Avodah Mailing List

Volume 22: Number 22

Sat, 30 Dec 2006

• 1. Re: Dechiyot (Zev Sero)
• 2. Re: History of Havarah (afolger@aishdas.org)
• 3. Re: Al petach beito mabachutz (A & C Walters)
• 4. Re: Al petach beito mabachutz (Zev Sero)
• 5. Re: Al petach beito mabachutz (Micha Berger)
• 6. Re: Rambam on Prophecy (Micha Berger)
• 7. Re: Changing Havarah (Michael Kopinsky)
• 8. Re: Changing Havarah (Micha Berger)
• 9. Re: Yetzer HoRa Issues - warning - - Long Post (David Riceman)
• 10. Re: Dechiyot (Simon Montagu)
• 11. Re: Al petach beito mabachutz (Zev Sero)
• 12. Re: Glatt Yosher? (Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer)
• 13. Re: Glatt Yosher? (Rich, Joel)
• 14. Re: Glatt Yosher? (Micha Berger)
• 15. Re: Changing Havarah (Michael Kopinsky)

Simon Montagu wrote:
 
> http://www.geocities.com/Athens/1584/index.html#24.3 gives these answers:
> 
> 1. 39.0%
> 2. Lo Ido Rosh (42.9%)
> 3. Molad Zaken (14.3%)
> 
> After looking it up I realized that one could have deduced these
> percentages logically: Lo Ido Rosh is obviously going to kick in in 3
> years out of 7, and Molad Zaken in a quarter of the remaining years,
> i.e. 1 out of 7.

Only if you apply the ADU rule before Molad Zaken, and count a MZ only
when you haven't already applied ADU.  It makes more sense to me to
apply MZ first, and ADU last, because MZ often triggers ADU, and GTRD
*always* does.

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

RMB wrote:
> Perhaps you meant we would suddenly realize how many reish-es deserve to
> be
> degushot, and /they/ would be the ones popping up?

Yes. Acording to some medaqdeqim, that is what should happen.

> I think the reish degushah fell between the cracks because
<SNIP>

That is your theory. Many sounds were either lost or morphed over the
ages. Reish might have been the second one. (the first one being the sin,
which ought to be distinct from the samakh. Some would have it as a
palatial sound with an almost flat tongue. It is hard to describe in
writing)

Kol tuv,

Arie Folger

At the time of the chasima of the Talmud, there was a shhas sakono. 
Therefore even if there is no sakono, it is irrelevant, much like a lot of 
takonos like eating cholent because of the sadukim who didn't eat hot food 
on shabbos even though there are no sadukim now. The fact that originally 
there was a din to light outside is irrelevant; chazal were mevatel it, and 
the talmud was closed and signed. fartig!

 That's an accomodation for sh'as
 It was suggested here that there was
> some sort of "institution" that we should always light inside, even when
> there is no sakana, in case there should ever be one,

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Spending too much on ink? Click for discounted ink cartridges
http://tags.bluebottle.com/fc/KCuXzzUhmCDJfTIkeZb5n7l3j2ucua/

A & C Walters wrote:

>> That's an accomodation for sh'as
>> It was suggested here that there was
>> some sort of "institution" that we should always light inside, even when
>> there is no sakana, in case there should ever be one,

> At the time of the chasima of the Talmud, there was a shhas sakono. 
> Therefore even if there is no sakono, it is irrelevant

Lots of things have changed since the time the Talmud was finally
determined to be "sealed".  But the Talmud does *not* say that one
should light inside, it gives a heter *bish'at sakana*.  It so
happened that the later stages of the "sealing" of the Talmud
happened under increasingly tyrranical Zoroastrian rule, and so it
was a "she'at sakana" for most of those years (though presumably
not during Mar Zutra's short reign).  But where is it even hinted
that this should apply when the sakana is over?


> much like a lot 
> of takonos like eating cholent because of the sadukim who didn't eat hot 
> food on shabbos even though there are no sadukim now.

There was no such takanat chazal.  The tzedukim disappeared after
the churban, and we know for a fact that Rebbi did not eat hot food
on shabbat.  There may have been a later minhag along these lines
after the rise of the Karaim, but that was well after the "sealing"
of the Talmud, and in any case there is certainly no such din today.


