Avodah Mailing List

Volume 25: Number 431

Tue, 23 Dec 2008

• 1. When NOT to Lie for Peace (Meir Rabi)
• 2. Re: [Areivim] Rabbi Broyde responds (Micha Berger)
• 3. Re: Yosef Kappara and Tamar (T6...@aol.com)
• 4. Re: women lighting candles (kennethgmil...@juno.com)
• 5. Re: women lighting candles (Yitzhak Grossman)
• 6. Re: Kolech calls for dayanot (Rich, Joel)
• 7. Maoz Tsur (SBA Gmail)
• 8. [Areivim] nittel questions (SBA Gmail)
• 9. Re: women lighting candles (Eli Turkel)
• 10. Re: women lighting candles (Arie Folger)
• 11. Re: women lighting candles (Zev Sero)
• 12. Re: Only One Interpretation, The Right One - (Was Did RSRH write LH) (Micha Berger)
• 13. Re: women lighting candles (Rich, Joel)
• 14. Re: women lighting candles (Micha Berger)
• 15. Re: mesorah (Micha Berger)
• 16. Hellenism and Judaism (Yitzchok Levine)

Why are Yosef's brothers praised for not being able to speak to him
BeShalom,? Is it not a Mitzvah to even lie in order to make and promote
peace? They themselves lied to promote peace when they sent the messenger to
Yosef bearing the fictitious message from YaAkov that Yosef should forgive
his brothers and not bear a grudge and seek retribution.

 

Meir Rabi

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20081223/79714775/attachment-0001.htm>

On Mon, Dec 22, 2008 at 01:33:19PM -0000, Chana Luntz wrote:
: RMF forwarded us a comment written by RMB[royde]...
: And then quotes RMB's posting in: 
: http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol06/v06n092.shtml

Tangentially, a comment on that post:
> Allow me to conclude with an observation. I was once participating in
> an email discussion about cheating on income taxes in Israel (I was
> against it), and one of the corespondents was quoting rationale after
> rationale and verbal conversation after verbal conversation with 'poskim'
> who permit this (he claimed). I observed that I can find more published
> teshuvot permitting married women not to cover their hair than I can find
> written teshuvot permitting cheating on Israeli income tax according to
> Jewish law! To my surprise, this statement deeply bothered people --
> even as I think it a true statement about the published literature --
> certain people view the obligation of married women to cover their
> hair as a crucial social component of orthodoxy, to which no breaches
> in the wall shall be tolerated. That approach is inconsistent with my
> understanding of how halacha ought to function.

What I find problematic is that we self-define such that we find chumeros
in how women cover their hair, and yet can hunt for qulos in pying taxes,
or consider a tax evader a "good Jew".

It's like the issue being batted around between RET and RTK. RET suggested
that someone who doesn't light her menorah tonight for anti-feminist
reasons is making the same error as someone who makes a point of lighting
one -- despite what momma did -- to make a feminist point.

We are so busy defining ourselves in how we are different than the
liberal movements, we ended up playing down and being meiqil in those
values they did /not/ change. Or at least no longer see them as defining
qualities of being a good Jew.

As I wrote in the past, the shift from a good Jew being "an ehrlicher
Yid" to today's notion of a "frum Jew" is very telling.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Feeling grateful  to or appreciative of  someone
mi...@aishdas.org        or something in your life actually attracts more
http://www.aishdas.org   of the things that you appreciate and value into
Fax: (270) 514-1507      your life.         - Christiane Northrup, M.D.

 
 
From: Micha Berger _micha@aishdas.org_ (mailto:mi...@aishdas.org) 
: He had to do all that  in order to 1. find out if the brothers were sorry 2.
: induce them to do  teshuva 3. make sure the teshuva was perfect -- perfect
: teshuva being that  if you are in the same situation again, this time you 
don't
: do the sin and  4. give them enough tza'ar that they would have kapara in 
this
: world and  not have to be punished b'yedei Shamayim in this world or the  
next.[--TK]


>>But according to the medrash that links the harugei malkhus to  the sale
of Yoseif (and not just as an excuse proposed by the governor), it  would
seem that Yoseif's grand plan failed. There was remaining guilt, and  a
skewed perception that was taught down the generations until it  needed
removal in the days of churban bayis sheini and of Bar  Kochva.<<




>>>>>
Yosef's plan was not completely successful and  the kappara was not complete. 
 See Ber 45:-2 "Velo yachol Yosef  lehis'apek...behisvada Yosef el echav. 
Vayiten es kolo bivchi"  What does  it mean he couldn't hold himself back 
anymore?  Why did he even want  to?  Because their kapara was not complete yet, but 
he could no longer hold  himself back from greeting his brothers and from 
crying over them.  Had he  held on a bit longer their teshuva would have been 
complete and their kapara  would have been complete.
 
