Avodah Mailing List

Volume 25: Number 14

Wed, 09 Jan 2008

• 1. Re: kinetic healing and halacha (Arie Folger)
• 2. Re: kinetic healing and halacha (Micha Berger)
• 3. Re: Irrational Anti-Semites (Micha Berger)
• 4. Re: New king (Micha Berger)
• 5. Re: Accent on the Right Syllable in Krias Shema (Micha Berger)
• 6. Re: 15 different fruits on Tu B'shvat (Micha Berger)
• 7. Re: Chiyuv l'kabel gerim (Daniel Eidensohn)
• 8. Seeing the Alps (kennethgmiller@juno.com)
• 9. Re: Chiyuv l'kabel gerim (Daniel Eidensohn)
• 10. 15 different fruits on Tu B'shvat (Michael Elzufon)
• 11. Re: Mitzvot That A Non-Jew Cannot Do (Micha Berger)

RMB wrote:
> The Chinukh seems to be describing standard magical thinking, found
> in alchemy, Enochian "Qabbalah", Gnosticism, etc... For that matter,
> not to far from a voodoo doll -- make changes on the representation in
> order to cause changes in the represented.

Wouldn't alchemy, when people still believed in it, be physical, too? I 
believe that we generally consider alchemy the precursor of modern chemistry.
-- 
Arie Folger
http://www.ariefolger.googlepages.com

On Wed, January 9, 2008 6:28 am, Herr Rabbiner Arie Folger wrote:
: Wouldn't alchemy, when people still believed in it, be physical, too?
: I believe that we generally consider alchemy the precursor of modern
: chemistry.

This is a bit tangential, as it's about my claim that alchemists
believed "as above, so below" -- that everything down here manipulates
a corresponding thing up there, and so I can make things happen in
heaven. Given this claim, the Torah point stands; if I'm wrong, take
alchemy off the list.

I was thinking of alchemy in terms of things like the quest for
imortality. Not in the sense of a study of the empirical that fits
experiment to theory rather than the other way around.

Wikipedia also acknowledges the dual nature of alchemy. Its entry opens:
> In the history of science, alchemy refers to both an early form of the
> investigation of nature and an early philosophical and spiritual
> discipline, both combining elements of chemistry, metallurgy, physics,
> medicine, astrology, semiotics, mysticism, spiritualism, and art all as
> parts of one greater force...

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

Antisemites often believe contradictory things about us. (Are Jews a
bunch of pinkos, or robber-baron capitalists?) And, since we're
talking about complex human beings, and more so, an entire community
of them, often conflicting beliefs both have an element of truth. I
won't say the "d word", lest non-YU people have a sudden attack of
reverse peristalsis, but RYBS built an entire philosophy on the idea.

SheTir'u baTov!
-micha

On Mon, December 31, 2007 10:37 pm, Richard Wolpoe wrote:
: When the Torah says don't eat BLOOD are we entitled so say we LIKE to
: eat Blood?
:
: The Gmara says YES

I find this startling. We have discussed in the past whether a mitzvah
implies that it is desirable for the person to align his middos
accordingly (the position of RYS), or whether that's only true for
mitzvos sichliyos (the Rambam).

You seem to be saying the Rambam's position is an open-and-shut
gemara. Wouldn't RYS and his meqoros have to address that?

: Kal Vachomer if hazal PASKEN one way does not mean I have to check my
: brain
: at the door and say I like the other way beter, Hazla merely ask us to
: FOLLOW the psak not to "obsequiescently" agree to it.

This is the difference between the ontological question (what's really
out there) and the legal/authority one, no? Assuming the position is
within eilu va'eilu, the ontological answer is that it's no more wrong
than any other answer. But the authority question determines which
we're expected to do.

Whether that's because pesaq constructs halakhah, or selects which
simplified model of an infinite supernal truth we use is a machloqes
that AFAIK started among the geonim and is still active among
acharonim.

