Avodah Mailing List

Volume 25: Number 23

Tue, 15 Jan 2008

• 1. Re: manipulating bodily energies (Micha Berger)
• 2. Re: manipulating bodily energies (Micha Berger)
• 3. Ribis and LH re: Non Jews - Crossing Threads (Richard Wolpoe)
• 4. Re: [Areivim] abayudaya (Michael Makovi)
• 5. torah im derech eretz (Eli Turkel)
• 6. Re: What was actually written on the luchos, zachor (T613K@aol.com)
• 7. spanish minhagim (Eli Turkel)
• 8. Tamuz (Eli Turkel)
• 9. Re: Prohibition of Eating Blood (Micha Berger)
• 10. Re: The letter ayyin (Micha Berger)
• 11. Re: Did L. Reebe Call RYDS Gaol Hador? Please Confirm (Micha Berger)

On Mon, January 14, 2008 10:49 pm, R Richard Wolpoe wrote:
: I simply thought I was re-inforcing the concept of Echad as in Shema
: Yisroel - Hashem Elokeinu Hashem Echad. The MON in Monotheism is
: simply teh Echad in the Shema
: But if you want a dissertation on the Yichud of HKBH see the Kesser
: Malchus of ibn Gabirol - recited by some on Kol Nidrei night

Look. I don't say "Borkhuni leshalom" in Shalom Aleikhem. I used to
just say three verses. And if a guest came and was singing, I simply
skipped those two words rather than make an issue about it. Usually
people don't notice if you miss a word or two when the rest of the
group didn't. However, there is a meaning to having 4 verses (and
another to the variant that has 5). so I now use "Shivtikhem
leshalom", the 5th verse for those who say 5.

So, you're not going to get me contradicting you entirely.

However, I am not blind to the fact that while I just can't say the
words -- it just feels wrong -- the majority of the O world does.
Which means that I can't possibly insist that my interpretation of the
5th ikkar is the only one, and everything else is AZ. I might not be
able to understand how it isn't AZ, but to deny the majority position
as even eilu va'eilu?

And if I acknowledge that WRT angels, then WRT deceased people lo kol
shekein! A neshamah that once lived is far closer to asking a living
person to daven for you than asking a mal'akh.

The Gra, who didn't say "Borkhuni leshalom", limited davening at a
qever to using the qever as an emotional prod, a source of qavanah.

Others allow asking the meis to be a meilitz yosher.

Where I would see more clear problems arising is if someone asks the
meis to do something other than ask HQBH. To do it himself. Or "tzadiq
gozeir ve'E-lokim meqayeim". Turning the meis or mal'akh into a force,
a source of yeshuah, in and of itself.

I wrote:
:> And yes, many of the masses certainly do cross the line. Think how
:> precise one's kavanos at a qever have to be in order to be mutar.
:> How many people are aware of capable of towing that line?

That should be "toeing that line". (Thanks RJJB.)

: Nevertheless, WADR, isn't this a specious argument?  i.e. how is
: attacking the attacker a defense? The fact that Reform does more
: egregious things does not at all excuse Ortho's for condoning
: questionalbe practices...

But it does destroy the implied comparison between R's lack of
shemiras hamitzvos and O errors in monotheism to point to a huge
difference in the magnitude of R's intentional stance and members of
O's masses who miss a subtle theological point.

While on the subject of supernatural forces, getting back to the
subject line... Most alternative medicine theories are about physical
claims -- whether or not they happen to be true, bad science isn't AZ.

I have real misgivings about reiki, however.

Ki (Chinese: Ch'i, similar to the Indian concept of Chakra or George
Lucas's "the Force") could be taken to be a concept of how the
universe works, entirely within the same domain (but a different set
of answers) as physics. I could see it depending upon the teacher.

However, the word "rei" means "hidden". To the best I can tell without
speaking Japanese, Reiki explicitly claims to be the manipulation of
metaphysical forces.