(The above understanding is not my original but I don't remember  where it's 
from, maybe Eliyahu Kitov, Sefer Haparshios  -- and of course he  bases 
everything he writes on sources too.)





--Toby Katz
=============
"If you  don't read the newspaper you are uninformed; 
if you do read the newspaper  you are misinformed."
--Mark Twain

Read *Jewish World Review* at _http://jewishworldreview.com/_ 
(http://jewishworldreview.com/) 




--------------------------
**************One site keeps you connected to all your email: AOL Mail, 
Gmail, and Yahoo Mail. Try it now. 
(http://www.aol.com/?optin=new-dp&;icid=aolcom40vanity&ncid=emlcntaolcom00000025)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20081222/944f01b6/attachment-0001.htm>

R' Eli Turkel wrote:
> The gemara says explicitly women are required in
> chanukah candles.

R"n Toby Katz responded:
> We do not pasken from the Gemara. The time-honored
> psak is that women are yotzei with their husband's
> lighting and must light only if alone.

Last week I would have defended RET, by pointing out that it's not just the
gemara, but the Shulchan Aruch as well which says this. But a few days ago,
I actually looked at that Shulchan Aruch, and I saw an interesting Mishna
Brurah on it.

MB 675:9 quotes the Olas Shmuel that "although by us, each one lights by
himself, nevertheless a woman does not have to light because they are
merely tafel to the men (havayan rak tefeilos la'anashim). If they want to
light, they do say the brachos, because it is like other mitzvos aseh
shehazman grama that they can say brachos on. When the man is not home, the
woman should light, because she *is* obligated, and *with* a bracha -- and
not by having a child light."

He does not sound ambivalent to me, but seems to be saying similar to RTK, that women emphatically *do not* light unless they are alone.

I find it particularly noteworthy that he invokes the concept of "mitzvos
aseh shehazman grama" and the (Ashkenazi) psak that women *do* say the
brachos on such mitzvos. This seems to contradict his own admission that
women *are* obligated on their own. I have to wonder why he phrased it this
way, rather than simply saying that "If they want to light, they do say the
brachos, because they *are* obligated."

Furthermore, I wonder what he would say to a Sefardi woman, who wants to
light her own menora beside her husband's, and normally does *not* say a
bracha on a Mitzvat Aseh Shehazman Grama. Would he say that invoking MASG
was a mere figure of speech, and she *can* say the bracha here? Or would he
say that even though she does have a technical obligation to light, she
lacks a *practical* obligation (because she so easily choose to be yotzay
with her husband) and should therefore skip the bracha. I suppose it would
depend on the precise reasoning behind skipping those brachos in general.

By the way, I was vary surprised to find the word "tafel" used, as opposed
to the "ishto k'gufo" which has appeared in so many recent posts. Can
anyone offer a citation for where "ishto k'gufo" appears in the context of
Ner Chanuka? Or is just another "phantom maamar chazal"?

Akiva Miller

____________________________________________________________
Click here for free information on how to reduce your debt by filing for bankruptcy.
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2141/fc/
PnY6rw22U6Kgru2K1Y5e5JxdKmLESSyZIq5deDh7mtOektiR1uZzM/

On Mon, 22 Dec 2008 14:59:16 -0500
Zev Sero <z...@sero.name> wrote:

...

> How can it have anything to do with anti-feminism, when it goes back
> to before there was any feminism?  It may be difficult to explain, but

Not anti-feminism, but an ideology, perhaps based on societal norms,
that has a definite opinion on a woman's place, which may then spill
over into Halachah, in which case reasons are then sought to justify
it.  [This is only a suggestion; I am not sufficiently well-versed in
the sugya to state a definite opinion.]

