Avodah Mailing List

Volume 24: Number 111

Mon, 31 Dec 2007

• 1. Sometimes Chutzpah is Praiseworthy (Chana Luntz)
• 2. Re: Apikores? (Elazar M. Teitz)
• 3. Irrational Anti-Semites (Richard Wolberg)
• 4. Lashon Hara (Richard Wolberg)
• 5. Personal Opinions (Richard Wolberg)
• 6. Sometimes Chutzpah is Praiseworthy (Meir Rabi)
• 7. Re: New king (T613K@aol.com)
• 8. Re: dvar tora (T613K@aol.com)
• 9. Re: irrational anti-Semites? (Arie Folger)
• 10. Re: dvar tora (Micha Berger) (Shlomo Katz)
• 11. Re: New king (Arie Folger)
• 12. Re: Sometimes Chutzpah is Praiseworthy (Rich, Joel)
• 13. "Sometimes Chutzpah is Praiseworthy" (Richard Wolberg)

> PuAh was so named according to one Peshat, since she acted 
> with brazenness towards her father - Hofio PaneHa Kenneged 
> AviHa. This refers probably to her remarking to her father 
> that his decree was worse than Pharo's. It is likely that she 
> is attributed with this name on this particular occasion 
> since without her Chutzpah she would not have had a job; no 
> Jewish babies would have been born.
> 
> But why is this acceptable? Why is the Medrash praising her 
> for this temerity and insubordination? Is this the way for a 
> daughter to speak to her father? Especially if he is the 
> Gadol Hador? [I believe the Medrash uses that expression about Amrom]

 Ain chachma, v'ain tavona v'ain aitza l'neged Hashem and therefore kol
makom sheyesh bo chillul Hashem, ain cholkin kavod l'rav (See Sanhedrin
82a, Eruvin 63a,  Shavuos 30b and Brochos 19b for details and the
application of this principle). 

> meir

Regards

Chana

     Regarding the need for Sanhedrin in the Lishkas Hagazis for malkus to be administered, RMicha Berger wrote, "The Smag (Lav 213) says malkos does as well."

     I responded, "True, but as RMB subsequently quoted, the Smag also says that malkos requires a beis din of 23, completely equating it with dinei n'fashos."

     However, I have since had the opportunity to see the Smag inside, and he says neither.  All he writes is that we learn from the g'zeira shava of "rasha rasha" that malkus only applies "bizman haSanhedrin" -- not "bizman sheSanhedrin b'Lishkas Hagazis."  All that means is that malkus requires musmachim, much as the same requirement, "bizman sheSanhedrin noheig," is used for the administration of dinei k'nasos.  He also makes no mention of 23, which if he were to require would certainly raise questions, since R. Yishma'el is a da'as yachid in the mishna.  Thus, there is no opinion requiring Sanhedrin to be in the Lishka for malkus to be administered, although it may be that according to R. Yishma'el malkus is completely equated to n'fashos in all its aspects.

EMT
_____________________________________________________________
Click to get freedom from your annoying glasses. Save on LASIK surgery.
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2121/fc/Ioyw6i3nEHNWlX94Dc5vozLVCDKXgMk6xsNcnhfODY8VeAtOpcRmDg/

"There is also an additional phrase in there, "they might /join our  
enemies
and fight us/, and then leave." It still doesn't make clear exactly what
Pharaoh's concern was.  I'm not totally satisfied with Rashi or with  
Hirsch  but
maybe somebody else came across another commentary on this question  
that  sheds
more light on it?"

 From a psychoanalytic reference, it would make sense that Pharaoh had  
a very low self-image
which takes the form of grandiosity (to compensate for an intense lack  
of self-esteem). Hence,
in his mind, he saw b'nei Yisroel as much brighter, skilled and  
gifted. Because of this he became
paranoid and felt that the Israelites were worthy of a much better  
culture and feared therefore, that
they would join Egypt's enemies and leave Egypt for a place more  
worthy of their level of competence.

This, of course, is conjecture but makes psychological sense.

Kol tuv/Best regards.
ri

It seems to me that speaking LH about a non-Jew would fall in the  
category of a chillul haShem if it got back to the person or if any  
goy heard it or heard about it.
It certainly would not do the Jew any good, so therefore for darchei  
shalom, it should be assur.
ri 

It's hard to believe that any enlightened person could say:
"I'm not so sure we are entitled to personal opinions."

