Avodah Mailing List
Volume 01 : Number 015
Friday, August 7 1998
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Date: Wed, 5 Aug 1998 16:41:37 -0400 (EDT)
From: Mordechai Torczyner <mat6263@is.nyu.edu>
Subject: Rashi Eiruvin 62b
On Wed, 5 Aug 1998, Avodah wrote:
> From: Cheryl Maryles <C-Maryles@neiu.edu>
> As I was reviewing daf yomi, a Rashi caught my eye. On daf 62b in the
> sugya dealing with not giving a ruling in the presence of ones rebbi, the
> gemara asks what if the law is written in megillas taanis. which rashi
> explains (d.h. kegoan) was the only written down set of laws at the time.
> Since the question was asked to abaye it is clear that Rashi doen't hold
> that Rebbi wrote the mishna (maybe he only compiled or organized it)
> because if he did, surely the mishna would also be written down. Does any
> one know other Rashi's which contradict this or agree with it. Do people
> understand rashi differently then I do, I know this is a big dispute
> (ie.when was the mishna actually written down) who knows more?
1. Is it certain that Rashi's language of "Devar Halachah" doesn't refer
to a strict list of Halachos? The "Megilah" reference makes it seem that
he is referring to a type of text that is not relevant to Mishnah.
2. Does anyone have access to the "Nesivos Olam" that the Rashash is
quoting there? I assume he doesn't mean the Maharal's NS"A.
Mordechai
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Congregation Ohave Shalom, Pawtucket, RI: http://members.tripod.com/~ohave
WEBSHAS! http://www.aishdas.org/webshas & Leave the Keywords at Home
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
[ Distributed to the Avodah mailing list. ]
[ To post: mail to avodah@aishdas.org ]
[ For control requests: mail the word "help" to majordomo@aishdas.org ]
Go to top.
Date: Wed, 5 Aug 1998 16:30:43 -0500 (CDT)
From: Saul J Weinreb <sweinr1@uic.edu>
Subject: Re: Avodah V1 #14
Reb Shraga suggested that the reason the Rogatchover learned Beavailus was
because he was learning not for pleasure but to remove suffering. That is
possibly the reasoning behind the yerushalmi's heter.
Shaul Weinreb
[ Distributed to the Avodah mailing list. ]
[ To post: mail to avodah@aishdas.org ]
[ For control requests: mail the word "help" to majordomo@aishdas.org ]
Go to top.
Date: Wed, 5 Aug 1998 21:15:02 -0400 (EDT)
From: Shalom Carmy <carmy@ymail.yu.edu>
Subject: Rambam and determinism
I don't want to discourse here on Rambam's view of hashgaha, as I am
publishing a long article touching on the subject in next Torah UMadda
Journal (=a chapter in the forthcoming Jewish Perspectives on the
Experience of Suffering).
I would observe, however, that it may be anachronistic to ascribe to the
Rambam a theory of "physical determinism" akin to that often maintained
today. The Rambam's commitment to the regularity of nature does not, as
far as I know, entail a rigidly deterministic doctrine.
I haven't examined every Rambam text with a fine toothed comb but I would
place the burden of proof on whoever does ascribe the modern deterministic
view to him.
(For a ringing refutation of the assumption that a major ancient
philosopher was hopelessly committed to a deterministic view of causality
and agency, see first chapter of Richard Sorabji's book on Aristotle and
Causality [title=Blame, Necessity, Cause?]. If Aristotle was not a
determinist, then surely the Rambam, with the benefit of Torah, presumably
would not have felt pressured intellectually to adopt strict determinism.)
[ Distributed to the Avodah mailing list. ]
[ To post: mail to avodah@aishdas.org ]
[ For control requests: mail the word "help" to majordomo@aishdas.org ]
Go to top.
Date: Wed, 5 Aug 1998 21:53:37 -0400 (EDT)
From: micha@aishdas.org (Micha Berger)
Subject: Rambam and Rav Dessler on teva
In v1n9 I wrote:
> 2- The Michtav Mei'Eliyahu vol IV states that when judged "mi yichyeh umi
> a- those who b'din deserve to;
> b- those who b'middas rachamim are given another chance;
> c- those who b'middas rachamim are allowed to live in order to provide
> someone else the choice of acting in a way that lets the person live.