> Zev Sero               Something has gone seriously awry with this Court's

Yitzhak
--
Bein Din Ledin - http://bdl.freehostia.com
A discussion of Hoshen Mishpat, Even Ha'Ezer and other matters

 


>> How is the scope of DdMD broader than the scope of ordinary kiblu?
>> "Dina" is by definition a matter of mamonot, and every single example

>> of DdMD is about determining who owns what.

> And you understand the power of the ruler of a country (e.g. King) to 
> conscript an army, kill rebels etc... As based on?

It's certainly not covered by DdMD.  I don't know what does cover it,
but none of the examples in the gemara where Shmuel's memra is applied
justify such an interpretation, and where else could anyone get one?

-- 
Zev Sero       

=======================================
From the rishonim and achronim who discuss the source and scope of
shmuel's statement (see for example Rashbam on baba Batra 45a or Trumat
Hadeshen 1:341).

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.

I noticed  last week's Dushinsky Torah newsletter mention that in the verse
'Yevanim', the correct version in "uminosar kankanim" is "NAASOH (with a
kometz) neis lashoshanim".

I have always said and heard it as NAASEH (with a segol).
I took a bit of survey - and that is how nearly everyone sings it. (Some
suggested that "naaseh" can also mean past tense.)

So I checked Artscroll, Otzar Hatefillos and Avodas Yisroel (Baer) and all
have it with the kometz.

So my question is, is this a charedi/chassidish common error, or do others
also say it thus?

2)

From this we got on to "vetimu kol hashmanim" (generally said with a pasach
by the same people).
Upon checking - this is also printed with a kometz - HASHMONIM.

(I realise that this is not an issue for Sfardim and Israelis. In fact
someone suggested that the mechaber of Maoz Tzur may indeed have  been a
Sfardi - thus mixing his kometz and pasachs...)

So why isn't 'Chashmanim'  also with a kometz? (Presumably 'kankanim' with a
pasach is OK.).

Yelamdenu Raboseinu

SBA (who knows almost nothing about such matters0
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20081223/2027e709/attachment-0001.htm>

From: Saul.Z.New...@kp.org
1--was  it  agreed  previously that outside of all chasidim,  no other
community holds  from nittel?
>>>

I doubt that that is correct. AFAIK it was kept in Greater Hungary and the
CS talks about it - and he hailed from Fafdam.
--
>>>  ie  i believe eidot hamizrach,
who of course lived in countries where kratzmach wasn't known/observed.

>>> , OU, YU , MO, DL  communities  do NOT  avoid  torah learning  on that
night . .... when nittel falls during  chanuka,  do those who hold from it
do anything  different?  eg   light earlier, refrain from chanukka parties,
say no divrei torah at channuka  gathering  etc?
>>

I would think that 'Chanuka parties and chanuka gatherings' are generally
popular in "OU, YU , MO, DL  communities",  thus this would not be relevant
to them.

(No such issues here in Oz, where Chanuka is in summer and most kids are
already in pyjamas when the candles are lit...Especially with us who light
only after Maariv.)

SBA
(Who last night and tonight will be lighting the candles in Beth Chabad
Bangkok, And BEZH Wed night be'ir hakodesh Yerushalayim.)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20081223/64305f9e/attachment-0001.htm>

>
> That's why I am arguing (in a post you might not have seen yet) that
> the notion that either position is true and should be true for all is
> mistaken. When going beyond norm, personal motivation matters.

RAL is his article does not claim that this is a psak halacha for everyone.
He brings the various answers of Chatam Sofer and others and feels that
all of them are forced. His conclusion is that given that since women
are explicitly
included in the mitzvah the onus of proof is on those that say women should
not light. He certainly is not paskening for everyone.

BTW Micha's remarks reminded me of a story. Once someone asked RAL
some question and he paskened le-kula. Someone else him asked RAL that
RYBS has paskened  le-chumra on the same issue. RAL's answer was that
RYBS paskened le-chumra because he was a Brisker while he RAL was not
a Brisker!



