Avodah Mailing List

Volume 02 : Number 131

Sunday, January 17 1999

• Re: Avraham & Moshe
• Re: shoftim
• Re: Avodah V2 #129
• Re: large chassidic groups, nusach Ari, and selective reading
• Re: PC Tanach
• Brocha On chewing gum
• Re: Avodah V2 #129
• Re: Brocha On chewing gum
• shoftim (fwd)
• Ba'avur t'varechicha NAFSHI
• Re: Brocha On chewing gum
• Re: TSN
• Dikduk: Shoroshim
• Re: Nefesh haChayim-1

<<
When exactly does the honeymoon end, Rashi says that it was decreed that
Moshe wouldn't enter Israel as soon as he complained at the end of Shmos,
furthermore, some tannaim hold that Moshe was punished for complainind
against Hashem (he lost the kehuna). 
>>

And Avraham is punished, according to many, for "ba-ma eyda ki irashena",
which according to Ramban's calculations, was the FIRST time HaShem spoke
directly to Avraham.  There are limits as to what one may question.  My point
was to show that Moshe's doubt was understandable in light of his relative
newness to his position, and to see him as somehow less than Avraham because
of the akeyda is not a fair comparison.

Eliyahu Teitz
Jewish Educational Center
Elizabeth, NJ

On Sat, 16 Jan 1999 C1A1Brown@aol.com wrote:

> The first commandment of public speaking is "Know thine audience".  The
> issue is not one of religious truth, but of what is a good topic for
> discussion in a public forum.  Secondly, that which applied to the pagan
> world of Canaan does not apply to our gentile neighbors in America; why
> stress the impractical details of war when there are many other moral
> messages of Tanach that are relevant to our daily life? 
> 

I did not ask for Mussar.

I did not apply the lessons of Cana'an to modren day America - nor did I
imply same in my e-mail.

It is not possible to teach the Shoftim in the form of platitudes as you
suggest.

YGB

Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
Cong. Bais Tefila, 3555 W. Peterson Ave., Chicago, IL, 60659
ygb@aishdas.org, http://www.aishdas.org/baistefila

> 
> Date: Fri, 15 Jan 1999 12:35:09 -0600 (CST)
> From: mshulman@ix.netcom.com (Moshe Shulman)
> Subject: Re: large chassidic groups, nusach Ari, and selective reading
> 
> 
> >  His response was to cite the precedent of Moshe.  Moshe, however, was
> >not a rebbe (is this another chassidic/misnagdic split?).  He was a
> >rav.  The Rambam, for example, emphasises that he was the only navi
> >whose personality did not penetrate his relaying of divine instruction
> >(he was like a scribe, unlike all other neviim).  Furthermore, he did
> >not have a personal relationship with all of Israel - he worked through
> >a hierarchy of teachers (see the Rambam's introduction to peirush
> >hamishnayoth).  He had to appeal to all types of personalities, not just
> >to those of one particular shoresh neshama.
> 
> He was BOTH a Rav and a Rebbe. He gave halachic decesions and constantly
> prayed for the Jewish people. :) (BTW there are many Rebbes who are/were the
> Rabbi of their town in Europe.)


===> The Netziv appears to disagree here.  He cites the Midrash that Moshe
referred to Aharon as "Amud Tzlos-hon D'yisrael".  The implication is that
Moshe did NOT perfrom that function.  This may have actually changed over
time -- see the RamBan in Yisro when he discusses what Moshe was
*originally* doing when Yisro asked him as to what was going on.  In any
event, it is not clear that Moshe was the one "constantly praying" for the
Jewish people.

--Zvi
> ------------------------------
> 
> Date: Fri, 15 Jan 1999 12:36:01 -0600 (CST)
> From: mshulman@ix.netcom.com (Moshe Shulman)
> Subject: Re: Irrationality
> Zvi, your questions are based on a preconceived idea of what you think
> Chassidus is about, and then when I attempt to answer according to the facts
> you don't adjust your paradigm. Again, if your accept that there are different
> daruchim, then there will be seforim that, even if having a certain percent of
> common chassidic ideas, will emphasis those that have a relaionship to that
> derech. (Tanya is an excellent example.) People learn those things that
> represent their 'approach' or derech of chassidus. It is that simple.

===> Unless there is the power of Nevua here -- there is no basis to tell
me what MY preconceived notions are.  Again, I will note that I ask based
upon what I see as a response.  As I noted earlier, if there is no
"common derech" of Chassidus, then this is all quite sensible.  It is
problematic to me when there is an attempt to define a "common" derech.


