Avodah Mailing List

Volume 23: Number 49

Wed, 14 Mar 2007

• 1. Re: RSRH on Aggadita (Micha Berger)
• 2. Re: Medrash (Micha Berger)
• 3. Re: Fwd: ikkarim redux (Micha Berger)
• 4. Re: Concord wine for 4 kosos (kennethgmiller@juno.com)
• 5. Hebrew in Posts (was Malach vs. Mazal) (Jonathan Baker)
• 6. Nefilas Apaim in Yerushalayim (Gilad Field)
• 7. Re: Vashti's Tail (T613K@aol.com)
• 8. AishDas and Mussar (dfinch847@aol.com)
• 9. Re: Hebrew in Posts (was Malach vs. Mazal) (Moshe Yehuda Gluck)
• 10. Re: Mazal vs. Malach (Micha Berger)
• 11. Re: R. Danziger's Review of R. Elias' 19 Letters (Micha Berger)
• 12. Re: Hebrew in Posts (was Malach vs. Mazal) (A & C Walters)
• 13. Nadav and Avihu's yahrtzeit and Birthday (H G Schild)

On Sun, March 11, 2007 2:23 pm, Yitzchok Levine wrote:
: Someone pointed out to my that the translation of the writings of
: RSRH about how one should view Aggadita is on R. N. Slifkin's web
: site at http://www.zootorah.com/controversy/hirsch.rtf.
: I have taken the liberty of converting this file to pdf format and
: posting a link to it at http://www.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/rsrh/.

See also posts to Avodah:
http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/faxes/hirschAgadaHebrew.pdf - RSRH's letter to R
Pinchas ME Wechsler (1876), published by RMBreuer (1976)
http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/faxes/hirschAgadaEnglish.pdf - translation from
Light Magazine (1978)

The same Light reprint has similar comments from RYSalanter, including the
comparison of aggadic story with the 2 headed eagle which spread its wings
across Germany. (Discussed here before.)

Tir'u baTov!
-mi

On Sat, March 10, 2007 2:16 pm, Zoo Torah wrote:
: Maharsha, in his commentary to the first of Rabbah bar bar Chanah's stories,
: and apparently referring to all of them, does say that these stories are
: true in their literal meaning as well as in their deeper meaning; he notes
: that sailors see weird and wonderful things. Rashbam writes similarly. So it
: seems that there is a long-standing dispute in these matters.

Note that neither argue for accepting "fantastical" aggadot. Rather, they
argue that sailers regularly report such amazing things of the places they
visit -- and therefore do not consider RBBC's stories to be relatively
"fantastic".

The Maharsha isn't disagreeing with his own haqdamah.

Tir'u baTov!
-mi

On Wed, February 28, 2007 6:09 pm, R Meir Shinnar wrote:
: They were aware that the raavad was willing to defend those believing in
: hagshama.  You are well aware that the standard yeshivish take on the raavad
: is that there weren't any real rabbanim of stature who actually held in
: hagshama.  There is a difference in taking a position that everyone of
: stature holds is wrong, but some argue doesn't rise to kfira, and saying it
: is kfira - and taking a position that someone of stature held and declaring
: that to be kfira.  That's where Marc Schapiro come is - that he shows that
: many people who are normally considered bar samcha held positions that the
: ikkarim crowd would declare kfira - didn't merely defend those holding them
: as being wrong but held them themselves...

RMShapiro gives historical evidence. That only has an implication on the din
if you are to argue that the poseqim, not the hoi paloi, made a decision based
on a false understanding or ignorance of those facts.

The truth is that we do not have many beqiim in aggadita and machashavah
today. But to say that there is no one in the pyramid of rabbis who do rely on
the ikkarim lemaaseh who knows the late acceptance of the ikkarim is beyond
me. Simple example: R' Aryeh Kaplan wasn't duped into believing the centrality
of the ikkarim by ignorance over the historical debate.

But either way, at this point we've moved the discussion into a realm I find
more productive. Not the history of the ikkarim, but analyzing their halachic
import in light of halachic methodology.