-- 
Eli Turkel

> R. Eli Turkel wrote:
> > I say that the evidence that women should not light their own candles
> > is not exactly overwhelming. ?I would even suggest that much of the
> > stress on their not lighting is anti-feminism more than strict halacha.
> > A similar phenomena occurs in zimmun. ?many poskim agree that 3 women
> > together should make a zimmun. Nevertheless this rarely occrs especially
> > in chassidishe and litvishe homes more for reaons of anti-feminism than
> > strict halacha

RZS:
> How can it have anything to do with anti-feminism, when it goes back
> to before there was any feminism? ?It may be difficult to explain, but
> that can't be the explanation. ?Add to the mix: why, in those homes
> where every boy over bar-mitzvah has his own ke'arah, do the women not
> have one? ?They're obligated in all the mitzvot of the night, just as
> are the men, so why do they not have ke'arot? ?Again, this goes back to
> long before feminism, so it can't be a reaction to feminism. ?But it
> still needs explaining. ?Mayim Acharonim is another one that it would
> seem applies to women, but they just don't do.

Eh... is the practice necessarily correct? Could it be that women were simply 
sociologically not so much into participation, either because of a generally 
male dominated public sphere - not necessarily in Judaism, just everywhere -, 
or because women were less educated in a formal sense, or because women, in 
their subculture, were simply less interested in such things, or because male 
participants, who were often children and grandchildren of the ba'al habayit, 
were being trained for their later role, an argument that didn't apply to 
women? I don't know, I am just asking. After all, none of these oddities come 
from din, they are simply the way things are practiced. Many lines written 
about these practices were written ex post facto, justifying existing 
practice, wihtout regard to din.

This reminds me of my more rebellious former self. Once, a woman approached me 
at a kidush on Shabbos morning, in a flatbush shtiebl, and asked me, whether I 
could make kiddush for her. I asked why doesn't she do it, as halakhicly, she 
is perfectly capable. She looked at me as if I was from Mars.

...
...

But it is still codified halokho, that a woman has the same obligation as a man 
regarding kiddush (sometimes her obligation is greater, i.e., if the man 
fulfilled his obligation Friday night when reciting ma'ariv), and she can fulfil 
the obligation even for other men (though the MB considers that a lack of 
modesty).

Kol tuv,
-- 
Arie Folger
http://ariefolger.wordpress.com
http://www.ariefolger.googlepages.com

Arie Folger wrote:

> Eh... is the practice necessarily correct?

Perhaps not.  But it exists, and it must have some explanation.  And that
explanation cannot be a reaction to feminism, because it predates feminism.

I've often half-jokingly claimed that there is a separate women's Shulchan
Aruch, written by and for women, completely independent of the men's SA.
This is the SA where it is written that dirt is chometzdik, that Shabbat
comes in when you say the bracha on the candles, that if you miss lighting
one week you have to add a candle for the rest of your life, not to touch
a sefer torah while niddah, and a lot of other things that men have never
heard of.  Women learned halacha from their mothers and grandmothers, not
from their fathers, so there was some divergent development.  A very
feminist view, actually.



> This reminds me of my more rebellious former self. Once, a woman approached me 
> at a kidush on Shabbos morning, in a flatbush shtiebl, and asked me, whether I 
> could make kiddush for her. I asked why doesn't she do it, as halakhicly, she 
> is perfectly capable. She looked at me as if I was from Mars.

Indeed.  I got a similar look when suggesting to a woman that in her
husband's absence, as baalat habayit, it was more appropriate for her
to say hamotzi for everyone than it was for a male guest to do so.
This may be what the men's SA says, but not the women's SA.

-- 
Zev Sero                                Have a brilliant Chanukah
z...@sero.name

On Sun, December 21, 2008 5:46 am, R Y Levine quoted from the new RSRH
chumash (Bereishis 40:5):
> An intelligent person can discern the precise explanation of a
> dream, without being able to guarantee the dream's fulfillment. The
> interpretation must come from within the dream itself. Such an
> interpretation of a dream is a deep psychological task, just as the
> explanation of any symbol, the hermeneutic interpretation of any verse,
> should be pisron, explanation from within. There is no end to the
> interpretations that can be forced upon any symbol or verse. But there
> is only one interpretation -- the right one -- that will be found by one
> who seeks (thus the term derush) the interpretation from within. Just as
> at organic birth and at the unfolding of every bud, there is an inner
> point from which the whole development takes its course, so in every
> "closed" symbolism, there is a kernel of an idea which has to be grasped,
> whereupon all the rest automatically follows and becomes clear.

RYL adds:
: RSRH does not use midrashim to explain pesukim
: all that often. To me it seems that the above comments explain why.

