Avodah Mailing List

Volume 26: Number 207

Thu, 22 Oct 2009

• 1. Re: minhag simchat tora (Danny Schoemann)
• 2. Re: Sukkah on Shabbos (Chana Luntz)
• 3. Re: minhag simchat tora (rabbirichwol...@gmail.com)
• 4. Re: minhag simchat tora (Zev Sero)
• 5. Shepherd Vs. Farmer Redux (rabbirichwol...@gmail.com)
• 6. Re: Question (Ben Waxman)
• 7. Re: Question Sin of Adam vs. Kayin (Ben Waxman)
• 8. Re: so is she married? (kennethgmil...@juno.com)
• 9. Re: Question Sin of Adam vs. Kayin (Zev Sero)
• 10. The completion of the good was not man, but woman (Yitzchok Levine)
• 11. Re: [Areivim] Halacha of speeding/Jewish ethics curriculum development help (Micha Berger)
• 12. Re: Water bottle in the desert (Micha Berger)
• 13. Re: Shepherd Vs. Farmer Redux (Micha Berger)
• 14. Re: [Areivim] Halacha of speeding/Jewish ethics curriculum development help (Rich, Joel)
• 15. minhag simhat torah (Dov Kaiser)
• 16. Re: Water bottle in the desert (Rich, Joel)
• 17. Re: Shepherd Vs. Farmer Redux (Ben Waxman)

On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 4:11 PM, SBA <s...@sba2.com> wrote:
> Presumably that was the ONLY dancing done by Yekkes on ST..

Correct. The Hakofos consisted of the Chazzan - followed by 14 other
people carrying the other Seforim - circling the Bima, once per
Hakofo.

Sometimes they would wait in place for a few minutes for a song or 2 to end.

The only others to stray from their seats were the kids who circled
the shul with their buckets collecting a year's supply of toothache.

- Danny.

 
RMB writes:

> IIUC, you're saying that the asei deOraisa "basukos teishevu 
> shiv'as yamim" is to eat akhilas qeva in the sukkah, which is 
> a mitzvah qiyumis. And then there is a derabbanan not to eat 
> outside the sukkah, which is (e.g.) the issur in the Rambam I quoted.
> 
> AIUI, the asei deOraisa is that one must *only* eat akhilas 
> qava in the sukkah, a mitzvah makhsheres. And thus in 
> parallel to the issur chameitz
> -- if one wants to eat baked goods, it must only be unleavened.

I am not sure what you mean by a mitzvah makhsheres here.  But what does
seem clear to me is that the issur chametz is just that, an issur, it is not
a mitzvah machsheres or mitzvah qiyumas or anything else that falls within
the language of an aseh.  The aseh is a separate mitzvah, to eat matza on
the first night.  I think that the mitzvah that Sukkah most closely
resembles (and I think this is born out in many discussions) is that of
Tzitzis.  Tzitzis too is an aseh, that one does not have to do, there is no
requirment to wear a four cornered garment, one can get by without one, but
if one wants to wear a four cornered garment it must have tzitzis.  

> This isn't really learned *from* the gezeirah shava as much 
> as the point being compared. Both have a mitzvah makhsheres, 

But that means you have to characterise an issur as a mitzvah makhsheres,
which seems to be a complete redefinition of a bone fide, normal issur.

> and Pesach has a chiyuv version on the first night (the 
> "15"), so too Sukkos has a chiyuv version on the first night.
> 
> So, RnCL asked where we see the g"sh discussed WRT sukkah 
> after the first night:
> 
> There is a machloqes Abayei veRava (nr the bottom of Sukkah 
> 34a) why the Torah had to say "ha'ezrakh" to explicitly 
> exclude women from the chiyuv.
> Abayei: to counter "'teishevu' - ke'ein taduru" implying that 
> wives should join their husbands. Rava - to counter the g"sh 
> 15-15, where women are chayavos.

????

I cannot find this discussion on 34a, but I will repeat what I wrote in my
previous post, because it seems to parallel what you wrote in the post
above, but with some differences - which I have noted in my commentary :

I wrote:
:The reason I say this is because of the gemora on Sukkos 28a. 

Note I quoted Sukkos 28a (it actually continues on 28b), while you quote
34a, but it seems to be roughly a discussion of pretty much the same ground,

: The gemora is discussing the Mishna which states that, inter alia, women
are exempt from :the mitzvah of Sukkah.  The gemora states that this is
based :on "hilchasa" - ie a halacha Moshe m'Sinai.

