Avodah Mailing List

Volume 25: Number 307

Wed, 27 Aug 2008

• 1. Eved Kenaani (was: [Areivim] The conversion controversy) (Zev Sero)
• 2. Re: Birkas haChama (Zev Sero)
• 3. Re: bracha on megilla (kennethgmiller@juno.com)
• 4. Re: Birkas haChama (Moshe Y. Gluck)
• 5. Re: Birkas haChama (Efraim Yawitz)
• 6. Question about the Six Constant Mitzvos (Cantor Wolberg)
• 7. Re: Question about the Six Constant Mitzvos (Micha Berger)
• 8. Re: Proto-Semitic? (Micha Berger)
• 9. acheinu kol beit yisrael (Shayna Korb)
• 10. Re: Birkas haChama (Rich, Joel)
• 11. eved kenani (Chaim G Steinmetz)
• 12. rov and karov (Eli Turkel)
• 13. half Jew half gentile (Eli Turkel)

On Areivim, torahmike@gmail.com wrote:
> The gemora in yavamos in the 6th perek graphically describes the way
> he's forced to accept. Ayen Sham v'eTimza nachas.

Where?  The only reference I can find is in the 4th perek, and all it
says is that if after a year he won't accept the mitzvot, then the
owner must sell him down the river.  This is brought lehalacha in
Rambam and SA, with no mention of forcing him to accept.


>   But doesn't the Rambam posken Eved Kenani is not noheg 
> nowadays(against the Ra'vad)?

Where?  I can't see any such psak in Hil' Avadim.  It certainly seems
to be brought as practical halacha, both in Rambam and in Shulchan Aruch.
Even the Rema seems to treat it as practical contemporary halacha
(e.g YD 267:4, where he deals with the fact that "in these countries"
it's illegal to convert anyone).


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

kennethgmiller@juno.com wrote:
> R' Efraim Yawitz asked:
>> Since the Birkas ha-Chama is coming up next year, I'm wondering
>> if anyone has thought about the factual aspects of the subject.
>> As far as I am aware, this 28-year cycle means absolutely
>> nothing according to modern astronomy (or even according to
>> Ptolemaic astronomy).  Has this been discussed before?
> 
> The Artscroll "Bircas Hachama" goes into it. As I recall, there were
> two views in the gemara on how to calculate these cycles, one being
> more accurate mathematically, and the other being the one we use. It
> seems that Chazal deliberately opted for a less-accurate calculation,
> because it has the advantage of being more useful to the average
> person, who would be unable to calculate the other one.

You're missing the point, which is that nothing special happens that
morning, so what is it exactly that we're making the bracha on?  When
we make a bracha on the moon, it has objectively changed - it has passed
through the earth's shadow and emerged again, new as it was at its
creation.  The sun returns to the same place in its orbit every year,
and if we said the bracha every year that would make sense, but we don't;
instead we only say it every 28 years, which doesn't correspond to
anything at all that is objectively real.  So why do we say the bracha
then? 

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

R' Zev Sero wrote:
> OTOH those who do say a bracha might argue that this svara
> would be all very well if the bracha specified "vetzivanu
> al mikra megilat ester". But the bracha just says "al mikra
> megila", and we were indeed commanded to read *a* megilah,
> just not this one, and not today, so we can say a bracha.

According to that reasoning, then the following case would also be okay:
Suppose I see a particularly beautiful apple, and I am moved to praise
HaShem for making such a beautiful fruit, so I look at the apple, and say
the full text of HaEtz, but I do not eat it. Surely everyone would agree
that this is a bracha l'vatala, no?

So what is the difference between the cases? In one case I am not allowed
to say HaEtz on looking at a beautiful apple, because that's not what
Chazal wrote the bracha of HaEtz for. In the other case, I *am* allowed to
say Al Mikra Megilla on reading Shir HaShirim even though that's not what
Chazal wrote the bracha of Al Mikra Megilla for. Why is one allowed and the
other not?

Akiva Miller

____________________________________________________________
Click here for low prices on a huge selection of popcorn poppers!
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2141/fc
/Ioyw6i3mS8SfYEp2f7A6kQSSWmv8dF67WByKnjNYXKtcovON41AT8m/

R' Akiva Miller:
> Chazal made no effort to keep halacha easy, but they did try to keep it
> simple.

