Avodah Mailing List

Volume 24: Number 66

Wed, 21 Nov 2007

• 1. Re: proofs of G-d (Richard Wolpoe)
• 2. Torah Metaphors and Science - Kanfei Nesharim (Richard Wolpoe)
• 3. Re: What is Mindfulness and does Judaism have (Richard Wolpoe)
• 4. Re: Torah Institutions = Tzeddakah? (Richard Wolpoe)
• 5. Re: Neglected Amens (Richard Wolpoe)
• 6. Re: Torah Metaphors and Science - Kanfei Nesharim (Zev Sero)
• 7. Re: Shemitta Flowers in America (Richard Wolpoe)
• 8. Re: What is Mindfulness and does Judaism have it (Richard Wolpoe)
• 9. Re: proofs of G-d (Daniel Eidensohn)
• 10. Re: proofs of G-d (Richard Wolpoe)

On Nov 20, 2007 1:31 PM, Daniel Eidensohn <yadmoshe@012.net.il> wrote:

> R' Eli Turkel wrote:
> > <<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.
> >
> >
> You are creating an false dichotomy between those who claim to know the
> reason for a calamity and those who don't make such claims or have
> doubts about their assertions. There is in fact a religious obligation
> to attribute suffering to specific shortcomings - as noted in the
> sources below.  In other words it is a recognized technique for teshuva
> to make causal links between suffering and sin. The question is whether
> the link is correct and the degree that people feel confident that they
> have identified the causal relationship. In addition how much
> uncertainty should a leader admit for the technique to work.
>
> Daniel Eidensohn
>


WADR it is one thing to attribute one's Own sufferings to one's own sin.
It is quite another to attribute suffering to YENNEM"s sin.  The holocaust
was due to the shortcoming of those xxx [fill in the blank]  Some Ashkenazim
blamed Sephardim for their lifestyle as contributing to the geirush and then
had to eat humble pie when tach vatat occured.

A navi can do this of course. Because  they say the Word of Hashem. Other
people are engaging in a practice tantamount to SAYANG they have actually
HEARD the WORD.  This is imho humbris plain and simple, it actaully borders
on claiming a definite knowledge of what God is saying.


Remember:
The Kohein Gadol had to first "humble" [humiliate?] himself by saying FIRST
hatasi avisu pashati ani uveisi BEFORE he said hat'u pash'u avu amcha beis
Yisroel. I wish more rabbanim  would follow that paradigm...

A real Tzaddik would say, my community is suffering due to MY OWN
SHORTCOMINGS!
Rav Schwab said simlar things about he lack of funds for his Yeshiva nad
persoanlly took the blame for late paychecks to his teachers.  Rav Schwab
was an anav!

When an Israeli Chief Rabbis start saying, woe unto us that I erred, I will
start listening.

-- 
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/20071120/587ee63f/attachment-0001.html 

Given:  the Torah uses the image of "vo'eso eschem al kanfei nesharim..."
Translation: I will lift you up by the wings of eagles and bring you to
me...
Questions:

   1. Does anyone take this literally today?
   2. Would the advent of Jet Planes tend to influence how we might
   visualize this?
   3. Would this metaphor of Wings of Eagles have originally been
   referring to "Jet Planes" BUT since "Dibra Torah belashon benei Adam"  a
   more poetic Bittuy [expression] was used?
   4. Would we be "guilty" of re-interpreting the Torah in light of
   technology if we revise this image from Eagles to Jets?  [With apologies to
   NFL fans espeically those from Philadelphia!]
   5. Or would the Torah naturally be BETTER understood when we have
   access to technology not available to the masses when teh Torah was give
   6. In general, are we getting a clearer image of Torah or would we
   better off w/o confusing science with Torah "miracles? OR
   7. Are we actually progressing in seeing the Torah as more rational ?
   [think of Rav Sa'adyah Gaon!]


-- 
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/20071120/77034ed8/attachment-0001.htm 

On Nov 20, 2007 2:11 AM, Shoshana L. Boublil <toramada@bezeqint.net> wrote:

>
> The Eastern Philosophies deal with "Shev VeAl Ta'aseh".  Reaching Nirvana
> is
> a complete stillness that does not impact on the world, or as the Prof.
> used
> to say "does not harm the world".
>
> Shoshana L. Boublil
>
>
Martial Arts Master Chaim Sober described to us 2 kind of meditative states:

   1. Complete Stillness
   2. Loudness, Chaos, Tumult

The JEWISH parallels:

   1. Yeshaya:  kadosh Kadosh - perfect stillness
   2. Yehezkel:  vatisa'eini ruach voe'shma acharai KOL RA'ASH GADOL -
   BARUCH K'VOD...

In Jewish "Meditation."

