Avodah Mailing List

Volume 07 : Number 064

Tuesday, June 19 2001

• Re: Umasbi'ah lichol chai ratzon
• Variations between Nusach Sefard and Ashkenaz
• Re: Variations between Nusach Sefard and Ashkenaz
• Re: Tzitzis on Shabbos - d'Rabanan?
• Headcovering
• Aveirot L'Shem Shomayim
• Schar VeOnesh
• Re: RGS on Why does G-d Punish?
• Re: RGS on Why does G-d Punish?
• Re: Curious Chabad Minhag
• Re: RGS on Why does G-d Punish?
• Re: RGS on Why does G-d Punish?
• Re: Variations between Nusach Sefard and Ashkenaz
• Re: Variations between Nusach Sefard and Ashkenaz
• Re: Headcovering
• Re: Headcovering
• tztizit, tefillin on shabbat
• Re: tztizit, tefillin on shabbat
• Re: Reb SBA and Reb NRs wish
• Yehoshua bin Nun
• different types of salt in Torah and Halacha
• Re: Schar VeOnesh
• Re: Terms for Bnei Yisroel

On Sat, Jun 16, 2001 at 11:32:41PM -0400, MPoppers@kayescholer.com wrote:
: After having conversed with Micha and having checked the trop, he may
: have had a point if "l'chal-chai" was graced with a maircha, but it's
: not: the ta'am is munach...
...
: As a consequence, not only Micha's 2nd possibility but also, it seems to
: me, his 1st one, fall by the wayside. What is left? A possibility very
: similar to his 1st (he, and y'all, are free to disagree and say it _was_
: his 1st :-)), in which "ratzon" is translated as if it was "r'tzono"...
...
: Most m'forshim seem to go with the former possibility, considering
: "ratzon" to be in the same mode as "r'tzon y'rai-av" (see RSRHirsch).

The Radak holds that it's about satisfying the razon of the chai. So,
while there is a dikduk problem, it can't be insurmountable.

That's only that tack taken by RSRH's siddur. In his Tehillim, though,
one finds the idea that HKBH provides each person with "ratzon" --
desirability.

My bigger problem is not with the dikduk -- since no peshat seems to
be without such problems -- but with the fact that it would seem to
be the same claim as "retzon yerei'av" but made about "kol chai" not
just "yerei'av". IOW, the pasuk makes the later one fains praise.

"Retzon yerei'av" is apparantly about desire, not being desirable.
For that matter, I tried to find an open-and-shut case of /r-tz-n/ meaning
"desirable" without the preceding "li-" (excluding such a peshat here),
and haven't found one yet.

:                 This is the same ambiguity we saw in D'vorim 33:23, and I
: imagine it occurs whenever "ratzon" is used (sans s'michus or pronoun).

That is one factor -- we don't know whose ratzon or Whose Ratzon is
involved. Second, there is also no preposition attaching it to the rest of
the pasuk. Thus the dikduk dilemma. Add to that the plurality of meaning
of the word (as opposed to "chafeitz" or "chein"), and you have a really
ambiguous pasuk. Li nir'eh David haMelech was intentionally not limiting
the pasuk to one peshat.

: I have difficulty with this derech, given that the posuk just says
: "ratzon," that "kal-chai" may include more than humanity while "ratzon"
: may be hard to apply to more than humanity, and that this posuk is meant
: to be one of praise rather than request (there's a lot more to be said,
: but ain kan m'komo), hence I raised the latter possibility.

I don't see the relevence of the last point. "Umasbi'ah" is lashon hoveh,
not tzivui; so the clause is shevach, not bakashah. How does that affect
the body of the shevach? It's greater shevach that He do it beratzon
than if not, it's shevach that he shares His Ratzon, or that he gives
us our ratzon, or makes us liratzon, or whatever... How does this
rule out any of our possibilities?

-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

Two variations and hypotheses for their reasons that recently came to mind:

1. In Schochein Ad, the differences between the verbs attached to the 
various different types of righteous people. In Sefard the verbs are 
arranged so the third letters (after the two Tav's) form the acrostic 
Rivkah - parallel to the acrostic Yitzchok for the Yeshorim, Tzadikkim, 
Chasidim and Kedoshim. Mystical connotation over technical accuracy: In 
Ashkenaz the verbs for Yeshorim and Kedoshim are based on relevancy 
("La'Yeshorim nov'oh tehilla...B'fi yeshorim tis'halol"; "Keodshim... 
Tiskadosh"). That spoils the acrostic. Technical accuracy over mystical 
connotation.

