Avodah Mailing List

Volume 25: Number 214

Thu, 05 Jun 2008

• 1. Re: first mention in the Torah (Gershon Dubin)
• 2. Re: fish and milk (Zev Sero)
• 3. Re: 2nd day Y"T (Menachem Posner)
• 4. Re: Mood of Tehillim (Micha Berger)
• 5. Re: zayin tuvei ha'ir (Micha Berger)
• 6. Re: Mood of Tehillim (Micha Berger)
• 7. Re: Loving Israel while in Chutz (Micha Berger)
• 8. Re: Mood of Tehillim (Rich, Joel)
• 9. Re: Office Coffee machine (Micha Berger)
• 10. Cause of action? (Zev Sero)
• 11. Re: D'rabanan vs. D'oraita (Yitzhak Grossman)
• 12. Re: Lying to protect the simple of faith (Yitzhak Grossman)
• 13. Re: Lying to protect the simple of faith (Yitzhak Grossman)

Rav Tzadok Hacohen mentions this as well.  One place is (sorry, no M"M at
the moment) that the source of Beracha and Kedusha is Shabbos, as those
concepts are first mentioned there.

Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com


____________________________________________________________
Click to learn about options trading and get the latest information.
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2141/fc
/Ioyw6i3m5bi0JpKHQ0FJAWzbubAxXeW4FU1MQ3CPqrLSm36uQ2IFYG/

Richard Wolpoe wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 3, 2008 at 11:42 PM, <saulweinreb@comcast.net>

>> My wife thought at first that this Israeli born sephardi had
>> obviously never seen tuna casserole before, and she tried to
>> encourage him to try some.  He had to tell her that sephardim won't
>> eat fish and cheese together. 

> FWIW Among those who are chossheish for this BY and Levush allow fish 
> sauteed in butter [and I would imagine cheese, too] Many read this BY as 
> DAVKA milk and not all dairy.

It depends on the community.  IIRC, Ben Ish Hai writes that in Baghdad
cheese is also included in this.

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

As I understand the matter, the Betzel Hachachma (sorry but I don't
remember where) quotes the Halacha that one does not get the status of
Chu'l until he comes within the Techum of the Yishuv Yehudi in Chu'l. He
therefore concludes that if the airport is outside of the techum, he may
remain there until after Y'T.  

He is Mefakfek about whether entering the Yishuv immediately is appropriate and therefore discourages the idea.

____________________________________________________________
Let great B to B marketing solutions propel your brand to new heights! Click now!
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2131/fc
/Ioyw6iigEPM3C4NPUCHIJZuYGbrVZmoDN9sQgXzOogiyuAq1AGWB8O/

On Mon, Jun 2, 2008 at 4:45:01pm EDT, Silverman, Philip B wrote:
: I've always noticed the very animated mood of the psalms of Kabbalat
: Shabbat. I always hope the one leading the singing will choose a melody
: that is similarly upbeat. But I have a question about the first psalm
: (Psalm 95).  It starts of with a resounding "Come! Let us rejoice!" but
: ends on "and I swore in My wrath that they shall not enter the land of
: contentment." Frankly, if I were the one putting Kabbalat Shabbat
: together, I'd be tempted to leave out the last few verses of that Psalm.
: Of course, I'm sure I could find some good reasons to include it. Do you
: know of any commentator who talks about this?

I pulled from RSRH for the flow of Tehillim in QS as described in
Ashirah Lashem <http://www.aishdas.org/siddur.shtml>. I use his ideas to
explain how the 6 peraqim map to the days of the week, leaving Lekha
Dodi to describe the moment you're in, followed by Mizmor Shir leYom
haShabbos to conclude the week.

Here are some footnotes:
> 3. In Kabbalas Shabbos, we say six paragraphs of Tehillim corresponding
> to the days of the week. We then sing "L'chah Dodi", which addresses
> the very moment in time at which we find ourselves, the first moment of
> Shabbos. Last, we say two more paragraphs about Shabbos, and specifically,
> the future era, "the day which is entirely Shabbos".

> "Lichu Niranena" has two parts. First, we are called to praise Hashem
> (in four different ways: Neranenah, Naria', Negadmah, Nari'ah....

Note the similirity between Naria', without a final hei, and Nari'ah,
with. The four leshonos seem to pattern sheim havayah.

