Avodah Mailing List

Volume 16 : Number 088

Saturday, January 14 2006

• Miderech hatov l'heitiv
• Re: Miderech hatov l'heitiv
• Re: BOREI' PERI HAGAFEN
• Re: BOREI' PERI HAGAFEN
• Re: BOREI' PERI HAGAFEN
• Personal and Financial Integrity in Halachah
• Re: MBP
• Re: MBP
• Re: Tomb of the Matriarchs
• Re: Tomb of the Matriarchs
• Re: Tomb of the Matriarchs
• Re: BOREI' PERI HAGAFEN
• Re: BOREI' PERI HAGAFEN
• Ramban's view of Rambam is wrong!
• Re: Timtum Halev

> The Ramchal states in many places that the purpose of this world is so
> that Hashem can be maitiv to others...

This is an old question. The idea that G-d created by necessity and the
necessity is that he is good and must by His nature share goodness is
not original with Ramchal; it actually originated with Thomas Aquina
and then has been discussed extensively by the scholastics, such as
Scotus, in regards to the question if Creation was an act of will or
by necessity (the same question comes up in Kabbolah, a disagreement
between Ari and Ramchal). Perhaps a reader who is a philosopher can
teach us more about this without involving us in the minutiae of Western
religious philosophy. I am just trying to show that the question has
been extensively discussed.

M. Levin 

On Fri, Jan 13, 2006 at 12:07:42AM -0500, Aryeh Englander wrote:
: 1) "Miderech hatov l'heitiv" is a rule that is part of the essence of
: Hashem, not separate from Him. And as the Ramchal explains, the essence
: of Hashem is a single Unity, even if we cannot comprehend that or anything
: else about the essence of Hashem.

I do not think this is a rule -- essence or not. It's a
translation. Hashem is Tov, What does "tov" mean? SomeOne with a desire
leheitiv. We are defining "tov" as aiding another. Another way of stating
this idea, one I think we could find in the Moreh (but I haven't yet,
maybe over Shabbos), is that being the Borei is His Essence. Thus,
His Ratzon is to give over, leheitiv.

An earlier reference to the idea is in Emunos veDei'os. As R' Saadia
Gaon predates Aquinus or Scotus, we can still claim precedence despite
RML's observations.

: 2) Hashem decided that there should be such a rule, and then He decided
: to apply it to Himself.
: 3) There is nothing wrong with certain "rules" being outside of Hashem,
: as long as they have no real existence (an example would be the rules
: of logic)...

This is the topic of a machloqes between the Rambam and the
Ramchal. The Rambam says that logic is part of emes, and emes is
of his essence -- a parallel to your #1, but applied to emes, not
tov. The Ramchal says that logic is a nivra, and therefore Hashem
doesn't necessarily conform to it. Mar'eh meqomos and more discussion
at <http://www.aishdas.org/asp/2005/07/hashem-and-logic.shtml>.

I think the whole question between Ratzon haBorei and what is muchrach is
far from trivial. He doesn't err, so one would think that every question
has only one correct choice. Rather, the role of Ratzon, LAD, is to assign
value -- IOW, because He is tov, tov and hatavah define "right choices".

:-)BBii!
-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             The trick is learning to be passionate in one's
micha@aishdas.org        ideals, but compassionate to one's peers.
http://www.aishdas.org   
Fax: (270) 514-1507      

On Thursday, '6.1.12, at 1615 hours, Jacob Farkas wrote:
> The question still remains for those who end the B'rakha in a Segol
> whether they have a grammatical justification, as those who do K'minhag
> Sefarad.
> I have great difficulty accepting that Amen is part of the B'rakha, and
> even if convinced that it is part of the B'rakha, why should we assume
> it to be in the same sentence, particularly when those not reciting the
> B'rakha are the ones who say Amen. Furthermore, if the purpose of the
> pausal form is to indicate the completion of the sentence, presumably
> for those listening, wouldn't it follow that HaGafen should be with a
> qomatz so those responding Amen would now know that the B'rakha has been
> completed?

