Avodah Mailing List

Volume 24: Number 90

Wed, 05 Dec 2007

• 1. Re: Kedushah (Zev Sero)
• 2. Re: Yekum Purkan (Richard Wolpoe)
• 3. Re: Fables and Lies (Richard Wolpoe)
• 4. The laining on Chanuka in chu"l and EY (Marty Bluke)
• 5. Behaalosekha es haneiros (Micha Berger)
• 6. Kesones Passim (SBA)
• 7. Re: A shemitta miracle story (SBA)
• 8. Re: Fables and Lies (Ilana Sober)
• 9. Kedushah (Gershon Dubin)
• 10. Re: Kedushah (David Riceman)
• 11. Re: Fables and Lies (T613K@aol.com)
• 12. Re: Behaalosekha es haneiros (Zev Sero)
• 13. Re: Apikores? (David Riceman)

Micha Berger wrote:

> RYBS holds that on RCh, if one doesn't have time to take off one's
> tefillin for musaf and put them away bekavod, it is better not to take
> them off. But only when davening nusakh Ashkenaz. Keser shold not be said
> with tefillin on. Some connection between "keser" and tefillin shel rosh
> seems obvious, but I don't see how they're in opposition. Could someone
> explain?

See SA and Rema at the end of siman 25.  The whole reason for removing the
tefilin before musaf is because it's not appropriate to say "keter yitnu
lecha" while wearing a crown of our own.  The real question is why people
who don't say keter still take them off; the Taz doesn't seem to know,
and seems to suggest that it's not such a well-founded minhag.


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

On Dec 3, 2007 11:11 PM, Zev Sero <zev@sero.name> wrote:

> Richard Wolpoe wrote:
>
> >  FWIW In some Sephardic circles it is omitted
>
> In some?  I've never seen it in a non-Ashkenazi siddur, or heard it in a
> non-Ashkenazi minyan of any type.  The Sefardi version of this bracha is
> entirely in Hebrew.
>
> --
> Zev Sero
>

Clarification:
I was only aware that some Sephardim omit it, so I stated what I knew to be
true. And I skirted the issue because I have no idea if ANY Sepharadim do
say it.

But "Nusach Ari"  and "Nusach Sepharad" include it and I did not know that
they too are consider Ashkenazic siddurim.

Hypothetically speaking, if an Ashkneazic shul were to start omitting "yekum
purkan" [lets' say due to ts babashos] would this change be LESS problematic
because many communities omit it already - or would it not make a
difference?


Kol Tuv / Best Regards,
RabbiRichWolpoe@Gmail.com
see: http://nishmablog.blogspot.com/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/private.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20071205/a75d97f4/attachment-0001.htm 

On Dec 4, 2007 9:40 AM, <T613K@aol.com> wrote:

>
>
> From the American Heritage Dictionary:
>
> --begin quote--
>
> myth  n. 1. A traditional story presenting supernatural beings, ancestors
> or heroes that serve as primordial types in a primitive view of the world.
> 2.  A fictitious or imaginary story, person or thing.  3.  A false belief.
>
> --end quote--
>
>
> *--Toby Katz*
>

another definition:

a traditional story accepted as history; serves to explain the world view of
> a people
> wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn<http://www.google.com/url?sa=X&;start=0&oi=define&q=http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn%3Fs%3Dmyth&;usg=AFQjCNE_B7zGO1uc0hPolVkr7Oz5N97aGg>


[note nothing about falsehood here]

In Nishmablog's recent survey of what was the principle purpose for giving
the Torah this was one of the options, giving the Jewish People a common
story/history.

Star Trek New Generation had an episode where Captain Picard is stranded
with another captain who spoke ONLY in metaphors reflecting his
civilizations cultural "mythology"

Some yekkes have an expression for fleeing "vayivrach ...." that refelcts
what Ya'akov did when  he escaped Esav [from the haftora for Vayetze in
many  kehillos"

As a people are common language includes the Torah and the Haggadah of
Pesach which provides a common set of concepts to transmit our story to our
progeny - lema'an asher yetzaveh

Micha:

> although I think only the Rambam goes so far as to condemn those who make
> a farce out of the Torah (in his opinion) by believing every medrash.
>

Permiyi me to qualify this quote a bit
I think he meant belieivng every Midrash to be literally true. I thinkthe
Rambam did no DISBELIEVE any Midrash per se. IOW There is a true message
between the lines of every Midrash, but taking them literally leads to
farce.