2. Same idea by the ending of Keil Adon. In Sefard: "Serafim v'Chayos 
v'Ofanei ha'Kodesh" = which I believe is the correct hierarchy of the 
levels of the Malochim; in Ashkenaz "Serafim v'Ofanim v'Chayos ha'Kodesh" - 
because there is a term "Chayos ha'Kodesh" in tanach, but not, I believe, 
"Ofanei ha'Kodesh".

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

On Sat, Jun 16, 2001 at 10:54:56PM -0500, RYGB wrote:
: 2. Same idea by the ending of Keil Adon. In Sefard: "Serafim v'Chayos 
: v'Ofanei ha'Kodesh" = which I believe is the correct hierarchy of the 
: levels of the Malochim...

"Veha'ofanim vechayos hakodesh bira'ach gadol misnas'im le'umas serafim".
Li nir'eh this means that serafim are on one madreigah, while ofanim and
chayos are on another, as they are misnas'im le'umasam.

Speaking of which, I'd like to share a kavanah I have when saying these
words. I am not claiming this is peshat or even the sod of the pasuk, just
what mental images the words conjur in my mind as I say them. Frankly,
I think the associations are inescapable.


Physical ofanim, wheels, are the prototypical machines. What else then would
the navi expect us to think of when he describes mal'achim as such?

Chayos, wild animals, are raw nature. The word "chayos" tell you that the
ikkar of their lives is to live. They stand in contrast to the domesticated
beheimos.

Hearing the words "ofanim vechayos hakodesh" therefore produces the image
of the metaphysical forces behind the world that we live in, both
artificial and natural.

Contrast this to fire, the common physical metaphor for the intangible
spiritual ideal: "viTorah or" (not to mention "miymino aishdas lamo").
Serafim therefore create an image of something more nivdal min hachomer
than that created by ofanim and chayos.

However, when one does a mitzvah, one takes the ofanim vechayos and
raises them l'eumas serafim. The "ra'ash gadol" is that of ma'sei
mitzvah. "Ki neir mitzvah".

-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' Moshe Feldman wrote: <<< On a weekday, if immediately after putting on
the tzitzis-less beged you make the effort to put on tzitzis, you have
not been mevatel the aseh. >>>

Interesting situation. My initial reaction was to complain of "taaseh
v'lo min haasuy". But I think not. The klal underlying this discussion is
that there is no mitzvah to put a tzitzis-beged on one's body, but rather
to put tzitzis on the beged, and that is exactly what one would be doing.

He continued <<<  Similarly, on Shabbos, because it is impossible to tie
the knots of tzitzis, you have not been mevatel the aseh by not adding
tzitzis to the garment. >>>

This line of thinking seems to strengthen my claim that on Shabbos, this
mitzvah (and all its details) lacks the force of a d'Oraisa.

Thanks, and Good (select one: [Shabbos] or [Voch]) !!!

Akiva Miller

On Thu, 14 Jun 2001 09:58:22 -0400, "Gil Student" <gil_student@hotmail.com> 
wrote:
> Harry Maryles wrote on Areivim:
>> For men, the Gemarah never mandated a requirement for Kisui Rosh
>> at all. It is only mentioned that Chazal were careful to not walk
>> round bareheaded. ...

> I recently saw a teshuvah from R. Tzvi Pesach Frank (beginning of Orach 
> Chaim) in which he argued that covering one's head is min hadin for 
> everyone.

WADR to R' Tzvi Pesach (and Gil), does not the Shulchan Aruch state
clearly (O"C 2:6) "V'Lo Yailaich Daled Amot B'Gilui HaRosh", and the MB,
rebutting those who say that this is only for Tznuin, quotes the TAZ:
"D'Bizmaneinu Issur Gamur MiDina LiHiyot B'Gilui Rosh" ? See also Kitzur,
3:6, "Asur Lailaich Daled Amos ....B'Gilui HaRosh".