...
: My point is different - yes, the rambam is quite willing to pasken  hilchot
: deot,  and  doesn't quite care about his opposition, and whom he
: classifies.  All the paytanim with prayers to  malachim, even possibly the
: sefirot...
: However, today's psak process is quite different, not just in hilchot deot -
: and in general, we are loathe to declare someone wrong - even if we pasken
: against him (as in all the diyukim leshitato etc..) - and the psak you
: presuppose would exactly do this - because you can't argue leshitato and elu
: ve'elu in kfira...

I'm missing why the Rambam's opinion of the limits of his ikarim are any more
relevent than the historical question of their dispute.

We're talking about whether there is a core underlying the ikkarim as per
Peirush haMishnayos, Ani Maamin and Yigdal that is used to define lehalakhah
who is a kofeir. Not whether the Rambam would be happy with current pesaq, nor
whether the Radvaz or Raavad would.

: let me give a related fact - well known psak of rav  moshe that  the  perush
: attributed to rav yehuda hachasid was a forgery - because the plain meaning
: violates the eighth ikkar - and we now have enough evidence that it wasn't a
: forgery.  (rav moshe wasn't willing to say nu, rav yehuda hachasid held in
: kfira, as some are..) - now that it isn't a forgery, how do we deal with it?

Nothing. Any more than we would overturn precedent and pasqen like a Me'iri.
In fact, RMF's inability to believe shows how tightly held the ikkarim are by
poseqim.

...
:>: yes, as a sociological statement they enjoy an acceptance...

:> You say "yes" and then miscast what I said. I'm talking about pesaq.
:> Halachically speaking, they enjoy an acceptance. It's what most poseqim
:> rely upon.

: I am arguing that the acceptance is more sociological than halachic - the
: basis of it is more that everyone in our community clearly accepts it and
: there is no controversy - rather than an actual halachic argument...

First, "every one our community clearly accepts it" has halachic import.

Second, the basis of it is that "all of our dayanim, poseqim, and kashrus
agencies" accept it. The question then becomes your opinion of the quality of
their knowledge of the issues. I think I already sufficiently showed that they
certainly knew and know enough to know the basic problem, if not every source
dug up by RMShapiro -- the Raavad takes care of that question. And I also
argued that the acceptance is not limited to the gedolei haposeqim who skip
over the aggaditos.

The Meshech Chokhmah may have had what we today call a mainsteam hashkafah,
but RMShKmD certianly knew his rishonim on aggaditos. It can't simply be cast
in terms of questioning the quality of current leadership, the acceptance at
this point goes back centuries.

...
: I would just point out that in the entire discussion of Marc Schapiro's
: book, over many threads and years, no one has ever mentioned any posek who
: has seriously discussed the issues raised in the book - nor pointed to any
: psak that has such a discussion - it has merely been, well, poskim ignore
: his book, they use ikkarim,they have used ikkarim for hundreds of years, so
: his book is irrelevant....

This is an interesting complaint. If his book is insufficient to reopen the
halachic question, why would their ignoring the book be the least bit
indicative?

:                           Furthermore, normally psak does require strict
: parameters (I sort of keep shabbat would not cut it with most...) - and it
: is of interest that no one has been able to define exactly what variant of
: the ikkarim is actually universally accepted....

Normally the edges of pesaq are subject to machloqes, and they are here too.
The Besht and the Gra debated the limits of the 5th ikkar. Kayadua, the Gra's
position goes so far as to assur the third verse of Shalom Aleikhem, whereas
Chassidim make baqashos of a deceased rebbe at his qever. The concluding
tefillos said after Rav Nachman's Tiqun Kelali was eye opening to me -- and,
frankly, made me very uncomfortable.

So there is a core that is agreed upon, but machloqes over the details. Kind
of like "sort of keep[ing] Shabbos" when making tea on Shabbos...

:   Remember, the whole contention was that while the truth of statements
: might be up to debate, poskim have used certain criteria for halachic
: determination on the status of the individual - and the radbaz undermines
: that contention - by arguing, in essence, that the halachic issue of kfira
: is determined by the process and motivation of the individual, rather than
: the fact content of the statement - so the halachic process doesn't have to
: deal with the truth of a given statement....

Yes it does. It has to deal with BOTH issues -- a kofeir is someone who
believes in kefirah because of a rebellion against normative Torah.

