Avodah Mailing List

Volume 27: Number 51

Thu, 18 Feb 2010

• 1. Re: Seeing Policies Everywhere (Micha Berger)
• 2. Re: rivash and kabalah (Micha Berger)
• 3. Re: Seeing Policies Everywhere (Micha Berger)
• 4. Re: Seeing Policies Everywhere (rabbirichwol...@gmail.com)
• 5. Re: S'udas Purim in the Morning (j...@when.com)
• 6. Re: S'udas Purim in the Morning (Micha Berger)
• 7. Do gentiles have more teeth than Jews? Do they have less? (Prof. Levine)
• 8. Shimon bar yochai interpretation (Meir Shinnar)
• 9. Re: Shimon bar yochai interpretation (Micha Berger)
• 10. Re: Geirut for marriage (Chana)
• 11. Re: Do gentiles have more teeth than Jews? Do they have less? (Micha Berger)
• 12. Re: Shimon bar yochai interpretation (Joshua Meisner)
• 13. tehilas Hashem in shir hamaalos (Beth & David Cohen)
• 14. Revenge and Punishment (Micha Berger)
• 15. Re: Revenge and Punishment (Zev Sero)

On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 05:54:39PM +0000, rabbirichwol...@gmail.com wrote:
: OK I have a Brisker Hilluq re: what has become a third rail term
: viz. "g'zeira". I think this may help see it from a new perspective.

This isn't a new perspective, it's what I said near the top of the
discussion.

http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol27/v27n017.shtml#02

    Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2010 15:45:10 -0500
    Subject: Re: [Avodah] Seeing Policies Everywhere

    On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 07:58:57PM +0000, rabbirichwol...@gmail.com
    wrote:
    : Re: n'sarim for s'chach - 4 t'fachim or even less
    : See SA Harav hilchos Sukkah 629:29-33
    : As my havrusa - who until now was clueless about this thread - has
    : asked me "how can we make a g'zeira to a g'zeira?"

    Unless not every use of the word "gezeirah" doesn't refer to gezeiros
    in the technical, Mamrim 2:2, sense of the word. As in this case,
    where the SA says it's a minhag, and thus the word "gezeirah" is
    being used loosely.

Compare this too:
: I owe this hiddush to the Ba'er Hetev Hilchos M'gillah 690:15 which has a
...
: Translation: 
: "An edict issued by count [vote], even if the underlying reason is known
: and that reason has disappeared, nevertheless requires another count to
: permit it [repeal it]."

: Here is my diyyuq

: The Brisker "two dinnim" are taluy whether the g'zeira was b'minyan or
: not b'minyan!

Since the "technical, Memrim 2:2, sense of the word" is WRT Sanhedrin, I
really think we're saying the same thing.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             It is a glorious thing to be indifferent to
mi...@aishdas.org        suffering, but only to one's own suffering.
http://www.aishdas.org                 -Robert Lynd, writer (1879-1949)
Fax: (270) 514-1507

On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 03:40:13PM +0000, rabbirichwol...@gmail.com wrote:
: One Kabbalah teacher cautioned students to read the beginning of the
: Moreh N'vuchim in order to avoid seeing any anthropomorphisms as literal.
: IOW only when a student realizes these are conceptual and not literal,
: may one safely study Kabbalah.

Except that according to the Leshem's kelalim, which identifies the
tzuros of the higher olamos with the Rambam's definition of Mal'akhim,
the Sephirah of Gevurah can't be separated from Gavriel, nor Chessed
from Michael, etc... ("Etc" meaning, I don't know the other 8 instances.)
The forms are intellects.

However, they aren't of G-d, or even of middlemen that have bechirah.

I recently argued that "conceptual" and higher literal realities
are the same thing. Devoted a series of post to it in the category
<http://www.aishdas.org/asp/category/qabbalah>, which pulls from the Moreh
and Yesodei haTorah, Nefesh haChaim, the Leshem and MmE to construct
a very rationalist Qabbalah loyal to all of the above. The last post,
which due to blogging means the first you'll see by clicking the above
category link, summarizes the series. The other posts include my sources
and further argument for each step.


There is a machloqes between R' Saadia Gaon and the Rambam in their
respective negative theologies. (The notion that all we can say about
HQBH is what He isn't.)

