Volume 26: Number 124
Sat, 27 Jun 2009
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Message: 1
From: Yitzchok Zirkind <y...@aol.com>
Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2009 16:57:26 -0400
Subject: Re: [Avodah] Baruch Hu Uvaruch Shemo
On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 11:17 AM, Simon Montagu <simon.mont...@gmail.com>wrote:
> From the Daily Halacha emails which appear in my inbox:
>
> > 966. One should be mindful to carefully pronounce each word when
> responding "Boruch Hu U'voruch Shemo", and be especially vigilant to
> pronounce the letter "Vuv" of U'voruch. Piskei Tshuvos 124:11, Kaf Hachaim
> 124:29, Boruch She'omar
>
> I didn't understand this well. There are two vavs in "Uvaruch", and I don't
> know which one it refers to or why one has to be especially vigilant to
> pronounce either one of them.
>
The Piskei Tshuvos brings from the Sefer Boruch Sheomar that the reason the
GRA did not say BHU"S is because close to his times there was the Kat of
shabtai tzvi SR"Y who would omit the Vuv haChibur of uVoruch Shmo because
that would equal the name of s"t SR"Y. he therefore says to be "especially"
carefull with this.
--
Kol Tuv,
Yitzchok Zirkind
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20090625/35805fa4/attachment-0001.htm>
Go to top.
Message: 2
From: rabbirichwol...@gmail.com
Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2009 20:50:01 +0000
Subject: Re: [Avodah] R Tzadok-TSBP
RMM:
> Professor Yaakov
> Elman describes how according to Rabbi Tzadok, the Oral Law is such
> that although Moshe received the whole Torah at Sinai, it was all in
> potential (b'koah), and only later did Rabbi Akiva (based on Menahot
> 29b) bring it out into actuality (b'po'al). Elman then writes,
>> The process [of bringing that which was inchoate (b'koah) out
>> into actuality (b'po'al)] did not end here [with the writing of the
>> Talmud]. Each successive effort of codification of Oral Law added to
>> the Written Torah, ..
Here is a simple picture:
Torah is termed "Etz Hayyim"
Moshe Rabbeinu brought down the seeds for this Etz Hayyim. Those seeds
contained all the DNA necessary for Torah to sprout as an etz hayyim
over time.
-------------------------
AISI Ezra and Anshei knesses hagedloah were every bit as much manifestors
as R Akiva. Maybe the hiddush of R Akiva was that he was post hurban.
The the first would really be RYBZ
--------------------
Torah was a set of rules and syntax much like a computer programming
language. Even the author of a programming language would not anticiapte
every potential subsequent application or algorithm.
While the Omniscient
HKBH could foresee the endless possibilities Moshe Rabbeinu probably
could not. (IOW the sum total of Torah is greater Than Moshe)
OTOH Moshe COULD judge if a given application conformed to the rules
... but even then over time even that might be hard to do as struxtures
build upon structures (EG Moshe during Rabbi Akiva's shiur)
-----------------------
1 Those explicit -or even implicit - misinai
Explicit. EG:
Mipi hashemua Or HLMM
Implicit EG:
From 13 Middos
2 Those g'zeiros, taqqanos, and pisqei din by Beis Din haggadol etc.
AIUI the Mechilta Sifra Sifre style dominated early TSBP (type 1) but
as collected psaq grew type 2 dominated and Mishna evolved (from R Aqiva
onwards). (Loosely based upon Iggeres de R. Sh'rira Gaon).
R Aqiva, R Meir, and Rebbe resorted the TSBP from a passuk index to a
subject index
And R Yishmael R Hiyya R Hoshaya et. Al. Preserved the old index
KT
RRW
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile
Go to top.
Message: 3
From: Yitzchok Zirkind <y...@aol.com>
Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2009 01:42:09 -0400
Subject: Re: [Avodah] Psulei edus invalidating the whole group
On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 9:15 AM, Zev Sero <z...@sero.name> wrote:
> Does this apply only to people who could be in the geder of edus, if
> only they weren't relatives, cardsharps, or whatever? In other words,
> if women are included among the witnesses, can we say that they don't
> invalidate the male witnesses, because they're not even potentially
> kosher, so they're as if they weren't there?