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 14, 2008 10:49 pm, R Richard Wolpoe wrote:
: I simply thought I was re-inforcing the concept of Echad as in Shema
: Yisroel - Hashem Elokeinu Hashem Echad. The MON in Monotheism is
: simply teh Echad in the Shema
: But if you want a dissertation on the Yichud of HKBH see the Kesser
: Malchus of ibn Gabirol - recited by some on Kol Nidrei night

Look. I don't say "Borkhuni leshalom" in Shalom Aleikhem. I used to
just say three verses. And if a guest came and was singing, I simply
skipped those two words rather than make an issue about it. Usually
people don't notice if you miss a word or two when the rest of the
group didn't. However, there is a meaning to having 4 verses (and
another to the variant that has 5). so I now use "Shivtikhem
leshalom", the 5th verse for those who say 5.

So, you're not going to get me contradicting you entirely.

However, I am not blind to the fact that while I just can't say the
words -- it just feels wrong -- the majority of the O world does.
Which means that I can't possibly insist that my interpretation of the
5th ikkar is the only one, and everything else is AZ. I might not be
able to understand how it isn't AZ, but to deny the majority position
as even eilu va'eilu?

And if I acknowledge that WRT angels, then WRT deceased people lo kol
shekein! A neshamah that once lived is far closer to asking a living
person to daven for you than asking a mal'akh.

The Gra, who didn't say "Borkhuni leshalom", limited davening at a
qever to using the qever as an emotional prod, a source of qavanah.

Others allow asking the meis to be a meilitz yosher.

Where I would see more clear problems arising is if someone asks the
meis to do something other than ask HQBH. To do it himself. Or "tzadiq
gozeir ve'E-lokim meqayeim". Turning the meis or mal'akh into a force,
a source of yeshuah, in and of itself.

I wrote:
:> And yes, many of the masses certainly do cross the line. Think how
:> precise one's kavanos at a qever have to be in order to be mutar.
:> How many people are aware of capable of towing that line?

That should be "toeing that line". (Thanks RJJB.)

: Nevertheless, WADR, isn't this a specious argument?  i.e. how is
: attacking the attacker a defense? The fact that Reform does more
: egregious things does not at%

Here is a simple distinction - how we beahve towards our fellow Jews - as
opossed to Gentiles - are set by a different criteria

Let me reiterate what I consider a core Torah Princciple - Kedoshim  [QTYD}
is about fostering a mamleches kohanim vgomer
Or as I term it" Aa JUST and HOLY society"

As a SOCIETY" Ribis and LH would foster eretz ochecls yoshveha c"v. We must
have a co-operative and mutally respectful [even LOVING] society all based
upon v'havta lerei'acha kamocha etc.....  Thus we have a strict code of
conductt to foster achicha, amecha. amisecha, etc.

With a Gentile, these practices fall under a different rubric.  Ribis is OK
because it is not necessarily intrinsically evil just unaccepatble within
our society. Perhaps charging a Gentile exorbitant usury would be immoral -
but for other reasons.

With LH the criteria for keeping a unified loving society is different than
the criteria for avoiding self-destructive behavior.  LH about a fellow Jew-
especially a fellow Observant Jew - must be allowed only under a real need.
The need to say LH about a Gentile might meet a much lower threshold, any
objective or obnoxious behavior by a Gentile might produce a legitimate
To'eles... etc.

Think of Am Yisroel as a big family and that behavior within that unit must
be on a very high plane.  Behavior re: Gentiles is held to a much looser
standard so long as it does not produce Hillul Hashem, violate gezel, or
damge one's own nehsama, there is more room to maneuver.

-- 
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/20080114/eedaadda/attachment.html 

>
> R' Richard Wolpoe wrote:
> >
> > How can we call a month Tammuz when it is the name of a Baylonian Deity
> -
> > sholudn't "sheim elohim acheirim lo sazkiru" make that assur
> mid'orraisso?
>
> Shu"A Yo"D 147:4 says that one is allowed to mention names of deities
> that are mentioned in Tanach (In this case, Yechezkel 8:14).
>
> Joshua Meisner


I haven't studied this, but I always assumed that meant davka when reading
the Tanach. I.e., while reading the Tanach, when the pasuk mentions a deity,
you can say it as written.

Because if any deity mentioned in the Tanach, you can say it whenever you
want, at any time, then of what use was the assur during Biblical times?
That assur only came into effect much much later (when we
first, post-Biblically, encountered non-Canaanite/Babylonian deities), if
you say that b'klal it is mutar to say any deity mentioned in the Tanach.

