Avodah Mailing List

Volume 03 : Number 173

Wednesday, August 18 1999

• Re: Proofs of G-d
• Midgets criticizing Giants
• Re: Midgets criticizing Giants
• (no subject)
• Re: choosing 4 minim
• Midgets and giants
• ETH-AYTH SEMICUTH
• What is a "Changed content" with regard to laining
• SMIROTH--Isn't it Idolatry--Why are we so blazee about it
• Formal Proofs of Gods existence DO exist
• Re: choosing 4 minim
• Oovdah dchol and Toothbrushes
• Minhag Shtoos
• Man-man more stringent than God-man (a Rambam/Rashi)
• Health Matters ARE more serious than religious matters
• Boys who are 9, 13-20
• Being Machmir on couples who violate the 7 Nekiyim
• Work Of Creation
• A heter for Solar Run Calculators--from The Alta Rebbe

MMGH recently completed the Kuzari. So, I learned the Rihal's statement about
tradition a few months ago.

I think that the take on it that we find so often today isn't the Rihal's
intent. The Kuzari opens with a scathing attack on philosophy and philosophers.
Each philosopher has his own argument thereby definitively proving his point.
As does the other philosopher, who disagrees. The king therefore dismisses
the philosopher's religion, since anything can be argued by someone clever
enough.

The chaver states that philosophy is good for peoples like the Greeks, who
lack a tradition, and therefore have to draw conclusions in the dark. Tradition
is a form of direct evidence, almost like personal experience. He is
intentionally not making a *proof* out of the idea of national revalation at
Sinai.


There happens to be a flaw in it, as an argument. First, there are cultures
that have legends of miraculous origins of their peoples. Second, a legend
can /gradually/ be accepted as history -- it need not happen as normally
described.

In the first generation, it's a tale told -- a glorious fiction. By the
third generation, it's "legend says". The fifth generation has a few
gullible people buying into the story. Comes the seventh generation, and
some religious leader declares the story to be true history. Who's going
to deny it on the grounds that "we've never heard that story before"?

IOW, if the level of credance comes up slowly, there's never a generation
in which someone's trying to foist a story they've never heard before as
the nation's history.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for 18-Aug-99: Revi'i, Seitzei
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H O"Ch 358:10-16
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Pisachim 24b
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         Melachim-I 13

>While your proposal has some merit, I do have some problems
with it.

>First, I know that it is often the case that gedolim often do
not criticise
>other gedolim publicly, sometimes for personal reasons, other
times for
>political reasons. ...

From the point of view of a secular historian it would indeed
be a great loss not to have a record of all the conflicts and
the various analyses of who insulted whom and the revisionist
permutations of the above. From the Torah point of view - I
don't see what the problem is. Is there a Mitzva anywhere to
preserve records of conflicts for posterity? Furthermore - some
recent studies dealing with Shalom Bayis indicate that a poor
memory for injustice is a critical factor for successful
marriage.

>Does lashon hara apply to criticism of the deceased?  I
thought not (though
>I would appreciate a source for this).  Why not say that
because of hilchot
>lashon hara gedolim were more reticent about criticizing other
gedolim
>during their lifetimes than after their deaths?

The gemora Berachos 19a: Rabbi Yitzchok said, Who ever speaks
disparingly about someone after his death is as if he spoke
about a stone. Some say because the deceased is not aware of
the comment while others explain it is because the deceased is
aware of the negative comments but doesn't care. But this
assertion can not be true because we have the statement of Rav
Pappa that someone had spoken disparingly about Mar Shmuel and
a large beam fell from the ceiling and crushed his skull. The
resolution is that for the [kavod] of talmidei chachomim G-d
Himself defends their honor. Rabbi Yehoshua be Levi states who
ever says disparaging comments about talmidei chachomim after
their death - goes to Gehinom...

>But again the question is if we are confronted with known
facts
>about a particular gadol, are we not supposed to talk about
them
>at all?  Are we supposed to suppress facts that are already
known,
>but not too well known?  Why is it all right to discuss and
argue
>about the Torah of gedolim, but not about their public
actions?