>
The Nsivos (Mishpat haUrim) C"M 36 #10 brings the Tumim s"k 11, that it does
not apply to women for the reason you mention. However in the new edition
with the Miluei Mishpot he brings many sources (including Maharik
haChadoshos # 47) that it also applies to a women Ayin Shom.
>
> --
> Kol Tuv,
> Yitzchok Zirkind
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20090626/d9ceb866/attachment-0001.htm>
Go to top.
Message: 4
From: "Akiva Blum" <yda...@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2009 11:22:51 +0300
Subject: Re: [Avodah] Baruch Hu Uvaruch Shemo
_____
From: avodah-boun...@lists.aishdas.org [mailto:avodah-boun...@lists.aishdas.org]
On Behalf Of Simon Montagu
> 966. One should be mindful to carefully pronounce each word when responding
"Boruch Hu U'voruch Shemo", and be especially vigilant to pronounce the letter
"Vuv" of U'voruch. Piskei Tshuvos 124:11, Kaf Hachaim 124:29, Boruch She'omar
Can anyone provide a source and/or a reason for the halacha as stated in the
Daily Halacha?
Zev Sero :
> AIUI Shabtai Tzvi followers would deliberately omit the first vav
> of "uvaruch", because without it the phrase adds up to the same
> gematria as their leader's name. I don't know a source for this.
>>>>>>>>>>>
It's in Baruch Sheamar, written by Baruch Heleivi Epstein (of Torah Temima fame)
: on tefilla
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20090626/18c4aae1/attachment-0001.htm>
Go to top.
Message: 5
From: Michael Makovi <mikewindd...@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2009 19:02:59 +0300
Subject: Re: [Avodah] FW: R Tzadok-TSBP
> Especially after I've seen what deconstructionism has done in the hands
> of the Reconstructionist (sorry, I couldn't refrain from the wordplay),
> I find it very hard to believe an O poseiq would consider it a worthwhile
> part of the toolset.
>
> R' Micha
Professor Shapiro, ibid., does note at length that Rabbi Haim
Soloveitchik was reticent to pasken, directing people to the dayan of
Volozhin for practical questions. Rabbi Haim was sure that his
hiddushim were true and correct, but he couldn't bring himself to
practically rule that way, against the SA in favor of a novel ruling
of the Rambam's or a novel reading of the Gemara. Faced with the
conflict, he simply chose not to pasken anything.
So if Rabbi Haim was a post-modernist deconstructionist, then rest
easy: he was NOT a poseiq.
Personally, this makes my stomach turn, with all due respect to Rabbi
Haim. I cannot imagine the value of learning that does not lead to
practical halakhah. Rabbi Elias (19 Letters) notes that Rav Hirsch's
concept of lishmah was NOT the Volozhin notion of purely theoretical
lomdut for its own sake, but rather, Rav Hirsch sake that lishmah
meant for the sake of ma'aseh.
Now, not EVERY act of limud has to lead to ma'aseh, but I'd say that
the general goal has to be for ma'aseh. Rav Hirsch in fact studied
Seder Kodashim, as shown in his perush to Sefer Vayikra. But in
general, Rav Hirsch's overarching goal was to apply Torah to the real
practical world. (This ties into TIDE.) Occasional study for pure
theory is fine, as long as the general aim is for ma'aseh.
Similarly, regarding a gentile's being culpable for studying
non-Noahide Torah, the Meiri says that this doesn't mean that he
studies non-Noahide Torah per se, but rather, it speaks of intent: a
gentile is like a kohen if he studies for the sake of doing, and he is
culpable if he studies not for the sake of doing. In general, for the
sake of doing = studying Noahide law, and not for the sake of doing =
studying non-Noahide law, but not always. If a gentile studies for the
sake of doing the Noahide law, but in the process, he happens to study
non-Noahide Torah as well, he is fine. Likewise, if a gentile studies
NOT for the sake of doing the Noahide law, then he is culpable even if
he happens to study Noahide law. The Meiri seems to apply a Hirschian
lishmah to the question of a gentile studying Torah. The content
itself is not important; a Jew's studying Seder Kodashim or a
gentiles' studying any non-Noahide Torah - both are fine, as long as
the general intent is to affect deed.
