Avodah Mailing List

Volume 25: Number 79

Fri, 22 Feb 2008

• 1. Re: Simchah and Oneg (Micha Berger)
• 2. Re: Love the ger - who? (saul mashbaum)
• 3. Re: Love the ger - who? (Micha Berger)
• 4. Re: Love the ger - who? (Daniel Eidensohn)
• 5. Pre-Sinaitic conversions (Daniel Eidensohn)
• 6. Re: Pre-Sinaitic conversions (Micha Berger)
• 7. Re: Simchah and Oneg (Zev Sero)
• 8. Re: Hebrew grammar - anticipatory noun (kennethgmiller@juno.com)
• 9. opposites attract (Eli Turkel)
• 10. Re: Pre-Sinaitic conversions (Daniel Eidensohn)

On Fri, Feb 15, 2008 at 12:34:16AM -0500, Jesse Abelman wrote:
:     Why do you say that Simcha "has a codified non-subjective definition?"

Only because of the point to which I was responding: the chiyuv of meat
on Yom Tov (whether including chullin, only including it derabbanan or not
at all) phrased as simchas YT that doesn't have a parallel for Shabbos.

The subjectivity could also be explained by the distinction between
visiting the King and hosting Him. When hosting, one has more autnonomy;
when a guest, one followed the Host's lead.

BTW, in Hil' Megilah veChanukah 3:6, the Rambam implictly associates
Hallel with simchah. He rules out Hallel on Yamim Noraim because they are
days of yir'ah, not simchah yeseirah. (I'm not sure what RAEK would say
to that; since he holds that yir'ah is the key to simchah.) And in Hil'
YT 6:17-18 he writes about simchas YT and the obligation to eat meat
and drink wine. And he includes Pesach, Sukkos and other yamim tovim --
belashon rabbim. One is Shavuos, but if RH isn't a yom simchah, what's
the other candidate? Would seem that there is simchah, just not simchah
yeseirah.

Since RH has no shelamim, the Rambam's simchah of meat of Hil YT pereq
6 must be basar chulin. Which would make the deOraisa equally applicable
today.

Unlike Tosafos.

And in benching, if someone forgets Yaaleh veYavo, they say "Barukh
shenasan YT ... lesimchah". Same formula for regalim as for RH, perhaps
implying that we hold like the Rambam lehalakhah, and thus basar bizman
hazeh is deOraisa?

: Shaagat Aryeh (I think around siman 65, though I'm not sure about that) has
: an interesting discussion of exactly what the mitzvah of simchat Yom Tov is,
: specifically in the context of a refutation of the contention of Tosfot
: (Moed Katan 13b) that the mitzvah of simcha, post-Mikdash, is d'rabanan.  It
: is a long piece, and not entirely compelling for a few reasons, but one of
: his conclusions is that the mitzvah is essentially subjective, that whatever
: it is that makes you feel happy is what you should do on Yom Tov....

But even if we say like Tosafos, that the deOraisa is shelamim and
therefore simchas YT today is derabbanan (and excludes RH), they still
have a derabbanan to have meat on YT that doesn't exist on Shabbos.
How does the Shaagas Aryeih use that very Tosafos to say that the choice
of meat is simply presumed as one anyone would make -- but in reality
it's subjective?

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

RZS:
>>Rashi's intended five-year-old audience might well wonder what our
>>ancestors converted to in Egypt, so >>Rashi explains that
>>"ger" just means stranger.

I find this comment intriguing. Apparently RZS believes that Rashi wrote
his commentary on the Torah specifically for small children. I certainly
don't believe that this is the case, and wonder what led RZS to this
conclusion.
 Saul Masbaum
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avo
dah-aishdas.org/attachments/20080222/374ce00c/attachment-0001.html 

On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 11:40:20AM +0200, saul mashbaum wrote:
: I find this comment intriguing. Apparently RZS believes that Rashi
: wrote his commentary on the Torah specifically for small children. I
: certainly don't believe that this is the case, and wonder what led RZS
: to this conclusion.

RMMS wrote and said on multiple occasions that Rashi was written with the
notion that a 5 year old, as in "ben chameish lemiqra" could be aided
in understanding the parashah at his level. I don't think the LR meant
that it was specifically written for that 5 yr old as much as written
to intentionally include him.

