Avodah Mailing List

Volume 09 : Number 022

Tuesday, April 30 2002

• Re: Shaimos
• Re Shehechyonu in Sefirah
• Creation: Guided or controlled
• Sheimos
• Re: Creation: Guided or controlled
• Mekalel/Emor
• RE: kedoshim
• Re: Emor / blasphemer
• Re Shehechyonu in Sefirah
• Kaddish after Aleinu
• Yisgaddal/yisgaddel in qaddish
• Re: 'Hakodosh boruch Hu we love you - proper as lyrics to a song ?
• Re: 'Hakodosh boruch Hu we love you - proper as lyrics to a song ?
• Re: Zohar 'Hadash
• Rambam living in Mitzrayim
• RE: The Free Market and Creationism
• Re: Natural law and halacha
• Re: Segulot

RAM wrote:
> The "specific intent" of those who produce the parsha sheets is that people
> should use them for learning Torah, is it not? So what's the heter?

Sheimot is a technical halakhik term that is derived from the presence
of Hashem's Names or kinuyim in a document, not from the use of a
particular document. Thus, if the [arshah sheet doesn't become sheimot
with production, it doesn't turn into sheimot merely by being accessory
to a kiyum mitzvah. Thus, unles a user sanctified the sheet through
a ceremony that can confer the status of sheimot (I guess by writing a
sheim on it), it remains what it was.

However, accessories to mitzvot that have no inherent sanctity must
indeed be treated with respect (example: threads of tzitzit that got
ripped away) and discarded accordingly.

Git vokh,
Arie Folger

From: Elazar M Teitz remt@juno.com
> Why is it assumed by many that Shehecheyanu should not be said during
> S'firah?  It is not so.  .... It is explicit in the MB, 493:2, that
> Shehechayanu may be said.

Thanks to Rabbi Teitz for informing us of this MB (which I think many hadn't
noticed.)

However, AFAIK there is such a minhag in most communities.

So I looked up the Likutei Maharich.
He brings the Hadras Kodesh b'shem Sodei Rozo as well as Ikrei Hadat
as not to say.
However he adds that in all our sifrei minhogim, Maharil, Kolbo, Minhogim,
Levush and Tur and SA 'eyn shum remez mizeh'...

The sefer Minhag Yisroel Torah - [vol 2 p343] has a whole page on this
(including wearing a new malbush in Sefirah).
He also mentions the above sforim but adds "..ochein minhag ho'olom
shemachmirim b'zeh yesodosoy beharerey kodesh.." quoting the Leket Yosher,
Yosef Ometz, Minhogei Worms, Moed Kol Chay...

So the minhag not to say Shehechyonu is obviously not a recent 'chumrah'...

SBA

There is a long-standing debate in Jewish circles as to whether the
universe is guided by its Creator to a desired end, or is controlled to
its smallest detail. These very different perspectives are traditionally
phrased in terms of hashgacha clallit or pratit (general vs detailed
Divine supervision). As is well-known, the Rambam insists in his
Moreh that such supervision is general. Any closer supervision must
be merited by the individual or by circumstances. In contrast,

others - including the Ba'al Shem Tov, insist that G-D controls everything
down to the finest detail - except that free-will is allowed.

Micha has effectively come out in favor of the Rambam's approach.
I strongly second this position. If everything was "personally"
controlled by G-D, there would be little reason to expect predictablility
in "nature". Yet we find a great deal of predictability. The success
of scientists in arriving at precise mathematical predictions of the
detailed behavior of natural phenomena is a token of the truth of the
idea that G-D governs the universe primarily through fixed rules that
"He" has devised. Yet, those rules allow for some unpredictability
of the detailed behavior of elementary systems (quantum phenomena)
as well as detailed human behavior (free will). The existence of
the latter phenomena leads to the question of the nature or totality
of G-D's foreknowledge of events. I, personally, am comfortable with
the notion that the Creator does not have a total foreknowledge of how
living systems will behave. Rather,

the history of the planet earth is indicative of a series of Divine
experiments each of which was terminated at an appropriate time when
its full potential had been realized. The age of the dinosaurs is
a good example. These creatures dominated the planet for some 120
million years. They were ushered into the stage of earth history after
one cataclysmic event and died off during a later cataclysm - the impact
of a 10 kilometer asteroid 65.0 million years ago. Their origin and
demise exemplify Divine control, while their development and interaction
with other creations may indicate a measure of freedom. Do we really
wish to impute to G-D the law of the jungle?

