Avodah Mailing List

Volume 25: Number 168

Tue, 06 May 2008

• 1. Expert Advice vs. Good Judgment - From a recent business article (Hameivin Yavin) (Rich, Joel)
• 2. Re: Ta'am of eating matzah (Simon Montagu)
• 3. Dayan haEmes (Micha Berger)
• 4. Re: Passover and Circumcision in the Desert (Micha Berger)
• 5. Re: Lying to protect the simple of faith (Micha Berger)
• 6. Re: Inconsistencies in following tannaim (Micha Berger)
• 7. Re: Lying to protect the simple of faith (Zev Sero)
• 8. Re: Lying to protect the simple of faith (Micha Berger)
• 9. Re: Ta'am of eating matzah (Michael Makovi)
• 10. Re: Miracles Never Cease to Amaze Me (Michael Makovi)
• 11. Re: Birchas HaChama (Micha Berger)

        KT
        Joel Rich
> Expert Advice vs. Good Judgment
> 
> However, all counsel is not created equal.  Some business advice -
> legal, accounting, technical - reflects explicit expertise.  The
> advice's value is a direct function of its application to solve
> specific problems.  In artificial-intelligence research over the last
> thirty years, the primary technology to address that kind of advice
> was called "expert systems" - the software codification of the rules
> of human expertise.  Expert systems have been one of the quiet success
> stories of artificial intelligence, and many of their mathematical
> ingredients can be found embedded in recommendation engines.
> By contrast, important business advice often revolves around issues of
> "good judgment":  There is no inherently right answer, but there are
> almost always questions and approaches that might facilitate desirable
> outcomes.  As a result, experts and advisers have different goals and
> different roles.
> An expert's job is to be right - to solve the client's problems
> through the application of technical and professional skill," writes
> professional-services guru David Maister.  "The advisor behaves
> differently.  Rather than being in the right, the advisor's job is to
> be helpful, providing guidance, input, and counseling to the client's
> own thought and decision-making processes.  The client retains control
> and responsibility at all times; the advisor's role is subordinate to
> this, not that of a prime mover."
> 
> 
> 
> 
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.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20080505/859160fa/attachment-0001.htm>

On Mon, May 5, 2008 at 8:15 PM, Michael Makovi <mikewinddale@gmail.com>
wrote:
>
>
> Midrash Tanchuma says that it is like a father who wound a clock
> everyday, and then gave it to his son to wind. G-d kept the calendar,
> and then gave it to us to wind.
>


Had wind-up clocks had been invented at the time of Midrash Tanchuma? Or is
this a paraphrase?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20080505/e28551ac/attachment-0001.htm>

I asked Mesorah for some support in a debate I'm having on scjm. The
other respondents replied so numerously that my confidence was shaken.
An off-list discussion that /that/ spawned turned into something that
belongs more here.

The gemara (Pesachim 50a) says the berakhah is "Dayan haEmes", which I
took to be a semichut, since there is a hei hayedi'ah on only one word.
If "emes" were an adjective, it would be "haDayan ha'Emes", figuring
that "amiti" is a newer construction than the berakhah. (Or perhaps the
commonly said "Dayan Emes", but that might have the heretical implication
ch"v that Hashem is "a", not the only, true judge.)

Semantically, one is accepting the tragedy as an expression of His Justice
(which is true), the other is an acknowledgment that Hashem is the One
Who judges which truths to reveal, and which to keep hidden from us. I
therefore prefer "Dayan ha'Emes", which acknowledges the reality that I
am not capable of coming to terms with the death, even if I intellectually
know in theory that He has good reasons.

I was going to post to scjm a nice thought from R' Hutner related to it,
but I found that Kollel Iyun haDaf already did a better summary. So, below
is a quote from <http://www.dafyomi.co.il/rhashanah/insites/rh-dt-032.htm>
on Rosh haShanah 32b.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 15th day, which is
micha@aishdas.org        2 weeks and 1 day in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Chesed sheb'Tifferes: What is the Chesed in
Fax: (270) 514-1507                            harmony?


