Avodah Mailing List

Volume 26: Number 114

Sun, 14 Jun 2009

• 1. rational? (saul newman)
• 2. Re: [Areivim] Jew Or Not? (Zev Sero)
• 3. Re: can a navi make a mistake (Yitzhak Grossman)
• 4. Re: (Neviim & Possible Mistakes); Akeidah & Yizchak (hankman)
• 5. Re: can a navi make a mistake (Richard Wolpoe)
• 6. Re: Jew Or Not? (Daniel Eidensohn)
• 7. Re: hashgacha pratis for NJ [Stam yeinam of Giyur Candidates] (T613K@aol.com)
• 8. Re: The MB, Minhagei Lita, and Temimos (Richard Wolpoe)
• 9. Re: [Areivim] Torah Homeschooling (Yitzhak Grossman)
• 10. Re: hashgacha pratis for NJ [Stam yeinam of Giyur Candidates] (Zev Sero)
• 11. Re: hashgacha pratis for NJ [Stam yeinam of Giyur Candidates] (T613K@aol.com)
• 12. Re: hashgacha pratis for NJ [Stam yeinam of Giyur Candidates] (Zev Sero)
• 13. Re: (Neviim & Possible Mistakes); Akeidah & Yizchak (David Riceman)
• 14. Re: (Neviim & Possible Mistakes); Akeidah & Yizchak (Yitzchok Zirkind)

there's a new blogger  out  there, who unabashadly defends  an 
unapologetic haredi stance .   http://briskyeshivish.blogspot.com

here is his view on 'rational judaism'  ---->

"There is a lot of confusion about the term "rationalism." What is a 
rationalist? The differences between rationalists and non-rationalists fall into 
three categories:"

A) Denial of Pnimius HaTorah

B) Denial that the Torah contains within it all the secrets of 
creation

C) He who satisfies requirements A) and B) is in the optimum 
position to decide the Torah?s statements regarding the 
'Briyah'


....  i would expect this definition is not uncontested...
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20090612/81f716dc/attachment-0001.htm>

A poster on Areivim wrote, regarding a situation where someone's
mother's mother's mother was alleged to have been a meshumedes:

> the dayanim discussed the outcome had we found [proof]:

And were they aware of the Pischei Teshuva's explicit psak that the
children of a mumar do not require tevilah?

PS: The more I think about it the less sure I am that the GRO really
does argue with the Pischei Teshuvah.   I had assumed he did, because
of the mekoros he gives for the two requirements in the Ramo, teviloh
and kabolas hamitzvos.  But since the whole thing is a minhag, perhaps
these mekoros he gives are only asmachtos, telling us where the
rabbonim who made this takanah in the first place got the idea, or
perhaps not even that, but rather where we can find some kind of support
for the idea.   So he found a story in Ovos d'R Nosson where a woman
was sent to the mikveh for having eaten treif (beheter, because she
had nothing else to eat), and a Tosfos that says an ex-chaver who wants
to return to chaverus must re-accept the rules before three men, and
suggests that these could serve *by analogy* as mekoros of a sort for
the derech teshuvah the Ramo gives for a mumar.   But it's not necessary
that he would apply these mekoros rigorously, and require them of
everyone who had eaten treif or who had lapsed from full shmiras
hamitzvos, or to the children of mumrim.


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

On Thu, 11 Jun 2009 23:33:49 EDT
T6...@aol.com wrote:

...

> Nevertheless a true nevuah must come true on some  level.  The nevuah was 

Source?  Many Rishonim clearly believed that a prophecy may actually
not come true under certain types of altered circumstances. See, e.g.,
Abravenel's comprehensive discussion, which includes the opinions of
his predecessors (Devarim 18, s.v. ve'amnam be'heter ha'safek
ha'yod-hes, p. 178 in the standard edition).

