Avodah Mailing List

Volume 20: Number 6

Mon, 09 Oct 2006

• 1. Re: Chazarat hashatz (Micha Berger)
• 2. Ushpizin and Sheva Berakhos (Gershon Dubin)
• 3. Re: Agag (David Riceman)
• 4. Re: Chazarat hashatz (Rich, Joel)
• 5. ENDING ON A GOOD NOTE (Cantor Wolberg)
• 6. Re: Ushpizin and Sheva Berakhos (Rich, Joel)
• 7. Re: Ushpizin and Sheva Berakhos (T613K@aol.com)
• 8. Re: Rav Keller's JO article on evolution (Micha Berger) (Meir Shinnar)
• 9. Agag (Yisrael Medad)
• 10. Re: Kiddush Levanah on Motzoei Yom Kippur (Akiva Blum)
• 11. Missing Rambam. Help! (SBA)
• 12. Re: RE; Ushpizin and Sheva Berakhos (Simon Montagu)
• 13. Re: 12 Step Programs (Harry Maryles)
• 14. Re: Missing Rambam. Help! (Simon Montagu)

On Thu, October 5, 2006 5:07 pm, Joel Rich wrote:
: Is anyone aware of any written sources that allow learning during chazarat
: hashatz?

Didn't you ask something similar in v17 (old) n90? See the thread
<http://tinyurl.com/jzvqy#MBYESHIVA%20COMMUNITIES>.

Tir'u beTov!
-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             One who kills his inclination is as though he
micha@aishdas.org        brought an offering. But to bring an offering,
http://www.aishdas.org   you must know where to slaughter and what
Fax: (270) 514-1507      parts to offer.        - R' Simcha Zissel Ziv

From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>

<<So you do see why I would consider it. Once one says that Shabbas
haMalkah can serve, why not the Ushpizin? What sevara would distinguish
one from the other?

(No I do not have sources; that's what I was asking for!)>>

Following up on R' Saul's he'ara on yichud, think of the Gemara of
issur yichud of the kallah if the choson should go out for a few minutes.

Even if they're panim chadashos, don't be mechabed them with a beracha
(certainly not with bentching unless it's Dovid Hamelech, the only one
who accepted the offer!)

Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com

From: "Sober Family" <sober@pathcom.com>

<I definitely recall hearing that Agag - in the brief interval after Shaul 
spared him and before Shmuel killed him - found a shifcha through whom he 
was able to continue his line of descent. But I can't find the source for 
this! Does anyone know the source?>

Targum Sheini 4:13.  It's supposed to be in Esther Rabba also, but I 
didn'tfind it there (only a brief glance).

David Riceman

 

On Thu, October 5, 2006 5:07 pm, Joel Rich wrote:
: Is anyone aware of any written sources that allow learning during
chazarat
: hashatz?

Didn't you ask something similar in v17 (old) n90? See the thread
<http://tinyurl.com/jzvqy#MBYESHIVA%20COMMUNITIES>.

Tir'u beTov!
-mi

====================
Yes, but I've been asked for written sources (versus mpi hashmua or
"that's what R' X does")
GT
Joel Rich
THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE 
ADDRESSEE.  IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL 
INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE.  Dissemination, 
distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is 
strictly prohibited.  If you received this message in error, please notify us 
immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message.  
Thank you.

The very last letter of the Torah is lamed and the very first letter is beis. 
The two letters together form the word Lev, "heart."

In order for the heart to be complete and whole, there is no break between the end of the Torah and the beginning.  Bereshis follows D'vorim with no interruption.
If there were a break, it would break both the heart of the A-mighty, as well as the Jewish People.

Now, in reverse, you would have "bal" (bet, lamed) meaning "don't" or "not". 

Going in the natural order, we complete D'vorim and immediately begin B'reishis, thus we have the lamed of "Yisroel" and the beis of "B'reishis."  When you change the natural order and go in reverse, then you get "bal" which is a negative?"Not". We must not change the natural order of things, and we should follow the order of the Torah and "NOT" reverse it. 

The last word of the Torah, Yisroel, and the first word of the Torah, B'reishis, both contain a yud, shin, reish and aleph. If there were a lamed in B'reishis, it also would spell Yisroel. I thought of the following cute d'rash regarding no lamed in b'reishis:  The word Yisroel contains the first letters of the Ovos and Imahos: Avraham, Yitzchok, Ya'akov, Sara, Rivka, Rochel and Leah. 

The word B'reishis contains the letters of all but Leah. If you recall, Ya'akov was supposed to have married just Rochel, but he was tricked into first marrying Leah.  So for B'reishis, there is no lamed for Leah, because Jacob wasn't supposed to have married Leah. However, as history would have it, Jacob did marry Leah and hence the last word of the Torah also contains her initial.