-- 
Kol Tuv / Best Regards,
RabbiRichWolpoe@Gmail.com
see: http://nishmablog.blogspot.com/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/private.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20071205/1ee24428/attachment-0001.html 

I have lived in EY for a number of years and to my embarrassment until
last year had not even realized that the laining here on Chanuka in EY
is different then in chutz laaretz.

On Chanuka we read the parsha of the nesiim, every day the nasi for
that day. Each nasi is 6 pesukim and we have 3 aliyas. That means we
are 3 pesukim short. There is a machlokes the Mechaber and the Rama
how we remedy the situation. The Mechaber writes that we simply read
over that day. In other words, tomorrow morning Kohen will read the
first 3 pesukim of the 2nd nasi, Levi will read the next 3, and the
third aliya simply repeats all 6 pesukim of the 2nd nasi. The Rama on
the other hand says, that for the third aliya you simply read the next
day. In other words, tomorrow morning Kohen will read the first 3
pesukim of the 2nd nasi, Levi will read the next 3, and the third
aliya reads the 3rd nasi. In chu"l the minhag is like the Rama and in
EY the minhag is like the mechaber even for Ashkenazim.

The Gra points out that this is l'shitasam by chol hamoed succos. On
chol hamoed succos the problem is greater, each day is only 3 pesukim
and there are 4 aliyos. According to the Mechaber in chu"l kohen and
levi read the 2 days of sefeka d'yoma and then the next 2 aliyas
simply repeat them. The Rama writes that shlishi reads the next day
and revii goes back on the first 2 days. In EY the mechaber writes
that we simply repeat the same thing 4 times. Here also the minhag in
EY is like the mechaber.

The machlokes would seem to be does the next day have any connection
to today and does it make sense to read it.

Interestingly enough the Ashkenazim in EY are noheg like the Mechaber
both on Succos and on Chanuka.

Even though it would seem from parashas Behaalosekha that lighting the
menorah is a job for the kohein or even for the kohein gadol, the
limitation is only on hatavas haneiros, not on the actual hadlaqah.

I'm wondering about this. First, we learn dinim about how to light the
menorah (the flame old shouldn't touch the the new wick, but heat it
until it ignites on its own) from the assumption that "beha'alosekha"
is a special term for lighting, not hatavah. And that was given to
Aharon alone, at least while he was alive.

Second, how can it be mutar for a zar to light the menorah if he was
already chayav misah for entering the bayis to light it?

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

From: "Meir Rabi" < >
Has anyone an explanation for the Bakashah after Birkas Kohanim, in which we
say that when Yosef was wearing the Kesones Passim he found grace and favour
in the eyes of all who beheld him? Does this include his brothers?
==

Ayen:
http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol04/v04n016.shtml

From: Dov Bloom < >
R Avrum Elkana Kahana Shapira who was Rav Rashi in 5746 writes "Adayin lo
zachinu le'bircat Hashem Sheyitkayem Banu Hakatuv 'VeTziviti et haBracha'
VeAnu Roim Zot BeEineinu Hayom BeShilhei Taf Shin Mem Vav".
This seems to be the "psak halacha".  ..
Anyone in Eretz Yisrael who looks at agricultural economics knows that last
year (5767) was not a great year at all.
(notwithstanding someone publishing a book of stories and maaiselach about
brochot on erev shmitta)
>>

I suppose one person's 'mayselech' are another's proof of hashgocho Protis
and results of genuine emuna and bitachon.

The story of the farmers of Kommemiyus and their temimusdig observance of
their rav's direction is well known.
http://www.breslovworld.com/DynamicArtical.aspx?linknumber=2785

SBA

>
> RnTK: I'm sorry but we just can't use the word "myth" about the historical
> origins of the Jewish people.  The connotation of falsehood is just too
> strong.  There is also a connotation that the person who is using the term
> is more sophisticated than the people who invented the myths.
>

That's why I am very cautious about using the term, and NEVER use it without
defining it first on the spot. (Like the halacha about putting the package
out if serving soy milk etc at a fleishig meal?) But I don't think the
connotations you cite are universal. In more academic circles, I think the
definition RRW quotes, "a traditional story accepted as history; serves to
explain the world view of a people" is readily understood and does not
include those connotations. In those circles, I imagine people would have no
problem understanding a that a reference to George Washington, the American
Revolution, etc as "myth" does not imply that the speaker doubts whether GW
really existed or considers himself superior to Americans. But if you can
find a word other than "myth" that means this type of
national-identity-and-worldview-defining narrative I will be happy to adopt
it.

Note that I am NOT referring to midrash as myth - I like your use of the
term mashal for stories that convey truth without necessarily being factual.
I am doing something much worse - using the term for stories that are
definitely true/factual/historical, to convey that our remembering and
retelling these stories is a central element in forming our identity as
Jews.

