Avodah Mailing List

Volume 25: Number 322

Tue, 09 Sep 2008

• 1. Re: HaShem as God's Name (Daniel Eidensohn)
• 2. Re: More Philosophy, If Anyone's Up to It (Micha Berger)
• 3. Re: Geirut (Micha Berger)
• 4. Re: HaShem as God's Name (T613K@aol.com)
• 5. Re: Reciting l'Dovid Hashem Ori... (Saul Mashbaum)
• 6. HaShem as God's Name (Cantor Wolberg)
• 7. Re: HaShem as God's Name (kennethgmiller@juno.com)
• 8. Re: HaShem as God's Name (Moshe Y. Gluck)
• 9. Question on parasha (Gershon Dubin)
• 10. Re: More Philosophy, If Anyone's Up to It (Ira Tick)

R' Aryeh Herzig wrote:
> People today have become averse to using the word "G-d" in normal 
> conversations.  (According to the last mishna in Berachos it seems 
> important to Davka use the name of G-d and even pronounce it in 
> greeting another Jew.)
>  
Strangely enough, the decree attributed to Boaz mentioned in the mishna, 
mentioned in medrash, mentioned also in Makkos (23b) as being one of 
three things that were decreed on earth and were agreed to in the 
heavenly court - nevertheless is not brought as halacha. One explanation 
I saw is that people could not accept the obligation or even the 
permission to use G-d's name. [See also Rashi in Makkos (23b)]

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/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20080908/010d806b/attachment-0001.vcf>

On Fri, Sep 05, 2008 at 03:18:25AM -0500, Ira Tick wrote:
:              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.

I think that one's immaterial self is a single process of interlocking
parts, none of which would be the same without their interaction to the
other parts.

The first chapter of the Vilna Gaon's Even Sheleimah has a title that
can be translated as "the whole purpose of the Torah is to shatter the
middos". Implied in this, and for that matter in RYSalanter's entire
project is the idea that soul and personality are identical.

:                                                         How about when we
: say that G-d is one?

Hashem, OTOH, is One is a way we can't really understand.

We try to approximate that by unifying all the facets of that process
to a single goal. Thereby acheiving sheleimus and temimus, and making
the tzelem E-lokim as close to the Original as we can.

:              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.

Especially since one can't even speak of "qualities" belashon rabim if
one does accept that He is Absolute Unity.

: 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.

Who said there is a difference between "objective mode of existence"
and emotional state? If the mind is the soul, or at least something
the soul does, then those emotional states are at least part of that
objective mode.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             "Man wants to achieve greatness overnight,
micha@aishdas.org        and he wants to sleep well that night too."
http://www.aishdas.org         - Rav Yosef Yozel Horwitz, Alter of Novarodok
Fax: (270) 514-1507

I keep on trying to start a reply, and then more emails come in on this
tropic. So then I delay my reply until I have time to read them (slowly;
not my moderation-skim), re-entering the loop.

Instead, I will try to just discuss this Rambam that RMS and I disagree
on how to read.

On Thu, Sep 04, 2008 at 11:58pm EDT, R Meir Shinnar wrote:
: I think we all come with our preconceptions.  I think that RMB comes  
: with preconceptions that kabbalat ol mitzvot must be in the rambam -  
: and I am sure that I have my own preconceptions...

That last clause is why RMS is a pleasure to disagree with.

Yes, I have a prconcieved notion that if the gemara requires it, we
require it, and the Rambam is confusing, we should find a way to read
the Rambam that doesn't assume he disagrees with the gemara.

I therefore took it for granted that in trying to avoid the Rambam's
apparent self-contradiction, one should assume his conclusion includes
QOM.

: References are to the mechon mamre edition - everything in issure  
: biah ch 13.