Stuart Goldstein

On Wed, Jun 13, 2001 at 08:49:29PM +0300, Carl M. Sherer wrote:
> In Rav Nebenzahl's sicha (in the book - not on the net) on Parshas Naso, he 
> discusses how Shlomo and Shimshon were both punished because although they 
> were both instructed to be choteh l'Shem Shamayim by marrying non-Jewish 
> women, they did not do so purely l'Shma. I'm trying to think of other 
> examples in Tanach were someone did a cheit l'Shem Shamayim and whether 
> their intent was pure or not. Any takers?

Would you include hybrid "mitzveirot" such as Lot's daughters (who thought 
there were no men left to perpetuate humanity - probably pure) , or Elifaz 
(relieving Yaakov of his wealth to fulfill Kibud Av - impure) or the 
brothers selling Yosef (after being Dan him L'Mita - impure) or only simpler 
aveirot such as Tzlafchad (Chilul Shabbat - pure), or the wife of On ben 
Pelet (Baring her hair to save her husband - pure) or Peninah (co-wife of 
Chanah who was MetZaeret Chanah to encourage her to daven for a son - 
impure) or Chizkiyahu (who refused to marry because he knew his son would be 
an idol-worshipper - pure) ?

Stuart Goldstein

The fact that the Torah does not mention Olam HaBah was brought up in
our Daf Yomi today. Discussion ensued as to whether the Torah should be
adhered to even if there is no Schar VeOnesh. Obviously it is a higher
standard to adhere to G-d's will because we know it is his will and not
becuase we seek reward or fear punishment. Never-the less I maintain
that there must be an undewrcurrent of reward and punishment for the
willof G-d to be demonstarted. A debate resulted whereby I stated
this. RYGB stated Lav Davka, and proceeded to explain that the Torah
is a nationalist directive and not directed at the individual. I stated
that it is inconceivable that the Torah does not address the individual.
Without the concept of Schar VeOnesh, there is absolutely no incentive,
none whatsoever, to keep any Mitzvos, even if it is G-d's will. Given
that there is BeChirah Chafshis and there are no consequences to one's
actions, why bother? If there is no Schar and no Onesh, why not do as
one wishes, certainly in the area of Bein Adam LaMakom. Eat Tarfus,
indulge in Arayos, be Mechalel Shabbos to one's heart's content. Since
G-d does not reward or punish, perforce there is no afterlife so what's
the point. G-d's will? who cares!

I therefore maintain that there MUST be an underlying concept of Schar
VeOnesh in the Torah. The very fact that is the will of G-d for us to
do His bidding strongly suggests that he will reward or punish us for
our actions. There is no inherent human trait of adhering to a set of
inexplicable laws just because another being wills it, even if that
Being is Omnipotent. This raises the following questions, "Why IS it
better to serve G-d Lo Al Menas Lekabel Pras?" "How does one do Mitzvos
MeAhava"? "If He doesn't impact our actions, if there is no Olam HaBah,
why bother? Rasha VeTov Lo... I may as well be a Rasha at least bein
Adam LeMakom. G-d won't like it? So What! You can't answer that there
will be any consequences as that would mean that there is a concept of
Schar VeOnesh.

No?

HM

[RGS, at <http://www.aishdas.org/articles/punish.html>:]
> 9. To cleanse a soul of its blemishes. Sin bruises one's spiritual
> structure and only punishment can repair that damage.

Interesting- I've always thought (based on R' YBS?) that punishment
doesn't really repair the blemish to the soul. Lmai nafka mina? Say one
insults an individual in private and no one else knows about it and the
insultee internalizes it so that it affects no one else and before going
to sleep is completely mochel the insulter. Is there any punishment to
the insulter? I've always assumed not, yet AIUI his neshama is still
blemished by this sin(perhaps in a pragmatic way we could argue that he
has become more ragil in this sin and the forgiveness doesn't impact
his future likelihood of sinning.) Similarly then perhaps punishment
without tshuva gemura would accomplish a similar end?

KT
Joel

On Mon, Jun 18, 2001 at 10:45:20AM -0400, Joelirich@aol.com wrote:
: Interesting- I've always thought (based on R' YBS?) that punishment
: doesn't really repair the blemish to the soul....

I argued that this is provably true.

Onesh without teshuvah means that the person's yeitzer hara for the thing
is the same as it always was.

So in what sense is the blemish gone?

Note that I'm arguing that a pegam is, or at least manifests, in ways
that we experience and is not some mystical concept with no experiential
componenet.