The grammatical justification is this:
Hhazalic Hebrew did not have the same pausal-form rules as Biblical
Hebrew. Just like Hhazalic Hebrew changed the entire verb system,
retiring entire _binyanim_ (eg. pu`al) and inventing others (nitpa`al)
and abandoning all those _wayyiqtol_ forms that are ubiquitous in the
Tanakh, it also abandoned the rule that made some words take different
forms at the ends of sentences or [whatever the part separated out by
an _etnahhta_ is called].
So it doesn't matter whether the berakha ends with _amein_ or not;
either way, _hagefen_ is a perfectly acceptible Hhazalic Hebrew form.

 -Stephen (Steg)
  "jealousy, selfishness,
   and being a self-hating human
   can cause early death."
      ~ r' yehoshua` (colloquial translation)

> From the footnotes of SIDDUR EIZOR EILIYAHU, keminhag Ashkenaz  (Polin)
>Hayashan, `al pi da`at haGR"A...
> BOREI' PERI  HAGAFEN.
> With _qomatz_ -- so emended R' Shabtai Sofeir [5370s]  (according to the
> rules of a sof-pasuq)...
> But in all the older  siddurim before RSh"S it was vocalized _borei' peri
> hagEfen_ with a  _segol_, like the nusahh of the Sefaradim until today...

I saw in R. Ovadia Yosef's haggada the same explanation. Amen is a part of
the bracha (changes haafen into hagefen) since it says in Shabbos that
the mevarech should not drink until Amen is finished form the mouths of
the listeners. I remember discussing this decades ago with R. H. Glodwurm
A'H and he had also seen it and thought it was a good reason.

M. Levin

Mlevinmd@aol.com wrote:
> I saw in R. Ovadia Yosef's haggada the same explanation. Amen is a part 
> of the bracha  (changes haafen into hagefen) since it says in Shabbos 
> that the mevarech should not drink until Amen is finished form the 
> mouths of the listeners. I remember discussing this decades ago with R. 
> H. Glodwurm A'H and he had also seen it and thought it was a good reason.

To reiterate, even if convinced that Amen is part of the B'rakha, it
should still be a different sentence.

Furthermore, a presumed reason behind having a T'nuah G'dolah at the end
of the word in place of a T'nuah K'Tanah, [qomatz instead of segol in
this case] is for the benefit of the listener [Nekudos aren't generally
written...], so you stress the word more to signify the end of the
sentence. We do this in speech all the time by tone or by tune. Now
would it not stand to reason that if you are expected a response from
the listener that you make every effort to enunciate the word and use
all pausal forms possible?

I can't comment on the Gemara is Shabbos, as I do not know the source.
Although the fact that you should wait for the listeners to say Amen
first is not in itself proof that the Amen is not its own sentence even
if it is part of the Qiddush.

Jacob Farkas

Our R David Hojda wrote an article with the above
title in the current Jewish Action that I think merits
further discussion, as well as implementation. See
<http://www.ou.org/pdf/ja/5766/winter66/PersIntegrity.pdf>.

He not only poses questions that get you thinking, the article makes an
entertaining suggestion for the Shabbos table that can get us thinking
about our Yahadus more in terms of integrity, broadening our focus on more
"ritual" mitzvos ma'asiyos.

A teaser:
> Chaim, a tourist flying back to the United States from Israel, arrives
> at the airport at the last minute for the last flight to New York. He
> hires a porter to bring his luggage to the check-in area, where he will
> meet up with him to pay for the service. Chaim gets sidetracked along
> the way, having run into an old friend. When he eventually shows up
> at the designated area, the bags are there, but the porter has left,
> having told another passenger that he could not wait any longer; the
> porter expects Chaim to find him. If Chaim goes looking for the porter,
> he'll likely miss the flight. If he does not locate him now, he most
> probably will never see him again. He owes the porter twelve dollars;
> missing the flight will cost him several thousand. What's his obligation?

> I suppose that you've already guessed the answer: As many as five Torah
> prohibitions (and one positive commandment) are involved. Chaim must
> give the worker his twelve dollars (that very day!) -- even if it means
> missing the flight.... As long as the added expense represents less
> than 20 percent of his assets, if Chaim considers himself a frum Jew,
> he has no choice but to suffer the financial loss....

> I would imagine that, despite having guessed the answer, you are
> shocked....