Yitzchok Zlochower

I have a question on the actual burial of sheimos.  Generally sheimos are
buried in a cemetary.  Where can sheimos be buried.

Our shul has a considerable amount of seforim that have either smoke or
water damage that could not be fixed.  We were planning on taking them to
the cemetary, when someone suggest,  just put it in the hole that will be
dug prior to laying the slab for our new shul.  Would placing sheimos
under the slab of a shul be considered proper kevurah?

Harry J. Weiss
hjweiss@panix.com
Remember to Count the Omer
Go Kings

On Sun, Apr 28, 2002 at 11:22:49AM -0400, Isaac A Zlochower wrote:
:                 .... As is well-known, the Rambam insists in his
: Moreh that such supervision is general. Any closer supervision must
: be merited by the individual or by circumstances....

: Micha has effectively come out in favor of the Rambam's approach.

No I have not.

What I said was that halachah's position WRT the free market is consistant
with belief in creation via derech hatvah. That ma'aseh bereishis cold
have been a neis nistar, not necessarily a neis nigleh. But not pure
teva, as we seem not to have faith in order arising from chaos without
at least subtle guidance.

It is also consistant with beri'ah being a complete lem'alah min hatevah,
since one could say that the rules of ecomomics are such that converge
on order, but the laws of nature are not. Or, that while chaos /could/
arise spontaneously, HQBH chose not to. (That there is a Borei but
conceding that the argument by design is flawed.)

I said nothing about how Hashem runs the universe once the current level
of order was reached.

Second, the Rambam's approach isn't simply that hashgachah peratis
doesn't exist. It's that hashgachah is proportional to the person's
yedi'as Hashem.

Third, you seem to conflate the Rambam's notion that hashgachah is earned
and otherwise a person is left to teva with the Ohr Hachaim's position
that others' bechirah limits the hasgachah I recieve.

But in any case, your position is well beyond either.

: I strongly second this position. If everything was "personally"
: controlled by G-D, there would be little reason to expect predictablility
: in "nature"...

Not at all. HQBH could well tailor events within predictable guidelines.
The same issues you raise, quantum uncertainty and chaos theory, mean
that events can occur within the system and yet be tailored for a given
outcome. And that even on a statistical level, everything works to 50%
heads and 50% tails -- but WHO gets those heads?

The purpose of physics, in the worldviews of chassidus and mussar (and as
expounded upon by REED), is hester panim. Not that HQBH /doesn't/ control
every event, but that He hides the fact by allowing everything a 2nd
explanation that doesn't involve Him. But do you really think He couldn't
pull off having everything fit two sets of explanations simultaneously?

: "He" has devised. Yet, those rules allow for some unpredictability
: of the detailed behavior of elementary systems (quantum phenomena)
: as well as detailed human behavior (free will)...

However, free will isn't random either. You're still left with events
that physics can only predict statistically that you are saying aren't
truly random. In which case, the same could apply to hashgachah.

:                                   I, personally, am comfortable with
: the notion that the Creator does not have a total foreknowledge of how
: living systems will behave. ...

This is out and out kefirah. (I give myself a DNA for it, but I have
no emotional ability to put it any more mildly.) Check out the first of
the Rambam's ikkarim, or the first of R' Albo's.

Hakol tzafui vehareshus nesunah. You're not the first one to try to
resolve this apparant paradox. However, you can't do it by jetisonning
HQBH manhig es ha'olam.

Your position isn't logically sound either. I would agree that HQBH
doesn't know the future -- but only because I deny the notion that to
Him there is a future. The Borei is lema'alah min hazeman. The idea that
Hashem knows or doesn't know now what we'll do tomorrow is meaningless --
there is no way to connect HQBH to any particular *now*.

For similar reasons, I find deism to be logically unsound. From
Hashem's perspective, beri'ah happened in a manner unrelated to
time. Perhaps picturing a printing press printing a time-line is a good
metaphor. (Although that's creation of all of "history" in a moment --
and a moment is still a concept of time.) He couldn't have made the
world "and then" let it run on its own; for Hashem has no "and then".
Rather, in one Act he made all of history.

