Avodah Mailing List
Volume 06 : Number 045
Friday, November 17 2000
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2000 09:55:17 +0200
From: "Carl and Adina Sherer" <sherer@actcom.co.il>
Subject: Parshat Vayera 5761
I am posting a part of HaRav Nebenzahl's weekly sicha to the list. I
strongly suggest that you all read the entire sicha. I found this one
especially inspirational. I am also leaving the subscription
information at the end for those who may wish to subscribe.
-- Carl
WEEKLY SICHA OF HARAV NEBENZAHL - PARSHAT VAYERA 5761
[snip]
The Chazon Ish used to say that the halacha of "moridin velo
maalin" "cast in and not brought up" [12] (Avoda Zara 26b) (an evil person
may be thrown into a pit and need not be saved if already in one) does not
apply to today's sinners. He felt that so long as they were not properly
rebuked for their sins, and given that in this generation there is no one
with the ability to do so, one cannot apply this law. Why is there no one
with this capability in our generation? It is difficult to say such
things about the Chazon Ish and others, yet regardless we must always do
some self-introspection before we go and rebuke the secular. How strong is
our belief, do we LIVE what we preach? Perhaps if our belief was more
sincere we would learn more and not waste even a moment of time in which
Torah could be studied. Perhaps if we were strong we would be more
enthusiastic about our Mitzvah observance and would run at the speed of
one competing for a gold medal to perform acts of chesed. Avraham Avinu
underwent Brit Milah at the age of ninety nine. While he was recovering,
Hashem removed the sun from its place adding to the intensity of the heat.
Despite this, Avraham gathered all the strength he could muster and ran to
perform acts of chesed. Can we say this about ourselves?
What about our tefilla? Do we pour out our hearts to Hashem? We
need not raise our voices to the level of a shofar, but do our hearts
shout? I cannot speak of others, but I can certainly speak for myself. If
my belief were stronger I would do things very differently. The fact that
I do not, indicates something missing from my faith. If I do not
sufficiently believe, how can I hope to influence others? When we arrive
late for Shacharit, how upset are we at having missed a Kaddish? Do we
simply resign ourselves to the fact that there is always tomorrow and the
following day to hear the Kaddish? We say, thank G-d we arrived in time
for "yotzer or", but we missed the Kaddish and Barchu! We have no idea
how much we have missed. If so, can we even hope to convince others of
the true path in life?
How do we combat this attitude? The only way is to educate
ourselves to realize how great we truly are. Every step we take can build
or G-d forbid destroy worlds. Every word of Torah we learn, every Rashi
and Tosafot creates entire worlds that we cannot see but that nevertheless
exist. Wasting of time and not learning produces the opposite result.
If a child's toy breaks, he cries. As parents we try to calm him down
either by giving him a candy or at worst spending a few shekels buying a
new toy. Imagine for a moment if the sun were to break. Would a mere few
shekels fix everything? I cannot imagine all the ramifications, only a
brilliant scientist can make all the necessary calculations. We would
first have to ascertain what paths each half of this ball would take, and
what the new rotation of the earth would be in relation to them - up until
that point the path was more or less elliptic. On the one side we would
probably see a great intensifying of the heat, on the other side a
decrease. The forces of gravity would be thrown out. We need not fear
this, although Hashem does not reveal to me all His hidden secrets, it is
unlikely this will happen in the immediate future, for the sun and moon
were placed so that they remain "continuously all the days of the earth"
[13] (Bereishit 8:22). The Rambam claims that even the materials on them
are to last an eternity, although we have recently witnessed this not to
be the case, for they have succeeded in removing dirt from the moon and
bringing it to earth - the contents are thus not eternal. In addition,
scientists claim that the sun is burning itself up. There is no need for
panic, for it is highly unlikely that this will take place any time soon.
If the sun were to split into two, it would have immeasurable
ramifications.
