Avodah Mailing List

Volume 22: Number 15

Fri, 22 Dec 2006

• 1. Keil melech neeman (Rich, Joel)
• 2. Re: Keil melech neeman (Micha Berger)
• 3. Re: Sinai - Rambam - heard all or nothing? (Micha Berger)
• 4. Re: [Areivim] URL: article about halachic (Micha Berger)
• 5. Re: Al petach beito mibachutz (Micha Berger)
• 6. Re: History of Havarah (Micha Berger)
• 7. Re: Rambam on Prophecy (Micha Berger)
• 8. Re: zman hadloko erev shabbos and motzei shabbos (Micha Berger)
• 9. Re: Prophet - mashgiach or godol hador? (Daniel Eidensohn)
• 10. Re: Keil melech neeman (Zev Sero)
• 11. Re: History of Havarah (Daniel Israel)
• 12. Re: Prophet - mashgiach or godol hador? (Daniel Israel)
• 13. Re: Keil melech neeman (Daniel Israel)
• 14. Re: Historu of Havarah (Micha Berger)

Does anyone know why we say this before shma when we are saying it
byichidut (& it seems a hefsek) rather than repeating hashem eilokeichem
emet at the end of the shma (as the chazan does)?
KT
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.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20061221/d53af577/attachment.html 

On Thu, December 21, 2006 12:29 pm, Rich, Joel wrote:
: Does anyone know why we say this before shma when we are saying it
: byichidut (& it seems a hefsek) rather than repeating hashem eilokeichem
: emet at the end of the shma (as the chazan does)?

The Mukaczer in Darkhei Chaim veShalom actually says you should repeat Hashem
Elokeichem emes (HEE), even beyechidus.

But repeating HEE is also problematic, as it means the Chazan is speaking
between Shema and Emes veYatziv. So it too is a hefseiq. There are reasons why
we allow it for a Chazan as in his role for setting the minyan's pace -- a
rationale that doesn't work for anyone else.

To avoid this problem, the Moroccan minhag is for the Chazan to repeat "Hashem
E-lokeikhem" and the qahal answers "Emes". This avoids anyone going from Shema
to the berakhah and then back to Shema again. No hefseiq.

I discussed Keil Melekh Ne'eman in my shi'ur. (Recording at
<http://www.aishdas.org/asp/2006/10/shema-yisrael.shtml>, about 1/3 of the way
in.) The shiur decayed in attendance to non-existence, and I called it quits
after Shema so I didn't get to HEE.

According to R' Saadia Gaon, Birkhas Ahavah should get an "amein" afterward by
the person saying it, as it is the last of the the berakhos hasemuchos
lechaveirtos that are before Shema. As Sepharadim do after birkhas Shalom in
the Amidah, and we do after Bonei Y-m, the former end of bentching.

Machzor Vitri and the Ramban explicitly tell you not to say amein, as the
berakhos afterward are also semuchos. Which is why "Emes veYatziv" doesn't
begin "barukh". And the Ramban rules out Keil Melekh Ne'eman for the same
reason. For that matter, the Ramban says "birkhas ahavah" is a birkhas
hamitzvah for shema, and therefore Keil Melekh Ne'eman poses a second problem

The geonim and Sepharadi rishonim have no mention of Keil Melekh Ne'eman.
Since it's not in the Rambam's siddur, RYBS didn't say it.

The Machzor Vitri is the first source.

But yet another possible explanation if that "keil melekh ne'eman" is an
expansion of the same amein that R' Saadia Gaon provides.

Tir'u baTov!
-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             Spirituality is like a bird: if you tighten
micha@aishdas.org        your grip on it, it chokes; slacken your grip,
http://www.aishdas.org   and it flies away.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                            - Rav Yisrael Salanter

Back in v5n3 (6-Dec, I'm still catching up on some replies, RDE wrote:
: Rashba (4:234): ...
:           Therefore if G-d had spoken with a physical voice ...
:                                 it would not have removed their original
: doubts. It would not have been more impressive than the Splitting of the
: Sea and so therefore how would it have helped. Therefore it was obvious
: that that voice that G?d spoke to Moshe with must have been prophetic
: rather than physical....

