Avodah Mailing List

Volume 26: Number 17

Tue, 20 Jan 2009

• 1. Re: schechinah in the west (Gilad Field)
• 2. Re: tehillim at night (I. Balbin)
• 3. Re: Titles Before Names (Zev Sero)
• 4. Re: tehillim at night (David Riceman)
• 5. Re: Our Attitude towards Segulos (Harry Maryles)
• 6. bible study at night (Shlomo Pick)
• 7. Re: Rishonim on God's Corporeality (Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer)
• 8. G-d's corporeality (Eli Turkel)
• 9. le Dovod (Eli Turkel)
• 10. tehillim at night (Eli Turkel)
• 11. Re: woman reading a ketuba (Micha Berger)
• 12. Re: le Dovod (Zev Sero)
• 13. Judaism Is Not a Religion (Yitzchok Levine)
• 14. Re: Titles Before Names (Yitzhak Grossman)
• 15. Re: Is Smoking Mutar? (Arie Folger)
• 16. Re: Smoking and Other Sakanas (Arie Folger)
• 17. Is Smoking Mutar? (Harvey Benton)

The Tifferes Yisroel in BB 2:9 addresses these questions.   He does
say that although Hashem is everywhere, it is similar to the "koach
ha-neshama" which is stronger in the heart than it is in other parts
of the body. for example, he says you wouldn't want to say that
Hashem's presence is the same at the Kotel and in the bathroom.
Because of your second question, he says basically that we only deal
with our personal reality  - so even if what is west for you is east
for me - I only deal with my personal directions.
But, he is not happy with his answers and concludes that this concept
of Rabbi Akiva is a very lofty concept that we cannot really
comprehend.

Gilad Field

>1. What does that mean versus the opinion that the schechina is everywhere
>which seems to be more obvious
>
>2. What is west for me is east (or north or south) for someone else.
>Thus, not putting certain types of activities to the west of the city may be
>to the east of some other city and vice-versa

There is a good summary of the issues here

http://bit.ly/SLEG

Yitzhak Grossman wrote:
> Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org> wrote:

>> I'm not sure how the alufei benei Eisav are relevent. There the chiefs 
>> aren't named. "Aluf Teiman" names who the person was aluf of, and not
>> calling Teiman the aluf.
> 
> That's certainly not the plain meaning of the text; the names of the
> Alufim correspond (more or less) to those named earlier as the sons and
> grandsons of Esav.

And the names of the Nesi'im ("Nesi Yehudah", "Nesi Yisachar", etc.)
correspond to those named earlier as the sons (natural or adopted) of
Yaacov.  But that isn't relevant to whether a person's titles go before
or after his name; it's "Nachshon ben Aminadav, Nesi Yehudah", not
"Nesi Yehudah Nachshon ben Aminadav", let alone "Nasi Nachshon".

-- 
Zev Sero                    A mathematician is a device for turning coffee
z...@sero.name               into theorems.                   - Paul Erdos

T6...@aol.com wrote:
>  It is always mutar to say Tehillim.
See Mishna Shabbat 16:1, Bartenura ad. loc.  s.v. "bein she'ain korin 
bahem".

David Riceman

--- On Sat, 1/17/09, Yitzchok Levine <Larry.Lev...@stevens.edu> wrote:


The following is from http://www
.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/hamodia/segulos.pdf? This article appeared
some time ago in the Hamodia. 

This is a big file, so it will some time to download. 

The Mezhbuzher Rav, Harav Avraham Yehoshua Heshel Bick, shlita :

[Segulos ] are nothing more than bubbe maasos, eitzas yetzer hara that
give people a license to spend money way beyond their means and then ask
for a yeshuah. All these formulae ? saying Shir Hashirim forty times, Tehillim
HaChida, etc. ? are methods used by the yetzer hara to take from us the little
[spirituality] we have left.
=======================================
?
If Segulos are??bubbe maasos and eitzas yetzer hara - How can a respectable
Tzedaka like Kupat Ha'ir use Segulos as a means of rasing money? And how
can a Gadol like R' Chaim Kanievsky endorse giving Kuat Ha'ir Tzedaka for
the purpose of those Segulos??
?
HM

Want Emes and Emunah in your life? 

Try this: http://haemtza.blogspot.com/



      
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20090119/e48f23b5/attachment-0001.htm>

i remember seeing a typically short teshuva written by hagaon R. Chayim
Kanyevsky upon be asked if one is permitted to learn Torah shebichtav at
nite.  He referenced the Sha'ar Zion in OH 238, no. 1. and that answers it
all.
shlomo
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20090119/ccea29a9/attachment-0001.htm>

There are flaws in the article. There are no clearly decisive primary 
sources. I must have missed the Rabbeinu Yonah, but the Rabbeinu Taku is 
certainly not unambiguous.