According to the Moreh, there are two ways to understand the various
things that appear to be describing Divine Attributes:
1- They are descriptions of His Actions. E.g. "Rachum" refers to Hashem's
   actions being such that if a person were to do them, we would assume
   they are acting from compassion or empathy.
2- They are descriptions of what He Isn't. Omnipotence isn't that Hashem
   posesses infinite strength. Rather, it's that there is nothing that
   limits His ability to get things done. Omnipresence -- that He has no
   location. Etc...

R' Saadia Gaon's version has a third:
3- There can be attributes of the relationship between the Borei and the
   Beri'ah. Therefore, the Mercy of Divine Rachamim is more than just
   something Hashem wants us to learn from his actions. But it's
   not describing G-d's Mercy, it's a description of His relationshiop
   to Man.

See <http://www.aishdas.org/asp/2005/06/attributes-of-g-d.shtml> for
more. There I focus on infinity and Aristo's belief that there is no
such thing as a completed infinity. The Rambam invokes that position
in his proof that the universe had to have a beginning, so how does He
explain Hashem's Infinity? (Answer, as a negative attribute; not that
there is an infinite amount of G-d but that G-d is literally lacking
anything to limit -- IN-finite.)

RSG's third category would also work for the sephiros.

In Qela"ch Pischei Chokhmah, pesachim #5,6, the Ramchal describes sephiros
as (5) Light which He created in order to make it visible to us, and
(6) middos by which He created the olamos and runs them.

This really sounds like a combination of the notion of their being
attributes of the G-d-Man relationship and only as man sees (or was
created so as to see) that realthsip.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             A life of reaction is a life of slavery,
mi...@aishdas.org        intellectually and spiritually. One must
http://www.aishdas.org   fight for a life of action, not reaction.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                            -Rita Mae Brown

On Tue, Feb 16, 2010 at 07:57:38PM +0000, rabbirichwol...@gmail.com wrote:
:> Unless not every use of the word "gezeirah" doesn't refer to gezeiros
:> in the technical, Mamrim 2:2, sense of the word. As in this case,?

: No! The Mamrim case is:  ...
: A Special
: B very limitted in usage to a very narrow defintion
...

As I argued, there are two usages. And that's what you're currently
saying.

: C problematic, the Rambam's model is sui generiis

Unless the Rambam Mamrim 2:2 usage is the same as the Ba'er Heiteiv's
nimnu. Then you have two people who have this usage, one who implicitly
in other places has a second usage, the other who contrasts the two.

...
:> Unless not every use of the word "gezeirah" doesn't refer to gezeiros in
:> the technical, Mamrim 2:2, sense of the word. As in this case, where the
:> SA says it's a minhag, and thus the word "gezeirah" is being used loosely.

: NOT LOOSELY at all when it is after all is said THE common ubiquitous
: default usage in posqim! ...

How does that make it not looser than the nimnu / Mamrim 2:2 usage?

I think your entire objection is that I'm calling the nimnu usage the
"real" one, even though it's less common. That has more to do with my
own bias toward rigid technical definitions than anything of substance.

-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             "'When Adar enters, we increase our joy'
mi...@aishdas.org         'Joy is nothing but Torah.'
http://www.aishdas.org    'And whoever does more, he is praiseworthy.'"
Fax: (270) 514-1507                     - Rav Dovid Lifshitz zt"l

Micha:
?Unless not every use of the word "gezeirah" doesn't refer to gezeiros in the technical, Mamrim 2:2, sense of the word. As in this case,?
 
No! The Mamrim case is: 
A Special
B very limitted in usage to a very narrow defintion
C problematic, the Rambam's model is sui generiis
D yotzei dofen
E terminology has been disregarded by posqim such as
    + MB
    + SA harav
    + Magen Avraham
    + Rema
    + M'chabeir
    + Rambam!

So questioning my highly common ubiquitous use in favor of an
exceptional narrow use was the original problem in the thread that led
to misunderstandings galore!

I used g'zeira exactly as Rambam himslelf uses in 3 places outside of Mamrim
Viz.
    1 haqdama to MT
    2 Haqdama to Mishneh
    3 Hilchot hametz uMatzah

RSO - I cannot believe that anyone saw my usage as a third rail hot-button
when it is so obviously THE common usage!

Several people off line and several havrusos had no porblem seeing my
usage as nothing more than basic Rambam 101!

> Unless not every use of the word "gezeirah" doesn't refer to gezeiros in
> the technical, Mamrim 2:2, sense of the word. As in this case, where the
> SA says it's a minhag, and thus the word "gezeirah" is being used loosely.

