Avodah Mailing List

Volume 24: Number 55

Thu, 15 Nov 2007

• 1. Derech Eretz Kadmah L'Torah (SBA)
• 2. Re: Derech Eretz Kadmah L'Torah (Moshe Y. Gluck)
• 3. proofs of G-d (Eli Turkel)
• 4. Re: Skeptics (kennethgmiller@juno.com)
• 5. Re: proofs of G-d (T613K@aol.com)
• 6. skeptics (Saul.Z.Newman@kp.org)
• 7. Re: Torah Institutions = Tzeddakah? (Zev Sero)
• 8. Re: Vayeitze "Watch Whom You Marry" (Joshua Meisner)
• 9. "Watch Whom You Marry" (Richard Wolberg)
• 10. Re: "Watch Whom You Marry" (Micha Berger)
• 11. "Watch Whom You Marry" (Richard Wolberg)

From: "Moshe Y. Gluck" < >
> Tana D'bei Eliyahu Rabbah (1:1): Melamed Shederech Eretz Kadmah L'eitz 
> HaChayim, V'ein Eitz HaChayim Ela Torah... (Courtesy of Michlol 
> Hamamarim V'hapigomim, which lists this (as well as R' SBA's Vayikra 
> Rabbah) as the source for Derech Eretz Kadmah L'Torah.)
> >>
R' SBA:
> I presume that you are agreeing with me that there is no such a Chazal 
> ("Derech Eretz Kodmo LaTorah"). In any case DE refers to earning a 
> living and not 'manners'.

I'm not agreeing with you. Although the words aren't there as precisely as
they are quoted, it is close enough.

In such cases - where a 'pisgom' is so widespread and quoted in seforim of
old as a Chazal - I think close enough is not good enough.

>> And as far as the translation of Derech Eretz is concerned, Mishpat
U'Tzedakah (from R' Yaakov Meir Fischer) translates it as manners. Rimzei
Eish translates it as Inyan Zivug, and interprets it Kabbalisticaly. Tosfos
Ben yechiel interprets it as the Derech to Eretz Yisroel, and Al Pi Peshuto,
like you said, earning a living. Tuvei Chaim translates it as good manners
(Middos Tovos). Me'orei Eish says working for a living. Maaneh Eliyahu says
good manners. Ramasayim Tzofim says it is the Olam Ha'asiyah. The Yiddish
translation (Vilna, 1880) translates it as good Middos.

Pardon? 
Are those that translate it as middos and manners - refer to the TDER?

SBA

MYG:
> >> And as far as the translation of Derech Eretz is concerned, Mishpat
> U'Tzedakah (from R' Yaakov Meir Fischer) translates it as manners.
> Rimzei
> Eish translates it as Inyan Zivug, and interprets it Kabbalisticaly.
> Tosfos
> Ben yechiel interprets it as the Derech to Eretz Yisroel, and Al Pi
> Peshuto,
> like you said, earning a living. Tuvei Chaim translates it as good
> manners
> (Middos Tovos). Me'orei Eish says working for a living. Maaneh Eliyahu
> says
> good manners. Ramasayim Tzofim says it is the Olam Ha'asiyah. The
> Yiddish
> translation (Vilna, 1880) translates it as good Middos.
R' SBA: 
> Pardon?
> Are those that translate it as middos and manners - refer to the TDER?

These are all Mefarshim on this Tanna D'bei Eliyahu. They are all in the
Otzar Hachochmah program.

KT,
MYG

Toby writes

<<I have given this a lot of thought over the years -- as I'm sure we all  have
-- and what I have concluded is that, even though we really don't have the
absolute proof that would eliminate doubt once and for all, we do have
extremely  strong evidence for the following propositions:

1.  Belief in atheism is based on even weaker and more tenuous  evidence than
is belief in G-d.  Atheism is every bit as much a religion  (i.e., a system
of faith without proof) as is any G-d-based religion.>>

While I may personally agree with you just look at the recent spate of
books denying G-d.
On the best seller list

	
God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything by Christopher Hitchens
The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins
God: The Failed Hypothesis. How Science Sh... by Victor J. Stenger

These people are wrong but not stupid

I doubt if many people have become baale teshuva (oe geirim) based on
an intellectual
"proof" of any kind about G-d or judaism. My personal observations are
that many factor
are more important than a preponderance of evidence.

-- 
Eli Turkel

R' David Guttmann wrote:
> The problem that I have with RMB approach and also even more
> RRW is how does one know that the experience is not a figment
> of the imagination?

Consider the "world was created yesterday" idea: the possiblility that we were all created this morning, with our memories pre-loaded. There is no way to disprove this possibility. We all KNOW it to be false, because our experiences and memories of yesterday are so real and vivid. Yet when pressed, we must admit that we're unable to prove that yesterday was real. Nevertheless, no one (AFAIK) allows this inability to interfere with accepting those memories as real. No one has any existential crisis over the cognitive dissonance between the apparently-real memories, and the inability to prove their reality.

That, in my opinion, is the crux of the approaches the RDG is questioning. We do have experiences. We remember them clearly. If one of our memories is that of experiencing G-d's reality, we *do* accept it without suggesting it to be imagination, just as surely as we accept the reality of our other experiences.

I can phrase it another way: If a skeptic wants to justify his non-belief in G-d by pointing out that his apparent experiences might be mere imaginations, then he must concede that *all* of his *other* apparent experiences might *also* be mere imaginations.

Akiva Miller

 
In a message dated 11/14/2007 8:23:49 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,  
eliturkel@gmail.com writes:

On the  best seller list


God Is Not Great: How Religion  Poisons Everything by Christopher Hitchens
The God Delusion by Richard  Dawkins
God: The Failed Hypothesis. How Science Sh... by Victor J.  Stenger

These people are wrong but not stupid

I doubt if many  people have become baale teshuva (or geirim) based on
an intellectual  "proof" of any kind about G-d or Judaism. My personal 
observations are
that  many factors are more important than a preponderance of evidence.

--  
Eli Turkel
 
>>>>>
Yes, my experience confirms your personal  observations.  Most often, people 
do not become convinced that there is a  God -- or that there is no God -- 
because of intellectual arguments. 
 
Even the high IQ writers named above did not become atheists for  
intellectual reasons, and their books are rife with emotional arguments.   Most people 
become convinced of whatever they believe -- be it religion or  no-religion -- 
because of a long list of factors, experiential, emotional,  historical, 
intellectual and social.  Most often they apply intellectual  reasoning ex post 
facto to validate or rationalize whatever they have already  come to believe or 
not-believe for emotional reasons.
 
What I will say is that the Question of God is and will always be of  
critical importance and interest to intellectuals.    Hitchens,  Dawkins, Stenger et 
al don't waste their time and brainpower trying to disprove  the existence of 
leprechauns or of aliens from another galaxy who kidnap people  and experiment 
on them in their spaceships.
 
Interestingly, it has recently come to light that Hitchens is a halachic  Jew 
-- one of those many "social Marranoes" who still live among us -- like  
Madeline Albright and Virginia Senator George Allen.  
 

--Toby  Katz
=============




************************************** See what's new at http://www.aol.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/private.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20071114/47f33c7a/attachment.htm 

Someone for whom it raises new questions
and proceeds to answer them... r"l. It's not the quality of the issue,
it's being broadsided that shapes the response.

on this , togetrher with rtk's argument [ basically, if there is a 
Demanding Gd, then the most probable expression of his desire for service 
is Orthodox Rabbinic Judaism]

-----well , from the skeptic's perspective, there has to be a point where 
counter information is enough to negate the premise.

eg  how much Critical  data, or archaeological data, or historical proof 
of a lack or doubt of the veracity of mesora, would be sufficient to say 
that  rtk's premise is not more likely true than false?

