Avodah Mailing List

Volume 26: Number 115

Mon, 15 Jun 2009

• 1. Chovav and Reuel (kennethgmil...@juno.com)
• 2. Request for Sources (rabbirichwol...@gmail.com)
• 3. Shelach In Reverse (Cantor Wolberg)
• 4. Re: Shelach (rabbirichwol...@gmail.com)
• 5. Re: hashgacha pratis for NJ (kennethgmil...@juno.com)
• 6. Re: Request for Sources (Zev Sero)
• 7. Re: Request for Sources (rabbirichwol...@gmail.com)
• 8. Re: Chovav and Reuel (Zev Sero)
• 9. Re: (Neviim & Possible Mistakes); Akeidah & Yizchak (Yitzchok Zirkind)
• 10. Re: Sodom bed [was Torah Homeschooling| (T6...@aol.com)
• 11. Hashgacha Pratis for goyim (M Cohen)
• 12. Re: Hashgacha Pratis for goyim (Zev Sero)
• 13. Vayikra Moshe l'Hoshea bin Nun Yehoshua (Marty Bluke)
• 14. Moshe's prayer (David Riceman)
• 15. Bath Ploni liFloni (Jay F Shachter)
• 16. Fw: Sodom bed [was Torah Homeschooling| (rabbirichwolpoe@gmail.com)
• 17. Re: Rambam's naturalism (Micha Berger)

There's a famous Rashi at the beginning of Parshas Yisro (Shmos 18:1) which
lists the seven names Yisro had, including Yeser, Chovav, Reuel, and
others. I was thus very surprised yesterday, when we read (Bamidbar 10:29)
about "Chovav ben Reuel, the Midianite, the father-in-law of Moshe."

Are Chovav and Reuel the same person, or are they father and son?

Today's pasuk seems to say they are two people, and the Rashi here confirms
this. He says that the "Reuel" mentioned way back in Parshas Shemos (2:18)
was not Tziporah's father, but rather her grandfather. The pasuk seems to
refer to Reuel as Tziporah's father, but Rashi explains that it is not
unusual for children to refer to their grandfather as "father".

This puts that section of Shemos in a whole new light. Now, that story
seems to tell us that it was the *grandfather* who asked, "How did you
finish so soon? Invite the man in!" And it was the *grandfather*, it seems,
who gave Tzipporah to Moshe. Yisro doesn't seem to appear in the Chumash
until later.

That's a very different way of learning that parsha, but, okay, it's not
really inconsistent with anything. On the other hand, I have to look again
at the Rashi about the seven names (Shmos 18:1). It turns out that this
Rashi has a Yesh Omrim, that some say that Chovav and Reuel are different
people; Rashi cites our pasuk (Bamidbar 10:29) about "Chovav ben Reuel",
and in *both* pesukim Rashi mentions how the children refer to their
grandfather as "father".

So here's my question: What about the FIRST Yesh Omrim? How is the "seven
names" opinion consistent with our pasuk? How can anyone hold that Chovav
and Reuel are the same person, if we have a pasuk which clearly says they
aren't?

I came up with a possible answer, but I don't think it is a good one. Maybe
the word "ben" is not to be taken literally as "son", but more
figuratively, as "successor". If so, the pasuk in B'haaloscha could refer
to "the Ger Tzedek Chovav, formerly known as the Midianite Reuel." But I
think that's too much of a stretch.

I asked my chavrusa, R' Steve Karp, if he had any ideas. He noted that for
some reason, Rashi in Parshas Shemos explains the meanings of some of those
seven names, but not all of them. Reuel was one of Yisro's names, and he
suggested that perhaps he was named after his father - "Reuel Jr.", as it
were. If so, then Reuel was Tziporah's father, and ANOTHER Reuel was her
grandfather, and everything fits.

I'm wondering what the chevrah thinks of these answers. Even better, has
anyone seen or heard of any other answers to this question? (The specific
question can be rephrased as: How is the first view of Rashi in Shmos 18:1
consistent with what the Torah says explicitly in Bamidbar 10:29?)

