Avodah Mailing List

Volume 14 : Number 011

Wednesday, October 13 2004

• Fwd: Noach/Giving/MLLN-IndianSheitlachPart1
• Less than a kezayis of bread
• Re: Balancing Machshavah Amuqah and Emunah Peshutah
• Re: Sefer Zochiyos
• Re: Less than a kezayis of bread
• Re: Balancing Machshavah Amuqah and Emunah Peshutah
• Re: Balancing Machshavah Amuqah and Emunah Peshutah
• Ramban on Creation, again (was: long list)
• Re: Dinosaurs = 'ha'tanninim ha'gedolim'?
• Re: Charcoal barbeque on Hag
• Re: Balancing Machshavah Amuqah and Emunah Peshutah
• Re: Torah as allegory
• Re: "Chazeres
• Re: Researchers Track Humans to Common Ancestor
• Re: linguistic norm
• Re: linguistic norm
• Re: Sefer Zochiyos
• Re: Torah as Allegory

Remember when we discussed the point below - one of our chaverim even
berated me offline for befuddling the oilem with what he critiqued as
essentially toras sheker. Well, look who gave a shiur on said point!

>From: "Reuven Ungar" <reuvenu@hotmail.com>

>BSD

>Weekly Sha'alvim Alumni Torahletter
>Not Receiving Benefit from Mitzvoth- MLLN/(Indian Sheitlach) Part 1
>A shiur from Rav Yechezkel Yakobson, Rosh Yeshivat Sha'alvim.

>Recently a halachic uproar ensued when it was discovered that wigs 
>manufactured in India may have been involved in idolatrous practices. This 
>would confer the status of tikrovet avoda zara on these items, 
>consequently being prohibited to derive benefit (hana'ah) from them. This 
>discovery led to bonfires to eradicate these wigs.

>Perhaps there was no necessity to eliminate these items. There is a 
>halachic concept that the performance of a mitzvah is not considered a 
>benefit- mitzvoth lav lehanot nitnu (MLLN). A woman may claim that she 
>would prefer to leave her home bareheaded. The halachic obligation to 
>cover her hair outside of her home motivates her to don a wig. Thus, 
>because MLLN she is not deriving benefit from the wig. The fact that it 
>may very well be tikrovet avoda zara would be rendered irrelevant, as she 
>is not deriving benefit from it.

>Is this a valid halachic claim? We must analyze the principles of MLLN to 
>approach this question.

>The gemara (Masechet Sukkot 31b) states that a Lulav that originates from 
>an ashera (idolatrous tree) is disqualified from use; this stems from the 
>fact that it is slated for destruction and does not contain the minimum 
>length required to fulfill the mitzvah. When it is not designated for 
>obliteration the lulav should not be used (lechatchila) due to the 
>repulsive nature of idolatry; however if used, one has fulfilled his 
>obligation (bedieved). One however, is forbidden to derive benefit from 
>such a lulav! Rashi comments that MLLN removes this objection. What logic 
>governs this principle?

>Rashi explains that an individual who fulfills a mitzvah is essentially a 
>servant ministering to his master. The individual does not receive benefit 
>from such an act. The Rosh and the Ran (in Masechet Nedarim) both comment 
>that the mitzvah act itself does not generate benefit.

>The Ritva raises the following objection: One who performs a mitzvah is 
>rewarded in this (temporal) world and in the (spiritual) world to come? 
>Does this not constitute benefit and contradict the principle of MLLN?

Yesterday, I discovered yet another friend who thought that if one eats
less than a kezayis of bread, plus enough other food to be satisfied,
that's enough to say Birkas HaMazon on.

That is clearly not the view of Rav Moshe Feinstein in Igros Moshe O"C
4:41, who writes that in such a case, not only can one not say Birkas
HaMazon, but that one makes all the individual brachos rishonos and
acharonos as appropriate for whatever non-bread food he ate. I think
that this is also the view of the Magen Avraham 177:1.