There is a difference between the problem of expressing one's
understanding of a gadol's Torah which may inaccurate and
making assertions about the Gadol himself. If I assert that Rav
Moshe had a certain view - it can be readily verified by
looking at his seforim or asking poskim. The information is
much more likely to be available and a consensus exist as to
how to understand it.  There is a farily objective standard for
my judging my assertions concerning his Torah. On the other
hand - evaluations of the Gadol conerning hotly disputed issues
are not so readily objectified. My concern is that "known
facts" require a coherent context to be understood properly and
that we midgets need to be more humble in talking about the
giants. The above difficulties are considerably reduced [though
not eliminated] when a Gadol makes an evaulation of another
gadol and thus we stand on a giants shoulder.

>2. At the same time, when a student asked the Rav whether many
Jews would
>have been saved had gedolei Torah taken a different attitude
toward
>Zionism, his answer was "A ben Torah doesn't talk that way."

A ben Torah needs to know how a ben Torah speaks - he needs to
ask his Rebbe. My proposal was simply to verify that your rebbe
or posek agrees with your public criticism or at least some
Gadol has voiced the view you are expressing. Your Rebbe might,
however, feel that only a gadol should talk that way about a
gadol

>Agreed.  And certainly in chodesh Elul we should be especially

>careful as to our choice of language.

100%

>I think this points to another limitation of R. Eidensohn's
proposal
>(for us midgets not to criticize a Gadol unless another Gadol
has
>criticized that Gadol):  Certain Gedolim by temperament or by
choice
>are much more likely to be very cautious as to criticizing
others.

Perhaps that conduct should be emulated? Why view it
negatively?

>Other Gedolim (such as one who referred to someone as a "sonay

>yisrael") are more vociferous in their attacks.  Does that
mean that
>this imbalance of criticism is to be perpetuated for the
following
>generations?

Ask your rebbe whether it is your job to redress the imbalance
of criticism for the following generations. Again - the
tendency of us midgets is to keep dancing even when the music
has stopped. The gedolim are more sensitive to the necessary
rhythms of events.

>Interestingly, my proposal, unlike R. Eidenson's, is to limit
>criticism as much as possible.  In a thread just a few weeks
ago
>entitled "Divided Community" it was I who advocated being
accepting
>of others' positions (based on a notion of elu va'elu) and it
was R.
>Eidensohn who advocated maintaining the old custom of
disagreeing
>vociferously.

The issue of not critcising gedolim is not the same as
disagreeing strongly with anothers views. Not voicing necessary
criticism violates the obligation for Tochacha etc.  But just
as one needs to get a psak on what food to put in his mouth -
he needs a psak on what is appropriate to say. Igros Moshe
(Even HaEzer IV #63 page 124 last paragraph) "Just as one needs
to ask from a posek concerning all dinei HaTorah also with
Tochacha and Kana'os one needs to ask a posek and not to posken
for himself."

This is Chodesh Elul.  Ksiva v'chasima Tova

                 Daniel Eidensohn

--- Daniel Eidensohn <yadmoshe@netmedia.net.il> wrote:
> Your Rebbe might,
> however, feel that only a gadol should talk that way about a
> gadol
>

If so, your solution (of only criticizing if some gadol criticized)
is not a perfect one--perhaps only a gadol was on the level to
criticize.

One problem I find is that talmidim are quick to criticize certain
gedolim because they found that their rebe'im criticized those
gedolim.  It is quite possible that those rebe'im intended to steer
the talmidim away from certain hashkafot of those gedolim (i.e.,
there was to'elet); that to'elet may not apply when the talmidim
speak.

So the only real solution is to ask a she'elah, and always err on the
side of darchei noam.

Kol tuv,
Moshe
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com

In a message dated 8/18/99 5:02:32 PM Eastern Daylight Time, RCB writes:

> 
>  I don't understand this thread - the mitzva is being notel lulav and 
esrog, 
>  not buying or choosing a set.  You may feel emotional, but l'ma'aseh the 
few 
> 
>  hours spent picking out a set can be spent in ways that involve true 
kiyumei 
> 
>  mitzva. 
>  
See Ramoh O"C 453:8 and M"A and Barichus in the Beis Yosef al Hatur, also see 
O"C 250:1, in addition see Yerushalmi Brochos 1:2 WRT Asiyas Sukkah and 
Asiyas Lulov (BTW the Yerushalmi is Lshitosoi Brochos 9:3, that you even make 
special Bracha on these 2, however even according to the Bavli it would be 
Roui to make a Shechiyanu on the making of the Sukkah, see O"C 541, see also 
Ramoh 525).