Akiva Miller

____________________________________________________________
Click here for free information and resources about managing your inheritance.
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL21
31/fc/BLSrjnsDshvT5kZhYQeJJsmGsJpN4CA7tlFZpaYRTz7ORAzaBfGkCsKZIhK/

A friend asked me:
"Vu shtait geshribben that a rabbi may not officiate at a mixed
wedding?". Apparently a Reformist argued to my buddy that since the
couple is doing the deed NOT the rabbi therefore the Rabbi himself is
off the hook.

I answered that it is patently obvious. What if a Jew asked a rabbi (or
any frum Jew) to serve him chazzir!? Is he allowed just because he -
the rabbi himself - is not eating? Of course not!

So my buddy agrees with the svara but is looking for something explicit
in writing. I suspect that shu"t literature would have this somewhere.

Anyone got a Bar-Ilan CD?

KT
RRW
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

"It's very interesting that the theme of Shelach -- sending the spies  
to Canaan should have been positive. If you reverse the word Shelach,  
you get chalash, which means to 'weaken'. Since the spies acted  
backwards, instead of their being sent on a positive mission, they had  
little faith and the opposite of shelach occurred. Instead of their  
acting in good faith, their mission reversed and it became chalash.   
This reminds me of the word "live".   If you live in reverse, you get  
"evil." Let us remember our mission in life.
ri
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20090614/493b4de3/attachment-0001.htm>

Cantor RW: 
> It's very interesting that the theme of Shelach -- sending the spies
> to Canaan should have been positive. If you reverse the word Shelach,
> you get chalash, which means to 'weaken.'Since the spies acted backwards,
> instead of their being sent on a positive mission, they had little faith
> andthe opposite of shelach occurred. Instead of their acting in good
> faith, their mission reversed and it becamechalash. This reminds me of
> the word "live." If you live in reverse, you get "evil."Let us remember
> our mission in life.
 
Just a footnote: 
The story in the Haftara are the Tiqqun and redemption for the Torah Portion.. 
 
RRW 
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

R"n Toby Katz asked:

> 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?!

Sure, why not?

And I offer two reasons:

First, if we presume that the neshomos of gerei tzedek were present at Har
Sinai, then it seems reasonable that the Bas Kol would know about this, and
could make the "Bas Ploni L'Ploni" announcement even if the geirus has not
yet occurred.

Second, what about the more typical case, of a person who converts while
still single. Is this person to be excluded from ever marrying? Would you
say that there was no "Bas Ploni L'Ploni" announcement in such a case? I
can't prove it logically, but emotionally, I can't see denying this
bershert-ness to the couple.

It seems to me that both of the above arguments make sense regardless of
whether it is the husband or the wife (or both) who converted, and also
regardless of whether or not there was a marriage prior to the conversion.

The only requirement I see is that when you wrote
>   ... and whose wives later had Orthodox conversions and
>   are now living regular frum lives with their BT husbands.
you meant that not only did they have a kosher conversion, but that they
also had a proper halachic wedding following that conversion (without which
the Bas Kol would have had nothing to announce).

Akiva Miller

____________________________________________________________
Save on hotels.  Click here to find and compare hotel deals.
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL21
31/fc/BLSrjnsIfXcIMLDxrOxTa9qTuux0XKgBPyK67gzp8xrjixMwflLhqXETSk4/

rabbirichwol...@gmail.com wrote:
> A friend asked me:
> "Vu shtait geshribben that a rabbi may not officiate at a mixed
> wedding?". Apparently a Reformist argued to my buddy that since the
> couple is doing the deed NOT the rabbi therefore the Rabbi himself is
> off the hook.

If you're really not doing anything, and are just a spectator, then
"vos shteistu oiben-on?"  Go sit in the audience with everybody else!
And are you being paid, just to stand there and do nothing?  Elo mai,
you are doing something that is important to the couple, that *they*
consider a vital part of the ceremony; in that case you are mesayea`
yedei ovrei avera.


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

> If you're really not doing anything, and are just a spectator, then
> "vos shteistu oiben-on?"  Go sit in the audience with everybody else!
> And are you being paid, just to stand there and do nothing?  Elo mai,
> you are doing something that is important to the couple, that *they*
> consider a vital part of the ceremony; in that case you are mesayea`
> yedei ovrei avera.
> Zev Sero

Ein hachi nami! That was my point with the chazir! But is there a black
and white statment prohibitting rabbis from performing mixed marriages.
I realize that for this list such an explicit statement is unnecessary.
But my friend asked for something that was explicit

KT
RRW
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

According to the view that he had seven names, it's obvious that Reuel
was both his name and his father's.  That much is not a question.  As
for the rest, see Sifsei Chachomim, quoting the Maharshal, who says that
when Rashi brings up the fact that a grandfather can be called a father,
he is trying to explain the Mechilta that Yitro only had two names,
Yitro and Chovav.

