Avodah Mailing List

Volume 27: Number 184

Thu, 14 Oct 2010

• 1. Re: The meaning of the name Gid'on (Micha Berger)
• 2. Re: Sukka must be kosher for sleeping? (kennethgmil...@juno.com)
• 3. Chumash Question (Richard Wolberg)
• 4. Stained Glass Windows (Prof. Levine)
• 5. Re: Stained Glass Windows (torahm...@gmail.com)
• 6. Stained Glass Windows (Joseph C. Kaplan)
• 7. Truth and the Rambam (David Riceman)
• 8. When no sukkah is available (David Riceman)
• 9. Re: Truth and the Rambam (David Riceman)
• 10. Re: Truth and the Rambam (Micha Berger)
• 11. Re: The meaning of the name Gid'on (Yitzchak Schaffer)
• 12. Re: Truth and the Rambam (David Riceman)
• 13. Re: Chumash Question (Yitzchok Zirkind)
• 14. Re: Truth and the Rambam (Micha Berger)
• 15. Re: Sukka must be kosher for sleeping? (Micha Berger)
• 16. Re: The meaning of the name Gid'on (David W. Eisen)
• 17. Re: Truth and the Rambam (David Riceman)

On Tue, Oct 12, 2010 at 04:06:44PM IST, Rt Shoshana L. Boublil asked on
Areivim:
: Does anyone know the meaning of the name Gid'on?

Wouldn't it mean "lumberjack", from /gd`/, to chop down (eg Yeshaiah
10:33)?

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

R' Micha Berger wrote:

> Lamah li Zohar, sevara hi? Who has not experienced ambivalence?

Just as a side comment, I am fond of citing this demonstration of the human
capacity for ambivalence: The Medrash says that HaShem told the mal'achim
that they were wrong for singing Shira at Yam Suf. Yet we *do* say Hallel,
albeit in abbreviated form. One answer is that mal'achim can do only one
thing at a time, whereas humans are capable of mixed emotions.

Akiva Miller

____________________________________________________________
Moms Asked to Return to School
Grant Funding May Be Available to Those That Qualify.
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/4cb44bde7fa42272ea9st02vuc

R' Gershon asked the following question:
When Adam and Chava ate from the Etz hadaas tov vara, the nachash was
punished, saying "...ki asisa zos, arur ata...".    When Adam was punished,
it was "ki shamaata lekol ishtecha".  Cause and effect.  For the isha,
however, it only says "harbo arbeh itzevonech verheronech";  no direct
cause cited.  Why?

Adam (and by inference, the nachash) heard the command directly from God. Chava heard it from Adam (which was indirect). Therefore, no direct cause cited.
ri

This morning someone told me that he had heard  that RYBS once spoke 
against installing stained glass windows in a synagogue, saying it 
was Chukas Ha Goyim. He said he had heard that RYBS went so far as to 
say that one should not go to a synagogue with stained glass windows 
to hear shofar.

Can anyone verify this?

YL

>>This morning someone told me that he had heard  that RYBS once spoke
>>against installing stained glass windows in a synagogue, saying it
>>was Chukas Ha Goyim. He said he had heard that RYBS went so far as to
>>say that one should not go to a synagogue with stained glass windows
>>to hear shofar.

His father zt"l's minyan on 185th was in a stained glass shul(Unless
the stained glass was added later - but I daven there sometimes and
the architecture doesn't look like it was added later . See picture
and article:
http://www.yucommentator.com/2.2828
/shenk-shul-looking-to-expand-in-response-to-growing-membership-1.297703
[or <http://bit.ly/cFOAuY> -micha]

 - Mike

[I thought I also remember stained glass windows at Moriah, on the
Upper West Side, a shul on the Upper West Side of Manhattan that was
under RYBS himself. Perhaps someone who was old enough to attend more
of RYBS's Tues night shiurim than I did could confirm or deny. -micha]

Prof. Levine asks:
> This morning someone told me that he had heard  that RYBS once spoke 
> against installing stained glass windows in a synagogue, saying it 
> was Chukas Ha Goyim. He said he had heard that RYBS went so far as to 
> say that one should not go to a synagogue with stained glass windows 
> to hear shofar.

I can verify that it's not true.

In an essay on prayer entitled Tefillatam shel Yehudim, RYBS writes of
his opposition to synagogues with stained glass windows and "platforms
decorated with rugs, flowers and rabbis trained in linguistic expression
and pleasant manners." He says nothing about shofar; your informant
was probably confusing this with RYBS's position about shuls with mixed
seating. And anyone who has davened in Orthodox shuls whose rabbis, lay
leaders and members are students of RYBS (or students of students) knows
that this position -- opposition to, in shuls, stained glass windows,
rugs, flowers, and linguistically trained and pleasant rabbis -- is one
that was not followed by his students.