Note, I wrote hilchasa.  Now indeed the gemora there initially appears to
learn this out from "ha'ezrach" (the reference you quote above), but (as I
read it) changes its mind and decides that actually it is a hilchasa -
however, it does not really matter whether it is actually a question from
haeztrach or from a hilchasa, the challenge is the same. 

 : The gemora then questions - why do we need this :halacha Moshe m'Sinai at
all "Sukkah mitzvas aseh she hazman grama"? Now if you were right, the
gemora : could not have asked this question - because obviously if it was
really a form of lav, or framed as a lav, you can't call it a *mitzvas aseh*
shehazman : grama - and the reason for the need for a halacha Moshe m'Sinai,
or a derivation from a pasuk, would be obvious.

:Now it is true, the gemora gives a *second* reason why you need a halacha
Moshe m'Sinai which relates to the gezera shava - but first of all, the
first :reason it gives, has nothing to do with that - it says that since the
mitzva is tashivu k'ein tadiru then just as a man lives with his wife, af
sukkah 
: ish v'ishto, and hence you might have thought women were obligated
(kmashmalan).

Now I did not bother in my discussion to mention that Abaye gave the first
reason and Rava gave the second reason, as it did not seem necessary, but
indeed that is the case.  I am not sure if the reason for your reference is
because we usually posken like Rava over and above Abaye, and so you were
rejecting the first reason (whereas I took it as an explanation in learning,
were we did not need to decided between the two).

:OK, then it moves onto a second reason, which relates to the gezera shava -
on the basis that just as women are obligated to eat matza on first night
:Pesach, so too they should be obligated in sukkah, so hence you need the
halacha Moshe m'Sinai to counteract this.

:BUT, the reason that women are obligated in the mitzvah of matza is derived
(see  Pesachim 43b) from the connection between eating matza on the first
:night and not eating chametz, ie precisely this nexus that you are trying
to make with Sukkah is indeed made with pesach, and the lav aspect then
drags :in the aseh aspect vis a vis women, making them obligated.

:If you were correct, the gemora does not need to make any real reference to
the gezera shava - all it would need to do is make exactly the same kind of
:linkage that is made over there by Pesach - ie just as eating matza on
first night is linked to the lav of eating chametz, and hence women are
obligated, :so too, the eating in the sukkah is linked to the lav of not
eating outside the sukkah, and so women should also be obligated - hence we
need a halacha :Moshe miSinai.

:But the gemora does not say that.  It's assumption appear to be squarely
that we are dealing with an aseh only, and at most we have an aseh linked to
:another aseh where women are obligated.

Going  back to your post:
> It would seem therefore that the *chiyuv* of Sukkah even 
> after the first night is deOraisa, even if the chiyuv is a 
> makhsheres, not absolute.
> Because otherwise, why would we need a pasuq to reassert that 
> women are peturos of mitzvos asei shehazman gerama.

Or a hilchasa, but yes the logic is correct, I agree that the obligation, ie
the aseh of Sukkah even after the first night is d'orisa, just as the aseh
of tzitzis is d'orisa - which is why one would have thought that mitzvos
aseh shehazman grama would have come into play, and Abaye and Rava are each
giving different reasons why it is that the fact that it is a mitzva aseh
shehazman grama rule is not automatically applied here.  Abaye's reason is
that the nature of the mitzvah of Sukkah would lead us to believe this is an
exception to the general rule, and Rava's reason is that there is a link to
Pesach, and Pesach is a case where we see that there is a mitzvah aseh she
hazman grama and yet women are obligated.  What is that mitzva aseh she
hazman grama? - eating of matzah on first night!  Just as there is a mitzvah
aseh by pesach that women are obligated in on the 15th, so too, might one
have thought that women would be obligated in *this* mitzva aseh, hence you
need either the pasuk or the hilchasa.

But there is no need to suddenly stretch to discussing the issur chametz -
especially when that would seem to involve calling it something that it is
not.
 
