Avodah Mailing List

Volume 08 : Number 046

Tuesday, November 13 2001

• Why can life be unpleasant - lefi haRambam
• Vetaheir libeinu li'avdicha be'emes
• Ten Tal U'matar
• Re: Avodah V8 #44
• Herzl zt"l
• Re: Herzl zt"l
• Frumkeit as opposed to Avodas HaShem
• Re: Herzl zt"l
• Re: Herzl zt"l
• A gutten Erev Shabbos
• leaving family minhogim
• Re: Techeiles
• Re: Shape of the Earth
• world was round
• techelet
• mordechai's coins
• Re: mordechai's coins
• birchat habanot
• Q on Chaye Sarah
• Q on Toldos
• Kohanim and Airplanes
• Re: A gutten Erev Shabbos
• Re: leaving family minhogim

Starting with the basics, here is what I got so far on the problem of
why misery exists. You will notice that it involves topics I have raised
here in the past few months.

HQBH created the world because it is the "nature" of being a Meitiv to
have someone to recieve hatavah.

The ultimate hatavah would be to share some aspects of His existance,
thus the demus E-lokim. To recieve not only the ability to be a meqabeil,
but also a nosein. (To borrow REED's terminology.)

This is somewhat paradoxical, if you think about it. (I likened it to the
problem of defining the most loyal talmid of a rebbe who teaches creative
thought and the personal touch.) But in term of our question, it means
that the ultimate hatavah isn't keeping everyone happy. Because that
would leave no imperfections for us to fix, no lack for us to satisfy
for ourselves and others.

This works leshitas haRamban, who defines olam haba and the ultimate
reward in terms of this kind of existance. Albeit on a higher level,
post techiyav hameisim.

But according to the Rambam, this whole line of reasoning is rejected.
The ultimate reward is entirely passive, atroseihem berosheihem venehenin
miziv haShechinah in a non-physical afterlife. The Rambam does not
require the ability to be a nosein for a reward to be the ultimate one.

So, why did Hashem create misery? Why were we created with lack? In his
terms, could not man have been created with sufficient yedias Hashem to
"make it" without any chance of failure or having to work for it?

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 A cheerful disposition is an inestimable treasure.
micha@aishdas.org            It preserves health, promotes convalescence,
http://www.aishdas.org       and helps us cope with adversity.
Fax: (413) 403-9905                - R' SR Hirsch, "From the Wisdom of Mishlei"

I love seeing how much depth one can find in a single phrase of Tanach
or tefillah. In this case, "vetaheir libeinu..."

"Vetaheir libeinu" provides an interesting contrast to "veyacheid
levaveinu li'ahavah ulyir'ah es shemecha". Libeinu vs livaveinu --
the same two-veis levav that we have in Shema, which Chazal interpret
"bishnei yitzrecha". Whereas there we speak of unifying the warring urges
of a complex heart, here we ask for surcease from that complexity. That
HQBH render the single-veis "leiv" tahor, pure. (While we may question
the accuracy of "tahor" as being defined "pure", "zahav tahor" /is/
"pure gold".)

I would think that a Baal Mussar would focus on these words, while the
Chassid would read them as tafeil to the next -- li'avdicha. True to
the hashkafic fork.

Li'avdiacha. RSRH sees the shoresh /`bd/ as a more intensive form of
/'bd/. To lose one's goals to anothers', working entirely for another
person. Here we speak of taharah from inappropriate goals so that one
can work entirely toward the aims Hashem spelled out for us.

Bi'emes: At first I took this to be an adverb for li'avdicha.

However, I want to draw attention back to the first thing I skipped in
this quote. It begins with a vuv hachibur -- "vetaheir". This makes
our phrase part of a list, along with, "kadsheinu bimitzvosecha, vesein
chelkenu biSorasecha, sab'einu mituvecha, vesamcheinu biyshu'asecha". In
all of those cases, the noun at the end of the phrase is the means by
which we ask for the thing described by the rest of the phrase.