Does anyone know of a posek who explicitly says that hamotzi and benching
*will* cover the rest of the food even if one ate less than a kezayis
of bread?

Akiva Miller

In response to my post suggesting Rashi refrained from philosophical
speculation on principle, RMB pointed out that Rashi's writings were
not limited to commentaries; there are piyyutim attributed to Rashi.
If anything, I believe that this observation strengthens my point;
despite the fact that Rashi engaged in original creative composition,
in addition to his principal efforts in the field of commentary, we find
AFAIK no philosophical writings from Rashi.

Rich Wolpoe Richard_Wolpoe@alumnimail.yu.edu wrote
>I don't know the sum of Rashi's haskafos but certain Hashkofos are
>very apparent throughout his peirush on the Torah. E.G. The first Rashi
>gives a strong hint at his view that Eretz Yisroel is central to Judaism.

I by no means meant to imply that Rashi had no hashkafa, a patently
untenable position. My comment refers to explicit discussion of
philosophical concepts, which I believe is missing from Rashi's work;
I speculate that this was done purposely

I wish to extend my comment about Rashi's lack of philosophical
writings to the entire Franco-German school. During the time period
in which Emunot V'Deot, the Kuzari, Moreh Nevuchim and the Ramban's
commentary on the Torah were written in Spain and Egypt, what work of a
philosophical nature was written in France and Germany? I believe that
the main reason for this situation was the lack of stimulus from the
surrounding, basically primitive, culture, but I wonder if this explains
the phenomenon completely. It seems clear that philosophical speculation
was not part of the agenda of Franco-German Jewry, and I believe that
there was a belief that such speculation was not fruitful.

Putting this idea in contemporary terms, I think that intellectually,
RYBS would rather have lived in the Spain of the early Middle Ages than
in Germany; I think that his uncle would have preferred Germany.

In this respect, the Sefer Chassidim of R. Yehuda ha-Chasid was a
groundbreaking work, as indeed German Chassidism was a revolutionary
movement, similar in some interesting ways to the Chassidic movement of
the Baal Shem Tov some 400 years later. Although clearly very different
from the philosophical works mentioned above, Sefer Chassidim is a major
work of Jewish thought, which presents a profound hashkafa in an explicit
and consistent manner. I believe that this was an explicit departure from
the Franco-German tradition of the time, reflecting the dissatisfaction
of the German Chassidim with the current intellectual status-quo.

Saul Mashbaum

SBA <sba@iprimus.com.au> wrote:
> From: "Avraham Bronstein" <avraham@thebronsteins.com>
>> Is it also possible that "sefer zechiyos" means "the book of the
>> innocents," based on zakhai being opposed to chayuv in a court context?

> Possibly [I am no expert on language]. But the question remains - how
> can one ask to be inscribed in such a book - if he is not innocent?
> [And if he is - he'll get listed anyway...]

You didn't like my take on this question? It answers it.

HM

In a message dated 10/10/2004 5:06:33pm EDT, kennethgmiller@juno.com writes:
> Yesterday, I discovered yet another friend who thought that if one eats
> less than a kezayis of bread, plus enough other food to be satisfied,
> that's enough to say Birkas HaMazon on.

> That is clearly not the view of Rav Moshe Feinstein in Igros Moshe O"C
> 4:41, who writes that in such a case, not only can one not say Birkas
> HaMazon...

I think when it comes to pas haba bkisnin, many poskim insist that a
kevius includes other food consumed at the meal and NOT davka the pas
haba b'kisnin {PBK}. E.G. if I am kovei'a s'uda with crackers and
eat a lot of tuna fish then the tuna is mitztarei to make it a meal.
Simlarly re: pizze the cheese and tomato sauces is mitztaref to the
crust -and is batel to it - see below...

to me it is a pashut kal vachomer that if other foods are mitztaref to
PBK then certainly pas vadai

But it is evident that all things eaten lelafeis hapas are batel to
the pas. and so any sandwich would by definition be judged as to total
volume and NOT jsut the pas content.

although I have heard that one must consume a certain amount of pas davka,
I really don't get it in the case when the other foods are batel then
they should be mitztarei also.

