Avodah Mailing List

Volume 17 : Number 075

Friday, June 23 2006

• RE: Tzimtzum KePeshuto
• Re: face painting
• flexibility in Halakha
• Re: face painting
• Kiris
• Subject: Antoninus
• "kashim geirim l'yisrael k'sapachas"
• Re: "kashim geirim l'yisrael k'sapachas"
• Re: "kashim geirim l'yisrael k'sapachas"
• Fully Cooked
• Re: "kashim geirim l'yisrael k'sapachas"
• Re: Shevet's Nusach Hatfila
• Yissachar/ Zvulun
• Re: "kashim geirim l'yisrael k'sapachas"
• Re: Shevet's Nusach Hatfila
• Re: face painting
• Kohen ramifications of tooth implant
• Re: Ikrei haEmunah (was Tzimtzum KePeshuto)

RDR wrote:
> There's a similar thought in the midrash about the angels not wanting Moshe
> to get the Torah.  Moshe asked them what they wanted with laws about theft
> and adultery.  The midrash doesn't answer explicitly, but the implicit
> answer is that Torah instantiates itself differently in our world and the
> world of the angels.

RSC wrote:
> This is an aside but RDR broaches a topic which has always bothered me. As
> RDR so eloquently describes, the Torah instantiates itself both in the
> world of angels and in our world. Thus, my kasha on this Medrash is,
> what is Moshe's response to the malachim? True the malachim don't have
> the laws of theft but we down here don't relate to the laws of theft
> as they instantiate themselves l'ma'ala. The Malachim could have very
> simply responded, Yes, we do have the laws of theft however not the
> way you understand them. Who says that we (the Malachim) should let you
> (Moshe representing mankind) take the Torah down there? Who says your
> instantiation is any more qualitative then our own? I guess my kasha is,
> why didn't the angels put up a bigger fight?

I have been bothered by the same question and more, about this exchange
between MR and the malachim. Central to my problem is bechira, and
just what the malachim were lacking and what they were seeking in the
Torah? My (severely limited and grossly simplified) understanding of
malachim is that they are something like spiritual automatons lacking
bechira who say shira and do the rotzon HKBH. Istakel beoraisa ubara
alma, so in a real sense the malachim were aleady an expression of Torah
with this likely to be very clear in the upper olomos. So in this sense
they already had Torah and were not losing it.

So perhaps they wanted to be given Torah to carry out its commandments
(in the version of their instantation in your terminology)? Yet that
would require that they have a bechira and change their entire nature
from spiritual automoton to an entity with bechira and thus deserving
of olam haba and the purpose of creation? Was this a struggle (request)
to become the purpose of creation and resident of olam haba? The words
t'no hodcha al hashomaim can be viewed as a more expansive request than
the more direct t'no torascha al hashomaim. So again, "why didn't the
angels put up a bigger fight," and what was MR's answer? It also raises
the interesting question of just what sort of nivra can have bechira. Is
it not only a murcav of ruchni and gashmi (guf and neshama) that can
have bechira?

It also could not have been a request to be involved in "learning" the
Torah as even now after Matan Torah, having lost the debate with MR,
they still know (have retained?) kol hatorah kula as they teach it to
babies in the womb.

Or perhaps they wanted to retain baalus over the Torah in the negative
sense of Torah lo bashomaim hi? But again then MR's answer makes no
sense. So this memre can use a really good hesber please.

Kol Tuv
Chaim Manaster

Frum day schools here in Florida do it on Fun Day or whatever, never heard  
it was an issue.  If face painting now allowed, how about makeup?   Blush, 
lipstick, mascara?

 -Toby  Katz
=============

> I remember being criticized by charedi relatives for allowing my son
> to sleep late on a leave from the army (kids can sleep 24+ hours on
> leave from the army)

A Rav in Australia, an alumnus of Har Etzion, once described to me that,
after the week-long training test for admission to an elite Tzahal
commando unit (which, incidentally, he passed), he returned home and
slept for 24 hours over Shabbos. He had bearly slept over the past week.
I was too timid to ask him the halakhic justification for being mevatel
KS, kiddush, tefillah, etc.