The Rashba joins the Rambam in the shitah that nevu'ah is the experience of
something real but non-physical. (As opposed to the belief that it's a message
from G-d; proposed by the Abarbanel to anwer the Ramban's question on the
Rambam's peshat in the three mal'akhim visiting Avraham, and on Avodah I
applied to explain the machloqes about the the 'Man' in the throne of parashas
Mishpatim and the Merkavah.)

: Avodas HaKodesh(4:31): Rambam (Moreh Nevuchim 2:33) says that the
: awesome sound which Israel heard at Sinai and through which the Torah
: was given -- was created. He explains this in Moreh Nevuchim (1:65): ...
: ?This is especially so since all our people agree that the Torah - the
: words ascribed to Him ? was itself created. In fact speech which is
: attributed to Him ? that which Moshe heard ? was created and produced by
: G?d in the same manner that He created and produced everything else in
: the universe.? The intent according the commentaries is that if He has
: speech then the Torah is His speech and since the Torah is created He
: has no speech?.The explanation of the Rambam is a dark mountain which
: causes the feet of the believers to stumble and causes them to deviate
: from the path of the Torah. That is because they have doubts about this
: Voice which the Rambam says was created....

I think the Avodas haQodesh's question also disappears when we take the
Abarbanel's shitah that the Rambam associates nevu'ah with the perception of
created but non-physical things.

:> The Moreh Nevuchim does not say that the people did not hear G-d
:> speaking, only that although they heard his Voice, they were not at
:> the prophetic level to make out the words....

: I don't understand your point. If they heard a sound associated with
: Gd's speaking than in a technical sense they heard G-d speaking. However
: the proof of Mishneh Torah is only a proof if they heard G-d's words.
: Moreh Nevuchim rules out that possibility. Your understanding is that
: the sound was a miraculous sound and that convinced them. But the Rambam
: clearly says that miracles are not the basis of their belief in Moshe's
: prophecy.

Not really. If they could experience the spiritual words but not directly, it
wouldn't just be an undifferentiated Qol. It's not like hearing someone from
the next room and the words being muffled. Rather, the experience would be
clothed in dimyon, as per all lesser-quality nevu'ah. That is the Rambam's
middle ground between the subject line's "all or nothing". Which would mean
that what Moshe heard, they would see through mashal. Then they could assess
if the pisron would match the experience. No?

I would think this is mukhrach misevara, EXCEPT that it's nowhere in the
Rambam's description.

Tir'u baTov!
-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             Spirituality is like a bird: if you tighten
micha@aishdas.org        your grip on it, it chokes; slacken your grip,
http://www.aishdas.org   and it flies away.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                            - Rav Yisrael Salanter

On Tue, December 19, 2006 10:33 am, Rn Chana Luntz wrote:
:                                          .... "we generally seem to
: hold" that in fact IVF etc is a fulfilment of the mitzvah of pru u'rvu -
: as can be seen by the responses on this list suggesting that with the
: existence of IVF, artificial insemination etc, there is no need to mess
: around with the shiva nekiim...

I do not know if that claim was made on this list. The nearest I recall was my
asking whether precedent set before AIH was an option would still apply. I did
not intend my "I don't know if" to be taken as an assertion that the pesaqim
that permitted shaving down the 7 neqi'im definidently didn't apply and that
the heter could not be invoked in favor of AIH.

Not did I notice anyone answering this question with a more recent (post AIH)
teshuvah.

So, as far as I know, the people hear are mesupaqim, not assuming anything of
the sort.

