Avodah Mailing List

Volume 25: Number 314

Thu, 04 Sep 2008

• 1. Re: NASA, Dead-Sea Scrolls and G-D's holy name (Micha Berger)
• 2. Re: NASA, Dead-Sea Scrolls and G-D's holy name (Moshe Y. Gluck)
• 3. Re: NASA, Dead-Sea Scrolls and G-D's holy name (Moshe Y. Gluck)
• 4. Re: NASA, Dead-Sea Scrolls and G-D's holy name (Zev Sero)
• 5. Question on Soul (but not the Sole question) (Cantor Wolberg)
• 6. Reciting l'Dovid Hashem Ori (Dov Kay)
• 7. Re: More Philosophy, If Anyone's Up to It (Micha Berger)
• 8. Re: Question on Soul (but not the Sole question) (Micha Berger)
• 9. Re: kingly G-d (Micha Berger)
• 10. Re: damage by children (Micha Berger)
• 11. Re: Torah Only - Hora'as Sha'a (Daniel Eidensohn)

On Wed, Sep 03, 2008 at 02:41:13PM -0400, Zev Sero wrote:
: Surely what matters is the machshava not of the ancient scribe who
: wrote the original scroll, but of the magazine publisher who reproduced
: it.

Actually, it should be of the manual laborer who pushed the button. No?

: See also Kuntres Ba'er Bisdei, by R Chaim Chizkiyah Medini, defending the
: title of his S'dei Chemed.

Many of us can't. Why not summarize?

Is it published with the SC?

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             A person lives with himself for seventy years,
micha@aishdas.org        and after it is all over, he still does not
http://www.aishdas.org   know himself.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                            - Rav Yisrael Salanter

R' ZS:
> Surely what matters is the machshava not of the ancient scribe who
> wrote the original scroll, but of the magazine publisher who reproduced
> it.

R' Herzig was also asking a more generalized question of what's the Halachah
of Ksav Ivri, to which I was directing my comments.

KT,
MYG

> On Wed, Sep 03, 2008 at 02:41:13PM -0400, Zev Sero wrote:
> : Surely what matters is the machshava not of the ancient scribe who
> : wrote the original scroll, but of the magazine publisher who reproduced
> : it.

R' MB: 
> Actually, it should be of the manual laborer who pushed the button. No?


This is talked about - IIRC there are some who say that it has no Kedushah
until someone reads it.

KT,
MYG

Micha Berger wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 03, 2008 at 02:41:13PM -0400, Zev Sero wrote:
> : Surely what matters is the machshava not of the ancient scribe who
> : wrote the original scroll, but of the magazine publisher who reproduced
> : it.
> 
> Actually, it should be of the manual laborer who pushed the button. No?

Probably.  Or not even him; the whole question of the kedusha of printed
Sheimos is complicated, precisely because of this issue.

 
> : See also Kuntres Ba'er Bisdei, by R Chaim Chizkiyah Medini, defending
> : the title of his S'dei Chemed.
> 
> Many of us can't. Why not summarize?

Essentially that what makes a Name holy is the intent of the writer,
and so the same three letters are holy if the writer intended them
as a Name, but completely mundane if he intended them to mean "Fields of".

 
> Is it published with the SC?

I believe so.


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

Ira Tick asked: "Anyone have any thoughts about the unity
of the soul?  Parallels to the unity of G-d?"

I have always taught that the Shechina to the Beis Hamikdash
was the same as the soul is to the body. From there, volumes
could be written.

But just a quick thought... Because of the sinas chinam of the Jews,
did the Shechina leave the B"H, and THAT was the really tragedy.
The B"H then died (so to speak).  When we behave with disregard to
all that is holy, etc., then our neshama leaves the body (either  
literally
or symbolically). Elul is the neshama to the other months, and we have
a chance to save the neshama.

Ketiva v'chatima tova.

ri


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20080904/f0a6d884/attachment-0001.htm>

We have been discussing the minhag of reciting l'Dovid Hashem Ori at this
time of year, and specifically whether it should be said after mincha or
after maariv.
 
<<RYBS attributes the machloket of saying l'dovid during mincha or
maariv to the minhag of not saying tehillim at night. Those who say it at
mincha dont add tehillim at night. Those who say it at night hold that
being part if the tefillah makes it different.>>I think the
divergence in minhagim (after mincha vs.after maariv) is linked to the
different minhagim with regard to when to daven maariv.  In Ashkenaz, where
mincha and maariv were davened together before dark, the end of the service
was after maariv.  Aleinu was not recited between mincha and maariv. 
Therefore, l'dovid was added after maariv.  This also explains why kehillos
Ashkenaz blow the shofar after maariv.	In our shul, we have both an early
and a later maariv, so the shofar is only blown after the first maariv.  By
contrast, in places where there was a break between mincha and maariv,
l'Dovid was recited after mincha.  Of course, my analysis does not preclude
RYBS's explanation.
 