Surely while he was asleep he was b'oness. However, ought he to have
avoided that situation by asking someone to wake him in order to make
kiddush, say KS, etc? And, even without such a request, would bystanders
have been obliged/permitted to wake him? I suppose this question also
arises when someone is about to sleep in past z'man KS. Must I arouse
him from his state of p'tur?

Kol tuv
Dov Kay

Rn Toby Katz wrote:
> Frum day schools here in Florida do it on Fun Day or whatever, never 
> heard it was an issue. If face painting now allowed, how about makeup? 
>  Blush, lipstick, mascara?

Makeup is easily removed. Semi-permanent and permanent may indeed be 
problematic according to *some* opinions.

Jacob Farkas

In last week's parsha [Behaaloscho 11:26] Targum Yonoson has a lengthy
version on the Eldad uMeidad prophecies, including details of Achris
Hayomim and Milchemes Gog uMagog in EY [see also Targum Yerushalmi],
with the situation saved by Kiris.

Does anyone have any idea who Kiris is?

SBA

>> Scholars differ as to whether the Antoninus referred to in the gemara
>> is indeed Marcus Aurelius or some other prominent Roman.

> Is there any evidence that Marcus Aurelius was ever in Israel?

I recall that in Koheles Rabbah it is said that there were two
Antoninus. Will bl'n check the refernce and get back.

  M. Levin

Moshe Feldman wrote (Areivim) :
> For example, we commonly think that the rabbinic view is that geirus
> should be discouraged because "kashim geirim l'yisrael k'sapachas",
> which based on a drasha (Yevamos 47b) 

A nice vort from the CS on "Ratzah HKBH Lezakos es Yisroel lefikoch
hirboh lohem Torah uMitzvos".

Chazal say that "kashim geirim l'yisrael k'sapachas".

The CS explains that this is because if they indeed become 100% kosher
geirei tzedek, there is a possibilty of a kitrug of those in Klall
Yisroel who are less medakdek bemitzvos than this Ger. despite having
generations of "Jewishness" in their system.

OTOH, if a Ger does not lead a Torah life, Jews may be punished because
of the 'kol Yisoel Areivim zeh lozeh'.

That is why they are considered a 'kesapachas'.

Hashem, wanting to help Klall Yisroel (= "Ratzah HKBH Lezakos es
Yisroel"), gave us MANY Mitzvos (= "lefikoch hirboh lohem Torah
uMitzvos"), which we tell and warn potentional Gerim about, thus hoping to
'scare' them off..

SBA

SBA wrote:
> Chazal say that "kashim geirim l'yisrael k'sapachas".
> The CS explains that this is because if they indeed become 100% kosher 
> geirei tzedek, there is a possibilty of a kitrug of those in Klall 
> Yisroel who are less medakdek bemitzvos than this Ger.
> despite having generations of "Jewishness" in their system.

This is not a chidush of the CS, it's R Avraham Ger, in Tosfot Kiddushin
71a.

> OTOH, if a Ger does not lead a Torah  life, Jews may be punished
> because of the 'kol Yisoel Areivim zeh lozeh'.
> That is why they are considered a 'kesapachas'.

Tosfot quotes this explanation and rejects it, because it's an open
gemara that we are *not* areivim for gerim.

> Hashem, wanting to help Klall Yisroel (= "Ratzah HKBH Lezakos es 
> Yisroel"),  gave us MANY Mitzvos (= "lefikoch hirboh lohem Torah 
> uMitzvos"), which we tell and warn potentional Gerim about, thus hoping 
> to 'scare' them off..

Except that we *don't* do this - "ve'en marbin alav ve'en medakdekin
alav", because if he might be for real then we *don't* want to frighten
him away. We only want to discourage the dilettantes who are going to
abandon us anyway the first time they crave a cheeseburger.

-- 
Zev Sero
zev@sero.name

From: "Zev Sero" <zev@sero.name>
> This is not a chidush of the CS, it's R Avraham Ger, in Tosfot
> Kiddushin 71a.