RZS is likely to hold RMMS's opinion for the same reason he frequently
quotes SA haRav.

I have a harder time with the notion. The best I could come up with is
that Rashi didn't realize how much brighter he and his children were at
5 than the common person.

:-)BBii!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             A person lives with himself for seventy years,
micha@aishdas.org        and after it is all over, he still does not
http://www.aishdas.org   know himself.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                            - Rav Yisrael Salanter

Concerning the term ger - is it stranger or proselyte. The language of 
the sources are not always clear. It would seem though that proselyte 
makes more sense in most cases.

Rashi seems to fit both categories.

*Rashi[1] <#_ftn1>(Shemos 22:20): You shall not upset a ger (outsider) ? 
*This is referring to upsetting with speech by verbally attacking or 
ridiculing him. This is exressed in (Yishaya 29:26): 26. And I will feed 
those who oppress you with their own flesh; and they shall be drunken 
with their own blood, as with sweet wine?*Nor oppress him - * by 
stealing his money. *For you were outsiders in Egypt - * Therefore if 
you upset him by the way you talk to him he can also upset you and to 
say to you that you also come from gerim (outsiders). Thus the blemish 
you have you shouldn?t use to demean others. The term ger (outsider) 
always indicates a person who was not born in that land but rather came 
from another land to dwell there.

[1] <#_ftnref1>  *??"? (???? ??:?): ??? ?? ????* - ????? ?????, 
????????"? ???? [?????], ??? (????? ??:??) ??????? ?? ????? ?? ????: 
*??? ?????? *- ?????? ????: *?? ???? ?????* - ?? ??????, ?? ??? ???? 
??????? ????? ?? ?? ??? ????? ???, ??? ??? ?? ???? ?????. ?? ???? ??, 
??? ??? ???? ????? ?????, ??? ?? ?????? ???? ???? ??

Ramban also seems to understand Rashi as talking about strangers - 
though you could reasonably argue the other way.

*Ramban[1] <#_ftn1>(Shemos 22:20): Do not wrong the stranger or oppress 
him because you were strangers in the land of Egypt. *There is no reason 
why all strangers [in other lands] should be protected by this command 
just because we were once strangers in Egypt. It is also not 
justification for having to provide strangers in all generations with 
assurance that they won?t be wronged or oppressed because of this 
historical fact. Rashi asserts that this reason that ?you were strangers 
in Egypt? is the explanation of why we should not oppress strangers. It 
is a warning against verbally annoying strangers. Rashi understands the 
verse to mean that if you oppress the stranger [by pointing out that he 
is a stranger] - he can also oppress you and say that you also are 
descended from strangers. This is accord with the statement of our Sages 
(44b): Don?t taunt another with a blemish that you yourself have. Ibn 
Ezra explained the verse to mean ?Remember that you were once strangers 
as he is now.? Nevertheless these explanations are not sufficient reason 
for the law. It seems to me that the correct explanation of this verse 
is that G?d is saying, ?Don?t wrong a stranger or oppress him and think 
that no one will save him from your hand. Because you know very well 
that when you were strangers in Egypt and I saw how the Egyptians 
oppressed you - I avenged you. That is because I see the tears of those 
who are  oppressed - who have no one to comfort them and the power is on 
the side of their oppressor (Koheles 4:1). I save all men from the hand 
of those who are stronger than they are. Similarly you should not 
oppress the widow and the orphan because I hear their cry. All those who 
can not provide their own security can rely on Me.? In another verse 
(Shemos 23:9) G?d adds another reason, ?Because you know the soul of the 
stranger because you were strangers in Egypt.? In other words you know 
very well that every stranger feels depressed and he sighs and cries and 
his eyes are always directed towards G?d and G?d is merciful with him 
just as He was merciful with you. This is written in Shemos (2:23): The 
children of Israel sighed because of their servitude and they cried out 
and their cries went up to G?d because of their servitude.? In other 
words they were not answered by G?d because of their merit but because 
He had mercy on them because of their servitude.


