Avodah Mailing List

Volume 25: Number 121

Wed, 02 Apr 2008

• 1. Re: Tiqun Olam (Michael Makovi)
• 2. Re: R' Angel & Geirus Redux (kennethgmil...@juno.com)
• 3. Re: Mutzkeh: Sticks, Stones, and Pets (Zev Sero)
• 4. WTG (Joseph C. Kaplan)
• 5. misquoted pesukim (kennethgmil...@juno.com)
• 6. What is a saris? (M Cohen)
• 7. Re: Skipping Korbanos (kennethgmil...@juno.com)
• 8. Re: RAYK and the end of chol (Micha Berger)
• 9. Re: R' Angel & Geirus Redux (Micha Berger)
• 10. Re: Skipping Korbanos (Micha Berger)
• 11. Haichah Kedusha (rebshr...@aol.com)
• 12. Re: What is a saris? (Simon Montagu)
• 13. Re: What is a saris? (Michael Makovi)
• 14. Re: misquoted pesukim (Rich, Joel)

>  > Aleynu uses tikkun olam
>  > Mikha'el Makovi

>  Aleynu does not say "tikun olam"; it says "letaken olam *bemalchut
>  ShDY*".  Those last two words are the ikkar, not the tafel, and those
>  who use the term "tikun olam" definitely do not mean them at all.
>  I have never heard a frum person use the term "tikun olam" or refer
>  to it at all as a Jewish value; AFAIK it is entirely a foreign
>  concept, and even the term is not used anywhere Jewish - the closest
>  we come is the takanot that were made "mipnei tikun ha'olam".

>  Zev Sero

B'vadia "b'malchut ShDY"!! I said that Rav Hirsch was writing a perush
to Aleynu, and therefore, whatever he said perforce applied to tikkun
olam whether or not he himself quoted the explict words "tikkun olam"
(or l'taken olam; oto davar).

Well, according to that same logic, Rav Hirsch accepted "b'malchut
ShDY" whether or not he quoted those actual words. So you cannot
accuse anyone of chopping those words off.

And he mentioned Noachide laws and G-d's sovereignty, so he definitely
mentioned G-d's malchut, albeit in German rather than Hebrew.

So all's that left, question wise, is whether "l'taken olam" = "tikkun
olam". I'd say, l'taken olam, hu la'asot tikkun olam. Oto davar.

Mikha'el Makovi

Regarding Tinok Shenishba, R' Daniel Eidensohn wrote:

> The next issue is once they are exposed to Jews or
> Judaism - do they retain their shogeg state or do they
> move closer to meizid - and how much. Or alternatively 
> following Rav Henkin - how much do we moderate the meizid
> status because of their ignorance once they see religious
> Jews?

I do not understand the focus on *seeing* a religious Jew. Why would seeing
a religious Jew put a person into the category of "he should've known
better than to violate halacha"? Is the concept of Tinok Shenishba some
sort of Gezeras Hakasuv (in which case I'll accept whatever parameters the
Torah givces for it), or is it some sort of Sevara (in which case I'd like
to understand its logic)?

> You seem to saying that until they are truly gedolei Torah
> they can not do any sins deliberately. Which probably means
> that maybe some of the members of this list might be
> capable of deliberately sinning - but surely not most. This
> might be consistent with a mussar approach - but I don't 
> think it fits in with the poskim.

But isn't the opposite extreme equally absurd?

If a person can be a meizid even though he falls short of being a Gadol
BaTorah, so too it should be possible be a Tinok Shenishba even though he
falls short of being a total ignoramus. IOW: If there are areas of Torah
that a person is not yet expert in, and he counts as a meizid despite that,
then it follows that there can be areas of Torah which a person *is*
slightly acquainted with, and he still counts as a Tinok Shenishba.

Where are the defining limits? I don't know. But do I *need* to know? Let Hashem decide these things.