So in this case, we are asking for Hashem to give us emes, by which we
will get the taharas haleiv necessary to answer only one calling -- His.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 A cheerful disposition is an inestimable treasure.
micha@aishdas.org            It preserves health, promotes convalescence,
http://www.aishdas.org       and helps us cope with adversity.
Fax: (413) 403-9905                - R' SR Hirsch, "From the Wisdom of Mishlei"

FWIW, The Ezras Torah luach for 5762 says that we start saying it at
Maariv on Tuesday nite, Dec. 4, 20 Kislev. There is a great Rabbi Frand
tape that deals with the "what if" issues re travel to/from Israel and
how that affects this t'filah. (One of the obvious answers is - don't
be the ba'al t'filah!)

BTW if I wish somebody a freilichen hanukah now does that mean that I
can start lighting the hanukah candles? :-)

On 11 Nov 01, at 14:24, DFinchPC@aol.com wrote:
> Because most family minhaggim are rooted geographically in Ashkenazic
> community dynamics that no longer exist. These dynamics developed
> subtly over centuries. Hitler killed them off.

I think they were killed off long before then when communities started
leaving Europe and coming to North America. For the most part, they spread
themselves out, and did not stay together as they had for centuries. In
those instances where communities stayed together in North America
(and for that matter amongst the Sfardim in Israel) you see a lot more
adherence to minhag.

-- Carl

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.

With regard to the use of zt"l with regard to Herzl:

1) If one adopts the viewpoint of the eulogy of Rav Kook for Herzl
(form memory_ , I don't see the problem (zt"l is surely acceptable for
mashiach ben yosef) (RYGB and others may have a different viewpoint, but
I thought that Rav Kook was an acceptable source.for avoda)(and remember
that Rav Kook wrote even before the actual success of Herzl's ideas)

2) I in general do not use honorifics (I was involved in the original
brouhaha on baistefilla over honorifics, and unerstand the rationale)
It is precisely because of the demeaning way in whch he was referred to
that I felt it necessary to refer to him in that way.

3) The comparison to Hitler yemach shmo is beyond the pale. It also
shows an insensitivity to the complexities of human action (something we
discussed before) - Herzl wanted to save Jewish lives, and his efforts
were successful. His success was not incidental nor against his desires,
and such comparisons are unworthy for avoda. One can argue whether
he was ultimately responsible for saiving lives (a metziut question
on which I think RSBA would argue, although I am not sure about RYGB)
or whether saving lives is enough for the honorific ( I will b"n try to
determine sources) but let us not forget that what he is being praised
for is exactly what he wished to accomplish - providing a haven for Jews
and saving Jewish lives

Meir Shinnar

On Mon, Nov 12, 2001 at 09:03:37AM -0500, Shinnar, Meir wrote:
: 3) The comparison to Hitler yemach shmo is beyond the pale...

I was also not a comparison of the people -- it was a reducio ad absurdum.
RYGB was quite clear that he was speaking of "the same tortured logic"
and not Herzl.

If one says that we are to assess another person based on the positive
inherent in their action, then one can find positive in /any/ action.

You might have recognized a common response to chayav adam livsumei ad
delo yada bein arur Haman.... The ironic notion that one should bless
Haman for his bringing Jews to be meqadeish sheim Shamayim is not new.

:                 ... Herzl wanted to save Jewish lives, and his efforts
: were successful. His success was not incidental nor against his desires,
: and such comparisons are unworthy for avoda...

I actually think that both sides of this debate ought to be aired.
Each of you has decided a priori that the other side should not even be
given a forum. But this list is moderated, not edited.

As for my own thoughts, I think that using zt"l for Herzl cheapens
the notion of tzaddiq. And an affront to our real tzaddiqim, who do
not deserve being compared to him. He was who he was -- he did some
incredible positive things, and lived a life committed to ahavas yisrael,
but a tzaddiq he was not.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 For a mitzvah is a lamp,
micha@aishdas.org            And the Torah, its light.
http://www.aishdas.org                       - based on Mishlei 6:2
Fax: (413) 403-9905          

This discussion has the potential of degenerating into one of one-upsmanship.