> The fact that originally there was a din to light outside is
> irrelevant; chazal were mevatel it

Chazal did no such thing.  There is not even a hint of it in the
gemara.


> and the talmud was closed and signed. fartig!

"Signed"?  That implies that there was a single moment - a ceremony
even - at which the Talmud was declared complete, and no further
changes were made.   No such thing ever occurred.

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

On Thu, 28 Dec 2006 17:21:27 -0500, Zev Sero <zev@sero.name> wrote:
> Lots of things have changed since the time the Talmud was finally
> determined to be "sealed".  But the Talmud does *not* say that one
> should light inside, it gives a heter *bish'at sakana*.  It so
> happened that the later stages of the "sealing" of the Talmud
> happened under increasingly tyrranical Zoroastrian rule, and so it
> was a "she'at sakana" for most of those years (though presumably
> not during Mar Zutra's short reign).  But where is it even hinted
> that this should apply when the sakana is over?

Where is it clear the sakanah they were describing is over?

I think the saqanah is whenever we're living in a country in which
people might not want to see us celebrating overthrowing the gov't.
Which is why I didn't think it would be a problem in Medinat
Yisrael (at least, not until Yossi Feiglin's talk about really
doing it...)

Do we know that's not what the gemara meant, just because their saqanah
was so much more acute?

Tir'u baTov!
-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             "As long as the candle is still burning,
micha@aishdas.org        it is still possible to accomplish and to
http://www.aishdas.org   mend."
Fax: (270) 514-1507          - Unknown shoemaker to R' Yisrael Salanter

On Sun, 24 Dec 2006 16:26:18 -0500, dfinch847@aol.com wrote:
> "Not at all! . . . . 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...

(I assume we're still talking about the Rambam, so I took the liberty
of changing David's "n"s to "m"s.)

> I guess I hold to my position. Rambam's discussion of prophecy (other
> than Moishe Rabbeinu's) in MN II (ch. 32-84, esp. 41-44) emphasizes
> rationalistic joinder of Active (Human) and Divine intellect, sometimes
> impelled through dreams and visions. A raised "consciousness" was not a
> part of this system, although it was for Abravanel, who saw prophecy as
> inherently miraculous and believed that prophets acquired Divine powers
> through their consciousness of the higher plane. (There's a good
> discussion of this in Benzion Netanyahu's biography of Abravanel.) For
> Abravanel, this consciousness did not involve the exercise of
> rationalistic powers. For Rambam, it did.

The joining of Active and Divine intellect is inherently a spiritual
concept, if not THE spiritual concept -- the ability to acheive unity
with the Mysterious Tremens.

You instead point to the Rambam saying that the potential for prophecy
is "written into the system", and thus only denied to the qualified
when G-d chooses to intervene, and the other view that prophecy is
an independant gift each time.

Which you call more mystical would just depend on whether you think
the word applies more to assuming things "written into the system",
that there are mysteries in how the universe runs, or whether it
applies more to the miraculous and the notion of the miraculous.

I still think the Rambam posits more non-physical entities and
mechanisms to make his shitah on nevu'ah work. But all this might be
just a misunderstanding due to different definitions of the word
"mystical".


> In any event, it's often dangerous to interpret Rambam through the eyes
> of Abravanel, who distrusted his teachings and his intellectual method.

Not quite. They did dispute often, but Rosh Amana is not any less scholastic
than MN. For that matter, RA is itself a defense of the Rambam's ikkarim --
they also agreed often.

They did disagree on describing mal'akhim and nevu'ah, which is our topic.

However, the Abarbanel offers the simplest explanation of how the Rambam
avoids the Ramban's complaint in parashas Vayeira -- by denoting that the
visit was both real AND a prophetic vision. AND, that answer explains
why the Rambam had to make the "Man" Who rides the merkavah or sits in
the throne at Har Sinai was the kavod nivra; and the Ramban says it was an
image that actually represented Hashem Himself. This dichotomy itself makes
the point explicitly. The Rambam says that Hashem created something for the
Zeqeinim, Yirmiyahu and Yechezqeil to see -- visions of the real -- while
the Ramban days it was an image representing a reality.