          THE ACCEPTANCE OF HASHEM'S KINGSHIP ON ROSH HASHANAH

QUESTION: The Gemara discusses a dispute whether the verse, "Shema Yisrael
Hashem Elokeinu Hashem Echad," is considered a verse of Malchiyos such
that it counts as one of the ten verses which must be recited in the
Musaf Shemoneh Esreh of Rosh Hashanah.

RAV YITZCHAK HUTNER zt'l (in PACHAD YITZCHAK, Rosh Hashanah, Ma'amar 11)
asks that the Gemara earlier (32a) says that "Ani Hashem Elokeichem"
is the source for reciting verses of Malchiyos. Why, then, is there any
argument whether the verse of Shema Yisrael counts as an expression of
Malchiyos? The words "Hashem Elokeinu" in the verse of Shema Yisrael
should be the ideal expression of Malchiyos, because the verse of "Ani
Hashem Elokeichem" is the undisputed source for Malchiyos!

Conversely, when one recites Keri'as Shema he must recite the verse in
its entirety, including the words "Hashem Echad," in order to properly
fulfill the Mitzvah to accept Hashem's Kingship upon oneself. If he omits
the words "Hashem Echad," he has not properly expressed his acceptance of
Hashem's Kingship; the words "Hashem Elokeinu" are not sufficient. Why,
then, is "Ani Hashem Elokeichem" a valid source for reciting Malchiyos
if those words do not fully express Hashem's Kingship?

Another difference exists between the acceptance of Malchus Shamayim of
Keri'as Shema and the acceptance of Malchus Shamayim in the blessing
of Malchiyos on Rosh Hashanah. In Keri'as Shema, one accepts upon
himself the Kingship of Hashem with an emphasis on the love of Hashem
"*v'Ahavta* Es Hashem." On Rosh Hashanah, in contrast, one accepts upon
himself the Kingship of Hashem with an emphasis on the fear of Hashem
(as Rosh Hashanah is the first day of the "Yamim Nora'im," the Days of
Awe). What is the basis for this difference?

ANSWER: RAV HUTNER zt'l cites the words of Rashi on the verse of Shema
Yisrael. Rashi explains that the verse means, "Listen, O Israel: Hashem,
Who is our G-d now in this world, will be One G-d [accepted by all
people] in the World to Come." This principle is expressed in the Gemara
in Pesachim (50a) which says that in this world Hashem is not recognized
by all as One. The Gemara adds that in this world man does not recognize
the singular goodness behind all that happens. Consequently, in this
world a person recites one blessing for bad tidings ("Dayan ha'Emes")
and a different blessing for good tidings ("ha'Tov veha'Metiv"). Times
of suffering appear to be times of strict judgment and punishment,
while times of prosperity appear to be times of mercy and goodness. Olam
ha'Ba will be different; there, one will recite one blessing, "ha'Tov
veha'Metiv," on all that happens, because "on that day Hashem will
be One and His Name will be One" (Zecharyah 14:9). (See Insights to
Pesachim 50:1.)

Rav Hutner explains that man's mission on Rosh Hashanah is to accept
Hashem as King in this world according to the limits of his perception
in this world. A person in this world cannot fathom the concept of
Hashem's Kingship the way it will be revealed in the World to Come
when "Hashem will be One and His Name will be One." In this world,
we do not see Hashem as Echad, but rather as both "Dayan ha'Emes" and
"ha'Tov veha'Metiv." Therefore, when we accept upon ourselves Hashem's
sovereignty on Rosh Hashanah, we must do so with the expression of "Ani
Hashem Elokeichem" -- without the additional "Hashem Echad" -- "Hashem
is One." This verse expresses the way we perceive Hashem as King in this
world. The acceptance of Hashem as King the way He will be perceived
in the future is not part of our present experience, and thus such an
acceptance cannot comprise a full-hearted acceptance of Malchus Shamayim.

