Avodah Mailing List

Volume 23: Number 69

Thu, 29 Mar 2007

• 1. Re: Marijuana is kitniyos? (Dr. Josh Backon)
• 2. Re: Retzei (Micha Berger)
• 3. Re: More on Mitzvos and Iyun (Micha Berger)
• 4. Re: ikkarim redux (Micha Berger)
• 5. Re: Love of Israel (Marty Bluke)
• 6. Re: Love of Israel (Chana Luntz)
• 7. Snuff (tobacco/shmek tabak) on Pesach (SBA)
• 8. Re: Halachic who is right from "The Lost Scotch" (Ken Bloom)
• 9. Retzei (Jonathan Baker)
• 10. Re: Concerning ourselves with the world at large (Yaakov Moser)

>See http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/842733.html
><<Later injunctions by European rabbis extended those rules to forbid
>other foods like beans and corn, and more recent rulings have further
>expanded the ban to include hemp seeds, which today are found in some
>health oils - and in marijuana.>>

[Moved from AREIVIM at the request of the moderators]

I don't understand why. All jokes aside, It's not exactly a substance that was
used in East Europe 150 years ago.

See the definition of KITNIYOT by the Rambam in Hilchot Kilayim 1:8
"ha'zaronim nechlakin l'shlosha chalakim: . .. .kitniyot,  v'heyn
kol zeraim ha'ne'echal l'adam chutz min ha'tevua. K'gon..(list follows).".
[KITNIYOT are defined as any edible seed apart from TEVUA (which is wheat,
barley, etc.). He does list: beans, peas, lentils, spelt, rice, sesame,
poppy seeds, sapir [I don't know what this is], etc.

No one eats hemp seeds.

That a derivative is made from the oil extract is not kiniyot but
"mei kitniyot". And I doubt this is even "mei kitniyot" since the THC
(active ingredient in marijuana)  from hemp must be extracted by complex
chemical means [the guy who discovered THC in the 1970's, Professor Rafi
Meshullam, sits one floor below me at the Faculty of Medicine].

1) "mei kitniyot"  is subject to rabbinic debate [especially as the prohibition
of kitniyot is simply a strong custom rather than a talmudic rule]. There were
many rabbis who permitted oil derived from Kitniyot (see: Beer Yitzchak
OC 11; Tshuvot haMaharsham I 183; Yesodei Yeshurun VI 424).

2) nullification of kitniyot in a mixture: Simple "bitul b'rov" (nullification
by having the non-kitniyot food in the majority) is permitted (see: Shulchan
Aruch ORACH CHAYIM 453:1 in the Rema "im naflu toch ha'tavshil" if it occurs
accidentally; Mishna Brura 453 # 9; Aruch haShulchan OC 453 #6)

3) although "ein mevatlin issur d'rabban l'chatchila"  there are instances
where it may be permitted (see: Yoreh Deah 99:6-7 based on a gemara
in Beitza 4b and according to the RASHBA there). With regard to
Kitniyot, we're not even dealing with a rabbinical prohibition but a custom.


But kids, don't do this at home :-)

KT

Josh [who states that every Jew has to take LSD every day: Lox for breakfast,
         Salami for lunch, and a cheese Danish for supper :-) ]

On Wed, March 28, 2007 5:24 pm R Saul Mashbaum <smash52@netvision.net.il>:
: It have found a source which addresses the question of the meaning and time of
: composition of Retzei. The following  is from the commentary found in Siddur
: Ashira LaShem, for Friday afternoon and evening prayers:

:> 2. ?And the fire-offerings of Israel and their prayers, in Love may you
:> receive them willingly...? The Amidah was composed by the men of the Great
:> Assembly to accompany the sacrifices in the Second Temple. This phrase remains
:> from that period, although now it has connotations of asking Hashem to restore
:> the Beis Hamikdash, so that the offerings could be brought and accepted.

Well, I explained the reason for the awkward syntax -- when they added
vehasheiv, the word was hijacked from one sentence to be used in another.