> This sounds much like the Rambam's position, that there are people who aren't
> sufficiently connected to Hashem, and are therefore left to teva. Which
> doesn't surprise me, as I already commented how R Eliyahu Dessler's opinion of
> the relationship between bitachon and hishtadlus was the flip-side of the
> Rambam. (Hishtadlus could be seen as the work one needs to do to cover the
> amount of teva he is subjected to.)
This generated a lot of back-and-forth until in v1n14 Chaim Brown wrote:
: What happens when you are deserving of hashgacha? You attempted last time
: to equate the Rambam with R' Dessler, who says a tzaddik is not subject to
: the normal laws of nature/teva, meaning a tzaddik can burn vinegar and
: acheive other miracles based on his belief. The Rambam would see hashgacha
: as operating THROUGH natural means, not suspending teva.
Actually, I limited my comparison to noting that the Rambam's statement that
yedi'ah earns hashgachah instead of teva is much like Rav Dessler's statement
that bitachon reduces one's need for hishtadlus. Particularly if we define
hishtadlus as working within teva to accomplish some end.
The Rambam consistantly phrases the two as an either-or, hashgachah does NOT
operate through natural means. This is very different than Rav Dessler's view
of teva, in which it differs from neis only in degree of predictability. I did
not intend, and though I explicitely stated, that the two disagree on this
second point. I suggested that the cause of this difference is that the
Rambam's view of nature is deterministic, and therefore leaves G-d no "room"
to tailor-fit events to someone's life. The more modern world-view has a
non-deterministic view of teva, so that even within teva hashgachah can
determine which of many possible events will occur.
In addition, and not stated before, is the Besh"t's impact on hashkafah. The
Besh"t understood the 10 ma'amaros of creation, as opposed to 10 writings or
some other metaphor, is that speech only exists for as long as the speaker
speaks. As soon as the Speaker would stop saying "yehi or", the words would
cease. Light continues to exist because the amirah didn't end. Creation is
therefore continual, and not a single event. Pesukim often quoted in support
of this view are "li'osei orim gedolim" (in the present tense), and "asher
bara E-lokim la'asos" (which G-d created to continue making). This fits in
well with Chassidus' stress on an immenent deity.
Rav Dessler's view of teva is a natural consequence of this view. Every event,
even those of by natural law, is part of that act of creation. Nature is then
reduced to predictability of the created event.
Which then brings us to the idea that someone who has sufficient emunah to
expect things we call neis, and not be surprised by them, is more likely to
have these nisim occure. I'll back off from insisting that for him they're
teva -- as I said, in this world-view, it's a spectrum, not either-or.
If two events are equally likely, the amount of hashgachah involved in giving
you the fortuitous one is not great. If the good turnout has a probability of
only 10%, then you are more likely to feel the hashgachah. If the turnout has
a probability of 1 in 10^(10^123), and it occurs anyway, most of us would call
this a neis.
Also, by limiting the recipients of neis to those who wouldn't be surprised
by them, bechirah chafshi is preserved. If my vinager burned, Hashem, via a
supernatural event would have strengthened my emunah. However, no change of
emunah resulted from Rav Chisda's vinager burning, he already had more
certitude than the event would provide.
You could even argue that this is a purpose of teva, of events having
predictability based on physical cause. It allows hester panim, which
preserves bechirah. (Another purpose is that it gives us the ability to reason
about the consequences of out choices.)
Again, NOT l'fi haRambam.
-mi
PS: 1 in 10^(10^123) is Penrose's estimate for the probability the big bang
left singularity in a low entropy state.
--
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287 Help free Yehuda Katz, held by Syria 5884 days!
micha@aishdas.org (11-Jun-82 - 5-Aug-98)
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.
http://www.aishdas.org -- Orthodox Judaism: Torah, Avodah, Chessed
[ Distributed to the Avodah mailing list. ]
[ To post: mail to avodah@aishdas.org ]
[ For control requests: mail the word "help" to majordomo@aishdas.org ]
Go to top.