:                                                    Their origin and
: demise exemplify Divine control, while their development and interaction
: with other creations may indicate a measure of freedom.

Or, of a Divine Motive that we can not fathom.

Given what we've seen in the past century of history, I have absolutely
no confidence in your or my ability to 2nd-guess why He did things over
the broader time scale either.

In fact, RYBS makes a similar argument WRT parah adumah. Parah adumah
isn't the underlying choq -- death is.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 Today is the 32nd day, which is
micha@aishdas.org            4 weeks and 4 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org       Netzach sheb'Hod: What type of submission
Fax: (413) 403-9905                     really results in dominating others?

From: Sholom Simon <sholom@aishdas.org>
> Anyone have any ideas as to why the story of the blashphemer appears where
> it appears in sefer Vayikra?

the mefarshim answer that the lechem hapanim seemed to have moved the
person to be mekalel.What I find interesting is the other parshiot
intermingled within the mekale story. If I may offer my own thought.The
parsha concentrates on various pesulim and mumim in the Kohen requiring
him not to be invovled in the Avodah.The reason a mum can not officiate
in the Avodah is because the Baal Hakorban will focus on the mum in the
Kohen rather than the idea of teshuva the Avodah should inspire within
the individual. ......................

Nothing causes a person to Curse the KBHU more than Baalei MUmim in the
Beis Hamikdah, individuals who misrepresent the Torah to the hamon Am. I
know its drushie but a thought ....

Menachem Brick

R' Sholom Simon asked: "I noticed that in Acharei Mos and in Kedoshim,
there were a number of psukim that started with "ish ish". Can anyone
explain/elaborate/etc.?

 From the Torah Shleimah on one of the psukim of arayos - I forget which:

1. To include goyim (Sanhedrin 57b)

2. To punish a goy who has a relation with a Jewess with the punishment due to a Jew. (Yerushalmi Kidushin 1:1)

3. As a source for "ain dorshin b'arayos b'shlosho" (Chagiga 11b)

This will hopefully give you a head start.

- Danny

R' Sholom Simon asked:
> Anyone have any ideas as to why the story of the blasphemer appears
> where it appears in sefer Vayikra?

According to the Torah Shleimah:

1. To teach us that if an argument over a tent-placement has such dire
consequences, how much more so an argument over the Kehuna (the previous
topic). Quoted from the Lekach Tov.

2. The blasphemy was triggered after he ridiculed the fact that the
Cohanim ate 9 day old bread (the previous topic). Quoted from Vayirak
Rabba. (Also mentioned in Rashi).

According to my luach this happened in the year 2449 around 10 Iyar.

- Danny

From: "SBA" <sba@iprimus.com.au>
Subject: Re Shehechyonu in Sefirah
Message-ID: <00e901c1ee9c$a9132e80$33aafea9@andrew>

From: Elazar M Teitz remt@juno.com
>> Why is it assumed by many that Shehecheyanu should not be said during
>> S'firah?  It is not so.  .... It is explicit in the MB, 493:2, that
>> Shehechayanu may be said.

> So the minhag not to say Shehechyonu is obviously not a recent 'chumrah'...

The Nitei Gavriel also has a whole chapter on this subject and kedarkoy,
brings proof for both sides.

SBA

Today afetr minyan someone raised the point that even if there is no
yosom in shul, someone should say the Kaddish after Aleinu. This would
mean that even if the shliach tzibbur's parents are both alive,he should
still say the kaddish. I admit that I was a little surprised at this
since I've never seen it done, but a quick glance in the shulchan aruch
shows that this person is right. (with the one caveat that the parents
of the one saying kaddish are not makpid). My question is, is this done
anywhere and why is this not the prevelant minhag?

So much work and so little time to finish my long-promised work on
Kaddish. (Once a bochur came to R. Moshe Heinemann and was complaining
to him that his wife's parents were pressuring him to find a job and he
just wanted to sit and learn... R. Heinemann said, "well, what about me? I
just want to sit and learn also"... so if anyone wants to support someone
just learning for a year, I nominate myself for the recipient... after
R Heinemann, of course...)