It has always occurred to me that the Mishna Berura, who mentions that
l'Dovid is recited after mincha, was reflecting the local minhag Polin
where he lived. R. YH Henkin and RMB have pointed out the AhS better
reflects minhag Lita than the MB. 
 
Another problematic aspect of the custom to say l'Dovid is that the Gra
objected to incorporating any extra chapters of Tehillim in davenen other
than shir shel yom, and even then, only one shir (eg on RH).  Therefore,
the Gaon (in accordance with minhag Ashkenaz) did not say mizmor shir
chanukas habayis before p?sukei d?zimra.  That being said, the same minhag
Frankfurt that does not add L?dovid HaShem Ori or Mizmor Shir Chanukas
bayis does add a chapter of Tehillim after shacharis (mizmor l?asaf) and
others following maariv. 
 I stopped saying l'Dovid when I was alerted to the Sabbatean origins of
 the custom to say it at this time of year.  R. M Gluck wrote that he will
 keep saying it because it has become the minhag.  I suppose that one's
 attitude to this will be a function of one's attitude to minhag in
 general.  Do we follow minhag no matter what, or does it need to make
 sense to me before I adopt it.  Of course, there is a middle ground
 between those two poles.  As far as my position is concerned, it depends
 which day you catch me on. Kol tuvDov Kay
_________________________________________________________________
Discover Bird's Eye View now with Multimap from Live Search
http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/111354026/direct/01/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20080904/7efcc8f6/attachment-0001.htm>

On Tue, Sep 02, 2008 at 08:11:02PM -0500, Ira Tick wrote:
: I was just curious, do my fellow listmembers (as individuals, not the group
: as a whole) view religious truths as metaphysical realities, personal norms,
: covenantal vows?  How do you view the relationship (triangle) between
: personal feelings/motivations, religious truths, and the actual goals of
: religious life.
: 
: What inspires/drives your religious spirit or comittment?  Love of G-d,
: religious or metaphysical reverence of Him, awe or appreciation of Divine
: might, fear of it, love of family and friends, emotional attachment to
: religious ethics, to metaphysical truths, respect for an orderly system of
: living?

I see this as two very different questions.

The first is how I view Yahadus.

I see its truths as Manufacturer's Instructions. As RSRiskin presented
it when I was in HS, a "Divine Anthropology" as opposed to the usual
religious aim of providing a "Human Theology". Being good pays for the
same reason that hammers work better at driving nails than breaking
boards.

The covenant at Sinai was our buying into a new role, priests for everyone
else. We are their teaching, just as the Torah is ours. New role, a new
function in addition to the first, more instructions.



The second question is what motivates me to keep on trying to live by
its dictates. And it's none ot the suggestions RIT provides.

Rather, it's simple fear of death. Contributing to the relaying of
the mesorah and the Jewish mission is my only chance to cheat death
by becoming part of something eternal. Not fully satisfying, there is
still the existential nausea that is death. But the best I can do to do
something permanent.

: A related question for this week: Anyone have any thoughts about the unity
: of the soul? Parallels to the unity of G-d? How does our view of the soul
: and our own assessment of our emotions toward others affect our
: understanding of religious statements about people? Do these push us
: towards or away from a metaphysical understanding of religious statements?
: Towards or away from a purely emotive understanding of such statements?

I do not think the soul is unified. If there is one thing the human
experience isn't, it's unified. We are to strive for unity, for sheleimus,
but it's an unreachable ideal. To truly be one would be to make one's
Tzelem E-lokim fully manifest.

The Seifer haYetzirah speaks of three aspects to the soul: nefesh, ruach
and neshamah (often reffered to as Nara"n). By the time the notion leaves
Tzefas, these three are declared the penimiyos and there are two more
aspects which are chitzoniyos: chayah and yechidah (Nara"n cha"i). R
Aryeh Kaplan left me with the impression that Naran describes self,
and the aspects which are external are at a level where the souls aren't
fully individuated.

You asked about my own position. It's based on naran as understood by
the Gra in Peirush al Kamah Agados (most easily found as an appendix in
The Juggler and the King) which seems to parallel the Maharal's Derekh
haChaim on Avos 1:2 -- the three pillars.

(The Tanya goes further and speaks of a nefesh E-lokis and nefesh
beheimis, each of which posessing a naran. You asked about my own
position, but I must acknowledge it exists.)

