Avodah Mailing List

Volume 25: Number 202

Thu, 29 May 2008

• 1. Re: A Reminder for All of Us (Micha Berger)
• 2. Re: Ta'am of eating matzah (Micha Berger)
• 3. Re: omer - Rihal (Micha Berger)
• 4. Re: Loving Israel while in Chutz (Micha Berger)
• 5. Re: prozbul & heter iska (Michael Makovi) (Micha Berger)
• 6. Re: Office Coffee machine (Micha Berger)
• 7. Re: ktanai (Rich, Joel)
• 8. Re: Standing for mitzvot (Elazar M. Teitz)
• 9. sign of strength (Saul.Z.Newman@kp.org)
• 10. Re: Ta'am of eating matzah (Michael Makovi)
• 11. Re: omer - Rihal (Michael Makovi)
• 12. Pesach Sheni (cantorwolberg@cox.net)

On Tue, May 20, 2008 at 09:58:26PM -0400, Richard Wolpoe wrote:
: Erich Fromm put it this way V'ahavt leric'acha kamocha pre-supposes
: self-love. [*The Art of Loving*].  Let's alter the term to self-respect or
: perhaps better self-acceptance. One who accepts oneself is unlikely to
: reject others [unless perhaps they are thoroughly evil]

<broken record>Or, see the introduction to Shaarei Yosher</broken record>
where RSS gives the idea real depthe and significance, making it key to
kol haTorah kulah.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 39th day, which is
micha@aishdas.org        5 weeks and 4 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Netzach sheb'Yesod: What is imposing about a
Fax: (270) 514-1507                          reliable person?

On Thu, May 22, 2008 at 01:49:04AM -0400, Richard Wolpoe wrote:
:> : You are taking issue with the idea that the Torah presumes knowledge
:> : of Egytian bread and pagan meat and milk...

:> I'm taking issue with the idea that we need such knowledge to get the
:> primary gain from the mitzvah.
...
: The poitn of the above is simple. That kema'aseh eretz mitzryaim at the end
: of Achaarie Mos MIGHT be NOW undserstood in light of this factoid as a
: META_MITAVAH like KEDOSHIM TIHYU

: You seem to think that a paradigm shift is somehow intrinsically evil...

Again, I feel a need to point out that we're discussing different topics
on this one. You are speaking of changes in understanding. I'm talking
about change in function.

This mitzvah is an os. Whatever function the mitzvah has must be based on
a symbology we can understand. Sometimes the symbol's meaning is universal
to the human condition: qorbanos or buying flowers for a wife who never
looks tat them after they're in the vase are innate to how people try to
express closeness. Totafos bein einekha will have common meaning because
people have their eyes before their brains, so that tefillin shel rosh
naturally gets associated with sight and thought.

Chuqim could be transformative in this category; changing our souls in
ways we can not perceive or comprehend.

And sometimes the symbology has to be spelled out. So the Torah tells us
about yetzi'as mitzrayim and the lack of time to bake matzos. Or that we
dwelled in sukkos in the midbar, or that tzitzis, which comes with its
"lema'an" spelling out the meaning of the symbol.

Here you are explaining the *function* of the mitzvah as being closed
except to intelligensia in non-Torah subjects.

My problem isn't that the explanation changes as we recover information
about ancient Egyptian worship and cuisine. At least, not explanation
qua explanation. But these mitzvos are symbolic; their transformative
property inheres in their ability to get someone to internalize a message.
And you're saying that message is something most Jews wouldn't and over
history couldn't know. It's that the mitzvah is being explain in a way
that it has no redeeming effect on the one who performs it except for
the few who are in on these secrets.

By making basar vechalav about defying the norms we acquired in
Egypt, you're saying that Rabbi Aqiva couldn't have been ennobled when
separated them because he couldn't internalize a message he had no way of
knowing. That he gained nothing beyond simply expressing blind obedience.

Such understandings might embellish the point of a mitzvah, but I would
not define a taam hamitzvah in terms not accessible to all Jews.

: Example Being introduced to Chiastic structures [mostly by Menachem Liebtag]
...

