Avodah Mailing List

Volume 25: Number 318

Fri, 05 Sep 2008

• 1. Re: NASA, Dead-Sea Scrolls and G-D's holy name (Zev Sero)
• 2. Re: More Philosophy, If Anyone's Up to It (Ira Tick)
• 3. Re: KSA, MB, AhS, Chayei Adam and other codes (Micha Berger)
• 4. Re: Reciting l'Dovid Hashem Ori (Micha Berger)
• 5. Re: Appearance vs. Reality (Micha Berger)
• 6. Re: KSA, MB, AhS, Chayei Adam and other codes (Rich, Joel)
• 7. L'Dovid Hashen Ori (Dov Kay)
• 8. Re: L'Dovid Hashen Ori (T613K@aol.com)
• 9. Re: "Hashem" as God's name (Zev Sero)

T613K@aol.com wrote:

> Greek letters were used in the BHMK?  Where, what, why?

The three boxes in which the money from machtzit hashekel was taken
for trumat halishka were marked alpha, beta, and gamma, so as to give
Yefet a place in "the tents of Shem".

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

Wow  That's a lot to digest.  I feel I've been genuinely out-theologized.
However, I have to say that despite the clear conflict within a person in
the form of different experiences, different drives, etc, I'm not focusing
exclusively on that kind of "unity" in the sense of unidirectional
experience.  What I meant by unity of the soul was whether scientifically,
so to speak, the speculative and investigative person would describe his
immaterial self as "one" entity, despite the distinct dimensions of
experience.  Why or why not would we be able to describe ourselves as one?
What definition or conept of unity would we require?  What definition are we
looking for when we talk about ourselves as entities distinct and separate
from the divisible, particulate world of the physical?  How about when we
say that G-d is one?  The problem is thus more epistemological and
analytical than psychospiritual.  For example, I just heard R Akiva Tatz
quote the Ramchal as using the human notion of unity of the self to describe
the unity of G-d.  I also refer you to the medieval philosophers' discussion
of the unity of the soul and of G-d, as in writings of Rambam, Ralbag, R
Saadia Gaon.  Though I tend to avoid getting tied up in medieval Jewish
philosophy, which is more metaphysical than psychospiritual (like Maharal
and the Gra who were Renaissance & forgive the term "Enlightenment"
thinkers), but here their focus on the phenomonological is helpful for what
I'm asking.  It's hard to begin to ascribe transcendant qualities to the One
True G-d if you don't know what it means that He is One.  If however,
someone were to focus only on a subjective spiritual view of religion, then
actual phenomenological or mathematical unity is irrelevant, which is how
unity of the soul ties in to my original post of whether holiness is an
objective mode of existence or merely an emotional state.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20080905/c5228e55/attachment-0001.htm>

On Fri, Sep 05, 2008 at 12:14:49AM -0400, Richard Wolpoe wrote:
: then you have to better define heurisitics.
: But even there ther ARE RULES, OBJECTIVE RULES that Posqkim must adhere to.
: E.G.  not ending a sentence with a perposition, or to aggegregiously without
: concern of consequences split an infinitve!

There are some hard rules. Such as rov within the context of counting
heads. Or arguing against a tanna without /someone/ else to claim as
support. Or a way to claim your case is distinct and therefore you
aren't arguing.

But much of pesaq, particularly the interesting cases, involves the
general tendencies.

...
: I don't call if a 'soft rule O r a heuristic. I cal lit a default a klal a
: gnerality. When the SA deviates we CAN call him on it and if there is an
: over-riding excpetoin Good and if not we can question his adherence to his
: own rules

I'm not sure we mean different things though.

A "soft rule" isn't a heuristic. A heuristic is a set of soft rules
including how to navigate those soft rules when they recommend conflicting
results for a given case.

But not every soft rule is what you're calling a kelal. Sometimes a kelal
is trumped by a value judgment. If the value emerges from the mesorah,
this is halachic. If the value is being imposed, it's not.

In general, this is going to be a source of machloqesin, as it's hard
to define.

: The point? The BY violated HIS OWN rule re: 3 matzos. Which says to me that
: the rule was not soft but a default In the face of a STRONGER over-riding
: rule he gave in. What WAS that over-riding rule? Well look at BY hismlef nd
: the kaf hachayyim...

