Avodah Mailing List

Volume 23: Number 52

Fri, 16 Mar 2007

• 1. Re: R. Danziger's Review of R. Elias' 19 Letters (Daniel Eidensohn)
• 2. Yeruishalayim (Eli Turkel)
• 3. Re: AishDas and Mussar (Micha Berger)
• 4. Re: AishDas and Mussar (Daniel Israel)
• 5. Halachic who is right from "The Lost Scotch" (Samuel Svarc)
• 6. Ahot Ishto (Dr. Jeffrey R. Woolf)
• 7. Re: Nefilas Apaim in Yerushalayim (Yaakov Moser)
• 8. Each tribe had different Torah? (Daniel Eidensohn)
• 9. Re: RYGB v. Colleague (Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer)
• 10. Re: Nefilas Apaim in Yerushalayim (Elliott Shevin)
• 11. Microphones on Shabbos (Micha Berger)
• 12. Retzei (Elliott Shevin)

Micha Berger wrote:
> 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.
>
>   

Rav Bulman told me that he was upset that R' Elias was trying to present 
R' SR Hirsch as a chareidi Jew. His concerns were the same as Rav 
Danzinger's


Daniel Eidensohn

Most of us Yerushalmim seem to use the Rosh Yeshiva - RSZA's -
definition; the municipal boundaries. >>

I dont think that RSZA had a uniform definition of Yerushalayim.
For Megillah on Prurim he held the municipality. However, for the minhag
of have only one drummer at a wedding he held that it applied only to
the old walled city. Similarly for other halachot

personally - I never quite understood that since today's walled city is
from the Turks and not the same as from Bayit Sheni and why should it
have some special status?


-- 
Eli Turkel

On Sun, March 11, 2007 10:38 am, David Riceman wrote:
: I think you're missing something here.  Both mussar and "chassidic ecstatic
: experience" use the koah hadimyon as a tool.  The difference is whether
: they're aiming to effect the dimyon or the sechel.  There are Jewish
: traditions which emphasis bypassing the dimyon altogether and exclusively
: using the sechel.  For example, the Rambam in MN, his son in Sefer HaMaspik
: L'Ovdei HaShem,  Abraham Abulafia (if I understand his claims correctly)
: and, more recently, Franz Rosenzweig.

You are right, I did underplay the number of derakhim that can't be deepened
through mussar. Brisk (outside of RYBS and RAS) is a more mainstream example
among contemporary O Jews of a derekh that values seichel to the near
exclusion of dimyon.

R' Itzele Blazer was physically evicted from Vilozhin by talmidim who chanted
"A blatt gemara iz de bester mussar seifer." The two worldviews can't be
added.

I question whether the Rambam's mehalekh in this area is meaningful to a
population that doesn't buy into the tenets of Aristotelian psychology.

There is clearly a synergy between thought and emotion. Based on our
discussion of the definition of "yeitzer hara", I think we both agree that
dimyon is the intellectual faculty more closely tied to emotion. Such that the
relative roles of seikhel and dimyon is directly related to the relative roles
of thought and emotion. Or of machashavah amuqah and emunah peshutah.

Aristotle makes thought primary, and defines emotion in terms of thought. He
defines anger as "an impulse, accompanied by pain, to a conspicuous revenge
for a conspicuous slight directed without justification towards what concerns
oneself or towards what concerns one's friends." And fear, a pain or
disturbance due to a mental picture of some destructive or painful evil in the
future."

I cannot but hear echos of this in the Rambam or Orchos Tzadiqim's use of the
word "dei'os" for emotions. The notion that they are products of, or actually
are, things of da'as.

I once coined the epigram:
    The mind is a wonderful organ for justifying conclusions the heart
    already reached.

This is more indicative of the trend of psychological theory of the last two
centuries. People think what they're emotionally ready to think. Unlike
Aristotle, we look at emotion as primary, and defines which thoughts we are
willing to entertain.

On can't do an end run around dimyon if one can't rely on perfecting thought
and letting emotion follow as a consequence. And thus, my blindness shows I
therefore am very much a product of my time.


On the same subject line, different topic, RYGB wrote at Fri, 09 Mar 2007
15:25:40 EST:
: I have trained my 10th grade talmidim at MTA to think about everything
: along the Chassidish/Litvish divide, further subdividing Lita into Brisk
: vs. Mussar. They know my biases, in some cases share them, in some cases
: reject them (and, to be honest, some are apathetic). I wish someone had
: let me know about this kind of stuff when I was in 10th grade, and I
: hope that this "early start" will facilitate their growth in ways that
: our dor did not acquire when we were in HS.

Is this fair to your Yekkish and Sepharadi talmidim? I mean, getting them to
think in these terms is great, but there are more than three families of
derakhim.