Alternatively, it creates a difference in the mitzvah before and after the
Tanach was written. Was it d'oraita assur to say the name, but as soon as
the Tanach was written, it suddenly became d'oraita mutar? That seems
difficult, to say that Yehoshua or Yechezkel or Yishayahua or Ezra could not
say a given name, but we can.

That's why I assumed the heter was davka for when reading the Tanach or
saying a pasuk. Otherwise, someone might think that when saying the pasuk,
he should say "B-a-a-l" letter by letter. But during my daily speech, it
would still be assur to say that name despite his being written in the
Tanach (except that he's no longer worshipped today, so actually it is mutar
we can say it after all).

Am I making this all up, or does someone say like me?

Mikha'el Makovi
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20080115/d49ffc32/attachment.htm 

For those who have not seen it yet I recommend the letter by Maximallian Landau,
killed in the Holocaust, on torah im derech eretz and RSRH.
It is brought down by Marc Shapiro in the Torah u Madda Journal 2006
http://www.yutorah.org/publications.cfm

there is also an interesting article by Loike and Tendler on genetics and Torah


-- 
Eli Turkel

Around August 12, 2007, there was a thread on "what was actually written on  
the luchos" and I just came across this exchange from way back then -- which I 
 want to comment on.  I had written this:

 
>>I don't know "who" says it but it is commonly said that the first  five are 
 
bein adam laMokom and the second five are bein adam  lachaveiro, strongly  
suggesting a parallel structure that wouldn't  be obvious if, say, four 
dibros  were 
actually written on one luach  and six on the other.<<

In response, R' Chaim Manaster wrote  this:
 



>>A friend of mine, a musmach of Ner Yisrael, R. Yehoshua  Honigwachs, has a 
thesis that the parallel 5 dibros on each luach are  megaleh a structure of  
Torah as a whole. These five main concepts  each one indicated in one of the 5 
parallel dibros (one lamokom and the  other lachaveiro) lead to an 
understanding of the basic structure (unity)  of  (Chamisha Chumshei) Torah. Thus Torah 
can be analyzed as  follows:  the 1st commandment's underlying theme 
represented in   Bereishis, the 2nd commandment's main theme in Shemos and so on. Then, 
within  each chumosh it's parshios can further be subdivided at the next level 
by  sub-themes based on each of the five dibros and so on to lower  levels of 
subdivision. (Sort of like Chesed shebeGevura etc.)  




He spells out this thesis in a book he authored  "The Unity of Torah" 
published by Feldheim (1991) with a short foreword from  R. Yaakov Weinberg, zt"l The 
Rosh HaYeshiva of Ner Yisrael, which seems to be  more of a haskoma than a 
foreword, in which RYH puts forward his  thesis and illustrates it by examples 
from Bereishis. I suspect that this  thesis deserves a much wider exposure than 
it has received to  date.<<
 


>>>>>
I found that post extremely interesting but didn't comment at the time  
because I was upset at myself for something I had failed to do because I  got too 
distracted by the internet, so I fined myself one week  without posting to A/A. 
 (I need AA for A/A actually.)  And then  I failed to get back to this, I put 
it aside and forgot about it.   Here is what I meant to write:
 
I seem to think that there was some such structure-of-structures in the  
Chumash discussed in Natan Slifkin's book *The Science of Torah* but I don't  have 
my copy anymore. ( I must have lent it to someone who never returned  it.)  
There's nothing like it in the re-issued book, now called *The  Challenge of 
Creation.*  I wish I still had *The Science of Torah* so I  could go back and 
look.
 
