Avodah Mailing List

Volume 24: Number 71

Thu, 22 Nov 2007

• 1. Re: Neglected Amens (Elliott Shevin)
• 2. Re: Apikores? (Ben Waxman)
• 3. Re: proofs of G-d (Ben Waxman)
• 4. Re: proofs of G-d (Eli Turkel)
• 5. Re: Yeshivat Shem Vaever (Micha Berger)
• 6. A few Notes on Parshas Vayishlach (SBA)
• 7. Re: Apikores? (David Riceman)
• 8. Re: Yeshivat Shem Vaever (SBA)
• 9. Re: Apikores? (Rich, Joel)
• 10. Re: proofs of G-d (Rich, Joel)
• 11. proofs of G-d (M Cohen)
• 12. Rambam- hashgacha pratit vs. bchira (Rich, Joel)
• 13. birchot hamitzva (Eli Turkel)

R. Joel Rich wrote: > some have the practice of saying modim anachnu lach with the tzibbur> very loudly (so as not to seem ungrateful but allowing the tzibbur to> hear) and then waiting for the tzibbur to finish so they can hear the> entire s"e from the chazzan This is how I handle a tzibbur whose members recite Modim Derabbanan out loud. Why some think they should say it louder than they said tefillah balachash puzzles me, but collectively they're drowning out the chazan when they do. Elly
_________________________________________________________________
Share life as it happens with the new Windows Live.Download today it's FREE!
http://www.windowslive.com/share.html?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_Wave2_sharelife_112007
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/private.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20071121/07c7e73d/attachment-0001.htm 

How can someone who goes by Rov Rishonim be considered a heretic?

Ben

>Marty Bluke wrote:
>
> > Today, this idea (that the Chinuch explicitly rejects) of hashgacha
> > pratis on everything has taken hold. There is no question ...
>...snip...
> > affecting you, everything is directly from Hashem. However, this was
> > not the view of the overwhelming majority of the Rishonim.


>Zev Sero replied:


>I have heard from a reliable source, in the name of Dayan Abramsky,
>that "today, anyone who does not believe in the Baal Shem Tov's shita
>in hashgacha pratis [i.e. the one that the Chinuch rejected] is an
>apikores".

>From: Daniel Eidensohn <yadmoshe@012.net.il>
>I was not talking about understanding tragedy but rather using it to do
>teshuva by publicly asserting causal  linkage.


So that I understand your position: Are you stating that making 
linkages is OK as long as it is done an educational method, a way of 
getting people to do teshuva?

Why not simply get rid of the linkage and use the tragedy itself to 
get people to do tshevua? Instead of linking, the gadol could say 
something like: "Tragedy has struck Am Yisrael. It is the 
responsibility of every Jew, man and woman, to search his actions and 
find ways to do teshuva, in the same way that it is the 
responsibility of every Jew to get rid of bread before Pesach." Period.

The problems with linkage manifold. The biggest is that the 
"philosophers" amongst us will all say to ourselves (and out loud) 
"He doesn't really mean that this is the reason, he is just saying 
something to get us to repent" and once someone says that then the 
impact of the linkage falls apart.

Ben

RDE

<<Bottom line is that you have apparently totally misunderstood what I
have written. The sources I cited note that it is important to maintain
the belief that good and bad are the consequences of one's behavior.
Consequently these sources say that when something good or bad happens
one should make the attribution to particular behavior. In addition the
attributions are not just concerned with what happens to you as an
individual but what happens to your community. The Kuzari acknowledges
that we don't really know for sure what the causal relationships are.
Nevertheless these rishonim [not chazal] assert that it is important to
view causality between the actions of the individual and community and
positive or negative results.>>

If RDE is stating that we attribute punishments to actions in order to
do teshuva
then I completely agree and this is precisely what RYBS meant. He stresses that
we don't know why things happen but the important thing is to learn a
lesson from
these events.
I remember reading recently of some community that had several tragedies and the
rabbis gathered the community together for prayer and teshuva - this
is precisely the
correct attitude.