But it isn't. In the 2nd half of ch 12 the Rambam discusses who may be
megayeir. In 12:13 (12:17) he writes:
> Kol hagoyim kulam shenisgayru veyiqablu aleihen kol hamitzvos shel
> Torah ... harei hein keYisrael lekhol davar.
> Shene'emar "Haqahal, chuqah achas lakhem" (Bamidbar 15:15)
> Umutarim lehikaneis beqehal Hashem miyad...

So, someone who did both geirus and QOM are (1) Jews WRT every mitzvah
and (2) can marry any other Jew immediately (later excepting for those
geirim from Amon, Mo'av, Mitzrayim or Edom).

This to me seems to be a clear statement that the Rambam requires QOM.
Not technically as part of geirus; but that it and geirus are required.

I find the word order difficult. I would have assumed, given this
halakhah's placement in a discussion of pre-conversion (pereq 12),
that QOM is a precondition. But the wording in the halakhah itself
places it second.

But in any case, his speaking of "kol hamitzvos shel Torah" is similar
to the gemara's excluding the convert "haba leqabeil divrei Torah chutz
midavar echad" (Bekhoros 30b). The question remains why he shifts out
of the gemara's negative statement of the din. And why "mitzvos" rather
than "davar"? But it's pretty close, regardless of subtle differences
in implication.

Now that I had concluded that the Rambam requires QOM for someone to be
a Jew in all ways, I'm first ready to reaq pereq 13.

: The problem that the rambam starts this section with is (hal 10) -  
: that it is impossible that  shlomo and shimshon marry goyot - which  
: is an avera.  Therefore, the read of the rambam must end up that  
: those women were not goyot...

In 13:10 (14) the Rambam necessitates checking for ulterior motive. It
need not conclude that they were not goyos. It could instead conclude
that Shimshon and Shelomo haMelekh did everything they were supposed to,
and therefore weren't culpable for marrying goyos.

: One could have solved this problem by arguing the metziut - which to  
: some extent is what RMB and RTK do - that the women were actually (or  
: seemed to be) shomre mitzvot, at least initially, and therefore had  
: the status of ger shechazar....

That's not my position. I argue that they were non-Jews who succeeded
in fooling their husbands into thinking they were giyoros who were meQOM
(mequbalos ol mitzvos).

In fact, it would seem that you would have to conclude that Shimshon's
parents were prejudiced against giyoros (Shofetim 14:3), whereas I could
say they simply weren't fooled.


: The rambam (by my read) deliberately and specifically rejects this  
: option - (hal 13) - vehadavar yadua she chazru ela bishvil davar  
: (not, as RTK .  Furthermore, (still hal 13)  veod hochiach sofan al  
: techilatan - any doubt we might have had is erased by their later  
: acts - that they seemed sincere.

Which fits my understanding that the Rambam said the husbands only
thought they were geirim. After the whole maaseh, with hindsight, we
realize the husbands were wrong, that the wives never were really
meQOM.

...
: (BTW, as RMB notices, hochiach sofan et techilatan  - if it means  
: that by knowing later improper actions tells us about earlier actions  
: - and that therefore the gerut is invalid - is directly contradicted  
: by the notion of (hal 14) that chazar ve'avad avoda zara hare hu  
: keyisrael meshumad -  but there is no contradiction if hochiach sofan  
: allows us to evaluate the individual - but it does not invalidate the  
: gerut (as in my pshat))

I see 13:14 (17) as distinguishing between the cases where later
behavior is because they never did QOM vs those where the geir returned
to the practices of their youth. This is kind of difficult, and often
impossible. So, we are left with having someone we /think/ is a Jew but
we're allow to harbor cheshash about until we see where they actually
stand.

Otherwise, 13:14 (17)'s "afilu chazar ve'avad AZ, harei hu keYisrael
meshumad" would contradict "ve'od shehochiach sofan al techilasan" of
the previous halakhah.