Joseph Kaplan 

  The more I read your (RMB) posts, the less I understand your 
position.  Here's one way to get at the problem: according to you, what 
was the Rambam's motive for publishing the MT.  Surely the Rambam's 
readings of halacha have no precedential value, so of what use are they 
without footnotes? See the Ra'avad's final hassaga on the Rambam's hakdama.

David Riceman

  RAM:
> But that is *not* the message that Chazal teach us from that story. 
> They went further, and said, "Anyone who avoids drinking outside of 
> the Sukkah, even water, haray zeh meshubach." (Mechaber O"C 639:2)
> Suppose a person is in a place where no sukkah is available or
> convenient, and he must choose between drinking water outside the
> sukkah, or not drinking the water at all. It is unquestionably muttar
> to drink the water outside the sukkah, but Chazal teach that the
> person who forgoes the water is meshubach.
No, I suspect "hutz l'sukkah" imploies that a sukkah is easily 
available, as in the story you cite.  I suspect that it's motivated by 
"teishvu k'ein taduru" - - in hazal's time it was unusual to eat or 
drink outside of one's home.  But that wouldn't apply, say, to someone 
travelling in a caravan.

David Riceman

  I wrote:
>  The more I read your (RMB) posts, the less I understand your 
> position.  Here's one way to get at the problem: according to you, 
> what was the Rambam's motive for publishing the MT.  Surely the 
> Rambam's readings of halacha have no precedential value, so of what 
> use are they without footnotes? See the Ra'avad's final hassaga on the 
> Rambam's hakdama.
And see Igrot haRambam, ed. Sheilat, p.312 line 4 to p. 313 line 2 and 
p. 339 lines 1-11.

David Riceman

On Thu, Oct 07, 2010 at 03:09:28PM -0400, I replied to RZL:
:: One cannot deny the fact that the principle methodology by which the 
:: poskim and Talmud determine the halacha is through citing precedent and 
:: assuming that there is an original intent to reach for. Otherwise, it 
:: would be pointless for any amora to pit a contradiction to another from 
:: an earlier and higher authority. His opponent could always answer, 
:: "Hah!...that's the way you, or Aharon HaKohen heard it at Sinai, but I'm 
:: saying how I, or Nachshon ben Amindava heard it at Sinai!"
...
: And yes, they do often answer this why. "Ha R' Meir, ha R' Yehudah"
: boils down to just that. You have your development of the ideas
: HQBH gave us, I have mine.

HQBH has a sense of humor. On Shabbos's Y-mi yomi, Terumos 54a, the
Y-mi brings a setirah between two maamarim stated besheim R' Yonasan.
R' Shemuel bar nachman replies to the chevraya, "Ana mah desham'is,
ve'inun mah desham'is."

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

http://www.thinkbabynames.com/meaning/1/Gideon

...holds like RMB

--
Yitzchak Schaffer

On Oct 12, 2010, at 12:01, Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org> wrote:

> Wouldn't it mean "lumberjack", from /gd`/, to chop down (eg Yeshaiah
> 10:33)?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20101012/1bc67d1b/attachment-0001.htm>

  We've done some offlist debating, and I would like to propose an 
alternative theory.  I suspect that RMB is conflating several 
independent issues.

1.  Clutter:  The Rambam did not like clutter.  He would not have liked 
the shul I attend (recall that he banned the silent Amida in his shul).  
He did not like the idea that Moses might not have been able to give 
decisive answers to any halachic query, independent of any metaphysical 
preference for uniqueness.

I suspect that it really bothered him that the 13 midot shehatorah 
nidreshet bahem do not yield unique answers, and that may be why he 
claims that few laws were deduced from them.  OTOH he does permit a 
future Sanhedrin to overturn any law deduced by a previous Sanhedrin 
using the 13MSNB.  The clutter that he objects to is discordant practice 
in a single place and time.

2.  Psak:  The Darkei Moshe uses the inspired phrase "nohagin lifsok" 
and variants thereof quite often.  What he means is that often the 
halacha is unclear, and a region (think kehilla) has the authority to 
establish a customary psak for that region (see H. Shehita 11:10).

The Rambam knew quite well that by the time of the Holy Babylonian 
Talmud there were machloksim in just about everything, and he knew quite 
well that often klalei hapsak do not yield unique solutions.  I suspect 
that the Rambam thought he was doing just what the Rama later described; 
he was writing a book of normative practice for Egyptian Jewry.

3.  Truth:  I think the Rambam changed his mind about TruthwithacapitalT 
between the time he wrote the introduction to ShM and the time he wrote 
the MN.  At the earlier time he thought that great metaphysical truths 
were embedded deep in the details of halacha; by the later time he 
thought that they were to be found in aggadta, and that halachot had 
general significance, but the minutae of halachot did not.  Hence, for 
example, he casts aspersions on "havayyot d'Abbaye v'Rava" in one of his 
letters.