> 
> >shirayim).  Once again, I will remind all that I got involved because of
> >what appeared to be the rather cavalier dismissal of the Machshovo of R.
> >Tzadok...  What I hear is that ultimately, chassidus is whatever a Chassid
> >*says* that it is whether this is logical, fair, or "proper".  I simply
> >question this as an approach....  To ultimately say that I cannot
> >understand it is to state that this is a derech that is FUNDAMENTALLY
> >illogical or irrational.
> 
> Again you have your own conclusions and have nothing from what I say to
> support it. There is not nor can ever be a chasid without a Rebbe. You are a
> chasid of a Rebbe, which implies that you follow a specific derech. I have
> continually stated this, but you have continually ignored that. Your comment
> here is just another example of this.

===> In which case, the conclusion is that only a given derech may be
analyzed -- not a "common" derech.  Is that correct?

--Zvi
> ------------------------------
> 
> Date: Fri, 15 Jan 1999 12:36:39 -0600 (CST)
> From: mshulman@ix.netcom.com (Moshe Shulman)
> Subject: Re: Chukim
> 
> >> >===> No discussion -- just a flat statement with no elaboration -- that is
> >> >intellectual?? Please read the above that I wrote and then re-read what
> >> >YOU wrote and then explain why Rishonim sought to "explain" Chukim if the
> >> >idea is as you have written.  *I* have no problem because we ARE expected
> >> >to TRY to understand everything but OBEY the chok even when we do NOT
> >> >understand it (that is why I referred to "context" vs. the chok, itself).
> >> They continually try to give reasons, not THE reason. There are many
> >> 'reasons'
> >> in chassidishe seforim also. But there is a recognition that the 'real'
> >> reasons are unknown, as Chazal say with regards to the parah adumah.
> >==> The "real" reason may be unknown -- but the OBSERVANCE is still within
> >an overall rational and logical framework -- i.e., that we are given
> >mitzvot which are (ultimately) not comprehended by us [fully] in this
> >world and we do them as part of Avodas HaBorei.  Again, the OVERALL
> >approach to the chukim is rational and intellectual.  Of course, you can
> 
> You seem to change the word 'rational' for whatever you want. It is almost
> meaningless. You also contradict yourself. Either we can understand the reason
> for a mitzvah or not. If we don't understand it 100% (which I think both of us
> agree is not possible) then we are performing a mitzvah to a certain extent
> without a rational reason. We just don't understand a part of it (which I
> would contend always ends up being over 99%) In this sense chukim are NOT
> rational, and whatever you are trying to argue always ends up with that. (BTW
> I would suggest looking at rashi in Chukos as to what he says with regards to
> the parah adumah. He seems to have no problem recognizing that the nature of a
> chok is that we cannot ask as to it's meaning since the 'real' one is
> unknowable.)
===> I am not changing ANYTHING.  I have repeatedly emphasized the
distinction between the *framework* for the obsevacne of the Chok -- which
can be a rational one as opposed to the chok, itself -- which may be quite
incomprehensible (as opposed to irrational -- there is a distinction).
However, it is incorrect to automatically assert that the performance of a
hok that we do not understand is irrational.  The *performance* is quite
rational since we state that it is "rational" to obey a Melech even if we
do not understand a particular command.  Note that RASHI *also* cites a
"rational" reason for the Parah Adumah, as well.. 






> 
> >> No you are saying that because it is a subject that does not appear
> >> explained
> >> in seforim, that it is irrational. (That is where the word irrational was
> >> first used by you.) Chassidus is a derech, some things are mentioned in
> >> seforim, but the ikkar is not (as was discussed in a previous post.) BTW
> >> Chazal recognized that such things exist when they forbade learning
> >> Kabbulah
> >> to large numbers of people. Some things need special situations in which to
> >> accuratly relate the meaning.
> >===> I certianly used the temr "irrational" but NOT because it is not
> >explained in Seforim but because the explanations that I have received are
> >not well-grounded in intellectual rigor.  This has nothing to do with
> >Kabbala and (to me) it appears that your citation of such is simply an
> >attempt to avoid the base issue:
> 
> >are more "common" among derachim and a sefer that discusses such should
> >not be dismissed simply because the author did not have a "big following"
> >to carry on.
> 
> Again you repeat your own opinions which I have many times said were wrong. If
> you don't wish to know, don't ask. Otherwise if you do ask, listen to the
> answers. I have never said a following was required, and I have mentioned
> a number of works that shows this. (Toldos for one.)