I must note a personal peeve: To present an overview of attitudes 
towards Aggadata without presenting the Maharal and the schools of 
thought that derive from him such as Reb Tzadok, is malpractice!

KT,
YGB

Harvey Benton wrote:
> There is an Article online by R. David Sedley, bringing sources from
> Talmud through Rishonim on their views of Aggada.	Some Rishonim [pg.
> 116 of link] held to the Literal interpretations of Aggada, including
> R. Yosef ben Todros, and possibly R. Yonah; to not believe this they
> held, is to degrade the Torah. 
>   

<<There is an Article online by R. David Sedley, bringing sources from
Talmud through Rishonim on their views of Aggada.  Some Rishonim [pg. 116 of
link] held to the Literal interpretations of Aggada, including R. Yosef ben
Todros, and possibly R. Yonah; to not believe this they held, is to degrade
the Torah.One of the Tosafists, R. Taku, holds all Aggada are to be held
LITERAL, and even the ones that say God has a body. >>

R. Slifkin has an article in the latest issue of Hakirah (www.hakirah.org)
where he claims that Rashi believed in the corporeality of G-d. In
particular his introduction brings many such opinions including R. Taku. In
particular he brings the Riaz on Sanhedron who argues against this but says
that one who believed in coproreality is noy an apikorus since some of
Chazal believed it !!
R. Shmuel of ben Mordechai of Marseilles claims that the majority of the
rabbis in northern France believed in corporeality. Ramban has to defend
Rambam against the charge of these rabbis precisely because Rambam was so
anti corporeality. In summary the issue was hotly debated by rishonim and
only due to the success of Rambam do we find it difficult to understand the
argument.
BTW those who believed in corporeality did not believe that G-d looked like
man with flesh and bones but rather that there was a etheral substance in
gigantic human form.

BTW one argument in favor of corporeality wa sthat if G-d can do anything
than in particular he can take on a corporeal form at will.

-- 
Eli Turkel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20090119/d22464e9/attachment-0001.htm>

REMT writes
<<I hesitate to write about topics of which I know nothing, and kabbala
certainly is in that category.  But I would like to understand why the
saying of L'Dovid Ori in Elul-Tishri and Lam'natzeiach in a bais eivel,
which are said by Nusach S'fard at mincha rather than at ma'ariv, as is
minhag Ashk'naz, for that k'peida, is considered limud rather than t'filla.
>>

Interestingly RYBS says that the difference between the customs of saying
le-Dovid after minchah or maariv revolves exactly about this question. Is it
an extra saying of tehillim which is not appropriate at night or is it part
of the tefillah which can include pirkei tehillim

-- 
Eli Turkel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20090119/cef2b788/attachment-0001.htm>

after a google search

Beer Hetev on OC 238:1 brings the Ari that one should not learn
mikrah (Torah shebechtav) at night .
He also brings that one should sleep only after 3 hours after nightfall
sleep on the left side and sleep in a different (meyuchedet) bed.
Birkei Yosef also brings the Ari that one shouldn't learn mikrah at
night except for thursday and friday night(?) (or hashishi)
 Ben Ish Chai (pekudei -1 ) allows tehillim after midnight. MB in shaar
tziyun 1
says that the Pri Megadim disagrees and allows tehillim at night.
BM concludes that it is not a prohibition but a lechatchila since G-d
learned with Moshe Mikrah during the day and Mishna at nigh(Birkei Yosef
disagrees with the reason and explains that mikrah is midat hadin)

Tzitz Eliezer 8:2 has a lengthy discussion and says that the main
kabbalistic
objection is to learning mikrah and not to saying tehillim and so he
allows saying tehillim for a sick person at night
see also Yabia Omer 6:30

-- 
Eli Turkel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20090119/2a72fd83/attachment-0001.htm>

The notion I was pushing when we had this discussion was RHS's position
that the same tzeni'us that we speak of WRT women is why men are supposed
to decline the offer to be chazan. To be thrust into the limelight is
personal sacrifice. Better for us, if we realize it or not, would be to
sit "besoch ami".

Given a private email exchange, I think I still wasn't sufficiently clear
about the assymetry between men and women when I posted about this topic a
while back. It's not the mitzvah part, it's the inequality in chiyuv. If
both genders have the same chiyuv, or the same lack of mitzvah, then why
would there be a point in choosing a specifically man to sacrifice his
avodas Hashem by satisfying the very human need for attention and kavod?

