Avodah Mailing List

Volume 25: Number 80

Fri, 22 Feb 2008

• 1. Re: thought re tonight's RYReisman shiur (Michael Poppers)
• 2. Re: Kabbalah's Legitimacy (Arie Folger)
• 3. Re: Pre-Sinaitic conversions (Zev Sero)
• 4. Re: Pre-Sinaitic conversions (Zev Sero)
• 5. Girl Scout cookies (David Riceman)
• 6. Re: Sefer HaChinuch on why 2 weeks Nidah for a girl and only 1 for a boy (Micha Berger)
• 7. Re: Hot Cheese for Shabbat Lunch (Micha Berger)
• 8. Re: humility (Micha Berger)
• 9. Re: Pre-Sinaitic conversions (T613K@aol.com)
• 10. Re: Pre-Sinaitic conversions (Micha Berger)
• 11. Re: Simchah and Oneg (Jonathan Baker)
• 12. Re: Hot Cheese for Shabbat Lunch (Zev Sero)
• 13. basis of AZ (Eli Turkel)
• 14. Re: opposites attract (T613K@aol.com)

In Avodah Digest, Vol 25, Issue 78, R'Micha responded to me:
: Hearing RYR talk about "galus m'chaperes avon," I couldn't help
: thinking of one "'prav'ing galus" example he didn't mention: CHaBaD
: shlichim.
: May all hol'chei d'rachim merit to have their t'filos answered.
> Interesting choice of phrasing: The farmers and the kohein gadol would
not agree. <
WADR, that *was* the point -- a commentator on the sugya in question
(sorry, I forgot the name/book title that RYR mentioned) differentiated
between "ovrei d'rachim" (the phrase used for those whose t'filos the KG
prayed should not be accepted) and "hol'chei d'rachim" (those who are
holeich biDrachav while "on the road").  Thanks.

A guten Shabbes and all the best from
--Michael Poppers via RIM pager
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20080222/8d6451c5/attachment.htm 

RMM asked for reactions to his notion that:
> Rambam was (IMHO) wrong that the text (Shiur Koma) was inauthentic, viz. a
> viz. Chazalic authorship.

IMNSHO I believe that you are confusing two concepts: period of authorship and 
actual authorship. Shiur Qomah is indigenous Jewish literature, plausibly 
from the time of 'Hazal. That does not mean that it is part of the TSBP 
cannon. Where is SQ quoted in the Talmud? Sefer Yetzirah is, but I am unaware 
of SQ being quoted. Who among Hazal is supposed to have been the author of 
that work? These are important questions that  need answering before you show 
that Rambam was wrong on his stance on SQ.

Of course, I am sure there are other Jewish thinkers who felt comfortable with 
SQ and considered it a holy holy sefer. There likely still are Jews who 
believe so.

Last but not least, accepting the rejection of SQ does not mean that other 
Jewish texts, whose authorship may or may not be in dispute, are to be 
rejected. Likewise, the difficulty of reconciling a certain work with one's 
provate convinced philosophy is not sufficient ground for rejecting the work. 
Not every work is as difficult as SQ; Zohar, while often very difficult, does 
not approach the SQ by far in this regard. Some difficulties require us to 
wrap our brain around them, rather than reject the work. Or at least, we must 
try. We may calmly take Rambam's attitude towards SQ to be an exception 
rather than a rule.

Good Shabbos,
-- 
Arie Folger
http://www.ariefolger.googlepages.com

Daniel Eidensohn wrote:
>  "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.

That happened well before Egypt.  As the cited piece says, Yitzchak
and Yaacov were not gerim, let alone our ancestors in Egypt.  So the
ben-chamesh is still left wondering, which is why Rashi must tell him
the literal meaning of the word "ger", and therefore that the pasuk
is engaging in a bit of word play.

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

Daniel Eidensohn wrote:

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

This was after the mass conversion at Sinai, so it's not a proof.


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

My wife recently brought home a few boxes of Girl Scout cookies.  
They're labeled OU Dairy, but when you read the list of ingredients the 
only dairy ingredient (whey) is third on the list headed by "contains 
less than 2% of:".  Is one permitted to eat these cookies after eating 
meat?  If not, why not?

David Riceman

On Thu, February 14, 2008 4:33 pm, RDK wrote:
:> Some people think that if you say Chazal or Ramban or the Sefer
:> Hachinuch were wrong about some scientific fact, then you are being
:> disrespectful to: them.  I was raised with a completely different
:> understanding and a different attitude.  I would add that if they did
:> refer to the highest standards of scientific knowledge of their own
:> time, that is a siman that we, too, should follow their example and
:> apply the highest standards of scientific knowledge of our time. Who
:> was it who said, "Chachma bagoyim ta'amin"?  Not some modern maskil
:> or Reform rabbi.*

: *I believe "Chachma bagoyim ta'amin" *Is immediately followed by the
: contrasting phrase "*Torah bagoyim al ta'amin". *It implies that the
: norm is one of *conflict* and lack of equation. Secular wisdom does
: NOT easily translate into Torah wisdom.

