Avodah Mailing List

Volume 16 : Number 028

Tuesday, November 15 2005

• Re: Kabbalah today
• Re: Writting His name in full
• FW: Only one opinion
• Re: Hagar mistreated?
• Re: Eliyahu was not a Cohen?
• RE: TIDE
• RE: Starting Shmona Esrah together with the Tzibur
• public hochacha on e-mail list
• RE: TIDE
• RE: TIDE
• Re: Eliyahu was not a Cohen?
• Re: Kabbalah Today
• Re: Hagar mistreated?
• Re: Kesav Ashuris
• Re: Ikkare Hashkafa
• Jesus

> 3) Gra's statement YD 246 criticizing the understanding of Pardes of the
> Rambam & Rema - is a forgery. Similarly his attack on the Rambam in YD
> 179 is also a forgery. (Rav Shurkin)

The Klausenburger Rav in Shu"t Divrei Yatziv YD 31 gives the following
explanation le'hatzdik hatzadik asher m'piv anu chayim, on why the Rambam
did indeed omit all inyanei ruach ra.

The Rambam lived in a time and area where the am ha'aratzos was prevalent
and ignorance was rife, he therefore feared they shouldn't be influenced
by the Arab populace who were an extremely superstitious mass and put
a great emphasis on these issues (i.e. the occult and supernatural),
and because of eis la'asos la'hashem heifieru torasecho they shouldn't
be swayed after them ... he omitted all issues that involve ruach rah
etc ac"l.

This corresponds with the Rambam in Hilchos Dei'os that the answer to
an extreme is the other extreme, even though it isn't the ideal.

Kol Tuv,
 - Avigdor Feldstein

Danny Schoemann <doniels@gmail.com>
>> The Shach states that in other languages one may write  G-d's name
>> out, however, it has become the Jewish way of writing  it.

> The Kitzur SA in 6:3 says that one may not write His name in any other
> language. He doesn't even allow writing Ad-ieu - the French for farewell,
> but literally meaning "to G-d". (The forerunner of Goodbye [G-d be with
> ye] as per http://www.answers.com/goodbye.)

Neither the Shach nor the Kitzur says anything about *writing* Names in
foreign languages. The Shach talks about *erasing* them; he says that for
this purpose they have the status of kinnuyim, and they may be erased.
The Kitzur talks about *disgracing* them, by throwing them on a midden
(ashpah), and says that one may not do this, and therefore one should not
write them on letters that are likely to be disposed of in this fashion.
Mar amar chada, umar amar chada.

It remains the case, though, that the word used in a foreign language
as the Name is different than other kinnuyim: when praying in a foreign
language, one must address Him by His name in that language, and not by
any kinnuy, whether in that language or in Hebrew. E.g. when praying in
English one must use the G name, and not the L kinnuy.

-- 
Zev Sero
zev@sero.name

On November 13, I wrote:

"As far as my "pshat" in the Ramban in the vikuach, most people understand
the Ramban's words in the context of his debate with Pablo Christiani
(see Shevel offen ort)."

RDE wrote:
> *Chasam Sofer**[ii]* (O. H. 1:16): *The Ramban has stated in his debate
> with the apostate that the obligation to believe agada and medrashim
> only applies to those found in the Babylonian and Yerushalmi Talmud. The
> validity of other medrashim can be accepted or rejected.

I couldn't find the above in Shu"t Chasam Sofer O.C. siman tes zayin
(am I reading your mareh makom incorrectly?) but I'm not sure what you
mean to add with this source. The Ramban himself states that there are
three types of seforim, Bavlayi, Talmud and Sermons (hagada) and the
latter does not necessarily have to be followed.

It would seem from the CS that he understood the Ramban as differentiating
between maamarei Chazal that were universally accepted by klal yisroel
as opposed to maamarei Chazal whose authenticity were not as well
established as those found in Bavli and Yerushalmi. If this is so,
it would seem that whenever a maamar Chazal, aggadic or otherwise, is
duly established, the CS would understand the Ramban to be saying that
it must be accepted without reservation. Essentially, this is precisely
what I am attempting to demonstrate.

Simcha Coffer  

Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org> wrote:
> According to the Ramban, this would explain why the end of galus Mitzrayim
> was 400 years counted from Yitzchaq's birth. The mistreatment began
> when Yitzchaq entered the picture. Which means that de facto, if not
> explicitly stated, we start counting the galus from the anguish of Hagar,
> a princess of Egypt.

