Avodah Mailing List

Volume 23: Number 2

Sun, 14 Jan 2007

• 1. Parsha: Kortz un Sharf pshat (SBA)
• 2. "V'Ani bevo'ee miPadom" (SBA)
• 3. Re: lighting a chanukiya (Akiva Blum)
• 4. Clarification on Hareidi El-Al (Akiva Blum)
• 5. Re: Clarification on Hareidi El-Al (Arie Folger)
• 6. Re: Clarification on Hareidi El-Al (David Riceman)
• 7. RYBS TEEM Musings (Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer)
• 8. Moshe Rabeinu's stuttering (Danny Schoemann)

Heard from someone last night.

Paroy called in the 'Meyaldos hoIvriyos' and asked them
"Madua asisen hadovor hazeh - vatechayeno es hayelodim?"
I.e, "What about Dina Demalchusa Dina (DDD)?"

They replied to him that "DDD" applies only when the entire population
have the same rules. But if special laws are made - for Jews only, 
then there is no chiyuv of "DDD". 
They said to him: - "Ki lo kanoshim hamitzriyos - ho'ivriyos",
Jewish women are not being treated the same way as the Mitzriyos..

Upon hearing this, "Vaytzav Paroy LECHOL AMOY lemor - 
kol haben hayilod haye'oro tashlichihu..", it was no longer Jews only..

SBA 

I was going to ask this last week - but got 'run over by the bus'...

In many [all?] chassidish and Hungarian chadorim, when learning 
"V'Ani bevo'ee miPadom" the rebbe teaches it with a special niggun
and includes additional explanations - taken from Rashi.

Does this minhag exist amongst other communitiesl?
What about places where they teach in English or Ivrit?
Chabad?

SBA

   >RAB wrote:
   >> It still needs to be explained how Chazal were mataken a mitzva that no one
   >> had to keep for hundreds of years, and only after the churban. What were
   >> they thinking?
   >
   >Kindly explain. Didn't you show in your post that lighting the menorah 
   >on 'hanukah was a standard practice, already long before the discussion you 
   >quoted from TB Rosh haShono 18b?
   >-- 
   >Arie Folger

I apologize if I wasn't clear. This question is in the same direction as the first. 
1) The gemora, and Rashi, seem to imply that chanuka was already widely kept.
2) According to the opinion suggested that chanukiya was on hold until the churban, what sort of takono was it that wasn't intended to be practiced for hundreds of years, etc.

Akiva

R'Arie Folger wrote:
 >>However, I believe that, while NJ are not metame beohel, they 
are metame immediately above them, so the rabbis would likely rule to avoid 
any cemetary.<<

Tumah above *is* tumas ohel, so NJs are not included. NJs only have tumas mago (and I suppose maso). Do you have a source that would indicate otherwise?

Akiva

On Thursday, 11. January 2007 20:49, Akiva Blum wrote:
> R'Arie Folger wrote:
>  >>However, I believe that, while NJ are not metame beohel, they
>
> are metame immediately above them, so the rabbis would likely rule to avoid
> any cemetary.<<
>
> Tumah above *is* tumas ohel, so NJs are not included. NJs only have tumas
> mago (and I suppose maso). Do you have a source that would indicate
> otherwise?

Honestly, it was a gut reaction. I kind of vaguely recall that pose'a 'al 
qever nochri is tame. However, I haven't looked at this in ages and may be 
wrong.
-- 
Arie Folger
http://www.ariefolger.googlepages.com

From: "Akiva Blum" <ydamyb@actcom.net.il>

> Tumah above *is* tumas ohel, so NJs are not included. NJs only have tumas 
> mago (and > I suppose maso). Do you have a source that would indicate 
> otherwise?

This is actually a three way machloketh.  According to the Yereim (dead) 
non-Jews do not have tumas meis; you have cited the opinion of the Rambam; 
and according to the Baalei HaTosafos dead non-Jews do have tumas ohel.  See 
AH HeAsid H. Tumas Meis 3:12, and see the Mekoroth V'Tziyunim in Frankel's 
edition of the Rambam H. Tumas Meis 1:12-13.

If I understand him correctly the Shulhan Arukh (YD 372:2) holds that ikkar 
hadin is like the Rambam but that we should be mahmir like tosafos, and the 
Rama is unsure which opinion is ikkar hadin.

For the particular case of cohanim see Pithchei Tshuva ad. loc. for 
additional reasons to be lenient, and see Rabbi Feinstein's tshuva (which 
I'm sure someone here can locate) for even more reasons for leniency in the 
case of cohanim riding in airplanes.  Perhaps some cohanim on the list can 
tell us what the common practice is.

