Avodah Mailing List

Volume 25: Number 55

Tue, 05 Feb 2008

• 1. Shekalim (Gershon Dubin)
• 2. Re: Ramp On! (Micha Berger)
• 3. Re: Binfol oyivkha al tismach? (Micha Berger)
• 4. Re: What would a Torah government look like (Micha Berger)
• 5. Re: Post super bowl question (Michael Makovi)
• 6. Re: Post super bowl question (Micha Berger)
• 7. ketoret klaf (Saul.Z.Newman@kp.org)
• 8. A New Way to Calculate Mussar (Richard Wolberg)
• 9. Re: Kol Yisrael Areivim... (Micha Berger)
• 10. Re: pitum haketores (Micha Berger)
• 11. Re: Changing God's Mind (Michael Makovi)
• 12. Re: What would a Torah government look like (Michael Makovi)
• 13. Re: pitum haketores (Rich, Joel)
• 14. Re: [Areivim] Polygamy (chana@kolsassoon.org.uk)
• 15. Re: Rabbiner Hirsch and the Mishna Brura (kennethgmiller@juno.com)

From: Galsaba@aol.com

<<For next week Parashat Shekalim, how much I need to give?
I heard that in some shules they use a silver coin, some give about $5?
Is there a "fixed rate" for waht I need to give for Machatzit Hashekel?>>

Since others have already commented on the main question here, I'll restrict myself to an advisory that Parashas Shekalim is NOT next week, it's next month (March 8 lemisparam) so you have plenty of time to get your answers.

Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com

_____________________________________________________________
Start Email Marketing - fast, affordable, and measurable. Click here.
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2121/fc/Ioyw6i3l4wWy8augpLJYZJn062eAKPBeNVib4HL1dJhg0BxiFR6T0G/

On Mon, January 28, 2008 10:34 am, R Michael Makovi wrote:
: I'm going to guess that Rav Hirsch writes ten pages on this....
: Something along the lines that our avodah must be whole and
: unblemished, and so the executors too must be whole and unblemished,
: as a symbolic representation....

All human beings are finite. Some may be limited in more obvious ways,
or even more limited than others, but that's a matter of degree not
kind.

RSRH is saying, kedarko beqodesh, that someone who is blatantly
handicapped, or perhaps only someone who is distractingly handicapped,
is a symbol of inferior avodah. Kayin's qorban of reject vegetables
rather than Hevel's offering of his finest.

HOWEVER, this just begs the question.

Why not allow the handicapped kohein serve, and use it as an
opportunity to teach the idea that we are all limited, finite, and
thus puny in comparison to the task of avodas Hashem. That we all have
a role to play WRT that which we do bring to the table.

The fact is that HQBH didn't choose to symbolize this message, but
rather bowed to the least common denominator of people's perceptions
of the handicapped. And so, I repeat, that it is not obvious why.

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 28, 2008 1:05 pm, R Michael Makovi wrote:
: This is precisely why I said what R' Telushkin says on immediate
: survivors versus descendants. We most certainly did sing the entire
: shirat hayam, and there are no midrashim (to my knowledge) faulting us
: for this. Rather, davka the malakhim are faulted. And we today spill
: wine at the seder (although it was said this has nothing to do with
: sadness) and say half-Hallel.
...
: But I wonder if, as per R' Telushkin, there may be in fact a
: difference between the immediate survivor and the descendants....

What about chayav kol adam lir'os es atzmo
ke'ilu hu atzmo yatza miMitzrayim?

SheTir'u baTov!
-micha

On Mon, January 28, 2008 10:48 pm, R Zev Sero wrote:
:> As for the topic of enforcing mitzvos bein adam laMaqom or mitzvos
:> shim'iyos... I think the advisability and permissability is sorely
:> curtailed by tov sheyihyu shogegin.

: Though mutav sheyihyu shogegin doesn't apply to explicit d'oraitot.

Filtered through the rishonim, this includes any de'oraisa in which
the din is like peshat in the pasuq. And the reason given is that
someone who still persists after tochakhah doesn't deserve our help as
much as kavod haTorah needs defending.

I wondered when learning this sugya, though, if the limitation was
specific to an era where the leading non-halachic Jewish culture
agreed on such mitzvos.

IOW, once the thought-space isn't about us vs the Tzeduqim, can we
really say that the authority of such mitzvos are more nispashtos and
their rejection any more peritzas geder than any other mitzvah?