Huh? The mistreatment the Ramban is talking about, which the passuk does
not explicitly condone (and so the Ramban can say that it was wrong),
occurred 14.5 years before Yitzchak's birth. By the time Yitzchak was
born, that was all over and forgotten. The expulsion of Hagar and Yishmael
happened five or so years later, and here Hashem explicitly endorsed it,
so there is no room for anyone to criticise it, or to suggest that any
punishment could possibly result from it.

-- 
Zev Sero
zev@sero.name

Gil Student <gil.student@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> For example if Eliyahu could touch the dead child because of pikuach
>>> nefesh it raises the question of how he knew it would help and if he
>>> can rely on nevuah to be metamei le-met.

>> What's the problem?  He relied on nevuah to bring a korban on a bamah.

> Bringing the korban was an "eis la'asos la-Shem." How does that apply
> to the other case?

Not according to the Rambam in Yesodei Hatorah. He gives it as an example
of Hora'at Sha'ah, which is essentially the power of a navi to suspend,
on a temporary basis, any halacha except AZ. This power specifically
relies on nevu'ah - that's how the navi knows whether Hashem wants the
law to be suspended (unlike Et La'asot, which relies on the judgment of
a chacham, who is, in that sense, adif minavi).

My point is that if Eliyahu could rely on his powers of nevu'ah (i.e. the
confidence that they were true communications from Hashem, and not mere
hallucinations) to suspend the law against hakravat kodashim bachutz,
then he could equally rely on those powers to tell him that he would be
able to save the life of the ben hashunamit.

-- 
Zev Sero
zev@sero.name

On November 13, 2005 T613K@aol.com wrote:
> In Avodah V16 #26 dated 11/13/2005 R' Simcha Coffer writes:
>> So are you saying that RSRH was entirely unaware of the  potential hazards
>> of such a shita

> Lemaisah the Yekkes have always been known for their Yiras Shamayim and
> dikduk hadin. I hope you have been following my TIDE thread on Areivim.
> As I wrote there, the fact that the Breur kehilla deviated to the right
> and not to the left bespeaks the essential Yiras Shamayim of the original
> community, though it is a pity that they abandoned their mesorah.

I wish to make two things clear. Firstly, I am no expert in TIDE, TuM
or any other roshei teyvos. I am merely stating things that, to me,
seem to be common sense based on our collective mesorah for thousands
of years. Our history has unfolded, in a general sense, within the
context of isolationism as opposed to integration. Whenever there *was*
integration, trouble invariably ensued. The fact that the *movement*
of TIDE is a relatively recent innovation only supports my proposition
regarding this matter.

The second is that by no means am I claiming that the adherents of TIDE
or TuM are lacking in yiras shamayim chs'v. The innovations of the Breur
community, for instance, in kashrus and other inyanim were indispensable
to the growth of "frum" Yiddishkeit in America. My contention here
is purely ideological and revolves around 1) the idea that TIDE, as a
movement, although necessary then and perhaps necessary today too, is
not necessarily the ideal approach to Yiddishkeit and 2) RSRH, despite
his incredible development of the approach of TIDE, could ultimately
agree with my number 1 if the circumstances were right.

[Email #2. -mi]

On Novemebr 13, 2005 Harry Maryles wrote:
> This is no different than asking why Volozhin, that produced many more
> Maskilim than The Rabbiner Seminary in Germany (which produced none IIUC)
> was still more prefferable (according to some). Sometimes one must factor
> in a loss in order to prouduce excellence.

Precisely my point. However, under ideal circumstances, no loss must be
factored in because there are no foreign influences to contend with and
therefore no potential loss to deal with. In circumstances such as these,
TIDE could very well become obsolete.

Simcha Coffer

[RSN:]
> What is the Mekor for 10 or 6 starting together?

What about the other way. I've seen a least one RY start his personal
amida before the shatz so as to be able to conclude before chazarat
hashatz. Does the RY get credit for tfilla btzibbur? If 5 do this can
the shatz still do chazarat?

KT
Joel

I am on another "frum" e-mail list and there was a post where a Rav
wrote admonishing a poster for something he had written saying that it
is against the halacha and that he need do tshuva.

I back- chanelled this Rav with the comment that he has now publicly
embarrassed the first poster.