But since I didn't recall this, I had to recreate the footnote. The format
isn't one conducive to long explanations. However, I found my notes. Tamid
5:1, quoted by Berakhos 11a. The siddur in the Beis haMiqdash was:
Ahavah Rabba (as explained by the gemara),
Aseres haDiberos
the 3 peraqim of Shema,
and "barkhu es ha'am" with:
     Emes veYatziv,
     Avodah -- i.e. Retzei
     birkhas Kohanim
and on Shabbos, they add one more berakhah for the departing mishmar.

But that's where I got the idea that "vehasheiv es ha'avodah" was inserted
into the berakhah. After all, birkhas Avodah (which we call by the first word,
"Retzei") was actually said in the beis hamiqdash as part of that very same
avodah!

It also shows you the size of the innovation of dropping the 10 Diberos out of
concern for the minim. It's pretty clear the minim on this one are the
Notzerim, given that they were the biggest group to omit doing /something/ to
comply to the rest of halakhah.

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 Wed, March 28, 2007 5:58 pm, I wrote:
:: The question is what is the point of diminishing returns. Would you not
:: agree that there is some point at which learning Ein Yaakov would be
:: more productive? (As I have noted elsewhere, the question is actually
:: sharper when it comes to bekiyus.)

: Actually, I agree fully WRT beqi'us....

But I never did return to the subject of be'iyun.

First, as I /did/ write:
> But given that you agree that chuqim have a refining effect on the
> individual in ways we can not understand, why can't you accept that your
> collegue believes that be'iyun, the shelish bigemara leshitas haRambam,
> might have such choq elements?

How does knowing a Brisker chaqirah make me a better human being? Not asking
that rhetorically; I really don't know. I am not saying it doesn't, but the
connection between the two is usually on a choq level.

Lomdus is of little practical value, except for the poseiq. And in fact,
Brisker lomdus is not known for producing poseqim; it tends to produce people
who can see every shitah rather than being able to choose one. Rav Chaim
refused to play LOR even when he was the LOR -- he gave the job of pesaq to
Reb Simcha Zelig, Brisk's rosh beis din. (Yes, RYBS did pasqen, but numerous
are the stories of how reluctant he was to impose his will when there was
another rav there; even if it was his own talmid! Did/does any other
Soloveitchik?) Back from the tangent...

Telzher lomdus at least connect the mitzvah to machashavah, allowing for
kavanah. I don't see that in gavra vs cheftzah or qinyan ishus vs qinyan
be'alma.

There is definitely a choq element to the chiyuv of talmud Torah. I therefore
can not assess the value of teaching a weaker student lomdus on his level.

Even though I would prepare him for a life of being a ba'al chessed, not a
lamdan, if he has the zitzfleish he still gets the same reward for being a
masmid as someone gifted investing the effort. Lefum *tza'arah* agra.

And then there's the occasional "miracle". R' Noach Weinberg, in a talk
inaugurating Parners-in-Torah, offered a portrait of R' Eliezer ben Hyrkanus.
As the gemara tells us REBH was already an adult, and didn't know how to
bentsh. It wasn't due to non-frum upbringing, elsewhere Hyrkanus is praised
quite highly. So, RNW concludes, REBH was not a successful student. Perhaps
people who saw him even assumed he wasn't all that bright. Not until he found
the right rebbe, R Yochanan ben Zakkai. There he learns to be "a cistern that
does not leak one drop". He eventually ends up in Beis Shammai, the school
that only took the elite (it is described as smaller and wiser than Beis
Hillel). I am not sure it's mutar to lower expectations; you never know which
one of those "slower track talmidim" may be another REBH!

But to reiterate my primary point and reason for writing this addendum:

Be'iyun is largely choq. I therefore will not try to guess its value for
people who can't master it to the same depth as others. All of us fall short
of its full depth; the difference is a matter of quantity.

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 was going to let this go, but there were a couple of points on which I think
RMS misunderstood me in a way that didn't let me let go.

On Tue, March 27, 2007 8:58 pm, R Meir Shinnar wrote:
: However, ikkarim per se - have rarely been used in a halachic process - in :
the sense that so far, you have not been able to cite a detailed process.

