Avodah Mailing List

Volume 06 : Number 105

Thursday, January 18 2001

• Flourescent lights
• RE: v'hash'vi'i vs. uvash'vi'i
• Re: minha without tahanun
• Re: Life span
• a source
• Re: Dor Revi'i on parashat Shmot
• Re: Gaza in Israel?
• Re: Kom Rabba v'Shochtei l'Reb Zeira
• Re: More about heikha kedusha and hazarat hashatz
• Re: Woman and learning
• elevators
• Re: Elevators
• Teaching Torah to Gentiles in an Academic Setting
• uvash'vi'i and sh'va na/nach
• Re: a source
• RE: minha without tahanun
• E-hyeh shelachani aleichem
• Being good and being religious

Speaking of objects where one does not believe the poskim properly
understood the undelying metzi'us, I recently noticed that poskim
(including RSZA) misdescribe the electronics of a flourescent light bulb.

I'm about to be machmir, so you might want to hit "Next" now. <grin>

On each end of a flourescent bulb is a filament. The filament serves two
roles:
1- it throws off electrons which cross the tube in a mercury vapor;
2- it heats up the mercury to keep it a vapor.

Mercury boils at 359deg C, clearly the filament is used to change the state
of the mercury by heating it above yad soledes bo. AIUI, a clearcut case
of bishul.

In case that wasn't sufficient, as you might remember from old tube-based
amplifiers, tubes that can throw electrons off into a gas glow. These are
hot, glowing filaments. Can't see a tzad lehakeil (e.g. for a choleh she'ein
bo sakanah) on Yom Tov either.

-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

D. and E-H. Bannett:
>> V'hashvi'i can often be found in the tefillos in the back of the old 
>> Roedelheim Chumashim.

> The tefilot in the back of each volume of my 1818 Roedelheim "M'or
> 'Einayim" chumash with "Ein Hakorei" has uva-. Are your chumashim older
> or younger?

AFAIK newer and probably influenced by Seligman Baer.

Shalom
Rich Wolpoe

On Fri, Jan 12, 2001 at 03:04:30PM +0000, sethm37@hotmail.com wrote:
:                           Notice Tosfos does not say that "however,
: he should not say tahanun"; and Tosfos is talking about a person who
: does NOT have kavvono. As a matter of fact, there is no old source at
: all that tahanun needs more kavvono than tefilla. None.

Does the fact that having a matbei'ah for Tachanun defies its original
intent play any role here?

Tachanunim are by definition tefilah that is not made keva. Tefilah is
about what one ought to find important (which is why it must be bilashon
rabbim) while tachanunim are sharing with HKBH those things that actually
prey on our minds (pun not originally intended, but noted).

One could argue that tefillah without kavanah still has worth because of
mitoch shelo lishmah, or because of the Rambam's shitah in "ratzah HKBH
lezakos es Yisrael" or the Ari's shitah that one's neshamah has kavanah
whether or not one is aware of the fact. Tefillah is a training exercise.
You need to follow the discpline for the sake of those times that it
"clicks".

However, tachanunim without kavanah is nothing. It's an expression of
what you are feeling -- not a way to learn a feeling.

Perhaps the issue is whether Tachanun is still tachanunim, or whether
being kovei'ah a matbei'ah turned it into tefillah. The matbei'ah uses
lashon yachid, which tefillah doesn't. The Gra finds the lashon yachid of
"E-lokai netzor leshoni" (as opposed to "E-lokeinu...") to be sufficient
proof that it is tachanunim. And it too is a matbei'ah, although people
are noheig (and the Gra obligates) adding to the basic framework.

-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

R' Gershon Dubin asked
> Does anyone have mekoros for whether the *general* life span in
> pre-Avos generations was as long as described for those people mentioned
> in Chumash? Or were those people the exception?

R' dubin's hypothesis seems to be that these specific individuals were
exceptions, different than their contemporaries, and different in a
specific way that ceased to be relevant at a certain point in history. I
cannot imagine what might have made them so very different. That's okay;
that's why we're looking for mekoros.

I don't have any mekoros, but I do have a sevara. I think it is very
reasonable to suspect that they were the same as everyone else, and that
everyone's lifespan started out very long, and the worldwide lifespans
decreased together.