-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

>> One says ..Yevoreich Osonu *Bnei Bris*...
> Interesting - this would apply to restaurants, parks, cafeterias.....I
> wonder why it's not more well known - are there any sh"ut that are 
> meikil??Why wasn't it brought down in M"B?
     
We once discussed this briefly on Avodah last November.  See the thread titled 
"Tephillah laMelech".

The Seder Ya'akov on Avodah Zarah 4a discusses this difficult Magen Avraham.  
There seem to be many mekoros permitting blessing or praying on behalf of a 
Gentile and the SY implies that the MA is a minority view.

Gil Student

In a message dated Mon, 18 Jun 2001 11:14:41am EDT, Micha Berger
<micha@aishdas.org> writes:
> Onesh without teshuvah means that the person's yeitzer hara for the thing
> is the same as it always was.
> So in what sense is the blemish gone?

Which is what I tried to say with the example of ragil - but not because
I know that there isn't a mystical element as well, it's just that on
a personal basis the experiential basis makes it more undersandable.

KT
Joel

[RGS, at <http://www.aishdas.org/articles/punish.html>:]
> 9. To cleanse a soul of its blemishes. Sin bruises one's spiritual 
> structure and only punishment can repair that damage.

The word "only" in the above statement is incorrect. Teshuvah can also
cleanse a soul, with the exception of those issurim that teshuvah/Yom
Hakippurim are tolim and yissurim or (yissurei) misah are mechaprim.

Joel Rich wrote:
> Interesting- I've always thought (based on R' YBS?) that punishment doesn't
> really repair the blemish to the soul.

There are many rishonim who say it does. Particularly, Rabbeinu Bachya
(ben Asher) discusses this regarding gilgul in his Kad HaKemach (sv
hashgacha). Even someone whose desires are under total control can still
be punished in order to cleanse his neshama of sins from a past gilgul.

Micha Berger wrote:
> Onesh without teshuvah means that the person's yeitzer hara for the thing
> is the same as it always was.
> So in what sense is the blemish gone?

Your assumption is that the person's yeitzer hara is the blemish.
Since when is having a yeitzer hara a bad thing?

You could be arguing that the yeitzer is fundamentally different once
it has been exercised. It is now at the point, or closer to the point,
of "na'aseis lo keheter". Perhaps the onesh serves to turn the yeitzer
hara back to its original form. It is no longer "na'aseis lo keheter"
because the punishment was a reminder that the sin is forbidden.

Gil Student

On 16 Jun 2001, at 22:54, Yosef Gavriel and Shoshanah M wrote:
> 1. In Schochein Ad...                                                In 
> Ashkenaz the verbs for Yeshorim and Kedoshim are based on relevancy 
> ("La'Yeshorim nov'oh tehilla...B'fi yeshorim tis'halol"; "Keodshim... 
> Tiskadosh"). That spoils the acrostic. Technical accuracy over mystical 
> connotation.

I'm not sure it means anything but the acrostic formed by Nusach Ashkenaz
is Yitchak HaBarak. Also, what significance is there that for Yomim
Noraim, Ashkenaz uses Sfard's Nusach and also comes out with a Yitzchak
Rivka acrostic?

-- Carl
mailto:cmsherer@ssgslaw.co.il    mailto:sherer@actcom.co.il

Please daven and learn for a Refuah Shleima for my son,
Baruch Yosef ben Adina Batya among the sick of Israel.
Thank you very much.

At 06:34 PM 6/18/01 +0300, Carl M. Sherer wrote:
>I'm not sure it means anything but the acrostic formed by Nusach
>Ashkenaz is Yitchak HaBarak. Also, what significance is there that
>for Yomim Noraim, Ashkenaz uses Sfard's Nusach and also
>comes out with a Yitzchak Rivka acrostic?

I think the acrostic remains Rivkah, just not in order.

Do other Machzorim besides the Machzor Rabbah change for Yomim Noro'im?

Regarding my other point, from my uncle:
>Re order of malochim in Keil Odon, not as simple as you make it out. The
>hierarchical order in Nussach Ashkenaz is correct acc. to Rambam, Hil.
>yessodei hatorah ch. 2, and it is also the version in Zohar Teruma 132a. See
>also Tossafos, Chulin 92a. Then again, order in Nussach sefarad/Arizal is
>correct (in reverse order corresponding to worlds BY"A) according to PeriEitz
>Chayim, Sha'ar hashabbos ch. 19, and Arizal obv. had different version in
>Zohar cited. Dealt with in comm. on Tzava'at Harivash no. 143, see
>ref. cited there, and esp. Shut Me'ir Nessivim, Orach Chayom #6.