And calculations of pi in Eiruvin, Sukkah and elsewhere.

KT,
MYG

On Wed, Aug 27, 2008 at 4:47 AM,  Micha Berger wrote:
>
> Any tequfah would be only an estimate; the actual number of days per year
> is an irrational number. (Like getting pi down exactly.) So, why not
> pick an estimate that both makes the mitzvah rare enough to be special
> without so rare people couldn't remember having done it before and the
> mesorah would be lost?

I just want to add that what reminded me of this issue was seeing in a
fairly impressive frum children's book on science, mixed in with
modern astronomical facts, the 'fact' that the sun will return to the
'place' where it was at the Creation at the time of Birkas haChama.
This seems to me to be a potential source of confusion, certainly in
the light of the approaches given by RZS and RMB.

Ephraim

Of the 613 Mitzvos, there are Six Constant Mitzvos.
Rather than requiring the performance of a certain action,
these mitzvos are a state of being, of living with the reality
of God's existence. The Six Constant Mitzvos are:

* Know there is a God.
* Don't believe in other gods.
* God is one.
* Love God.
* Fear God.
* Don't be misled by your heart and eyes.

Here's my question: The first, third, fourth and fifth of the above
constant mitzvos obviously all deal with God.  I know people who
are decent, philanthropic, kind, considerate, and observe every law
of the state, who are "convinced" there is no God. And I'm not  
speaking about a MLT.
Though many will consider it an oxymoron, there are very ethical  
atheists with impeccable integrity.


Can they be punished for not believing in God or what we perceive as  
an apikorus?

As Spiritual Leader, I've been asked this question. I'm not happy with  
any
of my responses, but I've answered some using the "tinuk shenishba"  
defense.
Also, Avos 2:14 was not helpful.
Any insights?

ri
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20080827/e1a46977/attachment-0001.htm>

On Wed, Aug 27, 2008 at 06:30:12AM -0400, Cantor Wolberg wrote:
: Though many will consider it an oxymoron, there are very ethical  
: atheists with impeccable integrity.

: Can they be punished for not believing in God or what we perceive as  
: an apikorus?

To whatever extent they're culpable, yes. Judaism isn't humanism. Al
sheloshah devarim ha'olam omeid. Not only al gemilus chassadim.

Just as they'll be rewarded for the interpersonal good that they do.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

On Tue, Aug 26, 2008 at 12:51:51PM -0400,  wrote:
: For the purpose of this discussion, I'll grant that "Loshon Kodesh" is
: Hebrew. But there is today's Hebrew and there is the Hebrew of thousands
: of years ago. They are not the same. I think that as nations were being
: created, there were probably faster mutations in languages than what
: we see today...

In languages other than Hebrew. And I think that's all we're talking
about. IOW, Adam's speech was in a predecessor to Hebrew as much as a
predecessor to Aramaic or to proto-SinoTibetan. However, the semitic
languages drifted less than others, anchored by Sheim and by proximity
to Hebrew which had no supernatural drift.

In what way is Hebrew qualitatively different?

As RSRH emphasizes, the pre-Bavel humanity spoke safah achas udevarim
achadim. More than their language being the same, the pasuq focuses on
the fact that they exchanged thoughts using the same ideas. Their words
referred to the same pigeonholes for basic concepts (devarim).

I think this is the point of associating Divine "Speech" and the
primordial Torah with lashon haqodesh. Hashem's Torah doesn't have words
in any way that we comprehend. However, our lashon haqodesh are shadows
of His Will in a manner that is qualitatively different than other
languages.

This is because Avraham didn't participate in Migdal Bavel. Thus, he
wasn't scattered, he wasn't given a new culture, and his thoughts still
used the compartments HQBH originally gave Adam.

All of the above (except for one idea from RSRH) is mine. Feel free to
argue me out of the notion, or into making the idea more robust. Please.



:                                      Despite the attempts at Esperanto,
: nobody "makes" a language.

Nicholas Wirth, Dennis Ritchie, Bjarne Sourtrop and James Gosling? <g>
(The inventors of Pascal, C, C++ and Java, respectively; all of them
programming languages.)