This is actually not a Mechilta at all, but a Sifri.  The Mechilta on
Shemot 18:1 says that he had seven names, and explains each of them.
Then comes a "davar acher", with a different explanation for the name
"Yitro".   Interestingly, Rashi quotes the Mechilta's explanation for
"Yeter", the second opinion's explanation for "Yitro", gives his own
(original?) explanation for "Chovav", and doesn't bother explaining the
other four names.   But the Maharshal's "Mechilta" is in fact R Shimon
ben Yochai's opinion in the Sifri on our pasuk in Bamidbar.  The
explanation that a grandfather can be called a father is also in that
Sifri.



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

On Sun, Jun 14, 2009 at 10:29 AM, David Riceman <drice...@att.net> wrote:

>
>
> This Nietzschian definition of truth leads to the interesting conjecture
> that God can lie to a prophet.


To be honest I don't know the definition of "Nietzschian", (and how this is
a Stire to 7:1).  But in any case this is LAND not Bdugma at all to the
issue of:


>  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).


(Without going into that issue),  As there he had to say that he will be
Matzliach, the opposite of him being killed.  However here the word
vHal'aleihu remained true as Rashi says "motzo sfisai lo ashaneh" (that is
besides that all this is an addition to the other issues mentioned
previously).

Again bKitzur, HKBH said a word that remained true, Avrohom Avinu thought it
meant MORE (not opposite) of what HKBH said, (and it was a private Nvuoh
that even good can be reversed), at most IMHO the question is wether Avrohom
understood the Nvuoh and wether that is a contradiction to 7:3 (which LAND
is not).

Kol Tuv,
Yitzchok Zirkind
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20090615/a9da0487/attachment-0001.htm>

 
From: Yitzhak Grossman _celejar@gmail.com_ (mailto:cele...@gmail.com) 

>>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:... <<

 
 
>>>>
You are hardly the first to notice the close similarity between the  
Procrustean bed and the Sodom bed.  The chance that this story arose twice,  
independently, is nil.  The odds that the Greeks took it from us are  slight, but 
it is possible.  Far more likely IMO is the third possibility  you 
mentioned, that Chazal took a commonly known Greek story floating around in  the air 
of their time and used it to illustrate the kind of thing that went on  in 
Sodom.
 
There are many stories and ideas in Chazal that have close parallels in  
Greek and Roman mythology  and the odds are that all or most of them  were 
taken from the Greeks and Romans and re-purposed by Chazal.   However the 
intellectual and cultural traffic between the Jews and the  surrounding cultures 
always went both ways and some ideas could well have come  from us first.
 
With a bit of research I could find a lot of examples of parallel  stories 
in Jewish and non-Jewish ancient sources, but it's late and  I'm tired so I 
will just mention a few that pop into my head, and the erudite  talmidei 
chachamim (and secular historians) who people these august pages will  surely 
be able to cite chapter and verse and correct my mistakes if I have  messed 
up some details.
 
A. Romulus and Remus, twins suckled by she-wolf -- founders of  Rome
B. Phoenix -- bird that dies in fire and is reborn from the  ashes
C. Salamander that is immune to fire
D. Adonis or Narcissus -- handsome man who sees his reflection in  water 
and falls in love with his own image
E. All twelve signs of the Zodiac
 
 



--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/20090615/2d5936f8/attachment-0001.htm>

RTK wrote ...You are assuming something that is actually a non-resolved
issue, much 
discussed in these pages:  that Hashgacha Pratis applies to goyim.   
..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

I may have a faulty memory of those discussions.. 
but as far as I remember they were NOT "a non-resolved issue"

There were those Areivim members that "believed" or that "it's only fair
that" there s/be be HP for goyim.
NO proofs. NO sources.

OTOH, most rishonim held that there isn't HP for Jews either (except for
individual tzadikim).
R Chaim Friedlander z'l in his (controversial ?) sefer on the subject felt
that this was 
the view of ALL rishonim.