> BTW, I just realized something. We discussed a couple of 
> months back the topic of Kant's categorical imperative. 
> Briefly: There is the hypothetical imperative: something 
> that's a good idea if you desire to accomplish something. If 
> I want to cease being thirsty, I should get a drink. But 
> morality is the categorical imperative -- something that is a 
> good idea regardless of any hypotheticals. Thus, "Act only 
> according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will 
> that it should become a universal law." An unconditional requirement.
> 
> Matzah the first night is a categorical imperative; matzah 
> the rest of Pesach is a hypothetical imperative.
> 
> In general, this is true of all of the mitzvos Rav Dovid 
> Lifshitz (probably following R' Shimon Shkop) classified as 
> mitzvos makhshiros.
> They are mitzvos that are the only way to do somehting permissibly --
> eg: if you wish to eat meat, you must have it shechted.

Yes, but I have never heard the issur chametz described that way.  If you
want to describe the issur chametz that way, would you not need to describe
all of the other issurim relating to food that way too? As in - if you want
to eat, you can, you don't have to, but you mustn't eat basar b'chalav or
treifos or whatever.  That would seem to make all of these, according to
you, a mitzvah makhshiros.  Doesn't that rather broaden the list of mitzvos
makhshiros beyond anything useful.

> Tir'u baTov!
> -Micha

Danny Schoemann:
> Correct. The Hakofos consisted of the Chazzan - followed by 14 other
> people carrying the other Seforim - circling the Bima, once per
> Hakofo.
...
> The only others to stray from their seats were the kids who circled
> the shul with their buckets collecting a year's supply of toothache.

At my "old shul" viz. COS, we did as follows:

At night I made qiddush first, then
I lead atta hor'eisa responsively

We took out 3 s'farim for hakkafos - inclduing a "mini" sefer

I switched with another in chanting "Ana Hashem" etc.

We then "marched" around the bima for each hakkafah singing one tune.
(It was similar to hoshanos)

One or two non-yekkes really danced, but not the rest of the shul.

For agil v'esmach, hiskabtzu, nagila v'nismach etc. I simply sang the
verses and the tzibbur jointly sang the refrain. No dancing.

Candy was given out freely to kids both @ COS and at Breuer's. It was
lehavdil like trick or treat.
A Dentist's brother was in the candy business - and gave out a lot
in order to drum up business for his brother! :-) (well that was his
koke anyway)

During night hakkafos people took a l'hayyim of schappes.

In the day aliyos were given to groups, EG all the kohaim, al the levi'im,
all board members.

People did morning qiddush either during hakkafos or after their aliya.

In the early days the receptions for chassan torah and chassan breishis
were on Shabbas Breishis
Later, We moved it to Simchas Torah itself and had a sit down meal with
a buffet or smorgasboard in the social hall.

If Simchas Torah was not erev Shabbos, we davened minchah after bentsching

KT
RRW
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

SBA wrote:

> Presumably that was the ONLY dancing done by Yekkes on ST..

That is the only dancing done *in shul*.  The main dancing is out in
the yard, after lunch, around a bonfire built by a goy.


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

FWIW Hirsch Breishis 4:2 S.V. "Vayhi Hevel Ro'eh Tzohn" strongly support
the widely held POV that pastoral life is more conducive to spirituality
and contemplation than is agricultrual Life.

KT
RRW
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

Because the original sin was the one that determined the rest of human 
history. They had one mitzva to do and they blew it. As soon as they ate the 
apple (or whatever) they answered the most fundamental question "Are we a 
race that can follow God's commandments by our nature or do we have to fight 
a constant battle to do so?" Answer - the former. Once that question was 
determined then the rest is almost details.

Ben
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Micha Berger" <mi...@aishdas.org>
>
> But, as already noted, we don't find the subsequent generations that
> Qayin did produce suffering for his curse. And lehefech -- while he was
> "na vanad", his offpring invented the concept of city.
>
> 

Our need to work is not because we don't live in Gan Eden, it is because the 
entire world was cursed. Was the world before the sin one in which people 
would have had to work?


Ben
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Zev Sero" <z...@sero.name>
  As for having to grow our
food rather than the whole world being a tropical paradise where we
can just pick it off the trees, that's a function of our no longer
living in Gan Eden. 

R' Micha Berger cited his post in Avodah 26:34 (less than a year ago!):
> See
> http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/getindex.cgi?sectio
> n=E#ERUSINMURESET%20FROM%20AREIVIM
> RARakeffetR was chosheish for the problem of an engagement proposal
> accidentally being a wedding in one of his recorded shiurim,

What RMB actually wrote there was:
> RARakeffetR gives a general statement that since these things go
> belashon benei adam, and in Israeli Hebrew today "eirusin" means
> engagement, not qiddushin, an engagement ring given while saying
> something about eirusin wouldn't require a get. At least, they
> don't introduce more questions than engagement rings in general
> -- RARR recommends not giving the ring bifnei eidim.