In contrast, in our acceptance of Hashem's sovereignty in Keri'as
Shema, we proclaim our belief in the way Hashem will be recognized in
the future when His true Oneness will be revealed to and perceived by
all. Accordingly, one does not fulfill his obligation properly if he
recites Shema Yisrael without the words "Hashem Echad," for he omits the
essential component of the future acceptance of Hashem's sovereignty,
that Hashem will be recognized as One. On Rosh Hashanah, however, these
words are not an ideal expression of the this-worldly Kingship of Hashem
which we proclaim in Malchiyos. (Even though the verse "Shema Yisrael"
also contains the words "Hashem Elokeinu," that phrase is not the main
point of the verse and thus "Shema Yisrael" does not count as a verse
of Malchiyos. Alternatively, the phrase "Hashem Elokeinu" in the verse
is not an expression of our acceptance of Hashem as King, but it is a
statement of fact: "Hashem, Who right now is our G-d...." In order to
be considered a verse of Malchiyos, the verse must contain an acceptance
of Hashem as King and not merely be a statement of the fact that Hashem
is our G-d. See PACHAD YITZCHAK, ibid. #22.)

This also explains the emphasis in Keri'as Shema on the love of Hashem
("v'Ahavta"). Keri'as Shema refers to the time in the future when we will
perceive Hashem as "ha'Tov veha'Metiv" and we will be drawn to Hashem
through our love for Him. In this world, in contrast, when we accept
Hashem as our King as we perceive Him now -- as the judge of mankind,
"Dayan ha'Emes," and as "ha'Tov veha'Metiv" -- we accept His Kingship
through an expression of awe and fear.

On Sun, May 04, 2008 at 12:08:08AM -0400, Michael Kopinsky wrote:
: The interesting thing here is that the two mitzvos aseh for which one can be
: chayev kares are the two things neglected for the 40 years in the desert.
: I'm not sure what the meaning behind this is.

Doesn't it mean that piquach nefesh is docheh?

Which might be a bit of a chidush here, when you think of it in terms of
olam hazeh vs olam haba. However, if it's dechuyah (and kol shekein if
it's hutrah), there is no qareis and thus one can still get both worlds.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 15th day, which is
micha@aishdas.org        2 weeks and 1 day in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Chesed sheb'Tifferes: What is the Chesed in
Fax: (270) 514-1507                            harmony?

On Mon, May 05, 2008 at 12:16:00AM -0400, Zev Sero wrote:
:> IOW, denying "Higher Criticism" doesn't mean denying "Lower Criticism"
:> or R' Meir's statement that we lost the true list of chaseiros and
:> yeseiros.

: Does the Rambam accept R Meir's statement lehalacha? ...

R' Meir's statement is one of historical fact, not halakhah.

The halachic question is: Given that we can't know for sure what existed
(or perhaps even if we could), which text is the one we must use?

As the CI writes, even if we found Ezra haSofeir's seifer Torah, we
would still be halachically bound to use the text the halachic process
mandates us to. Weave in the standard tanur shel achnai reference here.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 15th day, which is
micha@aishdas.org        2 weeks and 1 day in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Chesed sheb'Tifferes: What is the Chesed in
Fax: (270) 514-1507                            harmony?

[Folding together two threads on nearly the same topic. -micha]

On Sun, May 04, 2008 at 12:31:30AM -0400, Richard Wolpoe wrote:
: You have a mah nafsach at work here:
: Either you hold from closure of an era:
: OR
: you hold from hasima of th Talmud itself and nothing else

: This is the criticism I have about th Orthodox Halachic proceses not
: adhering to a consistent model.

WADR, this is where I came in.

You assert that if a halachic process is well defined, it must be
phrased in boolean terms.

The process does exist, but it involves weighing pros and cons.

Since that doesn't fit your all-or-nothing assumption, it will look
inconsistent to you -- "depending on where this factor relates to
others" is neither "all", nor "nothing".

At this point, I have no idea how else to make that point. I'm going to
have to throw in the towel.


On Mon, May 05, 2008 at 12:15:48AM -0400, R Zev Sero wrote (from
Singapore(?!):
: (The Rogachover did not learn Acharonim at all, but he did learn the
: AR, saying that he was a Rishon.)

I'm not sure how solid of a ra'ayah one can bring from the Rogachover.
While everyone quotes some of his more clever chiddushim, did you ever
see him used lemaaseh or leveraged by another teshuvah? I can't think
of a case.

Maybe he was too innovative to actually influence the flow of halakhah.