Professor Shapiro notes that Rambam was extremely insistent on Torah
study being for deed. He quotes Rambam that studying Talmudic
dialectic is useless for most people; people should study the Yad and
the Rif, and should study the Talmud only where the Rif and Yad
contradict, says Rambam. He notes that Rambam says, on one occasion in
his perush to the Mishnah, that we need not be concerned with studying
Beit Shammai's opinion. He quotes Rav Kafih that people in the
yeshivot today would call this am ha'artzut, but that Rambam disagrees
with the yeshivishe view.
I don't think I'd personally go as far with Rambam's view; surely
studying Beit Shammai will help us understand halakhah, so that we
know how to rule elsewhere! But the underlying kernel of Rambam's,
viz. that all study should be practical, highly resonates with me. I
simply think that learning how to think is also practical, if the
thought processes will be later applied to practical halakhah.
So I am very uncomfortable with Rabbi Haim's reticent to pasken. I
have a very one-track mind, and we've seen on these boards previously
that I am unable to comprehend apologetics or altering the truth in
favor of expediency; I simply cannot comprehend these, and I even made
a Freudian slip trying to describe a specific apologeia; I simply
cannot comprehend these. Similarly, the notion of Talmud study that
does not lead ultimately to a better understanding of the practical
halakhah, I simply cannot stomach this notion.
When I'm studying Gemara, for example, I enjoy the Rif, Rambam, and
Shulhan Arukh a million times more than I enjoy Tosafot. (This is also
because I dislike casuistry and dialectics. I remember when there was
a conflict between two sugyot, Tosafot offered several complex
solutions, while Ra'avad on the Rif simply said that one sugya was the
ikkar and overrode the other, and that we'd re-girsa the other to
agree with the first. I am a straight-shooter, and the Ra'avad
satisfied me far more than the Tosafot did.)
My justification of academic study of Torah is simple: if it is
objectively true, then surely, it must have an effect on halakhah. If
it is objectively false, then obviously, it should have no effect,
since it is false anyway. When people say that academic findings are
true but are outside the halakhic process, I simply cannot comprehend
this. I simply cannot comprehend any true knowledge, any true finding,
that does not have practical ramifications. I realize that this goes
against the traditional method, but I simply cannot comprehend any
true finding that is purely theoretical, that is divorced from
practice. It just doesn't fit in my brain.
Michael Makovi
Go to top.
Message: 6
From: harveyben...@yahoo.com
Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2009 11:14:18 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [Avodah] k'daas moshe v'yisrael; validity of ketubah
>>>>DAAS MOSHE: If someone says "k'daas moshe v'yisrael" what does that mean?? what is daas moshe??? possibly:
1.? what we think daas moshe was, when he was? alive?? (per recent discussions of brisk and what rambam may or may not have meant in his own mind/day).
2. what we think daas moshe might be right now?? [nonesenical to me; since
we have no idea of what moshe might think or not think, especially
regarding this particular inyan]
V'YISRAEL: daas yisrael is (obviously) fractured today, even among the
orthodox. Perhaps in olden days it was not and this statement might make
more unified sense to someone pronouncing it; note: does anyone know the
history/origins of this particular
pronouncement, and it's
legal ramifications???
3. K'DAAS MOSHE
V'YISRAEL: What if Daas Moshe
and Daas Yisrael are not
(nor in the past) one and the same???? Are both conditions required for
the kinyan to take legal effect?? and if yes, in whose eyes??? Moshe's?,
Hashem's?, current Daas Yisrael?? or some combination? or none-of the
above???
>>>KETUBAH DETAILS:
Most people who sign a ketubah are not proficient in Aramaic and thus (perhaps) rely on at least one person who is.?
1. Why isn't this person required to state on the ketubah that he was the
one who explained the situation to the parties involved and sign his name;
should disputes arise in the future (like an actuary or accountant or
legal-adviser does in our days?)
2.? Why don't both parties have to sign a separate document (or an
ammendment to the original document - in this case the ketubah) that they
have either read and/or understand the contents of the ketubah, it's
ramifications, responsibilities, potential penalties for non-observance,
etc., or have had it explained to
them in clear, understandable, and unequivocal terms???? This ammendment
or separate document would (in my opinion) have to be in a language
commonly understood? to both parties (unless of course the choson only
spoke french and the kallah for instance only read/spoke japanese; then
there would be a problem....)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20090626/f1f89cd3/attachment-0001.htm>
Go to top.