Date: Wed, 5 Aug 1998 22:16:06 -0400 (EDT)
From: micha@aishdas.org (Micha Berger)
Subject: Two comments about "Nishmas"
The tephillah opens "*Nishmas* kol chai tivareich es shimcah, *viruach* kol
basar..." My first question was what happened to *nefesh*? The normal triad
(the aspects/parts of the soul that are penimiyos, internal to the self) are
nara"n, nefesh, ruach and neshamah -- but only two are represented here.
I was bothered by this question for a few years until I think I found the key
to the answer in the Maharal on Menachos, on the Gemara's statement that by
wearing tephillah shel yad, tephillah shel rosh, and tzitzis, one is
enveloped in mitzvos and protected from cheit.
The Maharal explains that the three mitzvos parallel Nara"n (I collect such
parallels for a hobby). The tephillah shel rosh represents the neshamah. The
shel yad is over the heart, representing the ruach. Tzitzis, which covers the
body, protects from the urges of the nefesh.
We don't wear tephillin on Shabbos because Shabbos is an os, a sign, which
renders tephillin redundant. However we do wear tzitzis. From this Maharal I'd
conclude that the os of Shabbos operates on the levels of neshamah and ruach,
but not of nefesh.
Therefore, it is unsurprising that in a tephillah written for Shabbos the
tephillah also only glorifies the praises of those two levels.
=-=-=-=
Later in the tephillah, we say (translation mine): "If our mouths were filled
with songs like the sea, and our tongues of songs-of-glory like its many
waves, and our lips, praise, like the breadth of the sky." So far, so logical.
But then "And our eyes lit like the sun and the moon, our hands spread out
like the eagles of the sky and our feet as light as she-goats, still it would
not be enough to praise you...". What does enhanced sight, grasp or travel
have to with one's ability to praise G-d?
I had two thoughts:
1- If the same compliment comes from your boss it has greater impact than the
same words comming from a co-worker. Here we could be saying, no matter how
great people were, we'd still not be sufficient vehicles for His praise.
2- A well made watch, or a beautiful painting, praises its maker by its mere
existence. People look at the watch and painting and think how clever and
talented the person was. This phrase could be saying that no matter how many
gifts Hashem would have given us, our design would still be faint praise
compared to His true abilities, and all that Hashem has done for us.
-mi
--
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287 Help free Yehuda Katz, held by Syria 5884 days!
micha@aishdas.org (11-Jun-82 - 5-Aug-98)
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.
http://www.aishdas.org -- Orthodox Judaism: Torah, Avodah, Chessed
[ Distributed to the Avodah mailing list. ]
[ To post: mail to avodah@aishdas.org ]
[ For control requests: mail the word "help" to majordomo@aishdas.org ]
Go to top.
Date: Wed, 5 Aug 1998 22:23:07 -0400 (EDT)
From: micha@aishdas.org (Micha Berger)
Subject: Roots and metaroots
Rav SR Hirsch also believed in three letter roots. However, he also had the
notion that phonetically related roots have similarity in meaning as well. In
this sense, we can group roots into meta-roots, families of phonetically
related roots.
Roots that share two letters, but differ in the inclusion of semivowels or
doubled letters, are phonetically related. Hirsch therefor often describes the
words are being related. Not the tightness of connection of saying they are
the same two- or one-letter root, only that of meta-root.
For example, "even" /aleph-bet-nun/, is taken as meaning "that with which one
builds", even though only two letters of the root are present. This isn't
presented as a two-letter root, or a deficient conjugation where one letter
drops out, but that it is merely a pair of phonetically related roots.
In this way his position is somewhere between the two extremes.
-mi
--
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287 Help free Yehuda Katz, held by Syria 5884 days!
micha@aishdas.org (11-Jun-82 - 5-Aug-98)
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.
http://www.aishdas.org -- Orthodox Judaism: Torah, Avodah, Chessed
[ Distributed to the Avodah mailing list. ]
[ To post: mail to avodah@aishdas.org ]
[ For control requests: mail the word "help" to majordomo@aishdas.org ]
Go to top.
