Avodah Mailing List

Volume 27: Number 119

Sat, 15 May 2010

• 1. Re: Creation eternal heretical - hashkafa question (Hankman)
• 2. Tefillas Mincha Voluntary? (Tal Moshe Zwecker)
• 3. Tachanun (Rich, Joel)
• 4. Anisakis Worm Letter (L. E. Levine)
• 5. Re: Rav Shimon Schwab on how Jewish women should dress (David Riceman)
• 6. Creation eternal heretical - hashkafa question (David Riceman)
• 7. Re: 14th ikkar? (Michael Poppers)
• 8. Re: Rav Shimon Schwab on how Jewish women should dress (Micha Berger)
• 9. Re: Creation eternal heretical - hashkafa question (Micha Berger)
• 10. Re: Creation eternal heretical - hashkafa question (Micha Berger)
• 11. Re: Creation eternal heretical - hashkafa question (Micha Berger)
• 12. Re: Tachanun (Zev Sero)
• 13. Re: Rav Shimon Schwab on how Jewish women should dress (Saul Guberman)
• 14. A Woman's Place Is In The Home (Yitzchok Levine)
• 15. counting (Eli Turkel)
• 16. Re: Tefillas Mincha Voluntary? (Saul Mashbaum)
• 17. Uniqueness (Yitzchok Levine)
• 18. Re: Donor Kids and Adoption (Micha Berger) (Saul Mashbaum)

RMB wrote:

Not that I buy all of the above. However, if RMT sees the Rambam that
way, I can't call it kefirah.

CM asks:

Well, if it is not kefirah, why don't you buy it? It seems to be a
necessary result of the hashkafic logic trail I painted at the start of my
previous post. How do you break out of that chain of logic and what is the
alternative that you do buy?

Kol tuv

Chaim Manaster
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20100513/71c6839d/attachment-0001.htm>

Although this is a tangent the reason the sefer on hebrewbooks.org isnt on
Chumash is because although its the Kedushas Levi by R. Levi Yitzchak of
Berditchev the first printing of the sefer was only on Chanukah and Purim,
it discusses their holiness, sanctity and special status and mitzvos hence
the name Kedushas Levi, and each chapter is called a KedushahKedushas Levi
on Chumash was printed much later posthumously if I am not mistaken.Gershon
Dubin wrote:
> This doesn't seem to be at hebrewbooks.org.   
> http://hebrewbooks.org/42516

Kol Tuv,R' Tal Moshe ZweckerDirector Machon Be'er Mayim ChaimChassidic
Classics in the English Languagewww.cha
ssidusonline.comchassidusonline@gmail.comPhone: 972-2-992-1218 / Cell:
972-54-842-4725VoIP: 516-320-6022eFax: 1-832-213-3135join the mailing list
to keep updated about new projects here: http://groups.google.c
om/group/beermayimchaim Noam Elimelech, Kedushas Levi, Pirkei Avos
more!Discuss Chassidushttp://gro
ups.google.com/group/torahchassidusdiscussion
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20100513/2f70eb8f/attachment-0001.htm>

We paskin tachanun is "reshut" and thus are more liberal in dispensing with saying it.
Question: Is tachanun a din in the individual or the tzibbur or both?
example- you're visiting a friend and daven in a chaddishe minyan on a
rebbi's yahrtzeit - do you say tachanun there? after you leave? not at all?
is it your choice?

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.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20100513/e62d182e/attachment-0001.htm>

Please see http://www.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/kashrus/worm_letter.jpg

Yitzchok Levine  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20100513/5e61bece/attachment-0001.htm>

I just cracked a couple of dictionaries myself.  EZ Melamed's only 
translation of "mata" is "'ir"; Jastrow offers both "land" and "city", 
but none of his examples use land in the sense of "yard".

David Riceman

RCM:
<<Basic hashkafa dictates the fundamental reason for the creation and 
existence of the universe is the desire by HKB"H to exercise his hatava 
which requires a recipient.>>

This is the RaMChaL's opinion, but it is NOT the Rambam's.  See MN III:25.

<<HKB"H is outside of zeman and He and his ratzon are never changing and 
"eternal" [for lack of a better word - quotes because this word implies 
time]. This requires that the existence of creation be always present 
[to comply with His ratzon to be maitiv] and "eternal" despite parshas 
Bereishis that seems to imply otherwise?>>

It seems to me that your second sentence is predicating time of God, 
while your first sentence is ambiguous.  But time is a property of the 
world, not of God; and God's exercising of His hatavah takes place in 
the world.  It is not incorrect to predicate will of God, but it should 
follow that it is incorrect to predicate time of God's will.

Perhaps if you try to rephrase your problem more precisely you will see 
how to answer it.