But questions about kaddish keep coming up, and my roshei teivos are
even occasionally invoked, as in:

R. Micha Berger: <The Gra holds "Ysgdl vYsqdsh" should be nikud as in
Hebrew, as the Aramaic first word would be "Yisraba". He holds the first
two words are in Hebrew as they reference a pasuq in Yechezqel which
has HQBH promising the same (but in first "person").
The problem is that "Yisgadal" is valid in both languages, although Hebrew
has "Yisgadeil" as well. Hitpa'el could be either in older Hebrew, IIRC.
(RSM, help!)
The MB holds that the Gra meant "Yisgadeil veYisqadeish", as that's
the only nikud unique to Hebrew. However, as "Yisgadal veYisqadash"
is valid Hebrew as well, it's unclear why he'd choose one over the other.>

R. EM Teitz: <There are difficulties in understanding his opinion:
(a) the form with patachs is found in Hebrew as well, as in, e.g.,
"Va'eschanan" or "va'esnapal." Indeed, I've never heard anyone, in
Birchas Yotzer, saying "tisbareich tzureiny," or, in Shmoneh Esray,
"yisbareich v'yisromeim."
(b) The posuk the Gra quotes is neither a patach nor a tzeire:
"vhisgadilti v'hiskadishti."
Ironically, virtually all say "tiskabeil," even though the correct
Aramaic form is "tiskabal.">

Let me add my 6.2831853 cents (that used to be 2, but must round it up
due to inflation, and to round, you must use pi, of course...)

R. Micha, I believe, is quoting some things I once wrote and
said on qaddish, and therefore, of course, is by and large correct
<grin>. However, as I shall explain elsewhere, the reason of the Gra is
not that it must be Hebrew because otherwise it would be yisrabba. Rather,
he is totally basing himself on the view of Rashi, as brought down by
all of his talmidim, that those two words are Hebrew meant to echo the
pasuq in Y'hezqel.

Now, yisgaddel or yisqaddesh are indeed impossible forms in Aramaic. But,
as R. Micha and R. Teitz note, both yisgaddal and yisgaddel are correct
Hebrew, so why insist on yisgaddel? The G'ro could agree that the words
are Hebrew, and still say yisgaddal, and allow any sofeq of Hebrew
vs. Aramaic to remain unresolved.

Only part of the answer is that the G'ro wanted to stress that the
words are Hebrew. The other part is more complicated (giving me the
opportunity, of course, to send a long post and bore people). We have
yisgaddal and yisqaddash at the beginning of qaddish, and yisborakh,
yishtabbah, etc. after y'he sh'meh etc. But there are many possible
words meaning "praised," and indeed the current standard nusah was not
the only one around. Old nusha'ot of qaddish have "v'yitqallas" as one
of the words, and, as the Tur brings, there is also an old qabbolo
that there should only be 7 of the words (not 8, as is the standard
nusah nowadays) after y'he. Although I will defer to the mathematicians
among us to determine how many permutations there can possibly be of
the various Hebrew words for "praised" allocated to 9 slots in qaddish,
I know enough math myself to tell you the number is well north of 10
million. So why did Hazal choose gdl and qdsh for the first two words?

The first two words, we therefore conclude, are a deliberate echo of
the posuq in Y'hezqel, and not just chance. Even more, those two words
in Y'hezqel are vested with awesome significance by Hazal. They are
echoed dozens of times in davening as "gadol v'qadosh." Now that I
have mentioned this, I am sure list members can do a better job than
I in figuring out how many times Hazal used the phrase, and I will
leave that to others l'hisgadder bo, but I will mention that it is not
only confined to describing the Lord or His name, but also to "habbayis
haggadol v'haqqadosh." Ponder this phrase next time you bentch or daven
on Yontev, and you will see that it must represent something indeed
important in the eyes of Hazal.