As long as it's within the pale of eilu v'eilu, the Torah encourages it.
The tefillin (tefilla) shel rosh has four separate compartments with  
four
separate pieces of parchment and the shel yad has all four sections on
one parchment. This isn't by accident or done willy nilly. When it comes
to action, we are (or should be) united! But when it comes to thinking,
we are entitled to our personal opinions. This is also why in the Amida
we say instead of Elokei Avrohom, Yitzchok, v'Yaakov, we say Elokei
Avrohom, Elokei Yitzchok, V'Eilokei Yaakov. Each generation has to find
God for him and herself.

It should be pointed out that the whole purpose of Avodah is to allow  
each
individual his or her personal opinion based on accepted criteria.  
Cognitive
dissonance and machlokess are the bulwark of our system.

Kol tuv/Best regards.
ri 

PuAh was so named according to one Peshat, since she acted with brazenness
towards her father: Hofio PaneHa Kenneged AviHa. This refers probably to her
remarking to her father that his decree was worse than Pharo's.

It is likely that she is attributed with this name on this particular
occasion since without her Chutzpah she would not have had a job; no Jewish
babies would have been born.

But why is this acceptable? Why is the Medrash praising her for this
temerity and insubordination? Is this the way for a daughter to speak to her
father?

 

Toby Katz responded

When a child says something bold and brassy but the father loves what the -
child said and thinks it's bright and delightful, the father is not upset
with - his daughter -- he is pleased and delighted with her wit and chachma!
You - can imagine a young girl of 11 or 12 saying, "Abba you're worse than
Paraoh! - Don't you want any Jewish babies to be born anymore? You should
marry Ima again and have more children, and don't worry Abba, if Ima needs
any help with the baby, I'll help her." I bet he just ate her up!

 

In support of the notion that biting Chutzpah is Praiseworthy, may I say I
do not think this is adequate.

Although there is a great deal of truth in what R Katz says - but that does
not really merit her being offered a name to commemorate and honour her
HoFaAs Ponim Kenneged Aviha. Neither do the circumstances of the impending
Jewish national destruction lend themselves easily towards such an imagery.
And if a child compels a parent to publicly admit their error which in this
case almost borders on foolishness they may not eat them up but beat them
up. Its no great honour to be told and truly so by ones child that they are
a fool or a hypocrite.

By the way there is a similar type of Chutzpah noted in the Gemara, in the
way that Chana lashed Eli after he misunderstood her bizarre behaviour as
she was desperately pleading to HKB"H for a child. She says, "Lo Adon", you
are not worthy of your title and your office. You have judged me without
giving me the benefit of the doubt. You are no prophet.

Can you imagine anyone today speaking in like terms to a Rov or Rosh
Yeshivah - and being praised for it?

And Eli gives her a BeRacha. That was cheap considering she helped him
regain a significant portion of his O"HaBo. 

It seems that had she approached Eli in any other manner he may have
rationalised his behaviour and she would not have been able to get through
to Eli.

 

meir

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/private.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20071231/c012510e/attachment.htm 

 
 
From: "Kelmar, Michael J." _MKelmar2@MONLIFE.com_ 
(mailto:MKelmar2@MONLIFE.com) 


 

R' Mikha'el Makovi wrote:
"I personally think it was a new  king."

R' Michoel Kelmar then wrote:

>>It seems that this is a machlokes in Chazal.  I'm not so  sure we are
entitled to personal opinions.<<
 
>>>>>
When there is a machlokes in Chazal that has halachic implications, we are  
not entitled to personal opinions.  You can't follow Bais Shammai re  Chanuka 
lights, for example, just because that appeals to you.  You have to  follow 
halachic process and ask shailos etc.
 
But when there is a machlokes about how to understand a particular pasuk, I  
don't see why we shouldn't be entitled to personal opinions.   I can't  see 
anything wrong with saying, "This interpretation seems more plausible  to me."
 
I also think that when you are teaching Chumash to a class or giving a  
drasha, you are not mechuyav to mention every opinion but can build your shiur  or 
drasha around the opinion that fits your theme or your conclusion better or  
that just appeals more to you.



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




**************************************See AOL's top rated recipes 
(http://food.aol.com/top-rated-recipes?NCID=aoltop00030000000004)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/private.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20071231/09d0faaa/attachment.html 

 
 
From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>
>> And yet  Bisyah named Moshe because of
what seems to be a semitic play on the name  "min hamayim meshisihu". Kind
of neat: Bisyah called him "son" because she  was the one who took him /
had her maid take him out of the  water.<<
 
 >>>>>
Speaking of which, how did she get the name Bisyah (or as some say,  Basyah)? 
 That for sure is a Hebrew name.  It's not very likely that  that was the 
name her parents gave her.