The Baal Shem Tov's view, which is now the mainstream
one, is that hashgacha pratis applies to all Jews.
(BSTov's falling leaves means HP as it affects Jews)

This is explicit in Ramchal's Derech Hashem - ayin sham b'arichus.

(btw, interestingly, the Pri Tzadik says that when the BSTov's opinion
became mainstream,
that Hashem 'adjusted' his HP in the world to coincide with the BSTov's
opinion)

Mordechai Cohen

M Cohen wrote:

> The Baal Shem Tov's view, which is now the mainstream
> one, is that hashgacha pratis applies to all Jews.
> (BSTov's falling leaves means HP as it affects Jews)

How does it affect Jews when a leaf falls in order to provide shade
for a worm?


> This is explicit in Ramchal's Derech Hashem - ayin sham b'arichus.

The Ramchal talks about shitas haBaal Shem Tov?


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

Rashi comments that Moshe changed his name and davened that Hashem
should save Yehoshua from the sin/plot of the meraglim.

This is very difficult for a number of reasons:
1. We see clearly from Rashi that Moshe knew that the Meraglim would
sin, that is why he davened that Yehoshua would not be caught up in
it. If so, why did he send them at all? After all Rashi comments on
the words, shlach lecha, that Hashem gave Moshe the choice as to
whether to send meraglim or not. If he knew they would sin why didn't
he just cancel the mission?
2. Why daven only for Yehoshua? Yehoshua was probably the greatest of
the meraglim, why would Moshe worry that he would sin? At the time
that they were picked all of the Meraglim were tzadikim, why didn't
Moshe daven for all of them?

I did not find any of the meforshim on Rashi that dealt with the first
question. The Netziv does ask the question and says because of the
question that Rashi's pshat is very difficult. Therefore rejects
Rashi's pshat and offers his own pshat.

The meforshim do deal with the second question but I didn't see any
convincing answers.

Any thoughts would be appreciated.

My son and I are studying hilchos tefillah, and we have learned the 
basic structure of petitionary prayer: shevah followed by bakasha 
followed by hoda'ah.  Hazal take Moshe's prayer for Miriam as a possible 
paradigm of prayer.  Where, asks my son, is the hoda'ah?

David Riceman

> 
> 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?!
>

We do not have to answer this question, because the story of the "bath
qol" (heavenly voice -- or, more accurately, "echo of a voice", "trace
of a voice" -- the term does not translate precisely into English) is
an "agada", a fable, and our Sages have instructed us that we need not
answer matters involving fables.

Nevertheless, there is an answer.  Our traditional sources have also
told us that conversion to Judaism changes you on an essential level,
such that there is a sense in which the person who emerges from the
miqveh or ma`ayan is a "different" person from the person who stepped
into it.  Thus, X and Y met, married (under secular law), and even
produced children, but then a conversion to Judaism occurred, at which
point X was replaced by X', a different person.  The "bath qol" did
not assert that X and Y were predestined for each other; it asserted
that X' and Y were predestined for each other.  And so they were.


                        Jay F. ("Yaakov") Shachter
                        6424 N Whipple St
                        Chicago IL  60645-4111
                                (1-773)7613784
                                j...@m5.chicago.il.us
                                http://m5.chicago.il.us

                        "Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur"

RTK
> Chazal took a commonly known Greek story floating around in the air
> of their time and used it to illustrate the kind of thing that went on
> in Sodom.

Actually I think Hazal were doing political comments regarding their
own time and used proxies just like Gulliver lhavdil

Attacks on Esav/Edom were veiled attacks on Rome

I'm guessing that attacks on Sodom were veiled attacks against hedonisitc
Hellenic culture.

That is why Hazal are saying truths but NOT peshat in passuk.
They are avoiding persecution by using meshallim from Tanach to make
social political and spiritual commentary about the ills of the local
civilizations.

And the amcha probably understood these veiled references but these
double entendres were forgotten.

There is a story about Netziv iirc that dovetails with this.

EG the Torah shows Esav to be impetuous but not so violent. Hazal made
him bloodthirsty. Clearly to me they were attacking Rome vicariously
via Edom.