> ... about very universal things: that He is supreme over all forces,
> that He created and holds the caves and mountains, sea and land in His
> 'Hand'. Then (v. 6) we are again called to praise Him, but this time the
> focus is more particular. We look at how we Jews are Hashem's flock, how
> He watches over us even when we stray from Him, as He did in the desert.
> These two themes, the creation of the physical world and G-d's love for
> us even when we're in exile, are said now as a recollection of Sunday. As
> Shabbos ends we return to the mountains and the seas to ply our trades. We
> return from the "image of the World to Come" and back to the reality of
> the here-and-now.

Shiru Lashem Shir Chadash:
> 1. "All songs about things that are in the past are written in the
> feminine [i.e. shirah]. Just as the female is the one that gives
> birth, so too the salvations of the past [bore the seeds of] subsequent
> servitude. However, the salvation which will come in the future is called
> in the masculine [i.e. shir]. Just as the male can not give birth, so too
> the redemption which will come in the future will not have after it any
> [more] servitude." (Mechilta, Bishalach) Rav Hirsch explains that the
> feminine word shirah speaks of redemption as part of the flow of history,
> as a cause of things to come. The non-procreative masculine is saved
> for songs about the culmination of history.

> The exile of the previous chapter leads to the "shir chadash"{new song}
> of redemption. This chapter speaks of the final revelation, when Hashem's
> "Hand" in nature is recognized by all men and even nature itself sings
> His praise.

> 1. "The heavens will be happy, and the earth will rejoice, the sea will
> roar, and all that is in it. The fields will exult, and all that is in it;
> then all the trees of the field will sing with joy." Rav Hirsch points
> out that just as the corruption of the generation of the flood lead to
> the corruption of nature (B'reishis 3:17-19), so too will man's final
> redemption lead to nature's perfection.

Hashem Malakh:
> 2. The song continues into this chapter as the clouds and smoke part
> (v. 2) to reveal that the G-d of creation is also the Weaver of
> history. Theodicy, the problem of why bad things happen to good people,
> or that evil people could prosper, is perhaps the greatest challenge
> to believing in Hashem. Nothing hides His Presence more than apparent
> injustice. At the culmination of history, we will see how the righteous
> have sown a light for themselves (v. 11), a good far greater than any
> costs they may have paid along the way.

Mizmor: Shiru Lashem Shir Chadash:
> 1. With Hashem's presence taking the foreground, the Jewish people will
> assume a new role, actively teaching the other peoples and leading them
> in the new song.

>2. Note again the expression "shir chadash" (see 96:1, above).

Hashem Malakh:
> 3. This chapter concludes the sequence. In response to the new revelation
> and the lessons learned as "the Torah will come out from Zion" (Yeshiah
> 2:3, c.f. v. 2), all of humanity will serve Hashem, with Israel at
> the lead, and at our head, a prophet like Mosheh, Aharon, and Sh'muel
> (v. 6). The clouds and smoke of 97:2 (see notes above) will clear into
> a guiding pillar of cloud (v. 7). A telling contrast to the exile
> generation who strayed from that guidance (c.f. 95:10)

Mizmor leDavid:
> 1. The tehillah chosen to correspond to Friday (ch. 29) is not
> from the same section of Tehillim as those for the previous days
> (chs. 95-99). The others all have the pattern of an invitation to praise
> followed by some element of our current or future relationship with
> Hashem to praise. Friday's tehillah is about praise alone, the "sound"
> of Hashem reverberating through creation. Hashem's "voice", which in the
> future will be heard in our obedience to His ethical and religious law,
> can already be heard in the laws of nature. And so, Friday leads into
> "an image of the World to Come".

Mizmor Shir leYom haShabbos
> 1. Again the masculine "shir"(see 96:1, above); this is not a song about
> the Shabbos we are observing alone, but also the "day which is entirely
> Shabbos" toward which history progresses. Rav Hirsch writes that this
> chapter "is dedicated to that institution which is to accompany Israel
> in all its wanderings like a spiritual Well of Miriam". A chance to
> contemplate those things (c.f. v. 7 "an ignoramus will not know, and
> a fool will not understand") which will be obvious in the future era,
> to consider Hashem's role in running the universe and the role He ought
> to play in our lives.