My evidence is in the numbers themselves. You can get the numbers
straight out of the Chumash, but the statistics are MUCH more vivid in a
timeline chart such as on page 53 of the Artscroll Chumash, or page 13 of
R. Kaplan's 'Living Torah'. From these charts, my feeling is that the
long-lifespan group should not be labeled as "pre-Avos", but that it
should be labeled as "pre-Flood".

Noach's ancestors all had (by our standards) ridiculously long lives.
Except for Chanoch (who died at 365), the shortest-lived was Lemech, who
died at 777. Even Noach's son Shem lived to be 600. But then it starts to
nosedive.

The Mabul was more than a flood, it was a cataclysm which seems to have
changed much of nature as we now know it. The first three generations
after Shem (Arpachshad, Shelach, Ever) were all born in the first seventy
years after the Mabul, and none of them reached even 500 years. After
that, no one even got to 240 years, and Terach was the last to pass 200.
Suceeding generations progressively shortened, until Moshe Rabenu's
famous 120 years.

It seems clear to me that something happened at the time of the Mabul
which drastically affected human lifespans. Noach, who was already 600 at
the time seems to have been totally unaffected by this, as he lived for a
total of 950 years. But Shem - who was only 100 at the Mabul - only lived
to be 600. Those born soon after the Mabul still lived a long time, but
nowhere near as long as their ancestors, and even that petered out
quickly.

I have no explanation for exactly how this life-shortening was manifested
within nature. But it sure seems a lot more likely that the lifespans
were a function of pre-Mabul/post-Mabul, and NOT that the individuals
cited in Chumash were more long-lived that their contemporaries.

Akiva Miller

With regards to Mr. Gershon Dubin's question on the lifespans in Breishit,
one can see (a) the Kuzari 1:47, (b) the Moreh Nevuchim 2:47, and (c)
the Ramban to Breishit 5:4.

Thank-you,
Stuart Fischman

From the Dor Revi'i website
(www.math.psu.edu/glasner/Dor4/Parsha/index.html#top):

va-tomer mi-yaldei ha-ivrim zeh . . . va-tikra sh¢mo Moshe ki min ha-mayim 
m¢shitihu: 

Many have asked why the daughter of Pharoah called the child Moshe: 
she ought to have called him Mashui (one who is drawn) if the name was 
intended to indicate that she had drawn him from the water.  But it appears 
to our master that the daughter of Pharaoh was marking the miracle that 
had occurred to her on that day when she took pity on this alien child 
saving him from the deadly waters, and made up her mind to raise him as 
her own son.  So she placed upon him a sign that wold indicate that he 
alone was the one destined to redeem Israel from the bondage of Egypt.  
For Pharoah¢s astrologers had foreseen that on that particular day the 
redeemer of Israel would be born, but they could not tell if it would be an 
Israelite child or an Egyptian child.  That is why, as Rashi explains, 
*Pharaoh charged all his people saying: ¡Every son that is born ye shall 
cast into the river, and every daughter ye shall save alive¢* (Exodus 2:22).  
What the astrologers were unable to see clearly was from which people 
the boy was descended.  And the reason was that Moshe was considered 
both an Israelite and an Egyptian since he natural mother was Yokheved, 
while the daughter of Pharaoh raised him as her own beloved so that he 
was considered to be her son as well.  So, indeed, is it written (Exodus 
2:10):  *and he became her son* (va-y¢hi lah l¢vein).  In the Talmud the 
Sages derive from this verse that one who raises an orphan in his house 
is considered by the Scripture to have given birth to him.  Thus, the 
astrologers were confused and could not determine whether the child 
would be an Israelite or an Egyptian.  So when the daughter of Pharaoh 
took the child for herself she unraveled the enigma of why the astrologers 
had been unable to determine the origin of the child.  And that was a sign 
to her that this was indeed the child who was destined to redeem Israel 
from the grip of Egypt.  That is why she said, *mi-yaldei ha-ivrim zeh,* (it is 
from the children of the Hebrews) by which she meant to say:  this one 
that the astrologers foresaw would be born today and would become the 
redeemer of Israel is indeed from the children of the Hebrews, but they 
could not see that because I shall raise him.*  And, thinking of the future 
when he would redeem Israel, she called his name Moshe.  *And she said, 
*because I drew him out of the water* (va-tomer ki min ha-mayim m¢shitihu).  
In front of everyone she said that the reason she called him Moshe was 
because she drew him out of the water, hiding her real intention, which 
was to symbolize his destiny as the redeemer of Israel.  And she therefore 
called him Moshe before giving any reason for his name.  See also the 
explanation of our master above in parashat va-yeitzei concerning the 
naming of R¢uvein.