We can have a true myth while other nations have false myths, just like we
can have a true G-d while other nations have false gods.

Chanukah Sameach,
Ilana
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/private.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20071205/d1ffd0de/attachment.htm 

From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>

<<Keser shold not be said with tefillin on. Some connection between "keser" and tefillin shel rosh seems obvious, but I don't see how they're in opposition. Could someone explain?>>

Are you looking for the citation at Shulchan Aruch O"Ch 423:3 or an explanation thereof?  

I presume the explanation follows on the idea that one (should/does) not say ki Kel Melech in the end of Yaaleh Veyavo in birchas hamazon, because it's not proper to mention malchusa de'ar'a and malchusa di'shemaya bechada machta.

Here too, the shel rosh represents vera'u kol amei ha'aretz...veyar'u mimeka;  not appropriate when "presenting" HKB"H with a keser.

Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com
_____________________________________________________________
Click for free info on online doctorate degrees and make up to $250k/ year.
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2121/fc/Ioyw6i3oBoSeX37hQPCP6A6IopyfzK16kEFfTW37anwhfgH641EkX4/

Zev Sero wrote:
> The real question is why people
> who don't say keter still take them off; the Taz doesn't seem to know,
> and seems to suggest that it's not such a well-founded minhag.
>
>
>   
See Rabbi Reichman's summary of Rabbi Soloveichik's classes on Sukkah 
(Reshimath Shiurim ...) p. 278.  He cites R. Hayyim as claiming that the 
ptur of tefillin is induced by kdushas hayom and not by issur m'lacha.  
Rabbi Reichman queries whether that implies that in mikdash on Rosh 
Hodesh tefillin were prohibited all day or only while the korban mussaf 
was sacrificed.

In any case the cause seems to be the kedusha associated with the korban 
mussaf and not with kedushath kether.

David Riceman

 
 
In a message dated 12/5/2007 8:58:26 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,  
ilanasober@gmail.com writes:

>>I imagine people would have no problem understanding a that a  reference to 
George Washington, the American Revolution, etc as "myth" does  not imply 
that the speaker doubts whether GW really existed or considers  himself superior 
to Americans......We can have a true myth while other nations  have false 
myths, just like we can have a true G-d while other nations have  false gods.<<

Chanukah  Sameach,
Ilana



>>>>
The word myth simply is never used to describe straightforward  history.  
Whenever a writer speaks of the "Foundational Myth of America" he  means that our 
myth is that we were heroic against the Brits and the  Indians, and that we 
founded a wonderful free country BUT the reality is  something far darker, we 
really committed genocide against the Indians and our  Constitution was a farce 
because we had slavery.  When they speak of "myth"  in connection with George 
Washington, they mean that the story of him chopping  down the cherry tree -- 
"It was I, Father, who chopped down the tree, I cannot  tell a lie" -- is not 
true.  
 
There was a time when the story was taught as true; a later time when  
teachers knew it was false, but told it to children as true, in order to  inculcate 
the wonderful character trait of honesty; and today we have reached a  point 
where teachers tell schoolkids that in the dark past, people THOUGHT the  
Founding Fathers of America were heroes, but here, kids, is the real  scoop:  they 
were horrible people and founded a Nation of Injustice
 
In normal, common English, there is no such thing as a "true myth."   You can 
instead use some such locution as "our founding narrative."  
 
"Ma'aseh avos siman labanim" -- which someone mentioned on avodah as our  
founding "myth" -- is a myth only if the avos are taken as archetypal  
personalities who never actually lived.  In a work of fiction you can point  to elements 
of the narrative which foreshadow later action.  But the Torah,  although it 
is magnificent as literature, is not a work of fiction.   It says something 
different:  not that the Author foreshadowed the  later course of Jewish history 
in a literary form, but that He actually  created and placed into the world 
actual people, whose actual lives foreshadowed  the later course of Jewish 
history.
 

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



**************************************Check out AOL's list of 2007's hottest 
products.
(http://money.aol.com/special/hot-products-2007?NCID=aoltop00030000000001)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/private.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20071205/c63e328a/attachment.html 

Micha Berger wrote:
> Even though it would seem from parashas Behaalosekha that lighting the
> menorah is a job for the kohein or even for the kohein gadol, the
> limitation is only on hatavas haneiros, not on the actual hadlaqah.
> 
> I'm wondering about this. First, we learn dinim about how to light the
> menorah (the flame old shouldn't touch the the new wick, but heat it
> until it ignites on its own) from the assumption that "beha'alosekha"
> is a special term for lighting, not hatavah. And that was given to
> Aharon alone, at least while he was alive.
> 
> Second, how can it be mutar for a zar to light the menorah if he was
> already chayav misah for entering the bayis to light it?