The below is part of the reply that I received from him.

Any comments?

Reuven Miller

"Please consult a halachic authority before assuming that I have violated
a halacha. In this case, the halacha explicitly permits calling someone
on an error when that error is printed publicly."

[We're drifting away from discussing the derekh itself... -mi]

On Sun, 2005-11-13 at 15:18 -0500, S & R Coffer wrote:
>> Lemaisah the Yekkes have always been known for their Yiras Shamayim and
>> dikduk hadin. I hope you have been following my TIDE thread on Areivim.
>> As I wrote there, the fact that the Breur kehilla deviated to the right
>> and not to the left bespeaks the essential Yiras Shamayim of the original
>> community, though it is a pity that they abandoned their mesorah.

> I wish to make two things clear. Firstly, I am no expert in TIDE, TuM
> or any other roshei teyvos. I am merely stating things that, to me,
> seem to be common sense based on our collective mesorah for thousands
> of years. Our history has unfolded, in a general sense, within the
> context of isolationism as opposed to integration. Whenever there *was*
> integration, trouble invariably ensued. The fact that the *movement*
> of TIDE is a relatively recent innovation only supports my proposition
> regarding this matter.

I don't agree with the conclusion. I agree that we were isolationists,
but our population numbers weren't growing as one would expect. So one
can possibly conclude that isolationism didn't particularly serve large
segments of our population.

RYGB
> Haskalah, AFAIK, was *never* a force in Germany. Indeed, there was no
> room for it to attract adherents *because* of the philosophy of RSRH which
> successfully brunts its force. It was only in Eastern Europe that Haskalah
> made inroads. 

I must be missing something. Haskala started in Germany (the Berlin
Haskala) and remained a potent force for years, and was the background of
Reform and the entire Wissenschaft movement. RSRH functioned after the
beginning of haskala - but haskala had made tremendous inroads into German
Orthodoxy by then (after all, all of German Jewry had been "Orthodox".

If the argument is that RSRH (and Rav Hildesheimer...) derech limited
the attraction of haskala on the remaining Orthodox community, that is
something else. But I don't understand the first sentence above.

Meir Shinnar

On Wed, Nov 09, 2005 at 03:25:07AM +0000, kennethgmiller@juno.com wrote:
: Rav Moshe Feinstein (Igros Moshe Yoreh Deah 2:174, Anaf 1, second
: paragraph from the end) is among those who take it literally
: that Eliyahu was a kohen, and he answers the other questions as
: well. See his words there, or my analysis of it in Avodah 4:130
: (<http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol04/v04n130.shtml#09>).

Actually, the need to explain Eliyahu's actions are MORE accute if one
assumes this particular medrash is ahistorical than if you assume it's
literal history.

After all, "ein tzaddiq ba'aretz asher ya'aseh tov velo ra" including
the historical Eliyahu hanavi. However, I can not believe that Chazal
would repeat a fictional story which attributes a non-existent cheit
to a tzaddiq. Both mishum motzi sheim ra, also (secondarily) because it
defies the whole archetype approach medrash brings to biblical figures.
So, there MUST be some way chazal understood the story so as not involving
a cheit.

This goes back to the language distinction I made last week. Rejecting
the literal history of the medrash should not be confused with rejecting
medrash. It's still a ma'amar chazal whose lesson must be taken seriously.

BTW, RMF also uses an aggadic story as a ra'ayah in declaring the child
of IVF a non-mamzer by invoking Ben Sirah as precedent. RMF clearly had
a more limited sense of learning din from aggadita. Perhaps these are
exceptions because the stories are being used as case material, not as
sevarah points leading to the masqanah. But I'm not a baqi, as you all
may have deduced by now, doubly so in IM, and am just guessing.

On Sat, Nov 12, 2005 at 09:28:06PM -0500, S & R Coffer wrote:
: Whom says a navi needs the technical parameters of eiss la'asos to
: temporarily change something in the Torah? Eiss la'asos has to be used
: by people who are not neveim in order to contravene the Torah such as
: the sages at the time of Chasimas haTalmud (to write down Torah shba'al
: peh) ...

Do you have another example? That one is suspect. There is no actual issur
in writing down TSBP. "Ee ata resha'i" means it's a bad idea, not assur.
Or do you believe the reisha is also an issur, and one may not quote a
pasuq without a text in front of you -- ruling out even davening without
a siddur.