===> Asserting something is "wrong" without adequately explaining is
hardly the mark of one who answers a question.  You seem to have stated
that Chassidus can only be defined in terms of a Rebbe -- which seems to
mean specific derachim each based upon that Rebbe --- now you state that a
"following" is NOT required.  Please clarify (instead of telling me what
you think is in my mind).

--Zvi

David Riceman wrote:

> 2.  I'm also puzzled by R. Maryles' version of the history of nusach
> Ari.  The Ari davened nusach hamakom (as is halachically proper).  His
> ashkenazic followers adopted his nusach because they did not know how to
> apply the proper kavvanos to the ashkenazi variants of nusach sefarad.
> Even the Chasam Sofer davened nusach Ari (though the tzibbur davened
> regular nusach Ashkenaz).


I promised myself I would not post anymore on these subject but I would 
like to clear up some mistakes I made due to a faulty memory on my part.
I spoke to my son recently and he has the sefer I was perusing in and 
saw what I thought I recalled. He looked it up for meand here's what I 
came away with:
I do not think the Ari davened anything other than the Nusach HaTefilo 
of the Sfaradim (not present day Nusach Sfard) In the Ari's Sefer, Shaar 
HaKavanos (page 50 or 328 depending on which edition you have) he 
describes/iterperates the kabbalistic beauty of his own Nusach.  
Never-the-less he paskins (I believe) that it is assur to be meshana the 
nusach of your forefathers.  So, that if your foresfathers davened the 
Nusach of the Ashkenazim, that's what you had to daven.  It was the 
Chasidic masters , who took what the Ari wrote about the Nusach of the 
Sfaradim, and incorporated some of it into their own Nusach Hatfila, 
Nusach Ashkenaz, thus changing Nusach Ashkenaz into Nusach Sfard.

Also, see the Teshuvos Chasam Sofer Aruch Chaim Siman 15 who say's that 
the Ari was a Sfardi.  I don't own either of these seforim so all this 
information is second hand and subject to error. I apologize for any 
missinformation diseeminated through my  incorrect posts.

 
> 3.  I'm still waiting to hear a non-messianistic explanation for why
> Lubavitch has/will not selected a new rebbe.

Me too.

HM

I taught Yehoshua to a shul audience last year, and dealt with the issue of
the Kenaanim by explaining that the gift of life and free will which HaShem
bestows on people doesn't translate into a gift of civilization. There are
obligations that come with a society, and with having a land. (For example:
the obligation to establish Dinim)

"Amad vaYimoded Eretz, Raah vaYater Goyim," and the expansion on that by the
Gemara in the beginning of Avodah Zarah and the middle of Bava Metzia, mean
that HaShem only gives a nation a land if that nation "returns the favor" by
building a society that conforms to certain norms. Otherwise, they are
"removed" from the land. Klal Yisrael has an arrangement drawn up along the
same lines.

From the very beginning of the Torah - "veCham Hu Avi Kenaan," see the Seforno
there - we are told that the Kenaanim are people who do not live up to their
obligations as a society. Could an individual Kenaani have been good?
Certainly! (Good Samaritan, anyone?) But as a society, they were to be removed
from the land.

Some folks found this explanation satisfying; others were bothered by what
amounted, to them, to "ethnic cleansing." Their view is legitimate, coming
from whence it does - people are not necessarily strong enough in their Emunah
to be able to have 100% confidence. Hopefully, that will come.

Mordechai Torczyner
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------
HaMakor! http://www.aishdas.org/hamakor Mareh Mekomos Reference Library
WEBSHAS! http://www.aishdas.org/webshas Indexing the Talmud, Daf by Daf
Congregation Ohave Shalom, Pawtucket, RI http://members.tripod.com/~ohave
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------

Does anyone know which sefer discusses whether you make a bracho on chewing
gum?  I saw something in Igros Moshe regarding shinui makom so it seemed
from that you do make a brocha.  Also the Gemora in Brochos on 44b discusses
about something that is good for the teeth and bad for the stomach so the
gemorah says you should chew it and spit it out II was wondering about
whether you make a bocha on this or not.