For an excellent discussion of why "frumkeit" per se is not Avodas HaShem,
look at Alei Shor, Vol.2, pp 152-155. R Wolbe poinst out that man and
all creatures have an innate sense of wanting to draw closer to their
Creator. However, when this sense becomes perverted into a sense of
egotistical worshiop of the self, that is frumkeit in a very negative
sense, as opposed to true Avodas HaShem. It's worth reading if and when
a particular chumra becomes attractive for no reason in particular,
as opposed to a genuine geder, harchaka or chumra well known to the
Mesorah that is appropriate . This process is one that we should all
consider whether it's a kula or a chumra. There is a passage in the
Mesilas Yesharim that also points out that a kula that goes against the
old time honored practice also warrants a close examination before it's
implemented lmaaseh.

            Steve Brizel
            Zeliglaw@aol.com
    

At 09:03 AM 11/12/01 -0500, Shinnar, Meir wrote:
>1) If one adopts the viewpoint of the eulogy of Rav Kook for Herzl
>(from memory) , I don't see the problem (zt"l is surely acceptable for
>mashiach ben yosef) (RYGB and others may have a different viewpoint, but
>I thought that Rav Kook was an acceptable source.for avoda) (and remember
>that Rav Kook wrote even before the actual success of Herzl's ideas)

If you think that RAYHK meant what you think he meant, then you 
misunderstood him.

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

At 09:03 AM 11/12/01 -0500, Shinnar, Meir wrote:
>3) The comparison to Hitler yemach shmo is beyond the pale. It also
>shows an insensitivity to the complexities of human action (something we
>discussed before) - Herzl wanted to save Jewish lives, and his efforts
>were successful. His success was not incidental nor against his desires,
>and such comparisons are unworthy for avoda....

Micha understood me, and I bet you understood me as well.

Anyway, there is a b'feirush a Gemoro against your position here, and
it is at the end of the first perek of BB:

"Satan u'Penina l'shem shomayim niskavnu."

Doing things l'shem shomayim is not enough to warrant the appellation
"tzaddik". Osama bin Laden is also doing what he does l'shem shomayim. So
did Baruch Goldstein (some might not like that equation - I am not here,
however, in the business of fine distinctions for now. I am trying to
convey a point to which my worthy opponent might - perhaps! - concede).

Further: Who is to say that Herzl was l'shem shomayim?

I do not think his intentions necessarily fit into any known category
of lishma.

Be that all as it may, that R' Aryeh Levin ("Ish Tzaddik Haya") was
a tzaddik and that Herzl can be freely and blithely put into the same
category, is mind boggling.


[In a second email... -mi]

At 11:31 AM 11/12/01 -0500, Micha Berger wrote:
>I actually think that both sides of this debate ought to be aired.
>Each of you has decided a priori that the other side should not even be
>given a forum. But this list is moderated, not edited.

Nope. I think our Oilem must be aware that there are Orthodox Jews out
there who possess such extraordinary views.

I do think, however, that Avodah should possess an editorial board that
*responds* (not censors!) as an Editorial Board to such positions,
explaining why they are not acceptable normative positions for The
Aishdas Society.

It is difficult for me, as a high-profile member of The Aishdas Society,
that Avodah (I do not place Areivim, for obvious reasons, in the same
category) should leave such views just "out there" without clarifying
that they are non-normative.

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

> On Fri, Nov 09, 2001 at 11:45:41AM +0200, Shlomoh Taitelbaum wrote:
>: Along the lines of my last post, where does the minhag of some people
>: to say "A gutten erev Shabbos" come from?

[Micha Berger:]
> The fear that saying "a gutten Shabbos" after pelag could mean he
> was meqabeil Shabbos.

1) Then why do they say it the whole day and not just the afternoon?

2) Why say that and not just "hello" like the rest of the week?

Shlomoh

"Because most family minhaggim are rooted geographically in Ashkenazic
community dynamics that no longer exist. These dynamics developed subtly
over centuries."

I've heard it said that "The Mishna Berura was written for yesomim"

I suppose that one can make the case, that rov minyan ubinyan of Ashkenazi
Jews post wwII could be considered yesomim...

kol tuv
Sender Baruch

Reb Micha wrote:
>The response to the third objection is that one can either:
>    1- rely on the test for the dye, or
>    2- rely on the description of the chilazon.