But apparently, some think that it is important, from a Halacha L'maaseh
perspective, to know the difference between whether Ploni is a TsN, or
whether he is a meizid:

> Let me just present another teshuva from Rav Ovadiah
> Yosef -
> *Yabiya Omer(E. H. 8:12.2): *The Rambam(Hilchos Mamrim
> 3:1-3): writes: "Anyone who does not acknowledge the
> validity of the Oral Torah is considered a heretic and he
> is killed by man. Furthermore once it is well known that
> he is a denier of the Oral Torah he can be lowered in a 
> pit and not taken out. He is just like the other heretics
> who say that Torah was not from Heaven and the informants
> and the apostates - all of who are  no longer considered
> amongst the Jewish people. And it goes without saying that
> their punishment does not require the testimony of
> witnesses or warning or judges. In fact whover kills one
> of these  is performing a great mitzva andis removing an
> impediment for the Jewish people.* *What are the
> circumstances? It concerns a man who denies the Oral Torah
> in his thoughts and according to words that appeal to him.

Let me begin by admitting that I am nowhere near as accomplished in
learning as most of the posters here, and I also admit that Avodah is an
explicitly "HIGH-Level Torah Discussion Group" (emphasis mine), meaning
that it is permitted to discuss topics which are above the level of the
typical person.

Even so, in all my years of learning, I have never heard these concepts
other than in Avodah. And so they are very foreign to me, and I need to
learn more about them.

I had always thought that the only case where we can kill someone without
<<< testimony of witnesses or warning or judges >>> is in
the case of a moser (informant), and even there, it is not as an
extra-legal punishment, but purely as a defensive measure. I do not
understand what is going on here.

We do not seem to be talking about a person who is actively involved in
trying to get Jews to abandon Judaism, but merely a person who does not
believe in Toah Sheb'al Peh. Can someone PLEASE show me (a) from where we
know that being a passive apikores merits the death penalty, and (b) why
this death penalty can be administered without a trial in Beis Din?

Akiva Miller
_____________________________________________________________
Click to become a designer and quit your boring job.
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2121/fc
/REAK6aAWkmcqB99GAoZe0IkrH8S8RVqww9pN5CgPtImXtGp10kERxI/

kennethgmil...@juno.com wrote:

> That's why the checker piece is no longer muktzeh: Because although it
> *is* a stone, I no longer *relate* to it as a stone. But the stones my
> son brought back from Yerushlayim *are* stones, and I will always
> relate to them as stones, and so they remain muktzeh, no matter how
> much I might want to insist that they are "souvenirs".
> 
> So too for pets. Yes, one can easily argue that a pet is a sort of
> toy. But it never stops being an animal. Like my stones, it cannot get
> away from its identity - being a living animal is precisely what makes
> the pet such an enjoyable toy. In order for eitzim v'avanim to stop
> being muktzeh, one must give it a *new* identity, and that has not
> happened for a pet, which must remain muktzeh.

But *why* are stones and animals muktzeh?  Because they have no legitimate
use.  These stones and animals do have a use, if you call playing with them
a use (and if you don't then why aren't the checkers muktzeh too?).  So it
shouldn't be enough to say "they remain stones and animals".


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

RNS wrote:  "RYBS then and many today now still think of it as an
expression of 'women are just as good as men and can do anything a man can
do" brand of feminism.'"

Could you please give us a citation where RYBS said that "then."
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avo
dah-aishdas.org/attachments/20080402/6d4089b8/attachment-0001.html 

In the thread "Tiqun Olam", R' Zev Sero wrote:
> Aleynu does not say "tikun olam"; it says "letaken
> olam *bemalchut ShDY*".
> ...
> Similar objections to slogans formed by quoting half
> of a genuine source while leaving out the ikkar:

and he gave two more examples of that practice.

I'd just like to add another: "Not by bread alone does man live" --- which
is all too often quoted without the ending: "but by all that comes out of
Hashem's mouth does man live." (Devarim 8:3)

(By the way, even if the oft-deleted ending is included, it is *still* only half of a pasuk! Look it up!)