David Riceman

In Avodah V27#117, RSZN posts:
> a leitz blogger  makes the folowing  point-----
<< what is the fundamental principle of faith that defines Orthodoxy?
<< Clearly, most people would say TMS - Torah Min Hashamayim. Yet that is 
very vague and insufficient. Christians also believe in TMS, and so do 
Kairites. The real fundamental of Orthodoxy is in fact that Torah Shebal 
Peh AS INTERPRETED BY CHAZAL, is ultimately Min Hashamayim (even if not 
from Sinai)....>>
> ---- the premise  seems to be true.  so here's the takeoff on the 
question 
he asks:   why does the RMBM  not include unassailing emunas chachamim [ 
ie  total submission to their daas tora]   as one of the ikkarim of the 
faith? <
I disagree with that premise.  I would say the "real fundamental" 
differentiating "us" from "them" in re to TMS is that when we say "Torah" 
as part of TMS, we mean not just Torah shebiKsav but also Torah sheb'Al 
Peh, and that point RaMBaM encodes in his eighth ikkar (available online 
at http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=11597&;st=&pgnum=108 ; a 
translation can be found in RJJB's Webpages at 
http://www.panix.com/~jjbaker/13yesodos.html ).

All the best from
Michael Poppers * Elizabeth, NJ, USA
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20100513/2de17638/attachment-0001.htm>

On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 09:38:49AM -0400, David Riceman wrote:
: I just cracked a couple of dictionaries myself.  EZ Melamed's only 
: translation of "mata" is "'ir"; Jastrow offers both "land" and "city", 
: but none of his examples use land in the sense of "yard".

I sit corrected. Thank you.

So, she was willing to go to town faputzt to make sure her husband
wouldn't stray.

Of course, we are told that a tzadiq yesod olam would have a YhR to
match. So perhaps she was more worried about his wandering interests
than others'.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 02:35:34AM -0400, Hankman wrote:
:> Not that I buy all of the above. However, if RMT sees the Rambam that
:> way, I can't call it kefirah.

: Well, if it is not kefirah, why don't you buy it? It seems to be a
: necessary result of the hashkafic logic trail I painted at the start of
: my previous post. How do you break out of that chain of logic and what
: is the alternative that you do buy?

First, I don't buy that's the Rambam's intent. One problem with hunting
for a hidden subtext is that it ends up being more a Rorschach test. The
academics find hidden statements in the Rambam that violate his own
iqqarim. Various rishonim each find echos of their own mehalekh.

And RMTriebetz, who prepared RYBS's notes for a sefer on Bereishis, sees
in the Rambam Kantian dialectics. From an Aristotilian we get attention
to the gap between the-world-as-is and the-world-as-perceived? And far
from Artistotle's Law of Contradiction, the Rambam discussed dialectics?
Personally, I doubt it was the Rambam's intent.

Second, I don't believe your line of reasoning WRT my own position.

As we already saw the Rambam noting, time is itself a beryah. "Always"
means across all time -- that time is relevent, but we're discussing
something that has an infinite time. However, Hashem's eternity isn't
infinite time, but lemaaleh min hazeman. Time is an irrelevent concept.

The theory you're promoting acknowledged that time is a nivra WRT maaseh
bereishis being lemaalah min hazeman, but it falls short by placing
Ratzon Hashem within zeman.

Hashem wants (for lack of a better tense) the universe, but there is no
"when" to that desire. Your argument presumes there is a when -- but it
is infinitely long.

So, even though the existence of the universe depends only on his will,
Hashem didn't *always* want a universe, and therefore one can't conclude
the universe always existed. "Always", meaning the time line, is itself
a product of that Will too.

(Third, I am not convinced of String "Theory", never mind those particular
versions that eliminate the singularity at the Big Bang. IOW, I think
the scientific evidence rules out an infinitely old universe.)

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 44th day, which is
mi...@aishdas.org        6 weeks and 2 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Gevurah sheb'Malchus: What type of justice
Fax: (270) 514-1507                            does unity demand?

On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 09:34:17AM -0400, David Riceman wrote:
:> Basic hashkafa dictates the fundamental reason for the creation and 
:> existence of the universe is the desire by HKB"H to exercise his hatava 
:> which requires a recipient.

: This is the RaMChaL's opinion, but it is NOT the Rambam's.  See MN III:25.

It's also RSG's. See HaEmunah vehaBitachon 3:1.

The Rambam you cite is about tzadiq vera lo, not the purpose of beri'ah
as a whole. He does extend it in the next pereq to explain that mitzvos
must too have purpose -- but not to equate those purposes. Can you point
to a specific line where he addresses our question?

I was thinking perhaps the Moreh 3:13 which opens by saying the question
is absurd -- we cannot know the object of His Will.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 44th day, which is
mi...@aishdas.org        6 weeks and 2 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Gevurah sheb'Malchus: What type of justice
Fax: (270) 514-1507                            does unity demand?