va-y¢hi va-derekh ba-malon va-yiphg¢sheihu ha-Shem va-y¢vakeish hamito:  

Rashi comments:

	because he had not circumcised his son Eliezer; and because 
he had been remiss in performing this commandment, he brought 
upon himself the punishment of death.  It was taught in a baraita: 
R. Yosi said: G-d forbid that this was so.  Moshe was not remiss, 
but he thought, *If I circumcise him and immediately proceed on 
the journey, the child¢s life will be in danger for three days.  If, on 
the other hand, I circumcise him and wait three days * the Holy 
One Blessed Be He has commanded me to return to Egypt. 
[Consequently, he obeyed the commandment, intending to 
circumcise the child at the first opportunity.] Why, then, was he 
punished?  Because, upon arrival, he busied himself with the 
lodging place first [instead of circumcising the child].

	This is from the Gemara in Nedarim 32a.  Rashi, the Rosh and the 
Ran all explain there that the lodging place was close to Egypt, so that the 
child was no longer in any danger.  And the gaon of blessed memory (R. 
Avraham Glasner 1826-78), the father of our master asked a powerful 
question:  how could they say that the lodging place was close to Egypt?  
Did not Aharon meet Moshe at Mount Horeb, the mountain of G-d, as it is 
written (Exodus 4:27) *and met him in the mountain of G-d.*  And Aharon said 
to him we have cause to grieve over the Israelites that are already here and 
you propose to add to their number (see Rashi Exodus 18:2).  If so, the 
lodging place at which Tziporah circumcised Eliezer must have been close to 
Mount Horeb since she returned from there to her father¢s house, and Mount 
Horeb was close to Midian since Moshe came there while he was 
shepherding the sheep of Yitro.  

	And our master explains that Hazal said that at the very moment that 
Moshe was told to return to Egypt, Aharon was told to go to meet Moshe.  So, 
when Moshe went to Egypt from Midian via Mount Horeb, they were reunited 
in peace at that place, which was where Aharon advised Moshe to send 
Tziporah and her sons to her father¢s house.  But if Tziporah was returning to 
Midian, then Moshe should have circumcised Eliezer there, because he was 
near Yitro¢s house, so that there was no danger in circumcising him.  But 
because he busied himself first with the lodging place, he was punished.  And 
this it true and correct. It is also possible that the words of the Rishonim were 
*samukh l¢Midian,* which the copyists misunderstood and mistakenly rendered 
as  *samukh l¢Mitzrayim* instead.

See also a third d'var torah on the pasukva-yomer ha-Shem el Moshe atah tireh
asher e'eseh l'pharoh ki b'yad hazakah y'shalheim u-v'yad hazakah y'garsheim 
mei-artzo

David Glasner
dglasner@ftc.gov

WRT to our conversation in v6n53-59...

-mi

Shabbat-B'Shabbato
Machon Zomet
....

Shabbat of the Land: The Status of the Arava with Respect to Shemitta
Rabbi Zev Vitman

It might be assumed that the area of the Arava lies outside the boundaries of
the Torah portion of Massei, so that any holiness of this land is a result
of the modern conquest, which cannot be holier than David's conquest of
Syria. This might lead to the conclusion that while it is forbidden to plant
in the Arava during Shemitta and the produce has inherent Shemitta holiness,
there is no prohibition of "sefichim," produce which grows from old seeds
not planted during Shemitta. Thus, the produce from the Arava may be eaten,
even if it was harvested during Shemitta. (This would be similar to the law
for Syria, see Rambam Hilchot Shevi'it 4:27-28. It may be that there is no
difference between the Arava and Gush Katif, which is within the Massai
boundaries, such that modern conquest might be taken to imply complete
sanctity. This is because in Gush Katif the prohibition of "sefichim,"
which is rabbinical, should not be extended beyond its original boundaries,
which were the boundaries of those who returned from the exile of Babylon.)