: It therefore dramatically widens the range of those who are welcome in the
: community - even though I have a certain conception of the truth that they
: don't .  The entire notion of normative beliefs is therefore quite different

I am not disputing who we should welcome in the community. I am a big believer
in a broad tent, and think we should include mechalelei Shabbos befarhesia in
our definition of O -- as long as they believe the Torah they aren't observing
calls for shemiras Shabbos. There is no other camp that would allow them to
retain this unmassaged definition of Torah, so we make them at home in ours.

A short while later, at 6:53 pm, he wrote:
: 1.  The issue whether kfira as a halachic criteria, rather than as a
: philosophic one, is one properly addressed by halachic criteria - or that
: one should be quite leery of such labels - is not answered by the fact that
: some poskim do - the main point of my post....

During "shalashudis" in shul, I asked R' Jack Love what he thinks. RJL is a
poseiq, and what may be of interest to this chevrah, he teaches responsa
literature and the art of pesaq at YCT. He is also far from ignorant of the
issues raised in RMS's book or of the full variety of O (and non-O) hashkafah
-- in fact, he read both the article and the book, R' Parnes's reply, etc...

Lehalakhah, he does require belief in something that can be kvetched into the
13 ikkarim for geirus and would in theory for wine as well. However, he thinks
that lemaaseh anyone who believes in the Ikkarim's 3 ikkarim probably
qualifies too, hand-waving (this was a conversation, not sitting down with
texts) over a mapping similar to the one I give in
<http://www.aishdas.org/asp/2006/01/ikkarei-emunah.shtml>.

That said, RJL was loathe to apply such criteria except when required for a
decision lema'aseh. If there is no reason to brand someone a kofeir, why
bother? Even if a geirus seemed "iffy", he didn't think one should revisit it
until someone was looking to marry the person (or her child).

If would seem that the criteria, while valid lehalakhah, are divorced from
finger pointing and tzitzis checking. Or deciding who we should welcome to our
community.

:                                                   While radbaz is not a
: contemporary posek, he is a very major posek who rejects the halachic
: approach endorsed by RMB - and he is someone, from a halachic perspective
: (if one does want to use halachic criteria) one can be somech on (and see
: later about the CI)

True. Someone today could rely on another rishon about what is normative and
how much rebellion is kefirah. That doesn't make the dominant pesaq wrong, or
any less truly the pesaq of pretty much everyone.

: 2) The issue of gerut is quite different than the issue of kfira -
: the criteria that bet din uses in order to accept one into
: the club are not necessarily the same as the ones that one would use to
: define kfira in other halachic circumstances.

And wineries?

But about geirus, that's only true lechat-chilah. What about someone who they
notice is a mechalel Shabbos, and now her daughter found a nice boy and wants
to get married. If I could afford to be a betting man and still pay tuition, I
would put money down on: Shabbos, kashrus, taharas hamishpachah, and the 13
ikkarim.

And I include rabbanim who know the Raavad and thus that the Rambam's ikkarim
weren't universally believed in his day.

: 3) The other main issues where kfira may have a halachic role are ones where
: there are actually few tshuvot, especially by major poskim, to justify RMB's
: position.  eg, a kofer can't be counted in a minyan - but, AFAIK, most
: poskim don't have a problem counting people who do not believe in the ikkarim
: and are therefore, according to people here, kofrim....

Umm... Tinoqos shenishbe'u. You're the one who raised the difference between
believing in kefirah and being a kofeir by mentioning the Radvaz. But again,
he doesn't eliminate the need for defining kefirah as a shiur for when
contrarianism is considered true rebellion.

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' Micha Berger wrote:
> My point was about concord grapes, not the hybrid. I'm using
> the infertility of the hybrid to prove that lehalakhah, they
> are separate species.

Yes, but here's the catch: I know that infertility of a hybrid 
defines separate species of animals. Does this rule also hold for 
fruits?

Any kilayim experts out there? Surely this question has been already 
investigated by those who are defining which grains are of the 5 
minim, and many other halachos.