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

On Sun, January 6, 2008 8:47 pm, R Michael ORR wrote:
: MO REPLY:  The Rema, however, appears to interpret ?ta?amim?
: as referring here primarily to the niggun, and says that the
:  Ashkenazi custom is not to say the KSh with ta?amim
: (except for those who are particular ? hamedakdekim machmirim).

There is no way to do the nigun correctly without emphasizing the
syllables the notes are supposed to go on. So, trop includes mil'eil
vs mil'ra distinctions, along with punctuation (a meshareis connects
to the next word, other classes of trop are different levels of
disconnect) along with the melody of the chant.

What makes an element of havarah authoritative vs being an error?
Sepharad lumps tav and sav, folds together many of the tenu'os,
Ashkenaz has problems with ayin and ches (although I would argue that
the lack of ayin has to post-date the nickname "Yankl"), etc... Is it
possible that Ashkenazi norm not to be careful on mile'eil vs milera
is similar? That baAH vs BAah is as validly/invalidly ambiguous as
"ach" vs "akh"?

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

On Mon, January 7, 2008 10:19 pm, Liron Kopinsky wrote:
[RMM:]
:>  It reminds me of Rav Hirsch's visiting the Alps so
:> that he'd be able to answer Hashem in the affirmative when asked
:> about seeing His wonders.

: This touches on an idea I've been having some trouble with.
: Mesillat Yesharim, Chapter on Perishut
: Even though it says
: ' (Yerushalmi Kiddushin 4:12) a man will have to give an accounting to
: the Presence for everything that his eyes beheld and he did not wish
: to eat, though permitted and able to do so....
: the Ramchal still says that it is proper to abstain as much as
: possible from all worldly pleasures:
: ' The undesirable type of separation is that of the foolish gentiles
: who abstain not only from that which is not essential to them, but
: also from that which is, punishing their bodies with strange forms of
: affliction that God has no desire for....

: This seems to suggest that the level of Perushut we should be striving
: for is basically abstain from anything not absolutely necessary.

I think the MY gives a definition outright which conflicts with your
deduction. In the third sentence or so (taken from
<http://www.shechem.org/torah/mesyesh/13.htm>, translation by R' Aryeh
Kaplan):
> The rationale of Separation is epitomized in the words of our Sages
> of blessed memory (Yevamoth 20a), "Sanctify yourself through what is
> permitted to you." This is the signification of the word "separation"
> itself i.e. separating and withdrawing oneself from something,
> forbidding to oneself something which is permitted. The intent is to
> keep oneself from that which is forbidden, the understanding being
> that a person should withdraw and separate himself from anything which
> might give rise to something that could bring about evil, even though
> it does not bring it about at the moment and even though it is not
> evil in itself.

Perishus is avoiding challenges that one might not successfully pass
that which "could bring about evil". Which explains the Ramchal's
progression in the text that follows the above:
> If you look into the matter you will perceive three distinct levels
> - the forbidden things themselves, their fences (the edicts and
> safeguards that our Sages of blessed memory made binding on all of
> Israel), and the "withdrawals" that those committed to Separation
> must create for themselves by circumscribing themselves and building
> fences for themselves; that is, by abstaining from things which were
> permitted, which were not proscribed to all of Israel, and separating
> themselves from them so as to be far removed from evil.

Perishus is non-binding non-national, but an extension of the same
idea as gezeiros.

Similarly in the next pereq, where the Ramchal divides perishus into
perishus behana'os, perishus bedinim and perishus beminhagim (in the
sense of conduct, not tradition, as this is described as hibodedus and
shetiqah). This is perishus bedinim:
> It has already been indicated that those who practice Separation may
> not guide themselves by what is permitted to all of Israel, but must
> withdraw themselves from what is repulsive, from what is similar to
> it, and from what is similar to what is similar to it.

So far so good. The only problem with the above is the MY's discussion
of perishus behana'os:
> Separation in relation to pleasures, which we spoke of in the previous
> chapter, consists in one's taking from the world only what is
> essential to him. This type of Separation encompasses anything which
> provides pleasure to any one of the senses, whether the pleasure be
> gained through food, cohabitation, clothing, strolls, conversation or
> similar means, exceptions obtaining only at such times when deriving
> pleasure through these means is a mitzvah.