And yet... the phrase does not occur even ONCE in the entire T'NaKh, the
closest being "ki gadol b'qirbekh Q'dosh Yisra'el" (which is certainly not
the source). So whence this common phrase? Also that posuq in Y'hezqel.
And the posuq in Y'hezqel is marked for significance by another feature:
the words are "wrong" according to diqduq. Although yisg-d-l in Hebrew
can be either yisgaddal or yisgaddel, in the perfect form (first or
second person) there is no option. Only hisgaddalti is correct. Yet
Y'hezqel uses the forms v'hisgaddilti v'hisqaddishti, as if he didn't
know Hebrew! Nowhere else do such forms with a hiriq occur in the perfect
of that binyan. I am not the Roqeah, who can summon up twenty different
allusions and mystical references in any phrase from davening. Nor do I
reach the ankles of RYBS, who could speak emotionally and movingly of
the significance of a single word or phrase to educe the meanings and
allusions hidden inside (as he was wont to do on his Motzaei Shabbos
shiurim in Boston). But in light of the evidence I have brought, it is
clear to me that indeed Hazal in qaddish are alluding to something of
great significance in the posuq, and alluding to it especially in one of
the two things that keeps the world in existence nowadays, according to
the g'moro in Sotah. To make clear the allusion, the G'ro felt you must
change the vowel in the two initial words in qaddish to the e/i used by
Y'hezqel, and it is possible that Rashi himself agreed (I saw a mss. once
where copyist had vocalized the words as yisgaddel in Rashi himself).

OTOH, it is unquestionable that the nusah of K'lal Yisro'el was
yisgaddal and yisqaddash. Not only did it used to be so vocalised
in printed Ashk'naz siddurim, it is clearly vocalized that way in
every old Ashk'naz manuscript I have ever seen (and I have seen many;
if Rashi did say yisgaddel, such a nusach did not survive in any ms. I
have seen). And S'faradim and Teimanim never changed it: it is still
yitgaddal (or yithgaddal) in their siddurim. One of the few things that
all of K'lal Yisroel agreed on has therefore been rent asunder by the
super-frum modern Ashk'naz siddurim.

As far a tisqabbel goes, which as REM Teitz notes, is clearly impossibel
in Aramaic, and even Rashi agreed this word is Aramaic, nor did the Vilner
Gaon or anybody say it with a tzere: it is plain and poshut an error. An
error foisted upon people by R. Zalman Henau, in his zeal to prove that
he knew more about Hebrew than Hazal. Although RZH's emendations to the
siddur were accepted by none of the g'dolim of his time, and roundly
denounced by many, that did not deter the printers from using them, so
that they could sell new siddurim by claiming they were "iberzetzt un
farbessert," i.e. new and improved. How can you improve something that
has been around since the time of Hazal? Easy. Add new material which
Hazal never said, and change the nusach because some m'lammed tinoqos
said so... For someone to be maqpid to say yisgaddel but to say tisqabbal
is ridiculous, and a tartei d'sasrei.

R. Danny Schoemann asks about: <can somebody try explain a Nusach I hear
every so often:
YisborEIch v'yistabAch v'yispoEIr v'yisromAn v'yisnasEI v'yishadAr
v'yisalEI vyishalAl shmEI. IIRC they also start with yisgadEIl
v'yiskadAsh shmEI...> This has nothing to do with the opinion of Rashi,
nor the Vilner Gaon, nor even grammar. Rather, in the Ari's qabbolo, the
vowel forms have mystical significance. (Anyone who has used a S'faradi
siddur will have seen the Name yod ke vov ke sometimes with 4 pasahs,
sometime with 4 segols, etc; each representing something else according
to qabbolo.) I will not go into explaining the qabbolo on this list,
but will say that according to the m'qubbalim, all the 9-10 praises in
Qaddish should have a tzere under them. This does not necessarily mean
that they should be pronounced that way: some m'qubbalim held that you
have kavvono for the tzere, not necessarily say it.

But once they were printed in the several siddurim that purported to be
nusah Ho'Ari printed at the beginning of the 19th century, many people
who aspired to be ba'alei qabbolo started using these forms. But they
were never used by the Vilner Gaon nor his talmidim, nor are they an
old nusah, nor are they proper Hebrew or Aramaic.

So the old nusach Ashk'naz and nusach S'farad, and nusach Teiman
all agree that it was yisgaddal, yisborakh, tisqabbal etc. However,
the Vilner Gaon was maqpid on some other things in qaddish, besides
yisgaddel. His insistence that kir'useh be said with a hard kof, not
khir'useh as many siddurim have it (though not necessarily the mss)
is an issue that can potentially change the meaning. And his following
the opinion mentioned in the Tur that yishallal (again, yishallol and
yishaddor with a qomatz are both just mistakes introduced by RZH) be
omitted, although not changing the meaning, certainly alters the mystical
symbolism central to qaddish. So what I will say is that someone who is
maqpid to say yisgaddel, but says khir'useh and yishallal, is saying
qaddish properly according to no one. It is not in accordance with
ancient minhog Ashk'naz (nor S'farad, nor Teiman), and the Vilner Gaon
would castigate this person, pointing out that he is tofes the tofel
(yisgaddel) but abandons the 'iqar, things which are really important
to this most gadol and qadosh of prayers.