The CS's chiddush is explaining the maamar "Roztoh HKBH lezakos es
Yisroel" with this explanation.

SBA

I'm looking for mar'eh mekomos on what point or range is considered fully
cooked as far as hilchos Shabbos is concerned. Is it only one point,
or does it depend; i.e. some people would consider a "rare" steak, raw,
while others would consider a "well-done" steak overcooked.

Sources, anyone?

Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com

SBA wrote:
> The CS's chiddush is explaining the maamar "Roztoh HKBH lezakos es 
> Yisroel" with this explanation.

But it's a raaya listor. If we didn't have so many mitzvot, then we might
all do as well as the ger, and he wouldn't show us up with his tzidkut.

-- 
Zev Sero
zev@sero.name

 From: Jacob Farkas <jfarkas@compufar.com>
> See Shut Hasam Sofer [OH 16] where he suggests that all Nus'haos are 
> equivalent and that the Arizal in his Nusah improved and highlighted the 
> kavanos in Nusah S'farad because he was S'faradi. Had the Arizal been 
> Ashkezani (or had there been someone of his stature among the the 
> Ashkenazim) he would have done the same for the Ashkenaz Siddur.

I thought that the Arizal's father was ashkenazi-- his last name was
Luria.

reuven

This topic has been discussed at length here. R'A Weiss(minchat asher)
discusses this question at length in siman 73 in breishit.

He explains 2 approaches to the issue.

The 1st is the Maharam Alshaker who R'AW says sees it as a subset of one
who aids another and receives reward for this effort/aid. As the Mishna in
Makkot(5:) states - hanitpal losei mitzvah mkabel schar koseh mitzvah.
(my thought - this may tie back to a machloket as to whether the gemara
really means equal to for all purposes when it says koseh...) R'AW says
this is clearly not a case of kinyan or shutfut.

The Bet Yosef in Tshuvot Avkat Rochel (s'2) however sees it as a true
kinyan requiring a mutual agreement and the schar for Zvulun is in
Yissachar's learning,not in Zvulun's efforts.

R'MF(Y"D 4:37) follows the latter approach and requires a complete
partnership (eg not a fixed monthly allowance). R'AW notes that the T"AR
specifically allows a fixed amount and that R'MF quotes neither the T"AR
or the S"MA - vteimah hu!?

R'AW also discusses whether Y's schar is reduced by such an arrangement?

The Or Hachaim( ki tisa) and the Haflaah( pticha ktuvot 43) say no.
The Meshech Chachma on Vayichi says yes and R'MF lshitato above
says yes. R'AW lshitato in the S"MA would say no.

However the O"HC in his sefer Chafetz Hashem (Brachot daf 8) explains
the Gemara's statement of gadol haneheneh miyigiato in exactly this
manner - that this individual does not split his schar with anyone else
(implying Y would split with Z)

R'AW concludes that one shouldn't worry about this question because
hakol lfi rov hamaaseh.

KT
Joel Rich

In the current issue of Jewish Action (pg 40), I found the following
translation from Rav Tzadoq, Machashavot Charotz, 84a-84b
(trans. unnamed):
    Rabbi Akiva was the foundation of the Oral Law. For this reason he
    was a descendant of converts -- because it is they who openly have
    greater love for the Torah. For the Jewish people were brought out
    of slavery to freedom by the Holy One Blessed be He, who made them
    into a kingdom of priests. And after all this [He] brought them
    close to Mount Sinai and compelled them to accept the Torah. And
    even when they subsequently accepted the Torah out of love, in the
    days of Achashveirosh, this was because of their appreciation of
    the miracle that was done for them. But the convert forsakes his
    tranquil life among the nations and [takes upon himself] a life of
    restraint from his own impulses, and joins Israel, whose earthly
    plight is lowly and painful. Only because of love of Torah does the
    convert subjugate himself to the yoke of Heaven.

:-)BBii!
-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             "And you shall love H' your G-d with your whole
micha@aishdas.org        heart, your entire soul, and all you own."
http://www.aishdas.org   Love is not two who look at each other,
Fax: (270) 514-1507      It is two who look in the same direction.

