Avodah Mailing List

Volume 26: Number 73

Wed, 29 Apr 2009

• 1. Re: The Knowledge Conundrum (Micha Berger)
• 2. Re: The Two Faces of Alien Worship (Micha Berger)
• 3. Re: Selling Real Chameitz (rabbirichwol...@gmail.com)
• 4. Re: The Knowledge Conundrum (rabbirichwol...@gmail.com)
• 5. FW: Selling Real Chameitz (Rich, Joel)
• 6. Re: The Knowledge Conundrum (Micha Berger)
• 7. sefirah perushim and zadukim (Eli Turkel)
• 8. Re: sefirah perushim and zadukim (Micha Berger)
• 9. Re: sefirah perushim and zadukim (Micha Berger)
• 10. Re: sefirah perushim and zadukim (Zev Sero)
• 11. Re: sefirah perushim and zadukim (rabbirichwol...@gmail.com)
• 12. Re: sefirah perushim and zadukim (Zev Sero)
• 13. Re: sefirah perushim and zadukim (rabbirichwol...@gmail.com)
• 14. is mayim acharonim a chumra? (Shlomo Pick)
• 15. netilat yadaim (Saul.Z.New...@kp.org)

On Mon, Apr 27, 2009 at 08:08:21AM -0700, Harry Maryles wrote:
:> In any event, doesn't the most rational of approaches still require a
:> leap of faith?

: Yes. But the smaller the leap the better - in my view. 

One can reduce the leap in two different dimensions -- the amount one
can't prove, and the level of proof. There is no such thing as absolute
proof. I could always be mistaken and part of my error is thinking that
my reasoning makes sense. Kant's Critique of Pure Reason was a
Copernican Revolution in philosophy over this point.

A difference between Yahadus and Xianity (from which we get the idiom
"leap of faith") is that Xians value blind faith. We speak of emunah,
from the shoresh meaning trust. We construct and value justified belief
over leaping. The question isn't the width of the gap, but of how much
justification one has for believing.

From my blog:

A basic problem when approaching Jewish philosophy is the appropriateness
of studying it altogether. As Prof. Sholom Carmy wrote on Avodah:
    The people who keep insisting that it's necessary to prove things
    about G-d, including His existence, seem to take it for granted that
    devising these proofs is identical with knowing G-d. Now if I know
    a human being personally the last thing I'd do, except as a purely
    intellectual exercise, is prove his or her existence.

Focusing on the Philosopher's G-d makes it difficult to see the Personal
G-d. On the other hand, without theology, our picture of G-d is blurry,
and often wrong.

So the question is, what is the appropriate balance between the two?

I found a variety of opinions:

1- The Rambam seems to belittle emunah peshutah. Yedi'ah is the key to
olam haba. The hoi palloi may have to settle for the vague approximation
of emunah peshutah, but the philosopher's machshavah amuqah is superior.

2- The Baal haTanya invokes a mystical resolution. The conflict is a
function of pursuing machshavah amuqah from a source other than the
Yechidah Kelalis. (The one sage each generation who is like "Moshe in
his generation".) Through the unity of the national soul's yechidah,
a single view of G-d emerges even at both planes of existance.

3- At the other extreme, Rav Nachman miBreslov discouraged the study of
theology, placing all value on having a relationship with HaQadosh barukh
Hu. The philosopher's G-d, while logically sound, is cold, transcendent
and incomprehensible -- very unconducive to this natural parent-child
style relationship which is at the center of his definition of "deveiqus"
and man's tafqid.

4- The Brisker approach is to avoid the whole subject. As Rav Moshe
Feinstein put it, it's a hashkafah of not studying hashkafah. It differs
from Rav Nachman's position not so much in that they feel it's wrong,
but that it's pointless. The ikkar is learning halakhah and man's duty
in this world.

R' YB Soloveitchik puts forth this position in his essary Qol Dodi
Dofeiq: The Jewish question [of tragedy] is not "Why?" but "How am I
supposed to respond?" Rabbi Soloveitchik simply wasn't curious about
theological questions. His philosophy has an existentialist agenda. It
doesn't deal with questions of how G-d is or how He runs the world, but
rather he presents a detailed analysis of the human condition and the
world as we see it. Because our dilemma is part of the human condition,
he discusses it as a dialectic. Rabbi Soloveitchik has no problem with
the idea that we simultaneously embrace conflicting truths. However, he
leaves little record of his own personal confrontation with the tension
of this particular dialectic. I believe it's his Brisker heritage.