Whereas the Ramchal in pereq 13 talks about the mutar being fine as
long as is doesn't lead to aveirah, in pereq 14 he is saying the mutar
is to be avoided unless it leads to mitzvah. The text RLK cites is
compatible with either tzad.

And in 15, he explicitly says he is talking about both:
> THE BEST WAY for a man to acquire Separation is to regard the
> inferior quality of the pleasures of this world, both in point of
> their own insignificance and in point of the great evils to which
> they are prone to give rise.

Both positions are pretty well documented in other sources. I would
suggest that the kasuv hashelishi is the continuation in pereq 15:
> For what inclines one's nature to these pleasures to the extent that
> he requires so much strength and scheming to separate himself from
> them is the gullibility of the eyes, their tendency to be deceived
> by good and pleasing superficial appearances...

I would suggest the Ramchal's two elements are perishus from that
which leads to sin, and perishus from addiction -- "ad sheyatzrikh kol
kach vetachbulos lehafrisho meihem".

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

There are in fact several sources that there is a mitzva to convert 
non-Jews. The Zohar HaRakiya (#40) who views it as a subset of Ahavas 
hager and R' Yitzchok Barcelona. Rav Perlow discusses these in his 
commentary on Rav Saadia Gaon's Sefer HaMitzvos (page 294-295) in which 
he asserts that it is  a subset of Ahavas HaShem.

There is an analysis of these views by Rav Menashe Klein (Mishneh 
Halachos (16:92). He rejects these views and assets that in fact that 
the mitzva is for the non-Jew to convert and we are commanded to assist 
him with his mitzva. This is also supported by Yevamos (48b)

*Yevamos[1] <#_ftn1>(48b): *R? Chanaiah son of Rabban Gamliel said: Why 
are converts in the present time oppressed and suffering? It is because 
they hadn?t fulfilled the Seven Mitzvos of Noach [before conversion - 
Rashi]. R? Yose disagreed noting that one who converts is like a new 
born child [and thus is not punished for his past ? Rashi]. So then why 
are they suffering? It is because they are not as knowledgeable of the 
details of mitzva observance as are those who are born Jewish. Abba 
Chanan said in the name of R? Eleazar that they suffer because they do 
not do mitzvos out of love but from fear [of divine punishment ? Rashi]. 
Other?s say because they delayed their conversion. R? Abahu or R? 
Chanina said what verse supports this understanding? Ruth (2:12) praised 
Ruth, ?You came [quickly and didn?t delay - Rashi] to take refuge under 
His wings.? 


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


???? ?? ???? ???? ??? ??????, ??????? ???? ?????? ???? ??? ????? ??? 
???? ??? ??; ??? ???? ????: ?? ??????? ???? ????? ???, ??? ???? ?? 
??????? ??? ???? ?????? ??????? ???? ??????; ??? ??? ???? ???? ?' ?????: 
??? ???? ????? ????? ??? ?????; ????? ??????: ???? ???? ???? ????? ??? 
???? ??????. ??? ?' ????, ??????? ?' ?????: ??? ????? (??? ?:??) ???? ?' 
???? ???? ??????? ???? ??? ?' ???? ????? ??? ??? ????? ??? ?????.