Unfortunately too often the tragedy is used to blame others and say we
are okay it
is "their" fault. If there is a drought it is the fault of the "those"
sinners if we have plenty
pf rain it is because "we" are good.

It is interesting that in the story of kamtza and bar kamtza that the
person who made the meal
and threw bar kamtza out is never mentioned. Even bar kamtza is a name
that has no meaning
beyond the story. The purpose of the story is not to blame these
people as individuals but rather
to learn for "ourselves" proper behavior

Eli Turkel



-- 
Eli Turkel

On Fri, Nov 23, 2007 at 01:59:25AM +1100, SBA wrote:
: Who were the other talmidim there?

The cerebralists who liked thinking about G-d but weren't willing to
switch to Abram's lifestyle?

Good question.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

From the Ksav Sofer on "Im Lavan garti..vayhi li shor vechamor eved
veshifcha - ve'eshlecha lehagid le'adoni limtzo chein be'einecho".

He asks how did Yaakov expect to 'find favour in Esav's eyes' by informing
him about his new found fortune ?

He explains - that the derech of amei haaretz is to calim that Talmidei
Chachomim who sit and learn - are simply lazy parasites, using the excuse of
study to get out of doing honest work. But in reality they are actually
crooks and charlatans (ramoim) etc.  

Esav too said this about Yaakov that he acts as if he is a yerei shomayim,
sitting in the BHMD all day - using this as an excuse for his laziness
('veyaakveni zeh paamayim') - while I, Esav slave away hunting and shlepping
etc etc.

So Yaakov sent him a message. "You should know that I have changed my ways.
I have left the BHMD and become an industrious member of society - just like
you. And surely this change of my lifestyle - will find favour in your
eyes..."

=====

32:8/9 - 'Vayachatz es ha'am'...'vehoyo hamachneh hanishor lifleita'.
Yaakov split up his camp into 2 (and according to the Midrash - a day's
travel apart from each other).

Presumably Yaakov's main concern here in doing this 'yachatz' wasn't to save
his cattle or his servants - but rather his wives and children.

But what do we see further on 33:1/2 ? 
"Vayachatz es hayeladim" (BTW, there's that word again), but he had all the
wives and children together welcoming Esav !

So what then was the purpose of the 'shney machnos'?

Additionally Rashi tells us that Yosef fronted up to Esav before his mother
- so she shouldn't catch his eye. Also Dina was hidden in a box for similar
reasons. Why weren't they simply made part of the 2nd group - and thus out
of Esav's sight?

I have yet to see any of the meforshim discuss this.

OTOH, maybe Yaakov was trying to save some of his fortune. (For who??).
The Midrash 76:3 - uses the "Vayachatz es ha'am" as proof that a person
should not have all his money in one location.

=====

32:14 "Min habo beyodoy mincha' - Rabbenu Bechayeh writes that this refers
to a falcon - hunting bird - which Yaakov gave as a gift to his hunter
brother.

====

32:28 - "Vayomer elav mah shemecho?"
Q. The Malach comes down to earth and fights with him all night - but he
doesn't know who he was trying to beat up?

(The Or Hachaim hakodosh 30 says that he asked because he wanted to change
the name to Yisroel. But couldn't he do it without asking?)

Rashi 32:30 dh Lamah zeh Tishal - The malach told Yaakov that we don't have
a permanent name as they change according to the shlichus we are sent to do.

However, according to Rashi here the malach was Saroy shel Esav (which is
usually known as the Samech Mem) and according to the Midrash and mentioned
last week by the Baal Haturim - the malach was actually Michoel.

It would be surprising that those 2 also would have changing names.
In fact the sefer Shaarei Aharon quotes 'Breshis Zuta' that Gavriel and
Michoel never change their names.