I explicitly listed what I saw as two objections from you on this point:

First, that no one really applied the process to decide on the ikkarim,
Second, that even those who used the words "13 ikkarim" used it idiomatically
to mean emunah, and not this particular list.

IIRC, you gave me the 2nd response when I cited teshuvos about meshichtsin and
stam yeinam. (Both were lehaqeil, FWIW.)

But to this I question whether teshuvos are written that ca

: Remember, historically, until the 19th century, it was quite simple - it was
: quite easy to determine who were us and who were them - because it was an :
act of conscious identification or conscious rebellion.  All discussions of :
the ikkarim are tempered by this.

Now you have me confused... The ikkarim you were saying weren't discussed in a
halachic context you are now saying were discussed with an assumption of
conscious rebellion? Are you referring to discussion in a different context?
If so, how does the assumption of rebellion impact our discussion?

: this is why, to choose an ikkar which is less controversial that it is :
frequently violated - the fifth ikkar, even though there were many poskim :
who worried about the fifth ikkar halacha lema'ase  - and insisted on :
changing or omitting piyuttim - I am not aware of any posek, even those who :
nominally accepts the ikkarim as defining a kofer or a mumar - who views :
anyone who says machnise rachamim as a kofer whose wine can't be drunk.

Because few (outside of the Darda'im and extreme Granikim) would hold that
narrow definition of the 5th ikkar. But we all agree that worshipping Moshe
Rabbeinu, the eigel (to replace him), the keruvim, the Chaldean deity Kerub
(an ox whose wagon carried messages between earth and heaven), the two oxen
outside Malkhus Yisrael's temples, or Yeishu, is not Jewish.

...
: To go back to one of your examples, the size of a zayit I can find multiple
: debates in the literature. When someone uses a term in a specific halachic :
sense - it means that the term has a known meaning to which one can refer : -
and that the posek is referring to a known meaning.  Halacha is not open :
ended - and halachic terms have specific meaning - although poskim can :
debate about which particular meaning to give a term in a given context.

: You concede that one is talking about the ikkarim in some loose sense - and
: I am saying that that statement means that one is not talking about the :
ikkarim in a halachic sense. ...

While we all agree about the 5th ikkar's application to the above examples.

I am convinced the Chaldean deity Kerub was keruv worship. (I made the
argument here in the past, also touching on the eigel and the Temples in
Malkhus Yisrael <http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol08/v08n121.shtml#12>. Kerub
had a parallel in Mitzrayim called Apis, with Temples at either end of the
country with bulls in front of them.) As per Rambam's description of dor
Enosh, they worshipped part of the real angelic enteurage. So just how does it
differ from those who say Machnisei Rachamim?

But the same could be argued in the reverse: We ask people to say tehillim for
us, or a rav to give us a berakhah. Not considered violating the 5th ikkar.
What if the rav is deceased, is it so different to ask his neshamah for the
same berakhah? And is a niftar's neshamah so different than asking a mal'akh?
Don't you say "Borchuni leshalom mal'akhei hashalom"?

(As a point of fact, I don't. Not until I have this figured out. It's too
distracting. I use "Shivtikhem leshalom", an equally ancient nusach used by
those Sepharadim and Chassidim who have 5 verses. 4 verses is keneged the 4
rungs of Yaaqov's sulam. 5, keneged Nara"n Ch"ai. I couldn't just say three,
as that would leave the mal'achim with Nara"n, down in the lower olamos. The
basis of Shalom Aleikhem is Qabbalah, I can't say it like a rationalist.)

So, the 5th ikkar's edges, like those of many dinim, are blurry. We can all
agree that violating the 5th ikkar in some fundamental way crosses the line,
but beyond that -- we all have our own lines.

That's how this "loose sense" is typical halakhah. It's like agreeing that
someone who eats a kezayis bemeizid on YK is oveir, without being able to
agree whether the amount a particular person ate was a kezayis. The CI would
be meiqil on him.

