Avodah Mailing List

Volume 25: Number 18

Fri, 11 Jan 2008

• 1. Re: [Areivim] abayudaya (Liron Kopinsky)
• 2. Re: [Areivim] abayudaya (Zev Sero)
• 3. The letter ayyin (Stephen R. Simons)
• 4. Re: kabbalah - a Torah concept? (Richard Wolpoe)
• 5. Re: New king (Richard Wolpoe)
• 6. Re: FW: chemotherapy (kennethgmiller@juno.com)
• 7. Re: Chiyuv l'kabel gerim (Richard Wolpoe)
• 8. Re: Seeing the Alps (Micha Berger)
• 9. Re: kabbalah - a Torah concept? (Zev Sero)
• 10. Re: FW: chemotherapy (Rich, Joel)
• 11. Re: Avodah Digest, Vol 25, Issue 13-manipulating bodily energies (JoshHoff@aol.com)
• 12. "Money Talks -- So Did the Donkey" (Richard Wolberg)

Forwarding a thread from Areivim to Avodah:

*Saul Z Newman Posted:*
http://www.ugandamission.org/news/Abayudaya.htm

http://tinyurl.com/ywrwng

*I Posted:*
... I heard they converted through the conservative movement. It is highly
likely that the reason they converted through conservative is that they
didn't know better. It is also highly likely that when they converted they
did so with full intention to practice halacha 100% (even if they didn't
know quite what that meant). As such it is possible that they are really
Jewish - but I don't know.

*Zev Sero Responded:*
Not if the dayanim were pesulim.  Three hedyotot can convert, even if
they shouldn't, but three apikorsim cannot.

*I replied but got moderated to Avodah:*
This might be for Avodah but i'm not sure.
I guess this is just the question of whether anyone alive today can be
considered an Apikores or just a Tinok Shenishba. I doubt anyone involved in
the conversion knew Shas.

On a similar but sad note, there is a Gemarrah in Brachot which says that
one cannot name a shul "Beth Am" because it connotes a place of communal
gathering rather than avodat Hashem, but googling "beth Am" gives the
following: " Results 1 - 10 of about 944,000 for beth Am. (0.21 seconds) "
What is sad is not that that many congregations voted to name their shuls by
a name explicitely assur in the Gemarrah, but that none of their Rabbi's
actually learned (or cared about) the first tractate of Shas to know it's
forbidden at all.
~Liron
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20080110/32749c73/attachment-0001.htm 

Liron Kopinsky wrote:

> On a similar but sad note, there is a Gemarrah in Brachot which says 
> that one cannot name a shul "Beth Am" because it connotes a place of 
> communal gathering rather than avodat Hashem

Since when did shuls in the Amoraim's time have names?

The gemara is Shabbos 32a. The fault condemned is that of referring to
the holy by common terms, as if it were not special.  Specifically,
referring to the aron kodesh as a "cupboard", and to the shul as a
"public house".  IOW the point isn't what you *name* something, it's
what you *call* it, which shows how you *regard* it.

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

The Rev. Dr. Isaac Leeser, colonial era Philadelphia rabbi, transliterated the Shema as "Shmang Yisrael."
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20080110/a5b556b0/attachment-0001.html 

On Jan 10, 2008 6:43 PM, Daniel Eidensohn <yadmoshe@012.net.il> wrote:

>
>
> What I am trying to clarify is whether the concept of "kabbala" is
> expressed in the Torah at all - even it the term "kabbala" doesn't
> appear. Does the term "kabbala" indicate a radical change in
> understanding relationships that is alien to the peshat of the Torah? Or
> am I simply making too much out of the issue.
>
> Daniel Eidensohn


Dislaimer: please read this  completely before reacting
Tamim tihyer Lashem Elokecha.  Kabbalh AISI is not necessary in consonance
with mainstream Torah concepts; aderabbah, it can be said to oppose many of
them

OTOH, I am convinced tht ther wer ALWAYS yechiei Seuglah that WERE into the
esoteric/mystical/neo-Platonic/Gnostic etc. side of things.  And many wer
proablbly nevi'im and some hachahim like R. Akiva and R. S. Bar Yochai.

The problem with kabbalh imho is simple: it should remain the province of a
few esoteric yehciiddim and its very popularity is its problem. I  am not
sure if Maddona's use [abuse?] of Kabbalh is any more egregous than the sue
of all kinds of Jews  [frum and not frum] whose feet are not on the ground.