*Mishneh Halachos[1] <#_ftn1>(16:92): Is it a mitzva to accept 
converts?? *In the sefer  Knesses Yechezkeil (#59) the question is 
raised whether beis din has a mitzva to accept converts?  A certain 
talmid chachom is quoted as citing Yevamos (47b): ?If the non-Jew 
accepts all the obligations he is immediately circumcised because 
mitzvos are not to be delayed.? He asks what is this mitzva? Where are 
we commanded to accept converts? The author of Knesses Yechezkeil brings 
a dispute amongst poskim was to whether beis din has a mitzva to convert 
gerim. He notes that the Raavad(Baalei HaNefesh Shaar Hatevila) states 
that beis din is commanded to convert gerim and that this mitzva is 
based on the fact that Avraham made converts. Bereishis (12:5): The soul 
that they made in Charan? is understood by our Sages as saying that 
Avraham converted the men and Sarah converted the women. That is why the 
beracha is ?and commanded us.? This is also the view of the Rashbatz in 
Zohar HaRakiya (#28) who learns the mitzva from the gemora in Yevamos 
(47b) which was previously cited. The author of Knesses Yechezkeil notes 
that there in no basis for in the Raavad that there is a mitzva to 
accept converts but cites the Sifre concerning the mitzva of loving G?d 
which seem to be similar to the Raavad? I have additional questions. 1) 
If in fact this mitzva is learned from the mitzva of loving G?d it shold 
be included in that mitzva which is one of the constant mitzvos. See 
Rambam (Sefer HaMitzvos #3) where he in fact cites the Sifre that it 
means to be  like Avraham who brought people to recognize G?d? However 
the Rambam does not in fact state that love of G?d means to convert 
non?Jews to Judaism. 2) We don?t learn the obligation of any mitzvos 
from what happened prior to the Giving of the Torah as is explicity 
stated in the Rambam (Commentary to Mishna Chullin 7:6) and other 
places. Even the mitzva of mila or gid hanasha that we observe is not 
because Avraham or Yaakov and his sons were commanded to keep them but 
only because the mitzvos received from Moshe. That is the only reason 
why we say a beracha ?Who has sanctified us with His mitzvos and 
commanded us concerning the mitzvos.? There is no mention anywhere of 
the name Avraham. This is also true for the mitzva of mila. However 
there is in fact an additional beracha of ?brining him into the covenant 
of Avraham? but this is for the covevenant not for the mitzva of mila. 
The bris and the mila are two separate things?  Also concerning the view 
of the Zohar HaRakia (#28) that Yevamos (47b) indicates that accepting 
converts is a mitzva for the beis din because it says ?one should not 
delay the mitzva.? In my humble opinion I would offer an alternative 
understanding. The mitzva referred to in the gemora is not the mitzva 
for beis din to convert the ger but rather there is a mitzva for the ger 
to be converted and he shouldn?t delay the conversion. In such a case we 
have a mitzva not to delay him and thereby causing a delay in his mitzva 
of conversion. Granted that this is not a mitzva obliging us to convert 
him but we can say that since he is not able to convert himself it is 
necessary to assist him in his conversion. Since it requires a court of 
3 judges and he wants to convert and not delay the conversion we are 
commanded to assist him so that he doesn?t delay his mitzva ? however 
this is not a commandment on the beis din itself. 

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


??????? ????? ???'. ????? ???? ?????? ??? ????? ??? ?????? (???' ?"?) ?? 
?? ???? ?? ?"? ????? ???? ????, ????? ?? ????? ?"? ?' ?? ??????? ???' 
(????? ??:) ???? ???? ???? ??? ???? ?????? ???? ?? ??????, ???? ???? 
???? ?? ??? ????? ???? ???? ????, ????"? ????"? ???? ?????? ??????? ?? 
???? ???? ?? ??"? ????? ????, ??? ????? ????? ????"? ???? ???? ???? ??? 
??? ?????? ??"? ????? ????? ?? ????? ???? ???? ????? ??? ?????? ????? 
??? ???? ??? ??? ???? [?????? ??:?], ????? ???? ????? ???? ?????? ????, 
???? ?????? ?????, ??? ??? ????"? ????? ????? ?? ????? ??? ?"? ????? ?? 
??? ?????? ???? ?? ??????, ???"? ?????? ???? ?????"? ???? ?? ??? ??? 
???? ???? ????, ????? ????? ?????? ?? ????? ????? ?? ?' ????? ????? ?? 
?? ?????? ????? ?? ????? ????"? ?"?. ???? ???? ???.