Richard Wolberg
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20061006/d2a29023/attachment.htm

 


Following up on R' Saul's he'ara on yichud, think of the Gemara of issur
yichud of the kallah if the choson should go out for a few minutes.

Even if they're panim chadashos, don't be mechabed them with a beracha
(certainly not with bentching unless it's Dovid Hamelech, the only one
who accepted the offer!)

Gershon


How about a golem?  Before you laugh too hard see sh"ut Chacham Tzvi #
93
Gmar Tov,
Joel
THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE 
ADDRESSEE.  IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL 
INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE.  Dissemination, 
distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is 
strictly prohibited.  If you received this message in error, please notify us 
immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message.  
Thank you.

 
 
>>. Are you in doubt as to whether the  Ushpizin count for a  minyan? A 
mezuman? Do they affect issur yichud? I rather imagine the answer is  "of course 
not". I don't know of any basis for thinking that panim chadashot is  any 
different.

It is true that there is one non-corporal entity which  counts as panim 
chadashot: Shabbat. AFAIK, this is the only such  case....<<

Saul Mashbaum


 
.
If you have nine men at a bris do you not count Eliyahu Hanavi as the  tenth? 
 Of course since he went up alive to Heaven, he may not be  "non-corporal" 
but merely invisible.



--Toby  Katz
=============
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20061006/53672470/attachment-0001.html

me

: 2)  there is a strong tradition (even amongst literalists like the kuzari)
> : that, even if one does not argue for the rationality of torah, torah
> does
> : not contradict reason - eg, the kuzari argues that there is no good,
> solid
> : evidence for a world older than 5000 years (his time) - but admits that
> if
> : there was such evidence, the position and argument would have to be
> : rethought - because nothing in the torah can contradict reason.
> RMB
> Actually, the statement is that the two could never contradict. Period.
> The Kuzari and Rambam probably didn't entertain the possibility that
> their shitos in Torah would need to be rethought. And if they did face the
> apparant contradiction, it can not be proven that they would reinterpret
> the pasuq rather than question the philosophical grounds of using science
> to understand origins.


1) The rambam and kuzari are different.  Without going again into our debate
on the meaning of that phrase in MN, as a general rule the rambam believed
that truth from torah and philosophy coincided - but that torah expressed
its truths allegorically.  He is explicitly aware and states elsewhere that
his allegorical interpretation doesnot come from a specific tradition about
a verse or an issue - but that the two sources of truth  need to be
reconciled.  We can argue about the limits of this reinterpretation - but he
is quite explicit that issues of time don't bother him....

The kuzari isn't as clear, but I think is somewhat stronger than RMB states
- he says that if the  king  had stronger proofs  for the  age of the  world
being  ~5000 years than merely  Indian traditions,  which  were dismissed
as  more  mythological than  historical,  then  he would have to  give  a
different  answer.

It is also in the Kuzari that he explicitly accepts a position that matter
is eternal as being acceptable (not that it is his position or what he
considers to be true - but that it is an acceptable position for a ma'amin)

However, the kuzari was brought in for a different reason - not for the
issue of explicit allowing of reinterpretation - but that his statements
about the pshat meaning occur within an explicit  framework of accepting the
intrinsic compatibility of torah and reason - and that that compatibility is
one that is an intrinsic part of torah beliefs..  For those of us who accept
an ancient universe as scientifically and rationally proven - the choice is
between accepting the pshat statements of the kuzari about a particular
statement, or accepting the framework in which they were said - the two are
now incompatible.

Therefore, while I can't prove what the kuzari's position would be today,
the use of the kuzari (or any of the other rishonim or statements of hazal
brought down which suggest a pshat understanding is problematic evidence for
this discussion - because they are all made in the framework where that
understanding is viewed as compatible with reason. Therefore, the question
is what their position would be if it was now viewed as incompatible with
reason - as many of us do.

Meir Shinnar
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20061006/79cdcf85/attachment.htm

For Agag impregnating a slave-girl see:
 Torah Shleima Esther 3:1; Megiilah 13A; Yalkut Shimoni, B'shelach, Item
268; Yalkut Mei'Am Loez Shmuel I, p. 188; Daat Mikra Esther 3:1, note 6


-- 
Yisrael Medad
Shiloh
Mobile Post Efraim 44830
Israel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20061007/af9c0c1a/attachment.html