   1. Perfect stillness  [perhaps e.g, iyyun tefillha in the SILENT
   Amidah [see R. Aryeh Kaplan's books for details]
   2. Hassidic dancing [parallel to dervishes]

I don't know if Buddhism itself shares both flavors.  Certainly Master
Sober's teachers were Zen Buddhists.  Bottom line: Sober illustrated that
the TWO traditions were preserved in Jewish Tradition from the great Mystic
Prophets Yeshaya and Yehezk'el.

Koheles would probably tell us there is a time for stillness and a time for
loudness.
It appears that Koheles was closer to Toaist philosophy then to Zen
philosophy.

At any rate, I don't see Stillness as en end, but as a means to an end.

-- 
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/20071120/59f88309/attachment-0001.html 

On Nov 20, 2007 12:55 PM, Elazar M. Teitz <remt@juno.com> wrote:

>
>
>     I assume that all would agree that just as, e.g., giving money to an
> individual for hachnasas kallah represents fulfillment of tz'dakah, so too
> giving it through an organization dedicated to that cause is equally
> tz'dakah.  Obviously, giving money to an individual to pay for Torah
> education is tz'dakah, since it is part of "dei machsoro;" why, then, should
> it be any less an act of tz'dakah if it is given through an organization
> dedicated to the meeting of that need?
>
> EMT


I suppose that when giving $$$ to a Torah institutions means putting bread
on the table of scholars who would otherwise not make ends meet it would of
course be Tzedakah.

But if the teachers are making parnassoh elsewhere [such as those who are
shul rabbis] is it realy a din of dei machsaro? If that is the case, I lost
my computer job in 2001 and I have never recovered that income. Am I
entitled to get tzedakkah to restore me to my former tax bracket?


-- 
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/20071120/71668f61/attachment-0001.htm 

On Nov 20, 2007 12:11 PM, Elliott Shevin <eshevin@hotmail.com> wrote:

>
> Even worse are the chazanim who finish "Hamachazir Shechinaso L'Tziyon!"
> and
> without taking a breath dive (almost literally) into Modim, without giving
> the
> tzibur room to answer.
>
> Elly
>

In this case a Shatz should be  MINDFUL, take a relaxing breath [creating a
breif pause], be zahir to give a reasonable amount of time for the tzibbur
to respond Amein, and then calmly proceed to say MODIM! :-)

While an anxious hazzan would not be mindful of the above!

-- 
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/20071120/04d333ed/attachment-0001.html 

Richard Wolpoe wrote:
> Given:  the Torah uses the image of "vo'eso eschem al kanfei nesharim..."
> Translation: I will lift you up by the wings of eagles and bring you to 
> me...

Vo'eso is past tense.  "I carried you on eagles' [or griffon vultures']
wings, and brought you to Me."  It's about Yetzias Mitzrayim, not about
the future redemption.  And Yetzias Mitzrayim did not involve air travel
of any sort, avionic or avian, natural or miraculous.  Thus the "kanfei
nesharim" *must* be understood metaphorically, as Rashi does - that
Hashem protected us from the Mitzrim as a nesher protects its young,
by interposing its wings between them and danger.

Your question might better be put about the prediction that in the
future redemption we will be gathered back to Eretz Yisrael "with the
clouds of the sky", loosely based on the pasuk that Mashiach will
arrive in that fashion - "va'aru, im ananei shmaya kevar enash atei"
(Daniel 7:13).

Note, however, that not only is the passuk talking about the Mashiach,
not about the exiles, but it says "*with* the clouds, not *on* them.
I see no reason whatsoever why flying on an aeroplane would not be a
complete fulfillment of this passuk.


> Questions:
>    7. Are we actually progressing in seeing the Torah as more rational ?
>       [think of Rav Sa'adyah Gaon!]

Ironically, it's RSG who associates this passuk with kibbutz galiyot
rather than the Mashiach himself (http://www.aharit.com/C-08.html)

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

On Nov 20, 2007 1:19 PM, kennethgmiller@juno.com <kennethgmiller@juno.com>
wrote:

>
> Is it possible that other people have other data, suggesting that Rav
> Belsky's "30%" figure is unduly high and alarmist? For example, I have
> learned elsewhere that Hilchos Shemittah only applies to *fragrant* flowers.
> Could it be that Rav Belsky's "30%" includes non-fragrant flowers, and that
> the actual percentage of fragrant Israeli flowers is negligible?
>
> Akiva Miller
>
>
I confess ignorance to Sheitta laws, but isn't shemitta a function of peiros
not flowers?
IIRC last shemitta we had to dispose of Esroggim properly but not hadassim -
which DO have a fragrance. And re: Lulav v'arava we also did nothing special
implying no kedushas shevi'is.