We accepted the ikkarim to the extent of incorporatingd it into the siddur in
two places. For that matter, to the extent that two poets thought it central
enough to warrant poetry. Well before the modern era in which RMShapiro thinks
we erred on this point. And even those who objected to limiting the doxology
just to the ikkarim (not looser restrictions, tighter!) only managed to get
rid of Ani Maamin -- Yigdal remains in every siddur from Frankfurt to Teiman.

A change in the siddur too requires halachic process.

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

A number of people wanted to bring a proof from Achav about malchus
and kavod. The proof from Achav is actually a machlokes. After Eliyahu
Hanavi's success at Har Hacarmel, he is left alone with the King,
Achav. Achav starts riding home all alone and Eliyahu runs in front of
Achav's chariot to honor the King.

Why did Eliyahu Hanavi honor Achav by running in front of his chariot,
after all Achav was a rasha? One school of thought answers that the
Mitzva of giving honor to the King even applies to a rasha. The mitzva
is to give honor to the office not the person. The King represents
Hashems malchus on earth, whether he is a rasha or not is irrelevant.
Others say that Achav did teshuva along with all of Bnei Yisrael and
therefore Eliyahu honored him. However, you are not allowed to honor a
King who is a rasha.

As expected, the Satmer Rebbe took the second approach while R' Henkin
(writing before the State of Israel existed) assumed like the first
approach. Both approaches are based on earlier sources (Tumim,
Maharsha, Ralbag).

> 
> A number of people wanted to bring a proof from Achav about 
> malchus and kavod. The proof from Achav is actually a 
> machlokes. After Eliyahu Hanavi's success at Har Hacarmel, he 
> is left alone with the King, Achav. Achav starts riding home 
> all alone and Eliyahu runs in front of Achav's chariot to 
> honor the King.
> 
> Why did Eliyahu Hanavi honor Achav by running in front of his 
> chariot, after all Achav was a rasha? One school of thought 
> answers that the Mitzva of giving honor to the King even 
> applies to a rasha. The mitzva is to give honor to the office 
> not the person. The King represents Hashems malchus on earth, 
> whether he is a rasha or not is irrelevant. Others say that 
> Achav did teshuva along with all of Bnei Yisrael

But I thought that the teshuva of an idolator was never accepted (does
not the gemora in fact prove this specifically in the context of the
discussion regarding Achav on Chullin 5a)?  And was Achav not
specifically listed as one of the kings who do not have a portion in
olam haba in the Mishna in Sanhedrin?

 and 
> therefore Eliyahu honored him. However, you are not allowed 
> to honor a King who is a rasha.
> 
> As expected, the Satmer Rebbe took the second approach while 
> R' Henkin (writing before the State of Israel existed) 
> assumed like the first approach. Both approaches are based on 
> earlier sources (Tumim, Maharsha, Ralbag).

Actually, I think there were two different aspects of malchus and kavod
under discussion.  The first was whether there was a requirement to give
kavod in circumstances where the melech was not from beis David, and
even if you take the Satmer Rebbe's point of view, it would still seem
that so long as the person is righteous, he would agree that the
technical requirements of being a melech from beis David are not
required.  I agree that the second aspect - ie are you required to give
kavod to a king who is a rasha, cannot be proven from Achav if Achav is
considered to be a tzadik at the time that Eliyahu haNavi honoured him.
How does the Satmer Rebbe deal with with the issues raised above (ie the
gemora regarding teshuva of an idolator and the Mishna regarding Achav's
portion in the world to come)?

Shabbat Shalom

Chana

PS I can understand if you do not have time to respond before Pesach, I
am struggling to keep up with (not to mention read) the email
correspondence at the moment, despite a whole host of interesting
threads going on) - which is why I am posting at well past midnight
which I really shouldn't be doing.  So I probably would be greatful if
there was something of a hiatus too.