I recently started this topic on my blog. I think man's nature is
threefold. See http://www.aishdas.org/asp/2008/08/three-desires.shtml

A couple of quotes. From my conclusion:
> It is important to note how all consider the basic human condition to
> come in threes, even if they don't agree what the three are. The same is
> true of Freud's Id-Ego-Super Ego, Adler's Child-Adult-Parent, etc... Why?

> When the alarm goes off, a person is conflicted. We can group his calls
> into two. One side realizes he has important things to accomplish that
> day, he has to get to shul, not be too late to his job, etc... The other
> just wants to hit the snooze button and get more sleep. Or, in choosing
> whether or not to sin, the yeitzer hatov says one thing, the yeitzer
> hara is recommending another. A movie or television show has a person
> making a decision, and they have a little image of him dressed as an
> angel on one shoulder, and another dressed as a devil on the other.

> But you notice in those pictures, there are always three images of the
> person -- the two angels, and the person himself. When I hear opposing
> callings from each yeitzer, or my body wants one thing and my sense
> of duty says another, there is always an "I" doing the hearing who has
> to decide between them. In the courtroom of my mind, there is a lawyer
> arguing each side, and a judge.

> Decision making inherently conjures up three entities. And being a person
> is all about freedom of will.

And from the my translation of the Maharal:
> Therefore, the godly Tanna writes that one pillar that the universe
> stands upon is the Torah, for the pillar completes man so that he can
> be a finished creation with respect to himself.

> After that he says "on avodah".... For from this man can be thought
> complete and good toward He Who created him -- by serving Him.... With
> regard to the third, it is necessary for man to be complete and good
> with others, and that is through gemillus chassadim.

> You also must understand that these three pillars parallel three things
> in each man: the mind, the living soul, and the body. None of them
> have existence without G-d. The existence of the soul is when it comes
> close to Hashem by serving Him.... From the perspective of the mind,
> the man gets his existence through Torah, for it is through the Torah
> that man attaches himself to G-d. To the body, man gets his existence
> through gemillus chassadim for the body has no closeness or attachment
> to Hashem, just that Hashem is kind to all. When man performs kindness
> G-d is kind to him, and so gives him existence.

And returning to my summary:
> The Maharal works with a similar three, however to him they represent
> two different things. In terms of excess of longing for each world in
> which we live:

>     * Qin'ah -- jealousy is wanting more than our place, not just
>       walking the path to shmayim.
>     * Ta'avah -- too much longing for the pleasures of this world:
>       food, sex, another hour's sleep, etc...
>     * Kavod -- too much interest in the self yields egotism

> In terms of deficiencies to how we relate those we encounter in each
> world:
>     * Idolatry -- the obvious antithesis of serving Hashem
>     * Murder -- the obvious antithesis of being kind to the other people
>       we encounter in this world.
>     * Sexual immorality -- here it's not being described as too much
>       desire for this world, but too little interest in refining
>       oneself, the ultimate goal of Torah and the universe between our
>       ears. After all, when looking at our actions' impacts on others,
>       the only ones harmed by consentual sex is the participants
>       themselves.

Similarly in the mishkan. The three worlds are represented by the
keilim that lack crowns:
    qiyor - taharah in one's relationship with olam hazeh
    menorah - wisdom within one's mind
    mizbeiach - avodah

And the three relationships:
    shulchan - the support of Kelal Yisrael
    aron - perfection of the self from the wisdom of the luchos to the
        middos of the keruvim
    mizbeiach hazahav - sent representing the fully spiritual nature of
        avodah, the reiach nikhoach Lashem with no mediator

Or at the seder, Rabban Gamliel's version:
    maror - sharing someone else's tza'ar
    matzah - ki bechipazon, zerizus
    pesach - avodah

Inyana deyoma: teshuvah is repair of the self, tefillah is repair of our
relationship to HQBH, tzedaqah - bein adam lachaveiro.

Etc, etc, etc, etc, etc.... The avos are related, teshuv

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             The waste of time is the most extravagant
micha@aishdas.org        of all expense.
http://www.aishdas.org                           -Theophrastus
Fax: (270) 514-1507

On Thu, Sep 04, 2008 at 07:06:35AM -0400, Cantor Wolberg wrote:
: I have always taught that the Shechina to the Beis Hamikdash
: was the same as the soul is to the body. From there, volumes
: could be written.

According to Rav Saadia and the Rambam, the Shechinah is the kavod nivra,
a created entity made to represent Hashem's Kavod. Not G-d, and therefore
not necessarily absolutely One.