On the other hand, those who today do not consider Arava produce to be holy
at all assume that there is no significance to modern conquest in terms of
extending the holiness of the land. Thus, if this area is completely outside
the boundaries of those who left Egypt it has no sanctity, and in fact it
is permitted not only to harvest produce but also to plow the land and plant
during Shemitta.

It should be noted that even those who feel that there are no Shemitta
obligations in the Arava still disagree about the boundaries of the area.
Those who are most lenient feel that the area includes all the settlements.
Thus, the southern border of the portion of Massai, coinciding with the border
of those who were redeemed from Egypt, stretches from the southern tip of
the Dead Sea westward, to El Arish. On the other hand, those who are more
stringent feel that the southern border continues south from the Dead Sea for
some distance and only after this turns to the west. The most stringent one to
hold this point of view was Rabbi Tikotchinsky, who felt that Maaleh Akrabim,
which is mentioned as part of the border, is at Akaba, near Eilat. According
to this opinion, there is no justification for leniency in the Arava at all.

Way back in v4n465 <http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol04/v04n465.shtml#01>,
R' Claude Schochet cited the Lubaticher Rebbe about the famous story of
Rav shechting R' Zeira. RMMS notes the meaning of their names: Rav - great;
Zeira -- small, and uses this as a key to interpreting the story. (In
which Rav "shachat" - drags - R' Zeira in learning Kabbalah to the point
where R' Zeira's soul can no longer withstand it.)

In light of that discussion, I thought the following might be interesting.
See in particule the 4th paragraph.

-mi

Shabbat-B'Shabbato
Machon Zomet
...
"The Names are Suitable for Yisrael"
Rabbi Yosef Sharabi, Rabbi of Givat Mordechai, Jerusalem

The above sentence is from Midrash Tanchuma. Names are very significant to a
person both during his lifetime and certainly after his death. During life a
name is often a factor leading to good or evil. And after death, a name denotes
how a person will be remembered. This is similar to the words of the Almighty:
"This is my name forever, and this is my memory from generation to generation"
[Shemot 3:15].

A person's name is not only a way to identify his body but mainly a mark of
his soul. As was written by the author of Noam Elimelech, the main aspect
of the name of a person, such as Reuven or Shimon, is the soul and not the
body. As proof, one can look at someone who is asleep. It is easier to wake
him by calling his name than by shaking him. The reason is that the soul
rises during sleep, and the best way to retrieve it is to call it by name.

The significance and importance of a person's name can be seen in the
first verses of this week's Torah portion. "And these are the names of Bnei
Yisrael... Together with Yaacov... Reuven and Shimon" [Shemot 1:1-2]. This
teaches us that the tribes are not only sons in Yaacov's family but are
specifically "Reuven, Shimon, Levi, and Yehuda." This is emphasized by Rashi,
based on the Midrash. "These are the names of Bnei Yisrael -- He listed them
again in order to show his fondness for them. He would take them out and
return them by counting and by name, as is written, 'He takes their hosts
out by number, He calls them all by name' [Yeshayahu 40:26]."

In recognition of the importance of a name, Rabbi Zachai gave as one of the
reasons for his long life the fact that he never called a colleague by a
nickname (Megilla 27b). The Tosafot explained that he did not use a nickname
even if it was not derogatory. Rabbi Zeira was also proud of the same thing:
"I did not call my friend by his nickname" [Megilla 28a].

This was the way our sages have always been. They called a person by his
personal name and not by his family name. This was true not only in calling
one to the Torah or in formal documents such as a bill of sale or a divorce
but also in daily contact. In addressing a rabbi, they would always add the
proper title before his name.

It is true that most people long ago stopped caring about this matter.
However, as is written in the book Get-Mekushar, "Many of the simple people in
these countries are called by their family names." That is, this is a custom of
"amei haaretz," the simple people. Wise men always turned to each other with
the phrase, "Moshe, you have spoken well!" Thus, if you use a proper name,
you have spoken correctly and appropriately.