And at 5:31:53 RPS added:
> I made an observation about Kabbalat Shabbat, and I was wondering if
> anyone else had the same observation. In the six psalms we sing, the
> ending has a word (a shoresh at least) that is repeated:

That's a frequent feature in Tehillim in general. Look through Ashrei.
That's why even though there is no "nun", "Someikh Hashem lekhol
hanofelim" tells you it would have been about nefilah.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 46th day, which is
micha@aishdas.org        6 weeks and 4 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Netzach sheb'Malchus: How can some forms of
Fax: (270) 514-1507                         "unity" be over domineering?

On Mon, Jun 02, 2008 at 01:14:02PM -0400, Rich, Joel wrote:
: Would the chevrah see any problem with me suggesting that this is
: correlated with  (although I couldn't prove this is the reason) with the
: Rambam's generally perceived "elitist" (is there a better word?)
: approach or is ascribing such an approach to the Rambam
: inappropriate?(e.g. it's not elitist it's amita shel torah)

"Everyone" in that era considered only a few to be capable of the core
of Yahadus. 

Is there any differences between the Rambam's "great souls" who have
immersed in philosophy anf the mequbal's restriction on who can study
Qabbalah. In fact, both referred to their version of secret core the
"sod" of the Pardeis.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 46th day, which is
micha@aishdas.org        6 weeks and 4 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Netzach sheb'Malchus: How can some forms of
Fax: (270) 514-1507                         "unity" be over domineering?

To return from the drift to my original question... What is the indended
mood of saying tehillim be'eis tzarah. We read them all as baqashos. But
is that the intent?

Not speaking of the siddur, which is how this topic drifted before we
got too far on what I was trying to discuss.

Not all the standard peraqim people choose for such "eis tzarah gatherings
fit that kind of pleaing tune we usually give them.

Perhaps a sizable role for saying Tehillim be'eis tzarah is for chizuq.
Not "They have guns and tanks ch"v, Hashem we're counting on you!" But
really, as the words say, "They have guns and tanks, but I musn't worry
because I know I can count on you!"

The Chazon Ish's shitah on bitachon (as opposed to Novhardok) would tell
you that means learning not to worry about the possibility of not getting
what you want because you trust Hashem's choice stems from His plan.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 46th day, which is
micha@aishdas.org        6 weeks and 4 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Netzach sheb'Malchus: How can some forms of
Fax: (270) 514-1507                         "unity" be over domineering?

On Sun, Jun 01, 2008 at 02:57:38PM +0300, Michael Makovi wrote:
: > But how do you know "aretz" here is physical?

: I'm taking it as p'shat - inheriting the land = just that; physically
: living on it. Applied to Olam haBa, it means living on the land
: forever, after techiat hameitim.

However, all references to olam haneshamos are beremez. Assuming that a
havtachah must refer to physical aretz presumes your conclusion.

I am also not sure the distinction really is about peshat. More frequent
vs more rare translation, perhaps.

: The Kehati mishna brings this interpretation, that "kol yisrael yesh
: lahem chelek l'olam haba"
: refers to after techiat hameitim; I believe it is b'shmo Bartenura.

And not Peirush haMishnayos lehaRambam. See the introduction to pereq
Cheileq. You should have the time now. <g>

All you showed is that in the machloqes between the Rambam/Ran/Ikkarim
and the Ramban, the Barenura holds like the latter. It doesn't prove one
side over the other. (Nor is it likely to -- it would mean you found
something the Rambam didn't. Unlikely.)

...
: Yes, Rambam does say that techiat hameitim is only temporary, but this
: is a very strange idea IMHO - why would it even occur to Rambam that
: we'd be resurrected only to die again? ...

But the Rambam himself explains why: Because justice requires the soul
reside again in a body when judged, otherwise the defendent isn't present
as his own trial. The Ikkarim gives a different answer: This life is
to master avodas Hashem in a limited universe, the next time around is
level 2: all the limitations are our own.

: (*) Lest anyone be astounded at my insinuation that Rambam based his
: philosophy on Aristotle, Rav Hirsch already came before me in
: declaring that Rambam interpreted
: Judaism's philosophy according to alien standards...

However, you don't dismiss the Rambam altogether on all aggadic issues,
so you really aren't being consistent in invoking this idea now. You
also shouldn't abdicate from the job of needing to understand the Rambam,
rather than only looking at formulating your preferred answer. It might
just change your preference.

The Rambam is compelled not by Aristo, but by the fact that our bodies
and their senses are distractions. They provide desires other than
that for the ultimate -- experiencing the A-lmighty, leihanos miziv
haShechinah. And thus, a distraction diminishing ultimate reward. It's
Aristotilian of him to think that's about comprehending Hashem rather
than some other aspect of experience. But the concept that bodies just
get in the way of ultimate reward really isn't specifically Ariso.