NOT LOOSELY at all when it is after all is said THE common ubiquitous
default usage in posqim! It's mamrim's usage that is the yotzei dofen
here!

The only case that might fit mamrim is the "g'zeira b'minyan" which
COULD also include post-talmudic g'zeiros too - EG polygamy

KT
RRW
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

 

"On Mon, Feb 15, 2010 at 03:15:07AM -0500, j...@when.com wrote:
: We don't necessarily say the most chashov or idea time to time to do
: something bezman hazeh is the same as the original source though.

Otherwise the Purim Se'udah would be eaten on Pesach!

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha"

-and the fast would be on pesach also!

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20100216/fe2a312e/attachment-0001.htm>

On Tue, Feb 16, 2010 at 04:03:55PM -0500, j...@when.com wrote:
:> Otherwise the Purim Se'udah would be eaten on Pesach!

: -and the fast would be on pesach also!

Fasting on Pesach would be assur.

I wonder, would having a Purim se'usah on Pesach be me'arvim simchah
besimchah? If not is it because:
- the idea doesn't apply to chagim
or
- both are about ge'ulah?

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             With the "Echad" of the Shema, the Jew crowns
mi...@aishdas.org        G-d as King of the entire cosmos and all four
http://www.aishdas.org   corners of the world, but sometimes he forgets
Fax: (270) 514-1507      to include himself.     - Rav Yisrael Salanter

At 02:31 PM 2/16/2010, Micha wrote:

On Tue, Feb 16, 2010 at 01:15:59PM -0500, Yitzchok Levine wrote:
: From
: http://parsha.blogspot.com/2009/06/do-gentiles-have-more-teet
: h-than-jews.html
:
: There is a famous position of Aristotle.
: Why have men more teeth than women?
: By reason of the abundance of heat and blood which is more in men
: than in women.
: -- "<http://www.exclassics.com/arist/arist37.htm>Of the Teeth.", Aristotle

: And the following from Bertrand Russell:
: Aristotle maintained that women have fewer teeth than men; although
: he was twice married, it never occurred to him to verify this
: statement by examining his wives' mouths.
: <http://www.quotationspage.com/quotes/Bertrand_Russell/>Bertrand
: Russell, Impact of Science on Society (1952) ch. 1
: British author, mathematician, & philosopher (1872 - 1970)

How many people had a full set of teeth. And of those who did, would
Aristotle know they did? And given where money would be spent by Greeks
of his period, I would bet far more men had more teeth than women.

It is thus unlike the verifiability of:
: As someone noted in a comment recently, Rav Kanievsky similarly
: believes that Jews differ physically from gentiles in the number of
: teeth, on the basis of a midrash Talpiyot combined with another
: rabbi's testimony. Midrash Talpiyot was authored by Rabbi Eliyahu ben
: Shlomo Avraham, and was published in 1698

But if Medras Talpiot is a true medrash, the 33rd tooth it ascribes to
nakhriim is not talking about dentition.

BTW, we discussed this back in Nov 2001.
http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/getindex.cgi?section=T#TALMUD%20AND%2
0SCIENCE


>There the primary topic was 8th month babies, and I wrote:
>: On Thu, Nov 01, 2001 at 01:29:06PM -0500, Gil Student wrote:
>...
>:: However, this is generally an observable phenomenon. Could Chazal not
>:: have observed whether this was true or not?
>
>: Quite possibly not. The experimental method was not invented yet.
>: Infant mortality was high, I am sure it was higher for 8th and 7th month
>: babies. But until someone actually sits down and collects statistics,
>: it is quite possible no one noticed that 8th month babies are more
>: likely to survive than 7th.

All of this may indeed be true. However, what does it say about 
someone alive today who is either unaware of or refuses to accept the 
experimental method? The end of the post at

The end of the post at 
http://parsha.blogspot.com/2009/06/do-gentiles-have-more-teeth-th
an-jews.html 
says,

"But how can they [the gedolei Yiaroel] really judge this, when they 
likely would not recognize all the places that Chazal's statements 
diverge from science, and quite possibly are not familiar with all 
the relevant sources, not really caring that much about the 
intersection until it becomes a hot-button issue? And should someone 
who does care about the issue, and has studied the various shittos 
deeply, and does have a better sense of just where Chazal seem to 
contradict science, be mevatel his daas to those who don't consider 
science important and therefore are not necessarily in a better 
position to draw an objective conclusion?