??? ???? ?? ????? ???"? ?????? ?????? ??? ??"? ??"? ????? ????? ???? ?' 
???? ?? ????? ????????, ????? ???"? ???? ?????? ???? ?' ??? ????? 
??????, ????? ???? ???? ????? ???' ????? ?? ?????? ?????? ???? ????? 
[?????? ??:?] ??? ???? ??? ??? ???? ???', ??? ?? ??? ??? ??? ???? ?? 
????? ???"?, ?????? ???? ?? ?????? ???? ???? ??????? ??? ????? ????? ?"? 
??"? ????"? (???"? ????? ?:?) ????, ?????? ???? ???? ?? ??? ???? ???? 
??????? ???? ????? ??????? ??? ?"? ?? ???? ????? ????? ????? ??? ??? 
???? ??? ?????, ???? ??? ?????? ??? ????? ??????? ????? ?? ???? ??? ???? 
???? ???? ?? ?????, ??? ????? ???? ?? ?????? ?? ?? ??????? ???' ??? 
????? ??? ???? ??????? ??? ?????? ?? ????? ????? ??? ?????? ??? ??? 
????? ??????? ??? ????? ???...

?? ?"? ???? ????? ???"? ????' ????? ??"? ?????? ???? ???? ???? ??"? ???? 
??????? ???? ?? ?????? ????? ????? ???, ?????"? ???? ???????? ?? ???? 
???? ???? ??? ?????? ??? ????? ?? ??? ????? ??????? ????? ???? ?????? 
???? ????????. ??? ???"? ???? ????? ??? ??????? ??????? ???? ???? ???, 
 ???? ???? ?? ???? ????? ?????? ???? ???? ???? ??? ???? ????? ??????? 
?????? ?????? ??????. ???? ???? ???? ???? ??????? ??? ?????? ??? ??????? 
?????? ??? ???? ????? ??? ??? ?? ???? ?? ??"?.

 ??? ????? ???? ??? ???' ?? ????? ???? ?? ???? ???? ??? ?????? ????? 
?????? ???? ???? ???? ????? ??? ???? ?????? ??? ?' ????? ??? ???? ?' 
????? ??? ????, ???? ?' ???? ???? ??????? ???? ??? ?' ???? ????? ??? ??? 
????? ???', ????"? ??? ???, ?????? ??? ????? ?"?. ??"? ?? ????? ??????? 
??? ?????, ???? ?"? ??? ?????? ????? ???? ?? ?????? ???? ???? ?????? 
???, ??? ??? ???' ???? ???? ??"? ?????.

 

??? ????? ??? ???? ??????? ???? ???' ??"? ?? ???' ??? ??? ???? ???? 
????? ?? ????? ????? ??? ??????, ?????? ?????? ???' ???? ???? ????, ??"? 
???? ????' ?????? ???? ?? ?????? ???? ????? ?????? ??????? ?? ????? ?? 
??????? ??????? ??? ??? ???? ???' ???? ???? ????, ???? ??? ?????? ??? ?? 
???? ??? ???????? ???? ??? ?"? ??? ???? ????? ????? ?"? ???? ?? ??? 
?????? ??? ??? ??????, ??? ???? ???? ??? ???? ??? ???? ??? ????? ?? ???? 
?? ?????, ???? ??"? ????? ???? ???? ????? ???? ???????.

????? ????? ??' ???? ???' ???' ??????? ?? ?"? ??????? ????? ???? ??? ?? 
?????? ???? ??????? ???? ???????? ???' ???? ????? ????? ???? ????? ????? 
???' ???? ?????? ????? ????? ??? ???? ??? ?? ??? ????, ?? ??? ??? ???? 
???? ?' ???? ?? ??? ??? ?' ????? ?? ???? ???? ?"? ???? ???? ??? ???? ?? 
???? ??????? ??? ??? ????, ??????? ?? ???? ???? ??? ?"? ?? ??"? ???? 
???? ????? ?? ???? ??????? ??? ??? ???? ???? ??"? ?????? ???, ?????? 
?????? ?"? ?????? ?? ?????? ????? ??????? ???? ?????? ??"? ???? ???, ??? 
?"? ???? ???? ?? ??"?. ????? ????? ????? ??' ??????? ??????? ????' ?"? 
???? ??????? ??"? ???? ???? ??? ????? ????"? ??? ???? ?????? ??? ?' ??? 
???? ??? ????? ????? ????? ????? ???? ?????? ??? ?' ????? ???, ?????? 
???? ??' ?"? ????? ???' ???? ??? ????? ????? ????? ??? ???? ??"? ??? 
?????? ????' ???? ?? ???? ???? ?"? ??? ???? ????? ??? ?"? ????? ????. 
????? ??? ?"? ?????? ?????? ???' ?? ???? ?????? ??' ???.