This got me to wondering where on the Fork to put TIDE and neo-O. It would
seem to me they are VERY akin to Mussar. Both teach sheleimus, the difference
is in the terms used to define the adam shaleim. RSRH['s translators] often
writes in terms of "ennoblement" and striving to lift oneself to nobility. A
fusion of everything man can accomplish -- both Torah and DE. In Mussar,
sheleimus is defined in terms of middos. The difference in definition then
leads to very different pragmatics. However, it is not coincidental that both
the neo-O Jew and the Slabodoka talmid would make a point of dressing in
style, clean and pressed. An air of dignity. Nobility. Sheleimus.

(Would anyone take the other side of a bet that RYGB is going to run with that
last paragraph? <g>)

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 Thu, 15 Mar 2007 16:17:10 -0600 Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org> 
wrote:
>On Sun, March 11, 2007 10:38 am, David Riceman wrote:
>: I think you're missing something here.  Both mussar and 
"chassidic 
>: ecstatic experience" use the koah hadimyon as a tool.  The 
difference 
>: is whether they're aiming to effect the dimyon or the sechel.  
There 
>: are Jewish traditions which emphasis bypassing the dimyon 
altogether 
>: and exclusively using the sechel.
>
>You are right, I did underplay the number of derakhim that can't 
>be deepened through mussar. Brisk (outside of RYBS and RAS) is a 
more 
>mainstream example among contemporary O Jews of a derekh that 
values 
>seichel to the near exclusion of dimyon.
>
>R' Itzele Blazer was physically evicted from Vilozhin by talmidim 
>who chanted "A blatt gemara iz de bester mussar seifer."  The
>two worldviews can't be added.

OTOH, the Ramchal, who is the author of _the_ classic mussar sefer, 
emphasizes very strongly the seichel (I'm thinking of derech HaShem 
here, but it's true of Mesilas Yesharim as well).  So I don't think 
that  the distinction can be drawn as sharply as you say.  Even R' 
Chaim of Vilozhin wasn't saying that mussar was not a real part of 
Torah, he was, IMHO, suggesting that what needed to be learned 
could be absorbed by learning gemara.

The question in my mind would be: given the way the Ramchal speaks 
of seichel, how do we understand the difference between mussar and 
those who insist instead on the pre-eminence of seichel?  Are they 
defining seichel differently, or are they really approaching the 
same ideas from different sides?

I'm not sure I've given this enough thought for a real answer, but 
I'd appreciate you response.

--
Daniel M. Israel
dmi1@cornell.edu

A new book came out called "The Lost Scotch". It has short stories that ends
with who is right? I've posted a fuller review on Areivim that I urge all to
check out, as well as the book. I will quote one story (abridged) so we here
on Avodah can debate the author's halachic conclusions.

"The Wedding Singer"

The chosson, Yehoshua, as a surprise for his kallah, Devorah, hires a
singer, Davidi, to sing certain songs, that both the Yehoshuah and Devorah
were fond of at the chasunah.

Davidi shows up at chasunah, as planned, and upon conferring with the band
leader, discovers, to his shock, that Devorah, to *surprise* Yehoshuah, has
hired Chaim ben Zundel (you gotta love these names!), the composer of these
songs, to sing at the chasunah.

Understandably, Davidi doesn't end up singing at the chasuna, being
overshadowed by the surprise appearance of Chaim ben Zundel.

When he comes to collect his fee from the Yehoshua, Yehoshua declines,
telling him in effect, "L'massie, to both of our surprise, you didn't end up
singing. So what am I paying you for?".

Davidi claims that he turned down two other weddings because he had
committed to come to Yehoshua's.

WHO IS RIGHT?

KT,
MSS

The other day I was told that there's a Gemora (ostensibly in Qiddushin) 
that says (or implies) that special meit accrues to a person who marries his 
deceased wife's sister. I looked and couldn't find such a source.

Has anyone heard of this?
Thanks in advance from an iced in Gush Etzion.
Shabbat Shalom,
Jeffrey Woolf

Dr. Jeffrey R. Woolf
Senior Lecturer
Talmud Department
Bar Ilan University
Ramat Gan 52 900 ISRAEL
O. 972-3-531-8612
F. 972-3-535-1233
C. 972-52-274-7375
Website: http://myobiterdicta.blogspot.com 

Elliott Shevin wrote:

> My own rav (Eliezer Cohen of Oak Park, MI) invoked a psak that nefilas 
> apaim should be done wherever one is davening, Yerushalayim or not, 
> sefer torah or not (and, I presume, makom kavuah or not). The logic is 
> simple: you're not petitioning a sefer torah; you're petitioning HKBH, 
> Who is everywhere.
>   
Zev Sero replied: 

> What's his basis for such a psak?  His own sevara?
>
> (See Rema OC 131:2, ultimately based on Yehoshua 7:6).