Tir'u baTov!
-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             Spirituality is like a bird: if you tighten
micha@aishdas.org        your grip on it, it chokes; slacken your grip,
http://www.aishdas.org   and it flies away.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                            - Rav Yisrael Salanter

On Wed, December 20, 2006 9:18 am, R Dov Kay wrote:
: Rav M Sternbuch in Moadim uZemanim argues that in chutz la'aretz, one should
: never light outside, as this is the "sha'as sakana" that the Gemara is
: referring to.
: I am personally uncomfortable with lighting outside in chutz la'aretz, just
: as I am with those wear tallisos over their jackets in the street on Shabbos
: or those who mount menoros on their cars...  This is galus.

Do you really mean galus, or golah? One is only in the golah in chu"l, but one
can be in galus in EY as well. Galus Yavan was entirely within the bayis
sheini period.

I ask because if RMS means that the "she'as shakanah" is galus, then the
sevara should apply in pre-mashiach EY as well. Whereas if he means that the
sakanah is being a minority in a country ruled by non-Jews, it wouldn't.

Tir'u baTov!
-mi

On Tue, December 19, 2006 4:49 pm, RDBannett replied to my post:
:> [W]e know that true Ashkenaz havarah had a distinct
:> ayin. (Ask any boy nicknamed "Yankl".) It dropped out
:> because the local languages had no such sound. Is this
:> change "real", or is the mesorah with an /ng/ ayin? And once we say
:> we should revert this shift, how many are similar but simply too old
:> to know?

: This has been discussed on Mesorah and a number of times I
: have questioned the idea that we revert for the simple
: reason that changes in pronunciation have been going on
: continuosly. To which era do we revert? The same goes for
: nusach hatefilla. At what point in history do we set the end
: of "correct" nusach.

I recall asking it on Mesorah. However, there I got answers about the history
of havarah evolution, and few (your reply excepted) from the direction of the
halakhos of Shema and leining. (And, as RMF points out in his teshuvah,
chalitzah, where the difference could be an issur eishes ish and mamzeirim!)

There have been three kinds of havarah changes:

1- Sounds dropped because they do not exist in the local language, or mutated
to the nearest equivalent in the local language. The American qamatz, cholam
and reish leap to mind.

2- Drift over time simply because things drift. (Particularly before recording
instruments.)

And here, this is natural language change, part of being a living culture, not
assimilationist. Even if not purposive.

3- Sounds introduced by hypercorrecting nitpickers finding a "true right
sound" that was never before in the mesorah.

At least here people have sevaros for why it ought to be "right". It's
arguably parallel to the poseiq who unknowingly reaches a different conclusion
than his predecessors.

4- Sounds that changed because of migrations bringing Jews of different
qehillos together; the impact of merging mesoros.

For example, if Ashkenazim really do comprise a different EY - Bavel mix than
do Sepharadim, then of course their havaros are different. And in fact, the
difference could even be attributable to the initial differences between
shevatim, as that determined who ended up in Bavel when, and who stayed there.
I'm not asserting they are the same havaros as the shevatim, but the direct
consequence of mixing and remixing sounds.

I listed these in increasing order of personal preference. So that would be
how I lean in terms of what to try to roll back. If you know that the
particular shift was due to assimilation of language sounds, then should you
revert it?

:                ....  For example, the evidence  is quite strong that
: Rashi's "Ashkenazi" pronunciation was very close to what is
: now known as the Sefaradic pronunciation.

I recently saw an image of a medieval manuscript. The notzri who made this
manuscript obviously lived in a venue where the Jews used the same sound for
tzeirei and segol, and for patach and qamatz, as he only used tzeirei and
patach. Did the new sounds arise from some hypercorrection, or does it reflect
a population shift away from a mix that more closely matched Sepharad's?

As to what to roll back and what not to...

I am particularly concerned about ayin and ches, as the Rambam singles them
out as letters that could pasl one's qeri'as Shema.

I also asked about mil'eil vs milera, sheva na and nach, the lengths of
tenu'os chatufos and osios degushos. Are these all considered errors, or a
valid havarah not to care? And if the latter, how many Jews have to not know
about hei also having a patach genuvah before the sheim officially shifts from
E-loah to E-loha?