But that would mean that RSRH would be accusing medrashim to be
"interpretations ... forced upon any symbol or verse". He may not
use them, but he does acknowledge that many/most really do come from
Chazal, no?

Personally, I think the reason is pedagogic -- his audience wasn't ready
for it.

I heard in his words a reference to symbology, which RSRH utilizes
heavily. A frequent criticism in the lips of those who seek other systems
of meaning to mitzvos than the symbol-based derekh of RSRH is that pretty
much any nimshal can be dray-ed into any act / nevu'ah, if the person
is creative enough. And therefore RSRH is making a distinction between
the true symbology, coming from kernels of ideas actually handed down
along with the text and law, and such creations.



By the way, it is for this reason -- "in every 'closed' symbolism, there
is a kernel of an idea which has to be grasped" -- that I drifted away
from my past attraction to Horeb's approach.

Implied is that for these symbolic mitzvos, most people don't get much
out of doing them. Not unless they are aware of the symbol. I am more
comfortable believing that mitzvos have impact regardless of whether I am
"in the know".

One can argue that "mitzvos einum tzerikhos kavanah" even solely because
the point of the mitzvah is to *have the opportunity* to have kavanah. And
that one can fulfill the chiyuv if the point is only to have those 100
tefillos so that one of them will be the time everything connects. As
opposed to fulfillment depending upon that connection.

However, RSRH's understanding goes beyond kavanah to saying that the
hashpa'ah of a mitzvah requires not only intent to do the mitzvah,
and not only intent for the sake of doing a mitzvah, but very specific
knowledge of Yahadus. This is in contrast to Litta, where they debated how
"ha'adam nif'al lefi pe'uloso" -- whether it's that one in 100 when the
person is moved to change or even without trying to be changed. (Which
in turn became a machloqes between the centrality of learning halakhah
vs the Mussar Movement.)

The Hirschian concept of how mitzvos change, by internalizing a message
only the informed actually know, is something I simply have a hard time
swallowing was really HQBH's intent when giving us the mitzvos. A "doesn't
feel right" kind of "argument", but there it is. I'm only saying that
"al pi darki", it isn't as good of a fit for me as it used to be.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Man is equipped with such far-reaching vision,
mi...@aishdas.org        yet the smallest coin can obstruct his view.
http://www.aishdas.org                         - Rav Yisrael Salanter
Fax: (270) 514-1507

Indeed.  I got a similar look when suggesting to a woman that in her
husband's absence, as baalat habayit, it was more appropriate for her to
say hamotzi for everyone than it was for a male guest to do so.
This may be what the men's SA says, but not the women's SA.

-- 
Zev Sero                                

======================
Interesting. I had a similar experience when we were invited as a family
to the home of a female divorced neighbor.  However, she requested I
make hamotzi anyway since the other guests might think it was some
feminist thing for her to do so and did not want to get into a
discussion of her halchik vs. hashkafic  motivation.
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 Tue, Dec 23, 2008 at 10:04:45AM -0500, Zev Sero wrote:
: I've often half-jokingly claimed that there is a separate women's Shulchan
: Aruch, written by and for women, completely independent of the men's SA.
: This is the SA where it is written that dirt is chometzdik, that Shabbat
: comes in when you say the bracha on the candles, that if you miss lighting
: one week you have to add a candle for the rest of your life, not to touch
: a sefer torah while niddah, and a lot of other things that men have never
: heard of.  Women learned halacha from their mothers and grandmothers, not
: from their fathers, so there was some divergent development.  A very
: feminist view, actually.

No joke, not even half. Isn't this why Chazal take "shema beni musar
avikha ve'al titosh toras imekha" and say "al tiqri 'imekha' ela
'umaskha'"? The Torah of the am, the cultural observations, what the
Gra"ch (R' Dr Haym Soloveitchik) got MO Jews calling "mimeticism" is
largely transmitted by our mothers.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

On Sun, Dec 21, 2008 at 02:21:53PM -0500, T6...@aol.com wrote:
: Litvishe poskim say you do not change from Nusach  Ashkenaz to Nusach Ari or 
: Sfard, because you should keep your family  mesorah....
: Chassidishe poskim say that you /can/ and maybe even /should/ change from  
: Nusach Ashkenaz to Nusach Sfard or Nusach Ari, because you are rising in  
: madreiga from a lower nusach to a higher nusach, but you should not change
: the  other way because that would be going down to a lower nusach.