KVCT

Yitzchok Zirkind

In a message dated 8/18/99 5:02:32 PM Eastern Daylight Time, 
C1A1Brown@aol.com writes:

<< 
 >>>I most definitely agree that when one invests his time and effort in
 looking for an Esrog/Lulav which is beautiful to *him*, it can create an
 emotional connection.<<<
 
 I don't understand this thread - the mitzva is being notel lulav and esrog, 
 not buying or choosing a set.  You may feel emotional, but l'ma'aseh the few 
 hours spent picking out a set can be spent in ways that involve true kiyumei 
 mitzva. 
 
 -CB
  >>
Maybe but is this a hechsher mitzva hacatuv bkra which should be done , if 
possible, by oneself?

KVCT,
Joel Rich

The Chofetz Chaim very clearly applies loshon hora to talking about people 
who have passed away, especially gedolim.  While the parnosa of the person 
being spoken of might not be negatively affected, the extent to which daas 
torah is taken seriously by others can be adversely affected -- and this has 
consequences for both K'lal Isroel and the entire world.   For an example of 
how careful folks often are in speaking LH about gedolim (even in referring 
to folks "outside of the camp") one should note how the Litvishe press never 
said anything negatively about the Lubavitcher Rebbe OBM after he passed 
away.


_______________________________________________________________
Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com

I thank Moshe and Mechy for clearing up Noah's confusion (caused by me)

I meant to say "like ETH-AYTH" which depends on MAKAF (not semicuth)
When ETH is hyphenated it receives a segol, otherwise it receives a
Tzaray
(with 4 exceptions in all of tenach)

If you look e.g in the KORAIN, DM receives a PATACH when MUKAF and
a KAMATZ when it is not.

BUT..no one has yet dealt with the difference between MISHPAT (patach/
kamatz Lev 24:22 vs Num 15:16)

Russell Hendel; ModeratoR Rashi Is Simple;http://www.shamash.org/rashi

___________________________________________________________________
Get the Internet just the way you want it.
Free software, free e-mail, and free Internet access for a month!
Try Juno Web: http://dl.www.juno.com/dynoget/tagj.

"Not changed content - Inyan" means

--Vocalizations done for "fluid speech" such as
--------BGD KFT
--------Ending a sentence with Patach, Kamatz
--------etchah, etach

or

-Vocalizations which could be do EITHER to meaning or phonetics
---eg VAHAVta vs VAhavTA 

Everything else is a "changed content"

With regard to the last example ALTHOUGH the meaning changes
(you had loved vs you will love) you do not correct the baal koray
because the difference could be due to factors other than meaning.

With regard to the GRA: 
---MITZRAYIM, MITRIYIIM could be a "fluid speech(YOFI HAKRIAH)" 
---AHARON/HARON would also be perceived that way (like YeRU vs YIRU)

Similarly even if a person YIROO vs YeeReUU (Clearly a change in meaning)
you
would not correct him since Shvas can change do to meaning or phonetics.

I believe this concept "changes ONLY due to meaning vs changes that COULD
be due to meaning OR phonetics" solves alot of confusion in this area

Russell Hendel; Phd ASA; Moderator Rashi Is Simple;
http://www.shamash.org/rashi
___________________________________________________________________
Get the Internet just the way you want it.
Free software, free e-mail, and free Internet access for a month!
Try Juno Web: http://dl.www.juno.com/dynoget/tagj.

With regard to David Nodaff's response to Rabbi Weinreb's 'pet peeve' 
about shmiroth.

I believe, if I understand Rabbi Weinreb properly he was alluding to
the fact that Shmiroth borders on "idolatrous practices" and is 
something that Jews should be ashamed of (we are suppose to be
THE world's most advanced monotheistic religion).