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

RYZ wrote:
according to you in the part of the
Nvuoh that is meant for conveyence (which is the most important) there is no
difference by the fact that he sees thru Eina Meiroh,

CM asks:
Frankly, I am not 1000% sure, but I would assume that there would be a
difference in the final comprehension between Moshe's comprehension with
aspaklaria hameira and other neviim even after an "infallible" pisron. But
I am not clear where exactly the distinction lies but have a vague idea as
described below.

If I understand you correctly though, you seem to be saying just that -
that the only difference is the method of delivery of the nevuoh due to the
frailty of klei kibul of shar neviim as compared to Moshe Rabbeinu, as you
seem to say in this quote "the Rambam defines that the Eina Meira is in the
fact that it is thru a Moshol."
 But that after the pisron is received there is NO difference in the comprehended message? Is this correct? Or is this only what you impute to me?

RYZ wrote:
... and not that others see things that are irrelevant.
In addition why should HKBH show in a nvuoh useless information?

CM responds:
I think it is obvious that no part of a nevuoh "is irrelevant" or
"useless," even the moshol or chido without pisron or with partial pisron
(the part Hashem wishes to transmit). The reiyah to this is that often the
moshol or chido was recorded in Nach ledoros. I would speculate that
eventually meaning will somehow (perhaps through chidushei Torah?) be
ascribed even to the denser parts of the nevuoh.

Just to understand you clearly, is it your position that EVERY part of the
mareh has a full pisron, fully comprehended by the novi? And that the
aspaklaria sheina meira only means the method of delivery, but has no
consequence on the level of comprehension of the novi because he has the
aid of the infallible pisron?

RYZ wrote"
Where does it say that it was Nvuoh with a Pisron?  It was Gilui Shchina
(Rashi Shmos 15:2) there are different levels in that.

CM responds:
I imagine you mean the Rashi D"H "zeh Keili." I see no mention of ruach hakodesh in that Rashi?
I recall (from many years ago) that I was taught that at krias Yam Suf the
entire klal Yisroel attained for that brief moment the level of nevuah. (I
hope my memory serves well here, although I do forget my keys etc. :-), I
imagine there must be a medrash somewhere but my bekius is not adequate.
Anyone with a Bar Ilan search?

RYZ wrote:
if Eino Meira indicates that there is non
understood parts in the Cholom, and (that fact itself indicates that) those
parts he doesn't need to say, then how can there be an entire Cholom w/o
understanding and yet he has to say it. of course If HKBH would tell him
that he should say it anyway he would have to, but it would be a Stira in
Higoyon.

CM responds:
First, as I wrote above, no part of the nevuoh is without merit, even the
parts with no or partial pisron. Furthermore, the fact that the nevuoh was
"eina meira," is not necessarily synonymous with "non understood parts."
For example, if you are looking at a picture of your lawn, you see the
message of the picture, is it a "non understanding" because you don't have
a magnifier to see the angle of each blade of grass in the picture, or with
yet greater electron microscopic detail to see each molecule of each blade
of grass? It depends on the nature of the message you want to convey. Is
the message about the molecules of the lawn, the position of the blades of
grass or the macro qualities of the lawn that are discernible from the
picture provided. To what extent has the complete message not been
understood because you did not get to see molecules? Most likely, herein
lies the point of "eina meira."

RYZ wrote:
LAN"D Moshol does not mean not understanding

CM responds:
So we are back again full circle with the need to explain the difference
between Moshe and shar neviim in this aspect of nevuoh. Do you think my
above model is not appropriate, or do you agree with this as at least a
partial description of "eina meira"?