This thread is continued from "15 different fruits on Tu B'shvat"

R' Mikha'el Makovi mentioned:
> It reminds me of Rav Hirsch's visiting the Alps so that
> he'd be able to answer Hashem in the affirmative when
> asked about seeing His wonders.

I've heard this many times. Anyone know where it is from? I'm curious to know his exact words.

R' Liron Kopinsky asked:
> Even though it says ... 'Anything my eyes asked, I did not
> keep from them.'  the Ramchal still says that it is proper
> to abstain as much as possible from all worldly pleasures ...
> Does someone have a good explanation for how we understand
> this to fit in with the quote above? On a separate note, ...
> Since the Alps are not in front of me now and I can't see
> them, I should not be required to use them. However, if
> someone were to place a juicy steak in front of me, even if
> my general practice might be to abstain from meat during the
> week, it would seem that I should eat the steak as it is
> something I am currently beholding and would otherwise be
> refusing to partake in Hashem's good.

I can't think of a way to reconcile Rav Hirsch and the Ramchal as cited here. I hope someone else will comment.

But on RLK's second point, I think the critical point is to define what is "in front of me". My wild guess is that everyone agrees that I should not explore to world in search of new pleasures. But I suspect that the steak does not need to actually be on a plate in my lap, but that the criteria is a degree of *awareness* of the thing. Pleasures which I'm aware of, I should hunt them down and experience them.

But even that could lead to such a bitul zman and level of hedonism that I don't want to think that Rav Hirsch would have endorsed it. I can't imagine that I am mechuyav to try every single new product that becomes available in my grocery store. If so, then what can we learn from his example of the Alps? My guess (and this is why I'd like to see his words, so I don't have to guess) is that it is an *extremely* unusually beautiful place, and in RSRH's context it is a place which his audience has some shayachus to.

Caveat, Disclosure, and Personal Note: I confess that I have absolutely no desire to see the Alps myself. I've seen pictures of them. Yes, they are pretty mountains, but they don't "turn me on" much more than the Catskills do. This should not be extrapolated to anyone else; it is only a comment about *my* appreciation of beauty in nature. However, there is exactly one place in all of Chutz LaAretz which I *do* have a taavah to see, where I *would* like to go and see someday. The Grand Canyon. There's no accounting for taste, and while the Alps hold no attraction for me, I can't help but suspect that my desire to see the Grand Canyon might approximate the feelings which RSRH held for the Alps. I mention this because it is likely that these totally subjective feelings have colored what I wrote above about RLK's steak.

(I would be remiss if I did not mention that despite my strong feelings for the Grand Canyon, they run a far distant Second Place to even the most prosaic sight in Eretz Yisrael.)

Akiva Miller
_____________________________________________________________
Easy-to-use, advanced features, flexible phone systems.  Click here for more info.
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2121/fc/Ioyw6i3ohtWmTCfZUV094LU8kJGkICKt29JrGHxi4Haze2UvR3cHJQ/

R' Michael Makovi wrote:
> Rabbi Henkin just emailed me the following. Direct quote:
> Tosafot Yevamot 109b and Zohar HaRakia (Rashbatz) write that it is a
> mitzva (Tosafot--"yesh lanu lekablam") to accept geirim if their
> sincerity is clear (and no danger or loss to Jews is involved, an
> unstated but obvious condition), 
>   
I don't understand how this Tosfos is understood as saying there is a 
mitzva to accept geirm and therefore there is a sin for not accepting 
them? He seems simply to make a pragmantic caution that we should avoid 
having the love of the Jewish people turned to hatred. However clearly 
there is also the danger from accepting certain converts who end up 
causing problems as converts. Thus the benefits and dangers of accepting 
each convert has to be carefully weighed. This is irrelevant as to 
whether there is a mitzva to accept them.