I have posed this on Avodah enough times to start believing that there is
no clearcut, unarguable issur, in which a non-navi invoked "eis la'asos".

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             Like a bird, man can reach undreamed-of
micha@aishdas.org        heights as long as he works his wings.
http://www.aishdas.org   But if he relaxes them for but one minute,
Fax: (270) 514-1507      he plummets downward.   - Rav Yisrael Salanter

On Thu, Nov 10, 2005 at 05:24:23PM -0500, Jonathan Baker wrote:
: Heichalot mysticism, such as is expressed in the 2nd chapter of Chagiga,
: and older texts such as Pirkei Heichalot, are not kabbalah in the
: current sense.

I would suggest that
    heichalot : Lurianic qabbalah  ::  halakhah : Brisker lomdus

-mi

On Sat, Nov 12, 2005 at 09:16:07PM -0500, S & R Coffer wrote:
:> According to the Ramban, this would explain why the end of galus Mitzrayim
:> was 400 years counted from Yitzchaq's birth. The mistreatment began
:> when Yitzchaq entered the picture. Which means that de facto, if not
:> explicitly stated, we start counting the galus from the anguish of Hagar,
:> a princess of Egypt.

: Three problems with the above cheshbon.

The idea that galus mitzrayim begins with Hagar's pain is pretty enough
that im kol zos, I would accept dochaw terutzim to keep it going.

: First of all the incident in question occurred at least 17 years before
: Yitzchok's birth. 

: Second, the incident at Yitzchok's birth was not even considered as a sin
: by the Ramban. Chazal say that the term mitzachek by Yishmael refers to AZ
: and I don't recall the Ramban arguing with Chazal on this point...

But that's their eviction, not the mitzta'eir.

The real question is the maqor for the Rambam saying the incident in
question was more than 17 years (or, as according to RZS, 14 years),
before Yitzchaq's birth, as opposed to being at Yitzvhaq's birth but
before teaching Yitzchaq any AZ would be an issue.

Then I can go on to constructing my dochaq teirutz.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             It is a glorious thing to be indifferent to
micha@aishdas.org        suffering, but only to one's own suffering.
http://www.aishdas.org                 -Robert Lynd, writer (1879-1949)
Fax: (270) 514-1507      

From: "Micha Berger" <micha@aishdas.org>
>> <me>Rabbi Hartman understand's the Maharal's understanding of Rashi's ...
>> differently from this. See his edition of Gur Aryeh Ki Tissah 32:15 D"H
>> Mishnei Evreihem and footnotes 63-64.

> <RMB>The subject came up just now on scjm. Which reminded me that I never 
> found this reference. Could you just post a summary?

Here's a translation of the relevant bits:

Maharal: In Perek HaBoneh (Shabbath 104a) Rashi explains that they were
legible forwards on the inside and backwards on the outside (RYDH: The
Talmud there says "the writing on the tablets was legible inside and out"
and Rashi ad. loc. says "and legible out: the letters were backwards
and the words were backwards, and it informs us only that the engraving
cut through, and therefore "mem and samech...""). Therefore here, when
Rashi says "and this was miraculous" he refers to final mem and samech
(RYDH: there was no miracle concerning legibility of the letters, which
indeed did appear backwards ...) which stayed in place miraculously.

David Riceman 

On Sat, Nov 12, 2005 at 10:20:41PM -0500, S & R Coffer wrote:
...
: O.K. So please explain to me how the Baal haIkkrin derived the issur of,
: say, sha'atnez from one of the three ikkrim.

Ikkar 2 implies shoresh 2.3 (the binding nature of the Torah) in which
is halakhah.

...
: Although the belief in mashiach is not necessarily an ikkar (depending on
: the machlokes the Rambam and the Ikkrim) that doesn't mean that a lack
: in belief of mashiach would not invalidate one's wine halachically. The
: only difference between the Ikkrim and the Rambam is in semantics,
: that is, what is technically able to be referred to as an ikkar as I
: defined it in my last post...

Since the point of my first post that they differ over what they call
an ikkar, and only minorly over what beliefs are mandatory, I'm not sure
why you started a debate to begin with.

See my second post: the Sefer haIkkarim is structured as 3 ikkarim
(postulates) implying 8 shorashim (root/source beliefs) which imply
numerous anafim. Ikkarim and shorashim are necessary for accepting the
Torah. Anafim are mandatory beliefs, but not necessary for accepting
the rest of the Torah.