In sum, I question RMB's claim that a preference for uniquely determined 
halacha is a byproduct of a metaphysical commitment to a unique Divine 
Truth.

David Riceman

The Abarbnel asks the question (chapter 2 question 37),  his answer (chapter
3 # 16) includes what RRW answered, since Hashem did not speak to her, but
he adds also that her curse was as she was Etzem Meiatzomai.

v'Al pi halacha (vAl Derech HaTzachus), Al Tarbeh Sicha Im Ha'isha.

Also by saying to the Nachash Ki Osisa Zos which refers to him being Meisis
the women, there was no need to repeat to the women that she did something
wrong, and in fact she admitted it "hanachas Hishiani, and hence also we
don't remind a Baal Tshuvah Maasuv Harishonim even though the punishment was
needed to be said, whereas Adam said it wasn't his fault.

Kol Tuv,
Yitzchok Zirkind

On Tue, Oct 12, 2010 at 7:08 AM, Richard Wolberg <cantorwolb...@cox.net>wrote:

> R' Gershon asked the following question:
> When Adam and Chava ate from the Etz hadaas tov vara, the nachash was
> punished, saying "...ki asisa zos, arur ata...".    When Adam was punished,
> it was "ki shamaata lekol ishtecha".  Cause and effect.  For the isha,
> however, it only says "harbo arbeh itzevonech verheronech";  no direct cause
> cited.  Why?
>
> Adam (and by inference, the nachash) heard the command directly from God.
> Chava heard it from Adam (which was indirect). Therefore, no direct cause
> cited.
> ri
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20101013/d9b16d99/attachment-0001.htm>

On Tue, Oct 12, 2010 at 01:40:55PM -0400, David Riceman wrote:
>  The more I read your (RMB) posts, the less I understand your position.  
> Here's one way to get at the problem: according to you, what was the 
> Rambam's motive for publishing the MT.  Surely the Rambam's readings of 
> halacha have no precedential value, so of what use are they without 
> footnotes? See the Ra'avad's final hassaga on the Rambam's hakdama.

I'm suggesting that according to the Rambam, the only thing that has
authority is the "mah she'einav ro'os" in the original taqanah, derashah,
or pasuq.

So, he cataloged the pesaqim as he saw them. That's not to establish
precedent. That's to enable people to find the truths he did in an easy
organized way, rather than needing to know Mishnah, Tosefta, medrashei
halakhah, Y-mi, and Bavli well enough to find them, to be able to figure
out a pesaq from a shaqla vetarya, etc..

This take on the Rambam also would explain the Gra's observation that
the Rambam holds like a named shitah in the Y-mi over a stam bavli.
The shaqla vetarya in the bavli illuminates the shitah, but the Y-mi's
quote of the original IS the shitah.

And similarly what RZL and I discussed about Rashi vs the Rambam on when
the gemara takes a dochaq peshat in the mishnah.


In the off-list discussion, I wrote that the Rambam only intended to be
a code for the masses, and RDR asked where I got that from.

#42 in the haqdamah says the Yad is "kedei shelo yehei adam tzarikh
lechibut acheir be'olam bedin". Which is why he called it MISHNEH Torah.

However, in Hil TT he tells you the role of mishnah, and how a talmud
chakham is supposed to go beyond it to gemara, such that only "betechilas
talmudo shele'adam" (TT 1:12) would someone spend even 1/3 of his time
on the mode of study called mishnah. Leshitaso, "mishnah" is somewhat
more than zil kerei bei rav, but still, future pesaq comes from gemara
(1:11), not mishnah. Including not Mishneh Torah, which was so that
"ad sheyei TSBP kulah sedurah befi haqol" -- for the masses.

In the letter I'm discussing, the Rambam tells chakhmei Luneil to study
the topic for themselves, and if they find an error, they should rule
according to their own correction.

RDR wrote a nice summary of his position. I'll reply to that later.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             I always give much away,
mi...@aishdas.org        and so gather happiness instead of pleasure.
http://www.aishdas.org           -  Rachel Levin Varnhagen
Fax: (270) 514-1507

On Tue, Oct 12, 2010 at 11:50:51AM +0000, kennethgmil...@juno.com wrote:
: Just as a side comment, I am fond of citing this demonstration of the
: human capacity for ambivalence: The Medrash says that HaShem told the
: mal'achim that they were wrong for singing Shira at Yam Suf. Yet we *do*
: say Hallel, albeit in abbreviated form. One answer is that mal'achim can
: do only one thing at a time, whereas humans are capable of mixed emotions.