Tir'u baTov!
-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             A wise man is careful during the Purim banquet
micha@aishdas.org        about things most people don't watch even on
http://www.aishdas.org   Yom Kippur.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                       - Rabbi Israel Salanter

The difference is that I changed havara in an attempt to revert to the
havara used way back when, as best approximated by the that used by my
ancestors in Lita, or at least how I think havara would have naturally
developed if it weren't artificially arrested or pushed in another
direction.  They on the other hand, changed for "solidarity with
Israel", hardly a halachic justification to change anything.  (Also,
the Israeli decision that they were in solidarity with was, from what
I hear, hardly a halachic decision either.  Apparently a lot of the
motivation was to move away from a Galus havara, and was instituted by
secular politicians, not rabbanim.  But don't take my word on this,
it's entirely hearsay.)

As for the minhag being unchangable once it's set, that does not apply
for a minhag ta'us.

On Fri, 29 Dec 2006 01:32:21 -0500, "Michael Kopinsky" <mkopinsky@gmail.com> wrote:
> The difference is that I changed havara in an attempt to revert to the
> havara used way back when, as best approximated by the that used by my
> ancestors in Lita, or at least how I think havara would have naturally
> developed if it weren't artificially arrested or pushed in another
> direction....

Except that there is no real definition of "artifical" vs "natural". I
asked this question, and answers have just shown that it was even less
clear than I thought it was when asking.

:-)BBii!
-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             For a mitzvah is a lamp,
micha@aishdas.org        And the Torah, its light.
http://www.aishdas.org                   - based on Mishlei 6:2
Fax: (270) 514-1507      

From: "Micha Berger" <micha@aishdas.org>

> The Rambam here, where he does speak closer to our topic is more like 
> ruchnius vs
> gashmius than passion vs intellect.

But see Hakdamah to Perek Helek, tr. Kafih, p. 178, column 1, where he 
demonstrates that people have a spiritual nature (1) because they prefer 
honor to physical pleasure, and (2) because they abandon physical pleasure 
to get revenge.  Both are examples of ruhniyus which is bad.

David Riceman 

On 12/28/06, Zev Sero <zev@sero.name> wrote:
> Only if you apply the ADU rule before Molad Zaken, and count a MZ only
> when you haven't already applied ADU.  It makes more sense to me to
> apply MZ first, and ADU last, because MZ often triggers ADU, and GTRD
> *always* does.
>

Logic is on your side, but the order that I have usually seen the
application of the dehhiyot described is IDO, MZ, GTRD, and BTUTKPT,
and rather than saying that a year with MZ on Shabbat, Tuesday or
Thursday has both MZ and IDO, it is counted as MZ causing a 2 day
dehiya, and the same for GTRD.

Micha Berger wrote:

> Where is it clear the sakanah they were describing is over?

Look around you.

> I think the saqanah is whenever we're living in a country in which
> people might not want to see us celebrating overthrowing the gov't.

Where did you light?  In a place not visible from the street, or in
a front window?  AFAIK most MO, and probably the vast majority of
non-O Jews who do light menorot (including electric ones), put them
in the window.  Bish'at hasakana, one doesn't do that!  Bish'at
hasakana, madlik al shulchano vedayo (or, as chasidim do, in an
internal doorway where there's a mezuzah and where the goyim won't
see it).  Then go to any place where there are seasonal decorations,
and the chances are good that you'll see some sort or representation
of a menorah, or some nod to chanukah.  The fact that so many people
light in windows, and put up menorot (whether "real", electric, paper
cut outs, drawings, etc) in public places, and especially in privately-
owned-but-publicly-visible places, and not only has no pogrom resulted
but the possibility simply doesn't occur to them, proves that the
sakana is over.



> Which is why I didn't think it would be a problem in Medinat
> Yisrael (at least, not until Yossi Feiglin's talk about really
> doing it...)

I think you mean Moshe.

 
> Do we know that's not what the gemara meant, just because their
> saqanah was so much more acute?