What can he mean by "more questions than engagement rings in general"? What other general questions are there? Isn't this thread about THE general question?

(That thread over there was about a guy who deliberately confused the issue
by saying, in Israel, "harei at meureset li b'tabbat zu", which combines
the traditional formula for marriage and the modern word for engagement.
But that's a very specific case, to which RMB seems to be quoting RARR as
holding that it does not require a get. Which is why I wonder what RARR is
so worried about, that *in* *general* he recommends not giving the ring
bifnei eidim.)

Akiva Miller

____________________________________________________________
Human Resource Training
Complete an accredited human resources degree, 100% online. Free info!
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2131/c?cp=MhyV2_efrFLFVsjLwzqIQgAAJ
z3zeK-F0bLcqGb51B0rOTOKAAQAAAAFAAAAAPJNED4AAAMlAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAASIwAAAAA=

Ben Waxman wrote:
>>  As for having to grow our
>> food rather than the whole world being a tropical paradise where we
>> can just pick it off the trees, that's a function of our no longer
>> living in Gan Eden.

> Our need to work is not because we don't live in Gan Eden, it is because 
> the entire world was cursed. Was the world before the sin one in which 
> people would have had to work?

It's not clear to me; we weren't originally meant to live in this world,
so why would it need to be one of natural abundance?  Or were we always
intended to spread out from the Gan and live in this world, perhaps
making occasional pilgrimages to the Gan?

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

The following is from RSRH's commentary on Bereishis 2:18. YL

God said: It is not good that man should be 
alone; I will make a helpmeet for him.

The completion of the good was not man, but woman; only when
woman was created was the good completed ? for man and for the
entire world. As our Rabbis teach us: Only by virtue of his wife is a
man called an Adom; only husband and wife together are called Adom
(Yevamos 63a). The task is too great for either to perform alone, and
must therefore be shared by another. Hence, woman was added to man,
so that, together, they should fully accomplish the purpose of Adom.

The woman is to be his  Ezer K'negdo. Even a superficial glance reveals
that this term expresses the true dignity of woman. It does not carry
any implication of sexual relationship. Woman was placed into the
sphere of man?s activities. There she is needed, and there she is to be
an Ezer K'negdo. And Ezer K'negdo does not imply 
that woman is to be subordinate
to man; actually, it connotes complete equality and equal independence.
Woman is K'negdo, at man?s side, parallel to him, on one line. 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20091022/ac087aaf/attachment-0001.htm>

On Fri, Oct 16, 2009 at 01:16:16PM -0400, Rich, Joel wrote:
:> How reconcile "we are like donkeys" reverence of predecessors
:> with clear fact that later generations seem to be (are) doing more
:> sophisticated analysis/thinking [me - I hope R'Klapper's got an escape
:> pod J].

:> 1) Shev Shmeitzah (ktzot) - they thought so much more clearly and
:> straight forwardly; they didn't need our "pilpul"...

:> 2) Netziv - Hamek shailah was a commentary on a geonic work..

The Sh'eiltos, R' Achai Gaon. A primary text that would have saved us a
LOT of "how is halakhah made, how may halakhah change" discussions here
on Avodah.

:> 2)                                                       ... Since
:> time of Yehoshua there have been disagreements which would be resolved
:> by intellect. There will be those who specialize in specific cases
:> application (spiritual intuition) and others in abstract law. There will
:> be times (e.g. Bavli) where can only rely on intellect/abstract. Geonim
:> went back to more "intuitive" approach but then lost when went to Europe,
:> etc. However, Rambam was more a throwback to gaonim (don't try to wrestle
:> the Rambam into a similar approach to Rashi/Tosfot).

You seem to be describing the Netziv's concept of "das" when you speak of
"who specialize in specific cases application (spiritual intuition)",
and aish as "abstract law".

One more bit, "gemiri", as in "nimnu vegamru", is the transformation
of "aish" to "das". Thus the Rambam distinguishes between "halakhah
leMosheh miSiniai" and "hilkhisa gemiri lah". The first class, as the
Netziv understands the Rambam, were always "das".