Let me add that I would not be putting this forth, which could be 
seen ch"v as an attack, and an attack on elu ve'elu, if not for the 
fact that others are declaring that it forbidden to differ from the 
chareidi gedolim on issues pertaining to the intersection of Torah 
and science."


YL
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20100216/8475439e/attachment-0001.htm>

In the Steinsaltz gemara on shabbbat 33, discussing the episode of shimon
bar yochai in the cave, that when he left the cave the first time and saw
people working, and that everyone that they saw they burned, a footnote
cites the bet yaakov with an allegorical interpretation - that	everyone
that they saw they convinced to study torah lishma (and leave material
pursuits).   Given that their efforts were met by a response that they were
destroying the world, and therefore sent back to the cave, this response is
of some interest ..
Does anyone know who this bet yaakov is?  He is not listed in the list of books that steinsaltz gives in the back of his gmara.

Meir Shinnar

On Tue, Feb 16, 2010 at 09:20:07PM -0500, Meir Shinnar wrote:
: In the Steinsaltz gemara on shabbbat 33, discussing the episode of
: shimon bar yochai in the cave...

Side question.... Any reason why RSBY doesn't get a title? Is there a
place where it's omitted in the gemara?

...
: Does anyone know who this bet yaakov is? He is not listed in the list
of books that steinsaltz gives in the back of his gmara.

Given that we're speaking of a naarative about the person the Zohar is
attributed to, I'll take a guess. There is a seifer by R' Yaaqov of
Izhbitza (transcribed by his son R' Gershon Chanokh) by that name.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             When we are no longer able to change a situation
mi...@aishdas.org        -- just think of an incurable disease such as
http://www.aishdas.org   inoperable cancer -- we are challenged to change
Fax: (270) 514-1507      ourselves.      - Victor Frankl (MSfM)

RMB writes:

> Except that I still don't find it clear. He writes, "chutz miqabalas
> hamitzvos sheme'aqeves..." which although is the language of the
> Tosafos
> and the Rosh WRT requiring a beis din (3 kesheirim meeting during the
> day) does not prove he holds like them WRT sefeiqos in the qabalah due
> to the person having ulteriar motives. And the Rambam is more machmir,
> requiring the other steps to also require BD, not that qabbalas ol
> mitzvos
> before a BD is less mandatory.

I struggle to see how you can see this in the Rambam - let us look at the
whole section in Issurei Biah Perek 13 (I have summarised each halacha and
my comments are in square brackets):

Halacha 1: Three things caused Israel to enter into the convenant, mila,
tevila and korban. [No mention of Na'aseh v'Nishma, which would be the
equivalent of kabbalat mitzvot - noting of course that if he had done so,
questions of har hagigis would not doubt have come up]

Halacha 2: The mila was in Mitzraim ...

Halacha 3: The tevila was in the midbar before matan Torah ...

Halacha 4: And so for the generations when a non Jew wants to convert he
needs [tzarich] mila, tevila v'haritzat korban (and if a woman just tevila
and korban). [Note that while the language used to describe him wanting to
convert is "to enter the bris, be gathered under the wings of the shechina
and receive upon himself [kabel alav] the yoke of the Torah" but that is a
description of what the ger wants, the second half describes the "tzarich"
the bits that would seem to be necessary, and which parallel the entering
into the covenant of Israel above.  He then reemphasises this by saying] -
just as you with mila and tevila and korban so a ger l'dorot with mila,
tevila and korban. [Where is the reference to the tzarich of kabalat
mitzvoth at all.  According to you despite the Rambam clearly laying out the
requirements of conversion, he omitted one that he holds is in fact meakev]

Halacha 5: Gives details of the korban that the ger has to bring, and says
that today, he just needs [tzarich] mila and tevila and that when the beit
hamikdash is built then he will have to bring a korban. [Again, no mention
of any kabbalat of mitzvoth in his tzarich - isn't this a glaring omission?]

Halacha 6: A ger who has mila but not tevila or tevila but no mila is not a
ger until he has both [ie these two are meakev.  Where is the reference to
the kabala of mitzvos being meakev as per Tosphos, if in fact the Rambam
agrees with Tosphos].  And he needs [tzarich] to toyvel before three since
the matter needs a beis din and we don't toyvel him on Shabbat or yom tov or
at night but if they did toyvel him so behold he is a ger. [And the Magid
Mishna notes that the discussion about before three is a maklohus tanaim in
perek hacholetz (46) and they posken there like Ravvi Yosi who says that
mila and tevila is meakev - again, where is the reference to what to you is
the third meakev leg, that of kabala of mitzvos]

Halacha 7: - deals with a ger katan, so not so relevant for our purposes.