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

On 18 Jun 2001, at 10:23, Stuart Goldstein wrote:
> WADR to R' Tzvi Pesach (and Gil), does not the Shulchan Aruch state
> clearly (O"C 2:6) "V'Lo Yailaich Daled Amot B'Gilui HaRosh", and the MB,
> rebutting those who say that this is only for Tznuin, quotes the TAZ:
> "D'Bizmaneinu Issur Gamur MiDina LiHiyot B'Gilui Rosh" ? See also Kitzur,
> 3:6, "Asur Lailaich Daled Amos ....B'Gilui HaRosh".

But see Igros Moshe OH 4:2.

-- Carl
mailto:cmsherer@ssgslaw.co.il     mailto:sherer@actcom.co.il

From: "Gil Student" <gil_student@hotmail.com>
>Stuart Goldstein wrote:
>>WADR to R' Tzvi Pesach (and Gil), does not the Shulchan Aruch state 
>>clearly (O"C 2:6) "V'Lo Yailaich Daled Amot B'Gilui HaRosh", and the MB, 
>>rebutting those who say that this is only for Tznuin,  quotes the TAZ: 
>>"D'Bizmaneinu Issur Gamur MiDina LiHiyot B'Gilui Rosh" ? See also Kitzur, 
>>3:6, "Asur Lailaich Daled Amos ....B'Gilui HaRosh".

>How are we disagreeing?

Apparently we aren't. I was just wondering if you were referring to 
something specific about R' Zvi Pesach's P'sak that was not already Halacha 
L'Maaseh in the SA.

Stuart

From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>
> A hashkafic note about tzitzis and Shabbos.
> The Maharal on Menachos ...
> That is why, the Maharal continues, wearing tefillin on Shabbos is
> considered a zilzul, but wearing tzitzis is not.

I have a problem with all these approaches that connect halakha with
hashkafa.

The example cited above is how we pasken. However, there exist other
opinions about whether one can wear tefillin on shabbat.

Does that mean that these other shittot also disagree with the connection
of tefillin with neshamah/ruach?

Eli Turkel 

On Mon, Jun 18, 2001 at 05:33:54PM +0200, Eli Turkel wrote:
: I have a problem with all these approaches that connect halakha with
: hashkafa.

: The example cited above is how we pasken. However, there exist other
: opinions about whether one can wear tefillin on shabbat.
: Does that mean that these other shittot also disagree with the connection
: of tefillin with neshamah/ruach?

Lima'aseh, explorations into ta'amei hamitzvos are generally
post-facto. Halachah has a process that doesn't include aggadic
considerations. (R' Josh Backon recently noted in another forum that
this is in Pei'ah 13a, and followed lehalachah.)

So we're only talking about what one should imply from cases where
someone ties the ta'am to a given pesak.

RSRH connects the meaning of techeiles to the fact that the Rambam
holds that only the eighth string is techeiles. (8 = lima'alah min
hatevah, tevah being the product of a week of creation.) Another case where
we don't necessarily hold like a data point being used to construct
the ta'am.

There (Collected Writings vol 3) RSRH is clear that he isn't saying that
the halachah is like necessarily the Rambam, but that this hashkafic
connection could well have been part of the Rambam's (or his makor's)
motivation for paskening the way they do.

To add my 2 cents: Given eilu vi'eilu, even the eilu we do not follow
is an expression of the mitzvah's ta'am.

That said, I'm sure there are cases where each would say the other's
implication WRT hashkafah is also not the derech we are following,
not just the halachah.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                     Time flies...
micha@aishdas.org                        ... but you're the pilot.
http://www.aishdas.org       		    - R' Zelig Pliskin
(973) 916-0287               

From: Hershel Ginsburg <ginzy@netvision.net.il>
Subject: Re: Reb SBA and Reb NRs wish
>
> I subscribe to the view that it is Atchalta D'Geulah, but there can
> be ups and downs and more critically, 
============
Well I hope that when we are zocheh to the Geulah Amitis there won't be 
such ups and downs.