IIRC the SA or KSA mentions that if one ets pas only becasue the food/fish 
{e.g. herring} is too salty, then inded the pas IS batel to the fish.  So in 
THAT case the IM would be correct lich'ora 

Gmar Chasima Tova!
Rich Wolpoe
Richard_Wolpoe@alumnimail.yu.edu

From: "Saul Mashbaum" <smash52@netvision.net.il>
>  During the time period
> in which Emunot V'Deot, the Kuzari, Moreh Nevuchim and the Ramban's
> commentary on the Torah were written in Spain and Egypt, what work of a
> philosophical nature was written in France and Germany?
<snip>
> In this respect, the Sefer Chassidim of R. Yehuda ha-Chasid was a
> groundbreaking work

IIRC R Yehudah HaHasid was a contemporary of the Rambam, and even his
student R. Elazar Rokeah (who wrote works even more recognizable as
philosophical, e.g., the introduction to the Rokeah), predated the Ramban.
The Rokeah was influenced both by the Rambam and by Ibn Ezra.

Don't forget, incidentally, that there was an active philosophical
community in Provence during this same period (e.g. the writings of
the Radak and the Ibn Tibbons - - who were not merely translators).
You're really speaking of northern France and Germany. If you trace the
penetration of Aristotle's writings into the areas in question you'll
probably find close parallels.

David Riceman

In a message dated 10/10/2004 5:06:26pm EDT, smash52@netvision.net.il writes:
> Putting this idea in contemporary terms, I think that intellectually,
> RYBS would rather have lived in the Spain of the early Middle Ages than
> in Germany; I think that his uncle would have preferred Germany.

> In this respect, the Sefer Chassidim of R. Yehuda ha-Chasid was a
> groundbreaking work...                   Sefer Chassidim is a major
> work of Jewish thought, which presents a profound hashkafa in an explicit
> and consistent manner. I believe that this was an explicit departure from
> the Franco-German tradition of the time, reflecting the dissatisfaction
> of the German Chassidim with the current intellectual status-quo.

FWIW I agree re: RYBS & Spain. I'm not so convinced about R. Yehudah
Hachasid & RYBS's uncle. I think intellectually RYBS might have been
comfortable with Rabbeinu Tam's chiddushim in Gmara. I think neither
Soloveichik would have card muche for the Franco-German respect for
mimetics, oral traditions, Minhag Ashkenaz etc. OTOH the Aruch Hashulchan
probably would have fit in neatly

Gmar Chasima Tova!
Rich Wolpoe
Richard_Wolpoe@alumnimail.yu.edu

R David Riceman wrote:
> Incidentally, in spite of citing this Hazal, the Ramban says that the
> days are real periods of time.

Still, REED says that the Ramban is speaking of some other kind Time,
not time as we experience it. Which is the whole reason, according to
REED, that the Ramban needs to say it's days made of normal minutes
and hours. That despite the fact that sheishes yemei bereishis exhibit
features we don't normally associate with time, they're regular time. We
just don't normally have a full perception of time.

Second, the Ramban teaches of two creations -- beri'ah occuring before
yetzirah. So, in the words of Chazal cited:
> ... Midrash Shnei Ksuvim in Wertheimer's Battei Midrashoth, vol. 1, p. 251.
> "Lhagid koah maaseh breishis l'vasar vadam i efshar, l'ficach sasam lcha
> hakasuv breishis bara elokim."

The statement would, according to the Ramban, be about beri'ah, not
necessarily yetzirah.