As I pointed out in my previous post, RAK hadn't given up on enforcing proper
diqduq, and did not consider pronouncing sheva na and sheva nach identically
(as either) to be halachically valid.

Thanks for the book reference,
:-)..ii|iiii and sheTir'u baTov!
-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             Spirituality is like a bird: if you tighten
micha@aishdas.org        your grip on it, it chokes; slacken your grip,
http://www.aishdas.org   and it flies away.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                            - Rav Yisrael Salanter

In v5n7 David Finch <dfinch847@aol.com> wrote:
: I agree. Rambam was a rationalist who, according to one commentator,
: viewed prophecy as a projection of the human intellect. Yehudah ha-Levi
: and others saw prophecy as a supernatural gift. By Rambam, the prophet
: is a prescient intellectual who would know when to invoke G-d's command
: and when to invoke the lesser province of reason and argument. By
: ha-Levi, the prophet may be a charismatic tzaddik who speaks for HaShem
: automatically.

Not at all!

Using the same distinction I made above, and adding to it subtypes:

The Rihal holds that a navi is someone who made himself capable of receiving
messages from Hashem. Whether he gets nevu'ah depends most heavily on whether
Hashem chooses to send him any.

The Rambam holds that a navi is someone who lifted his consciousness to the
point of being able to see what's going on in higher planes. Note that this is
even *more* mystical than the other position; rather than speaking about
Hashem creating dreamlike images, the Rambam (again, as understood by the
Abarbanel) invokes the idea of being aware of the processes shamayim and
(except for Moshe Rabbeinu) his mind forcing incomprehensible experience into
familiar sights and sounds. And in fact, the Rambam believes that when a
prophet tries for prophecy and doesn't get nevu'ah, it's because Hashem
chooses to withhold it.

Tir'u baTov!
-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             Spirituality is like a bird: if you tighten
micha@aishdas.org        your grip on it, it chokes; slacken your grip,
http://www.aishdas.org   and it flies away.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                            - Rav Yisrael Salanter

On Wed, December 20, 2006 2:49 am, R Danny Schoemann wrote:
: Yet we are expected to light 8 candles this year 2.5 minutes before
: shki'a!?!?! Whatever happened to Tosefes Shabbos? Or Chilul Shabbos?

Tarta desasrei: If you're lighting 2-4 min before sunset, it's because you
hold like Rabbeinu Tam. In which case, it's 3-1/4 mil (walking time) before
sunset.

It's like when someone wants to eat a CI shiur of matzah in a kedei achilas
RACN's peras. By combining two conflicting systems of measure lechumrah, one
could be committing achilah gasa.

:>The Brisker Rov ztvk"l claims that the zman hadloko mot"sh is different to
:> the rest of the week
: Um, it's the SA actually. 681:1. But even if it weren't written, it's
: obvious that Chazal wouldn't make a mitzva that's impossible to do.
:
: The part about getting his daughter to light the match I don't
: believe. Is his Gan Eden more precious than hers?

I would instead argue that this proves he did NOT hold it was din. Rather, it
was a chumrah he accepted upon himself, but didn't impose on his daughter. So
I actually get the opposite conclusion from the same maqor.

Tir'u baTov!
-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             Spirituality is like a bird: if you tighten
micha@aishdas.org        your grip on it, it chokes; slacken your grip,
http://www.aishdas.org   and it flies away.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                            - Rav Yisrael Salanter

R' David Riceman wrote:
>
> From: "Daniel Eidensohn" <yadmoshe@012.net.il>
>
>> My suggestion is that the Rambam views the prophet in the same way as 
>> we view a mashgiach - in relationship to to a rosh yeshiva or a magid 
>> in relationship to a rav. Someone who advises or suggest rather than 
>> having a position of leadership. Someone who is sensitive, wise and 
>> insightful  - but doesn't have political or decision making power.
>
> The problem with this is that, as I pointed out above, the Rambam 
> doesn't restrict what a prophet does when he isn't prophesying.  In 
> fact he can be a king or a member of the Sanhedrin.
>
> 