Of sourse spiritually speaking Esav probably was their spiritual ancestor
and may be responsible on some spiritual genetic level. But it is
possible that Esav actually committed none of the violence attributed
to him yet Hazal WERE telling the Emes - IE the emes about the cruelty
of Rome and swapping the names so as to avoid wholesale martyrdom!

IMHO this approach is so basic that Hazal are saying the truth but not
necessarily the literal peshat in passuk!

KT
RRW
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 04:29:17PM -0400, David Riceman wrote:
: >The nearest I could find was (from about 1/5th of the way into pereq 18):
: >>This benefit is very great in the case of prophets, and varies
: >>according to the degree of their prophetic faculty: as it varies in
: >>the case of pious and good men according to their piety and
: >>uprightness.

: >But notice he's saying that HP is in proportion to their nevu'ah (or to
: >chassidus and tzidqus), not that it actually is their nevu'ah.

: See Ibn Falaqera, Moreh HaMoreh, at the end of 3:18 (he cites 3:52 and 
: 2:12).

It took me nearly 3 months to look this up, but... He doesn't so much
site 2:12, as much as point you there where his explanation really
resides.

But in any case, here's the snippet I would focus on in 2:12:
    It is now clear that the action of bodies upon each other, according
    to their forms, prepares the substance for receiving the action of
    an incorporeal being, or Form. The existence of actions of purely
    incorporeal beings, in every case of change that does not originate
    in the mere combination of elements, is now firmly established.
    These actions do not depend on impact, or on a certain distance.
    They are termed "influence" (or "emanation"), on account of their
    similarity to a water-spring. The latter sends forth water in all
    directions, has no peculiar side for receiving or spending its
    contents: it springs forth on all sides, and continually waters both
    neighbouring and distant places. In a similar manner incorporeal
    beings, in receiving power and imparting it to others, are not
    limited to a particular side, distance, or time. They act
    continually; and whenever an object is sufficiently prepared, it
    receives the effect of that continuous action, called "influence"
    (or "emanation"). God being incorporeal, and everything being the
    work of Him as the efficient cause, we say that the Universe has
    been created by the Divine influence, and that all changes in the
    Universe emanate from Him. In the same sense we say that He caused
    wisdom to emanate from Him and to come upon the prophets. In all
    such cases we merely wish to express that an incorporeal Being,
    whose action we call "influence," has produced a certain effect. The
    term "influence" has been considered applicable to the Creator on
    account of the similarity between His actions and those of a spring.
    There is no better way of describing the action of an incorporeal
    being than by this analogy; and no term can be found that would
    accurately describe it.

I see the perfected intellect as described in 3:18 as being the form
that is the "prepar[ation] of the substance for receiving the action of
an incorporeal being, or Form".

: >However, the fate of a bird isn't a product of what's most appropriate
: >for that particular bird. Unlike the case of events that occur to people,
: >or at least to those who get HP. It's hashgachah minis or hashgachah
: >kelalis, depending on whether the rishon is looking to the fate of the
: >species (HM) or to the Divine Wisdom inherent in natural law (HK) --
: >but it's still hashgachah.

: Universals are a problem for the Rambam.  See Falaqera again, at the 
: beginning of 3:18, summarizing Plato and Aristotle (unfortunately 
: without specific references).

Also, Wolfson discusses it, as you showed me back in vol 12.

However, that ambivalence of the Rambam's doesn't touch my understanding
of the Morah. I see 3:18 as clearly saying that "person" is a fuzzy set
defined by yedi'ah.

: >Whereas I'm arguing that the debate between Epicurus and Aristotle
: >was about this exact point. Epicurus thought that there were events
: >that "just happened", whereas Aristotle believed that events come
: >from intellects turning the potential into the actual, and therefore
: >everything can ultimately be traced back to Divine Wisdom. The only
: >thing is, that Wisdom usually is that there should be a rule, and not
: >that this particular case should have this particular outcome.

: You need to add qualifiers here.  Epicurus thought that all events just 
: happened; Aristotle thought that many events come from physical law.

: >When seen in contrast to Epicurus, because Aristo believed in teleological
: >causes (things happening for a purpose), he did have a non-random
: >universe. All of nature was the product of someone's will.

: This is inaccurate.  Not all of nature; much of nature.  Some of it is 
: random.  Descartes was the first (since the Kalam) to deny randomness.