BTW, see the Maharshah on Chagigah 17a. The gemara uses the mashal of
a palace built atop a landfill (ashpah) for describing creation. The
Maharashah says this is about the second creation. The initial creation
was yeish mei'ayin, nothing to correspond to a garbage heap. He cites
the Ramban as someone else who speak of two creations.

About the uniformity of the language. I have more to say, but I'll wait
until people have a chance to see my machshavah vort in this week's
Mesukim MiDevash.

BTW, one more note about RDLE's theory: He's saying that it's muchrach.
The creation of time must, in his opinion, involve a transition during
which the laws of physics don't hold, and that it's impossible to speak
of things existing if they do not obey laws and retain any attributes --
location, color, size, mass, etc...

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             It isn't what you have, or who you are, or where
micha@aishdas.org        you are,  or what you are doing,  that makes you
http://www.aishdas.org   happy or unhappy. It's what you think about.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                        - Dale Carnegie

R' Dr Josh Backon <BACKON@vms.HUJI.AC.IL> wrote:
> "dagim gedolim", the Ramban [Breishit 1:21] ... seems to indicate gigantic
> creatures (ba'avur godel ha'nivra'im ha'eleh she'yesh mey'hem PARSA'OHT
> RABOT). Could this refer to dinosaurs?

Most dinosaurs are not particularly large. Yes, the first ones found were,
which is why the word is "dyno + saur", and how we were told to picture
them as kids. But in general, dinosaurs were not in general bigger than
current animals.

-mi

Isn't "shema yachte begechalim" specifically given WRT Shabbos in
distinction to Yom Tov?

-mi

In a message dated 9/28/2004 2:51:35am EDT, micha@aishdas.org wrote: 
> This is the R[eform] approach to Judaism -- they think they know 
> what halakhah is all about, and cut out or modify the actual halakhah to 
> fit that notion. In a true Science of Judaism, one would be constructing 
> theories about how to understand the din. 

This description would better fit Conservative "Judaism," at least in its
original form. My readings of Reform "Judaism" show that for the last
few decades it's considered itself "non-halachic." It simply doesn't
care about, indeed rejects, halachic teachings. Substituting the word
"Judaism" for "halakhah" would work.

In a message dated 9/21/2004 9:54:34pm EDT, Meir.Shinnar@rwjuh.edu writes:
> RMB is arguing that anything that we don't have a history of
> disagreement over, is inherently part of the mesora - while the rambam
> seems to be arguing saying different - that for something to be a true
> mesora it can't have been subject to argument, but the fact that we have
> no record of such argument is not a proof that it is part of the mesora
> (it is necessary but not sufficient).

> Tangential to this, it has been posited that Mishnah Perek Ezehu Mekoman 
> {Zvachim ch. 5} must be very old becasue there is no machlokes.

A corollary to Dr. Shinnar's point woud be: that no machlokes might
be indicative of it being ancient but is by no means proof. Aderabba,
I could argue that olderancient, disputes had been setteld and that
Ezehu Mekoman - instead of being a paradigm of anitquity - is in reality
paradigm of shalom and harmony between the sages, in that they came to
an agreed upon consensus.

Does Gadol Hashalom imply that Shalom is greater than Masorah?  <smile>   

Kol Tuv;
R. Rich Wolpoe
Richard_Wolpoe@alumnimail.yu.edu

From: Minden <phminden@arcor.de>
> R' SBA asked:
>> Chazeres is horseradish??

> It is 'prickly lettuce' in Hebrew, and 'horseradish' in Israeli (Abazit,
> Modern Hebrew, Ivrit). At the seder, horseradish may be used for chazeres,
> but historically, this meant the bitter leaves, not the biting hot root
> served nowadays.

IIRC, all diagrams in the hagodos [as well as on kaaros] show where to
place both maror and chazeres.
So I presumed that chazeres refers to lettuce leaves whilst maror is
horseradish..