We must understand that we are not a mere child's toy in which a
crack is of little significance. We are as great as the sun and even
greater! Hashem told Avraham: "'Gaze now toward the Heavens, and count
the stars if you are able to count them', and He said to him: 'so shall
your offspring be!'" [14] (Berishit 15:5). It is my humble opinion that
this does not only mean that the Jewish people will be as great in
quantity as the stars but qualitatively as well. The stars appear to us
as being very small, but in reality their greatness is immense - some
being several times bigger than the sun. The sun itself is several times
the size of the earth. Each and every Jew is like a star in the sun - he
may appear small but that is only due to our inability to measure his
greatness. A crack in a Jew, is therefore like a crack in the sky - the
implications are difficult to measure. The relative weight of each and
every word coming forth from our mouths, whether good or bad, is
equivalent to a change in the sun. On the one hand a person must view
himself, in the words of Avraham Avinu in our Parsha, as "dust and ash"
[15] (Bereishit 18:27), or to quote Moshe Rabenu "for what are we" [16]
(Shmot 16:7). On the other hand, each and every one of us must realize
how great we truly are. Can Moshe truly claim "for what are we"? Does he
not realize that he is the greatest of all prophets and that it was he who
saved the Jewish nation from Egypt and brought the Torah down for us? Of
course he knows! He also knows, however, that all of this was given to
him by Hashem, he does not ascribe any independent greatness to himself.
We must realize that we are great but that this greatness is a gift that
was heaven sent. We have nothing to be haughty about, we need only act
the way a great person should. We must take extra care to protect
ourselves, for ruining a great thing can destroy the world, while
improving it can improve the world.
The current situation here in Israel is very grave. We do not
need Lot and his angels to tell us this. What we do not understand is
that we have the ability to improve the situation. Each word of Torah
that we learn has the power to remedy the situation, we must therefore
learn more. Our tefillot must be an outpouring of our souls to Hashem.
I feel that we should at least keep in mind how the commentaries interpret
the seventh bracha "Goel Yisrael" "Redeemer of Israel". They explain that
the brachot of "Boneh Yerushalayim" "Builder of Jerusalem", "Matzmiach
Keren Yeshua" "Who causes the pride of salvation to flourish", and
"Hamachazir Schinato leZion" "Who restores His Presence to Zion" refer to
the complete redemption, may it come speedily in our day. The bracha of
"Goel Yisrael" on the other hand, refer to Hashem's redeeming us from the
troubles we come across from time to time - so long as we do not merit
this total redemption. Along the way we encounter a Haman, an Antiochus,
and other evil people and each time Hashem has saved us - this is "Goel
Yisrael". Hashem has not only provided us with the great salvations of
Chanukah and Purim, but even ones on a smaller scale. Many enemies have
arisen against the Jewish people and each and every one of us, if we are
worthy, will be saved.
Our Torah, our tefillot, and our chesed can save us. Every act of
chesed helps, for Hashem acts with us "measure for measure" [17] (Shabbat
105b) - if we act with chesed towards others, Hashem will act towards us
in that way. This is how we can protect ourselves from war (and also from
peace!). Barak traveled to Washington in pursuit of peace, we need
protection from this peace as well - especially here in Yeshivat Hakotel
in the Jewish Quarter. I always refer to the group Shalom Achshav (Peace
Now) as Chas veShalom Achshav. We ask Hashem to protect us from war and
from "Chas veShalom", as well as from the secular revolution. There are
many things we wish Hashem to protect us from, and this protection is
within our reach.
My Rebbe HaRav Zolty zt"l used to point out that Chazal
established that whoever sees the stone upon which Moshe sat when Yehoshua
waged war with Amalek must "give thanks and praise to the OmniPresent"
[18] (Brachot 54a). Chazal did not enact a similar bracha for one who
sees the site in which Yehoshua actually waged the war. This is because
the victory was not exclusively due to the power of Yehoshua and his army.