Kol Tuv and a Gut Shabbos

Chaim Manaster
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20090612/2ea587db/attachment-0001.htm>

On Fri, Jun 12, 2009 at 1:07 PM, Yitzhak Grossman <cele...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Thu, 11 Jun 2009 23:33:49 EDT
> T6...@aol.com wrote:
>
> ...
>
> > Nevertheless a true nevuah must come true on some  level.  The nevuah was
>
> Source?  Many Rishonim clearly believed that a prophecy may actually
> not come true under certain types of altered circumstances. See, e.g.,
> Abravenel's comprehensive discussion, which includes the opinions of
> his predecessors (Devarim 18, s.v. ve'amnam be'heter ha'safek
> ha'yod-hes, p. 178 in the standard edition).
>
> Yitzhak
> --
>

Yirmiyahu, Nevuchadrezzar and Mitzrayim [Haftaras Bo] never occured

M point?

Since Yirmiyahu was established as a navi we look for a teirutz. If this
were someone's only nevuah he would have been dismissed.

And so Yonah'a Nehepaches was a double entendre.  But without a Hazaka he
might have been dismissed and the other meaning of Nehepaches not used as a
rationalization.

==================================================================

Hirsch asserts that Moshe's deviation in hitting the rock instead of
speaking was a fatal flaw in that it jeopardized the mesorah

Nu isn't this true for every Navi?  Apparently not.  AIUI A navi can be a
navi emes and maybe get a prat wrong or misunderstand a prat.  [perhaps
Ya'akov Yosef bilhah vs. Rachel etc.]

But when you are "bechol beisi ne'man hu" you are held to a higher standard.

IOW, a navi emes is AISI not necessarily infallible but he he is simply
never guilty of ziyyuf or embelishment.  He tell his emes and honestly
conveys Hashem's message.

I heard a peshat with R. Akiva at the end of Makkos about shu"alim hilchu
bo. R. Akiva said this nevuah was emes.  Nu and who tought otherwise?  So
one peshat is that his chaveirm thought it was a mashal and not literal.
But R. Akiva said "no it is mamash literal!  look at the shu'alim!  So too
the ge'ulah!'

If this peshat is true then the nevuaosof the geulah were seen as ambigous
[literal or metaphoircal] until R. Akiva showed them otherwise.

So it is likely that the navi that gives the message might not be certain
either.

==================================================================

So if nevi'im can be fallible how can we listen to them to be docheh a
mitzva?

Answer, because a Navi with a hazala isdeemed RELIABLE not infallible which
was my first post on this theard about umpires.

It also explains R. Yeshoshua going agaisnt bas kol at Tanur Achnai etc.

-- 
Kol Tuv - Best Regards,
RabbiRichWol...@Gmail.com
see: http://nishmablog.blogspot.com/
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Nishma-Minhag/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20090612/241cda0d/attachment-0001.htm>

A Jew who was raised as a Christian is still a Jew. The practice or 
requiring tevila based on the Rema - does not mean that they are not 
Jewish without tevila. There is such a view in the Gaonim but it has 
been rejected.

Bottom line - the tevila has nothing to do with the Jewishness of a person.
-------------- 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/20090613/5c54c0de/attachment-0001.vcf>

 
From: Zev Sero _zev@sero.name_ (mailto:z...@sero.name) 

>> I agree, and I'm  astonished at the LBD's attitude.   If anything I'd
have called it  a test which she passed, like that of Dama ben Netina.
But it seems from your  story that this was all hashgacha pratit, since
as a result of the BD's  intransigent attitude when she met her basherter
she was able to marry  him.  What a tragedy it would have been had she
gone through with the  giyur, only to find that she had left her "other
half" behind! I assume that  he is not interested in Judaism, so there's
no hope of their converting  together. <<


>>>>>
You are assuming something  that is actually a non-resolved issue, much 
discussed in these pages:  that  Hashgacha Pratis applies to goyim.   You are 
also assuming that the  bas kol that calls out "Bas Ploni l'Ploni" designates 
particular zivugim for  goyim as well as for Jews. I am among those who 
believe that indeed Hashgacha  Pratis does apply to the nations of the world 
(the literal definition of  "goyim") as well as to the Jewish people, and I 
also happen to believe that each  person in the world really does have a 
designated "other half."   But my impression is that the belief system to which 
/you/ seem to  subscribe in other contexts -- Chabad -- does not share my 
view of  how Hashgacha Pratis operates.

