Avodah Mailing List

Volume 23: Number 4

Fri, 19 Jan 2007

• 1. Re: Moshe Rabeinu's stuttering (T613K@aol.com)
• 2. Re: Changing Havarah (T613K@aol.com)
• 3. Re: Changing Havarah (T613K@aol.com)
• 4. Re: Moshe Rabeinu's stuttering (SBA)
• 5. Re: Moshe Rabeinu's stuttering (Zvi Lampel)
• 6. Re: Changing Havarah (Arie Folger)
• 7. RYBS and Natural Law (dfinch847@aol.com)
• 8. VeHaGita (Shoshana L. Boublil)
• 9. Re: Lifnei Iveir (Micha Berger)
• 10. yitgadal ve-yitgadash (Eli Turkel)
• 11. daily halachot (Eli Turkel)
• 12. Re: VeHaGita - Proof....sources and quotes (SBA)
• 13. Re: VeHaGita - Proof....sources and quotes (Shoshana L. Boublil)

 
 
R' Danny Schoemann writes:

 



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


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?<<




.
>>>>>
I've wondered about this before.  How is that Moshe seems to be able  to give 
long speeches (e.g., the whole Sefer Devarim!) and it doesn't seem that  
people have any difficulty understanding him?  If memory serves, there is  no 
mention of Aharon speaking for him in the desert.  I had never thought  of your 
daughter's suggestion that his speech impediment (no proof it was a  stutter, 
BTW) was cured at Har Sinai but that does  make sense!

 


--Toby  Katz
=============
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20070115/950298f4/attachment-0001.htm 

 
 
R' Arie Folger writes:
 
>>IIUC, what RPhEM was saying was that the Ashkenazi pronounciation  of the 
qomatz (ven shoin, denn shoin) has been lost in early European  communities 
and was reintroduced from Teverya, where the famous masoretes -  who used and 
spread our niqud system - lived. Thus, a  
kind-of-like-the-Latin-"O"-pronounciation of qomatz is correct,  
Teverianically speaking.<<

.
>>>>
It seems to me your suggestion is anachronistic.  Didn't the Teverya  
masoretes live centuries before there was any real Ashkenazi community, let  alone a 
distinct Ashkenazi havara?  
 
BTW, I have only ever seen the word "masoretes" used in English.   Can 
someone please tell me what the is the Hebrew word for "masoretes"?  




--Toby  Katz
=============
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20070115/e3280f5d/attachment-0001.html 

 
 
R' David Bannett writes:

>>R' Yosef Kafach in his book on  minhagei Teiman states that 
the men in San'a said oy and the women ei. (ei =  eh-ee, not 
ah-ee). << 




.
>>>> 
How fascinating that men and women would have different  pronunciations!  The 
only other place I've heard of such a thing was in the  ante-bellum Deep 
South (and to some extent even today), where women had  much more marked Southern 
drawls than men.  Linguists speculate  that the women were more influenced by 
the accents of their Negro slaves (whose  accents in turn derived from the 
African languages of their countries of  origin), and also that the men were more 
likely to have gone North to  school, which would have caused them to 
moderate their Southern drawls.   But what would have happened in Yemen that would 
account for men and women  pronouncing the same words differently?


--Toby  Katz
=============
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20070115/30f84cbd/attachment-0001.htm 

From: Micha Berger <>
The Maharsha defines "aral sefasayim" more literally, as a lip injury.
And thus Moshe Rabbeinu couldn't naturally say the letters buma"f
(including vav).
...
The Sharei Aharon brings this beshem the Abarbenel.

From Rabenu Chananel he quotes "Kevad Peh" = 
Z,Sh,R,S(amech)Tz and "Kevad Loshon" = DTesLNTav

And from "Tav Vav Shin (?) " GYCK.

SBA

Sun, 14 Jan 2007 from: "Danny Schoemann" <doniels@gmail.com> 


> 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? <

Rav SR Hirsch?s comments on Sh?mos 4:11 are instructive: "Indeed a stammerer is the most fitting for this mission. Every word of the stuttering stammerer is itself an os. If a man who ordinarily stammers speaks easily and flowingly in G-d?s mission, every word brings its own credentials with it." Complementing this are Rav Hirsh?s remarks (and similar ones by others) on (3:12): "Your insufficiency is the guarantee that you /are/ sent by G-d. Without it, the salvation in Egypt would fall into the category of world-historical events which glorify human greatness...."