I note that Rav Soloveitchik had the custom to do Nefilat Apayim even 
when there was no Sefer Torah. [Nefesh HaRav p. 134]. Rav Schachter 
there cites the Taz 131:5. This is a free summary of the Taz:

The Rokeach wrote that there is Nefilat Apayim only where there is a 
Sefer Torah. The Bet Yosef wrote on this that if it is a tradition we 
accept it, but if it is a teaching there is response. The Taz proposes 
that the response is as follows - The Rokeach uses as support the verse 
from Yehoshua where Yehoshua falls "before God". ie there is only 
Nefilat Apayim before God where there is a Sefer Torah. However, the Taz 
says that there is a verse in Shoftim 20:26 where the people cry and do 
Teshuva "before God" - and we cannot say that crying applies only where 
there is a Sefer Torah! Thus we can reject the proof. Additionally, it 
is implicit in the Rosh cited in the Bet Yosef later on the fact that an 
important person can do Nefilat Apayim even in their own home - so we 
see that Nefilat Apayim applies at home, and we cannot assume there was 
a Sefer Torah.
However, the Taz concludes that the Rama rules like the Rokeach.

The Aruch HaShulchan 131:10 questions the Taz, as the verse from Shoftim 
does not mention the Aron, unlike the verse from Yehoshua. However the 
Aruch HaShulchan notes that the main source for Nefilat Apayim is from 
Moshe (Devarim 9:18), and there was no Aron there. And if you want to 
say that Moshe encountered the Divine Presence - so do we encounter the 
Divine Presence everywhere we daven, irrespective of whether there is a 
Sefer Torah.
Thus the Aruch HaShulchan brings the same logic - although he concludes 
that the regular minhag is like the Rokeach as ruled by the Rama.

So we see there is a counter-opinion.

(The verse is of course the source for R' Yechiel Michal Tucatzinsky, as 
brought in his Sefarim, that the whole of Yerushalayim is "before God".)


Danny Schoemann added:
> The Be'er Heitev brings the SKNH"K (who's that?) in the name of the
> Rokeach that "if there are other seforim they have the din of a ST,
> and that's what we rely on nowadays."
>
> The MB doesn't mention this possibility. 

The MB does bring this possibility in 131:11 - he notes that the Eliya 
Rabbah and Derekh Hahayim say that there is no Nefilat Apayim without a 
Sefer Torah, even in the presence of other books. But he notes that 
others disagree (brought in his sources as the Olat Tamid, Sheyurei 
Knesset Gedola and with the Magen Giborim's agreement).

Jason Moser
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20070316/0f0c1864/attachment.htm 

*The Heichal Beracha is cited by Prof Shapiro [p 97] as asserting that 
each one of the shevatim had a different version of the Torah. Such an 
assertion is obviously problematic and contradicts all the sources I 
have found including the following. Does anyone have any other sources 
which agree with the Heichal Beracha?
*

*
Pesikta DeRav Cahane[1] <#_ftn1>**(Appendix 1): *R? Huna sated that 
Moshe wrote 13 Sefer Torahs. Twelve were for the 12 Tribes and one was 
given to Levi?im so that if one of Tribes wanted to elminate anything 
from the Torah ? the Levi?im would be able to produce their Sefer Torah 
and correct the false text.


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


??? ???? ????? ??? ??? ?"? ??"? ????? ???? ????? ?? ??? ??? ??? ??? ?? 
?????? ????? ??? ??? ?? ????? ??? ???? ?? ??? ????? ??? ???? ??? ?????? 
?????

How do _*you*_ understand that "TT [is] a redemptive, cathartic, and 
inspiring..." for the kid who is being compelled to learn the Tosafos he 
finds utterly uninteresting, tedious and boring?


YGB



Jacob Sasson wrote:

> But see http://mail-jewish.org/rav/talmud_torah.txt where RYBS states 
> (in the last paragraph):
> "halacha ... is a living, dynamic discipline which was given to man in 
> order to redeem him and to save him." 
>  
> With respect to Talmud Torah (the subject of the RYGB v. Colleague 
> dispute), he writes that "talmud torah [is] a redemptive, cathartic, 
> and inspiring reality."  Surely, RYGB's colleague would argue that, a 
> la RYBS, all talmidim deserve an equal oportunity for "redemption."
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20070316/9627913f/attachment.html 

> Zev Sero wrote:
>> What's his basis for such a psak? His own sevara?
 
No, but if he mentioned the source at the time, I can't recall. I think the last time I asked him about it, he replied with a characteristic "Do the research!" And all I had available is a MB.
 
> Danny Schoemann wrote:
> > The Be'er Heitev brings the SKNH"K (who's that?) in the name of the> Rokeach that "if there are other seforim they have the din of a ST,> and that's what we rely on nowadays."
 