From: "A & C Walters" <>
Regarding the psak in MB 467:33 regarding if it?s mutar to use snuff on
Pesach, he concludes: one should inquire from the experts/manufacturers
 if they do this (i.e. add chometz to the snuff)

Therefore, I wrote to Wilson?s, who is the biggest snuff manufacturer and
asked them:     They replied:
We have been studying your Wikipedia definition of Chametz and conclude that
there is nothing in our snuffs that could form any part of it.
-
 My question is: can one be soimech on them, or not
>>

My question is, are you allowed to snort the stuff all year.

In Australia (and several other countries) it has been a banned for a number
of years - as it is known to cause cancer.

>>> Legislative controls  Australia
Smokeless tobacco is banned in Australia. First to act were a number of
states; then a ban was placed on the products federally in 1991.
During the second half of the 1980s, Tasmania, Western Australia, Victoria
and South Australia took independent action. On the basis of nicotine
content, the Tasmanian and Western Australian governments added smokeless
tobacco products (excluding nasal snuff) to Schedule 4 of their Poisons
Lists..Victoria banned manufacture and sales of smokeless tobacco and nasal
snuff under the Tobacco Act (1987). ...
The Commission listed the following summary of reasons for their
recommendation

Oral snuffs
The Commission is persuaded that the scientific evidence on the existence of
a causal relationship between the use of oral snuff and the incidence of
oral and other cancers is of sufficient weight to support a ban on those
products.
This conclusion is based on:
 the strength of the epidemiological evidence in support of a significant
positive association between the use of oral snuffs and the development of
oral cancer;
 the evidence in relation to the carcinogenic properties of nitrosamines to
the effect that
- nitrosamines are present to a significant degree in smokeless tobacco
products;
- nitrosamines are powerful animal carcinogens; and
- nitrosamines have the capacity to cause cancer in humans.
...A permanent ban was finally placed on the supply of chewing tobacco and
oral snuff in Australia on April 17 1991, by the Federal Minister for
Justice and Consumer Affairs, Senator Tate.(4) A corporation found selling
the products may incur a maximum penalty of $100,000, and an individual
found selling smokeless tobacco can be fined up to $20,000.(4)

Overseas
Bans have been placed on smokeless tobacco products in a number of
countries, including Israel, Hong Kong, New Zealand, Taiwan, Singapore,
Japan, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar and the United Arab
Emirates
In May 1992, European Community (EC) health ministers agreed to ban the
supply of certain types of oral tobacco, namely moist snuff.
Countries which have introduced mandatory health warnings on packets,
advertising bans, or other forms of restriction on smokeless tobacco include
Canada, Iceland, India, Sweden and the United States
http://www.quit.org.au/quit/FandI/fandi/c09s4.htm

From the US National Cancer Institute:

Smokeless Tobacco and Cancer: Questions and Answers

Key Points
Snuff is a finely ground or shredded tobacco that is either sniffed through
the nose or placed between the cheek and gum. Chewing tobacco is used by
putting a wad of tobacco inside the cheek (see Question 1).
Chewing tobacco and snuff contain 28 cancer-causing agents (see Question 2).
Smokeless tobacco users have an increased risk of developing cancer of the
oral cavity (see Question 3).
...
What is smokeless tobacco?
There are two types of smokeless tobacco--snuff and chewing tobacco. Snuff,
a finely ground or shredded tobacco, is packaged as dry, moist, or in
sachets (tea bag-like pouches). Typically, the user places a pinch or dip
between the cheek and gum. Chewing tobacco is available in loose leaf, plug
(plug-firm and plug-moist), or twist forms, with the user putting a wad of
tobacco inside the cheek. ...

What harmful chemicals are found in smokeless tobacco?
Chewing tobacco and snuff contain 28 carcinogens (cancer-causing agents).
The most harmful carcinogens in smokeless tobacco are the tobacco-specific
nitrosamines (TSNAs). They are formed during the growing, curing,
fermenting, and aging of tobacco. TSNAs have been detected in some smokeless
tobacco products at levels many times higher than levels of other types of
nitrosamines that are allowed in foods, such as bacon and beer.
Other cancer-causing substances in smokeless tobacco include N-nitrosamino
acids, volatile N-nitrosamines, benzo(a)pyrene, volatile aldehydes,
formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, crotonaldehyde, hydrazine, arsenic, nickel,
cadmium, benzopyrene, and polonium-210.
All tobacco, including smokeless tobacco, contains nicotine, which is
addictive. The amount of nicotine absorbed from smokeless tobacco is 3 to 4
times the amount delivered by a cigarette. Nicotine is absorbed more slowly
from smokeless tobacco than from cigarettes, but more nicotine per dose is
absorbed from smokeless tobacco than from cigarettes. Also, the nicotine
stays in the bloodstream for a longer time.