:-)BBii!
-mi

PS: There are a number of articles in that issue
(now at <http://www.ou.org/publications/ja>, will move to
<http://www.ou.org/pdf/ja/5766/66winter> with the next issue) on the
topic of integrity.

-- 
Micha Berger             None of us will leave this place alive.
micha@aishdas.org        All that is left to us is
http://www.aishdas.org   to be as human as possible while we are here.
Fax: (270) 514-1507            - unknown MD, while a Nazi prisoner

<<what melacha would one be doing when one does metzitza? for example,
it's assur for a parent to kiss a cut their child gets? (I would guess
many parents have done this over the years on shabbos).>>

I recall that the Mishnah Berurah clearly forbids sucking blood from
bleeding gums on Shabbos (at the end of, I think, siman 329). I assume
that the melocho is m'farek.

Kol tuv
Dov Kay

On Fri, 2006-01-13 at 14:36 +0000, joshua.kay@addleshawgoddard.com
wrote:
> I recall that the Mishnah Berurah clearly forbids sucking blood from
> bleeding gums on Shabbos (at the end of, I think, siman 329). I assume
> that the melocho is m'farek.

this would seem to be of relevance.
<http://www.torah.org/learning/halacha/classes/class91-5.html>

My dad asked me about when Bilhah and Zilpah died, and whether or not
they made it to Mitzrayim. I did some quick research, and found that
the Midrash Tanchuma (in Parashas Tzav) says that when the brothers
"stretched the truth" and said that Yaakov had commanded Yosef to
forgive his brothers for selling him, they asked Bilhah to deliver
the message. Obviously, then Bilhah made it to Egypt, and outlived
Yaakov. (Another midrash says that it was Bilhah that sent for Yosef
when Yaakov took sick.)

The Ramban suggests that Bilhah and Zilpah had both died before Yaakov
went down to Mitzrayim, as they were not listed with the 70 who went
down. (I'm not sure why that's a raya, though, as they weren't "yotzay
yerech Yaakov, while some of the wives of his children might have been.)

He also says that Reuvain moved Yaakov's bed from Bilhah's tent because
he didn't want his inheritence diluted with additional siblings. Leah
was too old to conceive, and Zilpah "may have" died, so it was only
Bilhah that could have given birth.

I have found no other references to Zilpah though. My father said
he did a google search on Zilpah, and found that she was buried
in the "Tomb of the Matriarchs" in Tiberias. I checked his source
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zilpah), and it says:

"The Tomb of The Matriarchs in Tiberias, Israel is the supposed burial
place of several Biblical women. Leah's handmaid Zilpah, Rachel's
handmaid Bilhah, Moses's mother Yocheved, Moses's wife Zipporah, Aaron's
wife Elisheva, and King David's wife Abigail/Avigail are all said to be
buried there."

Anyone have any info on this (or when Zilpah died)?

Thanks
Dov Kramer
dov@aishdas.org

DovGoldie@cs.com wrote:
> My dad asked me about when Bilhah and Zilpah died, and whether or not
> they made it to Mitzrayim.

One more data point: Rashi in Vayeshev says that the dream of Yosef that
his "mother" would bow down to him referred to Bilha. Unless that was
devarim beteilim of the dream (not likely since that's Rashi's second
peshat; once we posit devarim beteilim it might as well be Rachel!),
she had to have come to Mitzrayim.

Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com

"Gershon Dubin" <gershon.dubin@juno.com> wrote:
> DovGoldie@cs.com wrote:
>> My dad asked me about when Bilhah and Zilpah died, and whether or not
>> they made it to Mitzrayim.

> One more data point: Rashi in Vayeshev says that the dream of Yosef that
> his "mother" would bow down to him referred to Bilha. Unless that was
> devarim beteilim of the dream (not likely since that's Rashi's second
> peshat; once we posit devarim beteilim it might as well be Rachel!),
> she had to have come to Mitzrayim.

Yes, thank you. That was part of our conversation, as Chazal say that
when Yaakov bowed doen to Yosef at the beginning of Vayechi, it was the
fulfillment of the dream. If so, the conversation continued, what about
Bilhah? Chazal don't mention her also bowing down then and there, but
since the midrash that says she sent the message later in the parasha
that Yaakov took sick says ther she was taking care of him (which is
how she knew), it is reasonable to speculate that she was with him at
this first meeting as well, and bowed with Yaakov.