: The rambam, therefore, tries to be crystal clear to make sure that we  
: understand that the issue is not that they might have been sincere.   
: He goes even further, and here is where I think RMB misunderstands  
: the purpose and thrust of the statement.  This is in hal 13
: hishvan hacatuv keilu hen goyot uveisuran omdot
: RMB reads this to mean that the rambam states that they were goyot,  
: uveisuran omdot.  This reading, if correct, would mean that the  
: rambam is saying that the women were  assur - and this would directly  
: contradict hal 10 - that they were not assur.  This by itself  
: suggests that this pshat is problematic and  probably wrong.

I resolve this as above. In 10 (14) we are told what should be done
and the husbands did. That need not mean they weren't assuros; it could
simply mean the husbands didn't realize they were assuros.

: However, the rambam doesn't say that they were goyot uveisuran omdot-  
: this phrase is part of subordinate clause - hishvan hacatuv keilu hen  
: goyot uveisuran omdot -
: tanach treats them as if they were goyot uveisuran omdot = but he  
: does not say hishvan hacatuv shehen goyot - tanach treats them as  
: goyot - a a crucial distinction...

It is, and I admit I don't know what to do with the distinction.

However, I feel that to explain the Rambam otherwise requires ignoring
12:13 (17) and makes a hash of the contrast between "ve'od shochiach
sofan", which isn't part of "chashvan hakasuv" and "chazar ve'avad".

Bottom line is that I don't like either of our takes on pereq 13.
They're both flawed. But concluding that the Rambam requires QOM along
with geirus doesn't require understanding that stretch of pereq 13,
since it's stated outright in 12.

: Lastly, again, simple pshat of hal 14 is as follows:
: 1) ger shelo badku acharav o shelo hodiu - first cases of inadequate  
: examination before conversion - hare ze ger.

: 2) vefafilu noda shebishvil davar - the afilu tells us that this is a  
: worse case - not merely inadequate examination, but the examination  
: reveals improper motivation - ho'il umal vetaval yatza miklal hagoyim  
: - but then hoshehsim lo ad sheyitbaer zidkuto.

It's possible to convert for ulterior motives, but still accept ol
mitzvos. Not likely, but possible. The guy believes in Torah miSinai,
but would have remained in his current lifestyle if it weren't for that
pretty Jewish girl...

I think this distinction, between geirus ledavar and a lack of QOM, is
being overlooked in general in this discussion. I'm checking my notes
(from my ever-delayed attempt to reply to the rest of the thread) to
see how badly I'm doing it too.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             "The worst thing that can happen to a
micha@aishdas.org        person is to remain asleep and untamed."
http://www.aishdas.org          - Rabbi Simcha Zissel Ziv, Alter of Kelm
Fax: (270) 514-1507

 
 
From: _yfel912928@aim.com_ (mailto:yfel912928@aim.com) 


>>I think the use of "Hashem" is a sociological phenomenon. That  is, whereas 
it had been the community preference to fit-in and be considered  religiously 
normal among other Americans, there came to be a need/inclination to  stand 
out and be different. Like so much else in contemporary Yiddishkeit, it  
probably stems from a reaction to the 1960's, when differences became points of  
pride and ethnicity suddenly shined and mattered.<<

-- Yaakov  Feldman




>>>>>
I think it goes back way before that, to a  discomfort with using non-Jewish 
or non-loshon hakodesh names for G-d.   Even way before the Sixties, even in 
the shtetl, my impression is that it was  rare for people to refer to Him as 
"Gott" but rather they would say the  "Ribono Shel Olam" which, the way my 
grandparents said it, when I was a  child I thought was one  six-syllable Yiddish 
word -- "Ribonashalolam"  -- with the major stress on the second syllable and a 
secondary stress on the  fifth (penultimate) syllable.  (I also thought my 
grandfather's name was  "Moshechiel" -- one Yiddish word -- not realizing it was 
"Moshe Yechiel" until  much later.)  The other word frequently used was the 
one R' Micha mentioned  the other day, der Aibershter.  If you were learning it 
might be  "Hakadosh Baruch Hu" but that was used less often.  A constant 
saying I  heard as a child was "Der Ribonoshelolam feert zein velt."  Very  
comforting, no matter what happened.  Another one, to counter-balance that  one and 
prevent total passivity, was "A Yid git zich an eitza."  Thus, "G-d  runs the 
world" but at the same time, "Jews are resourceful."