Harry Maryles <hmaryles@yahoo.com> wrote:
   >Subject: Re: [Avodah] Kiddush Levanah on Motzoei Yom Kippur
   >To: A High-Level Torah Discussion Group <avodah@lists.aishdas.org>
   >Message-ID: <20061005015537.19690.qmail@web36702.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
   >Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
   >
   >
   >
   >--- Yitzchok Levine <Larry.Levine@stevens.edu> wrote:
   >
   >> Many have the custom of making Kiddush Levanah on Motzoei Yom
   >> Kippur 
   >> right after Maariv. However, this means that the wives of the men 
   >> making Kiddush Levanah have to wait longer before they can break 
   >> their fast, because they have to wait for their husbands to return 
   >> home and make Havdalah before they can eat. Is it really proper to 
   >> perform this mitzvah at the "expense" of others who may well be 
   >> feeling weak from fasting?
   >
   >This practice is Halachicly incorrect. One is supposed to eat before
   >making Kiddush Levana. It is only out of expedience that many shuls
   >do so. In my son's Shul in Ramat Bet Shemesh everyone goes home to
   >make Havdlaha and eat immediately after the Maariv and return later
   >at a pre-determiend time to do Kiddush Levanah. 

This practice would seem to ignore the heter of the MB (426:11 see shaar hatziyoon) that one is not required to eat before KL on MYK, because of the simcha of mchilas avonos. This is unlike Tisha beav where the practise is widespread to do as above.

Akiva

Over YT someone pointed out to me Rambam, 
Hilchos Talmud Torah, Perek 7.
Halacha # 8 is missing.

It seems to be known by some, who have attached to it
some chassidish urban legend, which, IMHO, is too ridiculous to repeat.

But can anyone shed any light on this? Is it the work of a censor? 
What about earlier editions and those in Yemen etc?

SBA
sba@sba2.com

On 10/6/06, Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org> wrote:
> So you do see why I would consider it. Once one says that Shabbas
> haMalkah can serve, why not the Ushpizin? What sevara would distinguish
> one from the other?

We know that Shabbat is present. We invite the ushpizin, but we have
no guarantee that they accept the invitation: the Zohar explicitly
says that if one isn't machnis (physical) orechim, the ushpizin refuse
to come (Emor 103a).

--- Dov Kay <dov_kay@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:

I am exceedingly leery of the 12 steps, although I appreciate
> that 
> Rabbi Dr Twerski has no doubt helped many using them.


I do not understand all this handwringing about the 12 step program.
Why are we darshaning certain steps? This program is not meant as a
primer on Torah Hashkafa. It is meant as a means to overcome an
addiction. 

As such the twelve steps make emminent sense. Trying to say that this
or that step is not in concert with Torah Hashkafa is way besides the
point and counterproductive. Besides these steps are not counter to
Torah Hashkafa if understood properly. 

For example, the first step: "We admitted we were powerless over our
addiction - that our lives had become unmanageable" ...does not mean
we do not believe in Bechira Chafshis. Of course we do. It is simply
an acknowledgement that we have become so addicted to a beahvior
pattern that it has overcome our natural ability to control it. It is
a matter of admitting the diminution of will power on this particualr
act. Of course we know in theory that we can at a moment's notice
change the behavior... that we have Bechira... but our psychological
state is very weak and therefore  makes the pratical application of
Bechira Chafshis seem impossible.

I applaud Rabbi Twerski's efforts and successful use of the twelve
step program. I don't think it is wise to do an Halachic or Hashkafic
analysis of it. For those who use it successfully, such discussions
can only be damaging.

HM


Want Emes and Emunah in your life? 

Try this: http://haemtza.blogspot.com/

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 

On 10/8/06, SBA <sba@sba2.com> wrote:
> Over YT someone pointed out to me Rambam,
> Hilchos Talmud Torah, Perek 7.
> Halacha # 8 is missing.
>
> It seems to be known by some, who have attached to it
> some chassidish urban legend, which, IMHO, is too ridiculous to repeat.
>
> But can anyone shed any light on this? Is it the work of a censor?
> What about earlier editions and those in Yemen etc?

http://mechon-mamre.org/i/1307.htm has the text from Yemenite
manuscripts, and in this chapter also has the numbering from the
printed editions in square brackets. AFAICT the difference is only in
the numbering, and the text is the same.

By the way, see http://mechon-mamre.org/i/3130.htm halacha 15 for a
case where the censors made nonsense of the text. The original is
"mehhallel shabbat beferhesia harei hu ke'oved avoda zara, ushneihem
kegoyim". In the printed edition this becomes "...harei hu ke`akum
ushneihem ke`akum.


------------------------------


Avodah mailing list
Avodah@lists.aishdas.org
http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 3, Issue 6
************************************

Send Avodah mailing list submissions to
	avodah@lists.aishdas.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
	http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
	avodah-request@lists.aishdas.org

You can reach the person managing the list at
	avodah-owner@lists.aishdas.org

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Avodah digest..."