Jacob Farkas wrote:
>> See Shut Hasam Sofer [OH 16] where he suggests that all Nus'haos are
>> equivalent and that the Arizal in his Nusah improved and highlighted the
>> kavanos in Nusah S'farad because he was S'faradi. Had the Arizal been
>> Ashkezani (or had there been someone of his stature among the the
>> Ashkenazim) he would have done the same for the Ashkenaz Siddur.

R' Reuven Koss wrote:
> I thought that the Arizal's father was ashkenazi-- his last name was
> Luria.

He was indeed Ashkenazi. See SHuT Minhas Elazar [OH 11] where he quotes
the HIDA in Yosef Ometz that the Arizal was from an Ashkenaz family.

The SHuT Hasam Sofer mentioned earlier, in OH 15 and 16, caused much
controversy among some Posqim in the 19th and 20th century. The Minhas
Elazar in his responsa is siding with the Divrei Hayyim in his criticsim
of the HS opinion on the matter. The Maharam Shick defended his Rebbe,
the HS, against the Divrei hayyim and the Minhas Elazar is challenging
the claims of Maharam Schick.

In short, Divrei Hayyim and Minhas Elazar [as well as the Liqutei Amarim]
are of the opinion that Arizal created a Nusah Hakolel, which is suitable
for all to use, passes through any of the 12 gates, and is not based on
Sefarad alone, has elements of Ashkenaz as well.

Jacob Farkas

On Wed, Jun 21, 2006 at 07:18:57AM -0400, Jacob Farkas wrote:
: Gemara in Makkos 21a. "...Assur lo l'adam sheyitein eifer maqleh al
: gabbei makkaso mipnei sheniris kikhsoves qa'aqa..." Rashi explains
: that the prohibition is specific to Eifer Maqleh, because it stays for
: a while, as opposed to other substances that are weaker in nature...

My understanding is that EM is permanent, and, once the wound heals,
ends up under the skin. The use of ash in this way, often producting dark
and raised scarring, is common to a number of cultures. It's unlike a
KQ in two ways:
1- The intent is refu'ah, not kesivah, and
2- The person isn't wounding himself in order to put it under the skin
-- the skin is already open.

RJF's sources support both.

Rama YD 180:4 says that tattooing a slave is patur aval assur
lechatkhilah. Which would seem to place significance on reason --
it's less evil to "brand" your property. Intent.

Tosafos states #2 in his rational for EM. #1. Even so, I would understand
this to mean that, like hilkhos shabbos de'oraisa, we should be looking
at tzerikhah vs. einah tzerikhah legufah.

On Wed, Jun 21, 2006 at 12:01:02AM +0200, RELPhM wrote:
: Also, as far as I know, the purpose plays a role. Beautification isn't as
: forbidden a purpose as is evoude zore, is it? The question is discussed
: in connexion with permanent make-up.

Given my "even so" right before this quote, I would think that it's not
relevent what kind of non-kesivah is the intent. Rather, it's whether
the definition of letzorekh is only kesivah or on tzovei'ah too.

AZ would be assur without even getting into our question. The rishonim
listed who explicitly make the din one of AZ, remind me of one of the
discussions in Yevamos of how many issurim a person can violate at once.

In any case, the whole thing seems to start blurring the line of pasqening
from taamei hamitzvos. I guess that's a mandatory side effect of saying
the act must be letzorekh to be assur.

Besides, while the Rambam says that KQ and peiyos harosh are derivatives
of AZ, RSRH atributes them to one not being their own property and the
separation between the human forebrain from the lower levels of the
psyche, respectively. His shitah on KQ matches the usual reasons for
getting a tattoo, at least in our society.

Would RSRH be mechadeish a chiluq with the Rambam if he believed the
outcome has a nafqa mina lehalakhah?

On a totally different tack, the question I raised before: Clearly
Sephardi pisqa is that henna, which that stays on "from 2 weeks to
several months [!] depending on the quality of the paste" is muttar.