Hmm. Might one include the siddur you're davening as an eligible sefer? <g>
 
I'd often wondered why a sefer torah would be necessary for NA, and some of the psak presented here and elsewhere seems to lean so far toward making the practice universal (if there's a shas present, if there are seforim present) that it wouldn't surprise me if the poskim feel the same.
 
Shabbat shalom! Elly"Striving to bring Torah Judaism into the 58th century"
_________________________________________________________________
Live Search Maps ? find all the local information you need, right when you need it.
http://maps.live.com/?icid=wlmtag2&;FOR M=MGAC01
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20070316/4432a630/attachment-0001.htm 

From Areivim, so I'm quoting in full.

On Fri, March 16, 2007 6:22 am, D&E-H Bannett wrote:
: Re: <<R. Menachem Mendel Poliakoff of Pikesville, MD
: published a teshuva many years ago concluding speaking into
: a microphone on Shabbos is permissible>> and the later
: comment <<The flickering of the vacuum tubes is not a real
: credible issue - if the tubes flickered they were worn out
: and not useable.>>
:
: I will not comment on the halakhic aspect of the teshuva and
: the rebuttals.
:
: When the teshuva was published (IIRC, in Tradition) I
: remember that, as an electronics engineer, was very
: impressed by its technical accuracy.  I was much more
: impressed, however, by the replies to that teshuva whose
: explanations of the technology were, to be polite, absolute
: nonsense.
:
: As to the flickering comment: Vacuum tubes IIRC, do not
: usually flicker, even when worn out.They have a constant
: non-changing glow because of the heating element inside.  In
: some types of final power amplifiers, the high currents,
: caused by speech might overheat the anode and cause it to
: glow, this glow directly connected to the speech. Amplifiers
: could be easily designed not to have the anode reach a
: temperature where speech can cause glow.
:
: Although it was very long ago, I always remember the
: teshuvot and my sympathy for Rabbi Poliakoff whose arguments
: made sense while the "gedolim mimmennu", like Don Quixote
: tilting with the windmills, based issurim on postulated but
: non-existent problems.
:
: That some teshuvot are based on problems that do not exist
: does not mean that there might be other problems that do
: exist. I repeat, I am not commenting on the halakhic
: conclusions in the teshuvot but only on the explanations of
: technical metziut.
:
: No question in my mind:  On the technical front, Rabbi
: Poliakoff won by a knock out.

I do not believe the teshuvos are *based* on the problems. Rather, there was a
gut instinct that it doesn't fit with the gestalt of hilkhos Shabbos. Then it
was a matter of reasoning through why that is.

The same gut instinct some acharonim talk about WRT the Rambam, that some
things have specific meqoros and the others are products of his absorption of
the full picture. I believe this is "da'as Torah" as RYSalanter used the term,
before it evolved to go beyond asking where the unknowns are of halakhah and
mussar.

Which would explain why so many poseqim reached the same conclusion through
such different means -- hav'arah, bishul, makeh bepatish, boneh... The
reasoning is actually ex post facto, justifying something they knew to be true
in some ineffable way, the gefeel of din.

Something we have not resolved to my satisfaction in earlier iterations is how
this doesn't devolve into C-style process -- getting to the desired ends is a
very slippery slope. OTOH, there is precedent to talking about halachic
conclusions from gestalt, from the da'as Torah of someone immersed in the
halachic weltenschaung.

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

I've usually prayed from siddurim in which the brocha "retzei" is punctuated, "... vehashaiv et avodah lidvir betacha (period). Ve-ishei Yisrael utefilatam be-ahava tikabel...."
 
In English, this becomes "... and return the service to the Holy of Holies of your house. And receive with love the fire-offerings of Israel and their prayers...."
 
I've only recently noticed that many siddurim punctuate it, "... vehashaiv et avodah lidvir betacha (comma) ve-ishei Yisrael (period). Utefilatam be-ahava tikabel...."
 
Or in English, "... and return the service to the Holy of Holies of your house, and the fire-offerings of Israel. And receive with love their prayers...."
I find the latter awkward; "return the service to... and the fire-offerings?"
 
Nonetheless, I have a vague recollection that this sort of construction, with a subject of a prepositional phrase added after the phrase ends, is used elsewhere in liturgy and/or Tanach, but can't recall any examples and would enjoy seeing one or two.
 
Shabbat shalom,
Elly"Striving to bring Torah Judaism into the 58th century"
_________________________________________________________________
Live Search Maps ? find all the local information you need, right when you need it.
http://maps.live.com/?icid=wlmtag2&;FOR M=MGAC01
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20070316/1f4374f7/attachment.html 

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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 23, Issue 52
**************************************

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..."