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


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


The view of the Ohr HaChaim is clearly that ger is referring to proselyte

*Ohr HaChaim[1] <#_ftn1>(Shemos 22:20): Do not wrong a ger because you 
were gerim in Egypt. *Rashi explains because the ger can retaliate and 
upset you because you were gerim in Egypt. The Ibn Ezra says that you 
should remember that they are like you used to be. Ramban rejects both 
of these interpretations and says simply that you should know that G?d 
hears the cries of the poor and the oppressed just as He heard your 
cries in Egypt. The explanation of this verse, based on well known 
facts, is that the Jewish soul is rooted in holiness because they are 
descendants of Avraham, Yitzchok and Yaakov who are the heritage of G?d. 
Everyone else has an inferior lot. It is well known that people have no 
concern about the debasement and ridicule of others who are different 
from them from the aspect that the other is inferior in holiness. This 
is the cause of ridiculing others. That is why G?d commanded them not to 
wrong and oppress gerim. G?d is saying that the reason that He is 
commanding this is because you should not say that the ger has his 
source in evil or that since he is by nature connected to klipah that he 
is inferior to you. That is because you were gerim in Egypt. This is in 
accord to what I have explained in Bereishis (46:3), That I will make 
you into a great nation there. Also concerning (Shemos 20:2) Which I 
have brought you out of the land of Egypt, I explained that the souls of 
the Jews themselves were connected to klipah. Because of this the ger is 
one of you without any distinction. Since the ger is not spiritually 
inferior to you there is no basis for wronging or oppressing him.**


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


??"? ?"? ???? ?? ??? ???? ???????, ?? ???? ???', ??' ????? ???? ???? ?? 
????? ????? ????"? ??? ?' ?????? ????? ?? ???? ????? ???? ???? ???? ??? 
????? ???':

 ????? ???? ?? ?? ????? ??????, ?? ????? ??? ????? ?? ???? ??????, ??? 
????? ???? ?????, ??? ????? ?????, ??? ????? ?? ??? ??, ???? ?? ?????? 
?????? ??? ????? ??? ????????, ??? ???????? ????? ??? ??????? ??????, 
???? ???? ???? ??????, ??? ???? ??? ?????, ??? ????? ??? ??????, ??? 
???? ???? ???? ??? ?????, ???? ?? ???? ???? ????? ???? ???, ?? ???? ???? 
????? ?????? ?????? ??? ???? ?????, ?? ??? ???? ????? ??????, ????? ?? 
??? ?? ??????? (?????? ?? ?) ????? ?? ???? ???? ????? ??, ?????? ??? 
??????? ???? ????? ????? ???? (???? ?: ?) ?????? ????? ???? ??? ?????? 
??????, ??? ?? ???? ?? ?? ???? ??? ???? ????, ???? ?? ????? ??? ??????:

The gemora Rashi cites is clearly talking about proselytes

*Bava Metzia[1] <#_ftn1>(59b): *It has been taught: R? Eleazar HaGadol 
said: Why did the Torah warn in 36 places ? while others say in 46 
places ? against wronging a convert? It is because he has a strong 
inclination to evil [Rashi Horios 13a]. What is the meaning of the verse 
(Shemos 22:20): ?You shall not upset a ger (outsider), nor oppress him; 
for you were gerim (outsiders) in Egypt?" It has been taught: R? Nosson 
said that one should not ridicule another with the blemish you yourself 
have. This idea is expressed in the folk expression ?If someone had a 
family member who was hanged one should not say to him, ?Hang up this 
fish for me.??


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


?????? ???? ?????? ???? ??????, ????? ?? ??????? ???? ?????? ??? - ???? 
????? ??. ??? ????? [???? ??:?] ??? ?? ???? ??? ?????? ?? ???? ????? 
???? ?????? [????] ??? ??? ????: ??? ??? ?? ???? ?????, ?????? ????? 
?????: ????? ??? ????? ???????? ?? ???? ??? ?????? ???? ??????.

*Sifsei Chachomim seems to be referring to stranger not proselyte
*

*Sifsei Chachomim[1] <#_ftn1>(Shemos 22:20): *The reason given in the 
verse ?because you were gerim? only applies to not verbally abusing 
gerim but not for the prohibition of stealing their money. It says 
?because you were gerim? to explain that all Jews were in fact gerim ? 
even Avraham, Yitzchok and Yaakov because the term ger means coming from 
some place else and being an outsider.


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


???? ???? ???? ?????? ????? ??? ???? ???? ?????? ?? ?????? ???? ????? 
????: ?) ?? ???? ??? ????? ???? ??? ?? ????? ???? ????? ??? ???? ?? ???':

 "Rashi's intended five-year-old audience might well wonder what our ancestors converted to in Egypt,"

There are many sources that conversion took place prior to Sinai.


