Avodah Mailing List

Volume 11 : Number 042

Monday, July 21 2003

• Re: Saying alenu with the tzibbur
• Re: hard cheese
• re: Hard Cheeses
• Noachides (was: Conversion)
• Re: Words that have changed meanings
• changing Hebrew
• Re: Mishebeirachs: mentioning name of person needing Refuah
• To: Avodah - High Level Torah Discussion Group
• Re: Self-Awareness
• Aleinu
• Re: changing Hebrew
• Re: blood on the Temple floor
• Dvai Hasseir
• Re: Conversion
• Re: Gilgul
• Quick Lesson By Example From Rabbi Lubchanski
• Re: blood on the Temple floor
• Re: The Culture Wars: Jews Among the Nations

In a message dated 7/17/2003 3:56:21 PM EDT, kennethgmiller@juno.com writes:
> Know that there are those who want to say that anything that the
> tzibur says - like Tehila l'David - is answered with them (MA 3). We
> don't do that, except for by "Shema Yisrael", and in Aleinu when we say
> "Vaanachnu kor'im" one has to bow with them just like at Modim, so that
> it shouldn't appear that the whole people is bowing and he's not bowing.
> And some have the minhag to also say Aleinu along with the tzibur.

The original reason for my interest was why wouldn't nefilat apaim be similar 
to modim and why wouldn't kedusha of uva ltzion be included?  I rationalized 
ashrei based on its importance in gemora brachot maybe they did say it out 
together.

KT
Joel Rich

Rav Heinemann, talking to some people after a shiur he gave in Brooklyn
two summers ago, quoted his rebbe. R.Aharon Kotler zt'l as saying that
a hard cheese which requires a 6- hr. waiting period is only one which
cannot be cut with a knife, and can only be grated.

I heard that at least in Israel where you can get kosher Parmesan cheese,
this type of cheese is the only one that may have the halacha of hard
cheese vis a vis waiting between meals.

Josh

R' Micha Berger wrote <<< Unless you know of a community of descendents
of Og, every community is Noachide. Belashon chazal, a ben Noach is
anyone who isn't a ben Yisrael, ... Historically, the question was
whether a member of some religious group qualified as a S7MBN. Such as
the Rambam's discussion of Islam or RYEmden on early Christianity. The
idea of Noachidism as a religion or religious community was not raised
until relatively recently. >>>

I suggest that we try to keep the two terms separate and disctinct,
and not use them as translations of each other:

 - A "ben Noach" is anyone who is neither Jewish nor descended from Og,
whether he observes the 7MBN or not.

 - A "Noachide" is one who has made a specific and conscious decision to
observe the 7MBN, and to do so l'Shem Shamayim for the specific reason
that G-d wants them to. They are organized into groups for the specific
purpose of giving chizuk to each other, and for learning the details
of these laws, as interpreted (not by them but) by the *Rabbis*. (see,
for example, http://tinyurl.com/haaz)

My understanding is that those authorities held that those groups did
not constitute Avodah Zara. That is NOT the same thing as holding that
they qualify as Shomer 7MBN.

I understand that there is a machlokes on whether or not an ethical
Ben Noach gets s'char for his actions which happen to be in accord with
the 7MBN, even though the 7MBN are not his motive. But even according
to those who answer in the affirmative, I believe that it is an error
to say that "An observant member of Religion ABC qualifies as a Shomer
Sheva Mitzvos Bnei Noach".

My reasoning lies in Ever Min Hachai. The other six mitzvos might indeed
be found in other religions, but not this one. It is a real "ritual law"
of sorts, incumbent upon Bnei Noach, but not found in any religion that
I'm aware of. There may be religions which have some form of anti-Tzaar
Baalei Chayim concept, but what will happen when a hunter sets a leg trap
for an animal, and comes back to find that the trap caught an animal, but
it was in such pain that it chewed the leg off and crawled away? Can the
hunter eat this abandoned leg or not? There may be a "yuck" factor which
prevents him from eating it, but Tzaar Baalei Chayim certainly won't.

The animal has long since left, and could very well still be alive. Ever
Min Hachai says not to eat that leg. But no religion other than the Bnei
Noach would prohibit it.