Zvi Lampel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20070115/a4f4952a/attachment-0001.html 

R'nTK wrote:
> It seems to me your suggestion is anachronistic. ?Didn't the Teverya ?
> masoretes live centuries before there was any real Ashkenazi community, let
> ?alone a distinct Ashkenazi havara?

Ben Asher and his disciples worked in the 9th or rather 10th century. At that 
time, there had been an Italian Jewish community for over a millenium, Jews 
had passed by or settled near Basle at least six hundred years earlier, and 
were one hundred years longer even in Cologne. These are documented cases, 
but Ashkenazi mythology claims that Jews came to Frankfurt even earlier.

> BTW, I have only ever seen the word "masoretes" used in English. ? Can
> someone please tell me what the is the Hebrew word for "masoretes"? ?

Ba'alei messorah.

Kind regards,
-- 
Arie Folger
http://www.ariefolger.googlepages.com

RYGB comments as follows on a book review of Michael Berger's "Joseph 
B. Soloveitchik The Emergence of Ethical Man" (2005):

"'Natural law' [as the book review ascribes to Berger's description of 
RYBS's thinking] 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 - 'unethical.' Is this Ba'al Mussar's (!!!) deriding 
Chassidim/Mekubalim?"

RYBS's thoughts reflect more of the Hegel and Kierkegaard than they do 
of Rousseau. RYBS mirrors Rambam in believing that G-d's creations, 
including man, are inherently moral, although man can descend from 
morality into sin through the exercise of action through free will. 
Much of Chassidus is devoted to stripping away the temporality of 
action and rationalism in order to connect transcendentally with this 
original morality. RYBS rejected this approach, believing that man can 
approach original morality *only* through the discipline of halachic 
action and thought. Rousseau and Chassidus are romantic: You are what 
you feel, and refined feeling brings you closer to your natural state 
(or to G-d). RYBS was existentialist: You are what you do, and by 
perfecting your action and thought, you will approach (and begin 
spirtually to comprehend) natural morality. For RYBS, this natural 
morality was a state of enlightenment more powerful than mere devekus.

"[RYBS writes: 'Man's sin consisted in betraying nature.... Naturalness 
is moral, unnaturalness is sin.'] Olam hafuch ra'isi. Shouldn't that 
be: 'Morality is natural, sin is unnatural?' What is the different 
connotation of RYBS's formulation?"

Again, look at Rambam, to whom RYBS owes so much. Sin isn't unnatural. 
It just isn't original. Sin is as natural as free will. The dichotomy 
with which RYBS was concerned wasn't natural vs. unnatural. It was 
action blessed by G-d (halacha) vs. action uninformed by G-d.

David Finch
dfinch847@aol.com









The information contained in this communication is intended only for 
the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may 
contain information that is privileged, confidential, and exempt from 
disclosure under applicable law. If the reader is not the intended 
recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the 
message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any 
dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is 
strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, 
please notify the sender at dfinch847@aol.com. Thank you.

======================================================
________________________________________________________________________
Check out the new AOL.  Most comprehensive set of free safety and 
security tools, free access to millions of high-quality videos from 
across the web, free AOL Mail and more.

> RSB: Who was it that said that saying Shma in the morning and Shma in the
> evening is sufficient to be Yotzeh "Vehagita Bo Yomam VaLayla"?  Last I
> checked, it was in the G'mara...


SBA 
> That is a bedieved - and not lekatchileh.


Proof?

(and please, not b/c this is what is done by many today, but rather sources and quotes).

Remember that Yehoshua was given this Tzivuy first hand, and he understood it to mean that he was supposed to lead the Nation -- into war and settling Israel.  He definitely did not believe that it meant that MiLChatChilla he was supposed to sit all day in the Yeshiva.

Rather, that by doing Hashem's will, Yishuv Ha'Aretz and Mitzvot HaTeluYot Ba etc., he was fulfilling this command.

Shoshana L. Boublil

On Sun, January 14, 2007 10:11 am, Nachman Levine wrote:
: The Nafak Mina:
: If I try to influence you (or facilitate) (or trick you) into (Chas
: VeShalom)
: actually putting a stumbling block in front of a real blind person
: ?does it have this Shem Isur and would I have transgressed this Lav ?at
: ALL?

Well, the notion of saying that lifnei iveir is about bad advice or helping
someone sin to the exclusion of literally tripping the blind is supported in
part by the fact that tripping blind people violates other issurim. It would
be superfluous to prohibit this particular kind of chavalah.