*Sukka[1] <#_ftn1>(49b /Chagiga 3a): *Tehilim (47:10): The princes of 
the people are gathered together, the people of the G?d of Avraham. Why 
does it say the G?d of Avraham but not the G?d of Yitzchok and Yaakov? 
It means the G?d of Avraham who was the first of gerim.


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


??? ????? ?????? ?? ???? - ?? ??? ???????? ?? ????? ???? ?????? ????, ?? 
???? ??? ?? ????? ?????, ????? ????, ????? (????? ??:?) ????? ???? ????? 
?? ???? ?????. ???? ????? ??? ???? ???? ?????? ???: ???? ????? ???? 
????? ?????.

*Sotah[1] <#_ftn1>(10a):[[ *R. Samuel b. Nahmani said: [It is called 
gate of eyes] because she gave eyes to her words.35 When [Judah] 
solicited her, he asked her, ?Art thou perhaps a Gentile?? She replied: 
?I am a proselyte?. ?Art thou perhaps a married woman?? She replied: ?I 
am unmarried?. ?Perhaps thy father has accepted on thy behalf 
betrothals??36 She replied: ?I am an orphan?. ?Perhaps thou art 
unclean?? She replied: ?I am clean?.


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


??????, ??? ??: ??? ????? ??? ???? ???: ????? ???; ??? ??? ??? ??? ???? 
???: ????? ???; ??? ???? ?? ???? ???????? ???? ???: ????? ???; ??? ???? 
??? ???? ???: ????? ???.

*Tzitz Eliezer[1] <#_ftn1>(20:44 7): *The Turei Even (Chagiga 3a) writes 
about Avraham being the beginnig of gerim and deals with many gemoras 
which seem to be contradictory concerning whether the Jews left the 
status of Bnei Noach prior to Sinai. He cites Yoma (28b), Yevamos 
(100b), Kiddushin (18a) and Chullin (100b) as well as others. He also 
discusses Amram marrying his aunt and Avraham saying that Sarah was his 
sister (which is true if he had the statuts of Ben Noach). He writes 
that the Patriarchs had a partial status of being a Jew - even though it 
was not complete ? but they definitely left the status of Bnei Noach in 
the days of Avraham. Thus it makes sense why Chagiga (3a) describes him 
as the beginning of gerim. That means that he was the first one who left 
the status of Ben Noach  and entered into a state of holiness. This fits 
in with Yevamos (100b) which explains Bereishis (17:7): ? And I will 
establish My covenant between Me and you and your seed after you in 
their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a G?d to you, and 
to your seed after you? to mean that they should  not marry a non?Jewish 
woman so that his descendants shouldn?t be influenced to follow in her ways.


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


?????? ????? ??? (????? ?.) ?"? ???? ????? ?????, ????? ?????? ?? ??? 
????? ??"? ?????? ??????? ??"? ?? ???? ???? ?? ?? ?? ??? ????, ????? 
????? (??) ?????? (?) ??????? (??) ??"? ?????? (?) ????, ??? ??? ????? 
??? ?????, ?????? ??? ????? ?? ??? ??? ???? ?? ??, ????? ????, ?????? 
??? ??? ????? ?????, ???"? ????? ????? ?? ??? ?"? ???? ?? ?? ???? ???? 
?????, ??"? ?? ?????? ???' ?????? ?? ???? ????? ?????, ?????? ???? ????? 
???? ????? ?? ?? ??? ???? ?????, ???? ????' ?????? (?) ????? ??? ????? 
??? ????? ????? ?? ?????? ?????? ????? ??"? ??? ?? ????? ????? ????? ??? 
???? ???? ???? ???"?.