Since most people have stopped reading already, I will bore the few
remaining masochists with a pet peeve. Namely, how people behave during
qaddish. Since it has become (Hashem yishmor) a prayer for the dead
in many people's eyes, even the people who stand for it in accordance
with an Ashk'naz practice think nothing of walking around and not paying
attention. I will remind people that the mandatory qaddishes (i.e. not
the ones the avelim say, but the ones that Shatz says) are part of the
t'filla, at least one is crucially important to the world's existence,
and are all d'vorim shebiqdusha that require 10 people LISTENING and
being quiet. And if you stand (S'faradim don't and many Ashk'nazim did
not either in ancient times), you should stand as for q'dusha and not
walk around. If you sit, you should sit at attention and pay attention
to the holy words. As for the avelim who rush through qaddish and mumble
as if they really disliked their parents and wanted to get the dirty work
over with quickly, I will leave kvetching about that for another occasion.

So let the preceeding be a downpayment on my obligation.

Seth Mandel
All rights reserved 2002.

Mordechai wrote:
>I have recently noticed, in recorded music (in Hebrew, Yiddish and perhaps
>English too) and on a bumper sticker, the lyrics / words 'Hakodosh boruch Hu
>we love you'.

>I was wondering - do we find such a type of formulation in classical 
>sources?

>Is it proper to sing / say something like that out loud or should it be, like
>a spousal or other declaration of love, better / properly left for more
>private moments and situations?

Rambam writes in Sefer HaMitzvos, aseh 3 that one's love of Hashem should be 
like one's love for a person which includes statements of love and trying to 
get others to love Him as well.

Gil Student

From: "Gil Student" <gil_student@hotmail.com>
>Mordechai wrote:
>>I have recently noticed, in recorded music (in Hebrew, Yiddish and perhaps
>>English too) and on a bumper sticker, the lyrics / words 'Hakodosh boruch 
>>Hu we love you'.
...
>>Is it proper to sing / say something like that out loud or should it be, like
>>a spousal or other declaration of love, better / properly left for more
>>private moments and situations?

>Rambam writes in Sefer HaMitzvos, aseh 3 that one's love of Hashem should 
>be like one's love for a person which includes statements of love and 
>trying to get others to love Him as well.

What R. Gil writes is true, but the Rambam also himself differentiates
different ways of saying things. Statements that draw others closer to
the love of HQB'H are indeed part of the mitzva, but a statement such as
"I love God" does not fulfill the mitzva, any more than "I love my wife"
will make others love her. Indeed, depending on circumstances, it may
be viewed as exhibitionist or showing off.

In addition, as I noted in a discussion about the 13 Principles, the
Rambam holds that just saying things is not only worthless, it may be
contrary to the purpose, which is to inculcate an internal belief and
understanding, not to recite a catechism.

 From my perspective, singing "we love HQB'H" would be equivalent
to singing "we want moshiach now," and would fall in the category of
things that the Rambam would condemn. Saying "we love HQB'H," OTOH,
may be desirable and at worst probably harmless -- depending on the
circumstances.

Seth Mandel

I checked the EJ over Shabbos. It says that the ZH consists of those
parts of the Safedian Zohar manuscripts which did not make it into the
Mantua edition of the Zohar.

Arie Folger wrote:
> Reb Feldman, Mark wrote:
>>  For example, is the concept of gigulim ancient?

> There are three topics here: survival of the soul possibly coupled with
> physical reincarnation in the future (ancient, basically t'hiyat hameitim),
> repeated reincarnation of a single soul, nowadys, into another human body
> (disputable. rav Sa'adyah Gaon says it's import, but it may be ancient. The
> record is spotty),

These are certainly in Plato and probably in Pythagoras (Menashe ben
Yisrael cites this as support for his assertion that Pythagoras was
Jewish!). The hard question is whether there is any ancient Jewish
reference. The earliest explicit mention I know os Saadya, and he
rejects the idea that it has any jewish source.