SBA

> R' Dr Josh Backon <BACKON@vms.HUJI.AC.IL> cited Bernard Kouchel
> <koosh@worldnet.att.net>:
>> Researchers Track Humans to Common Ancestor
>> Science writer Steve Olson, in the current issue of the journal 'Nature',
>> writes that a new statistical model shows that all human beings have a
>> common ancestor, who lived just 3,500 years ago.
>> Read more:
>> http://www.nature.com/news/2004/040927/full/040927-10.html

> Noach! We've found you! I got alot of email about this model and Adam,
> just clearing that up.

I knew the moment I saw this post that it would be misunderstood.
Read the article carefully and you'll see: "Lurking somewhere in your many
hundreds of ancestors at that date is likely to be somebody who crops up
in the corresponding family tree for anyone alive in 2004." This means
that there of course many other people who would also be the ancestors
of everyone in the world. This is by no means any kind of indication of
a single ancestor. Rather it is an estimation of the most recent possible
common ancestor based on extrapolation of migration patterns.

> Perhaps it manages to show
> that the man called Av haMon Goyim managed to become everyone's common
> ancestor, if not the head of their clan.

This is more like it... In the article they go on to say "Besides dating
our most recent common ancestor, Rohde's team also calculates that in
5,400 BC everyone alive was either an ancestor of all of humanity, or of
nobody alive today. The researchers call this the 'identical ancestors'
point: the time before which all the family trees of people today are
composed of exactly the same individuals."

Now this is a fascinating (and rather obvious) point. Any individual who
has a verified clan descended from him (like Avraham Avinu) is almost
certainly a qualifier for this title.

On another note: it would appear almost certain that with 2 million people
present at Ma'amad Har Sinai most of humanity would be descended from
someone Jewish (think even of the 10 Tribes). An interesting calculation
would be to try and calculate the percentage of maternal descendants
from Ma;amad Har Sinai on... probably a bit more tricky.

Jonathan Cohen
jcoh003@ec.auckland.ac.nz

In a message dated 9/23/2004 12:16:19am EDT, dbnet@zahav.net.il writes:
> All of this shows my doubts about the automatic acceptance of later
> authorities. I don't think there has ever been a definite p'sak as
> to whose pronunciation we must follow. Just think how many gedolim
> acccepted R' Zalman Henneh's t'nu'a kalla. And then think of all the
> different Ashkenazi litvak, galitzianer, Yekke, pronunications of Hebrew
> and then the different Sefaradi pronunciations, the bgd-kft rafot, and
> even the Teimani jim for gimmel chazak. And last, Abazit, the modern
> Israeli Hebrew which carefully chooses the worst parts of every other
> pronunciation. Of late, there has been a scholarly suggestion to reform
> written Hebrew to leave only some 15 o16 consonants and five vowels.

> I agree with you. There is no longer a norm.  Should there be one?

There was a controversy about a year ago about "change" vs. Chidush...

Essentially, AISI, any "change" that is an attempt at restoration of
the original pronounciation must be taken seriously. Any change such
as Abazit, that sems a rather arbitrary simplification probably should
be dismissed.

Then you make a point about respecting traditional comunity norms.
It would seem to me that people are entitled to grandfather in their
ancestral dialects. However, on a go forward basis, it makes sense to
me that schools and instructors should work towards better standards
of pronounciation. Even if you accept Litvisher or Galizianer versions
of vowels, there is certainly room for improvement WITHIN these systems
for more attention to mil'eil and mil'ra etc.

EG Even, a Litvak COULD be trained to say tayRO instead of TAYro!

Second point: without obliterating communal norms it would be nice if
students we at least introduced Teimani anunciation. This would sensitise
stunents to the nuances of the various vowels and hopefully evolve a
better orthography in general.

Kol Tuv;
R. Rich Wolpoe
Richard_Wolpoe@alumnimail.yu.edu

In a message dated 9/26/2004 4:29:52pm EDT, micha@aishdas.org writes:
...
> Sepharadi pronounciation fits the "Palestinian" system, where patach
> and qamatz are denoted by the same symbol, as well as tzeirei and segol.