*Griz Halevi[1] <#_ftn1>**(Bereishis 16:5):  *The world asks a question 
? how could Avraham keep Shabbos before the mitzva was given at Sinai 
since he had the status of a non?Jew and Sanhedrin(58b) states that a 
non?Jew who observes Shabbos is liable to the death penalty? We can 
answer by noting that the Rambam(Hilchos Melachim 10:9) wrote that a 
non?Jew who keeps Shabbos ? even on a weekday ? if  he treats it as 
Shabbos he is liable to the death penalty. The general principle is that 
we do not allow him to create a new religion and to make up new mitzvos 
but he should stick to his laws and not add or subtract. We see from 
this Rambam that the reason for the prohibition of a non?Jew keeping 
Shabbos is that it is creating a new religious mitzva by himself. 
Furthermore let us investigate whether the Patriarchs had the status of 
being Jews? It is clear from a number of sources that they in fact were 
Jews. For example Kiddushin (17b) states that Esav had the status of an 
non?observant Jew (mumar). Similarly Moshe killed the Egyptian because a 
non?Jew who strikes a Jew is liable to death. We also find in a number 
of places that there was geirus (conversion) prior to Sinai and these 
converts were considered Jews. (Sotah 10a; Sotah 12. Avoda Zara 36 and 
Yevamos 100). Clearly from these sources we see that the descendants of 
Avraham were considered Jews.[[


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


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

On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 12:12:15PM +0200, Daniel Eidensohn wrote:
: There are many sources that conversion took place prior to Sinai.

But is joining beris Avraham meaningful precedent for someone who is
also joining beris Sinai?

:-)BBii!
-Micha

Micha Berger wrote:

> And in benching, if someone forgets Yaaleh veYavo, they say "Barukh
> shenasan YT ... lesimchah". Same formula for regalim as for RH

Not in any siddur or bencher I've seen.

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

R' Michael Makovi wrote:
> I'm not sure, but I suspect that perhaps it is a Hebrew
> idiom to name a noun anticipatorily for its verb. For
> example, ... the person who is going to fall is called
> the faller. Perhaps similarly, we call a gentile who is
> going to convert, the convert who converts?

I don't recall ever hearing the term "anticipatory noun" before, but I like it. It's a good description of what's going on.

But, in my opinion, it is NOT an exclusively Hebrew idiom. We find the
exact same thing in English. For example, we recently had a discussion of
how the Torah can refer to a criminal who has been convicted of a capital
crime as a "dead" man. That conversation totally befuddled me, for we say
the same thing in English. For several examples, see the Wikipedia article
"Dead Man Walking" at http://en.wikiped
ia.org/wiki/Dead_man_walking#Name

How curious it is that this same issue of Avodah Digest contained the
phrases "ger shenisgayer" and "tinok shenolad", which (it seems to me) are
more examples of the same idiom.

We (in the NYC area) are currently in the middle of a snowstorm, and on the
radio this morning, the traffic report described a particularly dangerous
intersection as "an accident waiting to happen". Quite the same idea, I
think, as the anticipatory noun: Things are described in terms of what we
expect them to become, even if that destiny has not yet been reached.

It is not uncommon for Yiddish-speaking parents to affectionately call
their kids "mammeleh" ("mommy") and "tatteleh" ("daddy"), which they
certainly are not yet, but which we pray they will become someday.

The only question which remains, it seem to me, is whether this idiom exists in other languages as well. Any polyglots on list?

Akiva Miller

PS: I'm not even sure if the word "idiom" is accurate in this context, given the abundant examples. Perhaps "usage" is better?
_____________________________________________________________
SFO from $39! Fly Virgin America
Fly from San Francisco to your other favorite city. Fares from $39!
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2121/fc
/JKFkuJi7KAn0cL6k7KcPoACZ7iVMHkySfdjOVRfHwWxzMhfDgtcPpw/

I wish to thank Cantor Wolberg for the idea of my shabbat drasha for some
visiting Israeli students.

Moshe is considered the most anav person precisely because he talks
face to face with G-d and has the chutzpa to argue and even threaten G-d.
Only a person who has reached that level of closeness to G-d can become
a true anav. Us more normal people have less to be humble about.

The same holds true in our parsha. The sin of the golden calf occurs precisely
because it is right after har sinai. Only after seeing the glory of
G-d do the Jews
lose hope because they think Moshe has died. During the giving of the 10
commandments the people demand that Moshe act as an intermediary. They
are not prepared to face G-d directly. Not that they think that Moshe has died
they need a new intermediary and so go to the golden calf.  They cannot survive
without some intermediary which is the essence of Avodah Zarah.

