and an ideal of Nothingness. And yet, R Shagar says just that. To repeat a quote of Rav Shagar used in R Perl's article, "All truths may be the product of human conditioning, but such conditioning constitutes the medium through which the divine manifests in the world." Rav Shagar's position strikes me as internally inconsistent. For example, to This presupposes that there is a Divine which is manifest in the world, and any claim that says otherwise would defy that Truth. So, there is at least that one central Truth that is necessarily true, regardless of human conditioning. The entire notion of considering any of the Articles of Faith human conditioned, true only from our perspective, enters the heretical. Another example, R Shagar's Post-Modern Orthodox Jew will speak of revelation "though he knows there are varying and conflicting revelations, the contradictions do not paralyze him." If one does not believe the revelation via Moshe and the revelation of the Torah are unique, are they not koferim baTorah according to the Rambam? How many rabbanim would allow you to use the wine of someone who believes that the only reason to embrace the Torah's message is because it's "the faith of our fathers" (as R' Shagar describes it) and not different in kind than the message of the New Testament or the Qur'an? There are two ways we can speak of the ideal human: we can describe life on the mountain peak, the person who has perfect generosity, perfect patience, perfect faith, a perfect relationship with G-d and other people, etc... But we know that actualize perfection is unachievable for anyone bug G-d. So, the true ideal human is one constantly working toward having those perfect relationships, trying their best, constantly growing. But they are two different things -- the ideal in the sense of the goal to strive for, and the ideal of being a striver. We need to learn to separate these notions. Ayin is part of the ideology. A crisis of faith, those times of nothingness, is part of the reach to internalize that ideology. The ideal life for most of us will be struggling with the ideology; but once one makes that struggle part of the ideology itself, I fear one crossed the line. From afolger at aishdas.org Tue Nov 21 01:28:58 2017 From: afolger at aishdas.org (Arie Folger) Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2017 10:28:58 +0100 Subject: [Avodah] Torah precheit Message-ID: A little postscript to my statement, that regarding aliens we might one day meet, that we cold not accept any competing revelation, only one that is of a kind of Noachide revelation, subordinate to ours, well... Let me admit that in stating that, I was displaying a human bias: I unreasonably assumed that aliens would be a kind of otherworldly humans. However, insofar as they are radically different species (which would be likely), then I see no problem of them having their own revelation and their own 'am hanivchar, *as* *long* *as* *their* *revelation* *doesn't* *contradict* *ours*, i.e. we could not accept a revelation that claims that 'avoda zara is muttar, that murder is muttar or that assumes the existence of several deities. -- Arie Folger -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hmaryles at yahoo.com Tue Nov 21 07:30:45 2017 From: hmaryles at yahoo.com (Harry Maryles) Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2017 15:30:45 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Avodah] Fwd [Aspaqlaria]: Post-Modern Orthodoxy In-Reply-To: <20171120213722.GB24830@aishdas.org> References: <20171120213722.GB24830@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <570709339.403139.1511278245922@mail.yahoo.com> I read Gil Perl's article and I don't understand why the idea of? RAL's not knowing or being able to know but nonetheless believing doesn't speak to him. I find all the talk about there being no objective truth to be irrelevant. Truth goes beyond provable fact. It even goes beyond the contradictions to belief by newly discovered scientific truths which by definition are subject to change with new discoveries. In the Lonely Man of Faith, RYBS explains that there are no cognitive categories in which the total commitment of the man of faith could be spelled out. The commitment is rooted not in one dimension, such as the rational one, but in the whole personality of the man of faith. The whole human being; the rational as well as the non-rational is committed to God. Hence the magnitude of commitment is beyond the comprehension of the logos and the ethos. The intellect does not chart the course of the man of faith. It is a function not only of the logic of the mind. It is also a function of the logic of the heart. An apriori awareness that becomes an axiom - a conclusion that cannot rely on solely rational considerations.? HM Want Emes and Emunah in your life? Try this: http://haemtza.blogspot.com/ On Monday, November 20, 2017, 7:25:20 PM CST, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: My most recent blog post, in which I argue that Post-Modern Orthodoxy is a contradiction of terms. -micha Post-Modern Orthodoxy micha - Published Mon, Nov 20, 2017 Modern Orthodoxy is based on an integration of Orthodoxy with life in the modern world. However, with R' JB Soloveitchik's passing, the movement was left without a luminary who analyzes and discusses matters of worldview. Consequently, Modern Orthodoxy's thought is that of the mid 20th century, when Neo-Kantian and Existential answers addressed the kinds of religious questions people on the street were confronting. And so, the argument is today, that there is a need for someone to articulate a Post-Modern Orthodoxy. This is why there was much discussion in some Modern Orthodox circles with the publication of a selection of R' Shimon Gershon Rosenburg -- "Rav Shagar"`s -- essays in English. "Faith Shattered and Restored: Judaism in the Postmodern Age", edited by Rabbi Dr. Zohar Maor, was published by Maggid Books this past June. Dr. Alan Brill, on his blog, carried numerous translations of R' Shagar since, as well as analysis of his thought. In particular, see this post of notes that Dr Brill compiled while teaching R' Shagar's thought, "Rav Shagar: To be connected to Eyn -- Living in a Postmodern World". Times of Israel had an interview with R/Dr Maor, "Israel's paradoxical man of faith, deconstructed". And recently, R Gil Perl, an alumnus of Yeshivat Har Etzion ("Gush") who became a student of Rav Shagar, wrote an essay about why R' Shagar's thought spoke to him in a way that the teachings of R' Aharon Lichtenstein of Gush couldn't in the long run. See "Postmodern Orthodoxy: Giving Voice to a New Generation". To give you an idea of R Shagar's thought, he likens Deconstructionism to Sheviras haKeilim -- the Qabbalistic idea that Creation involved the breaking of vessels, and the post-modern's inability to consider an idea to be objectively true. He builds a case for the condition of having difficulty with belief and therefore believing in nothing and turns it into a Ism of believing in Nothing. Identifying that lower-case-n nothing with the Ayin, the capital-N Nothingness from which G-d made Yeish, something (indeed, everything). Me, I think it doesn't work. Post-Modernism is a confusion of the subjectivity of my justification for knowing something with the subjectivity of the known. Meaning, I can know objective truths for entirely personal and subjective reasons. I can be convinced of halakhah because of my personal experience of the beauty of Shabbos. Not from my liking Shabbos; from that about the Shabbos experience I find beautiful, likable, meaningful, and True. I know that hilkhos Shabbos as we have them today really did objectively speaking come from the Creator by way of my personal experience of Shabbos. Objective truth, subjective justification. In contrast, in Post-Modern thought, since I have no guarantee of objectively proving anything to anyone else, the notion of objective truth is entirely denied. There isn't "the truth" as much a "his truth" or "her truth", narratives people and societies construct for themselves. And this touches everything on the college campus from religious beliefs to defending the Palestinian because we have our narrative and they have theirs. (There is room for every narrative but those that exclude other narratives.) In the real world outside those ivory towers, though, you won't find too many people with Post-Modern notions of science, declaring (eg) that math or physics are merely social constructs. But certainly outside the realm of the scientifically provable Post-Modern thinking has become part of the zeitgeist. My problem with "Postmodern Orthodoxy" is that Post-Modernism (as I just described it) is inherently incompatible with the notion of a lower-case-o orthodoxy, including our case, capital-O Orthodox Judaism. I often said on Facebook that one reason why more are going OTD in this generation than in mine is that Post-Modernism has become part of the common culture. It is impossible to maintain any orthodoxy, including O, if one believes that there are no objective truths, or even that there is nothing one could ever assert as objectively true. There is a profound difference between believing there is an absolute truth that I personally do not fully know or understand -- which R' Gil Perl presented as R' Lichtenstein's position, and believing that all truths are human conditioned. Between a personal nothing and an ideal of Nothingness. And yet, R Shagar says just that. To repeat a quote of Rav Shagar used in R Perl's article, "All truths may be the product of human conditioning, but such conditioning constitutes the medium through which the divine manifests in the world." Rav Shagar's position strikes me as internally inconsistent. For example, to This presupposes that there is a Divine which is manifest in the world, and any claim that says otherwise would defy that Truth. So, there is at least that one central Truth that is necessarily true, regardless of human conditioning. The entire notion of considering any of the Articles of Faith human conditioned, true only from our perspective, enters the heretical. Another example, R Shagar's Post-Modern Orthodox Jew will speak of revelation "though he knows there are varying and conflicting revelations, the contradictions do not paralyze him." If one does not believe the revelation via Moshe and the revelation of the Torah are unique, are they not koferim baTorah according to the Rambam? How many rabbanim would allow you to use the wine of someone who believes that the only reason to embrace the Torah's message is because it's "the faith of our fathers" (as R' Shagar describes it) and not different in kind than the message of the New Testament or the Qur'an? There are two ways we can speak of the ideal human: we can describe life on the mountain peak, the person who has perfect generosity, perfect patience, perfect faith, a perfect relationship with G-d and other people, etc... But we know that actualize perfection is unachievable for anyone bug G-d. So, the true ideal human is one constantly working toward having those perfect relationships, trying their best, constantly growing. But they are two different things -- the ideal in the sense of the goal to strive for, and the ideal of being a striver. We need to learn to separate these notions. Ayin is part of the ideology. A crisis of faith, those times of nothingness, is part of the reach to internalize that ideology. The ideal life for most of us will be struggling with the ideology; but once one makes that struggle part of the ideology itself, I fear one crossed the line. _______________________________________________ Avodah mailing list Avodah at lists.aishdas.org http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Tue Nov 21 06:25:15 2017 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2017 14:25:15 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Notes on RSRH's Philosopy of Judaism Message-ID: <1511274314342.40161@stevens.edu> Please see the pdf file at http://www.halakhah.com/rst/hirsch.pdf YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Tue Nov 21 05:54:15 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2017 08:54:15 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] T'hay In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20171121135414.GB15991@aishdas.org> On Sat, Nov 18, 2017 at 10:23:18PM -0500, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : There is a word spelled tav-heh-aleph, pronounced "t'hay". Is this : word Hebrew or Aramaic? Sidenote, just to complicate things. Assuming that when someone with the last name "Miller" speaks of what he finds "in my siddur" is looking in an Ashkenazi one... RSM found in manuscripts that earlier Ashkenazi siddurim honed much closer to leshon Chazal than we do. The example I usually cite is "vesein chleqeinu beSorasakh, sab'einu mituvakh..." as Sepharadim have it. Your siddur probably consistently has "Sha'atah", not "she'atah". This is a "correction" to the form that appears in seifer Sofetim. One holdover is "Modim anachnu Lakh", instead of "Lekha"... but then followed by "Sha'atah". It appears to be largely the work of one person, R' Shelomo Zalman Hanau (Katz), author of the Binyan Shalomo. He then compiles a siddur, Shaarei Tefillah. R' Yaaqov Emden's Lueach Eresh is a rebuttal of the Razah's grammatical theories, and kedarko beqodesh, he doesn't pull punches. For example, the Binyan Shelomo was printed with a hasqamah from R' Tzvi Ashkenazi; RYE wrote that his father's hasqamah was forged. The Alter Rebbe, in composing Nusach haAri, was heavily influenced by the Razah's theory of diqduq. And slowly other Ashkenazim switched from leshon Chazal to leshon Tanakh. Even RZBaer and the Yekkes. So, with a siddur that is partially in one version of Hebrew and partially in another, who knows how any word settled on one set of diqduq rules or the other. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "I hear, then I forget; I see, then I remember; micha at aishdas.org I do, then I understand." - Confucius http://www.aishdas.org "Hearing doesn't compare to seeing." - Mechilta Fax: (270) 514-1507 "We will do and we will listen." - Israelites From meirabi at gmail.com Tue Nov 21 15:38:02 2017 From: meirabi at gmail.com (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi) Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2017 10:38:02 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] Kosher meat must have all traces of blood removed Message-ID: I am happy to amend to Before cooking, Kosher meat must have all traces of blood removed Best, Meir G. Rabi 0423 207 837 +61 423 207 837 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From larry62341 at optonline.net Wed Nov 22 06:20:47 2017 From: larry62341 at optonline.net (Prof. Levine) Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2017 09:20:47 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Sedra Toldos - Balance, When Parents Favour One Child In-Reply-To: <56bc7b19424c44b7aec48fc7014df583@exchng03.campus.stevens-t ech.edu> References: <56bc7b19424c44b7aec48fc7014df583@exchng03.campus.stevens-tech.edu> Message-ID: <7E.4D.03148.0C7851A5@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> At 10:52 AM 11/21/2017, R Micha Berger wrote: >Perhaps this is the whole point of the Torah's not saying why Rivqa >preferred Yaaqov. Yitzchaq's additional love of Esav was teluyah bedavar, >and that fact impacted Eisav's choices. Rivqa love Yaaqov, full stop, >not for some reason. I suggest you read RSRH's essay Lessons From Jacob and Esau (Collected Writings VII) YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From JRich at sibson.com Wed Nov 22 21:54:08 2017 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2017 05:54:08 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] sefer torah's path Message-ID: <7df4daee86e84ff48f391450b891c5f0@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> From R' Aviner: Bringing the Torah to People to Kiss Q: Is it permissible to bring the Sefer Torah in the Shul towards people who want to kiss it? A: No. This is a disgrace to the Sefer Torah. They should approach the Sefer Torah. Piskei Teshuvot 134:6. I have been to more than a few shuls that particularly on Shabbat take the long road - any ideas on who they are relying on? (not to mention those who lower the sefer torah so the kids can kiss it too) KT 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: From marty.bluke at gmail.com Sat Nov 25 12:27:38 2017 From: marty.bluke at gmail.com (Marty Bluke) Date: Sat, 25 Nov 2017 22:27:38 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] How can R' Yochanan and Resh Lakish argue about the tradition of a Gezera Shava? Message-ID: The Gemara in Makos(14b) has a dispute between R' Yochanan and Resh Lakish which revolves around a gezera shava. R' Yochanan has the gezera shava and Resh Lakish does not, Rashi explains that Resh Lakish did not get this gezera shava from his rebbeim. This seems very difficult because the gemara in Bava Metzia (84a) describes how Resh Lakish was the head of a group of bandits and R' Yochanan persuaded hm to learn Torah and was clearly Rabo Muvhak. In fact, they were so close that after Resh Lakish's death, R' Yochanan lost his mind and died. Given this, how can it be that R' Yochanan had a gezera shava and Resh Lakish didn't because lo kiblu merabo, R' Yochanan was his Rebbe so why wouldn't R' Yochanan have taught him this gezera shava? R' Yochanan clearly had a kabbala on this gezera shava so why wouldn't his talmid muvhak Resh Lakish have gotten this kabbala from his rebbe? The answer can't be that Resh Lakish argued on this because gezera shava's are a kabbala from your rebbe, period. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Thu Nov 23 15:55:59 2017 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2017 23:55:59 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] More on Yaakov, sheep and the rods Message-ID: <1511481358587.99267@stevens.edu> The following is from RSRH's commentary on Bereishis 30:37 Ya'akov then took for himself rods of fresh aspen and hazelnut and chestnut trees, and peeled white streaks in them by uncovering the white on the rods. After all this, Ya'akov's initiative with the rods would have been fully justified, even had it constituted a tried and tested expedient - a supposition that surely will not be borne out by experiment. >From the continuation of the story we know that Lavan altered the terms of the agreement ten times (see below, 31:7), setting new conditions regarding the form of the speckles and spots. It is difficult to assume that, because of a general action such as setting up the rods in the sight of the sheep, the sheep would bring forth young that were this time speckled, the next time spotted, and the next time marked on the feet. Ya'akov's success can be attributed only to a special intervention of Divine providence - as attested to by Ya'akov himself. The expedient of the rods was only an extremely weak substitute for the breeding animals Lavan had wrongfully removed. Nevertheless, Ya'akov did not refrain from seeking the aid of this expedient; since ain somchin al haness (see Pesachim 64b), he was obligated to do his part. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hankman at bell.net Sun Nov 26 10:02:44 2017 From: hankman at bell.net (hankman) Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2017 13:02:44 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] More on Yaakov, sheep and the rods Message-ID: <440B31203B1C40479ABF364797C2B58A@hankPC> Prof. L. Levine wrote?": ?It is difficult to assume that, because of a general action such as setting up the rods in the sight of the sheep, the sheep would bring forth young that were this time speckled, the next time spotted, and the next time marked on the feet. Ya'akov's success can be attributed only to a special intervention of Divine providence - as attested to by Ya'akov himself. The expedient of the rods was only an extremely weak substitute for the breeding animals Lavan had wrongfully removed. Nevertheless, Ya'akov did not refrain from seeking the aid of this expedient; since ain somchin al haness (see Pesachim 64b), he was obligated to do his part...? As everyone who had genetics 101 will realize, if you eliminate 100% of the phenotype, and breed the remainder you will still get some of that phenotype in the next generation with recessive genes. So it always bothered me why was all the hokus pokus by Yaakov necessary. Even more so the pasook itself seems to ascribe the results as caused by the sticks even though a simple natural explanation for the reappearance of the phenotype in the next generation is quite simple. The only explanation I could come up with is that the percentages were much higher than one would expect as a result of genetic calculations thus the nes (and Yaakov?s efforts [hishtadlus] to produce it) is described at great length. Kol tuv Chaim Manaster -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From akivagmiller at gmail.com Sat Nov 25 17:51:31 2017 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Sat, 25 Nov 2017 20:51:31 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] sefer torah's path Message-ID: . R' Joel Rich asked: > From R? Aviner: Bringing the Torah to People to Kiss > Q: Is it permissible to bring the Sefer Torah in the Shul > towards people who want to kiss it? > A: No. This is a disgrace to the Sefer Torah. They should > approach the Sefer Torah. Piskei Teshuvot 134:6. > > I have been to more than a few shuls that particularly on > Shabbat take the long road ? any ideas on who they are > relying on? (not to mention those who lower the sefer torah > so the kids can kiss it too) Maybe the masses simply disagree with the logic of the Piskei Teshuvot? Maybe people feel that bringing the Torah to Amcha is NOT a disgrace? Personally, I can easily understand that lowering it could be a bizayon, but what's wrong with taking the long way around? If the short route is taken, then (depending on the shul's layout) it is possible (or even probable) that many (or most) will simply be unable to get close enough to kiss it -- and if this is true on the men's side of the mechitza, it is even more true on the women's side! There are SO many things that we allow for no reason other than allowing the people to show their love and kavod for the Torah!!! Compared to the bells that ring on Shabbos, or the multitude of aliyos on Simchas Torah, this seems exceeding minor, in my opinion. Akiva Miller From brothke at gmail.com Sat Nov 25 18:20:23 2017 From: brothke at gmail.com (Ben Rothke) Date: Sat, 25 Nov 2017 21:20:23 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Gid ha'nasheh and 'therefore' Message-ID: In the coming week?s parsha, it has the story of Yaakov wrestling and then concludes: ? ???-???? ???-???????? ?????-?????????? ???-????? ????????? I am trying to figure out the connection between the wrestling injury and klal Yisroel not eating gid hanasheh. The term '???-????' implies consequently, to which I don?t see the consequence. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From JRich at sibson.com Sat Nov 25 21:47:06 2017 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2017 05:47:06 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] How can R' Yochanan and Resh Lakish argue about the tradition of a Gezera Shava? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: The answer can't be that Resh Lakish argued on this because gezera shava's are a kabbala from your rebbe, period. > ______________________________________________ 1. This begs the broader question as to why an Amira having a gs doesn't automatically trump one that doesn't 2.this also assumes only a rebbi muvhak counts as rabo for purposes of mesora Kt 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. From JRich at sibson.com Sun Nov 26 05:28:50 2017 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2017 13:28:50 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] eilu v'eilu Message-ID: <6b52bc1475284ba2a6aa3d7734cb8de7@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> http://www.yutorah.org/lectures/lecture.cfm/889447/rabbi-assaf-bednarsh/pluralism-and-halacha-what-is-truth,-and-who-has-it/ Rabbi Assaf Bednarsh--Pluralism and Halacha: What is Truth, and Who Has It Interesting shiur on an old Avodah favorite KT 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: From lisa at starways.net Sun Nov 26 14:37:13 2017 From: lisa at starways.net (Lisa Liel) Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2017 00:37:13 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Gid ha'nasheh and 'therefore' In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I don't think al ken denotes causation.? In most cases, it seems to mean "How correct it is that..."? For example, the two times we're told "al ken", the city is called Beersheva.? They can't both be the cause. Lisa On 11/26/2017 4:20 AM, Ben Rothke via Avodah wrote: > > In the coming week?s parsha, it has the story of Yaakov wrestling and > then concludes: > > ? ???-???? ???-???????? ?????-?????????? ???-????? ????????? > > I am trying to figure out the connection between the wrestling injury > and klal Yisroel not eating gid hanasheh. > > The term '???-????' implies consequently, to which I don?t see the > consequence. > > --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From micha at aishdas.org Sun Nov 26 15:09:41 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2017 18:09:41 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Gid ha'nasheh and 'therefore' In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20171126230941.GA24539@aishdas.org> On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 12:37:13AM +0200, Lisa Liel via Avodah wrote: : On 11/26/2017 4:20 AM, Ben Rothke via Avodah wrote: : >In the coming week's parsha, it has the story of Yaakov wrestling : >and then concludes: "Al kein lo yokhlu BY es gid hanasheh." : >I am trying to figure out the connection between the wrestling : >injury and klal Yisroel not eating gid hanasheh. : >The term '[al kein]' implies consequently, to which I don't see the : >consequence. : I don't think al ken denotes causation.? In most cases, it seems to : mean "How correct it is that..."? For example, the two times we're : told "al ken", the city is called Beersheva.? They can't both be the : cause. Why not? It could be that each were necessary but insufficient causes, so that the name "Be'er-Sheva" is the consequence of both being true. Or it could be that each were sufficient cause, and the name Be'er-Sheva was justified by either alone -- but equally so. And thus the city's name represents both. But to answer RBR's question, I don't think al kein implies sufficient causality. Rather, because of the fight, HQBH had an opportunity to turn eating thigh meat into a ritual that reminds one of the fight, and thus of the Jew's ability to act on the level of (in the sense of: interact with) angels. Without the fight, the mitzvah would lack that historical symbolism; so it's a cause, but of a different sort than it seems from your question that you are thinking of. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger It is our choices...that show what we truly are, micha at aishdas.org far more than our abilities. http://www.aishdas.org - J. K. Rowling Fax: (270) 514-1507 From micha at aishdas.org Sun Nov 26 14:58:57 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2017 17:58:57 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] How can R' Yochanan and Resh Lakish argue about the tradition of a Gezera Shava? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20171126225857.GA9115@aishdas.org> On Sat, Nov 25, 2017 at 10:27:38PM +0200, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: : The Gemara in Makos(14b) has a dispute between R' Yochanan and Resh Lakish : which revolves around a gezera shava. R' Yochanan has the gezera shava and : Resh Lakish does not, Rashi explains that Resh Lakish did not get this : gezera shava from his rebbeim. : : This seems very difficult because the gemara in Bava Metzia (84a) describes : how Resh Lakish was the head of a group of bandits and R' Yochanan : persuaded hm to learn Torah and was clearly Rabo Muvhak... So, he had a mesorah from a rebbe other than his rebbe muvhaq or any of his own rabbeim -- maybe just a shiur from someone else he sat in once... (Which is similar to RHR's #2.) Or... If "Moavi velo Mo'avis" was darsehened first by Boaz's court, then we know of at least one gezeira shava -- from Amon to Moav -- that Boaz invoked withtout a tradition of its existence dating back from Sinai. For that matter, if the Rambam assumed that the rule about no new gezeiros shava really was in place from day one, then he would have to assert that like [other] halakhos leMoshe miSinai, there couldn't be machloqesin in any of them. I would therefore deduce from the Rambam's silence in the face of numerous such machloqesin, he must have thought that gezeiros shava could be invented (or as other riahonim would have it: discovered) without a mesorah. It would seem the idea that GS requires a mesorah has a loophole. Perhaps the notion is that the textual connection must have a mesorah, but the lesson taken from it could be left to the later generation to find. Also, it is interesting that the contrast in Pesachim 66a to the mesorah needed for GS is the qal vachomer. A rule of logic that a person truly could make on their own in a way that doesn't apply to another of the other midos sheheTorah nidreshes bahen. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When faced with a decision ask yourself, micha at aishdas.org "How would I decide if it were Ne'ilah now, http://www.aishdas.org at the closing moments of Yom Kippur?" Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From marty.bluke at gmail.com Mon Nov 27 02:10:10 2017 From: marty.bluke at gmail.com (Marty Bluke) Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2017 12:10:10 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] How can R' Yochanan and Resh Lakish argue about the tradition of a Gezera Shava? In-Reply-To: <20171126225857.GA9115@aishdas.org> References: <20171126225857.GA9115@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 12:58 AM, Micha Berger wrote: > On Sat, Nov 25, 2017 at 10:27:38PM +0200, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: > : The Gemara in Makos(14b) has a dispute between R' Yochanan and Resh > Lakish > : which revolves around a gezera shava. R' Yochanan has the gezera shava > and > : Resh Lakish does not, Rashi explains that Resh Lakish did not get this > : gezera shava from his rebbeim. > : > : This seems very difficult because the gemara in Bava Metzia (84a) > describes > : how Resh Lakish was the head of a group of bandits and R' Yochanan > : persuaded hm to learn Torah and was clearly Rabo Muvhak... > > So, he had a mesorah from a rebbe other than his rebbe muvhaq or any > of his own rabbeim -- maybe just a shiur from someone else he sat in > once... (Which is similar to RHR's #2.) > What other mesora? It's not that Resh Lakish had a gezera shava that R' Yochanan didn't have that he could have learned from someone else. The Gemara says that he didn't have a kabbala on a gezera shava that R' Yochanan had. > > Or... > > If "Moavi velo Mo'avis" was darsehened first by Boaz's court, then we > know of at least one gezeira shava -- from Amon to Moav -- that Boaz > invoked withtout a tradition of its existence dating back from Sinai. > That was a gezera shava? In any case the Gemara in Nidda (19b) states that ayn adam dan gezera shava meatzmo, says Rashi he needs a kabbala from his rebbe halacha l'moshe misinai. For that matter, if the Rambam assumed that the rule about no new gezeiros > shava really was in place from day one, then he would have to assert that > like [other] halakhos leMoshe miSinai, there couldn't be machloqesin in > any of them. I would therefore deduce from the Rambam's silence in the > face of numerous such machloqesin, he must have thought that gezeiros > shava could be invented (or as other riahonim would have it: discovered) > without a mesorah. > It would seem the idea that GS requires a mesorah has a loophole. Perhaps > the notion is that the textual connection must have a mesorah, but > the lesson taken from it could be left to the later generation to find. > Tosafos in Shabbos (97a) states that they had a mesora on the number of gezera shavas and therefore they had to reconcile the various traditions with the number of gezera shavas. This would seem to come to address the question of why certain Tannaim/Amoraim had a gezera shava and others didn't. However, it doesn't answer the question on Resh Lakish who must have gotten the number from Rabo Muvhak R' Yochanan. The Rishonim/Acharonim in Nida (22b) are bothered by the question that the Gemara says that a gezera shava that is mufne mi tzad echad lmeidin umeshivin and mufne mishnei tz'dadim lmeidim vayn m'shivim. If there was a kabala on the gezera shava then why does it need to be mufne and if there was no kabbala then why should it be accepted even if it is mufne? The Ramban on the Sefer Hamitzvos (Shoresh 2) based on this question rejects the simple understanding of ayn adam dan gezera shava meiatzmo that all the details of the gezera shavas were received at Har Sinai by Moshe. Rather, they had a kabbala that there was a gezera shava with a certain word pair but not which set of those words and what halacha is learned from it and therefore it is up to the chachamim to decide based on the principles that they received to decide what exactly the gezera shava was and therefore there is machlokes. This is what the Gemara in Nidda is discussing, the principles relating to figuring out what exactly the gezera shava is. Unfortunately, this does not really answer all of the Gemara's and disputes about gezera shavas. > > Also, it is interesting that the contrast in Pesachim 66a to the mesorah > needed for GS is the qal vachomer. A rule of logic that a person truly > could make on their own in a way that doesn't apply to another of the > other midos sheheTorah nidreshes bahen. > There is a machlokes Rashi and Tosafos whether it is only a kal vachomer that adam dan meatzmo or all the middos except for gezera shava. > > Tir'u baTov! > -Micha > > -- > Micha Berger When faced with a decision ask yourself, > micha at aishdas.org "How would I decide if it were Ne'ilah now, > http://www.aishdas.org at the closing moments of Yom Kippur?" > Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From lisa at starways.net Mon Nov 27 02:55:35 2017 From: lisa at starways.net (Lisa Liel) Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2017 12:55:35 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] How can R' Yochanan and Resh Lakish argue about the tradition of a Gezera Shava? In-Reply-To: <20171126225857.GA9115@aishdas.org> References: <20171126225857.GA9115@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <2e55bd0b-bb70-45dd-093f-a9ca79fa0760@starways.net> On 11/27/2017 12:58 AM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > If "Moavi velo Mo'avis" was darsehened first by Boaz's court, then we > know of at least one gezeira shava -- from Amon to Moav -- that Boaz > invoked withtout a tradition of its existence dating back from Sinai. > How was that a gezeira shava? Lisa --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From micha at aishdas.org Mon Nov 27 13:21:42 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2017 16:21:42 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] How can R' Yochanan and Resh Lakish argue about the tradition of a Gezera Shava? In-Reply-To: <2e55bd0b-bb70-45dd-093f-a9ca79fa0760@starways.net> References: <20171126225857.GA9115@aishdas.org> <2e55bd0b-bb70-45dd-093f-a9ca79fa0760@starways.net> Message-ID: <20171127212142.GA26403@aishdas.org> On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 12:10:10PM +0200, Marty Bluke wrote: : > So, he had a mesorah from a rebbe other than his rebbe muvhaq or any : > of his own rabbeim -- maybe just a shiur from someone else he sat in : > once... (Which is similar to RJR's #2.) : What other mesora? It's not that Resh Lakish had a gezera shava that R' : Yochanan didn't have that he could have learned from someone else. The : Gemara says that he didn't have a kabbala on a gezera shava that R' : Yochanan had. This wasn't the ikar of my answer; I was just ammending RJR's answer to reflect the fact that the gemara says "rabosav" not "rabo". But it seems to me now you are saying the OP was asking how it's possible that R' Yochanan knew something that he didn't pass on to Reish Laqish. Or more accurately, where would RL learn something to have him question a GS when R Yochanan told him of it the first time. In which case, my intended answer works even better -- the presmise that every GS is a tradition dating back to Sinai is false. A conclusion the other RMB gives far more sources for than I did. :> Or... :> If "Moavi velo Mo'avis" was darsehened first by Boaz's court, then we :> know of at least one gezeira shava -- from Amon to Moav -- that Boaz :> invoked withtout a tradition of its existence dating back from Sinai. : That was a gezera shava? In any case the Gemara in Nidda (19b) states that : ayn adam dan gezera shava meatzmo, says Rashi he needs a kabbala from his : rebbe halacha l'moshe misinai. Not every "halakhah leMoshe MiSinai" is literally so. R' Avohu on Kesuvos 7b says that Boaz collected 10 men in "lemidrash 'amoni velo amonis, moavi velo moavis." How does he know it wasn't for 7 berakhos (R' Nachman's shitah)? Because of the need to get "miziqnei ha'ir". Why 10? [I presume -- and not a BD of 3:] lefirsumei milsa. Similarly, Rus Rabba 7:9 states that Peloni didn't know *shenischadshah* din zu. As for "that was a GS?" (A question Lisa also asks...) Amoni velo Amonis is justified because the Amoni ddidn't bring food or water when we came to their land. And it is the men we would have expected to recieve or even buy such previsions from. Moav velo Moavis would be a pretty arbitrary time to insist a word be read as specifically male instead of gender-neutral if it weren't by GS to Amoni. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Here is the test to find whether your mission micha at aishdas.org on Earth is finished: http://www.aishdas.org if you're alive, it isn't. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Richard Bach From zev at sero.name Mon Nov 27 15:10:29 2017 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2017 18:10:29 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] How can R' Yochanan and Resh Lakish argue about the tradition of a Gezera Shava? In-Reply-To: <20171127212142.GA26403@aishdas.org> References: <20171126225857.GA9115@aishdas.org> <2e55bd0b-bb70-45dd-093f-a9ca79fa0760@starways.net> <20171127212142.GA26403@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 27/11/17 16:21, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > As for "that was a GS?" (A question Lisa also asks...) Amoni velo Amonis > is justified because the Amoni ddidn't bring food or water when we > came to their land. And it is the men we would have expected to recieve > or even buy such previsions from. Moav velo Moavis would be a pretty > arbitrary time to insist a word be read as specifically male instead > of gender-neutral if it weren't by GS to Amoni. Could you please explain this? Where do you get that there is any limmud from Ammon to Moav? The Torah says *both* Amonim and Moavim are banned because they didn't welcome us with bread and water. You seem to be claiming that Amonim are banned for this reason, and then Moavim by some sort of gezera shava from Amonim. Where is this coming from? -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From marty.bluke at gmail.com Thu Nov 30 02:11:31 2017 From: marty.bluke at gmail.com (Marty Bluke) Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2017 12:11:31 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] What are the main mitzvos to focus on? Message-ID: The last daf in Makos (24a) states that the Neviim took the 613 mitzvos and reduced them to a smaller set for people to focus on. Michah gave three Mitzvos for people to focus on - "Asos Mishpat..." "Asos Mishpat" is monetary laws; "Ahavas Chesed" is bestowing Chesed; "V'Hatzne'a Leches Im Elokecha" is escorting the dead and bringing a Kalah to Chupah; Yeshayah later gave two primary Mitzvos - "Shimru Mishpat va'Asu Tzedakah." The mitzva of learning Torah which we understand to be the most important and fundamental mitzva does not appear in these lists. How do we explain the omission of learning Torah in these lists? Additionally, these lists seem to consist solely of mitzvos bein adam lachaveiro, are there no mitzvos ben adam lamakom that are important enought to appear on these lists? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From seinfeld at daasbooks.com Thu Nov 30 09:20:44 2017 From: seinfeld at daasbooks.com (Alexander Seinfeld) Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2017 12:20:44 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] More on Yaakov, sheep and the rods Message-ID: <50458059-A03F-4E6E-B54B-F1612B0E7E5B@jsli.org> Why not just interpret this as an example of phenotypic plasticity, meaning the genetic potential is there in every generation, and the environmental factors stimulate its expression? As everyone who had genetics 101 will realize, if you eliminate 100% of the phenotype, and breed the remainder you will still get some of that phenotype in the next generation with recessive genes. So it always bothered me why was all the hokus pokus by Yaakov necessary. Even more so the pasook itself seems to ascribe the results as caused by the sticks even though a simple natural explanation for the reappearance of the phenotype in the next generation is quite simple. The only explanation I could come up with is that the percentages were much higher than one would expect as a result of genetic calculations thus the nes (and Yaakov?s efforts [hishtadlus] to produce it) is described at great length. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From chaim.tatel at gmail.com Thu Nov 30 09:30:37 2017 From: chaim.tatel at gmail.com (Chaim Tatel) Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2017 09:30:37 -0800 Subject: [Avodah] Gid ha'nasheh Message-ID: When I was studying Zoology in college back in the 70s, I did some research on Yaakov?s battle with the malach. The big question I had was ?why should Yaakov Avinu get hit in the gid hanasheh (sciatic nerve)? Why not somewhere else in the body?? As I learned in my Anatomy and Physiology class, there are several nerves that branch off from the sciatic nerve. One of these is the pudendal nerve. This is one of the nerves responsible for sexual function (and other actions). Current research follows: The pudendal nerve is found in the pelvis. It is the biggest division of the pudendal plexus (a network of nerves) and is located behind the sacrospinous ligament, near the tailbone. The nerve extends from the sacral plexus, through the pudendal canal, the perineum, and the gluteal area. These are structures located near the genital, rectal, and gluteal (buttock) regions. (see: https://www.healthline.com/human-body-maps/pudendal-nerve) The peripheral nerves supply the bladder, anal canal, and perineal skin. The pudendal nerve is the primary somatic nerve to this region. Motor fibers in the pudendal nerve innervate the bulbocavernosus muscle, external urethral sphincter, external anal sphincter, and pelvic floor muscles. (see: www.humanneurophysiology.com/sacralmonitoring.htm) I also remember that one of the meforshim (commentators) on Chumash had a similar answer. (Sorry, I can?t remember where I saw this, it?s been over 40 years). At any rate, it makes sense that Yaakov would be hit there, as a reminder that his marriage to Rachel after his marriage to her sister Leah would not hold up when he entered Eretz Yisrael. (not long after this episode, Rachel died in childbirth of Binyamin). Aside from feeling the psychological pain of Rachel?s death, perhaps Yaakov also had to feel physical pain. Chaim Tatel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From lisa at starways.net Sat Dec 2 12:56:18 2017 From: lisa at starways.net (Lisa Liel) Date: Sat, 2 Dec 2017 22:56:18 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] knife sharpeners Message-ID: <62debe36-f9a2-7cab-d4cb-a60320a1ec83@starways.net> Are knife sharpeners mekabel taam?? And noten taam?? Do you need different onces for meat, dairy, pesach, etc? --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From zev at sero.name Sat Dec 2 17:01:31 2017 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Sat, 2 Dec 2017 20:01:31 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] knife sharpeners In-Reply-To: <62debe36-f9a2-7cab-d4cb-a60320a1ec83@starways.net> References: <62debe36-f9a2-7cab-d4cb-a60320a1ec83@starways.net> Message-ID: <0115756c-ad5a-dc19-dfdc-aba2138a2858@sero.name> On 02/12/17 15:56, Lisa Liel via Avodah wrote: > Are knife sharpeners mekabel taam?? And noten taam?? Do you need > different onces for meat, dairy, pesach, etc? Since they don't ever contact food, I don't see how they could. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From JRich at sibson.com Sat Dec 2 22:40:43 2017 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Sun, 3 Dec 2017 06:40:43 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Women and Torah Study Message-ID: <9f94d416d3154585a6bb71a2df12c54e@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> My comment to a recent post on Lehrhaus on women and intensive talmud study: Is encouraging intensive study of Talmud for women a community priority or is the priority to make such study available for those who choose to avail themselves of the opportunity? Especially if the former, where does it stand in relation to other community priorities and how does the answer differ from study for men? IMHO these questions have not been sufficiently addressed. Do my concern resonate at all? KT 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: From marty.bluke at gmail.com Sun Dec 3 01:13:00 2017 From: marty.bluke at gmail.com (Marty Bluke) Date: Sun, 3 Dec 2017 11:13:00 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] The 13 middos Message-ID: The Gemara in Shavuos (4b) discusses who the Tanna of the Mishna is and brings down a fundamental machlokes tannaim about the 13 middos. R' Yishmael darshens klal uprat and R' Akiva darshens ribuy umiut. The Acharonim point out that these are mutually exclusive and every Tanna darshens one or the other but they cannot be mixed (e.g. a Tanna sometimes darshens ribuy umiut and sometimes klal uprat). The question is how can something so fundamental as the 13 middos be a matter of dispute? Weren't the 13 middos given to Moshe at Har Sinai? How could they forget such a basic thing? It is very difficult to say that both are right (e.g. elu v'elu) because they are mutually exclusive and come to different conclusions. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Sun Dec 3 06:18:20 2017 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Sun, 3 Dec 2017 14:18:20 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Davening on Airplanes Message-ID: <1512310700373.25771@stevens.edu> Very often people make minyanimm on flights to Israel. The following if from https://goo.gl/j8hdXR and is a quote from Rabbi Hershel Schachter. Another common mistake people make is regarding davening with a minyan (on a plane). The Talmud emphasizes the importance of tefillah btzibur; and one who davens with a minyan stands a much better chance of having his prayers answered than one who lacks a minyan. However, it is highly improper for the chazzan of a minyan on an airplane to shout at the top of his lungs to enable the other mispalelim to hear him over the airplane noise, and thereby wake up all the passengers around him. It is true that there is a halachic principle of kofin al hamitzvos, i.e. that beis din has an obligation to force people to observe the mitzvos even when they're not interested in doing so, but this only applies when pressuring an individual will result in his becoming observant. However, when Orthodox Jews disturb non-observant Jewish passengers with their davening, the non-observant passengers sill remain non-observant and now just have another point about which to be upset with the Orthodox. The practice of the Orthodox passengers under such circumstances appears simply as an act of harassment. Rather than having accomplished the hidur mitzvah of davening tefillah btzibur, they have violated lifnei iver by causing the non-observant passengers to become more antagonistic towards shemiras hamitzvos. The shouting tone of voice employed by the shaliach tzibbur to overcome the noise on the airplane clearly does not constitute a kavod hatefillah. The halacha states that when traveling, if it is too difficult to stand for shemoneh esrei even the "amidah" may be recited while seated. On a short flight of an hour and a half to Canada it is more correct to daven the entire tefillah while still buckled in, in a sitting position. On the long flight to Eretz Yisroel it is healthier to not sit the entire time; walking around somewhat helps the blood circulation in one's legs. As such, there is nothing wrong with standing for shemoneh esrei, provided that there's no turbulence at that time. However, it is still not proper to gather a minyan together near the washrooms, disturbing all the other passengers and the stewardesses. As much as various Torah giants of our generation have expressed their opposition to such minyanim on airplanes[2], their message has not yet been accepted. We wish everyone a chag kasher v'sameach, and all those traveling to Eretz Yisroel should have a safe trip, but keep in mind - these minyanim are shelo b'ratzon chachomim! [2] Rav Shlomo Wahrman ( She'eiris Yosef vol. 7, siman 3) quotes Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach (Halichos Shlomo, page 75), Rav Moshe Feinstein (Igros Moshe Orach Chaim vol. 4 siman 20), Rav Ovadiah Yosef, and Rav Shmuel Wosner all objecting to minyanim on airplanes that disturb other passengers -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Sun Dec 3 07:15:20 2017 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Sun, 3 Dec 2017 15:15:20 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] The Forces That Have Shaped World History Message-ID: <1512314120420.4485@stevens.edu> The following is from RSRH's commentary on Bereishis 30:8 Ya'akov was very much afraid and distressed, so he divided the peoplewho were with him, as well as the flocks, cattle and camels, into two camps. We can put ourselves in Ya'akov's place, and we are especially obligated to do so, considering the significance of the impending meeting; for, because of this meeting, Ya'akov experienced a revelation whose memory is forever linked with the daily meal of the man of Israel. Just as Ya'akov and Esav oppose each other here, so they continue to stand opposed to one another unto this very day. Ya'akov is the family man blessed with children; hard-working, serving, weighed down by cares. Esav is the "finished and accomplished" man (cf. Commentary above, 25:25). Ya'akov now returns as the independent head of a family. Even now, having overcome all the obstacles, this privilege is, to him, the highest prize, the greatest achievement. But to attain it, he had to toil and struggle for twenty years, despite the fact that he had already received the blessing and the birthright. Others, however, take this privilege for granted; it is given to them from birth. Esav, the "finished and accomplished" man, already possessed it in full measure when Ya'akov first left home. While Ya'akov, through hard work, succeeded in establishing a family, Esav became a political force, the leader of an army, an aluf at the head of his troops. Thus the external contrast between Ya'akov, who held on to his brother's heel when they were born, and Esav, the "accomplished" man. In Ya'akov and Esav, two opposing principles confront each other. The struggle between them, and the outcome of this struggle, are the forces that have shaped world history. Ya'akov represents family life, happiness and making others happy. Esav represents the glitter of political power and might. This conflict has raged for thousands of years: Is it sufficient just to be a human being, and are political power and social creativity of no significance unless they lead to the loftiest of all human aspirations, or, on the contrary, does everything that is human in man, in home, and in family life exist only to serve the purposes of political triumph? How different from his attitude toward Lavan is Ya'akov's attitude toward Esav. We know how steadfast is the power of one who is sure of his own integrity, and how oppressive is the feeling of guilt, even if only imagined. It is easier to suffer wrong and injustice for twenty years than to face for one minute a person whom we know was offended by us and who cannot understand our motives, which do not justify our actions but at least excuse them. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Mon Dec 4 07:55:38 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2017 10:55:38 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] knife sharpeners In-Reply-To: <0115756c-ad5a-dc19-dfdc-aba2138a2858@sero.name> References: <62debe36-f9a2-7cab-d4cb-a60320a1ec83@starways.net> <0115756c-ad5a-dc19-dfdc-aba2138a2858@sero.name> Message-ID: <20171204155538.GC26551@aishdas.org> On Sat, Dec 02, 2017 at 08:01:31PM -0500, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : On 02/12/17 15:56, Lisa Liel via Avodah wrote: : >Are knife sharpeners mekabel taam?? And noten taam?? Do you need : >different onces for meat, dairy, pesach, etc? : : Since they don't ever contact food, I don't see how they could. Since they are in heated contact with the knife, aren't there potential na"t bar na"t issues? Tir'u baTov! -Micha From ari.brodsky at utoronto.ca Mon Dec 4 10:03:48 2017 From: ari.brodsky at utoronto.ca (Ari Meir Brodsky) Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2017 20:03:48 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Tonight (Monday evening) begin Prayer for Rain Message-ID: Dear Friends, It's that time of year again, when I know many of you are expecting my annual friendly reminder.... Jews outside of Israel should include the request for rain in daily prayers, beginning with Maariv tonight (Monday evening), December 4, 2017, corresponding to the evening of 17 Kislev, 5778. The phrase *??? ?? ???? ?????* "Veten tal umatar livracha" - "Give us dew and rain for a blessing" is inserted into the 9th blessing of the weekday shemone esrei, from now until Pesach. [Sephardim replace the entire blessing of ????? with the alternate text beginning ??? ????? - thanks to Prof. Lasker for the reminder.] I encourage everyone to remind friends and family members of this event, especially those who may not be in shul at that time. Diaspora Jews begin requesting rain on the 60th day of the fall season, as approximated by Shmuel in the Talmud (Taanit 10a, Eiruvin 56a). For more information about this calculation, follow the link below, to a fascinating article giving a (very brief) introduction to the Jewish calendar, followed by a discussion on why we begin praying for rain when we do: http://www.lookstein.org/articles/veten_tal.htm (Thanks to Russell Levy for providing the link.) Wishing everyone a happy Chanukka, -Ari Meir Brodsky --------------------- Ari M. Brodsky ari.brodsky at utoronto.ca -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mirskym at gmail.com Mon Dec 4 10:02:39 2017 From: mirskym at gmail.com (Michael Mirsky) Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2017 21:02:39 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Davening on Airplanes In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: In all the discussions of this topic that I have seen, I haven't seen anyone address the issue of someone who is in his year of aveilut and needs a minyan to say kaddish. Do the objections to the possible disturbance a minyan might cause override this need? Michael Mirsky -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From larry62341 at optonline.net Mon Dec 4 10:17:47 2017 From: larry62341 at optonline.net (Prof. Levine) Date: Mon, 04 Dec 2017 13:17:47 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Knife Sharpening Message-ID: The following is from an article posted on the CRC web site at https://goo.gl/ispg9T Food service establishments regularly send out their knives for sharpening, and it appears that there are three potential kashrus concerns with this practice, as follows: * The sharpening company may give the establishment different knives than the ones which the establishment gave them for sharpening. This is an especially likely in cases where the sharpening company actually owns the knives and lends them to the establishment in exchange for the rights to sharpen them. This issue can be avoided if the Mashgiach has a tevias ayin on the knives and/or marks them. * Knives are typically very dirty when they arrive at the sharpening facility, and therefore all knives are washed in hot water or a dishwasher before the sharpening begins. This potentially allows non-kosher b?lios to get into the kosher knives. See below for more on this. * The same machine is used to sharpen the (clean) kosher and non-kosher knives, and the friction created by the process does heat up the knives somewhat. If that heat would be above yad soledes bo, there would be a potential for b?lios to transfer between the machinery and knives. However, in tests which Rabbi Neustadt performed in one sharpening company, the sharpening wheel and the cooling water (where that was used) were consistently cooler than 100? F and were not hot to the touch. As such, it appears that this does not pose a serious concern. See the above URL for more. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Mon Dec 4 11:53:58 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2017 14:53:58 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] What are the main mitzvos to focus on? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20171204195358.GC2323@aishdas.org> On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 12:11:31PM +0200, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: : The last daf in Makos (24a) states that the Neviim took the 613 mitzvos and : reduced them to a smaller set for people to focus on. : Michah gave three Mitzvos for people to focus on - "Asos Mishpat..." : "Asos Mishpat" is monetary laws; : "Ahavas Chesed" is bestowing Chesed; Is "din" necessarily a reference to monetary laws? Din vs chessed is a recurring dialectic. As in sheim Elokus vs sheim Havayah. : "V'Hatzne'a Leches Im Elokecha" is escorting the dead and bringing a Kalah : to Chupah; I saw the gemara differently, emphasizing tzeni'us itself. As it explains, one should walk with one's G-d modestly even when doing these two mitzvos, which normally happen in public. And then the gemara continues with a qal vachomer al achas kamah vekamah those which are normally done betzin'ah. So it seems to be closer to the words of the pasuq than the identification with two specific acts of chessed (one of which is famously "chesed shel emes") the gemara begins its explanation with. After all, chessed is already covered in the previous item in the list. (Parallel gemara at Sukkah 49b.) : Yeshayah later gave two primary Mitzvos - "Shimru Mishpat va'Asu Tzedakah." Tangent: You'll notice that Yeshaiah is listed twice, once before Mikhah (giving 6 principles), and once after. As they were contemporaries whose nevu'os overlap in content, R' Simla'i's intent is likely chronological order. : The mitzva of learning Torah which we understand to be the most important : and fundamental mitzva does not appear in these lists.... I think the "we" in your sentence are simply following a hashkafah which isn't majority opinion. Not only does R' Simla'i skip them, in favor of living to emulate HQBH's din and chessed, but - Hillel famously defines all of Torah in terms of using one's empathy to avoiding doing what one's chaver would loathe. Rashi ad loc includes avoiding what one's Chaver would loathe, but in his other discussions of the quote, this aspect is missing. - R' Aqiva and Ben Azzai argue over which pasuq better captures the Torah's kelal gadol, and both are interpersonal. - In both shasin, "Torah lishmah" is discussed in terms of al menas la'asos and/or al menas lelameid. Not knowing for its own sake. See also Meshekh Chokhmah (Devarim 218:61) which I blog about at So, who amongst Chazal really does make learning the central goal of a Jewish man's life? Jumping ahead to the Isms that today's O world is trying to build from: - In chassidus, talmud Torah is a means to deveiqus. - The discussion in Nefesh haChaim sha'ar 4 which denies the previous bullet item might be the earliest source for the position you describe as what "we understand" was written by the same RCV about whom his son says (in the haqadmah to NhC, emphasis mine): He regularly rebuked me, because he saw that I did not participate in the pain of others. And these were his constant words to me: This is the entire person. One is not created for himself, but to benefit others with the full extent of his powers. (SHEZEH KOL HA'ADAM: lo le'atzmo nivra, RAQ LEHO'IL LE'ACHRINI...) So, while sha'ar 4 waxes poetic about the chiyus talmud Torah gives the world, RCV didn't mean to say that therefore learning is the It of life. (And yeshivos tend not to learn shaar 1's discussion of the power of maaseh nor shaar 2's discussion of dibbur. Which also yeilds an imbalance in how one sees the NhC shaar 4's description of machashavah.) - Similarly, while we remember R' Chaim Brisker for inventing Brisker lomdus, he said his main job was to be a baal chessed. And his family agreed; the praise on his matzeivah simply reads "rav chessed". Apparently the Pulmus haMussar was about the proper means to come to embody the ideal, and not what the ideal actually is. This notion that learning is the ends rather than a central part of the means is arguably idiosyncratic. It is far easier to argue that the central mitzvah is to emulate the Meitiv and bring His Tov to others. : Additionally, these lists : seem to consist solely of mitzvos bein adam lachaveiro, are there no : mitzvos ben adam lamakom that are important enought to appear on these : lists? As per what I said above, mitzvos bein adam laMaqom -- or R' Yisrael Salanter's third category of mitzvos being adam le'atzmo, which includes talmud Torah as an act of self-refinement -- is more caring for the goose than the goose's actual laying of the golden eggs. Rather than a question mark, just end with an exclamation point. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger We are great, and our foibles are great, micha at aishdas.org and therefore our troubles are great -- http://www.aishdas.org but our consolations will also be great. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rabbi AY Kook From micha at aishdas.org Mon Dec 4 11:55:56 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2017 14:55:56 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Davening on Airplanes In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20171204195556.GD2323@aishdas.org> On Mon, Dec 04, 2017 at 09:02:39PM +0300, Michael Mirsky via Avodah wrote: : In all the discussions of this topic that I have seen, I haven't seen : anyone address the issue of someone who is in his year of aveilut and needs : a minyan to say kaddish. Do the objections to the possible disturbance a : minyan might cause override this need? How can it be a zekhus to the niftar to say Qaddish in a way that the BALC violations make it a net minus? Tir'u baTov! -Micha From saulguberman at gmail.com Mon Dec 4 12:00:16 2017 From: saulguberman at gmail.com (Saul Guberman) Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2017 15:00:16 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Davening on Airplanes In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: My understanding is that kaddish needs to be said once a day. It is said multi times a day as a hiddur. So, missing one davening should be OK and the zchus of not disturbing other passengers and crew and not creating a chillul hashem should make up for the missed kaddish. On Mon, Dec 4, 2017 at 1:02 PM, Michael Mirsky via Avodah < avodah at lists.aishdas.org> wrote: > In all the discussions of this topic that I have seen, I haven't seen > anyone address the issue of someone who is in his year of aveilut and needs > a minyan to say kaddish. Do the objections to the possible disturbance a > minyan might cause override this need? > > Michael Mirsky > > _______________________________________________ > Avodah mailing list > Avodah at lists.aishdas.org > http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From zev at sero.name Mon Dec 4 12:14:53 2017 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2017 15:14:53 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] knife sharpeners In-Reply-To: <20171204155538.GC26551@aishdas.org> References: <62debe36-f9a2-7cab-d4cb-a60320a1ec83@starways.net> <0115756c-ad5a-dc19-dfdc-aba2138a2858@sero.name> <20171204155538.GC26551@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 04/12/17 10:55, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > On Sat, Dec 02, 2017 at 08:01:31PM -0500, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > : On 02/12/17 15:56, Lisa Liel via Avodah wrote: > : >Are knife sharpeners mekabel taam?? And noten taam?? Do you need > : >different onces for meat, dairy, pesach, etc? > : > : Since they don't ever contact food, I don't see how they could. > > Since they are in heated contact with the knife, aren't there potential > na"t bar na"t issues? Knives are sharpened while hot?! With water? -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From micha at aishdas.org Mon Dec 4 12:48:38 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2017 15:48:38 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Davening on Airplanes In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20171204204838.GA1334@aishdas.org> On Mon, Dec 04, 2017 at 03:00:16PM -0500, Saul Guberman via Avodah wrote: : My understanding is that kaddish needs to be said once a day. It is said : multi times a day as a hiddur... See YD 376:4. The Rama discusses it in terms of a minhag, actually a variety of whatever is "minhag qavu'ah ba'ir". : the zchus of not disturbing other passengers and crew and not creating a : chillul hashem should make up for the missed kaddish. Especially since it's the avoidance of an actual issur vs a medieval or post-medieval minhag. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Life isn't about finding yourself. micha at aishdas.org Life is about creating yourself. http://www.aishdas.org - George Bernard Shaw Fax: (270) 514-1507 From micha at aishdas.org Mon Dec 4 13:34:04 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2017 16:34:04 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Letzareif Message-ID: <20171204213404.GA32594@aishdas.org> In Bereishis Rabb 44:1, Rav says Lo nitenu hamitzvos ela letzarei bahen es haberios And what does it matter to HQBH who shechtas from the throat and who shechts from the back of the neck? Havei: lo nitenu hamitzvos ela letzarei bahen es haberios Letzareif is a metaphor of melting. The problem is, whether we mean smelting / refining, or to meld to thing together (as in "mitzrareif")? Are we being told that mitzvos were given to refine people, or to connect them? Or is the word chosen in order to intentionally carry both meanings? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger If you're going through hell micha at aishdas.org keep going. http://www.aishdas.org - Winston Churchill Fax: (270) 514-1507 From bdbradley70 at hotmail.com Mon Dec 4 14:03:37 2017 From: bdbradley70 at hotmail.com (Ben Bradley) Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2017 22:03:37 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] knife sharpeners In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: ': On 02/12/17 15:56, Lisa Liel via Avodah wrote: : >Are knife sharpeners mekabel taam?? And noten taam?? Do you need : >different onces for meat, dairy, pesach, etc? : : Since they don't ever contact food, I don't see how they could. Since they are in heated contact with the knife, aren't there potential na"t bar na"t issues?' Knife sharpeners get hot? What kind of sharpeners are we talking about here? I've never seen a domestic knife sharpener which gets beyond slightly warm. But even if it did, the food would be na't to the knife, the knife to the sharpener, the sharpener to the second knife and thence to the food again. Which is na't bar na't bar na't bar na't. I thought that's not a problem in hilchos basar b'chalav? BW Ben -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Mon Dec 4 14:29:08 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2017 17:29:08 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] The 13 middos In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20171204222908.GA10223@aishdas.org> On Sun, Dec 03, 2017 at 11:13:00AM +0200, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: : The Gemara in Shavuos (4b) discusses who the Tanna of the Mishna is and : brings down a fundamental machlokes tannaim about the 13 middos. R' : Yishmael darshens klal uprat and R' Akiva darshens ribuy umiut. The : Acharonim point out that these are mutually exclusive and every Tanna : darshens one or the other but they cannot be mixed (e.g. a Tanna sometimes : darshens ribuy umiut and sometimes klal uprat). ... I do not understand this paranthetic comment, as it refers to a kind of mixture, a tanna who uses both styles of derashah, as an example of how they cannot be mixed. The willingness of the two batei midrash to use the others' methodology is stated outright on Bekhoros 51a. One such tanna is R' Aqiva himself, eg Yerushalmi Sotah 8:1 (vilna 34a). See RSRH's discussion in Collected Writings V pg 170. : something so fundamental as the 13 middos be a matter of dispute? Weren't : the 13 middos given to Moshe at Har Sinai? How could they forget such a : basic thing? ... The methodology could have been in use informally before Hillel started the meta-Torah of the study and formalization of rules to describe that methodology. Just as people can use proper grammar before anyone makes a formal study of the language's grammatical rules. Since each did use the others' rules, the formalized rule system doesn't actually define the list of inherited laws. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger None of us will leave this place alive. micha at aishdas.org All that is left to us is http://www.aishdas.org to be as human as possible while we are here. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Anonymous MD, while a Nazi prisoner From marty.bluke at gmail.com Mon Dec 4 21:15:42 2017 From: marty.bluke at gmail.com (Marty Bluke) Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2017 07:15:42 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] The 13 middos In-Reply-To: <20171204222908.GA10223@aishdas.org> References: <20171204222908.GA10223@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Tuesday, December 5, 2017, Micha Berger wrote:... > > > I do not understand this paranthetic comment, as it refers to a kind of > mixture, a tanna who uses both styles of derashah, as an example of how > they cannot be mixed. The willingness of the two batei midrash to use the > others' methodology is stated outright on Bekhoros 51a. > > One such tanna is R' Aqiva himself, eg Yerushalmi Sotah 8:1 (vilna 34a). > > See RSRH's discussion in Collected Writings V pg 170. See the Mishne Lamelech avadim 3:9 where he states that it is either or and the 2 styles cannot be mixed, and his main proof is from the Gemara Shavuos 4b where the Gemara asks on Rebbe how can he darshen a ribui umiut like R Akiva if in general he darshens Klal Uprat. We see clearly that the Gemara assumes you darshen 1 or the other but not both otherwise the Gemara would have no question. See also tosafos nidda 30a s.v. Ushma mina where tosafos says that we pasken that we darshen Klal uprat and not ribui umiut. That only makes sense if they are mutually exclusive. See also tosafos shavuos 25a s.v. Rav who also assumes that it is either or. Regarding the Gemara in bechoros 51a it is actually a proof the other way. The Gemara says that this case is an exception because it is not written in the normal way of a Klal uprat and therefore in this case only Rebbe can learn a ribui umiut but in general someone who learns Klal uprat could not use ribui umiut. > > Tir'u baTov! > -Micha > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From JRich at sibson.com Mon Dec 4 22:13:31 2017 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2017 06:13:31 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Davening on Airplanes In-Reply-To: <20171204204838.GA1334@aishdas.org> References: , <20171204204838.GA1334@aishdas.org> Message-ID: > > Especially since it's the avoidance of an actual issur vs a medieval or > post-medieval ---------- All very true, yet the Hamon am has invested Kaddish with great importance. Does that investiture have a halachic chalot? It seems it does at least in terms of kavod Kt Joel 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. From akivagmiller at gmail.com Tue Dec 5 03:22:57 2017 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2017 06:22:57 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Gid ha'nasheh Message-ID: . R' Chaim Tatel wrote: > At any rate, it makes sense that Yaakov would be hit there, > as a reminder that his marriage to Rachel after his marriage > to her sister Leah would not hold up when he entered Eretz > Yisrael. (not long after this episode, Rachel died in childbirth > of Binyamin). > > Aside from feeling the psychological pain of Rachel?s death, > perhaps Yaakov also had to feel physical pain. I draw a distinction between "consequences" and "punishments". I have heard in the past that Eretz Yisrael was unable to tolerate Yaakov's being married to two sisters, and that Rachel's death was a consequence of that. But RCT writes that Yaakov was given a reminder of that consequence, and that he had to feel pain as well. Now it sounds like Yaakov was being punished. If he was punished, it must be that he was punished for some choice that he made. What choice was that? What did he do wrong? If he could do it all over again, what ought he do differently? Specifically: After having married Leah, should he have not married Rachel? Alternatively, (according to those who say that he was not fooled but knew that Leah had the simanim,) should he have not married Leah? Or should he have protested and annuled the marriage to Leah? If he was punished, what did he do wrong? Akiva Miller From akivagmiller at gmail.com Tue Dec 5 03:33:20 2017 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2017 06:33:20 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Davening on Airplanes Message-ID: . R' Michael Mirsky asked: > In all the discussions of this topic that I have seen, I > haven't seen anyone address the issue of someone who is in > his year of aveilut and needs a minyan to say kaddish. Do the > objections to the possible disturbance a minyan might cause > override this need? RMM seems to be suggesting that this individual's need to say kaddish is greater than the usual need to daven Tefila B'Tzibur. I have heard other people express this feeling, but I've never seen any evidence for it in seforim or elsewhere. I'll express it another way: I am well aware that there are many many people who are somewhat lax in their minyan attendance in general, but for yahrzeit or aveilus they are much more meticulous. This is not a bad thing; whatever will help get people into shul is good. But I do think that their values might be misplaced. Akiva Miller From larry62341 at optonline.net Tue Dec 5 05:12:22 2017 From: larry62341 at optonline.net (Prof. Levine) Date: Tue, 05 Dec 2017 08:12:22 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] How often to day kaddish Message-ID: <2E.1E.03203.73B962A5@mta4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> Saul Guberman wrote: My understanding is that kaddish needs to be said once a day. It is said multi times a day as a hiddur. So, missing one davening should be OK and the zchus of not disturbing other passengers and crew and not creating a chillul hashem should make up for the missed kaddish. ________________________________________________________ According to the original din only, only one person said kaddish at a time. (This is still what is done in some places like KAJ and Bais Hatalmud). Thus, if there are many people saying kaddish in a shul that keeps the original din, it is conceivable that one might not get to say kaddish every day or even longer. Hence I do not think that one needs to say kaddish once a day. YL From akivagmiller at gmail.com Tue Dec 5 04:53:47 2017 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2017 07:53:47 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Letzareif Message-ID: . R' Micha Berger wrote: > Lo nitenu hamitzvos ela letzarei bahen es haberios > ... > Letzareif is a metaphor of melting. The problem is, whether > we mean smelting / refining, or to meld to thing together (as > in "mitzrareif")? > Are we being told that mitzvos were given to refine people, > or to connect them? Or is the word chosen in order to > intentionally carry both meanings? "Ratzah HKBH l'zakos es Yisrael..." Does "zakos" mean to purify, or to give zechus? I perceive a similar poetry in both l'tzaref and l'zakos, but I'm not much of a poet, so I'll leave this thought for the rest of y'all to ponder and expand uon. Akiva Miller From marty.bluke at gmail.com Tue Dec 5 01:10:14 2017 From: marty.bluke at gmail.com (Marty Bluke) Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2017 11:10:14 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] What are the main mitzvos to focus on? In-Reply-To: <20171204195358.GC2323@aishdas.org> References: <20171204195358.GC2323@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Mon, Dec 4, 2017 at 9:53 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 12:11:31PM +0200, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: > : The last daf in Makos (24a) states that the Neviim took the 613 mitzvos > and > : reduced them to a smaller set for people to focus on. > > : ... > > : The mitzva of learning Torah which we understand to be the most important > : and fundamental mitzva does not appear in these lists.... > > I think the "we" in your sentence are simply following a hashkafah which > isn't majority opinion. > ... > So, who amongst Chazal really does make learning the central goal of a > Jewish man's life? > > ... > This notion that learning is the ends rather than a central part of > the means is arguably idiosyncratic. It is far easier to argue that the > central mitzvah is to emulate the Meitiv and bring His Tov to others. > > Tir'u baTov! > -Micha So basically you are saying that the current Charedi hashkafa/lifestyle of Torah only and Torah learning being the ultimate purpose of life is not a majority opinion in Chazal and in fact you can't find anyone among Chazal who says this. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Tue Dec 5 09:02:00 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2017 12:02:00 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] What are the main mitzvos to focus on? In-Reply-To: References: <20171204195358.GC2323@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20171205170200.GB5251@aishdas.org> On Tue, Dec 05, 2017 at 11:10:14AM +0200, Marty Bluke wrote: : So basically you are saying that the current Charedi hashkafa/lifestyle of : Torah only and Torah learning being the ultimate purpose of life is not a : majority opinion in Chazal and in fact you can't find anyone among Chazal : who says this. I intentionally avoided stating it that confrontationally, but yes. Although not "chareidi", "yeshivish". Excluding most chassidim but including the large population of MO who are taking yeshivish hashkafah and harmonizing it with modernity. (Eg RYBS as understood by many of his students.) See, for example, R Tzevi Sinsky's currently running series out of YHE ("Gush") "Talmud Torah: The Mitzva of Torah Study". He draws heavily from R' Yehudah Amital and R' N Lamm (whom RZS calls "mori uzeqeini"); his perspective is that of DL and MO, not "chareidim". Here's the web abstract for the opening shiur: In this introductory shiur, we explore the centrality of Torah study in the thought of the Rabbis. From Noach to Ezra, prominent Jewish leaders throughout the biblical period are portrayed as Torah scholars, and this mitzva is ascribed paramount importance in every aspect of life. In particular, shiur 3 discusses the purpose of talmud Torah, discussing various approached. The section "Approach #1 -- Instrumentalism" quotes pesuqim, mishayos, Toseftra, gemaros, before getting to rishonim (Rashi, Rambam, Ramban, Chinukh, Me'iri, Or H'. See also RNSlifkin's long list of quotes from rishonim at .) In contrast, "Approach #2 -- Cultivating a Halakhic Ethos" opens with the Chazon Ish then mentions R' Chaim Brisker as desribed in Halakhic Man. "Approach #3 -- Variations on Deveikut" starts with the Rambam leveraging a Sifrei (who I do not see as giving their description of /the/ purpose of learning), but focuses on Chassidus, R' Kook and R' Amital. Notice that learning being primarily valuable instrumentally is the shitah for which RZS can find overwhelming evidence in chazal and rishonim, the others being johnny-come-latelies of the last centuries. As for my own opinion, I wouldn't call approach #2 the cultivation of a "halachic ethos". I think this reflects Brisk's tendency to conflate halakhah with kol haTorah kulah, downplaying the import of aggadita. And yet, this wording does emphasize how approach 1 includes approach 2. If we are obligated in hilkhos dei'os / chovos halvavos / ve'asisa hayashar vehatov / to develop a *Torah* ethos, then #2 is also instrumental. We learn Mes' Sukkah to know how to fulfill the mitzvah of sukkah, and we learn Mes' Pirqei Avos to know to to fulfill the mitzvah of vehalakhta bidrakhav. See, it's instrumental! The difference boils down to what I believe was the central chiluq behind the pulmus haMussar: In the Brisker worldview, when RCVolozhiner compares talmud Torah to immersion in a miqvah, he means it descriptively. Learn halakhah as an end in itself, an it will leave a roshem of taharah. Even if the causality involved is mystical and non-obvious. Whereas R Yisrael Salanter looked at the actual metzi'us of the society he was in -- and all the moreso ours -- and concluded that this couldn't have been RCV's intent. Rather, RCV was speaking descriptively; when one learns correctly, one is learning in a way that leaves a roshem of taharah, even if the material itself is never understood or gets forgotten. And RYS had the lifestyle of RCV's talmid, R' Zundel Salanter, as indication of what Nefesh haChaim was intending to describe. Thus, to a mussarist, RCV was describing how to learn. Don't just learn nega'im to find chiluqim with which to explain machloqesin and non-obvious dinim. Rather, in addition one must spend the time driving home the roshem of how bad LH and ga'avah are, that HQBH felt it worth aiding teshuvah in these areas. And those two topics are far more connected in Telzher derekh than Brisker, but I think I've ranged far enough. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Spirituality is like a bird: if you tighten micha at aishdas.org your grip on it, it chokes; slacken your grip, http://www.aishdas.org and it flies away. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From micha at aishdas.org Tue Dec 5 10:39:48 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2017 13:39:48 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Davening on Airplanes In-Reply-To: References: <20171204204838.GA1334@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20171205183948.GA31307@aishdas.org> On Tue, Dec 05, 2017 at 06:13:31AM +0000, Rich, Joel wrote: :> Especially since it's the avoidance of an actual issur vs a medieval or :> post-medieval : All very true, yet the Hamon am has invested Kaddish with great : importance. Does that investiture have a halachic chalot? It seems it : does at least in terms of kavod Reading the kesuvah under the chuppah is just a stall while we wait some gap of time to separate qiddushin and nissuin. A maaseh kof. And yet because it is time in the spot-light, common practice is to treat it as the second greatest kibud, often what you give the other rav you might have made mesader qiddushin. When it comes to kibud, public treatment does indeed matter. And logically enough; after all, being mekhubad is an issue of seeing others display feelings of kavod. How we display it /should/ be secondary. All logical. However, here we are talking about someone in the olam ha'emes. So they know that while on the plane you have that actual issur keeping you from fulfilling the minhag of saying qaddish. For that matter, hopefully and typically said parent worked really hard at trying to get the avel to respect others. And if not, again, at this point the soul of even the worst parent would know better. So I do not think it's likely the neshamah would mind the lack of kibud as much as they would mind the misplacement of values. I would therefore not draw any conclusions from the logical linkage of kibud with intent and norms. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Between stimulus & response, there is a space. micha at aishdas.org In that space is our power to choose our http://www.aishdas.org response. In our response lies our growth Fax: (270) 514-1507 and our freedom. - Victor Frankl, (MSfM) From llevine at stevens.edu Wed Dec 6 01:39:18 2017 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2017 09:39:18 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Gambling in Halachah Message-ID: <7b63aab9b65f4c589d76fe326bd18f97@exchng03.campus.stevens-tech.edu> Click here to download "Gambling in Halachah" [That's the Kof-K's Halachically Speaking vol 13, issue 18, dedicated to this topic. -micha] From micha at aishdas.org Wed Dec 6 11:36:19 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2017 14:36:19 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Gid ha'nasheh In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20171206193619.GB12102@aishdas.org> On Tue, Dec 05, 2017 at 06:22:57AM -0500, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: :> Aside from feeling the psychological pain of Rachel?s death, :> perhaps Yaakov also had to feel physical pain. : : I draw a distinction between "consequences" and "punishments"... For those who don't remember from prior iterations, I don't. I think the difference between callins an onesh a consequence and calling it a punishment (or even "corrective") is whether one views sekhar va'onesh as a system that HQBH set up when He set up the universe or as a set of responses He has to our actions. "Chai gever al chata'av" implies one, our tefillos on yamim nora'im frequently imply the other. But both are simply simplified models of the incomprehensible Truth of how Hashem runs the universe. Since He is lemaalah min hazeman, we can't talk about whether the decision was made in maaseh bereishis or in response to our action -- both are ascribing times to a timeless Action (for want of a better word). We can only speak of a when for the effects of Divine Action, as they enter our timefull experience. : I have : heard in the past that Eretz Yisrael was unable to tolerate Yaakov's : being married to two sisters, and that Rachel's death was a : consequence of that. ... which is typical of an onesh -- a sin causes its own punishment. The two explanations are not mutually exclusive. To say that it was the land's qedushah causing something that wasn't in line with justice, one has to explain why there are rules that hide Hashem's Justice that aren't part of the hesteir panim necessary for free will. We need laws of nature to plan how to execute a decision, but laws of metaphysics? ... : If he was punished, it must be that he was punished for some choice : that he made. What choice was that? What did he do wrong? If he could : do it all over again, what ought he do differently? Specifically: : After having married Leah, should he have not married Rachel? Well, isn't that the halakhah? Or maybe the issur was in whatever it was that had him marrying a woman without noticing that her eyes were rakos (whatever that means). Perhaps the mistake was due to a criminal level of negligence. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Man is equipped with such far-reaching vision, micha at aishdas.org yet the smallest coin can obstruct his view. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yisrael Salanter Fax: (270) 514-1507 From micha at aishdas.org Wed Dec 6 11:23:17 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2017 14:23:17 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] The 13 middos In-Reply-To: References: <20171204222908.GA10223@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20171206192317.GA12102@aishdas.org> On Tue, Dec 05, 2017 at 07:15:42AM +0200, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: : See the Mishne Lamelech avadim 3:9 where he states that it is either or and : the 2 styles cannot be mixed, and his main proof is from the Gemara Shavuos : 4b where the Gemara asks on Rebbe how can he darshen a ribui umiut like R : Akiva if in general he darshens Klal Uprat... And yet the conclution on 5a is that he holds like R' Yishma'el's beis medrash who holds the derashah is not kelal uperat but ribui umi'ut ("ribah umi'at"). R Yisma'el, the one who codified the rules of kelal uperat is the one who here uses ribui umi'ut!? So is the gemara really saying that Rebbe is not crossing the line, as it seems to be saying. Or is it intentionally also implying there is no line to cross? Tosafos there ("detana Devei R' Yishma'el") might be saying the latter; it is too terse for me to be sure of intent. And yet further down on 5a, we have "Hashta de'amres... -- Now that you say that Rebbe darshans kelal uperat, you are forced into a question about shavu'os...?" IOW, reassuming the line. In any case, I am totally lost. In a discussion of how no one uses both sets of rules, it cites the school that created one set using the other set, and not saying anything about it. There is more going on here than I comprehend so far. As RSRH said (Collected Writings vol V pg 170), there are many such cases of R' Yishmael and R' Aqiva uses the other's rules. RSRH treats the rule as a tendency, rather than a line one may not cross. I wish I knew his interpretation of the gemara in Shavuos. But it's not like the MlM, nor the ba'al Atzmos Yoseif (whom the MlM is discussing), and does acknowledge the actual positions taken across both shasin. Just thinking out loud... Maybe the gemaros we're looking at are bothered because these are all cases where both kelalim apply and in each case they imply different dinim. IOW, it is not a question of Rebbe (or devei R Yismael) using ribui umi'ut, but of favoring the derashah that he tends not to OVER the derashah that is his norm. And to handle RSRH's observation, in a case where it is not a choice between conflicting kinds of derashos, no one would be asking why Rebbe used a kelal uperat, as such line-crossing is normal. : See also tosafos nidda 30a s.v. Ushma mina where tosafos says that we : pasken that we darshen Klal uprat and not ribui umiut... Nidda 30a "ushma minah tevilah bizmanah mitzvah" is about holding like Beis Shammai, and doesn't mention derashos. The previous d"h, "shema minah telas" (a near match) also isn't on topic. Could you please fix the citation for me? : Regarding the Gemara in bechoros 51a it is actually a proof the other way. : The Gemara says that this case is an exception because it is not written in : the normal way of a Klal uprat and therefore in this case only... This is a 2nd variant of the same sugya as Shavu'os. (To clarify for those moderately interested, but not sufficiently so to look for themselves.) Rashi ("hakha"), who says it's a general rule: kelal uperat ukelal isn't judged as a kelal uperat but as a ribui umi'ut. IIUC, Rashi is saying that Rebbe is staying within his usual rule set, but this is a case where both rule sets include the same derashah, just under different names. Thanks to RMTorczyner (CCed) : > Choosing between using "Kelal/Perat" and "Ribuy/Miut": Eruvin 27b-28a; > Succah 50b; Kiddushin 21b The first two don't really deal with tannaim using only one rule set, but Qiddush 21b is a third version of our sugya. I didn't see anything to add to the discussion beyond a way to rope RMT in, and perhaps he'll talk to R' Jonathan Ziring about the question. (RMT is the Rosh Beit Midrash of the YU-Torah Mitzion Zichron Dov Beit Midrash of Toronto, RJZ is the segan. Back when RJZ was in the kollel at YHE ["Gush"], he gave a series of shiurim on meta-halakhah. I thought I had RJZ's address, as we had a short correspondance, but since I didn't find it, I figured that once I was bothering RMT for his opinion...) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger I always give much away, micha at aishdas.org and so gather happiness instead of pleasure. http://www.aishdas.org - Rachel Levin Varnhagen Fax: (270) 514-1507 From micha at aishdas.org Wed Dec 6 12:06:08 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2017 15:06:08 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] TEXTUAL JUDAISM AND THE LIVING TORAH In-Reply-To: <9e51a7f4ea644e829db8503f8f0451fe@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <9e51a7f4ea644e829db8503f8f0451fe@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20171206200608.GC12102@aishdas.org> On Thu, Nov 02, 2017 at 12:12:05PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : http://etzion.org.il/en/siman-114-prayers-wind-rain-and-dew : :> TEXTUAL JUDAISM AND THE LIVING TORAH : :> In his introduction to the Beit Yosef... ... I think there are two things we need to keep in mind, that R' Asher Meir does not touch upon: 1- The question isn't whether the BY or some other poseiq does or doesn't consider the extent to which a particular pesaq was nispasheit. But rather something less boolean: how much weight does any given poseiq give mimeticism, and in comparison to which other factors. A number of years ago I proposed a model (then modified it in a later iteration) of 4 classes of factors a poseiq needs to weigh. And that one of the leading reasons why pesaq is an art rather than an algorithm is that their can't be formal rules for comparing the magnitudes of apples and oranges -- and bananas and parsimons? Here's what I came up with: - textual logic: which sevara do you find most compelling? Litvaks typically put most of the emphasis - textual authority: rules like azlinan basar ruba, or giving more weight to the Rambam's or Rosh's pinion than to some Baal Tosafos we rarely hear of. This seems to be ROY's favorite territory. - minhag avos / mimeticism - hashkafic concerns (including philosophy, qaballah): like when chassidim and talmidei haGra stopped putting on tefillin on ch"m because it is qotzeitz binti'os. No one would place hashkafic concerns high on the list. Ein dorshin taamei hamizvos. A poseiq only leaves formal halachic analysis when multiple opinions are defensible, which "right answer" does one choose? But different posqim still give it different weight; requiring more or less equity between the halachic analysis of the different possible pesaqim before being willing to let the hashkafah tip the scales. 2- The BY is a text. To really talk about mimeticism, we're talking about what people do naturally. A poseiq may need to factor in which pesaq was nispasheit, but by doing so he is not being a mimetic. The AhS is more likely to find justifications for mimetic practice while the MB is more likely to recommend changing practice. But deciding to follow either is choosing textuallism over mimeticism. Mimeticism is following the same pesaq the AhS just defended because that's what everone does, it's the example your parents and/or your peers set, not because it's a pesaq with a sevara and sources. Still, it's interesting to find an example of the BY overriding his triumverate and clearly stating a reason that is at odds with his haqdamah. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Take time, micha at aishdas.org be exact, http://www.aishdas.org unclutter the mind. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rabbi Simcha Zissel Ziv, Alter of Kelm From micha at aishdas.org Wed Dec 6 13:40:04 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2017 16:40:04 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] More on Yaakov, sheep and the rods In-Reply-To: <50458059-A03F-4E6E-B54B-F1612B0E7E5B@jsli.org> References: <50458059-A03F-4E6E-B54B-F1612B0E7E5B@jsli.org> Message-ID: <20171206214004.GD12102@aishdas.org> On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 12:20:44PM -0500, Alexander Seinfeld via Avodah wrote: : Why not just interpret this as an example of phenotypic plasticity, : meaning the genetic potential is there in every generation, and the : environmental factors stimulate its expression? : : As everyone who had genetics 101 will realize, if you eliminate 100% : of the phenotype, and breed the remainder you will still get some of : that phenotype in the next generation with recessive genes. So it always : bothered me why was all the hokus pokus by Yaakov necessary.... I would learn from this incident in Bereishis that one is obligated to do whatever hishtadlus is possible by the best understanding of teva available to you. And not to worry about what the current theory may get replaced by. Along similar lines: R Avigdor Miller taught that since HQBH is Rofei kol basar, medicine doesn't actually heal. The role of doctors and medicine is to prevent Hashem's cure from requiring a neis nigleh. And, he explains, this is why people actually survived despite medical theories involving 4 humours and bloodletting, or whatnot. Any accepted theory is equally usable. I don't buy into this, because if true, medicine would never need to advance, in fact, accepted medical theory would never be disproved. Still, I find the idea intriguing. It fits the notion, which might be the Ramban's (depending on how you fit multiple comments together) and is definitely REED's that teva is not a real "thing", but the patterns Hashem uses to hide His Action behind. It's all neis nistar, really Now, if one were to apply the same idea to parnasah, one could explain the purpose of Yaakov's efforts. And even if RAvigdorM's theory is hard to see as how teva works for the rest of us, it's easier to apply to someone who is as neis-worthy, including neis-nistar-worthy, as Yaaqov avinu. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger You want to know how to paint a perfect micha at aishdas.org painting? It's easy. http://www.aishdas.org Make yourself perfect and then just paint Fax: (270) 514-1507 naturally. -Robert Pirsig From akivagmiller at gmail.com Wed Dec 6 15:10:18 2017 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2017 18:10:18 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Gid ha'nasheh Message-ID: . I asked: : If he was punished, it must be that he was punished for some choice : that he made. What choice was that? What did he do wrong? If he could : do it all over again, what ought he do differently? Specifically: : After having married Leah, should he have not married Rachel? and R' Micha Berger responded: > Well, isn't that the halakhah? I want to publicly thank RMB for a beautiful post, and for reminding me of some very important concepts. We learn so much of the machinations of what went on in this incident, how each step was important and necessary in various ways, that I was a bit shocked to hear it suggested that Yaakov Avinu was being punished for his choices here. But truth be told, the line between punishment and consequence can be arbitrary, subjective .... or even imaginary. We DO accept the reality of a "necessary evil", or a "greater good". It's not all black and white. "Well, isn't that the halakhah?" Indeed, the halacha prescribes The Way To Go, but that is no guarantee that there won't be unpleasant side effects. If the Kohen Gadol happens upon a Mes Mitzvah on Yom Kippur morning, the halacha is clear that he must get involved, even if that means that the day's avodah won't go as planned. So too, Yaakov Avinu and Rachel Imenu married each other because Klal Yisrael needed it, and if such a releationship was incompatible with Kedushas Haaretz, well, unfortunately, they'll have to endure the consequences. Akiva Miller From meirabi at gmail.com Wed Dec 6 18:07:12 2017 From: meirabi at gmail.com (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi) Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2017 13:07:12 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] =?utf-8?q?SEDRA_VAYEISHEV_=E2=80=93_TIME_TO_LOOK_IN_THE_?= =?utf-8?q?MIRROR?= Message-ID: When the little kid threatens a bouncer ? we all laugh. It is funny precisely because it is so silly and impossible. DJT, a buffoon, a bumbling, blithering bad-boy, could not possibly win the presidency. It was the standing joke that never grew stale ? until he became POTUS. Our Sages say, we are truly unmasked by Kiso Koso & KaAso ? by what we?re like when feeling liberated: # deciding how to use our valuables i.e. by what we consider to be important # intoxicated [not necessarily by alcohol] # we are agitated i.e. by what presses our buttons. Yosef tells his brothers about his dream ? expecting them to laugh it off and he gives them a second chance after they?ve had an opportunity to reconsider their response. When we get offended and mock ? it?s time to look in the mirror. Best, Meir G. Rabi 0423 207 837 +61 423 207 837 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From marty.bluke at gmail.com Thu Dec 7 02:27:17 2017 From: marty.bluke at gmail.com (Marty Bluke) Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2017 12:27:17 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] The 13 middos In-Reply-To: <20171206192317.GA12102@aishdas.org> References: <20171204222908.GA10223@aishdas.org> <20171206192317.GA12102@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 9:23 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > On Tue, Dec 05, 2017 at 07:15:42AM +0200, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: > : See the Mishne Lamelech avadim 3:9 where he states that it is either or > and > : the 2 styles cannot be mixed, and his main proof is from the Gemara > Shavuos > : 4b where the Gemara asks on Rebbe how can he darshen a ribui umiut like R > : Akiva if in general he darshens Klal Uprat... > > And yet the conclution on 5a is that he holds like R' Yishma'el's beis > medrash who holds the derashah is not kelal uperat but ribui umi'ut > ("ribah umi'at"). R Yisma'el, the one who codified the rules of kelal > uperat is the one who here uses ribui umi'ut!? > The Gemara says that this case is an exception because it is not written in the normal way of a Klal uprat and therefore in this case ONLY Rebbe can learn a ribui umiut but in general someone who learns Klal uprat could not use ribui umiut. > ... > > : See also tosafos nidda 30a s.v. Ushma mina where tosafos says that we > : pasken that we darshen Klal uprat and not ribui umiut... > > Nidda 30a "ushma minah tevilah bizmanah mitzvah" is about holding > like Beis Shammai, and doesn't mention derashos. The previous d"h, > "shema minah telas" (a near match) also isn't on topic. Could you > please fix the citation for me? > See the last 2 lines in the Tosafos that I quoted, Tosafos states "d'darish ribui umiut, V'Kayma lan d'darshinan klali uprati" Tosafos paskens that we darshen klal uprat not ribui umiut, that strongly implies that they are mutuallt exclusive > > > > > Tir'u baTov! > -Micha > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From JRich at sibson.com Wed Dec 6 21:49:36 2017 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2017 05:49:36 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] zmanim Message-ID: <550be79bd779462fa5534e6b58fba249@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> As sunrise got later I was at a minyan where the earliest time for tallit was approximately the same as the minyan starting time. I watched as everybody watched their cell phones for the exact time to start from Myzmanim. (Of course that website says not to rely on to it to the minute) I was wondering whether this close watch was a subset of a broader need of man modern man to have exactitude in life versus living with gray. (Sort of a desire to be Newtonian in a quantum world) I was also wondering whether the advent of the railroad table approach now requires us to halachically follow that exactness rather than that the "it looks right to me" approach of Chazal? Thoughts? KT 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: From larry62341 at optonline.net Thu Dec 7 03:09:25 2017 From: larry62341 at optonline.net (Prof. Levine) Date: Thu, 07 Dec 2017 06:09:25 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Davening on Airplanes In-Reply-To: <900051a759eb4fd1a58d4fda4d74fca6@exchng03.campus.stevens-t ech.edu> References: <900051a759eb4fd1a58d4fda4d74fca6@exchng03.campus.stevens-tech.edu> Message-ID: <32.C2.03752.761292A5@mta3.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> At 08:12 PM 12/6/2017, R Micha Berger wrote: >When it comes to kibud, public treatment does indeed matter... >However, here we are talking about someone in the olam ha'emes. So they >know that while on the plane you have that actual issur keeping you from >fulfilling the minhag of saying qaddish... >So I do not think it's likely the neshamah would mind the lack of kibud >as much as they would mind the misplacement of values. I would therefore >not draw any conclusions from the logical linkage of kibud with intent >and norms. From The Mussar Movement, Volume 1, Part 2 pages 248 - 249. On one of the anniversaries of his father's death, R. Israel was in Memel. He was informed that someone else in the synagogue wished to say Kaddish. Now R. Israel was very insistent that only one person at a time be allowed to recite the Kaddish at the services [28] and apparently this congregation had complied with his ruling. Reb Yitzchak Isaacson was observing the jahrzeit of a daughter who had died very young. Now the Halachah gives precedence to a son observing the jahrzeit of a parent on these occasions, and R. Israel was obviously entitled to the privilege. Sensing the grief he would cause the father by depriving him of the opportunity to say Kaddish for his daughter, R. Israel went up to him and said: "You sir, will say Kaddish." The worshippers expressed their surprise. Not only had R. Israel yielded his own right, but also overlooked the duty of honoring his father, since he was, by law, obliged to say Kaddish. He explained to them that the merit of extending kindness (gemi- lut chesed) to a fellow Jew possessed far greater value than the saying of Kaddish.[29] [28.] See R. Naftali Amsterdam's will, published in Or Hamusar No. 13. See Vol. II of the Hebrew edition of this series, Tenu'at Hamusar, II, Chap. 25. [29.] Ernile Benjamin, op. cit., p. 25. From seinfeld at daasbooks.com Thu Dec 7 06:50:16 2017 From: seinfeld at daasbooks.com (Alexander Seinfeld) Date: Thu, 07 Dec 2017 09:50:16 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Gid ha'nasheh Message-ID: It seems to me there are two plausible answers, and both may be correct. 1. Yes, he should not have married Rachel. This is in fact what Leah tells her, ?You stole my husband.? He was tricked, but he accepted Leah, did not annul the marriage, so too bad for Rachel. She?s the one who gave away the password. 2. He wasn?t yet Yisroel. He was still a ben Noach. When he becomes Yisroel, he is now required to keep the Taryag Mitzvos. It is right after this name change that she dies. I?m not sure why she doesn?t die immediately (in Beit-El) rather en route to Efrat. But this delay may have sown doubt into his mind about his status - maybe he is still a ben Noach. His sons consider themselves Bnai Yisroel, which is why they are eating meat that for a ben-Noach would be eiver-min-ha-chai, and which is part of the lashon hara that Yoseph brings back to Yaakov. But his judgment that they are Bnai Noach is not merely academic, it is personal, because it has implications in Rachel?s death. > >If he was punished, it must be that he was punished for some choice >that he made. What choice was that? What did he do wrong? If he could >do it all over again, what ought he do differently? Specifically: >After having married Leah, should he have not married Rachel? >Alternatively, (according to those who say that he was not fooled but >knew that Leah had the simanim,) should he have not married Leah? Or >should he have protested and annuled the marriage to Leah? > >If he was punished, what did he do wrong? From micha at aishdas.org Thu Dec 7 11:06:53 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2017 14:06:53 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Gid ha'nasheh In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20171207190653.GB26083@aishdas.org> On Wed, Dec 06, 2017 at 06:10:18PM -0500, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : We DO accept the reality of a "necessary evil", or a "greater good". : It's not all black and white. "Well, isn't that the halakhah?" Indeed, : the halacha prescribes The Way To Go, but that is no guarantee that : there won't be unpleasant side effects... A number of rishonim (eg Ramban, Seforno) deal with the problem of miracles. Since HQBH is Perfect and is capable of a perfect creation, why would He make a world in which He occasionally would have to step in and override teva? This is where the Ramban comes in with the idea that not only the miraculous items listed in Pirqei Avos created during Maaseh Bereishis, every "exception" to the laws of nature are actually special cases written into the law. I'll pause here to remind of what I said last email about "at the time of creation" and "in response to the situation" both being oversimplifications caused by us temporal beings trying to think about Hashem's "Action" which is lemaalah min hazeman and has no "when". Similarly, one can ask about His Authorship of halakhah. Since Hashem is capable of writing a system of laws to fit the universe in a way where obeying the law never has "unpleasant side effects", why wouldn't He? One backstep... I just realized you mean something broader by "side effects" than I was talking about. As you later write: : upon a Mes Mitzvah on Yom Kippur morning, the halacha is clear that he : must get involved, even if that means that the day's avodah won't go : as planned... Similarly, if piquach nefesh is docheh Shabbos, rather than Shabbos being huterah, one may have the misfortune of having to violate Shabbos. But that's not sekhar va'onesh, and my question "but what about Divine Justice?" doesn't apply. Not unless the "unpleasant side effect" is -- as in the case of Yaaqov's widowerhood or his hip -- painful (physically and/or emotionally). There is also another issue... Sekhar mitzvos behai alma leiqa. Not everything in this world is sekhar va'onesh. Li nir'eh, everything in this world is to draw us to a state of being able to receive more of Hashem's tov. Onesh, only when we have a chance of it getting us to choose more constructively. Which is why the mishnah talks about tzadiqim getting onesh in olam hazah to spare them in olam haba. Not because pain in olam hazeh pays off the accoun t early, but because a tzadiq will use the pain to draw closer to HQBH / to his ideal self. And similarly, resha'im who wouldn't respond constructively to the challenge... Well, HQBH would share with them his Tov in the here-and-now rather than not at all. This takes us away from insisting that the universe must be set up so that every sin contains its own onesh as a consequence. (If we're using the consequence model to look at things.) Instead, we can look at the universe as tending toward tov. And therefore every step away from tov will as a consequence cause a pull back toward it. (Which could well be onesh, but in olam hazeh, it could be getting us connected back to the Meitiv in some other way.) And applying this back to Yaaqov's marrying two wives... Perhaps it's not an onesh, but the consequent path closer to the Meitiv in a world where the aretz was made tamei. And it's even possible that the challenges of this harder path lead to a closer place than without. So that overall, the net is maximize sekhar. Lefum tza'ara. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger We look forward to the time micha at aishdas.org when the power to love http://www.aishdas.org will replace the love of power. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - William Ewart Gladstone From micha at aishdas.org Thu Dec 7 11:12:14 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2017 14:12:14 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] zmanim In-Reply-To: <550be79bd779462fa5534e6b58fba249@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <550be79bd779462fa5534e6b58fba249@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20171207191214.GC26083@aishdas.org> On Thu, Dec 07, 2017 at 05:49:36AM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : I was wondering whether this close watch was a subset of a broader : need of man modern man to have exactitude in life versus living with : gray... Or maybe we were always mechuyavim to be as precise as possible. : wondering whether the advent of the railroad table approach now requires : us to halachically follow that exactness rather than that the "it looks : right to me" approach of Chazal? Thoughts? Li nir'eh there is value to the "in sync with nature" approach of Chazal that we lose when we think about clock time rather than the cycles of the sun (a/k/a the earth's spin). Much the way we lose a lot of what the yamim tovim mean because we aren't living in agrarian communities, and don't feel the joy of new wheat and barley when we celebrate our birth as a people, or the joy of bringing in the year's fruit when we celebrate how HQBH sustained us in the midbar. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From seinfeld at daasbooks.com Thu Dec 7 20:42:27 2017 From: seinfeld at daasbooks.com (Alexander Seinfeld) Date: Thu, 07 Dec 2017 23:42:27 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] What are the main mitzvos to focus on? Message-ID: :: So basically you are saying that the current Charedi hashkafa/lifestyle of :: Torah only and Torah learning being the ultimate purpose of life is not a :: majority opinion in Chazal and in fact you can't find anyone among Chazal :: who says this. : I intentionally avoided stating it that confrontationally, but yes. Forgive me, this may be a side issue to your main point about the 2 ways/reasons to learn, but I feel it should be clarified what you mean. How do you understand the Shulchan Aruch - Orach Chaim 155-156 - go immediately from davening to learning, make Torah your ikkar and malacha your arai; minimize work to only what you need [Be?er Heiteiv, Mishna Berura] not more??? Not mainstream? Breaking with Chazal? It?s a verbatim quotation from Gemara Berachos 35b. And maybe related to Taanis 24b (Chanina ben Dosa and his wife.) Now, let?s think sociologically for a moment. Why did the Mechaber choose to state this halacha the way he does? It seems to me that in his time (as in all times) there were Jews who were pulled to the needs and attractions of parnasa and spending the vast majority of their time and energy on it and in his view not in the proper balance. The fact that he has to state this halacha implies that not everyone was behaving that way. So the fact that not everyone behaves this way today is no proof whatsoever against the halacha. But anyone who wonders on what basis do some Orthodox Jews forsake full-time jobs and toil in Torah should read the Beur Halacha on Siman 155.1 - ?Eis lilmode? > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Fri Dec 8 02:55:11 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Fri, 8 Dec 2017 05:55:11 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] What are the main mitzvos to focus on? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20171208105511.GA13704@aishdas.org> On Thu, Dec 07, 2017 at 11:42:27PM -0500, Alexander Seinfeld via Avodah wrote: ::: So basically you are saying that the current Charedi hashkafa/lifestyle of ::: Torah only and Torah learning being the ultimate purpose of life is not a ::: majority opinion in Chazal and in fact you can't find anyone among Chazal ::: who says this. :: I intentionally avoided stating it that confrontationally, but yes. : Forgive me, this may be a side issue to your main point about the 2 : ways/reasons to learn, but I feel it should be clarified what you mean. : How do you understand the Shulchan Aruch - Orach Chaim 155-156 - go : immediately from davening to learning, make Torah your ikkar and malacha : your arai; minimize work to only what you need [Be?er Heiteiv, Mishna : Berura] not more??? You are shifting topics. I wrote about the reasons to learn, and asserted "Torah only and Torah learning being the ultimate purpose of life... you can't find anyone among Chazal who says this." Torah learning should well be the anchor of your day in comparison to earning a parnasah. (Although if one is learning rather than going to teach, other mitzvos are dochim.) But not as an ends, as a means. The hashkafah is new, the priorities not. But the new hashkafah changes the weighting to be even more in favor of learning. For example: I don't know what's going on today, but in my day Neir Yisrael / Baltimore was unique among American "yeshivish" yeshivos in encouraging talmidim to volunteer to staff kiruv shabbatonim. (Most/all YU RY were very proactively pro becoming an NCSY advisor.) The others felt that at this time in their lives, bachurim shouldn't be distracted from learning. This, despite the fact that adolescents respond better if there are peer-teachers rather than full grownups of a different generation, and the program was begging for them. This is one of the reasons JEP failed. That's the worldview of the American and Israeli "Litvisher" yeshiva. Now let's look at actual pre-war Litvisher gedolim. And I don't mean the obvious mussarists. `Would the aforementioned Meshekh Chokhmah have agreed with this decision? Is it in concert with RCV's admonition to his son? What about R' Shimon Shkop, who opens Shaarei Yosher's haqdamah with (empshasis added): Yisbarakh HaBorei Veyis'alah HaYotzeir who created us in His "Image" and in the likeness of His "Structure" VECHAYEI OLAM NATA BESOKHAINU such that our greated desire should be to benefit others to the indivindual and the masses, now and in the future, in imitation of the Creator (kevayachol). Ikkar doesn't mean "ultimate purpose", and making learning one's ultimate purpose does push one to go beyond making it the day's ikkar. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Brains to the lazy micha at aishdas.org are like a torch to the blind -- http://www.aishdas.org a useless burden. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Bechinas haOlam From micha at aishdas.org Fri Dec 8 06:11:58 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Fri, 8 Dec 2017 09:11:58 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Your Ancestors Message-ID: <20171208141158.GA20389@aishdas.org> R' Mike Gerver posted to Mail-Jewish in 1994 a request to help him collect more date to tighten an argument that odds are, every Jew alive either: - is a geir or all his ancestry are from geirim recently enough for him to know, or - descends from Rashi. (Or anyone else of that era or earlier.) See Calculations involve estimating rate of marriage across social strata, between towns, and between eidot. All Jews. Even Teimanim. (Ethiopians weren't a discussion yet, odds are no.) Well, this article makes that all the more probable: http://bigthink.com/stephen-johnson/why-youre-probably-related-to-nefertiti-and-confucius Why You're Probably Related to Nefertiti, Confucius, and Socrates December 7, 2017 by Stephen Johnson .... [J]ust how far back do humans need to go to find a common ancestor of their own: a person to whom all living people are related? The answer, for people of European descent at least, is surprisingly recent: 600 years. The common ancestor for every single person alive on the planet today, no matter where, lived approximately 3,600 years ago. That means Confucius, Nefertiti, Socrates, and any figure from ancient history that had children, is in some way your ancestor. Then, quoting Adam Rutherfore's new book, A Brief History of Everyone Who Ever Lived: "We are all special, which also means that none of us is," writes Rutherford in the book. "This is merely a numbers game. You have two parents, four grandparents, eight great-grandparents, and so on. Each generation back the number of ancestors you have doubles. But this ancestral expansion is not borne back ceaselessly into the past. If it were, your family tree when Charlemagne was Le Grand Fromage would harbor around 137,438,953,472 individuals on it -- more people than were alive then, now, or in total." So, why not? "You can be, and in fact are, descended from the same individual many times over," Rutherford writes. "Your great-great-great-great-great-grandmother might hold that position in your family tree twice, or many times, as her lines of descent branch out from her, but collapse onto you. The further back through time we go, the more these lines will coalesce on fewer individuals." The startling discovery that all Europeans might share a common ancestor who walked the Earth just 600 years ago was first proposed in 1999 by a Yale statistician named Joseph Chang. In his paper Recent Common Ancestors of All Present-Day Individuals," Chang used complex mathematical conceptslike Poisson distributions and Markov chainsto show how webbed pedigrees can overlap to produce common ancestors. If that is true of Europeans in 600 years, Jews over 800 years lo kol shekein? :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger We are great, and our foibles are great, micha at aishdas.org and therefore our troubles are great -- http://www.aishdas.org but our consolations will also be great. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rabbi AY Kook From jziring at torontotorah.com Wed Dec 6 19:40:58 2017 From: jziring at torontotorah.com (Jonathan Ziring) Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2017 22:40:58 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] The 13 middos In-Reply-To: References: <20171204222908.GA10223@aishdas.org> <20171206192317.GA12102@aishdas.org> Message-ID: [I had to edit this post significantly to fit Avodah's format constaints. -micha] Shalom, I'm touched to be asked. I have wondered about this (and have again this week due to Daf Yomi). I can't say I have strongly formed opinions on it, but the sugyot do seem to imply that these are more tendencies rather than rules, at lease re: Klal UPrat vs. Ribbui and Miut. The drashot of vavim and the like seem more absolute (X is not doresh vav). Yaakov Elman makes that point in his article on Ribbui. A few articles that deal with the topic that I've glanced through are: The Formal Development of [Kelal uPerat uKelal] Michael Chernick Tarbiz, pp. 393-410 Towards a History of "Ribbuy" in the Babylonian Talmud and Yaakov Elman Proceedings of the World Congress of Jewish Studies Vol. 11, Division C: Thought and Literature, Volume I: Rabbinic and Talmudic Literature (1993), pp. 87-94 In general, Michael Chernick and devoted much time to this. A few other relevant articles by him: The Development of Ribbuim and Mi 'utim Hermeneutics," PAAJR",1982-3. "The Use of Ribbuyim and Mi'utim in the Halakic Midrash ofR. Ishmael," JQK, 1979. "The Hermeneutic Kelal u-Ferat u-Kelal: Its History and Development," AAJR Annual Meeting, 1980 I think this will spur me to think more systematically about this. If I come up with anything, I will definitely share it. Jonathan From simon.montagu at gmail.com Sat Dec 9 08:27:13 2017 From: simon.montagu at gmail.com (Simon Montagu) Date: Sat, 9 Dec 2017 18:27:13 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Your Ancestors In-Reply-To: <20171208141158.GA20389@aishdas.org> References: <20171208141158.GA20389@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Fri, Dec 8, 2017 at 4:11 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah < avodah at lists.aishdas.org> wrote: > > http://bigthink.com/stephen-johnson/why-youre-probably- > related-to-nefertiti-and-confucius > Why You're Probably Related to Nefertiti, Confucius, and Socrates > December 7, 2017 by Stephen Johnson > .... > [J]ust how far back do humans need to go to find a common ancestor > of their own: a person to whom all living people are related? > > The answer, for people of European descent at least, is surprisingly > recent: 600 years. The common ancestor for every single person alive > on the planet today, no matter where, lived approximately 3,600 years > ago. That means Confucius, Nefertiti, Socrates, and any figure from > ancient history that had children, is in some way your ancestor. Unless I'm missing something, those last two sentences are a huge non sequitur. I have a slightly different take-away from the article: it says that everybody has a common ancestor who lived approximately 3,600 years ago. Isn't that exactly what the Torah says? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ben1456 at zahav.net.il Sat Dec 9 12:20:41 2017 From: ben1456 at zahav.net.il (Ben Waxman) Date: Sat, 09 Dec 2017 22:20:41 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Rambam Hilchot Shivtat Assur 3:3 Message-ID: Rambam Hilchot Shivtat Assur 3:3: The Rambam writes a clal: A minhag can not cancel something that is assur. A minhag can only prohibit something that is permitted. Is this rule seen as a veto or are there indeed issurim which have been become muttar via the power of minhag? From micha at aishdas.org Sat Dec 9 16:07:31 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Sat, 9 Dec 2017 19:07:31 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Your Ancestors In-Reply-To: References: <20171208141158.GA20389@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20171210000731.GB20169@aishdas.org> On Sat, Dec 09, 2017 at 06:27:13PM +0200, Simon Montagu via Avodah wrote: : > The answer, for people of European descent at least, is surprisingly : > recent: 600 years. The common ancestor for every single person alive : > on the planet today, no matter where, lived approximately 3,600 years : > ago. That means Confucius, Nefertiti, Socrates, and any figure from : > ancient history that had children, is in some way your ancestor. : Unless I'm missing something, those last two sentences are a huge non : sequitur. The author is just saying that the same model that giver the result of 600 years for Euopeans gives a result of 3,600 for all of humanity. : I have a slightly different take-away from the article: it says that : everybody has a common ancestor who lived approximately 3,600 years ago. : Isn't that exactly what the Torah says? Well, really the model says that everyone who is alive today almost certainly (this is statistics, after all) descended from everyone who was alive 3,600 who has /any/ living descendents. Not that there was one such ancestor. Gut Voch! -Micha -- Micha Berger What you get by achieving your goals micha at aishdas.org is not as important as http://www.aishdas.org what you become by achieving your goals. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Henry David Thoreau From ben1456 at zahav.net.il Sat Dec 9 12:59:26 2017 From: ben1456 at zahav.net.il (Ben Waxman) Date: Sat, 09 Dec 2017 22:59:26 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Rambam Hilchot Kiddush Hachodesh Message-ID: 1) Rambam Hilchot Kiddush Hachodesh 3:1 makes it clear that anyone who sees the new moon and can get to Jerusalem by the following evening should go. How would that work today given that basically means that every male in Israel who sees the moon should go (maybe men in Eilat who don't own a car would be patur). Were most (or even a small minority of) Israeli Jewish males above the age of 13 to look, there is no way that the Beit Din could even question all of these men, even if they only asked a couple of questions. Is there any problem in making sure that you don't see the moon? Just stay in for the evening. Rambam doesn't say that there is a chiyuv to look. Or since the Beit Din only takes testimony from trusted witnesses, can someone just say "I never got any type of certification that I am a good witness, therefore I don't need to go". Or how about having a few (say 100) men in each major city or region entrusted with the job and they would be the designated possible witnesses. 2) Rambam Hilchot Kiddush Hachodes 2:10 says clearly that once the beit din declares the new month, that is it, even if they know that they made a mistake. Yet in 3:15 and 16 Rambam writes that in the situation where no witnesses came on the 30th, if witnesses come later in the month and are able to prove that they did see the moon come out on the 29th, that month's calendar is redone. Is this not an obvious contradiction? I assume that I am reading 3:15 and 16 incorrectly or that I am getting something wrong here. 3) Later in the book Rambam goes on at length and in extreme detail about how to calculate the moon's position. He adds that we know these calculations from science and that since we no longer have a tradition about this matter from the nevi'im, it is fine to use outside sources. Seeing this made me wonder why we don't apply this rule in other areas. For example, I had read that we don't make matza from barley because we don't have a tradition as to how it takes barley to become chameitz. So why not measure it? Ben From simon.montagu at gmail.com Sat Dec 9 21:57:52 2017 From: simon.montagu at gmail.com (Simon Montagu) Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2017 07:57:52 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Your Ancestors In-Reply-To: <20171210000731.GB20169@aishdas.org> References: <20171208141158.GA20389@aishdas.org> <20171210000731.GB20169@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Sun, Dec 10, 2017 at 2:07 AM, Micha Berger wrote: > On Sat, Dec 09, 2017 at 06:27:13PM +0200, Simon Montagu via Avodah wrote: > : > The answer, for people of European descent at least, is > surprisingly > : > recent: 600 years. The common ancestor for every single person > alive > : > on the planet today, no matter where, lived approximately 3,600 > years > : > ago. That means Confucius, Nefertiti, Socrates, and any figure > from > : > ancient history that had children, is in some way your ancestor. > > : Unless I'm missing something, those last two sentences are a huge non > : sequitur. > > The author is just saying that the same model that giver the result > of 600 years for Euopeans gives a result of 3,600 for all of humanity. > > That's not the non sequitur. The non sequitur is going from "we have a common ancestor 3,600 years ago" to "Confucius and Socrates are your ancestors". Confucius and Socrates lived around 2500 years ago, and how does the author know that they had any living descendants? > : I have a slightly different take-away from the article: it says that > : everybody has a common ancestor who lived approximately 3,600 years ago. > : Isn't that exactly what the Torah says? > > Well, really the model says that everyone who is alive today almost > certainly (this is statistics, after all) descended from everyone who > was alive 3,600 who has /any/ living descendents. > Not that there was one such ancestor. > I haven't read the model, but the article you linked to talks several times about "/a/ common ancestor", "/a/" person to whom all living people are related", etc. > > Gut Voch! > -Micha > > -- > Micha Berger What you get by achieving your goals > micha at aishdas.org is not as important as > http://www.aishdas.org what you become by achieving your goals. > Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Henry David Thoreau > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From bdbradley70 at hotmail.com Sun Dec 10 14:22:59 2017 From: bdbradley70 at hotmail.com (Ben Bradley) Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2017 22:22:59 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] What are the main mitzvos to focus on? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I don't recall everything I've read on this subject of the purpose of talmud torah, but the conversation here so far seems to be missing a crucial piece, namely the transformative aspect of talmud torah on the individual learning it. The problem with the instrumental view is that it doesn't account for a number of aspects of the way chazal unanimously viewed talmud torah. If it was just about knowing how to keep the mitzvos then, I think, we'd have trouble with the following off the top of my head 1. The intensive way chazal went about talmud torah - the lack of sleep involved, the amora who sat on his hands until they bled, disappearing from family for years at a time 2. The viewing of talmud torah as a unending project 3. The depth and incisiveness of analysis expected in learning gemara. Eg being able to metaher a sheret 4. the lack of differentiation between learning issues of practical use and those which you will never need to know from a practical point of view Maybe I'm missing something, but knowing how to keep the mitzvos per se need not involve any of these. There are clear indications of the transformative nature of talmud torah in chazal, even if these aren't stated as its purpose explicitly. Perhaps there's a distinction between its purpose and the meaning of lishma. So learning torah lishma, whatever that means, is transformative, which is a primary purpose if not the only one. That would also bring talmud torah in line with the other mitzvos, since they all have a transformative benefit to the individual. It would also set it apart since it is more transformative than all the others, ie kneged kulam. It is the most transformative, and thus the most important. That said, considerations other than personal growth give priority to other mitzvos in many situations. Ben -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hankman at bell.net Mon Dec 11 06:11:22 2017 From: hankman at bell.net (hankman) Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2017 09:11:22 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Purpose of distant galaxies? Message-ID: <83F7EA9337D54E08891E46C1032C89FE@hankPC> I have just been watching a show on Discovery Science about a lay version of quantum mechanics. At one point the moderator was talking about the notion of entanglement and explained how in theory this involves the connection of entangled particles over any distance instantaneously. He then continued to say that given the big bang theory, all of existence was at a single point and then expanded (inflated) from then to the great distances, billions of light years, we witness today. But at the initial moment after the singularity, all the particles of the universe were close enough to possibly become entangled with some other, but then after the expansion, the partner entangled particle might have ended up in some distant far removed galaxy and but thereby still be related to its entangled partner particle perhaps now in our body here on Earth. I then thought back to some of the earlier discussions here on Avodah about the purpose of these distant galaxies that could never affect us here on Earth and that we did not even know existed until recently. Perhaps this possibility of entanglement with distant particles of those galaxies from the time of creation may provide some logic to the purpose of the existence of those distant galaxies? Happy Chanukah veKol tuv Chaim Manaster -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Mon Dec 11 09:33:33 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2017 12:33:33 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Rambam Hilchot Shivtat Assur 3:3 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20171211173333.GE15573@aishdas.org> On Sat, Dec 09, 2017 at 10:20:41PM +0200, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: : Rambam Hilchot Shivtat Assur 3:3: The Rambam writes a clal: A minhag : can not cancel something that is assur. A minhag can only prohibit : something that is permitted. Isn't the very definition of a minhag ta'us one that promotes doing an issur, or violating an asei? At least, violating an asei actively; I don't know if I would include a minhag not to fulfil an asei besheiv ve'al ta'aseh. That kind of thing would require more research. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Worrying is like a rocking chair: micha at aishdas.org it gives you something to do for a while, http://www.aishdas.org but in the end it gets you nowhere. Fax: (270) 514-1507 From micha at aishdas.org Tue Dec 12 13:53:43 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2017 16:53:43 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Women and Torah Study In-Reply-To: <9f94d416d3154585a6bb71a2df12c54e@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <9f94d416d3154585a6bb71a2df12c54e@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20171212215343.GA13817@aishdas.org> On Sun, Dec 03, 2017 at 06:40:43AM +0000, RJR reposted here a comment of his on a recent post on Lehrhaus: : Is encouraging intensive study of Talmud for women a community priority : or is the priority to make such study available for those who choose to : avail themselves of the opportunity? Especially if the former, where : does it stand in relation to other community priorities and how does : the answer differ from study for men? IMHO these questions have not been : sufficiently addressed. Do my concern resonate at all? Mod-Yeshivish (in contrast to other forms of MO) may argue that since learning primarily means shas and lomdus, and the iqar method for refining one's soul is learning, now that women are given the toolds to be able to make sense of Talmud, making it available to them is a community priority. To quote RALichtenstein from : What is the cardinal principle that lies at the heart, on the one hand, of Yeshiva education and, on the other hand, is the lynchpin of liberal education. It is, first and foremost, the notion that one is concerned with molding the person and only secondarily with preparing or training for the fulfillment of a certain role. John Cardinal Newman's statement, that "we are men by nature, geometrists only by chance," epitomizes this approach and it is one with respect to which, I have indicated, the Yeshiva world and the world of liberal education at its best coincide. Of course, that is not to suggest that preparing for a role, be it a domestic role, a professional role, or a communal role, is not important. It is important, but secondary. The first principle, I think, with regard to education generally, and which needs to be particularly emphasized in the field of women's education, is that first and foremost one needs to mold the person as an individual in all respects, with regard to character, personality, intellectual ability, and above all, of course, in religious terms, as an oved Hashem. ... If we ask ourselves: Here are the goals! "[leyir'ah, le'avah, la'avod, lishmor, ledavqah, lalekhet bekhol derakhav]," to fear [God], to love [God], to serve [God], to cling [to Him] to go in all His ways." What are the means? Traditionally, over the centuries, there has been a fairly sharp dichotomy precisely regarding this very issue, namely the means to be employed in relation to men versus women... This is not the occasion to examine whether that was justified historically. What is clear, however, is that notwithstanding how one judges the past retrospectively, in our present historical and social setting we need to view the teaching and the learning of girls and women as both a major challenge, as well as a primary need. ... But this is creating a role for halakhah study out of whole cloth that is really RAL's chiddush. After all, historically curricula for girls' and women did include character-shaping material, but OVERTLY so -- mussar, hashkafah and the lessons in each taken from studying Tanakh. And leave halakhah to learning the job, rather than liberal arts. And I would repeat a point made by RYGB when asked about this topic: Where is the evidence that our current boys' curriculum works so well that we're in a rush to make the curriculum for girls' more similar to it? In general, the yeshivish -- including the ModY -- take NhC shaar 4 to mean that learning refines the soul in some mystical way. Just learn, and the problem will solve itself. Whereas I personally think the data points the other way. And that the NhC intended that statement prescriptively -- true talmud Torah is learning in a way that consciously aims to refine the soul. Which is why there is all that Mussar and Middos talk around AishDas and its web site. My own inclination, and this really just translates to "my parents provided a RWMO upbrining" (with some variety thrown in in the form of school choices), would be that we can't prioritize providing talmud study for women over clear-cut chiyuvim. Talmud study should be made available, but for those women who feel a need for talmud study. Which puts me in the same camp as the LR's effective position. Women coming to kiruv with egalitarian leanings were encouraged by the LR to learn Talmud if they wish to. But you wont find a gemara class in Beis Rivka. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "And you shall love H' your G-d with your whole micha at aishdas.org heart, your entire soul, and all you own." http://www.aishdas.org Love is not two who look at each other, Fax: (270) 514-1507 It is two who look in the same direction. From micha at aishdas.org Wed Dec 13 03:30:34 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2017 06:30:34 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Rambam Hilchot Kiddush Hachodesh In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20171213113034.GB7576@aishdas.org> On Sat, Dec 09, 2017 at 10:59:26PM +0200, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: : 1) Rambam Hilchot Kiddush Hachodesh 3:1 makes it clear that anyone : who sees the new moon and can get to Jerusalem by the following : evening should go. How would that work today.... And then think what happens if the calculations were for a long month. The guy invests all that effort just to get to locked Lishkas haGazis doors. I would be frustrated. But to get to your question. I think that's a taqanah in order to insure that there is eidus. Rather than everyone saying someone else will go. There is no how that would work today, since you need a Sanhedrin to make it work. But isn't this a derabbnan, to make sure all those who see the moon don't assume someone else will go, and there ends up not having 2 kosher eidim? So, if the the next Sanhedrin finds that too many people are coming / would come and we're far from needing such a guarantee, they can repeal this din. : 2) Rambam Hilchot Kiddush Hachodes 2:10 says clearly that once the : beit din declares the new month, that is it, even if they know that : they made a mistake. Yet in 3:15 and 16 Rambam writes that in the : situation where no witnesses came on the 30th, if witnesses come : later in the month and are able to prove that they did see the moon : come out on the 29th, that month's calendar is redone. Is this not : an obvious contradiction? I assume that I am reading 3:15 and 16 : incorrectly or that I am getting something wrong here. The famous story of the calendar dispute between Rabban Gamliel and R' Yehoshua (RH 2:8-9) includes R' Aqiva saying, "Eileh mo'adei H' asher tiqre'u osam" -- bein bizmanan, bein shelo bizmanan, ein Li mo'ados ela eilu. Which is what the Rambam is saying in 2:10. He quotes R' Aqiva's prooftext. In that mishnah, both R' Gamliel and R' Yehoshua knew the metzi'us, they were arguing over whether to accept the eidim despite a flaw in their story. They may have even been arguing about the cheshbon, and whether there was a need to accept whatever eidim one had. The beginning of mishnah 9 has R' Gamliel ordering R' Yehoshua to show up "beyom haKippurim shechal lihyos *becheshbonkha*". There may be a difference between making a mistake in terms of decision-making and making one because they were working with bad or incomplete data. 2:20 is about their decision being wrong, 3:15-16 is about a lack of eidus. An error in the cheshbon or perhaps decision in general vs an error in facts. While this guess about p' 2 is less than compelling, it would seem that in p' 3 he is empowering a BD to go back to their cheshbon when they were forced by a lack of testimony to lengthen the month despite it. After all, 3:15 describes BD sitting all of the 30th, meaning wanting a short month, without witnesses comming. So I feel more comfortable with that part of the guess. Maybe R' Yehoshua would have renegged without needing R' Aqiva had other eidim arrived days later to corroborate the first two. : 3) Later in the book Rambam goes on at length and in extreme detail : about how to calculate the moon's position. He adds that we know : these calculations from science and that since we no longer have a : tradition about this matter from the nevi'im, it is fine to use : outside sources. Seeing this made me wonder why we don't apply this : rule in other areas. For example, I had read that we don't make : matza from barley because we don't have a tradition as to how it : takes barley to become chameitz. So why not measure it? But lemaaseh we don't, because we need a Sanhedrin to make a RC. For that matter, we even pad when we say Qiddush Levanah, making the one day difference irrelevent. So what halakhah lemaaseh is the Rambam talking about, that relies on the calculations? Giving license to the next Sanhedrin? I am not even sure we know the scientific difference between chameitz and sirchah. Or even if there is one. Why is dough made with 100% juice a different thing than if the juice were diluted, or if it were all water? If we don't know what it is we should measure, how can we use science to measure it? I think it has to be something like that, because the lack of barley matzah isn't a modern issue. And the ability to measure rising doesn't require some modern measuring equipment. So, why was the question left unsolved by centuries of acharonim if it were resolable? Similarly, we know the medical communities' various definitions of death. (They're all pretty similar.) But we don't know if halachic misah would use the same definition. But even those who stick with heart death would use the latest scientific tools to determine whether or not the person had their last heartbeat (lo aleinu). So I would posit the issue is a chiluq between using science to determine the physical state vs having a pesaq as to what physical state needs determining. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Like a bird, man can reach undreamed-of micha at aishdas.org heights as long as he works his wings. http://www.aishdas.org But if he relaxes them for but one minute, Fax: (270) 514-1507 he plummets downward. - Rav Yisrael Salanter From JRich at sibson.com Wed Dec 13 21:39:28 2017 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2017 05:39:28 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] S"A Principles Message-ID: Question: I note that the S"A O"C 158:10 (Hand Washing) quotes the Gemara (R'Chisda) in support of using more than the minimum required amount of water for hand washing. Given the Mechaber's goal that the Shulchan Aruch be a halachic summary of his magnum opus, the Beit Yosef, does anyone know of a theory as to why the Mechaber in some cases quotes Talmudic sources (or Torah or Rishonim) and in others just states the halacha? Any study of the frequency of such quotes? KT 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: From akivagmiller at gmail.com Wed Dec 13 19:40:54 2017 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2017 22:40:54 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Rambam Hilchot Kiddush Hachodesh Message-ID: . (I don't know if this post will help understand Kiddush Hachodesh or not. If yes, I'm glad I could help. If not, I apologize for the distraction.) R' Micha Berger asked: > I am not even sure we know the scientific difference between > chameitz and sirchah. Or even if there is one. Why is dough > made with 100% juice a different thing than if the juice were > diluted, or if it were all water? If we don't know what it is > we should measure, how can we use science to measure it? I agree that WE don't know the scientific difference between chametz and sirchon, but it seems clear to me that such a difference does exist, and Chazal understood it. See the very beginning of Yerushalmi Challah, page 1b1 in the ArtScroll English version. "Badku Umatz'u" - They tested various grains, to see what happens when their flour is mixed with water. They found that The Five Grains underwent "chimutz", while *most* other grains fermented in the manner called "sirchon". (For some grains, the tests were inconclusive.) There is no Kabala From Sinai that defines these processes in terms of the grains, the liquids, or anything else. If you knew what to look for, you could look at a dough and tell whether it was chometz - without even knowing the ingredients. > I think it has to be something like that, because the lack of > barley matzah isn't a modern issue. And the ability to measure > rising doesn't require some modern measuring equipment. So, > why was the question left unsolved by centuries of acharonim > if it were resolvable? The problem isn't in the equipment. It's knowing what to look for. The tamay birds are all listed in Parshas Shmini. You don't need a degree in genetics to determine whether the bird in your hand is on the list or not. The only problem is that no one today knows what those words mean. Just like we don't really understand the difference between chimutz and sirchon. And no amount of pilpul among the "centuries of acharonim" is gonna help. Akiva Miller From micha at aishdas.org Thu Dec 14 03:27:18 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2017 06:27:18 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Rambam Hilchot Kiddush Hachodesh In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20171214112718.GA11145@aishdas.org> On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 10:40:54PM -0500, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : See the very beginning of Yerushalmi Challah, page [16]b1 in the : ArtScroll English version. "Badku Umatz'u" - They tested various : grains, to see what happens when their flour is mixed with water. They : found that The Five Grains underwent "chimutz", while *most* other : grains fermented in the manner called "sirchon". (For some grains, the : tests were inconclusive.) (Artscroll must have just one page of 16b, since that's near the bottom of the amud.) Assuming you understand the machloqes aa being about metzi'us. Which I did not. Aside from a reluctance to pin machloqesin on matters of fact even in the Y-mi, where there are cases it seems unaviodable. There are other problems: 1- EVERY other grain but these 5 produced something in between chimutz and sirchon that only R Yochanan b Nuri thought looked like chimutz? Not one of the experiments had another dissenter? 2- Why wouldn't later generations try to get clarity by repeating the experiment? As I took it (and wrote as much in prior iterations), R Yochanan b Nuri and the chakhamim were arguing over where the line is between chimutz and sirchon. They agreed on what happened when you mix a grain other than the 5 with water -- the gemara describes the experimental result as "ushe'ar kol haminim einan ba'in liydei matzah vechameitz elas sirchon." Then it continues the machloqes (running onto 17a), this time asking about qeramis in particular. And the gemara asks: Why they don't just check it? The first check's results were written open-and-shut. Here we are given RYBN differing obseration. As I took it, RYBN disagreed only in that he considers sirchon prohibited as chameitz. They argue about which side of the line sirchon is on because the machloqes is about where the line is. Which is why the gemara is so clear cut on the first test. And this is is why I lunped it together with other cases of halakhah deciding where in the gray area set of physical cases halakhah draws the line. : There is no Kabala From Sinai that defines these processes in terms of : the grains, the liquids, or anything else. If you knew what to look : for, you could look at a dough and tell whether it was chometz - : without even knowing the ingredients. ... and we don't know what to look for. :> I think it has to be something like that, because the lack of :> barley matzah isn't a modern issue. And the ability to measure :> rising doesn't require some modern measuring equipment. So, :> why was the question left unsolved by centuries of acharonim :> if it were resolvable? : The problem isn't in the equipment. It's knowing what to look for. As I said, it "has to be something like that", since the physical question could have been resolved, or at the very least repeatedly attempted to be resolved. You appear to be arguing against the hava amina I took pains to reject. But, unlike rice, where miSinai we could have known whether its sitchon qualifies as chameitz or not or the machloqes could have arisen later, with barley we know the uncertainty is caused by lost information. : The tamay birds are all listed in Parshas Shmini. You don't need a : degree in genetics to determine whether the bird in your hand is on : the list or not.,,, Ironically, defining a "min" is not settled halakhah either. Ask the Israelis debating whether we know that any breed of chicken other than the breakel chicken (or, I would guess the American campine) is halachically chicken and within the mesorah. Or the counter-arguers, who want to pasl braekel chickens... I am not saying I understand the metzi'us of the debate, but it does highlight how hard it is to draw halachic lines in the physical sand. So, even if we could translate the name of every min in parashas Shemini, we could still not know whether the bird in my hand is included in one of the minim on the list or not. As we could argue whether the genetic test found something on one side of the line defining the min, or the other -- because we don't know where the line is. A lichtikn un freilechn Chanukah! -Micha -- Micha Berger When we are no longer able to change a situation micha at aishdas.org -- just think of an incurable disease such as http://www.aishdas.org inoperable cancer -- we are challenged to change Fax: (270) 514-1507 ourselves. - Victor Frankl (MSfM) From Aryeh.Frimer at biu.ac.il Thu Dec 14 05:03:04 2017 From: Aryeh.Frimer at biu.ac.il (Aryeh Frimer) Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2017 13:03:04 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Tevilat Kelim Message-ID: Has anyone seen a discussion regarding one who said "al haTevila" (which women recite when going to mikva) instead of "Al tevilat Kelim." Is the Berakha valid be-Di-avad? A Freilichen Hanukah!! -------------------------------------------------- Dr. Aryeh A. Frimer Ethel and David Resnick Professor Emeritus of Active Oxygen Chemistry Chemistry Dept., Bar-Ilan University Ramat Gan 5290002, ISRAEL E-mail (office): Aryeh.Frimer at biu.ac.il Homepage http://ch.biu.ac.il/frimer E-mail (home): FrimerA at zahav.net.il From ben1456 at zahav.net.il Fri Dec 15 02:45:55 2017 From: ben1456 at zahav.net.il (Ben Waxman) Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2017 12:45:55 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Rambam Hilchot Kiddush Hachodesh In-Reply-To: <20171213113034.GB7576@aishdas.org> References: <20171213113034.GB7576@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <3554ff1b-2c53-bf1d-b688-0202a1eae13a@zahav.net.il> It must be something like that. After reading through Kiddush Hachodesh I was left with a huge question as to the incredible detail; 100 times more detailed than say his Hilchot Pesach. Ben On 12/13/2017 1:30 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > So what halakhah lemaaseh is the Rambam > talking about, that relies on the calculations? Giving license to > the next Sanhedrin? From michaelpoppers at gmail.com Thu Dec 14 18:17:15 2017 From: michaelpoppers at gmail.com (Michael Poppers) Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2017 21:17:15 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] zmanim Message-ID: >From R'Micha: > Li nir'eh there is value to the "in sync with nature" approach of Chazal that we lose when we think about clock time rather than the cycles of the sun (a/k/a the earth's spin). ? > ? Much the way we lose a lot of what the yamim tovim mean because we aren't living in agrarian communities, and don't feel the joy of new wheat and barley when we celebrate our birth as a people, or the joy of bringing in the year's fruit when we celebrate how HQBH sustained us in the midbar. < ...or the meaning of "Yotzer Or", etc. because we're not davening those pre- *Shma* *b'rachos* at the "right" time w/ a view of the brightening sky. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Fri Dec 15 06:55:30 2017 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2017 14:55:30 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Why does Yosef command the Egyptians to circumcise Message-ID: <1513349727386.22540@stevens.edu> See https://goo.gl/1AP3eB Rashi on Bereshis 41:55 says what he tells you, do: Since Joseph had ordered them to circumcise themselves, and when they came to Pharaoh and said, "This is what he said to us," he (Pharaoh) said to them, "Why didn't you gather grain? Didn't he announce to you that years of famine were coming?" They replied, "We gathered much, but it rotted." He (Pharaoh) replied,"If so, do whatever he tells you. He issued a decree upon the grain, and it rotted. What if he issues a decree upon us and we die?" - [from Mid. Tanchuma Mikeitz 7, Gen. Rabbah 91:5] Why did Yosef order them to do that? See the above URL for three explanations. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Fri Dec 15 06:57:57 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2017 09:57:57 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Rambam Hilchot Kiddush Hachodesh In-Reply-To: <3554ff1b-2c53-bf1d-b688-0202a1eae13a@zahav.net.il> References: <20171213113034.GB7576@aishdas.org> <3554ff1b-2c53-bf1d-b688-0202a1eae13a@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <20171215145757.GB28181@aishdas.org> On Fri, Dec 15, 2017 at 12:45:55PM +0200, Ben Waxman wrote: : On 12/13/2017 1:30 PM, Micha Berger wrote: :> So what halakhah lemaaseh is the Rambam :> talking about, that relies on the calculations? Giving license to :> the next Sanhedrin? : It must be something like that. After reading through Kiddush : Hachodesh I was left with a huge question as to the incredible : detail; 100 times more detailed than say his Hilchot Pesach. My guess, and I hope it's not too lesse majest for a public posting: The Rambam was a math geek who simply enjoyed this kind of stuff. It cannot be that the Rambam thought the future chavrei Sanhedrin would need his text for this more than his usual coverage. Leshitaso, one wouldn't be qualified to be a dayan without a strong background in all 7 chokhmos. That last line being an opening to a Chanukah tangent about Chokhmah Yevanis being a necessary study for a member of the Sanhedrin. So, Chanukah celebrates a victory over Yavan (in the sense of Hellenism) and a step toward reestablishing the Sanhedrin, who were expected to utilize "yaft E-lokim leYefes, veyishkon be'ohalei Sheim". An enlightening and happy Chanukah and :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Brains to the lazy micha at aishdas.org are like a torch to the blind -- http://www.aishdas.org a useless burden. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Bechinas haOlam From micha at aishdas.org Sat Dec 16 16:09:45 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2017 19:09:45 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Mamlekhat Chimyar Message-ID: <20171217000945.GA16968@aishdas.org> I stumbled across reference to the Humyarite Kingdom, which existed from 110 bce - 525 ce. Based in Yemen, ruled over much of the Arabian Peninsula. It seems that they went Jewish. (Shades of the Khazars.) See : > The Himyarite kings appear to have abandoned polytheism and converted > to Judaism around the year 380, several decades after the conversion of > the Ethiopian Kingdom of Aksum to Christianity (340), though no changes > occurred in its script, calendar, or language (unlike Aksum).[7] This > date marks the end of an era in which numerous inscriptions record the > names and deeds of kings, and dedicate buildings to local (e.g. Wagal > and Simyada) and major (e.g. Almaqah) gods. From the 380s, temples were > abandoned and dedications to the old gods ceased, replaced by references > to Rahmanan, "the Lord of Heaven" or "Lord of Heaven and Earth".[8] The > political context for this conversion may have been Arabia's interest > in maintaining neutrality and good trade relations with the competing > empires of Byzantium, which first adopted Christianity under Constantine > the Great and the Sasanian Empire, which alternated between Zurvanism > and Manichaeism.[9] ... > During this period, references to pagan gods disappeared from royal > inscriptions and texts on public buildings, and were replaced by > references to a single deity. Inscriptions in the Sabean language, and > sometimes Hebrew, called this deity Rahman (the Merciful), "Lord of the > Heavens and Earth," the "God of Israel" and "Lord of the Jews." Prayers > invoking Rahman's blessings on the "people of Israel" often ended with > the Hebrew words shalom and amen. [16] I wonder about the kashrus of the conversion, and did it pose a rei'usa when discussing the Jewishness of Teimani immigrants to Israel. A lichtikn un freilechn Chanukah un a gutt voch! -Micha -- Micha Berger Life isn't about finding yourself micha at aishdas.org Life is about creating yourself. http://www.aishdas.org - Bernard Shaw Fax: (270) 514-1507 From micha at aishdas.org Sun Dec 17 05:51:57 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2017 08:51:57 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] New Cancer Treatment Message-ID: <20171217135058.GC5@aishdas.org> This news story showed up in two of my RSS subscriptions: Hijacked sperm carry chemo drugs to cervical cancer cells https://www.newscientist.com/article/2156525-hijacked-sperm-carry-chemo-drugs-to-cervical-cancer-cells or http://j.mp/2yLROJ1 and Killing Cancer with Spermbots http://bigthink.com/robby-berman/killing-cancer-with-spermbots In my neck of the O woods, everyone holds like R' Moshe, that children produced by IVF-donor would not be mamzeirim. BUT... according to the machmirim (eg the Satmar Rav), would an eishes kohein who recieved this treatment have to get divorced? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger You are not a human being in search micha at aishdas.org of a spiritual experience. You are a http://www.aishdas.org spiritual being immersed in a human Fax: (270) 514-1507 experience. - Pierre Teilhard de Chardin From larry62341 at optonline.net Sun Dec 17 06:22:06 2017 From: larry62341 at optonline.net (Prof. Levine) Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2017 09:22:06 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] The Downtown Chanukiah Message-ID: Please see the video at https://goo.gl/dgSTLv In this video Rabbi Anthony Manning discusses the halachic aspects of where one should light the Chanukah menorah at home as well as the Chabad practice of lighting menorahs in public places and whether or not the person lighting such a menorah should make a bracha. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From zev at sero.name Sun Dec 17 06:20:59 2017 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2017 09:20:59 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] New Cancer Treatment In-Reply-To: <20171217135058.GC5@aishdas.org> References: <20171217135058.GC5@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <8550baa4-198d-536a-b249-d5c2d207bb86@sero.name> On 17/12/17 08:51, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > BUT... according to the machmirim (eg the Satmar Rav), would an eishes > kohein who recieved this treatment have to get divorced? I wouldn't think so. There's still no act of zenus. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From micha at aishdas.org Sun Dec 17 11:53:27 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2017 14:53:27 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] New Cancer Treatment In-Reply-To: <8550baa4-198d-536a-b249-d5c2d207bb86@sero.name> References: <20171217135058.GC5@aishdas.org> <8550baa4-198d-536a-b249-d5c2d207bb86@sero.name> Message-ID: <20171217195326.GD5@aishdas.org> On Sun, Dec 17, 2017 at 09:20:59AM -0500, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : On 17/12/17 08:51, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: :>BUT... according to the machmirim (eg the Satmar Rav), would an eishes :>kohein who recieved this treatment have to get divorced? : I wouldn't think so. There's still no act of zenus. There is a machloqes Chakhamim and R' Aqiva as to whether only issurei kareis (except niddah) create mamzeirim, or any issur. And yet the Satmar Rav holds that IE-D creates mamzeirim. And one could equally argue there is no act of zenus. So, I parked my intuition at the door when trying to understand his shitah. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The thought of happiness that comes from outside micha at aishdas.org the person, brings him sadness. But realizing http://www.aishdas.org the value of one's will and the freedom brought Fax: (270) 514-1507 by uplifting its, brings great joy. - R' Kook From zev at sero.name Sun Dec 17 12:20:24 2017 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2017 15:20:24 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] New Cancer Treatment In-Reply-To: <20171217195326.GD5@aishdas.org> References: <20171217135058.GC5@aishdas.org> <8550baa4-198d-536a-b249-d5c2d207bb86@sero.name> <20171217195326.GD5@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <5862ca9f-c908-4756-d082-0b20f6dc428f@sero.name> On 17/12/17 14:53, Micha Berger wrote: > There is a machloqes Chakhamim and R' Aqiva as to whether only issurei > kareis (except niddah) create mamzeirim, or any issur. And yet the > Satmar Rav holds that IE-D creates mamzeirim. And one could equally > argue there is no act of zenus. > > So, I parked my intuition at the door when trying to understand his > shitah. as I understand the machlokes, it's precisely over whether an act of zenus is necessary to create a mamzer. The SR (aiui) holds it is not, therefore although no issur was done with IED the child is nevertheless a mamzer. Here too, the SR would presumably hold that although there's no act of zenus, and therefore the treatment is permitted, should any child result it would be a mamzer. But I haven't seen the SR's shitah inside, so I'm relying on 3rd-hand transmission which may have garbled important points. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From llevine at stevens.edu Sun Dec 17 13:35:04 2017 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2017 21:35:04 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] How did Yosef showing his circumcision prove anything? Message-ID: <1513546500734.24127@stevens.edu> From https://goo.gl/L634gH Rashi to 45:4 says that when Yosef told his brothers to approach him, it was to show them his circumcision (presumably to prove he was Jewish). But how would that prove anything? All of Egypt had been circumcised already, as Rashi says on 41:55. If his showing his circumcision wasn't to prove he was Jewish, why did he do it? See the above URL for answers. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cantorwolberg at cox.net Sun Dec 17 11:40:31 2017 From: cantorwolberg at cox.net (Richard Wolberg) Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2017 14:40:31 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Vayigash Message-ID: The first three words of the Sidra: Vayigash eilav Yehuda mean that Judah approached Joseph to speak to him. The m?forshim bring out that they communicated through interpreters since officially, (the brothers thought) Joseph didn?t speak Hebrew and the brothers didn?t speak Egyptian. The baal haturim and the m?forshim point out the last letter of the first three words (shin, vov, hey) spell shaveh which means ?equal.? Judah is implying to Joseph: ?I am equal to you. You think you?re a king; I?m also a king.? According to this interpretation, Judah spoke very sharply to Joseph. The Vilna Gaon brings out a fascinating insight on the trope of the first six words which is kadma v?azla r?vi?I, zarka, munach segol. The Vilna Gaon explains that the trope here explains the meaning of these words. Kadma v?azla in Aramaic meaning kadam v?awzal, he (Judah) stepped forward, Yehudah has a r?vi?i, since Judah was the fourth son. So why the fourth son? Because zarka, he was going to be thrown out, munach segol from being able to rest in Gan Eden. Since Judah cursed himself that if he doesn?t bring Binyamin back, he would be damned in both worlds ? in this world and in the world to come. (Segula which means ?treasure? from Segol comes to mean here Gan Eden). When the sons finally tell Jacob that Joseph still lives (45:26), the m?forshim resolve a theological problem that arose in parashas Vayeshev (37:35). For there we read about Jacob: ?and his sons and daughters wished to comfort him and he refused to be consoled.? Isn?t it one of the basic articles of faith to accept God?s judgment and to welcome the comforting offered by others. Why did Jacob refuse? Our Sages sensed this anomaly and gave a brilliant answer, ?For no condolences are accepted over the living" (see Rashi on 37:35). Yes, Jacob refused to accept condolences because he had a faint ray of hope that Joseph might be alive. A psychologist might explain it as ?wishful thinking.? In any event, his ray of hope was vindicated when he found out that Joseph was indeed alive (and that is why he originally refused to accept the condolences offered by all the people). Hope is being able to see that there is light despite all of the darkness. Desmond Tutu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cantorwolberg at cox.net Sun Dec 17 16:16:32 2017 From: cantorwolberg at cox.net (Richard Wolberg) Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2017 19:16:32 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] S"A Principles Message-ID: <8A9BD2E2-0BDC-4728-B1B3-792480A73CEE@cox.net> Reb Joel asks: does anyone know of a theory as to why the Mechaber in some cases quotes Talmudic sources (or Torah or Rishonim) and in others just states the halacha? My theory is that when it is either a well known halacha and no reason to question it or at least, when the Mechaber thought it to be indisputable, then it was felt there was no reason to quote sources. OTOH, if was felt that there would be many questioning it, then the sources quoted would obviate that from occurring. From micha at aishdas.org Sun Dec 17 17:15:28 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2017 20:15:28 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] [Tvunah] Teabag on Shabbos Message-ID: <20171218011528.GA22955@aishdas.org> This pesaq by R' Asher Weiss surprised me. Tea Bag on Shabbos Tvunah in English by Rabbi Akiva Dershowitz Question: Does a tea bag [used in a kli shlishi] need to be removed from the cup with a spoon on Shabbos, to avoid issues of borrer? What about holding it over the cup to avoid dripping on the table, to allow drips to fall into the cup? Answer: The tea bag may be removed normally, and may be held to allow drips to fall back in to the cup. I was told at a young age to take the teabag out by spoon, making sure to take tea out along with the bag. For boreier reasons. So, as I said, I found this pesaq surprising. The actual teshuvah in Hebrew is on that page. RAW finds a precedent in Rashi on Shabbos 140a, who discusses the mishnah allowing one to put straw in a sieve in a feed trough. Rashi says "even though the motz will fall on our own, as it's a davar she'ein miskavein -- and the mishnah holds like R' Shim'on. And see SA OC 319:8, who makes it clear (which it isnt' from Rashi, see teshuvah) that even if the boreir will certainly occur, it's still mutar. Pesiq reishei, but not melekhes machasheves, and still mutar. Similarly in Nishmas Adam 18:2. An enlightening and anjoyable Chanukah! -Micha -- Micha Berger We look forward to the time micha at aishdas.org when the power to love http://www.aishdas.org will replace the love of power. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - William Ewart Gladstone From Aryeh.Frimer at biu.ac.il Sun Dec 17 23:09:04 2017 From: Aryeh.Frimer at biu.ac.il (Aryeh Frimer) Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2017 07:09:04 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Using "Al haTevila" for tevilat Kelim Message-ID: Rav Zvi Cohen, in his Encyclopedic Tevilat Kelim: Rules that be-Di-avad Al haTevila is valid. I was surprised by this since the Mehaber in Bet Yosef explicitly rules against this shita (for le-khatehilla) and holds in SA that one should say "Al Tevilat Kelim." Having done so, to say "Al haTevilah" would not be "Matbe'ah sheTavu Hakhamim." Any ideas? -------------------------------------------------- Dr. Aryeh A. Frimer Ethel and David Resnick Professor Emeritus of Active Oxygen Chemistry Chemistry Dept., Bar-Ilan University Ramat Gan 5290002, ISRAEL E-mail (office): Aryeh.Frimer at biu.ac.il Homepage http://ch.biu.ac.il/frimer Tel: 972-3-5318610; Fax: 972-3-7384053 Tel Home: 972-8-9473819/9470834 E-mail (home): FrimerA at zahav.net.il Cellphone: 972-54-7540761 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hankman at bell.net Mon Dec 18 06:16:44 2017 From: hankman at bell.net (hankman) Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2017 09:16:44 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Rambam Hilchot Kiddush Hachodesh -- on "min" Message-ID: <0C71CBB0F1E145B89D102DAA516AF81A@hankPC> R. Micha Berger wrote: ?Ironically, defining a "min" is not settled halakhah either.? CM asks: If I am not mistaken the modern secular definition of ?species? is based on whether the populations can interbreed or not. Do we know with any certainty that the Torah rejects this criteria as a determinant of ?min?? Kol tuv Chaim Manaster --- This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. http://www.avg.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Mon Dec 18 07:05:39 2017 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2017 15:05:39 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Yehudah Speaking to Yosef Message-ID: <1513609536405.23616@stevens.edu> In what l language did Yehudah speak to Yosef. Was it Hebrew and was the translator present to "translate" for Yosef? The Chumash does not mention a translator in this week's parasha. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jont at traumatic.us Mon Dec 18 11:56:26 2017 From: jont at traumatic.us (Jonathan Traum) Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2017 14:56:26 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Rambam Hilchot Kiddush Hachodesh In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <622ffda5-c446-82f3-45b0-18da6c93f6da@traumatic.us> On 12/09/2017 03:59 PM, Ben Waxman wrote: > 1) Rambam Hilchot Kiddush Hachodesh 3:1 makes it clear that anyone who > sees the new moon and can get to Jerusalem by the following evening > should go. ... > [snip] > Is there any problem in making sure that you don't see the moon? Just > stay in for the evening. Rambam doesn't say that there is a chiyuv to > look. I imagine that most people wouldn't have to worry about it.? On the 30th day after the previous Rosh Hodesh, the tiny crescent moon would only be visible for a short time after sunset and before moonset, and only to those who have an unobstructed view of the western horizon. Jonathan Traum From zev at sero.name Mon Dec 18 13:02:48 2017 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2017 16:02:48 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Using "Al haTevila" for tevilat Kelim In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <725ae5c3-d6de-7ce1-60c9-1defc191ac9d@sero.name> On 18/12/17 02:09, Aryeh Frimer via Avodah wrote: > ?Rav Zvi *Cohen*,?in his Encyclopedic *Tevilat Kelim*: Rules that > be-Di-avad Al haTevila is valid. > > I was surprised by this since the Mehaber in Bet Yosef explicitly rules > against this shita ?(for le-khatehilla) and holds in SA? that one should > say ?Al Tevilat Kelim.??? Having done so, to say ?Al haTevilah? would > not be ?Matbe?ah sheTavu Hakhamim.?? ?Any ideas? > "Al hatevilah" *is* a coinage of the chachamim, just not the one they prescribed for this occasion. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From llevine at stevens.edu Mon Dec 18 23:37:41 2017 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2017 07:37:41 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Did the Patriarchs Speak Hebrew? Message-ID: <1513669061621.40139@stevens.edu> >From the article at https://goo.gl/Z3QWs2 Ramban says: It is possible that he said this to them simply as a means of pacifying them, for there was no proof [that he was Joseph] in the fact that someone in Egypt should speak in the Holy Tongue. In my opinion, Hebrew was a Canaanite language. For Abraham did not bring it from Ur of the Chaldees [in Mesopotamia] and from Haran, for there they spoke Aramaic, as the incident of the pile of stones erected by Laban and Jacob proves [see Gen. 31:47]. And it was not a private language spoken by a single person but a language of Canaan, and many people in Egypt knew it for the countries were close together--particularly the ruler, for it is customary for kings and rulers to know several languages. For his assertion that Hebrew is "a Canannite language" Ramban makes reference to Isaiah, who does thus refer to Hebrew: "On that day there will be five cities in the land of Egypt that speak the language of Canaan and swear by the Lord of hosts" (Isa. 19:18). That the original language of the Patriarchs (Abraham, Isaac and Jacob) was Aramaic is proved to Ramban's mind by virtue of the fact that Laban gave the name "Yegar-sahaduta" to what Jacob called "Gal-ed" (Gen. 31:47), The former had remained in Mesopotamia and continued to speak Aramaic (which Ramban thinks was spoken in Ur and in Haran), while Jacob, who had grown up in Canaan, had learnt the local language. Please see the above URL for much more on this topic. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gershonseif at mail.yahoo.com Tue Dec 19 08:23:45 2017 From: gershonseif at mail.yahoo.com (Gershon Seif) Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2017 16:23:45 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Avodah] Did the Patriarchs Speak Hebrew? In-Reply-To: <1513669061621.40139@stevens.edu> References: <1513669061621.40139@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <949360216.1197555.1513700625794@mail.yahoo.com> Leavining Avraham Avinu aside, what is the Ramban's view about the language spoken by Adam HaRishon? ie. Naming his wife Chava and assigning names to all the animals?If the Ramban concurs that these names were given in lashon hakodesh, then he agrees that it was the first language. No? Unless you say that lashon hakodesh was one of at least 2 languages that Adam spoke and he reserved it for holy purposes only, such as giving these names. And I suppose that would be along the lines of the other Ramban quoted there which says that it's called Lashon Hakodesh because it's the language that Hashem used to convey the Torah. On Tuesday, December 19, 2017 1:37 AM, Professor L. Levine wrote: > From the article at https://goo.gl/Z3QWs2 > Ramban says: >> It is possible that he said this to them simply as a means of >> pacifying them, for there was no proof [that he was Joseph] in the fact >> that someone in Egypt should speak in the Holy Tongue. In my opinion, >> Hebrew was a Canaanite language. For Abraham did not bring it from Ur >> of the Chaldees [in Mesopotamia] and from Haran, for there they spoke >> Aramaic... From micha at aishdas.org Tue Dec 19 09:05:08 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2017 12:05:08 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Did the Patriarchs Speak Hebrew? In-Reply-To: <1513669061621.40139@stevens.edu> References: <1513669061621.40139@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20171219170508.GC27362@aishdas.org> On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 07:37:41AM +0000, Professor L. Levine via Avodah wrote: : From the article at : https://goo.gl/Z3QWs2 : : Ramban says: : : It is possible that he said this to them simply as a means of : pacifying them, for there was no proof [that he was Joseph] in : the fact that someone in Egypt should speak in the Holy Tongue. In : my opinion, Hebrew was a Canaanite language... ... and yet also lashon haqodesh. And to the Ramban (on "sheqel haqodesh" in parashas Sheqalim), this is because it's the language in which Hashem created the world and in which the Torah and Nakh were written. And leshitaso, the letters of the Torah, if not their breakup into words, preceded creation. The notion that the avos spoke Aramaic is in Vayiqra Rabba on 32:5. The Medrash Peliyah (#166) concludes that even Adam did! This is a comment about Sarah's death in "Qiryas Araba". The Niv Sefasayim explains that the medrash is getting this from the use of the Aramaic term "qirya". But I don't see how we know this was the name of the cite from back when Adam and Chava were buried there; or how else this moved the line to any time before Efron. R Yonasan Eibschitz (Tif'eres Yehonasan on Bereishis 11:1) that Adam spoke LhQ before the cheit, and Aramaic after. Fore that matter, Medrash Tanchuma (beginning of Devarim in Buber) and Medrash Seikhel Tov (Shemos 4:11) say Adam spoke all 70 languages. Requires a new peshat in what happened at Migdal Bavel, no? I am not to clear on the whole thing. Languages evolve, so that if one were to trace them out over time, one would draw a tree or a bush. Adam's proto-Semitic, or proto-proto-proto... everything is an ancestor of all language. I could call it early Hebrew if I wanted, and claim that Hebrew is the trunk from which other languages branched off. But that's just a decision about how to draw the tree. I could pick another run from root to twig and pull it straight, and say that Adam spoke proto-...proto-Mandarin, and all the other languages branched off. For languages as similar as Hebrew and Aramaic, where neither could have drifted from the original significanly more than the other, doesn't the whole discussion of whether Adam's language was a predecessar to the language of the chumash, Nakh, Chazal, etc... or of Aramaic in its evolutions all kind of arbitrary? I wonder if the Ramban understands the name of Kesav Ashuris to mean "Assyrian Script", rather than "Enriched Script" (from "osher". YMMV on the definition of osher.) After all, he seems to have no problem saying that Hashem left holy things in the hands of other peoples for us to find and use. For that matter, Eretz Yisrael was also given to the Kenaanim to hold until we got there... It might also be leshitaso -- but this may be a stretch -- with the Ramban's take on rainbows. The Ramban says that rainbows existed since Maaseh Bereishis. Nature didn't change in this regard with the Mabul. Rather, the already existing phenomenon was made a symbol when HQBH made the beris with Noach. Again, something put in place naturally so that when the time came it would be available take on its full significance. : Canaan, and many people in Egypt knew it for the countries were close : together--particularly the ruler, for it is customary for kings and : rulers to know several languages. : : For his assertion that Hebrew is "a Canannite language" Ramban makes : reference to Isaiah, who does thus refer to Hebrew: "On that day there : will be five cities in the land of Egypt that speak the language of : Canaan and swear by the Lord of hosts" (Isa. 19:18). That the original : language of the Patriarchs (Abraham, Isaac and Jacob) was Aramaic is : proved to Ramban's mind by virtue of the fact that Laban gave the name : "Yegar-sahaduta" to what Jacob called "Gal-ed" (Gen. 31:47), The former : had remained in Mesopotamia and continued to speak Aramaic (which Ramban : thinks was spoken in Ur and in Haran), while Jacob, who had grown up in : Canaan, had learnt the local language. : : Please see the above URL for much more on this topic. Have a Great Month, and a enlightening and enjoyable Chanukah! -Micha -- Micha Berger The greatest discovery of all time is that micha at aishdas.org a person can change their future http://www.aishdas.org by merely changing their attitude. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Oprah Winfrey From zev at sero.name Tue Dec 19 09:12:45 2017 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2017 12:12:45 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Did the Patriarchs Speak Hebrew? In-Reply-To: <20171219170508.GC27362@aishdas.org> References: <1513669061621.40139@stevens.edu> <20171219170508.GC27362@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <45f78c92-f0ed-6df8-9a80-01c96d6dd007@sero.name> On 19/12/17 12:05, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > I wonder if the Ramban understands the name of Kesav Ashuris to mean > "Assyrian Script", rather than "Enriched Script" (from "osher". YMMV > on the definition of osher.) You associate osher with an alef and `osher with an `ayin? -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From micha at aishdas.org Tue Dec 19 10:59:01 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2017 13:59:01 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Did the Patriarchs Speak Hebrew? In-Reply-To: <45f78c92-f0ed-6df8-9a80-01c96d6dd007@sero.name> References: <1513669061621.40139@stevens.edu> <20171219170508.GC27362@aishdas.org> <45f78c92-f0ed-6df8-9a80-01c96d6dd007@sero.name> Message-ID: <20171219185901.GE31888@aishdas.org> On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 12:12:45PM -0500, Zev Sero wrote: : On 19/12/17 12:05, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: : >I wonder if the Ramban understands the name of Kesav Ashuris to mean : >"Assyrian Script", rather than "Enriched Script" (from "osher". YMMV : >on the definition of osher.) : You associate osher with an alef and `osher with an `ayin? RSRH does, as he does all alef-ayin pairs. Also osher with asher. But I used enriched because in common usage, it refers to someone having a gift. We say that a cereal is enriched with vitamins. We far more rarely speak of a CEO being enriched. At least, not anymore. And what about yiysher kochakha, assuming the correct niqud isn't yeyasher? Reish Laqish (Shabbos 87a) says "asher shibarta" is an allusion to "yiyshar kochakha", so that's connected as well. RSRH himself uses "being in successful progress" (eg Bereishis 30:30), which R/Dr Mattiyahu Clark's Hirschian dictionary gives as its 1st definition. Chodesh tov, un a lichtikn un freilechn Chanukah! -Micha -- Micha Berger The trick is learning to be passionate in one's micha at aishdas.org ideals, but compassionate to one's peers. http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From mandels at ou.org Tue Dec 19 09:46:51 2017 From: mandels at ou.org (Mandel, Seth) Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2017 17:46:51 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Did the Patriarchs Speak Hebrew? In-Reply-To: <1513669061621.40139@stevens.edu> References: <1513669061621.40139@stevens.edu> Message-ID: There is no proof that anyone spoke Hebrew. Chazal say that dibb'ra Torah bilshon b'nei odom, and the Torah was written in Hebrew because that is what the Jews understood at the time of Moshe Rabbeinu and the N'vi'im. This is clear from last weeks Parsha, where Par'oh speaks to Yosef, kavyakhol in Hebrew. However, just as much as there is no proof at all from the T'NaKh that lots of people spoke Hebrew, even though the T'NaKh records them in Hebrew, there is also no proof at all that certain people did not speak Hebrew. The Ramban quotes the story of Lovon and Ya'akov to "prove" that Lovon did not speak Hebrew. That is probable, but what did Yaakov and Lovon speak together? What did Yaakov speak to Rochel and Leah, who had never been in EY? OK, they all spoke what was spoken in Aram Naharayim. Probably. But Yaakov and the Ovos must have learned the language of K'na'an for Avrohom to speak to b'nei Het to buy the Cave of the Patriarchs. So what exactly did Avrohom Ovinu say in the language of Aram, whence he came, and what in the language of K'na'an? QED that one cannot know from the T'NaKh who spoke what when and where. The only thing we know is the Masorah, that HQBH dictated the Torah to Moshe Rabbeinu in the eponymous Biblical Hebrew. People ask whether Odom hoRishon spoke Hebrew. That is a question that has no meaning. We do not know exactly what he spoke, nor is it relevant. It might have been a precursor of Hebrew, IOW a language like Hebrew, but a much older form. It could have been something else. But, scientifically, it could not have been the same as the Hebrew spoken in the time of Y'tzi'as Mitzrayim, because it has been proven that all languages change over time. Rabbi Dr. Seth Mandel From micha at aishdas.org Tue Dec 19 14:10:58 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2017 17:10:58 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Did the Patriarchs Speak Hebrew? In-Reply-To: References: <1513669061621.40139@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20171219221058.GA3159@aishdas.org> On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 05:46:51PM +0000, Mandel, Seth via Avodah wrote: : There is no proof that anyone spoke Hebrew. Chazal say that dibb'ra Torah : bilshon b'nei odom... Well.... R' Yishmael says it. And it appears to be an argument for his rules of derashah, which do not include looking for magic words like "akh" (mi'ut), "raq" (mi'ut), "kol" (ribui) or even "es", but darshens the meaning of terms, whether ribui or mi'ut. The Rambam really sloganeers (like the CS's "chadash assur min haTorah") when he uses it to explain that anthropomorphic descriptions of HQBH are idioms, not to be taken overly literally. The point may be true, but it has nothing to do with the quote. The maqor is nothing remotely like: : the Torah was written in Hebrew because that is : what the Jews understood at the time of Moshe Rabbeinu and the N'vi'im. And besides, R' Aqiva disagrees! Chodesh tov, un a lichtikn un freilechn Chanukah! -Micha -- Micha Berger One doesn't learn mussar to be a tzaddik, micha at aishdas.org but to become a tzaddik. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yisrael Salanter Fax: (270) 514-1507 From llevine at stevens.edu Wed Dec 20 01:27:34 2017 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2017 09:27:34 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Yehudah Spoke Egyptian Message-ID: <1513762054084.88548@stevens.edu> Rabbi Yitzchok D. Frankel, Rav of the Agudah of the Five Towns, in Cedarhurst, NY, asserts in his sefer Machat shel Yad. Bereishis vol.2 (Back of Vayikrah) Parshas VaYigash. that Yehudah did indeed speak Egyptian. See http://personal.stevens.edu/~llevine/yehudah_egyptian.pdf for his argument. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cantorwolberg at cox.net Wed Dec 20 09:32:33 2017 From: cantorwolberg at cox.net (Richard Wolberg) Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2017 12:32:33 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Question on 48:1 Message-ID: In Vay?chi first sentence of Ch.48, why is ?choleh? spelled without a vov? Nowhere have I found an explanation. From zev at sero.name Wed Dec 20 06:01:31 2017 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2017 09:01:31 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Did the Patriarchs Speak Hebrew? In-Reply-To: References: <1513669061621.40139@stevens.edu> <8b9c1a71-a4fe-ecf5-e066-0a640a78bfec@sero.name> Message-ID: <130e52aa-14f1-24b6-9478-9244543e628c@sero.name> On 19/12/17 02:37, Professor L. Levine via Avodah wrote: > . And it was not a private language spoken by a single person but a > language of Canaan, and many people in Egypt knew it for the countries > were close together--particularly the ruler, for it is customary for > kings and rulers to know several languages. Then how is it that Yosef could pretend not to know it and need an interpreter. More, how is it that Par'oh, who knew all the other languages, didn't know this one? [Email #2. -micha] On 19/12/17 12:46, Mandel, Seth via Avodah wrote: > There is no proof that anyone spoke Hebrew. Chazal say that dibb'ra Torah > bilshon b'nei odom, and the Torah was written in Hebrew because that is > what the Jews understood at the time of Moshe Rabbeinu and the N'vi'im. Rashi Bereshis 2:23 Bereshis Rabbah 18:4 [Eamil #3. -micha] On 20/12/17 08:56, Mandel, Seth wrote: > I am talking objective proof, from the T'NaKh and other documents. > Medrashim of Chazal teaches us important ideas, but are not meant to be > literally true. They do not intend to be a historical document, but > rather contain important moral and ethical teachings which are 'emes in > the spiritual sense. 1. This medrash is clearly intended literally. Not only does it not contain any important moral or ethical teaching, it cites a simple linguistic proof (albeit based on a very small sample of languages). 2. Rashi only cites those medroshim that he believes are necessary for pshat. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From mandels at ou.org Wed Dec 20 07:39:30 2017 From: mandels at ou.org (Mandel, Seth) Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2017 15:39:30 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Did the Patriarchs Speak Hebrew? In-Reply-To: <130e52aa-14f1-24b6-9478-9244543e628c@sero.name> References: <1513669061621.40139@stevens.edu> <8b9c1a71-a4fe-ecf5-e066-0a640a78bfec@sero.name> , <130e52aa-14f1-24b6-9478-9244543e628c@sero.name> Message-ID: From: Zev Sero Sent: Wednesday, December 20, 2017 7:45 AM > On 19/12/17 12:46, Mandel, Seth via Avodah wrote: >> There is no proof that anyone spoke Hebrew. Chazal say that dibb'ra Torah >> bilshon b'nei odom, and the Torah was written in Hebrew because that is >> what the Jews understood at the time of Moshe Rabbeinu and the N'vi'im. > Rashi Bereshis 2:23 > Bereshis Rabbah 18:4 I am talking objective proof, from the T'NaKh and other documents. Medrashim of Chazal teaches us important ideas, but are not meant to be literally true. They do not intend to be a historical document, but rather contain important moral and ethical teachings which are 'emes in the spiritual sense. There are plenty of Medrashim that have ideas that seem to indicate that HQBH or the angels spoke Hebrew. But, as the Rambam indicates, HQBH does not have a mouth and does not speak as people speak. Rather, all the p'sukim saying that HQBH spoke to Moshe or Aharon mean that He communicated with them directly to their mind, not that He spoke acoustic sounds that they heard with their physical ears. The argument that Prof. Levine brought in the name of R. Frankel, OTOH, does indeed show that Yehudah must have been speaking Egyptian, but yet the Torah quotes him in Hebrew. [Email #2. -micha] From: Zev Sero on behalf of Zev Sero Sent: Wednesday, December 20, 2017 9:01:31 AM > 1. This medrash is clearly intended literally. Not only does it not > contain any important moral or ethical teaching, it cites a simple > linguistic proof (albeit based on a very small sample of languages). > 2. Rashi only cites those medroshim that he believes are necessary for > pshat. This is not a conversation that is worth continuing. I have the greatest respect for Jews who learn and seek to understand. But there are certain discussions where the locutors speak past each other for no benefit to either. However, for others in the group that may be curious: if you understand what the Rambam says in his introduction to Chapter 10 of Mas. Sanhedrin regarding three approaches to what Chazal say, you will understand that there is no point in one group arguing with the other group. A similar case would be that there would be no point in the Rambam arguing with Rashi or Rabbeinu Tam about whether demons exist or whether the Earth is flat or round. The basic assumptions about the way things work are too far apart. I have said what I meant about medrashim, and the medrash that R. Zev quotes does not contradict in my mind my statement that there is no proof about the actual historical language used in anything in the Torah. Nor does Rashi's use of the medrash contradict what I said. It would be impossible to convince R. Tam's belief that the Earth is flat, since in his understanding of the universe everything points to the world being flat, and he can find statements in the G'moro that seem to him to prove his case, and all scientists from his culture "knew" that the Earth is flat. I challenge those who believe that illnesses are caused by bacteria or viruses to bring me one proof that they are; most rishonim knew that they were caused by evil spirits or bodily humors. What a person believes is based on some basic assumptions, and different Rishonim held very different assumptions in certain matters. People might and did challenge the Rambam that it appears from their point of view that the Rambam did not believe what Chazal say, or that I do not believe what Chazal say. The Rambam believed that everything that Chazal said is 'emes, but read his comments in the Perush haMishnayos to see that absolute Truth means different things in different approaches. Another example is how to reconcile the Truth that HQBH gave men free will with the fact that HQBH knows everything that will happen. That can only be explained if people understand certain assumptions about space and time. Rabbi Dr. Seth Mandel Rabbinic Coordinator The Orthodox Union From office at etzion.org.il Thu Dec 21 02:25:30 2017 From: office at etzion.org.il (Yeshivat Har Etzion) Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2017 12:25:30 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] VBM - Avodat Hashem #51: The Mitzva of Mezuza (Part I) Message-ID: <5A3B8C1A.4030506@etzion.org.il> PHILOSOPHY > Avodat Hashem - Foundations of Divine Service > Shiur #51: The Mitzva of Mezuza (Part I) Harav Baruch Gigi Yeshivat Har Etzion I. The Protection Offered by a Mezuza We are currently engaged in a clarification of the system of mitzvot, in the framework of the transition in Keriyat Shema from matters pertaining to the Rambam's Sefer Mada to matters pertaining to his Sefer Ahava. Thus far, we have studied the mitzva of tefillin and its unique meanings. Now, let us turn to a closely-related mitzva - the mitzva of mezuza. One of the central ideas relating to mezuza is the idea of protection. When one affixes a mezuza to the entrance of his home, his house and household are protected from all trouble and damage. This idea is expressed by Chazal in several contexts, and it is based, as we will demonstrate, on a connection that is already rooted in the verses of the Torah. At the end of the passage of Ve-haya im shamo'a, it is stated: And you shall write them upon the doorposts of your house and upon your gates; that your days may be multiplied, and the days of your children, upon the land which the Lord swore to your fathers to give them, as the days of the heavens above the earth. (Devarim 11:20-21) At first glance, it seems that the Torah's promise of longevity relates to all that was stated in this passage concerning one who obeys all of God's commandments and follows His ways. However, Chazal linked this promise directly to the mitzva of mezuza. Two talmudic passages establish a connection between longevity and the mitzva of mezuza. In tractate Shabbat (32b), it is taught that a person's children die because of a failure to fulfill the mitzva of mezuza.[1] This is learned from the juxtaposition of the commandment of mezuza to the verse that promises that "your days will be multiplied, and the days of your children." In a positive formulation, the Tur writes: Whoever is careful about it, his days and the days of his children will be lengthened, as it is written: "That your days may be multiplied, and the days of your children." (Tur, Yoreh De'ah 285) In tractate Kiddushin (34a), the gemara discusses the possibility of exempting women from the mitzva of mezuza. At first, the gemara is of the opinion that women are exempt, in view of the Torah's juxtaposition of the mitzva of mezuza to the mitzva of Torah study, from which women are exempt. However, the gemara rejects this possibility with the following argument: You cannot think so, because it is written: ["And You shall write them upon the doorposts of your house...] that your days may be multiplied." Do men only need life, and not women? (Kiddushin 34a) In this gemara as well, we clearly see that the promise of longevity in relation to the mitzva of mezuza is so central that there is no room even to entertain the possibility that women may be exempt from it. For by removing women from the mitzva of mezuza you would be removing them from the basic desire of existence, of life. The Tur adds: Moreover, one's house is protected by it, as they expounded the verse: "The Lord is your keeper; the Lord is your shade upon your right hand" (Tehillim 121:5). (Tur, ibid.) II. The Rambam's View The Rambam famously writes: It is a common custom to write [God's name] Shaddai on the outside of a mezuza, opposite the empty space left between the two passages. There is no difficulty in this, since the addition is made on the outside. However, those who write the names of angels, other sacred names, verses, or forms,[2] on the inside [of a mezuza] are among those who do not have a portion in the World-to-Come. Not only do these fools nullify the mitzva, but furthermore, they make from a great mitzva that reflects the unity of the name of the Holy One, blessed be He, the love of Him, and the service of Him, a talisman for their own benefit. They, in their foolish conception, think that this will help them regarding the vanities of the world. (Hilkhot Tefillin U-Mezuza 5:4) The Kesef Mishneh (ad loc.) cites the objection raised by the Ramach against the Rambam based on the gemara in Avoda Zara (11a). The gemara there records a story about Onkelos, who became a proselyte, and the emperor sent a contingent of soldiers after him. Among other things, it is stated there: Again he sent another cohort ordering them not to enter into any conversation whatever with him. So they took hold of him; and as they were walking on, he saw the mezuza that was fixed on the door frame and he placed his hand on it saying to them, "Now what is this?" And they replied, "You tell us then." He said to them, "According to universal custom, the mortal king dwells within, and his servants keep guard on him without; but [in the case of] the Holy One, blessed is He, it is His servants who dwell within while He keeps guard on them from without, as it is stated: `The Lord shall guard your going out and your coming in from this time forth and for evermore' (Tehillim 121:8)." Then they, too, were converted to Judaism. (Avoda Zara 11a) >From the difficulty raised by the Ramach, it may be concluded that in his opinion the Rambam rejects the idea of protection that is attributed to the mezuza. The Rambam views the mezuza as an expression of man's connection to God, in that he declares at the entrance to his house his faith in His unity and his love for Him, two of the foundations of His service. According to the Ramach, the Rambam rejects the talismanic qualities that were attributed to the mezuza by the ancients. The Ramach attacks the Rambam's position, as he understood it, on the grounds that the idea of protection is brought in the gemara itself: For in tractate Avoda Zara it is implied from that which Onkelos said to the Roman contingent that the Holy One, blessed is He, makes the mezuza to protect Israel from the outside. And one can force an answer that it was Onkelos who said this in order give importance to Israel. (Ramach, ad loc.) In light of this, the Ramach struggles to reconcile the Rambam's position, arguing that Onkelos said this to the Romans only in order to praise Israel in their eyes. Onkelos told the Romans that the mezuza symbolizes God's protection, as it were, over the houses of Israel. In truth, however, the mitzva of mezuza is not a matter of God's protection, but rather an expression of a person's faith in God's unity and service. It stands to reason, however, that the Rambam does not challenge the very idea of the protection offered by a mezuza. Thus writes the Kesef Mishneh in light of the fact that the gemara in Menachot uses this principle to determine the halakha regarding the proper placement of a mezuza: For in chapter Ha-Kometz (33b), regarding the rule that a mezuza must be placed in the handbreadth adjacent to the public domain, R. Huna said: "What is the reason? So that it may protect him."[3] Therefore you must say that in fact a mezuza protects the house when it is written properly. (Kesef Mishneh) In the Kesef Mishneh's opinion, the Rambam rejects only those actions that expanded the talismanic element of a mezuza - namely, the insertion of the names of the angels into the mezuza. The Rambam sees the protective quality of a mezuza in the connection between man and God and his belief in Him and His unity. In the continuation of our discussion, we will explain the idea of the protection offered by a mezuza with greater precision and in greater depth. III. Additional Sources The Yerushalmi states in tractate Pe'ah: Artaban sent to our holy Rabbi an invaluably precious pearl. He said to him: Send me something which is similarly precious. He sent him a mezuza. He said to him: What I have sent you is something priceless, but you have sent me something which is only worth one follis. He [Rabbi] said to him: Your treasures and my treasures are incomparable. And moreover, you have sent me something that I have to guard, while I have sent you something which guards you when you sleep, as it is written: "When you walk, it will lead you; when you lie down, it will watch over you; and when you awake, it will talk to you" (Mishlei 6:22). (Yerushalmi, Pe'ah 1:1) Similarly, the Tur writes in Hilkhot Mezuza: Moreover, one's house is protected by it, as they expounded the verse: "The Lord is your keeper; the Lord is your shade upon your right hand" (Tehillim 121:5). A mortal king dwells within, and his servants keep guard on him without; but you sleep in your beds and the Holy One, blessed is He, guards you from without. Therefore, it should be placed in the outermost handbreadth, so that the entire house be within it and under its protection. (Tur, Yoreh De'ah 285) The prevalent custom to write on the outside of the mezuza parchment the name ShaDaY - which is expounded as an abbreviation for the words: Shomer Delatot Yisrael, "Who guards the doors of Israel"[4] - also reinforces this idea of a mezuza as protecting a person's home. As stated, the basis of this idea is already found in the verses of the Torah. Even though the Torah does not mention the idea of protection in direct connection to the mitzva of mezuza, it is mentioned in connection with another mezuza. In Parashat Bo, God commands the people of Israel to place the blood of the paschal lamb on the two doorposts and lintel. The reason for this is explained as follows: And the blood shall be to you for a token upon the houses where you are; and when I see the blood, I will pass over you, and there shall no plague be upon you to destroy you, when I smite the land of Egypt. (Shemot 12:13) And later in the same chapter: For the Lord will pass through to smite the Egyptians; and when He sees the blood upon the lintel and on the two doorposts, the Lord will pass over the door, and will not suffer the destroyer to come in to your houses to smite you. (Shemot 12:23) It is further stated at the end of that chapter: It was a night of watching to the Lord for bringing them out from the land of Egypt; this same night is a night of watching to the Lord for all the children of Israel throughout their generations. (Shemot 12:42) Rashi writes: "A night of watching to the Lord for all the children of Israel throughout their generations" - This night is protected, and comes as such from ages past, against all destructive forces, as it is stated: "And He will not suffer the destroyer to enter your houses" (v. 33). (Rashi, ad loc.) IV. The Mezuza and the Paschal Offering On the night of the exodus from Egypt, God protected the houses of the people of Israel by way of the sign of the blood on the doorposts and lintels, and because of this the night became a night of watching for all generations.[5] At first glance, it seems that the common denominator between the mitzva of mezuza and the paschal offering is that in both cases we are commanded to place a specific thing on the doorpost, thereby securing the protection of the house and its inhabitants. On the deeper level, it seems that the connection between the mitzva of mezuza and the paschal offering is more substantive. What is the significance of placing blood on the doorposts and lintel of one's house? The paschal offering that the people of Israel brought in Egypt was sacrificed as a family offering, a sheep for each family, at the entrance to each family's home. In Egypt, of course, there was no Temple and no altar. Therefore, it seems that the meaning of the blood was to distinguish between the houses of the Israelites and the houses of the Egyptians, in order to prevent the destroyer from coming into the homes of the Israelites to attack. However, the possibility that the blood was meant to distinguish between the houses of Israel and the houses of Egypt raises a great difficulty, in light of the midrashim of Chazal, which indicate that God Himself passed through the land of Egypt. He certainly did not need a distinguishing sign. So writes the Beit Yosef in his book, Maggid Meisharim: As for the difficulty with the verse, "And when I see the blood, I will pass over you," why was a sign needed, for surely everything is revealed to Him? It may be suggested that a sign was needed for the angels who came with Him. It may further be objected that this sign was with blood, which is a sign of death, the opposite of what they wanted. And furthermore, the sign should have been on the outside, and this sign was on the inside. But the secret of the matter is that the Holy One, blessed be He, wanted them to trust in Him and place the blood on the door from the inside. This is what is written: "And the blood shall be to you for a token." And instead of being afraid when they see the blood on the door, on the contrary they should trust their Master who commanded them to do this, so that He would be a salvation for them. This merit of trusting God would protect them. This is the meaning of what is written: "And the blood shall be to you for a token upon the houses where you are; and when I see the blood, I will pass over you." That is to say, I will see the merit of your trust, that the blood that is a sign of death will be for you a sign of life when you trust the words of your Master. And for this reason, "when I see the blood, I will pass over you." (Maggid Meisharim, Parashat Bo) It seems that trust in God involves not only doing the action required by God on the simple level. What we have here is an important and profound principle, in light of the gemara in Pesachim: R. Yosef taught: There were three altars there, on the lintel and on the two doorposts. (Pesachim 96a) A broader picture emerges from the gemara. The paschal offering brought in Egypt was a sacrifice offered at the entrance of a person's house, his house serving as the Temple, and the entrance to his house being the altar. While Chazal speak of three altars, it seems more accurate to say that they are referring to the three corners of the altar. The people of Israel are commanded to see their homes as the house of God. With their trust in God, they express the strength of their connection to Him by seeing their homes as God's house. And if their house is the house of God, then the entrance to the house is an altar, and they put of the blood on the three corners of the altar - the lintel and the two doorposts. This view, which sanctifies the houses of the people of Israel as the Temple, is similar to what is stated: "In every place where I cause My name to be mentioned I will come to you and bless you" (Shemot 20:20). In this way, the house becomes the basis of the covenant that is being formed between God and His people, by virtue of their seeking His presence within them. If we are correct, it stands to reason that the idea of the protection offered by a mezuza has a more fundamental and inner meaning. A person turns his house into a house of God, and a house of God is protected, as is stated in Tehillim: A Song of Ascents; of Shelomo. Except the Lord build the house, they labor in vain that build it; except the Lord keep the city, the watchman wakes but in vain. (Tehillim 127:1) God's protection is protection, and there is no other, it alone being considered true protection. These words connect with the words of the Rambam in Hilkhot Beit Ha-Bechira, that the guarding in the Temple was merely a display of honor, and not needed for the protection it offered, since the house of God is not in need of protection: There is a positive mitzva to guard the Temple. [This mitzvah applies] even though there is no fear of enemies or thieves, for the guarding [of the Temple] is an expression of respect for it. A palace with guards is [much more impressive] than a palace without guards. (Rambam, Hilkhot Beit Ha-Bechira 8:1) (Translated by David Strauss) _______________________ [1] The gemara there states as follows: "R. Chiya bar Abba and R. Yose disagree. One says: It is for the sin of neglect of mezuza [that a person's children die]; while the other says: It is for the sin of the neglect of Torah... It is well according to the one who says: It is for the sin of the neglect of mezuza, for it is written: 'And you shall write them upon the doorposts of your house,' which is followed by: 'that your days may be multiplied, and the days of your children'" (Shabbat 32b). [2] The Rambam is referring here to the ancient practice of inserting all kinds of additions into the mezuza. Rabbeinu Eliezer of Metz writes as follows: "It is common practice to add seals and the names of the angels at the end of the Bible verses contained in the mezuza for the sake of the increased security of the home. This is not indispensible, nor even a mitzva, but simply serves as additional protection" (Yere'im 400). He then spells out in great detail the names of the angels and where precisely they were inserted in the mezuza. [3] According to the Ramach's understanding of the Rambam, it may be suggested that this does not mean that a mezuza protects a person, but rather that a person should be reminded of the principles of his faith whenever he goes in or out of his house. [4] See Kolbo: "The reason that we write this name more than the others is that it is an abbreviation for Shomer Dirat Yisrael, "Who guards the dwelling of Israel" (Kolbo, Mezuza 90). [5] Establishing this night as a night of watching has halakhic ramifications in a number of contexts. This is true regarding the recitation of Shema before going to sleep and regarding the Me-Ein Sheva blessing on the night of the Seder when it falls out on Friday night. Many halakhic authorities rule that one should not say the Me-Ein Sheva blessing on the night of the Seder, since it is a night of watching that does not require protection. From bdbradley70 at hotmail.com Sat Dec 23 13:33:10 2017 From: bdbradley70 at hotmail.com (Ben Bradley) Date: Sat, 23 Dec 2017 21:33:10 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Midrash Tanchuma Message-ID: I'd be grateful to know if anyone here is sufficiently familiar with different editions of midrash tanchuma to help me out. I acquired a copy of the Tanchuma from a second hand book shop, very inexpensively, a number of years ago. I was a poor student at the time. It was printed in 5645, ie 1885, by one Shlomo Buber (Bober?) in Lvov from manuscripts acquired from Oxford and the Vatican. I must admit I'd never paid much attention to these details until now, but It's just come to my attention that it my copy is hugely different to the standard one. For example, this week in Vayigash, my copy has 12 simanim, compared to the 11 in the standard edition. But only 4 of these are the same (8-11 in mine corresponding to 9-12 in the standard), all the others are utterly different. By which I mean they are simply different midrashim, not just variants. Can anyone shed light on such a huge difference between what seems to be the standard edition and mine? Best wishes Ben -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From meirabi at gmail.com Sat Dec 23 16:49:35 2017 From: meirabi at gmail.com (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi) Date: Sun, 24 Dec 2017 11:49:35 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] Did the Patriarchs Speak Hebrew? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Speak means communication, there were 10 communications with which HKBH created the universe There were 10 communications broadcast at Har Sinai - I'm pretty sure it wasn't Polish or Hungarian. The Rishonim argue about the nature of prophesy, is it an actual voice (meaning stimulation of the human hearing facility of the ear - not necessarily stimulated by an actual sound) or just a voice in the head but TTBOMKnowledge, none question the language. Anyway, does it make any difference? Either way the brain is receiving a signal. Perhaps the type of language is irrelevant, what's important is that the message is received and understood. That the parties are connected. I have seen, but could not re-find a comment by the MaOr VeShemesh (I think connected to Ish Mitzi HiTzilanu) that Yidden spoke Mitzi, and the meaning of Lo Shinu LeShonom is that they spoke with a Yiddishe style, with dignity and kindness - and this is what set us apart. Clearly a Derasha designed to direct the listeners and readers towards a more dignified language, but at the same time reflecting an ultimate truth, the language does not make the man, it's the style that's important. I also recall hearing is a RaMBaN or a Siforno - a child exposed from birth to no external language inputs, would naturally speak Lashon HaKodesh. This seems to be a fairly old consideration amongst philosophers, see Frederick's Experiment, and Gong Mahal. HKBH looked into the Torah and created the universe, speaks volumes about the centrality of Torah, not about it's language, although it's not easy separating the two. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From driceman at optimum.net Sat Dec 23 16:53:36 2017 From: driceman at optimum.net (David Riceman) Date: Sat, 23 Dec 2017 19:53:36 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Did the Patriarchs Speak Hebrew? Message-ID: See Melachim 2 18:26 [Email #2. -micha] And see Gen. 31:47 DR Sent from my iPad From zev at sero.name Sat Dec 23 19:46:46 2017 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Sat, 23 Dec 2017 22:46:46 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Midrash Tanchuma In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 23/12/17 16:33, Ben Bradley via Avodah wrote: > It was printed in 5645, ie 1885, by one Shlomo Buber (Bober?) in Lvov > from manuscripts acquired from Oxford and the Vatican. > I must admit I'd never paid much attention to these details until now, > but It's just come to my attention that it my copy is hugely different > to the standard one. Yes, the Buber Tanchuma is a different sefer from the standard Tanchuma. Citations to "Tanchuma" stam refer to the old edition, while ones to this edition are given as "Tanchuma (Buber)". Buber claimed that he had found the original version, and that the one published in the 16th century is a much later one. Not everyone was convinced. There was also something the rishonim called "Medrash Yelamdeinu", which may have been a third version which is now lost, or may simply have been the name by which they referred to one or the other of these two versions. http://bit.ly/2C5u4FL -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From akivagmiller at gmail.com Sat Dec 23 18:39:15 2017 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Sat, 23 Dec 2017 21:39:15 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Did the Patriarchs Speak Hebrew? Message-ID: . R' Seth Mandel wrote: > There is no proof that anyone spoke Hebrew. and R' Zev Sero responded: > Rashi Bereshis 2:23 That Rashi does not mention Hebrew. What Rashi says there is that the olam was created via "Lashon Hakodesh". "Lashon Hakodesh" may or may not be the same thing as what we refer to as "Hebrew". One cannot discuss this topic meaningfully unless he is careful to make this distinction. For a very in-depth (yet also readable and in English) treatment of these and related topics, I recommend "Lashon Hakodesh - History, Holiness, & Hebrew" by Rabbi Reuven Chaim Klein. Akiva Miller From zvilampel at gmail.com Sat Dec 23 21:41:29 2017 From: zvilampel at gmail.com (H Lampel) Date: Sun, 24 Dec 2017 00:41:29 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Historicity of Aggadta In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Under the subject line of Re: [Avodah] Did the Patriarchs Speak Hebrew?, RSM raises a claim that RMB and I have argued over in the past. He writes, > Medrashim of Chazal teaches us important ideas, but are not meant to > be literally true. They do not intend to be a historical document, > but rather contain important moral and ethical teachings which are > 'emes in the spiritual sense. > > ... if you understand > what the Rambam says in his introduction to Chapter 10 of Mas. Sanhedrin > regarding three approaches to what Chazal say But the Rambam also writes there: And? I will yet compose a work in which I will gather all the drashos found in the Talmud and elsewhere...and I will reveal what of the drashos are [meant in] a literal way, and which of them are [meant as] mashal, and which of them were [describing something seen only] in a dream but was stated in a purely absolute way, as if it were [experienced] in a state of wakefulness... So, the Rambam does not maintain that the literal meaning of? /all/ drashos is to be rejected. Some are indeed meant literally, and some are not. (The Rambam never wrote this work. As he explains in Moreh Nevuchim, since much of it would be dealing with the meaning of drashos whose meanings were valuable lessons too precious to be shared with those who would not appreciate them appropriately, he would be forced to merely substitute the drashos' figurative expressions with his own figurative expressions. But in several works he does provide the key that they are not meant literally when the literal meaning would contradict realia, logic, fundamentals or pesukim.) His son Avraham, in his maamer on Drashos Chazal writes similarly regarding the maasiyos reported in the Talmud. R. Yehuda HaLevy (1:68) understood the midrashic maasiyos attributing the Hebrew language to the patriarchs as a historic reality that carried an important lesson, and considered the Torah as presenting evidence thereof. According to tradition it is the language in which G-d spoke to Adam and Eve, and in which the latter conversed. It is proved by the derivation of Adam from /adamah/, /ishshah/ from /ish/; /Chava/__from Chay; /Cain/ from /Kannisi/; /Shes/ from /shas/, and Noach from /yenachamenu/. This is supported by the evidence of the Torah. The whole is traced back to Eber, Noach and Adam. It is the language of Eber after whom it was called /Hebrew/, because after the confusion of tongues it was he who retained it. Abraham was an Aramaean of /Ur Kasdim/, because the language of the Chaldaeans was Aramaic. He employed Hebrew as a specially holy language andAramaic for everyday use. .. Zvi Lampel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From familyp2 at actcom.net.il Sun Dec 24 03:05:02 2017 From: familyp2 at actcom.net.il (Simi Peters) Date: Sun, 24 Dec 2017 13:05:02 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] tanhuma buber Message-ID: <001a01d37ca7$16b17e70$44147b50$@actcom.net.il> Your edition of Tanhuma is indeed vastly different from the standard printed edition. It was published by Buber from a Cairo Geniza manuscript (or possibly several manuscripts-not sure about the details.) There is some overlap, but there is a lot of material in Tanhuma Buber that does not appear in the standard editions and vice versa. It's good to have both. Unless you're interested in trying to reconstruct an ur-edition of Tanhuma, you can just treat them as separate works and mine each for its interesting material. Kol tuv, Simi Peters --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From zvilampel at gmail.com Sun Dec 24 06:43:33 2017 From: zvilampel at gmail.com (H Lampel) Date: Sun, 24 Dec 2017 09:43:33 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Historicity of Aggadta In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1f584d28-51c5-aa2f-2eb7-e97d1cd32aef@gmail.com> On 12/24/2017 12:41 AM, Z?? Lampel wrote: > R. Yehuda HaLevy (1:68) Should be: R. Yehuda Halevy (Kuzari 2:68). Zvi Lampel From marty.bluke at gmail.com Sun Dec 24 04:32:45 2017 From: marty.bluke at gmail.com (Marty Bluke) Date: Sun, 24 Dec 2017 14:32:45 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] New Cancer Treatment Message-ID: RHS in his sefer (Eretz Hatzvi) points out that it seems to be 2 opinions in Tosafos whether a mamzer can be created without a bias issur. The Gemara in Yevamos 16b brings the opinion that eved v'akum haba al bas yisrael havlad mamzer. Tosafos there asks the following question. They understand how there can be an opinion that an eved creates mamzerus because there is a specific issur for a Jewish woman to have biah with an eved. However, they ask, by a Goy there is no issur biah min hatorah and therefore how can anyone hold that the product of the biah of a goy and a Jewish woman would create a mamzer? Tosafos gives 2 answers: 1. Even though there is no bias issur since kiddushin are not tofsin it creates mamzerus. 2. A Goy and a Jewish woman do not create a mamzer min hatorah only midrabbanan If we apply these 2 opinions to IVF, according to the first answer since kiddushin are not tofsin (since she is married) the child would be a mamzer even though there was no bias issur. On the other hand, the second answer holds that the determining factor of mamzerus is a bias issur and therefore since in the case of IVF there is no bias issur there would be no mamzerus. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Sun Dec 24 06:24:17 2017 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Sun, 24 Dec 2017 14:24:17 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] The Nature of Egyptian Society Message-ID: <1514125453560.29445@stevens.edu> The following is from RSRH" commentary on Bereishis 46:33 Now, when Pharaoh calls you and asks, What is your occupation? 33 In a state like Egypt, the individual is completely identified with his occupation. Children are not born as human beings but as artisans, peasants, soldiers, and so forth. Accordingly, Pharaoh's first question to Yosef 's brothers would naturally concern their occupation. They were instructed to answer Pharaoh's question candidly, to tell him the truth, even though it would be unpleasant. For the Egyptians' loathing for the brothers' occupation and, in general, the nations' aversion to the Jews were to serve as primary factors in the survival of this race, which was destined to journey through the ages in isolation. As long as the moral morn had not dawned for the nations, the barriers they erected to isolate the Jews served to protect the Jews from becoming infected with the barbarism and demoralization of the people in whose midst they had to walk for hundreds of years. Yosef therefore immediately emphasizes the aspect that will arouse the aversion of the Egyptians. His clear intention is that, as a result, his brothers will be allocated a separate province in which to dwell. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cantorwolberg at cox.net Sat Dec 23 19:30:04 2017 From: cantorwolberg at cox.net (Richard Wolberg) Date: Sat, 23 Dec 2017 22:30:04 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Vay'chi Message-ID: <89600AC2-DFEA-44AA-A5AE-9C4493ED11F4@cox.net> There?s an interesting medrash the k?li yakar brings down. It doesn?t say Vayik?r?vu Yisroel Lamus, that Yisroel came close to die,? rather it says: ?Vayik?r?vu Y?MEI Yisroel lamus,? that the DAYS of Yisroel came close to die. And the medresh says, the DAYS died, not the person. This goes in line with Vay?chi Ya?akov, and Jacob LIVED. In other words, his body died but not he, himself. (The question has been asked: Do you have a soul? The answer is NO, you ARE a soul with a body). In the first pasuk (vs.28) the name Yaakov is used twice and then in vs.29 we see the name Yisroel used. The question is asked why does the name change from Ya?akov to Yisroel. One answer is that Yisroel symbolizes the prophecy of Ya?akov. And that?s how he knew he was going to die because in prophecy he understood and divinely inspired, he understood that he was going to die. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From larry62341 at optonline.net Sun Dec 24 02:38:32 2017 From: larry62341 at optonline.net (Prof. Levine) Date: Sun, 24 Dec 2017 05:38:32 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] The Protection Offered by a Mezuza Message-ID: At 06:58 PM 12/23/2017, Harav Baruch Gigi wrote: The following is from RSRH's commentary on Devorim 6:9 And write them upon the [door-] posts of your house and upon your gates. The mezuzah is not an amulet; in and of itself, it does not protect the house. Only insofar as they shape their lives in accordance with the mezuzah 's content can the people within the house expect help and protection from God, the "All-Sovereign and All-Sufficing," in all the vicissitudes of domestic life. With this intent it is our custom to adorn the outside of the mezuzah with the Name shin-daled-yud. From ben1456 at zahav.net.il Sun Dec 24 10:55:39 2017 From: ben1456 at zahav.net.il (Ben Waxman) Date: Sun, 24 Dec 2017 20:55:39 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Rambam ,Hilchot Hannuka Message-ID: A few take aways from Rambam Hilchot Hanukka Chapter 3 1) For the Rambam, Hallel is the ikkar element of Hanukka, not the candles (given that details Hallel first and only then goes on to the candles). 2) The Rambam gives a long detailed description on how to properly say Hallel in beit knesset. However the last halacha in the chapter basically says "I've been in a lot batei knesset and everyone does something different'. Meaning - you want to do a musical Hallel, different tunes, no tunes, responsive, everyone together, whatever you like - it is fine. 3) The Rambam raises the possibility of a woman or child or slave reading Hallel and everyone repeating what she or he said word by word. However, he doesn't add in the famous curse given in the Gemara. Meaning - the Rambam didn't hold by? Tavo Ma'arah (spelling?) (at least not here). Ben From lisa at starways.net Sun Dec 24 11:27:31 2017 From: lisa at starways.net (Lisa Liel) Date: Sun, 24 Dec 2017 21:27:31 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] The Protection Offered by a Mezuza In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2cfbbfce-e0d9-fc05-140c-969d4b5f18a1@starways.net> On 12/24/2017 12:38 PM, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: > At 06:58 PM 12/23/2017, Harav Baruch Gigi wrote: ... > The mezuzah is not an amulet; in and of itself, it does not protect the > house. Only insofar as they shape their lives in accordance with the mezuzah's > content can the people within the house expect help and protection... I know a mezuzah isn't an amulet, but when my apartment burned down back in the 90s, the fire burned through two sides of the apartment and jumped over my room only, which was the only one with a mezuzah.? I'm not saying it couldn't be a coincidence, I'm just saying that I didn't take it that way. Lisa From zev at sero.name Sun Dec 24 14:10:20 2017 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Sun, 24 Dec 2017 17:10:20 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] The Protection Offered by a Mezuza In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2d108449-ec4d-0e35-d888-0ccdd8b113be@sero.name> On 24/12/17 05:38, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: > At 06:58 PM 12/23/2017, Harav Baruch Gigi wrote: > The following is from RSRH's commentary on Devorim 6:9 And write > them upon the [door-] > posts of your house and upon your gates. > > The mezuzah is not an amulet; in and of itself, it does not protect the > house. Only insofar as they shape their lives in accordance with the mezuzah 's > content can the people within the house expect help and protection > from God, the "All-Sovereign and All-Sufficing," in all the vicissitudes > of domestic life. That may be RSRH's opinion, but if so it contradicts Chazal and millennia of Jewish belief and practise. No, the mezuzah is not an amulet; if it were not a mitzvah it would have no inherent power. But the *mitzvah* of mezuzah protects regardless of how those within the house "shape their lives". Even a goy who puts up a mezuzah, choosing to voluntarily fulfil this mitzvah, can expect this protection. The mitzvah protects those who fulfil it not only when they are inside the house it adorns, but wherever they are. And, most astonishingly, although it is true that a mezuzah itself is not an amulet, there are legitimate grounds to believe that carrying it around "zecher lamitzvah" *does* give some level of protection, even though no mitzvah is being fulfilled. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From ben1456 at zahav.net.il Sun Dec 24 19:58:42 2017 From: ben1456 at zahav.net.il (Ben Waxman) Date: Mon, 25 Dec 2017 05:58:42 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] The Protection Offered by a Mezuza In-Reply-To: <2d108449-ec4d-0e35-d888-0ccdd8b113be@sero.name> References: <2d108449-ec4d-0e35-d888-0ccdd8b113be@sero.name> Message-ID: <80f92bd4-b7af-1b26-1d03-0f3ce7a67edf@zahav.net.il> I seriously doubt that anyone could come up with any statistical analysis showing this point to be true. Ben On 12/25/2017 12:10 AM, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > But the *mitzvah* of mezuzah protects regardless of how those within the house "shape their lives". From zvilampel at gmail.com Mon Dec 25 07:28:21 2017 From: zvilampel at gmail.com (H Lampel) Date: Mon, 25 Dec 2017 10:28:21 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Did the Patriarchs Speak Hebrew? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > Tue, 19 Dec 2017 "Mandel, Seth" wrote: > > There is no proof that anyone spoke Hebrew. ... the Torah was written in Hebrew because that is > what the Jews understood at the time of Moshe Rabbeinu and the N'vi'im. > ... What did Yaakov speak to Rochel and > Leah, who had never been in EY? ... > one cannot know from the T'NaKh who spoke what when and where. Well, at least when the matriarchs and patriarchs stated the reasons for the names they gave their children, they were obviously speaking the same Hebrew spoken in the times of Moshe Rabbeinu. The only way to question this would be to suggest that originally Yitzchak, for instance was called "HeShallLaugh" in some other language, and over the next 5 centuries the bnei Yisrael (or the descendants of HeWillStriveWithG-d, or whatever), knowing the meaning of the name, changed it to Yitzchak.And did the same with each one of all the other names given in the chronologies, which are also clearly contractions of Mattan Torah time Hebrew words. And a similar convoluted explanation would have to be made when an allegedly unHebrew-speaking Eisav cracked ''Ha-chi kara shmo Yaakov--Vayak-veini zeh pa'amayyim...?!" I think all that is extremely unlikely, even without invoking the masorah (of no less import than the Masorah that HQBH dictated the Torah to Moshe Rabbeinu in the eponymous Biblical Hebrew) that the shevatim in Moshe Rabbeinu's time retained the names given to their ancestors (cited in many places including BeMidbar Rabbah 13:20 s.v. Bayom HaShishi and Midrash Tehillim 114:4). Zvi Lampel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mcohen at touchlogic.com Mon Dec 25 07:39:55 2017 From: mcohen at touchlogic.com (M Cohen) Date: Mon, 25 Dec 2017 10:39:55 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Did the Patriarchs Speak Hebrew? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <00bd01d37d96$9d1ebc80$d75c3580$@com> Fyi that the best sefer that I have seen on the subject of Hebrew and ancient Hebrew history is Lashon HaKodesh: History, Holiness & Hebrew by Rabbi Reuven Chaim Klein. Feldheim. http://www.feldheim.com/lashon-hakodesh.html Haskomos from R Leff, R Breitowitz, R Lopiansky It deals with the subject of ancient Hebrew history, using both on chazal and current linguistic and archeological sources Did Adam harishon speak Hebrew ? Did the world speak Hebrew until tower of Babel? Did Avraham speak Hebrew ? Foreign influences on Hebrew Hebrew vs Aramaic. Sources. History. Development. You will find exhaustive source material and answers there. Mordechai Cohen ======= Email scanned by PC Tools - No viruses or spyware found. (Email Guard: 9.1.0.2894, Virus/Spyware Database: 6.22240) http://free.pctools.com/ ======= From zev at sero.name Sun Dec 24 23:16:16 2017 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Mon, 25 Dec 2017 02:16:16 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] The Protection Offered by a Mezuza In-Reply-To: <80f92bd4-b7af-1b26-1d03-0f3ce7a67edf@zahav.net.il> References: <2d108449-ec4d-0e35-d888-0ccdd8b113be@sero.name> <80f92bd4-b7af-1b26-1d03-0f3ce7a67edf@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <1ba30a45-ba01-d7d5-2b67-843f9f22ed8b@sero.name> On 24/12/17 22:58, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > On 12/25/2017 12:10 AM, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: >> But the *mitzvah* of mezuzah protects regardless of how those within >> the house "shape their lives". > I seriously doubt that anyone could come up with any statistical > analysis showing this point to be true. Why do we need statistical analysis? Judaism tell us it's true, therefore it is. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From llevine at stevens.edu Mon Dec 25 12:00:57 2017 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Mon, 25 Dec 2017 20:00:57 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Bishul Akum - Specific Products Message-ID: <0ae98ef4eb3a4dbeaa39a0bbc1e50abf@exchng03.campus.stevens-tech.edu> Please see the file at https://goo.gl/LnRQjF YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Mon Dec 25 12:30:23 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 25 Dec 2017 15:30:23 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] The Protection Offered by a Mezuza In-Reply-To: <80f92bd4-b7af-1b26-1d03-0f3ce7a67edf@zahav.net.il> References: <2d108449-ec4d-0e35-d888-0ccdd8b113be@sero.name> <80f92bd4-b7af-1b26-1d03-0f3ce7a67edf@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <20171225203023.GA9557@aishdas.org> On Mon, Dec 25, 2017 at 05:58am IST, Ben Waxman wrote: : On 12/25/2017 12:10 AM, Zev Sero wrote: :> But the *mitzvah* of mezuzah protects regardless of how those :> within the house "shape their lives". : I seriously doubt that anyone could come up with any statistical : analysis showing this point to be true. (I won't bother arguing against Zev's inability to acknowledge the existence of other shitos than his. "[I]t contradicts Chazal and millennia of Jewish belief and practise." "Judaism tell us it's true" indeed. It's a machloqes of the Rambam and the Ramach, with various teirutzim given for the Rambam. Not open-and-shut at all.) You want to statistically decide which hashkafah is true??? I lean the way you do. But it's a machloqes. I already pointed to , a discussion of sources both ways. It would be weird to think it boils down to a machloqes in metzi'us. You remind me of a problem I have saying a particular line of Tehillim (37:25) with kavanah, and it comes up at the appendix to bentching, "Naar hayisi..." But I have seen a tzadiq whose kids miss meals and have to beg. Haven't you? The best I can do, rather than tamper with the minhag of saying it, is to focus on the word "ne'ezav" -- so, his kids don't have food, but it's not because HQBH abandoned the tzadiq. But I can't really feel that's peshat in the pasuq. It allows me to saven with qavanah, but as an answer -- the question is better than this resolution. Bitachon and emunah that actually fit the data can be more challenging than if we just shut off critical thought. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "As long as the candle is still burning, micha at aishdas.org it is still possible to accomplish and to http://www.aishdas.org mend." Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Anonymous shoemaker to R' Yisrael Salanter From micha at aishdas.org Mon Dec 25 12:34:01 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 25 Dec 2017 15:34:01 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Historicity of Aggadta In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20171225203401.GB9557@aishdas.org> On Sun, Dec 24, 2017 at 12:41:29AM -0500, H Lampel via Avodah wrote: : Under the subject line of Re: [Avodah] Did the Patriarchs Speak Hebrew?, : RSM raises a claim that RMB and I have argued over in the past. He writes, : : > Medrashim of Chazal teaches us important ideas, but are not meant to : > be literally true. They do not intend to be a historical document, : > but rather contain important moral and ethical teachings which are : > 'emes in the spiritual sense. Which need not say anything about the story's lilterally truth. Just that the story isn't *about* its literal historical claim, and therefore doesn't testify to history one way or the other. And so, I agree with: : So, the Rambam does not maintain that the literal meaning of /all/ : drashos is to be rejected. Some are indeed meant literally, and some are : not. And yet still won't bother worrying about contradicting any medrash's historical claims. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Life is a stage and we are the actors, micha at aishdas.org but only some of us have the script. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Menachem Nissel Fax: (270) 514-1507 From zvilampel at gmail.com Mon Dec 25 15:53:28 2017 From: zvilampel at gmail.com (H Lampel) Date: Mon, 25 Dec 2017 18:53:28 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Historicity of Aggadta In-Reply-To: <20171225203401.GB9557@aishdas.org> References: <20171225203401.GB9557@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 12/25/2017 3:34 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > And so, I agree with: > : So, the Rambam does not maintain that the literal meaning of /all/ > : drashos is to be rejected. Some are indeed meant literally, and some are > : not. > > And yet still won't bother worrying about contradicting any medrash's > historical claims. I already stated that the Rambam holds the intent of? a medrash is not literal if he holds it contradicts realia, logic, fundamentals or pesukim. And I should add, if it contradicts what he considers the consensus of Chazal. And in past iterations I submitted examples where the Rambam cites midrashic reports of history apparently qua history. You may insist that he (contra the Kuzari regarding Adam and the patricarchs speaking Hebrew) doesn't care about whether they are historically factual. But if you have examples of the Rambam not bothering to worry about contradicting a medrash's historical reports despite the above caveats, please provide them. Zvi Lampel From micha at aishdas.org Mon Dec 25 17:21:19 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 25 Dec 2017 20:21:19 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Historicity of Aggadta In-Reply-To: References: <20171225203401.GB9557@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20171226012119.GH24733@aishdas.org> On Mon, Dec 25, 2017 at 06:53:28PM -0500, H Lampel wrote: :> And yet still won't bother worrying about contradicting any medrash's :> historical claims. : I already stated that the Rambam holds the intent of? a medrash is : not literal if he holds it contradicts realia, logic, fundamentals : or pesukim... Yes, but you know I disagree. The Rambam says that the intent of a medrash is not literal. They might also be literal. A mashal or melitzah -- as he discusses from Mishlei at length -- can be pulled from history or stam crafted as a story, but in either case "mimah shenimtza bikhlal divreihem morim al inyanim amitiyim me'od." However, if the story does contradict what is known, we know it's a pure mashal, ahistorical. And therefore don't become like someone of the first two katim, believing stupidity or ridiculing chazal for their allegedly teaching stupidity. But he doesn't ever say that if the story is plausible, that's the point of the story. Nor that it's sufficient reason to assume it's true on a literal level. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "Fortunate indeed, is the man who takes micha at aishdas.org exactly the right measure of himself, and http://www.aishdas.org holds a just balance between what he can Fax: (270) 514-1507 acquire and what he can use." - Peter Latham From micha at aishdas.org Sun Dec 24 14:11:31 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Sun, 24 Dec 2017 17:11:31 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Please help me fund my book! Message-ID: <20171224221131.GA26480@aishdas.org> My manuscript just went to the publishers. For the second time; I retracted my first version because I didn't like the idea that the book was all theory without any pragmatics. What's the value of exploring the meaning of Torah and life based on haRav Shimon haKohein Shkop without anything about how to align one's life with those ideals? If you want some sense of what the book is about, the text that it's a commentary / elaboration on is available at http://www.aishdas.org/asp/ShaareiYosher.pdf -- although I have made some improvements to the readability of that translation since that PDF. If you would like to help me make this dream happen, whether because you were always looking for a way to thank me for these email lists, you like me or some of the things you've seen me write in the past, you like Rav Shimon's hashkafah, or simply think *any* sefer that gets more Orthodox Jews thinking about the big picture and why are we doing it all is worth existing, please let me know. Initial reactions are excited: "This may IY'H attract some serious attention -- books like this don't come out every day." "Very chashuv, unique sefer." "Wow. what an impressive work!" "Right up our alley, as well. Torah, important -- but kind of unique. For thinking people." "I think the subject, approach and writing are gevaldik." "I am excited as well, but they tell me the hardest part of the job still lays ahead." The sefarim market cannot consume books to the extent where publication will make a profit. So, at least when it comes to the business and funding models, all the houses expect fundraising and sponsorship to make a book happen. But it is not "vanity press". The publisher adds significant value to the book -- fact checking, editing, layout and other aesthetics, etc. The publisher I am going with uses Feldheim as their distribution channel, so my sefer could reach every Anglo sefarim store. And they have to pay the people who do all that, not to mention feed their own families. They put their name on the book, the book is their product. They need that good name for future marketing and distribution. So, they won't take on a book that would harm their business. They're willing to invest those man-hours, and when done, to stand behind my work. So, I have to rely heavily on word-of-mouth to raise that money. Including hitting up everyone here on Areivim/Avodah. I am using a foundation established in memory of my grandparents to clear the money in a manner that is tax-deductible. Email me for details if you are interested in chipping in. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger For those with faith there are no questions. micha at aishdas.org For those who lack faith there are no answers. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yaakov of Radzimin Fax: (270) 514-1507 From zvilampel at gmail.com Mon Dec 25 19:55:18 2017 From: zvilampel at gmail.com (H Lampel) Date: Mon, 25 Dec 2017 22:55:18 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Diberah Torah Kil-shon bnei adam In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Under the heading, Re: [Avodah] Did the Patriarchs Speak Hebrew?, Tue, 19 Dec 2017 From: Micha Berger > Mandel, Seth via Avodah wrote: > : There is no proof that anyone spoke Hebrew. Chazal say that dibb'ra Torah > : bilshon b'nei odom... > > RMB: Well.... R' Yishmael says it [the dictum ''dibb'ra Torah > bilshon b'nei odom.''] And it appears to be an argument for his > rules of derashah, which do not include looking for magic words like > "akh" (mi'ut), "raq" (mi'ut), "kol" (ribui) or even "es", but darshens > the meaning of terms, whether ribui or mi'ut....And besides, R' Aqiva disagrees! RSRH (Collected Writings Vol. V, p. 170), citing 30 cases,? points out that, ''R. Ishmael, no less than R. Akiba (and......all of R. Akiva's predecessors...)...considered particles [including of ''akh,'' ''raq'' and ''ess'] and superfluities ..in the Biblical text...subject to interpretations.'' He explains (p. 177) that ''R. Ishmael disagrees with R. Akiba only with regard to one very specific form of redundancy, namely, repetitions of the same expression; e.g.,...yidor nedder,...hasheiv heishiv, or the repetition of the same noun (ish ish). However, R. Ishmael interprets other redundancies in exactly the same manner as does R. Akiba.'' This leads me to propose an explanation for the phenomenon described by RMB as that... > The Rambam really sloganeers (like the CS's "chadash assur min haTorah") > when he uses it to explain that anthropomorphic descriptions of HQBH > are idioms, not to be taken overly literally. Rambam was not the first (and of course not the last*) to understand that Chazal intended by ''dibrah Torah kil-shon bnei adam'' a wider meaning than the one in dispute between R. Akiva and R.Yishmael, and even wider than the one RSRH shows both agreed to. Rav Hai Gaon (Teshuvas HaGaonim #98), too, used it to explain anthropomorphisms ("all the words of our Sages that have anthropomorphic descriptions ... are not to be understood literally but are metaphors or allegory. ... the Torah speaks in the language of man.)'' So did Chovos Halevavos (Shaar HaYichud 1:1:10). And Sefer HaKuzari (5:27) used it to explain? what the Torah means when it says that blowing the chatzotzros will result in ''v-hayu lachem l-zikaron lifnei H','' which seems to imply that H' requires reminders. Raavad (Sefer HaEmunah 1:7) applied the dictum to explain why the rewards and punishments the Torah' explicitly references are only those in this world, and not the next.? He explained that speaking of spiritual rewards would confuse the common people, ''v'al zeh ne'emar dibrah Torah b-lashon bnei adam.'' (Semi-off topic: In Maamar Techiyyas HaMeisim, Rambam gives a similar, if not identical reason for no explicit reference to techiyyas hameisim, without invoking the dictum.) So I propose that the Geonim and rishonim understood that the intent of Chazal's dictum? ''dibrah Torah kil-ashon bnei adam'' was a wide one, which includes the Torah's use of anthropomorphism. And that R. Yishmael, contra R. Akiva,? /extended/? it even to repetitions of the same expression; e.g.,...yidor nedder,...hasheiv heishiv, or the repetition of the same noun (ish ish). But nobody, including R. Yishmael, extended it even further, to other apparently extra words or particles such as"akh", "raq", "kol" and "ess". Those are meant for interpretation according to all. This would explain why even though the rule is that we follow R. Akiva when he argues with R. Yishmael, , the rishonim embraced the dictum of "dibrah Torah kil-shon bnei adam." Because they embraced it in the sense that all Chazal agreed to. And this applies to anthropomorphisms. It is only regarding whether to extended the dictum's application to certain types of expressions that R. Yishmael and R. Akiva argue. *Ibn Ezra--numerous times, such as on Breishis 6:6) Radak (numerous times, such as on Breishis 9:15 Ramban (Breishis 6:6) Hizkuni (Devarim 5:26) Rabbeynu Bechaye (numerous times, such as on Breishis 1:26) Ralbag (Shoftim 10:16) Akeidas Yitzchak numerous times, such as on Vayeria Shaar 19 sv Va'ani ain) Zvi Lampel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From JRich at sibson.com Mon Dec 25 22:00:57 2017 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2017 06:00:57 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] The Protection Offered by a Mezuza In-Reply-To: <20171225203023.GA9557@aishdas.org> References: <2d108449-ec4d-0e35-d888-0ccdd8b113be@sero.name> <80f92bd4-b7af-1b26-1d03-0f3ce7a67edf@zahav.net.il>, <20171225203023.GA9557@aishdas.org> Message-ID: > > You want to statistically decide which hashkafah is true??? > ------------ > > > You remind me of a problem I have saying a particular line of Tehillim > (37:25) with kavanah, and it comes up at the appendix to bentching, > "Naar hayisi..." But I have seen a tzadiq whose kids miss meals and have > to beg. Haven't you? > -------------- It also bothered the gedolim who struggled to explain why the simple meaning of the segula of being a sandek didn't seem to be statistically fulfilled Kt 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. From lisa at starways.net Tue Dec 26 00:10:52 2017 From: lisa at starways.net (Lisa Liel) Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2017 10:10:52 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Historicity of Aggadta In-Reply-To: <20171226012119.GH24733@aishdas.org> References: <20171225203401.GB9557@aishdas.org> <20171226012119.GH24733@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 12/26/2017 3:21 AM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > However, if the story does contradict what is known, we know it's a pure > mashal, ahistorical. I'd like to revise that to say that if the story contradicts what is *currently* known, we are entitled (or perhaps required) to consider it a pure mashal *at that time*, with the understanding that our knowledge may change. Lisa --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From zvilampel at gmail.com Mon Dec 25 20:41:54 2017 From: zvilampel at gmail.com (H Lampel) Date: Mon, 25 Dec 2017 23:41:54 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Historicity of Aggadta In-Reply-To: <20171226012119.GH24733@aishdas.org> References: <20171225203401.GB9557@aishdas.org> <20171226012119.GH24733@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <057fcda7-0e48-53f8-c0ec-135a112bb534@gmail.com> On 12/25/2017 8:21 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > ...But he doesn't ever say that if the story is plausible, that's the point > of the story. Nor that it's sufficient reason to assume it's true on a > literal level. The historical mentions the Rambam's makes, treating the plausible Midrashim as history without making any qualifications, indicates otherwise. But specifically on the topic this discussion came from now: Regarding the Midrashic reports that Adam and the Avos spoke Ivris/Lashon Hakadosh, which I assume you agree the Kuzari accepts as historical fact (which of course teaches in its historicity an important thing to know)... Is your default position that the Rambam doesn't care whether it's historically so? Zvi Lampel From sholom at aishdas.org Mon Dec 25 22:08:38 2017 From: sholom at aishdas.org (Sholom Simon) Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2017 01:08:38 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Rashi on kol hanefesh (Bereshis 46:26) Message-ID: <20171226060849.GQIH4561.fed1rmfepo102.cox.net@fed1rmimpo209.cox.net> Kol hanefesh . . . shvi'im. Rashi says "I found in Vayikra Rabba" . . . a statement that Eisav had (with him) six, and the word nafashos (plural) was used; but here with Yaakov, kol hanafesh . . . shevi'im, nefesh is in the singular. This is a hint that Eisav engaged in A"Z (plural gods), while Yaakov served one G-d. But don't we (almost?) always see (in Torah) the singular being used for a noun when the count is larger than 10? How can one darshen from something that follows the general grammatic rule? What am I missing here? -- Sholom From lisa at starways.net Tue Dec 26 00:08:21 2017 From: lisa at starways.net (Lisa Liel) Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2017 10:08:21 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] The Protection Offered by a Mezuza In-Reply-To: <20171225203023.GA9557@aishdas.org> References: <2d108449-ec4d-0e35-d888-0ccdd8b113be@sero.name> <80f92bd4-b7af-1b26-1d03-0f3ce7a67edf@zahav.net.il> <20171225203023.GA9557@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <282dcbac-59e9-be81-ee8e-f1faf4991682@starways.net> On 12/25/2017 10:30 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > You remind me of a problem I have saying a particular line of Tehillim > (37:25) with kavanah, and it comes up at the appendix to bentching, > "Naar hayisi..." But I have seen a tzadiq whose kids miss meals and have > to beg. Haven't you? I always understood it to mean that either he's quick to give tzedaka so as to prevent there being a tzaddik neezav v'zar'o mevakesh lachem, or that we aren't talking about literal aziva and lack of food, but rather aziva by Hashem and lack of Torah. Lisa --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From zvilampel at gmail.com Tue Dec 26 07:09:06 2017 From: zvilampel at gmail.com (H Lampel) Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2017 10:09:06 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Historicity of Aggadta In-Reply-To: <057fcda7-0e48-53f8-c0ec-135a112bb534@gmail.com> References: <20171225203401.GB9557@aishdas.org> <20171226012119.GH24733@aishdas.org> <057fcda7-0e48-53f8-c0ec-135a112bb534@gmail.com> Message-ID: <53d98237-ecd0-93ee-7927-d9edb71b28ca@gmail.com> On 12/25/2017 11:41 PM, H Lampel wrote: > > > On 12/25/2017 8:21 PM, Micha Berger wrote: >> ...But he doesn't ever say that if the story is plausible, that's the >> point >> of the story. Nor that it's sufficient reason to assume it's true on a >> literal level. The first statement is of course true. The reason a story is told is to make a point. Thus the citations where the Rambam says that all the maamerei Chazal impart valuable lessons. The second statement is where we diverge. I understand that the Rambam does take the plausible reports of happenings (reported of course because they impart something worthy to know) to be historically true. In other words, that's the default position. He never says that we may deny the historic factuality of events Chazal presented as factual historical events. I understand the citations you bring where Rambam invokes Mishlei to defend interpreting maamarei Chazal non-literally to? be saying that even the implausible ones really have valuable lessons but must be interpreted non-literally to understand them. So I would still ask you for examples of the Rambam not bothering to worry about contradicting a medrash's plausible historical reports. I previously remarked that the historical mentions the Rambam's makes, treating the plausible Midrashim as history without making any qualifications, without explaining why he takes them as historical fact (for example, the neis of the pach shemen, and the military victory of the Chashmonaim), indicates he took them as historical fact, which thereby provides the lessons to be learned therefrom. I quoted a passage from Rambam's Hakdama to Perek Cheilek (originally to counteract the face-value meaning of RSM's declaration that the Rambam holds that every Medrash is meant non-literally), where the Rambam makes clear that some reports are meant non-literally, but some are meant literally. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that your take can be worded as follows: Chazal and Rambam did not care whether the historical events they learned lessons from, really occurred. All Chazal's statements are only for the sake of the lessons. Some of the lessons must be extracted by understanding the statements in a non-literal way, particularly if at face value they are implausible. Of the plausible reports, the lessons to be learned from them can be gleaned from a literal understanding, meaning the message is clear without needing to give unusual meanings to its the words. But that does not mean that they were meant to be historically factual. They are meant literally, but not historically. I.e., the Rambam held that although lessons Chazal intended were ostensibly learned from, or reinforced by, events they reported, it is irrelevant whether the events did actually occur, and indeed they may not have. But I think his words indicate otherwise. Here they are again: ??? And I will yet compose a work in which I will gather all the ??? drashos found in the Talmud and elsewhere...and I will reveal what ??? of the drashos are [meant in] a literal way, and which of them are ??? [meant as] mashal, and which of them were [describing something seen ??? only] in a dream but was stated in a purely absolute way, as if it ??? were [experienced] in a state of wakefulness... If the Rambam considered it irrelevant whether the events did actually occur, and held that indeed they may not have occurred, why is he concerned with whether the report occurred in a dream? Why would he invoke a dream, if he considered the actuality of all reported events irrelevant? After all, its only the lesson that is relevant! But if you accept that the Rambam considered the default position to be that reported events are meant to be understood as actually occurring, and that while some are merely mashal but others are real, then it makes sense that he felt it important to exclude implausible reports and explain which were pure mashal and which were experienced in a dream. And describing the report as "stated in a purely absolute way, as if it were [experienced] in a state of wakefulness," implies that, had it not been implausible, being stated in an absolute way would imply that it was indeed experienced in a state of wakefulness. Zvi Lampel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: ???? ???? ????? ???? ?? ?? ?????? ??????? ?????? ??????.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 215599 bytes Desc: not available URL: From micha at aishdas.org Tue Dec 26 08:06:50 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2017 11:06:50 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Historicity of Aggadta In-Reply-To: <057fcda7-0e48-53f8-c0ec-135a112bb534@gmail.com> References: <20171225203401.GB9557@aishdas.org> <20171226012119.GH24733@aishdas.org> <057fcda7-0e48-53f8-c0ec-135a112bb534@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20171226160650.GC15636@aishdas.org> On Mon, Dec 25, 2017 at 11:41:54PM -0500, H Lampel wrote: : The historical mentions the Rambam's makes, treating the plausible : Midrashim as history without making any qualifications, indicates : otherwise. It indicates that some medrashim which both didn't defy evidence or his philosophy that the Rambam felt had a literal point worth making. Not that plauisible medrashim should be assumed to be literal history. He spends so much time telling you they're all statements of the deepest truths, and quoting Shelomo, that chakhamim conduct such discussions via mashal and melitzah. The fact that some deepest truths has historical impact doesn't give us license to ignore paragraphs of writing. : Regarding the Midrashic reports that Adam and the Avos spoke : Ivris/Lashon Hakadosh, which I assume you agree the Kuzari accepts : as historical fact (which of course teaches in its historicity an : important thing to know)... Is your default position that the Rambam : doesn't care whether it's historically so? That's the default. Perhaps the Rambam agrees with the Rihal that the history of Ivris is a significant statement, and would be meant literally even under his view. Perhaps not. I can't guess, and am willing to entertain anything. But there are also reports that they spoke Aramaic, or even that Adam spoke all 70 leshonos. See the sources I gave in as well as Sanhedrin 38b (R Yehudah amar Rav: Adam haRishon spoke Aramaic). Not to mention historical evidence. So there is no reason for me to make the Rambam's life difficult. To complete repeating myself, my own instinct is to say that Adam spoke some proto-Semitic, and therefore spoke a language which could be considered both ancient Hebrew AND ancient Aramaic, or proto-everything and thus an ancestor to all 70 languages. And this would explain the medrashim as well as allow us to identify Adam's speech with Leshon haQodesh. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "I think, therefore I am." - Renne Descartes micha at aishdas.org "I am thought about, therefore I am - http://www.aishdas.org my existence depends upon the thought of a Fax: (270) 514-1507 Supreme Being Who thinks me." - R' SR Hirsch From eliturkel at mail.gmail.com Mon Dec 25 13:40:32 2017 From: eliturkel at mail.gmail.com (Eli Turkel) Date: Mon, 25 Dec 2017 23:40:32 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] shabbes candles Message-ID: A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: multipart/alternative Size: 1277 bytes Desc: not available URL: From chaim.tatel at mail.gmail.com Mon Dec 25 15:43:58 2017 From: chaim.tatel at mail.gmail.com (Chaim Tatel) Date: Mon, 25 Dec 2017 15:43:58 -0800 Subject: [Avodah] shabbes candles Message-ID: A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: multipart/alternative Size: 4006 bytes Desc: not available URL: From JRich at sibson.com Wed Dec 27 01:51:45 2017 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Wed, 27 Dec 2017 09:51:45 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] birur vs hanhaga in other legal systems Message-ID: <9ec665e80cbd4e97be6b4bcc8b7221d8@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> There's a lot of "Brisker Torah" on the differentiation between halachically resolving doubts by birur (clarification/resolution of doubt) versus hanhaga (we still have a doubt but must move forward while not resolving the doubt). One practical difference would be that doubts resolved by birur are considered resolved retroactively while those resolved by hanhaga are only prospective in nature. Is anyone aware of any parallels to this differentiation in other legal systems? KT 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: From micha at aishdas.org Thu Dec 28 08:03:25 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2017 11:03:25 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Body and Soul In-Reply-To: <89600AC2-DFEA-44AA-A5AE-9C4493ED11F4@cox.net> References: <89600AC2-DFEA-44AA-A5AE-9C4493ED11F4@cox.net> Message-ID: <20171228160325.GA31137@aishdas.org> On Sat, Dec 23, 2017 at 10:30pm EST, Richard Wolberg wrote in a post titled "Vay'chi": : (The question has been asked: Do you have a soul? The answer is NO, : you ARE a soul with a body). I write about this in my manuscript. Here's a version I put up on Mi Yodeya about a year ago. So, it is slightly adapted, lacks a year of editing, and there will be someone else editing the manuscript before it is a book (assuming I raise the money). On Mi Yodeya, "Gabriel12" asked about E-lokai Neshmah, and the phrases "shanasata bi... nefachtahh bi... meshammerahh beqirbi... littela mimmenni, ulhachzirahh bi le'asid lavo". He asks: Here, when I say me, I'm referring to my body. And I'm thanking G-d for giving me back my soul. But why is the body "me"? Shouldn't the soul be the real "me"? Am I the soul or the body? My answer: As for E-lokai Neshamah and Hashem putting a soul within me, my own intent when saying these words is based on the Vilna Gaon's taxonomy of prayer: Prayers that express an ideal to be repeated and internalized are what we call "tefillah" in Hebrew. Tefillos are consistently written in the plural, as our connection to the community is part of that ideal. Prayers written in the singular are therefore of a different sort, "tachanunim", expressions of what already exists in our hearts. This is how the Gaon explains the line in Qaddish, "tisqabel tzelosehon uva'usehon -- accept the tefillos and requests (tachanunim) of all of the House of Israel..." We say this when closing the Amidah -- which is such a paragon of tefillah our Sages called it simply "Tefillah", E-lokai Netzor -- tachanunim, (note that it's written about "I" and "mine", not "we" and "our"), and Tachanun. "Elokai, neshamah -- My G-d, the soul which you placed in me" is similarly tachanunim. Therefore, it's not a place to look for how we ought to see our self-definition, but how things feel to most of us first thing in the morning. The prayer reflects the fact that most people do in practice identify with our body most consistently, and only at times with their soul. But to answer the philosophical question... There is a machlokes, a dispute among the rabbis, as to how to view man. One side, found often among books of Mussar, views a person as a soul who inhabits a body, or perhaps controls it as a rider upon a donkey. As Elifaz describes humanity in the book of [61]Iyov (4:10), "shochnei batei chomer - dwellers in homes of matter." When Rav Yitzchak Isaac Scher (Cheshbon haNefesh, Slaboka Alumni ed., intro.) speaks of man's physical side being an animal, we mean that literally, not merely like an animal. Since much of our yeitzer hara comes from our living in a mammalian body, R' Scher recommends the very same strategies one uses for taming and being able to use the eyesight of a bird, the strength of an ox, the load bearing abilities of a donkey or the speed of a horse are applicable to gaining mastery over our bodies. Like any other animal, a person's animal soul has no ability to plan toward a goal, it simply responds to whatever urge is most triggered in the moment. The animal soul must be saddled by the godly soul and guided. And Rabbi Sherr points out with the example of a trained elephant, "next to whom a person like his trainer seems little more than an ant", to maximize its utility it must neither be overburdened or neglected, nor underused and let remind wild - and this is how we are to treat our body and our animal souls. Last and most importantly, neither an animal nor the animal within can be educated, but trained through habit and acclimation. This notion is a key symbol in the Gra's interpretation system -- when one finds a chamor / donkey in a narrative, it is generally a symbol for the person's chomer / physicality. Avraham at the Akeidah or the mashiach come in riding on a donkey as a way to indicate to us their mastery over their own physicality. In contrast, we speak of Bil'am's donkey, but the Torah consistently calls it a different kind of animal; he does not harness a chamor, showing self-control over the animal's urges of the moment, Bil'am rides an ason ([62]Bamidbar 22:23,25,27,28,29,33). In this viewpoint, a person is a rider of an animal, or to use a metaphor that may resonate better with our more modern lifestyles - the soul who is wearing a body. Another stream of thought includes the body in the definition of person. Rather than a person's more human side that rides his body as a master over an animal, in this model man is seen as a fusion of body and soul. For example when the gemara ([63]Sanhedrin 91a) explains one purpose of the eventual resurrection of the dead by comparing a sinner to a blind man and a lame man who conspire to steal fruit from an orchard. They are caught and brought to court, but each of the accused claims innocence. The blind man says he must be innocent, for he was incapable of even finding the fruit, never mind stealing them. The lame man also claims innocence; after all, he had no way to reach it. Neither alone could commit the theft, so each of the accused points to the other as the critical element for the sin, the guilty party. The judge responds by putting one atop the other, recreating the unit that was capable of sin, and judges the pair. So too, the gemara explains, the soul could claim it couldn't have sinned without the body giving it the opportunity for action, and the body could claim that the planning and execution of the sin are the fault of the soul. In order to judge us for our sins, Hashem will bodily resurrect the sinner to reconstruct the person as they were then. As the Ramchal writes, "Man is different from any other creature. He is a combination of two completely diverse and dissimilar elements, namely, the body and soul." (Derech Hashem 3:1:1) The dispute is not necessarily about which is true, it could well be that both definitions of "person" are equally valid. The dispute is more prescriptive: When is it more productive to think of my physical aspect as an outsider, which would weaken the relative weight I would give the call of physical drives? And when am I better off not thinking of myself as purely soul, because then I'm not fully blaming myself for "stealing the fruit"? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The goal isn't to live forever, micha at aishdas.org the goal is to create so mething that will. http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From ben1456 at zahav.net.il Thu Dec 28 11:57:46 2017 From: ben1456 at zahav.net.il (Ben Waxman) Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2017 21:57:46 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Foreshadow Message-ID: Is the break up of the united kingdom (Israel and Yehuda) somehow foreseen in the brothers? Was the reconciliation between Yosef and the brothers (and especially Yosef and Yehuda) not complete? Was splitting responsibility between Yehuda (he set up Goshen's beit midrash) and Yosef (he supplied the food) a mistake? Is there anything in Yehuda's personality that foreshadows David and Shlomo's failure to truly unite the tribes or is the fault with the latter two only? Ben From JRich at sibson.com Fri Dec 29 02:09:15 2017 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2017 10:09:15 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] FW: Rav Moshe on Smoking In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2eb7119fe3ff4a0f8394f494ae14fde8@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> FYI-An old Avodah topic. KT Joel Rich In the attached file, there is a newly-published teshuvah from Rav Moshe which basically confirms the rumors that he retracted his teshuvah about smoking and would indeed forbid it. Kol Tuv, Reuven Chaim Klein Beitar Illit, Israel Check out my book Lashon HaKodesh: History, Holiness, & Hebrew [Lashon HaKodesh: History, Holiness, & Hebrew (Mosaica Press) on Amazon][Academia.edu][Google Scholar][LinkedIN][https://docs.google.com/uc?export=download&id=0B1NJHmIXg4QJTWZsRUpZblJpWE0&revid=0B1NJHmIXg4QJcXQxRU1kN0JWZ3pQVmZsdlYrVlljRUdSb2ZvPQ][Rabbi Reuven Chaim Klein on TorahDownloads.com] [https://my-email-signature.link/signature.gif?u=93822&e=15367987&v=592df626366a9255517be8f9bb3b802cdc17522127137d175bd71108e063b3e1] 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: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 480.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 2037389 bytes Desc: 480.pdf URL: From JRich at sibson.com Fri Dec 29 01:36:06 2017 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2017 09:36:06 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] truth telling Message-ID: <3852cda5a1f348b8ba9b17c3cd9d8079@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Thought experiment: 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? KT 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: From JRich at sibson.com Fri Dec 29 01:35:14 2017 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2017 09:35:14 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Birchat Cohanim Message-ID: <12830183c04c422ca904affc50bac0b7@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> One is in Eretz Yisrael and davens shacharit in a minyan which often does not have Cohanim to duchen. Is he required to seek a minyan which has Cohanim? If he isn't required, is it preferable? KT 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: From JRich at sibson.com Fri Dec 29 02:09:15 2017 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2017 10:09:15 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] FW: Rav Moshe on Smoking In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: [Take 2. File stripped off for the sake of text digest recipients and moved to . Fixed formatting. -micha] FYI-An old Avodah topic. KT Joel Rich In the attached file, there is a newly-published teshuvah from Rav Moshe which basically confirms the rumors that he retracted his teshuvah about smoking and would indeed forbid it. Kol Tuv, Reuven Chaim Klein Beitar Illit, Israel Check out my book Lashon HaKodesh: History, Holiness, & Hebrew [Lashon HaKodesh: History, Holiness, & Hebrew (Mosaica Press) on Amazon] >> [Academia.edu] [Google Scholar] [LinkedIN] [https://docs.google.com/uc?export=download&id=0B1NJHmIXg4QJTWZsRUpZblJpWE0&revid=0B1NJHmIXg4QJcXQxRU1kN0JWZ3pQVmZsdlYrVlljRUdSb2ZvPQ] [Rabbi Reuven Chaim Klein on TorahDownloads.com] From lisa at starways.net Fri Dec 29 06:19:45 2017 From: lisa at starways.net (Lisa Liel) Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2017 16:19:45 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] truth telling In-Reply-To: <3852cda5a1f348b8ba9b17c3cd9d8079@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <3852cda5a1f348b8ba9b17c3cd9d8079@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: You'll have to define "truth".? I know a lot of self-Identified frum Jews who consider it "truth" that the Exodus didn't happen.? That the Mabul was a metaphor.? That the text of the Torah she'bichtav we have now is not the one given to Moshe at Sinai in an actual, factual, historical event.? It's never good for them to tell that "truth" to their children. If by truth you mean the truths stated in Judaism, then it's a matter of judgment.? If you're considering telling your children about Amnon and Tamar, their age would enter into the decision.? If the truth you want to tell them is about the molesters in the frum community who were respected leaders, again, age matters.? But I wouldn't withhold the facts from my child if they were old enough to hear it and it seemed relevant. Lisa On 12/29/2017 11:36 AM, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: > Thought experiment: 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? > KT > Joel Rich > --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From micha at aishdas.org Fri Dec 29 06:34:31 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2017 09:34:31 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] truth telling In-Reply-To: <3852cda5a1f348b8ba9b17c3cd9d8079@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <3852cda5a1f348b8ba9b17c3cd9d8079@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20171229143431.GD9936@aishdas.org> On Fri, Dec 29, 2017 at 09:36:06AM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : Thought experiment: 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? I understand the point of your question as being about the relative value of emes and of yir'as Shamayim. But... I can't bend my head around the case for balebatishe reasons. Is it not inevitable that many of our children would eventually learn of the lie and lose confidence in the whole concept of mesorah? And wouldn't that percentage inevitably be greater than Y, the additionaly percentage who are only staying because they believe the non-truth? To address the comparison behind the question: According to the Rambam, emunah is defined by emes. Unproven faith isn't emunah. So, he would say that the Y% of the children who believe because of a lie aren't necessarily saved. If we modernize the Rambam's position, then we would still need some kind of valid justification. Even if modern philosophy believes (accuratly, AISI) that theological proof is a meaningless concept, there are other valid ways to reach a conclusion. Those of us blessed with children are certain we love your chidren even though I never developed a proof for it. BUT, I don't think too many people hold like a modern version of the Rambam, which ties redemption to knowledge, and ethics is a lower level of perfection necessary for true knowledge og G-d. Let's take a more typical modern hashkafah, which gives priority to sheleimos or experiential deveiqus. Perhaps the non-truth would indeed be justified, if I thought your case were possible. Just as shalom justifies tactfully bending the truth. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Man can aspire to spiritual-moral greatness micha at aishdas.org which is seldom fully achieved and easily lost http://www.aishdas.org again. Fulfillment lies not in a final goal, Fax: (270) 514-1507 but in an eternal striving for perfection. -RSRH From zev at sero.name Fri Dec 29 09:50:13 2017 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2017 12:50:13 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] FW: Rav Moshe on Smoking In-Reply-To: <2eb7119fe3ff4a0f8394f494ae14fde8@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <2eb7119fe3ff4a0f8394f494ae14fde8@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <2c41ffe6-418e-8a53-6b6f-72547edfcf91@sero.name> On 29/12/17 05:09, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: > In the attached file, there is a newly-published teshuvah from Rav Moshe > which basically confirms the rumors that he retracted his teshuvah about > smoking and would indeed forbid it. > One has to wonder, then, why he never chose to include this in any of the three volumes of IM that he published after this date. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From bdbradley70 at hotmail.com Sat Dec 30 11:30:10 2017 From: bdbradley70 at hotmail.com (Ben Bradley) Date: Sat, 30 Dec 2017 19:30:10 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Foreshadow In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Is that not explicitly the message of the haftara for vayigash? That the split of Yehdua and Efraim (Yosef) is the the same issue as the split in the nation to reconcile the one is to reconcile the other. It's clear from the end of vayechi that there's still broad daylight between Yosef and the brothers. They are still wary of him and he still see the need to try to bring them close. There are many midrashim assuming it's all the same issue, a basic split in Klal Yisrael manifestation over history. The Bnei Yissaschar on Chanuka deals with this a lot and the best treatment I've seen in one place is Rav Matis Weinberg's book on Chanuka. In any case, even without aggadta the cycle of galus is consistently a result of this split, be it to Mitzrayim or to Ashur. Geula has the same dynamic, thus a moshiach both from Yosef and from David (Yehuda). BW Ben -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From JRich at sibson.com Sat Dec 30 14:48:34 2017 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Sat, 30 Dec 2017 22:48:34 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] truth telling In-Reply-To: <20171229143431.GD9936@aishdas.org> References: <3852cda5a1f348b8ba9b17c3cd9d8079@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> <20171229143431.GD9936@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <714290ea035646beb5044c62d3186c46@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Perhaps the non-truth would indeed be justified, if I thought your case were possible. Just as shalom justifies tactfully bending the truth. :-)BBii! -Micha --------------------------------------------------- That's what I wonder about, can belief ever be built on sheker. I've heard drush on not (e.g. why didn't the Chashmonaim not use shemen tamei) but istm it is being done In general I agree that it doesn't work. KT 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. From meirabi at gmail.com Sat Dec 30 17:31:32 2017 From: meirabi at gmail.com (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi) Date: Sun, 31 Dec 2017 12:31:32 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] HELP - Why is there an Issur BBCh on a Nefel/Shellil? Message-ID: I have yet to find anyone asking this Q - the Nefel and Shelil seem to be the same thing it is a Neneilah yet it is Assur to eat as BBCh - why is there no Ein Issur Chal Al Issur? MAssuros 4:1 - one who eats flesh of a dead non-Shechted Kosher beast transgresses the prohibition of eating Neveilah MAssuros 4:4 - one who eats flesh of a Nefel [a non-fully gestated foetus] transgresses the prohibition of eating Neveilah Even [according to the careful reading of the RaMBaM] if it is not dead MAssuros 9:7 - one who cooks a Shelil with milk or eats it transgresses the prohibition of eating BBCh MAssuros 9:6 - one who cooks Cheilev or Neveilah or similar, with milk, transgresses the prohibition of BBCh but not when eating it because a second prohibition cannot take effect upon a item that is already prohibited Best, Meir G. Rabi 0423 207 837 +61 423 207 837 Best, Meir G. Rabi 0423 207 837 +61 423 207 837 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From menu at inter.net.il Sun Dec 31 00:12:21 2017 From: menu at inter.net.il (menucha) Date: Sun, 31 Dec 2017 10:12:21 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Foreshadow In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > > Bereshit Rabba 84 sees foreshadowing of Yeravam ben Nevat starting with Yosef's dreams. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From akivagmiller at gmail.com Sun Dec 31 08:10:04 2017 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Sun, 31 Dec 2017 11:10:04 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Merchavyah Message-ID: . There is a pasuk in Hallel (Tehillim 118:5) that begins "Min hamaytzar". In RSR Hirsch's siddur, the last word of that pasuk is "merchavyah". In his perush on Tehillim, there too, the last word is "merchavyah", and in the perush he writes that "According to Pesahim 117a, merchavyah is one word, like halleluyah." My understanding of that gemara is that R Yochanan, Rav, and Raba all hold "merchavyah" to be one single word. Although Rav Chisda quoted R Yochanan to that effect, the Gemara is unsure how Rav Chisda held personally on this issue, and leaves that as a "tayku". However - When I look in various Tanachs, Tehillims, Siddurim, and Hagados, almost all of them (there *are* a few exceptions) print this as two separate words: "merchav yah". Obviously, there must be someone who either argues against this gemara, or understands the gemara differently than how Rav Hirsch understands it. The Minchas Shai on this pasuk refers to this gemara. If I'm reading it correctly, he seems to feel that the gemara is an unresolved machlokes, and I suppose that's why he tries to resolve it by looking at whatever manuscripts he had, both here and in Beshalach (where there's a similar question on Kes Y-ah). In my very unlearned and inexperienced view, it is not reasonable to consider these as two words, which is an unproven opinion that the gemara left as a tayku, and reject the combined weight of R Yochanan, Rav, and Raba, who all clearly held this to be a single word. Can anyone help me out? Akiva Miller From cantorwolberg at cox.net Sat Dec 30 20:25:17 2017 From: cantorwolberg at cox.net (Richard Wolberg) Date: Sat, 30 Dec 2017 23:25:17 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Sh'mos Message-ID: It is brought down that the place where the Burning Bush occurred was Har Sinai. The talmud asks why did it occur in a thorn bush and the answer: God says "when the Jews are suffering, I am suffering, too." A midrash relates that taking the Jews out of Egypt was nowhere near as difficult as taking ?Egypt? out of the Jews. Aish.com Mayanot Wellsprings bring out: The longest private conversation recorded in the Torah between God and a human individual takes place in our parsha. It takes God 39 long verses (from Exodus 3:1 to 4:17) to persuade Moses to accept the mission of serving as the savior of the Jewish people. In a wide-ranging conversation that covers many topics, God patiently responds to Moses' many objections and queries before Moses finally caves in to the Divine will and accepts. It reminds me that the Shulchan Aruch says if you are asked to be a ba'al tefilla, you should first politely refuse (out of modesty). If you are asked a second time, you should still refuse. But if you are asked a third time, you must accept. It's a not such a well known minhag and is just another example of menschlechkeit, sensitivity and humility for the time it was written. ?The Bible is meant to be OUR critic, not we, ITS critic!" -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From zev at sero.name Sun Dec 31 09:51:47 2017 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Sun, 31 Dec 2017 12:51:47 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Merchavyah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <26d7c7af-67e8-e1d6-3fd7-00aca9fcbef4@sero.name> For one thing, the Keter Aram Tzovah has it as two words. -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 2018 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From micha at aishdas.org Sun Oct 1 11:10:33 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Sun, 1 Oct 2017 14:10:33 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Writing on Yom Tov In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20171001181033.GC31024@aishdas.org> On Sat, Sep 30, 2017 at 10:18:58PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : So... back to my question: To whatever extent "writing" in the "Book of : Life" is a melacha, should it matter whether it is Shabbos or Yom Tov? Before we take the Barditcher Rebbe's words too literally, let us remember that wind routinely blows things to roll more than 4 amos on a reshus harabbim, lightning ignites trees on Shabbos, people die on Shabbos, etc... IOW, first explain to me what a claim that the RBSO avoids melakhos means altogether in light of the evidence, and then perhaps I could participate in your intended conversation. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger One who kills his inclination is as though he micha at aishdas.org brought an offering. But to bring an offering, http://www.aishdas.org you must know where to slaughter and what Fax: (270) 514-1507 parts to offer. - R' Simcha Zissel Ziv From akivagmiller at gmail.com Sun Oct 1 17:52:44 2017 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Sun, 1 Oct 2017 20:52:44 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Not hadar is pasul Message-ID: . This thread may be running into a vocabulary problem. My understanding is that "hadar" and "mehudar" mean two different things, and some people tend to confuse the two. "Hadar" refers to the absolute minimum requirements, without which the minim are posul, and "mehudar" refers to things which Chazal consider as making the minim even more beautiful. "Hadar" is required, and "mehudar" is desirable. I was not able to find a source for this in my seforim, but a post from R' Moshe Feldman in Avodah 10:9 (fifteen years ago) seems to support it: > The chiluk between psulei hadar (learned from the word "hadar") > and the idea of buying a mehudar esrog--deriving from the din > of zeh Keli v'anveihu (and applicable to other mitzvos as well) > is discussed at length in Mikra'ei Kodesh (Succos vol 2) siman > 26, esp. p. 119 (quote from Raavad) and pp. 122-123 in Harirei > Kodesh. It would seem from his discussion that buying a mehudar > esrog has no relationship to the word "hadar." Of course, there are many differing views about what is in each category, and this will vary by posek, by first day / not first day, and by lechatchila / bdieved. I'm just explaining the definitions of these easily-confused terms. Akiva Miller From zev at sero.name Sun Oct 1 23:02:00 2017 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2017 02:02:00 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Not hadar is pasul In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <454d729c-5e9d-e0b0-d0cb-f625592cd49f@sero.name> On 01/10/17 20:52, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > This thread may be running into a vocabulary problem. My understanding > is that "hadar" and "mehudar" mean two different things, and some > people tend to confuse the two. > > "Hadar" refers to the absolute minimum requirements, without which the > minim are posul, and "mehudar" refers to things which Chazal consider > as making the minim even more beautiful. "Hadar" is required, and > "mehudar" is desirable. I don't think they're two very different things, they're just degrees of the same thing. From "pri etz hadar" we learn that beauty is a base requirement, at least for the first day. If it's not beautiful it's not kosher. From "zeh keli ve'anvehu" we learn that we should want all mitzvos, including this one, to be as beautiful as we can make them, given our resources. But baseline beauty itself requires more than the bare minimum that would otherwise apply; an esrog that is exactly as big as an egg fits the basic shiur, but the poskim think it obvious that to do the bare minimum is not beautiful, so they say hadar means it must be at least a bit bigger, if possible. If it's not possible, then we make do with the bare shiur. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From micha at aishdas.org Mon Oct 2 03:58:53 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2017 06:58:53 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] expensive etrog In-Reply-To: <2c96c2fe-0e11-f9ca-66d5-28e79f983bbb@zahav.net.il> References: <2c96c2fe-0e11-f9ca-66d5-28e79f983bbb@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <20171002105852.GB30968@aishdas.org> On Fri, Sep 29, 2017 at 02:05:15PM +0200, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: : In OH 656 the Mechaber writes that if one is shopping for an etrog : and sees two etrogim, one more mehudar than the other, you need to : buy the mehudar (either it is mitzvah or possibly a chiyuv). : However, this only applies if the mehudar etrog is no more than 33% : more expensive. The language that the Mechaber uses in the "yesh : omrim" is "ein meyakrim oto yoter m'shlish".... There is a machloqes whether the shelish is milevar (Ran, arguing from the Rif's silence, on Rif Sukkah 16a; Yam shel Shelomom #24), in which case it's 50% -- 1/3 of the total 150%; or if the shelish is milegav (Rosh 1:7), i.e. 1/3 in the Western sense, with a total of 4/3 the original price. The SA (OC 656:1) holds like the Rosh, lequla, but accoring to the BY, he was doing so only on the ground of safeiq derabbanan lequla. Hiddur mitzvah is derabbanan. My first thought was -- what? It's a word in the pasuq WRT esrog -- "peri eitz hadar"! That looks more like peshat than asmachta for a derabbanan! But I realized something. Even though this din is being discussed WRT esrog, the kelal of kehadeir bemitzvah ad shelish is not specific to 4 minim. As in Rashi (9b "behidur") invoking "ze keili ve'anveihu" to tell you to buy the more expensive ST if it is up to shelish more pricey than your other choice. (So that according to Rashi, if you have only two choices -- mehudas or very mehudar, and they differ by less than a shelish, you are to by the very mehudar. Tosafos disagree. This tangent is discussed in the Shitah Mequbetzer.) Anyway, the SA calling milegav a qula implies that he sees up to 1/3 as a chiyuv derabbanan, and beyond could well be reshus. If it were reshus up to a shelish and assur beyond that, then he'd be making lesser expenditures assur -- a chumerah. Personally, given the number of Jews who wouldn't spend the money on a 4 minim set, I like spending the 1/3 exactly, and using any other money I wish to use to fulfill the mitzvah of 4 minim to subsidize someone else's. (Looking at the archives, it seems I've tried marketing this idea most years since 1999.) Of course, there are so many Jews who can't afford yom tov, and I'd like to help with that.... In the end, the calculus of how to triage that money can get SO difficult. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger For those with faith there are no questions. micha at aishdas.org For those who lack faith there are no answers. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yaakov of Radzimin Fax: (270) 514-1507 From basserh at queensu.ca Wed Oct 4 12:21:12 2017 From: basserh at queensu.ca (Herbert Basser) Date: Wed, 4 Oct 2017 19:21:12 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] RE Expensive etrog inter alia Message-ID: There is yerushalmi Peah 1:1 where someone had the ugliest etrog but bragged and showed it to everyone saying it was the most beautiful etrog in the whole world. It took him just a second to purchase it without really checking it for hiddurim-- he didnt waste his valuable resources (time) on petty matters but learned instead--that was its incredible beauty for him. also see shmos rabba 30:9 for hashem's observance of halacha (I have a discussion of the inyan on reseachrgate.net) Hag Sameach! zvi -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From zev at sero.name Sat Oct 7 18:11:15 2017 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Sat, 7 Oct 2017 21:11:15 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] RE Expensive etrog inter alia In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 04/10/17 15:21, Herbert Basser via Avodah wrote: > There is yerushalmi Peah 1:1 where someone had the ugliest etrog but > bragged and showed it to everyone saying it was the most beautiful etrog > in the whole world. It took him just a second to purchase it without > really checking it for hiddurim-- he didnt waste his valuable resources > (time) on petty matters but learned instead--that was its incredible > beauty for him. Where in that halacha is this? I couldn't find it, and also searched the entire perek for the word "etrog" and it doesn't seem to exist (though "lulav" appears twice). -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From hmaryles at mail.yahoo.com Sat Oct 7 23:54:54 2017 From: hmaryles at mail.yahoo.com (Harry Maryles) Date: Sun, 8 Oct 2017 09:54:54 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] going to the amud In-Reply-To: <9d0df5d1c05c43e297d3055f6e617065@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <9d0df5d1c05c43e297d3055f6e617065@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <369A143A-9C11-4243-93D2-7F756A3D147A@yahoo.com> On Oct 8, 2017, at 5:10 AM, Rich, Joel wrote: > I note the following practices at a chareidi shul in RBS which has > multiple minyanim You must be talking about Maasas Mordechai. That is where I've been Davening since I got here just before Yom Kippur. During Chol Hamoed, I will be davening shachris at the Vasiken minyan (6:10am). My son Davens there. If you are at that minyan, come on over and say hello. > At the appointed starting time for each minyan, there > is often not a "volunteer" to lead the services. The amount of time > that it takes to start varies as everyone looks at each other trying to > influence someone to start. If there is a young bar mitzvah boy, he is > often sent for mincha/maariv. > I'm not sure what the community thinking is... To answer your question, I just asked my son about it. He said it's just a practical matter. Most boys are more willing to go to the Amud. All of the married men that are there just shake off the requests to be the Shaliach Tzibur for some reason. HM From ben1456 at zahav.net.il Sun Oct 8 12:40:42 2017 From: ben1456 at zahav.net.il (Ben Waxman) Date: Sun, 08 Oct 2017 21:40:42 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] going to the amud In-Reply-To: <9d0df5d1c05c43e297d3055f6e617065@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <9d0df5d1c05c43e297d3055f6e617065@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <5deb9535-86be-8ea7-4561-242363c8eb92@zahav.net.il> I saw similar practices during Shacharit when I used to go to Sadigora in Jerusalem. However, often the teen would quit right before starting chazarat hashaz. That always got interesting. Ben On 10/8/2017 4:10 AM, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: > I note the following practices at a chareidi shul in RBS which has > multiple minyanim: At the appointed starting time for each minyan, > there is often not a ?volunteer? to lead the services. The amount of > time that it takes to start varies as everyone looks at each other > trying to influence someone to start. If there is a young bar mitzvah > boy, he is often sent for mincha/maariv. > I?m not sure what the community thinking is, perhaps humility to avoid > the amud, but I?m struck by the amount of bittul torah caused and > wonder how this trade-off was decided upon. I also wonder about why > the practice of sending youngsters up developed given the S?A?s psak > concerning the priorities for a chazzan. Thoughts? From micha at aishdas.org Sun Oct 8 15:50:13 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Sun, 8 Oct 2017 18:50:13 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] going to the amud In-Reply-To: <9d0df5d1c05c43e297d3055f6e617065@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <9d0df5d1c05c43e297d3055f6e617065@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20171008225013.GB19523@aishdas.org> On Sun, Oct 08, 2017 at 02:10:14AM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : At the appointed starting time for each minyan, there : is often not a "volunteer" to lead the services. The amount of time : that it takes to start varies as everyone looks at each other trying : to influence someone to start. If there is a young bar mitzvah boy, : he is often sent for mincha/maariv. Going backwards (who ever said I am a chakham bound to answer al rishon rishon?)... The kid is not as likely to declien the gabbai, because an adult carries more authority in the kid's eyes. Besides, it's good practice. As for the adults declining... Two possiblities, and I would bet that in most cases, they both come into play. 1- The more positive issue is that there is actually a din to decline the amud, accepting only on the third request. I have no idea how this was expected to be implemented in a minyan where people are expected to know the din. A rachmanus on the gabbaim! Still, we see an ethic of tzenius, and halevai people internalize it! 2- The following is Ashkenazocentric. The way we teach davening, it's really a personal affair. A person is encouraged to go as slowly as he needs, having his own kavvanos. The notion of tefillah betzibbur is layered on top of that, but not in a way that explains what that means about how I daven. That means that being shatz becomes a tircha, a call to say the words in a manner that robs me of any chance of getting value out of tefillah in the ways I was taught how. So of course men (who aren't cowed by being asked by a grown-up) choose to decline! Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger You will never "find" time for anything. micha at aishdas.org If you want time, you must make it. http://www.aishdas.org - Charles Buxton Fax: (270) 514-1507 From JRich at sibson.com Sat Oct 7 19:10:14 2017 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Sun, 8 Oct 2017 02:10:14 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] going to the amud Message-ID: <9d0df5d1c05c43e297d3055f6e617065@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> I note the following practices at a chareidi shul in RBS which has multiple minyanim: At the appointed starting time for each minyan, there is often not a "volunteer" to lead the services. The amount of time that it takes to start varies as everyone looks at each other trying to influence someone to start. If there is a young bar mitzvah boy, he is often sent for mincha/maariv. I'm not sure what the community thinking is, perhaps humility to avoid the amud, but I'm struck by the amount of bittul torah caused and wonder how this trade-off was decided upon. I also wonder about why the practice of sending youngsters up developed given the S"A's psak concerning the priorities for a chazzan. Thoughts? GT 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: From zev at sero.name Sat Oct 7 20:42:36 2017 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Sat, 7 Oct 2017 23:42:36 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] going to the amud In-Reply-To: <9d0df5d1c05c43e297d3055f6e617065@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <9d0df5d1c05c43e297d3055f6e617065@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: On 07/10/17 22:10, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: > I note the following practices at a chareidi shul in RBS which has > multiple minyanim: At the appointed starting time for each minyan, there > is often not a ?volunteer? to lead the services. [...] Thoughts? My first thought is to be happy that this shul doesn't have enough avelim to make the issue moot. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From basserh at queensu.ca Sun Oct 8 15:32:52 2017 From: basserh at queensu.ca (Herbert Basser) Date: Sun, 8 Oct 2017 22:32:52 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] RE Expensive etrog inter alia In-Reply-To: References: , Message-ID: You're right-- I thought it was y peah. But obviously not. A number of years ago I tired to discover when the first mention of looking at many esrogim was. I remember looking at the yerushalmi and its commentaries and thought it was there --obviously not. Now I have no idea-- ________________________________ : Zev Sero on behalf of Zev Sero Sent: October 7, 2017 9:11 PM To: The Avodah Torah Discussion Group Cc: Herbert Basser Subject: Re: [Avodah] RE Expensive etrog inter alia On 04/10/17 15:21, Herbert Basser via Avodah wrote: > There is yerushalmi Peah 1:1 where someone had the ugliest etrog but > bragged and showed it to everyone saying it was the most beautiful etrog > in the whole world. It took him just a second to purchase it without > really checking it for hiddurim-- he didnt waste his valuable resources > (time) on petty matters but learned instead--that was its incredible > beauty for him. Where in that halacha is this? I couldn't find it, and also searched the entire perek for the word "etrog" and it doesn't seem to exist (though "lulav" appears twice). -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Mon Oct 9 14:45:50 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2017 17:45:50 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Critique of the OU paper on leadership/ordination for women In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20171009214550.GA4315@aishdas.org> On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 03:17:36PM -0500, Noam Stadlan via Avodah wrote: : JOFA has published my critique of the paper comissioned by the OU on the : topic of leadership/ordination for women.... Speaking of the full essay . Your article has proven to be a slow read for me. I keep on being pulled into "polemic mode" (apologies for talking like a programmer, but...) and when I do, I stop, put it down, and wait until I could give it a fairer read, to actually hear what you're trying to say rather than just listening for points to refute. Here are my first set of reactions. Of course, they're all points of disagreement; trying to take the time to understand what you were writing before objecting doesn't mean I stopped objecting. 1- You open with Earlier this year, 7 highly respected rabbis authored a position paper on the ordination of women and on the possibility of women serving as clergy. [1] Individually and collectively, they represent great learning, personal piety, and years of leadership. It would seem presumptuous for someone who will never achieve anything near their learning or stature to comment or critique. However, no one person or group has a monopoly on facts and logic. And, as will be demonstrated, Torah learning sometimes is not the sole or even dominant factor in a person's opinion on these issues. There appears to be an underlyuing assumption that halachic arguments, even meta-halachic ones, are entirely formal, rather than containing a strong element of ineffible art. (See #2, below) If halakhah deals with determinations like that of which poetic forms "sound right" then their "great learning, personal piety, and years of leadership" provide experience at the art of pesaq that your response simply lacks. The gemara requires shimush before one attempts to pasqen. A poseiq needs not only the abstract facts and logic, but also the skill he can only pick up with experience. Recently, my Arukh haShulachan Yomi schedule brought me to EhE 145:6. The topic is whether a shechiv-meira who gives a gett "meihayom im meisi" made the gett as-of the moment of giving, a colloquial use of "today", or if we cannot assume the gett is chal before the end of the day (R' Tam in Tosafos 72b). R' Elchanan (Tos' ad loc) says "nachon lehachmir". The AhS's assessment of the "facts and logic" leads him to conclude "vehagam chumerah yeseirah hi". And yet he continues to close the se'if with "mikol maqom chalalilah lehaqeil bedavar sheR' Tam nistapeiq bo". RYME knew that a decision of a more skilled artisan is too likely correct even in the face of his own reasoning. And there are other factors that go into halachic decisions other than the merits of the argument -- both those we can articulate and those someone could only feel by practice. Things like acharei rabim lehatos. I am not saying defer to the OU's panel because they outnumber you. I am just pointing out that logical argument isn't the only source of legal authority. Another, more relevant, is nispasheit bechol yisrael (see #8, below). The notion that your paper is of value beyond lehalakhah velo lemaaseh is an example of the American valuation of autonomy that can itself be at odds with ancient AND mesoretic values. (See #7, about not framing the discussion in terms of rights or privileges.) 2- You offer your own translation of Mesorah, which is only valid if you can show that's how the authors of the paper intended the term. >From your pg 4: > We can broadly define it as the content of our tradition that is > passed from one generation to another. That tradition contains Mitzvot > and opinion on the value of Mitzvot. Frequently a situation occurs > where one must choose between emphasizing one mitzvah or a different > mitzvah. Our Mesorah therefore contains not only the Mitzvot, but also > attitudes or values that help us choose between Mitzvot when they come > into conflict. One could cogently argue that the values are in fact > Mitzvot in and of themselves, but for the purpose of this discussion that > is a distinction without a difference. Ultimately what this analysis > is concerned with is how, within the confines of our legal tradition, > are values embraced or shunted to the side. However, RYBS and RHS both use the term mesorah to refer to the ineffible side of the art of pesaq. I argue this with examples at http://www.torahmusings.com/2015/08/what-does-masorah-mean I therefore think it is likely the sense intended by the entire OU Panel. Or at the very least (not that I want to fully concede this, but have to admit it's plausible) heavily colored by this notion. Skipping the somwhat longer quote from RYBS, here are quotes I had found from RHS, one of the panel members: Jewish Action, Fall 1910: Mesorah is not primarily a corpus of knowledge to master but a process of accessing a chain of student-teacher relationships that reaches back to Sinai. Moshe received the Torah and transmitted it to his student, Yehoshua, who in turn taught it to his students and so on, continuing through today. The nature of transmission of the mesorah is instruction from a rebbe to his student. We connect to the mesorah, to the sacred structure of laws, beliefs and attitudes, through our teachers. And a bit further in the article, "Who Is Authorized to Institute Change?": Changes in practice require delicate evaluations that only a master Torah scholar, a gadol baTorah, can properly conduct. Only someone with a broad knowledge and a deep understanding of the corpus of halachah, with an intimate familiarity with both the letter and the spirit of the law, with a mastery of both the rules and the attitudes of the mesorah, can determine when a change is acceptable or even required. The more wide-reaching the proposed change, the greater the expertise required to approve it. The evaluator must not only be a master of the mesorah, but he must also be able to consider new practices based solely on values internal to the mesorah, removing external influences from the deliberation. Rav Schachter then applies this topic to feminism itself in a teshuvah: Indeed, the Rav would often say (see drasha to Parshas Korach), that every person must recognize that he needs a Rav or a Rebbe. Even a Talmid Chochom whose Rebbe had passed away must constantly ask himself in truth (when they present questions to him) what his Rebbe would have said in such a scase, and what stance he would have taken.... Still, most of your examples of how change was permitted despite mesorah would be valid even if you were discussing the same topic I believe the authors to whom you're responding are. I think, though, your response would have been stronger if it reflected our discussions both my Torah Musings post and here. 3- But you shift criteria for legitimate change in moral value. Page 2: This paper will illustrate that 'modern values' are intrinsically neither 2 good nor bad, and that our Mesorah has always incorporated 'modern values' that found resonance in the Mesorah. Furthermore, according to great and highly respected Modern Orthodox authorities, a hallmark of Modern Orthodoxy is the willingness to acknowledge some 'modern values' as previously under-recognized religious values. I think you're again arguing against a point the OU paper isn't making. They aren't saying there is a problem with appropriating 'modern values' in-and-of itself, but that there is a problem with changing halakhah to fit 'modern values' simply because they are the values living in the modern world means being immersed in. What happened to checking for that "resonance in the Mesorah"? This being another phrasing of my origin objection here on Avodah from the days of the initial announcement of Yeshivat Maharat. I do not see discussion of how we know that this is a change the values of the Torah would imply are positive. Regardless of the outcome of that discussion, can the change be legitimate without that procedural step? Anyway, you tone down the need for resonance when you open the door to assessing for yourself which values count. From the closing paragraph of section I, on mesorah, pg 13: ... The major issue is distinguishing between timeless values and ancient values. As has been demonstrated, our Mesorah over time, consciously or unconsciously, has addressed the perceived conflict between ancient values and modern values. Certainly there are modern values that have been appropriately rejected. Frequently however, ancient values have been rejected or perhaps more accurately assigned a reduced role of importance. And the modern values have been the impetus for the re-evaluation. At this point, I fear, the hunt for resonance goes out the window. IIUC, you are making the case that resonance need only be between actual Torah values, and not all ancient values actually qualify. This is actually more problematic given your definition of Mesorah than the one I think the OU's authors intended. After all, if mesorah is a mimetic transmisison of values, than any ancient value is mesoretic. But the problem I have with this statement is that it reads like you're saying that (1) we need to assess which Torah values are real, and therefore which do not bow to movern values; and (2) we use said modern values to drive that assessment. That can't be your intent. Please clarify. Continuing the paragraph from where I left off: As discussed in the Part II, the Halakhic arguments, taken at face value, are in favor of ordination for women. The values of eliminating unnecessary restrictions, encouraging full expression of potential to serve the community, fairness, and others also point towards ordination. There are specific Halakhic restrictions in place governing the behavior of men and women. The question that needs to be answered is: What timeless principles (or values) are served by imposing restrictions on women that are not justified by a fair reading of the Halacha and the sources? Are they truly Timeless and justifiably dominant in our Mesorah, or just ancient? ... If I were to use halakhah to make that determination, I would ask whether those "specific Halakhic restrictions" that were historically / traditionally explained in terms of those ancient values can be otherwise explained. Since they do appear to be of the same cloth, this is a sizable burden of proof on your part. This is the challenge in the OU paper you quote on pg 29: Gender differences have, historically, been particularly evident in the arena of public service. We believe that these distinctions are not merely a relic of times bygone; instead, they reflect a Torah ethos -- a /Mesorah/ -- of different avenues and emphases by which men and women are to achieve identical goals -- the service of G-d and the perpetuation of the Jewish people. 4- You cite and dismiss "nashim daatan kalos", but do not note that it's part of a richer picture of gender differences alongside "binah yeseirah nitenah lahen". 5- You quote RAL at the bottom of pg 8, an essay about using English Literary sources to enhance and color values that we cannot find in our own tradition: Nor should we be deterred by the illusion that we can find everything we need within our own tradition. As Arnold insisted, one must seek "the best that has been thought and said in the world," and if, in many areas, much of that best is of foreign origin, we should expand our horizons rather than exclude it. He is talking about broadening the search in the case of silence; that we can learn more from TIDE than Torah alone. A discussion of what to do when we can't "find everything we need within in our Tradition" has nothing to to with real or apparent conflicts when we do find an answer -- ancient or traditional -- before looking elsewhere. 6- You wuote R/Dr Shalom Carmy, describing R Eliezer Berkovitz, that his moral ends derive from internal Jewish sources.dissatisfaction with mainstream Halakhah regarding women is rooted, not in the pressures of contemporary egalitarianism, but in his judgment about biblical conceptions of justice, While that may well be true of REB, it has to be actually be shown that the same is true of Torah observant Jews who join an organization with the word "feminism" in its name. You write: The authors of the paper in fact state something quite egalitarian: The Torah affirms the absolute equal value of men and women as individuals and as ovdei Hashem. This is not the view of the Talmud. The Mishnah (Horiyot 13:1) states: "A man takes precedence over a woman, in matters concerning the saving of life... a Cohen takes precedence over a Levi...." Clearly the lives are not of equal value in the eyes of the Talmud. Arguments about the validity of what you think the misnhah is "clearly" saying aside... You are treating equality of value as synonymous with egalitarianism. The people you are responding to do not. They view is as more akin to the implication of JOFA's talking about "feminism" -- seeking value in the same sorts of roles and activities. A square can be equal in area to a triangle without insisting the square and the triangle are congruent. 7- "Usena es harabbanus". Leadership isn't about my "desire for maximal participation within Halacha", as you put it in a sentence shortly before the previous quote (pg 10). It's about my duties toward the community. Your entire phrasing of the discussion in terms of right or privileges, people getting an opportunity, depriving of that opportunity being unjust (as you present REB's position), is itself a HUGE drift from how halakhah even discusses values; never mind the content of that discussion. Self-expression is like the tassles emerging from the windings of the tzitzis. (RSRH's metaphor in CW vol 3.) It is how we express ourselves within the framework of Torah; but not the windings themselves. What makes me a fan of Bach's music is his ability to conform to the strict structural rules of the music of his era. And yet he still produced pieces that could express sublime religious passion or Majesty. (Until Beethoven invented Conservative Judaism. ) Halakhah's role is to channel such expression constructively -- like the windings of the tzitzis. As RSRH continues, there is a reason why the free part of the tassle is ideally twice was long as the wound portion; this metaphor isn't against expression. The second you frame halakhah in terms of every getting their fair opportunity, I hear an evaluation based on a framework very alien to an internally resonant analysis. 9- Somewhat more tangentially, but it's the first case of something I might raise other examples of in a future email. (Assuming I ever want to go retail rather than stick to meta-issues.) On pg 3, fn 3: There are other stated facts in the OU paper that require discussion but are beyond the scope of this paper. For example, one of the points emphasized in the OU paper is the issue of women as ritual slaughterers (shochtim). Some authorities such as R. Jacob Landau and R. Moshe Isserles wrote that since women did not do it, there was a custom for women not to do so. But that was factually erroneous. "Female ritual slaughterers were to be found in most of the Jewish Diasporas... In Renaissance Italy, the phenomenon of shohatot was very common. Another source also documents that female shochtim were found in areas of Italy where they adequately educated. See Grossman, Avraham... I am willing to agree with the conclusion that the Agur and the Rama were wrong on the historical facts, and simply didn't know what was going on in other parts of the golah. Still... You don't touch the point the OU paper cites it for -- that the Rama, a halachic source we cannot simply ignore -- is one of a number of sources that WERE willing to suggest that a practice being absent from the mesorah can mean there is a mesorah that it ought to be absent. That statement bothers me too. But because you dismissed the quote based on a tangent, you don't address the central problem it raises! Perhaps there'll be more after I really read section II onward. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "I think, therefore I am." - Renne Descartes micha at aishdas.org "I am thought about, therefore I am - http://www.aishdas.org my existence depends upon the thought of a Fax: (270) 514-1507 Supreme Being Who thinks me." - R' SR Hirsch From akivagmiller at gmail.com Mon Oct 9 09:44:27 2017 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2017 12:44:27 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Eruv Tavshilin - who makes it? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: My wife and I have recently discovered that among our friends, it is invariably the husband who makes the Eruv Tavshilin. This surprises us, and we are wondering what other families do, and if there are any sources for one preference or the other. Essentially, the Eruv Tavshilin means that in this particular instance, the Shabbos cooking cannot wait for Friday, but must be done on Erev Yom Tov too. With such an intimate connection to the Shabbos cooking, it was intuitively obvious to both my wife and myself that this is NOT similar to other mitzvos (mezuza is a good example) which might be done by the husband for gender-role reasons. Rather, it is the beginning of the cooking, and should therefore be done by whoever does the cooking. In our family, that's the wife. Eruv Tavshilin was not assigned to each and every individual, like kiddush was. It is a reminder. Granted that the rishonim have varying explanations of this mitzvah, but it seems that to all of these explanations, the object of this reminding is the person who does the cooking. So my question to the chevra is: In your family, who makes the eruv, and why? And do any sources discuss this? Note: I admit there's a certain weakness in everything that I've written above. Namely, the idea that one can rely on the Eruv Tavshilin that was made by the rav of the town. Let's set aside the fact that this is not the best way of doing the eruv, and that various conditions are imposed on one who wants to rely on it. Let's focus on the fact that it is valid *at* *all*. How does the eruv made by someone outside of my home help me? What sort of *reminder* does his eruv provide? I have never understood this, nor have I heard any explanation of it, only assertions that it does work. Any help in this area would be appreciated. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From michaelpoppers at gmail.com Mon Oct 9 18:59:58 2017 From: michaelpoppers at gmail.com (Michael Poppers) Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2017 21:59:58 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] going to the amud Message-ID: In Avodah V35n119, RJR wrote: > I also wonder about why the practice of sending youngsters up developed given the S?A?s psak concerning the priorities for a chazzan. < (RJR made other points that listmembers have responded to; I thought this point, for which the latest digest listed no response, was worthy of a response.) In many *shuls*, much less *minyanim*, so perhaps in the noted "chareidi shul in RBS", those "priorities" (married, beard, age, etc.) are seemingly (except for the Yamim Noraim) secondary to the hierarchy of "*chiyuvim*"...but one "priority", being "*m'rutzah laqahal*", might be upheld when appointing/allowing a young adult to lead the *tzibbur*.... *Gut Moeid*/*Mo'adim l'Simcha!* and all the best from *Michael Poppers* * Elizabeth, NJ, USA -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From akivagmiller at gmail.com Tue Oct 10 03:47:36 2017 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2017 06:47:36 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Eruv Tavshilin - who makes it? Message-ID: . I asked how one could ever rely on the Rav's eruv: > How does the eruv made by someone outside of my home > help me? What sort of *reminder* does his eruv provide? R' Zev Sero answered: > ... that it's wrong to rely entirely on leftovers, and one > must prepare at least one thing just for Shabbos. According > to this explanation, the fact that one must ask the rabbi > (or the neighbor, or whomever) before relying on their eruv > accomplishes the same thing. One has provided for Shabbos, > not by cooking but by arranging an invitation to eat out. I don't follow this logic at all. One who relies on this did NOT "prepare at least one thing just for Shabbos." If you respond that the one thing he prepared was "arranging an invitation to eat out", I will say that he did NOT arrange such an invitation; he is merely aware that the rabbi/neighbor had him in mind. You write about "the fact that one must ask the rabbi", but I never saw such a halacha. One does not need to do any sort of action at all, not even speaking. All one needs is to be aware that the rabbi/neighbor had him in mind. So what is being accomplished? > The second explanation is that originally there was no ha'arama; > it was permitted to openly cook on Yomtov for Shabbos. Chazal > legislated that one must save Yomtov's face by pretending to be > cooking for that day. According to this explanation it's very > simple; the important thing is not the eruv itself, but the need > for the ha'arama. The eruv's function is merely to give the > ha'arama some surface plausibility. So it makes no difference > whose eruv one uses; the fact that one is pretending not to be > cooking for Shabbos *is* the kevod Yomtov that Chazal required. > The enabling notion that on Shabbos one will be eating the rabbi's > eruv is only barely less plausible than the one that one will be > subsisting on ones own eruv. Focusing on the last sentence here, we agree that relying on the rabbi's eruv is indeed less plausible than one's own. I think our disagreement is that you feel it has a sufficient shiur of plausibility, and I don't. Alternatively, you feel that relying on the rabbi constitutes "pretending to be cooking for that day", but I think it doesn't even constitute "pretending". And this is especially true in the case where one genuinely forgot to make the eruv, and remembered on Yom Tov; surely you'll agree with me that this person did absolutely *nothing* before Yom Tov as a Shabbos preparation, right? Not even to ask the rabbi to have him in mind! Akiva Miller From micha at aishdas.org Tue Oct 10 06:18:05 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2017 09:18:05 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Eruv Tavshilin - who makes it? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20171010131805.GA8572@aishdas.org> On Tue, Oct 10, 2017 at 06:47:36AM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : You write about "the fact that one must ask the rabbi", but I never : saw such a halacha. One does not need to do any sort of action at all, : not even speaking. All one needs is to be aware that the : rabbi/neighbor had him in mind. So what is being accomplished? Beqitzur: "be aware" is sufficient for heker. Can't we ask the same thing of a neighborhood eiruv? How many people think about the eruv every week? The Rambam (Shevisas YT 6:2) seems to me to be the reason for calling eiruv tavshilin an "eiruv" is merely by comparison to eruv chatzeiros. Both are hekerim: There (ECh), so that people would thing that carrying from reshus to reshus is mutar on shabbos. Here (ET), that it is okay to cook on YT even if it's not for YT. Awareness that the rabbi (or whomever) had me in mind means I am thinking about eiruvin and there is a recognition (heker) that there is an issur. It seems the Rambam holds like R' Ashi (that ET is to reinforce melakhah on YT) over Rava (it's to reinforce Shabbos prep). But even according to Rava, that moment of awareness of the rabbi's eruv is sypposed to reserve as a reminder to make something nice for se'udos Shabbos. I would agree with Zev that the plausibility requirement is quite low, as all we're doing is a mnemonic. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger None of us will leave this place alive. micha at aishdas.org All that is left to us is http://www.aishdas.org to be as human as possible while we are here. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Anonymous MD, while a Nazi prisoner From noamstadlan at gmail.com Mon Oct 9 18:26:41 2017 From: noamstadlan at gmail.com (Noam Stadlan) Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2017 20:26:41 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] OU paper Message-ID: R. Micha- thank you for taking the time to read the paper. Having read your list of criticisms, I think that in your search for reasons to oppose, you missed many of the points completely. Poskim are certainly entitled to their opinions. They are not entitled to their own facts. If their logic doesn't hold up, it is reasonable to call them on the lack of logic. Which is why the paper is NOT about my opinions versus the OU 7, but about the lack of facts and logic. Furthermore, I illustrated that what poskim hold regarding these issues isn't always or exclusively a result of all their learning and shimmush. It is a demonstrable fact that many attitudes reflect what they grew up with and were indoctrinated with early on, not the list of influences that they write about. You dismiss my quote regarding REB, and claim that it is my responsibility to prove what the motives are or aren't. This is ridiculous. The OU authors did not talk to any of the principles involved. Since when is it acceptable for any responsible posek or beit din to make important judgments without making absolutely sure regarding the facts? Especially when they are making a significant deal about motivation and it would have been a very simple matter of making a phone call or two. Isn't that a basic obligation of a posek? And then to claim that it is my responsibility to prove that they were wrong? And, by the way, since I personally know many of the people involved, I have a much greater familiarity with what people involved think. I suggest that if you think that an organization with 'feminism' in its name is inherently problematic, we may be starting from basic assumptions far to wide apart to see any common ground. The OU paper wrote about Mesorah versus modern values. I was just using their words and addressing the role of modern values in how Halacha and values have changed. The fact that they define Mesorah a bit differently doesn't change the issue nor change the fact that modern values have always been incorporated into the Halakhah and Halakhic values(in case you dont want to use the word Mesorah). And to counter your point, some of the ancient values have gone out the window, whether you want to call them mesoretic or not. I didn't have time to get into all the particulars of the halachic aspects of the Rama and shechittah, R. Brody and Broyde address and dismiss the argument in their paper(I am pretty sure that is in a footnote somewhere). I thought it was adequate to illustrate that he was factually wrong. I could go on and on but I sense that in the end it will not matter. I would have to go through each and every line of your critique and point out where your assumptions are wrong. For example "JOFA....seeking value in the same sorts of roles and activities". NO, that is not what JOFA is about. It is about not creating Halachic boundaries when there shouldn't be any, and the women can decide what roles and activities they can and should assume(within Halacha of course, just like the men). And what is wrong with anyone finding value in learning Torah, teaching Torah, helping people celebrate s'machot, organizing davening, etc? women should not find value in that???? Thank you again for taking the time to read the paper. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From zev at sero.name Mon Oct 9 21:49:31 2017 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2017 00:49:31 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Eruv Tavshilin - who makes it? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <928305ea-1e57-b3bd-da9c-b3acb1281e04@sero.name> On 09/10/17 12:44, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > Note: I admit there's a certain weakness in everything that I've written > above. Namely, the idea that one can rely on the Eruv Tavshilin that was > made by the rav of the town. Let's set aside the fact that this is not > the best way of doing the eruv, and that various conditions are imposed > on one who wants to rely on it. Let's focus on the fact that it is valid > *at* *all*. How does the eruv made by someone outside of my home help > me? What sort of *reminder* does his eruv provide? I have never > understood this, nor have I heard any explanation of it, only assertions > that it does work. Any help in this area would be appreciated. IIRC the gemara offers two explanations for ET. Either it was made lichvod Shabbos or lichvod Yomtov. The first explanation is that cooking on Yomtov for Shabbos was always done by pretending to be cooking for a late Friday meal, but Chazal felt about the Shabbos after Yomtov the way many nowadays do about the Shabbos after Thanksgiving: that it's wrong to rely entirely on leftovers, and one must prepare at least one thing just for Shabbos. According to this explanation, the fact that one must ask the rabbi (or the neighbor, or whomever) before relying on their eruv accomplishes the same thing. One has provided for Shabbos, not by cooking but by arranging an invitation to eat out. The second explanation is that originally there was no ha`arama; it was permitted to openly cook on Yomtov for Shabbos. Chazal legislated that one must save Yomtov's face by pretending to be cooking for that day. According to this explanation it's very simple; the important thing is not the eruv itself, but the need for the ha`arama. The eruv's function is merely to give the ha`arama some surface plausibility. So it makes no difference whose eruv one uses; the fact that one is pretending not to be cooking for Shabbos *is* the kevod Yomtov that Chazal required. The enabling notion that on Shabbos one will be eating the rabbi's eruv is only barely less plausible than the one that one will be subsisting on ones own eruv. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From micha at aishdas.org Tue Oct 10 13:25:47 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2017 16:25:47 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] OU paper In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20171010202547.GC6565@aishdas.org> Take 2. I didn't like what I read in the Avodah queue, so I rejected my first version and elaborated. On Tue, Oct 10, 2017 at 10:53:24AM -0500, Noam Stadlan via Avodah wrote: :> 1- Feminism assumes egalitarianism, not only equality, as it assumes that :> roles historically closed to women as "men's roles" should be open to all. :> Equality only assumes that everyone should be eligible for roles of equal :> value. (For some measure of value.) : This is starting off on the wrong foot. I dont claim to speak for all : Orthodox Feminists. But the first question to be asked is why is a role : 'historically closed to women?' ... I see this as an equally valid question, but who is to say which ought to be asked first? REBerkowitz rightly deprecates the modification of halakhah out of concern for external values. He dismisses the role of the "pressures of contemporary egalitarianism." (As RSC put it.) This puts REB in a different place than people who unite under the word "feminism" are indeed advocating halachic change. What he denies being a valid motive JOFA is putting in their organizational name. : It is very reasonable, just like in : the cases of the chereish, slavery etc, to investigate why it is : 'historically closed." ... Which you fail to actually do. You rebut your understanding of some arguments for why the clsure is grounded in mesorah. After all, this is a rebuttal paper. The one mention of an alternative motive for change, rather than a lack of motive for status quo, is one that is inconsistent with feminism, as above. : litany of reasons as to why women were forbidden to do things and he : himself agreed that those reasons have gone by the wayside. If you want to : say that something is historically closed, and therefore it is assur- : fine. Now you dont need an Halachic reasons, because historically closed : is the final word.... Strawman. I am not asserting that we have to hold like the Rama that being historically closed means the option is halachically closed; identifying history with mesorah, and thus absence of tradition with tradition of absence. I would say, though, that if you want to buck the Rama, you have to make an argument for doing so, and not just dismiss his rule because he applied it to a misunderstood case. : everyone seems to be giving Halachicly justification, both pro and con, : then it means that historically closed is open for discussion, and it is on : the plane of halacha, not history. So the bottom line is that if there is : Halachic justification for particular gender roles- of course that trumps : everything. But it also means that stating something is historically assur : is not the end of the story. history is not Halacha. That is what I : illustrated in part one. Because you could also make the same argument : that the chereish shouldn't have an aliyyah... Yes, I agreed with your formulation of the problem in terms of resonant values, and at times a contemporary value can highlight the neglect of a Torah one. But you don't follow through with it. Instead you end up altogether rejecting the say of mesoretic values to decide which halachic innovations are proper. I would add that at times a contemporary value can change expectations, and thus change the morality of an act. After all, it may be okay to do something to someone when they expect it, but not if it violates assumptions behind things they committed to. I could see making that argument WRT monogyny and the validity of cheirem deR Gershom. Mental images of what marriage should be changed, and so it's only moral to satisfy the resulting emotional need rather than some older definition of marriage. As long as the definition itself isn't inferior. To take that poorly explained idea and possibly be clearer by making it less general and more about our case: Perhaps one could form the argument that while it was moral for women not to be eligable for the rabbinate in the past because it was less likely for the option to cross their minds. Such a practice would cause fewer feelings of deprevation. But now that women can become CEO, such a position does mesoretically-wrongly create feelings of deprivation. And so societal change causes a change in application of values; just as it can an application of law. This is pretty close to an argument you do indeed make. Just (as below), I don't think having a role is a right, because I do not believe religious roles are as much opportunities as they are duties. Unlike secular roles, which could be either, depending on how the society in question chooses to frame them. Your neglect of the "how", which changes are valid and which not, reminds me of the argument of non-O rabbis who point to pruzbul and heter isqa as justifications for their radical changes. It's not the same thing by a lng shot. But half-way through you make the same error of considering proof that there are valid kinds of change as proof that the topic in question provides no barriers to change altogether. As you say in this same paragraph (!): : Any role that is historically : closed to any group that isn't Halachically assur is open for discussion as : to what the Halacha actually mandates and why exactly it was closed in the : first place.... So, it's black-letter law closure, or the change is allowed? No "resonance of values" needed after all? And the problem with demanding "resonance of values" is that it takes the autonomy out of it for most of us. Because by enlarging the problem beyond black letter halakhah we guarantee there is a non-formal aspect to the answer, one that is for the practiced artist rather than any bright researcher. And the notion that one is validating a value system that then sets the person up for a very hard collision with the actual not-so-glass ceiling black-letter halakhah defines is very related to this. The mere existence of such a ceiling implies the likelihood of non-resonant values. The concept of asei lekha rav, having a poseiq, moves us away from autonomy in our behavioral decisions, and forces a heteronomy of a manner that too violates contemporary values. :> 2- Feminism assumes Locke's language of rights and priviledge. Why should :> someone *be deprived* of the opportunity to be an .... -- in our case, to :> serve as rabbi? But halachic values aren't framed in these terms... : Being a rabbi is fulfilling the mitzvah of service to the community, talmud : torah etc. Whether it is a burden or an opportunity, it is a mitzvah and : a choice of profession and communal service... But asking about opportunity and opening doors is inherently asking different value questions than the mesoretic ones. It's not just ancient that we frame our moral choices in terms of duty to others and the Other, it's mesoretic. : Furthermore, the OU paper went way beyond opposing rabbis. they forbid a : woman from officiating at a baby naming or other things. that too is a : burden that women should be forbidden from shouldering? This misses my point. When I spoke of rights vs duties I am talking about the entire framing of questions of values, not this specific decision. If the rabbinate, baby naming or whatever is a duty rather than a right, the whole question of "limiting their options unneccessarily" goes off the table. It's not about the right to choose a boon. Your whole question is framed non-traditionally. Looking at feminism as a goal is an inherently un-mesoretic way of framing the question. Rather, the nearest mesoretic equivalent would be to ask whether men have a duty that can only be discharged by sharing the pulpit, "officiating at a baby naming of other things". Feminism doesn't enter the mesoretic discussion because there is no door to be opened or closed, there is no region of personal-expression space to discuss whether someone is given too much or too little. The Torah is a beris, not a bill of rights. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When one truly looks at everyone's good side, micha at aishdas.org others come to love him very naturally, and http://www.aishdas.org he does not need even a speck of flattery. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rabbi AY Kook From micha at aishdas.org Tue Oct 10 14:04:28 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2017 17:04:28 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Oseh Hashalom In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20171010210428.GC21284@aishdas.org> On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 10:34:34PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : I went looking at the siddurim that were common in the shuls that I : grew up in, and I noticed an interesting pattern: Every single one : gave Oseh Hashalom as the closing bracha at the end of the Amidah; not : even one suggested saying Hamevarech like the rest of the year. : Further, every single one used the words Oseh Shalom at the ends of : Kaddish and Elokai N'tzor; not even one suggested saying Oseh Hashalom : during the Aseres Yemei Teshuva. ... : My questions are these: If you're old enough to remember davening : Ashkenaz in the 1970s or before, do you remember what was said during : Aseres Yemei Teshuva? And do you know of any siddur from that era : which included the newfangled text? I know my father was saying "hamvarekh" at this time. However, our minhagim are a hodge-podge of practices from those retained from the Ottoman Empire before my ancestor's arrival in Litta, mainline Litvish, R/Dr Mirsky's idiosyncricies (my grandfather came to America as a teen, and so the rav who met him at Ellis Island was became rav of his shul determined much of what he did), and what my father picked up Tues nights (and from YU alumni friends) from RYBS. I did some restoration of pre-American Biergehr minhag based on R Dovid Lifshitz's memories of what it was. AND that brings me to a theory... Minhagim that Chabad, Talmidei haGra and Sepharadim have in common are bound to become Minhag EY. And Minhag EY is bound to be known globally, at least by the 1970s. Maybe this is just a thing that universalized faster. Anecodtally, I notice fewer and fewer people wearing tefillin on ch"m each year. Although Passaic, a neighborhood with some 40% BT rate, is going to have weaker ties to minhag than ones in which more people have childhood memories of what dad does. I also noticed more an more shuls moving Shir shel Yom and Hoshanos from the end of mussaf to before leining. One thing all three of the communities that dominated the Yishuv haYashan had in common was an attachment to Qabbalah. We may be seeing more and more Tzefat-originating practices coming to the fore in the comming years as a new Minhag EY (and ch"v if galus lasts long enough Minhag America) emerges. Much to R' Ovadiah's poshumous dismay, I would presume. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "I hear, then I forget; I see, then I remember; micha at aishdas.org I do, then I understand." - Confucius http://www.aishdas.org "Hearing doesn't compare to seeing." - Mechilta Fax: (270) 514-1507 "We will do and we will listen." - Israelites From micha at aishdas.org Tue Oct 10 08:18:49 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2017 11:18:49 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] OU paper In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20171010151849.GB32729@aishdas.org> On Mon, Oct 09, 2017 at 08:26:41PM -0500, Noam Stadlan via Avodah wrote: : R. Micha- thank you for taking the time to read the paper. Having read : your list of criticisms, I think that in your search for reasons to oppose, : you missed many of the points completely... As I wrote, the reply was delayed by my attempt to put down the paper every time I thought I was reading solely for the sake of finding points to oppose. "Fisking", as it's called. Admittedly, I could still have failed. : Poskim are certainly entitled to : their opinions. They are not entitled to their own facts. Which is why I didn't dispute claims of fact, such as whether women were shochetim in Italy. I did dispute your use of a fact turning that Rama's point into a hypothetical to deny his whole "[if] we [hadn't] ever seen women as shochetim, we have a mesorah that woman aren't to serve as shochetim". Yes, his given is false, but we do see the implication statement in the Agur and the Rama. So, how do you dismiss applying the parallel syllogism here -- since we do not have a history of women rabbis, wouldn't the Rama's methodology mean that there is a mesorah not to ordain women? At least -- doesn't this topic need addressing, rather than writing that one can ignore the whole flow of logic because the antecedent is false? : Furthermore, I illustrated that what poskim hold : regarding these issues isn't always or exclusively a result of all their : learning and shimmush. It is a demonstrable fact that many attitudes : reflect what they grew up with and were indoctrinated with early on, not : the list of influences that they write about. But you gave up on the question of which new values pass the resonance test mention early in the paperr and which do not. My argument is that : You dismiss my quote regarding REB, and claim that it is my responsibility : to prove what the motives are or aren't. I dismiss the quote as necessarily applying to anyone but REB. It is not like he's the communal leader or primary poseiq of the people in question. In particular because of the word "feminism" in JOFA's name. To which you replied: : I suggest that if you think that an organization with 'feminism' in its : name is inherently problematic, we may be starting from basic assumptions : far to wide apart to see any common ground. RCS summarized REB's position (on your pg 10), as being of "moral ends derive from internal Jewish sources.... dissatisfaction with mainstream Halakhah regarding women is rooted, not in the pressures of contemporary egalitarianism, in his judgment about biblical conceptions of justice." (ellision yours) But JOFA's name is taken from "contemporary egalitarianism". I am not saying it's inherently problematic. I am saying it creates the likelihood of a gap between REB's position and JOFA's attitude, one that then creates a burden of proof you didn't take up. In short I am saying that: 1- Feminism assumes egalitarianism, not only equality, as it assumes that roles historically closed to women as "men's roles" should be open to all. Equality only assumes that everyone should be eligible for roles of equal value. (For some measure of value.) 2- Feminism assumes Locke's language of rights and priviledge. Why should someone *be deprived* of the opportunity to be an .... -- in our case, to serve as rabbi? But halachic values aren't framed in these terms. (At least not in general; I can think of notions like geneivas da'as, gezel shinah or tovas han'ah as exceptions.) Rather, the rabbinate is supposed to be a burden. Even if it is really being treated as an honor, the value which would differentiate between a positive halachic change and one that is anti-mesoretic would be that of duty, not opportunity. 3- Making the argument that feminist egalitarian opportunity is or is not resonant with mesoretic values requires those guys with shimush, as it is an art. Your counter-argument is on the wrong plane for discussing the topic of the first section of your paper -- "mesorah". ... And we don't even agree on how RIETS-trained rabbis are most likely to use the word "mesorah" to agree on what we're debating! Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Man is equipped with such far-reaching vision, micha at aishdas.org yet the smallest coin can obstruct his view. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yisrael Salanter Fax: (270) 514-1507 From noamstadlan at mail.gmail.com Tue Oct 10 08:53:24 2017 From: noamstadlan at mail.gmail.com (Noam Stadlan) Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2017 10:53:24 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] OU paper In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: multipart/alternative Size: 3823 bytes Desc: not available URL: From micha at aishdas.org Tue Oct 10 14:12:25 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2017 17:12:25 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] =?cp1255?q?=93Timtum_Ha-Lev=94_Redux?= In-Reply-To: <7aef6b22a7e348ffa09f6c3e61bde74f@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <7aef6b22a7e348ffa09f6c3e61bde74f@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20171010211225.GD21284@aishdas.org> On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 06:30:33PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : From R' Aviner Dulling of the Heart to Save One's Life ... : A: No. Maran Ha-Rav Kook writes in his book "Musar Avicha" (p. 19) : that the dulling of one's heart comes from violating a prohibition : and not from the food itself (Yoma 39a. And see Meharsha on : Shabbat 33a).... Yay! Finally I have sources to look at. "Vehayisa akh sameiach" just became a little easier. Does anyone have "Mussar Avikha", "Uvdos veHanhagos miBeis Brisk" (vol II p 50) and/or "Orchos Yosheir" (#13)? Do any of them discuss mezuzah and the consequent shemirah, or any of the other related segulah-like effects of mitzvos we've tied in to previous iterations? Look at that list of names: I'm not wrong, just Litvish! Tangent: The Gra said that "vehayisa akh sameiach" is the hardest mitzvah in the Torah. "Veyahisa sameiach" is one thing, but "akh sameiach"? To be nothing but happy, with no other moods ambivalently mixed in for 8 days (9 in chu"l) straight? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The fittingness of your matzos [for the seder] micha at aishdas.org isn't complete with being careful in the laws http://www.aishdas.org of Passover. One must also be very careful in Fax: (270) 514-1507 the laws of business. - Rav Yisrael Salanter From hankman at bell.net Tue Oct 10 22:24:18 2017 From: hankman at bell.net (hankman) Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2017 01:24:18 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] R. Akiva, Bar Kochba and Zecharya HaNovi Message-ID: <5AFE790709AC4B0B9FDDB6A6102B7005@hankPC> How could R. Akiva have mistaken Bar Kochba for Moshiach, since non of the nevuos of Zecharya HaNovi that we read in the recent haftorah (splitting of Har HaZeitim etc., etc) for the period precedent to Moshiach had yet occurred? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Tue Oct 10 13:51:59 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2017 16:51:59 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] future impact of deeds In-Reply-To: <781196aefdb44054b2f0e69678999858@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <781196aefdb44054b2f0e69678999858@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20171010205159.GB21284@aishdas.org> On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 06:29:05PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : In one of his shiurim, R'Reisman questioned a common (my) understanding : of how those who are no longer with us could be judged based on the : future impact of their deeds on an ongoing basis. The specific example : was two individuals (A & B) separately caused two other individuals (C & : D, who were totally equivalent) to become religious. C dies a day later, : while D lives a long, productive, and fruitful life. Does it make sense : that A gets more credit(schar) than B? : : My answer is no, but this does not refute the basic premise. The schar : is based on the % of their potential that C & D actualized-only HKB"H : knows that, so, in this case in fact, A might even get more credit than B. Who said that sekhar is indeed based on actualized potential? "Lefum tz'ara agra", not "lefum tzalach". And wouldn't judging someone by something out of their control violate Middas haDin? HOWEVER, perhaps (thinking out loud) we could invoke megalgalim zekhus al yedei zakai to say that hashgachah peratis's choice of D's long life includes among an infinite other factors, the ways in which his mashpia was mora zekai. But personally, I would question your conclusion. (But in a personal-belief sense. Not that it doesn't require understanding in an eilu-va'eilu way.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Rescue me from the desire to win every micha at aishdas.org argument and to always be right. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Nassan of Breslav Fax: (270) 514-1507 Likutei Tefilos 94:964 From zev at sero.name Wed Oct 11 03:30:27 2017 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2017 06:30:27 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] R. Akiva, Bar Kochba and Zecharya HaNovi In-Reply-To: <5AFE790709AC4B0B9FDDB6A6102B7005@hankPC> References: <5AFE790709AC4B0B9FDDB6A6102B7005@hankPC> Message-ID: <0278980f-97ca-2755-caa3-89461ed64e50@sero.name> On 11/10/17 01:24, hankman via Avodah wrote: > How could R. Akiva have mistaken Bar Kochba for Moshiach, since non of > the nevuos of Zecharya HaNovi that we read in the recent haftorah > (splitting of Har HaZeitim etc., etc) for the period precedent to > Moshiach had yet occurred? The Rambam, whose shita is based on R Akiva, explicitly paskens that none of these nevuos need to be fulfilled literally. Any that aren't can be interpreted metaphorically to fit whatever political and military events actually do take place around the geulah. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From akivagmiller at gmail.com Wed Oct 11 06:41:32 2017 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2017 09:41:32 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Questioning Authority In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I have no hidden agenda here. This post is my response to the current "OU paper" thread, and to many other threads we've had over the decades, where we have wondered how any given posek could hold a certain way on any particular question. It is also relevant to threads we've had abput *becoming* a posek, and the importance of shimush in addition to book knowledge. This is something I would not have written, or even have thought of, until about 10 years ago or so. But as I have matured, I have come to see things in a new perspective. Becoming a parent, and a grandparent, has given me a tremendous insight into Hashem's relationship with us. I have always felt that it is (or ought to be) possible and permissible to *question* authority without challenging or rejecting authority. It is very natural to want to understand the reasons behind the rules that we must live by. Wanting to understand those rules is not the same as rejecting those rules. Wanting to understand the rules, I believe, is a major component of the Mitzvah of Talmud Torah, and is thus highly commendable. A chavrusa once challenged me to explain my position on a certain subject. He said to me, "If you can't explain it to me in simple terms, then you don't really understand it well enough yourself." I accepted that rule wholeheartedly, and used it myself for many decades. But recently have I begun to see the cracks in that rule. A parent tells the child to do something, or to not do something. The child asks why, not out of rebellion, but because he sincerely wants to understand what's going on. Sometimes, the parent cannot give an answer better than "Because I said so." The child now thinks that the parent is being arbitrary, and sometimes, the parent might even agree. But frequently, the truth is that the parent has very good reasons for what he says. It's just that he's unable to put those reasons into clear words. He can't even explain it to himself in simple terms, because it is simply a gut feeling that he has, based on experience and intuition, he sees that this is the action or inaction which must be followed in this particular situation. I think this is analogous to Torah leaders and Torah followers. When the leaders tell the followers what to do, or what to avoid, it is entirely reasonable for the followers to request explanations from the leaders. This is especially so, if the explanation will help them comply with the directive, or teach them how to apply the directive to other situations. But these requests must be made respectfully, carefully, and only up to a certain point. Consider when a parent explains himself to the child, and the child responds with a dozen reasonable challenges to the parent's logic. Sometimes the parent will realize that he was in error, and back down. Sometimes the parent will realize that he was in error, but will stick to his guns as a show of power (rightly or wrongly). But sometimes, the parent will understand that - despite the child's persuasive comments - the directive must still be followed, because ... Well, the parent himself might not be able to articulate his reasoning, not even to himself. But he relies on his understanding and his experience and his common sense, and he knows that this is how it must be. So too, our leaders adopt certain positions on certain issues, and often they will attempt to explain themselves to us. Sometimes those explanations may appear flawed to us, maybe even severely flawed. Like the child who thinks his parent's explanation is nonsense, the flaws do not necessarily invalidate the leader's conclusion or his decision. Of course, none of this suggests that our leaders (or parents) are infallible. And they can certainly benefit from reviewing their positions among their peers. The only point I'm trying to make in this long post is this: Similar to a Chok from the Torah, sometimes our leaders issue pronouncements that we are not capable of fully understanding, and we should not let that stand in the way of following them. Akiva Miller NB: A critical word in this post is "sometimes". The difficult (sometimes impossible) task is to figure out which times are which. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From zev at sero.name Wed Oct 11 07:40:40 2017 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2017 10:40:40 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] R. Akiva, Bar Kochba and Zecharya HaNovi In-Reply-To: <20171011143003.GA21995@aishdas.org> References: <5AFE790709AC4B0B9FDDB6A6102B7005@hankPC> <0278980f-97ca-2755-caa3-89461ed64e50@sero.name> <20171011143003.GA21995@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 11/10/17 10:30, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > While the Rambam cites R' Aqiva's following Bar Koziba (H Melahim 11:2) > as proof that the melekh hamoshiach doesn't have to do miracles, is his > position really "based on" R Aqiva's? For example, in 11:4 he describes > the moshiach as being "hogeh baTorah ve'oseiq bemitzvos keDavid aviv" > which I don't think fit Bar Kokhva even in his hayday. What makes you suppose this? On the contrary, the fact that the Rambam says "since BK didn't do any miracles, we know that Moshiach doesn't have to", proves that when he says Moshiach *does* have to be a TCh and a tzadik he assumes BK *did* fulfil this requirement. If he didn't, that would prove to the Rambam that this isn't necessary. > Nor had "veyakhof kol Yisrael leileikh bah" yet either -- the > Perushim were in the minority. Were they? Who was in the majority, if not them? And why would the majority even matter? BK was the king, and he made halacha the law of the land, whether the majority liked it or not. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From micha at aishdas.org Wed Oct 11 07:30:03 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2017 10:30:03 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] R. Akiva, Bar Kochba and Zecharya HaNovi In-Reply-To: <0278980f-97ca-2755-caa3-89461ed64e50@sero.name> References: <5AFE790709AC4B0B9FDDB6A6102B7005@hankPC> <0278980f-97ca-2755-caa3-89461ed64e50@sero.name> Message-ID: <20171011143003.GA21995@aishdas.org> On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 06:30:27AM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : On 11/10/17 01:24, hankman via Avodah wrote: :> How could R. Akiva have mistaken Bar Kochba for Moshiach, since :> non of the nevuos of Zecharya HaNovi that we read in the recent :> haftorah (splitting of Har HaZeitim etc., etc) for the period :> precedent to Moshiach had yet occurred? : The Rambam, whose shita is based on R Akiva, explicitly paskens that : none of these nevuos need to be fulfilled literally. Any that : aren't can be interpreted metaphorically to fit whatever political : and military events actually do take place around the geulah. While the Rambam cites R' Aqiva's following Bar Koziba (H Melahim 11:2) as proof that the melekh hamoshiach doesn't have to do miracles, is his position really "based on" R Aqiva's? For example, in 11:4 he describes the moshiach as being "hogeh baTorah ve'oseiq bemitzvos keDavid aviv" which I don't think fit Bar Kokhva even in his hayday. Nor had "veyakhof kol Yisrael leileikh bah" yet either -- the Perushim were in the minority. More clearly is his basing himself on Shemu'el (Sanhedrin 91b) when he quotes him in 12:2, "Chakhamim said: ein bein ha'olam hazeh liymos hamoshiach ela shib'ud malkhios bilvad." It's interesting that rather than repeating the quote beshrim omero -- a funny thing to do when discussing the ge'ula le'lam that giving the source is supposed to bring -- he attributes the quote to Chakhamim, as though he knew it was consensus and Rav's position deprecated. After all, the Rambam himself says that we can't decide machloqesim in these thingxs. So it could be that the Rambam did indeed base himself on R Aqiva, but then we would have to say that the Rambam held that R Aqiva was waiting for the rest of the nevu'ah to come true. Or not -- maybe his basic source was Shemu'el, and this one proof doesn't imply derivation. And given that the BK Revolt was c. 132-135 CE, it is likely that R' Aqiva expected the war to go on 7 years, as per statements in the gemara about chevlei moshiach. This would time the end of the war with 70 years after the churban, like the return after churban bayis 1. But whether that conjecture is true or not, the relevant idea that R Aqiva could be backing BK thinking the rest of the expectations about the moshiach simply hadn't happened /yet/. Which the Rambam would have to invoke even for his more mundane list of things the moshiach will accomplish. In 12:1 the Rambam denies the literalness of Yeshaiah's and Yirmiyahu's description of the messianic era in terms of wolves, leopards and lions going vegetarian. But since the splitting of Har haZeirim need not be lemaalah min hateva, do we know whether the Rambam would have placed it in the same rule? If not, the "expected it will happen in the future" answer could cover that earthquake (?) as much as it can cover BK spending all his spare time learning and doing mitzvos or his being meqareiv the vast majority of Kelal Yisrael. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger A sick person never rejects a healing procedure micha at aishdas.org as "unbefitting." Why, then, do we care what http://www.aishdas.org other people think when dealing with spiritual Fax: (270) 514-1507 matters? - Rav Yisrael Salanter From zev at sero.name Wed Oct 11 09:02:55 2017 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2017 12:02:55 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] R. Akiva, Bar Kochba and Zecharya HaNovi In-Reply-To: <20171011154231.GA6170@aishdas.org> References: <5AFE790709AC4B0B9FDDB6A6102B7005@hankPC> <0278980f-97ca-2755-caa3-89461ed64e50@sero.name> <20171011143003.GA21995@aishdas.org> <20171011154231.GA6170@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <0e95d039-c074-ae7f-f3ba-3cee64a3d191@sero.name> On 11/10/17 11:42, Micha Berger wrote: > > The man described in the Y-mi Taanis 24b (4:5) doesn't sound personally > observant. The Rambam clearly doesn't hold like the Yerushalmi's version of the story, because he holds that the Chachamim stuck with BK until he was killed "ba`avonos". That word is ambiguous (whose sins, his or the people's) but later he says a presumptive Moshiach who's killed is "kechol malchei beis Dovid hash'leimim vehak'sheirim", so we can assume he holds that BK was killed for the generation's sins, not for his own, hence "ba`avonos", not "ba`avonosav". > This is also why in both R' Aqiva's world as well as R' Meir's and R' > Shim'on's -- before and after BK's revolt -- it is taken for granted > that most Jews are amei ha'aretz. Amei Haaretz were in the Perushim "denomination". They kept Perushi halacha as well as they understood it, even if they despised the Chaverim who taught it. They made up their own invalid leniencies in maasros, and weren't careful all year with taharos, but they were careful with terumah and never told lies on Shabbos. In any case, the question isn't what the majority would have done on their own, but whether BK forced them to obey halacha, and the Rambam assumes he did. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From micha at aishdas.org Wed Oct 11 10:11:32 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2017 13:11:32 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] R. Akiva, Bar Kochba and Zecharya HaNovi In-Reply-To: <0e95d039-c074-ae7f-f3ba-3cee64a3d191@sero.name> References: <5AFE790709AC4B0B9FDDB6A6102B7005@hankPC> <0278980f-97ca-2755-caa3-89461ed64e50@sero.name> <20171011143003.GA21995@aishdas.org> <20171011154231.GA6170@aishdas.org> <0e95d039-c074-ae7f-f3ba-3cee64a3d191@sero.name> Message-ID: <20171011171132.GA1028@aishdas.org> On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 12:02:55PM -0400, Zev Sero wrote: : On 11/10/17 11:42, Micha Berger wrote: : >The man described in the Y-mi Taanis 24b (4:5) doesn't sound personally : >observant. : : The Rambam clearly doesn't hold like the Yerushalmi's version of the : story, because he holds that the Chachamim stuck with BK until he : was killed "ba`avonos"... How does this conflict with the Y-mi's picture of a less than ideal Bar Kokhva? If anything, it reinforces my suggestion that R' Aqiva was awaiting the rest of the nevu'ah. And once he is waiting for the things the Rambam mentions, then it's possible the Rambem would expect Zerkhariah's nevu'os to happen literally, but also something R' Aqiva was awaiting. It's possible the Rambam would consider the potentially natural cataclysms in Zekhariah to be non-allegory, as the examples of non-literal nevu'os he gives would have been lema'alah min hateva if literal. I don't know where he's drawing the line; nevi'ah qua nevu'ah is bederekh mashal, or only the phantastical stories should be dismissed. (This is a sibling to our discussion of the Rambam on midrashic stories. I claim he is saying that no medrash was repeated for historical content. Therefore any medrash can be ahistorical, but the fantastical stories you should take for granted as being ahistorical. You have been limiting the Rambam's denial of historicity for the fantastical stories. s/medrash/nevu'ah/g -- where do you stand?) : That word is ambiguous (whose sins, his or : the people's) but later he says a presumptive Moshiach who's killed : is "kechol malchei beis Dovid hash'leimim vehak'sheirim", so we can : assume he holds that BK was killed for the generation's sins, not : for his own, hence "ba`avonos", not "ba`avonosav". But either way -- whether he or the generation was sinful -- it would show that BK didn't fit the Rambam's descrition of moshiach. For obvious reasons, I'll add: ... at least not yet. If the generation sinned too much to merit redemption, BK wasn't too good at bringing the masses to observance. Besides, being like a kosher and shaleim member of beis David could mean "even if", we still know he wasn't the moshiach. : >This is also why in both R' Aqiva's world as well as R' Meir's and R' : >Shim'on's -- before and after BK's revolt -- it is taken for granted : >that most Jews are amei ha'aretz. : : Amei Haaretz were in the Perushim "denomination". They kept Perushi : halacha as well as they understood it, even if they despised the : Chaverim who taught it... Actually, I thought they were denominationless, as likely to follow anyone's dictates. A pagan notion of listening to every holy man, rather than picking sides. But in any case, if that's your description of the masses, you still have BK not yet succeeding in that regard at the time of his death. : in maasros, and weren't careful all year with taharos, but they were : careful with terumah and never told lies on Shabbos... They were also careful with maaser, more often than not. Demai is a gezeira; if tevel were the norm, it would be azlinan basar ruba, or at best safeiq deOraisa lehachmir. : the question isn't what the majority would have done on their own, : but whether BK forced them to obey halacha, and the Rambam assumes : he did. The Rambam doesn't say so. That's your deduction. It requires assuming that the Rambam agrees with R' Aqiva over what the grounds for presuming (making a chazqah) that someone is moshiach. He doesn't say R' Aqiva is indeed his source. And it also requires assuming R Aqiva was following BK because of a chazaqah, rather than probability and rov. You haven't addressed my "maybe" of R Aqiva following BK without BK having yet fulfilled all of the moshiach's role becuase of an expectation that BK would be getting there. My added "not yet". Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Between stimulus & response, there is a space. micha at aishdas.org In that space is our power to choose our http://www.aishdas.org response. In our response lies our growth Fax: (270) 514-1507 and our freedom. - Victor Frankl, (MSfM) From zev at sero.name Sat Oct 14 19:44:53 2017 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2017 22:44:53 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] R. Akiva, Bar Kochba and Zecharya HaNovi In-Reply-To: <20171011171132.GA1028@aishdas.org> References: <5AFE790709AC4B0B9FDDB6A6102B7005@hankPC> <0278980f-97ca-2755-caa3-89461ed64e50@sero.name> <20171011143003.GA21995@aishdas.org> <20171011154231.GA6170@aishdas.org> <0e95d039-c074-ae7f-f3ba-3cee64a3d191@sero.name> <20171011171132.GA1028@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 11/10/17 13:11, Micha Berger wrote: > On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 12:02:55PM -0400, Zev Sero wrote: > : On 11/10/17 11:42, Micha Berger wrote: > : >The man described in the Y-mi Taanis 24b (4:5) doesn't sound personally > : >observant. > : > : The Rambam clearly doesn't hold like the Yerushalmi's version of the > : story, because he holds that the Chachamim stuck with BK until he > : was killed "ba`avonos"... > > How does this conflict with the Y-mi's picture of a less than ideal > Bar Kokhva? It conflicts because the Y'mi's version of the story has the Chachamim abandoning BK *before* his fall. The Rambam clearly does not agree with that whole version of the story. In his version BK was and remained a tzadik until his tragic end, which happened not for his own sins but for those of others. > It's possible the Rambam would consider the potentially natural cataclysms > in Zekhariah to be non-allegory, as the examples of non-literal nevu'os > he gives would have been lema'alah min hateva if literal. I don't know > where he's drawing the line; nevi'ah qua nevu'ah is bederekh mashal, > or only the phantastical stories should be dismissed. He doesn't draw a line at all. He carefully doesn't say that Moshiach *won't* perform miracles, but merely that he *needn't*, because BK didn't and yet was assumed to be Moshiach. Which further contradicts the Y'mi's version, which says he was rejected because he could not judge people by smelling whether they're right or wrong, a feat of which the True Moshiach(tm) must be capable. > > : That word is ambiguous (whose sins, his or > : the people's) but later he says a presumptive Moshiach who's killed > : is "kechol malchei beis Dovid hash'leimim vehak'sheirim", so we can > : assume he holds that BK was killed for the generation's sins, not > : for his own, hence "ba`avonos", not "ba`avonosav". > > But either way -- whether he or the generation was sinful -- it would > show that BK didn't fit the Rambam's descrition of moshiach. How so? He was righteous, and forced people to keep Torah, but they didn't listen, just like Yoshiyahu. > But in any case, if that's your description of the masses, you still > have BK not yet succeeding in that regard at the time of his death. Again, how so? The requirement is that he forces all Israel to follow it and to reinforce its breaches. Not that he educates them, or makes them enthusiastic, but simply that he makes the Shulchan Aruch the law of the land, punishing those who break it. There are always lawbreakers; one would not therefore say that the government is not forcing people to obey the law. > : the question isn't what the majority would have done on their own, > : but whether BK forced them to obey halacha, and the Rambam assumes > : he did. > > The Rambam doesn't say so. That's your deduction. It requires assuming > that the Rambam agrees with R' Aqiva over what the grounds for presuming > (making a chazqah) that someone is moshiach. He doesn't say R' Aqiva is > indeed his source. He explicitly uses him as his source that Moshiach needn't perform miracles. How could he do so if his vision of Moshiach's qualifications were different from R Akiva's? If he holds that Moshiach must be a tzadik but RA didn't, then how does he know that Moshiach needn't perform miracles just because R Akiva thought so? > And it also requires assuming R Aqiva was following BK because of a > chazaqah, rather than probability and rov. You haven't addressed my > "maybe" of R Aqiva following BK without BK having yet fulfilled all of > the moshiach's role becuase of an expectation that BK would be getting > there. My added "not yet". Again, this is impossible because if so how does he know R Akiva didn't indeed require Moshiach to perform miracles, and was expecting them to happen any day now? How can he say that Moshiach need *never* perform miracles, and if he achieves everything he's supposed to without the need for miracles we will still have to accept him as Vadai Moshiach? Clearly he understands that R Akiva was *not* expecting any miracles, and that this didn't bother him, because it isn't a requirement. None of which rules out the actual Moshiach, when he does come, performing miracles. The Rambam's position on this, unlike the Y'mi's, is neutral. He might perform miracles or he might not. Some or all of the nevuos might turn out literally, but some or all might not. The nevuos he says can't be literal, at least in the initial stage of Yemos Hamoshiach, are not ones about miracles but about permanent changes in nature. Chazal said that Ein Bein Olam Hazeh Liymos Hamoshiach Ela... so nevuos about a change in nature must either be metaphorical or refer to Olam Haba. But nevuos about miracles may or may not happen literally, we won't know until we get there. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From motti.yarchinai at yahoo.com.au Sun Oct 15 01:00:51 2017 From: motti.yarchinai at yahoo.com.au (Motti Yarchinai) Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2017 08:00:51 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Avodah] Psak source wanted References: <1857240052.122258.1508054451353.ref@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1857240052.122258.1508054451353@mail.yahoo.com> Dear Avodah members, Can anyone help me with a source for this psak: It is similar to what the Rambam wrote in Hilchot Kiddush Hachodesh, saying that in all calendric matters, we follow the lead of the chachmei eretz yisrael, and even though the anshei hagolah know the calculations used by them, it is not on our own calculations that we rely, we only use those calculations because we know that they are the same as the calculations used by the chachmei eretz yisrael, and we must all follow the rulings of the latter, in all calendric matters. Another posek (possibly the Tifferet Yisrael in Shvilei Harakia, but I'm not sure of that), writes something similar but couched in even more dramatic terms. The following is not a verbatim quote (since the original is in Hebrew) but something very close to it: "And even if the residents of eretz yisrael are all ignoramuses and peasants, and the authorities of chutz la'aretz are great scholars and knowledgable in Torah and halachah, in calendric matters we follow the peasants and ignoramuses, not the scholars of chutz la'aretz." Does anyone recognise this and remember where it's from? Thank you.Motti -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From akivagmiller at gmail.com Sun Oct 15 13:02:06 2017 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2017 16:02:06 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Zecher Liytzias Mitzrayim and Shmini Atzeres Message-ID: . What is the Zecher Liytzias Mitzrayim of Shmini Atzeres?We say it in Kiddush and in the Amidah. There must be something about this chag that connects to, and/or reminds us about, Yetzias Mitzrayim. It sounds like such a basic question that I'm surprised that I don't remember hearing it in the past. If anyone has an answer, please share it. Meanwhile, here's what I came up with: Shavuos is about one particular event in the midbar. Sukkos is about the whole 40 years in the midbar. Pesach and Shmini Atzeres are bookends: Pesach is about entering the midbar, and Shmini Atzeres is about leaving the midbar.If Sukkos is about the Ananei Hakavod and all the other nissim that accompanied us, then Shmini Atzeres is about re-entering the natural world. I played "word association" with six random people: When I said "yetzias mitzrayim," five of them responded, "Pesach". This is not wrong, but it is a distortion. Yetzias Mitzrayim was not a short event in Nissan; Shavuos and Sukkos prove that it was a process that took 40 years. My suggestion is simply that the last day is no less worthy of a chag than the first. Rashi (B'midbar 29:35) famously tells us that Shmini Atzeres is a special time, with just Hashem and Bnei Yisrael together, alone, with no other nations around. I'm merely pointing out that it is not just the nations who are gone: The lulav is gone. The sukkah is gone. Nothing remains but us and Hashem, when we left the comfort of the miraculous sukkah, trading it for being at home in Eretz Yisrael. Akiva Miller Postscript: An easy challenge to this post could be that Tishre 22 was NOT the day that we crossed from the midbar into Eretz Yisrael. I will respond in advance by pointing out that Shavuos too is not necessarily celebrated on the same day as the event it reminds us of. The Zecher can be poetic and emotional, and need not be so mathematically rigorous. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hankman at bell.net Sun Oct 15 14:41:04 2017 From: hankman at bell.net (hankman) Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2017 17:41:04 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] eitz hachaim Message-ID: Hi, What exactly was the eitz hachaim all about. The simple pshat doesn?t make any sense. If the purpose of the Gan was to serve Adam then when would (could) he make use of the eitz hachaim? Kodem hacheit he was not a bar misah so he had no need of it, after the cheit he was prevented from accessing it! So when would it ever be useful to Adam? Kol tuv Chaim Manaster -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hankman at bell.net Sun Oct 15 14:48:11 2017 From: hankman at bell.net (hankman) Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2017 17:48:11 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Vayehi erev Message-ID: Hi, If you look at days 3, 4 & 5 tou will find that they close with Vayehi erev vayehi boker yom X as a complete passuk. But on days 1, 2 & 6 the vayehi erev is only the completion of a larger passuk and not a passuk on its own. Finally on Shabbos the final closing of vayehi erev is omitted completely. Do any of the medrashing or meforshing explain this? Kol tuv Chaim Manaster -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Sun Oct 15 14:31:16 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2017 17:31:16 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Zecher Liytzias Mitzrayim and Shmini Atzeres In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20171015213116.GA14924@aishdas.org> On Sun, Oct 15, 2017 at 04:02:06PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : What is the Zecher Liytzias Mitzrayim of Shmini Atzeres? ... What's the ZlYM of Shabbos? : Shavuos is about one particular event in the midbar. Sukkos is about the : whole 40 years in the midbar... Unless Sukkos is about the return of the ananei hakavod. The Gra puts 2 and 2 (and 2) together: The ananei hakavod left with the Cheit haEigel. When Moshe returned with the 2nd luchos, completing his 3rd 40-day day atop Har Sinai, he gave Benei Yisrael instructions including those for donating the materials and building the Mishkan. So that actual construction began on 15 Nissan -- and that's when the ananim returned. The Meshekh Chimah adds to this that it explains the oconstrast between Sukkos as described in Mishpatim 23:16, where all we learn about the timing in the fall is that it's Chag haAsif. This was before Cheit haEigel, never mind the eventual return. But in parashas Re'eih, the holiday makes its appearance as Chag haSukkos, refering to the returned sukkos of ananei hakavod. : Pesach is about entering the midbar, and Shmini Atzeres is about leaving : the midbar.If Sukkos is about the Ananei Hakavod and all the other nissim : that accompanied us, then Shmini Atzeres is about re-entering the natural : world. My own mental image of the structure of the year: The qiymu veqiblu haYhudim of Purim is the further development of the theme of Shavous (a/k/a Atzeres). And similarly the zikhronos of Rosh haShanah is the further development of the theme of Shemini Atzeres -- the beris. In Shemini Atzeres this creates a need for a 71st par for qorban mussaf, as well as the naturalness of our turning SA into Simchas Torah. On RH we ask for clemency if not for our sake, than for the sake of seeing the beris to fruition. So that each season has a central holiday -- Sukkos or Pesach -- which is what underlies the gezeira shava tes-vav - tes-vav. Then the season is introduced with a something (Purim or Yamim Noraim) to prepare us for the holiday. The bounty of Sukkos has to be earned; Tishrei is about middas hadin after all. The freedom of Pesach needs a context. (And Putim is derabbanan bececause the ultimate qabbalas ol mitzvos hd to come from us.) And then the theme is culminated in an Atzeres, a day to stop, pack it up, and take it with us for the next half-year. That said, I like your idead of SA as reentering the natural world. It's experientially very true, after all that holiday. It also gives more significance to the timing of Tefillas Geshem. "Qasheh alei pereidaskhem" does refer to that return; aalthough I think you need to work on the difference between our return to the natural world and Hashem making the day itself to *delay* the return. Jews and G-d without the rest of the world. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger What we do for ourselves dies with us. micha at aishdas.org What we do for others and the world, http://www.aishdas.org remains and is immortal. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Albert Pine From micha at aishdas.org Sun Oct 15 15:21:26 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2017 18:21:26 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] R. Akiva, Bar Kochba and Zecharya HaNovi In-Reply-To: References: <5AFE790709AC4B0B9FDDB6A6102B7005@hankPC> <0278980f-97ca-2755-caa3-89461ed64e50@sero.name> <20171011143003.GA21995@aishdas.org> <20171011154231.GA6170@aishdas.org> <0e95d039-c074-ae7f-f3ba-3cee64a3d191@sero.name> <20171011171132.GA1028@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20171015222126.GB14924@aishdas.org> On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 10:44:53PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: :> How does this conflict with the Y-mi's picture of a less than ideal :> Bar Kokhva? : : It conflicts because the Y'mi's version of the story has the : Chachamim abandoning BK *before* his fall. The Rambam clearly does : not agree with that whole version of the story... The Y-mi does not say that R' Aqiva was among those who left early. : In his version BK : was and remained a tzadik until his tragic end, which happened not : for his own sins but for those of others. My whole point is that the Rambam doesn't describe him as a tzadiq anywhere. He says in one place that BK could be taken to be the moshiach despite a lack of miracles and another place that when someone from beis david who is hogeh ve'oseiq bemitzvos keDavid aviv... vehakhos kol Yisrael leileikh bah... and fights Hashem's wars, then this person can be presumed to be mashiach. Not that BK had such a chazaqah; the "pesaq" of the tannaim needn't have been based on this particular chazaqah or any chazaqah. As I said, there is nothing in the Rambam to rule out them following BK out of the expectation that he would eventually get there, rather than his being hogeh ve'oseiq bemitzvos already. And then you don't need to make the Rambam ignore a Yerushalmi. : He doesn't draw a line at all. He carefully doesn't say that : Moshiach *won't* perform miracles, but merely that he *needn't*, 12:1: Al ya'aleh aal leiv shebiymos hamoshiach yibateil davar miminhago shel olam... ela olam keminhago noheig. This doesn't really rule out miracles, but it does rule out ones that leave a permanent change in the natural orer. There is a line. Which is how he rules out the historicity of "vegar ze'eiv im keves..." etc... They don't mearly "needn't" happen, he rules out the possibility of their literal meaning being part of the future, because they cross his line of olam keminhago noheig". : >But either way -- whether he or the generation was sinful -- it would : >show that BK didn't fit the Rambam's descrition of moshiach. : How so? He was righteous, and forced people to keep Torah, but : they didn't listen, just like Yoshiyahu. "Veyakhof" includes "tried and failed"??? That's not quite what the Rambam says. : Again, how so? The requirement is that he forces all Israel to : follow it and to reinforce its breaches. Not that he educates them, : or makes them enthusiastic, but simply that he makes the Shulchan : Aruch the law of the land, punishing those who break it... Which he didn't. The Sanhedrin doesn't get reorgonized and put on Har haBayis. In fact, he doesn't get the backing of the majority of the day's posqim to be able to be associated with a 2nd century religious revival through legal enforcement, even if he there had been one. (Which there is no record of.) Again, this is only a problem for you because you assume that the Rambam's chazaqah in 11:4 must be the reason for R' Aqiva and other tannaim followed BK. But he uses the expression "vedimah hu vekhol chakhmei doro" -- which is a little weak for following a chazaqah as per a chiyuv. The Y-mi (in the adorementiond &T Taanis 4:5 24b) quotes R' Aqiva as telling R' Yochanan ben Torta "Din hu malka meshikha", an idiom usually used to refer to a qal vachomer. BTW, where does the Rambam get that "kol chakhmei doro" followed Bar Koziva? Is there any indication Rabban Gamliel ever did? R Yochanan b Torta replied (in an oft repeated line) "Aqiva, yaalu asavim belechaikh ve'adayin ben David lo ba." : >The Rambam doesn't say so. That's your deduction. It requires assuming : >that the Rambam agrees with R' Aqiva over what the grounds for presuming : >(making a chazqah) that someone is moshiach. He doesn't say R' Aqiva is : >indeed his source. : : He explicitly uses him as his source that Moshiach needn't perform : miracles. How could he do so if his vision of Moshiach's : qualifications were different from R Akiva's? ... R' Aqiva proves that not performing miracles doesn't rule out someone being the moshiach. He doesn't prove what it takes to actually qualify as being one. And even beyond the difference between deriving one negative statement about the mashiach and assuming he got all his positive statements from the same source, you're missing the difference between noting R' Aqiva reached a conclusion and the Rambam pasqening that in a certain situation we are obligated by the rules of chazaqah to reach that same conclusion. : Again, this is impossible because if so how does he know R Akiva : didn't indeed require Moshiach to perform miracles, and was : expecting them to happen any day now? ... Who said he didn't? He uses R' Aqiva to rule out waiting for a miracle before following a potential. Not that moshiach won't perform miracles. 12:2 quotes Shemu'el to back up the point in 12:1 that olam beminhago holeikh. Which is minimally a particular kind of miracle, although it plausibly includes even miracles that are only momentary breaks in minhag olam. He doesn't mention R' Aqiva when ruling out these miracles from the entire mission. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "Man wants to achieve greatness overnight, micha at aishdas.org and he wants to sleep well that night too." http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yosef Yozel Horwitz, Alter of Novarodok Fax: (270) 514-1507 From hankman at bell.net Sun Oct 15 15:59:44 2017 From: hankman at bell.net (hankman) Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2017 18:59:44 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Torah precheit? Message-ID: Hi, I have been trying to understand what the geshtalt of Torah was precheit of the eitz hadaas. It could not have resembled anything that we ( I ) would recognize today. Consider: There was but one mitzva. Most if not all the mitzvos of the Torah we are familiar with could not have existed, at least as we understand them today. Had Adam been successful in his one day tafkid the purpose of the bria would have been accomplished and Adam (mankind) would have gone to olom haba ? mission accomplished nothing more to follow but for reward in olom haba. The many consequences seem to be as follows: there would be no avdus in Mitzrayim, therefore no yetzias Mitzrayim, therefore no regolim, that are all built on the idea of zecher l?yitzias Mitzrayim nor their issurei melocho . So there would not me any korban Pesach, no matzo, no maror etc. There would be no lulav and esrog, no succah etc. There would be no krobanos of shavous, no Yom Kippur and all its avoda and all its inuiyim as the cheit haeigel would never occur. Not sure about Rosh Hashana as the 6th day was the first RH perhaps as a yom hadin to pasken that Adam succeeded in his task and is deserving of olom haba. I could assume that Shabbos would also be present as it was in that first week with a kedushas Shabbos. The mussafim of all these yomim tovim would also be non existent as the yomim tovim themself seem in doubt. Much of the korbanos relating to cheit would seemingly have no purpose. the existance of the mikdash and all related mitzvot would likewise be in doubt. The mikdosh would have been Adam himself or perhaps after day 7 the mikdash would have come down in fire from heaven like we await today shibaneh beis hamikdash? As there would never be an Eretz Yisroel, then there would not be all the mitzvot hateltuot ba?aretz ? trumos, masros etc., etc. There would be no issurei arayos as there was just Adam and Chava. Not quite sure here as there was Kayin and Hevel and their twin sisters were there in the latter part of day 6. So perhaps a few of the arayaos would have been possible, mainly mother, father, son, daughter, aishes ish (Adam and Chava, but not sure about the kids as could kedushin be tofeis in a sister even if mutar for kium olam? Mishkav zachar was possible, but mishkav behama might not have been assur if one reads the medroshim kepshutom which the Maharal tell us NOT to do when Adam was seeking his mate before Chava was created. Still one has to deal with the fact that while these might have been possible, there was but ONE commandment ? not to eat from the eitz hadaas and none of the possible arayos I consider above. There was no mitzva of mila for Adam or Kayin and Hevel. Perhaps Adam was created mahul and Kayin and Hevel were nolod mahul? (Still today would need hatafas dam bris). Kibud Av vaAim would only be possible for Kain and Hevel but not for Adam or Chava who were not yilud isha. Mitzvot like korcho lameis would not be possible for beings who were not bar misa. Tumas meis would not be possible. With no rabim, mitzvot like melech, korban nossi, Ir haNidachas etc would not be possible. No mechias Amalek, or shiva ammim or kivush ha?aretz etc Rosh Chodes and its dinim would never happen as the world would end after one week. Most of choshen Mishpat would be superfluous if you own the entire world (Adam ? not sure if his kids would own anything as Adam would never die so they would never yarshan the world from him? (not sure if I am in the realm of Purim torah or not?). I could go on for most of taryag that would not have been possible. But the bottom line, possible or not, there was only ONE commandment ? the eitz hadaas! So what is the nature of Torah in such a world. How do we see it as an ever constant ever present and unchanging Torah? How does a Torah with but ONE mitzva look? How does it still identify with a Torah with 613 mitzvot? Sorry if my thoughts were very rambling. I just typed as things came to mind ? maybe not always a good idea! Kol tuv Chaim Manaster -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From zev at sero.name Sun Oct 15 22:15:48 2017 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2017 01:15:48 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] R. Akiva, Bar Kochba and Zecharya HaNovi In-Reply-To: <20171015222126.GB14924@aishdas.org> References: <5AFE790709AC4B0B9FDDB6A6102B7005@hankPC> <0278980f-97ca-2755-caa3-89461ed64e50@sero.name> <20171011143003.GA21995@aishdas.org> <20171011154231.GA6170@aishdas.org> <0e95d039-c074-ae7f-f3ba-3cee64a3d191@sero.name> <20171011171132.GA1028@aishdas.org> <20171015222126.GB14924@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 15/10/17 18:21, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 10:44:53PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > : It conflicts because the Y'mi's version of the story has the > : Chachamim abandoning BK *before* his fall. The Rambam clearly does > : not agree with that whole version of the story... > > The Y-mi does not say that R' Aqiva was among those who left early. The Rambam says that R Akiva *and all the sages of his generation* imagined BK was Moshiach, *until he was killed*. This is not consistent with the Y'mi. > As I said, there is nothing in the Rambam to rule out them following BK > out of the expectation that he would eventually get there, rather than his > being hogeh ve'oseiq bemitzvos already. Then why can't they also have expected him to eventually do miracles? How does their belief in him, and his lack of miracles, prove that Moshiach needn't do any? The fact that the Rambam uses their belief in him as proof that miracles aren't a requirement shows that they believed in him only because he *had* fulfilled all the *genuine* requirements for the stage he was at. > : >But either way -- whether he or the generation was sinful -- it would > : >show that BK didn't fit the Rambam's descrition of moshiach. > > : How so? He was righteous, and forced people to keep Torah, but > : they didn't listen, just like Yoshiyahu. > > "Veyakhof" includes "tried and failed"??? That's not quite what the > Rambam says. Yachof means to force, to make it the law of the land, and those who disobey are punished. It doesn't preclude people breaking the law when they think they can get away with it. Our current government forces us to live without drugs, and yet many people don't. > > : Again, how so? The requirement is that he forces all Israel to > : follow it and to reinforce its breaches. Not that he educates them, > : or makes them enthusiastic, but simply that he makes the Shulchan > : Aruch the law of the land, punishing those who break it... > > Which he didn't. The Sanhedrin doesn't get reorgonized and put on Har > haBayis. The Sanhedrin was already organized. There's no requirement that they return to Lishkas Hagazis until there *is* one, which he does eventually have to do, but it comes *after* chezkas Moshiach and fighting the war, which is the stage he was at. > In fact, he doesn't get the backing of the majority of the day's > posqim He certainly did, according to the Rambam. > to be able to be associated with a 2nd century religious revival > through legal enforcement, even if he there had been one. (Which there > is no record of.) Again, a "religious revival" means inspiring people to *want* to keep mitzvos, which is unrelated to *forcing* them to do so. > Again, this is only a problem for you because you assume that the Rambam's > chazaqah in 11:4 must be the reason for R' Aqiva and other tannaim > followed BK. What else could it be? He goes directly from saying that miracles are not a requirement to listing what things *are* requirements. Therefore he must have done those things. > But he uses the expression "vedimah hu vekhol chakhmei doro" > -- which is a little weak for following a chazaqah as per a chiyuv. What's weak about it? They must have had a reason for this imagination. What else but the chazaka? And if they thought he hadn't yet reached that stage then how do we know miracles aren't required to reach it? > > The Y-mi (in the adorementiond &T Taanis 4:5 24b) quotes R' Aqiva as > telling R' Yochanan ben Torta "Din hu malka meshikha", an idiom usually > used to refer to a qal vachomer. You're misreading it. It's not "din", it's *dein*. Dein hu malka meshicha, this is the Annointed King. > BTW, where does the Rambam get that "kol chakhmei doro" followed Bar > Koziva? Is there any indication Rabban Gamliel ever did? R Yochanan b > Torta replied (in an oft repeated line) "Aqiva, yaalu asavim belechaikh > ve'adayin ben David lo ba." He was the lone exception, or nearly so. Because *he* held that the miracle of judging by smell *was* required, even at the beginning. The Rambam paskens against him. > : >The Rambam doesn't say so. That's your deduction. It requires assuming > : >that the Rambam agrees with R' Aqiva over what the grounds for presuming > : >(making a chazqah) that someone is moshiach. He doesn't say R' Aqiva is > : >indeed his source. > : > : He explicitly uses him as his source that Moshiach needn't perform > : miracles. How could he do so if his vision of Moshiach's > : qualifications were different from R Akiva's? ... > > R' Aqiva proves that not performing miracles doesn't rule out someone being > the moshiach. He doesn't prove what it takes to actually qualify as being > one. This makes no sense. Either the Rambam agrees with R Akiva's criteria or he doesn't. If he doesn't then how can R Akiva's not requiring miracles prove that they're truly not required? If he was wrong about other criteria, how do we know he was right about this one? No, the fact that the Rambam uses him as proof means the Rambam adopts his view totally, and holds it is the halacha. In Chapter 12 he rules out not miracles but changes in nature. A miracle doesn't change nature, it breaks the rules of nature. Water continues to run downhill, but this water doesn't, not because its nature is different but because it's ignoring nature. That, he says, may or may not happen. Changes in nature won't, because Chazal say so. Chazal are silent on whether Moshiach will perform miracles, so we don't know. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From michaelpoppers at gmail.com Sun Oct 15 19:22:08 2017 From: michaelpoppers at gmail.com (Michael Poppers) Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2017 22:22:08 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] =?utf-8?b?4oCcVGltdHVtIEhhLUxlduKAnSBSZWR1eA==?= Message-ID: In Avodah V35n121, R'Micha wrote: > Tangent: The Gra said that "vehayisa akh sameiach" is the hardest mitzvah in the Torah. "Veyahisa sameiach" is one thing, but "akh sameiach"? To be nothing but happy, with no other moods ambivalently mixed in for 8 days (9 in chu"l) straight? < Tangents to the tangent: (a) Perhaps someone can quote "Ma'asei Rav" or the like, but what I've seen quoted *b'sheim GRA* is that the "ach" *d'rasha* in BT Sukka means that on Shmini Chag haAtzeres we're *b'simcha* with H' w/out any *cheftza shel mitzva*, e.g. see here : Perhaps the answer lies in a comment from the Vilna Gaon on the pasuk of ?v?hayisa ach sameiach.? The Gemara (Succah 48a) derives from this pasuk that Shemini Atzeres is included in the mitzvah of simchah. But the word ach generally limits what is being discussed. What are we limiting with ach sameiach? The Gaon explains that whereas Succos requires many mitzvah objects ? a succah, lulav and esrog, hoshanas ? Shemini Atzeres does not require any physical items. We only need to be sameiach. This is the inherent gift of the last day of the Yom Tov. We can?t take the succah and lulav with us after Yom Tov. But the simchah that comes from dveikus with Hashem requires nothing but ourselves, and it is something we can take along with us. (b) Translating "ach" as "nothing but" doesn't explain the YhK "ach" (P'Emor). (c) Another thought on "v'samachta b'chagecha...v'hayisa ach sameach" is that the latter mandate of *simcha* ("ach" or no "ach") seems superfluous and can be considered as a mandate for the entire year (i.e. not just "b'chagecha"). All the best from *Michael Poppers* * Elizabeth, NJ, USA -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From lisa at starways.net Mon Oct 16 00:51:28 2017 From: lisa at starways.net (Lisa Liel) Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2017 10:51:28 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] eitz hachaim In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <61f0b606-b859-4475-eef8-a10489e74f1c@starways.net> On 10/16/2017 12:41 AM, hankman via Avodah wrote: > What exactly was the eitz hachaim all about. The simple pshat doesn't > make any sense. If the purpose of the Gan was to serve Adam then when > would (could) he make use of the eitz hachaim? Kodem hacheit he was > not a bar misah so he had no need of it, after the cheit he was > prevented from accessing it! So when would it ever be useful to Adam? I don't understand the question. He was prevented from accessing it *because* of the cheit. Had he not sinned, you say he would have had no need for it, but who is to say that its only function was to make him live forever. Maybe that's just the function it has for a bar mitah. Or maybe that was its function, and that's *why* he wasn't a bar mitah. Because the eitz ha-chaim was there, and permissible for him to eat. It was only after he'd eaten from the eitz ha-daat that he could no longer be permitted to live forever. That what eating that did to him made eternal life for him a Bad Thing. Lisa From seinfeld at jsli.org Mon Oct 16 07:02:10 2017 From: seinfeld at jsli.org (Alexander Seinfeld) Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2017 10:02:10 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Zecher Liytzias Mitzrayim and Shmini Atzeres In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: It?s a nice vort but couldn?t you ask the same about Shabbos and Rosh Hashana? Isn?t every Yomtov is a Zecher Yetzias Mitzrayim, not for historical reasons but because Yetzias Mitzrayim is the foundation of our emunah (not Har Sinai)? > >>Rashi (B'midbar 29:35) famously tells us that Shmini Atzeres is a special >>time, with just Hashem and Bnei Yisrael together, alone, with no other >>nations around. I'm merely pointing out that it is not just the nations >>who >>are gone: The lulav is gone. The sukkah is gone. Nothing remains but us >>and >>Hashem, when we left the comfort of the miraculous sukkah, trading it for >>being at home in Eretz Yisrael. >> >>Akiva Miller >> >>Postscript: An easy challenge to this post could be that Tishre 22 was >>NOT >>the day that we crossed from the midbar into Eretz Yisrael. I will >>respond >>in advance by pointing out that Shavuos too is not necessarily celebrated >>on the same day as the event it reminds us of. The Zecher can be poetic >>and >>emotional, and need not be so mathematically rigorous. From micha at aishdas.org Mon Oct 16 11:35:11 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2017 14:35:11 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] R. Akiva, Bar Kochba and Zecharya HaNovi In-Reply-To: References: <5AFE790709AC4B0B9FDDB6A6102B7005@hankPC> <0278980f-97ca-2755-caa3-89461ed64e50@sero.name> <20171011143003.GA21995@aishdas.org> <20171011154231.GA6170@aishdas.org> <0e95d039-c074-ae7f-f3ba-3cee64a3d191@sero.name> <20171011171132.GA1028@aishdas.org> <20171015222126.GB14924@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20171016183511.GA2496@aishdas.org> On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 01:15:48AM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : On 15/10/17 18:21, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: :> On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 10:44:53PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: :>: It conflicts because the Y'mi's version of the story has the :>: Chachamim abandoning BK *before* his fall. The Rambam clearly does :>: not agree with that whole version of the story... :> The Y-mi does not say that R' Aqiva was among those who left early. : The Rambam says that R Akiva *and all the sages of his generation* : imagined BK was Moshiach, *until he was killed*. This is not : consistent with the Y'mi. I see what you mean. Again, it is interesting to find out where the Rambam's alternate picture comes from. Just as his "kol" in "vekhol chakhmei dodo" doesn't seem to be Chazal's picture in either shas. E.g. Sanhedrin 93b, "nechzei anan i moreiach veda'ain..." They were still checking out the validity of BK's claim at the time of his death. :> As I said, there is nothing in the Rambam to rule out them following BK :> out of the expectation that he would eventually get there, rather than his :> being hogeh ve'oseiq bemitzvos already. : Then why can't they also have expected him to eventually do : miracles? How does their belief in him, and his lack of miracles, : prove that Moshiach needn't do any? ... To repeat myself: 11:3 talks about following someone despite a lack of miracles. 12:1-2 talks about the necessary absense of at least a particular kind of miracle -- the start of a new natural order -- if not miracles altogether. If you want to talk about needn't do... then you're looking at R' Aqiva and pereq 11. If you want to talk about won't do... then you're looking at pereq 12 and his assumption of Shemu'el's "ein bein" over Rav's shitah. And the list of things that won't happen is necessarily a subset of things that one needn't wait to happen before following the candidate. Possibly a strict subset, possibly identical sets. :>:> But either way -- whether he or the generation was sinful -- it would :>:> show that BK didn't fit the Rambam's descrition of moshiach. :>: How so? He was righteous, and forced people to keep Torah, but :>: they didn't listen, just like Yoshiyahu. :> "Veyakhof" includes "tried and failed"??? That's not quite what the :> Rambam says. : Yachof means to force, to make it the law of the land, and those who : disobey are punished... You're just repeating the insistance that "vayakhof" could include trying to force people and failing. If the punishments don't actually get the majority observing, is it kefiyah? And we have no evidence or even claim of BK ever even having set up a punishment system. Although this too could be part of the picture the Rambam draws that I don't know the sourece for. After all, as per the above, the picture you get from CHazal is that the Sanhedrin and its enforcement system was *not* behind BK, but the Rambam would have them aligned. ... :> Which he didn't. The Sanhedrin doesn't get reorgonized and put on Har :> haBayis. : The Sanhedrin was already organized. There's no requirement that : they return to Lishkas Hagazis until there *is* one, which he does : eventually have to do, but it comes *after* chezkas Moshiach and : fighting the war, which is the stage he was at. Actually, there is strong evidence he at least started building a BHMQ. And while I suppose they didn't have to move in yet, Anshei Keneses haGedolah moved in to a "lishkah" demarkated by curtains! "Chezqas moshiach" isn't a state in-and-of-itself. It's a chazaqah, a legal presumption, that someone is moshiach. A presumption of a status, not a status. IOW, it is likely that among all of beis David, only the mashiach would be hogeh in Torah and oseif bemitzvos, bring the Jews to observance (minimally: by compulsion) "leileikh bahh ulchazeiq bidqah". And therefore, if we find a member of beis David succeeding at these things, we are obligated to act with the understanding that he is mashiach. Thus, it is meaningless to talk about what happens before or after chezqas mashiach, as though it were a real state change. : Again, a "religious revival" means inspiring people to *want* to : keep mitzvos, which is unrelated to *forcing* them to do so. That's yhour own creative read of what kefiyah means. Forcing or not, it implies actual follow-through. BK didn't risk (and in fact lose) the backing of the majority to get a minority sect to join his support. He didn't get the majority to observe -- or even want to keep mitzvos (as per TSBP). :> Again, this is only a problem for you because you assume that the Rambam's :> chazaqah in 11:4 must be the reason for R' Aqiva and other tannaim :> followed BK. : What else could it be? He goes directly from saying that miracles : are not a requirement to listing what things *are* requirements. : Therefore he must have done those things. Requirements for building a chazaqah that the candidate is indeed moshiach. Which is a measure of confidence in BK the Rambam doesn't claim R' Aqiva and his generation reached -- they only reached as far as "hu hayah omer alav" and "vedimah hu". No mention of a chazaqah they were chayavim to follow; in fact, the lashon ("dimah") implied its lack. Chazaqah isn't imagination; it's a presumption strong enough to obligate our acting upon. : What's weak about it? They must have had a reason for this : imagination. What else but the chazaka? And if they thought he : hadn't yet reached that stage then how do we know miracles aren't : required to reach it? Miracles aren't required. Full stop. 12:1 could even be saying they are ruled out. "What else other than the chazaqah"? Indicators that are short of a chazaqah. Don't we follow umdena, ruba deleisa leqaman, and other notions of likelihood without going as far as having a chazaqah in a lot of halachic topics? : You're misreading it. It's not "din", it's *dein*. Dein hu malka : meshicha, this is the Annointed King. "Hadein hu"? Not that important for the main topic, since dimah isn't an expression I would picture the Rambam using for a mandatory following of a chazaqah. :> BTW, where does the Rambam get that "kol chakhmei doro" followed Bar :> Koziva? Is there any indication Rabban Gamliel ever did? R Yochanan b :> Torta replied (in an oft repeated line) "Aqiva, yaalu asavim belechaikh :> ve'adayin ben David lo ba." : He was the lone exception, or nearly so. Because *he* held that : the miracle of judging by smell *was* required, even at the : beginning. The Rambam paskens against him. That is against the stam bavli (in Sanhedrin 93b, quoted above), which says it's Rabbanan. ... : This makes no sense. Either the Rambam agrees with R Akiva's : criteria or he doesn't... Critria for what? I still find you mixing apples and oranges. He uses R' Aqiva's following of BK despite the lack of a chazaqah as proof that we too shouldn't wait for a miracle before following a likely moshiach. He used Shemu'el's position to rule out miracles (or to be generous, maybe only one kind of miracle) being part of the messianic dream altogether. Very consistent picture, IMHO. : In Chapter 12 he rules out not miracles but changes in nature. A : miracle doesn't change nature, it breaks the rules of nature... It is a bitul of something miminhago shel olam, albeit a temporary one. But I have consistently left open the door to saying he's only talking about a subset of miracles; those that leave the running of things changed. I don't find it likely that the Rambam's "yibatel davar" means only permanent bitul, doubly so since it would be redundant with the next line, "o yihyeh sham chidush bemaaseh bereishis". Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger People were created to be loved. micha at aishdas.org Things were created to be used. http://www.aishdas.org The reason why the world is in chaos is that Fax: (270) 514-1507 things are being loved, people are being used. From cantorwolberg at cox.net Wed Oct 18 06:37:17 2017 From: cantorwolberg at cox.net (Richard Wolberg) Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2017 09:37:17 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Interesting Insight on Noach Message-ID: <36805007-8186-42B4-9042-51439D2BB204@cox.net> It has always bothered me that Noah was considered the only righteous person (along with his family) and that everyone else was evil. However, just today as I was studying various commentaries, I came across the following amazing account in Tanchuma, R?eh, 3. From the moment that God gave the Torah, it is only he who sins that will be punished, though before that, the whole generation was responsible for the sin of the individual. Thus there were many righteous men swept away with the deluge in the time of Noah. Hence, since Noah was the ?most? righteous, he was spared although the other righteous were not, as a consequence of collective guilt at that time. rw Inside each of us, there is the seed of both good and evil. It's a constant struggle as to which one will win. And one cannot exist without the other. Eric Burdon > > ?If you live for people?s acceptance, you will > die from their rejection.? > Anonymous From zev at sero.name Wed Oct 18 07:43:32 2017 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2017 10:43:32 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Interesting Insight on Noach In-Reply-To: <36805007-8186-42B4-9042-51439D2BB204@cox.net> References: <36805007-8186-42B4-9042-51439D2BB204@cox.net> Message-ID: On 18/10/17 09:37, Richard Wolberg via Avodah wrote: > However, just today > as I was studying various commentaries, I came across the following amazing > account in Tanchuma, R?eh, 3. > > From the moment that God gave the Torah, it is only he who sins that will be punished, > though before that, the whole generation was responsible for the sin of the individual. > Thus there were many righteous men swept away with the deluge in the time of Noah. > Hence, since Noah was the ?most? righteous, he was spared although the other righteous > were not, as a consequence of collective guilt at that time. According to R Avin, what was Avraham's argument, "chalila lach"? If that had been Hashem's SOP for the past 2050 years, and would be for another 400, why didn't He just tell Avraham "Yes, this is how I do things"? -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From micha at aishdas.org Wed Oct 18 13:25:27 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2017 16:25:27 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Interesting Insight on Noach In-Reply-To: <36805007-8186-42B4-9042-51439D2BB204@cox.net> References: <36805007-8186-42B4-9042-51439D2BB204@cox.net> Message-ID: <20171018202527.GA27560@aishdas.org> On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 09:37:17AM -0400, Richard Wolberg via Avodah wrote: : ... account in Tanchuma, R?eh, 3: :> From the moment that God gave the Torah, it is only he who sins that will :> be punished, though before that, the whole generation was responsible :> for the sin of the individual. Thus there were many righteous men swept :> away with the deluge in the time of Noah. Hence, since Noah was the :> "most" righteous, he was spared although the other righteous were not, :> as a consequence of collective guilt at that time. The text is available at or The siman opens with quoting Eikhah 3:38, "miPi Elyon lo seitzei hara'os vehatov" and then immediately starts with this statement from R' Avin. However, the quote has that after Matan Torah, whomever sins, "HQBH poreia mimenu", and before that, the whole generation "meshaleim chet'o". Arguably this translation might be missing something by leaving the language of Hashem collecting, as though on a debt. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger One doesn't learn mussar to be a tzaddik, micha at aishdas.org but to become a tzaddik. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yisrael Salanter Fax: (270) 514-1507 From hankman at bell.net Wed Oct 18 08:12:50 2017 From: hankman at bell.net (hankman) Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2017 11:12:50 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] R. Akiva, Bar Kochba and Zecharya HaNovi Message-ID: <7B0712E6569740909873C2AD4F89F435@hankPC> R. Micha Berger wrote: ?This doesn't really rule out miracles, but it does rule out ones that leave a permanent change in the natural orer. There is a line. Which is how he rules out the historicity of "vegar ze'eiv im keves..." etc... They don't mearly "needn't" happen, he rules out the possibility of their literal meaning being part of the future, because they cross his line of olam keminhago noheig".? Kodem cheit Adam haReshon, not just Adam was only permitted to eat plant life but so too was the nature of ALL animals that they too only subsisted from plant life ? ie., much like "vegar ze'eiv im keves..." So perhaps olam keminhago noheig means keminhago KODEM HACHET without requiring any change to the ORIGINAL natural order. Kol tuv Chaim Manaster -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hankman at bell.net Wed Oct 18 08:44:50 2017 From: hankman at bell.net (hankman) Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2017 11:44:50 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] =?utf-8?q?=E2=80=9Cthe_miracle_of_judging_by_smell?= =?utf-8?q?=E2=80=9D_was__=28Re=3A__R=2E_Akiva=2C_Bar_Kochba_and_Ze?= =?utf-8?q?charya_HaNovi=29?= Message-ID: ?the miracle of judging by smell? Really should be a knew thread. When we learned this sugia recently in the daf yomi I asked the magid shiur that lechora this was keneged torah which requires eidim for most judgements. He answered that perhaps it means that one smell from Moshiach would be enough to get the person to be modeh al ha?emes. I replied that would only work for judgments in choshen mishpot (hodoas bal din) but not for cases involving arayos, malkos, or misah where two eidim are required and we are not permitted to accept his confession as ein adam meisim atzmo rasha. How would this ?miracle? allow for a proper halachik judgment? That is where we left it for now. Could this meimre of chazal be limited to just cases involving choshen mishpot? I imagine many meforshim address this issue, can anyone clarify? Kol tuv Chaim Manaster -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From JRich at sibson.com Wed Oct 18 08:48:56 2017 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2017 15:48:56 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Shliach Tzibbur Message-ID: <5b1d039d5958444d94f6c90a4607ee17@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> The S"A in O"C 53 discusses what to look for in a Shliach Tzibbur. We seem to not fully actualize these recommendations (rationalizations include the fact that he is no longer being motzi those who can't pray). Do you think this result is sociological or halachic driven? Does an individual (e.g., avel) who pushes to be a shatz, etc., when there are more qualified individuals (or especially if they are not qualified), accomplish more good or bad? See especially Aruch Hashulchan 53:5. KT 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: From micha at aishdas.org Wed Oct 18 14:25:50 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2017 17:25:50 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] R. Akiva, Bar Kochba and Zecharya HaNovi In-Reply-To: <7B0712E6569740909873C2AD4F89F435@hankPC> References: <7B0712E6569740909873C2AD4F89F435@hankPC> Message-ID: <20171018212550.GB27560@aishdas.org> On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 11:12:50AM -0400, hankman via Avodah wrote: : R. Micha Berger wrote: :> This doesn't really rule out miracles, but it does rule out ones that :> leave a permanent change in the natural order. There is a line. Which is :> how he rules out the historicity of "vegar ze'eiv im keves..." etc... ... : Kodem cheit Adam haReshon, not just Adam was only permitted to eat plant : life but so too was the nature of ALL animals that they too only subsisted : from plant life -- ie., much like "vegar ze'eiv im keves..." I doubt the Rambam, the "he" I am trying to understand in the text you quoted, would agree with this premise about animals before the eitz hada'as. On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 11:44:50AM -0400, hankman via Avodah wrote: :> the miracle of judging by smell : Really should be a new thread. : When we learned this sugia recently in the daf yomi I asked the magid : shiur that lechora this was keneged torah which requires eidim for : most judgements. He answered that perhaps it means that one smell from : Moshiach would be enough to get the person to be modeh al ha'emes.... I think it HAS to be be its own thread, because this too works with assumptions the Rambam would not agree with. Odds are the Rambam wouldn't take "demorach" literally. See Lecham Yehudah on Hil' Melakhim 11:3, aveilable at . But to get back on topic to the original thread (which is why I'm posting it here): Notice that the BLY (R Yehudah Iyash, Levorno mid-18th cent) assumes that such guilt-smelling would defy the Rambam's "chidush bema'aseh bereishis" rule, and thus couldn't be literal. Even though it's a localized miracle / revelation and not a permanent change in the natural order. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Every child comes with the message micha at aishdas.org that God is not yet discouraged with http://www.aishdas.org humanity. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rabindranath Tagore From jmeisner at mail.gmail.com Wed Oct 18 15:38:14 2017 From: jmeisner at mail.gmail.com (Joshua Meisner) Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2017 18:38:14 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] "the miracle of judging by smell" was (Re: R. Akiva, Bar Kochba and Zecharya HaNovi) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7C3544D0-F571-4A7C-B067-FDC0308CBD65@gmail.com> On Oct 18, 2017, at 11:44am, hankman wrote: > When we learned this sugia recently in the daf yomi I asked the magid > shiur that lechora this was keneged torah which requires eidim for > most judgements. He answered that perhaps it means that one smell from > Moshiach would be enough to get the person to be modeh al ha'emes. I > replied that would only work for judgments in choshen mishpot (hodoas > bal din) but not for cases involving arayos, malkos, or misah where two > eidim are required and we are not permitted to accept his confession as > ein adam meisim atzmo rasha... Reaching a correct psak in any area of halacha requires obtaining a full picture of the situation, including all relevant details and the particular context. This requires that the posek have skill in asking questions that will clarify these points and recognizing when, intentionally or not, the answers he is receiving do not reflect the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Perhaps it is this sense that the navi is referring to. Joshua Meisner From hankman at bell.net Wed Oct 18 15:58:01 2017 From: hankman at bell.net (hankman) Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2017 18:58:01 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] =?utf-8?q?=E2=80=9Cthe_miracle_of_judging_by_smell?= =?utf-8?q?=E2=80=9D_was__=28Re=3A__R=2E_Akiva=2C_Bar_Kochba_and_Ze?= =?utf-8?q?charya_HaNovi=29?= Message-ID: <83ADB68D660C4A8BA5E0F3D19339FF76@hankPC> R. J. Meisner wrote: ? Reaching a correct psak in any area of halacha requires obtaining a full picture of the situation, including all relevant details and the particular context. This requires that the posek have skill in asking questions that will clarify these points and recognizing when, intentionally or not, the answers he is receiving do not reflect the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Perhaps it is this sense that the navi is referring to. Joshua Meisner? But no matter how skilled the judge is at getting at the truth, even if all he need so is be moreiach, this still does not lessen the requirement of 2 eidim for many judgments. While reading your response to me, another thought occurred to me and upon reflection it may be that this is also what you meant. Perhaps when the gemara stated that he can be moreaiach veda?in that the gemara meant not that he would only need to question the defendant, and could smell whether he is guilty or not and pasken based on the surety of his conclusion, but perhaps the gemara meant that when questioning the EIDIM he was able merely smell them and then judge the credibility of the eidim whether he should accept them as credible or not and thus pasken the case accordingly. Kol tuv Chaim Manaster -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hankman at bell.net Wed Oct 18 15:44:42 2017 From: hankman at bell.net (hankman) Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2017 18:44:42 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] R. Akiva, Bar Kochba and Zecharya HaNovi Message-ID: <36062433D0904BE5ABD5156C727C7A6D@hankPC> R. Micha Berger wrote: ?I doubt the Rambam, the "he" I am trying to understand in the text you quoted, would agree with this premise about animals before the eitz hada'as.? So how does the Rambam explain Bereishis 1:30? Kol tuv Chaim Manaster -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From akivagmiller at gmail.com Thu Oct 19 02:47:09 2017 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2017 05:47:09 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Torah precheit? Message-ID: . R' Chaim Manaster asked: > I have been trying to understand what the geshtalt of Torah > was precheit of the eitz hadaas. It could not have resembled > anything that we ( I ) would recognize today. Consider: > There was but one mitzva. Most if not all the mitzvos of the > Torah we are familiar with could not have existed, at least > as we understand them today. Had Adam been successful in his > one day tafkid the purpose of the bria would have been > accomplished and Adam (mankind) would have gone to olom haba > ? mission accomplished nothing more to follow but for reward > in olom haba. > > The many consequences seem to be as follows: there would be > no avdus in Mitzrayim, therefore no ... ... One can ask similar questions about other turning-points in history. What if Kayin had not killed Hevel? What if the world has not gone to Avodah Zara a few generations later? What if Yishmael and/or Esav had not gone of the derech? What if Moshe Rabenu had acted differently by the rock? I believe that people are too hung up on the idea that "Torah" and the Chumash are identical. They are not. "The Torah has 70 faces", and ONE of them is the written scroll that we read from in shul. Another is the Torah Sheb'al Peh. Another was that one singular mitzvah that Adam HaRishon was given. None is less holy than any other. They are but different facets of the same diamond. And there are yet others. Torah manifests itself differently to a kohen than to a levi, and differently to a woman than to a man. And so on. For example: > As there would never be an Eretz Yisroel, then there would not > be all the mitzvot hateltuot ba?aretz ? trumos, masros etc., etc. Or perhaps Gan Eden would have had that status. Eretz Yisrael is actually a great example: Consider the idea that true nevuah can exist only in Eretz Yisrael. But also consider that this restriction only started when EY got its kedushah - prior to that point one could have nevuah elsewhere too. Logically, I would think that the kedusha of EY enabled this thing that couldn't exist without such intense kedusha; but counter-intuitively, this thing that has long existed is now suddenly restricted to a specific area. Because times change, and people change; the Torah stays the same but it shows a different face. We are so used to how things are today, that we think things have always been this way. But it ain't so. > So what is the nature of Torah in such a world. How do we > see it as an ever constant ever present and unchanging > Torah? How does a Torah with but ONE mitzva look? How does > it still identify with a Torah with 613 mitzvot? There are many mitzvos that apply only at specifc times and under specific circumstances. Consider the back-and-forth of when bamos were allowed and not allowed. We went for quite a few centuries with choosing a human king. I am deliberately trying to avoid mitzvos that have sociological criteria, like the existence of a Sanhedrin, or whether or not we are capable of tochacha. Rather, my point goes to this "Torah with 613 mitzvot" that you refer to. It doesn't exist today, and I don't know if it ever has existed. There has certainly never been a person to whom they all applied, and I wonder whether there was ever a generation when they were all in force. > Sorry if my thoughts were very rambling. I just typed as > things came to mind ? maybe not always a good idea! On the contrary, brainstorming is often a fruitful way of developing new thoughts! Personally, it was many decades ago that someone asked me, "If there is life on other planets, might they possibly have a Torah? But Mitzrayim doesn't exist there, and Moshe never lived there!" That question bothered me for a very long time, until I realized that even on *this* planet, Noach had his version of Torah, and that was centuries before Mitzrayim or Moshe came to be. (To conflate two threads, I think what I'm saying here is very similar to what R"n Lisa Liel wrote in the "eitz hachaim" thread. These things aren't static; their roles change to fit the situation.) Akiva Miller From zev at sero.name Wed Oct 18 20:54:50 2017 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2017 23:54:50 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] =?utf-8?q?=E2=80=9Cthe_miracle_of_judging_by_smell?= =?utf-8?q?=E2=80=9D_was_=28Re=3A_R=2E_Akiva=2C_Bar_Kochba_and_Zecharya_Ha?= =?utf-8?q?Novi=29?= In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <209038db-6620-b1cf-4e52-1b093803ac7d@sero.name> On 18/10/17 11:44, hankman via Avodah wrote: > ?the miracle of judging by smell? > Really should be a knew thread. > When we learned this sugia recently in the daf yomi I asked the magid > shiur that lechora this was keneged torah which requires eidim for most > judgements. Moshiach is a melech, and not bound by the rules of a beis din. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From micha at aishdas.org Wed Oct 18 19:40:28 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2017 22:40:28 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] R. Akiva, Bar Kochba and Zecharya HaNovi In-Reply-To: <36062433D0904BE5ABD5156C727C7A6D@hankPC> References: <36062433D0904BE5ABD5156C727C7A6D@hankPC> Message-ID: <20171019024028.GB20212@aishdas.org> On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 06:44:42PM -0400, hankman via Avodah wrote: : R. Micha Berger wrote: :> I doubt the Rambam, the "he" I am trying to understand in the text :> you quoted, would agree with this premise about animals before the :> eitz hada'as. : So how does the Rambam explain Bereishis 1:30? Well, if you look at Moreh 1:30, you'll see that the Rambam considers maaseh bereishis to be atemporal, 6 logical stages of unfolding of reality, not steps separated in time. So I don't know if I should assume anything about how he reads pasuq 30. But I do note that if taken literally, the pasuq merely says that Hashem gave the plants to the animals for food. A statement about one of the functions of plantsl and that Adam can't hord all the plants for himself, since animals need it too. It needn't mean that only plants served a food. The statement from Chazal (quoted by Rashi) is a derashah. The Ohr haChaim spends time justifying it, if you want to see the medrashic steps in detail. But it's not peshat, and therefore not necessarily the Rambam would take literally. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger There's only one corner of the universe micha at aishdas.org you can be certain of improving, http://www.aishdas.org and that's your own self. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Aldous Huxley From zev at sero.name Wed Oct 18 21:51:32 2017 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2017 00:51:32 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Interesting Insight on Noach In-Reply-To: <2E736CF9-84CD-41DB-9963-8E38B681DC20@cox.net> References: <36805007-8186-42B4-9042-51439D2BB204@cox.net> <2E736CF9-84CD-41DB-9963-8E38B681DC20@cox.net> Message-ID: <18439702-d4ae-0f50-3350-a8b5cd433fb5@sero.name> On 18/10/17 11:09, Richard Wolberg wrote: > What I?m saying is that our theology is fraught with inconsistencies and > contradictions > and we have plenty of ?teikusl? ?You?re a black and white person and > don?t see shades. > Not everything can be reconciled. Impossible. Toras Hashem Temima, and can't contradict itself. If there are two pesukim that seem to contradict each other, there's a third pasuk that resolves it and makes sense of both. It's not possible that R Avin was unaware of Avraham's statement, nor is it possible that he would dismiss Avraham's view as mistaken. Therefore there must be something in R Avin's view that's not what it appears. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From JRich at sibson.com Fri Oct 20 05:37:21 2017 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2017 12:37:21 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] empiricism Message-ID: <17851b0cb6514f5a8fac7543e7d86493@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Rabbi Jason Weiner's, "Jewish Guide to Practical Medical Decision-Making" - "The Talmudic sages performed post-mortem examinations and had considerable knowledge of anatomy and pathology. Indeed, the rabbis of the Talmud were among the first people in history to operate on corpses in order to learn medical information that had halakhic ramifications. See Tosefta Niddah 4:17, Niddah 30b, bekhorot 45A . . ". Wiki s- Initially, the Ancient Greek philosophers did not believe in empiricism, and saw measurements, such as geometry, as the domain of craftsmen and artisans. Philosophers, such as Plato, believed that all knowledge could be obtained through pure reasoning, and that there was no need to actually go out and measure anything. Please look at the three sources quoted by R'Weiner, are they support or really maaseh lstormaaseh l'stor as to a general approach? Kt 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: From emteitz at gmail.com Fri Oct 20 14:49:21 2017 From: emteitz at gmail.com (elazar teitz) Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2017 17:49:21 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] the miracle of judging by smell Message-ID: On this topic, the comment was made that "Moshiach is a melech, and not bound by the rules of a beis din." However, other than moreid b'malchus, this is only true for r'tzicha, not other capital punishment cases, as is indicated in Rambam Hilchos M'lachim 3:10 (as it is understood by most m'farshim). EMT -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From isaac at balb.in Sat Oct 21 04:07:43 2017 From: isaac at balb.in (Isaac Balbin) Date: Sat, 21 Oct 2017 11:07:43 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] ?the miracle of judging by smell? was (Re: R. Akiva, Bar Kochba and Zecharya HaNovi) Message-ID: From: Zev Sero > > On 18/10/17 11:44, hankman via Avodah wrote: >> When we learned this sugia recently in the daf yomi I asked the magid >> shiur that lechora this was keneged torah which requires eidim for most >> judgements. Zev responded > Moshiach is a melech, and not bound by the rules of a beis din. Indeed. His position therefore also invalidates Moshiach from being a formal witness, although that's clearly not for trust/smell issues. From micha at aishdas.org Sun Oct 22 07:20:34 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2017 10:20:34 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Long Lifespans in Bereishis Message-ID: <20171022142033.GA669@aishdas.org> Our old chaver R' Rich Wolpoe posted this article by R/Dr Mitchell First. It's a nice survey of opinions about all those long lifespans in seifer Bereishis : NishmaBlog From RRW Guest Blogger: Mitchell First Thursday, 19 October 2017 The Long Lifespans in Genesis The Longevity of the Ancients Recorded in Genesis ... Josephus (late 1st century). Here is his statement in Antiquities, book I: " ...For, in the first place, they were beloved of God and the creatures of God himself; their diet too was more conducive to longevity: it was then natural that they should live so long. Again, alike for their merits and to promote the utility of their discoveries in astronomy and geometry, God would accord them a longer life...." Now I will survey the views of our Geonim and Rishonim. R. Saadiah Gaon (10th cent.) discusses this issue in his introduction to Tehillim. He writes that the longevity of these early generations was part of God's plan for the rapid proliferation of mankind on the earth..... R. Yehudah Ha-Levi (12th cent.) discusses the issue in the Kuzari (sec. 95). He believes that it was only the individuals listed who lived long. Each of the individuals listed was the heart and essence of his generation and was physically and spiritually perfect. The Divine Flow was transmitted from one generation to another through these exceptional individuals. Rambam, in a famous passage in the Guide to the Perplexed (II, chap. 47) writes: "I say that only the persons named lived so long, whilst other people enjoyed the ordinary length of life. The men named were exceptions, either in consequence of different causes, as e.g., their food or mode of living, or by way of miracle." Ramban (comm. to Gen. 5:4) quotes Rambam's view and then disagrees, ... individuals with long lifespans named in the Bible were not exceptional in their lifespans. Rather, the entire world had long lifespans before the Flood. But after the Flood, the world atmosphere changed and this caused the gradual reduction in lifespans. Most of the Rishonim who discussed the issue thereafter followed the approach of either the Rambam or the Ramban. Either way, they were taking the Genesis lifespan numbers literally. (An underlying factor that motivated Rishonim to accept the Genesis lifespan numbers literally was that the count from creation was calculated based on these numbers.) Josephus had mentioned that one of the reasons that God allowed their longevity was to promote the utility of their discoveries in astronomy and geometry. This idea of longevity to enable the acquisition of knowledge and make discoveries (and write them to be passed down) is also included in several of our Rishonim. See, e.g., the commentary of the Radak to Gen. 5:4 and of the Ralbag to Gen. chap. 5 (p. 136), and the Rashbatz (R. Shimon b. Tzemach Duran, Magen Avot, comm. to Avot 5:21). Rashbatz also mentions the idea that the early generations were close in time to Adam and Adam ... was made by God from the earth.... Another idea found in some of our Rishonim is that those early individuals did not chase after "ta'avat ha-guf," which reduces the lifespan. See, e.g., the commentary of the Radak to Gen. 5:4. ... ... R. Moses Ibn Tibbon (late 13th cent.) He suggests that the years given for people's lives were actually the years of "malkhutam ve-nimuseihim," i.e., the dynasties and/or customs that they established. ... R. Levi ben Hayyim (early 14th cent.).... concludes that in his opinion the names mentioned were just roshei avot. In other words, the number of years given for each individual reflects the total of the years of the several generations of individuals named for that first individual. R. Nissim of Marseilles (early 14th century) ... took the same approach as R. Moses Ibn Tibbon. The numbers ... included the total years of the descendants who followed his customs and lifestyle. The most interesting approach I saw was that of R. Eleazar Ashkenazi ben Nathan ha-Bavli (14th century), in his work Tzafnat Paneach, pp. 29-30. ... First, R. Eleazar refers to the view that perhaps the individual numbers were not to be taken literally, and points to other statements in the Torah that were not meant to be taken literally, e.g., 1) the Land of Israel was "flowing with milk and honey," and 2) the cities in Canaan were "fortified up to the Heaven" (Deut. 1:28). (See further Moreh Nevuchim, II,47.) But then R. Eleazar suggests the following creative approach. In listing these individual numbers, the Torah was merely recording the legends about these figures, even though they were not accurate. The important thing was to provide data from which the total years from Creation to Matan Torah could be derived, so that the people would be able to know the length of time between these two periods. Even though the numbers for the individual lifespans were not accurate, the Torah made sure that the total that would be arrived at would be accurate.... ... Prof. Natan Aviezer of Bar-Ilan University.... in a post at the Bar Ilan University weekly parshah site for parshat Noach, 1998... explains that modern science has figured out that aging is largely caused by genes, and not by a wearing out of our bodies. He then suggests that when God stated at Gen. 6:3 that man would be limited to 120 years, this was when God first introduced the gene for aging into the human gene pool. If you have not found any of the above answers satisfying, I have some good news. R. Saadiah Gaon writes (Emunot Ve-Deot, end of chap. 7) that in the era of the redemption the human lifespan will be approximately 500 years. Presumably, at that time we won't be bothered by those long lifespans in Genesis anymore! (Note that Radak, comm. to Is. 65:20, is a bit stingier. He predicts lifespans of only 300 to 500 years. See also his commentary to Ps. 92:15. But the 12th century Babylonian Gaon R. Samuel b. Ali predicts lifespans closer to 1000 years!) I would like to acknowledge that most of the material above came from an article by Prof. Daniel Lasker of Ben-Gurion University, in Mechkarim Be-Halakha U-Be-Mishpat Ha-Ivri, vol. 26-27 (2009-10). Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger I slept and dreamt that life was joy. micha at aishdas.org I awoke and found that life was duty. http://www.aishdas.org I worked and, behold -- duty is joy. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rabindranath Tagore From micha at aishdas.org Sun Oct 22 09:13:16 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2017 12:13:16 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Beris Milah on Shabbos when Father isn't Jewish Message-ID: <20171022161316.GA32328@aishdas.org> I mentioned in the past I had this question halakhah lemaaseh. I knew of an intermarried couple who lived nowhere near the nearest Jewish community. They would have just had the boy circumcized in the hospital rather than to pay what one of the nearer mohalim wanted to come down for the weekend. Yes, the nearest Chabad house had a mohel, who (of course) would come at cost... IFF he hadn't had a beris in his own minhan that same Shabbos. So the question I asked was whether I should donate (or raise donations) for the beris to be bizmano. My LOR asked his rav... long story short, as I best remember at a little more than two decades later: The pasuq says "bayom hashemini yimol besar arlaso" -- it's the father who is told "on the eight day", even if it's on Shabbos. Implied: If the father has no chiyuv, such as our case or if r"l the father didn't survive to see his son's beris, there is no one whose chiyuv overrides Shabbos. (If the father is alive but not there, you'd still violate Shabbos.) Well, someone asked R' Asher Weiss. . He didn't rule the same way, but does mention that is -- or at least was -- a machloqes amoraim. However, RAW holds a consensus has emerged to do the beris. Perhaps RDC didn't think the consensus was solid enough to warrant my spending or raising that kind of money for someone else's beris. Or perhaps it was closer to the way I remembered it and RDC doesn't agree with how the consensus emerged. Brit mila on Shabbos when father is non Jew Posted by: Rabbi Akiva Dershowitz Question: Does everyone agree that a brit is done on Shabbat even if the father is a goy? ... Answer: No, this is a dispute among the achronim [halachic authorities of the last 500 years]. The halachic ruling is that we do in fact perform the bris mila on Shabbos. See Derisha Y:D 266:20, Nachalas Shiva [kuntress hamila siman 1], Shu't Binyan Tzion [Vol. 1:21]. The nearest I could find in Hebrew (as the Hebrew always has more discussion) is "Beris beShabbos leVen Me'uberes sheNisgayrah" at . There the question is whether the velad's milah is a normal beris or lesheim geirus, and RAW still holds the milah should be on Shabbos. It's a fun sugya, worth a read. But doesn't focus on our question. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger You cannot propel yourself forward micha at aishdas.org by patting yourself on the back. http://www.aishdas.org -Anonymous Fax: (270) 514-1507 From hankman at bell.net Sun Oct 22 13:15:49 2017 From: hankman at bell.net (hankman) Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2017 16:15:49 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Torah precheit? Message-ID: <39266980A1C24F078B1904F1783BA1C0@hankPC> R. Akiva Miller wrote: ?One can ask similar questions about other turning-points in history. What if Kayin had not killed Hevel? What if the world has not gone to Avodah Zara a few generations later? What if Yishmael and/or Esav had not gone of the derech? What if Moshe Rabenu had acted differently by the rock?? Actually I had thoughts along similar lines that you express. The most prominent such turning point was the cheit ha?eigel, where again, had they succeeded, that again would have been the end for man?s tafkid and correction the cheit of Adam, direct route to eretz Yisroel, no forty years in the midbar and presumably Moshe R. would have been the final moshiach and on to the final gemul. The reason these two stick in my mind more than the other forks in history you point to, is that these would have been endpoints to the tafkid in this world and led directly to olom haba with no continuation of the ?Torah? story we are familiar with. The moments in history you point to would have been forks in the road but not endpoints. So if say Esau/Yishmoel had made good choices and been more like his brother Yaakov/Yitzchok, the story would have had a different twist to it, but the overall gestalt to the Torah could still have been quite similar. What we have now, with some changes. But we would have no problem imagining all (perhaps most) of the mitzvos as we know them. These two, cheit of Adam and cheit ha?eigel, were fundamentally different than the other ?forks? in the road as what we know to have followed would never happen. So Regalim, and avdus in Mitzrayim, etc, etc are ideas that seem not to have a place in such a reality had Adam succeeded while the other forks would have led to a variation on a theme we are familiar with and can at least readily imagine. The idea you mention of ?70 panim latorah? would have to be expanded greatly if for every fork on the possible choices made in the biblical period (by this I mean the time through the end of the forty years bamidbar that were recorded in chumash). If every possible choice made at every fork (say N) resulted in a diff version of Torah, then that would result in 2 to the N panim laTorah ? with N being very large! Perhaps 70 is just a synonym for ?many?? When we say that there are 70 umos, I always wondered how that was defined, as it seems to me that there are many more and that the number would change for different periods in history. If 70 here too means ?many? that would clear that up. But then the precise number of 70 for the parei hachag might be a problem unless for some reason that may have been fixed symbolically, or perhaps to coincide with the original number at some early point in history as say per the list of the 70 nations Art Scroll makes in its chumash at the end of this weeks parsha (Noach). Basically it is a listing of certain of the names of descendants of Noach. Have you ever heard of a nation called Ever (or most of the other names they list)? So is the ?essence? of Torah something beyond our ken. Is all we can see just a single facet of the 70 panim laTorah? (This of course is not the normal meaning to 70 panim laTorah, which usually is applied to differing explanations to our ?current? Torah, and not the other ?possible? ?Toros? as you are suggesting. Is this so far off the beaten path that this might even be an accidental trip into thought that might be apikursus or a credible notion within the daas? (Torah lo yehai moochlefes). I have no idea! R. Akiva Miller wrote: ?Torah manifests itself differently to a kohen than to a levi, and differently to a woman than to a man.? There is a fundamental difference between a mitzvoh only applying to some vs the concept not existing. Even if I am a Yisroel I can still be oseik in torah of the mitvos of a cohen ? it is still a part of Torah given to all of us even if not all of it pertains to me. R. Akiva Miller wrote: ?Or perhaps Gan Eden would have had that status.? I actually had a thought similar to yours as well on this idea. When I thought a little more about it, I had difficulty putting it all together. so what kind of meaning would trummos and massros have. What would orlo mean. Without aniyim, what is the point of leket shichacha upei?a? (or tzedaka in general, or even more broadly of gemila chasadim in such a world?) The mitzvos hatelyuous ba?aretz only make sense in an agricultural society, not in a world of olam haba where there are no farmers or farms. No need for orei miklat in a world without a yetzer. On another thought, would the notion of baal tigra in the world of only one mitzva leave you with no mitvos at all? That would make one a kofer bekol haTorah koola? Also there would be no need for lo tassur yamin usemol for gezeirot derabanan in such a world (though perhaps it might have stopped Chava if such a takana existed to protect the only mitzvoh they had). R. Akiva Miller wrote: ?"If there is life on other planets, might they possibly have a Torah? But Mitzrayim doesn't exist there, and Moshe never lived there!" That question bothered me for a very long time,? Strangely enough, I had similar thoughts years back. As a young bachur in yeshivo, my rebbi was teaching us that their was a period during which the progenitor of kelal Yisroel would happen. I asked what would have happened if there had been another deep thinker who came to the same realization and belief that Avraham did. He answered that there would have been two (or more) chosen peoples to eventually be mekabel Torah. It didn?t occur to me at the time to ask, would they each have the ?same? Torah or each get a tailored version to their (eventual) am? Or, would there be one Torah that talks of both of the chosen peoples? Years later when discussing what is the purpose to us of the trillions of stars and galaxies so distant that they could never possibly affect us here on Earth? Then it occurred to me, what if those stars had planets with intelligent beings on them and they too went through a similar period wherein they too had some allien being come to the same conclusions as Avraham did and they then became the chosen people of that planet and received a Torah possibly tailored to their experiences and appropriate there etc.? This almost makes sense of the questions the malachim asked Moshe when he went lamorom to accept Torah. They too wanted Torah in a version suitable to them which would deflect all of Moshe?s responses. If memory serves, I think some meforshim try to make sense of the malachim in such a manner. Just some more rambling thoughts. Kol tuv Chaim Manaster -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hankman at bell.net Sun Oct 22 23:25:10 2017 From: hankman at bell.net (hankman) Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2017 02:25:10 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] =?utf-8?q?=E2=80=9Cthe_miracle_of_judging_by_smell?= =?utf-8?q?=E2=80=9D_was_=28Re=3A_R=2E_Akiva=2C_Bar_Kochba_and_Zech?= =?utf-8?q?arya_HaNovi=29?= Message-ID: <7D7387F31006477FA724C733A37A100B@hankPC> R. Zev Sero wrote: ?Moshiach is a melech, and not bound by the rules of a beis din.? You are obviously referring to Rambam, Melachim P. 3: 8, 10. However this refers to judgments that are within the scope of the Melech such as a moreid, or letakein ha?olom kefi ma shehasho?o tzricha. This does not however give him the right to usurp ordinary judgments that normally would fall to a beis din (and disregard such niceties as eidus that the Torah requires), unless he is the av beis din (possible for malchei beis Dovid) and does follow the rules of Torah for eidus like any other beis din and does not simply follow his nose in these judgments. Furthermore, in the category of cases like moreid and shehasho?o tzricha, all the Melech needs to do is simply assert his position as he feels correct for ANY Melech ? he does not even need the power of moreiach veda?in to prove his position. So mimonafshoch, in either case he either may not, or has no need of the power to be moreiach veda?in. Kol tuv Chaim Manaster -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Mon Oct 23 13:16:56 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2017 16:16:56 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] =?cp1255?q?=93the_miracle_of_judging_by_smell=94_was_?= =?cp1255?q?=28Re=3A_R=2E_Akiva=2C_Bar_Kochba_and_Zecharya_HaNovi=29?= In-Reply-To: <7D7387F31006477FA724C733A37A100B@hankPC> References: <7D7387F31006477FA724C733A37A100B@hankPC> Message-ID: <20171023201656.GA13749@aishdas.org> On Mon, Oct 23, 2017 at 02:25:10AM -0400, hankman via Avodah wrote: : . Furthermore, : in the category of cases like moreid and shehasho'o tzricha, all the : Melech needs to do is simply assert his position as he feels correct : for ANY Melech -- he does not even need the power of moreiach veda'in to : prove his position. So mimonafshoch, in either case he either may not, : or has no need of the power to be moreiach veda'in. If I understood the Rambam this way: It would be good to have a king who knows with certainty which dinim need shoring up because he can smell that their violation is rampant. Or, in determining the convicted's guilt: Let's say some sin became common place, and hasha'ah zerikhah that the king enforce a capital punishment for it. But say I understand him as per REMT's post, noting that in 3:10 the Rambam singles out the king's power to kill murderers (eg without hasda'ah, where there was only eid echad, etc...) -- implying that retzichah yes, other issurim, the king could not. (Mikelal lav...) 3:8 really only discussed rebellion and lesse majeste (moreid bemekeh and mevazeh es hamelekh o hamchorfo). I don't see hasha'ah tzeikhah in the Rambam; I'm taking your word for it. Still, I can ask the parallel question: Wouldn't if be far far better if the melekh hamashiach had a supernal ability to know who is really guilty, and not kill the wrong guy? He might not legally need the power, but it would be a good thing for a king to have in order to be effective and fair. So I'm not sure your argument holds. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Every child comes with the message micha at aishdas.org that God is not yet discouraged with http://www.aishdas.org humanity. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rabindranath Tagore From micha at aishdas.org Mon Oct 23 18:51:25 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2017 21:51:25 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] No Barrier Between Religion and Science Message-ID: <20171024015125.GA13043@aishdas.org> See this article on Real Clear Science or http://www.realclearscience.com/articles/2017/10/16/philosophy_rebuts_key_barrier_between_science_and_religion_110422.htmlh Here is Mosaic Magazine's snippet: Kuhn's [argument] is that students learn first by imitation and practice and -- assuming they receive a good education -- once they strike out on their own, they will have been successfully inculcated into a particular scientific tradition. They will thus be prepared to recognize, pose, and solve scientific problems. If we take tradition to be antithetical to scientific rationality, Kuhn's conclusions will appear disquieting. And, indeed, Kuhn's critics rejected his arguments as "irrationalist." But if, on the contrary, we take tradition to be essential to rationality, then Kuhn's conclusions will be not only acceptable but also unsurprising. According to the moral philosopher Alasdair MacIntyre, before we can begin to reason at all, we must first acquire the habits necessary to recognize and, ultimately, to replicate rational behavior. To do so, there must first be exemplars that we take to be authoritative -- in the moral domain these will be exceptionally virtuous people, in the scientific domain, exceptionally good scientists. To become rational, in other words, one must be educated within a tradition of inquiry. Science, on this view, is not Cartesian -- at least as far as [the rejection of received ideas] is concerned -- even if it remains eminently rational. Where does this leave us?... [T]he fact that religious beliefs are not entirely reducible to empirical experience and partly depend upon tradition doesn't make them irrational or even anti-scientific. Thus a popular way of opposing science and religion starts to look untenable. This hardly means the two become indistinguishable. But it does suggest that science and religion could be conceived of as distinct -- but possibly harmonious, even sometimes mutually beneficial -- traditions of rational inquiry. The truth is that science has little to say about where a hypothesis come from. It gives little guidance for deciding what features are worth observing, what we should give our attention to. And once we see a pattern that needs explanation, it is left to human creativity to come up with a hypothesis. Science is a means of weeding out subjectivity from possible answers, but the means of coming up with those answers are very human. In particular, the entire enteprise of science rests on a tradition of theism -- whether the personal beliefs of an Aristotle or Newton, or the culture that produced an Einstein. Without a personal reason for assuming that the universe opperates reasonably, rather than attributing lightning to Thor's or Zeus's moods, can that hypothesis invention get started. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Good decisions come from experience; micha at aishdas.org Experience comes from bad decisions. http://www.aishdas.org - Djoha, from a Sepharadi fable Fax: (270) 514-1507 From hankman at bell.net Mon Oct 23 20:57:36 2017 From: hankman at bell.net (hankman) Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2017 23:57:36 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] "the miracle of judging by smell" was (Re: R. Akiva, Bar Kochba and Zecharya HaNovi) In-Reply-To: <20171023201656.GA13749@aishdas.org> References: <7D7387F31006477FA724C733A37A100B@hankPC> <20171023201656.GA13749@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <7FA394F42CCE44ECBB668DFA42362B96@hankPC> From: Micha Berger Sent: Monday, October 23, 2017 4:16 PM > But say I understand him as per REMT's post, noting that in 3:10 the > Rambam singles out the king's power to kill murderers (eg without > hasda'ah, where there was only eid echad, etc...) -- implying that > retzichah yes, other issurim, the king could not. (Mikelal lav...) > 3:8 really only discussed rebellion and lesse majeste (moreid bemekeh > and mevazeh es hamelekh o hamchorfo). I don't see hasha'ah tzeikhah in > the Rambam; I'm taking your word for it. Still, I can ask the parallel > question: > Wouldn't if be far far better if the melekh hamashiach had a supernal > ability to know who is really guilty, and not kill the wrong guy? > He might not legally need the power, but it would be a good thing for a > king to have in order to be effective and fair. My own initial impression unlike REMT is that the Rambam in 3:10 was not limiting this to only rotzeach, but dealing with case of max punishment or similar punishment and kal vechomer for cases of lesser punishment, however on rereading the Rambam after reading REMT I can see his point of view, but I am not sure I am fully convinced. I did a quick look around and found that the Or Sameiach on the Rambam at 3:10 has a long discussion on this issue as to whether the melech only has this power for a rotzeach where it is a danger to the rabim but not to enforce laxity of bein adam lamokom such as dinei shabbos, or if there was a breach even in these other areas whether the melech could act extra judicially there as well. There is a reference to a Y. Sanhedrin that implies that Dovid hamelech wold have executed for mishkav behama al pi eid echod -- so not just rotzeiach. See also the Rambam H. Rotzeiach P 2:4-5 where he broadens this extra judicial power to beis din as well but under horoas sha'o rather than takonas olam. (Not sure if the different label implies a difference in the respective extra judicial powers or not). See the Kesef Mishna there who mentions a case of chilul Shabbos. My simple reading there is that the Rambam seem to equate the reach of the extra judicial power of b"d to that of the melech to punish when found necessary either due to horo'as shao or takonas olam respectively. (Not clear to me if the different reasons lead to a different scope or not). But it seems that yeish lekan veyeish lekan. I hear your point about moreiach being a good reassurance that his pesak is correct even if not really necessary to render his judgment. Kol tuv Chaim Manaster From micha at aishdas.org Tue Oct 24 06:38:55 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2017 09:38:55 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Psak source wanted In-Reply-To: <1857240052.122258.1508054451353@mail.yahoo.com> References: <1857240052.122258.1508054451353.ref@mail.yahoo.com> <1857240052.122258.1508054451353@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20171024133855.GB25244@aishdas.org> On Sun, Oct 15, 2017 at 08:00:51AM +0000, Motti Yarchinai via Avodah wrote: : It is similar to what the Rambam wrote in Hilchot Kiddush Hachodesh, : saying that in all calendric matters, we follow the lead of the chachmei : eretz yisrael, and even though the anshei hagolah know the calculations : used by them, it is not on our own calculations that we rely, we only : use those calculations because we know that they are the same as the : calculations used by the chachmei eretz yisrael... : Another posek (possibly the Tifferet Yisrael in Shvilei Harakia, but : I'm not sure of that), writes something similar... Did you ever find a source? Google, Bar Ilan and I didn't turn anything up. In practice, we follow the calculations of R' Saaadia Gaon, who was in Aleppo at the time, and not R Aaron Ben-Meir in Y-m ih"q. The big debate of 922 was the topic of an article by RYGB and RAZZ reposted here . The Rambam (Qiddush haChodesh 1:8) limits the authority to someone in EY ("ki miTzion teitzei Sorah...") or if the one clearly most able to do it received semichah in EY, he can continue setting the months and ibur shanos in chu"l -- until someone of comparable stature arises in EY. This seems taylor-made for R Saadia Gaon, who went to yeshiva in Teveriah. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Never must we think that the Jewish element micha at aishdas.org in us could exist without the human element http://www.aishdas.org or vice versa. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch From sholom at aishdas.org Tue Oct 24 12:50:00 2017 From: sholom at aishdas.org (Sholom Simon) Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2017 15:50:00 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Long Lifespans in Bereishis In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <588c56c0dc1eedd39e7bb464810c5cea@aishdas.org> Thanks, RMB, for posting that article. Re the views of R. Moses Ibn Tibbon, et al, who don't take those ages literally on a single person -- is that (along the lines of an off-line conversation we had) a "kosher view" these days? Or, is it one of those views that, the way R Noson Slifkin puts it: they are allowed to have those views, but we aren't? On a different, but related issue, to the chevra: The list of generations in parshas Bereshis are generally of the form: * X was 50 years old when he fathered Y. * X lived 450 years after he fathered Y and had sons and daughters * X lived to the age of 500 years. Doesn't that seem a bit redundant? And, in fact, most (all?) of the generations listed in parshas Noach skip the third phrase. Thoughts? -- Sholom -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hankman at bell.net Tue Oct 24 15:28:28 2017 From: hankman at bell.net (hankman) Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2017 18:28:28 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Long Lifespans in Bereishis Message-ID: <9DE9360C549C46879FBF7291563A9387@hankPC> >From the summary of opinions posted by RMB on lifespans in Bereishis and some comments: ?R. Saadiah Gaon (10th cent.) discusses this issue in his introduction to Tehillim. He writes that the longevity of these early generations was part of God's plan for the rapid proliferation of mankind on the earth.....? Not the biggest kashe in the world, but why then would they start to have children at an advanced age if rapid proliferation was the goal? Perhaps with great longevity came a much longer period for sexual maturation? If true would that also mean that intellectual maturation took much longer as well? ?R. Yehudah Ha-Levi (12th cent.) discusses the issue in the Kuzari (sec. 95). He believes that it was only the individuals listed who lived long. Each of the individuals listed was the heart and essence of his generation and was physically and spiritually perfect. The Divine Flow was transmitted from one generation to another through these exceptional individuals.? How does R. Yehudah Ha-Levi deal with Terach who was an idolator? Clearly he was not spiritually perfect. ?... R. Moses Ibn Tibbon (late 13th cent.) He suggests that the years given for people's lives were actually the years of "malkhutam ve-nimuseihim," i.e., the dynasties and/or customs that they established.? This comment will apply to R. Nissim of Marseilles as well. I presume they held that people had what we today would consider a normal life span. this would mean they were not having the first born at the advanced age of over one hundred. Thus the named son must have been a later generation descendant. (I assume that they did not generate a son in their old age and die shortly thereafter as was the case with Boaz). So if their life spans were similar to ours then was Shes really not a son of Adam but really a descendant several generations down? Ditto for Ennosh, was he really a great ... grandson of Sheis? But this notion of the the years given in Bereishis not pertaining to one single man, but to a dynasty of several generations of normal life span, runs into difficulty with Noach and his 3 sons. If we follow suit with this notion then Shem, Cham and Yefes were not his sons but descendants born 500 years later. Yet they all went into the Teiva together? So how is that a normal life span for Noach? Why weren?t the generations between Noach and Shem, Cham and Yefes saved as well? When the Torah says ?vayoled es X? that is not to be taken literally but just to mean a later descendant chosen to be named in the lineage? ? R. Saadiah Gaon writes (Emunot Ve-Deot, end of chap. 7) that in the era of the redemption the human lifespan will be approximately 500 years. Presumably, at that time we won't be bothered by those long lifespans in Genesis anymore! (Note that Radak, comm. to Is. 65:20, is a bit stingier. He predicts lifespans of only 300 to 500 years. See also his commentary to Ps. 92:15. But the 12th century Babylonian Gaon R. Samuel b. Ali predicts lifespans closer to 1000 years!)? This quote leads to an issue I will expand upon slightly in another post. But the basic issue is if the world is Charuv at 6000 years and yemos Moshiach are before the olom is charuv, (while olom keminhago noheig) there is not enough time left (we are now 5778) for a life span of 300 to 500 years let alone 1000 years. Kol tuv Chaim Manaster -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Wed Oct 25 04:13:32 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2017 07:13:32 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Long Lifespans in Bereishis In-Reply-To: <9DE9360C549C46879FBF7291563A9387@hankPC> References: <9DE9360C549C46879FBF7291563A9387@hankPC> Message-ID: <20171025111332.GC22254@aishdas.org> On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 06:28:28PM -0400, hankman (RVM) wrote: : > (Note that Radak, comm. to Is. 65:20, is a bit stingier. He predicts : > lifespans of only 300 to 500 years. See also his commentary to : > Ps. 92:15. But the 12th century Babylonian Gaon R. Samuel b. Ali : > predicts lifespans closer to 1000 years!)" : This quote leads to an issue I will expand upon slightly in another : post. But the basic issue is if the world is Charuv at 6000 years and : yemos Moshiach are before the olom is charuv, (while olom keminhago : noheig) there is not enough time left (we are now 5778) for a life span : of 300 to 500 years let alone 1000 years. This all depends on the machloqes about defining olam haba and whether techiyas hameisim is permanent. As well as any machloqesin as to whether yemos hamoshiach starts with techiyas hameisim or ends with a new era, that itself starts with teshiyas hameisim. Rambam: olam haba means the non-physical world a neshamah is in between life and teshiyas hameisim, as well as after a second death. Since olam haba is the ultimate form of existence, defining that ultimate as the place souls go when dead necessitates a second death after techiyas hameisim. The Rambam (and the Iqarim, and others, I just picked on name for thumbnail-sketch reasons) then has to explain what the point of the second life is. Ramban (similarly, among others): olam haba, the ultimate existence, is body together with guf after techiyas hameisim. And therefore the post-th"m life must be external. According to the first shitah, it could be that post-th"m life is in gan eden is Adam's sense and thus life lasts as long as his could have. But then there's the question of whether your assumed dates hold.... My point is mainly that I think there are too many unknowns to even ask your question. I just anded up belaboring the one unknown I once wrote about. on how this machloqes may impact what is the point of Brikhas Gevurah ("Atah Gibor"). BTW, I just noticed, underlying that machloqes about what is olam haba and techiyas hameisim might be a difference in the definition of a person. It looks to me like the Rambam is saying a person is a soul who lives in a body. And therefore the ultimate in existence is not to have that body interpolated between me and experiencing Hashem's Presence. Whereas the Ramban is saying that a person is a synthesis of body and soul, and therefore cannot enjoy the rewards of their efforts when the two halves are separated. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger If a person does not recognize one's own worth, micha at aishdas.org how can he appreciate the worth of another? http://www.aishdas.org - Rabbi Yaakov Yosef of Polnoye, Fax: (270) 514-1507 author of Toldos Yaakov Yosef From hankman at bell.net Wed Oct 25 07:40:29 2017 From: hankman at bell.net (hankman) Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2017 10:40:29 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Long Lifespans in Bereishis In-Reply-To: <20171025111332.GC22254@aishdas.org> References: <9DE9360C549C46879FBF7291563A9387@hankPC> <20171025111332.GC22254@aishdas.org> Message-ID: R.Miciha Berger wrote: "On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 06:28:28PM -0400, hankman (RVM) wrote: :if the world is Charuv at 6000 years and : yemos Moshiach are before the olom is charuv, (while olom keminhago : noheig) there is not enough time left (we are now 5778) for a life span : of 300 to 500 years let alone 1000 years. This all depends on the machloqes about defining olam haba and whether techiyas hameisim is permanent. As well as any machloqesin as to whether yemos hamoshiach starts with techiyas hameisim or ends with a new era, that itself starts with teshiyas hameisim. ...." You also need to fit in when exactly in the sequence of these events Yom Hadin Hagodol happens according to each of these shitos. So the many events of "Achris Hatomim" that one need consider to compile a chronology of this mysterious period would include Gog uMagog, Moshiach be Yosef, coming of Eliyahu, yitaka bashofor gadol (before moshiach, or yom hadin hagodol, or techias hameisim?), the nevuos of Zecharyahu and other nevi'im about this period, Bayis shelishi, Kibutz golios, Moshiach ben Dovid (including how long is this period), vanquishing of the yetzer, Techias Hameisim (before Moshiach or before yom hadin or before both?), Yom hadin hagodol, yom hadin hakoton (after death?) Olom charuv (and to what extent it is charuv and why), Gan Eden, Olom haneshamos, Olam haba (final gemul, with or without a guf, and the ultimate purpose of creation so Hashem can be meitiv lezuloso). After writing this I checked out your "Mesukim Midevash" and apparently there will be at least four versions of this chronology (which you began to build in your article) lefi the Rambam, Ramban, Rav Saadia Gaon and the Ikkarim but needs some fleshing out. R Micha Berger wrote: "Ramban (similarly, among others): olam haba, the ultimate existence, is body together with guf after techiyas hameisim. And therefore the post-th"m life must be external. .... But then there's the question of whether your assumed dates hold.... My point is mainly that I think there are too many unknowns to even ask your question...." It is not clear to me what "assumed dates" or what the "unknowns" are that you mention? I only mentioned 5778. Is that date in doubt?? R. Micha Berger wrote: "BTW, I just noticed, underlying that machloqes about what is olam haba and techiyas hameisim might be a difference in the definition of a person. It looks to me like the Rambam is saying a person is a soul who lives in a body. And therefore the ultimate in existence is not to have that body interpolated between me and experiencing Hashem's Presence. Whereas the Ramban is saying that a person is a synthesis of body and soul, and therefore cannot enjoy the rewards of their efforts when the two halves are separated. Tir'u baTov! -Micha" The gemara in Sanhedrin that talks about the need for both the neshama and the guf to be together at yom hadin, works well with your peshat in the Ramban and could be a possible source for his position, but your explanation of the Rambam with the guf just being something donned by the neshama as necessary for its trip to this world, much like a diver dons scuba gear to enable him to function in this temporary environment, then much as it makes no senses to require the scuba gear at the divers trial, so too this gemara requiring the presence of the guf at the yom hadin doesn't really make much sense. Kol tuv Chaim Manaster From ben1456 at zahav.net.il Wed Oct 25 10:48:54 2017 From: ben1456 at zahav.net.il (Ben Waxman) Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2017 19:48:54 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] offering a higher salary Message-ID: <6ca926d4-2984-813b-af3a-e5fb0e765062@zahav.net.il> I've seen posts claiming that it is forbidden to offer cleaners a higher salary to work for you. While I can understand that it makes sense to say that no one can break a specific agreement for a specific day of work, why should it be forbidden to offer a higher salary to someone who has a long term agreement?? A, this is the common practice in the high tech world and I have never heard anyone say "Assur". It would seem that there is general agreement that this halacha simply doesn't apply today. Second, how can anyone be meshuabad in such a way to one person? Does a person wanting a higher salary have to simply quit without any idea about having another job? Ben From motti.yarchinai at mail.yahoo.com.au Wed Oct 25 12:39:33 2017 From: motti.yarchinai at mail.yahoo.com.au (Motti Yarchinai) Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2017 19:39:33 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Avodah] Psak source wanted In-Reply-To: <1857240052.122258.1508054451353@mail.yahoo.com> References: <1857240052.122258.1508054451353.ref@mail.yahoo.com> <1857240052.122258.1508054451353@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <270346387.4768895.1508960373045@mail.yahoo.com> Dear Micha and Avodah members, Thank you Micha for your reply and your attempts to locate a source. On Sun, Oct 15, 2017 at 08:00:51AM +0000, Motti Yarchinai via Avodah wrote: > Can anyone help me with a source for this psak: It is similar to what > the Rambam wrote... > Another posek writes something similar but couched in even more dramatic > terms. The following is not a verbatim quote (since the original is in > Hebrew) but something very close to it: > "And even if the residents of eretz yisrael are all ignoramuses > and peasants, and the authorities of chutz la'aretz are great > scholars and knowledgable in Torah and halachah, in calendric > matters we follow the peasants and ignoramuses, not the scholars > of chutz la'aretz." Micha replied: > Did you ever find a source? Google, Bar Ilan and I didn't turn > anything up.... No, I have not found it yet, but my memory of it is that I saw it in print, and, to my annoyance, I can't find the sefer, but it is bound to turn up sooner or later. When it does, I will repost with the source and quote. Meanwhile, if someone recognises it, please do let me know. Motti From sholom at aishdas.org Wed Oct 25 13:48:29 2017 From: sholom at aishdas.org (Sholom Simon) Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2017 16:48:29 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] A Great Name Message-ID: <20171025204831.CKZV22111.fed1rmfepo202.cox.net@fed1rmimpo210.cox.net> One of the implicit criticisms of Migdal Bavel was that they wanted to make a name for themselves. Then, at the beginning of Lech L'cha, H' tells Avram that he will make his name great. There must be something there . . . anybody have any thoughts? -- Sholom From zev at sero.name Wed Oct 25 20:57:37 2017 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2017 23:57:37 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] offering a higher salary In-Reply-To: <6ca926d4-2984-813b-af3a-e5fb0e765062@zahav.net.il> References: <6ca926d4-2984-813b-af3a-e5fb0e765062@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <03900eea-9674-1896-0842-5cba504a0eed@sero.name> On 25/10/17 13:48, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > I've seen posts claiming that it is forbidden to offer cleaners a higher > salary to work for you. I believe this halacha is a subset of "hasagas gevul", not in the Biblical sense, but in the commonly-used sense, which in in turn a subset of the obligation of ahavas yisrael. "Hasagas gevul" basically means that if you with to start a business and you have a choice between doing it somewhere that will harm me and somewhere that will not, then all else being equal you are obligated to take the second option out of consideration for me, because ve'ahavta lere`acha kamocha. Similarly, if I am renting a forest or an inn from a nochri, from which I make my living, and you offer him a higher rent, you are violating your obligation to value my interests equally with your own. It should be obvious, however, that if the landlord is also "re`acha" then this does not apply, because you have the same obligation to him as to me; if he could be getting more rent from his property then you should make him that offer, though he should give me a chance to match it, since I am the "bar metzra". I think the same thing is going on with the cleaners. If I have a nochris who is willing to clean for me for $N, you have no right to lure her away by offering more. But if she is "re`acha" then aderaba you have a mitzvah to offer her a chance to improve her income, but before taking your offer she should offer me the chance to match it. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From JRich at sibson.com Thu Oct 26 05:08:27 2017 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2017 12:08:27 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Jewish Action Message-ID: Since I can sometimes be critical of organizations (not here where I usually manage not to say anything negative [HT - My Mom ZLL"HH - "If you have nothing nice to say, don't say anything]), I want to give a shout out to the OU Fall Jewish Action. 1.) Moshe Baine poses the two questions I use as an individual/community test (i) How often do we factor God into our daily decisions, both large and small? [Me - how central is the Ratzon Hashem in our lives?] (ii) What are we prepared to "give up" to comply with what we perceive as God's wishes? [Me - does God always seem to agree with what you want?] 2.) Allen Fagin asks "whether we as a community view Yishuv Haaretz as a basic tenet of our spiritual aspirations? [Me - Tell me how often it's discussed or how many folks yearn (while we're at it, how many really yearn for the Beit Hamikdash?)] Now what do we do as a community and as individuals about any perceived shortfalls in these two areas is an old Avodah question but maybe it is gaining traction? KT 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: From micha at aishdas.org Thu Oct 26 07:13:06 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2017 10:13:06 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Jewish Action In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20171026141306.GA15203@aishdas.org> On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 12:08:27PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : 1.) Moshe Baine poses the two questions I use as an individual/community : test (i) How often do we factor God into our daily decisions, both large : and small? [Me - how central is the Ratzon Hashem in our lives?] (ii) : What are we prepared to "give up" to comply with what we perceive as : God's wishes? [Me - does God always seem to agree with what you want?] What you call question (i) gets a scathing answer in that recent and hotly discussed blog post, "Modern Orthodoxy from a Teenager's Perspective" by Eitan Gross. The-future-R Gross opines that it is common knowledge in MO circles that we dont make Ratzon Hashem central enough for MO to succeed. Modern Orthodoxy tries to create a balance that, at the moment, cannot work because we have no drive to be with Hashem and lack the philosophical and hashkafic perspective to articulate why we should be Jewish in a world with an assortment of other options. Therefore, we need to take a fresh look at education and schooling. There needs to be an emphasis on the truth of the tenets of Judaism, as well as an inspirational approach that creates a yearning and desire in the student to be closer to Hashem. And When I tried to publish this essay at a local Jewish newspaper they said "We cant publish this piece, it's too much for us. Plus you're only a senior in high school, so you don't have the authority to have a say in the current situation." Although they were against putting this essay to print, the head of the paper still agreed with me, "Modern Orthodoxy has major flaws and everyone knows it." If "everyone knows it", but no one does anything then it must be that they think Modern Orthodoxy is too big to change.... I think he means the Modern Orthodox community has major flaws, not the contept "Modern Orthodoxy" itself -- or why would he be so concerned with being able to save it? I need to add, this being Avodah, that this problem of the confusion between halakhah as a means and halakhah as an ends in-and-of-itself has symptoms in all our communities. Quoting myself, from my "manifesto" Tools and Goals ... How would this play out communally? One possible outcome is that we would find a community of very committed, very observant Jews, but who do not show all the signs of the holiness the Torah is supposed to bring us to. This could happen if there is insufficient attention to the entire notion of a goal beyond the halakhah, so that black letter halakhah -- that which can be measured, laid out in clear obligated or prohibited terms -- takes center seat without any attempt to become the kind of person more capable of fulfilling the full breadth of its commandments. There would be mixed reports of business ethics, scandals of respected rabbis committing fiscal crimes, others unable to control their lust, yet others abusing their power over their students in other ways. Another possible outcome is an idealistic community, but one whose ideals are not Torah derived. In such a community ideals would be taken from some segment of the surrounding culture, and halakhah would be reduced to a means of "blessing" goals that we assimilated from the outside, that at times will resemble the holiness Hashem has readied for us, and at times will differ. A third possibility is particular to a community that teaches the need to engage the world around it, to risk the battle of its challenges in order to use what's positive in the surrounding society to further our sanctity. Without a firm eye and a constant striving toward an ideal, the energy it takes to maintain this delicate balance too easily collapses into a life of compromise. And so, for too many in this community the negative elements of modernity are incorporated into their lives, and also for many strict observance itself suffers. Do these portraits sound familiar? The problem has another symptom which is less problematic -- the rise of Brisk over other darkhei halimmud. A culture in which O means following black-letter Shulchan Arukh will naturally gravitate toward a derekh halimmud that shuns explanations that are in terms of first principles that come before halakhah. RYBS's Halakhic Man denies they even exist. That said, R' Chaim Brisker's own life was more about values and acts of chessed than Arukh Chaim or Yoreh Dei'ah. The family noted this -- for all his lomdus, RCB's mateivah reads "Rav haChesed". The problem is not inherent to Brisk. Therefore, it will be interesting to see how MO evolves, and whether this remains their most pressing problem. YU now has a mashpiah, classes in the Aish Qodesh, Tanya, R' Nachman, it has singing minyanim. Within the halls of YU, Halakhic Man is facing growing competition. Lenaar al pi darko -- this diversity is healthy. But with more semichah students looking to the goals rather than stopping at the halachic tools, MO culture is bound to change in a way that reduces this issue. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When faced with a decision ask yourself, micha at aishdas.org "How would I decide if it were Ne'ilah now, http://www.aishdas.org at the closing moments of Yom Kippur?" Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From JRich at sibson.com Thu Oct 26 05:05:45 2017 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2017 12:05:45 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Timtum Halev Message-ID: There was an interesting article in the Journal "Ohr Yisrael" #16 by R'Avraham Rubin on Timtum Halev (spiritual pollution). His general conclusion was that eating something that would be classified as "forbidden foods," if you know it is such, will cause timtum halev (spiritual character defects) even if you are permitted to eat it in your case (e.g., pikuach nefesh - life-threatening situation). However, if you eat a "factually forbidden food" based on a mistaken halachic decision by an authorized halachic source, no such damage will occur. Interesting that this IIUC would yield the result that one could be halachically required to eat the "forbidden food" (rather than commit suicide by starving to death), yet still develop character defects because of it. Seems non-halachic man to me . I know we've discussed before-I submit a data point in that discussion. KT 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: From micha at aishdas.org Thu Oct 26 09:04:55 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2017 12:04:55 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Timtum Halev In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20171026160455.GD15203@aishdas.org> On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 12:05:45PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : ... "Ohr Yisrael" #16 by R'Avraham Rubin ... general conclusion was : that eating something that would be classified as "forbidden foods," : if you know it is such, will cause timtum halev (spiritual character : defects) even if you are permitted to eat it in your case (e.g., pikuach : nefesh - life-threatening situation). However, if you eat a "factually : forbidden food" based on a mistaken halachic decision by an authorized : halachic source, no such damage will occur. I invite RMRabi to comment on that last sentence. He and I debated for most of a year whether the Maharal would agree that someone who follows a mistaken pesaq is different in kind than someone who makes the mistake themselves. I presume that if eating because of "a mistaken halachic decision by an authorized halachic source" does not cause timtum heleiv, R Avraham Rubin would say that all the more so, eating food that as a matter of unknown fact happens to be kosher but we correctly rule may be eaten because of rov, chazaqah, bitul or whatever would not damage. I would think RAR is coming down on the side of saying that it's the sin, not the substance, which causes the spiritual damage. To my mind -- a hashkafically simpler position, since there is Justice to life being worse due to a sin than due to something premitted. In which case, RAR's opening ruling, that the person starting to death who eats the only available edible which happens to be non-kosher, would seem to be based on ruling that saving one's life overrides the prohibition (making it petura), not that the eating is actually permissible (hutra). For if it were hutra, how would the case differ from correctly following received pesaq? And if it is because of peturah, that the prohibition is being broken, but the violation is permissible for the sake of a greater value, then I can understand how its Just even if we were to say the cause is the substance. The sin is happening, and we know it's happening; we just chose the lesser sin. Lemah hadavar domeh: chemo is poison. For the sake of the greater danger, cancer, a person may take chemo. But the poison still does its effect. The person did what was medically recommended, and the recommendation was made knowing there was a self-destructive element to the act. : Interesting that this IIUC would yield the result that one could be : halachically required to eat the "forbidden food" (rather than commit : suicide by starving to death), yet still develop character defects : because of it. Seems non-halachic man to me.... Halachic man wouldn't ask the question of timtum haleiv to begin with. It is not a halachic category. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The fittingness of your matzos [for the seder] micha at aishdas.org isn't complete with being careful in the laws http://www.aishdas.org of Passover. One must also be very careful in Fax: (270) 514-1507 the laws of business. - Rav Yisrael Salanter From emteitz at gmail.com Thu Oct 26 09:58:57 2017 From: emteitz at gmail.com (elazar teitz) Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2017 12:58:57 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] offering a higher salary Message-ID: >If I have a nochris who is willing to clean for me for $N, you have no right to lure >her away by offering more. But if she is "re`acha" then aderaba you >have a mitzvah to offer her a chance to improve her income, but before >taking your offer she should offer me the chance to match it. Is it a mitzva to help improve a Jew's income, if it is at the expense of another Jew (especially when it is not done with the intent of helping the employee, but rather to help oneself)? EMT -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From zev at sero.name Thu Oct 26 15:06:37 2017 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2017 18:06:37 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] offering a higher salary In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 26/10/17 12:58, elazar teitz via Avodah wrote: >> If I have a nochris who is willing to clean for me for $N, you have no >> right to lure her away by offering more.? But if she is "re`acha" then >> aderaba you have a mitzvah to offer her a chance to improve her income, >> but before taking your offer she should offer me the chance to match it. > Is it a mitzva to help improve a Jew's income, if it is at the > expense of another Jew (especially when it is not done with the intent > of helping the employee, but rather to help oneself)? (1) You have the same mitzvah to love both of us, so whichever one you help is a mitzvah (2) She is probably (though not definitely) in more need than I am (3) If you're willing to pay more for her work then by definition that makes her work *worth* more, since the value of anything is defined as whatever it will fetch, so by making her the offer you're not hurting me, you're merely preventing me from (unbeknownst to either of us) getting an unwarranted benefit at her expense. Basically our arrangement is ona'ah, we're both in error about the value of her labour, and you're in a position to prevent it, so shouldn't you do so? (4) Your intent shouldn't matter. Tzedakah doesn't depend at all on kavanah. If someone is helped, it's a mitzvah even if you didn't mean it (cf shikcha), while if you meant to help someone and it didn't happen there's no mitzvah (cf Bava Basra 8b etc) -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From marty.bluke at gmail.com Sun Oct 29 03:15:35 2017 From: marty.bluke at gmail.com (Marty Bluke) Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2017 12:15:35 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Long Lifespans in Bereishis Message-ID: R' Chaim Manaster pointed out: "But the basic issue is if the world is Charuv at 6000 years and yemos Moshiach are before the olom is charuv, (while olom keminhago noheig) there is not enough time left (we are now 5778) for a life span of 300 to 500 years let alone 1000 years." The gemara (Sanhedrin 99) offers the following suggestions for how long the Messianic period will last: R' Eliezer - 40 years R' Dosa - 400 years Rebbi - 365 years Avimi - 7000 years R' Yehuda - the amount of time from creation until the Messiah comes R' Nachman Bar Yitzchak - the amount of time from the flood until the Messiah comes Interestingly enough the Gemara earlier stated that the world will last 6000 years, Sanhedrin 96B - Six thousand years were decreed upon the world: 2000 years of emptiness (without Torah), 2000 years of Torah, and 2000 years for Mashi'ach. This opinion of 6000 years is generally accepted, however, opinions 4-6 above clearly disagree with this. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ben1456 at zahav.net.il Sun Oct 29 22:34:43 2017 From: ben1456 at zahav.net.il (Ben Waxman) Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2017 07:34:43 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] offering a higher salary In-Reply-To: <6ca926d4-2984-813b-af3a-e5fb0e765062@zahav.net.il> References: <6ca926d4-2984-813b-af3a-e5fb0e765062@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <2e3529d9-23b9-3377-c2f6-ec65d4340f1a@zahav.net.il> After look a bit, I saw that the Aruch HaShulchan CM 237:3 paskens that this law only applies to a poor person. A poor person who finds something that he needs, you can't come along and offer more money for it. But if a rich person finds something that he wants (or employs someone) and this item is available, then the prohibition doesn't apply. It would seem that anyone who can hire a maid does not qualify as poor and I am willing to bet that there is a good supply of people willing to work. Ben On 10/25/2017 7:48 PM, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > I've seen posts claiming that it is forbidden to offer cleaners a > higher salary to work for you. While I can understand that it makes > sense to say that no one can break a specific agreement for a specific > day of work, why should it be forbidden to offer a higher salary to > someone who has a long term agreement?? A, this is the common practice > in the high tech world and I have never heard anyone say "Assur". It > would seem that there is general agreement that this halacha simply > doesn't apply today. From lisa at starways.net Mon Oct 30 03:39:03 2017 From: lisa at starways.net (Lisa Liel) Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2017 12:39:03 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] offering a higher salary In-Reply-To: <2e3529d9-23b9-3377-c2f6-ec65d4340f1a@zahav.net.il> References: <6ca926d4-2984-813b-af3a-e5fb0e765062@zahav.net.il> <2e3529d9-23b9-3377-c2f6-ec65d4340f1a@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <611bec39-509c-b161-d74f-63dbb523906e@starways.net> On 10/30/2017 7:34 AM, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > After look a bit, I saw that the Aruch HaShulchan CM 237:3 paskens > that this law only applies to a poor person. A poor person who finds > something that he needs, you can't come along and offer more money for > it.... > It would seem that anyone who can hire a maid does not qualify as poor > and I am willing to bet that there is a good supply of people willing > to work. Poor in halakha means not having what you're accustomed to have. It isn't an objective benchmark or a comparison to other people. Lisa From ben1456 at zahav.net.il Mon Oct 30 12:58:56 2017 From: ben1456 at zahav.net.il (Ben Waxman) Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2017 21:58:56 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] offering a higher salary In-Reply-To: <611bec39-509c-b161-d74f-63dbb523906e@starways.net> References: <6ca926d4-2984-813b-af3a-e5fb0e765062@zahav.net.il> <2e3529d9-23b9-3377-c2f6-ec65d4340f1a@zahav.net.il> <611bec39-509c-b161-d74f-63dbb523906e@starways.net> Message-ID: <8355ddf5-ae06-1774-b30d-dd05b89814a9@zahav.net.il> You think that these people would be willing to apply the word "poor" to themselves, even in regards to only this halacha? On 10/30/2017 12:39 PM, Lisa Liel wrote: > Poor in halakha means not having what you're accustomed to have.? It > isn't an objective benchmark or a comparison to other people. From bdbradley70 at hotmail.com Mon Oct 30 14:41:44 2017 From: bdbradley70 at hotmail.com (Ben Bradley) Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2017 21:41:44 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] offering a higher salary In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Poor in halakha means not having what you're accustomed to have. It isn't an objective benchmark or a comparison to other people. Lisa I don't believe it's as clear cut as that. It's true with regard to giving tzedaka, that the kehilla is required to maintain someone at the standard they were used to. But when it comes to the definition of an oni who's entitled to take from communal funds, the mishna in terumos or maasros defines it as someone who has a specific and objective amount of food or money in their possession. AFAIR halacha l'maaseh follows suit, and there are objective criteria before allowing someone to accept communal tzedaka funds. Regards Ben -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hankman at bell.net Mon Oct 30 12:03:44 2017 From: hankman at bell.net (hankman) Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2017 15:03:44 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Long Lifespans in Bereishis Message-ID: R. Marty Bluke wrote: ?The gemara (Sanhedrin 99) offers the following suggestions for how long the Messianic period will last: ... R' Dosa - 400 years Rebbi - 365 years Avimi - 7000 years R' Yehuda - the amount of time from creation until the Messiah comes R' Nachman Bar Yitzchak - the amount of time from the flood until the Messiah comes ....? Actually my original kasheh occurred to me during that recent daf yomi you refer to in Sanhedrin which was when I asked the same question you pose here. The question I posted on Avodah (basically the same idea) was just in reference to a previous post here and its remarks ? I just did not feel the need to broaden the kasheh ? perhaps I should have, just to be more comprehensive. Kol tuv Chaim Manaster -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From saulguberman at gmail.com Tue Oct 31 09:57:00 2017 From: saulguberman at gmail.com (Saul Guberman) Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2017 12:57:00 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] chopsticks Message-ID: Is it permissible to break apart chopsticks on shabbat at the meal to eat your sushi? Someone claimed it is makeh b'patish and just use a fork or stab with the chopsticks still together. Others thought that tzorech ochel nefesh might allow them to be broken and used , as it is all disposable anyway. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From JRich at sibson.com Thu Nov 2 05:12:05 2017 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2017 12:12:05 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] TEXTUAL JUDAISM AND THE LIVING TORAH Message-ID: <9e51a7f4ea644e829db8503f8f0451fe@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> An old Avodah favorite :) KT Joel Rich http://etzion.org.il/en/siman-114-prayers-wind-rain-and-dew TEXTUAL JUDAISM AND THE LIVING TORAH In his introduction to the Beit Yosef, R. Yosef Karo clearly asserts that since it is impossible for someone of his stature to set himself up as arbiter among the great Rishonim, for his rulings will be based on the majority of the opinions of the Rif, the Rambam, and the Rosh. Yet, here we have a case where the Rambam and the Rosh agree that an entire country which needs rain can mention and ask for rain in the summer, while the Rif does not dispute this ruling since he does not relate to this case. Although the Rambam's ruling is in the commentary to the Mishna, this has the same status as the Mishneh Torah - so I understand from Kesef Mishneh, also written by R. Yosef Karo, to Hilkhot Talmud Torah 3:10 at the end - and in addition, the Beit Yosef on our siman claims that the Mishneh Torah also rules like the commentary to the Mishna. How can the Beit Yosef rule against them?! The Beit Yosef emphasizes that the custom of the entire world contradicts the Rosh's ruling. He also suggests that this ruling was never accepted in practice. How can we weigh these factors against the authority of the written sources? There is a general difference in approach among poskim regarding how to weigh local custom against textual authority. The Tosafot in many places endeavor to reconcile the text with the custom (see for excample, Shabbat 48a d.h. De-zeitim); other sages more readily condemn custom on the authority of the plain sense of the text. It seems that several factors bear on the relative importance: 1. How universal is the custom? Responsa frequently point out that the reaction to a seldom-encountered situation can not be considered a "custom" - merely a precedent. 2. Among whom is the custom widespread? If we are certain that even scholars and meticulous people conducted themselves in a certain way, this has more weight than the behavior of the common people, pious though they may be. 3. Are opinions opposing the custom recognized? Sometimes we find statements to the effect that if a community had been aware that a great authority opposed their custom, they would not have adopted it. Conversely, a custom may be defended by pointing out that it was upheld even though opposing views were clearly known. 4. Perhaps in an area of halakha whose basis is in custom, though it subsequently achieved the status of binding halakha, we should give greater weight to custom. In our case, the Beit Yosef perceived that the custom of going according to Eretz Yisrael was universal, even among scholars, and even among people who were certainly aware of the statements of the Rambam and the Rosh. In addition, he may have considered the "customary" aspect of prayer to have special importance - the fact that we pray as a community renders special importance to community customs. Therefore, even though the Beit Yosef is, according to his own assertion, an extreme "textualist," in this case he was persuaded to rule in accordance with custom. Almost all Acharonim are extremely reluctant to dispute Rishonim - though there are notable exceptions, such as the Maharshal (who lived, in any case, close to the era of the Rishonim). However, many later scholars do feel that however unworthy they may be, it is their responsibility as decisors to decide AMONG the Rishonim. The Beit Yosef's reticence in this regard is far from universal. A lot of noise is still being made regarding an article written a couple of years ago by a leading scholar of Judaism (who is also a Talmid Chakham, though the two do not always go together) who posits that only recently have texts taken such a central role in Jewish life. He claims that before World War II custom was king, and accepted customs of respectable communities were not scrutinized in the light of codes. I can not comment on the historical reality of three generations ago, but I think we should keep in mind that the tension between custom and written authority is an ancient one, and the "advocacy" of texts is hardly a new idea. 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: From zev at sero.name Thu Nov 2 20:38:21 2017 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2017 23:38:21 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] TEXTUAL JUDAISM AND THE LIVING TORAH In-Reply-To: <9e51a7f4ea644e829db8503f8f0451fe@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <9e51a7f4ea644e829db8503f8f0451fe@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: On 02/11/17 08:12, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: > The Beit Yosef emphasizes that the custom of the entire world > contradicts the Rosh's ruling. Not the entire world. The Rosh himself reported that he was gratified to discover, while travelling through Provence on his way from Germany to Spain, that they did it the right way. This reinforced him in his determination to try to change the practice in Spain. > In our case, the Beit Yosef perceived that the custom of going > according to Eretz Yisrael was universal, On the contrary, *nobody* goes according to EY. The universal custom is to go according to Iraq. The Rosh wanted all Mediterranean Jews, who share EY's climate, to follow EY, as the Provencals did, but they refused. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From meirabi at gmail.com Thu Nov 2 22:38:08 2017 From: meirabi at gmail.com (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi) Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2017 16:38:08 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] Avraham A Cooked, Angels Ate - Bassar BeChalav Message-ID: Avraham Avinu entertained three angels masquerading as human visitors; feeding them goat flesh cooked with milk. Generations later, due to this meal, the angels? protest, that the Torah ought not be given to the Jews, was quashed. There are 3 issues that require clarification: ++ Let?s say the angels sinned by eating flesh cooked with milk [which seems to be the plain meaning of the Medrash] how does that silence their protest? ++ Furthermore, flesh cooked with milk would not have been served to the guests: ++ Avraham Avinu did not cook goat with milk since he adhered to all Mitzvos of the Torah. ++ Even if it was cooked inadvertently, he would not have offered it to the visitors since no benefit may be derived from it. Reb Meir Simcha of Dvinsk explains in Meshech Chochmah, that no sin was transgressed since it was BP flesh, which may be cooked with milk. The angels? protests were silenced because they accepted that Avraham Avinu was Jewish and therefore able to Shecht. Had they considered him not Jewish, they would not have eaten because Shechita cannot be performed by a non-Jew. Thus, the angels had already conceded that Avraham Avinu had an inalienable connection to the Torah and therefore was able to Shecht and create a Kosher BP. That being the case, they could not question nor protest his chosen children?s rights to that heritage. Of all aspects of BP this particular Halacha is so counter-intuitive, and such a shock to our expectations, that even when Reb Chaim Kanievsky said that cooking BP flesh with milk, is "Kosher VeYosher" (more than 100%) Rabbanim who were with me and heard him say this, will not publicly admit to it. Rav Moshe Sternbuch responded upon being asked if this was a DaAs Yachid (a lone opinion), "Who argues?" - R Moshe quotes this Meshech Chochmah MoAdim UzManim [?"? ??' ??"?] and thereby suggests another reason for eating dairy on Shavuos - after all, it was via dairy that we succeeded to silence the angels? protests. However, my son Yehudah, argues - in that case, we really ought to be eating BBPbCh [Basar BP beChalav] on Shavuos. That the BP may be cooked with milk is so obvious to Reb Meir Simcha, that he does not bother to bring proof or expand upon the point. Clearly, BP is utterly unlike any regular cow sheep or goat that may not be cooked with dairy. = = = According to our traditions, Avraham Avinu maintained all the laws of the Torah and also all the Rabbinic enactments. Rashi, Genesis 26:5; Yevamos 21. Accordingly, our Sages explain that Avraham did not offer the bread [Rashi, Genesis 18:8; BMetzia 87] to his guests because Sara had miraculously rejuvenated and become ritually unclean, making the bread unclean. Although no more than a stringency Avraham Avinu would not serve it to his non Jewish guests - presumably, if Avraham Avinu would not eat it himself, he would not serve it to his guests - makes one pause and contemplate about those who Kosher certify various foods and establishments but will not eat that food themselves. = = = There are some who try to squeeze into the words of the MChochmah that it is the milk which is not dairy because meat may be cooked with milk collected from a Shechted beast, Chalav Shechuta, and a BP is deemed to be a Shechuta. There is a contrary argument however - some propose that Chalav Shechuta is not ?mother?s milk?, meaning milk from a beast that can potentially be a mother, whereas a BP can certainly be a mother, so its milk is not Chalav Shechuta and may not be cooked with meat. Either way, the argument collapses completely because Avraham Avinu would not violate the Rabbinic law that prohibits cooking with Chalav Shechuta [or deer or giraffe milk] Best, Meir G. Rabi 0423 207 837 +61 423 207 837 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Fri Nov 3 03:24:28 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2017 06:24:28 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Avraham A Cooked, Angels Ate - Bassar BeChalav In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20171103102428.GB3833@aishdas.org> On Fri, Nov 03, 2017 at 04:38:08PM +1100, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: : Avraham Avinu entertained three angels masquerading as human visitors; : feeding them goat flesh cooked with milk. Generations later, due to this : meal, the angels' protest, that the Torah ought not be given to the Jews, : was quashed. Where's this medrash? Tosafists (Daas Zeqeinim, Bereishis 18:8) note the contradiction between it and the medrash that the avos observe all of halakhah (even eiruv tavshilin) and suggests the following. It is also the Sifsei Chakhamim's and Bekhor Shor's take on the pasuq. The chumash says, "vayiqach chem'ah vechalav uven habaqar asher asah". There is no indication in the peshat that the veal was made in the butter and/or milk. And in fact, the milk is mentioned first. Leading to the opinion that Avraham even served them in a way that kept them from consuming dairy immediately after meat! The SC says he served them the milk so that they wouldn't have to wait while hungrily for the veal while it was shechted and cooked. The Radaq gives a different sesolution: Avraham prepared both so as to give them a choice of what to eat. : Reb Meir Simcha of Dvinsk explains in Meshech Chochmah, that no sin was : transgressed since it was BP flesh, which may be cooked with milk. Lo zakhisi lehavin haRav Meir Simcha haKohein, nor R' Kanievsky. Isn't that only mutar deRabbanan if it is killed before it can even stands up, so as to avoid mar'is ayin, like shechitah? And the gemara's example of the avos keeping kol haTorah kulah is Avraham keeping eiruv -- so that that aggadita means to include derabbanans. And even if we're saying that we're talking about BP without the taqanos, And if it is ben paqua and thus didn't need shechitah, why does the asame medrash make a point of Avraham shechting it? The tradition that Avraham Avinu authored seifer haYetzirah (for which I also have no source) includes the resolution that a calf made through ShY ("uven havaqar ASHER ASAH"), rather than invoking BP. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger A person lives with himself for seventy years, micha at aishdas.org and after it is all over, he still does not http://www.aishdas.org know himself. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From zev at sero.name Fri Nov 3 08:27:40 2017 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2017 11:27:40 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Avraham A Cooked, Angels Ate - Bassar BeChalav In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4ed7f10d-c1ee-c201-6de4-61e0564f59fd@sero.name> On 03/11/17 01:38, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: > feeding them goat flesh cooked with milk Since when? He fed them beef, together with cream (or butter) and milk, separately but simultaneously. > The angels? protests were silenced because they accepted that Avraham > Avinu was Jewish and therefore able to Shecht. Had they considered him > not Jewish, they would not have eaten because Shechita cannot be > performed by a non-Jew. Thus, the angels had already conceded that > Avraham Avinu had an inalienable connection to the Torah and therefore > was able to Shecht and create a Kosher BP. That being the case, they > could not question nor protest his chosen children?s rights to that > heritage. If so then why bring the milk into it at all? Simply by eating meat he'd shechted (or rather that his son Yishma`el had shechted) they had conceded all that (according to this explanation) was required. Why complicate the matter with questions of basar bechalav? Therefore it's clear that that was not the issue. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From micha at aishdas.org Fri Nov 3 05:44:11 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2017 08:44:11 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] TEXTUAL JUDAISM AND THE LIVING TORAH In-Reply-To: References: <9e51a7f4ea644e829db8503f8f0451fe@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20171103124411.GC23679@aishdas.org> On Thu, Nov 02, 2017 at 11:38:21PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : On 02/11/17 08:12, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: :>The Beit Yosef emphasizes that the custom of the entire world :>contradicts the Rosh's ruling. : Not the entire world. The Rosh himself reported that he was : gratified to discover, while travelling through Provence on his way : from Germany to Spain, that they did it the right way... Are you disagreeing with the BY (no citation so I can't check myself), with RJR's presentation of the BY? Or, are we ignoring the fact that the Rosh lived well before the BY and could have seen a Provincial minhag that had died by the mechaber's time. The BY could well be wrong. We have other examples of famous rishonim and acharonim who didn't know some minhag of other communities and thought regional norm was universal. I just want to understand which of the above we're discussing. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger We are what we repeatedly do. micha at aishdas.org Thus excellence is not an event, http://www.aishdas.org but a habit. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Aristotle From zev at sero.name Fri Nov 3 09:02:59 2017 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2017 12:02:59 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] TEXTUAL JUDAISM AND THE LIVING TORAH In-Reply-To: <20171103124411.GC23679@aishdas.org> References: <9e51a7f4ea644e829db8503f8f0451fe@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> <20171103124411.GC23679@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 03/11/17 08:44, Micha Berger wrote: > On Thu, Nov 02, 2017 at 11:38:21PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > : On 02/11/17 08:12, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: > :>The Beit Yosef emphasizes that the custom of the entire world > :>contradicts the Rosh's ruling. > > : Not the entire world. The Rosh himself reported that he was > : gratified to discover, while travelling through Provence on his way > : from Germany to Spain, that they did it the right way... > > Are you disagreeing with the BY (no citation so I can't check > myself), with RJR's presentation of the BY? Not disagreeing so much as pointing out that "the entire world" doesn't mean quite that. In fact the Tur on which the BY is commenting also quotes his father's report about the minhag in Provence. And the BY further quotes the Rosh that "uchvar nahagu gam kein biktzat mekomot" to start on the 7th. So later when he says "shelo nitkablu divrei haRosh, vechol ha`olam lo nahagu kein", I think this must be understood as a generalization, just as we do when we say "der velt" does this or that, and we clearly don't mean literally everyone. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From sholom at aishdas.org Fri Nov 3 11:32:44 2017 From: sholom at aishdas.org (Sholom Simon) Date: Fri, 03 Nov 2017 14:32:44 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] VAYERA ? WHO IS HKBH TALKING TO? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20171103183247.KRPQ6746.fed1rmfepo102.cox.net@fed1rmimpo109.cox.net> Rabbi Meir G. Rabi notes/asks: >Sara laughs [18:12] Gd is not happy > >[18:13] HKBH confronts Avraham, ?Why did Sara laugh off the blessing >that she have a child? Am I not able to arrange she give birth? I >assure you, I?ll be back and you?ll see she will have a child.? > >But why is HKBH asking this of Avraham? Does HKBH expect Avraham to >be able to explain? > >It seems this question is really an indictment of sorts. > >Is Avraham being blamed for Sara?s weakness? > >Why does Avraham confront [18:19] Sara? He does not doubt what HKBH >has told him? > >And when Sara denies it, why does Avraham rebuke her? Is it >Avraham?s responsibility to ensure she confesses? I just heard a shiur (YUTorah!) from RHS who addressed this. He also threw in the question: why is H" telling loshon harah to Avraham? RMF brings that In the Gemara (somewhere) it says that it's permissible to tell loshon harah to the subject's rebbe, so that the rebbe can give tochacha or musar to the subject, and RMF (or RHS) says that's what's happenning here (viewing Avraham as Sarah's rebbe, in a way). -- Sholom From akivagmiller at gmail.com Fri Nov 3 14:05:30 2017 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2017 17:05:30 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] chopsticks Message-ID: . R" Saul Guberman asked: > Is it permissible to break apart chopsticks on shabbat at the > meal to eat your sushi? Someone claimed it is makeh b'patish > and just use a fork or stab with the chopsticks still > together. Others thought that tzorech ochel nefesh might > allow them to be broken and used, as it is all disposable > anyway. Rabbi Doniel Neustadt raises a similar question at https://torah.org/torah-portion/weekly-halacha-5772-beshalach/ I would think that the situations are similar; even if they aren't identical, looking up the sources may help to find the answer about chopsticks. > Question: Leben or yogurt cups sometimes come attached to each > other and must be separated along a perforated line before > they can be eaten individually. Is that permitted to be done > on Shabbos? > > Discussion: Contemporary poskim debate whether or not it is > permitted to separate attached yogurt or leben cups from each > other. Some consider it a violation of Mechatech and Makeh > b?patish[21] while others hold it is permitted altogether[22]. > > 21. Rav Y.S. Elyashiv (Orchos Shabbos 12:12, Me?or ha-Shabbos, > vol. 2, pg. 551). > > 22. Rav S.Z. Auerbach (Orchos Shabbos 12:18. note 31, Shulchan > Shelomo 314:13-3). Akiva Miller From meirabi at mail.gmail.com Sat Nov 4 05:45:14 2017 From: meirabi at mail.gmail.com (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi) Date: Sat, 4 Nov 2017 23:45:14 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] Avraham A Cooked, Angels Ate - Bassar BeChalav Message-ID: 1] no one disputes that the Meshech Chochmah says what he says 2] there are many explanations to resolve the meat and milk issue, we are not disputing them, just explaining one of them 3] there is [surprisingly] no Issur of Maris Ayin preventing cooking some iterations of BP meat with milk - the proof is from this episode as presented by this Medrash and explained by the MChochma. 4] The decree that after the BP has stood up, Hifris AGKarka, it requires Shechitah [and presumably is also Assur to cook with milk] does not apply to a BP that is found as a non fully gestated, Lo KaLu Lo Chadashav. 5] Avraham did not Shecht it - on the contrary he directed Yishmael to prepare it - Furthermore, because it was a BP it did not require Shechita which is why he could direct Yishmael to kill it, and there was also no problem of Bassar SheNisAlem Min HaAyin. 6] Indeed, even had the angels eaten plain meat Shechted by AAvinu, there would have been adequate proof that they accepted his status of Kedushas Yisrael, it just so happened that AAvinu wanted to serve his visitors a delicacy, Beef Stroganoff. 7] I really do not know why I assumed it was a goat From zev at sero.name Sat Nov 4 16:10:52 2017 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Sat, 4 Nov 2017 19:10:52 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Avraham A Cooked, Angels Ate - Bassar BeChalav In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <0d614669-3c79-3c22-d137-b4b21530183f@sero.name> On 04/11/17 08:45, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi wrote: > 6] Indeed, even had the angels eaten plain meat Shechted by AAvinu, > there would have been adequate proof that they accepted his status of > Kedushas Yisrael, it just so happened that AAvinu wanted to serve his > visitors a delicacy, Beef Stroganoff. Except that Rashi explicitly says otherwise, that the delicacy he served was tongue in mustard, for which he needed *three* animals. There is no hint of any cooking in milk. The Meshech Chochma needs a mokor for this. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From meirabi at mail.gmail.com Sat Nov 4 05:56:05 2017 From: meirabi at mail.gmail.com (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi) Date: Sat, 4 Nov 2017 23:56:05 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] VAYERA ? WHO IS HKBH TALKING TO? Message-ID: Furthermore, HKBH is transgressing Lashon Hara by disclosing to Avraham that Sara laughed. It is pretty clear that Sara's indiscretion was disclosed to Avraham because it was necessary for AAvinu to know, as we see, he rebuked Sara for laughing. Avraham was responsible for this shortcoming of Sara - this properly explains all these Qs HKBH expected Avraham to respond as he did. The question is really an indictment of sorts. Avraham is blamed for Sara's indiscretion? Therefore, Avraham confronts [18:19] Sara. And when Sara denies it, Avraham rebukes her. It is Avraham's responsibility to ensure she confesses. Best, Meir G. Rabi From meirabi at mail.gmail.com Mon Nov 6 12:30:23 2017 From: meirabi at mail.gmail.com (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi) Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2017 07:30:23 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] HKBH Rebukes Avraham for Sara's Shortcomings In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: continuing from prev post - > Sara laughs [18:12] Gd is not happy > [18:13] HKBH confronts Avraham, ... Preserving harmony [Yevamos 65b, in this case between Araham and Sara] compels HKBH to lie to Avraham [HKBH reported that Sara said, "I am too old to have children", when in fact she said, "my master is old"] and yet HKBH, rather than remaining silent to preserve peace, reports Sara's indiscretion to Avraham. Furthermore, aside from being likely to cause strife between Avraham and Sara, this report is a horribly demeaning Lashon Hara. Scoffing at HKBH's ability to grant her a child, in spite of it being uttered by what might easily have been described as a foolish visitor, is a blight upon Sara which HKBH held against her. And she understood the correctness of the criticism and felt shamed, as we see that she [apparently] instinctively and immediately denied it [18:15] It seems clear that HKBH reported this to Avraham, rather than directly or indirectly to Sara, not only to correct Sara but also to rebuke Avraham. HKBH was criticising Avraham for Sara's shortcoming. From micha at aishdas.org Mon Nov 6 17:55:31 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2017 20:55:31 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Questioning Authority In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20171107015531.GC12418@aishdas.org> On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 09:41:32AM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : I have always felt that it is (or ought to be) possible and permissible to : *question* authority without challenging or rejecting authority... I would have said "to ask questions", as to me "to question" something is indeed to challenge. But that's just an English or perhaps English dialect issue. What's nice is that we don't have this issue in halachic jargon: there is a clear difference between 1- a she'eilah, asking for information, ibua'ei lehu / miba'ei on the oe hand, and 2- a qushya ("qasha"), tiyuvta, meisivei, where we challenge the given statement. .... : But frequently, the truth is that the parent has very good reasons for what : he says. It's just that he's unable to put those reasons into clear words. : He can't even explain it to himself in simple terms, because it is simply a : gut feeling that he has, based on experience and intuition, he sees that : this is the action or inaction which must be followed in this particular : situation. As far as I can tell, this is what RYBS calls "mesorah", and the same notion of "mesorah" RHS invokves when arguing against ordaining women or women leading inessential portions of davening? (As opposed to those who think of "mesorah" as referring to mimeticism.) : I think this is analogous to Torah leaders and Torah followers. When the : leaders tell the followers what to do, or what to avoid, it is entirely : reasonable for the followers to request explanations from the leaders. This : is especially so, if the explanation will help them comply with the : directive, or teach them how to apply the directive to other situations. : But these requests must be made respectfully, carefully, and only up to a : certain point. We ask a poseiq a she'eilah, not a qushya. And -- as noted by the Maharal in the Beer haGolah RMRabi and I beat to death -- we should be expecting to understand rather than blindly follow. The limit you speak of comes for the fact that a feel for how the halakhah ought to be inherently can't be articulated. To repply R/Dr Moshe Koppel's metaphor for halakhah, as much as halakhah runs like a legal system, it also works like a language. People who only know English as a second language could know rules of conjugation, but it takes serious immersion in the language to know what kinds of poetic license works and what violates the limits of acceptible English. We native speakers know what "sounds right". But if an immigrant were to ask why "the red big ball" sounds weird but "the big red ball" sounds normal, how many of us could explain it? And if we did come up with an explanation, isn't it a post-facto construct rather than the more by-feel way the determination was really made? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger For those with faith there are no questions. micha at aishdas.org For those who lack faith there are no answers. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yaakov of Radzimin Fax: (270) 514-1507 From micha at aishdas.org Mon Nov 6 18:30:37 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2017 21:30:37 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] eitz hachaim In-Reply-To: <61f0b606-b859-4475-eef8-a10489e74f1c@starways.net> References: <61f0b606-b859-4475-eef8-a10489e74f1c@starways.net> Message-ID: <20171107023037.GE12418@aishdas.org> On Sun, Oct 15, 2017 at 05:41:04PM -0400, hankman via Avodah wrote: : What exactly was the eitz hachaim all about. The simple pshat doesn't : make any sense. ... Kodem hacheit he was not : a bar misah so he had no need of it, after the cheit he was prevented : from accessing it! So when would it ever be useful to Adam? On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 10:51:28AM +0300, Lisa Liel via Avodah wrote: : I don't understand the question. He was prevented from accessing it : *because* of the cheit. Had he not sinned, you say he would have had : no need for it, but who is to say that its only function was to make : him live forever..... Note how the Torah is also called "eitz chaim (hi lamachaziqim bahh)." So I think Lisa's notion that the eitz chaim likely had another function is quite probable. Likely its primary function was to provide the da'as that would lead to arichas yamim. Like the Torah does -- even if its arichas yamim appears not to be in olam hazeh. There is also the idea that there was only one tree in the iddle of the garden, an eitz hachaim upon which grew a branch bearing the peri eitz hada'as tov vara. Or maybe that the eitz vhaim was the rooots from which the eitz hadaas grew. I don't know -- I only heard about it second-hand (multiple times) by people quoting "sifrei qabbalah" (as though that counts as a citation). Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger If you won't be better tomorrow micha at aishdas.org than you were today, http://www.aishdas.org then what need do you have for tomorrow? Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rebbe Nachman of Breslov From micha at aishdas.org Mon Nov 6 18:04:55 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2017 21:04:55 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] A Great Name In-Reply-To: <20171025204831.CKZV22111.fed1rmfepo202.cox.net@fed1rmimpo210.cox.net> References: <20171025204831.CKZV22111.fed1rmfepo202.cox.net@fed1rmimpo210.cox.net> Message-ID: <20171107020455.GD12418@aishdas.org> On Wed, Oct 25, 2017 at 04:48:29PM -0400, Sholom Simon via Avodah wrote: : One of the implicit criticisms of Migdal Bavel was that they wanted : to make a name for themselves. Then, at the beginning of Lech L'cha, : H' tells Avram that he will make his name great. : There must be something there... anybody have any thoughts? First question... If all of humanity was participating (minus two epople -- Avraham and Ashur), who exactly were they trying to build up their reputation for? Whereas after the Haflagah, man was split into numerous communities, the notion of being known broadly makes sense. And if you want to spread your teachings, such fame is useful. Yes, I think the contrast is meaningful -- the people who got caught up in ego to the point of irrationality wanted fame for its own sake. After all, it had no logical value in their context. Whereas Afraham was granted fame as part of Hashem aiding his success, and fame is positive. It's not a question, it's the point. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Between stimulus & response, there is a space. micha at aishdas.org In that space is our power to choose our http://www.aishdas.org response. In our response lies our growth Fax: (270) 514-1507 and our freedom. - Victor Frankl, (MSfM) From cantorwolberg at cox.net Mon Nov 6 23:30:51 2017 From: cantorwolberg at cox.net (Richard Wolberg) Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2017 02:30:51 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Gilgul Hanefesh Message-ID: I have heard many conflicting opinions about our belief in reincarnation. I hope and pray it is not true. ?One life is enough!? Is there a definitive Jewish belief? I have even heard some believe in ?Transmigration of the Soul? which is even more scary. As an impressionable kid, I once had a rabbi tell me that if you don?t wash netilat yadayim prior to eating, you will come back as a dog. The following is an excerpt by an article in the Aish.com Newsletter by Sara Yoheved Rigler. there are hints to reincarnation in the Bible and early commentaries (1), while in Kabbalah, Judaism?s mystical tradition, overt references to reincarnation abound. The Zohar, the basic text of Jewish mysticism (attributed to Rabbi Shimon Bar Yochai, a 1st century sage) assumes gilgul neshamot [the recycling of souls] as a given, and the Ari, the greatest of all Kabbalists, whose 16th teachings are recorded in, Shaar HaGilgulim, traced the reincarnations of many Biblical figures. While some authorities, such as Saadia Gaon (10th century) denied reincarnation as a Jewish concept, from the 17th century onward, leading rabbis of normative Judaism, such as the Gaon of Vilna and the Chafetz Chaim (2), referred to gilgul neshamot as a fact. (1)? See Deut. 33:6, and Targum Onkeles and Targum Yonosson on that verse. Also see Isaiah 22:14. (2)? Mishnah Berurah 23:5 and Shaar HaTzion 622:6 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From lisa at starways.net Tue Nov 7 02:43:04 2017 From: lisa at starways.net (Lisa Liel) Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2017 12:43:04 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Gilgul Hanefesh In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3ad8c297-8019-3aa5-de3b-800ffe91d6c9@starways.net> On 11/7/2017 9:30 AM, Richard Wolberg via Avodah wrote: ... > Is there a definitive Jewish belief? > I have even heard some believe in "Transmigration of the Soul" which > is even more scary. As an impressionable kid, I once had a rabbi tell me > that if you don't wash netilat yadayim prior to eating, you will come > back as a dog. As I understand it, gilgul neshamot is not the same as the eastern idea of reincarnation, where one person's soul literally incarnates again in another body and lives another life. Rather, on a spiritual level, the soul of one person can "match" the soul of someone who lived previously. Either by harmony or dissonance, to use a musical metaphor. In Seder HaDorot, it talks incessantly about how some person or other was the gilgul, or tikkun, of a previous person. But it sometimes has multiple people as the gilgul or tikkun of a previous person, which makes more sense given the "match" concept. Kabbalistically, at least according to R' Aryeh Kaplan, the spiritual dimension is one of similarities and differences. Two things that are more similar are "closer" and two things that are less similar are "further apart". So if your soul is very similar to that of someone who lived before, you could have such a "match". You might even dream memories that the previous soul experienced. That doesn't make you that person. And since the state of a person's soul changes throughout their life, their "match" to someone who lived previously can come and go as well. To give an example, Seder HaDorot says that Rabbi Akiva was the gilgul/tikkun of Zimri ben Salu. The 24K Bnei Shimon who died in the plague following Zimri's actions match the 24K talmidim of Rabbi Akiva, for example. But while Zimri took Kosbi b'issur, Rabbi Akiva married the wife of Tyrannus Rufus b'heter, after she converted. Hence restoring a balance that Zimri had violated. I don't buy the "reincarnated as a dog" or "as a fish" stuff. Those who do, I suppose they have on whom to rely, but you don't have to buy into it yourself. (NB: While Googling to see if there was a website that talked about this, I found this article from Aish, which was very interesting. It included Shechem and Dina in the equation as well. http://www.aish.com/tp/i/moha/97291469.html) Lisa From micha at aishdas.org Tue Nov 7 13:54:20 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2017 16:54:20 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] 17 Marcheshvan Message-ID: <20171107215420.GA15523@aishdas.org> Yesterday, the 17th Marcheshvan, was the anniversary of two events: 1- The rain of the mabul began; and 2- 2 Nov 1917, the day the British Foreign Secretary, Lord Alfred Balfour, sent the famous letter to Baron Lionel Walter Rothchild. Anyone want to connect the dots between the two? Two things I did notice: - Both were first steps, far from the final yeshu'ah. - Both were first followed by major destruction before anything positive could be seen from them. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger I have great faith in optimism as a philosophy, micha at aishdas.org if only because it offers us the opportunity of http://www.aishdas.org self-fulfilling prophecy. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Arthur C. Clarke From micha at aishdas.org Tue Nov 7 14:54:02 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2017 17:54:02 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Torah precheit? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20171107225402.GA26849@aishdas.org> On Thu, Oct 19, 2017 at 05:47:09AM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : R' Chaim Manaster asked: :> I have been trying to understand what the geshtalt of Torah :> was precheit of the eitz hadaas... ... :> The many consequences seem to be as follows: there would be :> no avdus in Mitzrayim, therefore no...... : One can ask similar questions about other turning-points in history. : What if Kayin had not killed Hevel? What if the world has not gone to : Avodah Zara a few generations later? What if Yishmael and/or Esav had : not gone of the derech? What if Moshe Rabenu had acted differently by : the rock? To get really confused... The Torah, like it's Author, is lemaaleh min hazman. What aspect of the Torah we mean by that aside for a moment, that means it wasn't written before the eitz hadaas, Kayin killing Hevel, Dor Enosh, galus Mitzrayim, etc... Torah doesn't enter the timeline until it is revealed at Har Sinai. Which means that there is no question about Hashem's "foreknowledge" and bechirah chafshi about anything written in the Torah that happens before Matan Torah. We can't talk about Hashem Knowing what we *will* decide until that Knowledge enters the timeline. There is no "before" or after to His knowing, only to when He informs others of it. So, for events that precede Har Sinai, the Torah can contain those decisions. There is no "what if" because Hashem Knows that that what wouldn't. No more a problem than if the Torah were written /after/ those events. Hey, I warned you I was opening the door to confusion. Then there is the question of the supernal Torah vs the form we got. As per the Ramban about the Torah without the letters separated into the words we have now. (Tangent: If one were to take that shitas haRamban at face value, there is meaning to the pesuqim with the words redivided. So, why isn't that one of the Middos shehaTorah Nidreshes Bahen?) : And there are yet others. Torah manifests itself differently to a : kohen than to a levi, and differently to a woman than to a man. And so : on... And on Sun, Oct 22, 2017 at 04:15:49PM -0400, RCM replied: : R. Akiva Miller wrote: ""If there is life on other planets, might they : possibly have a Torah? But Mitzrayim doesn't exist there, and Moshe : never lived there!" That question bothered me for a very long time," : Strangely enough, I had similar thoughts years back. As a young bachur : in yeshivo, my rebbi was teaching us that their was a period during : which the progenitor of kelal Yisroel would happen. I asked what would : have happened if there had been another deep thinker who came to the : same realization and belief that Avraham did. He answered that there : would have been two (or more) chosen peoples to eventually be mekabel : Torah. It didn't occur to me at the time to ask, would they each have the : "same" Torah or each get a tailored version to their (eventual) am? Or, : would there be one Torah that talks of both of the chosen peoples? Is there on some planet far away, an intelligent alien species with their Am haNivchar? How would the Torah be manifest to them? And if they didn't have a Migdal Bavel like event, did Hashem do that whole Mamlekhes Kohanim model, with castes within the alien Am haNivchar, or castes with everyone "nivchar"? Would they have a Holy Land? If we made contact with these creatures, would we recognize their perception of the Torah as another expression of Yahadus, or would it be too alien? I know this example seems less serious than yours; I meant it as a test case on which to check these ideas that doesn't have to involve "what if" histories that Hashem timelessly knows didn't / aren't / won't happen. : Years : later when discussing what is the purpose to us of the trillions of stars : and galaxies so distant that they could never possibly affect us here : on Earth? Then it occurred to me, what if those stars had planets with : intelligent beings on them and they too went through a similar period : wherein they too had some allien being come to the same conclusions as : Avraham did and they then became the chosen people of that planet and : received a Torah possibly tailored to their experiences and appropriate : there etc.? ... Or maybe they do affect our lives here on earth. Omphalists believe that the universe was created at some point in the nearer past, eg 5778 years ago -- or Last Thursday -- and everything before that is fake. And this is the position of the LR and R' Avigdor Miller. (Although Last Thursdayism is a mock-religion posed by atheists trying to ridicule their position.) The usual challenge by those who like to be more rationalist is that this would imply Hashem is out to fool us, creating light en route from stars to make it look like they shown billions of years ago, tragectories that if you work backward converge from a Big Bang, geological and archological records, fossils, cave paintings, remains of pre-Adamic farming... But there is a more thoughtful response: Perhaps the only way we can have teva today is if the universe we have now looks like it always ran by teva. Otherwise, the effects of nissim would still be causing anomolies we could pick up today. So much for hesteir Panim. In which case, we need a universe that is so big that our place is in looks like some unnoticable backwater. We need a universe that looks like it had a Big Bang and Inflation area in order for us to live with the set of laws of nature we have. And then their existence does impact us. : Moshe when he went lamorom to accept Torah. They too wanted Torah in a : version suitable to them which would deflect all of Moshe's responses. If : memory serves, I think some meforshim try to make sense of the malachim : in such a manner. Unlike RAM's or my hypothetical aliens, mal'akhim have no free will. Without having that much Tzelem E-lokim, would they qualify for revelation? I think the problem with the mal'akhim that the medrashic Moshe highlights in his response to their claim on the Torah is that they do Retzon haBorei automatically, they lack the challenges one would need the Torah to address. Without challenges, they cannot grow into more than they are; there is no need for a Torah to help show them how. Jumping back to RAM's post: :> As there would never be an Eretz Yisroel, then there would not :> be all the mitzvot hateltuot ba'aretz -- trumos, masros etc., etc. : : Or perhaps Gan Eden would have had that status. Eretz Yisrael is : actually a great example: Consider the idea that true nevuah can exist : only in Eretz Yisrael... Tangent: Yechezqeil? Yonah's qiqayon was outside Nineveh. Etc... : .... Rather, my point goes to : this "Torah with 613 mitzvot" that you refer to. It doesn't exist : today, and I don't know if it ever has existed. There has certainly : never been a person to whom they all applied, and I wonder whether : there was ever a generation when they were all in force. There is also the idea of mitzvos that were never expected to be applied. Like the gemara suggests about ben soreir umoreh and ir hanidachas. Perhaps they exist because history could have played out differently and these mitzvos would have had an applicability beyond derosh veqabel sekhar. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger None of us will leave this place alive. micha at aishdas.org All that is left to us is http://www.aishdas.org to be as human as possible while we are here. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Anonymous MD, while a Nazi prisoner From akivagmiller at gmail.com Wed Nov 8 04:57:26 2017 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2017 07:57:26 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Torah precheit? Message-ID: . R' Micha Berger asked: > Is there on some planet far away, an intelligent alien > species with their Am haNivchar? How would the Torah be > manifest to them? And if they didn't have a Migdal Bavel > like event, did Hashem do that whole Mamlekhes Kohanim > model, with castes within the alien Am haNivchar, or > castes with everyone "nivchar"? Would they have a > Holy Land? > > If we made contact with these creatures, would we > recognize their perception of the Torah as another > expression of Yahadus, or would it be too alien? My focus is on the word "too" in the phrase "too alien". I feel that while such beings would indeed be extremely alien to us, the degree of alien-ness is absolutely irrelevant to the question at hand: Any mashehu of alien-ness (I suspect) puts them outside the pale. In our modern way of thinking, in which "Eretz" means not only this planet but the entire physical universe, and in which "Shamayim" does NOT include planets and stars but only the metaphysical universe, - Why would martians have a different status than any other foreigners? I can easily see a discussion of whether the martians count as people or as animals, but that is a separate issue. The issue here is that if they claimed to have some sort of Revelation from the One True G-d, then would we accept it as being another facet of the Shiv'im Panim LaTorah? And my answer is: What would we say if a group of earthly *humans* claimed to have some sort of Revelation from the One True G-d? Would we accept *that* as being another facet of the Shiv'im Panim LaTorah? My guess is that our response would be: That's very nice, and you are a sincere group of righeous Bnei Noach... and then we'd pretty much ignore them. Not out of malice, but because their message is not directed towards us. Here's a litmus test for whether or not I am close to correct: If I'm not mistaken, when a person claims to be a Navi, there are specific tests for whether or not he is believed, and if he passes those tests, and he has a message from Hashem for us, then we are obligated to follow that message. Is Jewishness among those criteria? If Ovadia had not converted, would his nevua be any less true or any less obligatory? > If we made contact with these creatures, would we > recognize their perception of the Torah as another > expression of Yahadus, or would it be too alien? I suppose one answer might be: The word "Yahadus" is too restrictive. Try replacing it with "Ratzon Hashem". Akiva Miller From zev at sero.name Wed Nov 8 08:12:06 2017 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2017 11:12:06 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Torah precheit? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 08/11/17 07:57, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > I can easily see a discussion of whether the martians count as people > or as animals, but that is a separate issue. The issue here is that if > they claimed to have some sort of Revelation from the One True G-d, > then would we accept it as being another facet of the Shiv'im Panim > LaTorah? And my answer is: What would we say if a group of earthly > *humans* claimed to have some sort of Revelation from the One True > G-d? Would we accept*that* as being another facet of the Shiv'im > Panim LaTorah? > > My guess is that our response would be: That's very nice, and you are > a sincere group of righeous Bnei Noach... and then we'd pretty much > ignore them. Not out of malice, but because their message is not > directed towards us. > If all they claimed was to have once had a navi, whose nevuah didn't contradict our Torah in any way, then perhaps we might accept it as valid. But if they were to claim to have had their own matan torah I think we would have to reject it. It's fundamental to our faith that matan torah was an event that could only happen once. It's also fundamental that Hashem chose avraham from *all* humanity, and us from *all* the nations, so if someone else -- on this planet or any other -- were to make such a claim we could not accept it. as for how Hashem could leave them without a Torah to guide them, how are they different from any remote people who had no contact with anyone who had even heard of the Torah until the 19th or 20th century? If the New Guinea Highlanders (some of whom have *still* never had any contact with the world outside their valleys) could wait until now to hear about the Torah, why can't the Tau Cetians, or whoever, wait until the 25th or 30th century? (assuming the 6000 years thing to be some sort of metaphor, of course, or there won't be a 30th century.) -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From zvilampel at gmail.com Wed Nov 8 08:53:24 2017 From: zvilampel at gmail.com (H Lampel) Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2017 11:53:24 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Torah precheit? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 11/7/2017 6:05 PM, MIcha Berger wrote: > ... that the universe was created at some point in the nearer > past, eg 5778 years ago -- or Last Thursday -- and everything before that is > fake. ...is the position of ... R' Avigdor Miller. He certainly is not of the opinion of last-Thursday-ism. (I suspect RMB did not really mean that.) His opinion is based on the mesora. Re: ''and everything before that is fake. ...is the position of ... R' Avigdor Miller'' To clarify, R' Avigdor Miller's position is not that fossils, for example, were planted merely as a test of our emunah. > Why should the [dinosaurs] need explanation any more than the dodo, the passenger pigeon, or any of the other species which > have become extinct, some even in our time? The huge > animals of ancient times, as well as many small animals, > became extinct each in the due time decreed by the timetable > of Heaven. ... Their existence is a fact which does > not help th theory of Evolution in any manner. (Rejoice O Youth, pp. 47-48) However, that Adam was created as a 30-year-old (as Chazal say), with, for example, a full mouth of teeth? Yes. Because: > ''Creation means that the Universe began at once in full-blown development. > The First Man immediately had trees whose fruit he could eat. > But fruit trees must beforehand be pollinated by bees, and bees need beehives with all their > paraphernalia. So you understand that Creation implies that > everything came into existence without benefit of time." > > "Trees have in their trunks a number of concentric rings, > each ring denoting a year of existence. If the First Man had > sawed off a tree, would he have found rings inside?" > > "Since he had trees, they were what we know a tree > to be." > > ...thousand-year redwood trees...?" > > "Creation included everything. Just as the First Man > had mature fruit trees at the first moment, so also the world > possessed mature lumber trees which were created at the > same time." > > "[So]... all animals and insects and bacteria were created, > including those which need rotting old logs and crumbling old > rocks for their habitat or sustenance. Thus, it is self? > explanatory that the world possessed 'aged' materials from the > very outset, including vegetation and animal carcasses with low > carbon-14 content and rocks with heavy lead content.'' > > (Ibid. pp 45-46) Zvi Lampel PS--Again, this is to clarify Rav Miller's position, and hopefully will not evolve (;)) into a discussion of it. Been there, done that, and no time. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Wed Nov 8 13:59:13 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2017 16:59:13 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Torah precheit? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20171108215913.GB3342@aishdas.org> On Wed, Nov 08, 2017 at 07:57:26AM -0500, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: :> If we made contact with these creatures, would we :> recognize their perception of the Torah as another :> expression of Yahadus, or would it be too alien? : My focus is on the word "too" in the phrase "too alien". I feel that : while such beings would indeed be extremely alien to us, the degree of : alien-ness is absolutely irrelevant to the question at hand: Any : mashehu of alien-ness (I suspect) puts them outside the pale. Actually, when I said "too alien" I was thinking not of ways their book of Retzon haBorei different from our Torah but ways in which their existence is so different from ours that we can't event compare. It's one thing to discuss what hilkhos geirus might look like if they had a hahaflagah but they already live in a liquid. It's another to discuss what halakhah as a whole would look like if they didn't experience time as a linear past-present-future the way we do. This discussion also reminds me of my Issacharism thought experiment. Positing that sheivet Yissachar survived, and had its own development of halakhah since the fall of Malkhus Yisrael. Its own Sanhedrin, no Anshei Keneses haGdfolah, etc... The same beris Sinai, but an entirely different development of 3,000 of application of kelalei pesaq, different gezeiros and taqanos... And to make it harder, let's say their population of shomerei Torah uMizvos has been roughly the same as ours all these years. So there are no grounds for saying one set of Sanhedrins is more authorivative than the other. : In our modern way of thinking, in which "Eretz" means not only this : planet but the entire physical universe, and in which "Shamayim" does : NOT include planets and stars but only the metaphysical universe, - : Why would martians have a different status than any other foreigners? Because it's possible that if Vulcans existed, HQBH would have provided them with /their/ mamlekhes kohanim. Yes, I can't guess what HQBH would do -- He could equally have wanted their spiritual development to wait until *we* get there. Like some aboriginal people on this planet, who never heard of us or even Ibrahimic religions relatively recently. Possibly relevant is the Rambam's shitah that chasidei umos ha'olam are only those who keep the 7 mitzvos because they were given at Sinai. Perhaps this gives more reason for a Vulcan am hanivchar. If anyone who does the right thing because it's logically the right thing accomplished their goal in life, then perhaps not every kind of being with bekhirah needs access to a revelation. : The issue here is that if : they claimed to have some sort of Revelation from the One True G-d, : then would we accept it as being another facet of the Shiv'im Panim : LaTorah? And my answer is: What would we say if a group of earthly : *humans* claimed to have some sort of Revelation from the One True : G-d? Would we accept *that* as being another facet of the Shiv'im : Panim LaTorah? We are a segulah mikol ha'amim, beni bekhori Yisrael. We know we recieved a unique revelation. The discussion is whether it's unique for all of humanity, or full-stop unique universally. : My guess is that our response would be: That's very nice, and you are : a sincere group of righeous Bnei Noach... and then we'd pretty much : ignore them... I agree with the "ignore" part, though. Accept for the academics and their journals. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Despair is the worst of ailments. No worries micha at aishdas.org are justified except: "Why am I so worried?" http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yisrael Salanter Fax: (270) 514-1507 From seinfeld at daasbooks.com Wed Nov 8 18:00:29 2017 From: seinfeld at daasbooks.com (Alexander Seinfeld) Date: Wed, 08 Nov 2017 21:00:29 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Torah precheit? Message-ID: > > > >But there is a more thoughtful response: Perhaps the only way we can >have teva today is if the universe we have now looks like it always >ran by teva. Otherwise, the effects of nissim would still be causing >anomolies we could pick up today. So much for hesteir Panim. > >In which case, we need a universe that is so big that our place is in >looks like some unnoticable backwater. We need a universe that looks >like it had a Big Bang and Inflation area in order for us to live with >the set of laws of nature we have. > >And then their existence does impact us. Just want to point out, or remind, that there are two independent questions here that often become conflated. 1. Can a rational person believe in ?young Earth? (i.e., >6,000 years old)? 2. Why would God create a universe making it look like it is far older than it really is? The basis of answering yes to #1 has nothing to do with #2. I do not need to know why in order to examine the evidence for #1 and conclude that He did probably make the world 5,778 years ago. The fact that I cannot answer #2 should not be entered as evidence against #1. This is the m?haleich of R? Dovid Gottlieb. The fallacy of the skeptics is to mock #1 based on #2, when in fact it is irrelevant. My own personal belief is merely that the vastness of space and time give us the opportunity with our puny minds to have an analogy for God?s infiniteness. From afolger at aishdas.org Mon Nov 13 04:05:02 2017 From: afolger at aishdas.org (Arie Folger) Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2017 13:05:02 +0100 Subject: [Avodah] Torah precheit Message-ID: RAM and RMB have been arguing about whether aliens somewhere out there could have received a Revelation akin to ours and whether theirs would be one of shiv'im panim la-Torah. My USD0.02c: I believe that it is not unimportant that according to present theories of physics, we are constrained by how far we could ever travel. Even if we were to remain happy with slower than light travel, travelling at the phenomenal speeds necessary to get anywhere else in our own galaxy where aliens might live, i.e. in another star system with planets in the habitable zone, would use up phenomenal amounts of energy. Furthermore, the distances are so vast, that we would need enormous (what's the trendy word variant, ginormous?) amounts of time, and we still hardly would get anywhere. Bottom line, there very well may exist intelligent aliens out there, but we are near 100% sure that we will never ever be able to meet them. Which leads me to the following observation: If there are aliens out there which we will one day meet, then we could not accept their *competing* Revelation. There is only one 'am hanivchar. We would indeed need to see them as a special kind of Noachides with a possible true revelation that is, however, subordinate to ours and can never contradict it. If, however, we consider aliens whom we will never ever be able to meet, I see no reason why they couldn't have their own Revelation, with their own Torah, which, while it surely will agree in all iqarim, may nonetheless, through a variety of mechanisms suggested by mefarshim throughout the ages (including but not limited to the Ramban's Torah without spaces, and the expansion thereof by later mequbalim that the Heavenly Torah has 23 letters, of which we only see 22), be quite different from ours. I do wonder though, can there be an alien civilization we will one day encounter in person, which has exactly the same Torah as we do. It would seem extremely improbable for them to have had an Avraham, Yitzchak & Yaakov, Shevatim & galut Mitzrayim, but hey, if this is predetermined in part, then why not? The question will then be, are they and us the same people (in the assumption that it is even physically possible to intermarry)? I consider this whole possibility even less likely than the one about meeting any aliens anywhere, so this is just an thought experiment. Kol tuv, -- Arie Folger -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From akivagmiller at gmail.com Mon Nov 13 17:45:22 2017 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2017 20:45:22 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Gifts on Shabbos Message-ID: . I am trying to get a more precise understanding of when it is assur/mutar to give someone a gift on Shabbos. Orach Chayim 306 is about all sorts of business activities. Gifts are a subset of this topic, and Mishne Berura 306:33 writes, "It is also assur to give a gift to one's friend, because it is similar to buying and selling, because it leaves his ownership [reshus]. But a gift is mutar when it is L'tzorech Shabbos V'Yom Tov - as written in 323:7 - and likewise for L'tzorech Mitzvah... And it also wrote that according to that, the practice of giving keilim as a gift to a Chasan is improper..." When I turn to Shulchan Aruch 323:7, Mechaber doesn't say anything about the general laws of giving gifts on Shabbos. He only gives one particular case: That if one forgot to tovel a keli before Shabbos, so it cannot be used on Shabbos, he is allowed to give it to a non-Jew as a gift, and then borrow it back for Shabbos use. Mishne Brura 323:34 explains: "Even though it is assur to give gifts on Shabbos as written in Siman 306, here it is allowed because of Tzorech Shabbos." The logic is somewhat circular, I think: 306 refers to 323, and 323 refers to 306. The only clear heter is an interesting one: On the one hand, it is for a NON-food item (though it is food-related); on the other hand, it seems to be a b'dieved solution for the person who either forgot to tovel it before Shabbos, or somehow acquired it from a non-Jew on Shabbos. I don't see any clear heter to deliberately give a food gift on Shabbos, and I also don't see any clear prohibition that non-foods are excluded from being "L'tzorech Shabbos". Mishne Berurah 306:33 says that it is wrong to give "keilim" as gifts to a chasan. Rabbi Dovid Ribiat ("The 39 Melochos", page 961) includes "presenting a Bar Mitzvah boy with a Sefer" in this category. These examples suggest two rules to me: (1) If the gift will not be used until after Shabbos (quite likely for the bar mitzvah boy's sefer, though I have no idea which "kelim" the chasan would receive), then it is not "letzorech Shabbos". (2) The chasan (or bar mitzvah boy) presumably gets hanaah from receiving the gift, but that amount of Oneg Shabbos is not significant enough to count as "letzorech Shabbos". I offer two specific examples for discussion: (1) Many shuls offer printed material, such as parsha sheets, weekly shul bulletins, and even newspapers and magazines. Or someone might attend a shiur, where the teacher distributes printed handouts of the source material. Can I take these home to read or learn from on Shabbos afternoon? Wouldn't this be a Tzorech Shabbos? (2) Suppose someone is invited to a friend for a Shabbos meal, and he brings a challah or wine as a gift for the host. The host was not expecting it and has other food that he was planning to use. Is this enough of a tzorech Shabbos to transfer ownership? If this host accepts the gift, is he required to serve the food? In other words, if "tzorech Shabbos" is indeed a carte blanche for food gifts, does the food have to actually be eaten? Akiva Miller Postscript: It seems to me that this issur of giving gifts applies only on Shabbos, and *not* on Yom Tov. Consider: You can send a living behema to your friend on YT, even through a Reshus Harabim, even if you know that the friend won't shecht it, and the heter is contingent only on the fact that the friend COULD shecht it. (MB 516:1) You can even send a pair of tefillin to your friend even though it is not needed at all for Yom Tov; the only requirements are that the tefillin are ready-for-use, and that friend gets hanaa from receiving the gift (MB 516:11-12) That whole siman seems to deal with issues of hotzaah and muktzeh, and doesn't even mention kinyanim (at least, I didn't see any such mention). This is very puzzling: Why would there be a difference between giving gifts on Shabbos and on Yom Tov? If this could be answered, it might shed light on what "L'tzorech Shabbos" means. From micha at aishdas.org Tue Nov 14 08:39:28 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2017 11:39:28 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Gilgul Hanefesh In-Reply-To: <3ad8c297-8019-3aa5-de3b-800ffe91d6c9@starways.net> References: <3ad8c297-8019-3aa5-de3b-800ffe91d6c9@starways.net> Message-ID: <20171114163928.GD29616@aishdas.org> On Tue, Nov 07, 2017 at 12:43:04PM +0200, Lisa Liel via Avodah wrote: : As I understand it, gilgul neshamot is not the same as the eastern : idea of reincarnation, where one person's soul literally incarnates : again in another body and lives another life... RSGaon says in (Emunos veDei'os 6:8 tr R' Yosef el-Qafeh, "Kapach"; emphasis mine): Venineini omer ki anashim, mimi SHENIQRA'IM YEHUDIM, matzasim ma'aminim begilgul veqor'in oso haha'ataqus. I left that in Hebrew because I want to be medayeiq in lashon in a moment. To continue, with my translation from the Hebrew: The matter to their minds is that the ruach of Re'uvein will be in Shim'on, and after that in Leivi, and after that in Yehudah. And from them, or most of them figure that it could be that the ruach of a person will be in an animal, and the ruach of an anumal in a person. And a lot of such delusions and confusion. And then the rest of the chapter lists their errors. RYeQ footnotes that R' Uzziel concluded that the people who are "called Jews" who believe such things are the Qaraim. Anan (the founder) picked up this idea from the Greeks. I do not know the original Arabic, but in this translation, notice that it's possible to read RSG as being against people to take the idea of gilgul and call it "ha'ataqus" and describe it as souls migrating from person to person or even to animal, etc... But not against gilgul itself. Which would support Lisa's understanding. This read has two open questions to resolve, not that I am saying they're unanswerable: 1- RSG does use the same Arabic again at the end of the chapter (and ma'amar) that R "Kapach" translates to "gilgul" -- "And I say: what does this say that teaches about gilgul?..." Perhaps it should be read: How do they think those pesuqim indicate that gilgul means ha'ataqah -- they don't talk about gilgul altogether? 2- My bigger problem is that RSG would then be spending all this time on a heretical misunderstanding of gilgul, without even one sentence saying, "But what gilgul *really* means..."? It would even be an important point of the ma'amar's discussion of souls and afterlife. This omission I find highly unlikely. As to how they would differ. The kind of people who talk about gilgul also talk about Naran and sometimes even Naran Chai -- Nefesh Ruach Neshamah, which are the penimios aspects of the soul, and Chayah and Yechidah. For that matter, RSG discusses Naran in the very same ma'amar (6:3 ) as three kochos. To RSG, they are an indisible singularity that has three abilities. But in more Qabbalistic sources, they are described as parts even as the soul's unitary nature is also asserted. If ruach and nashamah are indeed parts, then there is a huge difference between 1- Gilgul nashamos: The neshamah -- and according to the Ari, even "sparks" of a neshamah rather than a whole one -- "revolves" from one life in one body to another. And 2- Ha'ataqa: where the ruach migrates. Neshamah is much less associated with the notion of "self" than ruach is. E.g. "Neshamah shanasati bi, tehorah hi." The "bi -- in me" receives a neshamah. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger It isn't what you have, or who you are, or where micha at aishdas.org you are, or what you are doing, that makes you http://www.aishdas.org happy or unhappy. It's what you think about. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Dale Carnegie From micha at aishdas.org Tue Nov 14 09:31:55 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2017 12:31:55 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Torah precheit? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20171114173155.GE29616@aishdas.org> On Wed, Nov 08, 2017 at 11:53:24AM -0500, H Lampel via Avodah wrote: : On 11/7/2017 6:05 PM, Micha Berger wrote: :> ... that the universe was created at some point in the nearer :> past, eg 5778 years ago -- or Last Thursday -- and everything before that is :> fake. ...is the position of ... R' Avigdor Miller. : He certainly is not of the opinion of last-Thursday-ism. (I suspect RMB did not really mean that.) His opinion is based on the mesora. I meant omphalism. Which is not based on the mesora, it's based on pashut peshat in a pasuq. A pasuq that we don't really have much mesorah saying actually hyas a pashut peshat, at least not one we can comprehend. : Re: "and everything before that is fake. ...is the position of ... R' : Avigdor Miller" : To clarify, R' Avigdor Miller's position is not that fossils, for example, : were planted merely as a test of our emunah. Which is why I didn't say that. Continuing with RZL's quote of RAM's Rejoice O Youth (pp. 47-48): :> Why should the [dinosaurs] need explanation any more than the :> dodo, the passenger pigeon, or any of the other species which :> have become extinct, some even in our time? The huge :> animals of ancient times, as well as many small animals, :> became extinct each in the due time decreed by the timetable :> of Heaven. ... Their existence is a fact which does :> not help th theory of Evolution in any manner. So he says it's simply incomprehensible. I also gave a different explanation than "test of our emunah" -- necessary for having a sensible and detectable teva. My point was to defend the viability of omphalism of both RAM's and the LR's sorts. Asking "Why would Hashem be so cruel as to create all that to mislead, at best to test" question presumes a strawman. : However, that Adam was created as a 30-year-old (as Chazal say), with, : for example, a full mouth of teeth? Yes. Because: :> "Creation means that the Universe began at once in full-blown development. :> The First Man immediately had trees whose fruit he could eat. .... :> (Ibid. pp 45-46) See Bereishis Rabba 14:7 ). According to R Yehudah bar Shimon says that "ofer olam" was created in his fullness. R' Elazar b Shimon says that Chava was too. R' Yochanan says they were creates as 20 (quibble: not 30) year olds. And then down in 14:10, R Yehudah says that Adam was made with a tail, but it was removed for the sake of his kavod. Evolution anywone? BUT: The month that Adam was born in is part of the greater machloqes between R' Yehoshua and R' Eliezer about Nissan vs Tishrei (RH 11a). Meaning, if the world was created in Tishrei, when "the earth brings forth plants and trees full of fruit", then yes, this medrash stands. But if the world was created in Nissan, when the plants start growing and the fruit is emerging from the tree (as the gemara puts it), then perhaps not. In any case, the meaning thereby ascribed to saying the world was made in Nissan is that the universe was created at its start. Regardless of Adam's development when born. So I would have said "one opinion in Chazal", not "as Chazal say". Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Friendship is like stone. A stone has no value, micha at aishdas.org but by rubbing one stone against another, http://www.aishdas.org sparks of fire emerge. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Mordechai of Lechovitz From micha at aishdas.org Tue Nov 14 10:38:37 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2017 13:38:37 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Gifts on Shabbos In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20171114183837.GF29616@aishdas.org> On Mon, Nov 13, 2017 at 08:45:22PM -0500, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : I am trying to get a more precise understanding of when it is : assur/mutar to give someone a gift on Shabbos. ... : The logic is somewhat circular, I think: 306 refers to 323, and 323 : refers to 306... The Mishnah Berurah has mutual references between 306:33 and 323:34. But I don't see the logic itself being circular. 306 spells out the theory, and 323 is an example of that theory and at each place he shows you the other half of the picture. Giving gifts is assur (derabbanan) on Shabbos, except when the purpose of the gift is letzorekh Shabbos, or another mitzvah. Thus, it includes giving a non-toveled keli to a non-Jew so that it can be borrowed back and used *for Shabbos*. But not a wedding gift, which (as per R' Ribiat's bar mitzvah boy) presumably isn't needed by the chasan on Shabbos. And apparently claiming simchas chasan being a mitzvah isn't sufficient to say the gift is letzorekh mitzvah. Which you note as well, although you phrase it in terms of hana'ah and oneg Shabbos, ie lezorekh Shabbos. Perhaps this is because there are other ways to provide simchah or oneg, so it's not "letzorekh". : (1) Many shuls offer printed material, such as parsha sheets, weekly : shul bulletins, and even newspapers and magazines. Or someone might : attend a shiur, where the teacher distributes printed handouts of the : source material. Can I take these home to read or learn from on : Shabbos afternoon? Wouldn't this be a Tzorech Shabbos? I would think so. Why any less than a gift of food? In both cases, the recipient already owns alternatives. So why would something to eat be more letzorekh Shabbos than something to learn? This is unlike the bar mitzvah boy recieving a sefer (acc to R' Ribiat), in that the purpose isn't learning on Shabbos. Implied: A guest who knows the host won't use the food (eg he recommends waiting until the wine is chilled) shouldn't be giving even usable food. Is this the halakhah? Also, I found that ROY (Yechaveh Da'as 3:21) DOES allow giving the bar mitzvah boy that seifer because it provides chizuq. And there is no greater letzorekh mitzvah than that! : (2) Suppose someone is invited to a friend for a Shabbos meal, and he : brings a challah or wine as a gift for the host. The host was not : expecting it and has other food that he was planning to use. Is this : enough of a tzorech Shabbos to transfer ownership? ... Or, in the SA's case... can you give the non-toveled keli to a nakhri when you have just as good or nearly as good alternatives? That you already had thoughts of using? I took it for granted yes, since if not, the SA is oddly missing an important half of the story. Which is why above I only asked about a case where the guest gives something in a way that rules out its use, rather than just left to the host's choice. When I am the guest in this situation, I am zokheh lo shelo befanav and transfer ownership on Friday. Came in handy a couple of times when the host refused the gift. "Well, if you don't want it, you can regift it. Because it's yours already and you aren't allowed to give it back" right now, at least. : Postscript: It seems to me that this issur of giving gifts applies : only on Shabbos, and *not* on Yom Tov... Then why "letzorekh Shabbos or YT"? When do you have something that is letzorekh YT in particular when it's also Shabbos? : (MB 516:1) You can : even send a pair of tefillin to your friend even though it is not : needed at all for Yom Tov; the only requirements are that the tefillin : are ready-for-use, and that friend gets hanaa from receiving the gift : (MB 516:11-12) And the bar mitzvah boy doesn't get the same kind of hana'ah (speaking quality, not quantity) from his uncle's gift of a set of Rambam? Now I'm confused again. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "The worst thing that can happen to a micha at aishdas.org person is to remain asleep and untamed." http://www.aishdas.org - Rabbi Simcha Zissel Ziv, Alter of Kelm Fax: (270) 514-1507 From micha at aishdas.org Tue Nov 14 10:48:32 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2017 13:48:32 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Torah precheit In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20171114184832.GI29616@aishdas.org> On Mon, Nov 13, 2017 at 01:05:02PM +0100, Arie Folger via Avodah wrote: : Bottom line, there very well may exist intelligent aliens out there, but we : are near 100% sure that we will never ever be able to meet them. Nice chiluq! : Which leads me to the following observation: If there are aliens out there : which we will one day meet, then we could not accept their *competing* : Revelation. There is only one 'am hanivchar... Who said that "nivchar mibein ha'amim" means anything beyond benei Adam, amim as caused by Migdal Bavel? Perhaps their revelation isn't so much competing as the RBSO providing them a chance at redemption before Yom Hashem haGadol vehanora, or at least before whenever it is we get there? : them as a special kind of Noachides with a possible true revelation that : is, however, subordinate to ours and can never contradict it. This is itself the question I was trying to keep under discussion. Could we even recognize a contradiction? After all, the appearance of Retzon haBorei to creatures very different than us isn't likely to have many points where we can contradict. Assuming they are ethical monotheists, that is. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger It's never too late micha at aishdas.org to become the person http://www.aishdas.org you might have been. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - George Eliot From meirabi at gmail.com Thu Nov 16 16:11:31 2017 From: meirabi at gmail.com (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi) Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2017 11:11:31 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] How Much Salt for Kashering? Message-ID: Kosher meat must have all traces of blood removed. This procedure is known as 'Kashering' and requires very precise procedures and timing of rinsing, soaking, salting and finally removal of the salt and blood via rinsing and washing. Halachah provides no precise measure of salt to be used for Kashering and although insisting that all surfaces must be covered with salt, does not differentiate between small and large surface area to volume ratios, i.e. thick or thin pieces of meat. In other words a large circular hunk of meat [small ratio of surface area to volume] requires the identical amount of surface salt and time for Kashering as does a thin piece [large ratio of surface area to volume] Furthermore, a 20cm thick piece of meat will be Kashered when salted on both sides, meaning the salt will extract blood from a depth of 10 cm, but a 4cm thick piece of meat salted only on one side will not be Kosher. It seems like the process has been standardised to accommodate all cases. Nevertheless, although Halachah permits various shortcuts when Kashering for emergency situations, it does not advise Kashering thin slices to reduce preparation time. Meat that was cooked before it was Kashered will make everything in the pot it is cooked with non-Kosher. Halacha asserts there is as much blood in the piece of meat as the mass of meat. If however, there is enough Kosher food in the pot to render the blood insignificant, the food will be Kosher. Halachah requires 60 units of Kosher food to neutralise every unit of blood [1 gram of blood requires 60 grams of Kosher food] In other words, a 100 gram piece of meat will require 6kg to neutralise the blood. However, meat that was cooked after Kashering but before the blood and salt was washed off, requires only 60 times the salt and blood on the surface of the meat i.e. soaked into the salt. The blood that was in the meat has been removed by the salting. Some authorities [a note in the ShaArei Dura] assert that every piece of meat is itself large enough to neutralise the salt whilst others [the Rama 69:9] assert it provides only half the mass required. ????? ??"? - ??? ????? ???? ??? ????? ?????? ?????? ???? ??? ???? ???? ???? ??? ??? ??? ???? ?? ??? ?? ?? ???? ????? ??? ??? ????? ?? ??? ?? ??? ????? ????? ???? ??? ????? ??? ??? ?? ???? ???? ?? ??? ???? The Rama however disagrees with the ratio - "there can be no question that if the pot contains as much as the mass of the meat, it is certainly more than 60 times the salt ...." See Shach that BeDiAvad, we may rely upon the lenient opinion particularly if it is a thick piece. ????? ???? ??????????? ?''? ?????? ?????????? ??????????? ????? ??????, ?????? ??????, ?????????? ?????? ????????? ????? ???????? ?????? ?????????? ????????????? ???????? ?????????? ???? ?????????? ????? ???????? ?????????, (????????? ?????? ?''? ?''? To the best of my knowledge, this is the only source that provides an empiric measurement of how much salt is to be used for Kashering. Keep in mind that since this is a general ruling it must encompass all cases, the guidelines must reflect the maximum amount of salt that would be applied and that would remain until the meat is ready for its final washdown. In the words of the Rama, "there can be no question that if the pot contains as much as the mass of the meat, it is certainly more than 60 times the salt ...." The Halacha must provide the maximum safety margin and must therefore assume that the maximum amount of salt was applied and remains on the meat when it is added to the pot. Further, the Halacha must accommodate the largest surface area to meat ratio [ChAdam 32:4] and the heaviest salting hand. In other words, every possible variant that increases the amount of salt used is turned up to the max - and in this worst possible case scenario, we can be certain that the salt is no more than one thirtieth of the mass of the meat. In other words, an average sized steak, 300 - 400 gms, requires no more than 2 teaspoonfuls of salt for Kashering. Another thing that is certain - all Kosher agencies apply far more salt for Kashering than one thirtieth. Does it make a difference? Well, these days, the cost of disposing of contaminants is rising dramatically and salt is deemed a nasty contaminant and is becoming more expensive to dispose. It already adds a significant cost to production. Best, Meir G. Rabi 0423 207 837 +61 423 207 837 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From meirabi at gmail.com Sat Nov 18 13:25:21 2017 From: meirabi at gmail.com (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi) Date: Sun, 19 Nov 2017 08:25:21 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] Sedra Toldos - Balance, When Parents Favour One Child Message-ID: Our actions are pretty much prompted by Life's circumstances, we are mostly provoked to react. We do [many/most] things to counter a perceived imbalance, an injustice. Perhaps, with this in mind, we can better understand Yitzchak, Rivkah and Eisav as they are portrayed in this week's Sedra. Isaac favoured Eisav, because he was "Tzayid BeFiv", Rivkah favoured YaAkov [25:28] We are told why Yitzchak favours Eisav but not why Rivkah favours YaAkov. Yitzchak favours Eisav because Eisav is a "Tzayid BeFiv" lit. hunted with his mouth. Rashi explains this as either [or both] - he deceived his father like a hunter lying in ambush or stalking prey and catching it at a vulnerable moment, i.e. feeding Yitchak fake news to present himself as exceedingly Gd fearing; or, he fed Yitzchak tasty food, "Make me the tasty food I enjoy ... so that I might bless you before I die." [27:4] But Eisav was not a better cook than Rivkah - "she made him a delicious dish just as he liked" [27:14] [unless she had him on a healthy food diet and Eisav was Yitzchak's secret steak supplier] Eisav loved his father and he loved hunting [25:27]. He desperately sought his father's approval. He pursued this as he best knew, by hunting and even by lying. We might even say that he felt as though he was hunting for his father's love. Yitzchak understood, he encouraged Eisav to hunt and cook for him. He even reminded Eisav to take his hunting weapons when he instructs him to hunt and prepare food before he blesses him - Yitzchak wants Eisav to be engaged in the hunting and preparation of the food, because it is this engagement that is their link and best encapsulates his approval of his son Eisav. In other words, "It's not the food I want, for that I could ask your mother or you could grab an animal from our flock - it would be much quicker. No, I want you to be of service to me. Knowing that you have hunted to provide for me makes me happy and I enjoy the food more." Eisav knew that his mother was capable of and willing to provide her husband with all the tasty food he could stomach. He got the message that it was not food that Yitzchak wanted. Yitzchak was reaching out to Eisav, knowing how desperately Eisav sought his approval. Eisav learned how to cook in order to express his love. He even deceived Yitchak, painting himself as the Gd fearing son in order to win his father's approval. Best, Meir G. Rabi 0423 207 837 +61 423 207 837 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From akivagmiller at gmail.com Sat Nov 18 19:23:18 2017 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Sat, 18 Nov 2017 22:23:18 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] T'hay Message-ID: There is a word spelled tav-heh-aleph, pronounced "t'hay". Is this word Hebrew or Aramaic? >From context and sound, I have always presumed that it means something very similar to "yihyeh". Is that correct? If they are indeed similar in meaning, then I imgine that they is still some slight shade of difference. If they meant the exact same thing, wouldn't authors use the more common word (yihyeh) instead? This would be the case even if t'hay is Hebrew, and it would certainly be true if t'hay is Aramaic. The reason I'm asking these questions is because I have found a surprising number of paragraphs in my siddur, where all the words are obviously Hebrew, except for this one word. Including a foreign word in a text is not unheard of (there's a Latin word in Nachem, for example), but this is generally done because there is no native word with the precise meaning that the author is aiming for. And I can't imagine why "yihyeh" doesn't work in these cases: Hamapil: "us'hay mitasi shleima l'fanecha" Birkas Hamazon, near the end: "zechus shet'hay l'mishmeres shalom" Birkas Hamazon on Shabbos: "shelo t'hay tzara" Birkas Hachodesh: "chayim shet'hay banu ahavas torah" Avinu Malkenu: "t'hay hashaah hazos" Yizkor: "bis'char zeh t'hay nafsho" Yom Kippur Musaf, the Kohen Gadol's tefila: "shet'hay hashana hazos" Kel Malay Rachamim: "b'gan eden t'hay menuchaso" (I have omitted parts of the siddur that are taken from the Mishna (such as Bameh Madlikin and Pitum Haketores) because it is the nature of the Mishna to mix Hebrew and Aramaic, so use of the word "t'hay" isn't a glaring exception the way it is in the rest of the siddur. Also, I note that my examples were all taken from Nusach Ashkenaz; other nuschaos may have more or fewer instances of this word.) Thank you, Akiva Miller From simon.montagu at gmail.com Mon Nov 20 00:38:38 2017 From: simon.montagu at gmail.com (Simon Montagu) Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2017 10:38:38 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] T'hay In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sun, Nov 19, 2017 at 5:23 AM, Akiva Miller via Avodah < avodah at lists.aishdas.org> wrote: > There is a word spelled tav-heh-aleph, pronounced "t'hay". Is this > word Hebrew or Aramaic? > Hebrew. I believe the Aramaic equivalent would be tehevi. > > From context and sound, I have always presumed that it means something > very similar to "yihyeh". Is that correct? > > If they are indeed similar in meaning, then I imgine that they is > still some slight shade of difference. If they meant the exact same > thing, wouldn't authors use the more common word (yihyeh) instead? > This would be the case even if t'hay is Hebrew, and it would certainly > be true if t'hay is Aramaic. > > The reason I'm asking these questions is because I have found a > surprising number of paragraphs in my siddur, where all the words are > obviously Hebrew, except for this one word. Including a foreign word > in a text is not unheard of (there's a Latin word in Nachem, for > example), but this is generally done because there is no native word > with the precise meaning that the author is aiming for. And I can't > imagine why "yihyeh" doesn't work in these cases: (At any rate it would be "tihyeh" in the cases you quote, which are all in the feminine) In my siddur (Singer's) all the examples you give are "tehi" with a yud, which is Biblical Hebrew, as in "Tehi ala benotenu" in last week's parasha (Bereshit 26:28). The difference between yihyeh/yehi and tihyeh/tehi is that the first is future and the second is jussive (though the future can be used in a jussive sense). I assume the form with alef is Rabbinic Hebrew. How it comes to be used in the siddur, or in which nushaot exactly, I don't know. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jay at m5.chicago.il.us Mon Nov 20 05:12:52 2017 From: jay at m5.chicago.il.us (Jay F. Shachter) Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2017 13:12:52 +0000 (WET) Subject: [Avodah] How Much Salt for Kashering? In-Reply-To: from "avodah-request@lists.aishdas.org" at Nov 16, 2017 06:40:58 pm Message-ID: <15112051720.1Acb3A518.50843@lsd.chicago.il.us.chicago.il.us> > > Kosher meat must have all traces of blood removed. > No, it does not. This is true only if you are going to cook the meat before eating it. Jay F. ("Yaakov") Shachter 6424 N Whipple St Chicago IL 60645-4111 (1-773)7613784 landline (1-410)9964737 GoogleVoice jay at m5.chicago.il.us http://m5.chicago.il.us "Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur" From lisa at starways.net Mon Nov 20 04:02:11 2017 From: lisa at starways.net (Lisa Liel) Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2017 14:02:11 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] T'hay In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <91877a4d-0aeb-1a75-d7b1-78f399a2746e@starways.net> I'm not sure.? We have "yehei ra'ava kadamach" in Brich Shmei d'Marei Alma, which is definitely Aramaic.? The yehei is the same as tehei. I think what's happening here is that there's a certain amount of bleed-over between Hebrew and Aramaic.? In addition, there were different dialects of Aramaic in Eretz Yisrael and Bavel.? So while tehevei may be the correct Aramaic, tehei may be as well. Lisa On 11/20/2017 10:38 AM, Simon Montagu via Avodah wrote: > On Sun, Nov 19, 2017 at 5:23 AM, Akiva Miller via Avodah > > wrote: > > There is a word spelled tav-heh-aleph, pronounced "t'hay". Is this > word Hebrew or Aramaic? > > > Hebrew. I believe the Aramaic equivalent would be tehevi. > From micha at aishdas.org Mon Nov 20 10:24:50 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2017 13:24:50 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Sedra Toldos - Balance, When Parents Favour One Child In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20171120182450.GA24872@aishdas.org> On Sun, Nov 19, 2017 at 08:25:21AM +1100, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: : But Eisav was not a better cook than Rivkah - "she made him a delicious : dish just as he liked" [27:14] [unless she had him on a healthy food diet : and Eisav was Yitzchak's secret steak supplier] Or the hunter was usually the one who prepared the game, whereas Rivqa tended to be cooking the animals they farmed. ... : Yitzchak understood, he encouraged Eisav to hunt and cook for him. He even : reminded Eisav to take his hunting weapons when he instructs him to hunt : and prepare food before he blesses him - Yitzchak wants Eisav to be engaged : in the hunting and preparation of the food, because it is this engagement : that is their link and best encapsulates his approval of his son Eisav... Perhaps this is the whole point of the Torah's not saying why Rivqa preferred Yaaqov. Yitzchaq's additional love of Esav was teluyah bedavar, and that fact impacted Eisav's choices. Rivqa love Yaaqov, full stop, not for some reason. There is also an idea I heard from RYBS and often utilized in Gush circles that had things turned out more positively, Eisav would have been the physical arm of the same project as Yaaqv's Torah. Eisav's children would have supported and protected Yaaqov's. According to the Qedushas Levi's version of this idea, Yitzchaq knew Eisav had failings, but felt that the person who was supposed to go out into the real world was bound to be the tzadiq who "falls 7 times and arises" (to quote Shelomo haMelekh). What Yaaqov missed was the nevu'ah "ushnei le'umim mimei'ayikh yipareidu". He thought that the ideal plan, Esav and Yaaqov together without such pirud, was still how history was going to play out. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Spirituality is like a bird: if you tighten micha at aishdas.org your grip on it, it chokes; slacken your grip, http://www.aishdas.org and it flies away. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From micha at aishdas.org Mon Nov 20 11:11:25 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2017 14:11:25 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Hutrah and Dechuyah in Yibum Message-ID: <20171120191124.GB24872@aishdas.org> The topic of EhE 165 is whether yibum or chalitzah is the preferred choice. The Rambam and Rif side with yibum (in cases when yibum is in the almanah's best interest), as per the mishnah rishonah and possibly repeated by the chakhamim in the gemara (Yevamos 39b). Whereas R' Tam, R' Chananel & the Smag hold like Abba Shaul, that since it's too likely the yavam has other things than reestablishing his brother's bayis in mind, chalitzah is the better choice, bizman hazeh. The AhS has an interesting take. First, in se'if 5, he rules out the issue being mitzvos tzerikhos kavanah. If AS gave preference to chalitzah because yibum requires kavanah, then it would be the Rambam and the Rif -- the rishonim who more often hold mitzvos tzerichos kavanah -- who would be siding with him. The AhS (se'if 6) proposes that the machloqes is huterah vs dechuyah. If yibum is a matir for eishes ach, there is no problem doing the mitzvah of yibum even if the yavam's interest is in his new wife solely for her own qualities. However, if it is only docheh eishes ach, then any other kavanah for performing yibum is desire for a sin, and thus should be avoided by choosing chalitzah. And that this is the norm today. I noticed that happens to parallel who holds piquach nefesh is matir melekhes Shabbos vs who holds it is docheh it. There too Sepharadi rishonim don't feel a need to minimize melakhah (huterah), whereas the Ashk rishonim try to (because it's only dechuyah). Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger I thank God for my handicaps, for, through them, micha at aishdas.org I have found myself, my work, and my God. http://www.aishdas.org - Helen Keller Fax: (270) 514-1507 From meirabi at gmail.com Mon Nov 20 14:35:03 2017 From: meirabi at gmail.com (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi) Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2017 09:35:03 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] Sedra Toldos - Balance, When Parents Favour One Child In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I prefer not to be so speculative about the motivations, Eisav had failings, but Yitzchak felt that the person who was supposed to go out into the real world, But what I proposed does not exclude that possibility. Although, giving the blessings to someone with known failings seems unlikely. Depends I suppose on how extensive those failings are or how well they were known to Yitzchak. Or it might just be that he was the Bechor, HKBH's choice. Should Yitzchak challenge HKBH? I wrote - Yitzchak understood, he encouraged Eisav to hunt and cook for him. He even reminded Eisav .... Eisav loved his father and he loved hunting [25:27]. He desperately sought his father's approval. He pursued this as he best knew, by hunting and even by lying. We might even say that he felt as though he was hunting for his father's love. Yitzchak understood, he encouraged Eisav to hunt and cook for him. He even reminded Eisav to take his hunting weapons when he instructs him to hunt and prepare food before he blesses him - Yitzchak wants Eisav to be engaged in the hunting and preparation of the food, because it is this engagement that is their link and best encapsulates his approval of his son Eisav. In other words, "It's not the food I want, for that I could ask your mother or you could grab an animal from our flock - it would be much quicker. No, I want you to be of service to me. Knowing that you have hunted to provide for me makes me happy and I enjoy the food more." Eisav knew that his mother was capable of and willing to provide her husband with all the tasty food he could stomach. He got the message that it was not food that Yitzchak wanted. Yitzchak was reaching out to Eisav, knowing how desperately Eisav sought his approval. Eisav learned how to cook in order to express his love. He even deceived Yitchak, painting himself as the Gd fearing son in order to win his father's approval. Best, M -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Mon Nov 20 14:10:27 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2017 17:10:27 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] How Much Salt for Kashering? In-Reply-To: <15112051720.1Acb3A518.50843@lsd.chicago.il.us.chicago.il.us> References: <15112051720.1Acb3A518.50843@lsd.chicago.il.us.chicago.il.us> Message-ID: <20171120221027.GD24830@aishdas.org> On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 01:12:52PM +0000, Jay F. Shachter via Avodah wrote: :> Kosher meat must have all traces of blood removed. Dam here means blood in the circulatory system. Not blood within tissue. Problem with translations; there often isn't a 1:1. Particularly in cases of terms of art, like "dam" in this context. : No, it does not. This is true only if you are going to cook the meat : before eating it. SA YD 27:2 does say you don't need salting. (See limitations in 3-4.) But... this is because all the dam can be removed by removing the veins, and simple rinsing. So, in the same sense that cooked meat needs melichah to remove all traces of dam, so too does raw "[k]osher meat must have all traces of [dam] removed." Seems Tir'u baTov! -Micha From micha at aishdas.org Mon Nov 20 13:37:22 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2017 16:37:22 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Fwd [Aspaqlaria]: Post-Modern Orthodoxy Message-ID: <20171120213722.GB24830@aishdas.org> My most recent blog post, in which I argue that Post-Modern Orthodoxy is a contradiction of terms. -micha Post-Modern Orthodoxy micha - Published Mon, Nov 20, 2017 Modern Orthodoxy is based on an integration of Orthodoxy with life in the modern world. However, with R' JB Soloveitchik's passing, the movement was left without a luminary who analyzes and discusses matters of worldview. Consequently, Modern Orthodoxy's thought is that of the mid 20th century, when Neo-Kantian and Existential answers addressed the kinds of religious questions people on the street were confronting. And so, the argument is today, that there is a need for someone to articulate a Post-Modern Orthodoxy. This is why there was much discussion in some Modern Orthodox circles with the publication of a selection of R' Shimon Gershon Rosenburg -- "Rav Shagar"`s -- essays in English. "Faith Shattered and Restored: Judaism in the Postmodern Age", edited by Rabbi Dr. Zohar Maor, was published by Maggid Books this past June. Dr. Alan Brill, on his blog, carried numerous translations of R' Shagar since, as well as analysis of his thought. In particular, see this post of notes that Dr Brill compiled while teaching R' Shagar's thought, "Rav Shagar: To be connected to Eyn -- Living in a Postmodern World". Times of Israel had an interview with R/Dr Maor, "Israel's paradoxical man of faith, deconstructed". And recently, R Gil Perl, an alumnus of Yeshivat Har Etzion ("Gush") who became a student of Rav Shagar, wrote an essay about why R' Shagar's thought spoke to him in a way that the teachings of R' Aharon Lichtenstein of Gush couldn't in the long run. See "Postmodern Orthodoxy: Giving Voice to a New Generation". To give you an idea of R Shagar's thought, he likens Deconstructionism to Sheviras haKeilim -- the Qabbalistic idea that Creation involved the breaking of vessels, and the post-modern's inability to consider an idea to be objectively true. He builds a case for the condition of having difficulty with belief and therefore believing in nothing and turns it into a Ism of believing in Nothing. Identifying that lower-case-n nothing with the Ayin, the capital-N Nothingness from which G-d made Yeish, something (indeed, everything). Me, I think it doesn't work. Post-Modernism is a confusion of the subjectivity of my justification for knowing something with the subjectivity of the known. Meaning, I can know objective truths for entirely personal and subjective reasons. I can be convinced of halakhah because of my personal experience of the beauty of Shabbos. Not from my liking Shabbos; from that about the Shabbos experience I find beautiful, likable, meaningful, and True. I know that hilkhos Shabbos as we have them today really did objectively speaking come from the Creator by way of my personal experience of Shabbos. Objective truth, subjective justification. In contrast, in Post-Modern thought, since I have no guarantee of objectively proving anything to anyone else, the notion of objective truth is entirely denied. There isn't "the truth" as much a "his truth" or "her truth", narratives people and societies construct for themselves. And this touches everything on the college campus from religious beliefs to defending the Palestinian because we have our narrative and they have theirs. (There is room for every narrative but those that exclude other narratives.) In the real world outside those ivory towers, though, you won't find too many people with Post-Modern notions of science, declaring (eg) that math or physics are merely social constructs. But certainly outside the realm of the scientifically provable Post-Modern thinking has become part of the zeitgeist. My problem with "Postmodern Orthodoxy" is that Post-Modernism (as I just described it) is inherently incompatible with the notion of a lower-case-o orthodoxy, including our case, capital-O Orthodox Judaism. I often said on Facebook that one reason why more are going OTD in this generation than in mine is that Post-Modernism has become part of the common culture. It is impossible to maintain any orthodoxy, including O, if one believes that there are no objective truths, or even that there is nothing one could ever assert as objectively true. There is a profound difference between believing there is an absolute truth that I personally do not fully know or understand -- which R' Gil Perl presented as R' Lichtenstein's position, and believing that all truths are human conditioned. Between a personal nothing and an ideal of Nothingness. And yet, R Shagar says just that. To repeat a quote of Rav Shagar used in R Perl's article, "All truths may be the product of human conditioning, but such conditioning constitutes the medium through which the divine manifests in the world." Rav Shagar's position strikes me as internally inconsistent. For example, to This presupposes that there is a Divine which is manifest in the world, and any claim that says otherwise would defy that Truth. So, there is at least that one central Truth that is necessarily true, regardless of human conditioning. The entire notion of considering any of the Articles of Faith human conditioned, true only from our perspective, enters the heretical. Another example, R Shagar's Post-Modern Orthodox Jew will speak of revelation "though he knows there are varying and conflicting revelations, the contradictions do not paralyze him." If one does not believe the revelation via Moshe and the revelation of the Torah are unique, are they not koferim baTorah according to the Rambam? How many rabbanim would allow you to use the wine of someone who believes that the only reason to embrace the Torah's message is because it's "the faith of our fathers" (as R' Shagar describes it) and not different in kind than the message of the New Testament or the Qur'an? There are two ways we can speak of the ideal human: we can describe life on the mountain peak, the person who has perfect generosity, perfect patience, perfect faith, a perfect relationship with G-d and other people, etc... But we know that actualize perfection is unachievable for anyone bug G-d. So, the true ideal human is one constantly working toward having those perfect relationships, trying their best, constantly growing. But they are two different things -- the ideal in the sense of the goal to strive for, and the ideal of being a striver. We need to learn to separate these notions. Ayin is part of the ideology. A crisis of faith, those times of nothingness, is part of the reach to internalize that ideology. The ideal life for most of us will be struggling with the ideology; but once one makes that struggle part of the ideology itself, I fear one crossed the line. From afolger at aishdas.org Tue Nov 21 01:28:58 2017 From: afolger at aishdas.org (Arie Folger) Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2017 10:28:58 +0100 Subject: [Avodah] Torah precheit Message-ID: A little postscript to my statement, that regarding aliens we might one day meet, that we cold not accept any competing revelation, only one that is of a kind of Noachide revelation, subordinate to ours, well... Let me admit that in stating that, I was displaying a human bias: I unreasonably assumed that aliens would be a kind of otherworldly humans. However, insofar as they are radically different species (which would be likely), then I see no problem of them having their own revelation and their own 'am hanivchar, *as* *long* *as* *their* *revelation* *doesn't* *contradict* *ours*, i.e. we could not accept a revelation that claims that 'avoda zara is muttar, that murder is muttar or that assumes the existence of several deities. -- Arie Folger -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hmaryles at yahoo.com Tue Nov 21 07:30:45 2017 From: hmaryles at yahoo.com (Harry Maryles) Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2017 15:30:45 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Avodah] Fwd [Aspaqlaria]: Post-Modern Orthodoxy In-Reply-To: <20171120213722.GB24830@aishdas.org> References: <20171120213722.GB24830@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <570709339.403139.1511278245922@mail.yahoo.com> I read Gil Perl's article and I don't understand why the idea of? RAL's not knowing or being able to know but nonetheless believing doesn't speak to him. I find all the talk about there being no objective truth to be irrelevant. Truth goes beyond provable fact. It even goes beyond the contradictions to belief by newly discovered scientific truths which by definition are subject to change with new discoveries. In the Lonely Man of Faith, RYBS explains that there are no cognitive categories in which the total commitment of the man of faith could be spelled out. The commitment is rooted not in one dimension, such as the rational one, but in the whole personality of the man of faith. The whole human being; the rational as well as the non-rational is committed to God. Hence the magnitude of commitment is beyond the comprehension of the logos and the ethos. The intellect does not chart the course of the man of faith. It is a function not only of the logic of the mind. It is also a function of the logic of the heart. An apriori awareness that becomes an axiom - a conclusion that cannot rely on solely rational considerations.? HM Want Emes and Emunah in your life? Try this: http://haemtza.blogspot.com/ On Monday, November 20, 2017, 7:25:20 PM CST, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: My most recent blog post, in which I argue that Post-Modern Orthodoxy is a contradiction of terms. -micha Post-Modern Orthodoxy micha - Published Mon, Nov 20, 2017 Modern Orthodoxy is based on an integration of Orthodoxy with life in the modern world. However, with R' JB Soloveitchik's passing, the movement was left without a luminary who analyzes and discusses matters of worldview. Consequently, Modern Orthodoxy's thought is that of the mid 20th century, when Neo-Kantian and Existential answers addressed the kinds of religious questions people on the street were confronting. And so, the argument is today, that there is a need for someone to articulate a Post-Modern Orthodoxy. This is why there was much discussion in some Modern Orthodox circles with the publication of a selection of R' Shimon Gershon Rosenburg -- "Rav Shagar"`s -- essays in English. "Faith Shattered and Restored: Judaism in the Postmodern Age", edited by Rabbi Dr. Zohar Maor, was published by Maggid Books this past June. Dr. Alan Brill, on his blog, carried numerous translations of R' Shagar since, as well as analysis of his thought. In particular, see this post of notes that Dr Brill compiled while teaching R' Shagar's thought, "Rav Shagar: To be connected to Eyn -- Living in a Postmodern World". Times of Israel had an interview with R/Dr Maor, "Israel's paradoxical man of faith, deconstructed". And recently, R Gil Perl, an alumnus of Yeshivat Har Etzion ("Gush") who became a student of Rav Shagar, wrote an essay about why R' Shagar's thought spoke to him in a way that the teachings of R' Aharon Lichtenstein of Gush couldn't in the long run. See "Postmodern Orthodoxy: Giving Voice to a New Generation". To give you an idea of R Shagar's thought, he likens Deconstructionism to Sheviras haKeilim -- the Qabbalistic idea that Creation involved the breaking of vessels, and the post-modern's inability to consider an idea to be objectively true. He builds a case for the condition of having difficulty with belief and therefore believing in nothing and turns it into a Ism of believing in Nothing. Identifying that lower-case-n nothing with the Ayin, the capital-N Nothingness from which G-d made Yeish, something (indeed, everything). Me, I think it doesn't work. Post-Modernism is a confusion of the subjectivity of my justification for knowing something with the subjectivity of the known. Meaning, I can know objective truths for entirely personal and subjective reasons. I can be convinced of halakhah because of my personal experience of the beauty of Shabbos. Not from my liking Shabbos; from that about the Shabbos experience I find beautiful, likable, meaningful, and True. I know that hilkhos Shabbos as we have them today really did objectively speaking come from the Creator by way of my personal experience of Shabbos. Objective truth, subjective justification. In contrast, in Post-Modern thought, since I have no guarantee of objectively proving anything to anyone else, the notion of objective truth is entirely denied. There isn't "the truth" as much a "his truth" or "her truth", narratives people and societies construct for themselves. And this touches everything on the college campus from religious beliefs to defending the Palestinian because we have our narrative and they have theirs. (There is room for every narrative but those that exclude other narratives.) In the real world outside those ivory towers, though, you won't find too many people with Post-Modern notions of science, declaring (eg) that math or physics are merely social constructs. But certainly outside the realm of the scientifically provable Post-Modern thinking has become part of the zeitgeist. My problem with "Postmodern Orthodoxy" is that Post-Modernism (as I just described it) is inherently incompatible with the notion of a lower-case-o orthodoxy, including our case, capital-O Orthodox Judaism. I often said on Facebook that one reason why more are going OTD in this generation than in mine is that Post-Modernism has become part of the common culture. It is impossible to maintain any orthodoxy, including O, if one believes that there are no objective truths, or even that there is nothing one could ever assert as objectively true. There is a profound difference between believing there is an absolute truth that I personally do not fully know or understand -- which R' Gil Perl presented as R' Lichtenstein's position, and believing that all truths are human conditioned. Between a personal nothing and an ideal of Nothingness. And yet, R Shagar says just that. To repeat a quote of Rav Shagar used in R Perl's article, "All truths may be the product of human conditioning, but such conditioning constitutes the medium through which the divine manifests in the world." Rav Shagar's position strikes me as internally inconsistent. For example, to This presupposes that there is a Divine which is manifest in the world, and any claim that says otherwise would defy that Truth. So, there is at least that one central Truth that is necessarily true, regardless of human conditioning. The entire notion of considering any of the Articles of Faith human conditioned, true only from our perspective, enters the heretical. Another example, R Shagar's Post-Modern Orthodox Jew will speak of revelation "though he knows there are varying and conflicting revelations, the contradictions do not paralyze him." If one does not believe the revelation via Moshe and the revelation of the Torah are unique, are they not koferim baTorah according to the Rambam? How many rabbanim would allow you to use the wine of someone who believes that the only reason to embrace the Torah's message is because it's "the faith of our fathers" (as R' Shagar describes it) and not different in kind than the message of the New Testament or the Qur'an? There are two ways we can speak of the ideal human: we can describe life on the mountain peak, the person who has perfect generosity, perfect patience, perfect faith, a perfect relationship with G-d and other people, etc... But we know that actualize perfection is unachievable for anyone bug G-d. So, the true ideal human is one constantly working toward having those perfect relationships, trying their best, constantly growing. But they are two different things -- the ideal in the sense of the goal to strive for, and the ideal of being a striver. We need to learn to separate these notions. Ayin is part of the ideology. A crisis of faith, those times of nothingness, is part of the reach to internalize that ideology. The ideal life for most of us will be struggling with the ideology; but once one makes that struggle part of the ideology itself, I fear one crossed the line. _______________________________________________ Avodah mailing list Avodah at lists.aishdas.org http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Tue Nov 21 06:25:15 2017 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2017 14:25:15 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Notes on RSRH's Philosopy of Judaism Message-ID: <1511274314342.40161@stevens.edu> Please see the pdf file at http://www.halakhah.com/rst/hirsch.pdf YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Tue Nov 21 05:54:15 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2017 08:54:15 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] T'hay In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20171121135414.GB15991@aishdas.org> On Sat, Nov 18, 2017 at 10:23:18PM -0500, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : There is a word spelled tav-heh-aleph, pronounced "t'hay". Is this : word Hebrew or Aramaic? Sidenote, just to complicate things. Assuming that when someone with the last name "Miller" speaks of what he finds "in my siddur" is looking in an Ashkenazi one... RSM found in manuscripts that earlier Ashkenazi siddurim honed much closer to leshon Chazal than we do. The example I usually cite is "vesein chleqeinu beSorasakh, sab'einu mituvakh..." as Sepharadim have it. Your siddur probably consistently has "Sha'atah", not "she'atah". This is a "correction" to the form that appears in seifer Sofetim. One holdover is "Modim anachnu Lakh", instead of "Lekha"... but then followed by "Sha'atah". It appears to be largely the work of one person, R' Shelomo Zalman Hanau (Katz), author of the Binyan Shalomo. He then compiles a siddur, Shaarei Tefillah. R' Yaaqov Emden's Lueach Eresh is a rebuttal of the Razah's grammatical theories, and kedarko beqodesh, he doesn't pull punches. For example, the Binyan Shelomo was printed with a hasqamah from R' Tzvi Ashkenazi; RYE wrote that his father's hasqamah was forged. The Alter Rebbe, in composing Nusach haAri, was heavily influenced by the Razah's theory of diqduq. And slowly other Ashkenazim switched from leshon Chazal to leshon Tanakh. Even RZBaer and the Yekkes. So, with a siddur that is partially in one version of Hebrew and partially in another, who knows how any word settled on one set of diqduq rules or the other. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "I hear, then I forget; I see, then I remember; micha at aishdas.org I do, then I understand." - Confucius http://www.aishdas.org "Hearing doesn't compare to seeing." - Mechilta Fax: (270) 514-1507 "We will do and we will listen." - Israelites From meirabi at gmail.com Tue Nov 21 15:38:02 2017 From: meirabi at gmail.com (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi) Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2017 10:38:02 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] Kosher meat must have all traces of blood removed Message-ID: I am happy to amend to Before cooking, Kosher meat must have all traces of blood removed Best, Meir G. Rabi 0423 207 837 +61 423 207 837 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From larry62341 at optonline.net Wed Nov 22 06:20:47 2017 From: larry62341 at optonline.net (Prof. Levine) Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2017 09:20:47 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Sedra Toldos - Balance, When Parents Favour One Child In-Reply-To: <56bc7b19424c44b7aec48fc7014df583@exchng03.campus.stevens-t ech.edu> References: <56bc7b19424c44b7aec48fc7014df583@exchng03.campus.stevens-tech.edu> Message-ID: <7E.4D.03148.0C7851A5@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> At 10:52 AM 11/21/2017, R Micha Berger wrote: >Perhaps this is the whole point of the Torah's not saying why Rivqa >preferred Yaaqov. Yitzchaq's additional love of Esav was teluyah bedavar, >and that fact impacted Eisav's choices. Rivqa love Yaaqov, full stop, >not for some reason. I suggest you read RSRH's essay Lessons From Jacob and Esau (Collected Writings VII) YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From JRich at sibson.com Wed Nov 22 21:54:08 2017 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2017 05:54:08 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] sefer torah's path Message-ID: <7df4daee86e84ff48f391450b891c5f0@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> From R' Aviner: Bringing the Torah to People to Kiss Q: Is it permissible to bring the Sefer Torah in the Shul towards people who want to kiss it? A: No. This is a disgrace to the Sefer Torah. They should approach the Sefer Torah. Piskei Teshuvot 134:6. I have been to more than a few shuls that particularly on Shabbat take the long road - any ideas on who they are relying on? (not to mention those who lower the sefer torah so the kids can kiss it too) KT 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: From marty.bluke at gmail.com Sat Nov 25 12:27:38 2017 From: marty.bluke at gmail.com (Marty Bluke) Date: Sat, 25 Nov 2017 22:27:38 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] How can R' Yochanan and Resh Lakish argue about the tradition of a Gezera Shava? Message-ID: The Gemara in Makos(14b) has a dispute between R' Yochanan and Resh Lakish which revolves around a gezera shava. R' Yochanan has the gezera shava and Resh Lakish does not, Rashi explains that Resh Lakish did not get this gezera shava from his rebbeim. This seems very difficult because the gemara in Bava Metzia (84a) describes how Resh Lakish was the head of a group of bandits and R' Yochanan persuaded hm to learn Torah and was clearly Rabo Muvhak. In fact, they were so close that after Resh Lakish's death, R' Yochanan lost his mind and died. Given this, how can it be that R' Yochanan had a gezera shava and Resh Lakish didn't because lo kiblu merabo, R' Yochanan was his Rebbe so why wouldn't R' Yochanan have taught him this gezera shava? R' Yochanan clearly had a kabbala on this gezera shava so why wouldn't his talmid muvhak Resh Lakish have gotten this kabbala from his rebbe? The answer can't be that Resh Lakish argued on this because gezera shava's are a kabbala from your rebbe, period. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Thu Nov 23 15:55:59 2017 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2017 23:55:59 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] More on Yaakov, sheep and the rods Message-ID: <1511481358587.99267@stevens.edu> The following is from RSRH's commentary on Bereishis 30:37 Ya'akov then took for himself rods of fresh aspen and hazelnut and chestnut trees, and peeled white streaks in them by uncovering the white on the rods. After all this, Ya'akov's initiative with the rods would have been fully justified, even had it constituted a tried and tested expedient - a supposition that surely will not be borne out by experiment. >From the continuation of the story we know that Lavan altered the terms of the agreement ten times (see below, 31:7), setting new conditions regarding the form of the speckles and spots. It is difficult to assume that, because of a general action such as setting up the rods in the sight of the sheep, the sheep would bring forth young that were this time speckled, the next time spotted, and the next time marked on the feet. Ya'akov's success can be attributed only to a special intervention of Divine providence - as attested to by Ya'akov himself. The expedient of the rods was only an extremely weak substitute for the breeding animals Lavan had wrongfully removed. Nevertheless, Ya'akov did not refrain from seeking the aid of this expedient; since ain somchin al haness (see Pesachim 64b), he was obligated to do his part. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hankman at bell.net Sun Nov 26 10:02:44 2017 From: hankman at bell.net (hankman) Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2017 13:02:44 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] More on Yaakov, sheep and the rods Message-ID: <440B31203B1C40479ABF364797C2B58A@hankPC> Prof. L. Levine wrote?": ?It is difficult to assume that, because of a general action such as setting up the rods in the sight of the sheep, the sheep would bring forth young that were this time speckled, the next time spotted, and the next time marked on the feet. Ya'akov's success can be attributed only to a special intervention of Divine providence - as attested to by Ya'akov himself. The expedient of the rods was only an extremely weak substitute for the breeding animals Lavan had wrongfully removed. Nevertheless, Ya'akov did not refrain from seeking the aid of this expedient; since ain somchin al haness (see Pesachim 64b), he was obligated to do his part...? As everyone who had genetics 101 will realize, if you eliminate 100% of the phenotype, and breed the remainder you will still get some of that phenotype in the next generation with recessive genes. So it always bothered me why was all the hokus pokus by Yaakov necessary. Even more so the pasook itself seems to ascribe the results as caused by the sticks even though a simple natural explanation for the reappearance of the phenotype in the next generation is quite simple. The only explanation I could come up with is that the percentages were much higher than one would expect as a result of genetic calculations thus the nes (and Yaakov?s efforts [hishtadlus] to produce it) is described at great length. Kol tuv Chaim Manaster -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From akivagmiller at gmail.com Sat Nov 25 17:51:31 2017 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Sat, 25 Nov 2017 20:51:31 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] sefer torah's path Message-ID: . R' Joel Rich asked: > From R? Aviner: Bringing the Torah to People to Kiss > Q: Is it permissible to bring the Sefer Torah in the Shul > towards people who want to kiss it? > A: No. This is a disgrace to the Sefer Torah. They should > approach the Sefer Torah. Piskei Teshuvot 134:6. > > I have been to more than a few shuls that particularly on > Shabbat take the long road ? any ideas on who they are > relying on? (not to mention those who lower the sefer torah > so the kids can kiss it too) Maybe the masses simply disagree with the logic of the Piskei Teshuvot? Maybe people feel that bringing the Torah to Amcha is NOT a disgrace? Personally, I can easily understand that lowering it could be a bizayon, but what's wrong with taking the long way around? If the short route is taken, then (depending on the shul's layout) it is possible (or even probable) that many (or most) will simply be unable to get close enough to kiss it -- and if this is true on the men's side of the mechitza, it is even more true on the women's side! There are SO many things that we allow for no reason other than allowing the people to show their love and kavod for the Torah!!! Compared to the bells that ring on Shabbos, or the multitude of aliyos on Simchas Torah, this seems exceeding minor, in my opinion. Akiva Miller From brothke at gmail.com Sat Nov 25 18:20:23 2017 From: brothke at gmail.com (Ben Rothke) Date: Sat, 25 Nov 2017 21:20:23 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Gid ha'nasheh and 'therefore' Message-ID: In the coming week?s parsha, it has the story of Yaakov wrestling and then concludes: ? ???-???? ???-???????? ?????-?????????? ???-????? ????????? I am trying to figure out the connection between the wrestling injury and klal Yisroel not eating gid hanasheh. The term '???-????' implies consequently, to which I don?t see the consequence. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From JRich at sibson.com Sat Nov 25 21:47:06 2017 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2017 05:47:06 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] How can R' Yochanan and Resh Lakish argue about the tradition of a Gezera Shava? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: The answer can't be that Resh Lakish argued on this because gezera shava's are a kabbala from your rebbe, period. > ______________________________________________ 1. This begs the broader question as to why an Amira having a gs doesn't automatically trump one that doesn't 2.this also assumes only a rebbi muvhak counts as rabo for purposes of mesora Kt 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. From JRich at sibson.com Sun Nov 26 05:28:50 2017 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2017 13:28:50 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] eilu v'eilu Message-ID: <6b52bc1475284ba2a6aa3d7734cb8de7@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> http://www.yutorah.org/lectures/lecture.cfm/889447/rabbi-assaf-bednarsh/pluralism-and-halacha-what-is-truth,-and-who-has-it/ Rabbi Assaf Bednarsh--Pluralism and Halacha: What is Truth, and Who Has It Interesting shiur on an old Avodah favorite KT 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: From lisa at starways.net Sun Nov 26 14:37:13 2017 From: lisa at starways.net (Lisa Liel) Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2017 00:37:13 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Gid ha'nasheh and 'therefore' In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I don't think al ken denotes causation.? In most cases, it seems to mean "How correct it is that..."? For example, the two times we're told "al ken", the city is called Beersheva.? They can't both be the cause. Lisa On 11/26/2017 4:20 AM, Ben Rothke via Avodah wrote: > > In the coming week?s parsha, it has the story of Yaakov wrestling and > then concludes: > > ? ???-???? ???-???????? ?????-?????????? ???-????? ????????? > > I am trying to figure out the connection between the wrestling injury > and klal Yisroel not eating gid hanasheh. > > The term '???-????' implies consequently, to which I don?t see the > consequence. > > --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From micha at aishdas.org Sun Nov 26 15:09:41 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2017 18:09:41 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Gid ha'nasheh and 'therefore' In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20171126230941.GA24539@aishdas.org> On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 12:37:13AM +0200, Lisa Liel via Avodah wrote: : On 11/26/2017 4:20 AM, Ben Rothke via Avodah wrote: : >In the coming week's parsha, it has the story of Yaakov wrestling : >and then concludes: "Al kein lo yokhlu BY es gid hanasheh." : >I am trying to figure out the connection between the wrestling : >injury and klal Yisroel not eating gid hanasheh. : >The term '[al kein]' implies consequently, to which I don't see the : >consequence. : I don't think al ken denotes causation.? In most cases, it seems to : mean "How correct it is that..."? For example, the two times we're : told "al ken", the city is called Beersheva.? They can't both be the : cause. Why not? It could be that each were necessary but insufficient causes, so that the name "Be'er-Sheva" is the consequence of both being true. Or it could be that each were sufficient cause, and the name Be'er-Sheva was justified by either alone -- but equally so. And thus the city's name represents both. But to answer RBR's question, I don't think al kein implies sufficient causality. Rather, because of the fight, HQBH had an opportunity to turn eating thigh meat into a ritual that reminds one of the fight, and thus of the Jew's ability to act on the level of (in the sense of: interact with) angels. Without the fight, the mitzvah would lack that historical symbolism; so it's a cause, but of a different sort than it seems from your question that you are thinking of. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger It is our choices...that show what we truly are, micha at aishdas.org far more than our abilities. http://www.aishdas.org - J. K. Rowling Fax: (270) 514-1507 From micha at aishdas.org Sun Nov 26 14:58:57 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2017 17:58:57 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] How can R' Yochanan and Resh Lakish argue about the tradition of a Gezera Shava? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20171126225857.GA9115@aishdas.org> On Sat, Nov 25, 2017 at 10:27:38PM +0200, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: : The Gemara in Makos(14b) has a dispute between R' Yochanan and Resh Lakish : which revolves around a gezera shava. R' Yochanan has the gezera shava and : Resh Lakish does not, Rashi explains that Resh Lakish did not get this : gezera shava from his rebbeim. : : This seems very difficult because the gemara in Bava Metzia (84a) describes : how Resh Lakish was the head of a group of bandits and R' Yochanan : persuaded hm to learn Torah and was clearly Rabo Muvhak... So, he had a mesorah from a rebbe other than his rebbe muvhaq or any of his own rabbeim -- maybe just a shiur from someone else he sat in once... (Which is similar to RHR's #2.) Or... If "Moavi velo Mo'avis" was darsehened first by Boaz's court, then we know of at least one gezeira shava -- from Amon to Moav -- that Boaz invoked withtout a tradition of its existence dating back from Sinai. For that matter, if the Rambam assumed that the rule about no new gezeiros shava really was in place from day one, then he would have to assert that like [other] halakhos leMoshe miSinai, there couldn't be machloqesin in any of them. I would therefore deduce from the Rambam's silence in the face of numerous such machloqesin, he must have thought that gezeiros shava could be invented (or as other riahonim would have it: discovered) without a mesorah. It would seem the idea that GS requires a mesorah has a loophole. Perhaps the notion is that the textual connection must have a mesorah, but the lesson taken from it could be left to the later generation to find. Also, it is interesting that the contrast in Pesachim 66a to the mesorah needed for GS is the qal vachomer. A rule of logic that a person truly could make on their own in a way that doesn't apply to another of the other midos sheheTorah nidreshes bahen. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When faced with a decision ask yourself, micha at aishdas.org "How would I decide if it were Ne'ilah now, http://www.aishdas.org at the closing moments of Yom Kippur?" Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From marty.bluke at gmail.com Mon Nov 27 02:10:10 2017 From: marty.bluke at gmail.com (Marty Bluke) Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2017 12:10:10 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] How can R' Yochanan and Resh Lakish argue about the tradition of a Gezera Shava? In-Reply-To: <20171126225857.GA9115@aishdas.org> References: <20171126225857.GA9115@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 12:58 AM, Micha Berger wrote: > On Sat, Nov 25, 2017 at 10:27:38PM +0200, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: > : The Gemara in Makos(14b) has a dispute between R' Yochanan and Resh > Lakish > : which revolves around a gezera shava. R' Yochanan has the gezera shava > and > : Resh Lakish does not, Rashi explains that Resh Lakish did not get this > : gezera shava from his rebbeim. > : > : This seems very difficult because the gemara in Bava Metzia (84a) > describes > : how Resh Lakish was the head of a group of bandits and R' Yochanan > : persuaded hm to learn Torah and was clearly Rabo Muvhak... > > So, he had a mesorah from a rebbe other than his rebbe muvhaq or any > of his own rabbeim -- maybe just a shiur from someone else he sat in > once... (Which is similar to RHR's #2.) > What other mesora? It's not that Resh Lakish had a gezera shava that R' Yochanan didn't have that he could have learned from someone else. The Gemara says that he didn't have a kabbala on a gezera shava that R' Yochanan had. > > Or... > > If "Moavi velo Mo'avis" was darsehened first by Boaz's court, then we > know of at least one gezeira shava -- from Amon to Moav -- that Boaz > invoked withtout a tradition of its existence dating back from Sinai. > That was a gezera shava? In any case the Gemara in Nidda (19b) states that ayn adam dan gezera shava meatzmo, says Rashi he needs a kabbala from his rebbe halacha l'moshe misinai. For that matter, if the Rambam assumed that the rule about no new gezeiros > shava really was in place from day one, then he would have to assert that > like [other] halakhos leMoshe miSinai, there couldn't be machloqesin in > any of them. I would therefore deduce from the Rambam's silence in the > face of numerous such machloqesin, he must have thought that gezeiros > shava could be invented (or as other riahonim would have it: discovered) > without a mesorah. > It would seem the idea that GS requires a mesorah has a loophole. Perhaps > the notion is that the textual connection must have a mesorah, but > the lesson taken from it could be left to the later generation to find. > Tosafos in Shabbos (97a) states that they had a mesora on the number of gezera shavas and therefore they had to reconcile the various traditions with the number of gezera shavas. This would seem to come to address the question of why certain Tannaim/Amoraim had a gezera shava and others didn't. However, it doesn't answer the question on Resh Lakish who must have gotten the number from Rabo Muvhak R' Yochanan. The Rishonim/Acharonim in Nida (22b) are bothered by the question that the Gemara says that a gezera shava that is mufne mi tzad echad lmeidin umeshivin and mufne mishnei tz'dadim lmeidim vayn m'shivim. If there was a kabala on the gezera shava then why does it need to be mufne and if there was no kabbala then why should it be accepted even if it is mufne? The Ramban on the Sefer Hamitzvos (Shoresh 2) based on this question rejects the simple understanding of ayn adam dan gezera shava meiatzmo that all the details of the gezera shavas were received at Har Sinai by Moshe. Rather, they had a kabbala that there was a gezera shava with a certain word pair but not which set of those words and what halacha is learned from it and therefore it is up to the chachamim to decide based on the principles that they received to decide what exactly the gezera shava was and therefore there is machlokes. This is what the Gemara in Nidda is discussing, the principles relating to figuring out what exactly the gezera shava is. Unfortunately, this does not really answer all of the Gemara's and disputes about gezera shavas. > > Also, it is interesting that the contrast in Pesachim 66a to the mesorah > needed for GS is the qal vachomer. A rule of logic that a person truly > could make on their own in a way that doesn't apply to another of the > other midos sheheTorah nidreshes bahen. > There is a machlokes Rashi and Tosafos whether it is only a kal vachomer that adam dan meatzmo or all the middos except for gezera shava. > > Tir'u baTov! > -Micha > > -- > Micha Berger When faced with a decision ask yourself, > micha at aishdas.org "How would I decide if it were Ne'ilah now, > http://www.aishdas.org at the closing moments of Yom Kippur?" > Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From lisa at starways.net Mon Nov 27 02:55:35 2017 From: lisa at starways.net (Lisa Liel) Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2017 12:55:35 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] How can R' Yochanan and Resh Lakish argue about the tradition of a Gezera Shava? In-Reply-To: <20171126225857.GA9115@aishdas.org> References: <20171126225857.GA9115@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <2e55bd0b-bb70-45dd-093f-a9ca79fa0760@starways.net> On 11/27/2017 12:58 AM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > If "Moavi velo Mo'avis" was darsehened first by Boaz's court, then we > know of at least one gezeira shava -- from Amon to Moav -- that Boaz > invoked withtout a tradition of its existence dating back from Sinai. > How was that a gezeira shava? Lisa --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From micha at aishdas.org Mon Nov 27 13:21:42 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2017 16:21:42 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] How can R' Yochanan and Resh Lakish argue about the tradition of a Gezera Shava? In-Reply-To: <2e55bd0b-bb70-45dd-093f-a9ca79fa0760@starways.net> References: <20171126225857.GA9115@aishdas.org> <2e55bd0b-bb70-45dd-093f-a9ca79fa0760@starways.net> Message-ID: <20171127212142.GA26403@aishdas.org> On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 12:10:10PM +0200, Marty Bluke wrote: : > So, he had a mesorah from a rebbe other than his rebbe muvhaq or any : > of his own rabbeim -- maybe just a shiur from someone else he sat in : > once... (Which is similar to RJR's #2.) : What other mesora? It's not that Resh Lakish had a gezera shava that R' : Yochanan didn't have that he could have learned from someone else. The : Gemara says that he didn't have a kabbala on a gezera shava that R' : Yochanan had. This wasn't the ikar of my answer; I was just ammending RJR's answer to reflect the fact that the gemara says "rabosav" not "rabo". But it seems to me now you are saying the OP was asking how it's possible that R' Yochanan knew something that he didn't pass on to Reish Laqish. Or more accurately, where would RL learn something to have him question a GS when R Yochanan told him of it the first time. In which case, my intended answer works even better -- the presmise that every GS is a tradition dating back to Sinai is false. A conclusion the other RMB gives far more sources for than I did. :> Or... :> If "Moavi velo Mo'avis" was darsehened first by Boaz's court, then we :> know of at least one gezeira shava -- from Amon to Moav -- that Boaz :> invoked withtout a tradition of its existence dating back from Sinai. : That was a gezera shava? In any case the Gemara in Nidda (19b) states that : ayn adam dan gezera shava meatzmo, says Rashi he needs a kabbala from his : rebbe halacha l'moshe misinai. Not every "halakhah leMoshe MiSinai" is literally so. R' Avohu on Kesuvos 7b says that Boaz collected 10 men in "lemidrash 'amoni velo amonis, moavi velo moavis." How does he know it wasn't for 7 berakhos (R' Nachman's shitah)? Because of the need to get "miziqnei ha'ir". Why 10? [I presume -- and not a BD of 3:] lefirsumei milsa. Similarly, Rus Rabba 7:9 states that Peloni didn't know *shenischadshah* din zu. As for "that was a GS?" (A question Lisa also asks...) Amoni velo Amonis is justified because the Amoni ddidn't bring food or water when we came to their land. And it is the men we would have expected to recieve or even buy such previsions from. Moav velo Moavis would be a pretty arbitrary time to insist a word be read as specifically male instead of gender-neutral if it weren't by GS to Amoni. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Here is the test to find whether your mission micha at aishdas.org on Earth is finished: http://www.aishdas.org if you're alive, it isn't. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Richard Bach From zev at sero.name Mon Nov 27 15:10:29 2017 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2017 18:10:29 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] How can R' Yochanan and Resh Lakish argue about the tradition of a Gezera Shava? In-Reply-To: <20171127212142.GA26403@aishdas.org> References: <20171126225857.GA9115@aishdas.org> <2e55bd0b-bb70-45dd-093f-a9ca79fa0760@starways.net> <20171127212142.GA26403@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 27/11/17 16:21, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > As for "that was a GS?" (A question Lisa also asks...) Amoni velo Amonis > is justified because the Amoni ddidn't bring food or water when we > came to their land. And it is the men we would have expected to recieve > or even buy such previsions from. Moav velo Moavis would be a pretty > arbitrary time to insist a word be read as specifically male instead > of gender-neutral if it weren't by GS to Amoni. Could you please explain this? Where do you get that there is any limmud from Ammon to Moav? The Torah says *both* Amonim and Moavim are banned because they didn't welcome us with bread and water. You seem to be claiming that Amonim are banned for this reason, and then Moavim by some sort of gezera shava from Amonim. Where is this coming from? -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From marty.bluke at gmail.com Thu Nov 30 02:11:31 2017 From: marty.bluke at gmail.com (Marty Bluke) Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2017 12:11:31 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] What are the main mitzvos to focus on? Message-ID: The last daf in Makos (24a) states that the Neviim took the 613 mitzvos and reduced them to a smaller set for people to focus on. Michah gave three Mitzvos for people to focus on - "Asos Mishpat..." "Asos Mishpat" is monetary laws; "Ahavas Chesed" is bestowing Chesed; "V'Hatzne'a Leches Im Elokecha" is escorting the dead and bringing a Kalah to Chupah; Yeshayah later gave two primary Mitzvos - "Shimru Mishpat va'Asu Tzedakah." The mitzva of learning Torah which we understand to be the most important and fundamental mitzva does not appear in these lists. How do we explain the omission of learning Torah in these lists? Additionally, these lists seem to consist solely of mitzvos bein adam lachaveiro, are there no mitzvos ben adam lamakom that are important enought to appear on these lists? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From seinfeld at daasbooks.com Thu Nov 30 09:20:44 2017 From: seinfeld at daasbooks.com (Alexander Seinfeld) Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2017 12:20:44 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] More on Yaakov, sheep and the rods Message-ID: <50458059-A03F-4E6E-B54B-F1612B0E7E5B@jsli.org> Why not just interpret this as an example of phenotypic plasticity, meaning the genetic potential is there in every generation, and the environmental factors stimulate its expression? As everyone who had genetics 101 will realize, if you eliminate 100% of the phenotype, and breed the remainder you will still get some of that phenotype in the next generation with recessive genes. So it always bothered me why was all the hokus pokus by Yaakov necessary. Even more so the pasook itself seems to ascribe the results as caused by the sticks even though a simple natural explanation for the reappearance of the phenotype in the next generation is quite simple. The only explanation I could come up with is that the percentages were much higher than one would expect as a result of genetic calculations thus the nes (and Yaakov?s efforts [hishtadlus] to produce it) is described at great length. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From chaim.tatel at gmail.com Thu Nov 30 09:30:37 2017 From: chaim.tatel at gmail.com (Chaim Tatel) Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2017 09:30:37 -0800 Subject: [Avodah] Gid ha'nasheh Message-ID: When I was studying Zoology in college back in the 70s, I did some research on Yaakov?s battle with the malach. The big question I had was ?why should Yaakov Avinu get hit in the gid hanasheh (sciatic nerve)? Why not somewhere else in the body?? As I learned in my Anatomy and Physiology class, there are several nerves that branch off from the sciatic nerve. One of these is the pudendal nerve. This is one of the nerves responsible for sexual function (and other actions). Current research follows: The pudendal nerve is found in the pelvis. It is the biggest division of the pudendal plexus (a network of nerves) and is located behind the sacrospinous ligament, near the tailbone. The nerve extends from the sacral plexus, through the pudendal canal, the perineum, and the gluteal area. These are structures located near the genital, rectal, and gluteal (buttock) regions. (see: https://www.healthline.com/human-body-maps/pudendal-nerve) The peripheral nerves supply the bladder, anal canal, and perineal skin. The pudendal nerve is the primary somatic nerve to this region. Motor fibers in the pudendal nerve innervate the bulbocavernosus muscle, external urethral sphincter, external anal sphincter, and pelvic floor muscles. (see: www.humanneurophysiology.com/sacralmonitoring.htm) I also remember that one of the meforshim (commentators) on Chumash had a similar answer. (Sorry, I can?t remember where I saw this, it?s been over 40 years). At any rate, it makes sense that Yaakov would be hit there, as a reminder that his marriage to Rachel after his marriage to her sister Leah would not hold up when he entered Eretz Yisrael. (not long after this episode, Rachel died in childbirth of Binyamin). Aside from feeling the psychological pain of Rachel?s death, perhaps Yaakov also had to feel physical pain. Chaim Tatel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From lisa at starways.net Sat Dec 2 12:56:18 2017 From: lisa at starways.net (Lisa Liel) Date: Sat, 2 Dec 2017 22:56:18 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] knife sharpeners Message-ID: <62debe36-f9a2-7cab-d4cb-a60320a1ec83@starways.net> Are knife sharpeners mekabel taam?? And noten taam?? Do you need different onces for meat, dairy, pesach, etc? --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From zev at sero.name Sat Dec 2 17:01:31 2017 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Sat, 2 Dec 2017 20:01:31 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] knife sharpeners In-Reply-To: <62debe36-f9a2-7cab-d4cb-a60320a1ec83@starways.net> References: <62debe36-f9a2-7cab-d4cb-a60320a1ec83@starways.net> Message-ID: <0115756c-ad5a-dc19-dfdc-aba2138a2858@sero.name> On 02/12/17 15:56, Lisa Liel via Avodah wrote: > Are knife sharpeners mekabel taam?? And noten taam?? Do you need > different onces for meat, dairy, pesach, etc? Since they don't ever contact food, I don't see how they could. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From JRich at sibson.com Sat Dec 2 22:40:43 2017 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Sun, 3 Dec 2017 06:40:43 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Women and Torah Study Message-ID: <9f94d416d3154585a6bb71a2df12c54e@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> My comment to a recent post on Lehrhaus on women and intensive talmud study: Is encouraging intensive study of Talmud for women a community priority or is the priority to make such study available for those who choose to avail themselves of the opportunity? Especially if the former, where does it stand in relation to other community priorities and how does the answer differ from study for men? IMHO these questions have not been sufficiently addressed. Do my concern resonate at all? KT 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: From marty.bluke at gmail.com Sun Dec 3 01:13:00 2017 From: marty.bluke at gmail.com (Marty Bluke) Date: Sun, 3 Dec 2017 11:13:00 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] The 13 middos Message-ID: The Gemara in Shavuos (4b) discusses who the Tanna of the Mishna is and brings down a fundamental machlokes tannaim about the 13 middos. R' Yishmael darshens klal uprat and R' Akiva darshens ribuy umiut. The Acharonim point out that these are mutually exclusive and every Tanna darshens one or the other but they cannot be mixed (e.g. a Tanna sometimes darshens ribuy umiut and sometimes klal uprat). The question is how can something so fundamental as the 13 middos be a matter of dispute? Weren't the 13 middos given to Moshe at Har Sinai? How could they forget such a basic thing? It is very difficult to say that both are right (e.g. elu v'elu) because they are mutually exclusive and come to different conclusions. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Sun Dec 3 06:18:20 2017 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Sun, 3 Dec 2017 14:18:20 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Davening on Airplanes Message-ID: <1512310700373.25771@stevens.edu> Very often people make minyanimm on flights to Israel. The following if from https://goo.gl/j8hdXR and is a quote from Rabbi Hershel Schachter. Another common mistake people make is regarding davening with a minyan (on a plane). The Talmud emphasizes the importance of tefillah btzibur; and one who davens with a minyan stands a much better chance of having his prayers answered than one who lacks a minyan. However, it is highly improper for the chazzan of a minyan on an airplane to shout at the top of his lungs to enable the other mispalelim to hear him over the airplane noise, and thereby wake up all the passengers around him. It is true that there is a halachic principle of kofin al hamitzvos, i.e. that beis din has an obligation to force people to observe the mitzvos even when they're not interested in doing so, but this only applies when pressuring an individual will result in his becoming observant. However, when Orthodox Jews disturb non-observant Jewish passengers with their davening, the non-observant passengers sill remain non-observant and now just have another point about which to be upset with the Orthodox. The practice of the Orthodox passengers under such circumstances appears simply as an act of harassment. Rather than having accomplished the hidur mitzvah of davening tefillah btzibur, they have violated lifnei iver by causing the non-observant passengers to become more antagonistic towards shemiras hamitzvos. The shouting tone of voice employed by the shaliach tzibbur to overcome the noise on the airplane clearly does not constitute a kavod hatefillah. The halacha states that when traveling, if it is too difficult to stand for shemoneh esrei even the "amidah" may be recited while seated. On a short flight of an hour and a half to Canada it is more correct to daven the entire tefillah while still buckled in, in a sitting position. On the long flight to Eretz Yisroel it is healthier to not sit the entire time; walking around somewhat helps the blood circulation in one's legs. As such, there is nothing wrong with standing for shemoneh esrei, provided that there's no turbulence at that time. However, it is still not proper to gather a minyan together near the washrooms, disturbing all the other passengers and the stewardesses. As much as various Torah giants of our generation have expressed their opposition to such minyanim on airplanes[2], their message has not yet been accepted. We wish everyone a chag kasher v'sameach, and all those traveling to Eretz Yisroel should have a safe trip, but keep in mind - these minyanim are shelo b'ratzon chachomim! [2] Rav Shlomo Wahrman ( She'eiris Yosef vol. 7, siman 3) quotes Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach (Halichos Shlomo, page 75), Rav Moshe Feinstein (Igros Moshe Orach Chaim vol. 4 siman 20), Rav Ovadiah Yosef, and Rav Shmuel Wosner all objecting to minyanim on airplanes that disturb other passengers -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Sun Dec 3 07:15:20 2017 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Sun, 3 Dec 2017 15:15:20 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] The Forces That Have Shaped World History Message-ID: <1512314120420.4485@stevens.edu> The following is from RSRH's commentary on Bereishis 30:8 Ya'akov was very much afraid and distressed, so he divided the peoplewho were with him, as well as the flocks, cattle and camels, into two camps. We can put ourselves in Ya'akov's place, and we are especially obligated to do so, considering the significance of the impending meeting; for, because of this meeting, Ya'akov experienced a revelation whose memory is forever linked with the daily meal of the man of Israel. Just as Ya'akov and Esav oppose each other here, so they continue to stand opposed to one another unto this very day. Ya'akov is the family man blessed with children; hard-working, serving, weighed down by cares. Esav is the "finished and accomplished" man (cf. Commentary above, 25:25). Ya'akov now returns as the independent head of a family. Even now, having overcome all the obstacles, this privilege is, to him, the highest prize, the greatest achievement. But to attain it, he had to toil and struggle for twenty years, despite the fact that he had already received the blessing and the birthright. Others, however, take this privilege for granted; it is given to them from birth. Esav, the "finished and accomplished" man, already possessed it in full measure when Ya'akov first left home. While Ya'akov, through hard work, succeeded in establishing a family, Esav became a political force, the leader of an army, an aluf at the head of his troops. Thus the external contrast between Ya'akov, who held on to his brother's heel when they were born, and Esav, the "accomplished" man. In Ya'akov and Esav, two opposing principles confront each other. The struggle between them, and the outcome of this struggle, are the forces that have shaped world history. Ya'akov represents family life, happiness and making others happy. Esav represents the glitter of political power and might. This conflict has raged for thousands of years: Is it sufficient just to be a human being, and are political power and social creativity of no significance unless they lead to the loftiest of all human aspirations, or, on the contrary, does everything that is human in man, in home, and in family life exist only to serve the purposes of political triumph? How different from his attitude toward Lavan is Ya'akov's attitude toward Esav. We know how steadfast is the power of one who is sure of his own integrity, and how oppressive is the feeling of guilt, even if only imagined. It is easier to suffer wrong and injustice for twenty years than to face for one minute a person whom we know was offended by us and who cannot understand our motives, which do not justify our actions but at least excuse them. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Mon Dec 4 07:55:38 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2017 10:55:38 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] knife sharpeners In-Reply-To: <0115756c-ad5a-dc19-dfdc-aba2138a2858@sero.name> References: <62debe36-f9a2-7cab-d4cb-a60320a1ec83@starways.net> <0115756c-ad5a-dc19-dfdc-aba2138a2858@sero.name> Message-ID: <20171204155538.GC26551@aishdas.org> On Sat, Dec 02, 2017 at 08:01:31PM -0500, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : On 02/12/17 15:56, Lisa Liel via Avodah wrote: : >Are knife sharpeners mekabel taam?? And noten taam?? Do you need : >different onces for meat, dairy, pesach, etc? : : Since they don't ever contact food, I don't see how they could. Since they are in heated contact with the knife, aren't there potential na"t bar na"t issues? Tir'u baTov! -Micha From ari.brodsky at utoronto.ca Mon Dec 4 10:03:48 2017 From: ari.brodsky at utoronto.ca (Ari Meir Brodsky) Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2017 20:03:48 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Tonight (Monday evening) begin Prayer for Rain Message-ID: Dear Friends, It's that time of year again, when I know many of you are expecting my annual friendly reminder.... Jews outside of Israel should include the request for rain in daily prayers, beginning with Maariv tonight (Monday evening), December 4, 2017, corresponding to the evening of 17 Kislev, 5778. The phrase *??? ?? ???? ?????* "Veten tal umatar livracha" - "Give us dew and rain for a blessing" is inserted into the 9th blessing of the weekday shemone esrei, from now until Pesach. [Sephardim replace the entire blessing of ????? with the alternate text beginning ??? ????? - thanks to Prof. Lasker for the reminder.] I encourage everyone to remind friends and family members of this event, especially those who may not be in shul at that time. Diaspora Jews begin requesting rain on the 60th day of the fall season, as approximated by Shmuel in the Talmud (Taanit 10a, Eiruvin 56a). For more information about this calculation, follow the link below, to a fascinating article giving a (very brief) introduction to the Jewish calendar, followed by a discussion on why we begin praying for rain when we do: http://www.lookstein.org/articles/veten_tal.htm (Thanks to Russell Levy for providing the link.) Wishing everyone a happy Chanukka, -Ari Meir Brodsky --------------------- Ari M. Brodsky ari.brodsky at utoronto.ca -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mirskym at gmail.com Mon Dec 4 10:02:39 2017 From: mirskym at gmail.com (Michael Mirsky) Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2017 21:02:39 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Davening on Airplanes In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: In all the discussions of this topic that I have seen, I haven't seen anyone address the issue of someone who is in his year of aveilut and needs a minyan to say kaddish. Do the objections to the possible disturbance a minyan might cause override this need? Michael Mirsky -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From larry62341 at optonline.net Mon Dec 4 10:17:47 2017 From: larry62341 at optonline.net (Prof. Levine) Date: Mon, 04 Dec 2017 13:17:47 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Knife Sharpening Message-ID: The following is from an article posted on the CRC web site at https://goo.gl/ispg9T Food service establishments regularly send out their knives for sharpening, and it appears that there are three potential kashrus concerns with this practice, as follows: * The sharpening company may give the establishment different knives than the ones which the establishment gave them for sharpening. This is an especially likely in cases where the sharpening company actually owns the knives and lends them to the establishment in exchange for the rights to sharpen them. This issue can be avoided if the Mashgiach has a tevias ayin on the knives and/or marks them. * Knives are typically very dirty when they arrive at the sharpening facility, and therefore all knives are washed in hot water or a dishwasher before the sharpening begins. This potentially allows non-kosher b?lios to get into the kosher knives. See below for more on this. * The same machine is used to sharpen the (clean) kosher and non-kosher knives, and the friction created by the process does heat up the knives somewhat. If that heat would be above yad soledes bo, there would be a potential for b?lios to transfer between the machinery and knives. However, in tests which Rabbi Neustadt performed in one sharpening company, the sharpening wheel and the cooling water (where that was used) were consistently cooler than 100? F and were not hot to the touch. As such, it appears that this does not pose a serious concern. See the above URL for more. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Mon Dec 4 11:53:58 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2017 14:53:58 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] What are the main mitzvos to focus on? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20171204195358.GC2323@aishdas.org> On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 12:11:31PM +0200, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: : The last daf in Makos (24a) states that the Neviim took the 613 mitzvos and : reduced them to a smaller set for people to focus on. : Michah gave three Mitzvos for people to focus on - "Asos Mishpat..." : "Asos Mishpat" is monetary laws; : "Ahavas Chesed" is bestowing Chesed; Is "din" necessarily a reference to monetary laws? Din vs chessed is a recurring dialectic. As in sheim Elokus vs sheim Havayah. : "V'Hatzne'a Leches Im Elokecha" is escorting the dead and bringing a Kalah : to Chupah; I saw the gemara differently, emphasizing tzeni'us itself. As it explains, one should walk with one's G-d modestly even when doing these two mitzvos, which normally happen in public. And then the gemara continues with a qal vachomer al achas kamah vekamah those which are normally done betzin'ah. So it seems to be closer to the words of the pasuq than the identification with two specific acts of chessed (one of which is famously "chesed shel emes") the gemara begins its explanation with. After all, chessed is already covered in the previous item in the list. (Parallel gemara at Sukkah 49b.) : Yeshayah later gave two primary Mitzvos - "Shimru Mishpat va'Asu Tzedakah." Tangent: You'll notice that Yeshaiah is listed twice, once before Mikhah (giving 6 principles), and once after. As they were contemporaries whose nevu'os overlap in content, R' Simla'i's intent is likely chronological order. : The mitzva of learning Torah which we understand to be the most important : and fundamental mitzva does not appear in these lists.... I think the "we" in your sentence are simply following a hashkafah which isn't majority opinion. Not only does R' Simla'i skip them, in favor of living to emulate HQBH's din and chessed, but - Hillel famously defines all of Torah in terms of using one's empathy to avoiding doing what one's chaver would loathe. Rashi ad loc includes avoiding what one's Chaver would loathe, but in his other discussions of the quote, this aspect is missing. - R' Aqiva and Ben Azzai argue over which pasuq better captures the Torah's kelal gadol, and both are interpersonal. - In both shasin, "Torah lishmah" is discussed in terms of al menas la'asos and/or al menas lelameid. Not knowing for its own sake. See also Meshekh Chokhmah (Devarim 218:61) which I blog about at So, who amongst Chazal really does make learning the central goal of a Jewish man's life? Jumping ahead to the Isms that today's O world is trying to build from: - In chassidus, talmud Torah is a means to deveiqus. - The discussion in Nefesh haChaim sha'ar 4 which denies the previous bullet item might be the earliest source for the position you describe as what "we understand" was written by the same RCV about whom his son says (in the haqadmah to NhC, emphasis mine): He regularly rebuked me, because he saw that I did not participate in the pain of others. And these were his constant words to me: This is the entire person. One is not created for himself, but to benefit others with the full extent of his powers. (SHEZEH KOL HA'ADAM: lo le'atzmo nivra, RAQ LEHO'IL LE'ACHRINI...) So, while sha'ar 4 waxes poetic about the chiyus talmud Torah gives the world, RCV didn't mean to say that therefore learning is the It of life. (And yeshivos tend not to learn shaar 1's discussion of the power of maaseh nor shaar 2's discussion of dibbur. Which also yeilds an imbalance in how one sees the NhC shaar 4's description of machashavah.) - Similarly, while we remember R' Chaim Brisker for inventing Brisker lomdus, he said his main job was to be a baal chessed. And his family agreed; the praise on his matzeivah simply reads "rav chessed". Apparently the Pulmus haMussar was about the proper means to come to embody the ideal, and not what the ideal actually is. This notion that learning is the ends rather than a central part of the means is arguably idiosyncratic. It is far easier to argue that the central mitzvah is to emulate the Meitiv and bring His Tov to others. : Additionally, these lists : seem to consist solely of mitzvos bein adam lachaveiro, are there no : mitzvos ben adam lamakom that are important enought to appear on these : lists? As per what I said above, mitzvos bein adam laMaqom -- or R' Yisrael Salanter's third category of mitzvos being adam le'atzmo, which includes talmud Torah as an act of self-refinement -- is more caring for the goose than the goose's actual laying of the golden eggs. Rather than a question mark, just end with an exclamation point. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger We are great, and our foibles are great, micha at aishdas.org and therefore our troubles are great -- http://www.aishdas.org but our consolations will also be great. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rabbi AY Kook From micha at aishdas.org Mon Dec 4 11:55:56 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2017 14:55:56 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Davening on Airplanes In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20171204195556.GD2323@aishdas.org> On Mon, Dec 04, 2017 at 09:02:39PM +0300, Michael Mirsky via Avodah wrote: : In all the discussions of this topic that I have seen, I haven't seen : anyone address the issue of someone who is in his year of aveilut and needs : a minyan to say kaddish. Do the objections to the possible disturbance a : minyan might cause override this need? How can it be a zekhus to the niftar to say Qaddish in a way that the BALC violations make it a net minus? Tir'u baTov! -Micha From saulguberman at gmail.com Mon Dec 4 12:00:16 2017 From: saulguberman at gmail.com (Saul Guberman) Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2017 15:00:16 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Davening on Airplanes In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: My understanding is that kaddish needs to be said once a day. It is said multi times a day as a hiddur. So, missing one davening should be OK and the zchus of not disturbing other passengers and crew and not creating a chillul hashem should make up for the missed kaddish. On Mon, Dec 4, 2017 at 1:02 PM, Michael Mirsky via Avodah < avodah at lists.aishdas.org> wrote: > In all the discussions of this topic that I have seen, I haven't seen > anyone address the issue of someone who is in his year of aveilut and needs > a minyan to say kaddish. Do the objections to the possible disturbance a > minyan might cause override this need? > > Michael Mirsky > > _______________________________________________ > Avodah mailing list > Avodah at lists.aishdas.org > http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From zev at sero.name Mon Dec 4 12:14:53 2017 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2017 15:14:53 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] knife sharpeners In-Reply-To: <20171204155538.GC26551@aishdas.org> References: <62debe36-f9a2-7cab-d4cb-a60320a1ec83@starways.net> <0115756c-ad5a-dc19-dfdc-aba2138a2858@sero.name> <20171204155538.GC26551@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 04/12/17 10:55, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > On Sat, Dec 02, 2017 at 08:01:31PM -0500, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > : On 02/12/17 15:56, Lisa Liel via Avodah wrote: > : >Are knife sharpeners mekabel taam?? And noten taam?? Do you need > : >different onces for meat, dairy, pesach, etc? > : > : Since they don't ever contact food, I don't see how they could. > > Since they are in heated contact with the knife, aren't there potential > na"t bar na"t issues? Knives are sharpened while hot?! With water? -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From micha at aishdas.org Mon Dec 4 12:48:38 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2017 15:48:38 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Davening on Airplanes In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20171204204838.GA1334@aishdas.org> On Mon, Dec 04, 2017 at 03:00:16PM -0500, Saul Guberman via Avodah wrote: : My understanding is that kaddish needs to be said once a day. It is said : multi times a day as a hiddur... See YD 376:4. The Rama discusses it in terms of a minhag, actually a variety of whatever is "minhag qavu'ah ba'ir". : the zchus of not disturbing other passengers and crew and not creating a : chillul hashem should make up for the missed kaddish. Especially since it's the avoidance of an actual issur vs a medieval or post-medieval minhag. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Life isn't about finding yourself. micha at aishdas.org Life is about creating yourself. http://www.aishdas.org - George Bernard Shaw Fax: (270) 514-1507 From micha at aishdas.org Mon Dec 4 13:34:04 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2017 16:34:04 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Letzareif Message-ID: <20171204213404.GA32594@aishdas.org> In Bereishis Rabb 44:1, Rav says Lo nitenu hamitzvos ela letzarei bahen es haberios And what does it matter to HQBH who shechtas from the throat and who shechts from the back of the neck? Havei: lo nitenu hamitzvos ela letzarei bahen es haberios Letzareif is a metaphor of melting. The problem is, whether we mean smelting / refining, or to meld to thing together (as in "mitzrareif")? Are we being told that mitzvos were given to refine people, or to connect them? Or is the word chosen in order to intentionally carry both meanings? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger If you're going through hell micha at aishdas.org keep going. http://www.aishdas.org - Winston Churchill Fax: (270) 514-1507 From bdbradley70 at hotmail.com Mon Dec 4 14:03:37 2017 From: bdbradley70 at hotmail.com (Ben Bradley) Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2017 22:03:37 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] knife sharpeners In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: ': On 02/12/17 15:56, Lisa Liel via Avodah wrote: : >Are knife sharpeners mekabel taam?? And noten taam?? Do you need : >different onces for meat, dairy, pesach, etc? : : Since they don't ever contact food, I don't see how they could. Since they are in heated contact with the knife, aren't there potential na"t bar na"t issues?' Knife sharpeners get hot? What kind of sharpeners are we talking about here? I've never seen a domestic knife sharpener which gets beyond slightly warm. But even if it did, the food would be na't to the knife, the knife to the sharpener, the sharpener to the second knife and thence to the food again. Which is na't bar na't bar na't bar na't. I thought that's not a problem in hilchos basar b'chalav? BW Ben -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Mon Dec 4 14:29:08 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2017 17:29:08 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] The 13 middos In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20171204222908.GA10223@aishdas.org> On Sun, Dec 03, 2017 at 11:13:00AM +0200, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: : The Gemara in Shavuos (4b) discusses who the Tanna of the Mishna is and : brings down a fundamental machlokes tannaim about the 13 middos. R' : Yishmael darshens klal uprat and R' Akiva darshens ribuy umiut. The : Acharonim point out that these are mutually exclusive and every Tanna : darshens one or the other but they cannot be mixed (e.g. a Tanna sometimes : darshens ribuy umiut and sometimes klal uprat). ... I do not understand this paranthetic comment, as it refers to a kind of mixture, a tanna who uses both styles of derashah, as an example of how they cannot be mixed. The willingness of the two batei midrash to use the others' methodology is stated outright on Bekhoros 51a. One such tanna is R' Aqiva himself, eg Yerushalmi Sotah 8:1 (vilna 34a). See RSRH's discussion in Collected Writings V pg 170. : something so fundamental as the 13 middos be a matter of dispute? Weren't : the 13 middos given to Moshe at Har Sinai? How could they forget such a : basic thing? ... The methodology could have been in use informally before Hillel started the meta-Torah of the study and formalization of rules to describe that methodology. Just as people can use proper grammar before anyone makes a formal study of the language's grammatical rules. Since each did use the others' rules, the formalized rule system doesn't actually define the list of inherited laws. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger None of us will leave this place alive. micha at aishdas.org All that is left to us is http://www.aishdas.org to be as human as possible while we are here. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Anonymous MD, while a Nazi prisoner From marty.bluke at gmail.com Mon Dec 4 21:15:42 2017 From: marty.bluke at gmail.com (Marty Bluke) Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2017 07:15:42 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] The 13 middos In-Reply-To: <20171204222908.GA10223@aishdas.org> References: <20171204222908.GA10223@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Tuesday, December 5, 2017, Micha Berger wrote:... > > > I do not understand this paranthetic comment, as it refers to a kind of > mixture, a tanna who uses both styles of derashah, as an example of how > they cannot be mixed. The willingness of the two batei midrash to use the > others' methodology is stated outright on Bekhoros 51a. > > One such tanna is R' Aqiva himself, eg Yerushalmi Sotah 8:1 (vilna 34a). > > See RSRH's discussion in Collected Writings V pg 170. See the Mishne Lamelech avadim 3:9 where he states that it is either or and the 2 styles cannot be mixed, and his main proof is from the Gemara Shavuos 4b where the Gemara asks on Rebbe how can he darshen a ribui umiut like R Akiva if in general he darshens Klal Uprat. We see clearly that the Gemara assumes you darshen 1 or the other but not both otherwise the Gemara would have no question. See also tosafos nidda 30a s.v. Ushma mina where tosafos says that we pasken that we darshen Klal uprat and not ribui umiut. That only makes sense if they are mutually exclusive. See also tosafos shavuos 25a s.v. Rav who also assumes that it is either or. Regarding the Gemara in bechoros 51a it is actually a proof the other way. The Gemara says that this case is an exception because it is not written in the normal way of a Klal uprat and therefore in this case only Rebbe can learn a ribui umiut but in general someone who learns Klal uprat could not use ribui umiut. > > Tir'u baTov! > -Micha > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From JRich at sibson.com Mon Dec 4 22:13:31 2017 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2017 06:13:31 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Davening on Airplanes In-Reply-To: <20171204204838.GA1334@aishdas.org> References: , <20171204204838.GA1334@aishdas.org> Message-ID: > > Especially since it's the avoidance of an actual issur vs a medieval or > post-medieval ---------- All very true, yet the Hamon am has invested Kaddish with great importance. Does that investiture have a halachic chalot? It seems it does at least in terms of kavod Kt Joel 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. From akivagmiller at gmail.com Tue Dec 5 03:22:57 2017 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2017 06:22:57 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Gid ha'nasheh Message-ID: . R' Chaim Tatel wrote: > At any rate, it makes sense that Yaakov would be hit there, > as a reminder that his marriage to Rachel after his marriage > to her sister Leah would not hold up when he entered Eretz > Yisrael. (not long after this episode, Rachel died in childbirth > of Binyamin). > > Aside from feeling the psychological pain of Rachel?s death, > perhaps Yaakov also had to feel physical pain. I draw a distinction between "consequences" and "punishments". I have heard in the past that Eretz Yisrael was unable to tolerate Yaakov's being married to two sisters, and that Rachel's death was a consequence of that. But RCT writes that Yaakov was given a reminder of that consequence, and that he had to feel pain as well. Now it sounds like Yaakov was being punished. If he was punished, it must be that he was punished for some choice that he made. What choice was that? What did he do wrong? If he could do it all over again, what ought he do differently? Specifically: After having married Leah, should he have not married Rachel? Alternatively, (according to those who say that he was not fooled but knew that Leah had the simanim,) should he have not married Leah? Or should he have protested and annuled the marriage to Leah? If he was punished, what did he do wrong? Akiva Miller From akivagmiller at gmail.com Tue Dec 5 03:33:20 2017 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2017 06:33:20 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Davening on Airplanes Message-ID: . R' Michael Mirsky asked: > In all the discussions of this topic that I have seen, I > haven't seen anyone address the issue of someone who is in > his year of aveilut and needs a minyan to say kaddish. Do the > objections to the possible disturbance a minyan might cause > override this need? RMM seems to be suggesting that this individual's need to say kaddish is greater than the usual need to daven Tefila B'Tzibur. I have heard other people express this feeling, but I've never seen any evidence for it in seforim or elsewhere. I'll express it another way: I am well aware that there are many many people who are somewhat lax in their minyan attendance in general, but for yahrzeit or aveilus they are much more meticulous. This is not a bad thing; whatever will help get people into shul is good. But I do think that their values might be misplaced. Akiva Miller From larry62341 at optonline.net Tue Dec 5 05:12:22 2017 From: larry62341 at optonline.net (Prof. Levine) Date: Tue, 05 Dec 2017 08:12:22 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] How often to day kaddish Message-ID: <2E.1E.03203.73B962A5@mta4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> Saul Guberman wrote: My understanding is that kaddish needs to be said once a day. It is said multi times a day as a hiddur. So, missing one davening should be OK and the zchus of not disturbing other passengers and crew and not creating a chillul hashem should make up for the missed kaddish. ________________________________________________________ According to the original din only, only one person said kaddish at a time. (This is still what is done in some places like KAJ and Bais Hatalmud). Thus, if there are many people saying kaddish in a shul that keeps the original din, it is conceivable that one might not get to say kaddish every day or even longer. Hence I do not think that one needs to say kaddish once a day. YL From akivagmiller at gmail.com Tue Dec 5 04:53:47 2017 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2017 07:53:47 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Letzareif Message-ID: . R' Micha Berger wrote: > Lo nitenu hamitzvos ela letzarei bahen es haberios > ... > Letzareif is a metaphor of melting. The problem is, whether > we mean smelting / refining, or to meld to thing together (as > in "mitzrareif")? > Are we being told that mitzvos were given to refine people, > or to connect them? Or is the word chosen in order to > intentionally carry both meanings? "Ratzah HKBH l'zakos es Yisrael..." Does "zakos" mean to purify, or to give zechus? I perceive a similar poetry in both l'tzaref and l'zakos, but I'm not much of a poet, so I'll leave this thought for the rest of y'all to ponder and expand uon. Akiva Miller From marty.bluke at gmail.com Tue Dec 5 01:10:14 2017 From: marty.bluke at gmail.com (Marty Bluke) Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2017 11:10:14 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] What are the main mitzvos to focus on? In-Reply-To: <20171204195358.GC2323@aishdas.org> References: <20171204195358.GC2323@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Mon, Dec 4, 2017 at 9:53 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 12:11:31PM +0200, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: > : The last daf in Makos (24a) states that the Neviim took the 613 mitzvos > and > : reduced them to a smaller set for people to focus on. > > : ... > > : The mitzva of learning Torah which we understand to be the most important > : and fundamental mitzva does not appear in these lists.... > > I think the "we" in your sentence are simply following a hashkafah which > isn't majority opinion. > ... > So, who amongst Chazal really does make learning the central goal of a > Jewish man's life? > > ... > This notion that learning is the ends rather than a central part of > the means is arguably idiosyncratic. It is far easier to argue that the > central mitzvah is to emulate the Meitiv and bring His Tov to others. > > Tir'u baTov! > -Micha So basically you are saying that the current Charedi hashkafa/lifestyle of Torah only and Torah learning being the ultimate purpose of life is not a majority opinion in Chazal and in fact you can't find anyone among Chazal who says this. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Tue Dec 5 09:02:00 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2017 12:02:00 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] What are the main mitzvos to focus on? In-Reply-To: References: <20171204195358.GC2323@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20171205170200.GB5251@aishdas.org> On Tue, Dec 05, 2017 at 11:10:14AM +0200, Marty Bluke wrote: : So basically you are saying that the current Charedi hashkafa/lifestyle of : Torah only and Torah learning being the ultimate purpose of life is not a : majority opinion in Chazal and in fact you can't find anyone among Chazal : who says this. I intentionally avoided stating it that confrontationally, but yes. Although not "chareidi", "yeshivish". Excluding most chassidim but including the large population of MO who are taking yeshivish hashkafah and harmonizing it with modernity. (Eg RYBS as understood by many of his students.) See, for example, R Tzevi Sinsky's currently running series out of YHE ("Gush") "Talmud Torah: The Mitzva of Torah Study". He draws heavily from R' Yehudah Amital and R' N Lamm (whom RZS calls "mori uzeqeini"); his perspective is that of DL and MO, not "chareidim". Here's the web abstract for the opening shiur: In this introductory shiur, we explore the centrality of Torah study in the thought of the Rabbis. From Noach to Ezra, prominent Jewish leaders throughout the biblical period are portrayed as Torah scholars, and this mitzva is ascribed paramount importance in every aspect of life. In particular, shiur 3 discusses the purpose of talmud Torah, discussing various approached. The section "Approach #1 -- Instrumentalism" quotes pesuqim, mishayos, Toseftra, gemaros, before getting to rishonim (Rashi, Rambam, Ramban, Chinukh, Me'iri, Or H'. See also RNSlifkin's long list of quotes from rishonim at .) In contrast, "Approach #2 -- Cultivating a Halakhic Ethos" opens with the Chazon Ish then mentions R' Chaim Brisker as desribed in Halakhic Man. "Approach #3 -- Variations on Deveikut" starts with the Rambam leveraging a Sifrei (who I do not see as giving their description of /the/ purpose of learning), but focuses on Chassidus, R' Kook and R' Amital. Notice that learning being primarily valuable instrumentally is the shitah for which RZS can find overwhelming evidence in chazal and rishonim, the others being johnny-come-latelies of the last centuries. As for my own opinion, I wouldn't call approach #2 the cultivation of a "halachic ethos". I think this reflects Brisk's tendency to conflate halakhah with kol haTorah kulah, downplaying the import of aggadita. And yet, this wording does emphasize how approach 1 includes approach 2. If we are obligated in hilkhos dei'os / chovos halvavos / ve'asisa hayashar vehatov / to develop a *Torah* ethos, then #2 is also instrumental. We learn Mes' Sukkah to know how to fulfill the mitzvah of sukkah, and we learn Mes' Pirqei Avos to know to to fulfill the mitzvah of vehalakhta bidrakhav. See, it's instrumental! The difference boils down to what I believe was the central chiluq behind the pulmus haMussar: In the Brisker worldview, when RCVolozhiner compares talmud Torah to immersion in a miqvah, he means it descriptively. Learn halakhah as an end in itself, an it will leave a roshem of taharah. Even if the causality involved is mystical and non-obvious. Whereas R Yisrael Salanter looked at the actual metzi'us of the society he was in -- and all the moreso ours -- and concluded that this couldn't have been RCV's intent. Rather, RCV was speaking descriptively; when one learns correctly, one is learning in a way that leaves a roshem of taharah, even if the material itself is never understood or gets forgotten. And RYS had the lifestyle of RCV's talmid, R' Zundel Salanter, as indication of what Nefesh haChaim was intending to describe. Thus, to a mussarist, RCV was describing how to learn. Don't just learn nega'im to find chiluqim with which to explain machloqesin and non-obvious dinim. Rather, in addition one must spend the time driving home the roshem of how bad LH and ga'avah are, that HQBH felt it worth aiding teshuvah in these areas. And those two topics are far more connected in Telzher derekh than Brisker, but I think I've ranged far enough. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Spirituality is like a bird: if you tighten micha at aishdas.org your grip on it, it chokes; slacken your grip, http://www.aishdas.org and it flies away. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From micha at aishdas.org Tue Dec 5 10:39:48 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2017 13:39:48 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Davening on Airplanes In-Reply-To: References: <20171204204838.GA1334@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20171205183948.GA31307@aishdas.org> On Tue, Dec 05, 2017 at 06:13:31AM +0000, Rich, Joel wrote: :> Especially since it's the avoidance of an actual issur vs a medieval or :> post-medieval : All very true, yet the Hamon am has invested Kaddish with great : importance. Does that investiture have a halachic chalot? It seems it : does at least in terms of kavod Reading the kesuvah under the chuppah is just a stall while we wait some gap of time to separate qiddushin and nissuin. A maaseh kof. And yet because it is time in the spot-light, common practice is to treat it as the second greatest kibud, often what you give the other rav you might have made mesader qiddushin. When it comes to kibud, public treatment does indeed matter. And logically enough; after all, being mekhubad is an issue of seeing others display feelings of kavod. How we display it /should/ be secondary. All logical. However, here we are talking about someone in the olam ha'emes. So they know that while on the plane you have that actual issur keeping you from fulfilling the minhag of saying qaddish. For that matter, hopefully and typically said parent worked really hard at trying to get the avel to respect others. And if not, again, at this point the soul of even the worst parent would know better. So I do not think it's likely the neshamah would mind the lack of kibud as much as they would mind the misplacement of values. I would therefore not draw any conclusions from the logical linkage of kibud with intent and norms. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Between stimulus & response, there is a space. micha at aishdas.org In that space is our power to choose our http://www.aishdas.org response. In our response lies our growth Fax: (270) 514-1507 and our freedom. - Victor Frankl, (MSfM) From llevine at stevens.edu Wed Dec 6 01:39:18 2017 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2017 09:39:18 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Gambling in Halachah Message-ID: <7b63aab9b65f4c589d76fe326bd18f97@exchng03.campus.stevens-tech.edu> Click here to download "Gambling in Halachah" [That's the Kof-K's Halachically Speaking vol 13, issue 18, dedicated to this topic. -micha] From micha at aishdas.org Wed Dec 6 11:36:19 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2017 14:36:19 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Gid ha'nasheh In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20171206193619.GB12102@aishdas.org> On Tue, Dec 05, 2017 at 06:22:57AM -0500, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: :> Aside from feeling the psychological pain of Rachel?s death, :> perhaps Yaakov also had to feel physical pain. : : I draw a distinction between "consequences" and "punishments"... For those who don't remember from prior iterations, I don't. I think the difference between callins an onesh a consequence and calling it a punishment (or even "corrective") is whether one views sekhar va'onesh as a system that HQBH set up when He set up the universe or as a set of responses He has to our actions. "Chai gever al chata'av" implies one, our tefillos on yamim nora'im frequently imply the other. But both are simply simplified models of the incomprehensible Truth of how Hashem runs the universe. Since He is lemaalah min hazeman, we can't talk about whether the decision was made in maaseh bereishis or in response to our action -- both are ascribing times to a timeless Action (for want of a better word). We can only speak of a when for the effects of Divine Action, as they enter our timefull experience. : I have : heard in the past that Eretz Yisrael was unable to tolerate Yaakov's : being married to two sisters, and that Rachel's death was a : consequence of that. ... which is typical of an onesh -- a sin causes its own punishment. The two explanations are not mutually exclusive. To say that it was the land's qedushah causing something that wasn't in line with justice, one has to explain why there are rules that hide Hashem's Justice that aren't part of the hesteir panim necessary for free will. We need laws of nature to plan how to execute a decision, but laws of metaphysics? ... : If he was punished, it must be that he was punished for some choice : that he made. What choice was that? What did he do wrong? If he could : do it all over again, what ought he do differently? Specifically: : After having married Leah, should he have not married Rachel? Well, isn't that the halakhah? Or maybe the issur was in whatever it was that had him marrying a woman without noticing that her eyes were rakos (whatever that means). Perhaps the mistake was due to a criminal level of negligence. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Man is equipped with such far-reaching vision, micha at aishdas.org yet the smallest coin can obstruct his view. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yisrael Salanter Fax: (270) 514-1507 From micha at aishdas.org Wed Dec 6 11:23:17 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2017 14:23:17 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] The 13 middos In-Reply-To: References: <20171204222908.GA10223@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20171206192317.GA12102@aishdas.org> On Tue, Dec 05, 2017 at 07:15:42AM +0200, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: : See the Mishne Lamelech avadim 3:9 where he states that it is either or and : the 2 styles cannot be mixed, and his main proof is from the Gemara Shavuos : 4b where the Gemara asks on Rebbe how can he darshen a ribui umiut like R : Akiva if in general he darshens Klal Uprat... And yet the conclution on 5a is that he holds like R' Yishma'el's beis medrash who holds the derashah is not kelal uperat but ribui umi'ut ("ribah umi'at"). R Yisma'el, the one who codified the rules of kelal uperat is the one who here uses ribui umi'ut!? So is the gemara really saying that Rebbe is not crossing the line, as it seems to be saying. Or is it intentionally also implying there is no line to cross? Tosafos there ("detana Devei R' Yishma'el") might be saying the latter; it is too terse for me to be sure of intent. And yet further down on 5a, we have "Hashta de'amres... -- Now that you say that Rebbe darshans kelal uperat, you are forced into a question about shavu'os...?" IOW, reassuming the line. In any case, I am totally lost. In a discussion of how no one uses both sets of rules, it cites the school that created one set using the other set, and not saying anything about it. There is more going on here than I comprehend so far. As RSRH said (Collected Writings vol V pg 170), there are many such cases of R' Yishmael and R' Aqiva uses the other's rules. RSRH treats the rule as a tendency, rather than a line one may not cross. I wish I knew his interpretation of the gemara in Shavuos. But it's not like the MlM, nor the ba'al Atzmos Yoseif (whom the MlM is discussing), and does acknowledge the actual positions taken across both shasin. Just thinking out loud... Maybe the gemaros we're looking at are bothered because these are all cases where both kelalim apply and in each case they imply different dinim. IOW, it is not a question of Rebbe (or devei R Yismael) using ribui umi'ut, but of favoring the derashah that he tends not to OVER the derashah that is his norm. And to handle RSRH's observation, in a case where it is not a choice between conflicting kinds of derashos, no one would be asking why Rebbe used a kelal uperat, as such line-crossing is normal. : See also tosafos nidda 30a s.v. Ushma mina where tosafos says that we : pasken that we darshen Klal uprat and not ribui umiut... Nidda 30a "ushma minah tevilah bizmanah mitzvah" is about holding like Beis Shammai, and doesn't mention derashos. The previous d"h, "shema minah telas" (a near match) also isn't on topic. Could you please fix the citation for me? : Regarding the Gemara in bechoros 51a it is actually a proof the other way. : The Gemara says that this case is an exception because it is not written in : the normal way of a Klal uprat and therefore in this case only... This is a 2nd variant of the same sugya as Shavu'os. (To clarify for those moderately interested, but not sufficiently so to look for themselves.) Rashi ("hakha"), who says it's a general rule: kelal uperat ukelal isn't judged as a kelal uperat but as a ribui umi'ut. IIUC, Rashi is saying that Rebbe is staying within his usual rule set, but this is a case where both rule sets include the same derashah, just under different names. Thanks to RMTorczyner (CCed) : > Choosing between using "Kelal/Perat" and "Ribuy/Miut": Eruvin 27b-28a; > Succah 50b; Kiddushin 21b The first two don't really deal with tannaim using only one rule set, but Qiddush 21b is a third version of our sugya. I didn't see anything to add to the discussion beyond a way to rope RMT in, and perhaps he'll talk to R' Jonathan Ziring about the question. (RMT is the Rosh Beit Midrash of the YU-Torah Mitzion Zichron Dov Beit Midrash of Toronto, RJZ is the segan. Back when RJZ was in the kollel at YHE ["Gush"], he gave a series of shiurim on meta-halakhah. I thought I had RJZ's address, as we had a short correspondance, but since I didn't find it, I figured that once I was bothering RMT for his opinion...) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger I always give much away, micha at aishdas.org and so gather happiness instead of pleasure. http://www.aishdas.org - Rachel Levin Varnhagen Fax: (270) 514-1507 From micha at aishdas.org Wed Dec 6 12:06:08 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2017 15:06:08 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] TEXTUAL JUDAISM AND THE LIVING TORAH In-Reply-To: <9e51a7f4ea644e829db8503f8f0451fe@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <9e51a7f4ea644e829db8503f8f0451fe@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20171206200608.GC12102@aishdas.org> On Thu, Nov 02, 2017 at 12:12:05PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : http://etzion.org.il/en/siman-114-prayers-wind-rain-and-dew : :> TEXTUAL JUDAISM AND THE LIVING TORAH : :> In his introduction to the Beit Yosef... ... I think there are two things we need to keep in mind, that R' Asher Meir does not touch upon: 1- The question isn't whether the BY or some other poseiq does or doesn't consider the extent to which a particular pesaq was nispasheit. But rather something less boolean: how much weight does any given poseiq give mimeticism, and in comparison to which other factors. A number of years ago I proposed a model (then modified it in a later iteration) of 4 classes of factors a poseiq needs to weigh. And that one of the leading reasons why pesaq is an art rather than an algorithm is that their can't be formal rules for comparing the magnitudes of apples and oranges -- and bananas and parsimons? Here's what I came up with: - textual logic: which sevara do you find most compelling? Litvaks typically put most of the emphasis - textual authority: rules like azlinan basar ruba, or giving more weight to the Rambam's or Rosh's pinion than to some Baal Tosafos we rarely hear of. This seems to be ROY's favorite territory. - minhag avos / mimeticism - hashkafic concerns (including philosophy, qaballah): like when chassidim and talmidei haGra stopped putting on tefillin on ch"m because it is qotzeitz binti'os. No one would place hashkafic concerns high on the list. Ein dorshin taamei hamizvos. A poseiq only leaves formal halachic analysis when multiple opinions are defensible, which "right answer" does one choose? But different posqim still give it different weight; requiring more or less equity between the halachic analysis of the different possible pesaqim before being willing to let the hashkafah tip the scales. 2- The BY is a text. To really talk about mimeticism, we're talking about what people do naturally. A poseiq may need to factor in which pesaq was nispasheit, but by doing so he is not being a mimetic. The AhS is more likely to find justifications for mimetic practice while the MB is more likely to recommend changing practice. But deciding to follow either is choosing textuallism over mimeticism. Mimeticism is following the same pesaq the AhS just defended because that's what everone does, it's the example your parents and/or your peers set, not because it's a pesaq with a sevara and sources. Still, it's interesting to find an example of the BY overriding his triumverate and clearly stating a reason that is at odds with his haqdamah. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Take time, micha at aishdas.org be exact, http://www.aishdas.org unclutter the mind. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rabbi Simcha Zissel Ziv, Alter of Kelm From micha at aishdas.org Wed Dec 6 13:40:04 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2017 16:40:04 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] More on Yaakov, sheep and the rods In-Reply-To: <50458059-A03F-4E6E-B54B-F1612B0E7E5B@jsli.org> References: <50458059-A03F-4E6E-B54B-F1612B0E7E5B@jsli.org> Message-ID: <20171206214004.GD12102@aishdas.org> On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 12:20:44PM -0500, Alexander Seinfeld via Avodah wrote: : Why not just interpret this as an example of phenotypic plasticity, : meaning the genetic potential is there in every generation, and the : environmental factors stimulate its expression? : : As everyone who had genetics 101 will realize, if you eliminate 100% : of the phenotype, and breed the remainder you will still get some of : that phenotype in the next generation with recessive genes. So it always : bothered me why was all the hokus pokus by Yaakov necessary.... I would learn from this incident in Bereishis that one is obligated to do whatever hishtadlus is possible by the best understanding of teva available to you. And not to worry about what the current theory may get replaced by. Along similar lines: R Avigdor Miller taught that since HQBH is Rofei kol basar, medicine doesn't actually heal. The role of doctors and medicine is to prevent Hashem's cure from requiring a neis nigleh. And, he explains, this is why people actually survived despite medical theories involving 4 humours and bloodletting, or whatnot. Any accepted theory is equally usable. I don't buy into this, because if true, medicine would never need to advance, in fact, accepted medical theory would never be disproved. Still, I find the idea intriguing. It fits the notion, which might be the Ramban's (depending on how you fit multiple comments together) and is definitely REED's that teva is not a real "thing", but the patterns Hashem uses to hide His Action behind. It's all neis nistar, really Now, if one were to apply the same idea to parnasah, one could explain the purpose of Yaakov's efforts. And even if RAvigdorM's theory is hard to see as how teva works for the rest of us, it's easier to apply to someone who is as neis-worthy, including neis-nistar-worthy, as Yaaqov avinu. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger You want to know how to paint a perfect micha at aishdas.org painting? It's easy. http://www.aishdas.org Make yourself perfect and then just paint Fax: (270) 514-1507 naturally. -Robert Pirsig From akivagmiller at gmail.com Wed Dec 6 15:10:18 2017 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2017 18:10:18 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Gid ha'nasheh Message-ID: . I asked: : If he was punished, it must be that he was punished for some choice : that he made. What choice was that? What did he do wrong? If he could : do it all over again, what ought he do differently? Specifically: : After having married Leah, should he have not married Rachel? and R' Micha Berger responded: > Well, isn't that the halakhah? I want to publicly thank RMB for a beautiful post, and for reminding me of some very important concepts. We learn so much of the machinations of what went on in this incident, how each step was important and necessary in various ways, that I was a bit shocked to hear it suggested that Yaakov Avinu was being punished for his choices here. But truth be told, the line between punishment and consequence can be arbitrary, subjective .... or even imaginary. We DO accept the reality of a "necessary evil", or a "greater good". It's not all black and white. "Well, isn't that the halakhah?" Indeed, the halacha prescribes The Way To Go, but that is no guarantee that there won't be unpleasant side effects. If the Kohen Gadol happens upon a Mes Mitzvah on Yom Kippur morning, the halacha is clear that he must get involved, even if that means that the day's avodah won't go as planned. So too, Yaakov Avinu and Rachel Imenu married each other because Klal Yisrael needed it, and if such a releationship was incompatible with Kedushas Haaretz, well, unfortunately, they'll have to endure the consequences. Akiva Miller From meirabi at gmail.com Wed Dec 6 18:07:12 2017 From: meirabi at gmail.com (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi) Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2017 13:07:12 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] =?utf-8?q?SEDRA_VAYEISHEV_=E2=80=93_TIME_TO_LOOK_IN_THE_?= =?utf-8?q?MIRROR?= Message-ID: When the little kid threatens a bouncer ? we all laugh. It is funny precisely because it is so silly and impossible. DJT, a buffoon, a bumbling, blithering bad-boy, could not possibly win the presidency. It was the standing joke that never grew stale ? until he became POTUS. Our Sages say, we are truly unmasked by Kiso Koso & KaAso ? by what we?re like when feeling liberated: # deciding how to use our valuables i.e. by what we consider to be important # intoxicated [not necessarily by alcohol] # we are agitated i.e. by what presses our buttons. Yosef tells his brothers about his dream ? expecting them to laugh it off and he gives them a second chance after they?ve had an opportunity to reconsider their response. When we get offended and mock ? it?s time to look in the mirror. Best, Meir G. Rabi 0423 207 837 +61 423 207 837 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From marty.bluke at gmail.com Thu Dec 7 02:27:17 2017 From: marty.bluke at gmail.com (Marty Bluke) Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2017 12:27:17 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] The 13 middos In-Reply-To: <20171206192317.GA12102@aishdas.org> References: <20171204222908.GA10223@aishdas.org> <20171206192317.GA12102@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 9:23 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > On Tue, Dec 05, 2017 at 07:15:42AM +0200, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: > : See the Mishne Lamelech avadim 3:9 where he states that it is either or > and > : the 2 styles cannot be mixed, and his main proof is from the Gemara > Shavuos > : 4b where the Gemara asks on Rebbe how can he darshen a ribui umiut like R > : Akiva if in general he darshens Klal Uprat... > > And yet the conclution on 5a is that he holds like R' Yishma'el's beis > medrash who holds the derashah is not kelal uperat but ribui umi'ut > ("ribah umi'at"). R Yisma'el, the one who codified the rules of kelal > uperat is the one who here uses ribui umi'ut!? > The Gemara says that this case is an exception because it is not written in the normal way of a Klal uprat and therefore in this case ONLY Rebbe can learn a ribui umiut but in general someone who learns Klal uprat could not use ribui umiut. > ... > > : See also tosafos nidda 30a s.v. Ushma mina where tosafos says that we > : pasken that we darshen Klal uprat and not ribui umiut... > > Nidda 30a "ushma minah tevilah bizmanah mitzvah" is about holding > like Beis Shammai, and doesn't mention derashos. The previous d"h, > "shema minah telas" (a near match) also isn't on topic. Could you > please fix the citation for me? > See the last 2 lines in the Tosafos that I quoted, Tosafos states "d'darish ribui umiut, V'Kayma lan d'darshinan klali uprati" Tosafos paskens that we darshen klal uprat not ribui umiut, that strongly implies that they are mutuallt exclusive > > > > > Tir'u baTov! > -Micha > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From JRich at sibson.com Wed Dec 6 21:49:36 2017 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2017 05:49:36 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] zmanim Message-ID: <550be79bd779462fa5534e6b58fba249@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> As sunrise got later I was at a minyan where the earliest time for tallit was approximately the same as the minyan starting time. I watched as everybody watched their cell phones for the exact time to start from Myzmanim. (Of course that website says not to rely on to it to the minute) I was wondering whether this close watch was a subset of a broader need of man modern man to have exactitude in life versus living with gray. (Sort of a desire to be Newtonian in a quantum world) I was also wondering whether the advent of the railroad table approach now requires us to halachically follow that exactness rather than that the "it looks right to me" approach of Chazal? Thoughts? KT 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: From larry62341 at optonline.net Thu Dec 7 03:09:25 2017 From: larry62341 at optonline.net (Prof. Levine) Date: Thu, 07 Dec 2017 06:09:25 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Davening on Airplanes In-Reply-To: <900051a759eb4fd1a58d4fda4d74fca6@exchng03.campus.stevens-t ech.edu> References: <900051a759eb4fd1a58d4fda4d74fca6@exchng03.campus.stevens-tech.edu> Message-ID: <32.C2.03752.761292A5@mta3.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> At 08:12 PM 12/6/2017, R Micha Berger wrote: >When it comes to kibud, public treatment does indeed matter... >However, here we are talking about someone in the olam ha'emes. So they >know that while on the plane you have that actual issur keeping you from >fulfilling the minhag of saying qaddish... >So I do not think it's likely the neshamah would mind the lack of kibud >as much as they would mind the misplacement of values. I would therefore >not draw any conclusions from the logical linkage of kibud with intent >and norms. From The Mussar Movement, Volume 1, Part 2 pages 248 - 249. On one of the anniversaries of his father's death, R. Israel was in Memel. He was informed that someone else in the synagogue wished to say Kaddish. Now R. Israel was very insistent that only one person at a time be allowed to recite the Kaddish at the services [28] and apparently this congregation had complied with his ruling. Reb Yitzchak Isaacson was observing the jahrzeit of a daughter who had died very young. Now the Halachah gives precedence to a son observing the jahrzeit of a parent on these occasions, and R. Israel was obviously entitled to the privilege. Sensing the grief he would cause the father by depriving him of the opportunity to say Kaddish for his daughter, R. Israel went up to him and said: "You sir, will say Kaddish." The worshippers expressed their surprise. Not only had R. Israel yielded his own right, but also overlooked the duty of honoring his father, since he was, by law, obliged to say Kaddish. He explained to them that the merit of extending kindness (gemi- lut chesed) to a fellow Jew possessed far greater value than the saying of Kaddish.[29] [28.] See R. Naftali Amsterdam's will, published in Or Hamusar No. 13. See Vol. II of the Hebrew edition of this series, Tenu'at Hamusar, II, Chap. 25. [29.] Ernile Benjamin, op. cit., p. 25. From seinfeld at daasbooks.com Thu Dec 7 06:50:16 2017 From: seinfeld at daasbooks.com (Alexander Seinfeld) Date: Thu, 07 Dec 2017 09:50:16 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Gid ha'nasheh Message-ID: It seems to me there are two plausible answers, and both may be correct. 1. Yes, he should not have married Rachel. This is in fact what Leah tells her, ?You stole my husband.? He was tricked, but he accepted Leah, did not annul the marriage, so too bad for Rachel. She?s the one who gave away the password. 2. He wasn?t yet Yisroel. He was still a ben Noach. When he becomes Yisroel, he is now required to keep the Taryag Mitzvos. It is right after this name change that she dies. I?m not sure why she doesn?t die immediately (in Beit-El) rather en route to Efrat. But this delay may have sown doubt into his mind about his status - maybe he is still a ben Noach. His sons consider themselves Bnai Yisroel, which is why they are eating meat that for a ben-Noach would be eiver-min-ha-chai, and which is part of the lashon hara that Yoseph brings back to Yaakov. But his judgment that they are Bnai Noach is not merely academic, it is personal, because it has implications in Rachel?s death. > >If he was punished, it must be that he was punished for some choice >that he made. What choice was that? What did he do wrong? If he could >do it all over again, what ought he do differently? Specifically: >After having married Leah, should he have not married Rachel? >Alternatively, (according to those who say that he was not fooled but >knew that Leah had the simanim,) should he have not married Leah? Or >should he have protested and annuled the marriage to Leah? > >If he was punished, what did he do wrong? From micha at aishdas.org Thu Dec 7 11:06:53 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2017 14:06:53 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Gid ha'nasheh In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20171207190653.GB26083@aishdas.org> On Wed, Dec 06, 2017 at 06:10:18PM -0500, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : We DO accept the reality of a "necessary evil", or a "greater good". : It's not all black and white. "Well, isn't that the halakhah?" Indeed, : the halacha prescribes The Way To Go, but that is no guarantee that : there won't be unpleasant side effects... A number of rishonim (eg Ramban, Seforno) deal with the problem of miracles. Since HQBH is Perfect and is capable of a perfect creation, why would He make a world in which He occasionally would have to step in and override teva? This is where the Ramban comes in with the idea that not only the miraculous items listed in Pirqei Avos created during Maaseh Bereishis, every "exception" to the laws of nature are actually special cases written into the law. I'll pause here to remind of what I said last email about "at the time of creation" and "in response to the situation" both being oversimplifications caused by us temporal beings trying to think about Hashem's "Action" which is lemaalah min hazeman and has no "when". Similarly, one can ask about His Authorship of halakhah. Since Hashem is capable of writing a system of laws to fit the universe in a way where obeying the law never has "unpleasant side effects", why wouldn't He? One backstep... I just realized you mean something broader by "side effects" than I was talking about. As you later write: : upon a Mes Mitzvah on Yom Kippur morning, the halacha is clear that he : must get involved, even if that means that the day's avodah won't go : as planned... Similarly, if piquach nefesh is docheh Shabbos, rather than Shabbos being huterah, one may have the misfortune of having to violate Shabbos. But that's not sekhar va'onesh, and my question "but what about Divine Justice?" doesn't apply. Not unless the "unpleasant side effect" is -- as in the case of Yaaqov's widowerhood or his hip -- painful (physically and/or emotionally). There is also another issue... Sekhar mitzvos behai alma leiqa. Not everything in this world is sekhar va'onesh. Li nir'eh, everything in this world is to draw us to a state of being able to receive more of Hashem's tov. Onesh, only when we have a chance of it getting us to choose more constructively. Which is why the mishnah talks about tzadiqim getting onesh in olam hazah to spare them in olam haba. Not because pain in olam hazeh pays off the accoun t early, but because a tzadiq will use the pain to draw closer to HQBH / to his ideal self. And similarly, resha'im who wouldn't respond constructively to the challenge... Well, HQBH would share with them his Tov in the here-and-now rather than not at all. This takes us away from insisting that the universe must be set up so that every sin contains its own onesh as a consequence. (If we're using the consequence model to look at things.) Instead, we can look at the universe as tending toward tov. And therefore every step away from tov will as a consequence cause a pull back toward it. (Which could well be onesh, but in olam hazeh, it could be getting us connected back to the Meitiv in some other way.) And applying this back to Yaaqov's marrying two wives... Perhaps it's not an onesh, but the consequent path closer to the Meitiv in a world where the aretz was made tamei. And it's even possible that the challenges of this harder path lead to a closer place than without. So that overall, the net is maximize sekhar. Lefum tza'ara. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger We look forward to the time micha at aishdas.org when the power to love http://www.aishdas.org will replace the love of power. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - William Ewart Gladstone From micha at aishdas.org Thu Dec 7 11:12:14 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2017 14:12:14 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] zmanim In-Reply-To: <550be79bd779462fa5534e6b58fba249@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <550be79bd779462fa5534e6b58fba249@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20171207191214.GC26083@aishdas.org> On Thu, Dec 07, 2017 at 05:49:36AM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : I was wondering whether this close watch was a subset of a broader : need of man modern man to have exactitude in life versus living with : gray... Or maybe we were always mechuyavim to be as precise as possible. : wondering whether the advent of the railroad table approach now requires : us to halachically follow that exactness rather than that the "it looks : right to me" approach of Chazal? Thoughts? Li nir'eh there is value to the "in sync with nature" approach of Chazal that we lose when we think about clock time rather than the cycles of the sun (a/k/a the earth's spin). Much the way we lose a lot of what the yamim tovim mean because we aren't living in agrarian communities, and don't feel the joy of new wheat and barley when we celebrate our birth as a people, or the joy of bringing in the year's fruit when we celebrate how HQBH sustained us in the midbar. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From seinfeld at daasbooks.com Thu Dec 7 20:42:27 2017 From: seinfeld at daasbooks.com (Alexander Seinfeld) Date: Thu, 07 Dec 2017 23:42:27 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] What are the main mitzvos to focus on? Message-ID: :: So basically you are saying that the current Charedi hashkafa/lifestyle of :: Torah only and Torah learning being the ultimate purpose of life is not a :: majority opinion in Chazal and in fact you can't find anyone among Chazal :: who says this. : I intentionally avoided stating it that confrontationally, but yes. Forgive me, this may be a side issue to your main point about the 2 ways/reasons to learn, but I feel it should be clarified what you mean. How do you understand the Shulchan Aruch - Orach Chaim 155-156 - go immediately from davening to learning, make Torah your ikkar and malacha your arai; minimize work to only what you need [Be?er Heiteiv, Mishna Berura] not more??? Not mainstream? Breaking with Chazal? It?s a verbatim quotation from Gemara Berachos 35b. And maybe related to Taanis 24b (Chanina ben Dosa and his wife.) Now, let?s think sociologically for a moment. Why did the Mechaber choose to state this halacha the way he does? It seems to me that in his time (as in all times) there were Jews who were pulled to the needs and attractions of parnasa and spending the vast majority of their time and energy on it and in his view not in the proper balance. The fact that he has to state this halacha implies that not everyone was behaving that way. So the fact that not everyone behaves this way today is no proof whatsoever against the halacha. But anyone who wonders on what basis do some Orthodox Jews forsake full-time jobs and toil in Torah should read the Beur Halacha on Siman 155.1 - ?Eis lilmode? > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Fri Dec 8 02:55:11 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Fri, 8 Dec 2017 05:55:11 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] What are the main mitzvos to focus on? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20171208105511.GA13704@aishdas.org> On Thu, Dec 07, 2017 at 11:42:27PM -0500, Alexander Seinfeld via Avodah wrote: ::: So basically you are saying that the current Charedi hashkafa/lifestyle of ::: Torah only and Torah learning being the ultimate purpose of life is not a ::: majority opinion in Chazal and in fact you can't find anyone among Chazal ::: who says this. :: I intentionally avoided stating it that confrontationally, but yes. : Forgive me, this may be a side issue to your main point about the 2 : ways/reasons to learn, but I feel it should be clarified what you mean. : How do you understand the Shulchan Aruch - Orach Chaim 155-156 - go : immediately from davening to learning, make Torah your ikkar and malacha : your arai; minimize work to only what you need [Be?er Heiteiv, Mishna : Berura] not more??? You are shifting topics. I wrote about the reasons to learn, and asserted "Torah only and Torah learning being the ultimate purpose of life... you can't find anyone among Chazal who says this." Torah learning should well be the anchor of your day in comparison to earning a parnasah. (Although if one is learning rather than going to teach, other mitzvos are dochim.) But not as an ends, as a means. The hashkafah is new, the priorities not. But the new hashkafah changes the weighting to be even more in favor of learning. For example: I don't know what's going on today, but in my day Neir Yisrael / Baltimore was unique among American "yeshivish" yeshivos in encouraging talmidim to volunteer to staff kiruv shabbatonim. (Most/all YU RY were very proactively pro becoming an NCSY advisor.) The others felt that at this time in their lives, bachurim shouldn't be distracted from learning. This, despite the fact that adolescents respond better if there are peer-teachers rather than full grownups of a different generation, and the program was begging for them. This is one of the reasons JEP failed. That's the worldview of the American and Israeli "Litvisher" yeshiva. Now let's look at actual pre-war Litvisher gedolim. And I don't mean the obvious mussarists. `Would the aforementioned Meshekh Chokhmah have agreed with this decision? Is it in concert with RCV's admonition to his son? What about R' Shimon Shkop, who opens Shaarei Yosher's haqdamah with (empshasis added): Yisbarakh HaBorei Veyis'alah HaYotzeir who created us in His "Image" and in the likeness of His "Structure" VECHAYEI OLAM NATA BESOKHAINU such that our greated desire should be to benefit others to the indivindual and the masses, now and in the future, in imitation of the Creator (kevayachol). Ikkar doesn't mean "ultimate purpose", and making learning one's ultimate purpose does push one to go beyond making it the day's ikkar. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Brains to the lazy micha at aishdas.org are like a torch to the blind -- http://www.aishdas.org a useless burden. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Bechinas haOlam From micha at aishdas.org Fri Dec 8 06:11:58 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Fri, 8 Dec 2017 09:11:58 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Your Ancestors Message-ID: <20171208141158.GA20389@aishdas.org> R' Mike Gerver posted to Mail-Jewish in 1994 a request to help him collect more date to tighten an argument that odds are, every Jew alive either: - is a geir or all his ancestry are from geirim recently enough for him to know, or - descends from Rashi. (Or anyone else of that era or earlier.) See Calculations involve estimating rate of marriage across social strata, between towns, and between eidot. All Jews. Even Teimanim. (Ethiopians weren't a discussion yet, odds are no.) Well, this article makes that all the more probable: http://bigthink.com/stephen-johnson/why-youre-probably-related-to-nefertiti-and-confucius Why You're Probably Related to Nefertiti, Confucius, and Socrates December 7, 2017 by Stephen Johnson .... [J]ust how far back do humans need to go to find a common ancestor of their own: a person to whom all living people are related? The answer, for people of European descent at least, is surprisingly recent: 600 years. The common ancestor for every single person alive on the planet today, no matter where, lived approximately 3,600 years ago. That means Confucius, Nefertiti, Socrates, and any figure from ancient history that had children, is in some way your ancestor. Then, quoting Adam Rutherfore's new book, A Brief History of Everyone Who Ever Lived: "We are all special, which also means that none of us is," writes Rutherford in the book. "This is merely a numbers game. You have two parents, four grandparents, eight great-grandparents, and so on. Each generation back the number of ancestors you have doubles. But this ancestral expansion is not borne back ceaselessly into the past. If it were, your family tree when Charlemagne was Le Grand Fromage would harbor around 137,438,953,472 individuals on it -- more people than were alive then, now, or in total." So, why not? "You can be, and in fact are, descended from the same individual many times over," Rutherford writes. "Your great-great-great-great-great-grandmother might hold that position in your family tree twice, or many times, as her lines of descent branch out from her, but collapse onto you. The further back through time we go, the more these lines will coalesce on fewer individuals." The startling discovery that all Europeans might share a common ancestor who walked the Earth just 600 years ago was first proposed in 1999 by a Yale statistician named Joseph Chang. In his paper Recent Common Ancestors of All Present-Day Individuals," Chang used complex mathematical conceptslike Poisson distributions and Markov chainsto show how webbed pedigrees can overlap to produce common ancestors. If that is true of Europeans in 600 years, Jews over 800 years lo kol shekein? :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger We are great, and our foibles are great, micha at aishdas.org and therefore our troubles are great -- http://www.aishdas.org but our consolations will also be great. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rabbi AY Kook From jziring at torontotorah.com Wed Dec 6 19:40:58 2017 From: jziring at torontotorah.com (Jonathan Ziring) Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2017 22:40:58 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] The 13 middos In-Reply-To: References: <20171204222908.GA10223@aishdas.org> <20171206192317.GA12102@aishdas.org> Message-ID: [I had to edit this post significantly to fit Avodah's format constaints. -micha] Shalom, I'm touched to be asked. I have wondered about this (and have again this week due to Daf Yomi). I can't say I have strongly formed opinions on it, but the sugyot do seem to imply that these are more tendencies rather than rules, at lease re: Klal UPrat vs. Ribbui and Miut. The drashot of vavim and the like seem more absolute (X is not doresh vav). Yaakov Elman makes that point in his article on Ribbui. A few articles that deal with the topic that I've glanced through are: The Formal Development of [Kelal uPerat uKelal] Michael Chernick Tarbiz, pp. 393-410 Towards a History of "Ribbuy" in the Babylonian Talmud and Yaakov Elman Proceedings of the World Congress of Jewish Studies Vol. 11, Division C: Thought and Literature, Volume I: Rabbinic and Talmudic Literature (1993), pp. 87-94 In general, Michael Chernick and devoted much time to this. A few other relevant articles by him: The Development of Ribbuim and Mi 'utim Hermeneutics," PAAJR",1982-3. "The Use of Ribbuyim and Mi'utim in the Halakic Midrash ofR. Ishmael," JQK, 1979. "The Hermeneutic Kelal u-Ferat u-Kelal: Its History and Development," AAJR Annual Meeting, 1980 I think this will spur me to think more systematically about this. If I come up with anything, I will definitely share it. Jonathan From simon.montagu at gmail.com Sat Dec 9 08:27:13 2017 From: simon.montagu at gmail.com (Simon Montagu) Date: Sat, 9 Dec 2017 18:27:13 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Your Ancestors In-Reply-To: <20171208141158.GA20389@aishdas.org> References: <20171208141158.GA20389@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Fri, Dec 8, 2017 at 4:11 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah < avodah at lists.aishdas.org> wrote: > > http://bigthink.com/stephen-johnson/why-youre-probably- > related-to-nefertiti-and-confucius > Why You're Probably Related to Nefertiti, Confucius, and Socrates > December 7, 2017 by Stephen Johnson > .... > [J]ust how far back do humans need to go to find a common ancestor > of their own: a person to whom all living people are related? > > The answer, for people of European descent at least, is surprisingly > recent: 600 years. The common ancestor for every single person alive > on the planet today, no matter where, lived approximately 3,600 years > ago. That means Confucius, Nefertiti, Socrates, and any figure from > ancient history that had children, is in some way your ancestor. Unless I'm missing something, those last two sentences are a huge non sequitur. I have a slightly different take-away from the article: it says that everybody has a common ancestor who lived approximately 3,600 years ago. Isn't that exactly what the Torah says? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ben1456 at zahav.net.il Sat Dec 9 12:20:41 2017 From: ben1456 at zahav.net.il (Ben Waxman) Date: Sat, 09 Dec 2017 22:20:41 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Rambam Hilchot Shivtat Assur 3:3 Message-ID: Rambam Hilchot Shivtat Assur 3:3: The Rambam writes a clal: A minhag can not cancel something that is assur. A minhag can only prohibit something that is permitted. Is this rule seen as a veto or are there indeed issurim which have been become muttar via the power of minhag? From micha at aishdas.org Sat Dec 9 16:07:31 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Sat, 9 Dec 2017 19:07:31 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Your Ancestors In-Reply-To: References: <20171208141158.GA20389@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20171210000731.GB20169@aishdas.org> On Sat, Dec 09, 2017 at 06:27:13PM +0200, Simon Montagu via Avodah wrote: : > The answer, for people of European descent at least, is surprisingly : > recent: 600 years. The common ancestor for every single person alive : > on the planet today, no matter where, lived approximately 3,600 years : > ago. That means Confucius, Nefertiti, Socrates, and any figure from : > ancient history that had children, is in some way your ancestor. : Unless I'm missing something, those last two sentences are a huge non : sequitur. The author is just saying that the same model that giver the result of 600 years for Euopeans gives a result of 3,600 for all of humanity. : I have a slightly different take-away from the article: it says that : everybody has a common ancestor who lived approximately 3,600 years ago. : Isn't that exactly what the Torah says? Well, really the model says that everyone who is alive today almost certainly (this is statistics, after all) descended from everyone who was alive 3,600 who has /any/ living descendents. Not that there was one such ancestor. Gut Voch! -Micha -- Micha Berger What you get by achieving your goals micha at aishdas.org is not as important as http://www.aishdas.org what you become by achieving your goals. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Henry David Thoreau From ben1456 at zahav.net.il Sat Dec 9 12:59:26 2017 From: ben1456 at zahav.net.il (Ben Waxman) Date: Sat, 09 Dec 2017 22:59:26 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Rambam Hilchot Kiddush Hachodesh Message-ID: 1) Rambam Hilchot Kiddush Hachodesh 3:1 makes it clear that anyone who sees the new moon and can get to Jerusalem by the following evening should go. How would that work today given that basically means that every male in Israel who sees the moon should go (maybe men in Eilat who don't own a car would be patur). Were most (or even a small minority of) Israeli Jewish males above the age of 13 to look, there is no way that the Beit Din could even question all of these men, even if they only asked a couple of questions. Is there any problem in making sure that you don't see the moon? Just stay in for the evening. Rambam doesn't say that there is a chiyuv to look. Or since the Beit Din only takes testimony from trusted witnesses, can someone just say "I never got any type of certification that I am a good witness, therefore I don't need to go". Or how about having a few (say 100) men in each major city or region entrusted with the job and they would be the designated possible witnesses. 2) Rambam Hilchot Kiddush Hachodes 2:10 says clearly that once the beit din declares the new month, that is it, even if they know that they made a mistake. Yet in 3:15 and 16 Rambam writes that in the situation where no witnesses came on the 30th, if witnesses come later in the month and are able to prove that they did see the moon come out on the 29th, that month's calendar is redone. Is this not an obvious contradiction? I assume that I am reading 3:15 and 16 incorrectly or that I am getting something wrong here. 3) Later in the book Rambam goes on at length and in extreme detail about how to calculate the moon's position. He adds that we know these calculations from science and that since we no longer have a tradition about this matter from the nevi'im, it is fine to use outside sources. Seeing this made me wonder why we don't apply this rule in other areas. For example, I had read that we don't make matza from barley because we don't have a tradition as to how it takes barley to become chameitz. So why not measure it? Ben From simon.montagu at gmail.com Sat Dec 9 21:57:52 2017 From: simon.montagu at gmail.com (Simon Montagu) Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2017 07:57:52 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Your Ancestors In-Reply-To: <20171210000731.GB20169@aishdas.org> References: <20171208141158.GA20389@aishdas.org> <20171210000731.GB20169@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Sun, Dec 10, 2017 at 2:07 AM, Micha Berger wrote: > On Sat, Dec 09, 2017 at 06:27:13PM +0200, Simon Montagu via Avodah wrote: > : > The answer, for people of European descent at least, is > surprisingly > : > recent: 600 years. The common ancestor for every single person > alive > : > on the planet today, no matter where, lived approximately 3,600 > years > : > ago. That means Confucius, Nefertiti, Socrates, and any figure > from > : > ancient history that had children, is in some way your ancestor. > > : Unless I'm missing something, those last two sentences are a huge non > : sequitur. > > The author is just saying that the same model that giver the result > of 600 years for Euopeans gives a result of 3,600 for all of humanity. > > That's not the non sequitur. The non sequitur is going from "we have a common ancestor 3,600 years ago" to "Confucius and Socrates are your ancestors". Confucius and Socrates lived around 2500 years ago, and how does the author know that they had any living descendants? > : I have a slightly different take-away from the article: it says that > : everybody has a common ancestor who lived approximately 3,600 years ago. > : Isn't that exactly what the Torah says? > > Well, really the model says that everyone who is alive today almost > certainly (this is statistics, after all) descended from everyone who > was alive 3,600 who has /any/ living descendents. > Not that there was one such ancestor. > I haven't read the model, but the article you linked to talks several times about "/a/ common ancestor", "/a/" person to whom all living people are related", etc. > > Gut Voch! > -Micha > > -- > Micha Berger What you get by achieving your goals > micha at aishdas.org is not as important as > http://www.aishdas.org what you become by achieving your goals. > Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Henry David Thoreau > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From bdbradley70 at hotmail.com Sun Dec 10 14:22:59 2017 From: bdbradley70 at hotmail.com (Ben Bradley) Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2017 22:22:59 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] What are the main mitzvos to focus on? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I don't recall everything I've read on this subject of the purpose of talmud torah, but the conversation here so far seems to be missing a crucial piece, namely the transformative aspect of talmud torah on the individual learning it. The problem with the instrumental view is that it doesn't account for a number of aspects of the way chazal unanimously viewed talmud torah. If it was just about knowing how to keep the mitzvos then, I think, we'd have trouble with the following off the top of my head 1. The intensive way chazal went about talmud torah - the lack of sleep involved, the amora who sat on his hands until they bled, disappearing from family for years at a time 2. The viewing of talmud torah as a unending project 3. The depth and incisiveness of analysis expected in learning gemara. Eg being able to metaher a sheret 4. the lack of differentiation between learning issues of practical use and those which you will never need to know from a practical point of view Maybe I'm missing something, but knowing how to keep the mitzvos per se need not involve any of these. There are clear indications of the transformative nature of talmud torah in chazal, even if these aren't stated as its purpose explicitly. Perhaps there's a distinction between its purpose and the meaning of lishma. So learning torah lishma, whatever that means, is transformative, which is a primary purpose if not the only one. That would also bring talmud torah in line with the other mitzvos, since they all have a transformative benefit to the individual. It would also set it apart since it is more transformative than all the others, ie kneged kulam. It is the most transformative, and thus the most important. That said, considerations other than personal growth give priority to other mitzvos in many situations. Ben -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hankman at bell.net Mon Dec 11 06:11:22 2017 From: hankman at bell.net (hankman) Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2017 09:11:22 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Purpose of distant galaxies? Message-ID: <83F7EA9337D54E08891E46C1032C89FE@hankPC> I have just been watching a show on Discovery Science about a lay version of quantum mechanics. At one point the moderator was talking about the notion of entanglement and explained how in theory this involves the connection of entangled particles over any distance instantaneously. He then continued to say that given the big bang theory, all of existence was at a single point and then expanded (inflated) from then to the great distances, billions of light years, we witness today. But at the initial moment after the singularity, all the particles of the universe were close enough to possibly become entangled with some other, but then after the expansion, the partner entangled particle might have ended up in some distant far removed galaxy and but thereby still be related to its entangled partner particle perhaps now in our body here on Earth. I then thought back to some of the earlier discussions here on Avodah about the purpose of these distant galaxies that could never affect us here on Earth and that we did not even know existed until recently. Perhaps this possibility of entanglement with distant particles of those galaxies from the time of creation may provide some logic to the purpose of the existence of those distant galaxies? Happy Chanukah veKol tuv Chaim Manaster -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Mon Dec 11 09:33:33 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2017 12:33:33 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Rambam Hilchot Shivtat Assur 3:3 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20171211173333.GE15573@aishdas.org> On Sat, Dec 09, 2017 at 10:20:41PM +0200, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: : Rambam Hilchot Shivtat Assur 3:3: The Rambam writes a clal: A minhag : can not cancel something that is assur. A minhag can only prohibit : something that is permitted. Isn't the very definition of a minhag ta'us one that promotes doing an issur, or violating an asei? At least, violating an asei actively; I don't know if I would include a minhag not to fulfil an asei besheiv ve'al ta'aseh. That kind of thing would require more research. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Worrying is like a rocking chair: micha at aishdas.org it gives you something to do for a while, http://www.aishdas.org but in the end it gets you nowhere. Fax: (270) 514-1507 From micha at aishdas.org Tue Dec 12 13:53:43 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2017 16:53:43 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Women and Torah Study In-Reply-To: <9f94d416d3154585a6bb71a2df12c54e@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <9f94d416d3154585a6bb71a2df12c54e@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20171212215343.GA13817@aishdas.org> On Sun, Dec 03, 2017 at 06:40:43AM +0000, RJR reposted here a comment of his on a recent post on Lehrhaus: : Is encouraging intensive study of Talmud for women a community priority : or is the priority to make such study available for those who choose to : avail themselves of the opportunity? Especially if the former, where : does it stand in relation to other community priorities and how does : the answer differ from study for men? IMHO these questions have not been : sufficiently addressed. Do my concern resonate at all? Mod-Yeshivish (in contrast to other forms of MO) may argue that since learning primarily means shas and lomdus, and the iqar method for refining one's soul is learning, now that women are given the toolds to be able to make sense of Talmud, making it available to them is a community priority. To quote RALichtenstein from : What is the cardinal principle that lies at the heart, on the one hand, of Yeshiva education and, on the other hand, is the lynchpin of liberal education. It is, first and foremost, the notion that one is concerned with molding the person and only secondarily with preparing or training for the fulfillment of a certain role. John Cardinal Newman's statement, that "we are men by nature, geometrists only by chance," epitomizes this approach and it is one with respect to which, I have indicated, the Yeshiva world and the world of liberal education at its best coincide. Of course, that is not to suggest that preparing for a role, be it a domestic role, a professional role, or a communal role, is not important. It is important, but secondary. The first principle, I think, with regard to education generally, and which needs to be particularly emphasized in the field of women's education, is that first and foremost one needs to mold the person as an individual in all respects, with regard to character, personality, intellectual ability, and above all, of course, in religious terms, as an oved Hashem. ... If we ask ourselves: Here are the goals! "[leyir'ah, le'avah, la'avod, lishmor, ledavqah, lalekhet bekhol derakhav]," to fear [God], to love [God], to serve [God], to cling [to Him] to go in all His ways." What are the means? Traditionally, over the centuries, there has been a fairly sharp dichotomy precisely regarding this very issue, namely the means to be employed in relation to men versus women... This is not the occasion to examine whether that was justified historically. What is clear, however, is that notwithstanding how one judges the past retrospectively, in our present historical and social setting we need to view the teaching and the learning of girls and women as both a major challenge, as well as a primary need. ... But this is creating a role for halakhah study out of whole cloth that is really RAL's chiddush. After all, historically curricula for girls' and women did include character-shaping material, but OVERTLY so -- mussar, hashkafah and the lessons in each taken from studying Tanakh. And leave halakhah to learning the job, rather than liberal arts. And I would repeat a point made by RYGB when asked about this topic: Where is the evidence that our current boys' curriculum works so well that we're in a rush to make the curriculum for girls' more similar to it? In general, the yeshivish -- including the ModY -- take NhC shaar 4 to mean that learning refines the soul in some mystical way. Just learn, and the problem will solve itself. Whereas I personally think the data points the other way. And that the NhC intended that statement prescriptively -- true talmud Torah is learning in a way that consciously aims to refine the soul. Which is why there is all that Mussar and Middos talk around AishDas and its web site. My own inclination, and this really just translates to "my parents provided a RWMO upbrining" (with some variety thrown in in the form of school choices), would be that we can't prioritize providing talmud study for women over clear-cut chiyuvim. Talmud study should be made available, but for those women who feel a need for talmud study. Which puts me in the same camp as the LR's effective position. Women coming to kiruv with egalitarian leanings were encouraged by the LR to learn Talmud if they wish to. But you wont find a gemara class in Beis Rivka. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "And you shall love H' your G-d with your whole micha at aishdas.org heart, your entire soul, and all you own." http://www.aishdas.org Love is not two who look at each other, Fax: (270) 514-1507 It is two who look in the same direction. From micha at aishdas.org Wed Dec 13 03:30:34 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2017 06:30:34 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Rambam Hilchot Kiddush Hachodesh In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20171213113034.GB7576@aishdas.org> On Sat, Dec 09, 2017 at 10:59:26PM +0200, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: : 1) Rambam Hilchot Kiddush Hachodesh 3:1 makes it clear that anyone : who sees the new moon and can get to Jerusalem by the following : evening should go. How would that work today.... And then think what happens if the calculations were for a long month. The guy invests all that effort just to get to locked Lishkas haGazis doors. I would be frustrated. But to get to your question. I think that's a taqanah in order to insure that there is eidus. Rather than everyone saying someone else will go. There is no how that would work today, since you need a Sanhedrin to make it work. But isn't this a derabbnan, to make sure all those who see the moon don't assume someone else will go, and there ends up not having 2 kosher eidim? So, if the the next Sanhedrin finds that too many people are coming / would come and we're far from needing such a guarantee, they can repeal this din. : 2) Rambam Hilchot Kiddush Hachodes 2:10 says clearly that once the : beit din declares the new month, that is it, even if they know that : they made a mistake. Yet in 3:15 and 16 Rambam writes that in the : situation where no witnesses came on the 30th, if witnesses come : later in the month and are able to prove that they did see the moon : come out on the 29th, that month's calendar is redone. Is this not : an obvious contradiction? I assume that I am reading 3:15 and 16 : incorrectly or that I am getting something wrong here. The famous story of the calendar dispute between Rabban Gamliel and R' Yehoshua (RH 2:8-9) includes R' Aqiva saying, "Eileh mo'adei H' asher tiqre'u osam" -- bein bizmanan, bein shelo bizmanan, ein Li mo'ados ela eilu. Which is what the Rambam is saying in 2:10. He quotes R' Aqiva's prooftext. In that mishnah, both R' Gamliel and R' Yehoshua knew the metzi'us, they were arguing over whether to accept the eidim despite a flaw in their story. They may have even been arguing about the cheshbon, and whether there was a need to accept whatever eidim one had. The beginning of mishnah 9 has R' Gamliel ordering R' Yehoshua to show up "beyom haKippurim shechal lihyos *becheshbonkha*". There may be a difference between making a mistake in terms of decision-making and making one because they were working with bad or incomplete data. 2:20 is about their decision being wrong, 3:15-16 is about a lack of eidus. An error in the cheshbon or perhaps decision in general vs an error in facts. While this guess about p' 2 is less than compelling, it would seem that in p' 3 he is empowering a BD to go back to their cheshbon when they were forced by a lack of testimony to lengthen the month despite it. After all, 3:15 describes BD sitting all of the 30th, meaning wanting a short month, without witnesses comming. So I feel more comfortable with that part of the guess. Maybe R' Yehoshua would have renegged without needing R' Aqiva had other eidim arrived days later to corroborate the first two. : 3) Later in the book Rambam goes on at length and in extreme detail : about how to calculate the moon's position. He adds that we know : these calculations from science and that since we no longer have a : tradition about this matter from the nevi'im, it is fine to use : outside sources. Seeing this made me wonder why we don't apply this : rule in other areas. For example, I had read that we don't make : matza from barley because we don't have a tradition as to how it : takes barley to become chameitz. So why not measure it? But lemaaseh we don't, because we need a Sanhedrin to make a RC. For that matter, we even pad when we say Qiddush Levanah, making the one day difference irrelevent. So what halakhah lemaaseh is the Rambam talking about, that relies on the calculations? Giving license to the next Sanhedrin? I am not even sure we know the scientific difference between chameitz and sirchah. Or even if there is one. Why is dough made with 100% juice a different thing than if the juice were diluted, or if it were all water? If we don't know what it is we should measure, how can we use science to measure it? I think it has to be something like that, because the lack of barley matzah isn't a modern issue. And the ability to measure rising doesn't require some modern measuring equipment. So, why was the question left unsolved by centuries of acharonim if it were resolable? Similarly, we know the medical communities' various definitions of death. (They're all pretty similar.) But we don't know if halachic misah would use the same definition. But even those who stick with heart death would use the latest scientific tools to determine whether or not the person had their last heartbeat (lo aleinu). So I would posit the issue is a chiluq between using science to determine the physical state vs having a pesaq as to what physical state needs determining. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Like a bird, man can reach undreamed-of micha at aishdas.org heights as long as he works his wings. http://www.aishdas.org But if he relaxes them for but one minute, Fax: (270) 514-1507 he plummets downward. - Rav Yisrael Salanter From JRich at sibson.com Wed Dec 13 21:39:28 2017 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2017 05:39:28 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] S"A Principles Message-ID: Question: I note that the S"A O"C 158:10 (Hand Washing) quotes the Gemara (R'Chisda) in support of using more than the minimum required amount of water for hand washing. Given the Mechaber's goal that the Shulchan Aruch be a halachic summary of his magnum opus, the Beit Yosef, does anyone know of a theory as to why the Mechaber in some cases quotes Talmudic sources (or Torah or Rishonim) and in others just states the halacha? Any study of the frequency of such quotes? KT 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: From akivagmiller at gmail.com Wed Dec 13 19:40:54 2017 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2017 22:40:54 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Rambam Hilchot Kiddush Hachodesh Message-ID: . (I don't know if this post will help understand Kiddush Hachodesh or not. If yes, I'm glad I could help. If not, I apologize for the distraction.) R' Micha Berger asked: > I am not even sure we know the scientific difference between > chameitz and sirchah. Or even if there is one. Why is dough > made with 100% juice a different thing than if the juice were > diluted, or if it were all water? If we don't know what it is > we should measure, how can we use science to measure it? I agree that WE don't know the scientific difference between chametz and sirchon, but it seems clear to me that such a difference does exist, and Chazal understood it. See the very beginning of Yerushalmi Challah, page 1b1 in the ArtScroll English version. "Badku Umatz'u" - They tested various grains, to see what happens when their flour is mixed with water. They found that The Five Grains underwent "chimutz", while *most* other grains fermented in the manner called "sirchon". (For some grains, the tests were inconclusive.) There is no Kabala From Sinai that defines these processes in terms of the grains, the liquids, or anything else. If you knew what to look for, you could look at a dough and tell whether it was chometz - without even knowing the ingredients. > I think it has to be something like that, because the lack of > barley matzah isn't a modern issue. And the ability to measure > rising doesn't require some modern measuring equipment. So, > why was the question left unsolved by centuries of acharonim > if it were resolvable? The problem isn't in the equipment. It's knowing what to look for. The tamay birds are all listed in Parshas Shmini. You don't need a degree in genetics to determine whether the bird in your hand is on the list or not. The only problem is that no one today knows what those words mean. Just like we don't really understand the difference between chimutz and sirchon. And no amount of pilpul among the "centuries of acharonim" is gonna help. Akiva Miller From micha at aishdas.org Thu Dec 14 03:27:18 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2017 06:27:18 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Rambam Hilchot Kiddush Hachodesh In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20171214112718.GA11145@aishdas.org> On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 10:40:54PM -0500, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : See the very beginning of Yerushalmi Challah, page [16]b1 in the : ArtScroll English version. "Badku Umatz'u" - They tested various : grains, to see what happens when their flour is mixed with water. They : found that The Five Grains underwent "chimutz", while *most* other : grains fermented in the manner called "sirchon". (For some grains, the : tests were inconclusive.) (Artscroll must have just one page of 16b, since that's near the bottom of the amud.) Assuming you understand the machloqes aa being about metzi'us. Which I did not. Aside from a reluctance to pin machloqesin on matters of fact even in the Y-mi, where there are cases it seems unaviodable. There are other problems: 1- EVERY other grain but these 5 produced something in between chimutz and sirchon that only R Yochanan b Nuri thought looked like chimutz? Not one of the experiments had another dissenter? 2- Why wouldn't later generations try to get clarity by repeating the experiment? As I took it (and wrote as much in prior iterations), R Yochanan b Nuri and the chakhamim were arguing over where the line is between chimutz and sirchon. They agreed on what happened when you mix a grain other than the 5 with water -- the gemara describes the experimental result as "ushe'ar kol haminim einan ba'in liydei matzah vechameitz elas sirchon." Then it continues the machloqes (running onto 17a), this time asking about qeramis in particular. And the gemara asks: Why they don't just check it? The first check's results were written open-and-shut. Here we are given RYBN differing obseration. As I took it, RYBN disagreed only in that he considers sirchon prohibited as chameitz. They argue about which side of the line sirchon is on because the machloqes is about where the line is. Which is why the gemara is so clear cut on the first test. And this is is why I lunped it together with other cases of halakhah deciding where in the gray area set of physical cases halakhah draws the line. : There is no Kabala From Sinai that defines these processes in terms of : the grains, the liquids, or anything else. If you knew what to look : for, you could look at a dough and tell whether it was chometz - : without even knowing the ingredients. ... and we don't know what to look for. :> I think it has to be something like that, because the lack of :> barley matzah isn't a modern issue. And the ability to measure :> rising doesn't require some modern measuring equipment. So, :> why was the question left unsolved by centuries of acharonim :> if it were resolvable? : The problem isn't in the equipment. It's knowing what to look for. As I said, it "has to be something like that", since the physical question could have been resolved, or at the very least repeatedly attempted to be resolved. You appear to be arguing against the hava amina I took pains to reject. But, unlike rice, where miSinai we could have known whether its sitchon qualifies as chameitz or not or the machloqes could have arisen later, with barley we know the uncertainty is caused by lost information. : The tamay birds are all listed in Parshas Shmini. You don't need a : degree in genetics to determine whether the bird in your hand is on : the list or not.,,, Ironically, defining a "min" is not settled halakhah either. Ask the Israelis debating whether we know that any breed of chicken other than the breakel chicken (or, I would guess the American campine) is halachically chicken and within the mesorah. Or the counter-arguers, who want to pasl braekel chickens... I am not saying I understand the metzi'us of the debate, but it does highlight how hard it is to draw halachic lines in the physical sand. So, even if we could translate the name of every min in parashas Shemini, we could still not know whether the bird in my hand is included in one of the minim on the list or not. As we could argue whether the genetic test found something on one side of the line defining the min, or the other -- because we don't know where the line is. A lichtikn un freilechn Chanukah! -Micha -- Micha Berger When we are no longer able to change a situation micha at aishdas.org -- just think of an incurable disease such as http://www.aishdas.org inoperable cancer -- we are challenged to change Fax: (270) 514-1507 ourselves. - Victor Frankl (MSfM) From Aryeh.Frimer at biu.ac.il Thu Dec 14 05:03:04 2017 From: Aryeh.Frimer at biu.ac.il (Aryeh Frimer) Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2017 13:03:04 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Tevilat Kelim Message-ID: Has anyone seen a discussion regarding one who said "al haTevila" (which women recite when going to mikva) instead of "Al tevilat Kelim." Is the Berakha valid be-Di-avad? A Freilichen Hanukah!! -------------------------------------------------- Dr. Aryeh A. Frimer Ethel and David Resnick Professor Emeritus of Active Oxygen Chemistry Chemistry Dept., Bar-Ilan University Ramat Gan 5290002, ISRAEL E-mail (office): Aryeh.Frimer at biu.ac.il Homepage http://ch.biu.ac.il/frimer E-mail (home): FrimerA at zahav.net.il From ben1456 at zahav.net.il Fri Dec 15 02:45:55 2017 From: ben1456 at zahav.net.il (Ben Waxman) Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2017 12:45:55 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Rambam Hilchot Kiddush Hachodesh In-Reply-To: <20171213113034.GB7576@aishdas.org> References: <20171213113034.GB7576@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <3554ff1b-2c53-bf1d-b688-0202a1eae13a@zahav.net.il> It must be something like that. After reading through Kiddush Hachodesh I was left with a huge question as to the incredible detail; 100 times more detailed than say his Hilchot Pesach. Ben On 12/13/2017 1:30 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > So what halakhah lemaaseh is the Rambam > talking about, that relies on the calculations? Giving license to > the next Sanhedrin? From michaelpoppers at gmail.com Thu Dec 14 18:17:15 2017 From: michaelpoppers at gmail.com (Michael Poppers) Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2017 21:17:15 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] zmanim Message-ID: >From R'Micha: > Li nir'eh there is value to the "in sync with nature" approach of Chazal that we lose when we think about clock time rather than the cycles of the sun (a/k/a the earth's spin). ? > ? Much the way we lose a lot of what the yamim tovim mean because we aren't living in agrarian communities, and don't feel the joy of new wheat and barley when we celebrate our birth as a people, or the joy of bringing in the year's fruit when we celebrate how HQBH sustained us in the midbar. < ...or the meaning of "Yotzer Or", etc. because we're not davening those pre- *Shma* *b'rachos* at the "right" time w/ a view of the brightening sky. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Fri Dec 15 06:55:30 2017 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2017 14:55:30 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Why does Yosef command the Egyptians to circumcise Message-ID: <1513349727386.22540@stevens.edu> See https://goo.gl/1AP3eB Rashi on Bereshis 41:55 says what he tells you, do: Since Joseph had ordered them to circumcise themselves, and when they came to Pharaoh and said, "This is what he said to us," he (Pharaoh) said to them, "Why didn't you gather grain? Didn't he announce to you that years of famine were coming?" They replied, "We gathered much, but it rotted." He (Pharaoh) replied,"If so, do whatever he tells you. He issued a decree upon the grain, and it rotted. What if he issues a decree upon us and we die?" - [from Mid. Tanchuma Mikeitz 7, Gen. Rabbah 91:5] Why did Yosef order them to do that? See the above URL for three explanations. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Fri Dec 15 06:57:57 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2017 09:57:57 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Rambam Hilchot Kiddush Hachodesh In-Reply-To: <3554ff1b-2c53-bf1d-b688-0202a1eae13a@zahav.net.il> References: <20171213113034.GB7576@aishdas.org> <3554ff1b-2c53-bf1d-b688-0202a1eae13a@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <20171215145757.GB28181@aishdas.org> On Fri, Dec 15, 2017 at 12:45:55PM +0200, Ben Waxman wrote: : On 12/13/2017 1:30 PM, Micha Berger wrote: :> So what halakhah lemaaseh is the Rambam :> talking about, that relies on the calculations? Giving license to :> the next Sanhedrin? : It must be something like that. After reading through Kiddush : Hachodesh I was left with a huge question as to the incredible : detail; 100 times more detailed than say his Hilchot Pesach. My guess, and I hope it's not too lesse majest for a public posting: The Rambam was a math geek who simply enjoyed this kind of stuff. It cannot be that the Rambam thought the future chavrei Sanhedrin would need his text for this more than his usual coverage. Leshitaso, one wouldn't be qualified to be a dayan without a strong background in all 7 chokhmos. That last line being an opening to a Chanukah tangent about Chokhmah Yevanis being a necessary study for a member of the Sanhedrin. So, Chanukah celebrates a victory over Yavan (in the sense of Hellenism) and a step toward reestablishing the Sanhedrin, who were expected to utilize "yaft E-lokim leYefes, veyishkon be'ohalei Sheim". An enlightening and happy Chanukah and :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Brains to the lazy micha at aishdas.org are like a torch to the blind -- http://www.aishdas.org a useless burden. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Bechinas haOlam From micha at aishdas.org Sat Dec 16 16:09:45 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2017 19:09:45 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Mamlekhat Chimyar Message-ID: <20171217000945.GA16968@aishdas.org> I stumbled across reference to the Humyarite Kingdom, which existed from 110 bce - 525 ce. Based in Yemen, ruled over much of the Arabian Peninsula. It seems that they went Jewish. (Shades of the Khazars.) See : > The Himyarite kings appear to have abandoned polytheism and converted > to Judaism around the year 380, several decades after the conversion of > the Ethiopian Kingdom of Aksum to Christianity (340), though no changes > occurred in its script, calendar, or language (unlike Aksum).[7] This > date marks the end of an era in which numerous inscriptions record the > names and deeds of kings, and dedicate buildings to local (e.g. Wagal > and Simyada) and major (e.g. Almaqah) gods. From the 380s, temples were > abandoned and dedications to the old gods ceased, replaced by references > to Rahmanan, "the Lord of Heaven" or "Lord of Heaven and Earth".[8] The > political context for this conversion may have been Arabia's interest > in maintaining neutrality and good trade relations with the competing > empires of Byzantium, which first adopted Christianity under Constantine > the Great and the Sasanian Empire, which alternated between Zurvanism > and Manichaeism.[9] ... > During this period, references to pagan gods disappeared from royal > inscriptions and texts on public buildings, and were replaced by > references to a single deity. Inscriptions in the Sabean language, and > sometimes Hebrew, called this deity Rahman (the Merciful), "Lord of the > Heavens and Earth," the "God of Israel" and "Lord of the Jews." Prayers > invoking Rahman's blessings on the "people of Israel" often ended with > the Hebrew words shalom and amen. [16] I wonder about the kashrus of the conversion, and did it pose a rei'usa when discussing the Jewishness of Teimani immigrants to Israel. A lichtikn un freilechn Chanukah un a gutt voch! -Micha -- Micha Berger Life isn't about finding yourself micha at aishdas.org Life is about creating yourself. http://www.aishdas.org - Bernard Shaw Fax: (270) 514-1507 From micha at aishdas.org Sun Dec 17 05:51:57 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2017 08:51:57 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] New Cancer Treatment Message-ID: <20171217135058.GC5@aishdas.org> This news story showed up in two of my RSS subscriptions: Hijacked sperm carry chemo drugs to cervical cancer cells https://www.newscientist.com/article/2156525-hijacked-sperm-carry-chemo-drugs-to-cervical-cancer-cells or http://j.mp/2yLROJ1 and Killing Cancer with Spermbots http://bigthink.com/robby-berman/killing-cancer-with-spermbots In my neck of the O woods, everyone holds like R' Moshe, that children produced by IVF-donor would not be mamzeirim. BUT... according to the machmirim (eg the Satmar Rav), would an eishes kohein who recieved this treatment have to get divorced? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger You are not a human being in search micha at aishdas.org of a spiritual experience. You are a http://www.aishdas.org spiritual being immersed in a human Fax: (270) 514-1507 experience. - Pierre Teilhard de Chardin From larry62341 at optonline.net Sun Dec 17 06:22:06 2017 From: larry62341 at optonline.net (Prof. Levine) Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2017 09:22:06 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] The Downtown Chanukiah Message-ID: Please see the video at https://goo.gl/dgSTLv In this video Rabbi Anthony Manning discusses the halachic aspects of where one should light the Chanukah menorah at home as well as the Chabad practice of lighting menorahs in public places and whether or not the person lighting such a menorah should make a bracha. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From zev at sero.name Sun Dec 17 06:20:59 2017 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2017 09:20:59 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] New Cancer Treatment In-Reply-To: <20171217135058.GC5@aishdas.org> References: <20171217135058.GC5@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <8550baa4-198d-536a-b249-d5c2d207bb86@sero.name> On 17/12/17 08:51, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > BUT... according to the machmirim (eg the Satmar Rav), would an eishes > kohein who recieved this treatment have to get divorced? I wouldn't think so. There's still no act of zenus. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From micha at aishdas.org Sun Dec 17 11:53:27 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2017 14:53:27 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] New Cancer Treatment In-Reply-To: <8550baa4-198d-536a-b249-d5c2d207bb86@sero.name> References: <20171217135058.GC5@aishdas.org> <8550baa4-198d-536a-b249-d5c2d207bb86@sero.name> Message-ID: <20171217195326.GD5@aishdas.org> On Sun, Dec 17, 2017 at 09:20:59AM -0500, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : On 17/12/17 08:51, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: :>BUT... according to the machmirim (eg the Satmar Rav), would an eishes :>kohein who recieved this treatment have to get divorced? : I wouldn't think so. There's still no act of zenus. There is a machloqes Chakhamim and R' Aqiva as to whether only issurei kareis (except niddah) create mamzeirim, or any issur. And yet the Satmar Rav holds that IE-D creates mamzeirim. And one could equally argue there is no act of zenus. So, I parked my intuition at the door when trying to understand his shitah. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The thought of happiness that comes from outside micha at aishdas.org the person, brings him sadness. But realizing http://www.aishdas.org the value of one's will and the freedom brought Fax: (270) 514-1507 by uplifting its, brings great joy. - R' Kook From zev at sero.name Sun Dec 17 12:20:24 2017 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2017 15:20:24 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] New Cancer Treatment In-Reply-To: <20171217195326.GD5@aishdas.org> References: <20171217135058.GC5@aishdas.org> <8550baa4-198d-536a-b249-d5c2d207bb86@sero.name> <20171217195326.GD5@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <5862ca9f-c908-4756-d082-0b20f6dc428f@sero.name> On 17/12/17 14:53, Micha Berger wrote: > There is a machloqes Chakhamim and R' Aqiva as to whether only issurei > kareis (except niddah) create mamzeirim, or any issur. And yet the > Satmar Rav holds that IE-D creates mamzeirim. And one could equally > argue there is no act of zenus. > > So, I parked my intuition at the door when trying to understand his > shitah. as I understand the machlokes, it's precisely over whether an act of zenus is necessary to create a mamzer. The SR (aiui) holds it is not, therefore although no issur was done with IED the child is nevertheless a mamzer. Here too, the SR would presumably hold that although there's no act of zenus, and therefore the treatment is permitted, should any child result it would be a mamzer. But I haven't seen the SR's shitah inside, so I'm relying on 3rd-hand transmission which may have garbled important points. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From llevine at stevens.edu Sun Dec 17 13:35:04 2017 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2017 21:35:04 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] How did Yosef showing his circumcision prove anything? Message-ID: <1513546500734.24127@stevens.edu> From https://goo.gl/L634gH Rashi to 45:4 says that when Yosef told his brothers to approach him, it was to show them his circumcision (presumably to prove he was Jewish). But how would that prove anything? All of Egypt had been circumcised already, as Rashi says on 41:55. If his showing his circumcision wasn't to prove he was Jewish, why did he do it? See the above URL for answers. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cantorwolberg at cox.net Sun Dec 17 11:40:31 2017 From: cantorwolberg at cox.net (Richard Wolberg) Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2017 14:40:31 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Vayigash Message-ID: The first three words of the Sidra: Vayigash eilav Yehuda mean that Judah approached Joseph to speak to him. The m?forshim bring out that they communicated through interpreters since officially, (the brothers thought) Joseph didn?t speak Hebrew and the brothers didn?t speak Egyptian. The baal haturim and the m?forshim point out the last letter of the first three words (shin, vov, hey) spell shaveh which means ?equal.? Judah is implying to Joseph: ?I am equal to you. You think you?re a king; I?m also a king.? According to this interpretation, Judah spoke very sharply to Joseph. The Vilna Gaon brings out a fascinating insight on the trope of the first six words which is kadma v?azla r?vi?I, zarka, munach segol. The Vilna Gaon explains that the trope here explains the meaning of these words. Kadma v?azla in Aramaic meaning kadam v?awzal, he (Judah) stepped forward, Yehudah has a r?vi?i, since Judah was the fourth son. So why the fourth son? Because zarka, he was going to be thrown out, munach segol from being able to rest in Gan Eden. Since Judah cursed himself that if he doesn?t bring Binyamin back, he would be damned in both worlds ? in this world and in the world to come. (Segula which means ?treasure? from Segol comes to mean here Gan Eden). When the sons finally tell Jacob that Joseph still lives (45:26), the m?forshim resolve a theological problem that arose in parashas Vayeshev (37:35). For there we read about Jacob: ?and his sons and daughters wished to comfort him and he refused to be consoled.? Isn?t it one of the basic articles of faith to accept God?s judgment and to welcome the comforting offered by others. Why did Jacob refuse? Our Sages sensed this anomaly and gave a brilliant answer, ?For no condolences are accepted over the living" (see Rashi on 37:35). Yes, Jacob refused to accept condolences because he had a faint ray of hope that Joseph might be alive. A psychologist might explain it as ?wishful thinking.? In any event, his ray of hope was vindicated when he found out that Joseph was indeed alive (and that is why he originally refused to accept the condolences offered by all the people). Hope is being able to see that there is light despite all of the darkness. Desmond Tutu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cantorwolberg at cox.net Sun Dec 17 16:16:32 2017 From: cantorwolberg at cox.net (Richard Wolberg) Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2017 19:16:32 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] S"A Principles Message-ID: <8A9BD2E2-0BDC-4728-B1B3-792480A73CEE@cox.net> Reb Joel asks: does anyone know of a theory as to why the Mechaber in some cases quotes Talmudic sources (or Torah or Rishonim) and in others just states the halacha? My theory is that when it is either a well known halacha and no reason to question it or at least, when the Mechaber thought it to be indisputable, then it was felt there was no reason to quote sources. OTOH, if was felt that there would be many questioning it, then the sources quoted would obviate that from occurring. From micha at aishdas.org Sun Dec 17 17:15:28 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2017 20:15:28 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] [Tvunah] Teabag on Shabbos Message-ID: <20171218011528.GA22955@aishdas.org> This pesaq by R' Asher Weiss surprised me. Tea Bag on Shabbos Tvunah in English by Rabbi Akiva Dershowitz Question: Does a tea bag [used in a kli shlishi] need to be removed from the cup with a spoon on Shabbos, to avoid issues of borrer? What about holding it over the cup to avoid dripping on the table, to allow drips to fall into the cup? Answer: The tea bag may be removed normally, and may be held to allow drips to fall back in to the cup. I was told at a young age to take the teabag out by spoon, making sure to take tea out along with the bag. For boreier reasons. So, as I said, I found this pesaq surprising. The actual teshuvah in Hebrew is on that page. RAW finds a precedent in Rashi on Shabbos 140a, who discusses the mishnah allowing one to put straw in a sieve in a feed trough. Rashi says "even though the motz will fall on our own, as it's a davar she'ein miskavein -- and the mishnah holds like R' Shim'on. And see SA OC 319:8, who makes it clear (which it isnt' from Rashi, see teshuvah) that even if the boreir will certainly occur, it's still mutar. Pesiq reishei, but not melekhes machasheves, and still mutar. Similarly in Nishmas Adam 18:2. An enlightening and anjoyable Chanukah! -Micha -- Micha Berger We look forward to the time micha at aishdas.org when the power to love http://www.aishdas.org will replace the love of power. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - William Ewart Gladstone From Aryeh.Frimer at biu.ac.il Sun Dec 17 23:09:04 2017 From: Aryeh.Frimer at biu.ac.il (Aryeh Frimer) Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2017 07:09:04 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Using "Al haTevila" for tevilat Kelim Message-ID: Rav Zvi Cohen, in his Encyclopedic Tevilat Kelim: Rules that be-Di-avad Al haTevila is valid. I was surprised by this since the Mehaber in Bet Yosef explicitly rules against this shita (for le-khatehilla) and holds in SA that one should say "Al Tevilat Kelim." Having done so, to say "Al haTevilah" would not be "Matbe'ah sheTavu Hakhamim." Any ideas? -------------------------------------------------- Dr. Aryeh A. Frimer Ethel and David Resnick Professor Emeritus of Active Oxygen Chemistry Chemistry Dept., Bar-Ilan University Ramat Gan 5290002, ISRAEL E-mail (office): Aryeh.Frimer at biu.ac.il Homepage http://ch.biu.ac.il/frimer Tel: 972-3-5318610; Fax: 972-3-7384053 Tel Home: 972-8-9473819/9470834 E-mail (home): FrimerA at zahav.net.il Cellphone: 972-54-7540761 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hankman at bell.net Mon Dec 18 06:16:44 2017 From: hankman at bell.net (hankman) Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2017 09:16:44 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Rambam Hilchot Kiddush Hachodesh -- on "min" Message-ID: <0C71CBB0F1E145B89D102DAA516AF81A@hankPC> R. Micha Berger wrote: ?Ironically, defining a "min" is not settled halakhah either.? CM asks: If I am not mistaken the modern secular definition of ?species? is based on whether the populations can interbreed or not. Do we know with any certainty that the Torah rejects this criteria as a determinant of ?min?? Kol tuv Chaim Manaster --- This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. http://www.avg.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Mon Dec 18 07:05:39 2017 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2017 15:05:39 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Yehudah Speaking to Yosef Message-ID: <1513609536405.23616@stevens.edu> In what l language did Yehudah speak to Yosef. Was it Hebrew and was the translator present to "translate" for Yosef? The Chumash does not mention a translator in this week's parasha. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jont at traumatic.us Mon Dec 18 11:56:26 2017 From: jont at traumatic.us (Jonathan Traum) Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2017 14:56:26 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Rambam Hilchot Kiddush Hachodesh In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <622ffda5-c446-82f3-45b0-18da6c93f6da@traumatic.us> On 12/09/2017 03:59 PM, Ben Waxman wrote: > 1) Rambam Hilchot Kiddush Hachodesh 3:1 makes it clear that anyone who > sees the new moon and can get to Jerusalem by the following evening > should go. ... > [snip] > Is there any problem in making sure that you don't see the moon? Just > stay in for the evening. Rambam doesn't say that there is a chiyuv to > look. I imagine that most people wouldn't have to worry about it.? On the 30th day after the previous Rosh Hodesh, the tiny crescent moon would only be visible for a short time after sunset and before moonset, and only to those who have an unobstructed view of the western horizon. Jonathan Traum From zev at sero.name Mon Dec 18 13:02:48 2017 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2017 16:02:48 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Using "Al haTevila" for tevilat Kelim In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <725ae5c3-d6de-7ce1-60c9-1defc191ac9d@sero.name> On 18/12/17 02:09, Aryeh Frimer via Avodah wrote: > ?Rav Zvi *Cohen*,?in his Encyclopedic *Tevilat Kelim*: Rules that > be-Di-avad Al haTevila is valid. > > I was surprised by this since the Mehaber in Bet Yosef explicitly rules > against this shita ?(for le-khatehilla) and holds in SA? that one should > say ?Al Tevilat Kelim.??? Having done so, to say ?Al haTevilah? would > not be ?Matbe?ah sheTavu Hakhamim.?? ?Any ideas? > "Al hatevilah" *is* a coinage of the chachamim, just not the one they prescribed for this occasion. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From llevine at stevens.edu Mon Dec 18 23:37:41 2017 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2017 07:37:41 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Did the Patriarchs Speak Hebrew? Message-ID: <1513669061621.40139@stevens.edu> >From the article at https://goo.gl/Z3QWs2 Ramban says: It is possible that he said this to them simply as a means of pacifying them, for there was no proof [that he was Joseph] in the fact that someone in Egypt should speak in the Holy Tongue. In my opinion, Hebrew was a Canaanite language. For Abraham did not bring it from Ur of the Chaldees [in Mesopotamia] and from Haran, for there they spoke Aramaic, as the incident of the pile of stones erected by Laban and Jacob proves [see Gen. 31:47]. And it was not a private language spoken by a single person but a language of Canaan, and many people in Egypt knew it for the countries were close together--particularly the ruler, for it is customary for kings and rulers to know several languages. For his assertion that Hebrew is "a Canannite language" Ramban makes reference to Isaiah, who does thus refer to Hebrew: "On that day there will be five cities in the land of Egypt that speak the language of Canaan and swear by the Lord of hosts" (Isa. 19:18). That the original language of the Patriarchs (Abraham, Isaac and Jacob) was Aramaic is proved to Ramban's mind by virtue of the fact that Laban gave the name "Yegar-sahaduta" to what Jacob called "Gal-ed" (Gen. 31:47), The former had remained in Mesopotamia and continued to speak Aramaic (which Ramban thinks was spoken in Ur and in Haran), while Jacob, who had grown up in Canaan, had learnt the local language. Please see the above URL for much more on this topic. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gershonseif at mail.yahoo.com Tue Dec 19 08:23:45 2017 From: gershonseif at mail.yahoo.com (Gershon Seif) Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2017 16:23:45 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Avodah] Did the Patriarchs Speak Hebrew? In-Reply-To: <1513669061621.40139@stevens.edu> References: <1513669061621.40139@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <949360216.1197555.1513700625794@mail.yahoo.com> Leavining Avraham Avinu aside, what is the Ramban's view about the language spoken by Adam HaRishon? ie. Naming his wife Chava and assigning names to all the animals?If the Ramban concurs that these names were given in lashon hakodesh, then he agrees that it was the first language. No? Unless you say that lashon hakodesh was one of at least 2 languages that Adam spoke and he reserved it for holy purposes only, such as giving these names. And I suppose that would be along the lines of the other Ramban quoted there which says that it's called Lashon Hakodesh because it's the language that Hashem used to convey the Torah. On Tuesday, December 19, 2017 1:37 AM, Professor L. Levine wrote: > From the article at https://goo.gl/Z3QWs2 > Ramban says: >> It is possible that he said this to them simply as a means of >> pacifying them, for there was no proof [that he was Joseph] in the fact >> that someone in Egypt should speak in the Holy Tongue. In my opinion, >> Hebrew was a Canaanite language. For Abraham did not bring it from Ur >> of the Chaldees [in Mesopotamia] and from Haran, for there they spoke >> Aramaic... From micha at aishdas.org Tue Dec 19 09:05:08 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2017 12:05:08 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Did the Patriarchs Speak Hebrew? In-Reply-To: <1513669061621.40139@stevens.edu> References: <1513669061621.40139@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20171219170508.GC27362@aishdas.org> On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 07:37:41AM +0000, Professor L. Levine via Avodah wrote: : From the article at : https://goo.gl/Z3QWs2 : : Ramban says: : : It is possible that he said this to them simply as a means of : pacifying them, for there was no proof [that he was Joseph] in : the fact that someone in Egypt should speak in the Holy Tongue. In : my opinion, Hebrew was a Canaanite language... ... and yet also lashon haqodesh. And to the Ramban (on "sheqel haqodesh" in parashas Sheqalim), this is because it's the language in which Hashem created the world and in which the Torah and Nakh were written. And leshitaso, the letters of the Torah, if not their breakup into words, preceded creation. The notion that the avos spoke Aramaic is in Vayiqra Rabba on 32:5. The Medrash Peliyah (#166) concludes that even Adam did! This is a comment about Sarah's death in "Qiryas Araba". The Niv Sefasayim explains that the medrash is getting this from the use of the Aramaic term "qirya". But I don't see how we know this was the name of the cite from back when Adam and Chava were buried there; or how else this moved the line to any time before Efron. R Yonasan Eibschitz (Tif'eres Yehonasan on Bereishis 11:1) that Adam spoke LhQ before the cheit, and Aramaic after. Fore that matter, Medrash Tanchuma (beginning of Devarim in Buber) and Medrash Seikhel Tov (Shemos 4:11) say Adam spoke all 70 languages. Requires a new peshat in what happened at Migdal Bavel, no? I am not to clear on the whole thing. Languages evolve, so that if one were to trace them out over time, one would draw a tree or a bush. Adam's proto-Semitic, or proto-proto-proto... everything is an ancestor of all language. I could call it early Hebrew if I wanted, and claim that Hebrew is the trunk from which other languages branched off. But that's just a decision about how to draw the tree. I could pick another run from root to twig and pull it straight, and say that Adam spoke proto-...proto-Mandarin, and all the other languages branched off. For languages as similar as Hebrew and Aramaic, where neither could have drifted from the original significanly more than the other, doesn't the whole discussion of whether Adam's language was a predecessar to the language of the chumash, Nakh, Chazal, etc... or of Aramaic in its evolutions all kind of arbitrary? I wonder if the Ramban understands the name of Kesav Ashuris to mean "Assyrian Script", rather than "Enriched Script" (from "osher". YMMV on the definition of osher.) After all, he seems to have no problem saying that Hashem left holy things in the hands of other peoples for us to find and use. For that matter, Eretz Yisrael was also given to the Kenaanim to hold until we got there... It might also be leshitaso -- but this may be a stretch -- with the Ramban's take on rainbows. The Ramban says that rainbows existed since Maaseh Bereishis. Nature didn't change in this regard with the Mabul. Rather, the already existing phenomenon was made a symbol when HQBH made the beris with Noach. Again, something put in place naturally so that when the time came it would be available take on its full significance. : Canaan, and many people in Egypt knew it for the countries were close : together--particularly the ruler, for it is customary for kings and : rulers to know several languages. : : For his assertion that Hebrew is "a Canannite language" Ramban makes : reference to Isaiah, who does thus refer to Hebrew: "On that day there : will be five cities in the land of Egypt that speak the language of : Canaan and swear by the Lord of hosts" (Isa. 19:18). That the original : language of the Patriarchs (Abraham, Isaac and Jacob) was Aramaic is : proved to Ramban's mind by virtue of the fact that Laban gave the name : "Yegar-sahaduta" to what Jacob called "Gal-ed" (Gen. 31:47), The former : had remained in Mesopotamia and continued to speak Aramaic (which Ramban : thinks was spoken in Ur and in Haran), while Jacob, who had grown up in : Canaan, had learnt the local language. : : Please see the above URL for much more on this topic. Have a Great Month, and a enlightening and enjoyable Chanukah! -Micha -- Micha Berger The greatest discovery of all time is that micha at aishdas.org a person can change their future http://www.aishdas.org by merely changing their attitude. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Oprah Winfrey From zev at sero.name Tue Dec 19 09:12:45 2017 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2017 12:12:45 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Did the Patriarchs Speak Hebrew? In-Reply-To: <20171219170508.GC27362@aishdas.org> References: <1513669061621.40139@stevens.edu> <20171219170508.GC27362@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <45f78c92-f0ed-6df8-9a80-01c96d6dd007@sero.name> On 19/12/17 12:05, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > I wonder if the Ramban understands the name of Kesav Ashuris to mean > "Assyrian Script", rather than "Enriched Script" (from "osher". YMMV > on the definition of osher.) You associate osher with an alef and `osher with an `ayin? -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From micha at aishdas.org Tue Dec 19 10:59:01 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2017 13:59:01 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Did the Patriarchs Speak Hebrew? In-Reply-To: <45f78c92-f0ed-6df8-9a80-01c96d6dd007@sero.name> References: <1513669061621.40139@stevens.edu> <20171219170508.GC27362@aishdas.org> <45f78c92-f0ed-6df8-9a80-01c96d6dd007@sero.name> Message-ID: <20171219185901.GE31888@aishdas.org> On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 12:12:45PM -0500, Zev Sero wrote: : On 19/12/17 12:05, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: : >I wonder if the Ramban understands the name of Kesav Ashuris to mean : >"Assyrian Script", rather than "Enriched Script" (from "osher". YMMV : >on the definition of osher.) : You associate osher with an alef and `osher with an `ayin? RSRH does, as he does all alef-ayin pairs. Also osher with asher. But I used enriched because in common usage, it refers to someone having a gift. We say that a cereal is enriched with vitamins. We far more rarely speak of a CEO being enriched. At least, not anymore. And what about yiysher kochakha, assuming the correct niqud isn't yeyasher? Reish Laqish (Shabbos 87a) says "asher shibarta" is an allusion to "yiyshar kochakha", so that's connected as well. RSRH himself uses "being in successful progress" (eg Bereishis 30:30), which R/Dr Mattiyahu Clark's Hirschian dictionary gives as its 1st definition. Chodesh tov, un a lichtikn un freilechn Chanukah! -Micha -- Micha Berger The trick is learning to be passionate in one's micha at aishdas.org ideals, but compassionate to one's peers. http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From mandels at ou.org Tue Dec 19 09:46:51 2017 From: mandels at ou.org (Mandel, Seth) Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2017 17:46:51 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Did the Patriarchs Speak Hebrew? In-Reply-To: <1513669061621.40139@stevens.edu> References: <1513669061621.40139@stevens.edu> Message-ID: There is no proof that anyone spoke Hebrew. Chazal say that dibb'ra Torah bilshon b'nei odom, and the Torah was written in Hebrew because that is what the Jews understood at the time of Moshe Rabbeinu and the N'vi'im. This is clear from last weeks Parsha, where Par'oh speaks to Yosef, kavyakhol in Hebrew. However, just as much as there is no proof at all from the T'NaKh that lots of people spoke Hebrew, even though the T'NaKh records them in Hebrew, there is also no proof at all that certain people did not speak Hebrew. The Ramban quotes the story of Lovon and Ya'akov to "prove" that Lovon did not speak Hebrew. That is probable, but what did Yaakov and Lovon speak together? What did Yaakov speak to Rochel and Leah, who had never been in EY? OK, they all spoke what was spoken in Aram Naharayim. Probably. But Yaakov and the Ovos must have learned the language of K'na'an for Avrohom to speak to b'nei Het to buy the Cave of the Patriarchs. So what exactly did Avrohom Ovinu say in the language of Aram, whence he came, and what in the language of K'na'an? QED that one cannot know from the T'NaKh who spoke what when and where. The only thing we know is the Masorah, that HQBH dictated the Torah to Moshe Rabbeinu in the eponymous Biblical Hebrew. People ask whether Odom hoRishon spoke Hebrew. That is a question that has no meaning. We do not know exactly what he spoke, nor is it relevant. It might have been a precursor of Hebrew, IOW a language like Hebrew, but a much older form. It could have been something else. But, scientifically, it could not have been the same as the Hebrew spoken in the time of Y'tzi'as Mitzrayim, because it has been proven that all languages change over time. Rabbi Dr. Seth Mandel From micha at aishdas.org Tue Dec 19 14:10:58 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2017 17:10:58 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Did the Patriarchs Speak Hebrew? In-Reply-To: References: <1513669061621.40139@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20171219221058.GA3159@aishdas.org> On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 05:46:51PM +0000, Mandel, Seth via Avodah wrote: : There is no proof that anyone spoke Hebrew. Chazal say that dibb'ra Torah : bilshon b'nei odom... Well.... R' Yishmael says it. And it appears to be an argument for his rules of derashah, which do not include looking for magic words like "akh" (mi'ut), "raq" (mi'ut), "kol" (ribui) or even "es", but darshens the meaning of terms, whether ribui or mi'ut. The Rambam really sloganeers (like the CS's "chadash assur min haTorah") when he uses it to explain that anthropomorphic descriptions of HQBH are idioms, not to be taken overly literally. The point may be true, but it has nothing to do with the quote. The maqor is nothing remotely like: : the Torah was written in Hebrew because that is : what the Jews understood at the time of Moshe Rabbeinu and the N'vi'im. And besides, R' Aqiva disagrees! Chodesh tov, un a lichtikn un freilechn Chanukah! -Micha -- Micha Berger One doesn't learn mussar to be a tzaddik, micha at aishdas.org but to become a tzaddik. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yisrael Salanter Fax: (270) 514-1507 From llevine at stevens.edu Wed Dec 20 01:27:34 2017 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2017 09:27:34 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Yehudah Spoke Egyptian Message-ID: <1513762054084.88548@stevens.edu> Rabbi Yitzchok D. Frankel, Rav of the Agudah of the Five Towns, in Cedarhurst, NY, asserts in his sefer Machat shel Yad. Bereishis vol.2 (Back of Vayikrah) Parshas VaYigash. that Yehudah did indeed speak Egyptian. See http://personal.stevens.edu/~llevine/yehudah_egyptian.pdf for his argument. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cantorwolberg at cox.net Wed Dec 20 09:32:33 2017 From: cantorwolberg at cox.net (Richard Wolberg) Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2017 12:32:33 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Question on 48:1 Message-ID: In Vay?chi first sentence of Ch.48, why is ?choleh? spelled without a vov? Nowhere have I found an explanation. From zev at sero.name Wed Dec 20 06:01:31 2017 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2017 09:01:31 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Did the Patriarchs Speak Hebrew? In-Reply-To: References: <1513669061621.40139@stevens.edu> <8b9c1a71-a4fe-ecf5-e066-0a640a78bfec@sero.name> Message-ID: <130e52aa-14f1-24b6-9478-9244543e628c@sero.name> On 19/12/17 02:37, Professor L. Levine via Avodah wrote: > . And it was not a private language spoken by a single person but a > language of Canaan, and many people in Egypt knew it for the countries > were close together--particularly the ruler, for it is customary for > kings and rulers to know several languages. Then how is it that Yosef could pretend not to know it and need an interpreter. More, how is it that Par'oh, who knew all the other languages, didn't know this one? [Email #2. -micha] On 19/12/17 12:46, Mandel, Seth via Avodah wrote: > There is no proof that anyone spoke Hebrew. Chazal say that dibb'ra Torah > bilshon b'nei odom, and the Torah was written in Hebrew because that is > what the Jews understood at the time of Moshe Rabbeinu and the N'vi'im. Rashi Bereshis 2:23 Bereshis Rabbah 18:4 [Eamil #3. -micha] On 20/12/17 08:56, Mandel, Seth wrote: > I am talking objective proof, from the T'NaKh and other documents. > Medrashim of Chazal teaches us important ideas, but are not meant to be > literally true. They do not intend to be a historical document, but > rather contain important moral and ethical teachings which are 'emes in > the spiritual sense. 1. This medrash is clearly intended literally. Not only does it not contain any important moral or ethical teaching, it cites a simple linguistic proof (albeit based on a very small sample of languages). 2. Rashi only cites those medroshim that he believes are necessary for pshat. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From mandels at ou.org Wed Dec 20 07:39:30 2017 From: mandels at ou.org (Mandel, Seth) Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2017 15:39:30 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Did the Patriarchs Speak Hebrew? In-Reply-To: <130e52aa-14f1-24b6-9478-9244543e628c@sero.name> References: <1513669061621.40139@stevens.edu> <8b9c1a71-a4fe-ecf5-e066-0a640a78bfec@sero.name> , <130e52aa-14f1-24b6-9478-9244543e628c@sero.name> Message-ID: From: Zev Sero Sent: Wednesday, December 20, 2017 7:45 AM > On 19/12/17 12:46, Mandel, Seth via Avodah wrote: >> There is no proof that anyone spoke Hebrew. Chazal say that dibb'ra Torah >> bilshon b'nei odom, and the Torah was written in Hebrew because that is >> what the Jews understood at the time of Moshe Rabbeinu and the N'vi'im. > Rashi Bereshis 2:23 > Bereshis Rabbah 18:4 I am talking objective proof, from the T'NaKh and other documents. Medrashim of Chazal teaches us important ideas, but are not meant to be literally true. They do not intend to be a historical document, but rather contain important moral and ethical teachings which are 'emes in the spiritual sense. There are plenty of Medrashim that have ideas that seem to indicate that HQBH or the angels spoke Hebrew. But, as the Rambam indicates, HQBH does not have a mouth and does not speak as people speak. Rather, all the p'sukim saying that HQBH spoke to Moshe or Aharon mean that He communicated with them directly to their mind, not that He spoke acoustic sounds that they heard with their physical ears. The argument that Prof. Levine brought in the name of R. Frankel, OTOH, does indeed show that Yehudah must have been speaking Egyptian, but yet the Torah quotes him in Hebrew. [Email #2. -micha] From: Zev Sero on behalf of Zev Sero Sent: Wednesday, December 20, 2017 9:01:31 AM > 1. This medrash is clearly intended literally. Not only does it not > contain any important moral or ethical teaching, it cites a simple > linguistic proof (albeit based on a very small sample of languages). > 2. Rashi only cites those medroshim that he believes are necessary for > pshat. This is not a conversation that is worth continuing. I have the greatest respect for Jews who learn and seek to understand. But there are certain discussions where the locutors speak past each other for no benefit to either. However, for others in the group that may be curious: if you understand what the Rambam says in his introduction to Chapter 10 of Mas. Sanhedrin regarding three approaches to what Chazal say, you will understand that there is no point in one group arguing with the other group. A similar case would be that there would be no point in the Rambam arguing with Rashi or Rabbeinu Tam about whether demons exist or whether the Earth is flat or round. The basic assumptions about the way things work are too far apart. I have said what I meant about medrashim, and the medrash that R. Zev quotes does not contradict in my mind my statement that there is no proof about the actual historical language used in anything in the Torah. Nor does Rashi's use of the medrash contradict what I said. It would be impossible to convince R. Tam's belief that the Earth is flat, since in his understanding of the universe everything points to the world being flat, and he can find statements in the G'moro that seem to him to prove his case, and all scientists from his culture "knew" that the Earth is flat. I challenge those who believe that illnesses are caused by bacteria or viruses to bring me one proof that they are; most rishonim knew that they were caused by evil spirits or bodily humors. What a person believes is based on some basic assumptions, and different Rishonim held very different assumptions in certain matters. People might and did challenge the Rambam that it appears from their point of view that the Rambam did not believe what Chazal say, or that I do not believe what Chazal say. The Rambam believed that everything that Chazal said is 'emes, but read his comments in the Perush haMishnayos to see that absolute Truth means different things in different approaches. Another example is how to reconcile the Truth that HQBH gave men free will with the fact that HQBH knows everything that will happen. That can only be explained if people understand certain assumptions about space and time. Rabbi Dr. Seth Mandel Rabbinic Coordinator The Orthodox Union From office at etzion.org.il Thu Dec 21 02:25:30 2017 From: office at etzion.org.il (Yeshivat Har Etzion) Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2017 12:25:30 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] VBM - Avodat Hashem #51: The Mitzva of Mezuza (Part I) Message-ID: <5A3B8C1A.4030506@etzion.org.il> PHILOSOPHY > Avodat Hashem - Foundations of Divine Service > Shiur #51: The Mitzva of Mezuza (Part I) Harav Baruch Gigi Yeshivat Har Etzion I. The Protection Offered by a Mezuza We are currently engaged in a clarification of the system of mitzvot, in the framework of the transition in Keriyat Shema from matters pertaining to the Rambam's Sefer Mada to matters pertaining to his Sefer Ahava. Thus far, we have studied the mitzva of tefillin and its unique meanings. Now, let us turn to a closely-related mitzva - the mitzva of mezuza. One of the central ideas relating to mezuza is the idea of protection. When one affixes a mezuza to the entrance of his home, his house and household are protected from all trouble and damage. This idea is expressed by Chazal in several contexts, and it is based, as we will demonstrate, on a connection that is already rooted in the verses of the Torah. At the end of the passage of Ve-haya im shamo'a, it is stated: And you shall write them upon the doorposts of your house and upon your gates; that your days may be multiplied, and the days of your children, upon the land which the Lord swore to your fathers to give them, as the days of the heavens above the earth. (Devarim 11:20-21) At first glance, it seems that the Torah's promise of longevity relates to all that was stated in this passage concerning one who obeys all of God's commandments and follows His ways. However, Chazal linked this promise directly to the mitzva of mezuza. Two talmudic passages establish a connection between longevity and the mitzva of mezuza. In tractate Shabbat (32b), it is taught that a person's children die because of a failure to fulfill the mitzva of mezuza.[1] This is learned from the juxtaposition of the commandment of mezuza to the verse that promises that "your days will be multiplied, and the days of your children." In a positive formulation, the Tur writes: Whoever is careful about it, his days and the days of his children will be lengthened, as it is written: "That your days may be multiplied, and the days of your children." (Tur, Yoreh De'ah 285) In tractate Kiddushin (34a), the gemara discusses the possibility of exempting women from the mitzva of mezuza. At first, the gemara is of the opinion that women are exempt, in view of the Torah's juxtaposition of the mitzva of mezuza to the mitzva of Torah study, from which women are exempt. However, the gemara rejects this possibility with the following argument: You cannot think so, because it is written: ["And You shall write them upon the doorposts of your house...] that your days may be multiplied." Do men only need life, and not women? (Kiddushin 34a) In this gemara as well, we clearly see that the promise of longevity in relation to the mitzva of mezuza is so central that there is no room even to entertain the possibility that women may be exempt from it. For by removing women from the mitzva of mezuza you would be removing them from the basic desire of existence, of life. The Tur adds: Moreover, one's house is protected by it, as they expounded the verse: "The Lord is your keeper; the Lord is your shade upon your right hand" (Tehillim 121:5). (Tur, ibid.) II. The Rambam's View The Rambam famously writes: It is a common custom to write [God's name] Shaddai on the outside of a mezuza, opposite the empty space left between the two passages. There is no difficulty in this, since the addition is made on the outside. However, those who write the names of angels, other sacred names, verses, or forms,[2] on the inside [of a mezuza] are among those who do not have a portion in the World-to-Come. Not only do these fools nullify the mitzva, but furthermore, they make from a great mitzva that reflects the unity of the name of the Holy One, blessed be He, the love of Him, and the service of Him, a talisman for their own benefit. They, in their foolish conception, think that this will help them regarding the vanities of the world. (Hilkhot Tefillin U-Mezuza 5:4) The Kesef Mishneh (ad loc.) cites the objection raised by the Ramach against the Rambam based on the gemara in Avoda Zara (11a). The gemara there records a story about Onkelos, who became a proselyte, and the emperor sent a contingent of soldiers after him. Among other things, it is stated there: Again he sent another cohort ordering them not to enter into any conversation whatever with him. So they took hold of him; and as they were walking on, he saw the mezuza that was fixed on the door frame and he placed his hand on it saying to them, "Now what is this?" And they replied, "You tell us then." He said to them, "According to universal custom, the mortal king dwells within, and his servants keep guard on him without; but [in the case of] the Holy One, blessed is He, it is His servants who dwell within while He keeps guard on them from without, as it is stated: `The Lord shall guard your going out and your coming in from this time forth and for evermore' (Tehillim 121:8)." Then they, too, were converted to Judaism. (Avoda Zara 11a) >From the difficulty raised by the Ramach, it may be concluded that in his opinion the Rambam rejects the idea of protection that is attributed to the mezuza. The Rambam views the mezuza as an expression of man's connection to God, in that he declares at the entrance to his house his faith in His unity and his love for Him, two of the foundations of His service. According to the Ramach, the Rambam rejects the talismanic qualities that were attributed to the mezuza by the ancients. The Ramach attacks the Rambam's position, as he understood it, on the grounds that the idea of protection is brought in the gemara itself: For in tractate Avoda Zara it is implied from that which Onkelos said to the Roman contingent that the Holy One, blessed is He, makes the mezuza to protect Israel from the outside. And one can force an answer that it was Onkelos who said this in order give importance to Israel. (Ramach, ad loc.) In light of this, the Ramach struggles to reconcile the Rambam's position, arguing that Onkelos said this to the Romans only in order to praise Israel in their eyes. Onkelos told the Romans that the mezuza symbolizes God's protection, as it were, over the houses of Israel. In truth, however, the mitzva of mezuza is not a matter of God's protection, but rather an expression of a person's faith in God's unity and service. It stands to reason, however, that the Rambam does not challenge the very idea of the protection offered by a mezuza. Thus writes the Kesef Mishneh in light of the fact that the gemara in Menachot uses this principle to determine the halakha regarding the proper placement of a mezuza: For in chapter Ha-Kometz (33b), regarding the rule that a mezuza must be placed in the handbreadth adjacent to the public domain, R. Huna said: "What is the reason? So that it may protect him."[3] Therefore you must say that in fact a mezuza protects the house when it is written properly. (Kesef Mishneh) In the Kesef Mishneh's opinion, the Rambam rejects only those actions that expanded the talismanic element of a mezuza - namely, the insertion of the names of the angels into the mezuza. The Rambam sees the protective quality of a mezuza in the connection between man and God and his belief in Him and His unity. In the continuation of our discussion, we will explain the idea of the protection offered by a mezuza with greater precision and in greater depth. III. Additional Sources The Yerushalmi states in tractate Pe'ah: Artaban sent to our holy Rabbi an invaluably precious pearl. He said to him: Send me something which is similarly precious. He sent him a mezuza. He said to him: What I have sent you is something priceless, but you have sent me something which is only worth one follis. He [Rabbi] said to him: Your treasures and my treasures are incomparable. And moreover, you have sent me something that I have to guard, while I have sent you something which guards you when you sleep, as it is written: "When you walk, it will lead you; when you lie down, it will watch over you; and when you awake, it will talk to you" (Mishlei 6:22). (Yerushalmi, Pe'ah 1:1) Similarly, the Tur writes in Hilkhot Mezuza: Moreover, one's house is protected by it, as they expounded the verse: "The Lord is your keeper; the Lord is your shade upon your right hand" (Tehillim 121:5). A mortal king dwells within, and his servants keep guard on him without; but you sleep in your beds and the Holy One, blessed is He, guards you from without. Therefore, it should be placed in the outermost handbreadth, so that the entire house be within it and under its protection. (Tur, Yoreh De'ah 285) The prevalent custom to write on the outside of the mezuza parchment the name ShaDaY - which is expounded as an abbreviation for the words: Shomer Delatot Yisrael, "Who guards the doors of Israel"[4] - also reinforces this idea of a mezuza as protecting a person's home. As stated, the basis of this idea is already found in the verses of the Torah. Even though the Torah does not mention the idea of protection in direct connection to the mitzva of mezuza, it is mentioned in connection with another mezuza. In Parashat Bo, God commands the people of Israel to place the blood of the paschal lamb on the two doorposts and lintel. The reason for this is explained as follows: And the blood shall be to you for a token upon the houses where you are; and when I see the blood, I will pass over you, and there shall no plague be upon you to destroy you, when I smite the land of Egypt. (Shemot 12:13) And later in the same chapter: For the Lord will pass through to smite the Egyptians; and when He sees the blood upon the lintel and on the two doorposts, the Lord will pass over the door, and will not suffer the destroyer to come in to your houses to smite you. (Shemot 12:23) It is further stated at the end of that chapter: It was a night of watching to the Lord for bringing them out from the land of Egypt; this same night is a night of watching to the Lord for all the children of Israel throughout their generations. (Shemot 12:42) Rashi writes: "A night of watching to the Lord for all the children of Israel throughout their generations" - This night is protected, and comes as such from ages past, against all destructive forces, as it is stated: "And He will not suffer the destroyer to enter your houses" (v. 33). (Rashi, ad loc.) IV. The Mezuza and the Paschal Offering On the night of the exodus from Egypt, God protected the houses of the people of Israel by way of the sign of the blood on the doorposts and lintels, and because of this the night became a night of watching for all generations.[5] At first glance, it seems that the common denominator between the mitzva of mezuza and the paschal offering is that in both cases we are commanded to place a specific thing on the doorpost, thereby securing the protection of the house and its inhabitants. On the deeper level, it seems that the connection between the mitzva of mezuza and the paschal offering is more substantive. What is the significance of placing blood on the doorposts and lintel of one's house? The paschal offering that the people of Israel brought in Egypt was sacrificed as a family offering, a sheep for each family, at the entrance to each family's home. In Egypt, of course, there was no Temple and no altar. Therefore, it seems that the meaning of the blood was to distinguish between the houses of the Israelites and the houses of the Egyptians, in order to prevent the destroyer from coming into the homes of the Israelites to attack. However, the possibility that the blood was meant to distinguish between the houses of Israel and the houses of Egypt raises a great difficulty, in light of the midrashim of Chazal, which indicate that God Himself passed through the land of Egypt. He certainly did not need a distinguishing sign. So writes the Beit Yosef in his book, Maggid Meisharim: As for the difficulty with the verse, "And when I see the blood, I will pass over you," why was a sign needed, for surely everything is revealed to Him? It may be suggested that a sign was needed for the angels who came with Him. It may further be objected that this sign was with blood, which is a sign of death, the opposite of what they wanted. And furthermore, the sign should have been on the outside, and this sign was on the inside. But the secret of the matter is that the Holy One, blessed be He, wanted them to trust in Him and place the blood on the door from the inside. This is what is written: "And the blood shall be to you for a token." And instead of being afraid when they see the blood on the door, on the contrary they should trust their Master who commanded them to do this, so that He would be a salvation for them. This merit of trusting God would protect them. This is the meaning of what is written: "And the blood shall be to you for a token upon the houses where you are; and when I see the blood, I will pass over you." That is to say, I will see the merit of your trust, that the blood that is a sign of death will be for you a sign of life when you trust the words of your Master. And for this reason, "when I see the blood, I will pass over you." (Maggid Meisharim, Parashat Bo) It seems that trust in God involves not only doing the action required by God on the simple level. What we have here is an important and profound principle, in light of the gemara in Pesachim: R. Yosef taught: There were three altars there, on the lintel and on the two doorposts. (Pesachim 96a) A broader picture emerges from the gemara. The paschal offering brought in Egypt was a sacrifice offered at the entrance of a person's house, his house serving as the Temple, and the entrance to his house being the altar. While Chazal speak of three altars, it seems more accurate to say that they are referring to the three corners of the altar. The people of Israel are commanded to see their homes as the house of God. With their trust in God, they express the strength of their connection to Him by seeing their homes as God's house. And if their house is the house of God, then the entrance to the house is an altar, and they put of the blood on the three corners of the altar - the lintel and the two doorposts. This view, which sanctifies the houses of the people of Israel as the Temple, is similar to what is stated: "In every place where I cause My name to be mentioned I will come to you and bless you" (Shemot 20:20). In this way, the house becomes the basis of the covenant that is being formed between God and His people, by virtue of their seeking His presence within them. If we are correct, it stands to reason that the idea of the protection offered by a mezuza has a more fundamental and inner meaning. A person turns his house into a house of God, and a house of God is protected, as is stated in Tehillim: A Song of Ascents; of Shelomo. Except the Lord build the house, they labor in vain that build it; except the Lord keep the city, the watchman wakes but in vain. (Tehillim 127:1) God's protection is protection, and there is no other, it alone being considered true protection. These words connect with the words of the Rambam in Hilkhot Beit Ha-Bechira, that the guarding in the Temple was merely a display of honor, and not needed for the protection it offered, since the house of God is not in need of protection: There is a positive mitzva to guard the Temple. [This mitzvah applies] even though there is no fear of enemies or thieves, for the guarding [of the Temple] is an expression of respect for it. A palace with guards is [much more impressive] than a palace without guards. (Rambam, Hilkhot Beit Ha-Bechira 8:1) (Translated by David Strauss) _______________________ [1] The gemara there states as follows: "R. Chiya bar Abba and R. Yose disagree. One says: It is for the sin of neglect of mezuza [that a person's children die]; while the other says: It is for the sin of the neglect of Torah... It is well according to the one who says: It is for the sin of the neglect of mezuza, for it is written: 'And you shall write them upon the doorposts of your house,' which is followed by: 'that your days may be multiplied, and the days of your children'" (Shabbat 32b). [2] The Rambam is referring here to the ancient practice of inserting all kinds of additions into the mezuza. Rabbeinu Eliezer of Metz writes as follows: "It is common practice to add seals and the names of the angels at the end of the Bible verses contained in the mezuza for the sake of the increased security of the home. This is not indispensible, nor even a mitzva, but simply serves as additional protection" (Yere'im 400). He then spells out in great detail the names of the angels and where precisely they were inserted in the mezuza. [3] According to the Ramach's understanding of the Rambam, it may be suggested that this does not mean that a mezuza protects a person, but rather that a person should be reminded of the principles of his faith whenever he goes in or out of his house. [4] See Kolbo: "The reason that we write this name more than the others is that it is an abbreviation for Shomer Dirat Yisrael, "Who guards the dwelling of Israel" (Kolbo, Mezuza 90). [5] Establishing this night as a night of watching has halakhic ramifications in a number of contexts. This is true regarding the recitation of Shema before going to sleep and regarding the Me-Ein Sheva blessing on the night of the Seder when it falls out on Friday night. Many halakhic authorities rule that one should not say the Me-Ein Sheva blessing on the night of the Seder, since it is a night of watching that does not require protection. From bdbradley70 at hotmail.com Sat Dec 23 13:33:10 2017 From: bdbradley70 at hotmail.com (Ben Bradley) Date: Sat, 23 Dec 2017 21:33:10 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Midrash Tanchuma Message-ID: I'd be grateful to know if anyone here is sufficiently familiar with different editions of midrash tanchuma to help me out. I acquired a copy of the Tanchuma from a second hand book shop, very inexpensively, a number of years ago. I was a poor student at the time. It was printed in 5645, ie 1885, by one Shlomo Buber (Bober?) in Lvov from manuscripts acquired from Oxford and the Vatican. I must admit I'd never paid much attention to these details until now, but It's just come to my attention that it my copy is hugely different to the standard one. For example, this week in Vayigash, my copy has 12 simanim, compared to the 11 in the standard edition. But only 4 of these are the same (8-11 in mine corresponding to 9-12 in the standard), all the others are utterly different. By which I mean they are simply different midrashim, not just variants. Can anyone shed light on such a huge difference between what seems to be the standard edition and mine? Best wishes Ben -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From meirabi at gmail.com Sat Dec 23 16:49:35 2017 From: meirabi at gmail.com (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi) Date: Sun, 24 Dec 2017 11:49:35 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] Did the Patriarchs Speak Hebrew? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Speak means communication, there were 10 communications with which HKBH created the universe There were 10 communications broadcast at Har Sinai - I'm pretty sure it wasn't Polish or Hungarian. The Rishonim argue about the nature of prophesy, is it an actual voice (meaning stimulation of the human hearing facility of the ear - not necessarily stimulated by an actual sound) or just a voice in the head but TTBOMKnowledge, none question the language. Anyway, does it make any difference? Either way the brain is receiving a signal. Perhaps the type of language is irrelevant, what's important is that the message is received and understood. That the parties are connected. I have seen, but could not re-find a comment by the MaOr VeShemesh (I think connected to Ish Mitzi HiTzilanu) that Yidden spoke Mitzi, and the meaning of Lo Shinu LeShonom is that they spoke with a Yiddishe style, with dignity and kindness - and this is what set us apart. Clearly a Derasha designed to direct the listeners and readers towards a more dignified language, but at the same time reflecting an ultimate truth, the language does not make the man, it's the style that's important. I also recall hearing is a RaMBaN or a Siforno - a child exposed from birth to no external language inputs, would naturally speak Lashon HaKodesh. This seems to be a fairly old consideration amongst philosophers, see Frederick's Experiment, and Gong Mahal. HKBH looked into the Torah and created the universe, speaks volumes about the centrality of Torah, not about it's language, although it's not easy separating the two. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From driceman at optimum.net Sat Dec 23 16:53:36 2017 From: driceman at optimum.net (David Riceman) Date: Sat, 23 Dec 2017 19:53:36 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Did the Patriarchs Speak Hebrew? Message-ID: See Melachim 2 18:26 [Email #2. -micha] And see Gen. 31:47 DR Sent from my iPad From zev at sero.name Sat Dec 23 19:46:46 2017 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Sat, 23 Dec 2017 22:46:46 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Midrash Tanchuma In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 23/12/17 16:33, Ben Bradley via Avodah wrote: > It was printed in 5645, ie 1885, by one Shlomo Buber (Bober?) in Lvov > from manuscripts acquired from Oxford and the Vatican. > I must admit I'd never paid much attention to these details until now, > but It's just come to my attention that it my copy is hugely different > to the standard one. Yes, the Buber Tanchuma is a different sefer from the standard Tanchuma. Citations to "Tanchuma" stam refer to the old edition, while ones to this edition are given as "Tanchuma (Buber)". Buber claimed that he had found the original version, and that the one published in the 16th century is a much later one. Not everyone was convinced. There was also something the rishonim called "Medrash Yelamdeinu", which may have been a third version which is now lost, or may simply have been the name by which they referred to one or the other of these two versions. http://bit.ly/2C5u4FL -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From akivagmiller at gmail.com Sat Dec 23 18:39:15 2017 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Sat, 23 Dec 2017 21:39:15 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Did the Patriarchs Speak Hebrew? Message-ID: . R' Seth Mandel wrote: > There is no proof that anyone spoke Hebrew. and R' Zev Sero responded: > Rashi Bereshis 2:23 That Rashi does not mention Hebrew. What Rashi says there is that the olam was created via "Lashon Hakodesh". "Lashon Hakodesh" may or may not be the same thing as what we refer to as "Hebrew". One cannot discuss this topic meaningfully unless he is careful to make this distinction. For a very in-depth (yet also readable and in English) treatment of these and related topics, I recommend "Lashon Hakodesh - History, Holiness, & Hebrew" by Rabbi Reuven Chaim Klein. Akiva Miller From zvilampel at gmail.com Sat Dec 23 21:41:29 2017 From: zvilampel at gmail.com (H Lampel) Date: Sun, 24 Dec 2017 00:41:29 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Historicity of Aggadta In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Under the subject line of Re: [Avodah] Did the Patriarchs Speak Hebrew?, RSM raises a claim that RMB and I have argued over in the past. He writes, > Medrashim of Chazal teaches us important ideas, but are not meant to > be literally true. They do not intend to be a historical document, > but rather contain important moral and ethical teachings which are > 'emes in the spiritual sense. > > ... if you understand > what the Rambam says in his introduction to Chapter 10 of Mas. Sanhedrin > regarding three approaches to what Chazal say But the Rambam also writes there: And? I will yet compose a work in which I will gather all the drashos found in the Talmud and elsewhere...and I will reveal what of the drashos are [meant in] a literal way, and which of them are [meant as] mashal, and which of them were [describing something seen only] in a dream but was stated in a purely absolute way, as if it were [experienced] in a state of wakefulness... So, the Rambam does not maintain that the literal meaning of? /all/ drashos is to be rejected. Some are indeed meant literally, and some are not. (The Rambam never wrote this work. As he explains in Moreh Nevuchim, since much of it would be dealing with the meaning of drashos whose meanings were valuable lessons too precious to be shared with those who would not appreciate them appropriately, he would be forced to merely substitute the drashos' figurative expressions with his own figurative expressions. But in several works he does provide the key that they are not meant literally when the literal meaning would contradict realia, logic, fundamentals or pesukim.) His son Avraham, in his maamer on Drashos Chazal writes similarly regarding the maasiyos reported in the Talmud. R. Yehuda HaLevy (1:68) understood the midrashic maasiyos attributing the Hebrew language to the patriarchs as a historic reality that carried an important lesson, and considered the Torah as presenting evidence thereof. According to tradition it is the language in which G-d spoke to Adam and Eve, and in which the latter conversed. It is proved by the derivation of Adam from /adamah/, /ishshah/ from /ish/; /Chava/__from Chay; /Cain/ from /Kannisi/; /Shes/ from /shas/, and Noach from /yenachamenu/. This is supported by the evidence of the Torah. The whole is traced back to Eber, Noach and Adam. It is the language of Eber after whom it was called /Hebrew/, because after the confusion of tongues it was he who retained it. Abraham was an Aramaean of /Ur Kasdim/, because the language of the Chaldaeans was Aramaic. He employed Hebrew as a specially holy language andAramaic for everyday use. .. Zvi Lampel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From familyp2 at actcom.net.il Sun Dec 24 03:05:02 2017 From: familyp2 at actcom.net.il (Simi Peters) Date: Sun, 24 Dec 2017 13:05:02 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] tanhuma buber Message-ID: <001a01d37ca7$16b17e70$44147b50$@actcom.net.il> Your edition of Tanhuma is indeed vastly different from the standard printed edition. It was published by Buber from a Cairo Geniza manuscript (or possibly several manuscripts-not sure about the details.) There is some overlap, but there is a lot of material in Tanhuma Buber that does not appear in the standard editions and vice versa. It's good to have both. Unless you're interested in trying to reconstruct an ur-edition of Tanhuma, you can just treat them as separate works and mine each for its interesting material. Kol tuv, Simi Peters --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From zvilampel at gmail.com Sun Dec 24 06:43:33 2017 From: zvilampel at gmail.com (H Lampel) Date: Sun, 24 Dec 2017 09:43:33 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Historicity of Aggadta In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1f584d28-51c5-aa2f-2eb7-e97d1cd32aef@gmail.com> On 12/24/2017 12:41 AM, Z?? Lampel wrote: > R. Yehuda HaLevy (1:68) Should be: R. Yehuda Halevy (Kuzari 2:68). Zvi Lampel From marty.bluke at gmail.com Sun Dec 24 04:32:45 2017 From: marty.bluke at gmail.com (Marty Bluke) Date: Sun, 24 Dec 2017 14:32:45 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] New Cancer Treatment Message-ID: RHS in his sefer (Eretz Hatzvi) points out that it seems to be 2 opinions in Tosafos whether a mamzer can be created without a bias issur. The Gemara in Yevamos 16b brings the opinion that eved v'akum haba al bas yisrael havlad mamzer. Tosafos there asks the following question. They understand how there can be an opinion that an eved creates mamzerus because there is a specific issur for a Jewish woman to have biah with an eved. However, they ask, by a Goy there is no issur biah min hatorah and therefore how can anyone hold that the product of the biah of a goy and a Jewish woman would create a mamzer? Tosafos gives 2 answers: 1. Even though there is no bias issur since kiddushin are not tofsin it creates mamzerus. 2. A Goy and a Jewish woman do not create a mamzer min hatorah only midrabbanan If we apply these 2 opinions to IVF, according to the first answer since kiddushin are not tofsin (since she is married) the child would be a mamzer even though there was no bias issur. On the other hand, the second answer holds that the determining factor of mamzerus is a bias issur and therefore since in the case of IVF there is no bias issur there would be no mamzerus. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Sun Dec 24 06:24:17 2017 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Sun, 24 Dec 2017 14:24:17 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] The Nature of Egyptian Society Message-ID: <1514125453560.29445@stevens.edu> The following is from RSRH" commentary on Bereishis 46:33 Now, when Pharaoh calls you and asks, What is your occupation? 33 In a state like Egypt, the individual is completely identified with his occupation. Children are not born as human beings but as artisans, peasants, soldiers, and so forth. Accordingly, Pharaoh's first question to Yosef 's brothers would naturally concern their occupation. They were instructed to answer Pharaoh's question candidly, to tell him the truth, even though it would be unpleasant. For the Egyptians' loathing for the brothers' occupation and, in general, the nations' aversion to the Jews were to serve as primary factors in the survival of this race, which was destined to journey through the ages in isolation. As long as the moral morn had not dawned for the nations, the barriers they erected to isolate the Jews served to protect the Jews from becoming infected with the barbarism and demoralization of the people in whose midst they had to walk for hundreds of years. Yosef therefore immediately emphasizes the aspect that will arouse the aversion of the Egyptians. His clear intention is that, as a result, his brothers will be allocated a separate province in which to dwell. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cantorwolberg at cox.net Sat Dec 23 19:30:04 2017 From: cantorwolberg at cox.net (Richard Wolberg) Date: Sat, 23 Dec 2017 22:30:04 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Vay'chi Message-ID: <89600AC2-DFEA-44AA-A5AE-9C4493ED11F4@cox.net> There?s an interesting medrash the k?li yakar brings down. It doesn?t say Vayik?r?vu Yisroel Lamus, that Yisroel came close to die,? rather it says: ?Vayik?r?vu Y?MEI Yisroel lamus,? that the DAYS of Yisroel came close to die. And the medresh says, the DAYS died, not the person. This goes in line with Vay?chi Ya?akov, and Jacob LIVED. In other words, his body died but not he, himself. (The question has been asked: Do you have a soul? The answer is NO, you ARE a soul with a body). In the first pasuk (vs.28) the name Yaakov is used twice and then in vs.29 we see the name Yisroel used. The question is asked why does the name change from Ya?akov to Yisroel. One answer is that Yisroel symbolizes the prophecy of Ya?akov. And that?s how he knew he was going to die because in prophecy he understood and divinely inspired, he understood that he was going to die. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From larry62341 at optonline.net Sun Dec 24 02:38:32 2017 From: larry62341 at optonline.net (Prof. Levine) Date: Sun, 24 Dec 2017 05:38:32 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] The Protection Offered by a Mezuza Message-ID: At 06:58 PM 12/23/2017, Harav Baruch Gigi wrote: The following is from RSRH's commentary on Devorim 6:9 And write them upon the [door-] posts of your house and upon your gates. The mezuzah is not an amulet; in and of itself, it does not protect the house. Only insofar as they shape their lives in accordance with the mezuzah 's content can the people within the house expect help and protection from God, the "All-Sovereign and All-Sufficing," in all the vicissitudes of domestic life. With this intent it is our custom to adorn the outside of the mezuzah with the Name shin-daled-yud. From ben1456 at zahav.net.il Sun Dec 24 10:55:39 2017 From: ben1456 at zahav.net.il (Ben Waxman) Date: Sun, 24 Dec 2017 20:55:39 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Rambam ,Hilchot Hannuka Message-ID: A few take aways from Rambam Hilchot Hanukka Chapter 3 1) For the Rambam, Hallel is the ikkar element of Hanukka, not the candles (given that details Hallel first and only then goes on to the candles). 2) The Rambam gives a long detailed description on how to properly say Hallel in beit knesset. However the last halacha in the chapter basically says "I've been in a lot batei knesset and everyone does something different'. Meaning - you want to do a musical Hallel, different tunes, no tunes, responsive, everyone together, whatever you like - it is fine. 3) The Rambam raises the possibility of a woman or child or slave reading Hallel and everyone repeating what she or he said word by word. However, he doesn't add in the famous curse given in the Gemara. Meaning - the Rambam didn't hold by? Tavo Ma'arah (spelling?) (at least not here). Ben From lisa at starways.net Sun Dec 24 11:27:31 2017 From: lisa at starways.net (Lisa Liel) Date: Sun, 24 Dec 2017 21:27:31 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] The Protection Offered by a Mezuza In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2cfbbfce-e0d9-fc05-140c-969d4b5f18a1@starways.net> On 12/24/2017 12:38 PM, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: > At 06:58 PM 12/23/2017, Harav Baruch Gigi wrote: ... > The mezuzah is not an amulet; in and of itself, it does not protect the > house. Only insofar as they shape their lives in accordance with the mezuzah's > content can the people within the house expect help and protection... I know a mezuzah isn't an amulet, but when my apartment burned down back in the 90s, the fire burned through two sides of the apartment and jumped over my room only, which was the only one with a mezuzah.? I'm not saying it couldn't be a coincidence, I'm just saying that I didn't take it that way. Lisa From zev at sero.name Sun Dec 24 14:10:20 2017 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Sun, 24 Dec 2017 17:10:20 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] The Protection Offered by a Mezuza In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2d108449-ec4d-0e35-d888-0ccdd8b113be@sero.name> On 24/12/17 05:38, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: > At 06:58 PM 12/23/2017, Harav Baruch Gigi wrote: > The following is from RSRH's commentary on Devorim 6:9 And write > them upon the [door-] > posts of your house and upon your gates. > > The mezuzah is not an amulet; in and of itself, it does not protect the > house. Only insofar as they shape their lives in accordance with the mezuzah 's > content can the people within the house expect help and protection > from God, the "All-Sovereign and All-Sufficing," in all the vicissitudes > of domestic life. That may be RSRH's opinion, but if so it contradicts Chazal and millennia of Jewish belief and practise. No, the mezuzah is not an amulet; if it were not a mitzvah it would have no inherent power. But the *mitzvah* of mezuzah protects regardless of how those within the house "shape their lives". Even a goy who puts up a mezuzah, choosing to voluntarily fulfil this mitzvah, can expect this protection. The mitzvah protects those who fulfil it not only when they are inside the house it adorns, but wherever they are. And, most astonishingly, although it is true that a mezuzah itself is not an amulet, there are legitimate grounds to believe that carrying it around "zecher lamitzvah" *does* give some level of protection, even though no mitzvah is being fulfilled. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From ben1456 at zahav.net.il Sun Dec 24 19:58:42 2017 From: ben1456 at zahav.net.il (Ben Waxman) Date: Mon, 25 Dec 2017 05:58:42 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] The Protection Offered by a Mezuza In-Reply-To: <2d108449-ec4d-0e35-d888-0ccdd8b113be@sero.name> References: <2d108449-ec4d-0e35-d888-0ccdd8b113be@sero.name> Message-ID: <80f92bd4-b7af-1b26-1d03-0f3ce7a67edf@zahav.net.il> I seriously doubt that anyone could come up with any statistical analysis showing this point to be true. Ben On 12/25/2017 12:10 AM, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > But the *mitzvah* of mezuzah protects regardless of how those within the house "shape their lives". From zvilampel at gmail.com Mon Dec 25 07:28:21 2017 From: zvilampel at gmail.com (H Lampel) Date: Mon, 25 Dec 2017 10:28:21 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Did the Patriarchs Speak Hebrew? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > Tue, 19 Dec 2017 "Mandel, Seth" wrote: > > There is no proof that anyone spoke Hebrew. ... the Torah was written in Hebrew because that is > what the Jews understood at the time of Moshe Rabbeinu and the N'vi'im. > ... What did Yaakov speak to Rochel and > Leah, who had never been in EY? ... > one cannot know from the T'NaKh who spoke what when and where. Well, at least when the matriarchs and patriarchs stated the reasons for the names they gave their children, they were obviously speaking the same Hebrew spoken in the times of Moshe Rabbeinu. The only way to question this would be to suggest that originally Yitzchak, for instance was called "HeShallLaugh" in some other language, and over the next 5 centuries the bnei Yisrael (or the descendants of HeWillStriveWithG-d, or whatever), knowing the meaning of the name, changed it to Yitzchak.And did the same with each one of all the other names given in the chronologies, which are also clearly contractions of Mattan Torah time Hebrew words. And a similar convoluted explanation would have to be made when an allegedly unHebrew-speaking Eisav cracked ''Ha-chi kara shmo Yaakov--Vayak-veini zeh pa'amayyim...?!" I think all that is extremely unlikely, even without invoking the masorah (of no less import than the Masorah that HQBH dictated the Torah to Moshe Rabbeinu in the eponymous Biblical Hebrew) that the shevatim in Moshe Rabbeinu's time retained the names given to their ancestors (cited in many places including BeMidbar Rabbah 13:20 s.v. Bayom HaShishi and Midrash Tehillim 114:4). Zvi Lampel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mcohen at touchlogic.com Mon Dec 25 07:39:55 2017 From: mcohen at touchlogic.com (M Cohen) Date: Mon, 25 Dec 2017 10:39:55 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Did the Patriarchs Speak Hebrew? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <00bd01d37d96$9d1ebc80$d75c3580$@com> Fyi that the best sefer that I have seen on the subject of Hebrew and ancient Hebrew history is Lashon HaKodesh: History, Holiness & Hebrew by Rabbi Reuven Chaim Klein. Feldheim. http://www.feldheim.com/lashon-hakodesh.html Haskomos from R Leff, R Breitowitz, R Lopiansky It deals with the subject of ancient Hebrew history, using both on chazal and current linguistic and archeological sources Did Adam harishon speak Hebrew ? Did the world speak Hebrew until tower of Babel? Did Avraham speak Hebrew ? Foreign influences on Hebrew Hebrew vs Aramaic. Sources. History. Development. You will find exhaustive source material and answers there. Mordechai Cohen ======= Email scanned by PC Tools - No viruses or spyware found. (Email Guard: 9.1.0.2894, Virus/Spyware Database: 6.22240) http://free.pctools.com/ ======= From zev at sero.name Sun Dec 24 23:16:16 2017 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Mon, 25 Dec 2017 02:16:16 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] The Protection Offered by a Mezuza In-Reply-To: <80f92bd4-b7af-1b26-1d03-0f3ce7a67edf@zahav.net.il> References: <2d108449-ec4d-0e35-d888-0ccdd8b113be@sero.name> <80f92bd4-b7af-1b26-1d03-0f3ce7a67edf@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <1ba30a45-ba01-d7d5-2b67-843f9f22ed8b@sero.name> On 24/12/17 22:58, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > On 12/25/2017 12:10 AM, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: >> But the *mitzvah* of mezuzah protects regardless of how those within >> the house "shape their lives". > I seriously doubt that anyone could come up with any statistical > analysis showing this point to be true. Why do we need statistical analysis? Judaism tell us it's true, therefore it is. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From llevine at stevens.edu Mon Dec 25 12:00:57 2017 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Mon, 25 Dec 2017 20:00:57 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Bishul Akum - Specific Products Message-ID: <0ae98ef4eb3a4dbeaa39a0bbc1e50abf@exchng03.campus.stevens-tech.edu> Please see the file at https://goo.gl/LnRQjF YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Mon Dec 25 12:30:23 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 25 Dec 2017 15:30:23 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] The Protection Offered by a Mezuza In-Reply-To: <80f92bd4-b7af-1b26-1d03-0f3ce7a67edf@zahav.net.il> References: <2d108449-ec4d-0e35-d888-0ccdd8b113be@sero.name> <80f92bd4-b7af-1b26-1d03-0f3ce7a67edf@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <20171225203023.GA9557@aishdas.org> On Mon, Dec 25, 2017 at 05:58am IST, Ben Waxman wrote: : On 12/25/2017 12:10 AM, Zev Sero wrote: :> But the *mitzvah* of mezuzah protects regardless of how those :> within the house "shape their lives". : I seriously doubt that anyone could come up with any statistical : analysis showing this point to be true. (I won't bother arguing against Zev's inability to acknowledge the existence of other shitos than his. "[I]t contradicts Chazal and millennia of Jewish belief and practise." "Judaism tell us it's true" indeed. It's a machloqes of the Rambam and the Ramach, with various teirutzim given for the Rambam. Not open-and-shut at all.) You want to statistically decide which hashkafah is true??? I lean the way you do. But it's a machloqes. I already pointed to , a discussion of sources both ways. It would be weird to think it boils down to a machloqes in metzi'us. You remind me of a problem I have saying a particular line of Tehillim (37:25) with kavanah, and it comes up at the appendix to bentching, "Naar hayisi..." But I have seen a tzadiq whose kids miss meals and have to beg. Haven't you? The best I can do, rather than tamper with the minhag of saying it, is to focus on the word "ne'ezav" -- so, his kids don't have food, but it's not because HQBH abandoned the tzadiq. But I can't really feel that's peshat in the pasuq. It allows me to saven with qavanah, but as an answer -- the question is better than this resolution. Bitachon and emunah that actually fit the data can be more challenging than if we just shut off critical thought. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "As long as the candle is still burning, micha at aishdas.org it is still possible to accomplish and to http://www.aishdas.org mend." Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Anonymous shoemaker to R' Yisrael Salanter From micha at aishdas.org Mon Dec 25 12:34:01 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 25 Dec 2017 15:34:01 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Historicity of Aggadta In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20171225203401.GB9557@aishdas.org> On Sun, Dec 24, 2017 at 12:41:29AM -0500, H Lampel via Avodah wrote: : Under the subject line of Re: [Avodah] Did the Patriarchs Speak Hebrew?, : RSM raises a claim that RMB and I have argued over in the past. He writes, : : > Medrashim of Chazal teaches us important ideas, but are not meant to : > be literally true. They do not intend to be a historical document, : > but rather contain important moral and ethical teachings which are : > 'emes in the spiritual sense. Which need not say anything about the story's lilterally truth. Just that the story isn't *about* its literal historical claim, and therefore doesn't testify to history one way or the other. And so, I agree with: : So, the Rambam does not maintain that the literal meaning of /all/ : drashos is to be rejected. Some are indeed meant literally, and some are : not. And yet still won't bother worrying about contradicting any medrash's historical claims. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Life is a stage and we are the actors, micha at aishdas.org but only some of us have the script. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Menachem Nissel Fax: (270) 514-1507 From zvilampel at gmail.com Mon Dec 25 15:53:28 2017 From: zvilampel at gmail.com (H Lampel) Date: Mon, 25 Dec 2017 18:53:28 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Historicity of Aggadta In-Reply-To: <20171225203401.GB9557@aishdas.org> References: <20171225203401.GB9557@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 12/25/2017 3:34 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > And so, I agree with: > : So, the Rambam does not maintain that the literal meaning of /all/ > : drashos is to be rejected. Some are indeed meant literally, and some are > : not. > > And yet still won't bother worrying about contradicting any medrash's > historical claims. I already stated that the Rambam holds the intent of? a medrash is not literal if he holds it contradicts realia, logic, fundamentals or pesukim. And I should add, if it contradicts what he considers the consensus of Chazal. And in past iterations I submitted examples where the Rambam cites midrashic reports of history apparently qua history. You may insist that he (contra the Kuzari regarding Adam and the patricarchs speaking Hebrew) doesn't care about whether they are historically factual. But if you have examples of the Rambam not bothering to worry about contradicting a medrash's historical reports despite the above caveats, please provide them. Zvi Lampel From micha at aishdas.org Mon Dec 25 17:21:19 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 25 Dec 2017 20:21:19 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Historicity of Aggadta In-Reply-To: References: <20171225203401.GB9557@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20171226012119.GH24733@aishdas.org> On Mon, Dec 25, 2017 at 06:53:28PM -0500, H Lampel wrote: :> And yet still won't bother worrying about contradicting any medrash's :> historical claims. : I already stated that the Rambam holds the intent of? a medrash is : not literal if he holds it contradicts realia, logic, fundamentals : or pesukim... Yes, but you know I disagree. The Rambam says that the intent of a medrash is not literal. They might also be literal. A mashal or melitzah -- as he discusses from Mishlei at length -- can be pulled from history or stam crafted as a story, but in either case "mimah shenimtza bikhlal divreihem morim al inyanim amitiyim me'od." However, if the story does contradict what is known, we know it's a pure mashal, ahistorical. And therefore don't become like someone of the first two katim, believing stupidity or ridiculing chazal for their allegedly teaching stupidity. But he doesn't ever say that if the story is plausible, that's the point of the story. Nor that it's sufficient reason to assume it's true on a literal level. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "Fortunate indeed, is the man who takes micha at aishdas.org exactly the right measure of himself, and http://www.aishdas.org holds a just balance between what he can Fax: (270) 514-1507 acquire and what he can use." - Peter Latham From micha at aishdas.org Sun Dec 24 14:11:31 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Sun, 24 Dec 2017 17:11:31 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Please help me fund my book! Message-ID: <20171224221131.GA26480@aishdas.org> My manuscript just went to the publishers. For the second time; I retracted my first version because I didn't like the idea that the book was all theory without any pragmatics. What's the value of exploring the meaning of Torah and life based on haRav Shimon haKohein Shkop without anything about how to align one's life with those ideals? If you want some sense of what the book is about, the text that it's a commentary / elaboration on is available at http://www.aishdas.org/asp/ShaareiYosher.pdf -- although I have made some improvements to the readability of that translation since that PDF. If you would like to help me make this dream happen, whether because you were always looking for a way to thank me for these email lists, you like me or some of the things you've seen me write in the past, you like Rav Shimon's hashkafah, or simply think *any* sefer that gets more Orthodox Jews thinking about the big picture and why are we doing it all is worth existing, please let me know. Initial reactions are excited: "This may IY'H attract some serious attention -- books like this don't come out every day." "Very chashuv, unique sefer." "Wow. what an impressive work!" "Right up our alley, as well. Torah, important -- but kind of unique. For thinking people." "I think the subject, approach and writing are gevaldik." "I am excited as well, but they tell me the hardest part of the job still lays ahead." The sefarim market cannot consume books to the extent where publication will make a profit. So, at least when it comes to the business and funding models, all the houses expect fundraising and sponsorship to make a book happen. But it is not "vanity press". The publisher adds significant value to the book -- fact checking, editing, layout and other aesthetics, etc. The publisher I am going with uses Feldheim as their distribution channel, so my sefer could reach every Anglo sefarim store. And they have to pay the people who do all that, not to mention feed their own families. They put their name on the book, the book is their product. They need that good name for future marketing and distribution. So, they won't take on a book that would harm their business. They're willing to invest those man-hours, and when done, to stand behind my work. So, I have to rely heavily on word-of-mouth to raise that money. Including hitting up everyone here on Areivim/Avodah. I am using a foundation established in memory of my grandparents to clear the money in a manner that is tax-deductible. Email me for details if you are interested in chipping in. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger For those with faith there are no questions. micha at aishdas.org For those who lack faith there are no answers. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yaakov of Radzimin Fax: (270) 514-1507 From zvilampel at gmail.com Mon Dec 25 19:55:18 2017 From: zvilampel at gmail.com (H Lampel) Date: Mon, 25 Dec 2017 22:55:18 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Diberah Torah Kil-shon bnei adam In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Under the heading, Re: [Avodah] Did the Patriarchs Speak Hebrew?, Tue, 19 Dec 2017 From: Micha Berger > Mandel, Seth via Avodah wrote: > : There is no proof that anyone spoke Hebrew. Chazal say that dibb'ra Torah > : bilshon b'nei odom... > > RMB: Well.... R' Yishmael says it [the dictum ''dibb'ra Torah > bilshon b'nei odom.''] And it appears to be an argument for his > rules of derashah, which do not include looking for magic words like > "akh" (mi'ut), "raq" (mi'ut), "kol" (ribui) or even "es", but darshens > the meaning of terms, whether ribui or mi'ut....And besides, R' Aqiva disagrees! RSRH (Collected Writings Vol. V, p. 170), citing 30 cases,? points out that, ''R. Ishmael, no less than R. Akiba (and......all of R. Akiva's predecessors...)...considered particles [including of ''akh,'' ''raq'' and ''ess'] and superfluities ..in the Biblical text...subject to interpretations.'' He explains (p. 177) that ''R. Ishmael disagrees with R. Akiba only with regard to one very specific form of redundancy, namely, repetitions of the same expression; e.g.,...yidor nedder,...hasheiv heishiv, or the repetition of the same noun (ish ish). However, R. Ishmael interprets other redundancies in exactly the same manner as does R. Akiba.'' This leads me to propose an explanation for the phenomenon described by RMB as that... > The Rambam really sloganeers (like the CS's "chadash assur min haTorah") > when he uses it to explain that anthropomorphic descriptions of HQBH > are idioms, not to be taken overly literally. Rambam was not the first (and of course not the last*) to understand that Chazal intended by ''dibrah Torah kil-shon bnei adam'' a wider meaning than the one in dispute between R. Akiva and R.Yishmael, and even wider than the one RSRH shows both agreed to. Rav Hai Gaon (Teshuvas HaGaonim #98), too, used it to explain anthropomorphisms ("all the words of our Sages that have anthropomorphic descriptions ... are not to be understood literally but are metaphors or allegory. ... the Torah speaks in the language of man.)'' So did Chovos Halevavos (Shaar HaYichud 1:1:10). And Sefer HaKuzari (5:27) used it to explain? what the Torah means when it says that blowing the chatzotzros will result in ''v-hayu lachem l-zikaron lifnei H','' which seems to imply that H' requires reminders. Raavad (Sefer HaEmunah 1:7) applied the dictum to explain why the rewards and punishments the Torah' explicitly references are only those in this world, and not the next.? He explained that speaking of spiritual rewards would confuse the common people, ''v'al zeh ne'emar dibrah Torah b-lashon bnei adam.'' (Semi-off topic: In Maamar Techiyyas HaMeisim, Rambam gives a similar, if not identical reason for no explicit reference to techiyyas hameisim, without invoking the dictum.) So I propose that the Geonim and rishonim understood that the intent of Chazal's dictum? ''dibrah Torah kil-ashon bnei adam'' was a wide one, which includes the Torah's use of anthropomorphism. And that R. Yishmael, contra R. Akiva,? /extended/? it even to repetitions of the same expression; e.g.,...yidor nedder,...hasheiv heishiv, or the repetition of the same noun (ish ish). But nobody, including R. Yishmael, extended it even further, to other apparently extra words or particles such as"akh", "raq", "kol" and "ess". Those are meant for interpretation according to all. This would explain why even though the rule is that we follow R. Akiva when he argues with R. Yishmael, , the rishonim embraced the dictum of "dibrah Torah kil-shon bnei adam." Because they embraced it in the sense that all Chazal agreed to. And this applies to anthropomorphisms. It is only regarding whether to extended the dictum's application to certain types of expressions that R. Yishmael and R. Akiva argue. *Ibn Ezra--numerous times, such as on Breishis 6:6) Radak (numerous times, such as on Breishis 9:15 Ramban (Breishis 6:6) Hizkuni (Devarim 5:26) Rabbeynu Bechaye (numerous times, such as on Breishis 1:26) Ralbag (Shoftim 10:16) Akeidas Yitzchak numerous times, such as on Vayeria Shaar 19 sv Va'ani ain) Zvi Lampel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From JRich at sibson.com Mon Dec 25 22:00:57 2017 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2017 06:00:57 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] The Protection Offered by a Mezuza In-Reply-To: <20171225203023.GA9557@aishdas.org> References: <2d108449-ec4d-0e35-d888-0ccdd8b113be@sero.name> <80f92bd4-b7af-1b26-1d03-0f3ce7a67edf@zahav.net.il>, <20171225203023.GA9557@aishdas.org> Message-ID: > > You want to statistically decide which hashkafah is true??? > ------------ > > > You remind me of a problem I have saying a particular line of Tehillim > (37:25) with kavanah, and it comes up at the appendix to bentching, > "Naar hayisi..." But I have seen a tzadiq whose kids miss meals and have > to beg. Haven't you? > -------------- It also bothered the gedolim who struggled to explain why the simple meaning of the segula of being a sandek didn't seem to be statistically fulfilled Kt 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. From lisa at starways.net Tue Dec 26 00:10:52 2017 From: lisa at starways.net (Lisa Liel) Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2017 10:10:52 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Historicity of Aggadta In-Reply-To: <20171226012119.GH24733@aishdas.org> References: <20171225203401.GB9557@aishdas.org> <20171226012119.GH24733@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 12/26/2017 3:21 AM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > However, if the story does contradict what is known, we know it's a pure > mashal, ahistorical. I'd like to revise that to say that if the story contradicts what is *currently* known, we are entitled (or perhaps required) to consider it a pure mashal *at that time*, with the understanding that our knowledge may change. Lisa --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From zvilampel at gmail.com Mon Dec 25 20:41:54 2017 From: zvilampel at gmail.com (H Lampel) Date: Mon, 25 Dec 2017 23:41:54 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Historicity of Aggadta In-Reply-To: <20171226012119.GH24733@aishdas.org> References: <20171225203401.GB9557@aishdas.org> <20171226012119.GH24733@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <057fcda7-0e48-53f8-c0ec-135a112bb534@gmail.com> On 12/25/2017 8:21 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > ...But he doesn't ever say that if the story is plausible, that's the point > of the story. Nor that it's sufficient reason to assume it's true on a > literal level. The historical mentions the Rambam's makes, treating the plausible Midrashim as history without making any qualifications, indicates otherwise. But specifically on the topic this discussion came from now: Regarding the Midrashic reports that Adam and the Avos spoke Ivris/Lashon Hakadosh, which I assume you agree the Kuzari accepts as historical fact (which of course teaches in its historicity an important thing to know)... Is your default position that the Rambam doesn't care whether it's historically so? Zvi Lampel From sholom at aishdas.org Mon Dec 25 22:08:38 2017 From: sholom at aishdas.org (Sholom Simon) Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2017 01:08:38 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Rashi on kol hanefesh (Bereshis 46:26) Message-ID: <20171226060849.GQIH4561.fed1rmfepo102.cox.net@fed1rmimpo209.cox.net> Kol hanefesh . . . shvi'im. Rashi says "I found in Vayikra Rabba" . . . a statement that Eisav had (with him) six, and the word nafashos (plural) was used; but here with Yaakov, kol hanafesh . . . shevi'im, nefesh is in the singular. This is a hint that Eisav engaged in A"Z (plural gods), while Yaakov served one G-d. But don't we (almost?) always see (in Torah) the singular being used for a noun when the count is larger than 10? How can one darshen from something that follows the general grammatic rule? What am I missing here? -- Sholom From lisa at starways.net Tue Dec 26 00:08:21 2017 From: lisa at starways.net (Lisa Liel) Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2017 10:08:21 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] The Protection Offered by a Mezuza In-Reply-To: <20171225203023.GA9557@aishdas.org> References: <2d108449-ec4d-0e35-d888-0ccdd8b113be@sero.name> <80f92bd4-b7af-1b26-1d03-0f3ce7a67edf@zahav.net.il> <20171225203023.GA9557@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <282dcbac-59e9-be81-ee8e-f1faf4991682@starways.net> On 12/25/2017 10:30 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > You remind me of a problem I have saying a particular line of Tehillim > (37:25) with kavanah, and it comes up at the appendix to bentching, > "Naar hayisi..." But I have seen a tzadiq whose kids miss meals and have > to beg. Haven't you? I always understood it to mean that either he's quick to give tzedaka so as to prevent there being a tzaddik neezav v'zar'o mevakesh lachem, or that we aren't talking about literal aziva and lack of food, but rather aziva by Hashem and lack of Torah. Lisa --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From zvilampel at gmail.com Tue Dec 26 07:09:06 2017 From: zvilampel at gmail.com (H Lampel) Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2017 10:09:06 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Historicity of Aggadta In-Reply-To: <057fcda7-0e48-53f8-c0ec-135a112bb534@gmail.com> References: <20171225203401.GB9557@aishdas.org> <20171226012119.GH24733@aishdas.org> <057fcda7-0e48-53f8-c0ec-135a112bb534@gmail.com> Message-ID: <53d98237-ecd0-93ee-7927-d9edb71b28ca@gmail.com> On 12/25/2017 11:41 PM, H Lampel wrote: > > > On 12/25/2017 8:21 PM, Micha Berger wrote: >> ...But he doesn't ever say that if the story is plausible, that's the >> point >> of the story. Nor that it's sufficient reason to assume it's true on a >> literal level. The first statement is of course true. The reason a story is told is to make a point. Thus the citations where the Rambam says that all the maamerei Chazal impart valuable lessons. The second statement is where we diverge. I understand that the Rambam does take the plausible reports of happenings (reported of course because they impart something worthy to know) to be historically true. In other words, that's the default position. He never says that we may deny the historic factuality of events Chazal presented as factual historical events. I understand the citations you bring where Rambam invokes Mishlei to defend interpreting maamarei Chazal non-literally to? be saying that even the implausible ones really have valuable lessons but must be interpreted non-literally to understand them. So I would still ask you for examples of the Rambam not bothering to worry about contradicting a medrash's plausible historical reports. I previously remarked that the historical mentions the Rambam's makes, treating the plausible Midrashim as history without making any qualifications, without explaining why he takes them as historical fact (for example, the neis of the pach shemen, and the military victory of the Chashmonaim), indicates he took them as historical fact, which thereby provides the lessons to be learned therefrom. I quoted a passage from Rambam's Hakdama to Perek Cheilek (originally to counteract the face-value meaning of RSM's declaration that the Rambam holds that every Medrash is meant non-literally), where the Rambam makes clear that some reports are meant non-literally, but some are meant literally. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that your take can be worded as follows: Chazal and Rambam did not care whether the historical events they learned lessons from, really occurred. All Chazal's statements are only for the sake of the lessons. Some of the lessons must be extracted by understanding the statements in a non-literal way, particularly if at face value they are implausible. Of the plausible reports, the lessons to be learned from them can be gleaned from a literal understanding, meaning the message is clear without needing to give unusual meanings to its the words. But that does not mean that they were meant to be historically factual. They are meant literally, but not historically. I.e., the Rambam held that although lessons Chazal intended were ostensibly learned from, or reinforced by, events they reported, it is irrelevant whether the events did actually occur, and indeed they may not have. But I think his words indicate otherwise. Here they are again: ??? And I will yet compose a work in which I will gather all the ??? drashos found in the Talmud and elsewhere...and I will reveal what ??? of the drashos are [meant in] a literal way, and which of them are ??? [meant as] mashal, and which of them were [describing something seen ??? only] in a dream but was stated in a purely absolute way, as if it ??? were [experienced] in a state of wakefulness... If the Rambam considered it irrelevant whether the events did actually occur, and held that indeed they may not have occurred, why is he concerned with whether the report occurred in a dream? Why would he invoke a dream, if he considered the actuality of all reported events irrelevant? After all, its only the lesson that is relevant! But if you accept that the Rambam considered the default position to be that reported events are meant to be understood as actually occurring, and that while some are merely mashal but others are real, then it makes sense that he felt it important to exclude implausible reports and explain which were pure mashal and which were experienced in a dream. And describing the report as "stated in a purely absolute way, as if it were [experienced] in a state of wakefulness," implies that, had it not been implausible, being stated in an absolute way would imply that it was indeed experienced in a state of wakefulness. Zvi Lampel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: ???? ???? ????? ???? ?? ?? ?????? ??????? ?????? ??????.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 215599 bytes Desc: not available URL: From micha at aishdas.org Tue Dec 26 08:06:50 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2017 11:06:50 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Historicity of Aggadta In-Reply-To: <057fcda7-0e48-53f8-c0ec-135a112bb534@gmail.com> References: <20171225203401.GB9557@aishdas.org> <20171226012119.GH24733@aishdas.org> <057fcda7-0e48-53f8-c0ec-135a112bb534@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20171226160650.GC15636@aishdas.org> On Mon, Dec 25, 2017 at 11:41:54PM -0500, H Lampel wrote: : The historical mentions the Rambam's makes, treating the plausible : Midrashim as history without making any qualifications, indicates : otherwise. It indicates that some medrashim which both didn't defy evidence or his philosophy that the Rambam felt had a literal point worth making. Not that plauisible medrashim should be assumed to be literal history. He spends so much time telling you they're all statements of the deepest truths, and quoting Shelomo, that chakhamim conduct such discussions via mashal and melitzah. The fact that some deepest truths has historical impact doesn't give us license to ignore paragraphs of writing. : Regarding the Midrashic reports that Adam and the Avos spoke : Ivris/Lashon Hakadosh, which I assume you agree the Kuzari accepts : as historical fact (which of course teaches in its historicity an : important thing to know)... Is your default position that the Rambam : doesn't care whether it's historically so? That's the default. Perhaps the Rambam agrees with the Rihal that the history of Ivris is a significant statement, and would be meant literally even under his view. Perhaps not. I can't guess, and am willing to entertain anything. But there are also reports that they spoke Aramaic, or even that Adam spoke all 70 leshonos. See the sources I gave in as well as Sanhedrin 38b (R Yehudah amar Rav: Adam haRishon spoke Aramaic). Not to mention historical evidence. So there is no reason for me to make the Rambam's life difficult. To complete repeating myself, my own instinct is to say that Adam spoke some proto-Semitic, and therefore spoke a language which could be considered both ancient Hebrew AND ancient Aramaic, or proto-everything and thus an ancestor to all 70 languages. And this would explain the medrashim as well as allow us to identify Adam's speech with Leshon haQodesh. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "I think, therefore I am." - Renne Descartes micha at aishdas.org "I am thought about, therefore I am - http://www.aishdas.org my existence depends upon the thought of a Fax: (270) 514-1507 Supreme Being Who thinks me." - R' SR Hirsch From eliturkel at mail.gmail.com Mon Dec 25 13:40:32 2017 From: eliturkel at mail.gmail.com (Eli Turkel) Date: Mon, 25 Dec 2017 23:40:32 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] shabbes candles Message-ID: A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: multipart/alternative Size: 1277 bytes Desc: not available URL: From chaim.tatel at mail.gmail.com Mon Dec 25 15:43:58 2017 From: chaim.tatel at mail.gmail.com (Chaim Tatel) Date: Mon, 25 Dec 2017 15:43:58 -0800 Subject: [Avodah] shabbes candles Message-ID: A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: multipart/alternative Size: 4006 bytes Desc: not available URL: From JRich at sibson.com Wed Dec 27 01:51:45 2017 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Wed, 27 Dec 2017 09:51:45 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] birur vs hanhaga in other legal systems Message-ID: <9ec665e80cbd4e97be6b4bcc8b7221d8@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> There's a lot of "Brisker Torah" on the differentiation between halachically resolving doubts by birur (clarification/resolution of doubt) versus hanhaga (we still have a doubt but must move forward while not resolving the doubt). One practical difference would be that doubts resolved by birur are considered resolved retroactively while those resolved by hanhaga are only prospective in nature. Is anyone aware of any parallels to this differentiation in other legal systems? KT 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: From micha at aishdas.org Thu Dec 28 08:03:25 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2017 11:03:25 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Body and Soul In-Reply-To: <89600AC2-DFEA-44AA-A5AE-9C4493ED11F4@cox.net> References: <89600AC2-DFEA-44AA-A5AE-9C4493ED11F4@cox.net> Message-ID: <20171228160325.GA31137@aishdas.org> On Sat, Dec 23, 2017 at 10:30pm EST, Richard Wolberg wrote in a post titled "Vay'chi": : (The question has been asked: Do you have a soul? The answer is NO, : you ARE a soul with a body). I write about this in my manuscript. Here's a version I put up on Mi Yodeya about a year ago. So, it is slightly adapted, lacks a year of editing, and there will be someone else editing the manuscript before it is a book (assuming I raise the money). On Mi Yodeya, "Gabriel12" asked about E-lokai Neshmah, and the phrases "shanasata bi... nefachtahh bi... meshammerahh beqirbi... littela mimmenni, ulhachzirahh bi le'asid lavo". He asks: Here, when I say me, I'm referring to my body. And I'm thanking G-d for giving me back my soul. But why is the body "me"? Shouldn't the soul be the real "me"? Am I the soul or the body? My answer: As for E-lokai Neshamah and Hashem putting a soul within me, my own intent when saying these words is based on the Vilna Gaon's taxonomy of prayer: Prayers that express an ideal to be repeated and internalized are what we call "tefillah" in Hebrew. Tefillos are consistently written in the plural, as our connection to the community is part of that ideal. Prayers written in the singular are therefore of a different sort, "tachanunim", expressions of what already exists in our hearts. This is how the Gaon explains the line in Qaddish, "tisqabel tzelosehon uva'usehon -- accept the tefillos and requests (tachanunim) of all of the House of Israel..." We say this when closing the Amidah -- which is such a paragon of tefillah our Sages called it simply "Tefillah", E-lokai Netzor -- tachanunim, (note that it's written about "I" and "mine", not "we" and "our"), and Tachanun. "Elokai, neshamah -- My G-d, the soul which you placed in me" is similarly tachanunim. Therefore, it's not a place to look for how we ought to see our self-definition, but how things feel to most of us first thing in the morning. The prayer reflects the fact that most people do in practice identify with our body most consistently, and only at times with their soul. But to answer the philosophical question... There is a machlokes, a dispute among the rabbis, as to how to view man. One side, found often among books of Mussar, views a person as a soul who inhabits a body, or perhaps controls it as a rider upon a donkey. As Elifaz describes humanity in the book of [61]Iyov (4:10), "shochnei batei chomer - dwellers in homes of matter." When Rav Yitzchak Isaac Scher (Cheshbon haNefesh, Slaboka Alumni ed., intro.) speaks of man's physical side being an animal, we mean that literally, not merely like an animal. Since much of our yeitzer hara comes from our living in a mammalian body, R' Scher recommends the very same strategies one uses for taming and being able to use the eyesight of a bird, the strength of an ox, the load bearing abilities of a donkey or the speed of a horse are applicable to gaining mastery over our bodies. Like any other animal, a person's animal soul has no ability to plan toward a goal, it simply responds to whatever urge is most triggered in the moment. The animal soul must be saddled by the godly soul and guided. And Rabbi Sherr points out with the example of a trained elephant, "next to whom a person like his trainer seems little more than an ant", to maximize its utility it must neither be overburdened or neglected, nor underused and let remind wild - and this is how we are to treat our body and our animal souls. Last and most importantly, neither an animal nor the animal within can be educated, but trained through habit and acclimation. This notion is a key symbol in the Gra's interpretation system -- when one finds a chamor / donkey in a narrative, it is generally a symbol for the person's chomer / physicality. Avraham at the Akeidah or the mashiach come in riding on a donkey as a way to indicate to us their mastery over their own physicality. In contrast, we speak of Bil'am's donkey, but the Torah consistently calls it a different kind of animal; he does not harness a chamor, showing self-control over the animal's urges of the moment, Bil'am rides an ason ([62]Bamidbar 22:23,25,27,28,29,33). In this viewpoint, a person is a rider of an animal, or to use a metaphor that may resonate better with our more modern lifestyles - the soul who is wearing a body. Another stream of thought includes the body in the definition of person. Rather than a person's more human side that rides his body as a master over an animal, in this model man is seen as a fusion of body and soul. For example when the gemara ([63]Sanhedrin 91a) explains one purpose of the eventual resurrection of the dead by comparing a sinner to a blind man and a lame man who conspire to steal fruit from an orchard. They are caught and brought to court, but each of the accused claims innocence. The blind man says he must be innocent, for he was incapable of even finding the fruit, never mind stealing them. The lame man also claims innocence; after all, he had no way to reach it. Neither alone could commit the theft, so each of the accused points to the other as the critical element for the sin, the guilty party. The judge responds by putting one atop the other, recreating the unit that was capable of sin, and judges the pair. So too, the gemara explains, the soul could claim it couldn't have sinned without the body giving it the opportunity for action, and the body could claim that the planning and execution of the sin are the fault of the soul. In order to judge us for our sins, Hashem will bodily resurrect the sinner to reconstruct the person as they were then. As the Ramchal writes, "Man is different from any other creature. He is a combination of two completely diverse and dissimilar elements, namely, the body and soul." (Derech Hashem 3:1:1) The dispute is not necessarily about which is true, it could well be that both definitions of "person" are equally valid. The dispute is more prescriptive: When is it more productive to think of my physical aspect as an outsider, which would weaken the relative weight I would give the call of physical drives? And when am I better off not thinking of myself as purely soul, because then I'm not fully blaming myself for "stealing the fruit"? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The goal isn't to live forever, micha at aishdas.org the goal is to create so mething that will. http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From ben1456 at zahav.net.il Thu Dec 28 11:57:46 2017 From: ben1456 at zahav.net.il (Ben Waxman) Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2017 21:57:46 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Foreshadow Message-ID: Is the break up of the united kingdom (Israel and Yehuda) somehow foreseen in the brothers? Was the reconciliation between Yosef and the brothers (and especially Yosef and Yehuda) not complete? Was splitting responsibility between Yehuda (he set up Goshen's beit midrash) and Yosef (he supplied the food) a mistake? Is there anything in Yehuda's personality that foreshadows David and Shlomo's failure to truly unite the tribes or is the fault with the latter two only? Ben From JRich at sibson.com Fri Dec 29 02:09:15 2017 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2017 10:09:15 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] FW: Rav Moshe on Smoking In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2eb7119fe3ff4a0f8394f494ae14fde8@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> FYI-An old Avodah topic. KT Joel Rich In the attached file, there is a newly-published teshuvah from Rav Moshe which basically confirms the rumors that he retracted his teshuvah about smoking and would indeed forbid it. Kol Tuv, Reuven Chaim Klein Beitar Illit, Israel Check out my book Lashon HaKodesh: History, Holiness, & Hebrew [Lashon HaKodesh: History, Holiness, & Hebrew (Mosaica Press) on Amazon][Academia.edu][Google Scholar][LinkedIN][https://docs.google.com/uc?export=download&id=0B1NJHmIXg4QJTWZsRUpZblJpWE0&revid=0B1NJHmIXg4QJcXQxRU1kN0JWZ3pQVmZsdlYrVlljRUdSb2ZvPQ][Rabbi Reuven Chaim Klein on TorahDownloads.com] [https://my-email-signature.link/signature.gif?u=93822&e=15367987&v=592df626366a9255517be8f9bb3b802cdc17522127137d175bd71108e063b3e1] 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: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 480.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 2037389 bytes Desc: 480.pdf URL: From JRich at sibson.com Fri Dec 29 01:36:06 2017 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2017 09:36:06 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] truth telling Message-ID: <3852cda5a1f348b8ba9b17c3cd9d8079@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Thought experiment: 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? KT 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: From JRich at sibson.com Fri Dec 29 01:35:14 2017 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2017 09:35:14 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Birchat Cohanim Message-ID: <12830183c04c422ca904affc50bac0b7@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> One is in Eretz Yisrael and davens shacharit in a minyan which often does not have Cohanim to duchen. Is he required to seek a minyan which has Cohanim? If he isn't required, is it preferable? KT 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: From JRich at sibson.com Fri Dec 29 02:09:15 2017 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2017 10:09:15 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] FW: Rav Moshe on Smoking In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: [Take 2. File stripped off for the sake of text digest recipients and moved to . Fixed formatting. -micha] FYI-An old Avodah topic. KT Joel Rich In the attached file, there is a newly-published teshuvah from Rav Moshe which basically confirms the rumors that he retracted his teshuvah about smoking and would indeed forbid it. Kol Tuv, Reuven Chaim Klein Beitar Illit, Israel Check out my book Lashon HaKodesh: History, Holiness, & Hebrew [Lashon HaKodesh: History, Holiness, & Hebrew (Mosaica Press) on Amazon] >> [Academia.edu] [Google Scholar] [LinkedIN] [https://docs.google.com/uc?export=download&id=0B1NJHmIXg4QJTWZsRUpZblJpWE0&revid=0B1NJHmIXg4QJcXQxRU1kN0JWZ3pQVmZsdlYrVlljRUdSb2ZvPQ] [Rabbi Reuven Chaim Klein on TorahDownloads.com] From lisa at starways.net Fri Dec 29 06:19:45 2017 From: lisa at starways.net (Lisa Liel) Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2017 16:19:45 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] truth telling In-Reply-To: <3852cda5a1f348b8ba9b17c3cd9d8079@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <3852cda5a1f348b8ba9b17c3cd9d8079@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: You'll have to define "truth".? I know a lot of self-Identified frum Jews who consider it "truth" that the Exodus didn't happen.? That the Mabul was a metaphor.? That the text of the Torah she'bichtav we have now is not the one given to Moshe at Sinai in an actual, factual, historical event.? It's never good for them to tell that "truth" to their children. If by truth you mean the truths stated in Judaism, then it's a matter of judgment.? If you're considering telling your children about Amnon and Tamar, their age would enter into the decision.? If the truth you want to tell them is about the molesters in the frum community who were respected leaders, again, age matters.? But I wouldn't withhold the facts from my child if they were old enough to hear it and it seemed relevant. Lisa On 12/29/2017 11:36 AM, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: > Thought experiment: 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? > KT > Joel Rich > --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From micha at aishdas.org Fri Dec 29 06:34:31 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2017 09:34:31 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] truth telling In-Reply-To: <3852cda5a1f348b8ba9b17c3cd9d8079@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <3852cda5a1f348b8ba9b17c3cd9d8079@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20171229143431.GD9936@aishdas.org> On Fri, Dec 29, 2017 at 09:36:06AM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : Thought experiment: 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? I understand the point of your question as being about the relative value of emes and of yir'as Shamayim. But... I can't bend my head around the case for balebatishe reasons. Is it not inevitable that many of our children would eventually learn of the lie and lose confidence in the whole concept of mesorah? And wouldn't that percentage inevitably be greater than Y, the additionaly percentage who are only staying because they believe the non-truth? To address the comparison behind the question: According to the Rambam, emunah is defined by emes. Unproven faith isn't emunah. So, he would say that the Y% of the children who believe because of a lie aren't necessarily saved. If we modernize the Rambam's position, then we would still need some kind of valid justification. Even if modern philosophy believes (accuratly, AISI) that theological proof is a meaningless concept, there are other valid ways to reach a conclusion. Those of us blessed with children are certain we love your chidren even though I never developed a proof for it. BUT, I don't think too many people hold like a modern version of the Rambam, which ties redemption to knowledge, and ethics is a lower level of perfection necessary for true knowledge og G-d. Let's take a more typical modern hashkafah, which gives priority to sheleimos or experiential deveiqus. Perhaps the non-truth would indeed be justified, if I thought your case were possible. Just as shalom justifies tactfully bending the truth. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Man can aspire to spiritual-moral greatness micha at aishdas.org which is seldom fully achieved and easily lost http://www.aishdas.org again. Fulfillment lies not in a final goal, Fax: (270) 514-1507 but in an eternal striving for perfection. -RSRH From zev at sero.name Fri Dec 29 09:50:13 2017 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2017 12:50:13 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] FW: Rav Moshe on Smoking In-Reply-To: <2eb7119fe3ff4a0f8394f494ae14fde8@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <2eb7119fe3ff4a0f8394f494ae14fde8@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <2c41ffe6-418e-8a53-6b6f-72547edfcf91@sero.name> On 29/12/17 05:09, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: > In the attached file, there is a newly-published teshuvah from Rav Moshe > which basically confirms the rumors that he retracted his teshuvah about > smoking and would indeed forbid it. > One has to wonder, then, why he never chose to include this in any of the three volumes of IM that he published after this date. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From bdbradley70 at hotmail.com Sat Dec 30 11:30:10 2017 From: bdbradley70 at hotmail.com (Ben Bradley) Date: Sat, 30 Dec 2017 19:30:10 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Foreshadow In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Is that not explicitly the message of the haftara for vayigash? That the split of Yehdua and Efraim (Yosef) is the the same issue as the split in the nation to reconcile the one is to reconcile the other. It's clear from the end of vayechi that there's still broad daylight between Yosef and the brothers. They are still wary of him and he still see the need to try to bring them close. There are many midrashim assuming it's all the same issue, a basic split in Klal Yisrael manifestation over history. The Bnei Yissaschar on Chanuka deals with this a lot and the best treatment I've seen in one place is Rav Matis Weinberg's book on Chanuka. In any case, even without aggadta the cycle of galus is consistently a result of this split, be it to Mitzrayim or to Ashur. Geula has the same dynamic, thus a moshiach both from Yosef and from David (Yehuda). BW Ben -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From JRich at sibson.com Sat Dec 30 14:48:34 2017 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Sat, 30 Dec 2017 22:48:34 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] truth telling In-Reply-To: <20171229143431.GD9936@aishdas.org> References: <3852cda5a1f348b8ba9b17c3cd9d8079@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> <20171229143431.GD9936@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <714290ea035646beb5044c62d3186c46@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Perhaps the non-truth would indeed be justified, if I thought your case were possible. Just as shalom justifies tactfully bending the truth. :-)BBii! -Micha --------------------------------------------------- That's what I wonder about, can belief ever be built on sheker. I've heard drush on not (e.g. why didn't the Chashmonaim not use shemen tamei) but istm it is being done In general I agree that it doesn't work. KT 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. From meirabi at gmail.com Sat Dec 30 17:31:32 2017 From: meirabi at gmail.com (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi) Date: Sun, 31 Dec 2017 12:31:32 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] HELP - Why is there an Issur BBCh on a Nefel/Shellil? Message-ID: I have yet to find anyone asking this Q - the Nefel and Shelil seem to be the same thing it is a Neneilah yet it is Assur to eat as BBCh - why is there no Ein Issur Chal Al Issur? MAssuros 4:1 - one who eats flesh of a dead non-Shechted Kosher beast transgresses the prohibition of eating Neveilah MAssuros 4:4 - one who eats flesh of a Nefel [a non-fully gestated foetus] transgresses the prohibition of eating Neveilah Even [according to the careful reading of the RaMBaM] if it is not dead MAssuros 9:7 - one who cooks a Shelil with milk or eats it transgresses the prohibition of eating BBCh MAssuros 9:6 - one who cooks Cheilev or Neveilah or similar, with milk, transgresses the prohibition of BBCh but not when eating it because a second prohibition cannot take effect upon a item that is already prohibited Best, Meir G. Rabi 0423 207 837 +61 423 207 837 Best, Meir G. Rabi 0423 207 837 +61 423 207 837 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From menu at inter.net.il Sun Dec 31 00:12:21 2017 From: menu at inter.net.il (menucha) Date: Sun, 31 Dec 2017 10:12:21 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Foreshadow In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > > Bereshit Rabba 84 sees foreshadowing of Yeravam ben Nevat starting with Yosef's dreams. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From akivagmiller at gmail.com Sun Dec 31 08:10:04 2017 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Sun, 31 Dec 2017 11:10:04 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Merchavyah Message-ID: . There is a pasuk in Hallel (Tehillim 118:5) that begins "Min hamaytzar". In RSR Hirsch's siddur, the last word of that pasuk is "merchavyah". In his perush on Tehillim, there too, the last word is "merchavyah", and in the perush he writes that "According to Pesahim 117a, merchavyah is one word, like halleluyah." My understanding of that gemara is that R Yochanan, Rav, and Raba all hold "merchavyah" to be one single word. Although Rav Chisda quoted R Yochanan to that effect, the Gemara is unsure how Rav Chisda held personally on this issue, and leaves that as a "tayku". However - When I look in various Tanachs, Tehillims, Siddurim, and Hagados, almost all of them (there *are* a few exceptions) print this as two separate words: "merchav yah". Obviously, there must be someone who either argues against this gemara, or understands the gemara differently than how Rav Hirsch understands it. The Minchas Shai on this pasuk refers to this gemara. If I'm reading it correctly, he seems to feel that the gemara is an unresolved machlokes, and I suppose that's why he tries to resolve it by looking at whatever manuscripts he had, both here and in Beshalach (where there's a similar question on Kes Y-ah). In my very unlearned and inexperienced view, it is not reasonable to consider these as two words, which is an unproven opinion that the gemara left as a tayku, and reject the combined weight of R Yochanan, Rav, and Raba, who all clearly held this to be a single word. Can anyone help me out? Akiva Miller From cantorwolberg at cox.net Sat Dec 30 20:25:17 2017 From: cantorwolberg at cox.net (Richard Wolberg) Date: Sat, 30 Dec 2017 23:25:17 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Sh'mos Message-ID: It is brought down that the place where the Burning Bush occurred was Har Sinai. The talmud asks why did it occur in a thorn bush and the answer: God says "when the Jews are suffering, I am suffering, too." A midrash relates that taking the Jews out of Egypt was nowhere near as difficult as taking ?Egypt? out of the Jews. Aish.com Mayanot Wellsprings bring out: The longest private conversation recorded in the Torah between God and a human individual takes place in our parsha. It takes God 39 long verses (from Exodus 3:1 to 4:17) to persuade Moses to accept the mission of serving as the savior of the Jewish people. In a wide-ranging conversation that covers many topics, God patiently responds to Moses' many objections and queries before Moses finally caves in to the Divine will and accepts. It reminds me that the Shulchan Aruch says if you are asked to be a ba'al tefilla, you should first politely refuse (out of modesty). If you are asked a second time, you should still refuse. But if you are asked a third time, you must accept. It's a not such a well known minhag and is just another example of menschlechkeit, sensitivity and humility for the time it was written. ?The Bible is meant to be OUR critic, not we, ITS critic!" -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From zev at sero.name Sun Dec 31 09:51:47 2017 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Sun, 31 Dec 2017 12:51:47 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Merchavyah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <26d7c7af-67e8-e1d6-3fd7-00aca9fcbef4@sero.name> For one thing, the Keter Aram Tzovah has it as two words. -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 2018 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From micha at aishdas.org Sun Oct 1 11:10:33 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Sun, 1 Oct 2017 14:10:33 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Writing on Yom Tov In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20171001181033.GC31024@aishdas.org> On Sat, Sep 30, 2017 at 10:18:58PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : So... back to my question: To whatever extent "writing" in the "Book of : Life" is a melacha, should it matter whether it is Shabbos or Yom Tov? Before we take the Barditcher Rebbe's words too literally, let us remember that wind routinely blows things to roll more than 4 amos on a reshus harabbim, lightning ignites trees on Shabbos, people die on Shabbos, etc... IOW, first explain to me what a claim that the RBSO avoids melakhos means altogether in light of the evidence, and then perhaps I could participate in your intended conversation. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger One who kills his inclination is as though he micha at aishdas.org brought an offering. But to bring an offering, http://www.aishdas.org you must know where to slaughter and what Fax: (270) 514-1507 parts to offer. - R' Simcha Zissel Ziv From akivagmiller at gmail.com Sun Oct 1 17:52:44 2017 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Sun, 1 Oct 2017 20:52:44 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Not hadar is pasul Message-ID: . This thread may be running into a vocabulary problem. My understanding is that "hadar" and "mehudar" mean two different things, and some people tend to confuse the two. "Hadar" refers to the absolute minimum requirements, without which the minim are posul, and "mehudar" refers to things which Chazal consider as making the minim even more beautiful. "Hadar" is required, and "mehudar" is desirable. I was not able to find a source for this in my seforim, but a post from R' Moshe Feldman in Avodah 10:9 (fifteen years ago) seems to support it: > The chiluk between psulei hadar (learned from the word "hadar") > and the idea of buying a mehudar esrog--deriving from the din > of zeh Keli v'anveihu (and applicable to other mitzvos as well) > is discussed at length in Mikra'ei Kodesh (Succos vol 2) siman > 26, esp. p. 119 (quote from Raavad) and pp. 122-123 in Harirei > Kodesh. It would seem from his discussion that buying a mehudar > esrog has no relationship to the word "hadar." Of course, there are many differing views about what is in each category, and this will vary by posek, by first day / not first day, and by lechatchila / bdieved. I'm just explaining the definitions of these easily-confused terms. Akiva Miller From zev at sero.name Sun Oct 1 23:02:00 2017 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2017 02:02:00 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Not hadar is pasul In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <454d729c-5e9d-e0b0-d0cb-f625592cd49f@sero.name> On 01/10/17 20:52, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > This thread may be running into a vocabulary problem. My understanding > is that "hadar" and "mehudar" mean two different things, and some > people tend to confuse the two. > > "Hadar" refers to the absolute minimum requirements, without which the > minim are posul, and "mehudar" refers to things which Chazal consider > as making the minim even more beautiful. "Hadar" is required, and > "mehudar" is desirable. I don't think they're two very different things, they're just degrees of the same thing. From "pri etz hadar" we learn that beauty is a base requirement, at least for the first day. If it's not beautiful it's not kosher. From "zeh keli ve'anvehu" we learn that we should want all mitzvos, including this one, to be as beautiful as we can make them, given our resources. But baseline beauty itself requires more than the bare minimum that would otherwise apply; an esrog that is exactly as big as an egg fits the basic shiur, but the poskim think it obvious that to do the bare minimum is not beautiful, so they say hadar means it must be at least a bit bigger, if possible. If it's not possible, then we make do with the bare shiur. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From micha at aishdas.org Mon Oct 2 03:58:53 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2017 06:58:53 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] expensive etrog In-Reply-To: <2c96c2fe-0e11-f9ca-66d5-28e79f983bbb@zahav.net.il> References: <2c96c2fe-0e11-f9ca-66d5-28e79f983bbb@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <20171002105852.GB30968@aishdas.org> On Fri, Sep 29, 2017 at 02:05:15PM +0200, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: : In OH 656 the Mechaber writes that if one is shopping for an etrog : and sees two etrogim, one more mehudar than the other, you need to : buy the mehudar (either it is mitzvah or possibly a chiyuv). : However, this only applies if the mehudar etrog is no more than 33% : more expensive. The language that the Mechaber uses in the "yesh : omrim" is "ein meyakrim oto yoter m'shlish".... There is a machloqes whether the shelish is milevar (Ran, arguing from the Rif's silence, on Rif Sukkah 16a; Yam shel Shelomom #24), in which case it's 50% -- 1/3 of the total 150%; or if the shelish is milegav (Rosh 1:7), i.e. 1/3 in the Western sense, with a total of 4/3 the original price. The SA (OC 656:1) holds like the Rosh, lequla, but accoring to the BY, he was doing so only on the ground of safeiq derabbanan lequla. Hiddur mitzvah is derabbanan. My first thought was -- what? It's a word in the pasuq WRT esrog -- "peri eitz hadar"! That looks more like peshat than asmachta for a derabbanan! But I realized something. Even though this din is being discussed WRT esrog, the kelal of kehadeir bemitzvah ad shelish is not specific to 4 minim. As in Rashi (9b "behidur") invoking "ze keili ve'anveihu" to tell you to buy the more expensive ST if it is up to shelish more pricey than your other choice. (So that according to Rashi, if you have only two choices -- mehudas or very mehudar, and they differ by less than a shelish, you are to by the very mehudar. Tosafos disagree. This tangent is discussed in the Shitah Mequbetzer.) Anyway, the SA calling milegav a qula implies that he sees up to 1/3 as a chiyuv derabbanan, and beyond could well be reshus. If it were reshus up to a shelish and assur beyond that, then he'd be making lesser expenditures assur -- a chumerah. Personally, given the number of Jews who wouldn't spend the money on a 4 minim set, I like spending the 1/3 exactly, and using any other money I wish to use to fulfill the mitzvah of 4 minim to subsidize someone else's. (Looking at the archives, it seems I've tried marketing this idea most years since 1999.) Of course, there are so many Jews who can't afford yom tov, and I'd like to help with that.... In the end, the calculus of how to triage that money can get SO difficult. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger For those with faith there are no questions. micha at aishdas.org For those who lack faith there are no answers. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yaakov of Radzimin Fax: (270) 514-1507 From basserh at queensu.ca Wed Oct 4 12:21:12 2017 From: basserh at queensu.ca (Herbert Basser) Date: Wed, 4 Oct 2017 19:21:12 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] RE Expensive etrog inter alia Message-ID: There is yerushalmi Peah 1:1 where someone had the ugliest etrog but bragged and showed it to everyone saying it was the most beautiful etrog in the whole world. It took him just a second to purchase it without really checking it for hiddurim-- he didnt waste his valuable resources (time) on petty matters but learned instead--that was its incredible beauty for him. also see shmos rabba 30:9 for hashem's observance of halacha (I have a discussion of the inyan on reseachrgate.net) Hag Sameach! zvi -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From zev at sero.name Sat Oct 7 18:11:15 2017 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Sat, 7 Oct 2017 21:11:15 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] RE Expensive etrog inter alia In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 04/10/17 15:21, Herbert Basser via Avodah wrote: > There is yerushalmi Peah 1:1 where someone had the ugliest etrog but > bragged and showed it to everyone saying it was the most beautiful etrog > in the whole world. It took him just a second to purchase it without > really checking it for hiddurim-- he didnt waste his valuable resources > (time) on petty matters but learned instead--that was its incredible > beauty for him. Where in that halacha is this? I couldn't find it, and also searched the entire perek for the word "etrog" and it doesn't seem to exist (though "lulav" appears twice). -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From hmaryles at mail.yahoo.com Sat Oct 7 23:54:54 2017 From: hmaryles at mail.yahoo.com (Harry Maryles) Date: Sun, 8 Oct 2017 09:54:54 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] going to the amud In-Reply-To: <9d0df5d1c05c43e297d3055f6e617065@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <9d0df5d1c05c43e297d3055f6e617065@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <369A143A-9C11-4243-93D2-7F756A3D147A@yahoo.com> On Oct 8, 2017, at 5:10 AM, Rich, Joel wrote: > I note the following practices at a chareidi shul in RBS which has > multiple minyanim You must be talking about Maasas Mordechai. That is where I've been Davening since I got here just before Yom Kippur. During Chol Hamoed, I will be davening shachris at the Vasiken minyan (6:10am). My son Davens there. If you are at that minyan, come on over and say hello. > At the appointed starting time for each minyan, there > is often not a "volunteer" to lead the services. The amount of time > that it takes to start varies as everyone looks at each other trying to > influence someone to start. If there is a young bar mitzvah boy, he is > often sent for mincha/maariv. > I'm not sure what the community thinking is... To answer your question, I just asked my son about it. He said it's just a practical matter. Most boys are more willing to go to the Amud. All of the married men that are there just shake off the requests to be the Shaliach Tzibur for some reason. HM From ben1456 at zahav.net.il Sun Oct 8 12:40:42 2017 From: ben1456 at zahav.net.il (Ben Waxman) Date: Sun, 08 Oct 2017 21:40:42 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] going to the amud In-Reply-To: <9d0df5d1c05c43e297d3055f6e617065@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <9d0df5d1c05c43e297d3055f6e617065@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <5deb9535-86be-8ea7-4561-242363c8eb92@zahav.net.il> I saw similar practices during Shacharit when I used to go to Sadigora in Jerusalem. However, often the teen would quit right before starting chazarat hashaz. That always got interesting. Ben On 10/8/2017 4:10 AM, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: > I note the following practices at a chareidi shul in RBS which has > multiple minyanim: At the appointed starting time for each minyan, > there is often not a ?volunteer? to lead the services. The amount of > time that it takes to start varies as everyone looks at each other > trying to influence someone to start. If there is a young bar mitzvah > boy, he is often sent for mincha/maariv. > I?m not sure what the community thinking is, perhaps humility to avoid > the amud, but I?m struck by the amount of bittul torah caused and > wonder how this trade-off was decided upon. I also wonder about why > the practice of sending youngsters up developed given the S?A?s psak > concerning the priorities for a chazzan. Thoughts? From micha at aishdas.org Sun Oct 8 15:50:13 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Sun, 8 Oct 2017 18:50:13 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] going to the amud In-Reply-To: <9d0df5d1c05c43e297d3055f6e617065@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <9d0df5d1c05c43e297d3055f6e617065@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20171008225013.GB19523@aishdas.org> On Sun, Oct 08, 2017 at 02:10:14AM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : At the appointed starting time for each minyan, there : is often not a "volunteer" to lead the services. The amount of time : that it takes to start varies as everyone looks at each other trying : to influence someone to start. If there is a young bar mitzvah boy, : he is often sent for mincha/maariv. Going backwards (who ever said I am a chakham bound to answer al rishon rishon?)... The kid is not as likely to declien the gabbai, because an adult carries more authority in the kid's eyes. Besides, it's good practice. As for the adults declining... Two possiblities, and I would bet that in most cases, they both come into play. 1- The more positive issue is that there is actually a din to decline the amud, accepting only on the third request. I have no idea how this was expected to be implemented in a minyan where people are expected to know the din. A rachmanus on the gabbaim! Still, we see an ethic of tzenius, and halevai people internalize it! 2- The following is Ashkenazocentric. The way we teach davening, it's really a personal affair. A person is encouraged to go as slowly as he needs, having his own kavvanos. The notion of tefillah betzibbur is layered on top of that, but not in a way that explains what that means about how I daven. That means that being shatz becomes a tircha, a call to say the words in a manner that robs me of any chance of getting value out of tefillah in the ways I was taught how. So of course men (who aren't cowed by being asked by a grown-up) choose to decline! Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger You will never "find" time for anything. micha at aishdas.org If you want time, you must make it. http://www.aishdas.org - Charles Buxton Fax: (270) 514-1507 From JRich at sibson.com Sat Oct 7 19:10:14 2017 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Sun, 8 Oct 2017 02:10:14 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] going to the amud Message-ID: <9d0df5d1c05c43e297d3055f6e617065@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> I note the following practices at a chareidi shul in RBS which has multiple minyanim: At the appointed starting time for each minyan, there is often not a "volunteer" to lead the services. The amount of time that it takes to start varies as everyone looks at each other trying to influence someone to start. If there is a young bar mitzvah boy, he is often sent for mincha/maariv. I'm not sure what the community thinking is, perhaps humility to avoid the amud, but I'm struck by the amount of bittul torah caused and wonder how this trade-off was decided upon. I also wonder about why the practice of sending youngsters up developed given the S"A's psak concerning the priorities for a chazzan. Thoughts? GT 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: From zev at sero.name Sat Oct 7 20:42:36 2017 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Sat, 7 Oct 2017 23:42:36 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] going to the amud In-Reply-To: <9d0df5d1c05c43e297d3055f6e617065@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <9d0df5d1c05c43e297d3055f6e617065@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: On 07/10/17 22:10, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: > I note the following practices at a chareidi shul in RBS which has > multiple minyanim: At the appointed starting time for each minyan, there > is often not a ?volunteer? to lead the services. [...] Thoughts? My first thought is to be happy that this shul doesn't have enough avelim to make the issue moot. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From basserh at queensu.ca Sun Oct 8 15:32:52 2017 From: basserh at queensu.ca (Herbert Basser) Date: Sun, 8 Oct 2017 22:32:52 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] RE Expensive etrog inter alia In-Reply-To: References: , Message-ID: You're right-- I thought it was y peah. But obviously not. A number of years ago I tired to discover when the first mention of looking at many esrogim was. I remember looking at the yerushalmi and its commentaries and thought it was there --obviously not. Now I have no idea-- ________________________________ : Zev Sero on behalf of Zev Sero Sent: October 7, 2017 9:11 PM To: The Avodah Torah Discussion Group Cc: Herbert Basser Subject: Re: [Avodah] RE Expensive etrog inter alia On 04/10/17 15:21, Herbert Basser via Avodah wrote: > There is yerushalmi Peah 1:1 where someone had the ugliest etrog but > bragged and showed it to everyone saying it was the most beautiful etrog > in the whole world. It took him just a second to purchase it without > really checking it for hiddurim-- he didnt waste his valuable resources > (time) on petty matters but learned instead--that was its incredible > beauty for him. Where in that halacha is this? I couldn't find it, and also searched the entire perek for the word "etrog" and it doesn't seem to exist (though "lulav" appears twice). -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Mon Oct 9 14:45:50 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2017 17:45:50 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Critique of the OU paper on leadership/ordination for women In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20171009214550.GA4315@aishdas.org> On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 03:17:36PM -0500, Noam Stadlan via Avodah wrote: : JOFA has published my critique of the paper comissioned by the OU on the : topic of leadership/ordination for women.... Speaking of the full essay . Your article has proven to be a slow read for me. I keep on being pulled into "polemic mode" (apologies for talking like a programmer, but...) and when I do, I stop, put it down, and wait until I could give it a fairer read, to actually hear what you're trying to say rather than just listening for points to refute. Here are my first set of reactions. Of course, they're all points of disagreement; trying to take the time to understand what you were writing before objecting doesn't mean I stopped objecting. 1- You open with Earlier this year, 7 highly respected rabbis authored a position paper on the ordination of women and on the possibility of women serving as clergy. [1] Individually and collectively, they represent great learning, personal piety, and years of leadership. It would seem presumptuous for someone who will never achieve anything near their learning or stature to comment or critique. However, no one person or group has a monopoly on facts and logic. And, as will be demonstrated, Torah learning sometimes is not the sole or even dominant factor in a person's opinion on these issues. There appears to be an underlyuing assumption that halachic arguments, even meta-halachic ones, are entirely formal, rather than containing a strong element of ineffible art. (See #2, below) If halakhah deals with determinations like that of which poetic forms "sound right" then their "great learning, personal piety, and years of leadership" provide experience at the art of pesaq that your response simply lacks. The gemara requires shimush before one attempts to pasqen. A poseiq needs not only the abstract facts and logic, but also the skill he can only pick up with experience. Recently, my Arukh haShulachan Yomi schedule brought me to EhE 145:6. The topic is whether a shechiv-meira who gives a gett "meihayom im meisi" made the gett as-of the moment of giving, a colloquial use of "today", or if we cannot assume the gett is chal before the end of the day (R' Tam in Tosafos 72b). R' Elchanan (Tos' ad loc) says "nachon lehachmir". The AhS's assessment of the "facts and logic" leads him to conclude "vehagam chumerah yeseirah hi". And yet he continues to close the se'if with "mikol maqom chalalilah lehaqeil bedavar sheR' Tam nistapeiq bo". RYME knew that a decision of a more skilled artisan is too likely correct even in the face of his own reasoning. And there are other factors that go into halachic decisions other than the merits of the argument -- both those we can articulate and those someone could only feel by practice. Things like acharei rabim lehatos. I am not saying defer to the OU's panel because they outnumber you. I am just pointing out that logical argument isn't the only source of legal authority. Another, more relevant, is nispasheit bechol yisrael (see #8, below). The notion that your paper is of value beyond lehalakhah velo lemaaseh is an example of the American valuation of autonomy that can itself be at odds with ancient AND mesoretic values. (See #7, about not framing the discussion in terms of rights or privileges.) 2- You offer your own translation of Mesorah, which is only valid if you can show that's how the authors of the paper intended the term. >From your pg 4: > We can broadly define it as the content of our tradition that is > passed from one generation to another. That tradition contains Mitzvot > and opinion on the value of Mitzvot. Frequently a situation occurs > where one must choose between emphasizing one mitzvah or a different > mitzvah. Our Mesorah therefore contains not only the Mitzvot, but also > attitudes or values that help us choose between Mitzvot when they come > into conflict. One could cogently argue that the values are in fact > Mitzvot in and of themselves, but for the purpose of this discussion that > is a distinction without a difference. Ultimately what this analysis > is concerned with is how, within the confines of our legal tradition, > are values embraced or shunted to the side. However, RYBS and RHS both use the term mesorah to refer to the ineffible side of the art of pesaq. I argue this with examples at http://www.torahmusings.com/2015/08/what-does-masorah-mean I therefore think it is likely the sense intended by the entire OU Panel. Or at the very least (not that I want to fully concede this, but have to admit it's plausible) heavily colored by this notion. Skipping the somwhat longer quote from RYBS, here are quotes I had found from RHS, one of the panel members: Jewish Action, Fall 1910: Mesorah is not primarily a corpus of knowledge to master but a process of accessing a chain of student-teacher relationships that reaches back to Sinai. Moshe received the Torah and transmitted it to his student, Yehoshua, who in turn taught it to his students and so on, continuing through today. The nature of transmission of the mesorah is instruction from a rebbe to his student. We connect to the mesorah, to the sacred structure of laws, beliefs and attitudes, through our teachers. And a bit further in the article, "Who Is Authorized to Institute Change?": Changes in practice require delicate evaluations that only a master Torah scholar, a gadol baTorah, can properly conduct. Only someone with a broad knowledge and a deep understanding of the corpus of halachah, with an intimate familiarity with both the letter and the spirit of the law, with a mastery of both the rules and the attitudes of the mesorah, can determine when a change is acceptable or even required. The more wide-reaching the proposed change, the greater the expertise required to approve it. The evaluator must not only be a master of the mesorah, but he must also be able to consider new practices based solely on values internal to the mesorah, removing external influences from the deliberation. Rav Schachter then applies this topic to feminism itself in a teshuvah: Indeed, the Rav would often say (see drasha to Parshas Korach), that every person must recognize that he needs a Rav or a Rebbe. Even a Talmid Chochom whose Rebbe had passed away must constantly ask himself in truth (when they present questions to him) what his Rebbe would have said in such a scase, and what stance he would have taken.... Still, most of your examples of how change was permitted despite mesorah would be valid even if you were discussing the same topic I believe the authors to whom you're responding are. I think, though, your response would have been stronger if it reflected our discussions both my Torah Musings post and here. 3- But you shift criteria for legitimate change in moral value. Page 2: This paper will illustrate that 'modern values' are intrinsically neither 2 good nor bad, and that our Mesorah has always incorporated 'modern values' that found resonance in the Mesorah. Furthermore, according to great and highly respected Modern Orthodox authorities, a hallmark of Modern Orthodoxy is the willingness to acknowledge some 'modern values' as previously under-recognized religious values. I think you're again arguing against a point the OU paper isn't making. They aren't saying there is a problem with appropriating 'modern values' in-and-of itself, but that there is a problem with changing halakhah to fit 'modern values' simply because they are the values living in the modern world means being immersed in. What happened to checking for that "resonance in the Mesorah"? This being another phrasing of my origin objection here on Avodah from the days of the initial announcement of Yeshivat Maharat. I do not see discussion of how we know that this is a change the values of the Torah would imply are positive. Regardless of the outcome of that discussion, can the change be legitimate without that procedural step? Anyway, you tone down the need for resonance when you open the door to assessing for yourself which values count. From the closing paragraph of section I, on mesorah, pg 13: ... The major issue is distinguishing between timeless values and ancient values. As has been demonstrated, our Mesorah over time, consciously or unconsciously, has addressed the perceived conflict between ancient values and modern values. Certainly there are modern values that have been appropriately rejected. Frequently however, ancient values have been rejected or perhaps more accurately assigned a reduced role of importance. And the modern values have been the impetus for the re-evaluation. At this point, I fear, the hunt for resonance goes out the window. IIUC, you are making the case that resonance need only be between actual Torah values, and not all ancient values actually qualify. This is actually more problematic given your definition of Mesorah than the one I think the OU's authors intended. After all, if mesorah is a mimetic transmisison of values, than any ancient value is mesoretic. But the problem I have with this statement is that it reads like you're saying that (1) we need to assess which Torah values are real, and therefore which do not bow to movern values; and (2) we use said modern values to drive that assessment. That can't be your intent. Please clarify. Continuing the paragraph from where I left off: As discussed in the Part II, the Halakhic arguments, taken at face value, are in favor of ordination for women. The values of eliminating unnecessary restrictions, encouraging full expression of potential to serve the community, fairness, and others also point towards ordination. There are specific Halakhic restrictions in place governing the behavior of men and women. The question that needs to be answered is: What timeless principles (or values) are served by imposing restrictions on women that are not justified by a fair reading of the Halacha and the sources? Are they truly Timeless and justifiably dominant in our Mesorah, or just ancient? ... If I were to use halakhah to make that determination, I would ask whether those "specific Halakhic restrictions" that were historically / traditionally explained in terms of those ancient values can be otherwise explained. Since they do appear to be of the same cloth, this is a sizable burden of proof on your part. This is the challenge in the OU paper you quote on pg 29: Gender differences have, historically, been particularly evident in the arena of public service. We believe that these distinctions are not merely a relic of times bygone; instead, they reflect a Torah ethos -- a /Mesorah/ -- of different avenues and emphases by which men and women are to achieve identical goals -- the service of G-d and the perpetuation of the Jewish people. 4- You cite and dismiss "nashim daatan kalos", but do not note that it's part of a richer picture of gender differences alongside "binah yeseirah nitenah lahen". 5- You quote RAL at the bottom of pg 8, an essay about using English Literary sources to enhance and color values that we cannot find in our own tradition: Nor should we be deterred by the illusion that we can find everything we need within our own tradition. As Arnold insisted, one must seek "the best that has been thought and said in the world," and if, in many areas, much of that best is of foreign origin, we should expand our horizons rather than exclude it. He is talking about broadening the search in the case of silence; that we can learn more from TIDE than Torah alone. A discussion of what to do when we can't "find everything we need within in our Tradition" has nothing to to with real or apparent conflicts when we do find an answer -- ancient or traditional -- before looking elsewhere. 6- You wuote R/Dr Shalom Carmy, describing R Eliezer Berkovitz, that his moral ends derive from internal Jewish sources.dissatisfaction with mainstream Halakhah regarding women is rooted, not in the pressures of contemporary egalitarianism, but in his judgment about biblical conceptions of justice, While that may well be true of REB, it has to be actually be shown that the same is true of Torah observant Jews who join an organization with the word "feminism" in its name. You write: The authors of the paper in fact state something quite egalitarian: The Torah affirms the absolute equal value of men and women as individuals and as ovdei Hashem. This is not the view of the Talmud. The Mishnah (Horiyot 13:1) states: "A man takes precedence over a woman, in matters concerning the saving of life... a Cohen takes precedence over a Levi...." Clearly the lives are not of equal value in the eyes of the Talmud. Arguments about the validity of what you think the misnhah is "clearly" saying aside... You are treating equality of value as synonymous with egalitarianism. The people you are responding to do not. They view is as more akin to the implication of JOFA's talking about "feminism" -- seeking value in the same sorts of roles and activities. A square can be equal in area to a triangle without insisting the square and the triangle are congruent. 7- "Usena es harabbanus". Leadership isn't about my "desire for maximal participation within Halacha", as you put it in a sentence shortly before the previous quote (pg 10). It's about my duties toward the community. Your entire phrasing of the discussion in terms of right or privileges, people getting an opportunity, depriving of that opportunity being unjust (as you present REB's position), is itself a HUGE drift from how halakhah even discusses values; never mind the content of that discussion. Self-expression is like the tassles emerging from the windings of the tzitzis. (RSRH's metaphor in CW vol 3.) It is how we express ourselves within the framework of Torah; but not the windings themselves. What makes me a fan of Bach's music is his ability to conform to the strict structural rules of the music of his era. And yet he still produced pieces that could express sublime religious passion or Majesty. (Until Beethoven invented Conservative Judaism. ) Halakhah's role is to channel such expression constructively -- like the windings of the tzitzis. As RSRH continues, there is a reason why the free part of the tassle is ideally twice was long as the wound portion; this metaphor isn't against expression. The second you frame halakhah in terms of every getting their fair opportunity, I hear an evaluation based on a framework very alien to an internally resonant analysis. 9- Somewhat more tangentially, but it's the first case of something I might raise other examples of in a future email. (Assuming I ever want to go retail rather than stick to meta-issues.) On pg 3, fn 3: There are other stated facts in the OU paper that require discussion but are beyond the scope of this paper. For example, one of the points emphasized in the OU paper is the issue of women as ritual slaughterers (shochtim). Some authorities such as R. Jacob Landau and R. Moshe Isserles wrote that since women did not do it, there was a custom for women not to do so. But that was factually erroneous. "Female ritual slaughterers were to be found in most of the Jewish Diasporas... In Renaissance Italy, the phenomenon of shohatot was very common. Another source also documents that female shochtim were found in areas of Italy where they adequately educated. See Grossman, Avraham... I am willing to agree with the conclusion that the Agur and the Rama were wrong on the historical facts, and simply didn't know what was going on in other parts of the golah. Still... You don't touch the point the OU paper cites it for -- that the Rama, a halachic source we cannot simply ignore -- is one of a number of sources that WERE willing to suggest that a practice being absent from the mesorah can mean there is a mesorah that it ought to be absent. That statement bothers me too. But because you dismissed the quote based on a tangent, you don't address the central problem it raises! Perhaps there'll be more after I really read section II onward. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "I think, therefore I am." - Renne Descartes micha at aishdas.org "I am thought about, therefore I am - http://www.aishdas.org my existence depends upon the thought of a Fax: (270) 514-1507 Supreme Being Who thinks me." - R' SR Hirsch From akivagmiller at gmail.com Mon Oct 9 09:44:27 2017 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2017 12:44:27 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Eruv Tavshilin - who makes it? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: My wife and I have recently discovered that among our friends, it is invariably the husband who makes the Eruv Tavshilin. This surprises us, and we are wondering what other families do, and if there are any sources for one preference or the other. Essentially, the Eruv Tavshilin means that in this particular instance, the Shabbos cooking cannot wait for Friday, but must be done on Erev Yom Tov too. With such an intimate connection to the Shabbos cooking, it was intuitively obvious to both my wife and myself that this is NOT similar to other mitzvos (mezuza is a good example) which might be done by the husband for gender-role reasons. Rather, it is the beginning of the cooking, and should therefore be done by whoever does the cooking. In our family, that's the wife. Eruv Tavshilin was not assigned to each and every individual, like kiddush was. It is a reminder. Granted that the rishonim have varying explanations of this mitzvah, but it seems that to all of these explanations, the object of this reminding is the person who does the cooking. So my question to the chevra is: In your family, who makes the eruv, and why? And do any sources discuss this? Note: I admit there's a certain weakness in everything that I've written above. Namely, the idea that one can rely on the Eruv Tavshilin that was made by the rav of the town. Let's set aside the fact that this is not the best way of doing the eruv, and that various conditions are imposed on one who wants to rely on it. Let's focus on the fact that it is valid *at* *all*. How does the eruv made by someone outside of my home help me? What sort of *reminder* does his eruv provide? I have never understood this, nor have I heard any explanation of it, only assertions that it does work. Any help in this area would be appreciated. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From michaelpoppers at gmail.com Mon Oct 9 18:59:58 2017 From: michaelpoppers at gmail.com (Michael Poppers) Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2017 21:59:58 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] going to the amud Message-ID: In Avodah V35n119, RJR wrote: > I also wonder about why the practice of sending youngsters up developed given the S?A?s psak concerning the priorities for a chazzan. < (RJR made other points that listmembers have responded to; I thought this point, for which the latest digest listed no response, was worthy of a response.) In many *shuls*, much less *minyanim*, so perhaps in the noted "chareidi shul in RBS", those "priorities" (married, beard, age, etc.) are seemingly (except for the Yamim Noraim) secondary to the hierarchy of "*chiyuvim*"...but one "priority", being "*m'rutzah laqahal*", might be upheld when appointing/allowing a young adult to lead the *tzibbur*.... *Gut Moeid*/*Mo'adim l'Simcha!* and all the best from *Michael Poppers* * Elizabeth, NJ, USA -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From akivagmiller at gmail.com Tue Oct 10 03:47:36 2017 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2017 06:47:36 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Eruv Tavshilin - who makes it? Message-ID: . I asked how one could ever rely on the Rav's eruv: > How does the eruv made by someone outside of my home > help me? What sort of *reminder* does his eruv provide? R' Zev Sero answered: > ... that it's wrong to rely entirely on leftovers, and one > must prepare at least one thing just for Shabbos. According > to this explanation, the fact that one must ask the rabbi > (or the neighbor, or whomever) before relying on their eruv > accomplishes the same thing. One has provided for Shabbos, > not by cooking but by arranging an invitation to eat out. I don't follow this logic at all. One who relies on this did NOT "prepare at least one thing just for Shabbos." If you respond that the one thing he prepared was "arranging an invitation to eat out", I will say that he did NOT arrange such an invitation; he is merely aware that the rabbi/neighbor had him in mind. You write about "the fact that one must ask the rabbi", but I never saw such a halacha. One does not need to do any sort of action at all, not even speaking. All one needs is to be aware that the rabbi/neighbor had him in mind. So what is being accomplished? > The second explanation is that originally there was no ha'arama; > it was permitted to openly cook on Yomtov for Shabbos. Chazal > legislated that one must save Yomtov's face by pretending to be > cooking for that day. According to this explanation it's very > simple; the important thing is not the eruv itself, but the need > for the ha'arama. The eruv's function is merely to give the > ha'arama some surface plausibility. So it makes no difference > whose eruv one uses; the fact that one is pretending not to be > cooking for Shabbos *is* the kevod Yomtov that Chazal required. > The enabling notion that on Shabbos one will be eating the rabbi's > eruv is only barely less plausible than the one that one will be > subsisting on ones own eruv. Focusing on the last sentence here, we agree that relying on the rabbi's eruv is indeed less plausible than one's own. I think our disagreement is that you feel it has a sufficient shiur of plausibility, and I don't. Alternatively, you feel that relying on the rabbi constitutes "pretending to be cooking for that day", but I think it doesn't even constitute "pretending". And this is especially true in the case where one genuinely forgot to make the eruv, and remembered on Yom Tov; surely you'll agree with me that this person did absolutely *nothing* before Yom Tov as a Shabbos preparation, right? Not even to ask the rabbi to have him in mind! Akiva Miller From micha at aishdas.org Tue Oct 10 06:18:05 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2017 09:18:05 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Eruv Tavshilin - who makes it? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20171010131805.GA8572@aishdas.org> On Tue, Oct 10, 2017 at 06:47:36AM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : You write about "the fact that one must ask the rabbi", but I never : saw such a halacha. One does not need to do any sort of action at all, : not even speaking. All one needs is to be aware that the : rabbi/neighbor had him in mind. So what is being accomplished? Beqitzur: "be aware" is sufficient for heker. Can't we ask the same thing of a neighborhood eiruv? How many people think about the eruv every week? The Rambam (Shevisas YT 6:2) seems to me to be the reason for calling eiruv tavshilin an "eiruv" is merely by comparison to eruv chatzeiros. Both are hekerim: There (ECh), so that people would thing that carrying from reshus to reshus is mutar on shabbos. Here (ET), that it is okay to cook on YT even if it's not for YT. Awareness that the rabbi (or whomever) had me in mind means I am thinking about eiruvin and there is a recognition (heker) that there is an issur. It seems the Rambam holds like R' Ashi (that ET is to reinforce melakhah on YT) over Rava (it's to reinforce Shabbos prep). But even according to Rava, that moment of awareness of the rabbi's eruv is sypposed to reserve as a reminder to make something nice for se'udos Shabbos. I would agree with Zev that the plausibility requirement is quite low, as all we're doing is a mnemonic. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger None of us will leave this place alive. micha at aishdas.org All that is left to us is http://www.aishdas.org to be as human as possible while we are here. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Anonymous MD, while a Nazi prisoner From noamstadlan at gmail.com Mon Oct 9 18:26:41 2017 From: noamstadlan at gmail.com (Noam Stadlan) Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2017 20:26:41 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] OU paper Message-ID: R. Micha- thank you for taking the time to read the paper. Having read your list of criticisms, I think that in your search for reasons to oppose, you missed many of the points completely. Poskim are certainly entitled to their opinions. They are not entitled to their own facts. If their logic doesn't hold up, it is reasonable to call them on the lack of logic. Which is why the paper is NOT about my opinions versus the OU 7, but about the lack of facts and logic. Furthermore, I illustrated that what poskim hold regarding these issues isn't always or exclusively a result of all their learning and shimmush. It is a demonstrable fact that many attitudes reflect what they grew up with and were indoctrinated with early on, not the list of influences that they write about. You dismiss my quote regarding REB, and claim that it is my responsibility to prove what the motives are or aren't. This is ridiculous. The OU authors did not talk to any of the principles involved. Since when is it acceptable for any responsible posek or beit din to make important judgments without making absolutely sure regarding the facts? Especially when they are making a significant deal about motivation and it would have been a very simple matter of making a phone call or two. Isn't that a basic obligation of a posek? And then to claim that it is my responsibility to prove that they were wrong? And, by the way, since I personally know many of the people involved, I have a much greater familiarity with what people involved think. I suggest that if you think that an organization with 'feminism' in its name is inherently problematic, we may be starting from basic assumptions far to wide apart to see any common ground. The OU paper wrote about Mesorah versus modern values. I was just using their words and addressing the role of modern values in how Halacha and values have changed. The fact that they define Mesorah a bit differently doesn't change the issue nor change the fact that modern values have always been incorporated into the Halakhah and Halakhic values(in case you dont want to use the word Mesorah). And to counter your point, some of the ancient values have gone out the window, whether you want to call them mesoretic or not. I didn't have time to get into all the particulars of the halachic aspects of the Rama and shechittah, R. Brody and Broyde address and dismiss the argument in their paper(I am pretty sure that is in a footnote somewhere). I thought it was adequate to illustrate that he was factually wrong. I could go on and on but I sense that in the end it will not matter. I would have to go through each and every line of your critique and point out where your assumptions are wrong. For example "JOFA....seeking value in the same sorts of roles and activities". NO, that is not what JOFA is about. It is about not creating Halachic boundaries when there shouldn't be any, and the women can decide what roles and activities they can and should assume(within Halacha of course, just like the men). And what is wrong with anyone finding value in learning Torah, teaching Torah, helping people celebrate s'machot, organizing davening, etc? women should not find value in that???? Thank you again for taking the time to read the paper. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From zev at sero.name Mon Oct 9 21:49:31 2017 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2017 00:49:31 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Eruv Tavshilin - who makes it? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <928305ea-1e57-b3bd-da9c-b3acb1281e04@sero.name> On 09/10/17 12:44, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > Note: I admit there's a certain weakness in everything that I've written > above. Namely, the idea that one can rely on the Eruv Tavshilin that was > made by the rav of the town. Let's set aside the fact that this is not > the best way of doing the eruv, and that various conditions are imposed > on one who wants to rely on it. Let's focus on the fact that it is valid > *at* *all*. How does the eruv made by someone outside of my home help > me? What sort of *reminder* does his eruv provide? I have never > understood this, nor have I heard any explanation of it, only assertions > that it does work. Any help in this area would be appreciated. IIRC the gemara offers two explanations for ET. Either it was made lichvod Shabbos or lichvod Yomtov. The first explanation is that cooking on Yomtov for Shabbos was always done by pretending to be cooking for a late Friday meal, but Chazal felt about the Shabbos after Yomtov the way many nowadays do about the Shabbos after Thanksgiving: that it's wrong to rely entirely on leftovers, and one must prepare at least one thing just for Shabbos. According to this explanation, the fact that one must ask the rabbi (or the neighbor, or whomever) before relying on their eruv accomplishes the same thing. One has provided for Shabbos, not by cooking but by arranging an invitation to eat out. The second explanation is that originally there was no ha`arama; it was permitted to openly cook on Yomtov for Shabbos. Chazal legislated that one must save Yomtov's face by pretending to be cooking for that day. According to this explanation it's very simple; the important thing is not the eruv itself, but the need for the ha`arama. The eruv's function is merely to give the ha`arama some surface plausibility. So it makes no difference whose eruv one uses; the fact that one is pretending not to be cooking for Shabbos *is* the kevod Yomtov that Chazal required. The enabling notion that on Shabbos one will be eating the rabbi's eruv is only barely less plausible than the one that one will be subsisting on ones own eruv. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From micha at aishdas.org Tue Oct 10 13:25:47 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2017 16:25:47 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] OU paper In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20171010202547.GC6565@aishdas.org> Take 2. I didn't like what I read in the Avodah queue, so I rejected my first version and elaborated. On Tue, Oct 10, 2017 at 10:53:24AM -0500, Noam Stadlan via Avodah wrote: :> 1- Feminism assumes egalitarianism, not only equality, as it assumes that :> roles historically closed to women as "men's roles" should be open to all. :> Equality only assumes that everyone should be eligible for roles of equal :> value. (For some measure of value.) : This is starting off on the wrong foot. I dont claim to speak for all : Orthodox Feminists. But the first question to be asked is why is a role : 'historically closed to women?' ... I see this as an equally valid question, but who is to say which ought to be asked first? REBerkowitz rightly deprecates the modification of halakhah out of concern for external values. He dismisses the role of the "pressures of contemporary egalitarianism." (As RSC put it.) This puts REB in a different place than people who unite under the word "feminism" are indeed advocating halachic change. What he denies being a valid motive JOFA is putting in their organizational name. : It is very reasonable, just like in : the cases of the chereish, slavery etc, to investigate why it is : 'historically closed." ... Which you fail to actually do. You rebut your understanding of some arguments for why the clsure is grounded in mesorah. After all, this is a rebuttal paper. The one mention of an alternative motive for change, rather than a lack of motive for status quo, is one that is inconsistent with feminism, as above. : litany of reasons as to why women were forbidden to do things and he : himself agreed that those reasons have gone by the wayside. If you want to : say that something is historically closed, and therefore it is assur- : fine. Now you dont need an Halachic reasons, because historically closed : is the final word.... Strawman. I am not asserting that we have to hold like the Rama that being historically closed means the option is halachically closed; identifying history with mesorah, and thus absence of tradition with tradition of absence. I would say, though, that if you want to buck the Rama, you have to make an argument for doing so, and not just dismiss his rule because he applied it to a misunderstood case. : everyone seems to be giving Halachicly justification, both pro and con, : then it means that historically closed is open for discussion, and it is on : the plane of halacha, not history. So the bottom line is that if there is : Halachic justification for particular gender roles- of course that trumps : everything. But it also means that stating something is historically assur : is not the end of the story. history is not Halacha. That is what I : illustrated in part one. Because you could also make the same argument : that the chereish shouldn't have an aliyyah... Yes, I agreed with your formulation of the problem in terms of resonant values, and at times a contemporary value can highlight the neglect of a Torah one. But you don't follow through with it. Instead you end up altogether rejecting the say of mesoretic values to decide which halachic innovations are proper. I would add that at times a contemporary value can change expectations, and thus change the morality of an act. After all, it may be okay to do something to someone when they expect it, but not if it violates assumptions behind things they committed to. I could see making that argument WRT monogyny and the validity of cheirem deR Gershom. Mental images of what marriage should be changed, and so it's only moral to satisfy the resulting emotional need rather than some older definition of marriage. As long as the definition itself isn't inferior. To take that poorly explained idea and possibly be clearer by making it less general and more about our case: Perhaps one could form the argument that while it was moral for women not to be eligable for the rabbinate in the past because it was less likely for the option to cross their minds. Such a practice would cause fewer feelings of deprevation. But now that women can become CEO, such a position does mesoretically-wrongly create feelings of deprivation. And so societal change causes a change in application of values; just as it can an application of law. This is pretty close to an argument you do indeed make. Just (as below), I don't think having a role is a right, because I do not believe religious roles are as much opportunities as they are duties. Unlike secular roles, which could be either, depending on how the society in question chooses to frame them. Your neglect of the "how", which changes are valid and which not, reminds me of the argument of non-O rabbis who point to pruzbul and heter isqa as justifications for their radical changes. It's not the same thing by a lng shot. But half-way through you make the same error of considering proof that there are valid kinds of change as proof that the topic in question provides no barriers to change altogether. As you say in this same paragraph (!): : Any role that is historically : closed to any group that isn't Halachically assur is open for discussion as : to what the Halacha actually mandates and why exactly it was closed in the : first place.... So, it's black-letter law closure, or the change is allowed? No "resonance of values" needed after all? And the problem with demanding "resonance of values" is that it takes the autonomy out of it for most of us. Because by enlarging the problem beyond black letter halakhah we guarantee there is a non-formal aspect to the answer, one that is for the practiced artist rather than any bright researcher. And the notion that one is validating a value system that then sets the person up for a very hard collision with the actual not-so-glass ceiling black-letter halakhah defines is very related to this. The mere existence of such a ceiling implies the likelihood of non-resonant values. The concept of asei lekha rav, having a poseiq, moves us away from autonomy in our behavioral decisions, and forces a heteronomy of a manner that too violates contemporary values. :> 2- Feminism assumes Locke's language of rights and priviledge. Why should :> someone *be deprived* of the opportunity to be an .... -- in our case, to :> serve as rabbi? But halachic values aren't framed in these terms... : Being a rabbi is fulfilling the mitzvah of service to the community, talmud : torah etc. Whether it is a burden or an opportunity, it is a mitzvah and : a choice of profession and communal service... But asking about opportunity and opening doors is inherently asking different value questions than the mesoretic ones. It's not just ancient that we frame our moral choices in terms of duty to others and the Other, it's mesoretic. : Furthermore, the OU paper went way beyond opposing rabbis. they forbid a : woman from officiating at a baby naming or other things. that too is a : burden that women should be forbidden from shouldering? This misses my point. When I spoke of rights vs duties I am talking about the entire framing of questions of values, not this specific decision. If the rabbinate, baby naming or whatever is a duty rather than a right, the whole question of "limiting their options unneccessarily" goes off the table. It's not about the right to choose a boon. Your whole question is framed non-traditionally. Looking at feminism as a goal is an inherently un-mesoretic way of framing the question. Rather, the nearest mesoretic equivalent would be to ask whether men have a duty that can only be discharged by sharing the pulpit, "officiating at a baby naming of other things". Feminism doesn't enter the mesoretic discussion because there is no door to be opened or closed, there is no region of personal-expression space to discuss whether someone is given too much or too little. The Torah is a beris, not a bill of rights. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When one truly looks at everyone's good side, micha at aishdas.org others come to love him very naturally, and http://www.aishdas.org he does not need even a speck of flattery. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rabbi AY Kook From micha at aishdas.org Tue Oct 10 14:04:28 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2017 17:04:28 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Oseh Hashalom In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20171010210428.GC21284@aishdas.org> On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 10:34:34PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : I went looking at the siddurim that were common in the shuls that I : grew up in, and I noticed an interesting pattern: Every single one : gave Oseh Hashalom as the closing bracha at the end of the Amidah; not : even one suggested saying Hamevarech like the rest of the year. : Further, every single one used the words Oseh Shalom at the ends of : Kaddish and Elokai N'tzor; not even one suggested saying Oseh Hashalom : during the Aseres Yemei Teshuva. ... : My questions are these: If you're old enough to remember davening : Ashkenaz in the 1970s or before, do you remember what was said during : Aseres Yemei Teshuva? And do you know of any siddur from that era : which included the newfangled text? I know my father was saying "hamvarekh" at this time. However, our minhagim are a hodge-podge of practices from those retained from the Ottoman Empire before my ancestor's arrival in Litta, mainline Litvish, R/Dr Mirsky's idiosyncricies (my grandfather came to America as a teen, and so the rav who met him at Ellis Island was became rav of his shul determined much of what he did), and what my father picked up Tues nights (and from YU alumni friends) from RYBS. I did some restoration of pre-American Biergehr minhag based on R Dovid Lifshitz's memories of what it was. AND that brings me to a theory... Minhagim that Chabad, Talmidei haGra and Sepharadim have in common are bound to become Minhag EY. And Minhag EY is bound to be known globally, at least by the 1970s. Maybe this is just a thing that universalized faster. Anecodtally, I notice fewer and fewer people wearing tefillin on ch"m each year. Although Passaic, a neighborhood with some 40% BT rate, is going to have weaker ties to minhag than ones in which more people have childhood memories of what dad does. I also noticed more an more shuls moving Shir shel Yom and Hoshanos from the end of mussaf to before leining. One thing all three of the communities that dominated the Yishuv haYashan had in common was an attachment to Qabbalah. We may be seeing more and more Tzefat-originating practices coming to the fore in the comming years as a new Minhag EY (and ch"v if galus lasts long enough Minhag America) emerges. Much to R' Ovadiah's poshumous dismay, I would presume. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "I hear, then I forget; I see, then I remember; micha at aishdas.org I do, then I understand." - Confucius http://www.aishdas.org "Hearing doesn't compare to seeing." - Mechilta Fax: (270) 514-1507 "We will do and we will listen." - Israelites From micha at aishdas.org Tue Oct 10 08:18:49 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2017 11:18:49 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] OU paper In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20171010151849.GB32729@aishdas.org> On Mon, Oct 09, 2017 at 08:26:41PM -0500, Noam Stadlan via Avodah wrote: : R. Micha- thank you for taking the time to read the paper. Having read : your list of criticisms, I think that in your search for reasons to oppose, : you missed many of the points completely... As I wrote, the reply was delayed by my attempt to put down the paper every time I thought I was reading solely for the sake of finding points to oppose. "Fisking", as it's called. Admittedly, I could still have failed. : Poskim are certainly entitled to : their opinions. They are not entitled to their own facts. Which is why I didn't dispute claims of fact, such as whether women were shochetim in Italy. I did dispute your use of a fact turning that Rama's point into a hypothetical to deny his whole "[if] we [hadn't] ever seen women as shochetim, we have a mesorah that woman aren't to serve as shochetim". Yes, his given is false, but we do see the implication statement in the Agur and the Rama. So, how do you dismiss applying the parallel syllogism here -- since we do not have a history of women rabbis, wouldn't the Rama's methodology mean that there is a mesorah not to ordain women? At least -- doesn't this topic need addressing, rather than writing that one can ignore the whole flow of logic because the antecedent is false? : Furthermore, I illustrated that what poskim hold : regarding these issues isn't always or exclusively a result of all their : learning and shimmush. It is a demonstrable fact that many attitudes : reflect what they grew up with and were indoctrinated with early on, not : the list of influences that they write about. But you gave up on the question of which new values pass the resonance test mention early in the paperr and which do not. My argument is that : You dismiss my quote regarding REB, and claim that it is my responsibility : to prove what the motives are or aren't. I dismiss the quote as necessarily applying to anyone but REB. It is not like he's the communal leader or primary poseiq of the people in question. In particular because of the word "feminism" in JOFA's name. To which you replied: : I suggest that if you think that an organization with 'feminism' in its : name is inherently problematic, we may be starting from basic assumptions : far to wide apart to see any common ground. RCS summarized REB's position (on your pg 10), as being of "moral ends derive from internal Jewish sources.... dissatisfaction with mainstream Halakhah regarding women is rooted, not in the pressures of contemporary egalitarianism, in his judgment about biblical conceptions of justice." (ellision yours) But JOFA's name is taken from "contemporary egalitarianism". I am not saying it's inherently problematic. I am saying it creates the likelihood of a gap between REB's position and JOFA's attitude, one that then creates a burden of proof you didn't take up. In short I am saying that: 1- Feminism assumes egalitarianism, not only equality, as it assumes that roles historically closed to women as "men's roles" should be open to all. Equality only assumes that everyone should be eligible for roles of equal value. (For some measure of value.) 2- Feminism assumes Locke's language of rights and priviledge. Why should someone *be deprived* of the opportunity to be an .... -- in our case, to serve as rabbi? But halachic values aren't framed in these terms. (At least not in general; I can think of notions like geneivas da'as, gezel shinah or tovas han'ah as exceptions.) Rather, the rabbinate is supposed to be a burden. Even if it is really being treated as an honor, the value which would differentiate between a positive halachic change and one that is anti-mesoretic would be that of duty, not opportunity. 3- Making the argument that feminist egalitarian opportunity is or is not resonant with mesoretic values requires those guys with shimush, as it is an art. Your counter-argument is on the wrong plane for discussing the topic of the first section of your paper -- "mesorah". ... And we don't even agree on how RIETS-trained rabbis are most likely to use the word "mesorah" to agree on what we're debating! Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Man is equipped with such far-reaching vision, micha at aishdas.org yet the smallest coin can obstruct his view. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yisrael Salanter Fax: (270) 514-1507 From noamstadlan at mail.gmail.com Tue Oct 10 08:53:24 2017 From: noamstadlan at mail.gmail.com (Noam Stadlan) Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2017 10:53:24 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] OU paper In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: multipart/alternative Size: 3823 bytes Desc: not available URL: From micha at aishdas.org Tue Oct 10 14:12:25 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2017 17:12:25 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] =?cp1255?q?=93Timtum_Ha-Lev=94_Redux?= In-Reply-To: <7aef6b22a7e348ffa09f6c3e61bde74f@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <7aef6b22a7e348ffa09f6c3e61bde74f@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20171010211225.GD21284@aishdas.org> On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 06:30:33PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : From R' Aviner Dulling of the Heart to Save One's Life ... : A: No. Maran Ha-Rav Kook writes in his book "Musar Avicha" (p. 19) : that the dulling of one's heart comes from violating a prohibition : and not from the food itself (Yoma 39a. And see Meharsha on : Shabbat 33a).... Yay! Finally I have sources to look at. "Vehayisa akh sameiach" just became a little easier. Does anyone have "Mussar Avikha", "Uvdos veHanhagos miBeis Brisk" (vol II p 50) and/or "Orchos Yosheir" (#13)? Do any of them discuss mezuzah and the consequent shemirah, or any of the other related segulah-like effects of mitzvos we've tied in to previous iterations? Look at that list of names: I'm not wrong, just Litvish! Tangent: The Gra said that "vehayisa akh sameiach" is the hardest mitzvah in the Torah. "Veyahisa sameiach" is one thing, but "akh sameiach"? To be nothing but happy, with no other moods ambivalently mixed in for 8 days (9 in chu"l) straight? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The fittingness of your matzos [for the seder] micha at aishdas.org isn't complete with being careful in the laws http://www.aishdas.org of Passover. One must also be very careful in Fax: (270) 514-1507 the laws of business. - Rav Yisrael Salanter From hankman at bell.net Tue Oct 10 22:24:18 2017 From: hankman at bell.net (hankman) Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2017 01:24:18 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] R. Akiva, Bar Kochba and Zecharya HaNovi Message-ID: <5AFE790709AC4B0B9FDDB6A6102B7005@hankPC> How could R. Akiva have mistaken Bar Kochba for Moshiach, since non of the nevuos of Zecharya HaNovi that we read in the recent haftorah (splitting of Har HaZeitim etc., etc) for the period precedent to Moshiach had yet occurred? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Tue Oct 10 13:51:59 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2017 16:51:59 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] future impact of deeds In-Reply-To: <781196aefdb44054b2f0e69678999858@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <781196aefdb44054b2f0e69678999858@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20171010205159.GB21284@aishdas.org> On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 06:29:05PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : In one of his shiurim, R'Reisman questioned a common (my) understanding : of how those who are no longer with us could be judged based on the : future impact of their deeds on an ongoing basis. The specific example : was two individuals (A & B) separately caused two other individuals (C & : D, who were totally equivalent) to become religious. C dies a day later, : while D lives a long, productive, and fruitful life. Does it make sense : that A gets more credit(schar) than B? : : My answer is no, but this does not refute the basic premise. The schar : is based on the % of their potential that C & D actualized-only HKB"H : knows that, so, in this case in fact, A might even get more credit than B. Who said that sekhar is indeed based on actualized potential? "Lefum tz'ara agra", not "lefum tzalach". And wouldn't judging someone by something out of their control violate Middas haDin? HOWEVER, perhaps (thinking out loud) we could invoke megalgalim zekhus al yedei zakai to say that hashgachah peratis's choice of D's long life includes among an infinite other factors, the ways in which his mashpia was mora zekai. But personally, I would question your conclusion. (But in a personal-belief sense. Not that it doesn't require understanding in an eilu-va'eilu way.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Rescue me from the desire to win every micha at aishdas.org argument and to always be right. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Nassan of Breslav Fax: (270) 514-1507 Likutei Tefilos 94:964 From zev at sero.name Wed Oct 11 03:30:27 2017 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2017 06:30:27 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] R. Akiva, Bar Kochba and Zecharya HaNovi In-Reply-To: <5AFE790709AC4B0B9FDDB6A6102B7005@hankPC> References: <5AFE790709AC4B0B9FDDB6A6102B7005@hankPC> Message-ID: <0278980f-97ca-2755-caa3-89461ed64e50@sero.name> On 11/10/17 01:24, hankman via Avodah wrote: > How could R. Akiva have mistaken Bar Kochba for Moshiach, since non of > the nevuos of Zecharya HaNovi that we read in the recent haftorah > (splitting of Har HaZeitim etc., etc) for the period precedent to > Moshiach had yet occurred? The Rambam, whose shita is based on R Akiva, explicitly paskens that none of these nevuos need to be fulfilled literally. Any that aren't can be interpreted metaphorically to fit whatever political and military events actually do take place around the geulah. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From akivagmiller at gmail.com Wed Oct 11 06:41:32 2017 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2017 09:41:32 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Questioning Authority In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I have no hidden agenda here. This post is my response to the current "OU paper" thread, and to many other threads we've had over the decades, where we have wondered how any given posek could hold a certain way on any particular question. It is also relevant to threads we've had abput *becoming* a posek, and the importance of shimush in addition to book knowledge. This is something I would not have written, or even have thought of, until about 10 years ago or so. But as I have matured, I have come to see things in a new perspective. Becoming a parent, and a grandparent, has given me a tremendous insight into Hashem's relationship with us. I have always felt that it is (or ought to be) possible and permissible to *question* authority without challenging or rejecting authority. It is very natural to want to understand the reasons behind the rules that we must live by. Wanting to understand those rules is not the same as rejecting those rules. Wanting to understand the rules, I believe, is a major component of the Mitzvah of Talmud Torah, and is thus highly commendable. A chavrusa once challenged me to explain my position on a certain subject. He said to me, "If you can't explain it to me in simple terms, then you don't really understand it well enough yourself." I accepted that rule wholeheartedly, and used it myself for many decades. But recently have I begun to see the cracks in that rule. A parent tells the child to do something, or to not do something. The child asks why, not out of rebellion, but because he sincerely wants to understand what's going on. Sometimes, the parent cannot give an answer better than "Because I said so." The child now thinks that the parent is being arbitrary, and sometimes, the parent might even agree. But frequently, the truth is that the parent has very good reasons for what he says. It's just that he's unable to put those reasons into clear words. He can't even explain it to himself in simple terms, because it is simply a gut feeling that he has, based on experience and intuition, he sees that this is the action or inaction which must be followed in this particular situation. I think this is analogous to Torah leaders and Torah followers. When the leaders tell the followers what to do, or what to avoid, it is entirely reasonable for the followers to request explanations from the leaders. This is especially so, if the explanation will help them comply with the directive, or teach them how to apply the directive to other situations. But these requests must be made respectfully, carefully, and only up to a certain point. Consider when a parent explains himself to the child, and the child responds with a dozen reasonable challenges to the parent's logic. Sometimes the parent will realize that he was in error, and back down. Sometimes the parent will realize that he was in error, but will stick to his guns as a show of power (rightly or wrongly). But sometimes, the parent will understand that - despite the child's persuasive comments - the directive must still be followed, because ... Well, the parent himself might not be able to articulate his reasoning, not even to himself. But he relies on his understanding and his experience and his common sense, and he knows that this is how it must be. So too, our leaders adopt certain positions on certain issues, and often they will attempt to explain themselves to us. Sometimes those explanations may appear flawed to us, maybe even severely flawed. Like the child who thinks his parent's explanation is nonsense, the flaws do not necessarily invalidate the leader's conclusion or his decision. Of course, none of this suggests that our leaders (or parents) are infallible. And they can certainly benefit from reviewing their positions among their peers. The only point I'm trying to make in this long post is this: Similar to a Chok from the Torah, sometimes our leaders issue pronouncements that we are not capable of fully understanding, and we should not let that stand in the way of following them. Akiva Miller NB: A critical word in this post is "sometimes". The difficult (sometimes impossible) task is to figure out which times are which. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From zev at sero.name Wed Oct 11 07:40:40 2017 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2017 10:40:40 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] R. Akiva, Bar Kochba and Zecharya HaNovi In-Reply-To: <20171011143003.GA21995@aishdas.org> References: <5AFE790709AC4B0B9FDDB6A6102B7005@hankPC> <0278980f-97ca-2755-caa3-89461ed64e50@sero.name> <20171011143003.GA21995@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 11/10/17 10:30, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > While the Rambam cites R' Aqiva's following Bar Koziba (H Melahim 11:2) > as proof that the melekh hamoshiach doesn't have to do miracles, is his > position really "based on" R Aqiva's? For example, in 11:4 he describes > the moshiach as being "hogeh baTorah ve'oseiq bemitzvos keDavid aviv" > which I don't think fit Bar Kokhva even in his hayday. What makes you suppose this? On the contrary, the fact that the Rambam says "since BK didn't do any miracles, we know that Moshiach doesn't have to", proves that when he says Moshiach *does* have to be a TCh and a tzadik he assumes BK *did* fulfil this requirement. If he didn't, that would prove to the Rambam that this isn't necessary. > Nor had "veyakhof kol Yisrael leileikh bah" yet either -- the > Perushim were in the minority. Were they? Who was in the majority, if not them? And why would the majority even matter? BK was the king, and he made halacha the law of the land, whether the majority liked it or not. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From micha at aishdas.org Wed Oct 11 07:30:03 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2017 10:30:03 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] R. Akiva, Bar Kochba and Zecharya HaNovi In-Reply-To: <0278980f-97ca-2755-caa3-89461ed64e50@sero.name> References: <5AFE790709AC4B0B9FDDB6A6102B7005@hankPC> <0278980f-97ca-2755-caa3-89461ed64e50@sero.name> Message-ID: <20171011143003.GA21995@aishdas.org> On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 06:30:27AM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : On 11/10/17 01:24, hankman via Avodah wrote: :> How could R. Akiva have mistaken Bar Kochba for Moshiach, since :> non of the nevuos of Zecharya HaNovi that we read in the recent :> haftorah (splitting of Har HaZeitim etc., etc) for the period :> precedent to Moshiach had yet occurred? : The Rambam, whose shita is based on R Akiva, explicitly paskens that : none of these nevuos need to be fulfilled literally. Any that : aren't can be interpreted metaphorically to fit whatever political : and military events actually do take place around the geulah. While the Rambam cites R' Aqiva's following Bar Koziba (H Melahim 11:2) as proof that the melekh hamoshiach doesn't have to do miracles, is his position really "based on" R Aqiva's? For example, in 11:4 he describes the moshiach as being "hogeh baTorah ve'oseiq bemitzvos keDavid aviv" which I don't think fit Bar Kokhva even in his hayday. Nor had "veyakhof kol Yisrael leileikh bah" yet either -- the Perushim were in the minority. More clearly is his basing himself on Shemu'el (Sanhedrin 91b) when he quotes him in 12:2, "Chakhamim said: ein bein ha'olam hazeh liymos hamoshiach ela shib'ud malkhios bilvad." It's interesting that rather than repeating the quote beshrim omero -- a funny thing to do when discussing the ge'ula le'lam that giving the source is supposed to bring -- he attributes the quote to Chakhamim, as though he knew it was consensus and Rav's position deprecated. After all, the Rambam himself says that we can't decide machloqesim in these thingxs. So it could be that the Rambam did indeed base himself on R Aqiva, but then we would have to say that the Rambam held that R Aqiva was waiting for the rest of the nevu'ah to come true. Or not -- maybe his basic source was Shemu'el, and this one proof doesn't imply derivation. And given that the BK Revolt was c. 132-135 CE, it is likely that R' Aqiva expected the war to go on 7 years, as per statements in the gemara about chevlei moshiach. This would time the end of the war with 70 years after the churban, like the return after churban bayis 1. But whether that conjecture is true or not, the relevant idea that R Aqiva could be backing BK thinking the rest of the expectations about the moshiach simply hadn't happened /yet/. Which the Rambam would have to invoke even for his more mundane list of things the moshiach will accomplish. In 12:1 the Rambam denies the literalness of Yeshaiah's and Yirmiyahu's description of the messianic era in terms of wolves, leopards and lions going vegetarian. But since the splitting of Har haZeirim need not be lemaalah min hateva, do we know whether the Rambam would have placed it in the same rule? If not, the "expected it will happen in the future" answer could cover that earthquake (?) as much as it can cover BK spending all his spare time learning and doing mitzvos or his being meqareiv the vast majority of Kelal Yisrael. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger A sick person never rejects a healing procedure micha at aishdas.org as "unbefitting." Why, then, do we care what http://www.aishdas.org other people think when dealing with spiritual Fax: (270) 514-1507 matters? - Rav Yisrael Salanter From zev at sero.name Wed Oct 11 09:02:55 2017 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2017 12:02:55 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] R. Akiva, Bar Kochba and Zecharya HaNovi In-Reply-To: <20171011154231.GA6170@aishdas.org> References: <5AFE790709AC4B0B9FDDB6A6102B7005@hankPC> <0278980f-97ca-2755-caa3-89461ed64e50@sero.name> <20171011143003.GA21995@aishdas.org> <20171011154231.GA6170@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <0e95d039-c074-ae7f-f3ba-3cee64a3d191@sero.name> On 11/10/17 11:42, Micha Berger wrote: > > The man described in the Y-mi Taanis 24b (4:5) doesn't sound personally > observant. The Rambam clearly doesn't hold like the Yerushalmi's version of the story, because he holds that the Chachamim stuck with BK until he was killed "ba`avonos". That word is ambiguous (whose sins, his or the people's) but later he says a presumptive Moshiach who's killed is "kechol malchei beis Dovid hash'leimim vehak'sheirim", so we can assume he holds that BK was killed for the generation's sins, not for his own, hence "ba`avonos", not "ba`avonosav". > This is also why in both R' Aqiva's world as well as R' Meir's and R' > Shim'on's -- before and after BK's revolt -- it is taken for granted > that most Jews are amei ha'aretz. Amei Haaretz were in the Perushim "denomination". They kept Perushi halacha as well as they understood it, even if they despised the Chaverim who taught it. They made up their own invalid leniencies in maasros, and weren't careful all year with taharos, but they were careful with terumah and never told lies on Shabbos. In any case, the question isn't what the majority would have done on their own, but whether BK forced them to obey halacha, and the Rambam assumes he did. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From micha at aishdas.org Wed Oct 11 10:11:32 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2017 13:11:32 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] R. Akiva, Bar Kochba and Zecharya HaNovi In-Reply-To: <0e95d039-c074-ae7f-f3ba-3cee64a3d191@sero.name> References: <5AFE790709AC4B0B9FDDB6A6102B7005@hankPC> <0278980f-97ca-2755-caa3-89461ed64e50@sero.name> <20171011143003.GA21995@aishdas.org> <20171011154231.GA6170@aishdas.org> <0e95d039-c074-ae7f-f3ba-3cee64a3d191@sero.name> Message-ID: <20171011171132.GA1028@aishdas.org> On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 12:02:55PM -0400, Zev Sero wrote: : On 11/10/17 11:42, Micha Berger wrote: : >The man described in the Y-mi Taanis 24b (4:5) doesn't sound personally : >observant. : : The Rambam clearly doesn't hold like the Yerushalmi's version of the : story, because he holds that the Chachamim stuck with BK until he : was killed "ba`avonos"... How does this conflict with the Y-mi's picture of a less than ideal Bar Kokhva? If anything, it reinforces my suggestion that R' Aqiva was awaiting the rest of the nevu'ah. And once he is waiting for the things the Rambam mentions, then it's possible the Rambem would expect Zerkhariah's nevu'os to happen literally, but also something R' Aqiva was awaiting. It's possible the Rambam would consider the potentially natural cataclysms in Zekhariah to be non-allegory, as the examples of non-literal nevu'os he gives would have been lema'alah min hateva if literal. I don't know where he's drawing the line; nevi'ah qua nevu'ah is bederekh mashal, or only the phantastical stories should be dismissed. (This is a sibling to our discussion of the Rambam on midrashic stories. I claim he is saying that no medrash was repeated for historical content. Therefore any medrash can be ahistorical, but the fantastical stories you should take for granted as being ahistorical. You have been limiting the Rambam's denial of historicity for the fantastical stories. s/medrash/nevu'ah/g -- where do you stand?) : That word is ambiguous (whose sins, his or : the people's) but later he says a presumptive Moshiach who's killed : is "kechol malchei beis Dovid hash'leimim vehak'sheirim", so we can : assume he holds that BK was killed for the generation's sins, not : for his own, hence "ba`avonos", not "ba`avonosav". But either way -- whether he or the generation was sinful -- it would show that BK didn't fit the Rambam's descrition of moshiach. For obvious reasons, I'll add: ... at least not yet. If the generation sinned too much to merit redemption, BK wasn't too good at bringing the masses to observance. Besides, being like a kosher and shaleim member of beis David could mean "even if", we still know he wasn't the moshiach. : >This is also why in both R' Aqiva's world as well as R' Meir's and R' : >Shim'on's -- before and after BK's revolt -- it is taken for granted : >that most Jews are amei ha'aretz. : : Amei Haaretz were in the Perushim "denomination". They kept Perushi : halacha as well as they understood it, even if they despised the : Chaverim who taught it... Actually, I thought they were denominationless, as likely to follow anyone's dictates. A pagan notion of listening to every holy man, rather than picking sides. But in any case, if that's your description of the masses, you still have BK not yet succeeding in that regard at the time of his death. : in maasros, and weren't careful all year with taharos, but they were : careful with terumah and never told lies on Shabbos... They were also careful with maaser, more often than not. Demai is a gezeira; if tevel were the norm, it would be azlinan basar ruba, or at best safeiq deOraisa lehachmir. : the question isn't what the majority would have done on their own, : but whether BK forced them to obey halacha, and the Rambam assumes : he did. The Rambam doesn't say so. That's your deduction. It requires assuming that the Rambam agrees with R' Aqiva over what the grounds for presuming (making a chazqah) that someone is moshiach. He doesn't say R' Aqiva is indeed his source. And it also requires assuming R Aqiva was following BK because of a chazaqah, rather than probability and rov. You haven't addressed my "maybe" of R Aqiva following BK without BK having yet fulfilled all of the moshiach's role becuase of an expectation that BK would be getting there. My added "not yet". Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Between stimulus & response, there is a space. micha at aishdas.org In that space is our power to choose our http://www.aishdas.org response. In our response lies our growth Fax: (270) 514-1507 and our freedom. - Victor Frankl, (MSfM) From zev at sero.name Sat Oct 14 19:44:53 2017 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2017 22:44:53 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] R. Akiva, Bar Kochba and Zecharya HaNovi In-Reply-To: <20171011171132.GA1028@aishdas.org> References: <5AFE790709AC4B0B9FDDB6A6102B7005@hankPC> <0278980f-97ca-2755-caa3-89461ed64e50@sero.name> <20171011143003.GA21995@aishdas.org> <20171011154231.GA6170@aishdas.org> <0e95d039-c074-ae7f-f3ba-3cee64a3d191@sero.name> <20171011171132.GA1028@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 11/10/17 13:11, Micha Berger wrote: > On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 12:02:55PM -0400, Zev Sero wrote: > : On 11/10/17 11:42, Micha Berger wrote: > : >The man described in the Y-mi Taanis 24b (4:5) doesn't sound personally > : >observant. > : > : The Rambam clearly doesn't hold like the Yerushalmi's version of the > : story, because he holds that the Chachamim stuck with BK until he > : was killed "ba`avonos"... > > How does this conflict with the Y-mi's picture of a less than ideal > Bar Kokhva? It conflicts because the Y'mi's version of the story has the Chachamim abandoning BK *before* his fall. The Rambam clearly does not agree with that whole version of the story. In his version BK was and remained a tzadik until his tragic end, which happened not for his own sins but for those of others. > It's possible the Rambam would consider the potentially natural cataclysms > in Zekhariah to be non-allegory, as the examples of non-literal nevu'os > he gives would have been lema'alah min hateva if literal. I don't know > where he's drawing the line; nevi'ah qua nevu'ah is bederekh mashal, > or only the phantastical stories should be dismissed. He doesn't draw a line at all. He carefully doesn't say that Moshiach *won't* perform miracles, but merely that he *needn't*, because BK didn't and yet was assumed to be Moshiach. Which further contradicts the Y'mi's version, which says he was rejected because he could not judge people by smelling whether they're right or wrong, a feat of which the True Moshiach(tm) must be capable. > > : That word is ambiguous (whose sins, his or > : the people's) but later he says a presumptive Moshiach who's killed > : is "kechol malchei beis Dovid hash'leimim vehak'sheirim", so we can > : assume he holds that BK was killed for the generation's sins, not > : for his own, hence "ba`avonos", not "ba`avonosav". > > But either way -- whether he or the generation was sinful -- it would > show that BK didn't fit the Rambam's descrition of moshiach. How so? He was righteous, and forced people to keep Torah, but they didn't listen, just like Yoshiyahu. > But in any case, if that's your description of the masses, you still > have BK not yet succeeding in that regard at the time of his death. Again, how so? The requirement is that he forces all Israel to follow it and to reinforce its breaches. Not that he educates them, or makes them enthusiastic, but simply that he makes the Shulchan Aruch the law of the land, punishing those who break it. There are always lawbreakers; one would not therefore say that the government is not forcing people to obey the law. > : the question isn't what the majority would have done on their own, > : but whether BK forced them to obey halacha, and the Rambam assumes > : he did. > > The Rambam doesn't say so. That's your deduction. It requires assuming > that the Rambam agrees with R' Aqiva over what the grounds for presuming > (making a chazqah) that someone is moshiach. He doesn't say R' Aqiva is > indeed his source. He explicitly uses him as his source that Moshiach needn't perform miracles. How could he do so if his vision of Moshiach's qualifications were different from R Akiva's? If he holds that Moshiach must be a tzadik but RA didn't, then how does he know that Moshiach needn't perform miracles just because R Akiva thought so? > And it also requires assuming R Aqiva was following BK because of a > chazaqah, rather than probability and rov. You haven't addressed my > "maybe" of R Aqiva following BK without BK having yet fulfilled all of > the moshiach's role becuase of an expectation that BK would be getting > there. My added "not yet". Again, this is impossible because if so how does he know R Akiva didn't indeed require Moshiach to perform miracles, and was expecting them to happen any day now? How can he say that Moshiach need *never* perform miracles, and if he achieves everything he's supposed to without the need for miracles we will still have to accept him as Vadai Moshiach? Clearly he understands that R Akiva was *not* expecting any miracles, and that this didn't bother him, because it isn't a requirement. None of which rules out the actual Moshiach, when he does come, performing miracles. The Rambam's position on this, unlike the Y'mi's, is neutral. He might perform miracles or he might not. Some or all of the nevuos might turn out literally, but some or all might not. The nevuos he says can't be literal, at least in the initial stage of Yemos Hamoshiach, are not ones about miracles but about permanent changes in nature. Chazal said that Ein Bein Olam Hazeh Liymos Hamoshiach Ela... so nevuos about a change in nature must either be metaphorical or refer to Olam Haba. But nevuos about miracles may or may not happen literally, we won't know until we get there. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From motti.yarchinai at yahoo.com.au Sun Oct 15 01:00:51 2017 From: motti.yarchinai at yahoo.com.au (Motti Yarchinai) Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2017 08:00:51 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Avodah] Psak source wanted References: <1857240052.122258.1508054451353.ref@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1857240052.122258.1508054451353@mail.yahoo.com> Dear Avodah members, Can anyone help me with a source for this psak: It is similar to what the Rambam wrote in Hilchot Kiddush Hachodesh, saying that in all calendric matters, we follow the lead of the chachmei eretz yisrael, and even though the anshei hagolah know the calculations used by them, it is not on our own calculations that we rely, we only use those calculations because we know that they are the same as the calculations used by the chachmei eretz yisrael, and we must all follow the rulings of the latter, in all calendric matters. Another posek (possibly the Tifferet Yisrael in Shvilei Harakia, but I'm not sure of that), writes something similar but couched in even more dramatic terms. The following is not a verbatim quote (since the original is in Hebrew) but something very close to it: "And even if the residents of eretz yisrael are all ignoramuses and peasants, and the authorities of chutz la'aretz are great scholars and knowledgable in Torah and halachah, in calendric matters we follow the peasants and ignoramuses, not the scholars of chutz la'aretz." Does anyone recognise this and remember where it's from? Thank you.Motti -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From akivagmiller at gmail.com Sun Oct 15 13:02:06 2017 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2017 16:02:06 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Zecher Liytzias Mitzrayim and Shmini Atzeres Message-ID: . What is the Zecher Liytzias Mitzrayim of Shmini Atzeres?We say it in Kiddush and in the Amidah. There must be something about this chag that connects to, and/or reminds us about, Yetzias Mitzrayim. It sounds like such a basic question that I'm surprised that I don't remember hearing it in the past. If anyone has an answer, please share it. Meanwhile, here's what I came up with: Shavuos is about one particular event in the midbar. Sukkos is about the whole 40 years in the midbar. Pesach and Shmini Atzeres are bookends: Pesach is about entering the midbar, and Shmini Atzeres is about leaving the midbar.If Sukkos is about the Ananei Hakavod and all the other nissim that accompanied us, then Shmini Atzeres is about re-entering the natural world. I played "word association" with six random people: When I said "yetzias mitzrayim," five of them responded, "Pesach". This is not wrong, but it is a distortion. Yetzias Mitzrayim was not a short event in Nissan; Shavuos and Sukkos prove that it was a process that took 40 years. My suggestion is simply that the last day is no less worthy of a chag than the first. Rashi (B'midbar 29:35) famously tells us that Shmini Atzeres is a special time, with just Hashem and Bnei Yisrael together, alone, with no other nations around. I'm merely pointing out that it is not just the nations who are gone: The lulav is gone. The sukkah is gone. Nothing remains but us and Hashem, when we left the comfort of the miraculous sukkah, trading it for being at home in Eretz Yisrael. Akiva Miller Postscript: An easy challenge to this post could be that Tishre 22 was NOT the day that we crossed from the midbar into Eretz Yisrael. I will respond in advance by pointing out that Shavuos too is not necessarily celebrated on the same day as the event it reminds us of. The Zecher can be poetic and emotional, and need not be so mathematically rigorous. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hankman at bell.net Sun Oct 15 14:41:04 2017 From: hankman at bell.net (hankman) Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2017 17:41:04 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] eitz hachaim Message-ID: Hi, What exactly was the eitz hachaim all about. The simple pshat doesn?t make any sense. If the purpose of the Gan was to serve Adam then when would (could) he make use of the eitz hachaim? Kodem hacheit he was not a bar misah so he had no need of it, after the cheit he was prevented from accessing it! So when would it ever be useful to Adam? Kol tuv Chaim Manaster -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hankman at bell.net Sun Oct 15 14:48:11 2017 From: hankman at bell.net (hankman) Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2017 17:48:11 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Vayehi erev Message-ID: Hi, If you look at days 3, 4 & 5 tou will find that they close with Vayehi erev vayehi boker yom X as a complete passuk. But on days 1, 2 & 6 the vayehi erev is only the completion of a larger passuk and not a passuk on its own. Finally on Shabbos the final closing of vayehi erev is omitted completely. Do any of the medrashing or meforshing explain this? Kol tuv Chaim Manaster -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Sun Oct 15 14:31:16 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2017 17:31:16 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Zecher Liytzias Mitzrayim and Shmini Atzeres In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20171015213116.GA14924@aishdas.org> On Sun, Oct 15, 2017 at 04:02:06PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : What is the Zecher Liytzias Mitzrayim of Shmini Atzeres? ... What's the ZlYM of Shabbos? : Shavuos is about one particular event in the midbar. Sukkos is about the : whole 40 years in the midbar... Unless Sukkos is about the return of the ananei hakavod. The Gra puts 2 and 2 (and 2) together: The ananei hakavod left with the Cheit haEigel. When Moshe returned with the 2nd luchos, completing his 3rd 40-day day atop Har Sinai, he gave Benei Yisrael instructions including those for donating the materials and building the Mishkan. So that actual construction began on 15 Nissan -- and that's when the ananim returned. The Meshekh Chimah adds to this that it explains the oconstrast between Sukkos as described in Mishpatim 23:16, where all we learn about the timing in the fall is that it's Chag haAsif. This was before Cheit haEigel, never mind the eventual return. But in parashas Re'eih, the holiday makes its appearance as Chag haSukkos, refering to the returned sukkos of ananei hakavod. : Pesach is about entering the midbar, and Shmini Atzeres is about leaving : the midbar.If Sukkos is about the Ananei Hakavod and all the other nissim : that accompanied us, then Shmini Atzeres is about re-entering the natural : world. My own mental image of the structure of the year: The qiymu veqiblu haYhudim of Purim is the further development of the theme of Shavous (a/k/a Atzeres). And similarly the zikhronos of Rosh haShanah is the further development of the theme of Shemini Atzeres -- the beris. In Shemini Atzeres this creates a need for a 71st par for qorban mussaf, as well as the naturalness of our turning SA into Simchas Torah. On RH we ask for clemency if not for our sake, than for the sake of seeing the beris to fruition. So that each season has a central holiday -- Sukkos or Pesach -- which is what underlies the gezeira shava tes-vav - tes-vav. Then the season is introduced with a something (Purim or Yamim Noraim) to prepare us for the holiday. The bounty of Sukkos has to be earned; Tishrei is about middas hadin after all. The freedom of Pesach needs a context. (And Putim is derabbanan bececause the ultimate qabbalas ol mitzvos hd to come from us.) And then the theme is culminated in an Atzeres, a day to stop, pack it up, and take it with us for the next half-year. That said, I like your idead of SA as reentering the natural world. It's experientially very true, after all that holiday. It also gives more significance to the timing of Tefillas Geshem. "Qasheh alei pereidaskhem" does refer to that return; aalthough I think you need to work on the difference between our return to the natural world and Hashem making the day itself to *delay* the return. Jews and G-d without the rest of the world. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger What we do for ourselves dies with us. micha at aishdas.org What we do for others and the world, http://www.aishdas.org remains and is immortal. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Albert Pine From micha at aishdas.org Sun Oct 15 15:21:26 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2017 18:21:26 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] R. Akiva, Bar Kochba and Zecharya HaNovi In-Reply-To: References: <5AFE790709AC4B0B9FDDB6A6102B7005@hankPC> <0278980f-97ca-2755-caa3-89461ed64e50@sero.name> <20171011143003.GA21995@aishdas.org> <20171011154231.GA6170@aishdas.org> <0e95d039-c074-ae7f-f3ba-3cee64a3d191@sero.name> <20171011171132.GA1028@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20171015222126.GB14924@aishdas.org> On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 10:44:53PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: :> How does this conflict with the Y-mi's picture of a less than ideal :> Bar Kokhva? : : It conflicts because the Y'mi's version of the story has the : Chachamim abandoning BK *before* his fall. The Rambam clearly does : not agree with that whole version of the story... The Y-mi does not say that R' Aqiva was among those who left early. : In his version BK : was and remained a tzadik until his tragic end, which happened not : for his own sins but for those of others. My whole point is that the Rambam doesn't describe him as a tzadiq anywhere. He says in one place that BK could be taken to be the moshiach despite a lack of miracles and another place that when someone from beis david who is hogeh ve'oseiq bemitzvos keDavid aviv... vehakhos kol Yisrael leileikh bah... and fights Hashem's wars, then this person can be presumed to be mashiach. Not that BK had such a chazaqah; the "pesaq" of the tannaim needn't have been based on this particular chazaqah or any chazaqah. As I said, there is nothing in the Rambam to rule out them following BK out of the expectation that he would eventually get there, rather than his being hogeh ve'oseiq bemitzvos already. And then you don't need to make the Rambam ignore a Yerushalmi. : He doesn't draw a line at all. He carefully doesn't say that : Moshiach *won't* perform miracles, but merely that he *needn't*, 12:1: Al ya'aleh aal leiv shebiymos hamoshiach yibateil davar miminhago shel olam... ela olam keminhago noheig. This doesn't really rule out miracles, but it does rule out ones that leave a permanent change in the natural orer. There is a line. Which is how he rules out the historicity of "vegar ze'eiv im keves..." etc... They don't mearly "needn't" happen, he rules out the possibility of their literal meaning being part of the future, because they cross his line of olam keminhago noheig". : >But either way -- whether he or the generation was sinful -- it would : >show that BK didn't fit the Rambam's descrition of moshiach. : How so? He was righteous, and forced people to keep Torah, but : they didn't listen, just like Yoshiyahu. "Veyakhof" includes "tried and failed"??? That's not quite what the Rambam says. : Again, how so? The requirement is that he forces all Israel to : follow it and to reinforce its breaches. Not that he educates them, : or makes them enthusiastic, but simply that he makes the Shulchan : Aruch the law of the land, punishing those who break it... Which he didn't. The Sanhedrin doesn't get reorgonized and put on Har haBayis. In fact, he doesn't get the backing of the majority of the day's posqim to be able to be associated with a 2nd century religious revival through legal enforcement, even if he there had been one. (Which there is no record of.) Again, this is only a problem for you because you assume that the Rambam's chazaqah in 11:4 must be the reason for R' Aqiva and other tannaim followed BK. But he uses the expression "vedimah hu vekhol chakhmei doro" -- which is a little weak for following a chazaqah as per a chiyuv. The Y-mi (in the adorementiond &T Taanis 4:5 24b) quotes R' Aqiva as telling R' Yochanan ben Torta "Din hu malka meshikha", an idiom usually used to refer to a qal vachomer. BTW, where does the Rambam get that "kol chakhmei doro" followed Bar Koziva? Is there any indication Rabban Gamliel ever did? R Yochanan b Torta replied (in an oft repeated line) "Aqiva, yaalu asavim belechaikh ve'adayin ben David lo ba." : >The Rambam doesn't say so. That's your deduction. It requires assuming : >that the Rambam agrees with R' Aqiva over what the grounds for presuming : >(making a chazqah) that someone is moshiach. He doesn't say R' Aqiva is : >indeed his source. : : He explicitly uses him as his source that Moshiach needn't perform : miracles. How could he do so if his vision of Moshiach's : qualifications were different from R Akiva's? ... R' Aqiva proves that not performing miracles doesn't rule out someone being the moshiach. He doesn't prove what it takes to actually qualify as being one. And even beyond the difference between deriving one negative statement about the mashiach and assuming he got all his positive statements from the same source, you're missing the difference between noting R' Aqiva reached a conclusion and the Rambam pasqening that in a certain situation we are obligated by the rules of chazaqah to reach that same conclusion. : Again, this is impossible because if so how does he know R Akiva : didn't indeed require Moshiach to perform miracles, and was : expecting them to happen any day now? ... Who said he didn't? He uses R' Aqiva to rule out waiting for a miracle before following a potential. Not that moshiach won't perform miracles. 12:2 quotes Shemu'el to back up the point in 12:1 that olam beminhago holeikh. Which is minimally a particular kind of miracle, although it plausibly includes even miracles that are only momentary breaks in minhag olam. He doesn't mention R' Aqiva when ruling out these miracles from the entire mission. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "Man wants to achieve greatness overnight, micha at aishdas.org and he wants to sleep well that night too." http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yosef Yozel Horwitz, Alter of Novarodok Fax: (270) 514-1507 From hankman at bell.net Sun Oct 15 15:59:44 2017 From: hankman at bell.net (hankman) Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2017 18:59:44 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Torah precheit? Message-ID: Hi, I have been trying to understand what the geshtalt of Torah was precheit of the eitz hadaas. It could not have resembled anything that we ( I ) would recognize today. Consider: There was but one mitzva. Most if not all the mitzvos of the Torah we are familiar with could not have existed, at least as we understand them today. Had Adam been successful in his one day tafkid the purpose of the bria would have been accomplished and Adam (mankind) would have gone to olom haba ? mission accomplished nothing more to follow but for reward in olom haba. The many consequences seem to be as follows: there would be no avdus in Mitzrayim, therefore no yetzias Mitzrayim, therefore no regolim, that are all built on the idea of zecher l?yitzias Mitzrayim nor their issurei melocho . So there would not me any korban Pesach, no matzo, no maror etc. There would be no lulav and esrog, no succah etc. There would be no krobanos of shavous, no Yom Kippur and all its avoda and all its inuiyim as the cheit haeigel would never occur. Not sure about Rosh Hashana as the 6th day was the first RH perhaps as a yom hadin to pasken that Adam succeeded in his task and is deserving of olom haba. I could assume that Shabbos would also be present as it was in that first week with a kedushas Shabbos. The mussafim of all these yomim tovim would also be non existent as the yomim tovim themself seem in doubt. Much of the korbanos relating to cheit would seemingly have no purpose. the existance of the mikdash and all related mitzvot would likewise be in doubt. The mikdosh would have been Adam himself or perhaps after day 7 the mikdash would have come down in fire from heaven like we await today shibaneh beis hamikdash? As there would never be an Eretz Yisroel, then there would not be all the mitzvot hateltuot ba?aretz ? trumos, masros etc., etc. There would be no issurei arayos as there was just Adam and Chava. Not quite sure here as there was Kayin and Hevel and their twin sisters were there in the latter part of day 6. So perhaps a few of the arayaos would have been possible, mainly mother, father, son, daughter, aishes ish (Adam and Chava, but not sure about the kids as could kedushin be tofeis in a sister even if mutar for kium olam? Mishkav zachar was possible, but mishkav behama might not have been assur if one reads the medroshim kepshutom which the Maharal tell us NOT to do when Adam was seeking his mate before Chava was created. Still one has to deal with the fact that while these might have been possible, there was but ONE commandment ? not to eat from the eitz hadaas and none of the possible arayos I consider above. There was no mitzva of mila for Adam or Kayin and Hevel. Perhaps Adam was created mahul and Kayin and Hevel were nolod mahul? (Still today would need hatafas dam bris). Kibud Av vaAim would only be possible for Kain and Hevel but not for Adam or Chava who were not yilud isha. Mitzvot like korcho lameis would not be possible for beings who were not bar misa. Tumas meis would not be possible. With no rabim, mitzvot like melech, korban nossi, Ir haNidachas etc would not be possible. No mechias Amalek, or shiva ammim or kivush ha?aretz etc Rosh Chodes and its dinim would never happen as the world would end after one week. Most of choshen Mishpat would be superfluous if you own the entire world (Adam ? not sure if his kids would own anything as Adam would never die so they would never yarshan the world from him? (not sure if I am in the realm of Purim torah or not?). I could go on for most of taryag that would not have been possible. But the bottom line, possible or not, there was only ONE commandment ? the eitz hadaas! So what is the nature of Torah in such a world. How do we see it as an ever constant ever present and unchanging Torah? How does a Torah with but ONE mitzva look? How does it still identify with a Torah with 613 mitzvot? Sorry if my thoughts were very rambling. I just typed as things came to mind ? maybe not always a good idea! Kol tuv Chaim Manaster -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From zev at sero.name Sun Oct 15 22:15:48 2017 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2017 01:15:48 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] R. Akiva, Bar Kochba and Zecharya HaNovi In-Reply-To: <20171015222126.GB14924@aishdas.org> References: <5AFE790709AC4B0B9FDDB6A6102B7005@hankPC> <0278980f-97ca-2755-caa3-89461ed64e50@sero.name> <20171011143003.GA21995@aishdas.org> <20171011154231.GA6170@aishdas.org> <0e95d039-c074-ae7f-f3ba-3cee64a3d191@sero.name> <20171011171132.GA1028@aishdas.org> <20171015222126.GB14924@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 15/10/17 18:21, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 10:44:53PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > : It conflicts because the Y'mi's version of the story has the > : Chachamim abandoning BK *before* his fall. The Rambam clearly does > : not agree with that whole version of the story... > > The Y-mi does not say that R' Aqiva was among those who left early. The Rambam says that R Akiva *and all the sages of his generation* imagined BK was Moshiach, *until he was killed*. This is not consistent with the Y'mi. > As I said, there is nothing in the Rambam to rule out them following BK > out of the expectation that he would eventually get there, rather than his > being hogeh ve'oseiq bemitzvos already. Then why can't they also have expected him to eventually do miracles? How does their belief in him, and his lack of miracles, prove that Moshiach needn't do any? The fact that the Rambam uses their belief in him as proof that miracles aren't a requirement shows that they believed in him only because he *had* fulfilled all the *genuine* requirements for the stage he was at. > : >But either way -- whether he or the generation was sinful -- it would > : >show that BK didn't fit the Rambam's descrition of moshiach. > > : How so? He was righteous, and forced people to keep Torah, but > : they didn't listen, just like Yoshiyahu. > > "Veyakhof" includes "tried and failed"??? That's not quite what the > Rambam says. Yachof means to force, to make it the law of the land, and those who disobey are punished. It doesn't preclude people breaking the law when they think they can get away with it. Our current government forces us to live without drugs, and yet many people don't. > > : Again, how so? The requirement is that he forces all Israel to > : follow it and to reinforce its breaches. Not that he educates them, > : or makes them enthusiastic, but simply that he makes the Shulchan > : Aruch the law of the land, punishing those who break it... > > Which he didn't. The Sanhedrin doesn't get reorgonized and put on Har > haBayis. The Sanhedrin was already organized. There's no requirement that they return to Lishkas Hagazis until there *is* one, which he does eventually have to do, but it comes *after* chezkas Moshiach and fighting the war, which is the stage he was at. > In fact, he doesn't get the backing of the majority of the day's > posqim He certainly did, according to the Rambam. > to be able to be associated with a 2nd century religious revival > through legal enforcement, even if he there had been one. (Which there > is no record of.) Again, a "religious revival" means inspiring people to *want* to keep mitzvos, which is unrelated to *forcing* them to do so. > Again, this is only a problem for you because you assume that the Rambam's > chazaqah in 11:4 must be the reason for R' Aqiva and other tannaim > followed BK. What else could it be? He goes directly from saying that miracles are not a requirement to listing what things *are* requirements. Therefore he must have done those things. > But he uses the expression "vedimah hu vekhol chakhmei doro" > -- which is a little weak for following a chazaqah as per a chiyuv. What's weak about it? They must have had a reason for this imagination. What else but the chazaka? And if they thought he hadn't yet reached that stage then how do we know miracles aren't required to reach it? > > The Y-mi (in the adorementiond &T Taanis 4:5 24b) quotes R' Aqiva as > telling R' Yochanan ben Torta "Din hu malka meshikha", an idiom usually > used to refer to a qal vachomer. You're misreading it. It's not "din", it's *dein*. Dein hu malka meshicha, this is the Annointed King. > BTW, where does the Rambam get that "kol chakhmei doro" followed Bar > Koziva? Is there any indication Rabban Gamliel ever did? R Yochanan b > Torta replied (in an oft repeated line) "Aqiva, yaalu asavim belechaikh > ve'adayin ben David lo ba." He was the lone exception, or nearly so. Because *he* held that the miracle of judging by smell *was* required, even at the beginning. The Rambam paskens against him. > : >The Rambam doesn't say so. That's your deduction. It requires assuming > : >that the Rambam agrees with R' Aqiva over what the grounds for presuming > : >(making a chazqah) that someone is moshiach. He doesn't say R' Aqiva is > : >indeed his source. > : > : He explicitly uses him as his source that Moshiach needn't perform > : miracles. How could he do so if his vision of Moshiach's > : qualifications were different from R Akiva's? ... > > R' Aqiva proves that not performing miracles doesn't rule out someone being > the moshiach. He doesn't prove what it takes to actually qualify as being > one. This makes no sense. Either the Rambam agrees with R Akiva's criteria or he doesn't. If he doesn't then how can R Akiva's not requiring miracles prove that they're truly not required? If he was wrong about other criteria, how do we know he was right about this one? No, the fact that the Rambam uses him as proof means the Rambam adopts his view totally, and holds it is the halacha. In Chapter 12 he rules out not miracles but changes in nature. A miracle doesn't change nature, it breaks the rules of nature. Water continues to run downhill, but this water doesn't, not because its nature is different but because it's ignoring nature. That, he says, may or may not happen. Changes in nature won't, because Chazal say so. Chazal are silent on whether Moshiach will perform miracles, so we don't know. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From michaelpoppers at gmail.com Sun Oct 15 19:22:08 2017 From: michaelpoppers at gmail.com (Michael Poppers) Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2017 22:22:08 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] =?utf-8?b?4oCcVGltdHVtIEhhLUxlduKAnSBSZWR1eA==?= Message-ID: In Avodah V35n121, R'Micha wrote: > Tangent: The Gra said that "vehayisa akh sameiach" is the hardest mitzvah in the Torah. "Veyahisa sameiach" is one thing, but "akh sameiach"? To be nothing but happy, with no other moods ambivalently mixed in for 8 days (9 in chu"l) straight? < Tangents to the tangent: (a) Perhaps someone can quote "Ma'asei Rav" or the like, but what I've seen quoted *b'sheim GRA* is that the "ach" *d'rasha* in BT Sukka means that on Shmini Chag haAtzeres we're *b'simcha* with H' w/out any *cheftza shel mitzva*, e.g. see here : Perhaps the answer lies in a comment from the Vilna Gaon on the pasuk of ?v?hayisa ach sameiach.? The Gemara (Succah 48a) derives from this pasuk that Shemini Atzeres is included in the mitzvah of simchah. But the word ach generally limits what is being discussed. What are we limiting with ach sameiach? The Gaon explains that whereas Succos requires many mitzvah objects ? a succah, lulav and esrog, hoshanas ? Shemini Atzeres does not require any physical items. We only need to be sameiach. This is the inherent gift of the last day of the Yom Tov. We can?t take the succah and lulav with us after Yom Tov. But the simchah that comes from dveikus with Hashem requires nothing but ourselves, and it is something we can take along with us. (b) Translating "ach" as "nothing but" doesn't explain the YhK "ach" (P'Emor). (c) Another thought on "v'samachta b'chagecha...v'hayisa ach sameach" is that the latter mandate of *simcha* ("ach" or no "ach") seems superfluous and can be considered as a mandate for the entire year (i.e. not just "b'chagecha"). All the best from *Michael Poppers* * Elizabeth, NJ, USA -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From lisa at starways.net Mon Oct 16 00:51:28 2017 From: lisa at starways.net (Lisa Liel) Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2017 10:51:28 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] eitz hachaim In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <61f0b606-b859-4475-eef8-a10489e74f1c@starways.net> On 10/16/2017 12:41 AM, hankman via Avodah wrote: > What exactly was the eitz hachaim all about. The simple pshat doesn't > make any sense. If the purpose of the Gan was to serve Adam then when > would (could) he make use of the eitz hachaim? Kodem hacheit he was > not a bar misah so he had no need of it, after the cheit he was > prevented from accessing it! So when would it ever be useful to Adam? I don't understand the question. He was prevented from accessing it *because* of the cheit. Had he not sinned, you say he would have had no need for it, but who is to say that its only function was to make him live forever. Maybe that's just the function it has for a bar mitah. Or maybe that was its function, and that's *why* he wasn't a bar mitah. Because the eitz ha-chaim was there, and permissible for him to eat. It was only after he'd eaten from the eitz ha-daat that he could no longer be permitted to live forever. That what eating that did to him made eternal life for him a Bad Thing. Lisa From seinfeld at jsli.org Mon Oct 16 07:02:10 2017 From: seinfeld at jsli.org (Alexander Seinfeld) Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2017 10:02:10 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Zecher Liytzias Mitzrayim and Shmini Atzeres In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: It?s a nice vort but couldn?t you ask the same about Shabbos and Rosh Hashana? Isn?t every Yomtov is a Zecher Yetzias Mitzrayim, not for historical reasons but because Yetzias Mitzrayim is the foundation of our emunah (not Har Sinai)? > >>Rashi (B'midbar 29:35) famously tells us that Shmini Atzeres is a special >>time, with just Hashem and Bnei Yisrael together, alone, with no other >>nations around. I'm merely pointing out that it is not just the nations >>who >>are gone: The lulav is gone. The sukkah is gone. Nothing remains but us >>and >>Hashem, when we left the comfort of the miraculous sukkah, trading it for >>being at home in Eretz Yisrael. >> >>Akiva Miller >> >>Postscript: An easy challenge to this post could be that Tishre 22 was >>NOT >>the day that we crossed from the midbar into Eretz Yisrael. I will >>respond >>in advance by pointing out that Shavuos too is not necessarily celebrated >>on the same day as the event it reminds us of. The Zecher can be poetic >>and >>emotional, and need not be so mathematically rigorous. From micha at aishdas.org Mon Oct 16 11:35:11 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2017 14:35:11 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] R. Akiva, Bar Kochba and Zecharya HaNovi In-Reply-To: References: <5AFE790709AC4B0B9FDDB6A6102B7005@hankPC> <0278980f-97ca-2755-caa3-89461ed64e50@sero.name> <20171011143003.GA21995@aishdas.org> <20171011154231.GA6170@aishdas.org> <0e95d039-c074-ae7f-f3ba-3cee64a3d191@sero.name> <20171011171132.GA1028@aishdas.org> <20171015222126.GB14924@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20171016183511.GA2496@aishdas.org> On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 01:15:48AM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : On 15/10/17 18:21, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: :> On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 10:44:53PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: :>: It conflicts because the Y'mi's version of the story has the :>: Chachamim abandoning BK *before* his fall. The Rambam clearly does :>: not agree with that whole version of the story... :> The Y-mi does not say that R' Aqiva was among those who left early. : The Rambam says that R Akiva *and all the sages of his generation* : imagined BK was Moshiach, *until he was killed*. This is not : consistent with the Y'mi. I see what you mean. Again, it is interesting to find out where the Rambam's alternate picture comes from. Just as his "kol" in "vekhol chakhmei dodo" doesn't seem to be Chazal's picture in either shas. E.g. Sanhedrin 93b, "nechzei anan i moreiach veda'ain..." They were still checking out the validity of BK's claim at the time of his death. :> As I said, there is nothing in the Rambam to rule out them following BK :> out of the expectation that he would eventually get there, rather than his :> being hogeh ve'oseiq bemitzvos already. : Then why can't they also have expected him to eventually do : miracles? How does their belief in him, and his lack of miracles, : prove that Moshiach needn't do any? ... To repeat myself: 11:3 talks about following someone despite a lack of miracles. 12:1-2 talks about the necessary absense of at least a particular kind of miracle -- the start of a new natural order -- if not miracles altogether. If you want to talk about needn't do... then you're looking at R' Aqiva and pereq 11. If you want to talk about won't do... then you're looking at pereq 12 and his assumption of Shemu'el's "ein bein" over Rav's shitah. And the list of things that won't happen is necessarily a subset of things that one needn't wait to happen before following the candidate. Possibly a strict subset, possibly identical sets. :>:> But either way -- whether he or the generation was sinful -- it would :>:> show that BK didn't fit the Rambam's descrition of moshiach. :>: How so? He was righteous, and forced people to keep Torah, but :>: they didn't listen, just like Yoshiyahu. :> "Veyakhof" includes "tried and failed"??? That's not quite what the :> Rambam says. : Yachof means to force, to make it the law of the land, and those who : disobey are punished... You're just repeating the insistance that "vayakhof" could include trying to force people and failing. If the punishments don't actually get the majority observing, is it kefiyah? And we have no evidence or even claim of BK ever even having set up a punishment system. Although this too could be part of the picture the Rambam draws that I don't know the sourece for. After all, as per the above, the picture you get from CHazal is that the Sanhedrin and its enforcement system was *not* behind BK, but the Rambam would have them aligned. ... :> Which he didn't. The Sanhedrin doesn't get reorgonized and put on Har :> haBayis. : The Sanhedrin was already organized. There's no requirement that : they return to Lishkas Hagazis until there *is* one, which he does : eventually have to do, but it comes *after* chezkas Moshiach and : fighting the war, which is the stage he was at. Actually, there is strong evidence he at least started building a BHMQ. And while I suppose they didn't have to move in yet, Anshei Keneses haGedolah moved in to a "lishkah" demarkated by curtains! "Chezqas moshiach" isn't a state in-and-of-itself. It's a chazaqah, a legal presumption, that someone is moshiach. A presumption of a status, not a status. IOW, it is likely that among all of beis David, only the mashiach would be hogeh in Torah and oseif bemitzvos, bring the Jews to observance (minimally: by compulsion) "leileikh bahh ulchazeiq bidqah". And therefore, if we find a member of beis David succeeding at these things, we are obligated to act with the understanding that he is mashiach. Thus, it is meaningless to talk about what happens before or after chezqas mashiach, as though it were a real state change. : Again, a "religious revival" means inspiring people to *want* to : keep mitzvos, which is unrelated to *forcing* them to do so. That's yhour own creative read of what kefiyah means. Forcing or not, it implies actual follow-through. BK didn't risk (and in fact lose) the backing of the majority to get a minority sect to join his support. He didn't get the majority to observe -- or even want to keep mitzvos (as per TSBP). :> Again, this is only a problem for you because you assume that the Rambam's :> chazaqah in 11:4 must be the reason for R' Aqiva and other tannaim :> followed BK. : What else could it be? He goes directly from saying that miracles : are not a requirement to listing what things *are* requirements. : Therefore he must have done those things. Requirements for building a chazaqah that the candidate is indeed moshiach. Which is a measure of confidence in BK the Rambam doesn't claim R' Aqiva and his generation reached -- they only reached as far as "hu hayah omer alav" and "vedimah hu". No mention of a chazaqah they were chayavim to follow; in fact, the lashon ("dimah") implied its lack. Chazaqah isn't imagination; it's a presumption strong enough to obligate our acting upon. : What's weak about it? They must have had a reason for this : imagination. What else but the chazaka? And if they thought he : hadn't yet reached that stage then how do we know miracles aren't : required to reach it? Miracles aren't required. Full stop. 12:1 could even be saying they are ruled out. "What else other than the chazaqah"? Indicators that are short of a chazaqah. Don't we follow umdena, ruba deleisa leqaman, and other notions of likelihood without going as far as having a chazaqah in a lot of halachic topics? : You're misreading it. It's not "din", it's *dein*. Dein hu malka : meshicha, this is the Annointed King. "Hadein hu"? Not that important for the main topic, since dimah isn't an expression I would picture the Rambam using for a mandatory following of a chazaqah. :> BTW, where does the Rambam get that "kol chakhmei doro" followed Bar :> Koziva? Is there any indication Rabban Gamliel ever did? R Yochanan b :> Torta replied (in an oft repeated line) "Aqiva, yaalu asavim belechaikh :> ve'adayin ben David lo ba." : He was the lone exception, or nearly so. Because *he* held that : the miracle of judging by smell *was* required, even at the : beginning. The Rambam paskens against him. That is against the stam bavli (in Sanhedrin 93b, quoted above), which says it's Rabbanan. ... : This makes no sense. Either the Rambam agrees with R Akiva's : criteria or he doesn't... Critria for what? I still find you mixing apples and oranges. He uses R' Aqiva's following of BK despite the lack of a chazaqah as proof that we too shouldn't wait for a miracle before following a likely moshiach. He used Shemu'el's position to rule out miracles (or to be generous, maybe only one kind of miracle) being part of the messianic dream altogether. Very consistent picture, IMHO. : In Chapter 12 he rules out not miracles but changes in nature. A : miracle doesn't change nature, it breaks the rules of nature... It is a bitul of something miminhago shel olam, albeit a temporary one. But I have consistently left open the door to saying he's only talking about a subset of miracles; those that leave the running of things changed. I don't find it likely that the Rambam's "yibatel davar" means only permanent bitul, doubly so since it would be redundant with the next line, "o yihyeh sham chidush bemaaseh bereishis". Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger People were created to be loved. micha at aishdas.org Things were created to be used. http://www.aishdas.org The reason why the world is in chaos is that Fax: (270) 514-1507 things are being loved, people are being used. From cantorwolberg at cox.net Wed Oct 18 06:37:17 2017 From: cantorwolberg at cox.net (Richard Wolberg) Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2017 09:37:17 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Interesting Insight on Noach Message-ID: <36805007-8186-42B4-9042-51439D2BB204@cox.net> It has always bothered me that Noah was considered the only righteous person (along with his family) and that everyone else was evil. However, just today as I was studying various commentaries, I came across the following amazing account in Tanchuma, R?eh, 3. From the moment that God gave the Torah, it is only he who sins that will be punished, though before that, the whole generation was responsible for the sin of the individual. Thus there were many righteous men swept away with the deluge in the time of Noah. Hence, since Noah was the ?most? righteous, he was spared although the other righteous were not, as a consequence of collective guilt at that time. rw Inside each of us, there is the seed of both good and evil. It's a constant struggle as to which one will win. And one cannot exist without the other. Eric Burdon > > ?If you live for people?s acceptance, you will > die from their rejection.? > Anonymous From zev at sero.name Wed Oct 18 07:43:32 2017 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2017 10:43:32 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Interesting Insight on Noach In-Reply-To: <36805007-8186-42B4-9042-51439D2BB204@cox.net> References: <36805007-8186-42B4-9042-51439D2BB204@cox.net> Message-ID: On 18/10/17 09:37, Richard Wolberg via Avodah wrote: > However, just today > as I was studying various commentaries, I came across the following amazing > account in Tanchuma, R?eh, 3. > > From the moment that God gave the Torah, it is only he who sins that will be punished, > though before that, the whole generation was responsible for the sin of the individual. > Thus there were many righteous men swept away with the deluge in the time of Noah. > Hence, since Noah was the ?most? righteous, he was spared although the other righteous > were not, as a consequence of collective guilt at that time. According to R Avin, what was Avraham's argument, "chalila lach"? If that had been Hashem's SOP for the past 2050 years, and would be for another 400, why didn't He just tell Avraham "Yes, this is how I do things"? -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From micha at aishdas.org Wed Oct 18 13:25:27 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2017 16:25:27 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Interesting Insight on Noach In-Reply-To: <36805007-8186-42B4-9042-51439D2BB204@cox.net> References: <36805007-8186-42B4-9042-51439D2BB204@cox.net> Message-ID: <20171018202527.GA27560@aishdas.org> On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 09:37:17AM -0400, Richard Wolberg via Avodah wrote: : ... account in Tanchuma, R?eh, 3: :> From the moment that God gave the Torah, it is only he who sins that will :> be punished, though before that, the whole generation was responsible :> for the sin of the individual. Thus there were many righteous men swept :> away with the deluge in the time of Noah. Hence, since Noah was the :> "most" righteous, he was spared although the other righteous were not, :> as a consequence of collective guilt at that time. The text is available at or The siman opens with quoting Eikhah 3:38, "miPi Elyon lo seitzei hara'os vehatov" and then immediately starts with this statement from R' Avin. However, the quote has that after Matan Torah, whomever sins, "HQBH poreia mimenu", and before that, the whole generation "meshaleim chet'o". Arguably this translation might be missing something by leaving the language of Hashem collecting, as though on a debt. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger One doesn't learn mussar to be a tzaddik, micha at aishdas.org but to become a tzaddik. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yisrael Salanter Fax: (270) 514-1507 From hankman at bell.net Wed Oct 18 08:12:50 2017 From: hankman at bell.net (hankman) Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2017 11:12:50 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] R. Akiva, Bar Kochba and Zecharya HaNovi Message-ID: <7B0712E6569740909873C2AD4F89F435@hankPC> R. Micha Berger wrote: ?This doesn't really rule out miracles, but it does rule out ones that leave a permanent change in the natural orer. There is a line. Which is how he rules out the historicity of "vegar ze'eiv im keves..." etc... They don't mearly "needn't" happen, he rules out the possibility of their literal meaning being part of the future, because they cross his line of olam keminhago noheig".? Kodem cheit Adam haReshon, not just Adam was only permitted to eat plant life but so too was the nature of ALL animals that they too only subsisted from plant life ? ie., much like "vegar ze'eiv im keves..." So perhaps olam keminhago noheig means keminhago KODEM HACHET without requiring any change to the ORIGINAL natural order. Kol tuv Chaim Manaster -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hankman at bell.net Wed Oct 18 08:44:50 2017 From: hankman at bell.net (hankman) Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2017 11:44:50 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] =?utf-8?q?=E2=80=9Cthe_miracle_of_judging_by_smell?= =?utf-8?q?=E2=80=9D_was__=28Re=3A__R=2E_Akiva=2C_Bar_Kochba_and_Ze?= =?utf-8?q?charya_HaNovi=29?= Message-ID: ?the miracle of judging by smell? Really should be a knew thread. When we learned this sugia recently in the daf yomi I asked the magid shiur that lechora this was keneged torah which requires eidim for most judgements. He answered that perhaps it means that one smell from Moshiach would be enough to get the person to be modeh al ha?emes. I replied that would only work for judgments in choshen mishpot (hodoas bal din) but not for cases involving arayos, malkos, or misah where two eidim are required and we are not permitted to accept his confession as ein adam meisim atzmo rasha. How would this ?miracle? allow for a proper halachik judgment? That is where we left it for now. Could this meimre of chazal be limited to just cases involving choshen mishpot? I imagine many meforshim address this issue, can anyone clarify? Kol tuv Chaim Manaster -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From JRich at sibson.com Wed Oct 18 08:48:56 2017 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2017 15:48:56 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Shliach Tzibbur Message-ID: <5b1d039d5958444d94f6c90a4607ee17@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> The S"A in O"C 53 discusses what to look for in a Shliach Tzibbur. We seem to not fully actualize these recommendations (rationalizations include the fact that he is no longer being motzi those who can't pray). Do you think this result is sociological or halachic driven? Does an individual (e.g., avel) who pushes to be a shatz, etc., when there are more qualified individuals (or especially if they are not qualified), accomplish more good or bad? See especially Aruch Hashulchan 53:5. KT 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: From micha at aishdas.org Wed Oct 18 14:25:50 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2017 17:25:50 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] R. Akiva, Bar Kochba and Zecharya HaNovi In-Reply-To: <7B0712E6569740909873C2AD4F89F435@hankPC> References: <7B0712E6569740909873C2AD4F89F435@hankPC> Message-ID: <20171018212550.GB27560@aishdas.org> On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 11:12:50AM -0400, hankman via Avodah wrote: : R. Micha Berger wrote: :> This doesn't really rule out miracles, but it does rule out ones that :> leave a permanent change in the natural order. There is a line. Which is :> how he rules out the historicity of "vegar ze'eiv im keves..." etc... ... : Kodem cheit Adam haReshon, not just Adam was only permitted to eat plant : life but so too was the nature of ALL animals that they too only subsisted : from plant life -- ie., much like "vegar ze'eiv im keves..." I doubt the Rambam, the "he" I am trying to understand in the text you quoted, would agree with this premise about animals before the eitz hada'as. On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 11:44:50AM -0400, hankman via Avodah wrote: :> the miracle of judging by smell : Really should be a new thread. : When we learned this sugia recently in the daf yomi I asked the magid : shiur that lechora this was keneged torah which requires eidim for : most judgements. He answered that perhaps it means that one smell from : Moshiach would be enough to get the person to be modeh al ha'emes.... I think it HAS to be be its own thread, because this too works with assumptions the Rambam would not agree with. Odds are the Rambam wouldn't take "demorach" literally. See Lecham Yehudah on Hil' Melakhim 11:3, aveilable at . But to get back on topic to the original thread (which is why I'm posting it here): Notice that the BLY (R Yehudah Iyash, Levorno mid-18th cent) assumes that such guilt-smelling would defy the Rambam's "chidush bema'aseh bereishis" rule, and thus couldn't be literal. Even though it's a localized miracle / revelation and not a permanent change in the natural order. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Every child comes with the message micha at aishdas.org that God is not yet discouraged with http://www.aishdas.org humanity. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rabindranath Tagore From jmeisner at mail.gmail.com Wed Oct 18 15:38:14 2017 From: jmeisner at mail.gmail.com (Joshua Meisner) Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2017 18:38:14 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] "the miracle of judging by smell" was (Re: R. Akiva, Bar Kochba and Zecharya HaNovi) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7C3544D0-F571-4A7C-B067-FDC0308CBD65@gmail.com> On Oct 18, 2017, at 11:44am, hankman wrote: > When we learned this sugia recently in the daf yomi I asked the magid > shiur that lechora this was keneged torah which requires eidim for > most judgements. He answered that perhaps it means that one smell from > Moshiach would be enough to get the person to be modeh al ha'emes. I > replied that would only work for judgments in choshen mishpot (hodoas > bal din) but not for cases involving arayos, malkos, or misah where two > eidim are required and we are not permitted to accept his confession as > ein adam meisim atzmo rasha... Reaching a correct psak in any area of halacha requires obtaining a full picture of the situation, including all relevant details and the particular context. This requires that the posek have skill in asking questions that will clarify these points and recognizing when, intentionally or not, the answers he is receiving do not reflect the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Perhaps it is this sense that the navi is referring to. Joshua Meisner From hankman at bell.net Wed Oct 18 15:58:01 2017 From: hankman at bell.net (hankman) Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2017 18:58:01 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] =?utf-8?q?=E2=80=9Cthe_miracle_of_judging_by_smell?= =?utf-8?q?=E2=80=9D_was__=28Re=3A__R=2E_Akiva=2C_Bar_Kochba_and_Ze?= =?utf-8?q?charya_HaNovi=29?= Message-ID: <83ADB68D660C4A8BA5E0F3D19339FF76@hankPC> R. J. Meisner wrote: ? Reaching a correct psak in any area of halacha requires obtaining a full picture of the situation, including all relevant details and the particular context. This requires that the posek have skill in asking questions that will clarify these points and recognizing when, intentionally or not, the answers he is receiving do not reflect the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Perhaps it is this sense that the navi is referring to. Joshua Meisner? But no matter how skilled the judge is at getting at the truth, even if all he need so is be moreiach, this still does not lessen the requirement of 2 eidim for many judgments. While reading your response to me, another thought occurred to me and upon reflection it may be that this is also what you meant. Perhaps when the gemara stated that he can be moreaiach veda?in that the gemara meant not that he would only need to question the defendant, and could smell whether he is guilty or not and pasken based on the surety of his conclusion, but perhaps the gemara meant that when questioning the EIDIM he was able merely smell them and then judge the credibility of the eidim whether he should accept them as credible or not and thus pasken the case accordingly. Kol tuv Chaim Manaster -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hankman at bell.net Wed Oct 18 15:44:42 2017 From: hankman at bell.net (hankman) Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2017 18:44:42 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] R. Akiva, Bar Kochba and Zecharya HaNovi Message-ID: <36062433D0904BE5ABD5156C727C7A6D@hankPC> R. Micha Berger wrote: ?I doubt the Rambam, the "he" I am trying to understand in the text you quoted, would agree with this premise about animals before the eitz hada'as.? So how does the Rambam explain Bereishis 1:30? Kol tuv Chaim Manaster -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From akivagmiller at gmail.com Thu Oct 19 02:47:09 2017 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2017 05:47:09 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Torah precheit? Message-ID: . R' Chaim Manaster asked: > I have been trying to understand what the geshtalt of Torah > was precheit of the eitz hadaas. It could not have resembled > anything that we ( I ) would recognize today. Consider: > There was but one mitzva. Most if not all the mitzvos of the > Torah we are familiar with could not have existed, at least > as we understand them today. Had Adam been successful in his > one day tafkid the purpose of the bria would have been > accomplished and Adam (mankind) would have gone to olom haba > ? mission accomplished nothing more to follow but for reward > in olom haba. > > The many consequences seem to be as follows: there would be > no avdus in Mitzrayim, therefore no ... ... One can ask similar questions about other turning-points in history. What if Kayin had not killed Hevel? What if the world has not gone to Avodah Zara a few generations later? What if Yishmael and/or Esav had not gone of the derech? What if Moshe Rabenu had acted differently by the rock? I believe that people are too hung up on the idea that "Torah" and the Chumash are identical. They are not. "The Torah has 70 faces", and ONE of them is the written scroll that we read from in shul. Another is the Torah Sheb'al Peh. Another was that one singular mitzvah that Adam HaRishon was given. None is less holy than any other. They are but different facets of the same diamond. And there are yet others. Torah manifests itself differently to a kohen than to a levi, and differently to a woman than to a man. And so on. For example: > As there would never be an Eretz Yisroel, then there would not > be all the mitzvot hateltuot ba?aretz ? trumos, masros etc., etc. Or perhaps Gan Eden would have had that status. Eretz Yisrael is actually a great example: Consider the idea that true nevuah can exist only in Eretz Yisrael. But also consider that this restriction only started when EY got its kedushah - prior to that point one could have nevuah elsewhere too. Logically, I would think that the kedusha of EY enabled this thing that couldn't exist without such intense kedusha; but counter-intuitively, this thing that has long existed is now suddenly restricted to a specific area. Because times change, and people change; the Torah stays the same but it shows a different face. We are so used to how things are today, that we think things have always been this way. But it ain't so. > So what is the nature of Torah in such a world. How do we > see it as an ever constant ever present and unchanging > Torah? How does a Torah with but ONE mitzva look? How does > it still identify with a Torah with 613 mitzvot? There are many mitzvos that apply only at specifc times and under specific circumstances. Consider the back-and-forth of when bamos were allowed and not allowed. We went for quite a few centuries with choosing a human king. I am deliberately trying to avoid mitzvos that have sociological criteria, like the existence of a Sanhedrin, or whether or not we are capable of tochacha. Rather, my point goes to this "Torah with 613 mitzvot" that you refer to. It doesn't exist today, and I don't know if it ever has existed. There has certainly never been a person to whom they all applied, and I wonder whether there was ever a generation when they were all in force. > Sorry if my thoughts were very rambling. I just typed as > things came to mind ? maybe not always a good idea! On the contrary, brainstorming is often a fruitful way of developing new thoughts! Personally, it was many decades ago that someone asked me, "If there is life on other planets, might they possibly have a Torah? But Mitzrayim doesn't exist there, and Moshe never lived there!" That question bothered me for a very long time, until I realized that even on *this* planet, Noach had his version of Torah, and that was centuries before Mitzrayim or Moshe came to be. (To conflate two threads, I think what I'm saying here is very similar to what R"n Lisa Liel wrote in the "eitz hachaim" thread. These things aren't static; their roles change to fit the situation.) Akiva Miller From zev at sero.name Wed Oct 18 20:54:50 2017 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2017 23:54:50 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] =?utf-8?q?=E2=80=9Cthe_miracle_of_judging_by_smell?= =?utf-8?q?=E2=80=9D_was_=28Re=3A_R=2E_Akiva=2C_Bar_Kochba_and_Zecharya_Ha?= =?utf-8?q?Novi=29?= In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <209038db-6620-b1cf-4e52-1b093803ac7d@sero.name> On 18/10/17 11:44, hankman via Avodah wrote: > ?the miracle of judging by smell? > Really should be a knew thread. > When we learned this sugia recently in the daf yomi I asked the magid > shiur that lechora this was keneged torah which requires eidim for most > judgements. Moshiach is a melech, and not bound by the rules of a beis din. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From micha at aishdas.org Wed Oct 18 19:40:28 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2017 22:40:28 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] R. Akiva, Bar Kochba and Zecharya HaNovi In-Reply-To: <36062433D0904BE5ABD5156C727C7A6D@hankPC> References: <36062433D0904BE5ABD5156C727C7A6D@hankPC> Message-ID: <20171019024028.GB20212@aishdas.org> On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 06:44:42PM -0400, hankman via Avodah wrote: : R. Micha Berger wrote: :> I doubt the Rambam, the "he" I am trying to understand in the text :> you quoted, would agree with this premise about animals before the :> eitz hada'as. : So how does the Rambam explain Bereishis 1:30? Well, if you look at Moreh 1:30, you'll see that the Rambam considers maaseh bereishis to be atemporal, 6 logical stages of unfolding of reality, not steps separated in time. So I don't know if I should assume anything about how he reads pasuq 30. But I do note that if taken literally, the pasuq merely says that Hashem gave the plants to the animals for food. A statement about one of the functions of plantsl and that Adam can't hord all the plants for himself, since animals need it too. It needn't mean that only plants served a food. The statement from Chazal (quoted by Rashi) is a derashah. The Ohr haChaim spends time justifying it, if you want to see the medrashic steps in detail. But it's not peshat, and therefore not necessarily the Rambam would take literally. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger There's only one corner of the universe micha at aishdas.org you can be certain of improving, http://www.aishdas.org and that's your own self. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Aldous Huxley From zev at sero.name Wed Oct 18 21:51:32 2017 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2017 00:51:32 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Interesting Insight on Noach In-Reply-To: <2E736CF9-84CD-41DB-9963-8E38B681DC20@cox.net> References: <36805007-8186-42B4-9042-51439D2BB204@cox.net> <2E736CF9-84CD-41DB-9963-8E38B681DC20@cox.net> Message-ID: <18439702-d4ae-0f50-3350-a8b5cd433fb5@sero.name> On 18/10/17 11:09, Richard Wolberg wrote: > What I?m saying is that our theology is fraught with inconsistencies and > contradictions > and we have plenty of ?teikusl? ?You?re a black and white person and > don?t see shades. > Not everything can be reconciled. Impossible. Toras Hashem Temima, and can't contradict itself. If there are two pesukim that seem to contradict each other, there's a third pasuk that resolves it and makes sense of both. It's not possible that R Avin was unaware of Avraham's statement, nor is it possible that he would dismiss Avraham's view as mistaken. Therefore there must be something in R Avin's view that's not what it appears. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From JRich at sibson.com Fri Oct 20 05:37:21 2017 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2017 12:37:21 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] empiricism Message-ID: <17851b0cb6514f5a8fac7543e7d86493@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Rabbi Jason Weiner's, "Jewish Guide to Practical Medical Decision-Making" - "The Talmudic sages performed post-mortem examinations and had considerable knowledge of anatomy and pathology. Indeed, the rabbis of the Talmud were among the first people in history to operate on corpses in order to learn medical information that had halakhic ramifications. See Tosefta Niddah 4:17, Niddah 30b, bekhorot 45A . . ". Wiki s- Initially, the Ancient Greek philosophers did not believe in empiricism, and saw measurements, such as geometry, as the domain of craftsmen and artisans. Philosophers, such as Plato, believed that all knowledge could be obtained through pure reasoning, and that there was no need to actually go out and measure anything. Please look at the three sources quoted by R'Weiner, are they support or really maaseh lstormaaseh l'stor as to a general approach? Kt 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: From emteitz at gmail.com Fri Oct 20 14:49:21 2017 From: emteitz at gmail.com (elazar teitz) Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2017 17:49:21 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] the miracle of judging by smell Message-ID: On this topic, the comment was made that "Moshiach is a melech, and not bound by the rules of a beis din." However, other than moreid b'malchus, this is only true for r'tzicha, not other capital punishment cases, as is indicated in Rambam Hilchos M'lachim 3:10 (as it is understood by most m'farshim). EMT -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From isaac at balb.in Sat Oct 21 04:07:43 2017 From: isaac at balb.in (Isaac Balbin) Date: Sat, 21 Oct 2017 11:07:43 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] ?the miracle of judging by smell? was (Re: R. Akiva, Bar Kochba and Zecharya HaNovi) Message-ID: From: Zev Sero > > On 18/10/17 11:44, hankman via Avodah wrote: >> When we learned this sugia recently in the daf yomi I asked the magid >> shiur that lechora this was keneged torah which requires eidim for most >> judgements. Zev responded > Moshiach is a melech, and not bound by the rules of a beis din. Indeed. His position therefore also invalidates Moshiach from being a formal witness, although that's clearly not for trust/smell issues. From micha at aishdas.org Sun Oct 22 07:20:34 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2017 10:20:34 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Long Lifespans in Bereishis Message-ID: <20171022142033.GA669@aishdas.org> Our old chaver R' Rich Wolpoe posted this article by R/Dr Mitchell First. It's a nice survey of opinions about all those long lifespans in seifer Bereishis : NishmaBlog From RRW Guest Blogger: Mitchell First Thursday, 19 October 2017 The Long Lifespans in Genesis The Longevity of the Ancients Recorded in Genesis ... Josephus (late 1st century). Here is his statement in Antiquities, book I: " ...For, in the first place, they were beloved of God and the creatures of God himself; their diet too was more conducive to longevity: it was then natural that they should live so long. Again, alike for their merits and to promote the utility of their discoveries in astronomy and geometry, God would accord them a longer life...." Now I will survey the views of our Geonim and Rishonim. R. Saadiah Gaon (10th cent.) discusses this issue in his introduction to Tehillim. He writes that the longevity of these early generations was part of God's plan for the rapid proliferation of mankind on the earth..... R. Yehudah Ha-Levi (12th cent.) discusses the issue in the Kuzari (sec. 95). He believes that it was only the individuals listed who lived long. Each of the individuals listed was the heart and essence of his generation and was physically and spiritually perfect. The Divine Flow was transmitted from one generation to another through these exceptional individuals. Rambam, in a famous passage in the Guide to the Perplexed (II, chap. 47) writes: "I say that only the persons named lived so long, whilst other people enjoyed the ordinary length of life. The men named were exceptions, either in consequence of different causes, as e.g., their food or mode of living, or by way of miracle." Ramban (comm. to Gen. 5:4) quotes Rambam's view and then disagrees, ... individuals with long lifespans named in the Bible were not exceptional in their lifespans. Rather, the entire world had long lifespans before the Flood. But after the Flood, the world atmosphere changed and this caused the gradual reduction in lifespans. Most of the Rishonim who discussed the issue thereafter followed the approach of either the Rambam or the Ramban. Either way, they were taking the Genesis lifespan numbers literally. (An underlying factor that motivated Rishonim to accept the Genesis lifespan numbers literally was that the count from creation was calculated based on these numbers.) Josephus had mentioned that one of the reasons that God allowed their longevity was to promote the utility of their discoveries in astronomy and geometry. This idea of longevity to enable the acquisition of knowledge and make discoveries (and write them to be passed down) is also included in several of our Rishonim. See, e.g., the commentary of the Radak to Gen. 5:4 and of the Ralbag to Gen. chap. 5 (p. 136), and the Rashbatz (R. Shimon b. Tzemach Duran, Magen Avot, comm. to Avot 5:21). Rashbatz also mentions the idea that the early generations were close in time to Adam and Adam ... was made by God from the earth.... Another idea found in some of our Rishonim is that those early individuals did not chase after "ta'avat ha-guf," which reduces the lifespan. See, e.g., the commentary of the Radak to Gen. 5:4. ... ... R. Moses Ibn Tibbon (late 13th cent.) He suggests that the years given for people's lives were actually the years of "malkhutam ve-nimuseihim," i.e., the dynasties and/or customs that they established. ... R. Levi ben Hayyim (early 14th cent.).... concludes that in his opinion the names mentioned were just roshei avot. In other words, the number of years given for each individual reflects the total of the years of the several generations of individuals named for that first individual. R. Nissim of Marseilles (early 14th century) ... took the same approach as R. Moses Ibn Tibbon. The numbers ... included the total years of the descendants who followed his customs and lifestyle. The most interesting approach I saw was that of R. Eleazar Ashkenazi ben Nathan ha-Bavli (14th century), in his work Tzafnat Paneach, pp. 29-30. ... First, R. Eleazar refers to the view that perhaps the individual numbers were not to be taken literally, and points to other statements in the Torah that were not meant to be taken literally, e.g., 1) the Land of Israel was "flowing with milk and honey," and 2) the cities in Canaan were "fortified up to the Heaven" (Deut. 1:28). (See further Moreh Nevuchim, II,47.) But then R. Eleazar suggests the following creative approach. In listing these individual numbers, the Torah was merely recording the legends about these figures, even though they were not accurate. The important thing was to provide data from which the total years from Creation to Matan Torah could be derived, so that the people would be able to know the length of time between these two periods. Even though the numbers for the individual lifespans were not accurate, the Torah made sure that the total that would be arrived at would be accurate.... ... Prof. Natan Aviezer of Bar-Ilan University.... in a post at the Bar Ilan University weekly parshah site for parshat Noach, 1998... explains that modern science has figured out that aging is largely caused by genes, and not by a wearing out of our bodies. He then suggests that when God stated at Gen. 6:3 that man would be limited to 120 years, this was when God first introduced the gene for aging into the human gene pool. If you have not found any of the above answers satisfying, I have some good news. R. Saadiah Gaon writes (Emunot Ve-Deot, end of chap. 7) that in the era of the redemption the human lifespan will be approximately 500 years. Presumably, at that time we won't be bothered by those long lifespans in Genesis anymore! (Note that Radak, comm. to Is. 65:20, is a bit stingier. He predicts lifespans of only 300 to 500 years. See also his commentary to Ps. 92:15. But the 12th century Babylonian Gaon R. Samuel b. Ali predicts lifespans closer to 1000 years!) I would like to acknowledge that most of the material above came from an article by Prof. Daniel Lasker of Ben-Gurion University, in Mechkarim Be-Halakha U-Be-Mishpat Ha-Ivri, vol. 26-27 (2009-10). Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger I slept and dreamt that life was joy. micha at aishdas.org I awoke and found that life was duty. http://www.aishdas.org I worked and, behold -- duty is joy. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rabindranath Tagore From micha at aishdas.org Sun Oct 22 09:13:16 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2017 12:13:16 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Beris Milah on Shabbos when Father isn't Jewish Message-ID: <20171022161316.GA32328@aishdas.org> I mentioned in the past I had this question halakhah lemaaseh. I knew of an intermarried couple who lived nowhere near the nearest Jewish community. They would have just had the boy circumcized in the hospital rather than to pay what one of the nearer mohalim wanted to come down for the weekend. Yes, the nearest Chabad house had a mohel, who (of course) would come at cost... IFF he hadn't had a beris in his own minhan that same Shabbos. So the question I asked was whether I should donate (or raise donations) for the beris to be bizmano. My LOR asked his rav... long story short, as I best remember at a little more than two decades later: The pasuq says "bayom hashemini yimol besar arlaso" -- it's the father who is told "on the eight day", even if it's on Shabbos. Implied: If the father has no chiyuv, such as our case or if r"l the father didn't survive to see his son's beris, there is no one whose chiyuv overrides Shabbos. (If the father is alive but not there, you'd still violate Shabbos.) Well, someone asked R' Asher Weiss. . He didn't rule the same way, but does mention that is -- or at least was -- a machloqes amoraim. However, RAW holds a consensus has emerged to do the beris. Perhaps RDC didn't think the consensus was solid enough to warrant my spending or raising that kind of money for someone else's beris. Or perhaps it was closer to the way I remembered it and RDC doesn't agree with how the consensus emerged. Brit mila on Shabbos when father is non Jew Posted by: Rabbi Akiva Dershowitz Question: Does everyone agree that a brit is done on Shabbat even if the father is a goy? ... Answer: No, this is a dispute among the achronim [halachic authorities of the last 500 years]. The halachic ruling is that we do in fact perform the bris mila on Shabbos. See Derisha Y:D 266:20, Nachalas Shiva [kuntress hamila siman 1], Shu't Binyan Tzion [Vol. 1:21]. The nearest I could find in Hebrew (as the Hebrew always has more discussion) is "Beris beShabbos leVen Me'uberes sheNisgayrah" at . There the question is whether the velad's milah is a normal beris or lesheim geirus, and RAW still holds the milah should be on Shabbos. It's a fun sugya, worth a read. But doesn't focus on our question. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger You cannot propel yourself forward micha at aishdas.org by patting yourself on the back. http://www.aishdas.org -Anonymous Fax: (270) 514-1507 From hankman at bell.net Sun Oct 22 13:15:49 2017 From: hankman at bell.net (hankman) Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2017 16:15:49 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Torah precheit? Message-ID: <39266980A1C24F078B1904F1783BA1C0@hankPC> R. Akiva Miller wrote: ?One can ask similar questions about other turning-points in history. What if Kayin had not killed Hevel? What if the world has not gone to Avodah Zara a few generations later? What if Yishmael and/or Esav had not gone of the derech? What if Moshe Rabenu had acted differently by the rock?? Actually I had thoughts along similar lines that you express. The most prominent such turning point was the cheit ha?eigel, where again, had they succeeded, that again would have been the end for man?s tafkid and correction the cheit of Adam, direct route to eretz Yisroel, no forty years in the midbar and presumably Moshe R. would have been the final moshiach and on to the final gemul. The reason these two stick in my mind more than the other forks in history you point to, is that these would have been endpoints to the tafkid in this world and led directly to olom haba with no continuation of the ?Torah? story we are familiar with. The moments in history you point to would have been forks in the road but not endpoints. So if say Esau/Yishmoel had made good choices and been more like his brother Yaakov/Yitzchok, the story would have had a different twist to it, but the overall gestalt to the Torah could still have been quite similar. What we have now, with some changes. But we would have no problem imagining all (perhaps most) of the mitzvos as we know them. These two, cheit of Adam and cheit ha?eigel, were fundamentally different than the other ?forks? in the road as what we know to have followed would never happen. So Regalim, and avdus in Mitzrayim, etc, etc are ideas that seem not to have a place in such a reality had Adam succeeded while the other forks would have led to a variation on a theme we are familiar with and can at least readily imagine. The idea you mention of ?70 panim latorah? would have to be expanded greatly if for every fork on the possible choices made in the biblical period (by this I mean the time through the end of the forty years bamidbar that were recorded in chumash). If every possible choice made at every fork (say N) resulted in a diff version of Torah, then that would result in 2 to the N panim laTorah ? with N being very large! Perhaps 70 is just a synonym for ?many?? When we say that there are 70 umos, I always wondered how that was defined, as it seems to me that there are many more and that the number would change for different periods in history. If 70 here too means ?many? that would clear that up. But then the precise number of 70 for the parei hachag might be a problem unless for some reason that may have been fixed symbolically, or perhaps to coincide with the original number at some early point in history as say per the list of the 70 nations Art Scroll makes in its chumash at the end of this weeks parsha (Noach). Basically it is a listing of certain of the names of descendants of Noach. Have you ever heard of a nation called Ever (or most of the other names they list)? So is the ?essence? of Torah something beyond our ken. Is all we can see just a single facet of the 70 panim laTorah? (This of course is not the normal meaning to 70 panim laTorah, which usually is applied to differing explanations to our ?current? Torah, and not the other ?possible? ?Toros? as you are suggesting. Is this so far off the beaten path that this might even be an accidental trip into thought that might be apikursus or a credible notion within the daas? (Torah lo yehai moochlefes). I have no idea! R. Akiva Miller wrote: ?Torah manifests itself differently to a kohen than to a levi, and differently to a woman than to a man.? There is a fundamental difference between a mitzvoh only applying to some vs the concept not existing. Even if I am a Yisroel I can still be oseik in torah of the mitvos of a cohen ? it is still a part of Torah given to all of us even if not all of it pertains to me. R. Akiva Miller wrote: ?Or perhaps Gan Eden would have had that status.? I actually had a thought similar to yours as well on this idea. When I thought a little more about it, I had difficulty putting it all together. so what kind of meaning would trummos and massros have. What would orlo mean. Without aniyim, what is the point of leket shichacha upei?a? (or tzedaka in general, or even more broadly of gemila chasadim in such a world?) The mitzvos hatelyuous ba?aretz only make sense in an agricultural society, not in a world of olam haba where there are no farmers or farms. No need for orei miklat in a world without a yetzer. On another thought, would the notion of baal tigra in the world of only one mitzva leave you with no mitvos at all? That would make one a kofer bekol haTorah koola? Also there would be no need for lo tassur yamin usemol for gezeirot derabanan in such a world (though perhaps it might have stopped Chava if such a takana existed to protect the only mitzvoh they had). R. Akiva Miller wrote: ?"If there is life on other planets, might they possibly have a Torah? But Mitzrayim doesn't exist there, and Moshe never lived there!" That question bothered me for a very long time,? Strangely enough, I had similar thoughts years back. As a young bachur in yeshivo, my rebbi was teaching us that their was a period during which the progenitor of kelal Yisroel would happen. I asked what would have happened if there had been another deep thinker who came to the same realization and belief that Avraham did. He answered that there would have been two (or more) chosen peoples to eventually be mekabel Torah. It didn?t occur to me at the time to ask, would they each have the ?same? Torah or each get a tailored version to their (eventual) am? Or, would there be one Torah that talks of both of the chosen peoples? Years later when discussing what is the purpose to us of the trillions of stars and galaxies so distant that they could never possibly affect us here on Earth? Then it occurred to me, what if those stars had planets with intelligent beings on them and they too went through a similar period wherein they too had some allien being come to the same conclusions as Avraham did and they then became the chosen people of that planet and received a Torah possibly tailored to their experiences and appropriate there etc.? This almost makes sense of the questions the malachim asked Moshe when he went lamorom to accept Torah. They too wanted Torah in a version suitable to them which would deflect all of Moshe?s responses. If memory serves, I think some meforshim try to make sense of the malachim in such a manner. Just some more rambling thoughts. Kol tuv Chaim Manaster -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hankman at bell.net Sun Oct 22 23:25:10 2017 From: hankman at bell.net (hankman) Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2017 02:25:10 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] =?utf-8?q?=E2=80=9Cthe_miracle_of_judging_by_smell?= =?utf-8?q?=E2=80=9D_was_=28Re=3A_R=2E_Akiva=2C_Bar_Kochba_and_Zech?= =?utf-8?q?arya_HaNovi=29?= Message-ID: <7D7387F31006477FA724C733A37A100B@hankPC> R. Zev Sero wrote: ?Moshiach is a melech, and not bound by the rules of a beis din.? You are obviously referring to Rambam, Melachim P. 3: 8, 10. However this refers to judgments that are within the scope of the Melech such as a moreid, or letakein ha?olom kefi ma shehasho?o tzricha. This does not however give him the right to usurp ordinary judgments that normally would fall to a beis din (and disregard such niceties as eidus that the Torah requires), unless he is the av beis din (possible for malchei beis Dovid) and does follow the rules of Torah for eidus like any other beis din and does not simply follow his nose in these judgments. Furthermore, in the category of cases like moreid and shehasho?o tzricha, all the Melech needs to do is simply assert his position as he feels correct for ANY Melech ? he does not even need the power of moreiach veda?in to prove his position. So mimonafshoch, in either case he either may not, or has no need of the power to be moreiach veda?in. Kol tuv Chaim Manaster -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Mon Oct 23 13:16:56 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2017 16:16:56 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] =?cp1255?q?=93the_miracle_of_judging_by_smell=94_was_?= =?cp1255?q?=28Re=3A_R=2E_Akiva=2C_Bar_Kochba_and_Zecharya_HaNovi=29?= In-Reply-To: <7D7387F31006477FA724C733A37A100B@hankPC> References: <7D7387F31006477FA724C733A37A100B@hankPC> Message-ID: <20171023201656.GA13749@aishdas.org> On Mon, Oct 23, 2017 at 02:25:10AM -0400, hankman via Avodah wrote: : . Furthermore, : in the category of cases like moreid and shehasho'o tzricha, all the : Melech needs to do is simply assert his position as he feels correct : for ANY Melech -- he does not even need the power of moreiach veda'in to : prove his position. So mimonafshoch, in either case he either may not, : or has no need of the power to be moreiach veda'in. If I understood the Rambam this way: It would be good to have a king who knows with certainty which dinim need shoring up because he can smell that their violation is rampant. Or, in determining the convicted's guilt: Let's say some sin became common place, and hasha'ah zerikhah that the king enforce a capital punishment for it. But say I understand him as per REMT's post, noting that in 3:10 the Rambam singles out the king's power to kill murderers (eg without hasda'ah, where there was only eid echad, etc...) -- implying that retzichah yes, other issurim, the king could not. (Mikelal lav...) 3:8 really only discussed rebellion and lesse majeste (moreid bemekeh and mevazeh es hamelekh o hamchorfo). I don't see hasha'ah tzeikhah in the Rambam; I'm taking your word for it. Still, I can ask the parallel question: Wouldn't if be far far better if the melekh hamashiach had a supernal ability to know who is really guilty, and not kill the wrong guy? He might not legally need the power, but it would be a good thing for a king to have in order to be effective and fair. So I'm not sure your argument holds. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Every child comes with the message micha at aishdas.org that God is not yet discouraged with http://www.aishdas.org humanity. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rabindranath Tagore From micha at aishdas.org Mon Oct 23 18:51:25 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2017 21:51:25 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] No Barrier Between Religion and Science Message-ID: <20171024015125.GA13043@aishdas.org> See this article on Real Clear Science or http://www.realclearscience.com/articles/2017/10/16/philosophy_rebuts_key_barrier_between_science_and_religion_110422.htmlh Here is Mosaic Magazine's snippet: Kuhn's [argument] is that students learn first by imitation and practice and -- assuming they receive a good education -- once they strike out on their own, they will have been successfully inculcated into a particular scientific tradition. They will thus be prepared to recognize, pose, and solve scientific problems. If we take tradition to be antithetical to scientific rationality, Kuhn's conclusions will appear disquieting. And, indeed, Kuhn's critics rejected his arguments as "irrationalist." But if, on the contrary, we take tradition to be essential to rationality, then Kuhn's conclusions will be not only acceptable but also unsurprising. According to the moral philosopher Alasdair MacIntyre, before we can begin to reason at all, we must first acquire the habits necessary to recognize and, ultimately, to replicate rational behavior. To do so, there must first be exemplars that we take to be authoritative -- in the moral domain these will be exceptionally virtuous people, in the scientific domain, exceptionally good scientists. To become rational, in other words, one must be educated within a tradition of inquiry. Science, on this view, is not Cartesian -- at least as far as [the rejection of received ideas] is concerned -- even if it remains eminently rational. Where does this leave us?... [T]he fact that religious beliefs are not entirely reducible to empirical experience and partly depend upon tradition doesn't make them irrational or even anti-scientific. Thus a popular way of opposing science and religion starts to look untenable. This hardly means the two become indistinguishable. But it does suggest that science and religion could be conceived of as distinct -- but possibly harmonious, even sometimes mutually beneficial -- traditions of rational inquiry. The truth is that science has little to say about where a hypothesis come from. It gives little guidance for deciding what features are worth observing, what we should give our attention to. And once we see a pattern that needs explanation, it is left to human creativity to come up with a hypothesis. Science is a means of weeding out subjectivity from possible answers, but the means of coming up with those answers are very human. In particular, the entire enteprise of science rests on a tradition of theism -- whether the personal beliefs of an Aristotle or Newton, or the culture that produced an Einstein. Without a personal reason for assuming that the universe opperates reasonably, rather than attributing lightning to Thor's or Zeus's moods, can that hypothesis invention get started. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Good decisions come from experience; micha at aishdas.org Experience comes from bad decisions. http://www.aishdas.org - Djoha, from a Sepharadi fable Fax: (270) 514-1507 From hankman at bell.net Mon Oct 23 20:57:36 2017 From: hankman at bell.net (hankman) Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2017 23:57:36 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] "the miracle of judging by smell" was (Re: R. Akiva, Bar Kochba and Zecharya HaNovi) In-Reply-To: <20171023201656.GA13749@aishdas.org> References: <7D7387F31006477FA724C733A37A100B@hankPC> <20171023201656.GA13749@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <7FA394F42CCE44ECBB668DFA42362B96@hankPC> From: Micha Berger Sent: Monday, October 23, 2017 4:16 PM > But say I understand him as per REMT's post, noting that in 3:10 the > Rambam singles out the king's power to kill murderers (eg without > hasda'ah, where there was only eid echad, etc...) -- implying that > retzichah yes, other issurim, the king could not. (Mikelal lav...) > 3:8 really only discussed rebellion and lesse majeste (moreid bemekeh > and mevazeh es hamelekh o hamchorfo). I don't see hasha'ah tzeikhah in > the Rambam; I'm taking your word for it. Still, I can ask the parallel > question: > Wouldn't if be far far better if the melekh hamashiach had a supernal > ability to know who is really guilty, and not kill the wrong guy? > He might not legally need the power, but it would be a good thing for a > king to have in order to be effective and fair. My own initial impression unlike REMT is that the Rambam in 3:10 was not limiting this to only rotzeach, but dealing with case of max punishment or similar punishment and kal vechomer for cases of lesser punishment, however on rereading the Rambam after reading REMT I can see his point of view, but I am not sure I am fully convinced. I did a quick look around and found that the Or Sameiach on the Rambam at 3:10 has a long discussion on this issue as to whether the melech only has this power for a rotzeach where it is a danger to the rabim but not to enforce laxity of bein adam lamokom such as dinei shabbos, or if there was a breach even in these other areas whether the melech could act extra judicially there as well. There is a reference to a Y. Sanhedrin that implies that Dovid hamelech wold have executed for mishkav behama al pi eid echod -- so not just rotzeiach. See also the Rambam H. Rotzeiach P 2:4-5 where he broadens this extra judicial power to beis din as well but under horoas sha'o rather than takonas olam. (Not sure if the different label implies a difference in the respective extra judicial powers or not). See the Kesef Mishna there who mentions a case of chilul Shabbos. My simple reading there is that the Rambam seem to equate the reach of the extra judicial power of b"d to that of the melech to punish when found necessary either due to horo'as shao or takonas olam respectively. (Not clear to me if the different reasons lead to a different scope or not). But it seems that yeish lekan veyeish lekan. I hear your point about moreiach being a good reassurance that his pesak is correct even if not really necessary to render his judgment. Kol tuv Chaim Manaster From micha at aishdas.org Tue Oct 24 06:38:55 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2017 09:38:55 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Psak source wanted In-Reply-To: <1857240052.122258.1508054451353@mail.yahoo.com> References: <1857240052.122258.1508054451353.ref@mail.yahoo.com> <1857240052.122258.1508054451353@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20171024133855.GB25244@aishdas.org> On Sun, Oct 15, 2017 at 08:00:51AM +0000, Motti Yarchinai via Avodah wrote: : It is similar to what the Rambam wrote in Hilchot Kiddush Hachodesh, : saying that in all calendric matters, we follow the lead of the chachmei : eretz yisrael, and even though the anshei hagolah know the calculations : used by them, it is not on our own calculations that we rely, we only : use those calculations because we know that they are the same as the : calculations used by the chachmei eretz yisrael... : Another posek (possibly the Tifferet Yisrael in Shvilei Harakia, but : I'm not sure of that), writes something similar... Did you ever find a source? Google, Bar Ilan and I didn't turn anything up. In practice, we follow the calculations of R' Saaadia Gaon, who was in Aleppo at the time, and not R Aaron Ben-Meir in Y-m ih"q. The big debate of 922 was the topic of an article by RYGB and RAZZ reposted here . The Rambam (Qiddush haChodesh 1:8) limits the authority to someone in EY ("ki miTzion teitzei Sorah...") or if the one clearly most able to do it received semichah in EY, he can continue setting the months and ibur shanos in chu"l -- until someone of comparable stature arises in EY. This seems taylor-made for R Saadia Gaon, who went to yeshiva in Teveriah. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Never must we think that the Jewish element micha at aishdas.org in us could exist without the human element http://www.aishdas.org or vice versa. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch From sholom at aishdas.org Tue Oct 24 12:50:00 2017 From: sholom at aishdas.org (Sholom Simon) Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2017 15:50:00 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Long Lifespans in Bereishis In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <588c56c0dc1eedd39e7bb464810c5cea@aishdas.org> Thanks, RMB, for posting that article. Re the views of R. Moses Ibn Tibbon, et al, who don't take those ages literally on a single person -- is that (along the lines of an off-line conversation we had) a "kosher view" these days? Or, is it one of those views that, the way R Noson Slifkin puts it: they are allowed to have those views, but we aren't? On a different, but related issue, to the chevra: The list of generations in parshas Bereshis are generally of the form: * X was 50 years old when he fathered Y. * X lived 450 years after he fathered Y and had sons and daughters * X lived to the age of 500 years. Doesn't that seem a bit redundant? And, in fact, most (all?) of the generations listed in parshas Noach skip the third phrase. Thoughts? -- Sholom -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hankman at bell.net Tue Oct 24 15:28:28 2017 From: hankman at bell.net (hankman) Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2017 18:28:28 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Long Lifespans in Bereishis Message-ID: <9DE9360C549C46879FBF7291563A9387@hankPC> >From the summary of opinions posted by RMB on lifespans in Bereishis and some comments: ?R. Saadiah Gaon (10th cent.) discusses this issue in his introduction to Tehillim. He writes that the longevity of these early generations was part of God's plan for the rapid proliferation of mankind on the earth.....? Not the biggest kashe in the world, but why then would they start to have children at an advanced age if rapid proliferation was the goal? Perhaps with great longevity came a much longer period for sexual maturation? If true would that also mean that intellectual maturation took much longer as well? ?R. Yehudah Ha-Levi (12th cent.) discusses the issue in the Kuzari (sec. 95). He believes that it was only the individuals listed who lived long. Each of the individuals listed was the heart and essence of his generation and was physically and spiritually perfect. The Divine Flow was transmitted from one generation to another through these exceptional individuals.? How does R. Yehudah Ha-Levi deal with Terach who was an idolator? Clearly he was not spiritually perfect. ?... R. Moses Ibn Tibbon (late 13th cent.) He suggests that the years given for people's lives were actually the years of "malkhutam ve-nimuseihim," i.e., the dynasties and/or customs that they established.? This comment will apply to R. Nissim of Marseilles as well. I presume they held that people had what we today would consider a normal life span. this would mean they were not having the first born at the advanced age of over one hundred. Thus the named son must have been a later generation descendant. (I assume that they did not generate a son in their old age and die shortly thereafter as was the case with Boaz). So if their life spans were similar to ours then was Shes really not a son of Adam but really a descendant several generations down? Ditto for Ennosh, was he really a great ... grandson of Sheis? But this notion of the the years given in Bereishis not pertaining to one single man, but to a dynasty of several generations of normal life span, runs into difficulty with Noach and his 3 sons. If we follow suit with this notion then Shem, Cham and Yefes were not his sons but descendants born 500 years later. Yet they all went into the Teiva together? So how is that a normal life span for Noach? Why weren?t the generations between Noach and Shem, Cham and Yefes saved as well? When the Torah says ?vayoled es X? that is not to be taken literally but just to mean a later descendant chosen to be named in the lineage? ? R. Saadiah Gaon writes (Emunot Ve-Deot, end of chap. 7) that in the era of the redemption the human lifespan will be approximately 500 years. Presumably, at that time we won't be bothered by those long lifespans in Genesis anymore! (Note that Radak, comm. to Is. 65:20, is a bit stingier. He predicts lifespans of only 300 to 500 years. See also his commentary to Ps. 92:15. But the 12th century Babylonian Gaon R. Samuel b. Ali predicts lifespans closer to 1000 years!)? This quote leads to an issue I will expand upon slightly in another post. But the basic issue is if the world is Charuv at 6000 years and yemos Moshiach are before the olom is charuv, (while olom keminhago noheig) there is not enough time left (we are now 5778) for a life span of 300 to 500 years let alone 1000 years. Kol tuv Chaim Manaster -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Wed Oct 25 04:13:32 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2017 07:13:32 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Long Lifespans in Bereishis In-Reply-To: <9DE9360C549C46879FBF7291563A9387@hankPC> References: <9DE9360C549C46879FBF7291563A9387@hankPC> Message-ID: <20171025111332.GC22254@aishdas.org> On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 06:28:28PM -0400, hankman (RVM) wrote: : > (Note that Radak, comm. to Is. 65:20, is a bit stingier. He predicts : > lifespans of only 300 to 500 years. See also his commentary to : > Ps. 92:15. But the 12th century Babylonian Gaon R. Samuel b. Ali : > predicts lifespans closer to 1000 years!)" : This quote leads to an issue I will expand upon slightly in another : post. But the basic issue is if the world is Charuv at 6000 years and : yemos Moshiach are before the olom is charuv, (while olom keminhago : noheig) there is not enough time left (we are now 5778) for a life span : of 300 to 500 years let alone 1000 years. This all depends on the machloqes about defining olam haba and whether techiyas hameisim is permanent. As well as any machloqesin as to whether yemos hamoshiach starts with techiyas hameisim or ends with a new era, that itself starts with teshiyas hameisim. Rambam: olam haba means the non-physical world a neshamah is in between life and teshiyas hameisim, as well as after a second death. Since olam haba is the ultimate form of existence, defining that ultimate as the place souls go when dead necessitates a second death after techiyas hameisim. The Rambam (and the Iqarim, and others, I just picked on name for thumbnail-sketch reasons) then has to explain what the point of the second life is. Ramban (similarly, among others): olam haba, the ultimate existence, is body together with guf after techiyas hameisim. And therefore the post-th"m life must be external. According to the first shitah, it could be that post-th"m life is in gan eden is Adam's sense and thus life lasts as long as his could have. But then there's the question of whether your assumed dates hold.... My point is mainly that I think there are too many unknowns to even ask your question. I just anded up belaboring the one unknown I once wrote about. on how this machloqes may impact what is the point of Brikhas Gevurah ("Atah Gibor"). BTW, I just noticed, underlying that machloqes about what is olam haba and techiyas hameisim might be a difference in the definition of a person. It looks to me like the Rambam is saying a person is a soul who lives in a body. And therefore the ultimate in existence is not to have that body interpolated between me and experiencing Hashem's Presence. Whereas the Ramban is saying that a person is a synthesis of body and soul, and therefore cannot enjoy the rewards of their efforts when the two halves are separated. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger If a person does not recognize one's own worth, micha at aishdas.org how can he appreciate the worth of another? http://www.aishdas.org - Rabbi Yaakov Yosef of Polnoye, Fax: (270) 514-1507 author of Toldos Yaakov Yosef From hankman at bell.net Wed Oct 25 07:40:29 2017 From: hankman at bell.net (hankman) Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2017 10:40:29 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Long Lifespans in Bereishis In-Reply-To: <20171025111332.GC22254@aishdas.org> References: <9DE9360C549C46879FBF7291563A9387@hankPC> <20171025111332.GC22254@aishdas.org> Message-ID: R.Miciha Berger wrote: "On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 06:28:28PM -0400, hankman (RVM) wrote: :if the world is Charuv at 6000 years and : yemos Moshiach are before the olom is charuv, (while olom keminhago : noheig) there is not enough time left (we are now 5778) for a life span : of 300 to 500 years let alone 1000 years. This all depends on the machloqes about defining olam haba and whether techiyas hameisim is permanent. As well as any machloqesin as to whether yemos hamoshiach starts with techiyas hameisim or ends with a new era, that itself starts with teshiyas hameisim. ...." You also need to fit in when exactly in the sequence of these events Yom Hadin Hagodol happens according to each of these shitos. So the many events of "Achris Hatomim" that one need consider to compile a chronology of this mysterious period would include Gog uMagog, Moshiach be Yosef, coming of Eliyahu, yitaka bashofor gadol (before moshiach, or yom hadin hagodol, or techias hameisim?), the nevuos of Zecharyahu and other nevi'im about this period, Bayis shelishi, Kibutz golios, Moshiach ben Dovid (including how long is this period), vanquishing of the yetzer, Techias Hameisim (before Moshiach or before yom hadin or before both?), Yom hadin hagodol, yom hadin hakoton (after death?) Olom charuv (and to what extent it is charuv and why), Gan Eden, Olom haneshamos, Olam haba (final gemul, with or without a guf, and the ultimate purpose of creation so Hashem can be meitiv lezuloso). After writing this I checked out your "Mesukim Midevash" and apparently there will be at least four versions of this chronology (which you began to build in your article) lefi the Rambam, Ramban, Rav Saadia Gaon and the Ikkarim but needs some fleshing out. R Micha Berger wrote: "Ramban (similarly, among others): olam haba, the ultimate existence, is body together with guf after techiyas hameisim. And therefore the post-th"m life must be external. .... But then there's the question of whether your assumed dates hold.... My point is mainly that I think there are too many unknowns to even ask your question...." It is not clear to me what "assumed dates" or what the "unknowns" are that you mention? I only mentioned 5778. Is that date in doubt?? R. Micha Berger wrote: "BTW, I just noticed, underlying that machloqes about what is olam haba and techiyas hameisim might be a difference in the definition of a person. It looks to me like the Rambam is saying a person is a soul who lives in a body. And therefore the ultimate in existence is not to have that body interpolated between me and experiencing Hashem's Presence. Whereas the Ramban is saying that a person is a synthesis of body and soul, and therefore cannot enjoy the rewards of their efforts when the two halves are separated. Tir'u baTov! -Micha" The gemara in Sanhedrin that talks about the need for both the neshama and the guf to be together at yom hadin, works well with your peshat in the Ramban and could be a possible source for his position, but your explanation of the Rambam with the guf just being something donned by the neshama as necessary for its trip to this world, much like a diver dons scuba gear to enable him to function in this temporary environment, then much as it makes no senses to require the scuba gear at the divers trial, so too this gemara requiring the presence of the guf at the yom hadin doesn't really make much sense. Kol tuv Chaim Manaster From ben1456 at zahav.net.il Wed Oct 25 10:48:54 2017 From: ben1456 at zahav.net.il (Ben Waxman) Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2017 19:48:54 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] offering a higher salary Message-ID: <6ca926d4-2984-813b-af3a-e5fb0e765062@zahav.net.il> I've seen posts claiming that it is forbidden to offer cleaners a higher salary to work for you. While I can understand that it makes sense to say that no one can break a specific agreement for a specific day of work, why should it be forbidden to offer a higher salary to someone who has a long term agreement?? A, this is the common practice in the high tech world and I have never heard anyone say "Assur". It would seem that there is general agreement that this halacha simply doesn't apply today. Second, how can anyone be meshuabad in such a way to one person? Does a person wanting a higher salary have to simply quit without any idea about having another job? Ben From motti.yarchinai at mail.yahoo.com.au Wed Oct 25 12:39:33 2017 From: motti.yarchinai at mail.yahoo.com.au (Motti Yarchinai) Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2017 19:39:33 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Avodah] Psak source wanted In-Reply-To: <1857240052.122258.1508054451353@mail.yahoo.com> References: <1857240052.122258.1508054451353.ref@mail.yahoo.com> <1857240052.122258.1508054451353@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <270346387.4768895.1508960373045@mail.yahoo.com> Dear Micha and Avodah members, Thank you Micha for your reply and your attempts to locate a source. On Sun, Oct 15, 2017 at 08:00:51AM +0000, Motti Yarchinai via Avodah wrote: > Can anyone help me with a source for this psak: It is similar to what > the Rambam wrote... > Another posek writes something similar but couched in even more dramatic > terms. The following is not a verbatim quote (since the original is in > Hebrew) but something very close to it: > "And even if the residents of eretz yisrael are all ignoramuses > and peasants, and the authorities of chutz la'aretz are great > scholars and knowledgable in Torah and halachah, in calendric > matters we follow the peasants and ignoramuses, not the scholars > of chutz la'aretz." Micha replied: > Did you ever find a source? Google, Bar Ilan and I didn't turn > anything up.... No, I have not found it yet, but my memory of it is that I saw it in print, and, to my annoyance, I can't find the sefer, but it is bound to turn up sooner or later. When it does, I will repost with the source and quote. Meanwhile, if someone recognises it, please do let me know. Motti From sholom at aishdas.org Wed Oct 25 13:48:29 2017 From: sholom at aishdas.org (Sholom Simon) Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2017 16:48:29 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] A Great Name Message-ID: <20171025204831.CKZV22111.fed1rmfepo202.cox.net@fed1rmimpo210.cox.net> One of the implicit criticisms of Migdal Bavel was that they wanted to make a name for themselves. Then, at the beginning of Lech L'cha, H' tells Avram that he will make his name great. There must be something there . . . anybody have any thoughts? -- Sholom From zev at sero.name Wed Oct 25 20:57:37 2017 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2017 23:57:37 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] offering a higher salary In-Reply-To: <6ca926d4-2984-813b-af3a-e5fb0e765062@zahav.net.il> References: <6ca926d4-2984-813b-af3a-e5fb0e765062@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <03900eea-9674-1896-0842-5cba504a0eed@sero.name> On 25/10/17 13:48, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > I've seen posts claiming that it is forbidden to offer cleaners a higher > salary to work for you. I believe this halacha is a subset of "hasagas gevul", not in the Biblical sense, but in the commonly-used sense, which in in turn a subset of the obligation of ahavas yisrael. "Hasagas gevul" basically means that if you with to start a business and you have a choice between doing it somewhere that will harm me and somewhere that will not, then all else being equal you are obligated to take the second option out of consideration for me, because ve'ahavta lere`acha kamocha. Similarly, if I am renting a forest or an inn from a nochri, from which I make my living, and you offer him a higher rent, you are violating your obligation to value my interests equally with your own. It should be obvious, however, that if the landlord is also "re`acha" then this does not apply, because you have the same obligation to him as to me; if he could be getting more rent from his property then you should make him that offer, though he should give me a chance to match it, since I am the "bar metzra". I think the same thing is going on with the cleaners. If I have a nochris who is willing to clean for me for $N, you have no right to lure her away by offering more. But if she is "re`acha" then aderaba you have a mitzvah to offer her a chance to improve her income, but before taking your offer she should offer me the chance to match it. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From JRich at sibson.com Thu Oct 26 05:08:27 2017 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2017 12:08:27 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Jewish Action Message-ID: Since I can sometimes be critical of organizations (not here where I usually manage not to say anything negative [HT - My Mom ZLL"HH - "If you have nothing nice to say, don't say anything]), I want to give a shout out to the OU Fall Jewish Action. 1.) Moshe Baine poses the two questions I use as an individual/community test (i) How often do we factor God into our daily decisions, both large and small? [Me - how central is the Ratzon Hashem in our lives?] (ii) What are we prepared to "give up" to comply with what we perceive as God's wishes? [Me - does God always seem to agree with what you want?] 2.) Allen Fagin asks "whether we as a community view Yishuv Haaretz as a basic tenet of our spiritual aspirations? [Me - Tell me how often it's discussed or how many folks yearn (while we're at it, how many really yearn for the Beit Hamikdash?)] Now what do we do as a community and as individuals about any perceived shortfalls in these two areas is an old Avodah question but maybe it is gaining traction? KT 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: From micha at aishdas.org Thu Oct 26 07:13:06 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2017 10:13:06 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Jewish Action In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20171026141306.GA15203@aishdas.org> On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 12:08:27PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : 1.) Moshe Baine poses the two questions I use as an individual/community : test (i) How often do we factor God into our daily decisions, both large : and small? [Me - how central is the Ratzon Hashem in our lives?] (ii) : What are we prepared to "give up" to comply with what we perceive as : God's wishes? [Me - does God always seem to agree with what you want?] What you call question (i) gets a scathing answer in that recent and hotly discussed blog post, "Modern Orthodoxy from a Teenager's Perspective" by Eitan Gross. The-future-R Gross opines that it is common knowledge in MO circles that we dont make Ratzon Hashem central enough for MO to succeed. Modern Orthodoxy tries to create a balance that, at the moment, cannot work because we have no drive to be with Hashem and lack the philosophical and hashkafic perspective to articulate why we should be Jewish in a world with an assortment of other options. Therefore, we need to take a fresh look at education and schooling. There needs to be an emphasis on the truth of the tenets of Judaism, as well as an inspirational approach that creates a yearning and desire in the student to be closer to Hashem. And When I tried to publish this essay at a local Jewish newspaper they said "We cant publish this piece, it's too much for us. Plus you're only a senior in high school, so you don't have the authority to have a say in the current situation." Although they were against putting this essay to print, the head of the paper still agreed with me, "Modern Orthodoxy has major flaws and everyone knows it." If "everyone knows it", but no one does anything then it must be that they think Modern Orthodoxy is too big to change.... I think he means the Modern Orthodox community has major flaws, not the contept "Modern Orthodoxy" itself -- or why would he be so concerned with being able to save it? I need to add, this being Avodah, that this problem of the confusion between halakhah as a means and halakhah as an ends in-and-of-itself has symptoms in all our communities. Quoting myself, from my "manifesto" Tools and Goals ... How would this play out communally? One possible outcome is that we would find a community of very committed, very observant Jews, but who do not show all the signs of the holiness the Torah is supposed to bring us to. This could happen if there is insufficient attention to the entire notion of a goal beyond the halakhah, so that black letter halakhah -- that which can be measured, laid out in clear obligated or prohibited terms -- takes center seat without any attempt to become the kind of person more capable of fulfilling the full breadth of its commandments. There would be mixed reports of business ethics, scandals of respected rabbis committing fiscal crimes, others unable to control their lust, yet others abusing their power over their students in other ways. Another possible outcome is an idealistic community, but one whose ideals are not Torah derived. In such a community ideals would be taken from some segment of the surrounding culture, and halakhah would be reduced to a means of "blessing" goals that we assimilated from the outside, that at times will resemble the holiness Hashem has readied for us, and at times will differ. A third possibility is particular to a community that teaches the need to engage the world around it, to risk the battle of its challenges in order to use what's positive in the surrounding society to further our sanctity. Without a firm eye and a constant striving toward an ideal, the energy it takes to maintain this delicate balance too easily collapses into a life of compromise. And so, for too many in this community the negative elements of modernity are incorporated into their lives, and also for many strict observance itself suffers. Do these portraits sound familiar? The problem has another symptom which is less problematic -- the rise of Brisk over other darkhei halimmud. A culture in which O means following black-letter Shulchan Arukh will naturally gravitate toward a derekh halimmud that shuns explanations that are in terms of first principles that come before halakhah. RYBS's Halakhic Man denies they even exist. That said, R' Chaim Brisker's own life was more about values and acts of chessed than Arukh Chaim or Yoreh Dei'ah. The family noted this -- for all his lomdus, RCB's mateivah reads "Rav haChesed". The problem is not inherent to Brisk. Therefore, it will be interesting to see how MO evolves, and whether this remains their most pressing problem. YU now has a mashpiah, classes in the Aish Qodesh, Tanya, R' Nachman, it has singing minyanim. Within the halls of YU, Halakhic Man is facing growing competition. Lenaar al pi darko -- this diversity is healthy. But with more semichah students looking to the goals rather than stopping at the halachic tools, MO culture is bound to change in a way that reduces this issue. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When faced with a decision ask yourself, micha at aishdas.org "How would I decide if it were Ne'ilah now, http://www.aishdas.org at the closing moments of Yom Kippur?" Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From JRich at sibson.com Thu Oct 26 05:05:45 2017 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2017 12:05:45 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Timtum Halev Message-ID: There was an interesting article in the Journal "Ohr Yisrael" #16 by R'Avraham Rubin on Timtum Halev (spiritual pollution). His general conclusion was that eating something that would be classified as "forbidden foods," if you know it is such, will cause timtum halev (spiritual character defects) even if you are permitted to eat it in your case (e.g., pikuach nefesh - life-threatening situation). However, if you eat a "factually forbidden food" based on a mistaken halachic decision by an authorized halachic source, no such damage will occur. Interesting that this IIUC would yield the result that one could be halachically required to eat the "forbidden food" (rather than commit suicide by starving to death), yet still develop character defects because of it. Seems non-halachic man to me . I know we've discussed before-I submit a data point in that discussion. KT 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: From micha at aishdas.org Thu Oct 26 09:04:55 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2017 12:04:55 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Timtum Halev In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20171026160455.GD15203@aishdas.org> On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 12:05:45PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : ... "Ohr Yisrael" #16 by R'Avraham Rubin ... general conclusion was : that eating something that would be classified as "forbidden foods," : if you know it is such, will cause timtum halev (spiritual character : defects) even if you are permitted to eat it in your case (e.g., pikuach : nefesh - life-threatening situation). However, if you eat a "factually : forbidden food" based on a mistaken halachic decision by an authorized : halachic source, no such damage will occur. I invite RMRabi to comment on that last sentence. He and I debated for most of a year whether the Maharal would agree that someone who follows a mistaken pesaq is different in kind than someone who makes the mistake themselves. I presume that if eating because of "a mistaken halachic decision by an authorized halachic source" does not cause timtum heleiv, R Avraham Rubin would say that all the more so, eating food that as a matter of unknown fact happens to be kosher but we correctly rule may be eaten because of rov, chazaqah, bitul or whatever would not damage. I would think RAR is coming down on the side of saying that it's the sin, not the substance, which causes the spiritual damage. To my mind -- a hashkafically simpler position, since there is Justice to life being worse due to a sin than due to something premitted. In which case, RAR's opening ruling, that the person starting to death who eats the only available edible which happens to be non-kosher, would seem to be based on ruling that saving one's life overrides the prohibition (making it petura), not that the eating is actually permissible (hutra). For if it were hutra, how would the case differ from correctly following received pesaq? And if it is because of peturah, that the prohibition is being broken, but the violation is permissible for the sake of a greater value, then I can understand how its Just even if we were to say the cause is the substance. The sin is happening, and we know it's happening; we just chose the lesser sin. Lemah hadavar domeh: chemo is poison. For the sake of the greater danger, cancer, a person may take chemo. But the poison still does its effect. The person did what was medically recommended, and the recommendation was made knowing there was a self-destructive element to the act. : Interesting that this IIUC would yield the result that one could be : halachically required to eat the "forbidden food" (rather than commit : suicide by starving to death), yet still develop character defects : because of it. Seems non-halachic man to me.... Halachic man wouldn't ask the question of timtum haleiv to begin with. It is not a halachic category. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The fittingness of your matzos [for the seder] micha at aishdas.org isn't complete with being careful in the laws http://www.aishdas.org of Passover. One must also be very careful in Fax: (270) 514-1507 the laws of business. - Rav Yisrael Salanter From emteitz at gmail.com Thu Oct 26 09:58:57 2017 From: emteitz at gmail.com (elazar teitz) Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2017 12:58:57 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] offering a higher salary Message-ID: >If I have a nochris who is willing to clean for me for $N, you have no right to lure >her away by offering more. But if she is "re`acha" then aderaba you >have a mitzvah to offer her a chance to improve her income, but before >taking your offer she should offer me the chance to match it. Is it a mitzva to help improve a Jew's income, if it is at the expense of another Jew (especially when it is not done with the intent of helping the employee, but rather to help oneself)? EMT -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From zev at sero.name Thu Oct 26 15:06:37 2017 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2017 18:06:37 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] offering a higher salary In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 26/10/17 12:58, elazar teitz via Avodah wrote: >> If I have a nochris who is willing to clean for me for $N, you have no >> right to lure her away by offering more.? But if she is "re`acha" then >> aderaba you have a mitzvah to offer her a chance to improve her income, >> but before taking your offer she should offer me the chance to match it. > Is it a mitzva to help improve a Jew's income, if it is at the > expense of another Jew (especially when it is not done with the intent > of helping the employee, but rather to help oneself)? (1) You have the same mitzvah to love both of us, so whichever one you help is a mitzvah (2) She is probably (though not definitely) in more need than I am (3) If you're willing to pay more for her work then by definition that makes her work *worth* more, since the value of anything is defined as whatever it will fetch, so by making her the offer you're not hurting me, you're merely preventing me from (unbeknownst to either of us) getting an unwarranted benefit at her expense. Basically our arrangement is ona'ah, we're both in error about the value of her labour, and you're in a position to prevent it, so shouldn't you do so? (4) Your intent shouldn't matter. Tzedakah doesn't depend at all on kavanah. If someone is helped, it's a mitzvah even if you didn't mean it (cf shikcha), while if you meant to help someone and it didn't happen there's no mitzvah (cf Bava Basra 8b etc) -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From marty.bluke at gmail.com Sun Oct 29 03:15:35 2017 From: marty.bluke at gmail.com (Marty Bluke) Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2017 12:15:35 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Long Lifespans in Bereishis Message-ID: R' Chaim Manaster pointed out: "But the basic issue is if the world is Charuv at 6000 years and yemos Moshiach are before the olom is charuv, (while olom keminhago noheig) there is not enough time left (we are now 5778) for a life span of 300 to 500 years let alone 1000 years." The gemara (Sanhedrin 99) offers the following suggestions for how long the Messianic period will last: R' Eliezer - 40 years R' Dosa - 400 years Rebbi - 365 years Avimi - 7000 years R' Yehuda - the amount of time from creation until the Messiah comes R' Nachman Bar Yitzchak - the amount of time from the flood until the Messiah comes Interestingly enough the Gemara earlier stated that the world will last 6000 years, Sanhedrin 96B - Six thousand years were decreed upon the world: 2000 years of emptiness (without Torah), 2000 years of Torah, and 2000 years for Mashi'ach. This opinion of 6000 years is generally accepted, however, opinions 4-6 above clearly disagree with this. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ben1456 at zahav.net.il Sun Oct 29 22:34:43 2017 From: ben1456 at zahav.net.il (Ben Waxman) Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2017 07:34:43 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] offering a higher salary In-Reply-To: <6ca926d4-2984-813b-af3a-e5fb0e765062@zahav.net.il> References: <6ca926d4-2984-813b-af3a-e5fb0e765062@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <2e3529d9-23b9-3377-c2f6-ec65d4340f1a@zahav.net.il> After look a bit, I saw that the Aruch HaShulchan CM 237:3 paskens that this law only applies to a poor person. A poor person who finds something that he needs, you can't come along and offer more money for it. But if a rich person finds something that he wants (or employs someone) and this item is available, then the prohibition doesn't apply. It would seem that anyone who can hire a maid does not qualify as poor and I am willing to bet that there is a good supply of people willing to work. Ben On 10/25/2017 7:48 PM, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > I've seen posts claiming that it is forbidden to offer cleaners a > higher salary to work for you. While I can understand that it makes > sense to say that no one can break a specific agreement for a specific > day of work, why should it be forbidden to offer a higher salary to > someone who has a long term agreement?? A, this is the common practice > in the high tech world and I have never heard anyone say "Assur". It > would seem that there is general agreement that this halacha simply > doesn't apply today. From lisa at starways.net Mon Oct 30 03:39:03 2017 From: lisa at starways.net (Lisa Liel) Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2017 12:39:03 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] offering a higher salary In-Reply-To: <2e3529d9-23b9-3377-c2f6-ec65d4340f1a@zahav.net.il> References: <6ca926d4-2984-813b-af3a-e5fb0e765062@zahav.net.il> <2e3529d9-23b9-3377-c2f6-ec65d4340f1a@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <611bec39-509c-b161-d74f-63dbb523906e@starways.net> On 10/30/2017 7:34 AM, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > After look a bit, I saw that the Aruch HaShulchan CM 237:3 paskens > that this law only applies to a poor person. A poor person who finds > something that he needs, you can't come along and offer more money for > it.... > It would seem that anyone who can hire a maid does not qualify as poor > and I am willing to bet that there is a good supply of people willing > to work. Poor in halakha means not having what you're accustomed to have. It isn't an objective benchmark or a comparison to other people. Lisa From ben1456 at zahav.net.il Mon Oct 30 12:58:56 2017 From: ben1456 at zahav.net.il (Ben Waxman) Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2017 21:58:56 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] offering a higher salary In-Reply-To: <611bec39-509c-b161-d74f-63dbb523906e@starways.net> References: <6ca926d4-2984-813b-af3a-e5fb0e765062@zahav.net.il> <2e3529d9-23b9-3377-c2f6-ec65d4340f1a@zahav.net.il> <611bec39-509c-b161-d74f-63dbb523906e@starways.net> Message-ID: <8355ddf5-ae06-1774-b30d-dd05b89814a9@zahav.net.il> You think that these people would be willing to apply the word "poor" to themselves, even in regards to only this halacha? On 10/30/2017 12:39 PM, Lisa Liel wrote: > Poor in halakha means not having what you're accustomed to have.? It > isn't an objective benchmark or a comparison to other people. From bdbradley70 at hotmail.com Mon Oct 30 14:41:44 2017 From: bdbradley70 at hotmail.com (Ben Bradley) Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2017 21:41:44 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] offering a higher salary In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Poor in halakha means not having what you're accustomed to have. It isn't an objective benchmark or a comparison to other people. Lisa I don't believe it's as clear cut as that. It's true with regard to giving tzedaka, that the kehilla is required to maintain someone at the standard they were used to. But when it comes to the definition of an oni who's entitled to take from communal funds, the mishna in terumos or maasros defines it as someone who has a specific and objective amount of food or money in their possession. AFAIR halacha l'maaseh follows suit, and there are objective criteria before allowing someone to accept communal tzedaka funds. Regards Ben -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hankman at bell.net Mon Oct 30 12:03:44 2017 From: hankman at bell.net (hankman) Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2017 15:03:44 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Long Lifespans in Bereishis Message-ID: R. Marty Bluke wrote: ?The gemara (Sanhedrin 99) offers the following suggestions for how long the Messianic period will last: ... R' Dosa - 400 years Rebbi - 365 years Avimi - 7000 years R' Yehuda - the amount of time from creation until the Messiah comes R' Nachman Bar Yitzchak - the amount of time from the flood until the Messiah comes ....? Actually my original kasheh occurred to me during that recent daf yomi you refer to in Sanhedrin which was when I asked the same question you pose here. The question I posted on Avodah (basically the same idea) was just in reference to a previous post here and its remarks ? I just did not feel the need to broaden the kasheh ? perhaps I should have, just to be more comprehensive. Kol tuv Chaim Manaster -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From saulguberman at gmail.com Tue Oct 31 09:57:00 2017 From: saulguberman at gmail.com (Saul Guberman) Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2017 12:57:00 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] chopsticks Message-ID: Is it permissible to break apart chopsticks on shabbat at the meal to eat your sushi? Someone claimed it is makeh b'patish and just use a fork or stab with the chopsticks still together. Others thought that tzorech ochel nefesh might allow them to be broken and used , as it is all disposable anyway. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From JRich at sibson.com Thu Nov 2 05:12:05 2017 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2017 12:12:05 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] TEXTUAL JUDAISM AND THE LIVING TORAH Message-ID: <9e51a7f4ea644e829db8503f8f0451fe@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> An old Avodah favorite :) KT Joel Rich http://etzion.org.il/en/siman-114-prayers-wind-rain-and-dew TEXTUAL JUDAISM AND THE LIVING TORAH In his introduction to the Beit Yosef, R. Yosef Karo clearly asserts that since it is impossible for someone of his stature to set himself up as arbiter among the great Rishonim, for his rulings will be based on the majority of the opinions of the Rif, the Rambam, and the Rosh. Yet, here we have a case where the Rambam and the Rosh agree that an entire country which needs rain can mention and ask for rain in the summer, while the Rif does not dispute this ruling since he does not relate to this case. Although the Rambam's ruling is in the commentary to the Mishna, this has the same status as the Mishneh Torah - so I understand from Kesef Mishneh, also written by R. Yosef Karo, to Hilkhot Talmud Torah 3:10 at the end - and in addition, the Beit Yosef on our siman claims that the Mishneh Torah also rules like the commentary to the Mishna. How can the Beit Yosef rule against them?! The Beit Yosef emphasizes that the custom of the entire world contradicts the Rosh's ruling. He also suggests that this ruling was never accepted in practice. How can we weigh these factors against the authority of the written sources? There is a general difference in approach among poskim regarding how to weigh local custom against textual authority. The Tosafot in many places endeavor to reconcile the text with the custom (see for excample, Shabbat 48a d.h. De-zeitim); other sages more readily condemn custom on the authority of the plain sense of the text. It seems that several factors bear on the relative importance: 1. How universal is the custom? Responsa frequently point out that the reaction to a seldom-encountered situation can not be considered a "custom" - merely a precedent. 2. Among whom is the custom widespread? If we are certain that even scholars and meticulous people conducted themselves in a certain way, this has more weight than the behavior of the common people, pious though they may be. 3. Are opinions opposing the custom recognized? Sometimes we find statements to the effect that if a community had been aware that a great authority opposed their custom, they would not have adopted it. Conversely, a custom may be defended by pointing out that it was upheld even though opposing views were clearly known. 4. Perhaps in an area of halakha whose basis is in custom, though it subsequently achieved the status of binding halakha, we should give greater weight to custom. In our case, the Beit Yosef perceived that the custom of going according to Eretz Yisrael was universal, even among scholars, and even among people who were certainly aware of the statements of the Rambam and the Rosh. In addition, he may have considered the "customary" aspect of prayer to have special importance - the fact that we pray as a community renders special importance to community customs. Therefore, even though the Beit Yosef is, according to his own assertion, an extreme "textualist," in this case he was persuaded to rule in accordance with custom. Almost all Acharonim are extremely reluctant to dispute Rishonim - though there are notable exceptions, such as the Maharshal (who lived, in any case, close to the era of the Rishonim). However, many later scholars do feel that however unworthy they may be, it is their responsibility as decisors to decide AMONG the Rishonim. The Beit Yosef's reticence in this regard is far from universal. A lot of noise is still being made regarding an article written a couple of years ago by a leading scholar of Judaism (who is also a Talmid Chakham, though the two do not always go together) who posits that only recently have texts taken such a central role in Jewish life. He claims that before World War II custom was king, and accepted customs of respectable communities were not scrutinized in the light of codes. I can not comment on the historical reality of three generations ago, but I think we should keep in mind that the tension between custom and written authority is an ancient one, and the "advocacy" of texts is hardly a new idea. 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: From zev at sero.name Thu Nov 2 20:38:21 2017 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2017 23:38:21 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] TEXTUAL JUDAISM AND THE LIVING TORAH In-Reply-To: <9e51a7f4ea644e829db8503f8f0451fe@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <9e51a7f4ea644e829db8503f8f0451fe@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: On 02/11/17 08:12, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: > The Beit Yosef emphasizes that the custom of the entire world > contradicts the Rosh's ruling. Not the entire world. The Rosh himself reported that he was gratified to discover, while travelling through Provence on his way from Germany to Spain, that they did it the right way. This reinforced him in his determination to try to change the practice in Spain. > In our case, the Beit Yosef perceived that the custom of going > according to Eretz Yisrael was universal, On the contrary, *nobody* goes according to EY. The universal custom is to go according to Iraq. The Rosh wanted all Mediterranean Jews, who share EY's climate, to follow EY, as the Provencals did, but they refused. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From meirabi at gmail.com Thu Nov 2 22:38:08 2017 From: meirabi at gmail.com (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi) Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2017 16:38:08 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] Avraham A Cooked, Angels Ate - Bassar BeChalav Message-ID: Avraham Avinu entertained three angels masquerading as human visitors; feeding them goat flesh cooked with milk. Generations later, due to this meal, the angels? protest, that the Torah ought not be given to the Jews, was quashed. There are 3 issues that require clarification: ++ Let?s say the angels sinned by eating flesh cooked with milk [which seems to be the plain meaning of the Medrash] how does that silence their protest? ++ Furthermore, flesh cooked with milk would not have been served to the guests: ++ Avraham Avinu did not cook goat with milk since he adhered to all Mitzvos of the Torah. ++ Even if it was cooked inadvertently, he would not have offered it to the visitors since no benefit may be derived from it. Reb Meir Simcha of Dvinsk explains in Meshech Chochmah, that no sin was transgressed since it was BP flesh, which may be cooked with milk. The angels? protests were silenced because they accepted that Avraham Avinu was Jewish and therefore able to Shecht. Had they considered him not Jewish, they would not have eaten because Shechita cannot be performed by a non-Jew. Thus, the angels had already conceded that Avraham Avinu had an inalienable connection to the Torah and therefore was able to Shecht and create a Kosher BP. That being the case, they could not question nor protest his chosen children?s rights to that heritage. Of all aspects of BP this particular Halacha is so counter-intuitive, and such a shock to our expectations, that even when Reb Chaim Kanievsky said that cooking BP flesh with milk, is "Kosher VeYosher" (more than 100%) Rabbanim who were with me and heard him say this, will not publicly admit to it. Rav Moshe Sternbuch responded upon being asked if this was a DaAs Yachid (a lone opinion), "Who argues?" - R Moshe quotes this Meshech Chochmah MoAdim UzManim [?"? ??' ??"?] and thereby suggests another reason for eating dairy on Shavuos - after all, it was via dairy that we succeeded to silence the angels? protests. However, my son Yehudah, argues - in that case, we really ought to be eating BBPbCh [Basar BP beChalav] on Shavuos. That the BP may be cooked with milk is so obvious to Reb Meir Simcha, that he does not bother to bring proof or expand upon the point. Clearly, BP is utterly unlike any regular cow sheep or goat that may not be cooked with dairy. = = = According to our traditions, Avraham Avinu maintained all the laws of the Torah and also all the Rabbinic enactments. Rashi, Genesis 26:5; Yevamos 21. Accordingly, our Sages explain that Avraham did not offer the bread [Rashi, Genesis 18:8; BMetzia 87] to his guests because Sara had miraculously rejuvenated and become ritually unclean, making the bread unclean. Although no more than a stringency Avraham Avinu would not serve it to his non Jewish guests - presumably, if Avraham Avinu would not eat it himself, he would not serve it to his guests - makes one pause and contemplate about those who Kosher certify various foods and establishments but will not eat that food themselves. = = = There are some who try to squeeze into the words of the MChochmah that it is the milk which is not dairy because meat may be cooked with milk collected from a Shechted beast, Chalav Shechuta, and a BP is deemed to be a Shechuta. There is a contrary argument however - some propose that Chalav Shechuta is not ?mother?s milk?, meaning milk from a beast that can potentially be a mother, whereas a BP can certainly be a mother, so its milk is not Chalav Shechuta and may not be cooked with meat. Either way, the argument collapses completely because Avraham Avinu would not violate the Rabbinic law that prohibits cooking with Chalav Shechuta [or deer or giraffe milk] Best, Meir G. Rabi 0423 207 837 +61 423 207 837 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Fri Nov 3 03:24:28 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2017 06:24:28 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Avraham A Cooked, Angels Ate - Bassar BeChalav In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20171103102428.GB3833@aishdas.org> On Fri, Nov 03, 2017 at 04:38:08PM +1100, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: : Avraham Avinu entertained three angels masquerading as human visitors; : feeding them goat flesh cooked with milk. Generations later, due to this : meal, the angels' protest, that the Torah ought not be given to the Jews, : was quashed. Where's this medrash? Tosafists (Daas Zeqeinim, Bereishis 18:8) note the contradiction between it and the medrash that the avos observe all of halakhah (even eiruv tavshilin) and suggests the following. It is also the Sifsei Chakhamim's and Bekhor Shor's take on the pasuq. The chumash says, "vayiqach chem'ah vechalav uven habaqar asher asah". There is no indication in the peshat that the veal was made in the butter and/or milk. And in fact, the milk is mentioned first. Leading to the opinion that Avraham even served them in a way that kept them from consuming dairy immediately after meat! The SC says he served them the milk so that they wouldn't have to wait while hungrily for the veal while it was shechted and cooked. The Radaq gives a different sesolution: Avraham prepared both so as to give them a choice of what to eat. : Reb Meir Simcha of Dvinsk explains in Meshech Chochmah, that no sin was : transgressed since it was BP flesh, which may be cooked with milk. Lo zakhisi lehavin haRav Meir Simcha haKohein, nor R' Kanievsky. Isn't that only mutar deRabbanan if it is killed before it can even stands up, so as to avoid mar'is ayin, like shechitah? And the gemara's example of the avos keeping kol haTorah kulah is Avraham keeping eiruv -- so that that aggadita means to include derabbanans. And even if we're saying that we're talking about BP without the taqanos, And if it is ben paqua and thus didn't need shechitah, why does the asame medrash make a point of Avraham shechting it? The tradition that Avraham Avinu authored seifer haYetzirah (for which I also have no source) includes the resolution that a calf made through ShY ("uven havaqar ASHER ASAH"), rather than invoking BP. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger A person lives with himself for seventy years, micha at aishdas.org and after it is all over, he still does not http://www.aishdas.org know himself. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From zev at sero.name Fri Nov 3 08:27:40 2017 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2017 11:27:40 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Avraham A Cooked, Angels Ate - Bassar BeChalav In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4ed7f10d-c1ee-c201-6de4-61e0564f59fd@sero.name> On 03/11/17 01:38, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: > feeding them goat flesh cooked with milk Since when? He fed them beef, together with cream (or butter) and milk, separately but simultaneously. > The angels? protests were silenced because they accepted that Avraham > Avinu was Jewish and therefore able to Shecht. Had they considered him > not Jewish, they would not have eaten because Shechita cannot be > performed by a non-Jew. Thus, the angels had already conceded that > Avraham Avinu had an inalienable connection to the Torah and therefore > was able to Shecht and create a Kosher BP. That being the case, they > could not question nor protest his chosen children?s rights to that > heritage. If so then why bring the milk into it at all? Simply by eating meat he'd shechted (or rather that his son Yishma`el had shechted) they had conceded all that (according to this explanation) was required. Why complicate the matter with questions of basar bechalav? Therefore it's clear that that was not the issue. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From micha at aishdas.org Fri Nov 3 05:44:11 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2017 08:44:11 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] TEXTUAL JUDAISM AND THE LIVING TORAH In-Reply-To: References: <9e51a7f4ea644e829db8503f8f0451fe@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20171103124411.GC23679@aishdas.org> On Thu, Nov 02, 2017 at 11:38:21PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : On 02/11/17 08:12, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: :>The Beit Yosef emphasizes that the custom of the entire world :>contradicts the Rosh's ruling. : Not the entire world. The Rosh himself reported that he was : gratified to discover, while travelling through Provence on his way : from Germany to Spain, that they did it the right way... Are you disagreeing with the BY (no citation so I can't check myself), with RJR's presentation of the BY? Or, are we ignoring the fact that the Rosh lived well before the BY and could have seen a Provincial minhag that had died by the mechaber's time. The BY could well be wrong. We have other examples of famous rishonim and acharonim who didn't know some minhag of other communities and thought regional norm was universal. I just want to understand which of the above we're discussing. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger We are what we repeatedly do. micha at aishdas.org Thus excellence is not an event, http://www.aishdas.org but a habit. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Aristotle From zev at sero.name Fri Nov 3 09:02:59 2017 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2017 12:02:59 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] TEXTUAL JUDAISM AND THE LIVING TORAH In-Reply-To: <20171103124411.GC23679@aishdas.org> References: <9e51a7f4ea644e829db8503f8f0451fe@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> <20171103124411.GC23679@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 03/11/17 08:44, Micha Berger wrote: > On Thu, Nov 02, 2017 at 11:38:21PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > : On 02/11/17 08:12, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: > :>The Beit Yosef emphasizes that the custom of the entire world > :>contradicts the Rosh's ruling. > > : Not the entire world. The Rosh himself reported that he was > : gratified to discover, while travelling through Provence on his way > : from Germany to Spain, that they did it the right way... > > Are you disagreeing with the BY (no citation so I can't check > myself), with RJR's presentation of the BY? Not disagreeing so much as pointing out that "the entire world" doesn't mean quite that. In fact the Tur on which the BY is commenting also quotes his father's report about the minhag in Provence. And the BY further quotes the Rosh that "uchvar nahagu gam kein biktzat mekomot" to start on the 7th. So later when he says "shelo nitkablu divrei haRosh, vechol ha`olam lo nahagu kein", I think this must be understood as a generalization, just as we do when we say "der velt" does this or that, and we clearly don't mean literally everyone. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From sholom at aishdas.org Fri Nov 3 11:32:44 2017 From: sholom at aishdas.org (Sholom Simon) Date: Fri, 03 Nov 2017 14:32:44 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] VAYERA ? WHO IS HKBH TALKING TO? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20171103183247.KRPQ6746.fed1rmfepo102.cox.net@fed1rmimpo109.cox.net> Rabbi Meir G. Rabi notes/asks: >Sara laughs [18:12] Gd is not happy > >[18:13] HKBH confronts Avraham, ?Why did Sara laugh off the blessing >that she have a child? Am I not able to arrange she give birth? I >assure you, I?ll be back and you?ll see she will have a child.? > >But why is HKBH asking this of Avraham? Does HKBH expect Avraham to >be able to explain? > >It seems this question is really an indictment of sorts. > >Is Avraham being blamed for Sara?s weakness? > >Why does Avraham confront [18:19] Sara? He does not doubt what HKBH >has told him? > >And when Sara denies it, why does Avraham rebuke her? Is it >Avraham?s responsibility to ensure she confesses? I just heard a shiur (YUTorah!) from RHS who addressed this. He also threw in the question: why is H" telling loshon harah to Avraham? RMF brings that In the Gemara (somewhere) it says that it's permissible to tell loshon harah to the subject's rebbe, so that the rebbe can give tochacha or musar to the subject, and RMF (or RHS) says that's what's happenning here (viewing Avraham as Sarah's rebbe, in a way). -- Sholom From akivagmiller at gmail.com Fri Nov 3 14:05:30 2017 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2017 17:05:30 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] chopsticks Message-ID: . R" Saul Guberman asked: > Is it permissible to break apart chopsticks on shabbat at the > meal to eat your sushi? Someone claimed it is makeh b'patish > and just use a fork or stab with the chopsticks still > together. Others thought that tzorech ochel nefesh might > allow them to be broken and used, as it is all disposable > anyway. Rabbi Doniel Neustadt raises a similar question at https://torah.org/torah-portion/weekly-halacha-5772-beshalach/ I would think that the situations are similar; even if they aren't identical, looking up the sources may help to find the answer about chopsticks. > Question: Leben or yogurt cups sometimes come attached to each > other and must be separated along a perforated line before > they can be eaten individually. Is that permitted to be done > on Shabbos? > > Discussion: Contemporary poskim debate whether or not it is > permitted to separate attached yogurt or leben cups from each > other. Some consider it a violation of Mechatech and Makeh > b?patish[21] while others hold it is permitted altogether[22]. > > 21. Rav Y.S. Elyashiv (Orchos Shabbos 12:12, Me?or ha-Shabbos, > vol. 2, pg. 551). > > 22. Rav S.Z. Auerbach (Orchos Shabbos 12:18. note 31, Shulchan > Shelomo 314:13-3). Akiva Miller From meirabi at mail.gmail.com Sat Nov 4 05:45:14 2017 From: meirabi at mail.gmail.com (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi) Date: Sat, 4 Nov 2017 23:45:14 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] Avraham A Cooked, Angels Ate - Bassar BeChalav Message-ID: 1] no one disputes that the Meshech Chochmah says what he says 2] there are many explanations to resolve the meat and milk issue, we are not disputing them, just explaining one of them 3] there is [surprisingly] no Issur of Maris Ayin preventing cooking some iterations of BP meat with milk - the proof is from this episode as presented by this Medrash and explained by the MChochma. 4] The decree that after the BP has stood up, Hifris AGKarka, it requires Shechitah [and presumably is also Assur to cook with milk] does not apply to a BP that is found as a non fully gestated, Lo KaLu Lo Chadashav. 5] Avraham did not Shecht it - on the contrary he directed Yishmael to prepare it - Furthermore, because it was a BP it did not require Shechita which is why he could direct Yishmael to kill it, and there was also no problem of Bassar SheNisAlem Min HaAyin. 6] Indeed, even had the angels eaten plain meat Shechted by AAvinu, there would have been adequate proof that they accepted his status of Kedushas Yisrael, it just so happened that AAvinu wanted to serve his visitors a delicacy, Beef Stroganoff. 7] I really do not know why I assumed it was a goat From zev at sero.name Sat Nov 4 16:10:52 2017 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Sat, 4 Nov 2017 19:10:52 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Avraham A Cooked, Angels Ate - Bassar BeChalav In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <0d614669-3c79-3c22-d137-b4b21530183f@sero.name> On 04/11/17 08:45, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi wrote: > 6] Indeed, even had the angels eaten plain meat Shechted by AAvinu, > there would have been adequate proof that they accepted his status of > Kedushas Yisrael, it just so happened that AAvinu wanted to serve his > visitors a delicacy, Beef Stroganoff. Except that Rashi explicitly says otherwise, that the delicacy he served was tongue in mustard, for which he needed *three* animals. There is no hint of any cooking in milk. The Meshech Chochma needs a mokor for this. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From meirabi at mail.gmail.com Sat Nov 4 05:56:05 2017 From: meirabi at mail.gmail.com (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi) Date: Sat, 4 Nov 2017 23:56:05 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] VAYERA ? WHO IS HKBH TALKING TO? Message-ID: Furthermore, HKBH is transgressing Lashon Hara by disclosing to Avraham that Sara laughed. It is pretty clear that Sara's indiscretion was disclosed to Avraham because it was necessary for AAvinu to know, as we see, he rebuked Sara for laughing. Avraham was responsible for this shortcoming of Sara - this properly explains all these Qs HKBH expected Avraham to respond as he did. The question is really an indictment of sorts. Avraham is blamed for Sara's indiscretion? Therefore, Avraham confronts [18:19] Sara. And when Sara denies it, Avraham rebukes her. It is Avraham's responsibility to ensure she confesses. Best, Meir G. Rabi From meirabi at mail.gmail.com Mon Nov 6 12:30:23 2017 From: meirabi at mail.gmail.com (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi) Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2017 07:30:23 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] HKBH Rebukes Avraham for Sara's Shortcomings In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: continuing from prev post - > Sara laughs [18:12] Gd is not happy > [18:13] HKBH confronts Avraham, ... Preserving harmony [Yevamos 65b, in this case between Araham and Sara] compels HKBH to lie to Avraham [HKBH reported that Sara said, "I am too old to have children", when in fact she said, "my master is old"] and yet HKBH, rather than remaining silent to preserve peace, reports Sara's indiscretion to Avraham. Furthermore, aside from being likely to cause strife between Avraham and Sara, this report is a horribly demeaning Lashon Hara. Scoffing at HKBH's ability to grant her a child, in spite of it being uttered by what might easily have been described as a foolish visitor, is a blight upon Sara which HKBH held against her. And she understood the correctness of the criticism and felt shamed, as we see that she [apparently] instinctively and immediately denied it [18:15] It seems clear that HKBH reported this to Avraham, rather than directly or indirectly to Sara, not only to correct Sara but also to rebuke Avraham. HKBH was criticising Avraham for Sara's shortcoming. From micha at aishdas.org Mon Nov 6 17:55:31 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2017 20:55:31 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Questioning Authority In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20171107015531.GC12418@aishdas.org> On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 09:41:32AM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : I have always felt that it is (or ought to be) possible and permissible to : *question* authority without challenging or rejecting authority... I would have said "to ask questions", as to me "to question" something is indeed to challenge. But that's just an English or perhaps English dialect issue. What's nice is that we don't have this issue in halachic jargon: there is a clear difference between 1- a she'eilah, asking for information, ibua'ei lehu / miba'ei on the oe hand, and 2- a qushya ("qasha"), tiyuvta, meisivei, where we challenge the given statement. .... : But frequently, the truth is that the parent has very good reasons for what : he says. It's just that he's unable to put those reasons into clear words. : He can't even explain it to himself in simple terms, because it is simply a : gut feeling that he has, based on experience and intuition, he sees that : this is the action or inaction which must be followed in this particular : situation. As far as I can tell, this is what RYBS calls "mesorah", and the same notion of "mesorah" RHS invokves when arguing against ordaining women or women leading inessential portions of davening? (As opposed to those who think of "mesorah" as referring to mimeticism.) : I think this is analogous to Torah leaders and Torah followers. When the : leaders tell the followers what to do, or what to avoid, it is entirely : reasonable for the followers to request explanations from the leaders. This : is especially so, if the explanation will help them comply with the : directive, or teach them how to apply the directive to other situations. : But these requests must be made respectfully, carefully, and only up to a : certain point. We ask a poseiq a she'eilah, not a qushya. And -- as noted by the Maharal in the Beer haGolah RMRabi and I beat to death -- we should be expecting to understand rather than blindly follow. The limit you speak of comes for the fact that a feel for how the halakhah ought to be inherently can't be articulated. To repply R/Dr Moshe Koppel's metaphor for halakhah, as much as halakhah runs like a legal system, it also works like a language. People who only know English as a second language could know rules of conjugation, but it takes serious immersion in the language to know what kinds of poetic license works and what violates the limits of acceptible English. We native speakers know what "sounds right". But if an immigrant were to ask why "the red big ball" sounds weird but "the big red ball" sounds normal, how many of us could explain it? And if we did come up with an explanation, isn't it a post-facto construct rather than the more by-feel way the determination was really made? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger For those with faith there are no questions. micha at aishdas.org For those who lack faith there are no answers. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yaakov of Radzimin Fax: (270) 514-1507 From micha at aishdas.org Mon Nov 6 18:30:37 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2017 21:30:37 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] eitz hachaim In-Reply-To: <61f0b606-b859-4475-eef8-a10489e74f1c@starways.net> References: <61f0b606-b859-4475-eef8-a10489e74f1c@starways.net> Message-ID: <20171107023037.GE12418@aishdas.org> On Sun, Oct 15, 2017 at 05:41:04PM -0400, hankman via Avodah wrote: : What exactly was the eitz hachaim all about. The simple pshat doesn't : make any sense. ... Kodem hacheit he was not : a bar misah so he had no need of it, after the cheit he was prevented : from accessing it! So when would it ever be useful to Adam? On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 10:51:28AM +0300, Lisa Liel via Avodah wrote: : I don't understand the question. He was prevented from accessing it : *because* of the cheit. Had he not sinned, you say he would have had : no need for it, but who is to say that its only function was to make : him live forever..... Note how the Torah is also called "eitz chaim (hi lamachaziqim bahh)." So I think Lisa's notion that the eitz chaim likely had another function is quite probable. Likely its primary function was to provide the da'as that would lead to arichas yamim. Like the Torah does -- even if its arichas yamim appears not to be in olam hazeh. There is also the idea that there was only one tree in the iddle of the garden, an eitz hachaim upon which grew a branch bearing the peri eitz hada'as tov vara. Or maybe that the eitz vhaim was the rooots from which the eitz hadaas grew. I don't know -- I only heard about it second-hand (multiple times) by people quoting "sifrei qabbalah" (as though that counts as a citation). Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger If you won't be better tomorrow micha at aishdas.org than you were today, http://www.aishdas.org then what need do you have for tomorrow? Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rebbe Nachman of Breslov From micha at aishdas.org Mon Nov 6 18:04:55 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2017 21:04:55 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] A Great Name In-Reply-To: <20171025204831.CKZV22111.fed1rmfepo202.cox.net@fed1rmimpo210.cox.net> References: <20171025204831.CKZV22111.fed1rmfepo202.cox.net@fed1rmimpo210.cox.net> Message-ID: <20171107020455.GD12418@aishdas.org> On Wed, Oct 25, 2017 at 04:48:29PM -0400, Sholom Simon via Avodah wrote: : One of the implicit criticisms of Migdal Bavel was that they wanted : to make a name for themselves. Then, at the beginning of Lech L'cha, : H' tells Avram that he will make his name great. : There must be something there... anybody have any thoughts? First question... If all of humanity was participating (minus two epople -- Avraham and Ashur), who exactly were they trying to build up their reputation for? Whereas after the Haflagah, man was split into numerous communities, the notion of being known broadly makes sense. And if you want to spread your teachings, such fame is useful. Yes, I think the contrast is meaningful -- the people who got caught up in ego to the point of irrationality wanted fame for its own sake. After all, it had no logical value in their context. Whereas Afraham was granted fame as part of Hashem aiding his success, and fame is positive. It's not a question, it's the point. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Between stimulus & response, there is a space. micha at aishdas.org In that space is our power to choose our http://www.aishdas.org response. In our response lies our growth Fax: (270) 514-1507 and our freedom. - Victor Frankl, (MSfM) From cantorwolberg at cox.net Mon Nov 6 23:30:51 2017 From: cantorwolberg at cox.net (Richard Wolberg) Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2017 02:30:51 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Gilgul Hanefesh Message-ID: I have heard many conflicting opinions about our belief in reincarnation. I hope and pray it is not true. ?One life is enough!? Is there a definitive Jewish belief? I have even heard some believe in ?Transmigration of the Soul? which is even more scary. As an impressionable kid, I once had a rabbi tell me that if you don?t wash netilat yadayim prior to eating, you will come back as a dog. The following is an excerpt by an article in the Aish.com Newsletter by Sara Yoheved Rigler. there are hints to reincarnation in the Bible and early commentaries (1), while in Kabbalah, Judaism?s mystical tradition, overt references to reincarnation abound. The Zohar, the basic text of Jewish mysticism (attributed to Rabbi Shimon Bar Yochai, a 1st century sage) assumes gilgul neshamot [the recycling of souls] as a given, and the Ari, the greatest of all Kabbalists, whose 16th teachings are recorded in, Shaar HaGilgulim, traced the reincarnations of many Biblical figures. While some authorities, such as Saadia Gaon (10th century) denied reincarnation as a Jewish concept, from the 17th century onward, leading rabbis of normative Judaism, such as the Gaon of Vilna and the Chafetz Chaim (2), referred to gilgul neshamot as a fact. (1)? See Deut. 33:6, and Targum Onkeles and Targum Yonosson on that verse. Also see Isaiah 22:14. (2)? Mishnah Berurah 23:5 and Shaar HaTzion 622:6 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From lisa at starways.net Tue Nov 7 02:43:04 2017 From: lisa at starways.net (Lisa Liel) Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2017 12:43:04 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Gilgul Hanefesh In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3ad8c297-8019-3aa5-de3b-800ffe91d6c9@starways.net> On 11/7/2017 9:30 AM, Richard Wolberg via Avodah wrote: ... > Is there a definitive Jewish belief? > I have even heard some believe in "Transmigration of the Soul" which > is even more scary. As an impressionable kid, I once had a rabbi tell me > that if you don't wash netilat yadayim prior to eating, you will come > back as a dog. As I understand it, gilgul neshamot is not the same as the eastern idea of reincarnation, where one person's soul literally incarnates again in another body and lives another life. Rather, on a spiritual level, the soul of one person can "match" the soul of someone who lived previously. Either by harmony or dissonance, to use a musical metaphor. In Seder HaDorot, it talks incessantly about how some person or other was the gilgul, or tikkun, of a previous person. But it sometimes has multiple people as the gilgul or tikkun of a previous person, which makes more sense given the "match" concept. Kabbalistically, at least according to R' Aryeh Kaplan, the spiritual dimension is one of similarities and differences. Two things that are more similar are "closer" and two things that are less similar are "further apart". So if your soul is very similar to that of someone who lived before, you could have such a "match". You might even dream memories that the previous soul experienced. That doesn't make you that person. And since the state of a person's soul changes throughout their life, their "match" to someone who lived previously can come and go as well. To give an example, Seder HaDorot says that Rabbi Akiva was the gilgul/tikkun of Zimri ben Salu. The 24K Bnei Shimon who died in the plague following Zimri's actions match the 24K talmidim of Rabbi Akiva, for example. But while Zimri took Kosbi b'issur, Rabbi Akiva married the wife of Tyrannus Rufus b'heter, after she converted. Hence restoring a balance that Zimri had violated. I don't buy the "reincarnated as a dog" or "as a fish" stuff. Those who do, I suppose they have on whom to rely, but you don't have to buy into it yourself. (NB: While Googling to see if there was a website that talked about this, I found this article from Aish, which was very interesting. It included Shechem and Dina in the equation as well. http://www.aish.com/tp/i/moha/97291469.html) Lisa From micha at aishdas.org Tue Nov 7 13:54:20 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2017 16:54:20 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] 17 Marcheshvan Message-ID: <20171107215420.GA15523@aishdas.org> Yesterday, the 17th Marcheshvan, was the anniversary of two events: 1- The rain of the mabul began; and 2- 2 Nov 1917, the day the British Foreign Secretary, Lord Alfred Balfour, sent the famous letter to Baron Lionel Walter Rothchild. Anyone want to connect the dots between the two? Two things I did notice: - Both were first steps, far from the final yeshu'ah. - Both were first followed by major destruction before anything positive could be seen from them. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger I have great faith in optimism as a philosophy, micha at aishdas.org if only because it offers us the opportunity of http://www.aishdas.org self-fulfilling prophecy. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Arthur C. Clarke From micha at aishdas.org Tue Nov 7 14:54:02 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2017 17:54:02 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Torah precheit? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20171107225402.GA26849@aishdas.org> On Thu, Oct 19, 2017 at 05:47:09AM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : R' Chaim Manaster asked: :> I have been trying to understand what the geshtalt of Torah :> was precheit of the eitz hadaas... ... :> The many consequences seem to be as follows: there would be :> no avdus in Mitzrayim, therefore no...... : One can ask similar questions about other turning-points in history. : What if Kayin had not killed Hevel? What if the world has not gone to : Avodah Zara a few generations later? What if Yishmael and/or Esav had : not gone of the derech? What if Moshe Rabenu had acted differently by : the rock? To get really confused... The Torah, like it's Author, is lemaaleh min hazman. What aspect of the Torah we mean by that aside for a moment, that means it wasn't written before the eitz hadaas, Kayin killing Hevel, Dor Enosh, galus Mitzrayim, etc... Torah doesn't enter the timeline until it is revealed at Har Sinai. Which means that there is no question about Hashem's "foreknowledge" and bechirah chafshi about anything written in the Torah that happens before Matan Torah. We can't talk about Hashem Knowing what we *will* decide until that Knowledge enters the timeline. There is no "before" or after to His knowing, only to when He informs others of it. So, for events that precede Har Sinai, the Torah can contain those decisions. There is no "what if" because Hashem Knows that that what wouldn't. No more a problem than if the Torah were written /after/ those events. Hey, I warned you I was opening the door to confusion. Then there is the question of the supernal Torah vs the form we got. As per the Ramban about the Torah without the letters separated into the words we have now. (Tangent: If one were to take that shitas haRamban at face value, there is meaning to the pesuqim with the words redivided. So, why isn't that one of the Middos shehaTorah Nidreshes Bahen?) : And there are yet others. Torah manifests itself differently to a : kohen than to a levi, and differently to a woman than to a man. And so : on... And on Sun, Oct 22, 2017 at 04:15:49PM -0400, RCM replied: : R. Akiva Miller wrote: ""If there is life on other planets, might they : possibly have a Torah? But Mitzrayim doesn't exist there, and Moshe : never lived there!" That question bothered me for a very long time," : Strangely enough, I had similar thoughts years back. As a young bachur : in yeshivo, my rebbi was teaching us that their was a period during : which the progenitor of kelal Yisroel would happen. I asked what would : have happened if there had been another deep thinker who came to the : same realization and belief that Avraham did. He answered that there : would have been two (or more) chosen peoples to eventually be mekabel : Torah. It didn't occur to me at the time to ask, would they each have the : "same" Torah or each get a tailored version to their (eventual) am? Or, : would there be one Torah that talks of both of the chosen peoples? Is there on some planet far away, an intelligent alien species with their Am haNivchar? How would the Torah be manifest to them? And if they didn't have a Migdal Bavel like event, did Hashem do that whole Mamlekhes Kohanim model, with castes within the alien Am haNivchar, or castes with everyone "nivchar"? Would they have a Holy Land? If we made contact with these creatures, would we recognize their perception of the Torah as another expression of Yahadus, or would it be too alien? I know this example seems less serious than yours; I meant it as a test case on which to check these ideas that doesn't have to involve "what if" histories that Hashem timelessly knows didn't / aren't / won't happen. : Years : later when discussing what is the purpose to us of the trillions of stars : and galaxies so distant that they could never possibly affect us here : on Earth? Then it occurred to me, what if those stars had planets with : intelligent beings on them and they too went through a similar period : wherein they too had some allien being come to the same conclusions as : Avraham did and they then became the chosen people of that planet and : received a Torah possibly tailored to their experiences and appropriate : there etc.? ... Or maybe they do affect our lives here on earth. Omphalists believe that the universe was created at some point in the nearer past, eg 5778 years ago -- or Last Thursday -- and everything before that is fake. And this is the position of the LR and R' Avigdor Miller. (Although Last Thursdayism is a mock-religion posed by atheists trying to ridicule their position.) The usual challenge by those who like to be more rationalist is that this would imply Hashem is out to fool us, creating light en route from stars to make it look like they shown billions of years ago, tragectories that if you work backward converge from a Big Bang, geological and archological records, fossils, cave paintings, remains of pre-Adamic farming... But there is a more thoughtful response: Perhaps the only way we can have teva today is if the universe we have now looks like it always ran by teva. Otherwise, the effects of nissim would still be causing anomolies we could pick up today. So much for hesteir Panim. In which case, we need a universe that is so big that our place is in looks like some unnoticable backwater. We need a universe that looks like it had a Big Bang and Inflation area in order for us to live with the set of laws of nature we have. And then their existence does impact us. : Moshe when he went lamorom to accept Torah. They too wanted Torah in a : version suitable to them which would deflect all of Moshe's responses. If : memory serves, I think some meforshim try to make sense of the malachim : in such a manner. Unlike RAM's or my hypothetical aliens, mal'akhim have no free will. Without having that much Tzelem E-lokim, would they qualify for revelation? I think the problem with the mal'akhim that the medrashic Moshe highlights in his response to their claim on the Torah is that they do Retzon haBorei automatically, they lack the challenges one would need the Torah to address. Without challenges, they cannot grow into more than they are; there is no need for a Torah to help show them how. Jumping back to RAM's post: :> As there would never be an Eretz Yisroel, then there would not :> be all the mitzvot hateltuot ba'aretz -- trumos, masros etc., etc. : : Or perhaps Gan Eden would have had that status. Eretz Yisrael is : actually a great example: Consider the idea that true nevuah can exist : only in Eretz Yisrael... Tangent: Yechezqeil? Yonah's qiqayon was outside Nineveh. Etc... : .... Rather, my point goes to : this "Torah with 613 mitzvot" that you refer to. It doesn't exist : today, and I don't know if it ever has existed. There has certainly : never been a person to whom they all applied, and I wonder whether : there was ever a generation when they were all in force. There is also the idea of mitzvos that were never expected to be applied. Like the gemara suggests about ben soreir umoreh and ir hanidachas. Perhaps they exist because history could have played out differently and these mitzvos would have had an applicability beyond derosh veqabel sekhar. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger None of us will leave this place alive. micha at aishdas.org All that is left to us is http://www.aishdas.org to be as human as possible while we are here. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Anonymous MD, while a Nazi prisoner From akivagmiller at gmail.com Wed Nov 8 04:57:26 2017 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2017 07:57:26 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Torah precheit? Message-ID: . R' Micha Berger asked: > Is there on some planet far away, an intelligent alien > species with their Am haNivchar? How would the Torah be > manifest to them? And if they didn't have a Migdal Bavel > like event, did Hashem do that whole Mamlekhes Kohanim > model, with castes within the alien Am haNivchar, or > castes with everyone "nivchar"? Would they have a > Holy Land? > > If we made contact with these creatures, would we > recognize their perception of the Torah as another > expression of Yahadus, or would it be too alien? My focus is on the word "too" in the phrase "too alien". I feel that while such beings would indeed be extremely alien to us, the degree of alien-ness is absolutely irrelevant to the question at hand: Any mashehu of alien-ness (I suspect) puts them outside the pale. In our modern way of thinking, in which "Eretz" means not only this planet but the entire physical universe, and in which "Shamayim" does NOT include planets and stars but only the metaphysical universe, - Why would martians have a different status than any other foreigners? I can easily see a discussion of whether the martians count as people or as animals, but that is a separate issue. The issue here is that if they claimed to have some sort of Revelation from the One True G-d, then would we accept it as being another facet of the Shiv'im Panim LaTorah? And my answer is: What would we say if a group of earthly *humans* claimed to have some sort of Revelation from the One True G-d? Would we accept *that* as being another facet of the Shiv'im Panim LaTorah? My guess is that our response would be: That's very nice, and you are a sincere group of righeous Bnei Noach... and then we'd pretty much ignore them. Not out of malice, but because their message is not directed towards us. Here's a litmus test for whether or not I am close to correct: If I'm not mistaken, when a person claims to be a Navi, there are specific tests for whether or not he is believed, and if he passes those tests, and he has a message from Hashem for us, then we are obligated to follow that message. Is Jewishness among those criteria? If Ovadia had not converted, would his nevua be any less true or any less obligatory? > If we made contact with these creatures, would we > recognize their perception of the Torah as another > expression of Yahadus, or would it be too alien? I suppose one answer might be: The word "Yahadus" is too restrictive. Try replacing it with "Ratzon Hashem". Akiva Miller From zev at sero.name Wed Nov 8 08:12:06 2017 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2017 11:12:06 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Torah precheit? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 08/11/17 07:57, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > I can easily see a discussion of whether the martians count as people > or as animals, but that is a separate issue. The issue here is that if > they claimed to have some sort of Revelation from the One True G-d, > then would we accept it as being another facet of the Shiv'im Panim > LaTorah? And my answer is: What would we say if a group of earthly > *humans* claimed to have some sort of Revelation from the One True > G-d? Would we accept*that* as being another facet of the Shiv'im > Panim LaTorah? > > My guess is that our response would be: That's very nice, and you are > a sincere group of righeous Bnei Noach... and then we'd pretty much > ignore them. Not out of malice, but because their message is not > directed towards us. > If all they claimed was to have once had a navi, whose nevuah didn't contradict our Torah in any way, then perhaps we might accept it as valid. But if they were to claim to have had their own matan torah I think we would have to reject it. It's fundamental to our faith that matan torah was an event that could only happen once. It's also fundamental that Hashem chose avraham from *all* humanity, and us from *all* the nations, so if someone else -- on this planet or any other -- were to make such a claim we could not accept it. as for how Hashem could leave them without a Torah to guide them, how are they different from any remote people who had no contact with anyone who had even heard of the Torah until the 19th or 20th century? If the New Guinea Highlanders (some of whom have *still* never had any contact with the world outside their valleys) could wait until now to hear about the Torah, why can't the Tau Cetians, or whoever, wait until the 25th or 30th century? (assuming the 6000 years thing to be some sort of metaphor, of course, or there won't be a 30th century.) -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From zvilampel at gmail.com Wed Nov 8 08:53:24 2017 From: zvilampel at gmail.com (H Lampel) Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2017 11:53:24 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Torah precheit? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 11/7/2017 6:05 PM, MIcha Berger wrote: > ... that the universe was created at some point in the nearer > past, eg 5778 years ago -- or Last Thursday -- and everything before that is > fake. ...is the position of ... R' Avigdor Miller. He certainly is not of the opinion of last-Thursday-ism. (I suspect RMB did not really mean that.) His opinion is based on the mesora. Re: ''and everything before that is fake. ...is the position of ... R' Avigdor Miller'' To clarify, R' Avigdor Miller's position is not that fossils, for example, were planted merely as a test of our emunah. > Why should the [dinosaurs] need explanation any more than the dodo, the passenger pigeon, or any of the other species which > have become extinct, some even in our time? The huge > animals of ancient times, as well as many small animals, > became extinct each in the due time decreed by the timetable > of Heaven. ... Their existence is a fact which does > not help th theory of Evolution in any manner. (Rejoice O Youth, pp. 47-48) However, that Adam was created as a 30-year-old (as Chazal say), with, for example, a full mouth of teeth? Yes. Because: > ''Creation means that the Universe began at once in full-blown development. > The First Man immediately had trees whose fruit he could eat. > But fruit trees must beforehand be pollinated by bees, and bees need beehives with all their > paraphernalia. So you understand that Creation implies that > everything came into existence without benefit of time." > > "Trees have in their trunks a number of concentric rings, > each ring denoting a year of existence. If the First Man had > sawed off a tree, would he have found rings inside?" > > "Since he had trees, they were what we know a tree > to be." > > ...thousand-year redwood trees...?" > > "Creation included everything. Just as the First Man > had mature fruit trees at the first moment, so also the world > possessed mature lumber trees which were created at the > same time." > > "[So]... all animals and insects and bacteria were created, > including those which need rotting old logs and crumbling old > rocks for their habitat or sustenance. Thus, it is self? > explanatory that the world possessed 'aged' materials from the > very outset, including vegetation and animal carcasses with low > carbon-14 content and rocks with heavy lead content.'' > > (Ibid. pp 45-46) Zvi Lampel PS--Again, this is to clarify Rav Miller's position, and hopefully will not evolve (;)) into a discussion of it. Been there, done that, and no time. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Wed Nov 8 13:59:13 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2017 16:59:13 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Torah precheit? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20171108215913.GB3342@aishdas.org> On Wed, Nov 08, 2017 at 07:57:26AM -0500, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: :> If we made contact with these creatures, would we :> recognize their perception of the Torah as another :> expression of Yahadus, or would it be too alien? : My focus is on the word "too" in the phrase "too alien". I feel that : while such beings would indeed be extremely alien to us, the degree of : alien-ness is absolutely irrelevant to the question at hand: Any : mashehu of alien-ness (I suspect) puts them outside the pale. Actually, when I said "too alien" I was thinking not of ways their book of Retzon haBorei different from our Torah but ways in which their existence is so different from ours that we can't event compare. It's one thing to discuss what hilkhos geirus might look like if they had a hahaflagah but they already live in a liquid. It's another to discuss what halakhah as a whole would look like if they didn't experience time as a linear past-present-future the way we do. This discussion also reminds me of my Issacharism thought experiment. Positing that sheivet Yissachar survived, and had its own development of halakhah since the fall of Malkhus Yisrael. Its own Sanhedrin, no Anshei Keneses haGdfolah, etc... The same beris Sinai, but an entirely different development of 3,000 of application of kelalei pesaq, different gezeiros and taqanos... And to make it harder, let's say their population of shomerei Torah uMizvos has been roughly the same as ours all these years. So there are no grounds for saying one set of Sanhedrins is more authorivative than the other. : In our modern way of thinking, in which "Eretz" means not only this : planet but the entire physical universe, and in which "Shamayim" does : NOT include planets and stars but only the metaphysical universe, - : Why would martians have a different status than any other foreigners? Because it's possible that if Vulcans existed, HQBH would have provided them with /their/ mamlekhes kohanim. Yes, I can't guess what HQBH would do -- He could equally have wanted their spiritual development to wait until *we* get there. Like some aboriginal people on this planet, who never heard of us or even Ibrahimic religions relatively recently. Possibly relevant is the Rambam's shitah that chasidei umos ha'olam are only those who keep the 7 mitzvos because they were given at Sinai. Perhaps this gives more reason for a Vulcan am hanivchar. If anyone who does the right thing because it's logically the right thing accomplished their goal in life, then perhaps not every kind of being with bekhirah needs access to a revelation. : The issue here is that if : they claimed to have some sort of Revelation from the One True G-d, : then would we accept it as being another facet of the Shiv'im Panim : LaTorah? And my answer is: What would we say if a group of earthly : *humans* claimed to have some sort of Revelation from the One True : G-d? Would we accept *that* as being another facet of the Shiv'im : Panim LaTorah? We are a segulah mikol ha'amim, beni bekhori Yisrael. We know we recieved a unique revelation. The discussion is whether it's unique for all of humanity, or full-stop unique universally. : My guess is that our response would be: That's very nice, and you are : a sincere group of righeous Bnei Noach... and then we'd pretty much : ignore them... I agree with the "ignore" part, though. Accept for the academics and their journals. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Despair is the worst of ailments. No worries micha at aishdas.org are justified except: "Why am I so worried?" http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yisrael Salanter Fax: (270) 514-1507 From seinfeld at daasbooks.com Wed Nov 8 18:00:29 2017 From: seinfeld at daasbooks.com (Alexander Seinfeld) Date: Wed, 08 Nov 2017 21:00:29 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Torah precheit? Message-ID: > > > >But there is a more thoughtful response: Perhaps the only way we can >have teva today is if the universe we have now looks like it always >ran by teva. Otherwise, the effects of nissim would still be causing >anomolies we could pick up today. So much for hesteir Panim. > >In which case, we need a universe that is so big that our place is in >looks like some unnoticable backwater. We need a universe that looks >like it had a Big Bang and Inflation area in order for us to live with >the set of laws of nature we have. > >And then their existence does impact us. Just want to point out, or remind, that there are two independent questions here that often become conflated. 1. Can a rational person believe in ?young Earth? (i.e., >6,000 years old)? 2. Why would God create a universe making it look like it is far older than it really is? The basis of answering yes to #1 has nothing to do with #2. I do not need to know why in order to examine the evidence for #1 and conclude that He did probably make the world 5,778 years ago. The fact that I cannot answer #2 should not be entered as evidence against #1. This is the m?haleich of R? Dovid Gottlieb. The fallacy of the skeptics is to mock #1 based on #2, when in fact it is irrelevant. My own personal belief is merely that the vastness of space and time give us the opportunity with our puny minds to have an analogy for God?s infiniteness. From afolger at aishdas.org Mon Nov 13 04:05:02 2017 From: afolger at aishdas.org (Arie Folger) Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2017 13:05:02 +0100 Subject: [Avodah] Torah precheit Message-ID: RAM and RMB have been arguing about whether aliens somewhere out there could have received a Revelation akin to ours and whether theirs would be one of shiv'im panim la-Torah. My USD0.02c: I believe that it is not unimportant that according to present theories of physics, we are constrained by how far we could ever travel. Even if we were to remain happy with slower than light travel, travelling at the phenomenal speeds necessary to get anywhere else in our own galaxy where aliens might live, i.e. in another star system with planets in the habitable zone, would use up phenomenal amounts of energy. Furthermore, the distances are so vast, that we would need enormous (what's the trendy word variant, ginormous?) amounts of time, and we still hardly would get anywhere. Bottom line, there very well may exist intelligent aliens out there, but we are near 100% sure that we will never ever be able to meet them. Which leads me to the following observation: If there are aliens out there which we will one day meet, then we could not accept their *competing* Revelation. There is only one 'am hanivchar. We would indeed need to see them as a special kind of Noachides with a possible true revelation that is, however, subordinate to ours and can never contradict it. If, however, we consider aliens whom we will never ever be able to meet, I see no reason why they couldn't have their own Revelation, with their own Torah, which, while it surely will agree in all iqarim, may nonetheless, through a variety of mechanisms suggested by mefarshim throughout the ages (including but not limited to the Ramban's Torah without spaces, and the expansion thereof by later mequbalim that the Heavenly Torah has 23 letters, of which we only see 22), be quite different from ours. I do wonder though, can there be an alien civilization we will one day encounter in person, which has exactly the same Torah as we do. It would seem extremely improbable for them to have had an Avraham, Yitzchak & Yaakov, Shevatim & galut Mitzrayim, but hey, if this is predetermined in part, then why not? The question will then be, are they and us the same people (in the assumption that it is even physically possible to intermarry)? I consider this whole possibility even less likely than the one about meeting any aliens anywhere, so this is just an thought experiment. Kol tuv, -- Arie Folger -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From akivagmiller at gmail.com Mon Nov 13 17:45:22 2017 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2017 20:45:22 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Gifts on Shabbos Message-ID: . I am trying to get a more precise understanding of when it is assur/mutar to give someone a gift on Shabbos. Orach Chayim 306 is about all sorts of business activities. Gifts are a subset of this topic, and Mishne Berura 306:33 writes, "It is also assur to give a gift to one's friend, because it is similar to buying and selling, because it leaves his ownership [reshus]. But a gift is mutar when it is L'tzorech Shabbos V'Yom Tov - as written in 323:7 - and likewise for L'tzorech Mitzvah... And it also wrote that according to that, the practice of giving keilim as a gift to a Chasan is improper..." When I turn to Shulchan Aruch 323:7, Mechaber doesn't say anything about the general laws of giving gifts on Shabbos. He only gives one particular case: That if one forgot to tovel a keli before Shabbos, so it cannot be used on Shabbos, he is allowed to give it to a non-Jew as a gift, and then borrow it back for Shabbos use. Mishne Brura 323:34 explains: "Even though it is assur to give gifts on Shabbos as written in Siman 306, here it is allowed because of Tzorech Shabbos." The logic is somewhat circular, I think: 306 refers to 323, and 323 refers to 306. The only clear heter is an interesting one: On the one hand, it is for a NON-food item (though it is food-related); on the other hand, it seems to be a b'dieved solution for the person who either forgot to tovel it before Shabbos, or somehow acquired it from a non-Jew on Shabbos. I don't see any clear heter to deliberately give a food gift on Shabbos, and I also don't see any clear prohibition that non-foods are excluded from being "L'tzorech Shabbos". Mishne Berurah 306:33 says that it is wrong to give "keilim" as gifts to a chasan. Rabbi Dovid Ribiat ("The 39 Melochos", page 961) includes "presenting a Bar Mitzvah boy with a Sefer" in this category. These examples suggest two rules to me: (1) If the gift will not be used until after Shabbos (quite likely for the bar mitzvah boy's sefer, though I have no idea which "kelim" the chasan would receive), then it is not "letzorech Shabbos". (2) The chasan (or bar mitzvah boy) presumably gets hanaah from receiving the gift, but that amount of Oneg Shabbos is not significant enough to count as "letzorech Shabbos". I offer two specific examples for discussion: (1) Many shuls offer printed material, such as parsha sheets, weekly shul bulletins, and even newspapers and magazines. Or someone might attend a shiur, where the teacher distributes printed handouts of the source material. Can I take these home to read or learn from on Shabbos afternoon? Wouldn't this be a Tzorech Shabbos? (2) Suppose someone is invited to a friend for a Shabbos meal, and he brings a challah or wine as a gift for the host. The host was not expecting it and has other food that he was planning to use. Is this enough of a tzorech Shabbos to transfer ownership? If this host accepts the gift, is he required to serve the food? In other words, if "tzorech Shabbos" is indeed a carte blanche for food gifts, does the food have to actually be eaten? Akiva Miller Postscript: It seems to me that this issur of giving gifts applies only on Shabbos, and *not* on Yom Tov. Consider: You can send a living behema to your friend on YT, even through a Reshus Harabim, even if you know that the friend won't shecht it, and the heter is contingent only on the fact that the friend COULD shecht it. (MB 516:1) You can even send a pair of tefillin to your friend even though it is not needed at all for Yom Tov; the only requirements are that the tefillin are ready-for-use, and that friend gets hanaa from receiving the gift (MB 516:11-12) That whole siman seems to deal with issues of hotzaah and muktzeh, and doesn't even mention kinyanim (at least, I didn't see any such mention). This is very puzzling: Why would there be a difference between giving gifts on Shabbos and on Yom Tov? If this could be answered, it might shed light on what "L'tzorech Shabbos" means. From micha at aishdas.org Tue Nov 14 08:39:28 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2017 11:39:28 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Gilgul Hanefesh In-Reply-To: <3ad8c297-8019-3aa5-de3b-800ffe91d6c9@starways.net> References: <3ad8c297-8019-3aa5-de3b-800ffe91d6c9@starways.net> Message-ID: <20171114163928.GD29616@aishdas.org> On Tue, Nov 07, 2017 at 12:43:04PM +0200, Lisa Liel via Avodah wrote: : As I understand it, gilgul neshamot is not the same as the eastern : idea of reincarnation, where one person's soul literally incarnates : again in another body and lives another life... RSGaon says in (Emunos veDei'os 6:8 tr R' Yosef el-Qafeh, "Kapach"; emphasis mine): Venineini omer ki anashim, mimi SHENIQRA'IM YEHUDIM, matzasim ma'aminim begilgul veqor'in oso haha'ataqus. I left that in Hebrew because I want to be medayeiq in lashon in a moment. To continue, with my translation from the Hebrew: The matter to their minds is that the ruach of Re'uvein will be in Shim'on, and after that in Leivi, and after that in Yehudah. And from them, or most of them figure that it could be that the ruach of a person will be in an animal, and the ruach of an anumal in a person. And a lot of such delusions and confusion. And then the rest of the chapter lists their errors. RYeQ footnotes that R' Uzziel concluded that the people who are "called Jews" who believe such things are the Qaraim. Anan (the founder) picked up this idea from the Greeks. I do not know the original Arabic, but in this translation, notice that it's possible to read RSG as being against people to take the idea of gilgul and call it "ha'ataqus" and describe it as souls migrating from person to person or even to animal, etc... But not against gilgul itself. Which would support Lisa's understanding. This read has two open questions to resolve, not that I am saying they're unanswerable: 1- RSG does use the same Arabic again at the end of the chapter (and ma'amar) that R "Kapach" translates to "gilgul" -- "And I say: what does this say that teaches about gilgul?..." Perhaps it should be read: How do they think those pesuqim indicate that gilgul means ha'ataqah -- they don't talk about gilgul altogether? 2- My bigger problem is that RSG would then be spending all this time on a heretical misunderstanding of gilgul, without even one sentence saying, "But what gilgul *really* means..."? It would even be an important point of the ma'amar's discussion of souls and afterlife. This omission I find highly unlikely. As to how they would differ. The kind of people who talk about gilgul also talk about Naran and sometimes even Naran Chai -- Nefesh Ruach Neshamah, which are the penimios aspects of the soul, and Chayah and Yechidah. For that matter, RSG discusses Naran in the very same ma'amar (6:3 ) as three kochos. To RSG, they are an indisible singularity that has three abilities. But in more Qabbalistic sources, they are described as parts even as the soul's unitary nature is also asserted. If ruach and nashamah are indeed parts, then there is a huge difference between 1- Gilgul nashamos: The neshamah -- and according to the Ari, even "sparks" of a neshamah rather than a whole one -- "revolves" from one life in one body to another. And 2- Ha'ataqa: where the ruach migrates. Neshamah is much less associated with the notion of "self" than ruach is. E.g. "Neshamah shanasati bi, tehorah hi." The "bi -- in me" receives a neshamah. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger It isn't what you have, or who you are, or where micha at aishdas.org you are, or what you are doing, that makes you http://www.aishdas.org happy or unhappy. It's what you think about. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Dale Carnegie From micha at aishdas.org Tue Nov 14 09:31:55 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2017 12:31:55 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Torah precheit? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20171114173155.GE29616@aishdas.org> On Wed, Nov 08, 2017 at 11:53:24AM -0500, H Lampel via Avodah wrote: : On 11/7/2017 6:05 PM, Micha Berger wrote: :> ... that the universe was created at some point in the nearer :> past, eg 5778 years ago -- or Last Thursday -- and everything before that is :> fake. ...is the position of ... R' Avigdor Miller. : He certainly is not of the opinion of last-Thursday-ism. (I suspect RMB did not really mean that.) His opinion is based on the mesora. I meant omphalism. Which is not based on the mesora, it's based on pashut peshat in a pasuq. A pasuq that we don't really have much mesorah saying actually hyas a pashut peshat, at least not one we can comprehend. : Re: "and everything before that is fake. ...is the position of ... R' : Avigdor Miller" : To clarify, R' Avigdor Miller's position is not that fossils, for example, : were planted merely as a test of our emunah. Which is why I didn't say that. Continuing with RZL's quote of RAM's Rejoice O Youth (pp. 47-48): :> Why should the [dinosaurs] need explanation any more than the :> dodo, the passenger pigeon, or any of the other species which :> have become extinct, some even in our time? The huge :> animals of ancient times, as well as many small animals, :> became extinct each in the due time decreed by the timetable :> of Heaven. ... Their existence is a fact which does :> not help th theory of Evolution in any manner. So he says it's simply incomprehensible. I also gave a different explanation than "test of our emunah" -- necessary for having a sensible and detectable teva. My point was to defend the viability of omphalism of both RAM's and the LR's sorts. Asking "Why would Hashem be so cruel as to create all that to mislead, at best to test" question presumes a strawman. : However, that Adam was created as a 30-year-old (as Chazal say), with, : for example, a full mouth of teeth? Yes. Because: :> "Creation means that the Universe began at once in full-blown development. :> The First Man immediately had trees whose fruit he could eat. .... :> (Ibid. pp 45-46) See Bereishis Rabba 14:7 ). According to R Yehudah bar Shimon says that "ofer olam" was created in his fullness. R' Elazar b Shimon says that Chava was too. R' Yochanan says they were creates as 20 (quibble: not 30) year olds. And then down in 14:10, R Yehudah says that Adam was made with a tail, but it was removed for the sake of his kavod. Evolution anywone? BUT: The month that Adam was born in is part of the greater machloqes between R' Yehoshua and R' Eliezer about Nissan vs Tishrei (RH 11a). Meaning, if the world was created in Tishrei, when "the earth brings forth plants and trees full of fruit", then yes, this medrash stands. But if the world was created in Nissan, when the plants start growing and the fruit is emerging from the tree (as the gemara puts it), then perhaps not. In any case, the meaning thereby ascribed to saying the world was made in Nissan is that the universe was created at its start. Regardless of Adam's development when born. So I would have said "one opinion in Chazal", not "as Chazal say". Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Friendship is like stone. A stone has no value, micha at aishdas.org but by rubbing one stone against another, http://www.aishdas.org sparks of fire emerge. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Mordechai of Lechovitz From micha at aishdas.org Tue Nov 14 10:38:37 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2017 13:38:37 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Gifts on Shabbos In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20171114183837.GF29616@aishdas.org> On Mon, Nov 13, 2017 at 08:45:22PM -0500, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : I am trying to get a more precise understanding of when it is : assur/mutar to give someone a gift on Shabbos. ... : The logic is somewhat circular, I think: 306 refers to 323, and 323 : refers to 306... The Mishnah Berurah has mutual references between 306:33 and 323:34. But I don't see the logic itself being circular. 306 spells out the theory, and 323 is an example of that theory and at each place he shows you the other half of the picture. Giving gifts is assur (derabbanan) on Shabbos, except when the purpose of the gift is letzorekh Shabbos, or another mitzvah. Thus, it includes giving a non-toveled keli to a non-Jew so that it can be borrowed back and used *for Shabbos*. But not a wedding gift, which (as per R' Ribiat's bar mitzvah boy) presumably isn't needed by the chasan on Shabbos. And apparently claiming simchas chasan being a mitzvah isn't sufficient to say the gift is letzorekh mitzvah. Which you note as well, although you phrase it in terms of hana'ah and oneg Shabbos, ie lezorekh Shabbos. Perhaps this is because there are other ways to provide simchah or oneg, so it's not "letzorekh". : (1) Many shuls offer printed material, such as parsha sheets, weekly : shul bulletins, and even newspapers and magazines. Or someone might : attend a shiur, where the teacher distributes printed handouts of the : source material. Can I take these home to read or learn from on : Shabbos afternoon? Wouldn't this be a Tzorech Shabbos? I would think so. Why any less than a gift of food? In both cases, the recipient already owns alternatives. So why would something to eat be more letzorekh Shabbos than something to learn? This is unlike the bar mitzvah boy recieving a sefer (acc to R' Ribiat), in that the purpose isn't learning on Shabbos. Implied: A guest who knows the host won't use the food (eg he recommends waiting until the wine is chilled) shouldn't be giving even usable food. Is this the halakhah? Also, I found that ROY (Yechaveh Da'as 3:21) DOES allow giving the bar mitzvah boy that seifer because it provides chizuq. And there is no greater letzorekh mitzvah than that! : (2) Suppose someone is invited to a friend for a Shabbos meal, and he : brings a challah or wine as a gift for the host. The host was not : expecting it and has other food that he was planning to use. Is this : enough of a tzorech Shabbos to transfer ownership? ... Or, in the SA's case... can you give the non-toveled keli to a nakhri when you have just as good or nearly as good alternatives? That you already had thoughts of using? I took it for granted yes, since if not, the SA is oddly missing an important half of the story. Which is why above I only asked about a case where the guest gives something in a way that rules out its use, rather than just left to the host's choice. When I am the guest in this situation, I am zokheh lo shelo befanav and transfer ownership on Friday. Came in handy a couple of times when the host refused the gift. "Well, if you don't want it, you can regift it. Because it's yours already and you aren't allowed to give it back" right now, at least. : Postscript: It seems to me that this issur of giving gifts applies : only on Shabbos, and *not* on Yom Tov... Then why "letzorekh Shabbos or YT"? When do you have something that is letzorekh YT in particular when it's also Shabbos? : (MB 516:1) You can : even send a pair of tefillin to your friend even though it is not : needed at all for Yom Tov; the only requirements are that the tefillin : are ready-for-use, and that friend gets hanaa from receiving the gift : (MB 516:11-12) And the bar mitzvah boy doesn't get the same kind of hana'ah (speaking quality, not quantity) from his uncle's gift of a set of Rambam? Now I'm confused again. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "The worst thing that can happen to a micha at aishdas.org person is to remain asleep and untamed." http://www.aishdas.org - Rabbi Simcha Zissel Ziv, Alter of Kelm Fax: (270) 514-1507 From micha at aishdas.org Tue Nov 14 10:48:32 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2017 13:48:32 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Torah precheit In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20171114184832.GI29616@aishdas.org> On Mon, Nov 13, 2017 at 01:05:02PM +0100, Arie Folger via Avodah wrote: : Bottom line, there very well may exist intelligent aliens out there, but we : are near 100% sure that we will never ever be able to meet them. Nice chiluq! : Which leads me to the following observation: If there are aliens out there : which we will one day meet, then we could not accept their *competing* : Revelation. There is only one 'am hanivchar... Who said that "nivchar mibein ha'amim" means anything beyond benei Adam, amim as caused by Migdal Bavel? Perhaps their revelation isn't so much competing as the RBSO providing them a chance at redemption before Yom Hashem haGadol vehanora, or at least before whenever it is we get there? : them as a special kind of Noachides with a possible true revelation that : is, however, subordinate to ours and can never contradict it. This is itself the question I was trying to keep under discussion. Could we even recognize a contradiction? After all, the appearance of Retzon haBorei to creatures very different than us isn't likely to have many points where we can contradict. Assuming they are ethical monotheists, that is. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger It's never too late micha at aishdas.org to become the person http://www.aishdas.org you might have been. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - George Eliot From meirabi at gmail.com Thu Nov 16 16:11:31 2017 From: meirabi at gmail.com (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi) Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2017 11:11:31 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] How Much Salt for Kashering? Message-ID: Kosher meat must have all traces of blood removed. This procedure is known as 'Kashering' and requires very precise procedures and timing of rinsing, soaking, salting and finally removal of the salt and blood via rinsing and washing. Halachah provides no precise measure of salt to be used for Kashering and although insisting that all surfaces must be covered with salt, does not differentiate between small and large surface area to volume ratios, i.e. thick or thin pieces of meat. In other words a large circular hunk of meat [small ratio of surface area to volume] requires the identical amount of surface salt and time for Kashering as does a thin piece [large ratio of surface area to volume] Furthermore, a 20cm thick piece of meat will be Kashered when salted on both sides, meaning the salt will extract blood from a depth of 10 cm, but a 4cm thick piece of meat salted only on one side will not be Kosher. It seems like the process has been standardised to accommodate all cases. Nevertheless, although Halachah permits various shortcuts when Kashering for emergency situations, it does not advise Kashering thin slices to reduce preparation time. Meat that was cooked before it was Kashered will make everything in the pot it is cooked with non-Kosher. Halacha asserts there is as much blood in the piece of meat as the mass of meat. If however, there is enough Kosher food in the pot to render the blood insignificant, the food will be Kosher. Halachah requires 60 units of Kosher food to neutralise every unit of blood [1 gram of blood requires 60 grams of Kosher food] In other words, a 100 gram piece of meat will require 6kg to neutralise the blood. However, meat that was cooked after Kashering but before the blood and salt was washed off, requires only 60 times the salt and blood on the surface of the meat i.e. soaked into the salt. The blood that was in the meat has been removed by the salting. Some authorities [a note in the ShaArei Dura] assert that every piece of meat is itself large enough to neutralise the salt whilst others [the Rama 69:9] assert it provides only half the mass required. ????? ??"? - ??? ????? ???? ??? ????? ?????? ?????? ???? ??? ???? ???? ???? ??? ??? ??? ???? ?? ??? ?? ?? ???? ????? ??? ??? ????? ?? ??? ?? ??? ????? ????? ???? ??? ????? ??? ??? ?? ???? ???? ?? ??? ???? The Rama however disagrees with the ratio - "there can be no question that if the pot contains as much as the mass of the meat, it is certainly more than 60 times the salt ...." See Shach that BeDiAvad, we may rely upon the lenient opinion particularly if it is a thick piece. ????? ???? ??????????? ?''? ?????? ?????????? ??????????? ????? ??????, ?????? ??????, ?????????? ?????? ????????? ????? ???????? ?????? ?????????? ????????????? ???????? ?????????? ???? ?????????? ????? ???????? ?????????, (????????? ?????? ?''? ?''? To the best of my knowledge, this is the only source that provides an empiric measurement of how much salt is to be used for Kashering. Keep in mind that since this is a general ruling it must encompass all cases, the guidelines must reflect the maximum amount of salt that would be applied and that would remain until the meat is ready for its final washdown. In the words of the Rama, "there can be no question that if the pot contains as much as the mass of the meat, it is certainly more than 60 times the salt ...." The Halacha must provide the maximum safety margin and must therefore assume that the maximum amount of salt was applied and remains on the meat when it is added to the pot. Further, the Halacha must accommodate the largest surface area to meat ratio [ChAdam 32:4] and the heaviest salting hand. In other words, every possible variant that increases the amount of salt used is turned up to the max - and in this worst possible case scenario, we can be certain that the salt is no more than one thirtieth of the mass of the meat. In other words, an average sized steak, 300 - 400 gms, requires no more than 2 teaspoonfuls of salt for Kashering. Another thing that is certain - all Kosher agencies apply far more salt for Kashering than one thirtieth. Does it make a difference? Well, these days, the cost of disposing of contaminants is rising dramatically and salt is deemed a nasty contaminant and is becoming more expensive to dispose. It already adds a significant cost to production. Best, Meir G. Rabi 0423 207 837 +61 423 207 837 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From meirabi at gmail.com Sat Nov 18 13:25:21 2017 From: meirabi at gmail.com (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi) Date: Sun, 19 Nov 2017 08:25:21 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] Sedra Toldos - Balance, When Parents Favour One Child Message-ID: Our actions are pretty much prompted by Life's circumstances, we are mostly provoked to react. We do [many/most] things to counter a perceived imbalance, an injustice. Perhaps, with this in mind, we can better understand Yitzchak, Rivkah and Eisav as they are portrayed in this week's Sedra. Isaac favoured Eisav, because he was "Tzayid BeFiv", Rivkah favoured YaAkov [25:28] We are told why Yitzchak favours Eisav but not why Rivkah favours YaAkov. Yitzchak favours Eisav because Eisav is a "Tzayid BeFiv" lit. hunted with his mouth. Rashi explains this as either [or both] - he deceived his father like a hunter lying in ambush or stalking prey and catching it at a vulnerable moment, i.e. feeding Yitchak fake news to present himself as exceedingly Gd fearing; or, he fed Yitzchak tasty food, "Make me the tasty food I enjoy ... so that I might bless you before I die." [27:4] But Eisav was not a better cook than Rivkah - "she made him a delicious dish just as he liked" [27:14] [unless she had him on a healthy food diet and Eisav was Yitzchak's secret steak supplier] Eisav loved his father and he loved hunting [25:27]. He desperately sought his father's approval. He pursued this as he best knew, by hunting and even by lying. We might even say that he felt as though he was hunting for his father's love. Yitzchak understood, he encouraged Eisav to hunt and cook for him. He even reminded Eisav to take his hunting weapons when he instructs him to hunt and prepare food before he blesses him - Yitzchak wants Eisav to be engaged in the hunting and preparation of the food, because it is this engagement that is their link and best encapsulates his approval of his son Eisav. In other words, "It's not the food I want, for that I could ask your mother or you could grab an animal from our flock - it would be much quicker. No, I want you to be of service to me. Knowing that you have hunted to provide for me makes me happy and I enjoy the food more." Eisav knew that his mother was capable of and willing to provide her husband with all the tasty food he could stomach. He got the message that it was not food that Yitzchak wanted. Yitzchak was reaching out to Eisav, knowing how desperately Eisav sought his approval. Eisav learned how to cook in order to express his love. He even deceived Yitchak, painting himself as the Gd fearing son in order to win his father's approval. Best, Meir G. Rabi 0423 207 837 +61 423 207 837 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From akivagmiller at gmail.com Sat Nov 18 19:23:18 2017 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Sat, 18 Nov 2017 22:23:18 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] T'hay Message-ID: There is a word spelled tav-heh-aleph, pronounced "t'hay". Is this word Hebrew or Aramaic? >From context and sound, I have always presumed that it means something very similar to "yihyeh". Is that correct? If they are indeed similar in meaning, then I imgine that they is still some slight shade of difference. If they meant the exact same thing, wouldn't authors use the more common word (yihyeh) instead? This would be the case even if t'hay is Hebrew, and it would certainly be true if t'hay is Aramaic. The reason I'm asking these questions is because I have found a surprising number of paragraphs in my siddur, where all the words are obviously Hebrew, except for this one word. Including a foreign word in a text is not unheard of (there's a Latin word in Nachem, for example), but this is generally done because there is no native word with the precise meaning that the author is aiming for. And I can't imagine why "yihyeh" doesn't work in these cases: Hamapil: "us'hay mitasi shleima l'fanecha" Birkas Hamazon, near the end: "zechus shet'hay l'mishmeres shalom" Birkas Hamazon on Shabbos: "shelo t'hay tzara" Birkas Hachodesh: "chayim shet'hay banu ahavas torah" Avinu Malkenu: "t'hay hashaah hazos" Yizkor: "bis'char zeh t'hay nafsho" Yom Kippur Musaf, the Kohen Gadol's tefila: "shet'hay hashana hazos" Kel Malay Rachamim: "b'gan eden t'hay menuchaso" (I have omitted parts of the siddur that are taken from the Mishna (such as Bameh Madlikin and Pitum Haketores) because it is the nature of the Mishna to mix Hebrew and Aramaic, so use of the word "t'hay" isn't a glaring exception the way it is in the rest of the siddur. Also, I note that my examples were all taken from Nusach Ashkenaz; other nuschaos may have more or fewer instances of this word.) Thank you, Akiva Miller From simon.montagu at gmail.com Mon Nov 20 00:38:38 2017 From: simon.montagu at gmail.com (Simon Montagu) Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2017 10:38:38 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] T'hay In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sun, Nov 19, 2017 at 5:23 AM, Akiva Miller via Avodah < avodah at lists.aishdas.org> wrote: > There is a word spelled tav-heh-aleph, pronounced "t'hay". Is this > word Hebrew or Aramaic? > Hebrew. I believe the Aramaic equivalent would be tehevi. > > From context and sound, I have always presumed that it means something > very similar to "yihyeh". Is that correct? > > If they are indeed similar in meaning, then I imgine that they is > still some slight shade of difference. If they meant the exact same > thing, wouldn't authors use the more common word (yihyeh) instead? > This would be the case even if t'hay is Hebrew, and it would certainly > be true if t'hay is Aramaic. > > The reason I'm asking these questions is because I have found a > surprising number of paragraphs in my siddur, where all the words are > obviously Hebrew, except for this one word. Including a foreign word > in a text is not unheard of (there's a Latin word in Nachem, for > example), but this is generally done because there is no native word > with the precise meaning that the author is aiming for. And I can't > imagine why "yihyeh" doesn't work in these cases: (At any rate it would be "tihyeh" in the cases you quote, which are all in the feminine) In my siddur (Singer's) all the examples you give are "tehi" with a yud, which is Biblical Hebrew, as in "Tehi ala benotenu" in last week's parasha (Bereshit 26:28). The difference between yihyeh/yehi and tihyeh/tehi is that the first is future and the second is jussive (though the future can be used in a jussive sense). I assume the form with alef is Rabbinic Hebrew. How it comes to be used in the siddur, or in which nushaot exactly, I don't know. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jay at m5.chicago.il.us Mon Nov 20 05:12:52 2017 From: jay at m5.chicago.il.us (Jay F. Shachter) Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2017 13:12:52 +0000 (WET) Subject: [Avodah] How Much Salt for Kashering? In-Reply-To: from "avodah-request@lists.aishdas.org" at Nov 16, 2017 06:40:58 pm Message-ID: <15112051720.1Acb3A518.50843@lsd.chicago.il.us.chicago.il.us> > > Kosher meat must have all traces of blood removed. > No, it does not. This is true only if you are going to cook the meat before eating it. Jay F. ("Yaakov") Shachter 6424 N Whipple St Chicago IL 60645-4111 (1-773)7613784 landline (1-410)9964737 GoogleVoice jay at m5.chicago.il.us http://m5.chicago.il.us "Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur" From lisa at starways.net Mon Nov 20 04:02:11 2017 From: lisa at starways.net (Lisa Liel) Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2017 14:02:11 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] T'hay In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <91877a4d-0aeb-1a75-d7b1-78f399a2746e@starways.net> I'm not sure.? We have "yehei ra'ava kadamach" in Brich Shmei d'Marei Alma, which is definitely Aramaic.? The yehei is the same as tehei. I think what's happening here is that there's a certain amount of bleed-over between Hebrew and Aramaic.? In addition, there were different dialects of Aramaic in Eretz Yisrael and Bavel.? So while tehevei may be the correct Aramaic, tehei may be as well. Lisa On 11/20/2017 10:38 AM, Simon Montagu via Avodah wrote: > On Sun, Nov 19, 2017 at 5:23 AM, Akiva Miller via Avodah > > wrote: > > There is a word spelled tav-heh-aleph, pronounced "t'hay". Is this > word Hebrew or Aramaic? > > > Hebrew. I believe the Aramaic equivalent would be tehevi. > From micha at aishdas.org Mon Nov 20 10:24:50 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2017 13:24:50 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Sedra Toldos - Balance, When Parents Favour One Child In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20171120182450.GA24872@aishdas.org> On Sun, Nov 19, 2017 at 08:25:21AM +1100, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: : But Eisav was not a better cook than Rivkah - "she made him a delicious : dish just as he liked" [27:14] [unless she had him on a healthy food diet : and Eisav was Yitzchak's secret steak supplier] Or the hunter was usually the one who prepared the game, whereas Rivqa tended to be cooking the animals they farmed. ... : Yitzchak understood, he encouraged Eisav to hunt and cook for him. He even : reminded Eisav to take his hunting weapons when he instructs him to hunt : and prepare food before he blesses him - Yitzchak wants Eisav to be engaged : in the hunting and preparation of the food, because it is this engagement : that is their link and best encapsulates his approval of his son Eisav... Perhaps this is the whole point of the Torah's not saying why Rivqa preferred Yaaqov. Yitzchaq's additional love of Esav was teluyah bedavar, and that fact impacted Eisav's choices. Rivqa love Yaaqov, full stop, not for some reason. There is also an idea I heard from RYBS and often utilized in Gush circles that had things turned out more positively, Eisav would have been the physical arm of the same project as Yaaqv's Torah. Eisav's children would have supported and protected Yaaqov's. According to the Qedushas Levi's version of this idea, Yitzchaq knew Eisav had failings, but felt that the person who was supposed to go out into the real world was bound to be the tzadiq who "falls 7 times and arises" (to quote Shelomo haMelekh). What Yaaqov missed was the nevu'ah "ushnei le'umim mimei'ayikh yipareidu". He thought that the ideal plan, Esav and Yaaqov together without such pirud, was still how history was going to play out. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Spirituality is like a bird: if you tighten micha at aishdas.org your grip on it, it chokes; slacken your grip, http://www.aishdas.org and it flies away. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From micha at aishdas.org Mon Nov 20 11:11:25 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2017 14:11:25 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Hutrah and Dechuyah in Yibum Message-ID: <20171120191124.GB24872@aishdas.org> The topic of EhE 165 is whether yibum or chalitzah is the preferred choice. The Rambam and Rif side with yibum (in cases when yibum is in the almanah's best interest), as per the mishnah rishonah and possibly repeated by the chakhamim in the gemara (Yevamos 39b). Whereas R' Tam, R' Chananel & the Smag hold like Abba Shaul, that since it's too likely the yavam has other things than reestablishing his brother's bayis in mind, chalitzah is the better choice, bizman hazeh. The AhS has an interesting take. First, in se'if 5, he rules out the issue being mitzvos tzerikhos kavanah. If AS gave preference to chalitzah because yibum requires kavanah, then it would be the Rambam and the Rif -- the rishonim who more often hold mitzvos tzerichos kavanah -- who would be siding with him. The AhS (se'if 6) proposes that the machloqes is huterah vs dechuyah. If yibum is a matir for eishes ach, there is no problem doing the mitzvah of yibum even if the yavam's interest is in his new wife solely for her own qualities. However, if it is only docheh eishes ach, then any other kavanah for performing yibum is desire for a sin, and thus should be avoided by choosing chalitzah. And that this is the norm today. I noticed that happens to parallel who holds piquach nefesh is matir melekhes Shabbos vs who holds it is docheh it. There too Sepharadi rishonim don't feel a need to minimize melakhah (huterah), whereas the Ashk rishonim try to (because it's only dechuyah). Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger I thank God for my handicaps, for, through them, micha at aishdas.org I have found myself, my work, and my God. http://www.aishdas.org - Helen Keller Fax: (270) 514-1507 From meirabi at gmail.com Mon Nov 20 14:35:03 2017 From: meirabi at gmail.com (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi) Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2017 09:35:03 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] Sedra Toldos - Balance, When Parents Favour One Child In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I prefer not to be so speculative about the motivations, Eisav had failings, but Yitzchak felt that the person who was supposed to go out into the real world, But what I proposed does not exclude that possibility. Although, giving the blessings to someone with known failings seems unlikely. Depends I suppose on how extensive those failings are or how well they were known to Yitzchak. Or it might just be that he was the Bechor, HKBH's choice. Should Yitzchak challenge HKBH? I wrote - Yitzchak understood, he encouraged Eisav to hunt and cook for him. He even reminded Eisav .... Eisav loved his father and he loved hunting [25:27]. He desperately sought his father's approval. He pursued this as he best knew, by hunting and even by lying. We might even say that he felt as though he was hunting for his father's love. Yitzchak understood, he encouraged Eisav to hunt and cook for him. He even reminded Eisav to take his hunting weapons when he instructs him to hunt and prepare food before he blesses him - Yitzchak wants Eisav to be engaged in the hunting and preparation of the food, because it is this engagement that is their link and best encapsulates his approval of his son Eisav. In other words, "It's not the food I want, for that I could ask your mother or you could grab an animal from our flock - it would be much quicker. No, I want you to be of service to me. Knowing that you have hunted to provide for me makes me happy and I enjoy the food more." Eisav knew that his mother was capable of and willing to provide her husband with all the tasty food he could stomach. He got the message that it was not food that Yitzchak wanted. Yitzchak was reaching out to Eisav, knowing how desperately Eisav sought his approval. Eisav learned how to cook in order to express his love. He even deceived Yitchak, painting himself as the Gd fearing son in order to win his father's approval. Best, M -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Mon Nov 20 14:10:27 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2017 17:10:27 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] How Much Salt for Kashering? In-Reply-To: <15112051720.1Acb3A518.50843@lsd.chicago.il.us.chicago.il.us> References: <15112051720.1Acb3A518.50843@lsd.chicago.il.us.chicago.il.us> Message-ID: <20171120221027.GD24830@aishdas.org> On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 01:12:52PM +0000, Jay F. Shachter via Avodah wrote: :> Kosher meat must have all traces of blood removed. Dam here means blood in the circulatory system. Not blood within tissue. Problem with translations; there often isn't a 1:1. Particularly in cases of terms of art, like "dam" in this context. : No, it does not. This is true only if you are going to cook the meat : before eating it. SA YD 27:2 does say you don't need salting. (See limitations in 3-4.) But... this is because all the dam can be removed by removing the veins, and simple rinsing. So, in the same sense that cooked meat needs melichah to remove all traces of dam, so too does raw "[k]osher meat must have all traces of [dam] removed." Seems Tir'u baTov! -Micha From micha at aishdas.org Mon Nov 20 13:37:22 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2017 16:37:22 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Fwd [Aspaqlaria]: Post-Modern Orthodoxy Message-ID: <20171120213722.GB24830@aishdas.org> My most recent blog post, in which I argue that Post-Modern Orthodoxy is a contradiction of terms. -micha Post-Modern Orthodoxy micha - Published Mon, Nov 20, 2017 Modern Orthodoxy is based on an integration of Orthodoxy with life in the modern world. However, with R' JB Soloveitchik's passing, the movement was left without a luminary who analyzes and discusses matters of worldview. Consequently, Modern Orthodoxy's thought is that of the mid 20th century, when Neo-Kantian and Existential answers addressed the kinds of religious questions people on the street were confronting. And so, the argument is today, that there is a need for someone to articulate a Post-Modern Orthodoxy. This is why there was much discussion in some Modern Orthodox circles with the publication of a selection of R' Shimon Gershon Rosenburg -- "Rav Shagar"`s -- essays in English. "Faith Shattered and Restored: Judaism in the Postmodern Age", edited by Rabbi Dr. Zohar Maor, was published by Maggid Books this past June. Dr. Alan Brill, on his blog, carried numerous translations of R' Shagar since, as well as analysis of his thought. In particular, see this post of notes that Dr Brill compiled while teaching R' Shagar's thought, "Rav Shagar: To be connected to Eyn -- Living in a Postmodern World". Times of Israel had an interview with R/Dr Maor, "Israel's paradoxical man of faith, deconstructed". And recently, R Gil Perl, an alumnus of Yeshivat Har Etzion ("Gush") who became a student of Rav Shagar, wrote an essay about why R' Shagar's thought spoke to him in a way that the teachings of R' Aharon Lichtenstein of Gush couldn't in the long run. See "Postmodern Orthodoxy: Giving Voice to a New Generation". To give you an idea of R Shagar's thought, he likens Deconstructionism to Sheviras haKeilim -- the Qabbalistic idea that Creation involved the breaking of vessels, and the post-modern's inability to consider an idea to be objectively true. He builds a case for the condition of having difficulty with belief and therefore believing in nothing and turns it into a Ism of believing in Nothing. Identifying that lower-case-n nothing with the Ayin, the capital-N Nothingness from which G-d made Yeish, something (indeed, everything). Me, I think it doesn't work. Post-Modernism is a confusion of the subjectivity of my justification for knowing something with the subjectivity of the known. Meaning, I can know objective truths for entirely personal and subjective reasons. I can be convinced of halakhah because of my personal experience of the beauty of Shabbos. Not from my liking Shabbos; from that about the Shabbos experience I find beautiful, likable, meaningful, and True. I know that hilkhos Shabbos as we have them today really did objectively speaking come from the Creator by way of my personal experience of Shabbos. Objective truth, subjective justification. In contrast, in Post-Modern thought, since I have no guarantee of objectively proving anything to anyone else, the notion of objective truth is entirely denied. There isn't "the truth" as much a "his truth" or "her truth", narratives people and societies construct for themselves. And this touches everything on the college campus from religious beliefs to defending the Palestinian because we have our narrative and they have theirs. (There is room for every narrative but those that exclude other narratives.) In the real world outside those ivory towers, though, you won't find too many people with Post-Modern notions of science, declaring (eg) that math or physics are merely social constructs. But certainly outside the realm of the scientifically provable Post-Modern thinking has become part of the zeitgeist. My problem with "Postmodern Orthodoxy" is that Post-Modernism (as I just described it) is inherently incompatible with the notion of a lower-case-o orthodoxy, including our case, capital-O Orthodox Judaism. I often said on Facebook that one reason why more are going OTD in this generation than in mine is that Post-Modernism has become part of the common culture. It is impossible to maintain any orthodoxy, including O, if one believes that there are no objective truths, or even that there is nothing one could ever assert as objectively true. There is a profound difference between believing there is an absolute truth that I personally do not fully know or understand -- which R' Gil Perl presented as R' Lichtenstein's position, and believing that all truths are human conditioned. Between a personal nothing and an ideal of Nothingness. And yet, R Shagar says just that. To repeat a quote of Rav Shagar used in R Perl's article, "All truths may be the product of human conditioning, but such conditioning constitutes the medium through which the divine manifests in the world." Rav Shagar's position strikes me as internally inconsistent. For example, to This presupposes that there is a Divine which is manifest in the world, and any claim that says otherwise would defy that Truth. So, there is at least that one central Truth that is necessarily true, regardless of human conditioning. The entire notion of considering any of the Articles of Faith human conditioned, true only from our perspective, enters the heretical. Another example, R Shagar's Post-Modern Orthodox Jew will speak of revelation "though he knows there are varying and conflicting revelations, the contradictions do not paralyze him." If one does not believe the revelation via Moshe and the revelation of the Torah are unique, are they not koferim baTorah according to the Rambam? How many rabbanim would allow you to use the wine of someone who believes that the only reason to embrace the Torah's message is because it's "the faith of our fathers" (as R' Shagar describes it) and not different in kind than the message of the New Testament or the Qur'an? There are two ways we can speak of the ideal human: we can describe life on the mountain peak, the person who has perfect generosity, perfect patience, perfect faith, a perfect relationship with G-d and other people, etc... But we know that actualize perfection is unachievable for anyone bug G-d. So, the true ideal human is one constantly working toward having those perfect relationships, trying their best, constantly growing. But they are two different things -- the ideal in the sense of the goal to strive for, and the ideal of being a striver. We need to learn to separate these notions. Ayin is part of the ideology. A crisis of faith, those times of nothingness, is part of the reach to internalize that ideology. The ideal life for most of us will be struggling with the ideology; but once one makes that struggle part of the ideology itself, I fear one crossed the line. From afolger at aishdas.org Tue Nov 21 01:28:58 2017 From: afolger at aishdas.org (Arie Folger) Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2017 10:28:58 +0100 Subject: [Avodah] Torah precheit Message-ID: A little postscript to my statement, that regarding aliens we might one day meet, that we cold not accept any competing revelation, only one that is of a kind of Noachide revelation, subordinate to ours, well... Let me admit that in stating that, I was displaying a human bias: I unreasonably assumed that aliens would be a kind of otherworldly humans. However, insofar as they are radically different species (which would be likely), then I see no problem of them having their own revelation and their own 'am hanivchar, *as* *long* *as* *their* *revelation* *doesn't* *contradict* *ours*, i.e. we could not accept a revelation that claims that 'avoda zara is muttar, that murder is muttar or that assumes the existence of several deities. -- Arie Folger -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hmaryles at yahoo.com Tue Nov 21 07:30:45 2017 From: hmaryles at yahoo.com (Harry Maryles) Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2017 15:30:45 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Avodah] Fwd [Aspaqlaria]: Post-Modern Orthodoxy In-Reply-To: <20171120213722.GB24830@aishdas.org> References: <20171120213722.GB24830@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <570709339.403139.1511278245922@mail.yahoo.com> I read Gil Perl's article and I don't understand why the idea of? RAL's not knowing or being able to know but nonetheless believing doesn't speak to him. I find all the talk about there being no objective truth to be irrelevant. Truth goes beyond provable fact. It even goes beyond the contradictions to belief by newly discovered scientific truths which by definition are subject to change with new discoveries. In the Lonely Man of Faith, RYBS explains that there are no cognitive categories in which the total commitment of the man of faith could be spelled out. The commitment is rooted not in one dimension, such as the rational one, but in the whole personality of the man of faith. The whole human being; the rational as well as the non-rational is committed to God. Hence the magnitude of commitment is beyond the comprehension of the logos and the ethos. The intellect does not chart the course of the man of faith. It is a function not only of the logic of the mind. It is also a function of the logic of the heart. An apriori awareness that becomes an axiom - a conclusion that cannot rely on solely rational considerations.? HM Want Emes and Emunah in your life? Try this: http://haemtza.blogspot.com/ On Monday, November 20, 2017, 7:25:20 PM CST, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: My most recent blog post, in which I argue that Post-Modern Orthodoxy is a contradiction of terms. -micha Post-Modern Orthodoxy micha - Published Mon, Nov 20, 2017 Modern Orthodoxy is based on an integration of Orthodoxy with life in the modern world. However, with R' JB Soloveitchik's passing, the movement was left without a luminary who analyzes and discusses matters of worldview. Consequently, Modern Orthodoxy's thought is that of the mid 20th century, when Neo-Kantian and Existential answers addressed the kinds of religious questions people on the street were confronting. And so, the argument is today, that there is a need for someone to articulate a Post-Modern Orthodoxy. This is why there was much discussion in some Modern Orthodox circles with the publication of a selection of R' Shimon Gershon Rosenburg -- "Rav Shagar"`s -- essays in English. "Faith Shattered and Restored: Judaism in the Postmodern Age", edited by Rabbi Dr. Zohar Maor, was published by Maggid Books this past June. Dr. Alan Brill, on his blog, carried numerous translations of R' Shagar since, as well as analysis of his thought. In particular, see this post of notes that Dr Brill compiled while teaching R' Shagar's thought, "Rav Shagar: To be connected to Eyn -- Living in a Postmodern World". Times of Israel had an interview with R/Dr Maor, "Israel's paradoxical man of faith, deconstructed". And recently, R Gil Perl, an alumnus of Yeshivat Har Etzion ("Gush") who became a student of Rav Shagar, wrote an essay about why R' Shagar's thought spoke to him in a way that the teachings of R' Aharon Lichtenstein of Gush couldn't in the long run. See "Postmodern Orthodoxy: Giving Voice to a New Generation". To give you an idea of R Shagar's thought, he likens Deconstructionism to Sheviras haKeilim -- the Qabbalistic idea that Creation involved the breaking of vessels, and the post-modern's inability to consider an idea to be objectively true. He builds a case for the condition of having difficulty with belief and therefore believing in nothing and turns it into a Ism of believing in Nothing. Identifying that lower-case-n nothing with the Ayin, the capital-N Nothingness from which G-d made Yeish, something (indeed, everything). Me, I think it doesn't work. Post-Modernism is a confusion of the subjectivity of my justification for knowing something with the subjectivity of the known. Meaning, I can know objective truths for entirely personal and subjective reasons. I can be convinced of halakhah because of my personal experience of the beauty of Shabbos. Not from my liking Shabbos; from that about the Shabbos experience I find beautiful, likable, meaningful, and True. I know that hilkhos Shabbos as we have them today really did objectively speaking come from the Creator by way of my personal experience of Shabbos. Objective truth, subjective justification. In contrast, in Post-Modern thought, since I have no guarantee of objectively proving anything to anyone else, the notion of objective truth is entirely denied. There isn't "the truth" as much a "his truth" or "her truth", narratives people and societies construct for themselves. And this touches everything on the college campus from religious beliefs to defending the Palestinian because we have our narrative and they have theirs. (There is room for every narrative but those that exclude other narratives.) In the real world outside those ivory towers, though, you won't find too many people with Post-Modern notions of science, declaring (eg) that math or physics are merely social constructs. But certainly outside the realm of the scientifically provable Post-Modern thinking has become part of the zeitgeist. My problem with "Postmodern Orthodoxy" is that Post-Modernism (as I just described it) is inherently incompatible with the notion of a lower-case-o orthodoxy, including our case, capital-O Orthodox Judaism. I often said on Facebook that one reason why more are going OTD in this generation than in mine is that Post-Modernism has become part of the common culture. It is impossible to maintain any orthodoxy, including O, if one believes that there are no objective truths, or even that there is nothing one could ever assert as objectively true. There is a profound difference between believing there is an absolute truth that I personally do not fully know or understand -- which R' Gil Perl presented as R' Lichtenstein's position, and believing that all truths are human conditioned. Between a personal nothing and an ideal of Nothingness. And yet, R Shagar says just that. To repeat a quote of Rav Shagar used in R Perl's article, "All truths may be the product of human conditioning, but such conditioning constitutes the medium through which the divine manifests in the world." Rav Shagar's position strikes me as internally inconsistent. For example, to This presupposes that there is a Divine which is manifest in the world, and any claim that says otherwise would defy that Truth. So, there is at least that one central Truth that is necessarily true, regardless of human conditioning. The entire notion of considering any of the Articles of Faith human conditioned, true only from our perspective, enters the heretical. Another example, R Shagar's Post-Modern Orthodox Jew will speak of revelation "though he knows there are varying and conflicting revelations, the contradictions do not paralyze him." If one does not believe the revelation via Moshe and the revelation of the Torah are unique, are they not koferim baTorah according to the Rambam? How many rabbanim would allow you to use the wine of someone who believes that the only reason to embrace the Torah's message is because it's "the faith of our fathers" (as R' Shagar describes it) and not different in kind than the message of the New Testament or the Qur'an? There are two ways we can speak of the ideal human: we can describe life on the mountain peak, the person who has perfect generosity, perfect patience, perfect faith, a perfect relationship with G-d and other people, etc... But we know that actualize perfection is unachievable for anyone bug G-d. So, the true ideal human is one constantly working toward having those perfect relationships, trying their best, constantly growing. But they are two different things -- the ideal in the sense of the goal to strive for, and the ideal of being a striver. We need to learn to separate these notions. Ayin is part of the ideology. A crisis of faith, those times of nothingness, is part of the reach to internalize that ideology. The ideal life for most of us will be struggling with the ideology; but once one makes that struggle part of the ideology itself, I fear one crossed the line. _______________________________________________ Avodah mailing list Avodah at lists.aishdas.org http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Tue Nov 21 06:25:15 2017 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2017 14:25:15 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Notes on RSRH's Philosopy of Judaism Message-ID: <1511274314342.40161@stevens.edu> Please see the pdf file at http://www.halakhah.com/rst/hirsch.pdf YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Tue Nov 21 05:54:15 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2017 08:54:15 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] T'hay In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20171121135414.GB15991@aishdas.org> On Sat, Nov 18, 2017 at 10:23:18PM -0500, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : There is a word spelled tav-heh-aleph, pronounced "t'hay". Is this : word Hebrew or Aramaic? Sidenote, just to complicate things. Assuming that when someone with the last name "Miller" speaks of what he finds "in my siddur" is looking in an Ashkenazi one... RSM found in manuscripts that earlier Ashkenazi siddurim honed much closer to leshon Chazal than we do. The example I usually cite is "vesein chleqeinu beSorasakh, sab'einu mituvakh..." as Sepharadim have it. Your siddur probably consistently has "Sha'atah", not "she'atah". This is a "correction" to the form that appears in seifer Sofetim. One holdover is "Modim anachnu Lakh", instead of "Lekha"... but then followed by "Sha'atah". It appears to be largely the work of one person, R' Shelomo Zalman Hanau (Katz), author of the Binyan Shalomo. He then compiles a siddur, Shaarei Tefillah. R' Yaaqov Emden's Lueach Eresh is a rebuttal of the Razah's grammatical theories, and kedarko beqodesh, he doesn't pull punches. For example, the Binyan Shelomo was printed with a hasqamah from R' Tzvi Ashkenazi; RYE wrote that his father's hasqamah was forged. The Alter Rebbe, in composing Nusach haAri, was heavily influenced by the Razah's theory of diqduq. And slowly other Ashkenazim switched from leshon Chazal to leshon Tanakh. Even RZBaer and the Yekkes. So, with a siddur that is partially in one version of Hebrew and partially in another, who knows how any word settled on one set of diqduq rules or the other. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "I hear, then I forget; I see, then I remember; micha at aishdas.org I do, then I understand." - Confucius http://www.aishdas.org "Hearing doesn't compare to seeing." - Mechilta Fax: (270) 514-1507 "We will do and we will listen." - Israelites From meirabi at gmail.com Tue Nov 21 15:38:02 2017 From: meirabi at gmail.com (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi) Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2017 10:38:02 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] Kosher meat must have all traces of blood removed Message-ID: I am happy to amend to Before cooking, Kosher meat must have all traces of blood removed Best, Meir G. Rabi 0423 207 837 +61 423 207 837 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From larry62341 at optonline.net Wed Nov 22 06:20:47 2017 From: larry62341 at optonline.net (Prof. Levine) Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2017 09:20:47 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Sedra Toldos - Balance, When Parents Favour One Child In-Reply-To: <56bc7b19424c44b7aec48fc7014df583@exchng03.campus.stevens-t ech.edu> References: <56bc7b19424c44b7aec48fc7014df583@exchng03.campus.stevens-tech.edu> Message-ID: <7E.4D.03148.0C7851A5@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> At 10:52 AM 11/21/2017, R Micha Berger wrote: >Perhaps this is the whole point of the Torah's not saying why Rivqa >preferred Yaaqov. Yitzchaq's additional love of Esav was teluyah bedavar, >and that fact impacted Eisav's choices. Rivqa love Yaaqov, full stop, >not for some reason. I suggest you read RSRH's essay Lessons From Jacob and Esau (Collected Writings VII) YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From JRich at sibson.com Wed Nov 22 21:54:08 2017 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2017 05:54:08 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] sefer torah's path Message-ID: <7df4daee86e84ff48f391450b891c5f0@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> From R' Aviner: Bringing the Torah to People to Kiss Q: Is it permissible to bring the Sefer Torah in the Shul towards people who want to kiss it? A: No. This is a disgrace to the Sefer Torah. They should approach the Sefer Torah. Piskei Teshuvot 134:6. I have been to more than a few shuls that particularly on Shabbat take the long road - any ideas on who they are relying on? (not to mention those who lower the sefer torah so the kids can kiss it too) KT 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: From marty.bluke at gmail.com Sat Nov 25 12:27:38 2017 From: marty.bluke at gmail.com (Marty Bluke) Date: Sat, 25 Nov 2017 22:27:38 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] How can R' Yochanan and Resh Lakish argue about the tradition of a Gezera Shava? Message-ID: The Gemara in Makos(14b) has a dispute between R' Yochanan and Resh Lakish which revolves around a gezera shava. R' Yochanan has the gezera shava and Resh Lakish does not, Rashi explains that Resh Lakish did not get this gezera shava from his rebbeim. This seems very difficult because the gemara in Bava Metzia (84a) describes how Resh Lakish was the head of a group of bandits and R' Yochanan persuaded hm to learn Torah and was clearly Rabo Muvhak. In fact, they were so close that after Resh Lakish's death, R' Yochanan lost his mind and died. Given this, how can it be that R' Yochanan had a gezera shava and Resh Lakish didn't because lo kiblu merabo, R' Yochanan was his Rebbe so why wouldn't R' Yochanan have taught him this gezera shava? R' Yochanan clearly had a kabbala on this gezera shava so why wouldn't his talmid muvhak Resh Lakish have gotten this kabbala from his rebbe? The answer can't be that Resh Lakish argued on this because gezera shava's are a kabbala from your rebbe, period. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Thu Nov 23 15:55:59 2017 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2017 23:55:59 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] More on Yaakov, sheep and the rods Message-ID: <1511481358587.99267@stevens.edu> The following is from RSRH's commentary on Bereishis 30:37 Ya'akov then took for himself rods of fresh aspen and hazelnut and chestnut trees, and peeled white streaks in them by uncovering the white on the rods. After all this, Ya'akov's initiative with the rods would have been fully justified, even had it constituted a tried and tested expedient - a supposition that surely will not be borne out by experiment. >From the continuation of the story we know that Lavan altered the terms of the agreement ten times (see below, 31:7), setting new conditions regarding the form of the speckles and spots. It is difficult to assume that, because of a general action such as setting up the rods in the sight of the sheep, the sheep would bring forth young that were this time speckled, the next time spotted, and the next time marked on the feet. Ya'akov's success can be attributed only to a special intervention of Divine providence - as attested to by Ya'akov himself. The expedient of the rods was only an extremely weak substitute for the breeding animals Lavan had wrongfully removed. Nevertheless, Ya'akov did not refrain from seeking the aid of this expedient; since ain somchin al haness (see Pesachim 64b), he was obligated to do his part. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hankman at bell.net Sun Nov 26 10:02:44 2017 From: hankman at bell.net (hankman) Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2017 13:02:44 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] More on Yaakov, sheep and the rods Message-ID: <440B31203B1C40479ABF364797C2B58A@hankPC> Prof. L. Levine wrote?": ?It is difficult to assume that, because of a general action such as setting up the rods in the sight of the sheep, the sheep would bring forth young that were this time speckled, the next time spotted, and the next time marked on the feet. Ya'akov's success can be attributed only to a special intervention of Divine providence - as attested to by Ya'akov himself. The expedient of the rods was only an extremely weak substitute for the breeding animals Lavan had wrongfully removed. Nevertheless, Ya'akov did not refrain from seeking the aid of this expedient; since ain somchin al haness (see Pesachim 64b), he was obligated to do his part...? As everyone who had genetics 101 will realize, if you eliminate 100% of the phenotype, and breed the remainder you will still get some of that phenotype in the next generation with recessive genes. So it always bothered me why was all the hokus pokus by Yaakov necessary. Even more so the pasook itself seems to ascribe the results as caused by the sticks even though a simple natural explanation for the reappearance of the phenotype in the next generation is quite simple. The only explanation I could come up with is that the percentages were much higher than one would expect as a result of genetic calculations thus the nes (and Yaakov?s efforts [hishtadlus] to produce it) is described at great length. Kol tuv Chaim Manaster -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From akivagmiller at gmail.com Sat Nov 25 17:51:31 2017 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Sat, 25 Nov 2017 20:51:31 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] sefer torah's path Message-ID: . R' Joel Rich asked: > From R? Aviner: Bringing the Torah to People to Kiss > Q: Is it permissible to bring the Sefer Torah in the Shul > towards people who want to kiss it? > A: No. This is a disgrace to the Sefer Torah. They should > approach the Sefer Torah. Piskei Teshuvot 134:6. > > I have been to more than a few shuls that particularly on > Shabbat take the long road ? any ideas on who they are > relying on? (not to mention those who lower the sefer torah > so the kids can kiss it too) Maybe the masses simply disagree with the logic of the Piskei Teshuvot? Maybe people feel that bringing the Torah to Amcha is NOT a disgrace? Personally, I can easily understand that lowering it could be a bizayon, but what's wrong with taking the long way around? If the short route is taken, then (depending on the shul's layout) it is possible (or even probable) that many (or most) will simply be unable to get close enough to kiss it -- and if this is true on the men's side of the mechitza, it is even more true on the women's side! There are SO many things that we allow for no reason other than allowing the people to show their love and kavod for the Torah!!! Compared to the bells that ring on Shabbos, or the multitude of aliyos on Simchas Torah, this seems exceeding minor, in my opinion. Akiva Miller From brothke at gmail.com Sat Nov 25 18:20:23 2017 From: brothke at gmail.com (Ben Rothke) Date: Sat, 25 Nov 2017 21:20:23 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Gid ha'nasheh and 'therefore' Message-ID: In the coming week?s parsha, it has the story of Yaakov wrestling and then concludes: ? ???-???? ???-???????? ?????-?????????? ???-????? ????????? I am trying to figure out the connection between the wrestling injury and klal Yisroel not eating gid hanasheh. The term '???-????' implies consequently, to which I don?t see the consequence. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From JRich at sibson.com Sat Nov 25 21:47:06 2017 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2017 05:47:06 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] How can R' Yochanan and Resh Lakish argue about the tradition of a Gezera Shava? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: The answer can't be that Resh Lakish argued on this because gezera shava's are a kabbala from your rebbe, period. > ______________________________________________ 1. This begs the broader question as to why an Amira having a gs doesn't automatically trump one that doesn't 2.this also assumes only a rebbi muvhak counts as rabo for purposes of mesora Kt 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. From JRich at sibson.com Sun Nov 26 05:28:50 2017 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2017 13:28:50 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] eilu v'eilu Message-ID: <6b52bc1475284ba2a6aa3d7734cb8de7@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> http://www.yutorah.org/lectures/lecture.cfm/889447/rabbi-assaf-bednarsh/pluralism-and-halacha-what-is-truth,-and-who-has-it/ Rabbi Assaf Bednarsh--Pluralism and Halacha: What is Truth, and Who Has It Interesting shiur on an old Avodah favorite KT 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: From lisa at starways.net Sun Nov 26 14:37:13 2017 From: lisa at starways.net (Lisa Liel) Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2017 00:37:13 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Gid ha'nasheh and 'therefore' In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I don't think al ken denotes causation.? In most cases, it seems to mean "How correct it is that..."? For example, the two times we're told "al ken", the city is called Beersheva.? They can't both be the cause. Lisa On 11/26/2017 4:20 AM, Ben Rothke via Avodah wrote: > > In the coming week?s parsha, it has the story of Yaakov wrestling and > then concludes: > > ? ???-???? ???-???????? ?????-?????????? ???-????? ????????? > > I am trying to figure out the connection between the wrestling injury > and klal Yisroel not eating gid hanasheh. > > The term '???-????' implies consequently, to which I don?t see the > consequence. > > --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From micha at aishdas.org Sun Nov 26 15:09:41 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2017 18:09:41 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Gid ha'nasheh and 'therefore' In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20171126230941.GA24539@aishdas.org> On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 12:37:13AM +0200, Lisa Liel via Avodah wrote: : On 11/26/2017 4:20 AM, Ben Rothke via Avodah wrote: : >In the coming week's parsha, it has the story of Yaakov wrestling : >and then concludes: "Al kein lo yokhlu BY es gid hanasheh." : >I am trying to figure out the connection between the wrestling : >injury and klal Yisroel not eating gid hanasheh. : >The term '[al kein]' implies consequently, to which I don't see the : >consequence. : I don't think al ken denotes causation.? In most cases, it seems to : mean "How correct it is that..."? For example, the two times we're : told "al ken", the city is called Beersheva.? They can't both be the : cause. Why not? It could be that each were necessary but insufficient causes, so that the name "Be'er-Sheva" is the consequence of both being true. Or it could be that each were sufficient cause, and the name Be'er-Sheva was justified by either alone -- but equally so. And thus the city's name represents both. But to answer RBR's question, I don't think al kein implies sufficient causality. Rather, because of the fight, HQBH had an opportunity to turn eating thigh meat into a ritual that reminds one of the fight, and thus of the Jew's ability to act on the level of (in the sense of: interact with) angels. Without the fight, the mitzvah would lack that historical symbolism; so it's a cause, but of a different sort than it seems from your question that you are thinking of. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger It is our choices...that show what we truly are, micha at aishdas.org far more than our abilities. http://www.aishdas.org - J. K. Rowling Fax: (270) 514-1507 From micha at aishdas.org Sun Nov 26 14:58:57 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2017 17:58:57 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] How can R' Yochanan and Resh Lakish argue about the tradition of a Gezera Shava? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20171126225857.GA9115@aishdas.org> On Sat, Nov 25, 2017 at 10:27:38PM +0200, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: : The Gemara in Makos(14b) has a dispute between R' Yochanan and Resh Lakish : which revolves around a gezera shava. R' Yochanan has the gezera shava and : Resh Lakish does not, Rashi explains that Resh Lakish did not get this : gezera shava from his rebbeim. : : This seems very difficult because the gemara in Bava Metzia (84a) describes : how Resh Lakish was the head of a group of bandits and R' Yochanan : persuaded hm to learn Torah and was clearly Rabo Muvhak... So, he had a mesorah from a rebbe other than his rebbe muvhaq or any of his own rabbeim -- maybe just a shiur from someone else he sat in once... (Which is similar to RHR's #2.) Or... If "Moavi velo Mo'avis" was darsehened first by Boaz's court, then we know of at least one gezeira shava -- from Amon to Moav -- that Boaz invoked withtout a tradition of its existence dating back from Sinai. For that matter, if the Rambam assumed that the rule about no new gezeiros shava really was in place from day one, then he would have to assert that like [other] halakhos leMoshe miSinai, there couldn't be machloqesin in any of them. I would therefore deduce from the Rambam's silence in the face of numerous such machloqesin, he must have thought that gezeiros shava could be invented (or as other riahonim would have it: discovered) without a mesorah. It would seem the idea that GS requires a mesorah has a loophole. Perhaps the notion is that the textual connection must have a mesorah, but the lesson taken from it could be left to the later generation to find. Also, it is interesting that the contrast in Pesachim 66a to the mesorah needed for GS is the qal vachomer. A rule of logic that a person truly could make on their own in a way that doesn't apply to another of the other midos sheheTorah nidreshes bahen. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When faced with a decision ask yourself, micha at aishdas.org "How would I decide if it were Ne'ilah now, http://www.aishdas.org at the closing moments of Yom Kippur?" Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From marty.bluke at gmail.com Mon Nov 27 02:10:10 2017 From: marty.bluke at gmail.com (Marty Bluke) Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2017 12:10:10 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] How can R' Yochanan and Resh Lakish argue about the tradition of a Gezera Shava? In-Reply-To: <20171126225857.GA9115@aishdas.org> References: <20171126225857.GA9115@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 12:58 AM, Micha Berger wrote: > On Sat, Nov 25, 2017 at 10:27:38PM +0200, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: > : The Gemara in Makos(14b) has a dispute between R' Yochanan and Resh > Lakish > : which revolves around a gezera shava. R' Yochanan has the gezera shava > and > : Resh Lakish does not, Rashi explains that Resh Lakish did not get this > : gezera shava from his rebbeim. > : > : This seems very difficult because the gemara in Bava Metzia (84a) > describes > : how Resh Lakish was the head of a group of bandits and R' Yochanan > : persuaded hm to learn Torah and was clearly Rabo Muvhak... > > So, he had a mesorah from a rebbe other than his rebbe muvhaq or any > of his own rabbeim -- maybe just a shiur from someone else he sat in > once... (Which is similar to RHR's #2.) > What other mesora? It's not that Resh Lakish had a gezera shava that R' Yochanan didn't have that he could have learned from someone else. The Gemara says that he didn't have a kabbala on a gezera shava that R' Yochanan had. > > Or... > > If "Moavi velo Mo'avis" was darsehened first by Boaz's court, then we > know of at least one gezeira shava -- from Amon to Moav -- that Boaz > invoked withtout a tradition of its existence dating back from Sinai. > That was a gezera shava? In any case the Gemara in Nidda (19b) states that ayn adam dan gezera shava meatzmo, says Rashi he needs a kabbala from his rebbe halacha l'moshe misinai. For that matter, if the Rambam assumed that the rule about no new gezeiros > shava really was in place from day one, then he would have to assert that > like [other] halakhos leMoshe miSinai, there couldn't be machloqesin in > any of them. I would therefore deduce from the Rambam's silence in the > face of numerous such machloqesin, he must have thought that gezeiros > shava could be invented (or as other riahonim would have it: discovered) > without a mesorah. > It would seem the idea that GS requires a mesorah has a loophole. Perhaps > the notion is that the textual connection must have a mesorah, but > the lesson taken from it could be left to the later generation to find. > Tosafos in Shabbos (97a) states that they had a mesora on the number of gezera shavas and therefore they had to reconcile the various traditions with the number of gezera shavas. This would seem to come to address the question of why certain Tannaim/Amoraim had a gezera shava and others didn't. However, it doesn't answer the question on Resh Lakish who must have gotten the number from Rabo Muvhak R' Yochanan. The Rishonim/Acharonim in Nida (22b) are bothered by the question that the Gemara says that a gezera shava that is mufne mi tzad echad lmeidin umeshivin and mufne mishnei tz'dadim lmeidim vayn m'shivim. If there was a kabala on the gezera shava then why does it need to be mufne and if there was no kabbala then why should it be accepted even if it is mufne? The Ramban on the Sefer Hamitzvos (Shoresh 2) based on this question rejects the simple understanding of ayn adam dan gezera shava meiatzmo that all the details of the gezera shavas were received at Har Sinai by Moshe. Rather, they had a kabbala that there was a gezera shava with a certain word pair but not which set of those words and what halacha is learned from it and therefore it is up to the chachamim to decide based on the principles that they received to decide what exactly the gezera shava was and therefore there is machlokes. This is what the Gemara in Nidda is discussing, the principles relating to figuring out what exactly the gezera shava is. Unfortunately, this does not really answer all of the Gemara's and disputes about gezera shavas. > > Also, it is interesting that the contrast in Pesachim 66a to the mesorah > needed for GS is the qal vachomer. A rule of logic that a person truly > could make on their own in a way that doesn't apply to another of the > other midos sheheTorah nidreshes bahen. > There is a machlokes Rashi and Tosafos whether it is only a kal vachomer that adam dan meatzmo or all the middos except for gezera shava. > > Tir'u baTov! > -Micha > > -- > Micha Berger When faced with a decision ask yourself, > micha at aishdas.org "How would I decide if it were Ne'ilah now, > http://www.aishdas.org at the closing moments of Yom Kippur?" > Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From lisa at starways.net Mon Nov 27 02:55:35 2017 From: lisa at starways.net (Lisa Liel) Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2017 12:55:35 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] How can R' Yochanan and Resh Lakish argue about the tradition of a Gezera Shava? In-Reply-To: <20171126225857.GA9115@aishdas.org> References: <20171126225857.GA9115@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <2e55bd0b-bb70-45dd-093f-a9ca79fa0760@starways.net> On 11/27/2017 12:58 AM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > If "Moavi velo Mo'avis" was darsehened first by Boaz's court, then we > know of at least one gezeira shava -- from Amon to Moav -- that Boaz > invoked withtout a tradition of its existence dating back from Sinai. > How was that a gezeira shava? Lisa --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From micha at aishdas.org Mon Nov 27 13:21:42 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2017 16:21:42 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] How can R' Yochanan and Resh Lakish argue about the tradition of a Gezera Shava? In-Reply-To: <2e55bd0b-bb70-45dd-093f-a9ca79fa0760@starways.net> References: <20171126225857.GA9115@aishdas.org> <2e55bd0b-bb70-45dd-093f-a9ca79fa0760@starways.net> Message-ID: <20171127212142.GA26403@aishdas.org> On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 12:10:10PM +0200, Marty Bluke wrote: : > So, he had a mesorah from a rebbe other than his rebbe muvhaq or any : > of his own rabbeim -- maybe just a shiur from someone else he sat in : > once... (Which is similar to RJR's #2.) : What other mesora? It's not that Resh Lakish had a gezera shava that R' : Yochanan didn't have that he could have learned from someone else. The : Gemara says that he didn't have a kabbala on a gezera shava that R' : Yochanan had. This wasn't the ikar of my answer; I was just ammending RJR's answer to reflect the fact that the gemara says "rabosav" not "rabo". But it seems to me now you are saying the OP was asking how it's possible that R' Yochanan knew something that he didn't pass on to Reish Laqish. Or more accurately, where would RL learn something to have him question a GS when R Yochanan told him of it the first time. In which case, my intended answer works even better -- the presmise that every GS is a tradition dating back to Sinai is false. A conclusion the other RMB gives far more sources for than I did. :> Or... :> If "Moavi velo Mo'avis" was darsehened first by Boaz's court, then we :> know of at least one gezeira shava -- from Amon to Moav -- that Boaz :> invoked withtout a tradition of its existence dating back from Sinai. : That was a gezera shava? In any case the Gemara in Nidda (19b) states that : ayn adam dan gezera shava meatzmo, says Rashi he needs a kabbala from his : rebbe halacha l'moshe misinai. Not every "halakhah leMoshe MiSinai" is literally so. R' Avohu on Kesuvos 7b says that Boaz collected 10 men in "lemidrash 'amoni velo amonis, moavi velo moavis." How does he know it wasn't for 7 berakhos (R' Nachman's shitah)? Because of the need to get "miziqnei ha'ir". Why 10? [I presume -- and not a BD of 3:] lefirsumei milsa. Similarly, Rus Rabba 7:9 states that Peloni didn't know *shenischadshah* din zu. As for "that was a GS?" (A question Lisa also asks...) Amoni velo Amonis is justified because the Amoni ddidn't bring food or water when we came to their land. And it is the men we would have expected to recieve or even buy such previsions from. Moav velo Moavis would be a pretty arbitrary time to insist a word be read as specifically male instead of gender-neutral if it weren't by GS to Amoni. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Here is the test to find whether your mission micha at aishdas.org on Earth is finished: http://www.aishdas.org if you're alive, it isn't. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Richard Bach From zev at sero.name Mon Nov 27 15:10:29 2017 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2017 18:10:29 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] How can R' Yochanan and Resh Lakish argue about the tradition of a Gezera Shava? In-Reply-To: <20171127212142.GA26403@aishdas.org> References: <20171126225857.GA9115@aishdas.org> <2e55bd0b-bb70-45dd-093f-a9ca79fa0760@starways.net> <20171127212142.GA26403@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 27/11/17 16:21, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > As for "that was a GS?" (A question Lisa also asks...) Amoni velo Amonis > is justified because the Amoni ddidn't bring food or water when we > came to their land. And it is the men we would have expected to recieve > or even buy such previsions from. Moav velo Moavis would be a pretty > arbitrary time to insist a word be read as specifically male instead > of gender-neutral if it weren't by GS to Amoni. Could you please explain this? Where do you get that there is any limmud from Ammon to Moav? The Torah says *both* Amonim and Moavim are banned because they didn't welcome us with bread and water. You seem to be claiming that Amonim are banned for this reason, and then Moavim by some sort of gezera shava from Amonim. Where is this coming from? -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From marty.bluke at gmail.com Thu Nov 30 02:11:31 2017 From: marty.bluke at gmail.com (Marty Bluke) Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2017 12:11:31 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] What are the main mitzvos to focus on? Message-ID: The last daf in Makos (24a) states that the Neviim took the 613 mitzvos and reduced them to a smaller set for people to focus on. Michah gave three Mitzvos for people to focus on - "Asos Mishpat..." "Asos Mishpat" is monetary laws; "Ahavas Chesed" is bestowing Chesed; "V'Hatzne'a Leches Im Elokecha" is escorting the dead and bringing a Kalah to Chupah; Yeshayah later gave two primary Mitzvos - "Shimru Mishpat va'Asu Tzedakah." The mitzva of learning Torah which we understand to be the most important and fundamental mitzva does not appear in these lists. How do we explain the omission of learning Torah in these lists? Additionally, these lists seem to consist solely of mitzvos bein adam lachaveiro, are there no mitzvos ben adam lamakom that are important enought to appear on these lists? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From seinfeld at daasbooks.com Thu Nov 30 09:20:44 2017 From: seinfeld at daasbooks.com (Alexander Seinfeld) Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2017 12:20:44 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] More on Yaakov, sheep and the rods Message-ID: <50458059-A03F-4E6E-B54B-F1612B0E7E5B@jsli.org> Why not just interpret this as an example of phenotypic plasticity, meaning the genetic potential is there in every generation, and the environmental factors stimulate its expression? As everyone who had genetics 101 will realize, if you eliminate 100% of the phenotype, and breed the remainder you will still get some of that phenotype in the next generation with recessive genes. So it always bothered me why was all the hokus pokus by Yaakov necessary. Even more so the pasook itself seems to ascribe the results as caused by the sticks even though a simple natural explanation for the reappearance of the phenotype in the next generation is quite simple. The only explanation I could come up with is that the percentages were much higher than one would expect as a result of genetic calculations thus the nes (and Yaakov?s efforts [hishtadlus] to produce it) is described at great length. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From chaim.tatel at gmail.com Thu Nov 30 09:30:37 2017 From: chaim.tatel at gmail.com (Chaim Tatel) Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2017 09:30:37 -0800 Subject: [Avodah] Gid ha'nasheh Message-ID: When I was studying Zoology in college back in the 70s, I did some research on Yaakov?s battle with the malach. The big question I had was ?why should Yaakov Avinu get hit in the gid hanasheh (sciatic nerve)? Why not somewhere else in the body?? As I learned in my Anatomy and Physiology class, there are several nerves that branch off from the sciatic nerve. One of these is the pudendal nerve. This is one of the nerves responsible for sexual function (and other actions). Current research follows: The pudendal nerve is found in the pelvis. It is the biggest division of the pudendal plexus (a network of nerves) and is located behind the sacrospinous ligament, near the tailbone. The nerve extends from the sacral plexus, through the pudendal canal, the perineum, and the gluteal area. These are structures located near the genital, rectal, and gluteal (buttock) regions. (see: https://www.healthline.com/human-body-maps/pudendal-nerve) The peripheral nerves supply the bladder, anal canal, and perineal skin. The pudendal nerve is the primary somatic nerve to this region. Motor fibers in the pudendal nerve innervate the bulbocavernosus muscle, external urethral sphincter, external anal sphincter, and pelvic floor muscles. (see: www.humanneurophysiology.com/sacralmonitoring.htm) I also remember that one of the meforshim (commentators) on Chumash had a similar answer. (Sorry, I can?t remember where I saw this, it?s been over 40 years). At any rate, it makes sense that Yaakov would be hit there, as a reminder that his marriage to Rachel after his marriage to her sister Leah would not hold up when he entered Eretz Yisrael. (not long after this episode, Rachel died in childbirth of Binyamin). Aside from feeling the psychological pain of Rachel?s death, perhaps Yaakov also had to feel physical pain. Chaim Tatel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From lisa at starways.net Sat Dec 2 12:56:18 2017 From: lisa at starways.net (Lisa Liel) Date: Sat, 2 Dec 2017 22:56:18 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] knife sharpeners Message-ID: <62debe36-f9a2-7cab-d4cb-a60320a1ec83@starways.net> Are knife sharpeners mekabel taam?? And noten taam?? Do you need different onces for meat, dairy, pesach, etc? --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From zev at sero.name Sat Dec 2 17:01:31 2017 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Sat, 2 Dec 2017 20:01:31 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] knife sharpeners In-Reply-To: <62debe36-f9a2-7cab-d4cb-a60320a1ec83@starways.net> References: <62debe36-f9a2-7cab-d4cb-a60320a1ec83@starways.net> Message-ID: <0115756c-ad5a-dc19-dfdc-aba2138a2858@sero.name> On 02/12/17 15:56, Lisa Liel via Avodah wrote: > Are knife sharpeners mekabel taam?? And noten taam?? Do you need > different onces for meat, dairy, pesach, etc? Since they don't ever contact food, I don't see how they could. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From JRich at sibson.com Sat Dec 2 22:40:43 2017 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Sun, 3 Dec 2017 06:40:43 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Women and Torah Study Message-ID: <9f94d416d3154585a6bb71a2df12c54e@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> My comment to a recent post on Lehrhaus on women and intensive talmud study: Is encouraging intensive study of Talmud for women a community priority or is the priority to make such study available for those who choose to avail themselves of the opportunity? Especially if the former, where does it stand in relation to other community priorities and how does the answer differ from study for men? IMHO these questions have not been sufficiently addressed. Do my concern resonate at all? KT 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: From marty.bluke at gmail.com Sun Dec 3 01:13:00 2017 From: marty.bluke at gmail.com (Marty Bluke) Date: Sun, 3 Dec 2017 11:13:00 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] The 13 middos Message-ID: The Gemara in Shavuos (4b) discusses who the Tanna of the Mishna is and brings down a fundamental machlokes tannaim about the 13 middos. R' Yishmael darshens klal uprat and R' Akiva darshens ribuy umiut. The Acharonim point out that these are mutually exclusive and every Tanna darshens one or the other but they cannot be mixed (e.g. a Tanna sometimes darshens ribuy umiut and sometimes klal uprat). The question is how can something so fundamental as the 13 middos be a matter of dispute? Weren't the 13 middos given to Moshe at Har Sinai? How could they forget such a basic thing? It is very difficult to say that both are right (e.g. elu v'elu) because they are mutually exclusive and come to different conclusions. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Sun Dec 3 06:18:20 2017 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Sun, 3 Dec 2017 14:18:20 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Davening on Airplanes Message-ID: <1512310700373.25771@stevens.edu> Very often people make minyanimm on flights to Israel. The following if from https://goo.gl/j8hdXR and is a quote from Rabbi Hershel Schachter. Another common mistake people make is regarding davening with a minyan (on a plane). The Talmud emphasizes the importance of tefillah btzibur; and one who davens with a minyan stands a much better chance of having his prayers answered than one who lacks a minyan. However, it is highly improper for the chazzan of a minyan on an airplane to shout at the top of his lungs to enable the other mispalelim to hear him over the airplane noise, and thereby wake up all the passengers around him. It is true that there is a halachic principle of kofin al hamitzvos, i.e. that beis din has an obligation to force people to observe the mitzvos even when they're not interested in doing so, but this only applies when pressuring an individual will result in his becoming observant. However, when Orthodox Jews disturb non-observant Jewish passengers with their davening, the non-observant passengers sill remain non-observant and now just have another point about which to be upset with the Orthodox. The practice of the Orthodox passengers under such circumstances appears simply as an act of harassment. Rather than having accomplished the hidur mitzvah of davening tefillah btzibur, they have violated lifnei iver by causing the non-observant passengers to become more antagonistic towards shemiras hamitzvos. The shouting tone of voice employed by the shaliach tzibbur to overcome the noise on the airplane clearly does not constitute a kavod hatefillah. The halacha states that when traveling, if it is too difficult to stand for shemoneh esrei even the "amidah" may be recited while seated. On a short flight of an hour and a half to Canada it is more correct to daven the entire tefillah while still buckled in, in a sitting position. On the long flight to Eretz Yisroel it is healthier to not sit the entire time; walking around somewhat helps the blood circulation in one's legs. As such, there is nothing wrong with standing for shemoneh esrei, provided that there's no turbulence at that time. However, it is still not proper to gather a minyan together near the washrooms, disturbing all the other passengers and the stewardesses. As much as various Torah giants of our generation have expressed their opposition to such minyanim on airplanes[2], their message has not yet been accepted. We wish everyone a chag kasher v'sameach, and all those traveling to Eretz Yisroel should have a safe trip, but keep in mind - these minyanim are shelo b'ratzon chachomim! [2] Rav Shlomo Wahrman ( She'eiris Yosef vol. 7, siman 3) quotes Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach (Halichos Shlomo, page 75), Rav Moshe Feinstein (Igros Moshe Orach Chaim vol. 4 siman 20), Rav Ovadiah Yosef, and Rav Shmuel Wosner all objecting to minyanim on airplanes that disturb other passengers -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Sun Dec 3 07:15:20 2017 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Sun, 3 Dec 2017 15:15:20 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] The Forces That Have Shaped World History Message-ID: <1512314120420.4485@stevens.edu> The following is from RSRH's commentary on Bereishis 30:8 Ya'akov was very much afraid and distressed, so he divided the peoplewho were with him, as well as the flocks, cattle and camels, into two camps. We can put ourselves in Ya'akov's place, and we are especially obligated to do so, considering the significance of the impending meeting; for, because of this meeting, Ya'akov experienced a revelation whose memory is forever linked with the daily meal of the man of Israel. Just as Ya'akov and Esav oppose each other here, so they continue to stand opposed to one another unto this very day. Ya'akov is the family man blessed with children; hard-working, serving, weighed down by cares. Esav is the "finished and accomplished" man (cf. Commentary above, 25:25). Ya'akov now returns as the independent head of a family. Even now, having overcome all the obstacles, this privilege is, to him, the highest prize, the greatest achievement. But to attain it, he had to toil and struggle for twenty years, despite the fact that he had already received the blessing and the birthright. Others, however, take this privilege for granted; it is given to them from birth. Esav, the "finished and accomplished" man, already possessed it in full measure when Ya'akov first left home. While Ya'akov, through hard work, succeeded in establishing a family, Esav became a political force, the leader of an army, an aluf at the head of his troops. Thus the external contrast between Ya'akov, who held on to his brother's heel when they were born, and Esav, the "accomplished" man. In Ya'akov and Esav, two opposing principles confront each other. The struggle between them, and the outcome of this struggle, are the forces that have shaped world history. Ya'akov represents family life, happiness and making others happy. Esav represents the glitter of political power and might. This conflict has raged for thousands of years: Is it sufficient just to be a human being, and are political power and social creativity of no significance unless they lead to the loftiest of all human aspirations, or, on the contrary, does everything that is human in man, in home, and in family life exist only to serve the purposes of political triumph? How different from his attitude toward Lavan is Ya'akov's attitude toward Esav. We know how steadfast is the power of one who is sure of his own integrity, and how oppressive is the feeling of guilt, even if only imagined. It is easier to suffer wrong and injustice for twenty years than to face for one minute a person whom we know was offended by us and who cannot understand our motives, which do not justify our actions but at least excuse them. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Mon Dec 4 07:55:38 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2017 10:55:38 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] knife sharpeners In-Reply-To: <0115756c-ad5a-dc19-dfdc-aba2138a2858@sero.name> References: <62debe36-f9a2-7cab-d4cb-a60320a1ec83@starways.net> <0115756c-ad5a-dc19-dfdc-aba2138a2858@sero.name> Message-ID: <20171204155538.GC26551@aishdas.org> On Sat, Dec 02, 2017 at 08:01:31PM -0500, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : On 02/12/17 15:56, Lisa Liel via Avodah wrote: : >Are knife sharpeners mekabel taam?? And noten taam?? Do you need : >different onces for meat, dairy, pesach, etc? : : Since they don't ever contact food, I don't see how they could. Since they are in heated contact with the knife, aren't there potential na"t bar na"t issues? Tir'u baTov! -Micha From ari.brodsky at utoronto.ca Mon Dec 4 10:03:48 2017 From: ari.brodsky at utoronto.ca (Ari Meir Brodsky) Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2017 20:03:48 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Tonight (Monday evening) begin Prayer for Rain Message-ID: Dear Friends, It's that time of year again, when I know many of you are expecting my annual friendly reminder.... Jews outside of Israel should include the request for rain in daily prayers, beginning with Maariv tonight (Monday evening), December 4, 2017, corresponding to the evening of 17 Kislev, 5778. The phrase *??? ?? ???? ?????* "Veten tal umatar livracha" - "Give us dew and rain for a blessing" is inserted into the 9th blessing of the weekday shemone esrei, from now until Pesach. [Sephardim replace the entire blessing of ????? with the alternate text beginning ??? ????? - thanks to Prof. Lasker for the reminder.] I encourage everyone to remind friends and family members of this event, especially those who may not be in shul at that time. Diaspora Jews begin requesting rain on the 60th day of the fall season, as approximated by Shmuel in the Talmud (Taanit 10a, Eiruvin 56a). For more information about this calculation, follow the link below, to a fascinating article giving a (very brief) introduction to the Jewish calendar, followed by a discussion on why we begin praying for rain when we do: http://www.lookstein.org/articles/veten_tal.htm (Thanks to Russell Levy for providing the link.) Wishing everyone a happy Chanukka, -Ari Meir Brodsky --------------------- Ari M. Brodsky ari.brodsky at utoronto.ca -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mirskym at gmail.com Mon Dec 4 10:02:39 2017 From: mirskym at gmail.com (Michael Mirsky) Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2017 21:02:39 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Davening on Airplanes In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: In all the discussions of this topic that I have seen, I haven't seen anyone address the issue of someone who is in his year of aveilut and needs a minyan to say kaddish. Do the objections to the possible disturbance a minyan might cause override this need? Michael Mirsky -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From larry62341 at optonline.net Mon Dec 4 10:17:47 2017 From: larry62341 at optonline.net (Prof. Levine) Date: Mon, 04 Dec 2017 13:17:47 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Knife Sharpening Message-ID: The following is from an article posted on the CRC web site at https://goo.gl/ispg9T Food service establishments regularly send out their knives for sharpening, and it appears that there are three potential kashrus concerns with this practice, as follows: * The sharpening company may give the establishment different knives than the ones which the establishment gave them for sharpening. This is an especially likely in cases where the sharpening company actually owns the knives and lends them to the establishment in exchange for the rights to sharpen them. This issue can be avoided if the Mashgiach has a tevias ayin on the knives and/or marks them. * Knives are typically very dirty when they arrive at the sharpening facility, and therefore all knives are washed in hot water or a dishwasher before the sharpening begins. This potentially allows non-kosher b?lios to get into the kosher knives. See below for more on this. * The same machine is used to sharpen the (clean) kosher and non-kosher knives, and the friction created by the process does heat up the knives somewhat. If that heat would be above yad soledes bo, there would be a potential for b?lios to transfer between the machinery and knives. However, in tests which Rabbi Neustadt performed in one sharpening company, the sharpening wheel and the cooling water (where that was used) were consistently cooler than 100? F and were not hot to the touch. As such, it appears that this does not pose a serious concern. See the above URL for more. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Mon Dec 4 11:53:58 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2017 14:53:58 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] What are the main mitzvos to focus on? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20171204195358.GC2323@aishdas.org> On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 12:11:31PM +0200, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: : The last daf in Makos (24a) states that the Neviim took the 613 mitzvos and : reduced them to a smaller set for people to focus on. : Michah gave three Mitzvos for people to focus on - "Asos Mishpat..." : "Asos Mishpat" is monetary laws; : "Ahavas Chesed" is bestowing Chesed; Is "din" necessarily a reference to monetary laws? Din vs chessed is a recurring dialectic. As in sheim Elokus vs sheim Havayah. : "V'Hatzne'a Leches Im Elokecha" is escorting the dead and bringing a Kalah : to Chupah; I saw the gemara differently, emphasizing tzeni'us itself. As it explains, one should walk with one's G-d modestly even when doing these two mitzvos, which normally happen in public. And then the gemara continues with a qal vachomer al achas kamah vekamah those which are normally done betzin'ah. So it seems to be closer to the words of the pasuq than the identification with two specific acts of chessed (one of which is famously "chesed shel emes") the gemara begins its explanation with. After all, chessed is already covered in the previous item in the list. (Parallel gemara at Sukkah 49b.) : Yeshayah later gave two primary Mitzvos - "Shimru Mishpat va'Asu Tzedakah." Tangent: You'll notice that Yeshaiah is listed twice, once before Mikhah (giving 6 principles), and once after. As they were contemporaries whose nevu'os overlap in content, R' Simla'i's intent is likely chronological order. : The mitzva of learning Torah which we understand to be the most important : and fundamental mitzva does not appear in these lists.... I think the "we" in your sentence are simply following a hashkafah which isn't majority opinion. Not only does R' Simla'i skip them, in favor of living to emulate HQBH's din and chessed, but - Hillel famously defines all of Torah in terms of using one's empathy to avoiding doing what one's chaver would loathe. Rashi ad loc includes avoiding what one's Chaver would loathe, but in his other discussions of the quote, this aspect is missing. - R' Aqiva and Ben Azzai argue over which pasuq better captures the Torah's kelal gadol, and both are interpersonal. - In both shasin, "Torah lishmah" is discussed in terms of al menas la'asos and/or al menas lelameid. Not knowing for its own sake. See also Meshekh Chokhmah (Devarim 218:61) which I blog about at So, who amongst Chazal really does make learning the central goal of a Jewish man's life? Jumping ahead to the Isms that today's O world is trying to build from: - In chassidus, talmud Torah is a means to deveiqus. - The discussion in Nefesh haChaim sha'ar 4 which denies the previous bullet item might be the earliest source for the position you describe as what "we understand" was written by the same RCV about whom his son says (in the haqadmah to NhC, emphasis mine): He regularly rebuked me, because he saw that I did not participate in the pain of others. And these were his constant words to me: This is the entire person. One is not created for himself, but to benefit others with the full extent of his powers. (SHEZEH KOL HA'ADAM: lo le'atzmo nivra, RAQ LEHO'IL LE'ACHRINI...) So, while sha'ar 4 waxes poetic about the chiyus talmud Torah gives the world, RCV didn't mean to say that therefore learning is the It of life. (And yeshivos tend not to learn shaar 1's discussion of the power of maaseh nor shaar 2's discussion of dibbur. Which also yeilds an imbalance in how one sees the NhC shaar 4's description of machashavah.) - Similarly, while we remember R' Chaim Brisker for inventing Brisker lomdus, he said his main job was to be a baal chessed. And his family agreed; the praise on his matzeivah simply reads "rav chessed". Apparently the Pulmus haMussar was about the proper means to come to embody the ideal, and not what the ideal actually is. This notion that learning is the ends rather than a central part of the means is arguably idiosyncratic. It is far easier to argue that the central mitzvah is to emulate the Meitiv and bring His Tov to others. : Additionally, these lists : seem to consist solely of mitzvos bein adam lachaveiro, are there no : mitzvos ben adam lamakom that are important enought to appear on these : lists? As per what I said above, mitzvos bein adam laMaqom -- or R' Yisrael Salanter's third category of mitzvos being adam le'atzmo, which includes talmud Torah as an act of self-refinement -- is more caring for the goose than the goose's actual laying of the golden eggs. Rather than a question mark, just end with an exclamation point. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger We are great, and our foibles are great, micha at aishdas.org and therefore our troubles are great -- http://www.aishdas.org but our consolations will also be great. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rabbi AY Kook From micha at aishdas.org Mon Dec 4 11:55:56 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2017 14:55:56 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Davening on Airplanes In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20171204195556.GD2323@aishdas.org> On Mon, Dec 04, 2017 at 09:02:39PM +0300, Michael Mirsky via Avodah wrote: : In all the discussions of this topic that I have seen, I haven't seen : anyone address the issue of someone who is in his year of aveilut and needs : a minyan to say kaddish. Do the objections to the possible disturbance a : minyan might cause override this need? How can it be a zekhus to the niftar to say Qaddish in a way that the BALC violations make it a net minus? Tir'u baTov! -Micha From saulguberman at gmail.com Mon Dec 4 12:00:16 2017 From: saulguberman at gmail.com (Saul Guberman) Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2017 15:00:16 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Davening on Airplanes In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: My understanding is that kaddish needs to be said once a day. It is said multi times a day as a hiddur. So, missing one davening should be OK and the zchus of not disturbing other passengers and crew and not creating a chillul hashem should make up for the missed kaddish. On Mon, Dec 4, 2017 at 1:02 PM, Michael Mirsky via Avodah < avodah at lists.aishdas.org> wrote: > In all the discussions of this topic that I have seen, I haven't seen > anyone address the issue of someone who is in his year of aveilut and needs > a minyan to say kaddish. Do the objections to the possible disturbance a > minyan might cause override this need? > > Michael Mirsky > > _______________________________________________ > Avodah mailing list > Avodah at lists.aishdas.org > http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From zev at sero.name Mon Dec 4 12:14:53 2017 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2017 15:14:53 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] knife sharpeners In-Reply-To: <20171204155538.GC26551@aishdas.org> References: <62debe36-f9a2-7cab-d4cb-a60320a1ec83@starways.net> <0115756c-ad5a-dc19-dfdc-aba2138a2858@sero.name> <20171204155538.GC26551@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 04/12/17 10:55, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > On Sat, Dec 02, 2017 at 08:01:31PM -0500, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > : On 02/12/17 15:56, Lisa Liel via Avodah wrote: > : >Are knife sharpeners mekabel taam?? And noten taam?? Do you need > : >different onces for meat, dairy, pesach, etc? > : > : Since they don't ever contact food, I don't see how they could. > > Since they are in heated contact with the knife, aren't there potential > na"t bar na"t issues? Knives are sharpened while hot?! With water? -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From micha at aishdas.org Mon Dec 4 12:48:38 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2017 15:48:38 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Davening on Airplanes In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20171204204838.GA1334@aishdas.org> On Mon, Dec 04, 2017 at 03:00:16PM -0500, Saul Guberman via Avodah wrote: : My understanding is that kaddish needs to be said once a day. It is said : multi times a day as a hiddur... See YD 376:4. The Rama discusses it in terms of a minhag, actually a variety of whatever is "minhag qavu'ah ba'ir". : the zchus of not disturbing other passengers and crew and not creating a : chillul hashem should make up for the missed kaddish. Especially since it's the avoidance of an actual issur vs a medieval or post-medieval minhag. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Life isn't about finding yourself. micha at aishdas.org Life is about creating yourself. http://www.aishdas.org - George Bernard Shaw Fax: (270) 514-1507 From micha at aishdas.org Mon Dec 4 13:34:04 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2017 16:34:04 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Letzareif Message-ID: <20171204213404.GA32594@aishdas.org> In Bereishis Rabb 44:1, Rav says Lo nitenu hamitzvos ela letzarei bahen es haberios And what does it matter to HQBH who shechtas from the throat and who shechts from the back of the neck? Havei: lo nitenu hamitzvos ela letzarei bahen es haberios Letzareif is a metaphor of melting. The problem is, whether we mean smelting / refining, or to meld to thing together (as in "mitzrareif")? Are we being told that mitzvos were given to refine people, or to connect them? Or is the word chosen in order to intentionally carry both meanings? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger If you're going through hell micha at aishdas.org keep going. http://www.aishdas.org - Winston Churchill Fax: (270) 514-1507 From bdbradley70 at hotmail.com Mon Dec 4 14:03:37 2017 From: bdbradley70 at hotmail.com (Ben Bradley) Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2017 22:03:37 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] knife sharpeners In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: ': On 02/12/17 15:56, Lisa Liel via Avodah wrote: : >Are knife sharpeners mekabel taam?? And noten taam?? Do you need : >different onces for meat, dairy, pesach, etc? : : Since they don't ever contact food, I don't see how they could. Since they are in heated contact with the knife, aren't there potential na"t bar na"t issues?' Knife sharpeners get hot? What kind of sharpeners are we talking about here? I've never seen a domestic knife sharpener which gets beyond slightly warm. But even if it did, the food would be na't to the knife, the knife to the sharpener, the sharpener to the second knife and thence to the food again. Which is na't bar na't bar na't bar na't. I thought that's not a problem in hilchos basar b'chalav? BW Ben -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Mon Dec 4 14:29:08 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2017 17:29:08 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] The 13 middos In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20171204222908.GA10223@aishdas.org> On Sun, Dec 03, 2017 at 11:13:00AM +0200, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: : The Gemara in Shavuos (4b) discusses who the Tanna of the Mishna is and : brings down a fundamental machlokes tannaim about the 13 middos. R' : Yishmael darshens klal uprat and R' Akiva darshens ribuy umiut. The : Acharonim point out that these are mutually exclusive and every Tanna : darshens one or the other but they cannot be mixed (e.g. a Tanna sometimes : darshens ribuy umiut and sometimes klal uprat). ... I do not understand this paranthetic comment, as it refers to a kind of mixture, a tanna who uses both styles of derashah, as an example of how they cannot be mixed. The willingness of the two batei midrash to use the others' methodology is stated outright on Bekhoros 51a. One such tanna is R' Aqiva himself, eg Yerushalmi Sotah 8:1 (vilna 34a). See RSRH's discussion in Collected Writings V pg 170. : something so fundamental as the 13 middos be a matter of dispute? Weren't : the 13 middos given to Moshe at Har Sinai? How could they forget such a : basic thing? ... The methodology could have been in use informally before Hillel started the meta-Torah of the study and formalization of rules to describe that methodology. Just as people can use proper grammar before anyone makes a formal study of the language's grammatical rules. Since each did use the others' rules, the formalized rule system doesn't actually define the list of inherited laws. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger None of us will leave this place alive. micha at aishdas.org All that is left to us is http://www.aishdas.org to be as human as possible while we are here. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Anonymous MD, while a Nazi prisoner From marty.bluke at gmail.com Mon Dec 4 21:15:42 2017 From: marty.bluke at gmail.com (Marty Bluke) Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2017 07:15:42 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] The 13 middos In-Reply-To: <20171204222908.GA10223@aishdas.org> References: <20171204222908.GA10223@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Tuesday, December 5, 2017, Micha Berger wrote:... > > > I do not understand this paranthetic comment, as it refers to a kind of > mixture, a tanna who uses both styles of derashah, as an example of how > they cannot be mixed. The willingness of the two batei midrash to use the > others' methodology is stated outright on Bekhoros 51a. > > One such tanna is R' Aqiva himself, eg Yerushalmi Sotah 8:1 (vilna 34a). > > See RSRH's discussion in Collected Writings V pg 170. See the Mishne Lamelech avadim 3:9 where he states that it is either or and the 2 styles cannot be mixed, and his main proof is from the Gemara Shavuos 4b where the Gemara asks on Rebbe how can he darshen a ribui umiut like R Akiva if in general he darshens Klal Uprat. We see clearly that the Gemara assumes you darshen 1 or the other but not both otherwise the Gemara would have no question. See also tosafos nidda 30a s.v. Ushma mina where tosafos says that we pasken that we darshen Klal uprat and not ribui umiut. That only makes sense if they are mutually exclusive. See also tosafos shavuos 25a s.v. Rav who also assumes that it is either or. Regarding the Gemara in bechoros 51a it is actually a proof the other way. The Gemara says that this case is an exception because it is not written in the normal way of a Klal uprat and therefore in this case only Rebbe can learn a ribui umiut but in general someone who learns Klal uprat could not use ribui umiut. > > Tir'u baTov! > -Micha > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From JRich at sibson.com Mon Dec 4 22:13:31 2017 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2017 06:13:31 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Davening on Airplanes In-Reply-To: <20171204204838.GA1334@aishdas.org> References: , <20171204204838.GA1334@aishdas.org> Message-ID: > > Especially since it's the avoidance of an actual issur vs a medieval or > post-medieval ---------- All very true, yet the Hamon am has invested Kaddish with great importance. Does that investiture have a halachic chalot? It seems it does at least in terms of kavod Kt Joel 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. From akivagmiller at gmail.com Tue Dec 5 03:22:57 2017 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2017 06:22:57 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Gid ha'nasheh Message-ID: . R' Chaim Tatel wrote: > At any rate, it makes sense that Yaakov would be hit there, > as a reminder that his marriage to Rachel after his marriage > to her sister Leah would not hold up when he entered Eretz > Yisrael. (not long after this episode, Rachel died in childbirth > of Binyamin). > > Aside from feeling the psychological pain of Rachel?s death, > perhaps Yaakov also had to feel physical pain. I draw a distinction between "consequences" and "punishments". I have heard in the past that Eretz Yisrael was unable to tolerate Yaakov's being married to two sisters, and that Rachel's death was a consequence of that. But RCT writes that Yaakov was given a reminder of that consequence, and that he had to feel pain as well. Now it sounds like Yaakov was being punished. If he was punished, it must be that he was punished for some choice that he made. What choice was that? What did he do wrong? If he could do it all over again, what ought he do differently? Specifically: After having married Leah, should he have not married Rachel? Alternatively, (according to those who say that he was not fooled but knew that Leah had the simanim,) should he have not married Leah? Or should he have protested and annuled the marriage to Leah? If he was punished, what did he do wrong? Akiva Miller From akivagmiller at gmail.com Tue Dec 5 03:33:20 2017 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2017 06:33:20 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Davening on Airplanes Message-ID: . R' Michael Mirsky asked: > In all the discussions of this topic that I have seen, I > haven't seen anyone address the issue of someone who is in > his year of aveilut and needs a minyan to say kaddish. Do the > objections to the possible disturbance a minyan might cause > override this need? RMM seems to be suggesting that this individual's need to say kaddish is greater than the usual need to daven Tefila B'Tzibur. I have heard other people express this feeling, but I've never seen any evidence for it in seforim or elsewhere. I'll express it another way: I am well aware that there are many many people who are somewhat lax in their minyan attendance in general, but for yahrzeit or aveilus they are much more meticulous. This is not a bad thing; whatever will help get people into shul is good. But I do think that their values might be misplaced. Akiva Miller From larry62341 at optonline.net Tue Dec 5 05:12:22 2017 From: larry62341 at optonline.net (Prof. Levine) Date: Tue, 05 Dec 2017 08:12:22 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] How often to day kaddish Message-ID: <2E.1E.03203.73B962A5@mta4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> Saul Guberman wrote: My understanding is that kaddish needs to be said once a day. It is said multi times a day as a hiddur. So, missing one davening should be OK and the zchus of not disturbing other passengers and crew and not creating a chillul hashem should make up for the missed kaddish. ________________________________________________________ According to the original din only, only one person said kaddish at a time. (This is still what is done in some places like KAJ and Bais Hatalmud). Thus, if there are many people saying kaddish in a shul that keeps the original din, it is conceivable that one might not get to say kaddish every day or even longer. Hence I do not think that one needs to say kaddish once a day. YL From akivagmiller at gmail.com Tue Dec 5 04:53:47 2017 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2017 07:53:47 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Letzareif Message-ID: . R' Micha Berger wrote: > Lo nitenu hamitzvos ela letzarei bahen es haberios > ... > Letzareif is a metaphor of melting. The problem is, whether > we mean smelting / refining, or to meld to thing together (as > in "mitzrareif")? > Are we being told that mitzvos were given to refine people, > or to connect them? Or is the word chosen in order to > intentionally carry both meanings? "Ratzah HKBH l'zakos es Yisrael..." Does "zakos" mean to purify, or to give zechus? I perceive a similar poetry in both l'tzaref and l'zakos, but I'm not much of a poet, so I'll leave this thought for the rest of y'all to ponder and expand uon. Akiva Miller From marty.bluke at gmail.com Tue Dec 5 01:10:14 2017 From: marty.bluke at gmail.com (Marty Bluke) Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2017 11:10:14 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] What are the main mitzvos to focus on? In-Reply-To: <20171204195358.GC2323@aishdas.org> References: <20171204195358.GC2323@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Mon, Dec 4, 2017 at 9:53 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 12:11:31PM +0200, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: > : The last daf in Makos (24a) states that the Neviim took the 613 mitzvos > and > : reduced them to a smaller set for people to focus on. > > : ... > > : The mitzva of learning Torah which we understand to be the most important > : and fundamental mitzva does not appear in these lists.... > > I think the "we" in your sentence are simply following a hashkafah which > isn't majority opinion. > ... > So, who amongst Chazal really does make learning the central goal of a > Jewish man's life? > > ... > This notion that learning is the ends rather than a central part of > the means is arguably idiosyncratic. It is far easier to argue that the > central mitzvah is to emulate the Meitiv and bring His Tov to others. > > Tir'u baTov! > -Micha So basically you are saying that the current Charedi hashkafa/lifestyle of Torah only and Torah learning being the ultimate purpose of life is not a majority opinion in Chazal and in fact you can't find anyone among Chazal who says this. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Tue Dec 5 09:02:00 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2017 12:02:00 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] What are the main mitzvos to focus on? In-Reply-To: References: <20171204195358.GC2323@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20171205170200.GB5251@aishdas.org> On Tue, Dec 05, 2017 at 11:10:14AM +0200, Marty Bluke wrote: : So basically you are saying that the current Charedi hashkafa/lifestyle of : Torah only and Torah learning being the ultimate purpose of life is not a : majority opinion in Chazal and in fact you can't find anyone among Chazal : who says this. I intentionally avoided stating it that confrontationally, but yes. Although not "chareidi", "yeshivish". Excluding most chassidim but including the large population of MO who are taking yeshivish hashkafah and harmonizing it with modernity. (Eg RYBS as understood by many of his students.) See, for example, R Tzevi Sinsky's currently running series out of YHE ("Gush") "Talmud Torah: The Mitzva of Torah Study". He draws heavily from R' Yehudah Amital and R' N Lamm (whom RZS calls "mori uzeqeini"); his perspective is that of DL and MO, not "chareidim". Here's the web abstract for the opening shiur: In this introductory shiur, we explore the centrality of Torah study in the thought of the Rabbis. From Noach to Ezra, prominent Jewish leaders throughout the biblical period are portrayed as Torah scholars, and this mitzva is ascribed paramount importance in every aspect of life. In particular, shiur 3 discusses the purpose of talmud Torah, discussing various approached. The section "Approach #1 -- Instrumentalism" quotes pesuqim, mishayos, Toseftra, gemaros, before getting to rishonim (Rashi, Rambam, Ramban, Chinukh, Me'iri, Or H'. See also RNSlifkin's long list of quotes from rishonim at .) In contrast, "Approach #2 -- Cultivating a Halakhic Ethos" opens with the Chazon Ish then mentions R' Chaim Brisker as desribed in Halakhic Man. "Approach #3 -- Variations on Deveikut" starts with the Rambam leveraging a Sifrei (who I do not see as giving their description of /the/ purpose of learning), but focuses on Chassidus, R' Kook and R' Amital. Notice that learning being primarily valuable instrumentally is the shitah for which RZS can find overwhelming evidence in chazal and rishonim, the others being johnny-come-latelies of the last centuries. As for my own opinion, I wouldn't call approach #2 the cultivation of a "halachic ethos". I think this reflects Brisk's tendency to conflate halakhah with kol haTorah kulah, downplaying the import of aggadita. And yet, this wording does emphasize how approach 1 includes approach 2. If we are obligated in hilkhos dei'os / chovos halvavos / ve'asisa hayashar vehatov / to develop a *Torah* ethos, then #2 is also instrumental. We learn Mes' Sukkah to know how to fulfill the mitzvah of sukkah, and we learn Mes' Pirqei Avos to know to to fulfill the mitzvah of vehalakhta bidrakhav. See, it's instrumental! The difference boils down to what I believe was the central chiluq behind the pulmus haMussar: In the Brisker worldview, when RCVolozhiner compares talmud Torah to immersion in a miqvah, he means it descriptively. Learn halakhah as an end in itself, an it will leave a roshem of taharah. Even if the causality involved is mystical and non-obvious. Whereas R Yisrael Salanter looked at the actual metzi'us of the society he was in -- and all the moreso ours -- and concluded that this couldn't have been RCV's intent. Rather, RCV was speaking descriptively; when one learns correctly, one is learning in a way that leaves a roshem of taharah, even if the material itself is never understood or gets forgotten. And RYS had the lifestyle of RCV's talmid, R' Zundel Salanter, as indication of what Nefesh haChaim was intending to describe. Thus, to a mussarist, RCV was describing how to learn. Don't just learn nega'im to find chiluqim with which to explain machloqesin and non-obvious dinim. Rather, in addition one must spend the time driving home the roshem of how bad LH and ga'avah are, that HQBH felt it worth aiding teshuvah in these areas. And those two topics are far more connected in Telzher derekh than Brisker, but I think I've ranged far enough. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Spirituality is like a bird: if you tighten micha at aishdas.org your grip on it, it chokes; slacken your grip, http://www.aishdas.org and it flies away. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From micha at aishdas.org Tue Dec 5 10:39:48 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2017 13:39:48 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Davening on Airplanes In-Reply-To: References: <20171204204838.GA1334@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20171205183948.GA31307@aishdas.org> On Tue, Dec 05, 2017 at 06:13:31AM +0000, Rich, Joel wrote: :> Especially since it's the avoidance of an actual issur vs a medieval or :> post-medieval : All very true, yet the Hamon am has invested Kaddish with great : importance. Does that investiture have a halachic chalot? It seems it : does at least in terms of kavod Reading the kesuvah under the chuppah is just a stall while we wait some gap of time to separate qiddushin and nissuin. A maaseh kof. And yet because it is time in the spot-light, common practice is to treat it as the second greatest kibud, often what you give the other rav you might have made mesader qiddushin. When it comes to kibud, public treatment does indeed matter. And logically enough; after all, being mekhubad is an issue of seeing others display feelings of kavod. How we display it /should/ be secondary. All logical. However, here we are talking about someone in the olam ha'emes. So they know that while on the plane you have that actual issur keeping you from fulfilling the minhag of saying qaddish. For that matter, hopefully and typically said parent worked really hard at trying to get the avel to respect others. And if not, again, at this point the soul of even the worst parent would know better. So I do not think it's likely the neshamah would mind the lack of kibud as much as they would mind the misplacement of values. I would therefore not draw any conclusions from the logical linkage of kibud with intent and norms. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Between stimulus & response, there is a space. micha at aishdas.org In that space is our power to choose our http://www.aishdas.org response. In our response lies our growth Fax: (270) 514-1507 and our freedom. - Victor Frankl, (MSfM) From llevine at stevens.edu Wed Dec 6 01:39:18 2017 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2017 09:39:18 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Gambling in Halachah Message-ID: <7b63aab9b65f4c589d76fe326bd18f97@exchng03.campus.stevens-tech.edu> Click here to download "Gambling in Halachah" [That's the Kof-K's Halachically Speaking vol 13, issue 18, dedicated to this topic. -micha] From micha at aishdas.org Wed Dec 6 11:36:19 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2017 14:36:19 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Gid ha'nasheh In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20171206193619.GB12102@aishdas.org> On Tue, Dec 05, 2017 at 06:22:57AM -0500, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: :> Aside from feeling the psychological pain of Rachel?s death, :> perhaps Yaakov also had to feel physical pain. : : I draw a distinction between "consequences" and "punishments"... For those who don't remember from prior iterations, I don't. I think the difference between callins an onesh a consequence and calling it a punishment (or even "corrective") is whether one views sekhar va'onesh as a system that HQBH set up when He set up the universe or as a set of responses He has to our actions. "Chai gever al chata'av" implies one, our tefillos on yamim nora'im frequently imply the other. But both are simply simplified models of the incomprehensible Truth of how Hashem runs the universe. Since He is lemaalah min hazeman, we can't talk about whether the decision was made in maaseh bereishis or in response to our action -- both are ascribing times to a timeless Action (for want of a better word). We can only speak of a when for the effects of Divine Action, as they enter our timefull experience. : I have : heard in the past that Eretz Yisrael was unable to tolerate Yaakov's : being married to two sisters, and that Rachel's death was a : consequence of that. ... which is typical of an onesh -- a sin causes its own punishment. The two explanations are not mutually exclusive. To say that it was the land's qedushah causing something that wasn't in line with justice, one has to explain why there are rules that hide Hashem's Justice that aren't part of the hesteir panim necessary for free will. We need laws of nature to plan how to execute a decision, but laws of metaphysics? ... : If he was punished, it must be that he was punished for some choice : that he made. What choice was that? What did he do wrong? If he could : do it all over again, what ought he do differently? Specifically: : After having married Leah, should he have not married Rachel? Well, isn't that the halakhah? Or maybe the issur was in whatever it was that had him marrying a woman without noticing that her eyes were rakos (whatever that means). Perhaps the mistake was due to a criminal level of negligence. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Man is equipped with such far-reaching vision, micha at aishdas.org yet the smallest coin can obstruct his view. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yisrael Salanter Fax: (270) 514-1507 From micha at aishdas.org Wed Dec 6 11:23:17 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2017 14:23:17 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] The 13 middos In-Reply-To: References: <20171204222908.GA10223@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20171206192317.GA12102@aishdas.org> On Tue, Dec 05, 2017 at 07:15:42AM +0200, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: : See the Mishne Lamelech avadim 3:9 where he states that it is either or and : the 2 styles cannot be mixed, and his main proof is from the Gemara Shavuos : 4b where the Gemara asks on Rebbe how can he darshen a ribui umiut like R : Akiva if in general he darshens Klal Uprat... And yet the conclution on 5a is that he holds like R' Yishma'el's beis medrash who holds the derashah is not kelal uperat but ribui umi'ut ("ribah umi'at"). R Yisma'el, the one who codified the rules of kelal uperat is the one who here uses ribui umi'ut!? So is the gemara really saying that Rebbe is not crossing the line, as it seems to be saying. Or is it intentionally also implying there is no line to cross? Tosafos there ("detana Devei R' Yishma'el") might be saying the latter; it is too terse for me to be sure of intent. And yet further down on 5a, we have "Hashta de'amres... -- Now that you say that Rebbe darshans kelal uperat, you are forced into a question about shavu'os...?" IOW, reassuming the line. In any case, I am totally lost. In a discussion of how no one uses both sets of rules, it cites the school that created one set using the other set, and not saying anything about it. There is more going on here than I comprehend so far. As RSRH said (Collected Writings vol V pg 170), there are many such cases of R' Yishmael and R' Aqiva uses the other's rules. RSRH treats the rule as a tendency, rather than a line one may not cross. I wish I knew his interpretation of the gemara in Shavuos. But it's not like the MlM, nor the ba'al Atzmos Yoseif (whom the MlM is discussing), and does acknowledge the actual positions taken across both shasin. Just thinking out loud... Maybe the gemaros we're looking at are bothered because these are all cases where both kelalim apply and in each case they imply different dinim. IOW, it is not a question of Rebbe (or devei R Yismael) using ribui umi'ut, but of favoring the derashah that he tends not to OVER the derashah that is his norm. And to handle RSRH's observation, in a case where it is not a choice between conflicting kinds of derashos, no one would be asking why Rebbe used a kelal uperat, as such line-crossing is normal. : See also tosafos nidda 30a s.v. Ushma mina where tosafos says that we : pasken that we darshen Klal uprat and not ribui umiut... Nidda 30a "ushma minah tevilah bizmanah mitzvah" is about holding like Beis Shammai, and doesn't mention derashos. The previous d"h, "shema minah telas" (a near match) also isn't on topic. Could you please fix the citation for me? : Regarding the Gemara in bechoros 51a it is actually a proof the other way. : The Gemara says that this case is an exception because it is not written in : the normal way of a Klal uprat and therefore in this case only... This is a 2nd variant of the same sugya as Shavu'os. (To clarify for those moderately interested, but not sufficiently so to look for themselves.) Rashi ("hakha"), who says it's a general rule: kelal uperat ukelal isn't judged as a kelal uperat but as a ribui umi'ut. IIUC, Rashi is saying that Rebbe is staying within his usual rule set, but this is a case where both rule sets include the same derashah, just under different names. Thanks to RMTorczyner (CCed) : > Choosing between using "Kelal/Perat" and "Ribuy/Miut": Eruvin 27b-28a; > Succah 50b; Kiddushin 21b The first two don't really deal with tannaim using only one rule set, but Qiddush 21b is a third version of our sugya. I didn't see anything to add to the discussion beyond a way to rope RMT in, and perhaps he'll talk to R' Jonathan Ziring about the question. (RMT is the Rosh Beit Midrash of the YU-Torah Mitzion Zichron Dov Beit Midrash of Toronto, RJZ is the segan. Back when RJZ was in the kollel at YHE ["Gush"], he gave a series of shiurim on meta-halakhah. I thought I had RJZ's address, as we had a short correspondance, but since I didn't find it, I figured that once I was bothering RMT for his opinion...) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger I always give much away, micha at aishdas.org and so gather happiness instead of pleasure. http://www.aishdas.org - Rachel Levin Varnhagen Fax: (270) 514-1507 From micha at aishdas.org Wed Dec 6 12:06:08 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2017 15:06:08 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] TEXTUAL JUDAISM AND THE LIVING TORAH In-Reply-To: <9e51a7f4ea644e829db8503f8f0451fe@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <9e51a7f4ea644e829db8503f8f0451fe@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20171206200608.GC12102@aishdas.org> On Thu, Nov 02, 2017 at 12:12:05PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : http://etzion.org.il/en/siman-114-prayers-wind-rain-and-dew : :> TEXTUAL JUDAISM AND THE LIVING TORAH : :> In his introduction to the Beit Yosef... ... I think there are two things we need to keep in mind, that R' Asher Meir does not touch upon: 1- The question isn't whether the BY or some other poseiq does or doesn't consider the extent to which a particular pesaq was nispasheit. But rather something less boolean: how much weight does any given poseiq give mimeticism, and in comparison to which other factors. A number of years ago I proposed a model (then modified it in a later iteration) of 4 classes of factors a poseiq needs to weigh. And that one of the leading reasons why pesaq is an art rather than an algorithm is that their can't be formal rules for comparing the magnitudes of apples and oranges -- and bananas and parsimons? Here's what I came up with: - textual logic: which sevara do you find most compelling? Litvaks typically put most of the emphasis - textual authority: rules like azlinan basar ruba, or giving more weight to the Rambam's or Rosh's pinion than to some Baal Tosafos we rarely hear of. This seems to be ROY's favorite territory. - minhag avos / mimeticism - hashkafic concerns (including philosophy, qaballah): like when chassidim and talmidei haGra stopped putting on tefillin on ch"m because it is qotzeitz binti'os. No one would place hashkafic concerns high on the list. Ein dorshin taamei hamizvos. A poseiq only leaves formal halachic analysis when multiple opinions are defensible, which "right answer" does one choose? But different posqim still give it different weight; requiring more or less equity between the halachic analysis of the different possible pesaqim before being willing to let the hashkafah tip the scales. 2- The BY is a text. To really talk about mimeticism, we're talking about what people do naturally. A poseiq may need to factor in which pesaq was nispasheit, but by doing so he is not being a mimetic. The AhS is more likely to find justifications for mimetic practice while the MB is more likely to recommend changing practice. But deciding to follow either is choosing textuallism over mimeticism. Mimeticism is following the same pesaq the AhS just defended because that's what everone does, it's the example your parents and/or your peers set, not because it's a pesaq with a sevara and sources. Still, it's interesting to find an example of the BY overriding his triumverate and clearly stating a reason that is at odds with his haqdamah. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Take time, micha at aishdas.org be exact, http://www.aishdas.org unclutter the mind. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rabbi Simcha Zissel Ziv, Alter of Kelm From micha at aishdas.org Wed Dec 6 13:40:04 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2017 16:40:04 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] More on Yaakov, sheep and the rods In-Reply-To: <50458059-A03F-4E6E-B54B-F1612B0E7E5B@jsli.org> References: <50458059-A03F-4E6E-B54B-F1612B0E7E5B@jsli.org> Message-ID: <20171206214004.GD12102@aishdas.org> On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 12:20:44PM -0500, Alexander Seinfeld via Avodah wrote: : Why not just interpret this as an example of phenotypic plasticity, : meaning the genetic potential is there in every generation, and the : environmental factors stimulate its expression? : : As everyone who had genetics 101 will realize, if you eliminate 100% : of the phenotype, and breed the remainder you will still get some of : that phenotype in the next generation with recessive genes. So it always : bothered me why was all the hokus pokus by Yaakov necessary.... I would learn from this incident in Bereishis that one is obligated to do whatever hishtadlus is possible by the best understanding of teva available to you. And not to worry about what the current theory may get replaced by. Along similar lines: R Avigdor Miller taught that since HQBH is Rofei kol basar, medicine doesn't actually heal. The role of doctors and medicine is to prevent Hashem's cure from requiring a neis nigleh. And, he explains, this is why people actually survived despite medical theories involving 4 humours and bloodletting, or whatnot. Any accepted theory is equally usable. I don't buy into this, because if true, medicine would never need to advance, in fact, accepted medical theory would never be disproved. Still, I find the idea intriguing. It fits the notion, which might be the Ramban's (depending on how you fit multiple comments together) and is definitely REED's that teva is not a real "thing", but the patterns Hashem uses to hide His Action behind. It's all neis nistar, really Now, if one were to apply the same idea to parnasah, one could explain the purpose of Yaakov's efforts. And even if RAvigdorM's theory is hard to see as how teva works for the rest of us, it's easier to apply to someone who is as neis-worthy, including neis-nistar-worthy, as Yaaqov avinu. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger You want to know how to paint a perfect micha at aishdas.org painting? It's easy. http://www.aishdas.org Make yourself perfect and then just paint Fax: (270) 514-1507 naturally. -Robert Pirsig From akivagmiller at gmail.com Wed Dec 6 15:10:18 2017 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2017 18:10:18 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Gid ha'nasheh Message-ID: . I asked: : If he was punished, it must be that he was punished for some choice : that he made. What choice was that? What did he do wrong? If he could : do it all over again, what ought he do differently? Specifically: : After having married Leah, should he have not married Rachel? and R' Micha Berger responded: > Well, isn't that the halakhah? I want to publicly thank RMB for a beautiful post, and for reminding me of some very important concepts. We learn so much of the machinations of what went on in this incident, how each step was important and necessary in various ways, that I was a bit shocked to hear it suggested that Yaakov Avinu was being punished for his choices here. But truth be told, the line between punishment and consequence can be arbitrary, subjective .... or even imaginary. We DO accept the reality of a "necessary evil", or a "greater good". It's not all black and white. "Well, isn't that the halakhah?" Indeed, the halacha prescribes The Way To Go, but that is no guarantee that there won't be unpleasant side effects. If the Kohen Gadol happens upon a Mes Mitzvah on Yom Kippur morning, the halacha is clear that he must get involved, even if that means that the day's avodah won't go as planned. So too, Yaakov Avinu and Rachel Imenu married each other because Klal Yisrael needed it, and if such a releationship was incompatible with Kedushas Haaretz, well, unfortunately, they'll have to endure the consequences. Akiva Miller From meirabi at gmail.com Wed Dec 6 18:07:12 2017 From: meirabi at gmail.com (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi) Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2017 13:07:12 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] =?utf-8?q?SEDRA_VAYEISHEV_=E2=80=93_TIME_TO_LOOK_IN_THE_?= =?utf-8?q?MIRROR?= Message-ID: When the little kid threatens a bouncer ? we all laugh. It is funny precisely because it is so silly and impossible. DJT, a buffoon, a bumbling, blithering bad-boy, could not possibly win the presidency. It was the standing joke that never grew stale ? until he became POTUS. Our Sages say, we are truly unmasked by Kiso Koso & KaAso ? by what we?re like when feeling liberated: # deciding how to use our valuables i.e. by what we consider to be important # intoxicated [not necessarily by alcohol] # we are agitated i.e. by what presses our buttons. Yosef tells his brothers about his dream ? expecting them to laugh it off and he gives them a second chance after they?ve had an opportunity to reconsider their response. When we get offended and mock ? it?s time to look in the mirror. Best, Meir G. Rabi 0423 207 837 +61 423 207 837 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From marty.bluke at gmail.com Thu Dec 7 02:27:17 2017 From: marty.bluke at gmail.com (Marty Bluke) Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2017 12:27:17 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] The 13 middos In-Reply-To: <20171206192317.GA12102@aishdas.org> References: <20171204222908.GA10223@aishdas.org> <20171206192317.GA12102@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 9:23 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > On Tue, Dec 05, 2017 at 07:15:42AM +0200, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: > : See the Mishne Lamelech avadim 3:9 where he states that it is either or > and > : the 2 styles cannot be mixed, and his main proof is from the Gemara > Shavuos > : 4b where the Gemara asks on Rebbe how can he darshen a ribui umiut like R > : Akiva if in general he darshens Klal Uprat... > > And yet the conclution on 5a is that he holds like R' Yishma'el's beis > medrash who holds the derashah is not kelal uperat but ribui umi'ut > ("ribah umi'at"). R Yisma'el, the one who codified the rules of kelal > uperat is the one who here uses ribui umi'ut!? > The Gemara says that this case is an exception because it is not written in the normal way of a Klal uprat and therefore in this case ONLY Rebbe can learn a ribui umiut but in general someone who learns Klal uprat could not use ribui umiut. > ... > > : See also tosafos nidda 30a s.v. Ushma mina where tosafos says that we > : pasken that we darshen Klal uprat and not ribui umiut... > > Nidda 30a "ushma minah tevilah bizmanah mitzvah" is about holding > like Beis Shammai, and doesn't mention derashos. The previous d"h, > "shema minah telas" (a near match) also isn't on topic. Could you > please fix the citation for me? > See the last 2 lines in the Tosafos that I quoted, Tosafos states "d'darish ribui umiut, V'Kayma lan d'darshinan klali uprati" Tosafos paskens that we darshen klal uprat not ribui umiut, that strongly implies that they are mutuallt exclusive > > > > > Tir'u baTov! > -Micha > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From JRich at sibson.com Wed Dec 6 21:49:36 2017 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2017 05:49:36 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] zmanim Message-ID: <550be79bd779462fa5534e6b58fba249@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> As sunrise got later I was at a minyan where the earliest time for tallit was approximately the same as the minyan starting time. I watched as everybody watched their cell phones for the exact time to start from Myzmanim. (Of course that website says not to rely on to it to the minute) I was wondering whether this close watch was a subset of a broader need of man modern man to have exactitude in life versus living with gray. (Sort of a desire to be Newtonian in a quantum world) I was also wondering whether the advent of the railroad table approach now requires us to halachically follow that exactness rather than that the "it looks right to me" approach of Chazal? Thoughts? KT 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: From larry62341 at optonline.net Thu Dec 7 03:09:25 2017 From: larry62341 at optonline.net (Prof. Levine) Date: Thu, 07 Dec 2017 06:09:25 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Davening on Airplanes In-Reply-To: <900051a759eb4fd1a58d4fda4d74fca6@exchng03.campus.stevens-t ech.edu> References: <900051a759eb4fd1a58d4fda4d74fca6@exchng03.campus.stevens-tech.edu> Message-ID: <32.C2.03752.761292A5@mta3.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> At 08:12 PM 12/6/2017, R Micha Berger wrote: >When it comes to kibud, public treatment does indeed matter... >However, here we are talking about someone in the olam ha'emes. So they >know that while on the plane you have that actual issur keeping you from >fulfilling the minhag of saying qaddish... >So I do not think it's likely the neshamah would mind the lack of kibud >as much as they would mind the misplacement of values. I would therefore >not draw any conclusions from the logical linkage of kibud with intent >and norms. From The Mussar Movement, Volume 1, Part 2 pages 248 - 249. On one of the anniversaries of his father's death, R. Israel was in Memel. He was informed that someone else in the synagogue wished to say Kaddish. Now R. Israel was very insistent that only one person at a time be allowed to recite the Kaddish at the services [28] and apparently this congregation had complied with his ruling. Reb Yitzchak Isaacson was observing the jahrzeit of a daughter who had died very young. Now the Halachah gives precedence to a son observing the jahrzeit of a parent on these occasions, and R. Israel was obviously entitled to the privilege. Sensing the grief he would cause the father by depriving him of the opportunity to say Kaddish for his daughter, R. Israel went up to him and said: "You sir, will say Kaddish." The worshippers expressed their surprise. Not only had R. Israel yielded his own right, but also overlooked the duty of honoring his father, since he was, by law, obliged to say Kaddish. He explained to them that the merit of extending kindness (gemi- lut chesed) to a fellow Jew possessed far greater value than the saying of Kaddish.[29] [28.] See R. Naftali Amsterdam's will, published in Or Hamusar No. 13. See Vol. II of the Hebrew edition of this series, Tenu'at Hamusar, II, Chap. 25. [29.] Ernile Benjamin, op. cit., p. 25. From seinfeld at daasbooks.com Thu Dec 7 06:50:16 2017 From: seinfeld at daasbooks.com (Alexander Seinfeld) Date: Thu, 07 Dec 2017 09:50:16 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Gid ha'nasheh Message-ID: It seems to me there are two plausible answers, and both may be correct. 1. Yes, he should not have married Rachel. This is in fact what Leah tells her, ?You stole my husband.? He was tricked, but he accepted Leah, did not annul the marriage, so too bad for Rachel. She?s the one who gave away the password. 2. He wasn?t yet Yisroel. He was still a ben Noach. When he becomes Yisroel, he is now required to keep the Taryag Mitzvos. It is right after this name change that she dies. I?m not sure why she doesn?t die immediately (in Beit-El) rather en route to Efrat. But this delay may have sown doubt into his mind about his status - maybe he is still a ben Noach. His sons consider themselves Bnai Yisroel, which is why they are eating meat that for a ben-Noach would be eiver-min-ha-chai, and which is part of the lashon hara that Yoseph brings back to Yaakov. But his judgment that they are Bnai Noach is not merely academic, it is personal, because it has implications in Rachel?s death. > >If he was punished, it must be that he was punished for some choice >that he made. What choice was that? What did he do wrong? If he could >do it all over again, what ought he do differently? Specifically: >After having married Leah, should he have not married Rachel? >Alternatively, (according to those who say that he was not fooled but >knew that Leah had the simanim,) should he have not married Leah? Or >should he have protested and annuled the marriage to Leah? > >If he was punished, what did he do wrong? From micha at aishdas.org Thu Dec 7 11:06:53 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2017 14:06:53 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Gid ha'nasheh In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20171207190653.GB26083@aishdas.org> On Wed, Dec 06, 2017 at 06:10:18PM -0500, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : We DO accept the reality of a "necessary evil", or a "greater good". : It's not all black and white. "Well, isn't that the halakhah?" Indeed, : the halacha prescribes The Way To Go, but that is no guarantee that : there won't be unpleasant side effects... A number of rishonim (eg Ramban, Seforno) deal with the problem of miracles. Since HQBH is Perfect and is capable of a perfect creation, why would He make a world in which He occasionally would have to step in and override teva? This is where the Ramban comes in with the idea that not only the miraculous items listed in Pirqei Avos created during Maaseh Bereishis, every "exception" to the laws of nature are actually special cases written into the law. I'll pause here to remind of what I said last email about "at the time of creation" and "in response to the situation" both being oversimplifications caused by us temporal beings trying to think about Hashem's "Action" which is lemaalah min hazeman and has no "when". Similarly, one can ask about His Authorship of halakhah. Since Hashem is capable of writing a system of laws to fit the universe in a way where obeying the law never has "unpleasant side effects", why wouldn't He? One backstep... I just realized you mean something broader by "side effects" than I was talking about. As you later write: : upon a Mes Mitzvah on Yom Kippur morning, the halacha is clear that he : must get involved, even if that means that the day's avodah won't go : as planned... Similarly, if piquach nefesh is docheh Shabbos, rather than Shabbos being huterah, one may have the misfortune of having to violate Shabbos. But that's not sekhar va'onesh, and my question "but what about Divine Justice?" doesn't apply. Not unless the "unpleasant side effect" is -- as in the case of Yaaqov's widowerhood or his hip -- painful (physically and/or emotionally). There is also another issue... Sekhar mitzvos behai alma leiqa. Not everything in this world is sekhar va'onesh. Li nir'eh, everything in this world is to draw us to a state of being able to receive more of Hashem's tov. Onesh, only when we have a chance of it getting us to choose more constructively. Which is why the mishnah talks about tzadiqim getting onesh in olam hazah to spare them in olam haba. Not because pain in olam hazeh pays off the accoun t early, but because a tzadiq will use the pain to draw closer to HQBH / to his ideal self. And similarly, resha'im who wouldn't respond constructively to the challenge... Well, HQBH would share with them his Tov in the here-and-now rather than not at all. This takes us away from insisting that the universe must be set up so that every sin contains its own onesh as a consequence. (If we're using the consequence model to look at things.) Instead, we can look at the universe as tending toward tov. And therefore every step away from tov will as a consequence cause a pull back toward it. (Which could well be onesh, but in olam hazeh, it could be getting us connected back to the Meitiv in some other way.) And applying this back to Yaaqov's marrying two wives... Perhaps it's not an onesh, but the consequent path closer to the Meitiv in a world where the aretz was made tamei. And it's even possible that the challenges of this harder path lead to a closer place than without. So that overall, the net is maximize sekhar. Lefum tza'ara. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger We look forward to the time micha at aishdas.org when the power to love http://www.aishdas.org will replace the love of power. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - William Ewart Gladstone From micha at aishdas.org Thu Dec 7 11:12:14 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2017 14:12:14 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] zmanim In-Reply-To: <550be79bd779462fa5534e6b58fba249@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <550be79bd779462fa5534e6b58fba249@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20171207191214.GC26083@aishdas.org> On Thu, Dec 07, 2017 at 05:49:36AM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : I was wondering whether this close watch was a subset of a broader : need of man modern man to have exactitude in life versus living with : gray... Or maybe we were always mechuyavim to be as precise as possible. : wondering whether the advent of the railroad table approach now requires : us to halachically follow that exactness rather than that the "it looks : right to me" approach of Chazal? Thoughts? Li nir'eh there is value to the "in sync with nature" approach of Chazal that we lose when we think about clock time rather than the cycles of the sun (a/k/a the earth's spin). Much the way we lose a lot of what the yamim tovim mean because we aren't living in agrarian communities, and don't feel the joy of new wheat and barley when we celebrate our birth as a people, or the joy of bringing in the year's fruit when we celebrate how HQBH sustained us in the midbar. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From seinfeld at daasbooks.com Thu Dec 7 20:42:27 2017 From: seinfeld at daasbooks.com (Alexander Seinfeld) Date: Thu, 07 Dec 2017 23:42:27 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] What are the main mitzvos to focus on? Message-ID: :: So basically you are saying that the current Charedi hashkafa/lifestyle of :: Torah only and Torah learning being the ultimate purpose of life is not a :: majority opinion in Chazal and in fact you can't find anyone among Chazal :: who says this. : I intentionally avoided stating it that confrontationally, but yes. Forgive me, this may be a side issue to your main point about the 2 ways/reasons to learn, but I feel it should be clarified what you mean. How do you understand the Shulchan Aruch - Orach Chaim 155-156 - go immediately from davening to learning, make Torah your ikkar and malacha your arai; minimize work to only what you need [Be?er Heiteiv, Mishna Berura] not more??? Not mainstream? Breaking with Chazal? It?s a verbatim quotation from Gemara Berachos 35b. And maybe related to Taanis 24b (Chanina ben Dosa and his wife.) Now, let?s think sociologically for a moment. Why did the Mechaber choose to state this halacha the way he does? It seems to me that in his time (as in all times) there were Jews who were pulled to the needs and attractions of parnasa and spending the vast majority of their time and energy on it and in his view not in the proper balance. The fact that he has to state this halacha implies that not everyone was behaving that way. So the fact that not everyone behaves this way today is no proof whatsoever against the halacha. But anyone who wonders on what basis do some Orthodox Jews forsake full-time jobs and toil in Torah should read the Beur Halacha on Siman 155.1 - ?Eis lilmode? > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Fri Dec 8 02:55:11 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Fri, 8 Dec 2017 05:55:11 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] What are the main mitzvos to focus on? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20171208105511.GA13704@aishdas.org> On Thu, Dec 07, 2017 at 11:42:27PM -0500, Alexander Seinfeld via Avodah wrote: ::: So basically you are saying that the current Charedi hashkafa/lifestyle of ::: Torah only and Torah learning being the ultimate purpose of life is not a ::: majority opinion in Chazal and in fact you can't find anyone among Chazal ::: who says this. :: I intentionally avoided stating it that confrontationally, but yes. : Forgive me, this may be a side issue to your main point about the 2 : ways/reasons to learn, but I feel it should be clarified what you mean. : How do you understand the Shulchan Aruch - Orach Chaim 155-156 - go : immediately from davening to learning, make Torah your ikkar and malacha : your arai; minimize work to only what you need [Be?er Heiteiv, Mishna : Berura] not more??? You are shifting topics. I wrote about the reasons to learn, and asserted "Torah only and Torah learning being the ultimate purpose of life... you can't find anyone among Chazal who says this." Torah learning should well be the anchor of your day in comparison to earning a parnasah. (Although if one is learning rather than going to teach, other mitzvos are dochim.) But not as an ends, as a means. The hashkafah is new, the priorities not. But the new hashkafah changes the weighting to be even more in favor of learning. For example: I don't know what's going on today, but in my day Neir Yisrael / Baltimore was unique among American "yeshivish" yeshivos in encouraging talmidim to volunteer to staff kiruv shabbatonim. (Most/all YU RY were very proactively pro becoming an NCSY advisor.) The others felt that at this time in their lives, bachurim shouldn't be distracted from learning. This, despite the fact that adolescents respond better if there are peer-teachers rather than full grownups of a different generation, and the program was begging for them. This is one of the reasons JEP failed. That's the worldview of the American and Israeli "Litvisher" yeshiva. Now let's look at actual pre-war Litvisher gedolim. And I don't mean the obvious mussarists. `Would the aforementioned Meshekh Chokhmah have agreed with this decision? Is it in concert with RCV's admonition to his son? What about R' Shimon Shkop, who opens Shaarei Yosher's haqdamah with (empshasis added): Yisbarakh HaBorei Veyis'alah HaYotzeir who created us in His "Image" and in the likeness of His "Structure" VECHAYEI OLAM NATA BESOKHAINU such that our greated desire should be to benefit others to the indivindual and the masses, now and in the future, in imitation of the Creator (kevayachol). Ikkar doesn't mean "ultimate purpose", and making learning one's ultimate purpose does push one to go beyond making it the day's ikkar. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Brains to the lazy micha at aishdas.org are like a torch to the blind -- http://www.aishdas.org a useless burden. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Bechinas haOlam From micha at aishdas.org Fri Dec 8 06:11:58 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Fri, 8 Dec 2017 09:11:58 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Your Ancestors Message-ID: <20171208141158.GA20389@aishdas.org> R' Mike Gerver posted to Mail-Jewish in 1994 a request to help him collect more date to tighten an argument that odds are, every Jew alive either: - is a geir or all his ancestry are from geirim recently enough for him to know, or - descends from Rashi. (Or anyone else of that era or earlier.) See Calculations involve estimating rate of marriage across social strata, between towns, and between eidot. All Jews. Even Teimanim. (Ethiopians weren't a discussion yet, odds are no.) Well, this article makes that all the more probable: http://bigthink.com/stephen-johnson/why-youre-probably-related-to-nefertiti-and-confucius Why You're Probably Related to Nefertiti, Confucius, and Socrates December 7, 2017 by Stephen Johnson .... [J]ust how far back do humans need to go to find a common ancestor of their own: a person to whom all living people are related? The answer, for people of European descent at least, is surprisingly recent: 600 years. The common ancestor for every single person alive on the planet today, no matter where, lived approximately 3,600 years ago. That means Confucius, Nefertiti, Socrates, and any figure from ancient history that had children, is in some way your ancestor. Then, quoting Adam Rutherfore's new book, A Brief History of Everyone Who Ever Lived: "We are all special, which also means that none of us is," writes Rutherford in the book. "This is merely a numbers game. You have two parents, four grandparents, eight great-grandparents, and so on. Each generation back the number of ancestors you have doubles. But this ancestral expansion is not borne back ceaselessly into the past. If it were, your family tree when Charlemagne was Le Grand Fromage would harbor around 137,438,953,472 individuals on it -- more people than were alive then, now, or in total." So, why not? "You can be, and in fact are, descended from the same individual many times over," Rutherford writes. "Your great-great-great-great-great-grandmother might hold that position in your family tree twice, or many times, as her lines of descent branch out from her, but collapse onto you. The further back through time we go, the more these lines will coalesce on fewer individuals." The startling discovery that all Europeans might share a common ancestor who walked the Earth just 600 years ago was first proposed in 1999 by a Yale statistician named Joseph Chang. In his paper Recent Common Ancestors of All Present-Day Individuals," Chang used complex mathematical conceptslike Poisson distributions and Markov chainsto show how webbed pedigrees can overlap to produce common ancestors. If that is true of Europeans in 600 years, Jews over 800 years lo kol shekein? :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger We are great, and our foibles are great, micha at aishdas.org and therefore our troubles are great -- http://www.aishdas.org but our consolations will also be great. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rabbi AY Kook From jziring at torontotorah.com Wed Dec 6 19:40:58 2017 From: jziring at torontotorah.com (Jonathan Ziring) Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2017 22:40:58 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] The 13 middos In-Reply-To: References: <20171204222908.GA10223@aishdas.org> <20171206192317.GA12102@aishdas.org> Message-ID: [I had to edit this post significantly to fit Avodah's format constaints. -micha] Shalom, I'm touched to be asked. I have wondered about this (and have again this week due to Daf Yomi). I can't say I have strongly formed opinions on it, but the sugyot do seem to imply that these are more tendencies rather than rules, at lease re: Klal UPrat vs. Ribbui and Miut. The drashot of vavim and the like seem more absolute (X is not doresh vav). Yaakov Elman makes that point in his article on Ribbui. A few articles that deal with the topic that I've glanced through are: The Formal Development of [Kelal uPerat uKelal] Michael Chernick Tarbiz, pp. 393-410 Towards a History of "Ribbuy" in the Babylonian Talmud and Yaakov Elman Proceedings of the World Congress of Jewish Studies Vol. 11, Division C: Thought and Literature, Volume I: Rabbinic and Talmudic Literature (1993), pp. 87-94 In general, Michael Chernick and devoted much time to this. A few other relevant articles by him: The Development of Ribbuim and Mi 'utim Hermeneutics," PAAJR",1982-3. "The Use of Ribbuyim and Mi'utim in the Halakic Midrash ofR. Ishmael," JQK, 1979. "The Hermeneutic Kelal u-Ferat u-Kelal: Its History and Development," AAJR Annual Meeting, 1980 I think this will spur me to think more systematically about this. If I come up with anything, I will definitely share it. Jonathan From simon.montagu at gmail.com Sat Dec 9 08:27:13 2017 From: simon.montagu at gmail.com (Simon Montagu) Date: Sat, 9 Dec 2017 18:27:13 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Your Ancestors In-Reply-To: <20171208141158.GA20389@aishdas.org> References: <20171208141158.GA20389@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Fri, Dec 8, 2017 at 4:11 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah < avodah at lists.aishdas.org> wrote: > > http://bigthink.com/stephen-johnson/why-youre-probably- > related-to-nefertiti-and-confucius > Why You're Probably Related to Nefertiti, Confucius, and Socrates > December 7, 2017 by Stephen Johnson > .... > [J]ust how far back do humans need to go to find a common ancestor > of their own: a person to whom all living people are related? > > The answer, for people of European descent at least, is surprisingly > recent: 600 years. The common ancestor for every single person alive > on the planet today, no matter where, lived approximately 3,600 years > ago. That means Confucius, Nefertiti, Socrates, and any figure from > ancient history that had children, is in some way your ancestor. Unless I'm missing something, those last two sentences are a huge non sequitur. I have a slightly different take-away from the article: it says that everybody has a common ancestor who lived approximately 3,600 years ago. Isn't that exactly what the Torah says? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ben1456 at zahav.net.il Sat Dec 9 12:20:41 2017 From: ben1456 at zahav.net.il (Ben Waxman) Date: Sat, 09 Dec 2017 22:20:41 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Rambam Hilchot Shivtat Assur 3:3 Message-ID: Rambam Hilchot Shivtat Assur 3:3: The Rambam writes a clal: A minhag can not cancel something that is assur. A minhag can only prohibit something that is permitted. Is this rule seen as a veto or are there indeed issurim which have been become muttar via the power of minhag? From micha at aishdas.org Sat Dec 9 16:07:31 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Sat, 9 Dec 2017 19:07:31 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Your Ancestors In-Reply-To: References: <20171208141158.GA20389@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20171210000731.GB20169@aishdas.org> On Sat, Dec 09, 2017 at 06:27:13PM +0200, Simon Montagu via Avodah wrote: : > The answer, for people of European descent at least, is surprisingly : > recent: 600 years. The common ancestor for every single person alive : > on the planet today, no matter where, lived approximately 3,600 years : > ago. That means Confucius, Nefertiti, Socrates, and any figure from : > ancient history that had children, is in some way your ancestor. : Unless I'm missing something, those last two sentences are a huge non : sequitur. The author is just saying that the same model that giver the result of 600 years for Euopeans gives a result of 3,600 for all of humanity. : I have a slightly different take-away from the article: it says that : everybody has a common ancestor who lived approximately 3,600 years ago. : Isn't that exactly what the Torah says? Well, really the model says that everyone who is alive today almost certainly (this is statistics, after all) descended from everyone who was alive 3,600 who has /any/ living descendents. Not that there was one such ancestor. Gut Voch! -Micha -- Micha Berger What you get by achieving your goals micha at aishdas.org is not as important as http://www.aishdas.org what you become by achieving your goals. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Henry David Thoreau From ben1456 at zahav.net.il Sat Dec 9 12:59:26 2017 From: ben1456 at zahav.net.il (Ben Waxman) Date: Sat, 09 Dec 2017 22:59:26 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Rambam Hilchot Kiddush Hachodesh Message-ID: 1) Rambam Hilchot Kiddush Hachodesh 3:1 makes it clear that anyone who sees the new moon and can get to Jerusalem by the following evening should go. How would that work today given that basically means that every male in Israel who sees the moon should go (maybe men in Eilat who don't own a car would be patur). Were most (or even a small minority of) Israeli Jewish males above the age of 13 to look, there is no way that the Beit Din could even question all of these men, even if they only asked a couple of questions. Is there any problem in making sure that you don't see the moon? Just stay in for the evening. Rambam doesn't say that there is a chiyuv to look. Or since the Beit Din only takes testimony from trusted witnesses, can someone just say "I never got any type of certification that I am a good witness, therefore I don't need to go". Or how about having a few (say 100) men in each major city or region entrusted with the job and they would be the designated possible witnesses. 2) Rambam Hilchot Kiddush Hachodes 2:10 says clearly that once the beit din declares the new month, that is it, even if they know that they made a mistake. Yet in 3:15 and 16 Rambam writes that in the situation where no witnesses came on the 30th, if witnesses come later in the month and are able to prove that they did see the moon come out on the 29th, that month's calendar is redone. Is this not an obvious contradiction? I assume that I am reading 3:15 and 16 incorrectly or that I am getting something wrong here. 3) Later in the book Rambam goes on at length and in extreme detail about how to calculate the moon's position. He adds that we know these calculations from science and that since we no longer have a tradition about this matter from the nevi'im, it is fine to use outside sources. Seeing this made me wonder why we don't apply this rule in other areas. For example, I had read that we don't make matza from barley because we don't have a tradition as to how it takes barley to become chameitz. So why not measure it? Ben From simon.montagu at gmail.com Sat Dec 9 21:57:52 2017 From: simon.montagu at gmail.com (Simon Montagu) Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2017 07:57:52 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Your Ancestors In-Reply-To: <20171210000731.GB20169@aishdas.org> References: <20171208141158.GA20389@aishdas.org> <20171210000731.GB20169@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Sun, Dec 10, 2017 at 2:07 AM, Micha Berger wrote: > On Sat, Dec 09, 2017 at 06:27:13PM +0200, Simon Montagu via Avodah wrote: > : > The answer, for people of European descent at least, is > surprisingly > : > recent: 600 years. The common ancestor for every single person > alive > : > on the planet today, no matter where, lived approximately 3,600 > years > : > ago. That means Confucius, Nefertiti, Socrates, and any figure > from > : > ancient history that had children, is in some way your ancestor. > > : Unless I'm missing something, those last two sentences are a huge non > : sequitur. > > The author is just saying that the same model that giver the result > of 600 years for Euopeans gives a result of 3,600 for all of humanity. > > That's not the non sequitur. The non sequitur is going from "we have a common ancestor 3,600 years ago" to "Confucius and Socrates are your ancestors". Confucius and Socrates lived around 2500 years ago, and how does the author know that they had any living descendants? > : I have a slightly different take-away from the article: it says that > : everybody has a common ancestor who lived approximately 3,600 years ago. > : Isn't that exactly what the Torah says? > > Well, really the model says that everyone who is alive today almost > certainly (this is statistics, after all) descended from everyone who > was alive 3,600 who has /any/ living descendents. > Not that there was one such ancestor. > I haven't read the model, but the article you linked to talks several times about "/a/ common ancestor", "/a/" person to whom all living people are related", etc. > > Gut Voch! > -Micha > > -- > Micha Berger What you get by achieving your goals > micha at aishdas.org is not as important as > http://www.aishdas.org what you become by achieving your goals. > Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Henry David Thoreau > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From bdbradley70 at hotmail.com Sun Dec 10 14:22:59 2017 From: bdbradley70 at hotmail.com (Ben Bradley) Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2017 22:22:59 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] What are the main mitzvos to focus on? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I don't recall everything I've read on this subject of the purpose of talmud torah, but the conversation here so far seems to be missing a crucial piece, namely the transformative aspect of talmud torah on the individual learning it. The problem with the instrumental view is that it doesn't account for a number of aspects of the way chazal unanimously viewed talmud torah. If it was just about knowing how to keep the mitzvos then, I think, we'd have trouble with the following off the top of my head 1. The intensive way chazal went about talmud torah - the lack of sleep involved, the amora who sat on his hands until they bled, disappearing from family for years at a time 2. The viewing of talmud torah as a unending project 3. The depth and incisiveness of analysis expected in learning gemara. Eg being able to metaher a sheret 4. the lack of differentiation between learning issues of practical use and those which you will never need to know from a practical point of view Maybe I'm missing something, but knowing how to keep the mitzvos per se need not involve any of these. There are clear indications of the transformative nature of talmud torah in chazal, even if these aren't stated as its purpose explicitly. Perhaps there's a distinction between its purpose and the meaning of lishma. So learning torah lishma, whatever that means, is transformative, which is a primary purpose if not the only one. That would also bring talmud torah in line with the other mitzvos, since they all have a transformative benefit to the individual. It would also set it apart since it is more transformative than all the others, ie kneged kulam. It is the most transformative, and thus the most important. That said, considerations other than personal growth give priority to other mitzvos in many situations. Ben -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hankman at bell.net Mon Dec 11 06:11:22 2017 From: hankman at bell.net (hankman) Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2017 09:11:22 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Purpose of distant galaxies? Message-ID: <83F7EA9337D54E08891E46C1032C89FE@hankPC> I have just been watching a show on Discovery Science about a lay version of quantum mechanics. At one point the moderator was talking about the notion of entanglement and explained how in theory this involves the connection of entangled particles over any distance instantaneously. He then continued to say that given the big bang theory, all of existence was at a single point and then expanded (inflated) from then to the great distances, billions of light years, we witness today. But at the initial moment after the singularity, all the particles of the universe were close enough to possibly become entangled with some other, but then after the expansion, the partner entangled particle might have ended up in some distant far removed galaxy and but thereby still be related to its entangled partner particle perhaps now in our body here on Earth. I then thought back to some of the earlier discussions here on Avodah about the purpose of these distant galaxies that could never affect us here on Earth and that we did not even know existed until recently. Perhaps this possibility of entanglement with distant particles of those galaxies from the time of creation may provide some logic to the purpose of the existence of those distant galaxies? Happy Chanukah veKol tuv Chaim Manaster -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Mon Dec 11 09:33:33 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2017 12:33:33 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Rambam Hilchot Shivtat Assur 3:3 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20171211173333.GE15573@aishdas.org> On Sat, Dec 09, 2017 at 10:20:41PM +0200, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: : Rambam Hilchot Shivtat Assur 3:3: The Rambam writes a clal: A minhag : can not cancel something that is assur. A minhag can only prohibit : something that is permitted. Isn't the very definition of a minhag ta'us one that promotes doing an issur, or violating an asei? At least, violating an asei actively; I don't know if I would include a minhag not to fulfil an asei besheiv ve'al ta'aseh. That kind of thing would require more research. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Worrying is like a rocking chair: micha at aishdas.org it gives you something to do for a while, http://www.aishdas.org but in the end it gets you nowhere. Fax: (270) 514-1507 From micha at aishdas.org Tue Dec 12 13:53:43 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2017 16:53:43 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Women and Torah Study In-Reply-To: <9f94d416d3154585a6bb71a2df12c54e@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <9f94d416d3154585a6bb71a2df12c54e@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20171212215343.GA13817@aishdas.org> On Sun, Dec 03, 2017 at 06:40:43AM +0000, RJR reposted here a comment of his on a recent post on Lehrhaus: : Is encouraging intensive study of Talmud for women a community priority : or is the priority to make such study available for those who choose to : avail themselves of the opportunity? Especially if the former, where : does it stand in relation to other community priorities and how does : the answer differ from study for men? IMHO these questions have not been : sufficiently addressed. Do my concern resonate at all? Mod-Yeshivish (in contrast to other forms of MO) may argue that since learning primarily means shas and lomdus, and the iqar method for refining one's soul is learning, now that women are given the toolds to be able to make sense of Talmud, making it available to them is a community priority. To quote RALichtenstein from : What is the cardinal principle that lies at the heart, on the one hand, of Yeshiva education and, on the other hand, is the lynchpin of liberal education. It is, first and foremost, the notion that one is concerned with molding the person and only secondarily with preparing or training for the fulfillment of a certain role. John Cardinal Newman's statement, that "we are men by nature, geometrists only by chance," epitomizes this approach and it is one with respect to which, I have indicated, the Yeshiva world and the world of liberal education at its best coincide. Of course, that is not to suggest that preparing for a role, be it a domestic role, a professional role, or a communal role, is not important. It is important, but secondary. The first principle, I think, with regard to education generally, and which needs to be particularly emphasized in the field of women's education, is that first and foremost one needs to mold the person as an individual in all respects, with regard to character, personality, intellectual ability, and above all, of course, in religious terms, as an oved Hashem. ... If we ask ourselves: Here are the goals! "[leyir'ah, le'avah, la'avod, lishmor, ledavqah, lalekhet bekhol derakhav]," to fear [God], to love [God], to serve [God], to cling [to Him] to go in all His ways." What are the means? Traditionally, over the centuries, there has been a fairly sharp dichotomy precisely regarding this very issue, namely the means to be employed in relation to men versus women... This is not the occasion to examine whether that was justified historically. What is clear, however, is that notwithstanding how one judges the past retrospectively, in our present historical and social setting we need to view the teaching and the learning of girls and women as both a major challenge, as well as a primary need. ... But this is creating a role for halakhah study out of whole cloth that is really RAL's chiddush. After all, historically curricula for girls' and women did include character-shaping material, but OVERTLY so -- mussar, hashkafah and the lessons in each taken from studying Tanakh. And leave halakhah to learning the job, rather than liberal arts. And I would repeat a point made by RYGB when asked about this topic: Where is the evidence that our current boys' curriculum works so well that we're in a rush to make the curriculum for girls' more similar to it? In general, the yeshivish -- including the ModY -- take NhC shaar 4 to mean that learning refines the soul in some mystical way. Just learn, and the problem will solve itself. Whereas I personally think the data points the other way. And that the NhC intended that statement prescriptively -- true talmud Torah is learning in a way that consciously aims to refine the soul. Which is why there is all that Mussar and Middos talk around AishDas and its web site. My own inclination, and this really just translates to "my parents provided a RWMO upbrining" (with some variety thrown in in the form of school choices), would be that we can't prioritize providing talmud study for women over clear-cut chiyuvim. Talmud study should be made available, but for those women who feel a need for talmud study. Which puts me in the same camp as the LR's effective position. Women coming to kiruv with egalitarian leanings were encouraged by the LR to learn Talmud if they wish to. But you wont find a gemara class in Beis Rivka. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "And you shall love H' your G-d with your whole micha at aishdas.org heart, your entire soul, and all you own." http://www.aishdas.org Love is not two who look at each other, Fax: (270) 514-1507 It is two who look in the same direction. From micha at aishdas.org Wed Dec 13 03:30:34 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2017 06:30:34 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Rambam Hilchot Kiddush Hachodesh In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20171213113034.GB7576@aishdas.org> On Sat, Dec 09, 2017 at 10:59:26PM +0200, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: : 1) Rambam Hilchot Kiddush Hachodesh 3:1 makes it clear that anyone : who sees the new moon and can get to Jerusalem by the following : evening should go. How would that work today.... And then think what happens if the calculations were for a long month. The guy invests all that effort just to get to locked Lishkas haGazis doors. I would be frustrated. But to get to your question. I think that's a taqanah in order to insure that there is eidus. Rather than everyone saying someone else will go. There is no how that would work today, since you need a Sanhedrin to make it work. But isn't this a derabbnan, to make sure all those who see the moon don't assume someone else will go, and there ends up not having 2 kosher eidim? So, if the the next Sanhedrin finds that too many people are coming / would come and we're far from needing such a guarantee, they can repeal this din. : 2) Rambam Hilchot Kiddush Hachodes 2:10 says clearly that once the : beit din declares the new month, that is it, even if they know that : they made a mistake. Yet in 3:15 and 16 Rambam writes that in the : situation where no witnesses came on the 30th, if witnesses come : later in the month and are able to prove that they did see the moon : come out on the 29th, that month's calendar is redone. Is this not : an obvious contradiction? I assume that I am reading 3:15 and 16 : incorrectly or that I am getting something wrong here. The famous story of the calendar dispute between Rabban Gamliel and R' Yehoshua (RH 2:8-9) includes R' Aqiva saying, "Eileh mo'adei H' asher tiqre'u osam" -- bein bizmanan, bein shelo bizmanan, ein Li mo'ados ela eilu. Which is what the Rambam is saying in 2:10. He quotes R' Aqiva's prooftext. In that mishnah, both R' Gamliel and R' Yehoshua knew the metzi'us, they were arguing over whether to accept the eidim despite a flaw in their story. They may have even been arguing about the cheshbon, and whether there was a need to accept whatever eidim one had. The beginning of mishnah 9 has R' Gamliel ordering R' Yehoshua to show up "beyom haKippurim shechal lihyos *becheshbonkha*". There may be a difference between making a mistake in terms of decision-making and making one because they were working with bad or incomplete data. 2:20 is about their decision being wrong, 3:15-16 is about a lack of eidus. An error in the cheshbon or perhaps decision in general vs an error in facts. While this guess about p' 2 is less than compelling, it would seem that in p' 3 he is empowering a BD to go back to their cheshbon when they were forced by a lack of testimony to lengthen the month despite it. After all, 3:15 describes BD sitting all of the 30th, meaning wanting a short month, without witnesses comming. So I feel more comfortable with that part of the guess. Maybe R' Yehoshua would have renegged without needing R' Aqiva had other eidim arrived days later to corroborate the first two. : 3) Later in the book Rambam goes on at length and in extreme detail : about how to calculate the moon's position. He adds that we know : these calculations from science and that since we no longer have a : tradition about this matter from the nevi'im, it is fine to use : outside sources. Seeing this made me wonder why we don't apply this : rule in other areas. For example, I had read that we don't make : matza from barley because we don't have a tradition as to how it : takes barley to become chameitz. So why not measure it? But lemaaseh we don't, because we need a Sanhedrin to make a RC. For that matter, we even pad when we say Qiddush Levanah, making the one day difference irrelevent. So what halakhah lemaaseh is the Rambam talking about, that relies on the calculations? Giving license to the next Sanhedrin? I am not even sure we know the scientific difference between chameitz and sirchah. Or even if there is one. Why is dough made with 100% juice a different thing than if the juice were diluted, or if it were all water? If we don't know what it is we should measure, how can we use science to measure it? I think it has to be something like that, because the lack of barley matzah isn't a modern issue. And the ability to measure rising doesn't require some modern measuring equipment. So, why was the question left unsolved by centuries of acharonim if it were resolable? Similarly, we know the medical communities' various definitions of death. (They're all pretty similar.) But we don't know if halachic misah would use the same definition. But even those who stick with heart death would use the latest scientific tools to determine whether or not the person had their last heartbeat (lo aleinu). So I would posit the issue is a chiluq between using science to determine the physical state vs having a pesaq as to what physical state needs determining. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Like a bird, man can reach undreamed-of micha at aishdas.org heights as long as he works his wings. http://www.aishdas.org But if he relaxes them for but one minute, Fax: (270) 514-1507 he plummets downward. - Rav Yisrael Salanter From JRich at sibson.com Wed Dec 13 21:39:28 2017 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2017 05:39:28 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] S"A Principles Message-ID: Question: I note that the S"A O"C 158:10 (Hand Washing) quotes the Gemara (R'Chisda) in support of using more than the minimum required amount of water for hand washing. Given the Mechaber's goal that the Shulchan Aruch be a halachic summary of his magnum opus, the Beit Yosef, does anyone know of a theory as to why the Mechaber in some cases quotes Talmudic sources (or Torah or Rishonim) and in others just states the halacha? Any study of the frequency of such quotes? KT 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: From akivagmiller at gmail.com Wed Dec 13 19:40:54 2017 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2017 22:40:54 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Rambam Hilchot Kiddush Hachodesh Message-ID: . (I don't know if this post will help understand Kiddush Hachodesh or not. If yes, I'm glad I could help. If not, I apologize for the distraction.) R' Micha Berger asked: > I am not even sure we know the scientific difference between > chameitz and sirchah. Or even if there is one. Why is dough > made with 100% juice a different thing than if the juice were > diluted, or if it were all water? If we don't know what it is > we should measure, how can we use science to measure it? I agree that WE don't know the scientific difference between chametz and sirchon, but it seems clear to me that such a difference does exist, and Chazal understood it. See the very beginning of Yerushalmi Challah, page 1b1 in the ArtScroll English version. "Badku Umatz'u" - They tested various grains, to see what happens when their flour is mixed with water. They found that The Five Grains underwent "chimutz", while *most* other grains fermented in the manner called "sirchon". (For some grains, the tests were inconclusive.) There is no Kabala From Sinai that defines these processes in terms of the grains, the liquids, or anything else. If you knew what to look for, you could look at a dough and tell whether it was chometz - without even knowing the ingredients. > I think it has to be something like that, because the lack of > barley matzah isn't a modern issue. And the ability to measure > rising doesn't require some modern measuring equipment. So, > why was the question left unsolved by centuries of acharonim > if it were resolvable? The problem isn't in the equipment. It's knowing what to look for. The tamay birds are all listed in Parshas Shmini. You don't need a degree in genetics to determine whether the bird in your hand is on the list or not. The only problem is that no one today knows what those words mean. Just like we don't really understand the difference between chimutz and sirchon. And no amount of pilpul among the "centuries of acharonim" is gonna help. Akiva Miller From micha at aishdas.org Thu Dec 14 03:27:18 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2017 06:27:18 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Rambam Hilchot Kiddush Hachodesh In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20171214112718.GA11145@aishdas.org> On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 10:40:54PM -0500, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : See the very beginning of Yerushalmi Challah, page [16]b1 in the : ArtScroll English version. "Badku Umatz'u" - They tested various : grains, to see what happens when their flour is mixed with water. They : found that The Five Grains underwent "chimutz", while *most* other : grains fermented in the manner called "sirchon". (For some grains, the : tests were inconclusive.) (Artscroll must have just one page of 16b, since that's near the bottom of the amud.) Assuming you understand the machloqes aa being about metzi'us. Which I did not. Aside from a reluctance to pin machloqesin on matters of fact even in the Y-mi, where there are cases it seems unaviodable. There are other problems: 1- EVERY other grain but these 5 produced something in between chimutz and sirchon that only R Yochanan b Nuri thought looked like chimutz? Not one of the experiments had another dissenter? 2- Why wouldn't later generations try to get clarity by repeating the experiment? As I took it (and wrote as much in prior iterations), R Yochanan b Nuri and the chakhamim were arguing over where the line is between chimutz and sirchon. They agreed on what happened when you mix a grain other than the 5 with water -- the gemara describes the experimental result as "ushe'ar kol haminim einan ba'in liydei matzah vechameitz elas sirchon." Then it continues the machloqes (running onto 17a), this time asking about qeramis in particular. And the gemara asks: Why they don't just check it? The first check's results were written open-and-shut. Here we are given RYBN differing obseration. As I took it, RYBN disagreed only in that he considers sirchon prohibited as chameitz. They argue about which side of the line sirchon is on because the machloqes is about where the line is. Which is why the gemara is so clear cut on the first test. And this is is why I lunped it together with other cases of halakhah deciding where in the gray area set of physical cases halakhah draws the line. : There is no Kabala From Sinai that defines these processes in terms of : the grains, the liquids, or anything else. If you knew what to look : for, you could look at a dough and tell whether it was chometz - : without even knowing the ingredients. ... and we don't know what to look for. :> I think it has to be something like that, because the lack of :> barley matzah isn't a modern issue. And the ability to measure :> rising doesn't require some modern measuring equipment. So, :> why was the question left unsolved by centuries of acharonim :> if it were resolvable? : The problem isn't in the equipment. It's knowing what to look for. As I said, it "has to be something like that", since the physical question could have been resolved, or at the very least repeatedly attempted to be resolved. You appear to be arguing against the hava amina I took pains to reject. But, unlike rice, where miSinai we could have known whether its sitchon qualifies as chameitz or not or the machloqes could have arisen later, with barley we know the uncertainty is caused by lost information. : The tamay birds are all listed in Parshas Shmini. You don't need a : degree in genetics to determine whether the bird in your hand is on : the list or not.,,, Ironically, defining a "min" is not settled halakhah either. Ask the Israelis debating whether we know that any breed of chicken other than the breakel chicken (or, I would guess the American campine) is halachically chicken and within the mesorah. Or the counter-arguers, who want to pasl braekel chickens... I am not saying I understand the metzi'us of the debate, but it does highlight how hard it is to draw halachic lines in the physical sand. So, even if we could translate the name of every min in parashas Shemini, we could still not know whether the bird in my hand is included in one of the minim on the list or not. As we could argue whether the genetic test found something on one side of the line defining the min, or the other -- because we don't know where the line is. A lichtikn un freilechn Chanukah! -Micha -- Micha Berger When we are no longer able to change a situation micha at aishdas.org -- just think of an incurable disease such as http://www.aishdas.org inoperable cancer -- we are challenged to change Fax: (270) 514-1507 ourselves. - Victor Frankl (MSfM) From Aryeh.Frimer at biu.ac.il Thu Dec 14 05:03:04 2017 From: Aryeh.Frimer at biu.ac.il (Aryeh Frimer) Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2017 13:03:04 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Tevilat Kelim Message-ID: Has anyone seen a discussion regarding one who said "al haTevila" (which women recite when going to mikva) instead of "Al tevilat Kelim." Is the Berakha valid be-Di-avad? A Freilichen Hanukah!! -------------------------------------------------- Dr. Aryeh A. Frimer Ethel and David Resnick Professor Emeritus of Active Oxygen Chemistry Chemistry Dept., Bar-Ilan University Ramat Gan 5290002, ISRAEL E-mail (office): Aryeh.Frimer at biu.ac.il Homepage http://ch.biu.ac.il/frimer E-mail (home): FrimerA at zahav.net.il From micha at aishdas.org Sun Oct 1 11:10:33 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Sun, 1 Oct 2017 14:10:33 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Writing on Yom Tov In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20171001181033.GC31024@aishdas.org> On Sat, Sep 30, 2017 at 10:18:58PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : So... back to my question: To whatever extent "writing" in the "Book of : Life" is a melacha, should it matter whether it is Shabbos or Yom Tov? Before we take the Barditcher Rebbe's words too literally, let us remember that wind routinely blows things to roll more than 4 amos on a reshus harabbim, lightning ignites trees on Shabbos, people die on Shabbos, etc... IOW, first explain to me what a claim that the RBSO avoids melakhos means altogether in light of the evidence, and then perhaps I could participate in your intended conversation. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger One who kills his inclination is as though he micha at aishdas.org brought an offering. But to bring an offering, http://www.aishdas.org you must know where to slaughter and what Fax: (270) 514-1507 parts to offer. - R' Simcha Zissel Ziv From akivagmiller at gmail.com Sun Oct 1 17:52:44 2017 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Sun, 1 Oct 2017 20:52:44 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Not hadar is pasul Message-ID: . This thread may be running into a vocabulary problem. My understanding is that "hadar" and "mehudar" mean two different things, and some people tend to confuse the two. "Hadar" refers to the absolute minimum requirements, without which the minim are posul, and "mehudar" refers to things which Chazal consider as making the minim even more beautiful. "Hadar" is required, and "mehudar" is desirable. I was not able to find a source for this in my seforim, but a post from R' Moshe Feldman in Avodah 10:9 (fifteen years ago) seems to support it: > The chiluk between psulei hadar (learned from the word "hadar") > and the idea of buying a mehudar esrog--deriving from the din > of zeh Keli v'anveihu (and applicable to other mitzvos as well) > is discussed at length in Mikra'ei Kodesh (Succos vol 2) siman > 26, esp. p. 119 (quote from Raavad) and pp. 122-123 in Harirei > Kodesh. It would seem from his discussion that buying a mehudar > esrog has no relationship to the word "hadar." Of course, there are many differing views about what is in each category, and this will vary by posek, by first day / not first day, and by lechatchila / bdieved. I'm just explaining the definitions of these easily-confused terms. Akiva Miller From zev at sero.name Sun Oct 1 23:02:00 2017 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2017 02:02:00 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Not hadar is pasul In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <454d729c-5e9d-e0b0-d0cb-f625592cd49f@sero.name> On 01/10/17 20:52, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > This thread may be running into a vocabulary problem. My understanding > is that "hadar" and "mehudar" mean two different things, and some > people tend to confuse the two. > > "Hadar" refers to the absolute minimum requirements, without which the > minim are posul, and "mehudar" refers to things which Chazal consider > as making the minim even more beautiful. "Hadar" is required, and > "mehudar" is desirable. I don't think they're two very different things, they're just degrees of the same thing. From "pri etz hadar" we learn that beauty is a base requirement, at least for the first day. If it's not beautiful it's not kosher. From "zeh keli ve'anvehu" we learn that we should want all mitzvos, including this one, to be as beautiful as we can make them, given our resources. But baseline beauty itself requires more than the bare minimum that would otherwise apply; an esrog that is exactly as big as an egg fits the basic shiur, but the poskim think it obvious that to do the bare minimum is not beautiful, so they say hadar means it must be at least a bit bigger, if possible. If it's not possible, then we make do with the bare shiur. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From micha at aishdas.org Mon Oct 2 03:58:53 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2017 06:58:53 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] expensive etrog In-Reply-To: <2c96c2fe-0e11-f9ca-66d5-28e79f983bbb@zahav.net.il> References: <2c96c2fe-0e11-f9ca-66d5-28e79f983bbb@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <20171002105852.GB30968@aishdas.org> On Fri, Sep 29, 2017 at 02:05:15PM +0200, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: : In OH 656 the Mechaber writes that if one is shopping for an etrog : and sees two etrogim, one more mehudar than the other, you need to : buy the mehudar (either it is mitzvah or possibly a chiyuv). : However, this only applies if the mehudar etrog is no more than 33% : more expensive. The language that the Mechaber uses in the "yesh : omrim" is "ein meyakrim oto yoter m'shlish".... There is a machloqes whether the shelish is milevar (Ran, arguing from the Rif's silence, on Rif Sukkah 16a; Yam shel Shelomom #24), in which case it's 50% -- 1/3 of the total 150%; or if the shelish is milegav (Rosh 1:7), i.e. 1/3 in the Western sense, with a total of 4/3 the original price. The SA (OC 656:1) holds like the Rosh, lequla, but accoring to the BY, he was doing so only on the ground of safeiq derabbanan lequla. Hiddur mitzvah is derabbanan. My first thought was -- what? It's a word in the pasuq WRT esrog -- "peri eitz hadar"! That looks more like peshat than asmachta for a derabbanan! But I realized something. Even though this din is being discussed WRT esrog, the kelal of kehadeir bemitzvah ad shelish is not specific to 4 minim. As in Rashi (9b "behidur") invoking "ze keili ve'anveihu" to tell you to buy the more expensive ST if it is up to shelish more pricey than your other choice. (So that according to Rashi, if you have only two choices -- mehudas or very mehudar, and they differ by less than a shelish, you are to by the very mehudar. Tosafos disagree. This tangent is discussed in the Shitah Mequbetzer.) Anyway, the SA calling milegav a qula implies that he sees up to 1/3 as a chiyuv derabbanan, and beyond could well be reshus. If it were reshus up to a shelish and assur beyond that, then he'd be making lesser expenditures assur -- a chumerah. Personally, given the number of Jews who wouldn't spend the money on a 4 minim set, I like spending the 1/3 exactly, and using any other money I wish to use to fulfill the mitzvah of 4 minim to subsidize someone else's. (Looking at the archives, it seems I've tried marketing this idea most years since 1999.) Of course, there are so many Jews who can't afford yom tov, and I'd like to help with that.... In the end, the calculus of how to triage that money can get SO difficult. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger For those with faith there are no questions. micha at aishdas.org For those who lack faith there are no answers. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yaakov of Radzimin Fax: (270) 514-1507 From basserh at queensu.ca Wed Oct 4 12:21:12 2017 From: basserh at queensu.ca (Herbert Basser) Date: Wed, 4 Oct 2017 19:21:12 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] RE Expensive etrog inter alia Message-ID: There is yerushalmi Peah 1:1 where someone had the ugliest etrog but bragged and showed it to everyone saying it was the most beautiful etrog in the whole world. It took him just a second to purchase it without really checking it for hiddurim-- he didnt waste his valuable resources (time) on petty matters but learned instead--that was its incredible beauty for him. also see shmos rabba 30:9 for hashem's observance of halacha (I have a discussion of the inyan on reseachrgate.net) Hag Sameach! zvi -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From zev at sero.name Sat Oct 7 18:11:15 2017 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Sat, 7 Oct 2017 21:11:15 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] RE Expensive etrog inter alia In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 04/10/17 15:21, Herbert Basser via Avodah wrote: > There is yerushalmi Peah 1:1 where someone had the ugliest etrog but > bragged and showed it to everyone saying it was the most beautiful etrog > in the whole world. It took him just a second to purchase it without > really checking it for hiddurim-- he didnt waste his valuable resources > (time) on petty matters but learned instead--that was its incredible > beauty for him. Where in that halacha is this? I couldn't find it, and also searched the entire perek for the word "etrog" and it doesn't seem to exist (though "lulav" appears twice). -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From hmaryles at mail.yahoo.com Sat Oct 7 23:54:54 2017 From: hmaryles at mail.yahoo.com (Harry Maryles) Date: Sun, 8 Oct 2017 09:54:54 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] going to the amud In-Reply-To: <9d0df5d1c05c43e297d3055f6e617065@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <9d0df5d1c05c43e297d3055f6e617065@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <369A143A-9C11-4243-93D2-7F756A3D147A@yahoo.com> On Oct 8, 2017, at 5:10 AM, Rich, Joel wrote: > I note the following practices at a chareidi shul in RBS which has > multiple minyanim You must be talking about Maasas Mordechai. That is where I've been Davening since I got here just before Yom Kippur. During Chol Hamoed, I will be davening shachris at the Vasiken minyan (6:10am). My son Davens there. If you are at that minyan, come on over and say hello. > At the appointed starting time for each minyan, there > is often not a "volunteer" to lead the services. The amount of time > that it takes to start varies as everyone looks at each other trying to > influence someone to start. If there is a young bar mitzvah boy, he is > often sent for mincha/maariv. > I'm not sure what the community thinking is... To answer your question, I just asked my son about it. He said it's just a practical matter. Most boys are more willing to go to the Amud. All of the married men that are there just shake off the requests to be the Shaliach Tzibur for some reason. HM From ben1456 at zahav.net.il Sun Oct 8 12:40:42 2017 From: ben1456 at zahav.net.il (Ben Waxman) Date: Sun, 08 Oct 2017 21:40:42 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] going to the amud In-Reply-To: <9d0df5d1c05c43e297d3055f6e617065@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <9d0df5d1c05c43e297d3055f6e617065@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <5deb9535-86be-8ea7-4561-242363c8eb92@zahav.net.il> I saw similar practices during Shacharit when I used to go to Sadigora in Jerusalem. However, often the teen would quit right before starting chazarat hashaz. That always got interesting. Ben On 10/8/2017 4:10 AM, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: > I note the following practices at a chareidi shul in RBS which has > multiple minyanim: At the appointed starting time for each minyan, > there is often not a ?volunteer? to lead the services. The amount of > time that it takes to start varies as everyone looks at each other > trying to influence someone to start. If there is a young bar mitzvah > boy, he is often sent for mincha/maariv. > I?m not sure what the community thinking is, perhaps humility to avoid > the amud, but I?m struck by the amount of bittul torah caused and > wonder how this trade-off was decided upon. I also wonder about why > the practice of sending youngsters up developed given the S?A?s psak > concerning the priorities for a chazzan. Thoughts? From micha at aishdas.org Sun Oct 8 15:50:13 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Sun, 8 Oct 2017 18:50:13 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] going to the amud In-Reply-To: <9d0df5d1c05c43e297d3055f6e617065@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <9d0df5d1c05c43e297d3055f6e617065@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20171008225013.GB19523@aishdas.org> On Sun, Oct 08, 2017 at 02:10:14AM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : At the appointed starting time for each minyan, there : is often not a "volunteer" to lead the services. The amount of time : that it takes to start varies as everyone looks at each other trying : to influence someone to start. If there is a young bar mitzvah boy, : he is often sent for mincha/maariv. Going backwards (who ever said I am a chakham bound to answer al rishon rishon?)... The kid is not as likely to declien the gabbai, because an adult carries more authority in the kid's eyes. Besides, it's good practice. As for the adults declining... Two possiblities, and I would bet that in most cases, they both come into play. 1- The more positive issue is that there is actually a din to decline the amud, accepting only on the third request. I have no idea how this was expected to be implemented in a minyan where people are expected to know the din. A rachmanus on the gabbaim! Still, we see an ethic of tzenius, and halevai people internalize it! 2- The following is Ashkenazocentric. The way we teach davening, it's really a personal affair. A person is encouraged to go as slowly as he needs, having his own kavvanos. The notion of tefillah betzibbur is layered on top of that, but not in a way that explains what that means about how I daven. That means that being shatz becomes a tircha, a call to say the words in a manner that robs me of any chance of getting value out of tefillah in the ways I was taught how. So of course men (who aren't cowed by being asked by a grown-up) choose to decline! Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger You will never "find" time for anything. micha at aishdas.org If you want time, you must make it. http://www.aishdas.org - Charles Buxton Fax: (270) 514-1507 From JRich at sibson.com Sat Oct 7 19:10:14 2017 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Sun, 8 Oct 2017 02:10:14 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] going to the amud Message-ID: <9d0df5d1c05c43e297d3055f6e617065@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> I note the following practices at a chareidi shul in RBS which has multiple minyanim: At the appointed starting time for each minyan, there is often not a "volunteer" to lead the services. The amount of time that it takes to start varies as everyone looks at each other trying to influence someone to start. If there is a young bar mitzvah boy, he is often sent for mincha/maariv. I'm not sure what the community thinking is, perhaps humility to avoid the amud, but I'm struck by the amount of bittul torah caused and wonder how this trade-off was decided upon. I also wonder about why the practice of sending youngsters up developed given the S"A's psak concerning the priorities for a chazzan. Thoughts? GT 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: From zev at sero.name Sat Oct 7 20:42:36 2017 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Sat, 7 Oct 2017 23:42:36 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] going to the amud In-Reply-To: <9d0df5d1c05c43e297d3055f6e617065@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <9d0df5d1c05c43e297d3055f6e617065@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: On 07/10/17 22:10, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: > I note the following practices at a chareidi shul in RBS which has > multiple minyanim: At the appointed starting time for each minyan, there > is often not a ?volunteer? to lead the services. [...] Thoughts? My first thought is to be happy that this shul doesn't have enough avelim to make the issue moot. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From basserh at queensu.ca Sun Oct 8 15:32:52 2017 From: basserh at queensu.ca (Herbert Basser) Date: Sun, 8 Oct 2017 22:32:52 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] RE Expensive etrog inter alia In-Reply-To: References: , Message-ID: You're right-- I thought it was y peah. But obviously not. A number of years ago I tired to discover when the first mention of looking at many esrogim was. I remember looking at the yerushalmi and its commentaries and thought it was there --obviously not. Now I have no idea-- ________________________________ : Zev Sero on behalf of Zev Sero Sent: October 7, 2017 9:11 PM To: The Avodah Torah Discussion Group Cc: Herbert Basser Subject: Re: [Avodah] RE Expensive etrog inter alia On 04/10/17 15:21, Herbert Basser via Avodah wrote: > There is yerushalmi Peah 1:1 where someone had the ugliest etrog but > bragged and showed it to everyone saying it was the most beautiful etrog > in the whole world. It took him just a second to purchase it without > really checking it for hiddurim-- he didnt waste his valuable resources > (time) on petty matters but learned instead--that was its incredible > beauty for him. Where in that halacha is this? I couldn't find it, and also searched the entire perek for the word "etrog" and it doesn't seem to exist (though "lulav" appears twice). -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Mon Oct 9 14:45:50 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2017 17:45:50 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Critique of the OU paper on leadership/ordination for women In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20171009214550.GA4315@aishdas.org> On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 03:17:36PM -0500, Noam Stadlan via Avodah wrote: : JOFA has published my critique of the paper comissioned by the OU on the : topic of leadership/ordination for women.... Speaking of the full essay . Your article has proven to be a slow read for me. I keep on being pulled into "polemic mode" (apologies for talking like a programmer, but...) and when I do, I stop, put it down, and wait until I could give it a fairer read, to actually hear what you're trying to say rather than just listening for points to refute. Here are my first set of reactions. Of course, they're all points of disagreement; trying to take the time to understand what you were writing before objecting doesn't mean I stopped objecting. 1- You open with Earlier this year, 7 highly respected rabbis authored a position paper on the ordination of women and on the possibility of women serving as clergy. [1] Individually and collectively, they represent great learning, personal piety, and years of leadership. It would seem presumptuous for someone who will never achieve anything near their learning or stature to comment or critique. However, no one person or group has a monopoly on facts and logic. And, as will be demonstrated, Torah learning sometimes is not the sole or even dominant factor in a person's opinion on these issues. There appears to be an underlyuing assumption that halachic arguments, even meta-halachic ones, are entirely formal, rather than containing a strong element of ineffible art. (See #2, below) If halakhah deals with determinations like that of which poetic forms "sound right" then their "great learning, personal piety, and years of leadership" provide experience at the art of pesaq that your response simply lacks. The gemara requires shimush before one attempts to pasqen. A poseiq needs not only the abstract facts and logic, but also the skill he can only pick up with experience. Recently, my Arukh haShulachan Yomi schedule brought me to EhE 145:6. The topic is whether a shechiv-meira who gives a gett "meihayom im meisi" made the gett as-of the moment of giving, a colloquial use of "today", or if we cannot assume the gett is chal before the end of the day (R' Tam in Tosafos 72b). R' Elchanan (Tos' ad loc) says "nachon lehachmir". The AhS's assessment of the "facts and logic" leads him to conclude "vehagam chumerah yeseirah hi". And yet he continues to close the se'if with "mikol maqom chalalilah lehaqeil bedavar sheR' Tam nistapeiq bo". RYME knew that a decision of a more skilled artisan is too likely correct even in the face of his own reasoning. And there are other factors that go into halachic decisions other than the merits of the argument -- both those we can articulate and those someone could only feel by practice. Things like acharei rabim lehatos. I am not saying defer to the OU's panel because they outnumber you. I am just pointing out that logical argument isn't the only source of legal authority. Another, more relevant, is nispasheit bechol yisrael (see #8, below). The notion that your paper is of value beyond lehalakhah velo lemaaseh is an example of the American valuation of autonomy that can itself be at odds with ancient AND mesoretic values. (See #7, about not framing the discussion in terms of rights or privileges.) 2- You offer your own translation of Mesorah, which is only valid if you can show that's how the authors of the paper intended the term. >From your pg 4: > We can broadly define it as the content of our tradition that is > passed from one generation to another. That tradition contains Mitzvot > and opinion on the value of Mitzvot. Frequently a situation occurs > where one must choose between emphasizing one mitzvah or a different > mitzvah. Our Mesorah therefore contains not only the Mitzvot, but also > attitudes or values that help us choose between Mitzvot when they come > into conflict. One could cogently argue that the values are in fact > Mitzvot in and of themselves, but for the purpose of this discussion that > is a distinction without a difference. Ultimately what this analysis > is concerned with is how, within the confines of our legal tradition, > are values embraced or shunted to the side. However, RYBS and RHS both use the term mesorah to refer to the ineffible side of the art of pesaq. I argue this with examples at http://www.torahmusings.com/2015/08/what-does-masorah-mean I therefore think it is likely the sense intended by the entire OU Panel. Or at the very least (not that I want to fully concede this, but have to admit it's plausible) heavily colored by this notion. Skipping the somwhat longer quote from RYBS, here are quotes I had found from RHS, one of the panel members: Jewish Action, Fall 1910: Mesorah is not primarily a corpus of knowledge to master but a process of accessing a chain of student-teacher relationships that reaches back to Sinai. Moshe received the Torah and transmitted it to his student, Yehoshua, who in turn taught it to his students and so on, continuing through today. The nature of transmission of the mesorah is instruction from a rebbe to his student. We connect to the mesorah, to the sacred structure of laws, beliefs and attitudes, through our teachers. And a bit further in the article, "Who Is Authorized to Institute Change?": Changes in practice require delicate evaluations that only a master Torah scholar, a gadol baTorah, can properly conduct. Only someone with a broad knowledge and a deep understanding of the corpus of halachah, with an intimate familiarity with both the letter and the spirit of the law, with a mastery of both the rules and the attitudes of the mesorah, can determine when a change is acceptable or even required. The more wide-reaching the proposed change, the greater the expertise required to approve it. The evaluator must not only be a master of the mesorah, but he must also be able to consider new practices based solely on values internal to the mesorah, removing external influences from the deliberation. Rav Schachter then applies this topic to feminism itself in a teshuvah: Indeed, the Rav would often say (see drasha to Parshas Korach), that every person must recognize that he needs a Rav or a Rebbe. Even a Talmid Chochom whose Rebbe had passed away must constantly ask himself in truth (when they present questions to him) what his Rebbe would have said in such a scase, and what stance he would have taken.... Still, most of your examples of how change was permitted despite mesorah would be valid even if you were discussing the same topic I believe the authors to whom you're responding are. I think, though, your response would have been stronger if it reflected our discussions both my Torah Musings post and here. 3- But you shift criteria for legitimate change in moral value. Page 2: This paper will illustrate that 'modern values' are intrinsically neither 2 good nor bad, and that our Mesorah has always incorporated 'modern values' that found resonance in the Mesorah. Furthermore, according to great and highly respected Modern Orthodox authorities, a hallmark of Modern Orthodoxy is the willingness to acknowledge some 'modern values' as previously under-recognized religious values. I think you're again arguing against a point the OU paper isn't making. They aren't saying there is a problem with appropriating 'modern values' in-and-of itself, but that there is a problem with changing halakhah to fit 'modern values' simply because they are the values living in the modern world means being immersed in. What happened to checking for that "resonance in the Mesorah"? This being another phrasing of my origin objection here on Avodah from the days of the initial announcement of Yeshivat Maharat. I do not see discussion of how we know that this is a change the values of the Torah would imply are positive. Regardless of the outcome of that discussion, can the change be legitimate without that procedural step? Anyway, you tone down the need for resonance when you open the door to assessing for yourself which values count. From the closing paragraph of section I, on mesorah, pg 13: ... The major issue is distinguishing between timeless values and ancient values. As has been demonstrated, our Mesorah over time, consciously or unconsciously, has addressed the perceived conflict between ancient values and modern values. Certainly there are modern values that have been appropriately rejected. Frequently however, ancient values have been rejected or perhaps more accurately assigned a reduced role of importance. And the modern values have been the impetus for the re-evaluation. At this point, I fear, the hunt for resonance goes out the window. IIUC, you are making the case that resonance need only be between actual Torah values, and not all ancient values actually qualify. This is actually more problematic given your definition of Mesorah than the one I think the OU's authors intended. After all, if mesorah is a mimetic transmisison of values, than any ancient value is mesoretic. But the problem I have with this statement is that it reads like you're saying that (1) we need to assess which Torah values are real, and therefore which do not bow to movern values; and (2) we use said modern values to drive that assessment. That can't be your intent. Please clarify. Continuing the paragraph from where I left off: As discussed in the Part II, the Halakhic arguments, taken at face value, are in favor of ordination for women. The values of eliminating unnecessary restrictions, encouraging full expression of potential to serve the community, fairness, and others also point towards ordination. There are specific Halakhic restrictions in place governing the behavior of men and women. The question that needs to be answered is: What timeless principles (or values) are served by imposing restrictions on women that are not justified by a fair reading of the Halacha and the sources? Are they truly Timeless and justifiably dominant in our Mesorah, or just ancient? ... If I were to use halakhah to make that determination, I would ask whether those "specific Halakhic restrictions" that were historically / traditionally explained in terms of those ancient values can be otherwise explained. Since they do appear to be of the same cloth, this is a sizable burden of proof on your part. This is the challenge in the OU paper you quote on pg 29: Gender differences have, historically, been particularly evident in the arena of public service. We believe that these distinctions are not merely a relic of times bygone; instead, they reflect a Torah ethos -- a /Mesorah/ -- of different avenues and emphases by which men and women are to achieve identical goals -- the service of G-d and the perpetuation of the Jewish people. 4- You cite and dismiss "nashim daatan kalos", but do not note that it's part of a richer picture of gender differences alongside "binah yeseirah nitenah lahen". 5- You quote RAL at the bottom of pg 8, an essay about using English Literary sources to enhance and color values that we cannot find in our own tradition: Nor should we be deterred by the illusion that we can find everything we need within our own tradition. As Arnold insisted, one must seek "the best that has been thought and said in the world," and if, in many areas, much of that best is of foreign origin, we should expand our horizons rather than exclude it. He is talking about broadening the search in the case of silence; that we can learn more from TIDE than Torah alone. A discussion of what to do when we can't "find everything we need within in our Tradition" has nothing to to with real or apparent conflicts when we do find an answer -- ancient or traditional -- before looking elsewhere. 6- You wuote R/Dr Shalom Carmy, describing R Eliezer Berkovitz, that his moral ends derive from internal Jewish sources.dissatisfaction with mainstream Halakhah regarding women is rooted, not in the pressures of contemporary egalitarianism, but in his judgment about biblical conceptions of justice, While that may well be true of REB, it has to be actually be shown that the same is true of Torah observant Jews who join an organization with the word "feminism" in its name. You write: The authors of the paper in fact state something quite egalitarian: The Torah affirms the absolute equal value of men and women as individuals and as ovdei Hashem. This is not the view of the Talmud. The Mishnah (Horiyot 13:1) states: "A man takes precedence over a woman, in matters concerning the saving of life... a Cohen takes precedence over a Levi...." Clearly the lives are not of equal value in the eyes of the Talmud. Arguments about the validity of what you think the misnhah is "clearly" saying aside... You are treating equality of value as synonymous with egalitarianism. The people you are responding to do not. They view is as more akin to the implication of JOFA's talking about "feminism" -- seeking value in the same sorts of roles and activities. A square can be equal in area to a triangle without insisting the square and the triangle are congruent. 7- "Usena es harabbanus". Leadership isn't about my "desire for maximal participation within Halacha", as you put it in a sentence shortly before the previous quote (pg 10). It's about my duties toward the community. Your entire phrasing of the discussion in terms of right or privileges, people getting an opportunity, depriving of that opportunity being unjust (as you present REB's position), is itself a HUGE drift from how halakhah even discusses values; never mind the content of that discussion. Self-expression is like the tassles emerging from the windings of the tzitzis. (RSRH's metaphor in CW vol 3.) It is how we express ourselves within the framework of Torah; but not the windings themselves. What makes me a fan of Bach's music is his ability to conform to the strict structural rules of the music of his era. And yet he still produced pieces that could express sublime religious passion or Majesty. (Until Beethoven invented Conservative Judaism. ) Halakhah's role is to channel such expression constructively -- like the windings of the tzitzis. As RSRH continues, there is a reason why the free part of the tassle is ideally twice was long as the wound portion; this metaphor isn't against expression. The second you frame halakhah in terms of every getting their fair opportunity, I hear an evaluation based on a framework very alien to an internally resonant analysis. 9- Somewhat more tangentially, but it's the first case of something I might raise other examples of in a future email. (Assuming I ever want to go retail rather than stick to meta-issues.) On pg 3, fn 3: There are other stated facts in the OU paper that require discussion but are beyond the scope of this paper. For example, one of the points emphasized in the OU paper is the issue of women as ritual slaughterers (shochtim). Some authorities such as R. Jacob Landau and R. Moshe Isserles wrote that since women did not do it, there was a custom for women not to do so. But that was factually erroneous. "Female ritual slaughterers were to be found in most of the Jewish Diasporas... In Renaissance Italy, the phenomenon of shohatot was very common. Another source also documents that female shochtim were found in areas of Italy where they adequately educated. See Grossman, Avraham... I am willing to agree with the conclusion that the Agur and the Rama were wrong on the historical facts, and simply didn't know what was going on in other parts of the golah. Still... You don't touch the point the OU paper cites it for -- that the Rama, a halachic source we cannot simply ignore -- is one of a number of sources that WERE willing to suggest that a practice being absent from the mesorah can mean there is a mesorah that it ought to be absent. That statement bothers me too. But because you dismissed the quote based on a tangent, you don't address the central problem it raises! Perhaps there'll be more after I really read section II onward. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "I think, therefore I am." - Renne Descartes micha at aishdas.org "I am thought about, therefore I am - http://www.aishdas.org my existence depends upon the thought of a Fax: (270) 514-1507 Supreme Being Who thinks me." - R' SR Hirsch From akivagmiller at gmail.com Mon Oct 9 09:44:27 2017 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2017 12:44:27 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Eruv Tavshilin - who makes it? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: My wife and I have recently discovered that among our friends, it is invariably the husband who makes the Eruv Tavshilin. This surprises us, and we are wondering what other families do, and if there are any sources for one preference or the other. Essentially, the Eruv Tavshilin means that in this particular instance, the Shabbos cooking cannot wait for Friday, but must be done on Erev Yom Tov too. With such an intimate connection to the Shabbos cooking, it was intuitively obvious to both my wife and myself that this is NOT similar to other mitzvos (mezuza is a good example) which might be done by the husband for gender-role reasons. Rather, it is the beginning of the cooking, and should therefore be done by whoever does the cooking. In our family, that's the wife. Eruv Tavshilin was not assigned to each and every individual, like kiddush was. It is a reminder. Granted that the rishonim have varying explanations of this mitzvah, but it seems that to all of these explanations, the object of this reminding is the person who does the cooking. So my question to the chevra is: In your family, who makes the eruv, and why? And do any sources discuss this? Note: I admit there's a certain weakness in everything that I've written above. Namely, the idea that one can rely on the Eruv Tavshilin that was made by the rav of the town. Let's set aside the fact that this is not the best way of doing the eruv, and that various conditions are imposed on one who wants to rely on it. Let's focus on the fact that it is valid *at* *all*. How does the eruv made by someone outside of my home help me? What sort of *reminder* does his eruv provide? I have never understood this, nor have I heard any explanation of it, only assertions that it does work. Any help in this area would be appreciated. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From michaelpoppers at gmail.com Mon Oct 9 18:59:58 2017 From: michaelpoppers at gmail.com (Michael Poppers) Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2017 21:59:58 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] going to the amud Message-ID: In Avodah V35n119, RJR wrote: > I also wonder about why the practice of sending youngsters up developed given the S?A?s psak concerning the priorities for a chazzan. < (RJR made other points that listmembers have responded to; I thought this point, for which the latest digest listed no response, was worthy of a response.) In many *shuls*, much less *minyanim*, so perhaps in the noted "chareidi shul in RBS", those "priorities" (married, beard, age, etc.) are seemingly (except for the Yamim Noraim) secondary to the hierarchy of "*chiyuvim*"...but one "priority", being "*m'rutzah laqahal*", might be upheld when appointing/allowing a young adult to lead the *tzibbur*.... *Gut Moeid*/*Mo'adim l'Simcha!* and all the best from *Michael Poppers* * Elizabeth, NJ, USA -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From akivagmiller at gmail.com Tue Oct 10 03:47:36 2017 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2017 06:47:36 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Eruv Tavshilin - who makes it? Message-ID: . I asked how one could ever rely on the Rav's eruv: > How does the eruv made by someone outside of my home > help me? What sort of *reminder* does his eruv provide? R' Zev Sero answered: > ... that it's wrong to rely entirely on leftovers, and one > must prepare at least one thing just for Shabbos. According > to this explanation, the fact that one must ask the rabbi > (or the neighbor, or whomever) before relying on their eruv > accomplishes the same thing. One has provided for Shabbos, > not by cooking but by arranging an invitation to eat out. I don't follow this logic at all. One who relies on this did NOT "prepare at least one thing just for Shabbos." If you respond that the one thing he prepared was "arranging an invitation to eat out", I will say that he did NOT arrange such an invitation; he is merely aware that the rabbi/neighbor had him in mind. You write about "the fact that one must ask the rabbi", but I never saw such a halacha. One does not need to do any sort of action at all, not even speaking. All one needs is to be aware that the rabbi/neighbor had him in mind. So what is being accomplished? > The second explanation is that originally there was no ha'arama; > it was permitted to openly cook on Yomtov for Shabbos. Chazal > legislated that one must save Yomtov's face by pretending to be > cooking for that day. According to this explanation it's very > simple; the important thing is not the eruv itself, but the need > for the ha'arama. The eruv's function is merely to give the > ha'arama some surface plausibility. So it makes no difference > whose eruv one uses; the fact that one is pretending not to be > cooking for Shabbos *is* the kevod Yomtov that Chazal required. > The enabling notion that on Shabbos one will be eating the rabbi's > eruv is only barely less plausible than the one that one will be > subsisting on ones own eruv. Focusing on the last sentence here, we agree that relying on the rabbi's eruv is indeed less plausible than one's own. I think our disagreement is that you feel it has a sufficient shiur of plausibility, and I don't. Alternatively, you feel that relying on the rabbi constitutes "pretending to be cooking for that day", but I think it doesn't even constitute "pretending". And this is especially true in the case where one genuinely forgot to make the eruv, and remembered on Yom Tov; surely you'll agree with me that this person did absolutely *nothing* before Yom Tov as a Shabbos preparation, right? Not even to ask the rabbi to have him in mind! Akiva Miller From micha at aishdas.org Tue Oct 10 06:18:05 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2017 09:18:05 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Eruv Tavshilin - who makes it? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20171010131805.GA8572@aishdas.org> On Tue, Oct 10, 2017 at 06:47:36AM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : You write about "the fact that one must ask the rabbi", but I never : saw such a halacha. One does not need to do any sort of action at all, : not even speaking. All one needs is to be aware that the : rabbi/neighbor had him in mind. So what is being accomplished? Beqitzur: "be aware" is sufficient for heker. Can't we ask the same thing of a neighborhood eiruv? How many people think about the eruv every week? The Rambam (Shevisas YT 6:2) seems to me to be the reason for calling eiruv tavshilin an "eiruv" is merely by comparison to eruv chatzeiros. Both are hekerim: There (ECh), so that people would thing that carrying from reshus to reshus is mutar on shabbos. Here (ET), that it is okay to cook on YT even if it's not for YT. Awareness that the rabbi (or whomever) had me in mind means I am thinking about eiruvin and there is a recognition (heker) that there is an issur. It seems the Rambam holds like R' Ashi (that ET is to reinforce melakhah on YT) over Rava (it's to reinforce Shabbos prep). But even according to Rava, that moment of awareness of the rabbi's eruv is sypposed to reserve as a reminder to make something nice for se'udos Shabbos. I would agree with Zev that the plausibility requirement is quite low, as all we're doing is a mnemonic. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger None of us will leave this place alive. micha at aishdas.org All that is left to us is http://www.aishdas.org to be as human as possible while we are here. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Anonymous MD, while a Nazi prisoner From noamstadlan at gmail.com Mon Oct 9 18:26:41 2017 From: noamstadlan at gmail.com (Noam Stadlan) Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2017 20:26:41 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] OU paper Message-ID: R. Micha- thank you for taking the time to read the paper. Having read your list of criticisms, I think that in your search for reasons to oppose, you missed many of the points completely. Poskim are certainly entitled to their opinions. They are not entitled to their own facts. If their logic doesn't hold up, it is reasonable to call them on the lack of logic. Which is why the paper is NOT about my opinions versus the OU 7, but about the lack of facts and logic. Furthermore, I illustrated that what poskim hold regarding these issues isn't always or exclusively a result of all their learning and shimmush. It is a demonstrable fact that many attitudes reflect what they grew up with and were indoctrinated with early on, not the list of influences that they write about. You dismiss my quote regarding REB, and claim that it is my responsibility to prove what the motives are or aren't. This is ridiculous. The OU authors did not talk to any of the principles involved. Since when is it acceptable for any responsible posek or beit din to make important judgments without making absolutely sure regarding the facts? Especially when they are making a significant deal about motivation and it would have been a very simple matter of making a phone call or two. Isn't that a basic obligation of a posek? And then to claim that it is my responsibility to prove that they were wrong? And, by the way, since I personally know many of the people involved, I have a much greater familiarity with what people involved think. I suggest that if you think that an organization with 'feminism' in its name is inherently problematic, we may be starting from basic assumptions far to wide apart to see any common ground. The OU paper wrote about Mesorah versus modern values. I was just using their words and addressing the role of modern values in how Halacha and values have changed. The fact that they define Mesorah a bit differently doesn't change the issue nor change the fact that modern values have always been incorporated into the Halakhah and Halakhic values(in case you dont want to use the word Mesorah). And to counter your point, some of the ancient values have gone out the window, whether you want to call them mesoretic or not. I didn't have time to get into all the particulars of the halachic aspects of the Rama and shechittah, R. Brody and Broyde address and dismiss the argument in their paper(I am pretty sure that is in a footnote somewhere). I thought it was adequate to illustrate that he was factually wrong. I could go on and on but I sense that in the end it will not matter. I would have to go through each and every line of your critique and point out where your assumptions are wrong. For example "JOFA....seeking value in the same sorts of roles and activities". NO, that is not what JOFA is about. It is about not creating Halachic boundaries when there shouldn't be any, and the women can decide what roles and activities they can and should assume(within Halacha of course, just like the men). And what is wrong with anyone finding value in learning Torah, teaching Torah, helping people celebrate s'machot, organizing davening, etc? women should not find value in that???? Thank you again for taking the time to read the paper. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From zev at sero.name Mon Oct 9 21:49:31 2017 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2017 00:49:31 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Eruv Tavshilin - who makes it? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <928305ea-1e57-b3bd-da9c-b3acb1281e04@sero.name> On 09/10/17 12:44, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > Note: I admit there's a certain weakness in everything that I've written > above. Namely, the idea that one can rely on the Eruv Tavshilin that was > made by the rav of the town. Let's set aside the fact that this is not > the best way of doing the eruv, and that various conditions are imposed > on one who wants to rely on it. Let's focus on the fact that it is valid > *at* *all*. How does the eruv made by someone outside of my home help > me? What sort of *reminder* does his eruv provide? I have never > understood this, nor have I heard any explanation of it, only assertions > that it does work. Any help in this area would be appreciated. IIRC the gemara offers two explanations for ET. Either it was made lichvod Shabbos or lichvod Yomtov. The first explanation is that cooking on Yomtov for Shabbos was always done by pretending to be cooking for a late Friday meal, but Chazal felt about the Shabbos after Yomtov the way many nowadays do about the Shabbos after Thanksgiving: that it's wrong to rely entirely on leftovers, and one must prepare at least one thing just for Shabbos. According to this explanation, the fact that one must ask the rabbi (or the neighbor, or whomever) before relying on their eruv accomplishes the same thing. One has provided for Shabbos, not by cooking but by arranging an invitation to eat out. The second explanation is that originally there was no ha`arama; it was permitted to openly cook on Yomtov for Shabbos. Chazal legislated that one must save Yomtov's face by pretending to be cooking for that day. According to this explanation it's very simple; the important thing is not the eruv itself, but the need for the ha`arama. The eruv's function is merely to give the ha`arama some surface plausibility. So it makes no difference whose eruv one uses; the fact that one is pretending not to be cooking for Shabbos *is* the kevod Yomtov that Chazal required. The enabling notion that on Shabbos one will be eating the rabbi's eruv is only barely less plausible than the one that one will be subsisting on ones own eruv. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From micha at aishdas.org Tue Oct 10 13:25:47 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2017 16:25:47 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] OU paper In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20171010202547.GC6565@aishdas.org> Take 2. I didn't like what I read in the Avodah queue, so I rejected my first version and elaborated. On Tue, Oct 10, 2017 at 10:53:24AM -0500, Noam Stadlan via Avodah wrote: :> 1- Feminism assumes egalitarianism, not only equality, as it assumes that :> roles historically closed to women as "men's roles" should be open to all. :> Equality only assumes that everyone should be eligible for roles of equal :> value. (For some measure of value.) : This is starting off on the wrong foot. I dont claim to speak for all : Orthodox Feminists. But the first question to be asked is why is a role : 'historically closed to women?' ... I see this as an equally valid question, but who is to say which ought to be asked first? REBerkowitz rightly deprecates the modification of halakhah out of concern for external values. He dismisses the role of the "pressures of contemporary egalitarianism." (As RSC put it.) This puts REB in a different place than people who unite under the word "feminism" are indeed advocating halachic change. What he denies being a valid motive JOFA is putting in their organizational name. : It is very reasonable, just like in : the cases of the chereish, slavery etc, to investigate why it is : 'historically closed." ... Which you fail to actually do. You rebut your understanding of some arguments for why the clsure is grounded in mesorah. After all, this is a rebuttal paper. The one mention of an alternative motive for change, rather than a lack of motive for status quo, is one that is inconsistent with feminism, as above. : litany of reasons as to why women were forbidden to do things and he : himself agreed that those reasons have gone by the wayside. If you want to : say that something is historically closed, and therefore it is assur- : fine. Now you dont need an Halachic reasons, because historically closed : is the final word.... Strawman. I am not asserting that we have to hold like the Rama that being historically closed means the option is halachically closed; identifying history with mesorah, and thus absence of tradition with tradition of absence. I would say, though, that if you want to buck the Rama, you have to make an argument for doing so, and not just dismiss his rule because he applied it to a misunderstood case. : everyone seems to be giving Halachicly justification, both pro and con, : then it means that historically closed is open for discussion, and it is on : the plane of halacha, not history. So the bottom line is that if there is : Halachic justification for particular gender roles- of course that trumps : everything. But it also means that stating something is historically assur : is not the end of the story. history is not Halacha. That is what I : illustrated in part one. Because you could also make the same argument : that the chereish shouldn't have an aliyyah... Yes, I agreed with your formulation of the problem in terms of resonant values, and at times a contemporary value can highlight the neglect of a Torah one. But you don't follow through with it. Instead you end up altogether rejecting the say of mesoretic values to decide which halachic innovations are proper. I would add that at times a contemporary value can change expectations, and thus change the morality of an act. After all, it may be okay to do something to someone when they expect it, but not if it violates assumptions behind things they committed to. I could see making that argument WRT monogyny and the validity of cheirem deR Gershom. Mental images of what marriage should be changed, and so it's only moral to satisfy the resulting emotional need rather than some older definition of marriage. As long as the definition itself isn't inferior. To take that poorly explained idea and possibly be clearer by making it less general and more about our case: Perhaps one could form the argument that while it was moral for women not to be eligable for the rabbinate in the past because it was less likely for the option to cross their minds. Such a practice would cause fewer feelings of deprevation. But now that women can become CEO, such a position does mesoretically-wrongly create feelings of deprivation. And so societal change causes a change in application of values; just as it can an application of law. This is pretty close to an argument you do indeed make. Just (as below), I don't think having a role is a right, because I do not believe religious roles are as much opportunities as they are duties. Unlike secular roles, which could be either, depending on how the society in question chooses to frame them. Your neglect of the "how", which changes are valid and which not, reminds me of the argument of non-O rabbis who point to pruzbul and heter isqa as justifications for their radical changes. It's not the same thing by a lng shot. But half-way through you make the same error of considering proof that there are valid kinds of change as proof that the topic in question provides no barriers to change altogether. As you say in this same paragraph (!): : Any role that is historically : closed to any group that isn't Halachically assur is open for discussion as : to what the Halacha actually mandates and why exactly it was closed in the : first place.... So, it's black-letter law closure, or the change is allowed? No "resonance of values" needed after all? And the problem with demanding "resonance of values" is that it takes the autonomy out of it for most of us. Because by enlarging the problem beyond black letter halakhah we guarantee there is a non-formal aspect to the answer, one that is for the practiced artist rather than any bright researcher. And the notion that one is validating a value system that then sets the person up for a very hard collision with the actual not-so-glass ceiling black-letter halakhah defines is very related to this. The mere existence of such a ceiling implies the likelihood of non-resonant values. The concept of asei lekha rav, having a poseiq, moves us away from autonomy in our behavioral decisions, and forces a heteronomy of a manner that too violates contemporary values. :> 2- Feminism assumes Locke's language of rights and priviledge. Why should :> someone *be deprived* of the opportunity to be an .... -- in our case, to :> serve as rabbi? But halachic values aren't framed in these terms... : Being a rabbi is fulfilling the mitzvah of service to the community, talmud : torah etc. Whether it is a burden or an opportunity, it is a mitzvah and : a choice of profession and communal service... But asking about opportunity and opening doors is inherently asking different value questions than the mesoretic ones. It's not just ancient that we frame our moral choices in terms of duty to others and the Other, it's mesoretic. : Furthermore, the OU paper went way beyond opposing rabbis. they forbid a : woman from officiating at a baby naming or other things. that too is a : burden that women should be forbidden from shouldering? This misses my point. When I spoke of rights vs duties I am talking about the entire framing of questions of values, not this specific decision. If the rabbinate, baby naming or whatever is a duty rather than a right, the whole question of "limiting their options unneccessarily" goes off the table. It's not about the right to choose a boon. Your whole question is framed non-traditionally. Looking at feminism as a goal is an inherently un-mesoretic way of framing the question. Rather, the nearest mesoretic equivalent would be to ask whether men have a duty that can only be discharged by sharing the pulpit, "officiating at a baby naming of other things". Feminism doesn't enter the mesoretic discussion because there is no door to be opened or closed, there is no region of personal-expression space to discuss whether someone is given too much or too little. The Torah is a beris, not a bill of rights. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When one truly looks at everyone's good side, micha at aishdas.org others come to love him very naturally, and http://www.aishdas.org he does not need even a speck of flattery. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rabbi AY Kook From micha at aishdas.org Tue Oct 10 14:04:28 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2017 17:04:28 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Oseh Hashalom In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20171010210428.GC21284@aishdas.org> On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 10:34:34PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : I went looking at the siddurim that were common in the shuls that I : grew up in, and I noticed an interesting pattern: Every single one : gave Oseh Hashalom as the closing bracha at the end of the Amidah; not : even one suggested saying Hamevarech like the rest of the year. : Further, every single one used the words Oseh Shalom at the ends of : Kaddish and Elokai N'tzor; not even one suggested saying Oseh Hashalom : during the Aseres Yemei Teshuva. ... : My questions are these: If you're old enough to remember davening : Ashkenaz in the 1970s or before, do you remember what was said during : Aseres Yemei Teshuva? And do you know of any siddur from that era : which included the newfangled text? I know my father was saying "hamvarekh" at this time. However, our minhagim are a hodge-podge of practices from those retained from the Ottoman Empire before my ancestor's arrival in Litta, mainline Litvish, R/Dr Mirsky's idiosyncricies (my grandfather came to America as a teen, and so the rav who met him at Ellis Island was became rav of his shul determined much of what he did), and what my father picked up Tues nights (and from YU alumni friends) from RYBS. I did some restoration of pre-American Biergehr minhag based on R Dovid Lifshitz's memories of what it was. AND that brings me to a theory... Minhagim that Chabad, Talmidei haGra and Sepharadim have in common are bound to become Minhag EY. And Minhag EY is bound to be known globally, at least by the 1970s. Maybe this is just a thing that universalized faster. Anecodtally, I notice fewer and fewer people wearing tefillin on ch"m each year. Although Passaic, a neighborhood with some 40% BT rate, is going to have weaker ties to minhag than ones in which more people have childhood memories of what dad does. I also noticed more an more shuls moving Shir shel Yom and Hoshanos from the end of mussaf to before leining. One thing all three of the communities that dominated the Yishuv haYashan had in common was an attachment to Qabbalah. We may be seeing more and more Tzefat-originating practices coming to the fore in the comming years as a new Minhag EY (and ch"v if galus lasts long enough Minhag America) emerges. Much to R' Ovadiah's poshumous dismay, I would presume. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "I hear, then I forget; I see, then I remember; micha at aishdas.org I do, then I understand." - Confucius http://www.aishdas.org "Hearing doesn't compare to seeing." - Mechilta Fax: (270) 514-1507 "We will do and we will listen." - Israelites From micha at aishdas.org Tue Oct 10 08:18:49 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2017 11:18:49 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] OU paper In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20171010151849.GB32729@aishdas.org> On Mon, Oct 09, 2017 at 08:26:41PM -0500, Noam Stadlan via Avodah wrote: : R. Micha- thank you for taking the time to read the paper. Having read : your list of criticisms, I think that in your search for reasons to oppose, : you missed many of the points completely... As I wrote, the reply was delayed by my attempt to put down the paper every time I thought I was reading solely for the sake of finding points to oppose. "Fisking", as it's called. Admittedly, I could still have failed. : Poskim are certainly entitled to : their opinions. They are not entitled to their own facts. Which is why I didn't dispute claims of fact, such as whether women were shochetim in Italy. I did dispute your use of a fact turning that Rama's point into a hypothetical to deny his whole "[if] we [hadn't] ever seen women as shochetim, we have a mesorah that woman aren't to serve as shochetim". Yes, his given is false, but we do see the implication statement in the Agur and the Rama. So, how do you dismiss applying the parallel syllogism here -- since we do not have a history of women rabbis, wouldn't the Rama's methodology mean that there is a mesorah not to ordain women? At least -- doesn't this topic need addressing, rather than writing that one can ignore the whole flow of logic because the antecedent is false? : Furthermore, I illustrated that what poskim hold : regarding these issues isn't always or exclusively a result of all their : learning and shimmush. It is a demonstrable fact that many attitudes : reflect what they grew up with and were indoctrinated with early on, not : the list of influences that they write about. But you gave up on the question of which new values pass the resonance test mention early in the paperr and which do not. My argument is that : You dismiss my quote regarding REB, and claim that it is my responsibility : to prove what the motives are or aren't. I dismiss the quote as necessarily applying to anyone but REB. It is not like he's the communal leader or primary poseiq of the people in question. In particular because of the word "feminism" in JOFA's name. To which you replied: : I suggest that if you think that an organization with 'feminism' in its : name is inherently problematic, we may be starting from basic assumptions : far to wide apart to see any common ground. RCS summarized REB's position (on your pg 10), as being of "moral ends derive from internal Jewish sources.... dissatisfaction with mainstream Halakhah regarding women is rooted, not in the pressures of contemporary egalitarianism, in his judgment about biblical conceptions of justice." (ellision yours) But JOFA's name is taken from "contemporary egalitarianism". I am not saying it's inherently problematic. I am saying it creates the likelihood of a gap between REB's position and JOFA's attitude, one that then creates a burden of proof you didn't take up. In short I am saying that: 1- Feminism assumes egalitarianism, not only equality, as it assumes that roles historically closed to women as "men's roles" should be open to all. Equality only assumes that everyone should be eligible for roles of equal value. (For some measure of value.) 2- Feminism assumes Locke's language of rights and priviledge. Why should someone *be deprived* of the opportunity to be an .... -- in our case, to serve as rabbi? But halachic values aren't framed in these terms. (At least not in general; I can think of notions like geneivas da'as, gezel shinah or tovas han'ah as exceptions.) Rather, the rabbinate is supposed to be a burden. Even if it is really being treated as an honor, the value which would differentiate between a positive halachic change and one that is anti-mesoretic would be that of duty, not opportunity. 3- Making the argument that feminist egalitarian opportunity is or is not resonant with mesoretic values requires those guys with shimush, as it is an art. Your counter-argument is on the wrong plane for discussing the topic of the first section of your paper -- "mesorah". ... And we don't even agree on how RIETS-trained rabbis are most likely to use the word "mesorah" to agree on what we're debating! Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Man is equipped with such far-reaching vision, micha at aishdas.org yet the smallest coin can obstruct his view. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yisrael Salanter Fax: (270) 514-1507 From noamstadlan at mail.gmail.com Tue Oct 10 08:53:24 2017 From: noamstadlan at mail.gmail.com (Noam Stadlan) Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2017 10:53:24 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] OU paper In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: multipart/alternative Size: 3823 bytes Desc: not available URL: From micha at aishdas.org Tue Oct 10 14:12:25 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2017 17:12:25 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] =?cp1255?q?=93Timtum_Ha-Lev=94_Redux?= In-Reply-To: <7aef6b22a7e348ffa09f6c3e61bde74f@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <7aef6b22a7e348ffa09f6c3e61bde74f@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20171010211225.GD21284@aishdas.org> On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 06:30:33PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : From R' Aviner Dulling of the Heart to Save One's Life ... : A: No. Maran Ha-Rav Kook writes in his book "Musar Avicha" (p. 19) : that the dulling of one's heart comes from violating a prohibition : and not from the food itself (Yoma 39a. And see Meharsha on : Shabbat 33a).... Yay! Finally I have sources to look at. "Vehayisa akh sameiach" just became a little easier. Does anyone have "Mussar Avikha", "Uvdos veHanhagos miBeis Brisk" (vol II p 50) and/or "Orchos Yosheir" (#13)? Do any of them discuss mezuzah and the consequent shemirah, or any of the other related segulah-like effects of mitzvos we've tied in to previous iterations? Look at that list of names: I'm not wrong, just Litvish! Tangent: The Gra said that "vehayisa akh sameiach" is the hardest mitzvah in the Torah. "Veyahisa sameiach" is one thing, but "akh sameiach"? To be nothing but happy, with no other moods ambivalently mixed in for 8 days (9 in chu"l) straight? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The fittingness of your matzos [for the seder] micha at aishdas.org isn't complete with being careful in the laws http://www.aishdas.org of Passover. One must also be very careful in Fax: (270) 514-1507 the laws of business. - Rav Yisrael Salanter From hankman at bell.net Tue Oct 10 22:24:18 2017 From: hankman at bell.net (hankman) Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2017 01:24:18 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] R. Akiva, Bar Kochba and Zecharya HaNovi Message-ID: <5AFE790709AC4B0B9FDDB6A6102B7005@hankPC> How could R. Akiva have mistaken Bar Kochba for Moshiach, since non of the nevuos of Zecharya HaNovi that we read in the recent haftorah (splitting of Har HaZeitim etc., etc) for the period precedent to Moshiach had yet occurred? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Tue Oct 10 13:51:59 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2017 16:51:59 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] future impact of deeds In-Reply-To: <781196aefdb44054b2f0e69678999858@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <781196aefdb44054b2f0e69678999858@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20171010205159.GB21284@aishdas.org> On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 06:29:05PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : In one of his shiurim, R'Reisman questioned a common (my) understanding : of how those who are no longer with us could be judged based on the : future impact of their deeds on an ongoing basis. The specific example : was two individuals (A & B) separately caused two other individuals (C & : D, who were totally equivalent) to become religious. C dies a day later, : while D lives a long, productive, and fruitful life. Does it make sense : that A gets more credit(schar) than B? : : My answer is no, but this does not refute the basic premise. The schar : is based on the % of their potential that C & D actualized-only HKB"H : knows that, so, in this case in fact, A might even get more credit than B. Who said that sekhar is indeed based on actualized potential? "Lefum tz'ara agra", not "lefum tzalach". And wouldn't judging someone by something out of their control violate Middas haDin? HOWEVER, perhaps (thinking out loud) we could invoke megalgalim zekhus al yedei zakai to say that hashgachah peratis's choice of D's long life includes among an infinite other factors, the ways in which his mashpia was mora zekai. But personally, I would question your conclusion. (But in a personal-belief sense. Not that it doesn't require understanding in an eilu-va'eilu way.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Rescue me from the desire to win every micha at aishdas.org argument and to always be right. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Nassan of Breslav Fax: (270) 514-1507 Likutei Tefilos 94:964 From zev at sero.name Wed Oct 11 03:30:27 2017 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2017 06:30:27 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] R. Akiva, Bar Kochba and Zecharya HaNovi In-Reply-To: <5AFE790709AC4B0B9FDDB6A6102B7005@hankPC> References: <5AFE790709AC4B0B9FDDB6A6102B7005@hankPC> Message-ID: <0278980f-97ca-2755-caa3-89461ed64e50@sero.name> On 11/10/17 01:24, hankman via Avodah wrote: > How could R. Akiva have mistaken Bar Kochba for Moshiach, since non of > the nevuos of Zecharya HaNovi that we read in the recent haftorah > (splitting of Har HaZeitim etc., etc) for the period precedent to > Moshiach had yet occurred? The Rambam, whose shita is based on R Akiva, explicitly paskens that none of these nevuos need to be fulfilled literally. Any that aren't can be interpreted metaphorically to fit whatever political and military events actually do take place around the geulah. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From akivagmiller at gmail.com Wed Oct 11 06:41:32 2017 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2017 09:41:32 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Questioning Authority In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I have no hidden agenda here. This post is my response to the current "OU paper" thread, and to many other threads we've had over the decades, where we have wondered how any given posek could hold a certain way on any particular question. It is also relevant to threads we've had abput *becoming* a posek, and the importance of shimush in addition to book knowledge. This is something I would not have written, or even have thought of, until about 10 years ago or so. But as I have matured, I have come to see things in a new perspective. Becoming a parent, and a grandparent, has given me a tremendous insight into Hashem's relationship with us. I have always felt that it is (or ought to be) possible and permissible to *question* authority without challenging or rejecting authority. It is very natural to want to understand the reasons behind the rules that we must live by. Wanting to understand those rules is not the same as rejecting those rules. Wanting to understand the rules, I believe, is a major component of the Mitzvah of Talmud Torah, and is thus highly commendable. A chavrusa once challenged me to explain my position on a certain subject. He said to me, "If you can't explain it to me in simple terms, then you don't really understand it well enough yourself." I accepted that rule wholeheartedly, and used it myself for many decades. But recently have I begun to see the cracks in that rule. A parent tells the child to do something, or to not do something. The child asks why, not out of rebellion, but because he sincerely wants to understand what's going on. Sometimes, the parent cannot give an answer better than "Because I said so." The child now thinks that the parent is being arbitrary, and sometimes, the parent might even agree. But frequently, the truth is that the parent has very good reasons for what he says. It's just that he's unable to put those reasons into clear words. He can't even explain it to himself in simple terms, because it is simply a gut feeling that he has, based on experience and intuition, he sees that this is the action or inaction which must be followed in this particular situation. I think this is analogous to Torah leaders and Torah followers. When the leaders tell the followers what to do, or what to avoid, it is entirely reasonable for the followers to request explanations from the leaders. This is especially so, if the explanation will help them comply with the directive, or teach them how to apply the directive to other situations. But these requests must be made respectfully, carefully, and only up to a certain point. Consider when a parent explains himself to the child, and the child responds with a dozen reasonable challenges to the parent's logic. Sometimes the parent will realize that he was in error, and back down. Sometimes the parent will realize that he was in error, but will stick to his guns as a show of power (rightly or wrongly). But sometimes, the parent will understand that - despite the child's persuasive comments - the directive must still be followed, because ... Well, the parent himself might not be able to articulate his reasoning, not even to himself. But he relies on his understanding and his experience and his common sense, and he knows that this is how it must be. So too, our leaders adopt certain positions on certain issues, and often they will attempt to explain themselves to us. Sometimes those explanations may appear flawed to us, maybe even severely flawed. Like the child who thinks his parent's explanation is nonsense, the flaws do not necessarily invalidate the leader's conclusion or his decision. Of course, none of this suggests that our leaders (or parents) are infallible. And they can certainly benefit from reviewing their positions among their peers. The only point I'm trying to make in this long post is this: Similar to a Chok from the Torah, sometimes our leaders issue pronouncements that we are not capable of fully understanding, and we should not let that stand in the way of following them. Akiva Miller NB: A critical word in this post is "sometimes". The difficult (sometimes impossible) task is to figure out which times are which. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From zev at sero.name Wed Oct 11 07:40:40 2017 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2017 10:40:40 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] R. Akiva, Bar Kochba and Zecharya HaNovi In-Reply-To: <20171011143003.GA21995@aishdas.org> References: <5AFE790709AC4B0B9FDDB6A6102B7005@hankPC> <0278980f-97ca-2755-caa3-89461ed64e50@sero.name> <20171011143003.GA21995@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 11/10/17 10:30, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > While the Rambam cites R' Aqiva's following Bar Koziba (H Melahim 11:2) > as proof that the melekh hamoshiach doesn't have to do miracles, is his > position really "based on" R Aqiva's? For example, in 11:4 he describes > the moshiach as being "hogeh baTorah ve'oseiq bemitzvos keDavid aviv" > which I don't think fit Bar Kokhva even in his hayday. What makes you suppose this? On the contrary, the fact that the Rambam says "since BK didn't do any miracles, we know that Moshiach doesn't have to", proves that when he says Moshiach *does* have to be a TCh and a tzadik he assumes BK *did* fulfil this requirement. If he didn't, that would prove to the Rambam that this isn't necessary. > Nor had "veyakhof kol Yisrael leileikh bah" yet either -- the > Perushim were in the minority. Were they? Who was in the majority, if not them? And why would the majority even matter? BK was the king, and he made halacha the law of the land, whether the majority liked it or not. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From micha at aishdas.org Wed Oct 11 07:30:03 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2017 10:30:03 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] R. Akiva, Bar Kochba and Zecharya HaNovi In-Reply-To: <0278980f-97ca-2755-caa3-89461ed64e50@sero.name> References: <5AFE790709AC4B0B9FDDB6A6102B7005@hankPC> <0278980f-97ca-2755-caa3-89461ed64e50@sero.name> Message-ID: <20171011143003.GA21995@aishdas.org> On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 06:30:27AM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : On 11/10/17 01:24, hankman via Avodah wrote: :> How could R. Akiva have mistaken Bar Kochba for Moshiach, since :> non of the nevuos of Zecharya HaNovi that we read in the recent :> haftorah (splitting of Har HaZeitim etc., etc) for the period :> precedent to Moshiach had yet occurred? : The Rambam, whose shita is based on R Akiva, explicitly paskens that : none of these nevuos need to be fulfilled literally. Any that : aren't can be interpreted metaphorically to fit whatever political : and military events actually do take place around the geulah. While the Rambam cites R' Aqiva's following Bar Koziba (H Melahim 11:2) as proof that the melekh hamoshiach doesn't have to do miracles, is his position really "based on" R Aqiva's? For example, in 11:4 he describes the moshiach as being "hogeh baTorah ve'oseiq bemitzvos keDavid aviv" which I don't think fit Bar Kokhva even in his hayday. Nor had "veyakhof kol Yisrael leileikh bah" yet either -- the Perushim were in the minority. More clearly is his basing himself on Shemu'el (Sanhedrin 91b) when he quotes him in 12:2, "Chakhamim said: ein bein ha'olam hazeh liymos hamoshiach ela shib'ud malkhios bilvad." It's interesting that rather than repeating the quote beshrim omero -- a funny thing to do when discussing the ge'ula le'lam that giving the source is supposed to bring -- he attributes the quote to Chakhamim, as though he knew it was consensus and Rav's position deprecated. After all, the Rambam himself says that we can't decide machloqesim in these thingxs. So it could be that the Rambam did indeed base himself on R Aqiva, but then we would have to say that the Rambam held that R Aqiva was waiting for the rest of the nevu'ah to come true. Or not -- maybe his basic source was Shemu'el, and this one proof doesn't imply derivation. And given that the BK Revolt was c. 132-135 CE, it is likely that R' Aqiva expected the war to go on 7 years, as per statements in the gemara about chevlei moshiach. This would time the end of the war with 70 years after the churban, like the return after churban bayis 1. But whether that conjecture is true or not, the relevant idea that R Aqiva could be backing BK thinking the rest of the expectations about the moshiach simply hadn't happened /yet/. Which the Rambam would have to invoke even for his more mundane list of things the moshiach will accomplish. In 12:1 the Rambam denies the literalness of Yeshaiah's and Yirmiyahu's description of the messianic era in terms of wolves, leopards and lions going vegetarian. But since the splitting of Har haZeirim need not be lemaalah min hateva, do we know whether the Rambam would have placed it in the same rule? If not, the "expected it will happen in the future" answer could cover that earthquake (?) as much as it can cover BK spending all his spare time learning and doing mitzvos or his being meqareiv the vast majority of Kelal Yisrael. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger A sick person never rejects a healing procedure micha at aishdas.org as "unbefitting." Why, then, do we care what http://www.aishdas.org other people think when dealing with spiritual Fax: (270) 514-1507 matters? - Rav Yisrael Salanter From zev at sero.name Wed Oct 11 09:02:55 2017 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2017 12:02:55 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] R. Akiva, Bar Kochba and Zecharya HaNovi In-Reply-To: <20171011154231.GA6170@aishdas.org> References: <5AFE790709AC4B0B9FDDB6A6102B7005@hankPC> <0278980f-97ca-2755-caa3-89461ed64e50@sero.name> <20171011143003.GA21995@aishdas.org> <20171011154231.GA6170@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <0e95d039-c074-ae7f-f3ba-3cee64a3d191@sero.name> On 11/10/17 11:42, Micha Berger wrote: > > The man described in the Y-mi Taanis 24b (4:5) doesn't sound personally > observant. The Rambam clearly doesn't hold like the Yerushalmi's version of the story, because he holds that the Chachamim stuck with BK until he was killed "ba`avonos". That word is ambiguous (whose sins, his or the people's) but later he says a presumptive Moshiach who's killed is "kechol malchei beis Dovid hash'leimim vehak'sheirim", so we can assume he holds that BK was killed for the generation's sins, not for his own, hence "ba`avonos", not "ba`avonosav". > This is also why in both R' Aqiva's world as well as R' Meir's and R' > Shim'on's -- before and after BK's revolt -- it is taken for granted > that most Jews are amei ha'aretz. Amei Haaretz were in the Perushim "denomination". They kept Perushi halacha as well as they understood it, even if they despised the Chaverim who taught it. They made up their own invalid leniencies in maasros, and weren't careful all year with taharos, but they were careful with terumah and never told lies on Shabbos. In any case, the question isn't what the majority would have done on their own, but whether BK forced them to obey halacha, and the Rambam assumes he did. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From micha at aishdas.org Wed Oct 11 10:11:32 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2017 13:11:32 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] R. Akiva, Bar Kochba and Zecharya HaNovi In-Reply-To: <0e95d039-c074-ae7f-f3ba-3cee64a3d191@sero.name> References: <5AFE790709AC4B0B9FDDB6A6102B7005@hankPC> <0278980f-97ca-2755-caa3-89461ed64e50@sero.name> <20171011143003.GA21995@aishdas.org> <20171011154231.GA6170@aishdas.org> <0e95d039-c074-ae7f-f3ba-3cee64a3d191@sero.name> Message-ID: <20171011171132.GA1028@aishdas.org> On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 12:02:55PM -0400, Zev Sero wrote: : On 11/10/17 11:42, Micha Berger wrote: : >The man described in the Y-mi Taanis 24b (4:5) doesn't sound personally : >observant. : : The Rambam clearly doesn't hold like the Yerushalmi's version of the : story, because he holds that the Chachamim stuck with BK until he : was killed "ba`avonos"... How does this conflict with the Y-mi's picture of a less than ideal Bar Kokhva? If anything, it reinforces my suggestion that R' Aqiva was awaiting the rest of the nevu'ah. And once he is waiting for the things the Rambam mentions, then it's possible the Rambem would expect Zerkhariah's nevu'os to happen literally, but also something R' Aqiva was awaiting. It's possible the Rambam would consider the potentially natural cataclysms in Zekhariah to be non-allegory, as the examples of non-literal nevu'os he gives would have been lema'alah min hateva if literal. I don't know where he's drawing the line; nevi'ah qua nevu'ah is bederekh mashal, or only the phantastical stories should be dismissed. (This is a sibling to our discussion of the Rambam on midrashic stories. I claim he is saying that no medrash was repeated for historical content. Therefore any medrash can be ahistorical, but the fantastical stories you should take for granted as being ahistorical. You have been limiting the Rambam's denial of historicity for the fantastical stories. s/medrash/nevu'ah/g -- where do you stand?) : That word is ambiguous (whose sins, his or : the people's) but later he says a presumptive Moshiach who's killed : is "kechol malchei beis Dovid hash'leimim vehak'sheirim", so we can : assume he holds that BK was killed for the generation's sins, not : for his own, hence "ba`avonos", not "ba`avonosav". But either way -- whether he or the generation was sinful -- it would show that BK didn't fit the Rambam's descrition of moshiach. For obvious reasons, I'll add: ... at least not yet. If the generation sinned too much to merit redemption, BK wasn't too good at bringing the masses to observance. Besides, being like a kosher and shaleim member of beis David could mean "even if", we still know he wasn't the moshiach. : >This is also why in both R' Aqiva's world as well as R' Meir's and R' : >Shim'on's -- before and after BK's revolt -- it is taken for granted : >that most Jews are amei ha'aretz. : : Amei Haaretz were in the Perushim "denomination". They kept Perushi : halacha as well as they understood it, even if they despised the : Chaverim who taught it... Actually, I thought they were denominationless, as likely to follow anyone's dictates. A pagan notion of listening to every holy man, rather than picking sides. But in any case, if that's your description of the masses, you still have BK not yet succeeding in that regard at the time of his death. : in maasros, and weren't careful all year with taharos, but they were : careful with terumah and never told lies on Shabbos... They were also careful with maaser, more often than not. Demai is a gezeira; if tevel were the norm, it would be azlinan basar ruba, or at best safeiq deOraisa lehachmir. : the question isn't what the majority would have done on their own, : but whether BK forced them to obey halacha, and the Rambam assumes : he did. The Rambam doesn't say so. That's your deduction. It requires assuming that the Rambam agrees with R' Aqiva over what the grounds for presuming (making a chazqah) that someone is moshiach. He doesn't say R' Aqiva is indeed his source. And it also requires assuming R Aqiva was following BK because of a chazaqah, rather than probability and rov. You haven't addressed my "maybe" of R Aqiva following BK without BK having yet fulfilled all of the moshiach's role becuase of an expectation that BK would be getting there. My added "not yet". Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Between stimulus & response, there is a space. micha at aishdas.org In that space is our power to choose our http://www.aishdas.org response. In our response lies our growth Fax: (270) 514-1507 and our freedom. - Victor Frankl, (MSfM) From zev at sero.name Sat Oct 14 19:44:53 2017 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2017 22:44:53 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] R. Akiva, Bar Kochba and Zecharya HaNovi In-Reply-To: <20171011171132.GA1028@aishdas.org> References: <5AFE790709AC4B0B9FDDB6A6102B7005@hankPC> <0278980f-97ca-2755-caa3-89461ed64e50@sero.name> <20171011143003.GA21995@aishdas.org> <20171011154231.GA6170@aishdas.org> <0e95d039-c074-ae7f-f3ba-3cee64a3d191@sero.name> <20171011171132.GA1028@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 11/10/17 13:11, Micha Berger wrote: > On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 12:02:55PM -0400, Zev Sero wrote: > : On 11/10/17 11:42, Micha Berger wrote: > : >The man described in the Y-mi Taanis 24b (4:5) doesn't sound personally > : >observant. > : > : The Rambam clearly doesn't hold like the Yerushalmi's version of the > : story, because he holds that the Chachamim stuck with BK until he > : was killed "ba`avonos"... > > How does this conflict with the Y-mi's picture of a less than ideal > Bar Kokhva? It conflicts because the Y'mi's version of the story has the Chachamim abandoning BK *before* his fall. The Rambam clearly does not agree with that whole version of the story. In his version BK was and remained a tzadik until his tragic end, which happened not for his own sins but for those of others. > It's possible the Rambam would consider the potentially natural cataclysms > in Zekhariah to be non-allegory, as the examples of non-literal nevu'os > he gives would have been lema'alah min hateva if literal. I don't know > where he's drawing the line; nevi'ah qua nevu'ah is bederekh mashal, > or only the phantastical stories should be dismissed. He doesn't draw a line at all. He carefully doesn't say that Moshiach *won't* perform miracles, but merely that he *needn't*, because BK didn't and yet was assumed to be Moshiach. Which further contradicts the Y'mi's version, which says he was rejected because he could not judge people by smelling whether they're right or wrong, a feat of which the True Moshiach(tm) must be capable. > > : That word is ambiguous (whose sins, his or > : the people's) but later he says a presumptive Moshiach who's killed > : is "kechol malchei beis Dovid hash'leimim vehak'sheirim", so we can > : assume he holds that BK was killed for the generation's sins, not > : for his own, hence "ba`avonos", not "ba`avonosav". > > But either way -- whether he or the generation was sinful -- it would > show that BK didn't fit the Rambam's descrition of moshiach. How so? He was righteous, and forced people to keep Torah, but they didn't listen, just like Yoshiyahu. > But in any case, if that's your description of the masses, you still > have BK not yet succeeding in that regard at the time of his death. Again, how so? The requirement is that he forces all Israel to follow it and to reinforce its breaches. Not that he educates them, or makes them enthusiastic, but simply that he makes the Shulchan Aruch the law of the land, punishing those who break it. There are always lawbreakers; one would not therefore say that the government is not forcing people to obey the law. > : the question isn't what the majority would have done on their own, > : but whether BK forced them to obey halacha, and the Rambam assumes > : he did. > > The Rambam doesn't say so. That's your deduction. It requires assuming > that the Rambam agrees with R' Aqiva over what the grounds for presuming > (making a chazqah) that someone is moshiach. He doesn't say R' Aqiva is > indeed his source. He explicitly uses him as his source that Moshiach needn't perform miracles. How could he do so if his vision of Moshiach's qualifications were different from R Akiva's? If he holds that Moshiach must be a tzadik but RA didn't, then how does he know that Moshiach needn't perform miracles just because R Akiva thought so? > And it also requires assuming R Aqiva was following BK because of a > chazaqah, rather than probability and rov. You haven't addressed my > "maybe" of R Aqiva following BK without BK having yet fulfilled all of > the moshiach's role becuase of an expectation that BK would be getting > there. My added "not yet". Again, this is impossible because if so how does he know R Akiva didn't indeed require Moshiach to perform miracles, and was expecting them to happen any day now? How can he say that Moshiach need *never* perform miracles, and if he achieves everything he's supposed to without the need for miracles we will still have to accept him as Vadai Moshiach? Clearly he understands that R Akiva was *not* expecting any miracles, and that this didn't bother him, because it isn't a requirement. None of which rules out the actual Moshiach, when he does come, performing miracles. The Rambam's position on this, unlike the Y'mi's, is neutral. He might perform miracles or he might not. Some or all of the nevuos might turn out literally, but some or all might not. The nevuos he says can't be literal, at least in the initial stage of Yemos Hamoshiach, are not ones about miracles but about permanent changes in nature. Chazal said that Ein Bein Olam Hazeh Liymos Hamoshiach Ela... so nevuos about a change in nature must either be metaphorical or refer to Olam Haba. But nevuos about miracles may or may not happen literally, we won't know until we get there. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From motti.yarchinai at yahoo.com.au Sun Oct 15 01:00:51 2017 From: motti.yarchinai at yahoo.com.au (Motti Yarchinai) Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2017 08:00:51 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Avodah] Psak source wanted References: <1857240052.122258.1508054451353.ref@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1857240052.122258.1508054451353@mail.yahoo.com> Dear Avodah members, Can anyone help me with a source for this psak: It is similar to what the Rambam wrote in Hilchot Kiddush Hachodesh, saying that in all calendric matters, we follow the lead of the chachmei eretz yisrael, and even though the anshei hagolah know the calculations used by them, it is not on our own calculations that we rely, we only use those calculations because we know that they are the same as the calculations used by the chachmei eretz yisrael, and we must all follow the rulings of the latter, in all calendric matters. Another posek (possibly the Tifferet Yisrael in Shvilei Harakia, but I'm not sure of that), writes something similar but couched in even more dramatic terms. The following is not a verbatim quote (since the original is in Hebrew) but something very close to it: "And even if the residents of eretz yisrael are all ignoramuses and peasants, and the authorities of chutz la'aretz are great scholars and knowledgable in Torah and halachah, in calendric matters we follow the peasants and ignoramuses, not the scholars of chutz la'aretz." Does anyone recognise this and remember where it's from? Thank you.Motti -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From akivagmiller at gmail.com Sun Oct 15 13:02:06 2017 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2017 16:02:06 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Zecher Liytzias Mitzrayim and Shmini Atzeres Message-ID: . What is the Zecher Liytzias Mitzrayim of Shmini Atzeres?We say it in Kiddush and in the Amidah. There must be something about this chag that connects to, and/or reminds us about, Yetzias Mitzrayim. It sounds like such a basic question that I'm surprised that I don't remember hearing it in the past. If anyone has an answer, please share it. Meanwhile, here's what I came up with: Shavuos is about one particular event in the midbar. Sukkos is about the whole 40 years in the midbar. Pesach and Shmini Atzeres are bookends: Pesach is about entering the midbar, and Shmini Atzeres is about leaving the midbar.If Sukkos is about the Ananei Hakavod and all the other nissim that accompanied us, then Shmini Atzeres is about re-entering the natural world. I played "word association" with six random people: When I said "yetzias mitzrayim," five of them responded, "Pesach". This is not wrong, but it is a distortion. Yetzias Mitzrayim was not a short event in Nissan; Shavuos and Sukkos prove that it was a process that took 40 years. My suggestion is simply that the last day is no less worthy of a chag than the first. Rashi (B'midbar 29:35) famously tells us that Shmini Atzeres is a special time, with just Hashem and Bnei Yisrael together, alone, with no other nations around. I'm merely pointing out that it is not just the nations who are gone: The lulav is gone. The sukkah is gone. Nothing remains but us and Hashem, when we left the comfort of the miraculous sukkah, trading it for being at home in Eretz Yisrael. Akiva Miller Postscript: An easy challenge to this post could be that Tishre 22 was NOT the day that we crossed from the midbar into Eretz Yisrael. I will respond in advance by pointing out that Shavuos too is not necessarily celebrated on the same day as the event it reminds us of. The Zecher can be poetic and emotional, and need not be so mathematically rigorous. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hankman at bell.net Sun Oct 15 14:41:04 2017 From: hankman at bell.net (hankman) Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2017 17:41:04 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] eitz hachaim Message-ID: Hi, What exactly was the eitz hachaim all about. The simple pshat doesn?t make any sense. If the purpose of the Gan was to serve Adam then when would (could) he make use of the eitz hachaim? Kodem hacheit he was not a bar misah so he had no need of it, after the cheit he was prevented from accessing it! So when would it ever be useful to Adam? Kol tuv Chaim Manaster -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hankman at bell.net Sun Oct 15 14:48:11 2017 From: hankman at bell.net (hankman) Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2017 17:48:11 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Vayehi erev Message-ID: Hi, If you look at days 3, 4 & 5 tou will find that they close with Vayehi erev vayehi boker yom X as a complete passuk. But on days 1, 2 & 6 the vayehi erev is only the completion of a larger passuk and not a passuk on its own. Finally on Shabbos the final closing of vayehi erev is omitted completely. Do any of the medrashing or meforshing explain this? Kol tuv Chaim Manaster -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Sun Oct 15 14:31:16 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2017 17:31:16 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Zecher Liytzias Mitzrayim and Shmini Atzeres In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20171015213116.GA14924@aishdas.org> On Sun, Oct 15, 2017 at 04:02:06PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : What is the Zecher Liytzias Mitzrayim of Shmini Atzeres? ... What's the ZlYM of Shabbos? : Shavuos is about one particular event in the midbar. Sukkos is about the : whole 40 years in the midbar... Unless Sukkos is about the return of the ananei hakavod. The Gra puts 2 and 2 (and 2) together: The ananei hakavod left with the Cheit haEigel. When Moshe returned with the 2nd luchos, completing his 3rd 40-day day atop Har Sinai, he gave Benei Yisrael instructions including those for donating the materials and building the Mishkan. So that actual construction began on 15 Nissan -- and that's when the ananim returned. The Meshekh Chimah adds to this that it explains the oconstrast between Sukkos as described in Mishpatim 23:16, where all we learn about the timing in the fall is that it's Chag haAsif. This was before Cheit haEigel, never mind the eventual return. But in parashas Re'eih, the holiday makes its appearance as Chag haSukkos, refering to the returned sukkos of ananei hakavod. : Pesach is about entering the midbar, and Shmini Atzeres is about leaving : the midbar.If Sukkos is about the Ananei Hakavod and all the other nissim : that accompanied us, then Shmini Atzeres is about re-entering the natural : world. My own mental image of the structure of the year: The qiymu veqiblu haYhudim of Purim is the further development of the theme of Shavous (a/k/a Atzeres). And similarly the zikhronos of Rosh haShanah is the further development of the theme of Shemini Atzeres -- the beris. In Shemini Atzeres this creates a need for a 71st par for qorban mussaf, as well as the naturalness of our turning SA into Simchas Torah. On RH we ask for clemency if not for our sake, than for the sake of seeing the beris to fruition. So that each season has a central holiday -- Sukkos or Pesach -- which is what underlies the gezeira shava tes-vav - tes-vav. Then the season is introduced with a something (Purim or Yamim Noraim) to prepare us for the holiday. The bounty of Sukkos has to be earned; Tishrei is about middas hadin after all. The freedom of Pesach needs a context. (And Putim is derabbanan bececause the ultimate qabbalas ol mitzvos hd to come from us.) And then the theme is culminated in an Atzeres, a day to stop, pack it up, and take it with us for the next half-year. That said, I like your idead of SA as reentering the natural world. It's experientially very true, after all that holiday. It also gives more significance to the timing of Tefillas Geshem. "Qasheh alei pereidaskhem" does refer to that return; aalthough I think you need to work on the difference between our return to the natural world and Hashem making the day itself to *delay* the return. Jews and G-d without the rest of the world. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger What we do for ourselves dies with us. micha at aishdas.org What we do for others and the world, http://www.aishdas.org remains and is immortal. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Albert Pine From micha at aishdas.org Sun Oct 15 15:21:26 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2017 18:21:26 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] R. Akiva, Bar Kochba and Zecharya HaNovi In-Reply-To: References: <5AFE790709AC4B0B9FDDB6A6102B7005@hankPC> <0278980f-97ca-2755-caa3-89461ed64e50@sero.name> <20171011143003.GA21995@aishdas.org> <20171011154231.GA6170@aishdas.org> <0e95d039-c074-ae7f-f3ba-3cee64a3d191@sero.name> <20171011171132.GA1028@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20171015222126.GB14924@aishdas.org> On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 10:44:53PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: :> How does this conflict with the Y-mi's picture of a less than ideal :> Bar Kokhva? : : It conflicts because the Y'mi's version of the story has the : Chachamim abandoning BK *before* his fall. The Rambam clearly does : not agree with that whole version of the story... The Y-mi does not say that R' Aqiva was among those who left early. : In his version BK : was and remained a tzadik until his tragic end, which happened not : for his own sins but for those of others. My whole point is that the Rambam doesn't describe him as a tzadiq anywhere. He says in one place that BK could be taken to be the moshiach despite a lack of miracles and another place that when someone from beis david who is hogeh ve'oseiq bemitzvos keDavid aviv... vehakhos kol Yisrael leileikh bah... and fights Hashem's wars, then this person can be presumed to be mashiach. Not that BK had such a chazaqah; the "pesaq" of the tannaim needn't have been based on this particular chazaqah or any chazaqah. As I said, there is nothing in the Rambam to rule out them following BK out of the expectation that he would eventually get there, rather than his being hogeh ve'oseiq bemitzvos already. And then you don't need to make the Rambam ignore a Yerushalmi. : He doesn't draw a line at all. He carefully doesn't say that : Moshiach *won't* perform miracles, but merely that he *needn't*, 12:1: Al ya'aleh aal leiv shebiymos hamoshiach yibateil davar miminhago shel olam... ela olam keminhago noheig. This doesn't really rule out miracles, but it does rule out ones that leave a permanent change in the natural orer. There is a line. Which is how he rules out the historicity of "vegar ze'eiv im keves..." etc... They don't mearly "needn't" happen, he rules out the possibility of their literal meaning being part of the future, because they cross his line of olam keminhago noheig". : >But either way -- whether he or the generation was sinful -- it would : >show that BK didn't fit the Rambam's descrition of moshiach. : How so? He was righteous, and forced people to keep Torah, but : they didn't listen, just like Yoshiyahu. "Veyakhof" includes "tried and failed"??? That's not quite what the Rambam says. : Again, how so? The requirement is that he forces all Israel to : follow it and to reinforce its breaches. Not that he educates them, : or makes them enthusiastic, but simply that he makes the Shulchan : Aruch the law of the land, punishing those who break it... Which he didn't. The Sanhedrin doesn't get reorgonized and put on Har haBayis. In fact, he doesn't get the backing of the majority of the day's posqim to be able to be associated with a 2nd century religious revival through legal enforcement, even if he there had been one. (Which there is no record of.) Again, this is only a problem for you because you assume that the Rambam's chazaqah in 11:4 must be the reason for R' Aqiva and other tannaim followed BK. But he uses the expression "vedimah hu vekhol chakhmei doro" -- which is a little weak for following a chazaqah as per a chiyuv. The Y-mi (in the adorementiond &T Taanis 4:5 24b) quotes R' Aqiva as telling R' Yochanan ben Torta "Din hu malka meshikha", an idiom usually used to refer to a qal vachomer. BTW, where does the Rambam get that "kol chakhmei doro" followed Bar Koziva? Is there any indication Rabban Gamliel ever did? R Yochanan b Torta replied (in an oft repeated line) "Aqiva, yaalu asavim belechaikh ve'adayin ben David lo ba." : >The Rambam doesn't say so. That's your deduction. It requires assuming : >that the Rambam agrees with R' Aqiva over what the grounds for presuming : >(making a chazqah) that someone is moshiach. He doesn't say R' Aqiva is : >indeed his source. : : He explicitly uses him as his source that Moshiach needn't perform : miracles. How could he do so if his vision of Moshiach's : qualifications were different from R Akiva's? ... R' Aqiva proves that not performing miracles doesn't rule out someone being the moshiach. He doesn't prove what it takes to actually qualify as being one. And even beyond the difference between deriving one negative statement about the mashiach and assuming he got all his positive statements from the same source, you're missing the difference between noting R' Aqiva reached a conclusion and the Rambam pasqening that in a certain situation we are obligated by the rules of chazaqah to reach that same conclusion. : Again, this is impossible because if so how does he know R Akiva : didn't indeed require Moshiach to perform miracles, and was : expecting them to happen any day now? ... Who said he didn't? He uses R' Aqiva to rule out waiting for a miracle before following a potential. Not that moshiach won't perform miracles. 12:2 quotes Shemu'el to back up the point in 12:1 that olam beminhago holeikh. Which is minimally a particular kind of miracle, although it plausibly includes even miracles that are only momentary breaks in minhag olam. He doesn't mention R' Aqiva when ruling out these miracles from the entire mission. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "Man wants to achieve greatness overnight, micha at aishdas.org and he wants to sleep well that night too." http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yosef Yozel Horwitz, Alter of Novarodok Fax: (270) 514-1507 From hankman at bell.net Sun Oct 15 15:59:44 2017 From: hankman at bell.net (hankman) Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2017 18:59:44 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Torah precheit? Message-ID: Hi, I have been trying to understand what the geshtalt of Torah was precheit of the eitz hadaas. It could not have resembled anything that we ( I ) would recognize today. Consider: There was but one mitzva. Most if not all the mitzvos of the Torah we are familiar with could not have existed, at least as we understand them today. Had Adam been successful in his one day tafkid the purpose of the bria would have been accomplished and Adam (mankind) would have gone to olom haba ? mission accomplished nothing more to follow but for reward in olom haba. The many consequences seem to be as follows: there would be no avdus in Mitzrayim, therefore no yetzias Mitzrayim, therefore no regolim, that are all built on the idea of zecher l?yitzias Mitzrayim nor their issurei melocho . So there would not me any korban Pesach, no matzo, no maror etc. There would be no lulav and esrog, no succah etc. There would be no krobanos of shavous, no Yom Kippur and all its avoda and all its inuiyim as the cheit haeigel would never occur. Not sure about Rosh Hashana as the 6th day was the first RH perhaps as a yom hadin to pasken that Adam succeeded in his task and is deserving of olom haba. I could assume that Shabbos would also be present as it was in that first week with a kedushas Shabbos. The mussafim of all these yomim tovim would also be non existent as the yomim tovim themself seem in doubt. Much of the korbanos relating to cheit would seemingly have no purpose. the existance of the mikdash and all related mitzvot would likewise be in doubt. The mikdosh would have been Adam himself or perhaps after day 7 the mikdash would have come down in fire from heaven like we await today shibaneh beis hamikdash? As there would never be an Eretz Yisroel, then there would not be all the mitzvot hateltuot ba?aretz ? trumos, masros etc., etc. There would be no issurei arayos as there was just Adam and Chava. Not quite sure here as there was Kayin and Hevel and their twin sisters were there in the latter part of day 6. So perhaps a few of the arayaos would have been possible, mainly mother, father, son, daughter, aishes ish (Adam and Chava, but not sure about the kids as could kedushin be tofeis in a sister even if mutar for kium olam? Mishkav zachar was possible, but mishkav behama might not have been assur if one reads the medroshim kepshutom which the Maharal tell us NOT to do when Adam was seeking his mate before Chava was created. Still one has to deal with the fact that while these might have been possible, there was but ONE commandment ? not to eat from the eitz hadaas and none of the possible arayos I consider above. There was no mitzva of mila for Adam or Kayin and Hevel. Perhaps Adam was created mahul and Kayin and Hevel were nolod mahul? (Still today would need hatafas dam bris). Kibud Av vaAim would only be possible for Kain and Hevel but not for Adam or Chava who were not yilud isha. Mitzvot like korcho lameis would not be possible for beings who were not bar misa. Tumas meis would not be possible. With no rabim, mitzvot like melech, korban nossi, Ir haNidachas etc would not be possible. No mechias Amalek, or shiva ammim or kivush ha?aretz etc Rosh Chodes and its dinim would never happen as the world would end after one week. Most of choshen Mishpat would be superfluous if you own the entire world (Adam ? not sure if his kids would own anything as Adam would never die so they would never yarshan the world from him? (not sure if I am in the realm of Purim torah or not?). I could go on for most of taryag that would not have been possible. But the bottom line, possible or not, there was only ONE commandment ? the eitz hadaas! So what is the nature of Torah in such a world. How do we see it as an ever constant ever present and unchanging Torah? How does a Torah with but ONE mitzva look? How does it still identify with a Torah with 613 mitzvot? Sorry if my thoughts were very rambling. I just typed as things came to mind ? maybe not always a good idea! Kol tuv Chaim Manaster -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From zev at sero.name Sun Oct 15 22:15:48 2017 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2017 01:15:48 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] R. Akiva, Bar Kochba and Zecharya HaNovi In-Reply-To: <20171015222126.GB14924@aishdas.org> References: <5AFE790709AC4B0B9FDDB6A6102B7005@hankPC> <0278980f-97ca-2755-caa3-89461ed64e50@sero.name> <20171011143003.GA21995@aishdas.org> <20171011154231.GA6170@aishdas.org> <0e95d039-c074-ae7f-f3ba-3cee64a3d191@sero.name> <20171011171132.GA1028@aishdas.org> <20171015222126.GB14924@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 15/10/17 18:21, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 10:44:53PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > : It conflicts because the Y'mi's version of the story has the > : Chachamim abandoning BK *before* his fall. The Rambam clearly does > : not agree with that whole version of the story... > > The Y-mi does not say that R' Aqiva was among those who left early. The Rambam says that R Akiva *and all the sages of his generation* imagined BK was Moshiach, *until he was killed*. This is not consistent with the Y'mi. > As I said, there is nothing in the Rambam to rule out them following BK > out of the expectation that he would eventually get there, rather than his > being hogeh ve'oseiq bemitzvos already. Then why can't they also have expected him to eventually do miracles? How does their belief in him, and his lack of miracles, prove that Moshiach needn't do any? The fact that the Rambam uses their belief in him as proof that miracles aren't a requirement shows that they believed in him only because he *had* fulfilled all the *genuine* requirements for the stage he was at. > : >But either way -- whether he or the generation was sinful -- it would > : >show that BK didn't fit the Rambam's descrition of moshiach. > > : How so? He was righteous, and forced people to keep Torah, but > : they didn't listen, just like Yoshiyahu. > > "Veyakhof" includes "tried and failed"??? That's not quite what the > Rambam says. Yachof means to force, to make it the law of the land, and those who disobey are punished. It doesn't preclude people breaking the law when they think they can get away with it. Our current government forces us to live without drugs, and yet many people don't. > > : Again, how so? The requirement is that he forces all Israel to > : follow it and to reinforce its breaches. Not that he educates them, > : or makes them enthusiastic, but simply that he makes the Shulchan > : Aruch the law of the land, punishing those who break it... > > Which he didn't. The Sanhedrin doesn't get reorgonized and put on Har > haBayis. The Sanhedrin was already organized. There's no requirement that they return to Lishkas Hagazis until there *is* one, which he does eventually have to do, but it comes *after* chezkas Moshiach and fighting the war, which is the stage he was at. > In fact, he doesn't get the backing of the majority of the day's > posqim He certainly did, according to the Rambam. > to be able to be associated with a 2nd century religious revival > through legal enforcement, even if he there had been one. (Which there > is no record of.) Again, a "religious revival" means inspiring people to *want* to keep mitzvos, which is unrelated to *forcing* them to do so. > Again, this is only a problem for you because you assume that the Rambam's > chazaqah in 11:4 must be the reason for R' Aqiva and other tannaim > followed BK. What else could it be? He goes directly from saying that miracles are not a requirement to listing what things *are* requirements. Therefore he must have done those things. > But he uses the expression "vedimah hu vekhol chakhmei doro" > -- which is a little weak for following a chazaqah as per a chiyuv. What's weak about it? They must have had a reason for this imagination. What else but the chazaka? And if they thought he hadn't yet reached that stage then how do we know miracles aren't required to reach it? > > The Y-mi (in the adorementiond &T Taanis 4:5 24b) quotes R' Aqiva as > telling R' Yochanan ben Torta "Din hu malka meshikha", an idiom usually > used to refer to a qal vachomer. You're misreading it. It's not "din", it's *dein*. Dein hu malka meshicha, this is the Annointed King. > BTW, where does the Rambam get that "kol chakhmei doro" followed Bar > Koziva? Is there any indication Rabban Gamliel ever did? R Yochanan b > Torta replied (in an oft repeated line) "Aqiva, yaalu asavim belechaikh > ve'adayin ben David lo ba." He was the lone exception, or nearly so. Because *he* held that the miracle of judging by smell *was* required, even at the beginning. The Rambam paskens against him. > : >The Rambam doesn't say so. That's your deduction. It requires assuming > : >that the Rambam agrees with R' Aqiva over what the grounds for presuming > : >(making a chazqah) that someone is moshiach. He doesn't say R' Aqiva is > : >indeed his source. > : > : He explicitly uses him as his source that Moshiach needn't perform > : miracles. How could he do so if his vision of Moshiach's > : qualifications were different from R Akiva's? ... > > R' Aqiva proves that not performing miracles doesn't rule out someone being > the moshiach. He doesn't prove what it takes to actually qualify as being > one. This makes no sense. Either the Rambam agrees with R Akiva's criteria or he doesn't. If he doesn't then how can R Akiva's not requiring miracles prove that they're truly not required? If he was wrong about other criteria, how do we know he was right about this one? No, the fact that the Rambam uses him as proof means the Rambam adopts his view totally, and holds it is the halacha. In Chapter 12 he rules out not miracles but changes in nature. A miracle doesn't change nature, it breaks the rules of nature. Water continues to run downhill, but this water doesn't, not because its nature is different but because it's ignoring nature. That, he says, may or may not happen. Changes in nature won't, because Chazal say so. Chazal are silent on whether Moshiach will perform miracles, so we don't know. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From michaelpoppers at gmail.com Sun Oct 15 19:22:08 2017 From: michaelpoppers at gmail.com (Michael Poppers) Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2017 22:22:08 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] =?utf-8?b?4oCcVGltdHVtIEhhLUxlduKAnSBSZWR1eA==?= Message-ID: In Avodah V35n121, R'Micha wrote: > Tangent: The Gra said that "vehayisa akh sameiach" is the hardest mitzvah in the Torah. "Veyahisa sameiach" is one thing, but "akh sameiach"? To be nothing but happy, with no other moods ambivalently mixed in for 8 days (9 in chu"l) straight? < Tangents to the tangent: (a) Perhaps someone can quote "Ma'asei Rav" or the like, but what I've seen quoted *b'sheim GRA* is that the "ach" *d'rasha* in BT Sukka means that on Shmini Chag haAtzeres we're *b'simcha* with H' w/out any *cheftza shel mitzva*, e.g. see here : Perhaps the answer lies in a comment from the Vilna Gaon on the pasuk of ?v?hayisa ach sameiach.? The Gemara (Succah 48a) derives from this pasuk that Shemini Atzeres is included in the mitzvah of simchah. But the word ach generally limits what is being discussed. What are we limiting with ach sameiach? The Gaon explains that whereas Succos requires many mitzvah objects ? a succah, lulav and esrog, hoshanas ? Shemini Atzeres does not require any physical items. We only need to be sameiach. This is the inherent gift of the last day of the Yom Tov. We can?t take the succah and lulav with us after Yom Tov. But the simchah that comes from dveikus with Hashem requires nothing but ourselves, and it is something we can take along with us. (b) Translating "ach" as "nothing but" doesn't explain the YhK "ach" (P'Emor). (c) Another thought on "v'samachta b'chagecha...v'hayisa ach sameach" is that the latter mandate of *simcha* ("ach" or no "ach") seems superfluous and can be considered as a mandate for the entire year (i.e. not just "b'chagecha"). All the best from *Michael Poppers* * Elizabeth, NJ, USA -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From lisa at starways.net Mon Oct 16 00:51:28 2017 From: lisa at starways.net (Lisa Liel) Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2017 10:51:28 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] eitz hachaim In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <61f0b606-b859-4475-eef8-a10489e74f1c@starways.net> On 10/16/2017 12:41 AM, hankman via Avodah wrote: > What exactly was the eitz hachaim all about. The simple pshat doesn't > make any sense. If the purpose of the Gan was to serve Adam then when > would (could) he make use of the eitz hachaim? Kodem hacheit he was > not a bar misah so he had no need of it, after the cheit he was > prevented from accessing it! So when would it ever be useful to Adam? I don't understand the question. He was prevented from accessing it *because* of the cheit. Had he not sinned, you say he would have had no need for it, but who is to say that its only function was to make him live forever. Maybe that's just the function it has for a bar mitah. Or maybe that was its function, and that's *why* he wasn't a bar mitah. Because the eitz ha-chaim was there, and permissible for him to eat. It was only after he'd eaten from the eitz ha-daat that he could no longer be permitted to live forever. That what eating that did to him made eternal life for him a Bad Thing. Lisa From seinfeld at jsli.org Mon Oct 16 07:02:10 2017 From: seinfeld at jsli.org (Alexander Seinfeld) Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2017 10:02:10 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Zecher Liytzias Mitzrayim and Shmini Atzeres In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: It?s a nice vort but couldn?t you ask the same about Shabbos and Rosh Hashana? Isn?t every Yomtov is a Zecher Yetzias Mitzrayim, not for historical reasons but because Yetzias Mitzrayim is the foundation of our emunah (not Har Sinai)? > >>Rashi (B'midbar 29:35) famously tells us that Shmini Atzeres is a special >>time, with just Hashem and Bnei Yisrael together, alone, with no other >>nations around. I'm merely pointing out that it is not just the nations >>who >>are gone: The lulav is gone. The sukkah is gone. Nothing remains but us >>and >>Hashem, when we left the comfort of the miraculous sukkah, trading it for >>being at home in Eretz Yisrael. >> >>Akiva Miller >> >>Postscript: An easy challenge to this post could be that Tishre 22 was >>NOT >>the day that we crossed from the midbar into Eretz Yisrael. I will >>respond >>in advance by pointing out that Shavuos too is not necessarily celebrated >>on the same day as the event it reminds us of. The Zecher can be poetic >>and >>emotional, and need not be so mathematically rigorous. From micha at aishdas.org Mon Oct 16 11:35:11 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2017 14:35:11 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] R. Akiva, Bar Kochba and Zecharya HaNovi In-Reply-To: References: <5AFE790709AC4B0B9FDDB6A6102B7005@hankPC> <0278980f-97ca-2755-caa3-89461ed64e50@sero.name> <20171011143003.GA21995@aishdas.org> <20171011154231.GA6170@aishdas.org> <0e95d039-c074-ae7f-f3ba-3cee64a3d191@sero.name> <20171011171132.GA1028@aishdas.org> <20171015222126.GB14924@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20171016183511.GA2496@aishdas.org> On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 01:15:48AM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : On 15/10/17 18:21, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: :> On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 10:44:53PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: :>: It conflicts because the Y'mi's version of the story has the :>: Chachamim abandoning BK *before* his fall. The Rambam clearly does :>: not agree with that whole version of the story... :> The Y-mi does not say that R' Aqiva was among those who left early. : The Rambam says that R Akiva *and all the sages of his generation* : imagined BK was Moshiach, *until he was killed*. This is not : consistent with the Y'mi. I see what you mean. Again, it is interesting to find out where the Rambam's alternate picture comes from. Just as his "kol" in "vekhol chakhmei dodo" doesn't seem to be Chazal's picture in either shas. E.g. Sanhedrin 93b, "nechzei anan i moreiach veda'ain..." They were still checking out the validity of BK's claim at the time of his death. :> As I said, there is nothing in the Rambam to rule out them following BK :> out of the expectation that he would eventually get there, rather than his :> being hogeh ve'oseiq bemitzvos already. : Then why can't they also have expected him to eventually do : miracles? How does their belief in him, and his lack of miracles, : prove that Moshiach needn't do any? ... To repeat myself: 11:3 talks about following someone despite a lack of miracles. 12:1-2 talks about the necessary absense of at least a particular kind of miracle -- the start of a new natural order -- if not miracles altogether. If you want to talk about needn't do... then you're looking at R' Aqiva and pereq 11. If you want to talk about won't do... then you're looking at pereq 12 and his assumption of Shemu'el's "ein bein" over Rav's shitah. And the list of things that won't happen is necessarily a subset of things that one needn't wait to happen before following the candidate. Possibly a strict subset, possibly identical sets. :>:> But either way -- whether he or the generation was sinful -- it would :>:> show that BK didn't fit the Rambam's descrition of moshiach. :>: How so? He was righteous, and forced people to keep Torah, but :>: they didn't listen, just like Yoshiyahu. :> "Veyakhof" includes "tried and failed"??? That's not quite what the :> Rambam says. : Yachof means to force, to make it the law of the land, and those who : disobey are punished... You're just repeating the insistance that "vayakhof" could include trying to force people and failing. If the punishments don't actually get the majority observing, is it kefiyah? And we have no evidence or even claim of BK ever even having set up a punishment system. Although this too could be part of the picture the Rambam draws that I don't know the sourece for. After all, as per the above, the picture you get from CHazal is that the Sanhedrin and its enforcement system was *not* behind BK, but the Rambam would have them aligned. ... :> Which he didn't. The Sanhedrin doesn't get reorgonized and put on Har :> haBayis. : The Sanhedrin was already organized. There's no requirement that : they return to Lishkas Hagazis until there *is* one, which he does : eventually have to do, but it comes *after* chezkas Moshiach and : fighting the war, which is the stage he was at. Actually, there is strong evidence he at least started building a BHMQ. And while I suppose they didn't have to move in yet, Anshei Keneses haGedolah moved in to a "lishkah" demarkated by curtains! "Chezqas moshiach" isn't a state in-and-of-itself. It's a chazaqah, a legal presumption, that someone is moshiach. A presumption of a status, not a status. IOW, it is likely that among all of beis David, only the mashiach would be hogeh in Torah and oseif bemitzvos, bring the Jews to observance (minimally: by compulsion) "leileikh bahh ulchazeiq bidqah". And therefore, if we find a member of beis David succeeding at these things, we are obligated to act with the understanding that he is mashiach. Thus, it is meaningless to talk about what happens before or after chezqas mashiach, as though it were a real state change. : Again, a "religious revival" means inspiring people to *want* to : keep mitzvos, which is unrelated to *forcing* them to do so. That's yhour own creative read of what kefiyah means. Forcing or not, it implies actual follow-through. BK didn't risk (and in fact lose) the backing of the majority to get a minority sect to join his support. He didn't get the majority to observe -- or even want to keep mitzvos (as per TSBP). :> Again, this is only a problem for you because you assume that the Rambam's :> chazaqah in 11:4 must be the reason for R' Aqiva and other tannaim :> followed BK. : What else could it be? He goes directly from saying that miracles : are not a requirement to listing what things *are* requirements. : Therefore he must have done those things. Requirements for building a chazaqah that the candidate is indeed moshiach. Which is a measure of confidence in BK the Rambam doesn't claim R' Aqiva and his generation reached -- they only reached as far as "hu hayah omer alav" and "vedimah hu". No mention of a chazaqah they were chayavim to follow; in fact, the lashon ("dimah") implied its lack. Chazaqah isn't imagination; it's a presumption strong enough to obligate our acting upon. : What's weak about it? They must have had a reason for this : imagination. What else but the chazaka? And if they thought he : hadn't yet reached that stage then how do we know miracles aren't : required to reach it? Miracles aren't required. Full stop. 12:1 could even be saying they are ruled out. "What else other than the chazaqah"? Indicators that are short of a chazaqah. Don't we follow umdena, ruba deleisa leqaman, and other notions of likelihood without going as far as having a chazaqah in a lot of halachic topics? : You're misreading it. It's not "din", it's *dein*. Dein hu malka : meshicha, this is the Annointed King. "Hadein hu"? Not that important for the main topic, since dimah isn't an expression I would picture the Rambam using for a mandatory following of a chazaqah. :> BTW, where does the Rambam get that "kol chakhmei doro" followed Bar :> Koziva? Is there any indication Rabban Gamliel ever did? R Yochanan b :> Torta replied (in an oft repeated line) "Aqiva, yaalu asavim belechaikh :> ve'adayin ben David lo ba." : He was the lone exception, or nearly so. Because *he* held that : the miracle of judging by smell *was* required, even at the : beginning. The Rambam paskens against him. That is against the stam bavli (in Sanhedrin 93b, quoted above), which says it's Rabbanan. ... : This makes no sense. Either the Rambam agrees with R Akiva's : criteria or he doesn't... Critria for what? I still find you mixing apples and oranges. He uses R' Aqiva's following of BK despite the lack of a chazaqah as proof that we too shouldn't wait for a miracle before following a likely moshiach. He used Shemu'el's position to rule out miracles (or to be generous, maybe only one kind of miracle) being part of the messianic dream altogether. Very consistent picture, IMHO. : In Chapter 12 he rules out not miracles but changes in nature. A : miracle doesn't change nature, it breaks the rules of nature... It is a bitul of something miminhago shel olam, albeit a temporary one. But I have consistently left open the door to saying he's only talking about a subset of miracles; those that leave the running of things changed. I don't find it likely that the Rambam's "yibatel davar" means only permanent bitul, doubly so since it would be redundant with the next line, "o yihyeh sham chidush bemaaseh bereishis". Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger People were created to be loved. micha at aishdas.org Things were created to be used. http://www.aishdas.org The reason why the world is in chaos is that Fax: (270) 514-1507 things are being loved, people are being used. From cantorwolberg at cox.net Wed Oct 18 06:37:17 2017 From: cantorwolberg at cox.net (Richard Wolberg) Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2017 09:37:17 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Interesting Insight on Noach Message-ID: <36805007-8186-42B4-9042-51439D2BB204@cox.net> It has always bothered me that Noah was considered the only righteous person (along with his family) and that everyone else was evil. However, just today as I was studying various commentaries, I came across the following amazing account in Tanchuma, R?eh, 3. From the moment that God gave the Torah, it is only he who sins that will be punished, though before that, the whole generation was responsible for the sin of the individual. Thus there were many righteous men swept away with the deluge in the time of Noah. Hence, since Noah was the ?most? righteous, he was spared although the other righteous were not, as a consequence of collective guilt at that time. rw Inside each of us, there is the seed of both good and evil. It's a constant struggle as to which one will win. And one cannot exist without the other. Eric Burdon > > ?If you live for people?s acceptance, you will > die from their rejection.? > Anonymous From zev at sero.name Wed Oct 18 07:43:32 2017 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2017 10:43:32 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Interesting Insight on Noach In-Reply-To: <36805007-8186-42B4-9042-51439D2BB204@cox.net> References: <36805007-8186-42B4-9042-51439D2BB204@cox.net> Message-ID: On 18/10/17 09:37, Richard Wolberg via Avodah wrote: > However, just today > as I was studying various commentaries, I came across the following amazing > account in Tanchuma, R?eh, 3. > > From the moment that God gave the Torah, it is only he who sins that will be punished, > though before that, the whole generation was responsible for the sin of the individual. > Thus there were many righteous men swept away with the deluge in the time of Noah. > Hence, since Noah was the ?most? righteous, he was spared although the other righteous > were not, as a consequence of collective guilt at that time. According to R Avin, what was Avraham's argument, "chalila lach"? If that had been Hashem's SOP for the past 2050 years, and would be for another 400, why didn't He just tell Avraham "Yes, this is how I do things"? -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From micha at aishdas.org Wed Oct 18 13:25:27 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2017 16:25:27 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Interesting Insight on Noach In-Reply-To: <36805007-8186-42B4-9042-51439D2BB204@cox.net> References: <36805007-8186-42B4-9042-51439D2BB204@cox.net> Message-ID: <20171018202527.GA27560@aishdas.org> On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 09:37:17AM -0400, Richard Wolberg via Avodah wrote: : ... account in Tanchuma, R?eh, 3: :> From the moment that God gave the Torah, it is only he who sins that will :> be punished, though before that, the whole generation was responsible :> for the sin of the individual. Thus there were many righteous men swept :> away with the deluge in the time of Noah. Hence, since Noah was the :> "most" righteous, he was spared although the other righteous were not, :> as a consequence of collective guilt at that time. The text is available at or The siman opens with quoting Eikhah 3:38, "miPi Elyon lo seitzei hara'os vehatov" and then immediately starts with this statement from R' Avin. However, the quote has that after Matan Torah, whomever sins, "HQBH poreia mimenu", and before that, the whole generation "meshaleim chet'o". Arguably this translation might be missing something by leaving the language of Hashem collecting, as though on a debt. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger One doesn't learn mussar to be a tzaddik, micha at aishdas.org but to become a tzaddik. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yisrael Salanter Fax: (270) 514-1507 From hankman at bell.net Wed Oct 18 08:12:50 2017 From: hankman at bell.net (hankman) Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2017 11:12:50 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] R. Akiva, Bar Kochba and Zecharya HaNovi Message-ID: <7B0712E6569740909873C2AD4F89F435@hankPC> R. Micha Berger wrote: ?This doesn't really rule out miracles, but it does rule out ones that leave a permanent change in the natural orer. There is a line. Which is how he rules out the historicity of "vegar ze'eiv im keves..." etc... They don't mearly "needn't" happen, he rules out the possibility of their literal meaning being part of the future, because they cross his line of olam keminhago noheig".? Kodem cheit Adam haReshon, not just Adam was only permitted to eat plant life but so too was the nature of ALL animals that they too only subsisted from plant life ? ie., much like "vegar ze'eiv im keves..." So perhaps olam keminhago noheig means keminhago KODEM HACHET without requiring any change to the ORIGINAL natural order. Kol tuv Chaim Manaster -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hankman at bell.net Wed Oct 18 08:44:50 2017 From: hankman at bell.net (hankman) Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2017 11:44:50 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] =?utf-8?q?=E2=80=9Cthe_miracle_of_judging_by_smell?= =?utf-8?q?=E2=80=9D_was__=28Re=3A__R=2E_Akiva=2C_Bar_Kochba_and_Ze?= =?utf-8?q?charya_HaNovi=29?= Message-ID: ?the miracle of judging by smell? Really should be a knew thread. When we learned this sugia recently in the daf yomi I asked the magid shiur that lechora this was keneged torah which requires eidim for most judgements. He answered that perhaps it means that one smell from Moshiach would be enough to get the person to be modeh al ha?emes. I replied that would only work for judgments in choshen mishpot (hodoas bal din) but not for cases involving arayos, malkos, or misah where two eidim are required and we are not permitted to accept his confession as ein adam meisim atzmo rasha. How would this ?miracle? allow for a proper halachik judgment? That is where we left it for now. Could this meimre of chazal be limited to just cases involving choshen mishpot? I imagine many meforshim address this issue, can anyone clarify? Kol tuv Chaim Manaster -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From JRich at sibson.com Wed Oct 18 08:48:56 2017 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2017 15:48:56 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Shliach Tzibbur Message-ID: <5b1d039d5958444d94f6c90a4607ee17@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> The S"A in O"C 53 discusses what to look for in a Shliach Tzibbur. We seem to not fully actualize these recommendations (rationalizations include the fact that he is no longer being motzi those who can't pray). Do you think this result is sociological or halachic driven? Does an individual (e.g., avel) who pushes to be a shatz, etc., when there are more qualified individuals (or especially if they are not qualified), accomplish more good or bad? See especially Aruch Hashulchan 53:5. KT 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: From micha at aishdas.org Wed Oct 18 14:25:50 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2017 17:25:50 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] R. Akiva, Bar Kochba and Zecharya HaNovi In-Reply-To: <7B0712E6569740909873C2AD4F89F435@hankPC> References: <7B0712E6569740909873C2AD4F89F435@hankPC> Message-ID: <20171018212550.GB27560@aishdas.org> On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 11:12:50AM -0400, hankman via Avodah wrote: : R. Micha Berger wrote: :> This doesn't really rule out miracles, but it does rule out ones that :> leave a permanent change in the natural order. There is a line. Which is :> how he rules out the historicity of "vegar ze'eiv im keves..." etc... ... : Kodem cheit Adam haReshon, not just Adam was only permitted to eat plant : life but so too was the nature of ALL animals that they too only subsisted : from plant life -- ie., much like "vegar ze'eiv im keves..." I doubt the Rambam, the "he" I am trying to understand in the text you quoted, would agree with this premise about animals before the eitz hada'as. On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 11:44:50AM -0400, hankman via Avodah wrote: :> the miracle of judging by smell : Really should be a new thread. : When we learned this sugia recently in the daf yomi I asked the magid : shiur that lechora this was keneged torah which requires eidim for : most judgements. He answered that perhaps it means that one smell from : Moshiach would be enough to get the person to be modeh al ha'emes.... I think it HAS to be be its own thread, because this too works with assumptions the Rambam would not agree with. Odds are the Rambam wouldn't take "demorach" literally. See Lecham Yehudah on Hil' Melakhim 11:3, aveilable at . But to get back on topic to the original thread (which is why I'm posting it here): Notice that the BLY (R Yehudah Iyash, Levorno mid-18th cent) assumes that such guilt-smelling would defy the Rambam's "chidush bema'aseh bereishis" rule, and thus couldn't be literal. Even though it's a localized miracle / revelation and not a permanent change in the natural order. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Every child comes with the message micha at aishdas.org that God is not yet discouraged with http://www.aishdas.org humanity. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rabindranath Tagore From jmeisner at mail.gmail.com Wed Oct 18 15:38:14 2017 From: jmeisner at mail.gmail.com (Joshua Meisner) Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2017 18:38:14 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] "the miracle of judging by smell" was (Re: R. Akiva, Bar Kochba and Zecharya HaNovi) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7C3544D0-F571-4A7C-B067-FDC0308CBD65@gmail.com> On Oct 18, 2017, at 11:44am, hankman wrote: > When we learned this sugia recently in the daf yomi I asked the magid > shiur that lechora this was keneged torah which requires eidim for > most judgements. He answered that perhaps it means that one smell from > Moshiach would be enough to get the person to be modeh al ha'emes. I > replied that would only work for judgments in choshen mishpot (hodoas > bal din) but not for cases involving arayos, malkos, or misah where two > eidim are required and we are not permitted to accept his confession as > ein adam meisim atzmo rasha... Reaching a correct psak in any area of halacha requires obtaining a full picture of the situation, including all relevant details and the particular context. This requires that the posek have skill in asking questions that will clarify these points and recognizing when, intentionally or not, the answers he is receiving do not reflect the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Perhaps it is this sense that the navi is referring to. Joshua Meisner From hankman at bell.net Wed Oct 18 15:58:01 2017 From: hankman at bell.net (hankman) Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2017 18:58:01 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] =?utf-8?q?=E2=80=9Cthe_miracle_of_judging_by_smell?= =?utf-8?q?=E2=80=9D_was__=28Re=3A__R=2E_Akiva=2C_Bar_Kochba_and_Ze?= =?utf-8?q?charya_HaNovi=29?= Message-ID: <83ADB68D660C4A8BA5E0F3D19339FF76@hankPC> R. J. Meisner wrote: ? Reaching a correct psak in any area of halacha requires obtaining a full picture of the situation, including all relevant details and the particular context. This requires that the posek have skill in asking questions that will clarify these points and recognizing when, intentionally or not, the answers he is receiving do not reflect the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Perhaps it is this sense that the navi is referring to. Joshua Meisner? But no matter how skilled the judge is at getting at the truth, even if all he need so is be moreiach, this still does not lessen the requirement of 2 eidim for many judgments. While reading your response to me, another thought occurred to me and upon reflection it may be that this is also what you meant. Perhaps when the gemara stated that he can be moreaiach veda?in that the gemara meant not that he would only need to question the defendant, and could smell whether he is guilty or not and pasken based on the surety of his conclusion, but perhaps the gemara meant that when questioning the EIDIM he was able merely smell them and then judge the credibility of the eidim whether he should accept them as credible or not and thus pasken the case accordingly. Kol tuv Chaim Manaster -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hankman at bell.net Wed Oct 18 15:44:42 2017 From: hankman at bell.net (hankman) Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2017 18:44:42 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] R. Akiva, Bar Kochba and Zecharya HaNovi Message-ID: <36062433D0904BE5ABD5156C727C7A6D@hankPC> R. Micha Berger wrote: ?I doubt the Rambam, the "he" I am trying to understand in the text you quoted, would agree with this premise about animals before the eitz hada'as.? So how does the Rambam explain Bereishis 1:30? Kol tuv Chaim Manaster -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From akivagmiller at gmail.com Thu Oct 19 02:47:09 2017 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2017 05:47:09 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Torah precheit? Message-ID: . R' Chaim Manaster asked: > I have been trying to understand what the geshtalt of Torah > was precheit of the eitz hadaas. It could not have resembled > anything that we ( I ) would recognize today. Consider: > There was but one mitzva. Most if not all the mitzvos of the > Torah we are familiar with could not have existed, at least > as we understand them today. Had Adam been successful in his > one day tafkid the purpose of the bria would have been > accomplished and Adam (mankind) would have gone to olom haba > ? mission accomplished nothing more to follow but for reward > in olom haba. > > The many consequences seem to be as follows: there would be > no avdus in Mitzrayim, therefore no ... ... One can ask similar questions about other turning-points in history. What if Kayin had not killed Hevel? What if the world has not gone to Avodah Zara a few generations later? What if Yishmael and/or Esav had not gone of the derech? What if Moshe Rabenu had acted differently by the rock? I believe that people are too hung up on the idea that "Torah" and the Chumash are identical. They are not. "The Torah has 70 faces", and ONE of them is the written scroll that we read from in shul. Another is the Torah Sheb'al Peh. Another was that one singular mitzvah that Adam HaRishon was given. None is less holy than any other. They are but different facets of the same diamond. And there are yet others. Torah manifests itself differently to a kohen than to a levi, and differently to a woman than to a man. And so on. For example: > As there would never be an Eretz Yisroel, then there would not > be all the mitzvot hateltuot ba?aretz ? trumos, masros etc., etc. Or perhaps Gan Eden would have had that status. Eretz Yisrael is actually a great example: Consider the idea that true nevuah can exist only in Eretz Yisrael. But also consider that this restriction only started when EY got its kedushah - prior to that point one could have nevuah elsewhere too. Logically, I would think that the kedusha of EY enabled this thing that couldn't exist without such intense kedusha; but counter-intuitively, this thing that has long existed is now suddenly restricted to a specific area. Because times change, and people change; the Torah stays the same but it shows a different face. We are so used to how things are today, that we think things have always been this way. But it ain't so. > So what is the nature of Torah in such a world. How do we > see it as an ever constant ever present and unchanging > Torah? How does a Torah with but ONE mitzva look? How does > it still identify with a Torah with 613 mitzvot? There are many mitzvos that apply only at specifc times and under specific circumstances. Consider the back-and-forth of when bamos were allowed and not allowed. We went for quite a few centuries with choosing a human king. I am deliberately trying to avoid mitzvos that have sociological criteria, like the existence of a Sanhedrin, or whether or not we are capable of tochacha. Rather, my point goes to this "Torah with 613 mitzvot" that you refer to. It doesn't exist today, and I don't know if it ever has existed. There has certainly never been a person to whom they all applied, and I wonder whether there was ever a generation when they were all in force. > Sorry if my thoughts were very rambling. I just typed as > things came to mind ? maybe not always a good idea! On the contrary, brainstorming is often a fruitful way of developing new thoughts! Personally, it was many decades ago that someone asked me, "If there is life on other planets, might they possibly have a Torah? But Mitzrayim doesn't exist there, and Moshe never lived there!" That question bothered me for a very long time, until I realized that even on *this* planet, Noach had his version of Torah, and that was centuries before Mitzrayim or Moshe came to be. (To conflate two threads, I think what I'm saying here is very similar to what R"n Lisa Liel wrote in the "eitz hachaim" thread. These things aren't static; their roles change to fit the situation.) Akiva Miller From zev at sero.name Wed Oct 18 20:54:50 2017 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2017 23:54:50 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] =?utf-8?q?=E2=80=9Cthe_miracle_of_judging_by_smell?= =?utf-8?q?=E2=80=9D_was_=28Re=3A_R=2E_Akiva=2C_Bar_Kochba_and_Zecharya_Ha?= =?utf-8?q?Novi=29?= In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <209038db-6620-b1cf-4e52-1b093803ac7d@sero.name> On 18/10/17 11:44, hankman via Avodah wrote: > ?the miracle of judging by smell? > Really should be a knew thread. > When we learned this sugia recently in the daf yomi I asked the magid > shiur that lechora this was keneged torah which requires eidim for most > judgements. Moshiach is a melech, and not bound by the rules of a beis din. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From micha at aishdas.org Wed Oct 18 19:40:28 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2017 22:40:28 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] R. Akiva, Bar Kochba and Zecharya HaNovi In-Reply-To: <36062433D0904BE5ABD5156C727C7A6D@hankPC> References: <36062433D0904BE5ABD5156C727C7A6D@hankPC> Message-ID: <20171019024028.GB20212@aishdas.org> On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 06:44:42PM -0400, hankman via Avodah wrote: : R. Micha Berger wrote: :> I doubt the Rambam, the "he" I am trying to understand in the text :> you quoted, would agree with this premise about animals before the :> eitz hada'as. : So how does the Rambam explain Bereishis 1:30? Well, if you look at Moreh 1:30, you'll see that the Rambam considers maaseh bereishis to be atemporal, 6 logical stages of unfolding of reality, not steps separated in time. So I don't know if I should assume anything about how he reads pasuq 30. But I do note that if taken literally, the pasuq merely says that Hashem gave the plants to the animals for food. A statement about one of the functions of plantsl and that Adam can't hord all the plants for himself, since animals need it too. It needn't mean that only plants served a food. The statement from Chazal (quoted by Rashi) is a derashah. The Ohr haChaim spends time justifying it, if you want to see the medrashic steps in detail. But it's not peshat, and therefore not necessarily the Rambam would take literally. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger There's only one corner of the universe micha at aishdas.org you can be certain of improving, http://www.aishdas.org and that's your own self. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Aldous Huxley From zev at sero.name Wed Oct 18 21:51:32 2017 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2017 00:51:32 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Interesting Insight on Noach In-Reply-To: <2E736CF9-84CD-41DB-9963-8E38B681DC20@cox.net> References: <36805007-8186-42B4-9042-51439D2BB204@cox.net> <2E736CF9-84CD-41DB-9963-8E38B681DC20@cox.net> Message-ID: <18439702-d4ae-0f50-3350-a8b5cd433fb5@sero.name> On 18/10/17 11:09, Richard Wolberg wrote: > What I?m saying is that our theology is fraught with inconsistencies and > contradictions > and we have plenty of ?teikusl? ?You?re a black and white person and > don?t see shades. > Not everything can be reconciled. Impossible. Toras Hashem Temima, and can't contradict itself. If there are two pesukim that seem to contradict each other, there's a third pasuk that resolves it and makes sense of both. It's not possible that R Avin was unaware of Avraham's statement, nor is it possible that he would dismiss Avraham's view as mistaken. Therefore there must be something in R Avin's view that's not what it appears. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From JRich at sibson.com Fri Oct 20 05:37:21 2017 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2017 12:37:21 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] empiricism Message-ID: <17851b0cb6514f5a8fac7543e7d86493@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Rabbi Jason Weiner's, "Jewish Guide to Practical Medical Decision-Making" - "The Talmudic sages performed post-mortem examinations and had considerable knowledge of anatomy and pathology. Indeed, the rabbis of the Talmud were among the first people in history to operate on corpses in order to learn medical information that had halakhic ramifications. See Tosefta Niddah 4:17, Niddah 30b, bekhorot 45A . . ". Wiki s- Initially, the Ancient Greek philosophers did not believe in empiricism, and saw measurements, such as geometry, as the domain of craftsmen and artisans. Philosophers, such as Plato, believed that all knowledge could be obtained through pure reasoning, and that there was no need to actually go out and measure anything. Please look at the three sources quoted by R'Weiner, are they support or really maaseh lstormaaseh l'stor as to a general approach? Kt 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: From emteitz at gmail.com Fri Oct 20 14:49:21 2017 From: emteitz at gmail.com (elazar teitz) Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2017 17:49:21 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] the miracle of judging by smell Message-ID: On this topic, the comment was made that "Moshiach is a melech, and not bound by the rules of a beis din." However, other than moreid b'malchus, this is only true for r'tzicha, not other capital punishment cases, as is indicated in Rambam Hilchos M'lachim 3:10 (as it is understood by most m'farshim). EMT -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From isaac at balb.in Sat Oct 21 04:07:43 2017 From: isaac at balb.in (Isaac Balbin) Date: Sat, 21 Oct 2017 11:07:43 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] ?the miracle of judging by smell? was (Re: R. Akiva, Bar Kochba and Zecharya HaNovi) Message-ID: From: Zev Sero > > On 18/10/17 11:44, hankman via Avodah wrote: >> When we learned this sugia recently in the daf yomi I asked the magid >> shiur that lechora this was keneged torah which requires eidim for most >> judgements. Zev responded > Moshiach is a melech, and not bound by the rules of a beis din. Indeed. His position therefore also invalidates Moshiach from being a formal witness, although that's clearly not for trust/smell issues. From micha at aishdas.org Sun Oct 22 07:20:34 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2017 10:20:34 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Long Lifespans in Bereishis Message-ID: <20171022142033.GA669@aishdas.org> Our old chaver R' Rich Wolpoe posted this article by R/Dr Mitchell First. It's a nice survey of opinions about all those long lifespans in seifer Bereishis : NishmaBlog From RRW Guest Blogger: Mitchell First Thursday, 19 October 2017 The Long Lifespans in Genesis The Longevity of the Ancients Recorded in Genesis ... Josephus (late 1st century). Here is his statement in Antiquities, book I: " ...For, in the first place, they were beloved of God and the creatures of God himself; their diet too was more conducive to longevity: it was then natural that they should live so long. Again, alike for their merits and to promote the utility of their discoveries in astronomy and geometry, God would accord them a longer life...." Now I will survey the views of our Geonim and Rishonim. R. Saadiah Gaon (10th cent.) discusses this issue in his introduction to Tehillim. He writes that the longevity of these early generations was part of God's plan for the rapid proliferation of mankind on the earth..... R. Yehudah Ha-Levi (12th cent.) discusses the issue in the Kuzari (sec. 95). He believes that it was only the individuals listed who lived long. Each of the individuals listed was the heart and essence of his generation and was physically and spiritually perfect. The Divine Flow was transmitted from one generation to another through these exceptional individuals. Rambam, in a famous passage in the Guide to the Perplexed (II, chap. 47) writes: "I say that only the persons named lived so long, whilst other people enjoyed the ordinary length of life. The men named were exceptions, either in consequence of different causes, as e.g., their food or mode of living, or by way of miracle." Ramban (comm. to Gen. 5:4) quotes Rambam's view and then disagrees, ... individuals with long lifespans named in the Bible were not exceptional in their lifespans. Rather, the entire world had long lifespans before the Flood. But after the Flood, the world atmosphere changed and this caused the gradual reduction in lifespans. Most of the Rishonim who discussed the issue thereafter followed the approach of either the Rambam or the Ramban. Either way, they were taking the Genesis lifespan numbers literally. (An underlying factor that motivated Rishonim to accept the Genesis lifespan numbers literally was that the count from creation was calculated based on these numbers.) Josephus had mentioned that one of the reasons that God allowed their longevity was to promote the utility of their discoveries in astronomy and geometry. This idea of longevity to enable the acquisition of knowledge and make discoveries (and write them to be passed down) is also included in several of our Rishonim. See, e.g., the commentary of the Radak to Gen. 5:4 and of the Ralbag to Gen. chap. 5 (p. 136), and the Rashbatz (R. Shimon b. Tzemach Duran, Magen Avot, comm. to Avot 5:21). Rashbatz also mentions the idea that the early generations were close in time to Adam and Adam ... was made by God from the earth.... Another idea found in some of our Rishonim is that those early individuals did not chase after "ta'avat ha-guf," which reduces the lifespan. See, e.g., the commentary of the Radak to Gen. 5:4. ... ... R. Moses Ibn Tibbon (late 13th cent.) He suggests that the years given for people's lives were actually the years of "malkhutam ve-nimuseihim," i.e., the dynasties and/or customs that they established. ... R. Levi ben Hayyim (early 14th cent.).... concludes that in his opinion the names mentioned were just roshei avot. In other words, the number of years given for each individual reflects the total of the years of the several generations of individuals named for that first individual. R. Nissim of Marseilles (early 14th century) ... took the same approach as R. Moses Ibn Tibbon. The numbers ... included the total years of the descendants who followed his customs and lifestyle. The most interesting approach I saw was that of R. Eleazar Ashkenazi ben Nathan ha-Bavli (14th century), in his work Tzafnat Paneach, pp. 29-30. ... First, R. Eleazar refers to the view that perhaps the individual numbers were not to be taken literally, and points to other statements in the Torah that were not meant to be taken literally, e.g., 1) the Land of Israel was "flowing with milk and honey," and 2) the cities in Canaan were "fortified up to the Heaven" (Deut. 1:28). (See further Moreh Nevuchim, II,47.) But then R. Eleazar suggests the following creative approach. In listing these individual numbers, the Torah was merely recording the legends about these figures, even though they were not accurate. The important thing was to provide data from which the total years from Creation to Matan Torah could be derived, so that the people would be able to know the length of time between these two periods. Even though the numbers for the individual lifespans were not accurate, the Torah made sure that the total that would be arrived at would be accurate.... ... Prof. Natan Aviezer of Bar-Ilan University.... in a post at the Bar Ilan University weekly parshah site for parshat Noach, 1998... explains that modern science has figured out that aging is largely caused by genes, and not by a wearing out of our bodies. He then suggests that when God stated at Gen. 6:3 that man would be limited to 120 years, this was when God first introduced the gene for aging into the human gene pool. If you have not found any of the above answers satisfying, I have some good news. R. Saadiah Gaon writes (Emunot Ve-Deot, end of chap. 7) that in the era of the redemption the human lifespan will be approximately 500 years. Presumably, at that time we won't be bothered by those long lifespans in Genesis anymore! (Note that Radak, comm. to Is. 65:20, is a bit stingier. He predicts lifespans of only 300 to 500 years. See also his commentary to Ps. 92:15. But the 12th century Babylonian Gaon R. Samuel b. Ali predicts lifespans closer to 1000 years!) I would like to acknowledge that most of the material above came from an article by Prof. Daniel Lasker of Ben-Gurion University, in Mechkarim Be-Halakha U-Be-Mishpat Ha-Ivri, vol. 26-27 (2009-10). Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger I slept and dreamt that life was joy. micha at aishdas.org I awoke and found that life was duty. http://www.aishdas.org I worked and, behold -- duty is joy. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rabindranath Tagore From micha at aishdas.org Sun Oct 22 09:13:16 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2017 12:13:16 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Beris Milah on Shabbos when Father isn't Jewish Message-ID: <20171022161316.GA32328@aishdas.org> I mentioned in the past I had this question halakhah lemaaseh. I knew of an intermarried couple who lived nowhere near the nearest Jewish community. They would have just had the boy circumcized in the hospital rather than to pay what one of the nearer mohalim wanted to come down for the weekend. Yes, the nearest Chabad house had a mohel, who (of course) would come at cost... IFF he hadn't had a beris in his own minhan that same Shabbos. So the question I asked was whether I should donate (or raise donations) for the beris to be bizmano. My LOR asked his rav... long story short, as I best remember at a little more than two decades later: The pasuq says "bayom hashemini yimol besar arlaso" -- it's the father who is told "on the eight day", even if it's on Shabbos. Implied: If the father has no chiyuv, such as our case or if r"l the father didn't survive to see his son's beris, there is no one whose chiyuv overrides Shabbos. (If the father is alive but not there, you'd still violate Shabbos.) Well, someone asked R' Asher Weiss. . He didn't rule the same way, but does mention that is -- or at least was -- a machloqes amoraim. However, RAW holds a consensus has emerged to do the beris. Perhaps RDC didn't think the consensus was solid enough to warrant my spending or raising that kind of money for someone else's beris. Or perhaps it was closer to the way I remembered it and RDC doesn't agree with how the consensus emerged. Brit mila on Shabbos when father is non Jew Posted by: Rabbi Akiva Dershowitz Question: Does everyone agree that a brit is done on Shabbat even if the father is a goy? ... Answer: No, this is a dispute among the achronim [halachic authorities of the last 500 years]. The halachic ruling is that we do in fact perform the bris mila on Shabbos. See Derisha Y:D 266:20, Nachalas Shiva [kuntress hamila siman 1], Shu't Binyan Tzion [Vol. 1:21]. The nearest I could find in Hebrew (as the Hebrew always has more discussion) is "Beris beShabbos leVen Me'uberes sheNisgayrah" at . There the question is whether the velad's milah is a normal beris or lesheim geirus, and RAW still holds the milah should be on Shabbos. It's a fun sugya, worth a read. But doesn't focus on our question. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger You cannot propel yourself forward micha at aishdas.org by patting yourself on the back. http://www.aishdas.org -Anonymous Fax: (270) 514-1507 From hankman at bell.net Sun Oct 22 13:15:49 2017 From: hankman at bell.net (hankman) Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2017 16:15:49 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Torah precheit? Message-ID: <39266980A1C24F078B1904F1783BA1C0@hankPC> R. Akiva Miller wrote: ?One can ask similar questions about other turning-points in history. What if Kayin had not killed Hevel? What if the world has not gone to Avodah Zara a few generations later? What if Yishmael and/or Esav had not gone of the derech? What if Moshe Rabenu had acted differently by the rock?? Actually I had thoughts along similar lines that you express. The most prominent such turning point was the cheit ha?eigel, where again, had they succeeded, that again would have been the end for man?s tafkid and correction the cheit of Adam, direct route to eretz Yisroel, no forty years in the midbar and presumably Moshe R. would have been the final moshiach and on to the final gemul. The reason these two stick in my mind more than the other forks in history you point to, is that these would have been endpoints to the tafkid in this world and led directly to olom haba with no continuation of the ?Torah? story we are familiar with. The moments in history you point to would have been forks in the road but not endpoints. So if say Esau/Yishmoel had made good choices and been more like his brother Yaakov/Yitzchok, the story would have had a different twist to it, but the overall gestalt to the Torah could still have been quite similar. What we have now, with some changes. But we would have no problem imagining all (perhaps most) of the mitzvos as we know them. These two, cheit of Adam and cheit ha?eigel, were fundamentally different than the other ?forks? in the road as what we know to have followed would never happen. So Regalim, and avdus in Mitzrayim, etc, etc are ideas that seem not to have a place in such a reality had Adam succeeded while the other forks would have led to a variation on a theme we are familiar with and can at least readily imagine. The idea you mention of ?70 panim latorah? would have to be expanded greatly if for every fork on the possible choices made in the biblical period (by this I mean the time through the end of the forty years bamidbar that were recorded in chumash). If every possible choice made at every fork (say N) resulted in a diff version of Torah, then that would result in 2 to the N panim laTorah ? with N being very large! Perhaps 70 is just a synonym for ?many?? When we say that there are 70 umos, I always wondered how that was defined, as it seems to me that there are many more and that the number would change for different periods in history. If 70 here too means ?many? that would clear that up. But then the precise number of 70 for the parei hachag might be a problem unless for some reason that may have been fixed symbolically, or perhaps to coincide with the original number at some early point in history as say per the list of the 70 nations Art Scroll makes in its chumash at the end of this weeks parsha (Noach). Basically it is a listing of certain of the names of descendants of Noach. Have you ever heard of a nation called Ever (or most of the other names they list)? So is the ?essence? of Torah something beyond our ken. Is all we can see just a single facet of the 70 panim laTorah? (This of course is not the normal meaning to 70 panim laTorah, which usually is applied to differing explanations to our ?current? Torah, and not the other ?possible? ?Toros? as you are suggesting. Is this so far off the beaten path that this might even be an accidental trip into thought that might be apikursus or a credible notion within the daas? (Torah lo yehai moochlefes). I have no idea! R. Akiva Miller wrote: ?Torah manifests itself differently to a kohen than to a levi, and differently to a woman than to a man.? There is a fundamental difference between a mitzvoh only applying to some vs the concept not existing. Even if I am a Yisroel I can still be oseik in torah of the mitvos of a cohen ? it is still a part of Torah given to all of us even if not all of it pertains to me. R. Akiva Miller wrote: ?Or perhaps Gan Eden would have had that status.? I actually had a thought similar to yours as well on this idea. When I thought a little more about it, I had difficulty putting it all together. so what kind of meaning would trummos and massros have. What would orlo mean. Without aniyim, what is the point of leket shichacha upei?a? (or tzedaka in general, or even more broadly of gemila chasadim in such a world?) The mitzvos hatelyuous ba?aretz only make sense in an agricultural society, not in a world of olam haba where there are no farmers or farms. No need for orei miklat in a world without a yetzer. On another thought, would the notion of baal tigra in the world of only one mitzva leave you with no mitvos at all? That would make one a kofer bekol haTorah koola? Also there would be no need for lo tassur yamin usemol for gezeirot derabanan in such a world (though perhaps it might have stopped Chava if such a takana existed to protect the only mitzvoh they had). R. Akiva Miller wrote: ?"If there is life on other planets, might they possibly have a Torah? But Mitzrayim doesn't exist there, and Moshe never lived there!" That question bothered me for a very long time,? Strangely enough, I had similar thoughts years back. As a young bachur in yeshivo, my rebbi was teaching us that their was a period during which the progenitor of kelal Yisroel would happen. I asked what would have happened if there had been another deep thinker who came to the same realization and belief that Avraham did. He answered that there would have been two (or more) chosen peoples to eventually be mekabel Torah. It didn?t occur to me at the time to ask, would they each have the ?same? Torah or each get a tailored version to their (eventual) am? Or, would there be one Torah that talks of both of the chosen peoples? Years later when discussing what is the purpose to us of the trillions of stars and galaxies so distant that they could never possibly affect us here on Earth? Then it occurred to me, what if those stars had planets with intelligent beings on them and they too went through a similar period wherein they too had some allien being come to the same conclusions as Avraham did and they then became the chosen people of that planet and received a Torah possibly tailored to their experiences and appropriate there etc.? This almost makes sense of the questions the malachim asked Moshe when he went lamorom to accept Torah. They too wanted Torah in a version suitable to them which would deflect all of Moshe?s responses. If memory serves, I think some meforshim try to make sense of the malachim in such a manner. Just some more rambling thoughts. Kol tuv Chaim Manaster -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hankman at bell.net Sun Oct 22 23:25:10 2017 From: hankman at bell.net (hankman) Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2017 02:25:10 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] =?utf-8?q?=E2=80=9Cthe_miracle_of_judging_by_smell?= =?utf-8?q?=E2=80=9D_was_=28Re=3A_R=2E_Akiva=2C_Bar_Kochba_and_Zech?= =?utf-8?q?arya_HaNovi=29?= Message-ID: <7D7387F31006477FA724C733A37A100B@hankPC> R. Zev Sero wrote: ?Moshiach is a melech, and not bound by the rules of a beis din.? You are obviously referring to Rambam, Melachim P. 3: 8, 10. However this refers to judgments that are within the scope of the Melech such as a moreid, or letakein ha?olom kefi ma shehasho?o tzricha. This does not however give him the right to usurp ordinary judgments that normally would fall to a beis din (and disregard such niceties as eidus that the Torah requires), unless he is the av beis din (possible for malchei beis Dovid) and does follow the rules of Torah for eidus like any other beis din and does not simply follow his nose in these judgments. Furthermore, in the category of cases like moreid and shehasho?o tzricha, all the Melech needs to do is simply assert his position as he feels correct for ANY Melech ? he does not even need the power of moreiach veda?in to prove his position. So mimonafshoch, in either case he either may not, or has no need of the power to be moreiach veda?in. Kol tuv Chaim Manaster -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Mon Oct 23 13:16:56 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2017 16:16:56 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] =?cp1255?q?=93the_miracle_of_judging_by_smell=94_was_?= =?cp1255?q?=28Re=3A_R=2E_Akiva=2C_Bar_Kochba_and_Zecharya_HaNovi=29?= In-Reply-To: <7D7387F31006477FA724C733A37A100B@hankPC> References: <7D7387F31006477FA724C733A37A100B@hankPC> Message-ID: <20171023201656.GA13749@aishdas.org> On Mon, Oct 23, 2017 at 02:25:10AM -0400, hankman via Avodah wrote: : . Furthermore, : in the category of cases like moreid and shehasho'o tzricha, all the : Melech needs to do is simply assert his position as he feels correct : for ANY Melech -- he does not even need the power of moreiach veda'in to : prove his position. So mimonafshoch, in either case he either may not, : or has no need of the power to be moreiach veda'in. If I understood the Rambam this way: It would be good to have a king who knows with certainty which dinim need shoring up because he can smell that their violation is rampant. Or, in determining the convicted's guilt: Let's say some sin became common place, and hasha'ah zerikhah that the king enforce a capital punishment for it. But say I understand him as per REMT's post, noting that in 3:10 the Rambam singles out the king's power to kill murderers (eg without hasda'ah, where there was only eid echad, etc...) -- implying that retzichah yes, other issurim, the king could not. (Mikelal lav...) 3:8 really only discussed rebellion and lesse majeste (moreid bemekeh and mevazeh es hamelekh o hamchorfo). I don't see hasha'ah tzeikhah in the Rambam; I'm taking your word for it. Still, I can ask the parallel question: Wouldn't if be far far better if the melekh hamashiach had a supernal ability to know who is really guilty, and not kill the wrong guy? He might not legally need the power, but it would be a good thing for a king to have in order to be effective and fair. So I'm not sure your argument holds. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Every child comes with the message micha at aishdas.org that God is not yet discouraged with http://www.aishdas.org humanity. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rabindranath Tagore From micha at aishdas.org Mon Oct 23 18:51:25 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2017 21:51:25 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] No Barrier Between Religion and Science Message-ID: <20171024015125.GA13043@aishdas.org> See this article on Real Clear Science or http://www.realclearscience.com/articles/2017/10/16/philosophy_rebuts_key_barrier_between_science_and_religion_110422.htmlh Here is Mosaic Magazine's snippet: Kuhn's [argument] is that students learn first by imitation and practice and -- assuming they receive a good education -- once they strike out on their own, they will have been successfully inculcated into a particular scientific tradition. They will thus be prepared to recognize, pose, and solve scientific problems. If we take tradition to be antithetical to scientific rationality, Kuhn's conclusions will appear disquieting. And, indeed, Kuhn's critics rejected his arguments as "irrationalist." But if, on the contrary, we take tradition to be essential to rationality, then Kuhn's conclusions will be not only acceptable but also unsurprising. According to the moral philosopher Alasdair MacIntyre, before we can begin to reason at all, we must first acquire the habits necessary to recognize and, ultimately, to replicate rational behavior. To do so, there must first be exemplars that we take to be authoritative -- in the moral domain these will be exceptionally virtuous people, in the scientific domain, exceptionally good scientists. To become rational, in other words, one must be educated within a tradition of inquiry. Science, on this view, is not Cartesian -- at least as far as [the rejection of received ideas] is concerned -- even if it remains eminently rational. Where does this leave us?... [T]he fact that religious beliefs are not entirely reducible to empirical experience and partly depend upon tradition doesn't make them irrational or even anti-scientific. Thus a popular way of opposing science and religion starts to look untenable. This hardly means the two become indistinguishable. But it does suggest that science and religion could be conceived of as distinct -- but possibly harmonious, even sometimes mutually beneficial -- traditions of rational inquiry. The truth is that science has little to say about where a hypothesis come from. It gives little guidance for deciding what features are worth observing, what we should give our attention to. And once we see a pattern that needs explanation, it is left to human creativity to come up with a hypothesis. Science is a means of weeding out subjectivity from possible answers, but the means of coming up with those answers are very human. In particular, the entire enteprise of science rests on a tradition of theism -- whether the personal beliefs of an Aristotle or Newton, or the culture that produced an Einstein. Without a personal reason for assuming that the universe opperates reasonably, rather than attributing lightning to Thor's or Zeus's moods, can that hypothesis invention get started. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Good decisions come from experience; micha at aishdas.org Experience comes from bad decisions. http://www.aishdas.org - Djoha, from a Sepharadi fable Fax: (270) 514-1507 From hankman at bell.net Mon Oct 23 20:57:36 2017 From: hankman at bell.net (hankman) Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2017 23:57:36 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] "the miracle of judging by smell" was (Re: R. Akiva, Bar Kochba and Zecharya HaNovi) In-Reply-To: <20171023201656.GA13749@aishdas.org> References: <7D7387F31006477FA724C733A37A100B@hankPC> <20171023201656.GA13749@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <7FA394F42CCE44ECBB668DFA42362B96@hankPC> From: Micha Berger Sent: Monday, October 23, 2017 4:16 PM > But say I understand him as per REMT's post, noting that in 3:10 the > Rambam singles out the king's power to kill murderers (eg without > hasda'ah, where there was only eid echad, etc...) -- implying that > retzichah yes, other issurim, the king could not. (Mikelal lav...) > 3:8 really only discussed rebellion and lesse majeste (moreid bemekeh > and mevazeh es hamelekh o hamchorfo). I don't see hasha'ah tzeikhah in > the Rambam; I'm taking your word for it. Still, I can ask the parallel > question: > Wouldn't if be far far better if the melekh hamashiach had a supernal > ability to know who is really guilty, and not kill the wrong guy? > He might not legally need the power, but it would be a good thing for a > king to have in order to be effective and fair. My own initial impression unlike REMT is that the Rambam in 3:10 was not limiting this to only rotzeach, but dealing with case of max punishment or similar punishment and kal vechomer for cases of lesser punishment, however on rereading the Rambam after reading REMT I can see his point of view, but I am not sure I am fully convinced. I did a quick look around and found that the Or Sameiach on the Rambam at 3:10 has a long discussion on this issue as to whether the melech only has this power for a rotzeach where it is a danger to the rabim but not to enforce laxity of bein adam lamokom such as dinei shabbos, or if there was a breach even in these other areas whether the melech could act extra judicially there as well. There is a reference to a Y. Sanhedrin that implies that Dovid hamelech wold have executed for mishkav behama al pi eid echod -- so not just rotzeiach. See also the Rambam H. Rotzeiach P 2:4-5 where he broadens this extra judicial power to beis din as well but under horoas sha'o rather than takonas olam. (Not sure if the different label implies a difference in the respective extra judicial powers or not). See the Kesef Mishna there who mentions a case of chilul Shabbos. My simple reading there is that the Rambam seem to equate the reach of the extra judicial power of b"d to that of the melech to punish when found necessary either due to horo'as shao or takonas olam respectively. (Not clear to me if the different reasons lead to a different scope or not). But it seems that yeish lekan veyeish lekan. I hear your point about moreiach being a good reassurance that his pesak is correct even if not really necessary to render his judgment. Kol tuv Chaim Manaster From micha at aishdas.org Tue Oct 24 06:38:55 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2017 09:38:55 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Psak source wanted In-Reply-To: <1857240052.122258.1508054451353@mail.yahoo.com> References: <1857240052.122258.1508054451353.ref@mail.yahoo.com> <1857240052.122258.1508054451353@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20171024133855.GB25244@aishdas.org> On Sun, Oct 15, 2017 at 08:00:51AM +0000, Motti Yarchinai via Avodah wrote: : It is similar to what the Rambam wrote in Hilchot Kiddush Hachodesh, : saying that in all calendric matters, we follow the lead of the chachmei : eretz yisrael, and even though the anshei hagolah know the calculations : used by them, it is not on our own calculations that we rely, we only : use those calculations because we know that they are the same as the : calculations used by the chachmei eretz yisrael... : Another posek (possibly the Tifferet Yisrael in Shvilei Harakia, but : I'm not sure of that), writes something similar... Did you ever find a source? Google, Bar Ilan and I didn't turn anything up. In practice, we follow the calculations of R' Saaadia Gaon, who was in Aleppo at the time, and not R Aaron Ben-Meir in Y-m ih"q. The big debate of 922 was the topic of an article by RYGB and RAZZ reposted here . The Rambam (Qiddush haChodesh 1:8) limits the authority to someone in EY ("ki miTzion teitzei Sorah...") or if the one clearly most able to do it received semichah in EY, he can continue setting the months and ibur shanos in chu"l -- until someone of comparable stature arises in EY. This seems taylor-made for R Saadia Gaon, who went to yeshiva in Teveriah. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Never must we think that the Jewish element micha at aishdas.org in us could exist without the human element http://www.aishdas.org or vice versa. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch From sholom at aishdas.org Tue Oct 24 12:50:00 2017 From: sholom at aishdas.org (Sholom Simon) Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2017 15:50:00 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Long Lifespans in Bereishis In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <588c56c0dc1eedd39e7bb464810c5cea@aishdas.org> Thanks, RMB, for posting that article. Re the views of R. Moses Ibn Tibbon, et al, who don't take those ages literally on a single person -- is that (along the lines of an off-line conversation we had) a "kosher view" these days? Or, is it one of those views that, the way R Noson Slifkin puts it: they are allowed to have those views, but we aren't? On a different, but related issue, to the chevra: The list of generations in parshas Bereshis are generally of the form: * X was 50 years old when he fathered Y. * X lived 450 years after he fathered Y and had sons and daughters * X lived to the age of 500 years. Doesn't that seem a bit redundant? And, in fact, most (all?) of the generations listed in parshas Noach skip the third phrase. Thoughts? -- Sholom -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hankman at bell.net Tue Oct 24 15:28:28 2017 From: hankman at bell.net (hankman) Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2017 18:28:28 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Long Lifespans in Bereishis Message-ID: <9DE9360C549C46879FBF7291563A9387@hankPC> >From the summary of opinions posted by RMB on lifespans in Bereishis and some comments: ?R. Saadiah Gaon (10th cent.) discusses this issue in his introduction to Tehillim. He writes that the longevity of these early generations was part of God's plan for the rapid proliferation of mankind on the earth.....? Not the biggest kashe in the world, but why then would they start to have children at an advanced age if rapid proliferation was the goal? Perhaps with great longevity came a much longer period for sexual maturation? If true would that also mean that intellectual maturation took much longer as well? ?R. Yehudah Ha-Levi (12th cent.) discusses the issue in the Kuzari (sec. 95). He believes that it was only the individuals listed who lived long. Each of the individuals listed was the heart and essence of his generation and was physically and spiritually perfect. The Divine Flow was transmitted from one generation to another through these exceptional individuals.? How does R. Yehudah Ha-Levi deal with Terach who was an idolator? Clearly he was not spiritually perfect. ?... R. Moses Ibn Tibbon (late 13th cent.) He suggests that the years given for people's lives were actually the years of "malkhutam ve-nimuseihim," i.e., the dynasties and/or customs that they established.? This comment will apply to R. Nissim of Marseilles as well. I presume they held that people had what we today would consider a normal life span. this would mean they were not having the first born at the advanced age of over one hundred. Thus the named son must have been a later generation descendant. (I assume that they did not generate a son in their old age and die shortly thereafter as was the case with Boaz). So if their life spans were similar to ours then was Shes really not a son of Adam but really a descendant several generations down? Ditto for Ennosh, was he really a great ... grandson of Sheis? But this notion of the the years given in Bereishis not pertaining to one single man, but to a dynasty of several generations of normal life span, runs into difficulty with Noach and his 3 sons. If we follow suit with this notion then Shem, Cham and Yefes were not his sons but descendants born 500 years later. Yet they all went into the Teiva together? So how is that a normal life span for Noach? Why weren?t the generations between Noach and Shem, Cham and Yefes saved as well? When the Torah says ?vayoled es X? that is not to be taken literally but just to mean a later descendant chosen to be named in the lineage? ? R. Saadiah Gaon writes (Emunot Ve-Deot, end of chap. 7) that in the era of the redemption the human lifespan will be approximately 500 years. Presumably, at that time we won't be bothered by those long lifespans in Genesis anymore! (Note that Radak, comm. to Is. 65:20, is a bit stingier. He predicts lifespans of only 300 to 500 years. See also his commentary to Ps. 92:15. But the 12th century Babylonian Gaon R. Samuel b. Ali predicts lifespans closer to 1000 years!)? This quote leads to an issue I will expand upon slightly in another post. But the basic issue is if the world is Charuv at 6000 years and yemos Moshiach are before the olom is charuv, (while olom keminhago noheig) there is not enough time left (we are now 5778) for a life span of 300 to 500 years let alone 1000 years. Kol tuv Chaim Manaster -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Wed Oct 25 04:13:32 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2017 07:13:32 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Long Lifespans in Bereishis In-Reply-To: <9DE9360C549C46879FBF7291563A9387@hankPC> References: <9DE9360C549C46879FBF7291563A9387@hankPC> Message-ID: <20171025111332.GC22254@aishdas.org> On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 06:28:28PM -0400, hankman (RVM) wrote: : > (Note that Radak, comm. to Is. 65:20, is a bit stingier. He predicts : > lifespans of only 300 to 500 years. See also his commentary to : > Ps. 92:15. But the 12th century Babylonian Gaon R. Samuel b. Ali : > predicts lifespans closer to 1000 years!)" : This quote leads to an issue I will expand upon slightly in another : post. But the basic issue is if the world is Charuv at 6000 years and : yemos Moshiach are before the olom is charuv, (while olom keminhago : noheig) there is not enough time left (we are now 5778) for a life span : of 300 to 500 years let alone 1000 years. This all depends on the machloqes about defining olam haba and whether techiyas hameisim is permanent. As well as any machloqesin as to whether yemos hamoshiach starts with techiyas hameisim or ends with a new era, that itself starts with teshiyas hameisim. Rambam: olam haba means the non-physical world a neshamah is in between life and teshiyas hameisim, as well as after a second death. Since olam haba is the ultimate form of existence, defining that ultimate as the place souls go when dead necessitates a second death after techiyas hameisim. The Rambam (and the Iqarim, and others, I just picked on name for thumbnail-sketch reasons) then has to explain what the point of the second life is. Ramban (similarly, among others): olam haba, the ultimate existence, is body together with guf after techiyas hameisim. And therefore the post-th"m life must be external. According to the first shitah, it could be that post-th"m life is in gan eden is Adam's sense and thus life lasts as long as his could have. But then there's the question of whether your assumed dates hold.... My point is mainly that I think there are too many unknowns to even ask your question. I just anded up belaboring the one unknown I once wrote about. on how this machloqes may impact what is the point of Brikhas Gevurah ("Atah Gibor"). BTW, I just noticed, underlying that machloqes about what is olam haba and techiyas hameisim might be a difference in the definition of a person. It looks to me like the Rambam is saying a person is a soul who lives in a body. And therefore the ultimate in existence is not to have that body interpolated between me and experiencing Hashem's Presence. Whereas the Ramban is saying that a person is a synthesis of body and soul, and therefore cannot enjoy the rewards of their efforts when the two halves are separated. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger If a person does not recognize one's own worth, micha at aishdas.org how can he appreciate the worth of another? http://www.aishdas.org - Rabbi Yaakov Yosef of Polnoye, Fax: (270) 514-1507 author of Toldos Yaakov Yosef From hankman at bell.net Wed Oct 25 07:40:29 2017 From: hankman at bell.net (hankman) Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2017 10:40:29 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Long Lifespans in Bereishis In-Reply-To: <20171025111332.GC22254@aishdas.org> References: <9DE9360C549C46879FBF7291563A9387@hankPC> <20171025111332.GC22254@aishdas.org> Message-ID: R.Miciha Berger wrote: "On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 06:28:28PM -0400, hankman (RVM) wrote: :if the world is Charuv at 6000 years and : yemos Moshiach are before the olom is charuv, (while olom keminhago : noheig) there is not enough time left (we are now 5778) for a life span : of 300 to 500 years let alone 1000 years. This all depends on the machloqes about defining olam haba and whether techiyas hameisim is permanent. As well as any machloqesin as to whether yemos hamoshiach starts with techiyas hameisim or ends with a new era, that itself starts with teshiyas hameisim. ...." You also need to fit in when exactly in the sequence of these events Yom Hadin Hagodol happens according to each of these shitos. So the many events of "Achris Hatomim" that one need consider to compile a chronology of this mysterious period would include Gog uMagog, Moshiach be Yosef, coming of Eliyahu, yitaka bashofor gadol (before moshiach, or yom hadin hagodol, or techias hameisim?), the nevuos of Zecharyahu and other nevi'im about this period, Bayis shelishi, Kibutz golios, Moshiach ben Dovid (including how long is this period), vanquishing of the yetzer, Techias Hameisim (before Moshiach or before yom hadin or before both?), Yom hadin hagodol, yom hadin hakoton (after death?) Olom charuv (and to what extent it is charuv and why), Gan Eden, Olom haneshamos, Olam haba (final gemul, with or without a guf, and the ultimate purpose of creation so Hashem can be meitiv lezuloso). After writing this I checked out your "Mesukim Midevash" and apparently there will be at least four versions of this chronology (which you began to build in your article) lefi the Rambam, Ramban, Rav Saadia Gaon and the Ikkarim but needs some fleshing out. R Micha Berger wrote: "Ramban (similarly, among others): olam haba, the ultimate existence, is body together with guf after techiyas hameisim. And therefore the post-th"m life must be external. .... But then there's the question of whether your assumed dates hold.... My point is mainly that I think there are too many unknowns to even ask your question...." It is not clear to me what "assumed dates" or what the "unknowns" are that you mention? I only mentioned 5778. Is that date in doubt?? R. Micha Berger wrote: "BTW, I just noticed, underlying that machloqes about what is olam haba and techiyas hameisim might be a difference in the definition of a person. It looks to me like the Rambam is saying a person is a soul who lives in a body. And therefore the ultimate in existence is not to have that body interpolated between me and experiencing Hashem's Presence. Whereas the Ramban is saying that a person is a synthesis of body and soul, and therefore cannot enjoy the rewards of their efforts when the two halves are separated. Tir'u baTov! -Micha" The gemara in Sanhedrin that talks about the need for both the neshama and the guf to be together at yom hadin, works well with your peshat in the Ramban and could be a possible source for his position, but your explanation of the Rambam with the guf just being something donned by the neshama as necessary for its trip to this world, much like a diver dons scuba gear to enable him to function in this temporary environment, then much as it makes no senses to require the scuba gear at the divers trial, so too this gemara requiring the presence of the guf at the yom hadin doesn't really make much sense. Kol tuv Chaim Manaster From ben1456 at zahav.net.il Wed Oct 25 10:48:54 2017 From: ben1456 at zahav.net.il (Ben Waxman) Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2017 19:48:54 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] offering a higher salary Message-ID: <6ca926d4-2984-813b-af3a-e5fb0e765062@zahav.net.il> I've seen posts claiming that it is forbidden to offer cleaners a higher salary to work for you. While I can understand that it makes sense to say that no one can break a specific agreement for a specific day of work, why should it be forbidden to offer a higher salary to someone who has a long term agreement?? A, this is the common practice in the high tech world and I have never heard anyone say "Assur". It would seem that there is general agreement that this halacha simply doesn't apply today. Second, how can anyone be meshuabad in such a way to one person? Does a person wanting a higher salary have to simply quit without any idea about having another job? Ben From motti.yarchinai at mail.yahoo.com.au Wed Oct 25 12:39:33 2017 From: motti.yarchinai at mail.yahoo.com.au (Motti Yarchinai) Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2017 19:39:33 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Avodah] Psak source wanted In-Reply-To: <1857240052.122258.1508054451353@mail.yahoo.com> References: <1857240052.122258.1508054451353.ref@mail.yahoo.com> <1857240052.122258.1508054451353@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <270346387.4768895.1508960373045@mail.yahoo.com> Dear Micha and Avodah members, Thank you Micha for your reply and your attempts to locate a source. On Sun, Oct 15, 2017 at 08:00:51AM +0000, Motti Yarchinai via Avodah wrote: > Can anyone help me with a source for this psak: It is similar to what > the Rambam wrote... > Another posek writes something similar but couched in even more dramatic > terms. The following is not a verbatim quote (since the original is in > Hebrew) but something very close to it: > "And even if the residents of eretz yisrael are all ignoramuses > and peasants, and the authorities of chutz la'aretz are great > scholars and knowledgable in Torah and halachah, in calendric > matters we follow the peasants and ignoramuses, not the scholars > of chutz la'aretz." Micha replied: > Did you ever find a source? Google, Bar Ilan and I didn't turn > anything up.... No, I have not found it yet, but my memory of it is that I saw it in print, and, to my annoyance, I can't find the sefer, but it is bound to turn up sooner or later. When it does, I will repost with the source and quote. Meanwhile, if someone recognises it, please do let me know. Motti From sholom at aishdas.org Wed Oct 25 13:48:29 2017 From: sholom at aishdas.org (Sholom Simon) Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2017 16:48:29 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] A Great Name Message-ID: <20171025204831.CKZV22111.fed1rmfepo202.cox.net@fed1rmimpo210.cox.net> One of the implicit criticisms of Migdal Bavel was that they wanted to make a name for themselves. Then, at the beginning of Lech L'cha, H' tells Avram that he will make his name great. There must be something there . . . anybody have any thoughts? -- Sholom From zev at sero.name Wed Oct 25 20:57:37 2017 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2017 23:57:37 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] offering a higher salary In-Reply-To: <6ca926d4-2984-813b-af3a-e5fb0e765062@zahav.net.il> References: <6ca926d4-2984-813b-af3a-e5fb0e765062@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <03900eea-9674-1896-0842-5cba504a0eed@sero.name> On 25/10/17 13:48, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > I've seen posts claiming that it is forbidden to offer cleaners a higher > salary to work for you. I believe this halacha is a subset of "hasagas gevul", not in the Biblical sense, but in the commonly-used sense, which in in turn a subset of the obligation of ahavas yisrael. "Hasagas gevul" basically means that if you with to start a business and you have a choice between doing it somewhere that will harm me and somewhere that will not, then all else being equal you are obligated to take the second option out of consideration for me, because ve'ahavta lere`acha kamocha. Similarly, if I am renting a forest or an inn from a nochri, from which I make my living, and you offer him a higher rent, you are violating your obligation to value my interests equally with your own. It should be obvious, however, that if the landlord is also "re`acha" then this does not apply, because you have the same obligation to him as to me; if he could be getting more rent from his property then you should make him that offer, though he should give me a chance to match it, since I am the "bar metzra". I think the same thing is going on with the cleaners. If I have a nochris who is willing to clean for me for $N, you have no right to lure her away by offering more. But if she is "re`acha" then aderaba you have a mitzvah to offer her a chance to improve her income, but before taking your offer she should offer me the chance to match it. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From JRich at sibson.com Thu Oct 26 05:08:27 2017 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2017 12:08:27 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Jewish Action Message-ID: Since I can sometimes be critical of organizations (not here where I usually manage not to say anything negative [HT - My Mom ZLL"HH - "If you have nothing nice to say, don't say anything]), I want to give a shout out to the OU Fall Jewish Action. 1.) Moshe Baine poses the two questions I use as an individual/community test (i) How often do we factor God into our daily decisions, both large and small? [Me - how central is the Ratzon Hashem in our lives?] (ii) What are we prepared to "give up" to comply with what we perceive as God's wishes? [Me - does God always seem to agree with what you want?] 2.) Allen Fagin asks "whether we as a community view Yishuv Haaretz as a basic tenet of our spiritual aspirations? [Me - Tell me how often it's discussed or how many folks yearn (while we're at it, how many really yearn for the Beit Hamikdash?)] Now what do we do as a community and as individuals about any perceived shortfalls in these two areas is an old Avodah question but maybe it is gaining traction? KT 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: From micha at aishdas.org Thu Oct 26 07:13:06 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2017 10:13:06 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Jewish Action In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20171026141306.GA15203@aishdas.org> On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 12:08:27PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : 1.) Moshe Baine poses the two questions I use as an individual/community : test (i) How often do we factor God into our daily decisions, both large : and small? [Me - how central is the Ratzon Hashem in our lives?] (ii) : What are we prepared to "give up" to comply with what we perceive as : God's wishes? [Me - does God always seem to agree with what you want?] What you call question (i) gets a scathing answer in that recent and hotly discussed blog post, "Modern Orthodoxy from a Teenager's Perspective" by Eitan Gross. The-future-R Gross opines that it is common knowledge in MO circles that we dont make Ratzon Hashem central enough for MO to succeed. Modern Orthodoxy tries to create a balance that, at the moment, cannot work because we have no drive to be with Hashem and lack the philosophical and hashkafic perspective to articulate why we should be Jewish in a world with an assortment of other options. Therefore, we need to take a fresh look at education and schooling. There needs to be an emphasis on the truth of the tenets of Judaism, as well as an inspirational approach that creates a yearning and desire in the student to be closer to Hashem. And When I tried to publish this essay at a local Jewish newspaper they said "We cant publish this piece, it's too much for us. Plus you're only a senior in high school, so you don't have the authority to have a say in the current situation." Although they were against putting this essay to print, the head of the paper still agreed with me, "Modern Orthodoxy has major flaws and everyone knows it." If "everyone knows it", but no one does anything then it must be that they think Modern Orthodoxy is too big to change.... I think he means the Modern Orthodox community has major flaws, not the contept "Modern Orthodoxy" itself -- or why would he be so concerned with being able to save it? I need to add, this being Avodah, that this problem of the confusion between halakhah as a means and halakhah as an ends in-and-of-itself has symptoms in all our communities. Quoting myself, from my "manifesto" Tools and Goals ... How would this play out communally? One possible outcome is that we would find a community of very committed, very observant Jews, but who do not show all the signs of the holiness the Torah is supposed to bring us to. This could happen if there is insufficient attention to the entire notion of a goal beyond the halakhah, so that black letter halakhah -- that which can be measured, laid out in clear obligated or prohibited terms -- takes center seat without any attempt to become the kind of person more capable of fulfilling the full breadth of its commandments. There would be mixed reports of business ethics, scandals of respected rabbis committing fiscal crimes, others unable to control their lust, yet others abusing their power over their students in other ways. Another possible outcome is an idealistic community, but one whose ideals are not Torah derived. In such a community ideals would be taken from some segment of the surrounding culture, and halakhah would be reduced to a means of "blessing" goals that we assimilated from the outside, that at times will resemble the holiness Hashem has readied for us, and at times will differ. A third possibility is particular to a community that teaches the need to engage the world around it, to risk the battle of its challenges in order to use what's positive in the surrounding society to further our sanctity. Without a firm eye and a constant striving toward an ideal, the energy it takes to maintain this delicate balance too easily collapses into a life of compromise. And so, for too many in this community the negative elements of modernity are incorporated into their lives, and also for many strict observance itself suffers. Do these portraits sound familiar? The problem has another symptom which is less problematic -- the rise of Brisk over other darkhei halimmud. A culture in which O means following black-letter Shulchan Arukh will naturally gravitate toward a derekh halimmud that shuns explanations that are in terms of first principles that come before halakhah. RYBS's Halakhic Man denies they even exist. That said, R' Chaim Brisker's own life was more about values and acts of chessed than Arukh Chaim or Yoreh Dei'ah. The family noted this -- for all his lomdus, RCB's mateivah reads "Rav haChesed". The problem is not inherent to Brisk. Therefore, it will be interesting to see how MO evolves, and whether this remains their most pressing problem. YU now has a mashpiah, classes in the Aish Qodesh, Tanya, R' Nachman, it has singing minyanim. Within the halls of YU, Halakhic Man is facing growing competition. Lenaar al pi darko -- this diversity is healthy. But with more semichah students looking to the goals rather than stopping at the halachic tools, MO culture is bound to change in a way that reduces this issue. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When faced with a decision ask yourself, micha at aishdas.org "How would I decide if it were Ne'ilah now, http://www.aishdas.org at the closing moments of Yom Kippur?" Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From JRich at sibson.com Thu Oct 26 05:05:45 2017 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2017 12:05:45 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Timtum Halev Message-ID: There was an interesting article in the Journal "Ohr Yisrael" #16 by R'Avraham Rubin on Timtum Halev (spiritual pollution). His general conclusion was that eating something that would be classified as "forbidden foods," if you know it is such, will cause timtum halev (spiritual character defects) even if you are permitted to eat it in your case (e.g., pikuach nefesh - life-threatening situation). However, if you eat a "factually forbidden food" based on a mistaken halachic decision by an authorized halachic source, no such damage will occur. Interesting that this IIUC would yield the result that one could be halachically required to eat the "forbidden food" (rather than commit suicide by starving to death), yet still develop character defects because of it. Seems non-halachic man to me . I know we've discussed before-I submit a data point in that discussion. KT 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: From micha at aishdas.org Thu Oct 26 09:04:55 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2017 12:04:55 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Timtum Halev In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20171026160455.GD15203@aishdas.org> On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 12:05:45PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : ... "Ohr Yisrael" #16 by R'Avraham Rubin ... general conclusion was : that eating something that would be classified as "forbidden foods," : if you know it is such, will cause timtum halev (spiritual character : defects) even if you are permitted to eat it in your case (e.g., pikuach : nefesh - life-threatening situation). However, if you eat a "factually : forbidden food" based on a mistaken halachic decision by an authorized : halachic source, no such damage will occur. I invite RMRabi to comment on that last sentence. He and I debated for most of a year whether the Maharal would agree that someone who follows a mistaken pesaq is different in kind than someone who makes the mistake themselves. I presume that if eating because of "a mistaken halachic decision by an authorized halachic source" does not cause timtum heleiv, R Avraham Rubin would say that all the more so, eating food that as a matter of unknown fact happens to be kosher but we correctly rule may be eaten because of rov, chazaqah, bitul or whatever would not damage. I would think RAR is coming down on the side of saying that it's the sin, not the substance, which causes the spiritual damage. To my mind -- a hashkafically simpler position, since there is Justice to life being worse due to a sin than due to something premitted. In which case, RAR's opening ruling, that the person starting to death who eats the only available edible which happens to be non-kosher, would seem to be based on ruling that saving one's life overrides the prohibition (making it petura), not that the eating is actually permissible (hutra). For if it were hutra, how would the case differ from correctly following received pesaq? And if it is because of peturah, that the prohibition is being broken, but the violation is permissible for the sake of a greater value, then I can understand how its Just even if we were to say the cause is the substance. The sin is happening, and we know it's happening; we just chose the lesser sin. Lemah hadavar domeh: chemo is poison. For the sake of the greater danger, cancer, a person may take chemo. But the poison still does its effect. The person did what was medically recommended, and the recommendation was made knowing there was a self-destructive element to the act. : Interesting that this IIUC would yield the result that one could be : halachically required to eat the "forbidden food" (rather than commit : suicide by starving to death), yet still develop character defects : because of it. Seems non-halachic man to me.... Halachic man wouldn't ask the question of timtum haleiv to begin with. It is not a halachic category. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The fittingness of your matzos [for the seder] micha at aishdas.org isn't complete with being careful in the laws http://www.aishdas.org of Passover. One must also be very careful in Fax: (270) 514-1507 the laws of business. - Rav Yisrael Salanter From emteitz at gmail.com Thu Oct 26 09:58:57 2017 From: emteitz at gmail.com (elazar teitz) Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2017 12:58:57 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] offering a higher salary Message-ID: >If I have a nochris who is willing to clean for me for $N, you have no right to lure >her away by offering more. But if she is "re`acha" then aderaba you >have a mitzvah to offer her a chance to improve her income, but before >taking your offer she should offer me the chance to match it. Is it a mitzva to help improve a Jew's income, if it is at the expense of another Jew (especially when it is not done with the intent of helping the employee, but rather to help oneself)? EMT -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From zev at sero.name Thu Oct 26 15:06:37 2017 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2017 18:06:37 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] offering a higher salary In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 26/10/17 12:58, elazar teitz via Avodah wrote: >> If I have a nochris who is willing to clean for me for $N, you have no >> right to lure her away by offering more.? But if she is "re`acha" then >> aderaba you have a mitzvah to offer her a chance to improve her income, >> but before taking your offer she should offer me the chance to match it. > Is it a mitzva to help improve a Jew's income, if it is at the > expense of another Jew (especially when it is not done with the intent > of helping the employee, but rather to help oneself)? (1) You have the same mitzvah to love both of us, so whichever one you help is a mitzvah (2) She is probably (though not definitely) in more need than I am (3) If you're willing to pay more for her work then by definition that makes her work *worth* more, since the value of anything is defined as whatever it will fetch, so by making her the offer you're not hurting me, you're merely preventing me from (unbeknownst to either of us) getting an unwarranted benefit at her expense. Basically our arrangement is ona'ah, we're both in error about the value of her labour, and you're in a position to prevent it, so shouldn't you do so? (4) Your intent shouldn't matter. Tzedakah doesn't depend at all on kavanah. If someone is helped, it's a mitzvah even if you didn't mean it (cf shikcha), while if you meant to help someone and it didn't happen there's no mitzvah (cf Bava Basra 8b etc) -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From marty.bluke at gmail.com Sun Oct 29 03:15:35 2017 From: marty.bluke at gmail.com (Marty Bluke) Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2017 12:15:35 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Long Lifespans in Bereishis Message-ID: R' Chaim Manaster pointed out: "But the basic issue is if the world is Charuv at 6000 years and yemos Moshiach are before the olom is charuv, (while olom keminhago noheig) there is not enough time left (we are now 5778) for a life span of 300 to 500 years let alone 1000 years." The gemara (Sanhedrin 99) offers the following suggestions for how long the Messianic period will last: R' Eliezer - 40 years R' Dosa - 400 years Rebbi - 365 years Avimi - 7000 years R' Yehuda - the amount of time from creation until the Messiah comes R' Nachman Bar Yitzchak - the amount of time from the flood until the Messiah comes Interestingly enough the Gemara earlier stated that the world will last 6000 years, Sanhedrin 96B - Six thousand years were decreed upon the world: 2000 years of emptiness (without Torah), 2000 years of Torah, and 2000 years for Mashi'ach. This opinion of 6000 years is generally accepted, however, opinions 4-6 above clearly disagree with this. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ben1456 at zahav.net.il Sun Oct 29 22:34:43 2017 From: ben1456 at zahav.net.il (Ben Waxman) Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2017 07:34:43 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] offering a higher salary In-Reply-To: <6ca926d4-2984-813b-af3a-e5fb0e765062@zahav.net.il> References: <6ca926d4-2984-813b-af3a-e5fb0e765062@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <2e3529d9-23b9-3377-c2f6-ec65d4340f1a@zahav.net.il> After look a bit, I saw that the Aruch HaShulchan CM 237:3 paskens that this law only applies to a poor person. A poor person who finds something that he needs, you can't come along and offer more money for it. But if a rich person finds something that he wants (or employs someone) and this item is available, then the prohibition doesn't apply. It would seem that anyone who can hire a maid does not qualify as poor and I am willing to bet that there is a good supply of people willing to work. Ben On 10/25/2017 7:48 PM, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > I've seen posts claiming that it is forbidden to offer cleaners a > higher salary to work for you. While I can understand that it makes > sense to say that no one can break a specific agreement for a specific > day of work, why should it be forbidden to offer a higher salary to > someone who has a long term agreement?? A, this is the common practice > in the high tech world and I have never heard anyone say "Assur". It > would seem that there is general agreement that this halacha simply > doesn't apply today. From lisa at starways.net Mon Oct 30 03:39:03 2017 From: lisa at starways.net (Lisa Liel) Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2017 12:39:03 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] offering a higher salary In-Reply-To: <2e3529d9-23b9-3377-c2f6-ec65d4340f1a@zahav.net.il> References: <6ca926d4-2984-813b-af3a-e5fb0e765062@zahav.net.il> <2e3529d9-23b9-3377-c2f6-ec65d4340f1a@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <611bec39-509c-b161-d74f-63dbb523906e@starways.net> On 10/30/2017 7:34 AM, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > After look a bit, I saw that the Aruch HaShulchan CM 237:3 paskens > that this law only applies to a poor person. A poor person who finds > something that he needs, you can't come along and offer more money for > it.... > It would seem that anyone who can hire a maid does not qualify as poor > and I am willing to bet that there is a good supply of people willing > to work. Poor in halakha means not having what you're accustomed to have. It isn't an objective benchmark or a comparison to other people. Lisa From ben1456 at zahav.net.il Mon Oct 30 12:58:56 2017 From: ben1456 at zahav.net.il (Ben Waxman) Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2017 21:58:56 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] offering a higher salary In-Reply-To: <611bec39-509c-b161-d74f-63dbb523906e@starways.net> References: <6ca926d4-2984-813b-af3a-e5fb0e765062@zahav.net.il> <2e3529d9-23b9-3377-c2f6-ec65d4340f1a@zahav.net.il> <611bec39-509c-b161-d74f-63dbb523906e@starways.net> Message-ID: <8355ddf5-ae06-1774-b30d-dd05b89814a9@zahav.net.il> You think that these people would be willing to apply the word "poor" to themselves, even in regards to only this halacha? On 10/30/2017 12:39 PM, Lisa Liel wrote: > Poor in halakha means not having what you're accustomed to have.? It > isn't an objective benchmark or a comparison to other people. From bdbradley70 at hotmail.com Mon Oct 30 14:41:44 2017 From: bdbradley70 at hotmail.com (Ben Bradley) Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2017 21:41:44 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] offering a higher salary In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Poor in halakha means not having what you're accustomed to have. It isn't an objective benchmark or a comparison to other people. Lisa I don't believe it's as clear cut as that. It's true with regard to giving tzedaka, that the kehilla is required to maintain someone at the standard they were used to. But when it comes to the definition of an oni who's entitled to take from communal funds, the mishna in terumos or maasros defines it as someone who has a specific and objective amount of food or money in their possession. AFAIR halacha l'maaseh follows suit, and there are objective criteria before allowing someone to accept communal tzedaka funds. Regards Ben -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hankman at bell.net Mon Oct 30 12:03:44 2017 From: hankman at bell.net (hankman) Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2017 15:03:44 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Long Lifespans in Bereishis Message-ID: R. Marty Bluke wrote: ?The gemara (Sanhedrin 99) offers the following suggestions for how long the Messianic period will last: ... R' Dosa - 400 years Rebbi - 365 years Avimi - 7000 years R' Yehuda - the amount of time from creation until the Messiah comes R' Nachman Bar Yitzchak - the amount of time from the flood until the Messiah comes ....? Actually my original kasheh occurred to me during that recent daf yomi you refer to in Sanhedrin which was when I asked the same question you pose here. The question I posted on Avodah (basically the same idea) was just in reference to a previous post here and its remarks ? I just did not feel the need to broaden the kasheh ? perhaps I should have, just to be more comprehensive. Kol tuv Chaim Manaster -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From saulguberman at gmail.com Tue Oct 31 09:57:00 2017 From: saulguberman at gmail.com (Saul Guberman) Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2017 12:57:00 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] chopsticks Message-ID: Is it permissible to break apart chopsticks on shabbat at the meal to eat your sushi? Someone claimed it is makeh b'patish and just use a fork or stab with the chopsticks still together. Others thought that tzorech ochel nefesh might allow them to be broken and used , as it is all disposable anyway. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From JRich at sibson.com Thu Nov 2 05:12:05 2017 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2017 12:12:05 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] TEXTUAL JUDAISM AND THE LIVING TORAH Message-ID: <9e51a7f4ea644e829db8503f8f0451fe@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> An old Avodah favorite :) KT Joel Rich http://etzion.org.il/en/siman-114-prayers-wind-rain-and-dew TEXTUAL JUDAISM AND THE LIVING TORAH In his introduction to the Beit Yosef, R. Yosef Karo clearly asserts that since it is impossible for someone of his stature to set himself up as arbiter among the great Rishonim, for his rulings will be based on the majority of the opinions of the Rif, the Rambam, and the Rosh. Yet, here we have a case where the Rambam and the Rosh agree that an entire country which needs rain can mention and ask for rain in the summer, while the Rif does not dispute this ruling since he does not relate to this case. Although the Rambam's ruling is in the commentary to the Mishna, this has the same status as the Mishneh Torah - so I understand from Kesef Mishneh, also written by R. Yosef Karo, to Hilkhot Talmud Torah 3:10 at the end - and in addition, the Beit Yosef on our siman claims that the Mishneh Torah also rules like the commentary to the Mishna. How can the Beit Yosef rule against them?! The Beit Yosef emphasizes that the custom of the entire world contradicts the Rosh's ruling. He also suggests that this ruling was never accepted in practice. How can we weigh these factors against the authority of the written sources? There is a general difference in approach among poskim regarding how to weigh local custom against textual authority. The Tosafot in many places endeavor to reconcile the text with the custom (see for excample, Shabbat 48a d.h. De-zeitim); other sages more readily condemn custom on the authority of the plain sense of the text. It seems that several factors bear on the relative importance: 1. How universal is the custom? Responsa frequently point out that the reaction to a seldom-encountered situation can not be considered a "custom" - merely a precedent. 2. Among whom is the custom widespread? If we are certain that even scholars and meticulous people conducted themselves in a certain way, this has more weight than the behavior of the common people, pious though they may be. 3. Are opinions opposing the custom recognized? Sometimes we find statements to the effect that if a community had been aware that a great authority opposed their custom, they would not have adopted it. Conversely, a custom may be defended by pointing out that it was upheld even though opposing views were clearly known. 4. Perhaps in an area of halakha whose basis is in custom, though it subsequently achieved the status of binding halakha, we should give greater weight to custom. In our case, the Beit Yosef perceived that the custom of going according to Eretz Yisrael was universal, even among scholars, and even among people who were certainly aware of the statements of the Rambam and the Rosh. In addition, he may have considered the "customary" aspect of prayer to have special importance - the fact that we pray as a community renders special importance to community customs. Therefore, even though the Beit Yosef is, according to his own assertion, an extreme "textualist," in this case he was persuaded to rule in accordance with custom. Almost all Acharonim are extremely reluctant to dispute Rishonim - though there are notable exceptions, such as the Maharshal (who lived, in any case, close to the era of the Rishonim). However, many later scholars do feel that however unworthy they may be, it is their responsibility as decisors to decide AMONG the Rishonim. The Beit Yosef's reticence in this regard is far from universal. A lot of noise is still being made regarding an article written a couple of years ago by a leading scholar of Judaism (who is also a Talmid Chakham, though the two do not always go together) who posits that only recently have texts taken such a central role in Jewish life. He claims that before World War II custom was king, and accepted customs of respectable communities were not scrutinized in the light of codes. I can not comment on the historical reality of three generations ago, but I think we should keep in mind that the tension between custom and written authority is an ancient one, and the "advocacy" of texts is hardly a new idea. 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: From zev at sero.name Thu Nov 2 20:38:21 2017 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2017 23:38:21 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] TEXTUAL JUDAISM AND THE LIVING TORAH In-Reply-To: <9e51a7f4ea644e829db8503f8f0451fe@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <9e51a7f4ea644e829db8503f8f0451fe@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: On 02/11/17 08:12, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: > The Beit Yosef emphasizes that the custom of the entire world > contradicts the Rosh's ruling. Not the entire world. The Rosh himself reported that he was gratified to discover, while travelling through Provence on his way from Germany to Spain, that they did it the right way. This reinforced him in his determination to try to change the practice in Spain. > In our case, the Beit Yosef perceived that the custom of going > according to Eretz Yisrael was universal, On the contrary, *nobody* goes according to EY. The universal custom is to go according to Iraq. The Rosh wanted all Mediterranean Jews, who share EY's climate, to follow EY, as the Provencals did, but they refused. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From meirabi at gmail.com Thu Nov 2 22:38:08 2017 From: meirabi at gmail.com (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi) Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2017 16:38:08 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] Avraham A Cooked, Angels Ate - Bassar BeChalav Message-ID: Avraham Avinu entertained three angels masquerading as human visitors; feeding them goat flesh cooked with milk. Generations later, due to this meal, the angels? protest, that the Torah ought not be given to the Jews, was quashed. There are 3 issues that require clarification: ++ Let?s say the angels sinned by eating flesh cooked with milk [which seems to be the plain meaning of the Medrash] how does that silence their protest? ++ Furthermore, flesh cooked with milk would not have been served to the guests: ++ Avraham Avinu did not cook goat with milk since he adhered to all Mitzvos of the Torah. ++ Even if it was cooked inadvertently, he would not have offered it to the visitors since no benefit may be derived from it. Reb Meir Simcha of Dvinsk explains in Meshech Chochmah, that no sin was transgressed since it was BP flesh, which may be cooked with milk. The angels? protests were silenced because they accepted that Avraham Avinu was Jewish and therefore able to Shecht. Had they considered him not Jewish, they would not have eaten because Shechita cannot be performed by a non-Jew. Thus, the angels had already conceded that Avraham Avinu had an inalienable connection to the Torah and therefore was able to Shecht and create a Kosher BP. That being the case, they could not question nor protest his chosen children?s rights to that heritage. Of all aspects of BP this particular Halacha is so counter-intuitive, and such a shock to our expectations, that even when Reb Chaim Kanievsky said that cooking BP flesh with milk, is "Kosher VeYosher" (more than 100%) Rabbanim who were with me and heard him say this, will not publicly admit to it. Rav Moshe Sternbuch responded upon being asked if this was a DaAs Yachid (a lone opinion), "Who argues?" - R Moshe quotes this Meshech Chochmah MoAdim UzManim [?"? ??' ??"?] and thereby suggests another reason for eating dairy on Shavuos - after all, it was via dairy that we succeeded to silence the angels? protests. However, my son Yehudah, argues - in that case, we really ought to be eating BBPbCh [Basar BP beChalav] on Shavuos. That the BP may be cooked with milk is so obvious to Reb Meir Simcha, that he does not bother to bring proof or expand upon the point. Clearly, BP is utterly unlike any regular cow sheep or goat that may not be cooked with dairy. = = = According to our traditions, Avraham Avinu maintained all the laws of the Torah and also all the Rabbinic enactments. Rashi, Genesis 26:5; Yevamos 21. Accordingly, our Sages explain that Avraham did not offer the bread [Rashi, Genesis 18:8; BMetzia 87] to his guests because Sara had miraculously rejuvenated and become ritually unclean, making the bread unclean. Although no more than a stringency Avraham Avinu would not serve it to his non Jewish guests - presumably, if Avraham Avinu would not eat it himself, he would not serve it to his guests - makes one pause and contemplate about those who Kosher certify various foods and establishments but will not eat that food themselves. = = = There are some who try to squeeze into the words of the MChochmah that it is the milk which is not dairy because meat may be cooked with milk collected from a Shechted beast, Chalav Shechuta, and a BP is deemed to be a Shechuta. There is a contrary argument however - some propose that Chalav Shechuta is not ?mother?s milk?, meaning milk from a beast that can potentially be a mother, whereas a BP can certainly be a mother, so its milk is not Chalav Shechuta and may not be cooked with meat. Either way, the argument collapses completely because Avraham Avinu would not violate the Rabbinic law that prohibits cooking with Chalav Shechuta [or deer or giraffe milk] Best, Meir G. Rabi 0423 207 837 +61 423 207 837 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Fri Nov 3 03:24:28 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2017 06:24:28 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Avraham A Cooked, Angels Ate - Bassar BeChalav In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20171103102428.GB3833@aishdas.org> On Fri, Nov 03, 2017 at 04:38:08PM +1100, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: : Avraham Avinu entertained three angels masquerading as human visitors; : feeding them goat flesh cooked with milk. Generations later, due to this : meal, the angels' protest, that the Torah ought not be given to the Jews, : was quashed. Where's this medrash? Tosafists (Daas Zeqeinim, Bereishis 18:8) note the contradiction between it and the medrash that the avos observe all of halakhah (even eiruv tavshilin) and suggests the following. It is also the Sifsei Chakhamim's and Bekhor Shor's take on the pasuq. The chumash says, "vayiqach chem'ah vechalav uven habaqar asher asah". There is no indication in the peshat that the veal was made in the butter and/or milk. And in fact, the milk is mentioned first. Leading to the opinion that Avraham even served them in a way that kept them from consuming dairy immediately after meat! The SC says he served them the milk so that they wouldn't have to wait while hungrily for the veal while it was shechted and cooked. The Radaq gives a different sesolution: Avraham prepared both so as to give them a choice of what to eat. : Reb Meir Simcha of Dvinsk explains in Meshech Chochmah, that no sin was : transgressed since it was BP flesh, which may be cooked with milk. Lo zakhisi lehavin haRav Meir Simcha haKohein, nor R' Kanievsky. Isn't that only mutar deRabbanan if it is killed before it can even stands up, so as to avoid mar'is ayin, like shechitah? And the gemara's example of the avos keeping kol haTorah kulah is Avraham keeping eiruv -- so that that aggadita means to include derabbanans. And even if we're saying that we're talking about BP without the taqanos, And if it is ben paqua and thus didn't need shechitah, why does the asame medrash make a point of Avraham shechting it? The tradition that Avraham Avinu authored seifer haYetzirah (for which I also have no source) includes the resolution that a calf made through ShY ("uven havaqar ASHER ASAH"), rather than invoking BP. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger A person lives with himself for seventy years, micha at aishdas.org and after it is all over, he still does not http://www.aishdas.org know himself. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From zev at sero.name Fri Nov 3 08:27:40 2017 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2017 11:27:40 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Avraham A Cooked, Angels Ate - Bassar BeChalav In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4ed7f10d-c1ee-c201-6de4-61e0564f59fd@sero.name> On 03/11/17 01:38, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: > feeding them goat flesh cooked with milk Since when? He fed them beef, together with cream (or butter) and milk, separately but simultaneously. > The angels? protests were silenced because they accepted that Avraham > Avinu was Jewish and therefore able to Shecht. Had they considered him > not Jewish, they would not have eaten because Shechita cannot be > performed by a non-Jew. Thus, the angels had already conceded that > Avraham Avinu had an inalienable connection to the Torah and therefore > was able to Shecht and create a Kosher BP. That being the case, they > could not question nor protest his chosen children?s rights to that > heritage. If so then why bring the milk into it at all? Simply by eating meat he'd shechted (or rather that his son Yishma`el had shechted) they had conceded all that (according to this explanation) was required. Why complicate the matter with questions of basar bechalav? Therefore it's clear that that was not the issue. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From micha at aishdas.org Fri Nov 3 05:44:11 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2017 08:44:11 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] TEXTUAL JUDAISM AND THE LIVING TORAH In-Reply-To: References: <9e51a7f4ea644e829db8503f8f0451fe@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20171103124411.GC23679@aishdas.org> On Thu, Nov 02, 2017 at 11:38:21PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : On 02/11/17 08:12, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: :>The Beit Yosef emphasizes that the custom of the entire world :>contradicts the Rosh's ruling. : Not the entire world. The Rosh himself reported that he was : gratified to discover, while travelling through Provence on his way : from Germany to Spain, that they did it the right way... Are you disagreeing with the BY (no citation so I can't check myself), with RJR's presentation of the BY? Or, are we ignoring the fact that the Rosh lived well before the BY and could have seen a Provincial minhag that had died by the mechaber's time. The BY could well be wrong. We have other examples of famous rishonim and acharonim who didn't know some minhag of other communities and thought regional norm was universal. I just want to understand which of the above we're discussing. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger We are what we repeatedly do. micha at aishdas.org Thus excellence is not an event, http://www.aishdas.org but a habit. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Aristotle From zev at sero.name Fri Nov 3 09:02:59 2017 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2017 12:02:59 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] TEXTUAL JUDAISM AND THE LIVING TORAH In-Reply-To: <20171103124411.GC23679@aishdas.org> References: <9e51a7f4ea644e829db8503f8f0451fe@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> <20171103124411.GC23679@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 03/11/17 08:44, Micha Berger wrote: > On Thu, Nov 02, 2017 at 11:38:21PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > : On 02/11/17 08:12, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: > :>The Beit Yosef emphasizes that the custom of the entire world > :>contradicts the Rosh's ruling. > > : Not the entire world. The Rosh himself reported that he was > : gratified to discover, while travelling through Provence on his way > : from Germany to Spain, that they did it the right way... > > Are you disagreeing with the BY (no citation so I can't check > myself), with RJR's presentation of the BY? Not disagreeing so much as pointing out that "the entire world" doesn't mean quite that. In fact the Tur on which the BY is commenting also quotes his father's report about the minhag in Provence. And the BY further quotes the Rosh that "uchvar nahagu gam kein biktzat mekomot" to start on the 7th. So later when he says "shelo nitkablu divrei haRosh, vechol ha`olam lo nahagu kein", I think this must be understood as a generalization, just as we do when we say "der velt" does this or that, and we clearly don't mean literally everyone. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From sholom at aishdas.org Fri Nov 3 11:32:44 2017 From: sholom at aishdas.org (Sholom Simon) Date: Fri, 03 Nov 2017 14:32:44 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] VAYERA ? WHO IS HKBH TALKING TO? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20171103183247.KRPQ6746.fed1rmfepo102.cox.net@fed1rmimpo109.cox.net> Rabbi Meir G. Rabi notes/asks: >Sara laughs [18:12] Gd is not happy > >[18:13] HKBH confronts Avraham, ?Why did Sara laugh off the blessing >that she have a child? Am I not able to arrange she give birth? I >assure you, I?ll be back and you?ll see she will have a child.? > >But why is HKBH asking this of Avraham? Does HKBH expect Avraham to >be able to explain? > >It seems this question is really an indictment of sorts. > >Is Avraham being blamed for Sara?s weakness? > >Why does Avraham confront [18:19] Sara? He does not doubt what HKBH >has told him? > >And when Sara denies it, why does Avraham rebuke her? Is it >Avraham?s responsibility to ensure she confesses? I just heard a shiur (YUTorah!) from RHS who addressed this. He also threw in the question: why is H" telling loshon harah to Avraham? RMF brings that In the Gemara (somewhere) it says that it's permissible to tell loshon harah to the subject's rebbe, so that the rebbe can give tochacha or musar to the subject, and RMF (or RHS) says that's what's happenning here (viewing Avraham as Sarah's rebbe, in a way). -- Sholom From akivagmiller at gmail.com Fri Nov 3 14:05:30 2017 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2017 17:05:30 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] chopsticks Message-ID: . R" Saul Guberman asked: > Is it permissible to break apart chopsticks on shabbat at the > meal to eat your sushi? Someone claimed it is makeh b'patish > and just use a fork or stab with the chopsticks still > together. Others thought that tzorech ochel nefesh might > allow them to be broken and used, as it is all disposable > anyway. Rabbi Doniel Neustadt raises a similar question at https://torah.org/torah-portion/weekly-halacha-5772-beshalach/ I would think that the situations are similar; even if they aren't identical, looking up the sources may help to find the answer about chopsticks. > Question: Leben or yogurt cups sometimes come attached to each > other and must be separated along a perforated line before > they can be eaten individually. Is that permitted to be done > on Shabbos? > > Discussion: Contemporary poskim debate whether or not it is > permitted to separate attached yogurt or leben cups from each > other. Some consider it a violation of Mechatech and Makeh > b?patish[21] while others hold it is permitted altogether[22]. > > 21. Rav Y.S. Elyashiv (Orchos Shabbos 12:12, Me?or ha-Shabbos, > vol. 2, pg. 551). > > 22. Rav S.Z. Auerbach (Orchos Shabbos 12:18. note 31, Shulchan > Shelomo 314:13-3). Akiva Miller From meirabi at mail.gmail.com Sat Nov 4 05:45:14 2017 From: meirabi at mail.gmail.com (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi) Date: Sat, 4 Nov 2017 23:45:14 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] Avraham A Cooked, Angels Ate - Bassar BeChalav Message-ID: 1] no one disputes that the Meshech Chochmah says what he says 2] there are many explanations to resolve the meat and milk issue, we are not disputing them, just explaining one of them 3] there is [surprisingly] no Issur of Maris Ayin preventing cooking some iterations of BP meat with milk - the proof is from this episode as presented by this Medrash and explained by the MChochma. 4] The decree that after the BP has stood up, Hifris AGKarka, it requires Shechitah [and presumably is also Assur to cook with milk] does not apply to a BP that is found as a non fully gestated, Lo KaLu Lo Chadashav. 5] Avraham did not Shecht it - on the contrary he directed Yishmael to prepare it - Furthermore, because it was a BP it did not require Shechita which is why he could direct Yishmael to kill it, and there was also no problem of Bassar SheNisAlem Min HaAyin. 6] Indeed, even had the angels eaten plain meat Shechted by AAvinu, there would have been adequate proof that they accepted his status of Kedushas Yisrael, it just so happened that AAvinu wanted to serve his visitors a delicacy, Beef Stroganoff. 7] I really do not know why I assumed it was a goat From zev at sero.name Sat Nov 4 16:10:52 2017 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Sat, 4 Nov 2017 19:10:52 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Avraham A Cooked, Angels Ate - Bassar BeChalav In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <0d614669-3c79-3c22-d137-b4b21530183f@sero.name> On 04/11/17 08:45, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi wrote: > 6] Indeed, even had the angels eaten plain meat Shechted by AAvinu, > there would have been adequate proof that they accepted his status of > Kedushas Yisrael, it just so happened that AAvinu wanted to serve his > visitors a delicacy, Beef Stroganoff. Except that Rashi explicitly says otherwise, that the delicacy he served was tongue in mustard, for which he needed *three* animals. There is no hint of any cooking in milk. The Meshech Chochma needs a mokor for this. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From meirabi at mail.gmail.com Sat Nov 4 05:56:05 2017 From: meirabi at mail.gmail.com (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi) Date: Sat, 4 Nov 2017 23:56:05 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] VAYERA ? WHO IS HKBH TALKING TO? Message-ID: Furthermore, HKBH is transgressing Lashon Hara by disclosing to Avraham that Sara laughed. It is pretty clear that Sara's indiscretion was disclosed to Avraham because it was necessary for AAvinu to know, as we see, he rebuked Sara for laughing. Avraham was responsible for this shortcoming of Sara - this properly explains all these Qs HKBH expected Avraham to respond as he did. The question is really an indictment of sorts. Avraham is blamed for Sara's indiscretion? Therefore, Avraham confronts [18:19] Sara. And when Sara denies it, Avraham rebukes her. It is Avraham's responsibility to ensure she confesses. Best, Meir G. Rabi From meirabi at mail.gmail.com Mon Nov 6 12:30:23 2017 From: meirabi at mail.gmail.com (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi) Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2017 07:30:23 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] HKBH Rebukes Avraham for Sara's Shortcomings In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: continuing from prev post - > Sara laughs [18:12] Gd is not happy > [18:13] HKBH confronts Avraham, ... Preserving harmony [Yevamos 65b, in this case between Araham and Sara] compels HKBH to lie to Avraham [HKBH reported that Sara said, "I am too old to have children", when in fact she said, "my master is old"] and yet HKBH, rather than remaining silent to preserve peace, reports Sara's indiscretion to Avraham. Furthermore, aside from being likely to cause strife between Avraham and Sara, this report is a horribly demeaning Lashon Hara. Scoffing at HKBH's ability to grant her a child, in spite of it being uttered by what might easily have been described as a foolish visitor, is a blight upon Sara which HKBH held against her. And she understood the correctness of the criticism and felt shamed, as we see that she [apparently] instinctively and immediately denied it [18:15] It seems clear that HKBH reported this to Avraham, rather than directly or indirectly to Sara, not only to correct Sara but also to rebuke Avraham. HKBH was criticising Avraham for Sara's shortcoming. From micha at aishdas.org Mon Nov 6 17:55:31 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2017 20:55:31 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Questioning Authority In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20171107015531.GC12418@aishdas.org> On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 09:41:32AM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : I have always felt that it is (or ought to be) possible and permissible to : *question* authority without challenging or rejecting authority... I would have said "to ask questions", as to me "to question" something is indeed to challenge. But that's just an English or perhaps English dialect issue. What's nice is that we don't have this issue in halachic jargon: there is a clear difference between 1- a she'eilah, asking for information, ibua'ei lehu / miba'ei on the oe hand, and 2- a qushya ("qasha"), tiyuvta, meisivei, where we challenge the given statement. .... : But frequently, the truth is that the parent has very good reasons for what : he says. It's just that he's unable to put those reasons into clear words. : He can't even explain it to himself in simple terms, because it is simply a : gut feeling that he has, based on experience and intuition, he sees that : this is the action or inaction which must be followed in this particular : situation. As far as I can tell, this is what RYBS calls "mesorah", and the same notion of "mesorah" RHS invokves when arguing against ordaining women or women leading inessential portions of davening? (As opposed to those who think of "mesorah" as referring to mimeticism.) : I think this is analogous to Torah leaders and Torah followers. When the : leaders tell the followers what to do, or what to avoid, it is entirely : reasonable for the followers to request explanations from the leaders. This : is especially so, if the explanation will help them comply with the : directive, or teach them how to apply the directive to other situations. : But these requests must be made respectfully, carefully, and only up to a : certain point. We ask a poseiq a she'eilah, not a qushya. And -- as noted by the Maharal in the Beer haGolah RMRabi and I beat to death -- we should be expecting to understand rather than blindly follow. The limit you speak of comes for the fact that a feel for how the halakhah ought to be inherently can't be articulated. To repply R/Dr Moshe Koppel's metaphor for halakhah, as much as halakhah runs like a legal system, it also works like a language. People who only know English as a second language could know rules of conjugation, but it takes serious immersion in the language to know what kinds of poetic license works and what violates the limits of acceptible English. We native speakers know what "sounds right". But if an immigrant were to ask why "the red big ball" sounds weird but "the big red ball" sounds normal, how many of us could explain it? And if we did come up with an explanation, isn't it a post-facto construct rather than the more by-feel way the determination was really made? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger For those with faith there are no questions. micha at aishdas.org For those who lack faith there are no answers. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yaakov of Radzimin Fax: (270) 514-1507 From micha at aishdas.org Mon Nov 6 18:30:37 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2017 21:30:37 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] eitz hachaim In-Reply-To: <61f0b606-b859-4475-eef8-a10489e74f1c@starways.net> References: <61f0b606-b859-4475-eef8-a10489e74f1c@starways.net> Message-ID: <20171107023037.GE12418@aishdas.org> On Sun, Oct 15, 2017 at 05:41:04PM -0400, hankman via Avodah wrote: : What exactly was the eitz hachaim all about. The simple pshat doesn't : make any sense. ... Kodem hacheit he was not : a bar misah so he had no need of it, after the cheit he was prevented : from accessing it! So when would it ever be useful to Adam? On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 10:51:28AM +0300, Lisa Liel via Avodah wrote: : I don't understand the question. He was prevented from accessing it : *because* of the cheit. Had he not sinned, you say he would have had : no need for it, but who is to say that its only function was to make : him live forever..... Note how the Torah is also called "eitz chaim (hi lamachaziqim bahh)." So I think Lisa's notion that the eitz chaim likely had another function is quite probable. Likely its primary function was to provide the da'as that would lead to arichas yamim. Like the Torah does -- even if its arichas yamim appears not to be in olam hazeh. There is also the idea that there was only one tree in the iddle of the garden, an eitz hachaim upon which grew a branch bearing the peri eitz hada'as tov vara. Or maybe that the eitz vhaim was the rooots from which the eitz hadaas grew. I don't know -- I only heard about it second-hand (multiple times) by people quoting "sifrei qabbalah" (as though that counts as a citation). Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger If you won't be better tomorrow micha at aishdas.org than you were today, http://www.aishdas.org then what need do you have for tomorrow? Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rebbe Nachman of Breslov From micha at aishdas.org Mon Nov 6 18:04:55 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2017 21:04:55 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] A Great Name In-Reply-To: <20171025204831.CKZV22111.fed1rmfepo202.cox.net@fed1rmimpo210.cox.net> References: <20171025204831.CKZV22111.fed1rmfepo202.cox.net@fed1rmimpo210.cox.net> Message-ID: <20171107020455.GD12418@aishdas.org> On Wed, Oct 25, 2017 at 04:48:29PM -0400, Sholom Simon via Avodah wrote: : One of the implicit criticisms of Migdal Bavel was that they wanted : to make a name for themselves. Then, at the beginning of Lech L'cha, : H' tells Avram that he will make his name great. : There must be something there... anybody have any thoughts? First question... If all of humanity was participating (minus two epople -- Avraham and Ashur), who exactly were they trying to build up their reputation for? Whereas after the Haflagah, man was split into numerous communities, the notion of being known broadly makes sense. And if you want to spread your teachings, such fame is useful. Yes, I think the contrast is meaningful -- the people who got caught up in ego to the point of irrationality wanted fame for its own sake. After all, it had no logical value in their context. Whereas Afraham was granted fame as part of Hashem aiding his success, and fame is positive. It's not a question, it's the point. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Between stimulus & response, there is a space. micha at aishdas.org In that space is our power to choose our http://www.aishdas.org response. In our response lies our growth Fax: (270) 514-1507 and our freedom. - Victor Frankl, (MSfM) From cantorwolberg at cox.net Mon Nov 6 23:30:51 2017 From: cantorwolberg at cox.net (Richard Wolberg) Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2017 02:30:51 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Gilgul Hanefesh Message-ID: I have heard many conflicting opinions about our belief in reincarnation. I hope and pray it is not true. ?One life is enough!? Is there a definitive Jewish belief? I have even heard some believe in ?Transmigration of the Soul? which is even more scary. As an impressionable kid, I once had a rabbi tell me that if you don?t wash netilat yadayim prior to eating, you will come back as a dog. The following is an excerpt by an article in the Aish.com Newsletter by Sara Yoheved Rigler. there are hints to reincarnation in the Bible and early commentaries (1), while in Kabbalah, Judaism?s mystical tradition, overt references to reincarnation abound. The Zohar, the basic text of Jewish mysticism (attributed to Rabbi Shimon Bar Yochai, a 1st century sage) assumes gilgul neshamot [the recycling of souls] as a given, and the Ari, the greatest of all Kabbalists, whose 16th teachings are recorded in, Shaar HaGilgulim, traced the reincarnations of many Biblical figures. While some authorities, such as Saadia Gaon (10th century) denied reincarnation as a Jewish concept, from the 17th century onward, leading rabbis of normative Judaism, such as the Gaon of Vilna and the Chafetz Chaim (2), referred to gilgul neshamot as a fact. (1)? See Deut. 33:6, and Targum Onkeles and Targum Yonosson on that verse. Also see Isaiah 22:14. (2)? Mishnah Berurah 23:5 and Shaar HaTzion 622:6 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From lisa at starways.net Tue Nov 7 02:43:04 2017 From: lisa at starways.net (Lisa Liel) Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2017 12:43:04 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Gilgul Hanefesh In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3ad8c297-8019-3aa5-de3b-800ffe91d6c9@starways.net> On 11/7/2017 9:30 AM, Richard Wolberg via Avodah wrote: ... > Is there a definitive Jewish belief? > I have even heard some believe in "Transmigration of the Soul" which > is even more scary. As an impressionable kid, I once had a rabbi tell me > that if you don't wash netilat yadayim prior to eating, you will come > back as a dog. As I understand it, gilgul neshamot is not the same as the eastern idea of reincarnation, where one person's soul literally incarnates again in another body and lives another life. Rather, on a spiritual level, the soul of one person can "match" the soul of someone who lived previously. Either by harmony or dissonance, to use a musical metaphor. In Seder HaDorot, it talks incessantly about how some person or other was the gilgul, or tikkun, of a previous person. But it sometimes has multiple people as the gilgul or tikkun of a previous person, which makes more sense given the "match" concept. Kabbalistically, at least according to R' Aryeh Kaplan, the spiritual dimension is one of similarities and differences. Two things that are more similar are "closer" and two things that are less similar are "further apart". So if your soul is very similar to that of someone who lived before, you could have such a "match". You might even dream memories that the previous soul experienced. That doesn't make you that person. And since the state of a person's soul changes throughout their life, their "match" to someone who lived previously can come and go as well. To give an example, Seder HaDorot says that Rabbi Akiva was the gilgul/tikkun of Zimri ben Salu. The 24K Bnei Shimon who died in the plague following Zimri's actions match the 24K talmidim of Rabbi Akiva, for example. But while Zimri took Kosbi b'issur, Rabbi Akiva married the wife of Tyrannus Rufus b'heter, after she converted. Hence restoring a balance that Zimri had violated. I don't buy the "reincarnated as a dog" or "as a fish" stuff. Those who do, I suppose they have on whom to rely, but you don't have to buy into it yourself. (NB: While Googling to see if there was a website that talked about this, I found this article from Aish, which was very interesting. It included Shechem and Dina in the equation as well. http://www.aish.com/tp/i/moha/97291469.html) Lisa From micha at aishdas.org Tue Nov 7 13:54:20 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2017 16:54:20 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] 17 Marcheshvan Message-ID: <20171107215420.GA15523@aishdas.org> Yesterday, the 17th Marcheshvan, was the anniversary of two events: 1- The rain of the mabul began; and 2- 2 Nov 1917, the day the British Foreign Secretary, Lord Alfred Balfour, sent the famous letter to Baron Lionel Walter Rothchild. Anyone want to connect the dots between the two? Two things I did notice: - Both were first steps, far from the final yeshu'ah. - Both were first followed by major destruction before anything positive could be seen from them. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger I have great faith in optimism as a philosophy, micha at aishdas.org if only because it offers us the opportunity of http://www.aishdas.org self-fulfilling prophecy. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Arthur C. Clarke From micha at aishdas.org Tue Nov 7 14:54:02 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2017 17:54:02 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Torah precheit? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20171107225402.GA26849@aishdas.org> On Thu, Oct 19, 2017 at 05:47:09AM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : R' Chaim Manaster asked: :> I have been trying to understand what the geshtalt of Torah :> was precheit of the eitz hadaas... ... :> The many consequences seem to be as follows: there would be :> no avdus in Mitzrayim, therefore no...... : One can ask similar questions about other turning-points in history. : What if Kayin had not killed Hevel? What if the world has not gone to : Avodah Zara a few generations later? What if Yishmael and/or Esav had : not gone of the derech? What if Moshe Rabenu had acted differently by : the rock? To get really confused... The Torah, like it's Author, is lemaaleh min hazman. What aspect of the Torah we mean by that aside for a moment, that means it wasn't written before the eitz hadaas, Kayin killing Hevel, Dor Enosh, galus Mitzrayim, etc... Torah doesn't enter the timeline until it is revealed at Har Sinai. Which means that there is no question about Hashem's "foreknowledge" and bechirah chafshi about anything written in the Torah that happens before Matan Torah. We can't talk about Hashem Knowing what we *will* decide until that Knowledge enters the timeline. There is no "before" or after to His knowing, only to when He informs others of it. So, for events that precede Har Sinai, the Torah can contain those decisions. There is no "what if" because Hashem Knows that that what wouldn't. No more a problem than if the Torah were written /after/ those events. Hey, I warned you I was opening the door to confusion. Then there is the question of the supernal Torah vs the form we got. As per the Ramban about the Torah without the letters separated into the words we have now. (Tangent: If one were to take that shitas haRamban at face value, there is meaning to the pesuqim with the words redivided. So, why isn't that one of the Middos shehaTorah Nidreshes Bahen?) : And there are yet others. Torah manifests itself differently to a : kohen than to a levi, and differently to a woman than to a man. And so : on... And on Sun, Oct 22, 2017 at 04:15:49PM -0400, RCM replied: : R. Akiva Miller wrote: ""If there is life on other planets, might they : possibly have a Torah? But Mitzrayim doesn't exist there, and Moshe : never lived there!" That question bothered me for a very long time," : Strangely enough, I had similar thoughts years back. As a young bachur : in yeshivo, my rebbi was teaching us that their was a period during : which the progenitor of kelal Yisroel would happen. I asked what would : have happened if there had been another deep thinker who came to the : same realization and belief that Avraham did. He answered that there : would have been two (or more) chosen peoples to eventually be mekabel : Torah. It didn't occur to me at the time to ask, would they each have the : "same" Torah or each get a tailored version to their (eventual) am? Or, : would there be one Torah that talks of both of the chosen peoples? Is there on some planet far away, an intelligent alien species with their Am haNivchar? How would the Torah be manifest to them? And if they didn't have a Migdal Bavel like event, did Hashem do that whole Mamlekhes Kohanim model, with castes within the alien Am haNivchar, or castes with everyone "nivchar"? Would they have a Holy Land? If we made contact with these creatures, would we recognize their perception of the Torah as another expression of Yahadus, or would it be too alien? I know this example seems less serious than yours; I meant it as a test case on which to check these ideas that doesn't have to involve "what if" histories that Hashem timelessly knows didn't / aren't / won't happen. : Years : later when discussing what is the purpose to us of the trillions of stars : and galaxies so distant that they could never possibly affect us here : on Earth? Then it occurred to me, what if those stars had planets with : intelligent beings on them and they too went through a similar period : wherein they too had some allien being come to the same conclusions as : Avraham did and they then became the chosen people of that planet and : received a Torah possibly tailored to their experiences and appropriate : there etc.? ... Or maybe they do affect our lives here on earth. Omphalists believe that the universe was created at some point in the nearer past, eg 5778 years ago -- or Last Thursday -- and everything before that is fake. And this is the position of the LR and R' Avigdor Miller. (Although Last Thursdayism is a mock-religion posed by atheists trying to ridicule their position.) The usual challenge by those who like to be more rationalist is that this would imply Hashem is out to fool us, creating light en route from stars to make it look like they shown billions of years ago, tragectories that if you work backward converge from a Big Bang, geological and archological records, fossils, cave paintings, remains of pre-Adamic farming... But there is a more thoughtful response: Perhaps the only way we can have teva today is if the universe we have now looks like it always ran by teva. Otherwise, the effects of nissim would still be causing anomolies we could pick up today. So much for hesteir Panim. In which case, we need a universe that is so big that our place is in looks like some unnoticable backwater. We need a universe that looks like it had a Big Bang and Inflation area in order for us to live with the set of laws of nature we have. And then their existence does impact us. : Moshe when he went lamorom to accept Torah. They too wanted Torah in a : version suitable to them which would deflect all of Moshe's responses. If : memory serves, I think some meforshim try to make sense of the malachim : in such a manner. Unlike RAM's or my hypothetical aliens, mal'akhim have no free will. Without having that much Tzelem E-lokim, would they qualify for revelation? I think the problem with the mal'akhim that the medrashic Moshe highlights in his response to their claim on the Torah is that they do Retzon haBorei automatically, they lack the challenges one would need the Torah to address. Without challenges, they cannot grow into more than they are; there is no need for a Torah to help show them how. Jumping back to RAM's post: :> As there would never be an Eretz Yisroel, then there would not :> be all the mitzvot hateltuot ba'aretz -- trumos, masros etc., etc. : : Or perhaps Gan Eden would have had that status. Eretz Yisrael is : actually a great example: Consider the idea that true nevuah can exist : only in Eretz Yisrael... Tangent: Yechezqeil? Yonah's qiqayon was outside Nineveh. Etc... : .... Rather, my point goes to : this "Torah with 613 mitzvot" that you refer to. It doesn't exist : today, and I don't know if it ever has existed. There has certainly : never been a person to whom they all applied, and I wonder whether : there was ever a generation when they were all in force. There is also the idea of mitzvos that were never expected to be applied. Like the gemara suggests about ben soreir umoreh and ir hanidachas. Perhaps they exist because history could have played out differently and these mitzvos would have had an applicability beyond derosh veqabel sekhar. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger None of us will leave this place alive. micha at aishdas.org All that is left to us is http://www.aishdas.org to be as human as possible while we are here. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Anonymous MD, while a Nazi prisoner From akivagmiller at gmail.com Wed Nov 8 04:57:26 2017 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2017 07:57:26 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Torah precheit? Message-ID: . R' Micha Berger asked: > Is there on some planet far away, an intelligent alien > species with their Am haNivchar? How would the Torah be > manifest to them? And if they didn't have a Migdal Bavel > like event, did Hashem do that whole Mamlekhes Kohanim > model, with castes within the alien Am haNivchar, or > castes with everyone "nivchar"? Would they have a > Holy Land? > > If we made contact with these creatures, would we > recognize their perception of the Torah as another > expression of Yahadus, or would it be too alien? My focus is on the word "too" in the phrase "too alien". I feel that while such beings would indeed be extremely alien to us, the degree of alien-ness is absolutely irrelevant to the question at hand: Any mashehu of alien-ness (I suspect) puts them outside the pale. In our modern way of thinking, in which "Eretz" means not only this planet but the entire physical universe, and in which "Shamayim" does NOT include planets and stars but only the metaphysical universe, - Why would martians have a different status than any other foreigners? I can easily see a discussion of whether the martians count as people or as animals, but that is a separate issue. The issue here is that if they claimed to have some sort of Revelation from the One True G-d, then would we accept it as being another facet of the Shiv'im Panim LaTorah? And my answer is: What would we say if a group of earthly *humans* claimed to have some sort of Revelation from the One True G-d? Would we accept *that* as being another facet of the Shiv'im Panim LaTorah? My guess is that our response would be: That's very nice, and you are a sincere group of righeous Bnei Noach... and then we'd pretty much ignore them. Not out of malice, but because their message is not directed towards us. Here's a litmus test for whether or not I am close to correct: If I'm not mistaken, when a person claims to be a Navi, there are specific tests for whether or not he is believed, and if he passes those tests, and he has a message from Hashem for us, then we are obligated to follow that message. Is Jewishness among those criteria? If Ovadia had not converted, would his nevua be any less true or any less obligatory? > If we made contact with these creatures, would we > recognize their perception of the Torah as another > expression of Yahadus, or would it be too alien? I suppose one answer might be: The word "Yahadus" is too restrictive. Try replacing it with "Ratzon Hashem". Akiva Miller From zev at sero.name Wed Nov 8 08:12:06 2017 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2017 11:12:06 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Torah precheit? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 08/11/17 07:57, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > I can easily see a discussion of whether the martians count as people > or as animals, but that is a separate issue. The issue here is that if > they claimed to have some sort of Revelation from the One True G-d, > then would we accept it as being another facet of the Shiv'im Panim > LaTorah? And my answer is: What would we say if a group of earthly > *humans* claimed to have some sort of Revelation from the One True > G-d? Would we accept*that* as being another facet of the Shiv'im > Panim LaTorah? > > My guess is that our response would be: That's very nice, and you are > a sincere group of righeous Bnei Noach... and then we'd pretty much > ignore them. Not out of malice, but because their message is not > directed towards us. > If all they claimed was to have once had a navi, whose nevuah didn't contradict our Torah in any way, then perhaps we might accept it as valid. But if they were to claim to have had their own matan torah I think we would have to reject it. It's fundamental to our faith that matan torah was an event that could only happen once. It's also fundamental that Hashem chose avraham from *all* humanity, and us from *all* the nations, so if someone else -- on this planet or any other -- were to make such a claim we could not accept it. as for how Hashem could leave them without a Torah to guide them, how are they different from any remote people who had no contact with anyone who had even heard of the Torah until the 19th or 20th century? If the New Guinea Highlanders (some of whom have *still* never had any contact with the world outside their valleys) could wait until now to hear about the Torah, why can't the Tau Cetians, or whoever, wait until the 25th or 30th century? (assuming the 6000 years thing to be some sort of metaphor, of course, or there won't be a 30th century.) -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From zvilampel at gmail.com Wed Nov 8 08:53:24 2017 From: zvilampel at gmail.com (H Lampel) Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2017 11:53:24 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Torah precheit? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 11/7/2017 6:05 PM, MIcha Berger wrote: > ... that the universe was created at some point in the nearer > past, eg 5778 years ago -- or Last Thursday -- and everything before that is > fake. ...is the position of ... R' Avigdor Miller. He certainly is not of the opinion of last-Thursday-ism. (I suspect RMB did not really mean that.) His opinion is based on the mesora. Re: ''and everything before that is fake. ...is the position of ... R' Avigdor Miller'' To clarify, R' Avigdor Miller's position is not that fossils, for example, were planted merely as a test of our emunah. > Why should the [dinosaurs] need explanation any more than the dodo, the passenger pigeon, or any of the other species which > have become extinct, some even in our time? The huge > animals of ancient times, as well as many small animals, > became extinct each in the due time decreed by the timetable > of Heaven. ... Their existence is a fact which does > not help th theory of Evolution in any manner. (Rejoice O Youth, pp. 47-48) However, that Adam was created as a 30-year-old (as Chazal say), with, for example, a full mouth of teeth? Yes. Because: > ''Creation means that the Universe began at once in full-blown development. > The First Man immediately had trees whose fruit he could eat. > But fruit trees must beforehand be pollinated by bees, and bees need beehives with all their > paraphernalia. So you understand that Creation implies that > everything came into existence without benefit of time." > > "Trees have in their trunks a number of concentric rings, > each ring denoting a year of existence. If the First Man had > sawed off a tree, would he have found rings inside?" > > "Since he had trees, they were what we know a tree > to be." > > ...thousand-year redwood trees...?" > > "Creation included everything. Just as the First Man > had mature fruit trees at the first moment, so also the world > possessed mature lumber trees which were created at the > same time." > > "[So]... all animals and insects and bacteria were created, > including those which need rotting old logs and crumbling old > rocks for their habitat or sustenance. Thus, it is self? > explanatory that the world possessed 'aged' materials from the > very outset, including vegetation and animal carcasses with low > carbon-14 content and rocks with heavy lead content.'' > > (Ibid. pp 45-46) Zvi Lampel PS--Again, this is to clarify Rav Miller's position, and hopefully will not evolve (;)) into a discussion of it. Been there, done that, and no time. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Wed Nov 8 13:59:13 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2017 16:59:13 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Torah precheit? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20171108215913.GB3342@aishdas.org> On Wed, Nov 08, 2017 at 07:57:26AM -0500, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: :> If we made contact with these creatures, would we :> recognize their perception of the Torah as another :> expression of Yahadus, or would it be too alien? : My focus is on the word "too" in the phrase "too alien". I feel that : while such beings would indeed be extremely alien to us, the degree of : alien-ness is absolutely irrelevant to the question at hand: Any : mashehu of alien-ness (I suspect) puts them outside the pale. Actually, when I said "too alien" I was thinking not of ways their book of Retzon haBorei different from our Torah but ways in which their existence is so different from ours that we can't event compare. It's one thing to discuss what hilkhos geirus might look like if they had a hahaflagah but they already live in a liquid. It's another to discuss what halakhah as a whole would look like if they didn't experience time as a linear past-present-future the way we do. This discussion also reminds me of my Issacharism thought experiment. Positing that sheivet Yissachar survived, and had its own development of halakhah since the fall of Malkhus Yisrael. Its own Sanhedrin, no Anshei Keneses haGdfolah, etc... The same beris Sinai, but an entirely different development of 3,000 of application of kelalei pesaq, different gezeiros and taqanos... And to make it harder, let's say their population of shomerei Torah uMizvos has been roughly the same as ours all these years. So there are no grounds for saying one set of Sanhedrins is more authorivative than the other. : In our modern way of thinking, in which "Eretz" means not only this : planet but the entire physical universe, and in which "Shamayim" does : NOT include planets and stars but only the metaphysical universe, - : Why would martians have a different status than any other foreigners? Because it's possible that if Vulcans existed, HQBH would have provided them with /their/ mamlekhes kohanim. Yes, I can't guess what HQBH would do -- He could equally have wanted their spiritual development to wait until *we* get there. Like some aboriginal people on this planet, who never heard of us or even Ibrahimic religions relatively recently. Possibly relevant is the Rambam's shitah that chasidei umos ha'olam are only those who keep the 7 mitzvos because they were given at Sinai. Perhaps this gives more reason for a Vulcan am hanivchar. If anyone who does the right thing because it's logically the right thing accomplished their goal in life, then perhaps not every kind of being with bekhirah needs access to a revelation. : The issue here is that if : they claimed to have some sort of Revelation from the One True G-d, : then would we accept it as being another facet of the Shiv'im Panim : LaTorah? And my answer is: What would we say if a group of earthly : *humans* claimed to have some sort of Revelation from the One True : G-d? Would we accept *that* as being another facet of the Shiv'im : Panim LaTorah? We are a segulah mikol ha'amim, beni bekhori Yisrael. We know we recieved a unique revelation. The discussion is whether it's unique for all of humanity, or full-stop unique universally. : My guess is that our response would be: That's very nice, and you are : a sincere group of righeous Bnei Noach... and then we'd pretty much : ignore them... I agree with the "ignore" part, though. Accept for the academics and their journals. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Despair is the worst of ailments. No worries micha at aishdas.org are justified except: "Why am I so worried?" http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yisrael Salanter Fax: (270) 514-1507 From seinfeld at daasbooks.com Wed Nov 8 18:00:29 2017 From: seinfeld at daasbooks.com (Alexander Seinfeld) Date: Wed, 08 Nov 2017 21:00:29 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Torah precheit? Message-ID: > > > >But there is a more thoughtful response: Perhaps the only way we can >have teva today is if the universe we have now looks like it always >ran by teva. Otherwise, the effects of nissim would still be causing >anomolies we could pick up today. So much for hesteir Panim. > >In which case, we need a universe that is so big that our place is in >looks like some unnoticable backwater. We need a universe that looks >like it had a Big Bang and Inflation area in order for us to live with >the set of laws of nature we have. > >And then their existence does impact us. Just want to point out, or remind, that there are two independent questions here that often become conflated. 1. Can a rational person believe in ?young Earth? (i.e., >6,000 years old)? 2. Why would God create a universe making it look like it is far older than it really is? The basis of answering yes to #1 has nothing to do with #2. I do not need to know why in order to examine the evidence for #1 and conclude that He did probably make the world 5,778 years ago. The fact that I cannot answer #2 should not be entered as evidence against #1. This is the m?haleich of R? Dovid Gottlieb. The fallacy of the skeptics is to mock #1 based on #2, when in fact it is irrelevant. My own personal belief is merely that the vastness of space and time give us the opportunity with our puny minds to have an analogy for God?s infiniteness. From afolger at aishdas.org Mon Nov 13 04:05:02 2017 From: afolger at aishdas.org (Arie Folger) Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2017 13:05:02 +0100 Subject: [Avodah] Torah precheit Message-ID: RAM and RMB have been arguing about whether aliens somewhere out there could have received a Revelation akin to ours and whether theirs would be one of shiv'im panim la-Torah. My USD0.02c: I believe that it is not unimportant that according to present theories of physics, we are constrained by how far we could ever travel. Even if we were to remain happy with slower than light travel, travelling at the phenomenal speeds necessary to get anywhere else in our own galaxy where aliens might live, i.e. in another star system with planets in the habitable zone, would use up phenomenal amounts of energy. Furthermore, the distances are so vast, that we would need enormous (what's the trendy word variant, ginormous?) amounts of time, and we still hardly would get anywhere. Bottom line, there very well may exist intelligent aliens out there, but we are near 100% sure that we will never ever be able to meet them. Which leads me to the following observation: If there are aliens out there which we will one day meet, then we could not accept their *competing* Revelation. There is only one 'am hanivchar. We would indeed need to see them as a special kind of Noachides with a possible true revelation that is, however, subordinate to ours and can never contradict it. If, however, we consider aliens whom we will never ever be able to meet, I see no reason why they couldn't have their own Revelation, with their own Torah, which, while it surely will agree in all iqarim, may nonetheless, through a variety of mechanisms suggested by mefarshim throughout the ages (including but not limited to the Ramban's Torah without spaces, and the expansion thereof by later mequbalim that the Heavenly Torah has 23 letters, of which we only see 22), be quite different from ours. I do wonder though, can there be an alien civilization we will one day encounter in person, which has exactly the same Torah as we do. It would seem extremely improbable for them to have had an Avraham, Yitzchak & Yaakov, Shevatim & galut Mitzrayim, but hey, if this is predetermined in part, then why not? The question will then be, are they and us the same people (in the assumption that it is even physically possible to intermarry)? I consider this whole possibility even less likely than the one about meeting any aliens anywhere, so this is just an thought experiment. Kol tuv, -- Arie Folger -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From akivagmiller at gmail.com Mon Nov 13 17:45:22 2017 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2017 20:45:22 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Gifts on Shabbos Message-ID: . I am trying to get a more precise understanding of when it is assur/mutar to give someone a gift on Shabbos. Orach Chayim 306 is about all sorts of business activities. Gifts are a subset of this topic, and Mishne Berura 306:33 writes, "It is also assur to give a gift to one's friend, because it is similar to buying and selling, because it leaves his ownership [reshus]. But a gift is mutar when it is L'tzorech Shabbos V'Yom Tov - as written in 323:7 - and likewise for L'tzorech Mitzvah... And it also wrote that according to that, the practice of giving keilim as a gift to a Chasan is improper..." When I turn to Shulchan Aruch 323:7, Mechaber doesn't say anything about the general laws of giving gifts on Shabbos. He only gives one particular case: That if one forgot to tovel a keli before Shabbos, so it cannot be used on Shabbos, he is allowed to give it to a non-Jew as a gift, and then borrow it back for Shabbos use. Mishne Brura 323:34 explains: "Even though it is assur to give gifts on Shabbos as written in Siman 306, here it is allowed because of Tzorech Shabbos." The logic is somewhat circular, I think: 306 refers to 323, and 323 refers to 306. The only clear heter is an interesting one: On the one hand, it is for a NON-food item (though it is food-related); on the other hand, it seems to be a b'dieved solution for the person who either forgot to tovel it before Shabbos, or somehow acquired it from a non-Jew on Shabbos. I don't see any clear heter to deliberately give a food gift on Shabbos, and I also don't see any clear prohibition that non-foods are excluded from being "L'tzorech Shabbos". Mishne Berurah 306:33 says that it is wrong to give "keilim" as gifts to a chasan. Rabbi Dovid Ribiat ("The 39 Melochos", page 961) includes "presenting a Bar Mitzvah boy with a Sefer" in this category. These examples suggest two rules to me: (1) If the gift will not be used until after Shabbos (quite likely for the bar mitzvah boy's sefer, though I have no idea which "kelim" the chasan would receive), then it is not "letzorech Shabbos". (2) The chasan (or bar mitzvah boy) presumably gets hanaah from receiving the gift, but that amount of Oneg Shabbos is not significant enough to count as "letzorech Shabbos". I offer two specific examples for discussion: (1) Many shuls offer printed material, such as parsha sheets, weekly shul bulletins, and even newspapers and magazines. Or someone might attend a shiur, where the teacher distributes printed handouts of the source material. Can I take these home to read or learn from on Shabbos afternoon? Wouldn't this be a Tzorech Shabbos? (2) Suppose someone is invited to a friend for a Shabbos meal, and he brings a challah or wine as a gift for the host. The host was not expecting it and has other food that he was planning to use. Is this enough of a tzorech Shabbos to transfer ownership? If this host accepts the gift, is he required to serve the food? In other words, if "tzorech Shabbos" is indeed a carte blanche for food gifts, does the food have to actually be eaten? Akiva Miller Postscript: It seems to me that this issur of giving gifts applies only on Shabbos, and *not* on Yom Tov. Consider: You can send a living behema to your friend on YT, even through a Reshus Harabim, even if you know that the friend won't shecht it, and the heter is contingent only on the fact that the friend COULD shecht it. (MB 516:1) You can even send a pair of tefillin to your friend even though it is not needed at all for Yom Tov; the only requirements are that the tefillin are ready-for-use, and that friend gets hanaa from receiving the gift (MB 516:11-12) That whole siman seems to deal with issues of hotzaah and muktzeh, and doesn't even mention kinyanim (at least, I didn't see any such mention). This is very puzzling: Why would there be a difference between giving gifts on Shabbos and on Yom Tov? If this could be answered, it might shed light on what "L'tzorech Shabbos" means. From micha at aishdas.org Tue Nov 14 08:39:28 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2017 11:39:28 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Gilgul Hanefesh In-Reply-To: <3ad8c297-8019-3aa5-de3b-800ffe91d6c9@starways.net> References: <3ad8c297-8019-3aa5-de3b-800ffe91d6c9@starways.net> Message-ID: <20171114163928.GD29616@aishdas.org> On Tue, Nov 07, 2017 at 12:43:04PM +0200, Lisa Liel via Avodah wrote: : As I understand it, gilgul neshamot is not the same as the eastern : idea of reincarnation, where one person's soul literally incarnates : again in another body and lives another life... RSGaon says in (Emunos veDei'os 6:8 tr R' Yosef el-Qafeh, "Kapach"; emphasis mine): Venineini omer ki anashim, mimi SHENIQRA'IM YEHUDIM, matzasim ma'aminim begilgul veqor'in oso haha'ataqus. I left that in Hebrew because I want to be medayeiq in lashon in a moment. To continue, with my translation from the Hebrew: The matter to their minds is that the ruach of Re'uvein will be in Shim'on, and after that in Leivi, and after that in Yehudah. And from them, or most of them figure that it could be that the ruach of a person will be in an animal, and the ruach of an anumal in a person. And a lot of such delusions and confusion. And then the rest of the chapter lists their errors. RYeQ footnotes that R' Uzziel concluded that the people who are "called Jews" who believe such things are the Qaraim. Anan (the founder) picked up this idea from the Greeks. I do not know the original Arabic, but in this translation, notice that it's possible to read RSG as being against people to take the idea of gilgul and call it "ha'ataqus" and describe it as souls migrating from person to person or even to animal, etc... But not against gilgul itself. Which would support Lisa's understanding. This read has two open questions to resolve, not that I am saying they're unanswerable: 1- RSG does use the same Arabic again at the end of the chapter (and ma'amar) that R "Kapach" translates to "gilgul" -- "And I say: what does this say that teaches about gilgul?..." Perhaps it should be read: How do they think those pesuqim indicate that gilgul means ha'ataqah -- they don't talk about gilgul altogether? 2- My bigger problem is that RSG would then be spending all this time on a heretical misunderstanding of gilgul, without even one sentence saying, "But what gilgul *really* means..."? It would even be an important point of the ma'amar's discussion of souls and afterlife. This omission I find highly unlikely. As to how they would differ. The kind of people who talk about gilgul also talk about Naran and sometimes even Naran Chai -- Nefesh Ruach Neshamah, which are the penimios aspects of the soul, and Chayah and Yechidah. For that matter, RSG discusses Naran in the very same ma'amar (6:3 ) as three kochos. To RSG, they are an indisible singularity that has three abilities. But in more Qabbalistic sources, they are described as parts even as the soul's unitary nature is also asserted. If ruach and nashamah are indeed parts, then there is a huge difference between 1- Gilgul nashamos: The neshamah -- and according to the Ari, even "sparks" of a neshamah rather than a whole one -- "revolves" from one life in one body to another. And 2- Ha'ataqa: where the ruach migrates. Neshamah is much less associated with the notion of "self" than ruach is. E.g. "Neshamah shanasati bi, tehorah hi." The "bi -- in me" receives a neshamah. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger It isn't what you have, or who you are, or where micha at aishdas.org you are, or what you are doing, that makes you http://www.aishdas.org happy or unhappy. It's what you think about. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Dale Carnegie From micha at aishdas.org Tue Nov 14 09:31:55 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2017 12:31:55 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Torah precheit? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20171114173155.GE29616@aishdas.org> On Wed, Nov 08, 2017 at 11:53:24AM -0500, H Lampel via Avodah wrote: : On 11/7/2017 6:05 PM, Micha Berger wrote: :> ... that the universe was created at some point in the nearer :> past, eg 5778 years ago -- or Last Thursday -- and everything before that is :> fake. ...is the position of ... R' Avigdor Miller. : He certainly is not of the opinion of last-Thursday-ism. (I suspect RMB did not really mean that.) His opinion is based on the mesora. I meant omphalism. Which is not based on the mesora, it's based on pashut peshat in a pasuq. A pasuq that we don't really have much mesorah saying actually hyas a pashut peshat, at least not one we can comprehend. : Re: "and everything before that is fake. ...is the position of ... R' : Avigdor Miller" : To clarify, R' Avigdor Miller's position is not that fossils, for example, : were planted merely as a test of our emunah. Which is why I didn't say that. Continuing with RZL's quote of RAM's Rejoice O Youth (pp. 47-48): :> Why should the [dinosaurs] need explanation any more than the :> dodo, the passenger pigeon, or any of the other species which :> have become extinct, some even in our time? The huge :> animals of ancient times, as well as many small animals, :> became extinct each in the due time decreed by the timetable :> of Heaven. ... Their existence is a fact which does :> not help th theory of Evolution in any manner. So he says it's simply incomprehensible. I also gave a different explanation than "test of our emunah" -- necessary for having a sensible and detectable teva. My point was to defend the viability of omphalism of both RAM's and the LR's sorts. Asking "Why would Hashem be so cruel as to create all that to mislead, at best to test" question presumes a strawman. : However, that Adam was created as a 30-year-old (as Chazal say), with, : for example, a full mouth of teeth? Yes. Because: :> "Creation means that the Universe began at once in full-blown development. :> The First Man immediately had trees whose fruit he could eat. .... :> (Ibid. pp 45-46) See Bereishis Rabba 14:7 ). According to R Yehudah bar Shimon says that "ofer olam" was created in his fullness. R' Elazar b Shimon says that Chava was too. R' Yochanan says they were creates as 20 (quibble: not 30) year olds. And then down in 14:10, R Yehudah says that Adam was made with a tail, but it was removed for the sake of his kavod. Evolution anywone? BUT: The month that Adam was born in is part of the greater machloqes between R' Yehoshua and R' Eliezer about Nissan vs Tishrei (RH 11a). Meaning, if the world was created in Tishrei, when "the earth brings forth plants and trees full of fruit", then yes, this medrash stands. But if the world was created in Nissan, when the plants start growing and the fruit is emerging from the tree (as the gemara puts it), then perhaps not. In any case, the meaning thereby ascribed to saying the world was made in Nissan is that the universe was created at its start. Regardless of Adam's development when born. So I would have said "one opinion in Chazal", not "as Chazal say". Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Friendship is like stone. A stone has no value, micha at aishdas.org but by rubbing one stone against another, http://www.aishdas.org sparks of fire emerge. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Mordechai of Lechovitz From micha at aishdas.org Tue Nov 14 10:38:37 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2017 13:38:37 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Gifts on Shabbos In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20171114183837.GF29616@aishdas.org> On Mon, Nov 13, 2017 at 08:45:22PM -0500, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : I am trying to get a more precise understanding of when it is : assur/mutar to give someone a gift on Shabbos. ... : The logic is somewhat circular, I think: 306 refers to 323, and 323 : refers to 306... The Mishnah Berurah has mutual references between 306:33 and 323:34. But I don't see the logic itself being circular. 306 spells out the theory, and 323 is an example of that theory and at each place he shows you the other half of the picture. Giving gifts is assur (derabbanan) on Shabbos, except when the purpose of the gift is letzorekh Shabbos, or another mitzvah. Thus, it includes giving a non-toveled keli to a non-Jew so that it can be borrowed back and used *for Shabbos*. But not a wedding gift, which (as per R' Ribiat's bar mitzvah boy) presumably isn't needed by the chasan on Shabbos. And apparently claiming simchas chasan being a mitzvah isn't sufficient to say the gift is letzorekh mitzvah. Which you note as well, although you phrase it in terms of hana'ah and oneg Shabbos, ie lezorekh Shabbos. Perhaps this is because there are other ways to provide simchah or oneg, so it's not "letzorekh". : (1) Many shuls offer printed material, such as parsha sheets, weekly : shul bulletins, and even newspapers and magazines. Or someone might : attend a shiur, where the teacher distributes printed handouts of the : source material. Can I take these home to read or learn from on : Shabbos afternoon? Wouldn't this be a Tzorech Shabbos? I would think so. Why any less than a gift of food? In both cases, the recipient already owns alternatives. So why would something to eat be more letzorekh Shabbos than something to learn? This is unlike the bar mitzvah boy recieving a sefer (acc to R' Ribiat), in that the purpose isn't learning on Shabbos. Implied: A guest who knows the host won't use the food (eg he recommends waiting until the wine is chilled) shouldn't be giving even usable food. Is this the halakhah? Also, I found that ROY (Yechaveh Da'as 3:21) DOES allow giving the bar mitzvah boy that seifer because it provides chizuq. And there is no greater letzorekh mitzvah than that! : (2) Suppose someone is invited to a friend for a Shabbos meal, and he : brings a challah or wine as a gift for the host. The host was not : expecting it and has other food that he was planning to use. Is this : enough of a tzorech Shabbos to transfer ownership? ... Or, in the SA's case... can you give the non-toveled keli to a nakhri when you have just as good or nearly as good alternatives? That you already had thoughts of using? I took it for granted yes, since if not, the SA is oddly missing an important half of the story. Which is why above I only asked about a case where the guest gives something in a way that rules out its use, rather than just left to the host's choice. When I am the guest in this situation, I am zokheh lo shelo befanav and transfer ownership on Friday. Came in handy a couple of times when the host refused the gift. "Well, if you don't want it, you can regift it. Because it's yours already and you aren't allowed to give it back" right now, at least. : Postscript: It seems to me that this issur of giving gifts applies : only on Shabbos, and *not* on Yom Tov... Then why "letzorekh Shabbos or YT"? When do you have something that is letzorekh YT in particular when it's also Shabbos? : (MB 516:1) You can : even send a pair of tefillin to your friend even though it is not : needed at all for Yom Tov; the only requirements are that the tefillin : are ready-for-use, and that friend gets hanaa from receiving the gift : (MB 516:11-12) And the bar mitzvah boy doesn't get the same kind of hana'ah (speaking quality, not quantity) from his uncle's gift of a set of Rambam? Now I'm confused again. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "The worst thing that can happen to a micha at aishdas.org person is to remain asleep and untamed." http://www.aishdas.org - Rabbi Simcha Zissel Ziv, Alter of Kelm Fax: (270) 514-1507 From micha at aishdas.org Tue Nov 14 10:48:32 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2017 13:48:32 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Torah precheit In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20171114184832.GI29616@aishdas.org> On Mon, Nov 13, 2017 at 01:05:02PM +0100, Arie Folger via Avodah wrote: : Bottom line, there very well may exist intelligent aliens out there, but we : are near 100% sure that we will never ever be able to meet them. Nice chiluq! : Which leads me to the following observation: If there are aliens out there : which we will one day meet, then we could not accept their *competing* : Revelation. There is only one 'am hanivchar... Who said that "nivchar mibein ha'amim" means anything beyond benei Adam, amim as caused by Migdal Bavel? Perhaps their revelation isn't so much competing as the RBSO providing them a chance at redemption before Yom Hashem haGadol vehanora, or at least before whenever it is we get there? : them as a special kind of Noachides with a possible true revelation that : is, however, subordinate to ours and can never contradict it. This is itself the question I was trying to keep under discussion. Could we even recognize a contradiction? After all, the appearance of Retzon haBorei to creatures very different than us isn't likely to have many points where we can contradict. Assuming they are ethical monotheists, that is. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger It's never too late micha at aishdas.org to become the person http://www.aishdas.org you might have been. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - George Eliot From meirabi at gmail.com Thu Nov 16 16:11:31 2017 From: meirabi at gmail.com (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi) Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2017 11:11:31 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] How Much Salt for Kashering? Message-ID: Kosher meat must have all traces of blood removed. This procedure is known as 'Kashering' and requires very precise procedures and timing of rinsing, soaking, salting and finally removal of the salt and blood via rinsing and washing. Halachah provides no precise measure of salt to be used for Kashering and although insisting that all surfaces must be covered with salt, does not differentiate between small and large surface area to volume ratios, i.e. thick or thin pieces of meat. In other words a large circular hunk of meat [small ratio of surface area to volume] requires the identical amount of surface salt and time for Kashering as does a thin piece [large ratio of surface area to volume] Furthermore, a 20cm thick piece of meat will be Kashered when salted on both sides, meaning the salt will extract blood from a depth of 10 cm, but a 4cm thick piece of meat salted only on one side will not be Kosher. It seems like the process has been standardised to accommodate all cases. Nevertheless, although Halachah permits various shortcuts when Kashering for emergency situations, it does not advise Kashering thin slices to reduce preparation time. Meat that was cooked before it was Kashered will make everything in the pot it is cooked with non-Kosher. Halacha asserts there is as much blood in the piece of meat as the mass of meat. If however, there is enough Kosher food in the pot to render the blood insignificant, the food will be Kosher. Halachah requires 60 units of Kosher food to neutralise every unit of blood [1 gram of blood requires 60 grams of Kosher food] In other words, a 100 gram piece of meat will require 6kg to neutralise the blood. However, meat that was cooked after Kashering but before the blood and salt was washed off, requires only 60 times the salt and blood on the surface of the meat i.e. soaked into the salt. The blood that was in the meat has been removed by the salting. Some authorities [a note in the ShaArei Dura] assert that every piece of meat is itself large enough to neutralise the salt whilst others [the Rama 69:9] assert it provides only half the mass required. ????? ??"? - ??? ????? ???? ??? ????? ?????? ?????? ???? ??? ???? ???? ???? ??? ??? ??? ???? ?? ??? ?? ?? ???? ????? ??? ??? ????? ?? ??? ?? ??? ????? ????? ???? ??? ????? ??? ??? ?? ???? ???? ?? ??? ???? The Rama however disagrees with the ratio - "there can be no question that if the pot contains as much as the mass of the meat, it is certainly more than 60 times the salt ...." See Shach that BeDiAvad, we may rely upon the lenient opinion particularly if it is a thick piece. ????? ???? ??????????? ?''? ?????? ?????????? ??????????? ????? ??????, ?????? ??????, ?????????? ?????? ????????? ????? ???????? ?????? ?????????? ????????????? ???????? ?????????? ???? ?????????? ????? ???????? ?????????, (????????? ?????? ?''? ?''? To the best of my knowledge, this is the only source that provides an empiric measurement of how much salt is to be used for Kashering. Keep in mind that since this is a general ruling it must encompass all cases, the guidelines must reflect the maximum amount of salt that would be applied and that would remain until the meat is ready for its final washdown. In the words of the Rama, "there can be no question that if the pot contains as much as the mass of the meat, it is certainly more than 60 times the salt ...." The Halacha must provide the maximum safety margin and must therefore assume that the maximum amount of salt was applied and remains on the meat when it is added to the pot. Further, the Halacha must accommodate the largest surface area to meat ratio [ChAdam 32:4] and the heaviest salting hand. In other words, every possible variant that increases the amount of salt used is turned up to the max - and in this worst possible case scenario, we can be certain that the salt is no more than one thirtieth of the mass of the meat. In other words, an average sized steak, 300 - 400 gms, requires no more than 2 teaspoonfuls of salt for Kashering. Another thing that is certain - all Kosher agencies apply far more salt for Kashering than one thirtieth. Does it make a difference? Well, these days, the cost of disposing of contaminants is rising dramatically and salt is deemed a nasty contaminant and is becoming more expensive to dispose. It already adds a significant cost to production. Best, Meir G. Rabi 0423 207 837 +61 423 207 837 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From meirabi at gmail.com Sat Nov 18 13:25:21 2017 From: meirabi at gmail.com (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi) Date: Sun, 19 Nov 2017 08:25:21 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] Sedra Toldos - Balance, When Parents Favour One Child Message-ID: Our actions are pretty much prompted by Life's circumstances, we are mostly provoked to react. We do [many/most] things to counter a perceived imbalance, an injustice. Perhaps, with this in mind, we can better understand Yitzchak, Rivkah and Eisav as they are portrayed in this week's Sedra. Isaac favoured Eisav, because he was "Tzayid BeFiv", Rivkah favoured YaAkov [25:28] We are told why Yitzchak favours Eisav but not why Rivkah favours YaAkov. Yitzchak favours Eisav because Eisav is a "Tzayid BeFiv" lit. hunted with his mouth. Rashi explains this as either [or both] - he deceived his father like a hunter lying in ambush or stalking prey and catching it at a vulnerable moment, i.e. feeding Yitchak fake news to present himself as exceedingly Gd fearing; or, he fed Yitzchak tasty food, "Make me the tasty food I enjoy ... so that I might bless you before I die." [27:4] But Eisav was not a better cook than Rivkah - "she made him a delicious dish just as he liked" [27:14] [unless she had him on a healthy food diet and Eisav was Yitzchak's secret steak supplier] Eisav loved his father and he loved hunting [25:27]. He desperately sought his father's approval. He pursued this as he best knew, by hunting and even by lying. We might even say that he felt as though he was hunting for his father's love. Yitzchak understood, he encouraged Eisav to hunt and cook for him. He even reminded Eisav to take his hunting weapons when he instructs him to hunt and prepare food before he blesses him - Yitzchak wants Eisav to be engaged in the hunting and preparation of the food, because it is this engagement that is their link and best encapsulates his approval of his son Eisav. In other words, "It's not the food I want, for that I could ask your mother or you could grab an animal from our flock - it would be much quicker. No, I want you to be of service to me. Knowing that you have hunted to provide for me makes me happy and I enjoy the food more." Eisav knew that his mother was capable of and willing to provide her husband with all the tasty food he could stomach. He got the message that it was not food that Yitzchak wanted. Yitzchak was reaching out to Eisav, knowing how desperately Eisav sought his approval. Eisav learned how to cook in order to express his love. He even deceived Yitchak, painting himself as the Gd fearing son in order to win his father's approval. Best, Meir G. Rabi 0423 207 837 +61 423 207 837 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From akivagmiller at gmail.com Sat Nov 18 19:23:18 2017 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Sat, 18 Nov 2017 22:23:18 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] T'hay Message-ID: There is a word spelled tav-heh-aleph, pronounced "t'hay". Is this word Hebrew or Aramaic? >From context and sound, I have always presumed that it means something very similar to "yihyeh". Is that correct? If they are indeed similar in meaning, then I imgine that they is still some slight shade of difference. If they meant the exact same thing, wouldn't authors use the more common word (yihyeh) instead? This would be the case even if t'hay is Hebrew, and it would certainly be true if t'hay is Aramaic. The reason I'm asking these questions is because I have found a surprising number of paragraphs in my siddur, where all the words are obviously Hebrew, except for this one word. Including a foreign word in a text is not unheard of (there's a Latin word in Nachem, for example), but this is generally done because there is no native word with the precise meaning that the author is aiming for. And I can't imagine why "yihyeh" doesn't work in these cases: Hamapil: "us'hay mitasi shleima l'fanecha" Birkas Hamazon, near the end: "zechus shet'hay l'mishmeres shalom" Birkas Hamazon on Shabbos: "shelo t'hay tzara" Birkas Hachodesh: "chayim shet'hay banu ahavas torah" Avinu Malkenu: "t'hay hashaah hazos" Yizkor: "bis'char zeh t'hay nafsho" Yom Kippur Musaf, the Kohen Gadol's tefila: "shet'hay hashana hazos" Kel Malay Rachamim: "b'gan eden t'hay menuchaso" (I have omitted parts of the siddur that are taken from the Mishna (such as Bameh Madlikin and Pitum Haketores) because it is the nature of the Mishna to mix Hebrew and Aramaic, so use of the word "t'hay" isn't a glaring exception the way it is in the rest of the siddur. Also, I note that my examples were all taken from Nusach Ashkenaz; other nuschaos may have more or fewer instances of this word.) Thank you, Akiva Miller From simon.montagu at gmail.com Mon Nov 20 00:38:38 2017 From: simon.montagu at gmail.com (Simon Montagu) Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2017 10:38:38 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] T'hay In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sun, Nov 19, 2017 at 5:23 AM, Akiva Miller via Avodah < avodah at lists.aishdas.org> wrote: > There is a word spelled tav-heh-aleph, pronounced "t'hay". Is this > word Hebrew or Aramaic? > Hebrew. I believe the Aramaic equivalent would be tehevi. > > From context and sound, I have always presumed that it means something > very similar to "yihyeh". Is that correct? > > If they are indeed similar in meaning, then I imgine that they is > still some slight shade of difference. If they meant the exact same > thing, wouldn't authors use the more common word (yihyeh) instead? > This would be the case even if t'hay is Hebrew, and it would certainly > be true if t'hay is Aramaic. > > The reason I'm asking these questions is because I have found a > surprising number of paragraphs in my siddur, where all the words are > obviously Hebrew, except for this one word. Including a foreign word > in a text is not unheard of (there's a Latin word in Nachem, for > example), but this is generally done because there is no native word > with the precise meaning that the author is aiming for. And I can't > imagine why "yihyeh" doesn't work in these cases: (At any rate it would be "tihyeh" in the cases you quote, which are all in the feminine) In my siddur (Singer's) all the examples you give are "tehi" with a yud, which is Biblical Hebrew, as in "Tehi ala benotenu" in last week's parasha (Bereshit 26:28). The difference between yihyeh/yehi and tihyeh/tehi is that the first is future and the second is jussive (though the future can be used in a jussive sense). I assume the form with alef is Rabbinic Hebrew. How it comes to be used in the siddur, or in which nushaot exactly, I don't know. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jay at m5.chicago.il.us Mon Nov 20 05:12:52 2017 From: jay at m5.chicago.il.us (Jay F. Shachter) Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2017 13:12:52 +0000 (WET) Subject: [Avodah] How Much Salt for Kashering? In-Reply-To: from "avodah-request@lists.aishdas.org" at Nov 16, 2017 06:40:58 pm Message-ID: <15112051720.1Acb3A518.50843@lsd.chicago.il.us.chicago.il.us> > > Kosher meat must have all traces of blood removed. > No, it does not. This is true only if you are going to cook the meat before eating it. Jay F. ("Yaakov") Shachter 6424 N Whipple St Chicago IL 60645-4111 (1-773)7613784 landline (1-410)9964737 GoogleVoice jay at m5.chicago.il.us http://m5.chicago.il.us "Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur" From lisa at starways.net Mon Nov 20 04:02:11 2017 From: lisa at starways.net (Lisa Liel) Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2017 14:02:11 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] T'hay In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <91877a4d-0aeb-1a75-d7b1-78f399a2746e@starways.net> I'm not sure.? We have "yehei ra'ava kadamach" in Brich Shmei d'Marei Alma, which is definitely Aramaic.? The yehei is the same as tehei. I think what's happening here is that there's a certain amount of bleed-over between Hebrew and Aramaic.? In addition, there were different dialects of Aramaic in Eretz Yisrael and Bavel.? So while tehevei may be the correct Aramaic, tehei may be as well. Lisa On 11/20/2017 10:38 AM, Simon Montagu via Avodah wrote: > On Sun, Nov 19, 2017 at 5:23 AM, Akiva Miller via Avodah > > wrote: > > There is a word spelled tav-heh-aleph, pronounced "t'hay". Is this > word Hebrew or Aramaic? > > > Hebrew. I believe the Aramaic equivalent would be tehevi. > From micha at aishdas.org Mon Nov 20 10:24:50 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2017 13:24:50 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Sedra Toldos - Balance, When Parents Favour One Child In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20171120182450.GA24872@aishdas.org> On Sun, Nov 19, 2017 at 08:25:21AM +1100, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: : But Eisav was not a better cook than Rivkah - "she made him a delicious : dish just as he liked" [27:14] [unless she had him on a healthy food diet : and Eisav was Yitzchak's secret steak supplier] Or the hunter was usually the one who prepared the game, whereas Rivqa tended to be cooking the animals they farmed. ... : Yitzchak understood, he encouraged Eisav to hunt and cook for him. He even : reminded Eisav to take his hunting weapons when he instructs him to hunt : and prepare food before he blesses him - Yitzchak wants Eisav to be engaged : in the hunting and preparation of the food, because it is this engagement : that is their link and best encapsulates his approval of his son Eisav... Perhaps this is the whole point of the Torah's not saying why Rivqa preferred Yaaqov. Yitzchaq's additional love of Esav was teluyah bedavar, and that fact impacted Eisav's choices. Rivqa love Yaaqov, full stop, not for some reason. There is also an idea I heard from RYBS and often utilized in Gush circles that had things turned out more positively, Eisav would have been the physical arm of the same project as Yaaqv's Torah. Eisav's children would have supported and protected Yaaqov's. According to the Qedushas Levi's version of this idea, Yitzchaq knew Eisav had failings, but felt that the person who was supposed to go out into the real world was bound to be the tzadiq who "falls 7 times and arises" (to quote Shelomo haMelekh). What Yaaqov missed was the nevu'ah "ushnei le'umim mimei'ayikh yipareidu". He thought that the ideal plan, Esav and Yaaqov together without such pirud, was still how history was going to play out. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Spirituality is like a bird: if you tighten micha at aishdas.org your grip on it, it chokes; slacken your grip, http://www.aishdas.org and it flies away. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From micha at aishdas.org Mon Nov 20 11:11:25 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2017 14:11:25 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Hutrah and Dechuyah in Yibum Message-ID: <20171120191124.GB24872@aishdas.org> The topic of EhE 165 is whether yibum or chalitzah is the preferred choice. The Rambam and Rif side with yibum (in cases when yibum is in the almanah's best interest), as per the mishnah rishonah and possibly repeated by the chakhamim in the gemara (Yevamos 39b). Whereas R' Tam, R' Chananel & the Smag hold like Abba Shaul, that since it's too likely the yavam has other things than reestablishing his brother's bayis in mind, chalitzah is the better choice, bizman hazeh. The AhS has an interesting take. First, in se'if 5, he rules out the issue being mitzvos tzerikhos kavanah. If AS gave preference to chalitzah because yibum requires kavanah, then it would be the Rambam and the Rif -- the rishonim who more often hold mitzvos tzerichos kavanah -- who would be siding with him. The AhS (se'if 6) proposes that the machloqes is huterah vs dechuyah. If yibum is a matir for eishes ach, there is no problem doing the mitzvah of yibum even if the yavam's interest is in his new wife solely for her own qualities. However, if it is only docheh eishes ach, then any other kavanah for performing yibum is desire for a sin, and thus should be avoided by choosing chalitzah. And that this is the norm today. I noticed that happens to parallel who holds piquach nefesh is matir melekhes Shabbos vs who holds it is docheh it. There too Sepharadi rishonim don't feel a need to minimize melakhah (huterah), whereas the Ashk rishonim try to (because it's only dechuyah). Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger I thank God for my handicaps, for, through them, micha at aishdas.org I have found myself, my work, and my God. http://www.aishdas.org - Helen Keller Fax: (270) 514-1507 From meirabi at gmail.com Mon Nov 20 14:35:03 2017 From: meirabi at gmail.com (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi) Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2017 09:35:03 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] Sedra Toldos - Balance, When Parents Favour One Child In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I prefer not to be so speculative about the motivations, Eisav had failings, but Yitzchak felt that the person who was supposed to go out into the real world, But what I proposed does not exclude that possibility. Although, giving the blessings to someone with known failings seems unlikely. Depends I suppose on how extensive those failings are or how well they were known to Yitzchak. Or it might just be that he was the Bechor, HKBH's choice. Should Yitzchak challenge HKBH? I wrote - Yitzchak understood, he encouraged Eisav to hunt and cook for him. He even reminded Eisav .... Eisav loved his father and he loved hunting [25:27]. He desperately sought his father's approval. He pursued this as he best knew, by hunting and even by lying. We might even say that he felt as though he was hunting for his father's love. Yitzchak understood, he encouraged Eisav to hunt and cook for him. He even reminded Eisav to take his hunting weapons when he instructs him to hunt and prepare food before he blesses him - Yitzchak wants Eisav to be engaged in the hunting and preparation of the food, because it is this engagement that is their link and best encapsulates his approval of his son Eisav. In other words, "It's not the food I want, for that I could ask your mother or you could grab an animal from our flock - it would be much quicker. No, I want you to be of service to me. Knowing that you have hunted to provide for me makes me happy and I enjoy the food more." Eisav knew that his mother was capable of and willing to provide her husband with all the tasty food he could stomach. He got the message that it was not food that Yitzchak wanted. Yitzchak was reaching out to Eisav, knowing how desperately Eisav sought his approval. Eisav learned how to cook in order to express his love. He even deceived Yitchak, painting himself as the Gd fearing son in order to win his father's approval. Best, M -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Mon Nov 20 14:10:27 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2017 17:10:27 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] How Much Salt for Kashering? In-Reply-To: <15112051720.1Acb3A518.50843@lsd.chicago.il.us.chicago.il.us> References: <15112051720.1Acb3A518.50843@lsd.chicago.il.us.chicago.il.us> Message-ID: <20171120221027.GD24830@aishdas.org> On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 01:12:52PM +0000, Jay F. Shachter via Avodah wrote: :> Kosher meat must have all traces of blood removed. Dam here means blood in the circulatory system. Not blood within tissue. Problem with translations; there often isn't a 1:1. Particularly in cases of terms of art, like "dam" in this context. : No, it does not. This is true only if you are going to cook the meat : before eating it. SA YD 27:2 does say you don't need salting. (See limitations in 3-4.) But... this is because all the dam can be removed by removing the veins, and simple rinsing. So, in the same sense that cooked meat needs melichah to remove all traces of dam, so too does raw "[k]osher meat must have all traces of [dam] removed." Seems Tir'u baTov! -Micha From micha at aishdas.org Mon Nov 20 13:37:22 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2017 16:37:22 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Fwd [Aspaqlaria]: Post-Modern Orthodoxy Message-ID: <20171120213722.GB24830@aishdas.org> My most recent blog post, in which I argue that Post-Modern Orthodoxy is a contradiction of terms. -micha Post-Modern Orthodoxy micha - Published Mon, Nov 20, 2017 Modern Orthodoxy is based on an integration of Orthodoxy with life in the modern world. However, with R' JB Soloveitchik's passing, the movement was left without a luminary who analyzes and discusses matters of worldview. Consequently, Modern Orthodoxy's thought is that of the mid 20th century, when Neo-Kantian and Existential answers addressed the kinds of religious questions people on the street were confronting. And so, the argument is today, that there is a need for someone to articulate a Post-Modern Orthodoxy. This is why there was much discussion in some Modern Orthodox circles with the publication of a selection of R' Shimon Gershon Rosenburg -- "Rav Shagar"`s -- essays in English. "Faith Shattered and Restored: Judaism in the Postmodern Age", edited by Rabbi Dr. Zohar Maor, was published by Maggid Books this past June. Dr. Alan Brill, on his blog, carried numerous translations of R' Shagar since, as well as analysis of his thought. In particular, see this post of notes that Dr Brill compiled while teaching R' Shagar's thought, "Rav Shagar: To be connected to Eyn -- Living in a Postmodern World". Times of Israel had an interview with R/Dr Maor, "Israel's paradoxical man of faith, deconstructed". And recently, R Gil Perl, an alumnus of Yeshivat Har Etzion ("Gush") who became a student of Rav Shagar, wrote an essay about why R' Shagar's thought spoke to him in a way that the teachings of R' Aharon Lichtenstein of Gush couldn't in the long run. See "Postmodern Orthodoxy: Giving Voice to a New Generation". To give you an idea of R Shagar's thought, he likens Deconstructionism to Sheviras haKeilim -- the Qabbalistic idea that Creation involved the breaking of vessels, and the post-modern's inability to consider an idea to be objectively true. He builds a case for the condition of having difficulty with belief and therefore believing in nothing and turns it into a Ism of believing in Nothing. Identifying that lower-case-n nothing with the Ayin, the capital-N Nothingness from which G-d made Yeish, something (indeed, everything). Me, I think it doesn't work. Post-Modernism is a confusion of the subjectivity of my justification for knowing something with the subjectivity of the known. Meaning, I can know objective truths for entirely personal and subjective reasons. I can be convinced of halakhah because of my personal experience of the beauty of Shabbos. Not from my liking Shabbos; from that about the Shabbos experience I find beautiful, likable, meaningful, and True. I know that hilkhos Shabbos as we have them today really did objectively speaking come from the Creator by way of my personal experience of Shabbos. Objective truth, subjective justification. In contrast, in Post-Modern thought, since I have no guarantee of objectively proving anything to anyone else, the notion of objective truth is entirely denied. There isn't "the truth" as much a "his truth" or "her truth", narratives people and societies construct for themselves. And this touches everything on the college campus from religious beliefs to defending the Palestinian because we have our narrative and they have theirs. (There is room for every narrative but those that exclude other narratives.) In the real world outside those ivory towers, though, you won't find too many people with Post-Modern notions of science, declaring (eg) that math or physics are merely social constructs. But certainly outside the realm of the scientifically provable Post-Modern thinking has become part of the zeitgeist. My problem with "Postmodern Orthodoxy" is that Post-Modernism (as I just described it) is inherently incompatible with the notion of a lower-case-o orthodoxy, including our case, capital-O Orthodox Judaism. I often said on Facebook that one reason why more are going OTD in this generation than in mine is that Post-Modernism has become part of the common culture. It is impossible to maintain any orthodoxy, including O, if one believes that there are no objective truths, or even that there is nothing one could ever assert as objectively true. There is a profound difference between believing there is an absolute truth that I personally do not fully know or understand -- which R' Gil Perl presented as R' Lichtenstein's position, and believing that all truths are human conditioned. Between a personal nothing and an ideal of Nothingness. And yet, R Shagar says just that. To repeat a quote of Rav Shagar used in R Perl's article, "All truths may be the product of human conditioning, but such conditioning constitutes the medium through which the divine manifests in the world." Rav Shagar's position strikes me as internally inconsistent. For example, to This presupposes that there is a Divine which is manifest in the world, and any claim that says otherwise would defy that Truth. So, there is at least that one central Truth that is necessarily true, regardless of human conditioning. The entire notion of considering any of the Articles of Faith human conditioned, true only from our perspective, enters the heretical. Another example, R Shagar's Post-Modern Orthodox Jew will speak of revelation "though he knows there are varying and conflicting revelations, the contradictions do not paralyze him." If one does not believe the revelation via Moshe and the revelation of the Torah are unique, are they not koferim baTorah according to the Rambam? How many rabbanim would allow you to use the wine of someone who believes that the only reason to embrace the Torah's message is because it's "the faith of our fathers" (as R' Shagar describes it) and not different in kind than the message of the New Testament or the Qur'an? There are two ways we can speak of the ideal human: we can describe life on the mountain peak, the person who has perfect generosity, perfect patience, perfect faith, a perfect relationship with G-d and other people, etc... But we know that actualize perfection is unachievable for anyone bug G-d. So, the true ideal human is one constantly working toward having those perfect relationships, trying their best, constantly growing. But they are two different things -- the ideal in the sense of the goal to strive for, and the ideal of being a striver. We need to learn to separate these notions. Ayin is part of the ideology. A crisis of faith, those times of nothingness, is part of the reach to internalize that ideology. The ideal life for most of us will be struggling with the ideology; but once one makes that struggle part of the ideology itself, I fear one crossed the line. From afolger at aishdas.org Tue Nov 21 01:28:58 2017 From: afolger at aishdas.org (Arie Folger) Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2017 10:28:58 +0100 Subject: [Avodah] Torah precheit Message-ID: A little postscript to my statement, that regarding aliens we might one day meet, that we cold not accept any competing revelation, only one that is of a kind of Noachide revelation, subordinate to ours, well... Let me admit that in stating that, I was displaying a human bias: I unreasonably assumed that aliens would be a kind of otherworldly humans. However, insofar as they are radically different species (which would be likely), then I see no problem of them having their own revelation and their own 'am hanivchar, *as* *long* *as* *their* *revelation* *doesn't* *contradict* *ours*, i.e. we could not accept a revelation that claims that 'avoda zara is muttar, that murder is muttar or that assumes the existence of several deities. -- Arie Folger -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hmaryles at yahoo.com Tue Nov 21 07:30:45 2017 From: hmaryles at yahoo.com (Harry Maryles) Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2017 15:30:45 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Avodah] Fwd [Aspaqlaria]: Post-Modern Orthodoxy In-Reply-To: <20171120213722.GB24830@aishdas.org> References: <20171120213722.GB24830@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <570709339.403139.1511278245922@mail.yahoo.com> I read Gil Perl's article and I don't understand why the idea of? RAL's not knowing or being able to know but nonetheless believing doesn't speak to him. I find all the talk about there being no objective truth to be irrelevant. Truth goes beyond provable fact. It even goes beyond the contradictions to belief by newly discovered scientific truths which by definition are subject to change with new discoveries. In the Lonely Man of Faith, RYBS explains that there are no cognitive categories in which the total commitment of the man of faith could be spelled out. The commitment is rooted not in one dimension, such as the rational one, but in the whole personality of the man of faith. The whole human being; the rational as well as the non-rational is committed to God. Hence the magnitude of commitment is beyond the comprehension of the logos and the ethos. The intellect does not chart the course of the man of faith. It is a function not only of the logic of the mind. It is also a function of the logic of the heart. An apriori awareness that becomes an axiom - a conclusion that cannot rely on solely rational considerations.? HM Want Emes and Emunah in your life? Try this: http://haemtza.blogspot.com/ On Monday, November 20, 2017, 7:25:20 PM CST, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: My most recent blog post, in which I argue that Post-Modern Orthodoxy is a contradiction of terms. -micha Post-Modern Orthodoxy micha - Published Mon, Nov 20, 2017 Modern Orthodoxy is based on an integration of Orthodoxy with life in the modern world. However, with R' JB Soloveitchik's passing, the movement was left without a luminary who analyzes and discusses matters of worldview. Consequently, Modern Orthodoxy's thought is that of the mid 20th century, when Neo-Kantian and Existential answers addressed the kinds of religious questions people on the street were confronting. And so, the argument is today, that there is a need for someone to articulate a Post-Modern Orthodoxy. This is why there was much discussion in some Modern Orthodox circles with the publication of a selection of R' Shimon Gershon Rosenburg -- "Rav Shagar"`s -- essays in English. "Faith Shattered and Restored: Judaism in the Postmodern Age", edited by Rabbi Dr. Zohar Maor, was published by Maggid Books this past June. Dr. Alan Brill, on his blog, carried numerous translations of R' Shagar since, as well as analysis of his thought. In particular, see this post of notes that Dr Brill compiled while teaching R' Shagar's thought, "Rav Shagar: To be connected to Eyn -- Living in a Postmodern World". Times of Israel had an interview with R/Dr Maor, "Israel's paradoxical man of faith, deconstructed". And recently, R Gil Perl, an alumnus of Yeshivat Har Etzion ("Gush") who became a student of Rav Shagar, wrote an essay about why R' Shagar's thought spoke to him in a way that the teachings of R' Aharon Lichtenstein of Gush couldn't in the long run. See "Postmodern Orthodoxy: Giving Voice to a New Generation". To give you an idea of R Shagar's thought, he likens Deconstructionism to Sheviras haKeilim -- the Qabbalistic idea that Creation involved the breaking of vessels, and the post-modern's inability to consider an idea to be objectively true. He builds a case for the condition of having difficulty with belief and therefore believing in nothing and turns it into a Ism of believing in Nothing. Identifying that lower-case-n nothing with the Ayin, the capital-N Nothingness from which G-d made Yeish, something (indeed, everything). Me, I think it doesn't work. Post-Modernism is a confusion of the subjectivity of my justification for knowing something with the subjectivity of the known. Meaning, I can know objective truths for entirely personal and subjective reasons. I can be convinced of halakhah because of my personal experience of the beauty of Shabbos. Not from my liking Shabbos; from that about the Shabbos experience I find beautiful, likable, meaningful, and True. I know that hilkhos Shabbos as we have them today really did objectively speaking come from the Creator by way of my personal experience of Shabbos. Objective truth, subjective justification. In contrast, in Post-Modern thought, since I have no guarantee of objectively proving anything to anyone else, the notion of objective truth is entirely denied. There isn't "the truth" as much a "his truth" or "her truth", narratives people and societies construct for themselves. And this touches everything on the college campus from religious beliefs to defending the Palestinian because we have our narrative and they have theirs. (There is room for every narrative but those that exclude other narratives.) In the real world outside those ivory towers, though, you won't find too many people with Post-Modern notions of science, declaring (eg) that math or physics are merely social constructs. But certainly outside the realm of the scientifically provable Post-Modern thinking has become part of the zeitgeist. My problem with "Postmodern Orthodoxy" is that Post-Modernism (as I just described it) is inherently incompatible with the notion of a lower-case-o orthodoxy, including our case, capital-O Orthodox Judaism. I often said on Facebook that one reason why more are going OTD in this generation than in mine is that Post-Modernism has become part of the common culture. It is impossible to maintain any orthodoxy, including O, if one believes that there are no objective truths, or even that there is nothing one could ever assert as objectively true. There is a profound difference between believing there is an absolute truth that I personally do not fully know or understand -- which R' Gil Perl presented as R' Lichtenstein's position, and believing that all truths are human conditioned. Between a personal nothing and an ideal of Nothingness. And yet, R Shagar says just that. To repeat a quote of Rav Shagar used in R Perl's article, "All truths may be the product of human conditioning, but such conditioning constitutes the medium through which the divine manifests in the world." Rav Shagar's position strikes me as internally inconsistent. For example, to This presupposes that there is a Divine which is manifest in the world, and any claim that says otherwise would defy that Truth. So, there is at least that one central Truth that is necessarily true, regardless of human conditioning. The entire notion of considering any of the Articles of Faith human conditioned, true only from our perspective, enters the heretical. Another example, R Shagar's Post-Modern Orthodox Jew will speak of revelation "though he knows there are varying and conflicting revelations, the contradictions do not paralyze him." If one does not believe the revelation via Moshe and the revelation of the Torah are unique, are they not koferim baTorah according to the Rambam? How many rabbanim would allow you to use the wine of someone who believes that the only reason to embrace the Torah's message is because it's "the faith of our fathers" (as R' Shagar describes it) and not different in kind than the message of the New Testament or the Qur'an? There are two ways we can speak of the ideal human: we can describe life on the mountain peak, the person who has perfect generosity, perfect patience, perfect faith, a perfect relationship with G-d and other people, etc... But we know that actualize perfection is unachievable for anyone bug G-d. So, the true ideal human is one constantly working toward having those perfect relationships, trying their best, constantly growing. But they are two different things -- the ideal in the sense of the goal to strive for, and the ideal of being a striver. We need to learn to separate these notions. Ayin is part of the ideology. A crisis of faith, those times of nothingness, is part of the reach to internalize that ideology. The ideal life for most of us will be struggling with the ideology; but once one makes that struggle part of the ideology itself, I fear one crossed the line. _______________________________________________ Avodah mailing list Avodah at lists.aishdas.org http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Tue Nov 21 06:25:15 2017 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2017 14:25:15 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Notes on RSRH's Philosopy of Judaism Message-ID: <1511274314342.40161@stevens.edu> Please see the pdf file at http://www.halakhah.com/rst/hirsch.pdf YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Tue Nov 21 05:54:15 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2017 08:54:15 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] T'hay In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20171121135414.GB15991@aishdas.org> On Sat, Nov 18, 2017 at 10:23:18PM -0500, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : There is a word spelled tav-heh-aleph, pronounced "t'hay". Is this : word Hebrew or Aramaic? Sidenote, just to complicate things. Assuming that when someone with the last name "Miller" speaks of what he finds "in my siddur" is looking in an Ashkenazi one... RSM found in manuscripts that earlier Ashkenazi siddurim honed much closer to leshon Chazal than we do. The example I usually cite is "vesein chleqeinu beSorasakh, sab'einu mituvakh..." as Sepharadim have it. Your siddur probably consistently has "Sha'atah", not "she'atah". This is a "correction" to the form that appears in seifer Sofetim. One holdover is "Modim anachnu Lakh", instead of "Lekha"... but then followed by "Sha'atah". It appears to be largely the work of one person, R' Shelomo Zalman Hanau (Katz), author of the Binyan Shalomo. He then compiles a siddur, Shaarei Tefillah. R' Yaaqov Emden's Lueach Eresh is a rebuttal of the Razah's grammatical theories, and kedarko beqodesh, he doesn't pull punches. For example, the Binyan Shelomo was printed with a hasqamah from R' Tzvi Ashkenazi; RYE wrote that his father's hasqamah was forged. The Alter Rebbe, in composing Nusach haAri, was heavily influenced by the Razah's theory of diqduq. And slowly other Ashkenazim switched from leshon Chazal to leshon Tanakh. Even RZBaer and the Yekkes. So, with a siddur that is partially in one version of Hebrew and partially in another, who knows how any word settled on one set of diqduq rules or the other. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "I hear, then I forget; I see, then I remember; micha at aishdas.org I do, then I understand." - Confucius http://www.aishdas.org "Hearing doesn't compare to seeing." - Mechilta Fax: (270) 514-1507 "We will do and we will listen." - Israelites From meirabi at gmail.com Tue Nov 21 15:38:02 2017 From: meirabi at gmail.com (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi) Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2017 10:38:02 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] Kosher meat must have all traces of blood removed Message-ID: I am happy to amend to Before cooking, Kosher meat must have all traces of blood removed Best, Meir G. Rabi 0423 207 837 +61 423 207 837 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From larry62341 at optonline.net Wed Nov 22 06:20:47 2017 From: larry62341 at optonline.net (Prof. Levine) Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2017 09:20:47 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Sedra Toldos - Balance, When Parents Favour One Child In-Reply-To: <56bc7b19424c44b7aec48fc7014df583@exchng03.campus.stevens-t ech.edu> References: <56bc7b19424c44b7aec48fc7014df583@exchng03.campus.stevens-tech.edu> Message-ID: <7E.4D.03148.0C7851A5@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> At 10:52 AM 11/21/2017, R Micha Berger wrote: >Perhaps this is the whole point of the Torah's not saying why Rivqa >preferred Yaaqov. Yitzchaq's additional love of Esav was teluyah bedavar, >and that fact impacted Eisav's choices. Rivqa love Yaaqov, full stop, >not for some reason. I suggest you read RSRH's essay Lessons From Jacob and Esau (Collected Writings VII) YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From JRich at sibson.com Wed Nov 22 21:54:08 2017 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2017 05:54:08 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] sefer torah's path Message-ID: <7df4daee86e84ff48f391450b891c5f0@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> From R' Aviner: Bringing the Torah to People to Kiss Q: Is it permissible to bring the Sefer Torah in the Shul towards people who want to kiss it? A: No. This is a disgrace to the Sefer Torah. They should approach the Sefer Torah. Piskei Teshuvot 134:6. I have been to more than a few shuls that particularly on Shabbat take the long road - any ideas on who they are relying on? (not to mention those who lower the sefer torah so the kids can kiss it too) KT 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: From marty.bluke at gmail.com Sat Nov 25 12:27:38 2017 From: marty.bluke at gmail.com (Marty Bluke) Date: Sat, 25 Nov 2017 22:27:38 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] How can R' Yochanan and Resh Lakish argue about the tradition of a Gezera Shava? Message-ID: The Gemara in Makos(14b) has a dispute between R' Yochanan and Resh Lakish which revolves around a gezera shava. R' Yochanan has the gezera shava and Resh Lakish does not, Rashi explains that Resh Lakish did not get this gezera shava from his rebbeim. This seems very difficult because the gemara in Bava Metzia (84a) describes how Resh Lakish was the head of a group of bandits and R' Yochanan persuaded hm to learn Torah and was clearly Rabo Muvhak. In fact, they were so close that after Resh Lakish's death, R' Yochanan lost his mind and died. Given this, how can it be that R' Yochanan had a gezera shava and Resh Lakish didn't because lo kiblu merabo, R' Yochanan was his Rebbe so why wouldn't R' Yochanan have taught him this gezera shava? R' Yochanan clearly had a kabbala on this gezera shava so why wouldn't his talmid muvhak Resh Lakish have gotten this kabbala from his rebbe? The answer can't be that Resh Lakish argued on this because gezera shava's are a kabbala from your rebbe, period. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Thu Nov 23 15:55:59 2017 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2017 23:55:59 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] More on Yaakov, sheep and the rods Message-ID: <1511481358587.99267@stevens.edu> The following is from RSRH's commentary on Bereishis 30:37 Ya'akov then took for himself rods of fresh aspen and hazelnut and chestnut trees, and peeled white streaks in them by uncovering the white on the rods. After all this, Ya'akov's initiative with the rods would have been fully justified, even had it constituted a tried and tested expedient - a supposition that surely will not be borne out by experiment. >From the continuation of the story we know that Lavan altered the terms of the agreement ten times (see below, 31:7), setting new conditions regarding the form of the speckles and spots. It is difficult to assume that, because of a general action such as setting up the rods in the sight of the sheep, the sheep would bring forth young that were this time speckled, the next time spotted, and the next time marked on the feet. Ya'akov's success can be attributed only to a special intervention of Divine providence - as attested to by Ya'akov himself. The expedient of the rods was only an extremely weak substitute for the breeding animals Lavan had wrongfully removed. Nevertheless, Ya'akov did not refrain from seeking the aid of this expedient; since ain somchin al haness (see Pesachim 64b), he was obligated to do his part. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hankman at bell.net Sun Nov 26 10:02:44 2017 From: hankman at bell.net (hankman) Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2017 13:02:44 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] More on Yaakov, sheep and the rods Message-ID: <440B31203B1C40479ABF364797C2B58A@hankPC> Prof. L. Levine wrote?": ?It is difficult to assume that, because of a general action such as setting up the rods in the sight of the sheep, the sheep would bring forth young that were this time speckled, the next time spotted, and the next time marked on the feet. Ya'akov's success can be attributed only to a special intervention of Divine providence - as attested to by Ya'akov himself. The expedient of the rods was only an extremely weak substitute for the breeding animals Lavan had wrongfully removed. Nevertheless, Ya'akov did not refrain from seeking the aid of this expedient; since ain somchin al haness (see Pesachim 64b), he was obligated to do his part...? As everyone who had genetics 101 will realize, if you eliminate 100% of the phenotype, and breed the remainder you will still get some of that phenotype in the next generation with recessive genes. So it always bothered me why was all the hokus pokus by Yaakov necessary. Even more so the pasook itself seems to ascribe the results as caused by the sticks even though a simple natural explanation for the reappearance of the phenotype in the next generation is quite simple. The only explanation I could come up with is that the percentages were much higher than one would expect as a result of genetic calculations thus the nes (and Yaakov?s efforts [hishtadlus] to produce it) is described at great length. Kol tuv Chaim Manaster -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From akivagmiller at gmail.com Sat Nov 25 17:51:31 2017 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Sat, 25 Nov 2017 20:51:31 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] sefer torah's path Message-ID: . R' Joel Rich asked: > From R? Aviner: Bringing the Torah to People to Kiss > Q: Is it permissible to bring the Sefer Torah in the Shul > towards people who want to kiss it? > A: No. This is a disgrace to the Sefer Torah. They should > approach the Sefer Torah. Piskei Teshuvot 134:6. > > I have been to more than a few shuls that particularly on > Shabbat take the long road ? any ideas on who they are > relying on? (not to mention those who lower the sefer torah > so the kids can kiss it too) Maybe the masses simply disagree with the logic of the Piskei Teshuvot? Maybe people feel that bringing the Torah to Amcha is NOT a disgrace? Personally, I can easily understand that lowering it could be a bizayon, but what's wrong with taking the long way around? If the short route is taken, then (depending on the shul's layout) it is possible (or even probable) that many (or most) will simply be unable to get close enough to kiss it -- and if this is true on the men's side of the mechitza, it is even more true on the women's side! There are SO many things that we allow for no reason other than allowing the people to show their love and kavod for the Torah!!! Compared to the bells that ring on Shabbos, or the multitude of aliyos on Simchas Torah, this seems exceeding minor, in my opinion. Akiva Miller From brothke at gmail.com Sat Nov 25 18:20:23 2017 From: brothke at gmail.com (Ben Rothke) Date: Sat, 25 Nov 2017 21:20:23 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Gid ha'nasheh and 'therefore' Message-ID: In the coming week?s parsha, it has the story of Yaakov wrestling and then concludes: ? ???-???? ???-???????? ?????-?????????? ???-????? ????????? I am trying to figure out the connection between the wrestling injury and klal Yisroel not eating gid hanasheh. The term '???-????' implies consequently, to which I don?t see the consequence. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From JRich at sibson.com Sat Nov 25 21:47:06 2017 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2017 05:47:06 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] How can R' Yochanan and Resh Lakish argue about the tradition of a Gezera Shava? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: The answer can't be that Resh Lakish argued on this because gezera shava's are a kabbala from your rebbe, period. > ______________________________________________ 1. This begs the broader question as to why an Amira having a gs doesn't automatically trump one that doesn't 2.this also assumes only a rebbi muvhak counts as rabo for purposes of mesora Kt 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. From JRich at sibson.com Sun Nov 26 05:28:50 2017 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2017 13:28:50 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] eilu v'eilu Message-ID: <6b52bc1475284ba2a6aa3d7734cb8de7@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> http://www.yutorah.org/lectures/lecture.cfm/889447/rabbi-assaf-bednarsh/pluralism-and-halacha-what-is-truth,-and-who-has-it/ Rabbi Assaf Bednarsh--Pluralism and Halacha: What is Truth, and Who Has It Interesting shiur on an old Avodah favorite KT 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: From lisa at starways.net Sun Nov 26 14:37:13 2017 From: lisa at starways.net (Lisa Liel) Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2017 00:37:13 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Gid ha'nasheh and 'therefore' In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I don't think al ken denotes causation.? In most cases, it seems to mean "How correct it is that..."? For example, the two times we're told "al ken", the city is called Beersheva.? They can't both be the cause. Lisa On 11/26/2017 4:20 AM, Ben Rothke via Avodah wrote: > > In the coming week?s parsha, it has the story of Yaakov wrestling and > then concludes: > > ? ???-???? ???-???????? ?????-?????????? ???-????? ????????? > > I am trying to figure out the connection between the wrestling injury > and klal Yisroel not eating gid hanasheh. > > The term '???-????' implies consequently, to which I don?t see the > consequence. > > --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From micha at aishdas.org Sun Nov 26 15:09:41 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2017 18:09:41 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Gid ha'nasheh and 'therefore' In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20171126230941.GA24539@aishdas.org> On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 12:37:13AM +0200, Lisa Liel via Avodah wrote: : On 11/26/2017 4:20 AM, Ben Rothke via Avodah wrote: : >In the coming week's parsha, it has the story of Yaakov wrestling : >and then concludes: "Al kein lo yokhlu BY es gid hanasheh." : >I am trying to figure out the connection between the wrestling : >injury and klal Yisroel not eating gid hanasheh. : >The term '[al kein]' implies consequently, to which I don't see the : >consequence. : I don't think al ken denotes causation.? In most cases, it seems to : mean "How correct it is that..."? For example, the two times we're : told "al ken", the city is called Beersheva.? They can't both be the : cause. Why not? It could be that each were necessary but insufficient causes, so that the name "Be'er-Sheva" is the consequence of both being true. Or it could be that each were sufficient cause, and the name Be'er-Sheva was justified by either alone -- but equally so. And thus the city's name represents both. But to answer RBR's question, I don't think al kein implies sufficient causality. Rather, because of the fight, HQBH had an opportunity to turn eating thigh meat into a ritual that reminds one of the fight, and thus of the Jew's ability to act on the level of (in the sense of: interact with) angels. Without the fight, the mitzvah would lack that historical symbolism; so it's a cause, but of a different sort than it seems from your question that you are thinking of. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger It is our choices...that show what we truly are, micha at aishdas.org far more than our abilities. http://www.aishdas.org - J. K. Rowling Fax: (270) 514-1507 From micha at aishdas.org Sun Nov 26 14:58:57 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2017 17:58:57 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] How can R' Yochanan and Resh Lakish argue about the tradition of a Gezera Shava? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20171126225857.GA9115@aishdas.org> On Sat, Nov 25, 2017 at 10:27:38PM +0200, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: : The Gemara in Makos(14b) has a dispute between R' Yochanan and Resh Lakish : which revolves around a gezera shava. R' Yochanan has the gezera shava and : Resh Lakish does not, Rashi explains that Resh Lakish did not get this : gezera shava from his rebbeim. : : This seems very difficult because the gemara in Bava Metzia (84a) describes : how Resh Lakish was the head of a group of bandits and R' Yochanan : persuaded hm to learn Torah and was clearly Rabo Muvhak... So, he had a mesorah from a rebbe other than his rebbe muvhaq or any of his own rabbeim -- maybe just a shiur from someone else he sat in once... (Which is similar to RHR's #2.) Or... If "Moavi velo Mo'avis" was darsehened first by Boaz's court, then we know of at least one gezeira shava -- from Amon to Moav -- that Boaz invoked withtout a tradition of its existence dating back from Sinai. For that matter, if the Rambam assumed that the rule about no new gezeiros shava really was in place from day one, then he would have to assert that like [other] halakhos leMoshe miSinai, there couldn't be machloqesin in any of them. I would therefore deduce from the Rambam's silence in the face of numerous such machloqesin, he must have thought that gezeiros shava could be invented (or as other riahonim would have it: discovered) without a mesorah. It would seem the idea that GS requires a mesorah has a loophole. Perhaps the notion is that the textual connection must have a mesorah, but the lesson taken from it could be left to the later generation to find. Also, it is interesting that the contrast in Pesachim 66a to the mesorah needed for GS is the qal vachomer. A rule of logic that a person truly could make on their own in a way that doesn't apply to another of the other midos sheheTorah nidreshes bahen. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When faced with a decision ask yourself, micha at aishdas.org "How would I decide if it were Ne'ilah now, http://www.aishdas.org at the closing moments of Yom Kippur?" Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From marty.bluke at gmail.com Mon Nov 27 02:10:10 2017 From: marty.bluke at gmail.com (Marty Bluke) Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2017 12:10:10 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] How can R' Yochanan and Resh Lakish argue about the tradition of a Gezera Shava? In-Reply-To: <20171126225857.GA9115@aishdas.org> References: <20171126225857.GA9115@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 12:58 AM, Micha Berger wrote: > On Sat, Nov 25, 2017 at 10:27:38PM +0200, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: > : The Gemara in Makos(14b) has a dispute between R' Yochanan and Resh > Lakish > : which revolves around a gezera shava. R' Yochanan has the gezera shava > and > : Resh Lakish does not, Rashi explains that Resh Lakish did not get this > : gezera shava from his rebbeim. > : > : This seems very difficult because the gemara in Bava Metzia (84a) > describes > : how Resh Lakish was the head of a group of bandits and R' Yochanan > : persuaded hm to learn Torah and was clearly Rabo Muvhak... > > So, he had a mesorah from a rebbe other than his rebbe muvhaq or any > of his own rabbeim -- maybe just a shiur from someone else he sat in > once... (Which is similar to RHR's #2.) > What other mesora? It's not that Resh Lakish had a gezera shava that R' Yochanan didn't have that he could have learned from someone else. The Gemara says that he didn't have a kabbala on a gezera shava that R' Yochanan had. > > Or... > > If "Moavi velo Mo'avis" was darsehened first by Boaz's court, then we > know of at least one gezeira shava -- from Amon to Moav -- that Boaz > invoked withtout a tradition of its existence dating back from Sinai. > That was a gezera shava? In any case the Gemara in Nidda (19b) states that ayn adam dan gezera shava meatzmo, says Rashi he needs a kabbala from his rebbe halacha l'moshe misinai. For that matter, if the Rambam assumed that the rule about no new gezeiros > shava really was in place from day one, then he would have to assert that > like [other] halakhos leMoshe miSinai, there couldn't be machloqesin in > any of them. I would therefore deduce from the Rambam's silence in the > face of numerous such machloqesin, he must have thought that gezeiros > shava could be invented (or as other riahonim would have it: discovered) > without a mesorah. > It would seem the idea that GS requires a mesorah has a loophole. Perhaps > the notion is that the textual connection must have a mesorah, but > the lesson taken from it could be left to the later generation to find. > Tosafos in Shabbos (97a) states that they had a mesora on the number of gezera shavas and therefore they had to reconcile the various traditions with the number of gezera shavas. This would seem to come to address the question of why certain Tannaim/Amoraim had a gezera shava and others didn't. However, it doesn't answer the question on Resh Lakish who must have gotten the number from Rabo Muvhak R' Yochanan. The Rishonim/Acharonim in Nida (22b) are bothered by the question that the Gemara says that a gezera shava that is mufne mi tzad echad lmeidin umeshivin and mufne mishnei tz'dadim lmeidim vayn m'shivim. If there was a kabala on the gezera shava then why does it need to be mufne and if there was no kabbala then why should it be accepted even if it is mufne? The Ramban on the Sefer Hamitzvos (Shoresh 2) based on this question rejects the simple understanding of ayn adam dan gezera shava meiatzmo that all the details of the gezera shavas were received at Har Sinai by Moshe. Rather, they had a kabbala that there was a gezera shava with a certain word pair but not which set of those words and what halacha is learned from it and therefore it is up to the chachamim to decide based on the principles that they received to decide what exactly the gezera shava was and therefore there is machlokes. This is what the Gemara in Nidda is discussing, the principles relating to figuring out what exactly the gezera shava is. Unfortunately, this does not really answer all of the Gemara's and disputes about gezera shavas. > > Also, it is interesting that the contrast in Pesachim 66a to the mesorah > needed for GS is the qal vachomer. A rule of logic that a person truly > could make on their own in a way that doesn't apply to another of the > other midos sheheTorah nidreshes bahen. > There is a machlokes Rashi and Tosafos whether it is only a kal vachomer that adam dan meatzmo or all the middos except for gezera shava. > > Tir'u baTov! > -Micha > > -- > Micha Berger When faced with a decision ask yourself, > micha at aishdas.org "How would I decide if it were Ne'ilah now, > http://www.aishdas.org at the closing moments of Yom Kippur?" > Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From lisa at starways.net Mon Nov 27 02:55:35 2017 From: lisa at starways.net (Lisa Liel) Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2017 12:55:35 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] How can R' Yochanan and Resh Lakish argue about the tradition of a Gezera Shava? In-Reply-To: <20171126225857.GA9115@aishdas.org> References: <20171126225857.GA9115@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <2e55bd0b-bb70-45dd-093f-a9ca79fa0760@starways.net> On 11/27/2017 12:58 AM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > If "Moavi velo Mo'avis" was darsehened first by Boaz's court, then we > know of at least one gezeira shava -- from Amon to Moav -- that Boaz > invoked withtout a tradition of its existence dating back from Sinai. > How was that a gezeira shava? Lisa --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From micha at aishdas.org Mon Nov 27 13:21:42 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2017 16:21:42 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] How can R' Yochanan and Resh Lakish argue about the tradition of a Gezera Shava? In-Reply-To: <2e55bd0b-bb70-45dd-093f-a9ca79fa0760@starways.net> References: <20171126225857.GA9115@aishdas.org> <2e55bd0b-bb70-45dd-093f-a9ca79fa0760@starways.net> Message-ID: <20171127212142.GA26403@aishdas.org> On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 12:10:10PM +0200, Marty Bluke wrote: : > So, he had a mesorah from a rebbe other than his rebbe muvhaq or any : > of his own rabbeim -- maybe just a shiur from someone else he sat in : > once... (Which is similar to RJR's #2.) : What other mesora? It's not that Resh Lakish had a gezera shava that R' : Yochanan didn't have that he could have learned from someone else. The : Gemara says that he didn't have a kabbala on a gezera shava that R' : Yochanan had. This wasn't the ikar of my answer; I was just ammending RJR's answer to reflect the fact that the gemara says "rabosav" not "rabo". But it seems to me now you are saying the OP was asking how it's possible that R' Yochanan knew something that he didn't pass on to Reish Laqish. Or more accurately, where would RL learn something to have him question a GS when R Yochanan told him of it the first time. In which case, my intended answer works even better -- the presmise that every GS is a tradition dating back to Sinai is false. A conclusion the other RMB gives far more sources for than I did. :> Or... :> If "Moavi velo Mo'avis" was darsehened first by Boaz's court, then we :> know of at least one gezeira shava -- from Amon to Moav -- that Boaz :> invoked withtout a tradition of its existence dating back from Sinai. : That was a gezera shava? In any case the Gemara in Nidda (19b) states that : ayn adam dan gezera shava meatzmo, says Rashi he needs a kabbala from his : rebbe halacha l'moshe misinai. Not every "halakhah leMoshe MiSinai" is literally so. R' Avohu on Kesuvos 7b says that Boaz collected 10 men in "lemidrash 'amoni velo amonis, moavi velo moavis." How does he know it wasn't for 7 berakhos (R' Nachman's shitah)? Because of the need to get "miziqnei ha'ir". Why 10? [I presume -- and not a BD of 3:] lefirsumei milsa. Similarly, Rus Rabba 7:9 states that Peloni didn't know *shenischadshah* din zu. As for "that was a GS?" (A question Lisa also asks...) Amoni velo Amonis is justified because the Amoni ddidn't bring food or water when we came to their land. And it is the men we would have expected to recieve or even buy such previsions from. Moav velo Moavis would be a pretty arbitrary time to insist a word be read as specifically male instead of gender-neutral if it weren't by GS to Amoni. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Here is the test to find whether your mission micha at aishdas.org on Earth is finished: http://www.aishdas.org if you're alive, it isn't. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Richard Bach From zev at sero.name Mon Nov 27 15:10:29 2017 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2017 18:10:29 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] How can R' Yochanan and Resh Lakish argue about the tradition of a Gezera Shava? In-Reply-To: <20171127212142.GA26403@aishdas.org> References: <20171126225857.GA9115@aishdas.org> <2e55bd0b-bb70-45dd-093f-a9ca79fa0760@starways.net> <20171127212142.GA26403@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 27/11/17 16:21, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > As for "that was a GS?" (A question Lisa also asks...) Amoni velo Amonis > is justified because the Amoni ddidn't bring food or water when we > came to their land. And it is the men we would have expected to recieve > or even buy such previsions from. Moav velo Moavis would be a pretty > arbitrary time to insist a word be read as specifically male instead > of gender-neutral if it weren't by GS to Amoni. Could you please explain this? Where do you get that there is any limmud from Ammon to Moav? The Torah says *both* Amonim and Moavim are banned because they didn't welcome us with bread and water. You seem to be claiming that Amonim are banned for this reason, and then Moavim by some sort of gezera shava from Amonim. Where is this coming from? -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From marty.bluke at gmail.com Thu Nov 30 02:11:31 2017 From: marty.bluke at gmail.com (Marty Bluke) Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2017 12:11:31 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] What are the main mitzvos to focus on? Message-ID: The last daf in Makos (24a) states that the Neviim took the 613 mitzvos and reduced them to a smaller set for people to focus on. Michah gave three Mitzvos for people to focus on - "Asos Mishpat..." "Asos Mishpat" is monetary laws; "Ahavas Chesed" is bestowing Chesed; "V'Hatzne'a Leches Im Elokecha" is escorting the dead and bringing a Kalah to Chupah; Yeshayah later gave two primary Mitzvos - "Shimru Mishpat va'Asu Tzedakah." The mitzva of learning Torah which we understand to be the most important and fundamental mitzva does not appear in these lists. How do we explain the omission of learning Torah in these lists? Additionally, these lists seem to consist solely of mitzvos bein adam lachaveiro, are there no mitzvos ben adam lamakom that are important enought to appear on these lists? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From seinfeld at daasbooks.com Thu Nov 30 09:20:44 2017 From: seinfeld at daasbooks.com (Alexander Seinfeld) Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2017 12:20:44 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] More on Yaakov, sheep and the rods Message-ID: <50458059-A03F-4E6E-B54B-F1612B0E7E5B@jsli.org> Why not just interpret this as an example of phenotypic plasticity, meaning the genetic potential is there in every generation, and the environmental factors stimulate its expression? As everyone who had genetics 101 will realize, if you eliminate 100% of the phenotype, and breed the remainder you will still get some of that phenotype in the next generation with recessive genes. So it always bothered me why was all the hokus pokus by Yaakov necessary. Even more so the pasook itself seems to ascribe the results as caused by the sticks even though a simple natural explanation for the reappearance of the phenotype in the next generation is quite simple. The only explanation I could come up with is that the percentages were much higher than one would expect as a result of genetic calculations thus the nes (and Yaakov?s efforts [hishtadlus] to produce it) is described at great length. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From chaim.tatel at gmail.com Thu Nov 30 09:30:37 2017 From: chaim.tatel at gmail.com (Chaim Tatel) Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2017 09:30:37 -0800 Subject: [Avodah] Gid ha'nasheh Message-ID: When I was studying Zoology in college back in the 70s, I did some research on Yaakov?s battle with the malach. The big question I had was ?why should Yaakov Avinu get hit in the gid hanasheh (sciatic nerve)? Why not somewhere else in the body?? As I learned in my Anatomy and Physiology class, there are several nerves that branch off from the sciatic nerve. One of these is the pudendal nerve. This is one of the nerves responsible for sexual function (and other actions). Current research follows: The pudendal nerve is found in the pelvis. It is the biggest division of the pudendal plexus (a network of nerves) and is located behind the sacrospinous ligament, near the tailbone. The nerve extends from the sacral plexus, through the pudendal canal, the perineum, and the gluteal area. These are structures located near the genital, rectal, and gluteal (buttock) regions. (see: https://www.healthline.com/human-body-maps/pudendal-nerve) The peripheral nerves supply the bladder, anal canal, and perineal skin. The pudendal nerve is the primary somatic nerve to this region. Motor fibers in the pudendal nerve innervate the bulbocavernosus muscle, external urethral sphincter, external anal sphincter, and pelvic floor muscles. (see: www.humanneurophysiology.com/sacralmonitoring.htm) I also remember that one of the meforshim (commentators) on Chumash had a similar answer. (Sorry, I can?t remember where I saw this, it?s been over 40 years). At any rate, it makes sense that Yaakov would be hit there, as a reminder that his marriage to Rachel after his marriage to her sister Leah would not hold up when he entered Eretz Yisrael. (not long after this episode, Rachel died in childbirth of Binyamin). Aside from feeling the psychological pain of Rachel?s death, perhaps Yaakov also had to feel physical pain. Chaim Tatel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From lisa at starways.net Sat Dec 2 12:56:18 2017 From: lisa at starways.net (Lisa Liel) Date: Sat, 2 Dec 2017 22:56:18 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] knife sharpeners Message-ID: <62debe36-f9a2-7cab-d4cb-a60320a1ec83@starways.net> Are knife sharpeners mekabel taam?? And noten taam?? Do you need different onces for meat, dairy, pesach, etc? --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From zev at sero.name Sat Dec 2 17:01:31 2017 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Sat, 2 Dec 2017 20:01:31 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] knife sharpeners In-Reply-To: <62debe36-f9a2-7cab-d4cb-a60320a1ec83@starways.net> References: <62debe36-f9a2-7cab-d4cb-a60320a1ec83@starways.net> Message-ID: <0115756c-ad5a-dc19-dfdc-aba2138a2858@sero.name> On 02/12/17 15:56, Lisa Liel via Avodah wrote: > Are knife sharpeners mekabel taam?? And noten taam?? Do you need > different onces for meat, dairy, pesach, etc? Since they don't ever contact food, I don't see how they could. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From JRich at sibson.com Sat Dec 2 22:40:43 2017 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Sun, 3 Dec 2017 06:40:43 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Women and Torah Study Message-ID: <9f94d416d3154585a6bb71a2df12c54e@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> My comment to a recent post on Lehrhaus on women and intensive talmud study: Is encouraging intensive study of Talmud for women a community priority or is the priority to make such study available for those who choose to avail themselves of the opportunity? Especially if the former, where does it stand in relation to other community priorities and how does the answer differ from study for men? IMHO these questions have not been sufficiently addressed. Do my concern resonate at all? KT 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: From marty.bluke at gmail.com Sun Dec 3 01:13:00 2017 From: marty.bluke at gmail.com (Marty Bluke) Date: Sun, 3 Dec 2017 11:13:00 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] The 13 middos Message-ID: The Gemara in Shavuos (4b) discusses who the Tanna of the Mishna is and brings down a fundamental machlokes tannaim about the 13 middos. R' Yishmael darshens klal uprat and R' Akiva darshens ribuy umiut. The Acharonim point out that these are mutually exclusive and every Tanna darshens one or the other but they cannot be mixed (e.g. a Tanna sometimes darshens ribuy umiut and sometimes klal uprat). The question is how can something so fundamental as the 13 middos be a matter of dispute? Weren't the 13 middos given to Moshe at Har Sinai? How could they forget such a basic thing? It is very difficult to say that both are right (e.g. elu v'elu) because they are mutually exclusive and come to different conclusions. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Sun Dec 3 06:18:20 2017 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Sun, 3 Dec 2017 14:18:20 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Davening on Airplanes Message-ID: <1512310700373.25771@stevens.edu> Very often people make minyanimm on flights to Israel. The following if from https://goo.gl/j8hdXR and is a quote from Rabbi Hershel Schachter. Another common mistake people make is regarding davening with a minyan (on a plane). The Talmud emphasizes the importance of tefillah btzibur; and one who davens with a minyan stands a much better chance of having his prayers answered than one who lacks a minyan. However, it is highly improper for the chazzan of a minyan on an airplane to shout at the top of his lungs to enable the other mispalelim to hear him over the airplane noise, and thereby wake up all the passengers around him. It is true that there is a halachic principle of kofin al hamitzvos, i.e. that beis din has an obligation to force people to observe the mitzvos even when they're not interested in doing so, but this only applies when pressuring an individual will result in his becoming observant. However, when Orthodox Jews disturb non-observant Jewish passengers with their davening, the non-observant passengers sill remain non-observant and now just have another point about which to be upset with the Orthodox. The practice of the Orthodox passengers under such circumstances appears simply as an act of harassment. Rather than having accomplished the hidur mitzvah of davening tefillah btzibur, they have violated lifnei iver by causing the non-observant passengers to become more antagonistic towards shemiras hamitzvos. The shouting tone of voice employed by the shaliach tzibbur to overcome the noise on the airplane clearly does not constitute a kavod hatefillah. The halacha states that when traveling, if it is too difficult to stand for shemoneh esrei even the "amidah" may be recited while seated. On a short flight of an hour and a half to Canada it is more correct to daven the entire tefillah while still buckled in, in a sitting position. On the long flight to Eretz Yisroel it is healthier to not sit the entire time; walking around somewhat helps the blood circulation in one's legs. As such, there is nothing wrong with standing for shemoneh esrei, provided that there's no turbulence at that time. However, it is still not proper to gather a minyan together near the washrooms, disturbing all the other passengers and the stewardesses. As much as various Torah giants of our generation have expressed their opposition to such minyanim on airplanes[2], their message has not yet been accepted. We wish everyone a chag kasher v'sameach, and all those traveling to Eretz Yisroel should have a safe trip, but keep in mind - these minyanim are shelo b'ratzon chachomim! [2] Rav Shlomo Wahrman ( She'eiris Yosef vol. 7, siman 3) quotes Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach (Halichos Shlomo, page 75), Rav Moshe Feinstein (Igros Moshe Orach Chaim vol. 4 siman 20), Rav Ovadiah Yosef, and Rav Shmuel Wosner all objecting to minyanim on airplanes that disturb other passengers -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Sun Dec 3 07:15:20 2017 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Sun, 3 Dec 2017 15:15:20 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] The Forces That Have Shaped World History Message-ID: <1512314120420.4485@stevens.edu> The following is from RSRH's commentary on Bereishis 30:8 Ya'akov was very much afraid and distressed, so he divided the peoplewho were with him, as well as the flocks, cattle and camels, into two camps. We can put ourselves in Ya'akov's place, and we are especially obligated to do so, considering the significance of the impending meeting; for, because of this meeting, Ya'akov experienced a revelation whose memory is forever linked with the daily meal of the man of Israel. Just as Ya'akov and Esav oppose each other here, so they continue to stand opposed to one another unto this very day. Ya'akov is the family man blessed with children; hard-working, serving, weighed down by cares. Esav is the "finished and accomplished" man (cf. Commentary above, 25:25). Ya'akov now returns as the independent head of a family. Even now, having overcome all the obstacles, this privilege is, to him, the highest prize, the greatest achievement. But to attain it, he had to toil and struggle for twenty years, despite the fact that he had already received the blessing and the birthright. Others, however, take this privilege for granted; it is given to them from birth. Esav, the "finished and accomplished" man, already possessed it in full measure when Ya'akov first left home. While Ya'akov, through hard work, succeeded in establishing a family, Esav became a political force, the leader of an army, an aluf at the head of his troops. Thus the external contrast between Ya'akov, who held on to his brother's heel when they were born, and Esav, the "accomplished" man. In Ya'akov and Esav, two opposing principles confront each other. The struggle between them, and the outcome of this struggle, are the forces that have shaped world history. Ya'akov represents family life, happiness and making others happy. Esav represents the glitter of political power and might. This conflict has raged for thousands of years: Is it sufficient just to be a human being, and are political power and social creativity of no significance unless they lead to the loftiest of all human aspirations, or, on the contrary, does everything that is human in man, in home, and in family life exist only to serve the purposes of political triumph? How different from his attitude toward Lavan is Ya'akov's attitude toward Esav. We know how steadfast is the power of one who is sure of his own integrity, and how oppressive is the feeling of guilt, even if only imagined. It is easier to suffer wrong and injustice for twenty years than to face for one minute a person whom we know was offended by us and who cannot understand our motives, which do not justify our actions but at least excuse them. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Mon Dec 4 07:55:38 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2017 10:55:38 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] knife sharpeners In-Reply-To: <0115756c-ad5a-dc19-dfdc-aba2138a2858@sero.name> References: <62debe36-f9a2-7cab-d4cb-a60320a1ec83@starways.net> <0115756c-ad5a-dc19-dfdc-aba2138a2858@sero.name> Message-ID: <20171204155538.GC26551@aishdas.org> On Sat, Dec 02, 2017 at 08:01:31PM -0500, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : On 02/12/17 15:56, Lisa Liel via Avodah wrote: : >Are knife sharpeners mekabel taam?? And noten taam?? Do you need : >different onces for meat, dairy, pesach, etc? : : Since they don't ever contact food, I don't see how they could. Since they are in heated contact with the knife, aren't there potential na"t bar na"t issues? Tir'u baTov! -Micha From ari.brodsky at utoronto.ca Mon Dec 4 10:03:48 2017 From: ari.brodsky at utoronto.ca (Ari Meir Brodsky) Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2017 20:03:48 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Tonight (Monday evening) begin Prayer for Rain Message-ID: Dear Friends, It's that time of year again, when I know many of you are expecting my annual friendly reminder.... Jews outside of Israel should include the request for rain in daily prayers, beginning with Maariv tonight (Monday evening), December 4, 2017, corresponding to the evening of 17 Kislev, 5778. The phrase *??? ?? ???? ?????* "Veten tal umatar livracha" - "Give us dew and rain for a blessing" is inserted into the 9th blessing of the weekday shemone esrei, from now until Pesach. [Sephardim replace the entire blessing of ????? with the alternate text beginning ??? ????? - thanks to Prof. Lasker for the reminder.] I encourage everyone to remind friends and family members of this event, especially those who may not be in shul at that time. Diaspora Jews begin requesting rain on the 60th day of the fall season, as approximated by Shmuel in the Talmud (Taanit 10a, Eiruvin 56a). For more information about this calculation, follow the link below, to a fascinating article giving a (very brief) introduction to the Jewish calendar, followed by a discussion on why we begin praying for rain when we do: http://www.lookstein.org/articles/veten_tal.htm (Thanks to Russell Levy for providing the link.) Wishing everyone a happy Chanukka, -Ari Meir Brodsky --------------------- Ari M. Brodsky ari.brodsky at utoronto.ca -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mirskym at gmail.com Mon Dec 4 10:02:39 2017 From: mirskym at gmail.com (Michael Mirsky) Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2017 21:02:39 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Davening on Airplanes In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: In all the discussions of this topic that I have seen, I haven't seen anyone address the issue of someone who is in his year of aveilut and needs a minyan to say kaddish. Do the objections to the possible disturbance a minyan might cause override this need? Michael Mirsky -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From larry62341 at optonline.net Mon Dec 4 10:17:47 2017 From: larry62341 at optonline.net (Prof. Levine) Date: Mon, 04 Dec 2017 13:17:47 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Knife Sharpening Message-ID: The following is from an article posted on the CRC web site at https://goo.gl/ispg9T Food service establishments regularly send out their knives for sharpening, and it appears that there are three potential kashrus concerns with this practice, as follows: * The sharpening company may give the establishment different knives than the ones which the establishment gave them for sharpening. This is an especially likely in cases where the sharpening company actually owns the knives and lends them to the establishment in exchange for the rights to sharpen them. This issue can be avoided if the Mashgiach has a tevias ayin on the knives and/or marks them. * Knives are typically very dirty when they arrive at the sharpening facility, and therefore all knives are washed in hot water or a dishwasher before the sharpening begins. This potentially allows non-kosher b?lios to get into the kosher knives. See below for more on this. * The same machine is used to sharpen the (clean) kosher and non-kosher knives, and the friction created by the process does heat up the knives somewhat. If that heat would be above yad soledes bo, there would be a potential for b?lios to transfer between the machinery and knives. However, in tests which Rabbi Neustadt performed in one sharpening company, the sharpening wheel and the cooling water (where that was used) were consistently cooler than 100? F and were not hot to the touch. As such, it appears that this does not pose a serious concern. See the above URL for more. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Mon Dec 4 11:53:58 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2017 14:53:58 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] What are the main mitzvos to focus on? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20171204195358.GC2323@aishdas.org> On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 12:11:31PM +0200, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: : The last daf in Makos (24a) states that the Neviim took the 613 mitzvos and : reduced them to a smaller set for people to focus on. : Michah gave three Mitzvos for people to focus on - "Asos Mishpat..." : "Asos Mishpat" is monetary laws; : "Ahavas Chesed" is bestowing Chesed; Is "din" necessarily a reference to monetary laws? Din vs chessed is a recurring dialectic. As in sheim Elokus vs sheim Havayah. : "V'Hatzne'a Leches Im Elokecha" is escorting the dead and bringing a Kalah : to Chupah; I saw the gemara differently, emphasizing tzeni'us itself. As it explains, one should walk with one's G-d modestly even when doing these two mitzvos, which normally happen in public. And then the gemara continues with a qal vachomer al achas kamah vekamah those which are normally done betzin'ah. So it seems to be closer to the words of the pasuq than the identification with two specific acts of chessed (one of which is famously "chesed shel emes") the gemara begins its explanation with. After all, chessed is already covered in the previous item in the list. (Parallel gemara at Sukkah 49b.) : Yeshayah later gave two primary Mitzvos - "Shimru Mishpat va'Asu Tzedakah." Tangent: You'll notice that Yeshaiah is listed twice, once before Mikhah (giving 6 principles), and once after. As they were contemporaries whose nevu'os overlap in content, R' Simla'i's intent is likely chronological order. : The mitzva of learning Torah which we understand to be the most important : and fundamental mitzva does not appear in these lists.... I think the "we" in your sentence are simply following a hashkafah which isn't majority opinion. Not only does R' Simla'i skip them, in favor of living to emulate HQBH's din and chessed, but - Hillel famously defines all of Torah in terms of using one's empathy to avoiding doing what one's chaver would loathe. Rashi ad loc includes avoiding what one's Chaver would loathe, but in his other discussions of the quote, this aspect is missing. - R' Aqiva and Ben Azzai argue over which pasuq better captures the Torah's kelal gadol, and both are interpersonal. - In both shasin, "Torah lishmah" is discussed in terms of al menas la'asos and/or al menas lelameid. Not knowing for its own sake. See also Meshekh Chokhmah (Devarim 218:61) which I blog about at So, who amongst Chazal really does make learning the central goal of a Jewish man's life? Jumping ahead to the Isms that today's O world is trying to build from: - In chassidus, talmud Torah is a means to deveiqus. - The discussion in Nefesh haChaim sha'ar 4 which denies the previous bullet item might be the earliest source for the position you describe as what "we understand" was written by the same RCV about whom his son says (in the haqadmah to NhC, emphasis mine): He regularly rebuked me, because he saw that I did not participate in the pain of others. And these were his constant words to me: This is the entire person. One is not created for himself, but to benefit others with the full extent of his powers. (SHEZEH KOL HA'ADAM: lo le'atzmo nivra, RAQ LEHO'IL LE'ACHRINI...) So, while sha'ar 4 waxes poetic about the chiyus talmud Torah gives the world, RCV didn't mean to say that therefore learning is the It of life. (And yeshivos tend not to learn shaar 1's discussion of the power of maaseh nor shaar 2's discussion of dibbur. Which also yeilds an imbalance in how one sees the NhC shaar 4's description of machashavah.) - Similarly, while we remember R' Chaim Brisker for inventing Brisker lomdus, he said his main job was to be a baal chessed. And his family agreed; the praise on his matzeivah simply reads "rav chessed". Apparently the Pulmus haMussar was about the proper means to come to embody the ideal, and not what the ideal actually is. This notion that learning is the ends rather than a central part of the means is arguably idiosyncratic. It is far easier to argue that the central mitzvah is to emulate the Meitiv and bring His Tov to others. : Additionally, these lists : seem to consist solely of mitzvos bein adam lachaveiro, are there no : mitzvos ben adam lamakom that are important enought to appear on these : lists? As per what I said above, mitzvos bein adam laMaqom -- or R' Yisrael Salanter's third category of mitzvos being adam le'atzmo, which includes talmud Torah as an act of self-refinement -- is more caring for the goose than the goose's actual laying of the golden eggs. Rather than a question mark, just end with an exclamation point. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger We are great, and our foibles are great, micha at aishdas.org and therefore our troubles are great -- http://www.aishdas.org but our consolations will also be great. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rabbi AY Kook From micha at aishdas.org Mon Dec 4 11:55:56 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2017 14:55:56 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Davening on Airplanes In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20171204195556.GD2323@aishdas.org> On Mon, Dec 04, 2017 at 09:02:39PM +0300, Michael Mirsky via Avodah wrote: : In all the discussions of this topic that I have seen, I haven't seen : anyone address the issue of someone who is in his year of aveilut and needs : a minyan to say kaddish. Do the objections to the possible disturbance a : minyan might cause override this need? How can it be a zekhus to the niftar to say Qaddish in a way that the BALC violations make it a net minus? Tir'u baTov! -Micha From saulguberman at gmail.com Mon Dec 4 12:00:16 2017 From: saulguberman at gmail.com (Saul Guberman) Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2017 15:00:16 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Davening on Airplanes In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: My understanding is that kaddish needs to be said once a day. It is said multi times a day as a hiddur. So, missing one davening should be OK and the zchus of not disturbing other passengers and crew and not creating a chillul hashem should make up for the missed kaddish. On Mon, Dec 4, 2017 at 1:02 PM, Michael Mirsky via Avodah < avodah at lists.aishdas.org> wrote: > In all the discussions of this topic that I have seen, I haven't seen > anyone address the issue of someone who is in his year of aveilut and needs > a minyan to say kaddish. Do the objections to the possible disturbance a > minyan might cause override this need? > > Michael Mirsky > > _______________________________________________ > Avodah mailing list > Avodah at lists.aishdas.org > http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From zev at sero.name Mon Dec 4 12:14:53 2017 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2017 15:14:53 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] knife sharpeners In-Reply-To: <20171204155538.GC26551@aishdas.org> References: <62debe36-f9a2-7cab-d4cb-a60320a1ec83@starways.net> <0115756c-ad5a-dc19-dfdc-aba2138a2858@sero.name> <20171204155538.GC26551@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 04/12/17 10:55, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > On Sat, Dec 02, 2017 at 08:01:31PM -0500, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > : On 02/12/17 15:56, Lisa Liel via Avodah wrote: > : >Are knife sharpeners mekabel taam?? And noten taam?? Do you need > : >different onces for meat, dairy, pesach, etc? > : > : Since they don't ever contact food, I don't see how they could. > > Since they are in heated contact with the knife, aren't there potential > na"t bar na"t issues? Knives are sharpened while hot?! With water? -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From micha at aishdas.org Mon Dec 4 12:48:38 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2017 15:48:38 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Davening on Airplanes In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20171204204838.GA1334@aishdas.org> On Mon, Dec 04, 2017 at 03:00:16PM -0500, Saul Guberman via Avodah wrote: : My understanding is that kaddish needs to be said once a day. It is said : multi times a day as a hiddur... See YD 376:4. The Rama discusses it in terms of a minhag, actually a variety of whatever is "minhag qavu'ah ba'ir". : the zchus of not disturbing other passengers and crew and not creating a : chillul hashem should make up for the missed kaddish. Especially since it's the avoidance of an actual issur vs a medieval or post-medieval minhag. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Life isn't about finding yourself. micha at aishdas.org Life is about creating yourself. http://www.aishdas.org - George Bernard Shaw Fax: (270) 514-1507 From micha at aishdas.org Mon Dec 4 13:34:04 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2017 16:34:04 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Letzareif Message-ID: <20171204213404.GA32594@aishdas.org> In Bereishis Rabb 44:1, Rav says Lo nitenu hamitzvos ela letzarei bahen es haberios And what does it matter to HQBH who shechtas from the throat and who shechts from the back of the neck? Havei: lo nitenu hamitzvos ela letzarei bahen es haberios Letzareif is a metaphor of melting. The problem is, whether we mean smelting / refining, or to meld to thing together (as in "mitzrareif")? Are we being told that mitzvos were given to refine people, or to connect them? Or is the word chosen in order to intentionally carry both meanings? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger If you're going through hell micha at aishdas.org keep going. http://www.aishdas.org - Winston Churchill Fax: (270) 514-1507 From bdbradley70 at hotmail.com Mon Dec 4 14:03:37 2017 From: bdbradley70 at hotmail.com (Ben Bradley) Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2017 22:03:37 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] knife sharpeners In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: ': On 02/12/17 15:56, Lisa Liel via Avodah wrote: : >Are knife sharpeners mekabel taam?? And noten taam?? Do you need : >different onces for meat, dairy, pesach, etc? : : Since they don't ever contact food, I don't see how they could. Since they are in heated contact with the knife, aren't there potential na"t bar na"t issues?' Knife sharpeners get hot? What kind of sharpeners are we talking about here? I've never seen a domestic knife sharpener which gets beyond slightly warm. But even if it did, the food would be na't to the knife, the knife to the sharpener, the sharpener to the second knife and thence to the food again. Which is na't bar na't bar na't bar na't. I thought that's not a problem in hilchos basar b'chalav? BW Ben -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Mon Dec 4 14:29:08 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2017 17:29:08 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] The 13 middos In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20171204222908.GA10223@aishdas.org> On Sun, Dec 03, 2017 at 11:13:00AM +0200, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: : The Gemara in Shavuos (4b) discusses who the Tanna of the Mishna is and : brings down a fundamental machlokes tannaim about the 13 middos. R' : Yishmael darshens klal uprat and R' Akiva darshens ribuy umiut. The : Acharonim point out that these are mutually exclusive and every Tanna : darshens one or the other but they cannot be mixed (e.g. a Tanna sometimes : darshens ribuy umiut and sometimes klal uprat). ... I do not understand this paranthetic comment, as it refers to a kind of mixture, a tanna who uses both styles of derashah, as an example of how they cannot be mixed. The willingness of the two batei midrash to use the others' methodology is stated outright on Bekhoros 51a. One such tanna is R' Aqiva himself, eg Yerushalmi Sotah 8:1 (vilna 34a). See RSRH's discussion in Collected Writings V pg 170. : something so fundamental as the 13 middos be a matter of dispute? Weren't : the 13 middos given to Moshe at Har Sinai? How could they forget such a : basic thing? ... The methodology could have been in use informally before Hillel started the meta-Torah of the study and formalization of rules to describe that methodology. Just as people can use proper grammar before anyone makes a formal study of the language's grammatical rules. Since each did use the others' rules, the formalized rule system doesn't actually define the list of inherited laws. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger None of us will leave this place alive. micha at aishdas.org All that is left to us is http://www.aishdas.org to be as human as possible while we are here. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Anonymous MD, while a Nazi prisoner From marty.bluke at gmail.com Mon Dec 4 21:15:42 2017 From: marty.bluke at gmail.com (Marty Bluke) Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2017 07:15:42 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] The 13 middos In-Reply-To: <20171204222908.GA10223@aishdas.org> References: <20171204222908.GA10223@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Tuesday, December 5, 2017, Micha Berger wrote:... > > > I do not understand this paranthetic comment, as it refers to a kind of > mixture, a tanna who uses both styles of derashah, as an example of how > they cannot be mixed. The willingness of the two batei midrash to use the > others' methodology is stated outright on Bekhoros 51a. > > One such tanna is R' Aqiva himself, eg Yerushalmi Sotah 8:1 (vilna 34a). > > See RSRH's discussion in Collected Writings V pg 170. See the Mishne Lamelech avadim 3:9 where he states that it is either or and the 2 styles cannot be mixed, and his main proof is from the Gemara Shavuos 4b where the Gemara asks on Rebbe how can he darshen a ribui umiut like R Akiva if in general he darshens Klal Uprat. We see clearly that the Gemara assumes you darshen 1 or the other but not both otherwise the Gemara would have no question. See also tosafos nidda 30a s.v. Ushma mina where tosafos says that we pasken that we darshen Klal uprat and not ribui umiut. That only makes sense if they are mutually exclusive. See also tosafos shavuos 25a s.v. Rav who also assumes that it is either or. Regarding the Gemara in bechoros 51a it is actually a proof the other way. The Gemara says that this case is an exception because it is not written in the normal way of a Klal uprat and therefore in this case only Rebbe can learn a ribui umiut but in general someone who learns Klal uprat could not use ribui umiut. > > Tir'u baTov! > -Micha > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From JRich at sibson.com Mon Dec 4 22:13:31 2017 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2017 06:13:31 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Davening on Airplanes In-Reply-To: <20171204204838.GA1334@aishdas.org> References: , <20171204204838.GA1334@aishdas.org> Message-ID: > > Especially since it's the avoidance of an actual issur vs a medieval or > post-medieval ---------- All very true, yet the Hamon am has invested Kaddish with great importance. Does that investiture have a halachic chalot? It seems it does at least in terms of kavod Kt Joel 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. From akivagmiller at gmail.com Tue Dec 5 03:22:57 2017 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2017 06:22:57 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Gid ha'nasheh Message-ID: . R' Chaim Tatel wrote: > At any rate, it makes sense that Yaakov would be hit there, > as a reminder that his marriage to Rachel after his marriage > to her sister Leah would not hold up when he entered Eretz > Yisrael. (not long after this episode, Rachel died in childbirth > of Binyamin). > > Aside from feeling the psychological pain of Rachel?s death, > perhaps Yaakov also had to feel physical pain. I draw a distinction between "consequences" and "punishments". I have heard in the past that Eretz Yisrael was unable to tolerate Yaakov's being married to two sisters, and that Rachel's death was a consequence of that. But RCT writes that Yaakov was given a reminder of that consequence, and that he had to feel pain as well. Now it sounds like Yaakov was being punished. If he was punished, it must be that he was punished for some choice that he made. What choice was that? What did he do wrong? If he could do it all over again, what ought he do differently? Specifically: After having married Leah, should he have not married Rachel? Alternatively, (according to those who say that he was not fooled but knew that Leah had the simanim,) should he have not married Leah? Or should he have protested and annuled the marriage to Leah? If he was punished, what did he do wrong? Akiva Miller From akivagmiller at gmail.com Tue Dec 5 03:33:20 2017 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2017 06:33:20 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Davening on Airplanes Message-ID: . R' Michael Mirsky asked: > In all the discussions of this topic that I have seen, I > haven't seen anyone address the issue of someone who is in > his year of aveilut and needs a minyan to say kaddish. Do the > objections to the possible disturbance a minyan might cause > override this need? RMM seems to be suggesting that this individual's need to say kaddish is greater than the usual need to daven Tefila B'Tzibur. I have heard other people express this feeling, but I've never seen any evidence for it in seforim or elsewhere. I'll express it another way: I am well aware that there are many many people who are somewhat lax in their minyan attendance in general, but for yahrzeit or aveilus they are much more meticulous. This is not a bad thing; whatever will help get people into shul is good. But I do think that their values might be misplaced. Akiva Miller From larry62341 at optonline.net Tue Dec 5 05:12:22 2017 From: larry62341 at optonline.net (Prof. Levine) Date: Tue, 05 Dec 2017 08:12:22 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] How often to day kaddish Message-ID: <2E.1E.03203.73B962A5@mta4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> Saul Guberman wrote: My understanding is that kaddish needs to be said once a day. It is said multi times a day as a hiddur. So, missing one davening should be OK and the zchus of not disturbing other passengers and crew and not creating a chillul hashem should make up for the missed kaddish. ________________________________________________________ According to the original din only, only one person said kaddish at a time. (This is still what is done in some places like KAJ and Bais Hatalmud). Thus, if there are many people saying kaddish in a shul that keeps the original din, it is conceivable that one might not get to say kaddish every day or even longer. Hence I do not think that one needs to say kaddish once a day. YL From akivagmiller at gmail.com Tue Dec 5 04:53:47 2017 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2017 07:53:47 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Letzareif Message-ID: . R' Micha Berger wrote: > Lo nitenu hamitzvos ela letzarei bahen es haberios > ... > Letzareif is a metaphor of melting. The problem is, whether > we mean smelting / refining, or to meld to thing together (as > in "mitzrareif")? > Are we being told that mitzvos were given to refine people, > or to connect them? Or is the word chosen in order to > intentionally carry both meanings? "Ratzah HKBH l'zakos es Yisrael..." Does "zakos" mean to purify, or to give zechus? I perceive a similar poetry in both l'tzaref and l'zakos, but I'm not much of a poet, so I'll leave this thought for the rest of y'all to ponder and expand uon. Akiva Miller From marty.bluke at gmail.com Tue Dec 5 01:10:14 2017 From: marty.bluke at gmail.com (Marty Bluke) Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2017 11:10:14 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] What are the main mitzvos to focus on? In-Reply-To: <20171204195358.GC2323@aishdas.org> References: <20171204195358.GC2323@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Mon, Dec 4, 2017 at 9:53 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 12:11:31PM +0200, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: > : The last daf in Makos (24a) states that the Neviim took the 613 mitzvos > and > : reduced them to a smaller set for people to focus on. > > : ... > > : The mitzva of learning Torah which we understand to be the most important > : and fundamental mitzva does not appear in these lists.... > > I think the "we" in your sentence are simply following a hashkafah which > isn't majority opinion. > ... > So, who amongst Chazal really does make learning the central goal of a > Jewish man's life? > > ... > This notion that learning is the ends rather than a central part of > the means is arguably idiosyncratic. It is far easier to argue that the > central mitzvah is to emulate the Meitiv and bring His Tov to others. > > Tir'u baTov! > -Micha So basically you are saying that the current Charedi hashkafa/lifestyle of Torah only and Torah learning being the ultimate purpose of life is not a majority opinion in Chazal and in fact you can't find anyone among Chazal who says this. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Tue Dec 5 09:02:00 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2017 12:02:00 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] What are the main mitzvos to focus on? In-Reply-To: References: <20171204195358.GC2323@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20171205170200.GB5251@aishdas.org> On Tue, Dec 05, 2017 at 11:10:14AM +0200, Marty Bluke wrote: : So basically you are saying that the current Charedi hashkafa/lifestyle of : Torah only and Torah learning being the ultimate purpose of life is not a : majority opinion in Chazal and in fact you can't find anyone among Chazal : who says this. I intentionally avoided stating it that confrontationally, but yes. Although not "chareidi", "yeshivish". Excluding most chassidim but including the large population of MO who are taking yeshivish hashkafah and harmonizing it with modernity. (Eg RYBS as understood by many of his students.) See, for example, R Tzevi Sinsky's currently running series out of YHE ("Gush") "Talmud Torah: The Mitzva of Torah Study". He draws heavily from R' Yehudah Amital and R' N Lamm (whom RZS calls "mori uzeqeini"); his perspective is that of DL and MO, not "chareidim". Here's the web abstract for the opening shiur: In this introductory shiur, we explore the centrality of Torah study in the thought of the Rabbis. From Noach to Ezra, prominent Jewish leaders throughout the biblical period are portrayed as Torah scholars, and this mitzva is ascribed paramount importance in every aspect of life. In particular, shiur 3 discusses the purpose of talmud Torah, discussing various approached. The section "Approach #1 -- Instrumentalism" quotes pesuqim, mishayos, Toseftra, gemaros, before getting to rishonim (Rashi, Rambam, Ramban, Chinukh, Me'iri, Or H'. See also RNSlifkin's long list of quotes from rishonim at .) In contrast, "Approach #2 -- Cultivating a Halakhic Ethos" opens with the Chazon Ish then mentions R' Chaim Brisker as desribed in Halakhic Man. "Approach #3 -- Variations on Deveikut" starts with the Rambam leveraging a Sifrei (who I do not see as giving their description of /the/ purpose of learning), but focuses on Chassidus, R' Kook and R' Amital. Notice that learning being primarily valuable instrumentally is the shitah for which RZS can find overwhelming evidence in chazal and rishonim, the others being johnny-come-latelies of the last centuries. As for my own opinion, I wouldn't call approach #2 the cultivation of a "halachic ethos". I think this reflects Brisk's tendency to conflate halakhah with kol haTorah kulah, downplaying the import of aggadita. And yet, this wording does emphasize how approach 1 includes approach 2. If we are obligated in hilkhos dei'os / chovos halvavos / ve'asisa hayashar vehatov / to develop a *Torah* ethos, then #2 is also instrumental. We learn Mes' Sukkah to know how to fulfill the mitzvah of sukkah, and we learn Mes' Pirqei Avos to know to to fulfill the mitzvah of vehalakhta bidrakhav. See, it's instrumental! The difference boils down to what I believe was the central chiluq behind the pulmus haMussar: In the Brisker worldview, when RCVolozhiner compares talmud Torah to immersion in a miqvah, he means it descriptively. Learn halakhah as an end in itself, an it will leave a roshem of taharah. Even if the causality involved is mystical and non-obvious. Whereas R Yisrael Salanter looked at the actual metzi'us of the society he was in -- and all the moreso ours -- and concluded that this couldn't have been RCV's intent. Rather, RCV was speaking descriptively; when one learns correctly, one is learning in a way that leaves a roshem of taharah, even if the material itself is never understood or gets forgotten. And RYS had the lifestyle of RCV's talmid, R' Zundel Salanter, as indication of what Nefesh haChaim was intending to describe. Thus, to a mussarist, RCV was describing how to learn. Don't just learn nega'im to find chiluqim with which to explain machloqesin and non-obvious dinim. Rather, in addition one must spend the time driving home the roshem of how bad LH and ga'avah are, that HQBH felt it worth aiding teshuvah in these areas. And those two topics are far more connected in Telzher derekh than Brisker, but I think I've ranged far enough. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Spirituality is like a bird: if you tighten micha at aishdas.org your grip on it, it chokes; slacken your grip, http://www.aishdas.org and it flies away. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From micha at aishdas.org Tue Dec 5 10:39:48 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2017 13:39:48 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Davening on Airplanes In-Reply-To: References: <20171204204838.GA1334@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20171205183948.GA31307@aishdas.org> On Tue, Dec 05, 2017 at 06:13:31AM +0000, Rich, Joel wrote: :> Especially since it's the avoidance of an actual issur vs a medieval or :> post-medieval : All very true, yet the Hamon am has invested Kaddish with great : importance. Does that investiture have a halachic chalot? It seems it : does at least in terms of kavod Reading the kesuvah under the chuppah is just a stall while we wait some gap of time to separate qiddushin and nissuin. A maaseh kof. And yet because it is time in the spot-light, common practice is to treat it as the second greatest kibud, often what you give the other rav you might have made mesader qiddushin. When it comes to kibud, public treatment does indeed matter. And logically enough; after all, being mekhubad is an issue of seeing others display feelings of kavod. How we display it /should/ be secondary. All logical. However, here we are talking about someone in the olam ha'emes. So they know that while on the plane you have that actual issur keeping you from fulfilling the minhag of saying qaddish. For that matter, hopefully and typically said parent worked really hard at trying to get the avel to respect others. And if not, again, at this point the soul of even the worst parent would know better. So I do not think it's likely the neshamah would mind the lack of kibud as much as they would mind the misplacement of values. I would therefore not draw any conclusions from the logical linkage of kibud with intent and norms. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Between stimulus & response, there is a space. micha at aishdas.org In that space is our power to choose our http://www.aishdas.org response. In our response lies our growth Fax: (270) 514-1507 and our freedom. - Victor Frankl, (MSfM) From llevine at stevens.edu Wed Dec 6 01:39:18 2017 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2017 09:39:18 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Gambling in Halachah Message-ID: <7b63aab9b65f4c589d76fe326bd18f97@exchng03.campus.stevens-tech.edu> Click here to download "Gambling in Halachah" [That's the Kof-K's Halachically Speaking vol 13, issue 18, dedicated to this topic. -micha] From micha at aishdas.org Wed Dec 6 11:36:19 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2017 14:36:19 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Gid ha'nasheh In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20171206193619.GB12102@aishdas.org> On Tue, Dec 05, 2017 at 06:22:57AM -0500, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: :> Aside from feeling the psychological pain of Rachel?s death, :> perhaps Yaakov also had to feel physical pain. : : I draw a distinction between "consequences" and "punishments"... For those who don't remember from prior iterations, I don't. I think the difference between callins an onesh a consequence and calling it a punishment (or even "corrective") is whether one views sekhar va'onesh as a system that HQBH set up when He set up the universe or as a set of responses He has to our actions. "Chai gever al chata'av" implies one, our tefillos on yamim nora'im frequently imply the other. But both are simply simplified models of the incomprehensible Truth of how Hashem runs the universe. Since He is lemaalah min hazeman, we can't talk about whether the decision was made in maaseh bereishis or in response to our action -- both are ascribing times to a timeless Action (for want of a better word). We can only speak of a when for the effects of Divine Action, as they enter our timefull experience. : I have : heard in the past that Eretz Yisrael was unable to tolerate Yaakov's : being married to two sisters, and that Rachel's death was a : consequence of that. ... which is typical of an onesh -- a sin causes its own punishment. The two explanations are not mutually exclusive. To say that it was the land's qedushah causing something that wasn't in line with justice, one has to explain why there are rules that hide Hashem's Justice that aren't part of the hesteir panim necessary for free will. We need laws of nature to plan how to execute a decision, but laws of metaphysics? ... : If he was punished, it must be that he was punished for some choice : that he made. What choice was that? What did he do wrong? If he could : do it all over again, what ought he do differently? Specifically: : After having married Leah, should he have not married Rachel? Well, isn't that the halakhah? Or maybe the issur was in whatever it was that had him marrying a woman without noticing that her eyes were rakos (whatever that means). Perhaps the mistake was due to a criminal level of negligence. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Man is equipped with such far-reaching vision, micha at aishdas.org yet the smallest coin can obstruct his view. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yisrael Salanter Fax: (270) 514-1507 From micha at aishdas.org Wed Dec 6 11:23:17 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2017 14:23:17 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] The 13 middos In-Reply-To: References: <20171204222908.GA10223@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20171206192317.GA12102@aishdas.org> On Tue, Dec 05, 2017 at 07:15:42AM +0200, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: : See the Mishne Lamelech avadim 3:9 where he states that it is either or and : the 2 styles cannot be mixed, and his main proof is from the Gemara Shavuos : 4b where the Gemara asks on Rebbe how can he darshen a ribui umiut like R : Akiva if in general he darshens Klal Uprat... And yet the conclution on 5a is that he holds like R' Yishma'el's beis medrash who holds the derashah is not kelal uperat but ribui umi'ut ("ribah umi'at"). R Yisma'el, the one who codified the rules of kelal uperat is the one who here uses ribui umi'ut!? So is the gemara really saying that Rebbe is not crossing the line, as it seems to be saying. Or is it intentionally also implying there is no line to cross? Tosafos there ("detana Devei R' Yishma'el") might be saying the latter; it is too terse for me to be sure of intent. And yet further down on 5a, we have "Hashta de'amres... -- Now that you say that Rebbe darshans kelal uperat, you are forced into a question about shavu'os...?" IOW, reassuming the line. In any case, I am totally lost. In a discussion of how no one uses both sets of rules, it cites the school that created one set using the other set, and not saying anything about it. There is more going on here than I comprehend so far. As RSRH said (Collected Writings vol V pg 170), there are many such cases of R' Yishmael and R' Aqiva uses the other's rules. RSRH treats the rule as a tendency, rather than a line one may not cross. I wish I knew his interpretation of the gemara in Shavuos. But it's not like the MlM, nor the ba'al Atzmos Yoseif (whom the MlM is discussing), and does acknowledge the actual positions taken across both shasin. Just thinking out loud... Maybe the gemaros we're looking at are bothered because these are all cases where both kelalim apply and in each case they imply different dinim. IOW, it is not a question of Rebbe (or devei R Yismael) using ribui umi'ut, but of favoring the derashah that he tends not to OVER the derashah that is his norm. And to handle RSRH's observation, in a case where it is not a choice between conflicting kinds of derashos, no one would be asking why Rebbe used a kelal uperat, as such line-crossing is normal. : See also tosafos nidda 30a s.v. Ushma mina where tosafos says that we : pasken that we darshen Klal uprat and not ribui umiut... Nidda 30a "ushma minah tevilah bizmanah mitzvah" is about holding like Beis Shammai, and doesn't mention derashos. The previous d"h, "shema minah telas" (a near match) also isn't on topic. Could you please fix the citation for me? : Regarding the Gemara in bechoros 51a it is actually a proof the other way. : The Gemara says that this case is an exception because it is not written in : the normal way of a Klal uprat and therefore in this case only... This is a 2nd variant of the same sugya as Shavu'os. (To clarify for those moderately interested, but not sufficiently so to look for themselves.) Rashi ("hakha"), who says it's a general rule: kelal uperat ukelal isn't judged as a kelal uperat but as a ribui umi'ut. IIUC, Rashi is saying that Rebbe is staying within his usual rule set, but this is a case where both rule sets include the same derashah, just under different names. Thanks to RMTorczyner (CCed) : > Choosing between using "Kelal/Perat" and "Ribuy/Miut": Eruvin 27b-28a; > Succah 50b; Kiddushin 21b The first two don't really deal with tannaim using only one rule set, but Qiddush 21b is a third version of our sugya. I didn't see anything to add to the discussion beyond a way to rope RMT in, and perhaps he'll talk to R' Jonathan Ziring about the question. (RMT is the Rosh Beit Midrash of the YU-Torah Mitzion Zichron Dov Beit Midrash of Toronto, RJZ is the segan. Back when RJZ was in the kollel at YHE ["Gush"], he gave a series of shiurim on meta-halakhah. I thought I had RJZ's address, as we had a short correspondance, but since I didn't find it, I figured that once I was bothering RMT for his opinion...) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger I always give much away, micha at aishdas.org and so gather happiness instead of pleasure. http://www.aishdas.org - Rachel Levin Varnhagen Fax: (270) 514-1507 From micha at aishdas.org Wed Dec 6 12:06:08 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2017 15:06:08 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] TEXTUAL JUDAISM AND THE LIVING TORAH In-Reply-To: <9e51a7f4ea644e829db8503f8f0451fe@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <9e51a7f4ea644e829db8503f8f0451fe@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20171206200608.GC12102@aishdas.org> On Thu, Nov 02, 2017 at 12:12:05PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : http://etzion.org.il/en/siman-114-prayers-wind-rain-and-dew : :> TEXTUAL JUDAISM AND THE LIVING TORAH : :> In his introduction to the Beit Yosef... ... I think there are two things we need to keep in mind, that R' Asher Meir does not touch upon: 1- The question isn't whether the BY or some other poseiq does or doesn't consider the extent to which a particular pesaq was nispasheit. But rather something less boolean: how much weight does any given poseiq give mimeticism, and in comparison to which other factors. A number of years ago I proposed a model (then modified it in a later iteration) of 4 classes of factors a poseiq needs to weigh. And that one of the leading reasons why pesaq is an art rather than an algorithm is that their can't be formal rules for comparing the magnitudes of apples and oranges -- and bananas and parsimons? Here's what I came up with: - textual logic: which sevara do you find most compelling? Litvaks typically put most of the emphasis - textual authority: rules like azlinan basar ruba, or giving more weight to the Rambam's or Rosh's pinion than to some Baal Tosafos we rarely hear of. This seems to be ROY's favorite territory. - minhag avos / mimeticism - hashkafic concerns (including philosophy, qaballah): like when chassidim and talmidei haGra stopped putting on tefillin on ch"m because it is qotzeitz binti'os. No one would place hashkafic concerns high on the list. Ein dorshin taamei hamizvos. A poseiq only leaves formal halachic analysis when multiple opinions are defensible, which "right answer" does one choose? But different posqim still give it different weight; requiring more or less equity between the halachic analysis of the different possible pesaqim before being willing to let the hashkafah tip the scales. 2- The BY is a text. To really talk about mimeticism, we're talking about what people do naturally. A poseiq may need to factor in which pesaq was nispasheit, but by doing so he is not being a mimetic. The AhS is more likely to find justifications for mimetic practice while the MB is more likely to recommend changing practice. But deciding to follow either is choosing textuallism over mimeticism. Mimeticism is following the same pesaq the AhS just defended because that's what everone does, it's the example your parents and/or your peers set, not because it's a pesaq with a sevara and sources. Still, it's interesting to find an example of the BY overriding his triumverate and clearly stating a reason that is at odds with his haqdamah. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Take time, micha at aishdas.org be exact, http://www.aishdas.org unclutter the mind. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rabbi Simcha Zissel Ziv, Alter of Kelm From micha at aishdas.org Wed Dec 6 13:40:04 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2017 16:40:04 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] More on Yaakov, sheep and the rods In-Reply-To: <50458059-A03F-4E6E-B54B-F1612B0E7E5B@jsli.org> References: <50458059-A03F-4E6E-B54B-F1612B0E7E5B@jsli.org> Message-ID: <20171206214004.GD12102@aishdas.org> On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 12:20:44PM -0500, Alexander Seinfeld via Avodah wrote: : Why not just interpret this as an example of phenotypic plasticity, : meaning the genetic potential is there in every generation, and the : environmental factors stimulate its expression? : : As everyone who had genetics 101 will realize, if you eliminate 100% : of the phenotype, and breed the remainder you will still get some of : that phenotype in the next generation with recessive genes. So it always : bothered me why was all the hokus pokus by Yaakov necessary.... I would learn from this incident in Bereishis that one is obligated to do whatever hishtadlus is possible by the best understanding of teva available to you. And not to worry about what the current theory may get replaced by. Along similar lines: R Avigdor Miller taught that since HQBH is Rofei kol basar, medicine doesn't actually heal. The role of doctors and medicine is to prevent Hashem's cure from requiring a neis nigleh. And, he explains, this is why people actually survived despite medical theories involving 4 humours and bloodletting, or whatnot. Any accepted theory is equally usable. I don't buy into this, because if true, medicine would never need to advance, in fact, accepted medical theory would never be disproved. Still, I find the idea intriguing. It fits the notion, which might be the Ramban's (depending on how you fit multiple comments together) and is definitely REED's that teva is not a real "thing", but the patterns Hashem uses to hide His Action behind. It's all neis nistar, really Now, if one were to apply the same idea to parnasah, one could explain the purpose of Yaakov's efforts. And even if RAvigdorM's theory is hard to see as how teva works for the rest of us, it's easier to apply to someone who is as neis-worthy, including neis-nistar-worthy, as Yaaqov avinu. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger You want to know how to paint a perfect micha at aishdas.org painting? It's easy. http://www.aishdas.org Make yourself perfect and then just paint Fax: (270) 514-1507 naturally. -Robert Pirsig From akivagmiller at gmail.com Wed Dec 6 15:10:18 2017 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2017 18:10:18 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Gid ha'nasheh Message-ID: . I asked: : If he was punished, it must be that he was punished for some choice : that he made. What choice was that? What did he do wrong? If he could : do it all over again, what ought he do differently? Specifically: : After having married Leah, should he have not married Rachel? and R' Micha Berger responded: > Well, isn't that the halakhah? I want to publicly thank RMB for a beautiful post, and for reminding me of some very important concepts. We learn so much of the machinations of what went on in this incident, how each step was important and necessary in various ways, that I was a bit shocked to hear it suggested that Yaakov Avinu was being punished for his choices here. But truth be told, the line between punishment and consequence can be arbitrary, subjective .... or even imaginary. We DO accept the reality of a "necessary evil", or a "greater good". It's not all black and white. "Well, isn't that the halakhah?" Indeed, the halacha prescribes The Way To Go, but that is no guarantee that there won't be unpleasant side effects. If the Kohen Gadol happens upon a Mes Mitzvah on Yom Kippur morning, the halacha is clear that he must get involved, even if that means that the day's avodah won't go as planned. So too, Yaakov Avinu and Rachel Imenu married each other because Klal Yisrael needed it, and if such a releationship was incompatible with Kedushas Haaretz, well, unfortunately, they'll have to endure the consequences. Akiva Miller From meirabi at gmail.com Wed Dec 6 18:07:12 2017 From: meirabi at gmail.com (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi) Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2017 13:07:12 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] =?utf-8?q?SEDRA_VAYEISHEV_=E2=80=93_TIME_TO_LOOK_IN_THE_?= =?utf-8?q?MIRROR?= Message-ID: When the little kid threatens a bouncer ? we all laugh. It is funny precisely because it is so silly and impossible. DJT, a buffoon, a bumbling, blithering bad-boy, could not possibly win the presidency. It was the standing joke that never grew stale ? until he became POTUS. Our Sages say, we are truly unmasked by Kiso Koso & KaAso ? by what we?re like when feeling liberated: # deciding how to use our valuables i.e. by what we consider to be important # intoxicated [not necessarily by alcohol] # we are agitated i.e. by what presses our buttons. Yosef tells his brothers about his dream ? expecting them to laugh it off and he gives them a second chance after they?ve had an opportunity to reconsider their response. When we get offended and mock ? it?s time to look in the mirror. Best, Meir G. Rabi 0423 207 837 +61 423 207 837 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From marty.bluke at gmail.com Thu Dec 7 02:27:17 2017 From: marty.bluke at gmail.com (Marty Bluke) Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2017 12:27:17 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] The 13 middos In-Reply-To: <20171206192317.GA12102@aishdas.org> References: <20171204222908.GA10223@aishdas.org> <20171206192317.GA12102@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 9:23 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > On Tue, Dec 05, 2017 at 07:15:42AM +0200, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: > : See the Mishne Lamelech avadim 3:9 where he states that it is either or > and > : the 2 styles cannot be mixed, and his main proof is from the Gemara > Shavuos > : 4b where the Gemara asks on Rebbe how can he darshen a ribui umiut like R > : Akiva if in general he darshens Klal Uprat... > > And yet the conclution on 5a is that he holds like R' Yishma'el's beis > medrash who holds the derashah is not kelal uperat but ribui umi'ut > ("ribah umi'at"). R Yisma'el, the one who codified the rules of kelal > uperat is the one who here uses ribui umi'ut!? > The Gemara says that this case is an exception because it is not written in the normal way of a Klal uprat and therefore in this case ONLY Rebbe can learn a ribui umiut but in general someone who learns Klal uprat could not use ribui umiut. > ... > > : See also tosafos nidda 30a s.v. Ushma mina where tosafos says that we > : pasken that we darshen Klal uprat and not ribui umiut... > > Nidda 30a "ushma minah tevilah bizmanah mitzvah" is about holding > like Beis Shammai, and doesn't mention derashos. The previous d"h, > "shema minah telas" (a near match) also isn't on topic. Could you > please fix the citation for me? > See the last 2 lines in the Tosafos that I quoted, Tosafos states "d'darish ribui umiut, V'Kayma lan d'darshinan klali uprati" Tosafos paskens that we darshen klal uprat not ribui umiut, that strongly implies that they are mutuallt exclusive > > > > > Tir'u baTov! > -Micha > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From JRich at sibson.com Wed Dec 6 21:49:36 2017 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2017 05:49:36 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] zmanim Message-ID: <550be79bd779462fa5534e6b58fba249@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> As sunrise got later I was at a minyan where the earliest time for tallit was approximately the same as the minyan starting time. I watched as everybody watched their cell phones for the exact time to start from Myzmanim. (Of course that website says not to rely on to it to the minute) I was wondering whether this close watch was a subset of a broader need of man modern man to have exactitude in life versus living with gray. (Sort of a desire to be Newtonian in a quantum world) I was also wondering whether the advent of the railroad table approach now requires us to halachically follow that exactness rather than that the "it looks right to me" approach of Chazal? Thoughts? KT 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: From larry62341 at optonline.net Thu Dec 7 03:09:25 2017 From: larry62341 at optonline.net (Prof. Levine) Date: Thu, 07 Dec 2017 06:09:25 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Davening on Airplanes In-Reply-To: <900051a759eb4fd1a58d4fda4d74fca6@exchng03.campus.stevens-t ech.edu> References: <900051a759eb4fd1a58d4fda4d74fca6@exchng03.campus.stevens-tech.edu> Message-ID: <32.C2.03752.761292A5@mta3.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> At 08:12 PM 12/6/2017, R Micha Berger wrote: >When it comes to kibud, public treatment does indeed matter... >However, here we are talking about someone in the olam ha'emes. So they >know that while on the plane you have that actual issur keeping you from >fulfilling the minhag of saying qaddish... >So I do not think it's likely the neshamah would mind the lack of kibud >as much as they would mind the misplacement of values. I would therefore >not draw any conclusions from the logical linkage of kibud with intent >and norms. From The Mussar Movement, Volume 1, Part 2 pages 248 - 249. On one of the anniversaries of his father's death, R. Israel was in Memel. He was informed that someone else in the synagogue wished to say Kaddish. Now R. Israel was very insistent that only one person at a time be allowed to recite the Kaddish at the services [28] and apparently this congregation had complied with his ruling. Reb Yitzchak Isaacson was observing the jahrzeit of a daughter who had died very young. Now the Halachah gives precedence to a son observing the jahrzeit of a parent on these occasions, and R. Israel was obviously entitled to the privilege. Sensing the grief he would cause the father by depriving him of the opportunity to say Kaddish for his daughter, R. Israel went up to him and said: "You sir, will say Kaddish." The worshippers expressed their surprise. Not only had R. Israel yielded his own right, but also overlooked the duty of honoring his father, since he was, by law, obliged to say Kaddish. He explained to them that the merit of extending kindness (gemi- lut chesed) to a fellow Jew possessed far greater value than the saying of Kaddish.[29] [28.] See R. Naftali Amsterdam's will, published in Or Hamusar No. 13. See Vol. II of the Hebrew edition of this series, Tenu'at Hamusar, II, Chap. 25. [29.] Ernile Benjamin, op. cit., p. 25. From seinfeld at daasbooks.com Thu Dec 7 06:50:16 2017 From: seinfeld at daasbooks.com (Alexander Seinfeld) Date: Thu, 07 Dec 2017 09:50:16 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Gid ha'nasheh Message-ID: It seems to me there are two plausible answers, and both may be correct. 1. Yes, he should not have married Rachel. This is in fact what Leah tells her, ?You stole my husband.? He was tricked, but he accepted Leah, did not annul the marriage, so too bad for Rachel. She?s the one who gave away the password. 2. He wasn?t yet Yisroel. He was still a ben Noach. When he becomes Yisroel, he is now required to keep the Taryag Mitzvos. It is right after this name change that she dies. I?m not sure why she doesn?t die immediately (in Beit-El) rather en route to Efrat. But this delay may have sown doubt into his mind about his status - maybe he is still a ben Noach. His sons consider themselves Bnai Yisroel, which is why they are eating meat that for a ben-Noach would be eiver-min-ha-chai, and which is part of the lashon hara that Yoseph brings back to Yaakov. But his judgment that they are Bnai Noach is not merely academic, it is personal, because it has implications in Rachel?s death. > >If he was punished, it must be that he was punished for some choice >that he made. What choice was that? What did he do wrong? If he could >do it all over again, what ought he do differently? Specifically: >After having married Leah, should he have not married Rachel? >Alternatively, (according to those who say that he was not fooled but >knew that Leah had the simanim,) should he have not married Leah? Or >should he have protested and annuled the marriage to Leah? > >If he was punished, what did he do wrong? From micha at aishdas.org Thu Dec 7 11:06:53 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2017 14:06:53 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Gid ha'nasheh In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20171207190653.GB26083@aishdas.org> On Wed, Dec 06, 2017 at 06:10:18PM -0500, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : We DO accept the reality of a "necessary evil", or a "greater good". : It's not all black and white. "Well, isn't that the halakhah?" Indeed, : the halacha prescribes The Way To Go, but that is no guarantee that : there won't be unpleasant side effects... A number of rishonim (eg Ramban, Seforno) deal with the problem of miracles. Since HQBH is Perfect and is capable of a perfect creation, why would He make a world in which He occasionally would have to step in and override teva? This is where the Ramban comes in with the idea that not only the miraculous items listed in Pirqei Avos created during Maaseh Bereishis, every "exception" to the laws of nature are actually special cases written into the law. I'll pause here to remind of what I said last email about "at the time of creation" and "in response to the situation" both being oversimplifications caused by us temporal beings trying to think about Hashem's "Action" which is lemaalah min hazeman and has no "when". Similarly, one can ask about His Authorship of halakhah. Since Hashem is capable of writing a system of laws to fit the universe in a way where obeying the law never has "unpleasant side effects", why wouldn't He? One backstep... I just realized you mean something broader by "side effects" than I was talking about. As you later write: : upon a Mes Mitzvah on Yom Kippur morning, the halacha is clear that he : must get involved, even if that means that the day's avodah won't go : as planned... Similarly, if piquach nefesh is docheh Shabbos, rather than Shabbos being huterah, one may have the misfortune of having to violate Shabbos. But that's not sekhar va'onesh, and my question "but what about Divine Justice?" doesn't apply. Not unless the "unpleasant side effect" is -- as in the case of Yaaqov's widowerhood or his hip -- painful (physically and/or emotionally). There is also another issue... Sekhar mitzvos behai alma leiqa. Not everything in this world is sekhar va'onesh. Li nir'eh, everything in this world is to draw us to a state of being able to receive more of Hashem's tov. Onesh, only when we have a chance of it getting us to choose more constructively. Which is why the mishnah talks about tzadiqim getting onesh in olam hazah to spare them in olam haba. Not because pain in olam hazeh pays off the accoun t early, but because a tzadiq will use the pain to draw closer to HQBH / to his ideal self. And similarly, resha'im who wouldn't respond constructively to the challenge... Well, HQBH would share with them his Tov in the here-and-now rather than not at all. This takes us away from insisting that the universe must be set up so that every sin contains its own onesh as a consequence. (If we're using the consequence model to look at things.) Instead, we can look at the universe as tending toward tov. And therefore every step away from tov will as a consequence cause a pull back toward it. (Which could well be onesh, but in olam hazeh, it could be getting us connected back to the Meitiv in some other way.) And applying this back to Yaaqov's marrying two wives... Perhaps it's not an onesh, but the consequent path closer to the Meitiv in a world where the aretz was made tamei. And it's even possible that the challenges of this harder path lead to a closer place than without. So that overall, the net is maximize sekhar. Lefum tza'ara. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger We look forward to the time micha at aishdas.org when the power to love http://www.aishdas.org will replace the love of power. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - William Ewart Gladstone From micha at aishdas.org Thu Dec 7 11:12:14 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2017 14:12:14 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] zmanim In-Reply-To: <550be79bd779462fa5534e6b58fba249@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <550be79bd779462fa5534e6b58fba249@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20171207191214.GC26083@aishdas.org> On Thu, Dec 07, 2017 at 05:49:36AM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : I was wondering whether this close watch was a subset of a broader : need of man modern man to have exactitude in life versus living with : gray... Or maybe we were always mechuyavim to be as precise as possible. : wondering whether the advent of the railroad table approach now requires : us to halachically follow that exactness rather than that the "it looks : right to me" approach of Chazal? Thoughts? Li nir'eh there is value to the "in sync with nature" approach of Chazal that we lose when we think about clock time rather than the cycles of the sun (a/k/a the earth's spin). Much the way we lose a lot of what the yamim tovim mean because we aren't living in agrarian communities, and don't feel the joy of new wheat and barley when we celebrate our birth as a people, or the joy of bringing in the year's fruit when we celebrate how HQBH sustained us in the midbar. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From seinfeld at daasbooks.com Thu Dec 7 20:42:27 2017 From: seinfeld at daasbooks.com (Alexander Seinfeld) Date: Thu, 07 Dec 2017 23:42:27 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] What are the main mitzvos to focus on? Message-ID: :: So basically you are saying that the current Charedi hashkafa/lifestyle of :: Torah only and Torah learning being the ultimate purpose of life is not a :: majority opinion in Chazal and in fact you can't find anyone among Chazal :: who says this. : I intentionally avoided stating it that confrontationally, but yes. Forgive me, this may be a side issue to your main point about the 2 ways/reasons to learn, but I feel it should be clarified what you mean. How do you understand the Shulchan Aruch - Orach Chaim 155-156 - go immediately from davening to learning, make Torah your ikkar and malacha your arai; minimize work to only what you need [Be?er Heiteiv, Mishna Berura] not more??? Not mainstream? Breaking with Chazal? It?s a verbatim quotation from Gemara Berachos 35b. And maybe related to Taanis 24b (Chanina ben Dosa and his wife.) Now, let?s think sociologically for a moment. Why did the Mechaber choose to state this halacha the way he does? It seems to me that in his time (as in all times) there were Jews who were pulled to the needs and attractions of parnasa and spending the vast majority of their time and energy on it and in his view not in the proper balance. The fact that he has to state this halacha implies that not everyone was behaving that way. So the fact that not everyone behaves this way today is no proof whatsoever against the halacha. But anyone who wonders on what basis do some Orthodox Jews forsake full-time jobs and toil in Torah should read the Beur Halacha on Siman 155.1 - ?Eis lilmode? > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Fri Dec 8 02:55:11 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Fri, 8 Dec 2017 05:55:11 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] What are the main mitzvos to focus on? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20171208105511.GA13704@aishdas.org> On Thu, Dec 07, 2017 at 11:42:27PM -0500, Alexander Seinfeld via Avodah wrote: ::: So basically you are saying that the current Charedi hashkafa/lifestyle of ::: Torah only and Torah learning being the ultimate purpose of life is not a ::: majority opinion in Chazal and in fact you can't find anyone among Chazal ::: who says this. :: I intentionally avoided stating it that confrontationally, but yes. : Forgive me, this may be a side issue to your main point about the 2 : ways/reasons to learn, but I feel it should be clarified what you mean. : How do you understand the Shulchan Aruch - Orach Chaim 155-156 - go : immediately from davening to learning, make Torah your ikkar and malacha : your arai; minimize work to only what you need [Be?er Heiteiv, Mishna : Berura] not more??? You are shifting topics. I wrote about the reasons to learn, and asserted "Torah only and Torah learning being the ultimate purpose of life... you can't find anyone among Chazal who says this." Torah learning should well be the anchor of your day in comparison to earning a parnasah. (Although if one is learning rather than going to teach, other mitzvos are dochim.) But not as an ends, as a means. The hashkafah is new, the priorities not. But the new hashkafah changes the weighting to be even more in favor of learning. For example: I don't know what's going on today, but in my day Neir Yisrael / Baltimore was unique among American "yeshivish" yeshivos in encouraging talmidim to volunteer to staff kiruv shabbatonim. (Most/all YU RY were very proactively pro becoming an NCSY advisor.) The others felt that at this time in their lives, bachurim shouldn't be distracted from learning. This, despite the fact that adolescents respond better if there are peer-teachers rather than full grownups of a different generation, and the program was begging for them. This is one of the reasons JEP failed. That's the worldview of the American and Israeli "Litvisher" yeshiva. Now let's look at actual pre-war Litvisher gedolim. And I don't mean the obvious mussarists. `Would the aforementioned Meshekh Chokhmah have agreed with this decision? Is it in concert with RCV's admonition to his son? What about R' Shimon Shkop, who opens Shaarei Yosher's haqdamah with (empshasis added): Yisbarakh HaBorei Veyis'alah HaYotzeir who created us in His "Image" and in the likeness of His "Structure" VECHAYEI OLAM NATA BESOKHAINU such that our greated desire should be to benefit others to the indivindual and the masses, now and in the future, in imitation of the Creator (kevayachol). Ikkar doesn't mean "ultimate purpose", and making learning one's ultimate purpose does push one to go beyond making it the day's ikkar. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Brains to the lazy micha at aishdas.org are like a torch to the blind -- http://www.aishdas.org a useless burden. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Bechinas haOlam From micha at aishdas.org Fri Dec 8 06:11:58 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Fri, 8 Dec 2017 09:11:58 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Your Ancestors Message-ID: <20171208141158.GA20389@aishdas.org> R' Mike Gerver posted to Mail-Jewish in 1994 a request to help him collect more date to tighten an argument that odds are, every Jew alive either: - is a geir or all his ancestry are from geirim recently enough for him to know, or - descends from Rashi. (Or anyone else of that era or earlier.) See Calculations involve estimating rate of marriage across social strata, between towns, and between eidot. All Jews. Even Teimanim. (Ethiopians weren't a discussion yet, odds are no.) Well, this article makes that all the more probable: http://bigthink.com/stephen-johnson/why-youre-probably-related-to-nefertiti-and-confucius Why You're Probably Related to Nefertiti, Confucius, and Socrates December 7, 2017 by Stephen Johnson .... [J]ust how far back do humans need to go to find a common ancestor of their own: a person to whom all living people are related? The answer, for people of European descent at least, is surprisingly recent: 600 years. The common ancestor for every single person alive on the planet today, no matter where, lived approximately 3,600 years ago. That means Confucius, Nefertiti, Socrates, and any figure from ancient history that had children, is in some way your ancestor. Then, quoting Adam Rutherfore's new book, A Brief History of Everyone Who Ever Lived: "We are all special, which also means that none of us is," writes Rutherford in the book. "This is merely a numbers game. You have two parents, four grandparents, eight great-grandparents, and so on. Each generation back the number of ancestors you have doubles. But this ancestral expansion is not borne back ceaselessly into the past. If it were, your family tree when Charlemagne was Le Grand Fromage would harbor around 137,438,953,472 individuals on it -- more people than were alive then, now, or in total." So, why not? "You can be, and in fact are, descended from the same individual many times over," Rutherford writes. "Your great-great-great-great-great-grandmother might hold that position in your family tree twice, or many times, as her lines of descent branch out from her, but collapse onto you. The further back through time we go, the more these lines will coalesce on fewer individuals." The startling discovery that all Europeans might share a common ancestor who walked the Earth just 600 years ago was first proposed in 1999 by a Yale statistician named Joseph Chang. In his paper Recent Common Ancestors of All Present-Day Individuals," Chang used complex mathematical conceptslike Poisson distributions and Markov chainsto show how webbed pedigrees can overlap to produce common ancestors. If that is true of Europeans in 600 years, Jews over 800 years lo kol shekein? :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger We are great, and our foibles are great, micha at aishdas.org and therefore our troubles are great -- http://www.aishdas.org but our consolations will also be great. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rabbi AY Kook From jziring at torontotorah.com Wed Dec 6 19:40:58 2017 From: jziring at torontotorah.com (Jonathan Ziring) Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2017 22:40:58 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] The 13 middos In-Reply-To: References: <20171204222908.GA10223@aishdas.org> <20171206192317.GA12102@aishdas.org> Message-ID: [I had to edit this post significantly to fit Avodah's format constaints. -micha] Shalom, I'm touched to be asked. I have wondered about this (and have again this week due to Daf Yomi). I can't say I have strongly formed opinions on it, but the sugyot do seem to imply that these are more tendencies rather than rules, at lease re: Klal UPrat vs. Ribbui and Miut. The drashot of vavim and the like seem more absolute (X is not doresh vav). Yaakov Elman makes that point in his article on Ribbui. A few articles that deal with the topic that I've glanced through are: The Formal Development of [Kelal uPerat uKelal] Michael Chernick Tarbiz, pp. 393-410 Towards a History of "Ribbuy" in the Babylonian Talmud and Yaakov Elman Proceedings of the World Congress of Jewish Studies Vol. 11, Division C: Thought and Literature, Volume I: Rabbinic and Talmudic Literature (1993), pp. 87-94 In general, Michael Chernick and devoted much time to this. A few other relevant articles by him: The Development of Ribbuim and Mi 'utim Hermeneutics," PAAJR",1982-3. "The Use of Ribbuyim and Mi'utim in the Halakic Midrash ofR. Ishmael," JQK, 1979. "The Hermeneutic Kelal u-Ferat u-Kelal: Its History and Development," AAJR Annual Meeting, 1980 I think this will spur me to think more systematically about this. If I come up with anything, I will definitely share it. Jonathan From simon.montagu at gmail.com Sat Dec 9 08:27:13 2017 From: simon.montagu at gmail.com (Simon Montagu) Date: Sat, 9 Dec 2017 18:27:13 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Your Ancestors In-Reply-To: <20171208141158.GA20389@aishdas.org> References: <20171208141158.GA20389@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Fri, Dec 8, 2017 at 4:11 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah < avodah at lists.aishdas.org> wrote: > > http://bigthink.com/stephen-johnson/why-youre-probably- > related-to-nefertiti-and-confucius > Why You're Probably Related to Nefertiti, Confucius, and Socrates > December 7, 2017 by Stephen Johnson > .... > [J]ust how far back do humans need to go to find a common ancestor > of their own: a person to whom all living people are related? > > The answer, for people of European descent at least, is surprisingly > recent: 600 years. The common ancestor for every single person alive > on the planet today, no matter where, lived approximately 3,600 years > ago. That means Confucius, Nefertiti, Socrates, and any figure from > ancient history that had children, is in some way your ancestor. Unless I'm missing something, those last two sentences are a huge non sequitur. I have a slightly different take-away from the article: it says that everybody has a common ancestor who lived approximately 3,600 years ago. Isn't that exactly what the Torah says? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ben1456 at zahav.net.il Sat Dec 9 12:20:41 2017 From: ben1456 at zahav.net.il (Ben Waxman) Date: Sat, 09 Dec 2017 22:20:41 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Rambam Hilchot Shivtat Assur 3:3 Message-ID: Rambam Hilchot Shivtat Assur 3:3: The Rambam writes a clal: A minhag can not cancel something that is assur. A minhag can only prohibit something that is permitted. Is this rule seen as a veto or are there indeed issurim which have been become muttar via the power of minhag? From micha at aishdas.org Sat Dec 9 16:07:31 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Sat, 9 Dec 2017 19:07:31 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Your Ancestors In-Reply-To: References: <20171208141158.GA20389@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20171210000731.GB20169@aishdas.org> On Sat, Dec 09, 2017 at 06:27:13PM +0200, Simon Montagu via Avodah wrote: : > The answer, for people of European descent at least, is surprisingly : > recent: 600 years. The common ancestor for every single person alive : > on the planet today, no matter where, lived approximately 3,600 years : > ago. That means Confucius, Nefertiti, Socrates, and any figure from : > ancient history that had children, is in some way your ancestor. : Unless I'm missing something, those last two sentences are a huge non : sequitur. The author is just saying that the same model that giver the result of 600 years for Euopeans gives a result of 3,600 for all of humanity. : I have a slightly different take-away from the article: it says that : everybody has a common ancestor who lived approximately 3,600 years ago. : Isn't that exactly what the Torah says? Well, really the model says that everyone who is alive today almost certainly (this is statistics, after all) descended from everyone who was alive 3,600 who has /any/ living descendents. Not that there was one such ancestor. Gut Voch! -Micha -- Micha Berger What you get by achieving your goals micha at aishdas.org is not as important as http://www.aishdas.org what you become by achieving your goals. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Henry David Thoreau From ben1456 at zahav.net.il Sat Dec 9 12:59:26 2017 From: ben1456 at zahav.net.il (Ben Waxman) Date: Sat, 09 Dec 2017 22:59:26 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Rambam Hilchot Kiddush Hachodesh Message-ID: 1) Rambam Hilchot Kiddush Hachodesh 3:1 makes it clear that anyone who sees the new moon and can get to Jerusalem by the following evening should go. How would that work today given that basically means that every male in Israel who sees the moon should go (maybe men in Eilat who don't own a car would be patur). Were most (or even a small minority of) Israeli Jewish males above the age of 13 to look, there is no way that the Beit Din could even question all of these men, even if they only asked a couple of questions. Is there any problem in making sure that you don't see the moon? Just stay in for the evening. Rambam doesn't say that there is a chiyuv to look. Or since the Beit Din only takes testimony from trusted witnesses, can someone just say "I never got any type of certification that I am a good witness, therefore I don't need to go". Or how about having a few (say 100) men in each major city or region entrusted with the job and they would be the designated possible witnesses. 2) Rambam Hilchot Kiddush Hachodes 2:10 says clearly that once the beit din declares the new month, that is it, even if they know that they made a mistake. Yet in 3:15 and 16 Rambam writes that in the situation where no witnesses came on the 30th, if witnesses come later in the month and are able to prove that they did see the moon come out on the 29th, that month's calendar is redone. Is this not an obvious contradiction? I assume that I am reading 3:15 and 16 incorrectly or that I am getting something wrong here. 3) Later in the book Rambam goes on at length and in extreme detail about how to calculate the moon's position. He adds that we know these calculations from science and that since we no longer have a tradition about this matter from the nevi'im, it is fine to use outside sources. Seeing this made me wonder why we don't apply this rule in other areas. For example, I had read that we don't make matza from barley because we don't have a tradition as to how it takes barley to become chameitz. So why not measure it? Ben From simon.montagu at gmail.com Sat Dec 9 21:57:52 2017 From: simon.montagu at gmail.com (Simon Montagu) Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2017 07:57:52 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Your Ancestors In-Reply-To: <20171210000731.GB20169@aishdas.org> References: <20171208141158.GA20389@aishdas.org> <20171210000731.GB20169@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Sun, Dec 10, 2017 at 2:07 AM, Micha Berger wrote: > On Sat, Dec 09, 2017 at 06:27:13PM +0200, Simon Montagu via Avodah wrote: > : > The answer, for people of European descent at least, is > surprisingly > : > recent: 600 years. The common ancestor for every single person > alive > : > on the planet today, no matter where, lived approximately 3,600 > years > : > ago. That means Confucius, Nefertiti, Socrates, and any figure > from > : > ancient history that had children, is in some way your ancestor. > > : Unless I'm missing something, those last two sentences are a huge non > : sequitur. > > The author is just saying that the same model that giver the result > of 600 years for Euopeans gives a result of 3,600 for all of humanity. > > That's not the non sequitur. The non sequitur is going from "we have a common ancestor 3,600 years ago" to "Confucius and Socrates are your ancestors". Confucius and Socrates lived around 2500 years ago, and how does the author know that they had any living descendants? > : I have a slightly different take-away from the article: it says that > : everybody has a common ancestor who lived approximately 3,600 years ago. > : Isn't that exactly what the Torah says? > > Well, really the model says that everyone who is alive today almost > certainly (this is statistics, after all) descended from everyone who > was alive 3,600 who has /any/ living descendents. > Not that there was one such ancestor. > I haven't read the model, but the article you linked to talks several times about "/a/ common ancestor", "/a/" person to whom all living people are related", etc. > > Gut Voch! > -Micha > > -- > Micha Berger What you get by achieving your goals > micha at aishdas.org is not as important as > http://www.aishdas.org what you become by achieving your goals. > Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Henry David Thoreau > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From bdbradley70 at hotmail.com Sun Dec 10 14:22:59 2017 From: bdbradley70 at hotmail.com (Ben Bradley) Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2017 22:22:59 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] What are the main mitzvos to focus on? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I don't recall everything I've read on this subject of the purpose of talmud torah, but the conversation here so far seems to be missing a crucial piece, namely the transformative aspect of talmud torah on the individual learning it. The problem with the instrumental view is that it doesn't account for a number of aspects of the way chazal unanimously viewed talmud torah. If it was just about knowing how to keep the mitzvos then, I think, we'd have trouble with the following off the top of my head 1. The intensive way chazal went about talmud torah - the lack of sleep involved, the amora who sat on his hands until they bled, disappearing from family for years at a time 2. The viewing of talmud torah as a unending project 3. The depth and incisiveness of analysis expected in learning gemara. Eg being able to metaher a sheret 4. the lack of differentiation between learning issues of practical use and those which you will never need to know from a practical point of view Maybe I'm missing something, but knowing how to keep the mitzvos per se need not involve any of these. There are clear indications of the transformative nature of talmud torah in chazal, even if these aren't stated as its purpose explicitly. Perhaps there's a distinction between its purpose and the meaning of lishma. So learning torah lishma, whatever that means, is transformative, which is a primary purpose if not the only one. That would also bring talmud torah in line with the other mitzvos, since they all have a transformative benefit to the individual. It would also set it apart since it is more transformative than all the others, ie kneged kulam. It is the most transformative, and thus the most important. That said, considerations other than personal growth give priority to other mitzvos in many situations. Ben -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hankman at bell.net Mon Dec 11 06:11:22 2017 From: hankman at bell.net (hankman) Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2017 09:11:22 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Purpose of distant galaxies? Message-ID: <83F7EA9337D54E08891E46C1032C89FE@hankPC> I have just been watching a show on Discovery Science about a lay version of quantum mechanics. At one point the moderator was talking about the notion of entanglement and explained how in theory this involves the connection of entangled particles over any distance instantaneously. He then continued to say that given the big bang theory, all of existence was at a single point and then expanded (inflated) from then to the great distances, billions of light years, we witness today. But at the initial moment after the singularity, all the particles of the universe were close enough to possibly become entangled with some other, but then after the expansion, the partner entangled particle might have ended up in some distant far removed galaxy and but thereby still be related to its entangled partner particle perhaps now in our body here on Earth. I then thought back to some of the earlier discussions here on Avodah about the purpose of these distant galaxies that could never affect us here on Earth and that we did not even know existed until recently. Perhaps this possibility of entanglement with distant particles of those galaxies from the time of creation may provide some logic to the purpose of the existence of those distant galaxies? Happy Chanukah veKol tuv Chaim Manaster -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Mon Dec 11 09:33:33 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2017 12:33:33 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Rambam Hilchot Shivtat Assur 3:3 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20171211173333.GE15573@aishdas.org> On Sat, Dec 09, 2017 at 10:20:41PM +0200, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: : Rambam Hilchot Shivtat Assur 3:3: The Rambam writes a clal: A minhag : can not cancel something that is assur. A minhag can only prohibit : something that is permitted. Isn't the very definition of a minhag ta'us one that promotes doing an issur, or violating an asei? At least, violating an asei actively; I don't know if I would include a minhag not to fulfil an asei besheiv ve'al ta'aseh. That kind of thing would require more research. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Worrying is like a rocking chair: micha at aishdas.org it gives you something to do for a while, http://www.aishdas.org but in the end it gets you nowhere. Fax: (270) 514-1507 From micha at aishdas.org Tue Dec 12 13:53:43 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2017 16:53:43 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Women and Torah Study In-Reply-To: <9f94d416d3154585a6bb71a2df12c54e@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <9f94d416d3154585a6bb71a2df12c54e@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20171212215343.GA13817@aishdas.org> On Sun, Dec 03, 2017 at 06:40:43AM +0000, RJR reposted here a comment of his on a recent post on Lehrhaus: : Is encouraging intensive study of Talmud for women a community priority : or is the priority to make such study available for those who choose to : avail themselves of the opportunity? Especially if the former, where : does it stand in relation to other community priorities and how does : the answer differ from study for men? IMHO these questions have not been : sufficiently addressed. Do my concern resonate at all? Mod-Yeshivish (in contrast to other forms of MO) may argue that since learning primarily means shas and lomdus, and the iqar method for refining one's soul is learning, now that women are given the toolds to be able to make sense of Talmud, making it available to them is a community priority. To quote RALichtenstein from : What is the cardinal principle that lies at the heart, on the one hand, of Yeshiva education and, on the other hand, is the lynchpin of liberal education. It is, first and foremost, the notion that one is concerned with molding the person and only secondarily with preparing or training for the fulfillment of a certain role. John Cardinal Newman's statement, that "we are men by nature, geometrists only by chance," epitomizes this approach and it is one with respect to which, I have indicated, the Yeshiva world and the world of liberal education at its best coincide. Of course, that is not to suggest that preparing for a role, be it a domestic role, a professional role, or a communal role, is not important. It is important, but secondary. The first principle, I think, with regard to education generally, and which needs to be particularly emphasized in the field of women's education, is that first and foremost one needs to mold the person as an individual in all respects, with regard to character, personality, intellectual ability, and above all, of course, in religious terms, as an oved Hashem. ... If we ask ourselves: Here are the goals! "[leyir'ah, le'avah, la'avod, lishmor, ledavqah, lalekhet bekhol derakhav]," to fear [God], to love [God], to serve [God], to cling [to Him] to go in all His ways." What are the means? Traditionally, over the centuries, there has been a fairly sharp dichotomy precisely regarding this very issue, namely the means to be employed in relation to men versus women... This is not the occasion to examine whether that was justified historically. What is clear, however, is that notwithstanding how one judges the past retrospectively, in our present historical and social setting we need to view the teaching and the learning of girls and women as both a major challenge, as well as a primary need. ... But this is creating a role for halakhah study out of whole cloth that is really RAL's chiddush. After all, historically curricula for girls' and women did include character-shaping material, but OVERTLY so -- mussar, hashkafah and the lessons in each taken from studying Tanakh. And leave halakhah to learning the job, rather than liberal arts. And I would repeat a point made by RYGB when asked about this topic: Where is the evidence that our current boys' curriculum works so well that we're in a rush to make the curriculum for girls' more similar to it? In general, the yeshivish -- including the ModY -- take NhC shaar 4 to mean that learning refines the soul in some mystical way. Just learn, and the problem will solve itself. Whereas I personally think the data points the other way. And that the NhC intended that statement prescriptively -- true talmud Torah is learning in a way that consciously aims to refine the soul. Which is why there is all that Mussar and Middos talk around AishDas and its web site. My own inclination, and this really just translates to "my parents provided a RWMO upbrining" (with some variety thrown in in the form of school choices), would be that we can't prioritize providing talmud study for women over clear-cut chiyuvim. Talmud study should be made available, but for those women who feel a need for talmud study. Which puts me in the same camp as the LR's effective position. Women coming to kiruv with egalitarian leanings were encouraged by the LR to learn Talmud if they wish to. But you wont find a gemara class in Beis Rivka. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "And you shall love H' your G-d with your whole micha at aishdas.org heart, your entire soul, and all you own." http://www.aishdas.org Love is not two who look at each other, Fax: (270) 514-1507 It is two who look in the same direction. From micha at aishdas.org Wed Dec 13 03:30:34 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2017 06:30:34 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Rambam Hilchot Kiddush Hachodesh In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20171213113034.GB7576@aishdas.org> On Sat, Dec 09, 2017 at 10:59:26PM +0200, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: : 1) Rambam Hilchot Kiddush Hachodesh 3:1 makes it clear that anyone : who sees the new moon and can get to Jerusalem by the following : evening should go. How would that work today.... And then think what happens if the calculations were for a long month. The guy invests all that effort just to get to locked Lishkas haGazis doors. I would be frustrated. But to get to your question. I think that's a taqanah in order to insure that there is eidus. Rather than everyone saying someone else will go. There is no how that would work today, since you need a Sanhedrin to make it work. But isn't this a derabbnan, to make sure all those who see the moon don't assume someone else will go, and there ends up not having 2 kosher eidim? So, if the the next Sanhedrin finds that too many people are coming / would come and we're far from needing such a guarantee, they can repeal this din. : 2) Rambam Hilchot Kiddush Hachodes 2:10 says clearly that once the : beit din declares the new month, that is it, even if they know that : they made a mistake. Yet in 3:15 and 16 Rambam writes that in the : situation where no witnesses came on the 30th, if witnesses come : later in the month and are able to prove that they did see the moon : come out on the 29th, that month's calendar is redone. Is this not : an obvious contradiction? I assume that I am reading 3:15 and 16 : incorrectly or that I am getting something wrong here. The famous story of the calendar dispute between Rabban Gamliel and R' Yehoshua (RH 2:8-9) includes R' Aqiva saying, "Eileh mo'adei H' asher tiqre'u osam" -- bein bizmanan, bein shelo bizmanan, ein Li mo'ados ela eilu. Which is what the Rambam is saying in 2:10. He quotes R' Aqiva's prooftext. In that mishnah, both R' Gamliel and R' Yehoshua knew the metzi'us, they were arguing over whether to accept the eidim despite a flaw in their story. They may have even been arguing about the cheshbon, and whether there was a need to accept whatever eidim one had. The beginning of mishnah 9 has R' Gamliel ordering R' Yehoshua to show up "beyom haKippurim shechal lihyos *becheshbonkha*". There may be a difference between making a mistake in terms of decision-making and making one because they were working with bad or incomplete data. 2:20 is about their decision being wrong, 3:15-16 is about a lack of eidus. An error in the cheshbon or perhaps decision in general vs an error in facts. While this guess about p' 2 is less than compelling, it would seem that in p' 3 he is empowering a BD to go back to their cheshbon when they were forced by a lack of testimony to lengthen the month despite it. After all, 3:15 describes BD sitting all of the 30th, meaning wanting a short month, without witnesses comming. So I feel more comfortable with that part of the guess. Maybe R' Yehoshua would have renegged without needing R' Aqiva had other eidim arrived days later to corroborate the first two. : 3) Later in the book Rambam goes on at length and in extreme detail : about how to calculate the moon's position. He adds that we know : these calculations from science and that since we no longer have a : tradition about this matter from the nevi'im, it is fine to use : outside sources. Seeing this made me wonder why we don't apply this : rule in other areas. For example, I had read that we don't make : matza from barley because we don't have a tradition as to how it : takes barley to become chameitz. So why not measure it? But lemaaseh we don't, because we need a Sanhedrin to make a RC. For that matter, we even pad when we say Qiddush Levanah, making the one day difference irrelevent. So what halakhah lemaaseh is the Rambam talking about, that relies on the calculations? Giving license to the next Sanhedrin? I am not even sure we know the scientific difference between chameitz and sirchah. Or even if there is one. Why is dough made with 100% juice a different thing than if the juice were diluted, or if it were all water? If we don't know what it is we should measure, how can we use science to measure it? I think it has to be something like that, because the lack of barley matzah isn't a modern issue. And the ability to measure rising doesn't require some modern measuring equipment. So, why was the question left unsolved by centuries of acharonim if it were resolable? Similarly, we know the medical communities' various definitions of death. (They're all pretty similar.) But we don't know if halachic misah would use the same definition. But even those who stick with heart death would use the latest scientific tools to determine whether or not the person had their last heartbeat (lo aleinu). So I would posit the issue is a chiluq between using science to determine the physical state vs having a pesaq as to what physical state needs determining. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Like a bird, man can reach undreamed-of micha at aishdas.org heights as long as he works his wings. http://www.aishdas.org But if he relaxes them for but one minute, Fax: (270) 514-1507 he plummets downward. - Rav Yisrael Salanter From JRich at sibson.com Wed Dec 13 21:39:28 2017 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2017 05:39:28 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] S"A Principles Message-ID: Question: I note that the S"A O"C 158:10 (Hand Washing) quotes the Gemara (R'Chisda) in support of using more than the minimum required amount of water for hand washing. Given the Mechaber's goal that the Shulchan Aruch be a halachic summary of his magnum opus, the Beit Yosef, does anyone know of a theory as to why the Mechaber in some cases quotes Talmudic sources (or Torah or Rishonim) and in others just states the halacha? Any study of the frequency of such quotes? KT 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: From akivagmiller at gmail.com Wed Dec 13 19:40:54 2017 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2017 22:40:54 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Rambam Hilchot Kiddush Hachodesh Message-ID: . (I don't know if this post will help understand Kiddush Hachodesh or not. If yes, I'm glad I could help. If not, I apologize for the distraction.) R' Micha Berger asked: > I am not even sure we know the scientific difference between > chameitz and sirchah. Or even if there is one. Why is dough > made with 100% juice a different thing than if the juice were > diluted, or if it were all water? If we don't know what it is > we should measure, how can we use science to measure it? I agree that WE don't know the scientific difference between chametz and sirchon, but it seems clear to me that such a difference does exist, and Chazal understood it. See the very beginning of Yerushalmi Challah, page 1b1 in the ArtScroll English version. "Badku Umatz'u" - They tested various grains, to see what happens when their flour is mixed with water. They found that The Five Grains underwent "chimutz", while *most* other grains fermented in the manner called "sirchon". (For some grains, the tests were inconclusive.) There is no Kabala From Sinai that defines these processes in terms of the grains, the liquids, or anything else. If you knew what to look for, you could look at a dough and tell whether it was chometz - without even knowing the ingredients. > I think it has to be something like that, because the lack of > barley matzah isn't a modern issue. And the ability to measure > rising doesn't require some modern measuring equipment. So, > why was the question left unsolved by centuries of acharonim > if it were resolvable? The problem isn't in the equipment. It's knowing what to look for. The tamay birds are all listed in Parshas Shmini. You don't need a degree in genetics to determine whether the bird in your hand is on the list or not. The only problem is that no one today knows what those words mean. Just like we don't really understand the difference between chimutz and sirchon. And no amount of pilpul among the "centuries of acharonim" is gonna help. Akiva Miller From micha at aishdas.org Thu Dec 14 03:27:18 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2017 06:27:18 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Rambam Hilchot Kiddush Hachodesh In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20171214112718.GA11145@aishdas.org> On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 10:40:54PM -0500, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : See the very beginning of Yerushalmi Challah, page [16]b1 in the : ArtScroll English version. "Badku Umatz'u" - They tested various : grains, to see what happens when their flour is mixed with water. They : found that The Five Grains underwent "chimutz", while *most* other : grains fermented in the manner called "sirchon". (For some grains, the : tests were inconclusive.) (Artscroll must have just one page of 16b, since that's near the bottom of the amud.) Assuming you understand the machloqes aa being about metzi'us. Which I did not. Aside from a reluctance to pin machloqesin on matters of fact even in the Y-mi, where there are cases it seems unaviodable. There are other problems: 1- EVERY other grain but these 5 produced something in between chimutz and sirchon that only R Yochanan b Nuri thought looked like chimutz? Not one of the experiments had another dissenter? 2- Why wouldn't later generations try to get clarity by repeating the experiment? As I took it (and wrote as much in prior iterations), R Yochanan b Nuri and the chakhamim were arguing over where the line is between chimutz and sirchon. They agreed on what happened when you mix a grain other than the 5 with water -- the gemara describes the experimental result as "ushe'ar kol haminim einan ba'in liydei matzah vechameitz elas sirchon." Then it continues the machloqes (running onto 17a), this time asking about qeramis in particular. And the gemara asks: Why they don't just check it? The first check's results were written open-and-shut. Here we are given RYBN differing obseration. As I took it, RYBN disagreed only in that he considers sirchon prohibited as chameitz. They argue about which side of the line sirchon is on because the machloqes is about where the line is. Which is why the gemara is so clear cut on the first test. And this is is why I lunped it together with other cases of halakhah deciding where in the gray area set of physical cases halakhah draws the line. : There is no Kabala From Sinai that defines these processes in terms of : the grains, the liquids, or anything else. If you knew what to look : for, you could look at a dough and tell whether it was chometz - : without even knowing the ingredients. ... and we don't know what to look for. :> I think it has to be something like that, because the lack of :> barley matzah isn't a modern issue. And the ability to measure :> rising doesn't require some modern measuring equipment. So, :> why was the question left unsolved by centuries of acharonim :> if it were resolvable? : The problem isn't in the equipment. It's knowing what to look for. As I said, it "has to be something like that", since the physical question could have been resolved, or at the very least repeatedly attempted to be resolved. You appear to be arguing against the hava amina I took pains to reject. But, unlike rice, where miSinai we could have known whether its sitchon qualifies as chameitz or not or the machloqes could have arisen later, with barley we know the uncertainty is caused by lost information. : The tamay birds are all listed in Parshas Shmini. You don't need a : degree in genetics to determine whether the bird in your hand is on : the list or not.,,, Ironically, defining a "min" is not settled halakhah either. Ask the Israelis debating whether we know that any breed of chicken other than the breakel chicken (or, I would guess the American campine) is halachically chicken and within the mesorah. Or the counter-arguers, who want to pasl braekel chickens... I am not saying I understand the metzi'us of the debate, but it does highlight how hard it is to draw halachic lines in the physical sand. So, even if we could translate the name of every min in parashas Shemini, we could still not know whether the bird in my hand is included in one of the minim on the list or not. As we could argue whether the genetic test found something on one side of the line defining the min, or the other -- because we don't know where the line is. A lichtikn un freilechn Chanukah! -Micha -- Micha Berger When we are no longer able to change a situation micha at aishdas.org -- just think of an incurable disease such as http://www.aishdas.org inoperable cancer -- we are challenged to change Fax: (270) 514-1507 ourselves. - Victor Frankl (MSfM) From Aryeh.Frimer at biu.ac.il Thu Dec 14 05:03:04 2017 From: Aryeh.Frimer at biu.ac.il (Aryeh Frimer) Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2017 13:03:04 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Tevilat Kelim Message-ID: Has anyone seen a discussion regarding one who said "al haTevila" (which women recite when going to mikva) instead of "Al tevilat Kelim." Is the Berakha valid be-Di-avad? A Freilichen Hanukah!! -------------------------------------------------- Dr. Aryeh A. Frimer Ethel and David Resnick Professor Emeritus of Active Oxygen Chemistry Chemistry Dept., Bar-Ilan University Ramat Gan 5290002, ISRAEL E-mail (office): Aryeh.Frimer at biu.ac.il Homepage http://ch.biu.ac.il/frimer E-mail (home): FrimerA at zahav.net.il From ben1456 at zahav.net.il Fri Dec 15 02:45:55 2017 From: ben1456 at zahav.net.il (Ben Waxman) Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2017 12:45:55 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Rambam Hilchot Kiddush Hachodesh In-Reply-To: <20171213113034.GB7576@aishdas.org> References: <20171213113034.GB7576@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <3554ff1b-2c53-bf1d-b688-0202a1eae13a@zahav.net.il> It must be something like that. After reading through Kiddush Hachodesh I was left with a huge question as to the incredible detail; 100 times more detailed than say his Hilchot Pesach. Ben On 12/13/2017 1:30 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > So what halakhah lemaaseh is the Rambam > talking about, that relies on the calculations? Giving license to > the next Sanhedrin? From michaelpoppers at gmail.com Thu Dec 14 18:17:15 2017 From: michaelpoppers at gmail.com (Michael Poppers) Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2017 21:17:15 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] zmanim Message-ID: >From R'Micha: > Li nir'eh there is value to the "in sync with nature" approach of Chazal that we lose when we think about clock time rather than the cycles of the sun (a/k/a the earth's spin). ? > ? Much the way we lose a lot of what the yamim tovim mean because we aren't living in agrarian communities, and don't feel the joy of new wheat and barley when we celebrate our birth as a people, or the joy of bringing in the year's fruit when we celebrate how HQBH sustained us in the midbar. < ...or the meaning of "Yotzer Or", etc. because we're not davening those pre- *Shma* *b'rachos* at the "right" time w/ a view of the brightening sky. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Fri Dec 15 06:55:30 2017 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2017 14:55:30 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Why does Yosef command the Egyptians to circumcise Message-ID: <1513349727386.22540@stevens.edu> See https://goo.gl/1AP3eB Rashi on Bereshis 41:55 says what he tells you, do: Since Joseph had ordered them to circumcise themselves, and when they came to Pharaoh and said, "This is what he said to us," he (Pharaoh) said to them, "Why didn't you gather grain? Didn't he announce to you that years of famine were coming?" They replied, "We gathered much, but it rotted." He (Pharaoh) replied,"If so, do whatever he tells you. He issued a decree upon the grain, and it rotted. What if he issues a decree upon us and we die?" - [from Mid. Tanchuma Mikeitz 7, Gen. Rabbah 91:5] Why did Yosef order them to do that? See the above URL for three explanations. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Fri Dec 15 06:57:57 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2017 09:57:57 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Rambam Hilchot Kiddush Hachodesh In-Reply-To: <3554ff1b-2c53-bf1d-b688-0202a1eae13a@zahav.net.il> References: <20171213113034.GB7576@aishdas.org> <3554ff1b-2c53-bf1d-b688-0202a1eae13a@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <20171215145757.GB28181@aishdas.org> On Fri, Dec 15, 2017 at 12:45:55PM +0200, Ben Waxman wrote: : On 12/13/2017 1:30 PM, Micha Berger wrote: :> So what halakhah lemaaseh is the Rambam :> talking about, that relies on the calculations? Giving license to :> the next Sanhedrin? : It must be something like that. After reading through Kiddush : Hachodesh I was left with a huge question as to the incredible : detail; 100 times more detailed than say his Hilchot Pesach. My guess, and I hope it's not too lesse majest for a public posting: The Rambam was a math geek who simply enjoyed this kind of stuff. It cannot be that the Rambam thought the future chavrei Sanhedrin would need his text for this more than his usual coverage. Leshitaso, one wouldn't be qualified to be a dayan without a strong background in all 7 chokhmos. That last line being an opening to a Chanukah tangent about Chokhmah Yevanis being a necessary study for a member of the Sanhedrin. So, Chanukah celebrates a victory over Yavan (in the sense of Hellenism) and a step toward reestablishing the Sanhedrin, who were expected to utilize "yaft E-lokim leYefes, veyishkon be'ohalei Sheim". An enlightening and happy Chanukah and :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Brains to the lazy micha at aishdas.org are like a torch to the blind -- http://www.aishdas.org a useless burden. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Bechinas haOlam From micha at aishdas.org Sat Dec 16 16:09:45 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2017 19:09:45 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Mamlekhat Chimyar Message-ID: <20171217000945.GA16968@aishdas.org> I stumbled across reference to the Humyarite Kingdom, which existed from 110 bce - 525 ce. Based in Yemen, ruled over much of the Arabian Peninsula. It seems that they went Jewish. (Shades of the Khazars.) See : > The Himyarite kings appear to have abandoned polytheism and converted > to Judaism around the year 380, several decades after the conversion of > the Ethiopian Kingdom of Aksum to Christianity (340), though no changes > occurred in its script, calendar, or language (unlike Aksum).[7] This > date marks the end of an era in which numerous inscriptions record the > names and deeds of kings, and dedicate buildings to local (e.g. Wagal > and Simyada) and major (e.g. Almaqah) gods. From the 380s, temples were > abandoned and dedications to the old gods ceased, replaced by references > to Rahmanan, "the Lord of Heaven" or "Lord of Heaven and Earth".[8] The > political context for this conversion may have been Arabia's interest > in maintaining neutrality and good trade relations with the competing > empires of Byzantium, which first adopted Christianity under Constantine > the Great and the Sasanian Empire, which alternated between Zurvanism > and Manichaeism.[9] ... > During this period, references to pagan gods disappeared from royal > inscriptions and texts on public buildings, and were replaced by > references to a single deity. Inscriptions in the Sabean language, and > sometimes Hebrew, called this deity Rahman (the Merciful), "Lord of the > Heavens and Earth," the "God of Israel" and "Lord of the Jews." Prayers > invoking Rahman's blessings on the "people of Israel" often ended with > the Hebrew words shalom and amen. [16] I wonder about the kashrus of the conversion, and did it pose a rei'usa when discussing the Jewishness of Teimani immigrants to Israel. A lichtikn un freilechn Chanukah un a gutt voch! -Micha -- Micha Berger Life isn't about finding yourself micha at aishdas.org Life is about creating yourself. http://www.aishdas.org - Bernard Shaw Fax: (270) 514-1507 From micha at aishdas.org Sun Dec 17 05:51:57 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2017 08:51:57 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] New Cancer Treatment Message-ID: <20171217135058.GC5@aishdas.org> This news story showed up in two of my RSS subscriptions: Hijacked sperm carry chemo drugs to cervical cancer cells https://www.newscientist.com/article/2156525-hijacked-sperm-carry-chemo-drugs-to-cervical-cancer-cells or http://j.mp/2yLROJ1 and Killing Cancer with Spermbots http://bigthink.com/robby-berman/killing-cancer-with-spermbots In my neck of the O woods, everyone holds like R' Moshe, that children produced by IVF-donor would not be mamzeirim. BUT... according to the machmirim (eg the Satmar Rav), would an eishes kohein who recieved this treatment have to get divorced? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger You are not a human being in search micha at aishdas.org of a spiritual experience. You are a http://www.aishdas.org spiritual being immersed in a human Fax: (270) 514-1507 experience. - Pierre Teilhard de Chardin From larry62341 at optonline.net Sun Dec 17 06:22:06 2017 From: larry62341 at optonline.net (Prof. Levine) Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2017 09:22:06 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] The Downtown Chanukiah Message-ID: Please see the video at https://goo.gl/dgSTLv In this video Rabbi Anthony Manning discusses the halachic aspects of where one should light the Chanukah menorah at home as well as the Chabad practice of lighting menorahs in public places and whether or not the person lighting such a menorah should make a bracha. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From zev at sero.name Sun Dec 17 06:20:59 2017 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2017 09:20:59 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] New Cancer Treatment In-Reply-To: <20171217135058.GC5@aishdas.org> References: <20171217135058.GC5@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <8550baa4-198d-536a-b249-d5c2d207bb86@sero.name> On 17/12/17 08:51, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > BUT... according to the machmirim (eg the Satmar Rav), would an eishes > kohein who recieved this treatment have to get divorced? I wouldn't think so. There's still no act of zenus. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From micha at aishdas.org Sun Dec 17 11:53:27 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2017 14:53:27 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] New Cancer Treatment In-Reply-To: <8550baa4-198d-536a-b249-d5c2d207bb86@sero.name> References: <20171217135058.GC5@aishdas.org> <8550baa4-198d-536a-b249-d5c2d207bb86@sero.name> Message-ID: <20171217195326.GD5@aishdas.org> On Sun, Dec 17, 2017 at 09:20:59AM -0500, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : On 17/12/17 08:51, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: :>BUT... according to the machmirim (eg the Satmar Rav), would an eishes :>kohein who recieved this treatment have to get divorced? : I wouldn't think so. There's still no act of zenus. There is a machloqes Chakhamim and R' Aqiva as to whether only issurei kareis (except niddah) create mamzeirim, or any issur. And yet the Satmar Rav holds that IE-D creates mamzeirim. And one could equally argue there is no act of zenus. So, I parked my intuition at the door when trying to understand his shitah. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The thought of happiness that comes from outside micha at aishdas.org the person, brings him sadness. But realizing http://www.aishdas.org the value of one's will and the freedom brought Fax: (270) 514-1507 by uplifting its, brings great joy. - R' Kook From zev at sero.name Sun Dec 17 12:20:24 2017 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2017 15:20:24 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] New Cancer Treatment In-Reply-To: <20171217195326.GD5@aishdas.org> References: <20171217135058.GC5@aishdas.org> <8550baa4-198d-536a-b249-d5c2d207bb86@sero.name> <20171217195326.GD5@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <5862ca9f-c908-4756-d082-0b20f6dc428f@sero.name> On 17/12/17 14:53, Micha Berger wrote: > There is a machloqes Chakhamim and R' Aqiva as to whether only issurei > kareis (except niddah) create mamzeirim, or any issur. And yet the > Satmar Rav holds that IE-D creates mamzeirim. And one could equally > argue there is no act of zenus. > > So, I parked my intuition at the door when trying to understand his > shitah. as I understand the machlokes, it's precisely over whether an act of zenus is necessary to create a mamzer. The SR (aiui) holds it is not, therefore although no issur was done with IED the child is nevertheless a mamzer. Here too, the SR would presumably hold that although there's no act of zenus, and therefore the treatment is permitted, should any child result it would be a mamzer. But I haven't seen the SR's shitah inside, so I'm relying on 3rd-hand transmission which may have garbled important points. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From llevine at stevens.edu Sun Dec 17 13:35:04 2017 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2017 21:35:04 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] How did Yosef showing his circumcision prove anything? Message-ID: <1513546500734.24127@stevens.edu> From https://goo.gl/L634gH Rashi to 45:4 says that when Yosef told his brothers to approach him, it was to show them his circumcision (presumably to prove he was Jewish). But how would that prove anything? All of Egypt had been circumcised already, as Rashi says on 41:55. If his showing his circumcision wasn't to prove he was Jewish, why did he do it? See the above URL for answers. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cantorwolberg at cox.net Sun Dec 17 11:40:31 2017 From: cantorwolberg at cox.net (Richard Wolberg) Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2017 14:40:31 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Vayigash Message-ID: The first three words of the Sidra: Vayigash eilav Yehuda mean that Judah approached Joseph to speak to him. The m?forshim bring out that they communicated through interpreters since officially, (the brothers thought) Joseph didn?t speak Hebrew and the brothers didn?t speak Egyptian. The baal haturim and the m?forshim point out the last letter of the first three words (shin, vov, hey) spell shaveh which means ?equal.? Judah is implying to Joseph: ?I am equal to you. You think you?re a king; I?m also a king.? According to this interpretation, Judah spoke very sharply to Joseph. The Vilna Gaon brings out a fascinating insight on the trope of the first six words which is kadma v?azla r?vi?I, zarka, munach segol. The Vilna Gaon explains that the trope here explains the meaning of these words. Kadma v?azla in Aramaic meaning kadam v?awzal, he (Judah) stepped forward, Yehudah has a r?vi?i, since Judah was the fourth son. So why the fourth son? Because zarka, he was going to be thrown out, munach segol from being able to rest in Gan Eden. Since Judah cursed himself that if he doesn?t bring Binyamin back, he would be damned in both worlds ? in this world and in the world to come. (Segula which means ?treasure? from Segol comes to mean here Gan Eden). When the sons finally tell Jacob that Joseph still lives (45:26), the m?forshim resolve a theological problem that arose in parashas Vayeshev (37:35). For there we read about Jacob: ?and his sons and daughters wished to comfort him and he refused to be consoled.? Isn?t it one of the basic articles of faith to accept God?s judgment and to welcome the comforting offered by others. Why did Jacob refuse? Our Sages sensed this anomaly and gave a brilliant answer, ?For no condolences are accepted over the living" (see Rashi on 37:35). Yes, Jacob refused to accept condolences because he had a faint ray of hope that Joseph might be alive. A psychologist might explain it as ?wishful thinking.? In any event, his ray of hope was vindicated when he found out that Joseph was indeed alive (and that is why he originally refused to accept the condolences offered by all the people). Hope is being able to see that there is light despite all of the darkness. Desmond Tutu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cantorwolberg at cox.net Sun Dec 17 16:16:32 2017 From: cantorwolberg at cox.net (Richard Wolberg) Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2017 19:16:32 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] S"A Principles Message-ID: <8A9BD2E2-0BDC-4728-B1B3-792480A73CEE@cox.net> Reb Joel asks: does anyone know of a theory as to why the Mechaber in some cases quotes Talmudic sources (or Torah or Rishonim) and in others just states the halacha? My theory is that when it is either a well known halacha and no reason to question it or at least, when the Mechaber thought it to be indisputable, then it was felt there was no reason to quote sources. OTOH, if was felt that there would be many questioning it, then the sources quoted would obviate that from occurring. From micha at aishdas.org Sun Dec 17 17:15:28 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2017 20:15:28 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] [Tvunah] Teabag on Shabbos Message-ID: <20171218011528.GA22955@aishdas.org> This pesaq by R' Asher Weiss surprised me. Tea Bag on Shabbos Tvunah in English by Rabbi Akiva Dershowitz Question: Does a tea bag [used in a kli shlishi] need to be removed from the cup with a spoon on Shabbos, to avoid issues of borrer? What about holding it over the cup to avoid dripping on the table, to allow drips to fall into the cup? Answer: The tea bag may be removed normally, and may be held to allow drips to fall back in to the cup. I was told at a young age to take the teabag out by spoon, making sure to take tea out along with the bag. For boreier reasons. So, as I said, I found this pesaq surprising. The actual teshuvah in Hebrew is on that page. RAW finds a precedent in Rashi on Shabbos 140a, who discusses the mishnah allowing one to put straw in a sieve in a feed trough. Rashi says "even though the motz will fall on our own, as it's a davar she'ein miskavein -- and the mishnah holds like R' Shim'on. And see SA OC 319:8, who makes it clear (which it isnt' from Rashi, see teshuvah) that even if the boreir will certainly occur, it's still mutar. Pesiq reishei, but not melekhes machasheves, and still mutar. Similarly in Nishmas Adam 18:2. An enlightening and anjoyable Chanukah! -Micha -- Micha Berger We look forward to the time micha at aishdas.org when the power to love http://www.aishdas.org will replace the love of power. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - William Ewart Gladstone From Aryeh.Frimer at biu.ac.il Sun Dec 17 23:09:04 2017 From: Aryeh.Frimer at biu.ac.il (Aryeh Frimer) Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2017 07:09:04 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Using "Al haTevila" for tevilat Kelim Message-ID: Rav Zvi Cohen, in his Encyclopedic Tevilat Kelim: Rules that be-Di-avad Al haTevila is valid. I was surprised by this since the Mehaber in Bet Yosef explicitly rules against this shita (for le-khatehilla) and holds in SA that one should say "Al Tevilat Kelim." Having done so, to say "Al haTevilah" would not be "Matbe'ah sheTavu Hakhamim." Any ideas? -------------------------------------------------- Dr. Aryeh A. Frimer Ethel and David Resnick Professor Emeritus of Active Oxygen Chemistry Chemistry Dept., Bar-Ilan University Ramat Gan 5290002, ISRAEL E-mail (office): Aryeh.Frimer at biu.ac.il Homepage http://ch.biu.ac.il/frimer Tel: 972-3-5318610; Fax: 972-3-7384053 Tel Home: 972-8-9473819/9470834 E-mail (home): FrimerA at zahav.net.il Cellphone: 972-54-7540761 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hankman at bell.net Mon Dec 18 06:16:44 2017 From: hankman at bell.net (hankman) Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2017 09:16:44 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Rambam Hilchot Kiddush Hachodesh -- on "min" Message-ID: <0C71CBB0F1E145B89D102DAA516AF81A@hankPC> R. Micha Berger wrote: ?Ironically, defining a "min" is not settled halakhah either.? CM asks: If I am not mistaken the modern secular definition of ?species? is based on whether the populations can interbreed or not. Do we know with any certainty that the Torah rejects this criteria as a determinant of ?min?? Kol tuv Chaim Manaster --- This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. http://www.avg.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Mon Dec 18 07:05:39 2017 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2017 15:05:39 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Yehudah Speaking to Yosef Message-ID: <1513609536405.23616@stevens.edu> In what l language did Yehudah speak to Yosef. Was it Hebrew and was the translator present to "translate" for Yosef? The Chumash does not mention a translator in this week's parasha. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jont at traumatic.us Mon Dec 18 11:56:26 2017 From: jont at traumatic.us (Jonathan Traum) Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2017 14:56:26 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Rambam Hilchot Kiddush Hachodesh In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <622ffda5-c446-82f3-45b0-18da6c93f6da@traumatic.us> On 12/09/2017 03:59 PM, Ben Waxman wrote: > 1) Rambam Hilchot Kiddush Hachodesh 3:1 makes it clear that anyone who > sees the new moon and can get to Jerusalem by the following evening > should go. ... > [snip] > Is there any problem in making sure that you don't see the moon? Just > stay in for the evening. Rambam doesn't say that there is a chiyuv to > look. I imagine that most people wouldn't have to worry about it.? On the 30th day after the previous Rosh Hodesh, the tiny crescent moon would only be visible for a short time after sunset and before moonset, and only to those who have an unobstructed view of the western horizon. Jonathan Traum From zev at sero.name Mon Dec 18 13:02:48 2017 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2017 16:02:48 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Using "Al haTevila" for tevilat Kelim In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <725ae5c3-d6de-7ce1-60c9-1defc191ac9d@sero.name> On 18/12/17 02:09, Aryeh Frimer via Avodah wrote: > ?Rav Zvi *Cohen*,?in his Encyclopedic *Tevilat Kelim*: Rules that > be-Di-avad Al haTevila is valid. > > I was surprised by this since the Mehaber in Bet Yosef explicitly rules > against this shita ?(for le-khatehilla) and holds in SA? that one should > say ?Al Tevilat Kelim.??? Having done so, to say ?Al haTevilah? would > not be ?Matbe?ah sheTavu Hakhamim.?? ?Any ideas? > "Al hatevilah" *is* a coinage of the chachamim, just not the one they prescribed for this occasion. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From llevine at stevens.edu Mon Dec 18 23:37:41 2017 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2017 07:37:41 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Did the Patriarchs Speak Hebrew? Message-ID: <1513669061621.40139@stevens.edu> >From the article at https://goo.gl/Z3QWs2 Ramban says: It is possible that he said this to them simply as a means of pacifying them, for there was no proof [that he was Joseph] in the fact that someone in Egypt should speak in the Holy Tongue. In my opinion, Hebrew was a Canaanite language. For Abraham did not bring it from Ur of the Chaldees [in Mesopotamia] and from Haran, for there they spoke Aramaic, as the incident of the pile of stones erected by Laban and Jacob proves [see Gen. 31:47]. And it was not a private language spoken by a single person but a language of Canaan, and many people in Egypt knew it for the countries were close together--particularly the ruler, for it is customary for kings and rulers to know several languages. For his assertion that Hebrew is "a Canannite language" Ramban makes reference to Isaiah, who does thus refer to Hebrew: "On that day there will be five cities in the land of Egypt that speak the language of Canaan and swear by the Lord of hosts" (Isa. 19:18). That the original language of the Patriarchs (Abraham, Isaac and Jacob) was Aramaic is proved to Ramban's mind by virtue of the fact that Laban gave the name "Yegar-sahaduta" to what Jacob called "Gal-ed" (Gen. 31:47), The former had remained in Mesopotamia and continued to speak Aramaic (which Ramban thinks was spoken in Ur and in Haran), while Jacob, who had grown up in Canaan, had learnt the local language. Please see the above URL for much more on this topic. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gershonseif at mail.yahoo.com Tue Dec 19 08:23:45 2017 From: gershonseif at mail.yahoo.com (Gershon Seif) Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2017 16:23:45 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Avodah] Did the Patriarchs Speak Hebrew? In-Reply-To: <1513669061621.40139@stevens.edu> References: <1513669061621.40139@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <949360216.1197555.1513700625794@mail.yahoo.com> Leavining Avraham Avinu aside, what is the Ramban's view about the language spoken by Adam HaRishon? ie. Naming his wife Chava and assigning names to all the animals?If the Ramban concurs that these names were given in lashon hakodesh, then he agrees that it was the first language. No? Unless you say that lashon hakodesh was one of at least 2 languages that Adam spoke and he reserved it for holy purposes only, such as giving these names. And I suppose that would be along the lines of the other Ramban quoted there which says that it's called Lashon Hakodesh because it's the language that Hashem used to convey the Torah. On Tuesday, December 19, 2017 1:37 AM, Professor L. Levine wrote: > From the article at https://goo.gl/Z3QWs2 > Ramban says: >> It is possible that he said this to them simply as a means of >> pacifying them, for there was no proof [that he was Joseph] in the fact >> that someone in Egypt should speak in the Holy Tongue. In my opinion, >> Hebrew was a Canaanite language. For Abraham did not bring it from Ur >> of the Chaldees [in Mesopotamia] and from Haran, for there they spoke >> Aramaic... From micha at aishdas.org Tue Dec 19 09:05:08 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2017 12:05:08 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Did the Patriarchs Speak Hebrew? In-Reply-To: <1513669061621.40139@stevens.edu> References: <1513669061621.40139@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20171219170508.GC27362@aishdas.org> On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 07:37:41AM +0000, Professor L. Levine via Avodah wrote: : From the article at : https://goo.gl/Z3QWs2 : : Ramban says: : : It is possible that he said this to them simply as a means of : pacifying them, for there was no proof [that he was Joseph] in : the fact that someone in Egypt should speak in the Holy Tongue. In : my opinion, Hebrew was a Canaanite language... ... and yet also lashon haqodesh. And to the Ramban (on "sheqel haqodesh" in parashas Sheqalim), this is because it's the language in which Hashem created the world and in which the Torah and Nakh were written. And leshitaso, the letters of the Torah, if not their breakup into words, preceded creation. The notion that the avos spoke Aramaic is in Vayiqra Rabba on 32:5. The Medrash Peliyah (#166) concludes that even Adam did! This is a comment about Sarah's death in "Qiryas Araba". The Niv Sefasayim explains that the medrash is getting this from the use of the Aramaic term "qirya". But I don't see how we know this was the name of the cite from back when Adam and Chava were buried there; or how else this moved the line to any time before Efron. R Yonasan Eibschitz (Tif'eres Yehonasan on Bereishis 11:1) that Adam spoke LhQ before the cheit, and Aramaic after. Fore that matter, Medrash Tanchuma (beginning of Devarim in Buber) and Medrash Seikhel Tov (Shemos 4:11) say Adam spoke all 70 languages. Requires a new peshat in what happened at Migdal Bavel, no? I am not to clear on the whole thing. Languages evolve, so that if one were to trace them out over time, one would draw a tree or a bush. Adam's proto-Semitic, or proto-proto-proto... everything is an ancestor of all language. I could call it early Hebrew if I wanted, and claim that Hebrew is the trunk from which other languages branched off. But that's just a decision about how to draw the tree. I could pick another run from root to twig and pull it straight, and say that Adam spoke proto-...proto-Mandarin, and all the other languages branched off. For languages as similar as Hebrew and Aramaic, where neither could have drifted from the original significanly more than the other, doesn't the whole discussion of whether Adam's language was a predecessar to the language of the chumash, Nakh, Chazal, etc... or of Aramaic in its evolutions all kind of arbitrary? I wonder if the Ramban understands the name of Kesav Ashuris to mean "Assyrian Script", rather than "Enriched Script" (from "osher". YMMV on the definition of osher.) After all, he seems to have no problem saying that Hashem left holy things in the hands of other peoples for us to find and use. For that matter, Eretz Yisrael was also given to the Kenaanim to hold until we got there... It might also be leshitaso -- but this may be a stretch -- with the Ramban's take on rainbows. The Ramban says that rainbows existed since Maaseh Bereishis. Nature didn't change in this regard with the Mabul. Rather, the already existing phenomenon was made a symbol when HQBH made the beris with Noach. Again, something put in place naturally so that when the time came it would be available take on its full significance. : Canaan, and many people in Egypt knew it for the countries were close : together--particularly the ruler, for it is customary for kings and : rulers to know several languages. : : For his assertion that Hebrew is "a Canannite language" Ramban makes : reference to Isaiah, who does thus refer to Hebrew: "On that day there : will be five cities in the land of Egypt that speak the language of : Canaan and swear by the Lord of hosts" (Isa. 19:18). That the original : language of the Patriarchs (Abraham, Isaac and Jacob) was Aramaic is : proved to Ramban's mind by virtue of the fact that Laban gave the name : "Yegar-sahaduta" to what Jacob called "Gal-ed" (Gen. 31:47), The former : had remained in Mesopotamia and continued to speak Aramaic (which Ramban : thinks was spoken in Ur and in Haran), while Jacob, who had grown up in : Canaan, had learnt the local language. : : Please see the above URL for much more on this topic. Have a Great Month, and a enlightening and enjoyable Chanukah! -Micha -- Micha Berger The greatest discovery of all time is that micha at aishdas.org a person can change their future http://www.aishdas.org by merely changing their attitude. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Oprah Winfrey From zev at sero.name Tue Dec 19 09:12:45 2017 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2017 12:12:45 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Did the Patriarchs Speak Hebrew? In-Reply-To: <20171219170508.GC27362@aishdas.org> References: <1513669061621.40139@stevens.edu> <20171219170508.GC27362@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <45f78c92-f0ed-6df8-9a80-01c96d6dd007@sero.name> On 19/12/17 12:05, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > I wonder if the Ramban understands the name of Kesav Ashuris to mean > "Assyrian Script", rather than "Enriched Script" (from "osher". YMMV > on the definition of osher.) You associate osher with an alef and `osher with an `ayin? -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From micha at aishdas.org Tue Dec 19 10:59:01 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2017 13:59:01 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Did the Patriarchs Speak Hebrew? In-Reply-To: <45f78c92-f0ed-6df8-9a80-01c96d6dd007@sero.name> References: <1513669061621.40139@stevens.edu> <20171219170508.GC27362@aishdas.org> <45f78c92-f0ed-6df8-9a80-01c96d6dd007@sero.name> Message-ID: <20171219185901.GE31888@aishdas.org> On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 12:12:45PM -0500, Zev Sero wrote: : On 19/12/17 12:05, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: : >I wonder if the Ramban understands the name of Kesav Ashuris to mean : >"Assyrian Script", rather than "Enriched Script" (from "osher". YMMV : >on the definition of osher.) : You associate osher with an alef and `osher with an `ayin? RSRH does, as he does all alef-ayin pairs. Also osher with asher. But I used enriched because in common usage, it refers to someone having a gift. We say that a cereal is enriched with vitamins. We far more rarely speak of a CEO being enriched. At least, not anymore. And what about yiysher kochakha, assuming the correct niqud isn't yeyasher? Reish Laqish (Shabbos 87a) says "asher shibarta" is an allusion to "yiyshar kochakha", so that's connected as well. RSRH himself uses "being in successful progress" (eg Bereishis 30:30), which R/Dr Mattiyahu Clark's Hirschian dictionary gives as its 1st definition. Chodesh tov, un a lichtikn un freilechn Chanukah! -Micha -- Micha Berger The trick is learning to be passionate in one's micha at aishdas.org ideals, but compassionate to one's peers. http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From mandels at ou.org Tue Dec 19 09:46:51 2017 From: mandels at ou.org (Mandel, Seth) Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2017 17:46:51 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Did the Patriarchs Speak Hebrew? In-Reply-To: <1513669061621.40139@stevens.edu> References: <1513669061621.40139@stevens.edu> Message-ID: There is no proof that anyone spoke Hebrew. Chazal say that dibb'ra Torah bilshon b'nei odom, and the Torah was written in Hebrew because that is what the Jews understood at the time of Moshe Rabbeinu and the N'vi'im. This is clear from last weeks Parsha, where Par'oh speaks to Yosef, kavyakhol in Hebrew. However, just as much as there is no proof at all from the T'NaKh that lots of people spoke Hebrew, even though the T'NaKh records them in Hebrew, there is also no proof at all that certain people did not speak Hebrew. The Ramban quotes the story of Lovon and Ya'akov to "prove" that Lovon did not speak Hebrew. That is probable, but what did Yaakov and Lovon speak together? What did Yaakov speak to Rochel and Leah, who had never been in EY? OK, they all spoke what was spoken in Aram Naharayim. Probably. But Yaakov and the Ovos must have learned the language of K'na'an for Avrohom to speak to b'nei Het to buy the Cave of the Patriarchs. So what exactly did Avrohom Ovinu say in the language of Aram, whence he came, and what in the language of K'na'an? QED that one cannot know from the T'NaKh who spoke what when and where. The only thing we know is the Masorah, that HQBH dictated the Torah to Moshe Rabbeinu in the eponymous Biblical Hebrew. People ask whether Odom hoRishon spoke Hebrew. That is a question that has no meaning. We do not know exactly what he spoke, nor is it relevant. It might have been a precursor of Hebrew, IOW a language like Hebrew, but a much older form. It could have been something else. But, scientifically, it could not have been the same as the Hebrew spoken in the time of Y'tzi'as Mitzrayim, because it has been proven that all languages change over time. Rabbi Dr. Seth Mandel From micha at aishdas.org Tue Dec 19 14:10:58 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2017 17:10:58 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Did the Patriarchs Speak Hebrew? In-Reply-To: References: <1513669061621.40139@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20171219221058.GA3159@aishdas.org> On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 05:46:51PM +0000, Mandel, Seth via Avodah wrote: : There is no proof that anyone spoke Hebrew. Chazal say that dibb'ra Torah : bilshon b'nei odom... Well.... R' Yishmael says it. And it appears to be an argument for his rules of derashah, which do not include looking for magic words like "akh" (mi'ut), "raq" (mi'ut), "kol" (ribui) or even "es", but darshens the meaning of terms, whether ribui or mi'ut. The Rambam really sloganeers (like the CS's "chadash assur min haTorah") when he uses it to explain that anthropomorphic descriptions of HQBH are idioms, not to be taken overly literally. The point may be true, but it has nothing to do with the quote. The maqor is nothing remotely like: : the Torah was written in Hebrew because that is : what the Jews understood at the time of Moshe Rabbeinu and the N'vi'im. And besides, R' Aqiva disagrees! Chodesh tov, un a lichtikn un freilechn Chanukah! -Micha -- Micha Berger One doesn't learn mussar to be a tzaddik, micha at aishdas.org but to become a tzaddik. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yisrael Salanter Fax: (270) 514-1507 From llevine at stevens.edu Wed Dec 20 01:27:34 2017 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2017 09:27:34 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Yehudah Spoke Egyptian Message-ID: <1513762054084.88548@stevens.edu> Rabbi Yitzchok D. Frankel, Rav of the Agudah of the Five Towns, in Cedarhurst, NY, asserts in his sefer Machat shel Yad. Bereishis vol.2 (Back of Vayikrah) Parshas VaYigash. that Yehudah did indeed speak Egyptian. See http://personal.stevens.edu/~llevine/yehudah_egyptian.pdf for his argument. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cantorwolberg at cox.net Wed Dec 20 09:32:33 2017 From: cantorwolberg at cox.net (Richard Wolberg) Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2017 12:32:33 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Question on 48:1 Message-ID: In Vay?chi first sentence of Ch.48, why is ?choleh? spelled without a vov? Nowhere have I found an explanation. From zev at sero.name Wed Dec 20 06:01:31 2017 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2017 09:01:31 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Did the Patriarchs Speak Hebrew? In-Reply-To: References: <1513669061621.40139@stevens.edu> <8b9c1a71-a4fe-ecf5-e066-0a640a78bfec@sero.name> Message-ID: <130e52aa-14f1-24b6-9478-9244543e628c@sero.name> On 19/12/17 02:37, Professor L. Levine via Avodah wrote: > . And it was not a private language spoken by a single person but a > language of Canaan, and many people in Egypt knew it for the countries > were close together--particularly the ruler, for it is customary for > kings and rulers to know several languages. Then how is it that Yosef could pretend not to know it and need an interpreter. More, how is it that Par'oh, who knew all the other languages, didn't know this one? [Email #2. -micha] On 19/12/17 12:46, Mandel, Seth via Avodah wrote: > There is no proof that anyone spoke Hebrew. Chazal say that dibb'ra Torah > bilshon b'nei odom, and the Torah was written in Hebrew because that is > what the Jews understood at the time of Moshe Rabbeinu and the N'vi'im. Rashi Bereshis 2:23 Bereshis Rabbah 18:4 [Eamil #3. -micha] On 20/12/17 08:56, Mandel, Seth wrote: > I am talking objective proof, from the T'NaKh and other documents. > Medrashim of Chazal teaches us important ideas, but are not meant to be > literally true. They do not intend to be a historical document, but > rather contain important moral and ethical teachings which are 'emes in > the spiritual sense. 1. This medrash is clearly intended literally. Not only does it not contain any important moral or ethical teaching, it cites a simple linguistic proof (albeit based on a very small sample of languages). 2. Rashi only cites those medroshim that he believes are necessary for pshat. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From mandels at ou.org Wed Dec 20 07:39:30 2017 From: mandels at ou.org (Mandel, Seth) Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2017 15:39:30 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Did the Patriarchs Speak Hebrew? In-Reply-To: <130e52aa-14f1-24b6-9478-9244543e628c@sero.name> References: <1513669061621.40139@stevens.edu> <8b9c1a71-a4fe-ecf5-e066-0a640a78bfec@sero.name> , <130e52aa-14f1-24b6-9478-9244543e628c@sero.name> Message-ID: From: Zev Sero Sent: Wednesday, December 20, 2017 7:45 AM > On 19/12/17 12:46, Mandel, Seth via Avodah wrote: >> There is no proof that anyone spoke Hebrew. Chazal say that dibb'ra Torah >> bilshon b'nei odom, and the Torah was written in Hebrew because that is >> what the Jews understood at the time of Moshe Rabbeinu and the N'vi'im. > Rashi Bereshis 2:23 > Bereshis Rabbah 18:4 I am talking objective proof, from the T'NaKh and other documents. Medrashim of Chazal teaches us important ideas, but are not meant to be literally true. They do not intend to be a historical document, but rather contain important moral and ethical teachings which are 'emes in the spiritual sense. There are plenty of Medrashim that have ideas that seem to indicate that HQBH or the angels spoke Hebrew. But, as the Rambam indicates, HQBH does not have a mouth and does not speak as people speak. Rather, all the p'sukim saying that HQBH spoke to Moshe or Aharon mean that He communicated with them directly to their mind, not that He spoke acoustic sounds that they heard with their physical ears. The argument that Prof. Levine brought in the name of R. Frankel, OTOH, does indeed show that Yehudah must have been speaking Egyptian, but yet the Torah quotes him in Hebrew. [Email #2. -micha] From: Zev Sero on behalf of Zev Sero Sent: Wednesday, December 20, 2017 9:01:31 AM > 1. This medrash is clearly intended literally. Not only does it not > contain any important moral or ethical teaching, it cites a simple > linguistic proof (albeit based on a very small sample of languages). > 2. Rashi only cites those medroshim that he believes are necessary for > pshat. This is not a conversation that is worth continuing. I have the greatest respect for Jews who learn and seek to understand. But there are certain discussions where the locutors speak past each other for no benefit to either. However, for others in the group that may be curious: if you understand what the Rambam says in his introduction to Chapter 10 of Mas. Sanhedrin regarding three approaches to what Chazal say, you will understand that there is no point in one group arguing with the other group. A similar case would be that there would be no point in the Rambam arguing with Rashi or Rabbeinu Tam about whether demons exist or whether the Earth is flat or round. The basic assumptions about the way things work are too far apart. I have said what I meant about medrashim, and the medrash that R. Zev quotes does not contradict in my mind my statement that there is no proof about the actual historical language used in anything in the Torah. Nor does Rashi's use of the medrash contradict what I said. It would be impossible to convince R. Tam's belief that the Earth is flat, since in his understanding of the universe everything points to the world being flat, and he can find statements in the G'moro that seem to him to prove his case, and all scientists from his culture "knew" that the Earth is flat. I challenge those who believe that illnesses are caused by bacteria or viruses to bring me one proof that they are; most rishonim knew that they were caused by evil spirits or bodily humors. What a person believes is based on some basic assumptions, and different Rishonim held very different assumptions in certain matters. People might and did challenge the Rambam that it appears from their point of view that the Rambam did not believe what Chazal say, or that I do not believe what Chazal say. The Rambam believed that everything that Chazal said is 'emes, but read his comments in the Perush haMishnayos to see that absolute Truth means different things in different approaches. Another example is how to reconcile the Truth that HQBH gave men free will with the fact that HQBH knows everything that will happen. That can only be explained if people understand certain assumptions about space and time. Rabbi Dr. Seth Mandel Rabbinic Coordinator The Orthodox Union From office at etzion.org.il Thu Dec 21 02:25:30 2017 From: office at etzion.org.il (Yeshivat Har Etzion) Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2017 12:25:30 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] VBM - Avodat Hashem #51: The Mitzva of Mezuza (Part I) Message-ID: <5A3B8C1A.4030506@etzion.org.il> PHILOSOPHY > Avodat Hashem - Foundations of Divine Service > Shiur #51: The Mitzva of Mezuza (Part I) Harav Baruch Gigi Yeshivat Har Etzion I. The Protection Offered by a Mezuza We are currently engaged in a clarification of the system of mitzvot, in the framework of the transition in Keriyat Shema from matters pertaining to the Rambam's Sefer Mada to matters pertaining to his Sefer Ahava. Thus far, we have studied the mitzva of tefillin and its unique meanings. Now, let us turn to a closely-related mitzva - the mitzva of mezuza. One of the central ideas relating to mezuza is the idea of protection. When one affixes a mezuza to the entrance of his home, his house and household are protected from all trouble and damage. This idea is expressed by Chazal in several contexts, and it is based, as we will demonstrate, on a connection that is already rooted in the verses of the Torah. At the end of the passage of Ve-haya im shamo'a, it is stated: And you shall write them upon the doorposts of your house and upon your gates; that your days may be multiplied, and the days of your children, upon the land which the Lord swore to your fathers to give them, as the days of the heavens above the earth. (Devarim 11:20-21) At first glance, it seems that the Torah's promise of longevity relates to all that was stated in this passage concerning one who obeys all of God's commandments and follows His ways. However, Chazal linked this promise directly to the mitzva of mezuza. Two talmudic passages establish a connection between longevity and the mitzva of mezuza. In tractate Shabbat (32b), it is taught that a person's children die because of a failure to fulfill the mitzva of mezuza.[1] This is learned from the juxtaposition of the commandment of mezuza to the verse that promises that "your days will be multiplied, and the days of your children." In a positive formulation, the Tur writes: Whoever is careful about it, his days and the days of his children will be lengthened, as it is written: "That your days may be multiplied, and the days of your children." (Tur, Yoreh De'ah 285) In tractate Kiddushin (34a), the gemara discusses the possibility of exempting women from the mitzva of mezuza. At first, the gemara is of the opinion that women are exempt, in view of the Torah's juxtaposition of the mitzva of mezuza to the mitzva of Torah study, from which women are exempt. However, the gemara rejects this possibility with the following argument: You cannot think so, because it is written: ["And You shall write them upon the doorposts of your house...] that your days may be multiplied." Do men only need life, and not women? (Kiddushin 34a) In this gemara as well, we clearly see that the promise of longevity in relation to the mitzva of mezuza is so central that there is no room even to entertain the possibility that women may be exempt from it. For by removing women from the mitzva of mezuza you would be removing them from the basic desire of existence, of life. The Tur adds: Moreover, one's house is protected by it, as they expounded the verse: "The Lord is your keeper; the Lord is your shade upon your right hand" (Tehillim 121:5). (Tur, ibid.) II. The Rambam's View The Rambam famously writes: It is a common custom to write [God's name] Shaddai on the outside of a mezuza, opposite the empty space left between the two passages. There is no difficulty in this, since the addition is made on the outside. However, those who write the names of angels, other sacred names, verses, or forms,[2] on the inside [of a mezuza] are among those who do not have a portion in the World-to-Come. Not only do these fools nullify the mitzva, but furthermore, they make from a great mitzva that reflects the unity of the name of the Holy One, blessed be He, the love of Him, and the service of Him, a talisman for their own benefit. They, in their foolish conception, think that this will help them regarding the vanities of the world. (Hilkhot Tefillin U-Mezuza 5:4) The Kesef Mishneh (ad loc.) cites the objection raised by the Ramach against the Rambam based on the gemara in Avoda Zara (11a). The gemara there records a story about Onkelos, who became a proselyte, and the emperor sent a contingent of soldiers after him. Among other things, it is stated there: Again he sent another cohort ordering them not to enter into any conversation whatever with him. So they took hold of him; and as they were walking on, he saw the mezuza that was fixed on the door frame and he placed his hand on it saying to them, "Now what is this?" And they replied, "You tell us then." He said to them, "According to universal custom, the mortal king dwells within, and his servants keep guard on him without; but [in the case of] the Holy One, blessed is He, it is His servants who dwell within while He keeps guard on them from without, as it is stated: `The Lord shall guard your going out and your coming in from this time forth and for evermore' (Tehillim 121:8)." Then they, too, were converted to Judaism. (Avoda Zara 11a) >From the difficulty raised by the Ramach, it may be concluded that in his opinion the Rambam rejects the idea of protection that is attributed to the mezuza. The Rambam views the mezuza as an expression of man's connection to God, in that he declares at the entrance to his house his faith in His unity and his love for Him, two of the foundations of His service. According to the Ramach, the Rambam rejects the talismanic qualities that were attributed to the mezuza by the ancients. The Ramach attacks the Rambam's position, as he understood it, on the grounds that the idea of protection is brought in the gemara itself: For in tractate Avoda Zara it is implied from that which Onkelos said to the Roman contingent that the Holy One, blessed is He, makes the mezuza to protect Israel from the outside. And one can force an answer that it was Onkelos who said this in order give importance to Israel. (Ramach, ad loc.) In light of this, the Ramach struggles to reconcile the Rambam's position, arguing that Onkelos said this to the Romans only in order to praise Israel in their eyes. Onkelos told the Romans that the mezuza symbolizes God's protection, as it were, over the houses of Israel. In truth, however, the mitzva of mezuza is not a matter of God's protection, but rather an expression of a person's faith in God's unity and service. It stands to reason, however, that the Rambam does not challenge the very idea of the protection offered by a mezuza. Thus writes the Kesef Mishneh in light of the fact that the gemara in Menachot uses this principle to determine the halakha regarding the proper placement of a mezuza: For in chapter Ha-Kometz (33b), regarding the rule that a mezuza must be placed in the handbreadth adjacent to the public domain, R. Huna said: "What is the reason? So that it may protect him."[3] Therefore you must say that in fact a mezuza protects the house when it is written properly. (Kesef Mishneh) In the Kesef Mishneh's opinion, the Rambam rejects only those actions that expanded the talismanic element of a mezuza - namely, the insertion of the names of the angels into the mezuza. The Rambam sees the protective quality of a mezuza in the connection between man and God and his belief in Him and His unity. In the continuation of our discussion, we will explain the idea of the protection offered by a mezuza with greater precision and in greater depth. III. Additional Sources The Yerushalmi states in tractate Pe'ah: Artaban sent to our holy Rabbi an invaluably precious pearl. He said to him: Send me something which is similarly precious. He sent him a mezuza. He said to him: What I have sent you is something priceless, but you have sent me something which is only worth one follis. He [Rabbi] said to him: Your treasures and my treasures are incomparable. And moreover, you have sent me something that I have to guard, while I have sent you something which guards you when you sleep, as it is written: "When you walk, it will lead you; when you lie down, it will watch over you; and when you awake, it will talk to you" (Mishlei 6:22). (Yerushalmi, Pe'ah 1:1) Similarly, the Tur writes in Hilkhot Mezuza: Moreover, one's house is protected by it, as they expounded the verse: "The Lord is your keeper; the Lord is your shade upon your right hand" (Tehillim 121:5). A mortal king dwells within, and his servants keep guard on him without; but you sleep in your beds and the Holy One, blessed is He, guards you from without. Therefore, it should be placed in the outermost handbreadth, so that the entire house be within it and under its protection. (Tur, Yoreh De'ah 285) The prevalent custom to write on the outside of the mezuza parchment the name ShaDaY - which is expounded as an abbreviation for the words: Shomer Delatot Yisrael, "Who guards the doors of Israel"[4] - also reinforces this idea of a mezuza as protecting a person's home. As stated, the basis of this idea is already found in the verses of the Torah. Even though the Torah does not mention the idea of protection in direct connection to the mitzva of mezuza, it is mentioned in connection with another mezuza. In Parashat Bo, God commands the people of Israel to place the blood of the paschal lamb on the two doorposts and lintel. The reason for this is explained as follows: And the blood shall be to you for a token upon the houses where you are; and when I see the blood, I will pass over you, and there shall no plague be upon you to destroy you, when I smite the land of Egypt. (Shemot 12:13) And later in the same chapter: For the Lord will pass through to smite the Egyptians; and when He sees the blood upon the lintel and on the two doorposts, the Lord will pass over the door, and will not suffer the destroyer to come in to your houses to smite you. (Shemot 12:23) It is further stated at the end of that chapter: It was a night of watching to the Lord for bringing them out from the land of Egypt; this same night is a night of watching to the Lord for all the children of Israel throughout their generations. (Shemot 12:42) Rashi writes: "A night of watching to the Lord for all the children of Israel throughout their generations" - This night is protected, and comes as such from ages past, against all destructive forces, as it is stated: "And He will not suffer the destroyer to enter your houses" (v. 33). (Rashi, ad loc.) IV. The Mezuza and the Paschal Offering On the night of the exodus from Egypt, God protected the houses of the people of Israel by way of the sign of the blood on the doorposts and lintels, and because of this the night became a night of watching for all generations.