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

> Has anyone heard of any hashkafic/philosophical insights/lessons as to
> why HKB"H created the world in a manner that (iiuc) human beings
> require/appreciate forms of relaxation/entertainment?
>
> KT
> Joel Rich

Rav Hirsch to the end of Noach (about Yafet dwelling in the tents of
Shem; and also in one of his Chanuka essays in Collected Writings and
Judaism Eternal) talks about how man first needs the culture and
beauty of Yafet and then the G-dliness and spirituality of Shem (cf.
towards the end of parshat Bereshit, on the turning sword and the
cherubim guarding the garden, where he cites Tanna debe Eliyahu that
derech eretz must precede Torah), If football counts as refined art
and culture, then here we have our answer...

Mikha'el Makovi

On Mon, February 4, 2008 2:20 pm, R Michael Makovi wrote:
:                                ... If football counts as refined art
: and culture, then here we have our answer...

This is a recurring theme in the hashkafah debates at MTA between RYGB
and R' Schiller.

Listen to:
<http://schiller.bechhofer.googlepages.com/avodashashemvii.mp3>

In short, RYGB doesn't believe that RSRH's TIDE could possibly include
sports. DE is high culture. DE can be measured by whether the masses
who attend are led to refined behavior. Compare how people act at a
rock concert and at a classical one.

R' Schiller extols the beauty of a well played game, and that too is
an ability granted by the borei. (He calls RYGB "tone deaf" WRT the
beauty of sports.) As for the lack of refinement of sports game
attendees, that's cultural, and not inherent in attending sports.
Cited counter-examples of behavior he witnessed as a child at West
Point games, or at cricket matches of an earlier era. The poor
behavior is brought to the event, not caused by it.

See also
<http://rygb.blogspot.com/2008/02/fron-this-week-jewish-press.html>,
an article by R' Joseph Schick in the Jewish Press. The dispute is
quoted, as are a number of other former regulars here.

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

http://www.stam.net/pitum_haketores.html   says-----


kosher parchment in ksav ashuris (the script in which a sefer Torah is 
written), and he should read from this scroll daily, once in the morning 
and once in the evening with great concentration, and I guarantee [that 
this will help]."
Ketores is a segulah (a remedy) to eliminate epidemics, to save Israel 
from oppression by the nations, to bring a. blessing into a person's work, 
to save him from the punishment of gehinom, to ward off evil spirits, 
external forces, and "the other side" i.e. Satan's camp.
Reading of the ketores also breaks the spell of sorcery, eliminates evil 
thoughts, enables a person to inherit this world and the world to come, to 
free him from punishments, to grant him favor in the eyes of all who see 
him, and to grant him riches. (Ein Ma'avar Yabok)
The Zohar teaches that reciting the pitum haketores passages brings 
brachos (blessings) for livelihood, health, and peace, as well as 
atonement for some of the gravest sins and mistakes Jews can make.
The Kaf Hachaim says that the saying of pitum haketoret from ktav ashurit, 
the script of a Torah scroll, is a segula to merit wealth and the reader 
will be successful in business.
 


NOTICE TO RECIPIENT:  If you are not the intended recipient of this 
e-mail, you are prohibited from sharing, copying, or otherwise using or 
disclosing its contents.  If you have received this e-mail in error, 
please notify the sender immediately by reply e-mail and permanently 
delete this e-mail and any attachments without reading, forwarding or 
saving them.  Thank you.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20080204/116ecf4e/attachment-0001.htm 

The gematria of mussar is 306.
The first two words in the Torah that (together) equal 306 is "V'ruach  
Elokim" Bereshis 1:2.
What better "mussar" can you get, than from the Spirit of God?
ri 

On Sun, Feb 03, 2008 at 05:29:32PM -0500, Richard Wolberg wrote:
: Whether it's "zeh lazeh," "zeh bazeh", "zeh mizeh", or "zeh  
: ayzeh" (sounds like a new niggun), the bottom line is we're still  
: responsible. Too much theory can cloud practice.

I think "mixed one into the other" is a far stronger statement with
different import than "guarantors one for the other". One calls for me
to take responsibility. The other calls on me to not view another Jew
as through he is really "another". Duty vs intimate bond.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             The fittingness of your matzos [for the seder]
micha@aishdas.org        isn't complete with being careful in the laws
http://www.aishdas.org   of Passover. One must also be very careful in
Fax: (270) 514-1507      the laws of business.    - Rabbi Israel Salanter

I am Litvak enough to have a personal frustration with the current trend
toward segulah-ism. People spending more attention to Pereq Shirah,
saying Pitum haQetores from a kelaf (a segulah for parnasah), getting
pesichah to insure a wife's easy delivery, etc... than in shoring up
performance of mitzvos.