As one of my mentors [R. Mordechai Aderet] has said: "Kabbalah w/o Shas
and/or Rambam is dangerous and ungrounded.  One must be rooted in the real
nuts and bolts of Torah first.

Kabbalah for the masses is like putting a high school physics student in
charge of a nuclear  power plant.  it makes no sense. Look at how many false
Messiahsin history succeeded in duping the masses. I  rest my case.

-- 
Kol Tuv / Best Regards,
RabbiRichWolpoe@Gmail.com
see: http://nishmablog.blogspot.com/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20080110/6a8675a0/attachment.htm 

On Jan 2, 2008 6:49 AM, Michael Makovi <mikewinddale@gmail.com> wrote:

> >
>
>
> An interesting example that comes to mind is in Chullin: everyone
> knows from the Chumash m'farshim (inc. Rashi) that Vayikra we were
> commanded to eat all our meat as a shelamim, and then in Devarim we
> are allowed chullin, nachon? But in Mesechet Chullin, this is a
> machloket between Rabbi Yishmael (who holds the opinion just given)
> and Rabbi Akiva (who holds that according to Vayikra, in the desert,
> we could eat chullin that was stabbed, and in Devarim we are commanded
> to shecht our chullin). Now, all the m'farshim follow Rabbi Yishmael,
> even though they would follow Rabbi Akiva l'maaseh.
>
> Mikha'el Makovi
> _______________________________________________
>

this is much more pervasie than this one example

Read Gmara.  Read Artscroll on any Gmara. Virtually EVERYONE learns Gmara
like Rashi
Read the Tur nd the Bet Yosef.  how often do we PASKEN like Rashi when there
is a machlokes?  Answerr RARELY [tefillin is a big excpetion]

We are in a subset of the univesrse that LEARNS the classical authoritaive
texts like Rashi but pasken almost invariably like Tosafos or Rambam or
Rashba,  etc.

Stam mishna Kerabbi Me'r but how often does r. Me'ir triumph over his
colleagues? R. Me'ir FRAMEd the mishna but NOT the Halachic controversies
with the Mishnah.

Certainly Mishna Eduyos [currentlyin the Mishna yomis cycle] seems to imply
that there is a benefit for preserving rejecting opinions.  Rejected
opinions can make BETTER sense [to either individuals or even to the
masses]  but for some reason are not normative.  And that is really nothing
very new to me.

After all Acharei Rabbim lehatos is a principle of Halachah.

-- 
Kol Tuv / Best Regards,
RabbiRichWolpoe@Gmail.com
see: http://nishmablog.blogspot.com/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20080111/03c84a44/attachment.html 

I can't tell whether it was R' Joel Rich or someone else who asked, regarding the permission to publish Torah Sheb'al Peh:

> I wonder if these sages knew that their temporary emergency
> measure would become permanent (separate question as to how),
> would they have enacted it anyway?

The question presumes that this permission did in fact become permanent. But that presumption is not valid. I have no idea whether this permission will end up as permanent or not. All we know for sure is that we are still publishing Torah Sheb'al Peh today. No one knows whether or not this permission will be revoked tomorrow.

In other words, I don't understand the question. Could someone rephrase it, please?

R' Michael Makovi suggested:

> An eit la'asot lashem could simply be a type of hora'at sha'ah,

My understanding is that the two ideas are pretty much the same. More precisely, "Horaat Shaah" describes any act of paskening in which a normally forbidden act is allowed for the duration of a specific emergency. "Eit Laasot" is the pasuk (Tehilim 119:126) which authorizes the posek to pasken such a p'sak.

Akiva Miller
_____________________________________________________________
Boost your business with a small business loan. Click now!
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2121/fc/Ioyw6i3no7YmMUXHzWBpX1J3VbHHtjOGsisHPAf1ptmYkaBRZiqf0G/