I agree  that the individual prophet can have a life outside his status 
of prophet. He is not prohibited from being a king or posek. Similar 
there is no law against a mashgiach serving also as a rosh yeshiva, 
posek or rocket scientist. I was simply noticing how the Rambam 
describes the prophet and his type  of perfection. He notes for example 
if a person has the imaginative faculty stimulated he is a political 
leader. If the intellectual faculty is stimulated he is a philosopher. 
Only if both are stimulated he is prophet. This  implies that the 
prototypical political leader is not a prophet and a prophet is not 
likely to be a politcal leader.

While you can point to the fact that Shmuel was apparently a king and 
judge in addition to being a prophet - I don't know of any other prophet 
aside from Moshe serving these multiple roles.  The possible sole 
exception is that the Anshei Knesses HaGedolah had prophets as members. 
However we really don't know what this body was and what role these 
prophets served. I am not aware of any sources which state they served 
as judges or poskim. If you have such sources have I would appreciate 
hearing about them.


>> A specific example is that the Rambam does not allow the involvement 
>> of ruach hakodesh in the Sanhedrin while the Ramban does.
>
> Where is this Ramban?
 
Ramban(Devarim 17:11): Left and Right.  *...t he Torah was given to us 
in writing and it is known that people don?t think identically in all 
matters. Therefore it would be natural for disputes over what the Torah 
means to continually multiply and it would end up that there would be 
many Torahs instead of one. That is why this verse tells you that one 
must obey the Sanhedrin which convenes in G?d?s presence in the Temple ? 
in everything they say concerning the understanding of the Torah. There 
is no difference in the requrement to obey whether this Torah 
understanding is part of the Tradition which goes back what G?d told 
Moshe or what their understanding of the meaning or intent of a Torah 
verse.  This requirement to accept their Torah understanding is because 
the Torah was in fact given to us according to their understanding. 
Therefore they must be obeyed even if their view contrasts with your 
understanding as left contrasts with right and surely if you agree with 
their understanding. That is because G?d?s spirit is on those who serve 
in His Temple and He does not desert His pious ones. G?d always protects 
them from error and mistake. The Sifri (Shoftim 154) says that you must 
obey them even if appears that they have reversed right with left and 
left with right.

> The Rambam doesn't proscribe ruah hakodesh, he just proscribes other 
> members of the Sanhedrin letting it influence them

The Rambam prohibits any invovlement of heavvenly inspiration in the 
halachic  process. If a prophet proclaimed that he had poskened based  
on Divine inspiration - and not on legal reasoning - Rambam would have 
him executed. Maharetz Chajes suggests that ruach hakodesh can provide 
the insight which is then developed fully by the rational faculty. 
Therefore the only prohition is to not rationalize the psak but to rely 
entirely on inspiration.

>
>> Another distinguishing factor between the Rambam's concept and others 
>> is whether the prophet must be obeyed in everything he says or just 
>> what he says in G-d's name.
>
> Other than the SHAUBTMH I don't know of anyone who says this. Are 
> there explicit sources? 


The Minchas Chinuch cites Tosfos both in Sanhedrin and Yevamos.


Daniel Eidensohn

Micha Berger wrote:
> On Thu, December 21, 2006 12:29 pm, Rich, Joel wrote:
> : Does anyone know why we say this before shma when we are saying it
> : byichidut (& it seems a hefsek) rather than repeating hashem eilokeichem
> : emet at the end of the shma (as the chazan does)?
> 
> The Mukaczer in Darkhei Chaim veShalom actually says you should repeat Hashem
> Elokeichem emes (HEE), even beyechidus.
> 
> But repeating HEE is also problematic, as it means the Chazan is speaking
> between Shema and Emes veYatziv. So it too is a hefseiq. There are reasons why
> we allow it for a Chazan as in his role for setting the minyan's pace -- a
> rationale that doesn't work for anyone else.