Thanks again.
Dov

[R' Meir Levin:]
>I saw in R. Ovadia Yosef's haggada....                   Amen is a part of
>the bracha (changes haafen into hagefen) since it says in Shabbos that
>the mevarech should not drink until Amen is finished form the mouths of
>the listeners. I remember discussing this decades ago with R. H. Glodwurm
>A'H and he had also seen it and thought it was a good reason.

Using this logic, wouldn't the nusach be different depending on whether 
there are people listening?

mendel

> Hhazalic Hebrew did not have the same pausal-form rules as Biblical  
> Hebrew.

This is certainly right, but the manuscripts and oral traditions show
that pausal forms might not be simply absent from loshen chazal.

> Just like Hhazalic Hebrew changed the entire verb system, ....

I know what you mean, but should like to repeat that MH is not simply a
later form of BH, it's a different dialect, so it is misleading to say MH
"changed" or "retired" something or "abandoned" a rule.

Still, a 'Omein doesn't belong to the same sentence as the broche.

And I never understood the shitto to use such forms in MH as long as
they happen (!) to occur in the Tenach. "Correcting" the language of
the tefilles according to standardised rules of the Tenach, which aren't
uniform in many cases in reality, may be wrong, but logical in itself.
Consistent use of the language of the chachomem for the texts they
authored makes sense as well. But do the proponents of this kilayem
method believe nobody among our forefathers of the Tenach period ever
used a single word and word form that doesn't appear in the Tenach?! This
doesn't touch the kedusshe of our language.

ELPh Minden

In the course of trying to clarify the Rambam's concept of Divrei Sofrim
I just came across the following. Would appreciate comments concerning
this derech of totally rejecting the validity of the Ramban's view. In
particular does anyone else take this approach?

R' Meir Bergman (De'ah VeDibur interview November 5, 2003 [[ R' Meir Tzvi
Bergman [Son-in-law of Rav Shach]... "The Chazon Ish started to discuss
a certain topic involving /Pesach Sheini/ about which I'd written in my
booklet, concerning the Rambam's view. He said to me, "You wrote that
according to the Rambam's view, that something which is learned though
one of the thirteen methods [of expounding Scripture] has the status
of a rabbinical ruling, a number of other topics can be resolved and
you discuss this opinion of the Rambam's at length. But how do you know
all this? Is it possible to maintain that this is what the Rambam truly
held? "Next time you print the booklet," the Chazon Ish added, "note that
it was pointed out to you that this understanding of the Rambam's opinion
cannot be sustained (because /beis din/ impose the death penalty even for
something derived through one of these methods [which could not be the
case with an enactment of the Sages]). You don't have to remove that page
from the booklet but it must be corrected." When I left the house, as I
was walking along, I thought to myself, "What did I write already?! The
Ramban himself understood the Rambam's meaning in this way and he asks
questions on him and takes issue with him... So what did /I/ do that was
so wrong?" I decided to go back and that was what I did. I turned around
and went inside and told the Chazon Ish what I was thinking. "The Ramban
understood the Rambam that way, so why is it impossible and forbidden
to say so? I noted that what I wrote was according to the Ramban's
understanding of the Rambam!" "No! One should not write that way! One
should not write what you wrote," the Chazon Ish said. Stubbornly, I tried
again. "But the Ramban understood it that way!" Our discussion repeated
itself: the Chazon Ish said, "How can one write such a thing?" and I
wanted to understand why not? "I emphasized that I only wrote what I
wrote according to the Ramban's understanding of the Rambam's opinion."
Suddenly, the Chazon Ish raised his voice and spoke in a way that I'd
never heard him speak before. "A person must acknowledge the truth.
That's the way to grow in Torah. That's the /alef-beis/ -- only if one
can admit the truth! Otherwise it's impossible to grow in Torah."I was
shocked by the expression on his face and by his words. The tension and
the emotion of the moment brought tears to my eyes. The Chazon Ish saw
how moved I was and he changed the tone of the conversation..."