 


BTW I am appalled at the actions of the London Bais Din in this case.   
Unconscionable.  Even if the lady in question did meet her "bashert" as the  
result, which, who knows if the man she married really was her "bashert"?
 
Related question I sometimes wonder about:  I know several Jewish men  who 
became frum after marrying non-Jewish women, sometimes years later when  
there were children already, and whose wives later had Orthodox conversions  
and are now living regular frum lives with their BT husbands.  My question  
is, is it possible that when the bas kol said, "Bas Ploni l'Ploni" that the 
Bas  Ploni in question was not even Jewish at the time of the Heavenly  
announcement?!   Or is it necessarily the case in each of these  marriages that 
the marriage is a zivug sheni and that the original, intended,  zivug rishon 
of the man in question has been left out in the cold in the  inexorable game 
of matrimonial musical chairs?  (Or she has married  /her/ zivug sheni, 
leaving her present husband's zivug rishon out in the  cold....)
 


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



_____________________


**************Download the AOL Classifieds Toolbar for local deals at your 
fingertips. 
(http://toolbar.aol.com/aolclassifieds/download.html?ncid=emlcntu
sdown00000004)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20090614/a72a9c4a/attachment-0001.htm>

On Fri, Jun 12, 2009 at 1:48 PM, Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org> wrote:

> Still catching up on old posts...
>
>
> Because the yeshiva thrives on lomdus, without which learning would be a
> lot less structured and less interesting. Therefore, they lean toward
> textualists.
>
> :-)BBii!
> -Micha
>

AISI the dichotomy is simpler

The Yeshivisher World has recently championed Mussar, Pietism, Frumkeit and
a quasi Hassidic iconization of G"dolim as trumping rigorous lamdus.  [ther
are excpetions, an dBrisk might be one]

While the Old Litvisher world championed Rigorous Lamdus and kocha d'heteira
addif and saw many humros as optional or even counter-productive

So the MB maps out well for the frummer, mystical, approach and the AhS maps
out close to the analytical approach.

I don't recall RDL's approach to Pesak but he was considered Novel im his
time in that he had talmiddim read rishonim [particuarly shita mekubbetzes]
in the shiur inside.  IOW a rigorous approach to textual analysis. in most
Yeshivos, Rishonim are "spoken out" and often not so precisely.

Bottom line, analytical types that I know all seem to prefer the AhS.

And FWIW I would push Tur-Beis Yosef for Beis Midrash level and above as
even better.

Good Shabbos

-- 
Kol Tuv - Best Regards,
RabbiRichWol...@Gmail.com
see: http://nishmablog.blogspot.com/
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Nishma-Minhag/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20090612/37178572/attachment-0001.htm>

On Fri, 12 Jun 2009 09:50:01 -0400 someone, on Areivim, characterized
our Hinuch system as a "Sodom bed".  My reply has been redirected here
by a moderator.

I once noted in a speech that this type of bed also appears in Greek
mythology, in the story of the bandit Procrustes:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Procrustes

Serendipitously, only several days later I heard R. Breitowitz of
Silver Spring speak, and he also noted the parallel between the
Talmudic account and the Greek one.  There are at least three
possibilities:

I)  The two stories are independent.
II) The Greek version is a corruption of the original Sedom story.
III) Hazal utilized a popular Greek literary notion to illustrate the
depravity of Sedom.

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

T6...@aol.com wrote:

> You are assuming something that is actually a non-resolved issue, much 
> discussed in these pages:  that Hashgacha Pratis applies to goyim.   You 
> are also assuming that the bas kol that calls out "Bas Ploni l'Ploni" 
> designates particular zivugim for goyim as well as for Jews. I am among 
> those who believe that indeed Hashgacha Pratis does apply to the nations 
> of the world (the literal definition of "goyim") as well as to the 
> Jewish people, and I also happen to believe that each person in the 
> world really does have a designated "other half."  But my impression 
> is that the belief system to which /you/ seem to subscribe in other 
> contexts -- Chabad -- does not share my view of how Hashgacha Pratis 
> operates.