It is true that Yehoshua chose soldiers who were "strong and feared sin,
that their merit should assist them" [19] (Rashi Shmot 17:9), yet victory
came as a result of Moshe's raising his hands: "It happened that when
Moshe raised his hand, Israel was stronger" [20] (Shmot 17:11). Chazal
tell us: But do Moshe's hands win a battle or lost a battle? Rather, the
verse comes to tell you: so long as Israel gazed upward and subjugated
their heart to their Father in Heaven, they would prevail, but if not,
they would fall" [21] (Rosh Hashana 29a). The victory can be viewed on
the battlefield, Yehoshua counted the dead bodies of the strong Amalekites
whom he killed: "with the sword's blade" [22] (Shmot 17:13, see Rashi).
The root of victory, however, was Moshe's raised hands. It was only by
enslaving our hearts to our Father in Heaven, that we won the battle.
The appropriate place for this bracha, therefore, is not at the site of
the battlefield, but upon seeing the real place of war - the stone on
which Moshe sat.
We are not on the level of Moshe nor of Yehoshua. We can,
however, enslave our hearts to Hashem. We have the ability to strengthen
our Torah, tefilla, chesed, Shabbat observance, Shmirat Halashon, and
whatever else may require strengthening. May Hashem help us and bring
about a salvation to ourselves and the entire Jewish people so that we
again have a situation in which "Israel was stronger", speedily in our
day, Amen.
[snip]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To subscribe, send email to: hk-hnebenzahl-subscribe@lists.hakotel.edu
To unsubscribe, send email to: hk-hnebenzahl-unsubscribe@lists.hakotel.edu
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The HaRav Nebenzahl parsha archives can be found at
http://www.hakotel.edu/torah/rn.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Also try:
- HaRav Bina - thoughts for alumni (hk-bina-subscribe@lists.hakotel.edu)
- HaRav Steinberger on the Rambam (hk-rambam-subscribe@lists.hakotel.edu)
- HaRav Podolsky on the parsha (hk-podolsky-subscribe@lists.hakotel.edu)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(C) 5761/2000 by American Friends of Yeshivat Hakotel
Please daven and learn for a Refuah Shleima for our son,
Baruch Yosef ben Adina Batya among the sick of Israel.
Thank you very much.
Carl and Adina Sherer
mailto:sherer@actcom.co.il
Go to top.
Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2000 09:17:50 -0500
From: Gil.Student@citicorp.com
Subject: Re: beis halevi
Eli Turkel wrote:
> In the case of shemitta there was an argument over the heter mechira that
> goes back 150-250 years. Some rabbis like bet halevi in fact claim that
> shemitta is a Torah obligation today.
I wrote:
> Not the Beis HaLevi. Maybe you meant the Netziv or the Aruch HaShulchan?
Eli Turkel wrote:
> Yes it is bet halevi. See Rav Zevin's article om shemita in his Leoor
> Hahalacha
I don't know if Rav Zevin had a later source of information, but in the Beis
HaLevi's teshuvah (3:1:5) he explicitly says that he thinks the halachah is like
the Tur that shemitta today is derabbanan because the Tur was basrai (see the
last paragraph). He further adds that the only reason he discussed the shitos
rishonim at length was in opposition to those who want to be meikel like the
Ba'al HaMaor who holds that shemitta today is only a midas chasidus. If you are
going to deviate from normative halachah, there is much more reason to deviate
lechumra in this case because there are more rishonim who hold that shemitta is
de'oraisa.
Gil Student
Go to top.
Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2000 09:31:16 -0500
From: "Stein, Aryeh E." <aes@ll-f.com>
Subject: RE: karbanot
"Feldman, Mark" <MFeldman@CM-P.COM>
> My problem is that I am not a morning person so that I invariably come a
> little late to davening. That causes me to omit almost all the karbanos.
> Is there any reason not to say korbanos *after* davening?
No, one should say karbanos after davening if he didn't have the opportunity
to do so before pesukei d'zimra (according to RSZA), except that, if one
davens nusach sefard, he should not say the ketores after davening, since he
has already said "Pitom Haketores" as part of davening.
KT and Gut Shabbos
Aryeh
Go to top.
Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2000 10:26:20 -0500
From: "Wolpoe, Richard" <richard_wolpoe@ibi.com>
Subject: RE: changes in nusach and minhagim and Re: saying the yom
On Tue, 14 Nov 2000 13:29, Wolpoe, Richard wrote:
> The models for tefillah, nusach and minhagim have changed -- with some
> justifications no doubt. But with the exception of a Kehilla like KAJ, I
> don't know anyone who asked, how can we do this when this changes the way
> it's been done?
Seth Mandel
: As I have said before, I agree with your basic point. I have only wished to
: add that even the Breuer's qhilla in Germany (and KAJ continuing that)
: allowed changes to come in.<snip>
I am not opposed to changes or evolution per se.
I am opposed to 2nd guessing or invalidating earlier models, esepcially when
they emanate from a "we know better" attitude. E.g. in the case of partial
psukim, since WE know kol passuk dl fassak... therefore it is wrong to cut
off psukim which implies (to me) that we know better than the earlier
generations that were willing to use such partial psukkim.
Adding kabbalas Shabbos does not Pass'l the rishonim. Neither does removing
Brich Shmei due to the SZ debacle invalidate earlier customs.
Omitting Piyyutim becauese of Tircha is not a problem for me. Omitting them
due to HEFSEK is because you are ipso facto over-ruling a defacto psak that
it was always OK to do so.
Similarly, Tefilling on ChhM, or Barchu Hashem l'olam at Maariv.
If you say I will not wear tefillin befarhesya on ChhM mishum lo sisgodedu,
fine. But to say it is wrong to wear it - based upon a Zohar - and to
ignore the psak of Rishonim and/or the messorah is imho faulty.
'nuff said.
Shalom and Regards,
Rich Wolpoe
Richard_Wolpoe@ibi.com
Go to top.
Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2000 12:16:29 -0500
From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>
Subject: Re: science and Torah
RRW wrote about speculating on science and the Torah:
: I agree that these speculations should be seen in the spirit of
: explaining and reconciling, not in the spirit of proving or justifying. In
: that sense, I agree with the sentiment that science cannot PROVE Torah and
: vice versa.
Later he writes in the domain of overturning p'sak:
: I am opposed to 2nd guessing or invalidating earlier models, esepcially when
: they emanate from a "we know better" attitude.
So I take it (no I don't, not really) this means that we finally agree
-- when you resolve the two you shouldn't be 2nd guessing earlier
understandings of the Torah because of a "we know [science] better"
attitude.
The difference is, and I promise the rest of the chevrah to drop
the subject after this email, that halachah isn't about right and
wrong. Second-guessing an earlier p'sak for a less popular or even
neglected one, is actually less problematic to me that second-guessing
the entire body of mesorah about some aggadita. One is saying that a
single wrong "eilu" was chosen but mesorah is still emes. The other is
saying that mesorah as a whole failed to embody "divrei E-lokim chaim".
: Science is merely one of the most important
: languages of our times. It makes sense to be able to relate Torah concepts
: in modern language, just like Artscroll does for the Gmoro.
Reading this idea of science as a language gave me an idea about that
"talmud chacham" and subjectivity vs. objective scholarship chakirah
that I posited a while back.
One can say an idea from mesorah in "outside" terms, or one can impose an
outside idea onto Torah. As I noted earlier, much of the debate over the
Moreh Nevuchim was about which one it is.
I propose a test: If you can say the same idea without using the modern
language, working only from first principles and postulates from within
the Torah, even if it would take much longer and be less clear, then it's
terminology only.
If your idea has no motivation once you take away the outside postulates then
you've violated the system.
The question over the Moreh therefore really is: How much of Aristotle's
thought is simple sevarah, vs ideas posited by Aristotle?
This is why I can find comfort in resolutions about creation that pull
from shitos predating the scientific problem, but don't agree with those
invented in response to that problem. The Tif'eres Yisra'el's shitah
dates at least as far back as the Zohar's multiple-creation theory. One
could be motivated to put his peshat into Bereishis 1:1 and 1:2 even
without the scientific dillemma, purely for reasons internal to the
Torah.