I believe his question should not invite historical discussions
 but rather serious reflection. There are many sad questions 
(which I don't have answers to )

--How did the worlds most advanced religion allow this degeneration to
happen
to it

--How do we deal with Psaks that allow such practices seeing that they
violate
the essense of Judaism

--How widespread is/was the practice

--What are its psychological roots--can we combat it--can we stop it.

--What do people feel so comfortable citing psaks allowing it knowing
full
well that it borders on idolatry.

And if Rabbi Weinreb doesn't endorse the above set of questions I do (and
I believe the Rambam does also) 

Russell Hendel; Phd ASA; Moderator Rashi Is Simple;
http://www.shamash.org/rashi/
___________________________________________________________________
Get the Internet just the way you want it.
Free software, free e-mail, and free Internet access for a month!
Try Juno Web: http://dl.www.juno.com/dynoget/tagj.

To answer Eli Turkel there are 3 incontrovertible proofs to Gods
existence 
(one of them formal)

MODAL LOGIC
==============
There is a 6 line modal logic proof of Gods existence that appeared in
the 70s (Modal logic is the logic of "necessary" and permissable)

PROBABILISTIC PROOFS
====================
Rabbi Schlesinger (North Chappel University) has written a book 
Confirmation and Confirmability. In that book he used a simple Bayseian
argument to prove Gods existence (Roughly speaking there is an asymptotic
version of Bayes theorem which is frequently used to justify scientific
proofs and can also be used to justify Gods existence (I routinely teach
it in probability courses). (Since the theorem is asymptotic this means
the proof is no probabilistic but absolute)

THE BIBLES PROOF
================
You don't have to cite historical precedents about what happened at
Har Sinai. It says explicitly in Job that the solution to Evil is that
man
has dreams and is free to develop that capacity or deny the existence
of the Spiritual world (Job 33 etc).  What happened to Samuel(as
a young child) is a good example---every person is given a chance
 at spiritual communication with God and is free to reject it or not)

I will be happy to elaborate on any of the above IF there is interest
But I wish to make it clear that as a religious Jew I resent the
implication
that God would punish anybody for not believing in HIM if God did 
not give everyone a chance. DOUBT is an emotional state not an 
intellectual State.Avraham's greatness in sacrificing Isaac was not that
he believed in God but that he could follow Gods commands without
having a total mental breakdown.

Russell Hendel; ModeratoR Rashi Is Simple; http://www.shamash.org/rashi/
___________________________________________________________________
Get the Internet just the way you want it.
Free software, free e-mail, and free Internet access for a month!
Try Juno Web: http://dl.www.juno.com/dynoget/tagj.

I wrote <<< I most definitely agree that when one invests his time and
effort in looking for an Esrog/Lulav which is beautiful to *him*, it can
create an emotional connection. >>>

C1A1Brown responded: <<< I don't understand this thread - the mitzva is
being notel lulav and esrog, not buying or choosing a set.  You may feel
emotional, but l'ma'aseh the few hours spent picking out a set can be
spent in ways that involve true kiyumei mitzva. >>>

Simple answer: Those hours have been spent on "hechsher mitzvah", which
is also a "kiyum mitzvah".

Longer answer: Lulav and esrog is a prime example of mitzvah which we go
out of our way to do it in a particularly mehudar manner. If we are
advised to spend a certain dollar amount above what we'd prefer to pay,
should we not also spend some extra *time* picking out a set which
appeals to our sense of hidur? Should we also spend our time doing "real"
mitzvos, rather than wasting time on Pesukei D'zimra, which merely gets
us emotional about Shemoneh Esreh?

If a person spends as much time picking out an esrog as he does picking
out a suit, is that so terrible?

Akiva Miller

___________________________________________________________________
Get the Internet just the way you want it.
Free software, free e-mail, and free Internet access for a month!
Try Juno Web: http://dl.www.juno.com/dynoget/tagj.

Clothing, eating etc are Oovdah dchol on Shabbos.

We get out of it by having Shabbos dishes and shabbos
clothes.

So...simple...have a shabbos toothbrush and special sabbath
toothpaste (mint flavored O-U). 

This should satisfy those Machmirim who want to prohibit 
brushing because of Oovdah dchol

Russell Hendel; Phd ASA; Moderator Rashi is Simple;
http://www.shamash.org/rashi/
___________________________________________________________________
Get the Internet just the way you want it.
Free software, free e-mail, and free Internet access for a month!
Try Juno Web: http://dl.www.juno.com/dynoget/tagj.