The structure-of-structures in the Chumash -- the same pattern seen on a  
larger scale replicated on a smaller scale -- was reminiscent of the repeating  
patterns seen in the field of math known as "fractals."  In fact IIRC there  
was a beautiful photograph of a fractal mathematical figure on the front cover  
of *The Science of Torah.* 
 


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



**************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/20080115/407dc2b9/attachment.html 

I am spending 3 months in Madrid and have seen several interesting customs.
First I learned from here, Lisbon and the Portugese shul in Amsterdam that they
all have sifrei Torah that look like Ashkenazi ones and not like the
round wooden covers
of edot mizrach in Israel. They have a white sheet that goes the
length of the Torah
and protects each daf. I have not checked what kind of lettering is used.
It seems that many Spanish minhagim are different than edot mizrach. I asked the
rabbi who grew up in Spanish Morocco. He said that also there they used an
Ashenazi style sefer Torah.
Obviously no one here has a tradition of hundreds of years as Jews were not
allowed in Spain for many centuries. Nevertheless the minhagim both in
Spain and in
Portugal seemed to be old authentic ones.
BTW obviously no one here knows of any cherem not to live in Spain

This week we went to a wedding husband was from Mexico and the bride from US
and they met in and got married in Madrid. The chupa was suspended from the
roof of the shul and so there were no amudim. All the friends of the
chatan were called
up to sign the ketuva after it was read. The rabbis were not under the
chupa but in
front, by the microphone. Only the chatan, kallah and parents were
under the chuppah

Most fascinating was at the end of the chupa the chatan recited "Im eshkacheck
Yerushalayim ..." out loud and then broke the glass. Right afterwards the chatan
and kallah went to the aron kodesh immediately in back of the chupa
and it was opened
for them. They remained in front of the open aron kodesh, I assume
saying prayers,
for several minutes. Only then was it closed and they exited the hall

-- 
Eli Turkel

> How can we call a month Tammuz when it is the name of a Baylonian Deity -
> sholudn't "sheim elohim acheirim lo sazkiru" make that assur mid'orraisso?
A similar question arises in out use of 2008 for the year

R. Meidan has a long piece on this on parshat Bo. Besides the problem of AZ
the Torah in BO seems to insist on using numerical values for the months so that
Nissan is the first month. In fact we have always done this for days of the week
using yom rishon etc. rather than the AZ names of sun day and moon day etc.
So why should be the months or years be different.

He points out that throughout early history years were dated from Selucid. Only
from the days of Rambam does the date from creation occur. He is not happy
even with this pointing out that Xtians count from Jesus and Moslems from
Mohamed so why shouldnt we pick a Jewish point and not the creation of
the world.

He then comes up with the chiddush that the Selucid calendar is
exactly 1000 years
off from the exodus. So counting from Selucid is the same as counting
from yetziat
mitzraim up to a thousand. In our present creation calendar we also
ignore thousands.

His conclusion and personal habit is to give a date using numbers for
days in a month,
the month of the year from Nissan and the number of years from yetziat Mizrayim
ignoring the thousands i.e. selucid date

He admits the practice hasn't caught on yet

-- 
Eli Turkel

On Thu, January 10, 2008 6:47 pm, Cantor Richard Wolberg wrote:
: It is interesting to note that with modern forensic medicine we have
: found that once the slightest amount of blood is left on any object,
: there is no way of removing every trace of it....
: It would seem to me that perhaps the prohibition of blood centers
: around the fact that the tamei it conveys can never be fully
: eliminated.

Except that what's assur isn't blood in general, it's circulatory
blood. The blood that has gotten into everything and can't be fully
eliminated is mutar.

SheTir'u baTov!
-micha

As to how to pronounce the /ng/ of the probable lost Ashkenazi ayin...

I wish you could all come over to hear Shuby pronounce the letter "n".

Shuby has the low muscle tone of someone with Downs as well as palate
that is very high and isn't fully closed. The norm is to put the tip
of the tongue to the front roof of your mouth, just shy of the teeth.
Shuby places the rear of his tongue at the rear, just near his palate.
Shuby's "no" therefore is closer to "ngo", but the sound is less
pronounced than the /ng/ in "sing".

I hope the description of the anatomy helps.

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 14, 2008 12:08 am, R Richard Wolpoe wrote:
: As  I heard it, the Rebbe exhorted his Hassidim to stand up and honor
: the "gadol hador."  It could be he said A gadol Hador but then why ask
: Hassidim to rise?

Kavod haTorah.

"A" gadol hador who isn't necessarily our rav's rav's...rav still
garners kavod. "The" gadol hador implies a relationship with the
audience, as well as any other member of that dor. There is less of a
chiyuv of kavod for someone else's rebbe, but it's still appropriate.

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 23
**************************************

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..."