"Das" was given to sheivet Levi, but because it didn't involve sevarah,
their rulings were only for the particular case. Sheivat Yehudah
was given the chokhmah necessary for aish, but they didn't have the
shiqul hada'as to turn it into halakha. Kind of like R' Chaim -- he
was a master of sevarah, but pesaqim went to the Brisker Dayan. THus
the gemara (Eiruvin 53a) says that Shaul was "lo galei mesechta", but
David was "galei mesechta". Rashi says this means that David was capable
of hora'ah, but Sha'ul was not. However, the pasuq the gemara cites
for Shaul is "uvekhol asher yifneh yarshi'ah" -- a lashon of praising
ability, not inability! The Netziv says that sheivet Binyamin too were
gifted in aish. This comes from MRAH's berakhah "yishqon lavetach alav"
(Dev 33:12). Therefore, Sha'ul was able to decide, but not reveal the
mesechtah, the underlying big picture, that David could.

A major shift to greater emphasis in aish happened with the loss of
nevu'ah. Nevu'ah serves well for das; as chokhmah takes over, we had more
aish. (This is akin to R' Tzadoq's portrayal of what happened with Anshei
Keneses haGedolah.) Another difference is that EY has more reliance on
das than Bavel does -- just compare the styles of the two talmudim.


All of the above "shtims" with R' Dr Moshe Koppel's theory in
Metahalkhah. With each break in Jewish culture, we have less cultural
knowledge, gefeel, and have to rely more on formalisms. Kind of like RCS's
"Rupture and Reconstruction". Thus we forgot Torah with Moshe's petirah,
but Osniel "chazar veyasdum" using textual, formal rules. Similarly the
"chazar beyasdum" of Anshei Keneses haGedolah of the osios sofios and
numerous other dinim.

RMK's understanding is roughly as follows. Lemashal, there are two ways to
learn a language: The native speaker doesn't learn rules of grammar before
using them, he just knows what "sounds right". In contrast, an immigrant
builds his sentences by using formalized rules, learning such terms as
"past imperfect" and memorizing the forms that fit each category. R'
Koppel notes that the rules can never perfectly capture the full right
vs wrong. A poet has to know when one can take license.

He argues that halakhah is similarly best transmitted by creating "native
speakers". It is only due to loss of our progressive loss of the Sinai
culture with each generation that we need to rely on transmitting codified
rules. However, the rules are limited compared to Torah and the mind.
Mind goes beyond algorithm. What's captured is not the complete picture;
we're missing the equivalent of what "sounds right" and the limits of
"poetic license".

We are kachamorim (perhaps: more chomer, this being the Gra's general
pisgam for "chamor" in aggadita) because we don't have reactions based in
as much of the Sinai culture. However, because of that, we rely more on
sevarah, on formal thought, which can not capture as much of the truth,
but did push us to develop those skills.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             The fittingness of your matzos [for the seder]
mi...@aishdas.org        isn't complete with being careful in the laws
http://www.aishdas.org   of Passover. One must also be very careful in
Fax: (270) 514-1507      the laws of business.    - Rav Yisrael Salanter

On Fri, Oct 16, 2009 at 05:00:52PM -0400, Rich, Joel wrote:
:> But it seems to me that Shimon has no claim on the water bottle.
:> Even if the debt is real, and Reuvain is modeh, Shimon certainly does not
:> have the right to demand the water bottle davka as payment...

:> At that point, it seems to me that Shimon is a rodef, and Reuvain
:> would be able to kill him in self defense.
: 
: Shimon already took the water bottle. Why is he now the rodef?

A fetus could be a rodeif. Isn't that based on the notion that being a rodeif
doesn't imply culpability?

: BTW can one be a rodef through passive inaction (e.g. he has the key
: to unlock your chains from the railroad track but doesn't)

Using the same halakhah pesuqah WRT abortion, it would seem yes.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Like a bird, man can reach undreamed-of
mi...@aishdas.org        heights as long as he works his wings.
http://www.aishdas.org   But if he relaxes them for but one minute,
Fax: (270) 514-1507      he plummets downward.   - Rav Yisrael Salanter

On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 04:11:03PM +0000, rabbirichwol...@gmail.com wrote:
: FWIW Hirsch Breishis 4:2 S.V. "Vayhi Hevel Ro'eh Tzohn" strongly support
: the widely held POV that pastoral life is more conducive to spirituality
: and contemplation than is agricultrual Life.