So, there would be no nafqa mina lehalakhah, since both agree that (1) telling
someone to sin violates LI, and (2) putting a stumbling block where it might
cause a blind person to hurt himself is assur. The debate is only over which
issurim #2 violates.

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

For an intersting and fairly exhaustive discussion of the
first two words of kaddish, see

http://seforim.blogspot.com/2007/01/perils-of-ignoring-precedent.html

-- 
Eli Turkel

We has a lecture this morning from the advisot to the rabbanut on kashrut.
He set up a new organization for the discussion and disemmination of halachot
that affect daily life at home and work and are less known.

While he gave many examples several stood out in my mind as strange.

1. He said that the custom in bakeries (though I find it in many stores) is that
when there are many baked goods they are put into a cardboard basket and
then weighted. Thus one is paying for the cardboard but at a price that is
determined by the inside products (in Israel he estimated between 1 and
2 1/2 shekel). He claims that this is onaah from the Torah. In a meeting with
his local supermarket/bakery they agreed to put up a sign stating the facts
and giving the customer the choice of using a plastic bag instead.

2. He quoted from Rav Zilberstein that when one enters a sherut in Israel
(taxi with many passengers going to one place) one usually pays up front.
He says that for any taxi the halacha of paying that day apply. However,
one is required to pay only one the taxi/sherut reaches at least one stop.
Hence, if one wishes to have the mitzvat aseh he should not pay in advance.

In general he stressed the importance of paying workers immediately.
Even if technicality there is no "lav" he still has not performed the "aseh"

Seems strange to me that paying any worker in advance is less of a mitzva
then paying at the end becuase he is not legally required to pay in advance.

3. When driving a car one is required to give a taxi the right of way because he
is a worker and has precedence. Similarly for a bus because they are "rabim".

4. Putting on a long lasting cosmetic treatment might violate the
prohibition of tatooing.

5. Punishments in school have to fit halachic guidelines


-- 
Eli Turkel

From: "Shoshana L. Boublil"
> RSB: Who was it that said that saying Shma in the morning and Shma in the
> evening is sufficient to be Yotzeh "Vehagita Bo Yomam VaLayla"?  Last I
> checked, it was in the G'mara...

SBA > That is a bedieved - and not lekatchileh.

Proof?....sources and quotes).
>>

As if that's gonna make the slightest difference..
But still...
(One of my rebbes, when farhering us, used to ask if we had
looked up the original of every Tosfos' cite.

It is VERY important as it is quite easy to fool oneself or get misled
by relying on a few word quote.)

So if you seriously wish to delve into this subject, study the gemara there
and you'll see that it quotes RY beshem Rashbi that it is OSSUR to
mention this (that saying Shma in the morning and evening is sufficient
to be Yotzeh "Vehagita Bo Yomam VaLayla")  to an am haaretz
(because they will REALLY think this is enough - and won't send
their sons to study Torah, Rashi).

Which shows us that
1) the baal hamemreh himself, Rashbi holds that it is a bedieved
and therefore should not be publicised.

And 2) his was concerned were that amaretazim will use it as an
 excuse not to do serious learning...

The gemara there continues and says beshem Rava -
"MITZVA le'omro bifnei am haaretz"   (Rashi: "..desavar (the AH)
krias shema notel s'char godol kezeh...im haya osek kol hayom
 (baTorah) kol-sheken shes'choroy gadol, umargil
es banav letalmud Torah..)

Clearly - it is a bedieved.

>>> Yehoshua was given this Tzivuy first hand, and he understood it to mean
>>> that he was supposed to lead the Nation -- into war and settling Israel.
>>> He definitely did not believe that it meant that MiLChatChilla he was
>>> supposed to sit all day in the Yeshiva.

See Megilla 3a about Yehoshua and his bitul Torah, that it was a bigger
issue than not being makriv the korban Tomid.

SBA

From: "SBA" <sba@sba2.com>
To: "Shoshana L. Boublil" <toramada@bezeqint.net>; "The General Sent: Friday, January 19, 2007 6:15 AM
Subject: Re: VeHaGita - Proof....sources and quotes


> From: "Shoshana L. Boublil"
> > RSB: Who was it that said that saying Shma in the morning and Shma in the
> > evening is sufficient to be Yotzeh "Vehagita Bo Yomam VaLayla"?  Last I
> > checked, it was in the G'mara...
> 
> SBA > That is a bedieved - and not lekatchileh.
> 
> Proof?....sources and quotes).

