Avodah Mailing List

Volume 20: Number 9

Wed, 11 Oct 2006

• 1. Yetzer HaRa channeled for good? (Ken Bloom)
• 2. Administrivia (kennethgmiller@juno.com)
• 3. Re: Ushpizin and Sheva Berakhos (kennethgmiller@juno.com)
• 4. Re: Ushpizin and Sheva Berakhos (Zev Sero)
• 5. RYBS On The Chazan Repeating Words During Tefillah (David J Havin)
• 6. Re Rambam on Corporeality (david guttmann)
• 7. Re: Chazarta Hashas (kennethgmiller@juno.com)
• 8. Re: Chazarta Hashas (Rich, Joel)
• 9. Schooling for women (was 12 steps) (Shoshana L. Boublil)
• 10. Re: Ushpizin and Sheva Berakhos (Akiva Blum)
• 11. Re: Schooling for women (was 12 steps) (Micha Berger)
• 12. Why lungen on HoSha'ana Raba? (Shoshana L. Boublil)
• 13. Re: Rav Keller's JO article on evolution (Micha Berger)
• 14. Re: 12 steps (Micha Berger)

On Mon, Oct 09, 2006 at 11:53:08PM -0400, Zev Sero wrote:
> Ken Bloom wrote:
> 
> >>Mogel relates a Talmudic legend about men from a great synagogue who
> >>wanted to kill the wild yetser hara. They captured it and locked it
> >>up for three days. But during that time, not a single new egg hatched
> >>anywhere in the land. The men understood that the yetser hara was the
> >>source of procreation ? without it, there could be no creative life
> >>force. So they let it go.  The yetser hara is tov me?od, the rabbinic
> >>authors concluded ? very good.
> 
> >AIUI, it isn't about the Yetzer HaRa being a good influence. It's a
> >more universal fact about the balance between good and bad in the
> >universe. When such a potential for evil was removed from the universe,
> >a corresponding potential for good had to be removed with it.
> 
> Huh.  I thought it was specifically about the yetzer hara for arayot.

That too, and I didn't mean to imply otherwise about the language of
Yetzer HaRa here. But AIUI, it's a general principle applying to
whatever part of the yetzer hara. When avodah zara was removed, so was
nevuah, when arayot were removed, so was the good that comes with it.

But R' Shlomo Argamon mentioned to me that he thought that yetzer
harah was something that could be channeled for good, that the term
Yetzer HaRa corresponded to the animalistic soul, and it was something
that was meant to be channeled for good (as opposed to something meant
to be conquered). So when the yetzer hara for arayot was removed,
that meant it could no longer be channeled for good either.

I'd appreciate sources understanding this either way.

--Ken

-- 
Ken Bloom. PhD candidate. Linguistic Cognition Laboratory.
Department of Computer Science. Illinois Institute of Technology.
http://www.iit.edu/~kbloom1/
I've added a signing subkey to my GPG key. Please update your keyring.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
Url : http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20061010/03884ead/attachment-0001.pgp

In Avodah Digest, Vol 3, Issue 8, three different posts addressed the 
same topic with three different subject lines, namely:

Re: [Avodah] ushpizin as Panim Chadashot
Re: [Avodah] Ushpizin and Sheva Berakhos
Re: [Avodah] Panim Chadoshos - Ushpizin

PLEASE be more careful about this! The archives (at 
http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org) can sort 
posts by subject, but it considers these three to be distinct 
threads. This makes it VERY difficult for people to look up old 
posts, because the information they're looking for might be in a 
differently-titled post than the others.

I understand that we're all using different software to read and 
write our posts. On the software I use, it is reasonably simple to 
copy-and-paste the text, so that I'm guaranteed to spell it 
accurately. (Even when the original poster misspelled a word, I use 
that spelling in order to keep the threads together.) If other people 
find this to be difficult, then I hope this post didn't offend you, 
because I am not directing it at anyone in particular, especially not 
to people who are unable to copy-and-paste the subject lines.

Akiva Miller

R"n Toby Katz quoted RDM:
> AFAIK, the only need for a minyan is for bentching. I
> don't think the Nodeh L'shimcha is sid without one.

Actually, Nodeh L'Shimcha *is* said when Sheva Brachos are omitted 
(either for lack of Panim Chadashos, or for lack of a minyan, 
provided there's at least a mezuman). Maybe he was thinking of 
Shehasimcha Bim'ono?

R' Avrohom Dubin (or was it Gershon writing from someone else's email 
account?) wrote:
> The Panim Chadoshos of Shabbos is not the Shabbos
> itself. Rather the people attending the Sheva Brochos
> have a different Panim than they had on Thursday night.