Whereas the Rambam's list of ikkarim includes things he derives from
other ikkarim. Such as rejecting corporeality, which in the Peirush
haMishnayos itself he shows is necessary as part of Hashem's unity.
(In the Moreh he goes much further in connecting them into one proof
system.) This lack of distinction between what RYA calls ikkarim and
what he calls shorashim was my original point.

You are right in questioning my assumption that stam yeinam would not
depend on the acceptance of anafim. However, if RYAlbo holds it does,
he is VERY machmir, excluding many Jews the Rambam would not call a min,
kofeir or apiqoreis.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             Despair is the worst of ailments. No worries
micha@aishdas.org        are justified except: "Why am I so worried?"
http://www.aishdas.org                         - Rav Yisrael Salanter
Fax: (270) 514-1507      

[The first part of this post warrants further discussion. I'm not keen
on discussing Notzrut and their book's attitude toward us on Avodah. But
contrasting their claims with Shas does fit within topic. -mi]

"S & R Coffer" <rivkyc@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> Well, I am aware of the two opinions regarding when Y lived (brought
> down in Sefer haKabala liHaraavad). The first opinion (our mesorah)
> is that he was a talmid of RYBP thus placing him during the reign of
> Yanai haMelech. The second opinion (gentile historians) claim he was
> born during the reign of Herod.

I don't see how it's possible to imagine that the talmid of RYBP was
the Jesus whom Xians worship. Or how Chazal could know this even if
it were somehow true. They don't seem to have anything much in common
except a very common name.

There's also Ben Stada from Gemara Shabbat, who is too late to have
been the Xian Jesus - his mother's husband shared a cell with R Akiva,
which means that he was young enough to have participated in the Bar
Kochva rebellion; there is no way that he was old enough to be married
during Herod's reign.

> I don't recall seeing anything in the Raavad about lust.

It's in the gemara; RYBP expelled his talmid because he commented on
the physical beauty of a (female) innkeeper.

> It does to me. AFAIC, Y was an untalented person who wasn't able to make
> it in the "olam haTorah" The new testament is full of errors that even
> an average talmid chacham would never make.

The NT was written by his students' students, or by their students,
and translated into Greek by later generations, who had no contact with
Judaism, and no understanding of the original context of their god's
teachings. None of this can shed any light on the level of Jesus's
own learning.

> In addition, it must be
> understood that Y was operating under an extreme handicap. Mamzeirus
> was looked down upon by our nation

"Mamzer TCh kodem leKG am ha'aretz"? The gerim Shmaya and Avtalyon seem
to have been respected despite their poor yichus.

> And when or nation, led by its Torah leaders,
> categorically rejected Y, his ambition turned into a virulent hate
> directed at the Pharisees.

I'm not at all sure that he did hate the Pharisees as such. His criticism
of *some* "pharisees" seems similar to the gemara in Sotah about many
different kinds of "perushim", most of whom are condemned as hypocrites.

> familiar the new testament instantly becomes aware of the anti-Semitic
> nature of its writings. For example, the man in dire need was ignored
> by the Cohain, passed up by the Levite, and again ignored by the
> Israelite. Who assisted him? The Good Samaritan!

That's the whole point of the story! That characters whom, from their
outward appearance, you would expect to help, turned out to be "too busy"
with "mitzvah overet" and other considerations, which essentially add up
to shochad atzmi, to help a yid in trouble, while davka the Samaritan,
whom the audience would expect to pull a knife and finish the guy off,
turned out to be a "tzadik nistar", and helped him. It's a powerful
lesson, worthy of any chassidishe story. That's why it's the story
of the "*Good* Samaritan", not just of the "Samaritan". Because stam
a Samaritan was someone whom you would cross the street to avoid.
If the story were written in America today, the guy in the ditch would
be passed by the celebrity off to serve turkey at a homeless shelter,
and the social worker off to demonstrate at an anti-Bush rally, and the
banker off to a conference to solve the problem of Third World debt,
and would be finally helped by a black dude wearing gangster clothing,
or by a huge tattooed skinhead on a motorcycle.

No antisemitism here!

-- 
Zev Sero               Something has gone seriously awry with this Court's
zev@sero.name          interpretation of the Constitution.
                       	                          - Clarence Thomas

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


[ 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         ]