-- 
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/d71c5000/attachment-0001.htm 

On Nov 20, 2007 7:25 AM, Arie Folger <afolger@aishdas.org> wrote:

>
>
> Says who? An ultrarationalist. Many would interpret this literally, lo
> levazot
> et hamitzvot, even if the 'hallah doesn't know the difference. This might
> belong to proper religious mannerisms.
>
>
In the following cases there are "mystical" explanations and  rational
ones..


   1. Not eating nuts on RH
   2. Not Benching Hodesh Tishrei
   3. Covering mirros at a shiva

I don't know if I am an ULTRA rationalist or not, but I think if there IS a
raional explanatoin I would suspect it to be the normative one and the other
explanation for the less-educated

See SA harav on #1 and iirc#2 also.  He favors the rational explanation. I
would not term him an ultra-rationalist.

I might add that a nieghbor of mine who was not frum made a lot of fun of
the "mirror-covering" because some apikoros rabbi belittled the idea of
Sheidim etc. I think if a rational alternative had been offered the practice
would have been perceived in a better light.  I guess that cust both ways,
that a ratonal ta'am can be construed as apologetics, but I still think it
is healthier to think that way.

On a tangent, the Gemara in Yoma talks about the case of a mistake about
amud hashachar and seeing the moon. It says that this  g'zeira could not
have been literally been concerning the 10th of Tishre since the moon is  in
the wrong position, If  you live in a world of miracles/magic/muysticismc
then why did the Gemara make that assumption?. After all It could have been
a supernatural sighting of the moon whilst out of position!  It seems that
this passage pre-supposes a natural flow of events.

I think that super-natural explanations are either used Allegorically or
when the text needs to punt because no rational explanation can be found.
However, if there is a  valid rational explanation it would "naturally" take
precedence over the supernatural
-- 
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/20071120/9d85a575/attachment.html 

R' Richard Wolpoe wrote:
> On Nov 20, 2007 1:31 PM, Daniel Eidensohn <yadmoshe@012.net.il 
> <mailto:yadmoshe@012.net.il>> wrote:
>
>
>     You are creating an false dichotomy between those who claim to
>     know the
>     reason for a calamity and those who don't make such claims or have
>     doubts about their assertions. There is in fact a religious obligation
>     to attribute suffering to specific shortcomings - as noted in the
>     sources below.  In other words it is a recognized technique for
>     teshuva
>     to make causal links between suffering and sin. The question is
>     whether
>     the link is correct and the degree that people feel confident that
>     they
>     have identified the causal relationship. In addition how much
>     uncertainty should a leader admit for the technique to work.
>
>  
> WADR it is one thing to attribute one's Own sufferings to one's own sin.
> It is quite another to attribute suffering to YENNEM"s sin.  The 
> holocaust was due to the shortcoming of those xxx [fill in the blank]  
> Some Ashkenazim blamed Sephardim for their lifestyle as contributing 
> to the geirush and then had to eat humble pie when tach vatat occured.
>
> A navi can do this of course. Because  they say the Word of Hashem. 
> Other people are engaging in a practice tantamount to SAYANG they have 
> actually HEARD the WORD.  This is imho humbris plain and simple, it 
> actaully borders on claiming a definite knowledge of what God is saying. 
>
You have brought no evidence that the sources I have cited are limited 
to an individual blaming himself for his own suffering. Furthermore if 
you want to claim that only a prophet can say such a thing than you need 
to justify why chazal make such statements all over Shas e.g.,  why was 
the Temple destroyed. In addition it seems to be a common practice 
throught the ages - as you yourself note with disapproval.

Daniel Eidensohn

On Nov 20, 2007 6:12 PM, Daniel Eidensohn <yadmoshe@012.net.il> wrote:

> R' Richard Wolpoe wrote:
> >
> You have brought no evidence that the sources I have cited are limited
> to an individual blaming himself for his own suffering. Furthermore if
> you want to claim that only a prophet can say such a thing than you need
> to justify why chazal make such statements all over Shas e.g.,  why was
> the Temple destroyed. In addition it seems to be a common practice
> throught the ages - as you yourself note with disapproval.
>
> Daniel Eidensohn
>
>
> To quote Rabban Gamliel kesubbos 78a Sunday's Daf:

>  al hachadashim anu  boshim! ela she'atem meglagalin aleinu es
> hayeshanim?!
>
To paraphrase Rabban Gamliel with its converse:

> It's difficult enough when Hazal take it upon themselves way back when to
> BLAME circumstances, do we have to do it, too!?
>

And anyway since when do WE have the same kochos as hazal? Are you
suggesting since THEY did WE can do it!  Where do you draw the line?

My machazor has "umipnei chata'EINU mei'artzeinu?"
It does NOT say umeichat'os group X group Y galinu mei'artzeinu! - why not?!
After all it could have stated,

>  umpinei son 'ei hinma bizman hamikdash galinu mei'artzeinu!
>

-- 
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/20071120/34bb8534/attachment.htm 

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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 24, Issue 66
**************************************

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..."