Which has nothing to do with our discussion, which as I wrote (three
times now) our disagreement is limited to the problem of ta'am hamitzvah.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 39th day, which is
micha@aishdas.org        5 weeks and 4 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Netzach sheb'Yesod: What is imposing about a
Fax: (270) 514-1507                          reliable person?

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 39th day, which is
micha@aishdas.org        5 weeks and 4 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Netzach sheb'Yesod: What is imposing about a
Fax: (270) 514-1507                          reliable person?

On Sat, May 24, 2008 at 08:52:13PM +0300, Michael Makovi wrote:
: The Kuzari [3:41] says one other thing: Since the Torah set no exact date,
: and it was only Chazal who hard-set it to count from the second day of
: Pesach, the Kuzari says that the drash by the Tzadukim really has
: nothing inherently wrong with it; in theory, the Tzadukim were as
: correct as Chazal, and there was nothing wrong with the former. The
: only thing the Tzadukim did wrong was go against a decision that had
: already been codified by Chazal.

Except that evidence of calendars of the period show that the machloqes
was proably not as taught when learning gemara.

Many of the sectarians of the time had calendars with an even number
of weeks. This is true of the Qumran calendar (Miqtzas Ma'aseh haTorah,
4Q394), and is pointed to by those who believe the Qumranim were Tzeduqim
(or a breakaway) as evidence of their theory. Thus, Pesach would start on
the same day every year. This difference in basic calendar would explain
why the Tzeduqim had different desired dates for Rosh Chodesh, and Mes'
RH is full of stories of false witnesses send to adjust the calendar.

More accessibly, the Notzri mythos tells of a dispute the year of their
guy's death in which the Perushim were bringing the qorban Pesach on
Thurs, while the Tzeduqim thought it should be done on Friday. (Probably
has something to do with their tying their one lunar-dated holiday to
a day of the week as well.)

This also explains why it took Hillel to pasqen what to do on Shabbos
erev Pesach. For many years, the Saducees prevented a qiddush hachodesh
that would allow erev Pesach on any day but Friday.

So, bottom line, the machloqes ends up not being about whether the qorban
omer was on the second day of Pesach, but whether the second day of Pesach
had to be "mimacharas haShabbos" in the day-of-the-week sense of the word.

The date for Shavuos is still not necessarily in common. I don't know
how long Nissan and Iyyar were in the Sadducee calendar. But the number
of days after the seder was a shared belief. Even if the proper day for
the seder was not.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 39th day, which is
micha@aishdas.org        5 weeks and 4 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Netzach sheb'Yesod: What is imposing about a
Fax: (270) 514-1507                          reliable person?

On Tue, May 27, 2008 at 10:06:47PM +0300, Michael Makovi wrote:
: What is Olam haBa? Usually, we think of Olam haBa as Olam haNefashot
: (to borrow Derech haShem's terminology), but really, the term also
: encompasses the Messianic Era.

Olam haba is the place of the ultimate reward. Because of the machloqes
the Rambam and the Ikkarim vs the Ramban as to whether techiyas hameisim
is temporary, with a return to the ultimate reward in shamayim or whether
it is the eternal ultimate reward, they have different definitions of
Olam haBa.

So, I don't think it "also encompasses", as it's the point of a machloqes
whether it's shamayim or the post-techiyah universe.

Except according to R' Kook, in which Olam haBa is the future union of
the physical world and shamayim, and thus both simultaneously.

: For example, in Pirkei Avot's introduction, we prove that every Jew
: has Olam haBa because "amech kulam tzadikim, leolam yireshu aretz" -
: evidently, we're speaking of an eternal *physical* inheritance of the
: land after techiat hameitim in the eternal Messianic era, as some
: meforshim to Pirkei Avot indicate (I saw it in Kehati, b'shem
: haBartenura I think).

But how do you know "aretz" here is physical?

"Aretz" simply means (according to RSRH's shitah on alef-starting nouns)
"that which we must traverse", from "ratz". A fitting contrast to
"shamayim", from "sham" with the same suffix as "chayim", ie "there-ness;
that which we can't reach". To someone in olam haneshamos, z"l, it isn't
shamayim, it's aretz.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 39th day, which is
micha@aishdas.org        5 weeks and 4 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Netzach sheb'Yesod: What is imposing about a
Fax: (270) 514-1507                          reliable person?