Actually ASL (American Sign Language) and BlissSymbolics (the symbols
used by the severely handicapped to communicate) are counterexamples. In
a she'as hadechaq, people do adopt and use invented languages.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             "And you shall love H' your G-d with your whole
micha@aishdas.org        heart, your entire soul, and all you own."
http://www.aishdas.org   Love is not two who look at each other,
Fax: (270) 514-1507      It is two who look in the same direction.

I heard that acheinu kol beis yisrael is used as an example of a prayer you
are not allowed to say on Shabbos (and that NCSY asked and received a heter
to sing it on Shabbos for kiruv purposes). Could anyone give me a source?


Thanks!
Shayna
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20080827/fbc041cc/attachment.htm>

 

You're missing the point, which is that nothing special happens that
morning, so what is it exactly that we're making the bracha on?  When we
make a bracha on the moon, it has objectively changed - it has passed
through the earth's shadow and emerged again, new as it was at its
creation.  The sun returns to the same place in its orbit every year,
and if we said the bracha every year that would make sense, but we
don't; instead we only say it every 28 years, which doesn't correspond
to anything at all that is objectively real.  So why do we say the
bracha then? 

-- 
Zev Sero               
=====================================================
Because halachik reality and perceived reality are not always in sync
and our brachot are determined by chazal's declaration of halachik
reality?
KT
Joel Rich (I don't love this answer but the data seems to support it)
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.

"Eli Turkel" <eliturkel@gmail.com>writes
> 
> <<If one captures a slave, is he not automatically given the status 
> of a
> woman vis-a-vis Mitzvah obligation? This is what I aways assumed 
> when
> learning those sugyos in the Gemarah dealing with Avodim.
> 
> I can't imagine first asking a slave if he will be Mekabel the Ol 
> Mitzvos
>  just before we capture him. I thought capturing him made him
> automatically obligated -  whether he or she likes it or not.>>
> 
> We all know the various questions that arise with a person who is 
> half an
> eved kenani and half a Jew because one of two owners freed the 
> slave.
> I recently saw a question concerning someone who is half Jewish and 
> half
> non-Jewish. How is that possible?
> The case is again an eved kenani with 2 owners. However, now the 
> eved kenani
> refuses to keep mitzvot. Thus he has a din of a nonJew not an eved 
> kenani.
> When one owner frees him he is half Jewish and half nonJewish.
> 
> -- 
> Eli Turkel
> 
You should look in the Rambam hil Issurei Biah which was referenced.
Concerning a case of someone half Jewish and half non-Jewish - there IS
such a case like that in the Minchas Chinuch mizvah 347 (p 542-3 in the
new editions), but the the way one gets there is totally different and is
talking about a different eved altogether ayin shom.
I would recommend going through that MC, where he outlines 3 types of
eved with all the details.
CGS
____________________________________________________________
Click to find information on your credit score and your credit report.
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2141/fc
/Ioyw6i3m2PchCA7I218M4zKPNFgutrEFlAsSYWStiaKpj1Z4V9uKM6/

I have seen other halachos which seem to use similar reasoning. For
example, chanuka lights and sukka sechach must both be no higher than
20 amos, and for the exact same reason: to insure that they areseen by
people on the ground. But it seems ludicrous (to me) that height alone
would be the only factor - surely the horizontal distance is also very
important! If one is some distance away (where the street is wide or
sukkah is wide) the angle from the eye to the mitzvah will be shallow,
and one can see the mitzvah even if very high. >>

Another area that has always bothered me is rov versus karov.
In real life it obviously makes a difference if we have something
an inch further away but 10 times the population or something
miles closer but a slightly smaller population.
However the discussion of rov and karov doesn't account for
how big the rov or karov is

-- 
Eli Turkel

The discussion of a person who is half Jewish and half nonJewish is
in Minchat Chinuch 347
The case is an eved kenani who does not go to mikvah and so
remains nonJewish. If he is owned by 2 people and one frees him.
He then converts. The free half becomes Jewish but the slave
half needs permission from the owner.

One question concerns eating Korban Pesach

see Meorot HaDaf 482
-- 
Eli Turkel


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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 25, Issue 307
***************************************

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..."