--------------
> Several months back during one of the periodic Areivim controversies
> on Medinat Yisrael (the one where Reb NR posited the absurd position
> that Rav JB Soleveitchik was against the idea of a Jewish State), he
> commented on his and his ilk's hope that they state may just fade
> away.
============
I can't say that I remember this comment , but I am sure he could or did
adequately explain his ideas.

-----------------------
 If I remember correctly you agreed with and defended his
> position.
===========
Depends what his postion was.

--------------->
> I believe Satmar Chassidut has a specific tefilah to that effect,
> albeit with the addition that the state should disappear without loss
> of life.
===========
I haven't seen or heard of such a Tefilah (if someone knows of it
please post it) - but I suppose that even beyond Satmar
there would today be plenty of toshvei Eretz Yisroel - who would be quite
happy for it to become the 51st state of the US - with all the security and
prosperity this would bring.

------------------------
Given your openly stated ideological identification and/or
> affiliation with Satmar, I assume you at least identify with that
> tefilah (and maybe even say it).
=============
I'd like to see the nusach first...

(But seriously, you really think Satmar imitates the rabanut in
composing and introducing new Tefilos??? 
Doesn't sound like the Satmar I know.)

-------------
> So if the Jewish state fades away or otherwise goes away, who do you
> think will take over, the Eskimos?
==========
They wouldn't survive the heat...

SBA

Re: the different trop for b'nei Yosef, R' GershonD wrote <<If you take
the word "ben" and change it to bin, you gain two dots. These are the
sheva under the yud. Using the trop used for the other torei ha'aretz
would have meant separating the name Yehoshua from the bin-Nun part,
which according to this explanation wouldn't be proper.>>

I've always liked the story about "stealing" two dots from ben to get
the sh'va for the yud and enjoy telling it, but I cannot accept the
explanation quoted by RGD for two reasons. First, why does a tipcha
separating the words make it difficult or improper to move the two dots
across it. After all, the yud was moved from Breishit all the way to
Bamidbar without difficulty. Second, you'll have to come up with another
teirutz to explain the different trop for the other son, Menashe.

David

IIRC, there is a midrash that says that when Hashem made / established a 
separation between the 'mayim elyonim' and mayim hatachtonim, the latter 
complained because it was placed far from HKB"H, and then was consoled when 
it was told that it would be brought on the mizbeiach in the form of the salt 
required on all korbonos (qorbonos).

My question is as follows -

AFAIK / IIRC, there are two (main?) types of salt used with food - 1) salt 
made from water (sometimes called 'sea salt') which is produced by 
evaporation of water from salt water, leaving salt and 2) salt that is mined, 
which, AFAIK, is not a 'product' / component of water.

According to the midrash cited above, licheora there are grounds for an inyan 
/ kipeida (halocha?) that when salt is required by halocha only 'sea salt' 
should be used and not mined salt. My questions are 1) is that the case? 2) 
is this question addressed in halocha / any seforim? 3) Perhaps, extending it 
further (too far?) we could say that there could be an inyan to use davka 
'sea salt' on our tables at home with bread, since 'shulchan domeh 
limizbeiach' and a (the?) reason we put salt on bread is in imitation of what 
was done on the mizbeiach. I believe that most salt that most people use 
however, is mined salt (because it is much less expensive?).

Comments?


Mordechai

Harry Maryles wrote:
> Discussion ensued as to whether the Torah should be adhered to even if there
> is no Schar VeOnesh. Obviously it is a higher standard to adhere to G-d's will
> because we know it is his will and not becuase we seek reward or fear
> punishment. Never-the less I maintain that there must be an undewrcurrent of
> reward and punishment for the willof G-d to be demonstarted.

The Sefer HaIkkarim (1:10) says that any divine religion must have some 
component of sechar ve'onesh, even if only spiritual (which I think can mean 
even if performing mitzvos makes one into a better person and violating mitzvos 
makes one a worse person).

But I'm not convinced.  I could envision HKBH having given all of the mitzvos as
a chok so that we accept on ourselves His yoke.  Performing those mitzvos would 
not be rewarded and would not make us better people.  HKBH told us to do them 
and we are obligated to do so.  We could also invoke the Chovos HaLevavos's 
concept of hakaras hatov.  Without HKBH we would not be alive...  Therefore, we 
follow his mitzvos even though we will not be rewarded for doing so.