Lack of equation. You haven't proven that they're in conflict, or that
the translation isn't easy. (Although if you believe this, then you
can't have a very broad view of daas Torah -- how would a rav's
knowledge of Torah translate into advice on secular matters?

: Incorporating an extraneous methodology for discovering truth outside
: the Torah is fraught with dangers and pitfalls....

I agree with this sentiment, but for totally different reasons. I plan
a post in reply to RMM on the difference between academic knowledge
and talmud Torah in which this issue will be central. Be"H I'll have
time soon to compose it.

Those thoughts will address this paragraph of yours as well.

:  The Moreh Nevuchim is a clear illustration of how the Rambam went
: through a pain-staking careful process in screening out non-Jewish
: ideas were compatible with true Torah hashkafa of Chazal and which
: must be rejected.

1- This is content, not methodology. The Moreh uses Greek
philosophical methodology.

2- The Rambam didn't necessarily succeed. There is a reason why
learning the Yad usually begins with Yesodei haTorah pereq 5, skipping
the philosophy and going straight to mitzvas qiddush Hashem. Even
acharonim as "into" chokhmah as the Gra and RSRH take issue with where
the Rambam went.

Which seems to say to me that the line between Torah and chokhmah is
blurry, and thus a matter for machloqes. NOT clear and oppositional.


As kan the thesis of this post. Now, a side issue that I figured out a
new way to present, but don't really want to chase:
: It cannot conceivably be used as a blank check to be open to
: everything that is considered well established by modern science.

I think the question is defining "well established by mesorah" when
it's not a halachic question. With shades of answers depending how far
out you place the Torah / chokhmah line. (As well as when is science
given in the gemara to be taken at face value, when is it post-hoc
explanation, when is it describing the pesaq of a situation they
thought existed but doesn't, nishtaneh hateva, etc...)

When Torah and science appear to contradict, the appearance must be
false. A person is perforce going to decide which they misunderstood.
Thus, the question of how well a non-halachic Torah claim can be
considered established and how much trust one places in scientific
theories (without personally knowing the body of evidence behind any
specific theory) translates into different decisions.

BTW, if your answer is constant regardless of the theory in question
and regardless of the distance from halakhah of the specific topic, I
would question your position. A scientific claim underlying a pesaq
shouldn't be treated identically than one found in parshanut. And even
within aggadita, parshanut and study of the ikkarim involve different
standards of mesorah vs willingness for personal creativity. But
assuming we're not talking about a blind blanket policy, some people
will value apples more, others might consider oranges more valuable --
we're comparing the certainty of two very different kinds of
justification. I can't prove that my instincts are any more right than
yours. (Within limits. I'm obviously assuming we aren't dealing with
someone who doesn't consider mesorah as a justification at all.)

But I will try my best to refrain from further revisiting this topic
yet again. It has a habit of consuming electronic fora whole and
spitting out the bones.

SheTir'u baTov!
-micha

-- 
Micha Berger             "Man wants to achieve greatness overnight,
micha@aishdas.org        and he wants to sleep well that night too."
http://www.aishdas.org     - Rav Yosef Yozel Horwitz, Alter of Novarodok
Fax: (270) 514-1507

On Fri, February 15, 2008 2:57 pm, R Zev Sero wrote:
: And yet Rebbi did not have hot food on Shabbos....

I am not sure this is true. All we see from the story of Antoninus and
Rebbe (the Bereishis Rabba 11:4 version) is that this particular dish
happened not to be served hot on Shabbos. The gemara's version
(Shabbos 119a) has R' Yehoshua ben Chanania and a different ending).

I highly recommend
<http://www.vbm-torah.org/archive/undhalak/06undh.htm> for R' Ezra
Bick's discussion of Shabbos's mitzvos of kavod and oneg and of hot
food on Shabbos.

I think this conversation went off on a tangent rather than discussing
whether cheese makes it a davar lach because people had instinctive
"kavod Shabbos" reactions to the concept of mac-n-cheese. I wonder if
you had called it pasta con formaggi if the conversation would have
gone more on the intended course.

But in any case, kavos Shabbos is a third element to bring into the
list. Unlike kavod vs oneg, it's an adjective on Shabbos, not the
shomeir.