What cancers are caused by or associated with smokeless tobacco use?
Smokeless tobacco users increase their risk for cancer of the oral cavity.
Oral cancer can include cancer of the lip, tongue, cheeks, gums, and the
floor and roof of the mouth.
People who use oral snuff for a long time have a much greater risk for
cancer of the cheek and gum than people who do not use smokeless tobacco.
The possible increased risk for other types of cancer from smokeless tobacco
is being studied.

What are some of the other ways smokeless tobacco can harm users' health?
Some of the other effects of smokeless tobacco use include addiction to
nicotine, oral leukoplakia (white mouth lesions that can become cancerous),
gum disease, and gum recession (when the gum pulls away from the teeth).
Possible increased risks for heart disease, diabetes, and reproductive
problems are being studied.
http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Tobacco/smokeless


From the BBC:
Increased snuff cancer threat

Snorting tobacco in the form of snuff is even more risky than previously
thought, research suggests.
Although perhaps not as popular as it was in previous centuries, snuff has
enjoyed something of a resurgence in some countries in recent years. It has
also been touted as a safer, and perhaps more socially acceptable,
alternative to cigarette-smoking, and even an aid to quitting.
However, preliminary results from a team of researchers examining native
American women who take snuff suggest that its carcinogenic effects may have
been underestimated. .....Most people associate the practice of snuff-taking
with older people, but it has been increasing among the young, although it
is still tiny in comparison with cigarette smoking.
...Proponents of snuff suggest that it is the burning of tobacco in
cigarettes and pipes which releases the carcinogens.
It has previously, however been associated with an increased risk of nasal
cancer.    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/737840.stm
===

Having many times seen some alteh Yid pass around his tabik pishkeh in
Shul on Shabbos, I always wonder what exactly is the great pleasure of
sticking this stuff up your nose - which usually culminates in an almighty
sneezy eruption?

And is it really such a great Mitzvah to be spreading all those germs
throughout the Shul?

SBA

On Wednesday 28 March 2007 14:56, Daniel Israel wrote:
> On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 13:45:35 -0600 Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>
>
> wrote:
> >Then there is Hillel's kol haTorah kulah al regel achas,
> >"De'aleikh sani..." Somehow, assuming infinite knowledge and
>
> intellect,
>
> >all of halakhah can be derived from this simple rule.
>
> It's a beautiful vort, and a fascinating philosophical jumping of
> point, but I'm not convinced that you have to read the Gemara that
> way.  Is "kol HaTorah kulah" meant literally, or, given the fact
> that this was an answer to a perhaps unanswerable question, can't
> we say Hillel was giving a closest possible answer, but without the
> deeper ramification you are suggesing?

You should have a look at Sefer Ahavat Yisrael by the Baba Sali, where 
he explains how 127 different mitzvot are hinted at in the verse 
v'ahavta l'reiecha kamocha.

http://www.nehora.com/moreinfo.cfm?Product_ID=739

--Ken

-- 
Ken Bloom. PhD candidate. Linguistic Cognition Laboratory.
Department of Computer Science. Illinois Institute of Technology.
http://www.iit.edu/~kbloom1/
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20070329/e3f979de/attachment.pgp 

From: saul mashbaum <smash52@netvision.net.il>
> RMB wrote:

>> The problem [...] is that there would have been no reason to keep the
>> line "vehasheiv es ha'avodah" all the time of Bayis Sheini. The two versions
>> make sense in their respective epochs, but what about the time in between?