Message: 7
From: Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org>
Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2009 17:13:37 -0400
Subject: Re: [Avodah] k'daas moshe v'yisrael; validity of ketubah
On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 11:14:18AM -0700, harveyben...@yahoo.com wrote:
: DAAS MOSHE: If someone says "k'daas moshe v'yisrael" what does that
: mean?...
It means he erred. The word is "das Moshe", meaning the rite
established by Moshe. No ayin, so it has nothing to do with what Moshe
would have thought.
It means that even if MRAH never learned the details of what R' Aqiva
taught, what R' Aqiva and R' Aqiva Eiger taught is a development of the
system given to Moshe. (And FWIW, Rashi says that story is about something
Moshe later learned during the 40 days. I would note that the ideas R'
Aqiva taught were given to Moshe at Sinai -- via that very vision of
seeing R' Aqiva later teaching them! But that's not the lesson usually
taken from that gemara, and not what I mean here.)
: V'YISRAEL: daas yisrael...
Das Moshe is the halakhah, das Yisrael is minhag.
:-)BBii!
-Micha
--
Micha Berger It isn't what you have, or who you are, or where
mi...@aishdas.org you are, or what you are doing, that makes you
http://www.aishdas.org happy or unhappy. It's what you think about.
Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Dale Carnegie
Go to top.
Message: 8
From: David Riceman <drice...@att.net>
Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2009 16:10:03 -0400
Subject: Re: [Avodah] FW: R Tzadok-TSBP
Michael Makovi wrote:
> Professor Shapiro, ibid., does note at length that Rabbi Haim
> Soloveitchik was reticent [sic] to pasken, directing people to the dayan of
> Volozhin for practical questions.
You mean Brisk. See R. Zevin's book, Ishim V'Sheetos, pp. 62 ff.
> Rabbi Haim was sure that his
> hiddushim were true and correct, but he couldn't bring himself to
> practically rule that way, against the SA in favor of a novel ruling
> of the Rambam's or a novel reading of the Gemara. Faced with the
> conflict, he simply chose not to pasken anything.
>
This is an exaggeration (ibid.)
> So if Rabbi Haim was a post-modernist deconstructionist, then rest
> easy: he was NOT a poseiq.
>
> Personally, this makes my stomach turn, with all due respect to Rabbi
> Haim. I cannot imagine the value of learning that does not lead to
> practical halakhah.
The French say "the stomach has its reasons that the heartburn knows
not"; I'm not sure how to argue with a stomach. Nonetheless, to the
extent that your mind is entrained with your stomach, it is important to
realize that R. Haim's position has much to commend it. Several list
members are students of students of R. Haim, so I ought to leave them to
respond. Nonetheless I'll make a few points:
1. R. Haim was a town Rabbi and a Rosh Yeshiva. He held (cited
somewhere in Ish HaHalacha) that the primary function of a town Rabbi
was to protect the downtrodden. Paskening is not, according to him, in
either job description. It seems clear that he paskened for himself and
his immediate family.
2. R. Haim had a minimalist position about the authority of custom and
of post-Talmudic decrees (see the story about deregistering
non-circumsized children in Ish Hahalacha). Again this is undesireable
in a town posek (especially a town with old established customs like Brisk).
3. The Mishna Berura is another example of a prominent halachic book
which displays reluctance to pasken. I probably shouldn't even mention
theoretical works like the Minhath Hinuch. R. Haim's position is hardly
unique. Your's is.
4. This Shabbos we'll read about Korah and last week we read about the
meraglim (you'll have read them one week earlier); these are hardly
explicit examples of unsullied practical halacha. Ben Sorer Umoreh and
Ir Hanidachas are more extreme examples. I hope you can restrain your
nausea when you attend shul.
5. Your own stated interest in Jewish philosophy is hardly consonant
with your stomach's biases.
Incidentally you use of "deconstruction" is different than the use I'm
familiar with. Would you care to define the term?
David Riceman
Go to top.