Halacha 8: If he is married to a Jew (whether from Yisrael or a convert) and
he said that he converted beni uvein atzmo - ie without the assistance of a
beis din, he is possel for himself but not for his children and he needs to
go back and toyvel in front of bet din [not toyvel and accept the mitzvos
note].

Halacha 9: A giyores who goes according to the ways of Israel always like
she toyvels for nida and she separates trumah from her dough and so for a
ger who goes in the ways of Yisrael that he toyvels for keri  and does all
the mitzvos, harei  elu b'chezkas gerei tzedek. This is even though there
are no eidim to testify before whom they converted.  But even so if they
come to marry with Israel we don't marry them until they bring  witnesses or
until they toyvel in front of us because they had the chazaka of an akum.
[ie this is discussing somebody who seems frum now but we have no evidence
of any conversion at all].

Halacha 10:  But one who comes and says I was an akum and I converted before
beis din is believed based on the principle that the mouth that assurs is
the mouth that matirs.  Where is this, in Eretz Yisrael in those times where
the chazaka was that one was a Jew. But outside of Israel he needs to bring
a proof to marry in Israel..

Halacha 11: Discusses that just as you do mila and tevila for a ger, you do
it for an eved ... and you do not tovel an eved except before three and
during the day as it is a form of little gerus.

Halacha 12:  When you free a slave he needs another tevila before three and
in the day because he is completing his gerus.  [Now here is the only place
we suddenly have mention of kabbalas mitzvos as possibly an essential part
of the process - because it says] that he does not need [v'ain tzarich]
lkabel alav mitzvos ul'hodos ikar hadas since the hodah was already done
when he toyvelled for his avdus. [So in order to argue that the Rambam
requires a kabala you need to read back from this negative to a positive
requirement.  But it is just as easy to understand this as an instruction to
beit din.  Just as later it is said to be a mitzvah nachona to do this, well
here with an eved even as a mitzvah nachona it is not necessary]

Halacha 13: Details of the type of mikvah and issues of chatzitza required
in the tevila.

Halacha 14: You shouldn't think that Shimshon who led Israel and Shlomo
Hamelech who was called the friend of Hashem married non Jews.  But the sod
hadavar is this.  It is a "mitzvah nachona" when a ger or giores comes to
check after them to see if they come because of money or position of
authority or marriage.  And if you don't find [any such rationale] you tell
them the weight of the torah etc And if they accept "kiblu v'lo pirshu v'rau
she chozru m'ahavah kablu otan".  [ie this is the ideal, you check and see
that there are no ulterior motives and you tell them what is involved and
you see that they don't run away and this is a gerus meahava].

Halacha 15:  Therefore, the Beit Din did not accept converts all the days of
David HaMelech because maybe they returned out of pachad.  And in the days
of Shlomo because maybe they returned because of the malkchut etc.  Because
kol hu chozru min haakum bishvil davar mehevlei olam v'aino gerei tzedek.
But despite this there were many gerim in the days of David and Shlomo
"mipnei hahedyot".  And the Beit Din Hagadol choshishinan l'hem v'lo dochin
otan achar shetevilo but on the other hand "lo mekarev otan ud shetire
achreihen". [Here he seems to be drawing a distinction between a ger tzedek
and a regular ger.  And while the Bet Din hagadol refused to get involved in
conversions, there were a lot of ordinary people doing conversions, and once
the conversion happened, the Bet Din did not push them away but they did not
draw them close either]

Halacha 16: Accordingly, Shlomo HaMelech converted the women and then
married them.  And so Shimshon converted and married.  And it was a known
thing that they did not convert ela bishvil davar.  And since they were not
converted by the beit din the text considers them to have been like non Jews
and their end proves the beginning because they worshipped idols etc
[Remember of course we have other statements from the Rambam as the Kesef
Mishna brings in his comment on halacha 17 that even a born and bred Jew who
worships idols is considered like an akum]

Halacha 17:  A ger whom one does not check after them or we do not make
known to them the mitzvoth and the punishments and they do mila and tevila
before three hediyot behold this is a ger.  And even if you know that
bishvil davar he converted since he did mila and tevila he goes out of the
category of a non Jew but we are choshesh him until he demonstrates his
righteousness. [This is where you try and understand some sort of
indeterminate status in the Rambam - a sort of overlapping wave form, but
the language that follows doesn't seem to bear this out]  And even if he
returns and worships idols he is like a Yisrael mumar and his kidushin is a
kidushin.  And it is a mitzvah to return his lost object like a Jews.  And
thus Shlomo and Shimshon did with their wives even though the truth was
revealed.  