On Thu, Jan 11, 2001 at 10:53:23PM +0000, R' Seth Mandel
<sethm37@hotmail.com quoted the Rambam's teshuvah #256:
:                                      ... I have the shatz say the entire
:     tefilla, together with qedusha, out loud. I think that there is
:     [almost] nothing lost therebye, since anyone who is not baqi will
:     be yotze by hearing the tefilla, and anyone who is baqi will daven
:     for himself word for word together with the shatz....

Notice that in proving nothing is lost, the Rambam only addresses
the role of chazaras hasha"tz in aiding someone who doesn't know the
words. He does not address the concept R' Chaim Brisker is medayeik from
the Rambam's lashon, that of tefillas HAtzibbur.

-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

On Thu, Jan 11, 2001 at 08:49:52PM -0600, R' Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer wrote:
: I got stuck on this this very morning - RHM cornered me in shiur over a
: makor for the zechus of facilitation being tantamount to metzuveh v'oseh.
: My answer was that it is based on the Yisaschar/Zevulun concept - but that
: too needs a ra'ayah. 

To continue an idea Chana touched on... according to those who limit the
role of Zevulun to people who make a compact with a given Yissachar,
note that that same is true of marriage too. IOW, perhaps it's the
"covenental community" of marriage that allows her role in enabling his
limud to be equal in zechus to the limud itself.

We can also argue that just like there is no comparison between assisting
a chotei in doing a cheit and being the only means by which he could
have done the cheit, there is a difference between stam helping another
Jew have time to learn, and being the one he relies upon.

-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

my sabba is mentioned in this article:
http://www.ohr.org.il/ask/ask039.htm

amihai

[Here's the meat of the article, written by R' Moshe Lazerus, R' Reuven
Subar, R' Avrohom Lefkowitz, "and other Rabbis at Ohr Somayach". -mi]

... [E]levator motors do not use the same amount of power regardless of
the number of passengers or weight. The following is an explanation of
how the majority of elevators work, illustrating just a small number of
Halachic issues surrounding the use of elevators on Shabbat:

1. Most elevators are the traction type: consisting of a car and a
   counterweight on opposite ends of a cable hanging from a pulley;
2. The pulley raises or lowers the car by using a motor, and stops by
   using a mechanical brake; 
3. The motor only requires enough power to lift the difference between the
   counterweight and the car, and to overcome friction; 
4. The weight is equal to half capacity of the car, thus the motor
   operates to counteract the pull of the weight when the elevator is
   less than half full, and does not operate when the elevator is more
   than half full, when the car is descending.

Since the weight of the passenger is partly responsible for the motion
of the elevator, he becomes liable for any infractions caused by the
elevator's descent. In a typical non-Shabbos elevator, these are some
of the many problems that one could encounter:

+ Letting your weight trigger the mechanism that slows the elevator down
  and stops it at the next floor.
+ Causing the light that indicates the floor that the elevator is
  presently on to illuminate.
+ Activating the system (resistance sensitive pads, photoelectric device,
  or proximity detector) that opens the elevator doors.

The Institute for Science and Halacha has spent many years working out
the various Halachic problems and have designs for Shabbat elevators that
meet the most rigorous Shabbat standards. Don't just use any automatic
elevator - check with a Local Halachic Authority...

Sources:
+ D.R. Bannett - The Sabbath Elevator Question, Elevators and Shabbat,
  The Institute for Science and Halacha.
+ Rabbi L.Y. Halperin - Shabbat and Electricity, The Institute for
  Science and Halacha.

At 11:56 PM 1/16/01 +0200, D. and E-H. Bannett wrote:
: Also, I would assume you are interested in the halakhic reasoning and
: arguments....                                                      I am
: the engineer who designs such elevators according to the guidelines of
: R"LYH and that meet his halakhic requirements.

No, I am actually interested in the technology, that is what I do not 
understand!!!

I am also interested in the various designs of Shabbos elevators, is there 
a difference between the Machon's and Tzomet's, what locations actually 
have the "right" kind of Shabbos elevators and which just have ones that 
stop at every floor, etc.

: I have nothing in my computer on the subject that I can send. A booklet
: explaining the physical realities that are the basis of R' Halperin's
: psakim is out of print... To get RLYH's halakhic analysis you'd have to
: buy the book which I think is still available at the Institute.

Might you please instruct us over the course of several posts? Please?