Akiva Miller

From: "Moshe Yehuda Gluck" <mgluck@gmail.com>
 
> Ruach Chaim (Avos 1:2) quotes Chazal: ??? ?? ??? ???? ???? ?? ???? ?????
> ???? ????? ?? ???. The citation given is Bereishis Rabbah 10. In Bereishis
> Rabbah 10:7 I found the following: ?"? ????? ??? ?? ?? ??? ???? ???? ?? ???
> ????? ???? ???? ????? ?? ???... Is R? Chaim Volozhiner equating Malachim and
> Mazalos? Or, is the Mareh Makom wrong and there is another Chazal which says
> Malach?
 
I wish people would remember that in digest form, hebrew does not appear.
Going to the archives doesn't help, because that's stored in, guess what,
you're right: Digest Form.  So please translate or transliterate.  We can
generally figure out most transliteration schemes, even Galitzianer/Chasidish.

--
        name: jon baker              web: http://www.panix.com/~jjbaker
     address: jjbaker@panix.com     blog: http://thanbook.blogspot.com

I saw in "Sefer Eretz Yisrael" (by Harav Tukachinsky (spelling?)) that you
should do nefilas apaim in Yerushayim even in a place with no sefer torah or
even if it is not a makom kavuah for tefillah.
Does anyone know if there are other opinions on this? And what is the
accepted minhag?
And, how would we define the boundaries of Yerushalayim for this halacha?
Presumably it would be based on the same discussion as when to read Megillah
in the new parts of the city.
Is anyone aware of mekoros on this topic?

Thanks,
Gilad  Field
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20070312/258b5324/attachment-0001.htm 

 
Old TK: >>Just a thought -- with  all the comments on this thread -- is it 
possible that something protruded from some orifice or  another -- not an animal 
 tail, but something medical, some female condition or bowel condition?   A  
hernia, dropped uterus,  hemorrhoid, tumor or who knows what?<<    
From an Avodah lurker I received this  information:


The Rashba in his Chidushei Hagadot says that  it was a wart-like growth. 
--Toby  Katz
=============
<BR><BR><BR>**************************************<BR> AOL now offers free 
email to everyone.  Find out more about what's free from AOL at 
http://www.aol.com.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20070312/9506573d/attachment-0001.html 

RYGB writes:

"I have an ongoing debate with one of my colleagues at MTA. Were he not 
Jewish, he would be Catholic, and he believes that a la Catholicism, 
mitzvos are meant to have a salvational effect on us.. . . On this 
basis, he justifies the teaching of Gemara b'Iyun to lower-track 
students - viz., it has a salvific effect even if they gain little 
enlightenment from it."

Jeez. RYGB's colleague loses me entirely. As I understand it, salvation 
under Catholicism comes, broadly speaking, from faith and acceptance 
(which includes the act of communion), baptism (which washes away sin), 
and confession and repentance (which cures post-baptismal sin). Ritual 
is organized by priests, not by laymen, for catechismal reasons that 
have little to do with salvation per se, although a Catholic cannot 
give confession or take communion from a priest who does not abide by 
the church's regimen.

In Judaism, on the other hand, there is no "salvation," i.e., a 
guaranteed ticket to heaven. We have no mechanism to wash away our 
sins, especially our original sin, which doesn't exist. Ours is a 
notion of atonement, which is highly conditional and rests largely on 
our future conduct. Atonement doesn't assure a place in the world to 
come, as judgment (essentially on "righteousness" vs. "wickedness," as 
HaShem might define those terms) remains a Divine prerogative, not the 
magical effect of a few drops of water or words uttered by a priest. As 
for ritual, I imagine that Rambam (among many others, including 
especially RYBS) would recoil at the notion that Jews observe mitzvot 
primarily (or robotically) for the sake of atonement or eternal reward.

This would be particularly true for the indiscriminate teaching of 
Gemara b'Iyun, especially if the teaching is done by RYGB, who (as I 
know from personal experience) expects a very high level of 
intellectual competence. Indeed, it would do more harm than good to 
force an unqualified bocher to attend such a class. The bocher would be 
left feeling lousy about himself, a wrong lesson taught for the wrong 
reasons. Perhaps RYGB might remember the words of Ian Anderson (of the 
rock group Jethro Tull) quoted to him in one of his classes eight years 
ago: "Your wise men don't know / How it feels / To be thick / As a 
brick."


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.

======================================================
________________________________________________________________________
AOL now offers free email to everyone.  Find out more about what's free 
from AOL at AOL.com.