-mi
--
Micha Berger When you come to a place of darkness,
micha@aishdas.org you do not chase out the darkness with a broom.
http://www.aishdas.org You light a candle.
(973) 916-0287 - R' Yekusiel Halberstam of Klausenberg zt"l
Go to top.
Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2000 12:05:03 -0500
From: "Wolpoe, Richard" <richard_wolpoe@ibi.com>
Subject: changes in nusach and minhagim and Re: saying the yom
Behalf Of sethm37@hotmail.com
On 14 Nov 2000 19:12:01 Herschel Ainspan wrote:
sethm37@hotmail.com wrote:
> Saying of "the yom" as a reenactment of what they Leviyim said every day
> began in the 17th and 18th centuries. Since saying "the yom" was
recognized
> by all at that time as a hiddush, it was put at the end of the whole
> davening by Ashkenazim
> What about minhag Frankfurt and minhag sefaradi to say the yom on Shabbos
> after shacharis? Is that only from the 17th-18th centuries?
>Yes indeed. Look at Minhagei Worms and Bamburger's notes. Look at Yosef
>Ometz. This is one of the changes that were accepted even in Frankfort,
>like qabbolas shabbos...<snip>
---------------
Note:
the qabbolas shabbos in KAJ/Frankfort was done in such a way as
to demonstrate it was not an integral part of the tefillah. The Tehillim
are recited as Tehillim, i.e. responsively and the L'cha Dodi is done at the
bima not at the amud} -RRW
<snip>
.
On Tue, 14 Nov 2000 13:29, Wolpoe, Richard wrote:
>> The models for tefillah, nusach and minhagim have changed -- with some
>> justifications no doubt. But with the exception of a Kehilla like KAJ, I
>> don't know anyone who asked, how can we do this when this changes the way
>> it's been done?
>As I have said before, I agree with your basic point. I have only wished to
>add that even the Breuer's qhilla in Germany (and KAJ continuing that)
>allowed changes to come in. Qabbolas shabbos, {RRW: see note above re:
>qabbalas Sahbbos} or more than 40 qolos are the egregious examples, although
>KAJ does make a shinnui in where the ShaTz stands.
===> RRW: please elabrate, RRW
>But there are numerous other examples. As amatter of fact, RSRH was
>CRITICIZED by some his cntemporaries for allowing changes to come in too
>easily. RSRH felt that it was more important to save Torah and frumkeit
>than to preserve old minhagim, although I don't think he ever said the
>minhagim weren't important, just that they were not of the same priority.
===> aiui Hirsch insisted on not abridging or eliminating piyyutim, etc.
davka beause Reform did, RRW
>I have been told by a friend who grew up in Strassbourg, where they still
>keep many of the old Ashkenaz minhagim, that the shuls who preserve the
most
>of the old minhagim in that area nowadays are the shuls where most of the
>members are not frum. Sort of like the lox and bagel Jews in the United
>States, preserve the outward form (a meal at the seder, for instance, with
gefilte fish and chicken soup) but ignore the Torah and the mitzvos (drive
>to the seder, eat it in a nonkosher restaurant or house, etc.).
===> Agreed Many ignorant Yekkes - and others - kept the
chitzoniyos and ignored the pnimiyos. OTOH, R's and C's will tell you that
their changes to nusach were also predicated upon svara and that if it's OK
to ignore tradition due to svara, why can't they? My point is that changing
Minhag w/o regard to precedent undermines Mesora. If earlier generations
"goofed" wrt to partial psukim or siyyum brachos, etc. what other mistakes
fell though the cracks? And even if they weer not wrong, once you admit the
possiblity that we know better than our predecesors, then it makes sense to
give women aliyos and to redfine kavod hatzibbur etc.. Relying upon svra
w/o precedent, opens the door to seeing egaltarian as ok, etc.}....RRW
> All of your examples above are old minhag Ashkenaz, but the changes come
>from opinions by other rishonim and reflect the minhag there, like the 2
>matzos and tefillin on hol haMo'ed. I am not sure what you meant by
>"restructure of Kedushah."