And the heuristic is in deciding which rule should trump which.

I have no idea why you object to calling a kelal a soft rule, but that's
a silly topic to dwell on. I meant that the rule is soft in contrast to
hard-and-fast rules that if violated take you outside the realm of pesaq.

...
: So waht SHOULD the GRA have done?
: He should have said I honestly believe that all of the above are wrong and
: that the Gmara demans TWO not THREE, but I am going to defer to the SYSTEM
: at large, the peer reivew, etc. but he did not. This is not due to any
: hueuristics. It is due to the abilty of a Gaon to use oforce of personality
: to ignore consensus. It is imho no different than Tanur Achnai etc.

The case of tanur achnai, as is clear from the masqanah, was about process
vs further revelation. The Gra used a variant of the system of which
you disapprove, he did not claim he was leaving the system and getting
his answers by ruach haqodesh or bas qol. It's nothing at all alike.

The question is the limits of the system. You acknowledge a much smaller
subset of the system than would the majority of observant Jews. That only
one particular set of valuations for comparing various kelalei pesaq is
valid. You should "defer to the system at large and the peer review" and
broaden your definition of halachic process.

...
:> Unlike actual nimnu vegamru, a vote taken of a BD of people sitting in
:> the same room.

: Look the BY uses it often. Are you saying HE is wrong? He did it to overeule
: the Rif in YD 101 Ayein Sham

He uses it AS A KELAL. Within BD with an actual head count, it's a hard
and fast rule.

...
: Yep and I say taht any gadol who is "accepted" can be justified by your
: postings because since he is an acceptable Gadol ANYTHING he says msut be
: acceptable.

Didn't you say something about peer review?

:-)BBii!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             You will never "find" time for anything.
micha@aishdas.org        If you want time, you must make it.
http://www.aishdas.org                     - Charles Buxton
Fax: (270) 514-1507

On Fri, Sep 05, 2008 at 01:48:51AM -0400, T613K@aol.com wrote:
: Just because one person finds some indications that the custom may have been 
: of Sabbatean origin doesn't mean that he's right, or that you should stop a 
: custom that by now is so widespread in Klal Yisrael. An individual should 
: not set himself up as a higher authority or bigger tzaddik than everybody else, 
: unless he hears that some of the biggest gedolim and poskim stopped saying 
: l'Dovid Hashem Ori for that reason, or he really is a big posek himself,  or 
: has been told to do so by his own posek or rav.  

"Some of the biggest gedolim and poskim" is not a halachic concept.

The proper way to resolve what to do is to approach your own poseiq, ask
him what someone who is convinced it's a Sabbatean invention ought to do.

The poseiq may ask one or more of the biggest gedolim and poseqim --
his own rabbanim. He might try to convince you you're wrong. He might
even say: I say it, but if *you* are really convinced, *you* shouldn't.
(To paraphrase the answer I got about wearing murex, which was more
"if you really think there is a realistic possibility it's techeiles,
you should".)

Veshamarta laasos kekhol asher yorukha.

:-)BBii!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             The trick is learning to be passionate in one's
micha@aishdas.org        ideals, but compassionate to one's peers.
http://www.aishdas.org
Fax: (270) 514-1507

On Thu, Sep 04, 2008 at 10:34:22PM +0000, kennethgmiller@juno.com wrote:
:> Kibud (perhaps as opposed to kavod) is all about pomp
:> and circumstance. One can argue that WRT being mekhabeid
:> the Borei, appearance IS substance in a way that isn't
:> true in general.

: I have no idea what you mean. Can you elaborate?

: I'd say the opposite. Given that the prerequisite that there's no odor
: in the case I gave, one could easily fool a Melech Basar V'dam that I was
: dressed appropriately. Not only can HaShem easily see through my outer
: garments...

You are discussing kavod, not kibud.

Kibud is creating the aura of kavod. Which is why I defined it in terms
of pomp and circumstance, of image rather than substance.

Giving the queen a crown shows her kavod. The massive crown she wore
at her coronation was not; I'm sure her neck suffered for it. However,
it was kibud, creating that atmosphere of kavod about her personage.