So when R' Micha finishs up his post with <<< So, if a Christian
approaches you with this dilemma, do you need to find him a Noachide
community? Or, do you simply need to help him find a church that conforms
to the 7 mitzvos (beli cheshash shutfus)? >>>,

it seems obvious to me that you should point out the differences between
being an adherent of a religion which avoids Avodah Zara (which truly
is a good thing, and Dayenu if he chooses this option) or belonging to
a group which believes that The G-d Of The Jews cares about the non-Jews
as well, and has specific goals which He wants them to aim for too.

Akiva Miller

R' Gil Student wrote <<< Keep in mind that the Torah Temimah was an
advocate of Modern Hebrew (or whatever was being discussed at the time
that would eventually become Modern Hebrew) and used these as proofs
that the language can change over time and be modernized. >>>

I am not aware of anyone who opposes this view. We've discussed many
times how the language changed from Chumash times to Navi times.

Or at least, it's pretty clear to *me* that grammar and usage changed
over those years. At the very least, one can easily find words which are
common in Navi, and relatively rare or missing in Chumash even though
there are many contexts where Chumash *could* have used those words. (The
example which jumps to my mind the most is alef-yod-nun.)

Am I misunderstanding something here? Did someone suggest that the
language *cannot* change over time nor be modernized?

(Plenty of people said it *shouldn't* be, but did anyone say it *can't*
be?)

Akiva Miller

> Keep in mind that the Torah Temimah was an advocate of Modern Hebrew
> (or whatever was being discussed at the time that would eventually
> become Modern Hebrew) and used these as proofs that the language can
> change over time and be modernized.

Ignoring any modern politics does anyone disagree that words in Mishnaic
Hebrew are sometimes different than thir biblical equivalents.

In megilat Esther Rov means many not most (Rov Banav)

Eli Turkel

From: "Micha Berger" <micha@aishdas.org>
> Obviously HQBH doesn't need the name to know who you're asking for.
> Rather, it's an aid for kavanah. In addition, bothering to get that name
> is itself a chessed, whose zechuyos work toward the favor.

SA OC 119:1 - The Mogen Avrohom, the MB as well as the Be'er Heitev
[b'shem Maharil] bring the gemoro in Brochos 34a - that if one is
mispallel for his chaver he need not mention his name.

However, that is only 'befonov' [as was the case when Moshe Rabbenu said
"Keil no refo no lo' in the presence of Miriam], however 'shelo befonov'
the name must be mentioned.

Another difference between 'befonov' and 'sheloy befonov' is that befonov
one can pray in any language - not so 'sheloy befonov' - when it must
be only in Loshon Hakodesh [YD 335]

And regarding our discussion about time taken up by 'Misheberach's
Lecholim', according to the Shach [YD 335:10:10] - one should NOT make
these MBs on Shabbos and YT.
See the Nosei Keilim OC 288 - who allow it - but ONLY in case of a 'choleh
mesuken' and not otherwise. [The MB there seems to contradict itself.]

And a nice pshat from the Chasam Sofer z'l [TM Toldos, p.93] on
Vaye'etarYitzchok leNochach Ishtoy.

The CS asks why is it necessary to tell us that he was mispalell
"lenochach ishtoy"?

He answers - that the Torah has just told us the yichus of Rivko [bas
Besuel Ho'arami and that family of reshoim]. Citing the above Mogen
Avrohom [that when not in the presence of the choleh one must state
the name], Yitzchok was afraid that any mention of Rivko's parentage -
rather than help, would be a kitrug and not be beneficial to his request.

Therefore he davvened "lenochach ishtoy" - eliminating the need to
mention any names.

VPChCh.
SBA

RnTK:
>Somewhere or other--supply reference for me please--it says that if
>someone taught you one halacha or even one letter of Torah, he is like
>your rebbe

Avos Ch 6 Mishna 3

Gut Shabbos,
Shlomo Goldstein

Micha Berger wrote:
>Pretty central to the Rambam's theology is that HQBH knows Himself
>and is that Knowledge (Yesodei 2:10).