===> I mean that the old minhag was responsive. IOW Shtaz: nekadeish thru
v'amar; k'hal
says Kadosh. AIUI it was The Ari who re-structured kedusha so that the khal
says the shatz parts...RRW
>But in many cases, the Gra was trying to hold onto the old minhag Ashkenaz,
===>I'm not familiar with these cases. It seem to me that the GRA, like
the Ba'al Hatanyo, went on the premise that the Zohar was "more" correct han
the old minhag including those Yerushalmi based minhaggim (e.g Tefillin on
ChhM). This was a major shift in thinking that the Zohar could trump
minhaggim going back to Kallir, etc. R. Hamburger I believe notes this in
his sefer. A number or people have noted the irony that the changes made by
the Ba'al Hatanya often resemble those of the Gra...RRW
Rich Wolpoe
Go to top.
Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2000 15:59:02 GMT
From: "" <sethm37@hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: fragments of psukim
On Sat, 11 Nov 2000 22:47:08 D & E-H Bannett wrote:
>> 'Al pi Hashem: the pasuq of "vezos haTorah" ends "beyad Moshe," and
>> that is where RYBS stopped.
> R' Seth, I think you had a slight momentary mental slip or very big
> typo.
Mea culpa. RYBS ended "beyad Moshe."
From: sadya n targum
> Can it be that the various problems with parts of psukim (e.g., kdusha,
> Baruch ata Hashem) etc. are based on a misunderstanding of "Kol pasuk
> dlo paskey Moshe"? Can it be that the rule only applies when a posuk
> is said as a posuk (such as in k'rias haTorah), and not when it is not
> intended as "scriptural reading," but as t'fila?
I think that's where we are all ending up, that the problem is only when
the pasuk is quoted as a pasuk.
> Of course, the matter that began the thread, that of Kiddush, does
> remain a problem, because there it is exactly our intention to begin
> the Kiddush by reading those psukim in the Torah dealing with Hashem's
> sanctification of the Torah; hence the rule of "Kol pasuk etc." applies.
See below
> ... eich matzinu yadeinu v'ragleinu b'vais hamedrash when we learn gmara,
> and parts of psukim in the Torah are quoted?
As many have pointed out, among them RYBS in the name of R. Yaaqov Emden,
the psukim quoted in the gemoro say "vgomer" at the end, which is a sign
that when you are reading the pasuk you are supposed to finish it. The
fact that only the first part of the pasuk is printed is due to the fact
that printers (and copyists before them) wanted to save their ink. This
has to be so, because sometimes the raayo for what the gemoro is proving
comes from the end of the pasuk which is not even printed.
> How do we learn the Mishna, and say in the Hagadah, "l'maan tizkor es
> yom tzescha," without the beginning of the pasuk? If, however, the use
> of a pasuk fragment as a proof, rather than a reading, is permitted,
> there is no problem.
If you look in the Hagadah, you will see that first we quote each pasuk
in its entirety from beginning to end, and then proceed to darshan out
each word.
> Two further points: (a) Why isn't the rule of "Kol pasuk" mentioned
> lahalacha in the Rambam or the Shulchan Aruch?
See below
> (b) Why are we so concerned with this rule, and not with its counterpart
> in Brachos 12b, "Kol parsha d'lo paskey Moshe anan lo paskinan"? If the
> first rule dictates to begin Kiddush from "Vayar Elokim," shouldn't the
> second require starting from "Vayomer Elokim totzay ha'aretz"?
Excellent point. As I said in an earlier post, in qiddusho rabbo on
shabbos morning, that is precisely why RYBS following R. Hayyim Brisker
said the whole parsha of zakhor and veshamru, rather than just "'al
ken etc." My previous posts were getting to long, but now I want to
say that it is extremely instructive to note how the rishonim handled
these issues. The whole parsha of vaykhullu was said on Friday night;
the idea of adding "yom hashishi" came in later, and that caused the
problem we are discussing. And in most of the other cases of psuqim
quoted as psuqim (and not as part of tefilla), the whole pasuq is
mentioned. Ovadiah Dubin mentioned that the sidurim of taimonim and
others, do not start in brokhos of qriyas sh'ma' on shabbos tov l'hodos,
but just Mizmor Shir liyom HaShabbos, which is an entire pasuq. All
the old haggodos in the parsha of Arami oved quote the entire pasuq,
before darshaning out each word. There are a few counterexamples, but
the first thing is to realize that among the hundreds of psuqim quoted
in davening, there are only a few. We can discuss these few one by one,
but I think it will be overkill for this forum.