Ashkenazim appear to have a shorter threashold. But does anyone know
of a pesaq that brings the time down to under a week? Because I didn't,
and because rub-on tattoos seem to be common usage, I'm presuming that
if there is one, it's not popular.

:-)BBii!
-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

[Of course this would be of interest to a R' KAGANoff... -mi]

Interesting halacha column in this week's Yated by Rabbi Kaganoff
discusses the presence of fragments of cadaver bone and muscle in offices
of dentists, dental surgeons and podiatrists. While a frum dentist
may receive a heter to use the bone fragment to produce a better dental
implant, Rabbi Kaganoff recommends that the individual patient ask his
own Rov. Even for a non-Kohen, there are various opinions regarding
using cadaver products in non-life-threatening situation.

He also mentions that the shiur for tumah (bone & muscle differ) is
quite small.

One point he does not mention. Assuming a non-Kohen is the recipient of
the transplant, does he now convey tumah to all around him? This sounds
like it could potentially be quite problematic.

On Mon, Jun 19, 2006 at 03:57:23AM -0400, S & R Coffer wrote:
:> "Thus"? Can't I prove the truth of something I can't understand? For
:> example, what if I disprove comprehensibility? Hashem exists, and yet
:> I can't understand Him...

: "Hashem exists" is only a statement vis-a-vis the qualities we can relate
: to such as the fact that our existence must have emanated from somewhere
: thus leading to the statement 'Hashem is the Boreh'...

... and those qualities that remain after we disprove the alternatives.

Between the two of us, we just repeated the Moreh's argument that Hashem
only has attributes that describe His actions as we perceive them,
and negative attributes.

:                                                      The qualities of
: "proof" necessarily relate to phenomena/ideas that are within our frame
: of reference (I can prove that 2+2=4 by taking two apples and putting
: them side by side with another two apples). You cannot prove the presence
: of a quality which exists outside of the parameters of your (mankind's)
: experience. It's illogical.

We could also prove that something parallel to something we can understand
must be true. That's how we can speak of HQBH "kevayachol", even though
we know we're using metaphors and parallels for something we don't really
comprehend.

IOW, we can reason about things we only partially comprehend.

:                                                       This is why I
: believe that Hashem's simplicity is a matter of accepted truth rather than
: philosophical postulation ....

And yet in the Morah (2:1, as I already posted), the Rambam proves that
the Borei can only be First Cause and not a nivra if He is Simple. Starts
with postulates and does it pretty rigorously.


On Mon, Jun 19, 2006 at 01:59:29PM -0400, Moshe Shulman wrote:
:>The words "Ein Sof" themselves describe a negative attribute, or the
:>negation of all attributes. For that matter, so is "We cannot really
:>say anything about AS." As is your later comment:

: As is a positive comment not a negative one. There are various reasons
: why we use the term AS.

I can't argue with "various reasons" without knowing what they are. But
where I come from "ein" is a negation, and thus "Ein Sof" (lit: limitless,
in+finite as per the roots of the word) is a negative statement.

In any case, you seem to have just brought evidence against your opening
statement:
>:                      Kabbalists are just more radical in their
>: monotheism then philosophers. There is an interesting note in Tanya
>: chapter 2 relating to this.

Here we find a willingness to speak of a positive attribute, which
the philosophers never would have.

:>: Obviously the idea of 'higher' and 'lower' is a difficult one in a
:>: 0-dimensional context.

:>NO dimensions? Isn't that just a negation?

: No. It is an acknowledgement that ruchniyos has neither length, breadth
: or height.

Again, there is a difference between saying something is of size 0,
weight 0, magnitude 0, and saying that the attribute doesn't enter into
the conversation at all. As I wrote:
:>BTW, in and of itself, this is poorly phrased. A photon has zero rest
:>mass. A niggun doesn't have zero weight; discussing its weight is
:>meaningless. Zero dimensional is a point in a mathematical space (which
:>could be real space or not) that has a size of 0 -- not spacelessness.

: I would have used i-space, but that could give one the error that there
: could be a comparison to R, like the complex plane compares to the
: Real plane.