Moshe
Cheer up. If you fight long enough you can remove a foolish
minhag. 

There are many historical precedents. 

The best one is the ISSUR of using WAX candles for HADLAKAS
NAYROTH (it was prohibited at first but then people gave in...It
is not exactly the same thing as what we were talking about but
a close enough approximation)

Russell Hendel; PHD ASA; ModeratoR Rashi Is Simple;
http://www.shamash.org/rashi
___________________________________________________________________
Get the Internet just the way you want it.
Free software, free e-mail, and free Internet access for a month!
Try Juno Web: http://dl.www.juno.com/dynoget/tagj.

Try Rambam Theft 7:12 . It is based on the juxtaposition of
2 posookim ("Whoever does these THINGS...is punished)

In Lev 18:27, talking about incest, THINGS is spelled ALEPH-LAMED 
while in Dt25:16, talking about bad weights, THINGS is spelled
ALEPH-LAMED-HAY.

Thus we infer that man-man commandments (eg weights) is more
stringent than God-man (incest).

I have also heard this justified as follows: Man-man is also a violation
of God-man (since God commanded it). 

I believe this is what Rav Lichtenstein had in mind
Russel l Hendel; Moderator Rashi Is Simple; http://www.shamash.org/rashi/
___________________________________________________________________
Get the Internet just the way you want it.
Free software, free e-mail, and free Internet access for a month!
Try Juno Web: http://dl.www.juno.com/dynoget/tagj.

First things first: This is an explicit statement in the Talmud
"SACANTA CHAMURA MISURAH" and occurs in
several contexts. (Perhaps Murder 11:Last law is another
good example--the destruction of holy flour/bread made with
uncovered water)

Shalom Berger's refutation of my statement is in fact a support.

For shalom cites the MB "Nowadays we don't have sharp salt
and therefore we needn't worry that much about washing after
the meal"

Thus the MB is clear that IF we had sharp salt (and hence the
danger of rubbing your eyes and scratching them) then we would
enforce that AFTER DINNER WASHING takes precedence over
BEFORE DINNER WASHING.

As I said it occurs in several places in the talmud (and was not
made up by me) It is also a RISHON-INDEPENDENT principle

Russell Hendel; Phd ASA; Rashi Is SImple;http://www.shamash.org/rashi
___________________________________________________________________
Get the Internet just the way you want it.
Free software, free e-mail, and free Internet access for a month!
Try Juno Web: http://dl.www.juno.com/dynoget/tagj.

I am usually the last person to ward off rational explanations of
mitzvoth. My thanx to Josh Backon for his explanation (though
I wouldn't mind him explaining what Nerual pruning is).

BUT...in this particular case the "9 year old law" is a HALCHAH
LEMOSHE MISINAI (But the explanation still fits nicely).

RE 13-20 however the law only applies to REAL ESTATE SALES.
It does not apply to Gifts and does not apply to commercial
dealing with movables. Furthermore if the teenager understands
REAL ESTATE his sales are valid.

The purpose of the law is to prevent INEXPERIENCED teenages
from being taken advantage of (The law focuses on experience
not intelligence as proven by the fact that experienced teenagers
can be involved).

See Rambam Sales 29 (the whole chapter)

Russell Hendel; Moderator Rashi Is Simple;http://www.shamash.org/rashi
___________________________________________________________________
Get the Internet just the way you want it.
Free software, free e-mail, and free Internet access for a month!
Try Juno Web: http://dl.www.juno.com/dynoget/tagj.

I agree with Carl and have strong Biblical support

For we find that Chava sinned because she thought it was forbidden 
to touch the tree (she was only forbidden to eat). So the Snake pushed
her and made her touch the tree and said "see you are not dying" and
hence she came to sin (Because she thought that what she had been
told was false).

I should also bring the following story which I heard from Rabbi
Friedman.
He was once lecturing and noticed a woman crying when he explained about
the laws of marital separation.

He inquired and found out that they were crying because they had asked
their (orthodox) Rabbi for "everything that is necessary" in their recent
marriage and the Rabbi had not told them about marital separation.