Akiva Miller
_____________________________________________________________
Click for free info on online degrees and make up to $150K/ year.
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2121/fc
/REAK6aAYOxiw0If9jS5EDaHzbujpgKyoc9f1HS9Erpvt9r0986e1BI/

SBA writes.. So then why did Achasverosh get upset at him saying  "Hagam
lichbosh es hamalka imi baboyis"?


there is a machlokes if 'lichbosh es hamalka' refers to attempted rape, or
just physically attacking her

I believe that the maharal says that it can't be attempted rape, as it is
not m'staber that haman would try
such an act now - ayin sham.

regards,
mordechai cohen

R' Moshe Y. Gluck wrote:
> I have never seen V'yiten Lecha said in a Nusach
> Ashkenaz Shul, whether or not Yeshivish.

My experience has been that if an Ashkenaz shul says piyutim on Yom Tov and
Arba Parshiyos, then it also says V'yiten L'cha on Motzaei Shabbos. But if
it does not say piyutim, then it does not say V'yiten.

Further: If the shul says V'yiten L'cha, then its Havdala begins with
Hagafen. But if it skips V'yiten, then it compensates by beginning Havdala
at Hinay E-l Yeshuasi.

Akiva Miller
_____________________________________________________________
Click for free information on accounting careers, $150 hour potential.
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2121/fc
/REAK6aAWkaVW77cWOLO4fEl8y5g1mjc4v8XFxwcV1QZ2wu6V0tYQGG/

On Tue, Apr 01, 2008 at 09:40:22AM +0300, Shoshana L. Boublil wrote:
:> I think that Yamit and Oslo posed such trouble for the DL community
:> specifically because it raised fundamental hashkafic issues. They defied
:> R' Kook's (admittedly more RZYK's) excpetations of the ge'ulah.
: 
: They didn't have the problem you project - that is R' Kook's paradigm is 
: where the community got it's strength, knowing that the road to Ge'ulah was 
: not one way towards Ge'ula, but rather like "dawn light coming through the 
: mountains, one moment you see it and another you don't" (to quote a 
: lecturer).

And yet RZYK's (indirect) talmidim were so convinced that the progression
would be monotonically toward the geulah that those of them living in
Gush Qatif couldn't believe it was theologically possible for them to
actually be evicted from their homes.

But to shift from anecdotal evidence of what was taught in the community
to a more authoritative source, see "Shir haMaalos miMamaqim", R' Yehudah
Amital, pg. 12. RYA deals with the Yom Kippur War and the theological
stance that there could be no losses.


...
: > I fail to see the gap implied by your "not at all" between my "accelerated
: > path to the ge'ulah" and your "a change has come". I think you're saying
: > that the change came and it's not a new "straighter" (to speak what little
: > I know of RAYK-speak) path to the ge'ulah? Isn't that what "reeishis
: > tzemichas ge'ulaseinu", declaring it "atchalta dege'ulasa", means?

: An "accelerated path" implies that things are getting faster and faster - 
: implying one direction...

That would be "accelerating", not accelerated. Neither word addresses
setbacks. But at least now I know what you were objecting to.
The metaphors of tzemitchah and ayelet hashachas do require embelishment
to support setbacks.

...
:>: Rav Kook's view of learning chol has nothing to do with Zionism. So, please
:>: don't mix the issues.

: I view Zionism as the political entity not the people who followed the 
: Zionistic view and came to Israel.

Here's the rashei peraqim of my view of RAYK's thought:

In the ideal, we would all realize that everything is Or Ein Sof, and
thus qodesh. However, olam hazeh can't support that. (This, to RAYK,
is the meaning of the rebellion of the aretz, in making an eitz oseh
peri rather than an eitz peri. The means, the tree, lack the "taste"
of the ends, the fruit.)

The geulah will come when this situation ends. When olam haba and olam
hazeh merge because we lose the illusion that there is such a thing as
chol, that the Or peers through from everything.