In response G-d gives them the mishkan and korbanot to act as a physical way
of connecting to G-d for those that cannot reach him by themselves on
a spiritual
level

Many have noticed that in our generation this process has continued. The
chassidization of religious Jews is an attempt to have the rebbe or gadol HaDor
act as an intermediary between us and G-d. We talk to a human and they
communicate
with the Almighty. We cannot do it ourselves.

RYBS has stressed that tefillah is essentially self-contradictory. On
one level we
are afar ve-efer and have no right to approach G-d with our requests. OTOH he
is our father and we can approach G-d. His answer is that therefore we stress
pesukim from Tehiilim. King David gives us the right, matir, to approach G-d.

It has been noted that famous artists are on the fringe of insanity.
The same abilities
that lead to create can destroy. Moshe can become a great anav because he can
argue with Hashem. The Jews can sink to a golden calf only because they have
risen to the highest levels of seeing the glory of G-d.

shabbat shalom
-- 
Eli Turkel

R' Micha Berger wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 12:12:15PM +0200, Daniel Eidensohn wrote:
> : There are many sources that conversion took place prior to Sinai.
>
> But is joining beris Avraham meaningful precedent for someone who is
> also joining beris Sinai?
>   

*Ramban[1] <#_ftn1>**(Vayikra 24:10:): ? *I don?t agree with the French 
commentators. Once Avraham was circumcised and made a covenant with G?d 
he was considered a Jew and was not considered belonging to the nations. 
We see this concerning Esav (Kiddushin 18a) that he had the status of a 
Jewish sinner?.


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


????? ????? ??? ????? ?????? ?? ??????, ???? ???? ???? (??????? ??.) 
?????? ????? ???? ????.

*Rav Tzadok[1] <#_ftn1>(Parshos Shemos): *There is a well known dispute 
amongst the rishonim as to whether the Patriarchs were still considered 
Bnei Noach and ?all are the words of the living G?d? (eilu v?eilu). In 
fact they had left the status of Bnei Noach as we see in Chagiga (3a) 
that Avraham was called ?the beginning of gerim.? However they were not 
complete Jews until the Giving of the Torah which was a type of marriage 
(kiddushin) as is stated in Sanhedrin (59a) regarding Devarim (33:4) 
that Torah is considered a betrothal. Avraham had been promised this 
with an oath which is a form of engagement and betrothal through an 
oath. Nevertheless it was possible to break the commitment prior to 
marriage which is the completion of the betrothal. Concerning this 
Shemos (23:9),?You know the soul of the ger because you were gerim in 
Egypt.? They were in fact gerim in Egypt because they were just called 
Israel.  And this that it says in Bereishis (15:13), ?And your 
descendants will be gerim (strangers)? Because they were slaves to the 
Egyptians they were not yet called ?servants of G?d? and ?children of 
G?d?. Because of the slavery they merited being redeemed afterwards and 
also to receive the Torah. That is because their affliction was not like 
the affliction of other peoples which is to cause them to be destroyed. 
In regards to Israel it was like that of the punishment that a father 
gives his son which is out of love and kindness for the son?s own good 
so that he can receive a greater good. Therefore the son has to be 
reprimanded and punished and through this is capable to receive much 
benefit afterwards.


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


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

*Koheles Rabbah[1] <#_ftn1>(8:13): *R? Yitzchok said, This is not 
nonsense but what is nonsense is that  they did not become  Jewish 
through their own  initiative. R? Bun said that the  tzadikim went to 
them and as a result they converted. For example Yosef went  to Asnas, 
Yohoshua went to Rachav, Boaz went to Ruth, and  Moshe went to to Chovav 
(Yisro). R? Acha said this is not nonsense but what is nonsense is that 
people do not come and sanctify themselves under the wings of the 
Shechina (convert).


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


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

_/*You of course have the eiruv rav who converted in Egypt*/_

*Rashi[1] <#_ftn1>(Shemos 32:7): Your people has become corrupt ? *The 
verse doesn?t say that the people have become corrupt but ?your people.? 
G?d said, ?The eiruv rav that you had  accepted on your own initiative 
and converted without first having consulted with Me which you had said 
that it was good that gerim should attach themselves to the Shechina. In 
fact the eiruv rav have become corrupt and they corrupt others.?


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


???, ??? ?? ????? ????? ??????? ??? ????? ??, ????? ??? ?????? ???? 
??????, ?? ???? ???????:




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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 25, Issue 79
**************************************

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..."