In MN 3:17, he gives five theories regarding hashgachah [HP and HK]. Note
the body of these theories take it for granted we're talking about Divine
Action in this world, not degrees of nevu'ah (which is the topic of a
different part of the Moreh anyay). In 3:17 he ammends the 5th theory,
that of Chazal, giving a more recent understanding, and then in ch 18 he
gives his own. (In which he uses the fuziness of the concept of "person"
to say that all people get HP means that homo sapiens get more or less
HP depending on their yedi'ah.)

#1: "There is no Providence at all for anything in the Universe; all parts
of the Universe, the heavens and what they contain, owe their origin to
accident and chance; there exists no being that rules and governs them
or provides for them. This is the theory of Epicurus, who assumes also
that the Universe consists of atoms, that these have combined by chance,
and have received their various forms by mere accident...."

#2: "Whilst one part of the Universe owes its existence to Providence, and
is under the control of a ruler and governor, another part is abandoned
and left to chance. This is the view of Aristotle about Providence,
and I will now explain to you his theory. He holds that God controls
the spheres and what they contain: therefore the individual beings in
the spheres remain permanently in the same form. ... From the existence
of the spheres other beings derive existence, which are constant in
their species but not in their individuals: in the same manner it
is said that Providence sends forth [from the spheres to the earth]
sufficient influence to secure the immortality and constancy of the
species, without securing at the same time permanence for the individual
beings of the species. But the individual beings in each species have
not been entirely abandoned, that portion of the materia prima which
has been purified and refined, and has received the faculty of growth,
is endowed with properties that enable it to exist a certain time,
to attract what is useful and to repel what is useless."

So, while Friedlander's translation uses the word "chance", the Rambam's
description of it is hashgachah minis "constant in species and not
individuals" and hashgachah kelalis "that portion ... which has been
purified and refined, and has received the faculty of growth, is endowed
with properties that enable it to exist a certain time..."

That nature is described as a non-abandonment is HK as opposed to
Epicurian randomness.

On a subject that came up since, on Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 9:11am EDT
R M Cohen wrote:
: I may have a faulty memory of those discussions..
: but as far as I remember they were NOT "a non-resolved issue"
: There were those Areivim members that "believed" or that "it's only fair
: that" there s/be be HP for goyim.
: NO proofs. NO sources.

I do remember it differently.

HP based on yedi'ah would include HP for chassidei umos ha'olam. CUhO get
olam haba, which leshitas haRambam presumes more than sufficient yedi'ah
for HP. (And note that the Rambam's examples in III:18 are named Zeid,
Amr and Kaled, not Zechariah, Avraham and Kaleiv.)

Universal HP means universal, across all of domeim, tzomei'ach
and chai al achas kamah vekamah all medaberim. See the LR's
Iggeres at <http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/faxes/protis.pdf>
(thanks to RYZ). My summary is at
<http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol09/v09n042.shtml#12>. RGStudent
posted a summary of the Sifsei Chaim (who is
choleiq on the LR on some points but not this one) at
<http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol12/v12n004.shtml#07>. The current
theory ties HP to the fact that things only exist due to Ratzon haBorei,
and therefore all events must be according to the Ratzon. Also, Ramchal,
Derekh Hashem 2:1:2.

And the notion that HP on domeim tzomeiach vechai is only where it impacts
medabrim is the Ramaq's (according to the Sifsei Chaim), not the Ramban's,
the Rambam's, nor the Gra's universalism. He explicitly contrasts the two.
AND the Ramaq says medabeir, not Yehudi.

The Sifsei Chaim (Pirqei Emunah veHashgachah I, maamar 5, the one beyond
RGS's post, is about how "teva" is just a term for indirect hashgachah.

This was also RnTK's recent error. Those who say that HP is not universal,
do not define it by criteria that excludes nachriim. Those who do say that
nachriim are different in kind in a manner that would impact HP according
to the first shitah happen to also believe that even a domeim is subject
to HP.

So to exclude nachriim from hashgachah would require a mix of shitos we
didn't find given by any baal mesorah.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             A pious Jew is not one who worries about his fellow
mi...@aishdas.org        man's soul and his own stomach; a pious Jew worries
http://www.aishdas.org   about his own soul and his fellow man's stomach.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                       - Rav Yisrael Salanter


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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 26, Issue 115
***************************************

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..."