Incidentally I've been trying to understand someone's hava amina that people 
buried in New Jersey are not metamei beohel.  The best I can come up with is 
that dying in New Jersey is such a horrible onesh that it's mechaper, and 
the poster held that tzaddikim einam metamim.

David Riceman

> *The Emergence of Ethical Man.(Book review).* Daniel Rynhold. 
>         */Religious Studies/* 42.3 (Sept 2006): p364(5). 
> <http://find.galegroup.com/itx/publicationSearch.do?queryType=PH&;inPS=true&type=getIssues&prodId=EAIM&currentPosition=0&userGroupName=newb77636&searchTerm=Religious+Studies&index=JX&tabID=T002&contentSet=IAC-Documents>
>
> *Full Text :*COPYRIGHT 2006 Cambridge University Press
>
> Joseph B. Soloveitchik The Emergence of Ethical Man, Michael Berger 
> (ed.). (Jersey City NJ: Ktav Publishing House, 2005). Pp. xxii + 214. 
> [pounds sterling]20.00 (Hbk). ISBN 088125 873 3.
>
> Feted as the figurehead of the form of Judaism that became known as 
> modern orthodoxy, Rabbi Joseph Soloveitchik (1903-1993) gained a 
> reputation as one of the foremost Jewish thinkers of the twentieth 
> century. This status, which transcended denominational and religious 
> divides, was based on a relatively small number of philosophical and 
> theological essays. Since his death, however, a number of 
> Soloveitchik's unpublished manuscripts have entered the public domain 
> through the MeOtzar HoRav series, under the expert stewardship of 
> David Shatz and Joel Wolowelsky. The Emergence of Ethical Man (EEM), 
> edited by Michael Berger from ten handwritten notebooks, is the fifth 
> and possibly most significant volume of the series so far.
>
> EEM focuses on Soloveitchik's abiding interest in elucidating 
> 'religious anthropology ... within the philosophical perspective of 
> Judaism' (xii), as he himself describes it in a letter excerpted in a 
> helpful editor's introduction. Part 1 utilizes the opening chapters of 
> Genesis, a text Soloveitchik returned to many times, to put forward an 
> account of man that emphasizes his continuity with the natural world. 
> Part 2 begins with the central question of how man emerges as a unique 
> ethical being out of these entirely naturalistic origins and continues 
> with an account of the corruption of the ethical personality through 
> sin. Finally, Part 3 deals with the rehabilitation of man through a 
> description of the various manifestations of what Soloveitchik terms 
> the 'charismatic personality' as embodied in Abraham and Moses.
>
> While naturalistic elements have always been present in Soloveitchik's 
> work, they appear far more marked in EEM, and he is keen throughout 
> Part 1 to distance himself not only from Greek and Christian views, 
> but also from the widely held Jewish view that insists on a 
> qualitative metaphysical distinction between man and nature. As Berger 
> notes in his introduction, the work is 'revolutionary in that it 
> breaks with traditional metaphysical categories that are the warp and 
> woof of medieval Jewish commentary and philosophy, and instead bases 
> its analysis purely on the categories of the natural and social 
> sciences' (xxi), an observation that is entirely borne out by what 
> follows.
>
> The basic point in Part 1 is that' man may be the most developed form 
> of life on the continuum of plant-animal-man, but the ontic essence 
> remains identical' (47). Indeed, in his account of the famous biblical 
> idea that man is made in the image of God (tzelem elohim) he 
> explicitly rejects what he takes to be the metaphysical and 
> transcendental Christian reading of the term tzelem. Instead, in a 
> description that surpasses even the strongly scientific elucidation of 
> the term in 1965's The Lonely Man of Faith, Soloveitchik insists that 
> tzelem 'signifies man's awareness of himself as a biological being and 
> the state of being informed of his natural drives' (75-76).
>

Fascinating take on "Tzelem Elokim." One wonders what the zayde (in this 
case, R' Chaim *Volozhiner* would have had to say about this. Is there 
any precedent in earlier Jewish sources for this definition?