[5] At first glance, it seems that the common denominator between the mitzva of mezuza and the paschal offering is that in both cases we are commanded to place a specific thing on the doorpost, thereby securing the protection of the house and its inhabitants. On the deeper level, it seems that the connection between the mitzva of mezuza and the paschal offering is more substantive. What is the significance of placing blood on the doorposts and lintel of one's house? The paschal offering that the people of Israel brought in Egypt was sacrificed as a family offering, a sheep for each family, at the entrance to each family's home. In Egypt, of course, there was no Temple and no altar. Therefore, it seems that the meaning of the blood was to distinguish between the houses of the Israelites and the houses of the Egyptians, in order to prevent the destroyer from coming into the homes of the Israelites to attack. However, the possibility that the blood was meant to distinguish between the houses of Israel and the houses of Egypt raises a great difficulty, in light of the midrashim of Chazal, which indicate that God Himself passed through the land of Egypt. He certainly did not need a distinguishing sign. So writes the Beit Yosef in his book, Maggid Meisharim: As for the difficulty with the verse, "And when I see the blood, I will pass over you," why was a sign needed, for surely everything is revealed to Him? It may be suggested that a sign was needed for the angels who came with Him. It may further be objected that this sign was with blood, which is a sign of death, the opposite of what they wanted. And furthermore, the sign should have been on the outside, and this sign was on the inside. But the secret of the matter is that the Holy One, blessed be He, wanted them to trust in Him and place the blood on the door from the inside. This is what is written: "And the blood shall be to you for a token." And instead of being afraid when they see the blood on the door, on the contrary they should trust their Master who commanded them to do this, so that He would be a salvation for them. This merit of trusting God would protect them. This is the meaning of what is written: "And the blood shall be to you for a token upon the houses where you are; and when I see the blood, I will pass over you." That is to say, I will see the merit of your trust, that the blood that is a sign of death will be for you a sign of life when you trust the words of your Master. And for this reason, "when I see the blood, I will pass over you." (Maggid Meisharim, Parashat Bo) It seems that trust in God involves not only doing the action required by God on the simple level. What we have here is an important and profound principle, in light of the gemara in Pesachim: R. Yosef taught: There were three altars there, on the lintel and on the two doorposts. (Pesachim 96a) A broader picture emerges from the gemara. The paschal offering brought in Egypt was a sacrifice offered at the entrance of a person's house, his house serving as the Temple, and the entrance to his house being the altar. While Chazal speak of three altars, it seems more accurate to say that they are referring to the three corners of the altar. The people of Israel are commanded to see their homes as the house of God. With their trust in God, they express the strength of their connection to Him by seeing their homes as God's house. And if their house is the house of God, then the entrance to the house is an altar, and they put of the blood on the three corners of the altar - the lintel and the two doorposts. This view, which sanctifies the houses of the people of Israel as the Temple, is similar to what is stated: "In every place where I cause My name to be mentioned I will come to you and bless you" (Shemot 20:20). In this way, the house becomes the basis of the covenant that is being formed between God and His people, by virtue of their seeking His presence within them. If we are correct, it stands to reason that the idea of the protection offered by a mezuza has a more fundamental and inner meaning. A person turns his house into a house of God, and a house of God is protected, as is stated in Tehillim: A Song of Ascents; of Shelomo. Except the Lord build the house, they labor in vain that build it; except the Lord keep the city, the watchman wakes but in vain. (Tehillim 127:1) God's protection is protection, and there is no other, it alone being considered true protection. These words connect with the words of the Rambam in Hilkhot Beit Ha-Bechira, that the guarding in the Temple was merely a display of honor, and not needed for the protection it offered, since the house of God is not in need of protection: There is a positive mitzva to guard the Temple. [This mitzvah applies] even though there is no fear of enemies or thieves, for the guarding [of the Temple] is an expression of respect for it. A palace with guards is [much more impressive] than a palace without guards. (Rambam, Hilkhot Beit Ha-Bechira 8:1) (Translated by David Strauss) _______________________ [1] The gemara there states as follows: "R. Chiya bar Abba and R. Yose disagree. One says: It is for the sin of neglect of mezuza [that a person's children die]; while the other says: It is for the sin of the neglect of Torah... It is well according to the one who says: It is for the sin of the neglect of mezuza, for it is written: 'And you shall write them upon the doorposts of your house,' which is followed by: 'that your days may be multiplied, and the days of your children'" (Shabbat 32b). [2] The Rambam is referring here to the ancient practice of inserting all kinds of additions into the mezuza. Rabbeinu Eliezer of Metz writes as follows: "It is common practice to add seals and the names of the angels at the end of the Bible verses contained in the mezuza for the sake of the increased security of the home. This is not indispensible, nor even a mitzva, but simply serves as additional protection" (Yere'im 400). He then spells out in great detail the names of the angels and where precisely they were inserted in the mezuza. [3] According to the Ramach's understanding of the Rambam, it may be suggested that this does not mean that a mezuza protects a person, but rather that a person should be reminded of the principles of his faith whenever he goes in or out of his house. [4] See Kolbo: "The reason that we write this name more than the others is that it is an abbreviation for Shomer Dirat Yisrael, "Who guards the dwelling of Israel" (Kolbo, Mezuza 90). [5] Establishing this night as a night of watching has halakhic ramifications in a number of contexts. This is true regarding the recitation of Shema before going to sleep and regarding the Me-Ein Sheva blessing on the night of the Seder when it falls out on Friday night. Many halakhic authorities rule that one should not say the Me-Ein Sheva blessing on the night of the Seder, since it is a night of watching that does not require protection. From bdbradley70 at hotmail.com Sat Dec 23 13:33:10 2017 From: bdbradley70 at hotmail.com (Ben Bradley) Date: Sat, 23 Dec 2017 21:33:10 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Midrash Tanchuma Message-ID: I'd be grateful to know if anyone here is sufficiently familiar with different editions of midrash tanchuma to help me out. I acquired a copy of the Tanchuma from a second hand book shop, very inexpensively, a number of years ago. I was a poor student at the time. It was printed in 5645, ie 1885, by one Shlomo Buber (Bober?) in Lvov from manuscripts acquired from Oxford and the Vatican. I must admit I'd never paid much attention to these details until now, but It's just come to my attention that it my copy is hugely different to the standard one. For example, this week in Vayigash, my copy has 12 simanim, compared to the 11 in the standard edition. But only 4 of these are the same (8-11 in mine corresponding to 9-12 in the standard), all the others are utterly different. By which I mean they are simply different midrashim, not just variants. Can anyone shed light on such a huge difference between what seems to be the standard edition and mine? Best wishes Ben -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From meirabi at gmail.com Sat Dec 23 16:49:35 2017 From: meirabi at gmail.com (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi) Date: Sun, 24 Dec 2017 11:49:35 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] Did the Patriarchs Speak Hebrew? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Speak means communication, there were 10 communications with which HKBH created the universe There were 10 communications broadcast at Har Sinai - I'm pretty sure it wasn't Polish or Hungarian. The Rishonim argue about the nature of prophesy, is it an actual voice (meaning stimulation of the human hearing facility of the ear - not necessarily stimulated by an actual sound) or just a voice in the head but TTBOMKnowledge, none question the language. Anyway, does it make any difference? Either way the brain is receiving a signal. Perhaps the type of language is irrelevant, what's important is that the message is received and understood. That the parties are connected. I have seen, but could not re-find a comment by the MaOr VeShemesh (I think connected to Ish Mitzi HiTzilanu) that Yidden spoke Mitzi, and the meaning of Lo Shinu LeShonom is that they spoke with a Yiddishe style, with dignity and kindness - and this is what set us apart. Clearly a Derasha designed to direct the listeners and readers towards a more dignified language, but at the same time reflecting an ultimate truth, the language does not make the man, it's the style that's important. I also recall hearing is a RaMBaN or a Siforno - a child exposed from birth to no external language inputs, would naturally speak Lashon HaKodesh. This seems to be a fairly old consideration amongst philosophers, see Frederick's Experiment, and Gong Mahal. HKBH looked into the Torah and created the universe, speaks volumes about the centrality of Torah, not about it's language, although it's not easy separating the two. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From driceman at optimum.net Sat Dec 23 16:53:36 2017 From: driceman at optimum.net (David Riceman) Date: Sat, 23 Dec 2017 19:53:36 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Did the Patriarchs Speak Hebrew? Message-ID: See Melachim 2 18:26 [Email #2. -micha] And see Gen. 31:47 DR Sent from my iPad From zev at sero.name Sat Dec 23 19:46:46 2017 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Sat, 23 Dec 2017 22:46:46 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Midrash Tanchuma In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 23/12/17 16:33, Ben Bradley via Avodah wrote: > It was printed in 5645, ie 1885, by one Shlomo Buber (Bober?) in Lvov > from manuscripts acquired from Oxford and the Vatican. > I must admit I'd never paid much attention to these details until now, > but It's just come to my attention that it my copy is hugely different > to the standard one. Yes, the Buber Tanchuma is a different sefer from the standard Tanchuma. Citations to "Tanchuma" stam refer to the old edition, while ones to this edition are given as "Tanchuma (Buber)". Buber claimed that he had found the original version, and that the one published in the 16th century is a much later one. Not everyone was convinced. There was also something the rishonim called "Medrash Yelamdeinu", which may have been a third version which is now lost, or may simply have been the name by which they referred to one or the other of these two versions. http://bit.ly/2C5u4FL -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From akivagmiller at gmail.com Sat Dec 23 18:39:15 2017 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Sat, 23 Dec 2017 21:39:15 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Did the Patriarchs Speak Hebrew? Message-ID: . R' Seth Mandel wrote: > There is no proof that anyone spoke Hebrew. and R' Zev Sero responded: > Rashi Bereshis 2:23 That Rashi does not mention Hebrew. What Rashi says there is that the olam was created via "Lashon Hakodesh". "Lashon Hakodesh" may or may not be the same thing as what we refer to as "Hebrew". One cannot discuss this topic meaningfully unless he is careful to make this distinction. For a very in-depth (yet also readable and in English) treatment of these and related topics, I recommend "Lashon Hakodesh - History, Holiness, & Hebrew" by Rabbi Reuven Chaim Klein. Akiva Miller From zvilampel at gmail.com Sat Dec 23 21:41:29 2017 From: zvilampel at gmail.com (H Lampel) Date: Sun, 24 Dec 2017 00:41:29 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Historicity of Aggadta In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Under the subject line of Re: [Avodah] Did the Patriarchs Speak Hebrew?, RSM raises a claim that RMB and I have argued over in the past. He writes, > Medrashim of Chazal teaches us important ideas, but are not meant to > be literally true. They do not intend to be a historical document, > but rather contain important moral and ethical teachings which are > 'emes in the spiritual sense. > > ... if you understand > what the Rambam says in his introduction to Chapter 10 of Mas. Sanhedrin > regarding three approaches to what Chazal say But the Rambam also writes there: And? I will yet compose a work in which I will gather all the drashos found in the Talmud and elsewhere...and I will reveal what of the drashos are [meant in] a literal way, and which of them are [meant as] mashal, and which of them were [describing something seen only] in a dream but was stated in a purely absolute way, as if it were [experienced] in a state of wakefulness... So, the Rambam does not maintain that the literal meaning of? /all/ drashos is to be rejected. Some are indeed meant literally, and some are not. (The Rambam never wrote this work. As he explains in Moreh Nevuchim, since much of it would be dealing with the meaning of drashos whose meanings were valuable lessons too precious to be shared with those who would not appreciate them appropriately, he would be forced to merely substitute the drashos' figurative expressions with his own figurative expressions. But in several works he does provide the key that they are not meant literally when the literal meaning would contradict realia, logic, fundamentals or pesukim.) His son Avraham, in his maamer on Drashos Chazal writes similarly regarding the maasiyos reported in the Talmud. R. Yehuda HaLevy (1:68) understood the midrashic maasiyos attributing the Hebrew language to the patriarchs as a historic reality that carried an important lesson, and considered the Torah as presenting evidence thereof. According to tradition it is the language in which G-d spoke to Adam and Eve, and in which the latter conversed. It is proved by the derivation of Adam from /adamah/, /ishshah/ from /ish/; /Chava/__from Chay; /Cain/ from /Kannisi/; /Shes/ from /shas/, and Noach from /yenachamenu/. This is supported by the evidence of the Torah. The whole is traced back to Eber, Noach and Adam. It is the language of Eber after whom it was called /Hebrew/, because after the confusion of tongues it was he who retained it. Abraham was an Aramaean of /Ur Kasdim/, because the language of the Chaldaeans was Aramaic. He employed Hebrew as a specially holy language andAramaic for everyday use. .. Zvi Lampel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From familyp2 at actcom.net.il Sun Dec 24 03:05:02 2017 From: familyp2 at actcom.net.il (Simi Peters) Date: Sun, 24 Dec 2017 13:05:02 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] tanhuma buber Message-ID: <001a01d37ca7$16b17e70$44147b50$@actcom.net.il> Your edition of Tanhuma is indeed vastly different from the standard printed edition. It was published by Buber from a Cairo Geniza manuscript (or possibly several manuscripts-not sure about the details.) There is some overlap, but there is a lot of material in Tanhuma Buber that does not appear in the standard editions and vice versa. It's good to have both. Unless you're interested in trying to reconstruct an ur-edition of Tanhuma, you can just treat them as separate works and mine each for its interesting material. Kol tuv, Simi Peters --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From zvilampel at gmail.com Sun Dec 24 06:43:33 2017 From: zvilampel at gmail.com (H Lampel) Date: Sun, 24 Dec 2017 09:43:33 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Historicity of Aggadta In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1f584d28-51c5-aa2f-2eb7-e97d1cd32aef@gmail.com> On 12/24/2017 12:41 AM, Z?? Lampel wrote: > R. Yehuda HaLevy (1:68) Should be: R. Yehuda Halevy (Kuzari 2:68). Zvi Lampel From marty.bluke at gmail.com Sun Dec 24 04:32:45 2017 From: marty.bluke at gmail.com (Marty Bluke) Date: Sun, 24 Dec 2017 14:32:45 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] New Cancer Treatment Message-ID: RHS in his sefer (Eretz Hatzvi) points out that it seems to be 2 opinions in Tosafos whether a mamzer can be created without a bias issur. The Gemara in Yevamos 16b brings the opinion that eved v'akum haba al bas yisrael havlad mamzer. Tosafos there asks the following question. They understand how there can be an opinion that an eved creates mamzerus because there is a specific issur for a Jewish woman to have biah with an eved. However, they ask, by a Goy there is no issur biah min hatorah and therefore how can anyone hold that the product of the biah of a goy and a Jewish woman would create a mamzer? Tosafos gives 2 answers: 1. Even though there is no bias issur since kiddushin are not tofsin it creates mamzerus. 2. A Goy and a Jewish woman do not create a mamzer min hatorah only midrabbanan If we apply these 2 opinions to IVF, according to the first answer since kiddushin are not tofsin (since she is married) the child would be a mamzer even though there was no bias issur. On the other hand, the second answer holds that the determining factor of mamzerus is a bias issur and therefore since in the case of IVF there is no bias issur there would be no mamzerus. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Sun Dec 24 06:24:17 2017 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Sun, 24 Dec 2017 14:24:17 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] The Nature of Egyptian Society Message-ID: <1514125453560.29445@stevens.edu> The following is from RSRH" commentary on Bereishis 46:33 Now, when Pharaoh calls you and asks, What is your occupation? 33 In a state like Egypt, the individual is completely identified with his occupation. Children are not born as human beings but as artisans, peasants, soldiers, and so forth. Accordingly, Pharaoh's first question to Yosef 's brothers would naturally concern their occupation. They were instructed to answer Pharaoh's question candidly, to tell him the truth, even though it would be unpleasant. For the Egyptians' loathing for the brothers' occupation and, in general, the nations' aversion to the Jews were to serve as primary factors in the survival of this race, which was destined to journey through the ages in isolation. As long as the moral morn had not dawned for the nations, the barriers they erected to isolate the Jews served to protect the Jews from becoming infected with the barbarism and demoralization of the people in whose midst they had to walk for hundreds of years. Yosef therefore immediately emphasizes the aspect that will arouse the aversion of the Egyptians. His clear intention is that, as a result, his brothers will be allocated a separate province in which to dwell. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cantorwolberg at cox.net Sat Dec 23 19:30:04 2017 From: cantorwolberg at cox.net (Richard Wolberg) Date: Sat, 23 Dec 2017 22:30:04 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Vay'chi Message-ID: <89600AC2-DFEA-44AA-A5AE-9C4493ED11F4@cox.net> There?s an interesting medrash the k?li yakar brings down. It doesn?t say Vayik?r?vu Yisroel Lamus, that Yisroel came close to die,? rather it says: ?Vayik?r?vu Y?MEI Yisroel lamus,? that the DAYS of Yisroel came close to die. And the medresh says, the DAYS died, not the person. This goes in line with Vay?chi Ya?akov, and Jacob LIVED. In other words, his body died but not he, himself. (The question has been asked: Do you have a soul? The answer is NO, you ARE a soul with a body). In the first pasuk (vs.28) the name Yaakov is used twice and then in vs.29 we see the name Yisroel used. The question is asked why does the name change from Ya?akov to Yisroel. One answer is that Yisroel symbolizes the prophecy of Ya?akov. And that?s how he knew he was going to die because in prophecy he understood and divinely inspired, he understood that he was going to die. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From larry62341 at optonline.net Sun Dec 24 02:38:32 2017 From: larry62341 at optonline.net (Prof. Levine) Date: Sun, 24 Dec 2017 05:38:32 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] The Protection Offered by a Mezuza Message-ID: At 06:58 PM 12/23/2017, Harav Baruch Gigi wrote: The following is from RSRH's commentary on Devorim 6:9 And write them upon the [door-] posts of your house and upon your gates. The mezuzah is not an amulet; in and of itself, it does not protect the house. Only insofar as they shape their lives in accordance with the mezuzah 's content can the people within the house expect help and protection from God, the "All-Sovereign and All-Sufficing," in all the vicissitudes of domestic life. With this intent it is our custom to adorn the outside of the mezuzah with the Name shin-daled-yud. From ben1456 at zahav.net.il Sun Dec 24 10:55:39 2017 From: ben1456 at zahav.net.il (Ben Waxman) Date: Sun, 24 Dec 2017 20:55:39 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Rambam ,Hilchot Hannuka Message-ID: A few take aways from Rambam Hilchot Hanukka Chapter 3 1) For the Rambam, Hallel is the ikkar element of Hanukka, not the candles (given that details Hallel first and only then goes on to the candles). 2) The Rambam gives a long detailed description on how to properly say Hallel in beit knesset. However the last halacha in the chapter basically says "I've been in a lot batei knesset and everyone does something different'. Meaning - you want to do a musical Hallel, different tunes, no tunes, responsive, everyone together, whatever you like - it is fine. 3) The Rambam raises the possibility of a woman or child or slave reading Hallel and everyone repeating what she or he said word by word. However, he doesn't add in the famous curse given in the Gemara. Meaning - the Rambam didn't hold by? Tavo Ma'arah (spelling?) (at least not here). Ben From lisa at starways.net Sun Dec 24 11:27:31 2017 From: lisa at starways.net (Lisa Liel) Date: Sun, 24 Dec 2017 21:27:31 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] The Protection Offered by a Mezuza In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2cfbbfce-e0d9-fc05-140c-969d4b5f18a1@starways.net> On 12/24/2017 12:38 PM, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: > At 06:58 PM 12/23/2017, Harav Baruch Gigi wrote: ... > The mezuzah is not an amulet; in and of itself, it does not protect the > house. Only insofar as they shape their lives in accordance with the mezuzah's > content can the people within the house expect help and protection... I know a mezuzah isn't an amulet, but when my apartment burned down back in the 90s, the fire burned through two sides of the apartment and jumped over my room only, which was the only one with a mezuzah.? I'm not saying it couldn't be a coincidence, I'm just saying that I didn't take it that way. Lisa From zev at sero.name Sun Dec 24 14:10:20 2017 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Sun, 24 Dec 2017 17:10:20 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] The Protection Offered by a Mezuza In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2d108449-ec4d-0e35-d888-0ccdd8b113be@sero.name> On 24/12/17 05:38, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: > At 06:58 PM 12/23/2017, Harav Baruch Gigi wrote: > The following is from RSRH's commentary on Devorim 6:9 And write > them upon the [door-] > posts of your house and upon your gates. > > The mezuzah is not an amulet; in and of itself, it does not protect the > house. Only insofar as they shape their lives in accordance with the mezuzah 's > content can the people within the house expect help and protection > from God, the "All-Sovereign and All-Sufficing," in all the vicissitudes > of domestic life. That may be RSRH's opinion, but if so it contradicts Chazal and millennia of Jewish belief and practise. No, the mezuzah is not an amulet; if it were not a mitzvah it would have no inherent power. But the *mitzvah* of mezuzah protects regardless of how those within the house "shape their lives". Even a goy who puts up a mezuzah, choosing to voluntarily fulfil this mitzvah, can expect this protection. The mitzvah protects those who fulfil it not only when they are inside the house it adorns, but wherever they are. And, most astonishingly, although it is true that a mezuzah itself is not an amulet, there are legitimate grounds to believe that carrying it around "zecher lamitzvah" *does* give some level of protection, even though no mitzvah is being fulfilled. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From ben1456 at zahav.net.il Sun Dec 24 19:58:42 2017 From: ben1456 at zahav.net.il (Ben Waxman) Date: Mon, 25 Dec 2017 05:58:42 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] The Protection Offered by a Mezuza In-Reply-To: <2d108449-ec4d-0e35-d888-0ccdd8b113be@sero.name> References: <2d108449-ec4d-0e35-d888-0ccdd8b113be@sero.name> Message-ID: <80f92bd4-b7af-1b26-1d03-0f3ce7a67edf@zahav.net.il> I seriously doubt that anyone could come up with any statistical analysis showing this point to be true. Ben On 12/25/2017 12:10 AM, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > But the *mitzvah* of mezuzah protects regardless of how those within the house "shape their lives". From zvilampel at gmail.com Mon Dec 25 07:28:21 2017 From: zvilampel at gmail.com (H Lampel) Date: Mon, 25 Dec 2017 10:28:21 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Did the Patriarchs Speak Hebrew? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > Tue, 19 Dec 2017 "Mandel, Seth" wrote: > > There is no proof that anyone spoke Hebrew. ... the Torah was written in Hebrew because that is > what the Jews understood at the time of Moshe Rabbeinu and the N'vi'im. > ... What did Yaakov speak to Rochel and > Leah, who had never been in EY? ... > one cannot know from the T'NaKh who spoke what when and where. Well, at least when the matriarchs and patriarchs stated the reasons for the names they gave their children, they were obviously speaking the same Hebrew spoken in the times of Moshe Rabbeinu. The only way to question this would be to suggest that originally Yitzchak, for instance was called "HeShallLaugh" in some other language, and over the next 5 centuries the bnei Yisrael (or the descendants of HeWillStriveWithG-d, or whatever), knowing the meaning of the name, changed it to Yitzchak.And did the same with each one of all the other names given in the chronologies, which are also clearly contractions of Mattan Torah time Hebrew words. And a similar convoluted explanation would have to be made when an allegedly unHebrew-speaking Eisav cracked ''Ha-chi kara shmo Yaakov--Vayak-veini zeh pa'amayyim...?!" I think all that is extremely unlikely, even without invoking the masorah (of no less import than the Masorah that HQBH dictated the Torah to Moshe Rabbeinu in the eponymous Biblical Hebrew) that the shevatim in Moshe Rabbeinu's time retained the names given to their ancestors (cited in many places including BeMidbar Rabbah 13:20 s.v. Bayom HaShishi and Midrash Tehillim 114:4). Zvi Lampel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mcohen at touchlogic.com Mon Dec 25 07:39:55 2017 From: mcohen at touchlogic.com (M Cohen) Date: Mon, 25 Dec 2017 10:39:55 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Did the Patriarchs Speak Hebrew? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <00bd01d37d96$9d1ebc80$d75c3580$@com> Fyi that the best sefer that I have seen on the subject of Hebrew and ancient Hebrew history is Lashon HaKodesh: History, Holiness & Hebrew by Rabbi Reuven Chaim Klein. Feldheim. http://www.feldheim.com/lashon-hakodesh.html Haskomos from R Leff, R Breitowitz, R Lopiansky It deals with the subject of ancient Hebrew history, using both on chazal and current linguistic and archeological sources Did Adam harishon speak Hebrew ? Did the world speak Hebrew until tower of Babel? Did Avraham speak Hebrew ? Foreign influences on Hebrew Hebrew vs Aramaic. Sources. History. Development. You will find exhaustive source material and answers there. Mordechai Cohen ======= Email scanned by PC Tools - No viruses or spyware found. (Email Guard: 9.1.0.2894, Virus/Spyware Database: 6.22240) http://free.pctools.com/ ======= From zev at sero.name Sun Dec 24 23:16:16 2017 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Mon, 25 Dec 2017 02:16:16 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] The Protection Offered by a Mezuza In-Reply-To: <80f92bd4-b7af-1b26-1d03-0f3ce7a67edf@zahav.net.il> References: <2d108449-ec4d-0e35-d888-0ccdd8b113be@sero.name> <80f92bd4-b7af-1b26-1d03-0f3ce7a67edf@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <1ba30a45-ba01-d7d5-2b67-843f9f22ed8b@sero.name> On 24/12/17 22:58, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > On 12/25/2017 12:10 AM, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: >> But the *mitzvah* of mezuzah protects regardless of how those within >> the house "shape their lives". > I seriously doubt that anyone could come up with any statistical > analysis showing this point to be true. Why do we need statistical analysis? Judaism tell us it's true, therefore it is. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From llevine at stevens.edu Mon Dec 25 12:00:57 2017 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Mon, 25 Dec 2017 20:00:57 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Bishul Akum - Specific Products Message-ID: <0ae98ef4eb3a4dbeaa39a0bbc1e50abf@exchng03.campus.stevens-tech.edu> Please see the file at https://goo.gl/LnRQjF YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Mon Dec 25 12:30:23 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 25 Dec 2017 15:30:23 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] The Protection Offered by a Mezuza In-Reply-To: <80f92bd4-b7af-1b26-1d03-0f3ce7a67edf@zahav.net.il> References: <2d108449-ec4d-0e35-d888-0ccdd8b113be@sero.name> <80f92bd4-b7af-1b26-1d03-0f3ce7a67edf@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <20171225203023.GA9557@aishdas.org> On Mon, Dec 25, 2017 at 05:58am IST, Ben Waxman wrote: : On 12/25/2017 12:10 AM, Zev Sero wrote: :> But the *mitzvah* of mezuzah protects regardless of how those :> within the house "shape their lives". : I seriously doubt that anyone could come up with any statistical : analysis showing this point to be true. (I won't bother arguing against Zev's inability to acknowledge the existence of other shitos than his. "[I]t contradicts Chazal and millennia of Jewish belief and practise." "Judaism tell us it's true" indeed. It's a machloqes of the Rambam and the Ramach, with various teirutzim given for the Rambam. Not open-and-shut at all.) You want to statistically decide which hashkafah is true??? I lean the way you do. But it's a machloqes. I already pointed to , a discussion of sources both ways. It would be weird to think it boils down to a machloqes in metzi'us. You remind me of a problem I have saying a particular line of Tehillim (37:25) with kavanah, and it comes up at the appendix to bentching, "Naar hayisi..." But I have seen a tzadiq whose kids miss meals and have to beg. Haven't you? The best I can do, rather than tamper with the minhag of saying it, is to focus on the word "ne'ezav" -- so, his kids don't have food, but it's not because HQBH abandoned the tzadiq. But I can't really feel that's peshat in the pasuq. It allows me to saven with qavanah, but as an answer -- the question is better than this resolution. Bitachon and emunah that actually fit the data can be more challenging than if we just shut off critical thought. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "As long as the candle is still burning, micha at aishdas.org it is still possible to accomplish and to http://www.aishdas.org mend." Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Anonymous shoemaker to R' Yisrael Salanter From micha at aishdas.org Mon Dec 25 12:34:01 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 25 Dec 2017 15:34:01 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Historicity of Aggadta In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20171225203401.GB9557@aishdas.org> On Sun, Dec 24, 2017 at 12:41:29AM -0500, H Lampel via Avodah wrote: : Under the subject line of Re: [Avodah] Did the Patriarchs Speak Hebrew?, : RSM raises a claim that RMB and I have argued over in the past. He writes, : : > Medrashim of Chazal teaches us important ideas, but are not meant to : > be literally true. They do not intend to be a historical document, : > but rather contain important moral and ethical teachings which are : > 'emes in the spiritual sense. Which need not say anything about the story's lilterally truth. Just that the story isn't *about* its literal historical claim, and therefore doesn't testify to history one way or the other. And so, I agree with: : So, the Rambam does not maintain that the literal meaning of /all/ : drashos is to be rejected. Some are indeed meant literally, and some are : not. And yet still won't bother worrying about contradicting any medrash's historical claims. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Life is a stage and we are the actors, micha at aishdas.org but only some of us have the script. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Menachem Nissel Fax: (270) 514-1507 From zvilampel at gmail.com Mon Dec 25 15:53:28 2017 From: zvilampel at gmail.com (H Lampel) Date: Mon, 25 Dec 2017 18:53:28 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Historicity of Aggadta In-Reply-To: <20171225203401.GB9557@aishdas.org> References: <20171225203401.GB9557@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 12/25/2017 3:34 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > And so, I agree with: > : So, the Rambam does not maintain that the literal meaning of /all/ > : drashos is to be rejected. Some are indeed meant literally, and some are > : not. > > And yet still won't bother worrying about contradicting any medrash's > historical claims. I already stated that the Rambam holds the intent of? a medrash is not literal if he holds it contradicts realia, logic, fundamentals or pesukim. And I should add, if it contradicts what he considers the consensus of Chazal. And in past iterations I submitted examples where the Rambam cites midrashic reports of history apparently qua history. You may insist that he (contra the Kuzari regarding Adam and the patricarchs speaking Hebrew) doesn't care about whether they are historically factual. But if you have examples of the Rambam not bothering to worry about contradicting a medrash's historical reports despite the above caveats, please provide them. Zvi Lampel From micha at aishdas.org Mon Dec 25 17:21:19 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 25 Dec 2017 20:21:19 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Historicity of Aggadta In-Reply-To: References: <20171225203401.GB9557@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20171226012119.GH24733@aishdas.org> On Mon, Dec 25, 2017 at 06:53:28PM -0500, H Lampel wrote: :> And yet still won't bother worrying about contradicting any medrash's :> historical claims. : I already stated that the Rambam holds the intent of? a medrash is : not literal if he holds it contradicts realia, logic, fundamentals : or pesukim... Yes, but you know I disagree. The Rambam says that the intent of a medrash is not literal. They might also be literal. A mashal or melitzah -- as he discusses from Mishlei at length -- can be pulled from history or stam crafted as a story, but in either case "mimah shenimtza bikhlal divreihem morim al inyanim amitiyim me'od." However, if the story does contradict what is known, we know it's a pure mashal, ahistorical. And therefore don't become like someone of the first two katim, believing stupidity or ridiculing chazal for their allegedly teaching stupidity. But he doesn't ever say that if the story is plausible, that's the point of the story. Nor that it's sufficient reason to assume it's true on a literal level. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "Fortunate indeed, is the man who takes micha at aishdas.org exactly the right measure of himself, and http://www.aishdas.org holds a just balance between what he can Fax: (270) 514-1507 acquire and what he can use." - Peter Latham From micha at aishdas.org Sun Dec 24 14:11:31 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Sun, 24 Dec 2017 17:11:31 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Please help me fund my book! Message-ID: <20171224221131.GA26480@aishdas.org> My manuscript just went to the publishers. For the second time; I retracted my first version because I didn't like the idea that the book was all theory without any pragmatics. What's the value of exploring the meaning of Torah and life based on haRav Shimon haKohein Shkop without anything about how to align one's life with those ideals? If you want some sense of what the book is about, the text that it's a commentary / elaboration on is available at http://www.aishdas.org/asp/ShaareiYosher.pdf -- although I have made some improvements to the readability of that translation since that PDF. If you would like to help me make this dream happen, whether because you were always looking for a way to thank me for these email lists, you like me or some of the things you've seen me write in the past, you like Rav Shimon's hashkafah, or simply think *any* sefer that gets more Orthodox Jews thinking about the big picture and why are we doing it all is worth existing, please let me know. Initial reactions are excited: "This may IY'H attract some serious attention -- books like this don't come out every day." "Very chashuv, unique sefer." "Wow. what an impressive work!" "Right up our alley, as well. Torah, important -- but kind of unique. For thinking people." "I think the subject, approach and writing are gevaldik." "I am excited as well, but they tell me the hardest part of the job still lays ahead." The sefarim market cannot consume books to the extent where publication will make a profit. So, at least when it comes to the business and funding models, all the houses expect fundraising and sponsorship to make a book happen. But it is not "vanity press". The publisher adds significant value to the book -- fact checking, editing, layout and other aesthetics, etc. The publisher I am going with uses Feldheim as their distribution channel, so my sefer could reach every Anglo sefarim store. And they have to pay the people who do all that, not to mention feed their own families. They put their name on the book, the book is their product. They need that good name for future marketing and distribution. So, they won't take on a book that would harm their business. They're willing to invest those man-hours, and when done, to stand behind my work. So, I have to rely heavily on word-of-mouth to raise that money. Including hitting up everyone here on Areivim/Avodah. I am using a foundation established in memory of my grandparents to clear the money in a manner that is tax-deductible. Email me for details if you are interested in chipping in. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger For those with faith there are no questions. micha at aishdas.org For those who lack faith there are no answers. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yaakov of Radzimin Fax: (270) 514-1507 From zvilampel at gmail.com Mon Dec 25 19:55:18 2017 From: zvilampel at gmail.com (H Lampel) Date: Mon, 25 Dec 2017 22:55:18 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Diberah Torah Kil-shon bnei adam In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Under the heading, Re: [Avodah] Did the Patriarchs Speak Hebrew?, Tue, 19 Dec 2017 From: Micha Berger > Mandel, Seth via Avodah wrote: > : There is no proof that anyone spoke Hebrew. Chazal say that dibb'ra Torah > : bilshon b'nei odom... > > RMB: Well.... R' Yishmael says it [the dictum ''dibb'ra Torah > bilshon b'nei odom.''] And it appears to be an argument for his > rules of derashah, which do not include looking for magic words like > "akh" (mi'ut), "raq" (mi'ut), "kol" (ribui) or even "es", but darshens > the meaning of terms, whether ribui or mi'ut....And besides, R' Aqiva disagrees! RSRH (Collected Writings Vol. V, p. 170), citing 30 cases,? points out that, ''R. Ishmael, no less than R. Akiba (and......all of R. Akiva's predecessors...)...considered particles [including of ''akh,'' ''raq'' and ''ess'] and superfluities ..in the Biblical text...subject to interpretations.'' He explains (p. 177) that ''R. Ishmael disagrees with R. Akiba only with regard to one very specific form of redundancy, namely, repetitions of the same expression; e.g.,...yidor nedder,...hasheiv heishiv, or the repetition of the same noun (ish ish). However, R. Ishmael interprets other redundancies in exactly the same manner as does R. Akiba.'' This leads me to propose an explanation for the phenomenon described by RMB as that... > The Rambam really sloganeers (like the CS's "chadash assur min haTorah") > when he uses it to explain that anthropomorphic descriptions of HQBH > are idioms, not to be taken overly literally. Rambam was not the first (and of course not the last*) to understand that Chazal intended by ''dibrah Torah kil-shon bnei adam'' a wider meaning than the one in dispute between R. Akiva and R.Yishmael, and even wider than the one RSRH shows both agreed to. Rav Hai Gaon (Teshuvas HaGaonim #98), too, used it to explain anthropomorphisms ("all the words of our Sages that have anthropomorphic descriptions ... are not to be understood literally but are metaphors or allegory. ... the Torah speaks in the language of man.)'' So did Chovos Halevavos (Shaar HaYichud 1:1:10). And Sefer HaKuzari (5:27) used it to explain? what the Torah means when it says that blowing the chatzotzros will result in ''v-hayu lachem l-zikaron lifnei H','' which seems to imply that H' requires reminders. Raavad (Sefer HaEmunah 1:7) applied the dictum to explain why the rewards and punishments the Torah' explicitly references are only those in this world, and not the next.? He explained that speaking of spiritual rewards would confuse the common people, ''v'al zeh ne'emar dibrah Torah b-lashon bnei adam.'' (Semi-off topic: In Maamar Techiyyas HaMeisim, Rambam gives a similar, if not identical reason for no explicit reference to techiyyas hameisim, without invoking the dictum.) So I propose that the Geonim and rishonim understood that the intent of Chazal's dictum? ''dibrah Torah kil-ashon bnei adam'' was a wide one, which includes the Torah's use of anthropomorphism. And that R. Yishmael, contra R. Akiva,? /extended/? it even to repetitions of the same expression; e.g.,...yidor nedder,...hasheiv heishiv, or the repetition of the same noun (ish ish). But nobody, including R. Yishmael, extended it even further, to other apparently extra words or particles such as"akh", "raq", "kol" and "ess". Those are meant for interpretation according to all. This would explain why even though the rule is that we follow R. Akiva when he argues with R. Yishmael, , the rishonim embraced the dictum of "dibrah Torah kil-shon bnei adam." Because they embraced it in the sense that all Chazal agreed to. And this applies to anthropomorphisms. It is only regarding whether to extended the dictum's application to certain types of expressions that R. Yishmael and R. Akiva argue. *Ibn Ezra--numerous times, such as on Breishis 6:6) Radak (numerous times, such as on Breishis 9:15 Ramban (Breishis 6:6) Hizkuni (Devarim 5:26) Rabbeynu Bechaye (numerous times, such as on Breishis 1:26) Ralbag (Shoftim 10:16) Akeidas Yitzchak numerous times, such as on Vayeria Shaar 19 sv Va'ani ain) Zvi Lampel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From JRich at sibson.com Mon Dec 25 22:00:57 2017 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2017 06:00:57 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] The Protection Offered by a Mezuza In-Reply-To: <20171225203023.GA9557@aishdas.org> References: <2d108449-ec4d-0e35-d888-0ccdd8b113be@sero.name> <80f92bd4-b7af-1b26-1d03-0f3ce7a67edf@zahav.net.il>, <20171225203023.GA9557@aishdas.org> Message-ID: > > You want to statistically decide which hashkafah is true??? > ------------ > > > You remind me of a problem I have saying a particular line of Tehillim > (37:25) with kavanah, and it comes up at the appendix to bentching, > "Naar hayisi..." But I have seen a tzadiq whose kids miss meals and have > to beg. Haven't you? > -------------- It also bothered the gedolim who struggled to explain why the simple meaning of the segula of being a sandek didn't seem to be statistically fulfilled Kt 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. From lisa at starways.net Tue Dec 26 00:10:52 2017 From: lisa at starways.net (Lisa Liel) Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2017 10:10:52 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Historicity of Aggadta In-Reply-To: <20171226012119.GH24733@aishdas.org> References: <20171225203401.GB9557@aishdas.org> <20171226012119.GH24733@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 12/26/2017 3:21 AM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > However, if the story does contradict what is known, we know it's a pure > mashal, ahistorical. I'd like to revise that to say that if the story contradicts what is *currently* known, we are entitled (or perhaps required) to consider it a pure mashal *at that time*, with the understanding that our knowledge may change. Lisa --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From zvilampel at gmail.com Mon Dec 25 20:41:54 2017 From: zvilampel at gmail.com (H Lampel) Date: Mon, 25 Dec 2017 23:41:54 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Historicity of Aggadta In-Reply-To: <20171226012119.GH24733@aishdas.org> References: <20171225203401.GB9557@aishdas.org> <20171226012119.GH24733@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <057fcda7-0e48-53f8-c0ec-135a112bb534@gmail.com> On 12/25/2017 8:21 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > ...But he doesn't ever say that if the story is plausible, that's the point > of the story. Nor that it's sufficient reason to assume it's true on a > literal level. The historical mentions the Rambam's makes, treating the plausible Midrashim as history without making any qualifications, indicates otherwise. But specifically on the topic this discussion came from now: Regarding the Midrashic reports that Adam and the Avos spoke Ivris/Lashon Hakadosh, which I assume you agree the Kuzari accepts as historical fact (which of course teaches in its historicity an important thing to know)... Is your default position that the Rambam doesn't care whether it's historically so? Zvi Lampel From sholom at aishdas.org Mon Dec 25 22:08:38 2017 From: sholom at aishdas.org (Sholom Simon) Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2017 01:08:38 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Rashi on kol hanefesh (Bereshis 46:26) Message-ID: <20171226060849.GQIH4561.fed1rmfepo102.cox.net@fed1rmimpo209.cox.net> Kol hanefesh . . . shvi'im. Rashi says "I found in Vayikra Rabba" . . . a statement that Eisav had (with him) six, and the word nafashos (plural) was used; but here with Yaakov, kol hanafesh . . . shevi'im, nefesh is in the singular. This is a hint that Eisav engaged in A"Z (plural gods), while Yaakov served one G-d. But don't we (almost?) always see (in Torah) the singular being used for a noun when the count is larger than 10? How can one darshen from something that follows the general grammatic rule? What am I missing here? -- Sholom From lisa at starways.net Tue Dec 26 00:08:21 2017 From: lisa at starways.net (Lisa Liel) Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2017 10:08:21 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] The Protection Offered by a Mezuza In-Reply-To: <20171225203023.GA9557@aishdas.org> References: <2d108449-ec4d-0e35-d888-0ccdd8b113be@sero.name> <80f92bd4-b7af-1b26-1d03-0f3ce7a67edf@zahav.net.il> <20171225203023.GA9557@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <282dcbac-59e9-be81-ee8e-f1faf4991682@starways.net> On 12/25/2017 10:30 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > You remind me of a problem I have saying a particular line of Tehillim > (37:25) with kavanah, and it comes up at the appendix to bentching, > "Naar hayisi..." But I have seen a tzadiq whose kids miss meals and have > to beg. Haven't you? I always understood it to mean that either he's quick to give tzedaka so as to prevent there being a tzaddik neezav v'zar'o mevakesh lachem, or that we aren't talking about literal aziva and lack of food, but rather aziva by Hashem and lack of Torah. Lisa --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From zvilampel at gmail.com Tue Dec 26 07:09:06 2017 From: zvilampel at gmail.com (H Lampel) Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2017 10:09:06 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Historicity of Aggadta In-Reply-To: <057fcda7-0e48-53f8-c0ec-135a112bb534@gmail.com> References: <20171225203401.GB9557@aishdas.org> <20171226012119.GH24733@aishdas.org> <057fcda7-0e48-53f8-c0ec-135a112bb534@gmail.com> Message-ID: <53d98237-ecd0-93ee-7927-d9edb71b28ca@gmail.com> On 12/25/2017 11:41 PM, H Lampel wrote: > > > On 12/25/2017 8:21 PM, Micha Berger wrote: >> ...But he doesn't ever say that if the story is plausible, that's the >> point >> of the story. Nor that it's sufficient reason to assume it's true on a >> literal level. The first statement is of course true. The reason a story is told is to make a point. Thus the citations where the Rambam says that all the maamerei Chazal impart valuable lessons. The second statement is where we diverge. I understand that the Rambam does take the plausible reports of happenings (reported of course because they impart something worthy to know) to be historically true. In other words, that's the default position. He never says that we may deny the historic factuality of events Chazal presented as factual historical events. I understand the citations you bring where Rambam invokes Mishlei to defend interpreting maamarei Chazal non-literally to? be saying that even the implausible ones really have valuable lessons but must be interpreted non-literally to understand them. So I would still ask you for examples of the Rambam not bothering to worry about contradicting a medrash's plausible historical reports. I previously remarked that the historical mentions the Rambam's makes, treating the plausible Midrashim as history without making any qualifications, without explaining why he takes them as historical fact (for example, the neis of the pach shemen, and the military victory of the Chashmonaim), indicates he took them as historical fact, which thereby provides the lessons to be learned therefrom. I quoted a passage from Rambam's Hakdama to Perek Cheilek (originally to counteract the face-value meaning of RSM's declaration that the Rambam holds that every Medrash is meant non-literally), where the Rambam makes clear that some reports are meant non-literally, but some are meant literally. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that your take can be worded as follows: Chazal and Rambam did not care whether the historical events they learned lessons from, really occurred. All Chazal's statements are only for the sake of the lessons. Some of the lessons must be extracted by understanding the statements in a non-literal way, particularly if at face value they are implausible. Of the plausible reports, the lessons to be learned from them can be gleaned from a literal understanding, meaning the message is clear without needing to give unusual meanings to its the words. But that does not mean that they were meant to be historically factual. They are meant literally, but not historically. I.e., the Rambam held that although lessons Chazal intended were ostensibly learned from, or reinforced by, events they reported, it is irrelevant whether the events did actually occur, and indeed they may not have. But I think his words indicate otherwise. Here they are again: ??? And I will yet compose a work in which I will gather all the ??? drashos found in the Talmud and elsewhere...and I will reveal what ??? of the drashos are [meant in] a literal way, and which of them are ??? [meant as] mashal, and which of them were [describing something seen ??? only] in a dream but was stated in a purely absolute way, as if it ??? were [experienced] in a state of wakefulness... If the Rambam considered it irrelevant whether the events did actually occur, and held that indeed they may not have occurred, why is he concerned with whether the report occurred in a dream? Why would he invoke a dream, if he considered the actuality of all reported events irrelevant? After all, its only the lesson that is relevant! But if you accept that the Rambam considered the default position to be that reported events are meant to be understood as actually occurring, and that while some are merely mashal but others are real, then it makes sense that he felt it important to exclude implausible reports and explain which were pure mashal and which were experienced in a dream. And describing the report as "stated in a purely absolute way, as if it were [experienced] in a state of wakefulness," implies that, had it not been implausible, being stated in an absolute way would imply that it was indeed experienced in a state of wakefulness. Zvi Lampel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: ???? ???? ????? ???? ?? ?? ?????? ??????? ?????? ??????.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 215599 bytes Desc: not available URL: From micha at aishdas.org Tue Dec 26 08:06:50 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2017 11:06:50 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Historicity of Aggadta In-Reply-To: <057fcda7-0e48-53f8-c0ec-135a112bb534@gmail.com> References: <20171225203401.GB9557@aishdas.org> <20171226012119.GH24733@aishdas.org> <057fcda7-0e48-53f8-c0ec-135a112bb534@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20171226160650.GC15636@aishdas.org> On Mon, Dec 25, 2017 at 11:41:54PM -0500, H Lampel wrote: : The historical mentions the Rambam's makes, treating the plausible : Midrashim as history without making any qualifications, indicates : otherwise. It indicates that some medrashim which both didn't defy evidence or his philosophy that the Rambam felt had a literal point worth making. Not that plauisible medrashim should be assumed to be literal history. He spends so much time telling you they're all statements of the deepest truths, and quoting Shelomo, that chakhamim conduct such discussions via mashal and melitzah. The fact that some deepest truths has historical impact doesn't give us license to ignore paragraphs of writing. : Regarding the Midrashic reports that Adam and the Avos spoke : Ivris/Lashon Hakadosh, which I assume you agree the Kuzari accepts : as historical fact (which of course teaches in its historicity an : important thing to know)... Is your default position that the Rambam : doesn't care whether it's historically so? That's the default. Perhaps the Rambam agrees with the Rihal that the history of Ivris is a significant statement, and would be meant literally even under his view. Perhaps not. I can't guess, and am willing to entertain anything. But there are also reports that they spoke Aramaic, or even that Adam spoke all 70 leshonos. See the sources I gave in as well as Sanhedrin 38b (R Yehudah amar Rav: Adam haRishon spoke Aramaic). Not to mention historical evidence. So there is no reason for me to make the Rambam's life difficult. To complete repeating myself, my own instinct is to say that Adam spoke some proto-Semitic, and therefore spoke a language which could be considered both ancient Hebrew AND ancient Aramaic, or proto-everything and thus an ancestor to all 70 languages. And this would explain the medrashim as well as allow us to identify Adam's speech with Leshon haQodesh. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "I think, therefore I am." - Renne Descartes micha at aishdas.org "I am thought about, therefore I am - http://www.aishdas.org my existence depends upon the thought of a Fax: (270) 514-1507 Supreme Being Who thinks me." - R' SR Hirsch From eliturkel at mail.gmail.com Mon Dec 25 13:40:32 2017 From: eliturkel at mail.gmail.com (Eli Turkel) Date: Mon, 25 Dec 2017 23:40:32 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] shabbes candles Message-ID: A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: multipart/alternative Size: 1277 bytes Desc: not available URL: From chaim.tatel at mail.gmail.com Mon Dec 25 15:43:58 2017 From: chaim.tatel at mail.gmail.com (Chaim Tatel) Date: Mon, 25 Dec 2017 15:43:58 -0800 Subject: [Avodah] shabbes candles Message-ID: A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: multipart/alternative Size: 4006 bytes Desc: not available URL: From JRich at sibson.com Wed Dec 27 01:51:45 2017 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Wed, 27 Dec 2017 09:51:45 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] birur vs hanhaga in other legal systems Message-ID: <9ec665e80cbd4e97be6b4bcc8b7221d8@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> There's a lot of "Brisker Torah" on the differentiation between halachically resolving doubts by birur (clarification/resolution of doubt) versus hanhaga (we still have a doubt but must move forward while not resolving the doubt). One practical difference would be that doubts resolved by birur are considered resolved retroactively while those resolved by hanhaga are only prospective in nature. Is anyone aware of any parallels to this differentiation in other legal systems? KT 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: From micha at aishdas.org Thu Dec 28 08:03:25 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2017 11:03:25 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Body and Soul In-Reply-To: <89600AC2-DFEA-44AA-A5AE-9C4493ED11F4@cox.net> References: <89600AC2-DFEA-44AA-A5AE-9C4493ED11F4@cox.net> Message-ID: <20171228160325.GA31137@aishdas.org> On Sat, Dec 23, 2017 at 10:30pm EST, Richard Wolberg wrote in a post titled "Vay'chi": : (The question has been asked: Do you have a soul? The answer is NO, : you ARE a soul with a body). I write about this in my manuscript. Here's a version I put up on Mi Yodeya about a year ago. So, it is slightly adapted, lacks a year of editing, and there will be someone else editing the manuscript before it is a book (assuming I raise the money). On Mi Yodeya, "Gabriel12" asked about E-lokai Neshmah, and the phrases "shanasata bi... nefachtahh bi... meshammerahh beqirbi... littela mimmenni, ulhachzirahh bi le'asid lavo". He asks: Here, when I say me, I'm referring to my body. And I'm thanking G-d for giving me back my soul. But why is the body "me"? Shouldn't the soul be the real "me"? Am I the soul or the body? My answer: As for E-lokai Neshamah and Hashem putting a soul within me, my own intent when saying these words is based on the Vilna Gaon's taxonomy of prayer: Prayers that express an ideal to be repeated and internalized are what we call "tefillah" in Hebrew. Tefillos are consistently written in the plural, as our connection to the community is part of that ideal. Prayers written in the singular are therefore of a different sort, "tachanunim", expressions of what already exists in our hearts. This is how the Gaon explains the line in Qaddish, "tisqabel tzelosehon uva'usehon -- accept the tefillos and requests (tachanunim) of all of the House of Israel..." We say this when closing the Amidah -- which is such a paragon of tefillah our Sages called it simply "Tefillah", E-lokai Netzor -- tachanunim, (note that it's written about "I" and "mine", not "we" and "our"), and Tachanun. "Elokai, neshamah -- My G-d, the soul which you placed in me" is similarly tachanunim. Therefore, it's not a place to look for how we ought to see our self-definition, but how things feel to most of us first thing in the morning. The prayer reflects the fact that most people do in practice identify with our body most consistently, and only at times with their soul. But to answer the philosophical question... There is a machlokes, a dispute among the rabbis, as to how to view man. One side, found often among books of Mussar, views a person as a soul who inhabits a body, or perhaps controls it as a rider upon a donkey. As Elifaz describes humanity in the book of [61]Iyov (4:10), "shochnei batei chomer - dwellers in homes of matter." When Rav Yitzchak Isaac Scher (Cheshbon haNefesh, Slaboka Alumni ed., intro.) speaks of man's physical side being an animal, we mean that literally, not merely like an animal. Since much of our yeitzer hara comes from our living in a mammalian body, R' Scher recommends the very same strategies one uses for taming and being able to use the eyesight of a bird, the strength of an ox, the load bearing abilities of a donkey or the speed of a horse are applicable to gaining mastery over our bodies. Like any other animal, a person's animal soul has no ability to plan toward a goal, it simply responds to whatever urge is most triggered in the moment. The animal soul must be saddled by the godly soul and guided. And Rabbi Sherr points out with the example of a trained elephant, "next to whom a person like his trainer seems little more than an ant", to maximize its utility it must neither be overburdened or neglected, nor underused and let remind wild - and this is how we are to treat our body and our animal souls. Last and most importantly, neither an animal nor the animal within can be educated, but trained through habit and acclimation. This notion is a key symbol in the Gra's interpretation system -- when one finds a chamor / donkey in a narrative, it is generally a symbol for the person's chomer / physicality. Avraham at the Akeidah or the mashiach come in riding on a donkey as a way to indicate to us their mastery over their own physicality. In contrast, we speak of Bil'am's donkey, but the Torah consistently calls it a different kind of animal; he does not harness a chamor, showing self-control over the animal's urges of the moment, Bil'am rides an ason ([62]Bamidbar 22:23,25,27,28,29,33). In this viewpoint, a person is a rider of an animal, or to use a metaphor that may resonate better with our more modern lifestyles - the soul who is wearing a body. Another stream of thought includes the body in the definition of person. Rather than a person's more human side that rides his body as a master over an animal, in this model man is seen as a fusion of body and soul. For example when the gemara ([63]Sanhedrin 91a) explains one purpose of the eventual resurrection of the dead by comparing a sinner to a blind man and a lame man who conspire to steal fruit from an orchard. They are caught and brought to court, but each of the accused claims innocence. The blind man says he must be innocent, for he was incapable of even finding the fruit, never mind stealing them. The lame man also claims innocence; after all, he had no way to reach it. Neither alone could commit the theft, so each of the accused points to the other as the critical element for the sin, the guilty party. The judge responds by putting one atop the other, recreating the unit that was capable of sin, and judges the pair. So too, the gemara explains, the soul could claim it couldn't have sinned without the body giving it the opportunity for action, and the body could claim that the planning and execution of the sin are the fault of the soul. In order to judge us for our sins, Hashem will bodily resurrect the sinner to reconstruct the person as they were then. As the Ramchal writes, "Man is different from any other creature. He is a combination of two completely diverse and dissimilar elements, namely, the body and soul." (Derech Hashem 3:1:1) The dispute is not necessarily about which is true, it could well be that both definitions of "person" are equally valid. The dispute is more prescriptive: When is it more productive to think of my physical aspect as an outsider, which would weaken the relative weight I would give the call of physical drives? And when am I better off not thinking of myself as purely soul, because then I'm not fully blaming myself for "stealing the fruit"? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The goal isn't to live forever, micha at aishdas.org the goal is to create so mething that will. http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From ben1456 at zahav.net.il Thu Dec 28 11:57:46 2017 From: ben1456 at zahav.net.il (Ben Waxman) Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2017 21:57:46 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Foreshadow Message-ID: Is the break up of the united kingdom (Israel and Yehuda) somehow foreseen in the brothers? Was the reconciliation between Yosef and the brothers (and especially Yosef and Yehuda) not complete? Was splitting responsibility between Yehuda (he set up Goshen's beit midrash) and Yosef (he supplied the food) a mistake? Is there anything in Yehuda's personality that foreshadows David and Shlomo's failure to truly unite the tribes or is the fault with the latter two only? Ben From JRich at sibson.com Fri Dec 29 02:09:15 2017 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2017 10:09:15 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] FW: Rav Moshe on Smoking In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2eb7119fe3ff4a0f8394f494ae14fde8@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> FYI-An old Avodah topic. KT Joel Rich In the attached file, there is a newly-published teshuvah from Rav Moshe which basically confirms the rumors that he retracted his teshuvah about smoking and would indeed forbid it. Kol Tuv, Reuven Chaim Klein Beitar Illit, Israel Check out my book Lashon HaKodesh: History, Holiness, & Hebrew [Lashon HaKodesh: History, Holiness, & Hebrew (Mosaica Press) on Amazon][Academia.edu][Google Scholar][LinkedIN][https://docs.google.com/uc?export=download&id=0B1NJHmIXg4QJTWZsRUpZblJpWE0&revid=0B1NJHmIXg4QJcXQxRU1kN0JWZ3pQVmZsdlYrVlljRUdSb2ZvPQ][Rabbi Reuven Chaim Klein on TorahDownloads.com] [https://my-email-signature.link/signature.gif?u=93822&e=15367987&v=592df626366a9255517be8f9bb3b802cdc17522127137d175bd71108e063b3e1] 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: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 480.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 2037389 bytes Desc: 480.pdf URL: From JRich at sibson.com Fri Dec 29 01:36:06 2017 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2017 09:36:06 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] truth telling Message-ID: <3852cda5a1f348b8ba9b17c3cd9d8079@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Thought experiment: 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? KT 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: From JRich at sibson.com Fri Dec 29 01:35:14 2017 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2017 09:35:14 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Birchat Cohanim Message-ID: <12830183c04c422ca904affc50bac0b7@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> One is in Eretz Yisrael and davens shacharit in a minyan which often does not have Cohanim to duchen. Is he required to seek a minyan which has Cohanim? If he isn't required, is it preferable? KT 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: From JRich at sibson.com Fri Dec 29 02:09:15 2017 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2017 10:09:15 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] FW: Rav Moshe on Smoking In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: [Take 2. File stripped off for the sake of text digest recipients and moved to . Fixed formatting. -micha] FYI-An old Avodah topic. KT Joel Rich In the attached file, there is a newly-published teshuvah from Rav Moshe which basically confirms the rumors that he retracted his teshuvah about smoking and would indeed forbid it. Kol Tuv, Reuven Chaim Klein Beitar Illit, Israel Check out my book Lashon HaKodesh: History, Holiness, & Hebrew [Lashon HaKodesh: History, Holiness, & Hebrew (Mosaica Press) on Amazon] >> [Academia.edu] [Google Scholar] [LinkedIN] [https://docs.google.com/uc?export=download&id=0B1NJHmIXg4QJTWZsRUpZblJpWE0&revid=0B1NJHmIXg4QJcXQxRU1kN0JWZ3pQVmZsdlYrVlljRUdSb2ZvPQ] [Rabbi Reuven Chaim Klein on TorahDownloads.com] From lisa at starways.net Fri Dec 29 06:19:45 2017 From: lisa at starways.net (Lisa Liel) Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2017 16:19:45 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] truth telling In-Reply-To: <3852cda5a1f348b8ba9b17c3cd9d8079@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <3852cda5a1f348b8ba9b17c3cd9d8079@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: You'll have to define "truth".? I know a lot of self-Identified frum Jews who consider it "truth" that the Exodus didn't happen.? That the Mabul was a metaphor.? That the text of the Torah she'bichtav we have now is not the one given to Moshe at Sinai in an actual, factual, historical event.? It's never good for them to tell that "truth" to their children. If by truth you mean the truths stated in Judaism, then it's a matter of judgment.? If you're considering telling your children about Amnon and Tamar, their age would enter into the decision.? If the truth you want to tell them is about the molesters in the frum community who were respected leaders, again, age matters.? But I wouldn't withhold the facts from my child if they were old enough to hear it and it seemed relevant. Lisa On 12/29/2017 11:36 AM, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: > Thought experiment: 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? > KT > Joel Rich > --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From micha at aishdas.org Fri Dec 29 06:34:31 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2017 09:34:31 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] truth telling In-Reply-To: <3852cda5a1f348b8ba9b17c3cd9d8079@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <3852cda5a1f348b8ba9b17c3cd9d8079@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20171229143431.GD9936@aishdas.org> On Fri, Dec 29, 2017 at 09:36:06AM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : Thought experiment: 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? I understand the point of your question as being about the relative value of emes and of yir'as Shamayim. But... I can't bend my head around the case for balebatishe reasons. Is it not inevitable that many of our children would eventually learn of the lie and lose confidence in the whole concept of mesorah? And wouldn't that percentage inevitably be greater than Y, the additionaly percentage who are only staying because they believe the non-truth? To address the comparison behind the question: According to the Rambam, emunah is defined by emes. Unproven faith isn't emunah. So, he would say that the Y% of the children who believe because of a lie aren't necessarily saved. If we modernize the Rambam's position, then we would still need some kind of valid justification. Even if modern philosophy believes (accuratly, AISI) that theological proof is a meaningless concept, there are other valid ways to reach a conclusion. Those of us blessed with children are certain we love your chidren even though I never developed a proof for it. BUT, I don't think too many people hold like a modern version of the Rambam, which ties redemption to knowledge, and ethics is a lower level of perfection necessary for true knowledge og G-d. Let's take a more typical modern hashkafah, which gives priority to sheleimos or experiential deveiqus. Perhaps the non-truth would indeed be justified, if I thought your case were possible. Just as shalom justifies tactfully bending the truth. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Man can aspire to spiritual-moral greatness micha at aishdas.org which is seldom fully achieved and easily lost http://www.aishdas.org again. Fulfillment lies not in a final goal, Fax: (270) 514-1507 but in an eternal striving for perfection. -RSRH From zev at sero.name Fri Dec 29 09:50:13 2017 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2017 12:50:13 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] FW: Rav Moshe on Smoking In-Reply-To: <2eb7119fe3ff4a0f8394f494ae14fde8@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <2eb7119fe3ff4a0f8394f494ae14fde8@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <2c41ffe6-418e-8a53-6b6f-72547edfcf91@sero.name> On 29/12/17 05:09, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: > In the attached file, there is a newly-published teshuvah from Rav Moshe > which basically confirms the rumors that he retracted his teshuvah about > smoking and would indeed forbid it. > One has to wonder, then, why he never chose to include this in any of the three volumes of IM that he published after this date. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From bdbradley70 at hotmail.com Sat Dec 30 11:30:10 2017 From: bdbradley70 at hotmail.com (Ben Bradley) Date: Sat, 30 Dec 2017 19:30:10 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Foreshadow In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Is that not explicitly the message of the haftara for vayigash? That the split of Yehdua and Efraim (Yosef) is the the same issue as the split in the nation to reconcile the one is to reconcile the other. It's clear from the end of vayechi that there's still broad daylight between Yosef and the brothers. They are still wary of him and he still see the need to try to bring them close. There are many midrashim assuming it's all the same issue, a basic split in Klal Yisrael manifestation over history. The Bnei Yissaschar on Chanuka deals with this a lot and the best treatment I've seen in one place is Rav Matis Weinberg's book on Chanuka. In any case, even without aggadta the cycle of galus is consistently a result of this split, be it to Mitzrayim or to Ashur. Geula has the same dynamic, thus a moshiach both from Yosef and from David (Yehuda). BW Ben -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From JRich at sibson.com Sat Dec 30 14:48:34 2017 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Sat, 30 Dec 2017 22:48:34 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] truth telling In-Reply-To: <20171229143431.GD9936@aishdas.org> References: <3852cda5a1f348b8ba9b17c3cd9d8079@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> <20171229143431.GD9936@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <714290ea035646beb5044c62d3186c46@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Perhaps the non-truth would indeed be justified, if I thought your case were possible. Just as shalom justifies tactfully bending the truth. :-)BBii! -Micha --------------------------------------------------- That's what I wonder about, can belief ever be built on sheker. I've heard drush on not (e.g. why didn't the Chashmonaim not use shemen tamei) but istm it is being done In general I agree that it doesn't work. KT 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. From meirabi at gmail.com Sat Dec 30 17:31:32 2017 From: meirabi at gmail.com (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi) Date: Sun, 31 Dec 2017 12:31:32 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] HELP - Why is there an Issur BBCh on a Nefel/Shellil? Message-ID: I have yet to find anyone asking this Q - the Nefel and Shelil seem to be the same thing it is a Neneilah yet it is Assur to eat as BBCh - why is there no Ein Issur Chal Al Issur? MAssuros 4:1 - one who eats flesh of a dead non-Shechted Kosher beast transgresses the prohibition of eating Neveilah MAssuros 4:4 - one who eats flesh of a Nefel [a non-fully gestated foetus] transgresses the prohibition of eating Neveilah Even [according to the careful reading of the RaMBaM] if it is not dead MAssuros 9:7 - one who cooks a Shelil with milk or eats it transgresses the prohibition of eating BBCh MAssuros 9:6 - one who cooks Cheilev or Neveilah or similar, with milk, transgresses the prohibition of BBCh but not when eating it because a second prohibition cannot take effect upon a item that is already prohibited Best, Meir G. Rabi 0423 207 837 +61 423 207 837 Best, Meir G. Rabi 0423 207 837 +61 423 207 837 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From menu at inter.net.il Sun Dec 31 00:12:21 2017 From: menu at inter.net.il (menucha) Date: Sun, 31 Dec 2017 10:12:21 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Foreshadow In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > > Bereshit Rabba 84 sees foreshadowing of Yeravam ben Nevat starting with Yosef's dreams. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From akivagmiller at gmail.com Sun Dec 31 08:10:04 2017 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Sun, 31 Dec 2017 11:10:04 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Merchavyah Message-ID: . There is a pasuk in Hallel (Tehillim 118:5) that begins "Min hamaytzar". In RSR Hirsch's siddur, the last word of that pasuk is "merchavyah". In his perush on Tehillim, there too, the last word is "merchavyah", and in the perush he writes that "According to Pesahim 117a, merchavyah is one word, like halleluyah." My understanding of that gemara is that R Yochanan, Rav, and Raba all hold "merchavyah" to be one single word. Although Rav Chisda quoted R Yochanan to that effect, the Gemara is unsure how Rav Chisda held personally on this issue, and leaves that as a "tayku". However - When I look in various Tanachs, Tehillims, Siddurim, and Hagados, almost all of them (there *are* a few exceptions) print this as two separate words: "merchav yah". Obviously, there must be someone who either argues against this gemara, or understands the gemara differently than how Rav Hirsch understands it. The Minchas Shai on this pasuk refers to this gemara. If I'm reading it correctly, he seems to feel that the gemara is an unresolved machlokes, and I suppose that's why he tries to resolve it by looking at whatever manuscripts he had, both here and in Beshalach (where there's a similar question on Kes Y-ah). In my very unlearned and inexperienced view, it is not reasonable to consider these as two words, which is an unproven opinion that the gemara left as a tayku, and reject the combined weight of R Yochanan, Rav, and Raba, who all clearly held this to be a single word. Can anyone help me out? Akiva Miller From cantorwolberg at cox.net Sat Dec 30 20:25:17 2017 From: cantorwolberg at cox.net (Richard Wolberg) Date: Sat, 30 Dec 2017 23:25:17 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Sh'mos Message-ID: It is brought down that the place where the Burning Bush occurred was Har Sinai. The talmud asks why did it occur in a thorn bush and the answer: God says "when the Jews are suffering, I am suffering, too." A midrash relates that taking the Jews out of Egypt was nowhere near as difficult as taking ?Egypt? out of the Jews. Aish.com Mayanot Wellsprings bring out: The longest private conversation recorded in the Torah between God and a human individual takes place in our parsha. It takes God 39 long verses (from Exodus 3:1 to 4:17) to persuade Moses to accept the mission of serving as the savior of the Jewish people. In a wide-ranging conversation that covers many topics, God patiently responds to Moses' many objections and queries before Moses finally caves in to the Divine will and accepts. It reminds me that the Shulchan Aruch says if you are asked to be a ba'al tefilla, you should first politely refuse (out of modesty). If you are asked a second time, you should still refuse. But if you are asked a third time, you must accept. It's a not such a well known minhag and is just another example of menschlechkeit, sensitivity and humility for the time it was written. ?The Bible is meant to be OUR critic, not we, ITS critic!" -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From zev at sero.name Sun Dec 31 09:51:47 2017 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Sun, 31 Dec 2017 12:51:47 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Merchavyah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <26d7c7af-67e8-e1d6-3fd7-00aca9fcbef4@sero.name> For one thing, the Keter Aram Tzovah has it as two words. -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 2018 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From micha at aishdas.org Sun Oct 1 11:10:33 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Sun, 1 Oct 2017 14:10:33 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Writing on Yom Tov In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20171001181033.GC31024@aishdas.org> On Sat, Sep 30, 2017 at 10:18:58PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : So... back to my question: To whatever extent "writing" in the "Book of : Life" is a melacha, should it matter whether it is Shabbos or Yom Tov? Before we take the Barditcher Rebbe's words too literally, let us remember that wind routinely blows things to roll more than 4 amos on a reshus harabbim, lightning ignites trees on Shabbos, people die on Shabbos, etc... IOW, first explain to me what a claim that the RBSO avoids melakhos means altogether in light of the evidence, and then perhaps I could participate in your intended conversation. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger One who kills his inclination is as though he micha at aishdas.org brought an offering. But to bring an offering, http://www.aishdas.org you must know where to slaughter and what Fax: (270) 514-1507 parts to offer. - R' Simcha Zissel Ziv From akivagmiller at gmail.com Sun Oct 1 17:52:44 2017 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Sun, 1 Oct 2017 20:52:44 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Not hadar is pasul Message-ID: . This thread may be running into a vocabulary problem. My understanding is that "hadar" and "mehudar" mean two different things, and some people tend to confuse the two. "Hadar" refers to the absolute minimum requirements, without which the minim are posul, and "mehudar" refers to things which Chazal consider as making the minim even more beautiful. "Hadar" is required, and "mehudar" is desirable. I was not able to find a source for this in my seforim, but a post from R' Moshe Feldman in Avodah 10:9 (fifteen years ago) seems to support it: > The chiluk between psulei hadar (learned from the word "hadar") > and the idea of buying a mehudar esrog--deriving from the din > of zeh Keli v'anveihu (and applicable to other mitzvos as well) > is discussed at length in Mikra'ei Kodesh (Succos vol 2) siman > 26, esp. p. 119 (quote from Raavad) and pp. 122-123 in Harirei > Kodesh. It would seem from his discussion that buying a mehudar > esrog has no relationship to the word "hadar." Of course, there are many differing views about what is in each category, and this will vary by posek, by first day / not first day, and by lechatchila / bdieved. I'm just explaining the definitions of these easily-confused terms. Akiva Miller From zev at sero.name Sun Oct 1 23:02:00 2017 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2017 02:02:00 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Not hadar is pasul In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <454d729c-5e9d-e0b0-d0cb-f625592cd49f@sero.name> On 01/10/17 20:52, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > This thread may be running into a vocabulary problem. My understanding > is that "hadar" and "mehudar" mean two different things, and some > people tend to confuse the two. > > "Hadar" refers to the absolute minimum requirements, without which the > minim are posul, and "mehudar" refers to things which Chazal consider > as making the minim even more beautiful. "Hadar" is required, and > "mehudar" is desirable. I don't think they're two very different things, they're just degrees of the same thing. From "pri etz hadar" we learn that beauty is a base requirement, at least for the first day. If it's not beautiful it's not kosher. From "zeh keli ve'anvehu" we learn that we should want all mitzvos, including this one, to be as beautiful as we can make them, given our resources. But baseline beauty itself requires more than the bare minimum that would otherwise apply; an esrog that is exactly as big as an egg fits the basic shiur, but the poskim think it obvious that to do the bare minimum is not beautiful, so they say hadar means it must be at least a bit bigger, if possible. If it's not possible, then we make do with the bare shiur. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From micha at aishdas.org Mon Oct 2 03:58:53 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2017 06:58:53 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] expensive etrog In-Reply-To: <2c96c2fe-0e11-f9ca-66d5-28e79f983bbb@zahav.net.il> References: <2c96c2fe-0e11-f9ca-66d5-28e79f983bbb@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <20171002105852.GB30968@aishdas.org> On Fri, Sep 29, 2017 at 02:05:15PM +0200, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: : In OH 656 the Mechaber writes that if one is shopping for an etrog : and sees two etrogim, one more mehudar than the other, you need to : buy the mehudar (either it is mitzvah or possibly a chiyuv). : However, this only applies if the mehudar etrog is no more than 33% : more expensive. The language that the Mechaber uses in the "yesh : omrim" is "ein meyakrim oto yoter m'shlish".... There is a machloqes whether the shelish is milevar (Ran, arguing from the Rif's silence, on Rif Sukkah 16a; Yam shel Shelomom #24), in which case it's 50% -- 1/3 of the total 150%; or if the shelish is milegav (Rosh 1:7), i.e. 1/3 in the Western sense, with a total of 4/3 the original price. The SA (OC 656:1) holds like the Rosh, lequla, but accoring to the BY, he was doing so only on the ground of safeiq derabbanan lequla. Hiddur mitzvah is derabbanan. My first thought was -- what? It's a word in the pasuq WRT esrog -- "peri eitz hadar"! That looks more like peshat than asmachta for a derabbanan! But I realized something. Even though this din is being discussed WRT esrog, the kelal of kehadeir bemitzvah ad shelish is not specific to 4 minim. As in Rashi (9b "behidur") invoking "ze keili ve'anveihu" to tell you to buy the more expensive ST if it is up to shelish more pricey than your other choice. (So that according to Rashi, if you have only two choices -- mehudas or very mehudar, and they differ by less than a shelish, you are to by the very mehudar. Tosafos disagree. This tangent is discussed in the Shitah Mequbetzer.) Anyway, the SA calling milegav a qula implies that he sees up to 1/3 as a chiyuv derabbanan, and beyond could well be reshus. If it were reshus up to a shelish and assur beyond that, then he'd be making lesser expenditures assur -- a chumerah. Personally, given the number of Jews who wouldn't spend the money on a 4 minim set, I like spending the 1/3 exactly, and using any other money I wish to use to fulfill the mitzvah of 4 minim to subsidize someone else's. (Looking at the archives, it seems I've tried marketing this idea most years since 1999.) Of course, there are so many Jews who can't afford yom tov, and I'd like to help with that.... In the end, the calculus of how to triage that money can get SO difficult. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger For those with faith there are no questions. micha at aishdas.org For those who lack faith there are no answers. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yaakov of Radzimin Fax: (270) 514-1507 From basserh at queensu.ca Wed Oct 4 12:21:12 2017 From: basserh at queensu.ca (Herbert Basser) Date: Wed, 4 Oct 2017 19:21:12 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] RE Expensive etrog inter alia Message-ID: There is yerushalmi Peah 1:1 where someone had the ugliest etrog but bragged and showed it to everyone saying it was the most beautiful etrog in the whole world. It took him just a second to purchase it without really checking it for hiddurim-- he didnt waste his valuable resources (time) on petty matters but learned instead--that was its incredible beauty for him. also see shmos rabba 30:9 for hashem's observance of halacha (I have a discussion of the inyan on reseachrgate.net) Hag Sameach! zvi -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From zev at sero.name Sat Oct 7 18:11:15 2017 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Sat, 7 Oct 2017 21:11:15 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] RE Expensive etrog inter alia In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 04/10/17 15:21, Herbert Basser via Avodah wrote: > There is yerushalmi Peah 1:1 where someone had the ugliest etrog but > bragged and showed it to everyone saying it was the most beautiful etrog > in the whole world. It took him just a second to purchase it without > really checking it for hiddurim-- he didnt waste his valuable resources > (time) on petty matters but learned instead--that was its incredible > beauty for him. Where in that halacha is this? I couldn't find it, and also searched the entire perek for the word "etrog" and it doesn't seem to exist (though "lulav" appears twice). -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From hmaryles at mail.yahoo.com Sat Oct 7 23:54:54 2017 From: hmaryles at mail.yahoo.com (Harry Maryles) Date: Sun, 8 Oct 2017 09:54:54 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] going to the amud In-Reply-To: <9d0df5d1c05c43e297d3055f6e617065@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <9d0df5d1c05c43e297d3055f6e617065@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <369A143A-9C11-4243-93D2-7F756A3D147A@yahoo.com> On Oct 8, 2017, at 5:10 AM, Rich, Joel wrote: > I note the following practices at a chareidi shul in RBS which has > multiple minyanim You must be talking about Maasas Mordechai. That is where I've been Davening since I got here just before Yom Kippur. During Chol Hamoed, I will be davening shachris at the Vasiken minyan (6:10am). My son Davens there. If you are at that minyan, come on over and say hello. > At the appointed starting time for each minyan, there > is often not a "volunteer" to lead the services. The amount of time > that it takes to start varies as everyone looks at each other trying to > influence someone to start. If there is a young bar mitzvah boy, he is > often sent for mincha/maariv. > I'm not sure what the community thinking is... To answer your question, I just asked my son about it. He said it's just a practical matter. Most boys are more willing to go to the Amud. All of the married men that are there just shake off the requests to be the Shaliach Tzibur for some reason. HM From ben1456 at zahav.net.il Sun Oct 8 12:40:42 2017 From: ben1456 at zahav.net.il (Ben Waxman) Date: Sun, 08 Oct 2017 21:40:42 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] going to the amud In-Reply-To: <9d0df5d1c05c43e297d3055f6e617065@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <9d0df5d1c05c43e297d3055f6e617065@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <5deb9535-86be-8ea7-4561-242363c8eb92@zahav.net.il> I saw similar practices during Shacharit when I used to go to Sadigora in Jerusalem. However, often the teen would quit right before starting chazarat hashaz. That always got interesting. Ben On 10/8/2017 4:10 AM, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: > I note the following practices at a chareidi shul in RBS which has > multiple minyanim: At the appointed starting time for each minyan, > there is often not a ?volunteer? to lead the services. The amount of > time that it takes to start varies as everyone looks at each other > trying to influence someone to start. If there is a young bar mitzvah > boy, he is often sent for mincha/maariv. > I?m not sure what the community thinking is, perhaps humility to avoid > the amud, but I?m struck by the amount of bittul torah caused and > wonder how this trade-off was decided upon. I also wonder about why > the practice of sending youngsters up developed given the S?A?s psak > concerning the priorities for a chazzan. Thoughts? From micha at aishdas.org Sun Oct 8 15:50:13 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Sun, 8 Oct 2017 18:50:13 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] going to the amud In-Reply-To: <9d0df5d1c05c43e297d3055f6e617065@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <9d0df5d1c05c43e297d3055f6e617065@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20171008225013.GB19523@aishdas.org> On Sun, Oct 08, 2017 at 02:10:14AM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : At the appointed starting time for each minyan, there : is often not a "volunteer" to lead the services. The amount of time : that it takes to start varies as everyone looks at each other trying : to influence someone to start. If there is a young bar mitzvah boy, : he is often sent for mincha/maariv. Going backwards (who ever said I am a chakham bound to answer al rishon rishon?)... The kid is not as likely to declien the gabbai, because an adult carries more authority in the kid's eyes. Besides, it's good practice. As for the adults declining... Two possiblities, and I would bet that in most cases, they both come into play. 1- The more positive issue is that there is actually a din to decline the amud, accepting only on the third request. I have no idea how this was expected to be implemented in a minyan where people are expected to know the din. A rachmanus on the gabbaim! Still, we see an ethic of tzenius, and halevai people internalize it! 2- The following is Ashkenazocentric. The way we teach davening, it's really a personal affair. A person is encouraged to go as slowly as he needs, having his own kavvanos. The notion of tefillah betzibbur is layered on top of that, but not in a way that explains what that means about how I daven. That means that being shatz becomes a tircha, a call to say the words in a manner that robs me of any chance of getting value out of tefillah in the ways I was taught how. So of course men (who aren't cowed by being asked by a grown-up) choose to decline! Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger You will never "find" time for anything. micha at aishdas.org If you want time, you must make it. http://www.aishdas.org - Charles Buxton Fax: (270) 514-1507 From JRich at sibson.com Sat Oct 7 19:10:14 2017 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Sun, 8 Oct 2017 02:10:14 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] going to the amud Message-ID: <9d0df5d1c05c43e297d3055f6e617065@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> I note the following practices at a chareidi shul in RBS which has multiple minyanim: At the appointed starting time for each minyan, there is often not a "volunteer" to lead the services. The amount of time that it takes to start varies as everyone looks at each other trying to influence someone to start. If there is a young bar mitzvah boy, he is often sent for mincha/maariv. I'm not sure what the community thinking is, perhaps humility to avoid the amud, but I'm struck by the amount of bittul torah caused and wonder how this trade-off was decided upon. I also wonder about why the practice of sending youngsters up developed given the S"A's psak concerning the priorities for a chazzan. Thoughts? GT 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: From zev at sero.name Sat Oct 7 20:42:36 2017 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Sat, 7 Oct 2017 23:42:36 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] going to the amud In-Reply-To: <9d0df5d1c05c43e297d3055f6e617065@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <9d0df5d1c05c43e297d3055f6e617065@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: On 07/10/17 22:10, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: > I note the following practices at a chareidi shul in RBS which has > multiple minyanim: At the appointed starting time for each minyan, there > is often not a ?volunteer? to lead the services. [...] Thoughts? My first thought is to be happy that this shul doesn't have enough avelim to make the issue moot. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From basserh at queensu.ca Sun Oct 8 15:32:52 2017 From: basserh at queensu.ca (Herbert Basser) Date: Sun, 8 Oct 2017 22:32:52 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] RE Expensive etrog inter alia In-Reply-To: References: , Message-ID: You're right-- I thought it was y peah. But obviously not. A number of years ago I tired to discover when the first mention of looking at many esrogim was. I remember looking at the yerushalmi and its commentaries and thought it was there --obviously not. Now I have no idea-- ________________________________ : Zev Sero on behalf of Zev Sero Sent: October 7, 2017 9:11 PM To: The Avodah Torah Discussion Group Cc: Herbert Basser Subject: Re: [Avodah] RE Expensive etrog inter alia On 04/10/17 15:21, Herbert Basser via Avodah wrote: > There is yerushalmi Peah 1:1 where someone had the ugliest etrog but > bragged and showed it to everyone saying it was the most beautiful etrog > in the whole world. It took him just a second to purchase it without > really checking it for hiddurim-- he didnt waste his valuable resources > (time) on petty matters but learned instead--that was its incredible > beauty for him. Where in that halacha is this? I couldn't find it, and also searched the entire perek for the word "etrog" and it doesn't seem to exist (though "lulav" appears twice). -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Mon Oct 9 14:45:50 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2017 17:45:50 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Critique of the OU paper on leadership/ordination for women In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20171009214550.GA4315@aishdas.org> On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 03:17:36PM -0500, Noam Stadlan via Avodah wrote: : JOFA has published my critique of the paper comissioned by the OU on the : topic of leadership/ordination for women.... Speaking of the full essay . Your article has proven to be a slow read for me. I keep on being pulled into "polemic mode" (apologies for talking like a programmer, but...) and when I do, I stop, put it down, and wait until I could give it a fairer read, to actually hear what you're trying to say rather than just listening for points to refute. Here are my first set of reactions. Of course, they're all points of disagreement; trying to take the time to understand what you were writing before objecting doesn't mean I stopped objecting. 1- You open with Earlier this year, 7 highly respected rabbis authored a position paper on the ordination of women and on the possibility of women serving as clergy. [1] Individually and collectively, they represent great learning, personal piety, and years of leadership. It would seem presumptuous for someone who will never achieve anything near their learning or stature to comment or critique. However, no one person or group has a monopoly on facts and logic. And, as will be demonstrated, Torah learning sometimes is not the sole or even dominant factor in a person's opinion on these issues. There appears to be an underlyuing assumption that halachic arguments, even meta-halachic ones, are entirely formal, rather than containing a strong element of ineffible art. (See #2, below) If halakhah deals with determinations like that of which poetic forms "sound right" then their "great learning, personal piety, and years of leadership" provide experience at the art of pesaq that your response simply lacks. The gemara requires shimush before one attempts to pasqen. A poseiq needs not only the abstract facts and logic, but also the skill he can only pick up with experience. Recently, my Arukh haShulachan Yomi schedule brought me to EhE 145:6. The topic is whether a shechiv-meira who gives a gett "meihayom im meisi" made the gett as-of the moment of giving, a colloquial use of "today", or if we cannot assume the gett is chal before the end of the day (R' Tam in Tosafos 72b). R' Elchanan (Tos' ad loc) says "nachon lehachmir". The AhS's assessment of the "facts and logic" leads him to conclude "vehagam chumerah yeseirah hi". And yet he continues to close the se'if with "mikol maqom chalalilah lehaqeil bedavar sheR' Tam nistapeiq bo". RYME knew that a decision of a more skilled artisan is too likely correct even in the face of his own reasoning. And there are other factors that go into halachic decisions other than the merits of the argument -- both those we can articulate and those someone could only feel by practice. Things like acharei rabim lehatos. I am not saying defer to the OU's panel because they outnumber you. I am just pointing out that logical argument isn't the only source of legal authority. Another, more relevant, is nispasheit bechol yisrael (see #8, below). The notion that your paper is of value beyond lehalakhah velo lemaaseh is an example of the American valuation of autonomy that can itself be at odds with ancient AND mesoretic values. (See #7, about not framing the discussion in terms of rights or privileges.) 2- You offer your own translation of Mesorah, which is only valid if you can show that's how the authors of the paper intended the term. >From your pg 4: > We can broadly define it as the content of our tradition that is > passed from one generation to another. That tradition contains Mitzvot > and opinion on the value of Mitzvot. Frequently a situation occurs > where one must choose between emphasizing one mitzvah or a different > mitzvah. Our Mesorah therefore contains not only the Mitzvot, but also > attitudes or values that help us choose between Mitzvot when they come > into conflict. One could cogently argue that the values are in fact > Mitzvot in and of themselves, but for the purpose of this discussion that > is a distinction without a difference. Ultimately what this analysis > is concerned with is how, within the confines of our legal tradition, > are values embraced or shunted to the side. However, RYBS and RHS both use the term mesorah to refer to the ineffible side of the art of pesaq. I argue this with examples at http://www.torahmusings.com/2015/08/what-does-masorah-mean I therefore think it is likely the sense intended by the entire OU Panel. Or at the very least (not that I want to fully concede this, but have to admit it's plausible) heavily colored by this notion. Skipping the somwhat longer quote from RYBS, here are quotes I had found from RHS, one of the panel members: Jewish Action, Fall 1910: Mesorah is not primarily a corpus of knowledge to master but a process of accessing a chain of student-teacher relationships that reaches back to Sinai. Moshe received the Torah and transmitted it to his student, Yehoshua, who in turn taught it to his students and so on, continuing through today. The nature of transmission of the mesorah is instruction from a rebbe to his student. We connect to the mesorah, to the sacred structure of laws, beliefs and attitudes, through our teachers. And a bit further in the article, "Who Is Authorized to Institute Change?": Changes in practice require delicate evaluations that only a master Torah scholar, a gadol baTorah, can properly conduct. Only someone with a broad knowledge and a deep understanding of the corpus of halachah, with an intimate familiarity with both the letter and the spirit of the law, with a mastery of both the rules and the attitudes of the mesorah, can determine when a change is acceptable or even required. The more wide-reaching the proposed change, the greater the expertise required to approve it. The evaluator must not only be a master of the mesorah, but he must also be able to consider new practices based solely on values internal to the mesorah, removing external influences from the deliberation. Rav Schachter then applies this topic to feminism itself in a teshuvah: Indeed, the Rav would often say (see drasha to Parshas Korach), that every person must recognize that he needs a Rav or a Rebbe. Even a Talmid Chochom whose Rebbe had passed away must constantly ask himself in truth (when they present questions to him) what his Rebbe would have said in such a scase, and what stance he would have taken.... Still, most of your examples of how change was permitted despite mesorah would be valid even if you were discussing the same topic I believe the authors to whom you're responding are. I think, though, your response would have been stronger if it reflected our discussions both my Torah Musings post and here. 3- But you shift criteria for legitimate change in moral value. Page 2: This paper will illustrate that 'modern values' are intrinsically neither 2 good nor bad, and that our Mesorah has always incorporated 'modern values' that found resonance in the Mesorah. Furthermore, according to great and highly respected Modern Orthodox authorities, a hallmark of Modern Orthodoxy is the willingness to acknowledge some 'modern values' as previously under-recognized religious values. I think you're again arguing against a point the OU paper isn't making. They aren't saying there is a problem with appropriating 'modern values' in-and-of itself, but that there is a problem with changing halakhah to fit 'modern values' simply because they are the values living in the modern world means being immersed in. What happened to checking for that "resonance in the Mesorah"? This being another phrasing of my origin objection here on Avodah from the days of the initial announcement of Yeshivat Maharat. I do not see discussion of how we know that this is a change the values of the Torah would imply are positive. Regardless of the outcome of that discussion, can the change be legitimate without that procedural step? Anyway, you tone down the need for resonance when you open the door to assessing for yourself which values count. From the closing paragraph of section I, on mesorah, pg 13: ... The major issue is distinguishing between timeless values and ancient values. As has been demonstrated, our Mesorah over time, consciously or unconsciously, has addressed the perceived conflict between ancient values and modern values. Certainly there are modern values that have been appropriately rejected. Frequently however, ancient values have been rejected or perhaps more accurately assigned a reduced role of importance. And the modern values have been the impetus for the re-evaluation. At this point, I fear, the hunt for resonance goes out the window. IIUC, you are making the case that resonance need only be between actual Torah values, and not all ancient values actually qualify. This is actually more problematic given your definition of Mesorah than the one I think the OU's authors intended. After all, if mesorah is a mimetic transmisison of values, than any ancient value is mesoretic. But the problem I have with this statement is that it reads like you're saying that (1) we need to assess which Torah values are real, and therefore which do not bow to movern values; and (2) we use said modern values to drive that assessment. That can't be your intent. Please clarify. Continuing the paragraph from where I left off: As discussed in the Part II, the Halakhic arguments, taken at face value, are in favor of ordination for women. The values of eliminating unnecessary restrictions, encouraging full expression of potential to serve the community, fairness, and others also point towards ordination. There are specific Halakhic restrictions in place governing the behavior of men and women. The question that needs to be answered is: What timeless principles (or values) are served by imposing restrictions on women that are not justified by a fair reading of the Halacha and the sources? Are they truly Timeless and justifiably dominant in our Mesorah, or just ancient? ... If I were to use halakhah to make that determination, I would ask whether those "specific Halakhic restrictions" that were historically / traditionally explained in terms of those ancient values can be otherwise explained. Since they do appear to be of the same cloth, this is a sizable burden of proof on your part. This is the challenge in the OU paper you quote on pg 29: Gender differences have, historically, been particularly evident in the arena of public service. We believe that these distinctions are not merely a relic of times bygone; instead, they reflect a Torah ethos -- a /Mesorah/ -- of different avenues and emphases by which men and women are to achieve identical goals -- the service of G-d and the perpetuation of the Jewish people. 4- You cite and dismiss "nashim daatan kalos", but do not note that it's part of a richer picture of gender differences alongside "binah yeseirah nitenah lahen". 5- You quote RAL at the bottom of pg 8, an essay about using English Literary sources to enhance and color values that we cannot find in our own tradition: Nor should we be deterred by the illusion that we can find everything we need within our own tradition. As Arnold insisted, one must seek "the best that has been thought and said in the world," and if, in many areas, much of that best is of foreign origin, we should expand our horizons rather than exclude it. He is talking about broadening the search in the case of silence; that we can learn more from TIDE than Torah alone. A discussion of what to do when we can't "find everything we need within in our Tradition" has nothing to to with real or apparent conflicts when we do find an answer -- ancient or traditional -- before looking elsewhere. 6- You wuote R/Dr Shalom Carmy, describing R Eliezer Berkovitz, that his moral ends derive from internal Jewish sources.dissatisfaction with mainstream Halakhah regarding women is rooted, not in the pressures of contemporary egalitarianism, but in his judgment about biblical conceptions of justice, While that may well be true of REB, it has to be actually be shown that the same is true of Torah observant Jews who join an organization with the word "feminism" in its name. You write: The authors of the paper in fact state something quite egalitarian: The Torah affirms the absolute equal value of men and women as individuals and as ovdei Hashem. This is not the view of the Talmud. The Mishnah (Horiyot 13:1) states: "A man takes precedence over a woman, in matters concerning the saving of life... a Cohen takes precedence over a Levi...." Clearly the lives are not of equal value in the eyes of the Talmud. Arguments about the validity of what you think the misnhah is "clearly" saying aside... You are treating equality of value as synonymous with egalitarianism. The people you are responding to do not. They view is as more akin to the implication of JOFA's talking about "feminism" -- seeking value in the same sorts of roles and activities. A square can be equal in area to a triangle without insisting the square and the triangle are congruent. 7- "Usena es harabbanus". Leadership isn't about my "desire for maximal participation within Halacha", as you put it in a sentence shortly before the previous quote (pg 10). It's about my duties toward the community. Your entire phrasing of the discussion in terms of right or privileges, people getting an opportunity, depriving of that opportunity being unjust (as you present REB's position), is itself a HUGE drift from how halakhah even discusses values; never mind the content of that discussion. Self-expression is like the tassles emerging from the windings of the tzitzis. (RSRH's metaphor in CW vol 3.) It is how we express ourselves within the framework of Torah; but not the windings themselves. What makes me a fan of Bach's music is his ability to conform to the strict structural rules of the music of his era. And yet he still produced pieces that could express sublime religious passion or Majesty. (Until Beethoven invented Conservative Judaism. ) Halakhah's role is to channel such expression constructively -- like the windings of the tzitzis. As RSRH continues, there is a reason why the free part of the tassle is ideally twice was long as the wound portion; this metaphor isn't against expression. The second you frame halakhah in terms of every getting their fair opportunity, I hear an evaluation based on a framework very alien to an internally resonant analysis. 9- Somewhat more tangentially, but it's the first case of something I might raise other examples of in a future email. (Assuming I ever want to go retail rather than stick to meta-issues.) On pg 3, fn 3: There are other stated facts in the OU paper that require discussion but are beyond the scope of this paper. For example, one of the points emphasized in the OU paper is the issue of women as ritual slaughterers (shochtim). Some authorities such as R. Jacob Landau and R. Moshe Isserles wrote that since women did not do it, there was a custom for women not to do so. But that was factually erroneous. "Female ritual slaughterers were to be found in most of the Jewish Diasporas... In Renaissance Italy, the phenomenon of shohatot was very common. Another source also documents that female shochtim were found in areas of Italy where they adequately educated. See Grossman, Avraham... I am willing to agree with the conclusion that the Agur and the Rama were wrong on the historical facts, and simply didn't know what was going on in other parts of the golah. Still... You don't touch the point the OU paper cites it for -- that the Rama, a halachic source we cannot simply ignore -- is one of a number of sources that WERE willing to suggest that a practice being absent from the mesorah can mean there is a mesorah that it ought to be absent. That statement bothers me too. But because you dismissed the quote based on a tangent, you don't address the central problem it raises! Perhaps there'll be more after I really read section II onward. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "I think, therefore I am." - Renne Descartes micha at aishdas.org "I am thought about, therefore I am - http://www.aishdas.org my existence depends upon the thought of a Fax: (270) 514-1507 Supreme Being Who thinks me." - R' SR Hirsch From akivagmiller at gmail.com Mon Oct 9 09:44:27 2017 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2017 12:44:27 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Eruv Tavshilin - who makes it? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: My wife and I have recently discovered that among our friends, it is invariably the husband who makes the Eruv Tavshilin. This surprises us, and we are wondering what other families do, and if there are any sources for one preference or the other. Essentially, the Eruv Tavshilin means that in this particular instance, the Shabbos cooking cannot wait for Friday, but must be done on Erev Yom Tov too. With such an intimate connection to the Shabbos cooking, it was intuitively obvious to both my wife and myself that this is NOT similar to other mitzvos (mezuza is a good example) which might be done by the husband for gender-role reasons. Rather, it is the beginning of the cooking, and should therefore be done by whoever does the cooking. In our family, that's the wife. Eruv Tavshilin was not assigned to each and every individual, like kiddush was. It is a reminder. Granted that the rishonim have varying explanations of this mitzvah, but it seems that to all of these explanations, the object of this reminding is the person who does the cooking. So my question to the chevra is: In your family, who makes the eruv, and why? And do any sources discuss this? Note: I admit there's a certain weakness in everything that I've written above. Namely, the idea that one can rely on the Eruv Tavshilin that was made by the rav of the town. Let's set aside the fact that this is not the best way of doing the eruv, and that various conditions are imposed on one who wants to rely on it. Let's focus on the fact that it is valid *at* *all*. How does the eruv made by someone outside of my home help me? What sort of *reminder* does his eruv provide? I have never understood this, nor have I heard any explanation of it, only assertions that it does work. Any help in this area would be appreciated. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From michaelpoppers at gmail.com Mon Oct 9 18:59:58 2017 From: michaelpoppers at gmail.com (Michael Poppers) Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2017 21:59:58 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] going to the amud Message-ID: In Avodah V35n119, RJR wrote: > I also wonder about why the practice of sending youngsters up developed given the S?A?s psak concerning the priorities for a chazzan. < (RJR made other points that listmembers have responded to; I thought this point, for which the latest digest listed no response, was worthy of a response.) In many *shuls*, much less *minyanim*, so perhaps in the noted "chareidi shul in RBS", those "priorities" (married, beard, age, etc.) are seemingly (except for the Yamim Noraim) secondary to the hierarchy of "*chiyuvim*"...but one "priority", being "*m'rutzah laqahal*", might be upheld when appointing/allowing a young adult to lead the *tzibbur*.... *Gut Moeid*/*Mo'adim l'Simcha!* and all the best from *Michael Poppers* * Elizabeth, NJ, USA -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From akivagmiller at gmail.com Tue Oct 10 03:47:36 2017 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2017 06:47:36 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Eruv Tavshilin - who makes it? Message-ID: . I asked how one could ever rely on the Rav's eruv: > How does the eruv made by someone outside of my home > help me? What sort of *reminder* does his eruv provide? R' Zev Sero answered: > ... that it's wrong to rely entirely on leftovers, and one > must prepare at least one thing just for Shabbos. According > to this explanation, the fact that one must ask the rabbi > (or the neighbor, or whomever) before relying on their eruv > accomplishes the same thing. One has provided for Shabbos, > not by cooking but by arranging an invitation to eat out. I don't follow this logic at all. One who relies on this did NOT "prepare at least one thing just for Shabbos." If you respond that the one thing he prepared was "arranging an invitation to eat out", I will say that he did NOT arrange such an invitation; he is merely aware that the rabbi/neighbor had him in mind. You write about "the fact that one must ask the rabbi", but I never saw such a halacha. One does not need to do any sort of action at all, not even speaking. All one needs is to be aware that the rabbi/neighbor had him in mind. So what is being accomplished? > The second explanation is that originally there was no ha'arama; > it was permitted to openly cook on Yomtov for Shabbos. Chazal > legislated that one must save Yomtov's face by pretending to be > cooking for that day. According to this explanation it's very > simple; the important thing is not the eruv itself, but the need > for the ha'arama. The eruv's function is merely to give the > ha'arama some surface plausibility. So it makes no difference > whose eruv one uses; the fact that one is pretending not to be > cooking for Shabbos *is* the kevod Yomtov that Chazal required. > The enabling notion that on Shabbos one will be eating the rabbi's > eruv is only barely less plausible than the one that one will be > subsisting on ones own eruv. Focusing on the last sentence here, we agree that relying on the rabbi's eruv is indeed less plausible than one's own. I think our disagreement is that you feel it has a sufficient shiur of plausibility, and I don't. Alternatively, you feel that relying on the rabbi constitutes "pretending to be cooking for that day", but I think it doesn't even constitute "pretending". And this is especially true in the case where one genuinely forgot to make the eruv, and remembered on Yom Tov; surely you'll agree with me that this person did absolutely *nothing* before Yom Tov as a Shabbos preparation, right? Not even to ask the rabbi to have him in mind! Akiva Miller From micha at aishdas.org Tue Oct 10 06:18:05 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2017 09:18:05 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Eruv Tavshilin - who makes it? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20171010131805.GA8572@aishdas.org> On Tue, Oct 10, 2017 at 06:47:36AM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : You write about "the fact that one must ask the rabbi", but I never : saw such a halacha. One does not need to do any sort of action at all, : not even speaking. All one needs is to be aware that the : rabbi/neighbor had him in mind. So what is being accomplished? Beqitzur: "be aware" is sufficient for heker. Can't we ask the same thing of a neighborhood eiruv? How many people think about the eruv every week? The Rambam (Shevisas YT 6:2) seems to me to be the reason for calling eiruv tavshilin an "eiruv" is merely by comparison to eruv chatzeiros. Both are hekerim: There (ECh), so that people would thing that carrying from reshus to reshus is mutar on shabbos. Here (ET), that it is okay to cook on YT even if it's not for YT. Awareness that the rabbi (or whomever) had me in mind means I am thinking about eiruvin and there is a recognition (heker) that there is an issur. It seems the Rambam holds like R' Ashi (that ET is to reinforce melakhah on YT) over Rava (it's to reinforce Shabbos prep). But even according to Rava, that moment of awareness of the rabbi's eruv is sypposed to reserve as a reminder to make something nice for se'udos Shabbos. I would agree with Zev that the plausibility requirement is quite low, as all we're doing is a mnemonic. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger None of us will leave this place alive. micha at aishdas.org All that is left to us is http://www.aishdas.org to be as human as possible while we are here. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Anonymous MD, while a Nazi prisoner From noamstadlan at gmail.com Mon Oct 9 18:26:41 2017 From: noamstadlan at gmail.com (Noam Stadlan) Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2017 20:26:41 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] OU paper Message-ID: R. Micha- thank you for taking the time to read the paper. Having read your list of criticisms, I think that in your search for reasons to oppose, you missed many of the points completely. Poskim are certainly entitled to their opinions. They are not entitled to their own facts. If their logic doesn't hold up, it is reasonable to call them on the lack of logic. Which is why the paper is NOT about my opinions versus the OU 7, but about the lack of facts and logic. Furthermore, I illustrated that what poskim hold regarding these issues isn't always or exclusively a result of all their learning and shimmush. It is a demonstrable fact that many attitudes reflect what they grew up with and were indoctrinated with early on, not the list of influences that they write about. You dismiss my quote regarding REB, and claim that it is my responsibility to prove what the motives are or aren't. This is ridiculous. The OU authors did not talk to any of the principles involved. Since when is it acceptable for any responsible posek or beit din to make important judgments without making absolutely sure regarding the facts? Especially when they are making a significant deal about motivation and it would have been a very simple matter of making a phone call or two. Isn't that a basic obligation of a posek? And then to claim that it is my responsibility to prove that they were wrong? And, by the way, since I personally know many of the people involved, I have a much greater familiarity with what people involved think. I suggest that if you think that an organization with 'feminism' in its name is inherently problematic, we may be starting from basic assumptions far to wide apart to see any common ground. The OU paper wrote about Mesorah versus modern values. I was just using their words and addressing the role of modern values in how Halacha and values have changed. The fact that they define Mesorah a bit differently doesn't change the issue nor change the fact that modern values have always been incorporated into the Halakhah and Halakhic values(in case you dont want to use the word Mesorah). And to counter your point, some of the ancient values have gone out the window, whether you want to call them mesoretic or not. I didn't have time to get into all the particulars of the halachic aspects of the Rama and shechittah, R. Brody and Broyde address and dismiss the argument in their paper(I am pretty sure that is in a footnote somewhere). I thought it was adequate to illustrate that he was factually wrong. I could go on and on but I sense that in the end it will not matter. I would have to go through each and every line of your critique and point out where your assumptions are wrong. For example "JOFA....seeking value in the same sorts of roles and activities". NO, that is not what JOFA is about. It is about not creating Halachic boundaries when there shouldn't be any, and the women can decide what roles and activities they can and should assume(within Halacha of course, just like the men). And what is wrong with anyone finding value in learning Torah, teaching Torah, helping people celebrate s'machot, organizing davening, etc? women should not find value in that???? Thank you again for taking the time to read the paper. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From zev at sero.name Mon Oct 9 21:49:31 2017 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2017 00:49:31 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Eruv Tavshilin - who makes it? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <928305ea-1e57-b3bd-da9c-b3acb1281e04@sero.name> On 09/10/17 12:44, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > Note: I admit there's a certain weakness in everything that I've written > above. Namely, the idea that one can rely on the Eruv Tavshilin that was > made by the rav of the town. Let's set aside the fact that this is not > the best way of doing the eruv, and that various conditions are imposed > on one who wants to rely on it. Let's focus on the fact that it is valid > *at* *all*. How does the eruv made by someone outside of my home help > me? What sort of *reminder* does his eruv provide? I have never > understood this, nor have I heard any explanation of it, only assertions > that it does work. Any help in this area would be appreciated. IIRC the gemara offers two explanations for ET. Either it was made lichvod Shabbos or lichvod Yomtov. The first explanation is that cooking on Yomtov for Shabbos was always done by pretending to be cooking for a late Friday meal, but Chazal felt about the Shabbos after Yomtov the way many nowadays do about the Shabbos after Thanksgiving: that it's wrong to rely entirely on leftovers, and one must prepare at least one thing just for Shabbos. According to this explanation, the fact that one must ask the rabbi (or the neighbor, or whomever) before relying on their eruv accomplishes the same thing. One has provided for Shabbos, not by cooking but by arranging an invitation to eat out. The second explanation is that originally there was no ha`arama; it was permitted to openly cook on Yomtov for Shabbos. Chazal legislated that one must save Yomtov's face by pretending to be cooking for that day. According to this explanation it's very simple; the important thing is not the eruv itself, but the need for the ha`arama. The eruv's function is merely to give the ha`arama some surface plausibility. So it makes no difference whose eruv one uses; the fact that one is pretending not to be cooking for Shabbos *is* the kevod Yomtov that Chazal required. The enabling notion that on Shabbos one will be eating the rabbi's eruv is only barely less plausible than the one that one will be subsisting on ones own eruv. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From micha at aishdas.org Tue Oct 10 13:25:47 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2017 16:25:47 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] OU paper In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20171010202547.GC6565@aishdas.org> Take 2. I didn't like what I read in the Avodah queue, so I rejected my first version and elaborated. On Tue, Oct 10, 2017 at 10:53:24AM -0500, Noam Stadlan via Avodah wrote: :> 1- Feminism assumes egalitarianism, not only equality, as it assumes that :> roles historically closed to women as "men's roles" should be open to all. :> Equality only assumes that everyone should be eligible for roles of equal :> value. (For some measure of value.) : This is starting off on the wrong foot. I dont claim to speak for all : Orthodox Feminists. But the first question to be asked is why is a role : 'historically closed to women?' ... I see this as an equally valid question, but who is to say which ought to be asked first? REBerkowitz rightly deprecates the modification of halakhah out of concern for external values. He dismisses the role of the "pressures of contemporary egalitarianism." (As RSC put it.) This puts REB in a different place than people who unite under the word "feminism" are indeed advocating halachic change. What he denies being a valid motive JOFA is putting in their organizational name. : It is very reasonable, just like in : the cases of the chereish, slavery etc, to investigate why it is : 'historically closed." ... Which you fail to actually do. You rebut your understanding of some arguments for why the clsure is grounded in mesorah. After all, this is a rebuttal paper. The one mention of an alternative motive for change, rather than a lack of motive for status quo, is one that is inconsistent with feminism, as above. : litany of reasons as to why women were forbidden to do things and he : himself agreed that those reasons have gone by the wayside. If you want to : say that something is historically closed, and therefore it is assur- : fine. Now you dont need an Halachic reasons, because historically closed : is the final word.... Strawman. I am not asserting that we have to hold like the Rama that being historically closed means the option is halachically closed; identifying history with mesorah, and thus absence of tradition with tradition of absence. I would say, though, that if you want to buck the Rama, you have to make an argument for doing so, and not just dismiss his rule because he applied it to a misunderstood case. : everyone seems to be giving Halachicly justification, both pro and con, : then it means that historically closed is open for discussion, and it is on : the plane of halacha, not history. So the bottom line is that if there is : Halachic justification for particular gender roles- of course that trumps : everything. But it also means that stating something is historically assur : is not the end of the story. history is not Halacha. That is what I : illustrated in part one. Because you could also make the same argument : that the chereish shouldn't have an aliyyah... Yes, I agreed with your formulation of the problem in terms of resonant values, and at times a contemporary value can highlight the neglect of a Torah one. But you don't follow through with it. Instead you end up altogether rejecting the say of mesoretic values to decide which halachic innovations are proper. I would add that at times a contemporary value can change expectations, and thus change the morality of an act. After all, it may be okay to do something to someone when they expect it, but not if it violates assumptions behind things they committed to. I could see making that argument WRT monogyny and the validity of cheirem deR Gershom. Mental images of what marriage should be changed, and so it's only moral to satisfy the resulting emotional need rather than some older definition of marriage. As long as the definition itself isn't inferior. To take that poorly explained idea and possibly be clearer by making it less general and more about our case: Perhaps one could form the argument that while it was moral for women not to be eligable for the rabbinate in the past because it was less likely for the option to cross their minds. Such a practice would cause fewer feelings of deprevation. But now that women can become CEO, such a position does mesoretically-wrongly create feelings of deprivation. And so societal change causes a change in application of values; just as it can an application of law. This is pretty close to an argument you do indeed make. Just (as below), I don't think having a role is a right, because I do not believe religious roles are as much opportunities as they are duties. Unlike secular roles, which could be either, depending on how the society in question chooses to frame them. Your neglect of the "how", which changes are valid and which not, reminds me of the argument of non-O rabbis who point to pruzbul and heter isqa as justifications for their radical changes. It's not the same thing by a lng shot. But half-way through you make the same error of considering proof that there are valid kinds of change as proof that the topic in question provides no barriers to change altogether. As you say in this same paragraph (!): : Any role that is historically : closed to any group that isn't Halachically assur is open for discussion as : to what the Halacha actually mandates and why exactly it was closed in the : first place.... So, it's black-letter law closure, or the change is allowed? No "resonance of values" needed after all? And the problem with demanding "resonance of values" is that it takes the autonomy out of it for most of us. Because by enlarging the problem beyond black letter halakhah we guarantee there is a non-formal aspect to the answer, one that is for the practiced artist rather than any bright researcher. And the notion that one is validating a value system that then sets the person up for a very hard collision with the actual not-so-glass ceiling black-letter halakhah defines is very related to this. The mere existence of such a ceiling implies the likelihood of non-resonant values. The concept of asei lekha rav, having a poseiq, moves us away from autonomy in our behavioral decisions, and forces a heteronomy of a manner that too violates contemporary values. :> 2- Feminism assumes Locke's language of rights and priviledge. Why should :> someone *be deprived* of the opportunity to be an .... -- in our case, to :> serve as rabbi? But halachic values aren't framed in these terms... : Being a rabbi is fulfilling the mitzvah of service to the community, talmud : torah etc. Whether it is a burden or an opportunity, it is a mitzvah and : a choice of profession and communal service... But asking about opportunity and opening doors is inherently asking different value questions than the mesoretic ones. It's not just ancient that we frame our moral choices in terms of duty to others and the Other, it's mesoretic. : Furthermore, the OU paper went way beyond opposing rabbis. they forbid a : woman from officiating at a baby naming or other things. that too is a : burden that women should be forbidden from shouldering? This misses my point. When I spoke of rights vs duties I am talking about the entire framing of questions of values, not this specific decision. If the rabbinate, baby naming or whatever is a duty rather than a right, the whole question of "limiting their options unneccessarily" goes off the table. It's not about the right to choose a boon. Your whole question is framed non-traditionally. Looking at feminism as a goal is an inherently un-mesoretic way of framing the question. Rather, the nearest mesoretic equivalent would be to ask whether men have a duty that can only be discharged by sharing the pulpit, "officiating at a baby naming of other things". Feminism doesn't enter the mesoretic discussion because there is no door to be opened or closed, there is no region of personal-expression space to discuss whether someone is given too much or too little. The Torah is a beris, not a bill of rights. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When one truly looks at everyone's good side, micha at aishdas.org others come to love him very naturally, and http://www.aishdas.org he does not need even a speck of flattery. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rabbi AY Kook From micha at aishdas.org Tue Oct 10 14:04:28 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2017 17:04:28 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Oseh Hashalom In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20171010210428.GC21284@aishdas.org> On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 10:34:34PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : I went looking at the siddurim that were common in the shuls that I : grew up in, and I noticed an interesting pattern: Every single one : gave Oseh Hashalom as the closing bracha at the end of the Amidah; not : even one suggested saying Hamevarech like the rest of the year. : Further, every single one used the words Oseh Shalom at the ends of : Kaddish and Elokai N'tzor; not even one suggested saying Oseh Hashalom : during the Aseres Yemei Teshuva. ... : My questions are these: If you're old enough to remember davening : Ashkenaz in the 1970s or before, do you remember what was said during : Aseres Yemei Teshuva? And do you know of any siddur from that era : which included the newfangled text? I know my father was saying "hamvarekh" at this time. However, our minhagim are a hodge-podge of practices from those retained from the Ottoman Empire before my ancestor's arrival in Litta, mainline Litvish, R/Dr Mirsky's idiosyncricies (my grandfather came to America as a teen, and so the rav who met him at Ellis Island was became rav of his shul determined much of what he did), and what my father picked up Tues nights (and from YU alumni friends) from RYBS. I did some restoration of pre-American Biergehr minhag based on R Dovid Lifshitz's memories of what it was. AND that brings me to a theory... Minhagim that Chabad, Talmidei haGra and Sepharadim have in common are bound to become Minhag EY. And Minhag EY is bound to be known globally, at least by the 1970s. Maybe this is just a thing that universalized faster. Anecodtally, I notice fewer and fewer people wearing tefillin on ch"m each year. Although Passaic, a neighborhood with some 40% BT rate, is going to have weaker ties to minhag than ones in which more people have childhood memories of what dad does. I also noticed more an more shuls moving Shir shel Yom and Hoshanos from the end of mussaf to before leining. One thing all three of the communities that dominated the Yishuv haYashan had in common was an attachment to Qabbalah. We may be seeing more and more Tzefat-originating practices coming to the fore in the comming years as a new Minhag EY (and ch"v if galus lasts long enough Minhag America) emerges. Much to R' Ovadiah's poshumous dismay, I would presume. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "I hear, then I forget; I see, then I remember; micha at aishdas.org I do, then I understand." - Confucius http://www.aishdas.org "Hearing doesn't compare to seeing." - Mechilta Fax: (270) 514-1507 "We will do and we will listen." - Israelites From micha at aishdas.org Tue Oct 10 08:18:49 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2017 11:18:49 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] OU paper In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20171010151849.GB32729@aishdas.org> On Mon, Oct 09, 2017 at 08:26:41PM -0500, Noam Stadlan via Avodah wrote: : R. Micha- thank you for taking the time to read the paper. Having read : your list of criticisms, I think that in your search for reasons to oppose, : you missed many of the points completely... As I wrote, the reply was delayed by my attempt to put down the paper every time I thought I was reading solely for the sake of finding points to oppose. "Fisking", as it's called. Admittedly, I could still have failed. : Poskim are certainly entitled to : their opinions. They are not entitled to their own facts. Which is why I didn't dispute claims of fact, such as whether women were shochetim in Italy. I did dispute your use of a fact turning that Rama's point into a hypothetical to deny his whole "[if] we [hadn't] ever seen women as shochetim, we have a mesorah that woman aren't to serve as shochetim". Yes, his given is false, but we do see the implication statement in the Agur and the Rama. So, how do you dismiss applying the parallel syllogism here -- since we do not have a history of women rabbis, wouldn't the Rama's methodology mean that there is a mesorah not to ordain women? At least -- doesn't this topic need addressing, rather than writing that one can ignore the whole flow of logic because the antecedent is false? : Furthermore, I illustrated that what poskim hold : regarding these issues isn't always or exclusively a result of all their : learning and shimmush. It is a demonstrable fact that many attitudes : reflect what they grew up with and were indoctrinated with early on, not : the list of influences that they write about. But you gave up on the question of which new values pass the resonance test mention early in the paperr and which do not. My argument is that : You dismiss my quote regarding REB, and claim that it is my responsibility : to prove what the motives are or aren't. I dismiss the quote as necessarily applying to anyone but REB. It is not like he's the communal leader or primary poseiq of the people in question. In particular because of the word "feminism" in JOFA's name. To which you replied: : I suggest that if you think that an organization with 'feminism' in its : name is inherently problematic, we may be starting from basic assumptions : far to wide apart to see any common ground. RCS summarized REB's position (on your pg 10), as being of "moral ends derive from internal Jewish sources.... dissatisfaction with mainstream Halakhah regarding women is rooted, not in the pressures of contemporary egalitarianism, in his judgment about biblical conceptions of justice." (ellision yours) But JOFA's name is taken from "contemporary egalitarianism". I am not saying it's inherently problematic. I am saying it creates the likelihood of a gap between REB's position and JOFA's attitude, one that then creates a burden of proof you didn't take up. In short I am saying that: 1- Feminism assumes egalitarianism, not only equality, as it assumes that roles historically closed to women as "men's roles" should be open to all. Equality only assumes that everyone should be eligible for roles of equal value. (For some measure of value.) 2- Feminism assumes Locke's language of rights and priviledge. Why should someone *be deprived* of the opportunity to be an .... -- in our case, to serve as rabbi? But halachic values aren't framed in these terms. (At least not in general; I can think of notions like geneivas da'as, gezel shinah or tovas han'ah as exceptions.) Rather, the rabbinate is supposed to be a burden. Even if it is really being treated as an honor, the value which would differentiate between a positive halachic change and one that is anti-mesoretic would be that of duty, not opportunity. 3- Making the argument that feminist egalitarian opportunity is or is not resonant with mesoretic values requires those guys with shimush, as it is an art. Your counter-argument is on the wrong plane for discussing the topic of the first section of your paper -- "mesorah". ... And we don't even agree on how RIETS-trained rabbis are most likely to use the word "mesorah" to agree on what we're debating! Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Man is equipped with such far-reaching vision, micha at aishdas.org yet the smallest coin can obstruct his view. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yisrael Salanter Fax: (270) 514-1507 From noamstadlan at mail.gmail.com Tue Oct 10 08:53:24 2017 From: noamstadlan at mail.gmail.com (Noam Stadlan) Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2017 10:53:24 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] OU paper In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: multipart/alternative Size: 3823 bytes Desc: not available URL: From micha at aishdas.org Tue Oct 10 14:12:25 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2017 17:12:25 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] =?cp1255?q?=93Timtum_Ha-Lev=94_Redux?= In-Reply-To: <7aef6b22a7e348ffa09f6c3e61bde74f@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <7aef6b22a7e348ffa09f6c3e61bde74f@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20171010211225.GD21284@aishdas.org> On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 06:30:33PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : From R' Aviner Dulling of the Heart to Save One's Life ... : A: No. Maran Ha-Rav Kook writes in his book "Musar Avicha" (p. 19) : that the dulling of one's heart comes from violating a prohibition : and not from the food itself (Yoma 39a. And see Meharsha on : Shabbat 33a).... Yay! Finally I have sources to look at. "Vehayisa akh sameiach" just became a little easier. Does anyone have "Mussar Avikha", "Uvdos veHanhagos miBeis Brisk" (vol II p 50) and/or "Orchos Yosheir" (#13)? Do any of them discuss mezuzah and the consequent shemirah, or any of the other related segulah-like effects of mitzvos we've tied in to previous iterations? Look at that list of names: I'm not wrong, just Litvish! Tangent: The Gra said that "vehayisa akh sameiach" is the hardest mitzvah in the Torah. "Veyahisa sameiach" is one thing, but "akh sameiach"? To be nothing but happy, with no other moods ambivalently mixed in for 8 days (9 in chu"l) straight? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The fittingness of your matzos [for the seder] micha at aishdas.org isn't complete with being careful in the laws http://www.aishdas.org of Passover. One must also be very careful in Fax: (270) 514-1507 the laws of business. - Rav Yisrael Salanter From hankman at bell.net Tue Oct 10 22:24:18 2017 From: hankman at bell.net (hankman) Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2017 01:24:18 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] R. Akiva, Bar Kochba and Zecharya HaNovi Message-ID: <5AFE790709AC4B0B9FDDB6A6102B7005@hankPC> How could R. Akiva have mistaken Bar Kochba for Moshiach, since non of the nevuos of Zecharya HaNovi that we read in the recent haftorah (splitting of Har HaZeitim etc., etc) for the period precedent to Moshiach had yet occurred? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Tue Oct 10 13:51:59 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2017 16:51:59 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] future impact of deeds In-Reply-To: <781196aefdb44054b2f0e69678999858@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <781196aefdb44054b2f0e69678999858@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20171010205159.GB21284@aishdas.org> On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 06:29:05PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : In one of his shiurim, R'Reisman questioned a common (my) understanding : of how those who are no longer with us could be judged based on the : future impact of their deeds on an ongoing basis. The specific example : was two individuals (A & B) separately caused two other individuals (C & : D, who were totally equivalent) to become religious. C dies a day later, : while D lives a long, productive, and fruitful life. Does it make sense : that A gets more credit(schar) than B? : : My answer is no, but this does not refute the basic premise. The schar : is based on the % of their potential that C & D actualized-only HKB"H : knows that, so, in this case in fact, A might even get more credit than B. Who said that sekhar is indeed based on actualized potential? "Lefum tz'ara agra", not "lefum tzalach". And wouldn't judging someone by something out of their control violate Middas haDin? HOWEVER, perhaps (thinking out loud) we could invoke megalgalim zekhus al yedei zakai to say that hashgachah peratis's choice of D's long life includes among an infinite other factors, the ways in which his mashpia was mora zekai. But personally, I would question your conclusion. (But in a personal-belief sense. Not that it doesn't require understanding in an eilu-va'eilu way.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Rescue me from the desire to win every micha at aishdas.org argument and to always be right. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Nassan of Breslav Fax: (270) 514-1507 Likutei Tefilos 94:964 From zev at sero.name Wed Oct 11 03:30:27 2017 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2017 06:30:27 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] R. Akiva, Bar Kochba and Zecharya HaNovi In-Reply-To: <5AFE790709AC4B0B9FDDB6A6102B7005@hankPC> References: <5AFE790709AC4B0B9FDDB6A6102B7005@hankPC> Message-ID: <0278980f-97ca-2755-caa3-89461ed64e50@sero.name> On 11/10/17 01:24, hankman via Avodah wrote: > How could R. Akiva have mistaken Bar Kochba for Moshiach, since non of > the nevuos of Zecharya HaNovi that we read in the recent haftorah > (splitting of Har HaZeitim etc., etc) for the period precedent to > Moshiach had yet occurred? The Rambam, whose shita is based on R Akiva, explicitly paskens that none of these nevuos need to be fulfilled literally. Any that aren't can be interpreted metaphorically to fit whatever political and military events actually do take place around the geulah. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From akivagmiller at gmail.com Wed Oct 11 06:41:32 2017 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2017 09:41:32 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Questioning Authority In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I have no hidden agenda here. This post is my response to the current "OU paper" thread, and to many other threads we've had over the decades, where we have wondered how any given posek could hold a certain way on any particular question. It is also relevant to threads we've had abput *becoming* a posek, and the importance of shimush in addition to book knowledge. This is something I would not have written, or even have thought of, until about 10 years ago or so. But as I have matured, I have come to see things in a new perspective. Becoming a parent, and a grandparent, has given me a tremendous insight into Hashem's relationship with us. I have always felt that it is (or ought to be) possible and permissible to *question* authority without challenging or rejecting authority. It is very natural to want to understand the reasons behind the rules that we must live by. Wanting to understand those rules is not the same as rejecting those rules. Wanting to understand the rules, I believe, is a major component of the Mitzvah of Talmud Torah, and is thus highly commendable. A chavrusa once challenged me to explain my position on a certain subject. He said to me, "If you can't explain it to me in simple terms, then you don't really understand it well enough yourself." I accepted that rule wholeheartedly, and used it myself for many decades. But recently have I begun to see the cracks in that rule. A parent tells the child to do something, or to not do something. The child asks why, not out of rebellion, but because he sincerely wants to understand what's going on. Sometimes, the parent cannot give an answer better than "Because I said so." The child now thinks that the parent is being arbitrary, and sometimes, the parent might even agree. But frequently, the truth is that the parent has very good reasons for what he says. It's just that he's unable to put those reasons into clear words. He can't even explain it to himself in simple terms, because it is simply a gut feeling that he has, based on experience and intuition, he sees that this is the action or inaction which must be followed in this particular situation. I think this is analogous to Torah leaders and Torah followers. When the leaders tell the followers what to do, or what to avoid, it is entirely reasonable for the followers to request explanations from the leaders. This is especially so, if the explanation will help them comply with the directive, or teach them how to apply the directive to other situations. But these requests must be made respectfully, carefully, and only up to a certain point. Consider when a parent explains himself to the child, and the child responds with a dozen reasonable challenges to the parent's logic. Sometimes the parent will realize that he was in error, and back down. Sometimes the parent will realize that he was in error, but will stick to his guns as a show of power (rightly or wrongly). But sometimes, the parent will understand that - despite the child's persuasive comments - the directive must still be followed, because ... Well, the parent himself might not be able to articulate his reasoning, not even to himself. But he relies on his understanding and his experience and his common sense, and he knows that this is how it must be. So too, our leaders adopt certain positions on certain issues, and often they will attempt to explain themselves to us. Sometimes those explanations may appear flawed to us, maybe even severely flawed. Like the child who thinks his parent's explanation is nonsense, the flaws do not necessarily invalidate the leader's conclusion or his decision. Of course, none of this suggests that our leaders (or parents) are infallible. And they can certainly benefit from reviewing their positions among their peers. The only point I'm trying to make in this long post is this: Similar to a Chok from the Torah, sometimes our leaders issue pronouncements that we are not capable of fully understanding, and we should not let that stand in the way of following them. Akiva Miller NB: A critical word in this post is "sometimes". The difficult (sometimes impossible) task is to figure out which times are which. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From zev at sero.name Wed Oct 11 07:40:40 2017 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2017 10:40:40 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] R. Akiva, Bar Kochba and Zecharya HaNovi In-Reply-To: <20171011143003.GA21995@aishdas.org> References: <5AFE790709AC4B0B9FDDB6A6102B7005@hankPC> <0278980f-97ca-2755-caa3-89461ed64e50@sero.name> <20171011143003.GA21995@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 11/10/17 10:30, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > While the Rambam cites R' Aqiva's following Bar Koziba (H Melahim 11:2) > as proof that the melekh hamoshiach doesn't have to do miracles, is his > position really "based on" R Aqiva's? For example, in 11:4 he describes > the moshiach as being "hogeh baTorah ve'oseiq bemitzvos keDavid aviv" > which I don't think fit Bar Kokhva even in his hayday. What makes you suppose this? On the contrary, the fact that the Rambam says "since BK didn't do any miracles, we know that Moshiach doesn't have to", proves that when he says Moshiach *does* have to be a TCh and a tzadik he assumes BK *did* fulfil this requirement. If he didn't, that would prove to the Rambam that this isn't necessary. > Nor had "veyakhof kol Yisrael leileikh bah" yet either -- the > Perushim were in the minority. Were they? Who was in the majority, if not them? And why would the majority even matter? BK was the king, and he made halacha the law of the land, whether the majority liked it or not. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From micha at aishdas.org Wed Oct 11 07:30:03 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2017 10:30:03 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] R. Akiva, Bar Kochba and Zecharya HaNovi In-Reply-To: <0278980f-97ca-2755-caa3-89461ed64e50@sero.name> References: <5AFE790709AC4B0B9FDDB6A6102B7005@hankPC> <0278980f-97ca-2755-caa3-89461ed64e50@sero.name> Message-ID: <20171011143003.GA21995@aishdas.org> On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 06:30:27AM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : On 11/10/17 01:24, hankman via Avodah wrote: :> How could R. Akiva have mistaken Bar Kochba for Moshiach, since :> non of the nevuos of Zecharya HaNovi that we read in the recent :> haftorah (splitting of Har HaZeitim etc., etc) for the period :> precedent to Moshiach had yet occurred? : The Rambam, whose shita is based on R Akiva, explicitly paskens that : none of these nevuos need to be fulfilled literally. Any that : aren't can be interpreted metaphorically to fit whatever political : and military events actually do take place around the geulah. While the Rambam cites R' Aqiva's following Bar Koziba (H Melahim 11:2) as proof that the melekh hamoshiach doesn't have to do miracles, is his position really "based on" R Aqiva's? For example, in 11:4 he describes the moshiach as being "hogeh baTorah ve'oseiq bemitzvos keDavid aviv" which I don't think fit Bar Kokhva even in his hayday. Nor had "veyakhof kol Yisrael leileikh bah" yet either -- the Perushim were in the minority. More clearly is his basing himself on Shemu'el (Sanhedrin 91b) when he quotes him in 12:2, "Chakhamim said: ein bein ha'olam hazeh liymos hamoshiach ela shib'ud malkhios bilvad." It's interesting that rather than repeating the quote beshrim omero -- a funny thing to do when discussing the ge'ula le'lam that giving the source is supposed to bring -- he attributes the quote to Chakhamim, as though he knew it was consensus and Rav's position deprecated. After all, the Rambam himself says that we can't decide machloqesim in these thingxs. So it could be that the Rambam did indeed base himself on R Aqiva, but then we would have to say that the Rambam held that R Aqiva was waiting for the rest of the nevu'ah to come true. Or not -- maybe his basic source was Shemu'el, and this one proof doesn't imply derivation. And given that the BK Revolt was c. 132-135 CE, it is likely that R' Aqiva expected the war to go on 7 years, as per statements in the gemara about chevlei moshiach. This would time the end of the war with 70 years after the churban, like the return after churban bayis 1. But whether that conjecture is true or not, the relevant idea that R Aqiva could be backing BK thinking the rest of the expectations about the moshiach simply hadn't happened /yet/. Which the Rambam would have to invoke even for his more mundane list of things the moshiach will accomplish. In 12:1 the Rambam denies the literalness of Yeshaiah's and Yirmiyahu's description of the messianic era in terms of wolves, leopards and lions going vegetarian. But since the splitting of Har haZeirim need not be lemaalah min hateva, do we know whether the Rambam would have placed it in the same rule? If not, the "expected it will happen in the future" answer could cover that earthquake (?) as much as it can cover BK spending all his spare time learning and doing mitzvos or his being meqareiv the vast majority of Kelal Yisrael. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger A sick person never rejects a healing procedure micha at aishdas.org as "unbefitting." Why, then, do we care what http://www.aishdas.org other people think when dealing with spiritual Fax: (270) 514-1507 matters? - Rav Yisrael Salanter From zev at sero.name Wed Oct 11 09:02:55 2017 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2017 12:02:55 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] R. Akiva, Bar Kochba and Zecharya HaNovi In-Reply-To: <20171011154231.GA6170@aishdas.org> References: <5AFE790709AC4B0B9FDDB6A6102B7005@hankPC> <0278980f-97ca-2755-caa3-89461ed64e50@sero.name> <20171011143003.GA21995@aishdas.org> <20171011154231.GA6170@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <0e95d039-c074-ae7f-f3ba-3cee64a3d191@sero.name> On 11/10/17 11:42, Micha Berger wrote: > > The man described in the Y-mi Taanis 24b (4:5) doesn't sound personally > observant. The Rambam clearly doesn't hold like the Yerushalmi's version of the story, because he holds that the Chachamim stuck with BK until he was killed "ba`avonos". That word is ambiguous (whose sins, his or the people's) but later he says a presumptive Moshiach who's killed is "kechol malchei beis Dovid hash'leimim vehak'sheirim", so we can assume he holds that BK was killed for the generation's sins, not for his own, hence "ba`avonos", not "ba`avonosav". > This is also why in both R' Aqiva's world as well as R' Meir's and R' > Shim'on's -- before and after BK's revolt -- it is taken for granted > that most Jews are amei ha'aretz. Amei Haaretz were in the Perushim "denomination". They kept Perushi halacha as well as they understood it, even if they despised the Chaverim who taught it. They made up their own invalid leniencies in maasros, and weren't careful all year with taharos, but they were careful with terumah and never told lies on Shabbos. In any case, the question isn't what the majority would have done on their own, but whether BK forced them to obey halacha, and the Rambam assumes he did. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From micha at aishdas.org Wed Oct 11 10:11:32 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2017 13:11:32 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] R. Akiva, Bar Kochba and Zecharya HaNovi In-Reply-To: <0e95d039-c074-ae7f-f3ba-3cee64a3d191@sero.name> References: <5AFE790709AC4B0B9FDDB6A6102B7005@hankPC> <0278980f-97ca-2755-caa3-89461ed64e50@sero.name> <20171011143003.GA21995@aishdas.org> <20171011154231.GA6170@aishdas.org> <0e95d039-c074-ae7f-f3ba-3cee64a3d191@sero.name> Message-ID: <20171011171132.GA1028@aishdas.org> On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 12:02:55PM -0400, Zev Sero wrote: : On 11/10/17 11:42, Micha Berger wrote: : >The man described in the Y-mi Taanis 24b (4:5) doesn't sound personally : >observant. : : The Rambam clearly doesn't hold like the Yerushalmi's version of the : story, because he holds that the Chachamim stuck with BK until he : was killed "ba`avonos"... How does this conflict with the Y-mi's picture of a less than ideal Bar Kokhva? If anything, it reinforces my suggestion that R' Aqiva was awaiting the rest of the nevu'ah. And once he is waiting for the things the Rambam mentions, then it's possible the Rambem would expect Zerkhariah's nevu'os to happen literally, but also something R' Aqiva was awaiting. It's possible the Rambam would consider the potentially natural cataclysms in Zekhariah to be non-allegory, as the examples of non-literal nevu'os he gives would have been lema'alah min hateva if literal. I don't know where he's drawing the line; nevi'ah qua nevu'ah is bederekh mashal, or only the phantastical stories should be dismissed. (This is a sibling to our discussion of the Rambam on midrashic stories. I claim he is saying that no medrash was repeated for historical content. Therefore any medrash can be ahistorical, but the fantastical stories you should take for granted as being ahistorical. You have been limiting the Rambam's denial of historicity for the fantastical stories. s/medrash/nevu'ah/g -- where do you stand?) : That word is ambiguous (whose sins, his or : the people's) but later he says a presumptive Moshiach who's killed : is "kechol malchei beis Dovid hash'leimim vehak'sheirim", so we can : assume he holds that BK was killed for the generation's sins, not : for his own, hence "ba`avonos", not "ba`avonosav". But either way -- whether he or the generation was sinful -- it would show that BK didn't fit the Rambam's descrition of moshiach. For obvious reasons, I'll add: ... at least not yet. If the generation sinned too much to merit redemption, BK wasn't too good at bringing the masses to observance. Besides, being like a kosher and shaleim member of beis David could mean "even if", we still know he wasn't the moshiach. : >This is also why in both R' Aqiva's world as well as R' Meir's and R' : >Shim'on's -- before and after BK's revolt -- it is taken for granted : >that most Jews are amei ha'aretz. : : Amei Haaretz were in the Perushim "denomination". They kept Perushi : halacha as well as they understood it, even if they despised the : Chaverim who taught it... Actually, I thought they were denominationless, as likely to follow anyone's dictates. A pagan notion of listening to every holy man, rather than picking sides. But in any case, if that's your description of the masses, you still have BK not yet succeeding in that regard at the time of his death. : in maasros, and weren't careful all year with taharos, but they were : careful with terumah and never told lies on Shabbos... They were also careful with maaser, more often than not. Demai is a gezeira; if tevel were the norm, it would be azlinan basar ruba, or at best safeiq deOraisa lehachmir. : the question isn't what the majority would have done on their own, : but whether BK forced them to obey halacha, and the Rambam assumes : he did. The Rambam doesn't say so. That's your deduction. It requires assuming that the Rambam agrees with R' Aqiva over what the grounds for presuming (making a chazqah) that someone is moshiach. He doesn't say R' Aqiva is indeed his source. And it also requires assuming R Aqiva was following BK because of a chazaqah, rather than probability and rov. You haven't addressed my "maybe" of R Aqiva following BK without BK having yet fulfilled all of the moshiach's role becuase of an expectation that BK would be getting there. My added "not yet". Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Between stimulus & response, there is a space. micha at aishdas.org In that space is our power to choose our http://www.aishdas.org response. In our response lies our growth Fax: (270) 514-1507 and our freedom. - Victor Frankl, (MSfM) From zev at sero.name Sat Oct 14 19:44:53 2017 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2017 22:44:53 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] R. Akiva, Bar Kochba and Zecharya HaNovi In-Reply-To: <20171011171132.GA1028@aishdas.org> References: <5AFE790709AC4B0B9FDDB6A6102B7005@hankPC> <0278980f-97ca-2755-caa3-89461ed64e50@sero.name> <20171011143003.GA21995@aishdas.org> <20171011154231.GA6170@aishdas.org> <0e95d039-c074-ae7f-f3ba-3cee64a3d191@sero.name> <20171011171132.GA1028@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 11/10/17 13:11, Micha Berger wrote: > On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 12:02:55PM -0400, Zev Sero wrote: > : On 11/10/17 11:42, Micha Berger wrote: > : >The man described in the Y-mi Taanis 24b (4:5) doesn't sound personally > : >observant. > : > : The Rambam clearly doesn't hold like the Yerushalmi's version of the > : story, because he holds that the Chachamim stuck with BK until he > : was killed "ba`avonos"... > > How does this conflict with the Y-mi's picture of a less than ideal > Bar Kokhva? It conflicts because the Y'mi's version of the story has the Chachamim abandoning BK *before* his fall. The Rambam clearly does not agree with that whole version of the story. In his version BK was and remained a tzadik until his tragic end, which happened not for his own sins but for those of others. > It's possible the Rambam would consider the potentially natural cataclysms > in Zekhariah to be non-allegory, as the examples of non-literal nevu'os > he gives would have been lema'alah min hateva if literal. I don't know > where he's drawing the line; nevi'ah qua nevu'ah is bederekh mashal, > or only the phantastical stories should be dismissed. He doesn't draw a line at all. He carefully doesn't say that Moshiach *won't* perform miracles, but merely that he *needn't*, because BK didn't and yet was assumed to be Moshiach. Which further contradicts the Y'mi's version, which says he was rejected because he could not judge people by smelling whether they're right or wrong, a feat of which the True Moshiach(tm) must be capable. > > : That word is ambiguous (whose sins, his or > : the people's) but later he says a presumptive Moshiach who's killed > : is "kechol malchei beis Dovid hash'leimim vehak'sheirim", so we can > : assume he holds that BK was killed for the generation's sins, not > : for his own, hence "ba`avonos", not "ba`avonosav". > > But either way -- whether he or the generation was sinful -- it would > show that BK didn't fit the Rambam's descrition of moshiach. How so? He was righteous, and forced people to keep Torah, but they didn't listen, just like Yoshiyahu. > But in any case, if that's your description of the masses, you still > have BK not yet succeeding in that regard at the time of his death. Again, how so? The requirement is that he forces all Israel to follow it and to reinforce its breaches. Not that he educates them, or makes them enthusiastic, but simply that he makes the Shulchan Aruch the law of the land, punishing those who break it. There are always lawbreakers; one would not therefore say that the government is not forcing people to obey the law. > : the question isn't what the majority would have done on their own, > : but whether BK forced them to obey halacha, and the Rambam assumes > : he did. > > The Rambam doesn't say so. That's your deduction. It requires assuming > that the Rambam agrees with R' Aqiva over what the grounds for presuming > (making a chazqah) that someone is moshiach. He doesn't say R' Aqiva is > indeed his source. He explicitly uses him as his source that Moshiach needn't perform miracles. How could he do so if his vision of Moshiach's qualifications were different from R Akiva's? If he holds that Moshiach must be a tzadik but RA didn't, then how does he know that Moshiach needn't perform miracles just because R Akiva thought so? > And it also requires assuming R Aqiva was following BK because of a > chazaqah, rather than probability and rov. You haven't addressed my > "maybe" of R Aqiva following BK without BK having yet fulfilled all of > the moshiach's role becuase of an expectation that BK would be getting > there. My added "not yet". Again, this is impossible because if so how does he know R Akiva didn't indeed require Moshiach to perform miracles, and was expecting them to happen any day now? How can he say that Moshiach need *never* perform miracles, and if he achieves everything he's supposed to without the need for miracles we will still have to accept him as Vadai Moshiach? Clearly he understands that R Akiva was *not* expecting any miracles, and that this didn't bother him, because it isn't a requirement. None of which rules out the actual Moshiach, when he does come, performing miracles. The Rambam's position on this, unlike the Y'mi's, is neutral. He might perform miracles or he might not. Some or all of the nevuos might turn out literally, but some or all might not. The nevuos he says can't be literal, at least in the initial stage of Yemos Hamoshiach, are not ones about miracles but about permanent changes in nature. Chazal said that Ein Bein Olam Hazeh Liymos Hamoshiach Ela... so nevuos about a change in nature must either be metaphorical or refer to Olam Haba. But nevuos about miracles may or may not happen literally, we won't know until we get there. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From motti.yarchinai at yahoo.com.au Sun Oct 15 01:00:51 2017 From: motti.yarchinai at yahoo.com.au (Motti Yarchinai) Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2017 08:00:51 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Avodah] Psak source wanted References: <1857240052.122258.1508054451353.ref@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1857240052.122258.1508054451353@mail.yahoo.com> Dear Avodah members, Can anyone help me with a source for this psak: It is similar to what the Rambam wrote in Hilchot Kiddush Hachodesh, saying that in all calendric matters, we follow the lead of the chachmei eretz yisrael, and even though the anshei hagolah know the calculations used by them, it is not on our own calculations that we rely, we only use those calculations because we know that they are the same as the calculations used by the chachmei eretz yisrael, and we must all follow the rulings of the latter, in all calendric matters. Another posek (possibly the Tifferet Yisrael in Shvilei Harakia, but I'm not sure of that), writes something similar but couched in even more dramatic terms. The following is not a verbatim quote (since the original is in Hebrew) but something very close to it: "And even if the residents of eretz yisrael are all ignoramuses and peasants, and the authorities of chutz la'aretz are great scholars and knowledgable in Torah and halachah, in calendric matters we follow the peasants and ignoramuses, not the scholars of chutz la'aretz." Does anyone recognise this and remember where it's from? Thank you.Motti -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From akivagmiller at gmail.com Sun Oct 15 13:02:06 2017 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2017 16:02:06 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Zecher Liytzias Mitzrayim and Shmini Atzeres Message-ID: . What is the Zecher Liytzias Mitzrayim of Shmini Atzeres?We say it in Kiddush and in the Amidah. There must be something about this chag that connects to, and/or reminds us about, Yetzias Mitzrayim. It sounds like such a basic question that I'm surprised that I don't remember hearing it in the past. If anyone has an answer, please share it. Meanwhile, here's what I came up with: Shavuos is about one particular event in the midbar. Sukkos is about the whole 40 years in the midbar. Pesach and Shmini Atzeres are bookends: Pesach is about entering the midbar, and Shmini Atzeres is about leaving the midbar.If Sukkos is about the Ananei Hakavod and all the other nissim that accompanied us, then Shmini Atzeres is about re-entering the natural world. I played "word association" with six random people: When I said "yetzias mitzrayim," five of them responded, "Pesach". This is not wrong, but it is a distortion. Yetzias Mitzrayim was not a short event in Nissan; Shavuos and Sukkos prove that it was a process that took 40 years. My suggestion is simply that the last day is no less worthy of a chag than the first. Rashi (B'midbar 29:35) famously tells us that Shmini Atzeres is a special time, with just Hashem and Bnei Yisrael together, alone, with no other nations around. I'm merely pointing out that it is not just the nations who are gone: The lulav is gone. The sukkah is gone. Nothing remains but us and Hashem, when we left the comfort of the miraculous sukkah, trading it for being at home in Eretz Yisrael. Akiva Miller Postscript: An easy challenge to this post could be that Tishre 22 was NOT the day that we crossed from the midbar into Eretz Yisrael. I will respond in advance by pointing out that Shavuos too is not necessarily celebrated on the same day as the event it reminds us of. The Zecher can be poetic and emotional, and need not be so mathematically rigorous. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hankman at bell.net Sun Oct 15 14:41:04 2017 From: hankman at bell.net (hankman) Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2017 17:41:04 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] eitz hachaim Message-ID: Hi, What exactly was the eitz hachaim all about. The simple pshat doesn?t make any sense. If the purpose of the Gan was to serve Adam then when would (could) he make use of the eitz hachaim? Kodem hacheit he was not a bar misah so he had no need of it, after the cheit he was prevented from accessing it! So when would it ever be useful to Adam? Kol tuv Chaim Manaster -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hankman at bell.net Sun Oct 15 14:48:11 2017 From: hankman at bell.net (hankman) Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2017 17:48:11 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Vayehi erev Message-ID: Hi, If you look at days 3, 4 & 5 tou will find that they close with Vayehi erev vayehi boker yom X as a complete passuk. But on days 1, 2 & 6 the vayehi erev is only the completion of a larger passuk and not a passuk on its own. Finally on Shabbos the final closing of vayehi erev is omitted completely. Do any of the medrashing or meforshing explain this? Kol tuv Chaim Manaster -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Sun Oct 15 14:31:16 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2017 17:31:16 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Zecher Liytzias Mitzrayim and Shmini Atzeres In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20171015213116.GA14924@aishdas.org> On Sun, Oct 15, 2017 at 04:02:06PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : What is the Zecher Liytzias Mitzrayim of Shmini Atzeres? ... What's the ZlYM of Shabbos? : Shavuos is about one particular event in the midbar. Sukkos is about the : whole 40 years in the midbar... Unless Sukkos is about the return of the ananei hakavod. The Gra puts 2 and 2 (and 2) together: The ananei hakavod left with the Cheit haEigel. When Moshe returned with the 2nd luchos, completing his 3rd 40-day day atop Har Sinai, he gave Benei Yisrael instructions including those for donating the materials and building the Mishkan. So that actual construction began on 15 Nissan -- and that's when the ananim returned. The Meshekh Chimah adds to this that it explains the oconstrast between Sukkos as described in Mishpatim 23:16, where all we learn about the timing in the fall is that it's Chag haAsif. This was before Cheit haEigel, never mind the eventual return. But in parashas Re'eih, the holiday makes its appearance as Chag haSukkos, refering to the returned sukkos of ananei hakavod. : Pesach is about entering the midbar, and Shmini Atzeres is about leaving : the midbar.If Sukkos is about the Ananei Hakavod and all the other nissim : that accompanied us, then Shmini Atzeres is about re-entering the natural : world. My own mental image of the structure of the year: The qiymu veqiblu haYhudim of Purim is the further development of the theme of Shavous (a/k/a Atzeres). And similarly the zikhronos of Rosh haShanah is the further development of the theme of Shemini Atzeres -- the beris. In Shemini Atzeres this creates a need for a 71st par for qorban mussaf, as well as the naturalness of our turning SA into Simchas Torah. On RH we ask for clemency if not for our sake, than for the sake of seeing the beris to fruition. So that each season has a central holiday -- Sukkos or Pesach -- which is what underlies the gezeira shava tes-vav - tes-vav. Then the season is introduced with a something (Purim or Yamim Noraim) to prepare us for the holiday. The bounty of Sukkos has to be earned; Tishrei is about middas hadin after all. The freedom of Pesach needs a context. (And Putim is derabbanan bececause the ultimate qabbalas ol mitzvos hd to come from us.) And then the theme is culminated in an Atzeres, a day to stop, pack it up, and take it with us for the next half-year. That said, I like your idead of SA as reentering the natural world. It's experientially very true, after all that holiday. It also gives more significance to the timing of Tefillas Geshem. "Qasheh alei pereidaskhem" does refer to that return; aalthough I think you need to work on the difference between our return to the natural world and Hashem making the day itself to *delay* the return. Jews and G-d without the rest of the world. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger What we do for ourselves dies with us. micha at aishdas.org What we do for others and the world, http://www.aishdas.org remains and is immortal. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Albert Pine From micha at aishdas.org Sun Oct 15 15:21:26 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2017 18:21:26 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] R. Akiva, Bar Kochba and Zecharya HaNovi In-Reply-To: References: <5AFE790709AC4B0B9FDDB6A6102B7005@hankPC> <0278980f-97ca-2755-caa3-89461ed64e50@sero.name> <20171011143003.GA21995@aishdas.org> <20171011154231.GA6170@aishdas.org> <0e95d039-c074-ae7f-f3ba-3cee64a3d191@sero.name> <20171011171132.GA1028@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20171015222126.GB14924@aishdas.org> On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 10:44:53PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: :> How does this conflict with the Y-mi's picture of a less than ideal :> Bar Kokhva? : : It conflicts because the Y'mi's version of the story has the : Chachamim abandoning BK *before* his fall. The Rambam clearly does : not agree with that whole version of the story... The Y-mi does not say that R' Aqiva was among those who left early. : In his version BK : was and remained a tzadik until his tragic end, which happened not : for his own sins but for those of others. My whole point is that the Rambam doesn't describe him as a tzadiq anywhere. He says in one place that BK could be taken to be the moshiach despite a lack of miracles and another place that when someone from beis david who is hogeh ve'oseiq bemitzvos keDavid aviv... vehakhos kol Yisrael leileikh bah... and fights Hashem's wars, then this person can be presumed to be mashiach. Not that BK had such a chazaqah; the "pesaq" of the tannaim needn't have been based on this particular chazaqah or any chazaqah. As I said, there is nothing in the Rambam to rule out them following BK out of the expectation that he would eventually get there, rather than his being hogeh ve'oseiq bemitzvos already. And then you don't need to make the Rambam ignore a Yerushalmi. : He doesn't draw a line at all. He carefully doesn't say that : Moshiach *won't* perform miracles, but merely that he *needn't*, 12:1: Al ya'aleh aal leiv shebiymos hamoshiach yibateil davar miminhago shel olam... ela olam keminhago noheig. This doesn't really rule out miracles, but it does rule out ones that leave a permanent change in the natural orer. There is a line. Which is how he rules out the historicity of "vegar ze'eiv im keves..." etc... They don't mearly "needn't" happen, he rules out the possibility of their literal meaning being part of the future, because they cross his line of olam keminhago noheig". : >But either way -- whether he or the generation was sinful -- it would : >show that BK didn't fit the Rambam's descrition of moshiach. : How so? He was righteous, and forced people to keep Torah, but : they didn't listen, just like Yoshiyahu. "Veyakhof" includes "tried and failed"??? That's not quite what the Rambam says. : Again, how so? The requirement is that he forces all Israel to : follow it and to reinforce its breaches. Not that he educates them, : or makes them enthusiastic, but simply that he makes the Shulchan : Aruch the law of the land, punishing those who break it... Which he didn't. The Sanhedrin doesn't get reorgonized and put on Har haBayis. In fact, he doesn't get the backing of the majority of the day's posqim to be able to be associated with a 2nd century religious revival through legal enforcement, even if he there had been one. (Which there is no record of.) Again, this is only a problem for you because you assume that the Rambam's chazaqah in 11:4 must be the reason for R' Aqiva and other tannaim followed BK. But he uses the expression "vedimah hu vekhol chakhmei doro" -- which is a little weak for following a chazaqah as per a chiyuv. The Y-mi (in the adorementiond &T Taanis 4:5 24b) quotes R' Aqiva as telling R' Yochanan ben Torta "Din hu malka meshikha", an idiom usually used to refer to a qal vachomer. BTW, where does the Rambam get that "kol chakhmei doro" followed Bar Koziva? Is there any indication Rabban Gamliel ever did? R Yochanan b Torta replied (in an oft repeated line) "Aqiva, yaalu asavim belechaikh ve'adayin ben David lo ba." : >The Rambam doesn't say so. That's your deduction. It requires assuming : >that the Rambam agrees with R' Aqiva over what the grounds for presuming : >(making a chazqah) that someone is moshiach. He doesn't say R' Aqiva is : >indeed his source. : : He explicitly uses him as his source that Moshiach needn't perform : miracles. How could he do so if his vision of Moshiach's : qualifications were different from R Akiva's? ... R' Aqiva proves that not performing miracles doesn't rule out someone being the moshiach. He doesn't prove what it takes to actually qualify as being one. And even beyond the difference between deriving one negative statement about the mashiach and assuming he got all his positive statements from the same source, you're missing the difference between noting R' Aqiva reached a conclusion and the Rambam pasqening that in a certain situation we are obligated by the rules of chazaqah to reach that same conclusion. : Again, this is impossible because if so how does he know R Akiva : didn't indeed require Moshiach to perform miracles, and was : expecting them to happen any day now? ... Who said he didn't? He uses R' Aqiva to rule out waiting for a miracle before following a potential. Not that moshiach won't perform miracles. 12:2 quotes Shemu'el to back up the point in 12:1 that olam beminhago holeikh. Which is minimally a particular kind of miracle, although it plausibly includes even miracles that are only momentary breaks in minhag olam. He doesn't mention R' Aqiva when ruling out these miracles from the entire mission. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "Man wants to achieve greatness overnight, micha at aishdas.org and he wants to sleep well that night too." http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yosef Yozel Horwitz, Alter of Novarodok Fax: (270) 514-1507 From hankman at bell.net Sun Oct 15 15:59:44 2017 From: hankman at bell.net (hankman) Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2017 18:59:44 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Torah precheit? Message-ID: Hi, I have been trying to understand what the geshtalt of Torah was precheit of the eitz hadaas. It could not have resembled anything that we ( I ) would recognize today. Consider: There was but one mitzva. Most if not all the mitzvos of the Torah we are familiar with could not have existed, at least as we understand them today. Had Adam been successful in his one day tafkid the purpose of the bria would have been accomplished and Adam (mankind) would have gone to olom haba ? mission accomplished nothing more to follow but for reward in olom haba. The many consequences seem to be as follows: there would be no avdus in Mitzrayim, therefore no yetzias Mitzrayim, therefore no regolim, that are all built on the idea of zecher l?yitzias Mitzrayim nor their issurei melocho . So there would not me any korban Pesach, no matzo, no maror etc. There would be no lulav and esrog, no succah etc. There would be no krobanos of shavous, no Yom Kippur and all its avoda and all its inuiyim as the cheit haeigel would never occur. Not sure about Rosh Hashana as the 6th day was the first RH perhaps as a yom hadin to pasken that Adam succeeded in his task and is deserving of olom haba. I could assume that Shabbos would also be present as it was in that first week with a kedushas Shabbos. The mussafim of all these yomim tovim would also be non existent as the yomim tovim themself seem in doubt. Much of the korbanos relating to cheit would seemingly have no purpose. the existance of the mikdash and all related mitzvot would likewise be in doubt. The mikdosh would have been Adam himself or perhaps after day 7 the mikdash would have come down in fire from heaven like we await today shibaneh beis hamikdash? As there would never be an Eretz Yisroel, then there would not be all the mitzvot hateltuot ba?aretz ? trumos, masros etc., etc. There would be no issurei arayos as there was just Adam and Chava. Not quite sure here as there was Kayin and Hevel and their twin sisters were there in the latter part of day 6. So perhaps a few of the arayaos would have been possible, mainly mother, father, son, daughter, aishes ish (Adam and Chava, but not sure about the kids as could kedushin be tofeis in a sister even if mutar for kium olam? Mishkav zachar was possible, but mishkav behama might not have been assur if one reads the medroshim kepshutom which the Maharal tell us NOT to do when Adam was seeking his mate before Chava was created. Still one has to deal with the fact that while these might have been possible, there was but ONE commandment ? not to eat from the eitz hadaas and none of the possible arayos I consider above. There was no mitzva of mila for Adam or Kayin and Hevel. Perhaps Adam was created mahul and Kayin and Hevel were nolod mahul? (Still today would need hatafas dam bris). Kibud Av vaAim would only be possible for Kain and Hevel but not for Adam or Chava who were not yilud isha. Mitzvot like korcho lameis would not be possible for beings who were not bar misa. Tumas meis would not be possible. With no rabim, mitzvot like melech, korban nossi, Ir haNidachas etc would not be possible. No mechias Amalek, or shiva ammim or kivush ha?aretz etc Rosh Chodes and its dinim would never happen as the world would end after one week. Most of choshen Mishpat would be superfluous if you own the entire world (Adam ? not sure if his kids would own anything as Adam would never die so they would never yarshan the world from him? (not sure if I am in the realm of Purim torah or not?). I could go on for most of taryag that would not have been possible. But the bottom line, possible or not, there was only ONE commandment ? the eitz hadaas! So what is the nature of Torah in such a world. How do we see it as an ever constant ever present and unchanging Torah? How does a Torah with but ONE mitzva look? How does it still identify with a Torah with 613 mitzvot? Sorry if my thoughts were very rambling. I just typed as things came to mind ? maybe not always a good idea! Kol tuv Chaim Manaster -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From zev at sero.name Sun Oct 15 22:15:48 2017 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2017 01:15:48 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] R. Akiva, Bar Kochba and Zecharya HaNovi In-Reply-To: <20171015222126.GB14924@aishdas.org> References: <5AFE790709AC4B0B9FDDB6A6102B7005@hankPC> <0278980f-97ca-2755-caa3-89461ed64e50@sero.name> <20171011143003.GA21995@aishdas.org> <20171011154231.GA6170@aishdas.org> <0e95d039-c074-ae7f-f3ba-3cee64a3d191@sero.name> <20171011171132.GA1028@aishdas.org> <20171015222126.GB14924@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 15/10/17 18:21, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 10:44:53PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > : It conflicts because the Y'mi's version of the story has the > : Chachamim abandoning BK *before* his fall. The Rambam clearly does > : not agree with that whole version of the story... > > The Y-mi does not say that R' Aqiva was among those who left early. The Rambam says that R Akiva *and all the sages of his generation* imagined BK was Moshiach, *until he was killed*. This is not consistent with the Y'mi. > As I said, there is nothing in the Rambam to rule out them following BK > out of the expectation that he would eventually get there, rather than his > being hogeh ve'oseiq bemitzvos already. Then why can't they also have expected him to eventually do miracles? How does their belief in him, and his lack of miracles, prove that Moshiach needn't do any? The fact that the Rambam uses their belief in him as proof that miracles aren't a requirement shows that they believed in him only because he *had* fulfilled all the *genuine* requirements for the stage he was at. > : >But either way -- whether he or the generation was sinful -- it would > : >show that BK didn't fit the Rambam's descrition of moshiach. > > : How so? He was righteous, and forced people to keep Torah, but > : they didn't listen, just like Yoshiyahu. > > "Veyakhof" includes "tried and failed"??? That's not quite what the > Rambam says. Yachof means to force, to make it the law of the land, and those who disobey are punished. It doesn't preclude people breaking the law when they think they can get away with it. Our current government forces us to live without drugs, and yet many people don't. > > : Again, how so? The requirement is that he forces all Israel to > : follow it and to reinforce its breaches. Not that he educates them, > : or makes them enthusiastic, but simply that he makes the Shulchan > : Aruch the law of the land, punishing those who break it... > > Which he didn't. The Sanhedrin doesn't get reorgonized and put on Har > haBayis. The Sanhedrin was already organized. There's no requirement that they return to Lishkas Hagazis until there *is* one, which he does eventually have to do, but it comes *after* chezkas Moshiach and fighting the war, which is the stage he was at. > In fact, he doesn't get the backing of the majority of the day's > posqim He certainly did, according to the Rambam. > to be able to be associated with a 2nd century religious revival > through legal enforcement, even if he there had been one. (Which there > is no record of.) Again, a "religious revival" means inspiring people to *want* to keep mitzvos, which is unrelated to *forcing* them to do so. > Again, this is only a problem for you because you assume that the Rambam's > chazaqah in 11:4 must be the reason for R' Aqiva and other tannaim > followed BK. What else could it be? He goes directly from saying that miracles are not a requirement to listing what things *are* requirements. Therefore he must have done those things. > But he uses the expression "vedimah hu vekhol chakhmei doro" > -- which is a little weak for following a chazaqah as per a chiyuv. What's weak about it? They must have had a reason for this imagination. What else but the chazaka? And if they thought he hadn't yet reached that stage then how do we know miracles aren't required to reach it? > > The Y-mi (in the adorementiond &T Taanis 4:5 24b) quotes R' Aqiva as > telling R' Yochanan ben Torta "Din hu malka meshikha", an idiom usually > used to refer to a qal vachomer. You're misreading it. It's not "din", it's *dein*. Dein hu malka meshicha, this is the Annointed King. > BTW, where does the Rambam get that "kol chakhmei doro" followed Bar > Koziva? Is there any indication Rabban Gamliel ever did? R Yochanan b > Torta replied (in an oft repeated line) "Aqiva, yaalu asavim belechaikh > ve'adayin ben David lo ba." He was the lone exception, or nearly so. Because *he* held that the miracle of judging by smell *was* required, even at the beginning. The Rambam paskens against him. > : >The Rambam doesn't say so. That's your deduction. It requires assuming > : >that the Rambam agrees with R' Aqiva over what the grounds for presuming > : >(making a chazqah) that someone is moshiach. He doesn't say R' Aqiva is > : >indeed his source. > : > : He explicitly uses him as his source that Moshiach needn't perform > : miracles. How could he do so if his vision of Moshiach's > : qualifications were different from R Akiva's? ... > > R' Aqiva proves that not performing miracles doesn't rule out someone being > the moshiach. He doesn't prove what it takes to actually qualify as being > one. This makes no sense. Either the Rambam agrees with R Akiva's criteria or he doesn't. If he doesn't then how can R Akiva's not requiring miracles prove that they're truly not required? If he was wrong about other criteria, how do we know he was right about this one? No, the fact that the Rambam uses him as proof means the Rambam adopts his view totally, and holds it is the halacha. In Chapter 12 he rules out not miracles but changes in nature. A miracle doesn't change nature, it breaks the rules of nature. Water continues to run downhill, but this water doesn't, not because its nature is different but because it's ignoring nature. That, he says, may or may not happen. Changes in nature won't, because Chazal say so. Chazal are silent on whether Moshiach will perform miracles, so we don't know. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From michaelpoppers at gmail.com Sun Oct 15 19:22:08 2017 From: michaelpoppers at gmail.com (Michael Poppers) Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2017 22:22:08 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] =?utf-8?b?4oCcVGltdHVtIEhhLUxlduKAnSBSZWR1eA==?= Message-ID: In Avodah V35n121, R'Micha wrote: > Tangent: The Gra said that "vehayisa akh sameiach" is the hardest mitzvah in the Torah. "Veyahisa sameiach" is one thing, but "akh sameiach"? To be nothing but happy, with no other moods ambivalently mixed in for 8 days (9 in chu"l) straight? < Tangents to the tangent: (a) Perhaps someone can quote "Ma'asei Rav" or the like, but what I've seen quoted *b'sheim GRA* is that the "ach" *d'rasha* in BT Sukka means that on Shmini Chag haAtzeres we're *b'simcha* with H' w/out any *cheftza shel mitzva*, e.g. see here : Perhaps the answer lies in a comment from the Vilna Gaon on the pasuk of ?v?hayisa ach sameiach.? The Gemara (Succah 48a) derives from this pasuk that Shemini Atzeres is included in the mitzvah of simchah. But the word ach generally limits what is being discussed. What are we limiting with ach sameiach? The Gaon explains that whereas Succos requires many mitzvah objects ? a succah, lulav and esrog, hoshanas ? Shemini Atzeres does not require any physical items. We only need to be sameiach. This is the inherent gift of the last day of the Yom Tov. We can?t take the succah and lulav with us after Yom Tov. But the simchah that comes from dveikus with Hashem requires nothing but ourselves, and it is something we can take along with us. (b) Translating "ach" as "nothing but" doesn't explain the YhK "ach" (P'Emor). (c) Another thought on "v'samachta b'chagecha...v'hayisa ach sameach" is that the latter mandate of *simcha* ("ach" or no "ach") seems superfluous and can be considered as a mandate for the entire year (i.e. not just "b'chagecha"). All the best from *Michael Poppers* * Elizabeth, NJ, USA -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From lisa at starways.net Mon Oct 16 00:51:28 2017 From: lisa at starways.net (Lisa Liel) Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2017 10:51:28 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] eitz hachaim In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <61f0b606-b859-4475-eef8-a10489e74f1c@starways.net> On 10/16/2017 12:41 AM, hankman via Avodah wrote: > What exactly was the eitz hachaim all about. The simple pshat doesn't > make any sense. If the purpose of the Gan was to serve Adam then when > would (could) he make use of the eitz hachaim? Kodem hacheit he was > not a bar misah so he had no need of it, after the cheit he was > prevented from accessing it! So when would it ever be useful to Adam? I don't understand the question. He was prevented from accessing it *because* of the cheit. Had he not sinned, you say he would have had no need for it, but who is to say that its only function was to make him live forever. Maybe that's just the function it has for a bar mitah. Or maybe that was its function, and that's *why* he wasn't a bar mitah. Because the eitz ha-chaim was there, and permissible for him to eat. It was only after he'd eaten from the eitz ha-daat that he could no longer be permitted to live forever. That what eating that did to him made eternal life for him a Bad Thing. Lisa From seinfeld at jsli.org Mon Oct 16 07:02:10 2017 From: seinfeld at jsli.org (Alexander Seinfeld) Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2017 10:02:10 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Zecher Liytzias Mitzrayim and Shmini Atzeres In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: It?s a nice vort but couldn?t you ask the same about Shabbos and Rosh Hashana? Isn?t every Yomtov is a Zecher Yetzias Mitzrayim, not for historical reasons but because Yetzias Mitzrayim is the foundation of our emunah (not Har Sinai)? > >>Rashi (B'midbar 29:35) famously tells us that Shmini Atzeres is a special >>time, with just Hashem and Bnei Yisrael together, alone, with no other >>nations around. I'm merely pointing out that it is not just the nations >>who >>are gone: The lulav is gone. The sukkah is gone. Nothing remains but us >>and >>Hashem, when we left the comfort of the miraculous sukkah, trading it for >>being at home in Eretz Yisrael. >> >>Akiva Miller >> >>Postscript: An easy challenge to this post could be that Tishre 22 was >>NOT >>the day that we crossed from the midbar into Eretz Yisrael. I will >>respond >>in advance by pointing out that Shavuos too is not necessarily celebrated >>on the same day as the event it reminds us of. The Zecher can be poetic >>and >>emotional, and need not be so mathematically rigorous. From micha at aishdas.org Mon Oct 16 11:35:11 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2017 14:35:11 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] R. Akiva, Bar Kochba and Zecharya HaNovi In-Reply-To: References: <5AFE790709AC4B0B9FDDB6A6102B7005@hankPC> <0278980f-97ca-2755-caa3-89461ed64e50@sero.name> <20171011143003.GA21995@aishdas.org> <20171011154231.GA6170@aishdas.org> <0e95d039-c074-ae7f-f3ba-3cee64a3d191@sero.name> <20171011171132.GA1028@aishdas.org> <20171015222126.GB14924@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20171016183511.GA2496@aishdas.org> On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 01:15:48AM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : On 15/10/17 18:21, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: :> On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 10:44:53PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: :>: It conflicts because the Y'mi's version of the story has the :>: Chachamim abandoning BK *before* his fall. The Rambam clearly does :>: not agree with that whole version of the story... :> The Y-mi does not say that R' Aqiva was among those who left early. : The Rambam says that R Akiva *and all the sages of his generation* : imagined BK was Moshiach, *until he was killed*. This is not : consistent with the Y'mi. I see what you mean. Again, it is interesting to find out where the Rambam's alternate picture comes from. Just as his "kol" in "vekhol chakhmei dodo" doesn't seem to be Chazal's picture in either shas. E.g. Sanhedrin 93b, "nechzei anan i moreiach veda'ain..." They were still checking out the validity of BK's claim at the time of his death. :> As I said, there is nothing in the Rambam to rule out them following BK :> out of the expectation that he would eventually get there, rather than his :> being hogeh ve'oseiq bemitzvos already. : Then why can't they also have expected him to eventually do : miracles? How does their belief in him, and his lack of miracles, : prove that Moshiach needn't do any? ... To repeat myself: 11:3 talks about following someone despite a lack of miracles. 12:1-2 talks about the necessary absense of at least a particular kind of miracle -- the start of a new natural order -- if not miracles altogether. If you want to talk about needn't do... then you're looking at R' Aqiva and pereq 11. If you want to talk about won't do... then you're looking at pereq 12 and his assumption of Shemu'el's "ein bein" over Rav's shitah. And the list of things that won't happen is necessarily a subset of things that one needn't wait to happen before following the candidate. Possibly a strict subset, possibly identical sets. :>:> But either way -- whether he or the generation was sinful -- it would :>:> show that BK didn't fit the Rambam's descrition of moshiach. :>: How so? He was righteous, and forced people to keep Torah, but :>: they didn't listen, just like Yoshiyahu. :> "Veyakhof" includes "tried and failed"??? That's not quite what the :> Rambam says. : Yachof means to force, to make it the law of the land, and those who : disobey are punished... You're just repeating the insistance that "vayakhof" could include trying to force people and failing. If the punishments don't actually get the majority observing, is it kefiyah? And we have no evidence or even claim of BK ever even having set up a punishment system. Although this too could be part of the picture the Rambam draws that I don't know the sourece for. After all, as per the above, the picture you get from CHazal is that the Sanhedrin and its enforcement system was *not* behind BK, but the Rambam would have them aligned. ... :> Which he didn't. The Sanhedrin doesn't get reorgonized and put on Har :> haBayis. : The Sanhedrin was already organized. There's no requirement that : they return to Lishkas Hagazis until there *is* one, which he does : eventually have to do, but it comes *after* chezkas Moshiach and : fighting the war, which is the stage he was at. Actually, there is strong evidence he at least started building a BHMQ. And while I suppose they didn't have to move in yet, Anshei Keneses haGedolah moved in to a "lishkah" demarkated by curtains! "Chezqas moshiach" isn't a state in-and-of-itself. It's a chazaqah, a legal presumption, that someone is moshiach. A presumption of a status, not a status. IOW, it is likely that among all of beis David, only the mashiach would be hogeh in Torah and oseif bemitzvos, bring the Jews to observance (minimally: by compulsion) "leileikh bahh ulchazeiq bidqah". And therefore, if we find a member of beis David succeeding at these things, we are obligated to act with the understanding that he is mashiach. Thus, it is meaningless to talk about what happens before or after chezqas mashiach, as though it were a real state change. : Again, a "religious revival" means inspiring people to *want* to : keep mitzvos, which is unrelated to *forcing* them to do so. That's yhour own creative read of what kefiyah means. Forcing or not, it implies actual follow-through. BK didn't risk (and in fact lose) the backing of the majority to get a minority sect to join his support. He didn't get the majority to observe -- or even want to keep mitzvos (as per TSBP). :> Again, this is only a problem for you because you assume that the Rambam's :> chazaqah in 11:4 must be the reason for R' Aqiva and other tannaim :> followed BK. : What else could it be? He goes directly from saying that miracles : are not a requirement to listing what things *are* requirements. : Therefore he must have done those things. Requirements for building a chazaqah that the candidate is indeed moshiach. Which is a measure of confidence in BK the Rambam doesn't claim R' Aqiva and his generation reached -- they only reached as far as "hu hayah omer alav" and "vedimah hu". No mention of a chazaqah they were chayavim to follow; in fact, the lashon ("dimah") implied its lack. Chazaqah isn't imagination; it's a presumption strong enough to obligate our acting upon. : What's weak about it? They must have had a reason for this : imagination. What else but the chazaka? And if they thought he : hadn't yet reached that stage then how do we know miracles aren't : required to reach it? Miracles aren't required. Full stop. 12:1 could even be saying they are ruled out. "What else other than the chazaqah"? Indicators that are short of a chazaqah. Don't we follow umdena, ruba deleisa leqaman, and other notions of likelihood without going as far as having a chazaqah in a lot of halachic topics? : You're misreading it. It's not "din", it's *dein*. Dein hu malka : meshicha, this is the Annointed King. "Hadein hu"? Not that important for the main topic, since dimah isn't an expression I would picture the Rambam using for a mandatory following of a chazaqah. :> BTW, where does the Rambam get that "kol chakhmei doro" followed Bar :> Koziva? Is there any indication Rabban Gamliel ever did? R Yochanan b :> Torta replied (in an oft repeated line) "Aqiva, yaalu asavim belechaikh :> ve'adayin ben David lo ba." : He was the lone exception, or nearly so. Because *he* held that : the miracle of judging by smell *was* required, even at the : beginning. The Rambam paskens against him. That is against the stam bavli (in Sanhedrin 93b, quoted above), which says it's Rabbanan. ... : This makes no sense. Either the Rambam agrees with R Akiva's : criteria or he doesn't... Critria for what? I still find you mixing apples and oranges. He uses R' Aqiva's following of BK despite the lack of a chazaqah as proof that we too shouldn't wait for a miracle before following a likely moshiach. He used Shemu'el's position to rule out miracles (or to be generous, maybe only one kind of miracle) being part of the messianic dream altogether. Very consistent picture, IMHO. : In Chapter 12 he rules out not miracles but changes in nature. A : miracle doesn't change nature, it breaks the rules of nature... It is a bitul of something miminhago shel olam, albeit a temporary one. But I have consistently left open the door to saying he's only talking about a subset of miracles; those that leave the running of things changed. I don't find it likely that the Rambam's "yibatel davar" means only permanent bitul, doubly so since it would be redundant with the next line, "o yihyeh sham chidush bemaaseh bereishis". Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger People were created to be loved. micha at aishdas.org Things were created to be used. http://www.aishdas.org The reason why the world is in chaos is that Fax: (270) 514-1507 things are being loved, people are being used. From cantorwolberg at cox.net Wed Oct 18 06:37:17 2017 From: cantorwolberg at cox.net (Richard Wolberg) Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2017 09:37:17 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Interesting Insight on Noach Message-ID: <36805007-8186-42B4-9042-51439D2BB204@cox.net> It has always bothered me that Noah was considered the only righteous person (along with his family) and that everyone else was evil. However, just today as I was studying various commentaries, I came across the following amazing account in Tanchuma, R?eh, 3. From the moment that God gave the Torah, it is only he who sins that will be punished, though before that, the whole generation was responsible for the sin of the individual. Thus there were many righteous men swept away with the deluge in the time of Noah. Hence, since Noah was the ?most? righteous, he was spared although the other righteous were not, as a consequence of collective guilt at that time. rw Inside each of us, there is the seed of both good and evil. It's a constant struggle as to which one will win. And one cannot exist without the other. Eric Burdon > > ?If you live for people?s acceptance, you will > die from their rejection.? > Anonymous From zev at sero.name Wed Oct 18 07:43:32 2017 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2017 10:43:32 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Interesting Insight on Noach In-Reply-To: <36805007-8186-42B4-9042-51439D2BB204@cox.net> References: <36805007-8186-42B4-9042-51439D2BB204@cox.net> Message-ID: On 18/10/17 09:37, Richard Wolberg via Avodah wrote: > However, just today > as I was studying various commentaries, I came across the following amazing > account in Tanchuma, R?eh, 3. > > From the moment that God gave the Torah, it is only he who sins that will be punished, > though before that, the whole generation was responsible for the sin of the individual. > Thus there were many righteous men swept away with the deluge in the time of Noah. > Hence, since Noah was the ?most? righteous, he was spared although the other righteous > were not, as a consequence of collective guilt at that time. According to R Avin, what was Avraham's argument, "chalila lach"? If that had been Hashem's SOP for the past 2050 years, and would be for another 400, why didn't He just tell Avraham "Yes, this is how I do things"? -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From micha at aishdas.org Wed Oct 18 13:25:27 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2017 16:25:27 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Interesting Insight on Noach In-Reply-To: <36805007-8186-42B4-9042-51439D2BB204@cox.net> References: <36805007-8186-42B4-9042-51439D2BB204@cox.net> Message-ID: <20171018202527.GA27560@aishdas.org> On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 09:37:17AM -0400, Richard Wolberg via Avodah wrote: : ... account in Tanchuma, R?eh, 3: :> From the moment that God gave the Torah, it is only he who sins that will :> be punished, though before that, the whole generation was responsible :> for the sin of the individual. Thus there were many righteous men swept :> away with the deluge in the time of Noah. Hence, since Noah was the :> "most" righteous, he was spared although the other righteous were not, :> as a consequence of collective guilt at that time. The text is available at or The siman opens with quoting Eikhah 3:38, "miPi Elyon lo seitzei hara'os vehatov" and then immediately starts with this statement from R' Avin. However, the quote has that after Matan Torah, whomever sins, "HQBH poreia mimenu", and before that, the whole generation "meshaleim chet'o". Arguably this translation might be missing something by leaving the language of Hashem collecting, as though on a debt. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger One doesn't learn mussar to be a tzaddik, micha at aishdas.org but to become a tzaddik. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yisrael Salanter Fax: (270) 514-1507 From hankman at bell.net Wed Oct 18 08:12:50 2017 From: hankman at bell.net (hankman) Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2017 11:12:50 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] R. Akiva, Bar Kochba and Zecharya HaNovi Message-ID: <7B0712E6569740909873C2AD4F89F435@hankPC> R. Micha Berger wrote: ?This doesn't really rule out miracles, but it does rule out ones that leave a permanent change in the natural orer. There is a line. Which is how he rules out the historicity of "vegar ze'eiv im keves..." etc... They don't mearly "needn't" happen, he rules out the possibility of their literal meaning being part of the future, because they cross his line of olam keminhago noheig".? Kodem cheit Adam haReshon, not just Adam was only permitted to eat plant life but so too was the nature of ALL animals that they too only subsisted from plant life ? ie., much like "vegar ze'eiv im keves..." So perhaps olam keminhago noheig means keminhago KODEM HACHET without requiring any change to the ORIGINAL natural order. Kol tuv Chaim Manaster -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hankman at bell.net Wed Oct 18 08:44:50 2017 From: hankman at bell.net (hankman) Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2017 11:44:50 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] =?utf-8?q?=E2=80=9Cthe_miracle_of_judging_by_smell?= =?utf-8?q?=E2=80=9D_was__=28Re=3A__R=2E_Akiva=2C_Bar_Kochba_and_Ze?= =?utf-8?q?charya_HaNovi=29?= Message-ID: ?the miracle of judging by smell? Really should be a knew thread. When we learned this sugia recently in the daf yomi I asked the magid shiur that lechora this was keneged torah which requires eidim for most judgements. He answered that perhaps it means that one smell from Moshiach would be enough to get the person to be modeh al ha?emes. I replied that would only work for judgments in choshen mishpot (hodoas bal din) but not for cases involving arayos, malkos, or misah where two eidim are required and we are not permitted to accept his confession as ein adam meisim atzmo rasha. How would this ?miracle? allow for a proper halachik judgment? That is where we left it for now. Could this meimre of chazal be limited to just cases involving choshen mishpot? I imagine many meforshim address this issue, can anyone clarify? Kol tuv Chaim Manaster -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From JRich at sibson.com Wed Oct 18 08:48:56 2017 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2017 15:48:56 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Shliach Tzibbur Message-ID: <5b1d039d5958444d94f6c90a4607ee17@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> The S"A in O"C 53 discusses what to look for in a Shliach Tzibbur. We seem to not fully actualize these recommendations (rationalizations include the fact that he is no longer being motzi those who can't pray). Do you think this result is sociological or halachic driven? Does an individual (e.g., avel) who pushes to be a shatz, etc., when there are more qualified individuals (or especially if they are not qualified), accomplish more good or bad? See especially Aruch Hashulchan 53:5. KT 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: From micha at aishdas.org Wed Oct 18 14:25:50 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2017 17:25:50 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] R. Akiva, Bar Kochba and Zecharya HaNovi In-Reply-To: <7B0712E6569740909873C2AD4F89F435@hankPC> References: <7B0712E6569740909873C2AD4F89F435@hankPC> Message-ID: <20171018212550.GB27560@aishdas.org> On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 11:12:50AM -0400, hankman via Avodah wrote: : R. Micha Berger wrote: :> This doesn't really rule out miracles, but it does rule out ones that :> leave a permanent change in the natural order. There is a line. Which is :> how he rules out the historicity of "vegar ze'eiv im keves..." etc... ... : Kodem cheit Adam haReshon, not just Adam was only permitted to eat plant : life but so too was the nature of ALL animals that they too only subsisted : from plant life -- ie., much like "vegar ze'eiv im keves..." I doubt the Rambam, the "he" I am trying to understand in the text you quoted, would agree with this premise about animals before the eitz hada'as. On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 11:44:50AM -0400, hankman via Avodah wrote: :> the miracle of judging by smell : Really should be a new thread. : When we learned this sugia recently in the daf yomi I asked the magid : shiur that lechora this was keneged torah which requires eidim for : most judgements. He answered that perhaps it means that one smell from : Moshiach would be enough to get the person to be modeh al ha'emes.... I think it HAS to be be its own thread, because this too works with assumptions the Rambam would not agree with. Odds are the Rambam wouldn't take "demorach" literally. See Lecham Yehudah on Hil' Melakhim 11:3, aveilable at . But to get back on topic to the original thread (which is why I'm posting it here): Notice that the BLY (R Yehudah Iyash, Levorno mid-18th cent) assumes that such guilt-smelling would defy the Rambam's "chidush bema'aseh bereishis" rule, and thus couldn't be literal. Even though it's a localized miracle / revelation and not a permanent change in the natural order. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Every child comes with the message micha at aishdas.org that God is not yet discouraged with http://www.aishdas.org humanity. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rabindranath Tagore From jmeisner at mail.gmail.com Wed Oct 18 15:38:14 2017 From: jmeisner at mail.gmail.com (Joshua Meisner) Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2017 18:38:14 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] "the miracle of judging by smell" was (Re: R. Akiva, Bar Kochba and Zecharya HaNovi) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7C3544D0-F571-4A7C-B067-FDC0308CBD65@gmail.com> On Oct 18, 2017, at 11:44am, hankman wrote: > When we learned this sugia recently in the daf yomi I asked the magid > shiur that lechora this was keneged torah which requires eidim for > most judgements. He answered that perhaps it means that one smell from > Moshiach would be enough to get the person to be modeh al ha'emes. I > replied that would only work for judgments in choshen mishpot (hodoas > bal din) but not for cases involving arayos, malkos, or misah where two > eidim are required and we are not permitted to accept his confession as > ein adam meisim atzmo rasha... Reaching a correct psak in any area of halacha requires obtaining a full picture of the situation, including all relevant details and the particular context. This requires that the posek have skill in asking questions that will clarify these points and recognizing when, intentionally or not, the answers he is receiving do not reflect the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Perhaps it is this sense that the navi is referring to. Joshua Meisner From hankman at bell.net Wed Oct 18 15:58:01 2017 From: hankman at bell.net (hankman) Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2017 18:58:01 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] =?utf-8?q?=E2=80=9Cthe_miracle_of_judging_by_smell?= =?utf-8?q?=E2=80=9D_was__=28Re=3A__R=2E_Akiva=2C_Bar_Kochba_and_Ze?= =?utf-8?q?charya_HaNovi=29?= Message-ID: <83ADB68D660C4A8BA5E0F3D19339FF76@hankPC> R. J. Meisner wrote: ? Reaching a correct psak in any area of halacha requires obtaining a full picture of the situation, including all relevant details and the particular context. This requires that the posek have skill in asking questions that will clarify these points and recognizing when, intentionally or not, the answers he is receiving do not reflect the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Perhaps it is this sense that the navi is referring to. Joshua Meisner? But no matter how skilled the judge is at getting at the truth, even if all he need so is be moreiach, this still does not lessen the requirement of 2 eidim for many judgments. While reading your response to me, another thought occurred to me and upon reflection it may be that this is also what you meant. Perhaps when the gemara stated that he can be moreaiach veda?in that the gemara meant not that he would only need to question the defendant, and could smell whether he is guilty or not and pasken based on the surety of his conclusion, but perhaps the gemara meant that when questioning the EIDIM he was able merely smell them and then judge the credibility of the eidim whether he should accept them as credible or not and thus pasken the case accordingly. Kol tuv Chaim Manaster -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hankman at bell.net Wed Oct 18 15:44:42 2017 From: hankman at bell.net (hankman) Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2017 18:44:42 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] R. Akiva, Bar Kochba and Zecharya HaNovi Message-ID: <36062433D0904BE5ABD5156C727C7A6D@hankPC> R. Micha Berger wrote: ?I doubt the Rambam, the "he" I am trying to understand in the text you quoted, would agree with this premise about animals before the eitz hada'as.? So how does the Rambam explain Bereishis 1:30? Kol tuv Chaim Manaster -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From akivagmiller at gmail.com Thu Oct 19 02:47:09 2017 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2017 05:47:09 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Torah precheit? Message-ID: . R' Chaim Manaster asked: > I have been trying to understand what the geshtalt of Torah > was precheit of the eitz hadaas. It could not have resembled > anything that we ( I ) would recognize today. Consider: > There was but one mitzva. Most if not all the mitzvos of the > Torah we are familiar with could not have existed, at least > as we understand them today. Had Adam been successful in his > one day tafkid the purpose of the bria would have been > accomplished and Adam (mankind) would have gone to olom haba > ? mission accomplished nothing more to follow but for reward > in olom haba. > > The many consequences seem to be as follows: there would be > no avdus in Mitzrayim, therefore no ... ... One can ask similar questions about other turning-points in history. What if Kayin had not killed Hevel? What if the world has not gone to Avodah Zara a few generations later? What if Yishmael and/or Esav had not gone of the derech? What if Moshe Rabenu had acted differently by the rock? I believe that people are too hung up on the idea that "Torah" and the Chumash are identical. They are not. "The Torah has 70 faces", and ONE of them is the written scroll that we read from in shul. Another is the Torah Sheb'al Peh. Another was that one singular mitzvah that Adam HaRishon was given. None is less holy than any other. They are but different facets of the same diamond. And there are yet others. Torah manifests itself differently to a kohen than to a levi, and differently to a woman than to a man. And so on. For example: > As there would never be an Eretz Yisroel, then there would not > be all the mitzvot hateltuot ba?aretz ? trumos, masros etc., etc. Or perhaps Gan Eden would have had that status. Eretz Yisrael is actually a great example: Consider the idea that true nevuah can exist only in Eretz Yisrael. But also consider that this restriction only started when EY got its kedushah - prior to that point one could have nevuah elsewhere too. Logically, I would think that the kedusha of EY enabled this thing that couldn't exist without such intense kedusha; but counter-intuitively, this thing that has long existed is now suddenly restricted to a specific area. Because times change, and people change; the Torah stays the same but it shows a different face. We are so used to how things are today, that we think things have always been this way. But it ain't so. > So what is the nature of Torah in such a world. How do we > see it as an ever constant ever present and unchanging > Torah? How does a Torah with but ONE mitzva look? How does > it still identify with a Torah with 613 mitzvot? There are many mitzvos that apply only at specifc times and under specific circumstances. Consider the back-and-forth of when bamos were allowed and not allowed. We went for quite a few centuries with choosing a human king. I am deliberately trying to avoid mitzvos that have sociological criteria, like the existence of a Sanhedrin, or whether or not we are capable of tochacha. Rather, my point goes to this "Torah with 613 mitzvot" that you refer to. It doesn't exist today, and I don't know if it ever has existed. There has certainly never been a person to whom they all applied, and I wonder whether there was ever a generation when they were all in force. > Sorry if my thoughts were very rambling. I just typed as > things came to mind ? maybe not always a good idea! On the contrary, brainstorming is often a fruitful way of developing new thoughts! Personally, it was many decades ago that someone asked me, "If there is life on other planets, might they possibly have a Torah? But Mitzrayim doesn't exist there, and Moshe never lived there!" That question bothered me for a very long time, until I realized that even on *this* planet, Noach had his version of Torah, and that was centuries before Mitzrayim or Moshe came to be. (To conflate two threads, I think what I'm saying here is very similar to what R"n Lisa Liel wrote in the "eitz hachaim" thread. These things aren't static; their roles change to fit the situation.) Akiva Miller From zev at sero.name Wed Oct 18 20:54:50 2017 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2017 23:54:50 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] =?utf-8?q?=E2=80=9Cthe_miracle_of_judging_by_smell?= =?utf-8?q?=E2=80=9D_was_=28Re=3A_R=2E_Akiva=2C_Bar_Kochba_and_Zecharya_Ha?= =?utf-8?q?Novi=29?= In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <209038db-6620-b1cf-4e52-1b093803ac7d@sero.name> On 18/10/17 11:44, hankman via Avodah wrote: > ?the miracle of judging by smell? > Really should be a knew thread. > When we learned this sugia recently in the daf yomi I asked the magid > shiur that lechora this was keneged torah which requires eidim for most > judgements. Moshiach is a melech, and not bound by the rules of a beis din. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From micha at aishdas.org Wed Oct 18 19:40:28 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2017 22:40:28 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] R. Akiva, Bar Kochba and Zecharya HaNovi In-Reply-To: <36062433D0904BE5ABD5156C727C7A6D@hankPC> References: <36062433D0904BE5ABD5156C727C7A6D@hankPC> Message-ID: <20171019024028.GB20212@aishdas.org> On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 06:44:42PM -0400, hankman via Avodah wrote: : R. Micha Berger wrote: :> I doubt the Rambam, the "he" I am trying to understand in the text :> you quoted, would agree with this premise about animals before the :> eitz hada'as. : So how does the Rambam explain Bereishis 1:30? Well, if you look at Moreh 1:30, you'll see that the Rambam considers maaseh bereishis to be atemporal, 6 logical stages of unfolding of reality, not steps separated in time. So I don't know if I should assume anything about how he reads pasuq 30. But I do note that if taken literally, the pasuq merely says that Hashem gave the plants to the animals for food. A statement about one of the functions of plantsl and that Adam can't hord all the plants for himself, since animals need it too. It needn't mean that only plants served a food. The statement from Chazal (quoted by Rashi) is a derashah. The Ohr haChaim spends time justifying it, if you want to see the medrashic steps in detail. But it's not peshat, and therefore not necessarily the Rambam would take literally. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger There's only one corner of the universe micha at aishdas.org you can be certain of improving, http://www.aishdas.org and that's your own self. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Aldous Huxley From zev at sero.name Wed Oct 18 21:51:32 2017 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2017 00:51:32 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Interesting Insight on Noach In-Reply-To: <2E736CF9-84CD-41DB-9963-8E38B681DC20@cox.net> References: <36805007-8186-42B4-9042-51439D2BB204@cox.net> <2E736CF9-84CD-41DB-9963-8E38B681DC20@cox.net> Message-ID: <18439702-d4ae-0f50-3350-a8b5cd433fb5@sero.name> On 18/10/17 11:09, Richard Wolberg wrote: > What I?m saying is that our theology is fraught with inconsistencies and > contradictions > and we have plenty of ?teikusl? ?You?re a black and white person and > don?t see shades. > Not everything can be reconciled. Impossible. Toras Hashem Temima, and can't contradict itself. If there are two pesukim that seem to contradict each other, there's a third pasuk that resolves it and makes sense of both. It's not possible that R Avin was unaware of Avraham's statement, nor is it possible that he would dismiss Avraham's view as mistaken. Therefore there must be something in R Avin's view that's not what it appears. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From JRich at sibson.com Fri Oct 20 05:37:21 2017 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2017 12:37:21 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] empiricism Message-ID: <17851b0cb6514f5a8fac7543e7d86493@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Rabbi Jason Weiner's, "Jewish Guide to Practical Medical Decision-Making" - "The Talmudic sages performed post-mortem examinations and had considerable knowledge of anatomy and pathology. Indeed, the rabbis of the Talmud were among the first people in history to operate on corpses in order to learn medical information that had halakhic ramifications. See Tosefta Niddah 4:17, Niddah 30b, bekhorot 45A . . ". Wiki s- Initially, the Ancient Greek philosophers did not believe in empiricism, and saw measurements, such as geometry, as the domain of craftsmen and artisans. Philosophers, such as Plato, believed that all knowledge could be obtained through pure reasoning, and that there was no need to actually go out and measure anything. Please look at the three sources quoted by R'Weiner, are they support or really maaseh lstormaaseh l'stor as to a general approach? Kt 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: From emteitz at gmail.com Fri Oct 20 14:49:21 2017 From: emteitz at gmail.com (elazar teitz) Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2017 17:49:21 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] the miracle of judging by smell Message-ID: On this topic, the comment was made that "Moshiach is a melech, and not bound by the rules of a beis din." However, other than moreid b'malchus, this is only true for r'tzicha, not other capital punishment cases, as is indicated in Rambam Hilchos M'lachim 3:10 (as it is understood by most m'farshim). EMT -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From isaac at balb.in Sat Oct 21 04:07:43 2017 From: isaac at balb.in (Isaac Balbin) Date: Sat, 21 Oct 2017 11:07:43 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] ?the miracle of judging by smell? was (Re: R. Akiva, Bar Kochba and Zecharya HaNovi) Message-ID: From: Zev Sero > > On 18/10/17 11:44, hankman via Avodah wrote: >> When we learned this sugia recently in the daf yomi I asked the magid >> shiur that lechora this was keneged torah which requires eidim for most >> judgements. Zev responded > Moshiach is a melech, and not bound by the rules of a beis din. Indeed. His position therefore also invalidates Moshiach from being a formal witness, although that's clearly not for trust/smell issues. From micha at aishdas.org Sun Oct 22 07:20:34 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2017 10:20:34 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Long Lifespans in Bereishis Message-ID: <20171022142033.GA669@aishdas.org> Our old chaver R' Rich Wolpoe posted this article by R/Dr Mitchell First. It's a nice survey of opinions about all those long lifespans in seifer Bereishis : NishmaBlog From RRW Guest Blogger: Mitchell First Thursday, 19 October 2017 The Long Lifespans in Genesis The Longevity of the Ancients Recorded in Genesis ... Josephus (late 1st century). Here is his statement in Antiquities, book I: " ...For, in the first place, they were beloved of God and the creatures of God himself; their diet too was more conducive to longevity: it was then natural that they should live so long. Again, alike for their merits and to promote the utility of their discoveries in astronomy and geometry, God would accord them a longer life...." Now I will survey the views of our Geonim and Rishonim. R. Saadiah Gaon (10th cent.) discusses this issue in his introduction to Tehillim. He writes that the longevity of these early generations was part of God's plan for the rapid proliferation of mankind on the earth..... R. Yehudah Ha-Levi (12th cent.) discusses the issue in the Kuzari (sec. 95). He believes that it was only the individuals listed who lived long. Each of the individuals listed was the heart and essence of his generation and was physically and spiritually perfect. The Divine Flow was transmitted from one generation to another through these exceptional individuals. Rambam, in a famous passage in the Guide to the Perplexed (II, chap. 47) writes: "I say that only the persons named lived so long, whilst other people enjoyed the ordinary length of life. The men named were exceptions, either in consequence of different causes, as e.g., their food or mode of living, or by way of miracle." Ramban (comm. to Gen. 5:4) quotes Rambam's view and then disagrees, ... individuals with long lifespans named in the Bible were not exceptional in their lifespans. Rather, the entire world had long lifespans before the Flood. But after the Flood, the world atmosphere changed and this caused the gradual reduction in lifespans. Most of the Rishonim who discussed the issue thereafter followed the approach of either the Rambam or the Ramban. Either way, they were taking the Genesis lifespan numbers literally. (An underlying factor that motivated Rishonim to accept the Genesis lifespan numbers literally was that the count from creation was calculated based on these numbers.) Josephus had mentioned that one of the reasons that God allowed their longevity was to promote the utility of their discoveries in astronomy and geometry. This idea of longevity to enable the acquisition of knowledge and make discoveries (and write them to be passed down) is also included in several of our Rishonim. See, e.g., the commentary of the Radak to Gen. 5:4 and of the Ralbag to Gen. chap. 5 (p. 136), and the Rashbatz (R. Shimon b. Tzemach Duran, Magen Avot, comm. to Avot 5:21). Rashbatz also mentions the idea that the early generations were close in time to Adam and Adam ... was made by God from the earth.... Another idea found in some of our Rishonim is that those early individuals did not chase after "ta'avat ha-guf," which reduces the lifespan. See, e.g., the commentary of the Radak to Gen. 5:4. ... ... R. Moses Ibn Tibbon (late 13th cent.) He suggests that the years given for people's lives were actually the years of "malkhutam ve-nimuseihim," i.e., the dynasties and/or customs that they established. ... R. Levi ben Hayyim (early 14th cent.).... concludes that in his opinion the names mentioned were just roshei avot. In other words, the number of years given for each individual reflects the total of the years of the several generations of individuals named for that first individual. R. Nissim of Marseilles (early 14th century) ... took the same approach as R. Moses Ibn Tibbon. The numbers ... included the total years of the descendants who followed his customs and lifestyle. The most interesting approach I saw was that of R. Eleazar Ashkenazi ben Nathan ha-Bavli (14th century), in his work Tzafnat Paneach, pp. 29-30. ... First, R. Eleazar refers to the view that perhaps the individual numbers were not to be taken literally, and points to other statements in the Torah that were not meant to be taken literally, e.g., 1) the Land of Israel was "flowing with milk and honey," and 2) the cities in Canaan were "fortified up to the Heaven" (Deut. 1:28). (See further Moreh Nevuchim, II,47.) But then R. Eleazar suggests the following creative approach. In listing these individual numbers, the Torah was merely recording the legends about these figures, even though they were not accurate. The important thing was to provide data from which the total years from Creation to Matan Torah could be derived, so that the people would be able to know the length of time between these two periods. Even though the numbers for the individual lifespans were not accurate, the Torah made sure that the total that would be arrived at would be accurate.... ... Prof. Natan Aviezer of Bar-Ilan University.... in a post at the Bar Ilan University weekly parshah site for parshat Noach, 1998... explains that modern science has figured out that aging is largely caused by genes, and not by a wearing out of our bodies. He then suggests that when God stated at Gen. 6:3 that man would be limited to 120 years, this was when God first introduced the gene for aging into the human gene pool. If you have not found any of the above answers satisfying, I have some good news. R. Saadiah Gaon writes (Emunot Ve-Deot, end of chap. 7) that in the era of the redemption the human lifespan will be approximately 500 years. Presumably, at that time we won't be bothered by those long lifespans in Genesis anymore! (Note that Radak, comm. to Is. 65:20, is a bit stingier. He predicts lifespans of only 300 to 500 years. See also his commentary to Ps. 92:15. But the 12th century Babylonian Gaon R. Samuel b. Ali predicts lifespans closer to 1000 years!) I would like to acknowledge that most of the material above came from an article by Prof. Daniel Lasker of Ben-Gurion University, in Mechkarim Be-Halakha U-Be-Mishpat Ha-Ivri, vol. 26-27 (2009-10). Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger I slept and dreamt that life was joy. micha at aishdas.org I awoke and found that life was duty. http://www.aishdas.org I worked and, behold -- duty is joy. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rabindranath Tagore From micha at aishdas.org Sun Oct 22 09:13:16 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2017 12:13:16 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Beris Milah on Shabbos when Father isn't Jewish Message-ID: <20171022161316.GA32328@aishdas.org> I mentioned in the past I had this question halakhah lemaaseh. I knew of an intermarried couple who lived nowhere near the nearest Jewish community. They would have just had the boy circumcized in the hospital rather than to pay what one of the nearer mohalim wanted to come down for the weekend. Yes, the nearest Chabad house had a mohel, who (of course) would come at cost... IFF he hadn't had a beris in his own minhan that same Shabbos. So the question I asked was whether I should donate (or raise donations) for the beris to be bizmano. My LOR asked his rav... long story short, as I best remember at a little more than two decades later: The pasuq says "bayom hashemini yimol besar arlaso" -- it's the father who is told "on the eight day", even if it's on Shabbos. Implied: If the father has no chiyuv, such as our case or if r"l the father didn't survive to see his son's beris, there is no one whose chiyuv overrides Shabbos. (If the father is alive but not there, you'd still violate Shabbos.) Well, someone asked R' Asher Weiss. . He didn't rule the same way, but does mention that is -- or at least was -- a machloqes amoraim. However, RAW holds a consensus has emerged to do the beris. Perhaps RDC didn't think the consensus was solid enough to warrant my spending or raising that kind of money for someone else's beris. Or perhaps it was closer to the way I remembered it and RDC doesn't agree with how the consensus emerged. Brit mila on Shabbos when father is non Jew Posted by: Rabbi Akiva Dershowitz Question: Does everyone agree that a brit is done on Shabbat even if the father is a goy? ... Answer: No, this is a dispute among the achronim [halachic authorities of the last 500 years]. The halachic ruling is that we do in fact perform the bris mila on Shabbos. See Derisha Y:D 266:20, Nachalas Shiva [kuntress hamila siman 1], Shu't Binyan Tzion [Vol. 1:21]. The nearest I could find in Hebrew (as the Hebrew always has more discussion) is "Beris beShabbos leVen Me'uberes sheNisgayrah" at . There the question is whether the velad's milah is a normal beris or lesheim geirus, and RAW still holds the milah should be on Shabbos. It's a fun sugya, worth a read. But doesn't focus on our question. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger You cannot propel yourself forward micha at aishdas.org by patting yourself on the back. http://www.aishdas.org -Anonymous Fax: (270) 514-1507 From hankman at bell.net Sun Oct 22 13:15:49 2017 From: hankman at bell.net (hankman) Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2017 16:15:49 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Torah precheit? Message-ID: <39266980A1C24F078B1904F1783BA1C0@hankPC> R. Akiva Miller wrote: ?One can ask similar questions about other turning-points in history. What if Kayin had not killed Hevel? What if the world has not gone to Avodah Zara a few generations later? What if Yishmael and/or Esav had not gone of the derech? What if Moshe Rabenu had acted differently by the rock?? Actually I had thoughts along similar lines that you express. The most prominent such turning point was the cheit ha?eigel, where again, had they succeeded, that again would have been the end for man?s tafkid and correction the cheit of Adam, direct route to eretz Yisroel, no forty years in the midbar and presumably Moshe R. would have been the final moshiach and on to the final gemul. The reason these two stick in my mind more than the other forks in history you point to, is that these would have been endpoints to the tafkid in this world and led directly to olom haba with no continuation of the ?Torah? story we are familiar with. The moments in history you point to would have been forks in the road but not endpoints. So if say Esau/Yishmoel had made good choices and been more like his brother Yaakov/Yitzchok, the story would have had a different twist to it, but the overall gestalt to the Torah could still have been quite similar. What we have now, with some changes. But we would have no problem imagining all (perhaps most) of the mitzvos as we know them. These two, cheit of Adam and cheit ha?eigel, were fundamentally different than the other ?forks? in the road as what we know to have followed would never happen. So Regalim, and avdus in Mitzrayim, etc, etc are ideas that seem not to have a place in such a reality had Adam succeeded while the other forks would have led to a variation on a theme we are familiar with and can at least readily imagine. The idea you mention of ?70 panim latorah? would have to be expanded greatly if for every fork on the possible choices made in the biblical period (by this I mean the time through the end of the forty years bamidbar that were recorded in chumash). If every possible choice made at every fork (say N) resulted in a diff version of Torah, then that would result in 2 to the N panim laTorah ? with N being very large! Perhaps 70 is just a synonym for ?many?? When we say that there are 70 umos, I always wondered how that was defined, as it seems to me that there are many more and that the number would change for different periods in history. If 70 here too means ?many? that would clear that up. But then the precise number of 70 for the parei hachag might be a problem unless for some reason that may have been fixed symbolically, or perhaps to coincide with the original number at some early point in history as say per the list of the 70 nations Art Scroll makes in its chumash at the end of this weeks parsha (Noach). Basically it is a listing of certain of the names of descendants of Noach. Have you ever heard of a nation called Ever (or most of the other names they list)? So is the ?essence? of Torah something beyond our ken. Is all we can see just a single facet of the 70 panim laTorah? (This of course is not the normal meaning to 70 panim laTorah, which usually is applied to differing explanations to our ?current? Torah, and not the other ?possible? ?Toros? as you are suggesting. Is this so far off the beaten path that this might even be an accidental trip into thought that might be apikursus or a credible notion within the daas? (Torah lo yehai moochlefes). I have no idea! R. Akiva Miller wrote: ?Torah manifests itself differently to a kohen than to a levi, and differently to a woman than to a man.? There is a fundamental difference between a mitzvoh only applying to some vs the concept not existing. Even if I am a Yisroel I can still be oseik in torah of the mitvos of a cohen ? it is still a part of Torah given to all of us even if not all of it pertains to me. R. Akiva Miller wrote: ?Or perhaps Gan Eden would have had that status.? I actually had a thought similar to yours as well on this idea. When I thought a little more about it, I had difficulty putting it all together. so what kind of meaning would trummos and massros have. What would orlo mean. Without aniyim, what is the point of leket shichacha upei?a? (or tzedaka in general, or even more broadly of gemila chasadim in such a world?) The mitzvos hatelyuous ba?aretz only make sense in an agricultural society, not in a world of olam haba where there are no farmers or farms. No need for orei miklat in a world without a yetzer. On another thought, would the notion of baal tigra in the world of only one mitzva leave you with no mitvos at all? That would make one a kofer bekol haTorah koola? Also there would be no need for lo tassur yamin usemol for gezeirot derabanan in such a world (though perhaps it might have stopped Chava if such a takana existed to protect the only mitzvoh they had). R. Akiva Miller wrote: ?"If there is life on other planets, might they possibly have a Torah? But Mitzrayim doesn't exist there, and Moshe never lived there!" That question bothered me for a very long time,? Strangely enough, I had similar thoughts years back. As a young bachur in yeshivo, my rebbi was teaching us that their was a period during which the progenitor of kelal Yisroel would happen. I asked what would have happened if there had been another deep thinker who came to the same realization and belief that Avraham did. He answered that there would have been two (or more) chosen peoples to eventually be mekabel Torah. It didn?t occur to me at the time to ask, would they each have the ?same? Torah or each get a tailored version to their (eventual) am? Or, would there be one Torah that talks of both of the chosen peoples? Years later when discussing what is the purpose to us of the trillions of stars and galaxies so distant that they could never possibly affect us here on Earth? Then it occurred to me, what if those stars had planets with intelligent beings on them and they too went through a similar period wherein they too had some allien being come to the same conclusions as Avraham did and they then became the chosen people of that planet and received a Torah possibly tailored to their experiences and appropriate there etc.? This almost makes sense of the questions the malachim asked Moshe when he went lamorom to accept Torah. They too wanted Torah in a version suitable to them which would deflect all of Moshe?s responses. If memory serves, I think some meforshim try to make sense of the malachim in such a manner. Just some more rambling thoughts. Kol tuv Chaim Manaster -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hankman at bell.net Sun Oct 22 23:25:10 2017 From: hankman at bell.net (hankman) Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2017 02:25:10 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] =?utf-8?q?=E2=80=9Cthe_miracle_of_judging_by_smell?= =?utf-8?q?=E2=80=9D_was_=28Re=3A_R=2E_Akiva=2C_Bar_Kochba_and_Zech?= =?utf-8?q?arya_HaNovi=29?= Message-ID: <7D7387F31006477FA724C733A37A100B@hankPC> R. Zev Sero wrote: ?Moshiach is a melech, and not bound by the rules of a beis din.? You are obviously referring to Rambam, Melachim P. 3: 8, 10. However this refers to judgments that are within the scope of the Melech such as a moreid, or letakein ha?olom kefi ma shehasho?o tzricha. This does not however give him the right to usurp ordinary judgments that normally would fall to a beis din (and disregard such niceties as eidus that the Torah requires), unless he is the av beis din (possible for malchei beis Dovid) and does follow the rules of Torah for eidus like any other beis din and does not simply follow his nose in these judgments. Furthermore, in the category of cases like moreid and shehasho?o tzricha, all the Melech needs to do is simply assert his position as he feels correct for ANY Melech ? he does not even need the power of moreiach veda?in to prove his position. So mimonafshoch, in either case he either may not, or has no need of the power to be moreiach veda?in. Kol tuv Chaim Manaster -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Mon Oct 23 13:16:56 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2017 16:16:56 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] =?cp1255?q?=93the_miracle_of_judging_by_smell=94_was_?= =?cp1255?q?=28Re=3A_R=2E_Akiva=2C_Bar_Kochba_and_Zecharya_HaNovi=29?= In-Reply-To: <7D7387F31006477FA724C733A37A100B@hankPC> References: <7D7387F31006477FA724C733A37A100B@hankPC> Message-ID: <20171023201656.GA13749@aishdas.org> On Mon, Oct 23, 2017 at 02:25:10AM -0400, hankman via Avodah wrote: : . Furthermore, : in the category of cases like moreid and shehasho'o tzricha, all the : Melech needs to do is simply assert his position as he feels correct : for ANY Melech -- he does not even need the power of moreiach veda'in to : prove his position. So mimonafshoch, in either case he either may not, : or has no need of the power to be moreiach veda'in. If I understood the Rambam this way: It would be good to have a king who knows with certainty which dinim need shoring up because he can smell that their violation is rampant. Or, in determining the convicted's guilt: Let's say some sin became common place, and hasha'ah zerikhah that the king enforce a capital punishment for it. But say I understand him as per REMT's post, noting that in 3:10 the Rambam singles out the king's power to kill murderers (eg without hasda'ah, where there was only eid echad, etc...) -- implying that retzichah yes, other issurim, the king could not. (Mikelal lav...) 3:8 really only discussed rebellion and lesse majeste (moreid bemekeh and mevazeh es hamelekh o hamchorfo). I don't see hasha'ah tzeikhah in the Rambam; I'm taking your word for it. Still, I can ask the parallel question: Wouldn't if be far far better if the melekh hamashiach had a supernal ability to know who is really guilty, and not kill the wrong guy? He might not legally need the power, but it would be a good thing for a king to have in order to be effective and fair. So I'm not sure your argument holds. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Every child comes with the message micha at aishdas.org that God is not yet discouraged with http://www.aishdas.org humanity. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rabindranath Tagore From micha at aishdas.org Mon Oct 23 18:51:25 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2017 21:51:25 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] No Barrier Between Religion and Science Message-ID: <20171024015125.GA13043@aishdas.org> See this article on Real Clear Science or http://www.realclearscience.com/articles/2017/10/16/philosophy_rebuts_key_barrier_between_science_and_religion_110422.htmlh Here is Mosaic Magazine's snippet: Kuhn's [argument] is that students learn first by imitation and practice and -- assuming they receive a good education -- once they strike out on their own, they will have been successfully inculcated into a particular scientific tradition. They will thus be prepared to recognize, pose, and solve scientific problems. If we take tradition to be antithetical to scientific rationality, Kuhn's conclusions will appear disquieting. And, indeed, Kuhn's critics rejected his arguments as "irrationalist." But if, on the contrary, we take tradition to be essential to rationality, then Kuhn's conclusions will be not only acceptable but also unsurprising. According to the moral philosopher Alasdair MacIntyre, before we can begin to reason at all, we must first acquire the habits necessary to recognize and, ultimately, to replicate rational behavior. To do so, there must first be exemplars that we take to be authoritative -- in the moral domain these will be exceptionally virtuous people, in the scientific domain, exceptionally good scientists. To become rational, in other words, one must be educated within a tradition of inquiry. Science, on this view, is not Cartesian -- at least as far as [the rejection of received ideas] is concerned -- even if it remains eminently rational. Where does this leave us?... [T]he fact that religious beliefs are not entirely reducible to empirical experience and partly depend upon tradition doesn't make them irrational or even anti-scientific. Thus a popular way of opposing science and religion starts to look untenable. This hardly means the two become indistinguishable. But it does suggest that science and religion could be conceived of as distinct -- but possibly harmonious, even sometimes mutually beneficial -- traditions of rational inquiry. The truth is that science has little to say about where a hypothesis come from. It gives little guidance for deciding what features are worth observing, what we should give our attention to. And once we see a pattern that needs explanation, it is left to human creativity to come up with a hypothesis. Science is a means of weeding out subjectivity from possible answers, but the means of coming up with those answers are very human. In particular, the entire enteprise of science rests on a tradition of theism -- whether the personal beliefs of an Aristotle or Newton, or the culture that produced an Einstein. Without a personal reason for assuming that the universe opperates reasonably, rather than attributing lightning to Thor's or Zeus's moods, can that hypothesis invention get started. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Good decisions come from experience; micha at aishdas.org Experience comes from bad decisions. http://www.aishdas.org - Djoha, from a Sepharadi fable Fax: (270) 514-1507 From hankman at bell.net Mon Oct 23 20:57:36 2017 From: hankman at bell.net (hankman) Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2017 23:57:36 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] "the miracle of judging by smell" was (Re: R. Akiva, Bar Kochba and Zecharya HaNovi) In-Reply-To: <20171023201656.GA13749@aishdas.org> References: <7D7387F31006477FA724C733A37A100B@hankPC> <20171023201656.GA13749@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <7FA394F42CCE44ECBB668DFA42362B96@hankPC> From: Micha Berger Sent: Monday, October 23, 2017 4:16 PM > But say I understand him as per REMT's post, noting that in 3:10 the > Rambam singles out the king's power to kill murderers (eg without > hasda'ah, where there was only eid echad, etc...) -- implying that > retzichah yes, other issurim, the king could not. (Mikelal lav...) > 3:8 really only discussed rebellion and lesse majeste (moreid bemekeh > and mevazeh es hamelekh o hamchorfo). I don't see hasha'ah tzeikhah in > the Rambam; I'm taking your word for it. Still, I can ask the parallel > question: > Wouldn't if be far far better if the melekh hamashiach had a supernal > ability to know who is really guilty, and not kill the wrong guy? > He might not legally need the power, but it would be a good thing for a > king to have in order to be effective and fair. My own initial impression unlike REMT is that the Rambam in 3:10 was not limiting this to only rotzeach, but dealing with case of max punishment or similar punishment and kal vechomer for cases of lesser punishment, however on rereading the Rambam after reading REMT I can see his point of view, but I am not sure I am fully convinced. I did a quick look around and found that the Or Sameiach on the Rambam at 3:10 has a long discussion on this issue as to whether the melech only has this power for a rotzeach where it is a danger to the rabim but not to enforce laxity of bein adam lamokom such as dinei shabbos, or if there was a breach even in these other areas whether the melech could act extra judicially there as well. There is a reference to a Y. Sanhedrin that implies that Dovid hamelech wold have executed for mishkav behama al pi eid echod -- so not just rotzeiach. See also the Rambam H. Rotzeiach P 2:4-5 where he broadens this extra judicial power to beis din as well but under horoas sha'o rather than takonas olam. (Not sure if the different label implies a difference in the respective extra judicial powers or not). See the Kesef Mishna there who mentions a case of chilul Shabbos. My simple reading there is that the Rambam seem to equate the reach of the extra judicial power of b"d to that of the melech to punish when found necessary either due to horo'as shao or takonas olam respectively. (Not clear to me if the different reasons lead to a different scope or not). But it seems that yeish lekan veyeish lekan. I hear your point about moreiach being a good reassurance that his pesak is correct even if not really necessary to render his judgment. Kol tuv Chaim Manaster From micha at aishdas.org Tue Oct 24 06:38:55 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2017 09:38:55 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Psak source wanted In-Reply-To: <1857240052.122258.1508054451353@mail.yahoo.com> References: <1857240052.122258.1508054451353.ref@mail.yahoo.com> <1857240052.122258.1508054451353@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20171024133855.GB25244@aishdas.org> On Sun, Oct 15, 2017 at 08:00:51AM +0000, Motti Yarchinai via Avodah wrote: : It is similar to what the Rambam wrote in Hilchot Kiddush Hachodesh, : saying that in all calendric matters, we follow the lead of the chachmei : eretz yisrael, and even though the anshei hagolah know the calculations : used by them, it is not on our own calculations that we rely, we only : use those calculations because we know that they are the same as the : calculations used by the chachmei eretz yisrael... : Another posek (possibly the Tifferet Yisrael in Shvilei Harakia, but : I'm not sure of that), writes something similar... Did you ever find a source? Google, Bar Ilan and I didn't turn anything up. In practice, we follow the calculations of R' Saaadia Gaon, who was in Aleppo at the time, and not R Aaron Ben-Meir in Y-m ih"q. The big debate of 922 was the topic of an article by RYGB and RAZZ reposted here . The Rambam (Qiddush haChodesh 1:8) limits the authority to someone in EY ("ki miTzion teitzei Sorah...") or if the one clearly most able to do it received semichah in EY, he can continue setting the months and ibur shanos in chu"l -- until someone of comparable stature arises in EY. This seems taylor-made for R Saadia Gaon, who went to yeshiva in Teveriah. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Never must we think that the Jewish element micha at aishdas.org in us could exist without the human element http://www.aishdas.org or vice versa. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch From sholom at aishdas.org Tue Oct 24 12:50:00 2017 From: sholom at aishdas.org (Sholom Simon) Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2017 15:50:00 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Long Lifespans in Bereishis In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <588c56c0dc1eedd39e7bb464810c5cea@aishdas.org> Thanks, RMB, for posting that article. Re the views of R. Moses Ibn Tibbon, et al, who don't take those ages literally on a single person -- is that (along the lines of an off-line conversation we had) a "kosher view" these days? Or, is it one of those views that, the way R Noson Slifkin puts it: they are allowed to have those views, but we aren't? On a different, but related issue, to the chevra: The list of generations in parshas Bereshis are generally of the form: * X was 50 years old when he fathered Y. * X lived 450 years after he fathered Y and had sons and daughters * X lived to the age of 500 years. Doesn't that seem a bit redundant? And, in fact, most (all?) of the generations listed in parshas Noach skip the third phrase. Thoughts? -- Sholom -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hankman at bell.net Tue Oct 24 15:28:28 2017 From: hankman at bell.net (hankman) Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2017 18:28:28 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Long Lifespans in Bereishis Message-ID: <9DE9360C549C46879FBF7291563A9387@hankPC> >From the summary of opinions posted by RMB on lifespans in Bereishis and some comments: ?R. Saadiah Gaon (10th cent.) discusses this issue in his introduction to Tehillim. He writes that the longevity of these early generations was part of God's plan for the rapid proliferation of mankind on the earth.....? Not the biggest kashe in the world, but why then would they start to have children at an advanced age if rapid proliferation was the goal? Perhaps with great longevity came a much longer period for sexual maturation? If true would that also mean that intellectual maturation took much longer as well? ?R. Yehudah Ha-Levi (12th cent.) discusses the issue in the Kuzari (sec. 95). He believes that it was only the individuals listed who lived long. Each of the individuals listed was the heart and essence of his generation and was physically and spiritually perfect. The Divine Flow was transmitted from one generation to another through these exceptional individuals.? How does R. Yehudah Ha-Levi deal with Terach who was an idolator? Clearly he was not spiritually perfect. ?... R. Moses Ibn Tibbon (late 13th cent.) He suggests that the years given for people's lives were actually the years of "malkhutam ve-nimuseihim," i.e., the dynasties and/or customs that they established.? This comment will apply to R. Nissim of Marseilles as well. I presume they held that people had what we today would consider a normal life span. this would mean they were not having the first born at the advanced age of over one hundred. Thus the named son must have been a later generation descendant. (I assume that they did not generate a son in their old age and die shortly thereafter as was the case with Boaz). So if their life spans were similar to ours then was Shes really not a son of Adam but really a descendant several generations down? Ditto for Ennosh, was he really a great ... grandson of Sheis? But this notion of the the years given in Bereishis not pertaining to one single man, but to a dynasty of several generations of normal life span, runs into difficulty with Noach and his 3 sons. If we follow suit with this notion then Shem, Cham and Yefes were not his sons but descendants born 500 years later. Yet they all went into the Teiva together? So how is that a normal life span for Noach? Why weren?t the generations between Noach and Shem, Cham and Yefes saved as well? When the Torah says ?vayoled es X? that is not to be taken literally but just to mean a later descendant chosen to be named in the lineage? ? R. Saadiah Gaon writes (Emunot Ve-Deot, end of chap. 7) that in the era of the redemption the human lifespan will be approximately 500 years. Presumably, at that time we won't be bothered by those long lifespans in Genesis anymore! (Note that Radak, comm. to Is. 65:20, is a bit stingier. He predicts lifespans of only 300 to 500 years. See also his commentary to Ps. 92:15. But the 12th century Babylonian Gaon R. Samuel b. Ali predicts lifespans closer to 1000 years!)? This quote leads to an issue I will expand upon slightly in another post. But the basic issue is if the world is Charuv at 6000 years and yemos Moshiach are before the olom is charuv, (while olom keminhago noheig) there is not enough time left (we are now 5778) for a life span of 300 to 500 years let alone 1000 years. Kol tuv Chaim Manaster -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Wed Oct 25 04:13:32 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2017 07:13:32 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Long Lifespans in Bereishis In-Reply-To: <9DE9360C549C46879FBF7291563A9387@hankPC> References: <9DE9360C549C46879FBF7291563A9387@hankPC> Message-ID: <20171025111332.GC22254@aishdas.org> On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 06:28:28PM -0400, hankman (RVM) wrote: : > (Note that Radak, comm. to Is. 65:20, is a bit stingier. He predicts : > lifespans of only 300 to 500 years. See also his commentary to : > Ps. 92:15. But the 12th century Babylonian Gaon R. Samuel b. Ali : > predicts lifespans closer to 1000 years!)" : This quote leads to an issue I will expand upon slightly in another : post. But the basic issue is if the world is Charuv at 6000 years and : yemos Moshiach are before the olom is charuv, (while olom keminhago : noheig) there is not enough time left (we are now 5778) for a life span : of 300 to 500 years let alone 1000 years. This all depends on the machloqes about defining olam haba and whether techiyas hameisim is permanent. As well as any machloqesin as to whether yemos hamoshiach starts with techiyas hameisim or ends with a new era, that itself starts with teshiyas hameisim. Rambam: olam haba means the non-physical world a neshamah is in between life and teshiyas hameisim, as well as after a second death. Since olam haba is the ultimate form of existence, defining that ultimate as the place souls go when dead necessitates a second death after techiyas hameisim. The Rambam (and the Iqarim, and others, I just picked on name for thumbnail-sketch reasons) then has to explain what the point of the second life is. Ramban (similarly, among others): olam haba, the ultimate existence, is body together with guf after techiyas hameisim. And therefore the post-th"m life must be external. According to the first shitah, it could be that post-th"m life is in gan eden is Adam's sense and thus life lasts as long as his could have. But then there's the question of whether your assumed dates hold.... My point is mainly that I think there are too many unknowns to even ask your question. I just anded up belaboring the one unknown I once wrote about. on how this machloqes may impact what is the point of Brikhas Gevurah ("Atah Gibor"). BTW, I just noticed, underlying that machloqes about what is olam haba and techiyas hameisim might be a difference in the definition of a person. It looks to me like the Rambam is saying a person is a soul who lives in a body. And therefore the ultimate in existence is not to have that body interpolated between me and experiencing Hashem's Presence. Whereas the Ramban is saying that a person is a synthesis of body and soul, and therefore cannot enjoy the rewards of their efforts when the two halves are separated. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger If a person does not recognize one's own worth, micha at aishdas.org how can he appreciate the worth of another? http://www.aishdas.org - Rabbi Yaakov Yosef of Polnoye, Fax: (270) 514-1507 author of Toldos Yaakov Yosef From hankman at bell.net Wed Oct 25 07:40:29 2017 From: hankman at bell.net (hankman) Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2017 10:40:29 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Long Lifespans in Bereishis In-Reply-To: <20171025111332.GC22254@aishdas.org> References: <9DE9360C549C46879FBF7291563A9387@hankPC> <20171025111332.GC22254@aishdas.org> Message-ID: R.Miciha Berger wrote: "On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 06:28:28PM -0400, hankman (RVM) wrote: :if the world is Charuv at 6000 years and : yemos Moshiach are before the olom is charuv, (while olom keminhago : noheig) there is not enough time left (we are now 5778) for a life span : of 300 to 500 years let alone 1000 years. This all depends on the machloqes about defining olam haba and whether techiyas hameisim is permanent. As well as any machloqesin as to whether yemos hamoshiach starts with techiyas hameisim or ends with a new era, that itself starts with teshiyas hameisim. ...." You also need to fit in when exactly in the sequence of these events Yom Hadin Hagodol happens according to each of these shitos. So the many events of "Achris Hatomim" that one need consider to compile a chronology of this mysterious period would include Gog uMagog, Moshiach be Yosef, coming of Eliyahu, yitaka bashofor gadol (before moshiach, or yom hadin hagodol, or techias hameisim?), the nevuos of Zecharyahu and other nevi'im about this period, Bayis shelishi, Kibutz golios, Moshiach ben Dovid (including how long is this period), vanquishing of the yetzer, Techias Hameisim (before Moshiach or before yom hadin or before both?), Yom hadin hagodol, yom hadin hakoton (after death?) Olom charuv (and to what extent it is charuv and why), Gan Eden, Olom haneshamos, Olam haba (final gemul, with or without a guf, and the ultimate purpose of creation so Hashem can be meitiv lezuloso). After writing this I checked out your "Mesukim Midevash" and apparently there will be at least four versions of this chronology (which you began to build in your article) lefi the Rambam, Ramban, Rav Saadia Gaon and the Ikkarim but needs some fleshing out. R Micha Berger wrote: "Ramban (similarly, among others): olam haba, the ultimate existence, is body together with guf after techiyas hameisim. And therefore the post-th"m life must be external. .... But then there's the question of whether your assumed dates hold.... My point is mainly that I think there are too many unknowns to even ask your question...." It is not clear to me what "assumed dates" or what the "unknowns" are that you mention? I only mentioned 5778. Is that date in doubt?? R. Micha Berger wrote: "BTW, I just noticed, underlying that machloqes about what is olam haba and techiyas hameisim might be a difference in the definition of a person. It looks to me like the Rambam is saying a person is a soul who lives in a body. And therefore the ultimate in existence is not to have that body interpolated between me and experiencing Hashem's Presence. Whereas the Ramban is saying that a person is a synthesis of body and soul, and therefore cannot enjoy the rewards of their efforts when the two halves are separated. Tir'u baTov! -Micha" The gemara in Sanhedrin that talks about the need for both the neshama and the guf to be together at yom hadin, works well with your peshat in the Ramban and could be a possible source for his position, but your explanation of the Rambam with the guf just being something donned by the neshama as necessary for its trip to this world, much like a diver dons scuba gear to enable him to function in this temporary environment, then much as it makes no senses to require the scuba gear at the divers trial, so too this gemara requiring the presence of the guf at the yom hadin doesn't really make much sense. Kol tuv Chaim Manaster From ben1456 at zahav.net.il Wed Oct 25 10:48:54 2017 From: ben1456 at zahav.net.il (Ben Waxman) Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2017 19:48:54 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] offering a higher salary Message-ID: <6ca926d4-2984-813b-af3a-e5fb0e765062@zahav.net.il> I've seen posts claiming that it is forbidden to offer cleaners a higher salary to work for you. While I can understand that it makes sense to say that no one can break a specific agreement for a specific day of work, why should it be forbidden to offer a higher salary to someone who has a long term agreement?? A, this is the common practice in the high tech world and I have never heard anyone say "Assur". It would seem that there is general agreement that this halacha simply doesn't apply today. Second, how can anyone be meshuabad in such a way to one person? Does a person wanting a higher salary have to simply quit without any idea about having another job? Ben From motti.yarchinai at mail.yahoo.com.au Wed Oct 25 12:39:33 2017 From: motti.yarchinai at mail.yahoo.com.au (Motti Yarchinai) Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2017 19:39:33 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Avodah] Psak source wanted In-Reply-To: <1857240052.122258.1508054451353@mail.yahoo.com> References: <1857240052.122258.1508054451353.ref@mail.yahoo.com> <1857240052.122258.1508054451353@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <270346387.4768895.1508960373045@mail.yahoo.com> Dear Micha and Avodah members, Thank you Micha for your reply and your attempts to locate a source. On Sun, Oct 15, 2017 at 08:00:51AM +0000, Motti Yarchinai via Avodah wrote: > Can anyone help me with a source for this psak: It is similar to what > the Rambam wrote... > Another posek writes something similar but couched in even more dramatic > terms. The following is not a verbatim quote (since the original is in > Hebrew) but something very close to it: > "And even if the residents of eretz yisrael are all ignoramuses > and peasants, and the authorities of chutz la'aretz are great > scholars and knowledgable in Torah and halachah, in calendric > matters we follow the peasants and ignoramuses, not the scholars > of chutz la'aretz." Micha replied: > Did you ever find a source? Google, Bar Ilan and I didn't turn > anything up.... No, I have not found it yet, but my memory of it is that I saw it in print, and, to my annoyance, I can't find the sefer, but it is bound to turn up sooner or later. When it does, I will repost with the source and quote. Meanwhile, if someone recognises it, please do let me know. Motti From sholom at aishdas.org Wed Oct 25 13:48:29 2017 From: sholom at aishdas.org (Sholom Simon) Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2017 16:48:29 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] A Great Name Message-ID: <20171025204831.CKZV22111.fed1rmfepo202.cox.net@fed1rmimpo210.cox.net> One of the implicit criticisms of Migdal Bavel was that they wanted to make a name for themselves. Then, at the beginning of Lech L'cha, H' tells Avram that he will make his name great. There must be something there . . . anybody have any thoughts? -- Sholom From zev at sero.name Wed Oct 25 20:57:37 2017 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2017 23:57:37 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] offering a higher salary In-Reply-To: <6ca926d4-2984-813b-af3a-e5fb0e765062@zahav.net.il> References: <6ca926d4-2984-813b-af3a-e5fb0e765062@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <03900eea-9674-1896-0842-5cba504a0eed@sero.name> On 25/10/17 13:48, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > I've seen posts claiming that it is forbidden to offer cleaners a higher > salary to work for you. I believe this halacha is a subset of "hasagas gevul", not in the Biblical sense, but in the commonly-used sense, which in in turn a subset of the obligation of ahavas yisrael. "Hasagas gevul" basically means that if you with to start a business and you have a choice between doing it somewhere that will harm me and somewhere that will not, then all else being equal you are obligated to take the second option out of consideration for me, because ve'ahavta lere`acha kamocha. Similarly, if I am renting a forest or an inn from a nochri, from which I make my living, and you offer him a higher rent, you are violating your obligation to value my interests equally with your own. It should be obvious, however, that if the landlord is also "re`acha" then this does not apply, because you have the same obligation to him as to me; if he could be getting more rent from his property then you should make him that offer, though he should give me a chance to match it, since I am the "bar metzra". I think the same thing is going on with the cleaners. If I have a nochris who is willing to clean for me for $N, you have no right to lure her away by offering more. But if she is "re`acha" then aderaba you have a mitzvah to offer her a chance to improve her income, but before taking your offer she should offer me the chance to match it. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From JRich at sibson.com Thu Oct 26 05:08:27 2017 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2017 12:08:27 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Jewish Action Message-ID: Since I can sometimes be critical of organizations (not here where I usually manage not to say anything negative [HT - My Mom ZLL"HH - "If you have nothing nice to say, don't say anything]), I want to give a shout out to the OU Fall Jewish Action. 1.) Moshe Baine poses the two questions I use as an individual/community test (i) How often do we factor God into our daily decisions, both large and small? [Me - how central is the Ratzon Hashem in our lives?] (ii) What are we prepared to "give up" to comply with what we perceive as God's wishes? [Me - does God always seem to agree with what you want?] 2.) Allen Fagin asks "whether we as a community view Yishuv Haaretz as a basic tenet of our spiritual aspirations? [Me - Tell me how often it's discussed or how many folks yearn (while we're at it, how many really yearn for the Beit Hamikdash?)] Now what do we do as a community and as individuals about any perceived shortfalls in these two areas is an old Avodah question but maybe it is gaining traction? KT 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: From micha at aishdas.org Thu Oct 26 07:13:06 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2017 10:13:06 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Jewish Action In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20171026141306.GA15203@aishdas.org> On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 12:08:27PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : 1.) Moshe Baine poses the two questions I use as an individual/community : test (i) How often do we factor God into our daily decisions, both large : and small? [Me - how central is the Ratzon Hashem in our lives?] (ii) : What are we prepared to "give up" to comply with what we perceive as : God's wishes? [Me - does God always seem to agree with what you want?] What you call question (i) gets a scathing answer in that recent and hotly discussed blog post, "Modern Orthodoxy from a Teenager's Perspective" by Eitan Gross. The-future-R Gross opines that it is common knowledge in MO circles that we dont make Ratzon Hashem central enough for MO to succeed. Modern Orthodoxy tries to create a balance that, at the moment, cannot work because we have no drive to be with Hashem and lack the philosophical and hashkafic perspective to articulate why we should be Jewish in a world with an assortment of other options. Therefore, we need to take a fresh look at education and schooling. There needs to be an emphasis on the truth of the tenets of Judaism, as well as an inspirational approach that creates a yearning and desire in the student to be closer to Hashem. And When I tried to publish this essay at a local Jewish newspaper they said "We cant publish this piece, it's too much for us. Plus you're only a senior in high school, so you don't have the authority to have a say in the current situation." Although they were against putting this essay to print, the head of the paper still agreed with me, "Modern Orthodoxy has major flaws and everyone knows it." If "everyone knows it", but no one does anything then it must be that they think Modern Orthodoxy is too big to change.... I think he means the Modern Orthodox community has major flaws, not the contept "Modern Orthodoxy" itself -- or why would he be so concerned with being able to save it? I need to add, this being Avodah, that this problem of the confusion between halakhah as a means and halakhah as an ends in-and-of-itself has symptoms in all our communities. Quoting myself, from my "manifesto" Tools and Goals ... How would this play out communally? One possible outcome is that we would find a community of very committed, very observant Jews, but who do not show all the signs of the holiness the Torah is supposed to bring us to. This could happen if there is insufficient attention to the entire notion of a goal beyond the halakhah, so that black letter halakhah -- that which can be measured, laid out in clear obligated or prohibited terms -- takes center seat without any attempt to become the kind of person more capable of fulfilling the full breadth of its commandments. There would be mixed reports of business ethics, scandals of respected rabbis committing fiscal crimes, others unable to control their lust, yet others abusing their power over their students in other ways. Another possible outcome is an idealistic community, but one whose ideals are not Torah derived. In such a community ideals would be taken from some segment of the surrounding culture, and halakhah would be reduced to a means of "blessing" goals that we assimilated from the outside, that at times will resemble the holiness Hashem has readied for us, and at times will differ. A third possibility is particular to a community that teaches the need to engage the world around it, to risk the battle of its challenges in order to use what's positive in the surrounding society to further our sanctity. Without a firm eye and a constant striving toward an ideal, the energy it takes to maintain this delicate balance too easily collapses into a life of compromise. And so, for too many in this community the negative elements of modernity are incorporated into their lives, and also for many strict observance itself suffers. Do these portraits sound familiar? The problem has another symptom which is less problematic -- the rise of Brisk over other darkhei halimmud. A culture in which O means following black-letter Shulchan Arukh will naturally gravitate toward a derekh halimmud that shuns explanations that are in terms of first principles that come before halakhah. RYBS's Halakhic Man denies they even exist. That said, R' Chaim Brisker's own life was more about values and acts of chessed than Arukh Chaim or Yoreh Dei'ah. The family noted this -- for all his lomdus, RCB's mateivah reads "Rav haChesed". The problem is not inherent to Brisk. Therefore, it will be interesting to see how MO evolves, and whether this remains their most pressing problem. YU now has a mashpiah, classes in the Aish Qodesh, Tanya, R' Nachman, it has singing minyanim. Within the halls of YU, Halakhic Man is facing growing competition. Lenaar al pi darko -- this diversity is healthy. But with more semichah students looking to the goals rather than stopping at the halachic tools, MO culture is bound to change in a way that reduces this issue. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When faced with a decision ask yourself, micha at aishdas.org "How would I decide if it were Ne'ilah now, http://www.aishdas.org at the closing moments of Yom Kippur?" Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From JRich at sibson.com Thu Oct 26 05:05:45 2017 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2017 12:05:45 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Timtum Halev Message-ID: There was an interesting article in the Journal "Ohr Yisrael" #16 by R'Avraham Rubin on Timtum Halev (spiritual pollution). His general conclusion was that eating something that would be classified as "forbidden foods," if you know it is such, will cause timtum halev (spiritual character defects) even if you are permitted to eat it in your case (e.g., pikuach nefesh - life-threatening situation). However, if you eat a "factually forbidden food" based on a mistaken halachic decision by an authorized halachic source, no such damage will occur. Interesting that this IIUC would yield the result that one could be halachically required to eat the "forbidden food" (rather than commit suicide by starving to death), yet still develop character defects because of it. Seems non-halachic man to me . I know we've discussed before-I submit a data point in that discussion. KT 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: From micha at aishdas.org Thu Oct 26 09:04:55 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2017 12:04:55 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Timtum Halev In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20171026160455.GD15203@aishdas.org> On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 12:05:45PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : ... "Ohr Yisrael" #16 by R'Avraham Rubin ... general conclusion was : that eating something that would be classified as "forbidden foods," : if you know it is such, will cause timtum halev (spiritual character : defects) even if you are permitted to eat it in your case (e.g., pikuach : nefesh - life-threatening situation). However, if you eat a "factually : forbidden food" based on a mistaken halachic decision by an authorized : halachic source, no such damage will occur. I invite RMRabi to comment on that last sentence. He and I debated for most of a year whether the Maharal would agree that someone who follows a mistaken pesaq is different in kind than someone who makes the mistake themselves. I presume that if eating because of "a mistaken halachic decision by an authorized halachic source" does not cause timtum heleiv, R Avraham Rubin would say that all the more so, eating food that as a matter of unknown fact happens to be kosher but we correctly rule may be eaten because of rov, chazaqah, bitul or whatever would not damage. I would think RAR is coming down on the side of saying that it's the sin, not the substance, which causes the spiritual damage. To my mind -- a hashkafically simpler position, since there is Justice to life being worse due to a sin than due to something premitted. In which case, RAR's opening ruling, that the person starting to death who eats the only available edible which happens to be non-kosher, would seem to be based on ruling that saving one's life overrides the prohibition (making it petura), not that the eating is actually permissible (hutra). For if it were hutra, how would the case differ from correctly following received pesaq? And if it is because of peturah, that the prohibition is being broken, but the violation is permissible for the sake of a greater value, then I can understand how its Just even if we were to say the cause is the substance. The sin is happening, and we know it's happening; we just chose the lesser sin. Lemah hadavar domeh: chemo is poison. For the sake of the greater danger, cancer, a person may take chemo. But the poison still does its effect. The person did what was medically recommended, and the recommendation was made knowing there was a self-destructive element to the act. : Interesting that this IIUC would yield the result that one could be : halachically required to eat the "forbidden food" (rather than commit : suicide by starving to death), yet still develop character defects : because of it. Seems non-halachic man to me.... Halachic man wouldn't ask the question of timtum haleiv to begin with. It is not a halachic category. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The fittingness of your matzos [for the seder] micha at aishdas.org isn't complete with being careful in the laws http://www.aishdas.org of Passover. One must also be very careful in Fax: (270) 514-1507 the laws of business. - Rav Yisrael Salanter From emteitz at gmail.com Thu Oct 26 09:58:57 2017 From: emteitz at gmail.com (elazar teitz) Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2017 12:58:57 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] offering a higher salary Message-ID: >If I have a nochris who is willing to clean for me for $N, you have no right to lure >her away by offering more. But if she is "re`acha" then aderaba you >have a mitzvah to offer her a chance to improve her income, but before >taking your offer she should offer me the chance to match it. Is it a mitzva to help improve a Jew's income, if it is at the expense of another Jew (especially when it is not done with the intent of helping the employee, but rather to help oneself)? EMT -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From zev at sero.name Thu Oct 26 15:06:37 2017 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2017 18:06:37 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] offering a higher salary In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 26/10/17 12:58, elazar teitz via Avodah wrote: >> If I have a nochris who is willing to clean for me for $N, you have no >> right to lure her away by offering more.? But if she is "re`acha" then >> aderaba you have a mitzvah to offer her a chance to improve her income, >> but before taking your offer she should offer me the chance to match it. > Is it a mitzva to help improve a Jew's income, if it is at the > expense of another Jew (especially when it is not done with the intent > of helping the employee, but rather to help oneself)? (1) You have the same mitzvah to love both of us, so whichever one you help is a mitzvah (2) She is probably (though not definitely) in more need than I am (3) If you're willing to pay more for her work then by definition that makes her work *worth* more, since the value of anything is defined as whatever it will fetch, so by making her the offer you're not hurting me, you're merely preventing me from (unbeknownst to either of us) getting an unwarranted benefit at her expense. Basically our arrangement is ona'ah, we're both in error about the value of her labour, and you're in a position to prevent it, so shouldn't you do so? (4) Your intent shouldn't matter. Tzedakah doesn't depend at all on kavanah. If someone is helped, it's a mitzvah even if you didn't mean it (cf shikcha), while if you meant to help someone and it didn't happen there's no mitzvah (cf Bava Basra 8b etc) -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From marty.bluke at gmail.com Sun Oct 29 03:15:35 2017 From: marty.bluke at gmail.com (Marty Bluke) Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2017 12:15:35 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Long Lifespans in Bereishis Message-ID: R' Chaim Manaster pointed out: "But the basic issue is if the world is Charuv at 6000 years and yemos Moshiach are before the olom is charuv, (while olom keminhago noheig) there is not enough time left (we are now 5778) for a life span of 300 to 500 years let alone 1000 years." The gemara (Sanhedrin 99) offers the following suggestions for how long the Messianic period will last: R' Eliezer - 40 years R' Dosa - 400 years Rebbi - 365 years Avimi - 7000 years R' Yehuda - the amount of time from creation until the Messiah comes R' Nachman Bar Yitzchak - the amount of time from the flood until the Messiah comes Interestingly enough the Gemara earlier stated that the world will last 6000 years, Sanhedrin 96B - Six thousand years were decreed upon the world: 2000 years of emptiness (without Torah), 2000 years of Torah, and 2000 years for Mashi'ach. This opinion of 6000 years is generally accepted, however, opinions 4-6 above clearly disagree with this. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ben1456 at zahav.net.il Sun Oct 29 22:34:43 2017 From: ben1456 at zahav.net.il (Ben Waxman) Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2017 07:34:43 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] offering a higher salary In-Reply-To: <6ca926d4-2984-813b-af3a-e5fb0e765062@zahav.net.il> References: <6ca926d4-2984-813b-af3a-e5fb0e765062@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <2e3529d9-23b9-3377-c2f6-ec65d4340f1a@zahav.net.il> After look a bit, I saw that the Aruch HaShulchan CM 237:3 paskens that this law only applies to a poor person. A poor person who finds something that he needs, you can't come along and offer more money for it. But if a rich person finds something that he wants (or employs someone) and this item is available, then the prohibition doesn't apply. It would seem that anyone who can hire a maid does not qualify as poor and I am willing to bet that there is a good supply of people willing to work. Ben On 10/25/2017 7:48 PM, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > I've seen posts claiming that it is forbidden to offer cleaners a > higher salary to work for you. While I can understand that it makes > sense to say that no one can break a specific agreement for a specific > day of work, why should it be forbidden to offer a higher salary to > someone who has a long term agreement?? A, this is the common practice > in the high tech world and I have never heard anyone say "Assur". It > would seem that there is general agreement that this halacha simply > doesn't apply today. From lisa at starways.net Mon Oct 30 03:39:03 2017 From: lisa at starways.net (Lisa Liel) Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2017 12:39:03 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] offering a higher salary In-Reply-To: <2e3529d9-23b9-3377-c2f6-ec65d4340f1a@zahav.net.il> References: <6ca926d4-2984-813b-af3a-e5fb0e765062@zahav.net.il> <2e3529d9-23b9-3377-c2f6-ec65d4340f1a@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <611bec39-509c-b161-d74f-63dbb523906e@starways.net> On 10/30/2017 7:34 AM, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > After look a bit, I saw that the Aruch HaShulchan CM 237:3 paskens > that this law only applies to a poor person. A poor person who finds > something that he needs, you can't come along and offer more money for > it.... > It would seem that anyone who can hire a maid does not qualify as poor > and I am willing to bet that there is a good supply of people willing > to work. Poor in halakha means not having what you're accustomed to have. It isn't an objective benchmark or a comparison to other people. Lisa From ben1456 at zahav.net.il Mon Oct 30 12:58:56 2017 From: ben1456 at zahav.net.il (Ben Waxman) Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2017 21:58:56 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] offering a higher salary In-Reply-To: <611bec39-509c-b161-d74f-63dbb523906e@starways.net> References: <6ca926d4-2984-813b-af3a-e5fb0e765062@zahav.net.il> <2e3529d9-23b9-3377-c2f6-ec65d4340f1a@zahav.net.il> <611bec39-509c-b161-d74f-63dbb523906e@starways.net> Message-ID: <8355ddf5-ae06-1774-b30d-dd05b89814a9@zahav.net.il> You think that these people would be willing to apply the word "poor" to themselves, even in regards to only this halacha? On 10/30/2017 12:39 PM, Lisa Liel wrote: > Poor in halakha means not having what you're accustomed to have.? It > isn't an objective benchmark or a comparison to other people. From bdbradley70 at hotmail.com Mon Oct 30 14:41:44 2017 From: bdbradley70 at hotmail.com (Ben Bradley) Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2017 21:41:44 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] offering a higher salary In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Poor in halakha means not having what you're accustomed to have. It isn't an objective benchmark or a comparison to other people. Lisa I don't believe it's as clear cut as that. It's true with regard to giving tzedaka, that the kehilla is required to maintain someone at the standard they were used to. But when it comes to the definition of an oni who's entitled to take from communal funds, the mishna in terumos or maasros defines it as someone who has a specific and objective amount of food or money in their possession. AFAIR halacha l'maaseh follows suit, and there are objective criteria before allowing someone to accept communal tzedaka funds. Regards Ben -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hankman at bell.net Mon Oct 30 12:03:44 2017 From: hankman at bell.net (hankman) Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2017 15:03:44 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Long Lifespans in Bereishis Message-ID: R. Marty Bluke wrote: ?The gemara (Sanhedrin 99) offers the following suggestions for how long the Messianic period will last: ... R' Dosa - 400 years Rebbi - 365 years Avimi - 7000 years R' Yehuda - the amount of time from creation until the Messiah comes R' Nachman Bar Yitzchak - the amount of time from the flood until the Messiah comes ....? Actually my original kasheh occurred to me during that recent daf yomi you refer to in Sanhedrin which was when I asked the same question you pose here. The question I posted on Avodah (basically the same idea) was just in reference to a previous post here and its remarks ? I just did not feel the need to broaden the kasheh ? perhaps I should have, just to be more comprehensive. Kol tuv Chaim Manaster -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From saulguberman at gmail.com Tue Oct 31 09:57:00 2017 From: saulguberman at gmail.com (Saul Guberman) Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2017 12:57:00 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] chopsticks Message-ID: Is it permissible to break apart chopsticks on shabbat at the meal to eat your sushi? Someone claimed it is makeh b'patish and just use a fork or stab with the chopsticks still together. Others thought that tzorech ochel nefesh might allow them to be broken and used , as it is all disposable anyway. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From JRich at sibson.com Thu Nov 2 05:12:05 2017 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2017 12:12:05 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] TEXTUAL JUDAISM AND THE LIVING TORAH Message-ID: <9e51a7f4ea644e829db8503f8f0451fe@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> An old Avodah favorite :) KT Joel Rich http://etzion.org.il/en/siman-114-prayers-wind-rain-and-dew TEXTUAL JUDAISM AND THE LIVING TORAH In his introduction to the Beit Yosef, R. Yosef Karo clearly asserts that since it is impossible for someone of his stature to set himself up as arbiter among the great Rishonim, for his rulings will be based on the majority of the opinions of the Rif, the Rambam, and the Rosh. Yet, here we have a case where the Rambam and the Rosh agree that an entire country which needs rain can mention and ask for rain in the summer, while the Rif does not dispute this ruling since he does not relate to this case. Although the Rambam's ruling is in the commentary to the Mishna, this has the same status as the Mishneh Torah - so I understand from Kesef Mishneh, also written by R. Yosef Karo, to Hilkhot Talmud Torah 3:10 at the end - and in addition, the Beit Yosef on our siman claims that the Mishneh Torah also rules like the commentary to the Mishna. How can the Beit Yosef rule against them?! The Beit Yosef emphasizes that the custom of the entire world contradicts the Rosh's ruling. He also suggests that this ruling was never accepted in practice. How can we weigh these factors against the authority of the written sources? There is a general difference in approach among poskim regarding how to weigh local custom against textual authority. The Tosafot in many places endeavor to reconcile the text with the custom (see for excample, Shabbat 48a d.h. De-zeitim); other sages more readily condemn custom on the authority of the plain sense of the text. It seems that several factors bear on the relative importance: 1. How universal is the custom? Responsa frequently point out that the reaction to a seldom-encountered situation can not be considered a "custom" - merely a precedent. 2. Among whom is the custom widespread? If we are certain that even scholars and meticulous people conducted themselves in a certain way, this has more weight than the behavior of the common people, pious though they may be. 3. Are opinions opposing the custom recognized? Sometimes we find statements to the effect that if a community had been aware that a great authority opposed their custom, they would not have adopted it. Conversely, a custom may be defended by pointing out that it was upheld even though opposing views were clearly known. 4. Perhaps in an area of halakha whose basis is in custom, though it subsequently achieved the status of binding halakha, we should give greater weight to custom. In our case, the Beit Yosef perceived that the custom of going according to Eretz Yisrael was universal, even among scholars, and even among people who were certainly aware of the statements of the Rambam and the Rosh. In addition, he may have considered the "customary" aspect of prayer to have special importance - the fact that we pray as a community renders special importance to community customs. Therefore, even though the Beit Yosef is, according to his own assertion, an extreme "textualist," in this case he was persuaded to rule in accordance with custom. Almost all Acharonim are extremely reluctant to dispute Rishonim - though there are notable exceptions, such as the Maharshal (who lived, in any case, close to the era of the Rishonim). However, many later scholars do feel that however unworthy they may be, it is their responsibility as decisors to decide AMONG the Rishonim. The Beit Yosef's reticence in this regard is far from universal. A lot of noise is still being made regarding an article written a couple of years ago by a leading scholar of Judaism (who is also a Talmid Chakham, though the two do not always go together) who posits that only recently have texts taken such a central role in Jewish life. He claims that before World War II custom was king, and accepted customs of respectable communities were not scrutinized in the light of codes. I can not comment on the historical reality of three generations ago, but I think we should keep in mind that the tension between custom and written authority is an ancient one, and the "advocacy" of texts is hardly a new idea. 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: From zev at sero.name Thu Nov 2 20:38:21 2017 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2017 23:38:21 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] TEXTUAL JUDAISM AND THE LIVING TORAH In-Reply-To: <9e51a7f4ea644e829db8503f8f0451fe@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <9e51a7f4ea644e829db8503f8f0451fe@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: On 02/11/17 08:12, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: > The Beit Yosef emphasizes that the custom of the entire world > contradicts the Rosh's ruling. Not the entire world. The Rosh himself reported that he was gratified to discover, while travelling through Provence on his way from Germany to Spain, that they did it the right way. This reinforced him in his determination to try to change the practice in Spain. > In our case, the Beit Yosef perceived that the custom of going > according to Eretz Yisrael was universal, On the contrary, *nobody* goes according to EY. The universal custom is to go according to Iraq. The Rosh wanted all Mediterranean Jews, who share EY's climate, to follow EY, as the Provencals did, but they refused. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From meirabi at gmail.com Thu Nov 2 22:38:08 2017 From: meirabi at gmail.com (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi) Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2017 16:38:08 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] Avraham A Cooked, Angels Ate - Bassar BeChalav Message-ID: Avraham Avinu entertained three angels masquerading as human visitors; feeding them goat flesh cooked with milk. Generations later, due to this meal, the angels? protest, that the Torah ought not be given to the Jews, was quashed. There are 3 issues that require clarification: ++ Let?s say the angels sinned by eating flesh cooked with milk [which seems to be the plain meaning of the Medrash] how does that silence their protest? ++ Furthermore, flesh cooked with milk would not have been served to the guests: ++ Avraham Avinu did not cook goat with milk since he adhered to all Mitzvos of the Torah. ++ Even if it was cooked inadvertently, he would not have offered it to the visitors since no benefit may be derived from it. Reb Meir Simcha of Dvinsk explains in Meshech Chochmah, that no sin was transgressed since it was BP flesh, which may be cooked with milk. The angels? protests were silenced because they accepted that Avraham Avinu was Jewish and therefore able to Shecht. Had they considered him not Jewish, they would not have eaten because Shechita cannot be performed by a non-Jew. Thus, the angels had already conceded that Avraham Avinu had an inalienable connection to the Torah and therefore was able to Shecht and create a Kosher BP. That being the case, they could not question nor protest his chosen children?s rights to that heritage. Of all aspects of BP this particular Halacha is so counter-intuitive, and such a shock to our expectations, that even when Reb Chaim Kanievsky said that cooking BP flesh with milk, is "Kosher VeYosher" (more than 100%) Rabbanim who were with me and heard him say this, will not publicly admit to it. Rav Moshe Sternbuch responded upon being asked if this was a DaAs Yachid (a lone opinion), "Who argues?" - R Moshe quotes this Meshech Chochmah MoAdim UzManim [?"? ??' ??"?] and thereby suggests another reason for eating dairy on Shavuos - after all, it was via dairy that we succeeded to silence the angels? protests. However, my son Yehudah, argues - in that case, we really ought to be eating BBPbCh [Basar BP beChalav] on Shavuos. That the BP may be cooked with milk is so obvious to Reb Meir Simcha, that he does not bother to bring proof or expand upon the point. Clearly, BP is utterly unlike any regular cow sheep or goat that may not be cooked with dairy. = = = According to our traditions, Avraham Avinu maintained all the laws of the Torah and also all the Rabbinic enactments. Rashi, Genesis 26:5; Yevamos 21. Accordingly, our Sages explain that Avraham did not offer the bread [Rashi, Genesis 18:8; BMetzia 87] to his guests because Sara had miraculously rejuvenated and become ritually unclean, making the bread unclean. Although no more than a stringency Avraham Avinu would not serve it to his non Jewish guests - presumably, if Avraham Avinu would not eat it himself, he would not serve it to his guests - makes one pause and contemplate about those who Kosher certify various foods and establishments but will not eat that food themselves. = = = There are some who try to squeeze into the words of the MChochmah that it is the milk which is not dairy because meat may be cooked with milk collected from a Shechted beast, Chalav Shechuta, and a BP is deemed to be a Shechuta. There is a contrary argument however - some propose that Chalav Shechuta is not ?mother?s milk?, meaning milk from a beast that can potentially be a mother, whereas a BP can certainly be a mother, so its milk is not Chalav Shechuta and may not be cooked with meat. Either way, the argument collapses completely because Avraham Avinu would not violate the Rabbinic law that prohibits cooking with Chalav Shechuta [or deer or giraffe milk] Best, Meir G. Rabi 0423 207 837 +61 423 207 837 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Fri Nov 3 03:24:28 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2017 06:24:28 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Avraham A Cooked, Angels Ate - Bassar BeChalav In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20171103102428.GB3833@aishdas.org> On Fri, Nov 03, 2017 at 04:38:08PM +1100, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: : Avraham Avinu entertained three angels masquerading as human visitors; : feeding them goat flesh cooked with milk. Generations later, due to this : meal, the angels' protest, that the Torah ought not be given to the Jews, : was quashed. Where's this medrash? Tosafists (Daas Zeqeinim, Bereishis 18:8) note the contradiction between it and the medrash that the avos observe all of halakhah (even eiruv tavshilin) and suggests the following. It is also the Sifsei Chakhamim's and Bekhor Shor's take on the pasuq. The chumash says, "vayiqach chem'ah vechalav uven habaqar asher asah". There is no indication in the peshat that the veal was made in the butter and/or milk. And in fact, the milk is mentioned first. Leading to the opinion that Avraham even served them in a way that kept them from consuming dairy immediately after meat! The SC says he served them the milk so that they wouldn't have to wait while hungrily for the veal while it was shechted and cooked. The Radaq gives a different sesolution: Avraham prepared both so as to give them a choice of what to eat. : Reb Meir Simcha of Dvinsk explains in Meshech Chochmah, that no sin was : transgressed since it was BP flesh, which may be cooked with milk. Lo zakhisi lehavin haRav Meir Simcha haKohein, nor R' Kanievsky. Isn't that only mutar deRabbanan if it is killed before it can even stands up, so as to avoid mar'is ayin, like shechitah? And the gemara's example of the avos keeping kol haTorah kulah is Avraham keeping eiruv -- so that that aggadita means to include derabbanans. And even if we're saying that we're talking about BP without the taqanos, And if it is ben paqua and thus didn't need shechitah, why does the asame medrash make a point of Avraham shechting it? The tradition that Avraham Avinu authored seifer haYetzirah (for which I also have no source) includes the resolution that a calf made through ShY ("uven havaqar ASHER ASAH"), rather than invoking BP. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger A person lives with himself for seventy years, micha at aishdas.org and after it is all over, he still does not http://www.aishdas.org know himself. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From zev at sero.name Fri Nov 3 08:27:40 2017 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2017 11:27:40 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Avraham A Cooked, Angels Ate - Bassar BeChalav In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4ed7f10d-c1ee-c201-6de4-61e0564f59fd@sero.name> On 03/11/17 01:38, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: > feeding them goat flesh cooked with milk Since when? He fed them beef, together with cream (or butter) and milk, separately but simultaneously. > The angels? protests were silenced because they accepted that Avraham > Avinu was Jewish and therefore able to Shecht. Had they considered him > not Jewish, they would not have eaten because Shechita cannot be > performed by a non-Jew. Thus, the angels had already conceded that > Avraham Avinu had an inalienable connection to the Torah and therefore > was able to Shecht and create a Kosher BP. That being the case, they > could not question nor protest his chosen children?s rights to that > heritage. If so then why bring the milk into it at all? Simply by eating meat he'd shechted (or rather that his son Yishma`el had shechted) they had conceded all that (according to this explanation) was required. Why complicate the matter with questions of basar bechalav? Therefore it's clear that that was not the issue. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From micha at aishdas.org Fri Nov 3 05:44:11 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2017 08:44:11 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] TEXTUAL JUDAISM AND THE LIVING TORAH In-Reply-To: References: <9e51a7f4ea644e829db8503f8f0451fe@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20171103124411.GC23679@aishdas.org> On Thu, Nov 02, 2017 at 11:38:21PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : On 02/11/17 08:12, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: :>The Beit Yosef emphasizes that the custom of the entire world :>contradicts the Rosh's ruling. : Not the entire world. The Rosh himself reported that he was : gratified to discover, while travelling through Provence on his way : from Germany to Spain, that they did it the right way... Are you disagreeing with the BY (no citation so I can't check myself), with RJR's presentation of the BY? Or, are we ignoring the fact that the Rosh lived well before the BY and could have seen a Provincial minhag that had died by the mechaber's time. The BY could well be wrong. We have other examples of famous rishonim and acharonim who didn't know some minhag of other communities and thought regional norm was universal. I just want to understand which of the above we're discussing. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger We are what we repeatedly do. micha at aishdas.org Thus excellence is not an event, http://www.aishdas.org but a habit. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Aristotle From zev at sero.name Fri Nov 3 09:02:59 2017 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2017 12:02:59 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] TEXTUAL JUDAISM AND THE LIVING TORAH In-Reply-To: <20171103124411.GC23679@aishdas.org> References: <9e51a7f4ea644e829db8503f8f0451fe@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> <20171103124411.GC23679@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 03/11/17 08:44, Micha Berger wrote: > On Thu, Nov 02, 2017 at 11:38:21PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > : On 02/11/17 08:12, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: > :>The Beit Yosef emphasizes that the custom of the entire world > :>contradicts the Rosh's ruling. > > : Not the entire world. The Rosh himself reported that he was > : gratified to discover, while travelling through Provence on his way > : from Germany to Spain, that they did it the right way... > > Are you disagreeing with the BY (no citation so I can't check > myself), with RJR's presentation of the BY? Not disagreeing so much as pointing out that "the entire world" doesn't mean quite that. In fact the Tur on which the BY is commenting also quotes his father's report about the minhag in Provence. And the BY further quotes the Rosh that "uchvar nahagu gam kein biktzat mekomot" to start on the 7th. So later when he says "shelo nitkablu divrei haRosh, vechol ha`olam lo nahagu kein", I think this must be understood as a generalization, just as we do when we say "der velt" does this or that, and we clearly don't mean literally everyone. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From sholom at aishdas.org Fri Nov 3 11:32:44 2017 From: sholom at aishdas.org (Sholom Simon) Date: Fri, 03 Nov 2017 14:32:44 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] VAYERA ? WHO IS HKBH TALKING TO? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20171103183247.KRPQ6746.fed1rmfepo102.cox.net@fed1rmimpo109.cox.net> Rabbi Meir G. Rabi notes/asks: >Sara laughs [18:12] Gd is not happy > >[18:13] HKBH confronts Avraham, ?Why did Sara laugh off the blessing >that she have a child? Am I not able to arrange she give birth? I >assure you, I?ll be back and you?ll see she will have a child.? > >But why is HKBH asking this of Avraham? Does HKBH expect Avraham to >be able to explain? > >It seems this question is really an indictment of sorts. > >Is Avraham being blamed for Sara?s weakness? > >Why does Avraham confront [18:19] Sara? He does not doubt what HKBH >has told him? > >And when Sara denies it, why does Avraham rebuke her? Is it >Avraham?s responsibility to ensure she confesses? I just heard a shiur (YUTorah!) from RHS who addressed this. He also threw in the question: why is H" telling loshon harah to Avraham? RMF brings that In the Gemara (somewhere) it says that it's permissible to tell loshon harah to the subject's rebbe, so that the rebbe can give tochacha or musar to the subject, and RMF (or RHS) says that's what's happenning here (viewing Avraham as Sarah's rebbe, in a way). -- Sholom From akivagmiller at gmail.com Fri Nov 3 14:05:30 2017 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2017 17:05:30 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] chopsticks Message-ID: . R" Saul Guberman asked: > Is it permissible to break apart chopsticks on shabbat at the > meal to eat your sushi? Someone claimed it is makeh b'patish > and just use a fork or stab with the chopsticks still > together. Others thought that tzorech ochel nefesh might > allow them to be broken and used, as it is all disposable > anyway. Rabbi Doniel Neustadt raises a similar question at https://torah.org/torah-portion/weekly-halacha-5772-beshalach/ I would think that the situations are similar; even if they aren't identical, looking up the sources may help to find the answer about chopsticks. > Question: Leben or yogurt cups sometimes come attached to each > other and must be separated along a perforated line before > they can be eaten individually. Is that permitted to be done > on Shabbos? > > Discussion: Contemporary poskim debate whether or not it is > permitted to separate attached yogurt or leben cups from each > other. Some consider it a violation of Mechatech and Makeh > b?patish[21] while others hold it is permitted altogether[22]. > > 21. Rav Y.S. Elyashiv (Orchos Shabbos 12:12, Me?or ha-Shabbos, > vol. 2, pg. 551). > > 22. Rav S.Z. Auerbach (Orchos Shabbos 12:18. note 31, Shulchan > Shelomo 314:13-3). Akiva Miller From meirabi at mail.gmail.com Sat Nov 4 05:45:14 2017 From: meirabi at mail.gmail.com (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi) Date: Sat, 4 Nov 2017 23:45:14 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] Avraham A Cooked, Angels Ate - Bassar BeChalav Message-ID: 1] no one disputes that the Meshech Chochmah says what he says 2] there are many explanations to resolve the meat and milk issue, we are not disputing them, just explaining one of them 3] there is [surprisingly] no Issur of Maris Ayin preventing cooking some iterations of BP meat with milk - the proof is from this episode as presented by this Medrash and explained by the MChochma. 4] The decree that after the BP has stood up, Hifris AGKarka, it requires Shechitah [and presumably is also Assur to cook with milk] does not apply to a BP that is found as a non fully gestated, Lo KaLu Lo Chadashav. 5] Avraham did not Shecht it - on the contrary he directed Yishmael to prepare it - Furthermore, because it was a BP it did not require Shechita which is why he could direct Yishmael to kill it, and there was also no problem of Bassar SheNisAlem Min HaAyin. 6] Indeed, even had the angels eaten plain meat Shechted by AAvinu, there would have been adequate proof that they accepted his status of Kedushas Yisrael, it just so happened that AAvinu wanted to serve his visitors a delicacy, Beef Stroganoff. 7] I really do not know why I assumed it was a goat From zev at sero.name Sat Nov 4 16:10:52 2017 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Sat, 4 Nov 2017 19:10:52 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Avraham A Cooked, Angels Ate - Bassar BeChalav In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <0d614669-3c79-3c22-d137-b4b21530183f@sero.name> On 04/11/17 08:45, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi wrote: > 6] Indeed, even had the angels eaten plain meat Shechted by AAvinu, > there would have been adequate proof that they accepted his status of > Kedushas Yisrael, it just so happened that AAvinu wanted to serve his > visitors a delicacy, Beef Stroganoff. Except that Rashi explicitly says otherwise, that the delicacy he served was tongue in mustard, for which he needed *three* animals. There is no hint of any cooking in milk. The Meshech Chochma needs a mokor for this. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From meirabi at mail.gmail.com Sat Nov 4 05:56:05 2017 From: meirabi at mail.gmail.com (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi) Date: Sat, 4 Nov 2017 23:56:05 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] VAYERA ? WHO IS HKBH TALKING TO? Message-ID: Furthermore, HKBH is transgressing Lashon Hara by disclosing to Avraham that Sara laughed. It is pretty clear that Sara's indiscretion was disclosed to Avraham because it was necessary for AAvinu to know, as we see, he rebuked Sara for laughing. Avraham was responsible for this shortcoming of Sara - this properly explains all these Qs HKBH expected Avraham to respond as he did. The question is really an indictment of sorts. Avraham is blamed for Sara's indiscretion? Therefore, Avraham confronts [18:19] Sara. And when Sara denies it, Avraham rebukes her. It is Avraham's responsibility to ensure she confesses. Best, Meir G. Rabi From meirabi at mail.gmail.com Mon Nov 6 12:30:23 2017 From: meirabi at mail.gmail.com (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi) Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2017 07:30:23 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] HKBH Rebukes Avraham for Sara's Shortcomings In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: continuing from prev post - > Sara laughs [18:12] Gd is not happy > [18:13] HKBH confronts Avraham, ... Preserving harmony [Yevamos 65b, in this case between Araham and Sara] compels HKBH to lie to Avraham [HKBH reported that Sara said, "I am too old to have children", when in fact she said, "my master is old"] and yet HKBH, rather than remaining silent to preserve peace, reports Sara's indiscretion to Avraham. Furthermore, aside from being likely to cause strife between Avraham and Sara, this report is a horribly demeaning Lashon Hara. Scoffing at HKBH's ability to grant her a child, in spite of it being uttered by what might easily have been described as a foolish visitor, is a blight upon Sara which HKBH held against her. And she understood the correctness of the criticism and felt shamed, as we see that she [apparently] instinctively and immediately denied it [18:15] It seems clear that HKBH reported this to Avraham, rather than directly or indirectly to Sara, not only to correct Sara but also to rebuke Avraham. HKBH was criticising Avraham for Sara's shortcoming. From micha at aishdas.org Mon Nov 6 17:55:31 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2017 20:55:31 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Questioning Authority In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20171107015531.GC12418@aishdas.org> On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 09:41:32AM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : I have always felt that it is (or ought to be) possible and permissible to : *question* authority without challenging or rejecting authority... I would have said "to ask questions", as to me "to question" something is indeed to challenge. But that's just an English or perhaps English dialect issue. What's nice is that we don't have this issue in halachic jargon: there is a clear difference between 1- a she'eilah, asking for information, ibua'ei lehu / miba'ei on the oe hand, and 2- a qushya ("qasha"), tiyuvta, meisivei, where we challenge the given statement. .... : But frequently, the truth is that the parent has very good reasons for what : he says. It's just that he's unable to put those reasons into clear words. : He can't even explain it to himself in simple terms, because it is simply a : gut feeling that he has, based on experience and intuition, he sees that : this is the action or inaction which must be followed in this particular : situation. As far as I can tell, this is what RYBS calls "mesorah", and the same notion of "mesorah" RHS invokves when arguing against ordaining women or women leading inessential portions of davening? (As opposed to those who think of "mesorah" as referring to mimeticism.) : I think this is analogous to Torah leaders and Torah followers. When the : leaders tell the followers what to do, or what to avoid, it is entirely : reasonable for the followers to request explanations from the leaders. This : is especially so, if the explanation will help them comply with the : directive, or teach them how to apply the directive to other situations. : But these requests must be made respectfully, carefully, and only up to a : certain point. We ask a poseiq a she'eilah, not a qushya. And -- as noted by the Maharal in the Beer haGolah RMRabi and I beat to death -- we should be expecting to understand rather than blindly follow. The limit you speak of comes for the fact that a feel for how the halakhah ought to be inherently can't be articulated. To repply R/Dr Moshe Koppel's metaphor for halakhah, as much as halakhah runs like a legal system, it also works like a language. People who only know English as a second language could know rules of conjugation, but it takes serious immersion in the language to know what kinds of poetic license works and what violates the limits of acceptible English. We native speakers know what "sounds right". But if an immigrant were to ask why "the red big ball" sounds weird but "the big red ball" sounds normal, how many of us could explain it? And if we did come up with an explanation, isn't it a post-facto construct rather than the more by-feel way the determination was really made? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger For those with faith there are no questions. micha at aishdas.org For those who lack faith there are no answers. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yaakov of Radzimin Fax: (270) 514-1507 From micha at aishdas.org Mon Nov 6 18:30:37 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2017 21:30:37 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] eitz hachaim In-Reply-To: <61f0b606-b859-4475-eef8-a10489e74f1c@starways.net> References: <61f0b606-b859-4475-eef8-a10489e74f1c@starways.net> Message-ID: <20171107023037.GE12418@aishdas.org> On Sun, Oct 15, 2017 at 05:41:04PM -0400, hankman via Avodah wrote: : What exactly was the eitz hachaim all about. The simple pshat doesn't : make any sense. ... Kodem hacheit he was not : a bar misah so he had no need of it, after the cheit he was prevented : from accessing it! So when would it ever be useful to Adam? On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 10:51:28AM +0300, Lisa Liel via Avodah wrote: : I don't understand the question. He was prevented from accessing it : *because* of the cheit. Had he not sinned, you say he would have had : no need for it, but who is to say that its only function was to make : him live forever..... Note how the Torah is also called "eitz chaim (hi lamachaziqim bahh)." So I think Lisa's notion that the eitz chaim likely had another function is quite probable. Likely its primary function was to provide the da'as that would lead to arichas yamim. Like the Torah does -- even if its arichas yamim appears not to be in olam hazeh. There is also the idea that there was only one tree in the iddle of the garden, an eitz hachaim upon which grew a branch bearing the peri eitz hada'as tov vara. Or maybe that the eitz vhaim was the rooots from which the eitz hadaas grew. I don't know -- I only heard about it second-hand (multiple times) by people quoting "sifrei qabbalah" (as though that counts as a citation). Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger If you won't be better tomorrow micha at aishdas.org than you were today, http://www.aishdas.org then what need do you have for tomorrow? Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rebbe Nachman of Breslov From micha at aishdas.org Mon Nov 6 18:04:55 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2017 21:04:55 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] A Great Name In-Reply-To: <20171025204831.CKZV22111.fed1rmfepo202.cox.net@fed1rmimpo210.cox.net> References: <20171025204831.CKZV22111.fed1rmfepo202.cox.net@fed1rmimpo210.cox.net> Message-ID: <20171107020455.GD12418@aishdas.org> On Wed, Oct 25, 2017 at 04:48:29PM -0400, Sholom Simon via Avodah wrote: : One of the implicit criticisms of Migdal Bavel was that they wanted : to make a name for themselves. Then, at the beginning of Lech L'cha, : H' tells Avram that he will make his name great. : There must be something there... anybody have any thoughts? First question... If all of humanity was participating (minus two epople -- Avraham and Ashur), who exactly were they trying to build up their reputation for? Whereas after the Haflagah, man was split into numerous communities, the notion of being known broadly makes sense. And if you want to spread your teachings, such fame is useful. Yes, I think the contrast is meaningful -- the people who got caught up in ego to the point of irrationality wanted fame for its own sake. After all, it had no logical value in their context. Whereas Afraham was granted fame as part of Hashem aiding his success, and fame is positive. It's not a question, it's the point. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Between stimulus & response, there is a space. micha at aishdas.org In that space is our power to choose our http://www.aishdas.org response. In our response lies our growth Fax: (270) 514-1507 and our freedom. - Victor Frankl, (MSfM) From cantorwolberg at cox.net Mon Nov 6 23:30:51 2017 From: cantorwolberg at cox.net (Richard Wolberg) Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2017 02:30:51 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Gilgul Hanefesh Message-ID: I have heard many conflicting opinions about our belief in reincarnation. I hope and pray it is not true. ?One life is enough!? Is there a definitive Jewish belief? I have even heard some believe in ?Transmigration of the Soul? which is even more scary. As an impressionable kid, I once had a rabbi tell me that if you don?t wash netilat yadayim prior to eating, you will come back as a dog. The following is an excerpt by an article in the Aish.com Newsletter by Sara Yoheved Rigler. there are hints to reincarnation in the Bible and early commentaries (1), while in Kabbalah, Judaism?s mystical tradition, overt references to reincarnation abound. The Zohar, the basic text of Jewish mysticism (attributed to Rabbi Shimon Bar Yochai, a 1st century sage) assumes gilgul neshamot [the recycling of souls] as a given, and the Ari, the greatest of all Kabbalists, whose 16th teachings are recorded in, Shaar HaGilgulim, traced the reincarnations of many Biblical figures. While some authorities, such as Saadia Gaon (10th century) denied reincarnation as a Jewish concept, from the 17th century onward, leading rabbis of normative Judaism, such as the Gaon of Vilna and the Chafetz Chaim (2), referred to gilgul neshamot as a fact. (1)? See Deut. 33:6, and Targum Onkeles and Targum Yonosson on that verse. Also see Isaiah 22:14. (2)? Mishnah Berurah 23:5 and Shaar HaTzion 622:6 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From lisa at starways.net Tue Nov 7 02:43:04 2017 From: lisa at starways.net (Lisa Liel) Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2017 12:43:04 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Gilgul Hanefesh In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3ad8c297-8019-3aa5-de3b-800ffe91d6c9@starways.net> On 11/7/2017 9:30 AM, Richard Wolberg via Avodah wrote: ... > Is there a definitive Jewish belief? > I have even heard some believe in "Transmigration of the Soul" which > is even more scary. As an impressionable kid, I once had a rabbi tell me > that if you don't wash netilat yadayim prior to eating, you will come > back as a dog. As I understand it, gilgul neshamot is not the same as the eastern idea of reincarnation, where one person's soul literally incarnates again in another body and lives another life. Rather, on a spiritual level, the soul of one person can "match" the soul of someone who lived previously. Either by harmony or dissonance, to use a musical metaphor. In Seder HaDorot, it talks incessantly about how some person or other was the gilgul, or tikkun, of a previous person. But it sometimes has multiple people as the gilgul or tikkun of a previous person, which makes more sense given the "match" concept. Kabbalistically, at least according to R' Aryeh Kaplan, the spiritual dimension is one of similarities and differences. Two things that are more similar are "closer" and two things that are less similar are "further apart". So if your soul is very similar to that of someone who lived before, you could have such a "match". You might even dream memories that the previous soul experienced. That doesn't make you that person. And since the state of a person's soul changes throughout their life, their "match" to someone who lived previously can come and go as well. To give an example, Seder HaDorot says that Rabbi Akiva was the gilgul/tikkun of Zimri ben Salu. The 24K Bnei Shimon who died in the plague following Zimri's actions match the 24K talmidim of Rabbi Akiva, for example. But while Zimri took Kosbi b'issur, Rabbi Akiva married the wife of Tyrannus Rufus b'heter, after she converted. Hence restoring a balance that Zimri had violated. I don't buy the "reincarnated as a dog" or "as a fish" stuff. Those who do, I suppose they have on whom to rely, but you don't have to buy into it yourself. (NB: While Googling to see if there was a website that talked about this, I found this article from Aish, which was very interesting. It included Shechem and Dina in the equation as well. http://www.aish.com/tp/i/moha/97291469.html) Lisa From micha at aishdas.org Tue Nov 7 13:54:20 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2017 16:54:20 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] 17 Marcheshvan Message-ID: <20171107215420.GA15523@aishdas.org> Yesterday, the 17th Marcheshvan, was the anniversary of two events: 1- The rain of the mabul began; and 2- 2 Nov 1917, the day the British Foreign Secretary, Lord Alfred Balfour, sent the famous letter to Baron Lionel Walter Rothchild. Anyone want to connect the dots between the two? Two things I did notice: - Both were first steps, far from the final yeshu'ah. - Both were first followed by major destruction before anything positive could be seen from them. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger I have great faith in optimism as a philosophy, micha at aishdas.org if only because it offers us the opportunity of http://www.aishdas.org self-fulfilling prophecy. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Arthur C. Clarke From micha at aishdas.org Tue Nov 7 14:54:02 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2017 17:54:02 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Torah precheit? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20171107225402.GA26849@aishdas.org> On Thu, Oct 19, 2017 at 05:47:09AM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : R' Chaim Manaster asked: :> I have been trying to understand what the geshtalt of Torah :> was precheit of the eitz hadaas... ... :> The many consequences seem to be as follows: there would be :> no avdus in Mitzrayim, therefore no...... : One can ask similar questions about other turning-points in history. : What if Kayin had not killed Hevel? What if the world has not gone to : Avodah Zara a few generations later? What if Yishmael and/or Esav had : not gone of the derech? What if Moshe Rabenu had acted differently by : the rock? To get really confused... The Torah, like it's Author, is lemaaleh min hazman. What aspect of the Torah we mean by that aside for a moment, that means it wasn't written before the eitz hadaas, Kayin killing Hevel, Dor Enosh, galus Mitzrayim, etc... Torah doesn't enter the timeline until it is revealed at Har Sinai. Which means that there is no question about Hashem's "foreknowledge" and bechirah chafshi about anything written in the Torah that happens before Matan Torah. We can't talk about Hashem Knowing what we *will* decide until that Knowledge enters the timeline. There is no "before" or after to His knowing, only to when He informs others of it. So, for events that precede Har Sinai, the Torah can contain those decisions. There is no "what if" because Hashem Knows that that what wouldn't. No more a problem than if the Torah were written /after/ those events. Hey, I warned you I was opening the door to confusion. Then there is the question of the supernal Torah vs the form we got. As per the Ramban about the Torah without the letters separated into the words we have now. (Tangent: If one were to take that shitas haRamban at face value, there is meaning to the pesuqim with the words redivided. So, why isn't that one of the Middos shehaTorah Nidreshes Bahen?) : And there are yet others. Torah manifests itself differently to a : kohen than to a levi, and differently to a woman than to a man. And so : on... And on Sun, Oct 22, 2017 at 04:15:49PM -0400, RCM replied: : R. Akiva Miller wrote: ""If there is life on other planets, might they : possibly have a Torah? But Mitzrayim doesn't exist there, and Moshe : never lived there!" That question bothered me for a very long time," : Strangely enough, I had similar thoughts years back. As a young bachur : in yeshivo, my rebbi was teaching us that their was a period during : which the progenitor of kelal Yisroel would happen. I asked what would : have happened if there had been another deep thinker who came to the : same realization and belief that Avraham did. He answered that there : would have been two (or more) chosen peoples to eventually be mekabel : Torah. It didn't occur to me at the time to ask, would they each have the : "same" Torah or each get a tailored version to their (eventual) am? Or, : would there be one Torah that talks of both of the chosen peoples? Is there on some planet far away, an intelligent alien species with their Am haNivchar? How would the Torah be manifest to them? And if they didn't have a Migdal Bavel like event, did Hashem do that whole Mamlekhes Kohanim model, with castes within the alien Am haNivchar, or castes with everyone "nivchar"? Would they have a Holy Land? If we made contact with these creatures, would we recognize their perception of the Torah as another expression of Yahadus, or would it be too alien? I know this example seems less serious than yours; I meant it as a test case on which to check these ideas that doesn't have to involve "what if" histories that Hashem timelessly knows didn't / aren't / won't happen. : Years : later when discussing what is the purpose to us of the trillions of stars : and galaxies so distant that they could never possibly affect us here : on Earth? Then it occurred to me, what if those stars had planets with : intelligent beings on them and they too went through a similar period : wherein they too had some allien being come to the same conclusions as : Avraham did and they then became the chosen people of that planet and : received a Torah possibly tailored to their experiences and appropriate : there etc.? ... Or maybe they do affect our lives here on earth. Omphalists believe that the universe was created at some point in the nearer past, eg 5778 years ago -- or Last Thursday -- and everything before that is fake. And this is the position of the LR and R' Avigdor Miller. (Although Last Thursdayism is a mock-religion posed by atheists trying to ridicule their position.) The usual challenge by those who like to be more rationalist is that this would imply Hashem is out to fool us, creating light en route from stars to make it look like they shown billions of years ago, tragectories that if you work backward converge from a Big Bang, geological and archological records, fossils, cave paintings, remains of pre-Adamic farming... But there is a more thoughtful response: Perhaps the only way we can have teva today is if the universe we have now looks like it always ran by teva. Otherwise, the effects of nissim would still be causing anomolies we could pick up today. So much for hesteir Panim. In which case, we need a universe that is so big that our place is in looks like some unnoticable backwater. We need a universe that looks like it had a Big Bang and Inflation area in order for us to live with the set of laws of nature we have. And then their existence does impact us. : Moshe when he went lamorom to accept Torah. They too wanted Torah in a : version suitable to them which would deflect all of Moshe's responses. If : memory serves, I think some meforshim try to make sense of the malachim : in such a manner. Unlike RAM's or my hypothetical aliens, mal'akhim have no free will. Without having that much Tzelem E-lokim, would they qualify for revelation? I think the problem with the mal'akhim that the medrashic Moshe highlights in his response to their claim on the Torah is that they do Retzon haBorei automatically, they lack the challenges one would need the Torah to address. Without challenges, they cannot grow into more than they are; there is no need for a Torah to help show them how. Jumping back to RAM's post: :> As there would never be an Eretz Yisroel, then there would not :> be all the mitzvot hateltuot ba'aretz -- trumos, masros etc., etc. : : Or perhaps Gan Eden would have had that status. Eretz Yisrael is : actually a great example: Consider the idea that true nevuah can exist : only in Eretz Yisrael... Tangent: Yechezqeil? Yonah's qiqayon was outside Nineveh. Etc... : .... Rather, my point goes to : this "Torah with 613 mitzvot" that you refer to. It doesn't exist : today, and I don't know if it ever has existed. There has certainly : never been a person to whom they all applied, and I wonder whether : there was ever a generation when they were all in force. There is also the idea of mitzvos that were never expected to be applied. Like the gemara suggests about ben soreir umoreh and ir hanidachas. Perhaps they exist because history could have played out differently and these mitzvos would have had an applicability beyond derosh veqabel sekhar. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger None of us will leave this place alive. micha at aishdas.org All that is left to us is http://www.aishdas.org to be as human as possible while we are here. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Anonymous MD, while a Nazi prisoner From akivagmiller at gmail.com Wed Nov 8 04:57:26 2017 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2017 07:57:26 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Torah precheit? Message-ID: . R' Micha Berger asked: > Is there on some planet far away, an intelligent alien > species with their Am haNivchar? How would the Torah be > manifest to them? And if they didn't have a Migdal Bavel > like event, did Hashem do that whole Mamlekhes Kohanim > model, with castes within the alien Am haNivchar, or > castes with everyone "nivchar"? Would they have a > Holy Land? > > If we made contact with these creatures, would we > recognize their perception of the Torah as another > expression of Yahadus, or would it be too alien? My focus is on the word "too" in the phrase "too alien". I feel that while such beings would indeed be extremely alien to us, the degree of alien-ness is absolutely irrelevant to the question at hand: Any mashehu of alien-ness (I suspect) puts them outside the pale. In our modern way of thinking, in which "Eretz" means not only this planet but the entire physical universe, and in which "Shamayim" does NOT include planets and stars but only the metaphysical universe, - Why would martians have a different status than any other foreigners? I can easily see a discussion of whether the martians count as people or as animals, but that is a separate issue. The issue here is that if they claimed to have some sort of Revelation from the One True G-d, then would we accept it as being another facet of the Shiv'im Panim LaTorah? And my answer is: What would we say if a group of earthly *humans* claimed to have some sort of Revelation from the One True G-d? Would we accept *that* as being another facet of the Shiv'im Panim LaTorah? My guess is that our response would be: That's very nice, and you are a sincere group of righeous Bnei Noach... and then we'd pretty much ignore them. Not out of malice, but because their message is not directed towards us. Here's a litmus test for whether or not I am close to correct: If I'm not mistaken, when a person claims to be a Navi, there are specific tests for whether or not he is believed, and if he passes those tests, and he has a message from Hashem for us, then we are obligated to follow that message. Is Jewishness among those criteria? If Ovadia had not converted, would his nevua be any less true or any less obligatory? > If we made contact with these creatures, would we > recognize their perception of the Torah as another > expression of Yahadus, or would it be too alien? I suppose one answer might be: The word "Yahadus" is too restrictive. Try replacing it with "Ratzon Hashem". Akiva Miller From zev at sero.name Wed Nov 8 08:12:06 2017 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2017 11:12:06 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Torah precheit? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 08/11/17 07:57, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > I can easily see a discussion of whether the martians count as people > or as animals, but that is a separate issue. The issue here is that if > they claimed to have some sort of Revelation from the One True G-d, > then would we accept it as being another facet of the Shiv'im Panim > LaTorah? And my answer is: What would we say if a group of earthly > *humans* claimed to have some sort of Revelation from the One True > G-d? Would we accept*that* as being another facet of the Shiv'im > Panim LaTorah? > > My guess is that our response would be: That's very nice, and you are > a sincere group of righeous Bnei Noach... and then we'd pretty much > ignore them. Not out of malice, but because their message is not > directed towards us. > If all they claimed was to have once had a navi, whose nevuah didn't contradict our Torah in any way, then perhaps we might accept it as valid. But if they were to claim to have had their own matan torah I think we would have to reject it. It's fundamental to our faith that matan torah was an event that could only happen once. It's also fundamental that Hashem chose avraham from *all* humanity, and us from *all* the nations, so if someone else -- on this planet or any other -- were to make such a claim we could not accept it. as for how Hashem could leave them without a Torah to guide them, how are they different from any remote people who had no contact with anyone who had even heard of the Torah until the 19th or 20th century? If the New Guinea Highlanders (some of whom have *still* never had any contact with the world outside their valleys) could wait until now to hear about the Torah, why can't the Tau Cetians, or whoever, wait until the 25th or 30th century? (assuming the 6000 years thing to be some sort of metaphor, of course, or there won't be a 30th century.) -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From zvilampel at gmail.com Wed Nov 8 08:53:24 2017 From: zvilampel at gmail.com (H Lampel) Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2017 11:53:24 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Torah precheit? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 11/7/2017 6:05 PM, MIcha Berger wrote: > ... that the universe was created at some point in the nearer > past, eg 5778 years ago -- or Last Thursday -- and everything before that is > fake. ...is the position of ... R' Avigdor Miller. He certainly is not of the opinion of last-Thursday-ism. (I suspect RMB did not really mean that.) His opinion is based on the mesora. Re: ''and everything before that is fake. ...is the position of ... R' Avigdor Miller'' To clarify, R' Avigdor Miller's position is not that fossils, for example, were planted merely as a test of our emunah. > Why should the [dinosaurs] need explanation any more than the dodo, the passenger pigeon, or any of the other species which > have become extinct, some even in our time? The huge > animals of ancient times, as well as many small animals, > became extinct each in the due time decreed by the timetable > of Heaven. ... Their existence is a fact which does > not help th theory of Evolution in any manner. (Rejoice O Youth, pp. 47-48) However, that Adam was created as a 30-year-old (as Chazal say), with, for example, a full mouth of teeth? Yes. Because: > ''Creation means that the Universe began at once in full-blown development. > The First Man immediately had trees whose fruit he could eat. > But fruit trees must beforehand be pollinated by bees, and bees need beehives with all their > paraphernalia. So you understand that Creation implies that > everything came into existence without benefit of time." > > "Trees have in their trunks a number of concentric rings, > each ring denoting a year of existence. If the First Man had > sawed off a tree, would he have found rings inside?" > > "Since he had trees, they were what we know a tree > to be." > > ...thousand-year redwood trees...?" > > "Creation included everything. Just as the First Man > had mature fruit trees at the first moment, so also the world > possessed mature lumber trees which were created at the > same time." > > "[So]... all animals and insects and bacteria were created, > including those which need rotting old logs and crumbling old > rocks for their habitat or sustenance. Thus, it is self? > explanatory that the world possessed 'aged' materials from the > very outset, including vegetation and animal carcasses with low > carbon-14 content and rocks with heavy lead content.'' > > (Ibid. pp 45-46) Zvi Lampel PS--Again, this is to clarify Rav Miller's position, and hopefully will not evolve (;)) into a discussion of it. Been there, done that, and no time. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Wed Nov 8 13:59:13 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2017 16:59:13 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Torah precheit? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20171108215913.GB3342@aishdas.org> On Wed, Nov 08, 2017 at 07:57:26AM -0500, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: :> If we made contact with these creatures, would we :> recognize their perception of the Torah as another :> expression of Yahadus, or would it be too alien? : My focus is on the word "too" in the phrase "too alien". I feel that : while such beings would indeed be extremely alien to us, the degree of : alien-ness is absolutely irrelevant to the question at hand: Any : mashehu of alien-ness (I suspect) puts them outside the pale. Actually, when I said "too alien" I was thinking not of ways their book of Retzon haBorei different from our Torah but ways in which their existence is so different from ours that we can't event compare. It's one thing to discuss what hilkhos geirus might look like if they had a hahaflagah but they already live in a liquid. It's another to discuss what halakhah as a whole would look like if they didn't experience time as a linear past-present-future the way we do. This discussion also reminds me of my Issacharism thought experiment. Positing that sheivet Yissachar survived, and had its own development of halakhah since the fall of Malkhus Yisrael. Its own Sanhedrin, no Anshei Keneses haGdfolah, etc... The same beris Sinai, but an entirely different development of 3,000 of application of kelalei pesaq, different gezeiros and taqanos... And to make it harder, let's say their population of shomerei Torah uMizvos has been roughly the same as ours all these years. So there are no grounds for saying one set of Sanhedrins is more authorivative than the other. : In our modern way of thinking, in which "Eretz" means not only this : planet but the entire physical universe, and in which "Shamayim" does : NOT include planets and stars but only the metaphysical universe, - : Why would martians have a different status than any other foreigners? Because it's possible that if Vulcans existed, HQBH would have provided them with /their/ mamlekhes kohanim. Yes, I can't guess what HQBH would do -- He could equally have wanted their spiritual development to wait until *we* get there. Like some aboriginal people on this planet, who never heard of us or even Ibrahimic religions relatively recently. Possibly relevant is the Rambam's shitah that chasidei umos ha'olam are only those who keep the 7 mitzvos because they were given at Sinai. Perhaps this gives more reason for a Vulcan am hanivchar. If anyone who does the right thing because it's logically the right thing accomplished their goal in life, then perhaps not every kind of being with bekhirah needs access to a revelation. : The issue here is that if : they claimed to have some sort of Revelation from the One True G-d, : then would we accept it as being another facet of the Shiv'im Panim : LaTorah? And my answer is: What would we say if a group of earthly : *humans* claimed to have some sort of Revelation from the One True : G-d? Would we accept *that* as being another facet of the Shiv'im : Panim LaTorah? We are a segulah mikol ha'amim, beni bekhori Yisrael. We know we recieved a unique revelation. The discussion is whether it's unique for all of humanity, or full-stop unique universally. : My guess is that our response would be: That's very nice, and you are : a sincere group of righeous Bnei Noach... and then we'd pretty much : ignore them... I agree with the "ignore" part, though. Accept for the academics and their journals. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Despair is the worst of ailments. No worries micha at aishdas.org are justified except: "Why am I so worried?" http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yisrael Salanter Fax: (270) 514-1507 From seinfeld at daasbooks.com Wed Nov 8 18:00:29 2017 From: seinfeld at daasbooks.com (Alexander Seinfeld) Date: Wed, 08 Nov 2017 21:00:29 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Torah precheit? Message-ID: > > > >But there is a more thoughtful response: Perhaps the only way we can >have teva today is if the universe we have now looks like it always >ran by teva. Otherwise, the effects of nissim would still be causing >anomolies we could pick up today. So much for hesteir Panim. > >In which case, we need a universe that is so big that our place is in >looks like some unnoticable backwater. We need a universe that looks >like it had a Big Bang and Inflation area in order for us to live with >the set of laws of nature we have. > >And then their existence does impact us. Just want to point out, or remind, that there are two independent questions here that often become conflated. 1. Can a rational person believe in ?young Earth? (i.e., >6,000 years old)? 2. Why would God create a universe making it look like it is far older than it really is? The basis of answering yes to #1 has nothing to do with #2. I do not need to know why in order to examine the evidence for #1 and conclude that He did probably make the world 5,778 years ago. The fact that I cannot answer #2 should not be entered as evidence against #1. This is the m?haleich of R? Dovid Gottlieb. The fallacy of the skeptics is to mock #1 based on #2, when in fact it is irrelevant. My own personal belief is merely that the vastness of space and time give us the opportunity with our puny minds to have an analogy for God?s infiniteness. From afolger at aishdas.org Mon Nov 13 04:05:02 2017 From: afolger at aishdas.org (Arie Folger) Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2017 13:05:02 +0100 Subject: [Avodah] Torah precheit Message-ID: RAM and RMB have been arguing about whether aliens somewhere out there could have received a Revelation akin to ours and whether theirs would be one of shiv'im panim la-Torah. My USD0.02c: I believe that it is not unimportant that according to present theories of physics, we are constrained by how far we could ever travel. Even if we were to remain happy with slower than light travel, travelling at the phenomenal speeds necessary to get anywhere else in our own galaxy where aliens might live, i.e. in another star system with planets in the habitable zone, would use up phenomenal amounts of energy. Furthermore, the distances are so vast, that we would need enormous (what's the trendy word variant, ginormous?) amounts of time, and we still hardly would get anywhere. Bottom line, there very well may exist intelligent aliens out there, but we are near 100% sure that we will never ever be able to meet them. Which leads me to the following observation: If there are aliens out there which we will one day meet, then we could not accept their *competing* Revelation. There is only one 'am hanivchar. We would indeed need to see them as a special kind of Noachides with a possible true revelation that is, however, subordinate to ours and can never contradict it. If, however, we consider aliens whom we will never ever be able to meet, I see no reason why they couldn't have their own Revelation, with their own Torah, which, while it surely will agree in all iqarim, may nonetheless, through a variety of mechanisms suggested by mefarshim throughout the ages (including but not limited to the Ramban's Torah without spaces, and the expansion thereof by later mequbalim that the Heavenly Torah has 23 letters, of which we only see 22), be quite different from ours. I do wonder though, can there be an alien civilization we will one day encounter in person, which has exactly the same Torah as we do. It would seem extremely improbable for them to have had an Avraham, Yitzchak & Yaakov, Shevatim & galut Mitzrayim, but hey, if this is predetermined in part, then why not? The question will then be, are they and us the same people (in the assumption that it is even physically possible to intermarry)? I consider this whole possibility even less likely than the one about meeting any aliens anywhere, so this is just an thought experiment. Kol tuv, -- Arie Folger -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From akivagmiller at gmail.com Mon Nov 13 17:45:22 2017 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2017 20:45:22 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Gifts on Shabbos Message-ID: . I am trying to get a more precise understanding of when it is assur/mutar to give someone a gift on Shabbos. Orach Chayim 306 is about all sorts of business activities. Gifts are a subset of this topic, and Mishne Berura 306:33 writes, "It is also assur to give a gift to one's friend, because it is similar to buying and selling, because it leaves his ownership [reshus]. But a gift is mutar when it is L'tzorech Shabbos V'Yom Tov - as written in 323:7 - and likewise for L'tzorech Mitzvah... And it also wrote that according to that, the practice of giving keilim as a gift to a Chasan is improper..." When I turn to Shulchan Aruch 323:7, Mechaber doesn't say anything about the general laws of giving gifts on Shabbos. He only gives one particular case: That if one forgot to tovel a keli before Shabbos, so it cannot be used on Shabbos, he is allowed to give it to a non-Jew as a gift, and then borrow it back for Shabbos use. Mishne Brura 323:34 explains: "Even though it is assur to give gifts on Shabbos as written in Siman 306, here it is allowed because of Tzorech Shabbos." The logic is somewhat circular, I think: 306 refers to 323, and 323 refers to 306. The only clear heter is an interesting one: On the one hand, it is for a NON-food item (though it is food-related); on the other hand, it seems to be a b'dieved solution for the person who either forgot to tovel it before Shabbos, or somehow acquired it from a non-Jew on Shabbos. I don't see any clear heter to deliberately give a food gift on Shabbos, and I also don't see any clear prohibition that non-foods are excluded from being "L'tzorech Shabbos". Mishne Berurah 306:33 says that it is wrong to give "keilim" as gifts to a chasan. Rabbi Dovid Ribiat ("The 39 Melochos", page 961) includes "presenting a Bar Mitzvah boy with a Sefer" in this category. These examples suggest two rules to me: (1) If the gift will not be used until after Shabbos (quite likely for the bar mitzvah boy's sefer, though I have no idea which "kelim" the chasan would receive), then it is not "letzorech Shabbos". (2) The chasan (or bar mitzvah boy) presumably gets hanaah from receiving the gift, but that amount of Oneg Shabbos is not significant enough to count as "letzorech Shabbos". I offer two specific examples for discussion: (1) Many shuls offer printed material, such as parsha sheets, weekly shul bulletins, and even newspapers and magazines. Or someone might attend a shiur, where the teacher distributes printed handouts of the source material. Can I take these home to read or learn from on Shabbos afternoon? Wouldn't this be a Tzorech Shabbos? (2) Suppose someone is invited to a friend for a Shabbos meal, and he brings a challah or wine as a gift for the host. The host was not expecting it and has other food that he was planning to use. Is this enough of a tzorech Shabbos to transfer ownership? If this host accepts the gift, is he required to serve the food? In other words, if "tzorech Shabbos" is indeed a carte blanche for food gifts, does the food have to actually be eaten? Akiva Miller Postscript: It seems to me that this issur of giving gifts applies only on Shabbos, and *not* on Yom Tov. Consider: You can send a living behema to your friend on YT, even through a Reshus Harabim, even if you know that the friend won't shecht it, and the heter is contingent only on the fact that the friend COULD shecht it. (MB 516:1) You can even send a pair of tefillin to your friend even though it is not needed at all for Yom Tov; the only requirements are that the tefillin are ready-for-use, and that friend gets hanaa from receiving the gift (MB 516:11-12) That whole siman seems to deal with issues of hotzaah and muktzeh, and doesn't even mention kinyanim (at least, I didn't see any such mention). This is very puzzling: Why would there be a difference between giving gifts on Shabbos and on Yom Tov? If this could be answered, it might shed light on what "L'tzorech Shabbos" means. From micha at aishdas.org Tue Nov 14 08:39:28 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2017 11:39:28 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Gilgul Hanefesh In-Reply-To: <3ad8c297-8019-3aa5-de3b-800ffe91d6c9@starways.net> References: <3ad8c297-8019-3aa5-de3b-800ffe91d6c9@starways.net> Message-ID: <20171114163928.GD29616@aishdas.org> On Tue, Nov 07, 2017 at 12:43:04PM +0200, Lisa Liel via Avodah wrote: : As I understand it, gilgul neshamot is not the same as the eastern : idea of reincarnation, where one person's soul literally incarnates : again in another body and lives another life... RSGaon says in (Emunos veDei'os 6:8 tr R' Yosef el-Qafeh, "Kapach"; emphasis mine): Venineini omer ki anashim, mimi SHENIQRA'IM YEHUDIM, matzasim ma'aminim begilgul veqor'in oso haha'ataqus. I left that in Hebrew because I want to be medayeiq in lashon in a moment. To continue, with my translation from the Hebrew: The matter to their minds is that the ruach of Re'uvein will be in Shim'on, and after that in Leivi, and after that in Yehudah. And from them, or most of them figure that it could be that the ruach of a person will be in an animal, and the ruach of an anumal in a person. And a lot of such delusions and confusion. And then the rest of the chapter lists their errors. RYeQ footnotes that R' Uzziel concluded that the people who are "called Jews" who believe such things are the Qaraim. Anan (the founder) picked up this idea from the Greeks. I do not know the original Arabic, but in this translation, notice that it's possible to read RSG as being against people to take the idea of gilgul and call it "ha'ataqus" and describe it as souls migrating from person to person or even to animal, etc... But not against gilgul itself. Which would support Lisa's understanding. This read has two open questions to resolve, not that I am saying they're unanswerable: 1- RSG does use the same Arabic again at the end of the chapter (and ma'amar) that R "Kapach" translates to "gilgul" -- "And I say: what does this say that teaches about gilgul?..." Perhaps it should be read: How do they think those pesuqim indicate that gilgul means ha'ataqah -- they don't talk about gilgul altogether? 2- My bigger problem is that RSG would then be spending all this time on a heretical misunderstanding of gilgul, without even one sentence saying, "But what gilgul *really* means..."? It would even be an important point of the ma'amar's discussion of souls and afterlife. This omission I find highly unlikely. As to how they would differ. The kind of people who talk about gilgul also talk about Naran and sometimes even Naran Chai -- Nefesh Ruach Neshamah, which are the penimios aspects of the soul, and Chayah and Yechidah. For that matter, RSG discusses Naran in the very same ma'amar (6:3 ) as three kochos. To RSG, they are an indisible singularity that has three abilities. But in more Qabbalistic sources, they are described as parts even as the soul's unitary nature is also asserted. If ruach and nashamah are indeed parts, then there is a huge difference between 1- Gilgul nashamos: The neshamah -- and according to the Ari, even "sparks" of a neshamah rather than a whole one -- "revolves" from one life in one body to another. And 2- Ha'ataqa: where the ruach migrates. Neshamah is much less associated with the notion of "self" than ruach is. E.g. "Neshamah shanasati bi, tehorah hi." The "bi -- in me" receives a neshamah. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger It isn't what you have, or who you are, or where micha at aishdas.org you are, or what you are doing, that makes you http://www.aishdas.org happy or unhappy. It's what you think about. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Dale Carnegie From micha at aishdas.org Tue Nov 14 09:31:55 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2017 12:31:55 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Torah precheit? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20171114173155.GE29616@aishdas.org> On Wed, Nov 08, 2017 at 11:53:24AM -0500, H Lampel via Avodah wrote: : On 11/7/2017 6:05 PM, Micha Berger wrote: :> ... that the universe was created at some point in the nearer :> past, eg 5778 years ago -- or Last Thursday -- and everything before that is :> fake. ...is the position of ... R' Avigdor Miller. : He certainly is not of the opinion of last-Thursday-ism. (I suspect RMB did not really mean that.) His opinion is based on the mesora. I meant omphalism. Which is not based on the mesora, it's based on pashut peshat in a pasuq. A pasuq that we don't really have much mesorah saying actually hyas a pashut peshat, at least not one we can comprehend. : Re: "and everything before that is fake. ...is the position of ... R' : Avigdor Miller" : To clarify, R' Avigdor Miller's position is not that fossils, for example, : were planted merely as a test of our emunah. Which is why I didn't say that. Continuing with RZL's quote of RAM's Rejoice O Youth (pp. 47-48): :> Why should the [dinosaurs] need explanation any more than the :> dodo, the passenger pigeon, or any of the other species which :> have become extinct, some even in our time? The huge :> animals of ancient times, as well as many small animals, :> became extinct each in the due time decreed by the timetable :> of Heaven. ... Their existence is a fact which does :> not help th theory of Evolution in any manner. So he says it's simply incomprehensible. I also gave a different explanation than "test of our emunah" -- necessary for having a sensible and detectable teva. My point was to defend the viability of omphalism of both RAM's and the LR's sorts. Asking "Why would Hashem be so cruel as to create all that to mislead, at best to test" question presumes a strawman. : However, that Adam was created as a 30-year-old (as Chazal say), with, : for example, a full mouth of teeth? Yes. Because: :> "Creation means that the Universe began at once in full-blown development. :> The First Man immediately had trees whose fruit he could eat. .... :> (Ibid. pp 45-46) See Bereishis Rabba 14:7 ). According to R Yehudah bar Shimon says that "ofer olam" was created in his fullness. R' Elazar b Shimon says that Chava was too. R' Yochanan says they were creates as 20 (quibble: not 30) year olds. And then down in 14:10, R Yehudah says that Adam was made with a tail, but it was removed for the sake of his kavod. Evolution anywone? BUT: The month that Adam was born in is part of the greater machloqes between R' Yehoshua and R' Eliezer about Nissan vs Tishrei (RH 11a). Meaning, if the world was created in Tishrei, when "the earth brings forth plants and trees full of fruit", then yes, this medrash stands. But if the world was created in Nissan, when the plants start growing and the fruit is emerging from the tree (as the gemara puts it), then perhaps not. In any case, the meaning thereby ascribed to saying the world was made in Nissan is that the universe was created at its start. Regardless of Adam's development when born. So I would have said "one opinion in Chazal", not "as Chazal say". Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Friendship is like stone. A stone has no value, micha at aishdas.org but by rubbing one stone against another, http://www.aishdas.org sparks of fire emerge. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Mordechai of Lechovitz From micha at aishdas.org Tue Nov 14 10:38:37 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2017 13:38:37 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Gifts on Shabbos In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20171114183837.GF29616@aishdas.org> On Mon, Nov 13, 2017 at 08:45:22PM -0500, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : I am trying to get a more precise understanding of when it is : assur/mutar to give someone a gift on Shabbos. ... : The logic is somewhat circular, I think: 306 refers to 323, and 323 : refers to 306... The Mishnah Berurah has mutual references between 306:33 and 323:34. But I don't see the logic itself being circular. 306 spells out the theory, and 323 is an example of that theory and at each place he shows you the other half of the picture. Giving gifts is assur (derabbanan) on Shabbos, except when the purpose of the gift is letzorekh Shabbos, or another mitzvah. Thus, it includes giving a non-toveled keli to a non-Jew so that it can be borrowed back and used *for Shabbos*. But not a wedding gift, which (as per R' Ribiat's bar mitzvah boy) presumably isn't needed by the chasan on Shabbos. And apparently claiming simchas chasan being a mitzvah isn't sufficient to say the gift is letzorekh mitzvah. Which you note as well, although you phrase it in terms of hana'ah and oneg Shabbos, ie lezorekh Shabbos. Perhaps this is because there are other ways to provide simchah or oneg, so it's not "letzorekh". : (1) Many shuls offer printed material, such as parsha sheets, weekly : shul bulletins, and even newspapers and magazines. Or someone might : attend a shiur, where the teacher distributes printed handouts of the : source material. Can I take these home to read or learn from on : Shabbos afternoon? Wouldn't this be a Tzorech Shabbos? I would think so. Why any less than a gift of food? In both cases, the recipient already owns alternatives. So why would something to eat be more letzorekh Shabbos than something to learn? This is unlike the bar mitzvah boy recieving a sefer (acc to R' Ribiat), in that the purpose isn't learning on Shabbos. Implied: A guest who knows the host won't use the food (eg he recommends waiting until the wine is chilled) shouldn't be giving even usable food. Is this the halakhah? Also, I found that ROY (Yechaveh Da'as 3:21) DOES allow giving the bar mitzvah boy that seifer because it provides chizuq. And there is no greater letzorekh mitzvah than that! : (2) Suppose someone is invited to a friend for a Shabbos meal, and he : brings a challah or wine as a gift for the host. The host was not : expecting it and has other food that he was planning to use. Is this : enough of a tzorech Shabbos to transfer ownership? ... Or, in the SA's case... can you give the non-toveled keli to a nakhri when you have just as good or nearly as good alternatives? That you already had thoughts of using? I took it for granted yes, since if not, the SA is oddly missing an important half of the story. Which is why above I only asked about a case where the guest gives something in a way that rules out its use, rather than just left to the host's choice. When I am the guest in this situation, I am zokheh lo shelo befanav and transfer ownership on Friday. Came in handy a couple of times when the host refused the gift. "Well, if you don't want it, you can regift it. Because it's yours already and you aren't allowed to give it back" right now, at least. : Postscript: It seems to me that this issur of giving gifts applies : only on Shabbos, and *not* on Yom Tov... Then why "letzorekh Shabbos or YT"? When do you have something that is letzorekh YT in particular when it's also Shabbos? : (MB 516:1) You can : even send a pair of tefillin to your friend even though it is not : needed at all for Yom Tov; the only requirements are that the tefillin : are ready-for-use, and that friend gets hanaa from receiving the gift : (MB 516:11-12) And the bar mitzvah boy doesn't get the same kind of hana'ah (speaking quality, not quantity) from his uncle's gift of a set of Rambam? Now I'm confused again. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "The worst thing that can happen to a micha at aishdas.org person is to remain asleep and untamed." http://www.aishdas.org - Rabbi Simcha Zissel Ziv, Alter of Kelm Fax: (270) 514-1507 From micha at aishdas.org Tue Nov 14 10:48:32 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2017 13:48:32 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Torah precheit In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20171114184832.GI29616@aishdas.org> On Mon, Nov 13, 2017 at 01:05:02PM +0100, Arie Folger via Avodah wrote: : Bottom line, there very well may exist intelligent aliens out there, but we : are near 100% sure that we will never ever be able to meet them. Nice chiluq! : Which leads me to the following observation: If there are aliens out there : which we will one day meet, then we could not accept their *competing* : Revelation. There is only one 'am hanivchar... Who said that "nivchar mibein ha'amim" means anything beyond benei Adam, amim as caused by Migdal Bavel? Perhaps their revelation isn't so much competing as the RBSO providing them a chance at redemption before Yom Hashem haGadol vehanora, or at least before whenever it is we get there? : them as a special kind of Noachides with a possible true revelation that : is, however, subordinate to ours and can never contradict it. This is itself the question I was trying to keep under discussion. Could we even recognize a contradiction? After all, the appearance of Retzon haBorei to creatures very different than us isn't likely to have many points where we can contradict. Assuming they are ethical monotheists, that is. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger It's never too late micha at aishdas.org to become the person http://www.aishdas.org you might have been. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - George Eliot From meirabi at gmail.com Thu Nov 16 16:11:31 2017 From: meirabi at gmail.com (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi) Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2017 11:11:31 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] How Much Salt for Kashering? Message-ID: Kosher meat must have all traces of blood removed. This procedure is known as 'Kashering' and requires very precise procedures and timing of rinsing, soaking, salting and finally removal of the salt and blood via rinsing and washing. Halachah provides no precise measure of salt to be used for Kashering and although insisting that all surfaces must be covered with salt, does not differentiate between small and large surface area to volume ratios, i.e. thick or thin pieces of meat. In other words a large circular hunk of meat [small ratio of surface area to volume] requires the identical amount of surface salt and time for Kashering as does a thin piece [large ratio of surface area to volume] Furthermore, a 20cm thick piece of meat will be Kashered when salted on both sides, meaning the salt will extract blood from a depth of 10 cm, but a 4cm thick piece of meat salted only on one side will not be Kosher. It seems like the process has been standardised to accommodate all cases. Nevertheless, although Halachah permits various shortcuts when Kashering for emergency situations, it does not advise Kashering thin slices to reduce preparation time. Meat that was cooked before it was Kashered will make everything in the pot it is cooked with non-Kosher. Halacha asserts there is as much blood in the piece of meat as the mass of meat. If however, there is enough Kosher food in the pot to render the blood insignificant, the food will be Kosher. Halachah requires 60 units of Kosher food to neutralise every unit of blood [1 gram of blood requires 60 grams of Kosher food] In other words, a 100 gram piece of meat will require 6kg to neutralise the blood. However, meat that was cooked after Kashering but before the blood and salt was washed off, requires only 60 times the salt and blood on the surface of the meat i.e. soaked into the salt. The blood that was in the meat has been removed by the salting. Some authorities [a note in the ShaArei Dura] assert that every piece of meat is itself large enough to neutralise the salt whilst others [the Rama 69:9] assert it provides only half the mass required. ????? ??"? - ??? ????? ???? ??? ????? ?????? ?????? ???? ??? ???? ???? ???? ??? ??? ??? ???? ?? ??? ?? ?? ???? ????? ??? ??? ????? ?? ??? ?? ??? ????? ????? ???? ??? ????? ??? ??? ?? ???? ???? ?? ??? ???? The Rama however disagrees with the ratio - "there can be no question that if the pot contains as much as the mass of the meat, it is certainly more than 60 times the salt ...." See Shach that BeDiAvad, we may rely upon the lenient opinion particularly if it is a thick piece. ????? ???? ??????????? ?''? ?????? ?????????? ??????????? ????? ??????, ?????? ??????, ?????????? ?????? ????????? ????? ???????? ?????? ?????????? ????????????? ???????? ?????????? ???? ?????????? ????? ???????? ?????????, (????????? ?????? ?''? ?''? To the best of my knowledge, this is the only source that provides an empiric measurement of how much salt is to be used for Kashering. Keep in mind that since this is a general ruling it must encompass all cases, the guidelines must reflect the maximum amount of salt that would be applied and that would remain until the meat is ready for its final washdown. In the words of the Rama, "there can be no question that if the pot contains as much as the mass of the meat, it is certainly more than 60 times the salt ...." The Halacha must provide the maximum safety margin and must therefore assume that the maximum amount of salt was applied and remains on the meat when it is added to the pot. Further, the Halacha must accommodate the largest surface area to meat ratio [ChAdam 32:4] and the heaviest salting hand. In other words, every possible variant that increases the amount of salt used is turned up to the max - and in this worst possible case scenario, we can be certain that the salt is no more than one thirtieth of the mass of the meat. In other words, an average sized steak, 300 - 400 gms, requires no more than 2 teaspoonfuls of salt for Kashering. Another thing that is certain - all Kosher agencies apply far more salt for Kashering than one thirtieth. Does it make a difference? Well, these days, the cost of disposing of contaminants is rising dramatically and salt is deemed a nasty contaminant and is becoming more expensive to dispose. It already adds a significant cost to production. Best, Meir G. Rabi 0423 207 837 +61 423 207 837 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From meirabi at gmail.com Sat Nov 18 13:25:21 2017 From: meirabi at gmail.com (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi) Date: Sun, 19 Nov 2017 08:25:21 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] Sedra Toldos - Balance, When Parents Favour One Child Message-ID: Our actions are pretty much prompted by Life's circumstances, we are mostly provoked to react. We do [many/most] things to counter a perceived imbalance, an injustice. Perhaps, with this in mind, we can better understand Yitzchak, Rivkah and Eisav as they are portrayed in this week's Sedra. Isaac favoured Eisav, because he was "Tzayid BeFiv", Rivkah favoured YaAkov [25:28] We are told why Yitzchak favours Eisav but not why Rivkah favours YaAkov. Yitzchak favours Eisav because Eisav is a "Tzayid BeFiv" lit. hunted with his mouth. Rashi explains this as either [or both] - he deceived his father like a hunter lying in ambush or stalking prey and catching it at a vulnerable moment, i.e. feeding Yitchak fake news to present himself as exceedingly Gd fearing; or, he fed Yitzchak tasty food, "Make me the tasty food I enjoy ... so that I might bless you before I die." [27:4] But Eisav was not a better cook than Rivkah - "she made him a delicious dish just as he liked" [27:14] [unless she had him on a healthy food diet and Eisav was Yitzchak's secret steak supplier] Eisav loved his father and he loved hunting [25:27]. He desperately sought his father's approval. He pursued this as he best knew, by hunting and even by lying. We might even say that he felt as though he was hunting for his father's love. Yitzchak understood, he encouraged Eisav to hunt and cook for him. He even reminded Eisav to take his hunting weapons when he instructs him to hunt and prepare food before he blesses him - Yitzchak wants Eisav to be engaged in the hunting and preparation of the food, because it is this engagement that is their link and best encapsulates his approval of his son Eisav. In other words, "It's not the food I want, for that I could ask your mother or you could grab an animal from our flock - it would be much quicker. No, I want you to be of service to me. Knowing that you have hunted to provide for me makes me happy and I enjoy the food more." Eisav knew that his mother was capable of and willing to provide her husband with all the tasty food he could stomach. He got the message that it was not food that Yitzchak wanted. Yitzchak was reaching out to Eisav, knowing how desperately Eisav sought his approval. Eisav learned how to cook in order to express his love. He even deceived Yitchak, painting himself as the Gd fearing son in order to win his father's approval. Best, Meir G. Rabi 0423 207 837 +61 423 207 837 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From akivagmiller at gmail.com Sat Nov 18 19:23:18 2017 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Sat, 18 Nov 2017 22:23:18 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] T'hay Message-ID: There is a word spelled tav-heh-aleph, pronounced "t'hay". Is this word Hebrew or Aramaic? >From context and sound, I have always presumed that it means something very similar to "yihyeh". Is that correct? If they are indeed similar in meaning, then I imgine that they is still some slight shade of difference. If they meant the exact same thing, wouldn't authors use the more common word (yihyeh) instead? This would be the case even if t'hay is Hebrew, and it would certainly be true if t'hay is Aramaic. The reason I'm asking these questions is because I have found a surprising number of paragraphs in my siddur, where all the words are obviously Hebrew, except for this one word. Including a foreign word in a text is not unheard of (there's a Latin word in Nachem, for example), but this is generally done because there is no native word with the precise meaning that the author is aiming for. And I can't imagine why "yihyeh" doesn't work in these cases: Hamapil: "us'hay mitasi shleima l'fanecha" Birkas Hamazon, near the end: "zechus shet'hay l'mishmeres shalom" Birkas Hamazon on Shabbos: "shelo t'hay tzara" Birkas Hachodesh: "chayim shet'hay banu ahavas torah" Avinu Malkenu: "t'hay hashaah hazos" Yizkor: "bis'char zeh t'hay nafsho" Yom Kippur Musaf, the Kohen Gadol's tefila: "shet'hay hashana hazos" Kel Malay Rachamim: "b'gan eden t'hay menuchaso" (I have omitted parts of the siddur that are taken from the Mishna (such as Bameh Madlikin and Pitum Haketores) because it is the nature of the Mishna to mix Hebrew and Aramaic, so use of the word "t'hay" isn't a glaring exception the way it is in the rest of the siddur. Also, I note that my examples were all taken from Nusach Ashkenaz; other nuschaos may have more or fewer instances of this word.) Thank you, Akiva Miller From simon.montagu at gmail.com Mon Nov 20 00:38:38 2017 From: simon.montagu at gmail.com (Simon Montagu) Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2017 10:38:38 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] T'hay In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sun, Nov 19, 2017 at 5:23 AM, Akiva Miller via Avodah < avodah at lists.aishdas.org> wrote: > There is a word spelled tav-heh-aleph, pronounced "t'hay". Is this > word Hebrew or Aramaic? > Hebrew. I believe the Aramaic equivalent would be tehevi. > > From context and sound, I have always presumed that it means something > very similar to "yihyeh". Is that correct? > > If they are indeed similar in meaning, then I imgine that they is > still some slight shade of difference. If they meant the exact same > thing, wouldn't authors use the more common word (yihyeh) instead? > This would be the case even if t'hay is Hebrew, and it would certainly > be true if t'hay is Aramaic. > > The reason I'm asking these questions is because I have found a > surprising number of paragraphs in my siddur, where all the words are > obviously Hebrew, except for this one word. Including a foreign word > in a text is not unheard of (there's a Latin word in Nachem, for > example), but this is generally done because there is no native word > with the precise meaning that the author is aiming for. And I can't > imagine why "yihyeh" doesn't work in these cases: (At any rate it would be "tihyeh" in the cases you quote, which are all in the feminine) In my siddur (Singer's) all the examples you give are "tehi" with a yud, which is Biblical Hebrew, as in "Tehi ala benotenu" in last week's parasha (Bereshit 26:28). The difference between yihyeh/yehi and tihyeh/tehi is that the first is future and the second is jussive (though the future can be used in a jussive sense). I assume the form with alef is Rabbinic Hebrew. How it comes to be used in the siddur, or in which nushaot exactly, I don't know. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jay at m5.chicago.il.us Mon Nov 20 05:12:52 2017 From: jay at m5.chicago.il.us (Jay F. Shachter) Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2017 13:12:52 +0000 (WET) Subject: [Avodah] How Much Salt for Kashering? In-Reply-To: from "avodah-request@lists.aishdas.org" at Nov 16, 2017 06:40:58 pm Message-ID: <15112051720.1Acb3A518.50843@lsd.chicago.il.us.chicago.il.us> > > Kosher meat must have all traces of blood removed. > No, it does not. This is true only if you are going to cook the meat before eating it. Jay F. ("Yaakov") Shachter 6424 N Whipple St Chicago IL 60645-4111 (1-773)7613784 landline (1-410)9964737 GoogleVoice jay at m5.chicago.il.us http://m5.chicago.il.us "Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur" From lisa at starways.net Mon Nov 20 04:02:11 2017 From: lisa at starways.net (Lisa Liel) Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2017 14:02:11 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] T'hay In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <91877a4d-0aeb-1a75-d7b1-78f399a2746e@starways.net> I'm not sure.? We have "yehei ra'ava kadamach" in Brich Shmei d'Marei Alma, which is definitely Aramaic.? The yehei is the same as tehei. I think what's happening here is that there's a certain amount of bleed-over between Hebrew and Aramaic.? In addition, there were different dialects of Aramaic in Eretz Yisrael and Bavel.? So while tehevei may be the correct Aramaic, tehei may be as well. Lisa On 11/20/2017 10:38 AM, Simon Montagu via Avodah wrote: > On Sun, Nov 19, 2017 at 5:23 AM, Akiva Miller via Avodah > > wrote: > > There is a word spelled tav-heh-aleph, pronounced "t'hay". Is this > word Hebrew or Aramaic? > > > Hebrew. I believe the Aramaic equivalent would be tehevi. > From micha at aishdas.org Mon Nov 20 10:24:50 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2017 13:24:50 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Sedra Toldos - Balance, When Parents Favour One Child In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20171120182450.GA24872@aishdas.org> On Sun, Nov 19, 2017 at 08:25:21AM +1100, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: : But Eisav was not a better cook than Rivkah - "she made him a delicious : dish just as he liked" [27:14] [unless she had him on a healthy food diet : and Eisav was Yitzchak's secret steak supplier] Or the hunter was usually the one who prepared the game, whereas Rivqa tended to be cooking the animals they farmed. ... : Yitzchak understood, he encouraged Eisav to hunt and cook for him. He even : reminded Eisav to take his hunting weapons when he instructs him to hunt : and prepare food before he blesses him - Yitzchak wants Eisav to be engaged : in the hunting and preparation of the food, because it is this engagement : that is their link and best encapsulates his approval of his son Eisav... Perhaps this is the whole point of the Torah's not saying why Rivqa preferred Yaaqov. Yitzchaq's additional love of Esav was teluyah bedavar, and that fact impacted Eisav's choices. Rivqa love Yaaqov, full stop, not for some reason. There is also an idea I heard from RYBS and often utilized in Gush circles that had things turned out more positively, Eisav would have been the physical arm of the same project as Yaaqv's Torah. Eisav's children would have supported and protected Yaaqov's. According to the Qedushas Levi's version of this idea, Yitzchaq knew Eisav had failings, but felt that the person who was supposed to go out into the real world was bound to be the tzadiq who "falls 7 times and arises" (to quote Shelomo haMelekh). What Yaaqov missed was the nevu'ah "ushnei le'umim mimei'ayikh yipareidu". He thought that the ideal plan, Esav and Yaaqov together without such pirud, was still how history was going to play out. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Spirituality is like a bird: if you tighten micha at aishdas.org your grip on it, it chokes; slacken your grip, http://www.aishdas.org and it flies away. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From micha at aishdas.org Mon Nov 20 11:11:25 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2017 14:11:25 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Hutrah and Dechuyah in Yibum Message-ID: <20171120191124.GB24872@aishdas.org> The topic of EhE 165 is whether yibum or chalitzah is the preferred choice. The Rambam and Rif side with yibum (in cases when yibum is in the almanah's best interest), as per the mishnah rishonah and possibly repeated by the chakhamim in the gemara (Yevamos 39b). Whereas R' Tam, R' Chananel & the Smag hold like Abba Shaul, that since it's too likely the yavam has other things than reestablishing his brother's bayis in mind, chalitzah is the better choice, bizman hazeh. The AhS has an interesting take. First, in se'if 5, he rules out the issue being mitzvos tzerikhos kavanah. If AS gave preference to chalitzah because yibum requires kavanah, then it would be the Rambam and the Rif -- the rishonim who more often hold mitzvos tzerichos kavanah -- who would be siding with him. The AhS (se'if 6) proposes that the machloqes is huterah vs dechuyah. If yibum is a matir for eishes ach, there is no problem doing the mitzvah of yibum even if the yavam's interest is in his new wife solely for her own qualities. However, if it is only docheh eishes ach, then any other kavanah for performing yibum is desire for a sin, and thus should be avoided by choosing chalitzah. And that this is the norm today. I noticed that happens to parallel who holds piquach nefesh is matir melekhes Shabbos vs who holds it is docheh it. There too Sepharadi rishonim don't feel a need to minimize melakhah (huterah), whereas the Ashk rishonim try to (because it's only dechuyah). Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger I thank God for my handicaps, for, through them, micha at aishdas.org I have found myself, my work, and my God. http://www.aishdas.org - Helen Keller Fax: (270) 514-1507 From meirabi at gmail.com Mon Nov 20 14:35:03 2017 From: meirabi at gmail.com (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi) Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2017 09:35:03 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] Sedra Toldos - Balance, When Parents Favour One Child In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I prefer not to be so speculative about the motivations, Eisav had failings, but Yitzchak felt that the person who was supposed to go out into the real world, But what I proposed does not exclude that possibility. Although, giving the blessings to someone with known failings seems unlikely. Depends I suppose on how extensive those failings are or how well they were known to Yitzchak. Or it might just be that he was the Bechor, HKBH's choice. Should Yitzchak challenge HKBH? I wrote - Yitzchak understood, he encouraged Eisav to hunt and cook for him. He even reminded Eisav .... Eisav loved his father and he loved hunting [25:27]. He desperately sought his father's approval. He pursued this as he best knew, by hunting and even by lying. We might even say that he felt as though he was hunting for his father's love. Yitzchak understood, he encouraged Eisav to hunt and cook for him. He even reminded Eisav to take his hunting weapons when he instructs him to hunt and prepare food before he blesses him - Yitzchak wants Eisav to be engaged in the hunting and preparation of the food, because it is this engagement that is their link and best encapsulates his approval of his son Eisav. In other words, "It's not the food I want, for that I could ask your mother or you could grab an animal from our flock - it would be much quicker. No, I want you to be of service to me. Knowing that you have hunted to provide for me makes me happy and I enjoy the food more." Eisav knew that his mother was capable of and willing to provide her husband with all the tasty food he could stomach. He got the message that it was not food that Yitzchak wanted. Yitzchak was reaching out to Eisav, knowing how desperately Eisav sought his approval. Eisav learned how to cook in order to express his love. He even deceived Yitchak, painting himself as the Gd fearing son in order to win his father's approval. Best, M -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Mon Nov 20 14:10:27 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2017 17:10:27 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] How Much Salt for Kashering? In-Reply-To: <15112051720.1Acb3A518.50843@lsd.chicago.il.us.chicago.il.us> References: <15112051720.1Acb3A518.50843@lsd.chicago.il.us.chicago.il.us> Message-ID: <20171120221027.GD24830@aishdas.org> On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 01:12:52PM +0000, Jay F. Shachter via Avodah wrote: :> Kosher meat must have all traces of blood removed. Dam here means blood in the circulatory system. Not blood within tissue. Problem with translations; there often isn't a 1:1. Particularly in cases of terms of art, like "dam" in this context. : No, it does not. This is true only if you are going to cook the meat : before eating it. SA YD 27:2 does say you don't need salting. (See limitations in 3-4.) But... this is because all the dam can be removed by removing the veins, and simple rinsing. So, in the same sense that cooked meat needs melichah to remove all traces of dam, so too does raw "[k]osher meat must have all traces of [dam] removed." Seems Tir'u baTov! -Micha From micha at aishdas.org Mon Nov 20 13:37:22 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2017 16:37:22 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Fwd [Aspaqlaria]: Post-Modern Orthodoxy Message-ID: <20171120213722.GB24830@aishdas.org> My most recent blog post, in which I argue that Post-Modern Orthodoxy is a contradiction of terms. -micha Post-Modern Orthodoxy micha - Published Mon, Nov 20, 2017 Modern Orthodoxy is based on an integration of Orthodoxy with life in the modern world. However, with R' JB Soloveitchik's passing, the movement was left without a luminary who analyzes and discusses matters of worldview. Consequently, Modern Orthodoxy's thought is that of the mid 20th century, when Neo-Kantian and Existential answers addressed the kinds of religious questions people on the street were confronting. And so, the argument is today, that there is a need for someone to articulate a Post-Modern Orthodoxy. This is why there was much discussion in some Modern Orthodox circles with the publication of a selection of R' Shimon Gershon Rosenburg -- "Rav Shagar"`s -- essays in English. "Faith Shattered and Restored: Judaism in the Postmodern Age", edited by Rabbi Dr. Zohar Maor, was published by Maggid Books this past June. Dr. Alan Brill, on his blog, carried numerous translations of R' Shagar since, as well as analysis of his thought. In particular, see this post of notes that Dr Brill compiled while teaching R' Shagar's thought, "Rav Shagar: To be connected to Eyn -- Living in a Postmodern World". Times of Israel had an interview with R/Dr Maor, "Israel's paradoxical man of faith, deconstructed". And recently, R Gil Perl, an alumnus of Yeshivat Har Etzion ("Gush") who became a student of Rav Shagar, wrote an essay about why R' Shagar's thought spoke to him in a way that the teachings of R' Aharon Lichtenstein of Gush couldn't in the long run. See "Postmodern Orthodoxy: Giving Voice to a New Generation". To give you an idea of R Shagar's thought, he likens Deconstructionism to Sheviras haKeilim -- the Qabbalistic idea that Creation involved the breaking of vessels, and the post-modern's inability to consider an idea to be objectively true. He builds a case for the condition of having difficulty with belief and therefore believing in nothing and turns it into a Ism of believing in Nothing. Identifying that lower-case-n nothing with the Ayin, the capital-N Nothingness from which G-d made Yeish, something (indeed, everything). Me, I think it doesn't work. Post-Modernism is a confusion of the subjectivity of my justification for knowing something with the subjectivity of the known. Meaning, I can know objective truths for entirely personal and subjective reasons. I can be convinced of halakhah because of my personal experience of the beauty of Shabbos. Not from my liking Shabbos; from that about the Shabbos experience I find beautiful, likable, meaningful, and True. I know that hilkhos Shabbos as we have them today really did objectively speaking come from the Creator by way of my personal experience of Shabbos. Objective truth, subjective justification. In contrast, in Post-Modern thought, since I have no guarantee of objectively proving anything to anyone else, the notion of objective truth is entirely denied. There isn't "the truth" as much a "his truth" or "her truth", narratives people and societies construct for themselves. And this touches everything on the college campus from religious beliefs to defending the Palestinian because we have our narrative and they have theirs. (There is room for every narrative but those that exclude other narratives.) In the real world outside those ivory towers, though, you won't find too many people with Post-Modern notions of science, declaring (eg) that math or physics are merely social constructs. But certainly outside the realm of the scientifically provable Post-Modern thinking has become part of the zeitgeist. My problem with "Postmodern Orthodoxy" is that Post-Modernism (as I just described it) is inherently incompatible with the notion of a lower-case-o orthodoxy, including our case, capital-O Orthodox Judaism. I often said on Facebook that one reason why more are going OTD in this generation than in mine is that Post-Modernism has become part of the common culture. It is impossible to maintain any orthodoxy, including O, if one believes that there are no objective truths, or even that there is nothing one could ever assert as objectively true. There is a profound difference between believing there is an absolute truth that I personally do not fully know or understand -- which R' Gil Perl presented as R' Lichtenstein's position, and believing that all truths are human conditioned. Between a personal nothing and an ideal of Nothingness. And yet, R Shagar says just that. To repeat a quote of Rav Shagar used in R Perl's article, "All truths may be the product of human conditioning, but such conditioning constitutes the medium through which the divine manifests in the world." Rav Shagar's position strikes me as internally inconsistent. For example, to This presupposes that there is a Divine which is manifest in the world, and any claim that says otherwise would defy that Truth. So, there is at least that one central Truth that is necessarily true, regardless of human conditioning. The entire notion of considering any of the Articles of Faith human conditioned, true only from our perspective, enters the heretical. Another example, R Shagar's Post-Modern Orthodox Jew will speak of revelation "though he knows there are varying and conflicting revelations, the contradictions do not paralyze him." If one does not believe the revelation via Moshe and the revelation of the Torah are unique, are they not koferim baTorah according to the Rambam? How many rabbanim would allow you to use the wine of someone who believes that the only reason to embrace the Torah's message is because it's "the faith of our fathers" (as R' Shagar describes it) and not different in kind than the message of the New Testament or the Qur'an? There are two ways we can speak of the ideal human: we can describe life on the mountain peak, the person who has perfect generosity, perfect patience, perfect faith, a perfect relationship with G-d and other people, etc... But we know that actualize perfection is unachievable for anyone bug G-d. So, the true ideal human is one constantly working toward having those perfect relationships, trying their best, constantly growing. But they are two different things -- the ideal in the sense of the goal to strive for, and the ideal of being a striver. We need to learn to separate these notions. Ayin is part of the ideology. A crisis of faith, those times of nothingness, is part of the reach to internalize that ideology. The ideal life for most of us will be struggling with the ideology; but once one makes that struggle part of the ideology itself, I fear one crossed the line. From afolger at aishdas.org Tue Nov 21 01:28:58 2017 From: afolger at aishdas.org (Arie Folger) Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2017 10:28:58 +0100 Subject: [Avodah] Torah precheit Message-ID: A little postscript to my statement, that regarding aliens we might one day meet, that we cold not accept any competing revelation, only one that is of a kind of Noachide revelation, subordinate to ours, well... Let me admit that in stating that, I was displaying a human bias: I unreasonably assumed that aliens would be a kind of otherworldly humans. However, insofar as they are radically different species (which would be likely), then I see no problem of them having their own revelation and their own 'am hanivchar, *as* *long* *as* *their* *revelation* *doesn't* *contradict* *ours*, i.e. we could not accept a revelation that claims that 'avoda zara is muttar, that murder is muttar or that assumes the existence of several deities. -- Arie Folger -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hmaryles at yahoo.com Tue Nov 21 07:30:45 2017 From: hmaryles at yahoo.com (Harry Maryles) Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2017 15:30:45 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Avodah] Fwd [Aspaqlaria]: Post-Modern Orthodoxy In-Reply-To: <20171120213722.GB24830@aishdas.org> References: <20171120213722.GB24830@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <570709339.403139.1511278245922@mail.yahoo.com> I read Gil Perl's article and I don't understand why the idea of? RAL's not knowing or being able to know but nonetheless believing doesn't speak to him. I find all the talk about there being no objective truth to be irrelevant. Truth goes beyond provable fact. It even goes beyond the contradictions to belief by newly discovered scientific truths which by definition are subject to change with new discoveries. In the Lonely Man of Faith, RYBS explains that there are no cognitive categories in which the total commitment of the man of faith could be spelled out. The commitment is rooted not in one dimension, such as the rational one, but in the whole personality of the man of faith. The whole human being; the rational as well as the non-rational is committed to God. Hence the magnitude of commitment is beyond the comprehension of the logos and the ethos. The intellect does not chart the course of the man of faith. It is a function not only of the logic of the mind. It is also a function of the logic of the heart. An apriori awareness that becomes an axiom - a conclusion that cannot rely on solely rational considerations.? HM Want Emes and Emunah in your life? Try this: http://haemtza.blogspot.com/ On Monday, November 20, 2017, 7:25:20 PM CST, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: My most recent blog post, in which I argue that Post-Modern Orthodoxy is a contradiction of terms. -micha Post-Modern Orthodoxy micha - Published Mon, Nov 20, 2017 Modern Orthodoxy is based on an integration of Orthodoxy with life in the modern world. However, with R' JB Soloveitchik's passing, the movement was left without a luminary who analyzes and discusses matters of worldview. Consequently, Modern Orthodoxy's thought is that of the mid 20th century, when Neo-Kantian and Existential answers addressed the kinds of religious questions people on the street were confronting. And so, the argument is today, that there is a need for someone to articulate a Post-Modern Orthodoxy. This is why there was much discussion in some Modern Orthodox circles with the publication of a selection of R' Shimon Gershon Rosenburg -- "Rav Shagar"`s -- essays in English. "Faith Shattered and Restored: Judaism in the Postmodern Age", edited by Rabbi Dr. Zohar Maor, was published by Maggid Books this past June. Dr. Alan Brill, on his blog, carried numerous translations of R' Shagar since, as well as analysis of his thought. In particular, see this post of notes that Dr Brill compiled while teaching R' Shagar's thought, "Rav Shagar: To be connected to Eyn -- Living in a Postmodern World". Times of Israel had an interview with R/Dr Maor, "Israel's paradoxical man of faith, deconstructed". And recently, R Gil Perl, an alumnus of Yeshivat Har Etzion ("Gush") who became a student of Rav Shagar, wrote an essay about why R' Shagar's thought spoke to him in a way that the teachings of R' Aharon Lichtenstein of Gush couldn't in the long run. See "Postmodern Orthodoxy: Giving Voice to a New Generation". To give you an idea of R Shagar's thought, he likens Deconstructionism to Sheviras haKeilim -- the Qabbalistic idea that Creation involved the breaking of vessels, and the post-modern's inability to consider an idea to be objectively true. He builds a case for the condition of having difficulty with belief and therefore believing in nothing and turns it into a Ism of believing in Nothing. Identifying that lower-case-n nothing with the Ayin, the capital-N Nothingness from which G-d made Yeish, something (indeed, everything). Me, I think it doesn't work. Post-Modernism is a confusion of the subjectivity of my justification for knowing something with the subjectivity of the known. Meaning, I can know objective truths for entirely personal and subjective reasons. I can be convinced of halakhah because of my personal experience of the beauty of Shabbos. Not from my liking Shabbos; from that about the Shabbos experience I find beautiful, likable, meaningful, and True. I know that hilkhos Shabbos as we have them today really did objectively speaking come from the Creator by way of my personal experience of Shabbos. Objective truth, subjective justification. In contrast, in Post-Modern thought, since I have no guarantee of objectively proving anything to anyone else, the notion of objective truth is entirely denied. There isn't "the truth" as much a "his truth" or "her truth", narratives people and societies construct for themselves. And this touches everything on the college campus from religious beliefs to defending the Palestinian because we have our narrative and they have theirs. (There is room for every narrative but those that exclude other narratives.) In the real world outside those ivory towers, though, you won't find too many people with Post-Modern notions of science, declaring (eg) that math or physics are merely social constructs. But certainly outside the realm of the scientifically provable Post-Modern thinking has become part of the zeitgeist. My problem with "Postmodern Orthodoxy" is that Post-Modernism (as I just described it) is inherently incompatible with the notion of a lower-case-o orthodoxy, including our case, capital-O Orthodox Judaism. I often said on Facebook that one reason why more are going OTD in this generation than in mine is that Post-Modernism has become part of the common culture. It is impossible to maintain any orthodoxy, including O, if one believes that there are no objective truths, or even that there is nothing one could ever assert as objectively true. There is a profound difference between believing there is an absolute truth that I personally do not fully know or understand -- which R' Gil Perl presented as R' Lichtenstein's position, and believing that all truths are human conditioned. Between a personal nothing and an ideal of Nothingness. And yet, R Shagar says just that. To repeat a quote of Rav Shagar used in R Perl's article, "All truths may be the product of human conditioning, but such conditioning constitutes the medium through which the divine manifests in the world." Rav Shagar's position strikes me as internally inconsistent. For example, to This presupposes that there is a Divine which is manifest in the world, and any claim that says otherwise would defy that Truth. So, there is at least that one central Truth that is necessarily true, regardless of human conditioning. The entire notion of considering any of the Articles of Faith human conditioned, true only from our perspective, enters the heretical. Another example, R Shagar's Post-Modern Orthodox Jew will speak of revelation "though he knows there are varying and conflicting revelations, the contradictions do not paralyze him." If one does not believe the revelation via Moshe and the revelation of the Torah are unique, are they not koferim baTorah according to the Rambam? How many rabbanim would allow you to use the wine of someone who believes that the only reason to embrace the Torah's message is because it's "the faith of our fathers" (as R' Shagar describes it) and not different in kind than the message of the New Testament or the Qur'an? There are two ways we can speak of the ideal human: we can describe life on the mountain peak, the person who has perfect generosity, perfect patience, perfect faith, a perfect relationship with G-d and other people, etc... But we know that actualize perfection is unachievable for anyone bug G-d. So, the true ideal human is one constantly working toward having those perfect relationships, trying their best, constantly growing. But they are two different things -- the ideal in the sense of the goal to strive for, and the ideal of being a striver. We need to learn to separate these notions. Ayin is part of the ideology. A crisis of faith, those times of nothingness, is part of the reach to internalize that ideology. The ideal life for most of us will be struggling with the ideology; but once one makes that struggle part of the ideology itself, I fear one crossed the line. _______________________________________________ Avodah mailing list Avodah at lists.aishdas.org http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Tue Nov 21 06:25:15 2017 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2017 14:25:15 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Notes on RSRH's Philosopy of Judaism Message-ID: <1511274314342.40161@stevens.edu> Please see the pdf file at http://www.halakhah.com/rst/hirsch.pdf YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Tue Nov 21 05:54:15 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2017 08:54:15 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] T'hay In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20171121135414.GB15991@aishdas.org> On Sat, Nov 18, 2017 at 10:23:18PM -0500, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : There is a word spelled tav-heh-aleph, pronounced "t'hay". Is this : word Hebrew or Aramaic? Sidenote, just to complicate things. Assuming that when someone with the last name "Miller" speaks of what he finds "in my siddur" is looking in an Ashkenazi one... RSM found in manuscripts that earlier Ashkenazi siddurim honed much closer to leshon Chazal than we do. The example I usually cite is "vesein chleqeinu beSorasakh, sab'einu mituvakh..." as Sepharadim have it. Your siddur probably consistently has "Sha'atah", not "she'atah". This is a "correction" to the form that appears in seifer Sofetim. One holdover is "Modim anachnu Lakh", instead of "Lekha"... but then followed by "Sha'atah". It appears to be largely the work of one person, R' Shelomo Zalman Hanau (Katz), author of the Binyan Shalomo. He then compiles a siddur, Shaarei Tefillah. R' Yaaqov Emden's Lueach Eresh is a rebuttal of the Razah's grammatical theories, and kedarko beqodesh, he doesn't pull punches. For example, the Binyan Shelomo was printed with a hasqamah from R' Tzvi Ashkenazi; RYE wrote that his father's hasqamah was forged. The Alter Rebbe, in composing Nusach haAri, was heavily influenced by the Razah's theory of diqduq. And slowly other Ashkenazim switched from leshon Chazal to leshon Tanakh. Even RZBaer and the Yekkes. So, with a siddur that is partially in one version of Hebrew and partially in another, who knows how any word settled on one set of diqduq rules or the other. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "I hear, then I forget; I see, then I remember; micha at aishdas.org I do, then I understand." - Confucius http://www.aishdas.org "Hearing doesn't compare to seeing." - Mechilta Fax: (270) 514-1507 "We will do and we will listen." - Israelites From meirabi at gmail.com Tue Nov 21 15:38:02 2017 From: meirabi at gmail.com (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi) Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2017 10:38:02 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] Kosher meat must have all traces of blood removed Message-ID: I am happy to amend to Before cooking, Kosher meat must have all traces of blood removed Best, Meir G. Rabi 0423 207 837 +61 423 207 837 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From larry62341 at optonline.net Wed Nov 22 06:20:47 2017 From: larry62341 at optonline.net (Prof. Levine) Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2017 09:20:47 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Sedra Toldos - Balance, When Parents Favour One Child In-Reply-To: <56bc7b19424c44b7aec48fc7014df583@exchng03.campus.stevens-t ech.edu> References: <56bc7b19424c44b7aec48fc7014df583@exchng03.campus.stevens-tech.edu> Message-ID: <7E.4D.03148.0C7851A5@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> At 10:52 AM 11/21/2017, R Micha Berger wrote: >Perhaps this is the whole point of the Torah's not saying why Rivqa >preferred Yaaqov. Yitzchaq's additional love of Esav was teluyah bedavar, >and that fact impacted Eisav's choices. Rivqa love Yaaqov, full stop, >not for some reason. I suggest you read RSRH's essay Lessons From Jacob and Esau (Collected Writings VII) YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From JRich at sibson.com Wed Nov 22 21:54:08 2017 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2017 05:54:08 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] sefer torah's path Message-ID: <7df4daee86e84ff48f391450b891c5f0@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> From R' Aviner: Bringing the Torah to People to Kiss Q: Is it permissible to bring the Sefer Torah in the Shul towards people who want to kiss it? A: No. This is a disgrace to the Sefer Torah. They should approach the Sefer Torah. Piskei Teshuvot 134:6. I have been to more than a few shuls that particularly on Shabbat take the long road - any ideas on who they are relying on? (not to mention those who lower the sefer torah so the kids can kiss it too) KT 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: From marty.bluke at gmail.com Sat Nov 25 12:27:38 2017 From: marty.bluke at gmail.com (Marty Bluke) Date: Sat, 25 Nov 2017 22:27:38 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] How can R' Yochanan and Resh Lakish argue about the tradition of a Gezera Shava? Message-ID: The Gemara in Makos(14b) has a dispute between R' Yochanan and Resh Lakish which revolves around a gezera shava. R' Yochanan has the gezera shava and Resh Lakish does not, Rashi explains that Resh Lakish did not get this gezera shava from his rebbeim. This seems very difficult because the gemara in Bava Metzia (84a) describes how Resh Lakish was the head of a group of bandits and R' Yochanan persuaded hm to learn Torah and was clearly Rabo Muvhak. In fact, they were so close that after Resh Lakish's death, R' Yochanan lost his mind and died. Given this, how can it be that R' Yochanan had a gezera shava and Resh Lakish didn't because lo kiblu merabo, R' Yochanan was his Rebbe so why wouldn't R' Yochanan have taught him this gezera shava? R' Yochanan clearly had a kabbala on this gezera shava so why wouldn't his talmid muvhak Resh Lakish have gotten this kabbala from his rebbe? The answer can't be that Resh Lakish argued on this because gezera shava's are a kabbala from your rebbe, period. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Thu Nov 23 15:55:59 2017 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2017 23:55:59 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] More on Yaakov, sheep and the rods Message-ID: <1511481358587.99267@stevens.edu> The following is from RSRH's commentary on Bereishis 30:37 Ya'akov then took for himself rods of fresh aspen and hazelnut and chestnut trees, and peeled white streaks in them by uncovering the white on the rods. After all this, Ya'akov's initiative with the rods would have been fully justified, even had it constituted a tried and tested expedient - a supposition that surely will not be borne out by experiment. >From the continuation of the story we know that Lavan altered the terms of the agreement ten times (see below, 31:7), setting new conditions regarding the form of the speckles and spots. It is difficult to assume that, because of a general action such as setting up the rods in the sight of the sheep, the sheep would bring forth young that were this time speckled, the next time spotted, and the next time marked on the feet. Ya'akov's success can be attributed only to a special intervention of Divine providence - as attested to by Ya'akov himself. The expedient of the rods was only an extremely weak substitute for the breeding animals Lavan had wrongfully removed. Nevertheless, Ya'akov did not refrain from seeking the aid of this expedient; since ain somchin al haness (see Pesachim 64b), he was obligated to do his part. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hankman at bell.net Sun Nov 26 10:02:44 2017 From: hankman at bell.net (hankman) Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2017 13:02:44 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] More on Yaakov, sheep and the rods Message-ID: <440B31203B1C40479ABF364797C2B58A@hankPC> Prof. L. Levine wrote?": ?It is difficult to assume that, because of a general action such as setting up the rods in the sight of the sheep, the sheep would bring forth young that were this time speckled, the next time spotted, and the next time marked on the feet. Ya'akov's success can be attributed only to a special intervention of Divine providence - as attested to by Ya'akov himself. The expedient of the rods was only an extremely weak substitute for the breeding animals Lavan had wrongfully removed. Nevertheless, Ya'akov did not refrain from seeking the aid of this expedient; since ain somchin al haness (see Pesachim 64b), he was obligated to do his part...? As everyone who had genetics 101 will realize, if you eliminate 100% of the phenotype, and breed the remainder you will still get some of that phenotype in the next generation with recessive genes. So it always bothered me why was all the hokus pokus by Yaakov necessary. Even more so the pasook itself seems to ascribe the results as caused by the sticks even though a simple natural explanation for the reappearance of the phenotype in the next generation is quite simple. The only explanation I could come up with is that the percentages were much higher than one would expect as a result of genetic calculations thus the nes (and Yaakov?s efforts [hishtadlus] to produce it) is described at great length. Kol tuv Chaim Manaster -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From akivagmiller at gmail.com Sat Nov 25 17:51:31 2017 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Sat, 25 Nov 2017 20:51:31 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] sefer torah's path Message-ID: . R' Joel Rich asked: > From R? Aviner: Bringing the Torah to People to Kiss > Q: Is it permissible to bring the Sefer Torah in the Shul > towards people who want to kiss it? > A: No. This is a disgrace to the Sefer Torah. They should > approach the Sefer Torah. Piskei Teshuvot 134:6. > > I have been to more than a few shuls that particularly on > Shabbat take the long road ? any ideas on who they are > relying on? (not to mention those who lower the sefer torah > so the kids can kiss it too) Maybe the masses simply disagree with the logic of the Piskei Teshuvot? Maybe people feel that bringing the Torah to Amcha is NOT a disgrace? Personally, I can easily understand that lowering it could be a bizayon, but what's wrong with taking the long way around? If the short route is taken, then (depending on the shul's layout) it is possible (or even probable) that many (or most) will simply be unable to get close enough to kiss it -- and if this is true on the men's side of the mechitza, it is even more true on the women's side! There are SO many things that we allow for no reason other than allowing the people to show their love and kavod for the Torah!!! Compared to the bells that ring on Shabbos, or the multitude of aliyos on Simchas Torah, this seems exceeding minor, in my opinion. Akiva Miller From brothke at gmail.com Sat Nov 25 18:20:23 2017 From: brothke at gmail.com (Ben Rothke) Date: Sat, 25 Nov 2017 21:20:23 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Gid ha'nasheh and 'therefore' Message-ID: In the coming week?s parsha, it has the story of Yaakov wrestling and then concludes: ? ???-???? ???-???????? ?????-?????????? ???-????? ????????? I am trying to figure out the connection between the wrestling injury and klal Yisroel not eating gid hanasheh. The term '???-????' implies consequently, to which I don?t see the consequence. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From JRich at sibson.com Sat Nov 25 21:47:06 2017 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2017 05:47:06 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] How can R' Yochanan and Resh Lakish argue about the tradition of a Gezera Shava? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: The answer can't be that Resh Lakish argued on this because gezera shava's are a kabbala from your rebbe, period. > ______________________________________________ 1. This begs the broader question as to why an Amira having a gs doesn't automatically trump one that doesn't 2.this also assumes only a rebbi muvhak counts as rabo for purposes of mesora Kt 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. From JRich at sibson.com Sun Nov 26 05:28:50 2017 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2017 13:28:50 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] eilu v'eilu Message-ID: <6b52bc1475284ba2a6aa3d7734cb8de7@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> http://www.yutorah.org/lectures/lecture.cfm/889447/rabbi-assaf-bednarsh/pluralism-and-halacha-what-is-truth,-and-who-has-it/ Rabbi Assaf Bednarsh--Pluralism and Halacha: What is Truth, and Who Has It Interesting shiur on an old Avodah favorite KT 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: From lisa at starways.net Sun Nov 26 14:37:13 2017 From: lisa at starways.net (Lisa Liel) Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2017 00:37:13 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Gid ha'nasheh and 'therefore' In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I don't think al ken denotes causation.? In most cases, it seems to mean "How correct it is that..."? For example, the two times we're told "al ken", the city is called Beersheva.? They can't both be the cause. Lisa On 11/26/2017 4:20 AM, Ben Rothke via Avodah wrote: > > In the coming week?s parsha, it has the story of Yaakov wrestling and > then concludes: > > ? ???-???? ???-???????? ?????-?????????? ???-????? ????????? > > I am trying to figure out the connection between the wrestling injury > and klal Yisroel not eating gid hanasheh. > > The term '???-????' implies consequently, to which I don?t see the > consequence. > > --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From micha at aishdas.org Sun Nov 26 15:09:41 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2017 18:09:41 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Gid ha'nasheh and 'therefore' In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20171126230941.GA24539@aishdas.org> On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 12:37:13AM +0200, Lisa Liel via Avodah wrote: : On 11/26/2017 4:20 AM, Ben Rothke via Avodah wrote: : >In the coming week's parsha, it has the story of Yaakov wrestling : >and then concludes: "Al kein lo yokhlu BY es gid hanasheh." : >I am trying to figure out the connection between the wrestling : >injury and klal Yisroel not eating gid hanasheh. : >The term '[al kein]' implies consequently, to which I don't see the : >consequence. : I don't think al ken denotes causation.? In most cases, it seems to : mean "How correct it is that..."? For example, the two times we're : told "al ken", the city is called Beersheva.? They can't both be the : cause. Why not? It could be that each were necessary but insufficient causes, so that the name "Be'er-Sheva" is the consequence of both being true. Or it could be that each were sufficient cause, and the name Be'er-Sheva was justified by either alone -- but equally so. And thus the city's name represents both. But to answer RBR's question, I don't think al kein implies sufficient causality. Rather, because of the fight, HQBH had an opportunity to turn eating thigh meat into a ritual that reminds one of the fight, and thus of the Jew's ability to act on the level of (in the sense of: interact with) angels. Without the fight, the mitzvah would lack that historical symbolism; so it's a cause, but of a different sort than it seems from your question that you are thinking of. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger It is our choices...that show what we truly are, micha at aishdas.org far more than our abilities. http://www.aishdas.org - J. K. Rowling Fax: (270) 514-1507 From micha at aishdas.org Sun Nov 26 14:58:57 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2017 17:58:57 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] How can R' Yochanan and Resh Lakish argue about the tradition of a Gezera Shava? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20171126225857.GA9115@aishdas.org> On Sat, Nov 25, 2017 at 10:27:38PM +0200, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: : The Gemara in Makos(14b) has a dispute between R' Yochanan and Resh Lakish : which revolves around a gezera shava. R' Yochanan has the gezera shava and : Resh Lakish does not, Rashi explains that Resh Lakish did not get this : gezera shava from his rebbeim. : : This seems very difficult because the gemara in Bava Metzia (84a) describes : how Resh Lakish was the head of a group of bandits and R' Yochanan : persuaded hm to learn Torah and was clearly Rabo Muvhak... So, he had a mesorah from a rebbe other than his rebbe muvhaq or any of his own rabbeim -- maybe just a shiur from someone else he sat in once... (Which is similar to RHR's #2.) Or... If "Moavi velo Mo'avis" was darsehened first by Boaz's court, then we know of at least one gezeira shava -- from Amon to Moav -- that Boaz invoked withtout a tradition of its existence dating back from Sinai. For that matter, if the Rambam assumed that the rule about no new gezeiros shava really was in place from day one, then he would have to assert that like [other] halakhos leMoshe miSinai, there couldn't be machloqesin in any of them. I would therefore deduce from the Rambam's silence in the face of numerous such machloqesin, he must have thought that gezeiros shava could be invented (or as other riahonim would have it: discovered) without a mesorah. It would seem the idea that GS requires a mesorah has a loophole. Perhaps the notion is that the textual connection must have a mesorah, but the lesson taken from it could be left to the later generation to find. Also, it is interesting that the contrast in Pesachim 66a to the mesorah needed for GS is the qal vachomer. A rule of logic that a person truly could make on their own in a way that doesn't apply to another of the other midos sheheTorah nidreshes bahen. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When faced with a decision ask yourself, micha at aishdas.org "How would I decide if it were Ne'ilah now, http://www.aishdas.org at the closing moments of Yom Kippur?" Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From marty.bluke at gmail.com Mon Nov 27 02:10:10 2017 From: marty.bluke at gmail.com (Marty Bluke) Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2017 12:10:10 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] How can R' Yochanan and Resh Lakish argue about the tradition of a Gezera Shava? In-Reply-To: <20171126225857.GA9115@aishdas.org> References: <20171126225857.GA9115@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 12:58 AM, Micha Berger wrote: > On Sat, Nov 25, 2017 at 10:27:38PM +0200, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: > : The Gemara in Makos(14b) has a dispute between R' Yochanan and Resh > Lakish > : which revolves around a gezera shava. R' Yochanan has the gezera shava > and > : Resh Lakish does not, Rashi explains that Resh Lakish did not get this > : gezera shava from his rebbeim. > : > : This seems very difficult because the gemara in Bava Metzia (84a) > describes > : how Resh Lakish was the head of a group of bandits and R' Yochanan > : persuaded hm to learn Torah and was clearly Rabo Muvhak... > > So, he had a mesorah from a rebbe other than his rebbe muvhaq or any > of his own rabbeim -- maybe just a shiur from someone else he sat in > once... (Which is similar to RHR's #2.) > What other mesora? It's not that Resh Lakish had a gezera shava that R' Yochanan didn't have that he could have learned from someone else. The Gemara says that he didn't have a kabbala on a gezera shava that R' Yochanan had. > > Or... > > If "Moavi velo Mo'avis" was darsehened first by Boaz's court, then we > know of at least one gezeira shava -- from Amon to Moav -- that Boaz > invoked withtout a tradition of its existence dating back from Sinai. > That was a gezera shava? In any case the Gemara in Nidda (19b) states that ayn adam dan gezera shava meatzmo, says Rashi he needs a kabbala from his rebbe halacha l'moshe misinai. For that matter, if the Rambam assumed that the rule about no new gezeiros > shava really was in place from day one, then he would have to assert that > like [other] halakhos leMoshe miSinai, there couldn't be machloqesin in > any of them. I would therefore deduce from the Rambam's silence in the > face of numerous such machloqesin, he must have thought that gezeiros > shava could be invented (or as other riahonim would have it: discovered) > without a mesorah. > It would seem the idea that GS requires a mesorah has a loophole. Perhaps > the notion is that the textual connection must have a mesorah, but > the lesson taken from it could be left to the later generation to find. > Tosafos in Shabbos (97a) states that they had a mesora on the number of gezera shavas and therefore they had to reconcile the various traditions with the number of gezera shavas. This would seem to come to address the question of why certain Tannaim/Amoraim had a gezera shava and others didn't. However, it doesn't answer the question on Resh Lakish who must have gotten the number from Rabo Muvhak R' Yochanan. The Rishonim/Acharonim in Nida (22b) are bothered by the question that the Gemara says that a gezera shava that is mufne mi tzad echad lmeidin umeshivin and mufne mishnei tz'dadim lmeidim vayn m'shivim. If there was a kabala on the gezera shava then why does it need to be mufne and if there was no kabbala then why should it be accepted even if it is mufne? The Ramban on the Sefer Hamitzvos (Shoresh 2) based on this question rejects the simple understanding of ayn adam dan gezera shava meiatzmo that all the details of the gezera shavas were received at Har Sinai by Moshe. Rather, they had a kabbala that there was a gezera shava with a certain word pair but not which set of those words and what halacha is learned from it and therefore it is up to the chachamim to decide based on the principles that they received to decide what exactly the gezera shava was and therefore there is machlokes. This is what the Gemara in Nidda is discussing, the principles relating to figuring out what exactly the gezera shava is. Unfortunately, this does not really answer all of the Gemara's and disputes about gezera shavas. > > Also, it is interesting that the contrast in Pesachim 66a to the mesorah > needed for GS is the qal vachomer. A rule of logic that a person truly > could make on their own in a way that doesn't apply to another of the > other midos sheheTorah nidreshes bahen. > There is a machlokes Rashi and Tosafos whether it is only a kal vachomer that adam dan meatzmo or all the middos except for gezera shava. > > Tir'u baTov! > -Micha > > -- > Micha Berger When faced with a decision ask yourself, > micha at aishdas.org "How would I decide if it were Ne'ilah now, > http://www.aishdas.org at the closing moments of Yom Kippur?" > Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From lisa at starways.net Mon Nov 27 02:55:35 2017 From: lisa at starways.net (Lisa Liel) Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2017 12:55:35 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] How can R' Yochanan and Resh Lakish argue about the tradition of a Gezera Shava? In-Reply-To: <20171126225857.GA9115@aishdas.org> References: <20171126225857.GA9115@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <2e55bd0b-bb70-45dd-093f-a9ca79fa0760@starways.net> On 11/27/2017 12:58 AM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > If "Moavi velo Mo'avis" was darsehened first by Boaz's court, then we > know of at least one gezeira shava -- from Amon to Moav -- that Boaz > invoked withtout a tradition of its existence dating back from Sinai. > How was that a gezeira shava? Lisa --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From micha at aishdas.org Mon Nov 27 13:21:42 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2017 16:21:42 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] How can R' Yochanan and Resh Lakish argue about the tradition of a Gezera Shava? In-Reply-To: <2e55bd0b-bb70-45dd-093f-a9ca79fa0760@starways.net> References: <20171126225857.GA9115@aishdas.org> <2e55bd0b-bb70-45dd-093f-a9ca79fa0760@starways.net> Message-ID: <20171127212142.GA26403@aishdas.org> On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 12:10:10PM +0200, Marty Bluke wrote: : > So, he had a mesorah from a rebbe other than his rebbe muvhaq or any : > of his own rabbeim -- maybe just a shiur from someone else he sat in : > once... (Which is similar to RJR's #2.) : What other mesora? It's not that Resh Lakish had a gezera shava that R' : Yochanan didn't have that he could have learned from someone else. The : Gemara says that he didn't have a kabbala on a gezera shava that R' : Yochanan had. This wasn't the ikar of my answer; I was just ammending RJR's answer to reflect the fact that the gemara says "rabosav" not "rabo". But it seems to me now you are saying the OP was asking how it's possible that R' Yochanan knew something that he didn't pass on to Reish Laqish. Or more accurately, where would RL learn something to have him question a GS when R Yochanan told him of it the first time. In which case, my intended answer works even better -- the presmise that every GS is a tradition dating back to Sinai is false. A conclusion the other RMB gives far more sources for than I did. :> Or... :> If "Moavi velo Mo'avis" was darsehened first by Boaz's court, then we :> know of at least one gezeira shava -- from Amon to Moav -- that Boaz :> invoked withtout a tradition of its existence dating back from Sinai. : That was a gezera shava? In any case the Gemara in Nidda (19b) states that : ayn adam dan gezera shava meatzmo, says Rashi he needs a kabbala from his : rebbe halacha l'moshe misinai. Not every "halakhah leMoshe MiSinai" is literally so. R' Avohu on Kesuvos 7b says that Boaz collected 10 men in "lemidrash 'amoni velo amonis, moavi velo moavis." How does he know it wasn't for 7 berakhos (R' Nachman's shitah)? Because of the need to get "miziqnei ha'ir". Why 10? [I presume -- and not a BD of 3:] lefirsumei milsa. Similarly, Rus Rabba 7:9 states that Peloni didn't know *shenischadshah* din zu. As for "that was a GS?" (A question Lisa also asks...) Amoni velo Amonis is justified because the Amoni ddidn't bring food or water when we came to their land. And it is the men we would have expected to recieve or even buy such previsions from. Moav velo Moavis would be a pretty arbitrary time to insist a word be read as specifically male instead of gender-neutral if it weren't by GS to Amoni. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Here is the test to find whether your mission micha at aishdas.org on Earth is finished: http://www.aishdas.org if you're alive, it isn't. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Richard Bach From zev at sero.name Mon Nov 27 15:10:29 2017 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2017 18:10:29 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] How can R' Yochanan and Resh Lakish argue about the tradition of a Gezera Shava? In-Reply-To: <20171127212142.GA26403@aishdas.org> References: <20171126225857.GA9115@aishdas.org> <2e55bd0b-bb70-45dd-093f-a9ca79fa0760@starways.net> <20171127212142.GA26403@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 27/11/17 16:21, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > As for "that was a GS?" (A question Lisa also asks...) Amoni velo Amonis > is justified because the Amoni ddidn't bring food or water when we > came to their land. And it is the men we would have expected to recieve > or even buy such previsions from. Moav velo Moavis would be a pretty > arbitrary time to insist a word be read as specifically male instead > of gender-neutral if it weren't by GS to Amoni. Could you please explain this? Where do you get that there is any limmud from Ammon to Moav? The Torah says *both* Amonim and Moavim are banned because they didn't welcome us with bread and water. You seem to be claiming that Amonim are banned for this reason, and then Moavim by some sort of gezera shava from Amonim. Where is this coming from? -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From marty.bluke at gmail.com Thu Nov 30 02:11:31 2017 From: marty.bluke at gmail.com (Marty Bluke) Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2017 12:11:31 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] What are the main mitzvos to focus on? Message-ID: The last daf in Makos (24a) states that the Neviim took the 613 mitzvos and reduced them to a smaller set for people to focus on. Michah gave three Mitzvos for people to focus on - "Asos Mishpat..." "Asos Mishpat" is monetary laws; "Ahavas Chesed" is bestowing Chesed; "V'Hatzne'a Leches Im Elokecha" is escorting the dead and bringing a Kalah to Chupah; Yeshayah later gave two primary Mitzvos - "Shimru Mishpat va'Asu Tzedakah." The mitzva of learning Torah which we understand to be the most important and fundamental mitzva does not appear in these lists. How do we explain the omission of learning Torah in these lists? Additionally, these lists seem to consist solely of mitzvos bein adam lachaveiro, are there no mitzvos ben adam lamakom that are important enought to appear on these lists? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From seinfeld at daasbooks.com Thu Nov 30 09:20:44 2017 From: seinfeld at daasbooks.com (Alexander Seinfeld) Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2017 12:20:44 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] More on Yaakov, sheep and the rods Message-ID: <50458059-A03F-4E6E-B54B-F1612B0E7E5B@jsli.org> Why not just interpret this as an example of phenotypic plasticity, meaning the genetic potential is there in every generation, and the environmental factors stimulate its expression? As everyone who had genetics 101 will realize, if you eliminate 100% of the phenotype, and breed the remainder you will still get some of that phenotype in the next generation with recessive genes. So it always bothered me why was all the hokus pokus by Yaakov necessary. Even more so the pasook itself seems to ascribe the results as caused by the sticks even though a simple natural explanation for the reappearance of the phenotype in the next generation is quite simple. The only explanation I could come up with is that the percentages were much higher than one would expect as a result of genetic calculations thus the nes (and Yaakov?s efforts [hishtadlus] to produce it) is described at great length. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From chaim.tatel at gmail.com Thu Nov 30 09:30:37 2017 From: chaim.tatel at gmail.com (Chaim Tatel) Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2017 09:30:37 -0800 Subject: [Avodah] Gid ha'nasheh Message-ID: When I was studying Zoology in college back in the 70s, I did some research on Yaakov?s battle with the malach. The big question I had was ?why should Yaakov Avinu get hit in the gid hanasheh (sciatic nerve)? Why not somewhere else in the body?? As I learned in my Anatomy and Physiology class, there are several nerves that branch off from the sciatic nerve. One of these is the pudendal nerve. This is one of the nerves responsible for sexual function (and other actions). Current research follows: The pudendal nerve is found in the pelvis. It is the biggest division of the pudendal plexus (a network of nerves) and is located behind the sacrospinous ligament, near the tailbone. The nerve extends from the sacral plexus, through the pudendal canal, the perineum, and the gluteal area. These are structures located near the genital, rectal, and gluteal (buttock) regions. (see: https://www.healthline.com/human-body-maps/pudendal-nerve) The peripheral nerves supply the bladder, anal canal, and perineal skin. The pudendal nerve is the primary somatic nerve to this region. Motor fibers in the pudendal nerve innervate the bulbocavernosus muscle, external urethral sphincter, external anal sphincter, and pelvic floor muscles. (see: www.humanneurophysiology.com/sacralmonitoring.htm) I also remember that one of the meforshim (commentators) on Chumash had a similar answer. (Sorry, I can?t remember where I saw this, it?s been over 40 years). At any rate, it makes sense that Yaakov would be hit there, as a reminder that his marriage to Rachel after his marriage to her sister Leah would not hold up when he entered Eretz Yisrael. (not long after this episode, Rachel died in childbirth of Binyamin). Aside from feeling the psychological pain of Rachel?s death, perhaps Yaakov also had to feel physical pain. Chaim Tatel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From lisa at starways.net Sat Dec 2 12:56:18 2017 From: lisa at starways.net (Lisa Liel) Date: Sat, 2 Dec 2017 22:56:18 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] knife sharpeners Message-ID: <62debe36-f9a2-7cab-d4cb-a60320a1ec83@starways.net> Are knife sharpeners mekabel taam?? And noten taam?? Do you need different onces for meat, dairy, pesach, etc? --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From zev at sero.name Sat Dec 2 17:01:31 2017 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Sat, 2 Dec 2017 20:01:31 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] knife sharpeners In-Reply-To: <62debe36-f9a2-7cab-d4cb-a60320a1ec83@starways.net> References: <62debe36-f9a2-7cab-d4cb-a60320a1ec83@starways.net> Message-ID: <0115756c-ad5a-dc19-dfdc-aba2138a2858@sero.name> On 02/12/17 15:56, Lisa Liel via Avodah wrote: > Are knife sharpeners mekabel taam?? And noten taam?? Do you need > different onces for meat, dairy, pesach, etc? Since they don't ever contact food, I don't see how they could. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From JRich at sibson.com Sat Dec 2 22:40:43 2017 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Sun, 3 Dec 2017 06:40:43 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Women and Torah Study Message-ID: <9f94d416d3154585a6bb71a2df12c54e@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> My comment to a recent post on Lehrhaus on women and intensive talmud study: Is encouraging intensive study of Talmud for women a community priority or is the priority to make such study available for those who choose to avail themselves of the opportunity? Especially if the former, where does it stand in relation to other community priorities and how does the answer differ from study for men? IMHO these questions have not been sufficiently addressed. Do my concern resonate at all? KT 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: From marty.bluke at gmail.com Sun Dec 3 01:13:00 2017 From: marty.bluke at gmail.com (Marty Bluke) Date: Sun, 3 Dec 2017 11:13:00 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] The 13 middos Message-ID: The Gemara in Shavuos (4b) discusses who the Tanna of the Mishna is and brings down a fundamental machlokes tannaim about the 13 middos. R' Yishmael darshens klal uprat and R' Akiva darshens ribuy umiut. The Acharonim point out that these are mutually exclusive and every Tanna darshens one or the other but they cannot be mixed (e.g. a Tanna sometimes darshens ribuy umiut and sometimes klal uprat). The question is how can something so fundamental as the 13 middos be a matter of dispute? Weren't the 13 middos given to Moshe at Har Sinai? How could they forget such a basic thing? It is very difficult to say that both are right (e.g. elu v'elu) because they are mutually exclusive and come to different conclusions. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Sun Dec 3 06:18:20 2017 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Sun, 3 Dec 2017 14:18:20 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Davening on Airplanes Message-ID: <1512310700373.25771@stevens.edu> Very often people make minyanimm on flights to Israel. The following if from https://goo.gl/j8hdXR and is a quote from Rabbi Hershel Schachter. Another common mistake people make is regarding davening with a minyan (on a plane). The Talmud emphasizes the importance of tefillah btzibur; and one who davens with a minyan stands a much better chance of having his prayers answered than one who lacks a minyan. However, it is highly improper for the chazzan of a minyan on an airplane to shout at the top of his lungs to enable the other mispalelim to hear him over the airplane noise, and thereby wake up all the passengers around him. It is true that there is a halachic principle of kofin al hamitzvos, i.e. that beis din has an obligation to force people to observe the mitzvos even when they're not interested in doing so, but this only applies when pressuring an individual will result in his becoming observant. However, when Orthodox Jews disturb non-observant Jewish passengers with their davening, the non-observant passengers sill remain non-observant and now just have another point about which to be upset with the Orthodox. The practice of the Orthodox passengers under such circumstances appears simply as an act of harassment. Rather than having accomplished the hidur mitzvah of davening tefillah btzibur, they have violated lifnei iver by causing the non-observant passengers to become more antagonistic towards shemiras hamitzvos. The shouting tone of voice employed by the shaliach tzibbur to overcome the noise on the airplane clearly does not constitute a kavod hatefillah. The halacha states that when traveling, if it is too difficult to stand for shemoneh esrei even the "amidah" may be recited while seated. On a short flight of an hour and a half to Canada it is more correct to daven the entire tefillah while still buckled in, in a sitting position. On the long flight to Eretz Yisroel it is healthier to not sit the entire time; walking around somewhat helps the blood circulation in one's legs. As such, there is nothing wrong with standing for shemoneh esrei, provided that there's no turbulence at that time. However, it is still not proper to gather a minyan together near the washrooms, disturbing all the other passengers and the stewardesses. As much as various Torah giants of our generation have expressed their opposition to such minyanim on airplanes[2], their message has not yet been accepted. We wish everyone a chag kasher v'sameach, and all those traveling to Eretz Yisroel should have a safe trip, but keep in mind - these minyanim are shelo b'ratzon chachomim! [2] Rav Shlomo Wahrman ( She'eiris Yosef vol. 7, siman 3) quotes Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach (Halichos Shlomo, page 75), Rav Moshe Feinstein (Igros Moshe Orach Chaim vol. 4 siman 20), Rav Ovadiah Yosef, and Rav Shmuel Wosner all objecting to minyanim on airplanes that disturb other passengers -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Sun Dec 3 07:15:20 2017 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Sun, 3 Dec 2017 15:15:20 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] The Forces That Have Shaped World History Message-ID: <1512314120420.4485@stevens.edu> The following is from RSRH's commentary on Bereishis 30:8 Ya'akov was very much afraid and distressed, so he divided the peoplewho were with him, as well as the flocks, cattle and camels, into two camps. We can put ourselves in Ya'akov's place, and we are especially obligated to do so, considering the significance of the impending meeting; for, because of this meeting, Ya'akov experienced a revelation whose memory is forever linked with the daily meal of the man of Israel. Just as Ya'akov and Esav oppose each other here, so they continue to stand opposed to one another unto this very day. Ya'akov is the family man blessed with children; hard-working, serving, weighed down by cares. Esav is the "finished and accomplished" man (cf. Commentary above, 25:25). Ya'akov now returns as the independent head of a family. Even now, having overcome all the obstacles, this privilege is, to him, the highest prize, the greatest achievement. But to attain it, he had to toil and struggle for twenty years, despite the fact that he had already received the blessing and the birthright. Others, however, take this privilege for granted; it is given to them from birth. Esav, the "finished and accomplished" man, already possessed it in full measure when Ya'akov first left home. While Ya'akov, through hard work, succeeded in establishing a family, Esav became a political force, the leader of an army, an aluf at the head of his troops. Thus the external contrast between Ya'akov, who held on to his brother's heel when they were born, and Esav, the "accomplished" man. In Ya'akov and Esav, two opposing principles confront each other. The struggle between them, and the outcome of this struggle, are the forces that have shaped world history. Ya'akov represents family life, happiness and making others happy. Esav represents the glitter of political power and might. This conflict has raged for thousands of years: Is it sufficient just to be a human being, and are political power and social creativity of no significance unless they lead to the loftiest of all human aspirations, or, on the contrary, does everything that is human in man, in home, and in family life exist only to serve the purposes of political triumph? How different from his attitude toward Lavan is Ya'akov's attitude toward Esav. We know how steadfast is the power of one who is sure of his own integrity, and how oppressive is the feeling of guilt, even if only imagined. It is easier to suffer wrong and injustice for twenty years than to face for one minute a person whom we know was offended by us and who cannot understand our motives, which do not justify our actions but at least excuse them. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Mon Dec 4 07:55:38 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2017 10:55:38 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] knife sharpeners In-Reply-To: <0115756c-ad5a-dc19-dfdc-aba2138a2858@sero.name> References: <62debe36-f9a2-7cab-d4cb-a60320a1ec83@starways.net> <0115756c-ad5a-dc19-dfdc-aba2138a2858@sero.name> Message-ID: <20171204155538.GC26551@aishdas.org> On Sat, Dec 02, 2017 at 08:01:31PM -0500, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : On 02/12/17 15:56, Lisa Liel via Avodah wrote: : >Are knife sharpeners mekabel taam?? And noten taam?? Do you need : >different onces for meat, dairy, pesach, etc? : : Since they don't ever contact food, I don't see how they could. Since they are in heated contact with the knife, aren't there potential na"t bar na"t issues? Tir'u baTov! -Micha From ari.brodsky at utoronto.ca Mon Dec 4 10:03:48 2017 From: ari.brodsky at utoronto.ca (Ari Meir Brodsky) Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2017 20:03:48 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Tonight (Monday evening) begin Prayer for Rain Message-ID: Dear Friends, It's that time of year again, when I know many of you are expecting my annual friendly reminder.... Jews outside of Israel should include the request for rain in daily prayers, beginning with Maariv tonight (Monday evening), December 4, 2017, corresponding to the evening of 17 Kislev, 5778. The phrase *??? ?? ???? ?????* "Veten tal umatar livracha" - "Give us dew and rain for a blessing" is inserted into the 9th blessing of the weekday shemone esrei, from now until Pesach. [Sephardim replace the entire blessing of ????? with the alternate text beginning ??? ????? - thanks to Prof. Lasker for the reminder.] I encourage everyone to remind friends and family members of this event, especially those who may not be in shul at that time. Diaspora Jews begin requesting rain on the 60th day of the fall season, as approximated by Shmuel in the Talmud (Taanit 10a, Eiruvin 56a). For more information about this calculation, follow the link below, to a fascinating article giving a (very brief) introduction to the Jewish calendar, followed by a discussion on why we begin praying for rain when we do: http://www.lookstein.org/articles/veten_tal.htm (Thanks to Russell Levy for providing the link.) Wishing everyone a happy Chanukka, -Ari Meir Brodsky --------------------- Ari M. Brodsky ari.brodsky at utoronto.ca -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mirskym at gmail.com Mon Dec 4 10:02:39 2017 From: mirskym at gmail.com (Michael Mirsky) Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2017 21:02:39 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Davening on Airplanes In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: In all the discussions of this topic that I have seen, I haven't seen anyone address the issue of someone who is in his year of aveilut and needs a minyan to say kaddish. Do the objections to the possible disturbance a minyan might cause override this need? Michael Mirsky -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From larry62341 at optonline.net Mon Dec 4 10:17:47 2017 From: larry62341 at optonline.net (Prof. Levine) Date: Mon, 04 Dec 2017 13:17:47 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Knife Sharpening Message-ID: The following is from an article posted on the CRC web site at https://goo.gl/ispg9T Food service establishments regularly send out their knives for sharpening, and it appears that there are three potential kashrus concerns with this practice, as follows: * The sharpening company may give the establishment different knives than the ones which the establishment gave them for sharpening. This is an especially likely in cases where the sharpening company actually owns the knives and lends them to the establishment in exchange for the rights to sharpen them. This issue can be avoided if the Mashgiach has a tevias ayin on the knives and/or marks them. * Knives are typically very dirty when they arrive at the sharpening facility, and therefore all knives are washed in hot water or a dishwasher before the sharpening begins. This potentially allows non-kosher b?lios to get into the kosher knives. See below for more on this. * The same machine is used to sharpen the (clean) kosher and non-kosher knives, and the friction created by the process does heat up the knives somewhat. If that heat would be above yad soledes bo, there would be a potential for b?lios to transfer between the machinery and knives. However, in tests which Rabbi Neustadt performed in one sharpening company, the sharpening wheel and the cooling water (where that was used) were consistently cooler than 100? F and were not hot to the touch. As such, it appears that this does not pose a serious concern. See the above URL for more. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Mon Dec 4 11:53:58 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2017 14:53:58 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] What are the main mitzvos to focus on? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20171204195358.GC2323@aishdas.org> On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 12:11:31PM +0200, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: : The last daf in Makos (24a) states that the Neviim took the 613 mitzvos and : reduced them to a smaller set for people to focus on. : Michah gave three Mitzvos for people to focus on - "Asos Mishpat..." : "Asos Mishpat" is monetary laws; : "Ahavas Chesed" is bestowing Chesed; Is "din" necessarily a reference to monetary laws? Din vs chessed is a recurring dialectic. As in sheim Elokus vs sheim Havayah. : "V'Hatzne'a Leches Im Elokecha" is escorting the dead and bringing a Kalah : to Chupah; I saw the gemara differently, emphasizing tzeni'us itself. As it explains, one should walk with one's G-d modestly even when doing these two mitzvos, which normally happen in public. And then the gemara continues with a qal vachomer al achas kamah vekamah those which are normally done betzin'ah. So it seems to be closer to the words of the pasuq than the identification with two specific acts of chessed (one of which is famously "chesed shel emes") the gemara begins its explanation with. After all, chessed is already covered in the previous item in the list. (Parallel gemara at Sukkah 49b.) : Yeshayah later gave two primary Mitzvos - "Shimru Mishpat va'Asu Tzedakah." Tangent: You'll notice that Yeshaiah is listed twice, once before Mikhah (giving 6 principles), and once after. As they were contemporaries whose nevu'os overlap in content, R' Simla'i's intent is likely chronological order. : The mitzva of learning Torah which we understand to be the most important : and fundamental mitzva does not appear in these lists.... I think the "we" in your sentence are simply following a hashkafah which isn't majority opinion. Not only does R' Simla'i skip them, in favor of living to emulate HQBH's din and chessed, but - Hillel famously defines all of Torah in terms of using one's empathy to avoiding doing what one's chaver would loathe. Rashi ad loc includes avoiding what one's Chaver would loathe, but in his other discussions of the quote, this aspect is missing. - R' Aqiva and Ben Azzai argue over which pasuq better captures the Torah's kelal gadol, and both are interpersonal. - In both shasin, "Torah lishmah" is discussed in terms of al menas la'asos and/or al menas lelameid. Not knowing for its own sake. See also Meshekh Chokhmah (Devarim 218:61) which I blog about at So, who amongst Chazal really does make learning the central goal of a Jewish man's life? Jumping ahead to the Isms that today's O world is trying to build from: - In chassidus, talmud Torah is a means to deveiqus. - The discussion in Nefesh haChaim sha'ar 4 which denies the previous bullet item might be the earliest source for the position you describe as what "we understand" was written by the same RCV about whom his son says (in the haqadmah to NhC, emphasis mine): He regularly rebuked me, because he saw that I did not participate in the pain of others. And these were his constant words to me: This is the entire person. One is not created for himself, but to benefit others with the full extent of his powers. (SHEZEH KOL HA'ADAM: lo le'atzmo nivra, RAQ LEHO'IL LE'ACHRINI...) So, while sha'ar 4 waxes poetic about the chiyus talmud Torah gives the world, RCV didn't mean to say that therefore learning is the It of life. (And yeshivos tend not to learn shaar 1's discussion of the power of maaseh nor shaar 2's discussion of dibbur. Which also yeilds an imbalance in how one sees the NhC shaar 4's description of machashavah.) - Similarly, while we remember R' Chaim Brisker for inventing Brisker lomdus, he said his main job was to be a baal chessed. And his family agreed; the praise on his matzeivah simply reads "rav chessed". Apparently the Pulmus haMussar was about the proper means to come to embody the ideal, and not what the ideal actually is. This notion that learning is the ends rather than a central part of the means is arguably idiosyncratic. It is far easier to argue that the central mitzvah is to emulate the Meitiv and bring His Tov to others. : Additionally, these lists : seem to consist solely of mitzvos bein adam lachaveiro, are there no : mitzvos ben adam lamakom that are important enought to appear on these : lists? As per what I said above, mitzvos bein adam laMaqom -- or R' Yisrael Salanter's third category of mitzvos being adam le'atzmo, which includes talmud Torah as an act of self-refinement -- is more caring for the goose than the goose's actual laying of the golden eggs. Rather than a question mark, just end with an exclamation point. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger We are great, and our foibles are great, micha at aishdas.org and therefore our troubles are great -- http://www.aishdas.org but our consolations will also be great. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rabbi AY Kook From micha at aishdas.org Mon Dec 4 11:55:56 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2017 14:55:56 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Davening on Airplanes In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20171204195556.GD2323@aishdas.org> On Mon, Dec 04, 2017 at 09:02:39PM +0300, Michael Mirsky via Avodah wrote: : In all the discussions of this topic that I have seen, I haven't seen : anyone address the issue of someone who is in his year of aveilut and needs : a minyan to say kaddish. Do the objections to the possible disturbance a : minyan might cause override this need? How can it be a zekhus to the niftar to say Qaddish in a way that the BALC violations make it a net minus? Tir'u baTov! -Micha From saulguberman at gmail.com Mon Dec 4 12:00:16 2017 From: saulguberman at gmail.com (Saul Guberman) Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2017 15:00:16 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Davening on Airplanes In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: My understanding is that kaddish needs to be said once a day. It is said multi times a day as a hiddur. So, missing one davening should be OK and the zchus of not disturbing other passengers and crew and not creating a chillul hashem should make up for the missed kaddish. On Mon, Dec 4, 2017 at 1:02 PM, Michael Mirsky via Avodah < avodah at lists.aishdas.org> wrote: > In all the discussions of this topic that I have seen, I haven't seen > anyone address the issue of someone who is in his year of aveilut and needs > a minyan to say kaddish. Do the objections to the possible disturbance a > minyan might cause override this need? > > Michael Mirsky > > _______________________________________________ > Avodah mailing list > Avodah at lists.aishdas.org > http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From zev at sero.name Mon Dec 4 12:14:53 2017 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2017 15:14:53 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] knife sharpeners In-Reply-To: <20171204155538.GC26551@aishdas.org> References: <62debe36-f9a2-7cab-d4cb-a60320a1ec83@starways.net> <0115756c-ad5a-dc19-dfdc-aba2138a2858@sero.name> <20171204155538.GC26551@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 04/12/17 10:55, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > On Sat, Dec 02, 2017 at 08:01:31PM -0500, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > : On 02/12/17 15:56, Lisa Liel via Avodah wrote: > : >Are knife sharpeners mekabel taam?? And noten taam?? Do you need > : >different onces for meat, dairy, pesach, etc? > : > : Since they don't ever contact food, I don't see how they could. > > Since they are in heated contact with the knife, aren't there potential > na"t bar na"t issues? Knives are sharpened while hot?! With water? -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From micha at aishdas.org Mon Dec 4 12:48:38 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2017 15:48:38 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Davening on Airplanes In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20171204204838.GA1334@aishdas.org> On Mon, Dec 04, 2017 at 03:00:16PM -0500, Saul Guberman via Avodah wrote: : My understanding is that kaddish needs to be said once a day. It is said : multi times a day as a hiddur... See YD 376:4. The Rama discusses it in terms of a minhag, actually a variety of whatever is "minhag qavu'ah ba'ir". : the zchus of not disturbing other passengers and crew and not creating a : chillul hashem should make up for the missed kaddish. Especially since it's the avoidance of an actual issur vs a medieval or post-medieval minhag. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Life isn't about finding yourself. micha at aishdas.org Life is about creating yourself. http://www.aishdas.org - George Bernard Shaw Fax: (270) 514-1507 From micha at aishdas.org Mon Dec 4 13:34:04 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2017 16:34:04 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Letzareif Message-ID: <20171204213404.GA32594@aishdas.org> In Bereishis Rabb 44:1, Rav says Lo nitenu hamitzvos ela letzarei bahen es haberios And what does it matter to HQBH who shechtas from the throat and who shechts from the back of the neck? Havei: lo nitenu hamitzvos ela letzarei bahen es haberios Letzareif is a metaphor of melting. The problem is, whether we mean smelting / refining, or to meld to thing together (as in "mitzrareif")? Are we being told that mitzvos were given to refine people, or to connect them? Or is the word chosen in order to intentionally carry both meanings? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger If you're going through hell micha at aishdas.org keep going. http://www.aishdas.org - Winston Churchill Fax: (270) 514-1507 From bdbradley70 at hotmail.com Mon Dec 4 14:03:37 2017 From: bdbradley70 at hotmail.com (Ben Bradley) Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2017 22:03:37 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] knife sharpeners In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: ': On 02/12/17 15:56, Lisa Liel via Avodah wrote: : >Are knife sharpeners mekabel taam?? And noten taam?? Do you need : >different onces for meat, dairy, pesach, etc? : : Since they don't ever contact food, I don't see how they could. Since they are in heated contact with the knife, aren't there potential na"t bar na"t issues?' Knife sharpeners get hot? What kind of sharpeners are we talking about here? I've never seen a domestic knife sharpener which gets beyond slightly warm. But even if it did, the food would be na't to the knife, the knife to the sharpener, the sharpener to the second knife and thence to the food again. Which is na't bar na't bar na't bar na't. I thought that's not a problem in hilchos basar b'chalav? BW Ben -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Mon Dec 4 14:29:08 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2017 17:29:08 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] The 13 middos In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20171204222908.GA10223@aishdas.org> On Sun, Dec 03, 2017 at 11:13:00AM +0200, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: : The Gemara in Shavuos (4b) discusses who the Tanna of the Mishna is and : brings down a fundamental machlokes tannaim about the 13 middos. R' : Yishmael darshens klal uprat and R' Akiva darshens ribuy umiut. The : Acharonim point out that these are mutually exclusive and every Tanna : darshens one or the other but they cannot be mixed (e.g. a Tanna sometimes : darshens ribuy umiut and sometimes klal uprat). ... I do not understand this paranthetic comment, as it refers to a kind of mixture, a tanna who uses both styles of derashah, as an example of how they cannot be mixed. The willingness of the two batei midrash to use the others' methodology is stated outright on Bekhoros 51a. One such tanna is R' Aqiva himself, eg Yerushalmi Sotah 8:1 (vilna 34a). See RSRH's discussion in Collected Writings V pg 170. : something so fundamental as the 13 middos be a matter of dispute? Weren't : the 13 middos given to Moshe at Har Sinai? How could they forget such a : basic thing? ... The methodology could have been in use informally before Hillel started the meta-Torah of the study and formalization of rules to describe that methodology. Just as people can use proper grammar before anyone makes a formal study of the language's grammatical rules. Since each did use the others' rules, the formalized rule system doesn't actually define the list of inherited laws. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger None of us will leave this place alive. micha at aishdas.org All that is left to us is http://www.aishdas.org to be as human as possible while we are here. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Anonymous MD, while a Nazi prisoner From marty.bluke at gmail.com Mon Dec 4 21:15:42 2017 From: marty.bluke at gmail.com (Marty Bluke) Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2017 07:15:42 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] The 13 middos In-Reply-To: <20171204222908.GA10223@aishdas.org> References: <20171204222908.GA10223@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Tuesday, December 5, 2017, Micha Berger wrote:... > > > I do not understand this paranthetic comment, as it refers to a kind of > mixture, a tanna who uses both styles of derashah, as an example of how > they cannot be mixed. The willingness of the two batei midrash to use the > others' methodology is stated outright on Bekhoros 51a. > > One such tanna is R' Aqiva himself, eg Yerushalmi Sotah 8:1 (vilna 34a). > > See RSRH's discussion in Collected Writings V pg 170. See the Mishne Lamelech avadim 3:9 where he states that it is either or and the 2 styles cannot be mixed, and his main proof is from the Gemara Shavuos 4b where the Gemara asks on Rebbe how can he darshen a ribui umiut like R Akiva if in general he darshens Klal Uprat. We see clearly that the Gemara assumes you darshen 1 or the other but not both otherwise the Gemara would have no question. See also tosafos nidda 30a s.v. Ushma mina where tosafos says that we pasken that we darshen Klal uprat and not ribui umiut. That only makes sense if they are mutually exclusive. See also tosafos shavuos 25a s.v. Rav who also assumes that it is either or. Regarding the Gemara in bechoros 51a it is actually a proof the other way. The Gemara says that this case is an exception because it is not written in the normal way of a Klal uprat and therefore in this case only Rebbe can learn a ribui umiut but in general someone who learns Klal uprat could not use ribui umiut. > > Tir'u baTov! > -Micha > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From JRich at sibson.com Mon Dec 4 22:13:31 2017 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2017 06:13:31 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Davening on Airplanes In-Reply-To: <20171204204838.GA1334@aishdas.org> References: , <20171204204838.GA1334@aishdas.org> Message-ID: > > Especially since it's the avoidance of an actual issur vs a medieval or > post-medieval ---------- All very true, yet the Hamon am has invested Kaddish with great importance. Does that investiture have a halachic chalot? It seems it does at least in terms of kavod Kt Joel 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. From akivagmiller at gmail.com Tue Dec 5 03:22:57 2017 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2017 06:22:57 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Gid ha'nasheh Message-ID: . R' Chaim Tatel wrote: > At any rate, it makes sense that Yaakov would be hit there, > as a reminder that his marriage to Rachel after his marriage > to her sister Leah would not hold up when he entered Eretz > Yisrael. (not long after this episode, Rachel died in childbirth > of Binyamin). > > Aside from feeling the psychological pain of Rachel?s death, > perhaps Yaakov also had to feel physical pain. I draw a distinction between "consequences" and "punishments". I have heard in the past that Eretz Yisrael was unable to tolerate Yaakov's being married to two sisters, and that Rachel's death was a consequence of that. But RCT writes that Yaakov was given a reminder of that consequence, and that he had to feel pain as well. Now it sounds like Yaakov was being punished. If he was punished, it must be that he was punished for some choice that he made. What choice was that? What did he do wrong? If he could do it all over again, what ought he do differently? Specifically: After having married Leah, should he have not married Rachel? Alternatively, (according to those who say that he was not fooled but knew that Leah had the simanim,) should he have not married Leah? Or should he have protested and annuled the marriage to Leah? If he was punished, what did he do wrong? Akiva Miller From akivagmiller at gmail.com Tue Dec 5 03:33:20 2017 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2017 06:33:20 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Davening on Airplanes Message-ID: . R' Michael Mirsky asked: > In all the discussions of this topic that I have seen, I > haven't seen anyone address the issue of someone who is in > his year of aveilut and needs a minyan to say kaddish. Do the > objections to the possible disturbance a minyan might cause > override this need? RMM seems to be suggesting that this individual's need to say kaddish is greater than the usual need to daven Tefila B'Tzibur. I have heard other people express this feeling, but I've never seen any evidence for it in seforim or elsewhere. I'll express it another way: I am well aware that there are many many people who are somewhat lax in their minyan attendance in general, but for yahrzeit or aveilus they are much more meticulous. This is not a bad thing; whatever will help get people into shul is good. But I do think that their values might be misplaced. Akiva Miller From larry62341 at optonline.net Tue Dec 5 05:12:22 2017 From: larry62341 at optonline.net (Prof. Levine) Date: Tue, 05 Dec 2017 08:12:22 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] How often to day kaddish Message-ID: <2E.1E.03203.73B962A5@mta4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> Saul Guberman wrote: My understanding is that kaddish needs to be said once a day. It is said multi times a day as a hiddur. So, missing one davening should be OK and the zchus of not disturbing other passengers and crew and not creating a chillul hashem should make up for the missed kaddish. ________________________________________________________ According to the original din only, only one person said kaddish at a time. (This is still what is done in some places like KAJ and Bais Hatalmud). Thus, if there are many people saying kaddish in a shul that keeps the original din, it is conceivable that one might not get to say kaddish every day or even longer. Hence I do not think that one needs to say kaddish once a day. YL From akivagmiller at gmail.com Tue Dec 5 04:53:47 2017 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2017 07:53:47 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Letzareif Message-ID: . R' Micha Berger wrote: > Lo nitenu hamitzvos ela letzarei bahen es haberios > ... > Letzareif is a metaphor of melting. The problem is, whether > we mean smelting / refining, or to meld to thing together (as > in "mitzrareif")? > Are we being told that mitzvos were given to refine people, > or to connect them? Or is the word chosen in order to > intentionally carry both meanings? "Ratzah HKBH l'zakos es Yisrael..." Does "zakos" mean to purify, or to give zechus? I perceive a similar poetry in both l'tzaref and l'zakos, but I'm not much of a poet, so I'll leave this thought for the rest of y'all to ponder and expand uon. Akiva Miller From marty.bluke at gmail.com Tue Dec 5 01:10:14 2017 From: marty.bluke at gmail.com (Marty Bluke) Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2017 11:10:14 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] What are the main mitzvos to focus on? In-Reply-To: <20171204195358.GC2323@aishdas.org> References: <20171204195358.GC2323@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Mon, Dec 4, 2017 at 9:53 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 12:11:31PM +0200, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: > : The last daf in Makos (24a) states that the Neviim took the 613 mitzvos > and > : reduced them to a smaller set for people to focus on. > > : ... > > : The mitzva of learning Torah which we understand to be the most important > : and fundamental mitzva does not appear in these lists.... > > I think the "we" in your sentence are simply following a hashkafah which > isn't majority opinion. > ... > So, who amongst Chazal really does make learning the central goal of a > Jewish man's life? > > ... > This notion that learning is the ends rather than a central part of > the means is arguably idiosyncratic. It is far easier to argue that the > central mitzvah is to emulate the Meitiv and bring His Tov to others. > > Tir'u baTov! > -Micha So basically you are saying that the current Charedi hashkafa/lifestyle of Torah only and Torah learning being the ultimate purpose of life is not a majority opinion in Chazal and in fact you can't find anyone among Chazal who says this. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Tue Dec 5 09:02:00 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2017 12:02:00 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] What are the main mitzvos to focus on? In-Reply-To: References: <20171204195358.GC2323@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20171205170200.GB5251@aishdas.org> On Tue, Dec 05, 2017 at 11:10:14AM +0200, Marty Bluke wrote: : So basically you are saying that the current Charedi hashkafa/lifestyle of : Torah only and Torah learning being the ultimate purpose of life is not a : majority opinion in Chazal and in fact you can't find anyone among Chazal : who says this. I intentionally avoided stating it that confrontationally, but yes. Although not "chareidi", "yeshivish". Excluding most chassidim but including the large population of MO who are taking yeshivish hashkafah and harmonizing it with modernity. (Eg RYBS as understood by many of his students.) See, for example, R Tzevi Sinsky's currently running series out of YHE ("Gush") "Talmud Torah: The Mitzva of Torah Study". He draws heavily from R' Yehudah Amital and R' N Lamm (whom RZS calls "mori uzeqeini"); his perspective is that of DL and MO, not "chareidim". Here's the web abstract for the opening shiur: In this introductory shiur, we explore the centrality of Torah study in the thought of the Rabbis. From Noach to Ezra, prominent Jewish leaders throughout the biblical period are portrayed as Torah scholars, and this mitzva is ascribed paramount importance in every aspect of life. In particular, shiur 3 discusses the purpose of talmud Torah, discussing various approached. The section "Approach #1 -- Instrumentalism" quotes pesuqim, mishayos, Toseftra, gemaros, before getting to rishonim (Rashi, Rambam, Ramban, Chinukh, Me'iri, Or H'. See also RNSlifkin's long list of quotes from rishonim at .) In contrast, "Approach #2 -- Cultivating a Halakhic Ethos" opens with the Chazon Ish then mentions R' Chaim Brisker as desribed in Halakhic Man. "Approach #3 -- Variations on Deveikut" starts with the Rambam leveraging a Sifrei (who I do not see as giving their description of /the/ purpose of learning), but focuses on Chassidus, R' Kook and R' Amital. Notice that learning being primarily valuable instrumentally is the shitah for which RZS can find overwhelming evidence in chazal and rishonim, the others being johnny-come-latelies of the last centuries. As for my own opinion, I wouldn't call approach #2 the cultivation of a "halachic ethos". I think this reflects Brisk's tendency to conflate halakhah with kol haTorah kulah, downplaying the import of aggadita. And yet, this wording does emphasize how approach 1 includes approach 2. If we are obligated in hilkhos dei'os / chovos halvavos / ve'asisa hayashar vehatov / to develop a *Torah* ethos, then #2 is also instrumental. We learn Mes' Sukkah to know how to fulfill the mitzvah of sukkah, and we learn Mes' Pirqei Avos to know to to fulfill the mitzvah of vehalakhta bidrakhav. See, it's instrumental! The difference boils down to what I believe was the central chiluq behind the pulmus haMussar: In the Brisker worldview, when RCVolozhiner compares talmud Torah to immersion in a miqvah, he means it descriptively. Learn halakhah as an end in itself, an it will leave a roshem of taharah. Even if the causality involved is mystical and non-obvious. Whereas R Yisrael Salanter looked at the actual metzi'us of the society he was in -- and all the moreso ours -- and concluded that this couldn't have been RCV's intent. Rather, RCV was speaking descriptively; when one learns correctly, one is learning in a way that leaves a roshem of taharah, even if the material itself is never understood or gets forgotten. And RYS had the lifestyle of RCV's talmid, R' Zundel Salanter, as indication of what Nefesh haChaim was intending to describe. Thus, to a mussarist, RCV was describing how to learn. Don't just learn nega'im to find chiluqim with which to explain machloqesin and non-obvious dinim. Rather, in addition one must spend the time driving home the roshem of how bad LH and ga'avah are, that HQBH felt it worth aiding teshuvah in these areas. And those two topics are far more connected in Telzher derekh than Brisker, but I think I've ranged far enough. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Spirituality is like a bird: if you tighten micha at aishdas.org your grip on it, it chokes; slacken your grip, http://www.aishdas.org and it flies away. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From micha at aishdas.org Tue Dec 5 10:39:48 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2017 13:39:48 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Davening on Airplanes In-Reply-To: References: <20171204204838.GA1334@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20171205183948.GA31307@aishdas.org> On Tue, Dec 05, 2017 at 06:13:31AM +0000, Rich, Joel wrote: :> Especially since it's the avoidance of an actual issur vs a medieval or :> post-medieval : All very true, yet the Hamon am has invested Kaddish with great : importance. Does that investiture have a halachic chalot? It seems it : does at least in terms of kavod Reading the kesuvah under the chuppah is just a stall while we wait some gap of time to separate qiddushin and nissuin. A maaseh kof. And yet because it is time in the spot-light, common practice is to treat it as the second greatest kibud, often what you give the other rav you might have made mesader qiddushin. When it comes to kibud, public treatment does indeed matter. And logically enough; after all, being mekhubad is an issue of seeing others display feelings of kavod. How we display it /should/ be secondary. All logical. However, here we are talking about someone in the olam ha'emes. So they know that while on the plane you have that actual issur keeping you from fulfilling the minhag of saying qaddish. For that matter, hopefully and typically said parent worked really hard at trying to get the avel to respect others. And if not, again, at this point the soul of even the worst parent would know better. So I do not think it's likely the neshamah would mind the lack of kibud as much as they would mind the misplacement of values. I would therefore not draw any conclusions from the logical linkage of kibud with intent and norms. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Between stimulus & response, there is a space. micha at aishdas.org In that space is our power to choose our http://www.aishdas.org response. In our response lies our growth Fax: (270) 514-1507 and our freedom. - Victor Frankl, (MSfM) From llevine at stevens.edu Wed Dec 6 01:39:18 2017 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2017 09:39:18 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Gambling in Halachah Message-ID: <7b63aab9b65f4c589d76fe326bd18f97@exchng03.campus.stevens-tech.edu> Click here to download "Gambling in Halachah" [That's the Kof-K's Halachically Speaking vol 13, issue 18, dedicated to this topic. -micha] From micha at aishdas.org Wed Dec 6 11:36:19 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2017 14:36:19 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Gid ha'nasheh In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20171206193619.GB12102@aishdas.org> On Tue, Dec 05, 2017 at 06:22:57AM -0500, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: :> Aside from feeling the psychological pain of Rachel?s death, :> perhaps Yaakov also had to feel physical pain. : : I draw a distinction between "consequences" and "punishments"... For those who don't remember from prior iterations, I don't. I think the difference between callins an onesh a consequence and calling it a punishment (or even "corrective") is whether one views sekhar va'onesh as a system that HQBH set up when He set up the universe or as a set of responses He has to our actions. "Chai gever al chata'av" implies one, our tefillos on yamim nora'im frequently imply the other. But both are simply simplified models of the incomprehensible Truth of how Hashem runs the universe. Since He is lemaalah min hazeman, we can't talk about whether the decision was made in maaseh bereishis or in response to our action -- both are ascribing times to a timeless Action (for want of a better word). We can only speak of a when for the effects of Divine Action, as they enter our timefull experience. : I have : heard in the past that Eretz Yisrael was unable to tolerate Yaakov's : being married to two sisters, and that Rachel's death was a : consequence of that. ... which is typical of an onesh -- a sin causes its own punishment. The two explanations are not mutually exclusive. To say that it was the land's qedushah causing something that wasn't in line with justice, one has to explain why there are rules that hide Hashem's Justice that aren't part of the hesteir panim necessary for free will. We need laws of nature to plan how to execute a decision, but laws of metaphysics? ... : If he was punished, it must be that he was punished for some choice : that he made. What choice was that? What did he do wrong? If he could : do it all over again, what ought he do differently? Specifically: : After having married Leah, should he have not married Rachel? Well, isn't that the halakhah? Or maybe the issur was in whatever it was that had him marrying a woman without noticing that her eyes were rakos (whatever that means). Perhaps the mistake was due to a criminal level of negligence. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Man is equipped with such far-reaching vision, micha at aishdas.org yet the smallest coin can obstruct his view. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yisrael Salanter Fax: (270) 514-1507 From micha at aishdas.org Wed Dec 6 11:23:17 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2017 14:23:17 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] The 13 middos In-Reply-To: References: <20171204222908.GA10223@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20171206192317.GA12102@aishdas.org> On Tue, Dec 05, 2017 at 07:15:42AM +0200, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: : See the Mishne Lamelech avadim 3:9 where he states that it is either or and : the 2 styles cannot be mixed, and his main proof is from the Gemara Shavuos : 4b where the Gemara asks on Rebbe how can he darshen a ribui umiut like R : Akiva if in general he darshens Klal Uprat... And yet the conclution on 5a is that he holds like R' Yishma'el's beis medrash who holds the derashah is not kelal uperat but ribui umi'ut ("ribah umi'at"). R Yisma'el, the one who codified the rules of kelal uperat is the one who here uses ribui umi'ut!? So is the gemara really saying that Rebbe is not crossing the line, as it seems to be saying. Or is it intentionally also implying there is no line to cross? Tosafos there ("detana Devei R' Yishma'el") might be saying the latter; it is too terse for me to be sure of intent. And yet further down on 5a, we have "Hashta de'amres... -- Now that you say that Rebbe darshans kelal uperat, you are forced into a question about shavu'os...?" IOW, reassuming the line. In any case, I am totally lost. In a discussion of how no one uses both sets of rules, it cites the school that created one set using the other set, and not saying anything about it. There is more going on here than I comprehend so far. As RSRH said (Collected Writings vol V pg 170), there are many such cases of R' Yishmael and R' Aqiva uses the other's rules. RSRH treats the rule as a tendency, rather than a line one may not cross. I wish I knew his interpretation of the gemara in Shavuos. But it's not like the MlM, nor the ba'al Atzmos Yoseif (whom the MlM is discussing), and does acknowledge the actual positions taken across both shasin. Just thinking out loud... Maybe the gemaros we're looking at are bothered because these are all cases where both kelalim apply and in each case they imply different dinim. IOW, it is not a question of Rebbe (or devei R Yismael) using ribui umi'ut, but of favoring the derashah that he tends not to OVER the derashah that is his norm. And to handle RSRH's observation, in a case where it is not a choice between conflicting kinds of derashos, no one would be asking why Rebbe used a kelal uperat, as such line-crossing is normal. : See also tosafos nidda 30a s.v. Ushma mina where tosafos says that we : pasken that we darshen Klal uprat and not ribui umiut... Nidda 30a "ushma minah tevilah bizmanah mitzvah" is about holding like Beis Shammai, and doesn't mention derashos. The previous d"h, "shema minah telas" (a near match) also isn't on topic. Could you please fix the citation for me? : Regarding the Gemara in bechoros 51a it is actually a proof the other way. : The Gemara says that this case is an exception because it is not written in : the normal way of a Klal uprat and therefore in this case only... This is a 2nd variant of the same sugya as Shavu'os. (To clarify for those moderately interested, but not sufficiently so to look for themselves.) Rashi ("hakha"), who says it's a general rule: kelal uperat ukelal isn't judged as a kelal uperat but as a ribui umi'ut. IIUC, Rashi is saying that Rebbe is staying within his usual rule set, but this is a case where both rule sets include the same derashah, just under different names. Thanks to RMTorczyner (CCed) : > Choosing between using "Kelal/Perat" and "Ribuy/Miut": Eruvin 27b-28a; > Succah 50b; Kiddushin 21b The first two don't really deal with tannaim using only one rule set, but Qiddush 21b is a third version of our sugya. I didn't see anything to add to the discussion beyond a way to rope RMT in, and perhaps he'll talk to R' Jonathan Ziring about the question. (RMT is the Rosh Beit Midrash of the YU-Torah Mitzion Zichron Dov Beit Midrash of Toronto, RJZ is the segan. Back when RJZ was in the kollel at YHE ["Gush"], he gave a series of shiurim on meta-halakhah. I thought I had RJZ's address, as we had a short correspondance, but since I didn't find it, I figured that once I was bothering RMT for his opinion...) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger I always give much away, micha at aishdas.org and so gather happiness instead of pleasure. http://www.aishdas.org - Rachel Levin Varnhagen Fax: (270) 514-1507 From micha at aishdas.org Wed Dec 6 12:06:08 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2017 15:06:08 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] TEXTUAL JUDAISM AND THE LIVING TORAH In-Reply-To: <9e51a7f4ea644e829db8503f8f0451fe@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <9e51a7f4ea644e829db8503f8f0451fe@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20171206200608.GC12102@aishdas.org> On Thu, Nov 02, 2017 at 12:12:05PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : http://etzion.org.il/en/siman-114-prayers-wind-rain-and-dew : :> TEXTUAL JUDAISM AND THE LIVING TORAH : :> In his introduction to the Beit Yosef... ... I think there are two things we need to keep in mind, that R' Asher Meir does not touch upon: 1- The question isn't whether the BY or some other poseiq does or doesn't consider the extent to which a particular pesaq was nispasheit. But rather something less boolean: how much weight does any given poseiq give mimeticism, and in comparison to which other factors. A number of years ago I proposed a model (then modified it in a later iteration) of 4 classes of factors a poseiq needs to weigh. And that one of the leading reasons why pesaq is an art rather than an algorithm is that their can't be formal rules for comparing the magnitudes of apples and oranges -- and bananas and parsimons? Here's what I came up with: - textual logic: which sevara do you find most compelling? Litvaks typically put most of the emphasis - textual authority: rules like azlinan basar ruba, or giving more weight to the Rambam's or Rosh's pinion than to some Baal Tosafos we rarely hear of. This seems to be ROY's favorite territory. - minhag avos / mimeticism - hashkafic concerns (including philosophy, qaballah): like when chassidim and talmidei haGra stopped putting on tefillin on ch"m because it is qotzeitz binti'os. No one would place hashkafic concerns high on the list. Ein dorshin taamei hamizvos. A poseiq only leaves formal halachic analysis when multiple opinions are defensible, which "right answer" does one choose? But different posqim still give it different weight; requiring more or less equity between the halachic analysis of the different possible pesaqim before being willing to let the hashkafah tip the scales. 2- The BY is a text. To really talk about mimeticism, we're talking about what people do naturally. A poseiq may need to factor in which pesaq was nispasheit, but by doing so he is not being a mimetic. The AhS is more likely to find justifications for mimetic practice while the MB is more likely to recommend changing practice. But deciding to follow either is choosing textuallism over mimeticism. Mimeticism is following the same pesaq the AhS just defended because that's what everone does, it's the example your parents and/or your peers set, not because it's a pesaq with a sevara and sources. Still, it's interesting to find an example of the BY overriding his triumverate and clearly stating a reason that is at odds with his haqdamah. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Take time, micha at aishdas.org be exact, http://www.aishdas.org unclutter the mind. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rabbi Simcha Zissel Ziv, Alter of Kelm From micha at aishdas.org Wed Dec 6 13:40:04 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2017 16:40:04 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] More on Yaakov, sheep and the rods In-Reply-To: <50458059-A03F-4E6E-B54B-F1612B0E7E5B@jsli.org> References: <50458059-A03F-4E6E-B54B-F1612B0E7E5B@jsli.org> Message-ID: <20171206214004.GD12102@aishdas.org> On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 12:20:44PM -0500, Alexander Seinfeld via Avodah wrote: : Why not just interpret this as an example of phenotypic plasticity, : meaning the genetic potential is there in every generation, and the : environmental factors stimulate its expression? : : As everyone who had genetics 101 will realize, if you eliminate 100% : of the phenotype, and breed the remainder you will still get some of : that phenotype in the next generation with recessive genes. So it always : bothered me why was all the hokus pokus by Yaakov necessary.... I would learn from this incident in Bereishis that one is obligated to do whatever hishtadlus is possible by the best understanding of teva available to you. And not to worry about what the current theory may get replaced by. Along similar lines: R Avigdor Miller taught that since HQBH is Rofei kol basar, medicine doesn't actually heal. The role of doctors and medicine is to prevent Hashem's cure from requiring a neis nigleh. And, he explains, this is why people actually survived despite medical theories involving 4 humours and bloodletting, or whatnot. Any accepted theory is equally usable. I don't buy into this, because if true, medicine would never need to advance, in fact, accepted medical theory would never be disproved. Still, I find the idea intriguing. It fits the notion, which might be the Ramban's (depending on how you fit multiple comments together) and is definitely REED's that teva is not a real "thing", but the patterns Hashem uses to hide His Action behind. It's all neis nistar, really Now, if one were to apply the same idea to parnasah, one could explain the purpose of Yaakov's efforts. And even if RAvigdorM's theory is hard to see as how teva works for the rest of us, it's easier to apply to someone who is as neis-worthy, including neis-nistar-worthy, as Yaaqov avinu. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger You want to know how to paint a perfect micha at aishdas.org painting? It's easy. http://www.aishdas.org Make yourself perfect and then just paint Fax: (270) 514-1507 naturally. -Robert Pirsig From akivagmiller at gmail.com Wed Dec 6 15:10:18 2017 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2017 18:10:18 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Gid ha'nasheh Message-ID: . I asked: : If he was punished, it must be that he was punished for some choice : that he made. What choice was that? What did he do wrong? If he could : do it all over again, what ought he do differently? Specifically: : After having married Leah, should he have not married Rachel? and R' Micha Berger responded: > Well, isn't that the halakhah? I want to publicly thank RMB for a beautiful post, and for reminding me of some very important concepts. We learn so much of the machinations of what went on in this incident, how each step was important and necessary in various ways, that I was a bit shocked to hear it suggested that Yaakov Avinu was being punished for his choices here. But truth be told, the line between punishment and consequence can be arbitrary, subjective .... or even imaginary. We DO accept the reality of a "necessary evil", or a "greater good". It's not all black and white. "Well, isn't that the halakhah?" Indeed, the halacha prescribes The Way To Go, but that is no guarantee that there won't be unpleasant side effects. If the Kohen Gadol happens upon a Mes Mitzvah on Yom Kippur morning, the halacha is clear that he must get involved, even if that means that the day's avodah won't go as planned. So too, Yaakov Avinu and Rachel Imenu married each other because Klal Yisrael needed it, and if such a releationship was incompatible with Kedushas Haaretz, well, unfortunately, they'll have to endure the consequences. Akiva Miller From meirabi at gmail.com Wed Dec 6 18:07:12 2017 From: meirabi at gmail.com (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi) Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2017 13:07:12 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] =?utf-8?q?SEDRA_VAYEISHEV_=E2=80=93_TIME_TO_LOOK_IN_THE_?= =?utf-8?q?MIRROR?= Message-ID: When the little kid threatens a bouncer ? we all laugh. It is funny precisely because it is so silly and impossible. DJT, a buffoon, a bumbling, blithering bad-boy, could not possibly win the presidency. It was the standing joke that never grew stale ? until he became POTUS. Our Sages say, we are truly unmasked by Kiso Koso & KaAso ? by what we?re like when feeling liberated: # deciding how to use our valuables i.e. by what we consider to be important # intoxicated [not necessarily by alcohol] # we are agitated i.e. by what presses our buttons. Yosef tells his brothers about his dream ? expecting them to laugh it off and he gives them a second chance after they?ve had an opportunity to reconsider their response. When we get offended and mock ? it?s time to look in the mirror. Best, Meir G. Rabi 0423 207 837 +61 423 207 837 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From marty.bluke at gmail.com Thu Dec 7 02:27:17 2017 From: marty.bluke at gmail.com (Marty Bluke) Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2017 12:27:17 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] The 13 middos In-Reply-To: <20171206192317.GA12102@aishdas.org> References: <20171204222908.GA10223@aishdas.org> <20171206192317.GA12102@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 9:23 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > On Tue, Dec 05, 2017 at 07:15:42AM +0200, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: > : See the Mishne Lamelech avadim 3:9 where he states that it is either or > and > : the 2 styles cannot be mixed, and his main proof is from the Gemara > Shavuos > : 4b where the Gemara asks on Rebbe how can he darshen a ribui umiut like R > : Akiva if in general he darshens Klal Uprat... > > And yet the conclution on 5a is that he holds like R' Yishma'el's beis > medrash who holds the derashah is not kelal uperat but ribui umi'ut > ("ribah umi'at"). R Yisma'el, the one who codified the rules of kelal > uperat is the one who here uses ribui umi'ut!? > The Gemara says that this case is an exception because it is not written in the normal way of a Klal uprat and therefore in this case ONLY Rebbe can learn a ribui umiut but in general someone who learns Klal uprat could not use ribui umiut. > ... > > : See also tosafos nidda 30a s.v. Ushma mina where tosafos says that we > : pasken that we darshen Klal uprat and not ribui umiut... > > Nidda 30a "ushma minah tevilah bizmanah mitzvah" is about holding > like Beis Shammai, and doesn't mention derashos. The previous d"h, > "shema minah telas" (a near match) also isn't on topic. Could you > please fix the citation for me? > See the last 2 lines in the Tosafos that I quoted, Tosafos states "d'darish ribui umiut, V'Kayma lan d'darshinan klali uprati" Tosafos paskens that we darshen klal uprat not ribui umiut, that strongly implies that they are mutuallt exclusive > > > > > Tir'u baTov! > -Micha > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From JRich at sibson.com Wed Dec 6 21:49:36 2017 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2017 05:49:36 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] zmanim Message-ID: <550be79bd779462fa5534e6b58fba249@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> As sunrise got later I was at a minyan where the earliest time for tallit was approximately the same as the minyan starting time. I watched as everybody watched their cell phones for the exact time to start from Myzmanim. (Of course that website says not to rely on to it to the minute) I was wondering whether this close watch was a subset of a broader need of man modern man to have exactitude in life versus living with gray. (Sort of a desire to be Newtonian in a quantum world) I was also wondering whether the advent of the railroad table approach now requires us to halachically follow that exactness rather than that the "it looks right to me" approach of Chazal? Thoughts? KT 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: From larry62341 at optonline.net Thu Dec 7 03:09:25 2017 From: larry62341 at optonline.net (Prof. Levine) Date: Thu, 07 Dec 2017 06:09:25 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Davening on Airplanes In-Reply-To: <900051a759eb4fd1a58d4fda4d74fca6@exchng03.campus.stevens-t ech.edu> References: <900051a759eb4fd1a58d4fda4d74fca6@exchng03.campus.stevens-tech.edu> Message-ID: <32.C2.03752.761292A5@mta3.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> At 08:12 PM 12/6/2017, R Micha Berger wrote: >When it comes to kibud, public treatment does indeed matter... >However, here we are talking about someone in the olam ha'emes. So they >know that while on the plane you have that actual issur keeping you from >fulfilling the minhag of saying qaddish... >So I do not think it's likely the neshamah would mind the lack of kibud >as much as they would mind the misplacement of values. I would therefore >not draw any conclusions from the logical linkage of kibud with intent >and norms. From The Mussar Movement, Volume 1, Part 2 pages 248 - 249. On one of the anniversaries of his father's death, R. Israel was in Memel. He was informed that someone else in the synagogue wished to say Kaddish. Now R. Israel was very insistent that only one person at a time be allowed to recite the Kaddish at the services [28] and apparently this congregation had complied with his ruling. Reb Yitzchak Isaacson was observing the jahrzeit of a daughter who had died very young. Now the Halachah gives precedence to a son observing the jahrzeit of a parent on these occasions, and R. Israel was obviously entitled to the privilege. Sensing the grief he would cause the father by depriving him of the opportunity to say Kaddish for his daughter, R. Israel went up to him and said: "You sir, will say Kaddish." The worshippers expressed their surprise. Not only had R. Israel yielded his own right, but also overlooked the duty of honoring his father, since he was, by law, obliged to say Kaddish. He explained to them that the merit of extending kindness (gemi- lut chesed) to a fellow Jew possessed far greater value than the saying of Kaddish.[29] [28.] See R. Naftali Amsterdam's will, published in Or Hamusar No. 13. See Vol. II of the Hebrew edition of this series, Tenu'at Hamusar, II, Chap. 25. [29.] Ernile Benjamin, op. cit., p. 25. From seinfeld at daasbooks.com Thu Dec 7 06:50:16 2017 From: seinfeld at daasbooks.com (Alexander Seinfeld) Date: Thu, 07 Dec 2017 09:50:16 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Gid ha'nasheh Message-ID: It seems to me there are two plausible answers, and both may be correct. 1. Yes, he should not have married Rachel. This is in fact what Leah tells her, ?You stole my husband.? He was tricked, but he accepted Leah, did not annul the marriage, so too bad for Rachel. She?s the one who gave away the password. 2. He wasn?t yet Yisroel. He was still a ben Noach. When he becomes Yisroel, he is now required to keep the Taryag Mitzvos. It is right after this name change that she dies. I?m not sure why she doesn?t die immediately (in Beit-El) rather en route to Efrat. But this delay may have sown doubt into his mind about his status - maybe he is still a ben Noach. His sons consider themselves Bnai Yisroel, which is why they are eating meat that for a ben-Noach would be eiver-min-ha-chai, and which is part of the lashon hara that Yoseph brings back to Yaakov. But his judgment that they are Bnai Noach is not merely academic, it is personal, because it has implications in Rachel?s death. > >If he was punished, it must be that he was punished for some choice >that he made. What choice was that? What did he do wrong? If he could >do it all over again, what ought he do differently? Specifically: >After having married Leah, should he have not married Rachel? >Alternatively, (according to those who say that he was not fooled but >knew that Leah had the simanim,) should he have not married Leah? Or >should he have protested and annuled the marriage to Leah? > >If he was punished, what did he do wrong? From micha at aishdas.org Thu Dec 7 11:06:53 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2017 14:06:53 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Gid ha'nasheh In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20171207190653.GB26083@aishdas.org> On Wed, Dec 06, 2017 at 06:10:18PM -0500, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : We DO accept the reality of a "necessary evil", or a "greater good". : It's not all black and white. "Well, isn't that the halakhah?" Indeed, : the halacha prescribes The Way To Go, but that is no guarantee that : there won't be unpleasant side effects... A number of rishonim (eg Ramban, Seforno) deal with the problem of miracles. Since HQBH is Perfect and is capable of a perfect creation, why would He make a world in which He occasionally would have to step in and override teva? This is where the Ramban comes in with the idea that not only the miraculous items listed in Pirqei Avos created during Maaseh Bereishis, every "exception" to the laws of nature are actually special cases written into the law. I'll pause here to remind of what I said last email about "at the time of creation" and "in response to the situation" both being oversimplifications caused by us temporal beings trying to think about Hashem's "Action" which is lemaalah min hazeman and has no "when". Similarly, one can ask about His Authorship of halakhah. Since Hashem is capable of writing a system of laws to fit the universe in a way where obeying the law never has "unpleasant side effects", why wouldn't He? One backstep... I just realized you mean something broader by "side effects" than I was talking about. As you later write: : upon a Mes Mitzvah on Yom Kippur morning, the halacha is clear that he : must get involved, even if that means that the day's avodah won't go : as planned... Similarly, if piquach nefesh is docheh Shabbos, rather than Shabbos being huterah, one may have the misfortune of having to violate Shabbos. But that's not sekhar va'onesh, and my question "but what about Divine Justice?" doesn't apply. Not unless the "unpleasant side effect" is -- as in the case of Yaaqov's widowerhood or his hip -- painful (physically and/or emotionally). There is also another issue... Sekhar mitzvos behai alma leiqa. Not everything in this world is sekhar va'onesh. Li nir'eh, everything in this world is to draw us to a state of being able to receive more of Hashem's tov. Onesh, only when we have a chance of it getting us to choose more constructively. Which is why the mishnah talks about tzadiqim getting onesh in olam hazah to spare them in olam haba. Not because pain in olam hazeh pays off the accoun t early, but because a tzadiq will use the pain to draw closer to HQBH / to his ideal self. And similarly, resha'im who wouldn't respond constructively to the challenge... Well, HQBH would share with them his Tov in the here-and-now rather than not at all. This takes us away from insisting that the universe must be set up so that every sin contains its own onesh as a consequence. (If we're using the consequence model to look at things.) Instead, we can look at the universe as tending toward tov. And therefore every step away from tov will as a consequence cause a pull back toward it. (Which could well be onesh, but in olam hazeh, it could be getting us connected back to the Meitiv in some other way.) And applying this back to Yaaqov's marrying two wives... Perhaps it's not an onesh, but the consequent path closer to the Meitiv in a world where the aretz was made tamei. And it's even possible that the challenges of this harder path lead to a closer place than without. So that overall, the net is maximize sekhar. Lefum tza'ara. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger We look forward to the time micha at aishdas.org when the power to love http://www.aishdas.org will replace the love of power. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - William Ewart Gladstone From micha at aishdas.org Thu Dec 7 11:12:14 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2017 14:12:14 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] zmanim In-Reply-To: <550be79bd779462fa5534e6b58fba249@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <550be79bd779462fa5534e6b58fba249@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20171207191214.GC26083@aishdas.org> On Thu, Dec 07, 2017 at 05:49:36AM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : I was wondering whether this close watch was a subset of a broader : need of man modern man to have exactitude in life versus living with : gray... Or maybe we were always mechuyavim to be as precise as possible. : wondering whether the advent of the railroad table approach now requires : us to halachically follow that exactness rather than that the "it looks : right to me" approach of Chazal? Thoughts? Li nir'eh there is value to the "in sync with nature" approach of Chazal that we lose when we think about clock time rather than the cycles of the sun (a/k/a the earth's spin). Much the way we lose a lot of what the yamim tovim mean because we aren't living in agrarian communities, and don't feel the joy of new wheat and barley when we celebrate our birth as a people, or the joy of bringing in the year's fruit when we celebrate how HQBH sustained us in the midbar. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From seinfeld at daasbooks.com Thu Dec 7 20:42:27 2017 From: seinfeld at daasbooks.com (Alexander Seinfeld) Date: Thu, 07 Dec 2017 23:42:27 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] What are the main mitzvos to focus on? Message-ID: :: So basically you are saying that the current Charedi hashkafa/lifestyle of :: Torah only and Torah learning being the ultimate purpose of life is not a :: majority opinion in Chazal and in fact you can't find anyone among Chazal :: who says this. : I intentionally avoided stating it that confrontationally, but yes. Forgive me, this may be a side issue to your main point about the 2 ways/reasons to learn, but I feel it should be clarified what you mean. How do you understand the Shulchan Aruch - Orach Chaim 155-156 - go immediately from davening to learning, make Torah your ikkar and malacha your arai; minimize work to only what you need [Be?er Heiteiv, Mishna Berura] not more??? Not mainstream? Breaking with Chazal? It?s a verbatim quotation from Gemara Berachos 35b. And maybe related to Taanis 24b (Chanina ben Dosa and his wife.) Now, let?s think sociologically for a moment. Why did the Mechaber choose to state this halacha the way he does? It seems to me that in his time (as in all times) there were Jews who were pulled to the needs and attractions of parnasa and spending the vast majority of their time and energy on it and in his view not in the proper balance. The fact that he has to state this halacha implies that not everyone was behaving that way. So the fact that not everyone behaves this way today is no proof whatsoever against the halacha. But anyone who wonders on what basis do some Orthodox Jews forsake full-time jobs and toil in Torah should read the Beur Halacha on Siman 155.1 - ?Eis lilmode? > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Fri Dec 8 02:55:11 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Fri, 8 Dec 2017 05:55:11 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] What are the main mitzvos to focus on? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20171208105511.GA13704@aishdas.org> On Thu, Dec 07, 2017 at 11:42:27PM -0500, Alexander Seinfeld via Avodah wrote: ::: So basically you are saying that the current Charedi hashkafa/lifestyle of ::: Torah only and Torah learning being the ultimate purpose of life is not a ::: majority opinion in Chazal and in fact you can't find anyone among Chazal ::: who says this. :: I intentionally avoided stating it that confrontationally, but yes. : Forgive me, this may be a side issue to your main point about the 2 : ways/reasons to learn, but I feel it should be clarified what you mean. : How do you understand the Shulchan Aruch - Orach Chaim 155-156 - go : immediately from davening to learning, make Torah your ikkar and malacha : your arai; minimize work to only what you need [Be?er Heiteiv, Mishna : Berura] not more??? You are shifting topics. I wrote about the reasons to learn, and asserted "Torah only and Torah learning being the ultimate purpose of life... you can't find anyone among Chazal who says this." Torah learning should well be the anchor of your day in comparison to earning a parnasah. (Although if one is learning rather than going to teach, other mitzvos are dochim.) But not as an ends, as a means. The hashkafah is new, the priorities not. But the new hashkafah changes the weighting to be even more in favor of learning. For example: I don't know what's going on today, but in my day Neir Yisrael / Baltimore was unique among American "yeshivish" yeshivos in encouraging talmidim to volunteer to staff kiruv shabbatonim. (Most/all YU RY were very proactively pro becoming an NCSY advisor.) The others felt that at this time in their lives, bachurim shouldn't be distracted from learning. This, despite the fact that adolescents respond better if there are peer-teachers rather than full grownups of a different generation, and the program was begging for them. This is one of the reasons JEP failed. That's the worldview of the American and Israeli "Litvisher" yeshiva. Now let's look at actual pre-war Litvisher gedolim. And I don't mean the obvious mussarists. `Would the aforementioned Meshekh Chokhmah have agreed with this decision? Is it in concert with RCV's admonition to his son? What about R' Shimon Shkop, who opens Shaarei Yosher's haqdamah with (empshasis added): Yisbarakh HaBorei Veyis'alah HaYotzeir who created us in His "Image" and in the likeness of His "Structure" VECHAYEI OLAM NATA BESOKHAINU such that our greated desire should be to benefit others to the indivindual and the masses, now and in the future, in imitation of the Creator (kevayachol). Ikkar doesn't mean "ultimate purpose", and making learning one's ultimate purpose does push one to go beyond making it the day's ikkar. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Brains to the lazy micha at aishdas.org are like a torch to the blind -- http://www.aishdas.org a useless burden. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Bechinas haOlam From micha at aishdas.org Fri Dec 8 06:11:58 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Fri, 8 Dec 2017 09:11:58 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Your Ancestors Message-ID: <20171208141158.GA20389@aishdas.org> R' Mike Gerver posted to Mail-Jewish in 1994 a request to help him collect more date to tighten an argument that odds are, every Jew alive either: - is a geir or all his ancestry are from geirim recently enough for him to know, or - descends from Rashi. (Or anyone else of that era or earlier.) See Calculations involve estimating rate of marriage across social strata, between towns, and between eidot. All Jews. Even Teimanim. (Ethiopians weren't a discussion yet, odds are no.) Well, this article makes that all the more probable: http://bigthink.com/stephen-johnson/why-youre-probably-related-to-nefertiti-and-confucius Why You're Probably Related to Nefertiti, Confucius, and Socrates December 7, 2017 by Stephen Johnson .... [J]ust how far back do humans need to go to find a common ancestor of their own: a person to whom all living people are related? The answer, for people of European descent at least, is surprisingly recent: 600 years. The common ancestor for every single person alive on the planet today, no matter where, lived approximately 3,600 years ago. That means Confucius, Nefertiti, Socrates, and any figure from ancient history that had children, is in some way your ancestor. Then, quoting Adam Rutherfore's new book, A Brief History of Everyone Who Ever Lived: "We are all special, which also means that none of us is," writes Rutherford in the book. "This is merely a numbers game. You have two parents, four grandparents, eight great-grandparents, and so on. Each generation back the number of ancestors you have doubles. But this ancestral expansion is not borne back ceaselessly into the past. If it were, your family tree when Charlemagne was Le Grand Fromage would harbor around 137,438,953,472 individuals on it -- more people than were alive then, now, or in total." So, why not? "You can be, and in fact are, descended from the same individual many times over," Rutherford writes. "Your great-great-great-great-great-grandmother might hold that position in your family tree twice, or many times, as her lines of descent branch out from her, but collapse onto you. The further back through time we go, the more these lines will coalesce on fewer individuals." The startling discovery that all Europeans might share a common ancestor who walked the Earth just 600 years ago was first proposed in 1999 by a Yale statistician named Joseph Chang. In his paper Recent Common Ancestors of All Present-Day Individuals," Chang used complex mathematical conceptslike Poisson distributions and Markov chainsto show how webbed pedigrees can overlap to produce common ancestors. If that is true of Europeans in 600 years, Jews over 800 years lo kol shekein? :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger We are great, and our foibles are great, micha at aishdas.org and therefore our troubles are great -- http://www.aishdas.org but our consolations will also be great. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rabbi AY Kook From jziring at torontotorah.com Wed Dec 6 19:40:58 2017 From: jziring at torontotorah.com (Jonathan Ziring) Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2017 22:40:58 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] The 13 middos In-Reply-To: References: <20171204222908.GA10223@aishdas.org> <20171206192317.GA12102@aishdas.org> Message-ID: [I had to edit this post significantly to fit Avodah's format constaints. -micha] Shalom, I'm touched to be asked. I have wondered about this (and have again this week due to Daf Yomi). I can't say I have strongly formed opinions on it, but the sugyot do seem to imply that these are more tendencies rather than rules, at lease re: Klal UPrat vs. Ribbui and Miut. The drashot of vavim and the like seem more absolute (X is not doresh vav). Yaakov Elman makes that point in his article on Ribbui. A few articles that deal with the topic that I've glanced through are: The Formal Development of [Kelal uPerat uKelal] Michael Chernick Tarbiz, pp. 393-410 Towards a History of "Ribbuy" in the Babylonian Talmud and Yaakov Elman Proceedings of the World Congress of Jewish Studies Vol. 11, Division C: Thought and Literature, Volume I: Rabbinic and Talmudic Literature (1993), pp. 87-94 In general, Michael Chernick and devoted much time to this. A few other relevant articles by him: The Development of Ribbuim and Mi 'utim Hermeneutics," PAAJR",1982-3. "The Use of Ribbuyim and Mi'utim in the Halakic Midrash ofR. Ishmael," JQK, 1979. "The Hermeneutic Kelal u-Ferat u-Kelal: Its History and Development," AAJR Annual Meeting, 1980 I think this will spur me to think more systematically about this. If I come up with anything, I will definitely share it. Jonathan From simon.montagu at gmail.com Sat Dec 9 08:27:13 2017 From: simon.montagu at gmail.com (Simon Montagu) Date: Sat, 9 Dec 2017 18:27:13 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Your Ancestors In-Reply-To: <20171208141158.GA20389@aishdas.org> References: <20171208141158.GA20389@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Fri, Dec 8, 2017 at 4:11 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah < avodah at lists.aishdas.org> wrote: > > http://bigthink.com/stephen-johnson/why-youre-probably- > related-to-nefertiti-and-confucius > Why You're Probably Related to Nefertiti, Confucius, and Socrates > December 7, 2017 by Stephen Johnson > .... > [J]ust how far back do humans need to go to find a common ancestor > of their own: a person to whom all living people are related? > > The answer, for people of European descent at least, is surprisingly > recent: 600 years. The common ancestor for every single person alive > on the planet today, no matter where, lived approximately 3,600 years > ago. That means Confucius, Nefertiti, Socrates, and any figure from > ancient history that had children, is in some way your ancestor. Unless I'm missing something, those last two sentences are a huge non sequitur. I have a slightly different take-away from the article: it says that everybody has a common ancestor who lived approximately 3,600 years ago. Isn't that exactly what the Torah says? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ben1456 at zahav.net.il Sat Dec 9 12:20:41 2017 From: ben1456 at zahav.net.il (Ben Waxman) Date: Sat, 09 Dec 2017 22:20:41 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Rambam Hilchot Shivtat Assur 3:3 Message-ID: Rambam Hilchot Shivtat Assur 3:3: The Rambam writes a clal: A minhag can not cancel something that is assur. A minhag can only prohibit something that is permitted. Is this rule seen as a veto or are there indeed issurim which have been become muttar via the power of minhag? From micha at aishdas.org Sat Dec 9 16:07:31 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Sat, 9 Dec 2017 19:07:31 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Your Ancestors In-Reply-To: References: <20171208141158.GA20389@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20171210000731.GB20169@aishdas.org> On Sat, Dec 09, 2017 at 06:27:13PM +0200, Simon Montagu via Avodah wrote: : > The answer, for people of European descent at least, is surprisingly : > recent: 600 years. The common ancestor for every single person alive : > on the planet today, no matter where, lived approximately 3,600 years : > ago. That means Confucius, Nefertiti, Socrates, and any figure from : > ancient history that had children, is in some way your ancestor. : Unless I'm missing something, those last two sentences are a huge non : sequitur. The author is just saying that the same model that giver the result of 600 years for Euopeans gives a result of 3,600 for all of humanity. : I have a slightly different take-away from the article: it says that : everybody has a common ancestor who lived approximately 3,600 years ago. : Isn't that exactly what the Torah says? Well, really the model says that everyone who is alive today almost certainly (this is statistics, after all) descended from everyone who was alive 3,600 who has /any/ living descendents. Not that there was one such ancestor. Gut Voch! -Micha -- Micha Berger What you get by achieving your goals micha at aishdas.org is not as important as http://www.aishdas.org what you become by achieving your goals. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Henry David Thoreau From ben1456 at zahav.net.il Sat Dec 9 12:59:26 2017 From: ben1456 at zahav.net.il (Ben Waxman) Date: Sat, 09 Dec 2017 22:59:26 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Rambam Hilchot Kiddush Hachodesh Message-ID: 1) Rambam Hilchot Kiddush Hachodesh 3:1 makes it clear that anyone who sees the new moon and can get to Jerusalem by the following evening should go. How would that work today given that basically means that every male in Israel who sees the moon should go (maybe men in Eilat who don't own a car would be patur). Were most (or even a small minority of) Israeli Jewish males above the age of 13 to look, there is no way that the Beit Din could even question all of these men, even if they only asked a couple of questions. Is there any problem in making sure that you don't see the moon? Just stay in for the evening. Rambam doesn't say that there is a chiyuv to look. Or since the Beit Din only takes testimony from trusted witnesses, can someone just say "I never got any type of certification that I am a good witness, therefore I don't need to go". Or how about having a few (say 100) men in each major city or region entrusted with the job and they would be the designated possible witnesses. 2) Rambam Hilchot Kiddush Hachodes 2:10 says clearly that once the beit din declares the new month, that is it, even if they know that they made a mistake. Yet in 3:15 and 16 Rambam writes that in the situation where no witnesses came on the 30th, if witnesses come later in the month and are able to prove that they did see the moon come out on the 29th, that month's calendar is redone. Is this not an obvious contradiction? I assume that I am reading 3:15 and 16 incorrectly or that I am getting something wrong here. 3) Later in the book Rambam goes on at length and in extreme detail about how to calculate the moon's position. He adds that we know these calculations from science and that since we no longer have a tradition about this matter from the nevi'im, it is fine to use outside sources. Seeing this made me wonder why we don't apply this rule in other areas. For example, I had read that we don't make matza from barley because we don't have a tradition as to how it takes barley to become chameitz. So why not measure it? Ben From simon.montagu at gmail.com Sat Dec 9 21:57:52 2017 From: simon.montagu at gmail.com (Simon Montagu) Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2017 07:57:52 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Your Ancestors In-Reply-To: <20171210000731.GB20169@aishdas.org> References: <20171208141158.GA20389@aishdas.org> <20171210000731.GB20169@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Sun, Dec 10, 2017 at 2:07 AM, Micha Berger wrote: > On Sat, Dec 09, 2017 at 06:27:13PM +0200, Simon Montagu via Avodah wrote: > : > The answer, for people of European descent at least, is > surprisingly > : > recent: 600 years. The common ancestor for every single person > alive > : > on the planet today, no matter where, lived approximately 3,600 > years > : > ago. That means Confucius, Nefertiti, Socrates, and any figure > from > : > ancient history that had children, is in some way your ancestor. > > : Unless I'm missing something, those last two sentences are a huge non > : sequitur. > > The author is just saying that the same model that giver the result > of 600 years for Euopeans gives a result of 3,600 for all of humanity. > > That's not the non sequitur. The non sequitur is going from "we have a common ancestor 3,600 years ago" to "Confucius and Socrates are your ancestors". Confucius and Socrates lived around 2500 years ago, and how does the author know that they had any living descendants? > : I have a slightly different take-away from the article: it says that > : everybody has a common ancestor who lived approximately 3,600 years ago. > : Isn't that exactly what the Torah says? > > Well, really the model says that everyone who is alive today almost > certainly (this is statistics, after all) descended from everyone who > was alive 3,600 who has /any/ living descendents. > Not that there was one such ancestor. > I haven't read the model, but the article you linked to talks several times about "/a/ common ancestor", "/a/" person to whom all living people are related", etc. > > Gut Voch! > -Micha > > -- > Micha Berger What you get by achieving your goals > micha at aishdas.org is not as important as > http://www.aishdas.org what you become by achieving your goals. > Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Henry David Thoreau > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From bdbradley70 at hotmail.com Sun Dec 10 14:22:59 2017 From: bdbradley70 at hotmail.com (Ben Bradley) Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2017 22:22:59 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] What are the main mitzvos to focus on? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I don't recall everything I've read on this subject of the purpose of talmud torah, but the conversation here so far seems to be missing a crucial piece, namely the transformative aspect of talmud torah on the individual learning it. The problem with the instrumental view is that it doesn't account for a number of aspects of the way chazal unanimously viewed talmud torah. If it was just about knowing how to keep the mitzvos then, I think, we'd have trouble with the following off the top of my head 1. The intensive way chazal went about talmud torah - the lack of sleep involved, the amora who sat on his hands until they bled, disappearing from family for years at a time 2. The viewing of talmud torah as a unending project 3. The depth and incisiveness of analysis expected in learning gemara. Eg being able to metaher a sheret 4. the lack of differentiation between learning issues of practical use and those which you will never need to know from a practical point of view Maybe I'm missing something, but knowing how to keep the mitzvos per se need not involve any of these. There are clear indications of the transformative nature of talmud torah in chazal, even if these aren't stated as its purpose explicitly. Perhaps there's a distinction between its purpose and the meaning of lishma. So learning torah lishma, whatever that means, is transformative, which is a primary purpose if not the only one. That would also bring talmud torah in line with the other mitzvos, since they all have a transformative benefit to the individual. It would also set it apart since it is more transformative than all the others, ie kneged kulam. It is the most transformative, and thus the most important. That said, considerations other than personal growth give priority to other mitzvos in many situations. Ben -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hankman at bell.net Mon Dec 11 06:11:22 2017 From: hankman at bell.net (hankman) Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2017 09:11:22 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Purpose of distant galaxies? Message-ID: <83F7EA9337D54E08891E46C1032C89FE@hankPC> I have just been watching a show on Discovery Science about a lay version of quantum mechanics. At one point the moderator was talking about the notion of entanglement and explained how in theory this involves the connection of entangled particles over any distance instantaneously. He then continued to say that given the big bang theory, all of existence was at a single point and then expanded (inflated) from then to the great distances, billions of light years, we witness today. But at the initial moment after the singularity, all the particles of the universe were close enough to possibly become entangled with some other, but then after the expansion, the partner entangled particle might have ended up in some distant far removed galaxy and but thereby still be related to its entangled partner particle perhaps now in our body here on Earth. I then thought back to some of the earlier discussions here on Avodah about the purpose of these distant galaxies that could never affect us here on Earth and that we did not even know existed until recently. Perhaps this possibility of entanglement with distant particles of those galaxies from the time of creation may provide some logic to the purpose of the existence of those distant galaxies? Happy Chanukah veKol tuv Chaim Manaster -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Mon Dec 11 09:33:33 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2017 12:33:33 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Rambam Hilchot Shivtat Assur 3:3 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20171211173333.GE15573@aishdas.org> On Sat, Dec 09, 2017 at 10:20:41PM +0200, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: : Rambam Hilchot Shivtat Assur 3:3: The Rambam writes a clal: A minhag : can not cancel something that is assur. A minhag can only prohibit : something that is permitted. Isn't the very definition of a minhag ta'us one that promotes doing an issur, or violating an asei? At least, violating an asei actively; I don't know if I would include a minhag not to fulfil an asei besheiv ve'al ta'aseh. That kind of thing would require more research. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Worrying is like a rocking chair: micha at aishdas.org it gives you something to do for a while, http://www.aishdas.org but in the end it gets you nowhere. Fax: (270) 514-1507 From micha at aishdas.org Tue Dec 12 13:53:43 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2017 16:53:43 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Women and Torah Study In-Reply-To: <9f94d416d3154585a6bb71a2df12c54e@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <9f94d416d3154585a6bb71a2df12c54e@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20171212215343.GA13817@aishdas.org> On Sun, Dec 03, 2017 at 06:40:43AM +0000, RJR reposted here a comment of his on a recent post on Lehrhaus: : Is encouraging intensive study of Talmud for women a community priority : or is the priority to make such study available for those who choose to : avail themselves of the opportunity? Especially if the former, where : does it stand in relation to other community priorities and how does : the answer differ from study for men? IMHO these questions have not been : sufficiently addressed. Do my concern resonate at all? Mod-Yeshivish (in contrast to other forms of MO) may argue that since learning primarily means shas and lomdus, and the iqar method for refining one's soul is learning, now that women are given the toolds to be able to make sense of Talmud, making it available to them is a community priority. To quote RALichtenstein from : What is the cardinal principle that lies at the heart, on the one hand, of Yeshiva education and, on the other hand, is the lynchpin of liberal education. It is, first and foremost, the notion that one is concerned with molding the person and only secondarily with preparing or training for the fulfillment of a certain role. John Cardinal Newman's statement, that "we are men by nature, geometrists only by chance," epitomizes this approach and it is one with respect to which, I have indicated, the Yeshiva world and the world of liberal education at its best coincide. Of course, that is not to suggest that preparing for a role, be it a domestic role, a professional role, or a communal role, is not important. It is important, but secondary. The first principle, I think, with regard to education generally, and which needs to be particularly emphasized in the field of women's education, is that first and foremost one needs to mold the person as an individual in all respects, with regard to character, personality, intellectual ability, and above all, of course, in religious terms, as an oved Hashem. ... If we ask ourselves: Here are the goals! "[leyir'ah, le'avah, la'avod, lishmor, ledavqah, lalekhet bekhol derakhav]," to fear [God], to love [God], to serve [God], to cling [to Him] to go in all His ways." What are the means? Traditionally, over the centuries, there has been a fairly sharp dichotomy precisely regarding this very issue, namely the means to be employed in relation to men versus women... This is not the occasion to examine whether that was justified historically. What is clear, however, is that notwithstanding how one judges the past retrospectively, in our present historical and social setting we need to view the teaching and the learning of girls and women as both a major challenge, as well as a primary need. ... But this is creating a role for halakhah study out of whole cloth that is really RAL's chiddush. After all, historically curricula for girls' and women did include character-shaping material, but OVERTLY so -- mussar, hashkafah and the lessons in each taken from studying Tanakh. And leave halakhah to learning the job, rather than liberal arts. And I would repeat a point made by RYGB when asked about this topic: Where is the evidence that our current boys' curriculum works so well that we're in a rush to make the curriculum for girls' more similar to it? In general, the yeshivish -- including the ModY -- take NhC shaar 4 to mean that learning refines the soul in some mystical way. Just learn, and the problem will solve itself. Whereas I personally think the data points the other way. And that the NhC intended that statement prescriptively -- true talmud Torah is learning in a way that consciously aims to refine the soul. Which is why there is all that Mussar and Middos talk around AishDas and its web site. My own inclination, and this really just translates to "my parents provided a RWMO upbrining" (with some variety thrown in in the form of school choices), would be that we can't prioritize providing talmud study for women over clear-cut chiyuvim. Talmud study should be made available, but for those women who feel a need for talmud study. Which puts me in the same camp as the LR's effective position. Women coming to kiruv with egalitarian leanings were encouraged by the LR to learn Talmud if they wish to. But you wont find a gemara class in Beis Rivka. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "And you shall love H' your G-d with your whole micha at aishdas.org heart, your entire soul, and all you own." http://www.aishdas.org Love is not two who look at each other, Fax: (270) 514-1507 It is two who look in the same direction. From micha at aishdas.org Wed Dec 13 03:30:34 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2017 06:30:34 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Rambam Hilchot Kiddush Hachodesh In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20171213113034.GB7576@aishdas.org> On Sat, Dec 09, 2017 at 10:59:26PM +0200, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: : 1) Rambam Hilchot Kiddush Hachodesh 3:1 makes it clear that anyone : who sees the new moon and can get to Jerusalem by the following : evening should go. How would that work today.... And then think what happens if the calculations were for a long month. The guy invests all that effort just to get to locked Lishkas haGazis doors. I would be frustrated. But to get to your question. I think that's a taqanah in order to insure that there is eidus. Rather than everyone saying someone else will go. There is no how that would work today, since you need a Sanhedrin to make it work. But isn't this a derabbnan, to make sure all those who see the moon don't assume someone else will go, and there ends up not having 2 kosher eidim? So, if the the next Sanhedrin finds that too many people are coming / would come and we're far from needing such a guarantee, they can repeal this din. : 2) Rambam Hilchot Kiddush Hachodes 2:10 says clearly that once the : beit din declares the new month, that is it, even if they know that : they made a mistake. Yet in 3:15 and 16 Rambam writes that in the : situation where no witnesses came on the 30th, if witnesses come : later in the month and are able to prove that they did see the moon : come out on the 29th, that month's calendar is redone. Is this not : an obvious contradiction? I assume that I am reading 3:15 and 16 : incorrectly or that I am getting something wrong here. The famous story of the calendar dispute between Rabban Gamliel and R' Yehoshua (RH 2:8-9) includes R' Aqiva saying, "Eileh mo'adei H' asher tiqre'u osam" -- bein bizmanan, bein shelo bizmanan, ein Li mo'ados ela eilu. Which is what the Rambam is saying in 2:10. He quotes R' Aqiva's prooftext. In that mishnah, both R' Gamliel and R' Yehoshua knew the metzi'us, they were arguing over whether to accept the eidim despite a flaw in their story. They may have even been arguing about the cheshbon, and whether there was a need to accept whatever eidim one had. The beginning of mishnah 9 has R' Gamliel ordering R' Yehoshua to show up "beyom haKippurim shechal lihyos *becheshbonkha*". There may be a difference between making a mistake in terms of decision-making and making one because they were working with bad or incomplete data. 2:20 is about their decision being wrong, 3:15-16 is about a lack of eidus. An error in the cheshbon or perhaps decision in general vs an error in facts. While this guess about p' 2 is less than compelling, it would seem that in p' 3 he is empowering a BD to go back to their cheshbon when they were forced by a lack of testimony to lengthen the month despite it. After all, 3:15 describes BD sitting all of the 30th, meaning wanting a short month, without witnesses comming. So I feel more comfortable with that part of the guess. Maybe R' Yehoshua would have renegged without needing R' Aqiva had other eidim arrived days later to corroborate the first two. : 3) Later in the book Rambam goes on at length and in extreme detail : about how to calculate the moon's position. He adds that we know : these calculations from science and that since we no longer have a : tradition about this matter from the nevi'im, it is fine to use : outside sources. Seeing this made me wonder why we don't apply this : rule in other areas. For example, I had read that we don't make : matza from barley because we don't have a tradition as to how it : takes barley to become chameitz. So why not measure it? But lemaaseh we don't, because we need a Sanhedrin to make a RC. For that matter, we even pad when we say Qiddush Levanah, making the one day difference irrelevent. So what halakhah lemaaseh is the Rambam talking about, that relies on the calculations? Giving license to the next Sanhedrin? I am not even sure we know the scientific difference between chameitz and sirchah. Or even if there is one. Why is dough made with 100% juice a different thing than if the juice were diluted, or if it were all water? If we don't know what it is we should measure, how can we use science to measure it? I think it has to be something like that, because the lack of barley matzah isn't a modern issue. And the ability to measure rising doesn't require some modern measuring equipment. So, why was the question left unsolved by centuries of acharonim if it were resolable? Similarly, we know the medical communities' various definitions of death. (They're all pretty similar.) But we don't know if halachic misah would use the same definition. But even those who stick with heart death would use the latest scientific tools to determine whether or not the person had their last heartbeat (lo aleinu). So I would posit the issue is a chiluq between using science to determine the physical state vs having a pesaq as to what physical state needs determining. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Like a bird, man can reach undreamed-of micha at aishdas.org heights as long as he works his wings. http://www.aishdas.org But if he relaxes them for but one minute, Fax: (270) 514-1507 he plummets downward. - Rav Yisrael Salanter From JRich at sibson.com Wed Dec 13 21:39:28 2017 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2017 05:39:28 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] S"A Principles Message-ID: Question: I note that the S"A O"C 158:10 (Hand Washing) quotes the Gemara (R'Chisda) in support of using more than the minimum required amount of water for hand washing. Given the Mechaber's goal that the Shulchan Aruch be a halachic summary of his magnum opus, the Beit Yosef, does anyone know of a theory as to why the Mechaber in some cases quotes Talmudic sources (or Torah or Rishonim) and in others just states the halacha? Any study of the frequency of such quotes? KT 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: From akivagmiller at gmail.com Wed Dec 13 19:40:54 2017 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2017 22:40:54 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Rambam Hilchot Kiddush Hachodesh Message-ID: . (I don't know if this post will help understand Kiddush Hachodesh or not. If yes, I'm glad I could help. If not, I apologize for the distraction.) R' Micha Berger asked: > I am not even sure we know the scientific difference between > chameitz and sirchah. Or even if there is one. Why is dough > made with 100% juice a different thing than if the juice were > diluted, or if it were all water? If we don't know what it is > we should measure, how can we use science to measure it? I agree that WE don't know the scientific difference between chametz and sirchon, but it seems clear to me that such a difference does exist, and Chazal understood it. See the very beginning of Yerushalmi Challah, page 1b1 in the ArtScroll English version. "Badku Umatz'u" - They tested various grains, to see what happens when their flour is mixed with water. They found that The Five Grains underwent "chimutz", while *most* other grains fermented in the manner called "sirchon". (For some grains, the tests were inconclusive.) There is no Kabala From Sinai that defines these processes in terms of the grains, the liquids, or anything else. If you knew what to look for, you could look at a dough and tell whether it was chometz - without even knowing the ingredients. > I think it has to be something like that, because the lack of > barley matzah isn't a modern issue. And the ability to measure > rising doesn't require some modern measuring equipment. So, > why was the question left unsolved by centuries of acharonim > if it were resolvable? The problem isn't in the equipment. It's knowing what to look for. The tamay birds are all listed in Parshas Shmini. You don't need a degree in genetics to determine whether the bird in your hand is on the list or not. The only problem is that no one today knows what those words mean. Just like we don't really understand the difference between chimutz and sirchon. And no amount of pilpul among the "centuries of acharonim" is gonna help. Akiva Miller From micha at aishdas.org Thu Dec 14 03:27:18 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2017 06:27:18 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Rambam Hilchot Kiddush Hachodesh In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20171214112718.GA11145@aishdas.org> On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 10:40:54PM -0500, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : See the very beginning of Yerushalmi Challah, page [16]b1 in the : ArtScroll English version. "Badku Umatz'u" - They tested various : grains, to see what happens when their flour is mixed with water. They : found that The Five Grains underwent "chimutz", while *most* other : grains fermented in the manner called "sirchon". (For some grains, the : tests were inconclusive.) (Artscroll must have just one page of 16b, since that's near the bottom of the amud.) Assuming you understand the machloqes aa being about metzi'us. Which I did not. Aside from a reluctance to pin machloqesin on matters of fact even in the Y-mi, where there are cases it seems unaviodable. There are other problems: 1- EVERY other grain but these 5 produced something in between chimutz and sirchon that only R Yochanan b Nuri thought looked like chimutz? Not one of the experiments had another dissenter? 2- Why wouldn't later generations try to get clarity by repeating the experiment? As I took it (and wrote as much in prior iterations), R Yochanan b Nuri and the chakhamim were arguing over where the line is between chimutz and sirchon. They agreed on what happened when you mix a grain other than the 5 with water -- the gemara describes the experimental result as "ushe'ar kol haminim einan ba'in liydei matzah vechameitz elas sirchon." Then it continues the machloqes (running onto 17a), this time asking about qeramis in particular. And the gemara asks: Why they don't just check it? The first check's results were written open-and-shut. Here we are given RYBN differing obseration. As I took it, RYBN disagreed only in that he considers sirchon prohibited as chameitz. They argue about which side of the line sirchon is on because the machloqes is about where the line is. Which is why the gemara is so clear cut on the first test. And this is is why I lunped it together with other cases of halakhah deciding where in the gray area set of physical cases halakhah draws the line. : There is no Kabala From Sinai that defines these processes in terms of : the grains, the liquids, or anything else. If you knew what to look : for, you could look at a dough and tell whether it was chometz - : without even knowing the ingredients. ... and we don't know what to look for. :> I think it has to be something like that, because the lack of :> barley matzah isn't a modern issue. And the ability to measure :> rising doesn't require some modern measuring equipment. So, :> why was the question left unsolved by centuries of acharonim :> if it were resolvable? : The problem isn't in the equipment. It's knowing what to look for. As I said, it "has to be something like that", since the physical question could have been resolved, or at the very least repeatedly attempted to be resolved. You appear to be arguing against the hava amina I took pains to reject. But, unlike rice, where miSinai we could have known whether its sitchon qualifies as chameitz or not or the machloqes could have arisen later, with barley we know the uncertainty is caused by lost information. : The tamay birds are all listed in Parshas Shmini. You don't need a : degree in genetics to determine whether the bird in your hand is on : the list or not.,,, Ironically, defining a "min" is not settled halakhah either. Ask the Israelis debating whether we know that any breed of chicken other than the breakel chicken (or, I would guess the American campine) is halachically chicken and within the mesorah. Or the counter-arguers, who want to pasl braekel chickens... I am not saying I understand the metzi'us of the debate, but it does highlight how hard it is to draw halachic lines in the physical sand. So, even if we could translate the name of every min in parashas Shemini, we could still not know whether the bird in my hand is included in one of the minim on the list or not. As we could argue whether the genetic test found something on one side of the line defining the min, or the other -- because we don't know where the line is. A lichtikn un freilechn Chanukah! -Micha -- Micha Berger When we are no longer able to change a situation micha at aishdas.org -- just think of an incurable disease such as http://www.aishdas.org inoperable cancer -- we are challenged to change Fax: (270) 514-1507 ourselves. - Victor Frankl (MSfM) From Aryeh.Frimer at biu.ac.il Thu Dec 14 05:03:04 2017 From: Aryeh.Frimer at biu.ac.il (Aryeh Frimer) Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2017 13:03:04 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Tevilat Kelim Message-ID: Has anyone seen a discussion regarding one who said "al haTevila" (which women recite when going to mikva) instead of "Al tevilat Kelim." Is the Berakha valid be-Di-avad? A Freilichen Hanukah!! -------------------------------------------------- Dr. Aryeh A. Frimer Ethel and David Resnick Professor Emeritus of Active Oxygen Chemistry Chemistry Dept., Bar-Ilan University Ramat Gan 5290002, ISRAEL E-mail (office): Aryeh.Frimer at biu.ac.il Homepage http://ch.biu.ac.il/frimer E-mail (home): FrimerA at zahav.net.il From ben1456 at zahav.net.il Fri Dec 15 02:45:55 2017 From: ben1456 at zahav.net.il (Ben Waxman) Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2017 12:45:55 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Rambam Hilchot Kiddush Hachodesh In-Reply-To: <20171213113034.GB7576@aishdas.org> References: <20171213113034.GB7576@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <3554ff1b-2c53-bf1d-b688-0202a1eae13a@zahav.net.il> It must be something like that. After reading through Kiddush Hachodesh I was left with a huge question as to the incredible detail; 100 times more detailed than say his Hilchot Pesach. Ben On 12/13/2017 1:30 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > So what halakhah lemaaseh is the Rambam > talking about, that relies on the calculations? Giving license to > the next Sanhedrin? From michaelpoppers at gmail.com Thu Dec 14 18:17:15 2017 From: michaelpoppers at gmail.com (Michael Poppers) Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2017 21:17:15 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] zmanim Message-ID: >From R'Micha: > Li nir'eh there is value to the "in sync with nature" approach of Chazal that we lose when we think about clock time rather than the cycles of the sun (a/k/a the earth's spin). ? > ? Much the way we lose a lot of what the yamim tovim mean because we aren't living in agrarian communities, and don't feel the joy of new wheat and barley when we celebrate our birth as a people, or the joy of bringing in the year's fruit when we celebrate how HQBH sustained us in the midbar. < ...or the meaning of "Yotzer Or", etc. because we're not davening those pre- *Shma* *b'rachos* at the "right" time w/ a view of the brightening sky. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Fri Dec 15 06:55:30 2017 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2017 14:55:30 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Why does Yosef command the Egyptians to circumcise Message-ID: <1513349727386.22540@stevens.edu> See https://goo.gl/1AP3eB Rashi on Bereshis 41:55 says what he tells you, do: Since Joseph had ordered them to circumcise themselves, and when they came to Pharaoh and said, "This is what he said to us," he (Pharaoh) said to them, "Why didn't you gather grain? Didn't he announce to you that years of famine were coming?" They replied, "We gathered much, but it rotted." He (Pharaoh) replied,"If so, do whatever he tells you. He issued a decree upon the grain, and it rotted. What if he issues a decree upon us and we die?" - [from Mid. Tanchuma Mikeitz 7, Gen. Rabbah 91:5] Why did Yosef order them to do that? See the above URL for three explanations. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Fri Dec 15 06:57:57 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2017 09:57:57 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Rambam Hilchot Kiddush Hachodesh In-Reply-To: <3554ff1b-2c53-bf1d-b688-0202a1eae13a@zahav.net.il> References: <20171213113034.GB7576@aishdas.org> <3554ff1b-2c53-bf1d-b688-0202a1eae13a@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <20171215145757.GB28181@aishdas.org> On Fri, Dec 15, 2017 at 12:45:55PM +0200, Ben Waxman wrote: : On 12/13/2017 1:30 PM, Micha Berger wrote: :> So what halakhah lemaaseh is the Rambam :> talking about, that relies on the calculations? Giving license to :> the next Sanhedrin? : It must be something like that. After reading through Kiddush : Hachodesh I was left with a huge question as to the incredible : detail; 100 times more detailed than say his Hilchot Pesach. My guess, and I hope it's not too lesse majest for a public posting: The Rambam was a math geek who simply enjoyed this kind of stuff. It cannot be that the Rambam thought the future chavrei Sanhedrin would need his text for this more than his usual coverage. Leshitaso, one wouldn't be qualified to be a dayan without a strong background in all 7 chokhmos. That last line being an opening to a Chanukah tangent about Chokhmah Yevanis being a necessary study for a member of the Sanhedrin. So, Chanukah celebrates a victory over Yavan (in the sense of Hellenism) and a step toward reestablishing the Sanhedrin, who were expected to utilize "yaft E-lokim leYefes, veyishkon be'ohalei Sheim". An enlightening and happy Chanukah and :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Brains to the lazy micha at aishdas.org are like a torch to the blind -- http://www.aishdas.org a useless burden. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Bechinas haOlam From micha at aishdas.org Sat Dec 16 16:09:45 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2017 19:09:45 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Mamlekhat Chimyar Message-ID: <20171217000945.GA16968@aishdas.org> I stumbled across reference to the Humyarite Kingdom, which existed from 110 bce - 525 ce. Based in Yemen, ruled over much of the Arabian Peninsula. It seems that they went Jewish. (Shades of the Khazars.) See : > The Himyarite kings appear to have abandoned polytheism and converted > to Judaism around the year 380, several decades after the conversion of > the Ethiopian Kingdom of Aksum to Christianity (340), though no changes > occurred in its script, calendar, or language (unlike Aksum).[7] This > date marks the end of an era in which numerous inscriptions record the > names and deeds of kings, and dedicate buildings to local (e.g. Wagal > and Simyada) and major (e.g. Almaqah) gods. From the 380s, temples were > abandoned and dedications to the old gods ceased, replaced by references > to Rahmanan, "the Lord of Heaven" or "Lord of Heaven and Earth".[8] The > political context for this conversion may have been Arabia's interest > in maintaining neutrality and good trade relations with the competing > empires of Byzantium, which first adopted Christianity under Constantine > the Great and the Sasanian Empire, which alternated between Zurvanism > and Manichaeism.[9] ... > During this period, references to pagan gods disappeared from royal > inscriptions and texts on public buildings, and were replaced by > references to a single deity. Inscriptions in the Sabean language, and > sometimes Hebrew, called this deity Rahman (the Merciful), "Lord of the > Heavens and Earth," the "God of Israel" and "Lord of the Jews." Prayers > invoking Rahman's blessings on the "people of Israel" often ended with > the Hebrew words shalom and amen. [16] I wonder about the kashrus of the conversion, and did it pose a rei'usa when discussing the Jewishness of Teimani immigrants to Israel. A lichtikn un freilechn Chanukah un a gutt voch! -Micha -- Micha Berger Life isn't about finding yourself micha at aishdas.org Life is about creating yourself. http://www.aishdas.org - Bernard Shaw Fax: (270) 514-1507 From micha at aishdas.org Sun Dec 17 05:51:57 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2017 08:51:57 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] New Cancer Treatment Message-ID: <20171217135058.GC5@aishdas.org> This news story showed up in two of my RSS subscriptions: Hijacked sperm carry chemo drugs to cervical cancer cells https://www.newscientist.com/article/2156525-hijacked-sperm-carry-chemo-drugs-to-cervical-cancer-cells or http://j.mp/2yLROJ1 and Killing Cancer with Spermbots http://bigthink.com/robby-berman/killing-cancer-with-spermbots In my neck of the O woods, everyone holds like R' Moshe, that children produced by IVF-donor would not be mamzeirim. BUT... according to the machmirim (eg the Satmar Rav), would an eishes kohein who recieved this treatment have to get divorced? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger You are not a human being in search micha at aishdas.org of a spiritual experience. You are a http://www.aishdas.org spiritual being immersed in a human Fax: (270) 514-1507 experience. - Pierre Teilhard de Chardin From larry62341 at optonline.net Sun Dec 17 06:22:06 2017 From: larry62341 at optonline.net (Prof. Levine) Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2017 09:22:06 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] The Downtown Chanukiah Message-ID: Please see the video at https://goo.gl/dgSTLv In this video Rabbi Anthony Manning discusses the halachic aspects of where one should light the Chanukah menorah at home as well as the Chabad practice of lighting menorahs in public places and whether or not the person lighting such a menorah should make a bracha. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From zev at sero.name Sun Dec 17 06:20:59 2017 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2017 09:20:59 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] New Cancer Treatment In-Reply-To: <20171217135058.GC5@aishdas.org> References: <20171217135058.GC5@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <8550baa4-198d-536a-b249-d5c2d207bb86@sero.name> On 17/12/17 08:51, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > BUT... according to the machmirim (eg the Satmar Rav), would an eishes > kohein who recieved this treatment have to get divorced? I wouldn't think so. There's still no act of zenus. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From micha at aishdas.org Sun Dec 17 11:53:27 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2017 14:53:27 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] New Cancer Treatment In-Reply-To: <8550baa4-198d-536a-b249-d5c2d207bb86@sero.name> References: <20171217135058.GC5@aishdas.org> <8550baa4-198d-536a-b249-d5c2d207bb86@sero.name> Message-ID: <20171217195326.GD5@aishdas.org> On Sun, Dec 17, 2017 at 09:20:59AM -0500, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : On 17/12/17 08:51, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: :>BUT... according to the machmirim (eg the Satmar Rav), would an eishes :>kohein who recieved this treatment have to get divorced? : I wouldn't think so. There's still no act of zenus. There is a machloqes Chakhamim and R' Aqiva as to whether only issurei kareis (except niddah) create mamzeirim, or any issur. And yet the Satmar Rav holds that IE-D creates mamzeirim. And one could equally argue there is no act of zenus. So, I parked my intuition at the door when trying to understand his shitah. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The thought of happiness that comes from outside micha at aishdas.org the person, brings him sadness. But realizing http://www.aishdas.org the value of one's will and the freedom brought Fax: (270) 514-1507 by uplifting its, brings great joy. - R' Kook From zev at sero.name Sun Dec 17 12:20:24 2017 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2017 15:20:24 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] New Cancer Treatment In-Reply-To: <20171217195326.GD5@aishdas.org> References: <20171217135058.GC5@aishdas.org> <8550baa4-198d-536a-b249-d5c2d207bb86@sero.name> <20171217195326.GD5@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <5862ca9f-c908-4756-d082-0b20f6dc428f@sero.name> On 17/12/17 14:53, Micha Berger wrote: > There is a machloqes Chakhamim and R' Aqiva as to whether only issurei > kareis (except niddah) create mamzeirim, or any issur. And yet the > Satmar Rav holds that IE-D creates mamzeirim. And one could equally > argue there is no act of zenus. > > So, I parked my intuition at the door when trying to understand his > shitah. as I understand the machlokes, it's precisely over whether an act of zenus is necessary to create a mamzer. The SR (aiui) holds it is not, therefore although no issur was done with IED the child is nevertheless a mamzer. Here too, the SR would presumably hold that although there's no act of zenus, and therefore the treatment is permitted, should any child result it would be a mamzer. But I haven't seen the SR's shitah inside, so I'm relying on 3rd-hand transmission which may have garbled important points. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From llevine at stevens.edu Sun Dec 17 13:35:04 2017 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2017 21:35:04 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] How did Yosef showing his circumcision prove anything? Message-ID: <1513546500734.24127@stevens.edu> From https://goo.gl/L634gH Rashi to 45:4 says that when Yosef told his brothers to approach him, it was to show them his circumcision (presumably to prove he was Jewish). But how would that prove anything? All of Egypt had been circumcised already, as Rashi says on 41:55. If his showing his circumcision wasn't to prove he was Jewish, why did he do it? See the above URL for answers. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cantorwolberg at cox.net Sun Dec 17 11:40:31 2017 From: cantorwolberg at cox.net (Richard Wolberg) Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2017 14:40:31 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Vayigash Message-ID: The first three words of the Sidra: Vayigash eilav Yehuda mean that Judah approached Joseph to speak to him. The m?forshim bring out that they communicated through interpreters since officially, (the brothers thought) Joseph didn?t speak Hebrew and the brothers didn?t speak Egyptian. The baal haturim and the m?forshim point out the last letter of the first three words (shin, vov, hey) spell shaveh which means ?equal.? Judah is implying to Joseph: ?I am equal to you. You think you?re a king; I?m also a king.? According to this interpretation, Judah spoke very sharply to Joseph. The Vilna Gaon brings out a fascinating insight on the trope of the first six words which is kadma v?azla r?vi?I, zarka, munach segol. The Vilna Gaon explains that the trope here explains the meaning of these words. Kadma v?azla in Aramaic meaning kadam v?awzal, he (Judah) stepped forward, Yehudah has a r?vi?i, since Judah was the fourth son. So why the fourth son? Because zarka, he was going to be thrown out, munach segol from being able to rest in Gan Eden. Since Judah cursed himself that if he doesn?t bring Binyamin back, he would be damned in both worlds ? in this world and in the world to come. (Segula which means ?treasure? from Segol comes to mean here Gan Eden). When the sons finally tell Jacob that Joseph still lives (45:26), the m?forshim resolve a theological problem that arose in parashas Vayeshev (37:35). For there we read about Jacob: ?and his sons and daughters wished to comfort him and he refused to be consoled.? Isn?t it one of the basic articles of faith to accept God?s judgment and to welcome the comforting offered by others. Why did Jacob refuse? Our Sages sensed this anomaly and gave a brilliant answer, ?For no condolences are accepted over the living" (see Rashi on 37:35). Yes, Jacob refused to accept condolences because he had a faint ray of hope that Joseph might be alive. A psychologist might explain it as ?wishful thinking.? In any event, his ray of hope was vindicated when he found out that Joseph was indeed alive (and that is why he originally refused to accept the condolences offered by all the people). Hope is being able to see that there is light despite all of the darkness. Desmond Tutu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cantorwolberg at cox.net Sun Dec 17 16:16:32 2017 From: cantorwolberg at cox.net (Richard Wolberg) Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2017 19:16:32 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] S"A Principles Message-ID: <8A9BD2E2-0BDC-4728-B1B3-792480A73CEE@cox.net> Reb Joel asks: does anyone know of a theory as to why the Mechaber in some cases quotes Talmudic sources (or Torah or Rishonim) and in others just states the halacha? My theory is that when it is either a well known halacha and no reason to question it or at least, when the Mechaber thought it to be indisputable, then it was felt there was no reason to quote sources. OTOH, if was felt that there would be many questioning it, then the sources quoted would obviate that from occurring. From micha at aishdas.org Sun Dec 17 17:15:28 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2017 20:15:28 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] [Tvunah] Teabag on Shabbos Message-ID: <20171218011528.GA22955@aishdas.org> This pesaq by R' Asher Weiss surprised me. Tea Bag on Shabbos Tvunah in English by Rabbi Akiva Dershowitz Question: Does a tea bag [used in a kli shlishi] need to be removed from the cup with a spoon on Shabbos, to avoid issues of borrer? What about holding it over the cup to avoid dripping on the table, to allow drips to fall into the cup? Answer: The tea bag may be removed normally, and may be held to allow drips to fall back in to the cup. I was told at a young age to take the teabag out by spoon, making sure to take tea out along with the bag. For boreier reasons. So, as I said, I found this pesaq surprising. The actual teshuvah in Hebrew is on that page. RAW finds a precedent in Rashi on Shabbos 140a, who discusses the mishnah allowing one to put straw in a sieve in a feed trough. Rashi says "even though the motz will fall on our own, as it's a davar she'ein miskavein -- and the mishnah holds like R' Shim'on. And see SA OC 319:8, who makes it clear (which it isnt' from Rashi, see teshuvah) that even if the boreir will certainly occur, it's still mutar. Pesiq reishei, but not melekhes machasheves, and still mutar. Similarly in Nishmas Adam 18:2. An enlightening and anjoyable Chanukah! -Micha -- Micha Berger We look forward to the time micha at aishdas.org when the power to love http://www.aishdas.org will replace the love of power. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - William Ewart Gladstone From Aryeh.Frimer at biu.ac.il Sun Dec 17 23:09:04 2017 From: Aryeh.Frimer at biu.ac.il (Aryeh Frimer) Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2017 07:09:04 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Using "Al haTevila" for tevilat Kelim Message-ID: Rav Zvi Cohen, in his Encyclopedic Tevilat Kelim: Rules that be-Di-avad Al haTevila is valid. I was surprised by this since the Mehaber in Bet Yosef explicitly rules against this shita (for le-khatehilla) and holds in SA that one should say "Al Tevilat Kelim." Having done so, to say "Al haTevilah" would not be "Matbe'ah sheTavu Hakhamim." Any ideas? -------------------------------------------------- Dr. Aryeh A. Frimer Ethel and David Resnick Professor Emeritus of Active Oxygen Chemistry Chemistry Dept., Bar-Ilan University Ramat Gan 5290002, ISRAEL E-mail (office): Aryeh.Frimer at biu.ac.il Homepage http://ch.biu.ac.il/frimer Tel: 972-3-5318610; Fax: 972-3-7384053 Tel Home: 972-8-9473819/9470834 E-mail (home): FrimerA at zahav.net.il Cellphone: 972-54-7540761 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hankman at bell.net Mon Dec 18 06:16:44 2017 From: hankman at bell.net (hankman) Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2017 09:16:44 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Rambam Hilchot Kiddush Hachodesh -- on "min" Message-ID: <0C71CBB0F1E145B89D102DAA516AF81A@hankPC> R. Micha Berger wrote: ?Ironically, defining a "min" is not settled halakhah either.? CM asks: If I am not mistaken the modern secular definition of ?species? is based on whether the populations can interbreed or not. Do we know with any certainty that the Torah rejects this criteria as a determinant of ?min?? Kol tuv Chaim Manaster --- This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. http://www.avg.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Mon Dec 18 07:05:39 2017 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2017 15:05:39 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Yehudah Speaking to Yosef Message-ID: <1513609536405.23616@stevens.edu> In what l language did Yehudah speak to Yosef. Was it Hebrew and was the translator present to "translate" for Yosef? The Chumash does not mention a translator in this week's parasha. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jont at traumatic.us Mon Dec 18 11:56:26 2017 From: jont at traumatic.us (Jonathan Traum) Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2017 14:56:26 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Rambam Hilchot Kiddush Hachodesh In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <622ffda5-c446-82f3-45b0-18da6c93f6da@traumatic.us> On 12/09/2017 03:59 PM, Ben Waxman wrote: > 1) Rambam Hilchot Kiddush Hachodesh 3:1 makes it clear that anyone who > sees the new moon and can get to Jerusalem by the following evening > should go. ... > [snip] > Is there any problem in making sure that you don't see the moon? Just > stay in for the evening. Rambam doesn't say that there is a chiyuv to > look. I imagine that most people wouldn't have to worry about it.? On the 30th day after the previous Rosh Hodesh, the tiny crescent moon would only be visible for a short time after sunset and before moonset, and only to those who have an unobstructed view of the western horizon. Jonathan Traum From zev at sero.name Mon Dec 18 13:02:48 2017 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2017 16:02:48 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Using "Al haTevila" for tevilat Kelim In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <725ae5c3-d6de-7ce1-60c9-1defc191ac9d@sero.name> On 18/12/17 02:09, Aryeh Frimer via Avodah wrote: > ?Rav Zvi *Cohen*,?in his Encyclopedic *Tevilat Kelim*: Rules that > be-Di-avad Al haTevila is valid. > > I was surprised by this since the Mehaber in Bet Yosef explicitly rules > against this shita ?(for le-khatehilla) and holds in SA? that one should > say ?Al Tevilat Kelim.??? Having done so, to say ?Al haTevilah? would > not be ?Matbe?ah sheTavu Hakhamim.?? ?Any ideas? > "Al hatevilah" *is* a coinage of the chachamim, just not the one they prescribed for this occasion. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From llevine at stevens.edu Mon Dec 18 23:37:41 2017 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2017 07:37:41 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Did the Patriarchs Speak Hebrew? Message-ID: <1513669061621.40139@stevens.edu> >From the article at https://goo.gl/Z3QWs2 Ramban says: It is possible that he said this to them simply as a means of pacifying them, for there was no proof [that he was Joseph] in the fact that someone in Egypt should speak in the Holy Tongue. In my opinion, Hebrew was a Canaanite language. For Abraham did not bring it from Ur of the Chaldees [in Mesopotamia] and from Haran, for there they spoke Aramaic, as the incident of the pile of stones erected by Laban and Jacob proves [see Gen. 31:47]. And it was not a private language spoken by a single person but a language of Canaan, and many people in Egypt knew it for the countries were close together--particularly the ruler, for it is customary for kings and rulers to know several languages. For his assertion that Hebrew is "a Canannite language" Ramban makes reference to Isaiah, who does thus refer to Hebrew: "On that day there will be five cities in the land of Egypt that speak the language of Canaan and swear by the Lord of hosts" (Isa. 19:18). That the original language of the Patriarchs (Abraham, Isaac and Jacob) was Aramaic is proved to Ramban's mind by virtue of the fact that Laban gave the name "Yegar-sahaduta" to what Jacob called "Gal-ed" (Gen. 31:47), The former had remained in Mesopotamia and continued to speak Aramaic (which Ramban thinks was spoken in Ur and in Haran), while Jacob, who had grown up in Canaan, had learnt the local language. Please see the above URL for much more on this topic. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gershonseif at mail.yahoo.com Tue Dec 19 08:23:45 2017 From: gershonseif at mail.yahoo.com (Gershon Seif) Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2017 16:23:45 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Avodah] Did the Patriarchs Speak Hebrew? In-Reply-To: <1513669061621.40139@stevens.edu> References: <1513669061621.40139@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <949360216.1197555.1513700625794@mail.yahoo.com> Leavining Avraham Avinu aside, what is the Ramban's view about the language spoken by Adam HaRishon? ie. Naming his wife Chava and assigning names to all the animals?If the Ramban concurs that these names were given in lashon hakodesh, then he agrees that it was the first language. No? Unless you say that lashon hakodesh was one of at least 2 languages that Adam spoke and he reserved it for holy purposes only, such as giving these names. And I suppose that would be along the lines of the other Ramban quoted there which says that it's called Lashon Hakodesh because it's the language that Hashem used to convey the Torah. On Tuesday, December 19, 2017 1:37 AM, Professor L. Levine wrote: > From the article at https://goo.gl/Z3QWs2 > Ramban says: >> It is possible that he said this to them simply as a means of >> pacifying them, for there was no proof [that he was Joseph] in the fact >> that someone in Egypt should speak in the Holy Tongue. In my opinion, >> Hebrew was a Canaanite language. For Abraham did not bring it from Ur >> of the Chaldees [in Mesopotamia] and from Haran, for there they spoke >> Aramaic... From micha at aishdas.org Tue Dec 19 09:05:08 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2017 12:05:08 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Did the Patriarchs Speak Hebrew? In-Reply-To: <1513669061621.40139@stevens.edu> References: <1513669061621.40139@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20171219170508.GC27362@aishdas.org> On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 07:37:41AM +0000, Professor L. Levine via Avodah wrote: : From the article at : https://goo.gl/Z3QWs2 : : Ramban says: : : It is possible that he said this to them simply as a means of : pacifying them, for there was no proof [that he was Joseph] in : the fact that someone in Egypt should speak in the Holy Tongue. In : my opinion, Hebrew was a Canaanite language... ... and yet also lashon haqodesh. And to the Ramban (on "sheqel haqodesh" in parashas Sheqalim), this is because it's the language in which Hashem created the world and in which the Torah and Nakh were written. And leshitaso, the letters of the Torah, if not their breakup into words, preceded creation. The notion that the avos spoke Aramaic is in Vayiqra Rabba on 32:5. The Medrash Peliyah (#166) concludes that even Adam did! This is a comment about Sarah's death in "Qiryas Araba". The Niv Sefasayim explains that the medrash is getting this from the use of the Aramaic term "qirya". But I don't see how we know this was the name of the cite from back when Adam and Chava were buried there; or how else this moved the line to any time before Efron. R Yonasan Eibschitz (Tif'eres Yehonasan on Bereishis 11:1) that Adam spoke LhQ before the cheit, and Aramaic after. Fore that matter, Medrash Tanchuma (beginning of Devarim in Buber) and Medrash Seikhel Tov (Shemos 4:11) say Adam spoke all 70 languages. Requires a new peshat in what happened at Migdal Bavel, no? I am not to clear on the whole thing. Languages evolve, so that if one were to trace them out over time, one would draw a tree or a bush. Adam's proto-Semitic, or proto-proto-proto... everything is an ancestor of all language. I could call it early Hebrew if I wanted, and claim that Hebrew is the trunk from which other languages branched off. But that's just a decision about how to draw the tree. I could pick another run from root to twig and pull it straight, and say that Adam spoke proto-...proto-Mandarin, and all the other languages branched off. For languages as similar as Hebrew and Aramaic, where neither could have drifted from the original significanly more than the other, doesn't the whole discussion of whether Adam's language was a predecessar to the language of the chumash, Nakh, Chazal, etc... or of Aramaic in its evolutions all kind of arbitrary? I wonder if the Ramban understands the name of Kesav Ashuris to mean "Assyrian Script", rather than "Enriched Script" (from "osher". YMMV on the definition of osher.) After all, he seems to have no problem saying that Hashem left holy things in the hands of other peoples for us to find and use. For that matter, Eretz Yisrael was also given to the Kenaanim to hold until we got there... It might also be leshitaso -- but this may be a stretch -- with the Ramban's take on rainbows. The Ramban says that rainbows existed since Maaseh Bereishis. Nature didn't change in this regard with the Mabul. Rather, the already existing phenomenon was made a symbol when HQBH made the beris with Noach. Again, something put in place naturally so that when the time came it would be available take on its full significance. : Canaan, and many people in Egypt knew it for the countries were close : together--particularly the ruler, for it is customary for kings and : rulers to know several languages. : : For his assertion that Hebrew is "a Canannite language" Ramban makes : reference to Isaiah, who does thus refer to Hebrew: "On that day there : will be five cities in the land of Egypt that speak the language of : Canaan and swear by the Lord of hosts" (Isa. 19:18). That the original : language of the Patriarchs (Abraham, Isaac and Jacob) was Aramaic is : proved to Ramban's mind by virtue of the fact that Laban gave the name : "Yegar-sahaduta" to what Jacob called "Gal-ed" (Gen. 31:47), The former : had remained in Mesopotamia and continued to speak Aramaic (which Ramban : thinks was spoken in Ur and in Haran), while Jacob, who had grown up in : Canaan, had learnt the local language. : : Please see the above URL for much more on this topic. Have a Great Month, and a enlightening and enjoyable Chanukah! -Micha -- Micha Berger The greatest discovery of all time is that micha at aishdas.org a person can change their future http://www.aishdas.org by merely changing their attitude. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Oprah Winfrey From zev at sero.name Tue Dec 19 09:12:45 2017 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2017 12:12:45 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Did the Patriarchs Speak Hebrew? In-Reply-To: <20171219170508.GC27362@aishdas.org> References: <1513669061621.40139@stevens.edu> <20171219170508.GC27362@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <45f78c92-f0ed-6df8-9a80-01c96d6dd007@sero.name> On 19/12/17 12:05, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > I wonder if the Ramban understands the name of Kesav Ashuris to mean > "Assyrian Script", rather than "Enriched Script" (from "osher". YMMV > on the definition of osher.) You associate osher with an alef and `osher with an `ayin? -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From micha at aishdas.org Tue Dec 19 10:59:01 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2017 13:59:01 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Did the Patriarchs Speak Hebrew? In-Reply-To: <45f78c92-f0ed-6df8-9a80-01c96d6dd007@sero.name> References: <1513669061621.40139@stevens.edu> <20171219170508.GC27362@aishdas.org> <45f78c92-f0ed-6df8-9a80-01c96d6dd007@sero.name> Message-ID: <20171219185901.GE31888@aishdas.org> On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 12:12:45PM -0500, Zev Sero wrote: : On 19/12/17 12:05, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: : >I wonder if the Ramban understands the name of Kesav Ashuris to mean : >"Assyrian Script", rather than "Enriched Script" (from "osher". YMMV : >on the definition of osher.) : You associate osher with an alef and `osher with an `ayin? RSRH does, as he does all alef-ayin pairs. Also osher with asher. But I used enriched because in common usage, it refers to someone having a gift. We say that a cereal is enriched with vitamins. We far more rarely speak of a CEO being enriched. At least, not anymore. And what about yiysher kochakha, assuming the correct niqud isn't yeyasher? Reish Laqish (Shabbos 87a) says "asher shibarta" is an allusion to "yiyshar kochakha", so that's connected as well. RSRH himself uses "being in successful progress" (eg Bereishis 30:30), which R/Dr Mattiyahu Clark's Hirschian dictionary gives as its 1st definition. Chodesh tov, un a lichtikn un freilechn Chanukah! -Micha -- Micha Berger The trick is learning to be passionate in one's micha at aishdas.org ideals, but compassionate to one's peers. http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From mandels at ou.org Tue Dec 19 09:46:51 2017 From: mandels at ou.org (Mandel, Seth) Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2017 17:46:51 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Did the Patriarchs Speak Hebrew? In-Reply-To: <1513669061621.40139@stevens.edu> References: <1513669061621.40139@stevens.edu> Message-ID: There is no proof that anyone spoke Hebrew. Chazal say that dibb'ra Torah bilshon b'nei odom, and the Torah was written in Hebrew because that is what the Jews understood at the time of Moshe Rabbeinu and the N'vi'im. This is clear from last weeks Parsha, where Par'oh speaks to Yosef, kavyakhol in Hebrew. However, just as much as there is no proof at all from the T'NaKh that lots of people spoke Hebrew, even though the T'NaKh records them in Hebrew, there is also no proof at all that certain people did not speak Hebrew. The Ramban quotes the story of Lovon and Ya'akov to "prove" that Lovon did not speak Hebrew. That is probable, but what did Yaakov and Lovon speak together? What did Yaakov speak to Rochel and Leah, who had never been in EY? OK, they all spoke what was spoken in Aram Naharayim. Probably. But Yaakov and the Ovos must have learned the language of K'na'an for Avrohom to speak to b'nei Het to buy the Cave of the Patriarchs. So what exactly did Avrohom Ovinu say in the language of Aram, whence he came, and what in the language of K'na'an? QED that one cannot know from the T'NaKh who spoke what when and where. The only thing we know is the Masorah, that HQBH dictated the Torah to Moshe Rabbeinu in the eponymous Biblical Hebrew. People ask whether Odom hoRishon spoke Hebrew. That is a question that has no meaning. We do not know exactly what he spoke, nor is it relevant. It might have been a precursor of Hebrew, IOW a language like Hebrew, but a much older form. It could have been something else. But, scientifically, it could not have been the same as the Hebrew spoken in the time of Y'tzi'as Mitzrayim, because it has been proven that all languages change over time. Rabbi Dr. Seth Mandel From micha at aishdas.org Tue Dec 19 14:10:58 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2017 17:10:58 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Did the Patriarchs Speak Hebrew? In-Reply-To: References: <1513669061621.40139@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20171219221058.GA3159@aishdas.org> On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 05:46:51PM +0000, Mandel, Seth via Avodah wrote: : There is no proof that anyone spoke Hebrew. Chazal say that dibb'ra Torah : bilshon b'nei odom... Well.... R' Yishmael says it. And it appears to be an argument for his rules of derashah, which do not include looking for magic words like "akh" (mi'ut), "raq" (mi'ut), "kol" (ribui) or even "es", but darshens the meaning of terms, whether ribui or mi'ut. The Rambam really sloganeers (like the CS's "chadash assur min haTorah") when he uses it to explain that anthropomorphic descriptions of HQBH are idioms, not to be taken overly literally. The point may be true, but it has nothing to do with the quote. The maqor is nothing remotely like: : the Torah was written in Hebrew because that is : what the Jews understood at the time of Moshe Rabbeinu and the N'vi'im. And besides, R' Aqiva disagrees! Chodesh tov, un a lichtikn un freilechn Chanukah! -Micha -- Micha Berger One doesn't learn mussar to be a tzaddik, micha at aishdas.org but to become a tzaddik. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yisrael Salanter Fax: (270) 514-1507 From llevine at stevens.edu Wed Dec 20 01:27:34 2017 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2017 09:27:34 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Yehudah Spoke Egyptian Message-ID: <1513762054084.88548@stevens.edu> Rabbi Yitzchok D. Frankel, Rav of the Agudah of the Five Towns, in Cedarhurst, NY, asserts in his sefer Machat shel Yad. Bereishis vol.2 (Back of Vayikrah) Parshas VaYigash. that Yehudah did indeed speak Egyptian. See http://personal.stevens.edu/~llevine/yehudah_egyptian.pdf for his argument. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cantorwolberg at cox.net Wed Dec 20 09:32:33 2017 From: cantorwolberg at cox.net (Richard Wolberg) Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2017 12:32:33 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Question on 48:1 Message-ID: In Vay?chi first sentence of Ch.48, why is ?choleh? spelled without a vov? Nowhere have I found an explanation. From zev at sero.name Wed Dec 20 06:01:31 2017 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2017 09:01:31 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Did the Patriarchs Speak Hebrew? In-Reply-To: References: <1513669061621.40139@stevens.edu> <8b9c1a71-a4fe-ecf5-e066-0a640a78bfec@sero.name> Message-ID: <130e52aa-14f1-24b6-9478-9244543e628c@sero.name> On 19/12/17 02:37, Professor L. Levine via Avodah wrote: > . And it was not a private language spoken by a single person but a > language of Canaan, and many people in Egypt knew it for the countries > were close together--particularly the ruler, for it is customary for > kings and rulers to know several languages. Then how is it that Yosef could pretend not to know it and need an interpreter. More, how is it that Par'oh, who knew all the other languages, didn't know this one? [Email #2. -micha] On 19/12/17 12:46, Mandel, Seth via Avodah wrote: > There is no proof that anyone spoke Hebrew. Chazal say that dibb'ra Torah > bilshon b'nei odom, and the Torah was written in Hebrew because that is > what the Jews understood at the time of Moshe Rabbeinu and the N'vi'im. Rashi Bereshis 2:23 Bereshis Rabbah 18:4 [Eamil #3. -micha] On 20/12/17 08:56, Mandel, Seth wrote: > I am talking objective proof, from the T'NaKh and other documents. > Medrashim of Chazal teaches us important ideas, but are not meant to be > literally true. They do not intend to be a historical document, but > rather contain important moral and ethical teachings which are 'emes in > the spiritual sense. 1. This medrash is clearly intended literally. Not only does it not contain any important moral or ethical teaching, it cites a simple linguistic proof (albeit based on a very small sample of languages). 2. Rashi only cites those medroshim that he believes are necessary for pshat. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From mandels at ou.org Wed Dec 20 07:39:30 2017 From: mandels at ou.org (Mandel, Seth) Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2017 15:39:30 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Did the Patriarchs Speak Hebrew? In-Reply-To: <130e52aa-14f1-24b6-9478-9244543e628c@sero.name> References: <1513669061621.40139@stevens.edu> <8b9c1a71-a4fe-ecf5-e066-0a640a78bfec@sero.name> , <130e52aa-14f1-24b6-9478-9244543e628c@sero.name> Message-ID: From: Zev Sero Sent: Wednesday, December 20, 2017 7:45 AM > On 19/12/17 12:46, Mandel, Seth via Avodah wrote: >> There is no proof that anyone spoke Hebrew. Chazal say that dibb'ra Torah >> bilshon b'nei odom, and the Torah was written in Hebrew because that is >> what the Jews understood at the time of Moshe Rabbeinu and the N'vi'im. > Rashi Bereshis 2:23 > Bereshis Rabbah 18:4 I am talking objective proof, from the T'NaKh and other documents. Medrashim of Chazal teaches us important ideas, but are not meant to be literally true. They do not intend to be a historical document, but rather contain important moral and ethical teachings which are 'emes in the spiritual sense. There are plenty of Medrashim that have ideas that seem to indicate that HQBH or the angels spoke Hebrew. But, as the Rambam indicates, HQBH does not have a mouth and does not speak as people speak. Rather, all the p'sukim saying that HQBH spoke to Moshe or Aharon mean that He communicated with them directly to their mind, not that He spoke acoustic sounds that they heard with their physical ears. The argument that Prof. Levine brought in the name of R. Frankel, OTOH, does indeed show that Yehudah must have been speaking Egyptian, but yet the Torah quotes him in Hebrew. [Email #2. -micha] From: Zev Sero on behalf of Zev Sero Sent: Wednesday, December 20, 2017 9:01:31 AM > 1. This medrash is clearly intended literally. Not only does it not > contain any important moral or ethical teaching, it cites a simple > linguistic proof (albeit based on a very small sample of languages). > 2. Rashi only cites those medroshim that he believes are necessary for > pshat. This is not a conversation that is worth continuing. I have the greatest respect for Jews who learn and seek to understand. But there are certain discussions where the locutors speak past each other for no benefit to either. However, for others in the group that may be curious: if you understand what the Rambam says in his introduction to Chapter 10 of Mas. Sanhedrin regarding three approaches to what Chazal say, you will understand that there is no point in one group arguing with the other group. A similar case would be that there would be no point in the Rambam arguing with Rashi or Rabbeinu Tam about whether demons exist or whether the Earth is flat or round. The basic assumptions about the way things work are too far apart. I have said what I meant about medrashim, and the medrash that R. Zev quotes does not contradict in my mind my statement that there is no proof about the actual historical language used in anything in the Torah. Nor does Rashi's use of the medrash contradict what I said. It would be impossible to convince R. Tam's belief that the Earth is flat, since in his understanding of the universe everything points to the world being flat, and he can find statements in the G'moro that seem to him to prove his case, and all scientists from his culture "knew" that the Earth is flat. I challenge those who believe that illnesses are caused by bacteria or viruses to bring me one proof that they are; most rishonim knew that they were caused by evil spirits or bodily humors. What a person believes is based on some basic assumptions, and different Rishonim held very different assumptions in certain matters. People might and did challenge the Rambam that it appears from their point of view that the Rambam did not believe what Chazal say, or that I do not believe what Chazal say. The Rambam believed that everything that Chazal said is 'emes, but read his comments in the Perush haMishnayos to see that absolute Truth means different things in different approaches. Another example is how to reconcile the Truth that HQBH gave men free will with the fact that HQBH knows everything that will happen. That can only be explained if people understand certain assumptions about space and time. Rabbi Dr. Seth Mandel Rabbinic Coordinator The Orthodox Union From office at etzion.org.il Thu Dec 21 02:25:30 2017 From: office at etzion.org.il (Yeshivat Har Etzion) Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2017 12:25:30 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] VBM - Avodat Hashem #51: The Mitzva of Mezuza (Part I) Message-ID: <5A3B8C1A.4030506@etzion.org.il> PHILOSOPHY > Avodat Hashem - Foundations of Divine Service > Shiur #51: The Mitzva of Mezuza (Part I) Harav Baruch Gigi Yeshivat Har Etzion I. The Protection Offered by a Mezuza We are currently engaged in a clarification of the system of mitzvot, in the framework of the transition in Keriyat Shema from matters pertaining to the Rambam's Sefer Mada to matters pertaining to his Sefer Ahava. Thus far, we have studied the mitzva of tefillin and its unique meanings. Now, let us turn to a closely-related mitzva - the mitzva of mezuza. One of the central ideas relating to mezuza is the idea of protection. When one affixes a mezuza to the entrance of his home, his house and household are protected from all trouble and damage. This idea is expressed by Chazal in several contexts, and it is based, as we will demonstrate, on a connection that is already rooted in the verses of the Torah. At the end of the passage of Ve-haya im shamo'a, it is stated: And you shall write them upon the doorposts of your house and upon your gates; that your days may be multiplied, and the days of your children, upon the land which the Lord swore to your fathers to give them, as the days of the heavens above the earth. (Devarim 11:20-21) At first glance, it seems that the Torah's promise of longevity relates to all that was stated in this passage concerning one who obeys all of God's commandments and follows His ways. However, Chazal linked this promise directly to the mitzva of mezuza. Two talmudic passages establish a connection between longevity and the mitzva of mezuza. In tractate Shabbat (32b), it is taught that a person's children die because of a failure to fulfill the mitzva of mezuza.[1] This is learned from the juxtaposition of the commandment of mezuza to the verse that promises that "your days will be multiplied, and the days of your children." In a positive formulation, the Tur writes: Whoever is careful about it, his days and the days of his children will be lengthened, as it is written: "That your days may be multiplied, and the days of your children." (Tur, Yoreh De'ah 285) In tractate Kiddushin (34a), the gemara discusses the possibility of exempting women from the mitzva of mezuza. At first, the gemara is of the opinion that women are exempt, in view of the Torah's juxtaposition of the mitzva of mezuza to the mitzva of Torah study, from which women are exempt. However, the gemara rejects this possibility with the following argument: You cannot think so, because it is written: ["And You shall write them upon the doorposts of your house...] that your days may be multiplied." Do men only need life, and not women? (Kiddushin 34a) In this gemara as well, we clearly see that the promise of longevity in relation to the mitzva of mezuza is so central that there is no room even to entertain the possibility that women may be exempt from it. For by removing women from the mitzva of mezuza you would be removing them from the basic desire of existence, of life. The Tur adds: Moreover, one's house is protected by it, as they expounded the verse: "The Lord is your keeper; the Lord is your shade upon your right hand" (Tehillim 121:5). (Tur, ibid.) II. The Rambam's View The Rambam famously writes: It is a common custom to write [God's name] Shaddai on the outside of a mezuza, opposite the empty space left between the two passages. There is no difficulty in this, since the addition is made on the outside. However, those who write the names of angels, other sacred names, verses, or forms,[2] on the inside [of a mezuza] are among those who do not have a portion in the World-to-Come. Not only do these fools nullify the mitzva, but furthermore, they make from a great mitzva that reflects the unity of the name of the Holy One, blessed be He, the love of Him, and the service of Him, a talisman for their own benefit. They, in their foolish conception, think that this will help them regarding the vanities of the world. (Hilkhot Tefillin U-Mezuza 5:4) The Kesef Mishneh (ad loc.) cites the objection raised by the Ramach against the Rambam based on the gemara in Avoda Zara (11a). The gemara there records a story about Onkelos, who became a proselyte, and the emperor sent a contingent of soldiers after him. Among other things, it is stated there: Again he sent another cohort ordering them not to enter into any conversation whatever with him. So they took hold of him; and as they were walking on, he saw the mezuza that was fixed on the door frame and he placed his hand on it saying to them, "Now what is this?" And they replied, "You tell us then." He said to them, "According to universal custom, the mortal king dwells within, and his servants keep guard on him without; but [in the case of] the Holy One, blessed is He, it is His servants who dwell within while He keeps guard on them from without, as it is stated: `The Lord shall guard your going out and your coming in from this time forth and for evermore' (Tehillim 121:8)." Then they, too, were converted to Judaism. (Avoda Zara 11a) >From the difficulty raised by the Ramach, it may be concluded that in his opinion the Rambam rejects the idea of protection that is attributed to the mezuza. The Rambam views the mezuza as an expression of man's connection to God, in that he declares at the entrance to his house his faith in His unity and his love for Him, two of the foundations of His service. According to the Ramach, the Rambam rejects the talismanic qualities that were attributed to the mezuza by the ancients. The Ramach attacks the Rambam's position, as he understood it, on the grounds that the idea of protection is brought in the gemara itself: For in tractate Avoda Zara it is implied from that which Onkelos said to the Roman contingent that the Holy One, blessed is He, makes the mezuza to protect Israel from the outside. And one can force an answer that it was Onkelos who said this in order give importance to Israel. (Ramach, ad loc.) In light of this, the Ramach struggles to reconcile the Rambam's position, arguing that Onkelos said this to the Romans only in order to praise Israel in their eyes. Onkelos told the Romans that the mezuza symbolizes God's protection, as it were, over the houses of Israel. In truth, however, the mitzva of mezuza is not a matter of God's protection, but rather an expression of a person's faith in God's unity and service. It stands to reason, however, that the Rambam does not challenge the very idea of the protection offered by a mezuza. Thus writes the Kesef Mishneh in light of the fact that the gemara in Menachot uses this principle to determine the halakha regarding the proper placement of a mezuza: For in chapter Ha-Kometz (33b), regarding the rule that a mezuza must be placed in the handbreadth adjacent to the public domain, R. Huna said: "What is the reason? So that it may protect him."[3] Therefore you must say that in fact a mezuza protects the house when it is written properly. (Kesef Mishneh) In the Kesef Mishneh's opinion, the Rambam rejects only those actions that expanded the talismanic element of a mezuza - namely, the insertion of the names of the angels into the mezuza. The Rambam sees the protective quality of a mezuza in the connection between man and God and his belief in Him and His unity. In the continuation of our discussion, we will explain the idea of the protection offered by a mezuza with greater precision and in greater depth. III. Additional Sources The Yerushalmi states in tractate Pe'ah: Artaban sent to our holy Rabbi an invaluably precious pearl. He said to him: Send me something which is similarly precious. He sent him a mezuza. He said to him: What I have sent you is something priceless, but you have sent me something which is only worth one follis. He [Rabbi] said to him: Your treasures and my treasures are incomparable. And moreover, you have sent me something that I have to guard, while I have sent you something which guards you when you sleep, as it is written: "When you walk, it will lead you; when you lie down, it will watch over you; and when you awake, it will talk to you" (Mishlei 6:22). (Yerushalmi, Pe'ah 1:1) Similarly, the Tur writes in Hilkhot Mezuza: Moreover, one's house is protected by it, as they expounded the verse: "The Lord is your keeper; the Lord is your shade upon your right hand" (Tehillim 121:5). A mortal king dwells within, and his servants keep guard on him without; but you sleep in your beds and the Holy One, blessed is He, guards you from without. Therefore, it should be placed in the outermost handbreadth, so that the entire house be within it and under its protection. (Tur, Yoreh De'ah 285) The prevalent custom to write on the outside of the mezuza parchment the name ShaDaY - which is expounded as an abbreviation for the words: Shomer Delatot Yisrael, "Who guards the doors of Israel"[4] - also reinforces this idea of a mezuza as protecting a person's home. As stated, the basis of this idea is already found in the verses of the Torah. Even though the Torah does not mention the idea of protection in direct connection to the mitzva of mezuza, it is mentioned in connection with another mezuza. In Parashat Bo, God commands the people of Israel to place the blood of the paschal lamb on the two doorposts and lintel. The reason for this is explained as follows: And the blood shall be to you for a token upon the houses where you are; and when I see the blood, I will pass over you, and there shall no plague be upon you to destroy you, when I smite the land of Egypt. (Shemot 12:13) And later in the same chapter: For the Lord will pass through to smite the Egyptians; and when He sees the blood upon the lintel and on the two doorposts, the Lord will pass over the door, and will not suffer the destroyer to come in to your houses to smite you. (Shemot 12:23) It is further stated at the end of that chapter: It was a night of watching to the Lord for bringing them out from the land of Egypt; this same night is a night of watching to the Lord for all the children of Israel throughout their generations. (Shemot 12:42) Rashi writes: "A night of watching to the Lord for all the children of Israel throughout their generations" - This night is protected, and comes as such from ages past, against all destructive forces, as it is stated: "And He will not suffer the destroyer to enter your houses" (v. 33). (Rashi, ad loc.) IV. The Mezuza and the Paschal Offering On the night of the exodus from Egypt, God protected the houses of the people of Israel by way of the sign of the blood on the doorposts and lintels, and because of this the night became a night of watching for all generations.[5] At first glance, it seems that the common denominator between the mitzva of mezuza and the paschal offering is that in both cases we are commanded to place a specific thing on the doorpost, thereby securing the protection of the house and its inhabitants. On the deeper level, it seems that the connection between the mitzva of mezuza and the paschal offering is more substantive. What is the significance of placing blood on the doorposts and lintel of one's house? The paschal offering that the people of Israel brought in Egypt was sacrificed as a family offering, a sheep for each family, at the entrance to each family's home. In Egypt, of course, there was no Temple and no altar. Therefore, it seems that the meaning of the blood was to distinguish between the houses of the Israelites and the houses of the Egyptians, in order to prevent the destroyer from coming into the homes of the Israelites to attack. However, the possibility that the blood was meant to distinguish between the houses of Israel and the houses of Egypt raises a great difficulty, in light of the midrashim of Chazal, which indicate that God Himself passed through the land of Egypt. He certainly did not need a distinguishing sign. So writes the Beit Yosef in his book, Maggid Meisharim: As for the difficulty with the verse, "And when I see the blood, I will pass over you," why was a sign needed, for surely everything is revealed to Him? It may be suggested that a sign was needed for the angels who came with Him. It may further be objected that this sign was with blood, which is a sign of death, the opposite of what they wanted. And furthermore, the sign should have been on the outside, and this sign was on the inside. But the secret of the matter is that the Holy One, blessed be He, wanted them to trust in Him and place the blood on the door from the inside. This is what is written: "And the blood shall be to you for a token." And instead of being afraid when they see the blood on the door, on the contrary they should trust their Master who commanded them to do this, so that He would be a salvation for them. This merit of trusting God would protect them. This is the meaning of what is written: "And the blood shall be to you for a token upon the houses where you are; and when I see the blood, I will pass over you." That is to say, I will see the merit of your trust, that the blood that is a sign of death will be for you a sign of life when you trust the words of your Master. And for this reason, "when I see the blood, I will pass over you." (Maggid Meisharim, Parashat Bo) It seems that trust in God involves not only doing the action required by God on the simple level. What we have here is an important and profound principle, in light of the gemara in Pesachim: R. Yosef taught: There were three altars there, on the lintel and on the two doorposts. (Pesachim 96a) A broader picture emerges from the gemara. The paschal offering brought in Egypt was a sacrifice offered at the entrance of a person's house, his house serving as the Temple, and the entrance to his house being the altar. While Chazal speak of three altars, it seems more accurate to say that they are referring to the three corners of the altar. The people of Israel are commanded to see their homes as the house of God. With their trust in God, they express the strength of their connection to Him by seeing their homes as God's house. And if their house is the house of God, then the entrance to the house is an altar, and they put of the blood on the three corners of the altar - the lintel and the two doorposts. This view, which sanctifies the houses of the people of Israel as the Temple, is similar to what is stated: "In every place where I cause My name to be mentioned I will come to you and bless you" (Shemot 20:20). In this way, the house becomes the basis of the covenant that is being formed between God and His people, by virtue of their seeking His presence within them. If we are correct, it stands to reason that the idea of the protection offered by a mezuza has a more fundamental and inner meaning. A person turns his house into a house of God, and a house of God is protected, as is stated in Tehillim: A Song of Ascents; of Shelomo. Except the Lord build the house, they labor in vain that build it; except the Lord keep the city, the watchman wakes but in vain. (Tehillim 127:1) God's protection is protection, and there is no other, it alone being considered true protection. These words connect with the words of the Rambam in Hilkhot Beit Ha-Bechira, that the guarding in the Temple was merely a display of honor, and not needed for the protection it offered, since the house of God is not in need of protection: There is a positive mitzva to guard the Temple. [This mitzvah applies] even though there is no fear of enemies or thieves, for the guarding [of the Temple] is an expression of respect for it. A palace with guards is [much more impressive] than a palace without guards. (Rambam, Hilkhot Beit Ha-Bechira 8:1) (Translated by David Strauss) _______________________ [1] The gemara there states as follows: "R. Chiya bar Abba and R. Yose disagree. One says: It is for the sin of neglect of mezuza [that a person's children die]; while the other says: It is for the sin of the neglect of Torah... It is well according to the one who says: It is for the sin of the neglect of mezuza, for it is written: 'And you shall write them upon the doorposts of your house,' which is followed by: 'that your days may be multiplied, and the days of your children'" (Shabbat 32b). [2] The Rambam is referring here to the ancient practice of inserting all kinds of additions into the mezuza. Rabbeinu Eliezer of Metz writes as follows: "It is common practice to add seals and the names of the angels at the end of the Bible verses contained in the mezuza for the sake of the increased security of the home. This is not indispensible, nor even a mitzva, but simply serves as additional protection" (Yere'im 400). He then spells out in great detail the names of the angels and where precisely they were inserted in the mezuza. [3] According to the Ramach's understanding of the Rambam, it may be suggested that this does not mean that a mezuza protects a person, but rather that a person should be reminded of the principles of his faith whenever he goes in or out of his house. [4] See Kolbo: "The reason that we write this name more than the others is that it is an abbreviation for Shomer Dirat Yisrael, "Who guards the dwelling of Israel" (Kolbo, Mezuza 90). [5] Establishing this night as a night of watching has halakhic ramifications in a number of contexts. This is true regarding the recitation of Shema before going to sleep and regarding the Me-Ein Sheva blessing on the night of the Seder when it falls out on Friday night. Many halakhic authorities rule that one should not say the Me-Ein Sheva blessing on the night of the Seder, since it is a night of watching that does not require protection. From bdbradley70 at hotmail.com Sat Dec 23 13:33:10 2017 From: bdbradley70 at hotmail.com (Ben Bradley) Date: Sat, 23 Dec 2017 21:33:10 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Midrash Tanchuma Message-ID: I'd be grateful to know if anyone here is sufficiently familiar with different editions of midrash tanchuma to help me out. I acquired a copy of the Tanchuma from a second hand book shop, very inexpensively, a number of years ago. I was a poor student at the time. It was printed in 5645, ie 1885, by one Shlomo Buber (Bober?) in Lvov from manuscripts acquired from Oxford and the Vatican. I must admit I'd never paid much attention to these details until now, but It's just come to my attention that it my copy is hugely different to the standard one. For example, this week in Vayigash, my copy has 12 simanim, compared to the 11 in the standard edition. But only 4 of these are the same (8-11 in mine corresponding to 9-12 in the standard), all the others are utterly different. By which I mean they are simply different midrashim, not just variants. Can anyone shed light on such a huge difference between what seems to be the standard edition and mine? Best wishes Ben -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From meirabi at gmail.com Sat Dec 23 16:49:35 2017 From: meirabi at gmail.com (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi) Date: Sun, 24 Dec 2017 11:49:35 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] Did the Patriarchs Speak Hebrew? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Speak means communication, there were 10 communications with which HKBH created the universe There were 10 communications broadcast at Har Sinai - I'm pretty sure it wasn't Polish or Hungarian. The Rishonim argue about the nature of prophesy, is it an actual voice (meaning stimulation of the human hearing facility of the ear - not necessarily stimulated by an actual sound) or just a voice in the head but TTBOMKnowledge, none question the language. Anyway, does it make any difference? Either way the brain is receiving a signal. Perhaps the type of language is irrelevant, what's important is that the message is received and understood. That the parties are connected. I have seen, but could not re-find a comment by the MaOr VeShemesh (I think connected to Ish Mitzi HiTzilanu) that Yidden spoke Mitzi, and the meaning of Lo Shinu LeShonom is that they spoke with a Yiddishe style, with dignity and kindness - and this is what set us apart. Clearly a Derasha designed to direct the listeners and readers towards a more dignified language, but at the same time reflecting an ultimate truth, the language does not make the man, it's the style that's important. I also recall hearing is a RaMBaN or a Siforno - a child exposed from birth to no external language inputs, would naturally speak Lashon HaKodesh. This seems to be a fairly old consideration amongst philosophers, see Frederick's Experiment, and Gong Mahal. HKBH looked into the Torah and created the universe, speaks volumes about the centrality of Torah, not about it's language, although it's not easy separating the two. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From driceman at optimum.net Sat Dec 23 16:53:36 2017 From: driceman at optimum.net (David Riceman) Date: Sat, 23 Dec 2017 19:53:36 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Did the Patriarchs Speak Hebrew? Message-ID: See Melachim 2 18:26 [Email #2. -micha] And see Gen. 31:47 DR Sent from my iPad From zev at sero.name Sat Dec 23 19:46:46 2017 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Sat, 23 Dec 2017 22:46:46 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Midrash Tanchuma In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 23/12/17 16:33, Ben Bradley via Avodah wrote: > It was printed in 5645, ie 1885, by one Shlomo Buber (Bober?) in Lvov > from manuscripts acquired from Oxford and the Vatican. > I must admit I'd never paid much attention to these details until now, > but It's just come to my attention that it my copy is hugely different > to the standard one. Yes, the Buber Tanchuma is a different sefer from the standard Tanchuma. Citations to "Tanchuma" stam refer to the old edition, while ones to this edition are given as "Tanchuma (Buber)". Buber claimed that he had found the original version, and that the one published in the 16th century is a much later one. Not everyone was convinced. There was also something the rishonim called "Medrash Yelamdeinu", which may have been a third version which is now lost, or may simply have been the name by which they referred to one or the other of these two versions. http://bit.ly/2C5u4FL -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From akivagmiller at gmail.com Sat Dec 23 18:39:15 2017 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Sat, 23 Dec 2017 21:39:15 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Did the Patriarchs Speak Hebrew? Message-ID: . R' Seth Mandel wrote: > There is no proof that anyone spoke Hebrew. and R' Zev Sero responded: > Rashi Bereshis 2:23 That Rashi does not mention Hebrew. What Rashi says there is that the olam was created via "Lashon Hakodesh". "Lashon Hakodesh" may or may not be the same thing as what we refer to as "Hebrew". One cannot discuss this topic meaningfully unless he is careful to make this distinction. For a very in-depth (yet also readable and in English) treatment of these and related topics, I recommend "Lashon Hakodesh - History, Holiness, & Hebrew" by Rabbi Reuven Chaim Klein. Akiva Miller From zvilampel at gmail.com Sat Dec 23 21:41:29 2017 From: zvilampel at gmail.com (H Lampel) Date: Sun, 24 Dec 2017 00:41:29 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Historicity of Aggadta In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Under the subject line of Re: [Avodah] Did the Patriarchs Speak Hebrew?, RSM raises a claim that RMB and I have argued over in the past. He writes, > Medrashim of Chazal teaches us important ideas, but are not meant to > be literally true. They do not intend to be a historical document, > but rather contain important moral and ethical teachings which are > 'emes in the spiritual sense. > > ... if you understand > what the Rambam says in his introduction to Chapter 10 of Mas. Sanhedrin > regarding three approaches to what Chazal say But the Rambam also writes there: And? I will yet compose a work in which I will gather all the drashos found in the Talmud and elsewhere...and I will reveal what of the drashos are [meant in] a literal way, and which of them are [meant as] mashal, and which of them were [describing something seen only] in a dream but was stated in a purely absolute way, as if it were [experienced] in a state of wakefulness... So, the Rambam does not maintain that the literal meaning of? /all/ drashos is to be rejected. Some are indeed meant literally, and some are not. (The Rambam never wrote this work. As he explains in Moreh Nevuchim, since much of it would be dealing with the meaning of drashos whose meanings were valuable lessons too precious to be shared with those who would not appreciate them appropriately, he would be forced to merely substitute the drashos' figurative expressions with his own figurative expressions. But in several works he does provide the key that they are not meant literally when the literal meaning would contradict realia, logic, fundamentals or pesukim.) His son Avraham, in his maamer on Drashos Chazal writes similarly regarding the maasiyos reported in the Talmud. R. Yehuda HaLevy (1:68) understood the midrashic maasiyos attributing the Hebrew language to the patriarchs as a historic reality that carried an important lesson, and considered the Torah as presenting evidence thereof. According to tradition it is the language in which G-d spoke to Adam and Eve, and in which the latter conversed. It is proved by the derivation of Adam from /adamah/, /ishshah/ from /ish/; /Chava/__from Chay; /Cain/ from /Kannisi/; /Shes/ from /shas/, and Noach from /yenachamenu/. This is supported by the evidence of the Torah. The whole is traced back to Eber, Noach and Adam. It is the language of Eber after whom it was called /Hebrew/, because after the confusion of tongues it was he who retained it. Abraham was an Aramaean of /Ur Kasdim/, because the language of the Chaldaeans was Aramaic. He employed Hebrew as a specially holy language andAramaic for everyday use. .. Zvi Lampel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From familyp2 at actcom.net.il Sun Dec 24 03:05:02 2017 From: familyp2 at actcom.net.il (Simi Peters) Date: Sun, 24 Dec 2017 13:05:02 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] tanhuma buber Message-ID: <001a01d37ca7$16b17e70$44147b50$@actcom.net.il> Your edition of Tanhuma is indeed vastly different from the standard printed edition. It was published by Buber from a Cairo Geniza manuscript (or possibly several manuscripts-not sure about the details.) There is some overlap, but there is a lot of material in Tanhuma Buber that does not appear in the standard editions and vice versa. It's good to have both. Unless you're interested in trying to reconstruct an ur-edition of Tanhuma, you can just treat them as separate works and mine each for its interesting material. Kol tuv, Simi Peters --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From zvilampel at gmail.com Sun Dec 24 06:43:33 2017 From: zvilampel at gmail.com (H Lampel) Date: Sun, 24 Dec 2017 09:43:33 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Historicity of Aggadta In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1f584d28-51c5-aa2f-2eb7-e97d1cd32aef@gmail.com> On 12/24/2017 12:41 AM, Z?? Lampel wrote: > R. Yehuda HaLevy (1:68) Should be: R. Yehuda Halevy (Kuzari 2:68). Zvi Lampel From marty.bluke at gmail.com Sun Dec 24 04:32:45 2017 From: marty.bluke at gmail.com (Marty Bluke) Date: Sun, 24 Dec 2017 14:32:45 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] New Cancer Treatment Message-ID: RHS in his sefer (Eretz Hatzvi) points out that it seems to be 2 opinions in Tosafos whether a mamzer can be created without a bias issur. The Gemara in Yevamos 16b brings the opinion that eved v'akum haba al bas yisrael havlad mamzer. Tosafos there asks the following question. They understand how there can be an opinion that an eved creates mamzerus because there is a specific issur for a Jewish woman to have biah with an eved. However, they ask, by a Goy there is no issur biah min hatorah and therefore how can anyone hold that the product of the biah of a goy and a Jewish woman would create a mamzer? Tosafos gives 2 answers: 1. Even though there is no bias issur since kiddushin are not tofsin it creates mamzerus. 2. A Goy and a Jewish woman do not create a mamzer min hatorah only midrabbanan If we apply these 2 opinions to IVF, according to the first answer since kiddushin are not tofsin (since she is married) the child would be a mamzer even though there was no bias issur. On the other hand, the second answer holds that the determining factor of mamzerus is a bias issur and therefore since in the case of IVF there is no bias issur there would be no mamzerus. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Sun Dec 24 06:24:17 2017 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Sun, 24 Dec 2017 14:24:17 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] The Nature of Egyptian Society Message-ID: <1514125453560.29445@stevens.edu> The following is from RSRH" commentary on Bereishis 46:33 Now, when Pharaoh calls you and asks, What is your occupation? 33 In a state like Egypt, the individual is completely identified with his occupation. Children are not born as human beings but as artisans, peasants, soldiers, and so forth. Accordingly, Pharaoh's first question to Yosef 's brothers would naturally concern their occupation. They were instructed to answer Pharaoh's question candidly, to tell him the truth, even though it would be unpleasant. For the Egyptians' loathing for the brothers' occupation and, in general, the nations' aversion to the Jews were to serve as primary factors in the survival of this race, which was destined to journey through the ages in isolation. As long as the moral morn had not dawned for the nations, the barriers they erected to isolate the Jews served to protect the Jews from becoming infected with the barbarism and demoralization of the people in whose midst they had to walk for hundreds of years. Yosef therefore immediately emphasizes the aspect that will arouse the aversion of the Egyptians. His clear intention is that, as a result, his brothers will be allocated a separate province in which to dwell. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cantorwolberg at cox.net Sat Dec 23 19:30:04 2017 From: cantorwolberg at cox.net (Richard Wolberg) Date: Sat, 23 Dec 2017 22:30:04 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Vay'chi Message-ID: <89600AC2-DFEA-44AA-A5AE-9C4493ED11F4@cox.net> There?s an interesting medrash the k?li yakar brings down. It doesn?t say Vayik?r?vu Yisroel Lamus, that Yisroel came close to die,? rather it says: ?Vayik?r?vu Y?MEI Yisroel lamus,? that the DAYS of Yisroel came close to die. And the medresh says, the DAYS died, not the person. This goes in line with Vay?chi Ya?akov, and Jacob LIVED. In other words, his body died but not he, himself. (The question has been asked: Do you have a soul? The answer is NO, you ARE a soul with a body). In the first pasuk (vs.28) the name Yaakov is used twice and then in vs.29 we see the name Yisroel used. The question is asked why does the name change from Ya?akov to Yisroel. One answer is that Yisroel symbolizes the prophecy of Ya?akov. And that?s how he knew he was going to die because in prophecy he understood and divinely inspired, he understood that he was going to die. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From larry62341 at optonline.net Sun Dec 24 02:38:32 2017 From: larry62341 at optonline.net (Prof. Levine) Date: Sun, 24 Dec 2017 05:38:32 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] The Protection Offered by a Mezuza Message-ID: At 06:58 PM 12/23/2017, Harav Baruch Gigi wrote: The following is from RSRH's commentary on Devorim 6:9 And write them upon the [door-] posts of your house and upon your gates. The mezuzah is not an amulet; in and of itself, it does not protect the house. Only insofar as they shape their lives in accordance with the mezuzah 's content can the people within the house expect help and protection from God, the "All-Sovereign and All-Sufficing," in all the vicissitudes of domestic life. With this intent it is our custom to adorn the outside of the mezuzah with the Name shin-daled-yud. From ben1456 at zahav.net.il Sun Dec 24 10:55:39 2017 From: ben1456 at zahav.net.il (Ben Waxman) Date: Sun, 24 Dec 2017 20:55:39 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Rambam ,Hilchot Hannuka Message-ID: A few take aways from Rambam Hilchot Hanukka Chapter 3 1) For the Rambam, Hallel is the ikkar element of Hanukka, not the candles (given that details Hallel first and only then goes on to the candles). 2) The Rambam gives a long detailed description on how to properly say Hallel in beit knesset. However the last halacha in the chapter basically says "I've been in a lot batei knesset and everyone does something different'. Meaning - you want to do a musical Hallel, different tunes, no tunes, responsive, everyone together, whatever you like - it is fine. 3) The Rambam raises the possibility of a woman or child or slave reading Hallel and everyone repeating what she or he said word by word. However, he doesn't add in the famous curse given in the Gemara. Meaning - the Rambam didn't hold by? Tavo Ma'arah (spelling?) (at least not here). Ben From lisa at starways.net Sun Dec 24 11:27:31 2017 From: lisa at starways.net (Lisa Liel) Date: Sun, 24 Dec 2017 21:27:31 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] The Protection Offered by a Mezuza In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2cfbbfce-e0d9-fc05-140c-969d4b5f18a1@starways.net> On 12/24/2017 12:38 PM, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: > At 06:58 PM 12/23/2017, Harav Baruch Gigi wrote: ... > The mezuzah is not an amulet; in and of itself, it does not protect the > house. Only insofar as they shape their lives in accordance with the mezuzah's > content can the people within the house expect help and protection... I know a mezuzah isn't an amulet, but when my apartment burned down back in the 90s, the fire burned through two sides of the apartment and jumped over my room only, which was the only one with a mezuzah.? I'm not saying it couldn't be a coincidence, I'm just saying that I didn't take it that way. Lisa From zev at sero.name Sun Dec 24 14:10:20 2017 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Sun, 24 Dec 2017 17:10:20 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] The Protection Offered by a Mezuza In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2d108449-ec4d-0e35-d888-0ccdd8b113be@sero.name> On 24/12/17 05:38, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: > At 06:58 PM 12/23/2017, Harav Baruch Gigi wrote: > The following is from RSRH's commentary on Devorim 6:9 And write > them upon the [door-] > posts of your house and upon your gates. > > The mezuzah is not an amulet; in and of itself, it does not protect the > house. Only insofar as they shape their lives in accordance with the mezuzah 's > content can the people within the house expect help and protection > from God, the "All-Sovereign and All-Sufficing," in all the vicissitudes > of domestic life. That may be RSRH's opinion, but if so it contradicts Chazal and millennia of Jewish belief and practise. No, the mezuzah is not an amulet; if it were not a mitzvah it would have no inherent power. But the *mitzvah* of mezuzah protects regardless of how those within the house "shape their lives". Even a goy who puts up a mezuzah, choosing to voluntarily fulfil this mitzvah, can expect this protection. The mitzvah protects those who fulfil it not only when they are inside the house it adorns, but wherever they are. And, most astonishingly, although it is true that a mezuzah itself is not an amulet, there are legitimate grounds to believe that carrying it around "zecher lamitzvah" *does* give some level of protection, even though no mitzvah is being fulfilled. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From ben1456 at zahav.net.il Sun Dec 24 19:58:42 2017 From: ben1456 at zahav.net.il (Ben Waxman) Date: Mon, 25 Dec 2017 05:58:42 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] The Protection Offered by a Mezuza In-Reply-To: <2d108449-ec4d-0e35-d888-0ccdd8b113be@sero.name> References: <2d108449-ec4d-0e35-d888-0ccdd8b113be@sero.name> Message-ID: <80f92bd4-b7af-1b26-1d03-0f3ce7a67edf@zahav.net.il> I seriously doubt that anyone could come up with any statistical analysis showing this point to be true. Ben On 12/25/2017 12:10 AM, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > But the *mitzvah* of mezuzah protects regardless of how those within the house "shape their lives". From zvilampel at gmail.com Mon Dec 25 07:28:21 2017 From: zvilampel at gmail.com (H Lampel) Date: Mon, 25 Dec 2017 10:28:21 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Did the Patriarchs Speak Hebrew? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > Tue, 19 Dec 2017 "Mandel, Seth" wrote: > > There is no proof that anyone spoke Hebrew. ... the Torah was written in Hebrew because that is > what the Jews understood at the time of Moshe Rabbeinu and the N'vi'im. > ... What did Yaakov speak to Rochel and > Leah, who had never been in EY? ... > one cannot know from the T'NaKh who spoke what when and where. Well, at least when the matriarchs and patriarchs stated the reasons for the names they gave their children, they were obviously speaking the same Hebrew spoken in the times of Moshe Rabbeinu. The only way to question this would be to suggest that originally Yitzchak, for instance was called "HeShallLaugh" in some other language, and over the next 5 centuries the bnei Yisrael (or the descendants of HeWillStriveWithG-d, or whatever), knowing the meaning of the name, changed it to Yitzchak.And did the same with each one of all the other names given in the chronologies, which are also clearly contractions of Mattan Torah time Hebrew words. And a similar convoluted explanation would have to be made when an allegedly unHebrew-speaking Eisav cracked ''Ha-chi kara shmo Yaakov--Vayak-veini zeh pa'amayyim...?!" I think all that is extremely unlikely, even without invoking the masorah (of no less import than the Masorah that HQBH dictated the Torah to Moshe Rabbeinu in the eponymous Biblical Hebrew) that the shevatim in Moshe Rabbeinu's time retained the names given to their ancestors (cited in many places including BeMidbar Rabbah 13:20 s.v. Bayom HaShishi and Midrash Tehillim 114:4). Zvi Lampel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mcohen at touchlogic.com Mon Dec 25 07:39:55 2017 From: mcohen at touchlogic.com (M Cohen) Date: Mon, 25 Dec 2017 10:39:55 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Did the Patriarchs Speak Hebrew? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <00bd01d37d96$9d1ebc80$d75c3580$@com> Fyi that the best sefer that I have seen on the subject of Hebrew and ancient Hebrew history is Lashon HaKodesh: History, Holiness & Hebrew by Rabbi Reuven Chaim Klein. Feldheim. http://www.feldheim.com/lashon-hakodesh.html Haskomos from R Leff, R Breitowitz, R Lopiansky It deals with the subject of ancient Hebrew history, using both on chazal and current linguistic and archeological sources Did Adam harishon speak Hebrew ? Did the world speak Hebrew until tower of Babel? Did Avraham speak Hebrew ? Foreign influences on Hebrew Hebrew vs Aramaic. Sources. History. Development. You will find exhaustive source material and answers there. Mordechai Cohen ======= Email scanned by PC Tools - No viruses or spyware found. (Email Guard: 9.1.0.2894, Virus/Spyware Database: 6.22240) http://free.pctools.com/ ======= From zev at sero.name Sun Dec 24 23:16:16 2017 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Mon, 25 Dec 2017 02:16:16 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] The Protection Offered by a Mezuza In-Reply-To: <80f92bd4-b7af-1b26-1d03-0f3ce7a67edf@zahav.net.il> References: <2d108449-ec4d-0e35-d888-0ccdd8b113be@sero.name> <80f92bd4-b7af-1b26-1d03-0f3ce7a67edf@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <1ba30a45-ba01-d7d5-2b67-843f9f22ed8b@sero.name> On 24/12/17 22:58, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > On 12/25/2017 12:10 AM, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: >> But the *mitzvah* of mezuzah protects regardless of how those within >> the house "shape their lives". > I seriously doubt that anyone could come up with any statistical > analysis showing this point to be true. Why do we need statistical analysis? Judaism tell us it's true, therefore it is. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From llevine at stevens.edu Mon Dec 25 12:00:57 2017 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Mon, 25 Dec 2017 20:00:57 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Bishul Akum - Specific Products Message-ID: <0ae98ef4eb3a4dbeaa39a0bbc1e50abf@exchng03.campus.stevens-tech.edu> Please see the file at https://goo.gl/LnRQjF YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Mon Dec 25 12:30:23 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 25 Dec 2017 15:30:23 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] The Protection Offered by a Mezuza In-Reply-To: <80f92bd4-b7af-1b26-1d03-0f3ce7a67edf@zahav.net.il> References: <2d108449-ec4d-0e35-d888-0ccdd8b113be@sero.name> <80f92bd4-b7af-1b26-1d03-0f3ce7a67edf@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <20171225203023.GA9557@aishdas.org> On Mon, Dec 25, 2017 at 05:58am IST, Ben Waxman wrote: : On 12/25/2017 12:10 AM, Zev Sero wrote: :> But the *mitzvah* of mezuzah protects regardless of how those :> within the house "shape their lives". : I seriously doubt that anyone could come up with any statistical : analysis showing this point to be true. (I won't bother arguing against Zev's inability to acknowledge the existence of other shitos than his. "[I]t contradicts Chazal and millennia of Jewish belief and practise." "Judaism tell us it's true" indeed. It's a machloqes of the Rambam and the Ramach, with various teirutzim given for the Rambam. Not open-and-shut at all.) You want to statistically decide which hashkafah is true??? I lean the way you do. But it's a machloqes. I already pointed to , a discussion of sources both ways. It would be weird to think it boils down to a machloqes in metzi'us. You remind me of a problem I have saying a particular line of Tehillim (37:25) with kavanah, and it comes up at the appendix to bentching, "Naar hayisi..." But I have seen a tzadiq whose kids miss meals and have to beg. Haven't you? The best I can do, rather than tamper with the minhag of saying it, is to focus on the word "ne'ezav" -- so, his kids don't have food, but it's not because HQBH abandoned the tzadiq. But I can't really feel that's peshat in the pasuq. It allows me to saven with qavanah, but as an answer -- the question is better than this resolution. Bitachon and emunah that actually fit the data can be more challenging than if we just shut off critical thought. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "As long as the candle is still burning, micha at aishdas.org it is still possible to accomplish and to http://www.aishdas.org mend." Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Anonymous shoemaker to R' Yisrael Salanter From micha at aishdas.org Mon Dec 25 12:34:01 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 25 Dec 2017 15:34:01 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Historicity of Aggadta In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20171225203401.GB9557@aishdas.org> On Sun, Dec 24, 2017 at 12:41:29AM -0500, H Lampel via Avodah wrote: : Under the subject line of Re: [Avodah] Did the Patriarchs Speak Hebrew?, : RSM raises a claim that RMB and I have argued over in the past. He writes, : : > Medrashim of Chazal teaches us important ideas, but are not meant to : > be literally true. They do not intend to be a historical document, : > but rather contain important moral and ethical teachings which are : > 'emes in the spiritual sense. Which need not say anything about the story's lilterally truth. Just that the story isn't *about* its literal historical claim, and therefore doesn't testify to history one way or the other. And so, I agree with: : So, the Rambam does not maintain that the literal meaning of /all/ : drashos is to be rejected. Some are indeed meant literally, and some are : not. And yet still won't bother worrying about contradicting any medrash's historical claims. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Life is a stage and we are the actors, micha at aishdas.org but only some of us have the script. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Menachem Nissel Fax: (270) 514-1507 From zvilampel at gmail.com Mon Dec 25 15:53:28 2017 From: zvilampel at gmail.com (H Lampel) Date: Mon, 25 Dec 2017 18:53:28 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Historicity of Aggadta In-Reply-To: <20171225203401.GB9557@aishdas.org> References: <20171225203401.GB9557@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 12/25/2017 3:34 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > And so, I agree with: > : So, the Rambam does not maintain that the literal meaning of /all/ > : drashos is to be rejected. Some are indeed meant literally, and some are > : not. > > And yet still won't bother worrying about contradicting any medrash's > historical claims. I already stated that the Rambam holds the intent of? a medrash is not literal if he holds it contradicts realia, logic, fundamentals or pesukim. And I should add, if it contradicts what he considers the consensus of Chazal. And in past iterations I submitted examples where the Rambam cites midrashic reports of history apparently qua history. You may insist that he (contra the Kuzari regarding Adam and the patricarchs speaking Hebrew) doesn't care about whether they are historically factual. But if you have examples of the Rambam not bothering to worry about contradicting a medrash's historical reports despite the above caveats, please provide them. Zvi Lampel From micha at aishdas.org Mon Dec 25 17:21:19 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 25 Dec 2017 20:21:19 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Historicity of Aggadta In-Reply-To: References: <20171225203401.GB9557@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20171226012119.GH24733@aishdas.org> On Mon, Dec 25, 2017 at 06:53:28PM -0500, H Lampel wrote: :> And yet still won't bother worrying about contradicting any medrash's :> historical claims. : I already stated that the Rambam holds the intent of? a medrash is : not literal if he holds it contradicts realia, logic, fundamentals : or pesukim... Yes, but you know I disagree. The Rambam says that the intent of a medrash is not literal. They might also be literal. A mashal or melitzah -- as he discusses from Mishlei at length -- can be pulled from history or stam crafted as a story, but in either case "mimah shenimtza bikhlal divreihem morim al inyanim amitiyim me'od." However, if the story does contradict what is known, we know it's a pure mashal, ahistorical. And therefore don't become like someone of the first two katim, believing stupidity or ridiculing chazal for their allegedly teaching stupidity. But he doesn't ever say that if the story is plausible, that's the point of the story. Nor that it's sufficient reason to assume it's true on a literal level. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "Fortunate indeed, is the man who takes micha at aishdas.org exactly the right measure of himself, and http://www.aishdas.org holds a just balance between what he can Fax: (270) 514-1507 acquire and what he can use." - Peter Latham From micha at aishdas.org Sun Dec 24 14:11:31 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Sun, 24 Dec 2017 17:11:31 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Please help me fund my book! Message-ID: <20171224221131.GA26480@aishdas.org> My manuscript just went to the publishers. For the second time; I retracted my first version because I didn't like the idea that the book was all theory without any pragmatics. What's the value of exploring the meaning of Torah and life based on haRav Shimon haKohein Shkop without anything about how to align one's life with those ideals? If you want some sense of what the book is about, the text that it's a commentary / elaboration on is available at http://www.aishdas.org/asp/ShaareiYosher.pdf -- although I have made some improvements to the readability of that translation since that PDF. If you would like to help me make this dream happen, whether because you were always looking for a way to thank me for these email lists, you like me or some of the things you've seen me write in the past, you like Rav Shimon's hashkafah, or simply think *any* sefer that gets more Orthodox Jews thinking about the big picture and why are we doing it all is worth existing, please let me know. Initial reactions are excited: "This may IY'H attract some serious attention -- books like this don't come out every day." "Very chashuv, unique sefer." "Wow. what an impressive work!" "Right up our alley, as well. Torah, important -- but kind of unique. For thinking people." "I think the subject, approach and writing are gevaldik." "I am excited as well, but they tell me the hardest part of the job still lays ahead." The sefarim market cannot consume books to the extent where publication will make a profit. So, at least when it comes to the business and funding models, all the houses expect fundraising and sponsorship to make a book happen. But it is not "vanity press". The publisher adds significant value to the book -- fact checking, editing, layout and other aesthetics, etc. The publisher I am going with uses Feldheim as their distribution channel, so my sefer could reach every Anglo sefarim store. And they have to pay the people who do all that, not to mention feed their own families. They put their name on the book, the book is their product. They need that good name for future marketing and distribution. So, they won't take on a book that would harm their business. They're willing to invest those man-hours, and when done, to stand behind my work. So, I have to rely heavily on word-of-mouth to raise that money. Including hitting up everyone here on Areivim/Avodah. I am using a foundation established in memory of my grandparents to clear the money in a manner that is tax-deductible. Email me for details if you are interested in chipping in. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger For those with faith there are no questions. micha at aishdas.org For those who lack faith there are no answers. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yaakov of Radzimin Fax: (270) 514-1507 From zvilampel at gmail.com Mon Dec 25 19:55:18 2017 From: zvilampel at gmail.com (H Lampel) Date: Mon, 25 Dec 2017 22:55:18 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Diberah Torah Kil-shon bnei adam In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Under the heading, Re: [Avodah] Did the Patriarchs Speak Hebrew?, Tue, 19 Dec 2017 From: Micha Berger > Mandel, Seth via Avodah wrote: > : There is no proof that anyone spoke Hebrew. Chazal say that dibb'ra Torah > : bilshon b'nei odom... > > RMB: Well.... R' Yishmael says it [the dictum ''dibb'ra Torah > bilshon b'nei odom.''] And it appears to be an argument for his > rules of derashah, which do not include looking for magic words like > "akh" (mi'ut), "raq" (mi'ut), "kol" (ribui) or even "es", but darshens > the meaning of terms, whether ribui or mi'ut....And besides, R' Aqiva disagrees! RSRH (Collected Writings Vol. V, p. 170), citing 30 cases,? points out that, ''R. Ishmael, no less than R. Akiba (and......all of R. Akiva's predecessors...)...considered particles [including of ''akh,'' ''raq'' and ''ess'] and superfluities ..in the Biblical text...subject to interpretations.'' He explains (p. 177) that ''R. Ishmael disagrees with R. Akiba only with regard to one very specific form of redundancy, namely, repetitions of the same expression; e.g.,...yidor nedder,...hasheiv heishiv, or the repetition of the same noun (ish ish). However, R. Ishmael interprets other redundancies in exactly the same manner as does R. Akiba.'' This leads me to propose an explanation for the phenomenon described by RMB as that... > The Rambam really sloganeers (like the CS's "chadash assur min haTorah") > when he uses it to explain that anthropomorphic descriptions of HQBH > are idioms, not to be taken overly literally. Rambam was not the first (and of course not the last*) to understand that Chazal intended by ''dibrah Torah kil-shon bnei adam'' a wider meaning than the one in dispute between R. Akiva and R.Yishmael, and even wider than the one RSRH shows both agreed to. Rav Hai Gaon (Teshuvas HaGaonim #98), too, used it to explain anthropomorphisms ("all the words of our Sages that have anthropomorphic descriptions ... are not to be understood literally but are metaphors or allegory. ... the Torah speaks in the language of man.)'' So did Chovos Halevavos (Shaar HaYichud 1:1:10). And Sefer HaKuzari (5:27) used it to explain? what the Torah means when it says that blowing the chatzotzros will result in ''v-hayu lachem l-zikaron lifnei H','' which seems to imply that H' requires reminders. Raavad (Sefer HaEmunah 1:7) applied the dictum to explain why the rewards and punishments the Torah' explicitly references are only those in this world, and not the next.? He explained that speaking of spiritual rewards would confuse the common people, ''v'al zeh ne'emar dibrah Torah b-lashon bnei adam.'' (Semi-off topic: In Maamar Techiyyas HaMeisim, Rambam gives a similar, if not identical reason for no explicit reference to techiyyas hameisim, without invoking the dictum.) So I propose that the Geonim and rishonim understood that the intent of Chazal's dictum? ''dibrah Torah kil-ashon bnei adam'' was a wide one, which includes the Torah's use of anthropomorphism. And that R. Yishmael, contra R. Akiva,? /extended/? it even to repetitions of the same expression; e.g.,...yidor nedder,...hasheiv heishiv, or the repetition of the same noun (ish ish). But nobody, including R. Yishmael, extended it even further, to other apparently extra words or particles such as"akh", "raq", "kol" and "ess". Those are meant for interpretation according to all. This would explain why even though the rule is that we follow R. Akiva when he argues with R. Yishmael, , the rishonim embraced the dictum of "dibrah Torah kil-shon bnei adam." Because they embraced it in the sense that all Chazal agreed to. And this applies to anthropomorphisms. It is only regarding whether to extended the dictum's application to certain types of expressions that R. Yishmael and R. Akiva argue. *Ibn Ezra--numerous times, such as on Breishis 6:6) Radak (numerous times, such as on Breishis 9:15 Ramban (Breishis 6:6) Hizkuni (Devarim 5:26) Rabbeynu Bechaye (numerous times, such as on Breishis 1:26) Ralbag (Shoftim 10:16) Akeidas Yitzchak numerous times, such as on Vayeria Shaar 19 sv Va'ani ain) Zvi Lampel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From JRich at sibson.com Mon Dec 25 22:00:57 2017 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2017 06:00:57 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] The Protection Offered by a Mezuza In-Reply-To: <20171225203023.GA9557@aishdas.org> References: <2d108449-ec4d-0e35-d888-0ccdd8b113be@sero.name> <80f92bd4-b7af-1b26-1d03-0f3ce7a67edf@zahav.net.il>, <20171225203023.GA9557@aishdas.org> Message-ID: > > You want to statistically decide which hashkafah is true??? > ------------ > > > You remind me of a problem I have saying a particular line of Tehillim > (37:25) with kavanah, and it comes up at the appendix to bentching, > "Naar hayisi..." But I have seen a tzadiq whose kids miss meals and have > to beg. Haven't you? > -------------- It also bothered the gedolim who struggled to explain why the simple meaning of the segula of being a sandek didn't seem to be statistically fulfilled Kt 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. From lisa at starways.net Tue Dec 26 00:10:52 2017 From: lisa at starways.net (Lisa Liel) Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2017 10:10:52 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Historicity of Aggadta In-Reply-To: <20171226012119.GH24733@aishdas.org> References: <20171225203401.GB9557@aishdas.org> <20171226012119.GH24733@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 12/26/2017 3:21 AM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > However, if the story does contradict what is known, we know it's a pure > mashal, ahistorical. I'd like to revise that to say that if the story contradicts what is *currently* known, we are entitled (or perhaps required) to consider it a pure mashal *at that time*, with the understanding that our knowledge may change. Lisa --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From zvilampel at gmail.com Mon Dec 25 20:41:54 2017 From: zvilampel at gmail.com (H Lampel) Date: Mon, 25 Dec 2017 23:41:54 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Historicity of Aggadta In-Reply-To: <20171226012119.GH24733@aishdas.org> References: <20171225203401.GB9557@aishdas.org> <20171226012119.GH24733@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <057fcda7-0e48-53f8-c0ec-135a112bb534@gmail.com> On 12/25/2017 8:21 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > ...But he doesn't ever say that if the story is plausible, that's the point > of the story. Nor that it's sufficient reason to assume it's true on a > literal level. The historical mentions the Rambam's makes, treating the plausible Midrashim as history without making any qualifications, indicates otherwise. But specifically on the topic this discussion came from now: Regarding the Midrashic reports that Adam and the Avos spoke Ivris/Lashon Hakadosh, which I assume you agree the Kuzari accepts as historical fact (which of course teaches in its historicity an important thing to know)... Is your default position that the Rambam doesn't care whether it's historically so? Zvi Lampel From sholom at aishdas.org Mon Dec 25 22:08:38 2017 From: sholom at aishdas.org (Sholom Simon) Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2017 01:08:38 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Rashi on kol hanefesh (Bereshis 46:26) Message-ID: <20171226060849.GQIH4561.fed1rmfepo102.cox.net@fed1rmimpo209.cox.net> Kol hanefesh . . . shvi'im. Rashi says "I found in Vayikra Rabba" . . . a statement that Eisav had (with him) six, and the word nafashos (plural) was used; but here with Yaakov, kol hanafesh . . . shevi'im, nefesh is in the singular. This is a hint that Eisav engaged in A"Z (plural gods), while Yaakov served one G-d. But don't we (almost?) always see (in Torah) the singular being used for a noun when the count is larger than 10? How can one darshen from something that follows the general grammatic rule? What am I missing here? -- Sholom From lisa at starways.net Tue Dec 26 00:08:21 2017 From: lisa at starways.net (Lisa Liel) Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2017 10:08:21 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] The Protection Offered by a Mezuza In-Reply-To: <20171225203023.GA9557@aishdas.org> References: <2d108449-ec4d-0e35-d888-0ccdd8b113be@sero.name> <80f92bd4-b7af-1b26-1d03-0f3ce7a67edf@zahav.net.il> <20171225203023.GA9557@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <282dcbac-59e9-be81-ee8e-f1faf4991682@starways.net> On 12/25/2017 10:30 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > You remind me of a problem I have saying a particular line of Tehillim > (37:25) with kavanah, and it comes up at the appendix to bentching, > "Naar hayisi..." But I have seen a tzadiq whose kids miss meals and have > to beg. Haven't you? I always understood it to mean that either he's quick to give tzedaka so as to prevent there being a tzaddik neezav v'zar'o mevakesh lachem, or that we aren't talking about literal aziva and lack of food, but rather aziva by Hashem and lack of Torah. Lisa --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From zvilampel at gmail.com Tue Dec 26 07:09:06 2017 From: zvilampel at gmail.com (H Lampel) Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2017 10:09:06 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Historicity of Aggadta In-Reply-To: <057fcda7-0e48-53f8-c0ec-135a112bb534@gmail.com> References: <20171225203401.GB9557@aishdas.org> <20171226012119.GH24733@aishdas.org> <057fcda7-0e48-53f8-c0ec-135a112bb534@gmail.com> Message-ID: <53d98237-ecd0-93ee-7927-d9edb71b28ca@gmail.com> On 12/25/2017 11:41 PM, H Lampel wrote: > > > On 12/25/2017 8:21 PM, Micha Berger wrote: >> ...But he doesn't ever say that if the story is plausible, that's the >> point >> of the story. Nor that it's sufficient reason to assume it's true on a >> literal level. The first statement is of course true. The reason a story is told is to make a point. Thus the citations where the Rambam says that all the maamerei Chazal impart valuable lessons. The second statement is where we diverge. I understand that the Rambam does take the plausible reports of happenings (reported of course because they impart something worthy to know) to be historically true. In other words, that's the default position. He never says that we may deny the historic factuality of events Chazal presented as factual historical events. I understand the citations you bring where Rambam invokes Mishlei to defend interpreting maamarei Chazal non-literally to? be saying that even the implausible ones really have valuable lessons but must be interpreted non-literally to understand them. So I would still ask you for examples of the Rambam not bothering to worry about contradicting a medrash's plausible historical reports. I previously remarked that the historical mentions the Rambam's makes, treating the plausible Midrashim as history without making any qualifications, without explaining why he takes them as historical fact (for example, the neis of the pach shemen, and the military victory of the Chashmonaim), indicates he took them as historical fact, which thereby provides the lessons to be learned therefrom. I quoted a passage from Rambam's Hakdama to Perek Cheilek (originally to counteract the face-value meaning of RSM's declaration that the Rambam holds that every Medrash is meant non-literally), where the Rambam makes clear that some reports are meant non-literally, but some are meant literally. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that your take can be worded as follows: Chazal and Rambam did not care whether the historical events they learned lessons from, really occurred. All Chazal's statements are only for the sake of the lessons. Some of the lessons must be extracted by understanding the statements in a non-literal way, particularly if at face value they are implausible. Of the plausible reports, the lessons to be learned from them can be gleaned from a literal understanding, meaning the message is clear without needing to give unusual meanings to its the words. But that does not mean that they were meant to be historically factual. They are meant literally, but not historically. I.e., the Rambam held that although lessons Chazal intended were ostensibly learned from, or reinforced by, events they reported, it is irrelevant whether the events did actually occur, and indeed they may not have. But I think his words indicate otherwise. Here they are again: ??? And I will yet compose a work in which I will gather all the ??? drashos found in the Talmud and elsewhere...and I will reveal what ??? of the drashos are [meant in] a literal way, and which of them are ??? [meant as] mashal, and which of them were [describing something seen ??? only] in a dream but was stated in a purely absolute way, as if it ??? were [experienced] in a state of wakefulness... If the Rambam considered it irrelevant whether the events did actually occur, and held that indeed they may not have occurred, why is he concerned with whether the report occurred in a dream? Why would he invoke a dream, if he considered the actuality of all reported events irrelevant? After all, its only the lesson that is relevant! But if you accept that the Rambam considered the default position to be that reported events are meant to be understood as actually occurring, and that while some are merely mashal but others are real, then it makes sense that he felt it important to exclude implausible reports and explain which were pure mashal and which were experienced in a dream. And describing the report as "stated in a purely absolute way, as if it were [experienced] in a state of wakefulness," implies that, had it not been implausible, being stated in an absolute way would imply that it was indeed experienced in a state of wakefulness. Zvi Lampel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: ???? ???? ????? ???? ?? ?? ?????? ??????? ?????? ??????.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 215599 bytes Desc: not available URL: From micha at aishdas.org Tue Dec 26 08:06:50 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2017 11:06:50 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Historicity of Aggadta In-Reply-To: <057fcda7-0e48-53f8-c0ec-135a112bb534@gmail.com> References: <20171225203401.GB9557@aishdas.org> <20171226012119.GH24733@aishdas.org> <057fcda7-0e48-53f8-c0ec-135a112bb534@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20171226160650.GC15636@aishdas.org> On Mon, Dec 25, 2017 at 11:41:54PM -0500, H Lampel wrote: : The historical mentions the Rambam's makes, treating the plausible : Midrashim as history without making any qualifications, indicates : otherwise. It indicates that some medrashim which both didn't defy evidence or his philosophy that the Rambam felt had a literal point worth making. Not that plauisible medrashim should be assumed to be literal history. He spends so much time telling you they're all statements of the deepest truths, and quoting Shelomo, that chakhamim conduct such discussions via mashal and melitzah. The fact that some deepest truths has historical impact doesn't give us license to ignore paragraphs of writing. : Regarding the Midrashic reports that Adam and the Avos spoke : Ivris/Lashon Hakadosh, which I assume you agree the Kuzari accepts : as historical fact (which of course teaches in its historicity an : important thing to know)... Is your default position that the Rambam : doesn't care whether it's historically so? That's the default. Perhaps the Rambam agrees with the Rihal that the history of Ivris is a significant statement, and would be meant literally even under his view. Perhaps not. I can't guess, and am willing to entertain anything. But there are also reports that they spoke Aramaic, or even that Adam spoke all 70 leshonos. See the sources I gave in as well as Sanhedrin 38b (R Yehudah amar Rav: Adam haRishon spoke Aramaic). Not to mention historical evidence. So there is no reason for me to make the Rambam's life difficult. To complete repeating myself, my own instinct is to say that Adam spoke some proto-Semitic, and therefore spoke a language which could be considered both ancient Hebrew AND ancient Aramaic, or proto-everything and thus an ancestor to all 70 languages. And this would explain the medrashim as well as allow us to identify Adam's speech with Leshon haQodesh. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "I think, therefore I am." - Renne Descartes micha at aishdas.org "I am thought about, therefore I am - http://www.aishdas.org my existence depends upon the thought of a Fax: (270) 514-1507 Supreme Being Who thinks me." - R' SR Hirsch From eliturkel at mail.gmail.com Mon Dec 25 13:40:32 2017 From: eliturkel at mail.gmail.com (Eli Turkel) Date: Mon, 25 Dec 2017 23:40:32 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] shabbes candles Message-ID: A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: multipart/alternative Size: 1277 bytes Desc: not available URL: From chaim.tatel at mail.gmail.com Mon Dec 25 15:43:58 2017 From: chaim.tatel at mail.gmail.com (Chaim Tatel) Date: Mon, 25 Dec 2017 15:43:58 -0800 Subject: [Avodah] shabbes candles Message-ID: A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: multipart/alternative Size: 4006 bytes Desc: not available URL: From JRich at sibson.com Wed Dec 27 01:51:45 2017 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Wed, 27 Dec 2017 09:51:45 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] birur vs hanhaga in other legal systems Message-ID: <9ec665e80cbd4e97be6b4bcc8b7221d8@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> There's a lot of "Brisker Torah" on the differentiation between halachically resolving doubts by birur (clarification/resolution of doubt) versus hanhaga (we still have a doubt but must move forward while not resolving the doubt). One practical difference would be that doubts resolved by birur are considered resolved retroactively while those resolved by hanhaga are only prospective in nature. Is anyone aware of any parallels to this differentiation in other legal systems? KT 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: From micha at aishdas.org Thu Dec 28 08:03:25 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2017 11:03:25 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Body and Soul In-Reply-To: <89600AC2-DFEA-44AA-A5AE-9C4493ED11F4@cox.net> References: <89600AC2-DFEA-44AA-A5AE-9C4493ED11F4@cox.net> Message-ID: <20171228160325.GA31137@aishdas.org> On Sat, Dec 23, 2017 at 10:30pm EST, Richard Wolberg wrote in a post titled "Vay'chi": : (The question has been asked: Do you have a soul? The answer is NO, : you ARE a soul with a body). I write about this in my manuscript. Here's a version I put up on Mi Yodeya about a year ago. So, it is slightly adapted, lacks a year of editing, and there will be someone else editing the manuscript before it is a book (assuming I raise the money). On Mi Yodeya, "Gabriel12" asked about E-lokai Neshmah, and the phrases "shanasata bi... nefachtahh bi... meshammerahh beqirbi... littela mimmenni, ulhachzirahh bi le'asid lavo". He asks: Here, when I say me, I'm referring to my body. And I'm thanking G-d for giving me back my soul. But why is the body "me"? Shouldn't the soul be the real "me"? Am I the soul or the body? My answer: As for E-lokai Neshamah and Hashem putting a soul within me, my own intent when saying these words is based on the Vilna Gaon's taxonomy of prayer: Prayers that express an ideal to be repeated and internalized are what we call "tefillah" in Hebrew. Tefillos are consistently written in the plural, as our connection to the community is part of that ideal. Prayers written in the singular are therefore of a different sort, "tachanunim", expressions of what already exists in our hearts. This is how the Gaon explains the line in Qaddish, "tisqabel tzelosehon uva'usehon -- accept the tefillos and requests (tachanunim) of all of the House of Israel..." We say this when closing the Amidah -- which is such a paragon of tefillah our Sages called it simply "Tefillah", E-lokai Netzor -- tachanunim, (note that it's written about "I" and "mine", not "we" and "our"), and Tachanun. "Elokai, neshamah -- My G-d, the soul which you placed in me" is similarly tachanunim. Therefore, it's not a place to look for how we ought to see our self-definition, but how things feel to most of us first thing in the morning. The prayer reflects the fact that most people do in practice identify with our body most consistently, and only at times with their soul. But to answer the philosophical question... There is a machlokes, a dispute among the rabbis, as to how to view man. One side, found often among books of Mussar, views a person as a soul who inhabits a body, or perhaps controls it as a rider upon a donkey. As Elifaz describes humanity in the book of [61]Iyov (4:10), "shochnei batei chomer - dwellers in homes of matter." When Rav Yitzchak Isaac Scher (Cheshbon haNefesh, Slaboka Alumni ed., intro.) speaks of man's physical side being an animal, we mean that literally, not merely like an animal. Since much of our yeitzer hara comes from our living in a mammalian body, R' Scher recommends the very same strategies one uses for taming and being able to use the eyesight of a bird, the strength of an ox, the load bearing abilities of a donkey or the speed of a horse are applicable to gaining mastery over our bodies. Like any other animal, a person's animal soul has no ability to plan toward a goal, it simply responds to whatever urge is most triggered in the moment. The animal soul must be saddled by the godly soul and guided. And Rabbi Sherr points out with the example of a trained elephant, "next to whom a person like his trainer seems little more than an ant", to maximize its utility it must neither be overburdened or neglected, nor underused and let remind wild - and this is how we are to treat our body and our animal souls. Last and most importantly, neither an animal nor the animal within can be educated, but trained through habit and acclimation. This notion is a key symbol in the Gra's interpretation system -- when one finds a chamor / donkey in a narrative, it is generally a symbol for the person's chomer / physicality. Avraham at the Akeidah or the mashiach come in riding on a donkey as a way to indicate to us their mastery over their own physicality. In contrast, we speak of Bil'am's donkey, but the Torah consistently calls it a different kind of animal; he does not harness a chamor, showing self-control over the animal's urges of the moment, Bil'am rides an ason ([62]Bamidbar 22:23,25,27,28,29,33). In this viewpoint, a person is a rider of an animal, or to use a metaphor that may resonate better with our more modern lifestyles - the soul who is wearing a body. Another stream of thought includes the body in the definition of person. Rather than a person's more human side that rides his body as a master over an animal, in this model man is seen as a fusion of body and soul. For example when the gemara ([63]Sanhedrin 91a) explains one purpose of the eventual resurrection of the dead by comparing a sinner to a blind man and a lame man who conspire to steal fruit from an orchard. They are caught and brought to court, but each of the accused claims innocence. The blind man says he must be innocent, for he was incapable of even finding the fruit, never mind stealing them. The lame man also claims innocence; after all, he had no way to reach it. Neither alone could commit the theft, so each of the accused points to the other as the critical element for the sin, the guilty party. The judge responds by putting one atop the other, recreating the unit that was capable of sin, and judges the pair. So too, the gemara explains, the soul could claim it couldn't have sinned without the body giving it the opportunity for action, and the body could claim that the planning and execution of the sin are the fault of the soul. In order to judge us for our sins, Hashem will bodily resurrect the sinner to reconstruct the person as they were then. As the Ramchal writes, "Man is different from any other creature. He is a combination of two completely diverse and dissimilar elements, namely, the body and soul." (Derech Hashem 3:1:1) The dispute is not necessarily about which is true, it could well be that both definitions of "person" are equally valid. The dispute is more prescriptive: When is it more productive to think of my physical aspect as an outsider, which would weaken the relative weight I would give the call of physical drives? And when am I better off not thinking of myself as purely soul, because then I'm not fully blaming myself for "stealing the fruit"? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The goal isn't to live forever, micha at aishdas.org the goal is to create so mething that will. http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From ben1456 at zahav.net.il Thu Dec 28 11:57:46 2017 From: ben1456 at zahav.net.il (Ben Waxman) Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2017 21:57:46 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Foreshadow Message-ID: Is the break up of the united kingdom (Israel and Yehuda) somehow foreseen in the brothers? Was the reconciliation between Yosef and the brothers (and especially Yosef and Yehuda) not complete? Was splitting responsibility between Yehuda (he set up Goshen's beit midrash) and Yosef (he supplied the food) a mistake? Is there anything in Yehuda's personality that foreshadows David and Shlomo's failure to truly unite the tribes or is the fault with the latter two only? Ben From JRich at sibson.com Fri Dec 29 02:09:15 2017 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2017 10:09:15 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] FW: Rav Moshe on Smoking In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2eb7119fe3ff4a0f8394f494ae14fde8@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> FYI-An old Avodah topic. KT Joel Rich In the attached file, there is a newly-published teshuvah from Rav Moshe which basically confirms the rumors that he retracted his teshuvah about smoking and would indeed forbid it. Kol Tuv, Reuven Chaim Klein Beitar Illit, Israel Check out my book Lashon HaKodesh: History, Holiness, & Hebrew [Lashon HaKodesh: History, Holiness, & Hebrew (Mosaica Press) on Amazon][Academia.edu][Google Scholar][LinkedIN][https://docs.google.com/uc?export=download&id=0B1NJHmIXg4QJTWZsRUpZblJpWE0&revid=0B1NJHmIXg4QJcXQxRU1kN0JWZ3pQVmZsdlYrVlljRUdSb2ZvPQ][Rabbi Reuven Chaim Klein on TorahDownloads.com] [https://my-email-signature.link/signature.gif?u=93822&e=15367987&v=592df626366a9255517be8f9bb3b802cdc17522127137d175bd71108e063b3e1] 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: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 480.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 2037389 bytes Desc: 480.pdf URL: From JRich at sibson.com Fri Dec 29 01:36:06 2017 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2017 09:36:06 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] truth telling Message-ID: <3852cda5a1f348b8ba9b17c3cd9d8079@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Thought experiment: 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? KT 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: From JRich at sibson.com Fri Dec 29 01:35:14 2017 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2017 09:35:14 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Birchat Cohanim Message-ID: <12830183c04c422ca904affc50bac0b7@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> One is in Eretz Yisrael and davens shacharit in a minyan which often does not have Cohanim to duchen. Is he required to seek a minyan which has Cohanim? If he isn't required, is it preferable? KT 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: From JRich at sibson.com Fri Dec 29 02:09:15 2017 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2017 10:09:15 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] FW: Rav Moshe on Smoking In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: [Take 2. File stripped off for the sake of text digest recipients and moved to . Fixed formatting. -micha] FYI-An old Avodah topic. KT Joel Rich In the attached file, there is a newly-published teshuvah from Rav Moshe which basically confirms the rumors that he retracted his teshuvah about smoking and would indeed forbid it. Kol Tuv, Reuven Chaim Klein Beitar Illit, Israel Check out my book Lashon HaKodesh: History, Holiness, & Hebrew [Lashon HaKodesh: History, Holiness, & Hebrew (Mosaica Press) on Amazon] >> [Academia.edu] [Google Scholar] [LinkedIN] [https://docs.google.com/uc?export=download&id=0B1NJHmIXg4QJTWZsRUpZblJpWE0&revid=0B1NJHmIXg4QJcXQxRU1kN0JWZ3pQVmZsdlYrVlljRUdSb2ZvPQ] [Rabbi Reuven Chaim Klein on TorahDownloads.com] From lisa at starways.net Fri Dec 29 06:19:45 2017 From: lisa at starways.net (Lisa Liel) Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2017 16:19:45 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] truth telling In-Reply-To: <3852cda5a1f348b8ba9b17c3cd9d8079@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <3852cda5a1f348b8ba9b17c3cd9d8079@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: You'll have to define "truth".? I know a lot of self-Identified frum Jews who consider it "truth" that the Exodus didn't happen.? That the Mabul was a metaphor.? That the text of the Torah she'bichtav we have now is not the one given to Moshe at Sinai in an actual, factual, historical event.? It's never good for them to tell that "truth" to their children. If by truth you mean the truths stated in Judaism, then it's a matter of judgment.? If you're considering telling your children about Amnon and Tamar, their age would enter into the decision.? If the truth you want to tell them is about the molesters in the frum community who were respected leaders, again, age matters.? But I wouldn't withhold the facts from my child if they were old enough to hear it and it seemed relevant. Lisa On 12/29/2017 11:36 AM, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: > Thought experiment: 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? > KT > Joel Rich > --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From micha at aishdas.org Fri Dec 29 06:34:31 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2017 09:34:31 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] truth telling In-Reply-To: <3852cda5a1f348b8ba9b17c3cd9d8079@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <3852cda5a1f348b8ba9b17c3cd9d8079@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20171229143431.GD9936@aishdas.org> On Fri, Dec 29, 2017 at 09:36:06AM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : Thought experiment: 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? I understand the point of your question as being about the relative value of emes and of yir'as Shamayim. But... I can't bend my head around the case for balebatishe reasons. Is it not inevitable that many of our children would eventually learn of the lie and lose confidence in the whole concept of mesorah? And wouldn't that percentage inevitably be greater than Y, the additionaly percentage who are only staying because they believe the non-truth? To address the comparison behind the question: According to the Rambam, emunah is defined by emes. Unproven faith isn't emunah. So, he would say that the Y% of the children who believe because of a lie aren't necessarily saved. If we modernize the Rambam's position, then we would still need some kind of valid justification. Even if modern philosophy believes (accuratly, AISI) that theological proof is a meaningless concept, there are other valid ways to reach a conclusion. Those of us blessed with children are certain we love your chidren even though I never developed a proof for it. BUT, I don't think too many people hold like a modern version of the Rambam, which ties redemption to knowledge, and ethics is a lower level of perfection necessary for true knowledge og G-d. Let's take a more typical modern hashkafah, which gives priority to sheleimos or experiential deveiqus. Perhaps the non-truth would indeed be justified, if I thought your case were possible. Just as shalom justifies tactfully bending the truth. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Man can aspire to spiritual-moral greatness micha at aishdas.org which is seldom fully achieved and easily lost http://www.aishdas.org again. Fulfillment lies not in a final goal, Fax: (270) 514-1507 but in an eternal striving for perfection. -RSRH From zev at sero.name Fri Dec 29 09:50:13 2017 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2017 12:50:13 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] FW: Rav Moshe on Smoking In-Reply-To: <2eb7119fe3ff4a0f8394f494ae14fde8@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <2eb7119fe3ff4a0f8394f494ae14fde8@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <2c41ffe6-418e-8a53-6b6f-72547edfcf91@sero.name> On 29/12/17 05:09, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: > In the attached file, there is a newly-published teshuvah from Rav Moshe > which basically confirms the rumors that he retracted his teshuvah about > smoking and would indeed forbid it. > One has to wonder, then, why he never chose to include this in any of the three volumes of IM that he published after this date. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From bdbradley70 at hotmail.com Sat Dec 30 11:30:10 2017 From: bdbradley70 at hotmail.com (Ben Bradley) Date: Sat, 30 Dec 2017 19:30:10 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Foreshadow In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Is that not explicitly the message of the haftara for vayigash? That the split of Yehdua and Efraim (Yosef) is the the same issue as the split in the nation to reconcile the one is to reconcile the other. It's clear from the end of vayechi that there's still broad daylight between Yosef and the brothers. They are still wary of him and he still see the need to try to bring them close. There are many midrashim assuming it's all the same issue, a basic split in Klal Yisrael manifestation over history. The Bnei Yissaschar on Chanuka deals with this a lot and the best treatment I've seen in one place is Rav Matis Weinberg's book on Chanuka. In any case, even without aggadta the cycle of galus is consistently a result of this split, be it to Mitzrayim or to Ashur. Geula has the same dynamic, thus a moshiach both from Yosef and from David (Yehuda). BW Ben -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From JRich at sibson.com Sat Dec 30 14:48:34 2017 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Sat, 30 Dec 2017 22:48:34 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] truth telling In-Reply-To: <20171229143431.GD9936@aishdas.org> References: <3852cda5a1f348b8ba9b17c3cd9d8079@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> <20171229143431.GD9936@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <714290ea035646beb5044c62d3186c46@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Perhaps the non-truth would indeed be justified, if I thought your case were possible. Just as shalom justifies tactfully bending the truth. :-)BBii! -Micha --------------------------------------------------- That's what I wonder about, can belief ever be built on sheker. I've heard drush on not (e.g. why didn't the Chashmonaim not use shemen tamei) but istm it is being done In general I agree that it doesn't work. KT 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. From meirabi at gmail.com Sat Dec 30 17:31:32 2017 From: meirabi at gmail.com (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi) Date: Sun, 31 Dec 2017 12:31:32 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] HELP - Why is there an Issur BBCh on a Nefel/Shellil? Message-ID: I have yet to find anyone asking this Q - the Nefel and Shelil seem to be the same thing it is a Neneilah yet it is Assur to eat as BBCh - why is there no Ein Issur Chal Al Issur? MAssuros 4:1 - one who eats flesh of a dead non-Shechted Kosher beast transgresses the prohibition of eating Neveilah MAssuros 4:4 - one who eats flesh of a Nefel [a non-fully gestated foetus] transgresses the prohibition of eating Neveilah Even [according to the careful reading of the RaMBaM] if it is not dead MAssuros 9:7 - one who cooks a Shelil with milk or eats it transgresses the prohibition of eating BBCh MAssuros 9:6 - one who cooks Cheilev or Neveilah or similar, with milk, transgresses the prohibition of BBCh but not when eating it because a second prohibition cannot take effect upon a item that is already prohibited Best, Meir G. Rabi 0423 207 837 +61 423 207 837 Best, Meir G. Rabi 0423 207 837 +61 423 207 837 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From menu at inter.net.il Sun Dec 31 00:12:21 2017 From: menu at inter.net.il (menucha) Date: Sun, 31 Dec 2017 10:12:21 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Foreshadow In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > > Bereshit Rabba 84 sees foreshadowing of Yeravam ben Nevat starting with Yosef's dreams. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From akivagmiller at gmail.com Sun Dec 31 08:10:04 2017 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Sun, 31 Dec 2017 11:10:04 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Merchavyah Message-ID: . There is a pasuk in Hallel (Tehillim 118:5) that begins "Min hamaytzar". In RSR Hirsch's siddur, the last word of that pasuk is "merchavyah". In his perush on Tehillim, there too, the last word is "merchavyah", and in the perush he writes that "According to Pesahim 117a, merchavyah is one word, like halleluyah." My understanding of that gemara is that R Yochanan, Rav, and Raba all hold "merchavyah" to be one single word. Although Rav Chisda quoted R Yochanan to that effect, the Gemara is unsure how Rav Chisda held personally on this issue, and leaves that as a "tayku". However - When I look in various Tanachs, Tehillims, Siddurim, and Hagados, almost all of them (there *are* a few exceptions) print this as two separate words: "merchav yah". Obviously, there must be someone who either argues against this gemara, or understands the gemara differently than how Rav Hirsch understands it. The Minchas Shai on this pasuk refers to this gemara. If I'm reading it correctly, he seems to feel that the gemara is an unresolved machlokes, and I suppose that's why he tries to resolve it by looking at whatever manuscripts he had, both here and in Beshalach (where there's a similar question on Kes Y-ah). In my very unlearned and inexperienced view, it is not reasonable to consider these as two words, which is an unproven opinion that the gemara left as a tayku, and reject the combined weight of R Yochanan, Rav, and Raba, who all clearly held this to be a single word. Can anyone help me out? Akiva Miller From cantorwolberg at cox.net Sat Dec 30 20:25:17 2017 From: cantorwolberg at cox.net (Richard Wolberg) Date: Sat, 30 Dec 2017 23:25:17 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Sh'mos Message-ID: It is brought down that the place where the Burning Bush occurred was Har Sinai. The talmud asks why did it occur in a thorn bush and the answer: God says "when the Jews are suffering, I am suffering, too." A midrash relates that taking the Jews out of Egypt was nowhere near as difficult as taking ?Egypt? out of the Jews. Aish.com Mayanot Wellsprings bring out: The longest private conversation recorded in the Torah between God and a human individual takes place in our parsha. It takes God 39 long verses (from Exodus 3:1 to 4:17) to persuade Moses to accept the mission of serving as the savior of the Jewish people. In a wide-ranging conversation that covers many topics, God patiently responds to Moses' many objections and queries before Moses finally caves in to the Divine will and accepts. It reminds me that the Shulchan Aruch says if you are asked to be a ba'al tefilla, you should first politely refuse (out of modesty). If you are asked a second time, you should still refuse. But if you are asked a third time, you must accept. It's a not such a well known minhag and is just another example of menschlechkeit, sensitivity and humility for the time it was written. ?The Bible is meant to be OUR critic, not we, ITS critic!" -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From zev at sero.name Sun Dec 31 09:51:47 2017 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Sun, 31 Dec 2017 12:51:47 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Merchavyah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <26d7c7af-67e8-e1d6-3fd7-00aca9fcbef4@sero.name> For one thing, the Keter Aram Tzovah has it as two words. -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 2018 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From micha at aishdas.org Sun Oct 1 11:10:33 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Sun, 1 Oct 2017 14:10:33 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Writing on Yom Tov In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20171001181033.GC31024@aishdas.org> On Sat, Sep 30, 2017 at 10:18:58PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : So... back to my question: To whatever extent "writing" in the "Book of : Life" is a melacha, should it matter whether it is Shabbos or Yom Tov? Before we take the Barditcher Rebbe's words too literally, let us remember that wind routinely blows things to roll more than 4 amos on a reshus harabbim, lightning ignites trees on Shabbos, people die on Shabbos, etc... IOW, first explain to me what a claim that the RBSO avoids melakhos means altogether in light of the evidence, and then perhaps I could participate in your intended conversation. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger One who kills his inclination is as though he micha at aishdas.org brought an offering. But to bring an offering, http://www.aishdas.org you must know where to slaughter and what Fax: (270) 514-1507 parts to offer. - R' Simcha Zissel Ziv From akivagmiller at gmail.com Sun Oct 1 17:52:44 2017 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Sun, 1 Oct 2017 20:52:44 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Not hadar is pasul Message-ID: . This thread may be running into a vocabulary problem. My understanding is that "hadar" and "mehudar" mean two different things, and some people tend to confuse the two. "Hadar" refers to the absolute minimum requirements, without which the minim are posul, and "mehudar" refers to things which Chazal consider as making the minim even more beautiful. "Hadar" is required, and "mehudar" is desirable. I was not able to find a source for this in my seforim, but a post from R' Moshe Feldman in Avodah 10:9 (fifteen years ago) seems to support it: > The chiluk between psulei hadar (learned from the word "hadar") > and the idea of buying a mehudar esrog--deriving from the din > of zeh Keli v'anveihu (and applicable to other mitzvos as well) > is discussed at length in Mikra'ei Kodesh (Succos vol 2) siman > 26, esp. p. 119 (quote from Raavad) and pp. 122-123 in Harirei > Kodesh. It would seem from his discussion that buying a mehudar > esrog has no relationship to the word "hadar." Of course, there are many differing views about what is in each category, and this will vary by posek, by first day / not first day, and by lechatchila / bdieved. I'm just explaining the definitions of these easily-confused terms. Akiva Miller From zev at sero.name Sun Oct 1 23:02:00 2017 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2017 02:02:00 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Not hadar is pasul In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <454d729c-5e9d-e0b0-d0cb-f625592cd49f@sero.name> On 01/10/17 20:52, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > This thread may be running into a vocabulary problem. My understanding > is that "hadar" and "mehudar" mean two different things, and some > people tend to confuse the two. > > "Hadar" refers to the absolute minimum requirements, without which the > minim are posul, and "mehudar" refers to things which Chazal consider > as making the minim even more beautiful. "Hadar" is required, and > "mehudar" is desirable. I don't think they're two very different things, they're just degrees of the same thing. From "pri etz hadar" we learn that beauty is a base requirement, at least for the first day. If it's not beautiful it's not kosher. From "zeh keli ve'anvehu" we learn that we should want all mitzvos, including this one, to be as beautiful as we can make them, given our resources. But baseline beauty itself requires more than the bare minimum that would otherwise apply; an esrog that is exactly as big as an egg fits the basic shiur, but the poskim think it obvious that to do the bare minimum is not beautiful, so they say hadar means it must be at least a bit bigger, if possible. If it's not possible, then we make do with the bare shiur. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From micha at aishdas.org Mon Oct 2 03:58:53 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2017 06:58:53 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] expensive etrog In-Reply-To: <2c96c2fe-0e11-f9ca-66d5-28e79f983bbb@zahav.net.il> References: <2c96c2fe-0e11-f9ca-66d5-28e79f983bbb@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <20171002105852.GB30968@aishdas.org> On Fri, Sep 29, 2017 at 02:05:15PM +0200, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: : In OH 656 the Mechaber writes that if one is shopping for an etrog : and sees two etrogim, one more mehudar than the other, you need to : buy the mehudar (either it is mitzvah or possibly a chiyuv). : However, this only applies if the mehudar etrog is no more than 33% : more expensive. The language that the Mechaber uses in the "yesh : omrim" is "ein meyakrim oto yoter m'shlish".... There is a machloqes whether the shelish is milevar (Ran, arguing from the Rif's silence, on Rif Sukkah 16a; Yam shel Shelomom #24), in which case it's 50% -- 1/3 of the total 150%; or if the shelish is milegav (Rosh 1:7), i.e. 1/3 in the Western sense, with a total of 4/3 the original price. The SA (OC 656:1) holds like the Rosh, lequla, but accoring to the BY, he was doing so only on the ground of safeiq derabbanan lequla. Hiddur mitzvah is derabbanan. My first thought was -- what? It's a word in the pasuq WRT esrog -- "peri eitz hadar"! That looks more like peshat than asmachta for a derabbanan! But I realized something. Even though this din is being discussed WRT esrog, the kelal of kehadeir bemitzvah ad shelish is not specific to 4 minim. As in Rashi (9b "behidur") invoking "ze keili ve'anveihu" to tell you to buy the more expensive ST if it is up to shelish more pricey than your other choice. (So that according to Rashi, if you have only two choices -- mehudas or very mehudar, and they differ by less than a shelish, you are to by the very mehudar. Tosafos disagree. This tangent is discussed in the Shitah Mequbetzer.) Anyway, the SA calling milegav a qula implies that he sees up to 1/3 as a chiyuv derabbanan, and beyond could well be reshus. If it were reshus up to a shelish and assur beyond that, then he'd be making lesser expenditures assur -- a chumerah. Personally, given the number of Jews who wouldn't spend the money on a 4 minim set, I like spending the 1/3 exactly, and using any other money I wish to use to fulfill the mitzvah of 4 minim to subsidize someone else's. (Looking at the archives, it seems I've tried marketing this idea most years since 1999.) Of course, there are so many Jews who can't afford yom tov, and I'd like to help with that.... In the end, the calculus of how to triage that money can get SO difficult. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger For those with faith there are no questions. micha at aishdas.org For those who lack faith there are no answers. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yaakov of Radzimin Fax: (270) 514-1507 From basserh at queensu.ca Wed Oct 4 12:21:12 2017 From: basserh at queensu.ca (Herbert Basser) Date: Wed, 4 Oct 2017 19:21:12 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] RE Expensive etrog inter alia Message-ID: There is yerushalmi Peah 1:1 where someone had the ugliest etrog but bragged and showed it to everyone saying it was the most beautiful etrog in the whole world. It took him just a second to purchase it without really checking it for hiddurim-- he didnt waste his valuable resources (time) on petty matters but learned instead--that was its incredible beauty for him. also see shmos rabba 30:9 for hashem's observance of halacha (I have a discussion of the inyan on reseachrgate.net) Hag Sameach! zvi -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From zev at sero.name Sat Oct 7 18:11:15 2017 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Sat, 7 Oct 2017 21:11:15 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] RE Expensive etrog inter alia In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 04/10/17 15:21, Herbert Basser via Avodah wrote: > There is yerushalmi Peah 1:1 where someone had the ugliest etrog but > bragged and showed it to everyone saying it was the most beautiful etrog > in the whole world. It took him just a second to purchase it without > really checking it for hiddurim-- he didnt waste his valuable resources > (time) on petty matters but learned instead--that was its incredible > beauty for him. Where in that halacha is this? I couldn't find it, and also searched the entire perek for the word "etrog" and it doesn't seem to exist (though "lulav" appears twice). -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From hmaryles at mail.yahoo.com Sat Oct 7 23:54:54 2017 From: hmaryles at mail.yahoo.com (Harry Maryles) Date: Sun, 8 Oct 2017 09:54:54 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] going to the amud In-Reply-To: <9d0df5d1c05c43e297d3055f6e617065@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <9d0df5d1c05c43e297d3055f6e617065@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <369A143A-9C11-4243-93D2-7F756A3D147A@yahoo.com> On Oct 8, 2017, at 5:10 AM, Rich, Joel wrote: > I note the following practices at a chareidi shul in RBS which has > multiple minyanim You must be talking about Maasas Mordechai. That is where I've been Davening since I got here just before Yom Kippur. During Chol Hamoed, I will be davening shachris at the Vasiken minyan (6:10am). My son Davens there. If you are at that minyan, come on over and say hello. > At the appointed starting time for each minyan, there > is often not a "volunteer" to lead the services. The amount of time > that it takes to start varies as everyone looks at each other trying to > influence someone to start. If there is a young bar mitzvah boy, he is > often sent for mincha/maariv. > I'm not sure what the community thinking is... To answer your question, I just asked my son about it. He said it's just a practical matter. Most boys are more willing to go to the Amud. All of the married men that are there just shake off the requests to be the Shaliach Tzibur for some reason. HM From ben1456 at zahav.net.il Sun Oct 8 12:40:42 2017 From: ben1456 at zahav.net.il (Ben Waxman) Date: Sun, 08 Oct 2017 21:40:42 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] going to the amud In-Reply-To: <9d0df5d1c05c43e297d3055f6e617065@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <9d0df5d1c05c43e297d3055f6e617065@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <5deb9535-86be-8ea7-4561-242363c8eb92@zahav.net.il> I saw similar practices during Shacharit when I used to go to Sadigora in Jerusalem. However, often the teen would quit right before starting chazarat hashaz. That always got interesting. Ben On 10/8/2017 4:10 AM, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: > I note the following practices at a chareidi shul in RBS which has > multiple minyanim: At the appointed starting time for each minyan, > there is often not a ?volunteer? to lead the services. The amount of > time that it takes to start varies as everyone looks at each other > trying to influence someone to start. If there is a young bar mitzvah > boy, he is often sent for mincha/maariv. > I?m not sure what the community thinking is, perhaps humility to avoid > the amud, but I?m struck by the amount of bittul torah caused and > wonder how this trade-off was decided upon. I also wonder about why > the practice of sending youngsters up developed given the S?A?s psak > concerning the priorities for a chazzan. Thoughts? From micha at aishdas.org Sun Oct 8 15:50:13 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Sun, 8 Oct 2017 18:50:13 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] going to the amud In-Reply-To: <9d0df5d1c05c43e297d3055f6e617065@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <9d0df5d1c05c43e297d3055f6e617065@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20171008225013.GB19523@aishdas.org> On Sun, Oct 08, 2017 at 02:10:14AM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : At the appointed starting time for each minyan, there : is often not a "volunteer" to lead the services. The amount of time : that it takes to start varies as everyone looks at each other trying : to influence someone to start. If there is a young bar mitzvah boy, : he is often sent for mincha/maariv. Going backwards (who ever said I am a chakham bound to answer al rishon rishon?)... The kid is not as likely to declien the gabbai, because an adult carries more authority in the kid's eyes. Besides, it's good practice. As for the adults declining... Two possiblities, and I would bet that in most cases, they both come into play. 1- The more positive issue is that there is actually a din to decline the amud, accepting only on the third request. I have no idea how this was expected to be implemented in a minyan where people are expected to know the din. A rachmanus on the gabbaim! Still, we see an ethic of tzenius, and halevai people internalize it! 2- The following is Ashkenazocentric. The way we teach davening, it's really a personal affair. A person is encouraged to go as slowly as he needs, having his own kavvanos. The notion of tefillah betzibbur is layered on top of that, but not in a way that explains what that means about how I daven. That means that being shatz becomes a tircha, a call to say the words in a manner that robs me of any chance of getting value out of tefillah in the ways I was taught how. So of course men (who aren't cowed by being asked by a grown-up) choose to decline! Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger You will never "find" time for anything. micha at aishdas.org If you want time, you must make it. http://www.aishdas.org - Charles Buxton Fax: (270) 514-1507 From JRich at sibson.com Sat Oct 7 19:10:14 2017 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Sun, 8 Oct 2017 02:10:14 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] going to the amud Message-ID: <9d0df5d1c05c43e297d3055f6e617065@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> I note the following practices at a chareidi shul in RBS which has multiple minyanim: At the appointed starting time for each minyan, there is often not a "volunteer" to lead the services. The amount of time that it takes to start varies as everyone looks at each other trying to influence someone to start. If there is a young bar mitzvah boy, he is often sent for mincha/maariv. I'm not sure what the community thinking is, perhaps humility to avoid the amud, but I'm struck by the amount of bittul torah caused and wonder how this trade-off was decided upon. I also wonder about why the practice of sending youngsters up developed given the S"A's psak concerning the priorities for a chazzan. Thoughts? GT 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: From zev at sero.name Sat Oct 7 20:42:36 2017 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Sat, 7 Oct 2017 23:42:36 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] going to the amud In-Reply-To: <9d0df5d1c05c43e297d3055f6e617065@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <9d0df5d1c05c43e297d3055f6e617065@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: On 07/10/17 22:10, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: > I note the following practices at a chareidi shul in RBS which has > multiple minyanim: At the appointed starting time for each minyan, there > is often not a ?volunteer? to lead the services. [...] Thoughts? My first thought is to be happy that this shul doesn't have enough avelim to make the issue moot. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From basserh at queensu.ca Sun Oct 8 15:32:52 2017 From: basserh at queensu.ca (Herbert Basser) Date: Sun, 8 Oct 2017 22:32:52 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] RE Expensive etrog inter alia In-Reply-To: References: , Message-ID: You're right-- I thought it was y peah. But obviously not. A number of years ago I tired to discover when the first mention of looking at many esrogim was. I remember looking at the yerushalmi and its commentaries and thought it was there --obviously not. Now I have no idea-- ________________________________ : Zev Sero on behalf of Zev Sero Sent: October 7, 2017 9:11 PM To: The Avodah Torah Discussion Group Cc: Herbert Basser Subject: Re: [Avodah] RE Expensive etrog inter alia On 04/10/17 15:21, Herbert Basser via Avodah wrote: > There is yerushalmi Peah 1:1 where someone had the ugliest etrog but > bragged and showed it to everyone saying it was the most beautiful etrog > in the whole world. It took him just a second to purchase it without > really checking it for hiddurim-- he didnt waste his valuable resources > (time) on petty matters but learned instead--that was its incredible > beauty for him. Where in that halacha is this? I couldn't find it, and also searched the entire perek for the word "etrog" and it doesn't seem to exist (though "lulav" appears twice). -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Mon Oct 9 14:45:50 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2017 17:45:50 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Critique of the OU paper on leadership/ordination for women In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20171009214550.GA4315@aishdas.org> On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 03:17:36PM -0500, Noam Stadlan via Avodah wrote: : JOFA has published my critique of the paper comissioned by the OU on the : topic of leadership/ordination for women.... Speaking of the full essay . Your article has proven to be a slow read for me. I keep on being pulled into "polemic mode" (apologies for talking like a programmer, but...) and when I do, I stop, put it down, and wait until I could give it a fairer read, to actually hear what you're trying to say rather than just listening for points to refute. Here are my first set of reactions. Of course, they're all points of disagreement; trying to take the time to understand what you were writing before objecting doesn't mean I stopped objecting. 1- You open with Earlier this year, 7 highly respected rabbis authored a position paper on the ordination of women and on the possibility of women serving as clergy. [1] Individually and collectively, they represent great learning, personal piety, and years of leadership. It would seem presumptuous for someone who will never achieve anything near their learning or stature to comment or critique. However, no one person or group has a monopoly on facts and logic. And, as will be demonstrated, Torah learning sometimes is not the sole or even dominant factor in a person's opinion on these issues. There appears to be an underlyuing assumption that halachic arguments, even meta-halachic ones, are entirely formal, rather than containing a strong element of ineffible art. (See #2, below) If halakhah deals with determinations like that of which poetic forms "sound right" then their "great learning, personal piety, and years of leadership" provide experience at the art of pesaq that your response simply lacks. The gemara requires shimush before one attempts to pasqen. A poseiq needs not only the abstract facts and logic, but also the skill he can only pick up with experience. Recently, my Arukh haShulachan Yomi schedule brought me to EhE 145:6. The topic is whether a shechiv-meira who gives a gett "meihayom im meisi" made the gett as-of the moment of giving, a colloquial use of "today", or if we cannot assume the gett is chal before the end of the day (R' Tam in Tosafos 72b). R' Elchanan (Tos' ad loc) says "nachon lehachmir". The AhS's assessment of the "facts and logic" leads him to conclude "vehagam chumerah yeseirah hi". And yet he continues to close the se'if with "mikol maqom chalalilah lehaqeil bedavar sheR' Tam nistapeiq bo". RYME knew that a decision of a more skilled artisan is too likely correct even in the face of his own reasoning. And there are other factors that go into halachic decisions other than the merits of the argument -- both those we can articulate and those someone could only feel by practice. Things like acharei rabim lehatos. I am not saying defer to the OU's panel because they outnumber you. I am just pointing out that logical argument isn't the only source of legal authority. Another, more relevant, is nispasheit bechol yisrael (see #8, below). The notion that your paper is of value beyond lehalakhah velo lemaaseh is an example of the American valuation of autonomy that can itself be at odds with ancient AND mesoretic values. (See #7, about not framing the discussion in terms of rights or privileges.) 2- You offer your own translation of Mesorah, which is only valid if you can show that's how the authors of the paper intended the term. >From your pg 4: > We can broadly define it as the content of our tradition that is > passed from one generation to another. That tradition contains Mitzvot > and opinion on the value of Mitzvot. Frequently a situation occurs > where one must choose between emphasizing one mitzvah or a different > mitzvah. Our Mesorah therefore contains not only the Mitzvot, but also > attitudes or values that help us choose between Mitzvot when they come > into conflict. One could cogently argue that the values are in fact > Mitzvot in and of themselves, but for the purpose of this discussion that > is a distinction without a difference. Ultimately what this analysis > is concerned with is how, within the confines of our legal tradition, > are values embraced or shunted to the side. However, RYBS and RHS both use the term mesorah to refer to the ineffible side of the art of pesaq. I argue this with examples at http://www.torahmusings.com/2015/08/what-does-masorah-mean I therefore think it is likely the sense intended by the entire OU Panel. Or at the very least (not that I want to fully concede this, but have to admit it's plausible) heavily colored by this notion. Skipping the somwhat longer quote from RYBS, here are quotes I had found from RHS, one of the panel members: Jewish Action, Fall 1910: Mesorah is not primarily a corpus of knowledge to master but a process of accessing a chain of student-teacher relationships that reaches back to Sinai. Moshe received the Torah and transmitted it to his student, Yehoshua, who in turn taught it to his students and so on, continuing through today. The nature of transmission of the mesorah is instruction from a rebbe to his student. We connect to the mesorah, to the sacred structure of laws, beliefs and attitudes, through our teachers. And a bit further in the article, "Who Is Authorized to Institute Change?": Changes in practice require delicate evaluations that only a master Torah scholar, a gadol baTorah, can properly conduct. Only someone with a broad knowledge and a deep understanding of the corpus of halachah, with an intimate familiarity with both the letter and the spirit of the law, with a mastery of both the rules and the attitudes of the mesorah, can determine when a change is acceptable or even required. The more wide-reaching the proposed change, the greater the expertise required to approve it. The evaluator must not only be a master of the mesorah, but he must also be able to consider new practices based solely on values internal to the mesorah, removing external influences from the deliberation. Rav Schachter then applies this topic to feminism itself in a teshuvah: Indeed, the Rav would often say (see drasha to Parshas Korach), that every person must recognize that he needs a Rav or a Rebbe. Even a Talmid Chochom whose Rebbe had passed away must constantly ask himself in truth (when they present questions to him) what his Rebbe would have said in such a scase, and what stance he would have taken.... Still, most of your examples of how change was permitted despite mesorah would be valid even if you were discussing the same topic I believe the authors to whom you're responding are. I think, though, your response would have been stronger if it reflected our discussions both my Torah Musings post and here. 3- But you shift criteria for legitimate change in moral value. Page 2: This paper will illustrate that 'modern values' are intrinsically neither 2 good nor bad, and that our Mesorah has always incorporated 'modern values' that found resonance in the Mesorah. Furthermore, according to great and highly respected Modern Orthodox authorities, a hallmark of Modern Orthodoxy is the willingness to acknowledge some 'modern values' as previously under-recognized religious values. I think you're again arguing against a point the OU paper isn't making. They aren't saying there is a problem with appropriating 'modern values' in-and-of itself, but that there is a problem with changing halakhah to fit 'modern values' simply because they are the values living in the modern world means being immersed in. What happened to checking for that "resonance in the Mesorah"? This being another phrasing of my origin objection here on Avodah from the days of the initial announcement of Yeshivat Maharat. I do not see discussion of how we know that this is a change the values of the Torah would imply are positive. Regardless of the outcome of that discussion, can the change be legitimate without that procedural step? Anyway, you tone down the need for resonance when you open the door to assessing for yourself which values count. From the closing paragraph of section I, on mesorah, pg 13: ... The major issue is distinguishing between timeless values and ancient values. As has been demonstrated, our Mesorah over time, consciously or unconsciously, has addressed the perceived conflict between ancient values and modern values. Certainly there are modern values that have been appropriately rejected. Frequently however, ancient values have been rejected or perhaps more accurately assigned a reduced role of importance. And the modern values have been the impetus for the re-evaluation. At this point, I fear, the hunt for resonance goes out the window. IIUC, you are making the case that resonance need only be between actual Torah values, and not all ancient values actually qualify. This is actually more problematic given your definition of Mesorah than the one I think the OU's authors intended. After all, if mesorah is a mimetic transmisison of values, than any ancient value is mesoretic. But the problem I have with this statement is that it reads like you're saying that (1) we need to assess which Torah values are real, and therefore which do not bow to movern values; and (2) we use said modern values to drive that assessment. That can't be your intent. Please clarify. Continuing the paragraph from where I left off: As discussed in the Part II, the Halakhic arguments, taken at face value, are in favor of ordination for women. The values of eliminating unnecessary restrictions, encouraging full expression of potential to serve the community, fairness, and others also point towards ordination. There are specific Halakhic restrictions in place governing the behavior of men and women. The question that needs to be answered is: What timeless principles (or values) are served by imposing restrictions on women that are not justified by a fair reading of the Halacha and the sources? Are they truly Timeless and justifiably dominant in our Mesorah, or just ancient? ... If I were to use halakhah to make that determination, I would ask whether those "specific Halakhic restrictions" that were historically / traditionally explained in terms of those ancient values can be otherwise explained. Since they do appear to be of the same cloth, this is a sizable burden of proof on your part. This is the challenge in the OU paper you quote on pg 29: Gender differences have, historically, been particularly evident in the arena of public service. We believe that these distinctions are not merely a relic of times bygone; instead, they reflect a Torah ethos -- a /Mesorah/ -- of different avenues and emphases by which men and women are to achieve identical goals -- the service of G-d and the perpetuation of the Jewish people. 4- You cite and dismiss "nashim daatan kalos", but do not note that it's part of a richer picture of gender differences alongside "binah yeseirah nitenah lahen". 5- You quote RAL at the bottom of pg 8, an essay about using English Literary sources to enhance and color values that we cannot find in our own tradition: Nor should we be deterred by the illusion that we can find everything we need within our own tradition. As Arnold insisted, one must seek "the best that has been thought and said in the world," and if, in many areas, much of that best is of foreign origin, we should expand our horizons rather than exclude it. He is talking about broadening the search in the case of silence; that we can learn more from TIDE than Torah alone. A discussion of what to do when we can't "find everything we need within in our Tradition" has nothing to to with real or apparent conflicts when we do find an answer -- ancient or traditional -- before looking elsewhere. 6- You wuote R/Dr Shalom Carmy, describing R Eliezer Berkovitz, that his moral ends derive from internal Jewish sources.dissatisfaction with mainstream Halakhah regarding women is rooted, not in the pressures of contemporary egalitarianism, but in his judgment about biblical conceptions of justice, While that may well be true of REB, it has to be actually be shown that the same is true of Torah observant Jews who join an organization with the word "feminism" in its name. You write: The authors of the paper in fact state something quite egalitarian: The Torah affirms the absolute equal value of men and women as individuals and as ovdei Hashem. This is not the view of the Talmud. The Mishnah (Horiyot 13:1) states: "A man takes precedence over a woman, in matters concerning the saving of life... a Cohen takes precedence over a Levi...." Clearly the lives are not of equal value in the eyes of the Talmud. Arguments about the validity of what you think the misnhah is "clearly" saying aside... You are treating equality of value as synonymous with egalitarianism. The people you are responding to do not. They view is as more akin to the implication of JOFA's talking about "feminism" -- seeking value in the same sorts of roles and activities. A square can be equal in area to a triangle without insisting the square and the triangle are congruent. 7- "Usena es harabbanus". Leadership isn't about my "desire for maximal participation within Halacha", as you put it in a sentence shortly before the previous quote (pg 10). It's about my duties toward the community. Your entire phrasing of the discussion in terms of right or privileges, people getting an opportunity, depriving of that opportunity being unjust (as you present REB's position), is itself a HUGE drift from how halakhah even discusses values; never mind the content of that discussion. Self-expression is like the tassles emerging from the windings of the tzitzis. (RSRH's metaphor in CW vol 3.) It is how we express ourselves within the framework of Torah; but not the windings themselves. What makes me a fan of Bach's music is his ability to conform to the strict structural rules of the music of his era. And yet he still produced pieces that could express sublime religious passion or Majesty. (Until Beethoven invented Conservative Judaism. ) Halakhah's role is to channel such expression constructively -- like the windings of the tzitzis. As RSRH continues, there is a reason why the free part of the tassle is ideally twice was long as the wound portion; this metaphor isn't against expression. The second you frame halakhah in terms of every getting their fair opportunity, I hear an evaluation based on a framework very alien to an internally resonant analysis. 9- Somewhat more tangentially, but it's the first case of something I might raise other examples of in a future email. (Assuming I ever want to go retail rather than stick to meta-issues.) On pg 3, fn 3: There are other stated facts in the OU paper that require discussion but are beyond the scope of this paper. For example, one of the points emphasized in the OU paper is the issue of women as ritual slaughterers (shochtim). Some authorities such as R. Jacob Landau and R. Moshe Isserles wrote that since women did not do it, there was a custom for women not to do so. But that was factually erroneous. "Female ritual slaughterers were to be found in most of the Jewish Diasporas... In Renaissance Italy, the phenomenon of shohatot was very common. Another source also documents that female shochtim were found in areas of Italy where they adequately educated. See Grossman, Avraham... I am willing to agree with the conclusion that the Agur and the Rama were wrong on the historical facts, and simply didn't know what was going on in other parts of the golah. Still... You don't touch the point the OU paper cites it for -- that the Rama, a halachic source we cannot simply ignore -- is one of a number of sources that WERE willing to suggest that a practice being absent from the mesorah can mean there is a mesorah that it ought to be absent. That statement bothers me too. But because you dismissed the quote based on a tangent, you don't address the central problem it raises! Perhaps there'll be more after I really read section II onward. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "I think, therefore I am." - Renne Descartes micha at aishdas.org "I am thought about, therefore I am - http://www.aishdas.org my existence depends upon the thought of a Fax: (270) 514-1507 Supreme Being Who thinks me." - R' SR Hirsch From akivagmiller at gmail.com Mon Oct 9 09:44:27 2017 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2017 12:44:27 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Eruv Tavshilin - who makes it? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: My wife and I have recently discovered that among our friends, it is invariably the husband who makes the Eruv Tavshilin. This surprises us, and we are wondering what other families do, and if there are any sources for one preference or the other. Essentially, the Eruv Tavshilin means that in this particular instance, the Shabbos cooking cannot wait for Friday, but must be done on Erev Yom Tov too. With such an intimate connection to the Shabbos cooking, it was intuitively obvious to both my wife and myself that this is NOT similar to other mitzvos (mezuza is a good example) which might be done by the husband for gender-role reasons. Rather, it is the beginning of the cooking, and should therefore be done by whoever does the cooking. In our family, that's the wife. Eruv Tavshilin was not assigned to each and every individual, like kiddush was. It is a reminder. Granted that the rishonim have varying explanations of this mitzvah, but it seems that to all of these explanations, the object of this reminding is the person who does the cooking. So my question to the chevra is: In your family, who makes the eruv, and why? And do any sources discuss this? Note: I admit there's a certain weakness in everything that I've written above. Namely, the idea that one can rely on the Eruv Tavshilin that was made by the rav of the town. Let's set aside the fact that this is not the best way of doing the eruv, and that various conditions are imposed on one who wants to rely on it. Let's focus on the fact that it is valid *at* *all*. How does the eruv made by someone outside of my home help me? What sort of *reminder* does his eruv provide? I have never understood this, nor have I heard any explanation of it, only assertions that it does work. Any help in this area would be appreciated. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From michaelpoppers at gmail.com Mon Oct 9 18:59:58 2017 From: michaelpoppers at gmail.com (Michael Poppers) Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2017 21:59:58 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] going to the amud Message-ID: In Avodah V35n119, RJR wrote: > I also wonder about why the practice of sending youngsters up developed given the S?A?s psak concerning the priorities for a chazzan. < (RJR made other points that listmembers have responded to; I thought this point, for which the latest digest listed no response, was worthy of a response.) In many *shuls*, much less *minyanim*, so perhaps in the noted "chareidi shul in RBS", those "priorities" (married, beard, age, etc.) are seemingly (except for the Yamim Noraim) secondary to the hierarchy of "*chiyuvim*"...but one "priority", being "*m'rutzah laqahal*", might be upheld when appointing/allowing a young adult to lead the *tzibbur*.... *Gut Moeid*/*Mo'adim l'Simcha!* and all the best from *Michael Poppers* * Elizabeth, NJ, USA -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From akivagmiller at gmail.com Tue Oct 10 03:47:36 2017 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2017 06:47:36 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Eruv Tavshilin - who makes it? Message-ID: . I asked how one could ever rely on the Rav's eruv: > How does the eruv made by someone outside of my home > help me? What sort of *reminder* does his eruv provide? R' Zev Sero answered: > ... that it's wrong to rely entirely on leftovers, and one > must prepare at least one thing just for Shabbos. According > to this explanation, the fact that one must ask the rabbi > (or the neighbor, or whomever) before relying on their eruv > accomplishes the same thing. One has provided for Shabbos, > not by cooking but by arranging an invitation to eat out. I don't follow this logic at all. One who relies on this did NOT "prepare at least one thing just for Shabbos." If you respond that the one thing he prepared was "arranging an invitation to eat out", I will say that he did NOT arrange such an invitation; he is merely aware that the rabbi/neighbor had him in mind. You write about "the fact that one must ask the rabbi", but I never saw such a halacha. One does not need to do any sort of action at all, not even speaking. All one needs is to be aware that the rabbi/neighbor had him in mind. So what is being accomplished? > The second explanation is that originally there was no ha'arama; > it was permitted to openly cook on Yomtov for Shabbos. Chazal > legislated that one must save Yomtov's face by pretending to be > cooking for that day. According to this explanation it's very > simple; the important thing is not the eruv itself, but the need > for the ha'arama. The eruv's function is merely to give the > ha'arama some surface plausibility. So it makes no difference > whose eruv one uses; the fact that one is pretending not to be > cooking for Shabbos *is* the kevod Yomtov that Chazal required. > The enabling notion that on Shabbos one will be eating the rabbi's > eruv is only barely less plausible than the one that one will be > subsisting on ones own eruv. Focusing on the last sentence here, we agree that relying on the rabbi's eruv is indeed less plausible than one's own. I think our disagreement is that you feel it has a sufficient shiur of plausibility, and I don't. Alternatively, you feel that relying on the rabbi constitutes "pretending to be cooking for that day", but I think it doesn't even constitute "pretending". And this is especially true in the case where one genuinely forgot to make the eruv, and remembered on Yom Tov; surely you'll agree with me that this person did absolutely *nothing* before Yom Tov as a Shabbos preparation, right? Not even to ask the rabbi to have him in mind! Akiva Miller From micha at aishdas.org Tue Oct 10 06:18:05 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2017 09:18:05 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Eruv Tavshilin - who makes it? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20171010131805.GA8572@aishdas.org> On Tue, Oct 10, 2017 at 06:47:36AM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : You write about "the fact that one must ask the rabbi", but I never : saw such a halacha. One does not need to do any sort of action at all, : not even speaking. All one needs is to be aware that the : rabbi/neighbor had him in mind. So what is being accomplished? Beqitzur: "be aware" is sufficient for heker. Can't we ask the same thing of a neighborhood eiruv? How many people think about the eruv every week? The Rambam (Shevisas YT 6:2) seems to me to be the reason for calling eiruv tavshilin an "eiruv" is merely by comparison to eruv chatzeiros. Both are hekerim: There (ECh), so that people would thing that carrying from reshus to reshus is mutar on shabbos. Here (ET), that it is okay to cook on YT even if it's not for YT. Awareness that the rabbi (or whomever) had me in mind means I am thinking about eiruvin and there is a recognition (heker) that there is an issur. It seems the Rambam holds like R' Ashi (that ET is to reinforce melakhah on YT) over Rava (it's to reinforce Shabbos prep). But even according to Rava, that moment of awareness of the rabbi's eruv is sypposed to reserve as a reminder to make something nice for se'udos Shabbos. I would agree with Zev that the plausibility requirement is quite low, as all we're doing is a mnemonic. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger None of us will leave this place alive. micha at aishdas.org All that is left to us is http://www.aishdas.org to be as human as possible while we are here. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Anonymous MD, while a Nazi prisoner From noamstadlan at gmail.com Mon Oct 9 18:26:41 2017 From: noamstadlan at gmail.com (Noam Stadlan) Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2017 20:26:41 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] OU paper Message-ID: R. Micha- thank you for taking the time to read the paper. Having read your list of criticisms, I think that in your search for reasons to oppose, you missed many of the points completely. Poskim are certainly entitled to their opinions. They are not entitled to their own facts. If their logic doesn't hold up, it is reasonable to call them on the lack of logic. Which is why the paper is NOT about my opinions versus the OU 7, but about the lack of facts and logic. Furthermore, I illustrated that what poskim hold regarding these issues isn't always or exclusively a result of all their learning and shimmush. It is a demonstrable fact that many attitudes reflect what they grew up with and were indoctrinated with early on, not the list of influences that they write about. You dismiss my quote regarding REB, and claim that it is my responsibility to prove what the motives are or aren't. This is ridiculous. The OU authors did not talk to any of the principles involved. Since when is it acceptable for any responsible posek or beit din to make important judgments without making absolutely sure regarding the facts? Especially when they are making a significant deal about motivation and it would have been a very simple matter of making a phone call or two. Isn't that a basic obligation of a posek? And then to claim that it is my responsibility to prove that they were wrong? And, by the way, since I personally know many of the people involved, I have a much greater familiarity with what people involved think. I suggest that if you think that an organization with 'feminism' in its name is inherently problematic, we may be starting from basic assumptions far to wide apart to see any common ground. The OU paper wrote about Mesorah versus modern values. I was just using their words and addressing the role of modern values in how Halacha and values have changed. The fact that they define Mesorah a bit differently doesn't change the issue nor change the fact that modern values have always been incorporated into the Halakhah and Halakhic values(in case you dont want to use the word Mesorah). And to counter your point, some of the ancient values have gone out the window, whether you want to call them mesoretic or not. I didn't have time to get into all the particulars of the halachic aspects of the Rama and shechittah, R. Brody and Broyde address and dismiss the argument in their paper(I am pretty sure that is in a footnote somewhere). I thought it was adequate to illustrate that he was factually wrong. I could go on and on but I sense that in the end it will not matter. I would have to go through each and every line of your critique and point out where your assumptions are wrong. For example "JOFA....seeking value in the same sorts of roles and activities". NO, that is not what JOFA is about. It is about not creating Halachic boundaries when there shouldn't be any, and the women can decide what roles and activities they can and should assume(within Halacha of course, just like the men). And what is wrong with anyone finding value in learning Torah, teaching Torah, helping people celebrate s'machot, organizing davening, etc? women should not find value in that???? Thank you again for taking the time to read the paper. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From zev at sero.name Mon Oct 9 21:49:31 2017 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2017 00:49:31 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Eruv Tavshilin - who makes it? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <928305ea-1e57-b3bd-da9c-b3acb1281e04@sero.name> On 09/10/17 12:44, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > Note: I admit there's a certain weakness in everything that I've written > above. Namely, the idea that one can rely on the Eruv Tavshilin that was > made by the rav of the town. Let's set aside the fact that this is not > the best way of doing the eruv, and that various conditions are imposed > on one who wants to rely on it. Let's focus on the fact that it is valid > *at* *all*. How does the eruv made by someone outside of my home help > me? What sort of *reminder* does his eruv provide? I have never > understood this, nor have I heard any explanation of it, only assertions > that it does work. Any help in this area would be appreciated. IIRC the gemara offers two explanations for ET. Either it was made lichvod Shabbos or lichvod Yomtov. The first explanation is that cooking on Yomtov for Shabbos was always done by pretending to be cooking for a late Friday meal, but Chazal felt about the Shabbos after Yomtov the way many nowadays do about the Shabbos after Thanksgiving: that it's wrong to rely entirely on leftovers, and one must prepare at least one thing just for Shabbos. According to this explanation, the fact that one must ask the rabbi (or the neighbor, or whomever) before relying on their eruv accomplishes the same thing. One has provided for Shabbos, not by cooking but by arranging an invitation to eat out. The second explanation is that originally there was no ha`arama; it was permitted to openly cook on Yomtov for Shabbos. Chazal legislated that one must save Yomtov's face by pretending to be cooking for that day. According to this explanation it's very simple; the important thing is not the eruv itself, but the need for the ha`arama. The eruv's function is merely to give the ha`arama some surface plausibility. So it makes no difference whose eruv one uses; the fact that one is pretending not to be cooking for Shabbos *is* the kevod Yomtov that Chazal required. The enabling notion that on Shabbos one will be eating the rabbi's eruv is only barely less plausible than the one that one will be subsisting on ones own eruv. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From micha at aishdas.org Tue Oct 10 13:25:47 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2017 16:25:47 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] OU paper In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20171010202547.GC6565@aishdas.org> Take 2. I didn't like what I read in the Avodah queue, so I rejected my first version and elaborated. On Tue, Oct 10, 2017 at 10:53:24AM -0500, Noam Stadlan via Avodah wrote: :> 1- Feminism assumes egalitarianism, not only equality, as it assumes that :> roles historically closed to women as "men's roles" should be open to all. :> Equality only assumes that everyone should be eligible for roles of equal :> value. (For some measure of value.) : This is starting off on the wrong foot. I dont claim to speak for all : Orthodox Feminists. But the first question to be asked is why is a role : 'historically closed to women?' ... I see this as an equally valid question, but who is to say which ought to be asked first? REBerkowitz rightly deprecates the modification of halakhah out of concern for external values. He dismisses the role of the "pressures of contemporary egalitarianism." (As RSC put it.) This puts REB in a different place than people who unite under the word "feminism" are indeed advocating halachic change. What he denies being a valid motive JOFA is putting in their organizational name. : It is very reasonable, just like in : the cases of the chereish, slavery etc, to investigate why it is : 'historically closed." ... Which you fail to actually do. You rebut your understanding of some arguments for why the clsure is grounded in mesorah. After all, this is a rebuttal paper. The one mention of an alternative motive for change, rather than a lack of motive for status quo, is one that is inconsistent with feminism, as above. : litany of reasons as to why women were forbidden to do things and he : himself agreed that those reasons have gone by the wayside. If you want to : say that something is historically closed, and therefore it is assur- : fine. Now you dont need an Halachic reasons, because historically closed : is the final word.... Strawman. I am not asserting that we have to hold like the Rama that being historically closed means the option is halachically closed; identifying history with mesorah, and thus absence of tradition with tradition of absence. I would say, though, that if you want to buck the Rama, you have to make an argument for doing so, and not just dismiss his rule because he applied it to a misunderstood case. : everyone seems to be giving Halachicly justification, both pro and con, : then it means that historically closed is open for discussion, and it is on : the plane of halacha, not history. So the bottom line is that if there is : Halachic justification for particular gender roles- of course that trumps : everything. But it also means that stating something is historically assur : is not the end of the story. history is not Halacha. That is what I : illustrated in part one. Because you could also make the same argument : that the chereish shouldn't have an aliyyah... Yes, I agreed with your formulation of the problem in terms of resonant values, and at times a contemporary value can highlight the neglect of a Torah one. But you don't follow through with it. Instead you end up altogether rejecting the say of mesoretic values to decide which halachic innovations are proper. I would add that at times a contemporary value can change expectations, and thus change the morality of an act. After all, it may be okay to do something to someone when they expect it, but not if it violates assumptions behind things they committed to. I could see making that argument WRT monogyny and the validity of cheirem deR Gershom. Mental images of what marriage should be changed, and so it's only moral to satisfy the resulting emotional need rather than some older definition of marriage. As long as the definition itself isn't inferior. To take that poorly explained idea and possibly be clearer by making it less general and more about our case: Perhaps one could form the argument that while it was moral for women not to be eligable for the rabbinate in the past because it was less likely for the option to cross their minds. Such a practice would cause fewer feelings of deprevation. But now that women can become CEO, such a position does mesoretically-wrongly create feelings of deprivation. And so societal change causes a change in application of values; just as it can an application of law. This is pretty close to an argument you do indeed make. Just (as below), I don't think having a role is a right, because I do not believe religious roles are as much opportunities as they are duties. Unlike secular roles, which could be either, depending on how the society in question chooses to frame them. Your neglect of the "how", which changes are valid and which not, reminds me of the argument of non-O rabbis who point to pruzbul and heter isqa as justifications for their radical changes. It's not the same thing by a lng shot. But half-way through you make the same error of considering proof that there are valid kinds of change as proof that the topic in question provides no barriers to change altogether. As you say in this same paragraph (!): : Any role that is historically : closed to any group that isn't Halachically assur is open for discussion as : to what the Halacha actually mandates and why exactly it was closed in the : first place.... So, it's black-letter law closure, or the change is allowed? No "resonance of values" needed after all? And the problem with demanding "resonance of values" is that it takes the autonomy out of it for most of us. Because by enlarging the problem beyond black letter halakhah we guarantee there is a non-formal aspect to the answer, one that is for the practiced artist rather than any bright researcher. And the notion that one is validating a value system that then sets the person up for a very hard collision with the actual not-so-glass ceiling black-letter halakhah defines is very related to this. The mere existence of such a ceiling implies the likelihood of non-resonant values. The concept of asei lekha rav, having a poseiq, moves us away from autonomy in our behavioral decisions, and forces a heteronomy of a manner that too violates contemporary values. :> 2- Feminism assumes Locke's language of rights and priviledge. Why should :> someone *be deprived* of the opportunity to be an .... -- in our case, to :> serve as rabbi? But halachic values aren't framed in these terms... : Being a rabbi is fulfilling the mitzvah of service to the community, talmud : torah etc. Whether it is a burden or an opportunity, it is a mitzvah and : a choice of profession and communal service... But asking about opportunity and opening doors is inherently asking different value questions than the mesoretic ones. It's not just ancient that we frame our moral choices in terms of duty to others and the Other, it's mesoretic. : Furthermore, the OU paper went way beyond opposing rabbis. they forbid a : woman from officiating at a baby naming or other things. that too is a : burden that women should be forbidden from shouldering? This misses my point. When I spoke of rights vs duties I am talking about the entire framing of questions of values, not this specific decision. If the rabbinate, baby naming or whatever is a duty rather than a right, the whole question of "limiting their options unneccessarily" goes off the table. It's not about the right to choose a boon. Your whole question is framed non-traditionally. Looking at feminism as a goal is an inherently un-mesoretic way of framing the question. Rather, the nearest mesoretic equivalent would be to ask whether men have a duty that can only be discharged by sharing the pulpit, "officiating at a baby naming of other things". Feminism doesn't enter the mesoretic discussion because there is no door to be opened or closed, there is no region of personal-expression space to discuss whether someone is given too much or too little. The Torah is a beris, not a bill of rights. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When one truly looks at everyone's good side, micha at aishdas.org others come to love him very naturally, and http://www.aishdas.org he does not need even a speck of flattery. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rabbi AY Kook From micha at aishdas.org Tue Oct 10 14:04:28 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2017 17:04:28 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Oseh Hashalom In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20171010210428.GC21284@aishdas.org> On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 10:34:34PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : I went looking at the siddurim that were common in the shuls that I : grew up in, and I noticed an interesting pattern: Every single one : gave Oseh Hashalom as the closing bracha at the end of the Amidah; not : even one suggested saying Hamevarech like the rest of the year. : Further, every single one used the words Oseh Shalom at the ends of : Kaddish and Elokai N'tzor; not even one suggested saying Oseh Hashalom : during the Aseres Yemei Teshuva. ... : My questions are these: If you're old enough to remember davening : Ashkenaz in the 1970s or before, do you remember what was said during : Aseres Yemei Teshuva? And do you know of any siddur from that era : which included the newfangled text? I know my father was saying "hamvarekh" at this time. However, our minhagim are a hodge-podge of practices from those retained from the Ottoman Empire before my ancestor's arrival in Litta, mainline Litvish, R/Dr Mirsky's idiosyncricies (my grandfather came to America as a teen, and so the rav who met him at Ellis Island was became rav of his shul determined much of what he did), and what my father picked up Tues nights (and from YU alumni friends) from RYBS. I did some restoration of pre-American Biergehr minhag based on R Dovid Lifshitz's memories of what it was. AND that brings me to a theory... Minhagim that Chabad, Talmidei haGra and Sepharadim have in common are bound to become Minhag EY. And Minhag EY is bound to be known globally, at least by the 1970s. Maybe this is just a thing that universalized faster. Anecodtally, I notice fewer and fewer people wearing tefillin on ch"m each year. Although Passaic, a neighborhood with some 40% BT rate, is going to have weaker ties to minhag than ones in which more people have childhood memories of what dad does. I also noticed more an more shuls moving Shir shel Yom and Hoshanos from the end of mussaf to before leining. One thing all three of the communities that dominated the Yishuv haYashan had in common was an attachment to Qabbalah. We may be seeing more and more Tzefat-originating practices coming to the fore in the comming years as a new Minhag EY (and ch"v if galus lasts long enough Minhag America) emerges. Much to R' Ovadiah's poshumous dismay, I would presume. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "I hear, then I forget; I see, then I remember; micha at aishdas.org I do, then I understand." - Confucius http://www.aishdas.org "Hearing doesn't compare to seeing." - Mechilta Fax: (270) 514-1507 "We will do and we will listen." - Israelites From micha at aishdas.org Tue Oct 10 08:18:49 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2017 11:18:49 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] OU paper In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20171010151849.GB32729@aishdas.org> On Mon, Oct 09, 2017 at 08:26:41PM -0500, Noam Stadlan via Avodah wrote: : R. Micha- thank you for taking the time to read the paper. Having read : your list of criticisms, I think that in your search for reasons to oppose, : you missed many of the points completely... As I wrote, the reply was delayed by my attempt to put down the paper every time I thought I was reading solely for the sake of finding points to oppose. "Fisking", as it's called. Admittedly, I could still have failed. : Poskim are certainly entitled to : their opinions. They are not entitled to their own facts. Which is why I didn't dispute claims of fact, such as whether women were shochetim in Italy. I did dispute your use of a fact turning that Rama's point into a hypothetical to deny his whole "[if] we [hadn't] ever seen women as shochetim, we have a mesorah that woman aren't to serve as shochetim". Yes, his given is false, but we do see the implication statement in the Agur and the Rama. So, how do you dismiss applying the parallel syllogism here -- since we do not have a history of women rabbis, wouldn't the Rama's methodology mean that there is a mesorah not to ordain women? At least -- doesn't this topic need addressing, rather than writing that one can ignore the whole flow of logic because the antecedent is false? : Furthermore, I illustrated that what poskim hold : regarding these issues isn't always or exclusively a result of all their : learning and shimmush. It is a demonstrable fact that many attitudes : reflect what they grew up with and were indoctrinated with early on, not : the list of influences that they write about. But you gave up on the question of which new values pass the resonance test mention early in the paperr and which do not. My argument is that : You dismiss my quote regarding REB, and claim that it is my responsibility : to prove what the motives are or aren't. I dismiss the quote as necessarily applying to anyone but REB. It is not like he's the communal leader or primary poseiq of the people in question. In particular because of the word "feminism" in JOFA's name. To which you replied: : I suggest that if you think that an organization with 'feminism' in its : name is inherently problematic, we may be starting from basic assumptions : far to wide apart to see any common ground. RCS summarized REB's position (on your pg 10), as being of "moral ends derive from internal Jewish sources.... dissatisfaction with mainstream Halakhah regarding women is rooted, not in the pressures of contemporary egalitarianism, in his judgment about biblical conceptions of justice." (ellision yours) But JOFA's name is taken from "contemporary egalitarianism". I am not saying it's inherently problematic. I am saying it creates the likelihood of a gap between REB's position and JOFA's attitude, one that then creates a burden of proof you didn't take up. In short I am saying that: 1- Feminism assumes egalitarianism, not only equality, as it assumes that roles historically closed to women as "men's roles" should be open to all. Equality only assumes that everyone should be eligible for roles of equal value. (For some measure of value.) 2- Feminism assumes Locke's language of rights and priviledge. Why should someone *be deprived* of the opportunity to be an .... -- in our case, to serve as rabbi? But halachic values aren't framed in these terms. (At least not in general; I can think of notions like geneivas da'as, gezel shinah or tovas han'ah as exceptions.) Rather, the rabbinate is supposed to be a burden. Even if it is really being treated as an honor, the value which would differentiate between a positive halachic change and one that is anti-mesoretic would be that of duty, not opportunity. 3- Making the argument that feminist egalitarian opportunity is or is not resonant with mesoretic values requires those guys with shimush, as it is an art. Your counter-argument is on the wrong plane for discussing the topic of the first section of your paper -- "mesorah". ... And we don't even agree on how RIETS-trained rabbis are most likely to use the word "mesorah" to agree on what we're debating! Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Man is equipped with such far-reaching vision, micha at aishdas.org yet the smallest coin can obstruct his view. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yisrael Salanter Fax: (270) 514-1507 From noamstadlan at mail.gmail.com Tue Oct 10 08:53:24 2017 From: noamstadlan at mail.gmail.com (Noam Stadlan) Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2017 10:53:24 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] OU paper In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: multipart/alternative Size: 3823 bytes Desc: not available URL: From micha at aishdas.org Tue Oct 10 14:12:25 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2017 17:12:25 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] =?cp1255?q?=93Timtum_Ha-Lev=94_Redux?= In-Reply-To: <7aef6b22a7e348ffa09f6c3e61bde74f@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <7aef6b22a7e348ffa09f6c3e61bde74f@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20171010211225.GD21284@aishdas.org> On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 06:30:33PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : From R' Aviner Dulling of the Heart to Save One's Life ... : A: No. Maran Ha-Rav Kook writes in his book "Musar Avicha" (p. 19) : that the dulling of one's heart comes from violating a prohibition : and not from the food itself (Yoma 39a. And see Meharsha on : Shabbat 33a).... Yay! Finally I have sources to look at. "Vehayisa akh sameiach" just became a little easier. Does anyone have "Mussar Avikha", "Uvdos veHanhagos miBeis Brisk" (vol II p 50) and/or "Orchos Yosheir" (#13)? Do any of them discuss mezuzah and the consequent shemirah, or any of the other related segulah-like effects of mitzvos we've tied in to previous iterations? Look at that list of names: I'm not wrong, just Litvish! Tangent: The Gra said that "vehayisa akh sameiach" is the hardest mitzvah in the Torah. "Veyahisa sameiach" is one thing, but "akh sameiach"? To be nothing but happy, with no other moods ambivalently mixed in for 8 days (9 in chu"l) straight? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The fittingness of your matzos [for the seder] micha at aishdas.org isn't complete with being careful in the laws http://www.aishdas.org of Passover. One must also be very careful in Fax: (270) 514-1507 the laws of business. - Rav Yisrael Salanter From hankman at bell.net Tue Oct 10 22:24:18 2017 From: hankman at bell.net (hankman) Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2017 01:24:18 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] R. Akiva, Bar Kochba and Zecharya HaNovi Message-ID: <5AFE790709AC4B0B9FDDB6A6102B7005@hankPC> How could R. Akiva have mistaken Bar Kochba for Moshiach, since non of the nevuos of Zecharya HaNovi that we read in the recent haftorah (splitting of Har HaZeitim etc., etc) for the period precedent to Moshiach had yet occurred? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Tue Oct 10 13:51:59 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2017 16:51:59 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] future impact of deeds In-Reply-To: <781196aefdb44054b2f0e69678999858@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <781196aefdb44054b2f0e69678999858@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20171010205159.GB21284@aishdas.org> On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 06:29:05PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : In one of his shiurim, R'Reisman questioned a common (my) understanding : of how those who are no longer with us could be judged based on the : future impact of their deeds on an ongoing basis. The specific example : was two individuals (A & B) separately caused two other individuals (C & : D, who were totally equivalent) to become religious. C dies a day later, : while D lives a long, productive, and fruitful life. Does it make sense : that A gets more credit(schar) than B? : : My answer is no, but this does not refute the basic premise. The schar : is based on the % of their potential that C & D actualized-only HKB"H : knows that, so, in this case in fact, A might even get more credit than B. Who said that sekhar is indeed based on actualized potential? "Lefum tz'ara agra", not "lefum tzalach". And wouldn't judging someone by something out of their control violate Middas haDin? HOWEVER, perhaps (thinking out loud) we could invoke megalgalim zekhus al yedei zakai to say that hashgachah peratis's choice of D's long life includes among an infinite other factors, the ways in which his mashpia was mora zekai. But personally, I would question your conclusion. (But in a personal-belief sense. Not that it doesn't require understanding in an eilu-va'eilu way.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Rescue me from the desire to win every micha at aishdas.org argument and to always be right. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Nassan of Breslav Fax: (270) 514-1507 Likutei Tefilos 94:964 From zev at sero.name Wed Oct 11 03:30:27 2017 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2017 06:30:27 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] R. Akiva, Bar Kochba and Zecharya HaNovi In-Reply-To: <5AFE790709AC4B0B9FDDB6A6102B7005@hankPC> References: <5AFE790709AC4B0B9FDDB6A6102B7005@hankPC> Message-ID: <0278980f-97ca-2755-caa3-89461ed64e50@sero.name> On 11/10/17 01:24, hankman via Avodah wrote: > How could R. Akiva have mistaken Bar Kochba for Moshiach, since non of > the nevuos of Zecharya HaNovi that we read in the recent haftorah > (splitting of Har HaZeitim etc., etc) for the period precedent to > Moshiach had yet occurred? The Rambam, whose shita is based on R Akiva, explicitly paskens that none of these nevuos need to be fulfilled literally. Any that aren't can be interpreted metaphorically to fit whatever political and military events actually do take place around the geulah. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From akivagmiller at gmail.com Wed Oct 11 06:41:32 2017 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2017 09:41:32 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Questioning Authority In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I have no hidden agenda here. This post is my response to the current "OU paper" thread, and to many other threads we've had over the decades, where we have wondered how any given posek could hold a certain way on any particular question. It is also relevant to threads we've had abput *becoming* a posek, and the importance of shimush in addition to book knowledge. This is something I would not have written, or even have thought of, until about 10 years ago or so. But as I have matured, I have come to see things in a new perspective. Becoming a parent, and a grandparent, has given me a tremendous insight into Hashem's relationship with us. I have always felt that it is (or ought to be) possible and permissible to *question* authority without challenging or rejecting authority. It is very natural to want to understand the reasons behind the rules that we must live by. Wanting to understand those rules is not the same as rejecting those rules. Wanting to understand the rules, I believe, is a major component of the Mitzvah of Talmud Torah, and is thus highly commendable. A chavrusa once challenged me to explain my position on a certain subject. He said to me, "If you can't explain it to me in simple terms, then you don't really understand it well enough yourself." I accepted that rule wholeheartedly, and used it myself for many decades. But recently have I begun to see the cracks in that rule. A parent tells the child to do something, or to not do something. The child asks why, not out of rebellion, but because he sincerely wants to understand what's going on. Sometimes, the parent cannot give an answer better than "Because I said so." The child now thinks that the parent is being arbitrary, and sometimes, the parent might even agree. But frequently, the truth is that the parent has very good reasons for what he says. It's just that he's unable to put those reasons into clear words. He can't even explain it to himself in simple terms, because it is simply a gut feeling that he has, based on experience and intuition, he sees that this is the action or inaction which must be followed in this particular situation. I think this is analogous to Torah leaders and Torah followers. When the leaders tell the followers what to do, or what to avoid, it is entirely reasonable for the followers to request explanations from the leaders. This is especially so, if the explanation will help them comply with the directive, or teach them how to apply the directive to other situations. But these requests must be made respectfully, carefully, and only up to a certain point. Consider when a parent explains himself to the child, and the child responds with a dozen reasonable challenges to the parent's logic. Sometimes the parent will realize that he was in error, and back down. Sometimes the parent will realize that he was in error, but will stick to his guns as a show of power (rightly or wrongly). But sometimes, the parent will understand that - despite the child's persuasive comments - the directive must still be followed, because ... Well, the parent himself might not be able to articulate his reasoning, not even to himself. But he relies on his understanding and his experience and his common sense, and he knows that this is how it must be. So too, our leaders adopt certain positions on certain issues, and often they will attempt to explain themselves to us. Sometimes those explanations may appear flawed to us, maybe even severely flawed. Like the child who thinks his parent's explanation is nonsense, the flaws do not necessarily invalidate the leader's conclusion or his decision. Of course, none of this suggests that our leaders (or parents) are infallible. And they can certainly benefit from reviewing their positions among their peers. The only point I'm trying to make in this long post is this: Similar to a Chok from the Torah, sometimes our leaders issue pronouncements that we are not capable of fully understanding, and we should not let that stand in the way of following them. Akiva Miller NB: A critical word in this post is "sometimes". The difficult (sometimes impossible) task is to figure out which times are which. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From zev at sero.name Wed Oct 11 07:40:40 2017 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2017 10:40:40 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] R. Akiva, Bar Kochba and Zecharya HaNovi In-Reply-To: <20171011143003.GA21995@aishdas.org> References: <5AFE790709AC4B0B9FDDB6A6102B7005@hankPC> <0278980f-97ca-2755-caa3-89461ed64e50@sero.name> <20171011143003.GA21995@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 11/10/17 10:30, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > While the Rambam cites R' Aqiva's following Bar Koziba (H Melahim 11:2) > as proof that the melekh hamoshiach doesn't have to do miracles, is his > position really "based on" R Aqiva's? For example, in 11:4 he describes > the moshiach as being "hogeh baTorah ve'oseiq bemitzvos keDavid aviv" > which I don't think fit Bar Kokhva even in his hayday. What makes you suppose this? On the contrary, the fact that the Rambam says "since BK didn't do any miracles, we know that Moshiach doesn't have to", proves that when he says Moshiach *does* have to be a TCh and a tzadik he assumes BK *did* fulfil this requirement. If he didn't, that would prove to the Rambam that this isn't necessary. > Nor had "veyakhof kol Yisrael leileikh bah" yet either -- the > Perushim were in the minority. Were they? Who was in the majority, if not them? And why would the majority even matter? BK was the king, and he made halacha the law of the land, whether the majority liked it or not. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From micha at aishdas.org Wed Oct 11 07:30:03 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2017 10:30:03 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] R. Akiva, Bar Kochba and Zecharya HaNovi In-Reply-To: <0278980f-97ca-2755-caa3-89461ed64e50@sero.name> References: <5AFE790709AC4B0B9FDDB6A6102B7005@hankPC> <0278980f-97ca-2755-caa3-89461ed64e50@sero.name> Message-ID: <20171011143003.GA21995@aishdas.org> On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 06:30:27AM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : On 11/10/17 01:24, hankman via Avodah wrote: :> How could R. Akiva have mistaken Bar Kochba for Moshiach, since :> non of the nevuos of Zecharya HaNovi that we read in the recent :> haftorah (splitting of Har HaZeitim etc., etc) for the period :> precedent to Moshiach had yet occurred? : The Rambam, whose shita is based on R Akiva, explicitly paskens that : none of these nevuos need to be fulfilled literally. Any that : aren't can be interpreted metaphorically to fit whatever political : and military events actually do take place around the geulah. While the Rambam cites R' Aqiva's following Bar Koziba (H Melahim 11:2) as proof that the melekh hamoshiach doesn't have to do miracles, is his position really "based on" R Aqiva's? For example, in 11:4 he describes the moshiach as being "hogeh baTorah ve'oseiq bemitzvos keDavid aviv" which I don't think fit Bar Kokhva even in his hayday. Nor had "veyakhof kol Yisrael leileikh bah" yet either -- the Perushim were in the minority. More clearly is his basing himself on Shemu'el (Sanhedrin 91b) when he quotes him in 12:2, "Chakhamim said: ein bein ha'olam hazeh liymos hamoshiach ela shib'ud malkhios bilvad." It's interesting that rather than repeating the quote beshrim omero -- a funny thing to do when discussing the ge'ula le'lam that giving the source is supposed to bring -- he attributes the quote to Chakhamim, as though he knew it was consensus and Rav's position deprecated. After all, the Rambam himself says that we can't decide machloqesim in these thingxs. So it could be that the Rambam did indeed base himself on R Aqiva, but then we would have to say that the Rambam held that R Aqiva was waiting for the rest of the nevu'ah to come true. Or not -- maybe his basic source was Shemu'el, and this one proof doesn't imply derivation. And given that the BK Revolt was c. 132-135 CE, it is likely that R' Aqiva expected the war to go on 7 years, as per statements in the gemara about chevlei moshiach. This would time the end of the war with 70 years after the churban, like the return after churban bayis 1. But whether that conjecture is true or not, the relevant idea that R Aqiva could be backing BK thinking the rest of the expectations about the moshiach simply hadn't happened /yet/. Which the Rambam would have to invoke even for his more mundane list of things the moshiach will accomplish. In 12:1 the Rambam denies the literalness of Yeshaiah's and Yirmiyahu's description of the messianic era in terms of wolves, leopards and lions going vegetarian. But since the splitting of Har haZeirim need not be lemaalah min hateva, do we know whether the Rambam would have placed it in the same rule? If not, the "expected it will happen in the future" answer could cover that earthquake (?) as much as it can cover BK spending all his spare time learning and doing mitzvos or his being meqareiv the vast majority of Kelal Yisrael. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger A sick person never rejects a healing procedure micha at aishdas.org as "unbefitting." Why, then, do we care what http://www.aishdas.org other people think when dealing with spiritual Fax: (270) 514-1507 matters? - Rav Yisrael Salanter From zev at sero.name Wed Oct 11 09:02:55 2017 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2017 12:02:55 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] R. Akiva, Bar Kochba and Zecharya HaNovi In-Reply-To: <20171011154231.GA6170@aishdas.org> References: <5AFE790709AC4B0B9FDDB6A6102B7005@hankPC> <0278980f-97ca-2755-caa3-89461ed64e50@sero.name> <20171011143003.GA21995@aishdas.org> <20171011154231.GA6170@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <0e95d039-c074-ae7f-f3ba-3cee64a3d191@sero.name> On 11/10/17 11:42, Micha Berger wrote: > > The man described in the Y-mi Taanis 24b (4:5) doesn't sound personally > observant. The Rambam clearly doesn't hold like the Yerushalmi's version of the story, because he holds that the Chachamim stuck with BK until he was killed "ba`avonos". That word is ambiguous (whose sins, his or the people's) but later he says a presumptive Moshiach who's killed is "kechol malchei beis Dovid hash'leimim vehak'sheirim", so we can assume he holds that BK was killed for the generation's sins, not for his own, hence "ba`avonos", not "ba`avonosav". > This is also why in both R' Aqiva's world as well as R' Meir's and R' > Shim'on's -- before and after BK's revolt -- it is taken for granted > that most Jews are amei ha'aretz. Amei Haaretz were in the Perushim "denomination". They kept Perushi halacha as well as they understood it, even if they despised the Chaverim who taught it. They made up their own invalid leniencies in maasros, and weren't careful all year with taharos, but they were careful with terumah and never told lies on Shabbos. In any case, the question isn't what the majority would have done on their own, but whether BK forced them to obey halacha, and the Rambam assumes he did. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From micha at aishdas.org Wed Oct 11 10:11:32 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2017 13:11:32 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] R. Akiva, Bar Kochba and Zecharya HaNovi In-Reply-To: <0e95d039-c074-ae7f-f3ba-3cee64a3d191@sero.name> References: <5AFE790709AC4B0B9FDDB6A6102B7005@hankPC> <0278980f-97ca-2755-caa3-89461ed64e50@sero.name> <20171011143003.GA21995@aishdas.org> <20171011154231.GA6170@aishdas.org> <0e95d039-c074-ae7f-f3ba-3cee64a3d191@sero.name> Message-ID: <20171011171132.GA1028@aishdas.org> On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 12:02:55PM -0400, Zev Sero wrote: : On 11/10/17 11:42, Micha Berger wrote: : >The man described in the Y-mi Taanis 24b (4:5) doesn't sound personally : >observant. : : The Rambam clearly doesn't hold like the Yerushalmi's version of the : story, because he holds that the Chachamim stuck with BK until he : was killed "ba`avonos"... How does this conflict with the Y-mi's picture of a less than ideal Bar Kokhva? If anything, it reinforces my suggestion that R' Aqiva was awaiting the rest of the nevu'ah. And once he is waiting for the things the Rambam mentions, then it's possible the Rambem would expect Zerkhariah's nevu'os to happen literally, but also something R' Aqiva was awaiting. It's possible the Rambam would consider the potentially natural cataclysms in Zekhariah to be non-allegory, as the examples of non-literal nevu'os he gives would have been lema'alah min hateva if literal. I don't know where he's drawing the line; nevi'ah qua nevu'ah is bederekh mashal, or only the phantastical stories should be dismissed. (This is a sibling to our discussion of the Rambam on midrashic stories. I claim he is saying that no medrash was repeated for historical content. Therefore any medrash can be ahistorical, but the fantastical stories you should take for granted as being ahistorical. You have been limiting the Rambam's denial of historicity for the fantastical stories. s/medrash/nevu'ah/g -- where do you stand?) : That word is ambiguous (whose sins, his or : the people's) but later he says a presumptive Moshiach who's killed : is "kechol malchei beis Dovid hash'leimim vehak'sheirim", so we can : assume he holds that BK was killed for the generation's sins, not : for his own, hence "ba`avonos", not "ba`avonosav". But either way -- whether he or the generation was sinful -- it would show that BK didn't fit the Rambam's descrition of moshiach. For obvious reasons, I'll add: ... at least not yet. If the generation sinned too much to merit redemption, BK wasn't too good at bringing the masses to observance. Besides, being like a kosher and shaleim member of beis David could mean "even if", we still know he wasn't the moshiach. : >This is also why in both R' Aqiva's world as well as R' Meir's and R' : >Shim'on's -- before and after BK's revolt -- it is taken for granted : >that most Jews are amei ha'aretz. : : Amei Haaretz were in the Perushim "denomination". They kept Perushi : halacha as well as they understood it, even if they despised the : Chaverim who taught it... Actually, I thought they were denominationless, as likely to follow anyone's dictates. A pagan notion of listening to every holy man, rather than picking sides. But in any case, if that's your description of the masses, you still have BK not yet succeeding in that regard at the time of his death. : in maasros, and weren't careful all year with taharos, but they were : careful with terumah and never told lies on Shabbos... They were also careful with maaser, more often than not. Demai is a gezeira; if tevel were the norm, it would be azlinan basar ruba, or at best safeiq deOraisa lehachmir. : the question isn't what the majority would have done on their own, : but whether BK forced them to obey halacha, and the Rambam assumes : he did. The Rambam doesn't say so. That's your deduction. It requires assuming that the Rambam agrees with R' Aqiva over what the grounds for presuming (making a chazqah) that someone is moshiach. He doesn't say R' Aqiva is indeed his source. And it also requires assuming R Aqiva was following BK because of a chazaqah, rather than probability and rov. You haven't addressed my "maybe" of R Aqiva following BK without BK having yet fulfilled all of the moshiach's role becuase of an expectation that BK would be getting there. My added "not yet". Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Between stimulus & response, there is a space. micha at aishdas.org In that space is our power to choose our http://www.aishdas.org response. In our response lies our growth Fax: (270) 514-1507 and our freedom. - Victor Frankl, (MSfM) From zev at sero.name Sat Oct 14 19:44:53 2017 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2017 22:44:53 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] R. Akiva, Bar Kochba and Zecharya HaNovi In-Reply-To: <20171011171132.GA1028@aishdas.org> References: <5AFE790709AC4B0B9FDDB6A6102B7005@hankPC> <0278980f-97ca-2755-caa3-89461ed64e50@sero.name> <20171011143003.GA21995@aishdas.org> <20171011154231.GA6170@aishdas.org> <0e95d039-c074-ae7f-f3ba-3cee64a3d191@sero.name> <20171011171132.GA1028@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 11/10/17 13:11, Micha Berger wrote: > On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 12:02:55PM -0400, Zev Sero wrote: > : On 11/10/17 11:42, Micha Berger wrote: > : >The man described in the Y-mi Taanis 24b (4:5) doesn't sound personally > : >observant. > : > : The Rambam clearly doesn't hold like the Yerushalmi's version of the > : story, because he holds that the Chachamim stuck with BK until he > : was killed "ba`avonos"... > > How does this conflict with the Y-mi's picture of a less than ideal > Bar Kokhva? It conflicts because the Y'mi's version of the story has the Chachamim abandoning BK *before* his fall. The Rambam clearly does not agree with that whole version of the story. In his version BK was and remained a tzadik until his tragic end, which happened not for his own sins but for those of others. > It's possible the Rambam would consider the potentially natural cataclysms > in Zekhariah to be non-allegory, as the examples of non-literal nevu'os > he gives would have been lema'alah min hateva if literal. I don't know > where he's drawing the line; nevi'ah qua nevu'ah is bederekh mashal, > or only the phantastical stories should be dismissed. He doesn't draw a line at all. He carefully doesn't say that Moshiach *won't* perform miracles, but merely that he *needn't*, because BK didn't and yet was assumed to be Moshiach. Which further contradicts the Y'mi's version, which says he was rejected because he could not judge people by smelling whether they're right or wrong, a feat of which the True Moshiach(tm) must be capable. > > : That word is ambiguous (whose sins, his or > : the people's) but later he says a presumptive Moshiach who's killed > : is "kechol malchei beis Dovid hash'leimim vehak'sheirim", so we can > : assume he holds that BK was killed for the generation's sins, not > : for his own, hence "ba`avonos", not "ba`avonosav". > > But either way -- whether he or the generation was sinful -- it would > show that BK didn't fit the Rambam's descrition of moshiach. How so? He was righteous, and forced people to keep Torah, but they didn't listen, just like Yoshiyahu. > But in any case, if that's your description of the masses, you still > have BK not yet succeeding in that regard at the time of his death. Again, how so? The requirement is that he forces all Israel to follow it and to reinforce its breaches. Not that he educates them, or makes them enthusiastic, but simply that he makes the Shulchan Aruch the law of the land, punishing those who break it. There are always lawbreakers; one would not therefore say that the government is not forcing people to obey the law. > : the question isn't what the majority would have done on their own, > : but whether BK forced them to obey halacha, and the Rambam assumes > : he did. > > The Rambam doesn't say so. That's your deduction. It requires assuming > that the Rambam agrees with R' Aqiva over what the grounds for presuming > (making a chazqah) that someone is moshiach. He doesn't say R' Aqiva is > indeed his source. He explicitly uses him as his source that Moshiach needn't perform miracles. How could he do so if his vision of Moshiach's qualifications were different from R Akiva's? If he holds that Moshiach must be a tzadik but RA didn't, then how does he know that Moshiach needn't perform miracles just because R Akiva thought so? > And it also requires assuming R Aqiva was following BK because of a > chazaqah, rather than probability and rov. You haven't addressed my > "maybe" of R Aqiva following BK without BK having yet fulfilled all of > the moshiach's role becuase of an expectation that BK would be getting > there. My added "not yet". Again, this is impossible because if so how does he know R Akiva didn't indeed require Moshiach to perform miracles, and was expecting them to happen any day now? How can he say that Moshiach need *never* perform miracles, and if he achieves everything he's supposed to without the need for miracles we will still have to accept him as Vadai Moshiach? Clearly he understands that R Akiva was *not* expecting any miracles, and that this didn't bother him, because it isn't a requirement. None of which rules out the actual Moshiach, when he does come, performing miracles. The Rambam's position on this, unlike the Y'mi's, is neutral. He might perform miracles or he might not. Some or all of the nevuos might turn out literally, but some or all might not. The nevuos he says can't be literal, at least in the initial stage of Yemos Hamoshiach, are not ones about miracles but about permanent changes in nature. Chazal said that Ein Bein Olam Hazeh Liymos Hamoshiach Ela... so nevuos about a change in nature must either be metaphorical or refer to Olam Haba. But nevuos about miracles may or may not happen literally, we won't know until we get there. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From motti.yarchinai at yahoo.com.au Sun Oct 15 01:00:51 2017 From: motti.yarchinai at yahoo.com.au (Motti Yarchinai) Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2017 08:00:51 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Avodah] Psak source wanted References: <1857240052.122258.1508054451353.ref@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1857240052.122258.1508054451353@mail.yahoo.com> Dear Avodah members, Can anyone help me with a source for this psak: It is similar to what the Rambam wrote in Hilchot Kiddush Hachodesh, saying that in all calendric matters, we follow the lead of the chachmei eretz yisrael, and even though the anshei hagolah know the calculations used by them, it is not on our own calculations that we rely, we only use those calculations because we know that they are the same as the calculations used by the chachmei eretz yisrael, and we must all follow the rulings of the latter, in all calendric matters. Another posek (possibly the Tifferet Yisrael in Shvilei Harakia, but I'm not sure of that), writes something similar but couched in even more dramatic terms. The following is not a verbatim quote (since the original is in Hebrew) but something very close to it: "And even if the residents of eretz yisrael are all ignoramuses and peasants, and the authorities of chutz la'aretz are great scholars and knowledgable in Torah and halachah, in calendric matters we follow the peasants and ignoramuses, not the scholars of chutz la'aretz." Does anyone recognise this and remember where it's from? Thank you.Motti -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From akivagmiller at gmail.com Sun Oct 15 13:02:06 2017 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2017 16:02:06 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Zecher Liytzias Mitzrayim and Shmini Atzeres Message-ID: . What is the Zecher Liytzias Mitzrayim of Shmini Atzeres?We say it in Kiddush and in the Amidah. There must be something about this chag that connects to, and/or reminds us about, Yetzias Mitzrayim. It sounds like such a basic question that I'm surprised that I don't remember hearing it in the past. If anyone has an answer, please share it. Meanwhile, here's what I came up with: Shavuos is about one particular event in the midbar. Sukkos is about the whole 40 years in the midbar. Pesach and Shmini Atzeres are bookends: Pesach is about entering the midbar, and Shmini Atzeres is about leaving the midbar.If Sukkos is about the Ananei Hakavod and all the other nissim that accompanied us, then Shmini Atzeres is about re-entering the natural world. I played "word association" with six random people: When I said "yetzias mitzrayim," five of them responded, "Pesach". This is not wrong, but it is a distortion. Yetzias Mitzrayim was not a short event in Nissan; Shavuos and Sukkos prove that it was a process that took 40 years. My suggestion is simply that the last day is no less worthy of a chag than the first. Rashi (B'midbar 29:35) famously tells us that Shmini Atzeres is a special time, with just Hashem and Bnei Yisrael together, alone, with no other nations around. I'm merely pointing out that it is not just the nations who are gone: The lulav is gone. The sukkah is gone. Nothing remains but us and Hashem, when we left the comfort of the miraculous sukkah, trading it for being at home in Eretz Yisrael. Akiva Miller Postscript: An easy challenge to this post could be that Tishre 22 was NOT the day that we crossed from the midbar into Eretz Yisrael. I will respond in advance by pointing out that Shavuos too is not necessarily celebrated on the same day as the event it reminds us of. The Zecher can be poetic and emotional, and need not be so mathematically rigorous. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hankman at bell.net Sun Oct 15 14:41:04 2017 From: hankman at bell.net (hankman) Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2017 17:41:04 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] eitz hachaim Message-ID: Hi, What exactly was the eitz hachaim all about. The simple pshat doesn?t make any sense. If the purpose of the Gan was to serve Adam then when would (could) he make use of the eitz hachaim? Kodem hacheit he was not a bar misah so he had no need of it, after the cheit he was prevented from accessing it! So when would it ever be useful to Adam? Kol tuv Chaim Manaster -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hankman at bell.net Sun Oct 15 14:48:11 2017 From: hankman at bell.net (hankman) Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2017 17:48:11 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Vayehi erev Message-ID: Hi, If you look at days 3, 4 & 5 tou will find that they close with Vayehi erev vayehi boker yom X as a complete passuk. But on days 1, 2 & 6 the vayehi erev is only the completion of a larger passuk and not a passuk on its own. Finally on Shabbos the final closing of vayehi erev is omitted completely. Do any of the medrashing or meforshing explain this? Kol tuv Chaim Manaster -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Sun Oct 15 14:31:16 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2017 17:31:16 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Zecher Liytzias Mitzrayim and Shmini Atzeres In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20171015213116.GA14924@aishdas.org> On Sun, Oct 15, 2017 at 04:02:06PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : What is the Zecher Liytzias Mitzrayim of Shmini Atzeres? ... What's the ZlYM of Shabbos? : Shavuos is about one particular event in the midbar. Sukkos is about the : whole 40 years in the midbar... Unless Sukkos is about the return of the ananei hakavod. The Gra puts 2 and 2 (and 2) together: The ananei hakavod left with the Cheit haEigel. When Moshe returned with the 2nd luchos, completing his 3rd 40-day day atop Har Sinai, he gave Benei Yisrael instructions including those for donating the materials and building the Mishkan. So that actual construction began on 15 Nissan -- and that's when the ananim returned. The Meshekh Chimah adds to this that it explains the oconstrast between Sukkos as described in Mishpatim 23:16, where all we learn about the timing in the fall is that it's Chag haAsif. This was before Cheit haEigel, never mind the eventual return. But in parashas Re'eih, the holiday makes its appearance as Chag haSukkos, refering to the returned sukkos of ananei hakavod. : Pesach is about entering the midbar, and Shmini Atzeres is about leaving : the midbar.If Sukkos is about the Ananei Hakavod and all the other nissim : that accompanied us, then Shmini Atzeres is about re-entering the natural : world. My own mental image of the structure of the year: The qiymu veqiblu haYhudim of Purim is the further development of the theme of Shavous (a/k/a Atzeres). And similarly the zikhronos of Rosh haShanah is the further development of the theme of Shemini Atzeres -- the beris. In Shemini Atzeres this creates a need for a 71st par for qorban mussaf, as well as the naturalness of our turning SA into Simchas Torah. On RH we ask for clemency if not for our sake, than for the sake of seeing the beris to fruition. So that each season has a central holiday -- Sukkos or Pesach -- which is what underlies the gezeira shava tes-vav - tes-vav. Then the season is introduced with a something (Purim or Yamim Noraim) to prepare us for the holiday. The bounty of Sukkos has to be earned; Tishrei is about middas hadin after all. The freedom of Pesach needs a context. (And Putim is derabbanan bececause the ultimate qabbalas ol mitzvos hd to come from us.) And then the theme is culminated in an Atzeres, a day to stop, pack it up, and take it with us for the next half-year. That said, I like your idead of SA as reentering the natural world. It's experientially very true, after all that holiday. It also gives more significance to the timing of Tefillas Geshem. "Qasheh alei pereidaskhem" does refer to that return; aalthough I think you need to work on the difference between our return to the natural world and Hashem making the day itself to *delay* the return. Jews and G-d without the rest of the world. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger What we do for ourselves dies with us. micha at aishdas.org What we do for others and the world, http://www.aishdas.org remains and is immortal. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Albert Pine From micha at aishdas.org Sun Oct 15 15:21:26 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2017 18:21:26 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] R. Akiva, Bar Kochba and Zecharya HaNovi In-Reply-To: References: <5AFE790709AC4B0B9FDDB6A6102B7005@hankPC> <0278980f-97ca-2755-caa3-89461ed64e50@sero.name> <20171011143003.GA21995@aishdas.org> <20171011154231.GA6170@aishdas.org> <0e95d039-c074-ae7f-f3ba-3cee64a3d191@sero.name> <20171011171132.GA1028@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20171015222126.GB14924@aishdas.org> On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 10:44:53PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: :> How does this conflict with the Y-mi's picture of a less than ideal :> Bar Kokhva? : : It conflicts because the Y'mi's version of the story has the : Chachamim abandoning BK *before* his fall. The Rambam clearly does : not agree with that whole version of the story... The Y-mi does not say that R' Aqiva was among those who left early. : In his version BK : was and remained a tzadik until his tragic end, which happened not : for his own sins but for those of others. My whole point is that the Rambam doesn't describe him as a tzadiq anywhere. He says in one place that BK could be taken to be the moshiach despite a lack of miracles and another place that when someone from beis david who is hogeh ve'oseiq bemitzvos keDavid aviv... vehakhos kol Yisrael leileikh bah... and fights Hashem's wars, then this person can be presumed to be mashiach. Not that BK had such a chazaqah; the "pesaq" of the tannaim needn't have been based on this particular chazaqah or any chazaqah. As I said, there is nothing in the Rambam to rule out them following BK out of the expectation that he would eventually get there, rather than his being hogeh ve'oseiq bemitzvos already. And then you don't need to make the Rambam ignore a Yerushalmi. : He doesn't draw a line at all. He carefully doesn't say that : Moshiach *won't* perform miracles, but merely that he *needn't*, 12:1: Al ya'aleh aal leiv shebiymos hamoshiach yibateil davar miminhago shel olam... ela olam keminhago noheig. This doesn't really rule out miracles, but it does rule out ones that leave a permanent change in the natural orer. There is a line. Which is how he rules out the historicity of "vegar ze'eiv im keves..." etc... They don't mearly "needn't" happen, he rules out the possibility of their literal meaning being part of the future, because they cross his line of olam keminhago noheig". : >But either way -- whether he or the generation was sinful -- it would : >show that BK didn't fit the Rambam's descrition of moshiach. : How so? He was righteous, and forced people to keep Torah, but : they didn't listen, just like Yoshiyahu. "Veyakhof" includes "tried and failed"??? That's not quite what the Rambam says. : Again, how so? The requirement is that he forces all Israel to : follow it and to reinforce its breaches. Not that he educates them, : or makes them enthusiastic, but simply that he makes the Shulchan : Aruch the law of the land, punishing those who break it... Which he didn't. The Sanhedrin doesn't get reorgonized and put on Har haBayis. In fact, he doesn't get the backing of the majority of the day's posqim to be able to be associated with a 2nd century religious revival through legal enforcement, even if he there had been one. (Which there is no record of.) Again, this is only a problem for you because you assume that the Rambam's chazaqah in 11:4 must be the reason for R' Aqiva and other tannaim followed BK. But he uses the expression "vedimah hu vekhol chakhmei doro" -- which is a little weak for following a chazaqah as per a chiyuv. The Y-mi (in the adorementiond &T Taanis 4:5 24b) quotes R' Aqiva as telling R' Yochanan ben Torta "Din hu malka meshikha", an idiom usually used to refer to a qal vachomer. BTW, where does the Rambam get that "kol chakhmei doro" followed Bar Koziva? Is there any indication Rabban Gamliel ever did? R Yochanan b Torta replied (in an oft repeated line) "Aqiva, yaalu asavim belechaikh ve'adayin ben David lo ba." : >The Rambam doesn't say so. That's your deduction. It requires assuming : >that the Rambam agrees with R' Aqiva over what the grounds for presuming : >(making a chazqah) that someone is moshiach. He doesn't say R' Aqiva is : >indeed his source. : : He explicitly uses him as his source that Moshiach needn't perform : miracles. How could he do so if his vision of Moshiach's : qualifications were different from R Akiva's? ... R' Aqiva proves that not performing miracles doesn't rule out someone being the moshiach. He doesn't prove what it takes to actually qualify as being one. And even beyond the difference between deriving one negative statement about the mashiach and assuming he got all his positive statements from the same source, you're missing the difference between noting R' Aqiva reached a conclusion and the Rambam pasqening that in a certain situation we are obligated by the rules of chazaqah to reach that same conclusion. : Again, this is impossible because if so how does he know R Akiva : didn't indeed require Moshiach to perform miracles, and was : expecting them to happen any day now? ... Who said he didn't? He uses R' Aqiva to rule out waiting for a miracle before following a potential. Not that moshiach won't perform miracles. 12:2 quotes Shemu'el to back up the point in 12:1 that olam beminhago holeikh. Which is minimally a particular kind of miracle, although it plausibly includes even miracles that are only momentary breaks in minhag olam. He doesn't mention R' Aqiva when ruling out these miracles from the entire mission. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "Man wants to achieve greatness overnight, micha at aishdas.org and he wants to sleep well that night too." http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yosef Yozel Horwitz, Alter of Novarodok Fax: (270) 514-1507 From hankman at bell.net Sun Oct 15 15:59:44 2017 From: hankman at bell.net (hankman) Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2017 18:59:44 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Torah precheit? Message-ID: Hi, I have been trying to understand what the geshtalt of Torah was precheit of the eitz hadaas. It could not have resembled anything that we ( I ) would recognize today. Consider: There was but one mitzva. Most if not all the mitzvos of the Torah we are familiar with could not have existed, at least as we understand them today. Had Adam been successful in his one day tafkid the purpose of the bria would have been accomplished and Adam (mankind) would have gone to olom haba ? mission accomplished nothing more to follow but for reward in olom haba. The many consequences seem to be as follows: there would be no avdus in Mitzrayim, therefore no yetzias Mitzrayim, therefore no regolim, that are all built on the idea of zecher l?yitzias Mitzrayim nor their issurei melocho . So there would not me any korban Pesach, no matzo, no maror etc. There would be no lulav and esrog, no succah etc. There would be no krobanos of shavous, no Yom Kippur and all its avoda and all its inuiyim as the cheit haeigel would never occur. Not sure about Rosh Hashana as the 6th day was the first RH perhaps as a yom hadin to pasken that Adam succeeded in his task and is deserving of olom haba. I could assume that Shabbos would also be present as it was in that first week with a kedushas Shabbos. The mussafim of all these yomim tovim would also be non existent as the yomim tovim themself seem in doubt. Much of the korbanos relating to cheit would seemingly have no purpose. the existance of the mikdash and all related mitzvot would likewise be in doubt. The mikdosh would have been Adam himself or perhaps after day 7 the mikdash would have come down in fire from heaven like we await today shibaneh beis hamikdash? As there would never be an Eretz Yisroel, then there would not be all the mitzvot hateltuot ba?aretz ? trumos, masros etc., etc. There would be no issurei arayos as there was just Adam and Chava. Not quite sure here as there was Kayin and Hevel and their twin sisters were there in the latter part of day 6. So perhaps a few of the arayaos would have been possible, mainly mother, father, son, daughter, aishes ish (Adam and Chava, but not sure about the kids as could kedushin be tofeis in a sister even if mutar for kium olam? Mishkav zachar was possible, but mishkav behama might not have been assur if one reads the medroshim kepshutom which the Maharal tell us NOT to do when Adam was seeking his mate before Chava was created. Still one has to deal with the fact that while these might have been possible, there was but ONE commandment ? not to eat from the eitz hadaas and none of the possible arayos I consider above. There was no mitzva of mila for Adam or Kayin and Hevel. Perhaps Adam was created mahul and Kayin and Hevel were nolod mahul? (Still today would need hatafas dam bris). Kibud Av vaAim would only be possible for Kain and Hevel but not for Adam or Chava who were not yilud isha. Mitzvot like korcho lameis would not be possible for beings who were not bar misa. Tumas meis would not be possible. With no rabim, mitzvot like melech, korban nossi, Ir haNidachas etc would not be possible. No mechias Amalek, or shiva ammim or kivush ha?aretz etc Rosh Chodes and its dinim would never happen as the world would end after one week. Most of choshen Mishpat would be superfluous if you own the entire world (Adam ? not sure if his kids would own anything as Adam would never die so they would never yarshan the world from him? (not sure if I am in the realm of Purim torah or not?). I could go on for most of taryag that would not have been possible. But the bottom line, possible or not, there was only ONE commandment ? the eitz hadaas! So what is the nature of Torah in such a world. How do we see it as an ever constant ever present and unchanging Torah? How does a Torah with but ONE mitzva look? How does it still identify with a Torah with 613 mitzvot? Sorry if my thoughts were very rambling. I just typed as things came to mind ? maybe not always a good idea! Kol tuv Chaim Manaster -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From zev at sero.name Sun Oct 15 22:15:48 2017 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2017 01:15:48 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] R. Akiva, Bar Kochba and Zecharya HaNovi In-Reply-To: <20171015222126.GB14924@aishdas.org> References: <5AFE790709AC4B0B9FDDB6A6102B7005@hankPC> <0278980f-97ca-2755-caa3-89461ed64e50@sero.name> <20171011143003.GA21995@aishdas.org> <20171011154231.GA6170@aishdas.org> <0e95d039-c074-ae7f-f3ba-3cee64a3d191@sero.name> <20171011171132.GA1028@aishdas.org> <20171015222126.GB14924@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 15/10/17 18:21, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 10:44:53PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > : It conflicts because the Y'mi's version of the story has the > : Chachamim abandoning BK *before* his fall. The Rambam clearly does > : not agree with that whole version of the story... > > The Y-mi does not say that R' Aqiva was among those who left early. The Rambam says that R Akiva *and all the sages of his generation* imagined BK was Moshiach, *until he was killed*. This is not consistent with the Y'mi. > As I said, there is nothing in the Rambam to rule out them following BK > out of the expectation that he would eventually get there, rather than his > being hogeh ve'oseiq bemitzvos already. Then why can't they also have expected him to eventually do miracles? How does their belief in him, and his lack of miracles, prove that Moshiach needn't do any? The fact that the Rambam uses their belief in him as proof that miracles aren't a requirement shows that they believed in him only because he *had* fulfilled all the *genuine* requirements for the stage he was at. > : >But either way -- whether he or the generation was sinful -- it would > : >show that BK didn't fit the Rambam's descrition of moshiach. > > : How so? He was righteous, and forced people to keep Torah, but > : they didn't listen, just like Yoshiyahu. > > "Veyakhof" includes "tried and failed"??? That's not quite what the > Rambam says. Yachof means to force, to make it the law of the land, and those who disobey are punished. It doesn't preclude people breaking the law when they think they can get away with it. Our current government forces us to live without drugs, and yet many people don't. > > : Again, how so? The requirement is that he forces all Israel to > : follow it and to reinforce its breaches. Not that he educates them, > : or makes them enthusiastic, but simply that he makes the Shulchan > : Aruch the law of the land, punishing those who break it... > > Which he didn't. The Sanhedrin doesn't get reorgonized and put on Har > haBayis. The Sanhedrin was already organized. There's no requirement that they return to Lishkas Hagazis until there *is* one, which he does eventually have to do, but it comes *after* chezkas Moshiach and fighting the war, which is the stage he was at. > In fact, he doesn't get the backing of the majority of the day's > posqim He certainly did, according to the Rambam. > to be able to be associated with a 2nd century religious revival > through legal enforcement, even if he there had been one. (Which there > is no record of.) Again, a "religious revival" means inspiring people to *want* to keep mitzvos, which is unrelated to *forcing* them to do so. > Again, this is only a problem for you because you assume that the Rambam's > chazaqah in 11:4 must be the reason for R' Aqiva and other tannaim > followed BK. What else could it be? He goes directly from saying that miracles are not a requirement to listing what things *are* requirements. Therefore he must have done those things. > But he uses the expression "vedimah hu vekhol chakhmei doro" > -- which is a little weak for following a chazaqah as per a chiyuv. What's weak about it? They must have had a reason for this imagination. What else but the chazaka? And if they thought he hadn't yet reached that stage then how do we know miracles aren't required to reach it? > > The Y-mi (in the adorementiond &T Taanis 4:5 24b) quotes R' Aqiva as > telling R' Yochanan ben Torta "Din hu malka meshikha", an idiom usually > used to refer to a qal vachomer. You're misreading it. It's not "din", it's *dein*. Dein hu malka meshicha, this is the Annointed King. > BTW, where does the Rambam get that "kol chakhmei doro" followed Bar > Koziva? Is there any indication Rabban Gamliel ever did? R Yochanan b > Torta replied (in an oft repeated line) "Aqiva, yaalu asavim belechaikh > ve'adayin ben David lo ba." He was the lone exception, or nearly so. Because *he* held that the miracle of judging by smell *was* required, even at the beginning. The Rambam paskens against him. > : >The Rambam doesn't say so. That's your deduction. It requires assuming > : >that the Rambam agrees with R' Aqiva over what the grounds for presuming > : >(making a chazqah) that someone is moshiach. He doesn't say R' Aqiva is > : >indeed his source. > : > : He explicitly uses him as his source that Moshiach needn't perform > : miracles. How could he do so if his vision of Moshiach's > : qualifications were different from R Akiva's? ... > > R' Aqiva proves that not performing miracles doesn't rule out someone being > the moshiach. He doesn't prove what it takes to actually qualify as being > one. This makes no sense. Either the Rambam agrees with R Akiva's criteria or he doesn't. If he doesn't then how can R Akiva's not requiring miracles prove that they're truly not required? If he was wrong about other criteria, how do we know he was right about this one? No, the fact that the Rambam uses him as proof means the Rambam adopts his view totally, and holds it is the halacha. In Chapter 12 he rules out not miracles but changes in nature. A miracle doesn't change nature, it breaks the rules of nature. Water continues to run downhill, but this water doesn't, not because its nature is different but because it's ignoring nature. That, he says, may or may not happen. Changes in nature won't, because Chazal say so. Chazal are silent on whether Moshiach will perform miracles, so we don't know. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From michaelpoppers at gmail.com Sun Oct 15 19:22:08 2017 From: michaelpoppers at gmail.com (Michael Poppers) Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2017 22:22:08 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] =?utf-8?b?4oCcVGltdHVtIEhhLUxlduKAnSBSZWR1eA==?= Message-ID: In Avodah V35n121, R'Micha wrote: > Tangent: The Gra said that "vehayisa akh sameiach" is the hardest mitzvah in the Torah. "Veyahisa sameiach" is one thing, but "akh sameiach"? To be nothing but happy, with no other moods ambivalently mixed in for 8 days (9 in chu"l) straight? < Tangents to the tangent: (a) Perhaps someone can quote "Ma'asei Rav" or the like, but what I've seen quoted *b'sheim GRA* is that the "ach" *d'rasha* in BT Sukka means that on Shmini Chag haAtzeres we're *b'simcha* with H' w/out any *cheftza shel mitzva*, e.g. see here : Perhaps the answer lies in a comment from the Vilna Gaon on the pasuk of ?v?hayisa ach sameiach.? The Gemara (Succah 48a) derives from this pasuk that Shemini Atzeres is included in the mitzvah of simchah. But the word ach generally limits what is being discussed. What are we limiting with ach sameiach? The Gaon explains that whereas Succos requires many mitzvah objects ? a succah, lulav and esrog, hoshanas ? Shemini Atzeres does not require any physical items. We only need to be sameiach. This is the inherent gift of the last day of the Yom Tov. We can?t take the succah and lulav with us after Yom Tov. But the simchah that comes from dveikus with Hashem requires nothing but ourselves, and it is something we can take along with us. (b) Translating "ach" as "nothing but" doesn't explain the YhK "ach" (P'Emor). (c) Another thought on "v'samachta b'chagecha...v'hayisa ach sameach" is that the latter mandate of *simcha* ("ach" or no "ach") seems superfluous and can be considered as a mandate for the entire year (i.e. not just "b'chagecha"). All the best from *Michael Poppers* * Elizabeth, NJ, USA -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From lisa at starways.net Mon Oct 16 00:51:28 2017 From: lisa at starways.net (Lisa Liel) Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2017 10:51:28 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] eitz hachaim In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <61f0b606-b859-4475-eef8-a10489e74f1c@starways.net> On 10/16/2017 12:41 AM, hankman via Avodah wrote: > What exactly was the eitz hachaim all about. The simple pshat doesn't > make any sense. If the purpose of the Gan was to serve Adam then when > would (could) he make use of the eitz hachaim? Kodem hacheit he was > not a bar misah so he had no need of it, after the cheit he was > prevented from accessing it! So when would it ever be useful to Adam? I don't understand the question. He was prevented from accessing it *because* of the cheit. Had he not sinned, you say he would have had no need for it, but who is to say that its only function was to make him live forever. Maybe that's just the function it has for a bar mitah. Or maybe that was its function, and that's *why* he wasn't a bar mitah. Because the eitz ha-chaim was there, and permissible for him to eat. It was only after he'd eaten from the eitz ha-daat that he could no longer be permitted to live forever. That what eating that did to him made eternal life for him a Bad Thing. Lisa From seinfeld at jsli.org Mon Oct 16 07:02:10 2017 From: seinfeld at jsli.org (Alexander Seinfeld) Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2017 10:02:10 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Zecher Liytzias Mitzrayim and Shmini Atzeres In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: It?s a nice vort but couldn?t you ask the same about Shabbos and Rosh Hashana? Isn?t every Yomtov is a Zecher Yetzias Mitzrayim, not for historical reasons but because Yetzias Mitzrayim is the foundation of our emunah (not Har Sinai)? > >>Rashi (B'midbar 29:35) famously tells us that Shmini Atzeres is a special >>time, with just Hashem and Bnei Yisrael together, alone, with no other >>nations around. I'm merely pointing out that it is not just the nations >>who >>are gone: The lulav is gone. The sukkah is gone. Nothing remains but us >>and >>Hashem, when we left the comfort of the miraculous sukkah, trading it for >>being at home in Eretz Yisrael. >> >>Akiva Miller >> >>Postscript: An easy challenge to this post could be that Tishre 22 was >>NOT >>the day that we crossed from the midbar into Eretz Yisrael. I will >>respond >>in advance by pointing out that Shavuos too is not necessarily celebrated >>on the same day as the event it reminds us of. The Zecher can be poetic >>and >>emotional, and need not be so mathematically rigorous. From micha at aishdas.org Mon Oct 16 11:35:11 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2017 14:35:11 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] R. Akiva, Bar Kochba and Zecharya HaNovi In-Reply-To: References: <5AFE790709AC4B0B9FDDB6A6102B7005@hankPC> <0278980f-97ca-2755-caa3-89461ed64e50@sero.name> <20171011143003.GA21995@aishdas.org> <20171011154231.GA6170@aishdas.org> <0e95d039-c074-ae7f-f3ba-3cee64a3d191@sero.name> <20171011171132.GA1028@aishdas.org> <20171015222126.GB14924@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20171016183511.GA2496@aishdas.org> On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 01:15:48AM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : On 15/10/17 18:21, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: :> On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 10:44:53PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: :>: It conflicts because the Y'mi's version of the story has the :>: Chachamim abandoning BK *before* his fall. The Rambam clearly does :>: not agree with that whole version of the story... :> The Y-mi does not say that R' Aqiva was among those who left early. : The Rambam says that R Akiva *and all the sages of his generation* : imagined BK was Moshiach, *until he was killed*. This is not : consistent with the Y'mi. I see what you mean. Again, it is interesting to find out where the Rambam's alternate picture comes from. Just as his "kol" in "vekhol chakhmei dodo" doesn't seem to be Chazal's picture in either shas. E.g. Sanhedrin 93b, "nechzei anan i moreiach veda'ain..." They were still checking out the validity of BK's claim at the time of his death. :> As I said, there is nothing in the Rambam to rule out them following BK :> out of the expectation that he would eventually get there, rather than his :> being hogeh ve'oseiq bemitzvos already. : Then why can't they also have expected him to eventually do : miracles? How does their belief in him, and his lack of miracles, : prove that Moshiach needn't do any? ... To repeat myself: 11:3 talks about following someone despite a lack of miracles. 12:1-2 talks about the necessary absense of at least a particular kind of miracle -- the start of a new natural order -- if not miracles altogether. If you want to talk about needn't do... then you're looking at R' Aqiva and pereq 11. If you want to talk about won't do... then you're looking at pereq 12 and his assumption of Shemu'el's "ein bein" over Rav's shitah. And the list of things that won't happen is necessarily a subset of things that one needn't wait to happen before following the candidate. Possibly a strict subset, possibly identical sets. :>:> But either way -- whether he or the generation was sinful -- it would :>:> show that BK didn't fit the Rambam's descrition of moshiach. :>: How so? He was righteous, and forced people to keep Torah, but :>: they didn't listen, just like Yoshiyahu. :> "Veyakhof" includes "tried and failed"??? That's not quite what the :> Rambam says. : Yachof means to force, to make it the law of the land, and those who : disobey are punished... You're just repeating the insistance that "vayakhof" could include trying to force people and failing. If the punishments don't actually get the majority observing, is it kefiyah? And we have no evidence or even claim of BK ever even having set up a punishment system. Although this too could be part of the picture the Rambam draws that I don't know the sourece for. After all, as per the above, the picture you get from CHazal is that the Sanhedrin and its enforcement system was *not* behind BK, but the Rambam would have them aligned. ... :> Which he didn't. The Sanhedrin doesn't get reorgonized and put on Har :> haBayis. : The Sanhedrin was already organized. There's no requirement that : they return to Lishkas Hagazis until there *is* one, which he does : eventually have to do, but it comes *after* chezkas Moshiach and : fighting the war, which is the stage he was at. Actually, there is strong evidence he at least started building a BHMQ. And while I suppose they didn't have to move in yet, Anshei Keneses haGedolah moved in to a "lishkah" demarkated by curtains! "Chezqas moshiach" isn't a state in-and-of-itself. It's a chazaqah, a legal presumption, that someone is moshiach. A presumption of a status, not a status. IOW, it is likely that among all of beis David, only the mashiach would be hogeh in Torah and oseif bemitzvos, bring the Jews to observance (minimally: by compulsion) "leileikh bahh ulchazeiq bidqah". And therefore, if we find a member of beis David succeeding at these things, we are obligated to act with the understanding that he is mashiach. Thus, it is meaningless to talk about what happens before or after chezqas mashiach, as though it were a real state change. : Again, a "religious revival" means inspiring people to *want* to : keep mitzvos, which is unrelated to *forcing* them to do so. That's yhour own creative read of what kefiyah means. Forcing or not, it implies actual follow-through. BK didn't risk (and in fact lose) the backing of the majority to get a minority sect to join his support. He didn't get the majority to observe -- or even want to keep mitzvos (as per TSBP). :> Again, this is only a problem for you because you assume that the Rambam's :> chazaqah in 11:4 must be the reason for R' Aqiva and other tannaim :> followed BK. : What else could it be? He goes directly from saying that miracles : are not a requirement to listing what things *are* requirements. : Therefore he must have done those things. Requirements for building a chazaqah that the candidate is indeed moshiach. Which is a measure of confidence in BK the Rambam doesn't claim R' Aqiva and his generation reached -- they only reached as far as "hu hayah omer alav" and "vedimah hu". No mention of a chazaqah they were chayavim to follow; in fact, the lashon ("dimah") implied its lack. Chazaqah isn't imagination; it's a presumption strong enough to obligate our acting upon. : What's weak about it? They must have had a reason for this : imagination. What else but the chazaka? And if they thought he : hadn't yet reached that stage then how do we know miracles aren't : required to reach it? Miracles aren't required. Full stop. 12:1 could even be saying they are ruled out. "What else other than the chazaqah"? Indicators that are short of a chazaqah. Don't we follow umdena, ruba deleisa leqaman, and other notions of likelihood without going as far as having a chazaqah in a lot of halachic topics? : You're misreading it. It's not "din", it's *dein*. Dein hu malka : meshicha, this is the Annointed King. "Hadein hu"? Not that important for the main topic, since dimah isn't an expression I would picture the Rambam using for a mandatory following of a chazaqah. :> BTW, where does the Rambam get that "kol chakhmei doro" followed Bar :> Koziva? Is there any indication Rabban Gamliel ever did? R Yochanan b :> Torta replied (in an oft repeated line) "Aqiva, yaalu asavim belechaikh :> ve'adayin ben David lo ba." : He was the lone exception, or nearly so. Because *he* held that : the miracle of judging by smell *was* required, even at the : beginning. The Rambam paskens against him. That is against the stam bavli (in Sanhedrin 93b, quoted above), which says it's Rabbanan. ... : This makes no sense. Either the Rambam agrees with R Akiva's : criteria or he doesn't... Critria for what? I still find you mixing apples and oranges. He uses R' Aqiva's following of BK despite the lack of a chazaqah as proof that we too shouldn't wait for a miracle before following a likely moshiach. He used Shemu'el's position to rule out miracles (or to be generous, maybe only one kind of miracle) being part of the messianic dream altogether. Very consistent picture, IMHO. : In Chapter 12 he rules out not miracles but changes in nature. A : miracle doesn't change nature, it breaks the rules of nature... It is a bitul of something miminhago shel olam, albeit a temporary one. But I have consistently left open the door to saying he's only talking about a subset of miracles; those that leave the running of things changed. I don't find it likely that the Rambam's "yibatel davar" means only permanent bitul, doubly so since it would be redundant with the next line, "o yihyeh sham chidush bemaaseh bereishis". Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger People were created to be loved. micha at aishdas.org Things were created to be used. http://www.aishdas.org The reason why the world is in chaos is that Fax: (270) 514-1507 things are being loved, people are being used. From cantorwolberg at cox.net Wed Oct 18 06:37:17 2017 From: cantorwolberg at cox.net (Richard Wolberg) Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2017 09:37:17 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Interesting Insight on Noach Message-ID: <36805007-8186-42B4-9042-51439D2BB204@cox.net> It has always bothered me that Noah was considered the only righteous person (along with his family) and that everyone else was evil. However, just today as I was studying various commentaries, I came across the following amazing account in Tanchuma, R?eh, 3. From the moment that God gave the Torah, it is only he who sins that will be punished, though before that, the whole generation was responsible for the sin of the individual. Thus there were many righteous men swept away with the deluge in the time of Noah. Hence, since Noah was the ?most? righteous, he was spared although the other righteous were not, as a consequence of collective guilt at that time. rw Inside each of us, there is the seed of both good and evil. It's a constant struggle as to which one will win. And one cannot exist without the other. Eric Burdon > > ?If you live for people?s acceptance, you will > die from their rejection.? > Anonymous From zev at sero.name Wed Oct 18 07:43:32 2017 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2017 10:43:32 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Interesting Insight on Noach In-Reply-To: <36805007-8186-42B4-9042-51439D2BB204@cox.net> References: <36805007-8186-42B4-9042-51439D2BB204@cox.net> Message-ID: On 18/10/17 09:37, Richard Wolberg via Avodah wrote: > However, just today > as I was studying various commentaries, I came across the following amazing > account in Tanchuma, R?eh, 3. > > From the moment that God gave the Torah, it is only he who sins that will be punished, > though before that, the whole generation was responsible for the sin of the individual. > Thus there were many righteous men swept away with the deluge in the time of Noah. > Hence, since Noah was the ?most? righteous, he was spared although the other righteous > were not, as a consequence of collective guilt at that time. According to R Avin, what was Avraham's argument, "chalila lach"? If that had been Hashem's SOP for the past 2050 years, and would be for another 400, why didn't He just tell Avraham "Yes, this is how I do things"? -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From micha at aishdas.org Wed Oct 18 13:25:27 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2017 16:25:27 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Interesting Insight on Noach In-Reply-To: <36805007-8186-42B4-9042-51439D2BB204@cox.net> References: <36805007-8186-42B4-9042-51439D2BB204@cox.net> Message-ID: <20171018202527.GA27560@aishdas.org> On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 09:37:17AM -0400, Richard Wolberg via Avodah wrote: : ... account in Tanchuma, R?eh, 3: :> From the moment that God gave the Torah, it is only he who sins that will :> be punished, though before that, the whole generation was responsible :> for the sin of the individual. Thus there were many righteous men swept :> away with the deluge in the time of Noah. Hence, since Noah was the :> "most" righteous, he was spared although the other righteous were not, :> as a consequence of collective guilt at that time. The text is available at or The siman opens with quoting Eikhah 3:38, "miPi Elyon lo seitzei hara'os vehatov" and then immediately starts with this statement from R' Avin. However, the quote has that after Matan Torah, whomever sins, "HQBH poreia mimenu", and before that, the whole generation "meshaleim chet'o". Arguably this translation might be missing something by leaving the language of Hashem collecting, as though on a debt. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger One doesn't learn mussar to be a tzaddik, micha at aishdas.org but to become a tzaddik. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yisrael Salanter Fax: (270) 514-1507 From hankman at bell.net Wed Oct 18 08:12:50 2017 From: hankman at bell.net (hankman) Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2017 11:12:50 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] R. Akiva, Bar Kochba and Zecharya HaNovi Message-ID: <7B0712E6569740909873C2AD4F89F435@hankPC> R. Micha Berger wrote: ?This doesn't really rule out miracles, but it does rule out ones that leave a permanent change in the natural orer. There is a line. Which is how he rules out the historicity of "vegar ze'eiv im keves..." etc... They don't mearly "needn't" happen, he rules out the possibility of their literal meaning being part of the future, because they cross his line of olam keminhago noheig".? Kodem cheit Adam haReshon, not just Adam was only permitted to eat plant life but so too was the nature of ALL animals that they too only subsisted from plant life ? ie., much like "vegar ze'eiv im keves..." So perhaps olam keminhago noheig means keminhago KODEM HACHET without requiring any change to the ORIGINAL natural order. Kol tuv Chaim Manaster -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hankman at bell.net Wed Oct 18 08:44:50 2017 From: hankman at bell.net (hankman) Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2017 11:44:50 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] =?utf-8?q?=E2=80=9Cthe_miracle_of_judging_by_smell?= =?utf-8?q?=E2=80=9D_was__=28Re=3A__R=2E_Akiva=2C_Bar_Kochba_and_Ze?= =?utf-8?q?charya_HaNovi=29?= Message-ID: ?the miracle of judging by smell? Really should be a knew thread. When we learned this sugia recently in the daf yomi I asked the magid shiur that lechora this was keneged torah which requires eidim for most judgements. He answered that perhaps it means that one smell from Moshiach would be enough to get the person to be modeh al ha?emes. I replied that would only work for judgments in choshen mishpot (hodoas bal din) but not for cases involving arayos, malkos, or misah where two eidim are required and we are not permitted to accept his confession as ein adam meisim atzmo rasha. How would this ?miracle? allow for a proper halachik judgment? That is where we left it for now. Could this meimre of chazal be limited to just cases involving choshen mishpot? I imagine many meforshim address this issue, can anyone clarify? Kol tuv Chaim Manaster -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From JRich at sibson.com Wed Oct 18 08:48:56 2017 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2017 15:48:56 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Shliach Tzibbur Message-ID: <5b1d039d5958444d94f6c90a4607ee17@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> The S"A in O"C 53 discusses what to look for in a Shliach Tzibbur. We seem to not fully actualize these recommendations (rationalizations include the fact that he is no longer being motzi those who can't pray). Do you think this result is sociological or halachic driven? Does an individual (e.g., avel) who pushes to be a shatz, etc., when there are more qualified individuals (or especially if they are not qualified), accomplish more good or bad? See especially Aruch Hashulchan 53:5. KT 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: From micha at aishdas.org Wed Oct 18 14:25:50 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2017 17:25:50 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] R. Akiva, Bar Kochba and Zecharya HaNovi In-Reply-To: <7B0712E6569740909873C2AD4F89F435@hankPC> References: <7B0712E6569740909873C2AD4F89F435@hankPC> Message-ID: <20171018212550.GB27560@aishdas.org> On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 11:12:50AM -0400, hankman via Avodah wrote: : R. Micha Berger wrote: :> This doesn't really rule out miracles, but it does rule out ones that :> leave a permanent change in the natural order. There is a line. Which is :> how he rules out the historicity of "vegar ze'eiv im keves..." etc... ... : Kodem cheit Adam haReshon, not just Adam was only permitted to eat plant : life but so too was the nature of ALL animals that they too only subsisted : from plant life -- ie., much like "vegar ze'eiv im keves..." I doubt the Rambam, the "he" I am trying to understand in the text you quoted, would agree with this premise about animals before the eitz hada'as. On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 11:44:50AM -0400, hankman via Avodah wrote: :> the miracle of judging by smell : Really should be a new thread. : When we learned this sugia recently in the daf yomi I asked the magid : shiur that lechora this was keneged torah which requires eidim for : most judgements. He answered that perhaps it means that one smell from : Moshiach would be enough to get the person to be modeh al ha'emes.... I think it HAS to be be its own thread, because this too works with assumptions the Rambam would not agree with. Odds are the Rambam wouldn't take "demorach" literally. See Lecham Yehudah on Hil' Melakhim 11:3, aveilable at . But to get back on topic to the original thread (which is why I'm posting it here): Notice that the BLY (R Yehudah Iyash, Levorno mid-18th cent) assumes that such guilt-smelling would defy the Rambam's "chidush bema'aseh bereishis" rule, and thus couldn't be literal. Even though it's a localized miracle / revelation and not a permanent change in the natural order. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Every child comes with the message micha at aishdas.org that God is not yet discouraged with http://www.aishdas.org humanity. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rabindranath Tagore From jmeisner at mail.gmail.com Wed Oct 18 15:38:14 2017 From: jmeisner at mail.gmail.com (Joshua Meisner) Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2017 18:38:14 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] "the miracle of judging by smell" was (Re: R. Akiva, Bar Kochba and Zecharya HaNovi) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7C3544D0-F571-4A7C-B067-FDC0308CBD65@gmail.com> On Oct 18, 2017, at 11:44am, hankman wrote: > When we learned this sugia recently in the daf yomi I asked the magid > shiur that lechora this was keneged torah which requires eidim for > most judgements. He answered that perhaps it means that one smell from > Moshiach would be enough to get the person to be modeh al ha'emes. I > replied that would only work for judgments in choshen mishpot (hodoas > bal din) but not for cases involving arayos, malkos, or misah where two > eidim are required and we are not permitted to accept his confession as > ein adam meisim atzmo rasha... Reaching a correct psak in any area of halacha requires obtaining a full picture of the situation, including all relevant details and the particular context. This requires that the posek have skill in asking questions that will clarify these points and recognizing when, intentionally or not, the answers he is receiving do not reflect the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Perhaps it is this sense that the navi is referring to. Joshua Meisner From hankman at bell.net Wed Oct 18 15:58:01 2017 From: hankman at bell.net (hankman) Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2017 18:58:01 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] =?utf-8?q?=E2=80=9Cthe_miracle_of_judging_by_smell?= =?utf-8?q?=E2=80=9D_was__=28Re=3A__R=2E_Akiva=2C_Bar_Kochba_and_Ze?= =?utf-8?q?charya_HaNovi=29?= Message-ID: <83ADB68D660C4A8BA5E0F3D19339FF76@hankPC> R. J. Meisner wrote: ? Reaching a correct psak in any area of halacha requires obtaining a full picture of the situation, including all relevant details and the particular context. This requires that the posek have skill in asking questions that will clarify these points and recognizing when, intentionally or not, the answers he is receiving do not reflect the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Perhaps it is this sense that the navi is referring to. Joshua Meisner? But no matter how skilled the judge is at getting at the truth, even if all he need so is be moreiach, this still does not lessen the requirement of 2 eidim for many judgments. While reading your response to me, another thought occurred to me and upon reflection it may be that this is also what you meant. Perhaps when the gemara stated that he can be moreaiach veda?in that the gemara meant not that he would only need to question the defendant, and could smell whether he is guilty or not and pasken based on the surety of his conclusion, but perhaps the gemara meant that when questioning the EIDIM he was able merely smell them and then judge the credibility of the eidim whether he should accept them as credible or not and thus pasken the case accordingly. Kol tuv Chaim Manaster -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hankman at bell.net Wed Oct 18 15:44:42 2017 From: hankman at bell.net (hankman) Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2017 18:44:42 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] R. Akiva, Bar Kochba and Zecharya HaNovi Message-ID: <36062433D0904BE5ABD5156C727C7A6D@hankPC> R. Micha Berger wrote: ?I doubt the Rambam, the "he" I am trying to understand in the text you quoted, would agree with this premise about animals before the eitz hada'as.? So how does the Rambam explain Bereishis 1:30? Kol tuv Chaim Manaster -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From akivagmiller at gmail.com Thu Oct 19 02:47:09 2017 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2017 05:47:09 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Torah precheit? Message-ID: . R' Chaim Manaster asked: > I have been trying to understand what the geshtalt of Torah > was precheit of the eitz hadaas. It could not have resembled > anything that we ( I ) would recognize today. Consider: > There was but one mitzva. Most if not all the mitzvos of the > Torah we are familiar with could not have existed, at least > as we understand them today. Had Adam been successful in his > one day tafkid the purpose of the bria would have been > accomplished and Adam (mankind) would have gone to olom haba > ? mission accomplished nothing more to follow but for reward > in olom haba. > > The many consequences seem to be as follows: there would be > no avdus in Mitzrayim, therefore no ... ... One can ask similar questions about other turning-points in history. What if Kayin had not killed Hevel? What if the world has not gone to Avodah Zara a few generations later? What if Yishmael and/or Esav had not gone of the derech? What if Moshe Rabenu had acted differently by the rock? I believe that people are too hung up on the idea that "Torah" and the Chumash are identical. They are not. "The Torah has 70 faces", and ONE of them is the written scroll that we read from in shul. Another is the Torah Sheb'al Peh. Another was that one singular mitzvah that Adam HaRishon was given. None is less holy than any other. They are but different facets of the same diamond. And there are yet others. Torah manifests itself differently to a kohen than to a levi, and differently to a woman than to a man. And so on. For example: > As there would never be an Eretz Yisroel, then there would not > be all the mitzvot hateltuot ba?aretz ? trumos, masros etc., etc. Or perhaps Gan Eden would have had that status. Eretz Yisrael is actually a great example: Consider the idea that true nevuah can exist only in Eretz Yisrael. But also consider that this restriction only started when EY got its kedushah - prior to that point one could have nevuah elsewhere too. Logically, I would think that the kedusha of EY enabled this thing that couldn't exist without such intense kedusha; but counter-intuitively, this thing that has long existed is now suddenly restricted to a specific area. Because times change, and people change; the Torah stays the same but it shows a different face. We are so used to how things are today, that we think things have always been this way. But it ain't so. > So what is the nature of Torah in such a world. How do we > see it as an ever constant ever present and unchanging > Torah? How does a Torah with but ONE mitzva look? How does > it still identify with a Torah with 613 mitzvot? There are many mitzvos that apply only at specifc times and under specific circumstances. Consider the back-and-forth of when bamos were allowed and not allowed. We went for quite a few centuries with choosing a human king. I am deliberately trying to avoid mitzvos that have sociological criteria, like the existence of a Sanhedrin, or whether or not we are capable of tochacha. Rather, my point goes to this "Torah with 613 mitzvot" that you refer to. It doesn't exist today, and I don't know if it ever has existed. There has certainly never been a person to whom they all applied, and I wonder whether there was ever a generation when they were all in force. > Sorry if my thoughts were very rambling. I just typed as > things came to mind ? maybe not always a good idea! On the contrary, brainstorming is often a fruitful way of developing new thoughts! Personally, it was many decades ago that someone asked me, "If there is life on other planets, might they possibly have a Torah? But Mitzrayim doesn't exist there, and Moshe never lived there!" That question bothered me for a very long time, until I realized that even on *this* planet, Noach had his version of Torah, and that was centuries before Mitzrayim or Moshe came to be. (To conflate two threads, I think what I'm saying here is very similar to what R"n Lisa Liel wrote in the "eitz hachaim" thread. These things aren't static; their roles change to fit the situation.) Akiva Miller From zev at sero.name Wed Oct 18 20:54:50 2017 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2017 23:54:50 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] =?utf-8?q?=E2=80=9Cthe_miracle_of_judging_by_smell?= =?utf-8?q?=E2=80=9D_was_=28Re=3A_R=2E_Akiva=2C_Bar_Kochba_and_Zecharya_Ha?= =?utf-8?q?Novi=29?= In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <209038db-6620-b1cf-4e52-1b093803ac7d@sero.name> On 18/10/17 11:44, hankman via Avodah wrote: > ?the miracle of judging by smell? > Really should be a knew thread. > When we learned this sugia recently in the daf yomi I asked the magid > shiur that lechora this was keneged torah which requires eidim for most > judgements. Moshiach is a melech, and not bound by the rules of a beis din. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From micha at aishdas.org Wed Oct 18 19:40:28 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2017 22:40:28 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] R. Akiva, Bar Kochba and Zecharya HaNovi In-Reply-To: <36062433D0904BE5ABD5156C727C7A6D@hankPC> References: <36062433D0904BE5ABD5156C727C7A6D@hankPC> Message-ID: <20171019024028.GB20212@aishdas.org> On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 06:44:42PM -0400, hankman via Avodah wrote: : R. Micha Berger wrote: :> I doubt the Rambam, the "he" I am trying to understand in the text :> you quoted, would agree with this premise about animals before the :> eitz hada'as. : So how does the Rambam explain Bereishis 1:30? Well, if you look at Moreh 1:30, you'll see that the Rambam considers maaseh bereishis to be atemporal, 6 logical stages of unfolding of reality, not steps separated in time. So I don't know if I should assume anything about how he reads pasuq 30. But I do note that if taken literally, the pasuq merely says that Hashem gave the plants to the animals for food. A statement about one of the functions of plantsl and that Adam can't hord all the plants for himself, since animals need it too. It needn't mean that only plants served a food. The statement from Chazal (quoted by Rashi) is a derashah. The Ohr haChaim spends time justifying it, if you want to see the medrashic steps in detail. But it's not peshat, and therefore not necessarily the Rambam would take literally. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger There's only one corner of the universe micha at aishdas.org you can be certain of improving, http://www.aishdas.org and that's your own self. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Aldous Huxley From zev at sero.name Wed Oct 18 21:51:32 2017 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2017 00:51:32 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Interesting Insight on Noach In-Reply-To: <2E736CF9-84CD-41DB-9963-8E38B681DC20@cox.net> References: <36805007-8186-42B4-9042-51439D2BB204@cox.net> <2E736CF9-84CD-41DB-9963-8E38B681DC20@cox.net> Message-ID: <18439702-d4ae-0f50-3350-a8b5cd433fb5@sero.name> On 18/10/17 11:09, Richard Wolberg wrote: > What I?m saying is that our theology is fraught with inconsistencies and > contradictions > and we have plenty of ?teikusl? ?You?re a black and white person and > don?t see shades. > Not everything can be reconciled. Impossible. Toras Hashem Temima, and can't contradict itself. If there are two pesukim that seem to contradict each other, there's a third pasuk that resolves it and makes sense of both. It's not possible that R Avin was unaware of Avraham's statement, nor is it possible that he would dismiss Avraham's view as mistaken. Therefore there must be something in R Avin's view that's not what it appears. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From JRich at sibson.com Fri Oct 20 05:37:21 2017 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2017 12:37:21 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] empiricism Message-ID: <17851b0cb6514f5a8fac7543e7d86493@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Rabbi Jason Weiner's, "Jewish Guide to Practical Medical Decision-Making" - "The Talmudic sages performed post-mortem examinations and had considerable knowledge of anatomy and pathology. Indeed, the rabbis of the Talmud were among the first people in history to operate on corpses in order to learn medical information that had halakhic ramifications. See Tosefta Niddah 4:17, Niddah 30b, bekhorot 45A . . ". Wiki s- Initially, the Ancient Greek philosophers did not believe in empiricism, and saw measurements, such as geometry, as the domain of craftsmen and artisans. Philosophers, such as Plato, believed that all knowledge could be obtained through pure reasoning, and that there was no need to actually go out and measure anything. Please look at the three sources quoted by R'Weiner, are they support or really maaseh lstormaaseh l'stor as to a general approach? Kt 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: From emteitz at gmail.com Fri Oct 20 14:49:21 2017 From: emteitz at gmail.com (elazar teitz) Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2017 17:49:21 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] the miracle of judging by smell Message-ID: On this topic, the comment was made that "Moshiach is a melech, and not bound by the rules of a beis din." However, other than moreid b'malchus, this is only true for r'tzicha, not other capital punishment cases, as is indicated in Rambam Hilchos M'lachim 3:10 (as it is understood by most m'farshim). EMT -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From isaac at balb.in Sat Oct 21 04:07:43 2017 From: isaac at balb.in (Isaac Balbin) Date: Sat, 21 Oct 2017 11:07:43 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] ?the miracle of judging by smell? was (Re: R. Akiva, Bar Kochba and Zecharya HaNovi) Message-ID: From: Zev Sero > > On 18/10/17 11:44, hankman via Avodah wrote: >> When we learned this sugia recently in the daf yomi I asked the magid >> shiur that lechora this was keneged torah which requires eidim for most >> judgements. Zev responded > Moshiach is a melech, and not bound by the rules of a beis din. Indeed. His position therefore also invalidates Moshiach from being a formal witness, although that's clearly not for trust/smell issues. From micha at aishdas.org Sun Oct 22 07:20:34 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2017 10:20:34 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Long Lifespans in Bereishis Message-ID: <20171022142033.GA669@aishdas.org> Our old chaver R' Rich Wolpoe posted this article by R/Dr Mitchell First. It's a nice survey of opinions about all those long lifespans in seifer Bereishis : NishmaBlog From RRW Guest Blogger: Mitchell First Thursday, 19 October 2017 The Long Lifespans in Genesis The Longevity of the Ancients Recorded in Genesis ... Josephus (late 1st century). Here is his statement in Antiquities, book I: " ...For, in the first place, they were beloved of God and the creatures of God himself; their diet too was more conducive to longevity: it was then natural that they should live so long. Again, alike for their merits and to promote the utility of their discoveries in astronomy and geometry, God would accord them a longer life...." Now I will survey the views of our Geonim and Rishonim. R. Saadiah Gaon (10th cent.) discusses this issue in his introduction to Tehillim. He writes that the longevity of these early generations was part of God's plan for the rapid proliferation of mankind on the earth..... R. Yehudah Ha-Levi (12th cent.) discusses the issue in the Kuzari (sec. 95). He believes that it was only the individuals listed who lived long. Each of the individuals listed was the heart and essence of his generation and was physically and spiritually perfect. The Divine Flow was transmitted from one generation to another through these exceptional individuals. Rambam, in a famous passage in the Guide to the Perplexed (II, chap. 47) writes: "I say that only the persons named lived so long, whilst other people enjoyed the ordinary length of life. The men named were exceptions, either in consequence of different causes, as e.g., their food or mode of living, or by way of miracle." Ramban (comm. to Gen. 5:4) quotes Rambam's view and then disagrees, ... individuals with long lifespans named in the Bible were not exceptional in their lifespans. Rather, the entire world had long lifespans before the Flood. But after the Flood, the world atmosphere changed and this caused the gradual reduction in lifespans. Most of the Rishonim who discussed the issue thereafter followed the approach of either the Rambam or the Ramban. Either way, they were taking the Genesis lifespan numbers literally. (An underlying factor that motivated Rishonim to accept the Genesis lifespan numbers literally was that the count from creation was calculated based on these numbers.) Josephus had mentioned that one of the reasons that God allowed their longevity was to promote the utility of their discoveries in astronomy and geometry. This idea of longevity to enable the acquisition of knowledge and make discoveries (and write them to be passed down) is also included in several of our Rishonim. See, e.g., the commentary of the Radak to Gen. 5:4 and of the Ralbag to Gen. chap. 5 (p. 136), and the Rashbatz (R. Shimon b. Tzemach Duran, Magen Avot, comm. to Avot 5:21). Rashbatz also mentions the idea that the early generations were close in time to Adam and Adam ... was made by God from the earth.... Another idea found in some of our Rishonim is that those early individuals did not chase after "ta'avat ha-guf," which reduces the lifespan. See, e.g., the commentary of the Radak to Gen. 5:4. ... ... R. Moses Ibn Tibbon (late 13th cent.) He suggests that the years given for people's lives were actually the years of "malkhutam ve-nimuseihim," i.e., the dynasties and/or customs that they established. ... R. Levi ben Hayyim (early 14th cent.).... concludes that in his opinion the names mentioned were just roshei avot. In other words, the number of years given for each individual reflects the total of the years of the several generations of individuals named for that first individual. R. Nissim of Marseilles (early 14th century) ... took the same approach as R. Moses Ibn Tibbon. The numbers ... included the total years of the descendants who followed his customs and lifestyle. The most interesting approach I saw was that of R. Eleazar Ashkenazi ben Nathan ha-Bavli (14th century), in his work Tzafnat Paneach, pp. 29-30. ... First, R. Eleazar refers to the view that perhaps the individual numbers were not to be taken literally, and points to other statements in the Torah that were not meant to be taken literally, e.g., 1) the Land of Israel was "flowing with milk and honey," and 2) the cities in Canaan were "fortified up to the Heaven" (Deut. 1:28). (See further Moreh Nevuchim, II,47.) But then R. Eleazar suggests the following creative approach. In listing these individual numbers, the Torah was merely recording the legends about these figures, even though they were not accurate. The important thing was to provide data from which the total years from Creation to Matan Torah could be derived, so that the people would be able to know the length of time between these two periods. Even though the numbers for the individual lifespans were not accurate, the Torah made sure that the total that would be arrived at would be accurate.... ... Prof. Natan Aviezer of Bar-Ilan University.... in a post at the Bar Ilan University weekly parshah site for parshat Noach, 1998... explains that modern science has figured out that aging is largely caused by genes, and not by a wearing out of our bodies. He then suggests that when God stated at Gen. 6:3 that man would be limited to 120 years, this was when God first introduced the gene for aging into the human gene pool. If you have not found any of the above answers satisfying, I have some good news. R. Saadiah Gaon writes (Emunot Ve-Deot, end of chap. 7) that in the era of the redemption the human lifespan will be approximately 500 years. Presumably, at that time we won't be bothered by those long lifespans in Genesis anymore! (Note that Radak, comm. to Is. 65:20, is a bit stingier. He predicts lifespans of only 300 to 500 years. See also his commentary to Ps. 92:15. But the 12th century Babylonian Gaon R. Samuel b. Ali predicts lifespans closer to 1000 years!) I would like to acknowledge that most of the material above came from an article by Prof. Daniel Lasker of Ben-Gurion University, in Mechkarim Be-Halakha U-Be-Mishpat Ha-Ivri, vol. 26-27 (2009-10). Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger I slept and dreamt that life was joy. micha at aishdas.org I awoke and found that life was duty. http://www.aishdas.org I worked and, behold -- duty is joy. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rabindranath Tagore From micha at aishdas.org Sun Oct 22 09:13:16 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2017 12:13:16 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Beris Milah on Shabbos when Father isn't Jewish Message-ID: <20171022161316.GA32328@aishdas.org> I mentioned in the past I had this question halakhah lemaaseh. I knew of an intermarried couple who lived nowhere near the nearest Jewish community. They would have just had the boy circumcized in the hospital rather than to pay what one of the nearer mohalim wanted to come down for the weekend. Yes, the nearest Chabad house had a mohel, who (of course) would come at cost... IFF he hadn't had a beris in his own minhan that same Shabbos. So the question I asked was whether I should donate (or raise donations) for the beris to be bizmano. My LOR asked his rav... long story short, as I best remember at a little more than two decades later: The pasuq says "bayom hashemini yimol besar arlaso" -- it's the father who is told "on the eight day", even if it's on Shabbos. Implied: If the father has no chiyuv, such as our case or if r"l the father didn't survive to see his son's beris, there is no one whose chiyuv overrides Shabbos. (If the father is alive but not there, you'd still violate Shabbos.) Well, someone asked R' Asher Weiss. . He didn't rule the same way, but does mention that is -- or at least was -- a machloqes amoraim. However, RAW holds a consensus has emerged to do the beris. Perhaps RDC didn't think the consensus was solid enough to warrant my spending or raising that kind of money for someone else's beris. Or perhaps it was closer to the way I remembered it and RDC doesn't agree with how the consensus emerged. Brit mila on Shabbos when father is non Jew Posted by: Rabbi Akiva Dershowitz Question: Does everyone agree that a brit is done on Shabbat even if the father is a goy? ... Answer: No, this is a dispute among the achronim [halachic authorities of the last 500 years]. The halachic ruling is that we do in fact perform the bris mila on Shabbos. See Derisha Y:D 266:20, Nachalas Shiva [kuntress hamila siman 1], Shu't Binyan Tzion [Vol. 1:21]. The nearest I could find in Hebrew (as the Hebrew always has more discussion) is "Beris beShabbos leVen Me'uberes sheNisgayrah" at . There the question is whether the velad's milah is a normal beris or lesheim geirus, and RAW still holds the milah should be on Shabbos. It's a fun sugya, worth a read. But doesn't focus on our question. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger You cannot propel yourself forward micha at aishdas.org by patting yourself on the back. http://www.aishdas.org -Anonymous Fax: (270) 514-1507 From hankman at bell.net Sun Oct 22 13:15:49 2017 From: hankman at bell.net (hankman) Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2017 16:15:49 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Torah precheit? Message-ID: <39266980A1C24F078B1904F1783BA1C0@hankPC> R. Akiva Miller wrote: ?One can ask similar questions about other turning-points in history. What if Kayin had not killed Hevel? What if the world has not gone to Avodah Zara a few generations later? What if Yishmael and/or Esav had not gone of the derech? What if Moshe Rabenu had acted differently by the rock?? Actually I had thoughts along similar lines that you express. The most prominent such turning point was the cheit ha?eigel, where again, had they succeeded, that again would have been the end for man?s tafkid and correction the cheit of Adam, direct route to eretz Yisroel, no forty years in the midbar and presumably Moshe R. would have been the final moshiach and on to the final gemul. The reason these two stick in my mind more than the other forks in history you point to, is that these would have been endpoints to the tafkid in this world and led directly to olom haba with no continuation of the ?Torah? story we are familiar with. The moments in history you point to would have been forks in the road but not endpoints. So if say Esau/Yishmoel had made good choices and been more like his brother Yaakov/Yitzchok, the story would have had a different twist to it, but the overall gestalt to the Torah could still have been quite similar. What we have now, with some changes. But we would have no problem imagining all (perhaps most) of the mitzvos as we know them. These two, cheit of Adam and cheit ha?eigel, were fundamentally different than the other ?forks? in the road as what we know to have followed would never happen. So Regalim, and avdus in Mitzrayim, etc, etc are ideas that seem not to have a place in such a reality had Adam succeeded while the other forks would have led to a variation on a theme we are familiar with and can at least readily imagine. The idea you mention of ?70 panim latorah? would have to be expanded greatly if for every fork on the possible choices made in the biblical period (by this I mean the time through the end of the forty years bamidbar that were recorded in chumash). If every possible choice made at every fork (say N) resulted in a diff version of Torah, then that would result in 2 to the N panim laTorah ? with N being very large! Perhaps 70 is just a synonym for ?many?? When we say that there are 70 umos, I always wondered how that was defined, as it seems to me that there are many more and that the number would change for different periods in history. If 70 here too means ?many? that would clear that up. But then the precise number of 70 for the parei hachag might be a problem unless for some reason that may have been fixed symbolically, or perhaps to coincide with the original number at some early point in history as say per the list of the 70 nations Art Scroll makes in its chumash at the end of this weeks parsha (Noach). Basically it is a listing of certain of the names of descendants of Noach. Have you ever heard of a nation called Ever (or most of the other names they list)? So is the ?essence? of Torah something beyond our ken. Is all we can see just a single facet of the 70 panim laTorah? (This of course is not the normal meaning to 70 panim laTorah, which usually is applied to differing explanations to our ?current? Torah, and not the other ?possible? ?Toros? as you are suggesting. Is this so far off the beaten path that this might even be an accidental trip into thought that might be apikursus or a credible notion within the daas? (Torah lo yehai moochlefes). I have no idea! R. Akiva Miller wrote: ?Torah manifests itself differently to a kohen than to a levi, and differently to a woman than to a man.? There is a fundamental difference between a mitzvoh only applying to some vs the concept not existing. Even if I am a Yisroel I can still be oseik in torah of the mitvos of a cohen ? it is still a part of Torah given to all of us even if not all of it pertains to me. R. Akiva Miller wrote: ?Or perhaps Gan Eden would have had that status.? I actually had a thought similar to yours as well on this idea. When I thought a little more about it, I had difficulty putting it all together. so what kind of meaning would trummos and massros have. What would orlo mean. Without aniyim, what is the point of leket shichacha upei?a? (or tzedaka in general, or even more broadly of gemila chasadim in such a world?) The mitzvos hatelyuous ba?aretz only make sense in an agricultural society, not in a world of olam haba where there are no farmers or farms. No need for orei miklat in a world without a yetzer. On another thought, would the notion of baal tigra in the world of only one mitzva leave you with no mitvos at all? That would make one a kofer bekol haTorah koola? Also there would be no need for lo tassur yamin usemol for gezeirot derabanan in such a world (though perhaps it might have stopped Chava if such a takana existed to protect the only mitzvoh they had). R. Akiva Miller wrote: ?"If there is life on other planets, might they possibly have a Torah? But Mitzrayim doesn't exist there, and Moshe never lived there!" That question bothered me for a very long time,? Strangely enough, I had similar thoughts years back. As a young bachur in yeshivo, my rebbi was teaching us that their was a period during which the progenitor of kelal Yisroel would happen. I asked what would have happened if there had been another deep thinker who came to the same realization and belief that Avraham did. He answered that there would have been two (or more) chosen peoples to eventually be mekabel Torah. It didn?t occur to me at the time to ask, would they each have the ?same? Torah or each get a tailored version to their (eventual) am? Or, would there be one Torah that talks of both of the chosen peoples? Years later when discussing what is the purpose to us of the trillions of stars and galaxies so distant that they could never possibly affect us here on Earth? Then it occurred to me, what if those stars had planets with intelligent beings on them and they too went through a similar period wherein they too had some allien being come to the same conclusions as Avraham did and they then became the chosen people of that planet and received a Torah possibly tailored to their experiences and appropriate there etc.? This almost makes sense of the questions the malachim asked Moshe when he went lamorom to accept Torah. They too wanted Torah in a version suitable to them which would deflect all of Moshe?s responses. If memory serves, I think some meforshim try to make sense of the malachim in such a manner. Just some more rambling thoughts. Kol tuv Chaim Manaster -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hankman at bell.net Sun Oct 22 23:25:10 2017 From: hankman at bell.net (hankman) Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2017 02:25:10 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] =?utf-8?q?=E2=80=9Cthe_miracle_of_judging_by_smell?= =?utf-8?q?=E2=80=9D_was_=28Re=3A_R=2E_Akiva=2C_Bar_Kochba_and_Zech?= =?utf-8?q?arya_HaNovi=29?= Message-ID: <7D7387F31006477FA724C733A37A100B@hankPC> R. Zev Sero wrote: ?Moshiach is a melech, and not bound by the rules of a beis din.? You are obviously referring to Rambam, Melachim P. 3: 8, 10. However this refers to judgments that are within the scope of the Melech such as a moreid, or letakein ha?olom kefi ma shehasho?o tzricha. This does not however give him the right to usurp ordinary judgments that normally would fall to a beis din (and disregard such niceties as eidus that the Torah requires), unless he is the av beis din (possible for malchei beis Dovid) and does follow the rules of Torah for eidus like any other beis din and does not simply follow his nose in these judgments. Furthermore, in the category of cases like moreid and shehasho?o tzricha, all the Melech needs to do is simply assert his position as he feels correct for ANY Melech ? he does not even need the power of moreiach veda?in to prove his position. So mimonafshoch, in either case he either may not, or has no need of the power to be moreiach veda?in. Kol tuv Chaim Manaster -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Mon Oct 23 13:16:56 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2017 16:16:56 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] =?cp1255?q?=93the_miracle_of_judging_by_smell=94_was_?= =?cp1255?q?=28Re=3A_R=2E_Akiva=2C_Bar_Kochba_and_Zecharya_HaNovi=29?= In-Reply-To: <7D7387F31006477FA724C733A37A100B@hankPC> References: <7D7387F31006477FA724C733A37A100B@hankPC> Message-ID: <20171023201656.GA13749@aishdas.org> On Mon, Oct 23, 2017 at 02:25:10AM -0400, hankman via Avodah wrote: : . Furthermore, : in the category of cases like moreid and shehasho'o tzricha, all the : Melech needs to do is simply assert his position as he feels correct : for ANY Melech -- he does not even need the power of moreiach veda'in to : prove his position. So mimonafshoch, in either case he either may not, : or has no need of the power to be moreiach veda'in. If I understood the Rambam this way: It would be good to have a king who knows with certainty which dinim need shoring up because he can smell that their violation is rampant. Or, in determining the convicted's guilt: Let's say some sin became common place, and hasha'ah zerikhah that the king enforce a capital punishment for it. But say I understand him as per REMT's post, noting that in 3:10 the Rambam singles out the king's power to kill murderers (eg without hasda'ah, where there was only eid echad, etc...) -- implying that retzichah yes, other issurim, the king could not. (Mikelal lav...) 3:8 really only discussed rebellion and lesse majeste (moreid bemekeh and mevazeh es hamelekh o hamchorfo). I don't see hasha'ah tzeikhah in the Rambam; I'm taking your word for it. Still, I can ask the parallel question: Wouldn't if be far far better if the melekh hamashiach had a supernal ability to know who is really guilty, and not kill the wrong guy? He might not legally need the power, but it would be a good thing for a king to have in order to be effective and fair. So I'm not sure your argument holds. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Every child comes with the message micha at aishdas.org that God is not yet discouraged with http://www.aishdas.org humanity. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rabindranath Tagore From micha at aishdas.org Mon Oct 23 18:51:25 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2017 21:51:25 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] No Barrier Between Religion and Science Message-ID: <20171024015125.GA13043@aishdas.org> See this article on Real Clear Science or http://www.realclearscience.com/articles/2017/10/16/philosophy_rebuts_key_barrier_between_science_and_religion_110422.htmlh Here is Mosaic Magazine's snippet: Kuhn's [argument] is that students learn first by imitation and practice and -- assuming they receive a good education -- once they strike out on their own, they will have been successfully inculcated into a particular scientific tradition. They will thus be prepared to recognize, pose, and solve scientific problems. If we take tradition to be antithetical to scientific rationality, Kuhn's conclusions will appear disquieting. And, indeed, Kuhn's critics rejected his arguments as "irrationalist." But if, on the contrary, we take tradition to be essential to rationality, then Kuhn's conclusions will be not only acceptable but also unsurprising. According to the moral philosopher Alasdair MacIntyre, before we can begin to reason at all, we must first acquire the habits necessary to recognize and, ultimately, to replicate rational behavior. To do so, there must first be exemplars that we take to be authoritative -- in the moral domain these will be exceptionally virtuous people, in the scientific domain, exceptionally good scientists. To become rational, in other words, one must be educated within a tradition of inquiry. Science, on this view, is not Cartesian -- at least as far as [the rejection of received ideas] is concerned -- even if it remains eminently rational. Where does this leave us?... [T]he fact that religious beliefs are not entirely reducible to empirical experience and partly depend upon tradition doesn't make them irrational or even anti-scientific. Thus a popular way of opposing science and religion starts to look untenable. This hardly means the two become indistinguishable. But it does suggest that science and religion could be conceived of as distinct -- but possibly harmonious, even sometimes mutually beneficial -- traditions of rational inquiry. The truth is that science has little to say about where a hypothesis come from. It gives little guidance for deciding what features are worth observing, what we should give our attention to. And once we see a pattern that needs explanation, it is left to human creativity to come up with a hypothesis. Science is a means of weeding out subjectivity from possible answers, but the means of coming up with those answers are very human. In particular, the entire enteprise of science rests on a tradition of theism -- whether the personal beliefs of an Aristotle or Newton, or the culture that produced an Einstein. Without a personal reason for assuming that the universe opperates reasonably, rather than attributing lightning to Thor's or Zeus's moods, can that hypothesis invention get started. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Good decisions come from experience; micha at aishdas.org Experience comes from bad decisions. http://www.aishdas.org - Djoha, from a Sepharadi fable Fax: (270) 514-1507 From hankman at bell.net Mon Oct 23 20:57:36 2017 From: hankman at bell.net (hankman) Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2017 23:57:36 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] "the miracle of judging by smell" was (Re: R. Akiva, Bar Kochba and Zecharya HaNovi) In-Reply-To: <20171023201656.GA13749@aishdas.org> References: <7D7387F31006477FA724C733A37A100B@hankPC> <20171023201656.GA13749@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <7FA394F42CCE44ECBB668DFA42362B96@hankPC> From: Micha Berger Sent: Monday, October 23, 2017 4:16 PM > But say I understand him as per REMT's post, noting that in 3:10 the > Rambam singles out the king's power to kill murderers (eg without > hasda'ah, where there was only eid echad, etc...) -- implying that > retzichah yes, other issurim, the king could not. (Mikelal lav...) > 3:8 really only discussed rebellion and lesse majeste (moreid bemekeh > and mevazeh es hamelekh o hamchorfo). I don't see hasha'ah tzeikhah in > the Rambam; I'm taking your word for it. Still, I can ask the parallel > question: > Wouldn't if be far far better if the melekh hamashiach had a supernal > ability to know who is really guilty, and not kill the wrong guy? > He might not legally need the power, but it would be a good thing for a > king to have in order to be effective and fair. My own initial impression unlike REMT is that the Rambam in 3:10 was not limiting this to only rotzeach, but dealing with case of max punishment or similar punishment and kal vechomer for cases of lesser punishment, however on rereading the Rambam after reading REMT I can see his point of view, but I am not sure I am fully convinced. I did a quick look around and found that the Or Sameiach on the Rambam at 3:10 has a long discussion on this issue as to whether the melech only has this power for a rotzeach where it is a danger to the rabim but not to enforce laxity of bein adam lamokom such as dinei shabbos, or if there was a breach even in these other areas whether the melech could act extra judicially there as well. There is a reference to a Y. Sanhedrin that implies that Dovid hamelech wold have executed for mishkav behama al pi eid echod -- so not just rotzeiach. See also the Rambam H. Rotzeiach P 2:4-5 where he broadens this extra judicial power to beis din as well but under horoas sha'o rather than takonas olam. (Not sure if the different label implies a difference in the respective extra judicial powers or not). See the Kesef Mishna there who mentions a case of chilul Shabbos. My simple reading there is that the Rambam seem to equate the reach of the extra judicial power of b"d to that of the melech to punish when found necessary either due to horo'as shao or takonas olam respectively. (Not clear to me if the different reasons lead to a different scope or not). But it seems that yeish lekan veyeish lekan. I hear your point about moreiach being a good reassurance that his pesak is correct even if not really necessary to render his judgment. Kol tuv Chaim Manaster From micha at aishdas.org Tue Oct 24 06:38:55 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2017 09:38:55 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Psak source wanted In-Reply-To: <1857240052.122258.1508054451353@mail.yahoo.com> References: <1857240052.122258.1508054451353.ref@mail.yahoo.com> <1857240052.122258.1508054451353@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20171024133855.GB25244@aishdas.org> On Sun, Oct 15, 2017 at 08:00:51AM +0000, Motti Yarchinai via Avodah wrote: : It is similar to what the Rambam wrote in Hilchot Kiddush Hachodesh, : saying that in all calendric matters, we follow the lead of the chachmei : eretz yisrael, and even though the anshei hagolah know the calculations : used by them, it is not on our own calculations that we rely, we only : use those calculations because we know that they are the same as the : calculations used by the chachmei eretz yisrael... : Another posek (possibly the Tifferet Yisrael in Shvilei Harakia, but : I'm not sure of that), writes something similar... Did you ever find a source? Google, Bar Ilan and I didn't turn anything up. In practice, we follow the calculations of R' Saaadia Gaon, who was in Aleppo at the time, and not R Aaron Ben-Meir in Y-m ih"q. The big debate of 922 was the topic of an article by RYGB and RAZZ reposted here . The Rambam (Qiddush haChodesh 1:8) limits the authority to someone in EY ("ki miTzion teitzei Sorah...") or if the one clearly most able to do it received semichah in EY, he can continue setting the months and ibur shanos in chu"l -- until someone of comparable stature arises in EY. This seems taylor-made for R Saadia Gaon, who went to yeshiva in Teveriah. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Never must we think that the Jewish element micha at aishdas.org in us could exist without the human element http://www.aishdas.org or vice versa. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch From sholom at aishdas.org Tue Oct 24 12:50:00 2017 From: sholom at aishdas.org (Sholom Simon) Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2017 15:50:00 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Long Lifespans in Bereishis In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <588c56c0dc1eedd39e7bb464810c5cea@aishdas.org> Thanks, RMB, for posting that article. Re the views of R. Moses Ibn Tibbon, et al, who don't take those ages literally on a single person -- is that (along the lines of an off-line conversation we had) a "kosher view" these days? Or, is it one of those views that, the way R Noson Slifkin puts it: they are allowed to have those views, but we aren't? On a different, but related issue, to the chevra: The list of generations in parshas Bereshis are generally of the form: * X was 50 years old when he fathered Y. * X lived 450 years after he fathered Y and had sons and daughters * X lived to the age of 500 years. Doesn't that seem a bit redundant? And, in fact, most (all?) of the generations listed in parshas Noach skip the third phrase. Thoughts? -- Sholom -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hankman at bell.net Tue Oct 24 15:28:28 2017 From: hankman at bell.net (hankman) Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2017 18:28:28 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Long Lifespans in Bereishis Message-ID: <9DE9360C549C46879FBF7291563A9387@hankPC> >From the summary of opinions posted by RMB on lifespans in Bereishis and some comments: ?R. Saadiah Gaon (10th cent.) discusses this issue in his introduction to Tehillim. He writes that the longevity of these early generations was part of God's plan for the rapid proliferation of mankind on the earth.....? Not the biggest kashe in the world, but why then would they start to have children at an advanced age if rapid proliferation was the goal? Perhaps with great longevity came a much longer period for sexual maturation? If true would that also mean that intellectual maturation took much longer as well? ?R. Yehudah Ha-Levi (12th cent.) discusses the issue in the Kuzari (sec. 95). He believes that it was only the individuals listed who lived long. Each of the individuals listed was the heart and essence of his generation and was physically and spiritually perfect. The Divine Flow was transmitted from one generation to another through these exceptional individuals.? How does R. Yehudah Ha-Levi deal with Terach who was an idolator? Clearly he was not spiritually perfect. ?... R. Moses Ibn Tibbon (late 13th cent.) He suggests that the years given for people's lives were actually the years of "malkhutam ve-nimuseihim," i.e., the dynasties and/or customs that they established.? This comment will apply to R. Nissim of Marseilles as well. I presume they held that people had what we today would consider a normal life span. this would mean they were not having the first born at the advanced age of over one hundred. Thus the named son must have been a later generation descendant. (I assume that they did not generate a son in their old age and die shortly thereafter as was the case with Boaz). So if their life spans were similar to ours then was Shes really not a son of Adam but really a descendant several generations down? Ditto for Ennosh, was he really a great ... grandson of Sheis? But this notion of the the years given in Bereishis not pertaining to one single man, but to a dynasty of several generations of normal life span, runs into difficulty with Noach and his 3 sons. If we follow suit with this notion then Shem, Cham and Yefes were not his sons but descendants born 500 years later. Yet they all went into the Teiva together? So how is that a normal life span for Noach? Why weren?t the generations between Noach and Shem, Cham and Yefes saved as well? When the Torah says ?vayoled es X? that is not to be taken literally but just to mean a later descendant chosen to be named in the lineage? ? R. Saadiah Gaon writes (Emunot Ve-Deot, end of chap. 7) that in the era of the redemption the human lifespan will be approximately 500 years. Presumably, at that time we won't be bothered by those long lifespans in Genesis anymore! (Note that Radak, comm. to Is. 65:20, is a bit stingier. He predicts lifespans of only 300 to 500 years. See also his commentary to Ps. 92:15. But the 12th century Babylonian Gaon R. Samuel b. Ali predicts lifespans closer to 1000 years!)? This quote leads to an issue I will expand upon slightly in another post. But the basic issue is if the world is Charuv at 6000 years and yemos Moshiach are before the olom is charuv, (while olom keminhago noheig) there is not enough time left (we are now 5778) for a life span of 300 to 500 years let alone 1000 years. Kol tuv Chaim Manaster -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Wed Oct 25 04:13:32 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2017 07:13:32 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Long Lifespans in Bereishis In-Reply-To: <9DE9360C549C46879FBF7291563A9387@hankPC> References: <9DE9360C549C46879FBF7291563A9387@hankPC> Message-ID: <20171025111332.GC22254@aishdas.org> On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 06:28:28PM -0400, hankman (RVM) wrote: : > (Note that Radak, comm. to Is. 65:20, is a bit stingier. He predicts : > lifespans of only 300 to 500 years. See also his commentary to : > Ps. 92:15. But the 12th century Babylonian Gaon R. Samuel b. Ali : > predicts lifespans closer to 1000 years!)" : This quote leads to an issue I will expand upon slightly in another : post. But the basic issue is if the world is Charuv at 6000 years and : yemos Moshiach are before the olom is charuv, (while olom keminhago : noheig) there is not enough time left (we are now 5778) for a life span : of 300 to 500 years let alone 1000 years. This all depends on the machloqes about defining olam haba and whether techiyas hameisim is permanent. As well as any machloqesin as to whether yemos hamoshiach starts with techiyas hameisim or ends with a new era, that itself starts with teshiyas hameisim. Rambam: olam haba means the non-physical world a neshamah is in between life and teshiyas hameisim, as well as after a second death. Since olam haba is the ultimate form of existence, defining that ultimate as the place souls go when dead necessitates a second death after techiyas hameisim. The Rambam (and the Iqarim, and others, I just picked on name for thumbnail-sketch reasons) then has to explain what the point of the second life is. Ramban (similarly, among others): olam haba, the ultimate existence, is body together with guf after techiyas hameisim. And therefore the post-th"m life must be external. According to the first shitah, it could be that post-th"m life is in gan eden is Adam's sense and thus life lasts as long as his could have. But then there's the question of whether your assumed dates hold.... My point is mainly that I think there are too many unknowns to even ask your question. I just anded up belaboring the one unknown I once wrote about. on how this machloqes may impact what is the point of Brikhas Gevurah ("Atah Gibor"). BTW, I just noticed, underlying that machloqes about what is olam haba and techiyas hameisim might be a difference in the definition of a person. It looks to me like the Rambam is saying a person is a soul who lives in a body. And therefore the ultimate in existence is not to have that body interpolated between me and experiencing Hashem's Presence. Whereas the Ramban is saying that a person is a synthesis of body and soul, and therefore cannot enjoy the rewards of their efforts when the two halves are separated. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger If a person does not recognize one's own worth, micha at aishdas.org how can he appreciate the worth of another? http://www.aishdas.org - Rabbi Yaakov Yosef of Polnoye, Fax: (270) 514-1507 author of Toldos Yaakov Yosef From hankman at bell.net Wed Oct 25 07:40:29 2017 From: hankman at bell.net (hankman) Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2017 10:40:29 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Long Lifespans in Bereishis In-Reply-To: <20171025111332.GC22254@aishdas.org> References: <9DE9360C549C46879FBF7291563A9387@hankPC> <20171025111332.GC22254@aishdas.org> Message-ID: R.Miciha Berger wrote: "On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 06:28:28PM -0400, hankman (RVM) wrote: :if the world is Charuv at 6000 years and : yemos Moshiach are before the olom is charuv, (while olom keminhago : noheig) there is not enough time left (we are now 5778) for a life span : of 300 to 500 years let alone 1000 years. This all depends on the machloqes about defining olam haba and whether techiyas hameisim is permanent. As well as any machloqesin as to whether yemos hamoshiach starts with techiyas hameisim or ends with a new era, that itself starts with teshiyas hameisim. ...." You also need to fit in when exactly in the sequence of these events Yom Hadin Hagodol happens according to each of these shitos. So the many events of "Achris Hatomim" that one need consider to compile a chronology of this mysterious period would include Gog uMagog, Moshiach be Yosef, coming of Eliyahu, yitaka bashofor gadol (before moshiach, or yom hadin hagodol, or techias hameisim?), the nevuos of Zecharyahu and other nevi'im about this period, Bayis shelishi, Kibutz golios, Moshiach ben Dovid (including how long is this period), vanquishing of the yetzer, Techias Hameisim (before Moshiach or before yom hadin or before both?), Yom hadin hagodol, yom hadin hakoton (after death?) Olom charuv (and to what extent it is charuv and why), Gan Eden, Olom haneshamos, Olam haba (final gemul, with or without a guf, and the ultimate purpose of creation so Hashem can be meitiv lezuloso). After writing this I checked out your "Mesukim Midevash" and apparently there will be at least four versions of this chronology (which you began to build in your article) lefi the Rambam, Ramban, Rav Saadia Gaon and the Ikkarim but needs some fleshing out. R Micha Berger wrote: "Ramban (similarly, among others): olam haba, the ultimate existence, is body together with guf after techiyas hameisim. And therefore the post-th"m life must be external. .... But then there's the question of whether your assumed dates hold.... My point is mainly that I think there are too many unknowns to even ask your question...." It is not clear to me what "assumed dates" or what the "unknowns" are that you mention? I only mentioned 5778. Is that date in doubt?? R. Micha Berger wrote: "BTW, I just noticed, underlying that machloqes about what is olam haba and techiyas hameisim might be a difference in the definition of a person. It looks to me like the Rambam is saying a person is a soul who lives in a body. And therefore the ultimate in existence is not to have that body interpolated between me and experiencing Hashem's Presence. Whereas the Ramban is saying that a person is a synthesis of body and soul, and therefore cannot enjoy the rewards of their efforts when the two halves are separated. Tir'u baTov! -Micha" The gemara in Sanhedrin that talks about the need for both the neshama and the guf to be together at yom hadin, works well with your peshat in the Ramban and could be a possible source for his position, but your explanation of the Rambam with the guf just being something donned by the neshama as necessary for its trip to this world, much like a diver dons scuba gear to enable him to function in this temporary environment, then much as it makes no senses to require the scuba gear at the divers trial, so too this gemara requiring the presence of the guf at the yom hadin doesn't really make much sense. Kol tuv Chaim Manaster From ben1456 at zahav.net.il Wed Oct 25 10:48:54 2017 From: ben1456 at zahav.net.il (Ben Waxman) Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2017 19:48:54 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] offering a higher salary Message-ID: <6ca926d4-2984-813b-af3a-e5fb0e765062@zahav.net.il> I've seen posts claiming that it is forbidden to offer cleaners a higher salary to work for you. While I can understand that it makes sense to say that no one can break a specific agreement for a specific day of work, why should it be forbidden to offer a higher salary to someone who has a long term agreement?? A, this is the common practice in the high tech world and I have never heard anyone say "Assur". It would seem that there is general agreement that this halacha simply doesn't apply today. Second, how can anyone be meshuabad in such a way to one person? Does a person wanting a higher salary have to simply quit without any idea about having another job? Ben From motti.yarchinai at mail.yahoo.com.au Wed Oct 25 12:39:33 2017 From: motti.yarchinai at mail.yahoo.com.au (Motti Yarchinai) Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2017 19:39:33 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Avodah] Psak source wanted In-Reply-To: <1857240052.122258.1508054451353@mail.yahoo.com> References: <1857240052.122258.1508054451353.ref@mail.yahoo.com> <1857240052.122258.1508054451353@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <270346387.4768895.1508960373045@mail.yahoo.com> Dear Micha and Avodah members, Thank you Micha for your reply and your attempts to locate a source. On Sun, Oct 15, 2017 at 08:00:51AM +0000, Motti Yarchinai via Avodah wrote: > Can anyone help me with a source for this psak: It is similar to what > the Rambam wrote... > Another posek writes something similar but couched in even more dramatic > terms. The following is not a verbatim quote (since the original is in > Hebrew) but something very close to it: > "And even if the residents of eretz yisrael are all ignoramuses > and peasants, and the authorities of chutz la'aretz are great > scholars and knowledgable in Torah and halachah, in calendric > matters we follow the peasants and ignoramuses, not the scholars > of chutz la'aretz." Micha replied: > Did you ever find a source? Google, Bar Ilan and I didn't turn > anything up.... No, I have not found it yet, but my memory of it is that I saw it in print, and, to my annoyance, I can't find the sefer, but it is bound to turn up sooner or later. When it does, I will repost with the source and quote. Meanwhile, if someone recognises it, please do let me know. Motti From sholom at aishdas.org Wed Oct 25 13:48:29 2017 From: sholom at aishdas.org (Sholom Simon) Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2017 16:48:29 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] A Great Name Message-ID: <20171025204831.CKZV22111.fed1rmfepo202.cox.net@fed1rmimpo210.cox.net> One of the implicit criticisms of Migdal Bavel was that they wanted to make a name for themselves. Then, at the beginning of Lech L'cha, H' tells Avram that he will make his name great. There must be something there . . . anybody have any thoughts? -- Sholom From zev at sero.name Wed Oct 25 20:57:37 2017 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2017 23:57:37 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] offering a higher salary In-Reply-To: <6ca926d4-2984-813b-af3a-e5fb0e765062@zahav.net.il> References: <6ca926d4-2984-813b-af3a-e5fb0e765062@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <03900eea-9674-1896-0842-5cba504a0eed@sero.name> On 25/10/17 13:48, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > I've seen posts claiming that it is forbidden to offer cleaners a higher > salary to work for you. I believe this halacha is a subset of "hasagas gevul", not in the Biblical sense, but in the commonly-used sense, which in in turn a subset of the obligation of ahavas yisrael. "Hasagas gevul" basically means that if you with to start a business and you have a choice between doing it somewhere that will harm me and somewhere that will not, then all else being equal you are obligated to take the second option out of consideration for me, because ve'ahavta lere`acha kamocha. Similarly, if I am renting a forest or an inn from a nochri, from which I make my living, and you offer him a higher rent, you are violating your obligation to value my interests equally with your own. It should be obvious, however, that if the landlord is also "re`acha" then this does not apply, because you have the same obligation to him as to me; if he could be getting more rent from his property then you should make him that offer, though he should give me a chance to match it, since I am the "bar metzra". I think the same thing is going on with the cleaners. If I have a nochris who is willing to clean for me for $N, you have no right to lure her away by offering more. But if she is "re`acha" then aderaba you have a mitzvah to offer her a chance to improve her income, but before taking your offer she should offer me the chance to match it. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From JRich at sibson.com Thu Oct 26 05:08:27 2017 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2017 12:08:27 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Jewish Action Message-ID: Since I can sometimes be critical of organizations (not here where I usually manage not to say anything negative [HT - My Mom ZLL"HH - "If you have nothing nice to say, don't say anything]), I want to give a shout out to the OU Fall Jewish Action. 1.) Moshe Baine poses the two questions I use as an individual/community test (i) How often do we factor God into our daily decisions, both large and small? [Me - how central is the Ratzon Hashem in our lives?] (ii) What are we prepared to "give up" to comply with what we perceive as God's wishes? [Me - does God always seem to agree with what you want?] 2.) Allen Fagin asks "whether we as a community view Yishuv Haaretz as a basic tenet of our spiritual aspirations? [Me - Tell me how often it's discussed or how many folks yearn (while we're at it, how many really yearn for the Beit Hamikdash?)] Now what do we do as a community and as individuals about any perceived shortfalls in these two areas is an old Avodah question but maybe it is gaining traction? KT 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: From micha at aishdas.org Thu Oct 26 07:13:06 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2017 10:13:06 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Jewish Action In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20171026141306.GA15203@aishdas.org> On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 12:08:27PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : 1.) Moshe Baine poses the two questions I use as an individual/community : test (i) How often do we factor God into our daily decisions, both large : and small? [Me - how central is the Ratzon Hashem in our lives?] (ii) : What are we prepared to "give up" to comply with what we perceive as : God's wishes? [Me - does God always seem to agree with what you want?] What you call question (i) gets a scathing answer in that recent and hotly discussed blog post, "Modern Orthodoxy from a Teenager's Perspective" by Eitan Gross. The-future-R Gross opines that it is common knowledge in MO circles that we dont make Ratzon Hashem central enough for MO to succeed. Modern Orthodoxy tries to create a balance that, at the moment, cannot work because we have no drive to be with Hashem and lack the philosophical and hashkafic perspective to articulate why we should be Jewish in a world with an assortment of other options. Therefore, we need to take a fresh look at education and schooling. There needs to be an emphasis on the truth of the tenets of Judaism, as well as an inspirational approach that creates a yearning and desire in the student to be closer to Hashem. And When I tried to publish this essay at a local Jewish newspaper they said "We cant publish this piece, it's too much for us. Plus you're only a senior in high school, so you don't have the authority to have a say in the current situation." Although they were against putting this essay to print, the head of the paper still agreed with me, "Modern Orthodoxy has major flaws and everyone knows it." If "everyone knows it", but no one does anything then it must be that they think Modern Orthodoxy is too big to change.... I think he means the Modern Orthodox community has major flaws, not the contept "Modern Orthodoxy" itself -- or why would he be so concerned with being able to save it? I need to add, this being Avodah, that this problem of the confusion between halakhah as a means and halakhah as an ends in-and-of-itself has symptoms in all our communities. Quoting myself, from my "manifesto" Tools and Goals ... How would this play out communally? One possible outcome is that we would find a community of very committed, very observant Jews, but who do not show all the signs of the holiness the Torah is supposed to bring us to. This could happen if there is insufficient attention to the entire notion of a goal beyond the halakhah, so that black letter halakhah -- that which can be measured, laid out in clear obligated or prohibited terms -- takes center seat without any attempt to become the kind of person more capable of fulfilling the full breadth of its commandments. There would be mixed reports of business ethics, scandals of respected rabbis committing fiscal crimes, others unable to control their lust, yet others abusing their power over their students in other ways. Another possible outcome is an idealistic community, but one whose ideals are not Torah derived. In such a community ideals would be taken from some segment of the surrounding culture, and halakhah would be reduced to a means of "blessing" goals that we assimilated from the outside, that at times will resemble the holiness Hashem has readied for us, and at times will differ. A third possibility is particular to a community that teaches the need to engage the world around it, to risk the battle of its challenges in order to use what's positive in the surrounding society to further our sanctity. Without a firm eye and a constant striving toward an ideal, the energy it takes to maintain this delicate balance too easily collapses into a life of compromise. And so, for too many in this community the negative elements of modernity are incorporated into their lives, and also for many strict observance itself suffers. Do these portraits sound familiar? The problem has another symptom which is less problematic -- the rise of Brisk over other darkhei halimmud. A culture in which O means following black-letter Shulchan Arukh will naturally gravitate toward a derekh halimmud that shuns explanations that are in terms of first principles that come before halakhah. RYBS's Halakhic Man denies they even exist. That said, R' Chaim Brisker's own life was more about values and acts of chessed than Arukh Chaim or Yoreh Dei'ah. The family noted this -- for all his lomdus, RCB's mateivah reads "Rav haChesed". The problem is not inherent to Brisk. Therefore, it will be interesting to see how MO evolves, and whether this remains their most pressing problem. YU now has a mashpiah, classes in the Aish Qodesh, Tanya, R' Nachman, it has singing minyanim. Within the halls of YU, Halakhic Man is facing growing competition. Lenaar al pi darko -- this diversity is healthy. But with more semichah students looking to the goals rather than stopping at the halachic tools, MO culture is bound to change in a way that reduces this issue. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When faced with a decision ask yourself, micha at aishdas.org "How would I decide if it were Ne'ilah now, http://www.aishdas.org at the closing moments of Yom Kippur?" Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From JRich at sibson.com Thu Oct 26 05:05:45 2017 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2017 12:05:45 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Timtum Halev Message-ID: There was an interesting article in the Journal "Ohr Yisrael" #16 by R'Avraham Rubin on Timtum Halev (spiritual pollution). His general conclusion was that eating something that would be classified as "forbidden foods," if you know it is such, will cause timtum halev (spiritual character defects) even if you are permitted to eat it in your case (e.g., pikuach nefesh - life-threatening situation). However, if you eat a "factually forbidden food" based on a mistaken halachic decision by an authorized halachic source, no such damage will occur. Interesting that this IIUC would yield the result that one could be halachically required to eat the "forbidden food" (rather than commit suicide by starving to death), yet still develop character defects because of it. Seems non-halachic man to me . I know we've discussed before-I submit a data point in that discussion. KT 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: From micha at aishdas.org Thu Oct 26 09:04:55 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2017 12:04:55 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Timtum Halev In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20171026160455.GD15203@aishdas.org> On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 12:05:45PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : ... "Ohr Yisrael" #16 by R'Avraham Rubin ... general conclusion was : that eating something that would be classified as "forbidden foods," : if you know it is such, will cause timtum halev (spiritual character : defects) even if you are permitted to eat it in your case (e.g., pikuach : nefesh - life-threatening situation). However, if you eat a "factually : forbidden food" based on a mistaken halachic decision by an authorized : halachic source, no such damage will occur. I invite RMRabi to comment on that last sentence. He and I debated for most of a year whether the Maharal would agree that someone who follows a mistaken pesaq is different in kind than someone who makes the mistake themselves. I presume that if eating because of "a mistaken halachic decision by an authorized halachic source" does not cause timtum heleiv, R Avraham Rubin would say that all the more so, eating food that as a matter of unknown fact happens to be kosher but we correctly rule may be eaten because of rov, chazaqah, bitul or whatever would not damage. I would think RAR is coming down on the side of saying that it's the sin, not the substance, which causes the spiritual damage. To my mind -- a hashkafically simpler position, since there is Justice to life being worse due to a sin than due to something premitted. In which case, RAR's opening ruling, that the person starting to death who eats the only available edible which happens to be non-kosher, would seem to be based on ruling that saving one's life overrides the prohibition (making it petura), not that the eating is actually permissible (hutra). For if it were hutra, how would the case differ from correctly following received pesaq? And if it is because of peturah, that the prohibition is being broken, but the violation is permissible for the sake of a greater value, then I can understand how its Just even if we were to say the cause is the substance. The sin is happening, and we know it's happening; we just chose the lesser sin. Lemah hadavar domeh: chemo is poison. For the sake of the greater danger, cancer, a person may take chemo. But the poison still does its effect. The person did what was medically recommended, and the recommendation was made knowing there was a self-destructive element to the act. : Interesting that this IIUC would yield the result that one could be : halachically required to eat the "forbidden food" (rather than commit : suicide by starving to death), yet still develop character defects : because of it. Seems non-halachic man to me.... Halachic man wouldn't ask the question of timtum haleiv to begin with. It is not a halachic category. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The fittingness of your matzos [for the seder] micha at aishdas.org isn't complete with being careful in the laws http://www.aishdas.org of Passover. One must also be very careful in Fax: (270) 514-1507 the laws of business. - Rav Yisrael Salanter From emteitz at gmail.com Thu Oct 26 09:58:57 2017 From: emteitz at gmail.com (elazar teitz) Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2017 12:58:57 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] offering a higher salary Message-ID: >If I have a nochris who is willing to clean for me for $N, you have no right to lure >her away by offering more. But if she is "re`acha" then aderaba you >have a mitzvah to offer her a chance to improve her income, but before >taking your offer she should offer me the chance to match it. Is it a mitzva to help improve a Jew's income, if it is at the expense of another Jew (especially when it is not done with the intent of helping the employee, but rather to help oneself)? EMT -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From zev at sero.name Thu Oct 26 15:06:37 2017 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2017 18:06:37 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] offering a higher salary In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 26/10/17 12:58, elazar teitz via Avodah wrote: >> If I have a nochris who is willing to clean for me for $N, you have no >> right to lure her away by offering more.? But if she is "re`acha" then >> aderaba you have a mitzvah to offer her a chance to improve her income, >> but before taking your offer she should offer me the chance to match it. > Is it a mitzva to help improve a Jew's income, if it is at the > expense of another Jew (especially when it is not done with the intent > of helping the employee, but rather to help oneself)? (1) You have the same mitzvah to love both of us, so whichever one you help is a mitzvah (2) She is probably (though not definitely) in more need than I am (3) If you're willing to pay more for her work then by definition that makes her work *worth* more, since the value of anything is defined as whatever it will fetch, so by making her the offer you're not hurting me, you're merely preventing me from (unbeknownst to either of us) getting an unwarranted benefit at her expense. Basically our arrangement is ona'ah, we're both in error about the value of her labour, and you're in a position to prevent it, so shouldn't you do so? (4) Your intent shouldn't matter. Tzedakah doesn't depend at all on kavanah. If someone is helped, it's a mitzvah even if you didn't mean it (cf shikcha), while if you meant to help someone and it didn't happen there's no mitzvah (cf Bava Basra 8b etc) -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From marty.bluke at gmail.com Sun Oct 29 03:15:35 2017 From: marty.bluke at gmail.com (Marty Bluke) Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2017 12:15:35 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Long Lifespans in Bereishis Message-ID: R' Chaim Manaster pointed out: "But the basic issue is if the world is Charuv at 6000 years and yemos Moshiach are before the olom is charuv, (while olom keminhago noheig) there is not enough time left (we are now 5778) for a life span of 300 to 500 years let alone 1000 years." The gemara (Sanhedrin 99) offers the following suggestions for how long the Messianic period will last: R' Eliezer - 40 years R' Dosa - 400 years Rebbi - 365 years Avimi - 7000 years R' Yehuda - the amount of time from creation until the Messiah comes R' Nachman Bar Yitzchak - the amount of time from the flood until the Messiah comes Interestingly enough the Gemara earlier stated that the world will last 6000 years, Sanhedrin 96B - Six thousand years were decreed upon the world: 2000 years of emptiness (without Torah), 2000 years of Torah, and 2000 years for Mashi'ach. This opinion of 6000 years is generally accepted, however, opinions 4-6 above clearly disagree with this. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ben1456 at zahav.net.il Sun Oct 29 22:34:43 2017 From: ben1456 at zahav.net.il (Ben Waxman) Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2017 07:34:43 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] offering a higher salary In-Reply-To: <6ca926d4-2984-813b-af3a-e5fb0e765062@zahav.net.il> References: <6ca926d4-2984-813b-af3a-e5fb0e765062@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <2e3529d9-23b9-3377-c2f6-ec65d4340f1a@zahav.net.il> After look a bit, I saw that the Aruch HaShulchan CM 237:3 paskens that this law only applies to a poor person. A poor person who finds something that he needs, you can't come along and offer more money for it. But if a rich person finds something that he wants (or employs someone) and this item is available, then the prohibition doesn't apply. It would seem that anyone who can hire a maid does not qualify as poor and I am willing to bet that there is a good supply of people willing to work. Ben On 10/25/2017 7:48 PM, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > I've seen posts claiming that it is forbidden to offer cleaners a > higher salary to work for you. While I can understand that it makes > sense to say that no one can break a specific agreement for a specific > day of work, why should it be forbidden to offer a higher salary to > someone who has a long term agreement?? A, this is the common practice > in the high tech world and I have never heard anyone say "Assur". It > would seem that there is general agreement that this halacha simply > doesn't apply today. From lisa at starways.net Mon Oct 30 03:39:03 2017 From: lisa at starways.net (Lisa Liel) Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2017 12:39:03 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] offering a higher salary In-Reply-To: <2e3529d9-23b9-3377-c2f6-ec65d4340f1a@zahav.net.il> References: <6ca926d4-2984-813b-af3a-e5fb0e765062@zahav.net.il> <2e3529d9-23b9-3377-c2f6-ec65d4340f1a@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <611bec39-509c-b161-d74f-63dbb523906e@starways.net> On 10/30/2017 7:34 AM, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > After look a bit, I saw that the Aruch HaShulchan CM 237:3 paskens > that this law only applies to a poor person. A poor person who finds > something that he needs, you can't come along and offer more money for > it.... > It would seem that anyone who can hire a maid does not qualify as poor > and I am willing to bet that there is a good supply of people willing > to work. Poor in halakha means not having what you're accustomed to have. It isn't an objective benchmark or a comparison to other people. Lisa From ben1456 at zahav.net.il Mon Oct 30 12:58:56 2017 From: ben1456 at zahav.net.il (Ben Waxman) Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2017 21:58:56 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] offering a higher salary In-Reply-To: <611bec39-509c-b161-d74f-63dbb523906e@starways.net> References: <6ca926d4-2984-813b-af3a-e5fb0e765062@zahav.net.il> <2e3529d9-23b9-3377-c2f6-ec65d4340f1a@zahav.net.il> <611bec39-509c-b161-d74f-63dbb523906e@starways.net> Message-ID: <8355ddf5-ae06-1774-b30d-dd05b89814a9@zahav.net.il> You think that these people would be willing to apply the word "poor" to themselves, even in regards to only this halacha? On 10/30/2017 12:39 PM, Lisa Liel wrote: > Poor in halakha means not having what you're accustomed to have.? It > isn't an objective benchmark or a comparison to other people. From bdbradley70 at hotmail.com Mon Oct 30 14:41:44 2017 From: bdbradley70 at hotmail.com (Ben Bradley) Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2017 21:41:44 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] offering a higher salary In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Poor in halakha means not having what you're accustomed to have. It isn't an objective benchmark or a comparison to other people. Lisa I don't believe it's as clear cut as that. It's true with regard to giving tzedaka, that the kehilla is required to maintain someone at the standard they were used to. But when it comes to the definition of an oni who's entitled to take from communal funds, the mishna in terumos or maasros defines it as someone who has a specific and objective amount of food or money in their possession. AFAIR halacha l'maaseh follows suit, and there are objective criteria before allowing someone to accept communal tzedaka funds. Regards Ben -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hankman at bell.net Mon Oct 30 12:03:44 2017 From: hankman at bell.net (hankman) Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2017 15:03:44 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Long Lifespans in Bereishis Message-ID: R. Marty Bluke wrote: ?The gemara (Sanhedrin 99) offers the following suggestions for how long the Messianic period will last: ... R' Dosa - 400 years Rebbi - 365 years Avimi - 7000 years R' Yehuda - the amount of time from creation until the Messiah comes R' Nachman Bar Yitzchak - the amount of time from the flood until the Messiah comes ....? Actually my original kasheh occurred to me during that recent daf yomi you refer to in Sanhedrin which was when I asked the same question you pose here. The question I posted on Avodah (basically the same idea) was just in reference to a previous post here and its remarks ? I just did not feel the need to broaden the kasheh ? perhaps I should have, just to be more comprehensive. Kol tuv Chaim Manaster -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From saulguberman at gmail.com Tue Oct 31 09:57:00 2017 From: saulguberman at gmail.com (Saul Guberman) Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2017 12:57:00 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] chopsticks Message-ID: Is it permissible to break apart chopsticks on shabbat at the meal to eat your sushi? Someone claimed it is makeh b'patish and just use a fork or stab with the chopsticks still together. Others thought that tzorech ochel nefesh might allow them to be broken and used , as it is all disposable anyway. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From JRich at sibson.com Thu Nov 2 05:12:05 2017 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2017 12:12:05 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] TEXTUAL JUDAISM AND THE LIVING TORAH Message-ID: <9e51a7f4ea644e829db8503f8f0451fe@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> An old Avodah favorite :) KT Joel Rich http://etzion.org.il/en/siman-114-prayers-wind-rain-and-dew TEXTUAL JUDAISM AND THE LIVING TORAH In his introduction to the Beit Yosef, R. Yosef Karo clearly asserts that since it is impossible for someone of his stature to set himself up as arbiter among the great Rishonim, for his rulings will be based on the majority of the opinions of the Rif, the Rambam, and the Rosh. Yet, here we have a case where the Rambam and the Rosh agree that an entire country which needs rain can mention and ask for rain in the summer, while the Rif does not dispute this ruling since he does not relate to this case. Although the Rambam's ruling is in the commentary to the Mishna, this has the same status as the Mishneh Torah - so I understand from Kesef Mishneh, also written by R. Yosef Karo, to Hilkhot Talmud Torah 3:10 at the end - and in addition, the Beit Yosef on our siman claims that the Mishneh Torah also rules like the commentary to the Mishna. How can the Beit Yosef rule against them?! The Beit Yosef emphasizes that the custom of the entire world contradicts the Rosh's ruling. He also suggests that this ruling was never accepted in practice. How can we weigh these factors against the authority of the written sources? There is a general difference in approach among poskim regarding how to weigh local custom against textual authority. The Tosafot in many places endeavor to reconcile the text with the custom (see for excample, Shabbat 48a d.h. De-zeitim); other sages more readily condemn custom on the authority of the plain sense of the text. It seems that several factors bear on the relative importance: 1. How universal is the custom? Responsa frequently point out that the reaction to a seldom-encountered situation can not be considered a "custom" - merely a precedent. 2. Among whom is the custom widespread? If we are certain that even scholars and meticulous people conducted themselves in a certain way, this has more weight than the behavior of the common people, pious though they may be. 3. Are opinions opposing the custom recognized? Sometimes we find statements to the effect that if a community had been aware that a great authority opposed their custom, they would not have adopted it. Conversely, a custom may be defended by pointing out that it was upheld even though opposing views were clearly known. 4. Perhaps in an area of halakha whose basis is in custom, though it subsequently achieved the status of binding halakha, we should give greater weight to custom. In our case, the Beit Yosef perceived that the custom of going according to Eretz Yisrael was universal, even among scholars, and even among people who were certainly aware of the statements of the Rambam and the Rosh. In addition, he may have considered the "customary" aspect of prayer to have special importance - the fact that we pray as a community renders special importance to community customs. Therefore, even though the Beit Yosef is, according to his own assertion, an extreme "textualist," in this case he was persuaded to rule in accordance with custom. Almost all Acharonim are extremely reluctant to dispute Rishonim - though there are notable exceptions, such as the Maharshal (who lived, in any case, close to the era of the Rishonim). However, many later scholars do feel that however unworthy they may be, it is their responsibility as decisors to decide AMONG the Rishonim. The Beit Yosef's reticence in this regard is far from universal. A lot of noise is still being made regarding an article written a couple of years ago by a leading scholar of Judaism (who is also a Talmid Chakham, though the two do not always go together) who posits that only recently have texts taken such a central role in Jewish life. He claims that before World War II custom was king, and accepted customs of respectable communities were not scrutinized in the light of codes. I can not comment on the historical reality of three generations ago, but I think we should keep in mind that the tension between custom and written authority is an ancient one, and the "advocacy" of texts is hardly a new idea. 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: From zev at sero.name Thu Nov 2 20:38:21 2017 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2017 23:38:21 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] TEXTUAL JUDAISM AND THE LIVING TORAH In-Reply-To: <9e51a7f4ea644e829db8503f8f0451fe@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <9e51a7f4ea644e829db8503f8f0451fe@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: On 02/11/17 08:12, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: > The Beit Yosef emphasizes that the custom of the entire world > contradicts the Rosh's ruling. Not the entire world. The Rosh himself reported that he was gratified to discover, while travelling through Provence on his way from Germany to Spain, that they did it the right way. This reinforced him in his determination to try to change the practice in Spain. > In our case, the Beit Yosef perceived that the custom of going > according to Eretz Yisrael was universal, On the contrary, *nobody* goes according to EY. The universal custom is to go according to Iraq. The Rosh wanted all Mediterranean Jews, who share EY's climate, to follow EY, as the Provencals did, but they refused. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From meirabi at gmail.com Thu Nov 2 22:38:08 2017 From: meirabi at gmail.com (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi) Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2017 16:38:08 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] Avraham A Cooked, Angels Ate - Bassar BeChalav Message-ID: Avraham Avinu entertained three angels masquerading as human visitors; feeding them goat flesh cooked with milk. Generations later, due to this meal, the angels? protest, that the Torah ought not be given to the Jews, was quashed. There are 3 issues that require clarification: ++ Let?s say the angels sinned by eating flesh cooked with milk [which seems to be the plain meaning of the Medrash] how does that silence their protest? ++ Furthermore, flesh cooked with milk would not have been served to the guests: ++ Avraham Avinu did not cook goat with milk since he adhered to all Mitzvos of the Torah. ++ Even if it was cooked inadvertently, he would not have offered it to the visitors since no benefit may be derived from it. Reb Meir Simcha of Dvinsk explains in Meshech Chochmah, that no sin was transgressed since it was BP flesh, which may be cooked with milk. The angels? protests were silenced because they accepted that Avraham Avinu was Jewish and therefore able to Shecht. Had they considered him not Jewish, they would not have eaten because Shechita cannot be performed by a non-Jew. Thus, the angels had already conceded that Avraham Avinu had an inalienable connection to the Torah and therefore was able to Shecht and create a Kosher BP. That being the case, they could not question nor protest his chosen children?s rights to that heritage. Of all aspects of BP this particular Halacha is so counter-intuitive, and such a shock to our expectations, that even when Reb Chaim Kanievsky said that cooking BP flesh with milk, is "Kosher VeYosher" (more than 100%) Rabbanim who were with me and heard him say this, will not publicly admit to it. Rav Moshe Sternbuch responded upon being asked if this was a DaAs Yachid (a lone opinion), "Who argues?" - R Moshe quotes this Meshech Chochmah MoAdim UzManim [?"? ??' ??"?] and thereby suggests another reason for eating dairy on Shavuos - after all, it was via dairy that we succeeded to silence the angels? protests. However, my son Yehudah, argues - in that case, we really ought to be eating BBPbCh [Basar BP beChalav] on Shavuos. That the BP may be cooked with milk is so obvious to Reb Meir Simcha, that he does not bother to bring proof or expand upon the point. Clearly, BP is utterly unlike any regular cow sheep or goat that may not be cooked with dairy. = = = According to our traditions, Avraham Avinu maintained all the laws of the Torah and also all the Rabbinic enactments. Rashi, Genesis 26:5; Yevamos 21. Accordingly, our Sages explain that Avraham did not offer the bread [Rashi, Genesis 18:8; BMetzia 87] to his guests because Sara had miraculously rejuvenated and become ritually unclean, making the bread unclean. Although no more than a stringency Avraham Avinu would not serve it to his non Jewish guests - presumably, if Avraham Avinu would not eat it himself, he would not serve it to his guests - makes one pause and contemplate about those who Kosher certify various foods and establishments but will not eat that food themselves. = = = There are some who try to squeeze into the words of the MChochmah that it is the milk which is not dairy because meat may be cooked with milk collected from a Shechted beast, Chalav Shechuta, and a BP is deemed to be a Shechuta. There is a contrary argument however - some propose that Chalav Shechuta is not ?mother?s milk?, meaning milk from a beast that can potentially be a mother, whereas a BP can certainly be a mother, so its milk is not Chalav Shechuta and may not be cooked with meat. Either way, the argument collapses completely because Avraham Avinu would not violate the Rabbinic law that prohibits cooking with Chalav Shechuta [or deer or giraffe milk] Best, Meir G. Rabi 0423 207 837 +61 423 207 837 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Fri Nov 3 03:24:28 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2017 06:24:28 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Avraham A Cooked, Angels Ate - Bassar BeChalav In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20171103102428.GB3833@aishdas.org> On Fri, Nov 03, 2017 at 04:38:08PM +1100, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: : Avraham Avinu entertained three angels masquerading as human visitors; : feeding them goat flesh cooked with milk. Generations later, due to this : meal, the angels' protest, that the Torah ought not be given to the Jews, : was quashed. Where's this medrash? Tosafists (Daas Zeqeinim, Bereishis 18:8) note the contradiction between it and the medrash that the avos observe all of halakhah (even eiruv tavshilin) and suggests the following. It is also the Sifsei Chakhamim's and Bekhor Shor's take on the pasuq. The chumash says, "vayiqach chem'ah vechalav uven habaqar asher asah". There is no indication in the peshat that the veal was made in the butter and/or milk. And in fact, the milk is mentioned first. Leading to the opinion that Avraham even served them in a way that kept them from consuming dairy immediately after meat! The SC says he served them the milk so that they wouldn't have to wait while hungrily for the veal while it was shechted and cooked. The Radaq gives a different sesolution: Avraham prepared both so as to give them a choice of what to eat. : Reb Meir Simcha of Dvinsk explains in Meshech Chochmah, that no sin was : transgressed since it was BP flesh, which may be cooked with milk. Lo zakhisi lehavin haRav Meir Simcha haKohein, nor R' Kanievsky. Isn't that only mutar deRabbanan if it is killed before it can even stands up, so as to avoid mar'is ayin, like shechitah? And the gemara's example of the avos keeping kol haTorah kulah is Avraham keeping eiruv -- so that that aggadita means to include derabbanans. And even if we're saying that we're talking about BP without the taqanos, And if it is ben paqua and thus didn't need shechitah, why does the asame medrash make a point of Avraham shechting it? The tradition that Avraham Avinu authored seifer haYetzirah (for which I also have no source) includes the resolution that a calf made through ShY ("uven havaqar ASHER ASAH"), rather than invoking BP. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger A person lives with himself for seventy years, micha at aishdas.org and after it is all over, he still does not http://www.aishdas.org know himself. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From zev at sero.name Fri Nov 3 08:27:40 2017 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2017 11:27:40 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Avraham A Cooked, Angels Ate - Bassar BeChalav In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4ed7f10d-c1ee-c201-6de4-61e0564f59fd@sero.name> On 03/11/17 01:38, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: > feeding them goat flesh cooked with milk Since when? He fed them beef, together with cream (or butter) and milk, separately but simultaneously. > The angels? protests were silenced because they accepted that Avraham > Avinu was Jewish and therefore able to Shecht. Had they considered him > not Jewish, they would not have eaten because Shechita cannot be > performed by a non-Jew. Thus, the angels had already conceded that > Avraham Avinu had an inalienable connection to the Torah and therefore > was able to Shecht and create a Kosher BP. That being the case, they > could not question nor protest his chosen children?s rights to that > heritage. If so then why bring the milk into it at all? Simply by eating meat he'd shechted (or rather that his son Yishma`el had shechted) they had conceded all that (according to this explanation) was required. Why complicate the matter with questions of basar bechalav? Therefore it's clear that that was not the issue. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From micha at aishdas.org Fri Nov 3 05:44:11 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2017 08:44:11 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] TEXTUAL JUDAISM AND THE LIVING TORAH In-Reply-To: References: <9e51a7f4ea644e829db8503f8f0451fe@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20171103124411.GC23679@aishdas.org> On Thu, Nov 02, 2017 at 11:38:21PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : On 02/11/17 08:12, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: :>The Beit Yosef emphasizes that the custom of the entire world :>contradicts the Rosh's ruling. : Not the entire world. The Rosh himself reported that he was : gratified to discover, while travelling through Provence on his way : from Germany to Spain, that they did it the right way... Are you disagreeing with the BY (no citation so I can't check myself), with RJR's presentation of the BY? Or, are we ignoring the fact that the Rosh lived well before the BY and could have seen a Provincial minhag that had died by the mechaber's time. The BY could well be wrong. We have other examples of famous rishonim and acharonim who didn't know some minhag of other communities and thought regional norm was universal. I just want to understand which of the above we're discussing. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger We are what we repeatedly do. micha at aishdas.org Thus excellence is not an event, http://www.aishdas.org but a habit. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Aristotle From zev at sero.name Fri Nov 3 09:02:59 2017 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2017 12:02:59 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] TEXTUAL JUDAISM AND THE LIVING TORAH In-Reply-To: <20171103124411.GC23679@aishdas.org> References: <9e51a7f4ea644e829db8503f8f0451fe@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> <20171103124411.GC23679@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 03/11/17 08:44, Micha Berger wrote: > On Thu, Nov 02, 2017 at 11:38:21PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > : On 02/11/17 08:12, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: > :>The Beit Yosef emphasizes that the custom of the entire world > :>contradicts the Rosh's ruling. > > : Not the entire world. The Rosh himself reported that he was > : gratified to discover, while travelling through Provence on his way > : from Germany to Spain, that they did it the right way... > > Are you disagreeing with the BY (no citation so I can't check > myself), with RJR's presentation of the BY? Not disagreeing so much as pointing out that "the entire world" doesn't mean quite that. In fact the Tur on which the BY is commenting also quotes his father's report about the minhag in Provence. And the BY further quotes the Rosh that "uchvar nahagu gam kein biktzat mekomot" to start on the 7th. So later when he says "shelo nitkablu divrei haRosh, vechol ha`olam lo nahagu kein", I think this must be understood as a generalization, just as we do when we say "der velt" does this or that, and we clearly don't mean literally everyone. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From sholom at aishdas.org Fri Nov 3 11:32:44 2017 From: sholom at aishdas.org (Sholom Simon) Date: Fri, 03 Nov 2017 14:32:44 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] VAYERA ? WHO IS HKBH TALKING TO? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20171103183247.KRPQ6746.fed1rmfepo102.cox.net@fed1rmimpo109.cox.net> Rabbi Meir G. Rabi notes/asks: >Sara laughs [18:12] Gd is not happy > >[18:13] HKBH confronts Avraham, ?Why did Sara laugh off the blessing >that she have a child? Am I not able to arrange she give birth? I >assure you, I?ll be back and you?ll see she will have a child.? > >But why is HKBH asking this of Avraham? Does HKBH expect Avraham to >be able to explain? > >It seems this question is really an indictment of sorts. > >Is Avraham being blamed for Sara?s weakness? > >Why does Avraham confront [18:19] Sara? He does not doubt what HKBH >has told him? > >And when Sara denies it, why does Avraham rebuke her? Is it >Avraham?s responsibility to ensure she confesses? I just heard a shiur (YUTorah!) from RHS who addressed this. He also threw in the question: why is H" telling loshon harah to Avraham? RMF brings that In the Gemara (somewhere) it says that it's permissible to tell loshon harah to the subject's rebbe, so that the rebbe can give tochacha or musar to the subject, and RMF (or RHS) says that's what's happenning here (viewing Avraham as Sarah's rebbe, in a way). -- Sholom From akivagmiller at gmail.com Fri Nov 3 14:05:30 2017 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2017 17:05:30 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] chopsticks Message-ID: . R" Saul Guberman asked: > Is it permissible to break apart chopsticks on shabbat at the > meal to eat your sushi? Someone claimed it is makeh b'patish > and just use a fork or stab with the chopsticks still > together. Others thought that tzorech ochel nefesh might > allow them to be broken and used, as it is all disposable > anyway. Rabbi Doniel Neustadt raises a similar question at https://torah.org/torah-portion/weekly-halacha-5772-beshalach/ I would think that the situations are similar; even if they aren't identical, looking up the sources may help to find the answer about chopsticks. > Question: Leben or yogurt cups sometimes come attached to each > other and must be separated along a perforated line before > they can be eaten individually. Is that permitted to be done > on Shabbos? > > Discussion: Contemporary poskim debate whether or not it is > permitted to separate attached yogurt or leben cups from each > other. Some consider it a violation of Mechatech and Makeh > b?patish[21] while others hold it is permitted altogether[22]. > > 21. Rav Y.S. Elyashiv (Orchos Shabbos 12:12, Me?or ha-Shabbos, > vol. 2, pg. 551). > > 22. Rav S.Z. Auerbach (Orchos Shabbos 12:18. note 31, Shulchan > Shelomo 314:13-3). Akiva Miller From meirabi at mail.gmail.com Sat Nov 4 05:45:14 2017 From: meirabi at mail.gmail.com (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi) Date: Sat, 4 Nov 2017 23:45:14 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] Avraham A Cooked, Angels Ate - Bassar BeChalav Message-ID: 1] no one disputes that the Meshech Chochmah says what he says 2] there are many explanations to resolve the meat and milk issue, we are not disputing them, just explaining one of them 3] there is [surprisingly] no Issur of Maris Ayin preventing cooking some iterations of BP meat with milk - the proof is from this episode as presented by this Medrash and explained by the MChochma. 4] The decree that after the BP has stood up, Hifris AGKarka, it requires Shechitah [and presumably is also Assur to cook with milk] does not apply to a BP that is found as a non fully gestated, Lo KaLu Lo Chadashav. 5] Avraham did not Shecht it - on the contrary he directed Yishmael to prepare it - Furthermore, because it was a BP it did not require Shechita which is why he could direct Yishmael to kill it, and there was also no problem of Bassar SheNisAlem Min HaAyin. 6] Indeed, even had the angels eaten plain meat Shechted by AAvinu, there would have been adequate proof that they accepted his status of Kedushas Yisrael, it just so happened that AAvinu wanted to serve his visitors a delicacy, Beef Stroganoff. 7] I really do not know why I assumed it was a goat From zev at sero.name Sat Nov 4 16:10:52 2017 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Sat, 4 Nov 2017 19:10:52 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Avraham A Cooked, Angels Ate - Bassar BeChalav In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <0d614669-3c79-3c22-d137-b4b21530183f@sero.name> On 04/11/17 08:45, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi wrote: > 6] Indeed, even had the angels eaten plain meat Shechted by AAvinu, > there would have been adequate proof that they accepted his status of > Kedushas Yisrael, it just so happened that AAvinu wanted to serve his > visitors a delicacy, Beef Stroganoff. Except that Rashi explicitly says otherwise, that the delicacy he served was tongue in mustard, for which he needed *three* animals. There is no hint of any cooking in milk. The Meshech Chochma needs a mokor for this. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From meirabi at mail.gmail.com Sat Nov 4 05:56:05 2017 From: meirabi at mail.gmail.com (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi) Date: Sat, 4 Nov 2017 23:56:05 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] VAYERA ? WHO IS HKBH TALKING TO? Message-ID: Furthermore, HKBH is transgressing Lashon Hara by disclosing to Avraham that Sara laughed. It is pretty clear that Sara's indiscretion was disclosed to Avraham because it was necessary for AAvinu to know, as we see, he rebuked Sara for laughing. Avraham was responsible for this shortcoming of Sara - this properly explains all these Qs HKBH expected Avraham to respond as he did. The question is really an indictment of sorts. Avraham is blamed for Sara's indiscretion? Therefore, Avraham confronts [18:19] Sara. And when Sara denies it, Avraham rebukes her. It is Avraham's responsibility to ensure she confesses. Best, Meir G. Rabi From meirabi at mail.gmail.com Mon Nov 6 12:30:23 2017 From: meirabi at mail.gmail.com (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi) Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2017 07:30:23 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] HKBH Rebukes Avraham for Sara's Shortcomings In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: continuing from prev post - > Sara laughs [18:12] Gd is not happy > [18:13] HKBH confronts Avraham, ... Preserving harmony [Yevamos 65b, in this case between Araham and Sara] compels HKBH to lie to Avraham [HKBH reported that Sara said, "I am too old to have children", when in fact she said, "my master is old"] and yet HKBH, rather than remaining silent to preserve peace, reports Sara's indiscretion to Avraham. Furthermore, aside from being likely to cause strife between Avraham and Sara, this report is a horribly demeaning Lashon Hara. Scoffing at HKBH's ability to grant her a child, in spite of it being uttered by what might easily have been described as a foolish visitor, is a blight upon Sara which HKBH held against her. And she understood the correctness of the criticism and felt shamed, as we see that she [apparently] instinctively and immediately denied it [18:15] It seems clear that HKBH reported this to Avraham, rather than directly or indirectly to Sara, not only to correct Sara but also to rebuke Avraham. HKBH was criticising Avraham for Sara's shortcoming. From micha at aishdas.org Mon Nov 6 17:55:31 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2017 20:55:31 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Questioning Authority In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20171107015531.GC12418@aishdas.org> On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 09:41:32AM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : I have always felt that it is (or ought to be) possible and permissible to : *question* authority without challenging or rejecting authority... I would have said "to ask questions", as to me "to question" something is indeed to challenge. But that's just an English or perhaps English dialect issue. What's nice is that we don't have this issue in halachic jargon: there is a clear difference between 1- a she'eilah, asking for information, ibua'ei lehu / miba'ei on the oe hand, and 2- a qushya ("qasha"), tiyuvta, meisivei, where we challenge the given statement. .... : But frequently, the truth is that the parent has very good reasons for what : he says. It's just that he's unable to put those reasons into clear words. : He can't even explain it to himself in simple terms, because it is simply a : gut feeling that he has, based on experience and intuition, he sees that : this is the action or inaction which must be followed in this particular : situation. As far as I can tell, this is what RYBS calls "mesorah", and the same notion of "mesorah" RHS invokves when arguing against ordaining women or women leading inessential portions of davening? (As opposed to those who think of "mesorah" as referring to mimeticism.) : I think this is analogous to Torah leaders and Torah followers. When the : leaders tell the followers what to do, or what to avoid, it is entirely : reasonable for the followers to request explanations from the leaders. This : is especially so, if the explanation will help them comply with the : directive, or teach them how to apply the directive to other situations. : But these requests must be made respectfully, carefully, and only up to a : certain point. We ask a poseiq a she'eilah, not a qushya. And -- as noted by the Maharal in the Beer haGolah RMRabi and I beat to death -- we should be expecting to understand rather than blindly follow. The limit you speak of comes for the fact that a feel for how the halakhah ought to be inherently can't be articulated. To repply R/Dr Moshe Koppel's metaphor for halakhah, as much as halakhah runs like a legal system, it also works like a language. People who only know English as a second language could know rules of conjugation, but it takes serious immersion in the language to know what kinds of poetic license works and what violates the limits of acceptible English. We native speakers know what "sounds right". But if an immigrant were to ask why "the red big ball" sounds weird but "the big red ball" sounds normal, how many of us could explain it? And if we did come up with an explanation, isn't it a post-facto construct rather than the more by-feel way the determination was really made? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger For those with faith there are no questions. micha at aishdas.org For those who lack faith there are no answers. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yaakov of Radzimin Fax: (270) 514-1507 From micha at aishdas.org Mon Nov 6 18:30:37 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2017 21:30:37 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] eitz hachaim In-Reply-To: <61f0b606-b859-4475-eef8-a10489e74f1c@starways.net> References: <61f0b606-b859-4475-eef8-a10489e74f1c@starways.net> Message-ID: <20171107023037.GE12418@aishdas.org> On Sun, Oct 15, 2017 at 05:41:04PM -0400, hankman via Avodah wrote: : What exactly was the eitz hachaim all about. The simple pshat doesn't : make any sense. ... Kodem hacheit he was not : a bar misah so he had no need of it, after the cheit he was prevented : from accessing it! So when would it ever be useful to Adam? On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 10:51:28AM +0300, Lisa Liel via Avodah wrote: : I don't understand the question. He was prevented from accessing it : *because* of the cheit. Had he not sinned, you say he would have had : no need for it, but who is to say that its only function was to make : him live forever..... Note how the Torah is also called "eitz chaim (hi lamachaziqim bahh)." So I think Lisa's notion that the eitz chaim likely had another function is quite probable. Likely its primary function was to provide the da'as that would lead to arichas yamim. Like the Torah does -- even if its arichas yamim appears not to be in olam hazeh. There is also the idea that there was only one tree in the iddle of the garden, an eitz hachaim upon which grew a branch bearing the peri eitz hada'as tov vara. Or maybe that the eitz vhaim was the rooots from which the eitz hadaas grew. I don't know -- I only heard about it second-hand (multiple times) by people quoting "sifrei qabbalah" (as though that counts as a citation). Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger If you won't be better tomorrow micha at aishdas.org than you were today, http://www.aishdas.org then what need do you have for tomorrow? Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rebbe Nachman of Breslov From micha at aishdas.org Mon Nov 6 18:04:55 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2017 21:04:55 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] A Great Name In-Reply-To: <20171025204831.CKZV22111.fed1rmfepo202.cox.net@fed1rmimpo210.cox.net> References: <20171025204831.CKZV22111.fed1rmfepo202.cox.net@fed1rmimpo210.cox.net> Message-ID: <20171107020455.GD12418@aishdas.org> On Wed, Oct 25, 2017 at 04:48:29PM -0400, Sholom Simon via Avodah wrote: : One of the implicit criticisms of Migdal Bavel was that they wanted : to make a name for themselves. Then, at the beginning of Lech L'cha, : H' tells Avram that he will make his name great. : There must be something there... anybody have any thoughts? First question... If all of humanity was participating (minus two epople -- Avraham and Ashur), who exactly were they trying to build up their reputation for? Whereas after the Haflagah, man was split into numerous communities, the notion of being known broadly makes sense. And if you want to spread your teachings, such fame is useful. Yes, I think the contrast is meaningful -- the people who got caught up in ego to the point of irrationality wanted fame for its own sake. After all, it had no logical value in their context. Whereas Afraham was granted fame as part of Hashem aiding his success, and fame is positive. It's not a question, it's the point. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Between stimulus & response, there is a space. micha at aishdas.org In that space is our power to choose our http://www.aishdas.org response. In our response lies our growth Fax: (270) 514-1507 and our freedom. - Victor Frankl, (MSfM) From cantorwolberg at cox.net Mon Nov 6 23:30:51 2017 From: cantorwolberg at cox.net (Richard Wolberg) Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2017 02:30:51 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Gilgul Hanefesh Message-ID: I have heard many conflicting opinions about our belief in reincarnation. I hope and pray it is not true. ?One life is enough!? Is there a definitive Jewish belief? I have even heard some believe in ?Transmigration of the Soul? which is even more scary. As an impressionable kid, I once had a rabbi tell me that if you don?t wash netilat yadayim prior to eating, you will come back as a dog. The following is an excerpt by an article in the Aish.com Newsletter by Sara Yoheved Rigler. there are hints to reincarnation in the Bible and early commentaries (1), while in Kabbalah, Judaism?s mystical tradition, overt references to reincarnation abound. The Zohar, the basic text of Jewish mysticism (attributed to Rabbi Shimon Bar Yochai, a 1st century sage) assumes gilgul neshamot [the recycling of souls] as a given, and the Ari, the greatest of all Kabbalists, whose 16th teachings are recorded in, Shaar HaGilgulim, traced the reincarnations of many Biblical figures. While some authorities, such as Saadia Gaon (10th century) denied reincarnation as a Jewish concept, from the 17th century onward, leading rabbis of normative Judaism, such as the Gaon of Vilna and the Chafetz Chaim (2), referred to gilgul neshamot as a fact. (1)? See Deut. 33:6, and Targum Onkeles and Targum Yonosson on that verse. Also see Isaiah 22:14. (2)? Mishnah Berurah 23:5 and Shaar HaTzion 622:6 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From lisa at starways.net Tue Nov 7 02:43:04 2017 From: lisa at starways.net (Lisa Liel) Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2017 12:43:04 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Gilgul Hanefesh In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3ad8c297-8019-3aa5-de3b-800ffe91d6c9@starways.net> On 11/7/2017 9:30 AM, Richard Wolberg via Avodah wrote: ... > Is there a definitive Jewish belief? > I have even heard some believe in "Transmigration of the Soul" which > is even more scary. As an impressionable kid, I once had a rabbi tell me > that if you don't wash netilat yadayim prior to eating, you will come > back as a dog. As I understand it, gilgul neshamot is not the same as the eastern idea of reincarnation, where one person's soul literally incarnates again in another body and lives another life. Rather, on a spiritual level, the soul of one person can "match" the soul of someone who lived previously. Either by harmony or dissonance, to use a musical metaphor. In Seder HaDorot, it talks incessantly about how some person or other was the gilgul, or tikkun, of a previous person. But it sometimes has multiple people as the gilgul or tikkun of a previous person, which makes more sense given the "match" concept. Kabbalistically, at least according to R' Aryeh Kaplan, the spiritual dimension is one of similarities and differences. Two things that are more similar are "closer" and two things that are less similar are "further apart". So if your soul is very similar to that of someone who lived before, you could have such a "match". You might even dream memories that the previous soul experienced. That doesn't make you that person. And since the state of a person's soul changes throughout their life, their "match" to someone who lived previously can come and go as well. To give an example, Seder HaDorot says that Rabbi Akiva was the gilgul/tikkun of Zimri ben Salu. The 24K Bnei Shimon who died in the plague following Zimri's actions match the 24K talmidim of Rabbi Akiva, for example. But while Zimri took Kosbi b'issur, Rabbi Akiva married the wife of Tyrannus Rufus b'heter, after she converted. Hence restoring a balance that Zimri had violated. I don't buy the "reincarnated as a dog" or "as a fish" stuff. Those who do, I suppose they have on whom to rely, but you don't have to buy into it yourself. (NB: While Googling to see if there was a website that talked about this, I found this article from Aish, which was very interesting. It included Shechem and Dina in the equation as well. http://www.aish.com/tp/i/moha/97291469.html) Lisa From micha at aishdas.org Tue Nov 7 13:54:20 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2017 16:54:20 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] 17 Marcheshvan Message-ID: <20171107215420.GA15523@aishdas.org> Yesterday, the 17th Marcheshvan, was the anniversary of two events: 1- The rain of the mabul began; and 2- 2 Nov 1917, the day the British Foreign Secretary, Lord Alfred Balfour, sent the famous letter to Baron Lionel Walter Rothchild. Anyone want to connect the dots between the two? Two things I did notice: - Both were first steps, far from the final yeshu'ah. - Both were first followed by major destruction before anything positive could be seen from them. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger I have great faith in optimism as a philosophy, micha at aishdas.org if only because it offers us the opportunity of http://www.aishdas.org self-fulfilling prophecy. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Arthur C. Clarke From micha at aishdas.org Tue Nov 7 14:54:02 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2017 17:54:02 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Torah precheit? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20171107225402.GA26849@aishdas.org> On Thu, Oct 19, 2017 at 05:47:09AM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : R' Chaim Manaster asked: :> I have been trying to understand what the geshtalt of Torah :> was precheit of the eitz hadaas... ... :> The many consequences seem to be as follows: there would be :> no avdus in Mitzrayim, therefore no...... : One can ask similar questions about other turning-points in history. : What if Kayin had not killed Hevel? What if the world has not gone to : Avodah Zara a few generations later? What if Yishmael and/or Esav had : not gone of the derech? What if Moshe Rabenu had acted differently by : the rock? To get really confused... The Torah, like it's Author, is lemaaleh min hazman. What aspect of the Torah we mean by that aside for a moment, that means it wasn't written before the eitz hadaas, Kayin killing Hevel, Dor Enosh, galus Mitzrayim, etc... Torah doesn't enter the timeline until it is revealed at Har Sinai. Which means that there is no question about Hashem's "foreknowledge" and bechirah chafshi about anything written in the Torah that happens before Matan Torah. We can't talk about Hashem Knowing what we *will* decide until that Knowledge enters the timeline. There is no "before" or after to His knowing, only to when He informs others of it. So, for events that precede Har Sinai, the Torah can contain those decisions. There is no "what if" because Hashem Knows that that what wouldn't. No more a problem than if the Torah were written /after/ those events. Hey, I warned you I was opening the door to confusion. Then there is the question of the supernal Torah vs the form we got. As per the Ramban about the Torah without the letters separated into the words we have now. (Tangent: If one were to take that shitas haRamban at face value, there is meaning to the pesuqim with the words redivided. So, why isn't that one of the Middos shehaTorah Nidreshes Bahen?) : And there are yet others. Torah manifests itself differently to a : kohen than to a levi, and differently to a woman than to a man. And so : on... And on Sun, Oct 22, 2017 at 04:15:49PM -0400, RCM replied: : R. Akiva Miller wrote: ""If there is life on other planets, might they : possibly have a Torah? But Mitzrayim doesn't exist there, and Moshe : never lived there!" That question bothered me for a very long time," : Strangely enough, I had similar thoughts years back. As a young bachur : in yeshivo, my rebbi was teaching us that their was a period during : which the progenitor of kelal Yisroel would happen. I asked what would : have happened if there had been another deep thinker who came to the : same realization and belief that Avraham did. He answered that there : would have been two (or more) chosen peoples to eventually be mekabel : Torah. It didn't occur to me at the time to ask, would they each have the : "same" Torah or each get a tailored version to their (eventual) am? Or, : would there be one Torah that talks of both of the chosen peoples? Is there on some planet far away, an intelligent alien species with their Am haNivchar? How would the Torah be manifest to them? And if they didn't have a Migdal Bavel like event, did Hashem do that whole Mamlekhes Kohanim model, with castes within the alien Am haNivchar, or castes with everyone "nivchar"? Would they have a Holy Land? If we made contact with these creatures, would we recognize their perception of the Torah as another expression of Yahadus, or would it be too alien? I know this example seems less serious than yours; I meant it as a test case on which to check these ideas that doesn't have to involve "what if" histories that Hashem timelessly knows didn't / aren't / won't happen. : Years : later when discussing what is the purpose to us of the trillions of stars : and galaxies so distant that they could never possibly affect us here : on Earth? Then it occurred to me, what if those stars had planets with : intelligent beings on them and they too went through a similar period : wherein they too had some allien being come to the same conclusions as : Avraham did and they then became the chosen people of that planet and : received a Torah possibly tailored to their experiences and appropriate : there etc.? ... Or maybe they do affect our lives here on earth. Omphalists believe that the universe was created at some point in the nearer past, eg 5778 years ago -- or Last Thursday -- and everything before that is fake. And this is the position of the LR and R' Avigdor Miller. (Although Last Thursdayism is a mock-religion posed by atheists trying to ridicule their position.) The usual challenge by those who like to be more rationalist is that this would imply Hashem is out to fool us, creating light en route from stars to make it look like they shown billions of years ago, tragectories that if you work backward converge from a Big Bang, geological and archological records, fossils, cave paintings, remains of pre-Adamic farming... But there is a more thoughtful response: Perhaps the only way we can have teva today is if the universe we have now looks like it always ran by teva. Otherwise, the effects of nissim would still be causing anomolies we could pick up today. So much for hesteir Panim. In which case, we need a universe that is so big that our place is in looks like some unnoticable backwater. We need a universe that looks like it had a Big Bang and Inflation area in order for us to live with the set of laws of nature we have. And then their existence does impact us. : Moshe when he went lamorom to accept Torah. They too wanted Torah in a : version suitable to them which would deflect all of Moshe's responses. If : memory serves, I think some meforshim try to make sense of the malachim : in such a manner. Unlike RAM's or my hypothetical aliens, mal'akhim have no free will. Without having that much Tzelem E-lokim, would they qualify for revelation? I think the problem with the mal'akhim that the medrashic Moshe highlights in his response to their claim on the Torah is that they do Retzon haBorei automatically, they lack the challenges one would need the Torah to address. Without challenges, they cannot grow into more than they are; there is no need for a Torah to help show them how. Jumping back to RAM's post: :> As there would never be an Eretz Yisroel, then there would not :> be all the mitzvot hateltuot ba'aretz -- trumos, masros etc., etc. : : Or perhaps Gan Eden would have had that status. Eretz Yisrael is : actually a great example: Consider the idea that true nevuah can exist : only in Eretz Yisrael... Tangent: Yechezqeil? Yonah's qiqayon was outside Nineveh. Etc... : .... Rather, my point goes to : this "Torah with 613 mitzvot" that you refer to. It doesn't exist : today, and I don't know if it ever has existed. There has certainly : never been a person to whom they all applied, and I wonder whether : there was ever a generation when they were all in force. There is also the idea of mitzvos that were never expected to be applied. Like the gemara suggests about ben soreir umoreh and ir hanidachas. Perhaps they exist because history could have played out differently and these mitzvos would have had an applicability beyond derosh veqabel sekhar. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger None of us will leave this place alive. micha at aishdas.org All that is left to us is http://www.aishdas.org to be as human as possible while we are here. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Anonymous MD, while a Nazi prisoner From akivagmiller at gmail.com Wed Nov 8 04:57:26 2017 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2017 07:57:26 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Torah precheit? Message-ID: . R' Micha Berger asked: > Is there on some planet far away, an intelligent alien > species with their Am haNivchar? How would the Torah be > manifest to them? And if they didn't have a Migdal Bavel > like event, did Hashem do that whole Mamlekhes Kohanim > model, with castes within the alien Am haNivchar, or > castes with everyone "nivchar"? Would they have a > Holy Land? > > If we made contact with these creatures, would we > recognize their perception of the Torah as another > expression of Yahadus, or would it be too alien? My focus is on the word "too" in the phrase "too alien". I feel that while such beings would indeed be extremely alien to us, the degree of alien-ness is absolutely irrelevant to the question at hand: Any mashehu of alien-ness (I suspect) puts them outside the pale. In our modern way of thinking, in which "Eretz" means not only this planet but the entire physical universe, and in which "Shamayim" does NOT include planets and stars but only the metaphysical universe, - Why would martians have a different status than any other foreigners? I can easily see a discussion of whether the martians count as people or as animals, but that is a separate issue. The issue here is that if they claimed to have some sort of Revelation from the One True G-d, then would we accept it as being another facet of the Shiv'im Panim LaTorah? And my answer is: What would we say if a group of earthly *humans* claimed to have some sort of Revelation from the One True G-d? Would we accept *that* as being another facet of the Shiv'im Panim LaTorah? My guess is that our response would be: That's very nice, and you are a sincere group of righeous Bnei Noach... and then we'd pretty much ignore them. Not out of malice, but because their message is not directed towards us. Here's a litmus test for whether or not I am close to correct: If I'm not mistaken, when a person claims to be a Navi, there are specific tests for whether or not he is believed, and if he passes those tests, and he has a message from Hashem for us, then we are obligated to follow that message. Is Jewishness among those criteria? If Ovadia had not converted, would his nevua be any less true or any less obligatory? > If we made contact with these creatures, would we > recognize their perception of the Torah as another > expression of Yahadus, or would it be too alien? I suppose one answer might be: The word "Yahadus" is too restrictive. Try replacing it with "Ratzon Hashem". Akiva Miller From zev at sero.name Wed Nov 8 08:12:06 2017 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2017 11:12:06 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Torah precheit? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 08/11/17 07:57, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > I can easily see a discussion of whether the martians count as people > or as animals, but that is a separate issue. The issue here is that if > they claimed to have some sort of Revelation from the One True G-d, > then would we accept it as being another facet of the Shiv'im Panim > LaTorah? And my answer is: What would we say if a group of earthly > *humans* claimed to have some sort of Revelation from the One True > G-d? Would we accept*that* as being another facet of the Shiv'im > Panim LaTorah? > > My guess is that our response would be: That's very nice, and you are > a sincere group of righeous Bnei Noach... and then we'd pretty much > ignore them. Not out of malice, but because their message is not > directed towards us. > If all they claimed was to have once had a navi, whose nevuah didn't contradict our Torah in any way, then perhaps we might accept it as valid. But if they were to claim to have had their own matan torah I think we would have to reject it. It's fundamental to our faith that matan torah was an event that could only happen once. It's also fundamental that Hashem chose avraham from *all* humanity, and us from *all* the nations, so if someone else -- on this planet or any other -- were to make such a claim we could not accept it. as for how Hashem could leave them without a Torah to guide them, how are they different from any remote people who had no contact with anyone who had even heard of the Torah until the 19th or 20th century? If the New Guinea Highlanders (some of whom have *still* never had any contact with the world outside their valleys) could wait until now to hear about the Torah, why can't the Tau Cetians, or whoever, wait until the 25th or 30th century? (assuming the 6000 years thing to be some sort of metaphor, of course, or there won't be a 30th century.) -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From zvilampel at gmail.com Wed Nov 8 08:53:24 2017 From: zvilampel at gmail.com (H Lampel) Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2017 11:53:24 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Torah precheit? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 11/7/2017 6:05 PM, MIcha Berger wrote: > ... that the universe was created at some point in the nearer > past, eg 5778 years ago -- or Last Thursday -- and everything before that is > fake. ...is the position of ... R' Avigdor Miller. He certainly is not of the opinion of last-Thursday-ism. (I suspect RMB did not really mean that.) His opinion is based on the mesora. Re: ''and everything before that is fake. ...is the position of ... R' Avigdor Miller'' To clarify, R' Avigdor Miller's position is not that fossils, for example, were planted merely as a test of our emunah. > Why should the [dinosaurs] need explanation any more than the dodo, the passenger pigeon, or any of the other species which > have become extinct, some even in our time? The huge > animals of ancient times, as well as many small animals, > became extinct each in the due time decreed by the timetable > of Heaven. ... Their existence is a fact which does > not help th theory of Evolution in any manner. (Rejoice O Youth, pp. 47-48) However, that Adam was created as a 30-year-old (as Chazal say), with, for example, a full mouth of teeth? Yes. Because: > ''Creation means that the Universe began at once in full-blown development. > The First Man immediately had trees whose fruit he could eat. > But fruit trees must beforehand be pollinated by bees, and bees need beehives with all their > paraphernalia. So you understand that Creation implies that > everything came into existence without benefit of time." > > "Trees have in their trunks a number of concentric rings, > each ring denoting a year of existence. If the First Man had > sawed off a tree, would he have found rings inside?" > > "Since he had trees, they were what we know a tree > to be." > > ...thousand-year redwood trees...?" > > "Creation included everything. Just as the First Man > had mature fruit trees at the first moment, so also the world > possessed mature lumber trees which were created at the > same time." > > "[So]... all animals and insects and bacteria were created, > including those which need rotting old logs and crumbling old > rocks for their habitat or sustenance. Thus, it is self? > explanatory that the world possessed 'aged' materials from the > very outset, including vegetation and animal carcasses with low > carbon-14 content and rocks with heavy lead content.'' > > (Ibid. pp 45-46) Zvi Lampel PS--Again, this is to clarify Rav Miller's position, and hopefully will not evolve (;)) into a discussion of it. Been there, done that, and no time. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Wed Nov 8 13:59:13 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2017 16:59:13 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Torah precheit? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20171108215913.GB3342@aishdas.org> On Wed, Nov 08, 2017 at 07:57:26AM -0500, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: :> If we made contact with these creatures, would we :> recognize their perception of the Torah as another :> expression of Yahadus, or would it be too alien? : My focus is on the word "too" in the phrase "too alien". I feel that : while such beings would indeed be extremely alien to us, the degree of : alien-ness is absolutely irrelevant to the question at hand: Any : mashehu of alien-ness (I suspect) puts them outside the pale. Actually, when I said "too alien" I was thinking not of ways their book of Retzon haBorei different from our Torah but ways in which their existence is so different from ours that we can't event compare. It's one thing to discuss what hilkhos geirus might look like if they had a hahaflagah but they already live in a liquid. It's another to discuss what halakhah as a whole would look like if they didn't experience time as a linear past-present-future the way we do. This discussion also reminds me of my Issacharism thought experiment. Positing that sheivet Yissachar survived, and had its own development of halakhah since the fall of Malkhus Yisrael. Its own Sanhedrin, no Anshei Keneses haGdfolah, etc... The same beris Sinai, but an entirely different development of 3,000 of application of kelalei pesaq, different gezeiros and taqanos... And to make it harder, let's say their population of shomerei Torah uMizvos has been roughly the same as ours all these years. So there are no grounds for saying one set of Sanhedrins is more authorivative than the other. : In our modern way of thinking, in which "Eretz" means not only this : planet but the entire physical universe, and in which "Shamayim" does : NOT include planets and stars but only the metaphysical universe, - : Why would martians have a different status than any other foreigners? Because it's possible that if Vulcans existed, HQBH would have provided them with /their/ mamlekhes kohanim. Yes, I can't guess what HQBH would do -- He could equally have wanted their spiritual development to wait until *we* get there. Like some aboriginal people on this planet, who never heard of us or even Ibrahimic religions relatively recently. Possibly relevant is the Rambam's shitah that chasidei umos ha'olam are only those who keep the 7 mitzvos because they were given at Sinai. Perhaps this gives more reason for a Vulcan am hanivchar. If anyone who does the right thing because it's logically the right thing accomplished their goal in life, then perhaps not every kind of being with bekhirah needs access to a revelation. : The issue here is that if : they claimed to have some sort of Revelation from the One True G-d, : then would we accept it as being another facet of the Shiv'im Panim : LaTorah? And my answer is: What would we say if a group of earthly : *humans* claimed to have some sort of Revelation from the One True : G-d? Would we accept *that* as being another facet of the Shiv'im : Panim LaTorah? We are a segulah mikol ha'amim, beni bekhori Yisrael. We know we recieved a unique revelation. The discussion is whether it's unique for all of humanity, or full-stop unique universally. : My guess is that our response would be: That's very nice, and you are : a sincere group of righeous Bnei Noach... and then we'd pretty much : ignore them... I agree with the "ignore" part, though. Accept for the academics and their journals. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Despair is the worst of ailments. No worries micha at aishdas.org are justified except: "Why am I so worried?" http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yisrael Salanter Fax: (270) 514-1507 From seinfeld at daasbooks.com Wed Nov 8 18:00:29 2017 From: seinfeld at daasbooks.com (Alexander Seinfeld) Date: Wed, 08 Nov 2017 21:00:29 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Torah precheit? Message-ID: > > > >But there is a more thoughtful response: Perhaps the only way we can >have teva today is if the universe we have now looks like it always >ran by teva. Otherwise, the effects of nissim would still be causing >anomolies we could pick up today. So much for hesteir Panim. > >In which case, we need a universe that is so big that our place is in >looks like some unnoticable backwater. We need a universe that looks >like it had a Big Bang and Inflation area in order for us to live with >the set of laws of nature we have. > >And then their existence does impact us. Just want to point out, or remind, that there are two independent questions here that often become conflated. 1. Can a rational person believe in ?young Earth? (i.e., >6,000 years old)? 2. Why would God create a universe making it look like it is far older than it really is? The basis of answering yes to #1 has nothing to do with #2. I do not need to know why in order to examine the evidence for #1 and conclude that He did probably make the world 5,778 years ago. The fact that I cannot answer #2 should not be entered as evidence against #1. This is the m?haleich of R? Dovid Gottlieb. The fallacy of the skeptics is to mock #1 based on #2, when in fact it is irrelevant. My own personal belief is merely that the vastness of space and time give us the opportunity with our puny minds to have an analogy for God?s infiniteness. From afolger at aishdas.org Mon Nov 13 04:05:02 2017 From: afolger at aishdas.org (Arie Folger) Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2017 13:05:02 +0100 Subject: [Avodah] Torah precheit Message-ID: RAM and RMB have been arguing about whether aliens somewhere out there could have received a Revelation akin to ours and whether theirs would be one of shiv'im panim la-Torah. My USD0.02c: I believe that it is not unimportant that according to present theories of physics, we are constrained by how far we could ever travel. Even if we were to remain happy with slower than light travel, travelling at the phenomenal speeds necessary to get anywhere else in our own galaxy where aliens might live, i.e. in another star system with planets in the habitable zone, would use up phenomenal amounts of energy. Furthermore, the distances are so vast, that we would need enormous (what's the trendy word variant, ginormous?) amounts of time, and we still hardly would get anywhere. Bottom line, there very well may exist intelligent aliens out there, but we are near 100% sure that we will never ever be able to meet them. Which leads me to the following observation: If there are aliens out there which we will one day meet, then we could not accept their *competing* Revelation. There is only one 'am hanivchar. We would indeed need to see them as a special kind of Noachides with a possible true revelation that is, however, subordinate to ours and can never contradict it. If, however, we consider aliens whom we will never ever be able to meet, I see no reason why they couldn't have their own Revelation, with their own Torah, which, while it surely will agree in all iqarim, may nonetheless, through a variety of mechanisms suggested by mefarshim throughout the ages (including but not limited to the Ramban's Torah without spaces, and the expansion thereof by later mequbalim that the Heavenly Torah has 23 letters, of which we only see 22), be quite different from ours. I do wonder though, can there be an alien civilization we will one day encounter in person, which has exactly the same Torah as we do. It would seem extremely improbable for them to have had an Avraham, Yitzchak & Yaakov, Shevatim & galut Mitzrayim, but hey, if this is predetermined in part, then why not? The question will then be, are they and us the same people (in the assumption that it is even physically possible to intermarry)? I consider this whole possibility even less likely than the one about meeting any aliens anywhere, so this is just an thought experiment. Kol tuv, -- Arie Folger -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From akivagmiller at gmail.com Mon Nov 13 17:45:22 2017 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2017 20:45:22 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Gifts on Shabbos Message-ID: . I am trying to get a more precise understanding of when it is assur/mutar to give someone a gift on Shabbos. Orach Chayim 306 is about all sorts of business activities. Gifts are a subset of this topic, and Mishne Berura 306:33 writes, "It is also assur to give a gift to one's friend, because it is similar to buying and selling, because it leaves his ownership [reshus]. But a gift is mutar when it is L'tzorech Shabbos V'Yom Tov - as written in 323:7 - and likewise for L'tzorech Mitzvah... And it also wrote that according to that, the practice of giving keilim as a gift to a Chasan is improper..." When I turn to Shulchan Aruch 323:7, Mechaber doesn't say anything about the general laws of giving gifts on Shabbos. He only gives one particular case: That if one forgot to tovel a keli before Shabbos, so it cannot be used on Shabbos, he is allowed to give it to a non-Jew as a gift, and then borrow it back for Shabbos use. Mishne Brura 323:34 explains: "Even though it is assur to give gifts on Shabbos as written in Siman 306, here it is allowed because of Tzorech Shabbos." The logic is somewhat circular, I think: 306 refers to 323, and 323 refers to 306. The only clear heter is an interesting one: On the one hand, it is for a NON-food item (though it is food-related); on the other hand, it seems to be a b'dieved solution for the person who either forgot to tovel it before Shabbos, or somehow acquired it from a non-Jew on Shabbos. I don't see any clear heter to deliberately give a food gift on Shabbos, and I also don't see any clear prohibition that non-foods are excluded from being "L'tzorech Shabbos". Mishne Berurah 306:33 says that it is wrong to give "keilim" as gifts to a chasan. Rabbi Dovid Ribiat ("The 39 Melochos", page 961) includes "presenting a Bar Mitzvah boy with a Sefer" in this category. These examples suggest two rules to me: (1) If the gift will not be used until after Shabbos (quite likely for the bar mitzvah boy's sefer, though I have no idea which "kelim" the chasan would receive), then it is not "letzorech Shabbos". (2) The chasan (or bar mitzvah boy) presumably gets hanaah from receiving the gift, but that amount of Oneg Shabbos is not significant enough to count as "letzorech Shabbos". I offer two specific examples for discussion: (1) Many shuls offer printed material, such as parsha sheets, weekly shul bulletins, and even newspapers and magazines. Or someone might attend a shiur, where the teacher distributes printed handouts of the source material. Can I take these home to read or learn from on Shabbos afternoon? Wouldn't this be a Tzorech Shabbos? (2) Suppose someone is invited to a friend for a Shabbos meal, and he brings a challah or wine as a gift for the host. The host was not expecting it and has other food that he was planning to use. Is this enough of a tzorech Shabbos to transfer ownership? If this host accepts the gift, is he required to serve the food? In other words, if "tzorech Shabbos" is indeed a carte blanche for food gifts, does the food have to actually be eaten? Akiva Miller Postscript: It seems to me that this issur of giving gifts applies only on Shabbos, and *not* on Yom Tov. Consider: You can send a living behema to your friend on YT, even through a Reshus Harabim, even if you know that the friend won't shecht it, and the heter is contingent only on the fact that the friend COULD shecht it. (MB 516:1) You can even send a pair of tefillin to your friend even though it is not needed at all for Yom Tov; the only requirements are that the tefillin are ready-for-use, and that friend gets hanaa from receiving the gift (MB 516:11-12) That whole siman seems to deal with issues of hotzaah and muktzeh, and doesn't even mention kinyanim (at least, I didn't see any such mention). This is very puzzling: Why would there be a difference between giving gifts on Shabbos and on Yom Tov? If this could be answered, it might shed light on what "L'tzorech Shabbos" means. From micha at aishdas.org Tue Nov 14 08:39:28 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2017 11:39:28 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Gilgul Hanefesh In-Reply-To: <3ad8c297-8019-3aa5-de3b-800ffe91d6c9@starways.net> References: <3ad8c297-8019-3aa5-de3b-800ffe91d6c9@starways.net> Message-ID: <20171114163928.GD29616@aishdas.org> On Tue, Nov 07, 2017 at 12:43:04PM +0200, Lisa Liel via Avodah wrote: : As I understand it, gilgul neshamot is not the same as the eastern : idea of reincarnation, where one person's soul literally incarnates : again in another body and lives another life... RSGaon says in (Emunos veDei'os 6:8 tr R' Yosef el-Qafeh, "Kapach"; emphasis mine): Venineini omer ki anashim, mimi SHENIQRA'IM YEHUDIM, matzasim ma'aminim begilgul veqor'in oso haha'ataqus. I left that in Hebrew because I want to be medayeiq in lashon in a moment. To continue, with my translation from the Hebrew: The matter to their minds is that the ruach of Re'uvein will be in Shim'on, and after that in Leivi, and after that in Yehudah. And from them, or most of them figure that it could be that the ruach of a person will be in an animal, and the ruach of an anumal in a person. And a lot of such delusions and confusion. And then the rest of the chapter lists their errors. RYeQ footnotes that R' Uzziel concluded that the people who are "called Jews" who believe such things are the Qaraim. Anan (the founder) picked up this idea from the Greeks. I do not know the original Arabic, but in this translation, notice that it's possible to read RSG as being against people to take the idea of gilgul and call it "ha'ataqus" and describe it as souls migrating from person to person or even to animal, etc... But not against gilgul itself. Which would support Lisa's understanding. This read has two open questions to resolve, not that I am saying they're unanswerable: 1- RSG does use the same Arabic again at the end of the chapter (and ma'amar) that R "Kapach" translates to "gilgul" -- "And I say: what does this say that teaches about gilgul?..." Perhaps it should be read: How do they think those pesuqim indicate that gilgul means ha'ataqah -- they don't talk about gilgul altogether? 2- My bigger problem is that RSG would then be spending all this time on a heretical misunderstanding of gilgul, without even one sentence saying, "But what gilgul *really* means..."? It would even be an important point of the ma'amar's discussion of souls and afterlife. This omission I find highly unlikely. As to how they would differ. The kind of people who talk about gilgul also talk about Naran and sometimes even Naran Chai -- Nefesh Ruach Neshamah, which are the penimios aspects of the soul, and Chayah and Yechidah. For that matter, RSG discusses Naran in the very same ma'amar (6:3 ) as three kochos. To RSG, they are an indisible singularity that has three abilities. But in more Qabbalistic sources, they are described as parts even as the soul's unitary nature is also asserted. If ruach and nashamah are indeed parts, then there is a huge difference between 1- Gilgul nashamos: The neshamah -- and according to the Ari, even "sparks" of a neshamah rather than a whole one -- "revolves" from one life in one body to another. And 2- Ha'ataqa: where the ruach migrates. Neshamah is much less associated with the notion of "self" than ruach is. E.g. "Neshamah shanasati bi, tehorah hi." The "bi -- in me" receives a neshamah. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger It isn't what you have, or who you are, or where micha at aishdas.org you are, or what you are doing, that makes you http://www.aishdas.org happy or unhappy. It's what you think about. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Dale Carnegie From micha at aishdas.org Tue Nov 14 09:31:55 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2017 12:31:55 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Torah precheit? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20171114173155.GE29616@aishdas.org> On Wed, Nov 08, 2017 at 11:53:24AM -0500, H Lampel via Avodah wrote: : On 11/7/2017 6:05 PM, Micha Berger wrote: :> ... that the universe was created at some point in the nearer :> past, eg 5778 years ago -- or Last Thursday -- and everything before that is :> fake. ...is the position of ... R' Avigdor Miller. : He certainly is not of the opinion of last-Thursday-ism. (I suspect RMB did not really mean that.) His opinion is based on the mesora. I meant omphalism. Which is not based on the mesora, it's based on pashut peshat in a pasuq. A pasuq that we don't really have much mesorah saying actually hyas a pashut peshat, at least not one we can comprehend. : Re: "and everything before that is fake. ...is the position of ... R' : Avigdor Miller" : To clarify, R' Avigdor Miller's position is not that fossils, for example, : were planted merely as a test of our emunah. Which is why I didn't say that. Continuing with RZL's quote of RAM's Rejoice O Youth (pp. 47-48): :> Why should the [dinosaurs] need explanation any more than the :> dodo, the passenger pigeon, or any of the other species which :> have become extinct, some even in our time? The huge :> animals of ancient times, as well as many small animals, :> became extinct each in the due time decreed by the timetable :> of Heaven. ... Their existence is a fact which does :> not help th theory of Evolution in any manner. So he says it's simply incomprehensible. I also gave a different explanation than "test of our emunah" -- necessary for having a sensible and detectable teva. My point was to defend the viability of omphalism of both RAM's and the LR's sorts. Asking "Why would Hashem be so cruel as to create all that to mislead, at best to test" question presumes a strawman. : However, that Adam was created as a 30-year-old (as Chazal say), with, : for example, a full mouth of teeth? Yes. Because: :> "Creation means that the Universe began at once in full-blown development. :> The First Man immediately had trees whose fruit he could eat. .... :> (Ibid. pp 45-46) See Bereishis Rabba 14:7 ). According to R Yehudah bar Shimon says that "ofer olam" was created in his fullness. R' Elazar b Shimon says that Chava was too. R' Yochanan says they were creates as 20 (quibble: not 30) year olds. And then down in 14:10, R Yehudah says that Adam was made with a tail, but it was removed for the sake of his kavod. Evolution anywone? BUT: The month that Adam was born in is part of the greater machloqes between R' Yehoshua and R' Eliezer about Nissan vs Tishrei (RH 11a). Meaning, if the world was created in Tishrei, when "the earth brings forth plants and trees full of fruit", then yes, this medrash stands. But if the world was created in Nissan, when the plants start growing and the fruit is emerging from the tree (as the gemara puts it), then perhaps not. In any case, the meaning thereby ascribed to saying the world was made in Nissan is that the universe was created at its start. Regardless of Adam's development when born. So I would have said "one opinion in Chazal", not "as Chazal say". Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Friendship is like stone. A stone has no value, micha at aishdas.org but by rubbing one stone against another, http://www.aishdas.org sparks of fire emerge. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Mordechai of Lechovitz From micha at aishdas.org Tue Nov 14 10:38:37 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2017 13:38:37 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Gifts on Shabbos In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20171114183837.GF29616@aishdas.org> On Mon, Nov 13, 2017 at 08:45:22PM -0500, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : I am trying to get a more precise understanding of when it is : assur/mutar to give someone a gift on Shabbos. ... : The logic is somewhat circular, I think: 306 refers to 323, and 323 : refers to 306... The Mishnah Berurah has mutual references between 306:33 and 323:34. But I don't see the logic itself being circular. 306 spells out the theory, and 323 is an example of that theory and at each place he shows you the other half of the picture. Giving gifts is assur (derabbanan) on Shabbos, except when the purpose of the gift is letzorekh Shabbos, or another mitzvah. Thus, it includes giving a non-toveled keli to a non-Jew so that it can be borrowed back and used *for Shabbos*. But not a wedding gift, which (as per R' Ribiat's bar mitzvah boy) presumably isn't needed by the chasan on Shabbos. And apparently claiming simchas chasan being a mitzvah isn't sufficient to say the gift is letzorekh mitzvah. Which you note as well, although you phrase it in terms of hana'ah and oneg Shabbos, ie lezorekh Shabbos. Perhaps this is because there are other ways to provide simchah or oneg, so it's not "letzorekh". : (1) Many shuls offer printed material, such as parsha sheets, weekly : shul bulletins, and even newspapers and magazines. Or someone might : attend a shiur, where the teacher distributes printed handouts of the : source material. Can I take these home to read or learn from on : Shabbos afternoon? Wouldn't this be a Tzorech Shabbos? I would think so. Why any less than a gift of food? In both cases, the recipient already owns alternatives. So why would something to eat be more letzorekh Shabbos than something to learn? This is unlike the bar mitzvah boy recieving a sefer (acc to R' Ribiat), in that the purpose isn't learning on Shabbos. Implied: A guest who knows the host won't use the food (eg he recommends waiting until the wine is chilled) shouldn't be giving even usable food. Is this the halakhah? Also, I found that ROY (Yechaveh Da'as 3:21) DOES allow giving the bar mitzvah boy that seifer because it provides chizuq. And there is no greater letzorekh mitzvah than that! : (2) Suppose someone is invited to a friend for a Shabbos meal, and he : brings a challah or wine as a gift for the host. The host was not : expecting it and has other food that he was planning to use. Is this : enough of a tzorech Shabbos to transfer ownership? ... Or, in the SA's case... can you give the non-toveled keli to a nakhri when you have just as good or nearly as good alternatives? That you already had thoughts of using? I took it for granted yes, since if not, the SA is oddly missing an important half of the story. Which is why above I only asked about a case where the guest gives something in a way that rules out its use, rather than just left to the host's choice. When I am the guest in this situation, I am zokheh lo shelo befanav and transfer ownership on Friday. Came in handy a couple of times when the host refused the gift. "Well, if you don't want it, you can regift it. Because it's yours already and you aren't allowed to give it back" right now, at least. : Postscript: It seems to me that this issur of giving gifts applies : only on Shabbos, and *not* on Yom Tov... Then why "letzorekh Shabbos or YT"? When do you have something that is letzorekh YT in particular when it's also Shabbos? : (MB 516:1) You can : even send a pair of tefillin to your friend even though it is not : needed at all for Yom Tov; the only requirements are that the tefillin : are ready-for-use, and that friend gets hanaa from receiving the gift : (MB 516:11-12) And the bar mitzvah boy doesn't get the same kind of hana'ah (speaking quality, not quantity) from his uncle's gift of a set of Rambam? Now I'm confused again. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "The worst thing that can happen to a micha at aishdas.org person is to remain asleep and untamed." http://www.aishdas.org - Rabbi Simcha Zissel Ziv, Alter of Kelm Fax: (270) 514-1507 From micha at aishdas.org Tue Nov 14 10:48:32 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2017 13:48:32 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Torah precheit In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20171114184832.GI29616@aishdas.org> On Mon, Nov 13, 2017 at 01:05:02PM +0100, Arie Folger via Avodah wrote: : Bottom line, there very well may exist intelligent aliens out there, but we : are near 100% sure that we will never ever be able to meet them. Nice chiluq! : Which leads me to the following observation: If there are aliens out there : which we will one day meet, then we could not accept their *competing* : Revelation. There is only one 'am hanivchar... Who said that "nivchar mibein ha'amim" means anything beyond benei Adam, amim as caused by Migdal Bavel? Perhaps their revelation isn't so much competing as the RBSO providing them a chance at redemption before Yom Hashem haGadol vehanora, or at least before whenever it is we get there? : them as a special kind of Noachides with a possible true revelation that : is, however, subordinate to ours and can never contradict it. This is itself the question I was trying to keep under discussion. Could we even recognize a contradiction? After all, the appearance of Retzon haBorei to creatures very different than us isn't likely to have many points where we can contradict. Assuming they are ethical monotheists, that is. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger It's never too late micha at aishdas.org to become the person http://www.aishdas.org you might have been. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - George Eliot From meirabi at gmail.com Thu Nov 16 16:11:31 2017 From: meirabi at gmail.com (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi) Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2017 11:11:31 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] How Much Salt for Kashering? Message-ID: Kosher meat must have all traces of blood removed. This procedure is known as 'Kashering' and requires very precise procedures and timing of rinsing, soaking, salting and finally removal of the salt and blood via rinsing and washing. Halachah provides no precise measure of salt to be used for Kashering and although insisting that all surfaces must be covered with salt, does not differentiate between small and large surface area to volume ratios, i.e. thick or thin pieces of meat. In other words a large circular hunk of meat [small ratio of surface area to volume] requires the identical amount of surface salt and time for Kashering as does a thin piece [large ratio of surface area to volume] Furthermore, a 20cm thick piece of meat will be Kashered when salted on both sides, meaning the salt will extract blood from a depth of 10 cm, but a 4cm thick piece of meat salted only on one side will not be Kosher. It seems like the process has been standardised to accommodate all cases. Nevertheless, although Halachah permits various shortcuts when Kashering for emergency situations, it does not advise Kashering thin slices to reduce preparation time. Meat that was cooked before it was Kashered will make everything in the pot it is cooked with non-Kosher. Halacha asserts there is as much blood in the piece of meat as the mass of meat. If however, there is enough Kosher food in the pot to render the blood insignificant, the food will be Kosher. Halachah requires 60 units of Kosher food to neutralise every unit of blood [1 gram of blood requires 60 grams of Kosher food] In other words, a 100 gram piece of meat will require 6kg to neutralise the blood. However, meat that was cooked after Kashering but before the blood and salt was washed off, requires only 60 times the salt and blood on the surface of the meat i.e. soaked into the salt. The blood that was in the meat has been removed by the salting. Some authorities [a note in the ShaArei Dura] assert that every piece of meat is itself large enough to neutralise the salt whilst others [the Rama 69:9] assert it provides only half the mass required. ????? ??"? - ??? ????? ???? ??? ????? ?????? ?????? ???? ??? ???? ???? ???? ??? ??? ??? ???? ?? ??? ?? ?? ???? ????? ??? ??? ????? ?? ??? ?? ??? ????? ????? ???? ??? ????? ??? ??? ?? ???? ???? ?? ??? ???? The Rama however disagrees with the ratio - "there can be no question that if the pot contains as much as the mass of the meat, it is certainly more than 60 times the salt ...." See Shach that BeDiAvad, we may rely upon the lenient opinion particularly if it is a thick piece. ????? ???? ??????????? ?''? ?????? ?????????? ??????????? ????? ??????, ?????? ??????, ?????????? ?????? ????????? ????? ???????? ?????? ?????????? ????????????? ???????? ?????????? ???? ?????????? ????? ???????? ?????????, (????????? ?????? ?''? ?''? To the best of my knowledge, this is the only source that provides an empiric measurement of how much salt is to be used for Kashering. Keep in mind that since this is a general ruling it must encompass all cases, the guidelines must reflect the maximum amount of salt that would be applied and that would remain until the meat is ready for its final washdown. In the words of the Rama, "there can be no question that if the pot contains as much as the mass of the meat, it is certainly more than 60 times the salt ...." The Halacha must provide the maximum safety margin and must therefore assume that the maximum amount of salt was applied and remains on the meat when it is added to the pot. Further, the Halacha must accommodate the largest surface area to meat ratio [ChAdam 32:4] and the heaviest salting hand. In other words, every possible variant that increases the amount of salt used is turned up to the max - and in this worst possible case scenario, we can be certain that the salt is no more than one thirtieth of the mass of the meat. In other words, an average sized steak, 300 - 400 gms, requires no more than 2 teaspoonfuls of salt for Kashering. Another thing that is certain - all Kosher agencies apply far more salt for Kashering than one thirtieth. Does it make a difference? Well, these days, the cost of disposing of contaminants is rising dramatically and salt is deemed a nasty contaminant and is becoming more expensive to dispose. It already adds a significant cost to production. Best, Meir G. Rabi 0423 207 837 +61 423 207 837 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From meirabi at gmail.com Sat Nov 18 13:25:21 2017 From: meirabi at gmail.com (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi) Date: Sun, 19 Nov 2017 08:25:21 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] Sedra Toldos - Balance, When Parents Favour One Child Message-ID: Our actions are pretty much prompted by Life's circumstances, we are mostly provoked to react. We do [many/most] things to counter a perceived imbalance, an injustice. Perhaps, with this in mind, we can better understand Yitzchak, Rivkah and Eisav as they are portrayed in this week's Sedra. Isaac favoured Eisav, because he was "Tzayid BeFiv", Rivkah favoured YaAkov [25:28] We are told why Yitzchak favours Eisav but not why Rivkah favours YaAkov. Yitzchak favours Eisav because Eisav is a "Tzayid BeFiv" lit. hunted with his mouth. Rashi explains this as either [or both] - he deceived his father like a hunter lying in ambush or stalking prey and catching it at a vulnerable moment, i.e. feeding Yitchak fake news to present himself as exceedingly Gd fearing; or, he fed Yitzchak tasty food, "Make me the tasty food I enjoy ... so that I might bless you before I die." [27:4] But Eisav was not a better cook than Rivkah - "she made him a delicious dish just as he liked" [27:14] [unless she had him on a healthy food diet and Eisav was Yitzchak's secret steak supplier] Eisav loved his father and he loved hunting [25:27]. He desperately sought his father's approval. He pursued this as he best knew, by hunting and even by lying. We might even say that he felt as though he was hunting for his father's love. Yitzchak understood, he encouraged Eisav to hunt and cook for him. He even reminded Eisav to take his hunting weapons when he instructs him to hunt and prepare food before he blesses him - Yitzchak wants Eisav to be engaged in the hunting and preparation of the food, because it is this engagement that is their link and best encapsulates his approval of his son Eisav. In other words, "It's not the food I want, for that I could ask your mother or you could grab an animal from our flock - it would be much quicker. No, I want you to be of service to me. Knowing that you have hunted to provide for me makes me happy and I enjoy the food more." Eisav knew that his mother was capable of and willing to provide her husband with all the tasty food he could stomach. He got the message that it was not food that Yitzchak wanted. Yitzchak was reaching out to Eisav, knowing how desperately Eisav sought his approval. Eisav learned how to cook in order to express his love. He even deceived Yitchak, painting himself as the Gd fearing son in order to win his father's approval. Best, Meir G. Rabi 0423 207 837 +61 423 207 837 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From akivagmiller at gmail.com Sat Nov 18 19:23:18 2017 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Sat, 18 Nov 2017 22:23:18 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] T'hay Message-ID: There is a word spelled tav-heh-aleph, pronounced "t'hay". Is this word Hebrew or Aramaic? >From context and sound, I have always presumed that it means something very similar to "yihyeh". Is that correct? If they are indeed similar in meaning, then I imgine that they is still some slight shade of difference. If they meant the exact same thing, wouldn't authors use the more common word (yihyeh) instead? This would be the case even if t'hay is Hebrew, and it would certainly be true if t'hay is Aramaic. The reason I'm asking these questions is because I have found a surprising number of paragraphs in my siddur, where all the words are obviously Hebrew, except for this one word. Including a foreign word in a text is not unheard of (there's a Latin word in Nachem, for example), but this is generally done because there is no native word with the precise meaning that the author is aiming for. And I can't imagine why "yihyeh" doesn't work in these cases: Hamapil: "us'hay mitasi shleima l'fanecha" Birkas Hamazon, near the end: "zechus shet'hay l'mishmeres shalom" Birkas Hamazon on Shabbos: "shelo t'hay tzara" Birkas Hachodesh: "chayim shet'hay banu ahavas torah" Avinu Malkenu: "t'hay hashaah hazos" Yizkor: "bis'char zeh t'hay nafsho" Yom Kippur Musaf, the Kohen Gadol's tefila: "shet'hay hashana hazos" Kel Malay Rachamim: "b'gan eden t'hay menuchaso" (I have omitted parts of the siddur that are taken from the Mishna (such as Bameh Madlikin and Pitum Haketores) because it is the nature of the Mishna to mix Hebrew and Aramaic, so use of the word "t'hay" isn't a glaring exception the way it is in the rest of the siddur. Also, I note that my examples were all taken from Nusach Ashkenaz; other nuschaos may have more or fewer instances of this word.) Thank you, Akiva Miller From simon.montagu at gmail.com Mon Nov 20 00:38:38 2017 From: simon.montagu at gmail.com (Simon Montagu) Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2017 10:38:38 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] T'hay In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sun, Nov 19, 2017 at 5:23 AM, Akiva Miller via Avodah < avodah at lists.aishdas.org> wrote: > There is a word spelled tav-heh-aleph, pronounced "t'hay". Is this > word Hebrew or Aramaic? > Hebrew. I believe the Aramaic equivalent would be tehevi. > > From context and sound, I have always presumed that it means something > very similar to "yihyeh". Is that correct? > > If they are indeed similar in meaning, then I imgine that they is > still some slight shade of difference. If they meant the exact same > thing, wouldn't authors use the more common word (yihyeh) instead? > This would be the case even if t'hay is Hebrew, and it would certainly > be true if t'hay is Aramaic. > > The reason I'm asking these questions is because I have found a > surprising number of paragraphs in my siddur, where all the words are > obviously Hebrew, except for this one word. Including a foreign word > in a text is not unheard of (there's a Latin word in Nachem, for > example), but this is generally done because there is no native word > with the precise meaning that the author is aiming for. And I can't > imagine why "yihyeh" doesn't work in these cases: (At any rate it would be "tihyeh" in the cases you quote, which are all in the feminine) In my siddur (Singer's) all the examples you give are "tehi" with a yud, which is Biblical Hebrew, as in "Tehi ala benotenu" in last week's parasha (Bereshit 26:28). The difference between yihyeh/yehi and tihyeh/tehi is that the first is future and the second is jussive (though the future can be used in a jussive sense). I assume the form with alef is Rabbinic Hebrew. How it comes to be used in the siddur, or in which nushaot exactly, I don't know. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jay at m5.chicago.il.us Mon Nov 20 05:12:52 2017 From: jay at m5.chicago.il.us (Jay F. Shachter) Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2017 13:12:52 +0000 (WET) Subject: [Avodah] How Much Salt for Kashering? In-Reply-To: from "avodah-request@lists.aishdas.org" at Nov 16, 2017 06:40:58 pm Message-ID: <15112051720.1Acb3A518.50843@lsd.chicago.il.us.chicago.il.us> > > Kosher meat must have all traces of blood removed. > No, it does not. This is true only if you are going to cook the meat before eating it. Jay F. ("Yaakov") Shachter 6424 N Whipple St Chicago IL 60645-4111 (1-773)7613784 landline (1-410)9964737 GoogleVoice jay at m5.chicago.il.us http://m5.chicago.il.us "Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur" From lisa at starways.net Mon Nov 20 04:02:11 2017 From: lisa at starways.net (Lisa Liel) Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2017 14:02:11 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] T'hay In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <91877a4d-0aeb-1a75-d7b1-78f399a2746e@starways.net> I'm not sure.? We have "yehei ra'ava kadamach" in Brich Shmei d'Marei Alma, which is definitely Aramaic.? The yehei is the same as tehei. I think what's happening here is that there's a certain amount of bleed-over between Hebrew and Aramaic.? In addition, there were different dialects of Aramaic in Eretz Yisrael and Bavel.? So while tehevei may be the correct Aramaic, tehei may be as well. Lisa On 11/20/2017 10:38 AM, Simon Montagu via Avodah wrote: > On Sun, Nov 19, 2017 at 5:23 AM, Akiva Miller via Avodah > > wrote: > > There is a word spelled tav-heh-aleph, pronounced "t'hay". Is this > word Hebrew or Aramaic? > > > Hebrew. I believe the Aramaic equivalent would be tehevi. > From micha at aishdas.org Mon Nov 20 10:24:50 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2017 13:24:50 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Sedra Toldos - Balance, When Parents Favour One Child In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20171120182450.GA24872@aishdas.org> On Sun, Nov 19, 2017 at 08:25:21AM +1100, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: : But Eisav was not a better cook than Rivkah - "she made him a delicious : dish just as he liked" [27:14] [unless she had him on a healthy food diet : and Eisav was Yitzchak's secret steak supplier] Or the hunter was usually the one who prepared the game, whereas Rivqa tended to be cooking the animals they farmed. ... : Yitzchak understood, he encouraged Eisav to hunt and cook for him. He even : reminded Eisav to take his hunting weapons when he instructs him to hunt : and prepare food before he blesses him - Yitzchak wants Eisav to be engaged : in the hunting and preparation of the food, because it is this engagement : that is their link and best encapsulates his approval of his son Eisav... Perhaps this is the whole point of the Torah's not saying why Rivqa preferred Yaaqov. Yitzchaq's additional love of Esav was teluyah bedavar, and that fact impacted Eisav's choices. Rivqa love Yaaqov, full stop, not for some reason. There is also an idea I heard from RYBS and often utilized in Gush circles that had things turned out more positively, Eisav would have been the physical arm of the same project as Yaaqv's Torah. Eisav's children would have supported and protected Yaaqov's. According to the Qedushas Levi's version of this idea, Yitzchaq knew Eisav had failings, but felt that the person who was supposed to go out into the real world was bound to be the tzadiq who "falls 7 times and arises" (to quote Shelomo haMelekh). What Yaaqov missed was the nevu'ah "ushnei le'umim mimei'ayikh yipareidu". He thought that the ideal plan, Esav and Yaaqov together without such pirud, was still how history was going to play out. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Spirituality is like a bird: if you tighten micha at aishdas.org your grip on it, it chokes; slacken your grip, http://www.aishdas.org and it flies away. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From micha at aishdas.org Mon Nov 20 11:11:25 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2017 14:11:25 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Hutrah and Dechuyah in Yibum Message-ID: <20171120191124.GB24872@aishdas.org> The topic of EhE 165 is whether yibum or chalitzah is the preferred choice. The Rambam and Rif side with yibum (in cases when yibum is in the almanah's best interest), as per the mishnah rishonah and possibly repeated by the chakhamim in the gemara (Yevamos 39b). Whereas R' Tam, R' Chananel & the Smag hold like Abba Shaul, that since it's too likely the yavam has other things than reestablishing his brother's bayis in mind, chalitzah is the better choice, bizman hazeh. The AhS has an interesting take. First, in se'if 5, he rules out the issue being mitzvos tzerikhos kavanah. If AS gave preference to chalitzah because yibum requires kavanah, then it would be the Rambam and the Rif -- the rishonim who more often hold mitzvos tzerichos kavanah -- who would be siding with him. The AhS (se'if 6) proposes that the machloqes is huterah vs dechuyah. If yibum is a matir for eishes ach, there is no problem doing the mitzvah of yibum even if the yavam's interest is in his new wife solely for her own qualities. However, if it is only docheh eishes ach, then any other kavanah for performing yibum is desire for a sin, and thus should be avoided by choosing chalitzah. And that this is the norm today. I noticed that happens to parallel who holds piquach nefesh is matir melekhes Shabbos vs who holds it is docheh it. There too Sepharadi rishonim don't feel a need to minimize melakhah (huterah), whereas the Ashk rishonim try to (because it's only dechuyah). Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger I thank God for my handicaps, for, through them, micha at aishdas.org I have found myself, my work, and my God. http://www.aishdas.org - Helen Keller Fax: (270) 514-1507 From meirabi at gmail.com Mon Nov 20 14:35:03 2017 From: meirabi at gmail.com (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi) Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2017 09:35:03 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] Sedra Toldos - Balance, When Parents Favour One Child In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I prefer not to be so speculative about the motivations, Eisav had failings, but Yitzchak felt that the person who was supposed to go out into the real world, But what I proposed does not exclude that possibility. Although, giving the blessings to someone with known failings seems unlikely. Depends I suppose on how extensive those failings are or how well they were known to Yitzchak. Or it might just be that he was the Bechor, HKBH's choice. Should Yitzchak challenge HKBH? I wrote - Yitzchak understood, he encouraged Eisav to hunt and cook for him. He even reminded Eisav .... Eisav loved his father and he loved hunting [25:27]. He desperately sought his father's approval. He pursued this as he best knew, by hunting and even by lying. We might even say that he felt as though he was hunting for his father's love. Yitzchak understood, he encouraged Eisav to hunt and cook for him. He even reminded Eisav to take his hunting weapons when he instructs him to hunt and prepare food before he blesses him - Yitzchak wants Eisav to be engaged in the hunting and preparation of the food, because it is this engagement that is their link and best encapsulates his approval of his son Eisav. In other words, "It's not the food I want, for that I could ask your mother or you could grab an animal from our flock - it would be much quicker. No, I want you to be of service to me. Knowing that you have hunted to provide for me makes me happy and I enjoy the food more." Eisav knew that his mother was capable of and willing to provide her husband with all the tasty food he could stomach. He got the message that it was not food that Yitzchak wanted. Yitzchak was reaching out to Eisav, knowing how desperately Eisav sought his approval. Eisav learned how to cook in order to express his love. He even deceived Yitchak, painting himself as the Gd fearing son in order to win his father's approval. Best, M -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Mon Nov 20 14:10:27 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2017 17:10:27 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] How Much Salt for Kashering? In-Reply-To: <15112051720.1Acb3A518.50843@lsd.chicago.il.us.chicago.il.us> References: <15112051720.1Acb3A518.50843@lsd.chicago.il.us.chicago.il.us> Message-ID: <20171120221027.GD24830@aishdas.org> On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 01:12:52PM +0000, Jay F. Shachter via Avodah wrote: :> Kosher meat must have all traces of blood removed. Dam here means blood in the circulatory system. Not blood within tissue. Problem with translations; there often isn't a 1:1. Particularly in cases of terms of art, like "dam" in this context. : No, it does not. This is true only if you are going to cook the meat : before eating it. SA YD 27:2 does say you don't need salting. (See limitations in 3-4.) But... this is because all the dam can be removed by removing the veins, and simple rinsing. So, in the same sense that cooked meat needs melichah to remove all traces of dam, so too does raw "[k]osher meat must have all traces of [dam] removed." Seems Tir'u baTov! -Micha From micha at aishdas.org Mon Nov 20 13:37:22 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2017 16:37:22 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Fwd [Aspaqlaria]: Post-Modern Orthodoxy Message-ID: <20171120213722.GB24830@aishdas.org> My most recent blog post, in which I argue that Post-Modern Orthodoxy is a contradiction of terms. -micha Post-Modern Orthodoxy micha - Published Mon, Nov 20, 2017 Modern Orthodoxy is based on an integration of Orthodoxy with life in the modern world. However, with R' JB Soloveitchik's passing, the movement was left without a luminary who analyzes and discusses matters of worldview. Consequently, Modern Orthodoxy's thought is that of the mid 20th century, when Neo-Kantian and Existential answers addressed the kinds of religious questions people on the street were confronting. And so, the argument is today, that there is a need for someone to articulate a Post-Modern Orthodoxy. This is why there was much discussion in some Modern Orthodox circles with the publication of a selection of R' Shimon Gershon Rosenburg -- "Rav Shagar"`s -- essays in English. "Faith Shattered and Restored: Judaism in the Postmodern Age", edited by Rabbi Dr. Zohar Maor, was published by Maggid Books this past June. Dr. Alan Brill, on his blog, carried numerous translations of R' Shagar since, as well as analysis of his thought. In particular, see this post of notes that Dr Brill compiled while teaching R' Shagar's thought, "Rav Shagar: To be connected to Eyn -- Living in a Postmodern World". Times of Israel had an interview with R/Dr Maor, "Israel's paradoxical man of faith, deconstructed". And recently, R Gil Perl, an alumnus of Yeshivat Har Etzion ("Gush") who became a student of Rav Shagar, wrote an essay about why R' Shagar's thought spoke to him in a way that the teachings of R' Aharon Lichtenstein of Gush couldn't in the long run. See "Postmodern Orthodoxy: Giving Voice to a New Generation". To give you an idea of R Shagar's thought, he likens Deconstructionism to Sheviras haKeilim -- the Qabbalistic idea that Creation involved the breaking of vessels, and the post-modern's inability to consider an idea to be objectively true. He builds a case for the condition of having difficulty with belief and therefore believing in nothing and turns it into a Ism of believing in Nothing. Identifying that lower-case-n nothing with the Ayin, the capital-N Nothingness from which G-d made Yeish, something (indeed, everything). Me, I think it doesn't work. Post-Modernism is a confusion of the subjectivity of my justification for knowing something with the subjectivity of the known. Meaning, I can know objective truths for entirely personal and subjective reasons. I can be convinced of halakhah because of my personal experience of the beauty of Shabbos. Not from my liking Shabbos; from that about the Shabbos experience I find beautiful, likable, meaningful, and True. I know that hilkhos Shabbos as we have them today really did objectively speaking come from the Creator by way of my personal experience of Shabbos. Objective truth, subjective justification. In contrast, in Post-Modern thought, since I have no guarantee of objectively proving anything to anyone else, the notion of objective truth is entirely denied. There isn't "the truth" as much a "his truth" or "her truth", narratives people and societies construct for themselves. And this touches everything on the college campus from religious beliefs to defending the Palestinian because we have our narrative and they have theirs. (There is room for every narrative but those that exclude other narratives.) In the real world outside those ivory towers, though, you won't find too many people with Post-Modern notions of science, declaring (eg) that math or physics are merely social constructs. But certainly outside the realm of the scientifically provable Post-Modern thinking has become part of the zeitgeist. My problem with "Postmodern Orthodoxy" is that Post-Modernism (as I just described it) is inherently incompatible with the notion of a lower-case-o orthodoxy, including our case, capital-O Orthodox Judaism. I often said on Facebook that one reason why more are going OTD in this generation than in mine is that Post-Modernism has become part of the common culture. It is impossible to maintain any orthodoxy, including O, if one believes that there are no objective truths, or even that there is nothing one could ever assert as objectively true. There is a profound difference between believing there is an absolute truth that I personally do not fully know or understand -- which R' Gil Perl presented as R' Lichtenstein's position, and believing that all truths are human conditioned. Between a personal nothing and an ideal of Nothingness. And yet, R Shagar says just that. To repeat a quote of Rav Shagar used in R Perl's article, "All truths may be the product of human conditioning, but such conditioning constitutes the medium through which the divine manifests in the world." Rav Shagar's position strikes me as internally inconsistent. For example, to This presupposes that there is a Divine which is manifest in the world, and any claim that says otherwise would defy that Truth. So, there is at least that one central Truth that is necessarily true, regardless of human conditioning. The entire notion of considering any of the Articles of Faith human conditioned, true only from our perspective, enters the heretical. Another example, R Shagar's Post-Modern Orthodox Jew will speak of revelation "though he knows there are varying and conflicting revelations, the contradictions do not paralyze him." If one does not believe the revelation via Moshe and the revelation of the Torah are unique, are they not koferim baTorah according to the Rambam? How many rabbanim would allow you to use the wine of someone who believes that the only reason to embrace the Torah's message is because it's "the faith of our fathers" (as R' Shagar describes it) and not different in kind than the message of the New Testament or the Qur'an? There are two ways we can speak of the ideal human: we can describe life on the mountain peak, the person who has perfect generosity, perfect patience, perfect faith, a perfect relationship with G-d and other people, etc... But we know that actualize perfection is unachievable for anyone bug G-d. So, the true ideal human is one constantly working toward having those perfect relationships, trying their best, constantly growing. But they are two different things -- the ideal in the sense of the goal to strive for, and the ideal of being a striver. We need to learn to separate these notions. Ayin is part of the ideology. A crisis of faith, those times of nothingness, is part of the reach to internalize that ideology. The ideal life for most of us will be struggling with the ideology; but once one makes that struggle part of the ideology itself, I fear one crossed the line. From afolger at aishdas.org Tue Nov 21 01:28:58 2017 From: afolger at aishdas.org (Arie Folger) Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2017 10:28:58 +0100 Subject: [Avodah] Torah precheit Message-ID: A little postscript to my statement, that regarding aliens we might one day meet, that we cold not accept any competing revelation, only one that is of a kind of Noachide revelation, subordinate to ours, well... Let me admit that in stating that, I was displaying a human bias: I unreasonably assumed that aliens would be a kind of otherworldly humans. However, insofar as they are radically different species (which would be likely), then I see no problem of them having their own revelation and their own 'am hanivchar, *as* *long* *as* *their* *revelation* *doesn't* *contradict* *ours*, i.e. we could not accept a revelation that claims that 'avoda zara is muttar, that murder is muttar or that assumes the existence of several deities. -- Arie Folger -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hmaryles at yahoo.com Tue Nov 21 07:30:45 2017 From: hmaryles at yahoo.com (Harry Maryles) Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2017 15:30:45 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Avodah] Fwd [Aspaqlaria]: Post-Modern Orthodoxy In-Reply-To: <20171120213722.GB24830@aishdas.org> References: <20171120213722.GB24830@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <570709339.403139.1511278245922@mail.yahoo.com> I read Gil Perl's article and I don't understand why the idea of? RAL's not knowing or being able to know but nonetheless believing doesn't speak to him. I find all the talk about there being no objective truth to be irrelevant. Truth goes beyond provable fact. It even goes beyond the contradictions to belief by newly discovered scientific truths which by definition are subject to change with new discoveries. In the Lonely Man of Faith, RYBS explains that there are no cognitive categories in which the total commitment of the man of faith could be spelled out. The commitment is rooted not in one dimension, such as the rational one, but in the whole personality of the man of faith. The whole human being; the rational as well as the non-rational is committed to God. Hence the magnitude of commitment is beyond the comprehension of the logos and the ethos. The intellect does not chart the course of the man of faith. It is a function not only of the logic of the mind. It is also a function of the logic of the heart. An apriori awareness that becomes an axiom - a conclusion that cannot rely on solely rational considerations.? HM Want Emes and Emunah in your life? Try this: http://haemtza.blogspot.com/ On Monday, November 20, 2017, 7:25:20 PM CST, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: My most recent blog post, in which I argue that Post-Modern Orthodoxy is a contradiction of terms. -micha Post-Modern Orthodoxy micha - Published Mon, Nov 20, 2017 Modern Orthodoxy is based on an integration of Orthodoxy with life in the modern world. However, with R' JB Soloveitchik's passing, the movement was left without a luminary who analyzes and discusses matters of worldview. Consequently, Modern Orthodoxy's thought is that of the mid 20th century, when Neo-Kantian and Existential answers addressed the kinds of religious questions people on the street were confronting. And so, the argument is today, that there is a need for someone to articulate a Post-Modern Orthodoxy. This is why there was much discussion in some Modern Orthodox circles with the publication of a selection of R' Shimon Gershon Rosenburg -- "Rav Shagar"`s -- essays in English. "Faith Shattered and Restored: Judaism in the Postmodern Age", edited by Rabbi Dr. Zohar Maor, was published by Maggid Books this past June. Dr. Alan Brill, on his blog, carried numerous translations of R' Shagar since, as well as analysis of his thought. In particular, see this post of notes that Dr Brill compiled while teaching R' Shagar's thought, "Rav Shagar: To be connected to Eyn -- Living in a Postmodern World". Times of Israel had an interview with R/Dr Maor, "Israel's paradoxical man of faith, deconstructed". And recently, R Gil Perl, an alumnus of Yeshivat Har Etzion ("Gush") who became a student of Rav Shagar, wrote an essay about why R' Shagar's thought spoke to him in a way that the teachings of R' Aharon Lichtenstein of Gush couldn't in the long run. See "Postmodern Orthodoxy: Giving Voice to a New Generation". To give you an idea of R Shagar's thought, he likens Deconstructionism to Sheviras haKeilim -- the Qabbalistic idea that Creation involved the breaking of vessels, and the post-modern's inability to consider an idea to be objectively true. He builds a case for the condition of having difficulty with belief and therefore believing in nothing and turns it into a Ism of believing in Nothing. Identifying that lower-case-n nothing with the Ayin, the capital-N Nothingness from which G-d made Yeish, something (indeed, everything). Me, I think it doesn't work. Post-Modernism is a confusion of the subjectivity of my justification for knowing something with the subjectivity of the known. Meaning, I can know objective truths for entirely personal and subjective reasons. I can be convinced of halakhah because of my personal experience of the beauty of Shabbos. Not from my liking Shabbos; from that about the Shabbos experience I find beautiful, likable, meaningful, and True. I know that hilkhos Shabbos as we have them today really did objectively speaking come from the Creator by way of my personal experience of Shabbos. Objective truth, subjective justification. In contrast, in Post-Modern thought, since I have no guarantee of objectively proving anything to anyone else, the notion of objective truth is entirely denied. There isn't "the truth" as much a "his truth" or "her truth", narratives people and societies construct for themselves. And this touches everything on the college campus from religious beliefs to defending the Palestinian because we have our narrative and they have theirs. (There is room for every narrative but those that exclude other narratives.) In the real world outside those ivory towers, though, you won't find too many people with Post-Modern notions of science, declaring (eg) that math or physics are merely social constructs. But certainly outside the realm of the scientifically provable Post-Modern thinking has become part of the zeitgeist. My problem with "Postmodern Orthodoxy" is that Post-Modernism (as I just described it) is inherently incompatible with the notion of a lower-case-o orthodoxy, including our case, capital-O Orthodox Judaism. I often said on Facebook that one reason why more are going OTD in this generation than in mine is that Post-Modernism has become part of the common culture. It is impossible to maintain any orthodoxy, including O, if one believes that there are no objective truths, or even that there is nothing one could ever assert as objectively true. There is a profound difference between believing there is an absolute truth that I personally do not fully know or understand -- which R' Gil Perl presented as R' Lichtenstein's position, and believing that all truths are human conditioned. Between a personal nothing and an ideal of Nothingness. And yet, R Shagar says just that. To repeat a quote of Rav Shagar used in R Perl's article, "All truths may be the product of human conditioning, but such conditioning constitutes the medium through which the divine manifests in the world." Rav Shagar's position strikes me as internally inconsistent. For example, to This presupposes that there is a Divine which is manifest in the world, and any claim that says otherwise would defy that Truth. So, there is at least that one central Truth that is necessarily true, regardless of human conditioning. The entire notion of considering any of the Articles of Faith human conditioned, true only from our perspective, enters the heretical. Another example, R Shagar's Post-Modern Orthodox Jew will speak of revelation "though he knows there are varying and conflicting revelations, the contradictions do not paralyze him." If one does not believe the revelation via Moshe and the revelation of the Torah are unique, are they not koferim baTorah according to the Rambam? How many rabbanim would allow you to use the wine of someone who believes that the only reason to embrace the Torah's message is because it's "the faith of our fathers" (as R' Shagar describes it) and not different in kind than the message of the New Testament or the Qur'an? There are two ways we can speak of the ideal human: we can describe life on the mountain peak, the person who has perfect generosity, perfect patience, perfect faith, a perfect relationship with G-d and other people, etc... But we know that actualize perfection is unachievable for anyone bug G-d. So, the true ideal human is one constantly working toward having those perfect relationships, trying their best, constantly growing. But they are two different things -- the ideal in the sense of the goal to strive for, and the ideal of being a striver. We need to learn to separate these notions. Ayin is part of the ideology. A crisis of faith, those times of nothingness, is part of the reach to internalize that ideology. The ideal life for most of us will be struggling with the ideology; but once one makes that struggle part of the ideology itself, I fear one crossed the line. _______________________________________________ Avodah mailing list Avodah at lists.aishdas.org http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Tue Nov 21 06:25:15 2017 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2017 14:25:15 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Notes on RSRH's Philosopy of Judaism Message-ID: <1511274314342.40161@stevens.edu> Please see the pdf file at http://www.halakhah.com/rst/hirsch.pdf YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Tue Nov 21 05:54:15 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2017 08:54:15 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] T'hay In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20171121135414.GB15991@aishdas.org> On Sat, Nov 18, 2017 at 10:23:18PM -0500, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : There is a word spelled tav-heh-aleph, pronounced "t'hay". Is this : word Hebrew or Aramaic? Sidenote, just to complicate things. Assuming that when someone with the last name "Miller" speaks of what he finds "in my siddur" is looking in an Ashkenazi one... RSM found in manuscripts that earlier Ashkenazi siddurim honed much closer to leshon Chazal than we do. The example I usually cite is "vesein chleqeinu beSorasakh, sab'einu mituvakh..." as Sepharadim have it. Your siddur probably consistently has "Sha'atah", not "she'atah". This is a "correction" to the form that appears in seifer Sofetim. One holdover is "Modim anachnu Lakh", instead of "Lekha"... but then followed by "Sha'atah". It appears to be largely the work of one person, R' Shelomo Zalman Hanau (Katz), author of the Binyan Shalomo. He then compiles a siddur, Shaarei Tefillah. R' Yaaqov Emden's Lueach Eresh is a rebuttal of the Razah's grammatical theories, and kedarko beqodesh, he doesn't pull punches. For example, the Binyan Shelomo was printed with a hasqamah from R' Tzvi Ashkenazi; RYE wrote that his father's hasqamah was forged. The Alter Rebbe, in composing Nusach haAri, was heavily influenced by the Razah's theory of diqduq. And slowly other Ashkenazim switched from leshon Chazal to leshon Tanakh. Even RZBaer and the Yekkes. So, with a siddur that is partially in one version of Hebrew and partially in another, who knows how any word settled on one set of diqduq rules or the other. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "I hear, then I forget; I see, then I remember; micha at aishdas.org I do, then I understand." - Confucius http://www.aishdas.org "Hearing doesn't compare to seeing." - Mechilta Fax: (270) 514-1507 "We will do and we will listen." - Israelites From meirabi at gmail.com Tue Nov 21 15:38:02 2017 From: meirabi at gmail.com (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi) Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2017 10:38:02 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] Kosher meat must have all traces of blood removed Message-ID: I am happy to amend to Before cooking, Kosher meat must have all traces of blood removed Best, Meir G. Rabi 0423 207 837 +61 423 207 837 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From larry62341 at optonline.net Wed Nov 22 06:20:47 2017 From: larry62341 at optonline.net (Prof. Levine) Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2017 09:20:47 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Sedra Toldos - Balance, When Parents Favour One Child In-Reply-To: <56bc7b19424c44b7aec48fc7014df583@exchng03.campus.stevens-t ech.edu> References: <56bc7b19424c44b7aec48fc7014df583@exchng03.campus.stevens-tech.edu> Message-ID: <7E.4D.03148.0C7851A5@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> At 10:52 AM 11/21/2017, R Micha Berger wrote: >Perhaps this is the whole point of the Torah's not saying why Rivqa >preferred Yaaqov. Yitzchaq's additional love of Esav was teluyah bedavar, >and that fact impacted Eisav's choices. Rivqa love Yaaqov, full stop, >not for some reason. I suggest you read RSRH's essay Lessons From Jacob and Esau (Collected Writings VII) YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From JRich at sibson.com Wed Nov 22 21:54:08 2017 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2017 05:54:08 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] sefer torah's path Message-ID: <7df4daee86e84ff48f391450b891c5f0@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> From R' Aviner: Bringing the Torah to People to Kiss Q: Is it permissible to bring the Sefer Torah in the Shul towards people who want to kiss it? A: No. This is a disgrace to the Sefer Torah. They should approach the Sefer Torah. Piskei Teshuvot 134:6. I have been to more than a few shuls that particularly on Shabbat take the long road - any ideas on who they are relying on? (not to mention those who lower the sefer torah so the kids can kiss it too) KT 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: From marty.bluke at gmail.com Sat Nov 25 12:27:38 2017 From: marty.bluke at gmail.com (Marty Bluke) Date: Sat, 25 Nov 2017 22:27:38 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] How can R' Yochanan and Resh Lakish argue about the tradition of a Gezera Shava? Message-ID: The Gemara in Makos(14b) has a dispute between R' Yochanan and Resh Lakish which revolves around a gezera shava. R' Yochanan has the gezera shava and Resh Lakish does not, Rashi explains that Resh Lakish did not get this gezera shava from his rebbeim. This seems very difficult because the gemara in Bava Metzia (84a) describes how Resh Lakish was the head of a group of bandits and R' Yochanan persuaded hm to learn Torah and was clearly Rabo Muvhak. In fact, they were so close that after Resh Lakish's death, R' Yochanan lost his mind and died. Given this, how can it be that R' Yochanan had a gezera shava and Resh Lakish didn't because lo kiblu merabo, R' Yochanan was his Rebbe so why wouldn't R' Yochanan have taught him this gezera shava? R' Yochanan clearly had a kabbala on this gezera shava so why wouldn't his talmid muvhak Resh Lakish have gotten this kabbala from his rebbe? The answer can't be that Resh Lakish argued on this because gezera shava's are a kabbala from your rebbe, period. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Thu Nov 23 15:55:59 2017 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2017 23:55:59 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] More on Yaakov, sheep and the rods Message-ID: <1511481358587.99267@stevens.edu> The following is from RSRH's commentary on Bereishis 30:37 Ya'akov then took for himself rods of fresh aspen and hazelnut and chestnut trees, and peeled white streaks in them by uncovering the white on the rods. After all this, Ya'akov's initiative with the rods would have been fully justified, even had it constituted a tried and tested expedient - a supposition that surely will not be borne out by experiment. >From the continuation of the story we know that Lavan altered the terms of the agreement ten times (see below, 31:7), setting new conditions regarding the form of the speckles and spots. It is difficult to assume that, because of a general action such as setting up the rods in the sight of the sheep, the sheep would bring forth young that were this time speckled, the next time spotted, and the next time marked on the feet. Ya'akov's success can be attributed only to a special intervention of Divine providence - as attested to by Ya'akov himself. The expedient of the rods was only an extremely weak substitute for the breeding animals Lavan had wrongfully removed. Nevertheless, Ya'akov did not refrain from seeking the aid of this expedient; since ain somchin al haness (see Pesachim 64b), he was obligated to do his part. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hankman at bell.net Sun Nov 26 10:02:44 2017 From: hankman at bell.net (hankman) Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2017 13:02:44 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] More on Yaakov, sheep and the rods Message-ID: <440B31203B1C40479ABF364797C2B58A@hankPC> Prof. L. Levine wrote?": ?It is difficult to assume that, because of a general action such as setting up the rods in the sight of the sheep, the sheep would bring forth young that were this time speckled, the next time spotted, and the next time marked on the feet. Ya'akov's success can be attributed only to a special intervention of Divine providence - as attested to by Ya'akov himself. The expedient of the rods was only an extremely weak substitute for the breeding animals Lavan had wrongfully removed. Nevertheless, Ya'akov did not refrain from seeking the aid of this expedient; since ain somchin al haness (see Pesachim 64b), he was obligated to do his part...? As everyone who had genetics 101 will realize, if you eliminate 100% of the phenotype, and breed the remainder you will still get some of that phenotype in the next generation with recessive genes. So it always bothered me why was all the hokus pokus by Yaakov necessary. Even more so the pasook itself seems to ascribe the results as caused by the sticks even though a simple natural explanation for the reappearance of the phenotype in the next generation is quite simple. The only explanation I could come up with is that the percentages were much higher than one would expect as a result of genetic calculations thus the nes (and Yaakov?s efforts [hishtadlus] to produce it) is described at great length. Kol tuv Chaim Manaster -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From akivagmiller at gmail.com Sat Nov 25 17:51:31 2017 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Sat, 25 Nov 2017 20:51:31 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] sefer torah's path Message-ID: . R' Joel Rich asked: > From R? Aviner: Bringing the Torah to People to Kiss > Q: Is it permissible to bring the Sefer Torah in the Shul > towards people who want to kiss it? > A: No. This is a disgrace to the Sefer Torah. They should > approach the Sefer Torah. Piskei Teshuvot 134:6. > > I have been to more than a few shuls that particularly on > Shabbat take the long road ? any ideas on who they are > relying on? (not to mention those who lower the sefer torah > so the kids can kiss it too) Maybe the masses simply disagree with the logic of the Piskei Teshuvot? Maybe people feel that bringing the Torah to Amcha is NOT a disgrace? Personally, I can easily understand that lowering it could be a bizayon, but what's wrong with taking the long way around? If the short route is taken, then (depending on the shul's layout) it is possible (or even probable) that many (or most) will simply be unable to get close enough to kiss it -- and if this is true on the men's side of the mechitza, it is even more true on the women's side! There are SO many things that we allow for no reason other than allowing the people to show their love and kavod for the Torah!!! Compared to the bells that ring on Shabbos, or the multitude of aliyos on Simchas Torah, this seems exceeding minor, in my opinion. Akiva Miller From brothke at gmail.com Sat Nov 25 18:20:23 2017 From: brothke at gmail.com (Ben Rothke) Date: Sat, 25 Nov 2017 21:20:23 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Gid ha'nasheh and 'therefore' Message-ID: In the coming week?s parsha, it has the story of Yaakov wrestling and then concludes: ? ???-???? ???-???????? ?????-?????????? ???-????? ????????? I am trying to figure out the connection between the wrestling injury and klal Yisroel not eating gid hanasheh. The term '???-????' implies consequently, to which I don?t see the consequence. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From JRich at sibson.com Sat Nov 25 21:47:06 2017 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2017 05:47:06 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] How can R' Yochanan and Resh Lakish argue about the tradition of a Gezera Shava? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: The answer can't be that Resh Lakish argued on this because gezera shava's are a kabbala from your rebbe, period. > ______________________________________________ 1. This begs the broader question as to why an Amira having a gs doesn't automatically trump one that doesn't 2.this also assumes only a rebbi muvhak counts as rabo for purposes of mesora Kt 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. From JRich at sibson.com Sun Nov 26 05:28:50 2017 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2017 13:28:50 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] eilu v'eilu Message-ID: <6b52bc1475284ba2a6aa3d7734cb8de7@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> http://www.yutorah.org/lectures/lecture.cfm/889447/rabbi-assaf-bednarsh/pluralism-and-halacha-what-is-truth,-and-who-has-it/ Rabbi Assaf Bednarsh--Pluralism and Halacha: What is Truth, and Who Has It Interesting shiur on an old Avodah favorite KT 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: From lisa at starways.net Sun Nov 26 14:37:13 2017 From: lisa at starways.net (Lisa Liel) Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2017 00:37:13 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Gid ha'nasheh and 'therefore' In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I don't think al ken denotes causation.? In most cases, it seems to mean "How correct it is that..."? For example, the two times we're told "al ken", the city is called Beersheva.? They can't both be the cause. Lisa On 11/26/2017 4:20 AM, Ben Rothke via Avodah wrote: > > In the coming week?s parsha, it has the story of Yaakov wrestling and > then concludes: > > ? ???-???? ???-???????? ?????-?????????? ???-????? ????????? > > I am trying to figure out the connection between the wrestling injury > and klal Yisroel not eating gid hanasheh. > > The term '???-????' implies consequently, to which I don?t see the > consequence. > > --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From micha at aishdas.org Sun Nov 26 15:09:41 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2017 18:09:41 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Gid ha'nasheh and 'therefore' In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20171126230941.GA24539@aishdas.org> On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 12:37:13AM +0200, Lisa Liel via Avodah wrote: : On 11/26/2017 4:20 AM, Ben Rothke via Avodah wrote: : >In the coming week's parsha, it has the story of Yaakov wrestling : >and then concludes: "Al kein lo yokhlu BY es gid hanasheh." : >I am trying to figure out the connection between the wrestling : >injury and klal Yisroel not eating gid hanasheh. : >The term '[al kein]' implies consequently, to which I don't see the : >consequence. : I don't think al ken denotes causation.? In most cases, it seems to : mean "How correct it is that..."? For example, the two times we're : told "al ken", the city is called Beersheva.? They can't both be the : cause. Why not? It could be that each were necessary but insufficient causes, so that the name "Be'er-Sheva" is the consequence of both being true. Or it could be that each were sufficient cause, and the name Be'er-Sheva was justified by either alone -- but equally so. And thus the city's name represents both. But to answer RBR's question, I don't think al kein implies sufficient causality. Rather, because of the fight, HQBH had an opportunity to turn eating thigh meat into a ritual that reminds one of the fight, and thus of the Jew's ability to act on the level of (in the sense of: interact with) angels. Without the fight, the mitzvah would lack that historical symbolism; so it's a cause, but of a different sort than it seems from your question that you are thinking of. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger It is our choices...that show what we truly are, micha at aishdas.org far more than our abilities. http://www.aishdas.org - J. K. Rowling Fax: (270) 514-1507 From micha at aishdas.org Sun Nov 26 14:58:57 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2017 17:58:57 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] How can R' Yochanan and Resh Lakish argue about the tradition of a Gezera Shava? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20171126225857.GA9115@aishdas.org> On Sat, Nov 25, 2017 at 10:27:38PM +0200, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: : The Gemara in Makos(14b) has a dispute between R' Yochanan and Resh Lakish : which revolves around a gezera shava. R' Yochanan has the gezera shava and : Resh Lakish does not, Rashi explains that Resh Lakish did not get this : gezera shava from his rebbeim. : : This seems very difficult because the gemara in Bava Metzia (84a) describes : how Resh Lakish was the head of a group of bandits and R' Yochanan : persuaded hm to learn Torah and was clearly Rabo Muvhak... So, he had a mesorah from a rebbe other than his rebbe muvhaq or any of his own rabbeim -- maybe just a shiur from someone else he sat in once... (Which is similar to RHR's #2.) Or... If "Moavi velo Mo'avis" was darsehened first by Boaz's court, then we know of at least one gezeira shava -- from Amon to Moav -- that Boaz invoked withtout a tradition of its existence dating back from Sinai. For that matter, if the Rambam assumed that the rule about no new gezeiros shava really was in place from day one, then he would have to assert that like [other] halakhos leMoshe miSinai, there couldn't be machloqesin in any of them. I would therefore deduce from the Rambam's silence in the face of numerous such machloqesin, he must have thought that gezeiros shava could be invented (or as other riahonim would have it: discovered) without a mesorah. It would seem the idea that GS requires a mesorah has a loophole. Perhaps the notion is that the textual connection must have a mesorah, but the lesson taken from it could be left to the later generation to find. Also, it is interesting that the contrast in Pesachim 66a to the mesorah needed for GS is the qal vachomer. A rule of logic that a person truly could make on their own in a way that doesn't apply to another of the other midos sheheTorah nidreshes bahen. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When faced with a decision ask yourself, micha at aishdas.org "How would I decide if it were Ne'ilah now, http://www.aishdas.org at the closing moments of Yom Kippur?" Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From marty.bluke at gmail.com Mon Nov 27 02:10:10 2017 From: marty.bluke at gmail.com (Marty Bluke) Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2017 12:10:10 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] How can R' Yochanan and Resh Lakish argue about the tradition of a Gezera Shava? In-Reply-To: <20171126225857.GA9115@aishdas.org> References: <20171126225857.GA9115@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 12:58 AM, Micha Berger wrote: > On Sat, Nov 25, 2017 at 10:27:38PM +0200, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: > : The Gemara in Makos(14b) has a dispute between R' Yochanan and Resh > Lakish > : which revolves around a gezera shava. R' Yochanan has the gezera shava > and > : Resh Lakish does not, Rashi explains that Resh Lakish did not get this > : gezera shava from his rebbeim. > : > : This seems very difficult because the gemara in Bava Metzia (84a) > describes > : how Resh Lakish was the head of a group of bandits and R' Yochanan > : persuaded hm to learn Torah and was clearly Rabo Muvhak... > > So, he had a mesorah from a rebbe other than his rebbe muvhaq or any > of his own rabbeim -- maybe just a shiur from someone else he sat in > once... (Which is similar to RHR's #2.) > What other mesora? It's not that Resh Lakish had a gezera shava that R' Yochanan didn't have that he could have learned from someone else. The Gemara says that he didn't have a kabbala on a gezera shava that R' Yochanan had. > > Or... > > If "Moavi velo Mo'avis" was darsehened first by Boaz's court, then we > know of at least one gezeira shava -- from Amon to Moav -- that Boaz > invoked withtout a tradition of its existence dating back from Sinai. > That was a gezera shava? In any case the Gemara in Nidda (19b) states that ayn adam dan gezera shava meatzmo, says Rashi he needs a kabbala from his rebbe halacha l'moshe misinai. For that matter, if the Rambam assumed that the rule about no new gezeiros > shava really was in place from day one, then he would have to assert that > like [other] halakhos leMoshe miSinai, there couldn't be machloqesin in > any of them. I would therefore deduce from the Rambam's silence in the > face of numerous such machloqesin, he must have thought that gezeiros > shava could be invented (or as other riahonim would have it: discovered) > without a mesorah. > It would seem the idea that GS requires a mesorah has a loophole. Perhaps > the notion is that the textual connection must have a mesorah, but > the lesson taken from it could be left to the later generation to find. > Tosafos in Shabbos (97a) states that they had a mesora on the number of gezera shavas and therefore they had to reconcile the various traditions with the number of gezera shavas. This would seem to come to address the question of why certain Tannaim/Amoraim had a gezera shava and others didn't. However, it doesn't answer the question on Resh Lakish who must have gotten the number from Rabo Muvhak R' Yochanan. The Rishonim/Acharonim in Nida (22b) are bothered by the question that the Gemara says that a gezera shava that is mufne mi tzad echad lmeidin umeshivin and mufne mishnei tz'dadim lmeidim vayn m'shivim. If there was a kabala on the gezera shava then why does it need to be mufne and if there was no kabbala then why should it be accepted even if it is mufne? The Ramban on the Sefer Hamitzvos (Shoresh 2) based on this question rejects the simple understanding of ayn adam dan gezera shava meiatzmo that all the details of the gezera shavas were received at Har Sinai by Moshe. Rather, they had a kabbala that there was a gezera shava with a certain word pair but not which set of those words and what halacha is learned from it and therefore it is up to the chachamim to decide based on the principles that they received to decide what exactly the gezera shava was and therefore there is machlokes. This is what the Gemara in Nidda is discussing, the principles relating to figuring out what exactly the gezera shava is. Unfortunately, this does not really answer all of the Gemara's and disputes about gezera shavas. > > Also, it is interesting that the contrast in Pesachim 66a to the mesorah > needed for GS is the qal vachomer. A rule of logic that a person truly > could make on their own in a way that doesn't apply to another of the > other midos sheheTorah nidreshes bahen. > There is a machlokes Rashi and Tosafos whether it is only a kal vachomer that adam dan meatzmo or all the middos except for gezera shava. > > Tir'u baTov! > -Micha > > -- > Micha Berger When faced with a decision ask yourself, > micha at aishdas.org "How would I decide if it were Ne'ilah now, > http://www.aishdas.org at the closing moments of Yom Kippur?" > Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From lisa at starways.net Mon Nov 27 02:55:35 2017 From: lisa at starways.net (Lisa Liel) Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2017 12:55:35 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] How can R' Yochanan and Resh Lakish argue about the tradition of a Gezera Shava? In-Reply-To: <20171126225857.GA9115@aishdas.org> References: <20171126225857.GA9115@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <2e55bd0b-bb70-45dd-093f-a9ca79fa0760@starways.net> On 11/27/2017 12:58 AM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > If "Moavi velo Mo'avis" was darsehened first by Boaz's court, then we > know of at least one gezeira shava -- from Amon to Moav -- that Boaz > invoked withtout a tradition of its existence dating back from Sinai. > How was that a gezeira shava? Lisa --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From micha at aishdas.org Mon Nov 27 13:21:42 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2017 16:21:42 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] How can R' Yochanan and Resh Lakish argue about the tradition of a Gezera Shava? In-Reply-To: <2e55bd0b-bb70-45dd-093f-a9ca79fa0760@starways.net> References: <20171126225857.GA9115@aishdas.org> <2e55bd0b-bb70-45dd-093f-a9ca79fa0760@starways.net> Message-ID: <20171127212142.GA26403@aishdas.org> On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 12:10:10PM +0200, Marty Bluke wrote: : > So, he had a mesorah from a rebbe other than his rebbe muvhaq or any : > of his own rabbeim -- maybe just a shiur from someone else he sat in : > once... (Which is similar to RJR's #2.) : What other mesora? It's not that Resh Lakish had a gezera shava that R' : Yochanan didn't have that he could have learned from someone else. The : Gemara says that he didn't have a kabbala on a gezera shava that R' : Yochanan had. This wasn't the ikar of my answer; I was just ammending RJR's answer to reflect the fact that the gemara says "rabosav" not "rabo". But it seems to me now you are saying the OP was asking how it's possible that R' Yochanan knew something that he didn't pass on to Reish Laqish. Or more accurately, where would RL learn something to have him question a GS when R Yochanan told him of it the first time. In which case, my intended answer works even better -- the presmise that every GS is a tradition dating back to Sinai is false. A conclusion the other RMB gives far more sources for than I did. :> Or... :> If "Moavi velo Mo'avis" was darsehened first by Boaz's court, then we :> know of at least one gezeira shava -- from Amon to Moav -- that Boaz :> invoked withtout a tradition of its existence dating back from Sinai. : That was a gezera shava? In any case the Gemara in Nidda (19b) states that : ayn adam dan gezera shava meatzmo, says Rashi he needs a kabbala from his : rebbe halacha l'moshe misinai. Not every "halakhah leMoshe MiSinai" is literally so. R' Avohu on Kesuvos 7b says that Boaz collected 10 men in "lemidrash 'amoni velo amonis, moavi velo moavis." How does he know it wasn't for 7 berakhos (R' Nachman's shitah)? Because of the need to get "miziqnei ha'ir". Why 10? [I presume -- and not a BD of 3:] lefirsumei milsa. Similarly, Rus Rabba 7:9 states that Peloni didn't know *shenischadshah* din zu. As for "that was a GS?" (A question Lisa also asks...) Amoni velo Amonis is justified because the Amoni ddidn't bring food or water when we came to their land. And it is the men we would have expected to recieve or even buy such previsions from. Moav velo Moavis would be a pretty arbitrary time to insist a word be read as specifically male instead of gender-neutral if it weren't by GS to Amoni. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Here is the test to find whether your mission micha at aishdas.org on Earth is finished: http://www.aishdas.org if you're alive, it isn't. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Richard Bach From zev at sero.name Mon Nov 27 15:10:29 2017 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2017 18:10:29 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] How can R' Yochanan and Resh Lakish argue about the tradition of a Gezera Shava? In-Reply-To: <20171127212142.GA26403@aishdas.org> References: <20171126225857.GA9115@aishdas.org> <2e55bd0b-bb70-45dd-093f-a9ca79fa0760@starways.net> <20171127212142.GA26403@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 27/11/17 16:21, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > As for "that was a GS?" (A question Lisa also asks...) Amoni velo Amonis > is justified because the Amoni ddidn't bring food or water when we > came to their land. And it is the men we would have expected to recieve > or even buy such previsions from. Moav velo Moavis would be a pretty > arbitrary time to insist a word be read as specifically male instead > of gender-neutral if it weren't by GS to Amoni. Could you please explain this? Where do you get that there is any limmud from Ammon to Moav? The Torah says *both* Amonim and Moavim are banned because they didn't welcome us with bread and water. You seem to be claiming that Amonim are banned for this reason, and then Moavim by some sort of gezera shava from Amonim. Where is this coming from? -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From marty.bluke at gmail.com Thu Nov 30 02:11:31 2017 From: marty.bluke at gmail.com (Marty Bluke) Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2017 12:11:31 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] What are the main mitzvos to focus on? Message-ID: The last daf in Makos (24a) states that the Neviim took the 613 mitzvos and reduced them to a smaller set for people to focus on. Michah gave three Mitzvos for people to focus on - "Asos Mishpat..." "Asos Mishpat" is monetary laws; "Ahavas Chesed" is bestowing Chesed; "V'Hatzne'a Leches Im Elokecha" is escorting the dead and bringing a Kalah to Chupah; Yeshayah later gave two primary Mitzvos - "Shimru Mishpat va'Asu Tzedakah." The mitzva of learning Torah which we understand to be the most important and fundamental mitzva does not appear in these lists. How do we explain the omission of learning Torah in these lists? Additionally, these lists seem to consist solely of mitzvos bein adam lachaveiro, are there no mitzvos ben adam lamakom that are important enought to appear on these lists? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From seinfeld at daasbooks.com Thu Nov 30 09:20:44 2017 From: seinfeld at daasbooks.com (Alexander Seinfeld) Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2017 12:20:44 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] More on Yaakov, sheep and the rods Message-ID: <50458059-A03F-4E6E-B54B-F1612B0E7E5B@jsli.org> Why not just interpret this as an example of phenotypic plasticity, meaning the genetic potential is there in every generation, and the environmental factors stimulate its expression? As everyone who had genetics 101 will realize, if you eliminate 100% of the phenotype, and breed the remainder you will still get some of that phenotype in the next generation with recessive genes. So it always bothered me why was all the hokus pokus by Yaakov necessary. Even more so the pasook itself seems to ascribe the results as caused by the sticks even though a simple natural explanation for the reappearance of the phenotype in the next generation is quite simple. The only explanation I could come up with is that the percentages were much higher than one would expect as a result of genetic calculations thus the nes (and Yaakov?s efforts [hishtadlus] to produce it) is described at great length. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From chaim.tatel at gmail.com Thu Nov 30 09:30:37 2017 From: chaim.tatel at gmail.com (Chaim Tatel) Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2017 09:30:37 -0800 Subject: [Avodah] Gid ha'nasheh Message-ID: When I was studying Zoology in college back in the 70s, I did some research on Yaakov?s battle with the malach. The big question I had was ?why should Yaakov Avinu get hit in the gid hanasheh (sciatic nerve)? Why not somewhere else in the body?? As I learned in my Anatomy and Physiology class, there are several nerves that branch off from the sciatic nerve. One of these is the pudendal nerve. This is one of the nerves responsible for sexual function (and other actions). Current research follows: The pudendal nerve is found in the pelvis. It is the biggest division of the pudendal plexus (a network of nerves) and is located behind the sacrospinous ligament, near the tailbone. The nerve extends from the sacral plexus, through the pudendal canal, the perineum, and the gluteal area. These are structures located near the genital, rectal, and gluteal (buttock) regions. (see: https://www.healthline.com/human-body-maps/pudendal-nerve) The peripheral nerves supply the bladder, anal canal, and perineal skin. The pudendal nerve is the primary somatic nerve to this region. Motor fibers in the pudendal nerve innervate the bulbocavernosus muscle, external urethral sphincter, external anal sphincter, and pelvic floor muscles. (see: www.humanneurophysiology.com/sacralmonitoring.htm) I also remember that one of the meforshim (commentators) on Chumash had a similar answer. (Sorry, I can?t remember where I saw this, it?s been over 40 years). At any rate, it makes sense that Yaakov would be hit there, as a reminder that his marriage to Rachel after his marriage to her sister Leah would not hold up when he entered Eretz Yisrael. (not long after this episode, Rachel died in childbirth of Binyamin). Aside from feeling the psychological pain of Rachel?s death, perhaps Yaakov also had to feel physical pain. Chaim Tatel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From lisa at starways.net Sat Dec 2 12:56:18 2017 From: lisa at starways.net (Lisa Liel) Date: Sat, 2 Dec 2017 22:56:18 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] knife sharpeners Message-ID: <62debe36-f9a2-7cab-d4cb-a60320a1ec83@starways.net> Are knife sharpeners mekabel taam?? And noten taam?? Do you need different onces for meat, dairy, pesach, etc? --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From zev at sero.name Sat Dec 2 17:01:31 2017 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Sat, 2 Dec 2017 20:01:31 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] knife sharpeners In-Reply-To: <62debe36-f9a2-7cab-d4cb-a60320a1ec83@starways.net> References: <62debe36-f9a2-7cab-d4cb-a60320a1ec83@starways.net> Message-ID: <0115756c-ad5a-dc19-dfdc-aba2138a2858@sero.name> On 02/12/17 15:56, Lisa Liel via Avodah wrote: > Are knife sharpeners mekabel taam?? And noten taam?? Do you need > different onces for meat, dairy, pesach, etc? Since they don't ever contact food, I don't see how they could. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From JRich at sibson.com Sat Dec 2 22:40:43 2017 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Sun, 3 Dec 2017 06:40:43 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Women and Torah Study Message-ID: <9f94d416d3154585a6bb71a2df12c54e@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> My comment to a recent post on Lehrhaus on women and intensive talmud study: Is encouraging intensive study of Talmud for women a community priority or is the priority to make such study available for those who choose to avail themselves of the opportunity? Especially if the former, where does it stand in relation to other community priorities and how does the answer differ from study for men? IMHO these questions have not been sufficiently addressed. Do my concern resonate at all? KT 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: From marty.bluke at gmail.com Sun Dec 3 01:13:00 2017 From: marty.bluke at gmail.com (Marty Bluke) Date: Sun, 3 Dec 2017 11:13:00 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] The 13 middos Message-ID: The Gemara in Shavuos (4b) discusses who the Tanna of the Mishna is and brings down a fundamental machlokes tannaim about the 13 middos. R' Yishmael darshens klal uprat and R' Akiva darshens ribuy umiut. The Acharonim point out that these are mutually exclusive and every Tanna darshens one or the other but they cannot be mixed (e.g. a Tanna sometimes darshens ribuy umiut and sometimes klal uprat). The question is how can something so fundamental as the 13 middos be a matter of dispute? Weren't the 13 middos given to Moshe at Har Sinai? How could they forget such a basic thing? It is very difficult to say that both are right (e.g. elu v'elu) because they are mutually exclusive and come to different conclusions. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Sun Dec 3 06:18:20 2017 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Sun, 3 Dec 2017 14:18:20 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Davening on Airplanes Message-ID: <1512310700373.25771@stevens.edu> Very often people make minyanimm on flights to Israel. The following if from https://goo.gl/j8hdXR and is a quote from Rabbi Hershel Schachter. Another common mistake people make is regarding davening with a minyan (on a plane). The Talmud emphasizes the importance of tefillah btzibur; and one who davens with a minyan stands a much better chance of having his prayers answered than one who lacks a minyan. However, it is highly improper for the chazzan of a minyan on an airplane to shout at the top of his lungs to enable the other mispalelim to hear him over the airplane noise, and thereby wake up all the passengers around him. It is true that there is a halachic principle of kofin al hamitzvos, i.e. that beis din has an obligation to force people to observe the mitzvos even when they're not interested in doing so, but this only applies when pressuring an individual will result in his becoming observant. However, when Orthodox Jews disturb non-observant Jewish passengers with their davening, the non-observant passengers sill remain non-observant and now just have another point about which to be upset with the Orthodox. The practice of the Orthodox passengers under such circumstances appears simply as an act of harassment. Rather than having accomplished the hidur mitzvah of davening tefillah btzibur, they have violated lifnei iver by causing the non-observant passengers to become more antagonistic towards shemiras hamitzvos. The shouting tone of voice employed by the shaliach tzibbur to overcome the noise on the airplane clearly does not constitute a kavod hatefillah. The halacha states that when traveling, if it is too difficult to stand for shemoneh esrei even the "amidah" may be recited while seated. On a short flight of an hour and a half to Canada it is more correct to daven the entire tefillah while still buckled in, in a sitting position. On the long flight to Eretz Yisroel it is healthier to not sit the entire time; walking around somewhat helps the blood circulation in one's legs. As such, there is nothing wrong with standing for shemoneh esrei, provided that there's no turbulence at that time. However, it is still not proper to gather a minyan together near the washrooms, disturbing all the other passengers and the stewardesses. As much as various Torah giants of our generation have expressed their opposition to such minyanim on airplanes[2], their message has not yet been accepted. We wish everyone a chag kasher v'sameach, and all those traveling to Eretz Yisroel should have a safe trip, but keep in mind - these minyanim are shelo b'ratzon chachomim! [2] Rav Shlomo Wahrman ( She'eiris Yosef vol. 7, siman 3) quotes Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach (Halichos Shlomo, page 75), Rav Moshe Feinstein (Igros Moshe Orach Chaim vol. 4 siman 20), Rav Ovadiah Yosef, and Rav Shmuel Wosner all objecting to minyanim on airplanes that disturb other passengers -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Sun Dec 3 07:15:20 2017 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Sun, 3 Dec 2017 15:15:20 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] The Forces That Have Shaped World History Message-ID: <1512314120420.4485@stevens.edu> The following is from RSRH's commentary on Bereishis 30:8 Ya'akov was very much afraid and distressed, so he divided the peoplewho were with him, as well as the flocks, cattle and camels, into two camps. We can put ourselves in Ya'akov's place, and we are especially obligated to do so, considering the significance of the impending meeting; for, because of this meeting, Ya'akov experienced a revelation whose memory is forever linked with the daily meal of the man of Israel. Just as Ya'akov and Esav oppose each other here, so they continue to stand opposed to one another unto this very day. Ya'akov is the family man blessed with children; hard-working, serving, weighed down by cares. Esav is the "finished and accomplished" man (cf. Commentary above, 25:25). Ya'akov now returns as the independent head of a family. Even now, having overcome all the obstacles, this privilege is, to him, the highest prize, the greatest achievement. But to attain it, he had to toil and struggle for twenty years, despite the fact that he had already received the blessing and the birthright. Others, however, take this privilege for granted; it is given to them from birth. Esav, the "finished and accomplished" man, already possessed it in full measure when Ya'akov first left home. While Ya'akov, through hard work, succeeded in establishing a family, Esav became a political force, the leader of an army, an aluf at the head of his troops. Thus the external contrast between Ya'akov, who held on to his brother's heel when they were born, and Esav, the "accomplished" man. In Ya'akov and Esav, two opposing principles confront each other. The struggle between them, and the outcome of this struggle, are the forces that have shaped world history. Ya'akov represents family life, happiness and making others happy. Esav represents the glitter of political power and might. This conflict has raged for thousands of years: Is it sufficient just to be a human being, and are political power and social creativity of no significance unless they lead to the loftiest of all human aspirations, or, on the contrary, does everything that is human in man, in home, and in family life exist only to serve the purposes of political triumph? How different from his attitude toward Lavan is Ya'akov's attitude toward Esav. We know how steadfast is the power of one who is sure of his own integrity, and how oppressive is the feeling of guilt, even if only imagined. It is easier to suffer wrong and injustice for twenty years than to face for one minute a person whom we know was offended by us and who cannot understand our motives, which do not justify our actions but at least excuse them. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Mon Dec 4 07:55:38 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2017 10:55:38 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] knife sharpeners In-Reply-To: <0115756c-ad5a-dc19-dfdc-aba2138a2858@sero.name> References: <62debe36-f9a2-7cab-d4cb-a60320a1ec83@starways.net> <0115756c-ad5a-dc19-dfdc-aba2138a2858@sero.name> Message-ID: <20171204155538.GC26551@aishdas.org> On Sat, Dec 02, 2017 at 08:01:31PM -0500, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : On 02/12/17 15:56, Lisa Liel via Avodah wrote: : >Are knife sharpeners mekabel taam?? And noten taam?? Do you need : >different onces for meat, dairy, pesach, etc? : : Since they don't ever contact food, I don't see how they could. Since they are in heated contact with the knife, aren't there potential na"t bar na"t issues? Tir'u baTov! -Micha From ari.brodsky at utoronto.ca Mon Dec 4 10:03:48 2017 From: ari.brodsky at utoronto.ca (Ari Meir Brodsky) Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2017 20:03:48 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Tonight (Monday evening) begin Prayer for Rain Message-ID: Dear Friends, It's that time of year again, when I know many of you are expecting my annual friendly reminder.... Jews outside of Israel should include the request for rain in daily prayers, beginning with Maariv tonight (Monday evening), December 4, 2017, corresponding to the evening of 17 Kislev, 5778. The phrase *??? ?? ???? ?????* "Veten tal umatar livracha" - "Give us dew and rain for a blessing" is inserted into the 9th blessing of the weekday shemone esrei, from now until Pesach. [Sephardim replace the entire blessing of ????? with the alternate text beginning ??? ????? - thanks to Prof. Lasker for the reminder.] I encourage everyone to remind friends and family members of this event, especially those who may not be in shul at that time. Diaspora Jews begin requesting rain on the 60th day of the fall season, as approximated by Shmuel in the Talmud (Taanit 10a, Eiruvin 56a). For more information about this calculation, follow the link below, to a fascinating article giving a (very brief) introduction to the Jewish calendar, followed by a discussion on why we begin praying for rain when we do: http://www.lookstein.org/articles/veten_tal.htm (Thanks to Russell Levy for providing the link.) Wishing everyone a happy Chanukka, -Ari Meir Brodsky --------------------- Ari M. Brodsky ari.brodsky at utoronto.ca -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mirskym at gmail.com Mon Dec 4 10:02:39 2017 From: mirskym at gmail.com (Michael Mirsky) Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2017 21:02:39 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Davening on Airplanes In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: In all the discussions of this topic that I have seen, I haven't seen anyone address the issue of someone who is in his year of aveilut and needs a minyan to say kaddish. Do the objections to the possible disturbance a minyan might cause override this need? Michael Mirsky -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From larry62341 at optonline.net Mon Dec 4 10:17:47 2017 From: larry62341 at optonline.net (Prof. Levine) Date: Mon, 04 Dec 2017 13:17:47 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Knife Sharpening Message-ID: The following is from an article posted on the CRC web site at https://goo.gl/ispg9T Food service establishments regularly send out their knives for sharpening, and it appears that there are three potential kashrus concerns with this practice, as follows: * The sharpening company may give the establishment different knives than the ones which the establishment gave them for sharpening. This is an especially likely in cases where the sharpening company actually owns the knives and lends them to the establishment in exchange for the rights to sharpen them. This issue can be avoided if the Mashgiach has a tevias ayin on the knives and/or marks them. * Knives are typically very dirty when they arrive at the sharpening facility, and therefore all knives are washed in hot water or a dishwasher before the sharpening begins. This potentially allows non-kosher b?lios to get into the kosher knives. See below for more on this. * The same machine is used to sharpen the (clean) kosher and non-kosher knives, and the friction created by the process does heat up the knives somewhat. If that heat would be above yad soledes bo, there would be a potential for b?lios to transfer between the machinery and knives. However, in tests which Rabbi Neustadt performed in one sharpening company, the sharpening wheel and the cooling water (where that was used) were consistently cooler than 100? F and were not hot to the touch. As such, it appears that this does not pose a serious concern. See the above URL for more. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Mon Dec 4 11:53:58 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2017 14:53:58 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] What are the main mitzvos to focus on? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20171204195358.GC2323@aishdas.org> On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 12:11:31PM +0200, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: : The last daf in Makos (24a) states that the Neviim took the 613 mitzvos and : reduced them to a smaller set for people to focus on. : Michah gave three Mitzvos for people to focus on - "Asos Mishpat..." : "Asos Mishpat" is monetary laws; : "Ahavas Chesed" is bestowing Chesed; Is "din" necessarily a reference to monetary laws? Din vs chessed is a recurring dialectic. As in sheim Elokus vs sheim Havayah. : "V'Hatzne'a Leches Im Elokecha" is escorting the dead and bringing a Kalah : to Chupah; I saw the gemara differently, emphasizing tzeni'us itself. As it explains, one should walk with one's G-d modestly even when doing these two mitzvos, which normally happen in public. And then the gemara continues with a qal vachomer al achas kamah vekamah those which are normally done betzin'ah. So it seems to be closer to the words of the pasuq than the identification with two specific acts of chessed (one of which is famously "chesed shel emes") the gemara begins its explanation with. After all, chessed is already covered in the previous item in the list. (Parallel gemara at Sukkah 49b.) : Yeshayah later gave two primary Mitzvos - "Shimru Mishpat va'Asu Tzedakah." Tangent: You'll notice that Yeshaiah is listed twice, once before Mikhah (giving 6 principles), and once after. As they were contemporaries whose nevu'os overlap in content, R' Simla'i's intent is likely chronological order. : The mitzva of learning Torah which we understand to be the most important : and fundamental mitzva does not appear in these lists.... I think the "we" in your sentence are simply following a hashkafah which isn't majority opinion. Not only does R' Simla'i skip them, in favor of living to emulate HQBH's din and chessed, but - Hillel famously defines all of Torah in terms of using one's empathy to avoiding doing what one's chaver would loathe. Rashi ad loc includes avoiding what one's Chaver would loathe, but in his other discussions of the quote, this aspect is missing. - R' Aqiva and Ben Azzai argue over which pasuq better captures the Torah's kelal gadol, and both are interpersonal. - In both shasin, "Torah lishmah" is discussed in terms of al menas la'asos and/or al menas lelameid. Not knowing for its own sake. See also Meshekh Chokhmah (Devarim 218:61) which I blog about at So, who amongst Chazal really does make learning the central goal of a Jewish man's life? Jumping ahead to the Isms that today's O world is trying to build from: - In chassidus, talmud Torah is a means to deveiqus. - The discussion in Nefesh haChaim sha'ar 4 which denies the previous bullet item might be the earliest source for the position you describe as what "we understand" was written by the same RCV about whom his son says (in the haqadmah to NhC, emphasis mine): He regularly rebuked me, because he saw that I did not participate in the pain of others. And these were his constant words to me: This is the entire person. One is not created for himself, but to benefit others with the full extent of his powers. (SHEZEH KOL HA'ADAM: lo le'atzmo nivra, RAQ LEHO'IL LE'ACHRINI...) So, while sha'ar 4 waxes poetic about the chiyus talmud Torah gives the world, RCV didn't mean to say that therefore learning is the It of life. (And yeshivos tend not to learn shaar 1's discussion of the power of maaseh nor shaar 2's discussion of dibbur. Which also yeilds an imbalance in how one sees the NhC shaar 4's description of machashavah.) - Similarly, while we remember R' Chaim Brisker for inventing Brisker lomdus, he said his main job was to be a baal chessed. And his family agreed; the praise on his matzeivah simply reads "rav chessed". Apparently the Pulmus haMussar was about the proper means to come to embody the ideal, and not what the ideal actually is. This notion that learning is the ends rather than a central part of the means is arguably idiosyncratic. It is far easier to argue that the central mitzvah is to emulate the Meitiv and bring His Tov to others. : Additionally, these lists : seem to consist solely of mitzvos bein adam lachaveiro, are there no : mitzvos ben adam lamakom that are important enought to appear on these : lists? As per what I said above, mitzvos bein adam laMaqom -- or R' Yisrael Salanter's third category of mitzvos being adam le'atzmo, which includes talmud Torah as an act of self-refinement -- is more caring for the goose than the goose's actual laying of the golden eggs. Rather than a question mark, just end with an exclamation point. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger We are great, and our foibles are great, micha at aishdas.org and therefore our troubles are great -- http://www.aishdas.org but our consolations will also be great. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rabbi AY Kook From micha at aishdas.org Mon Dec 4 11:55:56 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2017 14:55:56 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Davening on Airplanes In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20171204195556.GD2323@aishdas.org> On Mon, Dec 04, 2017 at 09:02:39PM +0300, Michael Mirsky via Avodah wrote: : In all the discussions of this topic that I have seen, I haven't seen : anyone address the issue of someone who is in his year of aveilut and needs : a minyan to say kaddish. Do the objections to the possible disturbance a : minyan might cause override this need? How can it be a zekhus to the niftar to say Qaddish in a way that the BALC violations make it a net minus? Tir'u baTov! -Micha From saulguberman at gmail.com Mon Dec 4 12:00:16 2017 From: saulguberman at gmail.com (Saul Guberman) Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2017 15:00:16 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Davening on Airplanes In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: My understanding is that kaddish needs to be said once a day. It is said multi times a day as a hiddur. So, missing one davening should be OK and the zchus of not disturbing other passengers and crew and not creating a chillul hashem should make up for the missed kaddish. On Mon, Dec 4, 2017 at 1:02 PM, Michael Mirsky via Avodah < avodah at lists.aishdas.org> wrote: > In all the discussions of this topic that I have seen, I haven't seen > anyone address the issue of someone who is in his year of aveilut and needs > a minyan to say kaddish. Do the objections to the possible disturbance a > minyan might cause override this need? > > Michael Mirsky > > _______________________________________________ > Avodah mailing list > Avodah at lists.aishdas.org > http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From zev at sero.name Mon Dec 4 12:14:53 2017 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2017 15:14:53 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] knife sharpeners In-Reply-To: <20171204155538.GC26551@aishdas.org> References: <62debe36-f9a2-7cab-d4cb-a60320a1ec83@starways.net> <0115756c-ad5a-dc19-dfdc-aba2138a2858@sero.name> <20171204155538.GC26551@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 04/12/17 10:55, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > On Sat, Dec 02, 2017 at 08:01:31PM -0500, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > : On 02/12/17 15:56, Lisa Liel via Avodah wrote: > : >Are knife sharpeners mekabel taam?? And noten taam?? Do you need > : >different onces for meat, dairy, pesach, etc? > : > : Since they don't ever contact food, I don't see how they could. > > Since they are in heated contact with the knife, aren't there potential > na"t bar na"t issues? Knives are sharpened while hot?! With water? -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From micha at aishdas.org Mon Dec 4 12:48:38 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2017 15:48:38 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Davening on Airplanes In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20171204204838.GA1334@aishdas.org> On Mon, Dec 04, 2017 at 03:00:16PM -0500, Saul Guberman via Avodah wrote: : My understanding is that kaddish needs to be said once a day. It is said : multi times a day as a hiddur... See YD 376:4. The Rama discusses it in terms of a minhag, actually a variety of whatever is "minhag qavu'ah ba'ir". : the zchus of not disturbing other passengers and crew and not creating a : chillul hashem should make up for the missed kaddish. Especially since it's the avoidance of an actual issur vs a medieval or post-medieval minhag. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Life isn't about finding yourself. micha at aishdas.org Life is about creating yourself. http://www.aishdas.org - George Bernard Shaw Fax: (270) 514-1507 From micha at aishdas.org Mon Dec 4 13:34:04 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2017 16:34:04 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Letzareif Message-ID: <20171204213404.GA32594@aishdas.org> In Bereishis Rabb 44:1, Rav says Lo nitenu hamitzvos ela letzarei bahen es haberios And what does it matter to HQBH who shechtas from the throat and who shechts from the back of the neck? Havei: lo nitenu hamitzvos ela letzarei bahen es haberios Letzareif is a metaphor of melting. The problem is, whether we mean smelting / refining, or to meld to thing together (as in "mitzrareif")? Are we being told that mitzvos were given to refine people, or to connect them? Or is the word chosen in order to intentionally carry both meanings? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger If you're going through hell micha at aishdas.org keep going. http://www.aishdas.org - Winston Churchill Fax: (270) 514-1507 From bdbradley70 at hotmail.com Mon Dec 4 14:03:37 2017 From: bdbradley70 at hotmail.com (Ben Bradley) Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2017 22:03:37 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] knife sharpeners In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: ': On 02/12/17 15:56, Lisa Liel via Avodah wrote: : >Are knife sharpeners mekabel taam?? And noten taam?? Do you need : >different onces for meat, dairy, pesach, etc? : : Since they don't ever contact food, I don't see how they could. Since they are in heated contact with the knife, aren't there potential na"t bar na"t issues?' Knife sharpeners get hot? What kind of sharpeners are we talking about here? I've never seen a domestic knife sharpener which gets beyond slightly warm. But even if it did, the food would be na't to the knife, the knife to the sharpener, the sharpener to the second knife and thence to the food again. Which is na't bar na't bar na't bar na't. I thought that's not a problem in hilchos basar b'chalav? BW Ben -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Mon Dec 4 14:29:08 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2017 17:29:08 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] The 13 middos In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20171204222908.GA10223@aishdas.org> On Sun, Dec 03, 2017 at 11:13:00AM +0200, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: : The Gemara in Shavuos (4b) discusses who the Tanna of the Mishna is and : brings down a fundamental machlokes tannaim about the 13 middos. R' : Yishmael darshens klal uprat and R' Akiva darshens ribuy umiut. The : Acharonim point out that these are mutually exclusive and every Tanna : darshens one or the other but they cannot be mixed (e.g. a Tanna sometimes : darshens ribuy umiut and sometimes klal uprat). ... I do not understand this paranthetic comment, as it refers to a kind of mixture, a tanna who uses both styles of derashah, as an example of how they cannot be mixed. The willingness of the two batei midrash to use the others' methodology is stated outright on Bekhoros 51a. One such tanna is R' Aqiva himself, eg Yerushalmi Sotah 8:1 (vilna 34a). See RSRH's discussion in Collected Writings V pg 170. : something so fundamental as the 13 middos be a matter of dispute? Weren't : the 13 middos given to Moshe at Har Sinai? How could they forget such a : basic thing? ... The methodology could have been in use informally before Hillel started the meta-Torah of the study and formalization of rules to describe that methodology. Just as people can use proper grammar before anyone makes a formal study of the language's grammatical rules. Since each did use the others' rules, the formalized rule system doesn't actually define the list of inherited laws. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger None of us will leave this place alive. micha at aishdas.org All that is left to us is http://www.aishdas.org to be as human as possible while we are here. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Anonymous MD, while a Nazi prisoner From marty.bluke at gmail.com Mon Dec 4 21:15:42 2017 From: marty.bluke at gmail.com (Marty Bluke) Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2017 07:15:42 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] The 13 middos In-Reply-To: <20171204222908.GA10223@aishdas.org> References: <20171204222908.GA10223@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Tuesday, December 5, 2017, Micha Berger wrote:... > > > I do not understand this paranthetic comment, as it refers to a kind of > mixture, a tanna who uses both styles of derashah, as an example of how > they cannot be mixed. The willingness of the two batei midrash to use the > others' methodology is stated outright on Bekhoros 51a. > > One such tanna is R' Aqiva himself, eg Yerushalmi Sotah 8:1 (vilna 34a). > > See RSRH's discussion in Collected Writings V pg 170. See the Mishne Lamelech avadim 3:9 where he states that it is either or and the 2 styles cannot be mixed, and his main proof is from the Gemara Shavuos 4b where the Gemara asks on Rebbe how can he darshen a ribui umiut like R Akiva if in general he darshens Klal Uprat. We see clearly that the Gemara assumes you darshen 1 or the other but not both otherwise the Gemara would have no question. See also tosafos nidda 30a s.v. Ushma mina where tosafos says that we pasken that we darshen Klal uprat and not ribui umiut. That only makes sense if they are mutually exclusive. See also tosafos shavuos 25a s.v. Rav who also assumes that it is either or. Regarding the Gemara in bechoros 51a it is actually a proof the other way. The Gemara says that this case is an exception because it is not written in the normal way of a Klal uprat and therefore in this case only Rebbe can learn a ribui umiut but in general someone who learns Klal uprat could not use ribui umiut. > > Tir'u baTov! > -Micha > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From JRich at sibson.com Mon Dec 4 22:13:31 2017 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2017 06:13:31 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Davening on Airplanes In-Reply-To: <20171204204838.GA1334@aishdas.org> References: , <20171204204838.GA1334@aishdas.org> Message-ID: > > Especially since it's the avoidance of an actual issur vs a medieval or > post-medieval ---------- All very true, yet the Hamon am has invested Kaddish with great importance. Does that investiture have a halachic chalot? It seems it does at least in terms of kavod Kt Joel 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. From akivagmiller at gmail.com Tue Dec 5 03:22:57 2017 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2017 06:22:57 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Gid ha'nasheh Message-ID: . R' Chaim Tatel wrote: > At any rate, it makes sense that Yaakov would be hit there, > as a reminder that his marriage to Rachel after his marriage > to her sister Leah would not hold up when he entered Eretz > Yisrael. (not long after this episode, Rachel died in childbirth > of Binyamin). > > Aside from feeling the psychological pain of Rachel?s death, > perhaps Yaakov also had to feel physical pain. I draw a distinction between "consequences" and "punishments". I have heard in the past that Eretz Yisrael was unable to tolerate Yaakov's being married to two sisters, and that Rachel's death was a consequence of that. But RCT writes that Yaakov was given a reminder of that consequence, and that he had to feel pain as well. Now it sounds like Yaakov was being punished. If he was punished, it must be that he was punished for some choice that he made. What choice was that? What did he do wrong? If he could do it all over again, what ought he do differently? Specifically: After having married Leah, should he have not married Rachel? Alternatively, (according to those who say that he was not fooled but knew that Leah had the simanim,) should he have not married Leah? Or should he have protested and annuled the marriage to Leah? If he was punished, what did he do wrong? Akiva Miller From akivagmiller at gmail.com Tue Dec 5 03:33:20 2017 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2017 06:33:20 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Davening on Airplanes Message-ID: . R' Michael Mirsky asked: > In all the discussions of this topic that I have seen, I > haven't seen anyone address the issue of someone who is in > his year of aveilut and needs a minyan to say kaddish. Do the > objections to the possible disturbance a minyan might cause > override this need? RMM seems to be suggesting that this individual's need to say kaddish is greater than the usual need to daven Tefila B'Tzibur. I have heard other people express this feeling, but I've never seen any evidence for it in seforim or elsewhere. I'll express it another way: I am well aware that there are many many people who are somewhat lax in their minyan attendance in general, but for yahrzeit or aveilus they are much more meticulous. This is not a bad thing; whatever will help get people into shul is good. But I do think that their values might be misplaced. Akiva Miller From larry62341 at optonline.net Tue Dec 5 05:12:22 2017 From: larry62341 at optonline.net (Prof. Levine) Date: Tue, 05 Dec 2017 08:12:22 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] How often to day kaddish Message-ID: <2E.1E.03203.73B962A5@mta4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> Saul Guberman wrote: My understanding is that kaddish needs to be said once a day. It is said multi times a day as a hiddur. So, missing one davening should be OK and the zchus of not disturbing other passengers and crew and not creating a chillul hashem should make up for the missed kaddish. ________________________________________________________ According to the original din only, only one person said kaddish at a time. (This is still what is done in some places like KAJ and Bais Hatalmud). Thus, if there are many people saying kaddish in a shul that keeps the original din, it is conceivable that one might not get to say kaddish every day or even longer. Hence I do not think that one needs to say kaddish once a day. YL From akivagmiller at gmail.com Tue Dec 5 04:53:47 2017 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2017 07:53:47 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Letzareif Message-ID: . R' Micha Berger wrote: > Lo nitenu hamitzvos ela letzarei bahen es haberios > ... > Letzareif is a metaphor of melting. The problem is, whether > we mean smelting / refining, or to meld to thing together (as > in "mitzrareif")? > Are we being told that mitzvos were given to refine people, > or to connect them? Or is the word chosen in order to > intentionally carry both meanings? "Ratzah HKBH l'zakos es Yisrael..." Does "zakos" mean to purify, or to give zechus? I perceive a similar poetry in both l'tzaref and l'zakos, but I'm not much of a poet, so I'll leave this thought for the rest of y'all to ponder and expand uon. Akiva Miller From marty.bluke at gmail.com Tue Dec 5 01:10:14 2017 From: marty.bluke at gmail.com (Marty Bluke) Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2017 11:10:14 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] What are the main mitzvos to focus on? In-Reply-To: <20171204195358.GC2323@aishdas.org> References: <20171204195358.GC2323@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Mon, Dec 4, 2017 at 9:53 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 12:11:31PM +0200, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: > : The last daf in Makos (24a) states that the Neviim took the 613 mitzvos > and > : reduced them to a smaller set for people to focus on. > > : ... > > : The mitzva of learning Torah which we understand to be the most important > : and fundamental mitzva does not appear in these lists.... > > I think the "we" in your sentence are simply following a hashkafah which > isn't majority opinion. > ... > So, who amongst Chazal really does make learning the central goal of a > Jewish man's life? > > ... > This notion that learning is the ends rather than a central part of > the means is arguably idiosyncratic. It is far easier to argue that the > central mitzvah is to emulate the Meitiv and bring His Tov to others. > > Tir'u baTov! > -Micha So basically you are saying that the current Charedi hashkafa/lifestyle of Torah only and Torah learning being the ultimate purpose of life is not a majority opinion in Chazal and in fact you can't find anyone among Chazal who says this. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Tue Dec 5 09:02:00 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2017 12:02:00 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] What are the main mitzvos to focus on? In-Reply-To: References: <20171204195358.GC2323@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20171205170200.GB5251@aishdas.org> On Tue, Dec 05, 2017 at 11:10:14AM +0200, Marty Bluke wrote: : So basically you are saying that the current Charedi hashkafa/lifestyle of : Torah only and Torah learning being the ultimate purpose of life is not a : majority opinion in Chazal and in fact you can't find anyone among Chazal : who says this. I intentionally avoided stating it that confrontationally, but yes. Although not "chareidi", "yeshivish". Excluding most chassidim but including the large population of MO who are taking yeshivish hashkafah and harmonizing it with modernity. (Eg RYBS as understood by many of his students.) See, for example, R Tzevi Sinsky's currently running series out of YHE ("Gush") "Talmud Torah: The Mitzva of Torah Study". He draws heavily from R' Yehudah Amital and R' N Lamm (whom RZS calls "mori uzeqeini"); his perspective is that of DL and MO, not "chareidim". Here's the web abstract for the opening shiur: In this introductory shiur, we explore the centrality of Torah study in the thought of the Rabbis. From Noach to Ezra, prominent Jewish leaders throughout the biblical period are portrayed as Torah scholars, and this mitzva is ascribed paramount importance in every aspect of life. In particular, shiur 3 discusses the purpose of talmud Torah, discussing various approached. The section "Approach #1 -- Instrumentalism" quotes pesuqim, mishayos, Toseftra, gemaros, before getting to rishonim (Rashi, Rambam, Ramban, Chinukh, Me'iri, Or H'. See also RNSlifkin's long list of quotes from rishonim at .) In contrast, "Approach #2 -- Cultivating a Halakhic Ethos" opens with the Chazon Ish then mentions R' Chaim Brisker as desribed in Halakhic Man. "Approach #3 -- Variations on Deveikut" starts with the Rambam leveraging a Sifrei (who I do not see as giving their description of /the/ purpose of learning), but focuses on Chassidus, R' Kook and R' Amital. Notice that learning being primarily valuable instrumentally is the shitah for which RZS can find overwhelming evidence in chazal and rishonim, the others being johnny-come-latelies of the last centuries. As for my own opinion, I wouldn't call approach #2 the cultivation of a "halachic ethos". I think this reflects Brisk's tendency to conflate halakhah with kol haTorah kulah, downplaying the import of aggadita. And yet, this wording does emphasize how approach 1 includes approach 2. If we are obligated in hilkhos dei'os / chovos halvavos / ve'asisa hayashar vehatov / to develop a *Torah* ethos, then #2 is also instrumental. We learn Mes' Sukkah to know how to fulfill the mitzvah of sukkah, and we learn Mes' Pirqei Avos to know to to fulfill the mitzvah of vehalakhta bidrakhav. See, it's instrumental! The difference boils down to what I believe was the central chiluq behind the pulmus haMussar: In the Brisker worldview, when RCVolozhiner compares talmud Torah to immersion in a miqvah, he means it descriptively. Learn halakhah as an end in itself, an it will leave a roshem of taharah. Even if the causality involved is mystical and non-obvious. Whereas R Yisrael Salanter looked at the actual metzi'us of the society he was in -- and all the moreso ours -- and concluded that this couldn't have been RCV's intent. Rather, RCV was speaking descriptively; when one learns correctly, one is learning in a way that leaves a roshem of taharah, even if the material itself is never understood or gets forgotten. And RYS had the lifestyle of RCV's talmid, R' Zundel Salanter, as indication of what Nefesh haChaim was intending to describe. Thus, to a mussarist, RCV was describing how to learn. Don't just learn nega'im to find chiluqim with which to explain machloqesin and non-obvious dinim. Rather, in addition one must spend the time driving home the roshem of how bad LH and ga'avah are, that HQBH felt it worth aiding teshuvah in these areas. And those two topics are far more connected in Telzher derekh than Brisker, but I think I've ranged far enough. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Spirituality is like a bird: if you tighten micha at aishdas.org your grip on it, it chokes; slacken your grip, http://www.aishdas.org and it flies away. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From micha at aishdas.org Tue Dec 5 10:39:48 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2017 13:39:48 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Davening on Airplanes In-Reply-To: References: <20171204204838.GA1334@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20171205183948.GA31307@aishdas.org> On Tue, Dec 05, 2017 at 06:13:31AM +0000, Rich, Joel wrote: :> Especially since it's the avoidance of an actual issur vs a medieval or :> post-medieval : All very true, yet the Hamon am has invested Kaddish with great : importance. Does that investiture have a halachic chalot? It seems it : does at least in terms of kavod Reading the kesuvah under the chuppah is just a stall while we wait some gap of time to separate qiddushin and nissuin. A maaseh kof. And yet because it is time in the spot-light, common practice is to treat it as the second greatest kibud, often what you give the other rav you might have made mesader qiddushin. When it comes to kibud, public treatment does indeed matter. And logically enough; after all, being mekhubad is an issue of seeing others display feelings of kavod. How we display it /should/ be secondary. All logical. However, here we are talking about someone in the olam ha'emes. So they know that while on the plane you have that actual issur keeping you from fulfilling the minhag of saying qaddish. For that matter, hopefully and typically said parent worked really hard at trying to get the avel to respect others. And if not, again, at this point the soul of even the worst parent would know better. So I do not think it's likely the neshamah would mind the lack of kibud as much as they would mind the misplacement of values. I would therefore not draw any conclusions from the logical linkage of kibud with intent and norms. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Between stimulus & response, there is a space. micha at aishdas.org In that space is our power to choose our http://www.aishdas.org response. In our response lies our growth Fax: (270) 514-1507 and our freedom. - Victor Frankl, (MSfM) From llevine at stevens.edu Wed Dec 6 01:39:18 2017 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2017 09:39:18 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Gambling in Halachah Message-ID: <7b63aab9b65f4c589d76fe326bd18f97@exchng03.campus.stevens-tech.edu> Click here to download "Gambling in Halachah" [That's the Kof-K's Halachically Speaking vol 13, issue 18, dedicated to this topic. -micha] From micha at aishdas.org Wed Dec 6 11:36:19 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2017 14:36:19 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Gid ha'nasheh In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20171206193619.GB12102@aishdas.org> On Tue, Dec 05, 2017 at 06:22:57AM -0500, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: :> Aside from feeling the psychological pain of Rachel?s death, :> perhaps Yaakov also had to feel physical pain. : : I draw a distinction between "consequences" and "punishments"... For those who don't remember from prior iterations, I don't. I think the difference between callins an onesh a consequence and calling it a punishment (or even "corrective") is whether one views sekhar va'onesh as a system that HQBH set up when He set up the universe or as a set of responses He has to our actions. "Chai gever al chata'av" implies one, our tefillos on yamim nora'im frequently imply the other. But both are simply simplified models of the incomprehensible Truth of how Hashem runs the universe. Since He is lemaalah min hazeman, we can't talk about whether the decision was made in maaseh bereishis or in response to our action -- both are ascribing times to a timeless Action (for want of a better word). We can only speak of a when for the effects of Divine Action, as they enter our timefull experience. : I have : heard in the past that Eretz Yisrael was unable to tolerate Yaakov's : being married to two sisters, and that Rachel's death was a : consequence of that. ... which is typical of an onesh -- a sin causes its own punishment. The two explanations are not mutually exclusive. To say that it was the land's qedushah causing something that wasn't in line with justice, one has to explain why there are rules that hide Hashem's Justice that aren't part of the hesteir panim necessary for free will. We need laws of nature to plan how to execute a decision, but laws of metaphysics? ... : If he was punished, it must be that he was punished for some choice : that he made. What choice was that? What did he do wrong? If he could : do it all over again, what ought he do differently? Specifically: : After having married Leah, should he have not married Rachel? Well, isn't that the halakhah? Or maybe the issur was in whatever it was that had him marrying a woman without noticing that her eyes were rakos (whatever that means). Perhaps the mistake was due to a criminal level of negligence. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Man is equipped with such far-reaching vision, micha at aishdas.org yet the smallest coin can obstruct his view. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yisrael Salanter Fax: (270) 514-1507 From micha at aishdas.org Wed Dec 6 11:23:17 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2017 14:23:17 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] The 13 middos In-Reply-To: References: <20171204222908.GA10223@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20171206192317.GA12102@aishdas.org> On Tue, Dec 05, 2017 at 07:15:42AM +0200, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: : See the Mishne Lamelech avadim 3:9 where he states that it is either or and : the 2 styles cannot be mixed, and his main proof is from the Gemara Shavuos : 4b where the Gemara asks on Rebbe how can he darshen a ribui umiut like R : Akiva if in general he darshens Klal Uprat... And yet the conclution on 5a is that he holds like R' Yishma'el's beis medrash who holds the derashah is not kelal uperat but ribui umi'ut ("ribah umi'at"). R Yisma'el, the one who codified the rules of kelal uperat is the one who here uses ribui umi'ut!? So is the gemara really saying that Rebbe is not crossing the line, as it seems to be saying. Or is it intentionally also implying there is no line to cross? Tosafos there ("detana Devei R' Yishma'el") might be saying the latter; it is too terse for me to be sure of intent. And yet further down on 5a, we have "Hashta de'amres... -- Now that you say that Rebbe darshans kelal uperat, you are forced into a question about shavu'os...?" IOW, reassuming the line. In any case, I am totally lost. In a discussion of how no one uses both sets of rules, it cites the school that created one set using the other set, and not saying anything about it. There is more going on here than I comprehend so far. As RSRH said (Collected Writings vol V pg 170), there are many such cases of R' Yishmael and R' Aqiva uses the other's rules. RSRH treats the rule as a tendency, rather than a line one may not cross. I wish I knew his interpretation of the gemara in Shavuos. But it's not like the MlM, nor the ba'al Atzmos Yoseif (whom the MlM is discussing), and does acknowledge the actual positions taken across both shasin. Just thinking out loud... Maybe the gemaros we're looking at are bothered because these are all cases where both kelalim apply and in each case they imply different dinim. IOW, it is not a question of Rebbe (or devei R Yismael) using ribui umi'ut, but of favoring the derashah that he tends not to OVER the derashah that is his norm. And to handle RSRH's observation, in a case where it is not a choice between conflicting kinds of derashos, no one would be asking why Rebbe used a kelal uperat, as such line-crossing is normal. : See also tosafos nidda 30a s.v. Ushma mina where tosafos says that we : pasken that we darshen Klal uprat and not ribui umiut... Nidda 30a "ushma minah tevilah bizmanah mitzvah" is about holding like Beis Shammai, and doesn't mention derashos. The previous d"h, "shema minah telas" (a near match) also isn't on topic. Could you please fix the citation for me? : Regarding the Gemara in bechoros 51a it is actually a proof the other way. : The Gemara says that this case is an exception because it is not written in : the normal way of a Klal uprat and therefore in this case only... This is a 2nd variant of the same sugya as Shavu'os. (To clarify for those moderately interested, but not sufficiently so to look for themselves.) Rashi ("hakha"), who says it's a general rule: kelal uperat ukelal isn't judged as a kelal uperat but as a ribui umi'ut. IIUC, Rashi is saying that Rebbe is staying within his usual rule set, but this is a case where both rule sets include the same derashah, just under different names. Thanks to RMTorczyner (CCed) : > Choosing between using "Kelal/Perat" and "Ribuy/Miut": Eruvin 27b-28a; > Succah 50b; Kiddushin 21b The first two don't really deal with tannaim using only one rule set, but Qiddush 21b is a third version of our sugya. I didn't see anything to add to the discussion beyond a way to rope RMT in, and perhaps he'll talk to R' Jonathan Ziring about the question. (RMT is the Rosh Beit Midrash of the YU-Torah Mitzion Zichron Dov Beit Midrash of Toronto, RJZ is the segan. Back when RJZ was in the kollel at YHE ["Gush"], he gave a series of shiurim on meta-halakhah. I thought I had RJZ's address, as we had a short correspondance, but since I didn't find it, I figured that once I was bothering RMT for his opinion...) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger I always give much away, micha at aishdas.org and so gather happiness instead of pleasure. http://www.aishdas.org - Rachel Levin Varnhagen Fax: (270) 514-1507 From micha at aishdas.org Wed Dec 6 12:06:08 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2017 15:06:08 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] TEXTUAL JUDAISM AND THE LIVING TORAH In-Reply-To: <9e51a7f4ea644e829db8503f8f0451fe@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <9e51a7f4ea644e829db8503f8f0451fe@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20171206200608.GC12102@aishdas.org> On Thu, Nov 02, 2017 at 12:12:05PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : http://etzion.org.il/en/siman-114-prayers-wind-rain-and-dew : :> TEXTUAL JUDAISM AND THE LIVING TORAH : :> In his introduction to the Beit Yosef... ... I think there are two things we need to keep in mind, that R' Asher Meir does not touch upon: 1- The question isn't whether the BY or some other poseiq does or doesn't consider the extent to which a particular pesaq was nispasheit. But rather something less boolean: how much weight does any given poseiq give mimeticism, and in comparison to which other factors. A number of years ago I proposed a model (then modified it in a later iteration) of 4 classes of factors a poseiq needs to weigh. And that one of the leading reasons why pesaq is an art rather than an algorithm is that their can't be formal rules for comparing the magnitudes of apples and oranges -- and bananas and parsimons? Here's what I came up with: - textual logic: which sevara do you find most compelling? Litvaks typically put most of the emphasis - textual authority: rules like azlinan basar ruba, or giving more weight to the Rambam's or Rosh's pinion than to some Baal Tosafos we rarely hear of. This seems to be ROY's favorite territory. - minhag avos / mimeticism - hashkafic concerns (including philosophy, qaballah): like when chassidim and talmidei haGra stopped putting on tefillin on ch"m because it is qotzeitz binti'os. No one would place hashkafic concerns high on the list. Ein dorshin taamei hamizvos. A poseiq only leaves formal halachic analysis when multiple opinions are defensible, which "right answer" does one choose? But different posqim still give it different weight; requiring more or less equity between the halachic analysis of the different possible pesaqim before being willing to let the hashkafah tip the scales. 2- The BY is a text. To really talk about mimeticism, we're talking about what people do naturally. A poseiq may need to factor in which pesaq was nispasheit, but by doing so he is not being a mimetic. The AhS is more likely to find justifications for mimetic practice while the MB is more likely to recommend changing practice. But deciding to follow either is choosing textuallism over mimeticism. Mimeticism is following the same pesaq the AhS just defended because that's what everone does, it's the example your parents and/or your peers set, not because it's a pesaq with a sevara and sources. Still, it's interesting to find an example of the BY overriding his triumverate and clearly stating a reason that is at odds with his haqdamah. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Take time, micha at aishdas.org be exact, http://www.aishdas.org unclutter the mind. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rabbi Simcha Zissel Ziv, Alter of Kelm From micha at aishdas.org Wed Dec 6 13:40:04 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2017 16:40:04 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] More on Yaakov, sheep and the rods In-Reply-To: <50458059-A03F-4E6E-B54B-F1612B0E7E5B@jsli.org> References: <50458059-A03F-4E6E-B54B-F1612B0E7E5B@jsli.org> Message-ID: <20171206214004.GD12102@aishdas.org> On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 12:20:44PM -0500, Alexander Seinfeld via Avodah wrote: : Why not just interpret this as an example of phenotypic plasticity, : meaning the genetic potential is there in every generation, and the : environmental factors stimulate its expression? : : As everyone who had genetics 101 will realize, if you eliminate 100% : of the phenotype, and breed the remainder you will still get some of : that phenotype in the next generation with recessive genes. So it always : bothered me why was all the hokus pokus by Yaakov necessary.... I would learn from this incident in Bereishis that one is obligated to do whatever hishtadlus is possible by the best understanding of teva available to you. And not to worry about what the current theory may get replaced by. Along similar lines: R Avigdor Miller taught that since HQBH is Rofei kol basar, medicine doesn't actually heal. The role of doctors and medicine is to prevent Hashem's cure from requiring a neis nigleh. And, he explains, this is why people actually survived despite medical theories involving 4 humours and bloodletting, or whatnot. Any accepted theory is equally usable. I don't buy into this, because if true, medicine would never need to advance, in fact, accepted medical theory would never be disproved. Still, I find the idea intriguing. It fits the notion, which might be the Ramban's (depending on how you fit multiple comments together) and is definitely REED's that teva is not a real "thing", but the patterns Hashem uses to hide His Action behind. It's all neis nistar, really Now, if one were to apply the same idea to parnasah, one could explain the purpose of Yaakov's efforts. And even if RAvigdorM's theory is hard to see as how teva works for the rest of us, it's easier to apply to someone who is as neis-worthy, including neis-nistar-worthy, as Yaaqov avinu. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger You want to know how to paint a perfect micha at aishdas.org painting? It's easy. http://www.aishdas.org Make yourself perfect and then just paint Fax: (270) 514-1507 naturally. -Robert Pirsig From akivagmiller at gmail.com Wed Dec 6 15:10:18 2017 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2017 18:10:18 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Gid ha'nasheh Message-ID: . I asked: : If he was punished, it must be that he was punished for some choice : that he made. What choice was that? What did he do wrong? If he could : do it all over again, what ought he do differently? Specifically: : After having married Leah, should he have not married Rachel? and R' Micha Berger responded: > Well, isn't that the halakhah? I want to publicly thank RMB for a beautiful post, and for reminding me of some very important concepts. We learn so much of the machinations of what went on in this incident, how each step was important and necessary in various ways, that I was a bit shocked to hear it suggested that Yaakov Avinu was being punished for his choices here. But truth be told, the line between punishment and consequence can be arbitrary, subjective .... or even imaginary. We DO accept the reality of a "necessary evil", or a "greater good". It's not all black and white. "Well, isn't that the halakhah?" Indeed, the halacha prescribes The Way To Go, but that is no guarantee that there won't be unpleasant side effects. If the Kohen Gadol happens upon a Mes Mitzvah on Yom Kippur morning, the halacha is clear that he must get involved, even if that means that the day's avodah won't go as planned. So too, Yaakov Avinu and Rachel Imenu married each other because Klal Yisrael needed it, and if such a releationship was incompatible with Kedushas Haaretz, well, unfortunately, they'll have to endure the consequences. Akiva Miller From meirabi at gmail.com Wed Dec 6 18:07:12 2017 From: meirabi at gmail.com (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi) Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2017 13:07:12 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] =?utf-8?q?SEDRA_VAYEISHEV_=E2=80=93_TIME_TO_LOOK_IN_THE_?= =?utf-8?q?MIRROR?= Message-ID: When the little kid threatens a bouncer ? we all laugh. It is funny precisely because it is so silly and impossible. DJT, a buffoon, a bumbling, blithering bad-boy, could not possibly win the presidency. It was the standing joke that never grew stale ? until he became POTUS. Our Sages say, we are truly unmasked by Kiso Koso & KaAso ? by what we?re like when feeling liberated: # deciding how to use our valuables i.e. by what we consider to be important # intoxicated [not necessarily by alcohol] # we are agitated i.e. by what presses our buttons. Yosef tells his brothers about his dream ? expecting them to laugh it off and he gives them a second chance after they?ve had an opportunity to reconsider their response. When we get offended and mock ? it?s time to look in the mirror. Best, Meir G. Rabi 0423 207 837 +61 423 207 837 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From marty.bluke at gmail.com Thu Dec 7 02:27:17 2017 From: marty.bluke at gmail.com (Marty Bluke) Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2017 12:27:17 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] The 13 middos In-Reply-To: <20171206192317.GA12102@aishdas.org> References: <20171204222908.GA10223@aishdas.org> <20171206192317.GA12102@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 9:23 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > On Tue, Dec 05, 2017 at 07:15:42AM +0200, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: > : See the Mishne Lamelech avadim 3:9 where he states that it is either or > and > : the 2 styles cannot be mixed, and his main proof is from the Gemara > Shavuos > : 4b where the Gemara asks on Rebbe how can he darshen a ribui umiut like R > : Akiva if in general he darshens Klal Uprat... > > And yet the conclution on 5a is that he holds like R' Yishma'el's beis > medrash who holds the derashah is not kelal uperat but ribui umi'ut > ("ribah umi'at"). R Yisma'el, the one who codified the rules of kelal > uperat is the one who here uses ribui umi'ut!? > The Gemara says that this case is an exception because it is not written in the normal way of a Klal uprat and therefore in this case ONLY Rebbe can learn a ribui umiut but in general someone who learns Klal uprat could not use ribui umiut. > ... > > : See also tosafos nidda 30a s.v. Ushma mina where tosafos says that we > : pasken that we darshen Klal uprat and not ribui umiut... > > Nidda 30a "ushma minah tevilah bizmanah mitzvah" is about holding > like Beis Shammai, and doesn't mention derashos. The previous d"h, > "shema minah telas" (a near match) also isn't on topic. Could you > please fix the citation for me? > See the last 2 lines in the Tosafos that I quoted, Tosafos states "d'darish ribui umiut, V'Kayma lan d'darshinan klali uprati" Tosafos paskens that we darshen klal uprat not ribui umiut, that strongly implies that they are mutuallt exclusive > > > > > Tir'u baTov! > -Micha > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From JRich at sibson.com Wed Dec 6 21:49:36 2017 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2017 05:49:36 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] zmanim Message-ID: <550be79bd779462fa5534e6b58fba249@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> As sunrise got later I was at a minyan where the earliest time for tallit was approximately the same as the minyan starting time. I watched as everybody watched their cell phones for the exact time to start from Myzmanim. (Of course that website says not to rely on to it to the minute) I was wondering whether this close watch was a subset of a broader need of man modern man to have exactitude in life versus living with gray. (Sort of a desire to be Newtonian in a quantum world) I was also wondering whether the advent of the railroad table approach now requires us to halachically follow that exactness rather than that the "it looks right to me" approach of Chazal? Thoughts? KT 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: From larry62341 at optonline.net Thu Dec 7 03:09:25 2017 From: larry62341 at optonline.net (Prof. Levine) Date: Thu, 07 Dec 2017 06:09:25 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Davening on Airplanes In-Reply-To: <900051a759eb4fd1a58d4fda4d74fca6@exchng03.campus.stevens-t ech.edu> References: <900051a759eb4fd1a58d4fda4d74fca6@exchng03.campus.stevens-tech.edu> Message-ID: <32.C2.03752.761292A5@mta3.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> At 08:12 PM 12/6/2017, R Micha Berger wrote: >When it comes to kibud, public treatment does indeed matter... >However, here we are talking about someone in the olam ha'emes. So they >know that while on the plane you have that actual issur keeping you from >fulfilling the minhag of saying qaddish... >So I do not think it's likely the neshamah would mind the lack of kibud >as much as they would mind the misplacement of values. I would therefore >not draw any conclusions from the logical linkage of kibud with intent >and norms. From The Mussar Movement, Volume 1, Part 2 pages 248 - 249. On one of the anniversaries of his father's death, R. Israel was in Memel. He was informed that someone else in the synagogue wished to say Kaddish. Now R. Israel was very insistent that only one person at a time be allowed to recite the Kaddish at the services [28] and apparently this congregation had complied with his ruling. Reb Yitzchak Isaacson was observing the jahrzeit of a daughter who had died very young. Now the Halachah gives precedence to a son observing the jahrzeit of a parent on these occasions, and R. Israel was obviously entitled to the privilege. Sensing the grief he would cause the father by depriving him of the opportunity to say Kaddish for his daughter, R. Israel went up to him and said: "You sir, will say Kaddish." The worshippers expressed their surprise. Not only had R. Israel yielded his own right, but also overlooked the duty of honoring his father, since he was, by law, obliged to say Kaddish. He explained to them that the merit of extending kindness (gemi- lut chesed) to a fellow Jew possessed far greater value than the saying of Kaddish.[29] [28.] See R. Naftali Amsterdam's will, published in Or Hamusar No. 13. See Vol. II of the Hebrew edition of this series, Tenu'at Hamusar, II, Chap. 25. [29.] Ernile Benjamin, op. cit., p. 25. From seinfeld at daasbooks.com Thu Dec 7 06:50:16 2017 From: seinfeld at daasbooks.com (Alexander Seinfeld) Date: Thu, 07 Dec 2017 09:50:16 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Gid ha'nasheh Message-ID: It seems to me there are two plausible answers, and both may be correct. 1. Yes, he should not have married Rachel. This is in fact what Leah tells her, ?You stole my husband.? He was tricked, but he accepted Leah, did not annul the marriage, so too bad for Rachel. She?s the one who gave away the password. 2. He wasn?t yet Yisroel. He was still a ben Noach. When he becomes Yisroel, he is now required to keep the Taryag Mitzvos. It is right after this name change that she dies. I?m not sure why she doesn?t die immediately (in Beit-El) rather en route to Efrat. But this delay may have sown doubt into his mind about his status - maybe he is still a ben Noach. His sons consider themselves Bnai Yisroel, which is why they are eating meat that for a ben-Noach would be eiver-min-ha-chai, and which is part of the lashon hara that Yoseph brings back to Yaakov. But his judgment that they are Bnai Noach is not merely academic, it is personal, because it has implications in Rachel?s death. > >If he was punished, it must be that he was punished for some choice >that he made. What choice was that? What did he do wrong? If he could >do it all over again, what ought he do differently? Specifically: >After having married Leah, should he have not married Rachel? >Alternatively, (according to those who say that he was not fooled but >knew that Leah had the simanim,) should he have not married Leah? Or >should he have protested and annuled the marriage to Leah? > >If he was punished, what did he do wrong? From micha at aishdas.org Thu Dec 7 11:06:53 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2017 14:06:53 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Gid ha'nasheh In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20171207190653.GB26083@aishdas.org> On Wed, Dec 06, 2017 at 06:10:18PM -0500, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : We DO accept the reality of a "necessary evil", or a "greater good". : It's not all black and white. "Well, isn't that the halakhah?" Indeed, : the halacha prescribes The Way To Go, but that is no guarantee that : there won't be unpleasant side effects... A number of rishonim (eg Ramban, Seforno) deal with the problem of miracles. Since HQBH is Perfect and is capable of a perfect creation, why would He make a world in which He occasionally would have to step in and override teva? This is where the Ramban comes in with the idea that not only the miraculous items listed in Pirqei Avos created during Maaseh Bereishis, every "exception" to the laws of nature are actually special cases written into the law. I'll pause here to remind of what I said last email about "at the time of creation" and "in response to the situation" both being oversimplifications caused by us temporal beings trying to think about Hashem's "Action" which is lemaalah min hazeman and has no "when". Similarly, one can ask about His Authorship of halakhah. Since Hashem is capable of writing a system of laws to fit the universe in a way where obeying the law never has "unpleasant side effects", why wouldn't He? One backstep... I just realized you mean something broader by "side effects" than I was talking about. As you later write: : upon a Mes Mitzvah on Yom Kippur morning, the halacha is clear that he : must get involved, even if that means that the day's avodah won't go : as planned... Similarly, if piquach nefesh is docheh Shabbos, rather than Shabbos being huterah, one may have the misfortune of having to violate Shabbos. But that's not sekhar va'onesh, and my question "but what about Divine Justice?" doesn't apply. Not unless the "unpleasant side effect" is -- as in the case of Yaaqov's widowerhood or his hip -- painful (physically and/or emotionally). There is also another issue... Sekhar mitzvos behai alma leiqa. Not everything in this world is sekhar va'onesh. Li nir'eh, everything in this world is to draw us to a state of being able to receive more of Hashem's tov. Onesh, only when we have a chance of it getting us to choose more constructively. Which is why the mishnah talks about tzadiqim getting onesh in olam hazah to spare them in olam haba. Not because pain in olam hazeh pays off the accoun t early, but because a tzadiq will use the pain to draw closer to HQBH / to his ideal self. And similarly, resha'im who wouldn't respond constructively to the challenge... Well, HQBH would share with them his Tov in the here-and-now rather than not at all. This takes us away from insisting that the universe must be set up so that every sin contains its own onesh as a consequence. (If we're using the consequence model to look at things.) Instead, we can look at the universe as tending toward tov. And therefore every step away from tov will as a consequence cause a pull back toward it. (Which could well be onesh, but in olam hazeh, it could be getting us connected back to the Meitiv in some other way.) And applying this back to Yaaqov's marrying two wives... Perhaps it's not an onesh, but the consequent path closer to the Meitiv in a world where the aretz was made tamei. And it's even possible that the challenges of this harder path lead to a closer place than without. So that overall, the net is maximize sekhar. Lefum tza'ara. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger We look forward to the time micha at aishdas.org when the power to love http://www.aishdas.org will replace the love of power. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - William Ewart Gladstone From micha at aishdas.org Thu Dec 7 11:12:14 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2017 14:12:14 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] zmanim In-Reply-To: <550be79bd779462fa5534e6b58fba249@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <550be79bd779462fa5534e6b58fba249@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20171207191214.GC26083@aishdas.org> On Thu, Dec 07, 2017 at 05:49:36AM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : I was wondering whether this close watch was a subset of a broader : need of man modern man to have exactitude in life versus living with : gray... Or maybe we were always mechuyavim to be as precise as possible. : wondering whether the advent of the railroad table approach now requires : us to halachically follow that exactness rather than that the "it looks : right to me" approach of Chazal? Thoughts? Li nir'eh there is value to the "in sync with nature" approach of Chazal that we lose when we think about clock time rather than the cycles of the sun (a/k/a the earth's spin). Much the way we lose a lot of what the yamim tovim mean because we aren't living in agrarian communities, and don't feel the joy of new wheat and barley when we celebrate our birth as a people, or the joy of bringing in the year's fruit when we celebrate how HQBH sustained us in the midbar. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From seinfeld at daasbooks.com Thu Dec 7 20:42:27 2017 From: seinfeld at daasbooks.com (Alexander Seinfeld) Date: Thu, 07 Dec 2017 23:42:27 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] What are the main mitzvos to focus on? Message-ID: :: So basically you are saying that the current Charedi hashkafa/lifestyle of :: Torah only and Torah learning being the ultimate purpose of life is not a :: majority opinion in Chazal and in fact you can't find anyone among Chazal :: who says this. : I intentionally avoided stating it that confrontationally, but yes. Forgive me, this may be a side issue to your main point about the 2 ways/reasons to learn, but I feel it should be clarified what you mean. How do you understand the Shulchan Aruch - Orach Chaim 155-156 - go immediately from davening to learning, make Torah your ikkar and malacha your arai; minimize work to only what you need [Be?er Heiteiv, Mishna Berura] not more??? Not mainstream? Breaking with Chazal? It?s a verbatim quotation from Gemara Berachos 35b. And maybe related to Taanis 24b (Chanina ben Dosa and his wife.) Now, let?s think sociologically for a moment. Why did the Mechaber choose to state this halacha the way he does? It seems to me that in his time (as in all times) there were Jews who were pulled to the needs and attractions of parnasa and spending the vast majority of their time and energy on it and in his view not in the proper balance. The fact that he has to state this halacha implies that not everyone was behaving that way. So the fact that not everyone behaves this way today is no proof whatsoever against the halacha. But anyone who wonders on what basis do some Orthodox Jews forsake full-time jobs and toil in Torah should read the Beur Halacha on Siman 155.1 - ?Eis lilmode? > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Fri Dec 8 02:55:11 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Fri, 8 Dec 2017 05:55:11 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] What are the main mitzvos to focus on? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20171208105511.GA13704@aishdas.org> On Thu, Dec 07, 2017 at 11:42:27PM -0500, Alexander Seinfeld via Avodah wrote: ::: So basically you are saying that the current Charedi hashkafa/lifestyle of ::: Torah only and Torah learning being the ultimate purpose of life is not a ::: majority opinion in Chazal and in fact you can't find anyone among Chazal ::: who says this. :: I intentionally avoided stating it that confrontationally, but yes. : Forgive me, this may be a side issue to your main point about the 2 : ways/reasons to learn, but I feel it should be clarified what you mean. : How do you understand the Shulchan Aruch - Orach Chaim 155-156 - go : immediately from davening to learning, make Torah your ikkar and malacha : your arai; minimize work to only what you need [Be?er Heiteiv, Mishna : Berura] not more??? You are shifting topics. I wrote about the reasons to learn, and asserted "Torah only and Torah learning being the ultimate purpose of life... you can't find anyone among Chazal who says this." Torah learning should well be the anchor of your day in comparison to earning a parnasah. (Although if one is learning rather than going to teach, other mitzvos are dochim.) But not as an ends, as a means. The hashkafah is new, the priorities not. But the new hashkafah changes the weighting to be even more in favor of learning. For example: I don't know what's going on today, but in my day Neir Yisrael / Baltimore was unique among American "yeshivish" yeshivos in encouraging talmidim to volunteer to staff kiruv shabbatonim. (Most/all YU RY were very proactively pro becoming an NCSY advisor.) The others felt that at this time in their lives, bachurim shouldn't be distracted from learning. This, despite the fact that adolescents respond better if there are peer-teachers rather than full grownups of a different generation, and the program was begging for them. This is one of the reasons JEP failed. That's the worldview of the American and Israeli "Litvisher" yeshiva. Now let's look at actual pre-war Litvisher gedolim. And I don't mean the obvious mussarists. `Would the aforementioned Meshekh Chokhmah have agreed with this decision? Is it in concert with RCV's admonition to his son? What about R' Shimon Shkop, who opens Shaarei Yosher's haqdamah with (empshasis added): Yisbarakh HaBorei Veyis'alah HaYotzeir who created us in His "Image" and in the likeness of His "Structure" VECHAYEI OLAM NATA BESOKHAINU such that our greated desire should be to benefit others to the indivindual and the masses, now and in the future, in imitation of the Creator (kevayachol). Ikkar doesn't mean "ultimate purpose", and making learning one's ultimate purpose does push one to go beyond making it the day's ikkar. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Brains to the lazy micha at aishdas.org are like a torch to the blind -- http://www.aishdas.org a useless burden. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Bechinas haOlam From micha at aishdas.org Fri Dec 8 06:11:58 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Fri, 8 Dec 2017 09:11:58 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Your Ancestors Message-ID: <20171208141158.GA20389@aishdas.org> R' Mike Gerver posted to Mail-Jewish in 1994 a request to help him collect more date to tighten an argument that odds are, every Jew alive either: - is a geir or all his ancestry are from geirim recently enough for him to know, or - descends from Rashi. (Or anyone else of that era or earlier.) See Calculations involve estimating rate of marriage across social strata, between towns, and between eidot. All Jews. Even Teimanim. (Ethiopians weren't a discussion yet, odds are no.) Well, this article makes that all the more probable: http://bigthink.com/stephen-johnson/why-youre-probably-related-to-nefertiti-and-confucius Why You're Probably Related to Nefertiti, Confucius, and Socrates December 7, 2017 by Stephen Johnson .... [J]ust how far back do humans need to go to find a common ancestor of their own: a person to whom all living people are related? The answer, for people of European descent at least, is surprisingly recent: 600 years. The common ancestor for every single person alive on the planet today, no matter where, lived approximately 3,600 years ago. That means Confucius, Nefertiti, Socrates, and any figure from ancient history that had children, is in some way your ancestor. Then, quoting Adam Rutherfore's new book, A Brief History of Everyone Who Ever Lived: "We are all special, which also means that none of us is," writes Rutherford in the book. "This is merely a numbers game. You have two parents, four grandparents, eight great-grandparents, and so on. Each generation back the number of ancestors you have doubles. But this ancestral expansion is not borne back ceaselessly into the past. If it were, your family tree when Charlemagne was Le Grand Fromage would harbor around 137,438,953,472 individuals on it -- more people than were alive then, now, or in total." So, why not? "You can be, and in fact are, descended from the same individual many times over," Rutherford writes. "Your great-great-great-great-great-grandmother might hold that position in your family tree twice, or many times, as her lines of descent branch out from her, but collapse onto you. The further back through time we go, the more these lines will coalesce on fewer individuals." The startling discovery that all Europeans might share a common ancestor who walked the Earth just 600 years ago was first proposed in 1999 by a Yale statistician named Joseph Chang. In his paper Recent Common Ancestors of All Present-Day Individuals," Chang used complex mathematical conceptslike Poisson distributions and Markov chainsto show how webbed pedigrees can overlap to produce common ancestors. If that is true of Europeans in 600 years, Jews over 800 years lo kol shekein? :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger We are great, and our foibles are great, micha at aishdas.org and therefore our troubles are great -- http://www.aishdas.org but our consolations will also be great. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rabbi AY Kook From jziring at torontotorah.com Wed Dec 6 19:40:58 2017 From: jziring at torontotorah.com (Jonathan Ziring) Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2017 22:40:58 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] The 13 middos In-Reply-To: References: <20171204222908.GA10223@aishdas.org> <20171206192317.GA12102@aishdas.org> Message-ID: [I had to edit this post significantly to fit Avodah's format constaints. -micha] Shalom, I'm touched to be asked. I have wondered about this (and have again this week due to Daf Yomi). I can't say I have strongly formed opinions on it, but the sugyot do seem to imply that these are more tendencies rather than rules, at lease re: Klal UPrat vs. Ribbui and Miut. The drashot of vavim and the like seem more absolute (X is not doresh vav). Yaakov Elman makes that point in his article on Ribbui. A few articles that deal with the topic that I've glanced through are: The Formal Development of [Kelal uPerat uKelal] Michael Chernick Tarbiz, pp. 393-410 Towards a History of "Ribbuy" in the Babylonian Talmud and Yaakov Elman Proceedings of the World Congress of Jewish Studies Vol. 11, Division C: Thought and Literature, Volume I: Rabbinic and Talmudic Literature (1993), pp. 87-94 In general, Michael Chernick and devoted much time to this. A few other relevant articles by him: The Development of Ribbuim and Mi 'utim Hermeneutics," PAAJR",1982-3. "The Use of Ribbuyim and Mi'utim in the Halakic Midrash ofR. Ishmael," JQK, 1979. "The Hermeneutic Kelal u-Ferat u-Kelal: Its History and Development," AAJR Annual Meeting, 1980 I think this will spur me to think more systematically about this. If I come up with anything, I will definitely share it. Jonathan From simon.montagu at gmail.com Sat Dec 9 08:27:13 2017 From: simon.montagu at gmail.com (Simon Montagu) Date: Sat, 9 Dec 2017 18:27:13 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Your Ancestors In-Reply-To: <20171208141158.GA20389@aishdas.org> References: <20171208141158.GA20389@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Fri, Dec 8, 2017 at 4:11 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah < avodah at lists.aishdas.org> wrote: > > http://bigthink.com/stephen-johnson/why-youre-probably- > related-to-nefertiti-and-confucius > Why You're Probably Related to Nefertiti, Confucius, and Socrates > December 7, 2017 by Stephen Johnson > .... > [J]ust how far back do humans need to go to find a common ancestor > of their own: a person to whom all living people are related? > > The answer, for people of European descent at least, is surprisingly > recent: 600 years. The common ancestor for every single person alive > on the planet today, no matter where, lived approximately 3,600 years > ago. That means Confucius, Nefertiti, Socrates, and any figure from > ancient history that had children, is in some way your ancestor. Unless I'm missing something, those last two sentences are a huge non sequitur. I have a slightly different take-away from the article: it says that everybody has a common ancestor who lived approximately 3,600 years ago. Isn't that exactly what the Torah says? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ben1456 at zahav.net.il Sat Dec 9 12:20:41 2017 From: ben1456 at zahav.net.il (Ben Waxman) Date: Sat, 09 Dec 2017 22:20:41 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Rambam Hilchot Shivtat Assur 3:3 Message-ID: Rambam Hilchot Shivtat Assur 3:3: The Rambam writes a clal: A minhag can not cancel something that is assur. A minhag can only prohibit something that is permitted. Is this rule seen as a veto or are there indeed issurim which have been become muttar via the power of minhag? From micha at aishdas.org Sat Dec 9 16:07:31 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Sat, 9 Dec 2017 19:07:31 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Your Ancestors In-Reply-To: References: <20171208141158.GA20389@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20171210000731.GB20169@aishdas.org> On Sat, Dec 09, 2017 at 06:27:13PM +0200, Simon Montagu via Avodah wrote: : > The answer, for people of European descent at least, is surprisingly : > recent: 600 years. The common ancestor for every single person alive : > on the planet today, no matter where, lived approximately 3,600 years : > ago. That means Confucius, Nefertiti, Socrates, and any figure from : > ancient history that had children, is in some way your ancestor. : Unless I'm missing something, those last two sentences are a huge non : sequitur. The author is just saying that the same model that giver the result of 600 years for Euopeans gives a result of 3,600 for all of humanity. : I have a slightly different take-away from the article: it says that : everybody has a common ancestor who lived approximately 3,600 years ago. : Isn't that exactly what the Torah says? Well, really the model says that everyone who is alive today almost certainly (this is statistics, after all) descended from everyone who was alive 3,600 who has /any/ living descendents. Not that there was one such ancestor. Gut Voch! -Micha -- Micha Berger What you get by achieving your goals micha at aishdas.org is not as important as http://www.aishdas.org what you become by achieving your goals. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Henry David Thoreau From ben1456 at zahav.net.il Sat Dec 9 12:59:26 2017 From: ben1456 at zahav.net.il (Ben Waxman) Date: Sat, 09 Dec 2017 22:59:26 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Rambam Hilchot Kiddush Hachodesh Message-ID: 1) Rambam Hilchot Kiddush Hachodesh 3:1 makes it clear that anyone who sees the new moon and can get to Jerusalem by the following evening should go. How would that work today given that basically means that every male in Israel who sees the moon should go (maybe men in Eilat who don't own a car would be patur). Were most (or even a small minority of) Israeli Jewish males above the age of 13 to look, there is no way that the Beit Din could even question all of these men, even if they only asked a couple of questions. Is there any problem in making sure that you don't see the moon? Just stay in for the evening. Rambam doesn't say that there is a chiyuv to look. Or since the Beit Din only takes testimony from trusted witnesses, can someone just say "I never got any type of certification that I am a good witness, therefore I don't need to go". Or how about having a few (say 100) men in each major city or region entrusted with the job and they would be the designated possible witnesses. 2) Rambam Hilchot Kiddush Hachodes 2:10 says clearly that once the beit din declares the new month, that is it, even if they know that they made a mistake. Yet in 3:15 and 16 Rambam writes that in the situation where no witnesses came on the 30th, if witnesses come later in the month and are able to prove that they did see the moon come out on the 29th, that month's calendar is redone. Is this not an obvious contradiction? I assume that I am reading 3:15 and 16 incorrectly or that I am getting something wrong here. 3) Later in the book Rambam goes on at length and in extreme detail about how to calculate the moon's position. He adds that we know these calculations from science and that since we no longer have a tradition about this matter from the nevi'im, it is fine to use outside sources. Seeing this made me wonder why we don't apply this rule in other areas. For example, I had read that we don't make matza from barley because we don't have a tradition as to how it takes barley to become chameitz. So why not measure it? Ben From simon.montagu at gmail.com Sat Dec 9 21:57:52 2017 From: simon.montagu at gmail.com (Simon Montagu) Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2017 07:57:52 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Your Ancestors In-Reply-To: <20171210000731.GB20169@aishdas.org> References: <20171208141158.GA20389@aishdas.org> <20171210000731.GB20169@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Sun, Dec 10, 2017 at 2:07 AM, Micha Berger wrote: > On Sat, Dec 09, 2017 at 06:27:13PM +0200, Simon Montagu via Avodah wrote: > : > The answer, for people of European descent at least, is > surprisingly > : > recent: 600 years. The common ancestor for every single person > alive > : > on the planet today, no matter where, lived approximately 3,600 > years > : > ago. That means Confucius, Nefertiti, Socrates, and any figure > from > : > ancient history that had children, is in some way your ancestor. > > : Unless I'm missing something, those last two sentences are a huge non > : sequitur. > > The author is just saying that the same model that giver the result > of 600 years for Euopeans gives a result of 3,600 for all of humanity. > > That's not the non sequitur. The non sequitur is going from "we have a common ancestor 3,600 years ago" to "Confucius and Socrates are your ancestors". Confucius and Socrates lived around 2500 years ago, and how does the author know that they had any living descendants? > : I have a slightly different take-away from the article: it says that > : everybody has a common ancestor who lived approximately 3,600 years ago. > : Isn't that exactly what the Torah says? > > Well, really the model says that everyone who is alive today almost > certainly (this is statistics, after all) descended from everyone who > was alive 3,600 who has /any/ living descendents. > Not that there was one such ancestor. > I haven't read the model, but the article you linked to talks several times about "/a/ common ancestor", "/a/" person to whom all living people are related", etc. > > Gut Voch! > -Micha > > -- > Micha Berger What you get by achieving your goals > micha at aishdas.org is not as important as > http://www.aishdas.org what you become by achieving your goals. > Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Henry David Thoreau > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From bdbradley70 at hotmail.com Sun Dec 10 14:22:59 2017 From: bdbradley70 at hotmail.com (Ben Bradley) Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2017 22:22:59 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] What are the main mitzvos to focus on? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I don't recall everything I've read on this subject of the purpose of talmud torah, but the conversation here so far seems to be missing a crucial piece, namely the transformative aspect of talmud torah on the individual learning it. The problem with the instrumental view is that it doesn't account for a number of aspects of the way chazal unanimously viewed talmud torah. If it was just about knowing how to keep the mitzvos then, I think, we'd have trouble with the following off the top of my head 1. The intensive way chazal went about talmud torah - the lack of sleep involved, the amora who sat on his hands until they bled, disappearing from family for years at a time 2. The viewing of talmud torah as a unending project 3. The depth and incisiveness of analysis expected in learning gemara. Eg being able to metaher a sheret 4. the lack of differentiation between learning issues of practical use and those which you will never need to know from a practical point of view Maybe I'm missing something, but knowing how to keep the mitzvos per se need not involve any of these. There are clear indications of the transformative nature of talmud torah in chazal, even if these aren't stated as its purpose explicitly. Perhaps there's a distinction between its purpose and the meaning of lishma. So learning torah lishma, whatever that means, is transformative, which is a primary purpose if not the only one. That would also bring talmud torah in line with the other mitzvos, since they all have a transformative benefit to the individual. It would also set it apart since it is more transformative than all the others, ie kneged kulam. It is the most transformative, and thus the most important. That said, considerations other than personal growth give priority to other mitzvos in many situations. Ben -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hankman at bell.net Mon Dec 11 06:11:22 2017 From: hankman at bell.net (hankman) Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2017 09:11:22 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Purpose of distant galaxies? Message-ID: <83F7EA9337D54E08891E46C1032C89FE@hankPC> I have just been watching a show on Discovery Science about a lay version of quantum mechanics. At one point the moderator was talking about the notion of entanglement and explained how in theory this involves the connection of entangled particles over any distance instantaneously. He then continued to say that given the big bang theory, all of existence was at a single point and then expanded (inflated) from then to the great distances, billions of light years, we witness today. But at the initial moment after the singularity, all the particles of the universe were close enough to possibly become entangled with some other, but then after the expansion, the partner entangled particle might have ended up in some distant far removed galaxy and but thereby still be related to its entangled partner particle perhaps now in our body here on Earth. I then thought back to some of the earlier discussions here on Avodah about the purpose of these distant galaxies that could never affect us here on Earth and that we did not even know existed until recently. Perhaps this possibility of entanglement with distant particles of those galaxies from the time of creation may provide some logic to the purpose of the existence of those distant galaxies? Happy Chanukah veKol tuv Chaim Manaster -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Mon Dec 11 09:33:33 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2017 12:33:33 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Rambam Hilchot Shivtat Assur 3:3 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20171211173333.GE15573@aishdas.org> On Sat, Dec 09, 2017 at 10:20:41PM +0200, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: : Rambam Hilchot Shivtat Assur 3:3: The Rambam writes a clal: A minhag : can not cancel something that is assur. A minhag can only prohibit : something that is permitted. Isn't the very definition of a minhag ta'us one that promotes doing an issur, or violating an asei? At least, violating an asei actively; I don't know if I would include a minhag not to fulfil an asei besheiv ve'al ta'aseh. That kind of thing would require more research. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Worrying is like a rocking chair: micha at aishdas.org it gives you something to do for a while, http://www.aishdas.org but in the end it gets you nowhere. Fax: (270) 514-1507 From micha at aishdas.org Tue Dec 12 13:53:43 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2017 16:53:43 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Women and Torah Study In-Reply-To: <9f94d416d3154585a6bb71a2df12c54e@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <9f94d416d3154585a6bb71a2df12c54e@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20171212215343.GA13817@aishdas.org> On Sun, Dec 03, 2017 at 06:40:43AM +0000, RJR reposted here a comment of his on a recent post on Lehrhaus: : Is encouraging intensive study of Talmud for women a community priority : or is the priority to make such study available for those who choose to : avail themselves of the opportunity? Especially if the former, where : does it stand in relation to other community priorities and how does : the answer differ from study for men? IMHO these questions have not been : sufficiently addressed. Do my concern resonate at all? Mod-Yeshivish (in contrast to other forms of MO) may argue that since learning primarily means shas and lomdus, and the iqar method for refining one's soul is learning, now that women are given the toolds to be able to make sense of Talmud, making it available to them is a community priority. To quote RALichtenstein from : What is the cardinal principle that lies at the heart, on the one hand, of Yeshiva education and, on the other hand, is the lynchpin of liberal education. It is, first and foremost, the notion that one is concerned with molding the person and only secondarily with preparing or training for the fulfillment of a certain role. John Cardinal Newman's statement, that "we are men by nature, geometrists only by chance," epitomizes this approach and it is one with respect to which, I have indicated, the Yeshiva world and the world of liberal education at its best coincide. Of course, that is not to suggest that preparing for a role, be it a domestic role, a professional role, or a communal role, is not important. It is important, but secondary. The first principle, I think, with regard to education generally, and which needs to be particularly emphasized in the field of women's education, is that first and foremost one needs to mold the person as an individual in all respects, with regard to character, personality, intellectual ability, and above all, of course, in religious terms, as an oved Hashem. ... If we ask ourselves: Here are the goals! "[leyir'ah, le'avah, la'avod, lishmor, ledavqah, lalekhet bekhol derakhav]," to fear [God], to love [God], to serve [God], to cling [to Him] to go in all His ways." What are the means? Traditionally, over the centuries, there has been a fairly sharp dichotomy precisely regarding this very issue, namely the means to be employed in relation to men versus women... This is not the occasion to examine whether that was justified historically. What is clear, however, is that notwithstanding how one judges the past retrospectively, in our present historical and social setting we need to view the teaching and the learning of girls and women as both a major challenge, as well as a primary need. ... But this is creating a role for halakhah study out of whole cloth that is really RAL's chiddush. After all, historically curricula for girls' and women did include character-shaping material, but OVERTLY so -- mussar, hashkafah and the lessons in each taken from studying Tanakh. And leave halakhah to learning the job, rather than liberal arts. And I would repeat a point made by RYGB when asked about this topic: Where is the evidence that our current boys' curriculum works so well that we're in a rush to make the curriculum for girls' more similar to it? In general, the yeshivish -- including the ModY -- take NhC shaar 4 to mean that learning refines the soul in some mystical way. Just learn, and the problem will solve itself. Whereas I personally think the data points the other way. And that the NhC intended that statement prescriptively -- true talmud Torah is learning in a way that consciously aims to refine the soul. Which is why there is all that Mussar and Middos talk around AishDas and its web site. My own inclination, and this really just translates to "my parents provided a RWMO upbrining" (with some variety thrown in in the form of school choices), would be that we can't prioritize providing talmud study for women over clear-cut chiyuvim. Talmud study should be made available, but for those women who feel a need for talmud study. Which puts me in the same camp as the LR's effective position. Women coming to kiruv with egalitarian leanings were encouraged by the LR to learn Talmud if they wish to. But you wont find a gemara class in Beis Rivka. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "And you shall love H' your G-d with your whole micha at aishdas.org heart, your entire soul, and all you own." http://www.aishdas.org Love is not two who look at each other, Fax: (270) 514-1507 It is two who look in the same direction. From micha at aishdas.org Wed Dec 13 03:30:34 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2017 06:30:34 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Rambam Hilchot Kiddush Hachodesh In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20171213113034.GB7576@aishdas.org> On Sat, Dec 09, 2017 at 10:59:26PM +0200, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: : 1) Rambam Hilchot Kiddush Hachodesh 3:1 makes it clear that anyone : who sees the new moon and can get to Jerusalem by the following : evening should go. How would that work today.... And then think what happens if the calculations were for a long month. The guy invests all that effort just to get to locked Lishkas haGazis doors. I would be frustrated. But to get to your question. I think that's a taqanah in order to insure that there is eidus. Rather than everyone saying someone else will go. There is no how that would work today, since you need a Sanhedrin to make it work. But isn't this a derabbnan, to make sure all those who see the moon don't assume someone else will go, and there ends up not having 2 kosher eidim? So, if the the next Sanhedrin finds that too many people are coming / would come and we're far from needing such a guarantee, they can repeal this din. : 2) Rambam Hilchot Kiddush Hachodes 2:10 says clearly that once the : beit din declares the new month, that is it, even if they know that : they made a mistake. Yet in 3:15 and 16 Rambam writes that in the : situation where no witnesses came on the 30th, if witnesses come : later in the month and are able to prove that they did see the moon : come out on the 29th, that month's calendar is redone. Is this not : an obvious contradiction? I assume that I am reading 3:15 and 16 : incorrectly or that I am getting something wrong here. The famous story of the calendar dispute between Rabban Gamliel and R' Yehoshua (RH 2:8-9) includes R' Aqiva saying, "Eileh mo'adei H' asher tiqre'u osam" -- bein bizmanan, bein shelo bizmanan, ein Li mo'ados ela eilu. Which is what the Rambam is saying in 2:10. He quotes R' Aqiva's prooftext. In that mishnah, both R' Gamliel and R' Yehoshua knew the metzi'us, they were arguing over whether to accept the eidim despite a flaw in their story. They may have even been arguing about the cheshbon, and whether there was a need to accept whatever eidim one had. The beginning of mishnah 9 has R' Gamliel ordering R' Yehoshua to show up "beyom haKippurim shechal lihyos *becheshbonkha*". There may be a difference between making a mistake in terms of decision-making and making one because they were working with bad or incomplete data. 2:20 is about their decision being wrong, 3:15-16 is about a lack of eidus. An error in the cheshbon or perhaps decision in general vs an error in facts. While this guess about p' 2 is less than compelling, it would seem that in p' 3 he is empowering a BD to go back to their cheshbon when they were forced by a lack of testimony to lengthen the month despite it. After all, 3:15 describes BD sitting all of the 30th, meaning wanting a short month, without witnesses comming. So I feel more comfortable with that part of the guess. Maybe R' Yehoshua would have renegged without needing R' Aqiva had other eidim arrived days later to corroborate the first two. : 3) Later in the book Rambam goes on at length and in extreme detail : about how to calculate the moon's position. He adds that we know : these calculations from science and that since we no longer have a : tradition about this matter from the nevi'im, it is fine to use : outside sources. Seeing this made me wonder why we don't apply this : rule in other areas. For example, I had read that we don't make : matza from barley because we don't have a tradition as to how it : takes barley to become chameitz. So why not measure it? But lemaaseh we don't, because we need a Sanhedrin to make a RC. For that matter, we even pad when we say Qiddush Levanah, making the one day difference irrelevent. So what halakhah lemaaseh is the Rambam talking about, that relies on the calculations? Giving license to the next Sanhedrin? I am not even sure we know the scientific difference between chameitz and sirchah. Or even if there is one. Why is dough made with 100% juice a different thing than if the juice were diluted, or if it were all water? If we don't know what it is we should measure, how can we use science to measure it? I think it has to be something like that, because the lack of barley matzah isn't a modern issue. And the ability to measure rising doesn't require some modern measuring equipment. So, why was the question left unsolved by centuries of acharonim if it were resolable? Similarly, we know the medical communities' various definitions of death. (They're all pretty similar.) But we don't know if halachic misah would use the same definition. But even those who stick with heart death would use the latest scientific tools to determine whether or not the person had their last heartbeat (lo aleinu). So I would posit the issue is a chiluq between using science to determine the physical state vs having a pesaq as to what physical state needs determining. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Like a bird, man can reach undreamed-of micha at aishdas.org heights as long as he works his wings. http://www.aishdas.org But if he relaxes them for but one minute, Fax: (270) 514-1507 he plummets downward. - Rav Yisrael Salanter From JRich at sibson.com Wed Dec 13 21:39:28 2017 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2017 05:39:28 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] S"A Principles Message-ID: Question: I note that the S"A O"C 158:10 (Hand Washing) quotes the Gemara (R'Chisda) in support of using more than the minimum required amount of water for hand washing. Given the Mechaber's goal that the Shulchan Aruch be a halachic summary of his magnum opus, the Beit Yosef, does anyone know of a theory as to why the Mechaber in some cases quotes Talmudic sources (or Torah or Rishonim) and in others just states the halacha? Any study of the frequency of such quotes? KT 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: From akivagmiller at gmail.com Wed Dec 13 19:40:54 2017 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2017 22:40:54 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Rambam Hilchot Kiddush Hachodesh Message-ID: . (I don't know if this post will help understand Kiddush Hachodesh or not. If yes, I'm glad I could help. If not, I apologize for the distraction.) R' Micha Berger asked: > I am not even sure we know the scientific difference between > chameitz and sirchah. Or even if there is one. Why is dough > made with 100% juice a different thing than if the juice were > diluted, or if it were all water? If we don't know what it is > we should measure, how can we use science to measure it? I agree that WE don't know the scientific difference between chametz and sirchon, but it seems clear to me that such a difference does exist, and Chazal understood it. See the very beginning of Yerushalmi Challah, page 1b1 in the ArtScroll English version. "Badku Umatz'u" - They tested various grains, to see what happens when their flour is mixed with water. They found that The Five Grains underwent "chimutz", while *most* other grains fermented in the manner called "sirchon". (For some grains, the tests were inconclusive.) There is no Kabala From Sinai that defines these processes in terms of the grains, the liquids, or anything else. If you knew what to look for, you could look at a dough and tell whether it was chometz - without even knowing the ingredients. > I think it has to be something like that, because the lack of > barley matzah isn't a modern issue. And the ability to measure > rising doesn't require some modern measuring equipment. So, > why was the question left unsolved by centuries of acharonim > if it were resolvable? The problem isn't in the equipment. It's knowing what to look for. The tamay birds are all listed in Parshas Shmini. You don't need a degree in genetics to determine whether the bird in your hand is on the list or not. The only problem is that no one today knows what those words mean. Just like we don't really understand the difference between chimutz and sirchon. And no amount of pilpul among the "centuries of acharonim" is gonna help. Akiva Miller From micha at aishdas.org Thu Dec 14 03:27:18 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2017 06:27:18 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Rambam Hilchot Kiddush Hachodesh In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20171214112718.GA11145@aishdas.org> On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 10:40:54PM -0500, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : See the very beginning of Yerushalmi Challah, page [16]b1 in the : ArtScroll English version. "Badku Umatz'u" - They tested various : grains, to see what happens when their flour is mixed with water. They : found that The Five Grains underwent "chimutz", while *most* other : grains fermented in the manner called "sirchon". (For some grains, the : tests were inconclusive.) (Artscroll must have just one page of 16b, since that's near the bottom of the amud.) Assuming you understand the machloqes aa being about metzi'us. Which I did not. Aside from a reluctance to pin machloqesin on matters of fact even in the Y-mi, where there are cases it seems unaviodable. There are other problems: 1- EVERY other grain but these 5 produced something in between chimutz and sirchon that only R Yochanan b Nuri thought looked like chimutz? Not one of the experiments had another dissenter? 2- Why wouldn't later generations try to get clarity by repeating the experiment? As I took it (and wrote as much in prior iterations), R Yochanan b Nuri and the chakhamim were arguing over where the line is between chimutz and sirchon. They agreed on what happened when you mix a grain other than the 5 with water -- the gemara describes the experimental result as "ushe'ar kol haminim einan ba'in liydei matzah vechameitz elas sirchon." Then it continues the machloqes (running onto 17a), this time asking about qeramis in particular. And the gemara asks: Why they don't just check it? The first check's results were written open-and-shut. Here we are given RYBN differing obseration. As I took it, RYBN disagreed only in that he considers sirchon prohibited as chameitz. They argue about which side of the line sirchon is on because the machloqes is about where the line is. Which is why the gemara is so clear cut on the first test. And this is is why I lunped it together with other cases of halakhah deciding where in the gray area set of physical cases halakhah draws the line. : There is no Kabala From Sinai that defines these processes in terms of : the grains, the liquids, or anything else. If you knew what to look : for, you could look at a dough and tell whether it was chometz - : without even knowing the ingredients. ... and we don't know what to look for. :> I think it has to be something like that, because the lack of :> barley matzah isn't a modern issue. And the ability to measure :> rising doesn't require some modern measuring equipment. So, :> why was the question left unsolved by centuries of acharonim :> if it were resolvable? : The problem isn't in the equipment. It's knowing what to look for. As I said, it "has to be something like that", since the physical question could have been resolved, or at the very least repeatedly attempted to be resolved. You appear to be arguing against the hava amina I took pains to reject. But, unlike rice, where miSinai we could have known whether its sitchon qualifies as chameitz or not or the machloqes could have arisen later, with barley we know the uncertainty is caused by lost information. : The tamay birds are all listed in Parshas Shmini. You don't need a : degree in genetics to determine whether the bird in your hand is on : the list or not.,,, Ironically, defining a "min" is not settled halakhah either. Ask the Israelis debating whether we know that any breed of chicken other than the breakel chicken (or, I would guess the American campine) is halachically chicken and within the mesorah. Or the counter-arguers, who want to pasl braekel chickens... I am not saying I understand the metzi'us of the debate, but it does highlight how hard it is to draw halachic lines in the physical sand. So, even if we could translate the name of every min in parashas Shemini, we could still not know whether the bird in my hand is included in one of the minim on the list or not. As we could argue whether the genetic test found something on one side of the line defining the min, or the other -- because we don't know where the line is. A lichtikn un freilechn Chanukah! -Micha -- Micha Berger When we are no longer able to change a situation micha at aishdas.org -- just think of an incurable disease such as http://www.aishdas.org inoperable cancer -- we are challenged to change Fax: (270) 514-1507 ourselves. - Victor Frankl (MSfM) From Aryeh.Frimer at biu.ac.il Thu Dec 14 05:03:04 2017 From: Aryeh.Frimer at biu.ac.il (Aryeh Frimer) Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2017 13:03:04 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Tevilat Kelim Message-ID: Has anyone seen a discussion regarding one who said "al haTevila" (which women recite when going to mikva) instead of "Al tevilat Kelim." Is the Berakha valid be-Di-avad? A Freilichen Hanukah!! -------------------------------------------------- Dr. Aryeh A. Frimer Ethel and David Resnick Professor Emeritus of Active Oxygen Chemistry Chemistry Dept., Bar-Ilan University Ramat Gan 5290002, ISRAEL E-mail (office): Aryeh.Frimer at biu.ac.il Homepage http://ch.biu.ac.il/frimer E-mail (home): FrimerA at zahav.net.il From ben1456 at zahav.net.il Fri Dec 15 02:45:55 2017 From: ben1456 at zahav.net.il (Ben Waxman) Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2017 12:45:55 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Rambam Hilchot Kiddush Hachodesh In-Reply-To: <20171213113034.GB7576@aishdas.org> References: <20171213113034.GB7576@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <3554ff1b-2c53-bf1d-b688-0202a1eae13a@zahav.net.il> It must be something like that. After reading through Kiddush Hachodesh I was left with a huge question as to the incredible detail; 100 times more detailed than say his Hilchot Pesach. Ben On 12/13/2017 1:30 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > So what halakhah lemaaseh is the Rambam > talking about, that relies on the calculations? Giving license to > the next Sanhedrin? From michaelpoppers at gmail.com Thu Dec 14 18:17:15 2017 From: michaelpoppers at gmail.com (Michael Poppers) Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2017 21:17:15 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] zmanim Message-ID: >From R'Micha: > Li nir'eh there is value to the "in sync with nature" approach of Chazal that we lose when we think about clock time rather than the cycles of the sun (a/k/a the earth's spin). ? > ? Much the way we lose a lot of what the yamim tovim mean because we aren't living in agrarian communities, and don't feel the joy of new wheat and barley when we celebrate our birth as a people, or the joy of bringing in the year's fruit when we celebrate how HQBH sustained us in the midbar. < ...or the meaning of "Yotzer Or", etc. because we're not davening those pre- *Shma* *b'rachos* at the "right" time w/ a view of the brightening sky. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Fri Dec 15 06:55:30 2017 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2017 14:55:30 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Why does Yosef command the Egyptians to circumcise Message-ID: <1513349727386.22540@stevens.edu> See https://goo.gl/1AP3eB Rashi on Bereshis 41:55 says what he tells you, do: Since Joseph had ordered them to circumcise themselves, and when they came to Pharaoh and said, "This is what he said to us," he (Pharaoh) said to them, "Why didn't you gather grain? Didn't he announce to you that years of famine were coming?" They replied, "We gathered much, but it rotted." He (Pharaoh) replied,"If so, do whatever he tells you. He issued a decree upon the grain, and it rotted. What if he issues a decree upon us and we die?" - [from Mid. Tanchuma Mikeitz 7, Gen. Rabbah 91:5] Why did Yosef order them to do that? See the above URL for three explanations. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Fri Dec 15 06:57:57 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2017 09:57:57 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Rambam Hilchot Kiddush Hachodesh In-Reply-To: <3554ff1b-2c53-bf1d-b688-0202a1eae13a@zahav.net.il> References: <20171213113034.GB7576@aishdas.org> <3554ff1b-2c53-bf1d-b688-0202a1eae13a@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <20171215145757.GB28181@aishdas.org> On Fri, Dec 15, 2017 at 12:45:55PM +0200, Ben Waxman wrote: : On 12/13/2017 1:30 PM, Micha Berger wrote: :> So what halakhah lemaaseh is the Rambam :> talking about, that relies on the calculations? Giving license to :> the next Sanhedrin? : It must be something like that. After reading through Kiddush : Hachodesh I was left with a huge question as to the incredible : detail; 100 times more detailed than say his Hilchot Pesach. My guess, and I hope it's not too lesse majest for a public posting: The Rambam was a math geek who simply enjoyed this kind of stuff. It cannot be that the Rambam thought the future chavrei Sanhedrin would need his text for this more than his usual coverage. Leshitaso, one wouldn't be qualified to be a dayan without a strong background in all 7 chokhmos. That last line being an opening to a Chanukah tangent about Chokhmah Yevanis being a necessary study for a member of the Sanhedrin. So, Chanukah celebrates a victory over Yavan (in the sense of Hellenism) and a step toward reestablishing the Sanhedrin, who were expected to utilize "yaft E-lokim leYefes, veyishkon be'ohalei Sheim". An enlightening and happy Chanukah and :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Brains to the lazy micha at aishdas.org are like a torch to the blind -- http://www.aishdas.org a useless burden. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Bechinas haOlam From micha at aishdas.org Sat Dec 16 16:09:45 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2017 19:09:45 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Mamlekhat Chimyar Message-ID: <20171217000945.GA16968@aishdas.org> I stumbled across reference to the Humyarite Kingdom, which existed from 110 bce - 525 ce. Based in Yemen, ruled over much of the Arabian Peninsula. It seems that they went Jewish. (Shades of the Khazars.) See : > The Himyarite kings appear to have abandoned polytheism and converted > to Judaism around the year 380, several decades after the conversion of > the Ethiopian Kingdom of Aksum to Christianity (340), though no changes > occurred in its script, calendar, or language (unlike Aksum).[7] This > date marks the end of an era in which numerous inscriptions record the > names and deeds of kings, and dedicate buildings to local (e.g. Wagal > and Simyada) and major (e.g. Almaqah) gods. From the 380s, temples were > abandoned and dedications to the old gods ceased, replaced by references > to Rahmanan, "the Lord of Heaven" or "Lord of Heaven and Earth".[8] The > political context for this conversion may have been Arabia's interest > in maintaining neutrality and good trade relations with the competing > empires of Byzantium, which first adopted Christianity under Constantine > the Great and the Sasanian Empire, which alternated between Zurvanism > and Manichaeism.[9] ... > During this period, references to pagan gods disappeared from royal > inscriptions and texts on public buildings, and were replaced by > references to a single deity. Inscriptions in the Sabean language, and > sometimes Hebrew, called this deity Rahman (the Merciful), "Lord of the > Heavens and Earth," the "God of Israel" and "Lord of the Jews." Prayers > invoking Rahman's blessings on the "people of Israel" often ended with > the Hebrew words shalom and amen. [16] I wonder about the kashrus of the conversion, and did it pose a rei'usa when discussing the Jewishness of Teimani immigrants to Israel. A lichtikn un freilechn Chanukah un a gutt voch! -Micha -- Micha Berger Life isn't about finding yourself micha at aishdas.org Life is about creating yourself. http://www.aishdas.org - Bernard Shaw Fax: (270) 514-1507 From micha at aishdas.org Sun Dec 17 05:51:57 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2017 08:51:57 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] New Cancer Treatment Message-ID: <20171217135058.GC5@aishdas.org> This news story showed up in two of my RSS subscriptions: Hijacked sperm carry chemo drugs to cervical cancer cells https://www.newscientist.com/article/2156525-hijacked-sperm-carry-chemo-drugs-to-cervical-cancer-cells or http://j.mp/2yLROJ1 and Killing Cancer with Spermbots http://bigthink.com/robby-berman/killing-cancer-with-spermbots In my neck of the O woods, everyone holds like R' Moshe, that children produced by IVF-donor would not be mamzeirim. BUT... according to the machmirim (eg the Satmar Rav), would an eishes kohein who recieved this treatment have to get divorced? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger You are not a human being in search micha at aishdas.org of a spiritual experience. You are a http://www.aishdas.org spiritual being immersed in a human Fax: (270) 514-1507 experience. - Pierre Teilhard de Chardin From larry62341 at optonline.net Sun Dec 17 06:22:06 2017 From: larry62341 at optonline.net (Prof. Levine) Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2017 09:22:06 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] The Downtown Chanukiah Message-ID: Please see the video at https://goo.gl/dgSTLv In this video Rabbi Anthony Manning discusses the halachic aspects of where one should light the Chanukah menorah at home as well as the Chabad practice of lighting menorahs in public places and whether or not the person lighting such a menorah should make a bracha. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From zev at sero.name Sun Dec 17 06:20:59 2017 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2017 09:20:59 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] New Cancer Treatment In-Reply-To: <20171217135058.GC5@aishdas.org> References: <20171217135058.GC5@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <8550baa4-198d-536a-b249-d5c2d207bb86@sero.name> On 17/12/17 08:51, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > BUT... according to the machmirim (eg the Satmar Rav), would an eishes > kohein who recieved this treatment have to get divorced? I wouldn't think so. There's still no act of zenus. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From micha at aishdas.org Sun Dec 17 11:53:27 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2017 14:53:27 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] New Cancer Treatment In-Reply-To: <8550baa4-198d-536a-b249-d5c2d207bb86@sero.name> References: <20171217135058.GC5@aishdas.org> <8550baa4-198d-536a-b249-d5c2d207bb86@sero.name> Message-ID: <20171217195326.GD5@aishdas.org> On Sun, Dec 17, 2017 at 09:20:59AM -0500, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : On 17/12/17 08:51, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: :>BUT... according to the machmirim (eg the Satmar Rav), would an eishes :>kohein who recieved this treatment have to get divorced? : I wouldn't think so. There's still no act of zenus. There is a machloqes Chakhamim and R' Aqiva as to whether only issurei kareis (except niddah) create mamzeirim, or any issur. And yet the Satmar Rav holds that IE-D creates mamzeirim. And one could equally argue there is no act of zenus. So, I parked my intuition at the door when trying to understand his shitah. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The thought of happiness that comes from outside micha at aishdas.org the person, brings him sadness. But realizing http://www.aishdas.org the value of one's will and the freedom brought Fax: (270) 514-1507 by uplifting its, brings great joy. - R' Kook From zev at sero.name Sun Dec 17 12:20:24 2017 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2017 15:20:24 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] New Cancer Treatment In-Reply-To: <20171217195326.GD5@aishdas.org> References: <20171217135058.GC5@aishdas.org> <8550baa4-198d-536a-b249-d5c2d207bb86@sero.name> <20171217195326.GD5@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <5862ca9f-c908-4756-d082-0b20f6dc428f@sero.name> On 17/12/17 14:53, Micha Berger wrote: > There is a machloqes Chakhamim and R' Aqiva as to whether only issurei > kareis (except niddah) create mamzeirim, or any issur. And yet the > Satmar Rav holds that IE-D creates mamzeirim. And one could equally > argue there is no act of zenus. > > So, I parked my intuition at the door when trying to understand his > shitah. as I understand the machlokes, it's precisely over whether an act of zenus is necessary to create a mamzer. The SR (aiui) holds it is not, therefore although no issur was done with IED the child is nevertheless a mamzer. Here too, the SR would presumably hold that although there's no act of zenus, and therefore the treatment is permitted, should any child result it would be a mamzer. But I haven't seen the SR's shitah inside, so I'm relying on 3rd-hand transmission which may have garbled important points. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From llevine at stevens.edu Sun Dec 17 13:35:04 2017 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2017 21:35:04 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] How did Yosef showing his circumcision prove anything? Message-ID: <1513546500734.24127@stevens.edu> From https://goo.gl/L634gH Rashi to 45:4 says that when Yosef told his brothers to approach him, it was to show them his circumcision (presumably to prove he was Jewish). But how would that prove anything? All of Egypt had been circumcised already, as Rashi says on 41:55. If his showing his circumcision wasn't to prove he was Jewish, why did he do it? See the above URL for answers. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cantorwolberg at cox.net Sun Dec 17 11:40:31 2017 From: cantorwolberg at cox.net (Richard Wolberg) Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2017 14:40:31 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Vayigash Message-ID: The first three words of the Sidra: Vayigash eilav Yehuda mean that Judah approached Joseph to speak to him. The m?forshim bring out that they communicated through interpreters since officially, (the brothers thought) Joseph didn?t speak Hebrew and the brothers didn?t speak Egyptian. The baal haturim and the m?forshim point out the last letter of the first three words (shin, vov, hey) spell shaveh which means ?equal.? Judah is implying to Joseph: ?I am equal to you. You think you?re a king; I?m also a king.? According to this interpretation, Judah spoke very sharply to Joseph. The Vilna Gaon brings out a fascinating insight on the trope of the first six words which is kadma v?azla r?vi?I, zarka, munach segol. The Vilna Gaon explains that the trope here explains the meaning of these words. Kadma v?azla in Aramaic meaning kadam v?awzal, he (Judah) stepped forward, Yehudah has a r?vi?i, since Judah was the fourth son. So why the fourth son? Because zarka, he was going to be thrown out, munach segol from being able to rest in Gan Eden. Since Judah cursed himself that if he doesn?t bring Binyamin back, he would be damned in both worlds ? in this world and in the world to come. (Segula which means ?treasure? from Segol comes to mean here Gan Eden). When the sons finally tell Jacob that Joseph still lives (45:26), the m?forshim resolve a theological problem that arose in parashas Vayeshev (37:35). For there we read about Jacob: ?and his sons and daughters wished to comfort him and he refused to be consoled.? Isn?t it one of the basic articles of faith to accept God?s judgment and to welcome the comforting offered by others. Why did Jacob refuse? Our Sages sensed this anomaly and gave a brilliant answer, ?For no condolences are accepted over the living" (see Rashi on 37:35). Yes, Jacob refused to accept condolences because he had a faint ray of hope that Joseph might be alive. A psychologist might explain it as ?wishful thinking.? In any event, his ray of hope was vindicated when he found out that Joseph was indeed alive (and that is why he originally refused to accept the condolences offered by all the people). Hope is being able to see that there is light despite all of the darkness. Desmond Tutu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cantorwolberg at cox.net Sun Dec 17 16:16:32 2017 From: cantorwolberg at cox.net (Richard Wolberg) Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2017 19:16:32 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] S"A Principles Message-ID: <8A9BD2E2-0BDC-4728-B1B3-792480A73CEE@cox.net> Reb Joel asks: does anyone know of a theory as to why the Mechaber in some cases quotes Talmudic sources (or Torah or Rishonim) and in others just states the halacha? My theory is that when it is either a well known halacha and no reason to question it or at least, when the Mechaber thought it to be indisputable, then it was felt there was no reason to quote sources. OTOH, if was felt that there would be many questioning it, then the sources quoted would obviate that from occurring. From micha at aishdas.org Sun Dec 17 17:15:28 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2017 20:15:28 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] [Tvunah] Teabag on Shabbos Message-ID: <20171218011528.GA22955@aishdas.org> This pesaq by R' Asher Weiss surprised me. Tea Bag on Shabbos Tvunah in English by Rabbi Akiva Dershowitz Question: Does a tea bag [used in a kli shlishi] need to be removed from the cup with a spoon on Shabbos, to avoid issues of borrer? What about holding it over the cup to avoid dripping on the table, to allow drips to fall into the cup? Answer: The tea bag may be removed normally, and may be held to allow drips to fall back in to the cup. I was told at a young age to take the teabag out by spoon, making sure to take tea out along with the bag. For boreier reasons. So, as I said, I found this pesaq surprising. The actual teshuvah in Hebrew is on that page. RAW finds a precedent in Rashi on Shabbos 140a, who discusses the mishnah allowing one to put straw in a sieve in a feed trough. Rashi says "even though the motz will fall on our own, as it's a davar she'ein miskavein -- and the mishnah holds like R' Shim'on. And see SA OC 319:8, who makes it clear (which it isnt' from Rashi, see teshuvah) that even if the boreir will certainly occur, it's still mutar. Pesiq reishei, but not melekhes machasheves, and still mutar. Similarly in Nishmas Adam 18:2. An enlightening and anjoyable Chanukah! -Micha -- Micha Berger We look forward to the time micha at aishdas.org when the power to love http://www.aishdas.org will replace the love of power. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - William Ewart Gladstone From Aryeh.Frimer at biu.ac.il Sun Dec 17 23:09:04 2017 From: Aryeh.Frimer at biu.ac.il (Aryeh Frimer) Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2017 07:09:04 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Using "Al haTevila" for tevilat Kelim Message-ID: Rav Zvi Cohen, in his Encyclopedic Tevilat Kelim: Rules that be-Di-avad Al haTevila is valid. I was surprised by this since the Mehaber in Bet Yosef explicitly rules against this shita (for le-khatehilla) and holds in SA that one should say "Al Tevilat Kelim." Having done so, to say "Al haTevilah" would not be "Matbe'ah sheTavu Hakhamim." Any ideas? -------------------------------------------------- Dr. Aryeh A. Frimer Ethel and David Resnick Professor Emeritus of Active Oxygen Chemistry Chemistry Dept., Bar-Ilan University Ramat Gan 5290002, ISRAEL E-mail (office): Aryeh.Frimer at biu.ac.il Homepage http://ch.biu.ac.il/frimer Tel: 972-3-5318610; Fax: 972-3-7384053 Tel Home: 972-8-9473819/9470834 E-mail (home): FrimerA at zahav.net.il Cellphone: 972-54-7540761 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hankman at bell.net Mon Dec 18 06:16:44 2017 From: hankman at bell.net (hankman) Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2017 09:16:44 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Rambam Hilchot Kiddush Hachodesh -- on "min" Message-ID: <0C71CBB0F1E145B89D102DAA516AF81A@hankPC> R. Micha Berger wrote: ?Ironically, defining a "min" is not settled halakhah either.? CM asks: If I am not mistaken the modern secular definition of ?species? is based on whether the populations can interbreed or not. Do we know with any certainty that the Torah rejects this criteria as a determinant of ?min?? Kol tuv Chaim Manaster --- This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. http://www.avg.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Mon Dec 18 07:05:39 2017 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2017 15:05:39 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Yehudah Speaking to Yosef Message-ID: <1513609536405.23616@stevens.edu> In what l language did Yehudah speak to Yosef. Was it Hebrew and was the translator present to "translate" for Yosef? The Chumash does not mention a translator in this week's parasha. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jont at traumatic.us Mon Dec 18 11:56:26 2017 From: jont at traumatic.us (Jonathan Traum) Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2017 14:56:26 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Rambam Hilchot Kiddush Hachodesh In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <622ffda5-c446-82f3-45b0-18da6c93f6da@traumatic.us> On 12/09/2017 03:59 PM, Ben Waxman wrote: > 1) Rambam Hilchot Kiddush Hachodesh 3:1 makes it clear that anyone who > sees the new moon and can get to Jerusalem by the following evening > should go. ... > [snip] > Is there any problem in making sure that you don't see the moon? Just > stay in for the evening. Rambam doesn't say that there is a chiyuv to > look. I imagine that most people wouldn't have to worry about it.? On the 30th day after the previous Rosh Hodesh, the tiny crescent moon would only be visible for a short time after sunset and before moonset, and only to those who have an unobstructed view of the western horizon. Jonathan Traum From zev at sero.name Mon Dec 18 13:02:48 2017 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2017 16:02:48 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Using "Al haTevila" for tevilat Kelim In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <725ae5c3-d6de-7ce1-60c9-1defc191ac9d@sero.name> On 18/12/17 02:09, Aryeh Frimer via Avodah wrote: > ?Rav Zvi *Cohen*,?in his Encyclopedic *Tevilat Kelim*: Rules that > be-Di-avad Al haTevila is valid. > > I was surprised by this since the Mehaber in Bet Yosef explicitly rules > against this shita ?(for le-khatehilla) and holds in SA? that one should > say ?Al Tevilat Kelim.??? Having done so, to say ?Al haTevilah? would > not be ?Matbe?ah sheTavu Hakhamim.?? ?Any ideas? > "Al hatevilah" *is* a coinage of the chachamim, just not the one they prescribed for this occasion. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From llevine at stevens.edu Mon Dec 18 23:37:41 2017 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2017 07:37:41 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Did the Patriarchs Speak Hebrew? Message-ID: <1513669061621.40139@stevens.edu> >From the article at https://goo.gl/Z3QWs2 Ramban says: It is possible that he said this to them simply as a means of pacifying them, for there was no proof [that he was Joseph] in the fact that someone in Egypt should speak in the Holy Tongue. In my opinion, Hebrew was a Canaanite language. For Abraham did not bring it from Ur of the Chaldees [in Mesopotamia] and from Haran, for there they spoke Aramaic, as the incident of the pile of stones erected by Laban and Jacob proves [see Gen. 31:47]. And it was not a private language spoken by a single person but a language of Canaan, and many people in Egypt knew it for the countries were close together--particularly the ruler, for it is customary for kings and rulers to know several languages. For his assertion that Hebrew is "a Canannite language" Ramban makes reference to Isaiah, who does thus refer to Hebrew: "On that day there will be five cities in the land of Egypt that speak the language of Canaan and swear by the Lord of hosts" (Isa. 19:18). That the original language of the Patriarchs (Abraham, Isaac and Jacob) was Aramaic is proved to Ramban's mind by virtue of the fact that Laban gave the name "Yegar-sahaduta" to what Jacob called "Gal-ed" (Gen. 31:47), The former had remained in Mesopotamia and continued to speak Aramaic (which Ramban thinks was spoken in Ur and in Haran), while Jacob, who had grown up in Canaan, had learnt the local language. Please see the above URL for much more on this topic. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gershonseif at mail.yahoo.com Tue Dec 19 08:23:45 2017 From: gershonseif at mail.yahoo.com (Gershon Seif) Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2017 16:23:45 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Avodah] Did the Patriarchs Speak Hebrew? In-Reply-To: <1513669061621.40139@stevens.edu> References: <1513669061621.40139@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <949360216.1197555.1513700625794@mail.yahoo.com> Leavining Avraham Avinu aside, what is the Ramban's view about the language spoken by Adam HaRishon? ie. Naming his wife Chava and assigning names to all the animals?If the Ramban concurs that these names were given in lashon hakodesh, then he agrees that it was the first language. No? Unless you say that lashon hakodesh was one of at least 2 languages that Adam spoke and he reserved it for holy purposes only, such as giving these names. And I suppose that would be along the lines of the other Ramban quoted there which says that it's called Lashon Hakodesh because it's the language that Hashem used to convey the Torah. On Tuesday, December 19, 2017 1:37 AM, Professor L. Levine wrote: > From the article at https://goo.gl/Z3QWs2 > Ramban says: >> It is possible that he said this to them simply as a means of >> pacifying them, for there was no proof [that he was Joseph] in the fact >> that someone in Egypt should speak in the Holy Tongue. In my opinion, >> Hebrew was a Canaanite language. For Abraham did not bring it from Ur >> of the Chaldees [in Mesopotamia] and from Haran, for there they spoke >> Aramaic... From micha at aishdas.org Tue Dec 19 09:05:08 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2017 12:05:08 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Did the Patriarchs Speak Hebrew? In-Reply-To: <1513669061621.40139@stevens.edu> References: <1513669061621.40139@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20171219170508.GC27362@aishdas.org> On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 07:37:41AM +0000, Professor L. Levine via Avodah wrote: : From the article at : https://goo.gl/Z3QWs2 : : Ramban says: : : It is possible that he said this to them simply as a means of : pacifying them, for there was no proof [that he was Joseph] in : the fact that someone in Egypt should speak in the Holy Tongue. In : my opinion, Hebrew was a Canaanite language... ... and yet also lashon haqodesh. And to the Ramban (on "sheqel haqodesh" in parashas Sheqalim), this is because it's the language in which Hashem created the world and in which the Torah and Nakh were written. And leshitaso, the letters of the Torah, if not their breakup into words, preceded creation. The notion that the avos spoke Aramaic is in Vayiqra Rabba on 32:5. The Medrash Peliyah (#166) concludes that even Adam did! This is a comment about Sarah's death in "Qiryas Araba". The Niv Sefasayim explains that the medrash is getting this from the use of the Aramaic term "qirya". But I don't see how we know this was the name of the cite from back when Adam and Chava were buried there; or how else this moved the line to any time before Efron. R Yonasan Eibschitz (Tif'eres Yehonasan on Bereishis 11:1) that Adam spoke LhQ before the cheit, and Aramaic after. Fore that matter, Medrash Tanchuma (beginning of Devarim in Buber) and Medrash Seikhel Tov (Shemos 4:11) say Adam spoke all 70 languages. Requires a new peshat in what happened at Migdal Bavel, no? I am not to clear on the whole thing. Languages evolve, so that if one were to trace them out over time, one would draw a tree or a bush. Adam's proto-Semitic, or proto-proto-proto... everything is an ancestor of all language. I could call it early Hebrew if I wanted, and claim that Hebrew is the trunk from which other languages branched off. But that's just a decision about how to draw the tree. I could pick another run from root to twig and pull it straight, and say that Adam spoke proto-...proto-Mandarin, and all the other languages branched off. For languages as similar as Hebrew and Aramaic, where neither could have drifted from the original significanly more than the other, doesn't the whole discussion of whether Adam's language was a predecessar to the language of the chumash, Nakh, Chazal, etc... or of Aramaic in its evolutions all kind of arbitrary? I wonder if the Ramban understands the name of Kesav Ashuris to mean "Assyrian Script", rather than "Enriched Script" (from "osher". YMMV on the definition of osher.) After all, he seems to have no problem saying that Hashem left holy things in the hands of other peoples for us to find and use. For that matter, Eretz Yisrael was also given to the Kenaanim to hold until we got there... It might also be leshitaso -- but this may be a stretch -- with the Ramban's take on rainbows. The Ramban says that rainbows existed since Maaseh Bereishis. Nature didn't change in this regard with the Mabul. Rather, the already existing phenomenon was made a symbol when HQBH made the beris with Noach. Again, something put in place naturally so that when the time came it would be available take on its full significance. : Canaan, and many people in Egypt knew it for the countries were close : together--particularly the ruler, for it is customary for kings and : rulers to know several languages. : : For his assertion that Hebrew is "a Canannite language" Ramban makes : reference to Isaiah, who does thus refer to Hebrew: "On that day there : will be five cities in the land of Egypt that speak the language of : Canaan and swear by the Lord of hosts" (Isa. 19:18). That the original : language of the Patriarchs (Abraham, Isaac and Jacob) was Aramaic is : proved to Ramban's mind by virtue of the fact that Laban gave the name : "Yegar-sahaduta" to what Jacob called "Gal-ed" (Gen. 31:47), The former : had remained in Mesopotamia and continued to speak Aramaic (which Ramban : thinks was spoken in Ur and in Haran), while Jacob, who had grown up in : Canaan, had learnt the local language. : : Please see the above URL for much more on this topic. Have a Great Month, and a enlightening and enjoyable Chanukah! -Micha -- Micha Berger The greatest discovery of all time is that micha at aishdas.org a person can change their future http://www.aishdas.org by merely changing their attitude. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Oprah Winfrey From zev at sero.name Tue Dec 19 09:12:45 2017 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2017 12:12:45 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Did the Patriarchs Speak Hebrew? In-Reply-To: <20171219170508.GC27362@aishdas.org> References: <1513669061621.40139@stevens.edu> <20171219170508.GC27362@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <45f78c92-f0ed-6df8-9a80-01c96d6dd007@sero.name> On 19/12/17 12:05, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > I wonder if the Ramban understands the name of Kesav Ashuris to mean > "Assyrian Script", rather than "Enriched Script" (from "osher". YMMV > on the definition of osher.) You associate osher with an alef and `osher with an `ayin? -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From micha at aishdas.org Tue Dec 19 10:59:01 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2017 13:59:01 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Did the Patriarchs Speak Hebrew? In-Reply-To: <45f78c92-f0ed-6df8-9a80-01c96d6dd007@sero.name> References: <1513669061621.40139@stevens.edu> <20171219170508.GC27362@aishdas.org> <45f78c92-f0ed-6df8-9a80-01c96d6dd007@sero.name> Message-ID: <20171219185901.GE31888@aishdas.org> On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 12:12:45PM -0500, Zev Sero wrote: : On 19/12/17 12:05, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: : >I wonder if the Ramban understands the name of Kesav Ashuris to mean : >"Assyrian Script", rather than "Enriched Script" (from "osher". YMMV : >on the definition of osher.) : You associate osher with an alef and `osher with an `ayin? RSRH does, as he does all alef-ayin pairs. Also osher with asher. But I used enriched because in common usage, it refers to someone having a gift. We say that a cereal is enriched with vitamins. We far more rarely speak of a CEO being enriched. At least, not anymore. And what about yiysher kochakha, assuming the correct niqud isn't yeyasher? Reish Laqish (Shabbos 87a) says "asher shibarta" is an allusion to "yiyshar kochakha", so that's connected as well. RSRH himself uses "being in successful progress" (eg Bereishis 30:30), which R/Dr Mattiyahu Clark's Hirschian dictionary gives as its 1st definition. Chodesh tov, un a lichtikn un freilechn Chanukah! -Micha -- Micha Berger The trick is learning to be passionate in one's micha at aishdas.org ideals, but compassionate to one's peers. http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From mandels at ou.org Tue Dec 19 09:46:51 2017 From: mandels at ou.org (Mandel, Seth) Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2017 17:46:51 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Did the Patriarchs Speak Hebrew? In-Reply-To: <1513669061621.40139@stevens.edu> References: <1513669061621.40139@stevens.edu> Message-ID: There is no proof that anyone spoke Hebrew. Chazal say that dibb'ra Torah bilshon b'nei odom, and the Torah was written in Hebrew because that is what the Jews understood at the time of Moshe Rabbeinu and the N'vi'im. This is clear from last weeks Parsha, where Par'oh speaks to Yosef, kavyakhol in Hebrew. However, just as much as there is no proof at all from the T'NaKh that lots of people spoke Hebrew, even though the T'NaKh records them in Hebrew, there is also no proof at all that certain people did not speak Hebrew. The Ramban quotes the story of Lovon and Ya'akov to "prove" that Lovon did not speak Hebrew. That is probable, but what did Yaakov and Lovon speak together? What did Yaakov speak to Rochel and Leah, who had never been in EY? OK, they all spoke what was spoken in Aram Naharayim. Probably. But Yaakov and the Ovos must have learned the language of K'na'an for Avrohom to speak to b'nei Het to buy the Cave of the Patriarchs. So what exactly did Avrohom Ovinu say in the language of Aram, whence he came, and what in the language of K'na'an? QED that one cannot know from the T'NaKh who spoke what when and where. The only thing we know is the Masorah, that HQBH dictated the Torah to Moshe Rabbeinu in the eponymous Biblical Hebrew. People ask whether Odom hoRishon spoke Hebrew. That is a question that has no meaning. We do not know exactly what he spoke, nor is it relevant. It might have been a precursor of Hebrew, IOW a language like Hebrew, but a much older form. It could have been something else. But, scientifically, it could not have been the same as the Hebrew spoken in the time of Y'tzi'as Mitzrayim, because it has been proven that all languages change over time. Rabbi Dr. Seth Mandel From micha at aishdas.org Tue Dec 19 14:10:58 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2017 17:10:58 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Did the Patriarchs Speak Hebrew? In-Reply-To: References: <1513669061621.40139@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20171219221058.GA3159@aishdas.org> On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 05:46:51PM +0000, Mandel, Seth via Avodah wrote: : There is no proof that anyone spoke Hebrew. Chazal say that dibb'ra Torah : bilshon b'nei odom... Well.... R' Yishmael says it. And it appears to be an argument for his rules of derashah, which do not include looking for magic words like "akh" (mi'ut), "raq" (mi'ut), "kol" (ribui) or even "es", but darshens the meaning of terms, whether ribui or mi'ut. The Rambam really sloganeers (like the CS's "chadash assur min haTorah") when he uses it to explain that anthropomorphic descriptions of HQBH are idioms, not to be taken overly literally. The point may be true, but it has nothing to do with the quote. The maqor is nothing remotely like: : the Torah was written in Hebrew because that is : what the Jews understood at the time of Moshe Rabbeinu and the N'vi'im. And besides, R' Aqiva disagrees! Chodesh tov, un a lichtikn un freilechn Chanukah! -Micha -- Micha Berger One doesn't learn mussar to be a tzaddik, micha at aishdas.org but to become a tzaddik. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yisrael Salanter Fax: (270) 514-1507 From llevine at stevens.edu Wed Dec 20 01:27:34 2017 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2017 09:27:34 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Yehudah Spoke Egyptian Message-ID: <1513762054084.88548@stevens.edu> Rabbi Yitzchok D. Frankel, Rav of the Agudah of the Five Towns, in Cedarhurst, NY, asserts in his sefer Machat shel Yad. Bereishis vol.2 (Back of Vayikrah) Parshas VaYigash. that Yehudah did indeed speak Egyptian. See http://personal.stevens.edu/~llevine/yehudah_egyptian.pdf for his argument. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cantorwolberg at cox.net Wed Dec 20 09:32:33 2017 From: cantorwolberg at cox.net (Richard Wolberg) Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2017 12:32:33 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Question on 48:1 Message-ID: In Vay?chi first sentence of Ch.48, why is ?choleh? spelled without a vov? Nowhere have I found an explanation. From zev at sero.name Wed Dec 20 06:01:31 2017 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2017 09:01:31 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Did the Patriarchs Speak Hebrew? In-Reply-To: References: <1513669061621.40139@stevens.edu> <8b9c1a71-a4fe-ecf5-e066-0a640a78bfec@sero.name> Message-ID: <130e52aa-14f1-24b6-9478-9244543e628c@sero.name> On 19/12/17 02:37, Professor L. Levine via Avodah wrote: > . And it was not a private language spoken by a single person but a > language of Canaan, and many people in Egypt knew it for the countries > were close together--particularly the ruler, for it is customary for > kings and rulers to know several languages. Then how is it that Yosef could pretend not to know it and need an interpreter. More, how is it that Par'oh, who knew all the other languages, didn't know this one? [Email #2. -micha] On 19/12/17 12:46, Mandel, Seth via Avodah wrote: > There is no proof that anyone spoke Hebrew. Chazal say that dibb'ra Torah > bilshon b'nei odom, and the Torah was written in Hebrew because that is > what the Jews understood at the time of Moshe Rabbeinu and the N'vi'im. Rashi Bereshis 2:23 Bereshis Rabbah 18:4 [Eamil #3. -micha] On 20/12/17 08:56, Mandel, Seth wrote: > I am talking objective proof, from the T'NaKh and other documents. > Medrashim of Chazal teaches us important ideas, but are not meant to be > literally true. They do not intend to be a historical document, but > rather contain important moral and ethical teachings which are 'emes in > the spiritual sense. 1. This medrash is clearly intended literally. Not only does it not contain any important moral or ethical teaching, it cites a simple linguistic proof (albeit based on a very small sample of languages). 2. Rashi only cites those medroshim that he believes are necessary for pshat. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From mandels at ou.org Wed Dec 20 07:39:30 2017 From: mandels at ou.org (Mandel, Seth) Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2017 15:39:30 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Did the Patriarchs Speak Hebrew? In-Reply-To: <130e52aa-14f1-24b6-9478-9244543e628c@sero.name> References: <1513669061621.40139@stevens.edu> <8b9c1a71-a4fe-ecf5-e066-0a640a78bfec@sero.name> , <130e52aa-14f1-24b6-9478-9244543e628c@sero.name> Message-ID: From: Zev Sero Sent: Wednesday, December 20, 2017 7:45 AM > On 19/12/17 12:46, Mandel, Seth via Avodah wrote: >> There is no proof that anyone spoke Hebrew. Chazal say that dibb'ra Torah >> bilshon b'nei odom, and the Torah was written in Hebrew because that is >> what the Jews understood at the time of Moshe Rabbeinu and the N'vi'im. > Rashi Bereshis 2:23 > Bereshis Rabbah 18:4 I am talking objective proof, from the T'NaKh and other documents. Medrashim of Chazal teaches us important ideas, but are not meant to be literally true. They do not intend to be a historical document, but rather contain important moral and ethical teachings which are 'emes in the spiritual sense. There are plenty of Medrashim that have ideas that seem to indicate that HQBH or the angels spoke Hebrew. But, as the Rambam indicates, HQBH does not have a mouth and does not speak as people speak. Rather, all the p'sukim saying that HQBH spoke to Moshe or Aharon mean that He communicated with them directly to their mind, not that He spoke acoustic sounds that they heard with their physical ears. The argument that Prof. Levine brought in the name of R. Frankel, OTOH, does indeed show that Yehudah must have been speaking Egyptian, but yet the Torah quotes him in Hebrew. [Email #2. -micha] From: Zev Sero on behalf of Zev Sero Sent: Wednesday, December 20, 2017 9:01:31 AM > 1. This medrash is clearly intended literally. Not only does it not > contain any important moral or ethical teaching, it cites a simple > linguistic proof (albeit based on a very small sample of languages). > 2. Rashi only cites those medroshim that he believes are necessary for > pshat. This is not a conversation that is worth continuing. I have the greatest respect for Jews who learn and seek to understand. But there are certain discussions where the locutors speak past each other for no benefit to either. However, for others in the group that may be curious: if you understand what the Rambam says in his introduction to Chapter 10 of Mas. Sanhedrin regarding three approaches to what Chazal say, you will understand that there is no point in one group arguing with the other group. A similar case would be that there would be no point in the Rambam arguing with Rashi or Rabbeinu Tam about whether demons exist or whether the Earth is flat or round. The basic assumptions about the way things work are too far apart. I have said what I meant about medrashim, and the medrash that R. Zev quotes does not contradict in my mind my statement that there is no proof about the actual historical language used in anything in the Torah. Nor does Rashi's use of the medrash contradict what I said. It would be impossible to convince R. Tam's belief that the Earth is flat, since in his understanding of the universe everything points to the world being flat, and he can find statements in the G'moro that seem to him to prove his case, and all scientists from his culture "knew" that the Earth is flat. I challenge those who believe that illnesses are caused by bacteria or viruses to bring me one proof that they are; most rishonim knew that they were caused by evil spirits or bodily humors. What a person believes is based on some basic assumptions, and different Rishonim held very different assumptions in certain matters. People might and did challenge the Rambam that it appears from their point of view that the Rambam did not believe what Chazal say, or that I do not believe what Chazal say. The Rambam believed that everything that Chazal said is 'emes, but read his comments in the Perush haMishnayos to see that absolute Truth means different things in different approaches. Another example is how to reconcile the Truth that HQBH gave men free will with the fact that HQBH knows everything that will happen. That can only be explained if people understand certain assumptions about space and time. Rabbi Dr. Seth Mandel Rabbinic Coordinator The Orthodox Union From office at etzion.org.il Thu Dec 21 02:25:30 2017 From: office at etzion.org.il (Yeshivat Har Etzion) Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2017 12:25:30 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] VBM - Avodat Hashem #51: The Mitzva of Mezuza (Part I) Message-ID: <5A3B8C1A.4030506@etzion.org.il> PHILOSOPHY > Avodat Hashem - Foundations of Divine Service > Shiur #51: The Mitzva of Mezuza (Part I) Harav Baruch Gigi Yeshivat Har Etzion I. The Protection Offered by a Mezuza We are currently engaged in a clarification of the system of mitzvot, in the framework of the transition in Keriyat Shema from matters pertaining to the Rambam's Sefer Mada to matters pertaining to his Sefer Ahava. Thus far, we have studied the mitzva of tefillin and its unique meanings. Now, let us turn to a closely-related mitzva - the mitzva of mezuza. One of the central ideas relating to mezuza is the idea of protection. When one affixes a mezuza to the entrance of his home, his house and household are protected from all trouble and damage. This idea is expressed by Chazal in several contexts, and it is based, as we will demonstrate, on a connection that is already rooted in the verses of the Torah. At the end of the passage of Ve-haya im shamo'a, it is stated: And you shall write them upon the doorposts of your house and upon your gates; that your days may be multiplied, and the days of your children, upon the land which the Lord swore to your fathers to give them, as the days of the heavens above the earth. (Devarim 11:20-21) At first glance, it seems that the Torah's promise of longevity relates to all that was stated in this passage concerning one who obeys all of God's commandments and follows His ways. However, Chazal linked this promise directly to the mitzva of mezuza. Two talmudic passages establish a connection between longevity and the mitzva of mezuza. In tractate Shabbat (32b), it is taught that a person's children die because of a failure to fulfill the mitzva of mezuza.[1] This is learned from the juxtaposition of the commandment of mezuza to the verse that promises that "your days will be multiplied, and the days of your children." In a positive formulation, the Tur writes: Whoever is careful about it, his days and the days of his children will be lengthened, as it is written: "That your days may be multiplied, and the days of your children." (Tur, Yoreh De'ah 285) In tractate Kiddushin (34a), the gemara discusses the possibility of exempting women from the mitzva of mezuza. At first, the gemara is of the opinion that women are exempt, in view of the Torah's juxtaposition of the mitzva of mezuza to the mitzva of Torah study, from which women are exempt. However, the gemara rejects this possibility with the following argument: You cannot think so, because it is written: ["And You shall write them upon the doorposts of your house...] that your days may be multiplied." Do men only need life, and not women? (Kiddushin 34a) In this gemara as well, we clearly see that the promise of longevity in relation to the mitzva of mezuza is so central that there is no room even to entertain the possibility that women may be exempt from it. For by removing women from the mitzva of mezuza you would be removing them from the basic desire of existence, of life. The Tur adds: Moreover, one's house is protected by it, as they expounded the verse: "The Lord is your keeper; the Lord is your shade upon your right hand" (Tehillim 121:5). (Tur, ibid.) II. The Rambam's View The Rambam famously writes: It is a common custom to write [God's name] Shaddai on the outside of a mezuza, opposite the empty space left between the two passages. There is no difficulty in this, since the addition is made on the outside. However, those who write the names of angels, other sacred names, verses, or forms,[2] on the inside [of a mezuza] are among those who do not have a portion in the World-to-Come. Not only do these fools nullify the mitzva, but furthermore, they make from a great mitzva that reflects the unity of the name of the Holy One, blessed be He, the love of Him, and the service of Him, a talisman for their own benefit. They, in their foolish conception, think that this will help them regarding the vanities of the world. (Hilkhot Tefillin U-Mezuza 5:4) The Kesef Mishneh (ad loc.) cites the objection raised by the Ramach against the Rambam based on the gemara in Avoda Zara (11a). The gemara there records a story about Onkelos, who became a proselyte, and the emperor sent a contingent of soldiers after him. Among other things, it is stated there: Again he sent another cohort ordering them not to enter into any conversation whatever with him. So they took hold of him; and as they were walking on, he saw the mezuza that was fixed on the door frame and he placed his hand on it saying to them, "Now what is this?" And they replied, "You tell us then." He said to them, "According to universal custom, the mortal king dwells within, and his servants keep guard on him without; but [in the case of] the Holy One, blessed is He, it is His servants who dwell within while He keeps guard on them from without, as it is stated: `The Lord shall guard your going out and your coming in from this time forth and for evermore' (Tehillim 121:8)." Then they, too, were converted to Judaism. (Avoda Zara 11a) >From the difficulty raised by the Ramach, it may be concluded that in his opinion the Rambam rejects the idea of protection that is attributed to the mezuza. The Rambam views the mezuza as an expression of man's connection to God, in that he declares at the entrance to his house his faith in His unity and his love for Him, two of the foundations of His service. According to the Ramach, the Rambam rejects the talismanic qualities that were attributed to the mezuza by the ancients. The Ramach attacks the Rambam's position, as he understood it, on the grounds that the idea of protection is brought in the gemara itself: For in tractate Avoda Zara it is implied from that which Onkelos said to the Roman contingent that the Holy One, blessed is He, makes the mezuza to protect Israel from the outside. And one can force an answer that it was Onkelos who said this in order give importance to Israel. (Ramach, ad loc.) In light of this, the Ramach struggles to reconcile the Rambam's position, arguing that Onkelos said this to the Romans only in order to praise Israel in their eyes. Onkelos told the Romans that the mezuza symbolizes God's protection, as it were, over the houses of Israel. In truth, however, the mitzva of mezuza is not a matter of God's protection, but rather an expression of a person's faith in God's unity and service. It stands to reason, however, that the Rambam does not challenge the very idea of the protection offered by a mezuza. Thus writes the Kesef Mishneh in light of the fact that the gemara in Menachot uses this principle to determine the halakha regarding the proper placement of a mezuza: For in chapter Ha-Kometz (33b), regarding the rule that a mezuza must be placed in the handbreadth adjacent to the public domain, R. Huna said: "What is the reason? So that it may protect him."[3] Therefore you must say that in fact a mezuza protects the house when it is written properly. (Kesef Mishneh) In the Kesef Mishneh's opinion, the Rambam rejects only those actions that expanded the talismanic element of a mezuza - namely, the insertion of the names of the angels into the mezuza. The Rambam sees the protective quality of a mezuza in the connection between man and God and his belief in Him and His unity. In the continuation of our discussion, we will explain the idea of the protection offered by a mezuza with greater precision and in greater depth. III. Additional Sources The Yerushalmi states in tractate Pe'ah: Artaban sent to our holy Rabbi an invaluably precious pearl. He said to him: Send me something which is similarly precious. He sent him a mezuza. He said to him: What I have sent you is something priceless, but you have sent me something which is only worth one follis. He [Rabbi] said to him: Your treasures and my treasures are incomparable. And moreover, you have sent me something that I have to guard, while I have sent you something which guards you when you sleep, as it is written: "When you walk, it will lead you; when you lie down, it will watch over you; and when you awake, it will talk to you" (Mishlei 6:22). (Yerushalmi, Pe'ah 1:1) Similarly, the Tur writes in Hilkhot Mezuza: Moreover, one's house is protected by it, as they expounded the verse: "The Lord is your keeper; the Lord is your shade upon your right hand" (Tehillim 121:5). A mortal king dwells within, and his servants keep guard on him without; but you sleep in your beds and the Holy One, blessed is He, guards you from without. Therefore, it should be placed in the outermost handbreadth, so that the entire house be within it and under its protection. (Tur, Yoreh De'ah 285) The prevalent custom to write on the outside of the mezuza parchment the name ShaDaY - which is expounded as an abbreviation for the words: Shomer Delatot Yisrael, "Who guards the doors of Israel"[4] - also reinforces this idea of a mezuza as protecting a person's home. As stated, the basis of this idea is already found in the verses of the Torah. Even though the Torah does not mention the idea of protection in direct connection to the mitzva of mezuza, it is mentioned in connection with another mezuza. In Parashat Bo, God commands the people of Israel to place the blood of the paschal lamb on the two doorposts and lintel. The reason for this is explained as follows: And the blood shall be to you for a token upon the houses where you are; and when I see the blood, I will pass over you, and there shall no plague be upon you to destroy you, when I smite the land of Egypt. (Shemot 12:13) And later in the same chapter: For the Lord will pass through to smite the Egyptians; and when He sees the blood upon the lintel and on the two doorposts, the Lord will pass over the door, and will not suffer the destroyer to come in to your houses to smite you. (Shemot 12:23) It is further stated at the end of that chapter: It was a night of watching to the Lord for bringing them out from the land of Egypt; this same night is a night of watching to the Lord for all the children of Israel throughout their generations. (Shemot 12:42) Rashi writes: "A night of watching to the Lord for all the children of Israel throughout their generations" - This night is protected, and comes as such from ages past, against all destructive forces, as it is stated: "And He will not suffer the destroyer to enter your houses" (v. 33). (Rashi, ad loc.) IV. The Mezuza and the Paschal Offering On the night of the exodus from Egypt, God protected the houses of the people of Israel by way of the sign of the blood on the doorposts and lintels, and because of this the night became a night of watching for all generations.[5] At first glance, it seems that the common denominator between the mitzva of mezuza and the paschal offering is that in both cases we are commanded to place a specific thing on the doorpost, thereby securing the protection of the house and its inhabitants. On the deeper level, it seems that the connection between the mitzva of mezuza and the paschal offering is more substantive. What is the significance of placing blood on the doorposts and lintel of one's house? The paschal offering that the people of Israel brought in Egypt was sacrificed as a family offering, a sheep for each family, at the entrance to each family's home. In Egypt, of course, there was no Temple and no altar. Therefore, it seems that the meaning of the blood was to distinguish between the houses of the Israelites and the houses of the Egyptians, in order to prevent the destroyer from coming into the homes of the Israelites to attack. However, the possibility that the blood was meant to distinguish between the houses of Israel and the houses of Egypt raises a great difficulty, in light of the midrashim of Chazal, which indicate that God Himself passed through the land of Egypt. He certainly did not need a distinguishing sign. So writes the Beit Yosef in his book, Maggid Meisharim: As for the difficulty with the verse, "And when I see the blood, I will pass over you," why was a sign needed, for surely everything is revealed to Him? It may be suggested that a sign was needed for the angels who came with Him. It may further be objected that this sign was with blood, which is a sign of death, the opposite of what they wanted. And furthermore, the sign should have been on the outside, and this sign was on the inside. But the secret of the matter is that the Holy One, blessed be He, wanted them to trust in Him and place the blood on the door from the inside. This is what is written: "And the blood shall be to you for a token." And instead of being afraid when they see the blood on the door, on the contrary they should trust their Master who commanded them to do this, so that He would be a salvation for them. This merit of trusting God would protect them. This is the meaning of what is written: "And the blood shall be to you for a token upon the houses where you are; and when I see the blood, I will pass over you." That is to say, I will see the merit of your trust, that the blood that is a sign of death will be for you a sign of life when you trust the words of your Master. And for this reason, "when I see the blood, I will pass over you." (Maggid Meisharim, Parashat Bo) It seems that trust in God involves not only doing the action required by God on the simple level. What we have here is an important and profound principle, in light of the gemara in Pesachim: R. Yosef taught: There were three altars there, on the lintel and on the two doorposts. (Pesachim 96a) A broader picture emerges from the gemara. The paschal offering brought in Egypt was a sacrifice offered at the entrance of a person's house, his house serving as the Temple, and the entrance to his house being the altar. While Chazal speak of three altars, it seems more accurate to say that they are referring to the three corners of the altar. The people of Israel are commanded to see their homes as the house of God. With their trust in God, they express the strength of their connection to Him by seeing their homes as God's house. And if their house is the house of God, then the entrance to the house is an altar, and they put of the blood on the three corners of the altar - the lintel and the two doorposts. This view, which sanctifies the houses of the people of Israel as the Temple, is similar to what is stated: "In every place where I cause My name to be mentioned I will come to you and bless you" (Shemot 20:20). In this way, the house becomes the basis of the covenant that is being formed between God and His people, by virtue of their seeking His presence within them. If we are correct, it stands to reason that the idea of the protection offered by a mezuza has a more fundamental and inner meaning. A person turns his house into a house of God, and a house of God is protected, as is stated in Tehillim: A Song of Ascents; of Shelomo. Except the Lord build the house, they labor in vain that build it; except the Lord keep the city, the watchman wakes but in vain. (Tehillim 127:1) God's protection is protection, and there is no other, it alone being considered true protection. These words connect with the words of the Rambam in Hilkhot Beit Ha-Bechira, that the guarding in the Temple was merely a display of honor, and not needed for the protection it offered, since the house of God is not in need of protection: There is a positive mitzva to guard the Temple. [This mitzvah applies] even though there is no fear of enemies or thieves, for the guarding [of the Temple] is an expression of respect for it. A palace with guards is [much more impressive] than a palace without guards. (Rambam, Hilkhot Beit Ha-Bechira 8:1) (Translated by David Strauss) _______________________ [1] The gemara there states as follows: "R. Chiya bar Abba and R. Yose disagree. One says: It is for the sin of neglect of mezuza [that a person's children die]; while the other says: It is for the sin of the neglect of Torah... It is well according to the one who says: It is for the sin of the neglect of mezuza, for it is written: 'And you shall write them upon the doorposts of your house,' which is followed by: 'that your days may be multiplied, and the days of your children'" (Shabbat 32b). [2] The Rambam is referring here to the ancient practice of inserting all kinds of additions into the mezuza. Rabbeinu Eliezer of Metz writes as follows: "It is common practice to add seals and the names of the angels at the end of the Bible verses contained in the mezuza for the sake of the increased security of the home. This is not indispensible, nor even a mitzva, but simply serves as additional protection" (Yere'im 400). He then spells out in great detail the names of the angels and where precisely they were inserted in the mezuza. [3] According to the Ramach's understanding of the Rambam, it may be suggested that this does not mean that a mezuza protects a person, but rather that a person should be reminded of the principles of his faith whenever he goes in or out of his house. [4] See Kolbo: "The reason that we write this name more than the others is that it is an abbreviation for Shomer Dirat Yisrael, "Who guards the dwelling of Israel" (Kolbo, Mezuza 90). [5] Establishing this night as a night of watching has halakhic ramifications in a number of contexts. This is true regarding the recitation of Shema before going to sleep and regarding the Me-Ein Sheva blessing on the night of the Seder when it falls out on Friday night. Many halakhic authorities rule that one should not say the Me-Ein Sheva blessing on the night of the Seder, since it is a night of watching that does not require protection. From bdbradley70 at hotmail.com Sat Dec 23 13:33:10 2017 From: bdbradley70 at hotmail.com (Ben Bradley) Date: Sat, 23 Dec 2017 21:33:10 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Midrash Tanchuma Message-ID: I'd be grateful to know if anyone here is sufficiently familiar with different editions of midrash tanchuma to help me out. I acquired a copy of the Tanchuma from a second hand book shop, very inexpensively, a number of years ago. I was a poor student at the time. It was printed in 5645, ie 1885, by one Shlomo Buber (Bober?) in Lvov from manuscripts acquired from Oxford and the Vatican. I must admit I'd never paid much attention to these details until now, but It's just come to my attention that it my copy is hugely different to the standard one. For example, this week in Vayigash, my copy has 12 simanim, compared to the 11 in the standard edition. But only 4 of these are the same (8-11 in mine corresponding to 9-12 in the standard), all the others are utterly different. By which I mean they are simply different midrashim, not just variants. Can anyone shed light on such a huge difference between what seems to be the standard edition and mine? Best wishes Ben -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From meirabi at gmail.com Sat Dec 23 16:49:35 2017 From: meirabi at gmail.com (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi) Date: Sun, 24 Dec 2017 11:49:35 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] Did the Patriarchs Speak Hebrew? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Speak means communication, there were 10 communications with which HKBH created the universe There were 10 communications broadcast at Har Sinai - I'm pretty sure it wasn't Polish or Hungarian. The Rishonim argue about the nature of prophesy, is it an actual voice (meaning stimulation of the human hearing facility of the ear - not necessarily stimulated by an actual sound) or just a voice in the head but TTBOMKnowledge, none question the language. Anyway, does it make any difference? Either way the brain is receiving a signal. Perhaps the type of language is irrelevant, what's important is that the message is received and understood. That the parties are connected. I have seen, but could not re-find a comment by the MaOr VeShemesh (I think connected to Ish Mitzi HiTzilanu) that Yidden spoke Mitzi, and the meaning of Lo Shinu LeShonom is that they spoke with a Yiddishe style, with dignity and kindness - and this is what set us apart. Clearly a Derasha designed to direct the listeners and readers towards a more dignified language, but at the same time reflecting an ultimate truth, the language does not make the man, it's the style that's important. I also recall hearing is a RaMBaN or a Siforno - a child exposed from birth to no external language inputs, would naturally speak Lashon HaKodesh. This seems to be a fairly old consideration amongst philosophers, see Frederick's Experiment, and Gong Mahal. HKBH looked into the Torah and created the universe, speaks volumes about the centrality of Torah, not about it's language, although it's not easy separating the two. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From driceman at optimum.net Sat Dec 23 16:53:36 2017 From: driceman at optimum.net (David Riceman) Date: Sat, 23 Dec 2017 19:53:36 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Did the Patriarchs Speak Hebrew? Message-ID: See Melachim 2 18:26 [Email #2. -micha] And see Gen. 31:47 DR Sent from my iPad From zev at sero.name Sat Dec 23 19:46:46 2017 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Sat, 23 Dec 2017 22:46:46 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Midrash Tanchuma In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 23/12/17 16:33, Ben Bradley via Avodah wrote: > It was printed in 5645, ie 1885, by one Shlomo Buber (Bober?) in Lvov > from manuscripts acquired from Oxford and the Vatican. > I must admit I'd never paid much attention to these details until now, > but It's just come to my attention that it my copy is hugely different > to the standard one. Yes, the Buber Tanchuma is a different sefer from the standard Tanchuma. Citations to "Tanchuma" stam refer to the old edition, while ones to this edition are given as "Tanchuma (Buber)". Buber claimed that he had found the original version, and that the one published in the 16th century is a much later one. Not everyone was convinced. There was also something the rishonim called "Medrash Yelamdeinu", which may have been a third version which is now lost, or may simply have been the name by which they referred to one or the other of these two versions. http://bit.ly/2C5u4FL -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From akivagmiller at gmail.com Sat Dec 23 18:39:15 2017 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Sat, 23 Dec 2017 21:39:15 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Did the Patriarchs Speak Hebrew? Message-ID: . R' Seth Mandel wrote: > There is no proof that anyone spoke Hebrew. and R' Zev Sero responded: > Rashi Bereshis 2:23 That Rashi does not mention Hebrew. What Rashi says there is that the olam was created via "Lashon Hakodesh". "Lashon Hakodesh" may or may not be the same thing as what we refer to as "Hebrew". One cannot discuss this topic meaningfully unless he is careful to make this distinction. For a very in-depth (yet also readable and in English) treatment of these and related topics, I recommend "Lashon Hakodesh - History, Holiness, & Hebrew" by Rabbi Reuven Chaim Klein. Akiva Miller From zvilampel at gmail.com Sat Dec 23 21:41:29 2017 From: zvilampel at gmail.com (H Lampel) Date: Sun, 24 Dec 2017 00:41:29 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Historicity of Aggadta In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Under the subject line of Re: [Avodah] Did the Patriarchs Speak Hebrew?, RSM raises a claim that RMB and I have argued over in the past. He writes, > Medrashim of Chazal teaches us important ideas, but are not meant to > be literally true. They do not intend to be a historical document, > but rather contain important moral and ethical teachings which are > 'emes in the spiritual sense. > > ... if you understand > what the Rambam says in his introduction to Chapter 10 of Mas. Sanhedrin > regarding three approaches to what Chazal say But the Rambam also writes there: And? I will yet compose a work in which I will gather all the drashos found in the Talmud and elsewhere...and I will reveal what of the drashos are [meant in] a literal way, and which of them are [meant as] mashal, and which of them were [describing something seen only] in a dream but was stated in a purely absolute way, as if it were [experienced] in a state of wakefulness... So, the Rambam does not maintain that the literal meaning of? /all/ drashos is to be rejected. Some are indeed meant literally, and some are not. (The Rambam never wrote this work. As he explains in Moreh Nevuchim, since much of it would be dealing with the meaning of drashos whose meanings were valuable lessons too precious to be shared with those who would not appreciate them appropriately, he would be forced to merely substitute the drashos' figurative expressions with his own figurative expressions. But in several works he does provide the key that they are not meant literally when the literal meaning would contradict realia, logic, fundamentals or pesukim.) His son Avraham, in his maamer on Drashos Chazal writes similarly regarding the maasiyos reported in the Talmud. R. Yehuda HaLevy (1:68) understood the midrashic maasiyos attributing the Hebrew language to the patriarchs as a historic reality that carried an important lesson, and considered the Torah as presenting evidence thereof. According to tradition it is the language in which G-d spoke to Adam and Eve, and in which the latter conversed. It is proved by the derivation of Adam from /adamah/, /ishshah/ from /ish/; /Chava/__from Chay; /Cain/ from /Kannisi/; /Shes/ from /shas/, and Noach from /yenachamenu/. This is supported by the evidence of the Torah. The whole is traced back to Eber, Noach and Adam. It is the language of Eber after whom it was called /Hebrew/, because after the confusion of tongues it was he who retained it. Abraham was an Aramaean of /Ur Kasdim/, because the language of the Chaldaeans was Aramaic. He employed Hebrew as a specially holy language andAramaic for everyday use. .. Zvi Lampel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From familyp2 at actcom.net.il Sun Dec 24 03:05:02 2017 From: familyp2 at actcom.net.il (Simi Peters) Date: Sun, 24 Dec 2017 13:05:02 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] tanhuma buber Message-ID: <001a01d37ca7$16b17e70$44147b50$@actcom.net.il> Your edition of Tanhuma is indeed vastly different from the standard printed edition. It was published by Buber from a Cairo Geniza manuscript (or possibly several manuscripts-not sure about the details.) There is some overlap, but there is a lot of material in Tanhuma Buber that does not appear in the standard editions and vice versa. It's good to have both. Unless you're interested in trying to reconstruct an ur-edition of Tanhuma, you can just treat them as separate works and mine each for its interesting material. Kol tuv, Simi Peters --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From zvilampel at gmail.com Sun Dec 24 06:43:33 2017 From: zvilampel at gmail.com (H Lampel) Date: Sun, 24 Dec 2017 09:43:33 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Historicity of Aggadta In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1f584d28-51c5-aa2f-2eb7-e97d1cd32aef@gmail.com> On 12/24/2017 12:41 AM, Z?? Lampel wrote: > R. Yehuda HaLevy (1:68) Should be: R. Yehuda Halevy (Kuzari 2:68). Zvi Lampel From marty.bluke at gmail.com Sun Dec 24 04:32:45 2017 From: marty.bluke at gmail.com (Marty Bluke) Date: Sun, 24 Dec 2017 14:32:45 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] New Cancer Treatment Message-ID: RHS in his sefer (Eretz Hatzvi) points out that it seems to be 2 opinions in Tosafos whether a mamzer can be created without a bias issur. The Gemara in Yevamos 16b brings the opinion that eved v'akum haba al bas yisrael havlad mamzer. Tosafos there asks the following question. They understand how there can be an opinion that an eved creates mamzerus because there is a specific issur for a Jewish woman to have biah with an eved. However, they ask, by a Goy there is no issur biah min hatorah and therefore how can anyone hold that the product of the biah of a goy and a Jewish woman would create a mamzer? Tosafos gives 2 answers: 1. Even though there is no bias issur since kiddushin are not tofsin it creates mamzerus. 2. A Goy and a Jewish woman do not create a mamzer min hatorah only midrabbanan If we apply these 2 opinions to IVF, according to the first answer since kiddushin are not tofsin (since she is married) the child would be a mamzer even though there was no bias issur. On the other hand, the second answer holds that the determining factor of mamzerus is a bias issur and therefore since in the case of IVF there is no bias issur there would be no mamzerus. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Sun Dec 24 06:24:17 2017 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Sun, 24 Dec 2017 14:24:17 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] The Nature of Egyptian Society Message-ID: <1514125453560.29445@stevens.edu> The following is from RSRH" commentary on Bereishis 46:33 Now, when Pharaoh calls you and asks, What is your occupation? 33 In a state like Egypt, the individual is completely identified with his occupation. Children are not born as human beings but as artisans, peasants, soldiers, and so forth. Accordingly, Pharaoh's first question to Yosef 's brothers would naturally concern their occupation. They were instructed to answer Pharaoh's question candidly, to tell him the truth, even though it would be unpleasant. For the Egyptians' loathing for the brothers' occupation and, in general, the nations' aversion to the Jews were to serve as primary factors in the survival of this race, which was destined to journey through the ages in isolation. As long as the moral morn had not dawned for the nations, the barriers they erected to isolate the Jews served to protect the Jews from becoming infected with the barbarism and demoralization of the people in whose midst they had to walk for hundreds of years. Yosef therefore immediately emphasizes the aspect that will arouse the aversion of the Egyptians. His clear intention is that, as a result, his brothers will be allocated a separate province in which to dwell. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cantorwolberg at cox.net Sat Dec 23 19:30:04 2017 From: cantorwolberg at cox.net (Richard Wolberg) Date: Sat, 23 Dec 2017 22:30:04 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Vay'chi Message-ID: <89600AC2-DFEA-44AA-A5AE-9C4493ED11F4@cox.net> There?s an interesting medrash the k?li yakar brings down. It doesn?t say Vayik?r?vu Yisroel Lamus, that Yisroel came close to die,? rather it says: ?Vayik?r?vu Y?MEI Yisroel lamus,? that the DAYS of Yisroel came close to die. And the medresh says, the DAYS died, not the person. This goes in line with Vay?chi Ya?akov, and Jacob LIVED. In other words, his body died but not he, himself. (The question has been asked: Do you have a soul? The answer is NO, you ARE a soul with a body). In the first pasuk (vs.28) the name Yaakov is used twice and then in vs.29 we see the name Yisroel used. The question is asked why does the name change from Ya?akov to Yisroel. One answer is that Yisroel symbolizes the prophecy of Ya?akov. And that?s how he knew he was going to die because in prophecy he understood and divinely inspired, he understood that he was going to die. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From larry62341 at optonline.net Sun Dec 24 02:38:32 2017 From: larry62341 at optonline.net (Prof. Levine) Date: Sun, 24 Dec 2017 05:38:32 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] The Protection Offered by a Mezuza Message-ID: At 06:58 PM 12/23/2017, Harav Baruch Gigi wrote: The following is from RSRH's commentary on Devorim 6:9 And write them upon the [door-] posts of your house and upon your gates. The mezuzah is not an amulet; in and of itself, it does not protect the house. Only insofar as they shape their lives in accordance with the mezuzah 's content can the people within the house expect help and protection from God, the "All-Sovereign and All-Sufficing," in all the vicissitudes of domestic life. With this intent it is our custom to adorn the outside of the mezuzah with the Name shin-daled-yud. From ben1456 at zahav.net.il Sun Dec 24 10:55:39 2017 From: ben1456 at zahav.net.il (Ben Waxman) Date: Sun, 24 Dec 2017 20:55:39 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Rambam ,Hilchot Hannuka Message-ID: A few take aways from Rambam Hilchot Hanukka Chapter 3 1) For the Rambam, Hallel is the ikkar element of Hanukka, not the candles (given that details Hallel first and only then goes on to the candles). 2) The Rambam gives a long detailed description on how to properly say Hallel in beit knesset. However the last halacha in the chapter basically says "I've been in a lot batei knesset and everyone does something different'. Meaning - you want to do a musical Hallel, different tunes, no tunes, responsive, everyone together, whatever you like - it is fine. 3) The Rambam raises the possibility of a woman or child or slave reading Hallel and everyone repeating what she or he said word by word. However, he doesn't add in the famous curse given in the Gemara. Meaning - the Rambam didn't hold by? Tavo Ma'arah (spelling?) (at least not here). Ben From lisa at starways.net Sun Dec 24 11:27:31 2017 From: lisa at starways.net (Lisa Liel) Date: Sun, 24 Dec 2017 21:27:31 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] The Protection Offered by a Mezuza In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2cfbbfce-e0d9-fc05-140c-969d4b5f18a1@starways.net> On 12/24/2017 12:38 PM, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: > At 06:58 PM 12/23/2017, Harav Baruch Gigi wrote: ... > The mezuzah is not an amulet; in and of itself, it does not protect the > house. Only insofar as they shape their lives in accordance with the mezuzah's > content can the people within the house expect help and protection... I know a mezuzah isn't an amulet, but when my apartment burned down back in the 90s, the fire burned through two sides of the apartment and jumped over my room only, which was the only one with a mezuzah.? I'm not saying it couldn't be a coincidence, I'm just saying that I didn't take it that way. Lisa From zev at sero.name Sun Dec 24 14:10:20 2017 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Sun, 24 Dec 2017 17:10:20 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] The Protection Offered by a Mezuza In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2d108449-ec4d-0e35-d888-0ccdd8b113be@sero.name> On 24/12/17 05:38, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: > At 06:58 PM 12/23/2017, Harav Baruch Gigi wrote: > The following is from RSRH's commentary on Devorim 6:9 And write > them upon the [door-] > posts of your house and upon your gates. > > The mezuzah is not an amulet; in and of itself, it does not protect the > house. Only insofar as they shape their lives in accordance with the mezuzah 's > content can the people within the house expect help and protection > from God, the "All-Sovereign and All-Sufficing," in all the vicissitudes > of domestic life. That may be RSRH's opinion, but if so it contradicts Chazal and millennia of Jewish belief and practise. No, the mezuzah is not an amulet; if it were not a mitzvah it would have no inherent power. But the *mitzvah* of mezuzah protects regardless of how those within the house "shape their lives". Even a goy who puts up a mezuzah, choosing to voluntarily fulfil this mitzvah, can expect this protection. The mitzvah protects those who fulfil it not only when they are inside the house it adorns, but wherever they are. And, most astonishingly, although it is true that a mezuzah itself is not an amulet, there are legitimate grounds to believe that carrying it around "zecher lamitzvah" *does* give some level of protection, even though no mitzvah is being fulfilled. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From ben1456 at zahav.net.il Sun Dec 24 19:58:42 2017 From: ben1456 at zahav.net.il (Ben Waxman) Date: Mon, 25 Dec 2017 05:58:42 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] The Protection Offered by a Mezuza In-Reply-To: <2d108449-ec4d-0e35-d888-0ccdd8b113be@sero.name> References: <2d108449-ec4d-0e35-d888-0ccdd8b113be@sero.name> Message-ID: <80f92bd4-b7af-1b26-1d03-0f3ce7a67edf@zahav.net.il> I seriously doubt that anyone could come up with any statistical analysis showing this point to be true. Ben On 12/25/2017 12:10 AM, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > But the *mitzvah* of mezuzah protects regardless of how those within the house "shape their lives". From zvilampel at gmail.com Mon Dec 25 07:28:21 2017 From: zvilampel at gmail.com (H Lampel) Date: Mon, 25 Dec 2017 10:28:21 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Did the Patriarchs Speak Hebrew? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > Tue, 19 Dec 2017 "Mandel, Seth" wrote: > > There is no proof that anyone spoke Hebrew. ... the Torah was written in Hebrew because that is > what the Jews understood at the time of Moshe Rabbeinu and the N'vi'im. > ... What did Yaakov speak to Rochel and > Leah, who had never been in EY? ... > one cannot know from the T'NaKh who spoke what when and where. Well, at least when the matriarchs and patriarchs stated the reasons for the names they gave their children, they were obviously speaking the same Hebrew spoken in the times of Moshe Rabbeinu. The only way to question this would be to suggest that originally Yitzchak, for instance was called "HeShallLaugh" in some other language, and over the next 5 centuries the bnei Yisrael (or the descendants of HeWillStriveWithG-d, or whatever), knowing the meaning of the name, changed it to Yitzchak.And did the same with each one of all the other names given in the chronologies, which are also clearly contractions of Mattan Torah time Hebrew words. And a similar convoluted explanation would have to be made when an allegedly unHebrew-speaking Eisav cracked ''Ha-chi kara shmo Yaakov--Vayak-veini zeh pa'amayyim...?!" I think all that is extremely unlikely, even without invoking the masorah (of no less import than the Masorah that HQBH dictated the Torah to Moshe Rabbeinu in the eponymous Biblical Hebrew) that the shevatim in Moshe Rabbeinu's time retained the names given to their ancestors (cited in many places including BeMidbar Rabbah 13:20 s.v. Bayom HaShishi and Midrash Tehillim 114:4). Zvi Lampel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mcohen at touchlogic.com Mon Dec 25 07:39:55 2017 From: mcohen at touchlogic.com (M Cohen) Date: Mon, 25 Dec 2017 10:39:55 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Did the Patriarchs Speak Hebrew? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <00bd01d37d96$9d1ebc80$d75c3580$@com> Fyi that the best sefer that I have seen on the subject of Hebrew and ancient Hebrew history is Lashon HaKodesh: History, Holiness & Hebrew by Rabbi Reuven Chaim Klein. Feldheim. http://www.feldheim.com/lashon-hakodesh.html Haskomos from R Leff, R Breitowitz, R Lopiansky It deals with the subject of ancient Hebrew history, using both on chazal and current linguistic and archeological sources Did Adam harishon speak Hebrew ? Did the world speak Hebrew until tower of Babel? Did Avraham speak Hebrew ? Foreign influences on Hebrew Hebrew vs Aramaic. Sources. History. Development. You will find exhaustive source material and answers there. Mordechai Cohen ======= Email scanned by PC Tools - No viruses or spyware found. (Email Guard: 9.1.0.2894, Virus/Spyware Database: 6.22240) http://free.pctools.com/ ======= From zev at sero.name Sun Dec 24 23:16:16 2017 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Mon, 25 Dec 2017 02:16:16 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] The Protection Offered by a Mezuza In-Reply-To: <80f92bd4-b7af-1b26-1d03-0f3ce7a67edf@zahav.net.il> References: <2d108449-ec4d-0e35-d888-0ccdd8b113be@sero.name> <80f92bd4-b7af-1b26-1d03-0f3ce7a67edf@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <1ba30a45-ba01-d7d5-2b67-843f9f22ed8b@sero.name> On 24/12/17 22:58, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > On 12/25/2017 12:10 AM, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: >> But the *mitzvah* of mezuzah protects regardless of how those within >> the house "shape their lives". > I seriously doubt that anyone could come up with any statistical > analysis showing this point to be true. Why do we need statistical analysis? Judaism tell us it's true, therefore it is. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From llevine at stevens.edu Mon Dec 25 12:00:57 2017 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Mon, 25 Dec 2017 20:00:57 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Bishul Akum - Specific Products Message-ID: <0ae98ef4eb3a4dbeaa39a0bbc1e50abf@exchng03.campus.stevens-tech.edu> Please see the file at https://goo.gl/LnRQjF YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Mon Dec 25 12:30:23 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 25 Dec 2017 15:30:23 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] The Protection Offered by a Mezuza In-Reply-To: <80f92bd4-b7af-1b26-1d03-0f3ce7a67edf@zahav.net.il> References: <2d108449-ec4d-0e35-d888-0ccdd8b113be@sero.name> <80f92bd4-b7af-1b26-1d03-0f3ce7a67edf@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <20171225203023.GA9557@aishdas.org> On Mon, Dec 25, 2017 at 05:58am IST, Ben Waxman wrote: : On 12/25/2017 12:10 AM, Zev Sero wrote: :> But the *mitzvah* of mezuzah protects regardless of how those :> within the house "shape their lives". : I seriously doubt that anyone could come up with any statistical : analysis showing this point to be true. (I won't bother arguing against Zev's inability to acknowledge the existence of other shitos than his. "[I]t contradicts Chazal and millennia of Jewish belief and practise." "Judaism tell us it's true" indeed. It's a machloqes of the Rambam and the Ramach, with various teirutzim given for the Rambam. Not open-and-shut at all.) You want to statistically decide which hashkafah is true??? I lean the way you do. But it's a machloqes. I already pointed to , a discussion of sources both ways. It would be weird to think it boils down to a machloqes in metzi'us. You remind me of a problem I have saying a particular line of Tehillim (37:25) with kavanah, and it comes up at the appendix to bentching, "Naar hayisi..." But I have seen a tzadiq whose kids miss meals and have to beg. Haven't you? The best I can do, rather than tamper with the minhag of saying it, is to focus on the word "ne'ezav" -- so, his kids don't have food, but it's not because HQBH abandoned the tzadiq. But I can't really feel that's peshat in the pasuq. It allows me to saven with qavanah, but as an answer -- the question is better than this resolution. Bitachon and emunah that actually fit the data can be more challenging than if we just shut off critical thought. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "As long as the candle is still burning, micha at aishdas.org it is still possible to accomplish and to http://www.aishdas.org mend." Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Anonymous shoemaker to R' Yisrael Salanter From micha at aishdas.org Mon Dec 25 12:34:01 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 25 Dec 2017 15:34:01 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Historicity of Aggadta In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20171225203401.GB9557@aishdas.org> On Sun, Dec 24, 2017 at 12:41:29AM -0500, H Lampel via Avodah wrote: : Under the subject line of Re: [Avodah] Did the Patriarchs Speak Hebrew?, : RSM raises a claim that RMB and I have argued over in the past. He writes, : : > Medrashim of Chazal teaches us important ideas, but are not meant to : > be literally true. They do not intend to be a historical document, : > but rather contain important moral and ethical teachings which are : > 'emes in the spiritual sense. Which need not say anything about the story's lilterally truth. Just that the story isn't *about* its literal historical claim, and therefore doesn't testify to history one way or the other. And so, I agree with: : So, the Rambam does not maintain that the literal meaning of /all/ : drashos is to be rejected. Some are indeed meant literally, and some are : not. And yet still won't bother worrying about contradicting any medrash's historical claims. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Life is a stage and we are the actors, micha at aishdas.org but only some of us have the script. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Menachem Nissel Fax: (270) 514-1507 From zvilampel at gmail.com Mon Dec 25 15:53:28 2017 From: zvilampel at gmail.com (H Lampel) Date: Mon, 25 Dec 2017 18:53:28 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Historicity of Aggadta In-Reply-To: <20171225203401.GB9557@aishdas.org> References: <20171225203401.GB9557@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 12/25/2017 3:34 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > And so, I agree with: > : So, the Rambam does not maintain that the literal meaning of /all/ > : drashos is to be rejected. Some are indeed meant literally, and some are > : not. > > And yet still won't bother worrying about contradicting any medrash's > historical claims. I already stated that the Rambam holds the intent of? a medrash is not literal if he holds it contradicts realia, logic, fundamentals or pesukim. And I should add, if it contradicts what he considers the consensus of Chazal. And in past iterations I submitted examples where the Rambam cites midrashic reports of history apparently qua history. You may insist that he (contra the Kuzari regarding Adam and the patricarchs speaking Hebrew) doesn't care about whether they are historically factual. But if you have examples of the Rambam not bothering to worry about contradicting a medrash's historical reports despite the above caveats, please provide them. Zvi Lampel From micha at aishdas.org Mon Dec 25 17:21:19 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 25 Dec 2017 20:21:19 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Historicity of Aggadta In-Reply-To: References: <20171225203401.GB9557@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20171226012119.GH24733@aishdas.org> On Mon, Dec 25, 2017 at 06:53:28PM -0500, H Lampel wrote: :> And yet still won't bother worrying about contradicting any medrash's :> historical claims. : I already stated that the Rambam holds the intent of? a medrash is : not literal if he holds it contradicts realia, logic, fundamentals : or pesukim... Yes, but you know I disagree. The Rambam says that the intent of a medrash is not literal. They might also be literal. A mashal or melitzah -- as he discusses from Mishlei at length -- can be pulled from history or stam crafted as a story, but in either case "mimah shenimtza bikhlal divreihem morim al inyanim amitiyim me'od." However, if the story does contradict what is known, we know it's a pure mashal, ahistorical. And therefore don't become like someone of the first two katim, believing stupidity or ridiculing chazal for their allegedly teaching stupidity. But he doesn't ever say that if the story is plausible, that's the point of the story. Nor that it's sufficient reason to assume it's true on a literal level. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "Fortunate indeed, is the man who takes micha at aishdas.org exactly the right measure of himself, and http://www.aishdas.org holds a just balance between what he can Fax: (270) 514-1507 acquire and what he can use." - Peter Latham From micha at aishdas.org Sun Dec 24 14:11:31 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Sun, 24 Dec 2017 17:11:31 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Please help me fund my book! Message-ID: <20171224221131.GA26480@aishdas.org> My manuscript just went to the publishers. For the second time; I retracted my first version because I didn't like the idea that the book was all theory without any pragmatics. What's the value of exploring the meaning of Torah and life based on haRav Shimon haKohein Shkop without anything about how to align one's life with those ideals? If you want some sense of what the book is about, the text that it's a commentary / elaboration on is available at http://www.aishdas.org/asp/ShaareiYosher.pdf -- although I have made some improvements to the readability of that translation since that PDF. If you would like to help me make this dream happen, whether because you were always looking for a way to thank me for these email lists, you like me or some of the things you've seen me write in the past, you like Rav Shimon's hashkafah, or simply think *any* sefer that gets more Orthodox Jews thinking about the big picture and why are we doing it all is worth existing, please let me know. Initial reactions are excited: "This may IY'H attract some serious attention -- books like this don't come out every day." "Very chashuv, unique sefer." "Wow. what an impressive work!" "Right up our alley, as well. Torah, important -- but kind of unique. For thinking people." "I think the subject, approach and writing are gevaldik." "I am excited as well, but they tell me the hardest part of the job still lays ahead." The sefarim market cannot consume books to the extent where publication will make a profit. So, at least when it comes to the business and funding models, all the houses expect fundraising and sponsorship to make a book happen. But it is not "vanity press". The publisher adds significant value to the book -- fact checking, editing, layout and other aesthetics, etc. The publisher I am going with uses Feldheim as their distribution channel, so my sefer could reach every Anglo sefarim store. And they have to pay the people who do all that, not to mention feed their own families. They put their name on the book, the book is their product. They need that good name for future marketing and distribution. So, they won't take on a book that would harm their business. They're willing to invest those man-hours, and when done, to stand behind my work. So, I have to rely heavily on word-of-mouth to raise that money. Including hitting up everyone here on Areivim/Avodah. I am using a foundation established in memory of my grandparents to clear the money in a manner that is tax-deductible. Email me for details if you are interested in chipping in. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger For those with faith there are no questions. micha at aishdas.org For those who lack faith there are no answers. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yaakov of Radzimin Fax: (270) 514-1507 From zvilampel at gmail.com Mon Dec 25 19:55:18 2017 From: zvilampel at gmail.com (H Lampel) Date: Mon, 25 Dec 2017 22:55:18 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Diberah Torah Kil-shon bnei adam In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Under the heading, Re: [Avodah] Did the Patriarchs Speak Hebrew?, Tue, 19 Dec 2017 From: Micha Berger > Mandel, Seth via Avodah wrote: > : There is no proof that anyone spoke Hebrew. Chazal say that dibb'ra Torah > : bilshon b'nei odom... > > RMB: Well.... R' Yishmael says it [the dictum ''dibb'ra Torah > bilshon b'nei odom.''] And it appears to be an argument for his > rules of derashah, which do not include looking for magic words like > "akh" (mi'ut), "raq" (mi'ut), "kol" (ribui) or even "es", but darshens > the meaning of terms, whether ribui or mi'ut....And besides, R' Aqiva disagrees! RSRH (Collected Writings Vol. V, p. 170), citing 30 cases,? points out that, ''R. Ishmael, no less than R. Akiba (and......all of R. Akiva's predecessors...)...considered particles [including of ''akh,'' ''raq'' and ''ess'] and superfluities ..in the Biblical text...subject to interpretations.'' He explains (p. 177) that ''R. Ishmael disagrees with R. Akiba only with regard to one very specific form of redundancy, namely, repetitions of the same expression; e.g.,...yidor nedder,...hasheiv heishiv, or the repetition of the same noun (ish ish). However, R. Ishmael interprets other redundancies in exactly the same manner as does R. Akiba.'' This leads me to propose an explanation for the phenomenon described by RMB as that... > The Rambam really sloganeers (like the CS's "chadash assur min haTorah") > when he uses it to explain that anthropomorphic descriptions of HQBH > are idioms, not to be taken overly literally. Rambam was not the first (and of course not the last*) to understand that Chazal intended by ''dibrah Torah kil-shon bnei adam'' a wider meaning than the one in dispute between R. Akiva and R.Yishmael, and even wider than the one RSRH shows both agreed to. Rav Hai Gaon (Teshuvas HaGaonim #98), too, used it to explain anthropomorphisms ("all the words of our Sages that have anthropomorphic descriptions ... are not to be understood literally but are metaphors or allegory. ... the Torah speaks in the language of man.)'' So did Chovos Halevavos (Shaar HaYichud 1:1:10). And Sefer HaKuzari (5:27) used it to explain? what the Torah means when it says that blowing the chatzotzros will result in ''v-hayu lachem l-zikaron lifnei H','' which seems to imply that H' requires reminders. Raavad (Sefer HaEmunah 1:7) applied the dictum to explain why the rewards and punishments the Torah' explicitly references are only those in this world, and not the next.? He explained that speaking of spiritual rewards would confuse the common people, ''v'al zeh ne'emar dibrah Torah b-lashon bnei adam.'' (Semi-off topic: In Maamar Techiyyas HaMeisim, Rambam gives a similar, if not identical reason for no explicit reference to techiyyas hameisim, without invoking the dictum.) So I propose that the Geonim and rishonim understood that the intent of Chazal's dictum? ''dibrah Torah kil-ashon bnei adam'' was a wide one, which includes the Torah's use of anthropomorphism. And that R. Yishmael, contra R. Akiva,? /extended/? it even to repetitions of the same expression; e.g.,...yidor nedder,...hasheiv heishiv, or the repetition of the same noun (ish ish). But nobody, including R. Yishmael, extended it even further, to other apparently extra words or particles such as"akh", "raq", "kol" and "ess". Those are meant for interpretation according to all. This would explain why even though the rule is that we follow R. Akiva when he argues with R. Yishmael, , the rishonim embraced the dictum of "dibrah Torah kil-shon bnei adam." Because they embraced it in the sense that all Chazal agreed to. And this applies to anthropomorphisms. It is only regarding whether to extended the dictum's application to certain types of expressions that R. Yishmael and R. Akiva argue. *Ibn Ezra--numerous times, such as on Breishis 6:6) Radak (numerous times, such as on Breishis 9:15 Ramban (Breishis 6:6) Hizkuni (Devarim 5:26) Rabbeynu Bechaye (numerous times, such as on Breishis 1:26) Ralbag (Shoftim 10:16) Akeidas Yitzchak numerous times, such as on Vayeria Shaar 19 sv Va'ani ain) Zvi Lampel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From JRich at sibson.com Mon Dec 25 22:00:57 2017 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2017 06:00:57 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] The Protection Offered by a Mezuza In-Reply-To: <20171225203023.GA9557@aishdas.org> References: <2d108449-ec4d-0e35-d888-0ccdd8b113be@sero.name> <80f92bd4-b7af-1b26-1d03-0f3ce7a67edf@zahav.net.il>, <20171225203023.GA9557@aishdas.org> Message-ID: > > You want to statistically decide which hashkafah is true??? > ------------ > > > You remind me of a problem I have saying a particular line of Tehillim > (37:25) with kavanah, and it comes up at the appendix to bentching, > "Naar hayisi..." But I have seen a tzadiq whose kids miss meals and have > to beg. Haven't you? > -------------- It also bothered the gedolim who struggled to explain why the simple meaning of the segula of being a sandek didn't seem to be statistically fulfilled Kt 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. From lisa at starways.net Tue Dec 26 00:10:52 2017 From: lisa at starways.net (Lisa Liel) Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2017 10:10:52 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Historicity of Aggadta In-Reply-To: <20171226012119.GH24733@aishdas.org> References: <20171225203401.GB9557@aishdas.org> <20171226012119.GH24733@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 12/26/2017 3:21 AM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > However, if the story does contradict what is known, we know it's a pure > mashal, ahistorical. I'd like to revise that to say that if the story contradicts what is *currently* known, we are entitled (or perhaps required) to consider it a pure mashal *at that time*, with the understanding that our knowledge may change. Lisa --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From zvilampel at gmail.com Mon Dec 25 20:41:54 2017 From: zvilampel at gmail.com (H Lampel) Date: Mon, 25 Dec 2017 23:41:54 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Historicity of Aggadta In-Reply-To: <20171226012119.GH24733@aishdas.org> References: <20171225203401.GB9557@aishdas.org> <20171226012119.GH24733@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <057fcda7-0e48-53f8-c0ec-135a112bb534@gmail.com> On 12/25/2017 8:21 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > ...But he doesn't ever say that if the story is plausible, that's the point > of the story. Nor that it's sufficient reason to assume it's true on a > literal level. The historical mentions the Rambam's makes, treating the plausible Midrashim as history without making any qualifications, indicates otherwise. But specifically on the topic this discussion came from now: Regarding the Midrashic reports that Adam and the Avos spoke Ivris/Lashon Hakadosh, which I assume you agree the Kuzari accepts as historical fact (which of course teaches in its historicity an important thing to know)... Is your default position that the Rambam doesn't care whether it's historically so? Zvi Lampel From sholom at aishdas.org Mon Dec 25 22:08:38 2017 From: sholom at aishdas.org (Sholom Simon) Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2017 01:08:38 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Rashi on kol hanefesh (Bereshis 46:26) Message-ID: <20171226060849.GQIH4561.fed1rmfepo102.cox.net@fed1rmimpo209.cox.net> Kol hanefesh . . . shvi'im. Rashi says "I found in Vayikra Rabba" . . . a statement that Eisav had (with him) six, and the word nafashos (plural) was used; but here with Yaakov, kol hanafesh . . . shevi'im, nefesh is in the singular. This is a hint that Eisav engaged in A"Z (plural gods), while Yaakov served one G-d. But don't we (almost?) always see (in Torah) the singular being used for a noun when the count is larger than 10? How can one darshen from something that follows the general grammatic rule? What am I missing here? -- Sholom From lisa at starways.net Tue Dec 26 00:08:21 2017 From: lisa at starways.net (Lisa Liel) Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2017 10:08:21 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] The Protection Offered by a Mezuza In-Reply-To: <20171225203023.GA9557@aishdas.org> References: <2d108449-ec4d-0e35-d888-0ccdd8b113be@sero.name> <80f92bd4-b7af-1b26-1d03-0f3ce7a67edf@zahav.net.il> <20171225203023.GA9557@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <282dcbac-59e9-be81-ee8e-f1faf4991682@starways.net> On 12/25/2017 10:30 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > You remind me of a problem I have saying a particular line of Tehillim > (37:25) with kavanah, and it comes up at the appendix to bentching, > "Naar hayisi..." But I have seen a tzadiq whose kids miss meals and have > to beg. Haven't you? I always understood it to mean that either he's quick to give tzedaka so as to prevent there being a tzaddik neezav v'zar'o mevakesh lachem, or that we aren't talking about literal aziva and lack of food, but rather aziva by Hashem and lack of Torah. Lisa --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From zvilampel at gmail.com Tue Dec 26 07:09:06 2017 From: zvilampel at gmail.com (H Lampel) Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2017 10:09:06 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Historicity of Aggadta In-Reply-To: <057fcda7-0e48-53f8-c0ec-135a112bb534@gmail.com> References: <20171225203401.GB9557@aishdas.org> <20171226012119.GH24733@aishdas.org> <057fcda7-0e48-53f8-c0ec-135a112bb534@gmail.com> Message-ID: <53d98237-ecd0-93ee-7927-d9edb71b28ca@gmail.com> On 12/25/2017 11:41 PM, H Lampel wrote: > > > On 12/25/2017 8:21 PM, Micha Berger wrote: >> ...But he doesn't ever say that if the story is plausible, that's the >> point >> of the story. Nor that it's sufficient reason to assume it's true on a >> literal level. The first statement is of course true. The reason a story is told is to make a point. Thus the citations where the Rambam says that all the maamerei Chazal impart valuable lessons. The second statement is where we diverge. I understand that the Rambam does take the plausible reports of happenings (reported of course because they impart something worthy to know) to be historically true. In other words, that's the default position. He never says that we may deny the historic factuality of events Chazal presented as factual historical events. I understand the citations you bring where Rambam invokes Mishlei to defend interpreting maamarei Chazal non-literally to? be saying that even the implausible ones really have valuable lessons but must be interpreted non-literally to understand them. So I would still ask you for examples of the Rambam not bothering to worry about contradicting a medrash's plausible historical reports. I previously remarked that the historical mentions the Rambam's makes, treating the plausible Midrashim as history without making any qualifications, without explaining why he takes them as historical fact (for example, the neis of the pach shemen, and the military victory of the Chashmonaim), indicates he took them as historical fact, which thereby provides the lessons to be learned therefrom. I quoted a passage from Rambam's Hakdama to Perek Cheilek (originally to counteract the face-value meaning of RSM's declaration that the Rambam holds that every Medrash is meant non-literally), where the Rambam makes clear that some reports are meant non-literally, but some are meant literally. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that your take can be worded as follows: Chazal and Rambam did not care whether the historical events they learned lessons from, really occurred. All Chazal's statements are only for the sake of the lessons. Some of the lessons must be extracted by understanding the statements in a non-literal way, particularly if at face value they are implausible. Of the plausible reports, the lessons to be learned from them can be gleaned from a literal understanding, meaning the message is clear without needing to give unusual meanings to its the words. But that does not mean that they were meant to be historically factual. They are meant literally, but not historically. I.e., the Rambam held that although lessons Chazal intended were ostensibly learned from, or reinforced by, events they reported, it is irrelevant whether the events did actually occur, and indeed they may not have. But I think his words indicate otherwise. Here they are again: ??? And I will yet compose a work in which I will gather all the ??? drashos found in the Talmud and elsewhere...and I will reveal what ??? of the drashos are [meant in] a literal way, and which of them are ??? [meant as] mashal, and which of them were [describing something seen ??? only] in a dream but was stated in a purely absolute way, as if it ??? were [experienced] in a state of wakefulness... If the Rambam considered it irrelevant whether the events did actually occur, and held that indeed they may not have occurred, why is he concerned with whether the report occurred in a dream? Why would he invoke a dream, if he considered the actuality of all reported events irrelevant? After all, its only the lesson that is relevant! But if you accept that the Rambam considered the default position to be that reported events are meant to be understood as actually occurring, and that while some are merely mashal but others are real, then it makes sense that he felt it important to exclude implausible reports and explain which were pure mashal and which were experienced in a dream. And describing the report as "stated in a purely absolute way, as if it were [experienced] in a state of wakefulness," implies that, had it not been implausible, being stated in an absolute way would imply that it was indeed experienced in a state of wakefulness. Zvi Lampel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: ???? ???? ????? ???? ?? ?? ?????? ??????? ?????? ??????.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 215599 bytes Desc: not available URL: From micha at aishdas.org Tue Dec 26 08:06:50 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2017 11:06:50 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Historicity of Aggadta In-Reply-To: <057fcda7-0e48-53f8-c0ec-135a112bb534@gmail.com> References: <20171225203401.GB9557@aishdas.org> <20171226012119.GH24733@aishdas.org> <057fcda7-0e48-53f8-c0ec-135a112bb534@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20171226160650.GC15636@aishdas.org> On Mon, Dec 25, 2017 at 11:41:54PM -0500, H Lampel wrote: : The historical mentions the Rambam's makes, treating the plausible : Midrashim as history without making any qualifications, indicates : otherwise. It indicates that some medrashim which both didn't defy evidence or his philosophy that the Rambam felt had a literal point worth making. Not that plauisible medrashim should be assumed to be literal history. He spends so much time telling you they're all statements of the deepest truths, and quoting Shelomo, that chakhamim conduct such discussions via mashal and melitzah. The fact that some deepest truths has historical impact doesn't give us license to ignore paragraphs of writing. : Regarding the Midrashic reports that Adam and the Avos spoke : Ivris/Lashon Hakadosh, which I assume you agree the Kuzari accepts : as historical fact (which of course teaches in its historicity an : important thing to know)... Is your default position that the Rambam : doesn't care whether it's historically so? That's the default. Perhaps the Rambam agrees with the Rihal that the history of Ivris is a significant statement, and would be meant literally even under his view. Perhaps not. I can't guess, and am willing to entertain anything. But there are also reports that they spoke Aramaic, or even that Adam spoke all 70 leshonos. See the sources I gave in as well as Sanhedrin 38b (R Yehudah amar Rav: Adam haRishon spoke Aramaic). Not to mention historical evidence. So there is no reason for me to make the Rambam's life difficult. To complete repeating myself, my own instinct is to say that Adam spoke some proto-Semitic, and therefore spoke a language which could be considered both ancient Hebrew AND ancient Aramaic, or proto-everything and thus an ancestor to all 70 languages. And this would explain the medrashim as well as allow us to identify Adam's speech with Leshon haQodesh. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "I think, therefore I am." - Renne Descartes micha at aishdas.org "I am thought about, therefore I am - http://www.aishdas.org my existence depends upon the thought of a Fax: (270) 514-1507 Supreme Being Who thinks me." - R' SR Hirsch From eliturkel at mail.gmail.com Mon Dec 25 13:40:32 2017 From: eliturkel at mail.gmail.com (Eli Turkel) Date: Mon, 25 Dec 2017 23:40:32 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] shabbes candles Message-ID: A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: multipart/alternative Size: 1277 bytes Desc: not available URL: From chaim.tatel at mail.gmail.com Mon Dec 25 15:43:58 2017 From: chaim.tatel at mail.gmail.com (Chaim Tatel) Date: Mon, 25 Dec 2017 15:43:58 -0800 Subject: [Avodah] shabbes candles Message-ID: A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: multipart/alternative Size: 4006 bytes Desc: not available URL: From JRich at sibson.com Wed Dec 27 01:51:45 2017 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Wed, 27 Dec 2017 09:51:45 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] birur vs hanhaga in other legal systems Message-ID: <9ec665e80cbd4e97be6b4bcc8b7221d8@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> There's a lot of "Brisker Torah" on the differentiation between halachically resolving doubts by birur (clarification/resolution of doubt) versus hanhaga (we still have a doubt but must move forward while not resolving the doubt). One practical difference would be that doubts resolved by birur are considered resolved retroactively while those resolved by hanhaga are only prospective in nature. Is anyone aware of any parallels to this differentiation in other legal systems? KT 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: From micha at aishdas.org Thu Dec 28 08:03:25 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2017 11:03:25 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Body and Soul In-Reply-To: <89600AC2-DFEA-44AA-A5AE-9C4493ED11F4@cox.net> References: <89600AC2-DFEA-44AA-A5AE-9C4493ED11F4@cox.net> Message-ID: <20171228160325.GA31137@aishdas.org> On Sat, Dec 23, 2017 at 10:30pm EST, Richard Wolberg wrote in a post titled "Vay'chi": : (The question has been asked: Do you have a soul? The answer is NO, : you ARE a soul with a body). I write about this in my manuscript. Here's a version I put up on Mi Yodeya about a year ago. So, it is slightly adapted, lacks a year of editing, and there will be someone else editing the manuscript before it is a book (assuming I raise the money). On Mi Yodeya, "Gabriel12" asked about E-lokai Neshmah, and the phrases "shanasata bi... nefachtahh bi... meshammerahh beqirbi... littela mimmenni, ulhachzirahh bi le'asid lavo". He asks: Here, when I say me, I'm referring to my body. And I'm thanking G-d for giving me back my soul. But why is the body "me"? Shouldn't the soul be the real "me"? Am I the soul or the body? My answer: As for E-lokai Neshamah and Hashem putting a soul within me, my own intent when saying these words is based on the Vilna Gaon's taxonomy of prayer: Prayers that express an ideal to be repeated and internalized are what we call "tefillah" in Hebrew. Tefillos are consistently written in the plural, as our connection to the community is part of that ideal. Prayers written in the singular are therefore of a different sort, "tachanunim", expressions of what already exists in our hearts. This is how the Gaon explains the line in Qaddish, "tisqabel tzelosehon uva'usehon -- accept the tefillos and requests (tachanunim) of all of the House of Israel..." We say this when closing the Amidah -- which is such a paragon of tefillah our Sages called it simply "Tefillah", E-lokai Netzor -- tachanunim, (note that it's written about "I" and "mine", not "we" and "our"), and Tachanun. "Elokai, neshamah -- My G-d, the soul which you placed in me" is similarly tachanunim. Therefore, it's not a place to look for how we ought to see our self-definition, but how things feel to most of us first thing in the morning. The prayer reflects the fact that most people do in practice identify with our body most consistently, and only at times with their soul. But to answer the philosophical question... There is a machlokes, a dispute among the rabbis, as to how to view man. One side, found often among books of Mussar, views a person as a soul who inhabits a body, or perhaps controls it as a rider upon a donkey. As Elifaz describes humanity in the book of [61]Iyov (4:10), "shochnei batei chomer - dwellers in homes of matter." When Rav Yitzchak Isaac Scher (Cheshbon haNefesh, Slaboka Alumni ed., intro.) speaks of man's physical side being an animal, we mean that literally, not merely like an animal. Since much of our yeitzer hara comes from our living in a mammalian body, R' Scher recommends the very same strategies one uses for taming and being able to use the eyesight of a bird, the strength of an ox, the load bearing abilities of a donkey or the speed of a horse are applicable to gaining mastery over our bodies. Like any other animal, a person's animal soul has no ability to plan toward a goal, it simply responds to whatever urge is most triggered in the moment. The animal soul must be saddled by the godly soul and guided. And Rabbi Sherr points out with the example of a trained elephant, "next to whom a person like his trainer seems little more than an ant", to maximize its utility it must neither be overburdened or neglected, nor underused and let remind wild - and this is how we are to treat our body and our animal souls. Last and most importantly, neither an animal nor the animal within can be educated, but trained through habit and acclimation. This notion is a key symbol in the Gra's interpretation system -- when one finds a chamor / donkey in a narrative, it is generally a symbol for the person's chomer / physicality. Avraham at the Akeidah or the mashiach come in riding on a donkey as a way to indicate to us their mastery over their own physicality. In contrast, we speak of Bil'am's donkey, but the Torah consistently calls it a different kind of animal; he does not harness a chamor, showing self-control over the animal's urges of the moment, Bil'am rides an ason ([62]Bamidbar 22:23,25,27,28,29,33). In this viewpoint, a person is a rider of an animal, or to use a metaphor that may resonate better with our more modern lifestyles - the soul who is wearing a body. Another stream of thought includes the body in the definition of person. Rather than a person's more human side that rides his body as a master over an animal, in this model man is seen as a fusion of body and soul. For example when the gemara ([63]Sanhedrin 91a) explains one purpose of the eventual resurrection of the dead by comparing a sinner to a blind man and a lame man who conspire to steal fruit from an orchard. They are caught and brought to court, but each of the accused claims innocence. The blind man says he must be innocent, for he was incapable of even finding the fruit, never mind stealing them. The lame man also claims innocence; after all, he had no way to reach it. Neither alone could commit the theft, so each of the accused points to the other as the critical element for the sin, the guilty party. The judge responds by putting one atop the other, recreating the unit that was capable of sin, and judges the pair. So too, the gemara explains, the soul could claim it couldn't have sinned without the body giving it the opportunity for action, and the body could claim that the planning and execution of the sin are the fault of the soul. In order to judge us for our sins, Hashem will bodily resurrect the sinner to reconstruct the person as they were then. As the Ramchal writes, "Man is different from any other creature. He is a combination of two completely diverse and dissimilar elements, namely, the body and soul." (Derech Hashem 3:1:1) The dispute is not necessarily about which is true, it could well be that both definitions of "person" are equally valid. The dispute is more prescriptive: When is it more productive to think of my physical aspect as an outsider, which would weaken the relative weight I would give the call of physical drives? And when am I better off not thinking of myself as purely soul, because then I'm not fully blaming myself for "stealing the fruit"? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The goal isn't to live forever, micha at aishdas.org the goal is to create so mething that will. http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From ben1456 at zahav.net.il Thu Dec 28 11:57:46 2017 From: ben1456 at zahav.net.il (Ben Waxman) Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2017 21:57:46 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Foreshadow Message-ID: Is the break up of the united kingdom (Israel and Yehuda) somehow foreseen in the brothers? Was the reconciliation between Yosef and the brothers (and especially Yosef and Yehuda) not complete? Was splitting responsibility between Yehuda (he set up Goshen's beit midrash) and Yosef (he supplied the food) a mistake? Is there anything in Yehuda's personality that foreshadows David and Shlomo's failure to truly unite the tribes or is the fault with the latter two only? Ben From JRich at sibson.com Fri Dec 29 02:09:15 2017 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2017 10:09:15 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] FW: Rav Moshe on Smoking In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2eb7119fe3ff4a0f8394f494ae14fde8@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> FYI-An old Avodah topic. KT Joel Rich In the attached file, there is a newly-published teshuvah from Rav Moshe which basically confirms the rumors that he retracted his teshuvah about smoking and would indeed forbid it. Kol Tuv, Reuven Chaim Klein Beitar Illit, Israel Check out my book Lashon HaKodesh: History, Holiness, & Hebrew [Lashon HaKodesh: History, Holiness, & Hebrew (Mosaica Press) on Amazon][Academia.edu][Google Scholar][LinkedIN][https://docs.google.com/uc?export=download&id=0B1NJHmIXg4QJTWZsRUpZblJpWE0&revid=0B1NJHmIXg4QJcXQxRU1kN0JWZ3pQVmZsdlYrVlljRUdSb2ZvPQ][Rabbi Reuven Chaim Klein on TorahDownloads.com] [https://my-email-signature.link/signature.gif?u=93822&e=15367987&v=592df626366a9255517be8f9bb3b802cdc17522127137d175bd71108e063b3e1] 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: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 480.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 2037389 bytes Desc: 480.pdf URL: From JRich at sibson.com Fri Dec 29 01:36:06 2017 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2017 09:36:06 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] truth telling Message-ID: <3852cda5a1f348b8ba9b17c3cd9d8079@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Thought experiment: 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? KT 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: From JRich at sibson.com Fri Dec 29 01:35:14 2017 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2017 09:35:14 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Birchat Cohanim Message-ID: <12830183c04c422ca904affc50bac0b7@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> One is in Eretz Yisrael and davens shacharit in a minyan which often does not have Cohanim to duchen. Is he required to seek a minyan which has Cohanim? If he isn't required, is it preferable? KT 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: From JRich at sibson.com Fri Dec 29 02:09:15 2017 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2017 10:09:15 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] FW: Rav Moshe on Smoking In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: [Take 2. File stripped off for the sake of text digest recipients and moved to . Fixed formatting. -micha] FYI-An old Avodah topic. KT Joel Rich In the attached file, there is a newly-published teshuvah from Rav Moshe which basically confirms the rumors that he retracted his teshuvah about smoking and would indeed forbid it. Kol Tuv, Reuven Chaim Klein Beitar Illit, Israel Check out my book Lashon HaKodesh: History, Holiness, & Hebrew [Lashon HaKodesh: History, Holiness, & Hebrew (Mosaica Press) on Amazon] >> [Academia.edu] [Google Scholar] [LinkedIN] [https://docs.google.com/uc?export=download&id=0B1NJHmIXg4QJTWZsRUpZblJpWE0&revid=0B1NJHmIXg4QJcXQxRU1kN0JWZ3pQVmZsdlYrVlljRUdSb2ZvPQ] [Rabbi Reuven Chaim Klein on TorahDownloads.com] From lisa at starways.net Fri Dec 29 06:19:45 2017 From: lisa at starways.net (Lisa Liel) Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2017 16:19:45 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] truth telling In-Reply-To: <3852cda5a1f348b8ba9b17c3cd9d8079@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <3852cda5a1f348b8ba9b17c3cd9d8079@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: You'll have to define "truth".? I know a lot of self-Identified frum Jews who consider it "truth" that the Exodus didn't happen.? That the Mabul was a metaphor.? That the text of the Torah she'bichtav we have now is not the one given to Moshe at Sinai in an actual, factual, historical event.? It's never good for them to tell that "truth" to their children. If by truth you mean the truths stated in Judaism, then it's a matter of judgment.? If you're considering telling your children about Amnon and Tamar, their age would enter into the decision.? If the truth you want to tell them is about the molesters in the frum community who were respected leaders, again, age matters.? But I wouldn't withhold the facts from my child if they were old enough to hear it and it seemed relevant. Lisa On 12/29/2017 11:36 AM, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: > Thought experiment: 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? > KT > Joel Rich > --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From micha at aishdas.org Fri Dec 29 06:34:31 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2017 09:34:31 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] truth telling In-Reply-To: <3852cda5a1f348b8ba9b17c3cd9d8079@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <3852cda5a1f348b8ba9b17c3cd9d8079@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20171229143431.GD9936@aishdas.org> On Fri, Dec 29, 2017 at 09:36:06AM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : Thought experiment: 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? I understand the point of your question as being about the relative value of emes and of yir'as Shamayim. But... I can't bend my head around the case for balebatishe reasons. Is it not inevitable that many of our children would eventually learn of the lie and lose confidence in the whole concept of mesorah? And wouldn't that percentage inevitably be greater than Y, the additionaly percentage who are only staying because they believe the non-truth? To address the comparison behind the question: According to the Rambam, emunah is defined by emes. Unproven faith isn't emunah. So, he would say that the Y% of the children who believe because of a lie aren't necessarily saved. If we modernize the Rambam's position, then we would still need some kind of valid justification. Even if modern philosophy believes (accuratly, AISI) that theological proof is a meaningless concept, there are other valid ways to reach a conclusion. Those of us blessed with children are certain we love your chidren even though I never developed a proof for it. BUT, I don't think too many people hold like a modern version of the Rambam, which ties redemption to knowledge, and ethics is a lower level of perfection necessary for true knowledge og G-d. Let's take a more typical modern hashkafah, which gives priority to sheleimos or experiential deveiqus. Perhaps the non-truth would indeed be justified, if I thought your case were possible. Just as shalom justifies tactfully bending the truth. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Man can aspire to spiritual-moral greatness micha at aishdas.org which is seldom fully achieved and easily lost http://www.aishdas.org again. Fulfillment lies not in a final goal, Fax: (270) 514-1507 but in an eternal striving for perfection. -RSRH From zev at sero.name Fri Dec 29 09:50:13 2017 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2017 12:50:13 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] FW: Rav Moshe on Smoking In-Reply-To: <2eb7119fe3ff4a0f8394f494ae14fde8@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <2eb7119fe3ff4a0f8394f494ae14fde8@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <2c41ffe6-418e-8a53-6b6f-72547edfcf91@sero.name> On 29/12/17 05:09, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: > In the attached file, there is a newly-published teshuvah from Rav Moshe > which basically confirms the rumors that he retracted his teshuvah about > smoking and would indeed forbid it. > One has to wonder, then, why he never chose to include this in any of the three volumes of IM that he published after this date. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From bdbradley70 at hotmail.com Sat Dec 30 11:30:10 2017 From: bdbradley70 at hotmail.com (Ben Bradley) Date: Sat, 30 Dec 2017 19:30:10 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Foreshadow In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Is that not explicitly the message of the haftara for vayigash? That the split of Yehdua and Efraim (Yosef) is the the same issue as the split in the nation to reconcile the one is to reconcile the other. It's clear from the end of vayechi that there's still broad daylight between Yosef and the brothers. They are still wary of him and he still see the need to try to bring them close. There are many midrashim assuming it's all the same issue, a basic split in Klal Yisrael manifestation over history. The Bnei Yissaschar on Chanuka deals with this a lot and the best treatment I've seen in one place is Rav Matis Weinberg's book on Chanuka. In any case, even without aggadta the cycle of galus is consistently a result of this split, be it to Mitzrayim or to Ashur. Geula has the same dynamic, thus a moshiach both from Yosef and from David (Yehuda). BW Ben -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From JRich at sibson.com Sat Dec 30 14:48:34 2017 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Sat, 30 Dec 2017 22:48:34 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] truth telling In-Reply-To: <20171229143431.GD9936@aishdas.org> References: <3852cda5a1f348b8ba9b17c3cd9d8079@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> <20171229143431.GD9936@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <714290ea035646beb5044c62d3186c46@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Perhaps the non-truth would indeed be justified, if I thought your case were possible. Just as shalom justifies tactfully bending the truth. :-)BBii! -Micha --------------------------------------------------- That's what I wonder about, can belief ever be built on sheker. I've heard drush on not (e.g. why didn't the Chashmonaim not use shemen tamei) but istm it is being done In general I agree that it doesn't work. KT 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. From meirabi at gmail.com Sat Dec 30 17:31:32 2017 From: meirabi at gmail.com (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi) Date: Sun, 31 Dec 2017 12:31:32 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] HELP - Why is there an Issur BBCh on a Nefel/Shellil? Message-ID: I have yet to find anyone asking this Q - the Nefel and Shelil seem to be the same thing it is a Neneilah yet it is Assur to eat as BBCh - why is there no Ein Issur Chal Al Issur? MAssuros 4:1 - one who eats flesh of a dead non-Shechted Kosher beast transgresses the prohibition of eating Neveilah MAssuros 4:4 - one who eats flesh of a Nefel [a non-fully gestated foetus] transgresses the prohibition of eating Neveilah Even [according to the careful reading of the RaMBaM] if it is not dead MAssuros 9:7 - one who cooks a Shelil with milk or eats it transgresses the prohibition of eating BBCh MAssuros 9:6 - one who cooks Cheilev or Neveilah or similar, with milk, transgresses the prohibition of BBCh but not when eating it because a second prohibition cannot take effect upon a item that is already prohibited Best, Meir G. Rabi 0423 207 837 +61 423 207 837 Best, Meir G. Rabi 0423 207 837 +61 423 207 837 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From menu at inter.net.il Sun Dec 31 00:12:21 2017 From: menu at inter.net.il (menucha) Date: Sun, 31 Dec 2017 10:12:21 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Foreshadow In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > > Bereshit Rabba 84 sees foreshadowing of Yeravam ben Nevat starting with Yosef's dreams. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From akivagmiller at gmail.com Sun Dec 31 08:10:04 2017 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Sun, 31 Dec 2017 11:10:04 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Merchavyah Message-ID: . There is a pasuk in Hallel (Tehillim 118:5) that begins "Min hamaytzar". In RSR Hirsch's siddur, the last word of that pasuk is "merchavyah". In his perush on Tehillim, there too, the last word is "merchavyah", and in the perush he writes that "According to Pesahim 117a, merchavyah is one word, like halleluyah." My understanding of that gemara is that R Yochanan, Rav, and Raba all hold "merchavyah" to be one single word. Although Rav Chisda quoted R Yochanan to that effect, the Gemara is unsure how Rav Chisda held personally on this issue, and leaves that as a "tayku". However - When I look in various Tanachs, Tehillims, Siddurim, and Hagados, almost all of them (there *are* a few exceptions) print this as two separate words: "merchav yah". Obviously, there must be someone who either argues against this gemara, or understands the gemara differently than how Rav Hirsch understands it. The Minchas Shai on this pasuk refers to this gemara. If I'm reading it correctly, he seems to feel that the gemara is an unresolved machlokes, and I suppose that's why he tries to resolve it by looking at whatever manuscripts he had, both here and in Beshalach (where there's a similar question on Kes Y-ah). In my very unlearned and inexperienced view, it is not reasonable to consider these as two words, which is an unproven opinion that the gemara left as a tayku, and reject the combined weight of R Yochanan, Rav, and Raba, who all clearly held this to be a single word. Can anyone help me out? Akiva Miller From cantorwolberg at cox.net Sat Dec 30 20:25:17 2017 From: cantorwolberg at cox.net (Richard Wolberg) Date: Sat, 30 Dec 2017 23:25:17 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Sh'mos Message-ID: It is brought down that the place where the Burning Bush occurred was Har Sinai. The talmud asks why did it occur in a thorn bush and the answer: God says "when the Jews are suffering, I am suffering, too." A midrash relates that taking the Jews out of Egypt was nowhere near as difficult as taking ?Egypt? out of the Jews. Aish.com Mayanot Wellsprings bring out: The longest private conversation recorded in the Torah between God and a human individual takes place in our parsha. It takes God 39 long verses (from Exodus 3:1 to 4:17) to persuade Moses to accept the mission of serving as the savior of the Jewish people. In a wide-ranging conversation that covers many topics, God patiently responds to Moses' many objections and queries before Moses finally caves in to the Divine will and accepts. It reminds me that the Shulchan Aruch says if you are asked to be a ba'al tefilla, you should first politely refuse (out of modesty). If you are asked a second time, you should still refuse. But if you are asked a third time, you must accept. It's a not such a well known minhag and is just another example of menschlechkeit, sensitivity and humility for the time it was written. ?The Bible is meant to be OUR critic, not we, ITS critic!" -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From zev at sero.name Sun Dec 31 09:51:47 2017 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Sun, 31 Dec 2017 12:51:47 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Merchavyah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <26d7c7af-67e8-e1d6-3fd7-00aca9fcbef4@sero.name> For one thing, the Keter Aram Tzovah has it as two words. -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 2018 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From micha at aishdas.org Sun Oct 1 11:10:33 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Sun, 1 Oct 2017 14:10:33 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Writing on Yom Tov In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20171001181033.GC31024@aishdas.org> On Sat, Sep 30, 2017 at 10:18:58PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : So... back to my question: To whatever extent "writing" in the "Book of : Life" is a melacha, should it matter whether it is Shabbos or Yom Tov? Before we take the Barditcher Rebbe's words too literally, let us remember that wind routinely blows things to roll more than 4 amos on a reshus harabbim, lightning ignites trees on Shabbos, people die on Shabbos, etc... IOW, first explain to me what a claim that the RBSO avoids melakhos means altogether in light of the evidence, and then perhaps I could participate in your intended conversation. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger One who kills his inclination is as though he micha at aishdas.org brought an offering. But to bring an offering, http://www.aishdas.org you must know where to slaughter and what Fax: (270) 514-1507 parts to offer. - R' Simcha Zissel Ziv From akivagmiller at gmail.com Sun Oct 1 17:52:44 2017 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Sun, 1 Oct 2017 20:52:44 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Not hadar is pasul Message-ID: . This thread may be running into a vocabulary problem. My understanding is that "hadar" and "mehudar" mean two different things, and some people tend to confuse the two. "Hadar" refers to the absolute minimum requirements, without which the minim are posul, and "mehudar" refers to things which Chazal consider as making the minim even more beautiful. "Hadar" is required, and "mehudar" is desirable. I was not able to find a source for this in my seforim, but a post from R' Moshe Feldman in Avodah 10:9 (fifteen years ago) seems to support it: > The chiluk between psulei hadar (learned from the word "hadar") > and the idea of buying a mehudar esrog--deriving from the din > of zeh Keli v'anveihu (and applicable to other mitzvos as well) > is discussed at length in Mikra'ei Kodesh (Succos vol 2) siman > 26, esp. p. 119 (quote from Raavad) and pp. 122-123 in Harirei > Kodesh. It would seem from his discussion that buying a mehudar > esrog has no relationship to the word "hadar." Of course, there are many differing views about what is in each category, and this will vary by posek, by first day / not first day, and by lechatchila / bdieved. I'm just explaining the definitions of these easily-confused terms. Akiva Miller From zev at sero.name Sun Oct 1 23:02:00 2017 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2017 02:02:00 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Not hadar is pasul In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <454d729c-5e9d-e0b0-d0cb-f625592cd49f@sero.name> On 01/10/17 20:52, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > This thread may be running into a vocabulary problem. My understanding > is that "hadar" and "mehudar" mean two different things, and some > people tend to confuse the two. > > "Hadar" refers to the absolute minimum requirements, without which the > minim are posul, and "mehudar" refers to things which Chazal consider > as making the minim even more beautiful. "Hadar" is required, and > "mehudar" is desirable. I don't think they're two very different things, they're just degrees of the same thing. From "pri etz hadar" we learn that beauty is a base requirement, at least for the first day. If it's not beautiful it's not kosher. From "zeh keli ve'anvehu" we learn that we should want all mitzvos, including this one, to be as beautiful as we can make them, given our resources. But baseline beauty itself requires more than the bare minimum that would otherwise apply; an esrog that is exactly as big as an egg fits the basic shiur, but the poskim think it obvious that to do the bare minimum is not beautiful, so they say hadar means it must be at least a bit bigger, if possible. If it's not possible, then we make do with the bare shiur. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From micha at aishdas.org Mon Oct 2 03:58:53 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2017 06:58:53 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] expensive etrog In-Reply-To: <2c96c2fe-0e11-f9ca-66d5-28e79f983bbb@zahav.net.il> References: <2c96c2fe-0e11-f9ca-66d5-28e79f983bbb@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <20171002105852.GB30968@aishdas.org> On Fri, Sep 29, 2017 at 02:05:15PM +0200, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: : In OH 656 the Mechaber writes that if one is shopping for an etrog : and sees two etrogim, one more mehudar than the other, you need to : buy the mehudar (either it is mitzvah or possibly a chiyuv). : However, this only applies if the mehudar etrog is no more than 33% : more expensive. The language that the Mechaber uses in the "yesh : omrim" is "ein meyakrim oto yoter m'shlish".... There is a machloqes whether the shelish is milevar (Ran, arguing from the Rif's silence, on Rif Sukkah 16a; Yam shel Shelomom #24), in which case it's 50% -- 1/3 of the total 150%; or if the shelish is milegav (Rosh 1:7), i.e. 1/3 in the Western sense, with a total of 4/3 the original price. The SA (OC 656:1) holds like the Rosh, lequla, but accoring to the BY, he was doing so only on the ground of safeiq derabbanan lequla. Hiddur mitzvah is derabbanan. My first thought was -- what? It's a word in the pasuq WRT esrog -- "peri eitz hadar"! That looks more like peshat than asmachta for a derabbanan! But I realized something. Even though this din is being discussed WRT esrog, the kelal of kehadeir bemitzvah ad shelish is not specific to 4 minim. As in Rashi (9b "behidur") invoking "ze keili ve'anveihu" to tell you to buy the more expensive ST if it is up to shelish more pricey than your other choice. (So that according to Rashi, if you have only two choices -- mehudas or very mehudar, and they differ by less than a shelish, you are to by the very mehudar. Tosafos disagree. This tangent is discussed in the Shitah Mequbetzer.) Anyway, the SA calling milegav a qula implies that he sees up to 1/3 as a chiyuv derabbanan, and beyond could well be reshus. If it were reshus up to a shelish and assur beyond that, then he'd be making lesser expenditures assur -- a chumerah. Personally, given the number of Jews who wouldn't spend the money on a 4 minim set, I like spending the 1/3 exactly, and using any other money I wish to use to fulfill the mitzvah of 4 minim to subsidize someone else's. (Looking at the archives, it seems I've tried marketing this idea most years since 1999.) Of course, there are so many Jews who can't afford yom tov, and I'd like to help with that.... In the end, the calculus of how to triage that money can get SO difficult. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger For those with faith there are no questions. micha at aishdas.org For those who lack faith there are no answers. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yaakov of Radzimin Fax: (270) 514-1507 From basserh at queensu.ca Wed Oct 4 12:21:12 2017 From: basserh at queensu.ca (Herbert Basser) Date: Wed, 4 Oct 2017 19:21:12 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] RE Expensive etrog inter alia Message-ID: There is yerushalmi Peah 1:1 where someone had the ugliest etrog but bragged and showed it to everyone saying it was the most beautiful etrog in the whole world. It took him just a second to purchase it without really checking it for hiddurim-- he didnt waste his valuable resources (time) on petty matters but learned instead--that was its incredible beauty for him. also see shmos rabba 30:9 for hashem's observance of halacha (I have a discussion of the inyan on reseachrgate.net) Hag Sameach! zvi -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From zev at sero.name Sat Oct 7 18:11:15 2017 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Sat, 7 Oct 2017 21:11:15 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] RE Expensive etrog inter alia In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 04/10/17 15:21, Herbert Basser via Avodah wrote: > There is yerushalmi Peah 1:1 where someone had the ugliest etrog but > bragged and showed it to everyone saying it was the most beautiful etrog > in the whole world. It took him just a second to purchase it without > really checking it for hiddurim-- he didnt waste his valuable resources > (time) on petty matters but learned instead--that was its incredible > beauty for him. Where in that halacha is this? I couldn't find it, and also searched the entire perek for the word "etrog" and it doesn't seem to exist (though "lulav" appears twice). -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From hmaryles at mail.yahoo.com Sat Oct 7 23:54:54 2017 From: hmaryles at mail.yahoo.com (Harry Maryles) Date: Sun, 8 Oct 2017 09:54:54 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] going to the amud In-Reply-To: <9d0df5d1c05c43e297d3055f6e617065@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <9d0df5d1c05c43e297d3055f6e617065@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <369A143A-9C11-4243-93D2-7F756A3D147A@yahoo.com> On Oct 8, 2017, at 5:10 AM, Rich, Joel wrote: > I note the following practices at a chareidi shul in RBS which has > multiple minyanim You must be talking about Maasas Mordechai. That is where I've been Davening since I got here just before Yom Kippur. During Chol Hamoed, I will be davening shachris at the Vasiken minyan (6:10am). My son Davens there. If you are at that minyan, come on over and say hello. > At the appointed starting time for each minyan, there > is often not a "volunteer" to lead the services. The amount of time > that it takes to start varies as everyone looks at each other trying to > influence someone to start. If there is a young bar mitzvah boy, he is > often sent for mincha/maariv. > I'm not sure what the community thinking is... To answer your question, I just asked my son about it. He said it's just a practical matter. Most boys are more willing to go to the Amud. All of the married men that are there just shake off the requests to be the Shaliach Tzibur for some reason. HM From ben1456 at zahav.net.il Sun Oct 8 12:40:42 2017 From: ben1456 at zahav.net.il (Ben Waxman) Date: Sun, 08 Oct 2017 21:40:42 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] going to the amud In-Reply-To: <9d0df5d1c05c43e297d3055f6e617065@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <9d0df5d1c05c43e297d3055f6e617065@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <5deb9535-86be-8ea7-4561-242363c8eb92@zahav.net.il> I saw similar practices during Shacharit when I used to go to Sadigora in Jerusalem. However, often the teen would quit right before starting chazarat hashaz. That always got interesting. Ben On 10/8/2017 4:10 AM, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: > I note the following practices at a chareidi shul in RBS which has > multiple minyanim: At the appointed starting time for each minyan, > there is often not a ?volunteer? to lead the services. The amount of > time that it takes to start varies as everyone looks at each other > trying to influence someone to start. If there is a young bar mitzvah > boy, he is often sent for mincha/maariv. > I?m not sure what the community thinking is, perhaps humility to avoid > the amud, but I?m struck by the amount of bittul torah caused and > wonder how this trade-off was decided upon. I also wonder about why > the practice of sending youngsters up developed given the S?A?s psak > concerning the priorities for a chazzan. Thoughts? From micha at aishdas.org Sun Oct 8 15:50:13 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Sun, 8 Oct 2017 18:50:13 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] going to the amud In-Reply-To: <9d0df5d1c05c43e297d3055f6e617065@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <9d0df5d1c05c43e297d3055f6e617065@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20171008225013.GB19523@aishdas.org> On Sun, Oct 08, 2017 at 02:10:14AM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : At the appointed starting time for each minyan, there : is often not a "volunteer" to lead the services. The amount of time : that it takes to start varies as everyone looks at each other trying : to influence someone to start. If there is a young bar mitzvah boy, : he is often sent for mincha/maariv. Going backwards (who ever said I am a chakham bound to answer al rishon rishon?)... The kid is not as likely to declien the gabbai, because an adult carries more authority in the kid's eyes. Besides, it's good practice. As for the adults declining... Two possiblities, and I would bet that in most cases, they both come into play. 1- The more positive issue is that there is actually a din to decline the amud, accepting only on the third request. I have no idea how this was expected to be implemented in a minyan where people are expected to know the din. A rachmanus on the gabbaim! Still, we see an ethic of tzenius, and halevai people internalize it! 2- The following is Ashkenazocentric. The way we teach davening, it's really a personal affair. A person is encouraged to go as slowly as he needs, having his own kavvanos. The notion of tefillah betzibbur is layered on top of that, but not in a way that explains what that means about how I daven. That means that being shatz becomes a tircha, a call to say the words in a manner that robs me of any chance of getting value out of tefillah in the ways I was taught how. So of course men (who aren't cowed by being asked by a grown-up) choose to decline! Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger You will never "find" time for anything. micha at aishdas.org If you want time, you must make it. http://www.aishdas.org - Charles Buxton Fax: (270) 514-1507 From JRich at sibson.com Sat Oct 7 19:10:14 2017 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Sun, 8 Oct 2017 02:10:14 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] going to the amud Message-ID: <9d0df5d1c05c43e297d3055f6e617065@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> I note the following practices at a chareidi shul in RBS which has multiple minyanim: At the appointed starting time for each minyan, there is often not a "volunteer" to lead the services. The amount of time that it takes to start varies as everyone looks at each other trying to influence someone to start. If there is a young bar mitzvah boy, he is often sent for mincha/maariv. I'm not sure what the community thinking is, perhaps humility to avoid the amud, but I'm struck by the amount of bittul torah caused and wonder how this trade-off was decided upon. I also wonder about why the practice of sending youngsters up developed given the S"A's psak concerning the priorities for a chazzan. Thoughts? GT 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: From zev at sero.name Sat Oct 7 20:42:36 2017 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Sat, 7 Oct 2017 23:42:36 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] going to the amud In-Reply-To: <9d0df5d1c05c43e297d3055f6e617065@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <9d0df5d1c05c43e297d3055f6e617065@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: On 07/10/17 22:10, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: > I note the following practices at a chareidi shul in RBS which has > multiple minyanim: At the appointed starting time for each minyan, there > is often not a ?volunteer? to lead the services. [...] Thoughts? My first thought is to be happy that this shul doesn't have enough avelim to make the issue moot. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From basserh at queensu.ca Sun Oct 8 15:32:52 2017 From: basserh at queensu.ca (Herbert Basser) Date: Sun, 8 Oct 2017 22:32:52 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] RE Expensive etrog inter alia In-Reply-To: References: , Message-ID: You're right-- I thought it was y peah. But obviously not. A number of years ago I tired to discover when the first mention of looking at many esrogim was. I remember looking at the yerushalmi and its commentaries and thought it was there --obviously not. Now I have no idea-- ________________________________ : Zev Sero on behalf of Zev Sero Sent: October 7, 2017 9:11 PM To: The Avodah Torah Discussion Group Cc: Herbert Basser Subject: Re: [Avodah] RE Expensive etrog inter alia On 04/10/17 15:21, Herbert Basser via Avodah wrote: > There is yerushalmi Peah 1:1 where someone had the ugliest etrog but > bragged and showed it to everyone saying it was the most beautiful etrog > in the whole world. It took him just a second to purchase it without > really checking it for hiddurim-- he didnt waste his valuable resources > (time) on petty matters but learned instead--that was its incredible > beauty for him. Where in that halacha is this? I couldn't find it, and also searched the entire perek for the word "etrog" and it doesn't seem to exist (though "lulav" appears twice). -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Mon Oct 9 14:45:50 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2017 17:45:50 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Critique of the OU paper on leadership/ordination for women In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20171009214550.GA4315@aishdas.org> On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 03:17:36PM -0500, Noam Stadlan via Avodah wrote: : JOFA has published my critique of the paper comissioned by the OU on the : topic of leadership/ordination for women.... Speaking of the full essay . Your article has proven to be a slow read for me. I keep on being pulled into "polemic mode" (apologies for talking like a programmer, but...) and when I do, I stop, put it down, and wait until I could give it a fairer read, to actually hear what you're trying to say rather than just listening for points to refute. Here are my first set of reactions. Of course, they're all points of disagreement; trying to take the time to understand what you were writing before objecting doesn't mean I stopped objecting. 1- You open with Earlier this year, 7 highly respected rabbis authored a position paper on the ordination of women and on the possibility of women serving as clergy. [1] Individually and collectively, they represent great learning, personal piety, and years of leadership. It would seem presumptuous for someone who will never achieve anything near their learning or stature to comment or critique. However, no one person or group has a monopoly on facts and logic. And, as will be demonstrated, Torah learning sometimes is not the sole or even dominant factor in a person's opinion on these issues. There appears to be an underlyuing assumption that halachic arguments, even meta-halachic ones, are entirely formal, rather than containing a strong element of ineffible art. (See #2, below) If halakhah deals with determinations like that of which poetic forms "sound right" then their "great learning, personal piety, and years of leadership" provide experience at the art of pesaq that your response simply lacks. The gemara requires shimush before one attempts to pasqen. A poseiq needs not only the abstract facts and logic, but also the skill he can only pick up with experience. Recently, my Arukh haShulachan Yomi schedule brought me to EhE 145:6. The topic is whether a shechiv-meira who gives a gett "meihayom im meisi" made the gett as-of the moment of giving, a colloquial use of "today", or if we cannot assume the gett is chal before the end of the day (R' Tam in Tosafos 72b). R' Elchanan (Tos' ad loc) says "nachon lehachmir". The AhS's assessment of the "facts and logic" leads him to conclude "vehagam chumerah yeseirah hi". And yet he continues to close the se'if with "mikol maqom chalalilah lehaqeil bedavar sheR' Tam nistapeiq bo". RYME knew that a decision of a more skilled artisan is too likely correct even in the face of his own reasoning. And there are other factors that go into halachic decisions other than the merits of the argument -- both those we can articulate and those someone could only feel by practice. Things like acharei rabim lehatos. I am not saying defer to the OU's panel because they outnumber you. I am just pointing out that logical argument isn't the only source of legal authority. Another, more relevant, is nispasheit bechol yisrael (see #8, below). The notion that your paper is of value beyond lehalakhah velo lemaaseh is an example of the American valuation of autonomy that can itself be at odds with ancient AND mesoretic values. (See #7, about not framing the discussion in terms of rights or privileges.) 2- You offer your own translation of Mesorah, which is only valid if you can show that's how the authors of the paper intended the term. >From your pg 4: > We can broadly define it as the content of our tradition that is > passed from one generation to another. That tradition contains Mitzvot > and opinion on the value of Mitzvot. Frequently a situation occurs > where one must choose between emphasizing one mitzvah or a different > mitzvah. Our Mesorah therefore contains not only the Mitzvot, but also > attitudes or values that help us choose between Mitzvot when they come > into conflict. One could cogently argue that the values are in fact > Mitzvot in and of themselves, but for the purpose of this discussion that > is a distinction without a difference. Ultimately what this analysis > is concerned with is how, within the confines of our legal tradition, > are values embraced or shunted to the side. However, RYBS and RHS both use the term mesorah to refer to the ineffible side of the art of pesaq. I argue this with examples at http://www.torahmusings.com/2015/08/what-does-masorah-mean I therefore think it is likely the sense intended by the entire OU Panel. Or at the very least (not that I want to fully concede this, but have to admit it's plausible) heavily colored by this notion. Skipping the somwhat longer quote from RYBS, here are quotes I had found from RHS, one of the panel members: Jewish Action, Fall 1910: Mesorah is not primarily a corpus of knowledge to master but a process of accessing a chain of student-teacher relationships that reaches back to Sinai. Moshe received the Torah and transmitted it to his student, Yehoshua, who in turn taught it to his students and so on, continuing through today. The nature of transmission of the mesorah is instruction from a rebbe to his student. We connect to the mesorah, to the sacred structure of laws, beliefs and attitudes, through our teachers. And a bit further in the article, "Who Is Authorized to Institute Change?": Changes in practice require delicate evaluations that only a master Torah scholar, a gadol baTorah, can properly conduct. Only someone with a broad knowledge and a deep understanding of the corpus of halachah, with an intimate familiarity with both the letter and the spirit of the law, with a mastery of both the rules and the attitudes of the mesorah, can determine when a change is acceptable or even required. The more wide-reaching the proposed change, the greater the expertise required to approve it. The evaluator must not only be a master of the mesorah, but he must also be able to consider new practices based solely on values internal to the mesorah, removing external influences from the deliberation. Rav Schachter then applies this topic to feminism itself in a teshuvah: Indeed, the Rav would often say (see drasha to Parshas Korach), that every person must recognize that he needs a Rav or a Rebbe. Even a Talmid Chochom whose Rebbe had passed away must constantly ask himself in truth (when they present questions to him) what his Rebbe would have said in such a scase, and what stance he would have taken.... Still, most of your examples of how change was permitted despite mesorah would be valid even if you were discussing the same topic I believe the authors to whom you're responding are. I think, though, your response would have been stronger if it reflected our discussions both my Torah Musings post and here. 3- But you shift criteria for legitimate change in moral value. Page 2: This paper will illustrate that 'modern values' are intrinsically neither 2 good nor bad, and that our Mesorah has always incorporated 'modern values' that found resonance in the Mesorah. Furthermore, according to great and highly respected Modern Orthodox authorities, a hallmark of Modern Orthodoxy is the willingness to acknowledge some 'modern values' as previously under-recognized religious values. I think you're again arguing against a point the OU paper isn't making. They aren't saying there is a problem with appropriating 'modern values' in-and-of itself, but that there is a problem with changing halakhah to fit 'modern values' simply because they are the values living in the modern world means being immersed in. What happened to checking for that "resonance in the Mesorah"? This being another phrasing of my origin objection here on Avodah from the days of the initial announcement of Yeshivat Maharat. I do not see discussion of how we know that this is a change the values of the Torah would imply are positive. Regardless of the outcome of that discussion, can the change be legitimate without that procedural step? Anyway, you tone down the need for resonance when you open the door to assessing for yourself which values count. From the closing paragraph of section I, on mesorah, pg 13: ... The major issue is distinguishing between timeless values and ancient values. As has been demonstrated, our Mesorah over time, consciously or unconsciously, has addressed the perceived conflict between ancient values and modern values. Certainly there are modern values that have been appropriately rejected. Frequently however, ancient values have been rejected or perhaps more accurately assigned a reduced role of importance. And the modern values have been the impetus for the re-evaluation. At this point, I fear, the hunt for resonance goes out the window. IIUC, you are making the case that resonance need only be between actual Torah values, and not all ancient values actually qualify. This is actually more problematic given your definition of Mesorah than the one I think the OU's authors intended. After all, if mesorah is a mimetic transmisison of values, than any ancient value is mesoretic. But the problem I have with this statement is that it reads like you're saying that (1) we need to assess which Torah values are real, and therefore which do not bow to movern values; and (2) we use said modern values to drive that assessment. That can't be your intent. Please clarify. Continuing the paragraph from where I left off: As discussed in the Part II, the Halakhic arguments, taken at face value, are in favor of ordination for women. The values of eliminating unnecessary restrictions, encouraging full expression of potential to serve the community, fairness, and others also point towards ordination. There are specific Halakhic restrictions in place governing the behavior of men and women. The question that needs to be answered is: What timeless principles (or values) are served by imposing restrictions on women that are not justified by a fair reading of the Halacha and the sources? Are they truly Timeless and justifiably dominant in our Mesorah, or just ancient? ... If I were to use halakhah to make that determination, I would ask whether those "specific Halakhic restrictions" that were historically / traditionally explained in terms of those ancient values can be otherwise explained. Since they do appear to be of the same cloth, this is a sizable burden of proof on your part. This is the challenge in the OU paper you quote on pg 29: Gender differences have, historically, been particularly evident in the arena of public service. We believe that these distinctions are not merely a relic of times bygone; instead, they reflect a Torah ethos -- a /Mesorah/ -- of different avenues and emphases by which men and women are to achieve identical goals -- the service of G-d and the perpetuation of the Jewish people. 4- You cite and dismiss "nashim daatan kalos", but do not note that it's part of a richer picture of gender differences alongside "binah yeseirah nitenah lahen". 5- You quote RAL at the bottom of pg 8, an essay about using English Literary sources to enhance and color values that we cannot find in our own tradition: Nor should we be deterred by the illusion that we can find everything we need within our own tradition. As Arnold insisted, one must seek "the best that has been thought and said in the world," and if, in many areas, much of that best is of foreign origin, we should expand our horizons rather than exclude it. He is talking about broadening the search in the case of silence; that we can learn more from TIDE than Torah alone. A discussion of what to do when we can't "find everything we need within in our Tradition" has nothing to to with real or apparent conflicts when we do find an answer -- ancient or traditional -- before looking elsewhere. 6- You wuote R/Dr Shalom Carmy, describing R Eliezer Berkovitz, that his moral ends derive from internal Jewish sources.dissatisfaction with mainstream Halakhah regarding women is rooted, not in the pressures of contemporary egalitarianism, but in his judgment about biblical conceptions of justice, While that may well be true of REB, it has to be actually be shown that the same is true of Torah observant Jews who join an organization with the word "feminism" in its name. You write: The authors of the paper in fact state something quite egalitarian: The Torah affirms the absolute equal value of men and women as individuals and as ovdei Hashem. This is not the view of the Talmud. The Mishnah (Horiyot 13:1) states: "A man takes precedence over a woman, in matters concerning the saving of life... a Cohen takes precedence over a Levi...." Clearly the lives are not of equal value in the eyes of the Talmud. Arguments about the validity of what you think the misnhah is "clearly" saying aside... You are treating equality of value as synonymous with egalitarianism. The people you are responding to do not. They view is as more akin to the implication of JOFA's talking about "feminism" -- seeking value in the same sorts of roles and activities. A square can be equal in area to a triangle without insisting the square and the triangle are congruent. 7- "Usena es harabbanus". Leadership isn't about my "desire for maximal participation within Halacha", as you put it in a sentence shortly before the previous quote (pg 10). It's about my duties toward the community. Your entire phrasing of the discussion in terms of right or privileges, people getting an opportunity, depriving of that opportunity being unjust (as you present REB's position), is itself a HUGE drift from how halakhah even discusses values; never mind the content of that discussion. Self-expression is like the tassles emerging from the windings of the tzitzis. (RSRH's metaphor in CW vol 3.) It is how we express ourselves within the framework of Torah; but not the windings themselves. What makes me a fan of Bach's music is his ability to conform to the strict structural rules of the music of his era. And yet he still produced pieces that could express sublime religious passion or Majesty. (Until Beethoven invented Conservative Judaism. ) Halakhah's role is to channel such expression constructively -- like the windings of the tzitzis. As RSRH continues, there is a reason why the free part of the tassle is ideally twice was long as the wound portion; this metaphor isn't against expression. The second you frame halakhah in terms of every getting their fair opportunity, I hear an evaluation based on a framework very alien to an internally resonant analysis. 9- Somewhat more tangentially, but it's the first case of something I might raise other examples of in a future email. (Assuming I ever want to go retail rather than stick to meta-issues.) On pg 3, fn 3: There are other stated facts in the OU paper that require discussion but are beyond the scope of this paper. For example, one of the points emphasized in the OU paper is the issue of women as ritual slaughterers (shochtim). Some authorities such as R. Jacob Landau and R. Moshe Isserles wrote that since women did not do it, there was a custom for women not to do so. But that was factually erroneous. "Female ritual slaughterers were to be found in most of the Jewish Diasporas... In Renaissance Italy, the phenomenon of shohatot was very common. Another source also documents that female shochtim were found in areas of Italy where they adequately educated. See Grossman, Avraham... I am willing to agree with the conclusion that the Agur and the Rama were wrong on the historical facts, and simply didn't know what was going on in other parts of the golah. Still... You don't touch the point the OU paper cites it for -- that the Rama, a halachic source we cannot simply ignore -- is one of a number of sources that WERE willing to suggest that a practice being absent from the mesorah can mean there is a mesorah that it ought to be absent. That statement bothers me too. But because you dismissed the quote based on a tangent, you don't address the central problem it raises! Perhaps there'll be more after I really read section II onward. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "I think, therefore I am." - Renne Descartes micha at aishdas.org "I am thought about, therefore I am - http://www.aishdas.org my existence depends upon the thought of a Fax: (270) 514-1507 Supreme Being Who thinks me." - R' SR Hirsch From akivagmiller at gmail.com Mon Oct 9 09:44:27 2017 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2017 12:44:27 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Eruv Tavshilin - who makes it? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: My wife and I have recently discovered that among our friends, it is invariably the husband who makes the Eruv Tavshilin. This surprises us, and we are wondering what other families do, and if there are any sources for one preference or the other. Essentially, the Eruv Tavshilin means that in this particular instance, the Shabbos cooking cannot wait for Friday, but must be done on Erev Yom Tov too. With such an intimate connection to the Shabbos cooking, it was intuitively obvious to both my wife and myself that this is NOT similar to other mitzvos (mezuza is a good example) which might be done by the husband for gender-role reasons. Rather, it is the beginning of the cooking, and should therefore be done by whoever does the cooking. In our family, that's the wife. Eruv Tavshilin was not assigned to each and every individual, like kiddush was. It is a reminder. Granted that the rishonim have varying explanations of this mitzvah, but it seems that to all of these explanations, the object of this reminding is the person who does the cooking. So my question to the chevra is: In your family, who makes the eruv, and why? And do any sources discuss this? Note: I admit there's a certain weakness in everything that I've written above. Namely, the idea that one can rely on the Eruv Tavshilin that was made by the rav of the town. Let's set aside the fact that this is not the best way of doing the eruv, and that various conditions are imposed on one who wants to rely on it. Let's focus on the fact that it is valid *at* *all*. How does the eruv made by someone outside of my home help me? What sort of *reminder* does his eruv provide? I have never understood this, nor have I heard any explanation of it, only assertions that it does work. Any help in this area would be appreciated. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From michaelpoppers at gmail.com Mon Oct 9 18:59:58 2017 From: michaelpoppers at gmail.com (Michael Poppers) Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2017 21:59:58 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] going to the amud Message-ID: In Avodah V35n119, RJR wrote: > I also wonder about why the practice of sending youngsters up developed given the S?A?s psak concerning the priorities for a chazzan. < (RJR made other points that listmembers have responded to; I thought this point, for which the latest digest listed no response, was worthy of a response.) In many *shuls*, much less *minyanim*, so perhaps in the noted "chareidi shul in RBS", those "priorities" (married, beard, age, etc.) are seemingly (except for the Yamim Noraim) secondary to the hierarchy of "*chiyuvim*"...but one "priority", being "*m'rutzah laqahal*", might be upheld when appointing/allowing a young adult to lead the *tzibbur*.... *Gut Moeid*/*Mo'adim l'Simcha!* and all the best from *Michael Poppers* * Elizabeth, NJ, USA -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From akivagmiller at gmail.com Tue Oct 10 03:47:36 2017 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2017 06:47:36 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Eruv Tavshilin - who makes it? Message-ID: . I asked how one could ever rely on the Rav's eruv: > How does the eruv made by someone outside of my home > help me? What sort of *reminder* does his eruv provide? R' Zev Sero answered: > ... that it's wrong to rely entirely on leftovers, and one > must prepare at least one thing just for Shabbos. According > to this explanation, the fact that one must ask the rabbi > (or the neighbor, or whomever) before relying on their eruv > accomplishes the same thing. One has provided for Shabbos, > not by cooking but by arranging an invitation to eat out. I don't follow this logic at all. One who relies on this did NOT "prepare at least one thing just for Shabbos." If you respond that the one thing he prepared was "arranging an invitation to eat out", I will say that he did NOT arrange such an invitation; he is merely aware that the rabbi/neighbor had him in mind. You write about "the fact that one must ask the rabbi", but I never saw such a halacha. One does not need to do any sort of action at all, not even speaking. All one needs is to be aware that the rabbi/neighbor had him in mind. So what is being accomplished? > The second explanation is that originally there was no ha'arama; > it was permitted to openly cook on Yomtov for Shabbos. Chazal > legislated that one must save Yomtov's face by pretending to be > cooking for that day. According to this explanation it's very > simple; the important thing is not the eruv itself, but the need > for the ha'arama. The eruv's function is merely to give the > ha'arama some surface plausibility. So it makes no difference > whose eruv one uses; the fact that one is pretending not to be > cooking for Shabbos *is* the kevod Yomtov that Chazal required. > The enabling notion that on Shabbos one will be eating the rabbi's > eruv is only barely less plausible than the one that one will be > subsisting on ones own eruv. Focusing on the last sentence here, we agree that relying on the rabbi's eruv is indeed less plausible than one's own. I think our disagreement is that you feel it has a sufficient shiur of plausibility, and I don't. Alternatively, you feel that relying on the rabbi constitutes "pretending to be cooking for that day", but I think it doesn't even constitute "pretending". And this is especially true in the case where one genuinely forgot to make the eruv, and remembered on Yom Tov; surely you'll agree with me that this person did absolutely *nothing* before Yom Tov as a Shabbos preparation, right? Not even to ask the rabbi to have him in mind! Akiva Miller From micha at aishdas.org Tue Oct 10 06:18:05 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2017 09:18:05 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Eruv Tavshilin - who makes it? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20171010131805.GA8572@aishdas.org> On Tue, Oct 10, 2017 at 06:47:36AM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : You write about "the fact that one must ask the rabbi", but I never : saw such a halacha. One does not need to do any sort of action at all, : not even speaking. All one needs is to be aware that the : rabbi/neighbor had him in mind. So what is being accomplished? Beqitzur: "be aware" is sufficient for heker. Can't we ask the same thing of a neighborhood eiruv? How many people think about the eruv every week? The Rambam (Shevisas YT 6:2) seems to me to be the reason for calling eiruv tavshilin an "eiruv" is merely by comparison to eruv chatzeiros. Both are hekerim: There (ECh), so that people would thing that carrying from reshus to reshus is mutar on shabbos. Here (ET), that it is okay to cook on YT even if it's not for YT. Awareness that the rabbi (or whomever) had me in mind means I am thinking about eiruvin and there is a recognition (heker) that there is an issur. It seems the Rambam holds like R' Ashi (that ET is to reinforce melakhah on YT) over Rava (it's to reinforce Shabbos prep). But even according to Rava, that moment of awareness of the rabbi's eruv is sypposed to reserve as a reminder to make something nice for se'udos Shabbos. I would agree with Zev that the plausibility requirement is quite low, as all we're doing is a mnemonic. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger None of us will leave this place alive. micha at aishdas.org All that is left to us is http://www.aishdas.org to be as human as possible while we are here. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Anonymous MD, while a Nazi prisoner From noamstadlan at gmail.com Mon Oct 9 18:26:41 2017 From: noamstadlan at gmail.com (Noam Stadlan) Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2017 20:26:41 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] OU paper Message-ID: R. Micha- thank you for taking the time to read the paper. Having read your list of criticisms, I think that in your search for reasons to oppose, you missed many of the points completely. Poskim are certainly entitled to their opinions. They are not entitled to their own facts. If their logic doesn't hold up, it is reasonable to call them on the lack of logic. Which is why the paper is NOT about my opinions versus the OU 7, but about the lack of facts and logic. Furthermore, I illustrated that what poskim hold regarding these issues isn't always or exclusively a result of all their learning and shimmush. It is a demonstrable fact that many attitudes reflect what they grew up with and were indoctrinated with early on, not the list of influences that they write about. You dismiss my quote regarding REB, and claim that it is my responsibility to prove what the motives are or aren't. This is ridiculous. The OU authors did not talk to any of the principles involved. Since when is it acceptable for any responsible posek or beit din to make important judgments without making absolutely sure regarding the facts? Especially when they are making a significant deal about motivation and it would have been a very simple matter of making a phone call or two. Isn't that a basic obligation of a posek? And then to claim that it is my responsibility to prove that they were wrong? And, by the way, since I personally know many of the people involved, I have a much greater familiarity with what people involved think. I suggest that if you think that an organization with 'feminism' in its name is inherently problematic, we may be starting from basic assumptions far to wide apart to see any common ground. The OU paper wrote about Mesorah versus modern values. I was just using their words and addressing the role of modern values in how Halacha and values have changed. The fact that they define Mesorah a bit differently doesn't change the issue nor change the fact that modern values have always been incorporated into the Halakhah and Halakhic values(in case you dont want to use the word Mesorah). And to counter your point, some of the ancient values have gone out the window, whether you want to call them mesoretic or not. I didn't have time to get into all the particulars of the halachic aspects of the Rama and shechittah, R. Brody and Broyde address and dismiss the argument in their paper(I am pretty sure that is in a footnote somewhere). I thought it was adequate to illustrate that he was factually wrong. I could go on and on but I sense that in the end it will not matter. I would have to go through each and every line of your critique and point out where your assumptions are wrong. For example "JOFA....seeking value in the same sorts of roles and activities". NO, that is not what JOFA is about. It is about not creating Halachic boundaries when there shouldn't be any, and the women can decide what roles and activities they can and should assume(within Halacha of course, just like the men). And what is wrong with anyone finding value in learning Torah, teaching Torah, helping people celebrate s'machot, organizing davening, etc? women should not find value in that???? Thank you again for taking the time to read the paper. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From zev at sero.name Mon Oct 9 21:49:31 2017 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2017 00:49:31 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Eruv Tavshilin - who makes it? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <928305ea-1e57-b3bd-da9c-b3acb1281e04@sero.name> On 09/10/17 12:44, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > Note: I admit there's a certain weakness in everything that I've written > above. Namely, the idea that one can rely on the Eruv Tavshilin that was > made by the rav of the town. Let's set aside the fact that this is not > the best way of doing the eruv, and that various conditions are imposed > on one who wants to rely on it. Let's focus on the fact that it is valid > *at* *all*. How does the eruv made by someone outside of my home help > me? What sort of *reminder* does his eruv provide? I have never > understood this, nor have I heard any explanation of it, only assertions > that it does work. Any help in this area would be appreciated. IIRC the gemara offers two explanations for ET. Either it was made lichvod Shabbos or lichvod Yomtov. The first explanation is that cooking on Yomtov for Shabbos was always done by pretending to be cooking for a late Friday meal, but Chazal felt about the Shabbos after Yomtov the way many nowadays do about the Shabbos after Thanksgiving: that it's wrong to rely entirely on leftovers, and one must prepare at least one thing just for Shabbos. According to this explanation, the fact that one must ask the rabbi (or the neighbor, or whomever) before relying on their eruv accomplishes the same thing. One has provided for Shabbos, not by cooking but by arranging an invitation to eat out. The second explanation is that originally there was no ha`arama; it was permitted to openly cook on Yomtov for Shabbos. Chazal legislated that one must save Yomtov's face by pretending to be cooking for that day. According to this explanation it's very simple; the important thing is not the eruv itself, but the need for the ha`arama. The eruv's function is merely to give the ha`arama some surface plausibility. So it makes no difference whose eruv one uses; the fact that one is pretending not to be cooking for Shabbos *is* the kevod Yomtov that Chazal required. The enabling notion that on Shabbos one will be eating the rabbi's eruv is only barely less plausible than the one that one will be subsisting on ones own eruv. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From micha at aishdas.org Tue Oct 10 13:25:47 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2017 16:25:47 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] OU paper In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20171010202547.GC6565@aishdas.org> Take 2. I didn't like what I read in the Avodah queue, so I rejected my first version and elaborated. On Tue, Oct 10, 2017 at 10:53:24AM -0500, Noam Stadlan via Avodah wrote: :> 1- Feminism assumes egalitarianism, not only equality, as it assumes that :> roles historically closed to women as "men's roles" should be open to all. :> Equality only assumes that everyone should be eligible for roles of equal :> value. (For some measure of value.) : This is starting off on the wrong foot. I dont claim to speak for all : Orthodox Feminists. But the first question to be asked is why is a role : 'historically closed to women?' ... I see this as an equally valid question, but who is to say which ought to be asked first? REBerkowitz rightly deprecates the modification of halakhah out of concern for external values. He dismisses the role of the "pressures of contemporary egalitarianism." (As RSC put it.) This puts REB in a different place than people who unite under the word "feminism" are indeed advocating halachic change. What he denies being a valid motive JOFA is putting in their organizational name. : It is very reasonable, just like in : the cases of the chereish, slavery etc, to investigate why it is : 'historically closed." ... Which you fail to actually do. You rebut your understanding of some arguments for why the clsure is grounded in mesorah. After all, this is a rebuttal paper. The one mention of an alternative motive for change, rather than a lack of motive for status quo, is one that is inconsistent with feminism, as above. : litany of reasons as to why women were forbidden to do things and he : himself agreed that those reasons have gone by the wayside. If you want to : say that something is historically closed, and therefore it is assur- : fine. Now you dont need an Halachic reasons, because historically closed : is the final word.... Strawman. I am not asserting that we have to hold like the Rama that being historically closed means the option is halachically closed; identifying history with mesorah, and thus absence of tradition with tradition of absence. I would say, though, that if you want to buck the Rama, you have to make an argument for doing so, and not just dismiss his rule because he applied it to a misunderstood case. : everyone seems to be giving Halachicly justification, both pro and con, : then it means that historically closed is open for discussion, and it is on : the plane of halacha, not history. So the bottom line is that if there is : Halachic justification for particular gender roles- of course that trumps : everything. But it also means that stating something is historically assur : is not the end of the story. history is not Halacha. That is what I : illustrated in part one. Because you could also make the same argument : that the chereish shouldn't have an aliyyah... Yes, I agreed with your formulation of the problem in terms of resonant values, and at times a contemporary value can highlight the neglect of a Torah one. But you don't follow through with it. Instead you end up altogether rejecting the say of mesoretic values to decide which halachic innovations are proper. I would add that at times a contemporary value can change expectations, and thus change the morality of an act. After all, it may be okay to do something to someone when they expect it, but not if it violates assumptions behind things they committed to. I could see making that argument WRT monogyny and the validity of cheirem deR Gershom. Mental images of what marriage should be changed, and so it's only moral to satisfy the resulting emotional need rather than some older definition of marriage. As long as the definition itself isn't inferior. To take that poorly explained idea and possibly be clearer by making it less general and more about our case: Perhaps one could form the argument that while it was moral for women not to be eligable for the rabbinate in the past because it was less likely for the option to cross their minds. Such a practice would cause fewer feelings of deprevation. But now that women can become CEO, such a position does mesoretically-wrongly create feelings of deprivation. And so societal change causes a change in application of values; just as it can an application of law. This is pretty close to an argument you do indeed make. Just (as below), I don't think having a role is a right, because I do not believe religious roles are as much opportunities as they are duties. Unlike secular roles, which could be either, depending on how the society in question chooses to frame them. Your neglect of the "how", which changes are valid and which not, reminds me of the argument of non-O rabbis who point to pruzbul and heter isqa as justifications for their radical changes. It's not the same thing by a lng shot. But half-way through you make the same error of considering proof that there are valid kinds of change as proof that the topic in question provides no barriers to change altogether. As you say in this same paragraph (!): : Any role that is historically : closed to any group that isn't Halachically assur is open for discussion as : to what the Halacha actually mandates and why exactly it was closed in the : first place.... So, it's black-letter law closure, or the change is allowed? No "resonance of values" needed after all? And the problem with demanding "resonance of values" is that it takes the autonomy out of it for most of us. Because by enlarging the problem beyond black letter halakhah we guarantee there is a non-formal aspect to the answer, one that is for the practiced artist rather than any bright researcher. And the notion that one is validating a value system that then sets the person up for a very hard collision with the actual not-so-glass ceiling black-letter halakhah defines is very related to this. The mere existence of such a ceiling implies the likelihood of non-resonant values. The concept of asei lekha rav, having a poseiq, moves us away from autonomy in our behavioral decisions, and forces a heteronomy of a manner that too violates contemporary values. :> 2- Feminism assumes Locke's language of rights and priviledge. Why should :> someone *be deprived* of the opportunity to be an .... -- in our case, to :> serve as rabbi? But halachic values aren't framed in these terms... : Being a rabbi is fulfilling the mitzvah of service to the community, talmud : torah etc. Whether it is a burden or an opportunity, it is a mitzvah and : a choice of profession and communal service... But asking about opportunity and opening doors is inherently asking different value questions than the mesoretic ones. It's not just ancient that we frame our moral choices in terms of duty to others and the Other, it's mesoretic. : Furthermore, the OU paper went way beyond opposing rabbis. they forbid a : woman from officiating at a baby naming or other things. that too is a : burden that women should be forbidden from shouldering? This misses my point. When I spoke of rights vs duties I am talking about the entire framing of questions of values, not this specific decision. If the rabbinate, baby naming or whatever is a duty rather than a right, the whole question of "limiting their options unneccessarily" goes off the table. It's not about the right to choose a boon. Your whole question is framed non-traditionally. Looking at feminism as a goal is an inherently un-mesoretic way of framing the question. Rather, the nearest mesoretic equivalent would be to ask whether men have a duty that can only be discharged by sharing the pulpit, "officiating at a baby naming of other things". Feminism doesn't enter the mesoretic discussion because there is no door to be opened or closed, there is no region of personal-expression space to discuss whether someone is given too much or too little. The Torah is a beris, not a bill of rights. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When one truly looks at everyone's good side, micha at aishdas.org others come to love him very naturally, and http://www.aishdas.org he does not need even a speck of flattery. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rabbi AY Kook From micha at aishdas.org Tue Oct 10 14:04:28 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2017 17:04:28 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Oseh Hashalom In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20171010210428.GC21284@aishdas.org> On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 10:34:34PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : I went looking at the siddurim that were common in the shuls that I : grew up in, and I noticed an interesting pattern: Every single one : gave Oseh Hashalom as the closing bracha at the end of the Amidah; not : even one suggested saying Hamevarech like the rest of the year. : Further, every single one used the words Oseh Shalom at the ends of : Kaddish and Elokai N'tzor; not even one suggested saying Oseh Hashalom : during the Aseres Yemei Teshuva. ... : My questions are these: If you're old enough to remember davening : Ashkenaz in the 1970s or before, do you remember what was said during : Aseres Yemei Teshuva? And do you know of any siddur from that era : which included the newfangled text? I know my father was saying "hamvarekh" at this time. However, our minhagim are a hodge-podge of practices from those retained from the Ottoman Empire before my ancestor's arrival in Litta, mainline Litvish, R/Dr Mirsky's idiosyncricies (my grandfather came to America as a teen, and so the rav who met him at Ellis Island was became rav of his shul determined much of what he did), and what my father picked up Tues nights (and from YU alumni friends) from RYBS. I did some restoration of pre-American Biergehr minhag based on R Dovid Lifshitz's memories of what it was. AND that brings me to a theory... Minhagim that Chabad, Talmidei haGra and Sepharadim have in common are bound to become Minhag EY. And Minhag EY is bound to be known globally, at least by the 1970s. Maybe this is just a thing that universalized faster. Anecodtally, I notice fewer and fewer people wearing tefillin on ch"m each year. Although Passaic, a neighborhood with some 40% BT rate, is going to have weaker ties to minhag than ones in which more people have childhood memories of what dad does. I also noticed more an more shuls moving Shir shel Yom and Hoshanos from the end of mussaf to before leining. One thing all three of the communities that dominated the Yishuv haYashan had in common was an attachment to Qabbalah. We may be seeing more and more Tzefat-originating practices coming to the fore in the comming years as a new Minhag EY (and ch"v if galus lasts long enough Minhag America) emerges. Much to R' Ovadiah's poshumous dismay, I would presume. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "I hear, then I forget; I see, then I remember; micha at aishdas.org I do, then I understand." - Confucius http://www.aishdas.org "Hearing doesn't compare to seeing." - Mechilta Fax: (270) 514-1507 "We will do and we will listen." - Israelites From micha at aishdas.org Tue Oct 10 08:18:49 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2017 11:18:49 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] OU paper In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20171010151849.GB32729@aishdas.org> On Mon, Oct 09, 2017 at 08:26:41PM -0500, Noam Stadlan via Avodah wrote: : R. Micha- thank you for taking the time to read the paper. Having read : your list of criticisms, I think that in your search for reasons to oppose, : you missed many of the points completely... As I wrote, the reply was delayed by my attempt to put down the paper every time I thought I was reading solely for the sake of finding points to oppose. "Fisking", as it's called. Admittedly, I could still have failed. : Poskim are certainly entitled to : their opinions. They are not entitled to their own facts. Which is why I didn't dispute claims of fact, such as whether women were shochetim in Italy. I did dispute your use of a fact turning that Rama's point into a hypothetical to deny his whole "[if] we [hadn't] ever seen women as shochetim, we have a mesorah that woman aren't to serve as shochetim". Yes, his given is false, but we do see the implication statement in the Agur and the Rama. So, how do you dismiss applying the parallel syllogism here -- since we do not have a history of women rabbis, wouldn't the Rama's methodology mean that there is a mesorah not to ordain women? At least -- doesn't this topic need addressing, rather than writing that one can ignore the whole flow of logic because the antecedent is false? : Furthermore, I illustrated that what poskim hold : regarding these issues isn't always or exclusively a result of all their : learning and shimmush. It is a demonstrable fact that many attitudes : reflect what they grew up with and were indoctrinated with early on, not : the list of influences that they write about. But you gave up on the question of which new values pass the resonance test mention early in the paperr and which do not. My argument is that : You dismiss my quote regarding REB, and claim that it is my responsibility : to prove what the motives are or aren't. I dismiss the quote as necessarily applying to anyone but REB. It is not like he's the communal leader or primary poseiq of the people in question. In particular because of the word "feminism" in JOFA's name. To which you replied: : I suggest that if you think that an organization with 'feminism' in its : name is inherently problematic, we may be starting from basic assumptions : far to wide apart to see any common ground. RCS summarized REB's position (on your pg 10), as being of "moral ends derive from internal Jewish sources.... dissatisfaction with mainstream Halakhah regarding women is rooted, not in the pressures of contemporary egalitarianism, in his judgment about biblical conceptions of justice." (ellision yours) But JOFA's name is taken from "contemporary egalitarianism". I am not saying it's inherently problematic. I am saying it creates the likelihood of a gap between REB's position and JOFA's attitude, one that then creates a burden of proof you didn't take up. In short I am saying that: 1- Feminism assumes egalitarianism, not only equality, as it assumes that roles historically closed to women as "men's roles" should be open to all. Equality only assumes that everyone should be eligible for roles of equal value. (For some measure of value.) 2- Feminism assumes Locke's language of rights and priviledge. Why should someone *be deprived* of the opportunity to be an .... -- in our case, to serve as rabbi? But halachic values aren't framed in these terms. (At least not in general; I can think of notions like geneivas da'as, gezel shinah or tovas han'ah as exceptions.) Rather, the rabbinate is supposed to be a burden. Even if it is really being treated as an honor, the value which would differentiate between a positive halachic change and one that is anti-mesoretic would be that of duty, not opportunity. 3- Making the argument that feminist egalitarian opportunity is or is not resonant with mesoretic values requires those guys with shimush, as it is an art. Your counter-argument is on the wrong plane for discussing the topic of the first section of your paper -- "mesorah". ... And we don't even agree on how RIETS-trained rabbis are most likely to use the word "mesorah" to agree on what we're debating! Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Man is equipped with such far-reaching vision, micha at aishdas.org yet the smallest coin can obstruct his view. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yisrael Salanter Fax: (270) 514-1507 From noamstadlan at mail.gmail.com Tue Oct 10 08:53:24 2017 From: noamstadlan at mail.gmail.com (Noam Stadlan) Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2017 10:53:24 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] OU paper In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: multipart/alternative Size: 3823 bytes Desc: not available URL: From micha at aishdas.org Tue Oct 10 14:12:25 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2017 17:12:25 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] =?cp1255?q?=93Timtum_Ha-Lev=94_Redux?= In-Reply-To: <7aef6b22a7e348ffa09f6c3e61bde74f@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <7aef6b22a7e348ffa09f6c3e61bde74f@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20171010211225.GD21284@aishdas.org> On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 06:30:33PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : From R' Aviner Dulling of the Heart to Save One's Life ... : A: No. Maran Ha-Rav Kook writes in his book "Musar Avicha" (p. 19) : that the dulling of one's heart comes from violating a prohibition : and not from the food itself (Yoma 39a. And see Meharsha on : Shabbat 33a).... Yay! Finally I have sources to look at. "Vehayisa akh sameiach" just became a little easier. Does anyone have "Mussar Avikha", "Uvdos veHanhagos miBeis Brisk" (vol II p 50) and/or "Orchos Yosheir" (#13)? Do any of them discuss mezuzah and the consequent shemirah, or any of the other related segulah-like effects of mitzvos we've tied in to previous iterations? Look at that list of names: I'm not wrong, just Litvish! Tangent: The Gra said that "vehayisa akh sameiach" is the hardest mitzvah in the Torah. "Veyahisa sameiach" is one thing, but "akh sameiach"? To be nothing but happy, with no other moods ambivalently mixed in for 8 days (9 in chu"l) straight? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The fittingness of your matzos [for the seder] micha at aishdas.org isn't complete with being careful in the laws http://www.aishdas.org of Passover. One must also be very careful in Fax: (270) 514-1507 the laws of business. - Rav Yisrael Salanter From hankman at bell.net Tue Oct 10 22:24:18 2017 From: hankman at bell.net (hankman) Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2017 01:24:18 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] R. Akiva, Bar Kochba and Zecharya HaNovi Message-ID: <5AFE790709AC4B0B9FDDB6A6102B7005@hankPC> How could R. Akiva have mistaken Bar Kochba for Moshiach, since non of the nevuos of Zecharya HaNovi that we read in the recent haftorah (splitting of Har HaZeitim etc., etc) for the period precedent to Moshiach had yet occurred? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Tue Oct 10 13:51:59 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2017 16:51:59 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] future impact of deeds In-Reply-To: <781196aefdb44054b2f0e69678999858@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <781196aefdb44054b2f0e69678999858@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20171010205159.GB21284@aishdas.org> On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 06:29:05PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : In one of his shiurim, R'Reisman questioned a common (my) understanding : of how those who are no longer with us could be judged based on the : future impact of their deeds on an ongoing basis. The specific example : was two individuals (A & B) separately caused two other individuals (C & : D, who were totally equivalent) to become religious. C dies a day later, : while D lives a long, productive, and fruitful life. Does it make sense : that A gets more credit(schar) than B? : : My answer is no, but this does not refute the basic premise. The schar : is based on the % of their potential that C & D actualized-only HKB"H : knows that, so, in this case in fact, A might even get more credit than B. Who said that sekhar is indeed based on actualized potential? "Lefum tz'ara agra", not "lefum tzalach". And wouldn't judging someone by something out of their control violate Middas haDin? HOWEVER, perhaps (thinking out loud) we could invoke megalgalim zekhus al yedei zakai to say that hashgachah peratis's choice of D's long life includes among an infinite other factors, the ways in which his mashpia was mora zekai. But personally, I would question your conclusion. (But in a personal-belief sense. Not that it doesn't require understanding in an eilu-va'eilu way.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Rescue me from the desire to win every micha at aishdas.org argument and to always be right. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Nassan of Breslav Fax: (270) 514-1507 Likutei Tefilos 94:964 From zev at sero.name Wed Oct 11 03:30:27 2017 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2017 06:30:27 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] R. Akiva, Bar Kochba and Zecharya HaNovi In-Reply-To: <5AFE790709AC4B0B9FDDB6A6102B7005@hankPC> References: <5AFE790709AC4B0B9FDDB6A6102B7005@hankPC> Message-ID: <0278980f-97ca-2755-caa3-89461ed64e50@sero.name> On 11/10/17 01:24, hankman via Avodah wrote: > How could R. Akiva have mistaken Bar Kochba for Moshiach, since non of > the nevuos of Zecharya HaNovi that we read in the recent haftorah > (splitting of Har HaZeitim etc., etc) for the period precedent to > Moshiach had yet occurred? The Rambam, whose shita is based on R Akiva, explicitly paskens that none of these nevuos need to be fulfilled literally. Any that aren't can be interpreted metaphorically to fit whatever political and military events actually do take place around the geulah. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From akivagmiller at gmail.com Wed Oct 11 06:41:32 2017 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2017 09:41:32 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Questioning Authority In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I have no hidden agenda here. This post is my response to the current "OU paper" thread, and to many other threads we've had over the decades, where we have wondered how any given posek could hold a certain way on any particular question. It is also relevant to threads we've had abput *becoming* a posek, and the importance of shimush in addition to book knowledge. This is something I would not have written, or even have thought of, until about 10 years ago or so. But as I have matured, I have come to see things in a new perspective. Becoming a parent, and a grandparent, has given me a tremendous insight into Hashem's relationship with us. I have always felt that it is (or ought to be) possible and permissible to *question* authority without challenging or rejecting authority. It is very natural to want to understand the reasons behind the rules that we must live by. Wanting to understand those rules is not the same as rejecting those rules. Wanting to understand the rules, I believe, is a major component of the Mitzvah of Talmud Torah, and is thus highly commendable. A chavrusa once challenged me to explain my position on a certain subject. He said to me, "If you can't explain it to me in simple terms, then you don't really understand it well enough yourself." I accepted that rule wholeheartedly, and used it myself for many decades. But recently have I begun to see the cracks in that rule. A parent tells the child to do something, or to not do something. The child asks why, not out of rebellion, but because he sincerely wants to understand what's going on. Sometimes, the parent cannot give an answer better than "Because I said so." The child now thinks that the parent is being arbitrary, and sometimes, the parent might even agree. But frequently, the truth is that the parent has very good reasons for what he says. It's just that he's unable to put those reasons into clear words. He can't even explain it to himself in simple terms, because it is simply a gut feeling that he has, based on experience and intuition, he sees that this is the action or inaction which must be followed in this particular situation. I think this is analogous to Torah leaders and Torah followers. When the leaders tell the followers what to do, or what to avoid, it is entirely reasonable for the followers to request explanations from the leaders. This is especially so, if the explanation will help them comply with the directive, or teach them how to apply the directive to other situations. But these requests must be made respectfully, carefully, and only up to a certain point. Consider when a parent explains himself to the child, and the child responds with a dozen reasonable challenges to the parent's logic. Sometimes the parent will realize that he was in error, and back down. Sometimes the parent will realize that he was in error, but will stick to his guns as a show of power (rightly or wrongly). But sometimes, the parent will understand that - despite the child's persuasive comments - the directive must still be followed, because ... Well, the parent himself might not be able to articulate his reasoning, not even to himself. But he relies on his understanding and his experience and his common sense, and he knows that this is how it must be. So too, our leaders adopt certain positions on certain issues, and often they will attempt to explain themselves to us. Sometimes those explanations may appear flawed to us, maybe even severely flawed. Like the child who thinks his parent's explanation is nonsense, the flaws do not necessarily invalidate the leader's conclusion or his decision. Of course, none of this suggests that our leaders (or parents) are infallible. And they can certainly benefit from reviewing their positions among their peers. The only point I'm trying to make in this long post is this: Similar to a Chok from the Torah, sometimes our leaders issue pronouncements that we are not capable of fully understanding, and we should not let that stand in the way of following them. Akiva Miller NB: A critical word in this post is "sometimes". The difficult (sometimes impossible) task is to figure out which times are which. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From zev at sero.name Wed Oct 11 07:40:40 2017 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2017 10:40:40 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] R. Akiva, Bar Kochba and Zecharya HaNovi In-Reply-To: <20171011143003.GA21995@aishdas.org> References: <5AFE790709AC4B0B9FDDB6A6102B7005@hankPC> <0278980f-97ca-2755-caa3-89461ed64e50@sero.name> <20171011143003.GA21995@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 11/10/17 10:30, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > While the Rambam cites R' Aqiva's following Bar Koziba (H Melahim 11:2) > as proof that the melekh hamoshiach doesn't have to do miracles, is his > position really "based on" R Aqiva's? For example, in 11:4 he describes > the moshiach as being "hogeh baTorah ve'oseiq bemitzvos keDavid aviv" > which I don't think fit Bar Kokhva even in his hayday. What makes you suppose this? On the contrary, the fact that the Rambam says "since BK didn't do any miracles, we know that Moshiach doesn't have to", proves that when he says Moshiach *does* have to be a TCh and a tzadik he assumes BK *did* fulfil this requirement. If he didn't, that would prove to the Rambam that this isn't necessary. > Nor had "veyakhof kol Yisrael leileikh bah" yet either -- the > Perushim were in the minority. Were they? Who was in the majority, if not them? And why would the majority even matter? BK was the king, and he made halacha the law of the land, whether the majority liked it or not. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From micha at aishdas.org Wed Oct 11 07:30:03 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2017 10:30:03 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] R. Akiva, Bar Kochba and Zecharya HaNovi In-Reply-To: <0278980f-97ca-2755-caa3-89461ed64e50@sero.name> References: <5AFE790709AC4B0B9FDDB6A6102B7005@hankPC> <0278980f-97ca-2755-caa3-89461ed64e50@sero.name> Message-ID: <20171011143003.GA21995@aishdas.org> On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 06:30:27AM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : On 11/10/17 01:24, hankman via Avodah wrote: :> How could R. Akiva have mistaken Bar Kochba for Moshiach, since :> non of the nevuos of Zecharya HaNovi that we read in the recent :> haftorah (splitting of Har HaZeitim etc., etc) for the period :> precedent to Moshiach had yet occurred? : The Rambam, whose shita is based on R Akiva, explicitly paskens that : none of these nevuos need to be fulfilled literally. Any that : aren't can be interpreted metaphorically to fit whatever political : and military events actually do take place around the geulah. While the Rambam cites R' Aqiva's following Bar Koziba (H Melahim 11:2) as proof that the melekh hamoshiach doesn't have to do miracles, is his position really "based on" R Aqiva's? For example, in 11:4 he describes the moshiach as being "hogeh baTorah ve'oseiq bemitzvos keDavid aviv" which I don't think fit Bar Kokhva even in his hayday. Nor had "veyakhof kol Yisrael leileikh bah" yet either -- the Perushim were in the minority. More clearly is his basing himself on Shemu'el (Sanhedrin 91b) when he quotes him in 12:2, "Chakhamim said: ein bein ha'olam hazeh liymos hamoshiach ela shib'ud malkhios bilvad." It's interesting that rather than repeating the quote beshrim omero -- a funny thing to do when discussing the ge'ula le'lam that giving the source is supposed to bring -- he attributes the quote to Chakhamim, as though he knew it was consensus and Rav's position deprecated. After all, the Rambam himself says that we can't decide machloqesim in these thingxs. So it could be that the Rambam did indeed base himself on R Aqiva, but then we would have to say that the Rambam held that R Aqiva was waiting for the rest of the nevu'ah to come true. Or not -- maybe his basic source was Shemu'el, and this one proof doesn't imply derivation. And given that the BK Revolt was c. 132-135 CE, it is likely that R' Aqiva expected the war to go on 7 years, as per statements in the gemara about chevlei moshiach. This would time the end of the war with 70 years after the churban, like the return after churban bayis 1. But whether that conjecture is true or not, the relevant idea that R Aqiva could be backing BK thinking the rest of the expectations about the moshiach simply hadn't happened /yet/. Which the Rambam would have to invoke even for his more mundane list of things the moshiach will accomplish. In 12:1 the Rambam denies the literalness of Yeshaiah's and Yirmiyahu's description of the messianic era in terms of wolves, leopards and lions going vegetarian. But since the splitting of Har haZeirim need not be lemaalah min hateva, do we know whether the Rambam would have placed it in the same rule? If not, the "expected it will happen in the future" answer could cover that earthquake (?) as much as it can cover BK spending all his spare time learning and doing mitzvos or his being meqareiv the vast majority of Kelal Yisrael. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger A sick person never rejects a healing procedure micha at aishdas.org as "unbefitting." Why, then, do we care what http://www.aishdas.org other people think when dealing with spiritual Fax: (270) 514-1507 matters? - Rav Yisrael Salanter From zev at sero.name Wed Oct 11 09:02:55 2017 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2017 12:02:55 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] R. Akiva, Bar Kochba and Zecharya HaNovi In-Reply-To: <20171011154231.GA6170@aishdas.org> References: <5AFE790709AC4B0B9FDDB6A6102B7005@hankPC> <0278980f-97ca-2755-caa3-89461ed64e50@sero.name> <20171011143003.GA21995@aishdas.org> <20171011154231.GA6170@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <0e95d039-c074-ae7f-f3ba-3cee64a3d191@sero.name> On 11/10/17 11:42, Micha Berger wrote: > > The man described in the Y-mi Taanis 24b (4:5) doesn't sound personally > observant. The Rambam clearly doesn't hold like the Yerushalmi's version of the story, because he holds that the Chachamim stuck with BK until he was killed "ba`avonos". That word is ambiguous (whose sins, his or the people's) but later he says a presumptive Moshiach who's killed is "kechol malchei beis Dovid hash'leimim vehak'sheirim", so we can assume he holds that BK was killed for the generation's sins, not for his own, hence "ba`avonos", not "ba`avonosav". > This is also why in both R' Aqiva's world as well as R' Meir's and R' > Shim'on's -- before and after BK's revolt -- it is taken for granted > that most Jews are amei ha'aretz. Amei Haaretz were in the Perushim "denomination". They kept Perushi halacha as well as they understood it, even if they despised the Chaverim who taught it. They made up their own invalid leniencies in maasros, and weren't careful all year with taharos, but they were careful with terumah and never told lies on Shabbos. In any case, the question isn't what the majority would have done on their own, but whether BK forced them to obey halacha, and the Rambam assumes he did. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From micha at aishdas.org Wed Oct 11 10:11:32 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2017 13:11:32 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] R. Akiva, Bar Kochba and Zecharya HaNovi In-Reply-To: <0e95d039-c074-ae7f-f3ba-3cee64a3d191@sero.name> References: <5AFE790709AC4B0B9FDDB6A6102B7005@hankPC> <0278980f-97ca-2755-caa3-89461ed64e50@sero.name> <20171011143003.GA21995@aishdas.org> <20171011154231.GA6170@aishdas.org> <0e95d039-c074-ae7f-f3ba-3cee64a3d191@sero.name> Message-ID: <20171011171132.GA1028@aishdas.org> On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 12:02:55PM -0400, Zev Sero wrote: : On 11/10/17 11:42, Micha Berger wrote: : >The man described in the Y-mi Taanis 24b (4:5) doesn't sound personally : >observant. : : The Rambam clearly doesn't hold like the Yerushalmi's version of the : story, because he holds that the Chachamim stuck with BK until he : was killed "ba`avonos"... How does this conflict with the Y-mi's picture of a less than ideal Bar Kokhva? If anything, it reinforces my suggestion that R' Aqiva was awaiting the rest of the nevu'ah. And once he is waiting for the things the Rambam mentions, then it's possible the Rambem would expect Zerkhariah's nevu'os to happen literally, but also something R' Aqiva was awaiting. It's possible the Rambam would consider the potentially natural cataclysms in Zekhariah to be non-allegory, as the examples of non-literal nevu'os he gives would have been lema'alah min hateva if literal. I don't know where he's drawing the line; nevi'ah qua nevu'ah is bederekh mashal, or only the phantastical stories should be dismissed. (This is a sibling to our discussion of the Rambam on midrashic stories. I claim he is saying that no medrash was repeated for historical content. Therefore any medrash can be ahistorical, but the fantastical stories you should take for granted as being ahistorical. You have been limiting the Rambam's denial of historicity for the fantastical stories. s/medrash/nevu'ah/g -- where do you stand?) : That word is ambiguous (whose sins, his or : the people's) but later he says a presumptive Moshiach who's killed : is "kechol malchei beis Dovid hash'leimim vehak'sheirim", so we can : assume he holds that BK was killed for the generation's sins, not : for his own, hence "ba`avonos", not "ba`avonosav". But either way -- whether he or the generation was sinful -- it would show that BK didn't fit the Rambam's descrition of moshiach. For obvious reasons, I'll add: ... at least not yet. If the generation sinned too much to merit redemption, BK wasn't too good at bringing the masses to observance. Besides, being like a kosher and shaleim member of beis David could mean "even if", we still know he wasn't the moshiach. : >This is also why in both R' Aqiva's world as well as R' Meir's and R' : >Shim'on's -- before and after BK's revolt -- it is taken for granted : >that most Jews are amei ha'aretz. : : Amei Haaretz were in the Perushim "denomination". They kept Perushi : halacha as well as they understood it, even if they despised the : Chaverim who taught it... Actually, I thought they were denominationless, as likely to follow anyone's dictates. A pagan notion of listening to every holy man, rather than picking sides. But in any case, if that's your description of the masses, you still have BK not yet succeeding in that regard at the time of his death. : in maasros, and weren't careful all year with taharos, but they were : careful with terumah and never told lies on Shabbos... They were also careful with maaser, more often than not. Demai is a gezeira; if tevel were the norm, it would be azlinan basar ruba, or at best safeiq deOraisa lehachmir. : the question isn't what the majority would have done on their own, : but whether BK forced them to obey halacha, and the Rambam assumes : he did. The Rambam doesn't say so. That's your deduction. It requires assuming that the Rambam agrees with R' Aqiva over what the grounds for presuming (making a chazqah) that someone is moshiach. He doesn't say R' Aqiva is indeed his source. And it also requires assuming R Aqiva was following BK because of a chazaqah, rather than probability and rov. You haven't addressed my "maybe" of R Aqiva following BK without BK having yet fulfilled all of the moshiach's role becuase of an expectation that BK would be getting there. My added "not yet". Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Between stimulus & response, there is a space. micha at aishdas.org In that space is our power to choose our http://www.aishdas.org response. In our response lies our growth Fax: (270) 514-1507 and our freedom. - Victor Frankl, (MSfM) From zev at sero.name Sat Oct 14 19:44:53 2017 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2017 22:44:53 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] R. Akiva, Bar Kochba and Zecharya HaNovi In-Reply-To: <20171011171132.GA1028@aishdas.org> References: <5AFE790709AC4B0B9FDDB6A6102B7005@hankPC> <0278980f-97ca-2755-caa3-89461ed64e50@sero.name> <20171011143003.GA21995@aishdas.org> <20171011154231.GA6170@aishdas.org> <0e95d039-c074-ae7f-f3ba-3cee64a3d191@sero.name> <20171011171132.GA1028@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 11/10/17 13:11, Micha Berger wrote: > On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 12:02:55PM -0400, Zev Sero wrote: > : On 11/10/17 11:42, Micha Berger wrote: > : >The man described in the Y-mi Taanis 24b (4:5) doesn't sound personally > : >observant. > : > : The Rambam clearly doesn't hold like the Yerushalmi's version of the > : story, because he holds that the Chachamim stuck with BK until he > : was killed "ba`avonos"... > > How does this conflict with the Y-mi's picture of a less than ideal > Bar Kokhva? It conflicts because the Y'mi's version of the story has the Chachamim abandoning BK *before* his fall. The Rambam clearly does not agree with that whole version of the story. In his version BK was and remained a tzadik until his tragic end, which happened not for his own sins but for those of others. > It's possible the Rambam would consider the potentially natural cataclysms > in Zekhariah to be non-allegory, as the examples of non-literal nevu'os > he gives would have been lema'alah min hateva if literal. I don't know > where he's drawing the line; nevi'ah qua nevu'ah is bederekh mashal, > or only the phantastical stories should be dismissed. He doesn't draw a line at all. He carefully doesn't say that Moshiach *won't* perform miracles, but merely that he *needn't*, because BK didn't and yet was assumed to be Moshiach. Which further contradicts the Y'mi's version, which says he was rejected because he could not judge people by smelling whether they're right or wrong, a feat of which the True Moshiach(tm) must be capable. > > : That word is ambiguous (whose sins, his or > : the people's) but later he says a presumptive Moshiach who's killed > : is "kechol malchei beis Dovid hash'leimim vehak'sheirim", so we can > : assume he holds that BK was killed for the generation's sins, not > : for his own, hence "ba`avonos", not "ba`avonosav". > > But either way -- whether he or the generation was sinful -- it would > show that BK didn't fit the Rambam's descrition of moshiach. How so? He was righteous, and forced people to keep Torah, but they didn't listen, just like Yoshiyahu. > But in any case, if that's your description of the masses, you still > have BK not yet succeeding in that regard at the time of his death. Again, how so? The requirement is that he forces all Israel to follow it and to reinforce its breaches. Not that he educates them, or makes them enthusiastic, but simply that he makes the Shulchan Aruch the law of the land, punishing those who break it. There are always lawbreakers; one would not therefore say that the government is not forcing people to obey the law. > : the question isn't what the majority would have done on their own, > : but whether BK forced them to obey halacha, and the Rambam assumes > : he did. > > The Rambam doesn't say so. That's your deduction. It requires assuming > that the Rambam agrees with R' Aqiva over what the grounds for presuming > (making a chazqah) that someone is moshiach. He doesn't say R' Aqiva is > indeed his source. He explicitly uses him as his source that Moshiach needn't perform miracles. How could he do so if his vision of Moshiach's qualifications were different from R Akiva's? If he holds that Moshiach must be a tzadik but RA didn't, then how does he know that Moshiach needn't perform miracles just because R Akiva thought so? > And it also requires assuming R Aqiva was following BK because of a > chazaqah, rather than probability and rov. You haven't addressed my > "maybe" of R Aqiva following BK without BK having yet fulfilled all of > the moshiach's role becuase of an expectation that BK would be getting > there. My added "not yet". Again, this is impossible because if so how does he know R Akiva didn't indeed require Moshiach to perform miracles, and was expecting them to happen any day now? How can he say that Moshiach need *never* perform miracles, and if he achieves everything he's supposed to without the need for miracles we will still have to accept him as Vadai Moshiach? Clearly he understands that R Akiva was *not* expecting any miracles, and that this didn't bother him, because it isn't a requirement. None of which rules out the actual Moshiach, when he does come, performing miracles. The Rambam's position on this, unlike the Y'mi's, is neutral. He might perform miracles or he might not. Some or all of the nevuos might turn out literally, but some or all might not. The nevuos he says can't be literal, at least in the initial stage of Yemos Hamoshiach, are not ones about miracles but about permanent changes in nature. Chazal said that Ein Bein Olam Hazeh Liymos Hamoshiach Ela... so nevuos about a change in nature must either be metaphorical or refer to Olam Haba. But nevuos about miracles may or may not happen literally, we won't know until we get there. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From motti.yarchinai at yahoo.com.au Sun Oct 15 01:00:51 2017 From: motti.yarchinai at yahoo.com.au (Motti Yarchinai) Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2017 08:00:51 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Avodah] Psak source wanted References: <1857240052.122258.1508054451353.ref@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1857240052.122258.1508054451353@mail.yahoo.com> Dear Avodah members, Can anyone help me with a source for this psak: It is similar to what the Rambam wrote in Hilchot Kiddush Hachodesh, saying that in all calendric matters, we follow the lead of the chachmei eretz yisrael, and even though the anshei hagolah know the calculations used by them, it is not on our own calculations that we rely, we only use those calculations because we know that they are the same as the calculations used by the chachmei eretz yisrael, and we must all follow the rulings of the latter, in all calendric matters. Another posek (possibly the Tifferet Yisrael in Shvilei Harakia, but I'm not sure of that), writes something similar but couched in even more dramatic terms. The following is not a verbatim quote (since the original is in Hebrew) but something very close to it: "And even if the residents of eretz yisrael are all ignoramuses and peasants, and the authorities of chutz la'aretz are great scholars and knowledgable in Torah and halachah, in calendric matters we follow the peasants and ignoramuses, not the scholars of chutz la'aretz." Does anyone recognise this and remember where it's from? Thank you.Motti -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From akivagmiller at gmail.com Sun Oct 15 13:02:06 2017 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2017 16:02:06 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Zecher Liytzias Mitzrayim and Shmini Atzeres Message-ID: . What is the Zecher Liytzias Mitzrayim of Shmini Atzeres?We say it in Kiddush and in the Amidah. There must be something about this chag that connects to, and/or reminds us about, Yetzias Mitzrayim. It sounds like such a basic question that I'm surprised that I don't remember hearing it in the past. If anyone has an answer, please share it. Meanwhile, here's what I came up with: Shavuos is about one particular event in the midbar. Sukkos is about the whole 40 years in the midbar. Pesach and Shmini Atzeres are bookends: Pesach is about entering the midbar, and Shmini Atzeres is about leaving the midbar.If Sukkos is about the Ananei Hakavod and all the other nissim that accompanied us, then Shmini Atzeres is about re-entering the natural world. I played "word association" with six random people: When I said "yetzias mitzrayim," five of them responded, "Pesach". This is not wrong, but it is a distortion. Yetzias Mitzrayim was not a short event in Nissan; Shavuos and Sukkos prove that it was a process that took 40 years. My suggestion is simply that the last day is no less worthy of a chag than the first. Rashi (B'midbar 29:35) famously tells us that Shmini Atzeres is a special time, with just Hashem and Bnei Yisrael together, alone, with no other nations around. I'm merely pointing out that it is not just the nations who are gone: The lulav is gone. The sukkah is gone. Nothing remains but us and Hashem, when we left the comfort of the miraculous sukkah, trading it for being at home in Eretz Yisrael. Akiva Miller Postscript: An easy challenge to this post could be that Tishre 22 was NOT the day that we crossed from the midbar into Eretz Yisrael. I will respond in advance by pointing out that Shavuos too is not necessarily celebrated on the same day as the event it reminds us of. The Zecher can be poetic and emotional, and need not be so mathematically rigorous. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hankman at bell.net Sun Oct 15 14:41:04 2017 From: hankman at bell.net (hankman) Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2017 17:41:04 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] eitz hachaim Message-ID: Hi, What exactly was the eitz hachaim all about. The simple pshat doesn?t make any sense. If the purpose of the Gan was to serve Adam then when would (could) he make use of the eitz hachaim? Kodem hacheit he was not a bar misah so he had no need of it, after the cheit he was prevented from accessing it! So when would it ever be useful to Adam? Kol tuv Chaim Manaster -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hankman at bell.net Sun Oct 15 14:48:11 2017 From: hankman at bell.net (hankman) Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2017 17:48:11 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Vayehi erev Message-ID: Hi, If you look at days 3, 4 & 5 tou will find that they close with Vayehi erev vayehi boker yom X as a complete passuk. But on days 1, 2 & 6 the vayehi erev is only the completion of a larger passuk and not a passuk on its own. Finally on Shabbos the final closing of vayehi erev is omitted completely. Do any of the medrashing or meforshing explain this? Kol tuv Chaim Manaster -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Sun Oct 15 14:31:16 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2017 17:31:16 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Zecher Liytzias Mitzrayim and Shmini Atzeres In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20171015213116.GA14924@aishdas.org> On Sun, Oct 15, 2017 at 04:02:06PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : What is the Zecher Liytzias Mitzrayim of Shmini Atzeres? ... What's the ZlYM of Shabbos? : Shavuos is about one particular event in the midbar. Sukkos is about the : whole 40 years in the midbar... Unless Sukkos is about the return of the ananei hakavod. The Gra puts 2 and 2 (and 2) together: The ananei hakavod left with the Cheit haEigel. When Moshe returned with the 2nd luchos, completing his 3rd 40-day day atop Har Sinai, he gave Benei Yisrael instructions including those for donating the materials and building the Mishkan. So that actual construction began on 15 Nissan -- and that's when the ananim returned. The Meshekh Chimah adds to this that it explains the oconstrast between Sukkos as described in Mishpatim 23:16, where all we learn about the timing in the fall is that it's Chag haAsif. This was before Cheit haEigel, never mind the eventual return. But in parashas Re'eih, the holiday makes its appearance as Chag haSukkos, refering to the returned sukkos of ananei hakavod. : Pesach is about entering the midbar, and Shmini Atzeres is about leaving : the midbar.If Sukkos is about the Ananei Hakavod and all the other nissim : that accompanied us, then Shmini Atzeres is about re-entering the natural : world. My own mental image of the structure of the year: The qiymu veqiblu haYhudim of Purim is the further development of the theme of Shavous (a/k/a Atzeres). And similarly the zikhronos of Rosh haShanah is the further development of the theme of Shemini Atzeres -- the beris. In Shemini Atzeres this creates a need for a 71st par for qorban mussaf, as well as the naturalness of our turning SA into Simchas Torah. On RH we ask for clemency if not for our sake, than for the sake of seeing the beris to fruition. So that each season has a central holiday -- Sukkos or Pesach -- which is what underlies the gezeira shava tes-vav - tes-vav. Then the season is introduced with a something (Purim or Yamim Noraim) to prepare us for the holiday. The bounty of Sukkos has to be earned; Tishrei is about middas hadin after all. The freedom of Pesach needs a context. (And Putim is derabbanan bececause the ultimate qabbalas ol mitzvos hd to come from us.) And then the theme is culminated in an Atzeres, a day to stop, pack it up, and take it with us for the next half-year. That said, I like your idead of SA as reentering the natural world. It's experientially very true, after all that holiday. It also gives more significance to the timing of Tefillas Geshem. "Qasheh alei pereidaskhem" does refer to that return; aalthough I think you need to work on the difference between our return to the natural world and Hashem making the day itself to *delay* the return. Jews and G-d without the rest of the world. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger What we do for ourselves dies with us. micha at aishdas.org What we do for others and the world, http://www.aishdas.org remains and is immortal. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Albert Pine From micha at aishdas.org Sun Oct 15 15:21:26 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2017 18:21:26 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] R. Akiva, Bar Kochba and Zecharya HaNovi In-Reply-To: References: <5AFE790709AC4B0B9FDDB6A6102B7005@hankPC> <0278980f-97ca-2755-caa3-89461ed64e50@sero.name> <20171011143003.GA21995@aishdas.org> <20171011154231.GA6170@aishdas.org> <0e95d039-c074-ae7f-f3ba-3cee64a3d191@sero.name> <20171011171132.GA1028@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20171015222126.GB14924@aishdas.org> On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 10:44:53PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: :> How does this conflict with the Y-mi's picture of a less than ideal :> Bar Kokhva? : : It conflicts because the Y'mi's version of the story has the : Chachamim abandoning BK *before* his fall. The Rambam clearly does : not agree with that whole version of the story... The Y-mi does not say that R' Aqiva was among those who left early. : In his version BK : was and remained a tzadik until his tragic end, which happened not : for his own sins but for those of others. My whole point is that the Rambam doesn't describe him as a tzadiq anywhere. He says in one place that BK could be taken to be the moshiach despite a lack of miracles and another place that when someone from beis david who is hogeh ve'oseiq bemitzvos keDavid aviv... vehakhos kol Yisrael leileikh bah... and fights Hashem's wars, then this person can be presumed to be mashiach. Not that BK had such a chazaqah; the "pesaq" of the tannaim needn't have been based on this particular chazaqah or any chazaqah. As I said, there is nothing in the Rambam to rule out them following BK out of the expectation that he would eventually get there, rather than his being hogeh ve'oseiq bemitzvos already. And then you don't need to make the Rambam ignore a Yerushalmi. : He doesn't draw a line at all. He carefully doesn't say that : Moshiach *won't* perform miracles, but merely that he *needn't*, 12:1: Al ya'aleh aal leiv shebiymos hamoshiach yibateil davar miminhago shel olam... ela olam keminhago noheig. This doesn't really rule out miracles, but it does rule out ones that leave a permanent change in the natural orer. There is a line. Which is how he rules out the historicity of "vegar ze'eiv im keves..." etc... They don't mearly "needn't" happen, he rules out the possibility of their literal meaning being part of the future, because they cross his line of olam keminhago noheig". : >But either way -- whether he or the generation was sinful -- it would : >show that BK didn't fit the Rambam's descrition of moshiach. : How so? He was righteous, and forced people to keep Torah, but : they didn't listen, just like Yoshiyahu. "Veyakhof" includes "tried and failed"??? That's not quite what the Rambam says. : Again, how so? The requirement is that he forces all Israel to : follow it and to reinforce its breaches. Not that he educates them, : or makes them enthusiastic, but simply that he makes the Shulchan : Aruch the law of the land, punishing those who break it... Which he didn't. The Sanhedrin doesn't get reorgonized and put on Har haBayis. In fact, he doesn't get the backing of the majority of the day's posqim to be able to be associated with a 2nd century religious revival through legal enforcement, even if he there had been one. (Which there is no record of.) Again, this is only a problem for you because you assume that the Rambam's chazaqah in 11:4 must be the reason for R' Aqiva and other tannaim followed BK. But he uses the expression "vedimah hu vekhol chakhmei doro" -- which is a little weak for following a chazaqah as per a chiyuv. The Y-mi (in the adorementiond &T Taanis 4:5 24b) quotes R' Aqiva as telling R' Yochanan ben Torta "Din hu malka meshikha", an idiom usually used to refer to a qal vachomer. BTW, where does the Rambam get that "kol chakhmei doro" followed Bar Koziva? Is there any indication Rabban Gamliel ever did? R Yochanan b Torta replied (in an oft repeated line) "Aqiva, yaalu asavim belechaikh ve'adayin ben David lo ba." : >The Rambam doesn't say so. That's your deduction. It requires assuming : >that the Rambam agrees with R' Aqiva over what the grounds for presuming : >(making a chazqah) that someone is moshiach. He doesn't say R' Aqiva is : >indeed his source. : : He explicitly uses him as his source that Moshiach needn't perform : miracles. How could he do so if his vision of Moshiach's : qualifications were different from R Akiva's? ... R' Aqiva proves that not performing miracles doesn't rule out someone being the moshiach. He doesn't prove what it takes to actually qualify as being one. And even beyond the difference between deriving one negative statement about the mashiach and assuming he got all his positive statements from the same source, you're missing the difference between noting R' Aqiva reached a conclusion and the Rambam pasqening that in a certain situation we are obligated by the rules of chazaqah to reach that same conclusion. : Again, this is impossible because if so how does he know R Akiva : didn't indeed require Moshiach to perform miracles, and was : expecting them to happen any day now? ... Who said he didn't? He uses R' Aqiva to rule out waiting for a miracle before following a potential. Not that moshiach won't perform miracles. 12:2 quotes Shemu'el to back up the point in 12:1 that olam beminhago holeikh. Which is minimally a particular kind of miracle, although it plausibly includes even miracles that are only momentary breaks in minhag olam. He doesn't mention R' Aqiva when ruling out these miracles from the entire mission. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "Man wants to achieve greatness overnight, micha at aishdas.org and he wants to sleep well that night too." http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yosef Yozel Horwitz, Alter of Novarodok Fax: (270) 514-1507 From hankman at bell.net Sun Oct 15 15:59:44 2017 From: hankman at bell.net (hankman) Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2017 18:59:44 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Torah precheit? Message-ID: Hi, I have been trying to understand what the geshtalt of Torah was precheit of the eitz hadaas. It could not have resembled anything that we ( I ) would recognize today. Consider: There was but one mitzva. Most if not all the mitzvos of the Torah we are familiar with could not have existed, at least as we understand them today. Had Adam been successful in his one day tafkid the purpose of the bria would have been accomplished and Adam (mankind) would have gone to olom haba ? mission accomplished nothing more to follow but for reward in olom haba. The many consequences seem to be as follows: there would be no avdus in Mitzrayim, therefore no yetzias Mitzrayim, therefore no regolim, that are all built on the idea of zecher l?yitzias Mitzrayim nor their issurei melocho . So there would not me any korban Pesach, no matzo, no maror etc. There would be no lulav and esrog, no succah etc. There would be no krobanos of shavous, no Yom Kippur and all its avoda and all its inuiyim as the cheit haeigel would never occur. Not sure about Rosh Hashana as the 6th day was the first RH perhaps as a yom hadin to pasken that Adam succeeded in his task and is deserving of olom haba. I could assume that Shabbos would also be present as it was in that first week with a kedushas Shabbos. The mussafim of all these yomim tovim would also be non existent as the yomim tovim themself seem in doubt. Much of the korbanos relating to cheit would seemingly have no purpose. the existance of the mikdash and all related mitzvot would likewise be in doubt. The mikdosh would have been Adam himself or perhaps after day 7 the mikdash would have come down in fire from heaven like we await today shibaneh beis hamikdash? As there would never be an Eretz Yisroel, then there would not be all the mitzvot hateltuot ba?aretz ? trumos, masros etc., etc. There would be no issurei arayos as there was just Adam and Chava. Not quite sure here as there was Kayin and Hevel and their twin sisters were there in the latter part of day 6. So perhaps a few of the arayaos would have been possible, mainly mother, father, son, daughter, aishes ish (Adam and Chava, but not sure about the kids as could kedushin be tofeis in a sister even if mutar for kium olam? Mishkav zachar was possible, but mishkav behama might not have been assur if one reads the medroshim kepshutom which the Maharal tell us NOT to do when Adam was seeking his mate before Chava was created. Still one has to deal with the fact that while these might have been possible, there was but ONE commandment ? not to eat from the eitz hadaas and none of the possible arayos I consider above. There was no mitzva of mila for Adam or Kayin and Hevel. Perhaps Adam was created mahul and Kayin and Hevel were nolod mahul? (Still today would need hatafas dam bris). Kibud Av vaAim would only be possible for Kain and Hevel but not for Adam or Chava who were not yilud isha. Mitzvot like korcho lameis would not be possible for beings who were not bar misa. Tumas meis would not be possible. With no rabim, mitzvot like melech, korban nossi, Ir haNidachas etc would not be possible. No mechias Amalek, or shiva ammim or kivush ha?aretz etc Rosh Chodes and its dinim would never happen as the world would end after one week. Most of choshen Mishpat would be superfluous if you own the entire world (Adam ? not sure if his kids would own anything as Adam would never die so they would never yarshan the world from him? (not sure if I am in the realm of Purim torah or not?). I could go on for most of taryag that would not have been possible. But the bottom line, possible or not, there was only ONE commandment ? the eitz hadaas! So what is the nature of Torah in such a world. How do we see it as an ever constant ever present and unchanging Torah? How does a Torah with but ONE mitzva look? How does it still identify with a Torah with 613 mitzvot? Sorry if my thoughts were very rambling. I just typed as things came to mind ? maybe not always a good idea! Kol tuv Chaim Manaster -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From zev at sero.name Sun Oct 15 22:15:48 2017 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2017 01:15:48 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] R. Akiva, Bar Kochba and Zecharya HaNovi In-Reply-To: <20171015222126.GB14924@aishdas.org> References: <5AFE790709AC4B0B9FDDB6A6102B7005@hankPC> <0278980f-97ca-2755-caa3-89461ed64e50@sero.name> <20171011143003.GA21995@aishdas.org> <20171011154231.GA6170@aishdas.org> <0e95d039-c074-ae7f-f3ba-3cee64a3d191@sero.name> <20171011171132.GA1028@aishdas.org> <20171015222126.GB14924@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 15/10/17 18:21, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 10:44:53PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > : It conflicts because the Y'mi's version of the story has the > : Chachamim abandoning BK *before* his fall. The Rambam clearly does > : not agree with that whole version of the story... > > The Y-mi does not say that R' Aqiva was among those who left early. The Rambam says that R Akiva *and all the sages of his generation* imagined BK was Moshiach, *until he was killed*. This is not consistent with the Y'mi. > As I said, there is nothing in the Rambam to rule out them following BK > out of the expectation that he would eventually get there, rather than his > being hogeh ve'oseiq bemitzvos already. Then why can't they also have expected him to eventually do miracles? How does their belief in him, and his lack of miracles, prove that Moshiach needn't do any? The fact that the Rambam uses their belief in him as proof that miracles aren't a requirement shows that they believed in him only because he *had* fulfilled all the *genuine* requirements for the stage he was at. > : >But either way -- whether he or the generation was sinful -- it would > : >show that BK didn't fit the Rambam's descrition of moshiach. > > : How so? He was righteous, and forced people to keep Torah, but > : they didn't listen, just like Yoshiyahu. > > "Veyakhof" includes "tried and failed"??? That's not quite what the > Rambam says. Yachof means to force, to make it the law of the land, and those who disobey are punished. It doesn't preclude people breaking the law when they think they can get away with it. Our current government forces us to live without drugs, and yet many people don't. > > : Again, how so? The requirement is that he forces all Israel to > : follow it and to reinforce its breaches. Not that he educates them, > : or makes them enthusiastic, but simply that he makes the Shulchan > : Aruch the law of the land, punishing those who break it... > > Which he didn't. The Sanhedrin doesn't get reorgonized and put on Har > haBayis. The Sanhedrin was already organized. There's no requirement that they return to Lishkas Hagazis until there *is* one, which he does eventually have to do, but it comes *after* chezkas Moshiach and fighting the war, which is the stage he was at. > In fact, he doesn't get the backing of the majority of the day's > posqim He certainly did, according to the Rambam. > to be able to be associated with a 2nd century religious revival > through legal enforcement, even if he there had been one. (Which there > is no record of.) Again, a "religious revival" means inspiring people to *want* to keep mitzvos, which is unrelated to *forcing* them to do so. > Again, this is only a problem for you because you assume that the Rambam's > chazaqah in 11:4 must be the reason for R' Aqiva and other tannaim > followed BK. What else could it be? He goes directly from saying that miracles are not a requirement to listing what things *are* requirements. Therefore he must have done those things. > But he uses the expression "vedimah hu vekhol chakhmei doro" > -- which is a little weak for following a chazaqah as per a chiyuv. What's weak about it? They must have had a reason for this imagination. What else but the chazaka? And if they thought he hadn't yet reached that stage then how do we know miracles aren't required to reach it? > > The Y-mi (in the adorementiond &T Taanis 4:5 24b) quotes R' Aqiva as > telling R' Yochanan ben Torta "Din hu malka meshikha", an idiom usually > used to refer to a qal vachomer. You're misreading it. It's not "din", it's *dein*. Dein hu malka meshicha, this is the Annointed King. > BTW, where does the Rambam get that "kol chakhmei doro" followed Bar > Koziva? Is there any indication Rabban Gamliel ever did? R Yochanan b > Torta replied (in an oft repeated line) "Aqiva, yaalu asavim belechaikh > ve'adayin ben David lo ba." He was the lone exception, or nearly so. Because *he* held that the miracle of judging by smell *was* required, even at the beginning. The Rambam paskens against him. > : >The Rambam doesn't say so. That's your deduction. It requires assuming > : >that the Rambam agrees with R' Aqiva over what the grounds for presuming > : >(making a chazqah) that someone is moshiach. He doesn't say R' Aqiva is > : >indeed his source. > : > : He explicitly uses him as his source that Moshiach needn't perform > : miracles. How could he do so if his vision of Moshiach's > : qualifications were different from R Akiva's? ... > > R' Aqiva proves that not performing miracles doesn't rule out someone being > the moshiach. He doesn't prove what it takes to actually qualify as being > one. This makes no sense. Either the Rambam agrees with R Akiva's criteria or he doesn't. If he doesn't then how can R Akiva's not requiring miracles prove that they're truly not required? If he was wrong about other criteria, how do we know he was right about this one? No, the fact that the Rambam uses him as proof means the Rambam adopts his view totally, and holds it is the halacha. In Chapter 12 he rules out not miracles but changes in nature. A miracle doesn't change nature, it breaks the rules of nature. Water continues to run downhill, but this water doesn't, not because its nature is different but because it's ignoring nature. That, he says, may or may not happen. Changes in nature won't, because Chazal say so. Chazal are silent on whether Moshiach will perform miracles, so we don't know. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From michaelpoppers at gmail.com Sun Oct 15 19:22:08 2017 From: michaelpoppers at gmail.com (Michael Poppers) Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2017 22:22:08 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] =?utf-8?b?4oCcVGltdHVtIEhhLUxlduKAnSBSZWR1eA==?= Message-ID: In Avodah V35n121, R'Micha wrote: > Tangent: The Gra said that "vehayisa akh sameiach" is the hardest mitzvah in the Torah. "Veyahisa sameiach" is one thing, but "akh sameiach"? To be nothing but happy, with no other moods ambivalently mixed in for 8 days (9 in chu"l) straight? < Tangents to the tangent: (a) Perhaps someone can quote "Ma'asei Rav" or the like, but what I've seen quoted *b'sheim GRA* is that the "ach" *d'rasha* in BT Sukka means that on Shmini Chag haAtzeres we're *b'simcha* with H' w/out any *cheftza shel mitzva*, e.g. see here : Perhaps the answer lies in a comment from the Vilna Gaon on the pasuk of ?v?hayisa ach sameiach.? The Gemara (Succah 48a) derives from this pasuk that Shemini Atzeres is included in the mitzvah of simchah. But the word ach generally limits what is being discussed. What are we limiting with ach sameiach? The Gaon explains that whereas Succos requires many mitzvah objects ? a succah, lulav and esrog, hoshanas ? Shemini Atzeres does not require any physical items. We only need to be sameiach. This is the inherent gift of the last day of the Yom Tov. We can?t take the succah and lulav with us after Yom Tov. But the simchah that comes from dveikus with Hashem requires nothing but ourselves, and it is something we can take along with us. (b) Translating "ach" as "nothing but" doesn't explain the YhK "ach" (P'Emor). (c) Another thought on "v'samachta b'chagecha...v'hayisa ach sameach" is that the latter mandate of *simcha* ("ach" or no "ach") seems superfluous and can be considered as a mandate for the entire year (i.e. not just "b'chagecha"). All the best from *Michael Poppers* * Elizabeth, NJ, USA -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From lisa at starways.net Mon Oct 16 00:51:28 2017 From: lisa at starways.net (Lisa Liel) Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2017 10:51:28 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] eitz hachaim In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <61f0b606-b859-4475-eef8-a10489e74f1c@starways.net> On 10/16/2017 12:41 AM, hankman via Avodah wrote: > What exactly was the eitz hachaim all about. The simple pshat doesn't > make any sense. If the purpose of the Gan was to serve Adam then when > would (could) he make use of the eitz hachaim? Kodem hacheit he was > not a bar misah so he had no need of it, after the cheit he was > prevented from accessing it! So when would it ever be useful to Adam? I don't understand the question. He was prevented from accessing it *because* of the cheit. Had he not sinned, you say he would have had no need for it, but who is to say that its only function was to make him live forever. Maybe that's just the function it has for a bar mitah. Or maybe that was its function, and that's *why* he wasn't a bar mitah. Because the eitz ha-chaim was there, and permissible for him to eat. It was only after he'd eaten from the eitz ha-daat that he could no longer be permitted to live forever. That what eating that did to him made eternal life for him a Bad Thing. Lisa From seinfeld at jsli.org Mon Oct 16 07:02:10 2017 From: seinfeld at jsli.org (Alexander Seinfeld) Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2017 10:02:10 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Zecher Liytzias Mitzrayim and Shmini Atzeres In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: It?s a nice vort but couldn?t you ask the same about Shabbos and Rosh Hashana? Isn?t every Yomtov is a Zecher Yetzias Mitzrayim, not for historical reasons but because Yetzias Mitzrayim is the foundation of our emunah (not Har Sinai)? > >>Rashi (B'midbar 29:35) famously tells us that Shmini Atzeres is a special >>time, with just Hashem and Bnei Yisrael together, alone, with no other >>nations around. I'm merely pointing out that it is not just the nations >>who >>are gone: The lulav is gone. The sukkah is gone. Nothing remains but us >>and >>Hashem, when we left the comfort of the miraculous sukkah, trading it for >>being at home in Eretz Yisrael. >> >>Akiva Miller >> >>Postscript: An easy challenge to this post could be that Tishre 22 was >>NOT >>the day that we crossed from the midbar into Eretz Yisrael. I will >>respond >>in advance by pointing out that Shavuos too is not necessarily celebrated >>on the same day as the event it reminds us of. The Zecher can be poetic >>and >>emotional, and need not be so mathematically rigorous. From micha at aishdas.org Mon Oct 16 11:35:11 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2017 14:35:11 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] R. Akiva, Bar Kochba and Zecharya HaNovi In-Reply-To: References: <5AFE790709AC4B0B9FDDB6A6102B7005@hankPC> <0278980f-97ca-2755-caa3-89461ed64e50@sero.name> <20171011143003.GA21995@aishdas.org> <20171011154231.GA6170@aishdas.org> <0e95d039-c074-ae7f-f3ba-3cee64a3d191@sero.name> <20171011171132.GA1028@aishdas.org> <20171015222126.GB14924@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20171016183511.GA2496@aishdas.org> On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 01:15:48AM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : On 15/10/17 18:21, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: :> On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 10:44:53PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: :>: It conflicts because the Y'mi's version of the story has the :>: Chachamim abandoning BK *before* his fall. The Rambam clearly does :>: not agree with that whole version of the story... :> The Y-mi does not say that R' Aqiva was among those who left early. : The Rambam says that R Akiva *and all the sages of his generation* : imagined BK was Moshiach, *until he was killed*. This is not : consistent with the Y'mi. I see what you mean. Again, it is interesting to find out where the Rambam's alternate picture comes from. Just as his "kol" in "vekhol chakhmei dodo" doesn't seem to be Chazal's picture in either shas. E.g. Sanhedrin 93b, "nechzei anan i moreiach veda'ain..." They were still checking out the validity of BK's claim at the time of his death. :> As I said, there is nothing in the Rambam to rule out them following BK :> out of the expectation that he would eventually get there, rather than his :> being hogeh ve'oseiq bemitzvos already. : Then why can't they also have expected him to eventually do : miracles? How does their belief in him, and his lack of miracles, : prove that Moshiach needn't do any? ... To repeat myself: 11:3 talks about following someone despite a lack of miracles. 12:1-2 talks about the necessary absense of at least a particular kind of miracle -- the start of a new natural order -- if not miracles altogether. If you want to talk about needn't do... then you're looking at R' Aqiva and pereq 11. If you want to talk about won't do... then you're looking at pereq 12 and his assumption of Shemu'el's "ein bein" over Rav's shitah. And the list of things that won't happen is necessarily a subset of things that one needn't wait to happen before following the candidate. Possibly a strict subset, possibly identical sets. :>:> But either way -- whether he or the generation was sinful -- it would :>:> show that BK didn't fit the Rambam's descrition of moshiach. :>: How so? He was righteous, and forced people to keep Torah, but :>: they didn't listen, just like Yoshiyahu. :> "Veyakhof" includes "tried and failed"??? That's not quite what the :> Rambam says. : Yachof means to force, to make it the law of the land, and those who : disobey are punished... You're just repeating the insistance that "vayakhof" could include trying to force people and failing. If the punishments don't actually get the majority observing, is it kefiyah? And we have no evidence or even claim of BK ever even having set up a punishment system. Although this too could be part of the picture the Rambam draws that I don't know the sourece for. After all, as per the above, the picture you get from CHazal is that the Sanhedrin and its enforcement system was *not* behind BK, but the Rambam would have them aligned. ... :> Which he didn't. The Sanhedrin doesn't get reorgonized and put on Har :> haBayis. : The Sanhedrin was already organized. There's no requirement that : they return to Lishkas Hagazis until there *is* one, which he does : eventually have to do, but it comes *after* chezkas Moshiach and : fighting the war, which is the stage he was at. Actually, there is strong evidence he at least started building a BHMQ. And while I suppose they didn't have to move in yet, Anshei Keneses haGedolah moved in to a "lishkah" demarkated by curtains! "Chezqas moshiach" isn't a state in-and-of-itself. It's a chazaqah, a legal presumption, that someone is moshiach. A presumption of a status, not a status. IOW, it is likely that among all of beis David, only the mashiach would be hogeh in Torah and oseif bemitzvos, bring the Jews to observance (minimally: by compulsion) "leileikh bahh ulchazeiq bidqah". And therefore, if we find a member of beis David succeeding at these things, we are obligated to act with the understanding that he is mashiach. Thus, it is meaningless to talk about what happens before or after chezqas mashiach, as though it were a real state change. : Again, a "religious revival" means inspiring people to *want* to : keep mitzvos, which is unrelated to *forcing* them to do so. That's yhour own creative read of what kefiyah means. Forcing or not, it implies actual follow-through. BK didn't risk (and in fact lose) the backing of the majority to get a minority sect to join his support. He didn't get the majority to observe -- or even want to keep mitzvos (as per TSBP). :> Again, this is only a problem for you because you assume that the Rambam's :> chazaqah in 11:4 must be the reason for R' Aqiva and other tannaim :> followed BK. : What else could it be? He goes directly from saying that miracles : are not a requirement to listing what things *are* requirements. : Therefore he must have done those things. Requirements for building a chazaqah that the candidate is indeed moshiach. Which is a measure of confidence in BK the Rambam doesn't claim R' Aqiva and his generation reached -- they only reached as far as "hu hayah omer alav" and "vedimah hu". No mention of a chazaqah they were chayavim to follow; in fact, the lashon ("dimah") implied its lack. Chazaqah isn't imagination; it's a presumption strong enough to obligate our acting upon. : What's weak about it? They must have had a reason for this : imagination. What else but the chazaka? And if they thought he : hadn't yet reached that stage then how do we know miracles aren't : required to reach it? Miracles aren't required. Full stop. 12:1 could even be saying they are ruled out. "What else other than the chazaqah"? Indicators that are short of a chazaqah. Don't we follow umdena, ruba deleisa leqaman, and other notions of likelihood without going as far as having a chazaqah in a lot of halachic topics? : You're misreading it. It's not "din", it's *dein*. Dein hu malka : meshicha, this is the Annointed King. "Hadein hu"? Not that important for the main topic, since dimah isn't an expression I would picture the Rambam using for a mandatory following of a chazaqah. :> BTW, where does the Rambam get that "kol chakhmei doro" followed Bar :> Koziva? Is there any indication Rabban Gamliel ever did? R Yochanan b :> Torta replied (in an oft repeated line) "Aqiva, yaalu asavim belechaikh :> ve'adayin ben David lo ba." : He was the lone exception, or nearly so. Because *he* held that : the miracle of judging by smell *was* required, even at the : beginning. The Rambam paskens against him. That is against the stam bavli (in Sanhedrin 93b, quoted above), which says it's Rabbanan. ... : This makes no sense. Either the Rambam agrees with R Akiva's : criteria or he doesn't... Critria for what? I still find you mixing apples and oranges. He uses R' Aqiva's following of BK despite the lack of a chazaqah as proof that we too shouldn't wait for a miracle before following a likely moshiach. He used Shemu'el's position to rule out miracles (or to be generous, maybe only one kind of miracle) being part of the messianic dream altogether. Very consistent picture, IMHO. : In Chapter 12 he rules out not miracles but changes in nature. A : miracle doesn't change nature, it breaks the rules of nature... It is a bitul of something miminhago shel olam, albeit a temporary one. But I have consistently left open the door to saying he's only talking about a subset of miracles; those that leave the running of things changed. I don't find it likely that the Rambam's "yibatel davar" means only permanent bitul, doubly so since it would be redundant with the next line, "o yihyeh sham chidush bemaaseh bereishis". Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger People were created to be loved. micha at aishdas.org Things were created to be used. http://www.aishdas.org The reason why the world is in chaos is that Fax: (270) 514-1507 things are being loved, people are being used. From cantorwolberg at cox.net Wed Oct 18 06:37:17 2017 From: cantorwolberg at cox.net (Richard Wolberg) Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2017 09:37:17 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Interesting Insight on Noach Message-ID: <36805007-8186-42B4-9042-51439D2BB204@cox.net> It has always bothered me that Noah was considered the only righteous person (along with his family) and that everyone else was evil. However, just today as I was studying various commentaries, I came across the following amazing account in Tanchuma, R?eh, 3. From the moment that God gave the Torah, it is only he who sins that will be punished, though before that, the whole generation was responsible for the sin of the individual. Thus there were many righteous men swept away with the deluge in the time of Noah. Hence, since Noah was the ?most? righteous, he was spared although the other righteous were not, as a consequence of collective guilt at that time. rw Inside each of us, there is the seed of both good and evil. It's a constant struggle as to which one will win. And one cannot exist without the other. Eric Burdon > > ?If you live for people?s acceptance, you will > die from their rejection.? > Anonymous From zev at sero.name Wed Oct 18 07:43:32 2017 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2017 10:43:32 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Interesting Insight on Noach In-Reply-To: <36805007-8186-42B4-9042-51439D2BB204@cox.net> References: <36805007-8186-42B4-9042-51439D2BB204@cox.net> Message-ID: On 18/10/17 09:37, Richard Wolberg via Avodah wrote: > However, just today > as I was studying various commentaries, I came across the following amazing > account in Tanchuma, R?eh, 3. > > From the moment that God gave the Torah, it is only he who sins that will be punished, > though before that, the whole generation was responsible for the sin of the individual. > Thus there were many righteous men swept away with the deluge in the time of Noah. > Hence, since Noah was the ?most? righteous, he was spared although the other righteous > were not, as a consequence of collective guilt at that time. According to R Avin, what was Avraham's argument, "chalila lach"? If that had been Hashem's SOP for the past 2050 years, and would be for another 400, why didn't He just tell Avraham "Yes, this is how I do things"? -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From micha at aishdas.org Wed Oct 18 13:25:27 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2017 16:25:27 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Interesting Insight on Noach In-Reply-To: <36805007-8186-42B4-9042-51439D2BB204@cox.net> References: <36805007-8186-42B4-9042-51439D2BB204@cox.net> Message-ID: <20171018202527.GA27560@aishdas.org> On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 09:37:17AM -0400, Richard Wolberg via Avodah wrote: : ... account in Tanchuma, R?eh, 3: :> From the moment that God gave the Torah, it is only he who sins that will :> be punished, though before that, the whole generation was responsible :> for the sin of the individual. Thus there were many righteous men swept :> away with the deluge in the time of Noah. Hence, since Noah was the :> "most" righteous, he was spared although the other righteous were not, :> as a consequence of collective guilt at that time. The text is available at or The siman opens with quoting Eikhah 3:38, "miPi Elyon lo seitzei hara'os vehatov" and then immediately starts with this statement from R' Avin. However, the quote has that after Matan Torah, whomever sins, "HQBH poreia mimenu", and before that, the whole generation "meshaleim chet'o". Arguably this translation might be missing something by leaving the language of Hashem collecting, as though on a debt. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger One doesn't learn mussar to be a tzaddik, micha at aishdas.org but to become a tzaddik. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yisrael Salanter Fax: (270) 514-1507 From hankman at bell.net Wed Oct 18 08:12:50 2017 From: hankman at bell.net (hankman) Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2017 11:12:50 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] R. Akiva, Bar Kochba and Zecharya HaNovi Message-ID: <7B0712E6569740909873C2AD4F89F435@hankPC> R. Micha Berger wrote: ?This doesn't really rule out miracles, but it does rule out ones that leave a permanent change in the natural orer. There is a line. Which is how he rules out the historicity of "vegar ze'eiv im keves..." etc... They don't mearly "needn't" happen, he rules out the possibility of their literal meaning being part of the future, because they cross his line of olam keminhago noheig".? Kodem cheit Adam haReshon, not just Adam was only permitted to eat plant life but so too was the nature of ALL animals that they too only subsisted from plant life ? ie., much like "vegar ze'eiv im keves..." So perhaps olam keminhago noheig means keminhago KODEM HACHET without requiring any change to the ORIGINAL natural order. Kol tuv Chaim Manaster -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hankman at bell.net Wed Oct 18 08:44:50 2017 From: hankman at bell.net (hankman) Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2017 11:44:50 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] =?utf-8?q?