The problem with positions 3 and 4 is that they do not have the support
of either the scholastic rishonim (eg: Rav Saadia Ga'on, the Rambam,
R' Albo), the antischolastic rishonim (eg: R' Yehudah haLevi), the
kabbalistically inclined (eg: the Ramban), nor the Ramchal, the Besh"t,
the Gra, R' Chaim Vilozhiner... Their nature is that only an explicit
discussion of our particular problem would turn up antecedents. One can't
argue from silence that some rishon agreed with them because perhaps he
simply chose to commit his time to publishing in other areas.

5- When thinking about this further I realized that I assumed a different
stance when writing AishDas's charter. I think it warrants mention
because I believe it's the position of the Mussar Movement. It reflects
the approach I see utilized by Rav Dessler in Michtav MeiEliyahu.

R' Lopian defines mussar as dealing with the space of an amah --
getting ideas from the mind to the heart. We often think things that
don't reflect how we feel and many of the forces that influence our
decision-making. Akin to RYBS's dialectic, we embrace different ideas
and motives in different modes of our consciousness.

As for our contradiction, the question is one of finding unity between
mind and its ability to understand and explain, to philosophize about
G-d and His governance of the universe, and the heart and how we feel
and react toward Him.

Emunah, bitachon, ahavas Hashem, yir'as Hashem, etc... are middos.
They are not acquired directly through study, but through the tools of
tiqun hamidos. (With the observation that constant return to a subject
operates on both levels.) There is a reason why the kiruv movement is
built on the experience of a Shabbos, and not some ultimate proof of
G-d. (Aish haTorah's "Discovery" program, the only counter-example that
came to mind, is intended to be a hook, to pique people's interest to
get them to that Shabbos, not kiruv itself.)

Rather than seeing this as a dilemma, I saw it as a need. We can embrace
both because each involves a very different component of self. And since
avodah must be bekhol nafshekha, we actually MUST study both machshavah
and mussar. Meaningful avodas Hashem must require involvement of both
mind and heart.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 18th day, which is
mi...@aishdas.org        2 weeks and 4 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Netzach sheb'Tifferes: What is imposing about
Fax: (270) 514-1507                             balance?

On Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 04:20:48PM +0000, rabbirichwol...@gmail.com wrote:
: OTOH alien worship in terms of a "HOW" to worship is not directly or
: so obviously prohibited. Yet the torah unambiguously condemns such
: a practice.

This is the whole issur of derekh emori, no?

One can say that conceptually it's a subspecies of AZ, but it's a
different one of the 613.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

Joel R.:
> Could be because he didn't believe that there was real kavanah to make a
> real sale - so there is no contradiction between the 2 statements above.

Perhaps - but wouldn't this same logic nullify our bittul :-) as also
insincere?

KT
RRW
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

Micha:
> A difference between Yahadus and Xianity (from which we get the idiom
> "leap of faith") is that Xians value blind faith. We speak of emunah,
> from the shoresh meaning trust. We construct and value justified belief
> over leaping. The question isn't the width of the gap, but of how much
> justification one has for believing.

My undeerstandin of Kuzari and Hirsch is that we have emunah based
upon mesorah.

It is not nave childish belief.

Nor is it sophisticated Socratic method belief.

It's the acceptance of the history of revelation

Just as we say during vayosha Hashem ... Va'yar es hayad hagedolah
.. vaya'aminu...

So lir'os es atzmo 'k'ilu hu yatza means accepting the eye-witnessing
of Yad hagedolah, etc.

Emunah by legacy.

Kt
RRW
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

Joel R.:
Could be because he didn't believe that there was real kavanah to make a
real sale - so there is no contradiction between the 2 statements above.
KT
Joel Rich"

Perhaps - but wouldn't this same logic nullify our bittul :-) as also
insincere? 

KT RRW
====================================

Maybe-but it's tougher to undo something chazal accepted
 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 Mon, Apr 27, 2009 at 10:20:26PM +0000, rabbirichwol...@gmail.com wrote:
: My undeerstandin of Kuzari and Hirsch is that we have emunah based
: upon mesorah.

While that's true, I think that today, giving the recent rupture in
mesorah and the number of people not born in mesorah-bearing homes,
it's easier to build mesorah on the experience of doing mitzvos.

Kind of like "More than the Jews have kept the Shabbos, Shabbos has kept
the Jews."