And bichlal isn't all this name business a bit strange, first the malach
asks Yaakov "Ma shemecho?" and 2 psukim later Yaakov asks the malach "Hagido
na shemecho"...

Maybe someone should have been there to make the introductions.

=====

33:4 - Yaakov and Esav cried when they met each other. Bishloma Yaakov cried
that he had to go through all this bother and expense (see Rashi 32:22), but
why was Esav crying?

The answer is that Yaakov had sent him his gifts of cattle etc with shlichim

And Esav was convinced that as per the usual custom, they took a 70% cut...
(Heard from a Meshulach)

=====

In the parsha of Dina and Shechem, do we know what was the view of the
brothers outside of Shimon and Levi?

Did they indeed agree to Chamor's offer of having a bris and then becoming
Yaakov's mechutan? Or did they secretly know of Shimon and Levi's plans? 

====

34:1 Rashi dh "bas Leah" - some girso'os have "ve'aleho moshlu hamoshol
ke'imo kebito' ["Like mother like daughter"]. I didn't realize that this was
a Jewish saying. But then looking at the Midrash Tanchuma it quotes
Yechezkel 16:44 'ke'ima bito' - so the saying goes back even further...

====

BTW, the Shaarei Ahron writes beshem Pane'ach Raza and Moshav Zekein
leBaalei Tosfos - that the reason Shimon and Levi captured the wives and
children of Shechem was to later use them as a bargaining  chip with the
neighbouring people - many who were 'mechutonim' with the Shechemites - and
would have taken revenge on Yaakov. So they made a deal and returned them -
in return for peace.

(However see 35:5 - "Vayhi chitas Elokim...velo ridfu achrei bnei Yaakov" as
well as Rashi Vaychi, 48:22 dh Becharbi uBekashti. From both these sources
it seems that there were repercussions. But possibly these were not
'mechutonim' - who could be paid off with the return of the captives.)

====
I posted this 2 weeks ago
Daas Zekenim 25:25 cites a Midrash that Esav did not have a bris.
For the first 2 years of his life, Yitzchok was concerned about the 'Admoni"
aspect - think he had some blood problems. At age 2, Yitzchok decided to
wait until he was 13 - just as Yishmael.
But at 13 Esav refused to have a bris.

However I see the Midrash 76:9 says that the Dinah/Shechem affair was a
punishment for Yaakov because he refused to let Dinah marry Esav - who was
circumcised.

====

35:29 "Vayigva Yitzchok vayomos vayeosef el amov" (Similarly in Chayei Sarah
(25:8) "Vayigva vayomos Avrohom beseiva tova ...vayeosef el amov".

What actually do these 3 separate words for death indicate?


A few Baal HaTurim's of interest: 
32:5  dh 'Vo'eichar ad otoh' - a remez for all the galuyos.
32:6 dh 'Vayhi li shor vechamor' #2 - "Vay li" .

SBA
sba@sba2.com

Ben Waxman wrote:
> How can someone who goes by Rov Rishonim be considered a heretic?
>
>   

We argued about this in some detail several years ago (possibly under 
ikkarim).

David Riceman

From: "Micha Berger" < >
Last week we were looking at the nature of Yeshivat Shem vaEver. RRJ cited R
Kanievsky as saying they taught yir'as Shamayim.
The Rambam seems to turn the yeshivah into a Plato-like Academy of
philosophy -- a group of thinkers who came together to share thoughts,
debate, and hone their minds, or to listen to the more skilled do so.
>>

Who were the other talmidim there?

SBA

>Zev Sero replied:


>I have heard from a reliable source, in the name of Dayan Abramsky, 
>that "today, anyone who does not believe in the Baal Shem Tov's shita 
>in hashgacha pratis [i.e. the one that the Chinuch rejected] is an 
>apikores".

==============================================\
 


How can someone who goes by Rov Rishonim be considered a heretic?