Shocked,Rabbi Friedman asked the Rabbi why he omitted it to which he
responded "I didn't think they were the type!"

I think the story shows what happens when Rabbis play God (They begin
acting like the Devil instead)

Russell Hendel; Phd ASA; Moderator Rashi Is
Simple;http://www.shamash.org/rashi
___________________________________________________________________
Get the Internet just the way you want it.
Free software, free e-mail, and free Internet access for a month!
Try Juno Web: http://dl.www.juno.com/dynoget/tagj.

I spent about a year on Torah Forum defending the idea
that the Pshat of Gen 1 is that it is talking about the creation
of Prophecy not the creation of the world. 

In other words, the first prophet (not the first human) was Adam
and the first prophecy happened 6000 years ago. 

This is agreed to by all Rishonim (including the Rambam)

THe clearest proof is the phrase "SPIRIT OF GOD" in Gen 1:2

The word WIND occurs 500 times in Tnach and WIND OF GOD
occurs about 7% of the time. It ***ALWAYS*** refers to 
prophetic phenomena (there is no getting around it).

Once we are forced to interpret WIND OF GOD as prophecy the
other words in the chapter become amenable to prophetic 
interpretation (eg LIGHT = LIGHT OF PROPHECY; etc).
(there are about half a dozen prophetic rashis on Gen 1)

I have always pointed out that the Torah only talks about
Moral commandments, the God-man relationship, or the
various role models. it wouldn't make sense for Genesis to
open with the creation of the physical world. It is much more
consistent to speak about the God-man relationship.

I defended/developed this for a year on Torah Forum
(Against some sharp comments.)

Russell Hendel; Moderator; Rashi-is Simple; http://www.shamash.org/rashi/

___________________________________________________________________
Get the Internet just the way you want it.
Free software, free e-mail, and free Internet access for a month!
Try Juno Web: http://dl.www.juno.com/dynoget/tagj.

Since we are talking about electricity I should mention a concept that
occurs in the Alta Rebbe's shulchan aruch: The rebbe differentiates
between REMOVAL OF A PREVENTOR and DOING AN ACTION
(This is said in connection with regard to opening windows and
possibly putting out candles).

It would follow from this that if I REMOVE THE COVER of a solar
run calculator then all I have done is REMOVED THE PREVENTOR
(The cover prevents sunlight from getting to the calculator).

There is no problem of KTIVAH (since the letters are intrinsically
temporary). There is no problem of Derabanan of Tikun Kli since
the calculator is sealed.

Consequently this should be MUTAR even Midderabbanan.

A step further: Suppose I remove a dam and the water runs a
wheel which drives a motor. Again, if this is done without 
HOTZAAH it is completely Mutar.

Finally we go to running an electric motor: It is the difference
of potential that runs the motor (like the falling water). EVEN
IF ELECTRICITY was FIRE it would be an UNWANTED-CUT
-HEAD (Psik Rasyshay dlo nichah lay)

To explain the last point observe that in FIRE in the Temple
you WANTED the MELTING/DESTRUCTIVE power of 
FIRE to eg melt dyes. But in ELECTRICITY you are NOT
INTERESTED in destroying anything. You are simply 
interested in REMOVING A PREVENTOR to create a 
difference in potentials and run a motor. 

And if you use ALTERNATING CURRENT and create
electromagnetic fields you have certainly not created AYSH
(For no one claims that a magner is AYSH).

In summary, EVEN if electricity was AYSH I don't see any
fallacy in the above---at the very least the solar powered
calculator should be Mootar

Russell Hendel; ModeratoR Rashi Is Simple;http://www.shamash.org/rashi/
___________________________________________________________________
Get the Internet just the way you want it.
Free software, free e-mail, and free Internet access for a month!
Try Juno Web: http://dl.www.juno.com/dynoget/tagj.

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


[ Distributed to the Avodah mailing list, digested version.                   ]
[ To post: mail to avodah@aishdas.org                                         ]
[ For back issues: mail "get avodah-digest vXX.nYYY" to majordomo@aishdas.org ]
[ or, the archive can be found at http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/              ]
[ For general requests: mail the word "help" to majordomo@aishdas.org         ]