*Tosfos[1] <#_ftn1>(Yevamos 109b): Evil upon evil comes to those who 
accept converts *? The Ri explained that that is only when the non?Jews 
are proselytized to convert or they are accepted prematurely before they 
are ready. However if they themselves strongly want to convert we should 
accept them. The reason that they should be accepted is that we find 
that Avraham, Yitzchok and Yaakov were punished because they didn?t 
accept Timna when she came to convert and so instead she went and became 
Esav?s son Eliphaz ?s concubine (pilegesh). Their offspring was Amalek 
who embittered the life of Israel  as we  see in Sanhedrin (99b). 
Yeshoshua  also accepted Rachav the Zona. Naama and Ruth the Moabite 
[were accepted as converts]. We also see in Shabbos (31a) that Hillel 
converted someone who came to him and said, ?convert on the condition 
that I serve as high priest? and another one who said, ?convert me on 
the condition that you teach me the entire Torah.? Even though these 
people were obviously not fully committed to convert nevertheless Hillel 
know that eventually they would be proper converts as indeed happened.**


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


??? ?"? ?????? ???? ??????? ???? ??????? ?? ??????? ???? ??? ??? ?? ?? 
??????? ??????? ?? ??? ????? ???? ????? ?????? ????? ???? ????? ??? ???? 
????? ????? ??????? ????? ????? ???? ?????? ?? ??? ???? ???? ???? 
???????? ?????? ???????? ????? ??? (??????? ??:) ??? ????? ??? ??? ????? 
????? ???? ??????? ????? ??? ??? ??????? (??? ??.) ????? ??? ???? ???? 
?????? ?? ??? ??????? ?"? ????? ??? ??? ??????? ?? ????? ???? ???"? ??? 
??? ??????? ??????? ???? ??? ??? ??? ????? ????? ???? ?????? ??? ???? ?????.

R'DB wrote:
[re: HHY
There is a whole extensive "pulmus" about the Hemdat HaYamim, written by
Natan of Azza - is it Shabtai Zvi oriented of not. The Sheelat Yaavetz
questions its reliability, but he looked for Sabateans everywhere. 

[[MJE]] In this case, it is not hard to find a Sabatean; Natan of Aza
was SZ's leading disciple and continued to maintain that he was moshiach
even after his apostasy. The status of Hemdath Yamim may be a different
matter, but the author's is not in dispute.

On Tue, January 1, 2008 7:49 am, Michael Makovi wrote:
: Hashem blessed the Shabbat and declared it holy, long before Am
: Yisrael existed. Furthermore, Shabbat testifies to the creation of the
: world - should not gentiles acknowledge this too?

And yet, Shabbos is also "zeikher leytzi'as Mitzrayim".

Someone who doesn't take "days" literally in maaseh bereishis could
have a field day about the notion of a week only having meaning within
the context of beris Sinai. Possibly also the "multiple ways to
measure time" crowd, if they don't have any reason for six days to be
more significant than any other measure. (So that excludes R' Dr
Schroeder.) But let's see if we could take this another direction...

There is of course the machloqes as to whether shemiras Shabbos by a
nachri is ke'ein arayos or ke'ein geneivah, as Shabbos is part of the
"marriage" between HQBH and His people. So, the question becomes why
HQBH took His "general property" and gave it to one people.

Adam is charged "le'avdah uleshamrah", and even if that was specific
to gan eiden, there is "vekivshuha". Shabbos is definitionally a break
from that kibush. Without a chiyuv of Shabbos, resting is problematic.
Which would explain why "sheishes yamim ta'avod ve'asisa kol
melakhtekha" could be taken as a tzivui.

It is only the people of the 8 (see RSRH on parashas tzitzis) who have
a tzivui to rest on the seventh. Only those who need to build beyond
this world to work toward making the "shamayim chadashim ve'aretz
chadashah" of beyond what was made in a week who need to visit mei'ein
olam haba.

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



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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 25, Issue 14
**************************************

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..."