> As if that's gonna make the slightest difference..

And this is highly insulting. And PUBLIC. 

[del] 
> and you'll see that it quotes RY beshem Rashbi that it is OSSUR to
> mention this (that saying Shma in the morning and evening is sufficient
> to be Yotzeh "Vehagita Bo Yomam VaLayla")  to an am haaretz
> (because they will REALLY think this is enough - and won't send
> their sons to study Torah, Rashi).
 
> Which shows us that
> 1) the baal hamemreh himself, Rashbi holds that it is a bedieved
> and therefore should not be publicised.

Actually -- it doesn't.  We'll get to that in a moment.

> And 2) his was concerned were that amaretazim will use it as an
>  excuse not to do serious learning...

Which proves that it is NOT BeDi'eved(!!!) as you'll see shortly.
 
> The gemara there continues and says beshem Rava -
> "MITZVA le'omro bifnei am haaretz"   (Rashi: "..desavar (the AH)
> krias shema notel s'char godol kezeh...im haya osek kol hayom
>  (baTorah) kol-sheken shes'choroy gadol, umargil
> es banav letalmud Torah..)

So let's analyse this:

A. All sides agree that "VeHaGita Bo Yomam VaLayala" is fully kept by saying Shma morning and evening.
Interestinly enough, NONE of the opinions you bring disagree with this.

This means that MeLeChatChilla -- VeHagita IS indeed halachically fulfilled by saying Shma morning and night.

B. Now we have an educational issue: We want people to learn Torah and to send their children to learn Torah.  

The reason is NOT b/c of the issue of VeHagita.  That is agreed.  But from a philosophical view -- the more Torah learned, people will become closer to Hashem; the better people will behave; the more mitzvot of other sorts they will keep; -- it will be a better world.

Apparently, at the time in question, learning Torah is not a common pastime. They have a problem: many people, in their times, would use any excuse to get out of learning themselves, or sending their kids to school.

Actually, this was true for most of history.  The idea of sending kids to school from childhood till adulthood is VERY new. If you read biographies of Gedolim, (uncensored) and other people of their time, you will find that unless the kid was exceptional, and someone could foot the bill, at around 11-12, the kid was sent to apprentice and/or sent out to work. (apparently, they weren't Choshesh for VeHagita.... which means that they knew the truth).

Nowadays, this is NOT the issue.  If a father doesn't send his kids to school, he'll be facing police charges. But we'll get back to this later.

The question facing them was whether or not to publicize this halacha -- that VeHagita is fulfilled by saying Shma morning and night. Remember, they didn't have tv, radio, parshat Hashavua sheets etc.  What they didn't publicly state -- wasn't known.

There are two views on this issue:
View A: Do NOT tell them.  By their very nature Am HaRatzim will use any excuse to NOT study, and we don't want to give them this excuse.

View B: TELL them!!! If they realize how much Sachar they get just for saying Shema, it will motivate them to learn more, b/c they will want this additional Sachar.

Notice, that nobody says that if they don't actually learn Torah night and day they are doing an Aveira.  It is agreed that Halachically Shma twice a day is sufficient, but we have here an issue of public policy which has to be addressed.

=============================

Let's jump forward some hundreds of years and reach our times.

Many use the sentence of "VeHagita" to demand that men learn day and night as much as possible as an halachic imperitive.  The situation is not that people won't learn, but rather, this idea is used in an almost abusive form to force people who are tortured by this demand of full time study for years (to the extent that some  lie and cheat so that people will believe they are studying when they are not).  This non-halacha, has been used to abuse women into becomeing Super Women: mothers, giving birth nearly every year, wives, homemakers and breadwinners.  For all the quasi-halachic arguments, the truth is that Chazal stated categorically that the man is obligated to MeFarnace his family, not the wife.

So, nowadays, the problem of the G'mara is not ours.  We have the reverse problem.  It is indeed time that we told people the truth: VeHagita means that you should study as much as possible (without abusing anyone!!!!) but that you are definitely Yotzeh MiLeChatChilla if you say Shma twice a day.

In our current society, nobody will take their children out of school if they know that this is the Halacha.  The states, around the world, require that children study from early childhood until adulthood.  Our problems are not the problems that were facing the rabbis in the abovementioned G'mara.

Torah is about truth.  It's about time that being Chareid LiDevar Hashem meant seeking truth in halacha and life as well.

Shoshana L. Boublil




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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 23, Issue 4
*************************************

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..."