>I realized during the commute home that this gives a whole vehalakhta
>bidrachav imperative to hislamdus and cheshbon hanefesh.

RYBS made the point that after each day of creation HKBH looked back
at the day and evaluated it (va-yar Elokim ki tov). From ve-halachta
bidrachav we learn that we too should be looking back at our actions
and evaluating them (i.e. cheshbon ha-nefesh).

Gil Student

Akiva Miller wrote:
> Clutching at straws, I began to wonder if the Acharonim chanted Ashrei
> in unison like I did in Talmud Torah. Or if they sang Alenu every day,
> like we do on Shabbos morning. Any other thoughts?

The Sephardim to this day say all of P'sukei D'zimra together out loud.

M. Levin

In a message dated 7/18/03 1:30:25 PM EDT, turkel@math.tau.ac.il writes:
> In megilat Esther Rov means many not most (Rov Banav)

Even in the Torah Breishis 33:9.

Kol Tuv,
Yitzchok Zirkind

Eli Turkel said:
> In a recent daf yomi (Zevachim 35) the sages state that on erev Pesach the
> blood on the floor of the Temple reached the priests knees. To bring the
> wood to the alter they walked through the blood to show their love of G-d
> and their service. For other avodahs they walked on high stones so that the
> blood would not be a chatzizah and soil their clothing.
>
> I am puzzled by several aspects of this gemara.

Another problem:

How do you do kisui hadam when you're shechting over a huge pool of blood?

...
> Where were the animals schected on high ground or on the bloody floor?

Well, a keves is a small animal. Knee high on a kohein would drown
one, no?

I would come to the same conclusion I presume RET is hinting at... the art
of guzma didn't end with the nevi'im. There was some dam, the discussion
of chatzitzah could be literal.

So, given that this is an aggadita I was disinclined to take literally,
what's a possible nimshal?

The dam of the qorban pesach is a means of asking for yeshu'ah, as per
the first Pesach. I don't know about during bayis sheini, but at the
time those words were written, what was holding up yeshu'ah as sin'as
chinam. The dam was ad arkevosehem, milashon rekhev, knees are being
referred to as a means of motion. They are reffered to as "benei Aharon",
not the more usual, and shorter, "kohanim". We know what a ben Aharon
runs to, shalom -- thereby healing the sin'as chinam.

:-)BBii
-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"

Anyone know how and why Devai Haseir, which has to do with removing
tragedy, got associated with weddings?

 From straight pashut peshat, it seems more fitting for the 3 weeks!

Gut Voch!
-mi

R David Riceman said:
>> Second: Historically, the question was whether a member of some religious
>> group qualified as a S7MBN. Such as the Rambam's discussion of Islam or
>> RYEmden on early Christianity. The idea of Noachidism as a religion or
>> religious community was not raised until relatively recently.

> Again I refer you to Professor Feldman's book. He claims there were such
> communities in the Roman Empire both pre-hurban habayith and during the
> Rabbinic period.

> I agree that there were no such communities during the times of the Rishonim
> (though one can quibble about the Mandaeans).

My question wasn't about the existance of the community, but the halachic
discussion. Yes, in the Roman empire, if someone wanted to be a S7MBN, than
being a Noachide (taking RAM's terminology) would have been the only choice.

R Akiva Miller writes:
> My understanding is that those authorities held that those groups did not
> constitute Avodah Zara. That is NOT the same thing as holding that they
> qualify as Shomer 7MBN.

RYEmden discusses (Seder Olam Rabba Zuta; oxymoron as that title is) the early
Christians as a S7MBN community. He discusses issues of arayos in Acts and 1
Cor., as one example pretty early on.

A google search can find you numerous S7MBN Christian (written in full, just
to prove I have no problem with the idea) churches who do so qua "Noachide
Law".

:-)BBii
-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"

RMLevin writes:
> Someone has posted a reference to Gro's shitah in gilgul.
>
> He seems to hold that nefesh and ruach do not descend in gilugl but die with
> each body (Tikkunei Zohar Chadash 38,2, See also commentary to Yonah 1,6)).

Not how I understood him at all, based on his comments on Yonah and on
his invaluable Peirush al Qama Aggados. I'm not up to Mishlei 14 yet,
but will be soon. The latter spells out his anatomy for the soul, and
therefore invaluable in this conversaion.