The Ramban, OTOH, could be a support for your thoughts. But I'm not sure
the volumes /should/ be written. Man can't fully understand himself,
therefore the soul is a mystery. But you're trying to explain it in
terms of a greater mystery.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             When you come to a place of darkness,
micha@aishdas.org        you don't chase out the darkness with a broom.
http://www.aishdas.org   You light a candle.
Fax: (270) 514-1507        - R' Yekusiel Halberstam of Klausenberg zt"l

On Wed, Sep 03, 2008 at 07:58:27PM -0500, Ira Tick wrote:
: > The key to declaring Him "Melekh" is that it means He rules with
: > the will of the people. Otherwise, the term would be "Mosheil". See
: > <http://www.aishdas.org/asp/2005/09/coronating-g-d.shtml> for my take
: > of the Gra's more lengthy discussion of this point.

: As I understood it, a Mosheil is a sort of pragmatic dictatorship, and
: Melech connotes rulership that is deserved, that is reflective of *worth*,
: not just popular reverence.  In fact, in Jewish Law, a melech is not a
: melech if his powers are subject at all to popular will...

First, is your impression supported by the word's use in Tanakh? The
Gra refers to "Ki Lashem hamlukhah, umosheil bagoyim" -- Hashem is in
reality a Melekh, but since the nations don't accept Him as such, he
serves as a Mosheil to them. Also, while "Memshaltekha" is only "bekhol
dor vador", "Malkhusekha malkhus kol olamim". Memshalah will evaporate
through the course of history, becoming full Malkhus.

Not that His Power is subject to public will, but that being a Melekh
means having people willingly follow Him. Being a Mosheil means
imposing that Power despite them. As I wrote in the post I pointed you to:
> This casts the point of Rosh haShanah into being about accepting Hashem
> as our Melech, thereby changing His relationship to us from one of
> Mosheil to that of Melech.

> A Melech need not impose His will in the same way that a Mosheil does. A
> Melech, therefore, has the opportunity to act with kindness and mercy at
> times when a Mosheil could not. We therefore introduce High Holidays,
> the days of judgement, by declaring G-d's meluchah. By voluntarily
> accepting Him as king we obviate the need for G-d to direct us on the
> right path through trials and tribulations.

Pretty close to your conclusion:
: As for the dictum "Ein Melech B'lo Am"  I think that refers to the fact that
: G-d goes unappreciated without people to revere Him, and that all His power
: and authority are unfulfilled  without creation to take part in it.

I think we differed because my line:
:> The key to declaring Him "Melekh" is that it means He rules with
:> the will of the people...
was insufficiently clear.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Like a bird, man can reach undreamed-of
micha@aishdas.org        heights as long as he works his wings.
http://www.aishdas.org   But if he relaxes them for but one minute,
Fax: (270) 514-1507      he plummets downward.   - Rav Yisrael Salanter

On Sun, Aug 31, 2008 at 09:59:28AM +0300, Eli Turkel wrote:
: what is the halachik responsibility of parents who are visiting
: someone and the smaller children cause damage in the house?

Is BB 5:9 (ie 87b) relevent? Someone who sends his son to the store with
some money to get some oil, and the child breaks the jug on the way home
and lost the change (a case my mother might remember well...): if the
son held the family's jug and the storeowner filled it, he is patur;
otherwise, the chakhammim require the storeowner reimberse (R Yehudah
does not).

The chakhamim hold the seller at fault for not assuming the boy was there
to give him the money and tell him to send the oil back with an adult.

It would seem that people are supposed to expect that these things happen
when kids are around. I know, it's a stretch; I'm really fishing for
some relevent maqor.

OTOH, what if the child is a "shor hamu'ad" and whle the parents know
they're raising Dennis the Menace, the host does not? Can one say he
knowingly incurred the risk when he invited them, since he knows that
some children are wilder than others, or would we allow the host to
assume the child is typical?

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             A sick person never rejects a healing procedure
micha@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

Yitzchok Levine wrote:
> From page 209 of *Rav Breuer - His Life and Legacy
>
> *A perusal of his writings makes it abundantly clear that R. Hirsch 
> held that Torah im Derech Eretz was never intended as a temporary 
> measure introduced because of a specific problem during a specific 
> historical period and in a specific geographic area. On the contrary, 
> R. Hirsch held that Torah im Derech Eretz was not only a valid Torah 
> hashkafah; it was the lifestyle of choice. Thus, in his Commentary to 
> the Torah [16] he writes:
>
> //
It is interesting to note that Rav Shwab states in his Collected 
Writings that it wasn't until after he had studied the works of Rav 
Hirsch for 20 years did he realize that he meant it l'chatchila and not 
as hora'as sha'a

Daniel Eidensohn

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: yadmoshe.vcf
Type: text/x-vcard
Size: 103 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20080904/25523a7d/attachment.vcf>

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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 25, Issue 314
***************************************

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..."