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






**************Psssst...Have you heard the news? There's a new fashion blog, 
plus the latest fall trends and hair styles at StyleList.com.      
(http://www.stylelist.com/trends?ncid=aolsty00050000000014)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20080908/cfe949b6/attachment-0001.htm>

Doing some elementary research, I saw "inside" things that have been
said about reciting l'Dovid Hashem Ori....

I saw two siddurim which relate to the Gra's position. A recently
compiled work, "Siddur Vilna" says tersely, in parentheses, that the
Gra did not say L'Dovid. The well-known 2 volume "Siddur Otzar
HaTefilot" says that the Gra said *not to say it*.

I saw 2 chassidic siddurim. The siddur Minchat Eliezer  (Muncatch) has
 L'Dovid, without comment/reservation. The siddur "Heichal Habracha
(Kamarne), from which the Tzanzer chassid who is the rebbe of the
chassidic shul near me davens *does not have it at all*.

I note that "The World of Prayer" by R. Munk, which usually mentions
even the parts of the t'filla he does not comment on, does not mention
 this custom at all.

It is clear that this custom, although widespread, is by no means
universal, and the implication posted that not saying L'Dovid is
tantamount to a lack of yirat shamayim is most unjustified.

I saw in siddur "Beiuri HaGra (which does *not* purport to be the
nussach of the Gra, but cites comments of the Gra on the psukim in the
siddur ) that "ori v'yishi" refers to nefesh and ruach, and "m'oz
chayyai" refers to n'shama.

Saul Mashbaum

R' Yaakov Feldman wrote:  It also set Orthodoxy apart from  
Conservative, Reform, etc.and seemed to say that while they worship  
everyman's God, we worship Hashem, the "Jewish God".

Let me assure you that as far as Conservative k'lei kodesh and  
knowledgeable people go, they definitely use HaShem a lot more than  
God. So to say it set Orthodoxy apart from Conservative is just not  
true. I cannot speak for the Reform.

Kol tuv,
ri
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20080908/5882d95c/attachment-0001.htm>

R' Yaakov Feldman commented:
> It has gotten to the point, interstingly enough, where
> Orthodox actually blush when we say "God" between
> ourselves (or when in the presence of non-observant Jews
> along with other Orthodox) and quickly mutter the term
> "Hashem" as an aside.

Yes, it's gotten to that point, but I think it has actually advanced even
further beyond that point: I've seen some write it as "H-shem" or as
"Hash-m" so as to avoid desecrating it when the writing is discarded.

There was a time when I would bemoan such spelling, or even make fun of it.
But I've adopted a different attitude recently. Those who would make fun of
the spelling "Hash-m" surely feel that way because it is not among the
Names of G-d. And I agree that it is not a Name in the English language,
certainly not in Lashon Hakodesh, and not in Yiddish either.

But perhaps it *IS* a Holy Name in the language (dialect, creole, whatever)
known as "Yeshivish". Those who speak Yeshivish certainly use it in that
sense: "Hashem said this. Hashem did that." But I cannot find my copy of
Chaim Weiser's authoritative dictionary on the subject (ISBN: 1568216149).
Can someone else look it up?

I would concede the possibility that the name "Hashem" has no kedusha by the logic that whenever it is used, there is an implicit kavana of "shelo lishma".

Akiva Miller

____________________________________________________________
Largest network of startups. Find new startup opportunities. Click here.
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2141/fc
/Ioyw6i3l5i5TuskFEgGrZBKE0Hl2fnfcoR2swcAA2fnzSgkXqbcN1w/

People today have become averse to using the word "G-d" in normal conversations.? 
--------------



KT,
MYG

Someone asked me the following:  The pasuk in this week's parasha tells
us that one may not leave a body unburied overnight.  However, last
week's parasha ended with a body being left for as long as 4 weeks while
the ziknei Beis Din are informed of the need for them to come and then
they actually come to measure.  How could this be?

Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com
____________________________________________________________
Take a break - you deserve it.  Click here to find a great vacation.
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2141/fc
/Ioyw6i3nJgybW4RkdbPaPBCkwND6OfoixTm1Rly5RPG8cOSQBXCUi9/

On Mon, Sep 8, 2008 at 1:49 PM, Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org> wrote:

> On Fri, Sep 05, 2008 at 03:18:25AM -0500, Ira Tick wrote:
> :              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.
>
> I think that one's immaterial self is a single process of interlocking
> parts, none of which would be the same without their interaction to the
> other parts.
>
> The first chapter of the Vilna Gaon's Even Sheleimah has a title that
> can be translated as "the whole purpose of the Torah is to shatter the
> middos". Implied in this, and for that matter in RYSalanter's entire
> project is the idea that soul and personality are identical.
>
> :                                                         How about when we
> : say that G-d is one?
>
> Hashem, OTOH, is One is a way we can't really understand.
>
> : 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.
>
> Who said there is a difference between "objective mode of existence"
> and emotional state? If the mind is the soul, or at least something
> the soul does, then those emotional states are at least part of that
> objective mode.
>
> Tir'u baTov!
> -Micha



I like what you said about unity being able to refer to the "interlocking"
parts of the soul, that rotate and reconfigure but remain interconnected.
It's a nice mashal and one I haven't thought of in that exact way before,
nor thought about at all for a long time.
 Even so, if you or anyone else could elaborate...

As to G-d's Oneness, I would have thought that the unity of the soul would
be the only real available precedent, if G-d has the attributes ascribed to
Him.  In spite of all the restatements of His Oneness and how it is totally
different than our own and completely beyond human understanding, in the
end, we believe in G-d and paint Him as an actor in our lives with abilities
and actions and faculties analogous in some way to our own.  As I said,
despite their frustrations and caveats, the Rishonim seem to say this
clearly, especially R Saadia Gaon in Emunos V'Deos.  I'm capable of
believing in things I don't fully understand (at least sometimes I am), but
its hard not to want to understand just enough to get an idea that's
reasonable to believe, even if through [genuinely good] analogies.

I like very much your last point about the emotions themselves being enough
reality [for a person to be motivated by (?) ].  I meant specifically some
sort of objective reality that's mirrored by our association of emotion with
a person or with G-d, like love, which we use to describe the value and
importance someone has for us and how we view them through the lens of our
affectionate feelings.  However, as I said, I like what you wrote because
its important for everyone, myself especially, to accept our deepest
emotions and our conscience without too much analysis and self-doubt.

When it comes to those guiding and ultimately life-fulfilling feelings, the
question "Why?" may have little constructive meaning.  We should focus on
training ourselves to listen to our conscience and question our actions
instead.  Then, our inner voice will provide us the knowledge and guidance
we need to live life as "right" as can be by whatever definition of right is
possible.  If that means building an emotional relationship with G-d, and
more personal than metaphyiscal definitions of Holy, than so be it --
probably much healthier anyway and the way most people are capable of
living.

If the message of Torah is one of love and loyalty, and that those feelings
are self-affirming truths, then we can understand why, when discussing
Avodah MeiAhavah, the Rambam uses the word "Emes" in his famous line:  "Oseh
haemes mp'nei shehu emes, v'sof hatovah lavo b'chlal."  Love and loyalty to
G-d and to others is as lishmah as it gets.

We should all be zocheh this time of year to learn to respect ourselves, to
love G-d and each other in whatever way G-d makes us able, and see only
blessings as a result.

-- 
Ira Tick
6519 N Whipple
Chicago, IL 60645
(414) 699-8285

itick1986@gmail.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20080908/56442173/attachment.htm>

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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 25, Issue 322
***************************************

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..."