Date: Thu, 06 Aug 1998 07:47:49 EDT
From: kennethgmiller@juno.com (Kenneth G Miller)
Subject: Did Rebbe write the Mishna down?
Elie Ginsparg wrote:
<<< ... it is clear that Rashi doen't hold that Rebbi wrote the mishna
(maybe he only compiled or organized it) ... Does anyone know other
Rashi's which contradict this or agree with it.... >>>
I have been unable to find my copy of Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan's Handbook of
Jewish Thought, but from what I remember, he does write that Rebbe
"published" the Mishna. However, if you read his words carefully, it
becomes clear that indeed, this refers only to the compiling and
organizing, and that it was not put to paper until later. Sorry I can't
quote a page number.
Akiva Miller
_____________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com
Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]
[ Distributed to the Avodah mailing list. ]
[ To post: mail to avodah@aishdas.org ]
[ For control requests: mail the word "help" to majordomo@aishdas.org ]
Go to top.
Date: Thu, 06 Aug 1998 07:47:49 EDT
From: kennethgmiller@juno.com (Kenneth G Miller)
Subject: Aveilus on Shabbos Chazon
Some have asked about the tunes used in shul on Shabbos Chazon.
A couple of years ago, Baruch Schwartz did some research into the
question of singing Lecha Dodi to the tune of Eli Tzion, and he posted
some of his results to Mail-Jewish, Volume 25 number 64. You can read his
posting at the Mail-Jewish archives, at http://shamash.org/mail-jewish
or you can get a copy by e-mail by sending the message get
mail-jewish/volume25 v25n64 to listproc@shamash.org
He came to the conclusion that while public mourning (avelus) is assur on
Shabbos, lamentation (kinah) is not. Some of the evidence which led to
that conclusion includes:
<<< .... The haftarot of the three weeks are haftarot of lamentation and
rebuke. These haftarot are mandated by the halakah, and they even
override Mahar Hodesh and Rosh Hodesh, even though they have nothing to
do with the weekly parashah. No one ever thought of abolishing them
because they are expressions of mourning on Shabbat. ... at Orah Hayyim
282:14, the Magen Avraham writes that on Shabbat Hazon the rabbi is
called up to recite the haftarah "because he knows how to lament" (she-hu
yodea lekonen) (see Mishna Berura 282:31). ... the haftarah is recited
(most of it) in the cantillation of Echah, as is the Verse beginning with
the word Echah in the Torah portion (Devarim). On the latter point, note
that the stopping points in the Torah-reading have even been adjusted in
order for this to take place. ... This melody, by the way, comes up again
on the shalosh regalim. In the musaf, it is clearly audible at the words
"beneh vetcha kevatehilla vechonen mekdashcha al mechono". This too
indicates that lament and supplication for the destruction and rebuilding
of the Temple are an integral part of our prayers, even on the happiest
days of the year when there is a biblical command to rejoice. How much
more so on the Shabbat preceding Tisha B'Av. >>>
Akiva Miller
_____________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com
Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]
[ Distributed to the Avodah mailing list. ]
[ To post: mail to avodah@aishdas.org ]
[ For control requests: mail the word "help" to majordomo@aishdas.org ]
Go to top.
Date: Thu, 06 Aug 1998 10:07:31 -0400
From: "Ari Z. Zivotofsky" <azz@lsr.nei.nih.gov>
Subject: luchos
I am looking for traditional Jewish sources that offer the size and shape of
the luchas. It is clear that the famous rounded that we are all familiar with
is a product of medieval Christian European art. I am fairly sure that there
is a gemara that gives their dimensions so that they could fit in the aron
and assumes they were shaped like blocks (elongated cubes - not sure what the
technical name would be).
Ari Zivotofsky
[ Distributed to the Avodah mailing list. ]
[ To post: mail to avodah@aishdas.org ]
[ For control requests: mail the word "help" to majordomo@aishdas.org ]
Go to top.
Date: Thu, 6 Aug 1998 10:13:52 -0400
From: "Pechman, Abraham" <APechman@mwellp.com>
Subject: RE: luchos
I think the me'am lo'ez in yisro goes into detail as to the dimensions and
material content of the luchos.