> Subject: Nusach Hatefilla
> 
> While we're at it, what is the hetter for the Vilna Gaon, R' Chaim Briker or,
> more recently R' YB Soloveitchik to customize nusach hat'filah to conform to
> their own s'varos?
> 
> It appears to be universally accepted than there is some flexibility beyond
> exactly following minhag in the text of tephillah.
> 
Discussion over the Nusach are not new. Chasidei Ashkenaz (Yehuda haChassid
and contemporaries) wrote some pretty nasty things about the Baale hatosaphot
because of disagreements over wording of tefillot. According to Chasidei Ashkenaz
the most important thing was the numerical value of words and phrases which
had mystical meanings. Most other ashkenazi poskim were more interested in
pshat of the prayer than mstical meaning. Hence, Chasidei Ashkenaz accused them
of ignoring the traditions given by Anshe Knesset Hagedola.

Thins that to many of us seem minor variations of words meant the difference
between a believing Jew and nonbelief to Chasidei Ashkenaz.

Eli Turkel

On Sat, 6 Jan 1990 bjk1@pipeline.com wrote:

> Does anyone know which sefer discusses whether you make a bracho on
> chewing gum?  I saw something in Igros Moshe regarding shinui makom so
> it seemed from that you do make a brocha.  Also the Gemora in Brochos on
> 44b discusses about something that is good for the teeth and bad for the
> stomach so the gemorah says you should chew it and spit it out II was
> wondering about whether you make a bocha on this or not. 
> 

Lichora, the sugar is machayev b'brocho.

But, in any event - I would like to expand the question a bit by asking: I
once heard there are Rabbonim who allow chewing non-kosher gum (i.e.,
gelatin based la'machmirim al gelatin), because the non-kosher ingredients
are in the base, that is not consumed anyway. Anyone know anything more?

> 

YGB

Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
Cong. Bais Tefila, 3555 W. Peterson Ave., Chicago, IL, 60659
ygb@aishdas.org, http://www.aishdas.org/baistefila

From a listmember. I don't think he wanted b'davka to be anonymous, but al
ha'safek I have obliterated identifying points. 

YGB

Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
Cong. Bais Tefila, 3555 W. Peterson Ave., Chicago, IL, 60659
ygb@aishdas.org, http://www.aishdas.org/baistefila


---------- Forwarded message ----------
Subject: shoftim

You need a lengthy introduction about "ideal types" as opposed to real
people, or some such thing.  I would start with a reference to chazal's
portrayal of abstract ideas concretely, and their personification of ideal
types.  You might also add that in the absence of divine inspiration we
can't identify any modern people with any Biblical nation/type (cf. the
mishna about kvar ba sancheirev ubilbeil..., the tshuva of the Rambam
about circumcising Moslems). 

In v2n123, Ezriel Krumbein <ezsurf@idt.net> wrote:
: 1) Yitzchok asked Esav to prepare a meal for him before blessing him
: "bavur tvarechicha nafshi"  this would seem to imply that the gift was
: catalyst for the beracha.

As the capitalization in my Subject line indicates, I'd like to stress the
word "nafshi" in the above pasuk. Yitzchok asks to satisfy the needs of his nefesh, the most gashmi-oriented aspect of his soul, so that his nefesh can share
in giving the b'rachah.

I didn't understand the request for food as payment for the b'rachah, but as
a necessary precondition. Since the b'rachah was to be said b'nivu'ah, simchah
was a necessary prerequisite. For the nefesh too to be involved, then he would
need oneg on that level as well.


Whike on the topic of naran, anyone know if the S'forno held of it?

I ask because of his comment on last week's parashah, where he defines "kotzeir
ruach" as an ability to introspect and assess one's situation. This is very
much in line with the specific notion of ruach.

(At least according to the Maharal. The Ramchal places self-awareness in the
nefesh as well.)

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287    Help free Yehuda Katz, held by Syria 6064 days!
micha@aishdas.org                         (11-Jun-82 - 17-Jan-99)
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.
http://www.aishdas.org -- Orthodox Judaism: Torah, Avodah, Chessed

 The concept you are looking for is temiah. Is temiah assur. 
 Do we have to be choshesh that it will be swollowed?
 What about toothpaste. Is it really assur? I don't
 want to start up with the kosher agencies. Look
 at sedeh chemed. 

 I know I am talking without seforim, but this is where
 you want to look

 Shaya Beilin


>
>Lichora, the sugar is machayev b'brocho.
>
>But, in any event - I would like to expand the question a bit by asking: I
>once heard there are Rabbonim who allow chewing non-kosher gum (i.e.,
>gelatin based la'machmirim al gelatin), because the non-kosher ingredients
>are in the base, that is not consumed anyway. Anyone know anything more?
>
>> 
>
>YGB
>
>

Melech <mpress@ix.netcom.com> translates:
: Rambam, Perush Hamishnayos, Chulin 1/2 (Mosad Horav Kook edition)
: 	But those who were born into these beliefs and were educated according
: 	to them are like anusim and they have the legal status of a TSN all of
: 	whose sins are shegogo

I'm confused.