In fact, Aristo has little to say on afterlife that is usable by a Jew.
His definition of soul, "first actuality of an organic living body"
(De Anima II. 1) seems to preclude the entire concept of a soul not
ending at death.

: (**) It was pointed out to me that I am using "okimta" in a
: Conservative sense. Granted, the traditional understanding will simply
: be that Chazal were teaching the true original intent of the Mishna,
: that was hidden simply due to its brevity...

But the Rambam didn't "okimta techiyas hameisim away". He made it an
ikkar emunah. A move that wasn't compelled by the sources; it was
within his worldiew that ThM is central to defining Judaism!

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 46th day, which is
micha@aishdas.org        6 weeks and 4 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Netzach sheb'Malchus: How can some forms of
Fax: (270) 514-1507                         "unity" be over domineering?

To return from the drift to my original question... What is the indended
mood of saying tehillim be'eis tzarah. We read them all as baqashos. But
is that the intent?

Not speaking of the siddur, which is how this topic drifted before we
got too far on what I was trying to discuss.

Not all the standard peraqim people choose for such "eis tzarah
gatherings fit that kind of pleaing tune we usually give them.

Perhaps a sizable role for saying Tehillim be'eis tzarah is for chizuq.
Not "They have guns and tanks ch"v, Hashem we're counting on you!" But
really, as the words say, "They have guns and tanks, but I musn't worry
because I know I can count on you!"

The Chazon Ish's shitah on bitachon (as opposed to Novhardok) would tell
you that means learning not to worry about the possibility of not
getting what you want because you trust Hashem's choice stems from His
plan.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha
==================================================
A baalabatish answer might be that many people don't understand the
meaning and that many might view it as kabbalistic in nature (meaning we
push a certain button down here (in this case say tehillim but could
just as well been baking with a key) and willy-nilly the result in
shamayim occurs) - so it's not the content it's the act of saying.

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.

On Thu, Jun 05, 2008 at 12:27:46AM -0400, Richard Wolpoe wrote:
: IIRC zei'ah in an oven is AFAIK restricted to a closed system. Thus, the
: mere wafting of steam in open air would NOT cause a problem [see below]

Which is why we were discussing the one-cup coffee maker and not the hot
water tap of the water cooler. There is some 3 inch gap in which only
about 1/3 of the side is blocked, but the entire area over the cup is
covered. It's not "open air", but not quite a lid either.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

A friend sent me this question:

> Who knows Choshen Mishpat?
> Assume A has a claim against B. B believes the claim is invalid.
> A doesn?t sue B, but rather keeps threatening B that he will sue,
> and that he will tell people about it and cost B his reputation.
> B wants to go to Beis Din, but is frustrated because A neither sues
> him in court nor sends him a hazmanah. B wants to take A to beis din
> to clear his name. A beis din told me today that until B is actually
> sued the beis din can?t send A a hazmanah. True?

I answered:
Given the same facts, what cause of action would B have in court?
If A actually does tell people about it, then B has a cause of
action for defamation, but if he only threatens to do so, what
recourse do *you* think he should have?

I now put the question before the chevra, especially those with
experience in ChM.  *Is* there some recourse this person should have,
to resolve the matter one way or the other?  Is there some way he
can force the other person to put up or shut up?

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

On Mon, 2 Jun 2008 11:48:20 -0400
Allen Gerstl <acgerstl@hotmail.com> wrote:

...

> Centuries later the positions of the Arizal and thereafter the Besht
> were widely adopted (see Rav Aharon Feldman's article at http://www.z
> ootorah.com/controversy/ravaharon.html in which he controversially
> states that such has delegitimized the former position).

It is worth noting that Rav Levi Ibn Haviv, writing prior to Arizal and
Besht, apparently felt that the consensus of the non-rationalists had
already rendered the rationalist stance, at least on the question of
reincarnation, non-normative (Responsa, #8):

<Quote>

Regarding the third question that you asked, is the belief in
reincarnation something that everyone must necessarily believe? ...

Know that in my sins, I have not yet merited this wisdom, for a man
does not have permission to understand it on his own and to investigate
it, but it is according to its name [i.e. 'Kabbalah'], that he must
receive it from a Rav who himself has received it.  And in this era, in
our land, there are not found men who are that complete in it.