How about repeating "ani Hashem Elokechem"?

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

On Thu, 21 Dec 2006 14:02:17 -0700 Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org> 
wrote:
>I listed these in increasing order of personal preference. So that 
would be
>how I lean in terms of what to try to roll back. If you know that 
the
>particular shift was due to assimilation of language sounds, then 
>should you revert it?

In this light I sometimes wonder if it is possible to say that the 
shift having occured, should we now change it?  This relates to 
your (RMB's) recent comments about minhagim.  In areas of minhag 
and sometimes even we often don't roll back a mesorah even when we 
find something funny about the origin.  Can we perhaps say that if 
I have a mesorah for a particular pronounciation that it is better 
for me to rely on that then to go mucking around?  After all, what 
I have at least has the justification of a mesorah, even if history 
indicates that it has shifted, whereas anything I "roll back" is my 
own de'os, and who knows how good those are?

--
Daniel M. Israel
dmi1@cornell.edu

On Thu, 21 Dec 2006 12:53:47 -0700 Daniel Eidensohn 
<yadmoshe@012.net.il> wrote:
>Ramban(Devarim 17:11): Left and Right.  *...because G?d?s spirit 
is on
>those who serve in His Temple and He does not desert His pious 
ones. 
>G?d always protects them from error and mistake. 

I assume that the Hebrew here is "ruach hakodesh" (I don't have a 
Chumash at the office) and that that is the basis for your claim 
that Ramban allows involvement of ruach hakodesh in the Sanhedrin.  
However, based on the next sentence, I understand this Ramban to be 
speaking more of a passive hashgacha on psak, i.e., HKB"H will 
prevent them from paskening incorrectly (or, depending on how you 
understand eilu v'eilu, prevent them from going outside a defined 
range of possible psak).  I think this is different from the 
immediate implication of how you phrased your claim, which to me 
sounded like they could consciously "search" ruach hakodesh to find 
answers.

--
Daniel M. Israel
dmi1@cornell.edu

On Thu, 21 Dec 2006 12:34:20 -0700 Zev Sero <zev@sero.name> wrote:
>How about repeating "ani Hashem Elokechem"?

Two things: do you mean actually repeating the words (in which case 
why isn't it still a hefsek) or just saying them aloud (in which 
case the numbers don't come out right for the shaliach tzibur)?  
And I've heard this done, but it always bothered me because it 
sounds like the shaliach tzibur is making a declaration that is 
k'firah.  Does anyone know of a source upon which I can base my 
discomfort?

--
Daniel M. Israel
dmi1@cornell.edu

On Wed, Dec 20, 2006 at 01:02:25AM -0500, T613K@aol.com wrote about
"siboles":
: Some people say it was not a different accent but a speech defect  that was 
: common among the people of Ephraim.

I'm not sure if it's possible for it to be a physical speech defect. The
sounds /s/ vs /sh/ differ only by tongue placement. You can turn an /s/
into a /sh/ making approximately the same sound (same to my ear) by
constricting the air flow pretty much anywhere along the tongue. (I'll
pause while the reader inevitably experiments...) If they really lacked
the mobility for any of those placements to be possible, they would have
lost half the alphabet, not to mention having a hard time drinking. (It
does today fall to a speech therapist to teach the disabled these kinds
of eating skills.)

I would therefore think that if they had a speech defect, it would have
to have been learned, not biological. IOW, it would be a consequence
of the lack of sound in their language, not instead of it. Like the way
Russian immigrants struggle to pronounce a /h/, and many end up unable to
keep it away from the sound of their ches. Or the difficulties Japanese
speakers have distinguishing /r/ and /l/. Or Israelis between /ee/ and /i/
("heat" vs "hit").

:-)BBii + .iii|iiii !
-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             When memories exceed dreams,
micha@aishdas.org        The end is near.
http://www.aishdas.org                   - Rav Moshe Sherer
Fax: (270) 514-1507


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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 5, Issue 15
*************************************

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..."