The process of geulah is slow, but that wall started evaporating
already. This is what motivated so many hearts to pursue Isms. They are
drawn to purpose, even though though it's not yet at the level where
they realize they are being drawn to the true purpose.

Someone who has problems with any part of humanity clearly is behind
the curve on seeing through the wall. Because if he could see the
Supernal Love, he would share it.

And thus, Zionism is part of that. The "secular" Zionist is acting out
of a draw to the ultimate purpose, even though they don't fullly see
the Or and only are aware of a short-cited, more politicized, version.

Thus, RAYK's RZ draws directly from his belief that there is no chol,
just as his belief that there are no true limudei chol does. It's all
one piece. (Tartei mashma -- both details that draw from one yesod in
RAYK's thought, and all of creation is Or, and thus of one piece.)

And in this model, there can be no setbacks, even illusory, of the
process of geulah. After all, the geulah is the *fall* of the grand
illusion called "chol".


(Or course, this isn't much more elaborate than summarizing RYBS with
the equation: Brisker tzvei dinim equals Kantian dialectic.)

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             The Maharal of Prague created a golem, and
mi...@aishdas.org        this was a great wonder. But it is much more
http://www.aishdas.org   wonderful to transform a corporeal person into a
Fax: (270) 514-1507      "mensch"!     -Rabbi Israel Salanter

On Fri, Mar 28, 2008 at 08:09:24AM +0300, Danny Schoemann wrote:
: Even if they have heard of the concept of not driving on Shabbos
: doesn't mean they assume that  Yidden are forbidden to do so; they
: assume it's a personal chumra of a select few. ...

"I'm C," or R, "I don't have to do that" is a commonly heard sentiment,
r"l.

Bottom line (to my mind) is that if TsN is an application of the idea
of oneis or shogeig, then whether a person who had exposure to O is
technically still a tinoq shenishba, if he carries around this kind
of misconception, how is he not still patur bevause of the grander
underlying principle?

As I wrote in response to RDE's sources, that there is no setirah
between saying patur in terms of carrying no guilt, and saying "nebich
an apiqoreis is also an apiqoreis". With the exception of ROY, I found
most of his sources to say both.

WRT the subject line, deciding whether someone is a candidate for geirus
is not an issue of guilt. It's an issue of whrther he actually does
accept what is mandatory to accept. He could fail to do so for utterly
innocent reasons, but still have not done the steps necessary for geirus.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             A sick person never rejects a healing procedure
mi...@aishdas.org        as "unbefitting." Why, then, do we care what
http://www.aishdas.org   other people think when dealing with spiritual
Fax: (270) 514-1507      matters?              - Rav Yisrael Salanter

On Tue, Apr 01, 2008 at 11:50:43PM +1100, SBA wrote:
:> If true Toraso Umenaso can bow out of Shema, a deOraisa, or at least
:> minimize Shema, why not -- by parallel -- allow a kollelnik to get back to
:> seder faster with a heicher qedushah?

: Do you know of anyone who in the past 2000 years bowed out of Shema?

No. But neither are they. They are bowing out of chazaras hasha"tz in
a world where it takes a R' Chaim Brisker to explain why it's necessary
despite the publication of the siddur. (Tzvei dinim: tefillah BEtzibur
and tefillas HAtzibbur.)

Much lower-level involvement in Torah versus a much sligher chiyuv
(takanah that outlived its purpose vs deOraisa). Same reasonining,
different plane.

: Secondly don't Chazal say "Zman Torah lechud uzman tefilla lechud"?

Doesn't Shelomo haMelekh say "lakol zeman va'eis"... At least for that
quote I don't know a machloqes.

Once you finish NhC cheileq 4, you learn that Talmud Torah keneged kulam,
and that tefillah (mitzvos in generally, really) exists only to add to
one's TT! Maaseh, in the physical plane, is lower than speech, and
speech is lower than machashavah. And thus everything exists to elevate
machashavah, IOW, to serve TT.

(Don't assume that because I summarize RCVilozhiner I am necessarily
saying I hold like this myself.)