Maybe it's like the difference between honor and glory?

IIRC, it was RMPoppers who pointed out that RSRH makes this distinction
WRT "kol kevudah bas melekh penimah -- the daughter of a king is
all-glorious within" (as he translates it).

:-)BBii!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             When faced, with a decision, ask yourself,
micha@aishdas.org        "How would I decide if it were Ne'ilah now,
http://www.aishdas.org   at the closing moments of Yom Kippur?"
Fax: (270) 514-1507                            - Rav Yisrael Salanter

Interesting debate which reminds me of what R' Asher Weiss said about
being a posek - Sometimes a posek must just use his best judgment
(svarat halev, hargashat halev) and it's hard to draw a clear line
between logic, emotions, intuition and thoughts. The posek needs a lot
of siyata d'shmaya.

BTW, iirc the gemara sites halacha lmaaseh as being the best source
(i.e. it was not just taught in the beit medrash but resulted from an
actual situation and psak).  If so, how do those who favor the MB over
the AH"S explain it?

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.

RTK wrote:<<Just because one person finds some indications that the
custom may have been of Sabbatean origin doesn't mean that he's right, or
that you should stop a custom that by now is so widespread in Klal Yisrael.
 An individual should not set himself up as a higher authority or bigger
tzaddik than everybody else, unless he hears that some of the biggest
gedolim and poskim stopped saying l'Dovid Hashem Ori for that reason,  or
he really is a big posek himself,  or has been told to do so by his own
posek or rav. >> I disagree.  First, as has been pointed out, the
source for reciting L'Dovid in Elul/Tishrei is the book Chemdat Yamim.	R.
Yaakov Emdem attributed this work to Nathan of Gaza, who is a Sabbatean
ideologue, and modern scholars have generally confirmed this attribution. 
So, by not saying this perek, I am following one set of poskim against
others.   Second, most of the poskim I have access to, for all their
brilliance, are not bibliographers or historians, and t
 herefore lack the background knowledge to make a judgement as to the
 origins of this custom.  They are more likely to adopt a dismissive
 attitude to scholarly research than I do, and I cannot in good faith
 accept their attitude in this regard.	Also, they do not have a great
 interest in minhagim, as opposed to technical halacha.  The same applies
 to dikduk.  I know at least one great talmid chacham in town who is only
 yotze k'rias sh'ma bediavad, because he does not distinguish between sh'va
 na and sh'va nach.  I esteem his knowledge in broader halacha and rely on
 his p'sak in questions of issurei kares, but when it comes to dikduk and
 minhagim, he's not your man.  It has nothing to do with who is a bigger
 tzaddik.  Tzidkus doesn't come into it.  I'm sure there are other poskim,
 but I don't know them. Third, there is a fundamental difference between
 questions of halacha and those of minhag (although I concede that the line
 between them is frequently blurred).  It is well kno
 wn that RYBS made many shinuim to nusach hatefillah, but told his talmidim
 not to change their own minhagim, except in a few cases where he felt that
 the nusach was halachically incorrect (eg. the chasima oseh hashalom in
 aseres yemei teshuva).  The Rav didn't expect his talmidim to ask him
 which nusach to follow.  It's simply not a question you need to ask a
 posek. Fourth, I share RMB's prejudice against the ritualisation of
 yiddishkeit, and bolting on yet another addition to the original nusach
 hatefillah just feeds this phenomenon, not least by making davenen even
 longer than it was originally intended to be, which means that everything,
 including the really important bits, get rushed and garbled. Finally, I
 suppose I incline more toward RMB's approach in these matters, of not
 following customs which offend my sechel (eg kaporos, machnisei rachamim
 in selichos, bor'chuni l'shalom, etc).  As someone not brought up with
 customs from home, I supppose I feel myself freer than
  some to pick and choose.  On the other hand, where my sechel doesn't push
  me one way or the other, I try to follow minhagei Lita (my paternal
  yichus) with a Yekke slant.  I maintain my cheilom (as against the
  prevailing choylom) because that is the way my grandfather said it, even
  though I know that scholars do not invest this pronunciation with
  authenticity.  However, seeing that no other pronunciation can be
  confirmed absolutely as authentic, I see no reason to change.  I think
  your focus on tzidkus in this context is not only mistaken, but - even
  worse - chassidic  :-).  To my mind, sechel and minhag Avos trump the
  prescriptions of charismatic tzaddikim any day. At the end of the day,
  none of this matters that much.  It is Elul, and I think we all know
  what's really important. Kol tuvDov Kay 
 