SheTir'u baTov!
-micha

-- 
Micha Berger             "Man wants to achieve greatness overnight,
micha@aishdas.org        and he wants to sleep well that night too."
http://www.aishdas.org     - Rav Yosef Yozel Horwitz, Alter of Novarodok
Fax: (270) 514-1507

On Tue, February 19, 2008 7:38 am, R Michael Makovi wrote:
: The Biblical View of Man by Rabbi Leo Adler (Urim) says that the
: Tanach links anavah and yirat hashem so inextricably, almost as if
: they're synonyms, because the natural result of fearing Hashem and
: recognizing Who He is, is to recognize one's own pettiness and
: worthlessness.

Except that anavah isn't worthlessness. Anavah should motivate, not
raise questions of "What could /I/ accomplish?" Yir'ah too is a
motivator, not quaking in one's boots in fear of acting lest one
deserve punishment.

: (An aside: There are of course many examples of anavah, but an
: excellent one, and relatively little known I suspect, is Dr. Benjamin
: Carson: his autobiography Gifted Hands is a fantastic example of true
: anavah as expounded by Mesilat Yesharim - he recognizes his abilities
: are from G-d and that they are nothing but a responsibility, and if
: doesn't use them to save lives, he's simply abusing what was given
: him, and if he does save lives, then yes he is great, but only because
: G-d chose him to be so, and he can take no pride in them; and that he
: depends on his secretary and garbage man, etc., to do what he does,
: and they are as important as he is.)

This is anavah as the notion of realizing that one is a critical part
of Hashem's plan, and that everything he has and is capable of is
because Hashem gave him the tools to perform that part. Lekakh
notzarta. Im la'eis kazos higat lamalkhus. (As per blog entry
<http://tinyurl.com/2w83ha> referenced in my earlier post.) It's an
awareness of the gap between the potential HQBH gave me and what I've
accomplished with it so far.

Notice how your example doesn't match your definition "to recognize
one's own pettiness and worthlessness".

Yes, yir'ah shows the gap between He who made what could be, and I,
who made what I am. So the two are inextricably linked. But I would
not say that's true in the manner you described.

SheTir'u baTov!
-micha

-- 
Micha Berger             "Man wants to achieve greatness overnight,
micha@aishdas.org        and he wants to sleep well that night too."
http://www.aishdas.org     - Rav Yosef Yozel Horwitz, Alter of Novarodok
Fax: (270) 514-1507

 
 
From: Daniel Eidensohn _yadmoshe@012.net.il_ (mailto:yadmoshe@012.net.il) 

>>*Ramban[1] Once Avraham was circumcised and made a covenant  with G-d 
he was considered a Jew and was not considered belonging to the  nations....

*Rav Tzadok[1] (Parshos Shemos): *There is a well known  dispute 
amongst the rishonim as to whether the Patriarchs were still  considered 
Bnei Noach.... <<
 
 
>>>>>
This was the subject of the dispute between Yosef and his brothers,  
according to some meforshim.


 

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





**************Ideas to please picky eaters. Watch video on AOL Living.      
(http://living.aol.com/video/how-to-please-your-picky-eater/rach
el-campos-duffy/
2050827?NCID=aolcmp00300000002598)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avo
dah-aishdas.org/attachments/20080222/b7a2513c/attachment-0001.html 

On Fri, February 22, 2008 11:52 am, T613K@aol.com wrote:
: This was the subject of the dispute between Yosef and his brothers,
: according to some meforshim.

I had a very different understanding. There are a number of berisim
made in chumash between HQBH and a person's progeny:
- Adam
- Noach (unless an amendment of the first beris)
- Avraham
- Sinai
- Arvos Moav

Various features of what we now call "being a Jew" are in truth due to
membership in one of the latter three berisim. The question becomes
which features of Jewishness applied to someone who was in beris
Avraham but not beris Sinai? The dispute wasn't over when Jewishness
starts, but which beris was to replace the chalos sheim "ben Noach".
Did beris Avraham replace or add to beris Noach?

It is impossible that the shevatim were subject to beris Sinai or the
beris in Devarim as Hashem wasn't koreis yet (really: whose kerisah
didn't enter the timestream yet). Nor anyone who chose to join them.

Geirus today means acceptance of all three berisim (and any others
someone else might count). Conversion in their day could only have
been accepting one. Regardless of whether or not that means replacing
beris Noach, conversion before matan Torah can not be the same as
geirus afterward. I think this distinction about whether they were
subject to beris Noach has little to do with the original topic.

And don't we prove dinim of geirus from matan Torah?