If that were the case, then the people who came for dinner on Friday 
night would not count for Shabbos lunch, because they have the same 
panim as the night before. You'd need someone who is either totally 
new, or had been at a meal other than the Friday night meal. But I 
think the halacha does allow using the exact same people for lunch as 
on the previous evening.

Akiva Miller

kennethgmiller@juno.com wrote:
> R"n Toby Katz quoted RDM:
>> AFAIK, the only need for a minyan is for bentching. I
>> don't think the Nodeh L'shimcha is sid without one.
> 
> Actually, Nodeh L'Shimcha *is* said when Sheva Brachos are omitted 
> (either for lack of Panim Chadashos, or for lack of a minyan, 
> provided there's at least a mezuman). Maybe he was thinking of 
> Shehasimcha Bim'ono?

At a bris?


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

Does anyone have a copy of a letter which RYBS sent to the Cantorial Council
of America about the prohibition on the Chazan repeating words during
Tefillah?  A translation of the letter by Rabbi Fabian Schonfeld was
published in the Cantorial Council of America Bulletin, Volume 4, #1 (1965).

Thanks,

DJH

 

Responding to R. Daniel Eidensohn - 
>I don't think your alternative is relevant for the masses and my original
question remains.

There is a difference between accepting that God is incorporeal and that He
acts without an instrument. In other words the masses are taught from
childhood on that God has no body even though they are also taught that He
acts.  For God to act they cannot accept that without attributing to Him an
instrument such as a hand or a foot or another "attribute that indicates
corporeality". Rambam in 1:65 says that about more sophisticated people too
"Shelo Yavin ha'adam bereishit Hamachshava he'ech ye'asseh davar shyesh
ratzon la'asoto be'etzem haratzon bilvad". Here we are told that people
cannot accept an act without at least God speaking - thus all the vayomers
and vayedabers - which are "attributes that indicate corporeality". 

Everyone including the masses are told God has no body. Accept it on faith
as Rambam says in 1:35 " Umi shekaha sichlo...." is told that on faith. But
when it comes to action we let him stay with the idea that God acts similar
to a human. Eventually if he learns and grows he will get the truth. See
also Yesodei Hatorah 1:8-9 - in 8 he says that God is not corporeal in 9 he
immediately allows for accepting attributes that indicate corporeality. That
is consistent with 1;26 where Rambam talks about actions thus attributes
that indicate corporeality - descend, rise etc... And he ends with
"Uleficach rauy leva'aro leotam sherotzim lehavi atzmoam lishleimut
haenoshit" (quotes are from R. Kafih's edition.)

David Guttmann
 
If you agree that Believing is Knowing, join me in the search for Knowledge
at http://yediah.blogspot.com/ 
 
Ve'izen vechiker (Kohelet 12:9) subscribe to Hakirah at www.hakirah.org 

R' Joel Rich asked:
> Is anyone aware of any written sources that allow
> learning during chazarat hashatz?

R' Harry Weiss suggested:
> Look at Igros Moshe, Orech Chaim Chelek Daled, Siman
> Yud Tes.

and RJR responded:
> Yes- In which he prohibits it - but differentiates
> between if 10 aren't listening (there it's mdina)
> versus if 10 are listening (then can't do since
> others may learn from you and not answer amen). So
> again - any sources that say it is OK? If not, why
> do we see people doing it and not being corrected?

Look at that Igros Moshe again (especially the last eight lines). 
You've quoted only the Magen Avraham's understanding of the Sefer 
Vavei Haamudim, and missed the Magen Avraham's understanding of the 
Teshuvos Mem Ayin. (BTW, does anyone know what the name of that sefer 
is, i.e., what Mem Ayin stands for?) (Also, for the benefit of those 
without access to Igros Moshe, he is focusing on Magen Avraham 124:8.)

My translation of Igros Moshe there: "We're forced to say that the 
Teshuvas Mem Ayin is only when there are ten [others] paying 
attention to the shliach tzibur: He holds not to correct such people, 
even though they're not acting properly..."

So there's at least one opinion who explains "why we see people doing 
it and not being corrected."

Akiva Miller

 
RJR responded:
> Yes- In which he prohibits it - but differentiates between if 10 
> aren't listening (there it's mdina) versus if 10 are listening (then 
> can't do since others may learn from you and not answer amen). So 
> again - any sources that say it is OK? If not, why do we see people 
> doing it and not being corrected?