But in this specific point, I have already seen and understood from
books, and I have found that our scholars, those who followed the
sealing of the Talmud by many years, are divided into two factions:

The first faction is the faction that investigates the foundations of
beliefs exclusively according to their intellects, and they occupy
themselves with external wisdoms.  And in their hearts it is difficult
to believe this belief, since according to the intellect there are many
difficulties that their intellects have been unable to resolve.

But there is another faction, very great, of the believing sages of
Israel, and they have all written about [this belief] that it is a true
belief and a root among the roots of the Torah, to answer the question
of the righteous man who suffers.  And we are all obligated to accept
these latter words, and to believe this belief without any qualm or
doubt at all. ...

</Quote>

Note:  I am not stating any opinion on the issues of rationalism,
reincarnation, theodicy, and the very validity of the application of
the concept of normativity to beliefs.  I am merely making the point
that at least one major pre Arizal and Besht figure maintained an
unequivocal obligation to accept the non-rationalist view, at least on
the question of reincarnation.

Yitzhak
--
Bein Din Ledin - bdl.freehostia.com
An advanced discussion of Hoshen Mishpat

On Fri, 16 May 2008 17:50:09 -0400
"Richard Wolpoe" <rabbirichwolpoe@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Thu, May 15, 2008 at 4:44 PM, Yitzhak Grossman <celejar@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > On Sun, 4 May 2008 19:24:01 -0400
> > Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org> wrote:
> >
> > > On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 02:03:45AM -0400, Michael Makovi wrote:
> > ...
> >
> > > : 1a) Rather, then, Rambam is saying that no deliberate additions were
> > > : made after Moshe...
> > >
> > > Or even semantic accidental changes. Cheseiros and yeseiros, or
> > variations
> > > in the spelling of "petzua daka", may change the kashrus of a seifer,
> > > but unless you have a beis din ready to derashin a din from that pasuq,
> > > they won't make a stitch of difference.
> >
> > Minhas Hinuch (#613) tries to argue your claim, that we assume accuracy
> > even with regard to haseros ve'yeseros as long as they are semantically
> > significant, but he runs into trouble with the word 'totafos', since
> > according to Rashi, the Gemara's D'rashah of the four Parshiyos of
> > Tefillin is based on the plene spelling of the word in Parshas Ve'haya
> > Im, whereas we have it deficient.
> >
> > > Tir'u baTov!
> > > -Micha
> >
> > Yitzhak
> > --
> > <http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org>
> >
> 
> I've been told that Rashi had 6-7 spelling differences in his version of
> Torah from our version of the Torah. One that comes to mind is in my Sidra -
> viz.Chanichav.

Two more: Bereishis 25:6 (according to the simple reading, although
Sifsei Hachamim cites an alternate interpretation) and Shemos 25:22.
Rav Akiva Eiger (Gilyon Ha'Shas Shabbos 55b) cites these two, along
with many other examples of divergences between our texts and
Talmudic / Rishonic ones.

> RabbiRichWolpoe@Gmail.com

Yitzhak
--
Bein Din Ledin - bdl.freehostia.com
An advanced discussion of Hoshen Mishpat

On Tue, 20 May 2008 14:31:06 -0400
Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org> wrote:

> On Thu, May 15, 2008 at 04:44:26PM -0400, Yitzhak Grossman wrote:
> : Minhas Hinuch (#613) tries to argue your claim, that we assume accuracy
> : even with regard to haseros ve'yeseros as long as they are semantically
> : significant, but he runs into trouble with the word 'totafos', since
> : according to Rashi, the Gemara's D'rashah of the four Parshiyos of
> : Tefillin is based on the plene spelling of the word in Parshas Ve'haya
> : Im, whereas we have it deficient.
> 
> Pewrhaps I'm thinking of the wrong source, but it's not a derashah, it's
> peshat.

There are indeed two different derivations.  In Zevahim 37b, the Gemara
first utilizes the concepts of mikra and masores, i.e. plene and
defective spellings, and subsequently mentions the opinion of R. Akiva,
"tot b'kasfi shtaim, phos b'afriki shtaim".

> Micha Berger             Today is the 30th day, which is

Yitzhak
--
Bein Din Ledin - bdl.freehostia.com
An advanced discussion of Hoshen Mishpat



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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 25, Issue 214
***************************************

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..."