 

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



**************************************See AOL's top rated recipes 
(http://food.aol.com/top-rated-recipes?NCID=aoltop00030000000004)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/private.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20071231/b8a8a602/attachment.htm 

On Monday, 31. December 2007 03.22:41 avodah-request@lists.aishdas.org wrote:
> There is also an additional phrase in there, "they might /join our enemies
> ? and fight us/, and then leave." It still doesn't make clear exactly what
> Pharaoh's concern was.

Pharaoh wanted our ancestors in servitude. As long as they are not too 
numerous, it is possible to rule over them, once they become too numerous, 
the risk that they will rebel is getting too large.

KNLAD

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

> From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>
>
> We do know they're semitic names? How? Even according to Chazal, who
> make them job titles based on Hebrew etymologies, needn't imply the
> name is semitic. Moshe's name is blatantly Egyptian. The Muse (son of)
> root appears in many Eyptian names praising their gods: Thoth inspired a
> number of Phraoahs named Tutmose. And yet Bisyah named Moshe because of
> what seems to be a semitic play on the name "min hamayim meshisihu". Kind
> of neat: Bisyah called him "son" because she was the one who took him /
> had her maid take him out of the water. But back to the point...

It is not at all clear that "Moshe's name is blatantly Egyptian"; see here:
http://parsha.blogspot.com/2004/01/derivation-of-moshes-name.html

RMKeinar wrote:
> It seems that this is a machlokes in Chazal. ?I'm not so sure we are
> entitled to personal opinions.

Why not? Please see Tos. Yom Tov I quoted a while back, on the thread "Freedom 
of exegesive interpretation." On the Mishnah Nazir 5:5, the Tosafot Yom Tov 
writes:

        although in the Gemara it wasn't explained thus, since regarding the 
	law (din) there is no difference whatsoever (between the interpretation
	of the Talmud and that suggested by the TYT), permission has been
	granted to interpret [differently, according to one's own POV --af], since
	I do not see any difference between the interpretation of Mishnah and of
	Scripture, for permission is granted to interpret Scripture, as our eyes see
	the compositions of interpretations since the days of the Gemara.
	However, it must be that he shall not decide and interpret any law (din)
	such that it would contradict the opinion of the ba'alei hagemara.

That said, I am unconvinced by the argument that the king must have been a new 
king. Throughout history, loyal Jewish ministers, viziers etc. were often 
betrayed as the political winds shifted, and an old ruler became like a new 
one who knew not Yossef. That, for example, is exactly what happened to the 
son of Rav Shemuel haNagid (Yosef?) in Moslem Spain about a thousand years 
ago. It happened countless times elsewhere.

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

 


 Ain chachma, v'ain tavona v'ain aitza l'neged Hashem and therefore kol
makom sheyesh bo chillul Hashem, ain cholkin kavod l'rav (See Sanhedrin
82a, Eruvin 63a,  Shavuos 30b and Brochos 19b for details and the
application of this principle). 

> meir

Regards

Chana

================================================================
I always understood this to mean one could pasken in front of one's
rebbi without his permission in certain emergency circumstances ,I'm not
sure it would apply to pointing out something to one's rebbi (unless one
felt this would get quicker action?)\
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.

Toby Katz wrote:
"When a child says something bold and brassy but the father loves what  
the
child said and thinks it's bright and delightful, the father is not  
upset with
his daughter -- he is pleased and delighted with her wit and chachma!"

Sorry, but that doesn't cut it! A parent child relationship should be  
one of
respect and to allow a child that type of behavior is a poor parental  
example.
That's the same "cute" mentality of allowing a child to call the  
parent by the
first name which is against halacha.

I think the p'shat that says she acted brazenly toward her father is  
no different
from the fact that the Torah portrays everyone as they are and with  
all their foibles.
Miriam was not portrayed in the Torah as an angel. She was even  
stricken with
tzaraas because of LH. On the other hand, there might have been a  
valid explanation
if she was brazen, had it been seen in context. The other possibility  
is that she did not
speak brazenly at all to her father.

Perhaps chutzpah may be praiseworthy in certain select, limited  
situations, but disrespect
of parents is hardly praiseworthy even if meant in jest. Maaris ayin  
overrules chutzpah.

KT/BR
ri




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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 24, Issue 111
***************************************

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..."