Halacha 18: Because of this the Chachamim said that gerim are hard for
Yisrael like a plague of tzaraas, because many return bishvil davar.  And it
is hard to separate from them after they convert.  Go and learn what
occurred in the midbar with the golden calf etc etc [ie cases where converts
have led the rest of Yisrael astray]

End of chapter.

So where can you see in the Rambam that kabal ohl mitzvos before a beis din
is mandatory?  The Rambam is very very clear about what is tzarich and what
is not.  Trying to squeeze an additional tzarich into the words of the
Rambam when he has so clearly paralleled the conversion process with that of
receiving the Torah at har Sinai seems quite a stretch.  And to suggest that
the Shulchan Aruch makes that stretch, when he contrasts the position of the
Rambam (and the Rif) with that of Tosphos in terms of what is needed for
three, and so effectively to sticks kabala of the mitzvoth into halacha 6
when it is clearly not there is really yet a further extension. 

And regarding your confusion with Halacha 17, it seems to me to be a much
more straightforward read to say the Rambam is making a distinction (that I
agree I am not aware of anybody else making) between what he calls a "ger"
and what he calls a "ger tzedek".  A ger tzedek is somebody who converts for
the right reasons and does the right thing.  But this is not just in
contrast to an akum, but also to a "ger".  A ger is something else. They
convert for the wrong reasons and then often do the wrong thing.  But,
halachically he stresses that their kiddushin is a kiddushin and hence
Shlomo HaMelech and Shimshon could marry them, their aveidah is just like
that of any other Jew etc

So unlike you it seems to me the most straightforward reading of the
chosheshinan is not that they have some sort of indeterminate status between
an akum and a valid ger, as you would have it, but that they are indeed a
valid ger with valid kiddushin and otherwise the din of a Jew, but that one
should be worried about getting too close to them, marrying with them etc.
Not because they are not Jewish but because there is a high risk that they
will be a bad influence, just as one is required to keep away from bad
influences, it is appropriate to be suspicious that they are likely to be
bad influences (you might not want your kids playing in school with them
sort of thing) - until there is evidence that they are seriously keeping
mitzvos properly (sort of check our schools do on all of us these days).

And in regard to making known the mitzvos and seeing that they are kablu the
description of doing that is halacha 14 along with that of checking after
them which is described with the language of mitzvah nachona.  The Rambam is
known to be very precise in his language and "mitzvah nachona" does not read
to me as being the slightest language of meakev (which the Rambam has no
problem using and discussing when he is talking about mila and tevila).  It
seems to me that you need a fair bit more proof that the Shulchan Aruch
makes such an assertion (or that the Rambam has the capacity for this read
at all).

> Tir'u baTov!
> -Micha

Regards

Chana

On Tue, Feb 16, 2010 at 04:49:22PM -0500, Prof. Levine wrote:
: The end of the post at 
: http://parsha.blogspot.com/2009/06/do-gentiles-have-more-teet
: h-than-jews.html 
: says,
: 
: "But how can they [the gedolei Yiaroel] really judge this, when they 
: likely would not recognize all the places that Chazal's statements 
: diverge from science, and quite possibly are not familiar with all 
: the relevant sources, not really caring that much about the 
: intersection until it becomes a hot-button issue? ...

"They don't care that much about the intersection..." Now, assume that's
beshittah, and perhaps that's the answer to your question. The don't see
the need for a correspondane between reality and halakhah that you're
taking for granted.

IOW, it's more relevent that Chazal said they have more (or fewer)
teeth than whether or not they actually do.