On Mon, May 05, 2008 at 10:44:57AM -0400, Rich, Joel wrote about a quote
I posted from my blog:
:>: Someone who changes the weights to find a desired result is no longer
:>: simplifying an Infinite Truth to fit it into this universe. Different
:>: shadows of the same object are each valid. But if you trace the shadow
:>: while changing the direction of the lighting mid-stream, you are left
:>: with a picture something that isn't a shadow of the original. The
:>: weighting can't simply be to justify the result...

: Conceptually (or as my wife likes to say - "In Joelworld") I would agree
: with you.  Practically the empirical data imho doesn't support the
: hypothesis as well as one would like (i.e the simplest explanation of
: many halachik phenomena is that the weighting system was affected by the
: desired ends - which of course is then explained as "halakhos of making
: halakhah" to those who wish to maintain the purity of the system.) In
: this explanation, where does the "halachik heart" fit in (halakhos of
: making halakhah?)

The phrasing of "desired result" is unfortunate. If someone is including
aggadic values among the list of pros and cons to weigh, then they will
have a sense of a result they're trying for. It's not what I was thinking
of when I said "desired", though.

One is having a perspective when analyzing halakhah, tying one's
shemiras hamitzvos to one's approach to AYH.

The other is replacing the whole process of weighing halachic pros and
cons in exchange for using the fuzziness to wiggle in whatever they
simply want to do.

The halakhos of making halakhah are what differentiate keeping the light
still and tracing the shadow vs. moving it around to be able to trace
the shape you want. (Be it a smaller shape than any of the real shadows,
or even a larger one.)

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 15th day, which is
micha@aishdas.org        2 weeks and 1 day in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Chesed sheb'Tifferes: What is the Chesed in
Fax: (270) 514-1507                            harmony?

Micha Berger wrote:
> On Mon, May 05, 2008 at 12:16:00AM -0400, Zev Sero wrote:
> :> IOW, denying "Higher Criticism" doesn't mean denying "Lower Criticism"
> :> or R' Meir's statement that we lost the true list of chaseiros and
> :> yeseiros.
> 
> : Does the Rambam accept R Meir's statement lehalacha? ...
> 
> R' Meir's statement is one of historical fact, not halakhah.

It's R Meir's opinion on the fact, and its halachic consequences.
Does the Rambam agree with him?  According to the Rambam, if we find
a mistake in chaterot viyterot do we take out a new sefer?   And even
if he agrees it was true in R Meir's time, does he agree that it's
still true today?


> The halachic question is: Given that we can't know for sure what existed
> (or perhaps even if we could), which text is the one we must use?
> 
> As the CI writes, even if we found Ezra haSofeir's seifer Torah, we
> would still be halachically bound to use the text the halachic process
> mandates us to. Weave in the standard tanur shel achnai reference here.

I very much doubt the Rambam would agree with that, though.
Tanur shel achnai is a pure halachic question; the facts are known,
and the only question is what to do about them.  But this is a
question of fact.  AIUI the Rambam would say known facts override any
mistatements that have been mistakenly transmitted over the generations,
and their halachic consequences.


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

On Mon, May 05, 2008 at 10:51:32PM -0400, Zev Sero wrote:
: >R' Meir's statement is one of historical fact, not halakhah.

: It's R Meir's opinion on the fact, and its halachic consequences.

Correction: R' Yosef. See Qiddushin 30a. Sorry.

Its halachic consequences is that we can't darshen cheseiros veyeseiros
-- to which the Rambam agrees. R' Yosef's context is entirely aggadic --
whether the vav in gachon is in the first half or the second half of
the Torah. (Which doesn't even close to work from a straight count,
requiring much non-literal circumlocution, anyway.)

: Does the Rambam agree with him?  According to the Rambam, if we find
: a mistake in chaterot viyterot do we take out a new sefer? ...

I think the Rambam would say R' Yosef would require the Torah to be
replaced. Having a requirement to have a specific text doesn't stand
on requiring that we know that text was the spelling given Moshe.
(Which is what I was trying to say about R [Yosef]'s statement being
one of historical fact, not halakhah.)