On Jan 3, 2008 9:30 PM, Michael Makovi <mikewinddale@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> The body of his text implies there is a chiyuv to be m'kabel; "EXCEPT for
> the case" of someone who shows a sincere desire, there is no chiyuv to be
> m'kabel, meaning there is a chiyuv to be m'kabel on someone who shows
> sincere desire. But according to footnote 12, the chiyuv commences only when
> the beit din decides to accept the candidate; if someone shows sincere
> desire but the beit din does not accept him (for whatever reason), then
> there is no chiyuv to be m'kabel despite his sincere desire.
>
> A possible resolution would be the answer to the question, does a beit din
> have the ability to reject a completely worthy candidate? If the answer is
> no (i.e. if the beit din has a chiyuv to accept a worthy candidate), then
> in effect, there is a chiyuv to be m'kabel, because there is a chiyuv to
> decide to accept a worthy would-be-ger, and once that decision is made,
> there is a chiyuv to convert him, and these two chiyuvim combine to make a
> chiyuv to convert a worthy candidate.
>
>
> Mikha'el Makovi
>

Hers is a simple model:
Beis Din has the obligation to accept any prospective Ger who has
demonstrated his/her persistence.  kind of like Hillel in the skylight. Any
prospect that really HAS gone through hoops SHOULD be accepted readily but
first we have to confirm that this prospect HAS overcome challenges.  If
not, the BD is not obligated, or at best it MIGHT provide an artificial set
of challenges such as rejection.






-- 
Kol Tuv / Best Regards,
RabbiRichWolpoe@Gmail.com
see: http://nishmablog.blogspot.com/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20080111/77157352/attachment.htm 

On Wed, Jan 09, 2008 at 01:04:57PM +0000, kennethgmiller@juno.com wrote:
: 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.

CW vol VII has his travelog in it. Also, REKlugman's biography contains
the story.

:-)BBii!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Mussar is like oil put in water,
micha@aishdas.org        eventually it will rise to the top.
http://www.aishdas.org                    - Rabbi Israel Salanter
Fax: (270) 514-1507

Richard Wolpoe wrote:

> The problem with kabbalh imho is simple: it should remain the province 
> of a few esoteric yehciiddim and its very popularity is its problem.

That was the case for most of its history, but the AriZal said that in
his day things had changed, and that now "mutar umitzvah legalot zot
hachochma".

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

I can't tell whether it was R' Joel Rich or someone else who asked,
regarding the permission to publish Torah Sheb'al Peh:

> I wonder if these sages knew that their temporary emergency measure 
> would become permanent (separate question as to how), would they have 
> enacted it anyway?

The question presumes that this permission did in fact become permanent.
But that presumption is not valid. I have no idea whether this
permission will end up as permanent or not. All we know for sure is that
we are still publishing Torah Sheb'al Peh today. No one knows whether or
not this permission will be revoked tomorrow.

========================================================================
Permanence was the premise of the original commenter
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.

Rabbi Belsky has been very outspoken about these kinds of  practices,viewing 
them, at best,as dishonest  money-making  schemes,and,at worse, as close to 
avodah zarah, IIRC. He expressed these views  at his end-of-the -summer  
sessions in which he answered  questions on all 4 sections of  Shulchan Aruch at the  
Bostonner Beis Medrash  in Flatbush.They can  be heard  on tapes of these 
shiurim marketed by  Irgun Shiurei Torah . I do  not recall that he discussed it 
this past year,but I think he did each of the  two previous years.



**************Start the year off right.  Easy ways to stay in shape.     
http://body.aol.com/fitness/winter-exercise?NCID=aolcmp00300000002489
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20080111/77b35466/attachment.html 

The expression "Money Talks" has always seemed to me, to reflect a  
tremendous cynicism, as well as not the "means" but the "end."
I'm reminded of the aton who spoke to Bilaam. The allegory of Bilaam's  
talking donkey reminds us that speech can lift
the human being above the animals. But when abused, it can become  
nothing more than the words of a jackass.  So it is with the
misuse of money and the phrase "Money Talks" has that subtext.

Hence IMHO I would change "Mi She'yeish Lo Ha'mei'os Yeish Lo  
Ha'dei'os" to "Mi she'yeish lo ha'dei'os yeish lo ha'mei'os"
and likewise "Der vos hot di mei'eh hot di dei'eh" to "Der vos hot di  
dei'eh hot di mei'eh".

"Money is a wonderful thing, but it is possible to pay too high a  
price for it."
A. Bloch. Edward R. Murrow, This I Believe, 1952, p. 10

"A small coin before the eyes will hide all from sight.
Lipkin, q Tenuat HaMusar, i.272, Tel Aviv, Betan HaSefer, 5706 
  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20080111/7fd84ab3/attachment.htm 

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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 25, Issue 18
**************************************

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..."