Tir'u baTov!
-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

On Tue, Feb 16, 2010 at 9:20 PM, Meir Shinnar <chide...@gmail.com> wrote:

> In the Steinsaltz gemara on shabbbat 33, discussing the episode of shimon
> bar yochai in the cave, that when he left the cave the first time and saw
> people working, and that everyone that they saw they burned, a footnote
> cites the bet yaakov with an allegorical interpretation - that  everyone
> that they saw they convinced to study torah lishma (and leave material
> pursuits).   Given that their efforts were met by a response that they were
> destroying the world, and therefore sent back to the cave, this response is
> of some interest ..
> Does anyone know who this bet yaakov is?  He is not listed in the list of
> books that steinsaltz gives in the back of his gmara.
>
>
It's a sefer on haggados hashas by R' Yaakov Hubscher, who was a
contemporary of R' Dovid Tzvi Hoffmann and R' Meir Hildesheimer (son of R'
Azriel) in early 20th century Berlin.

The sefer is available on HebrewBooks.org
here<http://www.hebre
wbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?sits=1&;req=37110&st=%u05DC%u05DE%u05E2
%u05E8%u05EA%u05DB%u05DD>
.


Joshua Meisner
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20100217/b983f73f/attachment-0001.htm>

Sorry if this is long after the original discussion, but I am still trying
to catch up:

Akiva Miller wrote:

"I have no idea what the source is for it, but I can tell you that we said
it at all the Shabbatonim which I attended from around 1967-1977, which were
run by Yeshiva University's Youth Bureau. "

Growing up we did not add the 4 pasukim when singing bentchen around my
father's shabbos table until after I returned from summer sleep away camp in
1958 where that was apparently a standard part of bentchen.

David I. Cohen
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20100217/2d0ea8f7/attachment-0001.htm>

On Thu, Feb 18, 2010 at 12:54:39AM -0500, R Zev Sero replied on Areivim
to something I wrote there:
: >I'm not sure what "justice for the victim" means. Revenge is pointless.

: On the contrary, it is the only compensation the victim can be given.
: "The earth cannot be forgiven for the blood that was spilled on it,
: except by the blood of the spiller."  Executing a murderer restores
: balance to the world, and gives the victim the revenge she deserves.

Does someone in olam ha'emes want or need the suffering of the person
who killed them?

Since neqama (among Yehudim) is assur, what would make you think it's a
sound basis for penology? It would seem we're asking to rid ourselves
of that desire, lo siqom velo sitor, not applaud it.

However, Rav Chanina (Avos 1:2) does ascribe gov't the role of
preventing crime. And in the case of a Jewish Community, uvi'arta hara
miqirbekha could be adding to that the need to keep that community
sacred. Or not -- I'm not clear if the two concepts are really distinct.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             For a mitzvah is a lamp,
mi...@aishdas.org        And the Torah, its light.
http://www.aishdas.org                   - based on Mishlei 6:2
Fax: (270) 514-1507

Micha Berger wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 18, 2010 at 12:54:39AM -0500, R Zev Sero replied on Areivim
> to something I wrote there:
> : >I'm not sure what "justice for the victim" means. Revenge is pointless.
> 
> : On the contrary, it is the only compensation the victim can be given.
> : "The earth cannot be forgiven for the blood that was spilled on it,
> : except by the blood of the spiller."  Executing a murderer restores
> : balance to the world, and gives the victim the revenge she deserves.

> Does someone in olam ha'emes want or need the suffering of the person
> who killed them?

Certainly.  The Torah and Tanach is full of this.  (The biggest proof
is from Navos, but there are many others.)


> Since neqama (among Yehudim) is assur

It's only assur among Yehudim, because we should be forgiving each other.
But, e.g., a go'el hadam has an obligation to avenge the victim, because
only the victim himself has the right to forgive.  When it comes to son'ei
yisrael, all our prayers are full of the call for revenge.  Every time we
refer to a murder victim we say "Hashem Yikom Damo"; do we not mean that?!
The idea that revenge is inherently bad is not a Jewish one; it comes from
the majority religion.


> what would make you think it's a sound basis for penology?

I repeat, "The earth cannot be forgiven for the blood that was spilled
on it, except by the blood of the spiller."   That is *the* basis for
capital punishment.  Letting a murderer live is inherently unjust.
Nations that on principle do not provide justice for murder should be
seen not as more civilised but on the contrary as barbaric.


> It would seem we're asking to rid ourselves
> of that desire, lo siqom velo sitor, not applaud it.

You omit "et benei amecha".  That is not an afterthought, it is the most
important phrase in that pasuk.  We do *not* aspire to rid ourselves of
the desire for revenge; we are not Xians.  What we do aspire to, is to
gain such over control that desire that we can turn it off when it comes
to "benei amecha".

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


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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 27, Issue 51
**************************************

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..."