Since when is a zar not allowed to enter the hechal if he has some
legitimate purpose there?  AFAIK only the QHQ was off limits to zarim
(i.e. non-kohanim-gedolim), so that maintenance workers had to be
lowered in in boxes.  The hechal, AFAIK, has the same din as the azara, 
that only people with legitimate business are allowed there, but such
people *are* allowed. 

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

Micha Berger wrote:
> As the LR put it,
> it's the application of HP to the realms of domeim, tzomeiach and chai
> that was the Besh"t's chiddush.
Isn't that the opinion that the Rambam attributes to the Kalam (in MN I:73)?
> However, another finding of the last century does make it difficult
> for hashgachah to be anything but all-or-nothing. This has to do with
> something called Chaos Theory. Cool topic, worth a Google. But the
> relevant point is that real-world systems have feedback loops, so that
> an immeasurably small difference in the start condition could have
> huge differences in final state.
Only some systems are chaotic.  Avalanche-prone mountains are, but 
pitched baseballs aren't.

> As for REED... RDR wrote:
> :> but this is plausible only if you accept that Rabbi Dessler's
> :> relentlessly spiritual perspective (yafeh sha'ah ahas shel tshuva
> :> uma'asim tovim mikol hayyei ha'olam haba) is really everyone's
> :> proper perspective.
>
> And then on On Tue, November 27, 2007 11:34 am, he added:
> : As a contrast see Dov Katz, Tenuath HaMussar, vol. 1, pp. 295-296 and
> : pp. 213-215.
>
> In REED's hyper-Kantian worldview, we don't know what's "out there",
> we only know what we impose on what's out there. The
> world-as-perceived. And therefore, someone with a physical perspective
> lives in olam ha'asiyah, where the laws of teva hold sway, and someone
> with a spiritual / moral one is in olam ha'yetzirah, where those laws
> hold. This is his explanation of nissim, expounding on a theme by the
> Maharal.
>
> REED also describes teva as an illusion caused by Hashem choosing
> hesteir panim through predictability. That illusion is limited,
> though, to the people who are NOT holding a relentlessly spiritual
> perspective. Although by this definition, the relentlessly spiritual
> would include only recipients of nissim (be they nigleh or nistar)
> such that moral law is more absolute (MmE's term, written in Hebrew
> letters) than physical law.
>
> RDK on pp 295-296 speaks of bitachon obviating the need for
> hishtadlus. That's certainly saying that bitachon is answered by HP.
> And implicitly, that HP is defined in terms of getting what you would
> otherwise work toward, not in terms of knowing that what you're
> getting is what you're supposed to. However, the standard of bitachon
> is very high.
>
> I'm not sure what's intended by the reference to 213-215. That's about
> RYS's plans for Paris. I didn't see mention of HP or bitachon there.
>   
I was trying to address a slightly different issue.  I'll try to expand 
on it here.  A couple of people whom I respect claimed that Rabbi 
Dessler had a more traditional limited view of hashgacha, yet I recalled 
(though I still can't find any citations) that he emphasises that God's 
justice applies not only to the sum total of a person's existence, but 
to each individual event.  How can we reconcile the two?

Let's consider the case of a person condemned to pick cotton his entire 
life, brutally beaten by cruel taskmasters, underfed and overworked and 
... (I'm sure you remember Uncle Tom's Cabin).  In the passage I cited 
(Michtav Me'Eliyahu, vol. 4, pp. 98-102) Rabbi Dessler says that this 
can be, not punishment, but part of the incomprehensible Divine Plan.  
How then, can it also represent perfect justice?

The rishonim generally take the pie-in-the-sky-when-you-die approach; 
God's justice applies not to each individual event, but to the sum total 
of olam hazeh and olam haba.  Rabbi Dessler takes the soul's 
perspective.  The soul doesn't care about all the tribulations it 
encounters, it views them all as opportunities to get closer to God.  So 
that, for the soul, being a slave in horrendous conditions isn't unjust, 
it's an opportunity.

I'm (to put it mildly) not thrilled with this attitude (though I find it 
a plausible reading of Rabbi Dessler) and as a contrast I cited Rabbi 
Lipkin's opinion that tending to other peoples needs in gashmiyus takes 
precedence over tending to their needs in ruhniyus.

David Riceman


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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 24, Issue 90
**************************************

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..."