Sakanah is sakanah.  It has a meaning, and it clearly doesn't exist
now.  In this case, we *know* what sakanah they were living under,
we don't have to speculate; and we know that nothing like that exists
today, in most countries where Jews live.  But in many places, for
many centuries, there was and is a *different* sakanah, that of cold,
and the same heter can be applied to that too.  After all, "hakol
cholim etzel tzinah".  But where this sakanah also doesn't exist,
meheicha teisei to light inside?

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

Because we live in a capitalistic economic system, in which there is not 
enough incentive to run such a service.


YGB 


Micha Berger wrote:

> There is an obvious logistic problem -- the subject is a very politicized one,
> so that one group's definition of "social responsibility" isn't necessarily
> mine. However, assuming we overcome it by having groups from my own bent...
>
> Why aren't I as concerned with someone checking that my food is glatt yosher?
>
> Tir'u baTov!
> -mi
>
>   
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20061229/7ff3c683/attachment.html 

I  agree with YGB's statement but I think Micha was asking a link up the
causality chain - why is there sufficient demand for glatt kosher but
not glatt yosher?  Perhaps the answer is that empirically the orthodox
community does not view being msayea to less than yosher activities,
especially one step removed, as a halachik or hashkafic (let's debate
whether these are separate issues :-) ) prohibition.
 
KT
Joel Rich 



	Because we live in a capitalistic economic system, in which
there is not enough incentive to run such a service.

	
	

	YGB 

	
	Micha Berger wrote:
	

		There is an obvious logistic problem -- the subject is a
very politicized one,
		so that one group's definition of "social
responsibility" isn't necessarily
		mine. However, assuming we overcome it by having groups
from my own bent...
		
		Why aren't I as concerned with someone checking that my
food is glatt yosher?
		
		Tir'u baTov!
		-mi
		
		  

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/20061229/15ed024a/attachment.htm 

On Fri, 29 Dec 2006 11:39:15 -0500, "Rich, Joel" <JRich@Segalco.com> wrote:
> I  agree with YGB's statement but I think Micha was asking a link up the
> causality chain - why is there sufficient demand for glatt kosher but not
> glatt yosher?

Yes, glatt kosher or chalav yisrael are good examples. We can pretend the iffy
is mutar when it comes to mesayeih ledevar aveirah bein adam lachaveiro, but
we'll spend a fortune on chumros when it comes to kashrus. (Those of us who
are bound by minhag to follow these chumros can find their own examples.
They're rife.)

But I wasn't asking, I was being rhetorical. We have a community willing to
put money out for chumros our fathers didn't consider ikkar hadin, but not to
police ourselves financially.

It's like the obvervation I made a while back on Areivim about shul
architecture. Shuls are peturim from both mezuzah and maakah. Yet, most shuls
have mezuzos. Think how many shuls you know have a duchan built like a stage
-- no maakah. We think of Judaism in very rite-based terms: frumkeit, not
ehrlachkeit.

To drift even further: Why is it mutar to own a stage without a maakah?

:-)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

I'm not sure what you mean by this.  All of the possibilities you
suggested (Avodah 22#15) are natural language developments, with the
exception of #3 (people's attempts to revert to original havara),
which is a) probably quite rare, imo, and b) at least an attempt at proper
pronounciation. This is very different from an
entire community deciding, with their chief rabbi, that they will now
start speaking an entirely different dialect for political reasons.
So while I also do not have a clear hagdara of natural vs artificial, I don't think there's much room to argue that such changes can be seen by any stretch as natural.
On 12/29/06, Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org> wrote:
> On Fri, 29 Dec 2006 01:32:21 -0500, "Michael Kopinsky" <mkopinsky@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > The difference is that I changed havara in an attempt to revert to the
> > havara used way back when, as best approximated by the that used by my
> > ancestors in Lita, or at least how I think havara would have naturally
> > developed if it weren't artificially arrested or pushed in another
> > direction....
>
> Except that there is no real definition of "artifical" vs "natural". I
> asked this question, and answers have just shown that it was even less
> clear than I thought it was when asking.


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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 5, Issue 22
*************************************

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..."