: Thirdly, (maybe the Lakewooders can answer this),how many davveners of this
: mini version of Mincha immediately sit down to learn. And how many simply go
: home to eat, nap or do shopping?

Chassidus has a similar problem, a heter that got enshrined by idealists
that is living on longer than the idealism. How many chassidim who daven
after zeman spend that time behisbonenus preparing their kavanah?

You're right that it's suboptimal. But very normal.

:> I recall my father saying besheim RYBS that heicher qedushah is only an
:> option when there is so little time before sheqiah that the sha"tz couldn't
:> possibly repeat shemoneh esrei before nightfall.

: Not RYBS's chiddush at all.
: See KSA 69:6 and SA OC 124:2 the Rema and MB sk 6.
: BTW, see the Be'er Hetev sk 4 about a different minhak 'HaSfardiim".) 

Nu, so we both get to hasent the geulah; I still have to give the sheim
omro, particularly when compounded by kibud av.

-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             "'When Adar enters, we increase our joy'
mi...@aishdas.org         'Joy is nothing but Torah.'
http://www.aishdas.org    'And whoever does more, he is praiseworthy.'"
Fax: (270) 514-1507                     - Rav Dovid Lifshitz zt"l

Having studied for three years in the Rav's shiur (Rav Yoseph
Soloveitchik), I clearly remember that we always said a Haichah Kedusha
with the Rav after shiur for Minchah after which the vast majority of us
would go off to our secular classes to study.?? It did not matter what time
of year it was.? We would finish shiur anywhere between 2:00 p.m. and 3
p.m. (only on occassion going to 4:00 or 5:00) so most of the time we had
plenty of time?for a Chazarat Hashatz.?? Perhaps the Rav recognized that we
felt a time constraint in terms of our other non-Torah obligations and was
concerned for Tirchah De-Tziburah,?which may mean that one must?be
sensitive to the prayer community if lenghthening the Tefilah will feel
burdensome and proper Kavanah will be impacted.

Stu Grant
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20080402/eb76836c/attachment-0001.htm 

On Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 4:58 PM, M Cohen <mco...@touchlogic.com> wrote:
>
>
> there is a machlokes if 'lichbosh es hamalka' refers to attempted rape, or
> just physically attacking her
>
> I believe that the maharal says that it can't be attempted rape, as it is
> not m'staber that haman would try
> such an act now - ayin sham.
>
>
Huh? That would make sense if the narrative of the megilla used the phrase,
but since it's Ahashverosh who says it, while flipping out with rage, why
should what he says be mistaber? We don't even know that he believed it
himself. Where does the maharal say this?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-a
ishdas.org/attachments/20080402/ca4d493c/attachment.html 

>  there is a machlokes if 'lichbosh es hamalka' refers to attempted rape, or
>  just physically attacking her
>
>  I believe that the maharal says that it can't be attempted rape, as it is
>  not m'staber that haman would try
>  such an act now - ayin sham.
>
>  regards,
>  mordechai cohen

The Soncino Esther (likely based on someone), suggests that
Achashverosh was so angry that he couldn't think straight and he
misunderstood what Haman was doing (l'fi ze, Haman was actually simply
prostrating himself before her on her couch and imploring her mercy);
thus, you could answer Maharal that indeed it doesn't make sense, but
Achashverosh was too angry to realize that.

Alternatively, Soncino says that perhaps Achashverosh deliberately
misunderstood Haman's act as rape just to increase Haman's misery
(again, Haman was simply begging for her mercy).

Mikha'el Makovi

In the thread "Tiqun Olam", R' Zev Sero wrote:
> Aleynu does not say "tikun olam"; it says "letaken olam *bemalchut 
> ShDY*".
> ...
> Similar objections to slogans formed by quoting half of a genuine 
> source while leaving out the ikkar:

===========================

How about noseh avon vapesha vchata vnakeh  and leaving out lo yinakeh?
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.



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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 25, Issue 121
***************************************

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..."