Rather than looking to mitzvos and yir'as hacheit, or even looking at
yir'as ha'onesh vs sechar, it's al menas leqbeil peras. Not sechar,
meriting siyata diShmaya, but peras. It's all so magickal.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             You cannot propel yourself forward
micha@aishdas.org        by patting yourself on the back.
http://www.aishdas.org                   -Anonymous
Fax: (270) 514-1507

> Let's define change.
>
> Change is what we call it when the state of something at one point in
> time is different than it was at an earlier one.
>
> The Borei created time, He is not within it. Thus, no two points of time
> in which to change His state. It's not simply that He's unchanging, it's
> that there is no way to even define change WRT the A-lmighty.
>
> Similarly, Hashem seeing "now" what will happen, or His choosing not to,
> is meaningless. Hashem -- now?
>
> Tir'u baTov!
> -Micha

This is true, but also not true, IMO.

True, G-d is outside of time; He sees all of time at one glance, the
as one can see an entire scene and all its details in one view.

Nevertheless, when He actually interacts with the world, He *must*
interact with that particular slice of time and place. When He talks
to a prophet, for example, He is talking to the prophet at that
moment; not an hour before and not an hour later, and not a mile in
front and not a mile in back.

I believe I saw this somewhere, but I forget where. I have an deep
feeling that it was somewhere in Rav Hirsch, but I cannot be sure.

Therefore, when our conduct changes at some particular point in time,
then Hashem will change His behavior accordingly.

This would be b'shlama with one who says that Hashem limits His
omniscience and foreknowledge as part of tzimtzum, but it's not
necessary to invoke this. It could just as well be that He absolutely
does know what will happen, but He bases what He does on the
conditions of that time and place and His actual deed takes place at
that time and place.

I feel the Midrash of Yishmael's descendants being murderers (and the
angels saying kill him therefore) but his present being good, and
Hashem judging him based on the present, is a striking support - if
Hashem operates exclusively in timelessness and infinity, then what
was the "now" to which Hashem referred in His question to the angels?
What does "How is Yishmael now, tzadik or rasha?" mean if Hashem
doesn't go by our temporal timeline in His dealings with us?

Mikha'el Makovi

> I wondered when learning this sugya, though, if the limitation was
> specific to an era where the leading non-halachic Jewish culture
> agreed on such mitzvos.
>
> IOW, once the thought-space isn't about us vs the Tzeduqim, can we
> really say that the authority of such mitzvos are more nispashtos and
> their rejection any more peritzas geder than any other mitzvah?
>
> SheTir'u baTov!
> -micha

This is why I asked, if the vast majority of Jews have never even
opened a chumash, can we say that
din-d'oraita-that-is-like-its-mikra-pshat is really so pshat? Tell an
average Jew that the pshat of the Torah says you can't light fire on
Shabbat, and he'll respond that Shabbat doesn't apply anymore, or that
that was only when lighting a fire was difficult (except Dayan
Grunfeld in The Sabbath ironically remarks that since the ancient
Egyptians had easily lit fires via the tinder box, our enlightened
coreligionist here is ignorant of ancient history, but I digress...),
etc.

I believe the crux is that taking Ramban that there can come a day
when it will be thought that the entire Torah no longer applies, then
if the entire Torah no longer applies, I believe it absurd to say that
a certain pasuk is obvious. The pasuk may be, but this is meaningless
when the book as a klal is obscure! It's a pasuk berur enshrouded in a
sefer balal!

Of course, this applies to nonreligious Jews only - they are tinokim
she'nishba'im anyway, so we already knew all this. But it's nice to
argue about it anyway.

Mikha'el Makovi

I am Litvak enough to have a personal frustration with the current trend
toward segulah-ism. People spending more attention to Pereq Shirah,
saying Pitum haQetores from a kelaf (a segulah for parnasah), getting
pesichah to insure a wife's easy delivery, etc... than in shoring up
performance of mitzvos.

Rather than looking to mitzvos and yir'as hacheit, or even looking at
yir'as ha'onesh vs sechar, it's al menas leqbeil peras. Not sechar,
meriting siyata diShmaya, but peras. It's all so magickal.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

---------------------------------------------------
One might wonder if this is part of a more secular trend towards the
need for instant gratification/direct control of one's destiny (e.g.
give me a pill, don't tell me to live a healthier lifestyle)

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.

Moving this to Avodah:
I wrote:
> >But there is mention of more.  The assumption throughout the 
tractates you
> >mention is that the natural state of Tzaros vis a vis one another 
is one of
> >hate, to the extent that eg in Yevamos 118a, one wife is assumed to 
be
> >prepared to be mekalkel herself (by pretending that the mutual 
husband was
> >dead) in order to be mekelkel the other wife - saying (to link to 
another
> >thread) "tamus nafsheha im plishtim".  That is not a nice pretty
> >relationship we are discussing here.