> It have found a source which addresses the question of the meaning
> and time of composition of Retzei. The following  is from the commentary
> found in Siddur Ashira LaShem, for Friday afternoon and evening prayers:

> : 2. ?And the fire-offerings of Israel and their prayers, in Love may
> : you receive them willingly...? The Amidah was composed by the men
> : of the Great Assembly to accompany the sacrifices in the Second
> : Temple. This phrase remains from that period, although now it has
> : connotations of asking Hashem to restore the Beis Hamikdash, so
> : that the offerings could be brought and accepted.

> The entire siddur can be viewed at http://www.aishdas.org/siddur_pg.pdf
> I have often noted on this forum  the excellence of this siddur .

Which is nice, but wrong, since the author of the comment didn't have
the manuscript evidence from the Geniza at his disposal.  It's an ongoing
debate, whether the AKG gave us the form (18/19 blessings) alone, or also
the content (text) of the tefillot.

For a summary of that manuscript evidence, and some speculation about
its later use, see 

http://thanbook.blogspot.com/2007/03/retzei-et-les-prieres-du-comtat.html

(no, it's not in french)

In short, what we use is the Bavli version.  The Eretz Yisrael version,
part of which survives in our Duchenen nusach, didn't have "v'ishei
yisrael."  And the Eretz Yisrael version is much closer to what would
have been used in the Beis HaMikdash.  Hodu, which came from EY nusach
by way of Ashkenaz nusach, and was only much later taken into Eastern
nusach, is also probably from Beis Hamikdash nusach (actually, Mishkan
Shilo nusach).  See Y.M. Ta-Shma, Hatefillah Ha-Ashkenazit Hakedumah.

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

>
> I only have one Makor for this idea, that we, as Jews, should concern
> ourselves with the well-being of the world at large. It is from Ramchal, in
> the Hakdamah to Mesillas Yesharim: "The general rule for this (Halichah
> B'drachav - MYG) is that a person should act in all his ways based on
> uprightness and forethought (Hayosher V'hamussar - MYG). Chazal generalized
> it as, "Anything which is harmonious both to its performer and to the
> observer." This means that one goes to the n-th degree of doing good, which
> is that its result is the strengthening of Torah and _repairing
> relationships between nations._"
>
> Does anyone have any other Makoros for this concept?
>
> KT,
> MYG
I refer you to the very interesting discussion in Chief Rabbi Jonathan 
Sacks' book "To Heal a Fractured World", chapter 9 - Responsibility for 
Society, pp. 113-129.

"There are certain questions that are note asked within a particular 
culture, simply because the circumstances that give rise to it never 
occurred. Throughout history, Jews took it as axiomatic that they were 
responsible for one another. The question they did /not/ ask was: to 
what extent are we responsible for the wider society and the world?...
/The question was not asked because it never arose./ For eighteen 
centuries of Diaspora history, Jews had no civil rights. They had no 
vote. Until the nineteenth century, they were not admitted to 
universities, the professions, parliaments, local government or offices 
of state. Even after emancipation, in the nineteenth and early twentieth 
centuries, they entered the public domain as citizens rather than as 
Jews. Public culture was either Christian or secular, and there was no 
point of entry for, or interest in, a Jewish voice." [Emphasis in the 
original.]

Nevertheless, he explores some sources.

One of the most explicit is from Rav Kook:

"The love for people must be alive in the heart and soul, a love for all 
people and a love for all nations, expressing itself in a desire for 
their spiritual and material advancement ... One cannot reach the 
exalted position of being able to recite the verse from the morning 
prayer, 'Praise the Lord, invoke His name, declare His works among the 
nations' (1 Chron. 16:8), without experiencing the deep, inner love 
stirring one to a solicitousness for all nations, to improve their 
material state and to promote their happiness."

['The Moral Principles' (Middot ha-Rayah). English version in "The 
Lights of Penitence, Lights of Holiness, The Moral Principles, Essays, 
Letters and Poems", translated Ben Zion Bokser, London 1979 p.136]

Jason Moser

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20070329/d67a30ac/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 69
**************************************

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..."