Just to add sources, I noted something similar in
<
http://www.aishdas.org/asp/2007/07/compassion-for-our-enemies.shtml>
and
before that I and others brought evidence in the Avodah discussion in
which I honed my position:

> The Pesiqta deRav Kahane (Mandelbaum Edition, siman 29, 189a) gives us
> a different reason. It tells the story of the angels singing/reciting
> poetry at the crossing of the Red Sea, which was on the 7th day of
> Pesach, and Hashem stopping them saying "Ma'asei 'Yadai' tov'im bayam,
> va'atem omerim shirah -- the work of My 'Hands' is drowning in the sea,
> and you say shirah?"

> The Jews, on the other hand, sang "Az Yashir" unimpeded. It would seem
> to me therefore that we were allowed to rejoice, but there is a limit
> or a sadness mixed into that joy.

> This is midrash is quoted by the Midrash Harninu and the Yalqut Shim'oni
> (the Perishah points you to Parashas Emor, remez 566).

> The Midrash Harninu or the Shibolei haLeqet (our only source for the
> Midrash Harninu) associate this midrash with "binfol". This is despite
> the fact that the pasuq of "binfol" would literally mean not rejoicing
> at all, and here it's being used to argue for ambivalence -- merging
> the joy of the neis with the sorrow of what was necessary to be done to
> the Mitzriyim.
...
> Similarly, this recognition of the role of ambivalence is found in the
> halakhah that someone who is left a large inheritence must say both the
> berakhah of "Dayan emes", mourning the death, and "hatov vehameitiv"
> on becoming wealthy.

> Here, the balance must be struck between two verses: "when your enemy
> falls do not rejoice" (Mishlei 24:17) and "with the destruction of evil
> there are shouts of happiness" (11:10).
...
> Someone who r"l needs to have a leg amputated should have it
> removed. He'll mourn its loss and the loss of everything he could
> have done with it, but will still give his okay for its removal. "Mi
> shemeracheim [al ha'achzarim...]" is the doctor who lets the patient
> die because he had pity on the leg.

The mashal -- the amputee is happy he is out of the eis tzara even while
being sorely depressed over its price.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             When one truly looks at everyone's good side,
mi...@aishdas.org        others come to love him very naturally, and
http://www.aishdas.org   he does not need even a speck of flattery.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                        - Rabbi AY Kook

RnSB asked: "Does anyone know the meaning of the name Gid'on?"

Gidon's name is a derivation of the word "Ligdoa" a la the obligation to "smash their asherim (Devarim 7:5) OR idols (Devarim 12:3)."

Apropos the midrashim at the beginning of this week's parasha on Avraham
the iconoclast, there is a striking (pun unintended) similarity between
these midrashim and the story of Gidon's smashing the idol of ba'al and the
ashera on top of it as described in Sefer Shoftim at the end of Pereq 6. In
both stories, the protagonist is a young child confronting his pagan
surroundings who smashes the idols to demonstrate their futility.   

For an interesting shiur and some articles comparing Avraham and Gidon in this light, see: 
1. http://www.yutorah.org/lectures
/lecture.cfm/738938/Rabbi%20Nathaniel%20Helfgot/Comparing%20Avraham%20to%20
Gidon
2. http://www.etzion.org.il/dk/1to899/625daf.htm#Heading3
3. http://ww
w.etzion.org.il/vbm/update_views.php?num=1292&;file=/vbm/archive/9-p
arsha/03noach.rtf 

B'virkat HaTorah,
David Eisen
_______________________________________________
Areivim mailing list
Arei...@lists.aishdas.org
http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/areivim-aishdas.org

  I wrote:
>  3.  Truth:  I think the Rambam changed his mind about 
> TruthwithacapitalT between the time he wrote the introduction to ShM 
> and the time he wrote the MN.  At the earlier time he thought that 
> great metaphysical truths were embedded deep in the details of 
> halacha; by the later time he thought that they were to be found in 
> aggadta, and that halachot had general significance, but the minutae 
> of halachot did not.  Hence, for example, he casts aspersions on 
> "havayyot d'Abbaye v'Rava" in one of his letters.
I realize once again that I don't fully understand RMB's claim.  
According to the Rambam man's telos is the study of metaphysics (over 
Yom Tov I read the newly translated essay by Hermann Cohen which 
disputes this, but I find his evidence unconvincing).  Halacha is a 
means of setting up a community which enables that goal, and hence 
summarizing halacha in a way that will leave more time for the study of 
metaphysics is a contribution to man's telos.  The study of the minutae 
of halacha, except in a few incidental details, is not.

Incidentally the Zohar is a direct and detailed argument against this 
understanding of the role of halacha.

What's unclear to me is RMB's understanding of the Rambam's 
understanding of the relationship between halachic study and man's 
telos.  If halachic study is the search for Truth, is it an example of 
man's telos, or not?

David Riceman



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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 27, Issue 184
***************************************

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..."