> The impression one gains that Soloveitchik's naturalism is more 
> pronounced here than in his published writings on Genesis is probably 
> in part down to the anthropological perspective from which he is 
> writing. Thus, in his 1964 essay Confrontation where Soloveitchik 
> takes his favoured typological approach, 'natural man' is derided as a 
> hedonically minded pleasure seeker. The contrasting anthropological 
> perspective of EEM means that 'natural man' is used as a descriptive 
> anthropological category and thus there is no call for any such 
> evaluative judgement. In EEM it is, for Soloveitchik, simply a true 
> description of the nature of man.
>
> With the naturalistic context in place, Part 2 turns to the emergence 
> of ethical man. Firstly, in order to experience the ethical norm, 
> external divine intervention is necessary. Only through the divine 
> command can man transcend his natural biological self and experience 
> the ethical. This is because the ethical imperative has to be 
> 'experienced as both a must and as something that may be resisted or 
> ignored' (81), and this normative pull cannot derive from nature 
> since, as Soloveitchik notes, 'biological motivation is neutral as far 
> as ethical standards are concerned' (87). So, on the one hand 
> Soloveitchik retains a fact/value distinction such that an 'ought' can 
> never arise from an 'is'. He can only conceive of value emerging from 
> a realm beyond the natural and given the religious framework of his 
> thinking, God is naturally the source of value. Yet Soloveitchik 
> insists on retaining his naturalism at the human level, concluding 
> Part 2 by saying that 'the ethical personality is not transcendent. It 
> only reconsiders its own status in a normative light, conceiving the 
> natural law as identical with the moral law' (144). So man remains a 
> biological rather than metaphysical being, but man's unique ethical 
> perspective emerges through his encounter with the divine imperative.
>
"Natural law" sounds to me like Rousseau. Is RYBS suggesting that  human 
beings are "naturally" ethical? It seems that he is saying more than 
that: That to be ethical is also not connected to being transcendent - 
viz., a person who attempts to transcend this world is a priori 
"unethical." Is this Ba'al Mussar's (!!!) deriding Chassidim/Mekubalim?

> What is most important about this divine imperative is its role as a 
> condition of the freedom necessary for the emergence of the ethical 
> personality. The divine imperative does not play a Euthyphro-like role 
> of defining the good. Instead, we find in more Kantian fashion talk of 
> the divine imperative as a necessary condition of freewill and the 
> normative 'must'. Indeed, the echoes of Kant are unmistakable in much 
> of what he has to say about 'universal natural morality' (154), 
> whether when referring to the charismatic man who 'refuses to obey an 
> external authority ... [but] discovers the ethos himself' (153), or 
> when writing that 'the postulate of freedom is necessary ... for the 
> legitimation of the very essence of the ethical experience' (77, 
> emphasis added).
>
> The further stages of the emergence of the ethical similarly revolve 
> around the 'postulate of freedom'. Thus, Soloveitchik's second stage 
> requires that man conceive of himself as separate from nature, and 
> through this consciousness of otherness, as a subject standing against 
> an object, he understands that he is a free being (78). And in an 
> interesting parallel with much contemporary Jewish thought from Buber 
> through to Levinas, the full emergence of the free ethical personality 
> requires the third stage of confronting the 'thou' through the 
> creation of the other. Interestingly for Soloveitchik scholars, though 
> Buberian elements have long been detected in Soloveitchik's writings, 
> EEM is the first work to explicitly reference his works, albeit not in 
> relation to this particular issue.
>
> Soloveitchik goes on in Part 2 to give an account of 'the Fall' and 
> consistent with the naturalism of Part I, 'Man's sin consisted in 
> betraying nature.... Naturalness is moral, unnaturalness is sin' 
> (141). A close reading of the Genesis text yields for Soloveitchik the 
> idea that sin arose as a result of the seduction of humanity by 
> pleasure, causing a split in a once harmonious personality. In what is 
> more than a nod to Kierkegaard, Soloveitchik describes how pursuing an 
> unbridled hedonism that respects no boundaries causes man's ethical 
> self to split from his esthetic self. This schism in man's personality 
> means that repentance is achieved through the ' rebirth of a 
> harmonious personality by returning to God and eo ipso to one's own 
> selfhood' (136-7). EEM's detailed working out of his view of sin 
> supplies us with a natural corollary for the similarly naturalistic 
> view of repentance familiar from Soloveitchik's other works.
>
Olam hafuch ra'isi. Shouldn't that be: "Morality is natural, sin is 
unnatural?" What is the different connotation of RYBS's formulation?

> It is in Part 3 of the book, probably its most original section for 
> those familiar with Soloveitchik's writings, that we find him return 
> to a more typological approach in his account of the rehabilitation of 
> the ethical personality through 'charismatic man'. The 'charismatic 
> personality' achieves the restoration of the human personality to its 
> original unity through realizing the covenant with God in history. 
> Soloveitchik traces his development through an analysis of the 
> biblical personalities of Abraham, and in particular Moses, who moves 
> through a number of stages of development. At this point, though no 
> less rich and suggestive, the thread of the argument becomes more 
> difficult to follow and it seems less completely developed to this 
> reviewer. Though this can only be pure speculation, given that we are 
> reading a work that Soloveitchik never published, one wonders whether 
> this section of the text had been less worked through.
>
Charisma: *cha?ris?ma*   (k?-ri(z'm?) n.   /pl./ *cha?ris?ma?ta* (-m?-t?)

   1.
         1. A rare personal quality attributed to leaders who arouse
            fervent popular devotion and enthusiasm.
         2. Personal magnetism or charm: /a television news program
            famed for the charisma of its anchors./
   2. /Christianity/ An extraordinary power, such as the ability to
      perform miracles, granted by the Holy Spirit.