>Again, I disagree. He is saying that there is only one such dye --
>therefore any underwater invertebrate that makes such a dye is the
>chilazon, and matches the simanim. If it seems not to, well then, we
>need to understand the simanim.

The way I understood the Radzyner in Sefunei Temunei Chol, is that he
laid out the criteria for simanim that the chilazon must have. This was
straight from Chazal and the Sefer HaKaneh. This was the bottom line,
which he spelled out clearly and I don't think he ever veered from this.
He also discussed possible objections, and suggested reasons why they
would not be problems, making some speculations along the way. About some
of these points he may later have veered (as I think R Shlomoh Taitelbaum
has said).

He does seem to have thought that there was only one species that would
make a lasting dye AND meet the simanim, and that this dye would of
course pass the chemical tests. However, this part seems to be more
speculation. While in the form of answering an objection, when he
lays out identifying the chilazon I don't think he mentions this at all,
and relies on the descriptions of Chazal. The simanim of the species is
where he puts the bulk of his argument in identifying the chilazon. If he
were now confronted with the evidence about murex's ability to dye blue,
I think it would seem more consistent for him to abandon his speculation
that only the unique chilazon could make a lasting blue dye, rather
than abandon the rigorous adherence to Chazal's descriptions that he
emphasizes repeatedly throughout all of this works. You suggest that
it might be better to re-evaluate his understanding of the simanim.
I am just saying that the level of confidence/evidence/svara he had in
the descriptions of the chilazon was much greater than for the belief
that only one species would make a lasting dye and meet the simanim.
On the other hand, clearly someone else could believe that there is only
one such species and adopt your approach. The Radzyner also mentioned
the idea that perhaps chilazon really meant a category that include
more than one species, and that any species meeting the descriptions of
Chazal and producing an acceptable dye would be chilazon. I don't seem
to remember him going too far with this idea, however.
 

Reb Micha also wrote:
>Again, it was ILLEGAL and DIFFICULT to do so. So why were they?
>I was suggesting that the presence of large quantities of a source of
>dye that could only be made legally for a small customer base implies a
>lot of people who want the dye enough to break the law. It is consitent
>with there being a din diOraisa to use it.

>I do not see this point addressed in your reply. If you insist that the
>illegal use of the dye was purple, you are left wondering why people
>wanted this particular purple dye so badly.

Good question. Who knows why the world was so crazy for purple dye, yet
everyone knows that this was the case. It is extremely well documented.
Purple dyeing was the craze, fetched outrageous amounts of money, employed
huge numbers of people, etc… There is no question that people engaged in
purple dyeing despite the danger. P'til would also freely admit that
purple dyeing from other murex species was done despite the danger and
that people were absolutely crazy for it. The dispute is only concerning
murex trunculus. Secular scholars say it was used to dye blue-purple,
and many techeiles-wearers suggest that it was used to dye blue. I am
suggesting that archeological and historical evidence about murexs
trunculus fits in just fine with the idea that it was used to dye
blue-purple. I don't see the evidence supporting its use for making blue.

Reb Micha again...
>BTW, it is not only the murex people who believe the source of techeiles
>and royal purple are identical. As RST points out, the Radziner did as
>well -- but he thought they were both the cuttlefish.

>Mendel excerpting from Micha's quoting of the Radzyner...

>: 1. The Radzyner writes that the "blood of the Hillazon was also used by
>: the nations of the world, for the Techelet dye of their Royal apparel, for
>: Royalty and Ministers, thus the netting of the Hillazon did occasionally
>: occur". There is no reason to assume he is talking about murex. Since he
>: is speaking of techeiles, he is speaking of blue....

>Of the items in question, we are most sure of what royal purple was.
>The Radziner identifies royal purple with techeiles. Apparantly he did not
>know that royal purple was the murex. ...
>Since we currently know that the royal purple is from murex, it is being
>suggested that the Radziners argument proves that the chilazon is the
>murex as well. (And thus the assumption about what he would say.)