: A few years ago I saw an article in RJJ's Journal of Contemporary ...
: Unfortunately, the authors' understanding of some aspects of how an
: elevator works is so far from the reality that some of their decisions
: lose almost all value.

Which is exactly my problem, and I am sure the problem of many listmembers 
as well. Please help!

KT,
YGB
ygb@aishdas.org      http://www.aishdas.org/rygb

Are there any sources to be meikel in teaching Torah (shebe'al peh)
to gentiles other than those mentioned in the Seridei Eish's teshuvah?
I've seen a number of fine talmidei chachamim do this, and I can't really
understand it. The SE wants to be meikel based on the Rambam's shitah,
but he ignores a teshuvah in which the Rambam only permits teaching
Torah shebichsav, and only to believing Christians.

Gil Student

R' Micha wrote:
> Perhaps the object of the "bo" is our shemiras Shabbos, our keri'as oneg,
> and our sanctifying. Which HKBH wants only bashvi'i because "chemdas
> yamim oso karasa".

I wouldn't go as far as saying that the object of bo is our shemirat
shabbat. Close to that though, some who try to justify the uva- nusach say
that God likes it when 'Am Yisrael observes Shabbat (in addition to our
kiyyum mitzvot during the week). As a sign of His extra enjoyment, which
occurs on Shabbat, uvash'vi'i ratzita bo, b'am Yisrael. On Shabbat,He
likes us even more.

As a long term convert to veha- and, therefore, prejudiced perhaps,
I still prefer the nusach that makes sense without dreying around to
try to understand.

Re: R' Eric's friend: Tefila should be understood by the one praying
and, preferably, be in lashon tzecha, clear language and pure language.
Therefore, sheva na and nach are of importance and one should try to read
correctly in tefila as well as in keri'at haTorah. I won't go into the
question of just which shitta of defining the sh'va'im is to be preferred.

K"T,
David

REL asks

> Anyone have a source for the expression: "u'teshu'as (or "teshu'as)
> Hashem k'heref eyin"

And RJR responded:

> I only found those exact words in 2 tshuvot - Yosef ometz 104  and
> sridei eish 2:125

I have located "Teshuat..." also in:

1. Peirush ha-Yaavetz to Avot 6:4
2. Meor Einayim [by R. M. Nahum of Chernobyl] to P' Haazinu
3. Likutei Tefilot [of R. N. mi-Breslov] helek 1, tefilah 65 and helek 2,
seder tikun ha-kelali
4. Menorat ha-Maor [of R. I. al-Nakawa (d. 1391)] helek 4, perek
"li-semo.ah be-.helko" [p. 247 in the Enelow ed.]

Further, S. Abramson in his article in *Min.hah li-Yehudah* cites:

5. Yehudah ha-Levi in his piyyut "Amar oyev" [the 9th part of the "et
mil.hamot H'" kerovah for Shabbat Zakhor (p. 291 in the Yarden ed.)]
6. The anonymous piyyut "H' kidsho, zimno, taharo le-kaparah" for Yom
Kippur, based on much earlier sources
7. Midrash Shemuel [of R. Samuel b. Isaac de Uceda (b. 1540)] to Avot 5:4
("Ha-nes ha-8")

Finally, Prof. Y. Ratzabi has written fairly recently about just this
pitgam in "Li-mekoro shel pitgam (al mekorotav ha-kedumim shel ha-pitgam
'teshuat H'')" in the literary supplement to *ha-Zofeh* of 4 Tamuz 5759 =
June 18, 1999.  Unfortunately, I do not have access to this article (maybe
REL himself can get it?). 

But clearly, there were more sources with "Yeshuat..." 

Sorry to mix messages, but...

There was a question today (I forget by whom) re a book on all the kohanim
gedolim from Bayit Sheni and on. R. Leopold (Yekutiel) Greenwald
(1889-1955) wrote just such a book, entitled *Toldot ha-kohanim
ha-gedolim...* (NY, 1932). 

Kol tuv,

Yisrael Dubitsky

Micha Berger
> One could argue that tefillah without kavanah still has worth because of
> mitoch shelo lishmah, or because of the Rambam's shitah in "ratzah HKBH
> lezakos es Yisrael" or the Ari's shitah that one's neshamah has kavanah
> whether or not one is aware of the fact. Tefillah is a training exercise.