On Wed, 21 May 2008 14:24:08 +0300, R "Michael Makovi" <mikewinddale@gmail.com>
wrote:
: Rav Moshe Feinstein was asked about a Jewish-owned store that sold its
: chametz to a gentile, but continued to sell the chametz to customers
: over Pesach, while the sale to the gentile was still in place. RMF was
: asked, perhaps this shows the sale to the gentile was invalid? RMF
: answered, the guy is simply transgressing gezel from the gentile to
: whom he sold his chametz, but this doesn't invalidate the original
: sale for the purposes of owning chametz over Pesach.

I have an underlying question trying to understand RMF's pesaq...

When does a haaramah turn into an asmachta? It's kind of hard to believe
that someone who does such a sale of his chameitz year after year really
thinks he sold anything. Why is the qinyan valid?

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 39th day, which is
micha@aishdas.org        5 weeks and 4 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Netzach sheb'Yesod: What is imposing about a
Fax: (270) 514-1507                          reliable person?

On Sat, 24 May 2008 22:04:30 +0300 R "Michael Makovi" <mikewinddale@gmail.com>
wrote:
: Transcript of a talk given by my rabbi at Machon Meir...
:> The tea-cups may present a problem, as they may have been used
:> withnon-Jewish milk, "chalav akum". For those who are lenient and
: drink chalav akum in countries that have government supervision to
: ensure that only cows' milk is sold as standard milk, based on the
: opinion of Rav Feinstein, this difficulty would be eliminated. Even
: those who are strict may perhaps rely on that ruling when it is only a
: question of a doubt - "perhaps non-Jewish milk was used in the last
: twenty-four hours in the cup". ... (see Yechave Da'at, ibid., and also the
: Nodah Bi'Yehudah, Yoreh De'ah, 36).

What about the question of whether the cup was used for hot chocolate
with marshmallows? Okay, marshmallows probably only raises questions
of gelatin, so you could add that safeiq to the mix instead of that for
chalav hacompanies.

And, how does this doubt differ from the one on the subject line? (Which
is why I'm replying on this thread.) I'll continue this question after
quoting myself.

On Tue, 27 May 2008 16:02:36 EDT I made life difficult for myself by
asking:
: My office has a one-cup coffee machine. All the flavors are kosher.
: However, it also can be used to dispense hot water, and packets of hot
: chocolate with marshmallow mix are right next to the coffee.
: Do I have to worry about someone making hot chocolate and the hevel
: treifing up the machine?
: It's not washed with a nosein ta'am lifgam with any regularity, if ever.

I see, though, that washing was not invoked in the coffee-shop mug
question. So, does that mean that when RHS worries about hevel in my
case (as posted here by RJR) it is implying he would also tell you not
to use that mug -- perhaps, unless washed with nosein taam lifgam?

Also, why does RHS assume there is hevel? How much steam qualifies? The
office machine doesn't actually cause boiling. But even breathing on
a cold day makes a cloud, so does 180deg water in room temperature.

Third, but also on the "how much evaporation does it take to constitute
hevel?" question: Would there be a difference between the coffee machine,
where the cup if a few inches under the spout, with restricted airflow
between them, and the hot water spigot on the water cooler, where you
aren't likely to raise the humidity around the spigot nearly as much?

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 39th day, which is
micha@aishdas.org        5 weeks and 4 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Netzach sheb'Yesod: What is imposing about a
Fax: (270) 514-1507                          reliable person?

> Does anyone have a good explanation why the gemara will quote a 
> machloket in the name of amoraim and then immediately say ktannai and 
> quote the same machloket word for word in the name of tannaim (e.g 
> melech issue -
> sanhedrin20b)
> KT
> Joel Rich

If I remember correctly, Rabbi Steinsaltz says (Essential Talmud) that
it is better for a machloket to go back a far time, than for it to be
recent. If it is recent, it means there was a sudden downturn and loss
of mesorah; if the machloket is old, then it means we're no worse off
than our ancestors were.