=E2=80=9Cthe_miracle_of_judging_by_smell?= =?utf-8?q?=E2=80=9D_was__=28Re=3A__R=2E_Akiva=2C_Bar_Kochba_and_Ze?= =?utf-8?q?charya_HaNovi=29?= Message-ID: ?the miracle of judging by smell? Really should be a knew thread. When we learned this sugia recently in the daf yomi I asked the magid shiur that lechora this was keneged torah which requires eidim for most judgements. He answered that perhaps it means that one smell from Moshiach would be enough to get the person to be modeh al ha?emes. I replied that would only work for judgments in choshen mishpot (hodoas bal din) but not for cases involving arayos, malkos, or misah where two eidim are required and we are not permitted to accept his confession as ein adam meisim atzmo rasha. How would this ?miracle? allow for a proper halachik judgment? That is where we left it for now. Could this meimre of chazal be limited to just cases involving choshen mishpot? I imagine many meforshim address this issue, can anyone clarify? Kol tuv Chaim Manaster -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From JRich at sibson.com Wed Oct 18 08:48:56 2017 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2017 15:48:56 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Shliach Tzibbur Message-ID: <5b1d039d5958444d94f6c90a4607ee17@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> The S"A in O"C 53 discusses what to look for in a Shliach Tzibbur. We seem to not fully actualize these recommendations (rationalizations include the fact that he is no longer being motzi those who can't pray). Do you think this result is sociological or halachic driven? Does an individual (e.g., avel) who pushes to be a shatz, etc., when there are more qualified individuals (or especially if they are not qualified), accomplish more good or bad? See especially Aruch Hashulchan 53:5. KT 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: From micha at aishdas.org Wed Oct 18 14:25:50 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2017 17:25:50 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] R. Akiva, Bar Kochba and Zecharya HaNovi In-Reply-To: <7B0712E6569740909873C2AD4F89F435@hankPC> References: <7B0712E6569740909873C2AD4F89F435@hankPC> Message-ID: <20171018212550.GB27560@aishdas.org> On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 11:12:50AM -0400, hankman via Avodah wrote: : R. Micha Berger wrote: :> This doesn't really rule out miracles, but it does rule out ones that :> leave a permanent change in the natural order. There is a line. Which is :> how he rules out the historicity of "vegar ze'eiv im keves..." etc... ... : Kodem cheit Adam haReshon, not just Adam was only permitted to eat plant : life but so too was the nature of ALL animals that they too only subsisted : from plant life -- ie., much like "vegar ze'eiv im keves..." I doubt the Rambam, the "he" I am trying to understand in the text you quoted, would agree with this premise about animals before the eitz hada'as. On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 11:44:50AM -0400, hankman via Avodah wrote: :> the miracle of judging by smell : Really should be a new thread. : When we learned this sugia recently in the daf yomi I asked the magid : shiur that lechora this was keneged torah which requires eidim for : most judgements. He answered that perhaps it means that one smell from : Moshiach would be enough to get the person to be modeh al ha'emes.... I think it HAS to be be its own thread, because this too works with assumptions the Rambam would not agree with. Odds are the Rambam wouldn't take "demorach" literally. See Lecham Yehudah on Hil' Melakhim 11:3, aveilable at . But to get back on topic to the original thread (which is why I'm posting it here): Notice that the BLY (R Yehudah Iyash, Levorno mid-18th cent) assumes that such guilt-smelling would defy the Rambam's "chidush bema'aseh bereishis" rule, and thus couldn't be literal. Even though it's a localized miracle / revelation and not a permanent change in the natural order. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Every child comes with the message micha at aishdas.org that God is not yet discouraged with http://www.aishdas.org humanity. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rabindranath Tagore From jmeisner at mail.gmail.com Wed Oct 18 15:38:14 2017 From: jmeisner at mail.gmail.com (Joshua Meisner) Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2017 18:38:14 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] "the miracle of judging by smell" was (Re: R. Akiva, Bar Kochba and Zecharya HaNovi) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7C3544D0-F571-4A7C-B067-FDC0308CBD65@gmail.com> On Oct 18, 2017, at 11:44am, hankman wrote: > When we learned this sugia recently in the daf yomi I asked the magid > shiur that lechora this was keneged torah which requires eidim for > most judgements. He answered that perhaps it means that one smell from > Moshiach would be enough to get the person to be modeh al ha'emes. I > replied that would only work for judgments in choshen mishpot (hodoas > bal din) but not for cases involving arayos, malkos, or misah where two > eidim are required and we are not permitted to accept his confession as > ein adam meisim atzmo rasha... Reaching a correct psak in any area of halacha requires obtaining a full picture of the situation, including all relevant details and the particular context. This requires that the posek have skill in asking questions that will clarify these points and recognizing when, intentionally or not, the answers he is receiving do not reflect the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Perhaps it is this sense that the navi is referring to. Joshua Meisner From hankman at bell.net Wed Oct 18 15:58:01 2017 From: hankman at bell.net (hankman) Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2017 18:58:01 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] =?utf-8?q?=E2=80=9Cthe_miracle_of_judging_by_smell?= =?utf-8?q?=E2=80=9D_was__=28Re=3A__R=2E_Akiva=2C_Bar_Kochba_and_Ze?= =?utf-8?q?charya_HaNovi=29?= Message-ID: <83ADB68D660C4A8BA5E0F3D19339FF76@hankPC> R. J. Meisner wrote: ? Reaching a correct psak in any area of halacha requires obtaining a full picture of the situation, including all relevant details and the particular context. This requires that the posek have skill in asking questions that will clarify these points and recognizing when, intentionally or not, the answers he is receiving do not reflect the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Perhaps it is this sense that the navi is referring to. Joshua Meisner? But no matter how skilled the judge is at getting at the truth, even if all he need so is be moreiach, this still does not lessen the requirement of 2 eidim for many judgments. While reading your response to me, another thought occurred to me and upon reflection it may be that this is also what you meant. Perhaps when the gemara stated that he can be moreaiach veda?in that the gemara meant not that he would only need to question the defendant, and could smell whether he is guilty or not and pasken based on the surety of his conclusion, but perhaps the gemara meant that when questioning the EIDIM he was able merely smell them and then judge the credibility of the eidim whether he should accept them as credible or not and thus pasken the case accordingly. Kol tuv Chaim Manaster -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hankman at bell.net Wed Oct 18 15:44:42 2017 From: hankman at bell.net (hankman) Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2017 18:44:42 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] R. Akiva, Bar Kochba and Zecharya HaNovi Message-ID: <36062433D0904BE5ABD5156C727C7A6D@hankPC> R. Micha Berger wrote: ?I doubt the Rambam, the "he" I am trying to understand in the text you quoted, would agree with this premise about animals before the eitz hada'as.? So how does the Rambam explain Bereishis 1:30? Kol tuv Chaim Manaster -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From akivagmiller at gmail.com Thu Oct 19 02:47:09 2017 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2017 05:47:09 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Torah precheit? Message-ID: . R' Chaim Manaster asked: > I have been trying to understand what the geshtalt of Torah > was precheit of the eitz hadaas. It could not have resembled > anything that we ( I ) would recognize today. Consider: > There was but one mitzva. Most if not all the mitzvos of the > Torah we are familiar with could not have existed, at least > as we understand them today. Had Adam been successful in his > one day tafkid the purpose of the bria would have been > accomplished and Adam (mankind) would have gone to olom haba > ? mission accomplished nothing more to follow but for reward > in olom haba. > > The many consequences seem to be as follows: there would be > no avdus in Mitzrayim, therefore no ... ... One can ask similar questions about other turning-points in history. What if Kayin had not killed Hevel? What if the world has not gone to Avodah Zara a few generations later? What if Yishmael and/or Esav had not gone of the derech? What if Moshe Rabenu had acted differently by the rock? I believe that people are too hung up on the idea that "Torah" and the Chumash are identical. They are not. "The Torah has 70 faces", and ONE of them is the written scroll that we read from in shul. Another is the Torah Sheb'al Peh. Another was that one singular mitzvah that Adam HaRishon was given. None is less holy than any other. They are but different facets of the same diamond. And there are yet others. Torah manifests itself differently to a kohen than to a levi, and differently to a woman than to a man. And so on. For example: > As there would never be an Eretz Yisroel, then there would not > be all the mitzvot hateltuot ba?aretz ? trumos, masros etc., etc. Or perhaps Gan Eden would have had that status. Eretz Yisrael is actually a great example: Consider the idea that true nevuah can exist only in Eretz Yisrael. But also consider that this restriction only started when EY got its kedushah - prior to that point one could have nevuah elsewhere too. Logically, I would think that the kedusha of EY enabled this thing that couldn't exist without such intense kedusha; but counter-intuitively, this thing that has long existed is now suddenly restricted to a specific area. Because times change, and people change; the Torah stays the same but it shows a different face. We are so used to how things are today, that we think things have always been this way. But it ain't so. > So what is the nature of Torah in such a world. How do we > see it as an ever constant ever present and unchanging > Torah? How does a Torah with but ONE mitzva look? How does > it still identify with a Torah with 613 mitzvot? There are many mitzvos that apply only at specifc times and under specific circumstances. Consider the back-and-forth of when bamos were allowed and not allowed. We went for quite a few centuries with choosing a human king. I am deliberately trying to avoid mitzvos that have sociological criteria, like the existence of a Sanhedrin, or whether or not we are capable of tochacha. Rather, my point goes to this "Torah with 613 mitzvot" that you refer to. It doesn't exist today, and I don't know if it ever has existed. There has certainly never been a person to whom they all applied, and I wonder whether there was ever a generation when they were all in force. > Sorry if my thoughts were very rambling. I just typed as > things came to mind ? maybe not always a good idea! On the contrary, brainstorming is often a fruitful way of developing new thoughts! Personally, it was many decades ago that someone asked me, "If there is life on other planets, might they possibly have a Torah? But Mitzrayim doesn't exist there, and Moshe never lived there!" That question bothered me for a very long time, until I realized that even on *this* planet, Noach had his version of Torah, and that was centuries before Mitzrayim or Moshe came to be. (To conflate two threads, I think what I'm saying here is very similar to what R"n Lisa Liel wrote in the "eitz hachaim" thread. These things aren't static; their roles change to fit the situation.) Akiva Miller From zev at sero.name Wed Oct 18 20:54:50 2017 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2017 23:54:50 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] =?utf-8?q?=E2=80=9Cthe_miracle_of_judging_by_smell?= =?utf-8?q?=E2=80=9D_was_=28Re=3A_R=2E_Akiva=2C_Bar_Kochba_and_Zecharya_Ha?= =?utf-8?q?Novi=29?= In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <209038db-6620-b1cf-4e52-1b093803ac7d@sero.name> On 18/10/17 11:44, hankman via Avodah wrote: > ?the miracle of judging by smell? > Really should be a knew thread. > When we learned this sugia recently in the daf yomi I asked the magid > shiur that lechora this was keneged torah which requires eidim for most > judgements. Moshiach is a melech, and not bound by the rules of a beis din. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From micha at aishdas.org Wed Oct 18 19:40:28 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2017 22:40:28 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] R. Akiva, Bar Kochba and Zecharya HaNovi In-Reply-To: <36062433D0904BE5ABD5156C727C7A6D@hankPC> References: <36062433D0904BE5ABD5156C727C7A6D@hankPC> Message-ID: <20171019024028.GB20212@aishdas.org> On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 06:44:42PM -0400, hankman via Avodah wrote: : R. Micha Berger wrote: :> I doubt the Rambam, the "he" I am trying to understand in the text :> you quoted, would agree with this premise about animals before the :> eitz hada'as. : So how does the Rambam explain Bereishis 1:30? Well, if you look at Moreh 1:30, you'll see that the Rambam considers maaseh bereishis to be atemporal, 6 logical stages of unfolding of reality, not steps separated in time. So I don't know if I should assume anything about how he reads pasuq 30. But I do note that if taken literally, the pasuq merely says that Hashem gave the plants to the animals for food. A statement about one of the functions of plantsl and that Adam can't hord all the plants for himself, since animals need it too. It needn't mean that only plants served a food. The statement from Chazal (quoted by Rashi) is a derashah. The Ohr haChaim spends time justifying it, if you want to see the medrashic steps in detail. But it's not peshat, and therefore not necessarily the Rambam would take literally. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger There's only one corner of the universe micha at aishdas.org you can be certain of improving, http://www.aishdas.org and that's your own self. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Aldous Huxley From zev at sero.name Wed Oct 18 21:51:32 2017 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2017 00:51:32 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Interesting Insight on Noach In-Reply-To: <2E736CF9-84CD-41DB-9963-8E38B681DC20@cox.net> References: <36805007-8186-42B4-9042-51439D2BB204@cox.net> <2E736CF9-84CD-41DB-9963-8E38B681DC20@cox.net> Message-ID: <18439702-d4ae-0f50-3350-a8b5cd433fb5@sero.name> On 18/10/17 11:09, Richard Wolberg wrote: > What I?m saying is that our theology is fraught with inconsistencies and > contradictions > and we have plenty of ?teikusl? ?You?re a black and white person and > don?t see shades. > Not everything can be reconciled. Impossible. Toras Hashem Temima, and can't contradict itself. If there are two pesukim that seem to contradict each other, there's a third pasuk that resolves it and makes sense of both. It's not possible that R Avin was unaware of Avraham's statement, nor is it possible that he would dismiss Avraham's view as mistaken. Therefore there must be something in R Avin's view that's not what it appears. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From JRich at sibson.com Fri Oct 20 05:37:21 2017 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2017 12:37:21 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] empiricism Message-ID: <17851b0cb6514f5a8fac7543e7d86493@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Rabbi Jason Weiner's, "Jewish Guide to Practical Medical Decision-Making" - "The Talmudic sages performed post-mortem examinations and had considerable knowledge of anatomy and pathology. Indeed, the rabbis of the Talmud were among the first people in history to operate on corpses in order to learn medical information that had halakhic ramifications. See Tosefta Niddah 4:17, Niddah 30b, bekhorot 45A . . ". Wiki s- Initially, the Ancient Greek philosophers did not believe in empiricism, and saw measurements, such as geometry, as the domain of craftsmen and artisans. Philosophers, such as Plato, believed that all knowledge could be obtained through pure reasoning, and that there was no need to actually go out and measure anything. Please look at the three sources quoted by R'Weiner, are they support or really maaseh lstormaaseh l'stor as to a general approach? Kt 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: From emteitz at gmail.com Fri Oct 20 14:49:21 2017 From: emteitz at gmail.com (elazar teitz) Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2017 17:49:21 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] the miracle of judging by smell Message-ID: On this topic, the comment was made that "Moshiach is a melech, and not bound by the rules of a beis din." However, other than moreid b'malchus, this is only true for r'tzicha, not other capital punishment cases, as is indicated in Rambam Hilchos M'lachim 3:10 (as it is understood by most m'farshim). EMT -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From isaac at balb.in Sat Oct 21 04:07:43 2017 From: isaac at balb.in (Isaac Balbin) Date: Sat, 21 Oct 2017 11:07:43 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] ?the miracle of judging by smell? was (Re: R. Akiva, Bar Kochba and Zecharya HaNovi) Message-ID: From: Zev Sero > > On 18/10/17 11:44, hankman via Avodah wrote: >> When we learned this sugia recently in the daf yomi I asked the magid >> shiur that lechora this was keneged torah which requires eidim for most >> judgements. Zev responded > Moshiach is a melech, and not bound by the rules of a beis din. Indeed. His position therefore also invalidates Moshiach from being a formal witness, although that's clearly not for trust/smell issues. From micha at aishdas.org Sun Oct 22 07:20:34 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2017 10:20:34 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Long Lifespans in Bereishis Message-ID: <20171022142033.GA669@aishdas.org> Our old chaver R' Rich Wolpoe posted this article by R/Dr Mitchell First. It's a nice survey of opinions about all those long lifespans in seifer Bereishis : NishmaBlog From RRW Guest Blogger: Mitchell First Thursday, 19 October 2017 The Long Lifespans in Genesis The Longevity of the Ancients Recorded in Genesis ... Josephus (late 1st century). Here is his statement in Antiquities, book I: " ...For, in the first place, they were beloved of God and the creatures of God himself; their diet too was more conducive to longevity: it was then natural that they should live so long. Again, alike for their merits and to promote the utility of their discoveries in astronomy and geometry, God would accord them a longer life...." Now I will survey the views of our Geonim and Rishonim. R. Saadiah Gaon (10th cent.) discusses this issue in his introduction to Tehillim. He writes that the longevity of these early generations was part of God's plan for the rapid proliferation of mankind on the earth..... R. Yehudah Ha-Levi (12th cent.) discusses the issue in the Kuzari (sec. 95). He believes that it was only the individuals listed who lived long. Each of the individuals listed was the heart and essence of his generation and was physically and spiritually perfect. The Divine Flow was transmitted from one generation to another through these exceptional individuals. Rambam, in a famous passage in the Guide to the Perplexed (II, chap. 47) writes: "I say that only the persons named lived so long, whilst other people enjoyed the ordinary length of life. The men named were exceptions, either in consequence of different causes, as e.g., their food or mode of living, or by way of miracle." Ramban (comm. to Gen. 5:4) quotes Rambam's view and then disagrees, ... individuals with long lifespans named in the Bible were not exceptional in their lifespans. Rather, the entire world had long lifespans before the Flood. But after the Flood, the world atmosphere changed and this caused the gradual reduction in lifespans. Most of the Rishonim who discussed the issue thereafter followed the approach of either the Rambam or the Ramban. Either way, they were taking the Genesis lifespan numbers literally. (An underlying factor that motivated Rishonim to accept the Genesis lifespan numbers literally was that the count from creation was calculated based on these numbers.) Josephus had mentioned that one of the reasons that God allowed their longevity was to promote the utility of their discoveries in astronomy and geometry. This idea of longevity to enable the acquisition of knowledge and make discoveries (and write them to be passed down) is also included in several of our Rishonim. See, e.g., the commentary of the Radak to Gen. 5:4 and of the Ralbag to Gen. chap. 5 (p. 136), and the Rashbatz (R. Shimon b. Tzemach Duran, Magen Avot, comm. to Avot 5:21). Rashbatz also mentions the idea that the early generations were close in time to Adam and Adam ... was made by God from the earth.... Another idea found in some of our Rishonim is that those early individuals did not chase after "ta'avat ha-guf," which reduces the lifespan. See, e.g., the commentary of the Radak to Gen. 5:4. ... ... R. Moses Ibn Tibbon (late 13th cent.) He suggests that the years given for people's lives were actually the years of "malkhutam ve-nimuseihim," i.e., the dynasties and/or customs that they established. ... R. Levi ben Hayyim (early 14th cent.).... concludes that in his opinion the names mentioned were just roshei avot. In other words, the number of years given for each individual reflects the total of the years of the several generations of individuals named for that first individual. R. Nissim of Marseilles (early 14th century) ... took the same approach as R. Moses Ibn Tibbon. The numbers ... included the total years of the descendants who followed his customs and lifestyle. The most interesting approach I saw was that of R. Eleazar Ashkenazi ben Nathan ha-Bavli (14th century), in his work Tzafnat Paneach, pp. 29-30. ... First, R. Eleazar refers to the view that perhaps the individual numbers were not to be taken literally, and points to other statements in the Torah that were not meant to be taken literally, e.g., 1) the Land of Israel was "flowing with milk and honey," and 2) the cities in Canaan were "fortified up to the Heaven" (Deut. 1:28). (See further Moreh Nevuchim, II,47.) But then R. Eleazar suggests the following creative approach. In listing these individual numbers, the Torah was merely recording the legends about these figures, even though they were not accurate. The important thing was to provide data from which the total years from Creation to Matan Torah could be derived, so that the people would be able to know the length of time between these two periods. Even though the numbers for the individual lifespans were not accurate, the Torah made sure that the total that would be arrived at would be accurate.... ... Prof. Natan Aviezer of Bar-Ilan University.... in a post at the Bar Ilan University weekly parshah site for parshat Noach, 1998... explains that modern science has figured out that aging is largely caused by genes, and not by a wearing out of our bodies. He then suggests that when God stated at Gen. 6:3 that man would be limited to 120 years, this was when God first introduced the gene for aging into the human gene pool. If you have not found any of the above answers satisfying, I have some good news. R. Saadiah Gaon writes (Emunot Ve-Deot, end of chap. 7) that in the era of the redemption the human lifespan will be approximately 500 years. Presumably, at that time we won't be bothered by those long lifespans in Genesis anymore! (Note that Radak, comm. to Is. 65:20, is a bit stingier. He predicts lifespans of only 300 to 500 years. See also his commentary to Ps. 92:15. But the 12th century Babylonian Gaon R. Samuel b. Ali predicts lifespans closer to 1000 years!) I would like to acknowledge that most of the material above came from an article by Prof. Daniel Lasker of Ben-Gurion University, in Mechkarim Be-Halakha U-Be-Mishpat Ha-Ivri, vol. 26-27 (2009-10). Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger I slept and dreamt that life was joy. micha at aishdas.org I awoke and found that life was duty. http://www.aishdas.org I worked and, behold -- duty is joy. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rabindranath Tagore From micha at aishdas.org Sun Oct 22 09:13:16 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2017 12:13:16 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Beris Milah on Shabbos when Father isn't Jewish Message-ID: <20171022161316.GA32328@aishdas.org> I mentioned in the past I had this question halakhah lemaaseh. I knew of an intermarried couple who lived nowhere near the nearest Jewish community. They would have just had the boy circumcized in the hospital rather than to pay what one of the nearer mohalim wanted to come down for the weekend. Yes, the nearest Chabad house had a mohel, who (of course) would come at cost... IFF he hadn't had a beris in his own minhan that same Shabbos. So the question I asked was whether I should donate (or raise donations) for the beris to be bizmano. My LOR asked his rav... long story short, as I best remember at a little more than two decades later: The pasuq says "bayom hashemini yimol besar arlaso" -- it's the father who is told "on the eight day", even if it's on Shabbos. Implied: If the father has no chiyuv, such as our case or if r"l the father didn't survive to see his son's beris, there is no one whose chiyuv overrides Shabbos. (If the father is alive but not there, you'd still violate Shabbos.) Well, someone asked R' Asher Weiss. . He didn't rule the same way, but does mention that is -- or at least was -- a machloqes amoraim. However, RAW holds a consensus has emerged to do the beris. Perhaps RDC didn't think the consensus was solid enough to warrant my spending or raising that kind of money for someone else's beris. Or perhaps it was closer to the way I remembered it and RDC doesn't agree with how the consensus emerged. Brit mila on Shabbos when father is non Jew Posted by: Rabbi Akiva Dershowitz Question: Does everyone agree that a brit is done on Shabbat even if the father is a goy? ... Answer: No, this is a dispute among the achronim [halachic authorities of the last 500 years]. The halachic ruling is that we do in fact perform the bris mila on Shabbos. See Derisha Y:D 266:20, Nachalas Shiva [kuntress hamila siman 1], Shu't Binyan Tzion [Vol. 1:21]. The nearest I could find in Hebrew (as the Hebrew always has more discussion) is "Beris beShabbos leVen Me'uberes sheNisgayrah" at . There the question is whether the velad's milah is a normal beris or lesheim geirus, and RAW still holds the milah should be on Shabbos. It's a fun sugya, worth a read. But doesn't focus on our question. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger You cannot propel yourself forward micha at aishdas.org by patting yourself on the back. http://www.aishdas.org -Anonymous Fax: (270) 514-1507 From hankman at bell.net Sun Oct 22 13:15:49 2017 From: hankman at bell.net (hankman) Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2017 16:15:49 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Torah precheit? Message-ID: <39266980A1C24F078B1904F1783BA1C0@hankPC> R. Akiva Miller wrote: ?One can ask similar questions about other turning-points in history. What if Kayin had not killed Hevel? What if the world has not gone to Avodah Zara a few generations later? What if Yishmael and/or Esav had not gone of the derech? What if Moshe Rabenu had acted differently by the rock?? Actually I had thoughts along similar lines that you express. The most prominent such turning point was the cheit ha?eigel, where again, had they succeeded, that again would have been the end for man?s tafkid and correction the cheit of Adam, direct route to eretz Yisroel, no forty years in the midbar and presumably Moshe R. would have been the final moshiach and on to the final gemul. The reason these two stick in my mind more than the other forks in history you point to, is that these would have been endpoints to the tafkid in this world and led directly to olom haba with no continuation of the ?Torah? story we are familiar with. The moments in history you point to would have been forks in the road but not endpoints. So if say Esau/Yishmoel had made good choices and been more like his brother Yaakov/Yitzchok, the story would have had a different twist to it, but the overall gestalt to the Torah could still have been quite similar. What we have now, with some changes. But we would have no problem imagining all (perhaps most) of the mitzvos as we know them. These two, cheit of Adam and cheit ha?eigel, were fundamentally different than the other ?forks? in the road as what we know to have followed would never happen. So Regalim, and avdus in Mitzrayim, etc, etc are ideas that seem not to have a place in such a reality had Adam succeeded while the other forks would have led to a variation on a theme we are familiar with and can at least readily imagine. The idea you mention of ?70 panim latorah? would have to be expanded greatly if for every fork on the possible choices made in the biblical period (by this I mean the time through the end of the forty years bamidbar that were recorded in chumash). If every possible choice made at every fork (say N) resulted in a diff version of Torah, then that would result in 2 to the N panim laTorah ? with N being very large! Perhaps 70 is just a synonym for ?many?? When we say that there are 70 umos, I always wondered how that was defined, as it seems to me that there are many more and that the number would change for different periods in history. If 70 here too means ?many? that would clear that up. But then the precise number of 70 for the parei hachag might be a problem unless for some reason that may have been fixed symbolically, or perhaps to coincide with the original number at some early point in history as say per the list of the 70 nations Art Scroll makes in its chumash at the end of this weeks parsha (Noach). Basically it is a listing of certain of the names of descendants of Noach. Have you ever heard of a nation called Ever (or most of the other names they list)? So is the ?essence? of Torah something beyond our ken. Is all we can see just a single facet of the 70 panim laTorah? (This of course is not the normal meaning to 70 panim laTorah, which usually is applied to differing explanations to our ?current? Torah, and not the other ?possible? ?Toros? as you are suggesting. Is this so far off the beaten path that this might even be an accidental trip into thought that might be apikursus or a credible notion within the daas? (Torah lo yehai moochlefes). I have no idea! R. Akiva Miller wrote: ?Torah manifests itself differently to a kohen than to a levi, and differently to a woman than to a man.? There is a fundamental difference between a mitzvoh only applying to some vs the concept not existing. Even if I am a Yisroel I can still be oseik in torah of the mitvos of a cohen ? it is still a part of Torah given to all of us even if not all of it pertains to me. R. Akiva Miller wrote: ?Or perhaps Gan Eden would have had that status.? I actually had a thought similar to yours as well on this idea. When I thought a little more about it, I had difficulty putting it all together. so what kind of meaning would trummos and massros have. What would orlo mean. Without aniyim, what is the point of leket shichacha upei?a? (or tzedaka in general, or even more broadly of gemila chasadim in such a world?) The mitzvos hatelyuous ba?aretz only make sense in an agricultural society, not in a world of olam haba where there are no farmers or farms. No need for orei miklat in a world without a yetzer. On another thought, would the notion of baal tigra in the world of only one mitzva leave you with no mitvos at all? That would make one a kofer bekol haTorah koola? Also there would be no need for lo tassur yamin usemol for gezeirot derabanan in such a world (though perhaps it might have stopped Chava if such a takana existed to protect the only mitzvoh they had). R. Akiva Miller wrote: ?"If there is life on other planets, might they possibly have a Torah? But Mitzrayim doesn't exist there, and Moshe never lived there!" That question bothered me for a very long time,? Strangely enough, I had similar thoughts years back. As a young bachur in yeshivo, my rebbi was teaching us that their was a period during which the progenitor of kelal Yisroel would happen. I asked what would have happened if there had been another deep thinker who came to the same realization and belief that Avraham did. He answered that there would have been two (or more) chosen peoples to eventually be mekabel Torah. It didn?t occur to me at the time to ask, would they each have the ?same? Torah or each get a tailored version to their (eventual) am? Or, would there be one Torah that talks of both of the chosen peoples? Years later when discussing what is the purpose to us of the trillions of stars and galaxies so distant that they could never possibly affect us here on Earth? Then it occurred to me, what if those stars had planets with intelligent beings on them and they too went through a similar period wherein they too had some allien being come to the same conclusions as Avraham did and they then became the chosen people of that planet and received a Torah possibly tailored to their experiences and appropriate there etc.? This almost makes sense of the questions the malachim asked Moshe when he went lamorom to accept Torah. They too wanted Torah in a version suitable to them which would deflect all of Moshe?s responses. If memory serves, I think some meforshim try to make sense of the malachim in such a manner. Just some more rambling thoughts. Kol tuv Chaim Manaster -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hankman at bell.net Sun Oct 22 23:25:10 2017 From: hankman at bell.net (hankman) Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2017 02:25:10 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] =?utf-8?q?=E2=80=9Cthe_miracle_of_judging_by_smell?= =?utf-8?q?=E2=80=9D_was_=28Re=3A_R=2E_Akiva=2C_Bar_Kochba_and_Zech?= =?utf-8?q?arya_HaNovi=29?= Message-ID: <7D7387F31006477FA724C733A37A100B@hankPC> R. Zev Sero wrote: ?Moshiach is a melech, and not bound by the rules of a beis din.? You are obviously referring to Rambam, Melachim P. 3: 8, 10. However this refers to judgments that are within the scope of the Melech such as a moreid, or letakein ha?olom kefi ma shehasho?o tzricha. This does not however give him the right to usurp ordinary judgments that normally would fall to a beis din (and disregard such niceties as eidus that the Torah requires), unless he is the av beis din (possible for malchei beis Dovid) and does follow the rules of Torah for eidus like any other beis din and does not simply follow his nose in these judgments. Furthermore, in the category of cases like moreid and shehasho?o tzricha, all the Melech needs to do is simply assert his position as he feels correct for ANY Melech ? he does not even need the power of moreiach veda?in to prove his position. So mimonafshoch, in either case he either may not, or has no need of the power to be moreiach veda?in. Kol tuv Chaim Manaster -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Mon Oct 23 13:16:56 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2017 16:16:56 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] =?cp1255?q?=93the_miracle_of_judging_by_smell=94_was_?= =?cp1255?q?=28Re=3A_R=2E_Akiva=2C_Bar_Kochba_and_Zecharya_HaNovi=29?= In-Reply-To: <7D7387F31006477FA724C733A37A100B@hankPC> References: <7D7387F31006477FA724C733A37A100B@hankPC> Message-ID: <20171023201656.GA13749@aishdas.org> On Mon, Oct 23, 2017 at 02:25:10AM -0400, hankman via Avodah wrote: : . Furthermore, : in the category of cases like moreid and shehasho'o tzricha, all the : Melech needs to do is simply assert his position as he feels correct : for ANY Melech -- he does not even need the power of moreiach veda'in to : prove his position. So mimonafshoch, in either case he either may not, : or has no need of the power to be moreiach veda'in. If I understood the Rambam this way: It would be good to have a king who knows with certainty which dinim need shoring up because he can smell that their violation is rampant. Or, in determining the convicted's guilt: Let's say some sin became common place, and hasha'ah zerikhah that the king enforce a capital punishment for it. But say I understand him as per REMT's post, noting that in 3:10 the Rambam singles out the king's power to kill murderers (eg without hasda'ah, where there was only eid echad, etc...) -- implying that retzichah yes, other issurim, the king could not. (Mikelal lav...) 3:8 really only discussed rebellion and lesse majeste (moreid bemekeh and mevazeh es hamelekh o hamchorfo). I don't see hasha'ah tzeikhah in the Rambam; I'm taking your word for it. Still, I can ask the parallel question: Wouldn't if be far far better if the melekh hamashiach had a supernal ability to know who is really guilty, and not kill the wrong guy? He might not legally need the power, but it would be a good thing for a king to have in order to be effective and fair. So I'm not sure your argument holds. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Every child comes with the message micha at aishdas.org that God is not yet discouraged with http://www.aishdas.org humanity. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rabindranath Tagore From micha at aishdas.org Mon Oct 23 18:51:25 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2017 21:51:25 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] No Barrier Between Religion and Science Message-ID: <20171024015125.GA13043@aishdas.org> See this article on Real Clear Science or http://www.realclearscience.com/articles/2017/10/16/philosophy_rebuts_key_barrier_between_science_and_religion_110422.htmlh Here is Mosaic Magazine's snippet: Kuhn's [argument] is that students learn first by imitation and practice and -- assuming they receive a good education -- once they strike out on their own, they will have been successfully inculcated into a particular scientific tradition. They will thus be prepared to recognize, pose, and solve scientific problems. If we take tradition to be antithetical to scientific rationality, Kuhn's conclusions will appear disquieting. And, indeed, Kuhn's critics rejected his arguments as "irrationalist." But if, on the contrary, we take tradition to be essential to rationality, then Kuhn's conclusions will be not only acceptable but also unsurprising. According to the moral philosopher Alasdair MacIntyre, before we can begin to reason at all, we must first acquire the habits necessary to recognize and, ultimately, to replicate rational behavior. To do so, there must first be exemplars that we take to be authoritative -- in the moral domain these will be exceptionally virtuous people, in the scientific domain, exceptionally good scientists. To become rational, in other words, one must be educated within a tradition of inquiry. Science, on this view, is not Cartesian -- at least as far as [the rejection of received ideas] is concerned -- even if it remains eminently rational. Where does this leave us?... [T]he fact that religious beliefs are not entirely reducible to empirical experience and partly depend upon tradition doesn't make them irrational or even anti-scientific. Thus a popular way of opposing science and religion starts to look untenable. This hardly means the two become indistinguishable. But it does suggest that science and religion could be conceived of as distinct -- but possibly harmonious, even sometimes mutually beneficial -- traditions of rational inquiry. The truth is that science has little to say about where a hypothesis come from. It gives little guidance for deciding what features are worth observing, what we should give our attention to. And once we see a pattern that needs explanation, it is left to human creativity to come up with a hypothesis. Science is a means of weeding out subjectivity from possible answers, but the means of coming up with those answers are very human. In particular, the entire enteprise of science rests on a tradition of theism -- whether the personal beliefs of an Aristotle or Newton, or the culture that produced an Einstein. Without a personal reason for assuming that the universe opperates reasonably, rather than attributing lightning to Thor's or Zeus's moods, can that hypothesis invention get started. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Good decisions come from experience; micha at aishdas.org Experience comes from bad decisions. http://www.aishdas.org - Djoha, from a Sepharadi fable Fax: (270) 514-1507 From hankman at bell.net Mon Oct 23 20:57:36 2017 From: hankman at bell.net (hankman) Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2017 23:57:36 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] "the miracle of judging by smell" was (Re: R. Akiva, Bar Kochba and Zecharya HaNovi) In-Reply-To: <20171023201656.GA13749@aishdas.org> References: <7D7387F31006477FA724C733A37A100B@hankPC> <20171023201656.GA13749@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <7FA394F42CCE44ECBB668DFA42362B96@hankPC> From: Micha Berger Sent: Monday, October 23, 2017 4:16 PM > But say I understand him as per REMT's post, noting that in 3:10 the > Rambam singles out the king's power to kill murderers (eg without > hasda'ah, where there was only eid echad, etc...) -- implying that > retzichah yes, other issurim, the king could not. (Mikelal lav...) > 3:8 really only discussed rebellion and lesse majeste (moreid bemekeh > and mevazeh es hamelekh o hamchorfo). I don't see hasha'ah tzeikhah in > the Rambam; I'm taking your word for it. Still, I can ask the parallel > question: > Wouldn't if be far far better if the melekh hamashiach had a supernal > ability to know who is really guilty, and not kill the wrong guy? > He might not legally need the power, but it would be a good thing for a > king to have in order to be effective and fair. My own initial impression unlike REMT is that the Rambam in 3:10 was not limiting this to only rotzeach, but dealing with case of max punishment or similar punishment and kal vechomer for cases of lesser punishment, however on rereading the Rambam after reading REMT I can see his point of view, but I am not sure I am fully convinced. I did a quick look around and found that the Or Sameiach on the Rambam at 3:10 has a long discussion on this issue as to whether the melech only has this power for a rotzeach where it is a danger to the rabim but not to enforce laxity of bein adam lamokom such as dinei shabbos, or if there was a breach even in these other areas whether the melech could act extra judicially there as well. There is a reference to a Y. Sanhedrin that implies that Dovid hamelech wold have executed for mishkav behama al pi eid echod -- so not just rotzeiach. See also the Rambam H. Rotzeiach P 2:4-5 where he broadens this extra judicial power to beis din as well but under horoas sha'o rather than takonas olam. (Not sure if the different label implies a difference in the respective extra judicial powers or not). See the Kesef Mishna there who mentions a case of chilul Shabbos. My simple reading there is that the Rambam seem to equate the reach of the extra judicial power of b"d to that of the melech to punish when found necessary either due to horo'as shao or takonas olam respectively. (Not clear to me if the different reasons lead to a different scope or not). But it seems that yeish lekan veyeish lekan. I hear your point about moreiach being a good reassurance that his pesak is correct even if not really necessary to render his judgment. Kol tuv Chaim Manaster From micha at aishdas.org Tue Oct 24 06:38:55 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2017 09:38:55 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Psak source wanted In-Reply-To: <1857240052.122258.1508054451353@mail.yahoo.com> References: <1857240052.122258.1508054451353.ref@mail.yahoo.com> <1857240052.122258.1508054451353@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20171024133855.GB25244@aishdas.org> On Sun, Oct 15, 2017 at 08:00:51AM +0000, Motti Yarchinai via Avodah wrote: : It is similar to what the Rambam wrote in Hilchot Kiddush Hachodesh, : saying that in all calendric matters, we follow the lead of the chachmei : eretz yisrael, and even though the anshei hagolah know the calculations : used by them, it is not on our own calculations that we rely, we only : use those calculations because we know that they are the same as the : calculations used by the chachmei eretz yisrael... : Another posek (possibly the Tifferet Yisrael in Shvilei Harakia, but : I'm not sure of that), writes something similar... Did you ever find a source? Google, Bar Ilan and I didn't turn anything up. In practice, we follow the calculations of R' Saaadia Gaon, who was in Aleppo at the time, and not R Aaron Ben-Meir in Y-m ih"q. The big debate of 922 was the topic of an article by RYGB and RAZZ reposted here . The Rambam (Qiddush haChodesh 1:8) limits the authority to someone in EY ("ki miTzion teitzei Sorah...") or if the one clearly most able to do it received semichah in EY, he can continue setting the months and ibur shanos in chu"l -- until someone of comparable stature arises in EY. This seems taylor-made for R Saadia Gaon, who went to yeshiva in Teveriah. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Never must we think that the Jewish element micha at aishdas.org in us could exist without the human element http://www.aishdas.org or vice versa. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch From sholom at aishdas.org Tue Oct 24 12:50:00 2017 From: sholom at aishdas.org (Sholom Simon) Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2017 15:50:00 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Long Lifespans in Bereishis In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <588c56c0dc1eedd39e7bb464810c5cea@aishdas.org> Thanks, RMB, for posting that article. Re the views of R. Moses Ibn Tibbon, et al, who don't take those ages literally on a single person -- is that (along the lines of an off-line conversation we had) a "kosher view" these days? Or, is it one of those views that, the way R Noson Slifkin puts it: they are allowed to have those views, but we aren't? On a different, but related issue, to the chevra: The list of generations in parshas Bereshis are generally of the form: * X was 50 years old when he fathered Y. * X lived 450 years after he fathered Y and had sons and daughters * X lived to the age of 500 years. Doesn't that seem a bit redundant? And, in fact, most (all?) of the generations listed in parshas Noach skip the third phrase. Thoughts? -- Sholom -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hankman at bell.net Tue Oct 24 15:28:28 2017 From: hankman at bell.net (hankman) Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2017 18:28:28 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Long Lifespans in Bereishis Message-ID: <9DE9360C549C46879FBF7291563A9387@hankPC> >From the summary of opinions posted by RMB on lifespans in Bereishis and some comments: ?R. Saadiah Gaon (10th cent.) discusses this issue in his introduction to Tehillim. He writes that the longevity of these early generations was part of God's plan for the rapid proliferation of mankind on the earth.....? Not the biggest kashe in the world, but why then would they start to have children at an advanced age if rapid proliferation was the goal? Perhaps with great longevity came a much longer period for sexual maturation? If true would that also mean that intellectual maturation took much longer as well? ?R. Yehudah Ha-Levi (12th cent.) discusses the issue in the Kuzari (sec. 95). He believes that it was only the individuals listed who lived long. Each of the individuals listed was the heart and essence of his generation and was physically and spiritually perfect. The Divine Flow was transmitted from one generation to another through these exceptional individuals.? How does R. Yehudah Ha-Levi deal with Terach who was an idolator? Clearly he was not spiritually perfect. ?... R. Moses Ibn Tibbon (late 13th cent.) He suggests that the years given for people's lives were actually the years of "malkhutam ve-nimuseihim," i.e., the dynasties and/or customs that they established.? This comment will apply to R. Nissim of Marseilles as well. I presume they held that people had what we today would consider a normal life span. this would mean they were not having the first born at the advanced age of over one hundred. Thus the named son must have been a later generation descendant. (I assume that they did not generate a son in their old age and die shortly thereafter as was the case with Boaz). So if their life spans were similar to ours then was Shes really not a son of Adam but really a descendant several generations down? Ditto for Ennosh, was he really a great ... grandson of Sheis? But this notion of the the years given in Bereishis not pertaining to one single man, but to a dynasty of several generations of normal life span, runs into difficulty with Noach and his 3 sons. If we follow suit with this notion then Shem, Cham and Yefes were not his sons but descendants born 500 years later. Yet they all went into the Teiva together? So how is that a normal life span for Noach? Why weren?t the generations between Noach and Shem, Cham and Yefes saved as well? When the Torah says ?vayoled es X? that is not to be taken literally but just to mean a later descendant chosen to be named in the lineage? ? R. Saadiah Gaon writes (Emunot Ve-Deot, end of chap. 7) that in the era of the redemption the human lifespan will be approximately 500 years. Presumably, at that time we won't be bothered by those long lifespans in Genesis anymore! (Note that Radak, comm. to Is. 65:20, is a bit stingier. He predicts lifespans of only 300 to 500 years. See also his commentary to Ps. 92:15. But the 12th century Babylonian Gaon R. Samuel b. Ali predicts lifespans closer to 1000 years!)? This quote leads to an issue I will expand upon slightly in another post. But the basic issue is if the world is Charuv at 6000 years and yemos Moshiach are before the olom is charuv, (while olom keminhago noheig) there is not enough time left (we are now 5778) for a life span of 300 to 500 years let alone 1000 years. Kol tuv Chaim Manaster -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Wed Oct 25 04:13:32 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2017 07:13:32 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Long Lifespans in Bereishis In-Reply-To: <9DE9360C549C46879FBF7291563A9387@hankPC> References: <9DE9360C549C46879FBF7291563A9387@hankPC> Message-ID: <20171025111332.GC22254@aishdas.org> On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 06:28:28PM -0400, hankman (RVM) wrote: : > (Note that Radak, comm. to Is. 65:20, is a bit stingier. He predicts : > lifespans of only 300 to 500 years. See also his commentary to : > Ps. 92:15. But the 12th century Babylonian Gaon R. Samuel b. Ali : > predicts lifespans closer to 1000 years!)" : This quote leads to an issue I will expand upon slightly in another : post. But the basic issue is if the world is Charuv at 6000 years and : yemos Moshiach are before the olom is charuv, (while olom keminhago : noheig) there is not enough time left (we are now 5778) for a life span : of 300 to 500 years let alone 1000 years. This all depends on the machloqes about defining olam haba and whether techiyas hameisim is permanent. As well as any machloqesin as to whether yemos hamoshiach starts with techiyas hameisim or ends with a new era, that itself starts with teshiyas hameisim. Rambam: olam haba means the non-physical world a neshamah is in between life and teshiyas hameisim, as well as after a second death. Since olam haba is the ultimate form of existence, defining that ultimate as the place souls go when dead necessitates a second death after techiyas hameisim. The Rambam (and the Iqarim, and others, I just picked on name for thumbnail-sketch reasons) then has to explain what the point of the second life is. Ramban (similarly, among others): olam haba, the ultimate existence, is body together with guf after techiyas hameisim. And therefore the post-th"m life must be external. According to the first shitah, it could be that post-th"m life is in gan eden is Adam's sense and thus life lasts as long as his could have. But then there's the question of whether your assumed dates hold.... My point is mainly that I think there are too many unknowns to even ask your question. I just anded up belaboring the one unknown I once wrote about. on how this machloqes may impact what is the point of Brikhas Gevurah ("Atah Gibor"). BTW, I just noticed, underlying that machloqes about what is olam haba and techiyas hameisim might be a difference in the definition of a person. It looks to me like the Rambam is saying a person is a soul who lives in a body. And therefore the ultimate in existence is not to have that body interpolated between me and experiencing Hashem's Presence. Whereas the Ramban is saying that a person is a synthesis of body and soul, and therefore cannot enjoy the rewards of their efforts when the two halves are separated. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger If a person does not recognize one's own worth, micha at aishdas.org how can he appreciate the worth of another? http://www.aishdas.org - Rabbi Yaakov Yosef of Polnoye, Fax: (270) 514-1507 author of Toldos Yaakov Yosef From hankman at bell.net Wed Oct 25 07:40:29 2017 From: hankman at bell.net (hankman) Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2017 10:40:29 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Long Lifespans in Bereishis In-Reply-To: <20171025111332.GC22254@aishdas.org> References: <9DE9360C549C46879FBF7291563A9387@hankPC> <20171025111332.GC22254@aishdas.org> Message-ID: R.Miciha Berger wrote: "On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 06:28:28PM -0400, hankman (RVM) wrote: :if the world is Charuv at 6000 years and : yemos Moshiach are before the olom is charuv, (while olom keminhago : noheig) there is not enough time left (we are now 5778) for a life span : of 300 to 500 years let alone 1000 years. This all depends on the machloqes about defining olam haba and whether techiyas hameisim is permanent. As well as any machloqesin as to whether yemos hamoshiach starts with techiyas hameisim or ends with a new era, that itself starts with teshiyas hameisim. ...." You also need to fit in when exactly in the sequence of these events Yom Hadin Hagodol happens according to each of these shitos. So the many events of "Achris Hatomim" that one need consider to compile a chronology of this mysterious period would include Gog uMagog, Moshiach be Yosef, coming of Eliyahu, yitaka bashofor gadol (before moshiach, or yom hadin hagodol, or techias hameisim?), the nevuos of Zecharyahu and other nevi'im about this period, Bayis shelishi, Kibutz golios, Moshiach ben Dovid (including how long is this period), vanquishing of the yetzer, Techias Hameisim (before Moshiach or before yom hadin or before both?), Yom hadin hagodol, yom hadin hakoton (after death?) Olom charuv (and to what extent it is charuv and why), Gan Eden, Olom haneshamos, Olam haba (final gemul, with or without a guf, and the ultimate purpose of creation so Hashem can be meitiv lezuloso). After writing this I checked out your "Mesukim Midevash" and apparently there will be at least four versions of this chronology (which you began to build in your article) lefi the Rambam, Ramban, Rav Saadia Gaon and the Ikkarim but needs some fleshing out. R Micha Berger wrote: "Ramban (similarly, among others): olam haba, the ultimate existence, is body together with guf after techiyas hameisim. And therefore the post-th"m life must be external. .... But then there's the question of whether your assumed dates hold.... My point is mainly that I think there are too many unknowns to even ask your question...." It is not clear to me what "assumed dates" or what the "unknowns" are that you mention? I only mentioned 5778. Is that date in doubt?? R. Micha Berger wrote: "BTW, I just noticed, underlying that machloqes about what is olam haba and techiyas hameisim might be a difference in the definition of a person. It looks to me like the Rambam is saying a person is a soul who lives in a body. And therefore the ultimate in existence is not to have that body interpolated between me and experiencing Hashem's Presence. Whereas the Ramban is saying that a person is a synthesis of body and soul, and therefore cannot enjoy the rewards of their efforts when the two halves are separated. Tir'u baTov! -Micha" The gemara in Sanhedrin that talks about the need for both the neshama and the guf to be together at yom hadin, works well with your peshat in the Ramban and could be a possible source for his position, but your explanation of the Rambam with the guf just being something donned by the neshama as necessary for its trip to this world, much like a diver dons scuba gear to enable him to function in this temporary environment, then much as it makes no senses to require the scuba gear at the divers trial, so too this gemara requiring the presence of the guf at the yom hadin doesn't really make much sense. Kol tuv Chaim Manaster From ben1456 at zahav.net.il Wed Oct 25 10:48:54 2017 From: ben1456 at zahav.net.il (Ben Waxman) Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2017 19:48:54 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] offering a higher salary Message-ID: <6ca926d4-2984-813b-af3a-e5fb0e765062@zahav.net.il> I've seen posts claiming that it is forbidden to offer cleaners a higher salary to work for you. While I can understand that it makes sense to say that no one can break a specific agreement for a specific day of work, why should it be forbidden to offer a higher salary to someone who has a long term agreement?? A, this is the common practice in the high tech world and I have never heard anyone say "Assur". It would seem that there is general agreement that this halacha simply doesn't apply today. Second, how can anyone be meshuabad in such a way to one person? Does a person wanting a higher salary have to simply quit without any idea about having another job? Ben From motti.yarchinai at mail.yahoo.com.au Wed Oct 25 12:39:33 2017 From: motti.yarchinai at mail.yahoo.com.au (Motti Yarchinai) Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2017 19:39:33 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Avodah] Psak source wanted In-Reply-To: <1857240052.122258.1508054451353@mail.yahoo.com> References: <1857240052.122258.1508054451353.ref@mail.yahoo.com> <1857240052.122258.1508054451353@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <270346387.4768895.1508960373045@mail.yahoo.com> Dear Micha and Avodah members, Thank you Micha for your reply and your attempts to locate a source. On Sun, Oct 15, 2017 at 08:00:51AM +0000, Motti Yarchinai via Avodah wrote: > Can anyone help me with a source for this psak: It is similar to what > the Rambam wrote... > Another posek writes something similar but couched in even more dramatic > terms. The following is not a verbatim quote (since the original is in > Hebrew) but something very close to it: > "And even if the residents of eretz yisrael are all ignoramuses > and peasants, and the authorities of chutz la'aretz are great > scholars and knowledgable in Torah and halachah, in calendric > matters we follow the peasants and ignoramuses, not the scholars > of chutz la'aretz." Micha replied: > Did you ever find a source? Google, Bar Ilan and I didn't turn > anything up.... No, I have not found it yet, but my memory of it is that I saw it in print, and, to my annoyance, I can't find the sefer, but it is bound to turn up sooner or later. When it does, I will repost with the source and quote. Meanwhile, if someone recognises it, please do let me know. Motti From sholom at aishdas.org Wed Oct 25 13:48:29 2017 From: sholom at aishdas.org (Sholom Simon) Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2017 16:48:29 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] A Great Name Message-ID: <20171025204831.CKZV22111.fed1rmfepo202.cox.net@fed1rmimpo210.cox.net> One of the implicit criticisms of Migdal Bavel was that they wanted to make a name for themselves. Then, at the beginning of Lech L'cha, H' tells Avram that he will make his name great. There must be something there . . . anybody have any thoughts? -- Sholom From zev at sero.name Wed Oct 25 20:57:37 2017 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2017 23:57:37 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] offering a higher salary In-Reply-To: <6ca926d4-2984-813b-af3a-e5fb0e765062@zahav.net.il> References: <6ca926d4-2984-813b-af3a-e5fb0e765062@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <03900eea-9674-1896-0842-5cba504a0eed@sero.name> On 25/10/17 13:48, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > I've seen posts claiming that it is forbidden to offer cleaners a higher > salary to work for you. I believe this halacha is a subset of "hasagas gevul", not in the Biblical sense, but in the commonly-used sense, which in in turn a subset of the obligation of ahavas yisrael. "Hasagas gevul" basically means that if you with to start a business and you have a choice between doing it somewhere that will harm me and somewhere that will not, then all else being equal you are obligated to take the second option out of consideration for me, because ve'ahavta lere`acha kamocha. Similarly, if I am renting a forest or an inn from a nochri, from which I make my living, and you offer him a higher rent, you are violating your obligation to value my interests equally with your own. It should be obvious, however, that if the landlord is also "re`acha" then this does not apply, because you have the same obligation to him as to me; if he could be getting more rent from his property then you should make him that offer, though he should give me a chance to match it, since I am the "bar metzra". I think the same thing is going on with the cleaners. If I have a nochris who is willing to clean for me for $N, you have no right to lure her away by offering more. But if she is "re`acha" then aderaba you have a mitzvah to offer her a chance to improve her income, but before taking your offer she should offer me the chance to match it. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From JRich at sibson.com Thu Oct 26 05:08:27 2017 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2017 12:08:27 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Jewish Action Message-ID: Since I can sometimes be critical of organizations (not here where I usually manage not to say anything negative [HT - My Mom ZLL"HH - "If you have nothing nice to say, don't say anything]), I want to give a shout out to the OU Fall Jewish Action. 1.) Moshe Baine poses the two questions I use as an individual/community test (i) How often do we factor God into our daily decisions, both large and small? [Me - how central is the Ratzon Hashem in our lives?] (ii) What are we prepared to "give up" to comply with what we perceive as God's wishes? [Me - does God always seem to agree with what you want?] 2.) Allen Fagin asks "whether we as a community view Yishuv Haaretz as a basic tenet of our spiritual aspirations? [Me - Tell me how often it's discussed or how many folks yearn (while we're at it, how many really yearn for the Beit Hamikdash?)] Now what do we do as a community and as individuals about any perceived shortfalls in these two areas is an old Avodah question but maybe it is gaining traction? KT 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: From micha at aishdas.org Thu Oct 26 07:13:06 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2017 10:13:06 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Jewish Action In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20171026141306.GA15203@aishdas.org> On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 12:08:27PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : 1.) Moshe Baine poses the two questions I use as an individual/community : test (i) How often do we factor God into our daily decisions, both large : and small? [Me - how central is the Ratzon Hashem in our lives?] (ii) : What are we prepared to "give up" to comply with what we perceive as : God's wishes? [Me - does God always seem to agree with what you want?] What you call question (i) gets a scathing answer in that recent and hotly discussed blog post, "Modern Orthodoxy from a Teenager's Perspective" by Eitan Gross. The-future-R Gross opines that it is common knowledge in MO circles that we dont make Ratzon Hashem central enough for MO to succeed. Modern Orthodoxy tries to create a balance that, at the moment, cannot work because we have no drive to be with Hashem and lack the philosophical and hashkafic perspective to articulate why we should be Jewish in a world with an assortment of other options. Therefore, we need to take a fresh look at education and schooling. There needs to be an emphasis on the truth of the tenets of Judaism, as well as an inspirational approach that creates a yearning and desire in the student to be closer to Hashem. And When I tried to publish this essay at a local Jewish newspaper they said "We cant publish this piece, it's too much for us. Plus you're only a senior in high school, so you don't have the authority to have a say in the current situation." Although they were against putting this essay to print, the head of the paper still agreed with me, "Modern Orthodoxy has major flaws and everyone knows it." If "everyone knows it", but no one does anything then it must be that they think Modern Orthodoxy is too big to change.... I think he means the Modern Orthodox community has major flaws, not the contept "Modern Orthodoxy" itself -- or why would he be so concerned with being able to save it? I need to add, this being Avodah, that this problem of the confusion between halakhah as a means and halakhah as an ends in-and-of-itself has symptoms in all our communities. Quoting myself, from my "manifesto" Tools and Goals ... How would this play out communally? One possible outcome is that we would find a community of very committed, very observant Jews, but who do not show all the signs of the holiness the Torah is supposed to bring us to. This could happen if there is insufficient attention to the entire notion of a goal beyond the halakhah, so that black letter halakhah -- that which can be measured, laid out in clear obligated or prohibited terms -- takes center seat without any attempt to become the kind of person more capable of fulfilling the full breadth of its commandments. There would be mixed reports of business ethics, scandals of respected rabbis committing fiscal crimes, others unable to control their lust, yet others abusing their power over their students in other ways. Another possible outcome is an idealistic community, but one whose ideals are not Torah derived. In such a community ideals would be taken from some segment of the surrounding culture, and halakhah would be reduced to a means of "blessing" goals that we assimilated from the outside, that at times will resemble the holiness Hashem has readied for us, and at times will differ. A third possibility is particular to a community that teaches the need to engage the world around it, to risk the battle of its challenges in order to use what's positive in the surrounding society to further our sanctity. Without a firm eye and a constant striving toward an ideal, the energy it takes to maintain this delicate balance too easily collapses into a life of compromise. And so, for too many in this community the negative elements of modernity are incorporated into their lives, and also for many strict observance itself suffers. Do these portraits sound familiar? The problem has another symptom which is less problematic -- the rise of Brisk over other darkhei halimmud. A culture in which O means following black-letter Shulchan Arukh will naturally gravitate toward a derekh halimmud that shuns explanations that are in terms of first principles that come before halakhah. RYBS's Halakhic Man denies they even exist. That said, R' Chaim Brisker's own life was more about values and acts of chessed than Arukh Chaim or Yoreh Dei'ah. The family noted this -- for all his lomdus, RCB's mateivah reads "Rav haChesed". The problem is not inherent to Brisk. Therefore, it will be interesting to see how MO evolves, and whether this remains their most pressing problem. YU now has a mashpiah, classes in the Aish Qodesh, Tanya, R' Nachman, it has singing minyanim. Within the halls of YU, Halakhic Man is facing growing competition. Lenaar al pi darko -- this diversity is healthy. But with more semichah students looking to the goals rather than stopping at the halachic tools, MO culture is bound to change in a way that reduces this issue. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When faced with a decision ask yourself, micha at aishdas.org "How would I decide if it were Ne'ilah now, http://www.aishdas.org at the closing moments of Yom Kippur?" Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From JRich at sibson.com Thu Oct 26 05:05:45 2017 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2017 12:05:45 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Timtum Halev Message-ID: There was an interesting article in the Journal "Ohr Yisrael" #16 by R'Avraham Rubin on Timtum Halev (spiritual pollution). His general conclusion was that eating something that would be classified as "forbidden foods," if you know it is such, will cause timtum halev (spiritual character defects) even if you are permitted to eat it in your case (e.g., pikuach nefesh - life-threatening situation). However, if you eat a "factually forbidden food" based on a mistaken halachic decision by an authorized halachic source, no such damage will occur. Interesting that this IIUC would yield the result that one could be halachically required to eat the "forbidden food" (rather than commit suicide by starving to death), yet still develop character defects because of it. Seems non-halachic man to me . I know we've discussed before-I submit a data point in that discussion. KT 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: From micha at aishdas.org Thu Oct 26 09:04:55 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2017 12:04:55 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Timtum Halev In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20171026160455.GD15203@aishdas.org> On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 12:05:45PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : ... "Ohr Yisrael" #16 by R'Avraham Rubin ... general conclusion was : that eating something that would be classified as "forbidden foods," : if you know it is such, will cause timtum halev (spiritual character : defects) even if you are permitted to eat it in your case (e.g., pikuach : nefesh - life-threatening situation). However, if you eat a "factually : forbidden food" based on a mistaken halachic decision by an authorized : halachic source, no such damage will occur. I invite RMRabi to comment on that last sentence. He and I debated for most of a year whether the Maharal would agree that someone who follows a mistaken pesaq is different in kind than someone who makes the mistake themselves. I presume that if eating because of "a mistaken halachic decision by an authorized halachic source" does not cause timtum heleiv, R Avraham Rubin would say that all the more so, eating food that as a matter of unknown fact happens to be kosher but we correctly rule may be eaten because of rov, chazaqah, bitul or whatever would not damage. I would think RAR is coming down on the side of saying that it's the sin, not the substance, which causes the spiritual damage. To my mind -- a hashkafically simpler position, since there is Justice to life being worse due to a sin than due to something premitted. In which case, RAR's opening ruling, that the person starting to death who eats the only available edible which happens to be non-kosher, would seem to be based on ruling that saving one's life overrides the prohibition (making it petura), not that the eating is actually permissible (hutra). For if it were hutra, how would the case differ from correctly following received pesaq? And if it is because of peturah, that the prohibition is being broken, but the violation is permissible for the sake of a greater value, then I can understand how its Just even if we were to say the cause is the substance. The sin is happening, and we know it's happening; we just chose the lesser sin. Lemah hadavar domeh: chemo is poison. For the sake of the greater danger, cancer, a person may take chemo. But the poison still does its effect. The person did what was medically recommended, and the recommendation was made knowing there was a self-destructive element to the act. : Interesting that this IIUC would yield the result that one could be : halachically required to eat the "forbidden food" (rather than commit : suicide by starving to death), yet still develop character defects : because of it. Seems non-halachic man to me.... Halachic man wouldn't ask the question of timtum haleiv to begin with. It is not a halachic category. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The fittingness of your matzos [for the seder] micha at aishdas.org isn't complete with being careful in the laws http://www.aishdas.org of Passover. One must also be very careful in Fax: (270) 514-1507 the laws of business. - Rav Yisrael Salanter From emteitz at gmail.com Thu Oct 26 09:58:57 2017 From: emteitz at gmail.com (elazar teitz) Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2017 12:58:57 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] offering a higher salary Message-ID: >If I have a nochris who is willing to clean for me for $N, you have no right to lure >her away by offering more. But if she is "re`acha" then aderaba you >have a mitzvah to offer her a chance to improve her income, but before >taking your offer she should offer me the chance to match it. Is it a mitzva to help improve a Jew's income, if it is at the expense of another Jew (especially when it is not done with the intent of helping the employee, but rather to help oneself)? EMT -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From zev at sero.name Thu Oct 26 15:06:37 2017 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2017 18:06:37 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] offering a higher salary In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 26/10/17 12:58, elazar teitz via Avodah wrote: >> If I have a nochris who is willing to clean for me for $N, you have no >> right to lure her away by offering more.? But if she is "re`acha" then >> aderaba you have a mitzvah to offer her a chance to improve her income, >> but before taking your offer she should offer me the chance to match it. > Is it a mitzva to help improve a Jew's income, if it is at the > expense of another Jew (especially when it is not done with the intent > of helping the employee, but rather to help oneself)? (1) You have the same mitzvah to love both of us, so whichever one you help is a mitzvah (2) She is probably (though not definitely) in more need than I am (3) If you're willing to pay more for her work then by definition that makes her work *worth* more, since the value of anything is defined as whatever it will fetch, so by making her the offer you're not hurting me, you're merely preventing me from (unbeknownst to either of us) getting an unwarranted benefit at her expense. Basically our arrangement is ona'ah, we're both in error about the value of her labour, and you're in a position to prevent it, so shouldn't you do so? (4) Your intent shouldn't matter. Tzedakah doesn't depend at all on kavanah. If someone is helped, it's a mitzvah even if you didn't mean it (cf shikcha), while if you meant to help someone and it didn't happen there's no mitzvah (cf Bava Basra 8b etc) -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From marty.bluke at gmail.com Sun Oct 29 03:15:35 2017 From: marty.bluke at gmail.com (Marty Bluke) Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2017 12:15:35 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Long Lifespans in Bereishis Message-ID: R' Chaim Manaster pointed out: "But the basic issue is if the world is Charuv at 6000 years and yemos Moshiach are before the olom is charuv, (while olom keminhago noheig) there is not enough time left (we are now 5778) for a life span of 300 to 500 years let alone 1000 years." The gemara (Sanhedrin 99) offers the following suggestions for how long the Messianic period will last: R' Eliezer - 40 years R' Dosa - 400 years Rebbi - 365 years Avimi - 7000 years R' Yehuda - the amount of time from creation until the Messiah comes R' Nachman Bar Yitzchak - the amount of time from the flood until the Messiah comes Interestingly enough the Gemara earlier stated that the world will last 6000 years, Sanhedrin 96B - Six thousand years were decreed upon the world: 2000 years of emptiness (without Torah), 2000 years of Torah, and 2000 years for Mashi'ach. This opinion of 6000 years is generally accepted, however, opinions 4-6 above clearly disagree with this. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ben1456 at zahav.net.il Sun Oct 29 22:34:43 2017 From: ben1456 at zahav.net.il (Ben Waxman) Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2017 07:34:43 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] offering a higher salary In-Reply-To: <6ca926d4-2984-813b-af3a-e5fb0e765062@zahav.net.il> References: <6ca926d4-2984-813b-af3a-e5fb0e765062@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <2e3529d9-23b9-3377-c2f6-ec65d4340f1a@zahav.net.il> After look a bit, I saw that the Aruch HaShulchan CM 237:3 paskens that this law only applies to a poor person. A poor person who finds something that he needs, you can't come along and offer more money for it. But if a rich person finds something that he wants (or employs someone) and this item is available, then the prohibition doesn't apply. It would seem that anyone who can hire a maid does not qualify as poor and I am willing to bet that there is a good supply of people willing to work. Ben On 10/25/2017 7:48 PM, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > I've seen posts claiming that it is forbidden to offer cleaners a > higher salary to work for you. While I can understand that it makes > sense to say that no one can break a specific agreement for a specific > day of work, why should it be forbidden to offer a higher salary to > someone who has a long term agreement?? A, this is the common practice > in the high tech world and I have never heard anyone say "Assur". It > would seem that there is general agreement that this halacha simply > doesn't apply today. From lisa at starways.net Mon Oct 30 03:39:03 2017 From: lisa at starways.net (Lisa Liel) Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2017 12:39:03 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] offering a higher salary In-Reply-To: <2e3529d9-23b9-3377-c2f6-ec65d4340f1a@zahav.net.il> References: <6ca926d4-2984-813b-af3a-e5fb0e765062@zahav.net.il> <2e3529d9-23b9-3377-c2f6-ec65d4340f1a@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <611bec39-509c-b161-d74f-63dbb523906e@starways.net> On 10/30/2017 7:34 AM, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > After look a bit, I saw that the Aruch HaShulchan CM 237:3 paskens > that this law only applies to a poor person. A poor person who finds > something that he needs, you can't come along and offer more money for > it.... > It would seem that anyone who can hire a maid does not qualify as poor > and I am willing to bet that there is a good supply of people willing > to work. Poor in halakha means not having what you're accustomed to have. It isn't an objective benchmark or a comparison to other people. Lisa From ben1456 at zahav.net.il Mon Oct 30 12:58:56 2017 From: ben1456 at zahav.net.il (Ben Waxman) Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2017 21:58:56 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] offering a higher salary In-Reply-To: <611bec39-509c-b161-d74f-63dbb523906e@starways.net> References: <6ca926d4-2984-813b-af3a-e5fb0e765062@zahav.net.il> <2e3529d9-23b9-3377-c2f6-ec65d4340f1a@zahav.net.il> <611bec39-509c-b161-d74f-63dbb523906e@starways.net> Message-ID: <8355ddf5-ae06-1774-b30d-dd05b89814a9@zahav.net.il> You think that these people would be willing to apply the word "poor" to themselves, even in regards to only this halacha? On 10/30/2017 12:39 PM, Lisa Liel wrote: > Poor in halakha means not having what you're accustomed to have.? It > isn't an objective benchmark or a comparison to other people. From bdbradley70 at hotmail.com Mon Oct 30 14:41:44 2017 From: bdbradley70 at hotmail.com (Ben Bradley) Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2017 21:41:44 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] offering a higher salary In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Poor in halakha means not having what you're accustomed to have. It isn't an objective benchmark or a comparison to other people. Lisa I don't believe it's as clear cut as that. It's true with regard to giving tzedaka, that the kehilla is required to maintain someone at the standard they were used to. But when it comes to the definition of an oni who's entitled to take from communal funds, the mishna in terumos or maasros defines it as someone who has a specific and objective amount of food or money in their possession. AFAIR halacha l'maaseh follows suit, and there are objective criteria before allowing someone to accept communal tzedaka funds. Regards Ben -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hankman at bell.net Mon Oct 30 12:03:44 2017 From: hankman at bell.net (hankman) Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2017 15:03:44 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Long Lifespans in Bereishis Message-ID: R. Marty Bluke wrote: ?The gemara (Sanhedrin 99) offers the following suggestions for how long the Messianic period will last: ... R' Dosa - 400 years Rebbi - 365 years Avimi - 7000 years R' Yehuda - the amount of time from creation until the Messiah comes R' Nachman Bar Yitzchak - the amount of time from the flood until the Messiah comes ....? Actually my original kasheh occurred to me during that recent daf yomi you refer to in Sanhedrin which was when I asked the same question you pose here. The question I posted on Avodah (basically the same idea) was just in reference to a previous post here and its remarks ? I just did not feel the need to broaden the kasheh ? perhaps I should have, just to be more comprehensive. Kol tuv Chaim Manaster -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From saulguberman at gmail.com Tue Oct 31 09:57:00 2017 From: saulguberman at gmail.com (Saul Guberman) Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2017 12:57:00 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] chopsticks Message-ID: Is it permissible to break apart chopsticks on shabbat at the meal to eat your sushi? Someone claimed it is makeh b'patish and just use a fork or stab with the chopsticks still together. Others thought that tzorech ochel nefesh might allow them to be broken and used , as it is all disposable anyway. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From JRich at sibson.com Thu Nov 2 05:12:05 2017 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2017 12:12:05 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] TEXTUAL JUDAISM AND THE LIVING TORAH Message-ID: <9e51a7f4ea644e829db8503f8f0451fe@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> An old Avodah favorite :) KT Joel Rich http://etzion.org.il/en/siman-114-prayers-wind-rain-and-dew TEXTUAL JUDAISM AND THE LIVING TORAH In his introduction to the Beit Yosef, R. Yosef Karo clearly asserts that since it is impossible for someone of his stature to set himself up as arbiter among the great Rishonim, for his rulings will be based on the majority of the opinions of the Rif, the Rambam, and the Rosh. Yet, here we have a case where the Rambam and the Rosh agree that an entire country which needs rain can mention and ask for rain in the summer, while the Rif does not dispute this ruling since he does not relate to this case. Although the Rambam's ruling is in the commentary to the Mishna, this has the same status as the Mishneh Torah - so I understand from Kesef Mishneh, also written by R. Yosef Karo, to Hilkhot Talmud Torah 3:10 at the end - and in addition, the Beit Yosef on our siman claims that the Mishneh Torah also rules like the commentary to the Mishna. How can the Beit Yosef rule against them?! The Beit Yosef emphasizes that the custom of the entire world contradicts the Rosh's ruling. He also suggests that this ruling was never accepted in practice. How can we weigh these factors against the authority of the written sources? There is a general difference in approach among poskim regarding how to weigh local custom against textual authority. The Tosafot in many places endeavor to reconcile the text with the custom (see for excample, Shabbat 48a d.h. De-zeitim); other sages more readily condemn custom on the authority of the plain sense of the text. It seems that several factors bear on the relative importance: 1. How universal is the custom? Responsa frequently point out that the reaction to a seldom-encountered situation can not be considered a "custom" - merely a precedent. 2. Among whom is the custom widespread? If we are certain that even scholars and meticulous people conducted themselves in a certain way, this has more weight than the behavior of the common people, pious though they may be. 3. Are opinions opposing the custom recognized? Sometimes we find statements to the effect that if a community had been aware that a great authority opposed their custom, they would not have adopted it. Conversely, a custom may be defended by pointing out that it was upheld even though opposing views were clearly known. 4. Perhaps in an area of halakha whose basis is in custom, though it subsequently achieved the status of binding halakha, we should give greater weight to custom. In our case, the Beit Yosef perceived that the custom of going according to Eretz Yisrael was universal, even among scholars, and even among people who were certainly aware of the statements of the Rambam and the Rosh. In addition, he may have considered the "customary" aspect of prayer to have special importance - the fact that we pray as a community renders special importance to community customs. Therefore, even though the Beit Yosef is, according to his own assertion, an extreme "textualist," in this case he was persuaded to rule in accordance with custom. Almost all Acharonim are extremely reluctant to dispute Rishonim - though there are notable exceptions, such as the Maharshal (who lived, in any case, close to the era of the Rishonim). However, many later scholars do feel that however unworthy they may be, it is their responsibility as decisors to decide AMONG the Rishonim. The Beit Yosef's reticence in this regard is far from universal. A lot of noise is still being made regarding an article written a couple of years ago by a leading scholar of Judaism (who is also a Talmid Chakham, though the two do not always go together) who posits that only recently have texts taken such a central role in Jewish life. He claims that before World War II custom was king, and accepted customs of respectable communities were not scrutinized in the light of codes. I can not comment on the historical reality of three generations ago, but I think we should keep in mind that the tension between custom and written authority is an ancient one, and the "advocacy" of texts is hardly a new idea. 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: From zev at sero.name Thu Nov 2 20:38:21 2017 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2017 23:38:21 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] TEXTUAL JUDAISM AND THE LIVING TORAH In-Reply-To: <9e51a7f4ea644e829db8503f8f0451fe@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <9e51a7f4ea644e829db8503f8f0451fe@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: On 02/11/17 08:12, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: > The Beit Yosef emphasizes that the custom of the entire world > contradicts the Rosh's ruling. Not the entire world. The Rosh himself reported that he was gratified to discover, while travelling through Provence on his way from Germany to Spain, that they did it the right way. This reinforced him in his determination to try to change the practice in Spain. > In our case, the Beit Yosef perceived that the custom of going > according to Eretz Yisrael was universal, On the contrary, *nobody* goes according to EY. The universal custom is to go according to Iraq. The Rosh wanted all Mediterranean Jews, who share EY's climate, to follow EY, as the Provencals did, but they refused. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From meirabi at gmail.com Thu Nov 2 22:38:08 2017 From: meirabi at gmail.com (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi) Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2017 16:38:08 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] Avraham A Cooked, Angels Ate - Bassar BeChalav Message-ID: Avraham Avinu entertained three angels masquerading as human visitors; feeding them goat flesh cooked with milk. Generations later, due to this meal, the angels? protest, that the Torah ought not be given to the Jews, was quashed. There are 3 issues that require clarification: ++ Let?s say the angels sinned by eating flesh cooked with milk [which seems to be the plain meaning of the Medrash] how does that silence their protest? ++ Furthermore, flesh cooked with milk would not have been served to the guests: ++ Avraham Avinu did not cook goat with milk since he adhered to all Mitzvos of the Torah. ++ Even if it was cooked inadvertently, he would not have offered it to the visitors since no benefit may be derived from it. Reb Meir Simcha of Dvinsk explains in Meshech Chochmah, that no sin was transgressed since it was BP flesh, which may be cooked with milk. The angels? protests were silenced because they accepted that Avraham Avinu was Jewish and therefore able to Shecht. Had they considered him not Jewish, they would not have eaten because Shechita cannot be performed by a non-Jew. Thus, the angels had already conceded that Avraham Avinu had an inalienable connection to the Torah and therefore was able to Shecht and create a Kosher BP. That being the case, they could not question nor protest his chosen children?s rights to that heritage. Of all aspects of BP this particular Halacha is so counter-intuitive, and such a shock to our expectations, that even when Reb Chaim Kanievsky said that cooking BP flesh with milk, is "Kosher VeYosher" (more than 100%) Rabbanim who were with me and heard him say this, will not publicly admit to it. Rav Moshe Sternbuch responded upon being asked if this was a DaAs Yachid (a lone opinion), "Who argues?" - R Moshe quotes this Meshech Chochmah MoAdim UzManim [?"? ??' ??"?] and thereby suggests another reason for eating dairy on Shavuos - after all, it was via dairy that we succeeded to silence the angels? protests. However, my son Yehudah, argues - in that case, we really ought to be eating BBPbCh [Basar BP beChalav] on Shavuos. That the BP may be cooked with milk is so obvious to Reb Meir Simcha, that he does not bother to bring proof or expand upon the point. Clearly, BP is utterly unlike any regular cow sheep or goat that may not be cooked with dairy. = = = According to our traditions, Avraham Avinu maintained all the laws of the Torah and also all the Rabbinic enactments. Rashi, Genesis 26:5; Yevamos 21. Accordingly, our Sages explain that Avraham did not offer the bread [Rashi, Genesis 18:8; BMetzia 87] to his guests because Sara had miraculously rejuvenated and become ritually unclean, making the bread unclean. Although no more than a stringency Avraham Avinu would not serve it to his non Jewish guests - presumably, if Avraham Avinu would not eat it himself, he would not serve it to his guests - makes one pause and contemplate about those who Kosher certify various foods and establishments but will not eat that food themselves. = = = There are some who try to squeeze into the words of the MChochmah that it is the milk which is not dairy because meat may be cooked with milk collected from a Shechted beast, Chalav Shechuta, and a BP is deemed to be a Shechuta. There is a contrary argument however - some propose that Chalav Shechuta is not ?mother?s milk?, meaning milk from a beast that can potentially be a mother, whereas a BP can certainly be a mother, so its milk is not Chalav Shechuta and may not be cooked with meat. Either way, the argument collapses completely because Avraham Avinu would not violate the Rabbinic law that prohibits cooking with Chalav Shechuta [or deer or giraffe milk] Best, Meir G. Rabi 0423 207 837 +61 423 207 837 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Fri Nov 3 03:24:28 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2017 06:24:28 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Avraham A Cooked, Angels Ate - Bassar BeChalav In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20171103102428.GB3833@aishdas.org> On Fri, Nov 03, 2017 at 04:38:08PM +1100, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: : Avraham Avinu entertained three angels masquerading as human visitors; : feeding them goat flesh cooked with milk. Generations later, due to this : meal, the angels' protest, that the Torah ought not be given to the Jews, : was quashed. Where's this medrash? Tosafists (Daas Zeqeinim, Bereishis 18:8) note the contradiction between it and the medrash that the avos observe all of halakhah (even eiruv tavshilin) and suggests the following. It is also the Sifsei Chakhamim's and Bekhor Shor's take on the pasuq. The chumash says, "vayiqach chem'ah vechalav uven habaqar asher asah". There is no indication in the peshat that the veal was made in the butter and/or milk. And in fact, the milk is mentioned first. Leading to the opinion that Avraham even served them in a way that kept them from consuming dairy immediately after meat! The SC says he served them the milk so that they wouldn't have to wait while hungrily for the veal while it was shechted and cooked. The Radaq gives a different sesolution: Avraham prepared both so as to give them a choice of what to eat. : Reb Meir Simcha of Dvinsk explains in Meshech Chochmah, that no sin was : transgressed since it was BP flesh, which may be cooked with milk. Lo zakhisi lehavin haRav Meir Simcha haKohein, nor R' Kanievsky. Isn't that only mutar deRabbanan if it is killed before it can even stands up, so as to avoid mar'is ayin, like shechitah? And the gemara's example of the avos keeping kol haTorah kulah is Avraham keeping eiruv -- so that that aggadita means to include derabbanans. And even if we're saying that we're talking about BP without the taqanos, And if it is ben paqua and thus didn't need shechitah, why does the asame medrash make a point of Avraham shechting it? The tradition that Avraham Avinu authored seifer haYetzirah (for which I also have no source) includes the resolution that a calf made through ShY ("uven havaqar ASHER ASAH"), rather than invoking BP. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger A person lives with himself for seventy years, micha at aishdas.org and after it is all over, he still does not http://www.aishdas.org know himself. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From zev at sero.name Fri Nov 3 08:27:40 2017 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2017 11:27:40 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Avraham A Cooked, Angels Ate - Bassar BeChalav In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4ed7f10d-c1ee-c201-6de4-61e0564f59fd@sero.name> On 03/11/17 01:38, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: > feeding them goat flesh cooked with milk Since when? He fed them beef, together with cream (or butter) and milk, separately but simultaneously. > The angels? protests were silenced because they accepted that Avraham > Avinu was Jewish and therefore able to Shecht. Had they considered him > not Jewish, they would not have eaten because Shechita cannot be > performed by a non-Jew. Thus, the angels had already conceded that > Avraham Avinu had an inalienable connection to the Torah and therefore > was able to Shecht and create a Kosher BP. That being the case, they > could not question nor protest his chosen children?s rights to that > heritage. If so then why bring the milk into it at all? Simply by eating meat he'd shechted (or rather that his son Yishma`el had shechted) they had conceded all that (according to this explanation) was required. Why complicate the matter with questions of basar bechalav? Therefore it's clear that that was not the issue. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From micha at aishdas.org Fri Nov 3 05:44:11 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2017 08:44:11 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] TEXTUAL JUDAISM AND THE LIVING TORAH In-Reply-To: References: <9e51a7f4ea644e829db8503f8f0451fe@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20171103124411.GC23679@aishdas.org> On Thu, Nov 02, 2017 at 11:38:21PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : On 02/11/17 08:12, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: :>The Beit Yosef emphasizes that the custom of the entire world :>contradicts the Rosh's ruling. : Not the entire world. The Rosh himself reported that he was : gratified to discover, while travelling through Provence on his way : from Germany to Spain, that they did it the right way... Are you disagreeing with the BY (no citation so I can't check myself), with RJR's presentation of the BY? Or, are we ignoring the fact that the Rosh lived well before the BY and could have seen a Provincial minhag that had died by the mechaber's time. The BY could well be wrong. We have other examples of famous rishonim and acharonim who didn't know some minhag of other communities and thought regional norm was universal. I just want to understand which of the above we're discussing. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger We are what we repeatedly do. micha at aishdas.org Thus excellence is not an event, http://www.aishdas.org but a habit. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Aristotle From zev at sero.name Fri Nov 3 09:02:59 2017 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2017 12:02:59 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] TEXTUAL JUDAISM AND THE LIVING TORAH In-Reply-To: <20171103124411.GC23679@aishdas.org> References: <9e51a7f4ea644e829db8503f8f0451fe@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> <20171103124411.GC23679@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 03/11/17 08:44, Micha Berger wrote: > On Thu, Nov 02, 2017 at 11:38:21PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > : On 02/11/17 08:12, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: > :>The Beit Yosef emphasizes that the custom of the entire world > :>contradicts the Rosh's ruling. > > : Not the entire world. The Rosh himself reported that he was > : gratified to discover, while travelling through Provence on his way > : from Germany to Spain, that they did it the right way... > > Are you disagreeing with the BY (no citation so I can't check > myself), with RJR's presentation of the BY? Not disagreeing so much as pointing out that "the entire world" doesn't mean quite that. In fact the Tur on which the BY is commenting also quotes his father's report about the minhag in Provence. And the BY further quotes the Rosh that "uchvar nahagu gam kein biktzat mekomot" to start on the 7th. So later when he says "shelo nitkablu divrei haRosh, vechol ha`olam lo nahagu kein", I think this must be understood as a generalization, just as we do when we say "der velt" does this or that, and we clearly don't mean literally everyone. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From sholom at aishdas.org Fri Nov 3 11:32:44 2017 From: sholom at aishdas.org (Sholom Simon) Date: Fri, 03 Nov 2017 14:32:44 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] VAYERA ? WHO IS HKBH TALKING TO? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20171103183247.KRPQ6746.fed1rmfepo102.cox.net@fed1rmimpo109.cox.net> Rabbi Meir G. Rabi notes/asks: >Sara laughs [18:12] Gd is not happy > >[18:13] HKBH confronts Avraham, ?Why did Sara laugh off the blessing >that she have a child? Am I not able to arrange she give birth? I >assure you, I?ll be back and you?ll see she will have a child.? > >But why is HKBH asking this of Avraham? Does HKBH expect Avraham to >be able to explain? > >It seems this question is really an indictment of sorts. > >Is Avraham being blamed for Sara?s weakness? > >Why does Avraham confront [18:19] Sara? He does not doubt what HKBH >has told him? > >And when Sara denies it, why does Avraham rebuke her? Is it >Avraham?s responsibility to ensure she confesses? I just heard a shiur (YUTorah!) from RHS who addressed this. He also threw in the question: why is H" telling loshon harah to Avraham? RMF brings that In the Gemara (somewhere) it says that it's permissible to tell loshon harah to the subject's rebbe, so that the rebbe can give tochacha or musar to the subject, and RMF (or RHS) says that's what's happenning here (viewing Avraham as Sarah's rebbe, in a way). -- Sholom From akivagmiller at gmail.com Fri Nov 3 14:05:30 2017 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2017 17:05:30 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] chopsticks Message-ID: . R" Saul Guberman asked: > Is it permissible to break apart chopsticks on shabbat at the > meal to eat your sushi? Someone claimed it is makeh b'patish > and just use a fork or stab with the chopsticks still > together. Others thought that tzorech ochel nefesh might > allow them to be broken and used, as it is all disposable > anyway. Rabbi Doniel Neustadt raises a similar question at https://torah.org/torah-portion/weekly-halacha-5772-beshalach/ I would think that the situations are similar; even if they aren't identical, looking up the sources may help to find the answer about chopsticks. > Question: Leben or yogurt cups sometimes come attached to each > other and must be separated along a perforated line before > they can be eaten individually. Is that permitted to be done > on Shabbos? > > Discussion: Contemporary poskim debate whether or not it is > permitted to separate attached yogurt or leben cups from each > other. Some consider it a violation of Mechatech and Makeh > b?patish[21] while others hold it is permitted altogether[22]. > > 21. Rav Y.S. Elyashiv (Orchos Shabbos 12:12, Me?or ha-Shabbos, > vol. 2, pg. 551). > > 22. Rav S.Z. Auerbach (Orchos Shabbos 12:18. note 31, Shulchan > Shelomo 314:13-3). Akiva Miller From meirabi at mail.gmail.com Sat Nov 4 05:45:14 2017 From: meirabi at mail.gmail.com (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi) Date: Sat, 4 Nov 2017 23:45:14 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] Avraham A Cooked, Angels Ate - Bassar BeChalav Message-ID: 1] no one disputes that the Meshech Chochmah says what he says 2] there are many explanations to resolve the meat and milk issue, we are not disputing them, just explaining one of them 3] there is [surprisingly] no Issur of Maris Ayin preventing cooking some iterations of BP meat with milk - the proof is from this episode as presented by this Medrash and explained by the MChochma. 4] The decree that after the BP has stood up, Hifris AGKarka, it requires Shechitah [and presumably is also Assur to cook with milk] does not apply to a BP that is found as a non fully gestated, Lo KaLu Lo Chadashav. 5] Avraham did not Shecht it - on the contrary he directed Yishmael to prepare it - Furthermore, because it was a BP it did not require Shechita which is why he could direct Yishmael to kill it, and there was also no problem of Bassar SheNisAlem Min HaAyin. 6] Indeed, even had the angels eaten plain meat Shechted by AAvinu, there would have been adequate proof that they accepted his status of Kedushas Yisrael, it just so happened that AAvinu wanted to serve his visitors a delicacy, Beef Stroganoff. 7] I really do not know why I assumed it was a goat From zev at sero.name Sat Nov 4 16:10:52 2017 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Sat, 4 Nov 2017 19:10:52 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Avraham A Cooked, Angels Ate - Bassar BeChalav In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <0d614669-3c79-3c22-d137-b4b21530183f@sero.name> On 04/11/17 08:45, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi wrote: > 6] Indeed, even had the angels eaten plain meat Shechted by AAvinu, > there would have been adequate proof that they accepted his status of > Kedushas Yisrael, it just so happened that AAvinu wanted to serve his > visitors a delicacy, Beef Stroganoff. Except that Rashi explicitly says otherwise, that the delicacy he served was tongue in mustard, for which he needed *three* animals. There is no hint of any cooking in milk. The Meshech Chochma needs a mokor for this. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From meirabi at mail.gmail.com Sat Nov 4 05:56:05 2017 From: meirabi at mail.gmail.com (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi) Date: Sat, 4 Nov 2017 23:56:05 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] VAYERA ? WHO IS HKBH TALKING TO? Message-ID: Furthermore, HKBH is transgressing Lashon Hara by disclosing to Avraham that Sara laughed. It is pretty clear that Sara's indiscretion was disclosed to Avraham because it was necessary for AAvinu to know, as we see, he rebuked Sara for laughing. Avraham was responsible for this shortcoming of Sara - this properly explains all these Qs HKBH expected Avraham to respond as he did. The question is really an indictment of sorts. Avraham is blamed for Sara's indiscretion? Therefore, Avraham confronts [18:19] Sara. And when Sara denies it, Avraham rebukes her. It is Avraham's responsibility to ensure she confesses. Best, Meir G. Rabi From meirabi at mail.gmail.com Mon Nov 6 12:30:23 2017 From: meirabi at mail.gmail.com (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi) Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2017 07:30:23 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] HKBH Rebukes Avraham for Sara's Shortcomings In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: continuing from prev post - > Sara laughs [18:12] Gd is not happy > [18:13] HKBH confronts Avraham, ... Preserving harmony [Yevamos 65b, in this case between Araham and Sara] compels HKBH to lie to Avraham [HKBH reported that Sara said, "I am too old to have children", when in fact she said, "my master is old"] and yet HKBH, rather than remaining silent to preserve peace, reports Sara's indiscretion to Avraham. Furthermore, aside from being likely to cause strife between Avraham and Sara, this report is a horribly demeaning Lashon Hara. Scoffing at HKBH's ability to grant her a child, in spite of it being uttered by what might easily have been described as a foolish visitor, is a blight upon Sara which HKBH held against her. And she understood the correctness of the criticism and felt shamed, as we see that she [apparently] instinctively and immediately denied it [18:15] It seems clear that HKBH reported this to Avraham, rather than directly or indirectly to Sara, not only to correct Sara but also to rebuke Avraham. HKBH was criticising Avraham for Sara's shortcoming. From micha at aishdas.org Mon Nov 6 17:55:31 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2017 20:55:31 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Questioning Authority In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20171107015531.GC12418@aishdas.org> On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 09:41:32AM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : I have always felt that it is (or ought to be) possible and permissible to : *question* authority without challenging or rejecting authority... I would have said "to ask questions", as to me "to question" something is indeed to challenge. But that's just an English or perhaps English dialect issue. What's nice is that we don't have this issue in halachic jargon: there is a clear difference between 1- a she'eilah, asking for information, ibua'ei lehu / miba'ei on the oe hand, and 2- a qushya ("qasha"), tiyuvta, meisivei, where we challenge the given statement. .... : But frequently, the truth is that the parent has very good reasons for what : he says. It's just that he's unable to put those reasons into clear words. : He can't even explain it to himself in simple terms, because it is simply a : gut feeling that he has, based on experience and intuition, he sees that : this is the action or inaction which must be followed in this particular : situation. As far as I can tell, this is what RYBS calls "mesorah", and the same notion of "mesorah" RHS invokves when arguing against ordaining women or women leading inessential portions of davening? (As opposed to those who think of "mesorah" as referring to mimeticism.) : I think this is analogous to Torah leaders and Torah followers. When the : leaders tell the followers what to do, or what to avoid, it is entirely : reasonable for the followers to request explanations from the leaders. This : is especially so, if the explanation will help them comply with the : directive, or teach them how to apply the directive to other situations. : But these requests must be made respectfully, carefully, and only up to a : certain point. We ask a poseiq a she'eilah, not a qushya. And -- as noted by the Maharal in the Beer haGolah RMRabi and I beat to death -- we should be expecting to understand rather than blindly follow. The limit you speak of comes for the fact that a feel for how the halakhah ought to be inherently can't be articulated. To repply R/Dr Moshe Koppel's metaphor for halakhah, as much as halakhah runs like a legal system, it also works like a language. People who only know English as a second language could know rules of conjugation, but it takes serious immersion in the language to know what kinds of poetic license works and what violates the limits of acceptible English. We native speakers know what "sounds right". But if an immigrant were to ask why "the red big ball" sounds weird but "the big red ball" sounds normal, how many of us could explain it? And if we did come up with an explanation, isn't it a post-facto construct rather than the more by-feel way the determination was really made? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger For those with faith there are no questions. micha at aishdas.org For those who lack faith there are no answers. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yaakov of Radzimin Fax: (270) 514-1507 From micha at aishdas.org Mon Nov 6 18:30:37 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2017 21:30:37 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] eitz hachaim In-Reply-To: <61f0b606-b859-4475-eef8-a10489e74f1c@starways.net> References: <61f0b606-b859-4475-eef8-a10489e74f1c@starways.net> Message-ID: <20171107023037.GE12418@aishdas.org> On Sun, Oct 15, 2017 at 05:41:04PM -0400, hankman via Avodah wrote: : What exactly was the eitz hachaim all about. The simple pshat doesn't : make any sense. ... Kodem hacheit he was not : a bar misah so he had no need of it, after the cheit he was prevented : from accessing it! So when would it ever be useful to Adam? On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 10:51:28AM +0300, Lisa Liel via Avodah wrote: : I don't understand the question. He was prevented from accessing it : *because* of the cheit. Had he not sinned, you say he would have had : no need for it, but who is to say that its only function was to make : him live forever..... Note how the Torah is also called "eitz chaim (hi lamachaziqim bahh)." So I think Lisa's notion that the eitz chaim likely had another function is quite probable. Likely its primary function was to provide the da'as that would lead to arichas yamim. Like the Torah does -- even if its arichas yamim appears not to be in olam hazeh. There is also the idea that there was only one tree in the iddle of the garden, an eitz hachaim upon which grew a branch bearing the peri eitz hada'as tov vara. Or maybe that the eitz vhaim was the rooots from which the eitz hadaas grew. I don't know -- I only heard about it second-hand (multiple times) by people quoting "sifrei qabbalah" (as though that counts as a citation). Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger If you won't be better tomorrow micha at aishdas.org than you were today, http://www.aishdas.org then what need do you have for tomorrow? Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rebbe Nachman of Breslov From micha at aishdas.org Mon Nov 6 18:04:55 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2017 21:04:55 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] A Great Name In-Reply-To: <20171025204831.CKZV22111.fed1rmfepo202.cox.net@fed1rmimpo210.cox.net> References: <20171025204831.CKZV22111.fed1rmfepo202.cox.net@fed1rmimpo210.cox.net> Message-ID: <20171107020455.GD12418@aishdas.org> On Wed, Oct 25, 2017 at 04:48:29PM -0400, Sholom Simon via Avodah wrote: : One of the implicit criticisms of Migdal Bavel was that they wanted : to make a name for themselves. Then, at the beginning of Lech L'cha, : H' tells Avram that he will make his name great. : There must be something there... anybody have any thoughts? First question... If all of humanity was participating (minus two epople -- Avraham and Ashur), who exactly were they trying to build up their reputation for? Whereas after the Haflagah, man was split into numerous communities, the notion of being known broadly makes sense. And if you want to spread your teachings, such fame is useful. Yes, I think the contrast is meaningful -- the people who got caught up in ego to the point of irrationality wanted fame for its own sake. After all, it had no logical value in their context. Whereas Afraham was granted fame as part of Hashem aiding his success, and fame is positive. It's not a question, it's the point. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Between stimulus & response, there is a space. micha at aishdas.org In that space is our power to choose our http://www.aishdas.org response. In our response lies our growth Fax: (270) 514-1507 and our freedom. - Victor Frankl, (MSfM) From cantorwolberg at cox.net Mon Nov 6 23:30:51 2017 From: cantorwolberg at cox.net (Richard Wolberg) Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2017 02:30:51 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Gilgul Hanefesh Message-ID: I have heard many conflicting opinions about our belief in reincarnation. I hope and pray it is not true. ?One life is enough!? Is there a definitive Jewish belief? I have even heard some believe in ?Transmigration of the Soul? which is even more scary. As an impressionable kid, I once had a rabbi tell me that if you don?t wash netilat yadayim prior to eating, you will come back as a dog. The following is an excerpt by an article in the Aish.com Newsletter by Sara Yoheved Rigler. there are hints to reincarnation in the Bible and early commentaries (1), while in Kabbalah, Judaism?s mystical tradition, overt references to reincarnation abound. The Zohar, the basic text of Jewish mysticism (attributed to Rabbi Shimon Bar Yochai, a 1st century sage) assumes gilgul neshamot [the recycling of souls] as a given, and the Ari, the greatest of all Kabbalists, whose 16th teachings are recorded in, Shaar HaGilgulim, traced the reincarnations of many Biblical figures. While some authorities, such as Saadia Gaon (10th century) denied reincarnation as a Jewish concept, from the 17th century onward, leading rabbis of normative Judaism, such as the Gaon of Vilna and the Chafetz Chaim (2), referred to gilgul neshamot as a fact. (1)? See Deut. 33:6, and Targum Onkeles and Targum Yonosson on that verse. Also see Isaiah 22:14. (2)? Mishnah Berurah 23:5 and Shaar HaTzion 622:6 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From lisa at starways.net Tue Nov 7 02:43:04 2017 From: lisa at starways.net (Lisa Liel) Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2017 12:43:04 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Gilgul Hanefesh In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3ad8c297-8019-3aa5-de3b-800ffe91d6c9@starways.net> On 11/7/2017 9:30 AM, Richard Wolberg via Avodah wrote: ... > Is there a definitive Jewish belief? > I have even heard some believe in "Transmigration of the Soul" which > is even more scary. As an impressionable kid, I once had a rabbi tell me > that if you don't wash netilat yadayim prior to eating, you will come > back as a dog. As I understand it, gilgul neshamot is not the same as the eastern idea of reincarnation, where one person's soul literally incarnates again in another body and lives another life. Rather, on a spiritual level, the soul of one person can "match" the soul of someone who lived previously. Either by harmony or dissonance, to use a musical metaphor. In Seder HaDorot, it talks incessantly about how some person or other was the gilgul, or tikkun, of a previous person. But it sometimes has multiple people as the gilgul or tikkun of a previous person, which makes more sense given the "match" concept. Kabbalistically, at least according to R' Aryeh Kaplan, the spiritual dimension is one of similarities and differences. Two things that are more similar are "closer" and two things that are less similar are "further apart". So if your soul is very similar to that of someone who lived before, you could have such a "match". You might even dream memories that the previous soul experienced. That doesn't make you that person. And since the state of a person's soul changes throughout their life, their "match" to someone who lived previously can come and go as well. To give an example, Seder HaDorot says that Rabbi Akiva was the gilgul/tikkun of Zimri ben Salu. The 24K Bnei Shimon who died in the plague following Zimri's actions match the 24K talmidim of Rabbi Akiva, for example. But while Zimri took Kosbi b'issur, Rabbi Akiva married the wife of Tyrannus Rufus b'heter, after she converted. Hence restoring a balance that Zimri had violated. I don't buy the "reincarnated as a dog" or "as a fish" stuff. Those who do, I suppose they have on whom to rely, but you don't have to buy into it yourself. (NB: While Googling to see if there was a website that talked about this, I found this article from Aish, which was very interesting. It included Shechem and Dina in the equation as well. http://www.aish.com/tp/i/moha/97291469.html) Lisa From micha at aishdas.org Tue Nov 7 13:54:20 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2017 16:54:20 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] 17 Marcheshvan Message-ID: <20171107215420.GA15523@aishdas.org> Yesterday, the 17th Marcheshvan, was the anniversary of two events: 1- The rain of the mabul began; and 2- 2 Nov 1917, the day the British Foreign Secretary, Lord Alfred Balfour, sent the famous letter to Baron Lionel Walter Rothchild. Anyone want to connect the dots between the two? Two things I did notice: - Both were first steps, far from the final yeshu'ah. - Both were first followed by major destruction before anything positive could be seen from them. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger I have great faith in optimism as a philosophy, micha at aishdas.org if only because it offers us the opportunity of http://www.aishdas.org self-fulfilling prophecy. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Arthur C. Clarke From micha at aishdas.org Tue Nov 7 14:54:02 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2017 17:54:02 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Torah precheit? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20171107225402.GA26849@aishdas.org> On Thu, Oct 19, 2017 at 05:47:09AM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : R' Chaim Manaster asked: :> I have been trying to understand what the geshtalt of Torah :> was precheit of the eitz hadaas... ... :> The many consequences seem to be as follows: there would be :> no avdus in Mitzrayim, therefore no...... : One can ask similar questions about other turning-points in history. : What if Kayin had not killed Hevel? What if the world has not gone to : Avodah Zara a few generations later? What if Yishmael and/or Esav had : not gone of the derech? What if Moshe Rabenu had acted differently by : the rock? To get really confused... The Torah, like it's Author, is lemaaleh min hazman. What aspect of the Torah we mean by that aside for a moment, that means it wasn't written before the eitz hadaas, Kayin killing Hevel, Dor Enosh, galus Mitzrayim, etc... Torah doesn't enter the timeline until it is revealed at Har Sinai. Which means that there is no question about Hashem's "foreknowledge" and bechirah chafshi about anything written in the Torah that happens before Matan Torah. We can't talk about Hashem Knowing what we *will* decide until that Knowledge enters the timeline. There is no "before" or after to His knowing, only to when He informs others of it. So, for events that precede Har Sinai, the Torah can contain those decisions. There is no "what if" because Hashem Knows that that what wouldn't. No more a problem than if the Torah were written /after/ those events. Hey, I warned you I was opening the door to confusion. Then there is the question of the supernal Torah vs the form we got. As per the Ramban about the Torah without the letters separated into the words we have now. (Tangent: If one were to take that shitas haRamban at face value, there is meaning to the pesuqim with the words redivided. So, why isn't that one of the Middos shehaTorah Nidreshes Bahen?) : And there are yet others. Torah manifests itself differently to a : kohen than to a levi, and differently to a woman than to a man. And so : on... And on Sun, Oct 22, 2017 at 04:15:49PM -0400, RCM replied: : R. Akiva Miller wrote: ""If there is life on other planets, might they : possibly have a Torah? But Mitzrayim doesn't exist there, and Moshe : never lived there!" That question bothered me for a very long time," : Strangely enough, I had similar thoughts years back. As a young bachur : in yeshivo, my rebbi was teaching us that their was a period during : which the progenitor of kelal Yisroel would happen. I asked what would : have happened if there had been another deep thinker who came to the : same realization and belief that Avraham did. He answered that there : would have been two (or more) chosen peoples to eventually be mekabel : Torah. It didn't occur to me at the time to ask, would they each have the : "same" Torah or each get a tailored version to their (eventual) am? Or, : would there be one Torah that talks of both of the chosen peoples? Is there on some planet far away, an intelligent alien species with their Am haNivchar? How would the Torah be manifest to them? And if they didn't have a Migdal Bavel like event, did Hashem do that whole Mamlekhes Kohanim model, with castes within the alien Am haNivchar, or castes with everyone "nivchar"? Would they have a Holy Land? If we made contact with these creatures, would we recognize their perception of the Torah as another expression of Yahadus, or would it be too alien? I know this example seems less serious than yours; I meant it as a test case on which to check these ideas that doesn't have to involve "what if" histories that Hashem timelessly knows didn't / aren't / won't happen. : Years : later when discussing what is the purpose to us of the trillions of stars : and galaxies so distant that they could never possibly affect us here : on Earth? Then it occurred to me, what if those stars had planets with : intelligent beings on them and they too went through a similar period : wherein they too had some allien being come to the same conclusions as : Avraham did and they then became the chosen people of that planet and : received a Torah possibly tailored to their experiences and appropriate : there etc.? ... Or maybe they do affect our lives here on earth. Omphalists believe that the universe was created at some point in the nearer past, eg 5778 years ago -- or Last Thursday -- and everything before that is fake. And this is the position of the LR and R' Avigdor Miller. (Although Last Thursdayism is a mock-religion posed by atheists trying to ridicule their position.) The usual challenge by those who like to be more rationalist is that this would imply Hashem is out to fool us, creating light en route from stars to make it look like they shown billions of years ago, tragectories that if you work backward converge from a Big Bang, geological and archological records, fossils, cave paintings, remains of pre-Adamic farming... But there is a more thoughtful response: Perhaps the only way we can have teva today is if the universe we have now looks like it always ran by teva. Otherwise, the effects of nissim would still be causing anomolies we could pick up today. So much for hesteir Panim. In which case, we need a universe that is so big that our place is in looks like some unnoticable backwater. We need a universe that looks like it had a Big Bang and Inflation area in order for us to live with the set of laws of nature we have. And then their existence does impact us. : Moshe when he went lamorom to accept Torah. They too wanted Torah in a : version suitable to them which would deflect all of Moshe's responses. If : memory serves, I think some meforshim try to make sense of the malachim : in such a manner. Unlike RAM's or my hypothetical aliens, mal'akhim have no free will. Without having that much Tzelem E-lokim, would they qualify for revelation? I think the problem with the mal'akhim that the medrashic Moshe highlights in his response to their claim on the Torah is that they do Retzon haBorei automatically, they lack the challenges one would need the Torah to address. Without challenges, they cannot grow into more than they are; there is no need for a Torah to help show them how. Jumping back to RAM's post: :> As there would never be an Eretz Yisroel, then there would not :> be all the mitzvot hateltuot ba'aretz -- trumos, masros etc., etc. : : Or perhaps Gan Eden would have had that status. Eretz Yisrael is : actually a great example: Consider the idea that true nevuah can exist : only in Eretz Yisrael... Tangent: Yechezqeil? Yonah's qiqayon was outside Nineveh. Etc... : .... Rather, my point goes to : this "Torah with 613 mitzvot" that you refer to. It doesn't exist : today, and I don't know if it ever has existed. There has certainly : never been a person to whom they all applied, and I wonder whether : there was ever a generation when they were all in force. There is also the idea of mitzvos that were never expected to be applied. Like the gemara suggests about ben soreir umoreh and ir hanidachas. Perhaps they exist because history could have played out differently and these mitzvos would have had an applicability beyond derosh veqabel sekhar. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger None of us will leave this place alive. micha at aishdas.org All that is left to us is http://www.aishdas.org to be as human as possible while we are here. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Anonymous MD, while a Nazi prisoner From akivagmiller at gmail.com Wed Nov 8 04:57:26 2017 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2017 07:57:26 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Torah precheit? Message-ID: . R' Micha Berger asked: > Is there on some planet far away, an intelligent alien > species with their Am haNivchar? How would the Torah be > manifest to them? And if they didn't have a Migdal Bavel > like event, did Hashem do that whole Mamlekhes Kohanim > model, with castes within the alien Am haNivchar, or > castes with everyone "nivchar"? Would they have a > Holy Land? > > If we made contact with these creatures, would we > recognize their perception of the Torah as another > expression of Yahadus, or would it be too alien? My focus is on the word "too" in the phrase "too alien". I feel that while such beings would indeed be extremely alien to us, the degree of alien-ness is absolutely irrelevant to the question at hand: Any mashehu of alien-ness (I suspect) puts them outside the pale. In our modern way of thinking, in which "Eretz" means not only this planet but the entire physical universe, and in which "Shamayim" does NOT include planets and stars but only the metaphysical universe, - Why would martians have a different status than any other foreigners? I can easily see a discussion of whether the martians count as people or as animals, but that is a separate issue. The issue here is that if they claimed to have some sort of Revelation from the One True G-d, then would we accept it as being another facet of the Shiv'im Panim LaTorah? And my answer is: What would we say if a group of earthly *humans* claimed to have some sort of Revelation from the One True G-d? Would we accept *that* as being another facet of the Shiv'im Panim LaTorah? My guess is that our response would be: That's very nice, and you are a sincere group of righeous Bnei Noach... and then we'd pretty much ignore them. Not out of malice, but because their message is not directed towards us. Here's a litmus test for whether or not I am close to correct: If I'm not mistaken, when a person claims to be a Navi, there are specific tests for whether or not he is believed, and if he passes those tests, and he has a message from Hashem for us, then we are obligated to follow that message. Is Jewishness among those criteria? If Ovadia had not converted, would his nevua be any less true or any less obligatory? > If we made contact with these creatures, would we > recognize their perception of the Torah as another > expression of Yahadus, or would it be too alien? I suppose one answer might be: The word "Yahadus" is too restrictive. Try replacing it with "Ratzon Hashem". Akiva Miller From zev at sero.name Wed Nov 8 08:12:06 2017 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2017 11:12:06 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Torah precheit? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 08/11/17 07:57, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > I can easily see a discussion of whether the martians count as people > or as animals, but that is a separate issue. The issue here is that if > they claimed to have some sort of Revelation from the One True G-d, > then would we accept it as being another facet of the Shiv'im Panim > LaTorah? And my answer is: What would we say if a group of earthly > *humans* claimed to have some sort of Revelation from the One True > G-d? Would we accept*that* as being another facet of the Shiv'im > Panim LaTorah? > > My guess is that our response would be: That's very nice, and you are > a sincere group of righeous Bnei Noach... and then we'd pretty much > ignore them. Not out of malice, but because their message is not > directed towards us. > If all they claimed was to have once had a navi, whose nevuah didn't contradict our Torah in any way, then perhaps we might accept it as valid. But if they were to claim to have had their own matan torah I think we would have to reject it. It's fundamental to our faith that matan torah was an event that could only happen once. It's also fundamental that Hashem chose avraham from *all* humanity, and us from *all* the nations, so if someone else -- on this planet or any other -- were to make such a claim we could not accept it. as for how Hashem could leave them without a Torah to guide them, how are they different from any remote people who had no contact with anyone who had even heard of the Torah until the 19th or 20th century? If the New Guinea Highlanders (some of whom have *still* never had any contact with the world outside their valleys) could wait until now to hear about the Torah, why can't the Tau Cetians, or whoever, wait until the 25th or 30th century? (assuming the 6000 years thing to be some sort of metaphor, of course, or there won't be a 30th century.) -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From zvilampel at gmail.com Wed Nov 8 08:53:24 2017 From: zvilampel at gmail.com (H Lampel) Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2017 11:53:24 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Torah precheit? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 11/7/2017 6:05 PM, MIcha Berger wrote: > ... that the universe was created at some point in the nearer > past, eg 5778 years ago -- or Last Thursday -- and everything before that is > fake. ...is the position of ... R' Avigdor Miller. He certainly is not of the opinion of last-Thursday-ism. (I suspect RMB did not really mean that.) His opinion is based on the mesora. Re: ''and everything before that is fake. ...is the position of ... R' Avigdor Miller'' To clarify, R' Avigdor Miller's position is not that fossils, for example, were planted merely as a test of our emunah. > Why should the [dinosaurs] need explanation any more than the dodo, the passenger pigeon, or any of the other species which > have become extinct, some even in our time? The huge > animals of ancient times, as well as many small animals, > became extinct each in the due time decreed by the timetable > of Heaven. ... Their existence is a fact which does > not help th theory of Evolution in any manner. (Rejoice O Youth, pp. 47-48) However, that Adam was created as a 30-year-old (as Chazal say), with, for example, a full mouth of teeth? Yes. Because: > ''Creation means that the Universe began at once in full-blown development. > The First Man immediately had trees whose fruit he could eat. > But fruit trees must beforehand be pollinated by bees, and bees need beehives with all their > paraphernalia. So you understand that Creation implies that > everything came into existence without benefit of time." > > "Trees have in their trunks a number of concentric rings, > each ring denoting a year of existence. If the First Man had > sawed off a tree, would he have found rings inside?" > > "Since he had trees, they were what we know a tree > to be." > > ...thousand-year redwood trees...?" > > "Creation included everything. Just as the First Man > had mature fruit trees at the first moment, so also the world > possessed mature lumber trees which were created at the > same time." > > "[So]... all animals and insects and bacteria were created, > including those which need rotting old logs and crumbling old > rocks for their habitat or sustenance. Thus, it is self? > explanatory that the world possessed 'aged' materials from the > very outset, including vegetation and animal carcasses with low > carbon-14 content and rocks with heavy lead content.'' > > (Ibid. pp 45-46) Zvi Lampel PS--Again, this is to clarify Rav Miller's position, and hopefully will not evolve (;)) into a discussion of it. Been there, done that, and no time. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Wed Nov 8 13:59:13 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2017 16:59:13 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Torah precheit? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20171108215913.GB3342@aishdas.org> On Wed, Nov 08, 2017 at 07:57:26AM -0500, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: :> If we made contact with these creatures, would we :> recognize their perception of the Torah as another :> expression of Yahadus, or would it be too alien? : My focus is on the word "too" in the phrase "too alien". I feel that : while such beings would indeed be extremely alien to us, the degree of : alien-ness is absolutely irrelevant to the question at hand: Any : mashehu of alien-ness (I suspect) puts them outside the pale. Actually, when I said "too alien" I was thinking not of ways their book of Retzon haBorei different from our Torah but ways in which their existence is so different from ours that we can't event compare. It's one thing to discuss what hilkhos geirus might look like if they had a hahaflagah but they already live in a liquid. It's another to discuss what halakhah as a whole would look like if they didn't experience time as a linear past-present-future the way we do. This discussion also reminds me of my Issacharism thought experiment. Positing that sheivet Yissachar survived, and had its own development of halakhah since the fall of Malkhus Yisrael. Its own Sanhedrin, no Anshei Keneses haGdfolah, etc... The same beris Sinai, but an entirely different development of 3,000 of application of kelalei pesaq, different gezeiros and taqanos... And to make it harder, let's say their population of shomerei Torah uMizvos has been roughly the same as ours all these years. So there are no grounds for saying one set of Sanhedrins is more authorivative than the other. : In our modern way of thinking, in which "Eretz" means not only this : planet but the entire physical universe, and in which "Shamayim" does : NOT include planets and stars but only the metaphysical universe, - : Why would martians have a different status than any other foreigners? Because it's possible that if Vulcans existed, HQBH would have provided them with /their/ mamlekhes kohanim. Yes, I can't guess what HQBH would do -- He could equally have wanted their spiritual development to wait until *we* get there. Like some aboriginal people on this planet, who never heard of us or even Ibrahimic religions relatively recently. Possibly relevant is the Rambam's shitah that chasidei umos ha'olam are only those who keep the 7 mitzvos because they were given at Sinai. Perhaps this gives more reason for a Vulcan am hanivchar. If anyone who does the right thing because it's logically the right thing accomplished their goal in life, then perhaps not every kind of being with bekhirah needs access to a revelation. : The issue here is that if : they claimed to have some sort of Revelation from the One True G-d, : then would we accept it as being another facet of the Shiv'im Panim : LaTorah? And my answer is: What would we say if a group of earthly : *humans* claimed to have some sort of Revelation from the One True : G-d? Would we accept *that* as being another facet of the Shiv'im : Panim LaTorah? We are a segulah mikol ha'amim, beni bekhori Yisrael. We know we recieved a unique revelation. The discussion is whether it's unique for all of humanity, or full-stop unique universally. : My guess is that our response would be: That's very nice, and you are : a sincere group of righeous Bnei Noach... and then we'd pretty much : ignore them... I agree with the "ignore" part, though. Accept for the academics and their journals. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Despair is the worst of ailments. No worries micha at aishdas.org are justified except: "Why am I so worried?" http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yisrael Salanter Fax: (270) 514-1507 From seinfeld at daasbooks.com Wed Nov 8 18:00:29 2017 From: seinfeld at daasbooks.com (Alexander Seinfeld) Date: Wed, 08 Nov 2017 21:00:29 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Torah precheit? Message-ID: > > > >But there is a more thoughtful response: Perhaps the only way we can >have teva today is if the universe we have now looks like it always >ran by teva. Otherwise, the effects of nissim would still be causing >anomolies we could pick up today. So much for hesteir Panim. > >In which case, we need a universe that is so big that our place is in >looks like some unnoticable backwater. We need a universe that looks >like it had a Big Bang and Inflation area in order for us to live with >the set of laws of nature we have. > >And then their existence does impact us. Just want to point out, or remind, that there are two independent questions here that often become conflated. 1. Can a rational person believe in ?young Earth? (i.e., >6,000 years old)? 2. Why would God create a universe making it look like it is far older than it really is? The basis of answering yes to #1 has nothing to do with #2. I do not need to know why in order to examine the evidence for #1 and conclude that He did probably make the world 5,778 years ago. The fact that I cannot answer #2 should not be entered as evidence against #1. This is the m?haleich of R? Dovid Gottlieb. The fallacy of the skeptics is to mock #1 based on #2, when in fact it is irrelevant. My own personal belief is merely that the vastness of space and time give us the opportunity with our puny minds to have an analogy for God?s infiniteness. From afolger at aishdas.org Mon Nov 13 04:05:02 2017 From: afolger at aishdas.org (Arie Folger) Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2017 13:05:02 +0100 Subject: [Avodah] Torah precheit Message-ID: RAM and RMB have been arguing about whether aliens somewhere out there could have received a Revelation akin to ours and whether theirs would be one of shiv'im panim la-Torah. My USD0.02c: I believe that it is not unimportant that according to present theories of physics, we are constrained by how far we could ever travel. Even if we were to remain happy with slower than light travel, travelling at the phenomenal speeds necessary to get anywhere else in our own galaxy where aliens might live, i.e. in another star system with planets in the habitable zone, would use up phenomenal amounts of energy. Furthermore, the distances are so vast, that we would need enormous (what's the trendy word variant, ginormous?) amounts of time, and we still hardly would get anywhere. Bottom line, there very well may exist intelligent aliens out there, but we are near 100% sure that we will never ever be able to meet them. Which leads me to the following observation: If there are aliens out there which we will one day meet, then we could not accept their *competing* Revelation. There is only one 'am hanivchar. We would indeed need to see them as a special kind of Noachides with a possible true revelation that is, however, subordinate to ours and can never contradict it. If, however, we consider aliens whom we will never ever be able to meet, I see no reason why they couldn't have their own Revelation, with their own Torah, which, while it surely will agree in all iqarim, may nonetheless, through a variety of mechanisms suggested by mefarshim throughout the ages (including but not limited to the Ramban's Torah without spaces, and the expansion thereof by later mequbalim that the Heavenly Torah has 23 letters, of which we only see 22), be quite different from ours. I do wonder though, can there be an alien civilization we will one day encounter in person, which has exactly the same Torah as we do. It would seem extremely improbable for them to have had an Avraham, Yitzchak & Yaakov, Shevatim & galut Mitzrayim, but hey, if this is predetermined in part, then why not? The question will then be, are they and us the same people (in the assumption that it is even physically possible to intermarry)? I consider this whole possibility even less likely than the one about meeting any aliens anywhere, so this is just an thought experiment. Kol tuv, -- Arie Folger -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From akivagmiller at gmail.com Mon Nov 13 17:45:22 2017 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2017 20:45:22 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Gifts on Shabbos Message-ID: . I am trying to get a more precise understanding of when it is assur/mutar to give someone a gift on Shabbos. Orach Chayim 306 is about all sorts of business activities. Gifts are a subset of this topic, and Mishne Berura 306:33 writes, "It is also assur to give a gift to one's friend, because it is similar to buying and selling, because it leaves his ownership [reshus]. But a gift is mutar when it is L'tzorech Shabbos V'Yom Tov - as written in 323:7 - and likewise for L'tzorech Mitzvah... And it also wrote that according to that, the practice of giving keilim as a gift to a Chasan is improper..." When I turn to Shulchan Aruch 323:7, Mechaber doesn't say anything about the general laws of giving gifts on Shabbos. He only gives one particular case: That if one forgot to tovel a keli before Shabbos, so it cannot be used on Shabbos, he is allowed to give it to a non-Jew as a gift, and then borrow it back for Shabbos use. Mishne Brura 323:34 explains: "Even though it is assur to give gifts on Shabbos as written in Siman 306, here it is allowed because of Tzorech Shabbos." The logic is somewhat circular, I think: 306 refers to 323, and 323 refers to 306. The only clear heter is an interesting one: On the one hand, it is for a NON-food item (though it is food-related); on the other hand, it seems to be a b'dieved solution for the person who either forgot to tovel it before Shabbos, or somehow acquired it from a non-Jew on Shabbos. I don't see any clear heter to deliberately give a food gift on Shabbos, and I also don't see any clear prohibition that non-foods are excluded from being "L'tzorech Shabbos". Mishne Berurah 306:33 says that it is wrong to give "keilim" as gifts to a chasan. Rabbi Dovid Ribiat ("The 39 Melochos", page 961) includes "presenting a Bar Mitzvah boy with a Sefer" in this category. These examples suggest two rules to me: (1) If the gift will not be used until after Shabbos (quite likely for the bar mitzvah boy's sefer, though I have no idea which "kelim" the chasan would receive), then it is not "letzorech Shabbos". (2) The chasan (or bar mitzvah boy) presumably gets hanaah from receiving the gift, but that amount of Oneg Shabbos is not significant enough to count as "letzorech Shabbos". I offer two specific examples for discussion: (1) Many shuls offer printed material, such as parsha sheets, weekly shul bulletins, and even newspapers and magazines. Or someone might attend a shiur, where the teacher distributes printed handouts of the source material. Can I take these home to read or learn from on Shabbos afternoon? Wouldn't this be a Tzorech Shabbos? (2) Suppose someone is invited to a friend for a Shabbos meal, and he brings a challah or wine as a gift for the host. The host was not expecting it and has other food that he was planning to use. Is this enough of a tzorech Shabbos to transfer ownership? If this host accepts the gift, is he required to serve the food? In other words, if "tzorech Shabbos" is indeed a carte blanche for food gifts, does the food have to actually be eaten? Akiva Miller Postscript: It seems to me that this issur of giving gifts applies only on Shabbos, and *not* on Yom Tov. Consider: You can send a living behema to your friend on YT, even through a Reshus Harabim, even if you know that the friend won't shecht it, and the heter is contingent only on the fact that the friend COULD shecht it. (MB 516:1) You can even send a pair of tefillin to your friend even though it is not needed at all for Yom Tov; the only requirements are that the tefillin are ready-for-use, and that friend gets hanaa from receiving the gift (MB 516:11-12) That whole siman seems to deal with issues of hotzaah and muktzeh, and doesn't even mention kinyanim (at least, I didn't see any such mention). This is very puzzling: Why would there be a difference between giving gifts on Shabbos and on Yom Tov? If this could be answered, it might shed light on what "L'tzorech Shabbos" means. From micha at aishdas.org Tue Nov 14 08:39:28 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2017 11:39:28 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Gilgul Hanefesh In-Reply-To: <3ad8c297-8019-3aa5-de3b-800ffe91d6c9@starways.net> References: <3ad8c297-8019-3aa5-de3b-800ffe91d6c9@starways.net> Message-ID: <20171114163928.GD29616@aishdas.org> On Tue, Nov 07, 2017 at 12:43:04PM +0200, Lisa Liel via Avodah wrote: : As I understand it, gilgul neshamot is not the same as the eastern : idea of reincarnation, where one person's soul literally incarnates : again in another body and lives another life... RSGaon says in (Emunos veDei'os 6:8 tr R' Yosef el-Qafeh, "Kapach"; emphasis mine): Venineini omer ki anashim, mimi SHENIQRA'IM YEHUDIM, matzasim ma'aminim begilgul veqor'in oso haha'ataqus. I left that in Hebrew because I want to be medayeiq in lashon in a moment. To continue, with my translation from the Hebrew: The matter to their minds is that the ruach of Re'uvein will be in Shim'on, and after that in Leivi, and after that in Yehudah. And from them, or most of them figure that it could be that the ruach of a person will be in an animal, and the ruach of an anumal in a person. And a lot of such delusions and confusion. And then the rest of the chapter lists their errors. RYeQ footnotes that R' Uzziel concluded that the people who are "called Jews" who believe such things are the Qaraim. Anan (the founder) picked up this idea from the Greeks. I do not know the original Arabic, but in this translation, notice that it's possible to read RSG as being against people to take the idea of gilgul and call it "ha'ataqus" and describe it as souls migrating from person to person or even to animal, etc... But not against gilgul itself. Which would support Lisa's understanding. This read has two open questions to resolve, not that I am saying they're unanswerable: 1- RSG does use the same Arabic again at the end of the chapter (and ma'amar) that R "Kapach" translates to "gilgul" -- "And I say: what does this say that teaches about gilgul?..." Perhaps it should be read: How do they think those pesuqim indicate that gilgul means ha'ataqah -- they don't talk about gilgul altogether? 2- My bigger problem is that RSG would then be spending all this time on a heretical misunderstanding of gilgul, without even one sentence saying, "But what gilgul *really* means..."? It would even be an important point of the ma'amar's discussion of souls and afterlife. This omission I find highly unlikely. As to how they would differ. The kind of people who talk about gilgul also talk about Naran and sometimes even Naran Chai -- Nefesh Ruach Neshamah, which are the penimios aspects of the soul, and Chayah and Yechidah. For that matter, RSG discusses Naran in the very same ma'amar (6:3 ) as three kochos. To RSG, they are an indisible singularity that has three abilities. But in more Qabbalistic sources, they are described as parts even as the soul's unitary nature is also asserted. If ruach and nashamah are indeed parts, then there is a huge difference between 1- Gilgul nashamos: The neshamah -- and according to the Ari, even "sparks" of a neshamah rather than a whole one -- "revolves" from one life in one body to another. And 2- Ha'ataqa: where the ruach migrates. Neshamah is much less associated with the notion of "self" than ruach is. E.g. "Neshamah shanasati bi, tehorah hi." The "bi -- in me" receives a neshamah. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger It isn't what you have, or who you are, or where micha at aishdas.org you are, or what you are doing, that makes you http://www.aishdas.org happy or unhappy. It's what you think about. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Dale Carnegie From micha at aishdas.org Tue Nov 14 09:31:55 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2017 12:31:55 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Torah precheit? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20171114173155.GE29616@aishdas.org> On Wed, Nov 08, 2017 at 11:53:24AM -0500, H Lampel via Avodah wrote: : On 11/7/2017 6:05 PM, Micha Berger wrote: :> ... that the universe was created at some point in the nearer :> past, eg 5778 years ago -- or Last Thursday -- and everything before that is :> fake. ...is the position of ... R' Avigdor Miller. : He certainly is not of the opinion of last-Thursday-ism. (I suspect RMB did not really mean that.) His opinion is based on the mesora. I meant omphalism. Which is not based on the mesora, it's based on pashut peshat in a pasuq. A pasuq that we don't really have much mesorah saying actually hyas a pashut peshat, at least not one we can comprehend. : Re: "and everything before that is fake. ...is the position of ... R' : Avigdor Miller" : To clarify, R' Avigdor Miller's position is not that fossils, for example, : were planted merely as a test of our emunah. Which is why I didn't say that. Continuing with RZL's quote of RAM's Rejoice O Youth (pp. 47-48): :> Why should the [dinosaurs] need explanation any more than the :> dodo, the passenger pigeon, or any of the other species which :> have become extinct, some even in our time? The huge :> animals of ancient times, as well as many small animals, :> became extinct each in the due time decreed by the timetable :> of Heaven. ... Their existence is a fact which does :> not help th theory of Evolution in any manner. So he says it's simply incomprehensible. I also gave a different explanation than "test of our emunah" -- necessary for having a sensible and detectable teva. My point was to defend the viability of omphalism of both RAM's and the LR's sorts. Asking "Why would Hashem be so cruel as to create all that to mislead, at best to test" question presumes a strawman. : However, that Adam was created as a 30-year-old (as Chazal say), with, : for example, a full mouth of teeth? Yes. Because: :> "Creation means that the Universe began at once in full-blown development. :> The First Man immediately had trees whose fruit he could eat. .... :> (Ibid. pp 45-46) See Bereishis Rabba 14:7 ). According to R Yehudah bar Shimon says that "ofer olam" was created in his fullness. R' Elazar b Shimon says that Chava was too. R' Yochanan says they were creates as 20 (quibble: not 30) year olds. And then down in 14:10, R Yehudah says that Adam was made with a tail, but it was removed for the sake of his kavod. Evolution anywone? BUT: The month that Adam was born in is part of the greater machloqes between R' Yehoshua and R' Eliezer about Nissan vs Tishrei (RH 11a). Meaning, if the world was created in Tishrei, when "the earth brings forth plants and trees full of fruit", then yes, this medrash stands. But if the world was created in Nissan, when the plants start growing and the fruit is emerging from the tree (as the gemara puts it), then perhaps not. In any case, the meaning thereby ascribed to saying the world was made in Nissan is that the universe was created at its start. Regardless of Adam's development when born. So I would have said "one opinion in Chazal", not "as Chazal say". Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Friendship is like stone. A stone has no value, micha at aishdas.org but by rubbing one stone against another, http://www.aishdas.org sparks of fire emerge. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Mordechai of Lechovitz From micha at aishdas.org Tue Nov 14 10:38:37 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2017 13:38:37 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Gifts on Shabbos In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20171114183837.GF29616@aishdas.org> On Mon, Nov 13, 2017 at 08:45:22PM -0500, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : I am trying to get a more precise understanding of when it is : assur/mutar to give someone a gift on Shabbos. ... : The logic is somewhat circular, I think: 306 refers to 323, and 323 : refers to 306... The Mishnah Berurah has mutual references between 306:33 and 323:34. But I don't see the logic itself being circular. 306 spells out the theory, and 323 is an example of that theory and at each place he shows you the other half of the picture. Giving gifts is assur (derabbanan) on Shabbos, except when the purpose of the gift is letzorekh Shabbos, or another mitzvah. Thus, it includes giving a non-toveled keli to a non-Jew so that it can be borrowed back and used *for Shabbos*. But not a wedding gift, which (as per R' Ribiat's bar mitzvah boy) presumably isn't needed by the chasan on Shabbos. And apparently claiming simchas chasan being a mitzvah isn't sufficient to say the gift is letzorekh mitzvah. Which you note as well, although you phrase it in terms of hana'ah and oneg Shabbos, ie lezorekh Shabbos. Perhaps this is because there are other ways to provide simchah or oneg, so it's not "letzorekh". : (1) Many shuls offer printed material, such as parsha sheets, weekly : shul bulletins, and even newspapers and magazines. Or someone might : attend a shiur, where the teacher distributes printed handouts of the : source material. Can I take these home to read or learn from on : Shabbos afternoon? Wouldn't this be a Tzorech Shabbos? I would think so. Why any less than a gift of food? In both cases, the recipient already owns alternatives. So why would something to eat be more letzorekh Shabbos than something to learn? This is unlike the bar mitzvah boy recieving a sefer (acc to R' Ribiat), in that the purpose isn't learning on Shabbos. Implied: A guest who knows the host won't use the food (eg he recommends waiting until the wine is chilled) shouldn't be giving even usable food. Is this the halakhah? Also, I found that ROY (Yechaveh Da'as 3:21) DOES allow giving the bar mitzvah boy that seifer because it provides chizuq. And there is no greater letzorekh mitzvah than that! : (2) Suppose someone is invited to a friend for a Shabbos meal, and he : brings a challah or wine as a gift for the host. The host was not : expecting it and has other food that he was planning to use. Is this : enough of a tzorech Shabbos to transfer ownership? ... Or, in the SA's case... can you give the non-toveled keli to a nakhri when you have just as good or nearly as good alternatives? That you already had thoughts of using? I took it for granted yes, since if not, the SA is oddly missing an important half of the story. Which is why above I only asked about a case where the guest gives something in a way that rules out its use, rather than just left to the host's choice. When I am the guest in this situation, I am zokheh lo shelo befanav and transfer ownership on Friday. Came in handy a couple of times when the host refused the gift. "Well, if you don't want it, you can regift it. Because it's yours already and you aren't allowed to give it back" right now, at least. : Postscript: It seems to me that this issur of giving gifts applies : only on Shabbos, and *not* on Yom Tov... Then why "letzorekh Shabbos or YT"? When do you have something that is letzorekh YT in particular when it's also Shabbos? : (MB 516:1) You can : even send a pair of tefillin to your friend even though it is not : needed at all for Yom Tov; the only requirements are that the tefillin : are ready-for-use, and that friend gets hanaa from receiving the gift : (MB 516:11-12) And the bar mitzvah boy doesn't get the same kind of hana'ah (speaking quality, not quantity) from his uncle's gift of a set of Rambam? Now I'm confused again. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "The worst thing that can happen to a micha at aishdas.org person is to remain asleep and untamed." http://www.aishdas.org - Rabbi Simcha Zissel Ziv, Alter of Kelm Fax: (270) 514-1507 From micha at aishdas.org Tue Nov 14 10:48:32 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2017 13:48:32 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Torah precheit In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20171114184832.GI29616@aishdas.org> On Mon, Nov 13, 2017 at 01:05:02PM +0100, Arie Folger via Avodah wrote: : Bottom line, there very well may exist intelligent aliens out there, but we : are near 100% sure that we will never ever be able to meet them. Nice chiluq! : Which leads me to the following observation: If there are aliens out there : which we will one day meet, then we could not accept their *competing* : Revelation. There is only one 'am hanivchar... Who said that "nivchar mibein ha'amim" means anything beyond benei Adam, amim as caused by Migdal Bavel? Perhaps their revelation isn't so much competing as the RBSO providing them a chance at redemption before Yom Hashem haGadol vehanora, or at least before whenever it is we get there? : them as a special kind of Noachides with a possible true revelation that : is, however, subordinate to ours and can never contradict it. This is itself the question I was trying to keep under discussion. Could we even recognize a contradiction? After all, the appearance of Retzon haBorei to creatures very different than us isn't likely to have many points where we can contradict. Assuming they are ethical monotheists, that is. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger It's never too late micha at aishdas.org to become the person http://www.aishdas.org you might have been. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - George Eliot From meirabi at gmail.com Thu Nov 16 16:11:31 2017 From: meirabi at gmail.com (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi) Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2017 11:11:31 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] How Much Salt for Kashering? Message-ID: Kosher meat must have all traces of blood removed. This procedure is known as 'Kashering' and requires very precise procedures and timing of rinsing, soaking, salting and finally removal of the salt and blood via rinsing and washing. Halachah provides no precise measure of salt to be used for Kashering and although insisting that all surfaces must be covered with salt, does not differentiate between small and large surface area to volume ratios, i.e. thick or thin pieces of meat. In other words a large circular hunk of meat [small ratio of surface area to volume] requires the identical amount of surface salt and time for Kashering as does a thin piece [large ratio of surface area to volume] Furthermore, a 20cm thick piece of meat will be Kashered when salted on both sides, meaning the salt will extract blood from a depth of 10 cm, but a 4cm thick piece of meat salted only on one side will not be Kosher. It seems like the process has been standardised to accommodate all cases. Nevertheless, although Halachah permits various shortcuts when Kashering for emergency situations, it does not advise Kashering thin slices to reduce preparation time. Meat that was cooked before it was Kashered will make everything in the pot it is cooked with non-Kosher. Halacha asserts there is as much blood in the piece of meat as the mass of meat. If however, there is enough Kosher food in the pot to render the blood insignificant, the food will be Kosher. Halachah requires 60 units of Kosher food to neutralise every unit of blood [1 gram of blood requires 60 grams of Kosher food] In other words, a 100 gram piece of meat will require 6kg to neutralise the blood. However, meat that was cooked after Kashering but before the blood and salt was washed off, requires only 60 times the salt and blood on the surface of the meat i.e. soaked into the salt. The blood that was in the meat has been removed by the salting. Some authorities [a note in the ShaArei Dura] assert that every piece of meat is itself large enough to neutralise the salt whilst others [the Rama 69:9] assert it provides only half the mass required. ????? ??"? - ??? ????? ???? ??? ????? ?????? ?????? ???? ??? ???? ???? ???? ??? ??? ??? ???? ?? ??? ?? ?? ???? ????? ??? ??? ????? ?? ??? ?? ??? ????? ????? ???? ??? ????? ??? ??? ?? ???? ???? ?? ??? ???? The Rama however disagrees with the ratio - "there can be no question that if the pot contains as much as the mass of the meat, it is certainly more than 60 times the salt ...." See Shach that BeDiAvad, we may rely upon the lenient opinion particularly if it is a thick piece. ????? ???? ??????????? ?''? ?????? ?????????? ??????????? ????? ??????, ?????? ??????, ?????????? ?????? ????????? ????? ???????? ?????? ?????????? ????????????? ???????? ?????????? ???? ?????????? ????? ???????? ?????????, (????????? ?????? ?''? ?''? To the best of my knowledge, this is the only source that provides an empiric measurement of how much salt is to be used for Kashering. Keep in mind that since this is a general ruling it must encompass all cases, the guidelines must reflect the maximum amount of salt that would be applied and that would remain until the meat is ready for its final washdown. In the words of the Rama, "there can be no question that if the pot contains as much as the mass of the meat, it is certainly more than 60 times the salt ...." The Halacha must provide the maximum safety margin and must therefore assume that the maximum amount of salt was applied and remains on the meat when it is added to the pot. Further, the Halacha must accommodate the largest surface area to meat ratio [ChAdam 32:4] and the heaviest salting hand. In other words, every possible variant that increases the amount of salt used is turned up to the max - and in this worst possible case scenario, we can be certain that the salt is no more than one thirtieth of the mass of the meat. In other words, an average sized steak, 300 - 400 gms, requires no more than 2 teaspoonfuls of salt for Kashering. Another thing that is certain - all Kosher agencies apply far more salt for Kashering than one thirtieth. Does it make a difference? Well, these days, the cost of disposing of contaminants is rising dramatically and salt is deemed a nasty contaminant and is becoming more expensive to dispose. It already adds a significant cost to production. Best, Meir G. Rabi 0423 207 837 +61 423 207 837 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From meirabi at gmail.com Sat Nov 18 13:25:21 2017 From: meirabi at gmail.com (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi) Date: Sun, 19 Nov 2017 08:25:21 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] Sedra Toldos - Balance, When Parents Favour One Child Message-ID: Our actions are pretty much prompted by Life's circumstances, we are mostly provoked to react. We do [many/most] things to counter a perceived imbalance, an injustice. Perhaps, with this in mind, we can better understand Yitzchak, Rivkah and Eisav as they are portrayed in this week's Sedra. Isaac favoured Eisav, because he was "Tzayid BeFiv", Rivkah favoured YaAkov [25:28] We are told why Yitzchak favours Eisav but not why Rivkah favours YaAkov. Yitzchak favours Eisav because Eisav is a "Tzayid BeFiv" lit. hunted with his mouth. Rashi explains this as either [or both] - he deceived his father like a hunter lying in ambush or stalking prey and catching it at a vulnerable moment, i.e. feeding Yitchak fake news to present himself as exceedingly Gd fearing; or, he fed Yitzchak tasty food, "Make me the tasty food I enjoy ... so that I might bless you before I die." [27:4] But Eisav was not a better cook than Rivkah - "she made him a delicious dish just as he liked" [27:14] [unless she had him on a healthy food diet and Eisav was Yitzchak's secret steak supplier] Eisav loved his father and he loved hunting [25:27]. He desperately sought his father's approval. He pursued this as he best knew, by hunting and even by lying. We might even say that he felt as though he was hunting for his father's love. Yitzchak understood, he encouraged Eisav to hunt and cook for him. He even reminded Eisav to take his hunting weapons when he instructs him to hunt and prepare food before he blesses him - Yitzchak wants Eisav to be engaged in the hunting and preparation of the food, because it is this engagement that is their link and best encapsulates his approval of his son Eisav. In other words, "It's not the food I want, for that I could ask your mother or you could grab an animal from our flock - it would be much quicker. No, I want you to be of service to me. Knowing that you have hunted to provide for me makes me happy and I enjoy the food more." Eisav knew that his mother was capable of and willing to provide her husband with all the tasty food he could stomach. He got the message that it was not food that Yitzchak wanted. Yitzchak was reaching out to Eisav, knowing how desperately Eisav sought his approval. Eisav learned how to cook in order to express his love. He even deceived Yitchak, painting himself as the Gd fearing son in order to win his father's approval. Best, Meir G. Rabi 0423 207 837 +61 423 207 837 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From akivagmiller at gmail.com Sat Nov 18 19:23:18 2017 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Sat, 18 Nov 2017 22:23:18 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] T'hay Message-ID: There is a word spelled tav-heh-aleph, pronounced "t'hay". Is this word Hebrew or Aramaic? >From context and sound, I have always presumed that it means something very similar to "yihyeh". Is that correct? If they are indeed similar in meaning, then I imgine that they is still some slight shade of difference. If they meant the exact same thing, wouldn't authors use the more common word (yihyeh) instead? This would be the case even if t'hay is Hebrew, and it would certainly be true if t'hay is Aramaic. The reason I'm asking these questions is because I have found a surprising number of paragraphs in my siddur, where all the words are obviously Hebrew, except for this one word. Including a foreign word in a text is not unheard of (there's a Latin word in Nachem, for example), but this is generally done because there is no native word with the precise meaning that the author is aiming for. And I can't imagine why "yihyeh" doesn't work in these cases: Hamapil: "us'hay mitasi shleima l'fanecha" Birkas Hamazon, near the end: "zechus shet'hay l'mishmeres shalom" Birkas Hamazon on Shabbos: "shelo t'hay tzara" Birkas Hachodesh: "chayim shet'hay banu ahavas torah" Avinu Malkenu: "t'hay hashaah hazos" Yizkor: "bis'char zeh t'hay nafsho" Yom Kippur Musaf, the Kohen Gadol's tefila: "shet'hay hashana hazos" Kel Malay Rachamim: "b'gan eden t'hay menuchaso" (I have omitted parts of the siddur that are taken from the Mishna (such as Bameh Madlikin and Pitum Haketores) because it is the nature of the Mishna to mix Hebrew and Aramaic, so use of the word "t'hay" isn't a glaring exception the way it is in the rest of the siddur. Also, I note that my examples were all taken from Nusach Ashkenaz; other nuschaos may have more or fewer instances of this word.) Thank you, Akiva Miller From simon.montagu at gmail.com Mon Nov 20 00:38:38 2017 From: simon.montagu at gmail.com (Simon Montagu) Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2017 10:38:38 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] T'hay In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sun, Nov 19, 2017 at 5:23 AM, Akiva Miller via Avodah < avodah at lists.aishdas.org> wrote: > There is a word spelled tav-heh-aleph, pronounced "t'hay". Is this > word Hebrew or Aramaic? > Hebrew. I believe the Aramaic equivalent would be tehevi. > > From context and sound, I have always presumed that it means something > very similar to "yihyeh". Is that correct? > > If they are indeed similar in meaning, then I imgine that they is > still some slight shade of difference. If they meant the exact same > thing, wouldn't authors use the more common word (yihyeh) instead? > This would be the case even if t'hay is Hebrew, and it would certainly > be true if t'hay is Aramaic. > > The reason I'm asking these questions is because I have found a > surprising number of paragraphs in my siddur, where all the words are > obviously Hebrew, except for this one word. Including a foreign word > in a text is not unheard of (there's a Latin word in Nachem, for > example), but this is generally done because there is no native word > with the precise meaning that the author is aiming for. And I can't > imagine why "yihyeh" doesn't work in these cases: (At any rate it would be "tihyeh" in the cases you quote, which are all in the feminine) In my siddur (Singer's) all the examples you give are "tehi" with a yud, which is Biblical Hebrew, as in "Tehi ala benotenu" in last week's parasha (Bereshit 26:28). The difference between yihyeh/yehi and tihyeh/tehi is that the first is future and the second is jussive (though the future can be used in a jussive sense). I assume the form with alef is Rabbinic Hebrew. How it comes to be used in the siddur, or in which nushaot exactly, I don't know. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jay at m5.chicago.il.us Mon Nov 20 05:12:52 2017 From: jay at m5.chicago.il.us (Jay F. Shachter) Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2017 13:12:52 +0000 (WET) Subject: [Avodah] How Much Salt for Kashering? In-Reply-To: from "avodah-request@lists.aishdas.org" at Nov 16, 2017 06:40:58 pm Message-ID: <15112051720.1Acb3A518.50843@lsd.chicago.il.us.chicago.il.us> > > Kosher meat must have all traces of blood removed. > No, it does not. This is true only if you are going to cook the meat before eating it. Jay F. ("Yaakov") Shachter 6424 N Whipple St Chicago IL 60645-4111 (1-773)7613784 landline (1-410)9964737 GoogleVoice jay at m5.chicago.il.us http://m5.chicago.il.us "Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur" From lisa at starways.net Mon Nov 20 04:02:11 2017 From: lisa at starways.net (Lisa Liel) Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2017 14:02:11 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] T'hay In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <91877a4d-0aeb-1a75-d7b1-78f399a2746e@starways.net> I'm not sure.? We have "yehei ra'ava kadamach" in Brich Shmei d'Marei Alma, which is definitely Aramaic.? The yehei is the same as tehei. I think what's happening here is that there's a certain amount of bleed-over between Hebrew and Aramaic.? In addition, there were different dialects of Aramaic in Eretz Yisrael and Bavel.? So while tehevei may be the correct Aramaic, tehei may be as well. Lisa On 11/20/2017 10:38 AM, Simon Montagu via Avodah wrote: > On Sun, Nov 19, 2017 at 5:23 AM, Akiva Miller via Avodah > > wrote: > > There is a word spelled tav-heh-aleph, pronounced "t'hay". Is this > word Hebrew or Aramaic? > > > Hebrew. I believe the Aramaic equivalent would be tehevi. > From micha at aishdas.org Mon Nov 20 10:24:50 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2017 13:24:50 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Sedra Toldos - Balance, When Parents Favour One Child In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20171120182450.GA24872@aishdas.org> On Sun, Nov 19, 2017 at 08:25:21AM +1100, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: : But Eisav was not a better cook than Rivkah - "she made him a delicious : dish just as he liked" [27:14] [unless she had him on a healthy food diet : and Eisav was Yitzchak's secret steak supplier] Or the hunter was usually the one who prepared the game, whereas Rivqa tended to be cooking the animals they farmed. ... : Yitzchak understood, he encouraged Eisav to hunt and cook for him. He even : reminded Eisav to take his hunting weapons when he instructs him to hunt : and prepare food before he blesses him - Yitzchak wants Eisav to be engaged : in the hunting and preparation of the food, because it is this engagement : that is their link and best encapsulates his approval of his son Eisav... Perhaps this is the whole point of the Torah's not saying why Rivqa preferred Yaaqov. Yitzchaq's additional love of Esav was teluyah bedavar, and that fact impacted Eisav's choices. Rivqa love Yaaqov, full stop, not for some reason. There is also an idea I heard from RYBS and often utilized in Gush circles that had things turned out more positively, Eisav would have been the physical arm of the same project as Yaaqv's Torah. Eisav's children would have supported and protected Yaaqov's. According to the Qedushas Levi's version of this idea, Yitzchaq knew Eisav had failings, but felt that the person who was supposed to go out into the real world was bound to be the tzadiq who "falls 7 times and arises" (to quote Shelomo haMelekh). What Yaaqov missed was the nevu'ah "ushnei le'umim mimei'ayikh yipareidu". He thought that the ideal plan, Esav and Yaaqov together without such pirud, was still how history was going to play out. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Spirituality is like a bird: if you tighten micha at aishdas.org your grip on it, it chokes; slacken your grip, http://www.aishdas.org and it flies away. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From micha at aishdas.org Mon Nov 20 11:11:25 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2017 14:11:25 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Hutrah and Dechuyah in Yibum Message-ID: <20171120191124.GB24872@aishdas.org> The topic of EhE 165 is whether yibum or chalitzah is the preferred choice. The Rambam and Rif side with yibum (in cases when yibum is in the almanah's best interest), as per the mishnah rishonah and possibly repeated by the chakhamim in the gemara (Yevamos 39b). Whereas R' Tam, R' Chananel & the Smag hold like Abba Shaul, that since it's too likely the yavam has other things than reestablishing his brother's bayis in mind, chalitzah is the better choice, bizman hazeh. The AhS has an interesting take. First, in se'if 5, he rules out the issue being mitzvos tzerikhos kavanah. If AS gave preference to chalitzah because yibum requires kavanah, then it would be the Rambam and the Rif -- the rishonim who more often hold mitzvos tzerichos kavanah -- who would be siding with him. The AhS (se'if 6) proposes that the machloqes is huterah vs dechuyah. If yibum is a matir for eishes ach, there is no problem doing the mitzvah of yibum even if the yavam's interest is in his new wife solely for her own qualities. However, if it is only docheh eishes ach, then any other kavanah for performing yibum is desire for a sin, and thus should be avoided by choosing chalitzah. And that this is the norm today. I noticed that happens to parallel who holds piquach nefesh is matir melekhes Shabbos vs who holds it is docheh it. There too Sepharadi rishonim don't feel a need to minimize melakhah (huterah), whereas the Ashk rishonim try to (because it's only dechuyah). Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger I thank God for my handicaps, for, through them, micha at aishdas.org I have found myself, my work, and my God. http://www.aishdas.org - Helen Keller Fax: (270) 514-1507 From meirabi at gmail.com Mon Nov 20 14:35:03 2017 From: meirabi at gmail.com (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi) Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2017 09:35:03 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] Sedra Toldos - Balance, When Parents Favour One Child In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I prefer not to be so speculative about the motivations, Eisav had failings, but Yitzchak felt that the person who was supposed to go out into the real world, But what I proposed does not exclude that possibility. Although, giving the blessings to someone with known failings seems unlikely. Depends I suppose on how extensive those failings are or how well they were known to Yitzchak. Or it might just be that he was the Bechor, HKBH's choice. Should Yitzchak challenge HKBH? I wrote - Yitzchak understood, he encouraged Eisav to hunt and cook for him. He even reminded Eisav .... Eisav loved his father and he loved hunting [25:27]. He desperately sought his father's approval. He pursued this as he best knew, by hunting and even by lying. We might even say that he felt as though he was hunting for his father's love. Yitzchak understood, he encouraged Eisav to hunt and cook for him. He even reminded Eisav to take his hunting weapons when he instructs him to hunt and prepare food before he blesses him - Yitzchak wants Eisav to be engaged in the hunting and preparation of the food, because it is this engagement that is their link and best encapsulates his approval of his son Eisav. In other words, "It's not the food I want, for that I could ask your mother or you could grab an animal from our flock - it would be much quicker. No, I want you to be of service to me. Knowing that you have hunted to provide for me makes me happy and I enjoy the food more." Eisav knew that his mother was capable of and willing to provide her husband with all the tasty food he could stomach. He got the message that it was not food that Yitzchak wanted. Yitzchak was reaching out to Eisav, knowing how desperately Eisav sought his approval. Eisav learned how to cook in order to express his love. He even deceived Yitchak, painting himself as the Gd fearing son in order to win his father's approval. Best, M -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Mon Nov 20 14:10:27 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2017 17:10:27 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] How Much Salt for Kashering? In-Reply-To: <15112051720.1Acb3A518.50843@lsd.chicago.il.us.chicago.il.us> References: <15112051720.1Acb3A518.50843@lsd.chicago.il.us.chicago.il.us> Message-ID: <20171120221027.GD24830@aishdas.org> On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 01:12:52PM +0000, Jay F. Shachter via Avodah wrote: :> Kosher meat must have all traces of blood removed. Dam here means blood in the circulatory system. Not blood within tissue. Problem with translations; there often isn't a 1:1. Particularly in cases of terms of art, like "dam" in this context. : No, it does not. This is true only if you are going to cook the meat : before eating it. SA YD 27:2 does say you don't need salting. (See limitations in 3-4.) But... this is because all the dam can be removed by removing the veins, and simple rinsing. So, in the same sense that cooked meat needs melichah to remove all traces of dam, so too does raw "[k]osher meat must have all traces of [dam] removed." Seems Tir'u baTov! -Micha From micha at aishdas.org Mon Nov 20 13:37:22 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2017 16:37:22 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Fwd [Aspaqlaria]: Post-Modern Orthodoxy Message-ID: <20171120213722.GB24830@aishdas.org> My most recent blog post, in which I argue that Post-Modern Orthodoxy is a contradiction of terms. -micha Post-Modern Orthodoxy micha - Published Mon, Nov 20, 2017 Modern Orthodoxy is based on an integration of Orthodoxy with life in the modern world. However, with R' JB Soloveitchik's passing, the movement was left without a luminary who analyzes and discusses matters of worldview. Consequently, Modern Orthodoxy's thought is that of the mid 20th century, when Neo-Kantian and Existential answers addressed the kinds of religious questions people on the street were confronting. And so, the argument is today, that there is a need for someone to articulate a Post-Modern Orthodoxy. This is why there was much discussion in some Modern Orthodox circles with the publication of a selection of R' Shimon Gershon Rosenburg -- "Rav Shagar"`s -- essays in English. "Faith Shattered and Restored: Judaism in the Postmodern Age", edited by Rabbi Dr. Zohar Maor, was published by Maggid Books this past June. Dr. Alan Brill, on his blog, carried numerous translations of R' Shagar since, as well as analysis of his thought. In particular, see this post of notes that Dr Brill compiled while teaching R' Shagar's thought, "Rav Shagar: To be connected to Eyn -- Living in a Postmodern World". Times of Israel had an interview with R/Dr Maor, "Israel's paradoxical man of faith, deconstructed". And recently, R Gil Perl, an alumnus of Yeshivat Har Etzion ("Gush") who became a student of Rav Shagar, wrote an essay about why R' Shagar's thought spoke to him in a way that the teachings of R' Aharon Lichtenstein of Gush couldn't in the long run. See "Postmodern Orthodoxy: Giving Voice to a New Generation". To give you an idea of R Shagar's thought, he likens Deconstructionism to Sheviras haKeilim -- the Qabbalistic idea that Creation involved the breaking of vessels, and the post-modern's inability to consider an idea to be objectively true. He builds a case for the condition of having difficulty with belief and therefore believing in nothing and turns it into a Ism of believing in Nothing. Identifying that lower-case-n nothing with the Ayin, the capital-N Nothingness from which G-d made Yeish, something (indeed, everything). Me, I think it doesn't work. Post-Modernism is a confusion of the subjectivity of my justification for knowing something with the subjectivity of the known. Meaning, I can know objective truths for entirely personal and subjective reasons. I can be convinced of halakhah because of my personal experience of the beauty of Shabbos. Not from my liking Shabbos; from that about the Shabbos experience I find beautiful, likable, meaningful, and True. I know that hilkhos Shabbos as we have them today really did objectively speaking come from the Creator by way of my personal experience of Shabbos. Objective truth, subjective justification. In contrast, in Post-Modern thought, since I have no guarantee of objectively proving anything to anyone else, the notion of objective truth is entirely denied. There isn't "the truth" as much a "his truth" or "her truth", narratives people and societies construct for themselves. And this touches everything on the college campus from religious beliefs to defending the Palestinian because we have our narrative and they have theirs. (There is room for every narrative but those that exclude other narratives.) In the real world outside those ivory towers, though, you won't find too many people with Post-Modern notions of science, declaring (eg) that math or physics are merely social constructs. But certainly outside the realm of the scientifically provable Post-Modern thinking has become part of the zeitgeist. My problem with "Postmodern Orthodoxy" is that Post-Modernism (as I just described it) is inherently incompatible with the notion of a lower-case-o orthodoxy, including our case, capital-O Orthodox Judaism. I often said on Facebook that one reason why more are going OTD in this generation than in mine is that Post-Modernism has become part of the common culture. It is impossible to maintain any orthodoxy, including O, if one believes that there are no objective truths, or even that there is nothing one could ever assert as objectively true. There is a profound difference between believing there is an absolute truth that I personally do not fully know or understand -- which R' Gil Perl presented as R' Lichtenstein's position, and believing that all truths are human conditioned. Between a personal nothing and an ideal of Nothingness. And yet, R Shagar says just that. To repeat a quote of Rav Shagar used in R Perl's article, "All truths may be the product of human conditioning, but such conditioning constitutes the medium through which the divine manifests in the world." Rav Shagar's position strikes me as internally inconsistent. For example, to This presupposes that there is a Divine which is manifest in the world, and any claim that says otherwise would defy that Truth. So, there is at least that one central Truth that is necessarily true, regardless of human conditioning. The entire notion of considering any of the Articles of Faith human conditioned, true only from our perspective, enters the heretical. Another example, R Shagar's Post-Modern Orthodox Jew will speak of revelation "though he knows there are varying and conflicting revelations, the contradictions do not paralyze him." If one does not believe the revelation via Moshe and the revelation of the Torah are unique, are they not koferim baTorah according to the Rambam? How many rabbanim would allow you to use the wine of someone who believes that the only reason to embrace the Torah's message is because it's "the faith of our fathers" (as R' Shagar describes it) and not different in kind than the message of the New Testament or the Qur'an? There are two ways we can speak of the ideal human: we can describe life on the mountain peak, the person who has perfect generosity, perfect patience, perfect faith, a perfect relationship with G-d and other people, etc... But we know that actualize perfection is unachievable for anyone bug G-d. So, the true ideal human is one constantly working toward having those perfect relationships, trying their best, constantly growing. But they are two different things -- the ideal in the sense of the goal to strive for, and the ideal of being a striver. We need to learn to separate these notions. Ayin is part of the ideology. A crisis of faith, those times of nothingness, is part of the reach to internalize that ideology. The ideal life for most of us will be struggling with the ideology; but once one makes that struggle part of the ideology itself, I fear one crossed the line. From afolger at aishdas.org Tue Nov 21 01:28:58 2017 From: afolger at aishdas.org (Arie Folger) Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2017 10:28:58 +0100 Subject: [Avodah] Torah precheit Message-ID: A little postscript to my statement, that regarding aliens we might one day meet, that we cold not accept any competing revelation, only one that is of a kind of Noachide revelation, subordinate to ours, well... Let me admit that in stating that, I was displaying a human bias: I unreasonably assumed that aliens would be a kind of otherworldly humans. However, insofar as they are radically different species (which would be likely), then I see no problem of them having their own revelation and their own 'am hanivchar, *as* *long* *as* *their* *revelation* *doesn't* *contradict* *ours*, i.e. we could not accept a revelation that claims that 'avoda zara is muttar, that murder is muttar or that assumes the existence of several deities. -- Arie Folger -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hmaryles at yahoo.com Tue Nov 21 07:30:45 2017 From: hmaryles at yahoo.com (Harry Maryles) Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2017 15:30:45 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Avodah] Fwd [Aspaqlaria]: Post-Modern Orthodoxy In-Reply-To: <20171120213722.GB24830@aishdas.org> References: <20171120213722.GB24830@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <570709339.403139.1511278245922@mail.yahoo.com> I read Gil Perl's article and I don't understand why the idea of? RAL's not knowing or being able to know but nonetheless believing doesn't speak to him. I find all the talk about there being no objective truth to be irrelevant. Truth goes beyond provable fact. It even goes beyond the contradictions to belief by newly discovered scientific truths which by definition are subject to change with new discoveries. In the Lonely Man of Faith, RYBS explains that there are no cognitive categories in which the total commitment of the man of faith could be spelled out. The commitment is rooted not in one dimension, such as the rational one, but in the whole personality of the man of faith. The whole human being; the rational as well as the non-rational is committed to God. Hence the magnitude of commitment is beyond the comprehension of the logos and the ethos. The intellect does not chart the course of the man of faith. It is a function not only of the logic of the mind. It is also a function of the logic of the heart. An apriori awareness that becomes an axiom - a conclusion that cannot rely on solely rational considerations.? HM Want Emes and Emunah in your life? Try this: http://haemtza.blogspot.com/ On Monday, November 20, 2017, 7:25:20 PM CST, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: My most recent blog post, in which I argue that Post-Modern Orthodoxy is a contradiction of terms. -micha Post-Modern Orthodoxy micha - Published Mon, Nov 20, 2017 Modern Orthodoxy is based on an integration of Orthodoxy with life in the modern world. However, with R' JB Soloveitchik's passing, the movement was left without a luminary who analyzes and discusses matters of worldview. Consequently, Modern Orthodoxy's thought is that of the mid 20th century, when Neo-Kantian and Existential answers addressed the kinds of religious questions people on the street were confronting. And so, the argument is today, that there is a need for someone to articulate a Post-Modern Orthodoxy. This is why there was much discussion in some Modern Orthodox circles with the publication of a selection of R' Shimon Gershon Rosenburg -- "Rav Shagar"`s -- essays in English. "Faith Shattered and Restored: Judaism in the Postmodern Age", edited by Rabbi Dr. Zohar Maor, was published by Maggid Books this past June. Dr. Alan Brill, on his blog, carried numerous translations of R' Shagar since, as well as analysis of his thought. In particular, see this post of notes that Dr Brill compiled while teaching R' Shagar's thought, "Rav Shagar: To be connected to Eyn -- Living in a Postmodern World". Times of Israel had an interview with R/Dr Maor, "Israel's paradoxical man of faith, deconstructed". And recently, R Gil Perl, an alumnus of Yeshivat Har Etzion ("Gush") who became a student of Rav Shagar, wrote an essay about why R' Shagar's thought spoke to him in a way that the teachings of R' Aharon Lichtenstein of Gush couldn't in the long run. See "Postmodern Orthodoxy: Giving Voice to a New Generation". To give you an idea of R Shagar's thought, he likens Deconstructionism to Sheviras haKeilim -- the Qabbalistic idea that Creation involved the breaking of vessels, and the post-modern's inability to consider an idea to be objectively true. He builds a case for the condition of having difficulty with belief and therefore believing in nothing and turns it into a Ism of believing in Nothing. Identifying that lower-case-n nothing with the Ayin, the capital-N Nothingness from which G-d made Yeish, something (indeed, everything). Me, I think it doesn't work. Post-Modernism is a confusion of the subjectivity of my justification for knowing something with the subjectivity of the known. Meaning, I can know objective truths for entirely personal and subjective reasons. I can be convinced of halakhah because of my personal experience of the beauty of Shabbos. Not from my liking Shabbos; from that about the Shabbos experience I find beautiful, likable, meaningful, and True. I know that hilkhos Shabbos as we have them today really did objectively speaking come from the Creator by way of my personal experience of Shabbos. Objective truth, subjective justification. In contrast, in Post-Modern thought, since I have no guarantee of objectively proving anything to anyone else, the notion of objective truth is entirely denied. There isn't "the truth" as much a "his truth" or "her truth", narratives people and societies construct for themselves. And this touches everything on the college campus from religious beliefs to defending the Palestinian because we have our narrative and they have theirs. (There is room for every narrative but those that exclude other narratives.) In the real world outside those ivory towers, though, you won't find too many people with Post-Modern notions of science, declaring (eg) that math or physics are merely social constructs. But certainly outside the realm of the scientifically provable Post-Modern thinking has become part of the zeitgeist. My problem with "Postmodern Orthodoxy" is that Post-Modernism (as I just described it) is inherently incompatible with the notion of a lower-case-o orthodoxy, including our case, capital-O Orthodox Judaism. I often said on Facebook that one reason why more are going OTD in this generation than in mine is that Post-Modernism has become part of the common culture. It is impossible to maintain any orthodoxy, including O, if one believes that there are no objective truths, or even that there is nothing one could ever assert as objectively true. There is a profound difference between believing there is an absolute truth that I personally do not fully know or understand -- which R' Gil Perl presented as R' Lichtenstein's position, and believing that all truths are human conditioned. Between a personal nothing and an ideal of Nothingness. And yet, R Shagar says just that. To repeat a quote of Rav Shagar used in R Perl's article, "All truths may be the product of human conditioning, but such conditioning constitutes the medium through which the divine manifests in the world." Rav Shagar's position strikes me as internally inconsistent. For example, to This presupposes that there is a Divine which is manifest in the world, and any claim that says otherwise would defy that Truth. So, there is at least that one central Truth that is necessarily true, regardless of human conditioning. The entire notion of considering any of the Articles of Faith human conditioned, true only from our perspective, enters the heretical. Another example, R Shagar's Post-Modern Orthodox Jew will speak of revelation "though he knows there are varying and conflicting revelations, the contradictions do not paralyze him." If one does not believe the revelation via Moshe and the revelation of the Torah are unique, are they not koferim baTorah according to the Rambam? How many rabbanim would allow you to use the wine of someone who believes that the only reason to embrace the Torah's message is because it's "the faith of our fathers" (as R' Shagar describes it) and not different in kind than the message of the New Testament or the Qur'an? There are two ways we can speak of the ideal human: we can describe life on the mountain peak, the person who has perfect generosity, perfect patience, perfect faith, a perfect relationship with G-d and other people, etc... But we know that actualize perfection is unachievable for anyone bug G-d. So, the true ideal human is one constantly working toward having those perfect relationships, trying their best, constantly growing. But they are two different things -- the ideal in the sense of the goal to strive for, and the ideal of being a striver. We need to learn to separate these notions. Ayin is part of the ideology. A crisis of faith, those times of nothingness, is part of the reach to internalize that ideology. The ideal life for most of us will be struggling with the ideology; but once one makes that struggle part of the ideology itself, I fear one crossed the line. _______________________________________________ Avodah mailing list Avodah at lists.aishdas.org http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Tue Nov 21 06:25:15 2017 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2017 14:25:15 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Notes on RSRH's Philosopy of Judaism Message-ID: <1511274314342.40161@stevens.edu> Please see the pdf file at http://www.halakhah.com/rst/hirsch.pdf YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Tue Nov 21 05:54:15 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2017 08:54:15 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] T'hay In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20171121135414.GB15991@aishdas.org> On Sat, Nov 18, 2017 at 10:23:18PM -0500, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : There is a word spelled tav-heh-aleph, pronounced "t'hay". Is this : word Hebrew or Aramaic? Sidenote, just to complicate things. Assuming that when someone with the last name "Miller" speaks of what he finds "in my siddur" is looking in an Ashkenazi one... RSM found in manuscripts that earlier Ashkenazi siddurim honed much closer to leshon Chazal than we do. The example I usually cite is "vesein chleqeinu beSorasakh, sab'einu mituvakh..." as Sepharadim have it. Your siddur probably consistently has "Sha'atah", not "she'atah". This is a "correction" to the form that appears in seifer Sofetim. One holdover is "Modim anachnu Lakh", instead of "Lekha"... but then followed by "Sha'atah". It appears to be largely the work of one person, R' Shelomo Zalman Hanau (Katz), author of the Binyan Shalomo. He then compiles a siddur, Shaarei Tefillah. R' Yaaqov Emden's Lueach Eresh is a rebuttal of the Razah's grammatical theories, and kedarko beqodesh, he doesn't pull punches. For example, the Binyan Shelomo was printed with a hasqamah from R' Tzvi Ashkenazi; RYE wrote that his father's hasqamah was forged. The Alter Rebbe, in composing Nusach haAri, was heavily influenced by the Razah's theory of diqduq. And slowly other Ashkenazim switched from leshon Chazal to leshon Tanakh. Even RZBaer and the Yekkes. So, with a siddur that is partially in one version of Hebrew and partially in another, who knows how any word settled on one set of diqduq rules or the other. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "I hear, then I forget; I see, then I remember; micha at aishdas.org I do, then I understand." - Confucius http://www.aishdas.org "Hearing doesn't compare to seeing." - Mechilta Fax: (270) 514-1507 "We will do and we will listen." - Israelites From meirabi at gmail.com Tue Nov 21 15:38:02 2017 From: meirabi at gmail.com (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi) Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2017 10:38:02 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] Kosher meat must have all traces of blood removed Message-ID: I am happy to amend to Before cooking, Kosher meat must have all traces of blood removed Best, Meir G. Rabi 0423 207 837 +61 423 207 837 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From larry62341 at optonline.net Wed Nov 22 06:20:47 2017 From: larry62341 at optonline.net (Prof. Levine) Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2017 09:20:47 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Sedra Toldos - Balance, When Parents Favour One Child In-Reply-To: <56bc7b19424c44b7aec48fc7014df583@exchng03.campus.stevens-t ech.edu> References: <56bc7b19424c44b7aec48fc7014df583@exchng03.campus.stevens-tech.edu> Message-ID: <7E.4D.03148.0C7851A5@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> At 10:52 AM 11/21/2017, R Micha Berger wrote: >Perhaps this is the whole point of the Torah's not saying why Rivqa >preferred Yaaqov. Yitzchaq's additional love of Esav was teluyah bedavar, >and that fact impacted Eisav's choices. Rivqa love Yaaqov, full stop, >not for some reason. I suggest you read RSRH's essay Lessons From Jacob and Esau (Collected Writings VII) YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From JRich at sibson.com Wed Nov 22 21:54:08 2017 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2017 05:54:08 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] sefer torah's path Message-ID: <7df4daee86e84ff48f391450b891c5f0@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> From R' Aviner: Bringing the Torah to People to Kiss Q: Is it permissible to bring the Sefer Torah in the Shul towards people who want to kiss it? A: No. This is a disgrace to the Sefer Torah. They should approach the Sefer Torah. Piskei Teshuvot 134:6. I have been to more than a few shuls that particularly on Shabbat take the long road - any ideas on who they are relying on? (not to mention those who lower the sefer torah so the kids can kiss it too) KT 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: From marty.bluke at gmail.com Sat Nov 25 12:27:38 2017 From: marty.bluke at gmail.com (Marty Bluke) Date: Sat, 25 Nov 2017 22:27:38 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] How can R' Yochanan and Resh Lakish argue about the tradition of a Gezera Shava? Message-ID: The Gemara in Makos(14b) has a dispute between R' Yochanan and Resh Lakish which revolves around a gezera shava. R' Yochanan has the gezera shava and Resh Lakish does not, Rashi explains that Resh Lakish did not get this gezera shava from his rebbeim. This seems very difficult because the gemara in Bava Metzia (84a) describes how Resh Lakish was the head of a group of bandits and R' Yochanan persuaded hm to learn Torah and was clearly Rabo Muvhak. In fact, they were so close that after Resh Lakish's death, R' Yochanan lost his mind and died. Given this, how can it be that R' Yochanan had a gezera shava and Resh Lakish didn't because lo kiblu merabo, R' Yochanan was his Rebbe so why wouldn't R' Yochanan have taught him this gezera shava? R' Yochanan clearly had a kabbala on this gezera shava so why wouldn't his talmid muvhak Resh Lakish have gotten this kabbala from his rebbe? The answer can't be that Resh Lakish argued on this because gezera shava's are a kabbala from your rebbe, period. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Thu Nov 23 15:55:59 2017 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2017 23:55:59 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] More on Yaakov, sheep and the rods Message-ID: <1511481358587.99267@stevens.edu> The following is from RSRH's commentary on Bereishis 30:37 Ya'akov then took for himself rods of fresh aspen and hazelnut and chestnut trees, and peeled white streaks in them by uncovering the white on the rods. After all this, Ya'akov's initiative with the rods would have been fully justified, even had it constituted a tried and tested expedient - a supposition that surely will not be borne out by experiment. >From the continuation of the story we know that Lavan altered the terms of the agreement ten times (see below, 31:7), setting new conditions regarding the form of the speckles and spots. It is difficult to assume that, because of a general action such as setting up the rods in the sight of the sheep, the sheep would bring forth young that were this time speckled, the next time spotted, and the next time marked on the feet. Ya'akov's success can be attributed only to a special intervention of Divine providence - as attested to by Ya'akov himself. The expedient of the rods was only an extremely weak substitute for the breeding animals Lavan had wrongfully removed. Nevertheless, Ya'akov did not refrain from seeking the aid of this expedient; since ain somchin al haness (see Pesachim 64b), he was obligated to do his part. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hankman at bell.net Sun Nov 26 10:02:44 2017 From: hankman at bell.net (hankman) Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2017 13:02:44 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] More on Yaakov, sheep and the rods Message-ID: <440B31203B1C40479ABF364797C2B58A@hankPC> Prof. L. Levine wrote?": ?It is difficult to assume that, because of a general action such as setting up the rods in the sight of the sheep, the sheep would bring forth young that were this time speckled, the next time spotted, and the next time marked on the feet. Ya'akov's success can be attributed only to a special intervention of Divine providence - as attested to by Ya'akov himself. The expedient of the rods was only an extremely weak substitute for the breeding animals Lavan had wrongfully removed. Nevertheless, Ya'akov did not refrain from seeking the aid of this expedient; since ain somchin al haness (see Pesachim 64b), he was obligated to do his part...? As everyone who had genetics 101 will realize, if you eliminate 100% of the phenotype, and breed the remainder you will still get some of that phenotype in the next generation with recessive genes. So it always bothered me why was all the hokus pokus by Yaakov necessary. Even more so the pasook itself seems to ascribe the results as caused by the sticks even though a simple natural explanation for the reappearance of the phenotype in the next generation is quite simple. The only explanation I could come up with is that the percentages were much higher than one would expect as a result of genetic calculations thus the nes (and Yaakov?s efforts [hishtadlus] to produce it) is described at great length. Kol tuv Chaim Manaster -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From akivagmiller at gmail.com Sat Nov 25 17:51:31 2017 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Sat, 25 Nov 2017 20:51:31 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] sefer torah's path Message-ID: . R' Joel Rich asked: > From R? Aviner: Bringing the Torah to People to Kiss > Q: Is it permissible to bring the Sefer Torah in the Shul > towards people who want to kiss it? > A: No. This is a disgrace to the Sefer Torah. They should > approach the Sefer Torah. Piskei Teshuvot 134:6. > > I have been to more than a few shuls that particularly on > Shabbat take the long road ? any ideas on who they are > relying on? (not to mention those who lower the sefer torah > so the kids can kiss it too) Maybe the masses simply disagree with the logic of the Piskei Teshuvot? Maybe people feel that bringing the Torah to Amcha is NOT a disgrace? Personally, I can easily understand that lowering it could be a bizayon, but what's wrong with taking the long way around? If the short route is taken, then (depending on the shul's layout) it is possible (or even probable) that many (or most) will simply be unable to get close enough to kiss it -- and if this is true on the men's side of the mechitza, it is even more true on the women's side! There are SO many things that we allow for no reason other than allowing the people to show their love and kavod for the Torah!!! Compared to the bells that ring on Shabbos, or the multitude of aliyos on Simchas Torah, this seems exceeding minor, in my opinion. Akiva Miller From brothke at gmail.com Sat Nov 25 18:20:23 2017 From: brothke at gmail.com (Ben Rothke) Date: Sat, 25 Nov 2017 21:20:23 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Gid ha'nasheh and 'therefore' Message-ID: In the coming week?s parsha, it has the story of Yaakov wrestling and then concludes: ? ???-???? ???-???????? ?????-?????????? ???-????? ????????? I am trying to figure out the connection between the wrestling injury and klal Yisroel not eating gid hanasheh. The term '???-????' implies consequently, to which I don?t see the consequence. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From JRich at sibson.com Sat Nov 25 21:47:06 2017 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2017 05:47:06 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] How can R' Yochanan and Resh Lakish argue about the tradition of a Gezera Shava? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: The answer can't be that Resh Lakish argued on this because gezera shava's are a kabbala from your rebbe, period. > ______________________________________________ 1. This begs the broader question as to why an Amira having a gs doesn't automatically trump one that doesn't 2.this also assumes only a rebbi muvhak counts as rabo for purposes of mesora Kt 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. From JRich at sibson.com Sun Nov 26 05:28:50 2017 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2017 13:28:50 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] eilu v'eilu Message-ID: <6b52bc1475284ba2a6aa3d7734cb8de7@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> http://www.yutorah.org/lectures/lecture.cfm/889447/rabbi-assaf-bednarsh/pluralism-and-halacha-what-is-truth,-and-who-has-it/ Rabbi Assaf Bednarsh--Pluralism and Halacha: What is Truth, and Who Has It Interesting shiur on an old Avodah favorite KT 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: From lisa at starways.net Sun Nov 26 14:37:13 2017 From: lisa at starways.net (Lisa Liel) Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2017 00:37:13 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Gid ha'nasheh and 'therefore' In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I don't think al ken denotes causation.? In most cases, it seems to mean "How correct it is that..."? For example, the two times we're told "al ken", the city is called Beersheva.? They can't both be the cause. Lisa On 11/26/2017 4:20 AM, Ben Rothke via Avodah wrote: > > In the coming week?s parsha, it has the story of Yaakov wrestling and > then concludes: > > ? ???-???? ???-???????? ?????-?????????? ???-????? ????????? > > I am trying to figure out the connection between the wrestling injury > and klal Yisroel not eating gid hanasheh. > > The term '???-????' implies consequently, to which I don?t see the > consequence. > > --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From micha at aishdas.org Sun Nov 26 15:09:41 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2017 18:09:41 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Gid ha'nasheh and 'therefore' In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20171126230941.GA24539@aishdas.org> On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 12:37:13AM +0200, Lisa Liel via Avodah wrote: : On 11/26/2017 4:20 AM, Ben Rothke via Avodah wrote: : >In the coming week's parsha, it has the story of Yaakov wrestling : >and then concludes: "Al kein lo yokhlu BY es gid hanasheh." : >I am trying to figure out the connection between the wrestling : >injury and klal Yisroel not eating gid hanasheh. : >The term '[al kein]' implies consequently, to which I don't see the : >consequence. : I don't think al ken denotes causation.? In most cases, it seems to : mean "How correct it is that..."? For example, the two times we're : told "al ken", the city is called Beersheva.? They can't both be the : cause. Why not? It could be that each were necessary but insufficient causes, so that the name "Be'er-Sheva" is the consequence of both being true. Or it could be that each were sufficient cause, and the name Be'er-Sheva was justified by either alone -- but equally so. And thus the city's name represents both. But to answer RBR's question, I don't think al kein implies sufficient causality. Rather, because of the fight, HQBH had an opportunity to turn eating thigh meat into a ritual that reminds one of the fight, and thus of the Jew's ability to act on the level of (in the sense of: interact with) angels. Without the fight, the mitzvah would lack that historical symbolism; so it's a cause, but of a different sort than it seems from your question that you are thinking of. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger It is our choices...that show what we truly are, micha at aishdas.org far more than our abilities. http://www.aishdas.org - J. K. Rowling Fax: (270) 514-1507 From micha at aishdas.org Sun Nov 26 14:58:57 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2017 17:58:57 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] How can R' Yochanan and Resh Lakish argue about the tradition of a Gezera Shava? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20171126225857.GA9115@aishdas.org> On Sat, Nov 25, 2017 at 10:27:38PM +0200, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: : The Gemara in Makos(14b) has a dispute between R' Yochanan and Resh Lakish : which revolves around a gezera shava. R' Yochanan has the gezera shava and : Resh Lakish does not, Rashi explains that Resh Lakish did not get this : gezera shava from his rebbeim. : : This seems very difficult because the gemara in Bava Metzia (84a) describes : how Resh Lakish was the head of a group of bandits and R' Yochanan : persuaded hm to learn Torah and was clearly Rabo Muvhak... So, he had a mesorah from a rebbe other than his rebbe muvhaq or any of his own rabbeim -- maybe just a shiur from someone else he sat in once... (Which is similar to RHR's #2.) Or... If "Moavi velo Mo'avis" was darsehened first by Boaz's court, then we know of at least one gezeira shava -- from Amon to Moav -- that Boaz invoked withtout a tradition of its existence dating back from Sinai. For that matter, if the Rambam assumed that the rule about no new gezeiros shava really was in place from day one, then he would have to assert that like [other] halakhos leMoshe miSinai, there couldn't be machloqesin in any of them. I would therefore deduce from the Rambam's silence in the face of numerous such machloqesin, he must have thought that gezeiros shava could be invented (or as other riahonim would have it: discovered) without a mesorah. It would seem the idea that GS requires a mesorah has a loophole. Perhaps the notion is that the textual connection must have a mesorah, but the lesson taken from it could be left to the later generation to find. Also, it is interesting that the contrast in Pesachim 66a to the mesorah needed for GS is the qal vachomer. A rule of logic that a person truly could make on their own in a way that doesn't apply to another of the other midos sheheTorah nidreshes bahen. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When faced with a decision ask yourself, micha at aishdas.org "How would I decide if it were Ne'ilah now, http://www.aishdas.org at the closing moments of Yom Kippur?" Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From marty.bluke at gmail.com Mon Nov 27 02:10:10 2017 From: marty.bluke at gmail.com (Marty Bluke) Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2017 12:10:10 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] How can R' Yochanan and Resh Lakish argue about the tradition of a Gezera Shava? In-Reply-To: <20171126225857.GA9115@aishdas.org> References: <20171126225857.GA9115@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 12:58 AM, Micha Berger wrote: > On Sat, Nov 25, 2017 at 10:27:38PM +0200, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: > : The Gemara in Makos(14b) has a dispute between R' Yochanan and Resh > Lakish > : which revolves around a gezera shava. R' Yochanan has the gezera shava > and > : Resh Lakish does not, Rashi explains that Resh Lakish did not get this > : gezera shava from his rebbeim. > : > : This seems very difficult because the gemara in Bava Metzia (84a) > describes > : how Resh Lakish was the head of a group of bandits and R' Yochanan > : persuaded hm to learn Torah and was clearly Rabo Muvhak... > > So, he had a mesorah from a rebbe other than his rebbe muvhaq or any > of his own rabbeim -- maybe just a shiur from someone else he sat in > once... (Which is similar to RHR's #2.) > What other mesora? It's not that Resh Lakish had a gezera shava that R' Yochanan didn't have that he could have learned from someone else. The Gemara says that he didn't have a kabbala on a gezera shava that R' Yochanan had. > > Or... > > If "Moavi velo Mo'avis" was darsehened first by Boaz's court, then we > know of at least one gezeira shava -- from Amon to Moav -- that Boaz > invoked withtout a tradition of its existence dating back from Sinai. > That was a gezera shava? In any case the Gemara in Nidda (19b) states that ayn adam dan gezera shava meatzmo, says Rashi he needs a kabbala from his rebbe halacha l'moshe misinai. For that matter, if the Rambam assumed that the rule about no new gezeiros > shava really was in place from day one, then he would have to assert that > like [other] halakhos leMoshe miSinai, there couldn't be machloqesin in > any of them. I would therefore deduce from the Rambam's silence in the > face of numerous such machloqesin, he must have thought that gezeiros > shava could be invented (or as other riahonim would have it: discovered) > without a mesorah. > It would seem the idea that GS requires a mesorah has a loophole. Perhaps > the notion is that the textual connection must have a mesorah, but > the lesson taken from it could be left to the later generation to find. > Tosafos in Shabbos (97a) states that they had a mesora on the number of gezera shavas and therefore they had to reconcile the various traditions with the number of gezera shavas. This would seem to come to address the question of why certain Tannaim/Amoraim had a gezera shava and others didn't. However, it doesn't answer the question on Resh Lakish who must have gotten the number from Rabo Muvhak R' Yochanan. The Rishonim/Acharonim in Nida (22b) are bothered by the question that the Gemara says that a gezera shava that is mufne mi tzad echad lmeidin umeshivin and mufne mishnei tz'dadim lmeidim vayn m'shivim. If there was a kabala on the gezera shava then why does it need to be mufne and if there was no kabbala then why should it be accepted even if it is mufne? The Ramban on the Sefer Hamitzvos (Shoresh 2) based on this question rejects the simple understanding of ayn adam dan gezera shava meiatzmo that all the details of the gezera shavas were received at Har Sinai by Moshe. Rather, they had a kabbala that there was a gezera shava with a certain word pair but not which set of those words and what halacha is learned from it and therefore it is up to the chachamim to decide based on the principles that they received to decide what exactly the gezera shava was and therefore there is machlokes. This is what the Gemara in Nidda is discussing, the principles relating to figuring out what exactly the gezera shava is. Unfortunately, this does not really answer all of the Gemara's and disputes about gezera shavas. > > Also, it is interesting that the contrast in Pesachim 66a to the mesorah > needed for GS is the qal vachomer. A rule of logic that a person truly > could make on their own in a way that doesn't apply to another of the > other midos sheheTorah nidreshes bahen. > There is a machlokes Rashi and Tosafos whether it is only a kal vachomer that adam dan meatzmo or all the middos except for gezera shava. > > Tir'u baTov! > -Micha > > -- > Micha Berger When faced with a decision ask yourself, > micha at aishdas.org "How would I decide if it were Ne'ilah now, > http://www.aishdas.org at the closing moments of Yom Kippur?" > Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From lisa at starways.net Mon Nov 27 02:55:35 2017 From: lisa at starways.net (Lisa Liel) Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2017 12:55:35 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] How can R' Yochanan and Resh Lakish argue about the tradition of a Gezera Shava? In-Reply-To: <20171126225857.GA9115@aishdas.org> References: <20171126225857.GA9115@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <2e55bd0b-bb70-45dd-093f-a9ca79fa0760@starways.net> On 11/27/2017 12:58 AM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > If "Moavi velo Mo'avis" was darsehened first by Boaz's court, then we > know of at least one gezeira shava -- from Amon to Moav -- that Boaz > invoked withtout a tradition of its existence dating back from Sinai. > How was that a gezeira shava? Lisa --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From micha at aishdas.org Mon Nov 27 13:21:42 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2017 16:21:42 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] How can R' Yochanan and Resh Lakish argue about the tradition of a Gezera Shava? In-Reply-To: <2e55bd0b-bb70-45dd-093f-a9ca79fa0760@starways.net> References: <20171126225857.GA9115@aishdas.org> <2e55bd0b-bb70-45dd-093f-a9ca79fa0760@starways.net> Message-ID: <20171127212142.GA26403@aishdas.org> On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 12:10:10PM +0200, Marty Bluke wrote: : > So, he had a mesorah from a rebbe other than his rebbe muvhaq or any : > of his own rabbeim -- maybe just a shiur from someone else he sat in : > once... (Which is similar to RJR's #2.) : What other mesora? It's not that Resh Lakish had a gezera shava that R' : Yochanan didn't have that he could have learned from someone else. The : Gemara says that he didn't have a kabbala on a gezera shava that R' : Yochanan had. This wasn't the ikar of my answer; I was just ammending RJR's answer to reflect the fact that the gemara says "rabosav" not "rabo". But it seems to me now you are saying the OP was asking how it's possible that R' Yochanan knew something that he didn't pass on to Reish Laqish. Or more accurately, where would RL learn something to have him question a GS when R Yochanan told him of it the first time. In which case, my intended answer works even better -- the presmise that every GS is a tradition dating back to Sinai is false. A conclusion the other RMB gives far more sources for than I did. :> Or... :> If "Moavi velo Mo'avis" was darsehened first by Boaz's court, then we :> know of at least one gezeira shava -- from Amon to Moav -- that Boaz :> invoked withtout a tradition of its existence dating back from Sinai. : That was a gezera shava? In any case the Gemara in Nidda (19b) states that : ayn adam dan gezera shava meatzmo, says Rashi he needs a kabbala from his : rebbe halacha l'moshe misinai. Not every "halakhah leMoshe MiSinai" is literally so. R' Avohu on Kesuvos 7b says that Boaz collected 10 men in "lemidrash 'amoni velo amonis, moavi velo moavis." How does he know it wasn't for 7 berakhos (R' Nachman's shitah)? Because of the need to get "miziqnei ha'ir". Why 10? [I presume -- and not a BD of 3:] lefirsumei milsa. Similarly, Rus Rabba 7:9 states that Peloni didn't know *shenischadshah* din zu. As for "that was a GS?" (A question Lisa also asks...) Amoni velo Amonis is justified because the Amoni ddidn't bring food or water when we came to their land. And it is the men we would have expected to recieve or even buy such previsions from. Moav velo Moavis would be a pretty arbitrary time to insist a word be read as specifically male instead of gender-neutral if it weren't by GS to Amoni. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Here is the test to find whether your mission micha at aishdas.org on Earth is finished: http://www.aishdas.org if you're alive, it isn't. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Richard Bach From zev at sero.name Mon Nov 27 15:10:29 2017 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2017 18:10:29 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] How can R' Yochanan and Resh Lakish argue about the tradition of a Gezera Shava? In-Reply-To: <20171127212142.GA26403@aishdas.org> References: <20171126225857.GA9115@aishdas.org> <2e55bd0b-bb70-45dd-093f-a9ca79fa0760@starways.net> <20171127212142.GA26403@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 27/11/17 16:21, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > As for "that was a GS?" (A question Lisa also asks...) Amoni velo Amonis > is justified because the Amoni ddidn't bring food or water when we > came to their land. And it is the men we would have expected to recieve > or even buy such previsions from. Moav velo Moavis would be a pretty > arbitrary time to insist a word be read as specifically male instead > of gender-neutral if it weren't by GS to Amoni. Could you please explain this? Where do you get that there is any limmud from Ammon to Moav? The Torah says *both* Amonim and Moavim are banned because they didn't welcome us with bread and water. You seem to be claiming that Amonim are banned for this reason, and then Moavim by some sort of gezera shava from Amonim. Where is this coming from? -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From marty.bluke at gmail.com Thu Nov 30 02:11:31 2017 From: marty.bluke at gmail.com (Marty Bluke) Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2017 12:11:31 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] What are the main mitzvos to focus on? Message-ID: The last daf in Makos (24a) states that the Neviim took the 613 mitzvos and reduced them to a smaller set for people to focus on. Michah gave three Mitzvos for people to focus on - "Asos Mishpat..." "Asos Mishpat" is monetary laws; "Ahavas Chesed" is bestowing Chesed; "V'Hatzne'a Leches Im Elokecha" is escorting the dead and bringing a Kalah to Chupah; Yeshayah later gave two primary Mitzvos - "Shimru Mishpat va'Asu Tzedakah." The mitzva of learning Torah which we understand to be the most important and fundamental mitzva does not appear in these lists. How do we explain the omission of learning Torah in these lists? Additionally, these lists seem to consist solely of mitzvos bein adam lachaveiro, are there no mitzvos ben adam lamakom that are important enought to appear on these lists? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From seinfeld at daasbooks.com Thu Nov 30 09:20:44 2017 From: seinfeld at daasbooks.com (Alexander Seinfeld) Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2017 12:20:44 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] More on Yaakov, sheep and the rods Message-ID: <50458059-A03F-4E6E-B54B-F1612B0E7E5B@jsli.org> Why not just interpret this as an example of phenotypic plasticity, meaning the genetic potential is there in every generation, and the environmental factors stimulate its expression? As everyone who had genetics 101 will realize, if you eliminate 100% of the phenotype, and breed the remainder you will still get some of that phenotype in the next generation with recessive genes. So it always bothered me why was all the hokus pokus by Yaakov necessary. Even more so the pasook itself seems to ascribe the results as caused by the sticks even though a simple natural explanation for the reappearance of the phenotype in the next generation is quite simple. The only explanation I could come up with is that the percentages were much higher than one would expect as a result of genetic calculations thus the nes (and Yaakov?s efforts [hishtadlus] to produce it) is described at great length. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From chaim.tatel at gmail.com Thu Nov 30 09:30:37 2017 From: chaim.tatel at gmail.com (Chaim Tatel) Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2017 09:30:37 -0800 Subject: [Avodah] Gid ha'nasheh Message-ID: When I was studying Zoology in college back in the 70s, I did some research on Yaakov?s battle with the malach. The big question I had was ?why should Yaakov Avinu get hit in the gid hanasheh (sciatic nerve)? Why not somewhere else in the body?? As I learned in my Anatomy and Physiology class, there are several nerves that branch off from the sciatic nerve. One of these is the pudendal nerve. This is one of the nerves responsible for sexual function (and other actions). Current research follows: The pudendal nerve is found in the pelvis. It is the biggest division of the pudendal plexus (a network of nerves) and is located behind the sacrospinous ligament, near the tailbone. The nerve extends from the sacral plexus, through the pudendal canal, the perineum, and the gluteal area. These are structures located near the genital, rectal, and gluteal (buttock) regions. (see: https://www.healthline.com/human-body-maps/pudendal-nerve) The peripheral nerves supply the bladder, anal canal, and perineal skin. The pudendal nerve is the primary somatic nerve to this region. Motor fibers in the pudendal nerve innervate the bulbocavernosus muscle, external urethral sphincter, external anal sphincter, and pelvic floor muscles. (see: www.humanneurophysiology.com/sacralmonitoring.htm) I also remember that one of the meforshim (commentators) on Chumash had a similar answer. (Sorry, I can?t remember where I saw this, it?s been over 40 years). At any rate, it makes sense that Yaakov would be hit there, as a reminder that his marriage to Rachel after his marriage to her sister Leah would not hold up when he entered Eretz Yisrael. (not long after this episode, Rachel died in childbirth of Binyamin). Aside from feeling the psychological pain of Rachel?s death, perhaps Yaakov also had to feel physical pain. Chaim Tatel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From lisa at starways.net Sat Dec 2 12:56:18 2017 From: lisa at starways.net (Lisa Liel) Date: Sat, 2 Dec 2017 22:56:18 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] knife sharpeners Message-ID: <62debe36-f9a2-7cab-d4cb-a60320a1ec83@starways.net> Are knife sharpeners mekabel taam?? And noten taam?? Do you need different onces for meat, dairy, pesach, etc? --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From zev at sero.name Sat Dec 2 17:01:31 2017 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Sat, 2 Dec 2017 20:01:31 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] knife sharpeners In-Reply-To: <62debe36-f9a2-7cab-d4cb-a60320a1ec83@starways.net> References: <62debe36-f9a2-7cab-d4cb-a60320a1ec83@starways.net> Message-ID: <0115756c-ad5a-dc19-dfdc-aba2138a2858@sero.name> On 02/12/17 15:56, Lisa Liel via Avodah wrote: > Are knife sharpeners mekabel taam?? And noten taam?? Do you need > different onces for meat, dairy, pesach, etc? Since they don't ever contact food, I don't see how they could. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From JRich at sibson.com Sat Dec 2 22:40:43 2017 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Sun, 3 Dec 2017 06:40:43 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Women and Torah Study Message-ID: <9f94d416d3154585a6bb71a2df12c54e@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> My comment to a recent post on Lehrhaus on women and intensive talmud study: Is encouraging intensive study of Talmud for women a community priority or is the priority to make such study available for those who choose to avail themselves of the opportunity? Especially if the former, where does it stand in relation to other community priorities and how does the answer differ from study for men? IMHO these questions have not been sufficiently addressed. Do my concern resonate at all? KT 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: From marty.bluke at gmail.com Sun Dec 3 01:13:00 2017 From: marty.bluke at gmail.com (Marty Bluke) Date: Sun, 3 Dec 2017 11:13:00 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] The 13 middos Message-ID: The Gemara in Shavuos (4b) discusses who the Tanna of the Mishna is and brings down a fundamental machlokes tannaim about the 13 middos. R' Yishmael darshens klal uprat and R' Akiva darshens ribuy umiut. The Acharonim point out that these are mutually exclusive and every Tanna darshens one or the other but they cannot be mixed (e.g. a Tanna sometimes darshens ribuy umiut and sometimes klal uprat). The question is how can something so fundamental as the 13 middos be a matter of dispute? Weren't the 13 middos given to Moshe at Har Sinai? How could they forget such a basic thing? It is very difficult to say that both are right (e.g. elu v'elu) because they are mutually exclusive and come to different conclusions. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Sun Dec 3 06:18:20 2017 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Sun, 3 Dec 2017 14:18:20 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Davening on Airplanes Message-ID: <1512310700373.25771@stevens.edu> Very often people make minyanimm on flights to Israel. The following if from https://goo.gl/j8hdXR and is a quote from Rabbi Hershel Schachter. Another common mistake people make is regarding davening with a minyan (on a plane). The Talmud emphasizes the importance of tefillah btzibur; and one who davens with a minyan stands a much better chance of having his prayers answered than one who lacks a minyan. However, it is highly improper for the chazzan of a minyan on an airplane to shout at the top of his lungs to enable the other mispalelim to hear him over the airplane noise, and thereby wake up all the passengers around him. It is true that there is a halachic principle of kofin al hamitzvos, i.e. that beis din has an obligation to force people to observe the mitzvos even when they're not interested in doing so, but this only applies when pressuring an individual will result in his becoming observant. However, when Orthodox Jews disturb non-observant Jewish passengers with their davening, the non-observant passengers sill remain non-observant and now just have another point about which to be upset with the Orthodox. The practice of the Orthodox passengers under such circumstances appears simply as an act of harassment. Rather than having accomplished the hidur mitzvah of davening tefillah btzibur, they have violated lifnei iver by causing the non-observant passengers to become more antagonistic towards shemiras hamitzvos. The shouting tone of voice employed by the shaliach tzibbur to overcome the noise on the airplane clearly does not constitute a kavod hatefillah. The halacha states that when traveling, if it is too difficult to stand for shemoneh esrei even the "amidah" may be recited while seated. On a short flight of an hour and a half to Canada it is more correct to daven the entire tefillah while still buckled in, in a sitting position. On the long flight to Eretz Yisroel it is healthier to not sit the entire time; walking around somewhat helps the blood circulation in one's legs. As such, there is nothing wrong with standing for shemoneh esrei, provided that there's no turbulence at that time. However, it is still not proper to gather a minyan together near the washrooms, disturbing all the other passengers and the stewardesses. As much as various Torah giants of our generation have expressed their opposition to such minyanim on airplanes[2], their message has not yet been accepted. We wish everyone a chag kasher v'sameach, and all those traveling to Eretz Yisroel should have a safe trip, but keep in mind - these minyanim are shelo b'ratzon chachomim! [2] Rav Shlomo Wahrman ( She'eiris Yosef vol. 7, siman 3) quotes Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach (Halichos Shlomo, page 75), Rav Moshe Feinstein (Igros Moshe Orach Chaim vol. 4 siman 20), Rav Ovadiah Yosef, and Rav Shmuel Wosner all objecting to minyanim on airplanes that disturb other passengers -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Sun Dec 3 07:15:20 2017 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Sun, 3 Dec 2017 15:15:20 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] The Forces That Have Shaped World History Message-ID: <1512314120420.4485@stevens.edu> The following is from RSRH's commentary on Bereishis 30:8 Ya'akov was very much afraid and distressed, so he divided the peoplewho were with him, as well as the flocks, cattle and camels, into two camps. We can put ourselves in Ya'akov's place, and we are especially obligated to do so, considering the significance of the impending meeting; for, because of this meeting, Ya'akov experienced a revelation whose memory is forever linked with the daily meal of the man of Israel. Just as Ya'akov and Esav oppose each other here, so they continue to stand opposed to one another unto this very day. Ya'akov is the family man blessed with children; hard-working, serving, weighed down by cares. Esav is the "finished and accomplished" man (cf. Commentary above, 25:25). Ya'akov now returns as the independent head of a family. Even now, having overcome all the obstacles, this privilege is, to him, the highest prize, the greatest achievement. But to attain it, he had to toil and struggle for twenty years, despite the fact that he had already received the blessing and the birthright. Others, however, take this privilege for granted; it is given to them from birth. Esav, the "finished and accomplished" man, already possessed it in full measure when Ya'akov first left home. While Ya'akov, through hard work, succeeded in establishing a family, Esav became a political force, the leader of an army, an aluf at the head of his troops. Thus the external contrast between Ya'akov, who held on to his brother's heel when they were born, and Esav, the "accomplished" man. In Ya'akov and Esav, two opposing principles confront each other. The struggle between them, and the outcome of this struggle, are the forces that have shaped world history. Ya'akov represents family life, happiness and making others happy. Esav represents the glitter of political power and might. This conflict has raged for thousands of years: Is it sufficient just to be a human being, and are political power and social creativity of no significance unless they lead to the loftiest of all human aspirations, or, on the contrary, does everything that is human in man, in home, and in family life exist only to serve the purposes of political triumph? How different from his attitude toward Lavan is Ya'akov's attitude toward Esav. We know how steadfast is the power of one who is sure of his own integrity, and how oppressive is the feeling of guilt, even if only imagined. It is easier to suffer wrong and injustice for twenty years than to face for one minute a person whom we know was offended by us and who cannot understand our motives, which do not justify our actions but at least excuse them. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Mon Dec 4 07:55:38 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2017 10:55:38 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] knife sharpeners In-Reply-To: <0115756c-ad5a-dc19-dfdc-aba2138a2858@sero.name> References: <62debe36-f9a2-7cab-d4cb-a60320a1ec83@starways.net> <0115756c-ad5a-dc19-dfdc-aba2138a2858@sero.name> Message-ID: <20171204155538.GC26551@aishdas.org> On Sat, Dec 02, 2017 at 08:01:31PM -0500, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : On 02/12/17 15:56, Lisa Liel via Avodah wrote: : >Are knife sharpeners mekabel taam?? And noten taam?? Do you need : >different onces for meat, dairy, pesach, etc? : : Since they don't ever contact food, I don't see how they could. Since they are in heated contact with the knife, aren't there potential na"t bar na"t issues? Tir'u baTov! -Micha From ari.brodsky at utoronto.ca Mon Dec 4 10:03:48 2017 From: ari.brodsky at utoronto.ca (Ari Meir Brodsky) Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2017 20:03:48 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Tonight (Monday evening) begin Prayer for Rain Message-ID: Dear Friends, It's that time of year again, when I know many of you are expecting my annual friendly reminder.... Jews outside of Israel should include the request for rain in daily prayers, beginning with Maariv tonight (Monday evening), December 4, 2017, corresponding to the evening of 17 Kislev, 5778. The phrase *??? ?? ???? ?????* "Veten tal umatar livracha" - "Give us dew and rain for a blessing" is inserted into the 9th blessing of the weekday shemone esrei, from now until Pesach. [Sephardim replace the entire blessing of ????? with the alternate text beginning ??? ????? - thanks to Prof. Lasker for the reminder.] I encourage everyone to remind friends and family members of this event, especially those who may not be in shul at that time. Diaspora Jews begin requesting rain on the 60th day of the fall season, as approximated by Shmuel in the Talmud (Taanit 10a, Eiruvin 56a). For more information about this calculation, follow the link below, to a fascinating article giving a (very brief) introduction to the Jewish calendar, followed by a discussion on why we begin praying for rain when we do: http://www.lookstein.org/articles/veten_tal.htm (Thanks to Russell Levy for providing the link.) Wishing everyone a happy Chanukka, -Ari Meir Brodsky --------------------- Ari M. Brodsky ari.brodsky at utoronto.ca -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mirskym at gmail.com Mon Dec 4 10:02:39 2017 From: mirskym at gmail.com (Michael Mirsky) Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2017 21:02:39 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Davening on Airplanes In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: In all the discussions of this topic that I have seen, I haven't seen anyone address the issue of someone who is in his year of aveilut and needs a minyan to say kaddish. Do the objections to the possible disturbance a minyan might cause override this need? Michael Mirsky -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From larry62341 at optonline.net Mon Dec 4 10:17:47 2017 From: larry62341 at optonline.net (Prof. Levine) Date: Mon, 04 Dec 2017 13:17:47 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Knife Sharpening Message-ID: The following is from an article posted on the CRC web site at https://goo.gl/ispg9T Food service establishments regularly send out their knives for sharpening, and it appears that there are three potential kashrus concerns with this practice, as follows: * The sharpening company may give the establishment different knives than the ones which the establishment gave them for sharpening. This is an especially likely in cases where the sharpening company actually owns the knives and lends them to the establishment in exchange for the rights to sharpen them. This issue can be avoided if the Mashgiach has a tevias ayin on the knives and/or marks them. * Knives are typically very dirty when they arrive at the sharpening facility, and therefore all knives are washed in hot water or a dishwasher before the sharpening begins. This potentially allows non-kosher b?lios to get into the kosher knives. See below for more on this. * The same machine is used to sharpen the (clean) kosher and non-kosher knives, and the friction created by the process does heat up the knives somewhat. If that heat would be above yad soledes bo, there would be a potential for b?lios to transfer between the machinery and knives. However, in tests which Rabbi Neustadt performed in one sharpening company, the sharpening wheel and the cooling water (where that was used) were consistently cooler than 100? F and were not hot to the touch. As such, it appears that this does not pose a serious concern. See the above URL for more. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Mon Dec 4 11:53:58 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2017 14:53:58 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] What are the main mitzvos to focus on? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20171204195358.GC2323@aishdas.org> On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 12:11:31PM +0200, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: : The last daf in Makos (24a) states that the Neviim took the 613 mitzvos and : reduced them to a smaller set for people to focus on. : Michah gave three Mitzvos for people to focus on - "Asos Mishpat..." : "Asos Mishpat" is monetary laws; : "Ahavas Chesed" is bestowing Chesed; Is "din" necessarily a reference to monetary laws? Din vs chessed is a recurring dialectic. As in sheim Elokus vs sheim Havayah. : "V'Hatzne'a Leches Im Elokecha" is escorting the dead and bringing a Kalah : to Chupah; I saw the gemara differently, emphasizing tzeni'us itself. As it explains, one should walk with one's G-d modestly even when doing these two mitzvos, which normally happen in public. And then the gemara continues with a qal vachomer al achas kamah vekamah those which are normally done betzin'ah. So it seems to be closer to the words of the pasuq than the identification with two specific acts of chessed (one of which is famously "chesed shel emes") the gemara begins its explanation with. After all, chessed is already covered in the previous item in the list. (Parallel gemara at Sukkah 49b.) : Yeshayah later gave two primary Mitzvos - "Shimru Mishpat va'Asu Tzedakah." Tangent: You'll notice that Yeshaiah is listed twice, once before Mikhah (giving 6 principles), and once after. As they were contemporaries whose nevu'os overlap in content, R' Simla'i's intent is likely chronological order. : The mitzva of learning Torah which we understand to be the most important : and fundamental mitzva does not appear in these lists.... I think the "we" in your sentence are simply following a hashkafah which isn't majority opinion. Not only does R' Simla'i skip them, in favor of living to emulate HQBH's din and chessed, but - Hillel famously defines all of Torah in terms of using one's empathy to avoiding doing what one's chaver would loathe. Rashi ad loc includes avoiding what one's Chaver would loathe, but in his other discussions of the quote, this aspect is missing. - R' Aqiva and Ben Azzai argue over which pasuq better captures the Torah's kelal gadol, and both are interpersonal. - In both shasin, "Torah lishmah" is discussed in terms of al menas la'asos and/or al menas lelameid. Not knowing for its own sake. See also Meshekh Chokhmah (Devarim 218:61) which I blog about at So, who amongst Chazal really does make learning the central goal of a Jewish man's life? Jumping ahead to the Isms that today's O world is trying to build from: - In chassidus, talmud Torah is a means to deveiqus. - The discussion in Nefesh haChaim sha'ar 4 which denies the previous bullet item might be the earliest source for the position you describe as what "we understand" was written by the same RCV about whom his son says (in the haqadmah to NhC, emphasis mine): He regularly rebuked me, because he saw that I did not participate in the pain of others. And these were his constant words to me: This is the entire person. One is not created for himself, but to benefit others with the full extent of his powers. (SHEZEH KOL HA'ADAM: lo le'atzmo nivra, RAQ LEHO'IL LE'ACHRINI...) So, while sha'ar 4 waxes poetic about the chiyus talmud Torah gives the world, RCV didn't mean to say that therefore learning is the It of life. (And yeshivos tend not to learn shaar 1's discussion of the power of maaseh nor shaar 2's discussion of dibbur. Which also yeilds an imbalance in how one sees the NhC shaar 4's description of machashavah.) - Similarly, while we remember R' Chaim Brisker for inventing Brisker lomdus, he said his main job was to be a baal chessed. And his family agreed; the praise on his matzeivah simply reads "rav chessed". Apparently the Pulmus haMussar was about the proper means to come to embody the ideal, and not what the ideal actually is. This notion that learning is the ends rather than a central part of the means is arguably idiosyncratic. It is far easier to argue that the central mitzvah is to emulate the Meitiv and bring His Tov to others. : Additionally, these lists : seem to consist solely of mitzvos bein adam lachaveiro, are there no : mitzvos ben adam lamakom that are important enought to appear on these : lists? As per what I said above, mitzvos bein adam laMaqom -- or R' Yisrael Salanter's third category of mitzvos being adam le'atzmo, which includes talmud Torah as an act of self-refinement -- is more caring for the goose than the goose's actual laying of the golden eggs. Rather than a question mark, just end with an exclamation point. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger We are great, and our foibles are great, micha at aishdas.org and therefore our troubles are great -- http://www.aishdas.org but our consolations will also be great. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rabbi AY Kook From micha at aishdas.org Mon Dec 4 11:55:56 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2017 14:55:56 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Davening on Airplanes In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20171204195556.GD2323@aishdas.org> On Mon, Dec 04, 2017 at 09:02:39PM +0300, Michael Mirsky via Avodah wrote: : In all the discussions of this topic that I have seen, I haven't seen : anyone address the issue of someone who is in his year of aveilut and needs : a minyan to say kaddish. Do the objections to the possible disturbance a : minyan might cause override this need? How can it be a zekhus to the niftar to say Qaddish in a way that the BALC violations make it a net minus? Tir'u baTov! -Micha From saulguberman at gmail.com Mon Dec 4 12:00:16 2017 From: saulguberman at gmail.com (Saul Guberman) Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2017 15:00:16 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Davening on Airplanes In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: My understanding is that kaddish needs to be said once a day. It is said multi times a day as a hiddur. So, missing one davening should be OK and the zchus of not disturbing other passengers and crew and not creating a chillul hashem should make up for the missed kaddish. On Mon, Dec 4, 2017 at 1:02 PM, Michael Mirsky via Avodah < avodah at lists.aishdas.org> wrote: > In all the discussions of this topic that I have seen, I haven't seen > anyone address the issue of someone who is in his year of aveilut and needs > a minyan to say kaddish. Do the objections to the possible disturbance a > minyan might cause override this need? > > Michael Mirsky > > _______________________________________________ > Avodah mailing list > Avodah at lists.aishdas.org > http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From zev at sero.name Mon Dec 4 12:14:53 2017 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2017 15:14:53 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] knife sharpeners In-Reply-To: <20171204155538.GC26551@aishdas.org> References: <62debe36-f9a2-7cab-d4cb-a60320a1ec83@starways.net> <0115756c-ad5a-dc19-dfdc-aba2138a2858@sero.name> <20171204155538.GC26551@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 04/12/17 10:55, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > On Sat, Dec 02, 2017 at 08:01:31PM -0500, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > : On 02/12/17 15:56, Lisa Liel via Avodah wrote: > : >Are knife sharpeners mekabel taam?? And noten taam?? Do you need > : >different onces for meat, dairy, pesach, etc? > : > : Since they don't ever contact food, I don't see how they could. > > Since they are in heated contact with the knife, aren't there potential > na"t bar na"t issues? Knives are sharpened while hot?! With water? -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From micha at aishdas.org Mon Dec 4 12:48:38 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2017 15:48:38 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Davening on Airplanes In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20171204204838.GA1334@aishdas.org> On Mon, Dec 04, 2017 at 03:00:16PM -0500, Saul Guberman via Avodah wrote: : My understanding is that kaddish needs to be said once a day. It is said : multi times a day as a hiddur... See YD 376:4. The Rama discusses it in terms of a minhag, actually a variety of whatever is "minhag qavu'ah ba'ir". : the zchus of not disturbing other passengers and crew and not creating a : chillul hashem should make up for the missed kaddish. Especially since it's the avoidance of an actual issur vs a medieval or post-medieval minhag. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Life isn't about finding yourself. micha at aishdas.org Life is about creating yourself. http://www.aishdas.org - George Bernard Shaw Fax: (270) 514-1507 From micha at aishdas.org Mon Dec 4 13:34:04 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2017 16:34:04 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Letzareif Message-ID: <20171204213404.GA32594@aishdas.org> In Bereishis Rabb 44:1, Rav says Lo nitenu hamitzvos ela letzarei bahen es haberios And what does it matter to HQBH who shechtas from the throat and who shechts from the back of the neck? Havei: lo nitenu hamitzvos ela letzarei bahen es haberios Letzareif is a metaphor of melting. The problem is, whether we mean smelting / refining, or to meld to thing together (as in "mitzrareif")? Are we being told that mitzvos were given to refine people, or to connect them? Or is the word chosen in order to intentionally carry both meanings? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger If you're going through hell micha at aishdas.org keep going. http://www.aishdas.org - Winston Churchill Fax: (270) 514-1507 From bdbradley70 at hotmail.com Mon Dec 4 14:03:37 2017 From: bdbradley70 at hotmail.com (Ben Bradley) Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2017 22:03:37 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] knife sharpeners In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: ': On 02/12/17 15:56, Lisa Liel via Avodah wrote: : >Are knife sharpeners mekabel taam?? And noten taam?? Do you need : >different onces for meat, dairy, pesach, etc? : : Since they don't ever contact food, I don't see how they could. Since they are in heated contact with the knife, aren't there potential na"t bar na"t issues?' Knife sharpeners get hot? What kind of sharpeners are we talking about here? I've never seen a domestic knife sharpener which gets beyond slightly warm. But even if it did, the food would be na't to the knife, the knife to the sharpener, the sharpener to the second knife and thence to the food again. Which is na't bar na't bar na't bar na't. I thought that's not a problem in hilchos basar b'chalav? BW Ben -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Mon Dec 4 14:29:08 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2017 17:29:08 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] The 13 middos In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20171204222908.GA10223@aishdas.org> On Sun, Dec 03, 2017 at 11:13:00AM +0200, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: : The Gemara in Shavuos (4b) discusses who the Tanna of the Mishna is and : brings down a fundamental machlokes tannaim about the 13 middos. R' : Yishmael darshens klal uprat and R' Akiva darshens ribuy umiut. The : Acharonim point out that these are mutually exclusive and every Tanna : darshens one or the other but they cannot be mixed (e.g. a Tanna sometimes : darshens ribuy umiut and sometimes klal uprat). ... I do not understand this paranthetic comment, as it refers to a kind of mixture, a tanna who uses both styles of derashah, as an example of how they cannot be mixed. The willingness of the two batei midrash to use the others' methodology is stated outright on Bekhoros 51a. One such tanna is R' Aqiva himself, eg Yerushalmi Sotah 8:1 (vilna 34a). See RSRH's discussion in Collected Writings V pg 170. : something so fundamental as the 13 middos be a matter of dispute? Weren't : the 13 middos given to Moshe at Har Sinai? How could they forget such a : basic thing? ... The methodology could have been in use informally before Hillel started the meta-Torah of the study and formalization of rules to describe that methodology. Just as people can use proper grammar before anyone makes a formal study of the language's grammatical rules. Since each did use the others' rules, the formalized rule system doesn't actually define the list of inherited laws. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger None of us will leave this place alive. micha at aishdas.org All that is left to us is http://www.aishdas.org to be as human as possible while we are here. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Anonymous MD, while a Nazi prisoner From marty.bluke at gmail.com Mon Dec 4 21:15:42 2017 From: marty.bluke at gmail.com (Marty Bluke) Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2017 07:15:42 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] The 13 middos In-Reply-To: <20171204222908.GA10223@aishdas.org> References: <20171204222908.GA10223@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Tuesday, December 5, 2017, Micha Berger wrote:... > > > I do not understand this paranthetic comment, as it refers to a kind of > mixture, a tanna who uses both styles of derashah, as an example of how > they cannot be mixed. The willingness of the two batei midrash to use the > others' methodology is stated outright on Bekhoros 51a. > > One such tanna is R' Aqiva himself, eg Yerushalmi Sotah 8:1 (vilna 34a). > > See RSRH's discussion in Collected Writings V pg 170. See the Mishne Lamelech avadim 3:9 where he states that it is either or and the 2 styles cannot be mixed, and his main proof is from the Gemara Shavuos 4b where the Gemara asks on Rebbe how can he darshen a ribui umiut like R Akiva if in general he darshens Klal Uprat. We see clearly that the Gemara assumes you darshen 1 or the other but not both otherwise the Gemara would have no question. See also tosafos nidda 30a s.v. Ushma mina where tosafos says that we pasken that we darshen Klal uprat and not ribui umiut. That only makes sense if they are mutually exclusive. See also tosafos shavuos 25a s.v. Rav who also assumes that it is either or. Regarding the Gemara in bechoros 51a it is actually a proof the other way. The Gemara says that this case is an exception because it is not written in the normal way of a Klal uprat and therefore in this case only Rebbe can learn a ribui umiut but in general someone who learns Klal uprat could not use ribui umiut. > > Tir'u baTov! > -Micha > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From JRich at sibson.com Mon Dec 4 22:13:31 2017 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2017 06:13:31 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Davening on Airplanes In-Reply-To: <20171204204838.GA1334@aishdas.org> References: , <20171204204838.GA1334@aishdas.org> Message-ID: > > Especially since it's the avoidance of an actual issur vs a medieval or > post-medieval ---------- All very true, yet the Hamon am has invested Kaddish with great importance. Does that investiture have a halachic chalot? It seems it does at least in terms of kavod Kt Joel 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. From akivagmiller at gmail.com Tue Dec 5 03:22:57 2017 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2017 06:22:57 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Gid ha'nasheh Message-ID: . R' Chaim Tatel wrote: > At any rate, it makes sense that Yaakov would be hit there, > as a reminder that his marriage to Rachel after his marriage > to her sister Leah would not hold up when he entered Eretz > Yisrael. (not long after this episode, Rachel died in childbirth > of Binyamin). > > Aside from feeling the psychological pain of Rachel?s death, > perhaps Yaakov also had to feel physical pain. I draw a distinction between "consequences" and "punishments". I have heard in the past that Eretz Yisrael was unable to tolerate Yaakov's being married to two sisters, and that Rachel's death was a consequence of that. But RCT writes that Yaakov was given a reminder of that consequence, and that he had to feel pain as well. Now it sounds like Yaakov was being punished. If he was punished, it must be that he was punished for some choice that he made. What choice was that? What did he do wrong? If he could do it all over again, what ought he do differently? Specifically: After having married Leah, should he have not married Rachel? Alternatively, (according to those who say that he was not fooled but knew that Leah had the simanim,) should he have not married Leah? Or should he have protested and annuled the marriage to Leah? If he was punished, what did he do wrong? Akiva Miller From akivagmiller at gmail.com Tue Dec 5 03:33:20 2017 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2017 06:33:20 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Davening on Airplanes Message-ID: . R' Michael Mirsky asked: > In all the discussions of this topic that I have seen, I > haven't seen anyone address the issue of someone who is in > his year of aveilut and needs a minyan to say kaddish. Do the > objections to the possible disturbance a minyan might cause > override this need? RMM seems to be suggesting that this individual's need to say kaddish is greater than the usual need to daven Tefila B'Tzibur. I have heard other people express this feeling, but I've never seen any evidence for it in seforim or elsewhere. I'll express it another way: I am well aware that there are many many people who are somewhat lax in their minyan attendance in general, but for yahrzeit or aveilus they are much more meticulous. This is not a bad thing; whatever will help get people into shul is good. But I do think that their values might be misplaced. Akiva Miller From larry62341 at optonline.net Tue Dec 5 05:12:22 2017 From: larry62341 at optonline.net (Prof. Levine) Date: Tue, 05 Dec 2017 08:12:22 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] How often to day kaddish Message-ID: <2E.1E.03203.73B962A5@mta4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> Saul Guberman wrote: My understanding is that kaddish needs to be said once a day. It is said multi times a day as a hiddur. So, missing one davening should be OK and the zchus of not disturbing other passengers and crew and not creating a chillul hashem should make up for the missed kaddish. ________________________________________________________ According to the original din only, only one person said kaddish at a time. (This is still what is done in some places like KAJ and Bais Hatalmud). Thus, if there are many people saying kaddish in a shul that keeps the original din, it is conceivable that one might not get to say kaddish every day or even longer. Hence I do not think that one needs to say kaddish once a day. YL From akivagmiller at gmail.com Tue Dec 5 04:53:47 2017 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2017 07:53:47 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Letzareif Message-ID: . R' Micha Berger wrote: > Lo nitenu hamitzvos ela letzarei bahen es haberios > ... > Letzareif is a metaphor of melting. The problem is, whether > we mean smelting / refining, or to meld to thing together (as > in "mitzrareif")? > Are we being told that mitzvos were given to refine people, > or to connect them? Or is the word chosen in order to > intentionally carry both meanings? "Ratzah HKBH l'zakos es Yisrael..." Does "zakos" mean to purify, or to give zechus? I perceive a similar poetry in both l'tzaref and l'zakos, but I'm not much of a poet, so I'll leave this thought for the rest of y'all to ponder and expand uon. Akiva Miller From marty.bluke at gmail.com Tue Dec 5 01:10:14 2017 From: marty.bluke at gmail.com (Marty Bluke) Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2017 11:10:14 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] What are the main mitzvos to focus on? In-Reply-To: <20171204195358.GC2323@aishdas.org> References: <20171204195358.GC2323@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Mon, Dec 4, 2017 at 9:53 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 12:11:31PM +0200, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: > : The last daf in Makos (24a) states that the Neviim took the 613 mitzvos > and > : reduced them to a smaller set for people to focus on. > > : ... > > : The mitzva of learning Torah which we understand to be the most important > : and fundamental mitzva does not appear in these lists.... > > I think the "we" in your sentence are simply following a hashkafah which > isn't majority opinion. > ... > So, who amongst Chazal really does make learning the central goal of a > Jewish man's life? > > ... > This notion that learning is the ends rather than a central part of > the means is arguably idiosyncratic. It is far easier to argue that the > central mitzvah is to emulate the Meitiv and bring His Tov to others. > > Tir'u baTov! > -Micha So basically you are saying that the current Charedi hashkafa/lifestyle of Torah only and Torah learning being the ultimate purpose of life is not a majority opinion in Chazal and in fact you can't find anyone among Chazal who says this. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Tue Dec 5 09:02:00 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2017 12:02:00 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] What are the main mitzvos to focus on? In-Reply-To: References: <20171204195358.GC2323@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20171205170200.GB5251@aishdas.org> On Tue, Dec 05, 2017 at 11:10:14AM +0200, Marty Bluke wrote: : So basically you are saying that the current Charedi hashkafa/lifestyle of : Torah only and Torah learning being the ultimate purpose of life is not a : majority opinion in Chazal and in fact you can't find anyone among Chazal : who says this. I intentionally avoided stating it that confrontationally, but yes. Although not "chareidi", "yeshivish". Excluding most chassidim but including the large population of MO who are taking yeshivish hashkafah and harmonizing it with modernity. (Eg RYBS as understood by many of his students.) See, for example, R Tzevi Sinsky's currently running series out of YHE ("Gush") "Talmud Torah: The Mitzva of Torah Study". He draws heavily from R' Yehudah Amital and R' N Lamm (whom RZS calls "mori uzeqeini"); his perspective is that of DL and MO, not "chareidim". Here's the web abstract for the opening shiur: In this introductory shiur, we explore the centrality of Torah study in the thought of the Rabbis. From Noach to Ezra, prominent Jewish leaders throughout the biblical period are portrayed as Torah scholars, and this mitzva is ascribed paramount importance in every aspect of life. In particular, shiur 3 discusses the purpose of talmud Torah, discussing various approached. The section "Approach #1 -- Instrumentalism" quotes pesuqim, mishayos, Toseftra, gemaros, before getting to rishonim (Rashi, Rambam, Ramban, Chinukh, Me'iri, Or H'. See also RNSlifkin's long list of quotes from rishonim at .) In contrast, "Approach #2 -- Cultivating a Halakhic Ethos" opens with the Chazon Ish then mentions R' Chaim Brisker as desribed in Halakhic Man. "Approach #3 -- Variations on Deveikut" starts with the Rambam leveraging a Sifrei (who I do not see as giving their description of /the/ purpose of learning), but focuses on Chassidus, R' Kook and R' Amital. Notice that learning being primarily valuable instrumentally is the shitah for which RZS can find overwhelming evidence in chazal and rishonim, the others being johnny-come-latelies of the last centuries. As for my own opinion, I wouldn't call approach #2 the cultivation of a "halachic ethos". I think this reflects Brisk's tendency to conflate halakhah with kol haTorah kulah, downplaying the import of aggadita. And yet, this wording does emphasize how approach 1 includes approach 2. If we are obligated in hilkhos dei'os / chovos halvavos / ve'asisa hayashar vehatov / to develop a *Torah* ethos, then #2 is also instrumental. We learn Mes' Sukkah to know how to fulfill the mitzvah of sukkah, and we learn Mes' Pirqei Avos to know to to fulfill the mitzvah of vehalakhta bidrakhav. See, it's instrumental! The difference boils down to what I believe was the central chiluq behind the pulmus haMussar: In the Brisker worldview, when RCVolozhiner compares talmud Torah to immersion in a miqvah, he means it descriptively. Learn halakhah as an end in itself, an it will leave a roshem of taharah. Even if the causality involved is mystical and non-obvious. Whereas R Yisrael Salanter looked at the actual metzi'us of the society he was in -- and all the moreso ours -- and concluded that this couldn't have been RCV's intent. Rather, RCV was speaking descriptively; when one learns correctly, one is learning in a way that leaves a roshem of taharah, even if the material itself is never understood or gets forgotten. And RYS had the lifestyle of RCV's talmid, R' Zundel Salanter, as indication of what Nefesh haChaim was intending to describe. Thus, to a mussarist, RCV was describing how to learn. Don't just learn nega'im to find chiluqim with which to explain machloqesin and non-obvious dinim. Rather, in addition one must spend the time driving home the roshem of how bad LH and ga'avah are, that HQBH felt it worth aiding teshuvah in these areas. And those two topics are far more connected in Telzher derekh than Brisker, but I think I've ranged far enough. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Spirituality is like a bird: if you tighten micha at aishdas.org your grip on it, it chokes; slacken your grip, http://www.aishdas.org and it flies away. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From micha at aishdas.org Tue Dec 5 10:39:48 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2017 13:39:48 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Davening on Airplanes In-Reply-To: References: <20171204204838.GA1334@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20171205183948.GA31307@aishdas.org> On Tue, Dec 05, 2017 at 06:13:31AM +0000, Rich, Joel wrote: :> Especially since it's the avoidance of an actual issur vs a medieval or :> post-medieval : All very true, yet the Hamon am has invested Kaddish with great : importance. Does that investiture have a halachic chalot? It seems it : does at least in terms of kavod Reading the kesuvah under the chuppah is just a stall while we wait some gap of time to separate qiddushin and nissuin. A maaseh kof. And yet because it is time in the spot-light, common practice is to treat it as the second greatest kibud, often what you give the other rav you might have made mesader qiddushin. When it comes to kibud, public treatment does indeed matter. And logically enough; after all, being mekhubad is an issue of seeing others display feelings of kavod. How we display it /should/ be secondary. All logical. However, here we are talking about someone in the olam ha'emes. So they know that while on the plane you have that actual issur keeping you from fulfilling the minhag of saying qaddish. For that matter, hopefully and typically said parent worked really hard at trying to get the avel to respect others. And if not, again, at this point the soul of even the worst parent would know better. So I do not think it's likely the neshamah would mind the lack of kibud as much as they would mind the misplacement of values. I would therefore not draw any conclusions from the logical linkage of kibud with intent and norms. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Between stimulus & response, there is a space. micha at aishdas.org In that space is our power to choose our http://www.aishdas.org response. In our response lies our growth Fax: (270) 514-1507 and our freedom. - Victor Frankl, (MSfM) From llevine at stevens.edu Wed Dec 6 01:39:18 2017 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2017 09:39:18 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Gambling in Halachah Message-ID: <7b63aab9b65f4c589d76fe326bd18f97@exchng03.campus.stevens-tech.edu> Click here to download "Gambling in Halachah" [That's the Kof-K's Halachically Speaking vol 13, issue 18, dedicated to this topic. -micha] From micha at aishdas.org Wed Dec 6 11:36:19 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2017 14:36:19 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Gid ha'nasheh In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20171206193619.GB12102@aishdas.org> On Tue, Dec 05, 2017 at 06:22:57AM -0500, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: :> Aside from feeling the psychological pain of Rachel?s death, :> perhaps Yaakov also had to feel physical pain. : : I draw a distinction between "consequences" and "punishments"... For those who don't remember from prior iterations, I don't. I think the difference between callins an onesh a consequence and calling it a punishment (or even "corrective") is whether one views sekhar va'onesh as a system that HQBH set up when He set up the universe or as a set of responses He has to our actions. "Chai gever al chata'av" implies one, our tefillos on yamim nora'im frequently imply the other. But both are simply simplified models of the incomprehensible Truth of how Hashem runs the universe. Since He is lemaalah min hazeman, we can't talk about whether the decision was made in maaseh bereishis or in response to our action -- both are ascribing times to a timeless Action (for want of a better word). We can only speak of a when for the effects of Divine Action, as they enter our timefull experience. : I have : heard in the past that Eretz Yisrael was unable to tolerate Yaakov's : being married to two sisters, and that Rachel's death was a : consequence of that. ... which is typical of an onesh -- a sin causes its own punishment. The two explanations are not mutually exclusive. To say that it was the land's qedushah causing something that wasn't in line with justice, one has to explain why there are rules that hide Hashem's Justice that aren't part of the hesteir panim necessary for free will. We need laws of nature to plan how to execute a decision, but laws of metaphysics? ... : If he was punished, it must be that he was punished for some choice : that he made. What choice was that? What did he do wrong? If he could : do it all over again, what ought he do differently? Specifically: : After having married Leah, should he have not married Rachel? Well, isn't that the halakhah? Or maybe the issur was in whatever it was that had him marrying a woman without noticing that her eyes were rakos (whatever that means). Perhaps the mistake was due to a criminal level of negligence. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Man is equipped with such far-reaching vision, micha at aishdas.org yet the smallest coin can obstruct his view. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yisrael Salanter Fax: (270) 514-1507 From micha at aishdas.org Wed Dec 6 11:23:17 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2017 14:23:17 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] The 13 middos In-Reply-To: References: <20171204222908.GA10223@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20171206192317.GA12102@aishdas.org> On Tue, Dec 05, 2017 at 07:15:42AM +0200, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: : See the Mishne Lamelech avadim 3:9 where he states that it is either or and : the 2 styles cannot be mixed, and his main proof is from the Gemara Shavuos : 4b where the Gemara asks on Rebbe how can he darshen a ribui umiut like R : Akiva if in general he darshens Klal Uprat... And yet the conclution on 5a is that he holds like R' Yishma'el's beis medrash who holds the derashah is not kelal uperat but ribui umi'ut ("ribah umi'at"). R Yisma'el, the one who codified the rules of kelal uperat is the one who here uses ribui umi'ut!? So is the gemara really saying that Rebbe is not crossing the line, as it seems to be saying. Or is it intentionally also implying there is no line to cross? Tosafos there ("detana Devei R' Yishma'el") might be saying the latter; it is too terse for me to be sure of intent. And yet further down on 5a, we have "Hashta de'amres... -- Now that you say that Rebbe darshans kelal uperat, you are forced into a question about shavu'os...?" IOW, reassuming the line. In any case, I am totally lost. In a discussion of how no one uses both sets of rules, it cites the school that created one set using the other set, and not saying anything about it. There is more going on here than I comprehend so far. As RSRH said (Collected Writings vol V pg 170), there are many such cases of R' Yishmael and R' Aqiva uses the other's rules. RSRH treats the rule as a tendency, rather than a line one may not cross. I wish I knew his interpretation of the gemara in Shavuos. But it's not like the MlM, nor the ba'al Atzmos Yoseif (whom the MlM is discussing), and does acknowledge the actual positions taken across both shasin. Just thinking out loud... Maybe the gemaros we're looking at are bothered because these are all cases where both kelalim apply and in each case they imply different dinim. IOW, it is not a question of Rebbe (or devei R Yismael) using ribui umi'ut, but of favoring the derashah that he tends not to OVER the derashah that is his norm. And to handle RSRH's observation, in a case where it is not a choice between conflicting kinds of derashos, no one would be asking why Rebbe used a kelal uperat, as such line-crossing is normal. : See also tosafos nidda 30a s.v. Ushma mina where tosafos says that we : pasken that we darshen Klal uprat and not ribui umiut... Nidda 30a "ushma minah tevilah bizmanah mitzvah" is about holding like Beis Shammai, and doesn't mention derashos. The previous d"h, "shema minah telas" (a near match) also isn't on topic. Could you please fix the citation for me? : Regarding the Gemara in bechoros 51a it is actually a proof the other way. : The Gemara says that this case is an exception because it is not written in : the normal way of a Klal uprat and therefore in this case only... This is a 2nd variant of the same sugya as Shavu'os. (To clarify for those moderately interested, but not sufficiently so to look for themselves.) Rashi ("hakha"), who says it's a general rule: kelal uperat ukelal isn't judged as a kelal uperat but as a ribui umi'ut. IIUC, Rashi is saying that Rebbe is staying within his usual rule set, but this is a case where both rule sets include the same derashah, just under different names. Thanks to RMTorczyner (CCed) : > Choosing between using "Kelal/Perat" and "Ribuy/Miut": Eruvin 27b-28a; > Succah 50b; Kiddushin 21b The first two don't really deal with tannaim using only one rule set, but Qiddush 21b is a third version of our sugya. I didn't see anything to add to the discussion beyond a way to rope RMT in, and perhaps he'll talk to R' Jonathan Ziring about the question. (RMT is the Rosh Beit Midrash of the YU-Torah Mitzion Zichron Dov Beit Midrash of Toronto, RJZ is the segan. Back when RJZ was in the kollel at YHE ["Gush"], he gave a series of shiurim on meta-halakhah. I thought I had RJZ's address, as we had a short correspondance, but since I didn't find it, I figured that once I was bothering RMT for his opinion...) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger I always give much away, micha at aishdas.org and so gather happiness instead of pleasure. http://www.aishdas.org - Rachel Levin Varnhagen Fax: (270) 514-1507 From micha at aishdas.org Wed Dec 6 12:06:08 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2017 15:06:08 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] TEXTUAL JUDAISM AND THE LIVING TORAH In-Reply-To: <9e51a7f4ea644e829db8503f8f0451fe@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <9e51a7f4ea644e829db8503f8f0451fe@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20171206200608.GC12102@aishdas.org> On Thu, Nov 02, 2017 at 12:12:05PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : http://etzion.org.il/en/siman-114-prayers-wind-rain-and-dew : :> TEXTUAL JUDAISM AND THE LIVING TORAH : :> In his introduction to the Beit Yosef... ... I think there are two things we need to keep in mind, that R' Asher Meir does not touch upon: 1- The question isn't whether the BY or some other poseiq does or doesn't consider the extent to which a particular pesaq was nispasheit. But rather something less boolean: how much weight does any given poseiq give mimeticism, and in comparison to which other factors. A number of years ago I proposed a model (then modified it in a later iteration) of 4 classes of factors a poseiq needs to weigh. And that one of the leading reasons why pesaq is an art rather than an algorithm is that their can't be formal rules for comparing the magnitudes of apples and oranges -- and bananas and parsimons? Here's what I came up with: - textual logic: which sevara do you find most compelling? Litvaks typically put most of the emphasis - textual authority: rules like azlinan basar ruba, or giving more weight to the Rambam's or Rosh's pinion than to some Baal Tosafos we rarely hear of. This seems to be ROY's favorite territory. - minhag avos / mimeticism - hashkafic concerns (including philosophy, qaballah): like when chassidim and talmidei haGra stopped putting on tefillin on ch"m because it is qotzeitz binti'os. No one would place hashkafic concerns high on the list. Ein dorshin taamei hamizvos. A poseiq only leaves formal halachic analysis when multiple opinions are defensible, which "right answer" does one choose? But different posqim still give it different weight; requiring more or less equity between the halachic analysis of the different possible pesaqim before being willing to let the hashkafah tip the scales. 2- The BY is a text. To really talk about mimeticism, we're talking about what people do naturally. A poseiq may need to factor in which pesaq was nispasheit, but by doing so he is not being a mimetic. The AhS is more likely to find justifications for mimetic practice while the MB is more likely to recommend changing practice. But deciding to follow either is choosing textuallism over mimeticism. Mimeticism is following the same pesaq the AhS just defended because that's what everone does, it's the example your parents and/or your peers set, not because it's a pesaq with a sevara and sources. Still, it's interesting to find an example of the BY overriding his triumverate and clearly stating a reason that is at odds with his haqdamah. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Take time, micha at aishdas.org be exact, http://www.aishdas.org unclutter the mind. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rabbi Simcha Zissel Ziv, Alter of Kelm From micha at aishdas.org Wed Dec 6 13:40:04 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2017 16:40:04 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] More on Yaakov, sheep and the rods In-Reply-To: <50458059-A03F-4E6E-B54B-F1612B0E7E5B@jsli.org> References: <50458059-A03F-4E6E-B54B-F1612B0E7E5B@jsli.org> Message-ID: <20171206214004.GD12102@aishdas.org> On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 12:20:44PM -0500, Alexander Seinfeld via Avodah wrote: : Why not just interpret this as an example of phenotypic plasticity, : meaning the genetic potential is there in every generation, and the : environmental factors stimulate its expression? : : As everyone who had genetics 101 will realize, if you eliminate 100% : of the phenotype, and breed the remainder you will still get some of : that phenotype in the next generation with recessive genes. So it always : bothered me why was all the hokus pokus by Yaakov necessary.... I would learn from this incident in Bereishis that one is obligated to do whatever hishtadlus is possible by the best understanding of teva available to you. And not to worry about what the current theory may get replaced by. Along similar lines: R Avigdor Miller taught that since HQBH is Rofei kol basar, medicine doesn't actually heal. The role of doctors and medicine is to prevent Hashem's cure from requiring a neis nigleh. And, he explains, this is why people actually survived despite medical theories involving 4 humours and bloodletting, or whatnot. Any accepted theory is equally usable. I don't buy into this, because if true, medicine would never need to advance, in fact, accepted medical theory would never be disproved. Still, I find the idea intriguing. It fits the notion, which might be the Ramban's (depending on how you fit multiple comments together) and is definitely REED's that teva is not a real "thing", but the patterns Hashem uses to hide His Action behind. It's all neis nistar, really Now, if one were to apply the same idea to parnasah, one could explain the purpose of Yaakov's efforts. And even if RAvigdorM's theory is hard to see as how teva works for the rest of us, it's easier to apply to someone who is as neis-worthy, including neis-nistar-worthy, as Yaaqov avinu. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger You want to know how to paint a perfect micha at aishdas.org painting? It's easy. http://www.aishdas.org Make yourself perfect and then just paint Fax: (270) 514-1507 naturally. -Robert Pirsig From akivagmiller at gmail.com Wed Dec 6 15:10:18 2017 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2017 18:10:18 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Gid ha'nasheh Message-ID: . I asked: : If he was punished, it must be that he was punished for some choice : that he made. What choice was that? What did he do wrong? If he could : do it all over again, what ought he do differently? Specifically: : After having married Leah, should he have not married Rachel? and R' Micha Berger responded: > Well, isn't that the halakhah? I want to publicly thank RMB for a beautiful post, and for reminding me of some very important concepts. We learn so much of the machinations of what went on in this incident, how each step was important and necessary in various ways, that I was a bit shocked to hear it suggested that Yaakov Avinu was being punished for his choices here. But truth be told, the line between punishment and consequence can be arbitrary, subjective .... or even imaginary. We DO accept the reality of a "necessary evil", or a "greater good". It's not all black and white. "Well, isn't that the halakhah?" Indeed, the halacha prescribes The Way To Go, but that is no guarantee that there won't be unpleasant side effects. If the Kohen Gadol happens upon a Mes Mitzvah on Yom Kippur morning, the halacha is clear that he must get involved, even if that means that the day's avodah won't go as planned. So too, Yaakov Avinu and Rachel Imenu married each other because Klal Yisrael needed it, and if such a releationship was incompatible with Kedushas Haaretz, well, unfortunately, they'll have to endure the consequences. Akiva Miller From meirabi at gmail.com Wed Dec 6 18:07:12 2017 From: meirabi at gmail.com (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi) Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2017 13:07:12 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] =?utf-8?q?SEDRA_VAYEISHEV_=E2=80=93_TIME_TO_LOOK_IN_THE_?= =?utf-8?q?MIRROR?= Message-ID: When the little kid threatens a bouncer ? we all laugh. It is funny precisely because it is so silly and impossible. DJT, a buffoon, a bumbling, blithering bad-boy, could not possibly win the presidency. It was the standing joke that never grew stale ? until he became POTUS. Our Sages say, we are truly unmasked by Kiso Koso & KaAso ? by what we?re like when feeling liberated: # deciding how to use our valuables i.e. by what we consider to be important # intoxicated [not necessarily by alcohol] # we are agitated i.e. by what presses our buttons. Yosef tells his brothers about his dream ? expecting them to laugh it off and he gives them a second chance after they?ve had an opportunity to reconsider their response. When we get offended and mock ? it?s time to look in the mirror. Best, Meir G. Rabi 0423 207 837 +61 423 207 837 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From marty.bluke at gmail.com Thu Dec 7 02:27:17 2017 From: marty.bluke at gmail.com (Marty Bluke) Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2017 12:27:17 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] The 13 middos In-Reply-To: <20171206192317.GA12102@aishdas.org> References: <20171204222908.GA10223@aishdas.org> <20171206192317.GA12102@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 9:23 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > On Tue, Dec 05, 2017 at 07:15:42AM +0200, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: > : See the Mishne Lamelech avadim 3:9 where he states that it is either or > and > : the 2 styles cannot be mixed, and his main proof is from the Gemara > Shavuos > : 4b where the Gemara asks on Rebbe how can he darshen a ribui umiut like R > : Akiva if in general he darshens Klal Uprat... > > And yet the conclution on 5a is that he holds like R' Yishma'el's beis > medrash who holds the derashah is not kelal uperat but ribui umi'ut > ("ribah umi'at"). R Yisma'el, the one who codified the rules of kelal > uperat is the one who here uses ribui umi'ut!? > The Gemara says that this case is an exception because it is not written in the normal way of a Klal uprat and therefore in this case ONLY Rebbe can learn a ribui umiut but in general someone who learns Klal uprat could not use ribui umiut. > ... > > : See also tosafos nidda 30a s.v. Ushma mina where tosafos says that we > : pasken that we darshen Klal uprat and not ribui umiut... > > Nidda 30a "ushma minah tevilah bizmanah mitzvah" is about holding > like Beis Shammai, and doesn't mention derashos. The previous d"h, > "shema minah telas" (a near match) also isn't on topic. Could you > please fix the citation for me? > See the last 2 lines in the Tosafos that I quoted, Tosafos states "d'darish ribui umiut, V'Kayma lan d'darshinan klali uprati" Tosafos paskens that we darshen klal uprat not ribui umiut, that strongly implies that they are mutuallt exclusive > > > > > Tir'u baTov! > -Micha > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From JRich at sibson.com Wed Dec 6 21:49:36 2017 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2017 05:49:36 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] zmanim Message-ID: <550be79bd779462fa5534e6b58fba249@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> As sunrise got later I was at a minyan where the earliest time for tallit was approximately the same as the minyan starting time. I watched as everybody watched their cell phones for the exact time to start from Myzmanim. (Of course that website says not to rely on to it to the minute) I was wondering whether this close watch was a subset of a broader need of man modern man to have exactitude in life versus living with gray. (Sort of a desire to be Newtonian in a quantum world) I was also wondering whether the advent of the railroad table approach now requires us to halachically follow that exactness rather than that the "it looks right to me" approach of Chazal? Thoughts? KT 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: From larry62341 at optonline.net Thu Dec 7 03:09:25 2017 From: larry62341 at optonline.net (Prof. Levine) Date: Thu, 07 Dec 2017 06:09:25 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Davening on Airplanes In-Reply-To: <900051a759eb4fd1a58d4fda4d74fca6@exchng03.campus.stevens-t ech.edu> References: <900051a759eb4fd1a58d4fda4d74fca6@exchng03.campus.stevens-tech.edu> Message-ID: <32.C2.03752.761292A5@mta3.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> At 08:12 PM 12/6/2017, R Micha Berger wrote: >When it comes to kibud, public treatment does indeed matter... >However, here we are talking about someone in the olam ha'emes. So they >know that while on the plane you have that actual issur keeping you from >fulfilling the minhag of saying qaddish... >So I do not think it's likely the neshamah would mind the lack of kibud >as much as they would mind the misplacement of values. I would therefore >not draw any conclusions from the logical linkage of kibud with intent >and norms. From The Mussar Movement, Volume 1, Part 2 pages 248 - 249. On one of the anniversaries of his father's death, R. Israel was in Memel. He was informed that someone else in the synagogue wished to say Kaddish. Now R. Israel was very insistent that only one person at a time be allowed to recite the Kaddish at the services [28] and apparently this congregation had complied with his ruling. Reb Yitzchak Isaacson was observing the jahrzeit of a daughter who had died very young. Now the Halachah gives precedence to a son observing the jahrzeit of a parent on these occasions, and R. Israel was obviously entitled to the privilege. Sensing the grief he would cause the father by depriving him of the opportunity to say Kaddish for his daughter, R. Israel went up to him and said: "You sir, will say Kaddish." The worshippers expressed their surprise. Not only had R. Israel yielded his own right, but also overlooked the duty of honoring his father, since he was, by law, obliged to say Kaddish. He explained to them that the merit of extending kindness (gemi- lut chesed) to a fellow Jew possessed far greater value than the saying of Kaddish.[29] [28.] See R. Naftali Amsterdam's will, published in Or Hamusar No. 13. See Vol. II of the Hebrew edition of this series, Tenu'at Hamusar, II, Chap. 25. [29.] Ernile Benjamin, op. cit., p. 25. From seinfeld at daasbooks.com Thu Dec 7 06:50:16 2017 From: seinfeld at daasbooks.com (Alexander Seinfeld) Date: Thu, 07 Dec 2017 09:50:16 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Gid ha'nasheh Message-ID: It seems to me there are two plausible answers, and both may be correct. 1. Yes, he should not have married Rachel. This is in fact what Leah tells her, ?You stole my husband.? He was tricked, but he accepted Leah, did not annul the marriage, so too bad for Rachel. She?s the one who gave away the password. 2. He wasn?t yet Yisroel. He was still a ben Noach. When he becomes Yisroel, he is now required to keep the Taryag Mitzvos. It is right after this name change that she dies. I?m not sure why she doesn?t die immediately (in Beit-El) rather en route to Efrat. But this delay may have sown doubt into his mind about his status - maybe he is still a ben Noach. His sons consider themselves Bnai Yisroel, which is why they are eating meat that for a ben-Noach would be eiver-min-ha-chai, and which is part of the lashon hara that Yoseph brings back to Yaakov. But his judgment that they are Bnai Noach is not merely academic, it is personal, because it has implications in Rachel?s death. > >If he was punished, it must be that he was punished for some choice >that he made. What choice was that? What did he do wrong? If he could >do it all over again, what ought he do differently? Specifically: >After having married Leah, should he have not married Rachel? >Alternatively, (according to those who say that he was not fooled but >knew that Leah had the simanim,) should he have not married Leah? Or >should he have protested and annuled the marriage to Leah? > >If he was punished, what did he do wrong? From micha at aishdas.org Thu Dec 7 11:06:53 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2017 14:06:53 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Gid ha'nasheh In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20171207190653.GB26083@aishdas.org> On Wed, Dec 06, 2017 at 06:10:18PM -0500, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : We DO accept the reality of a "necessary evil", or a "greater good". : It's not all black and white. "Well, isn't that the halakhah?" Indeed, : the halacha prescribes The Way To Go, but that is no guarantee that : there won't be unpleasant side effects... A number of rishonim (eg Ramban, Seforno) deal with the problem of miracles. Since HQBH is Perfect and is capable of a perfect creation, why would He make a world in which He occasionally would have to step in and override teva? This is where the Ramban comes in with the idea that not only the miraculous items listed in Pirqei Avos created during Maaseh Bereishis, every "exception" to the laws of nature are actually special cases written into the law. I'll pause here to remind of what I said last email about "at the time of creation" and "in response to the situation" both being oversimplifications caused by us temporal beings trying to think about Hashem's "Action" which is lemaalah min hazeman and has no "when". Similarly, one can ask about His Authorship of halakhah. Since Hashem is capable of writing a system of laws to fit the universe in a way where obeying the law never has "unpleasant side effects", why wouldn't He? One backstep... I just realized you mean something broader by "side effects" than I was talking about. As you later write: : upon a Mes Mitzvah on Yom Kippur morning, the halacha is clear that he : must get involved, even if that means that the day's avodah won't go : as planned... Similarly, if piquach nefesh is docheh Shabbos, rather than Shabbos being huterah, one may have the misfortune of having to violate Shabbos. But that's not sekhar va'onesh, and my question "but what about Divine Justice?" doesn't apply. Not unless the "unpleasant side effect" is -- as in the case of Yaaqov's widowerhood or his hip -- painful (physically and/or emotionally). There is also another issue... Sekhar mitzvos behai alma leiqa. Not everything in this world is sekhar va'onesh. Li nir'eh, everything in this world is to draw us to a state of being able to receive more of Hashem's tov. Onesh, only when we have a chance of it getting us to choose more constructively. Which is why the mishnah talks about tzadiqim getting onesh in olam hazah to spare them in olam haba. Not because pain in olam hazeh pays off the accoun t early, but because a tzadiq will use the pain to draw closer to HQBH / to his ideal self. And similarly, resha'im who wouldn't respond constructively to the challenge... Well, HQBH would share with them his Tov in the here-and-now rather than not at all. This takes us away from insisting that the universe must be set up so that every sin contains its own onesh as a consequence. (If we're using the consequence model to look at things.) Instead, we can look at the universe as tending toward tov. And therefore every step away from tov will as a consequence cause a pull back toward it. (Which could well be onesh, but in olam hazeh, it could be getting us connected back to the Meitiv in some other way.) And applying this back to Yaaqov's marrying two wives... Perhaps it's not an onesh, but the consequent path closer to the Meitiv in a world where the aretz was made tamei. And it's even possible that the challenges of this harder path lead to a closer place than without. So that overall, the net is maximize sekhar. Lefum tza'ara. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger We look forward to the time micha at aishdas.org when the power to love http://www.aishdas.org will replace the love of power. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - William Ewart Gladstone From micha at aishdas.org Thu Dec 7 11:12:14 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2017 14:12:14 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] zmanim In-Reply-To: <550be79bd779462fa5534e6b58fba249@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <550be79bd779462fa5534e6b58fba249@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20171207191214.GC26083@aishdas.org> On Thu, Dec 07, 2017 at 05:49:36AM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : I was wondering whether this close watch was a subset of a broader : need of man modern man to have exactitude in life versus living with : gray... Or maybe we were always mechuyavim to be as precise as possible. : wondering whether the advent of the railroad table approach now requires : us to halachically follow that exactness rather than that the "it looks : right to me" approach of Chazal? Thoughts? Li nir'eh there is value to the "in sync with nature" approach of Chazal that we lose when we think about clock time rather than the cycles of the sun (a/k/a the earth's spin). Much the way we lose a lot of what the yamim tovim mean because we aren't living in agrarian communities, and don't feel the joy of new wheat and barley when we celebrate our birth as a people, or the joy of bringing in the year's fruit when we celebrate how HQBH sustained us in the midbar. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From seinfeld at daasbooks.com Thu Dec 7 20:42:27 2017 From: seinfeld at daasbooks.com (Alexander Seinfeld) Date: Thu, 07 Dec 2017 23:42:27 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] What are the main mitzvos to focus on? Message-ID: :: So basically you are saying that the current Charedi hashkafa/lifestyle of :: Torah only and Torah learning being the ultimate purpose of life is not a :: majority opinion in Chazal and in fact you can't find anyone among Chazal :: who says this. : I intentionally avoided stating it that confrontationally, but yes. Forgive me, this may be a side issue to your main point about the 2 ways/reasons to learn, but I feel it should be clarified what you mean. How do you understand the Shulchan Aruch - Orach Chaim 155-156 - go immediately from davening to learning, make Torah your ikkar and malacha your arai; minimize work to only what you need [Be?er Heiteiv, Mishna Berura] not more??? Not mainstream? Breaking with Chazal? It?s a verbatim quotation from Gemara Berachos 35b. And maybe related to Taanis 24b (Chanina ben Dosa and his wife.) Now, let?s think sociologically for a moment. Why did the Mechaber choose to state this halacha the way he does? It seems to me that in his time (as in all times) there were Jews who were pulled to the needs and attractions of parnasa and spending the vast majority of their time and energy on it and in his view not in the proper balance. The fact that he has to state this halacha implies that not everyone was behaving that way. So the fact that not everyone behaves this way today is no proof whatsoever against the halacha. But anyone who wonders on what basis do some Orthodox Jews forsake full-time jobs and toil in Torah should read the Beur Halacha on Siman 155.1 - ?Eis lilmode? > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Fri Dec 8 02:55:11 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Fri, 8 Dec 2017 05:55:11 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] What are the main mitzvos to focus on? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20171208105511.GA13704@aishdas.org> On Thu, Dec 07, 2017 at 11:42:27PM -0500, Alexander Seinfeld via Avodah wrote: ::: So basically you are saying that the current Charedi hashkafa/lifestyle of ::: Torah only and Torah learning being the ultimate purpose of life is not a ::: majority opinion in Chazal and in fact you can't find anyone among Chazal ::: who says this. :: I intentionally avoided stating it that confrontationally, but yes. : Forgive me, this may be a side issue to your main point about the 2 : ways/reasons to learn, but I feel it should be clarified what you mean. : How do you understand the Shulchan Aruch - Orach Chaim 155-156 - go : immediately from davening to learning, make Torah your ikkar and malacha : your arai; minimize work to only what you need [Be?er Heiteiv, Mishna : Berura] not more??? You are shifting topics. I wrote about the reasons to learn, and asserted "Torah only and Torah learning being the ultimate purpose of life... you can't find anyone among Chazal who says this." Torah learning should well be the anchor of your day in comparison to earning a parnasah. (Although if one is learning rather than going to teach, other mitzvos are dochim.) But not as an ends, as a means. The hashkafah is new, the priorities not. But the new hashkafah changes the weighting to be even more in favor of learning. For example: I don't know what's going on today, but in my day Neir Yisrael / Baltimore was unique among American "yeshivish" yeshivos in encouraging talmidim to volunteer to staff kiruv shabbatonim. (Most/all YU RY were very proactively pro becoming an NCSY advisor.) The others felt that at this time in their lives, bachurim shouldn't be distracted from learning. This, despite the fact that adolescents respond better if there are peer-teachers rather than full grownups of a different generation, and the program was begging for them. This is one of the reasons JEP failed. That's the worldview of the American and Israeli "Litvisher" yeshiva. Now let's look at actual pre-war Litvisher gedolim. And I don't mean the obvious mussarists. `Would the aforementioned Meshekh Chokhmah have agreed with this decision? Is it in concert with RCV's admonition to his son? What about R' Shimon Shkop, who opens Shaarei Yosher's haqdamah with (empshasis added): Yisbarakh HaBorei Veyis'alah HaYotzeir who created us in His "Image" and in the likeness of His "Structure" VECHAYEI OLAM NATA BESOKHAINU such that our greated desire should be to benefit others to the indivindual and the masses, now and in the future, in imitation of the Creator (kevayachol). Ikkar doesn't mean "ultimate purpose", and making learning one's ultimate purpose does push one to go beyond making it the day's ikkar. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Brains to the lazy micha at aishdas.org are like a torch to the blind -- http://www.aishdas.org a useless burden. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Bechinas haOlam From micha at aishdas.org Fri Dec 8 06:11:58 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Fri, 8 Dec 2017 09:11:58 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Your Ancestors Message-ID: <20171208141158.GA20389@aishdas.org> R' Mike Gerver posted to Mail-Jewish in 1994 a request to help him collect more date to tighten an argument that odds are, every Jew alive either: - is a geir or all his ancestry are from geirim recently enough for him to know, or - descends from Rashi. (Or anyone else of that era or earlier.) See Calculations involve estimating rate of marriage across social strata, between towns, and between eidot. All Jews. Even Teimanim. (Ethiopians weren't a discussion yet, odds are no.) Well, this article makes that all the more probable: http://bigthink.com/stephen-johnson/why-youre-probably-related-to-nefertiti-and-confucius Why You're Probably Related to Nefertiti, Confucius, and Socrates December 7, 2017 by Stephen Johnson .... [J]ust how far back do humans need to go to find a common ancestor of their own: a person to whom all living people are related? The answer, for people of European descent at least, is surprisingly recent: 600 years. The common ancestor for every single person alive on the planet today, no matter where, lived approximately 3,600 years ago. That means Confucius, Nefertiti, Socrates, and any figure from ancient history that had children, is in some way your ancestor. Then, quoting Adam Rutherfore's new book, A Brief History of Everyone Who Ever Lived: "We are all special, which also means that none of us is," writes Rutherford in the book. "This is merely a numbers game. You have two parents, four grandparents, eight great-grandparents, and so on. Each generation back the number of ancestors you have doubles. But this ancestral expansion is not borne back ceaselessly into the past. If it were, your family tree when Charlemagne was Le Grand Fromage would harbor around 137,438,953,472 individuals on it -- more people than were alive then, now, or in total." So, why not? "You can be, and in fact are, descended from the same individual many times over," Rutherford writes. "Your great-great-great-great-great-grandmother might hold that position in your family tree twice, or many times, as her lines of descent branch out from her, but collapse onto you. The further back through time we go, the more these lines will coalesce on fewer individuals." The startling discovery that all Europeans might share a common ancestor who walked the Earth just 600 years ago was first proposed in 1999 by a Yale statistician named Joseph Chang. In his paper Recent Common Ancestors of All Present-Day Individuals," Chang used complex mathematical conceptslike Poisson distributions and Markov chainsto show how webbed pedigrees can overlap to produce common ancestors. If that is true of Europeans in 600 years, Jews over 800 years lo kol shekein? :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger We are great, and our foibles are great, micha at aishdas.org and therefore our troubles are great -- http://www.aishdas.org but our consolations will also be great. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rabbi AY Kook From jziring at torontotorah.com Wed Dec 6 19:40:58 2017 From: jziring at torontotorah.com (Jonathan Ziring) Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2017 22:40:58 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] The 13 middos In-Reply-To: References: <20171204222908.GA10223@aishdas.org> <20171206192317.GA12102@aishdas.org> Message-ID: [I had to edit this post significantly to fit Avodah's format constaints. -micha] Shalom, I'm touched to be asked. I have wondered about this (and have again this week due to Daf Yomi). I can't say I have strongly formed opinions on it, but the sugyot do seem to imply that these are more tendencies rather than rules, at lease re: Klal UPrat vs. Ribbui and Miut. The drashot of vavim and the like seem more absolute (X is not doresh vav). Yaakov Elman makes that point in his article on Ribbui. A few articles that deal with the topic that I've glanced through are: The Formal Development of [Kelal uPerat uKelal] Michael Chernick Tarbiz, pp. 393-410 Towards a History of "Ribbuy" in the Babylonian Talmud and Yaakov Elman Proceedings of the World Congress of Jewish Studies Vol. 11, Division C: Thought and Literature, Volume I: Rabbinic and Talmudic Literature (1993), pp. 87-94 In general, Michael Chernick and devoted much time to this. A few other relevant articles by him: The Development of Ribbuim and Mi 'utim Hermeneutics," PAAJR",1982-3. "The Use of Ribbuyim and Mi'utim in the Halakic Midrash ofR. Ishmael," JQK, 1979. "The Hermeneutic Kelal u-Ferat u-Kelal: Its History and Development," AAJR Annual Meeting, 1980 I think this will spur me to think more systematically about this. If I come up with anything, I will definitely share it. Jonathan From simon.montagu at gmail.com Sat Dec 9 08:27:13 2017 From: simon.montagu at gmail.com (Simon Montagu) Date: Sat, 9 Dec 2017 18:27:13 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Your Ancestors In-Reply-To: <20171208141158.GA20389@aishdas.org> References: <20171208141158.GA20389@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Fri, Dec 8, 2017 at 4:11 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah < avodah at lists.aishdas.org> wrote: > > http://bigthink.com/stephen-johnson/why-youre-probably- > related-to-nefertiti-and-confucius > Why You're Probably Related to Nefertiti, Confucius, and Socrates > December 7, 2017 by Stephen Johnson > .... > [J]ust how far back do humans need to go to find a common ancestor > of their own: a person to whom all living people are related? > > The answer, for people of European descent at least, is surprisingly > recent: 600 years. The common ancestor for every single person alive > on the planet today, no matter where, lived approximately 3,600 years > ago. That means Confucius, Nefertiti, Socrates, and any figure from > ancient history that had children, is in some way your ancestor. Unless I'm missing something, those last two sentences are a huge non sequitur. I have a slightly different take-away from the article: it says that everybody has a common ancestor who lived approximately 3,600 years ago. Isn't that exactly what the Torah says? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ben1456 at zahav.net.il Sat Dec 9 12:20:41 2017 From: ben1456 at zahav.net.il (Ben Waxman) Date: Sat, 09 Dec 2017 22:20:41 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Rambam Hilchot Shivtat Assur 3:3 Message-ID: Rambam Hilchot Shivtat Assur 3:3: The Rambam writes a clal: A minhag can not cancel something that is assur. A minhag can only prohibit something that is permitted. Is this rule seen as a veto or are there indeed issurim which have been become muttar via the power of minhag? From micha at aishdas.org Sat Dec 9 16:07:31 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Sat, 9 Dec 2017 19:07:31 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Your Ancestors In-Reply-To: References: <20171208141158.GA20389@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20171210000731.GB20169@aishdas.org> On Sat, Dec 09, 2017 at 06:27:13PM +0200, Simon Montagu via Avodah wrote: : > The answer, for people of European descent at least, is surprisingly : > recent: 600 years. The common ancestor for every single person alive : > on the planet today, no matter where, lived approximately 3,600 years : > ago. That means Confucius, Nefertiti, Socrates, and any figure from : > ancient history that had children, is in some way your ancestor. : Unless I'm missing something, those last two sentences are a huge non : sequitur. The author is just saying that the same model that giver the result of 600 years for Euopeans gives a result of 3,600 for all of humanity. : I have a slightly different take-away from the article: it says that : everybody has a common ancestor who lived approximately 3,600 years ago. : Isn't that exactly what the Torah says? Well, really the model says that everyone who is alive today almost certainly (this is statistics, after all) descended from everyone who was alive 3,600 who has /any/ living descendents. Not that there was one such ancestor. Gut Voch! -Micha -- Micha Berger What you get by achieving your goals micha at aishdas.org is not as important as http://www.aishdas.org what you become by achieving your goals. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Henry David Thoreau From ben1456 at zahav.net.il Sat Dec 9 12:59:26 2017 From: ben1456 at zahav.net.il (Ben Waxman) Date: Sat, 09 Dec 2017 22:59:26 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Rambam Hilchot Kiddush Hachodesh Message-ID: 1) Rambam Hilchot Kiddush Hachodesh 3:1 makes it clear that anyone who sees the new moon and can get to Jerusalem by the following evening should go. How would that work today given that basically means that every male in Israel who sees the moon should go (maybe men in Eilat who don't own a car would be patur). Were most (or even a small minority of) Israeli Jewish males above the age of 13 to look, there is no way that the Beit Din could even question all of these men, even if they only asked a couple of questions. Is there any problem in making sure that you don't see the moon? Just stay in for the evening. Rambam doesn't say that there is a chiyuv to look. Or since the Beit Din only takes testimony from trusted witnesses, can someone just say "I never got any type of certification that I am a good witness, therefore I don't need to go". Or how about having a few (say 100) men in each major city or region entrusted with the job and they would be the designated possible witnesses. 2) Rambam Hilchot Kiddush Hachodes 2:10 says clearly that once the beit din declares the new month, that is it, even if they know that they made a mistake. Yet in 3:15 and 16 Rambam writes that in the situation where no witnesses came on the 30th, if witnesses come later in the month and are able to prove that they did see the moon come out on the 29th, that month's calendar is redone. Is this not an obvious contradiction? I assume that I am reading 3:15 and 16 incorrectly or that I am getting something wrong here. 3) Later in the book Rambam goes on at length and in extreme detail about how to calculate the moon's position. He adds that we know these calculations from science and that since we no longer have a tradition about this matter from the nevi'im, it is fine to use outside sources. Seeing this made me wonder why we don't apply this rule in other areas. For example, I had read that we don't make matza from barley because we don't have a tradition as to how it takes barley to become chameitz. So why not measure it? Ben From simon.montagu at gmail.com Sat Dec 9 21:57:52 2017 From: simon.montagu at gmail.com (Simon Montagu) Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2017 07:57:52 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Your Ancestors In-Reply-To: <20171210000731.GB20169@aishdas.org> References: <20171208141158.GA20389@aishdas.org> <20171210000731.GB20169@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Sun, Dec 10, 2017 at 2:07 AM, Micha Berger wrote: > On Sat, Dec 09, 2017 at 06:27:13PM +0200, Simon Montagu via Avodah wrote: > : > The answer, for people of European descent at least, is > surprisingly > : > recent: 600 years. The common ancestor for every single person > alive > : > on the planet today, no matter where, lived approximately 3,600 > years > : > ago. That means Confucius, Nefertiti, Socrates, and any figure > from > : > ancient history that had children, is in some way your ancestor. > > : Unless I'm missing something, those last two sentences are a huge non > : sequitur. > > The author is just saying that the same model that giver the result > of 600 years for Euopeans gives a result of 3,600 for all of humanity. > > That's not the non sequitur. The non sequitur is going from "we have a common ancestor 3,600 years ago" to "Confucius and Socrates are your ancestors". Confucius and Socrates lived around 2500 years ago, and how does the author know that they had any living descendants? > : I have a slightly different take-away from the article: it says that > : everybody has a common ancestor who lived approximately 3,600 years ago. > : Isn't that exactly what the Torah says? > > Well, really the model says that everyone who is alive today almost > certainly (this is statistics, after all) descended from everyone who > was alive 3,600 who has /any/ living descendents. > Not that there was one such ancestor. > I haven't read the model, but the article you linked to talks several times about "/a/ common ancestor", "/a/" person to whom all living people are related", etc. > > Gut Voch! > -Micha > > -- > Micha Berger What you get by achieving your goals > micha at aishdas.org is not as important as > http://www.aishdas.org what you become by achieving your goals. > Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Henry David Thoreau > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From bdbradley70 at hotmail.com Sun Dec 10 14:22:59 2017 From: bdbradley70 at hotmail.com (Ben Bradley) Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2017 22:22:59 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] What are the main mitzvos to focus on? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I don't recall everything I've read on this subject of the purpose of talmud torah, but the conversation here so far seems to be missing a crucial piece, namely the transformative aspect of talmud torah on the individual learning it. The problem with the instrumental view is that it doesn't account for a number of aspects of the way chazal unanimously viewed talmud torah. If it was just about knowing how to keep the mitzvos then, I think, we'd have trouble with the following off the top of my head 1. The intensive way chazal went about talmud torah - the lack of sleep involved, the amora who sat on his hands until they bled, disappearing from family for years at a time 2. The viewing of talmud torah as a unending project 3. The depth and incisiveness of analysis expected in learning gemara. Eg being able to metaher a sheret 4. the lack of differentiation between learning issues of practical use and those which you will never need to know from a practical point of view Maybe I'm missing something, but knowing how to keep the mitzvos per se need not involve any of these. There are clear indications of the transformative nature of talmud torah in chazal, even if these aren't stated as its purpose explicitly. Perhaps there's a distinction between its purpose and the meaning of lishma. So learning torah lishma, whatever that means, is transformative, which is a primary purpose if not the only one. That would also bring talmud torah in line with the other mitzvos, since they all have a transformative benefit to the individual. It would also set it apart since it is more transformative than all the others, ie kneged kulam. It is the most transformative, and thus the most important. That said, considerations other than personal growth give priority to other mitzvos in many situations. Ben -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hankman at bell.net Mon Dec 11 06:11:22 2017 From: hankman at bell.net (hankman) Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2017 09:11:22 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Purpose of distant galaxies? Message-ID: <83F7EA9337D54E08891E46C1032C89FE@hankPC> I have just been watching a show on Discovery Science about a lay version of quantum mechanics. At one point the moderator was talking about the notion of entanglement and explained how in theory this involves the connection of entangled particles over any distance instantaneously. He then continued to say that given the big bang theory, all of existence was at a single point and then expanded (inflated) from then to the great distances, billions of light years, we witness today. But at the initial moment after the singularity, all the particles of the universe were close enough to possibly become entangled with some other, but then after the expansion, the partner entangled particle might have ended up in some distant far removed galaxy and but thereby still be related to its entangled partner particle perhaps now in our body here on Earth. I then thought back to some of the earlier discussions here on Avodah about the purpose of these distant galaxies that could never affect us here on Earth and that we did not even know existed until recently. Perhaps this possibility of entanglement with distant particles of those galaxies from the time of creation may provide some logic to the purpose of the existence of those distant galaxies? Happy Chanukah veKol tuv Chaim Manaster -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Mon Dec 11 09:33:33 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2017 12:33:33 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Rambam Hilchot Shivtat Assur 3:3 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20171211173333.GE15573@aishdas.org> On Sat, Dec 09, 2017 at 10:20:41PM +0200, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: : Rambam Hilchot Shivtat Assur 3:3: The Rambam writes a clal: A minhag : can not cancel something that is assur. A minhag can only prohibit : something that is permitted. Isn't the very definition of a minhag ta'us one that promotes doing an issur, or violating an asei? At least, violating an asei actively; I don't know if I would include a minhag not to fulfil an asei besheiv ve'al ta'aseh. That kind of thing would require more research. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Worrying is like a rocking chair: micha at aishdas.org it gives you something to do for a while, http://www.aishdas.org but in the end it gets you nowhere. Fax: (270) 514-1507 From micha at aishdas.org Tue Dec 12 13:53:43 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2017 16:53:43 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Women and Torah Study In-Reply-To: <9f94d416d3154585a6bb71a2df12c54e@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <9f94d416d3154585a6bb71a2df12c54e@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20171212215343.GA13817@aishdas.org> On Sun, Dec 03, 2017 at 06:40:43AM +0000, RJR reposted here a comment of his on a recent post on Lehrhaus: : Is encouraging intensive study of Talmud for women a community priority : or is the priority to make such study available for those who choose to : avail themselves of the opportunity? Especially if the former, where : does it stand in relation to other community priorities and how does : the answer differ from study for men? IMHO these questions have not been : sufficiently addressed. Do my concern resonate at all? Mod-Yeshivish (in contrast to other forms of MO) may argue that since learning primarily means shas and lomdus, and the iqar method for refining one's soul is learning, now that women are given the toolds to be able to make sense of Talmud, making it available to them is a community priority. To quote RALichtenstein from : What is the cardinal principle that lies at the heart, on the one hand, of Yeshiva education and, on the other hand, is the lynchpin of liberal education. It is, first and foremost, the notion that one is concerned with molding the person and only secondarily with preparing or training for the fulfillment of a certain role. John Cardinal Newman's statement, that "we are men by nature, geometrists only by chance," epitomizes this approach and it is one with respect to which, I have indicated, the Yeshiva world and the world of liberal education at its best coincide. Of course, that is not to suggest that preparing for a role, be it a domestic role, a professional role, or a communal role, is not important. It is important, but secondary. The first principle, I think, with regard to education generally, and which needs to be particularly emphasized in the field of women's education, is that first and foremost one needs to mold the person as an individual in all respects, with regard to character, personality, intellectual ability, and above all, of course, in religious terms, as an oved Hashem. ... If we ask ourselves: Here are the goals! "[leyir'ah, le'avah, la'avod, lishmor, ledavqah, lalekhet bekhol derakhav]," to fear [God], to love [God], to serve [God], to cling [to Him] to go in all His ways." What are the means? Traditionally, over the centuries, there has been a fairly sharp dichotomy precisely regarding this very issue, namely the means to be employed in relation to men versus women... This is not the occasion to examine whether that was justified historically. What is clear, however, is that notwithstanding how one judges the past retrospectively, in our present historical and social setting we need to view the teaching and the learning of girls and women as both a major challenge, as well as a primary need. ... But this is creating a role for halakhah study out of whole cloth that is really RAL's chiddush. After all, historically curricula for girls' and women did include character-shaping material, but OVERTLY so -- mussar, hashkafah and the lessons in each taken from studying Tanakh. And leave halakhah to learning the job, rather than liberal arts. And I would repeat a point made by RYGB when asked about this topic: Where is the evidence that our current boys' curriculum works so well that we're in a rush to make the curriculum for girls' more similar to it? In general, the yeshivish -- including the ModY -- take NhC shaar 4 to mean that learning refines the soul in some mystical way. Just learn, and the problem will solve itself. Whereas I personally think the data points the other way. And that the NhC intended that statement prescriptively -- true talmud Torah is learning in a way that consciously aims to refine the soul. Which is why there is all that Mussar and Middos talk around AishDas and its web site. My own inclination, and this really just translates to "my parents provided a RWMO upbrining" (with some variety thrown in in the form of school choices), would be that we can't prioritize providing talmud study for women over clear-cut chiyuvim. Talmud study should be made available, but for those women who feel a need for talmud study. Which puts me in the same camp as the LR's effective position. Women coming to kiruv with egalitarian leanings were encouraged by the LR to learn Talmud if they wish to. But you wont find a gemara class in Beis Rivka. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "And you shall love H' your G-d with your whole micha at aishdas.org heart, your entire soul, and all you own." http://www.aishdas.org Love is not two who look at each other, Fax: (270) 514-1507 It is two who look in the same direction. From micha at aishdas.org Wed Dec 13 03:30:34 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2017 06:30:34 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Rambam Hilchot Kiddush Hachodesh In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20171213113034.GB7576@aishdas.org> On Sat, Dec 09, 2017 at 10:59:26PM +0200, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: : 1) Rambam Hilchot Kiddush Hachodesh 3:1 makes it clear that anyone : who sees the new moon and can get to Jerusalem by the following : evening should go. How would that work today.... And then think what happens if the calculations were for a long month. The guy invests all that effort just to get to locked Lishkas haGazis doors. I would be frustrated. But to get to your question. I think that's a taqanah in order to insure that there is eidus. Rather than everyone saying someone else will go. There is no how that would work today, since you need a Sanhedrin to make it work. But isn't this a derabbnan, to make sure all those who see the moon don't assume someone else will go, and there ends up not having 2 kosher eidim? So, if the the next Sanhedrin finds that too many people are coming / would come and we're far from needing such a guarantee, they can repeal this din. : 2) Rambam Hilchot Kiddush Hachodes 2:10 says clearly that once the : beit din declares the new month, that is it, even if they know that : they made a mistake. Yet in 3:15 and 16 Rambam writes that in the : situation where no witnesses came on the 30th, if witnesses come : later in the month and are able to prove that they did see the moon : come out on the 29th, that month's calendar is redone. Is this not : an obvious contradiction? I assume that I am reading 3:15 and 16 : incorrectly or that I am getting something wrong here. The famous story of the calendar dispute between Rabban Gamliel and R' Yehoshua (RH 2:8-9) includes R' Aqiva saying, "Eileh mo'adei H' asher tiqre'u osam" -- bein bizmanan, bein shelo bizmanan, ein Li mo'ados ela eilu. Which is what the Rambam is saying in 2:10. He quotes R' Aqiva's prooftext. In that mishnah, both R' Gamliel and R' Yehoshua knew the metzi'us, they were arguing over whether to accept the eidim despite a flaw in their story. They may have even been arguing about the cheshbon, and whether there was a need to accept whatever eidim one had. The beginning of mishnah 9 has R' Gamliel ordering R' Yehoshua to show up "beyom haKippurim shechal lihyos *becheshbonkha*". There may be a difference between making a mistake in terms of decision-making and making one because they were working with bad or incomplete data. 2:20 is about their decision being wrong, 3:15-16 is about a lack of eidus. An error in the cheshbon or perhaps decision in general vs an error in facts. While this guess about p' 2 is less than compelling, it would seem that in p' 3 he is empowering a BD to go back to their cheshbon when they were forced by a lack of testimony to lengthen the month despite it. After all, 3:15 describes BD sitting all of the 30th, meaning wanting a short month, without witnesses comming. So I feel more comfortable with that part of the guess. Maybe R' Yehoshua would have renegged without needing R' Aqiva had other eidim arrived days later to corroborate the first two. : 3) Later in the book Rambam goes on at length and in extreme detail : about how to calculate the moon's position. He adds that we know : these calculations from science and that since we no longer have a : tradition about this matter from the nevi'im, it is fine to use : outside sources. Seeing this made me wonder why we don't apply this : rule in other areas. For example, I had read that we don't make : matza from barley because we don't have a tradition as to how it : takes barley to become chameitz. So why not measure it? But lemaaseh we don't, because we need a Sanhedrin to make a RC. For that matter, we even pad when we say Qiddush Levanah, making the one day difference irrelevent. So what halakhah lemaaseh is the Rambam talking about, that relies on the calculations? Giving license to the next Sanhedrin? I am not even sure we know the scientific difference between chameitz and sirchah. Or even if there is one. Why is dough made with 100% juice a different thing than if the juice were diluted, or if it were all water? If we don't know what it is we should measure, how can we use science to measure it? I think it has to be something like that, because the lack of barley matzah isn't a modern issue. And the ability to measure rising doesn't require some modern measuring equipment. So, why was the question left unsolved by centuries of acharonim if it were resolable? Similarly, we know the medical communities' various definitions of death. (They're all pretty similar.) But we don't know if halachic misah would use the same definition. But even those who stick with heart death would use the latest scientific tools to determine whether or not the person had their last heartbeat (lo aleinu). So I would posit the issue is a chiluq between using science to determine the physical state vs having a pesaq as to what physical state needs determining. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Like a bird, man can reach undreamed-of micha at aishdas.org heights as long as he works his wings. http://www.aishdas.org But if he relaxes them for but one minute, Fax: (270) 514-1507 he plummets downward. - Rav Yisrael Salanter From JRich at sibson.com Wed Dec 13 21:39:28 2017 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2017 05:39:28 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] S"A Principles Message-ID: Question: I note that the S"A O"C 158:10 (Hand Washing) quotes the Gemara (R'Chisda) in support of using more than the minimum required amount of water for hand washing. Given the Mechaber's goal that the Shulchan Aruch be a halachic summary of his magnum opus, the Beit Yosef, does anyone know of a theory as to why the Mechaber in some cases quotes Talmudic sources (or Torah or Rishonim) and in others just states the halacha? Any study of the frequency of such quotes? KT 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: From akivagmiller at gmail.com Wed Dec 13 19:40:54 2017 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2017 22:40:54 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Rambam Hilchot Kiddush Hachodesh Message-ID: . (I don't know if this post will help understand Kiddush Hachodesh or not. If yes, I'm glad I could help. If not, I apologize for the distraction.) R' Micha Berger asked: > I am not even sure we know the scientific difference between > chameitz and sirchah. Or even if there is one. Why is dough > made with 100% juice a different thing than if the juice were > diluted, or if it were all water? If we don't know what it is > we should measure, how can we use science to measure it? I agree that WE don't know the scientific difference between chametz and sirchon, but it seems clear to me that such a difference does exist, and Chazal understood it. See the very beginning of Yerushalmi Challah, page 1b1 in the ArtScroll English version. "Badku Umatz'u" - They tested various grains, to see what happens when their flour is mixed with water. They found that The Five Grains underwent "chimutz", while *most* other grains fermented in the manner called "sirchon". (For some grains, the tests were inconclusive.) There is no Kabala From Sinai that defines these processes in terms of the grains, the liquids, or anything else. If you knew what to look for, you could look at a dough and tell whether it was chometz - without even knowing the ingredients. > I think it has to be something like that, because the lack of > barley matzah isn't a modern issue. And the ability to measure > rising doesn't require some modern measuring equipment. So, > why was the question left unsolved by centuries of acharonim > if it were resolvable? The problem isn't in the equipment. It's knowing what to look for. The tamay birds are all listed in Parshas Shmini. You don't need a degree in genetics to determine whether the bird in your hand is on the list or not. The only problem is that no one today knows what those words mean. Just like we don't really understand the difference between chimutz and sirchon. And no amount of pilpul among the "centuries of acharonim" is gonna help. Akiva Miller From micha at aishdas.org Thu Dec 14 03:27:18 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2017 06:27:18 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Rambam Hilchot Kiddush Hachodesh In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20171214112718.GA11145@aishdas.org> On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 10:40:54PM -0500, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : See the very beginning of Yerushalmi Challah, page [16]b1 in the : ArtScroll English version. "Badku Umatz'u" - They tested various : grains, to see what happens when their flour is mixed with water. They : found that The Five Grains underwent "chimutz", while *most* other : grains fermented in the manner called "sirchon". (For some grains, the : tests were inconclusive.) (Artscroll must have just one page of 16b, since that's near the bottom of the amud.) Assuming you understand the machloqes aa being about metzi'us. Which I did not. Aside from a reluctance to pin machloqesin on matters of fact even in the Y-mi, where there are cases it seems unaviodable. There are other problems: 1- EVERY other grain but these 5 produced something in between chimutz and sirchon that only R Yochanan b Nuri thought looked like chimutz? Not one of the experiments had another dissenter? 2- Why wouldn't later generations try to get clarity by repeating the experiment? As I took it (and wrote as much in prior iterations), R Yochanan b Nuri and the chakhamim were arguing over where the line is between chimutz and sirchon. They agreed on what happened when you mix a grain other than the 5 with water -- the gemara describes the experimental result as "ushe'ar kol haminim einan ba'in liydei matzah vechameitz elas sirchon." Then it continues the machloqes (running onto 17a), this time asking about qeramis in particular. And the gemara asks: Why they don't just check it? The first check's results were written open-and-shut. Here we are given RYBN differing obseration. As I took it, RYBN disagreed only in that he considers sirchon prohibited as chameitz. They argue about which side of the line sirchon is on because the machloqes is about where the line is. Which is why the gemara is so clear cut on the first test. And this is is why I lunped it together with other cases of halakhah deciding where in the gray area set of physical cases halakhah draws the line. : There is no Kabala From Sinai that defines these processes in terms of : the grains, the liquids, or anything else. If you knew what to look : for, you could look at a dough and tell whether it was chometz - : without even knowing the ingredients. ... and we don't know what to look for. :> I think it has to be something like that, because the lack of :> barley matzah isn't a modern issue. And the ability to measure :> rising doesn't require some modern measuring equipment. So, :> why was the question left unsolved by centuries of acharonim :> if it were resolvable? : The problem isn't in the equipment. It's knowing what to look for. As I said, it "has to be something like that", since the physical question could have been resolved, or at the very least repeatedly attempted to be resolved. You appear to be arguing against the hava amina I took pains to reject. But, unlike rice, where miSinai we could have known whether its sitchon qualifies as chameitz or not or the machloqes could have arisen later, with barley we know the uncertainty is caused by lost information. : The tamay birds are all listed in Parshas Shmini. You don't need a : degree in genetics to determine whether the bird in your hand is on : the list or not.,,, Ironically, defining a "min" is not settled halakhah either. Ask the Israelis debating whether we know that any breed of chicken other than the breakel chicken (or, I would guess the American campine) is halachically chicken and within the mesorah. Or the counter-arguers, who want to pasl braekel chickens... I am not saying I understand the metzi'us of the debate, but it does highlight how hard it is to draw halachic lines in the physical sand. So, even if we could translate the name of every min in parashas Shemini, we could still not know whether the bird in my hand is included in one of the minim on the list or not. As we could argue whether the genetic test found something on one side of the line defining the min, or the other -- because we don't know where the line is. A lichtikn un freilechn Chanukah! -Micha -- Micha Berger When we are no longer able to change a situation micha at aishdas.org -- just think of an incurable disease such as http://www.aishdas.org inoperable cancer -- we are challenged to change Fax: (270) 514-1507 ourselves. - Victor Frankl (MSfM) From Aryeh.Frimer at biu.ac.il Thu Dec 14 05:03:04 2017 From: Aryeh.Frimer at biu.ac.il (Aryeh Frimer) Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2017 13:03:04 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Tevilat Kelim Message-ID: Has anyone seen a discussion regarding one who said "al haTevila" (which women recite when going to mikva) instead of "Al tevilat Kelim." Is the Berakha valid be-Di-avad? A Freilichen Hanukah!! -------------------------------------------------- Dr. Aryeh A. Frimer Ethel and David Resnick Professor Emeritus of Active Oxygen Chemistry Chemistry Dept., Bar-Ilan University Ramat Gan 5290002, ISRAEL E-mail (office): Aryeh.Frimer at biu.ac.il Homepage http://ch.biu.ac.il/frimer E-mail (home): FrimerA at zahav.net.il From ben1456 at zahav.net.il Fri Dec 15 02:45:55 2017 From: ben1456 at zahav.net.il (Ben Waxman) Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2017 12:45:55 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Rambam Hilchot Kiddush Hachodesh In-Reply-To: <20171213113034.GB7576@aishdas.org> References: <20171213113034.GB7576@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <3554ff1b-2c53-bf1d-b688-0202a1eae13a@zahav.net.il> It must be something like that. After reading through Kiddush Hachodesh I was left with a huge question as to the incredible detail; 100 times more detailed than say his Hilchot Pesach. Ben On 12/13/2017 1:30 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > So what halakhah lemaaseh is the Rambam > talking about, that relies on the calculations? Giving license to > the next Sanhedrin? From michaelpoppers at gmail.com Thu Dec 14 18:17:15 2017 From: michaelpoppers at gmail.com (Michael Poppers) Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2017 21:17:15 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] zmanim Message-ID: >From R'Micha: > Li nir'eh there is value to the "in sync with nature" approach of Chazal that we lose when we think about clock time rather than the cycles of the sun (a/k/a the earth's spin). ? > ? Much the way we lose a lot of what the yamim tovim mean because we aren't living in agrarian communities, and don't feel the joy of new wheat and barley when we celebrate our birth as a people, or the joy of bringing in the year's fruit when we celebrate how HQBH sustained us in the midbar. < ...or the meaning of "Yotzer Or", etc. because we're not davening those pre- *Shma* *b'rachos* at the "right" time w/ a view of the brightening sky. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Fri Dec 15 06:55:30 2017 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2017 14:55:30 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Why does Yosef command the Egyptians to circumcise Message-ID: <1513349727386.22540@stevens.edu> See https://goo.gl/1AP3eB Rashi on Bereshis 41:55 says what he tells you, do: Since Joseph had ordered them to circumcise themselves, and when they came to Pharaoh and said, "This is what he said to us," he (Pharaoh) said to them, "Why didn't you gather grain? Didn't he announce to you that years of famine were coming?" They replied, "We gathered much, but it rotted." He (Pharaoh) replied,"If so, do whatever he tells you. He issued a decree upon the grain, and it rotted. What if he issues a decree upon us and we die?" - [from Mid. Tanchuma Mikeitz 7, Gen. Rabbah 91:5] Why did Yosef order them to do that? See the above URL for three explanations. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Fri Dec 15 06:57:57 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2017 09:57:57 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Rambam Hilchot Kiddush Hachodesh In-Reply-To: <3554ff1b-2c53-bf1d-b688-0202a1eae13a@zahav.net.il> References: <20171213113034.GB7576@aishdas.org> <3554ff1b-2c53-bf1d-b688-0202a1eae13a@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <20171215145757.GB28181@aishdas.org> On Fri, Dec 15, 2017 at 12:45:55PM +0200, Ben Waxman wrote: : On 12/13/2017 1:30 PM, Micha Berger wrote: :> So what halakhah lemaaseh is the Rambam :> talking about, that relies on the calculations? Giving license to :> the next Sanhedrin? : It must be something like that. After reading through Kiddush : Hachodesh I was left with a huge question as to the incredible : detail; 100 times more detailed than say his Hilchot Pesach. My guess, and I hope it's not too lesse majest for a public posting: The Rambam was a math geek who simply enjoyed this kind of stuff. It cannot be that the Rambam thought the future chavrei Sanhedrin would need his text for this more than his usual coverage. Leshitaso, one wouldn't be qualified to be a dayan without a strong background in all 7 chokhmos. That last line being an opening to a Chanukah tangent about Chokhmah Yevanis being a necessary study for a member of the Sanhedrin. So, Chanukah celebrates a victory over Yavan (in the sense of Hellenism) and a step toward reestablishing the Sanhedrin, who were expected to utilize "yaft E-lokim leYefes, veyishkon be'ohalei Sheim". An enlightening and happy Chanukah and :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Brains to the lazy micha at aishdas.org are like a torch to the blind -- http://www.aishdas.org a useless burden. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Bechinas haOlam From micha at aishdas.org Sat Dec 16 16:09:45 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2017 19:09:45 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Mamlekhat Chimyar Message-ID: <20171217000945.GA16968@aishdas.org> I stumbled across reference to the Humyarite Kingdom, which existed from 110 bce - 525 ce. Based in Yemen, ruled over much of the Arabian Peninsula. It seems that they went Jewish. (Shades of the Khazars.) See : > The Himyarite kings appear to have abandoned polytheism and converted > to Judaism around the year 380, several decades after the conversion of > the Ethiopian Kingdom of Aksum to Christianity (340), though no changes > occurred in its script, calendar, or language (unlike Aksum).[7] This > date marks the end of an era in which numerous inscriptions record the > names and deeds of kings, and dedicate buildings to local (e.g. Wagal > and Simyada) and major (e.g. Almaqah) gods. From the 380s, temples were > abandoned and dedications to the old gods ceased, replaced by references > to Rahmanan, "the Lord of Heaven" or "Lord of Heaven and Earth".[8] The > political context for this conversion may have been Arabia's interest > in maintaining neutrality and good trade relations with the competing > empires of Byzantium, which first adopted Christianity under Constantine > the Great and the Sasanian Empire, which alternated between Zurvanism > and Manichaeism.[9] ... > During this period, references to pagan gods disappeared from royal > inscriptions and texts on public buildings, and were replaced by > references to a single deity. Inscriptions in the Sabean language, and > sometimes Hebrew, called this deity Rahman (the Merciful), "Lord of the > Heavens and Earth," the "God of Israel" and "Lord of the Jews." Prayers > invoking Rahman's blessings on the "people of Israel" often ended with > the Hebrew words shalom and amen. [16] I wonder about the kashrus of the conversion, and did it pose a rei'usa when discussing the Jewishness of Teimani immigrants to Israel. A lichtikn un freilechn Chanukah un a gutt voch! -Micha -- Micha Berger Life isn't about finding yourself micha at aishdas.org Life is about creating yourself. http://www.aishdas.org - Bernard Shaw Fax: (270) 514-1507 From micha at aishdas.org Sun Dec 17 05:51:57 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2017 08:51:57 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] New Cancer Treatment Message-ID: <20171217135058.GC5@aishdas.org> This news story showed up in two of my RSS subscriptions: Hijacked sperm carry chemo drugs to cervical cancer cells https://www.newscientist.com/article/2156525-hijacked-sperm-carry-chemo-drugs-to-cervical-cancer-cells or http://j.mp/2yLROJ1 and Killing Cancer with Spermbots http://bigthink.com/robby-berman/killing-cancer-with-spermbots In my neck of the O woods, everyone holds like R' Moshe, that children produced by IVF-donor would not be mamzeirim. BUT... according to the machmirim (eg the Satmar Rav), would an eishes kohein who recieved this treatment have to get divorced? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger You are not a human being in search micha at aishdas.org of a spiritual experience. You are a http://www.aishdas.org spiritual being immersed in a human Fax: (270) 514-1507 experience. - Pierre Teilhard de Chardin From larry62341 at optonline.net Sun Dec 17 06:22:06 2017 From: larry62341 at optonline.net (Prof. Levine) Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2017 09:22:06 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] The Downtown Chanukiah Message-ID: Please see the video at https://goo.gl/dgSTLv In this video Rabbi Anthony Manning discusses the halachic aspects of where one should light the Chanukah menorah at home as well as the Chabad practice of lighting menorahs in public places and whether or not the person lighting such a menorah should make a bracha. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From zev at sero.name Sun Dec 17 06:20:59 2017 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2017 09:20:59 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] New Cancer Treatment In-Reply-To: <20171217135058.GC5@aishdas.org> References: <20171217135058.GC5@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <8550baa4-198d-536a-b249-d5c2d207bb86@sero.name> On 17/12/17 08:51, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > BUT... according to the machmirim (eg the Satmar Rav), would an eishes > kohein who recieved this treatment have to get divorced? I wouldn't think so. There's still no act of zenus. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From micha at aishdas.org Sun Dec 17 11:53:27 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2017 14:53:27 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] New Cancer Treatment In-Reply-To: <8550baa4-198d-536a-b249-d5c2d207bb86@sero.name> References: <20171217135058.GC5@aishdas.org> <8550baa4-198d-536a-b249-d5c2d207bb86@sero.name> Message-ID: <20171217195326.GD5@aishdas.org> On Sun, Dec 17, 2017 at 09:20:59AM -0500, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : On 17/12/17 08:51, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: :>BUT... according to the machmirim (eg the Satmar Rav), would an eishes :>kohein who recieved this treatment have to get divorced? : I wouldn't think so. There's still no act of zenus. There is a machloqes Chakhamim and R' Aqiva as to whether only issurei kareis (except niddah) create mamzeirim, or any issur. And yet the Satmar Rav holds that IE-D creates mamzeirim. And one could equally argue there is no act of zenus. So, I parked my intuition at the door when trying to understand his shitah. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The thought of happiness that comes from outside micha at aishdas.org the person, brings him sadness. But realizing http://www.aishdas.org the value of one's will and the freedom brought Fax: (270) 514-1507 by uplifting its, brings great joy. - R' Kook From zev at sero.name Sun Dec 17 12:20:24 2017 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2017 15:20:24 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] New Cancer Treatment In-Reply-To: <20171217195326.GD5@aishdas.org> References: <20171217135058.GC5@aishdas.org> <8550baa4-198d-536a-b249-d5c2d207bb86@sero.name> <20171217195326.GD5@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <5862ca9f-c908-4756-d082-0b20f6dc428f@sero.name> On 17/12/17 14:53, Micha Berger wrote: > There is a machloqes Chakhamim and R' Aqiva as to whether only issurei > kareis (except niddah) create mamzeirim, or any issur. And yet the > Satmar Rav holds that IE-D creates mamzeirim. And one could equally > argue there is no act of zenus. > > So, I parked my intuition at the door when trying to understand his > shitah. as I understand the machlokes, it's precisely over whether an act of zenus is necessary to create a mamzer. The SR (aiui) holds it is not, therefore although no issur was done with IED the child is nevertheless a mamzer. Here too, the SR would presumably hold that although there's no act of zenus, and therefore the treatment is permitted, should any child result it would be a mamzer. But I haven't seen the SR's shitah inside, so I'm relying on 3rd-hand transmission which may have garbled important points. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From llevine at stevens.edu Sun Dec 17 13:35:04 2017 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2017 21:35:04 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] How did Yosef showing his circumcision prove anything? Message-ID: <1513546500734.24127@stevens.edu> From https://goo.gl/L634gH Rashi to 45:4 says that when Yosef told his brothers to approach him, it was to show them his circumcision (presumably to prove he was Jewish). But how would that prove anything? All of Egypt had been circumcised already, as Rashi says on 41:55. If his showing his circumcision wasn't to prove he was Jewish, why did he do it? See the above URL for answers. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cantorwolberg at cox.net Sun Dec 17 11:40:31 2017 From: cantorwolberg at cox.net (Richard Wolberg) Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2017 14:40:31 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Vayigash Message-ID: The first three words of the Sidra: Vayigash eilav Yehuda mean that Judah approached Joseph to speak to him. The m?forshim bring out that they communicated through interpreters since officially, (the brothers thought) Joseph didn?t speak Hebrew and the brothers didn?t speak Egyptian. The baal haturim and the m?forshim point out the last letter of the first three words (shin, vov, hey) spell shaveh which means ?equal.? Judah is implying to Joseph: ?I am equal to you. You think you?re a king; I?m also a king.? According to this interpretation, Judah spoke very sharply to Joseph. The Vilna Gaon brings out a fascinating insight on the trope of the first six words which is kadma v?azla r?vi?I, zarka, munach segol. The Vilna Gaon explains that the trope here explains the meaning of these words. Kadma v?azla in Aramaic meaning kadam v?awzal, he (Judah) stepped forward, Yehudah has a r?vi?i, since Judah was the fourth son. So why the fourth son? Because zarka, he was going to be thrown out, munach segol from being able to rest in Gan Eden. Since Judah cursed himself that if he doesn?t bring Binyamin back, he would be damned in both worlds ? in this world and in the world to come. (Segula which means ?treasure? from Segol comes to mean here Gan Eden). When the sons finally tell Jacob that Joseph still lives (45:26), the m?forshim resolve a theological problem that arose in parashas Vayeshev (37:35). For there we read about Jacob: ?and his sons and daughters wished to comfort him and he refused to be consoled.? Isn?t it one of the basic articles of faith to accept God?s judgment and to welcome the comforting offered by others. Why did Jacob refuse? Our Sages sensed this anomaly and gave a brilliant answer, ?For no condolences are accepted over the living" (see Rashi on 37:35). Yes, Jacob refused to accept condolences because he had a faint ray of hope that Joseph might be alive. A psychologist might explain it as ?wishful thinking.? In any event, his ray of hope was vindicated when he found out that Joseph was indeed alive (and that is why he originally refused to accept the condolences offered by all the people). Hope is being able to see that there is light despite all of the darkness. Desmond Tutu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cantorwolberg at cox.net Sun Dec 17 16:16:32 2017 From: cantorwolberg at cox.net (Richard Wolberg) Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2017 19:16:32 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] S"A Principles Message-ID: <8A9BD2E2-0BDC-4728-B1B3-792480A73CEE@cox.net> Reb Joel asks: does anyone know of a theory as to why the Mechaber in some cases quotes Talmudic sources (or Torah or Rishonim) and in others just states the halacha? My theory is that when it is either a well known halacha and no reason to question it or at least, when the Mechaber thought it to be indisputable, then it was felt there was no reason to quote sources. OTOH, if was felt that there would be many questioning it, then the sources quoted would obviate that from occurring. From micha at aishdas.org Sun Dec 17 17:15:28 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2017 20:15:28 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] [Tvunah] Teabag on Shabbos Message-ID: <20171218011528.GA22955@aishdas.org> This pesaq by R' Asher Weiss surprised me. Tea Bag on Shabbos Tvunah in English by Rabbi Akiva Dershowitz Question: Does a tea bag [used in a kli shlishi] need to be removed from the cup with a spoon on Shabbos, to avoid issues of borrer? What about holding it over the cup to avoid dripping on the table, to allow drips to fall into the cup? Answer: The tea bag may be removed normally, and may be held to allow drips to fall back in to the cup. I was told at a young age to take the teabag out by spoon, making sure to take tea out along with the bag. For boreier reasons. So, as I said, I found this pesaq surprising. The actual teshuvah in Hebrew is on that page. RAW finds a precedent in Rashi on Shabbos 140a, who discusses the mishnah allowing one to put straw in a sieve in a feed trough. Rashi says "even though the motz will fall on our own, as it's a davar she'ein miskavein -- and the mishnah holds like R' Shim'on. And see SA OC 319:8, who makes it clear (which it isnt' from Rashi, see teshuvah) that even if the boreir will certainly occur, it's still mutar. Pesiq reishei, but not melekhes machasheves, and still mutar. Similarly in Nishmas Adam 18:2. An enlightening and anjoyable Chanukah! -Micha -- Micha Berger We look forward to the time micha at aishdas.org when the power to love http://www.aishdas.org will replace the love of power. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - William Ewart Gladstone From Aryeh.Frimer at biu.ac.il Sun Dec 17 23:09:04 2017 From: Aryeh.Frimer at biu.ac.il (Aryeh Frimer) Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2017 07:09:04 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Using "Al haTevila" for tevilat Kelim Message-ID: Rav Zvi Cohen, in his Encyclopedic Tevilat Kelim: Rules that be-Di-avad Al haTevila is valid. I was surprised by this since the Mehaber in Bet Yosef explicitly rules against this shita (for le-khatehilla) and holds in SA that one should say "Al Tevilat Kelim." Having done so, to say "Al haTevilah" would not be "Matbe'ah sheTavu Hakhamim." Any ideas? -------------------------------------------------- Dr. Aryeh A. Frimer Ethel and David Resnick Professor Emeritus of Active Oxygen Chemistry Chemistry Dept., Bar-Ilan University Ramat Gan 5290002, ISRAEL E-mail (office): Aryeh.Frimer at biu.ac.il Homepage http://ch.biu.ac.il/frimer Tel: 972-3-5318610; Fax: 972-3-7384053 Tel Home: 972-8-9473819/9470834 E-mail (home): FrimerA at zahav.net.il Cellphone: 972-54-7540761 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hankman at bell.net Mon Dec 18 06:16:44 2017 From: hankman at bell.net (hankman) Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2017 09:16:44 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Rambam Hilchot Kiddush Hachodesh -- on "min" Message-ID: <0C71CBB0F1E145B89D102DAA516AF81A@hankPC> R. Micha Berger wrote: ?Ironically, defining a "min" is not settled halakhah either.? CM asks: If I am not mistaken the modern secular definition of ?species? is based on whether the populations can interbreed or not. Do we know with any certainty that the Torah rejects this criteria as a determinant of ?min?? Kol tuv Chaim Manaster --- This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. http://www.avg.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Mon Dec 18 07:05:39 2017 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2017 15:05:39 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Yehudah Speaking to Yosef Message-ID: <1513609536405.23616@stevens.edu> In what l language did Yehudah speak to Yosef. Was it Hebrew and was the translator present to "translate" for Yosef? The Chumash does not mention a translator in this week's parasha. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jont at traumatic.us Mon Dec 18 11:56:26 2017 From: jont at traumatic.us (Jonathan Traum) Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2017 14:56:26 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Rambam Hilchot Kiddush Hachodesh In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <622ffda5-c446-82f3-45b0-18da6c93f6da@traumatic.us> On 12/09/2017 03:59 PM, Ben Waxman wrote: > 1) Rambam Hilchot Kiddush Hachodesh 3:1 makes it clear that anyone who > sees the new moon and can get to Jerusalem by the following evening > should go. ... > [snip] > Is there any problem in making sure that you don't see the moon? Just > stay in for the evening. Rambam doesn't say that there is a chiyuv to > look. I imagine that most people wouldn't have to worry about it.? On the 30th day after the previous Rosh Hodesh, the tiny crescent moon would only be visible for a short time after sunset and before moonset, and only to those who have an unobstructed view of the western horizon. Jonathan Traum From zev at sero.name Mon Dec 18 13:02:48 2017 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2017 16:02:48 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Using "Al haTevila" for tevilat Kelim In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <725ae5c3-d6de-7ce1-60c9-1defc191ac9d@sero.name> On 18/12/17 02:09, Aryeh Frimer via Avodah wrote: > ?Rav Zvi *Cohen*,?in his Encyclopedic *Tevilat Kelim*: Rules that > be-Di-avad Al haTevila is valid. > > I was surprised by this since the Mehaber in Bet Yosef explicitly rules > against this shita ?(for le-khatehilla) and holds in SA? that one should > say ?Al Tevilat Kelim.??? Having done so, to say ?Al haTevilah? would > not be ?Matbe?ah sheTavu Hakhamim.?? ?Any ideas? > "Al hatevilah" *is* a coinage of the chachamim, just not the one they prescribed for this occasion. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From llevine at stevens.edu Mon Dec 18 23:37:41 2017 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2017 07:37:41 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Did the Patriarchs Speak Hebrew? Message-ID: <1513669061621.40139@stevens.edu> >From the article at https://goo.gl/Z3QWs2 Ramban says: It is possible that he said this to them simply as a means of pacifying them, for there was no proof [that he was Joseph] in the fact that someone in Egypt should speak in the Holy Tongue. In my opinion, Hebrew was a Canaanite language. For Abraham did not bring it from Ur of the Chaldees [in Mesopotamia] and from Haran, for there they spoke Aramaic, as the incident of the pile of stones erected by Laban and Jacob proves [see Gen. 31:47]. And it was not a private language spoken by a single person but a language of Canaan, and many people in Egypt knew it for the countries were close together--particularly the ruler, for it is customary for kings and rulers to know several languages. For his assertion that Hebrew is "a Canannite language" Ramban makes reference to Isaiah, who does thus refer to Hebrew: "On that day there will be five cities in the land of Egypt that speak the language of Canaan and swear by the Lord of hosts" (Isa. 19:18). That the original language of the Patriarchs (Abraham, Isaac and Jacob) was Aramaic is proved to Ramban's mind by virtue of the fact that Laban gave the name "Yegar-sahaduta" to what Jacob called "Gal-ed" (Gen. 31:47), The former had remained in Mesopotamia and continued to speak Aramaic (which Ramban thinks was spoken in Ur and in Haran), while Jacob, who had grown up in Canaan, had learnt the local language. Please see the above URL for much more on this topic. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gershonseif at mail.yahoo.com Tue Dec 19 08:23:45 2017 From: gershonseif at mail.yahoo.com (Gershon Seif) Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2017 16:23:45 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Avodah] Did the Patriarchs Speak Hebrew? In-Reply-To: <1513669061621.40139@stevens.edu> References: <1513669061621.40139@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <949360216.1197555.1513700625794@mail.yahoo.com> Leavining Avraham Avinu aside, what is the Ramban's view about the language spoken by Adam HaRishon? ie. Naming his wife Chava and assigning names to all the animals?If the Ramban concurs that these names were given in lashon hakodesh, then he agrees that it was the first language. No? Unless you say that lashon hakodesh was one of at least 2 languages that Adam spoke and he reserved it for holy purposes only, such as giving these names. And I suppose that would be along the lines of the other Ramban quoted there which says that it's called Lashon Hakodesh because it's the language that Hashem used to convey the Torah. On Tuesday, December 19, 2017 1:37 AM, Professor L. Levine wrote: > From the article at https://goo.gl/Z3QWs2 > Ramban says: >> It is possible that he said this to them simply as a means of >> pacifying them, for there was no proof [that he was Joseph] in the fact >> that someone in Egypt should speak in the Holy Tongue. In my opinion, >> Hebrew was a Canaanite language. For Abraham did not bring it from Ur >> of the Chaldees [in Mesopotamia] and from Haran, for there they spoke >> Aramaic... From micha at aishdas.org Tue Dec 19 09:05:08 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2017 12:05:08 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Did the Patriarchs Speak Hebrew? In-Reply-To: <1513669061621.40139@stevens.edu> References: <1513669061621.40139@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20171219170508.GC27362@aishdas.org> On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 07:37:41AM +0000, Professor L. Levine via Avodah wrote: : From the article at : https://goo.gl/Z3QWs2 : : Ramban says: : : It is possible that he said this to them simply as a means of : pacifying them, for there was no proof [that he was Joseph] in : the fact that someone in Egypt should speak in the Holy Tongue. In : my opinion, Hebrew was a Canaanite language... ... and yet also lashon haqodesh. And to the Ramban (on "sheqel haqodesh" in parashas Sheqalim), this is because it's the language in which Hashem created the world and in which the Torah and Nakh were written. And leshitaso, the letters of the Torah, if not their breakup into words, preceded creation. The notion that the avos spoke Aramaic is in Vayiqra Rabba on 32:5. The Medrash Peliyah (#166) concludes that even Adam did! This is a comment about Sarah's death in "Qiryas Araba". The Niv Sefasayim explains that the medrash is getting this from the use of the Aramaic term "qirya". But I don't see how we know this was the name of the cite from back when Adam and Chava were buried there; or how else this moved the line to any time before Efron. R Yonasan Eibschitz (Tif'eres Yehonasan on Bereishis 11:1) that Adam spoke LhQ before the cheit, and Aramaic after. Fore that matter, Medrash Tanchuma (beginning of Devarim in Buber) and Medrash Seikhel Tov (Shemos 4:11) say Adam spoke all 70 languages. Requires a new peshat in what happened at Migdal Bavel, no? I am not to clear on the whole thing. Languages evolve, so that if one were to trace them out over time, one would draw a tree or a bush. Adam's proto-Semitic, or proto-proto-proto... everything is an ancestor of all language. I could call it early Hebrew if I wanted, and claim that Hebrew is the trunk from which other languages branched off. But that's just a decision about how to draw the tree. I could pick another run from root to twig and pull it straight, and say that Adam spoke proto-...proto-Mandarin, and all the other languages branched off. For languages as similar as Hebrew and Aramaic, where neither could have drifted from the original significanly more than the other, doesn't the whole discussion of whether Adam's language was a predecessar to the language of the chumash, Nakh, Chazal, etc... or of Aramaic in its evolutions all kind of arbitrary? I wonder if the Ramban understands the name of Kesav Ashuris to mean "Assyrian Script", rather than "Enriched Script" (from "osher". YMMV on the definition of osher.) After all, he seems to have no problem saying that Hashem left holy things in the hands of other peoples for us to find and use. For that matter, Eretz Yisrael was also given to the Kenaanim to hold until we got there... It might also be leshitaso -- but this may be a stretch -- with the Ramban's take on rainbows. The Ramban says that rainbows existed since Maaseh Bereishis. Nature didn't change in this regard with the Mabul. Rather, the already existing phenomenon was made a symbol when HQBH made the beris with Noach. Again, something put in place naturally so that when the time came it would be available take on its full significance. : Canaan, and many people in Egypt knew it for the countries were close : together--particularly the ruler, for it is customary for kings and : rulers to know several languages. : : For his assertion that Hebrew is "a Canannite language" Ramban makes : reference to Isaiah, who does thus refer to Hebrew: "On that day there : will be five cities in the land of Egypt that speak the language of : Canaan and swear by the Lord of hosts" (Isa. 19:18). That the original : language of the Patriarchs (Abraham, Isaac and Jacob) was Aramaic is : proved to Ramban's mind by virtue of the fact that Laban gave the name : "Yegar-sahaduta" to what Jacob called "Gal-ed" (Gen. 31:47), The former : had remained in Mesopotamia and continued to speak Aramaic (which Ramban : thinks was spoken in Ur and in Haran), while Jacob, who had grown up in : Canaan, had learnt the local language. : : Please see the above URL for much more on this topic. Have a Great Month, and a enlightening and enjoyable Chanukah! -Micha -- Micha Berger The greatest discovery of all time is that micha at aishdas.org a person can change their future http://www.aishdas.org by merely changing their attitude. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Oprah Winfrey From zev at sero.name Tue Dec 19 09:12:45 2017 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2017 12:12:45 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Did the Patriarchs Speak Hebrew? In-Reply-To: <20171219170508.GC27362@aishdas.org> References: <1513669061621.40139@stevens.edu> <20171219170508.GC27362@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <45f78c92-f0ed-6df8-9a80-01c96d6dd007@sero.name> On 19/12/17 12:05, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > I wonder if the Ramban understands the name of Kesav Ashuris to mean > "Assyrian Script", rather than "Enriched Script" (from "osher". YMMV > on the definition of osher.) You associate osher with an alef and `osher with an `ayin? -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From micha at aishdas.org Tue Dec 19 10:59:01 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2017 13:59:01 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Did the Patriarchs Speak Hebrew? In-Reply-To: <45f78c92-f0ed-6df8-9a80-01c96d6dd007@sero.name> References: <1513669061621.40139@stevens.edu> <20171219170508.GC27362@aishdas.org> <45f78c92-f0ed-6df8-9a80-01c96d6dd007@sero.name> Message-ID: <20171219185901.GE31888@aishdas.org> On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 12:12:45PM -0500, Zev Sero wrote: : On 19/12/17 12:05, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: : >I wonder if the Ramban understands the name of Kesav Ashuris to mean : >"Assyrian Script", rather than "Enriched Script" (from "osher". YMMV : >on the definition of osher.) : You associate osher with an alef and `osher with an `ayin? RSRH does, as he does all alef-ayin pairs. Also osher with asher. But I used enriched because in common usage, it refers to someone having a gift. We say that a cereal is enriched with vitamins. We far more rarely speak of a CEO being enriched. At least, not anymore. And what about yiysher kochakha, assuming the correct niqud isn't yeyasher? Reish Laqish (Shabbos 87a) says "asher shibarta" is an allusion to "yiyshar kochakha", so that's connected as well. RSRH himself uses "being in successful progress" (eg Bereishis 30:30), which R/Dr Mattiyahu Clark's Hirschian dictionary gives as its 1st definition. Chodesh tov, un a lichtikn un freilechn Chanukah! -Micha -- Micha Berger The trick is learning to be passionate in one's micha at aishdas.org ideals, but compassionate to one's peers. http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From mandels at ou.org Tue Dec 19 09:46:51 2017 From: mandels at ou.org (Mandel, Seth) Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2017 17:46:51 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Did the Patriarchs Speak Hebrew? In-Reply-To: <1513669061621.40139@stevens.edu> References: <1513669061621.40139@stevens.edu> Message-ID: There is no proof that anyone spoke Hebrew. Chazal say that dibb'ra Torah bilshon b'nei odom, and the Torah was written in Hebrew because that is what the Jews understood at the time of Moshe Rabbeinu and the N'vi'im. This is clear from last weeks Parsha, where Par'oh speaks to Yosef, kavyakhol in Hebrew. However, just as much as there is no proof at all from the T'NaKh that lots of people spoke Hebrew, even though the T'NaKh records them in Hebrew, there is also no proof at all that certain people did not speak Hebrew. The Ramban quotes the story of Lovon and Ya'akov to "prove" that Lovon did not speak Hebrew. That is probable, but what did Yaakov and Lovon speak together? What did Yaakov speak to Rochel and Leah, who had never been in EY? OK, they all spoke what was spoken in Aram Naharayim. Probably. But Yaakov and the Ovos must have learned the language of K'na'an for Avrohom to speak to b'nei Het to buy the Cave of the Patriarchs. So what exactly did Avrohom Ovinu say in the language of Aram, whence he came, and what in the language of K'na'an? QED that one cannot know from the T'NaKh who spoke what when and where. The only thing we know is the Masorah, that HQBH dictated the Torah to Moshe Rabbeinu in the eponymous Biblical Hebrew. People ask whether Odom hoRishon spoke Hebrew. That is a question that has no meaning. We do not know exactly what he spoke, nor is it relevant. It might have been a precursor of Hebrew, IOW a language like Hebrew, but a much older form. It could have been something else. But, scientifically, it could not have been the same as the Hebrew spoken in the time of Y'tzi'as Mitzrayim, because it has been proven that all languages change over time. Rabbi Dr. Seth Mandel From micha at aishdas.org Tue Dec 19 14:10:58 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2017 17:10:58 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Did the Patriarchs Speak Hebrew? In-Reply-To: References: <1513669061621.40139@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20171219221058.GA3159@aishdas.org> On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 05:46:51PM +0000, Mandel, Seth via Avodah wrote: : There is no proof that anyone spoke Hebrew. Chazal say that dibb'ra Torah : bilshon b'nei odom... Well.... R' Yishmael says it. And it appears to be an argument for his rules of derashah, which do not include looking for magic words like "akh" (mi'ut), "raq" (mi'ut), "kol" (ribui) or even "es", but darshens the meaning of terms, whether ribui or mi'ut. The Rambam really sloganeers (like the CS's "chadash assur min haTorah") when he uses it to explain that anthropomorphic descriptions of HQBH are idioms, not to be taken overly literally. The point may be true, but it has nothing to do with the quote. The maqor is nothing remotely like: : the Torah was written in Hebrew because that is : what the Jews understood at the time of Moshe Rabbeinu and the N'vi'im. And besides, R' Aqiva disagrees! Chodesh tov, un a lichtikn un freilechn Chanukah! -Micha -- Micha Berger One doesn't learn mussar to be a tzaddik, micha at aishdas.org but to become a tzaddik. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yisrael Salanter Fax: (270) 514-1507 From llevine at stevens.edu Wed Dec 20 01:27:34 2017 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2017 09:27:34 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Yehudah Spoke Egyptian Message-ID: <1513762054084.88548@stevens.edu> Rabbi Yitzchok D. Frankel, Rav of the Agudah of the Five Towns, in Cedarhurst, NY, asserts in his sefer Machat shel Yad. Bereishis vol.2 (Back of Vayikrah) Parshas VaYigash. that Yehudah did indeed speak Egyptian. See http://personal.stevens.edu/~llevine/yehudah_egyptian.pdf for his argument. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cantorwolberg at cox.net Wed Dec 20 09:32:33 2017 From: cantorwolberg at cox.net (Richard Wolberg) Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2017 12:32:33 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Question on 48:1 Message-ID: In Vay?chi first sentence of Ch.48, why is ?choleh? spelled without a vov? Nowhere have I found an explanation. From zev at sero.name Wed Dec 20 06:01:31 2017 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2017 09:01:31 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Did the Patriarchs Speak Hebrew? In-Reply-To: References: <1513669061621.40139@stevens.edu> <8b9c1a71-a4fe-ecf5-e066-0a640a78bfec@sero.name> Message-ID: <130e52aa-14f1-24b6-9478-9244543e628c@sero.name> On 19/12/17 02:37, Professor L. Levine via Avodah wrote: > . And it was not a private language spoken by a single person but a > language of Canaan, and many people in Egypt knew it for the countries > were close together--particularly the ruler, for it is customary for > kings and rulers to know several languages. Then how is it that Yosef could pretend not to know it and need an interpreter. More, how is it that Par'oh, who knew all the other languages, didn't know this one? [Email #2. -micha] On 19/12/17 12:46, Mandel, Seth via Avodah wrote: > There is no proof that anyone spoke Hebrew. Chazal say that dibb'ra Torah > bilshon b'nei odom, and the Torah was written in Hebrew because that is > what the Jews understood at the time of Moshe Rabbeinu and the N'vi'im. Rashi Bereshis 2:23 Bereshis Rabbah 18:4 [Eamil #3. -micha] On 20/12/17 08:56, Mandel, Seth wrote: > I am talking objective proof, from the T'NaKh and other documents. > Medrashim of Chazal teaches us important ideas, but are not meant to be > literally true. They do not intend to be a historical document, but > rather contain important moral and ethical teachings which are 'emes in > the spiritual sense. 1. This medrash is clearly intended literally. Not only does it not contain any important moral or ethical teaching, it cites a simple linguistic proof (albeit based on a very small sample of languages). 2. Rashi only cites those medroshim that he believes are necessary for pshat. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From mandels at ou.org Wed Dec 20 07:39:30 2017 From: mandels at ou.org (Mandel, Seth) Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2017 15:39:30 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Did the Patriarchs Speak Hebrew? In-Reply-To: <130e52aa-14f1-24b6-9478-9244543e628c@sero.name> References: <1513669061621.40139@stevens.edu> <8b9c1a71-a4fe-ecf5-e066-0a640a78bfec@sero.name> , <130e52aa-14f1-24b6-9478-9244543e628c@sero.name> Message-ID: From: Zev Sero Sent: Wednesday, December 20, 2017 7:45 AM > On 19/12/17 12:46, Mandel, Seth via Avodah wrote: >> There is no proof that anyone spoke Hebrew. Chazal say that dibb'ra Torah >> bilshon b'nei odom, and the Torah was written in Hebrew because that is >> what the Jews understood at the time of Moshe Rabbeinu and the N'vi'im. > Rashi Bereshis 2:23 > Bereshis Rabbah 18:4 I am talking objective proof, from the T'NaKh and other documents. Medrashim of Chazal teaches us important ideas, but are not meant to be literally true. They do not intend to be a historical document, but rather contain important moral and ethical teachings which are 'emes in the spiritual sense. There are plenty of Medrashim that have ideas that seem to indicate that HQBH or the angels spoke Hebrew. But, as the Rambam indicates, HQBH does not have a mouth and does not speak as people speak. Rather, all the p'sukim saying that HQBH spoke to Moshe or Aharon mean that He communicated with them directly to their mind, not that He spoke acoustic sounds that they heard with their physical ears. The argument that Prof. Levine brought in the name of R. Frankel, OTOH, does indeed show that Yehudah must have been speaking Egyptian, but yet the Torah quotes him in Hebrew. [Email #2. -micha] From: Zev Sero on behalf of Zev Sero Sent: Wednesday, December 20, 2017 9:01:31 AM > 1. This medrash is clearly intended literally. Not only does it not > contain any important moral or ethical teaching, it cites a simple > linguistic proof (albeit based on a very small sample of languages). > 2. Rashi only cites those medroshim that he believes are necessary for > pshat. This is not a conversation that is worth continuing. I have the greatest respect for Jews who learn and seek to understand. But there are certain discussions where the locutors speak past each other for no benefit to either. However, for others in the group that may be curious: if you understand what the Rambam says in his introduction to Chapter 10 of Mas. Sanhedrin regarding three approaches to what Chazal say, you will understand that there is no point in one group arguing with the other group. A similar case would be that there would be no point in the Rambam arguing with Rashi or Rabbeinu Tam about whether demons exist or whether the Earth is flat or round. The basic assumptions about the way things work are too far apart. I have said what I meant about medrashim, and the medrash that R. Zev quotes does not contradict in my mind my statement that there is no proof about the actual historical language used in anything in the Torah. Nor does Rashi's use of the medrash contradict what I said. It would be impossible to convince R. Tam's belief that the Earth is flat, since in his understanding of the universe everything points to the world being flat, and he can find statements in the G'moro that seem to him to prove his case, and all scientists from his culture "knew" that the Earth is flat. I challenge those who believe that illnesses are caused by bacteria or viruses to bring me one proof that they are; most rishonim knew that they were caused by evil spirits or bodily humors. What a person believes is based on some basic assumptions, and different Rishonim held very different assumptions in certain matters. People might and did challenge the Rambam that it appears from their point of view that the Rambam did not believe what Chazal say, or that I do not believe what Chazal say. The Rambam believed that everything that Chazal said is 'emes, but read his comments in the Perush haMishnayos to see that absolute Truth means different things in different approaches. Another example is how to reconcile the Truth that HQBH gave men free will with the fact that HQBH knows everything that will happen. That can only be explained if people understand certain assumptions about space and time. Rabbi Dr. Seth Mandel Rabbinic Coordinator The Orthodox Union From office at etzion.org.il Thu Dec 21 02:25:30 2017 From: office at etzion.org.il (Yeshivat Har Etzion) Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2017 12:25:30 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] VBM - Avodat Hashem #51: The Mitzva of Mezuza (Part I) Message-ID: <5A3B8C1A.4030506@etzion.org.il> PHILOSOPHY > Avodat Hashem - Foundations of Divine Service > Shiur #51: The Mitzva of Mezuza (Part I) Harav Baruch Gigi Yeshivat Har Etzion I. The Protection Offered by a Mezuza We are currently engaged in a clarification of the system of mitzvot, in the framework of the transition in Keriyat Shema from matters pertaining to the Rambam's Sefer Mada to matters pertaining to his Sefer Ahava. Thus far, we have studied the mitzva of tefillin and its unique meanings. Now, let us turn to a closely-related mitzva - the mitzva of mezuza. One of the central ideas relating to mezuza is the idea of protection. When one affixes a mezuza to the entrance of his home, his house and household are protected from all trouble and damage. This idea is expressed by Chazal in several contexts, and it is based, as we will demonstrate, on a connection that is already rooted in the verses of the Torah. At the end of the passage of Ve-haya im shamo'a, it is stated: And you shall write them upon the doorposts of your house and upon your gates; that your days may be multiplied, and the days of your children, upon the land which the Lord swore to your fathers to give them, as the days of the heavens above the earth. (Devarim 11:20-21) At first glance, it seems that the Torah's promise of longevity relates to all that was stated in this passage concerning one who obeys all of God's commandments and follows His ways. However, Chazal linked this promise directly to the mitzva of mezuza. Two talmudic passages establish a connection between longevity and the mitzva of mezuza. In tractate Shabbat (32b), it is taught that a person's children die because of a failure to fulfill the mitzva of mezuza.[1] This is learned from the juxtaposition of the commandment of mezuza to the verse that promises that "your days will be multiplied, and the days of your children." In a positive formulation, the Tur writes: Whoever is careful about it, his days and the days of his children will be lengthened, as it is written: "That your days may be multiplied, and the days of your children." (Tur, Yoreh De'ah 285) In tractate Kiddushin (34a), the gemara discusses the possibility of exempting women from the mitzva of mezuza. At first, the gemara is of the opinion that women are exempt, in view of the Torah's juxtaposition of the mitzva of mezuza to the mitzva of Torah study, from which women are exempt. However, the gemara rejects this possibility with the following argument: You cannot think so, because it is written: ["And You shall write them upon the doorposts of your house...] that your days may be multiplied." Do men only need life, and not women? (Kiddushin 34a) In this gemara as well, we clearly see that the promise of longevity in relation to the mitzva of mezuza is so central that there is no room even to entertain the possibility that women may be exempt from it. For by removing women from the mitzva of mezuza you would be removing them from the basic desire of existence, of life. The Tur adds: Moreover, one's house is protected by it, as they expounded the verse: "The Lord is your keeper; the Lord is your shade upon your right hand" (Tehillim 121:5). (Tur, ibid.) II. The Rambam's View The Rambam famously writes: It is a common custom to write [God's name] Shaddai on the outside of a mezuza, opposite the empty space left between the two passages. There is no difficulty in this, since the addition is made on the outside. However, those who write the names of angels, other sacred names, verses, or forms,[2] on the inside [of a mezuza] are among those who do not have a portion in the World-to-Come. Not only do these fools nullify the mitzva, but furthermore, they make from a great mitzva that reflects the unity of the name of the Holy One, blessed be He, the love of Him, and the service of Him, a talisman for their own benefit. They, in their foolish conception, think that this will help them regarding the vanities of the world. (Hilkhot Tefillin U-Mezuza 5:4) The Kesef Mishneh (ad loc.) cites the objection raised by the Ramach against the Rambam based on the gemara in Avoda Zara (11a). The gemara there records a story about Onkelos, who became a proselyte, and the emperor sent a contingent of soldiers after him. Among other things, it is stated there: Again he sent another cohort ordering them not to enter into any conversation whatever with him. So they took hold of him; and as they were walking on, he saw the mezuza that was fixed on the door frame and he placed his hand on it saying to them, "Now what is this?" And they replied, "You tell us then." He said to them, "According to universal custom, the mortal king dwells within, and his servants keep guard on him without; but [in the case of] the Holy One, blessed is He, it is His servants who dwell within while He keeps guard on them from without, as it is stated: `The Lord shall guard your going out and your coming in from this time forth and for evermore' (Tehillim 121:8)." Then they, too, were converted to Judaism. (Avoda Zara 11a) >From the difficulty raised by the Ramach, it may be concluded that in his opinion the Rambam rejects the idea of protection that is attributed to the mezuza. The Rambam views the mezuza as an expression of man's connection to God, in that he declares at the entrance to his house his faith in His unity and his love for Him, two of the foundations of His service. According to the Ramach, the Rambam rejects the talismanic qualities that were attributed to the mezuza by the ancients. The Ramach attacks the Rambam's position, as he understood it, on the grounds that the idea of protection is brought in the gemara itself: For in tractate Avoda Zara it is implied from that which Onkelos said to the Roman contingent that the Holy One, blessed is He, makes the mezuza to protect Israel from the outside. And one can force an answer that it was Onkelos who said this in order give importance to Israel. (Ramach, ad loc.) In light of this, the Ramach struggles to reconcile the Rambam's position, arguing that Onkelos said this to the Romans only in order to praise Israel in their eyes. Onkelos told the Romans that the mezuza symbolizes God's protection, as it were, over the houses of Israel. In truth, however, the mitzva of mezuza is not a matter of God's protection, but rather an expression of a person's faith in God's unity and service. It stands to reason, however, that the Rambam does not challenge the very idea of the protection offered by a mezuza. Thus writes the Kesef Mishneh in light of the fact that the gemara in Menachot uses this principle to determine the halakha regarding the proper placement of a mezuza: For in chapter Ha-Kometz (33b), regarding the rule that a mezuza must be placed in the handbreadth adjacent to the public domain, R. Huna said: "What is the reason? So that it may protect him."[3] Therefore you must say that in fact a mezuza protects the house when it is written properly. (Kesef Mishneh) In the Kesef Mishneh's opinion, the Rambam rejects only those actions that expanded the talismanic element of a mezuza - namely, the insertion of the names of the angels into the mezuza. The Rambam sees the protective quality of a mezuza in the connection between man and God and his belief in Him and His unity. In the continuation of our discussion, we will explain the idea of the protection offered by a mezuza with greater precision and in greater depth. III. Additional Sources The Yerushalmi states in tractate Pe'ah: Artaban sent to our holy Rabbi an invaluably precious pearl. He said to him: Send me something which is similarly precious. He sent him a mezuza. He said to him: What I have sent you is something priceless, but you have sent me something which is only worth one follis. He [Rabbi] said to him: Your treasures and my treasures are incomparable. And moreover, you have sent me something that I have to guard, while I have sent you something which guards you when you sleep, as it is written: "When you walk, it will lead you; when you lie down, it will watch over you; and when you awake, it will talk to you" (Mishlei 6:22). (Yerushalmi, Pe'ah 1:1) Similarly, the Tur writes in Hilkhot Mezuza: Moreover, one's house is protected by it, as they expounded the verse: "The Lord is your keeper; the Lord is your shade upon your right hand" (Tehillim 121:5). A mortal king dwells within, and his servants keep guard on him without; but you sleep in your beds and the Holy One, blessed is He, guards you from without. Therefore, it should be placed in the outermost handbreadth, so that the entire house be within it and under its protection. (Tur, Yoreh De'ah 285) The prevalent custom to write on the outside of the mezuza parchment the name ShaDaY - which is expounded as an abbreviation for the words: Shomer Delatot Yisrael, "Who guards the doors of Israel"[4] - also reinforces this idea of a mezuza as protecting a person's home. As stated, the basis of this idea is already found in the verses of the Torah. Even though the Torah does not mention the idea of protection in direct connection to the mitzva of mezuza, it is mentioned in connection with another mezuza. In Parashat Bo, God commands the people of Israel to place the blood of the paschal lamb on the two doorposts and lintel. The reason for this is explained as follows: And the blood shall be to you for a token upon the houses where you are; and when I see the blood, I will pass over you, and there shall no plague be upon you to destroy you, when I smite the land of Egypt. (Shemot 12:13) And later in the same chapter: For the Lord will pass through to smite the Egyptians; and when He sees the blood upon the lintel and on the two doorposts, the Lord will pass over the door, and will not suffer the destroyer to come in to your houses to smite you. (Shemot 12:23) It is further stated at the end of that chapter: It was a night of watching to the Lord for bringing them out from the land of Egypt; this same night is a night of watching to the Lord for all the children of Israel throughout their generations. (Shemot 12:42) Rashi writes: "A night of watching to the Lord for all the children of Israel throughout their generations" - This night is protected, and comes as such from ages past, against all destructive forces, as it is stated: "And He will not suffer the destroyer to enter your houses" (v. 33). (Rashi, ad loc.) IV. The Mezuza and the Paschal Offering On the night of the exodus from Egypt, God protected the houses of the people of Israel by way of the sign of the blood on the doorposts and lintels, and because of this the night became a night of watching for all generations.[5] At first glance, it seems that the common denominator between the mitzva of mezuza and the paschal offering is that in both cases we are commanded to place a specific thing on the doorpost, thereby securing the protection of the house and its inhabitants. On the deeper level, it seems that the connection between the mitzva of mezuza and the paschal offering is more substantive. What is the significance of placing blood on the doorposts and lintel of one's house? The paschal offering that the people of Israel brought in Egypt was sacrificed as a family offering, a sheep for each family, at the entrance to each family's home. In Egypt, of course, there was no Temple and no altar. Therefore, it seems that the meaning of the blood was to distinguish between the houses of the Israelites and the houses of the Egyptians, in order to prevent the destroyer from coming into the homes of the Israelites to attack. However, the possibility that the blood was meant to distinguish between the houses of Israel and the houses of Egypt raises a great difficulty, in light of the midrashim of Chazal, which indicate that God Himself passed through the land of Egypt. He certainly did not need a distinguishing sign. So writes the Beit Yosef in his book, Maggid Meisharim: As for the difficulty with the verse, "And when I see the blood, I will pass over you," why was a sign needed, for surely everything is revealed to Him? It may be suggested that a sign was needed for the angels who came with Him. It may further be objected that this sign was with blood, which is a sign of death, the opposite of what they wanted. And furthermore, the sign should have been on the outside, and this sign was on the inside. But the secret of the matter is that the Holy One, blessed be He, wanted them to trust in Him and place the blood on the door from the inside. This is what is written: "And the blood shall be to you for a token." And instead of being afraid when they see the blood on the door, on the contrary they should trust their Master who commanded them to do this, so that He would be a salvation for them. This merit of trusting God would protect them. This is the meaning of what is written: "And the blood shall be to you for a token upon the houses where you are; and when I see the blood, I will pass over you." That is to say, I will see the merit of your trust, that the blood that is a sign of death will be for you a sign of life when you trust the words of your Master. And for this reason, "when I see the blood, I will pass over you." (Maggid Meisharim, Parashat Bo) It seems that trust in God involves not only doing the action required by God on the simple level. What we have here is an important and profound principle, in light of the gemara in Pesachim: R. Yosef taught: There were three altars there, on the lintel and on the two doorposts. (Pesachim 96a) A broader picture emerges from the gemara. The paschal offering brought in Egypt was a sacrifice offered at the entrance of a person's house, his house serving as the Temple, and the entrance to his house being the altar. While Chazal speak of three altars, it seems more accurate to say that they are referring to the three corners of the altar. The people of Israel are commanded to see their homes as the house of God. With their trust in God, they express the strength of their connection to Him by seeing their homes as God's house. And if their house is the house of God, then the entrance to the house is an altar, and they put of the blood on the three corners of the altar - the lintel and the two doorposts. This view, which sanctifies the houses of the people of Israel as the Temple, is similar to what is stated: "In every place where I cause My name to be mentioned I will come to you and bless you" (Shemot 20:20). In this way, the house becomes the basis of the covenant that is being formed between God and His people, by virtue of their seeking His presence within them. If we are correct, it stands to reason that the idea of the protection offered by a mezuza has a more fundamental and inner meaning. A person turns his house into a house of God, and a house of God is protected, as is stated in Tehillim: A Song of Ascents; of Shelomo. Except the Lord build the house, they labor in vain that build it; except the Lord keep the city, the watchman wakes but in vain. (Tehillim 127:1) God's protection is protection, and there is no other, it alone being considered true protection. These words connect with the words of the Rambam in Hilkhot Beit Ha-Bechira, that the guarding in the Temple was merely a display of honor, and not needed for the protection it offered, since the house of God is not in need of protection: There is a positive mitzva to guard the Temple. [This mitzvah applies] even though there is no fear of enemies or thieves, for the guarding [of the Temple] is an expression of respect for it. A palace with guards is [much more impressive] than a palace without guards. (Rambam, Hilkhot Beit Ha-Bechira 8:1) (Translated by David Strauss) _______________________ [1] The gemara there states as follows: "R. Chiya bar Abba and R. Yose disagree. One says: It is for the sin of neglect of mezuza [that a person's children die]; while the other says: It is for the sin of the neglect of Torah... It is well according to the one who says: It is for the sin of the neglect of mezuza, for it is written: 'And you shall write them upon the doorposts of your house,' which is followed by: 'that your days may be multiplied, and the days of your children'" (Shabbat 32b). [2] The Rambam is referring here to the ancient practice of inserting all kinds of additions into the mezuza. Rabbeinu Eliezer of Metz writes as follows: "It is common practice to add seals and the names of the angels at the end of the Bible verses contained in the mezuza for the sake of the increased security of the home. This is not indispensible, nor even a mitzva, but simply serves as additional protection" (Yere'im 400). He then spells out in great detail the names of the angels and where precisely they were inserted in the mezuza. [3] According to the Ramach's understanding of the Rambam, it may be suggested that this does not mean that a mezuza protects a person, but rather that a person should be reminded of the principles of his faith whenever he goes in or out of his house. [4] See Kolbo: "The reason that we write this name more than the others is that it is an abbreviation for Shomer Dirat Yisrael, "Who guards the dwelling of Israel" (Kolbo, Mezuza 90). [5] Establishing this night as a night of watching has halakhic ramifications in a number of contexts. This is true regarding the recitation of Shema before going to sleep and regarding the Me-Ein Sheva blessing on the night of the Seder when it falls out on Friday night. Many halakhic authorities rule that one should not say the Me-Ein Sheva blessing on the night of the Seder, since it is a night of watching that does not require protection. From bdbradley70 at hotmail.com Sat Dec 23 13:33:10 2017 From: bdbradley70 at hotmail.com (Ben Bradley) Date: Sat, 23 Dec 2017 21:33:10 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Midrash Tanchuma Message-ID: I'd be grateful to know if anyone here is sufficiently familiar with different editions of midrash tanchuma to help me out. I acquired a copy of the Tanchuma from a second hand book shop, very inexpensively, a number of years ago. I was a poor student at the time. It was printed in 5645, ie 1885, by one Shlomo Buber (Bober?) in Lvov from manuscripts acquired from Oxford and the Vatican. I must admit I'd never paid much attention to these details until now, but It's just come to my attention that it my copy is hugely different to the standard one. For example, this week in Vayigash, my copy has 12 simanim, compared to the 11 in the standard edition. But only 4 of these are the same (8-11 in mine corresponding to 9-12 in the standard), all the others are utterly different. By which I mean they are simply different midrashim, not just variants. Can anyone shed light on such a huge difference between what seems to be the standard edition and mine? Best wishes Ben -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From meirabi at gmail.com Sat Dec 23 16:49:35 2017 From: meirabi at gmail.com (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi) Date: Sun, 24 Dec 2017 11:49:35 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] Did the Patriarchs Speak Hebrew? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Speak means communication, there were 10 communications with which HKBH created the universe There were 10 communications broadcast at Har Sinai - I'm pretty sure it wasn't Polish or Hungarian. The Rishonim argue about the nature of prophesy, is it an actual voice (meaning stimulation of the human hearing facility of the ear - not necessarily stimulated by an actual sound) or just a voice in the head but TTBOMKnowledge, none question the language. Anyway, does it make any difference? Either way the brain is receiving a signal. Perhaps the type of language is irrelevant, what's important is that the message is received and understood. That the parties are connected. I have seen, but could not re-find a comment by the MaOr VeShemesh (I think connected to Ish Mitzi HiTzilanu) that Yidden spoke Mitzi, and the meaning of Lo Shinu LeShonom is that they spoke with a Yiddishe style, with dignity and kindness - and this is what set us apart. Clearly a Derasha designed to direct the listeners and readers towards a more dignified language, but at the same time reflecting an ultimate truth, the language does not make the man, it's the style that's important. I also recall hearing is a RaMBaN or a Siforno - a child exposed from birth to no external language inputs, would naturally speak Lashon HaKodesh. This seems to be a fairly old consideration amongst philosophers, see Frederick's Experiment, and Gong Mahal. HKBH looked into the Torah and created the universe, speaks volumes about the centrality of Torah, not about it's language, although it's not easy separating the two. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From driceman at optimum.net Sat Dec 23 16:53:36 2017 From: driceman at optimum.net (David Riceman) Date: Sat, 23 Dec 2017 19:53:36 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Did the Patriarchs Speak Hebrew? Message-ID: See Melachim 2 18:26 [Email #2. -micha] And see Gen. 31:47 DR Sent from my iPad From zev at sero.name Sat Dec 23 19:46:46 2017 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Sat, 23 Dec 2017 22:46:46 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Midrash Tanchuma In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 23/12/17 16:33, Ben Bradley via Avodah wrote: > It was printed in 5645, ie 1885, by one Shlomo Buber (Bober?) in Lvov > from manuscripts acquired from Oxford and the Vatican. > I must admit I'd never paid much attention to these details until now, > but It's just come to my attention that it my copy is hugely different > to the standard one. Yes, the Buber Tanchuma is a different sefer from the standard Tanchuma. Citations to "Tanchuma" stam refer to the old edition, while ones to this edition are given as "Tanchuma (Buber)". Buber claimed that he had found the original version, and that the one published in the 16th century is a much later one. Not everyone was convinced. There was also something the rishonim called "Medrash Yelamdeinu", which may have been a third version which is now lost, or may simply have been the name by which they referred to one or the other of these two versions. http://bit.ly/2C5u4FL -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From akivagmiller at gmail.com Sat Dec 23 18:39:15 2017 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Sat, 23 Dec 2017 21:39:15 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Did the Patriarchs Speak Hebrew? Message-ID: . R' Seth Mandel wrote: > There is no proof that anyone spoke Hebrew. and R' Zev Sero responded: > Rashi Bereshis 2:23 That Rashi does not mention Hebrew. What Rashi says there is that the olam was created via "Lashon Hakodesh". "Lashon Hakodesh" may or may not be the same thing as what we refer to as "Hebrew". One cannot discuss this topic meaningfully unless he is careful to make this distinction. For a very in-depth (yet also readable and in English) treatment of these and related topics, I recommend "Lashon Hakodesh - History, Holiness, & Hebrew" by Rabbi Reuven Chaim Klein. Akiva Miller From zvilampel at gmail.com Sat Dec 23 21:41:29 2017 From: zvilampel at gmail.com (H Lampel) Date: Sun, 24 Dec 2017 00:41:29 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Historicity of Aggadta In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Under the subject line of Re: [Avodah] Did the Patriarchs Speak Hebrew?, RSM raises a claim that RMB and I have argued over in the past. He writes, > Medrashim of Chazal teaches us important ideas, but are not meant to > be literally true. They do not intend to be a historical document, > but rather contain important moral and ethical teachings which are > 'emes in the spiritual sense. > > ... if you understand > what the Rambam says in his introduction to Chapter 10 of Mas. Sanhedrin > regarding three approaches to what Chazal say But the Rambam also writes there: And? I will yet compose a work in which I will gather all the drashos found in the Talmud and elsewhere...and I will reveal what of the drashos are [meant in] a literal way, and which of them are [meant as] mashal, and which of them were [describing something seen only] in a dream but was stated in a purely absolute way, as if it were [experienced] in a state of wakefulness... So, the Rambam does not maintain that the literal meaning of? /all/ drashos is to be rejected. Some are indeed meant literally, and some are not. (The Rambam never wrote this work. As he explains in Moreh Nevuchim, since much of it would be dealing with the meaning of drashos whose meanings were valuable lessons too precious to be shared with those who would not appreciate them appropriately, he would be forced to merely substitute the drashos' figurative expressions with his own figurative expressions. But in several works he does provide the key that they are not meant literally when the literal meaning would contradict realia, logic, fundamentals or pesukim.) His son Avraham, in his maamer on Drashos Chazal writes similarly regarding the maasiyos reported in the Talmud. R. Yehuda HaLevy (1:68) understood the midrashic maasiyos attributing the Hebrew language to the patriarchs as a historic reality that carried an important lesson, and considered the Torah as presenting evidence thereof. According to tradition it is the language in which G-d spoke to Adam and Eve, and in which the latter conversed. It is proved by the derivation of Adam from /adamah/, /ishshah/ from /ish/; /Chava/__from Chay; /Cain/ from /Kannisi/; /Shes/ from /shas/, and Noach from /yenachamenu/. This is supported by the evidence of the Torah. The whole is traced back to Eber, Noach and Adam. It is the language of Eber after whom it was called /Hebrew/, because after the confusion of tongues it was he who retained it. Abraham was an Aramaean of /Ur Kasdim/, because the language of the Chaldaeans was Aramaic. He employed Hebrew as a specially holy language andAramaic for everyday use. .. Zvi Lampel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From familyp2 at actcom.net.il Sun Dec 24 03:05:02 2017 From: familyp2 at actcom.net.il (Simi Peters) Date: Sun, 24 Dec 2017 13:05:02 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] tanhuma buber Message-ID: <001a01d37ca7$16b17e70$44147b50$@actcom.net.il> Your edition of Tanhuma is indeed vastly different from the standard printed edition. It was published by Buber from a Cairo Geniza manuscript (or possibly several manuscripts-not sure about the details.) There is some overlap, but there is a lot of material in Tanhuma Buber that does not appear in the standard editions and vice versa. It's good to have both. Unless you're interested in trying to reconstruct an ur-edition of Tanhuma, you can just treat them as separate works and mine each for its interesting material. Kol tuv, Simi Peters --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From zvilampel at gmail.com Sun Dec 24 06:43:33 2017 From: zvilampel at gmail.com (H Lampel) Date: Sun, 24 Dec 2017 09:43:33 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Historicity of Aggadta In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1f584d28-51c5-aa2f-2eb7-e97d1cd32aef@gmail.com> On 12/24/2017 12:41 AM, Z?? Lampel wrote: > R. Yehuda HaLevy (1:68) Should be: R. Yehuda Halevy (Kuzari 2:68). Zvi Lampel From marty.bluke at gmail.com Sun Dec 24 04:32:45 2017 From: marty.bluke at gmail.com (Marty Bluke) Date: Sun, 24 Dec 2017 14:32:45 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] New Cancer Treatment Message-ID: RHS in his sefer (Eretz Hatzvi) points out that it seems to be 2 opinions in Tosafos whether a mamzer can be created without a bias issur. The Gemara in Yevamos 16b brings the opinion that eved v'akum haba al bas yisrael havlad mamzer. Tosafos there asks the following question. They understand how there can be an opinion that an eved creates mamzerus because there is a specific issur for a Jewish woman to have biah with an eved. However, they ask, by a Goy there is no issur biah min hatorah and therefore how can anyone hold that the product of the biah of a goy and a Jewish woman would create a mamzer? Tosafos gives 2 answers: 1. Even though there is no bias issur since kiddushin are not tofsin it creates mamzerus. 2. A Goy and a Jewish woman do not create a mamzer min hatorah only midrabbanan If we apply these 2 opinions to IVF, according to the first answer since kiddushin are not tofsin (since she is married) the child would be a mamzer even though there was no bias issur. On the other hand, the second answer holds that the determining factor of mamzerus is a bias issur and therefore since in the case of IVF there is no bias issur there would be no mamzerus. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Sun Dec 24 06:24:17 2017 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Sun, 24 Dec 2017 14:24:17 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] The Nature of Egyptian Society Message-ID: <1514125453560.29445@stevens.edu> The following is from RSRH" commentary on Bereishis 46:33 Now, when Pharaoh calls you and asks, What is your occupation? 33 In a state like Egypt, the individual is completely identified with his occupation. Children are not born as human beings but as artisans, peasants, soldiers, and so forth. Accordingly, Pharaoh's first question to Yosef 's brothers would naturally concern their occupation. They were instructed to answer Pharaoh's question candidly, to tell him the truth, even though it would be unpleasant. For the Egyptians' loathing for the brothers' occupation and, in general, the nations' aversion to the Jews were to serve as primary factors in the survival of this race, which was destined to journey through the ages in isolation. As long as the moral morn had not dawned for the nations, the barriers they erected to isolate the Jews served to protect the Jews from becoming infected with the barbarism and demoralization of the people in whose midst they had to walk for hundreds of years. Yosef therefore immediately emphasizes the aspect that will arouse the aversion of the Egyptians. His clear intention is that, as a result, his brothers will be allocated a separate province in which to dwell. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cantorwolberg at cox.net Sat Dec 23 19:30:04 2017 From: cantorwolberg at cox.net (Richard Wolberg) Date: Sat, 23 Dec 2017 22:30:04 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Vay'chi Message-ID: <89600AC2-DFEA-44AA-A5AE-9C4493ED11F4@cox.net> There?s an interesting medrash the k?li yakar brings down. It doesn?t say Vayik?r?vu Yisroel Lamus, that Yisroel came close to die,? rather it says: ?Vayik?r?vu Y?MEI Yisroel lamus,? that the DAYS of Yisroel came close to die. And the medresh says, the DAYS died, not the person. This goes in line with Vay?chi Ya?akov, and Jacob LIVED. In other words, his body died but not he, himself. (The question has been asked: Do you have a soul? The answer is NO, you ARE a soul with a body). In the first pasuk (vs.28) the name Yaakov is used twice and then in vs.29 we see the name Yisroel used. The question is asked why does the name change from Ya?akov to Yisroel. One answer is that Yisroel symbolizes the prophecy of Ya?akov. And that?s how he knew he was going to die because in prophecy he understood and divinely inspired, he understood that he was going to die. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From larry62341 at optonline.net Sun Dec 24 02:38:32 2017 From: larry62341 at optonline.net (Prof. Levine) Date: Sun, 24 Dec 2017 05:38:32 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] The Protection Offered by a Mezuza Message-ID: At 06:58 PM 12/23/2017, Harav Baruch Gigi wrote: The following is from RSRH's commentary on Devorim 6:9 And write them upon the [door-] posts of your house and upon your gates. The mezuzah is not an amulet; in and of itself, it does not protect the house. Only insofar as they shape their lives in accordance with the mezuzah 's content can the people within the house expect help and protection from God, the "All-Sovereign and All-Sufficing," in all the vicissitudes of domestic life. With this intent it is our custom to adorn the outside of the mezuzah with the Name shin-daled-yud. From ben1456 at zahav.net.il Sun Dec 24 10:55:39 2017 From: ben1456 at zahav.net.il (Ben Waxman) Date: Sun, 24 Dec 2017 20:55:39 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Rambam ,Hilchot Hannuka Message-ID: A few take aways from Rambam Hilchot Hanukka Chapter 3 1) For the Rambam, Hallel is the ikkar element of Hanukka, not the candles (given that details Hallel first and only then goes on to the candles). 2) The Rambam gives a long detailed description on how to properly say Hallel in beit knesset. However the last halacha in the chapter basically says "I've been in a lot batei knesset and everyone does something different'. Meaning - you want to do a musical Hallel, different tunes, no tunes, responsive, everyone together, whatever you like - it is fine. 3) The Rambam raises the possibility of a woman or child or slave reading Hallel and everyone repeating what she or he said word by word. However, he doesn't add in the famous curse given in the Gemara. Meaning - the Rambam didn't hold by? Tavo Ma'arah (spelling?) (at least not here). Ben From lisa at starways.net Sun Dec 24 11:27:31 2017 From: lisa at starways.net (Lisa Liel) Date: Sun, 24 Dec 2017 21:27:31 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] The Protection Offered by a Mezuza In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2cfbbfce-e0d9-fc05-140c-969d4b5f18a1@starways.net> On 12/24/2017 12:38 PM, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: > At 06:58 PM 12/23/2017, Harav Baruch Gigi wrote: ... > The mezuzah is not an amulet; in and of itself, it does not protect the > house. Only insofar as they shape their lives in accordance with the mezuzah's > content can the people within the house expect help and protection... I know a mezuzah isn't an amulet, but when my apartment burned down back in the 90s, the fire burned through two sides of the apartment and jumped over my room only, which was the only one with a mezuzah.? I'm not saying it couldn't be a coincidence, I'm just saying that I didn't take it that way. Lisa From zev at sero.name Sun Dec 24 14:10:20 2017 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Sun, 24 Dec 2017 17:10:20 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] The Protection Offered by a Mezuza In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2d108449-ec4d-0e35-d888-0ccdd8b113be@sero.name> On 24/12/17 05:38, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: > At 06:58 PM 12/23/2017, Harav Baruch Gigi wrote: > The following is from RSRH's commentary on Devorim 6:9 And write > them upon the [door-] > posts of your house and upon your gates. > > The mezuzah is not an amulet; in and of itself, it does not protect the > house. Only insofar as they shape their lives in accordance with the mezuzah 's > content can the people within the house expect help and protection > from God, the "All-Sovereign and All-Sufficing," in all the vicissitudes > of domestic life. That may be RSRH's opinion, but if so it contradicts Chazal and millennia of Jewish belief and practise. No, the mezuzah is not an amulet; if it were not a mitzvah it would have no inherent power. But the *mitzvah* of mezuzah protects regardless of how those within the house "shape their lives". Even a goy who puts up a mezuzah, choosing to voluntarily fulfil this mitzvah, can expect this protection. The mitzvah protects those who fulfil it not only when they are inside the house it adorns, but wherever they are. And, most astonishingly, although it is true that a mezuzah itself is not an amulet, there are legitimate grounds to believe that carrying it around "zecher lamitzvah" *does* give some level of protection, even though no mitzvah is being fulfilled. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From ben1456 at zahav.net.il Sun Dec 24 19:58:42 2017 From: ben1456 at zahav.net.il (Ben Waxman) Date: Mon, 25 Dec 2017 05:58:42 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] The Protection Offered by a Mezuza In-Reply-To: <2d108449-ec4d-0e35-d888-0ccdd8b113be@sero.name> References: <2d108449-ec4d-0e35-d888-0ccdd8b113be@sero.name> Message-ID: <80f92bd4-b7af-1b26-1d03-0f3ce7a67edf@zahav.net.il> I seriously doubt that anyone could come up with any statistical analysis showing this point to be true. Ben On 12/25/2017 12:10 AM, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > But the *mitzvah* of mezuzah protects regardless of how those within the house "shape their lives". From zvilampel at gmail.com Mon Dec 25 07:28:21 2017 From: zvilampel at gmail.com (H Lampel) Date: Mon, 25 Dec 2017 10:28:21 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Did the Patriarchs Speak Hebrew? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > Tue, 19 Dec 2017 "Mandel, Seth" wrote: > > There is no proof that anyone spoke Hebrew. ... the Torah was written in Hebrew because that is > what the Jews understood at the time of Moshe Rabbeinu and the N'vi'im. > ... What did Yaakov speak to Rochel and > Leah, who had never been in EY? ... > one cannot know from the T'NaKh who spoke what when and where. Well, at least when the matriarchs and patriarchs stated the reasons for the names they gave their children, they were obviously speaking the same Hebrew spoken in the times of Moshe Rabbeinu. The only way to question this would be to suggest that originally Yitzchak, for instance was called "HeShallLaugh" in some other language, and over the next 5 centuries the bnei Yisrael (or the descendants of HeWillStriveWithG-d, or whatever), knowing the meaning of the name, changed it to Yitzchak.And did the same with each one of all the other names given in the chronologies, which are also clearly contractions of Mattan Torah time Hebrew words. And a similar convoluted explanation would have to be made when an allegedly unHebrew-speaking Eisav cracked ''Ha-chi kara shmo Yaakov--Vayak-veini zeh pa'amayyim...?!" I think all that is extremely unlikely, even without invoking the masorah (of no less import than the Masorah that HQBH dictated the Torah to Moshe Rabbeinu in the eponymous Biblical Hebrew) that the shevatim in Moshe Rabbeinu's time retained the names given to their ancestors (cited in many places including BeMidbar Rabbah 13:20 s.v. Bayom HaShishi and Midrash Tehillim 114:4). Zvi Lampel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mcohen at touchlogic.com Mon Dec 25 07:39:55 2017 From: mcohen at touchlogic.com (M Cohen) Date: Mon, 25 Dec 2017 10:39:55 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Did the Patriarchs Speak Hebrew? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <00bd01d37d96$9d1ebc80$d75c3580$@com> Fyi that the best sefer that I have seen on the subject of Hebrew and ancient Hebrew history is Lashon HaKodesh: History, Holiness & Hebrew by Rabbi Reuven Chaim Klein. Feldheim. http://www.feldheim.com/lashon-hakodesh.html Haskomos from R Leff, R Breitowitz, R Lopiansky It deals with the subject of ancient Hebrew history, using both on chazal and current linguistic and archeological sources Did Adam harishon speak Hebrew ? Did the world speak Hebrew until tower of Babel? Did Avraham speak Hebrew ? Foreign influences on Hebrew Hebrew vs Aramaic. Sources. History. Development. You will find exhaustive source material and answers there. Mordechai Cohen ======= Email scanned by PC Tools - No viruses or spyware found. (Email Guard: 9.1.0.2894, Virus/Spyware Database: 6.22240) http://free.pctools.com/ ======= From zev at sero.name Sun Dec 24 23:16:16 2017 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Mon, 25 Dec 2017 02:16:16 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] The Protection Offered by a Mezuza In-Reply-To: <80f92bd4-b7af-1b26-1d03-0f3ce7a67edf@zahav.net.il> References: <2d108449-ec4d-0e35-d888-0ccdd8b113be@sero.name> <80f92bd4-b7af-1b26-1d03-0f3ce7a67edf@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <1ba30a45-ba01-d7d5-2b67-843f9f22ed8b@sero.name> On 24/12/17 22:58, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > On 12/25/2017 12:10 AM, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: >> But the *mitzvah* of mezuzah protects regardless of how those within >> the house "shape their lives". > I seriously doubt that anyone could come up with any statistical > analysis showing this point to be true. Why do we need statistical analysis? Judaism tell us it's true, therefore it is. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From llevine at stevens.edu Mon Dec 25 12:00:57 2017 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Mon, 25 Dec 2017 20:00:57 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Bishul Akum - Specific Products Message-ID: <0ae98ef4eb3a4dbeaa39a0bbc1e50abf@exchng03.campus.stevens-tech.edu> Please see the file at https://goo.gl/LnRQjF YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Mon Dec 25 12:30:23 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 25 Dec 2017 15:30:23 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] The Protection Offered by a Mezuza In-Reply-To: <80f92bd4-b7af-1b26-1d03-0f3ce7a67edf@zahav.net.il> References: <2d108449-ec4d-0e35-d888-0ccdd8b113be@sero.name> <80f92bd4-b7af-1b26-1d03-0f3ce7a67edf@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <20171225203023.GA9557@aishdas.org> On Mon, Dec 25, 2017 at 05:58am IST, Ben Waxman wrote: : On 12/25/2017 12:10 AM, Zev Sero wrote: :> But the *mitzvah* of mezuzah protects regardless of how those :> within the house "shape their lives". : I seriously doubt that anyone could come up with any statistical : analysis showing this point to be true. (I won't bother arguing against Zev's inability to acknowledge the existence of other shitos than his. "[I]t contradicts Chazal and millennia of Jewish belief and practise." "Judaism tell us it's true" indeed. It's a machloqes of the Rambam and the Ramach, with various teirutzim given for the Rambam. Not open-and-shut at all.) You want to statistically decide which hashkafah is true??? I lean the way you do. But it's a machloqes. I already pointed to , a discussion of sources both ways. It would be weird to think it boils down to a machloqes in metzi'us. You remind me of a problem I have saying a particular line of Tehillim (37:25) with kavanah, and it comes up at the appendix to bentching, "Naar hayisi..." But I have seen a tzadiq whose kids miss meals and have to beg. Haven't you? The best I can do, rather than tamper with the minhag of saying it, is to focus on the word "ne'ezav" -- so, his kids don't have food, but it's not because HQBH abandoned the tzadiq. But I can't really feel that's peshat in the pasuq. It allows me to saven with qavanah, but as an answer -- the question is better than this resolution. Bitachon and emunah that actually fit the data can be more challenging than if we just shut off critical thought. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "As long as the candle is still burning, micha at aishdas.org it is still possible to accomplish and to http://www.aishdas.org mend." Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Anonymous shoemaker to R' Yisrael Salanter From micha at aishdas.org Mon Dec 25 12:34:01 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 25 Dec 2017 15:34:01 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Historicity of Aggadta In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20171225203401.GB9557@aishdas.org> On Sun, Dec 24, 2017 at 12:41:29AM -0500, H Lampel via Avodah wrote: : Under the subject line of Re: [Avodah] Did the Patriarchs Speak Hebrew?, : RSM raises a claim that RMB and I have argued over in the past. He writes, : : > Medrashim of Chazal teaches us important ideas, but are not meant to : > be literally true. They do not intend to be a historical document, : > but rather contain important moral and ethical teachings which are : > 'emes in the spiritual sense. Which need not say anything about the story's lilterally truth. Just that the story isn't *about* its literal historical claim, and therefore doesn't testify to history one way or the other. And so, I agree with: : So, the Rambam does not maintain that the literal meaning of /all/ : drashos is to be rejected. Some are indeed meant literally, and some are : not. And yet still won't bother worrying about contradicting any medrash's historical claims. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Life is a stage and we are the actors, micha at aishdas.org but only some of us have the script. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Menachem Nissel Fax: (270) 514-1507 From zvilampel at gmail.com Mon Dec 25 15:53:28 2017 From: zvilampel at gmail.com (H Lampel) Date: Mon, 25 Dec 2017 18:53:28 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Historicity of Aggadta In-Reply-To: <20171225203401.GB9557@aishdas.org> References: <20171225203401.GB9557@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 12/25/2017 3:34 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > And so, I agree with: > : So, the Rambam does not maintain that the literal meaning of /all/ > : drashos is to be rejected. Some are indeed meant literally, and some are > : not. > > And yet still won't bother worrying about contradicting any medrash's > historical claims. I already stated that the Rambam holds the intent of? a medrash is not literal if he holds it contradicts realia, logic, fundamentals or pesukim. And I should add, if it contradicts what he considers the consensus of Chazal. And in past iterations I submitted examples where the Rambam cites midrashic reports of history apparently qua history. You may insist that he (contra the Kuzari regarding Adam and the patricarchs speaking Hebrew) doesn't care about whether they are historically factual. But if you have examples of the Rambam not bothering to worry about contradicting a medrash's historical reports despite the above caveats, please provide them. Zvi Lampel From micha at aishdas.org Mon Dec 25 17:21:19 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 25 Dec 2017 20:21:19 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Historicity of Aggadta In-Reply-To: References: <20171225203401.GB9557@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20171226012119.GH24733@aishdas.org> On Mon, Dec 25, 2017 at 06:53:28PM -0500, H Lampel wrote: :> And yet still won't bother worrying about contradicting any medrash's :> historical claims. : I already stated that the Rambam holds the intent of? a medrash is : not literal if he holds it contradicts realia, logic, fundamentals : or pesukim... Yes, but you know I disagree. The Rambam says that the intent of a medrash is not literal. They might also be literal. A mashal or melitzah -- as he discusses from Mishlei at length -- can be pulled from history or stam crafted as a story, but in either case "mimah shenimtza bikhlal divreihem morim al inyanim amitiyim me'od." However, if the story does contradict what is known, we know it's a pure mashal, ahistorical. And therefore don't become like someone of the first two katim, believing stupidity or ridiculing chazal for their allegedly teaching stupidity. But he doesn't ever say that if the story is plausible, that's the point of the story. Nor that it's sufficient reason to assume it's true on a literal level. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "Fortunate indeed, is the man who takes micha at aishdas.org exactly the right measure of himself, and http://www.aishdas.org holds a just balance between what he can Fax: (270) 514-1507 acquire and what he can use." - Peter Latham From micha at aishdas.org Sun Dec 24 14:11:31 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Sun, 24 Dec 2017 17:11:31 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Please help me fund my book! Message-ID: <20171224221131.GA26480@aishdas.org> My manuscript just went to the publishers. For the second time; I retracted my first version because I didn't like the idea that the book was all theory without any pragmatics. What's the value of exploring the meaning of Torah and life based on haRav Shimon haKohein Shkop without anything about how to align one's life with those ideals? If you want some sense of what the book is about, the text that it's a commentary / elaboration on is available at http://www.aishdas.org/asp/ShaareiYosher.pdf -- although I have made some improvements to the readability of that translation since that PDF. If you would like to help me make this dream happen, whether because you were always looking for a way to thank me for these email lists, you like me or some of the things you've seen me write in the past, you like Rav Shimon's hashkafah, or simply think *any* sefer that gets more Orthodox Jews thinking about the big picture and why are we doing it all is worth existing, please let me know. Initial reactions are excited: "This may IY'H attract some serious attention -- books like this don't come out every day." "Very chashuv, unique sefer." "Wow. what an impressive work!" "Right up our alley, as well. Torah, important -- but kind of unique. For thinking people." "I think the subject, approach and writing are gevaldik." "I am excited as well, but they tell me the hardest part of the job still lays ahead." The sefarim market cannot consume books to the extent where publication will make a profit. So, at least when it comes to the business and funding models, all the houses expect fundraising and sponsorship to make a book happen. But it is not "vanity press". The publisher adds significant value to the book -- fact checking, editing, layout and other aesthetics, etc. The publisher I am going with uses Feldheim as their distribution channel, so my sefer could reach every Anglo sefarim store. And they have to pay the people who do all that, not to mention feed their own families. They put their name on the book, the book is their product. They need that good name for future marketing and distribution. So, they won't take on a book that would harm their business. They're willing to invest those man-hours, and when done, to stand behind my work. So, I have to rely heavily on word-of-mouth to raise that money. Including hitting up everyone here on Areivim/Avodah. I am using a foundation established in memory of my grandparents to clear the money in a manner that is tax-deductible. Email me for details if you are interested in chipping in. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger For those with faith there are no questions. micha at aishdas.org For those who lack faith there are no answers. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yaakov of Radzimin Fax: (270) 514-1507 From zvilampel at gmail.com Mon Dec 25 19:55:18 2017 From: zvilampel at gmail.com (H Lampel) Date: Mon, 25 Dec 2017 22:55:18 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Diberah Torah Kil-shon bnei adam In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Under the heading, Re: [Avodah] Did the Patriarchs Speak Hebrew?, Tue, 19 Dec 2017 From: Micha Berger > Mandel, Seth via Avodah wrote: > : There is no proof that anyone spoke Hebrew. Chazal say that dibb'ra Torah > : bilshon b'nei odom... > > RMB: Well.... R' Yishmael says it [the dictum ''dibb'ra Torah > bilshon b'nei odom.''] And it appears to be an argument for his > rules of derashah, which do not include looking for magic words like > "akh" (mi'ut), "raq" (mi'ut), "kol" (ribui) or even "es", but darshens > the meaning of terms, whether ribui or mi'ut....And besides, R' Aqiva disagrees! RSRH (Collected Writings Vol. V, p. 170), citing 30 cases,? points out that, ''R. Ishmael, no less than R. Akiba (and......all of R. Akiva's predecessors...)...considered particles [including of ''akh,'' ''raq'' and ''ess'] and superfluities ..in the Biblical text...subject to interpretations.'' He explains (p. 177) that ''R. Ishmael disagrees with R. Akiba only with regard to one very specific form of redundancy, namely, repetitions of the same expression; e.g.,...yidor nedder,...hasheiv heishiv, or the repetition of the same noun (ish ish). However, R. Ishmael interprets other redundancies in exactly the same manner as does R. Akiba.'' This leads me to propose an explanation for the phenomenon described by RMB as that... > The Rambam really sloganeers (like the CS's "chadash assur min haTorah") > when he uses it to explain that anthropomorphic descriptions of HQBH > are idioms, not to be taken overly literally. Rambam was not the first (and of course not the last*) to understand that Chazal intended by ''dibrah Torah kil-shon bnei adam'' a wider meaning than the one in dispute between R. Akiva and R.Yishmael, and even wider than the one RSRH shows both agreed to. Rav Hai Gaon (Teshuvas HaGaonim #98), too, used it to explain anthropomorphisms ("all the words of our Sages that have anthropomorphic descriptions ... are not to be understood literally but are metaphors or allegory. ... the Torah speaks in the language of man.)'' So did Chovos Halevavos (Shaar HaYichud 1:1:10). And Sefer HaKuzari (5:27) used it to explain? what the Torah means when it says that blowing the chatzotzros will result in ''v-hayu lachem l-zikaron lifnei H','' which seems to imply that H' requires reminders. Raavad (Sefer HaEmunah 1:7) applied the dictum to explain why the rewards and punishments the Torah' explicitly references are only those in this world, and not the next.? He explained that speaking of spiritual rewards would confuse the common people, ''v'al zeh ne'emar dibrah Torah b-lashon bnei adam.'' (Semi-off topic: In Maamar Techiyyas HaMeisim, Rambam gives a similar, if not identical reason for no explicit reference to techiyyas hameisim, without invoking the dictum.) So I propose that the Geonim and rishonim understood that the intent of Chazal's dictum? ''dibrah Torah kil-ashon bnei adam'' was a wide one, which includes the Torah's use of anthropomorphism. And that R. Yishmael, contra R. Akiva,? /extended/? it even to repetitions of the same expression; e.g.,...yidor nedder,...hasheiv heishiv, or the repetition of the same noun (ish ish). But nobody, including R. Yishmael, extended it even further, to other apparently extra words or particles such as"akh", "raq", "kol" and "ess". Those are meant for interpretation according to all. This would explain why even though the rule is that we follow R. Akiva when he argues with R. Yishmael, , the rishonim embraced the dictum of "dibrah Torah kil-shon bnei adam." Because they embraced it in the sense that all Chazal agreed to. And this applies to anthropomorphisms. It is only regarding whether to extended the dictum's application to certain types of expressions that R. Yishmael and R. Akiva argue. *Ibn Ezra--numerous times, such as on Breishis 6:6) Radak (numerous times, such as on Breishis 9:15 Ramban (Breishis 6:6) Hizkuni (Devarim 5:26) Rabbeynu Bechaye (numerous times, such as on Breishis 1:26) Ralbag (Shoftim 10:16) Akeidas Yitzchak numerous times, such as on Vayeria Shaar 19 sv Va'ani ain) Zvi Lampel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From JRich at sibson.com Mon Dec 25 22:00:57 2017 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2017 06:00:57 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] The Protection Offered by a Mezuza In-Reply-To: <20171225203023.GA9557@aishdas.org> References: <2d108449-ec4d-0e35-d888-0ccdd8b113be@sero.name> <80f92bd4-b7af-1b26-1d03-0f3ce7a67edf@zahav.net.il>, <20171225203023.GA9557@aishdas.org> Message-ID: > > You want to statistically decide which hashkafah is true??? > ------------ > > > You remind me of a problem I have saying a particular line of Tehillim > (37:25) with kavanah, and it comes up at the appendix to bentching, > "Naar hayisi..." But I have seen a tzadiq whose kids miss meals and have > to beg. Haven't you? > -------------- It also bothered the gedolim who struggled to explain why the simple meaning of the segula of being a sandek didn't seem to be statistically fulfilled Kt 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. From lisa at starways.net Tue Dec 26 00:10:52 2017 From: lisa at starways.net (Lisa Liel) Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2017 10:10:52 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Historicity of Aggadta In-Reply-To: <20171226012119.GH24733@aishdas.org> References: <20171225203401.GB9557@aishdas.org> <20171226012119.GH24733@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 12/26/2017 3:21 AM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > However, if the story does contradict what is known, we know it's a pure > mashal, ahistorical. I'd like to revise that to say that if the story contradicts what is *currently* known, we are entitled (or perhaps required) to consider it a pure mashal *at that time*, with the understanding that our knowledge may change. Lisa --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From zvilampel at gmail.com Mon Dec 25 20:41:54 2017 From: zvilampel at gmail.com (H Lampel) Date: Mon, 25 Dec 2017 23:41:54 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Historicity of Aggadta In-Reply-To: <20171226012119.GH24733@aishdas.org> References: <20171225203401.GB9557@aishdas.org> <20171226012119.GH24733@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <057fcda7-0e48-53f8-c0ec-135a112bb534@gmail.com> On 12/25/2017 8:21 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > ...But he doesn't ever say that if the story is plausible, that's the point > of the story. Nor that it's sufficient reason to assume it's true on a > literal level. The historical mentions the Rambam's makes, treating the plausible Midrashim as history without making any qualifications, indicates otherwise. But specifically on the topic this discussion came from now: Regarding the Midrashic reports that Adam and the Avos spoke Ivris/Lashon Hakadosh, which I assume you agree the Kuzari accepts as historical fact (which of course teaches in its historicity an important thing to know)... Is your default position that the Rambam doesn't care whether it's historically so? Zvi Lampel From sholom at aishdas.org Mon Dec 25 22:08:38 2017 From: sholom at aishdas.org (Sholom Simon) Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2017 01:08:38 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Rashi on kol hanefesh (Bereshis 46:26) Message-ID: <20171226060849.GQIH4561.fed1rmfepo102.cox.net@fed1rmimpo209.cox.net> Kol hanefesh . . . shvi'im. Rashi says "I found in Vayikra Rabba" . . . a statement that Eisav had (with him) six, and the word nafashos (plural) was used; but here with Yaakov, kol hanafesh . . . shevi'im, nefesh is in the singular. This is a hint that Eisav engaged in A"Z (plural gods), while Yaakov served one G-d. But don't we (almost?) always see (in Torah) the singular being used for a noun when the count is larger than 10? How can one darshen from something that follows the general grammatic rule? What am I missing here? -- Sholom From lisa at starways.net Tue Dec 26 00:08:21 2017 From: lisa at starways.net (Lisa Liel) Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2017 10:08:21 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] The Protection Offered by a Mezuza In-Reply-To: <20171225203023.GA9557@aishdas.org> References: <2d108449-ec4d-0e35-d888-0ccdd8b113be@sero.name> <80f92bd4-b7af-1b26-1d03-0f3ce7a67edf@zahav.net.il> <20171225203023.GA9557@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <282dcbac-59e9-be81-ee8e-f1faf4991682@starways.net> On 12/25/2017 10:30 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > You remind me of a problem I have saying a particular line of Tehillim > (37:25) with kavanah, and it comes up at the appendix to bentching, > "Naar hayisi..." But I have seen a tzadiq whose kids miss meals and have > to beg. Haven't you? I always understood it to mean that either he's quick to give tzedaka so as to prevent there being a tzaddik neezav v'zar'o mevakesh lachem, or that we aren't talking about literal aziva and lack of food, but rather aziva by Hashem and lack of Torah. Lisa --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From zvilampel at gmail.com Tue Dec 26 07:09:06 2017 From: zvilampel at gmail.com (H Lampel) Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2017 10:09:06 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Historicity of Aggadta In-Reply-To: <057fcda7-0e48-53f8-c0ec-135a112bb534@gmail.com> References: <20171225203401.GB9557@aishdas.org> <20171226012119.GH24733@aishdas.org> <057fcda7-0e48-53f8-c0ec-135a112bb534@gmail.com> Message-ID: <53d98237-ecd0-93ee-7927-d9edb71b28ca@gmail.com> On 12/25/2017 11:41 PM, H Lampel wrote: > > > On 12/25/2017 8:21 PM, Micha Berger wrote: >> ...But he doesn't ever say that if the story is plausible, that's the >> point >> of the story. Nor that it's sufficient reason to assume it's true on a >> literal level. The first statement is of course true. The reason a story is told is to make a point. Thus the citations where the Rambam says that all the maamerei Chazal impart valuable lessons. The second statement is where we diverge. I understand that the Rambam does take the plausible reports of happenings (reported of course because they impart something worthy to know) to be historically true. In other words, that's the default position. He never says that we may deny the historic factuality of events Chazal presented as factual historical events. I understand the citations you bring where Rambam invokes Mishlei to defend interpreting maamarei Chazal non-literally to? be saying that even the implausible ones really have valuable lessons but must be interpreted non-literally to understand them. So I would still ask you for examples of the Rambam not bothering to worry about contradicting a medrash's plausible historical reports. I previously remarked that the historical mentions the Rambam's makes, treating the plausible Midrashim as history without making any qualifications, without explaining why he takes them as historical fact (for example, the neis of the pach shemen, and the military victory of the Chashmonaim), indicates he took them as historical fact, which thereby provides the lessons to be learned therefrom. I quoted a passage from Rambam's Hakdama to Perek Cheilek (originally to counteract the face-value meaning of RSM's declaration that the Rambam holds that every Medrash is meant non-literally), where the Rambam makes clear that some reports are meant non-literally, but some are meant literally. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that your take can be worded as follows: Chazal and Rambam did not care whether the historical events they learned lessons from, really occurred. All Chazal's statements are only for the sake of the lessons. Some of the lessons must be extracted by understanding the statements in a non-literal way, particularly if at face value they are implausible. Of the plausible reports, the lessons to be learned from them can be gleaned from a literal understanding, meaning the message is clear without needing to give unusual meanings to its the words. But that does not mean that they were meant to be historically factual. They are meant literally, but not historically. I.e., the Rambam held that although lessons Chazal intended were ostensibly learned from, or reinforced by, events they reported, it is irrelevant whether the events did actually occur, and indeed they may not have. But I think his words indicate otherwise. Here they are again: ??? And I will yet compose a work in which I will gather all the ??? drashos found in the Talmud and elsewhere...and I will reveal what ??? of the drashos are [meant in] a literal way, and which of them are ??? [meant as] mashal, and which of them were [describing something seen ??? only] in a dream but was stated in a purely absolute way, as if it ??? were [experienced] in a state of wakefulness... If the Rambam considered it irrelevant whether the events did actually occur, and held that indeed they may not have occurred, why is he concerned with whether the report occurred in a dream? Why would he invoke a dream, if he considered the actuality of all reported events irrelevant? After all, its only the lesson that is relevant! But if you accept that the Rambam considered the default position to be that reported events are meant to be understood as actually occurring, and that while some are merely mashal but others are real, then it makes sense that he felt it important to exclude implausible reports and explain which were pure mashal and which were experienced in a dream. And describing the report as "stated in a purely absolute way, as if it were [experienced] in a state of wakefulness," implies that, had it not been implausible, being stated in an absolute way would imply that it was indeed experienced in a state of wakefulness. Zvi Lampel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: ???? ???? ????? ???? ?? ?? ?????? ??????? ?????? ??????.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 215599 bytes Desc: not available URL: From micha at aishdas.org Tue Dec 26 08:06:50 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2017 11:06:50 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Historicity of Aggadta In-Reply-To: <057fcda7-0e48-53f8-c0ec-135a112bb534@gmail.com> References: <20171225203401.GB9557@aishdas.org> <20171226012119.GH24733@aishdas.org> <057fcda7-0e48-53f8-c0ec-135a112bb534@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20171226160650.GC15636@aishdas.org> On Mon, Dec 25, 2017 at 11:41:54PM -0500, H Lampel wrote: : The historical mentions the Rambam's makes, treating the plausible : Midrashim as history without making any qualifications, indicates : otherwise. It indicates that some medrashim which both didn't defy evidence or his philosophy that the Rambam felt had a literal point worth making. Not that plauisible medrashim should be assumed to be literal history. He spends so much time telling you they're all statements of the deepest truths, and quoting Shelomo, that chakhamim conduct such discussions via mashal and melitzah. The fact that some deepest truths has historical impact doesn't give us license to ignore paragraphs of writing. : Regarding the Midrashic reports that Adam and the Avos spoke : Ivris/Lashon Hakadosh, which I assume you agree the Kuzari accepts : as historical fact (which of course teaches in its historicity an : important thing to know)... Is your default position that the Rambam : doesn't care whether it's historically so? That's the default. Perhaps the Rambam agrees with the Rihal that the history of Ivris is a significant statement, and would be meant literally even under his view. Perhaps not. I can't guess, and am willing to entertain anything. But there are also reports that they spoke Aramaic, or even that Adam spoke all 70 leshonos. See the sources I gave in as well as Sanhedrin 38b (R Yehudah amar Rav: Adam haRishon spoke Aramaic). Not to mention historical evidence. So there is no reason for me to make the Rambam's life difficult. To complete repeating myself, my own instinct is to say that Adam spoke some proto-Semitic, and therefore spoke a language which could be considered both ancient Hebrew AND ancient Aramaic, or proto-everything and thus an ancestor to all 70 languages. And this would explain the medrashim as well as allow us to identify Adam's speech with Leshon haQodesh. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "I think, therefore I am." - Renne Descartes micha at aishdas.org "I am thought about, therefore I am - http://www.aishdas.org my existence depends upon the thought of a Fax: (270) 514-1507 Supreme Being Who thinks me." - R' SR Hirsch From eliturkel at mail.gmail.com Mon Dec 25 13:40:32 2017 From: eliturkel at mail.gmail.com (Eli Turkel) Date: Mon, 25 Dec 2017 23:40:32 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] shabbes candles Message-ID: A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: multipart/alternative Size: 1277 bytes Desc: not available URL: From chaim.tatel at mail.gmail.com Mon Dec 25 15:43:58 2017 From: chaim.tatel at mail.gmail.com (Chaim Tatel) Date: Mon, 25 Dec 2017 15:43:58 -0800 Subject: [Avodah] shabbes candles Message-ID: A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: multipart/alternative Size: 4006 bytes Desc: not available URL: From JRich at sibson.com Wed Dec 27 01:51:45 2017 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Wed, 27 Dec 2017 09:51:45 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] birur vs hanhaga in other legal systems Message-ID: <9ec665e80cbd4e97be6b4bcc8b7221d8@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> There's a lot of "Brisker Torah" on the differentiation between halachically resolving doubts by birur (clarification/resolution of doubt) versus hanhaga (we still have a doubt but must move forward while not resolving the doubt). One practical difference would be that doubts resolved by birur are considered resolved retroactively while those resolved by hanhaga are only prospective in nature. Is anyone aware of any parallels to this differentiation in other legal systems? KT 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: From micha at aishdas.org Thu Dec 28 08:03:25 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2017 11:03:25 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Body and Soul In-Reply-To: <89600AC2-DFEA-44AA-A5AE-9C4493ED11F4@cox.net> References: <89600AC2-DFEA-44AA-A5AE-9C4493ED11F4@cox.net> Message-ID: <20171228160325.GA31137@aishdas.org> On Sat, Dec 23, 2017 at 10:30pm EST, Richard Wolberg wrote in a post titled "Vay'chi": : (The question has been asked: Do you have a soul? The answer is NO, : you ARE a soul with a body). I write about this in my manuscript. Here's a version I put up on Mi Yodeya about a year ago. So, it is slightly adapted, lacks a year of editing, and there will be someone else editing the manuscript before it is a book (assuming I raise the money). On Mi Yodeya, "Gabriel12" asked about E-lokai Neshmah, and the phrases "shanasata bi... nefachtahh bi... meshammerahh beqirbi... littela mimmenni, ulhachzirahh bi le'asid lavo". He asks: Here, when I say me, I'm referring to my body. And I'm thanking G-d for giving me back my soul. But why is the body "me"? Shouldn't the soul be the real "me"? Am I the soul or the body? My answer: As for E-lokai Neshamah and Hashem putting a soul within me, my own intent when saying these words is based on the Vilna Gaon's taxonomy of prayer: Prayers that express an ideal to be repeated and internalized are what we call "tefillah" in Hebrew. Tefillos are consistently written in the plural, as our connection to the community is part of that ideal. Prayers written in the singular are therefore of a different sort, "tachanunim", expressions of what already exists in our hearts. This is how the Gaon explains the line in Qaddish, "tisqabel tzelosehon uva'usehon -- accept the tefillos and requests (tachanunim) of all of the House of Israel..." We say this when closing the Amidah -- which is such a paragon of tefillah our Sages called it simply "Tefillah", E-lokai Netzor -- tachanunim, (note that it's written about "I" and "mine", not "we" and "our"), and Tachanun. "Elokai, neshamah -- My G-d, the soul which you placed in me" is similarly tachanunim. Therefore, it's not a place to look for how we ought to see our self-definition, but how things feel to most of us first thing in the morning. The prayer reflects the fact that most people do in practice identify with our body most consistently, and only at times with their soul. But to answer the philosophical question... There is a machlokes, a dispute among the rabbis, as to how to view man. One side, found often among books of Mussar, views a person as a soul who inhabits a body, or perhaps controls it as a rider upon a donkey. As Elifaz describes humanity in the book of [61]Iyov (4:10), "shochnei batei chomer - dwellers in homes of matter." When Rav Yitzchak Isaac Scher (Cheshbon haNefesh, Slaboka Alumni ed., intro.) speaks of man's physical side being an animal, we mean that literally, not merely like an animal. Since much of our yeitzer hara comes from our living in a mammalian body, R' Scher recommends the very same strategies one uses for taming and being able to use the eyesight of a bird, the strength of an ox, the load bearing abilities of a donkey or the speed of a horse are applicable to gaining mastery over our bodies. Like any other animal, a person's animal soul has no ability to plan toward a goal, it simply responds to whatever urge is most triggered in the moment. The animal soul must be saddled by the godly soul and guided. And Rabbi Sherr points out with the example of a trained elephant, "next to whom a person like his trainer seems little more than an ant", to maximize its utility it must neither be overburdened or neglected, nor underused and let remind wild - and this is how we are to treat our body and our animal souls. Last and most importantly, neither an animal nor the animal within can be educated, but trained through habit and acclimation. This notion is a key symbol in the Gra's interpretation system -- when one finds a chamor / donkey in a narrative, it is generally a symbol for the person's chomer / physicality. Avraham at the Akeidah or the mashiach come in riding on a donkey as a way to indicate to us their mastery over their own physicality. In contrast, we speak of Bil'am's donkey, but the Torah consistently calls it a different kind of animal; he does not harness a chamor, showing self-control over the animal's urges of the moment, Bil'am rides an ason ([62]Bamidbar 22:23,25,27,28,29,33). In this viewpoint, a person is a rider of an animal, or to use a metaphor that may resonate better with our more modern lifestyles - the soul who is wearing a body. Another stream of thought includes the body in the definition of person. Rather than a person's more human side that rides his body as a master over an animal, in this model man is seen as a fusion of body and soul. For example when the gemara ([63]Sanhedrin 91a) explains one purpose of the eventual resurrection of the dead by comparing a sinner to a blind man and a lame man who conspire to steal fruit from an orchard. They are caught and brought to court, but each of the accused claims innocence. The blind man says he must be innocent, for he was incapable of even finding the fruit, never mind stealing them. The lame man also claims innocence; after all, he had no way to reach it. Neither alone could commit the theft, so each of the accused points to the other as the critical element for the sin, the guilty party. The judge responds by putting one atop the other, recreating the unit that was capable of sin, and judges the pair. So too, the gemara explains, the soul could claim it couldn't have sinned without the body giving it the opportunity for action, and the body could claim that the planning and execution of the sin are the fault of the soul. In order to judge us for our sins, Hashem will bodily resurrect the sinner to reconstruct the person as they were then. As the Ramchal writes, "Man is different from any other creature. He is a combination of two completely diverse and dissimilar elements, namely, the body and soul." (Derech Hashem 3:1:1) The dispute is not necessarily about which is true, it could well be that both definitions of "person" are equally valid. The dispute is more prescriptive: When is it more productive to think of my physical aspect as an outsider, which would weaken the relative weight I would give the call of physical drives? And when am I better off not thinking of myself as purely soul, because then I'm not fully blaming myself for "stealing the fruit"? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The goal isn't to live forever, micha at aishdas.org the goal is to create so mething that will. http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From ben1456 at zahav.net.il Thu Dec 28 11:57:46 2017 From: ben1456 at zahav.net.il (Ben Waxman) Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2017 21:57:46 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Foreshadow Message-ID: Is the break up of the united kingdom (Israel and Yehuda) somehow foreseen in the brothers? Was the reconciliation between Yosef and the brothers (and especially Yosef and Yehuda) not complete? Was splitting responsibility between Yehuda (he set up Goshen's beit midrash) and Yosef (he supplied the food) a mistake? Is there anything in Yehuda's personality that foreshadows David and Shlomo's failure to truly unite the tribes or is the fault with the latter two only? Ben From JRich at sibson.com Fri Dec 29 02:09:15 2017 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2017 10:09:15 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] FW: Rav Moshe on Smoking In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2eb7119fe3ff4a0f8394f494ae14fde8@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> FYI-An old Avodah topic. KT Joel Rich In the attached file, there is a newly-published teshuvah from Rav Moshe which basically confirms the rumors that he retracted his teshuvah about smoking and would indeed forbid it. Kol Tuv, Reuven Chaim Klein Beitar Illit, Israel Check out my book Lashon HaKodesh: History, Holiness, & Hebrew [Lashon HaKodesh: History, Holiness, & Hebrew (Mosaica Press) on Amazon][Academia.edu][Google Scholar][LinkedIN][https://docs.google.com/uc?export=download&id=0B1NJHmIXg4QJTWZsRUpZblJpWE0&revid=0B1NJHmIXg4QJcXQxRU1kN0JWZ3pQVmZsdlYrVlljRUdSb2ZvPQ][Rabbi Reuven Chaim Klein on TorahDownloads.com] [https://my-email-signature.link/signature.gif?u=93822&e=15367987&v=592df626366a9255517be8f9bb3b802cdc17522127137d175bd71108e063b3e1] 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: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 480.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 2037389 bytes Desc: 480.pdf URL: From JRich at sibson.com Fri Dec 29 01:36:06 2017 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2017 09:36:06 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] truth telling Message-ID: <3852cda5a1f348b8ba9b17c3cd9d8079@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Thought experiment: 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? KT 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: From JRich at sibson.com Fri Dec 29 01:35:14 2017 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2017 09:35:14 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Birchat Cohanim Message-ID: <12830183c04c422ca904affc50bac0b7@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> One is in Eretz Yisrael and davens shacharit in a minyan which often does not have Cohanim to duchen. Is he required to seek a minyan which has Cohanim? If he isn't required, is it preferable? KT 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: From JRich at sibson.com Fri Dec 29 02:09:15 2017 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2017 10:09:15 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] FW: Rav Moshe on Smoking In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: [Take 2. File stripped off for the sake of text digest recipients and moved to . Fixed formatting. -micha] FYI-An old Avodah topic. KT Joel Rich In the attached file, there is a newly-published teshuvah from Rav Moshe which basically confirms the rumors that he retracted his teshuvah about smoking and would indeed forbid it. Kol Tuv, Reuven Chaim Klein Beitar Illit, Israel Check out my book Lashon HaKodesh: History, Holiness, & Hebrew [Lashon HaKodesh: History, Holiness, & Hebrew (Mosaica Press) on Amazon] >> [Academia.edu] [Google Scholar] [LinkedIN] [https://docs.google.com/uc?export=download&id=0B1NJHmIXg4QJTWZsRUpZblJpWE0&revid=0B1NJHmIXg4QJcXQxRU1kN0JWZ3pQVmZsdlYrVlljRUdSb2ZvPQ] [Rabbi Reuven Chaim Klein on TorahDownloads.com] From lisa at starways.net Fri Dec 29 06:19:45 2017 From: lisa at starways.net (Lisa Liel) Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2017 16:19:45 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] truth telling In-Reply-To: <3852cda5a1f348b8ba9b17c3cd9d8079@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <3852cda5a1f348b8ba9b17c3cd9d8079@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: You'll have to define "truth".? I know a lot of self-Identified frum Jews who consider it "truth" that the Exodus didn't happen.? That the Mabul was a metaphor.? That the text of the Torah she'bichtav we have now is not the one given to Moshe at Sinai in an actual, factual, historical event.? It's never good for them to tell that "truth" to their children. If by truth you mean the truths stated in Judaism, then it's a matter of judgment.? If you're considering telling your children about Amnon and Tamar, their age would enter into the decision.? If the truth you want to tell them is about the molesters in the frum community who were respected leaders, again, age matters.? But I wouldn't withhold the facts from my child if they were old enough to hear it and it seemed relevant. Lisa On 12/29/2017 11:36 AM, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: > Thought experiment: 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? > KT > Joel Rich > --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From micha at aishdas.org Fri Dec 29 06:34:31 2017 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2017 09:34:31 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] truth telling In-Reply-To: <3852cda5a1f348b8ba9b17c3cd9d8079@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <3852cda5a1f348b8ba9b17c3cd9d8079@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20171229143431.GD9936@aishdas.org> On Fri, Dec 29, 2017 at 09:36:06AM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : Thought experiment: 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? I understand the point of your question as being about the relative value of emes and of yir'as Shamayim. But... I can't bend my head around the case for balebatishe reasons. Is it not inevitable that many of our children would eventually learn of the lie and lose confidence in the whole concept of mesorah? And wouldn't that percentage inevitably be greater than Y, the additionaly percentage who are only staying because they believe the non-truth? To address the comparison behind the question: According to the Rambam, emunah is defined by emes. Unproven faith isn't emunah. So, he would say that the Y% of the children who believe because of a lie aren't necessarily saved. If we modernize the Rambam's position, then we would still need some kind of valid justification. Even if modern philosophy believes (accuratly, AISI) that theological proof is a meaningless concept, there are other valid ways to reach a conclusion. Those of us blessed with children are certain we love your chidren even though I never developed a proof for it. BUT, I don't think too many people hold like a modern version of the Rambam, which ties redemption to knowledge, and ethics is a lower level of perfection necessary for true knowledge og G-d. Let's take a more typical modern hashkafah, which gives priority to sheleimos or experiential deveiqus. Perhaps the non-truth would indeed be justified, if I thought your case were possible. Just as shalom justifies tactfully bending the truth. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Man can aspire to spiritual-moral greatness micha at aishdas.org which is seldom fully achieved and easily lost http://www.aishdas.org again. Fulfillment lies not in a final goal, Fax: (270) 514-1507 but in an eternal striving for perfection. -RSRH From zev at sero.name Fri Dec 29 09:50:13 2017 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2017 12:50:13 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] FW: Rav Moshe on Smoking In-Reply-To: <2eb7119fe3ff4a0f8394f494ae14fde8@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <2eb7119fe3ff4a0f8394f494ae14fde8@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <2c41ffe6-418e-8a53-6b6f-72547edfcf91@sero.name> On 29/12/17 05:09, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: > In the attached file, there is a newly-published teshuvah from Rav Moshe > which basically confirms the rumors that he retracted his teshuvah about > smoking and would indeed forbid it. > One has to wonder, then, why he never chose to include this in any of the three volumes of IM that he published after this date. -- Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah, zev at sero.name be a brilliant year for us all From bdbradley70 at hotmail.com Sat Dec 30 11:30:10 2017 From: bdbradley70 at hotmail.com (Ben Bradley) Date: Sat, 30 Dec 2017 19:30:10 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Foreshadow In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Is that not explicitly the message of the haftara for vayigash? That the split of Yehdua and Efraim (Yosef) is the the same issue as the split in the nation to reconcile the one is to reconcile the other. It's clear from the end of vayechi that there's still broad daylight between Yosef and the brothers. They are still wary of him and he still see the need to try to bring them close. There are many midrashim assuming it's all the same issue, a basic split in Klal Yisrael manifestation over history. The Bnei Yissaschar on Chanuka deals with this a lot and the best treatment I've seen in one place is Rav Matis Weinberg's book on Chanuka. In any case, even without aggadta the cycle of galus is consistently a result of this split, be it to Mitzrayim or to Ashur. Geula has the same dynamic, thus a moshiach both from Yosef and from David (Yehuda). BW Ben -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From JRich at sibson.com Sat Dec 30 14:48:34 2017 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Sat, 30 Dec 2017 22:48:34 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] truth telling In-Reply-To: <20171229143431.GD9936@aishdas.org> References: <3852cda5a1f348b8ba9b17c3cd9d8079@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> <20171229143431.GD9936@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <714290ea035646beb5044c62d3186c46@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Perhaps the non-truth would indeed be justified, if I thought your case were possible. Just as shalom justifies tactfully bending the truth. :-)BBii! -Micha --------------------------------------------------- That's what I wonder about, can belief ever be built on sheker. I've heard drush on not (e.g. why didn't the Chashmonaim not use shemen tamei) but istm it is being done In general I agree that it doesn't work. KT 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. From meirabi at gmail.com Sat Dec 30 17:31:32 2017 From: meirabi at gmail.com (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi) Date: Sun, 31 Dec 2017 12:31:32 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] HELP - Why is there an Issur BBCh on a Nefel/Shellil? Message-ID: I have yet to find anyone asking this Q - the Nefel and Shelil seem to be the same thing it is a Neneilah yet it is Assur to eat as BBCh - why is there no Ein Issur Chal Al Issur? MAssuros 4:1 - one who eats flesh of a dead non-Shechted Kosher beast transgresses the prohibition of eating Neveilah MAssuros 4:4 - one who eats flesh of a Nefel [a non-fully gestated foetus] transgresses the prohibition of eating Neveilah Even [according to the careful reading of the RaMBaM] if it is not dead MAssuros 9:7 - one who cooks a Shelil with milk or eats it transgresses the prohibition of eating BBCh MAssuros 9:6 - one who cooks Cheilev or Neveilah or similar, with milk, transgresses the prohibition of BBCh but not when eating it because a second prohibition cannot take effect upon a item that is already prohibited Best, Meir G. Rabi 0423 207 837 +61 423 207 837 Best, Meir G. Rabi 0423 207 837 +61 423 207 837 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From menu at inter.net.il Sun Dec 31 00:12:21 2017 From: menu at inter.net.il (menucha) Date: Sun, 31 Dec 2017 10:12:21 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Foreshadow In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > > Bereshit Rabba 84 sees foreshadowing of Yeravam ben Nevat starting with Yosef's dreams. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From akivagmiller at gmail.com Sun Dec 31 08:10:04 2017 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Sun, 31 Dec 2017 11:10:04 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Merchavyah Message-ID: . There is a pasuk in Hallel (Tehillim 118:5) that begins "Min hamaytzar". In RSR Hirsch's siddur, the last word of that pasuk is "merchavyah". In his perush on Tehillim, there too, the last word is "merchavyah", and in the perush he writes that "According to Pesahim 117a, merchavyah is one word, like halleluyah." My understanding of that gemara is that R Yochanan, Rav, and Raba all hold "merchavyah" to be one single word. Although Rav Chisda quoted R Yochanan to that effect, the Gemara is unsure how Rav Chisda held personally on this issue, and leaves that as a "tayku". However - When I look in various Tanachs, Tehillims, Siddurim, and Hagados, almost all of them (there *are* a few exceptions) print this as two separate words: "merchav yah". Obviously, there must be someone who either argues against this gemara, or understands the gemara differently than how Rav Hirsch understands it. The Minchas Shai on this pasuk refers to this gemara. If I'm reading it correctly, he seems to feel that the gemara is an unresolved machlokes, and I suppose that's why he tries to resolve it by looking at whatever manuscripts he had, both here and in Beshalach (where there's a similar question on Kes Y-ah). In my very unlearned and inexperienced view, it is not reasonable to consider these as two words, which is an unproven opinion that the gemara left as a tayku, and reject the combined weight of R Yochanan, Rav, and Raba, who all clearly held this to be a single word. Can anyone help me out? Akiva Miller From cantorwolberg at cox.net Sat Dec 30 20:25:17 2017 From: cantorwolberg at cox.net (Richard Wolberg) Date: Sat, 30 Dec 2017 23:25:17 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Sh'mos Message-ID: It is brought down that the place where the Burning Bush occurred was Har Sinai. The talmud asks why did it occur in a thorn bush and the answer: God says "when the Jews are suffering, I am suffering, too." A midrash relates that taking the Jews out of Egypt was nowhere near as difficult as taking ?Egypt? out of the Jews. Aish.com Mayanot Wellsprings bring out: The longest private conversation recorded in the Torah between God and a human individual takes place in our parsha. It takes God 39 long verses (from Exodus 3:1 to 4:17) to persuade Moses to accept the mission of serving as the savior of the Jewish people. In a wide-ranging conversation that covers many topics, God patiently responds to Moses' many objections and queries before Moses finally caves in to the Divine will and accepts. It reminds me that the Shulchan Aruch says if you are asked to be a ba'al tefilla, you should first politely refuse (out of modesty). If you are asked a second time, you should still refuse. But if you are asked a third time, you must accept. It's a not such a well known minhag and is just another example of menschlechkeit, sensitivity and humility for the time it was written. ?The Bible is meant to be OUR critic, not we, ITS critic!" -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From zev at sero.name Sun Dec 31 09:51:47 2017 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Sun, 31 Dec 2017 12:51:47 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Merchavyah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <26d7c7af-67e8-e1d6-3fd7-00aca9fcbef4@sero.name> For one thing, the Keter Aram Tzovah has it as two words. -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 2018 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper