Avodah Mailing List

Volume 24: Number 64

Tue, 20 Nov 2007

• 1. Re: Tum'at Yadayim (Richard Wolpoe)
• 2. Re: Neglected Amens (was: Borchu UVoruch Shemo between Borchu and Shmono E sreh) (Richard Wolpoe)
• 3. Re: Borchu UVoruch Shemo between Borchu and Shmono Esreh (Richard Wolpoe)
• 4. Re: Vayeitze "Watch Whom You Marry" (Richard Wolpoe)
• 5. Re: Vayeitze "Watch Whom You Marry" (Micha Berger)
• 6. Re: proofs of G-d (Eli Turkel)
• 7. Re: Yeshivat Shem Vaever (Richard Wolpoe)
• 8. Re: Vayeitze "Watch Whom You Marry" (Richard Wolpoe)
• 9. Re: Watch whom you marry (Richard Wolpoe)
• 10. Re: Was Lavan daft, dense or what? (Daniel Eidensohn)
• 11. Re: Was Lavan daft, dense or what? (Arie Folger)
• 12. A few notes on Parshas Vayetzei (Gershon Dubin)
• 13. A few MORE notes on Parshas Vayetzei (SBA)
• 14. Parshanus: How Does one Construe Silence? (SBA)

On Nov 19, 2007 11:08 AM, Gershon Dubin <gershon.dubin@juno.com> wrote:

>
> This is intended, both in the Gemara and in the Shulchan Aruch, to say
> that when a PERSON is tamei, he may still learn Torah.  Nothing at all to do
> with touching KISVEI HAKODESH, whose tum'ah (one of the 18 gezeros in the
> 1st perek of Shabbos) is for a completely unrelated reason.
>
> Gershon
> gershon.dubin@juno.com
>
> Correct. The G'zeriah  is to keep T'rumah away from Kisvei Kodesh lest
mice  feed on the  scrolls.


-- 
Kol Tuv / Best Regards,
RabbiRichWolpoe@Gmail.com
Please Visit:
http://nishmablog.blogspot.com/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/private.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20071119/01ff86d1/attachment.htm 

On Nov 19, 2007 11:33 AM, kennethgmiller@juno.com <kennethgmiller@juno.com>
wrote:

> R' RallisW asked:
> > BTW What is the most neglected Omein in Tefilloh? Either
> > V'aazor or V'Sigoleh and the following ...vnomar Omein
> > before Krias HaTorah. How many answer Omein?
>
>
> In contrast, I'll use this opportunity to cite one of my pet peeves, that
> the most neglected Amen to a *bracha* is probably the one after Hamachazir
> Shechinaso L'Tziyon. I am amazed by how many people skip the Amen and go
> straight to Modim.
>
>
>
> Akiva Miller
>
>
I was a bit taken  aback by a minyan  I attended in Teaneck that omitted the
Amein after hapories before Ki vayom hazeh on YK  itself.

when I davened Kol Nidre night at my old shul the "choir" sang a musical
Amein after haporeis BEFORE singing Tik'u and Ki Vayom hazeh. So I had not
heard an omitted Amein on this brachah on Yamim Nor'aim for at least 20+
years and I found it shocking to say the least. I had shouted out my Amein
in complete habitual innocence and several people looked at me because they
were well already well into their ki vayom hazeh.

I once read that the omitted ameins on these 2 brachos re: Tziyon are a
reason for the delay of the ge'ulah - kind of shuddering.


-- 
Kol Tuv / Best Regards,
RabbiRichWolpoe@Gmail.com
Please Visit:
http://nishmablog.blogspot.com/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/private.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20071119/1b3db702/attachment.html 

On Nov 18, 2007 9:26 PM, <RallisW@aol.com> wrote:

>  Is there any support for those who answer Borchu UVoruch Shemo between
> Borchu and Shmono Esreh? Why is it so ingrained in a lot of people?
>

AFAIK There is little if any support becasue BHv'BS is post Talmudic and it
has been well-established as hefsek at least lechatichila.

Hwever,frankly imho , since it has been  around 700 years as an accepted
response I don't see it as a big deal anymore to make this hefsek because,
after all,  many aspects of Tefillah are based upon Post-Talmudic [e.g.
Ga'onic sources].   In the meantime, don't do it.


-- 
Kol Tuv / Best Regards,
RabbiRichWolpoe@Gmail.com
Please Visit:
http://nishmablog.blogspot.com/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/private.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20071119/e7ff1a5c/attachment.htm 

On Nov 13, 2007 6:25 PM, Liron Kopinsky <liron.kopinsky@gmail.com> wrote:
> 2) It has always bothered me how Rashi could say that Ya'akov kept Taryag
> Mitzvot when we know explicitly that he didn't by marrying Rachel.

While I was in Yeshivas Ner Israel it was explained to me that the Avos
did not LITERALLY keep Taryag, but they DID keep the principles BEHIND the
Taryag.

This is congruent with the notion that the mitzvos as WE know them are not
THE intrinsic Torah and  could be suspended in Yemos Hamashiach.

But behind the revelaed "nigleh"  Torah there IS an intrinsic "nistar" Torah
that IS immutable
-- 
Kol Tuv / Best Regards,
RabbiRichWolpoe@Gmail.com
Please Visit:
http://nishmablog.blogspot.com/

On Mon, Nov 19, 2007 at 07:11:03PM -0500, Richard Wolpoe wrote:
: While I was in Yeshivas Ner Israel it was explained to me that the Avos
: did not LITERALLY keep Taryag, but they DID keep the principles BEHIND the
: Taryag.

I saw the same in an Igeres of the LR. (Due to a reference made here in
an earlier incarnation of this discussion.)

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

<<Bottom line: I think Judaism, Torah, and religion in general would
be better off admitting that we really do not understand how God works
rather than parading around our speculations about God and claiming
them as Dogma.  There is a certain hubris from people that claim God
wants THIS or God wants THAT. How do they know? Did they receive a
prophecy?  I can quote Torah or Nevi'im and say that God has expressed
Himself in a givne verse as demanding X but I cannot say for sure that
given thecomplexity of a particular situation that God wants any
specific action. >>

This is in essence the approach of RYBS . He was a philosopher and so
had the same problems. However, living in Israel,
ROY, R. Schach etc all know the reasons for every tragedy and
publically present a very simplistic picture.

Just to add one more reason to that of R. Wolpoe is th effect of
fundamentalism on religious thought. Thus, to modern man religion
represents war, anti-feminism and in general anti-rationalism.

-- 
Eli Turkel

On Nov 14, 2007 8:42 AM, Rich, Joel <JRich@sibson.com> wrote:

>
>
>
> Special Note Five: There is a notable question many have asked relating
> to this week's Parsha--and an incredible response, given, once again, by
> HaRav Chaim Kanievsky, Shlita.  Rashi teaches that Yaakov Avinu went to
> study in the Yeshiva of Shem and Ever for 14 years prior to traveling to
> Lavan in Charan.  What could he have studied there--after all did not
> Avraham Avinu come to the Torah on his own without being taught by any
> of his ancestors?
>


I heard the following:

   1. Ya'akov learned from the Avos how to do Torah in EY amongst his
   family
   2. From Sheim vo'ever he learned how to live Torah in Galus with the
   likes of Lavan


Kol Tuv / Best Regards,
RabbiRichWolpoe@Gmail.com
Please Visit:
http://nishmablog.blogspot.com/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/private.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20071119/bc363b38/attachment.html 

On Nov 14, 2007 12:27 AM, Zev Sero <zev@sero.name> wrote:

> Richard Wolberg wrote:
>
> > There is a fundamental theological concept here. HKBH didn't *_let_*
> > Ya'akov have relations with Leah. God has endowed us with "bechira
> > *chofshis**" *which means that He *_allowed_* Ya'akov to fall prey to
> > the subterfuge because that was the machination of Laban who exercised
> > his free will. (There was no nepotism there). And to further expand on
> this:
>
> But had Lavan tried to feed him treif, Hashem would have saved Yaakov
> from eating it.  Lavan's bechira ra'ah doesn't mean Yaacov has to do
> an avera; his evil plans don't have to succeed.
>
> --


Right. I do not see God saving Ya'kov from Lavan as interfering in bechira.
Aderabbah, I think Ya'akov's choice would have been NOT to fall prey to
Lavan. That is the point of my post that God protects one from unwitting
error. But this protection - according to Tosafos - is at times limited to
eating etc.

-- 
Kol Tuv / Best Regards,
RabbiRichWolpoe@Gmail.com
Please Visit:
http://nishmablog.blogspot.com/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/private.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20071120/acefbef7/attachment.htm 

On Nov 14, 2007 6:51 AM, Michael Elzufon <Michael@arnon.co.il> wrote:

>
> > R' Richard Wolpoe asked:
> > > How did HKBH let Y'aaov Avinu have relations with Le'ah that
> > > night when his Kesubbah said Rachel - which meant his bi'ah
> > > was assur.
> >
> > I figure it's a kal vachomer from the heter to marry two sisters:
>
>
>
> RRW's question starts by holding an aggada to the rigorous standards of
> pshat.  That is sweet if you can draw something good out of it, but
> there is no need to do so.
>

What  RRW is saying that maybe we do NOT have the correct peshat in the
Aggadah so the illustration is brought to bear to show a weakness.

In this case Tosafos claims that this protection is for eating only. Zev
Sero answered this online and someone answered this for me off-line Both
addressed my original question very well.


-- 
Kol Tuv / Best Regards,
RabbiRichWolpoe@Gmail.com
Please Visit:
http://nishmablog.blogspot.com/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/private.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20071120/8faf2d3c/attachment.html 

R' Arie Folger wrote:
> RDE wrote:
>   
>> M. Greenberg,
>> however, has cast serious doubts on the validity of this interpretation,
>> and maintains that since both the adopted son and the legitimate heir
>> divide the inheritance equally, the possession of these household gods
>> does not determine a title to inheritance but rather leadership of the
>> family, and a claim to paterfamilias.
>>     
>
> How would that interpretation be applicable to parshat Vayetze, since Rachel 
> took the terafim as they were leaving, while the notion of paterfamilias 
> seems most sensible when the larger family remains together? I.e., Rachel 
> should not have expected for the family to be reunited anytime soon, and so 
> there would be no opportunity nor any need for Ya'aqov to exercise the role 
> of paterfamilias in Lavan's family.
>
>   
Perhaps she did envision that her husband could be persuaded to become 
the family leader. Or perhaps she thought it could be a bargaining chip 
in negotiations against his future claims.

Daniel Eidensohn

RZS wrote:
> Should
> this experience strengthen my belief that They Are Among Us and convince
> me even further that all UFO reports are probably true, or should it make
> me believe that there is really only one UFO, and most reports are false?

The real issue here is the nature of Lavan's revelation. Suppose you have seen 
glimpses of UFOs for years, yet, only once, when meeting that one real UFO, 
do you understand what it means to be with them (let's say you get to visit 
the spaceship). Then, you realize that UFOs function differently from what 
you imagined, and realize that the previous sightings were just mistakes. You 
also realize that perhaps a UFO is so large, that it leaves no place for any 
other UFO in the area, hence you could conclude that the others weren't real 
UFO sightings, but pure nonsense.

The question, IOW, is whether Lavan's revelation was a "mere" communication, 
or as overwhelming *individually* as Ma'amad Har Sinai was on the 
*collective* scale?

To RDE I also want to add that while Rachel may have intended to steal the 
teraphim so that Ya'aqov could become paterfamilias, had Lavan's revelation 
been sufficiently convincing (meaning, had Lavan been open to becoming 
convinced), the teraphim would have lost their symbolic value.

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

From: "SBA Gmail" <sbasba@gmail.com>

<<What immediately stands out to me is that neshek is Modern Hebrew for
weapon, although not sure if the word has any basis in lashon ha-kodesh>>

Yecheskel 39:9 is one example

Not sure what the effect of the grammatical difference would be, though.>>

Likewise.

Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com

From: "Richard Wolberg" < >
It has been pointed out that the most striking parallel to this parasha is
the story of the descent to Egypt. There are so many obvious thematic
similarities and complete correspondence between the two accounts that it
figuratively can be regarded as the same tale.
>>

Interesting.
And then we have the posuk 'Arami Oved avi - vayeired Mitzrayma'

SBA

From: "Richard Wolpoe" < >
Rashi at times uses Gematriyas.. countless Times that the Ba'al Hatuirm uses
a Gematriya where  Rashi does not use one.
   1. Is it fair to conclude that if Rashi wanted to, he WOULD have used
   the same Gematriya as the Tur?   Or
   2. Is Rashi's silence on a given Gmeatirya say nothing in particular?
   3. Is Rashi [or any parshan] always giving THE DEFINITIVE exhaustive
   peshat?   Or
   4. Is the Peirush simply selecting one of several valid options w/o
   necessarily rejecting other possible explanations?
>>>

#4. (and I suppose #1 as well.)

SBA





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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 24, Issue 64
**************************************

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..."