NOTICE TO RECIPIENT:  If you are not the intended recipient of this 
e-mail, you are prohibited from sharing, copying, or otherwise using or 
disclosing its contents.  If you have received this e-mail in error, 
please notify the sender immediately by reply e-mail and permanently 
delete this e-mail and any attachments without reading, forwarding or 
saving them.  Thank you.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/private.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20071114/31c503bc/attachment.html 

regalkit@aol.com wrote:
> I don't know if this was discussed in the past, however I was wondering 
> if anyone knows the source for calling Torah Institution donations 
> tzeddakah?

No, it's not tzedakah in the strict sense.  But today the word "tzedaka"
in common usage means any worthy cause, any mitzvah, whether it's actual
tzedaka or talmud torah or other mitzvos.   In part this comes from our
minhag to give maaser, which can be used not just for mitzvat tzedaka
but also for any other mitzvah or good cause.  So all of those get lumped
under the term tzedaka, which they are in a broader and more vague sense.

> There is definitely a priority given to a pauper who is a Talmid Chochom
> over a regular person.  "If a person is wealthy, instead of building a
> synagogue or bet midrash he rather should give his money to respected
> scholars to enable them to study Torah. Sefer Chassidim 1039"

That's not tzedaka either.  It's certainly a mitzvah, but not tzedaka.

The actual obligation of tzedaka on each person is very small: only
a third of a shekel a year (YD 249:2).  Anything more than that is
voluntary, and therefore can be given to other causes.

-- 
Zev Sero               Something has gone seriously awry with this Court's
zev@sero.name          interpretation of the Constitution.
                       	                          - Clarence Thomas

On Nov 14, 2007 2:05 PM,  <T613K@aol.com> wrote:
> Someone else also brought up that point.  But "Taryag mitzvos shomarti" is
> shverr even without Yakov marrying two sisters.  NO ONE can do all 613 --
> unless you are a man, a woman, a kohen, a levi, a Yisrael, a king, a judge,
> a witness, the brother in law of a childless widow, and so on, all at the
> same time.   "Taryag mitzvos shomarti" just means, "I kept the Torah"  -- I
> kept the mitzvos I had to keep, I served Hashem -- despite Lavan's
> influence.  "Shamarti" doesn't even have to mean "I kept" -- it can also
> mean, "I upheld, I guarded."

The word Shamar is sometimes used to refer to a prevention of a
negative, rather than the fulfillment of a positive - for example,
Shmiras Shabbos as opposed to Zechiras Shabbos and the statement of R'
Avin that appears in several places in Shas that the term Hishamer (as
well as Pen and Al) always refers to a negative commandment.  Hence,
the usage of the word Shamarti as opposed to, e.g., Kiyamti could be
true even if Yaakov Avinu did not fulfill every single mitzvah, so
long as he did not desecrate any of them.  If this is the case,
though, the question re: marrying two sisters would still be an issue
- and there are probably other asin referred to using the word Shamar
that would also have to be explained.

Joshua Meisner

Zev Sero wrote: 

But had Lavan tried to feed him treif, Hashem would have saved Yaakov from
eating it.  

And regarding HBKH protecting tzadikkim from UNINTENDED acts,
I respectfully submit the following for your consideration:

What about the case of Kibud Av and Shiluach Es HaKan promising but not
fulfilling longevity in a particular case that caused Elisha Ben Avuya to
become a meshumad? HaShem didn't save the lad who was fulfilling 2 mitzvas,
so it seems silly to speak for Him. His ways are not our ways.

To bring it to contemporary times, what about all the righteous Jews who
were victimized by the Monsey kosher meat scandal?  They weren't saved from
eating it. My point is that it's a gross oversimplification to make broad
generalizations. It's more complicated than meets the eye. Since the
hypothetical case was brought up, how do you know that HaShem would have
saved Ya'akov from eating treif if Lavan deceived him? My answer is "We
don't know." In addition, seventy people can see something, and have seventy
different perceptions. We're back to eilu v'eilu.

 

Kol tuv/Best regards.  ri

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/private.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20071114/e60458f0/attachment-0001.htm 

On Wed, November 14, 2007 8:08 pm, R Richard Wolberg wrote:
: Zev Sero wrote:
:> But had Lavan tried to feed him treif, Hashem would have saved Yaakov
:> from eating it.

: And regarding HBKH protecting tzadikkim from UNINTENDED acts,
: I respectfully submit the following for your consideration:

: What about the case of Kibud Av and Shiluach Es HaKan promising but
: not fulfilling longevity in a particular case that caused Elisha Ben
: Avuya to become a meshumad?...

Was this boy a tzadiq? One to the extent that Hashem would bend the
law of large numbers (defy the statistics) for him? Similarly, is
anyone alive today of that calibre, regardless of whether or not they
bought meat in Monsey?

There is a statement in the gemara that such protection is given.

Jumping ahead to the end:
: In addition, seventy people can see something, and have seventy
: different perceptions. We're back to eilu v'eilu.

That doesn't close the question. Eilu va'eilu doesn't mean everyone's
perception is equally valid. It means that every Torah-informed
perception is. There is still reason to explore the question to find
the range of valid answers. How do we understand this Chazal?

Skipping back to the thesis, about which I /do/ agree:
: My point is that it's a gross oversimplification to make broad
: generalizations. It's more complicated than meets the eye....

Aristotilian physics has no equivalent to the laws of conservation of
momentum or of energy. In fact, in the real world, we never witness
these laws. There is always friction robbing the object of its
momentum, and leaching off energy by converting it to heat and
entropy. The reality is too complex to simply look at one law of
nature and expect it to fully describe the reality.

Does the fact that cars do slow to a halt (when on a flat surface)
disprove the conservation of momentum?

The same is true for metaphysical laws.

SheTir'u baTov!
-micha

-- 
Micha Berger             One who kills his inclination is as though he
micha@aishdas.org        brought an offering. But to bring an offering,
http://www.aishdas.org   you must know where to slaughter and what
Fax: (270) 514-1507      parts to offer.        - R' Simcha Zissel Ziv

Akiva Miller wrote:  The difference is that marrying these two sisters was a
necessary act. Rachel and Leah both understood how critical it was that they
should both be mothers to klal Yisroel. HaShem couldn't protect Yaakov from
this sin, because He too understood that it was necessary.

 

From the above statement and many similar ones, we can conclude (like it or
not) that in Judaism, the ends may very well justify the means. I know
there'll be a lot of disagreement about it, but if you are honest with
yourself, you will agree that it's a principle often times adhered to.  We
have many examples in tanach of this. It reminds me of being allowed to
commit a lesser aveira to prevent a greater one. Most of the cases deal with
doing an Isur d'Rabanan to prevent an Isur 
d'Oraisa. There are even cases cases where d'Oraisas can and must be
sacrificed to save a Jewish girl from Shmad. Again, the ends justify the
means.
 
Also, I'm reminded of the episode of Hillel and the Ger who wanted to become
Jewish on condition that he could become a Kohen Gadol (Shabbos 31a). How
could Hillel mislead this prospective Ger into thinking that he could become
a Kohen Gadol when that was plainly impossible? The answer is that it was
necessary to attract the Ger psychologically as 
Hillel was able to do so brilliantly as a result of the warmth and humility
of his character. In this case, the ends justified the means.
 
Many things done in a Kiruv situation (with Jews) involve turning a blind
eye to their aveiros in order to impart the desire to them to return to the
fold.
 
So yes, the ends could certainly justify the means.
 
Kol tuv/Best regards.
ri   
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/private.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20071114/b29e7bae/attachment.html 

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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 24, Issue 55
**************************************

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..."