Sorry for all the short posts...

R' Shimon Shkop turns this notion of "shekol mah shebara veyatzar hayah
Retzono yisbarakh raq leheitiv im hanivra'im" into an imperative. That
this is the essence of vehalakhta bidrakhav
    vechayei olam nata besokheinu sheyihyeh adir cheftzeinu
    leheitiv im zulaseinu
and (a few lines later) the definition of "qedoshim tihyu ki Qadosh
Ani".

Leshitaso, life of qedushah is a life of dedication letovas harabim. (Yes,
this is then tied to "perushim tihyu".)

Which actually ties this thread to those on Pirqei Avos and self
perfection...

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 44th day, which is
mi...@aishdas.org        6 weeks and 2 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Gevurah sheb'Malchus: What type of justice
Fax: (270) 514-1507                            does unity demand?

Rich, Joel wrote:
> We paskin tachanun is "reshut" and thus are more liberal in dispensing 
> with saying it. 
> Question: Is tachanun a din in the individual or the tzibbur or both?
> example- you're visiting a friend and daven in a chaddishe minyan on a 
> rebbi's yahrtzeit - do you say tachanun there? after you leave? not at 
> all? is it your choice?

AFAIK the only time it can be said is immediately after shmoneh esrei,
and if you missed that opportunity you can't say it later.


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

>
> On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 09:38:49AM -0400, David Riceman wrote:
> : I just cracked a couple of dictionaries myself.  EZ Melamed's only
> : translation of "mata" is "'ir"; Jastrow offers both "land" and "city",
> : but none of his examples use land in the sense of "yard".
>
>
> On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 12:51, Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org> wrote:
> So, she was willing to go to town faputzt to make sure her husband
> wouldn't stray.
>
> Of course, we are told that a tzadiq yesod olam would have a YhR to
> match. So perhaps she was more worried about his wandering interests
> than others'.
>
>
We recently finished this aggaditah in our Shabbos shuir at shul.

 Abba Chilkiya & his wife were very special people.  The pretense for
telling this story is that they could make it rain. The story is presented
to show that their behaviour is not the norm.   After the story Abba
Chilkiya gives an explanation for all of the "strange" behaviours.  As for
his wife coming out to the City all dressed up to meet him; it is that he
requests his wife to come out into the city to greet him on his way home so
that he not be enticed to look at other women.
He did not have an estate.  You can see from the story in general that he
was poor.  He tells the Rabbis that he did not offer them food, when they
came to his house, because he does not have enough to share with them.  Also
he was wearing a borrowed coat in the story which he took off as some point
to protect it from getting ripped by his work.

Saul
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20100513/0bd4618a/attachment-0001.htm>

 From http://seforim.blogspot.com/2010/05/woman-place-is-in-home_1330.html

Rambam's rather extreme (by contemporary Western standards) 
formulation, directing a husband to "prevent his wife" from being a 
gadabout, and instructing him to "only allow her out around once or 
twice a month, as necessary", is well known.

Please see the above URL for the rest of this article.

YL 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20100513/34765f8e/attachment-0001.htm>

In a shiur I heard the question was raised how count the Jews are
counted several times in the desert to show how dear they are to G-d and
OTOH we have a prohibition to count Jews as we see that King David was
punished and we dont count people for a minyan

One can find technical differences but they don't really explain what is the
meaning of counting.
Any "real" explanations?

-- 
Eli Turkel

RMBerger

>>For that matter every (?) animal qorban included "soles leminchah".

See Menachot 9,6 (perek Shtei Middot)
"All animal sacrifices, both public and private, require accompanying  flour
and wine, with the following exceptions: b'chor, maaser, pesach, chatat,
asham. The asham of the leper, however, requires accompanying flour and
wine."

The m'nachot for the t'midim and musafim are explicitly prescribed in the
relevant parsha
(B'midbar 28, 29).
The m'nachot of the korbanot n'davah are prescribed in parshat Sh'lach
 (B'midbar 15).

This subject is discussed in Menachot 90b, Rambam Maase HaKorbanot 2:2-3.

Please see inside
http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=9665&;st=&pgnum=168&hilite=
(line 12 ff).

http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=9716&;st=&pgnum=88&hilite=

Saul Mashbaum
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20100514/bc19b95d/attachment-0001.htm>

IMO there is a tendency today within certain 
Orthodox circles to foster conformity on 
people.  There is pressure to dress a certain 
way, to think a certain way, etc.  This leads to 
a "suppression" of individuality.  Yet people are 
not the same. Indeed, to me one of the great 
accomplishments of the Alter of Slabodka is that 
he developed his students into gedolim while at 
the same time preserving their individuality. Reb 
Yaakov Kamenetsky was not like Reb Aaron Kotler, 
who was not like Rav Ruderman, who was not like 
Rav Yaakov Lessin, who was not like Rav Yaakov 
Yechiel Weinberg,  etc. The Alter definitely did 
not use a "cookie cutter" approach to Chinuch.