On the contrary.   The Baal Shem Tov's view, which is now the mainstream
one, is that hashgacha pratit applies to everything that happens, down
to the falling of a leaf from a tree.

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

In a message dated 6/14/2009, z...@sero.name writes:

>...Chabad -- does not share my view of how Hashgacha Pratis  
> operates. [--TK]

>>On the contrary.   The Baal  Shem Tov's view, which is now the mainstream
one, is that hashgacha pratit  applies to everything that happens, down
to the falling of a leaf from a  tree.<<

-- 
Zev Sero        
 
>>>>>
 
 
There was a whole back and forth about this recently on Areivim or Avodah  
in which either the Zohar or the Baal Hatanya (and/or the most recent  Lub 
Rebbe, zt'l) was quoted as saying that there is no HP for NJ and  IIRC you 
strongly defended that position.
 

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



_____________________
**************Download the AOL Classifieds Toolbar for local deals at your 
fingertips. 
(http://toolbar.aol.com/aolclassifieds/download.html?ncid=emlcntu
sdown00000004)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20090614/21fc0547/attachment-0001.htm>

T6...@aol.com wrote:

> There was a whole back and forth about this recently on Areivim or 
> Avodah in which either the Zohar or the Baal Hatanya (and/or the most 
> recent Lub Rebbe, zt'l) was quoted as saying that there is no HP for NJ 
> and IIRC you strongly defended that position.

Nope.

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

RYZ:
> Since the Kavana of this Nvuoh was to show that "Yurei E-lokim Atoh" 
> it was neccessery for Avrohom Avinu to think that he is going to 
> [sacrifice] his son, and that could only be done by actually 
> "ha'aleihu" with the full intent of "shachteihu", from that 
> perspective the Pisron he got was the correct one, and he acted on it 
> perfectly (which is the purpose of Nvuoh).
This Nietzschian definition of truth leads to the interesting conjecture 
that God can lie to a prophet.  This turns out to be a machloket 
rishonim.  See Melachim aleph 22:19-23, Radak (who says no) and Ralbag 
(who says yes) ad. loc.  See also Yalkut Simoni ad. loc. (citing 
Sanhedrin 102b), though I'm not sure what it means, and see Maharsha 
s.v. "mai ruah" and Etz Yosef s.v. "Shene'emar" citing Torat Hayyim 
(printed in Ein Ya'akov).

What bothers me about this is that we're trying to parse the Rambam's 
opinion, and according to the Rambam the mechanism of nevuah is 
accessing the Active Intellect, whose knowledge of truth is decidedly 
not Nietzschian.  See MN II:36 and (coming full circle) H. Yesodei 
HaTorah 7:1.

David Riceman

On Fri, Jun 12, 2009 at 6:36 PM, hankman <sal...@videotron.ca> wrote:

>  So we are back again full circle with the need to explain the difference
> between Moshe and shar neviim in this aspect of nevuoh. Do you think my
> above model is not appropriate, or do you agree with this as at least a
> partial description of "eina meira"?
>

As we come full circle, I am sure that among the Rishonim and Midroshim we
can find a whole specturm of opinions and differences.  Me sticking to the
Rambam as it is a Sefer Halacha, I wrote what I find and don't find there. I
do not claim to have all the answers (I go to sleep with many unanswered
questions <g>).  And while I cannot disqualify any approach, I don't see it
in the Rambam. (while in Drush there is the dictum Ein Meishivin Al Hadrush,
I like to stick with Rashi's dictum "Zehu Pshutoi  vHadrash Yeidoreish").

Kol Tuv,
Yitzchok Zirkind
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20090614/7aeea13c/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 114
***************************************

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..."