I wonder how this fits with TIDE and the value of high culture. After
all, the sciences and arts are all attributed to benei Qayin. How does
RSRH separate the value of the shepherd from the value of the farmer
while still holding a single Mensch-Israel ideal -- which implies haynu
hakh?

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

 


He argues that halakhah is similarly best transmitted by creating "native
speakers". It is only due to loss of our progressive loss of the Sinai
culture with each generation that we need to rely on transmitting codified
rules. However, the rules are limited compared to Torah and the mind.
Mind goes beyond algorithm. What's captured is not the complete picture;
we're missing the equivalent of what "sounds right" and the limits of
"poetic license".

We are kachamorim (perhaps: more chomer, this being the Gra's general
pisgam for "chamor" in aggadita) because we don't have reactions based in
as much of the Sinai culture. However, because of that, we rely more on
sevarah, on formal thought, which can not capture as much of the truth, but
did push us to develop those skills.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

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

Yes, but the problem (at least in my limited mind), is when we try to look
back to a time period that was more based on "sounds right" and deduce what
algorithm they used.  Now if we were 100% accurate in these attempts, we'd
replicate their results and have a great set of  algorithms to use for new
cases.	My observation is that our attempts (throughout the generations)
have been yielding less than 100% accuracy and we then use a fudge factor. 
The accumulation of fudge factors over time has yielded a system which is
communicated to the masses as objective algorithm driven but when they look
at it more closely they realize there's quite a bit of subjective fudge
factor.

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.

R. SBA wrote: <<Presumably that was the ONLY dancing done by Yekkes on ST..>>

 

Certainly not.	The Golders Green Beth HaMedrash (aka "Munks") puts on a
big show for ST.  It has become quite a hub for ST celebration in NW
London, although the narrow aisles are now so clogged that no-one moves
much.  

 

Kol HaN'arim is very impressive - they now use a huge canopy held on long
poles that stetches out over the whole almemar and beyond so that all the
children can be included.  No sweets (for the English)/lollies (for
Australians/ candies (for North Americans) are allowed to be thrown in
shul, but pekelach are calmly distributed outside the shul, where the
children form a neat queue (for English)/line (for Americans) to collect
their confectionary.  

 

The highlight of the day for me is the Frankfurt kaddish, in which the
chazzan adeptly sings the kaddish tiskabal to all of the tunes of the
various moadim (of course, the Yekkes have a different motif for each
chag), ending with the triumphant "sisu v'simchu" tune for oseh shalom. 
Joy with dignity.  Celebration with solemnity. Nothing beats it.   

 

Kol tuv

Dov Kaiser (not actually a Yekke, but married one)
                                          
_________________________________________________________________
New Windows 7: Find the right PC for you. Learn more.
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/buy/ 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20091022/4e88a750/attachment-0001.htm>

 


A fetus could be a rodeif. Isn't that based on the notion that being a rodeif doesn't imply culpability?

.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

=========================================
But once the baby has crowned, why does it stop being a rodef if this was truly a case of rodef(I believe it was K'rodef but not a real rodef is the answer)?
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.

One of the praises (or maybe description is a better word) given to Eretz 
Yisrael is that it is not like Mizrayim, in that in Eretz Yisrael people are 
dependent on rainfall whereas Mizrayim the Nile floods and that takes care 
of everything (which not exactly true because if there is a lack of heavy 
rains in the source of the Nile then the Nile doesn't flood). Being 
dependent on rain is conducive to developing a relationship with God in that 
one sees very clearly our dependency on Him.

This point is much truer about a farmer than a sheperd. Yes, if there is a 
very heavy drought then both suffer. However in a region which suffers from 
low rainfall, the sheperd is in much better position than a farmer. He can 
just move to a different area where there is better pasture land. The farmer 
is stuck in his land. Therefore the farmer should be the one who has a 
greater, clearer understanding of man's dependency on God.

Ben
----- Original Message ----- 
> On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 04:11:03PM +0000, rabbirichwol...@gmail.com wrote:
> : FWIW Hirsch Breishis 4:2 S.V. "Vayhi Hevel Ro'eh Tzohn" strongly support
> : the widely held POV that pastoral life is more conducive to spirituality
> : and contemplation than is agricultrual Life.



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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 26, Issue 207
***************************************

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..."