Perhaps then the Gemara wants to show that we have the better position.

Also, perhaps it simply bolsters the Amoraim; rather than thinking they
are relying on their own sevara/de'ah, we see that actually, they are
relying on the superior sevara/de'ah of the Tannaim.

Mikha'el Makovi
_______________________________________________
But then according to the rule mentioned earlier in Nazir 56b(or maybe
it was on a blog, I forget) why wouldn't you just record the last amora
and the first tanna in one statement?

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.

<While the mitzvos of omer, kiddush levana, tzitzit, shofar, lulav, and
mila should be performed while standing, however if, b?dieved, one did not
stand, the mitzvah is still fulfilled.	However, ?Bifnei Saiva Takum?, can
only be accomplished via standing.  The mitzvah of course begins with the
action of standing up from a seated position and continues (as you stand)
until the aged person finds his location.>

     A sharper distinction: omer, et al., are mitzvos; standing is the
     position in which to fulfill them.  In mipnei seiva takum, the
     standing is the ma'aseh hamitzvah itself.

EMT

____________________________________________________________
Internet Security Software - Click here.
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2141/fc
/Ioyw6i3mEWrvawcwgaEri4EQzSbA7f1xojK5LrPLkv9vFn6bH9UltA/

it is clear why the editor had to put a priviso, before listing this dvar 
tora from r frand----







Sign of Strength and Sign of Weakness 
Editior's preface: The following is presented with the caveat that the 
exact context of Rav Elya Meir Bloch's statement is not known, nor can one 
necessarily infer that what was said then is necesarily applicable in our 
times. 
I saw an interesting observation from Rav Elya Meir Bloch on the pasuk 
"And you will see - how is it? And the people that dwell therein - are 
they strong or weak?" [Bamidbar 13:18] 
Rashi says that the way the spies were supposed to determine whether the 
inhabitants of the land were strong or weak was by the type of cities they 
inhabited. Dwelling in un-walled cities indicated that they were strong, 
since they relied on their strength, while living in fortified cities was 
a sign of weakness. 
Our gut reaction would be just the opposite. Our first thought would be 
that if they live in fortified cities, they would be hard to conquer. 
Fortresses, we think, are signs of a mighty nation. On the other hand, one 
would think that a nation that lives in a bunch of tents would be 
defenseless, and easy to conquer. It should be a pushover! 
No. Appearances are deceiving. If they need to fortify themselves from the 
outside, it is a sign that internally they are weak. On the other hand, if 
they have the confidence to live openly, this is a sign that internally 
they are strong. 
Rav Elya Meir (I am not sure in what context he made this remark, and it 
may seem to be a rather surprising observation to be coming from the Rosh 
Yeshiva of the Telshe Yeshiva!) said that there exists an old conflict as 
to whether it is better "to insulate" or "to isolate." In other words, 
should a person surround himself with walls to spiritually protect himself 
from the corrupting influences of the outside world, or should he live 
openly and have contact with one and all as a means of retaining spiritual 
vitality? 
Rav Elya Meir writes that people who insulate themselves by building 
strong fortresses are not necessarily demonstrating signs of strength. As 
Rashi points out, these fortresses may in fact be signs of weakness. 
People who are internally strong have no need for such walls. On the other 
hand, people who live openly and intermingle with the rest of society must 
have an internal strength that allows them to preserve their integrity 
without resorting to artificial barriers that separate themselves from the 
allure of surrounding influences. 






-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20080529/0192031f/attachment.htm>

> My problem isn't that the explanation changes as we recover information
> about ancient Egyptian worship and cuisine. At least, not explanation
> qua explanation. But these mitzvos are symbolic; their transformative
> property inheres in their ability to get someone to internalize a message.
> And you're saying that message is something most Jews wouldn't and over
> history couldn't know. It's that the mitzvah is being explain in a way
> that it has no redeeming effect on the one who performs it except for
> the few who are in on these secrets.
>
> R' Micha

Your objection makes sense, truly.