Are they "like anusim", or "all of whose sins are shegogo"? Oneis and shogeig
are very different things. No?

It would seem one could argue from this Rambam that a child raised in a
non-frum home is both!

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287    Help free Yehuda Katz, held by Syria 6064 days!
micha@aishdas.org                         (11-Jun-82 - 17-Jan-99)
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.
http://www.aishdas.org -- Orthodox Judaism: Torah, Avodah, Chessed

I was told on Shabbos that a number of years ago Feldheim distributed a
book based on R' Aharon Markus's theory that three-letter shoroshim are
really two letters plus one variable one. Does anyone know the nale of the
book, the author, and anything about availability?

YGB

Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
Cong. Bais Tefila, 3555 W. Peterson Ave., Chicago, IL, 60659
ygb@aishdas.org, http://www.aishdas.org/baistefila

Shaya Beilin writes:

> Therefore, in ch. 6 he suggests that a person before begining to learn
>should
>  (a) Do teshuva. A baal averah cannot unite with kudsha brich hu.
>  (b) mechaven lhisdabek blimudo bo -bo bkudha brich hu and by being misdabek
>       in the words of the torah he is attaching himself to the Almighty.
>  (c) he should feel that every word he utters lematoh it is as if the
>       Almighty is saying it above.

>  In ch 7 he suggests pausing from time to time and renew this connection.
>     It is not enough once a day.

>  I will stop now. The devekus is required-even by learning. He is more
>machmir than chasidim.

R' Beilin is correct, as far as he goes.  The Nefesh haChayim does say
that the goal of learning is devekut.  However, a close examination of 
Nefesh haChayim 4:6-7 compared with Tzavaat haRivash 29 reveals the 
nature of the conflict between Chassidish and Mitnagdish learning.

As R' Beilin notes above, the NhC requires that one be mitdabek in 
one's learning, through the words that one utters through his mouth.
Every word one says should be said as if it comes from Hashem above,
and thus he cleaves to the ratzon Hashem.  He is quite clear that the
devekut comes from the pronunciation of every word in the study of 
Torah.  In Chapter 7, he suggests that one stop every so often and
contemplate his fear of Hashem, so as to reinforce himself and renew
himself to engage in better learning.  

I quote, (NhC 4:7, translation & mistakes mine) "Thus, it is fitting for
a person to prepare himself at all times, before he begins to study, 
to consider a little with his blessed Owner, with purity of heart and
fear of Hashem, and to purify himself from his sins with thoughts of
repentance, in order that he shall be able to connect and to cleave
himself duirng the time of his engagement with the Holy Torah, with
the Speech and Will of He Whose name is blessed...Similarly, in the 
midst of study, he is permitted to pause for a little while, lest his
Fear of God be extinguished from his heart, which he had received upon
himself before beginning to study, and to contemplate anew a little 
more of the fear of God...[proofs from chazal omitted for brevity]...
and there is no suspicion that this might be bittul Torah, because
it will cause him to retain the wisdom of the Torah."

Now consider Tzavaat haRivash 29 (translated by R' J.I. Schochet):
"When you study, pause briefly every hour to attach yourself unto
[God], may He be blessed.  Even so, you must study.
  In the midst of study, it is impossible to cleave unto God, blessed
be He.  Nonetheless one must study because the Torah furbishes the soul
and is "a Tree of Life to those who hold fast to it." (Prov. 3:18)  If
you do not study, your devekut will cease.
  Ponder the fact that you cannot cleave [unto God] when sleeping or
when your mind "falls." (Note: i.e., when in a state of constricted
consciousness, unable to concentrate and focus. -JIS) The time of
Torah study is then certainly not inferior to those conditions.  
Nonetheless, you must consider at all times attachment to the blessed
Creator, as stated above."

Both describe a method of study where a) the goal is devekut, and
b)  the method is to study texts (aloud) interspersed with periods
of contemplation of one's connection to the Divine.  However, the NhC
is a precise inversion of ThR!  For the NhC, the learning time itself
is the ikar, the activity which constitutes devekut, while the pauses
are tafel, only to renew one's concentration on study.  For the ThR,
the learning time is the tafel, to give one chizuk so that one may
spend time engaging in devekut qua contemplation of one's relationship
with the Creator.

*********************


[ 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 ]