_________________________________________________________________
Win New York holidays with Kellogg?s & Live Search
http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/111354033/direct/01/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20080905/c556276a/attachment-0001.htm>

 
 
In a message dated 9/5/2008, dov_kay@hotmail.co.uk writes:

>>....the source for reciting L'Dovid in  Elul/Tishrei is the book Chemdat 
Yamim.  R. Yaakov Emdem attributed this  work to Nathan of Gaza, who is a 
Sabbatean ideologue....Second, most of  the poskim I have access to, for all their 
brilliance, are not bibliographers  or historians, and therefore lack the 
background knowledge to make a judgement  as to the origins of this custom. They 
are more likely to  adopt a dismissive attitude to scholarly research than I do, 
and I cannot in  good faith accept their attitude in this regard.   <<

>>>>
This is exactly the kind of situation where da'as Torah  comes into play.  
Obviously the historical researches of professors are of  no concern to most of 
the poskim today, and there is nothing about L'Dovid  Hashem Ori that offends 
their sense of what is right and proper in Torah.   If you feel that it makes 
davening rushed and crowded, then you personally  should leave it out.  But 
you should not say you're leaving it out because  you have a better 
understanding and knowledge of what is right and proper than  all the other poskim.  I 
know you don't mean it that way but it sounds  arrogant.
 
You do not know that Rav Emden was right about the authorship of Chemdat 
Yamim, and in addition, Nathan of  Gaza, though a Sabbatean (in fact, he was "the" 
original Sabbatean -- the "navi"  who persuaded Shabtai Zvi that he was 
Moshiach), nevertheless was by all  accounts a genuine scholar, and IF he wrote 
that sefer he may well have based it  on earlier sources which were perfectly 
acceptable.   Certainly today  when hundreds of thousands of Jews have been 
saying L'Dovid Hashem Ori in Elul  all over the world for centuries, there is no 
Sabbatean taint, no fear that it  will somehow influence their neshamos 
adversely.   How could it?   It's Tehillim!  Personally I love that particular kapitel 
(if you can have  favorites among different perakim of Tehillim) and 
certainly will not stop  saying it.  You can stop but don't set yourself up as a 
greater authority  than all the poskim based on what you believe is your superior  
understanding.  
 
Although you wrote that you are "following one set of  poskim against others" 
the only posek you actually named was Rav Emden, who  fought a fierce pitched 
battle against Sabbateanism and sometimes suspected  certain individuals who 
in fact were innocent.  Kol hakovod to him for his  fight for kovod Shamayim 
but that battle is over, that war is won.  We do  not need to worry about 
Sabbateanism anymore.  
 
Other than Rav Emden you cited no contemporary or past  poskim, but only 
unnamed "modern scholars [who] have generally confirmed  this attribution."  I 
would not follow modern  academic scholars in preference to da'as Torah, 
especially since one may well  have reason to suspect that most such academics NEVER 
say L'Dovid Hashem Ori  or any other perek of Tehillim.  Their devotion to pure 
halacha may  well be doubted.




--Toby  Katz
=============






**************It's only a deal if it's where you want to go. Find your travel 
deal here.      
(http://information.travel.aol.com/deals?ncid=aoltrv00050000000047)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20080905/b9eb413e/attachment-0001.htm>

T613K@aol.com wrote:
> From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>
>>And before the war, his Yiddish speaking father would have said "de
>> Aibishter" (the Most High).<<

> I think, although I am not certain, that he would have said "der 
> Aibishter."  We Americans, those of us who retain a smattering of 

Actually, "der Eibershter".

>  Even knowing that there is such a rule in Yiddish, with most words
> I have no idea whether I should be using "der" or "dos."  I think
> "di" is plural but I'm not even sure about that. 

"Di" is feminine.  But almost no Yiddish speakers are careful with
genders of inanimate objects.


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


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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 25, Issue 318
***************************************

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..."