BUT, if we find such things as that bread was peculiarly Egyptian, or
that pagans were prominently involved in meat and milk, etc., can it
be coincidence? That the meaning would be closed to most Jews of
history is a certainly a kashya, but it does not beat the fact that
the parallels are too obvious to be mere coincidence.

And can we deny that most Jews of history were oblivious to the
Gilgamesh flood story and the incredible contrast with our flood
story, as Dr. Marc Shapiro points out? (I.e. the world was destroyed
because man was too loud, Utnapishtim was saved because he was
"superlatively clever", the gods all competed with each other, and
they were literally starving because of lack of sacrifices and thus
they crowded around Utnapishtim's sacrifice.)

So too, many had no idea that that the law that whether an ox gores a
son or daughter the *owner* of the ox will be punished, was a
reference to the Babylonian concept of punishing the ox's owner's son
or daughter if said ox gores someone else's son or daughter.

And let's face it, the ENTIRE Torah has a backdrop of ancient Semitic
culture which we today are not familiar with. Every single instance in
the Torah of some minhag, whether ours or another nation's (who is
this "molech"?), presumes that the audience knows about this minhag.
Also Rav Hirsch points out that parallel to the Torah, we'd have an
oral tradition of stories of our ancestors. (I can't remember where
this is, however.)

I've also quoted Rav Hirsch from the introduction to Trumath Tzvi
(Judaica Press's abridged Hirsch Chumash) where he says we must study
Egyptian, Canaanite, Greek, and Roman history, in order to understand
Torah **morality** (as opposed to "ritual" mitzvot). Obviously, the
Torah couldn't give us Greco-Roman history, but why didn't the Torah
give us Egyptian and Canaanite history? It presumes we know it
already! And yet we don't know it today from our parents, and we must
instead turn to secular history books, according to Rav Hirsch! And
Rav Hirsch is the champion of symbolic meanings of our mitzvot, so if
he admits this (that we must study their history to understand our
mitzvot), kol vachomer we all must, at least to the same extent (viz.
in morality mizvot) that Rav Hirsch does (dayyo). (I am well aware
that Rav Hirsch was opposed to many taamei hamitzvot of Rambam,
relating our mitzvot to pagan practices. But Rav Hirsch apparently is
not opposed to relating our mitzvot to the **immoral** practices of
the Egyptians and Canaanites, even if he is opposed to relating our
mitzvot to the **ritual** practices.)

Why G-d spelled some things out, and left others for us to just stam
know or forget, is definitely a question. A very good one, I'll agree,
but it is a question that I do not believe negates the fact (IMHO)
that the Torah's mitzvot do often relate to ancient realities with
which we are today unfamiliar with.

But as I said, we must remember that ordinarily, the prodigious
Oriental memory and talent for oral transmission would have protected
all these details, but for our sins. So really, the question isn't on
G-d, but rather, it is on us.

Mikha'el Makovi

> This also explains why it took Hillel to pasqen what to do on Shabbos
> erev Pesach. For many years, the Saducees prevented a qiddush hachodesh
> that would allow erev Pesach on any day but Friday.
>
> R' Micha

THANK YOU! Many works bring it as a great mystery that such a thing
could happen - Shabbat Erev Pesach is common enough on our calendar
that it shouldn't have been forgotten. I remembered seeing somewhere
that somehow, history had conspired for there to be some great number
of years without a Shabbat Erev Pesach, but I couldn't remember.

Do you know how long the Tzadukim were able to make erev pesach be
Friday every year? I have the number 200-something (years) in my head.

Mikha'el Makovi

The question was asked: ... and I wonder why they choose the 14th by day, rather than the eve of the 15th.

It would seem that since the Pesach offering was brought on the 14th of
Nissan and eaten on the eve of the 15th, Pesach Sheni would be observed
from the inception of the mitzvah which was the 14th of Nissan. Also,
remember that Pesach Sheni is just one day, therefore, it would be more
logical to observe it from the start of the original mitzvah, even if they
are considered two separate mitzvoth, since they relate to the same theme.

K.T.
ri


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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 25, Issue 202
***************************************

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..."