The nefesh dies, the ru'ach goes to olam ha'emes, and the neshamah may
go to olam ha'emes as well, or be nisgalgeil if needed.

> The implicatons of this for personal immortality are substantial. I always
> wondered why personal preferences, such as liking eggs for breakfast, and
> also most other personal defining characteristics that arose in response to
> particular temporal events and circumstances, deserve to survive eternally.

Leshitaso, the nefesh is beheimis, and the ru'ach is where bechirah,
machshavah, etc... reside.

So, as I understood him, leshitaso, preferences that are not the effects
of living in a mammal's brain do survive eternally (which probably
excludes tastes in food), despite the fact that they are not nisgalgelim.

:-)BBii
-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"

During the Second World War, when Rabbi Yisroel Yaakov Lubchanski
was incarcerated in the ghetto, his face constantly shined with joy.
Wherever he went, he spread words of encouragement and hope.

Rabbi Ephraim Oshry asked him how he could be so happy when the situation
was so grim.

Rabbi Lubchanski replied, "By nature I am easily frightened. Why should
others have to suffer from my fears? I exert myself to remove any signs
of fear so I should not cause anyone else to be afraid."

SOURCE: HaMeoros HaGedolim, page 401, as quoted in: Gateway To Happiness,
by Rabbi Zelig Pliskin, page 26, 1983.

BIOGRAPHICAL NOTE:
Rabbi Yisroel Yaakov Lubchanski (Orthodox) was born in the city of
Baranovitch (Lithuania), where his father served as Rabbi. He studied
in the Nevardok Yeshivah (in Belurus) and became son-in-law of Rabbi
Yosef Y. Hurwitz, the Rosh HaYeshivah (principal).

He was Menahel Ruchani (spiritual mentor) in the Baranovitch Yeshivah
of the famous Rabbi Elchonon Wasserman. He died in the year 1941 of
the Common Era.

At 05:41 PM 7/18/03 -0400, Micha Berger wrote:
>Eli Turkel said:
> > In a recent daf yomi (Zevachim 35) the sages state that on erev Pesach the
> > blood on the floor of the Temple reached the priests knees. To bring the
> > wood to the alter they walked through the blood to show their love of G-d
> > and their service. For other avodahs they walked on high stones so that the
> > blood would not be a chatzizah and soil their clothing.
> >
> > I am puzzled by several aspects of this gemara.
>
>Another problem:
>
>How do you do kisui hadam when you're shechting over a huge pool of blood?

No kisui ha'dam on beheimos. Neither on ofos, if you're doing melikah. 

>> I know of Kol Yisroel Areivim zeh lozeh, but where is our responsibility
>> to non Jew from?

>1. "Ve'avorcha mevorachecha...venivrachu vecha kol mishpechos ha'adamah."
>Hashem's blessing to those who are good to us implies that WE have a
>duty to be good to those who are good to us.

All that it shows is that Hashem loves us and cares about us. Where does
it show a general obligation to goyim?

>2. "Mamleches kohanim vegoy kadosh" implies that we stand in relation
>to the rest of the nations of the world as kohanim to other shevatim.

Rashi translates kohanim as 'princes'. We are to be the princes of the
world. We work for no-one else.

>5. Messianic statements in Tanach about how the whole world will one
>day be filled with the knowledge of Hashem, implying that Hashem cares
>about all the people in the world, not only the Jews.

That's right. He does. but I don't have to.

>6. Avraham davening for Sedom, Yonah being sent to Nineveh, the angels
>at the Yam Suf being told not to sing shira while Egyptians were dying,
>etc, etc, etc. Again, the message conveyed throughout our literature is
>that Jews care about ALL of G-d's creatures.

Same again. Hashem cares about his creations ( as he says explicitly to
Yonah). But where does it show that I have to care at all?

If anything, the fact that Kol YISROEL areivim.. means them and no-one
else.

I will admit that while it may be correct to care for non-jews (if Hashem
does it must be a good thing) but I see no responsibility to do so.

Akiva B.

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


[ 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         ]