Message: 9
From: Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org>
Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2009 17:22:01 -0400
Subject: Re: [Avodah] Baruch Hu Uvaruch Shemo
On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 11:22:51AM +0300, Akiva Blum wrote:
: 966. One should be mindful to carefully pronounce each word when responding
: "Boruch Hu U'voruch Shemo", and be especially vigilant to pronounce the letter
: "Vuv" of U'voruch. Piskei Tshuvos 124:11, Kaf Hachaim 124:29, Boruch She'omar
...
: Zev Sero :
:> AIUI Shabtai Tzvi followers would deliberately omit the first vav
:> of "uvaruch", because without it the phrase adds up to the same
:> gematria as their leader's name. I don't know a source for this.
: It's in Baruch Sheamar, written by Baruch Heleivi Epstein (of Torah
: Temima fame) on tefilla
There is something else going on too, like the propriety of blessing Him
and His Name. After all, once one refers to Shemo, then Hu must be very
specifically Hu, not the Or Ein Sof. But HQBH be'atzmo, the Ein Sof
Itself, how can it be blessed or changed in any way?
I was told this is why the Gra never said bhu"sh, using this rationale
as proof that the minhag was beta'us.
This is in distinction to the Brisker practice of being careful not to
say bhu"sh when trying to be yotzei -- including chazaras hasha"tz.
:-)BBii!
-Micha
--
Micha Berger In the days of our sages, man didn't sin unless
mi...@aishdas.org he was overcome with a spirit of foolishness.
http://www.aishdas.org Today, we don't do a mitzvah unless we receive
Fax: (270) 514-1507 a spirit of purity. - Rav Yisrael Salanter
Go to top.
Message: 10
From: Zev Sero <z...@sero.name>
Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2009 17:17:20 -0400
Subject: Re: [Avodah] k'daas moshe v'yisrael; validity of ketubah
harveyben...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >>>>DAAS MOSHE: If someone says "k'daas moshe v'yisrael" what does that
> mean?? what is daas moshe???
Stop right there. Nobody says, or has ever said, any such thing.
It's "kedas", not "kedaas". That takes care of all your questions.
> >>>KETUBAH DETAILS:
> Most people who sign a ketubah are not proficient in Aramaic and thus
> (perhaps) rely on at least one person who is.
It doesn't matter what they understand. The terms of the kesuba are
binding even if there is no document at all. Most of the tena'i kesuba
are not even mentioned in it, but they're still binding. (Oh, and the
parties to the kesuba DON'T sign it. Only the eidim do.)
--
Zev Sero The trouble with socialism is that you
z...@sero.name eventually run out of other people?s money
- Margaret Thatcher
Go to top.
Message: 11
From: David Riceman <drice...@att.net>
Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2009 17:23:24 -0400
Subject: Re: [Avodah] k'daas moshe v'yisrael; validity of ketubah
harveyben...@yahoo.com wrote:
> 3. K'DAAS MOSHE V'YISRAEL: What if Daas Moshe and Daas Yisrael are not
> (nor in the past) one and the same??? Are both conditions required
> for the kinyan to take legal effect?? and if yes, in whose eyes???
> Moshe's?, Hashem's?, current Daas Yisrael?? or some combination? or
> none-of the above???
>
I once asked one of my rebbeim if someone said "kdin Torah" instead,
would he be subject to hafka'as kiddushin, and he said possibly not.
> 2. Why don't both parties have to sign a separate document (or an
> ammendment to the original document - in this case the ketubah) that
> they have either read and/or understand the contents of the ketubah,
> it's ramifications, responsibilities, potential penalties for
> non-observance, etc., or have had it explained to them in clear,
> understandable, and unequivocal terms???
>
Our mesader kiddushin had us do this.
David Riceman
Go to top.
Message: 12
From: David Riceman <drice...@att.net>
Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2009 17:34:06 -0400
Subject: Re: [Avodah] k'daas moshe v'yisrael; validity of ketubah
I wrote:
> I once asked one of my rebbeim if someone said "kdin Torah" instead,
> would he be subject to hafka'as kiddushin, and he said possibly not.
Just to clarify, we were learning one of those sugyos which mention the
klal "kol d'mkadesh ada'ata d'rabbanan m'kadesh", and I was looking for
the obligatory exception (ein l'meidin min haklalos).
DR
Go to top.