SOMEONE has to stand up front and be sha"tz. Given that one group are
benei chiyuvah, one of them will have to do it. If it's not a chiyuv,
e.g. reading the kesuvah why would the "someone" be specifically
male? It's the one person giving up the opportunity of "besokh ami anokhi
yoshaves" either way.

The moment someone is clamoring to stand up front, rather than taking
the HAVE TO attitude, they're off target. That's the one piece of RHS's
idea I like. And I think it's a good argument for why tehillim groups
are fine, but a WPG designed to be as close as halachically allowed to
a minyan is not.

As I see this argument, it would explain being against WPGs, but having
no problem with women reading the esuvah at a wedding.

It would also explain why RHS sees this one aspect of feminism is actually
against Torah values (hatznei'ah lekhes), rather than a neutral modern
value that the MO Jew would try to accomodate.

Listening to RARR on the subject has convinced me that second-guessing
someone else's motives is counterproductive. WADR to RMF, who does
so in the IM; perhaps because the sho'eil was the rav, not the woman
herself. It's not some feminism vs qedushah dichotomy. It's an exploration
as to whether this aspect of modernity can be used within a derekh of
avodas Hashem, or whether it pulls further. We are all products of our
times -- and we all seek holiness from where we stand.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Strength does not come from winning. Your
mi...@aishdas.org        struggles develop your strength When you go
http://www.aishdas.org   through hardship and decide not to surrender,
Fax: (270) 514-1507      that is strength.        - Arnold Schwarzenegger

Eli Turkel wrote:

> Interestingly RYBS says that the difference between the customs of 
> saying le-Dovid after minchah or maariv revolves exactly about this 
> question. Is it an extra saying of tehillim which is not appropriate at 
> night or is it part of the tefillah which can include pirkei tehillim

Or is the difference that in Ashkenaz they often davened Maariv before
dark?  In any event, I assume that it originally started as amirat
tehillim, and only later became part of seder hatefillah.


-- 
Zev Sero                    A mathematician is a device for turning coffee
z...@sero.name               into theorems.                   - Paul Erdos

The following is from the new translation of RSRH's commentary on 
Chumash Shemos.

6: 7 I will take you to Myself as a people and I will be a God to 
you; you will come to know that I am Hashem, your God, Who brings you 
out from under the burdens of Egypt.


7 v'lakachti. Once you are standing tall, when you will be free and aware of
your human rights, I will take you to be My people. As soon as you
are free, you will become My people! You will become My people, without
a land, without territory of your own, solely through Me!

li l'ahm. These two short words are the first statement of Israel's
destiny. They express the quality that makes Judaism so unique. It is
entirely inappropriate to refer to Judaism as "the Jewish religion"; it is
thoughtless to define Judaism as a religion, to classify it with the other
religions, and then to be amazed that this "religion" includes so many
elements that transcend the conventional bounds of "religion." li l'ahm:
Israel is to be a people unto God.

This statement alone already makes it clear that Judaism, as established
by God, is not a religion at all. True, Judaism also embraces
elements generally characterized as "religion," but the term "Judaism"
is completely different and infinitely broader. In "religion," God has
only temples, churches, priestly orders, congregations, etc. Nations, peoples,
are subject only to kings and governments; they are founded on
the concept of statehood, not on religion and God. In Judaism, however,
God founded not a church, but a nation; a whole national life is to be
fashioned by Him. Israel will be His people, not just a congregation of
believers.

How different are the ways of the "holy tongue" in its choice of
fitting expressions for the concepts "people" and its correlate, "king"!

<snip>

Only through their experience in the wilderness will they come to
realize that Hashem did not just redeem them once from Egypt, but, rather,
would always be their God; at present and at all times in the future He
would protect them, so that they not succumb under the "burdens of
Egypt," and would lead them out from under such burdens.

I have placed the entire commentary of Rav Hirsch on this pasuk at

http://www.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/rsrh/shemos_6_7.pdf

Yitzchok Levine 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20090119/e7cb28b3/attachment-0001.htm>

On Mon, 19 Jan 2009 07:34:57 -0500
Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org> wrote:

...

> Every beis av, named for the avos of Eisav's various batim, had an aluf.
> Thus, "Aluf Teiman" isn't calling Teiman an aluf, but saying that the
> house of Teiman had its own aluf. That's the difference between the list
> starting at pasuq 10, which is a geneology, and the alufim list which
> starts at 15. Thus making it a bridge to the list of kings starting at
> 31. Notice also the repeated reference of their being the alufim in
> eretz Edom.
> 
> It's therefore very much peshat in the pasuq.

I misunderstood you; I had thought that you were understanding Teiman
et. al. as place names, rather than as names of people.  But I'm still
not sure that your reading is correct; I understood that Aluf Teiman
means "Chief Teiman", as opposed to your reading as "Chieftain of the
tribe of Teiman".  The fact that we have already listed the descendants
themselves does not appear conclusive, since these genealogies often
seem fairly repetitious by modern standards.