My point isn't whether He lacks size in conceptual or physical space. It's
with your describing His size as 0 rather than saying the more negative
statement that size simply doesn't enter the conversation regardless of
the domain in which we're measuring.

A point has a size of 0, "1+1=2" is a mathematical fact, and it's
sizeless. I could as much argue it has zero volume as saying that since
it holds everywhere, it has infinite volume.


On Mon, Jun 19, 2006 at 02:09:55PM -0400, David Riceman wrote:
: That's what I mean by an instantiation. What's a ground? The Rambam says
: that Avraham Avinu deduced that God exists because the galgal eternally
: (tamid) conserves its angular momentum (AZ I:3, cf. YhT I:4). As I
: explained in a previous post (citing MN I:71) this is an ad hominem
: argument, since according to the Rambam God created the galgal with
: its angular momentum, so it is not really eternally conserved....

And that the notion of momentum, never mind its angular momentum, wasn't
thought of yet.

The Rambam spoke Aristotilian physics. (To repeat a point I made a number
of times in the past.) In it, an intellect can impart impetus to objects,
which then move until the impetus runs out. (A more obvious explanation
than positing the conservation of something that we never see lema'aseh
because of friction.) He therefore concluded that the galgalim must
have seichel, since that's the only way the impetus could be continually
reimparted to keep them spinning. (This also has strong bearing on his
shitah on mal'akhim, but that's for another time.)

To my taste, we should call these arguments "arguing leshitaskha" rather
than the more ambiguous "ad hominem".

To RDR's post, RSC writes:
> Now that you've described the difference between a ground and an
> instantiation, I am puzzled as to why you imagine that I believe
> tzitzum is instantiated on all levels. In fact, I don't even know what an
> "instantiation of Tzimtzum" would mean. Tzimtzum is a he'eder of OES which
> creates a vacuum to allow for the existence of all worlds...

Is tzimtzum the vacuum, or the cause of the vacuum?

The vacuum is certainly instantiated everywhere, the chol /
chalal. Whereas the cause is only at the plane where the "picture slide"
blocks the undiffrentiated and Simple Shefa (OES).

I would think that tzimtzum, being a verb, must refer to the latter.
I don't know how we speak of it intantiating altogether. It happened,
not existed.

>                                              R' Chaim Volozhiner explains
> that unlike a carpenter who builds something and then walks away from it,
> Hashem's word is constantly being mihaveh the Beria. Part of that Word
> was the command of Tzimtzum. If He were to retract this Word, everything
> would collapse into its prior state of non-existence so I suppose in a
> sense there is a third category between a ground and an instantiation
> as pertains to Hashem; we can call it a 'perpetual ground'.

But something need not be temporally prior in order to be logically
prior. And thus the ground need not be separated from the instantiation
in time.

Just as in halakhah, the pe'ulah and the chalos can be "gito veyado ba'im
ke'achas".

Also, we must keep in mind that time iself is a nivra, and therefore a
product of tzimtzum. Tzimtzum can't have happened *within* time.

>> Now this doesn't precisely parallel my examples, since if tzimtzum ever got
>> undone everything contingent would disappear (see the commentary on Petah
>> #16 in KLH Pithei Hochmah).  I was referring to the negative sense that
>> there is no instantiation of tsimtsum in each world.

> But there is a perpetual ground which in a sense is the same as
> an instantiation. "L'olam Hashem divarcha nitzav ba'shamayim" says
> Dovid. This means the d'var Hashem is actually still there and is
> actually still infusing the world or anything else it is responsible

But it would be the instantiation of the grounds, not the thing itself.

IOW, one can say that the 10 maamaros are eternal, and eternally causing
existence. Or, one could say like the Besht, that they are existence
itself. Does "Vayehi or!" cause light to exist, or is it itself the
thing we call light?

:-)BBii!
-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             Rescue me from the desire to win every
micha@aishdas.org        argument and to always be right.
http://www.aishdas.org              - Rav Nachman of Breslav
Fax: (270) 514-1507                   Likutei Tefilos 94:964

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


[ 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         ]