Daniel Eidensohn

>: R' Moshe (Orach Chaim 2:88) quotes a teshuva of the Chasam Sofer where
>: he discusses a handicapped girl in the following situation.... If
>: they send her she will become a bar daas and be chayav in mitzvos.
>: However, the non-kosher food will affect her lev and she will probably
>: violate torah and mitzvos and therefore it is better for her to remain
>: an ayno bar daas.

> Lo zachisi lehavin this teshuvah. Not being able to become a 
> bar/s da'as is a din piqu'ach nefesh. (As per teshuvos on 
> abortion for a rape victim being mutar mishum "hashkeim 
> vehargo".) How can one place one's nefesh in danger to avoid 
> something that isn't even assur?

I think the situation is a bit more complex than what is written above
would suggest.
Leave aside the question of timtum halev from treifos for a second,
and look at what is being discussed in that teshuva.

On Areivim we are having a discussion about how reasonable it is to
expect 18 year olds of normal intelligence, who have spent their formative
years at home and in the religious educational system, to maintain their
frumkeit for the rest of their adulthood in the face of the challenges
of the Israeli army.

And here we have a case where we are dealing with a nine year old boy, who
is borderline a shoteh, and who it is believed is only capable of reaching
the level of bar daas with the assistance of a non Jewish institution.

Now the Chatam Sofer does not mention this, but given the time he is
writing about, I think it is close to impossible that this particular
institution, although run by doctors, was *not* in fact run by a Xtian
religious order (as secular institutions of this nature almost certainly
did not exist).

So, here the plan is to put this 9 year old boy in a non Jewish, almost
certainly Xtian, institution, where he will have no contact with anything
Jewish, to the extent that the food is all treif and there is no concept
of shabbas (the other big issue the Chatam Sofer discusses) until he is
13 years and a day (the time at which the Chatam Sofer requires that he
be taken out, in case he is a bar daas by then, and chayav in mitzvos).

And this environment is NOT expected to have an influence on him so
that he is likely (if indeed he becomes a bar daas) not to be inclined
to follow Torah and mitzvos!

That the only problem with this environment is that the kid will be
eating treifos and the timtum halev that follows (and if you could
eliminate the actual treifos it would all be alright then)!

And still the Chatam Sofer says it is not actually ossur, but that he
would recommend against it.

You have spoken periodically about some of the work your wife does in
placing Jewish special needs children with Jewish families, knowing that
if the Jewish families don't take them, there are Xtians falling over
themselves to.

What would happen if this played itself out with one of your cases.
Ie for some reason the child, if placed with a Jewish family, would not
be able to develop to the level of a bar/bas daas, and if placed with
the Xtian family he/she would. Which way would you go? Is the answer
so pashut?

[Note by the way that Rav Moshe in the teshuva referred to above
refers to this aspect of the teshuva of the Chatam Sofer to dismiss its
applicability in the case of placing someone in a non Jewish institution
who is never expected to be a bar/bas daas (ie if you have somebody who
is never expected to reach this level, there is no problem placing them
in an institution where they will be fed non kosher food).]

So I confess I am tempted to read this Chatam Sofer as raising a more
general issue about the environment that this kid is being put into in
rather than one that deals with the specifics about the food being given.

Note that, BTW, that is a distinction between the case of the nursing
child (and Moshe rabbanu) and that of Eliyahu hanavi. In the days before
expressing milk and freezing it was a possibility, in order for a child
to nurse from a non Jew, they had to spend a pretty large amount of time
in the company of that non Jew, getting a lot of intimacy and warmth and
bonding from them. And because of the nature of a child and an adult,
the child is going to go where the adult goes rather than vice versa.
And we are talking about societies where they nursed until 2 or 3
years old. That means that a significant portion of the child's early
life is likely to be in a non Jewish environment.

In the case of Eliyahu Hanavi, however, having meat be brought by ravens
is the equivalent of expressed milk being taken out of the freezer,
there was no necessary (and was no) contact between the environment
in which that meat was created (an idolatorous environment) and the
environment in which it was eaten.

I am not saying that this is a chilluk utilised by those who have
commented, just noting that it exists.

Shavuah tov
Chana

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


[ 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         ]