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

On Sunday 18 January 2009 07:24:15 Harvey Benton wrote:
> HB: I don't quite follow the logic of R. Bleich's psak.? The smoker must
> quit halachically on what grounds?? If not for a direct pikuach nefesh then
> for what?? Because of reduced life expectancy (as RAFolger below)?? But
> even in cases of ?reduced life expectancy (RLE),??can?we say that any one
> individual cigarrette contributes enough halachically to a RLE, and is
> therefor assur?

This problem is dealt with by looking at the cumulative statistics and the 
chance of reversing the negative effects by changing habits.

> HB: The same logic should apply to heavy drinkers (liver damage), high
> cholesterol individuals, and overweight Yidden.?Is the above 50 percent a
> halachically mandated number????Would?one have to put down?a hamburger and
> french fries NOW, because of what may happen in 20 or 30 years?? And would
> any halacha be applied to only NOT doing something (e.g. smoking, drinking
> or eating) or would the same halacha mandate us to DO something active,
> like exercising?to lose weight.??

It follows that the same would apply, except for the caveat I note after your 
next paragraph.

> Finally, are certain professions like firemen, policemen, or career
> soldiers, not permitted because of RLExpectancy?? Or must the chances of a
> RLE be above 50 percent for any halacha to kick in?? HB

Except that ushmartem meod lenafshotekhem is not obligatory where shomer 
petaim haShem applies. In other words, risks that are acceptable in society 
are not considered sufficiently dangerous. Smoking is nowadays considered 
unacceptably dangerous, and to a [much] lesser extent, living in highly 
poluted areas. Being a police officier or fireman, while dangerous, is not 
considered unacceptable societally (noch git; can you imagine a society 
without them? Only in moshiach's tzeiten).

Eating oneself into obesity is slowly becoming unacceptable, and dieting may 
hence become halakhicly obligatory for some.

KNLAD to understand R' Bleich's then statement.
-- 
Arie Folger
http://ariefolger.wordpress.com
http://www.ariefolger.googlepages.com

On Sunday 18 January 2009 06:25:27 Harvey Benton wrote:
> What exactly constitutes an immediate danger, or a direct pikuach
> nefesh?? Is it 1 hour, 1?day, 1 week, 2 years, etc.?
<SNIP>
I have addressed your questions in a post 5 minutes ago.
> Where and how do we assign percentages for sakana (R. Ari on living in a
> pollouted city), and subsequently act on them?? Is a 50 percent sakana the
> cutoff rate??And 50 percent of?what?? Dying in a day, a week or in 20
> years?
It depends what is considered an acceptable risk societally.

Regarding living in Sderot, I'd say that the sakanah needs to be quantified 
(IOW, in reality, I am still not sure that the sakanah was so enormous in a 
quantifiable sense. Yes, it is scary, but rarely did someone get killed, partly 
because of security measures, and partly because of direct hashgacha.

Furthermore, many would argue that the logic of 'arei hasfar applies there, 
which supersedes our usual treatment of sakanah.

And regarding the Chabad House in Bombay, yes, you are right that the issues 
need to be weighed, but I see no sufficient reason to turn one tragic attack 
into an eternally unbearable risk. If the Indian police takes the right 
precautions, the place should be more secure now.

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

RAF: ... shomer? petaim haShem applies. In other words, risks that are
acceptable in society?[HB: RAF response is to HB's question about other
common dangerous activities/sakanas].

HB: When and to what extent?does?Shomer?PTaim HaShem apply? And wy would it
constanly change according to societies norms?? Sometimes the Chachamim try
to after the fact justify Yiddishe actions; e.g. to be melamud?schus
(like?what KSAruch says about
the Chachamim re: people who don't sleep in the Sukkah).? Is this such a
case?? In other words, are such SPHashem activities actually assur in
halacha, but we allow it, because the practices are widespread, and people
will not listen to the Chachamim anyhow?
?
?RAF: This problem?is dealt with by looking at the cumulative statistics and the chance of reversing the negative effects by changing habits.

?HB: This doesn't address the question of on what grounds is smoking
assured, if not for direct pikuach nefesh.??Nor ?the issue of any single
cigarette actually contributing to reduced life expectancy.? Cumulativlely
stopping smoking has its positive benefits; but we do not cumulatively
smoke.? We smoke one cigarrette at a time, and if that one cigarrette will
be assured, then on what grounds?
?
KTuv?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20090120/216cc6b9/attachment.htm>

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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 26, Issue 17
**************************************

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..."