Look at that Igros Moshe again (especially the last eight lines). 
You've quoted only the Magen Avraham's understanding of the Sefer Vavei
Haamudim, and missed the Magen Avraham's understanding of the Teshuvos
Mem Ayin. (BTW, does anyone know what the name of that sefer is, i.e.,
what Mem Ayin stands for?) (Also, for the benefit of those without
access to Igros Moshe, he is focusing on Magen Avraham 124:8.)

My translation of Igros Moshe there: "We're forced to say that the
Teshuvas Mem Ayin is only when there are ten [others] paying attention
to the shliach tzibur: He holds not to correct such people, even though
they're not acting properly..."

So there's at least one opinion who explains "why we see people doing it
and not being corrected."

Akiva Miller


I'm just looking at the last line - my loose translation - Thus it is
forbidden to learn during chazarat hashatz in any manner, there is
strict law and there is the reason of the Magen Avraham. So are you
saying that everyone is relying on what seems to be a clearly rejected
opinion which at best says we don't stop them (again is there anyone who
says it is OK to do?)
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.

 Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2006 15:31:04 GMT
> From: "kennethgmiller@juno.com" <kennethgmiller@juno.com>
> Subject: Re: [Avodah] 12 steps

[del] Such is 
> the nature of shaas hadchak, some of which have been going on for 
> even longer periods of time. 
[del]
Perhaps schooling for women might be 
> in this category.

I must say that this has always bothered me. The idea that teaching women Yiddishkeit in an organized way is only b/c of "sha'at had'chak".

Even more so, after learning the G'mara that in the time of Chizkiya, when they checked, they couldn't find a "Tinok o Tinoket" who didn't know all Torah SheBe'al Peh including Tohorot.

We also have the examples in the G'mara of the various educated ladies; We have examples of Nevi'ot, again women who had to be educated on a above average level in Yahadut (and there is a saying in the G'mara that gives a very high number of Nevi'ot, even though not all were listed for the future).

Even in the discussion that is the source of the idea of not teaching, it is a Da'at Yachid, and in the same place other opinions that encourage teaching did exist.

(And the Tanna who originated the idea, IIRC, was later put in Cherem and his psak NOT accepted for other matters!)

It is also logical that a woman can't keep the mitzvot she is obligated to keep without some basic study.

So, when did the Jewish nation take on the surrounding non-Jewish influence that led to keeping women (mostly) ignorant? Why is it so popular even today, when we know that this is not the idea behind "Ko Tomar LeBeit Yisrael...."?

If Hashem created the world and everything in it, and He gave the Torah, why the fear of women learning Torah that exists even today?

Shoshana L. Boublil

The question is moot.

Everyone present is pottur from succa. S.A. 640:6 (but see MB 33).

>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!)

Dovid Hamelech in this case is the only one who couldn't take a brocho. His is the last day, so since the wedding was before YT, SB are over.


Akiva

On Wed, Oct 11, 2006 at 08:35:32AM +0200, Shoshana L. Boublil wrote:
: I must say that this has always bothered me. The idea that teaching
: women Yiddishkeit in an organized way is only b/c of "sha'at had'chak".

I didnt' understand it that way at all.

Rather, that one is obligated to teach a girl everything necessary for
her to become a frum woman someday. In most generations, that definition
onl included halakhah lema'aseh, some chumash, and little odds and ends.
With universal secular education providing competing ideologies, the
old definition includes teaching more. It's not a sha'as hadechaq,
it's a change in pesaq due to change in metzi'us.

: Even more so, after learning the G'mara that in the time of Chizkiya,
: when they checked, they couldn't find a "Tinok o Tinoket" who didn't
: know all Torah SheBe'al Peh including Tohorot.

Similarly, the generation after Menasheh haMelekh, needed to know for
themselves that the Torah was more attractive than Menasheh's AZ.

Tir'u beTov!
-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             May it be His Will that Yosef Shelomo b' Devorah
micha@aishdas.org        - among all our soldiers and all the residents of
http://www.aishdas.org   northern Israel - return home soon, healthy in
Fax: (270) 514-1507      spirit and body, to peace and security.

I was doing some research for HoSha'na Raba, when I discovered that in many, many communities, there was a custom to eat lungs (and liver) specifically on this night.

In many Ashkenazi communities, the food of choice is Kreplach. While it is possible to make them with any filling, my most traditional recipe -- uses lungs.

Among Lybian Jewry, this night is nicknamed "the night of lung and liver" and a special dish is served.

So, any ideas why this food became the food of choice on this night?

Shoshana L. Boublil

On Fri, October 6, 2006 2:09 pm, Meir Shinnar wrote:
: 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....