Good point. Todays' tefillah with little kavanah might be a step to
tomorrow's tefilah with better kavanah. If we consider each tefilah as a
component of an on-going growth process instead of as an indiviudal unit,
then every tefilah is an excersize in kavvanah improvement.

R. Nachman of Breslov advised us that trying to do tefillah with 100%
kavannah right away is the Yetzer Hara's way of overwhleming us and
causing us to give up. Rather, we should focus on a bit more each time;
and over time the kavvanah quotient will increase arithmetically.

The pasuk for my name (i.e Reuven) at the end of the amida illsutrates
this step-by-step concept R'ei ze... Achas l'achas limtzoh Cheshbon.

Shalom
Rich Wolpoe

There are two ways in which an event relates to others in time.

The first is causality, which has taking a beating in physics this past
century, but is still an intuitive concept. Note that in answering the
question "why?" the causal answer appeals to earlier points in time.
For example, because the wind blew a leaf off the tree, it fell. First
is the wind, then the falling. But every event has a cause. The wind
too is an event, and it too has an earlier cause. We can keep on chasing
earlier and earlier causes, until we get to the First Cause.

However, in a universe where HKBH is fully involved, things happen
for a purpose. In addition to causality there is teleology, the study
of purposes for event. The leaf also fell because HKBH didn't want a
particular passerby to notice something written on the trash that it fell
on top of. The telos lays later in time -- the leaf falls so that later
something will be hidden. Note the word "tachlis", which refers both to
purpose and to culmination. And if one chases all these logical chains,
one gets to Hashem as Ultimate Telos.

"Atah Hu harishon, vi'atah Hu ha'acharon".

It's interesting to note that Bereishis, the story of Genesis, opens
with using sheim E-lokim. When telling the story of going from First
Cause to the existance of B'nei Yisrael, we speak of the G-d of Laws.

However, in Shemos, the seifer haGe'ulah, we are introduced to "E-hyeh
asher E-hyeh". Bilashon asid. An appeal to the future. HKBH as Ultimate
Telos. Moshe is told to relay to Klal Yisrael that everything they had
gone through and will be going through has a tachlis.

"E-hyeh shelachani aleichem" because it is our job as Klal Yisra'el
lisakein olam bimalchus Shakai, to make that telos manifest in this
world.

-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

The following seemed on topic.

-mi

Hamaayan / The Torah Spring
Edited by Shlomo Katz
Shmot: Volume XV, No. 13

"Come, let us outsmart [the Jewish people] lest it become numerous and
it may be that if a war will occur, it, too, "She saw that he was tov /
good..." (2:2)

What does it mean that Moshe was "tov / good"? The midrash answers: Rabbi
Meir taught, "His name was 'Tov'." [The name "Moshe" was given to him by
Pharaoh's daughter.] Rabbi Oshiah said, "His name was 'Tovyah'." Rabbi
Yehuda said, "He was fit for prophecy." Others say that he was born
circumcised. The Sages say that when Moshe was born, the entire house
filled with light.

R' Yosef Caro z"l (1488-1575; author of the Shulchan Aruch and other
works) explains: These sages are arguing about whether a person can attain
perfection on his own or whether he requires Divine assistance. Rabbi
Meir says that a person can be "tov / good," while Rabbi Oshiah says
that he can only be "Tovyah" -- "good" together with the help of "Y-h"
(one of G-d's names).

Rabbi Yehuda dismisses the views of both Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Oshiah:
Would you attempt to learn from Moshe a rule that applies to people
in general? Moshe was unique. He was fit for prophecy and was the most
perfect specimen of the human race.

The unnamed "Others" also dispute the opinions of both Rabbi Meir and
Rabbi Oshiah: In fact, they say, a person cannot attain perfection at
all because he is tainted by his material nature. Moshe was an exception
to this because he was born circumcised.

The Sages conclude the discussion with a proof to the fact that Moshe
was perfect. When Moshe was born, the entire house filled with light,
reminiscent of the verse (Bereishit 1:4), "G-d saw that the light was
good." (Chiddushei Maran Ha'Bet Yosef Al Ha'Torah p. 37)

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


[ 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         ]