So when R. Richard Wolpoe said:
> I have always assumed that since Oseh Shalom Bimromav is from Tanach
> (Iyov 25:2) therefore it was superior to use it over the proposed
> alterante Oseh HAshalom Bimromov used by some during the 10 days of
> Tshuva. Similarly, I assumed that since Zecher Tzaddik livrocho is
> from Tanach, therefore it is superior to using Zecehr Tzaddik V'KADOSH
> livracha. Now this thread calls into question my assumptions.
You were right the first time. Hazal loved to use fragments from kisvei
haqodesh in davening, but they are not quoted as psuqim. As far as
'oseh shalom goes, RYBS used it even during the 10 days of tshuva,
and did not change to hashalom, for precisely your reason.
A gutten shabbos. Seth Mandel
Go to top.
Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2000 11:41:48 -0500
From: "Wolpoe, Richard" <richard_wolpoe@ibi.com>
Subject: RE: Bs"d et al.
sethm37@hotmail.com:
> Does anyone know, then, a halakhic basis for why people
> don't just write "God" when referring to HQB'H? If it is just a kinnuy,
> then it is no worse than "G-d," which is also a kinnuy.
Based upon RYBS and others, I would write G-o-d instead of G-d in my emails.
An aquaintance off mine - a Roman Catholic - used to work as a
quasi-chaplain doing outreach ini his community in a university - alongside
Hillel workers and Lubavichers dorng outreach in the Jewish community. He
insisted that I use G-d, and that it was a tenet of Orthodox to insist on
spelling G-d, G-D. I know Torah is lo bashamayim hi, but I have felt guilty
about reverting back to G-o-d ever since.
Perhaps the innate reverance that Observant Jews have for Hashem's name has
spilled over the line...
Shalom and Regards,
Rich Wolpoe
Richard_Wolpoe@ibi.com
Go to top.
Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2000 10:58:37 -0500
From: "Wolpoe, Richard" <richard_wolpoe@ibi.com>
Subject: RE: Hoshei'a 1:1
Yitzchok Zlochower
> The question of chronology is dealt with at some length by the Malbim in
> Hoshea 1 and Kings II 15. He doesn't resolve all the problems, however.
The Malbim is teaching us that we don't have to refrain from doing our best
to explain even when we fail to resolve every problem or conflict.
Reflect this back to the thread on Science and Torah.
Shalom and Regards,
Rich Wolpoe
Richard_Wolpoe@ibi.com
Go to top.
Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2000 12:37:16 -0500
From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>
Subject: Re: Bs"d et al.
On Fri, Nov 17, 2000 at 11:41:48AM -0500, Wolpoe, Richard wrote:
: Based upon RYBS and others, I would write G-o-d instead of G-d in my emails.
I don't know your source on RYBS, but let me quote the following from
Usenet's soc.culture.jewish, written by our chaveir R' Dr Josh Backon:
> Picture this: it's 1966 and yours truly is still in high school. It's
> a gemara class and half the people are doing their math homework. In
> walks the Rav (Rabbi Joseph Soloveitchik z"l). Since the topic being
> discussed is the gemara in Shevuot (on erasing the names of God), he
> goes over to the blackboard, writes GOD and then erases it. He leaves
> and we go back to solving problems in calculus :-)
(Copied from <http://x53.deja.com/[ST_rn=ps]/getdoc.xp?AN=606253112>)
-mi
--
Micha Berger When you come to a place of darkness,
micha@aishdas.org you do not chase out the darkness with a broom.
http://www.aishdas.org You light a candle.