Of course, this is only an exercise in pilpul.  It is an ikar of our emunah that
there is sechar ve'onesh.

Gil Student

RYGB wrote:
: Goy = The lowest level of a defined nationality ("Lavo lokachas lo
: goy mei'kerev goy") - common names, garb, and tongue - as opposed to
: a Lashon ("V'romamtonu me'kol ha'leshonos") which is like saying "the
: English-speaking peoples."

Just double checking: Are you defining a "goy" as a "lashon" that also
preserves names and attire?

: Am = A nation with a sense of national idea (me'lashon "im")...
: Eida = A group convened for a specific purpose...

As I have mentioned ad nauseum in the past, RYBS's definition of these
two terms is similar, but not identical.

RYBS too notes that:
: They are called an Am already in Parashas Shemos.

... and states that being an "am" means being a community of fate,
which is why it first appears with the shared fate of galus Mitzrayim.

An "eidah" he defines as a community of destiny, which is why we find
it first in parashas Yisro. An eidah is a group of people who strive
for a common purpose. Be it good, or the "eidah ra'ah" of meraglim.

Which is why RYBS excludes apikursim and minim from the concept of
Adas Yisrael. Am Yisrael, yes. Adas Yisrael, no -- they don't strive
for the mission we were given at Har Sinai; they don't even necessarily
believe there was a mission given to us there.

That in term framed his p'sak on joining the SCA. Since its purpose was
to deal kelapei chutz with matters of fate, it was mutar. (And possibly he
meant it as a chiyuv, as there is kedushah to the concept of am.) However,
kelapei fnim, in matters of our mission, it is assur to join with people
who repudiate the eidah.

: Kohol = A group convened in a religious or refined manner...

In a second email (same post) RYGB noted:
: I should have noted my point of disagreement with the Malbim: He holds
: eidah to be a higher form than kohol. I, obviously, hold the opposite
: to be the case.

Li nir'eh a third position -- that "kahal" and "eidah" are different
positive traits. After all, if one were a higher level of the other
(same trait, to different extents) then why woul there be an idiom
of "kehal adas"?

I would have said that "kahal" refers to a grouping of people by religion,
whereas "eidah" refers to the the unity behind a goal. Which is roughly
similar to what RYGB said. However, I am also including in "kahal" a
group can be a bunch of unmotivated coreligionists -- malchus Yisrael's
lip-service to HKBH comes to mind. It is only when they actively strive
for the ideal that they share that they get both appelations.

: I should note an interesting phenomenon in this regard, that in Parashas
: Acharei Mos the punishment of kareis is sometimes applied to an "ish"
: and sometimes to a "nefesh" (the Ramban, IIRC, deals with that and states
: that there are two levels of kareis) - but those are kareis from the
: "Am". In chukkas, those who are metmeh mikdosh are subject to kareis
: from the "Kohol".

Which fits the two meanings given to "kareis", once you translate RYGB's
"kohol" to my "kehal eidah". The person who dies with no physical legacy
does not share in the community's destiny. He is therefore cut off from
the "am". And one who is cut off from olam habah is no longer amongst
"kol Yisrael yeish lahem cheilek".

From RYGB's anonymous corespondant:
: >V'im kol *adas* yisrael yishgu, vne'elam davar m'einei hakahal...v'hikrivu
: >hakahal...v'samchu ziknei ha-eidah (Vayikra 14).

: >If you say they are first called eidah bec. they sinned, and then kahal bec.
: >of tshuvah, why are the zekeinim first called kahal and then "demoted" to
: >ziknei ha-eidah?

Lishitasi, it shtims nicely. In terms of content, I would use RYGB's
answer.
: A good example. The sin was committed by Yisroel as an Eidah, because those 
: who were supposed to make them a Kohol failed at their task. The Korbon 
: recreates the bond of the Kohol, but those who failed to prevent the sin 
: are the ones degraded to do the semicha (note the double rebuke: 1. They 
: are no longer Kohol; they are Eidah. 2. They are no longer Einei; they are 
: Ziknei.

And in terms of tone, there is no connotation of demotion switching from
one to the other -- eidah compliments their achdus; kahal compliments their
hislahavus.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                     Time flies...
micha@aishdas.org                        ... but you're the pilot.
http://www.aishdas.org       		    - R' Zelig Pliskin
(973) 916-0287               

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


[ 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         ]