RHSchachter has a slightly different take in Eretz haTzevi. According
to one of the Chokhmei Tzarfas, the mekallel was not Jewish. The
Ramban says he was. RHS makes the machloqes about whether nationhood
-- via the mother -- was established yet, or whether being in the
michpachah -- paternal, still defined Jewishness.

I actually see this as being a variant on the same theme. Beris
Avraham -- was it national, or something inherited as zera Avraham?

BTW, I think it's possible/likely that beris Sinai was also familial,
and it's not until Devarim that the concept of national qedushah (as
opposed to a nation of qedoshim) began. But then RMM and I have argued
this one recently.

SheTir'u baTov!
-micha

-- 
Micha Berger             "Man wants to achieve greatness overnight,
micha@aishdas.org        and he wants to sleep well that night too."
http://www.aishdas.org     - Rav Yosef Yozel Horwitz, Alter of Novarodok
Fax: (270) 514-1507

From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>
 
> 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?"

Because it is my father amu"sh, while OneG is an acceleration of
about 32.2 ft/s^2?

But seriously, folks...
 
> 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.
 
...

> 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?

Gotta agree with Zev here.  Just checked Baer's siddur, b/c quite medakdek
in texts, and it has "Baruch... asher natan yamim tovim leamo yisrael et
yom hazikaron hazeh:"  That's it.  No simcha, unlike other YTs.  The Siddur
of the baal hatanya adds a closing of BAY mekadesh yisrael veyom hazikaron.

--
        name: jon baker              web: http://www.panix.com/~jjbaker
     address: jjbaker@panix.com     blog: http://thanbook.blogspot.com
 

Micha Berger wrote:
> On Fri, February 15, 2008 2:57 pm, R Zev Sero wrote:
> : And yet Rebbi did not have hot food on Shabbos....
> 
> I am not sure this is true. All we see from the story of Antoninus and
> Rebbe (the Bereishis Rabba 11:4 version) is that this particular dish
> happened not to be served hot on Shabbos.

The basic assumption behind the story is that hot food is inherently
better than cold, and therefore Antoninus was surprised that Rebbi's
cold food that he served on Shabbos tasted better than the hot food
he served during the week.  If Rebbi usually did have hot food on
Shabbos, why did he serve Antoninus cold food, which one would expect
to be worse than hot?  And why was Antoninus not surprised and insulted
the first time?  Why was it only at the second meal, which he expected
to be better than the first because this time it would be hot, that he
felt surprised and perhaps insulted that it wasn't?

It seems to me that the explanation is that it was not the custom of
Jews at that time to have hot food on Shabbos, and Antoninus knew this,
and therefore when he tasted how good the Shabbos meal was he
concluded that Rebbi must have a very good cook, and if she could do
such a good job on Shabbos imagine what she could do during the week!
So when he got the weekday invitation he was looking forward to
something truly spectacular, and was disappointed that it wasn't as
good as the Shabbos meal.

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

I thought some more about Toby's remark:

>  >
>  > Any nation can sink to a golden calf, and many have.  You don't have to have
>  > first had an exalted relationship with G-d in order to worship idols.
>  >

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

I based myself on Rambam who views idol worship as a substitute for a G-d they
cannot see. In a recent trip to China I asked the local guides about Buddha.
They also insisted that the idols represented some higher power.

However, Toby is right based on other sources that at times idol worship is
not intellectual but is instead an excuse for licentiousness (derasha
on le-mispachtehem).
As she says the wicked can get there without going through G-d.

If one accepts the derasha that connects the Golden calf with the
feared death of Moshe
then the medrash is saying that in this particular case the AZ was
more intellectual
of losing the connection to G-d and needing to somehow replace. In this case it
was not based on immorality. However, that does not exclude that in mnay other
cases AZ is connected with immorality

In the famous medrsah about the elimination of the desire for AZ by
anshe knesset
ha-gedolah I assume they meant the intellectual appeal of AZ not the
immorality excuse
which continued. I heard that in fact this was connected with the loss
of prophecy.
Again the same idea once the plus of prophecy is eliminated there is
no need for the
minus of a special appeal of AZ

shabbat shalom


-- 
Eli Turkel

 
 
R' Eli Turkel wrote:
 
>>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.<<
 

>>>>>
You had a nice drasha until the last sentence.
 
Any nation can sink to a golden calf, and many have.  You don't have  to have 
first had an exalted relationship with G-d in order to worship  idols.




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





**************Ideas to please picky eaters. Watch video on AOL Living.      
(http://living.aol.com/video/how-to-please-your-picky-eater/rach
el-campos-duffy/
2050827?NCID=aolcmp00300000002598)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20080222/09dd6447/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 80
**************************************

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..."