I think that RSRH's commentary on Bamidbar 1

2 Take the total count of the entire community of 
the Children of Israel, according to their 
families, according to their fathers? house,
counting the names, all males, according to their heads.

speaks to this point. He wrote

The conception of the nation as the ?House of Israel? and of all its
members as the ?Children of Israel? ensures that the concept of the
Jewish nation does not become a mere abstract idea without real union
and does not exist merely as a fiction, as an imaginary union of elite
representatives. The Jewish nation is always conceived of in the actual
unified entirety of its members. They are united by a common inner
element, and each one of them is an actual and integral part of this
unity.

Our forefather Yisrael was one man; but even when his descendants
had grown to six hundred thousand men, they all were still members
of ?one house,? sons of ?one man,? bearing in their hearts and souls
the impress of the same stamp, bearing through the ages their heritage
of one mission and one destiny.

But amidst this fundamental unity and under its influence, a diversity
of qualities unique to tribes and families is preserved and nurtured.
In this way, the goal ? which we have already pointed to several times
in Bereshis (17:6, 35:11-12, 49:25) ? will be attained: The one mission
shared by all will be accomplished by every individual ? despite his
uniqueness; it will be accomplished by a diversity of special qualities
and character traits, a diversity of professions and positions in life. And
this accomplishment will be a model for the entire human race.

Each tribe in its specialty and each family with its special qualities
are to work at the common task of the House of Israel; they are to give
shape to this task, educate their children to it, and pass it on to the
next generation. 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20100514/0d7a393a/attachment-0001.htm>

 RAMiller, regarding a brother and sister marrying as a result of sperm
donation

>>>

: You're thinking in terms of "kol d'parish meruba parish". Could it
: be that this case is considered "kavua", so that it is judged to be a
: 50/50 possibility?
>>


RMBerger

>>
I don't think a set that is leisa leqaman can have members that are
qavu'a. I think of qavu'ah as a situation that would have been a ruba
de'isa leqaman were it not that we had once known and pasqened about
the state of the members in the past.

>>>

Rava in Kiddushin 73a, says a shtuki is muttar min haTorah, because
"kol d'parish miruba parush". The gmara asks on him that perhaps "kavua"
applies here. The g'mara says that even kavua cannot make the shtuki any
more than a
safek mamzer (mechtza al mechtza) , and  a safek mamzer is muttar bat
Yisrael min
haTorah. So the gmara does apply the concept of kavua to yuchasin, although
the
discussion is about the shtuki himself with any given bat Yisrael, and  we
are talking about the set of possible fathers of the shtuki in a given
geographical area, which possibly may be considered a ruba d'ita kaman.
Indeed, the gmara there then says perhaps a shtuki is assur midrabban to
prevent
a brother and sister marrying, and rejects this as being so unlikely (lo
shchicha) that it would not be a reasonable basis of a gzeira. The gmara
concluded that a shtuki is assur midrabbanan as a safek mamzer, despite
being muttar min haTorah: "maalah asu b'yuchasin".

The Aruch HaShulchan YD 110 sk 14 cites this gmara, and says that the kavua
mentioned here is a different (weaker) kavua than the classic kavua case:
"ein hasafek nolad bimkom hakvuit". Ayen sham.

The gmara similarly reject the premise that an asufi is assur  b'bat Yisrael
in order to prevent
a brother and sister from marrying,  this possibility being too unlikely  be
a reasonable basis of a gzeira, as above.

Only shtuki and assufi are forbidden to marry (midrabbanan); an "regular"
orphan who does not know his parents may marry a bat Yisrael, and we are not
choshesh for a brother and sister marrying.
The Rambam states this explicitly in Hilchot Issurei Biah 15:29.

This is regarding the actions of the doubtful offspring.
However, in Yevamot 37b, it is stated that one should avoid having offspring
in a manner that may cause the possibility of a brother and sister marrying,
since the result of such a marriage (despite the innocence of the parents)
is nevertheless a mamzer. One of the cases, that of a man marrying women in
different countries, is cited as forbidden in EH 2:11.
The unlikelihood of such an eventuality is insufficient to permit one to
create the circumstances under which it may occur.
One may reasonably forbid a Jew to act as a sperm donor based on this
concept.

http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=14313&;st=&pgnum=146&hilite=

http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=9759&;st=&pgnum=78

http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=14242&;st=&pgnum=526&hilite=

http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=14398&;st=&pgnum=15

Saul Mashbaum
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20100515/f8ca9d7b/attachment.htm>

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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 27, Issue 119
***************************************

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..."