> Bavli niqud, OTOH, would explain why Rashi refers to a segol as a
> "patach qatan. Both patach and segol were denoted by the same symbol. The
> ambiguity directly parallels qamatz gadol and qamatz qatan as we refer
> to them.

> Hmmm... Sepharadi pronounciation fitting the Israeli shitah, and Rashi
> fitting the Babylonian... Wonder what Agus does with that!

to quote a famous scholar:
> The Kimchi's didn't invent the idea out of whole cloth. They came up
> with a system for describing what they heard, using the current theory
> for Arabic -- a related language. Kind of like lomdus: post-facto you
> come up with a rule that explains as many examples as possible with a
> single theory Then, with time, people start to assume the exceptions
> are errors that crept in, and try to "correct" them.

IOW, Agus came up with a rule based upon a set of observations. The rule
probably has exceptions.

FWIW, Rambam sometimes favors the Israeli shita over the Bablyonian,
e.g. Ben Asher's Masorah.

What is generally true is that Ashekenazim usually follow Israeli masorah
and Sephardim usually follow Bablyonian Masorah but all of the above
usually THINK that they are following the Bavli. Go figure <smile>

Kol Tuv,
R. Rich Wolpoe
Richard_Wolpoe@alumnimail.yu.edu

RSBA wrote:
> From: "Avraham Bronstein" <avraham@thebronsteins.com>
>> Is it also possible that "sefer zechiyos" means "the book of the
>> innocents," based on zakhai being opposed to chayuv in a court context?

> Possibly [I am no expert on language]. But the question remains - how
> can one ask to be inscribed in such a book - if he is not innocent?
> [And if he is - he'll get listed anyway...]

First, I understand it as "seifer zechuyos -- the book of merits". But
that aside...

How does one understand any request that seems to violate "hakol biydei
Shamayim chutz miyir'as Shamayim"? Hashem won't miraculously hand people
zechuyos or fix their account to make them zochim. But then, He won't
make us do mitzvos either, and yet we ask for "chayim shel ahavas Torah
veyir'as Shamayim" and the like every month. Not to mention many other
baqashos of this ilk.

I would suggest that we're asking for His help, that He put us in
situations that lead to zechuyos, helps us find peers who are positive
influences, etc... "Aval lo al yedei yisurim vechalayim ra'im."

-mi

PS: Off topic about qiddush hachodesh that isn't worth its own post:
This past Shabbos was the first time in 108 years or so that the molad
was announced on an o'clock, with no additional minutes or chalaqim.

-- 
Micha Berger             You will never "find" time for anything.
micha@aishdas.org        If you want time, you must make it.
http://www.aishdas.org                     - Charles Buxton
Fax: (270) 514-1507

In a message dated 9/19/2004 12:37:50am EDT, Zeliglaw@aol.com writes:
> However, if you look at RYBS's written record so far, the conflict between
> Torah and science did not appear to be one of his major concerns....

> RDE posted a series of quotes from footnotes of RYBS re Torah and science.
> WADR to RMS , these posts were from RYBS's philosophical writings in
> which RYBS was underscoring and emphasizing the eternal relevance of
> the halachic system, as opposed to any other competing philosophical or
> scientific system. WADR, the footnotes cited by RDE support the conclusion
> that RYBS was not concerned with the conflict because of his view of
> the supremacy and sweep of halacha, as opposed to any other competing
> philosophical and contemporary value....

It was the Rema's conviction, that Kabbalh and Philosophy were saying
essentially the same thing and that the arguemnts wre about semantcis.

I feel that this pretty much applies to Torah and Science, too. And
perhaps that was RYBS's position that if there wer conflicts it might
be due to more to semantics than to substance...

Kol Tuv,
R. Rich Wolpoe
Richard_Wolpoe@alumnimail.yu.edu

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


[ 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         ]