Ben
===================================================
Lshitatam there is psak in hashkafa (i.e. ikkarim can come into being en
medias res)
KT
Joel Rich
THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE 
ADDRESSEE.  IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL 
INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE.  Dissemination, 
distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is 
strictly prohibited.  If you received this message in error, please notify us 
immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message.  
Thank you.

>From: Daniel Eidensohn <yadmoshe@012.net.il> I was not talking about 
>understanding tragedy but rather using it to do teshuva by publicly 
>asserting causal  linkage.


So that I understand your position: Are you stating that making linkages
is OK as long as it is done an educational method, a way of getting
people to do teshuva?

Why not simply get rid of the linkage and use the tragedy itself to get
people to do tshevua? Instead of linking, the gadol could say something
like: "Tragedy has struck Am Yisrael. It is the responsibility of every
Jew, man and woman, to search his actions and find ways to do teshuva,
in the same way that it is the responsibility of every Jew to get rid of
bread before Pesach." Period.

The problems with linkage manifold. The biggest is that the
"philosophers" amongst us will all say to ourselves (and out loud) "He
doesn't really mean that this is the reason, he is just saying something
to get us to repent" and once someone says that then the impact of the
linkage falls apart.

Ben

=======================================================================
Yes, but iiuc the cheshbon is that the rov am will more likely be moved
by it (and I suppose that the smaller [and I think growing] group of
philosophers will understand and keep quiet for the sake of the
perceived greater good)
KT
Joel Rich
THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE 
ADDRESSEE.  IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL 
INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE.  Dissemination, 
distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is 
strictly prohibited.  If you received this message in error, please notify us 
immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message.  
Thank you.

RTK writes   ...... No, he cannot.  Hakol b'yedei Shomayim chutz miyir'as
Shomayim.  You can 

decide to do good, or decide to do evil, but whether  your plans succeed or
not 

is not in your hands....  

 

 

 

Although I rarely disagree with RTK, I have to point out that r Dessler in
MM vol 4 (section on bechira) explains (based on a Ramban) that sometimes
HaShem will let a person be killed/etc or not be killed solely based on the
bechira of another.

 

I.e. if the person will decide to kill you then HaShem will let you be
killed, and if the person decides not to kill you then you will not be
killed - it is not necessarily a case where the victim has been 'predefined
by HaShem' that they should be killed.

 

Ayain sham

 

 

Mordechai Cohen 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/private.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20071122/bacd377d/attachment.html 

I seem to remember hearing a quote from the Rambam that even if all the
trees were pens and all the seas ink, we couldn't write out an
understanding (or something like that)
Does anyone know where this is , if it exists?
KT
Joel Rich
THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE 
ADDRESSEE.  IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL 
INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE.  Dissemination, 
distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is 
strictly prohibited.  If you received this message in error, please notify us 
immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message.  
Thank you.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/private.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20071122/c1b57c94/attachment.htm 

Micha writes
<<My father taught me to avoid saying "amein" to the birkhas hamitzvah
on Hallel, or on birkhos hamitzvos that one plans on making oneself.
Something he learned from RYBS.

Why aren't you yotzei the chazan's berakhah? You couldn't be, or else
your berakhah is levatalah? Mitvos einum tzerikhos kavanah, so you
can't rely on not intending to be yotzei. Rather, to avoid being
yotzei, one must have negative kavanah in mind -- specific intent not
to be yotzei.

Who wants to practice such negative kavanos? Better to say the
berakhah with the chazan and avoid the issue.>>

This is discussed at length by poskim with regards to sefirat haomer.
The normal minhag is that the chazan first recites the beracha and then
everyone repeats it. The poskim argue why this is not a beracha le-vatala
since one is yotzeh with the chazan. Among the suggestions is to have
kavanah not to be yotzeh for the chazan to have in mind not to be
motzeh.
As Micha notes every suggestion has its difficulties

kol tuv

-- 
Eli Turkel


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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 24, Issue 71
**************************************

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..."