David Riceman

A chaver of mine asked me to post the following question to Avodah:
> I have heard that the Rambam, while in Egypt, would sign his letters, "ani
> moshe ben maimon, over b'gimmel lavin bechol yom".  Can anyone verify that
> this actually happened?  Has anyone ever seen it in print?

I heard a tape from R' Yisroel Reisman a while ago about the isur of
living in Egypt and he also mentioned the Rambam's "signature line."
IIRC, R' Reisman quoted a sefer which said that the whole thing is a myth,
and that he (the machaber of the sefer) had never seen the Rambam sign
his letters in such a way. I'm not sure, but I think that R' Reisman
concluded that there were at least a few letters from the Rambam with
that language, and R' Reisman spent the rest of the shiur trying to
explain how the Rambam could, in fact, live in Eqypt.

The easy answer is that it was a matter of pikuach nefesh. Other possible
answers:

1) that the isur is to "return to Egypt in the manner that the Jews
left Eqypt." Thus, only if a person were to travel from Israel to Egypt
does the isur apply. (R' Reisman then explained that this answer doesn't
help for the Rambam, because of how the Rambam paskens.)

2) the isur only applies when the Jewish people are living together
in Israel, but now that we are scattered about the globe in galus, the
isur doesn't apply. (R' Reisman then explained that this answer also
doesn't help for the Rambam personally.)

All that being said, does have any additional information that I can pass
on to my friend, specifically WRT to the Rambam's signature line? Thanks.

KT
Aryeh

From: Micha Berger [mailto:micha@aishdas.org]
> In all three cases, we do not pin the market, we give it freedom within
> a limited range.

> (OTOH, calling charity "tzedaqah" implies that redistribution of wealth
> is justice, not beyond the call of duty, chessed. I have no idea what
> to do with this, particularly since it's part of a more general category
> that /is/ called gemillus chassadim.)

I don't see the stirah to the prior three cases.  Tzedakah does not imply
complete redistribution of wealth (a la communism) but merely amelioration
of the more severe conditions of poverty.  The ideal form of tzedakah is not
the handout but a loan to put a person on his two feet.  In his book "In the
Marketplace," Dr. Meir Tamari proposes that Judaism does not support the
concept of the welfare state, just compassionate capitalism.

So tzedakah is consistent with the model of freedom within a range.

Kol tuv,
Moshe

On Fri, Apr 26, 2002 at 09:36:13AM -0400, RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com wrote:
: IOW, Din can be any physical manifestation of power such as electrical or
: nuclear or forms of kdusha in which a person is insufficiently insultated

The opening words of Nefesh Hachaim define "E-lokim" as Master of kochos.

-mi

I wrote:
>: Turn back to my complete post; you will see that I used Rambam's position
>: to force you to fit segulot according to the
>: believers-in-black-magic-who-aren't-convinced-by-science shittah. Rambam
>: was cited to demonstrate what the result of going down Science Avenue
>: is....

RMB replied:
> And yet, the Rambam didn't win. Even (...) the Gra and RSRH
> (...) reject the Rambam's choosing what was then theory over ma'amarei
> chazal.

> The Rambam's was one possible result. We generally believe that when
> ma'amrei chazal contradict observation, some way to be mehasheiv them
> must exist.

Shtei tshuvot badavar:

Either we have come to the conclusion that the evidence against "folksy"
interpretations of kishuf are wrong, and Rambam was right and either
we take rav Avraham ben haRambam's lead and proclaim that we can't be
meyashev and that's OK, because yadda yadda, OR

We are meyashev that there is kishuf, segulah is white magic, and since
you can achieve the same results without recourse to emunah (using kishuf)
there is no insult to be'hirah 'hofshit. Only problem is, get me a couple
of mekhashfim here NOW so that we can conduct a double blind controlled
trial and figure out if it works.

Save that test, we'll have to add nishtaneh hatev'a, in that since
kishuf disappeared with the advent of scientific man (meaning it really
disappeared even though it really existed once upon a time) and no longer
works. This, of course, would prompt the question whether segulah of
the kind we are discussing would still work now that kishuf (acc. to
this cosmogony) is gone.

Arie Folger

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


[ 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         ]