: This may apply to a recent thread in which the question was discussed,  could 
: a computer be programmed to just look at all precedents, weigh them up and  
: come up with a psak?  Could a computer be a posek?

: In answer, it appears that you would have to specify in  advance whether you 
: wanted a Litvishe or a chassidishe computer.  

: (Ashkenazi or Sephardi -- same thing)

I wish it did, but this doesn't really prove that pesaq is creative
rather than procedural (an algorithm). Here's one possible way to
account for the difference.

It would mean that when you buy the program, you'll have to adjust the
settings. Move the slider on "importance of keeping historical practice",
then the one on "kabbalistic significance".

A Litvak would be advised to move the first one way above the second,
especially when compared to a chassid.

Alternatively, perhaps even those inputs aren't supposed to exist. In
which case, I have no idea where eilu va'eilu would come from --
one would have to assert that it's a concession to human effort, not a
statement of multiple truth. (Enough meqoros for that, even if the Avodah
chevrah tend toward the other side.) Not surprising, since objectivity
usually means a single truth regardless of perspective. In which case,
you would need to simulate all the pesaqim about how to pasqen, running
through milennia of history since the last beis din hagadol (at least)
to make sure you really have what HQBH gave us, without any human errors.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             With the "Echad" of the Shema, the Jew crowns
mi...@aishdas.org        G-d as King of the entire cosmos and all four
http://www.aishdas.org   corners of the world, but sometimes he forgets
Fax: (270) 514-1507      to include himself.     - Rav Yisrael Salanter

Chanukah commemorates the triumph of Judaism over Syrian/Greek 
oppression. The Syrian/Greeks wanted to impose Hellenism upon the 
Jewish people. Therefore they forbade the performance of several key mitzvos.

However, what really is the philosophical difference between Judaism 
and Hellenism?  RSRH explains this in his essay Hellenism and Judaism 
which I have put at 
http://www.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/rsrh/hellenism_judaism.pdf  YL

The following is from the end of this essay.

It was not Judas Maccabeus who defeated Antiochus of Syria; it
was the Jewish light which gained the victory over the dazzling luster
of Hellenic splendor. The spirit which Mattathias had harbored in his
priestly breast and had nurtured in his children, was the rock upon
which the Hellenic evil was smashed. This spirit-not the warrior's
sword nor the priest's tiara interwoven with the princely crown of
royal might-maintained the Law among the people.
Nor was it the Hasmonean dynasty of priests and kings who inherited
Mattathias' spirit of devotion to the Law. For soon this
dynasty, whose heroism had recaptured the land and the Sanctuary,
was no longer satisfied to be mere priests of the Law. Before long they
took pleasure in the use of the sword which they had raised enthusiastically
for Israel and the Law, and now brandished it over Israel and
the Law. Thereby this dynasty, in the vanity of its kingly splendor,
alienated Israel from the Law and in its fall dragged altar and throne
into the abyss.

But the people remained upright. Not in the palaces and temples
but in the humble dwellings of the people did the Hasmonean spirit of
loyalty to the Law survive, did the Hasmonean light find an eternally
secure place. When the debris of the altar and throne was cleared
away, the people, without throne and without altar, stood upright and
firm and rallied abo~t the Law of their God more enthusiastically than
ever before. They carried this Law with them from the wreckage of
their national greatness, and in the very enthusiasm for God's Law
proved themselves to be the true heirs of Mattathias' Hasmonean
spirit.

Thus if a glimmer of the false Hellenistic spirit challenges the
dominion of the timeless spirit of the Jewish Law over the dwelling and
hearts of Judah; if it estranges Judah's daughters and sons from the
splendor of God's Law and His Divine light and makes them fall prey
to the beguiling sensuality of Greek culture; if they are made to
abandon truth and insight, harmony and beauty and to adopt the
empty superficiality and sensual gratification of Hellenism-then let
us kindle the light of the Hasmoneans in our homes as a tribute to God
and His Law. Each Jewish home will become a bastion of God's Law
and rise triumphantly and victoriously over the futile opposition and
antagonism of an erring world.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20081223/443ec61f/attachment.htm>

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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 25, Issue 431
***************************************

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..."