Message: 13
From: harveyben...@yahoo.com
Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2009 15:16:33 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [Avodah] validity of ketubahs if .....
zev sero wrote (re: ketubah validity if the parties don't understand it):
It doesn't matter what they understand.???The terms of the kesuba are
binding even if there is no document at all.......
hb: the ketubah is binding (or not) on what grounds??contractual, legal, or other????
isn't a ketubah is a binding legal contract between 2 willing parties? if either or both of the parties don't understand it, why would it binding???
or would you classify the ketubah, and resultant marriage, something other
than a binding contract (try telling that that to an aggrieved party in a
nasty divorce trial, or? to a sotah on the way up to the har habayis, to
possibly drink bitter
waters.....)
possible side note:
isn't the torah is
considered (l'mashal) the ketubah between hashem and ourselves.....it
promises things to be supplied from Hashem (rain, etc. ) and specifies
damages to be incurred for [contractual?] non-compliance on our-part.
Whether or not it was forced upon us, is it also not a
legally binding contract?; subject to all provisions and obligations
thereof???? or again, would you classify the torah as not a legally
binding contract, but as some other sort of arrangement?.....
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20090626/b81f2802/attachment-0001.htm>
Go to top.
Message: 14
From: Zev Sero <z...@sero.name>
Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2009 18:22:15 -0400
Subject: Re: [Avodah] validity of ketubahs if .....
harveyben...@yahoo.com wrote:
> zev sero wrote (re: ketubah validity if the parties don't understand it):
>
> It doesn't matter what they understand. The terms of the kesuba are
> binding even if there is no document at all.......
>
> hb: the ketubah is binding (or not) on what grounds??contractual, legal,
> or other????
The tena'ei ketuba are binding by law. As I said, *most* of them are
not even mentioned in the document, and yet they are binding. So what
difference can it make whether someone understands the document or not?
Even if he reads every word he's not going to know most of what's
involved.
--
Zev Sero The trouble with socialism is that you
z...@sero.name eventually run out of other people?s money
- Margaret Thatcher
Go to top.
Message: 15
From: David Riceman <drice...@att.net>
Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2009 18:22:21 -0400
Subject: Re: [Avodah] k'daas moshe v'yisrael; validity of ketubah
I wrote:
>> I once asked one of my rebbeim if someone said "kdin Torah" instead,
>> would he be subject to hafka'as kiddushin, and he said possibly not.
Compare H. Shvuos 2:16 (though the Radbaz seems to disagree; I'll try to
look more deeply over Shabbos) and 11:18.
David Riceman
Go to top.
Message: 16
From: Zev Sero <z...@sero.name>
Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2009 17:26:47 -0400
Subject: Re: [Avodah] Baruch Hu Uvaruch Shemo
Micha Berger wrote:
> There is something else going on too, like the propriety of blessing Him
> and His Name. After all, once one refers to Shemo, then Hu must be very
> specifically Hu, not the Or Ein Sof. But HQBH be'atzmo, the Ein Sof
> Itself, how can it be blessed or changed in any way?
How does acknowledging it to be "baruch" effect a change in it?
--
Zev Sero The trouble with socialism is that you
z...@sero.name eventually run out of other people?s money
- Margaret Thatcher
Go to top.
Message: 17
From: rabbirichwol...@gmail.com
Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2009 22:14:45 +0000
Subject: Re: [Avodah] Baruch Hu Uvaruch Shemo
Plz post
Micha
"There is something else going on too, like the propriety of blessing Him
and His Name. After all, once one refers to Shemo, then Hu must be very
specifically Hu, not the Or Ein Sof. But HQBH be'atzmo, the Ein Sof
Itself, how can it be blessed or changed in any way?"
IIRC the minhag was reported by the Rosh.
It is aiui me'ein the baruch sheim K'vod malchusu... Of the BhM.
So there is the source for the term "sheim".
GS
RRW
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile
Go to top.
Message: 18
From: Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org>
Date: Sat, 27 Jun 2009 22:30:10 -0400
Subject: Re: [Avodah] Baruch Hu Uvaruch Shemo
On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 05:26:47PM -0400, Zev Sero wrote:
: How does acknowledging it to be "baruch" effect a change in it?