In Yechaveh Da'as 6:56, ROY cites R' Avraham ben haRambam, the Meiri,
the Radvaz, and too many others for me to retain without having taken
notes that the only other variants that would still make up a valid Torah
are those backed by an ancient mesorah. And thus ROY allows Sepharadi
use of Teimani sefarim.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 15th day, which is
micha@aishdas.org        2 weeks and 1 day in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Chesed sheb'Tifferes: What is the Chesed in
Fax: (270) 514-1507                            harmony?

> > Midrash Tanchuma says that it is like a father who wound a clock
> > everyday, and then gave it to his son to wind. G-d kept the calendar,
> > and then gave it to us to wind.
> > Mikha'el Makovi


> Had wind-up clocks had been invented at the time of Midrash Tanchuma? Or is
> this a paraphrase?
> R' Simon Montagu

Guilty as charged - paraphrase. I'll have to check my Sefer Ha-Aggadah
again for where that Tanchuma is, but the gist is the same, whatever
it says. G-d kept the calendar for a while, but handed the buck off to
us. (What on earth does that expression mean? I don't even know what
kind of "buck" we're speaking of...)

Mikha'el Mikha'el

> Aren't there
> plenty of tzaddikim who could encourage their people to repent?Also, aren't
> there plenty of
> non Jews, such as the Pope, who could encourage their people to repent. Why
> use a rasha?
> R' Cantor Wolberg

Perhaps reshaim won't listen to a tzadik's calls. But on the other
hand, when a rasha suddenly starts preaching Godliness, other reshaim
are more likely to listen.

Imagine what Rabbi Hertz would have given to be able to quote Hitler,
in the "gentiles praise Jews" section (I'm paraphrasing that section
title) in his A Book of Jewish Thoughts!

Mikha'el Makovi

On Tue, May 06, 2008 at 08:08:40AM -0400, R' Yaakov Feldman
yfel912928@aim.com wrote to Areivim:
: Someone told me that he heard that next year's Birchas HaChama will
: occur on Erev Pesach, which is such a rarity that it only happened twice
: before in all of history: at yetzias mitsraim and on Purim. He was also
: told that that?would bode well for a geulah sh'leima.

Birkhas haChamah is also always the year after shemittah (at least,
since the loss of Yovel, depending upon whether yovel is counted) which
makes birkhas hachamah fit the Gra's words (Safra diTznusa) about the
the extra chessed Hashem bestows after shemittah is good for ge'ulah.

The claim is written in Qadosh Elyon (jumping from the Gra to the
Ostrovster Rebbe), but unfortunately it doesnt work.

1- The QE writes that there was a Birkhas haChamah on erev Pesach 2447,
the year before yetzi'as Mitzrayim according to the Seder Olam. Ands that
the second time was the Pesach in which we all fasted on Esther's order,
prior to the ge'ulah. Using the seider olam, that was in 3403.

Birkhas haChamah will be in 5769, which tells me that it's in years that
leave of a remainder of 1 when divided by 28. (Modulo 28 arithmetic.)
2447 was in year 11 of the cycle, and 3403 in year 15. Even +/- a bit
because the question of whether Adam was created in year 0 or year 1
(or year 2, with the preceeding week being all that existed of year 1),
and you're still nowhere near birkhas hachamah. So, never mind happening
on erev Pesach, there was no birkhas hachamah those years at all!

2- The QE then says that 5769 would be the third time it would ever
happen, and shortly after, the ge'ulah must arrive.

But BhC fell out on EP far more than three times. Playing with hebcal a
bit, I find that it happened a couple of cycles ago in 5685 AM (1925 CE).

Maybe he means without dechuyos. This would require computing not only
the BhC's 28 yr cycle but a 532 yr cycle -- 28 * 19 for the 19 yr cycle
the months are on. Then we would compute the returns to erev Pesach that
are only caused by the lunar and solar cycles.

This might get the number down to 2, but we're still left with the
first problem.

Maybe rather than getting involved in lachashov es haqeitz, we should go
back to just lachashov velaavod lehavi es haqeitz. And then it certainly
could be in 5769 -- or before.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 16th day, which is
micha@aishdas.org        2 weeks and 2 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Gevurah sheb'Tifferes: What type of discipline
Fax: (270) 514-1507                             does harmony promote?


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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 25, Issue 168
***************************************

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..."