In the quote from the Radzyner that was posted I did not see any mention
of royal purple. He refers to techeiles in Royal apparel. This does not
imply purple or murex. Royal attire meant specifically blue in many time
periods and places. Was the reference to purple or murex somewhere else?
I often see people claiming the Radzyner or Rishonim equated techeiles
with murex or purple, yet when I see the quote it says nothing of the
sort. On the other hand I think I remember places where the Radzyner
did write about techeiles in a historical manner quoting from secular
sources in such a way as to seem to indicate he was writing about royal
purple and not techeiles.

I'm pretty sure it was in his second sefer (R Shlomoh, perhaps you
can cite the spot). This seemed to me to be an error. Secular sources
played very little role in his search and criteria. He was interested
in it as supplementary information, but it would never take precedence
over descriptions from Chazal.

Reb Micha....
>I agree also that the alleged proofs that are brandied about that murex
>was used for dying blue are pretty weak. But pointing out the weakness
>of one argument does not disprove its conclusion.

Agreed. I do think that the weakness of those arguments would suggest
that if murex trunculus is the chilazon, it was not done widespread by
the goyim or else it would have been mentioned more explicitly given
the attention murex was already getting because of purple. Of course,
I personally believe this is indeed the case, that goyim did not generally
engage in dyeing of blue in the same manner as our techeiles.

mendel

While R' Eli Linas stole much of my thunder, I have a few sources that
he did not cite. <http://www.aishdas.org/toratemet/en_shape.html>

Gil Student

> In his excellent work, "Mysteries of the Creation," Rabbi Dovid Brown,
> z"l, notes several sources showing that Chazzal knew the world was
> round...

If anyone on the list has Landa's book he brings many proofs that many
Amoraim thought the earth was flat.
These various other proofs only show that there were various positions
among Chazal and that while some realized it was round others thought
it was flat. In any case this argument continued into rishonim.

Another way that this is halachah lemaaseh is in the international
dateline. An issue that is automatic if the earth is round and
nonexistent if the earth is flat. Very few rishonim discuss this problem.

Eli Turkel

This contribution is to counter the impression that is being given on
this list that the Radziner dye is a viable candidate for techelet.
First, let us be clear what sea creature is being used as the presumed
basis for the Radziner blue dye. A cuttlefish, or sepia officionalis
(its scientific name), is not what people normally think of as a fish.
It is a cephalopod - related to the octopus and squid families. It does
not have an external shell which is normally broken in order to extract
the source of the techelet dye. Instead, the cuttlefish has an internal
plate - the cuttlebone, which, presumably, is not broken in extracting
the ink from the cuttlefish. It is difficult, therefore, to fit the
cuttlefish into the "potzoh" (smashes it) language used by the Beraita
in T.B. Shabbat 75a to allude to the means of extracting the techelet
liquid from the chilazon. The cuttlefish ink (squirted by the creature
to disorient a predator) is, moreover, not blue, but sepia colored
(brownish). However, the above is merely a quibble compared to the
major objections to the final dye and the dyeing process. Rav Herzog
testifies that he obtained Radziner dyed tzitzit and sent them to three
analytical laboratories for chemical analysis. They all concluded
that the dye was ferric ferrocyanide, popularly known as Prussian Blue.
If true, then that should invalidate the dye as a techelet candidate
since iron in the form of ferric and ferrous ions, which are derived
from the iron pot and iron filings used in the Radziner process, would
then be an important contributor to the dye color. In other words,
the cuttlefish ink is not the sole contributor to the final dye, but a
combination of cyanide ions derived from the ink and the external iron.
Moreover, the Radziner process that was described in writing by the
Radziner shamash to Rav Herzog involves heating the iron pot until it
glows brightly for several hours after adding the ink, potash, and iron
filings. It should not take chemical training to understand that such an
intense heating is at least the equivalent of "libun" which destroys any
original organic matter. The cyanide ions that result are produced from
a total decomposition of the original material. It therefore matters
little if the original material were cuttlefish ink, or cuttlefish
eyeballs, or ox blood (an early raw material for making Prussian Blue).
Perhaps someone who is familiar with the current Radziner dye and process
can produce evidence that the above is incorrect. If, however, the
Radziner dye is still Prussian Blue made via very intense heating of
cuttlefish ink in iron pots, then I fail to see any justification for
it being a possible techelet candidate.