/The American Heritage? Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth 
Edition/. Retrieved January 13, 2007, from Dictionary.com website.

How does this definition fit with RYBS's usage? Surely he means 
something else by "charisma." But what?

> What is abundantly clear, though, is the characteristically 
> Soloveitchikian conflict that we find in the attempt to realize the 
> covenant, which is thwarted by a natural reality that does not simply 
> yield to a covenantal teleology. In parallel to the redemption of the 
> individual, therefore, the realization of the covenant requires that 
> two orders, this time the natural human and the charismatic 
> historical, are brought into harmony. And it fell to Moses, in his 
> guise as the apostolic personality, to begin the process of redeeming 
> the tension between the two. And again in characteristic style, we 
> find man in this world at the centre of this covenantal history. Thus, 
> 'God worked through Moses in order to introduce man into the sphere of 
> historical creativeness. Let man himself attempt to realize the 
> covenant' (184).
>
> As a number of writers have noted, this 'this-worldly' emphasis in 
> Soloveitchik's work meant that he did not pay much attention to 
> eschatological questions. It is particularly striking therefore that 
> ultimately, with its talk of covenantal realization, Part 3 is all 
> about a lengthy historical process of messianic redemption. 
> Nonetheless, the 'this-worldly' approach retains its hold throughout, 
> most notably in what is his lengthiest reflection on immortality. 
> Thus, we are told that 'Abraham did not conquer death in the 
> metaphysical transcendent sense. His immortality is through and 
> through historical' (169). And again 'the first concept of immortality 
> as coined by Judaism is the continuation of a historical existence 
> throughout the ages.... The deceased person does not lead an isolated, 
> separate existence in a transcendental world. The identity persists on 
> a level of concrete reality disguised as a people' (176). While he is 
> careful to note that this is only the 'first' concept of immortality, 
> it is the only one that he discusses. Moreover, this is all given a 
> messianic aspect when combined with the view that 'the realization of 
> the moral goal is not to be found within the bounds of an individual 
> life span. The individual may contribute a great deal to the 
> fulfilment of the ethical ideal, yet he can never attain it. A moral 
> telos is gradually realized in a historical process' (168). In a 
> naturalized eschatology that owes much to one of Soloveitchik's most 
> significant philosophical influences, Hermann Cohen, what begins as a 
> view of immortality as continued historical existence culminates in 
> the covenantal realization of a messianic moral vision.
>
Is man's drive to immortality then primarily the drive to enter history? 
This might actually link up RYBS with Dr. Isaac Breuer - no coincedence, 
considering the common influences on their thought.

> Of all the volumes to have seen the light of day so far in this 
> series, this one is probably the greatest treasure trove for 
> Soloveitchik scholars. It genuinely advances and refines themes 
> familiar from his published works, and throws up all sorts of further 
> questions for research, particularly regarding his intellectual 
> influences. Though we are not informed of the dating of these 
> manuscripts, much of the material in EEM obviously parallels that 
> contained in the more 'existentialist' works of the 1960s. Yet we also 
> see a continuation of his earlier fascination with Kant and Hermann 
> Cohen, all of which should be of particular interest for Soloveitchik 
> scholars. But in addressing general questions regarding the place of 
> the ethical in the religious sphere and as an example of how a 
> contemporary thinker committed to an orthodox religious tradition can 
> attempt to make philosophical sense of it in a non-apologetic manner, 
> it is also entirely accessible to the non-Jewish reader and would act 
> as an excellent introduction to Soloveitchik's oeuvre.
>
> DANIEL RYNHOLD
>
> King's College London
>
>
>
> *Named Works:* The Emergence of Ethical Man (Book) Book reviews
>
> *Source Citation:* Rynhold, Daniel. "The Emergence of Ethical 
> Man.(Book review)." /Religious Studies/ 42.3 (Sept 
> 2006): 364(5). /Expanded Academic ASAP/. Thomson Gale. Ramapo Catskill 
> Library System. 13 Jan. 2007 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20070113/b62b13db/attachment.htm 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: dot.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 49 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20070113/b62b13db/attachment-0001.gif 

My 8 year old wanted to know why Moshe Rabeinu's stuttering wasn't
healed at the burning bush.

To this I answered that since Moshe Rabeinu didn't daven for it, it
didn't happen. (Great opportunity for a little lesson in the power of
davening.)

She then claimed that Moshe Rabeinu's stuttering was healed at Matan
Torah, since all ailments were then cured. Do we have a reliable
record to prove/disprove that Moshe Rabeinu was included/excluded from
that?

- Danny


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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 23, Issue 2
*************************************

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..."