But because of your reisha, I disagree with your seifa. Yes, the Torah
expressed some truths allegorically. However, there is no indication that the
Rambam held this was possibly true even of statements for which we have no
mesorah indicating allegory. The Me'iri limits allegorization in this way, and
they way I took that pereq (a few phrases) in the MN, the Rambam agrees. But
even without that text, there is no proof he is choleiq; it would be an
argument from silence.

Despite the above, you and I have no difference WRT ma'aseh bereishis since I
believe there is such TSBP indicating that the literal text would be
misleading historically. Our debate revolved around the events in parashas
Noach. RZLampel and I both understand the Rambam as agreeing with the Me'iri,
and dispute whether such indication from the TSBP is real.

: 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.

Here is my excuse for saying the post adds something new to the debate.

The Kuzari doesn't seem to me to say that at all:
> 60. Al Khazari: Does it not weaken thy belief if thou art told that the
> Indians have antiquities and buildings which they consider to be millions
> of years old?

> 61. The Rabbi: It would, indeed, weaken my belief had they a fixed form of
> religion, or a book concerning which a multitude of people held the same
> opinion, and in which no historical discrepancy could be found. Such a book,
> however, does not exist. Apart from this, they are a dissolute, unreliable
> people, and arouse the indignation of the followers of religions through
> their talk, whilst they anger them with their idols, talismans, and
> witchcraft....

> 67. The Rabbi: ... Heaven forbid that there should be anything in the Bible
> to contradict that which is manifest or proved! On the other hand it tells
> of miracles and the changes of ordinary, things newly arising, or changing
> one into the other. This proves that the Creator of the world is able to
> accomplish what He will, and whenever He mill. The question of eternity and
> creation is obscure, whilst the arguments are evenly balanced. The theory
> of creation derives greater weight from the prophetic tradition of Adam,
> Noah, and Moses, which is more deserving of credence than mere speculation.
> If, after all, a believer in the Law finds himself compelled to admit an
> eternal matter and the existence of, many worlds prior to this one, this
> would not impair his belief that this world was created at a certain epoch,
> and that Adam and Noah were the first human beings.

The Kuzari would consider strong proof to be capable of weakening belief in
Yahadus -- NOT a call to allegory. Yes, they must be consistent, but that
doesn't mean the Torah is malleable enough to always be made consistent.
Rather, contradiction would never come up. It seems that the Me'iri would only
reinterpret when he feels there is room to say it was misunderstood, not when
there is a clear statement.

Remember, this is the rishon who said that mesorah was more certain than
philosophy. That the Greeks have an excuse; being deprived of one, they were
forcably left to the other. (Which they also only got after exposure to
Semitic Persians, to boot.) It is clear which he would assume requires
reinterpretation.

The only thing he offers is that perhaps the eternity of matter could fit the
Torah if we posit earlier worlds. Something the mequbalim were positing for
their own reasons. But the thrust of the paragraph, and the first book as a
whole, is "the prophetic tradition ... is more deserving of credence than mere
speculation."

RSCarmy wrote:
> Regarding evolution, cosmology and similar questions, however, the
> fact that Rambam, Halevi and other rishonim were willing to revise
> their understanding of Torah to avoid contradicting reason does not
> entail that they would automatically capitulate to evolution. That
> is because their conception of rational proof was more rigid than
> our ideas of what is scientifically beyond reasonable doubt.

To elaborate on my own (meaning I'm about to nauseate RSC by posting
oversimplification), they lived in a world where such studies were "natural
philosophy", not "science". Philosophy aspires to proofs from first
principles, not collecting data by experiment. The latter works well in that
it gives you the means to collect more data with which to reason and to narrow
speculation. But the results aren't necessarily more certain; and it's
unlikely they would have thought it was.

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

On Tue, October 10, 2006 11:31 am, RAM <kennethgmiller@juno.com> wrote:
: In the case at hand (alcoholism) the individual may feel that this
: temporary measure might be needed for only a century or two...

The problem need not be as immediately life threatening as alcoholism or
narcotics. Most O Jews in a 12 Step program are in Overeaters Anonymous.

A local rav and psychologist has a tape on the subject, which I didn't yet
have a chance to hear. One prelude I was given, though, WRT my original
question. If we are not supposed to "let go and let G-d" run our lives for us,
what do we mean by "vekhof es yitzreinu lehishtabed Lakh"? He holds that the
only hashkafic problem with 12 Step programs is the belief that they're only
for addicts. More once I get ahold of the tape. (With thanks to RZL for
pointing me to said rav.)

BTW, RSS defines "ritzreinu" to be the yeitzer hatov (we wouldn't use the
posessive for the yh"r), which if not in proper shibud can lead one to
fanaticism and doing some horrible things.

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



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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 3, Issue 9
************************************

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..."