>I believe that you are conflating two Gmaraos,  The one you cite, as
>opposed to the one I cite below, refers to a 'zarah' testifying 'lo
>mes', not 'mes'; the kilkul in your case is the consequent 
prohibition
>on both of them from remarrying, not, as in the case I cite, the
>manipulation of the woman to remarry illegally.

I see I misremembered the  pshat of the gemora - although looking over 
it again, I am surprised.  After all attempting to render oneself an 
aguna, just so as to render one's tzarah an aguna, while obviously not 
a great situation, seems strangely worded as "mekalkel".  Whereas the 
reverse situation, where one might be rendered forbidden to one's 
husband, is surely more accurately described as mekalkel.

>The Mishnah (Y'vamos 117a) states: "All are believed to testify [to
>permit a wife to remarry] except for her mother-in-law, her
>mother-in-law's daughter, her 'zarah', her 'y'vamah', and her 
husband's
>daughter."  Rashi (ibid.) explains "the reason for all of them is 
that
>they hate her and they intend to ruin her.  Her mother-in-law hates
>her, for she says in her heart 'this one will consume all my toil and
>trouble'".  Although there's no element of "tamus nafshi im
>Plishtim" here, we do see that Hazal assumed that mother-in-laws
>typically hate their daughter-in-laws, or at least that this is often
>enough the case for their testimony to be suspected as unreliable;
>Hazal's assumption about the 'zarah' relationship may be of a similar
>nature, and I don't think we can conclude that they actually 
considered
>the latter relationship any more pathological than the former.

But it is precisely the tamus nafshi im Plishtim aspect that 
distinguishes the tzarah case from the others.  From the mother-in-
law's perspective, she gets rid of that pesky daughter in law who is 
consuming everything she worked for without personal cost - as it does 
not impact on her status at all (well her son might have what to say, 
but still).   And even vice versa, the daughter in law remains without 
any questions on her marriage.  However, in the case of a tzarah, 
whatever she says about the situation vis a vis her tzarah, by 
definition logically impacts on herself as well.  And that would seem 
to give her an added impetus not to lie over and above the other women 
who logically are regarded as hating each other.  Which is why, while 
the flow of the gemora on 118a might appear to be regarding a lo meis 
case, it still seems to me to be at least implicitly a commentary on 
the mishna and the particularly fraught nature of the relationship 
between tzaros in general, whether in a meis or lo meis case.  In none 
of the other cases is there a tamus nafshim im Plishtim aspect - and 
that seems to me to clearly make it more pathalogical than the other 
relationships - something that it seems to me Chazal identify by use of 
the phrase.

>> Chana

>Yitzhak

Regards

Chana



__________________________________________________
Get up to ?150 by recycling your old mobile - visit www.tiscali.co.uk/recycle

R' Richard Wolpoe wrote in NishmaBlog, and it was quoted on Avodah by R' Michael Makovi:

> While the Mishna Brura pointedly commented on ONLY Orach
> Haim because he felt that this was the primary legal text
> for Jewish People [see hakdamah to the Mishna Brura.] [2]

The Hakdama to the MB is two pages long, so I went to the NishmaBlog, hoping that footnote "[2]" would point to the part of the hakdama where he makes such a comment. Unfortunately, that footnote does not show me where he said that.

The Hakdama to the MB is on the longish side. From what I could tell, he wrote a lot about the importance of practical halacha, but I did not see any place where he gave a primacy to Orach Chaim over other areas of practical halacha.

Granted that the Mishne Brurah is on Orach Chayim and not on anything else, but don't forget the many other seforim which the Chofetz Chaim wrote: Ahavas Chesed on lending money, Likutei Halachos (5 volumes) on korbanos. And of course, remember that "Chofetz Chayim" is not the name of the author - it's the name of his first sefer!

R' Michael Makovi commented:
> Rav Hirsch of course lived before the Chofetz Chaim. I
> can only wonder what would have happened had he seen the
> publication of the Mishna Berurah on OC alone.

My point is that Rav Hirsch would NOT have "seen the publication of the Mishna Berurah on OC alone." He would have seen ALL the seforim which the Chofetz Chayim wrote.

Akiva Miller
_____________________________________________________________
Chart your path to success with a smart new business plan. Click here!
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2121/fc/Ioyw6i3nojIlErOvXrpKruvbJ0OjTNGCBzpgmb3neUIlloaBLv9TaK/




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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 25, Issue 55
**************************************

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..."