Yitzchok Zlochower

>> This makes the question worse. I assume Mordechai would be killed if
>> Achashverosh knew he was putting out coins as that is clearly a sign
>> of rebellion.

> The 'melech tipesh' was busy shikkering while Mordechai was fully in
> charge of the economy...

They would still be Achasverosh's coins even if Mordechai did all
the work. As we see from the Megillah the king still had ultimate
authority over life and death and all coins would be in his honor.

Eli Turkel

From: "Eli Turkel" <Eli.Turkel@colorado.edu>
> They would still be Achasverosh's coins even if Mordechai did all the work.
> As we see from the Megillah the king still had ultimate authority over life
> and death and all coins would be in his honor.

So how do you explain the midrash?

> I heard a drasha as follows:
> Q: How come the 4 IMahos are used to contrast E"uM?
> A: Just like E"uM were Tzadikkim despite being raised in Galus,
> so too were the Imahos Tzdkaniyos despite begin raised in the homes of
> Resha'im...

Why don't we use the beracha to Rivkah in this past weeks sedra
It is from Lavan but it is used in other areas.

Eli Turkel

Rashi makes a big point that Sarah's age is written as "100 years and 20
years and 7 years"; similarly with Avraham "100 years and 70 years and 5
years."

But not a word is said that Yishmael is described as "100 years and 30
years and 5 years".

Why not?  There must be some significance to this.  Does anyone know?  Is
there anything written on this?

Thanks,

Eric

Rashi 27:2 explains "I do not know the day of my death" -- "if a person
approaches his parents age, he should worry (that he might die) -- five
years before [those ages] and five years afterwards, and Yitzchak was
123 years old, [and he] said, 'Perhaps I will reach the age of my mother,
she died at 127, so then I am within 5 years of her age...."

I'm sure someone must have written why, if Yitzchak was to worry, he
waited until he was 123, instead of 122, which is five years before.
(I am presuming, here, that tzaddikim do not wait to do mitzvahs, and
so Yitzchak would not wait even one day past his 122nd birthday. I am
also presuming that since tzaddikim live complete years, that Sarah died
on her 127th birthday, although this mightnot be a necessary presumption
for my question)

Thoughts?

-- Eric

With the recent revival of the question of kohanim travelling over
cemeteries in airplanes, I wanted to point out the R. Hershel Schachter
wrote an article on this in the 5745 Beis Yitzchak that was unfortunately
overshadowed by his other article in that volume about women's prayer
groups. The article was reprinted in BeIkvei Hatzon as chapter 35.

RHS argues, based on Tosafos in Eiruvin 45b, that once the airplane
reaches the clouds there is no problem. He then *suggests* that even
while taking off there is no problem. He posits a chakirah whether
the issur is for a kohen to become tameh or to come close to tumah.
In a beautiful manner, he argues for the latter and then *suggests*
that a kohen travelling in an airplane over a cemetery does not fall
within the issur. Ayen sham.

Gil Student

>[Micha Berger:]
>> The fear that saying "a gutten Shabbos" after pelag could mean he
>> was meqabeil Shabbos.

Shlomoh:
>1) Then why do they say it the whole day and not just the afternoon?
>2) Why say that and not just "hello" like the rest of the week?

I think this is because people forget why they say "a gutten Shabbos".
When we say this we are giving a blessing that the person should indeed
have a good Shabbos. This is perfectly appropriate to say any time on
friday. Instead, there is a tendency for people to put it in secular
terms, where we say good morning in the morning and good afternoon in
the afternoon.

mendel

In a message dated 11/12/01 4:03:53pm EST, Abaruch@lifebridgehealth.org writes:
> "Because most family minhaggim are rooted geographically in Ashkenazic
> community dynamics that no longer exist. These dynamics developed subtly
> over centuries."

> I've heard it said that "The Mishna Berura was written for yesomim"
> I suppose that one can make the case, that rov minyan ubinyan of Ashkenazi
> Jews post wwII could be considered yesomim...

Agreed in general

However there WERE communities that preserved themselves more or less
intact

And you also have to ask - was ther a Minhag America prior to WWII? And
if so why was it not adopted by immingrants?

KT
Rich Wolpoe

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


[ 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         ]