Avi Pechman
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ari Z. Zivotofsky [mailto:azz@lsr.nei.nih.gov]
> Sent: Thursday, August 06, 1998 10:08 AM
> To: avodah@aishdas.org
> Subject: luchos
>
>
>
>
> I am looking for traditional Jewish sources that offer the
> size and shape of
> the luchas. It is clear that the famous rounded that we are
> all familiar with
> is a product of medieval Christian European art. I am fairly
> sure that there
> is a gemara that gives their dimensions so that they could
> fit in the aron
> and assumes they were shaped like blocks (elongated cubes -
> not sure what the
> technical name would be).
>
> Ari Zivotofsky
>
> [ Distributed to the Avodah mailing list.
> ]
> [ To post: mail to avodah@aishdas.org
> ]
> [ For control requests: mail the word "help" to
> majordomo@aishdas.org ]
>
[ Distributed to the Avodah mailing list. ]
[ To post: mail to avodah@aishdas.org ]
[ For control requests: mail the word "help" to majordomo@aishdas.org ]
Go to top.
Date: Thu, 06 Aug 1998 15:47:38 +0000 (GMT)
From: Michael Frankel <FRANKEL@hq.dswa.mil>
Subject: Composition of Mishnoh
Re: E. Ginspurg's question about views of composition of mishnoh:
1. a)Rambam (intro to mishne toroh), Me'ieri (intro to meseches ovos), R.
Sh'muel Hanogid (intro to gemoroh) all speak of the "writing" of the mishnoh by
Rebbe.
b)Rashi, Si'mag (intro to sefer hamitzvos) speak only of seder vi'tayrutzoh of
the mishnoh, i.e. the editing/arranging/explicating of already existing
mishnaic documents.
2. It is no accident that the first group are all, kindof, sefaradim while
the latter are ashqenazim, as this is undoubtedly related to the more than
century old debate which has enveloped the published editions of the Iggeres
R'Sh'riroh Gaon - remembering that the question of who composed the mishnoh,
rebbe or his predecessors? was literally the first sentence and primary query
around which R. Sh'riroh organized his entire extended response about.
Basically, the available ms of the Iggeres segregate neatly two general bins,
those issuing from sephardic sources (with the 16th cent pub of the
Constantinople MS serving as the prototype) all have R' Shriroh identifying
rebbe as the writer of the mishnoh. In the 19th century B. Goldberg (Berlin)
published another edition apparently based on French sources and subsequently
other "French" versions were also found and published and there are now
adequate "scientific" editions published for both basic versions. None of the
french versions mention such an act of authorship by Rebbe. Since then people
have been slugging it out as to which is more authentic (after all, we don't
need to assume R' Shriroh wrote more than one version), with the early nods
given to the sephardic versions, while the later scholarly votes seem to have
swung more to backing the authenticity of the ashqenazic version(s). i saw in
our local bookstore a recent new english translation edition of the Igggeres by
a rav whose name i disremember just now, but my real quick stand up-page turn
review left me with the impression that it was a mishmash drawing on material
from both archetypes.
Mechy Frankel frankel@hq.dswa.mil
[ Distributed to the Avodah mailing list. ]
[ To post: mail to avodah@aishdas.org ]
[ For control requests: mail the word "help" to majordomo@aishdas.org ]
Go to top.
Date: Fri, 07 Aug 1998 12:06:32 -0400
From: Samuel Foxman <Samuel.Foxman@ny.frb.org>
Subject: Re: Avodah V1 #14
In regards to singing the tune of "Ali Tzion" for lecha dodi, I personally heard from Rabbi Yosef Dov Soloveichk that it is a custom to sing this tune for lecha dodi for shaboos chazon. He did not indicate that he thought it was wrong to do so. By the way, at that time h said that this tune is very old.
[ Distributed to the Avodah mailing list. ]
[ To post: mail to avodah@aishdas.org ]
[ For control requests: mail the word "help" to majordomo@aishdas.org ]
Go to top.
********************
[ Distributed to the Avodah mailing list, digested version. ]
[ To post: mail to avodah@aishdas.org ]
[ For control requests: mail the word "help" to majordomo@aishdas.org ]