It certainly seems true of effective kiruv techniques; a Shabbos or a
chavrusah in gemara have done more kiruv than all the philosophical
discussions combined.

Naaseh venishmah.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 18th day, which is
mi...@aishdas.org        2 weeks and 4 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Netzach sheb'Tifferes: What is imposing about
Fax: (270) 514-1507                             balance?

According to the standard explanation of the perushim that "mocharat
hashabbat" refers
to the second day of Pesach what does"Ad mocharat HaShabbat HaShivit" mean?

According to the Zadokim the meaning is trivial - Shavuot starts after
the 7th shabbat.
According to the Persushim we dont count until a 7th "shabbat" and then bring
the "mincha chadasha"

-- 
Eli Turkel

On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 11:13:27PM +0300, Eli Turkel wrote:
: According to the standard explanation of the perushim that "mocharat
: hashabbat" refers to the second day of Pesach what does"Ad mocharat
: HaShabbat HaShivit" mean?

Doesn't it mean "week" as opposed to a given day, in this context? As in
"Hayom yom shelishi beShabbos"?

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 11:13:27PM +0300, Eli Turkel wrote:
: According to the standard explanation of the perushim that "mocharat
: hashabbat" refers to the second day of Pesach what does"Ad mocharat
: HaShabbat HaShivit" mean?

Doesn't it mean "week" as opposed to a given day, in this context? As in
"Hayom yom shelishi beShabbos"?

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

Eli Turkel wrote:
> According to the standard explanation of the perushim that "mocharat
> hashabbat" refers to the second day of Pesach what does "Ad mimocharat
> HaShabbat HaShivit" mean?

Until the day after the seventh week.


-- 
Zev Sero                      The trouble with socialism is that you
z...@sero.name                 eventually run out of other people?s money
                                                     - Margaret Thatcher

Eli T.:
> According to the Zadokim the meaning is trivial - Shavuot starts after
> the 7th shabbat.

This past shabbos we were learning sefira and we looked at the humash.

Eureka! I was dumbounded! How did Zadokim know WHEN to cut the omer?

The Hanafa and Sefira follows the shabbas AFTER the ketzira. But the
time of ketzira is not pinned down!

Why not 2-3 weeks after hag hamatzos!? It never identifies when to cut
only hanaf-sefira after Shabbos!

Where is their lamdus?

KT
RRW
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

rabbirichwol...@gmail.com wrote:
> Eli T.:
>> According to the Zadokim the meaning is trivial - Shavuot starts after
>> the 7th shabbat.
> 
> This past shabbos we were learning sefira and we looked at the humash.
> 
> Eureka! I was dumbounded! How did Zadokim know WHEN to cut the omer?
> 
> The Hanafa and Sefira follows the shabbas AFTER the ketzira. But the
> time of ketzira is not pinned down!
> 
> Why not 2-3 weeks after hag hamatzos!? It never identifies when to cut
> only hanaf-sefira after Shabbos!

1. Lo ba hakasuv listom elo lefaresh.  Therefore it stands to reason
that yom hanef ha'omer is during Chag Hamatzot; the only question is
when.  We say it's always on the second day, they say it's on the first
Sunday.

2. Pashtus hakesuvim in Yehoshua is like them, that the omer was brought
on the first day of Chag Hamatzos, not on the second day.  Leshitasam
this makes sense; they need merely suppose that that day happened to be
a Sunday.  Leshitasenu it's a difficult pasuk to explain, though the
meforshim try.

3. The pasuk says "ki savo'u el ha'aretz"; they entered the Land on
the 10th of Nissan.  It makes sense that they brought the omer on the
first available day, which leshitasam was the first Sunday, which
happened to be the 15th of Nissan.  And it's not unreasonable to read
the pasuk that every year we are to bring the omer at the time that
we entered the land, i.e. the day after the first Shabbat after the
10th of Nissan.

4. Now one could read the pasuk to mean that every year we bring the
omer whenever we start the harvest, unrelated to a particular date;
but let's analyse that: the harvest cannot start later than Chag
Hamatzos, because we make sure it's chodesh ha'aviv, and if the barley
isn't ready then we declare an extra Adar.  So the only alternative
to starting during Chag Hamatzos is to start earlier, and that goes
against the order of the pesukim, which tell us about the omer after
the Korban Pesach and the beginning of the Chag.  So the omer is not
brought before the Korban Pesach, but it can be brought on the first
day of the Chag, if it happens to be a Sunday.


-- 
Zev Sero                      The trouble with socialism is that you
z...@sero.name                 eventually run out of other people?s money
                                                     - Margaret Thatcher

>> RRW:
>> Fine but if ketzira itself starts 2 weeks later why not THEN!?

> As I said, it can't be two weeks later, because the barley has to be
> ready.  Shamor et chodesh ha'aviv -- if the barley isn't ready we
> declare an extra Adar so it should be ready.
> Zev Sero

And where is THAT in the Torah? 
IOW How would the zadokim know? 
Maybe Aviv happens in the middle or end of the hodesh ho'aviv?                      
The simple read is the omer is from the reishis - kinda like b ikkurim.
When it happens THEN the process is triggered!

As far as yehoshua goes - NU so THAT year ketzira was on that date!

KT
RRW
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

Someone wrote a while back on the Areivim list (vol 26, no 195):

 

"What about those who wash mayim Achronim before bentching? I do not. 

Are those who do wash observing a Chumrah? If so, then there are Chumras

everywhere, and the term seems to me to have become meaningless in the way

that you insist upon using it."

 

In a later issue, Rebbezin Boublil correctly responded in the next issue 

that this is a din in the shulchan aruch. I think this point should be

elaborated upon: 

 

In OH, 181:1 the mechaber states emphatically that mayim achronim is an

obligation.

MB offers 2 reasons: dirty hands (yadayim zohamot) and sodomite salt.

Chaza"l even pegged it to a verse in these parshot of vayikra, that one

should be holy, this is mayim acharonim. At the end of this chapter, in

no.10 the mechaber says that there are some who do not practice (she'ein

nohagim) to wash mayim achronim, with the tosophot in berachot brought as

the source. Interestingly, the remah says nothing in either place, seemingly

agreeing to the mechaber's view. MB (no 22) quotes the vilna gaon who opts

that it's an obligation as does magen avraham in the name of kabbalists, as

well as R. Shlomo Luria, author of Yam shel Shlomo. All this implies that

MB's view is that it's an obligation as he quotes no one concurring with

this lenient practice.

 

Even the great meikal of Lithuanian Jewry, the aruch hashulchan, (181:5)

states that the tosophot who argued that the custom in his day was not to

wash mayim acharonim, did so only to melamed zechus on those who did not,

but would admit that nowadays one is obligated for there may be sodomite

salt among us and thus concludes that one should be scrupulous in this

practice, i.e. one should follow the din of the Talmud and use mayim

acharonim. He also states that thus (i.e. washing mayim acharonim) is the

practice of all yirei hashem (those who fear God)

 

Thus the law as formulated in SA and concurred to by the latest poskim

acharonim is that one should was mayim acharonim. It's not a chumra, but

din. If one doesn't than one is meikal, i.e., relying on a lenient ruling of

the tosophot, where even ashkenazic authorities questioned it, e.g. Rosh,

who disagreed.  Even the great standard bearer for ashkenazic custom, the

ramah is silent here.  So under those circumstances, one should reconsider

the issue of mayim acharonim, and ask why am I lenient?

 

And should some yekke say that he eats with a knife and fork and therefore

his hands are clean, I refer to kaf hachayyim, 181: 27 who cited this very

argument from r. Yaakov emden in mor ukeziah,  and immediately cites sources

that rebut it, and concludes that under all circumstances one should wash

mayim acharonim.

 

I should also note that the noted Dayan of Frankfort, the author of the

Yosef Ometz, in paragraph 155 states that according to the Kabbalah one

should wash mayim acharonim nowadays.

 

Finally the great forerunner of all minhag ashkenaz, the maharil, also

obligated mayim acharonim, see spitzer ed., p. 117, no. 41, and especially

note heh.

 

Accordingly, one may conclude that someone who does not wash mayim acharonim

has a source to rely upon, but would not be included among the yirei hashem

according to say the Aruch haShulkhan!

 

Yom Atzmaut Sameiach

 

Shlomo Pick

 

 

 

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20090429/683bc39f/attachment-0001.htm>

http://www.atranet.co.il/gordon/netilat.pdf
http://rationalistjudaism.blogspot.com/2009/04/netil
at-yadayaim-shel-shacharit-ritual.html

hygeinic netilah kabbalistically transformed to something else again; like 
sfira, which we know is counted , as the tora tells us, to remove 
zuhama....


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20090429/8e1e7a62/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 73
**************************************

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..."