R' Jon Baker:
*I wish people would remember that in digest form, hebrew does not appear.
*Going to the archives doesn't help, because that's stored in, guess what,
*you're right: Digest Form.  So please translate or transliterate.  We can
*generally figure out most transliteration schemes, even
*Galitzianer/Chasidish.

My apologies! I was not aware of that. Here are is the post transliterated:


Ruach Chaim (Avos 1:2) quotes Chazal: Ain lecha eisev ba'aretz she'ain lo
malach b'rakia makeihu v'omer lo gadel. The citation given is Bereishis
Rabbah 10. In Bereishis Rabbah 10:7 I found the following: Amar R' Simon ain
lecha kol eisev v'eisev she'ein lo mazal b'rakia she'makeh oso v'omer lo
gadeil. Is R' Chaim Volozhiner equating Malachim and Mazalos? Or, is the
Mareh Makom wrong and there is another Chazal which says Malach?

KT,
MYG

On Mon, March 12, 2007 10:26 pm, R Moshe Yehuda Gluck wrote:
: Ruach Chaim (Avos 1:2) quotes Chazal: Ain lecha eisev ba'aretz she'ain lo
: malach b'rakia makeihu v'omer lo gadel. The citation given is Bereishis
: Rabbah 10. In Bereishis Rabbah 10:7 I found the following: Amar R' Simon ain
: lecha kol eisev v'eisev she'ein lo mazal b'rakia she'makeh oso v'omer lo
: gadeil. Is R' Chaim Volozhiner equating Malachim and Mazalos? Or, is the
: Mareh Makom wrong and there is another Chazal which says Malach?

A one word change like that is more likely an issue of divergent girsa'os and
a bad MM. But even if it is a faulty MM, I would still take RCV's say so that
this 2nd girsah exists, somewhere. (Side question: Are the mar'eh meqomos
RCV's or his son RYV's?)

In any case, mazal is predestination (not luck), the stars' paths are as
clockwork. Mal'akhim are the vehicles of nature. RCV quotes this very maamar
in Nefesh haChaim to make that point.

The underlying point that teva is through the chain of causality starting from
on high, continuing through mal'achim and/or gilgulim down to the grass
beneath our feet works in either version of the medrash. Which may be how two
variants survived.

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 Sun, March 11, 2007 1:21 am, T613K@aol.com wrote:
: My father was very unhappy with R' Elias's edition of Nineteen  Letters.  He
: thought R' Elias subverted Hirsch's intentions but I  don't know exactly what
: his objections were.  He was going to tell me some  day.  I wish I could ask
: him now.

R' Elias's footnotes are great -- as a seifer of REED's hashkafah. The
implication that the comments are elaborating RSRH's ideas rather than
presenting a contrast to a hashkafah that has elements that are more popular
in many contemporary circles grossly misrepresents Rav Hirsch's thought.
Perhaps more useful to people in those circles, but not loyal to the text
whose name is on the cover.

Tir'u baTov!
-mi

Try using the alternative archive at
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.jewish.avodah which displays
the hebrew no problem.

> I wish people would remember that in digest form, hebrew does not 
> appear. Going to the archives doesn't help, because that's stored in, 
> guess what, you're right: Digest Form.  So please translate or 
> transliterate.  We can generally figure out most transliteration 
> schemes, even Galitzianer/Chasidish.
>

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Click to make millions by owning your own franchise
http://tags.bluebottle.com/fc/CAaCMPJlINiPInlKfO96Ig0T1NqLsNnO/

 
The Chasam Sofer (Drushos and Agados Kisvay yad p.297) brings that Nadav and Avihu not only died on Rosh Chodesh Nissan but were also born on that day.
What is source for the latter? He then discusses the maalos of being niftar on the day one was born with 7 Adar and Moshe, etc and concludes this is why Nadav and Avihu "were greater".
I could not find their birthday and was wondering if anyone knows if indeed it is Rosh Chodesh Nissan and who reports this.
 
HG Schild
hgschild@yahoo.com
_________________________________________________________________
News, entertainment and everything you care about at Live.com. Get it now!
http://www.live.com/getstarted.aspx
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20070314/622d2ac4/attachment.htm 

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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 23, Issue 49
**************************************

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..."