You presume that "barukh" is a statement of fact. However, that's the
subject of a machloqes. See my analysis of the berakhah formula at
<http://www.aishdas.org/asp/2005/12/what-is-berakhah.shtml>. In part:
When looking at sources from within our tradition that explain the
word "barukh", I found no less than six different translations,
which I grouped into three basic approaches.
1- A Statement of Fact
1a- A statement of fact. "You are maximally increased". I understand
this to be the opinion of Radaq (Seifer haShorashim -- bareich),
R' Yonah ibn Janach (Seifer haShorashim -- bareikh), Or Zaru'
(Hilkhos Qeri'as Shema), and Chizquni (Bereishis 24:27).
1b- There are two versions of the text of the Avudraham. In one, he
translates "barukh" as "You are the Source of increase." The role of
making a blessing is to acknowledge and thereby thank and appreciate
(the Hebrew word is "hakaras hatov", recognizing the good of...) Him.
2- A Request
2a- Rabbeinu Bachya (Kad haKemach pp 77-78, Mossad haRav Kook edition)
understands barukh as a request, give us increase; Atah Hashem --
for You are the Source of increase.
2b- The Rashba (Shu"t 1423, end) and the other version of the
Avudraham hold that "barukh" is a request for an increase of the
revelation of Hashem's Presence. So we are asking for an increase,
but of G-dliness in the world, not G-d Himself.
In both versions of #2, the idea that barukh is a request, the
concept of berakhah therefore includes an implied praise, by taking
His Omnipotence and Beneficence as givens. Rabbeinu Bachya adds
that the verse "Barukh Atah Hashem lameini chuqekha" is itself an
expression of praise, but the word barukh itself is not. Since You
are the One Who taught me Your chuqim, I turn to You to grant me
the increase in Divine Influence (shefa) to understand them.
3- A Declaration of Intent
3a- "May Your presence in this world be increased" -- through my
efforts (R' SR Hirsch). A declaration of commitment. Since HQBH
restrains Himself (so-to-speak) to allow for free will, by choosing
to act according to His Will, we can increase His influence.
I would surmise that this understanding is implied by R' YB
Soloveitchik in his monograph "Qol Dodi Dofeiq". The Rav uses the
rabbinic dictum "just as we bless [G-d] for the good, so too for the
bad" to give the appropriate response to tragedy. (This quote is
why one says "Barukh Dayan emes" (blessed be the True Judge) upon
hearing that someone died.) He says the Jewish question of tragedy
is not "Why?" but "What should I do?" The Rav therefore implicitly
identifies "blessing for the bad" with my doing Hashem's Will.
3b- Nefesh haChaim (sec II) gives a synthesis of the last two of
the above approaches. "May Your presence in this world be increased
through my very realization that You are the Source of increase."
In any case, looking at the latter 4 shitos, the question stands.
On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 10:14:45PM +0000, rabbirichwol...@gmail.com wrote:
:> "There is something else going on too, like the propriety of blessing Him
:> and His Name. After all, once one refers to Shemo, then Hu must be very
:> specifically Hu, not the Or Ein Sof. But HQBH be'atzmo, the Ein Sof
:> Itself, how can it be blessed or changed in any way?
: IIRC the minhag was reported by the Rosh.
: It is aiui me'ein the baruch sheim K'vod malchusu... Of the BhM.
: So there is the source for the term "sheim".
The problem isn't birkhas hasheim, or even "barukh Hu". The problem
is that when you combine the two, you imply that the "Hu" in question
is Something other than the Sheim. HQBH as he is. Not the Shechinah,
the Sheim, the Or Ein Sof, as seen from our perspective version.
So, while I can take RSRH's or NhC's approaches and pledge to increase
Hashem's presence, that would explain "barukh Shemo", and then what then
is "barukh Hu"? Similarly, how does one make requests of HQBH in
contrast to our perception of Him?
Gut Voch!
-Micha
--
Micha Berger "I hear, then I forget; I see, then I remember;
mi...@aishdas.org I do, then I understand." - Confucius
http://www.aishdas.org "Hearing doesn't compare to seeing." - Mechilta
Fax: (270) 514-1507 "We will do and we will listen." - Israelites
------------------------------
Avodah mailing list
Avo...@lists.aishdas.org
http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org
End of Avodah Digest, Vol 26, Issue 124
***************************************
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..."