(973) 916-0287 - R' Yekusiel Halberstam of Klausenberg zt"l
Go to top.
Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2000 11:55:42 -0500
From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>
Subject: Re: faith
On Wed, Nov 15, 2000 at 04:30:09PM +0200, Daniel Eidensohn wrote:
: Kolitz (Confrontation: The Existential Thought of R' J.B. Soloveitchik page
: 73 "...Unlike the abstract Hegelian dialectic, the dialectic of Judaism is
: 'irreconcilable and hence interminable'...
This is the neo-Kantian perspective, that human experience centers around
these unresolvable dialectics. It is therefore unsurprising that many
have labeled RYBS a neo-Kantian.
However, RYBS added an element that drew from R' Chaim, not Kant, thereby
making the philosopher and the Brisker one person. (Which is truly an
unresolvable dialectic. <grin>) To RYBS, the neo-Kantian dialectic was
the same thing as the Brisker tzvei dinim. Hainu hach.
: The dialectics Rav Soleveitchik dealt with were issues within a closed
: system. ...
You went too fast for me. How do you get from the idea that dialectic
lacks resolution (ad yimos hamashi'ach) to the notion of a close system.
Also, would this mean that in yimos hamashi'ach Torah ought to become
an open system?
-mi
--
Micha Berger When you come to a place of darkness,
micha@aishdas.org you do not chase out the darkness with a broom.
http://www.aishdas.org You light a candle.
(973) 916-0287 - R' Yekusiel Halberstam of Klausenberg zt"l
Go to top.
Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2000 11:50:04 -0500
From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>
Subject: Kol yimei chayecha
On Tue, Nov 14, 2000 at 04:34:27PM -0500, Gil.Student@citicorp.com wrote:
: Precisely during kerias shema, when we are trying to make sure that we are
: mekayem the mitzvah, it seems very sensible to have tzitzis surround us....
Going off on yet another tangent, I recently saw p'shat in R' Elazer ben
Azariah as quoted in the Hagaddah. My apologies if this is yadu'ah, and
just new to me.
Why did REBA even have a question? After all, would "yemei chayecha", even
without the "kol" imply days and not nights? Who measures their life in
daylight hours only?
The mitzvah of sippur yetzi'as mitzrayim is in the parashah of tzitzis in
Shema. It would be logical to think that Shema, when said at night when
there is no chiyuv tzitzis, shouldn't include this parashah. IOW, his
question only arises because the pasuk puts it in a parashah that isn't
nogei'ah baleilos.
-mi
--
Micha Berger When you come to a place of darkness,
micha@aishdas.org you do not chase out the darkness with a broom.
http://www.aishdas.org You light a candle.
(973) 916-0287 - R' Yekusiel Halberstam of Klausenberg zt"l
Go to top.
Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2000 13:08:59 -0500
From: "Wolpoe, Richard" <richard_wolpoe@ibi.com>
Subject: RE: fragments of psukim
Seth Mandel
> Hazal loved to use fragments from kisvei
> haqodesh in davening, but they are not quoted as psuqim. As far as
> 'oseh shalom goes, RYBS used it even during the 10 days of tshuva,
> and did not change to hashalom, for precisely your reason.
And this is a very important. We CAN reconcile the principle of Kol passuk
with accepted practice by assuming both are correct and looking for a viable
distinction. (of course in some places it is certainly OK and perhaps even
preferable to say the whole passuk, but not necessarily a requirment.)
However, once we toss out the nussach based upon the premise that the nusach
is in error, the Mesorah is cut off and the chance to be mekayyem the
earlier version can get lost.
This reminds me of the earlier - and now considered to be erroneous -
practice of various printers whoe proceeded to correct the text according to
Rashi's "Hachi Garsinon's". Nowadays we know better <smile> than to correct
the text itself, and hagahos are placed upon the margins. It leaves open
the possbility of subsequent reconcilliations.
Shalom and Regards,
Rich Wolpoe
Richard_Wolpoe@ibi.com
Go to top.
********************
[ 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 ]