Avodah Mailing List

Volume 28: Number 19

Thu, 03 Feb 2011

• 1. Flowing with Milk and Honey (Micha Berger)
• 2. Re: How to Paint Tefillin Straps (Micha Berger)
• 3. Re: How to Paint Tefillin Straps (Rich, Joel)
• 4. Re: Secular Knowledge (Sarah Green)
• 5. Re: Chanukah Min haTorah? (Arie Folger)
• 6. Re: How to Paint Tefillin Straps (Zev Sero)
• 7. Re: How to Paint Tefillin Straps (Micha Berger)
• 8. Re: R Chiyya Raba (Micha Berger)
• 9. Re: Secular knowledge (Hankman)
• 10. Re: yes we did kill him (correction) (Aryeh Herzig)
• 11. Re: IDF Conversions (Hankman)
• 12. God of Love, vs. Just God (Moshe Y. Gluck)
• 13. Re: God of Love, vs. Just God (Harry Maryles)
• 14. Re: Ayil Meshulash (Sheldon Krause)

According to Y-mi Bikkurim 6a, "eretz zavas chalav udevash" means that EY
has flowing milk and honey -- "asher bah", but not that the whole EY does.

    R' Yonah, R' Ze'ira besheim R' Chanina:
    16 mil chizur chizur leTzipppurin
    hein hein "eretz zavas chalav udevash".

So, it's just the Galil and the Golan. The flourishing of Gush Qatif's
crops wasn't actually part of that berakhah.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             It's nice to be smart,
mi...@aishdas.org        but it's smarter to be nice.
http://www.aishdas.org                   - R' Lazer Brody
Fax: (270) 514-1507

On Wed, Feb 02, 2011 at 08:53:08AM -0500, Prof. Levine (a/k/a RYL)
wrote to Areivim:
> Please see http://tinyurl.com/6j9pq3g

I can't question the majority of the page, the discussion of metzi'us,
but I had some problems with the first paragraph.

1- There is a hiddur of lishmah, not a chiyuv.
2- Saying "lesheim qedushas tefillin" is a tool to help lishmah, not
   even a hiddur.
3- The only part of the retzu'os that MUST be black are on the shel rosh
   up to the kesher, and the loop and the part up to going through the
   loop on the shel yad.

So how can R' Flumenbaum simply say:
    The first thing one must do before painting or blackening tefillin
    straps is to say "LeShem Kedushat Tefillin". If you did not say it
    then please consult your rabbinical authority.

None of the strap HAS to be painted lishmah, and for only a small part
of the strap is it a hiddur, and no one paints tefillin straps planning
on having black leather for shoes! So the whole notion that it might be
required to say the words is WAY overkill. No?

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             When faced with a decision ask yourself,
mi...@aishdas.org        "How would I decide if it were Ne'ilah now,
http://www.aishdas.org   at the closing moments of Yom Kippur?"
Fax: (270) 514-1507                            - Rav Yisrael Salanter

 Does anyone know what hiddur is involved here: Today's new straps
 longevity is less than they were years ago because the processes and
 chemicals used today. The straps are more mehudar but the longevity of the
 paint and leather is negatively affected.

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.

Rav Hutner brings down the halacha that, upon seeing Chachmei Yisroel, we say 
"shecholak michochmoso leyeraiov".  On seeing chachmei acum, we say " shenosan 
michochmoso lebosor vodom".  However, if you were to have a time machine & could 
put Aristotle & Einstein in the same place, you would make the latter brocha on 
Aristotle, but NOT on Einstein...



      
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110202/5a63d393/attachment-0001.htm>

RMB wrote:
> Bikkurim brought before Sukkos are brought with qeri'ah (saying
> "Arami oveid avi..."), those brought between Sukkos and Chanukah
> are brought without qeri'ah, and after that, anything designated
> bikkurim for that year couldn't be brought. (You just let it rot.) See
> Bikkurim 1:6.
>
> So, the date of 25 Kislev has halachic significance mideOraisa.

Related to your observation, and a source from which to find some
answers to your subsequent questions (snipped in this post), is that
the 25th of Kislev was not only the inauguration of the reconquered
BHMK, but the date of the beginning of the actual building of the 2nd
BHMK, many years earlier, as 'Haggai had addressed the builders, who
had spent some two months collecting supplies, on the 24th, about how
to build a lasting building. The date, as you implicitly note, was not
an accidental one, but rather the last date of bikkurim, which
coincides with the olive harvest it seems, so that that is the time
when fresh oil is produced.

Furthermore, as I Maccabees tells us, it was also on that date that
the BHMK had been desecrated, three years before Chanuka, which is
indicative of the likely fact that both Greeks and Jews considered
that date very special.

R' Yoel Bin Nun develops this is an article and in a recorded shiur
(on YCT, I believe), basing himself on an aggadeta, that since time
immemorial, there had been a universal winter solstice festival, which
he traces to Adam haRishon, which, however, took on a very different
significance in our society vs. pagan societies. That festival was
tied to bikkurim of olives, which will obviously find expression in
light, and becomes formalized in Chanukah. That also explained why the
books of Maccabees don't note the takanah of lighting candles, because
one way or another, they may have tied it to the preexisting festival,
and fail to note the special significance of increasing or decreasing
lights.

Bottom line, the 25th of Kislev is a special day deOraita, as you say,
and that is supported by 'Haggai's prophecy, as well as, lehavdil, by
I Maccabees.

Kol tuv,
-- 
Arie Folger,
Recent blog posts on http://ariefolger.wordpress.com/
* Kalendernotiz: Neue Vortragsreihe zum Thema Gebet
* How Does One Teach Social Skills?
* Moses und Ach?r
* Dodging the Draft in Dodgy Ways
* When Does Death Begin, According to Halacha?
* Nicht Rassismus, sondern ein mildes Urteil
* Basler Gymnasium experimentiert mit Chawrut?-Lernen

On 2/02/2011 9:30 AM, Micha Berger wrote:

> I can't question the majority of the page, the discussion of metzi'us,
> but I had some problems with the first paragraph.
>
> 1- There is a hiddur of lishmah, not a chiyuv.

"They must be blacked by an adult competent Jew, lishmah. If he blacked
them shelo lishmah, or a nochri blacked them, it's passul even bediavad"
(Kesset Hasofer 23:3).


> 2- Saying "lesheim qedushas tefillin" is a tool to help lishmah, not
>     even a hiddur.

"And if he did not say it with his lips but only thought it in his
heart, some rule it passul even bediavad, and some rule it kosher
bediavad, and so seems to be the halacha" (Kesset Hasofer 4:1)

"The doubt only exists where, before beginning to write, he thought
expressly that he is writing this mezuzah or these parshiot lishmah;
but if he didn't think anything and started to write stam, then it's
passul."  (Biur Hasofer, ibid)


> 3- The only part of the retzu'os that MUST be black are on the shel rosh
>     up to the kesher, and the loop and the part up to going through the
>     loop on the shel yad.

The mimimum length of the Shel Rosh retzua is on both sides till the
navel, and lechatchila the right one should go down to the milah.
For the shel yad, the minimum length is lechatchila enough to tighten
it on the arm, do seven loops, then three times around the middle
finger, and then to tie it off.  Bediavad it must be at least long
enough to tighten around the arm, then drop straight down to the
middle finger, do three loops around that, and then tie it off.

It's clear that *at least* that entire length must be black, and
therefore that that at least that length must be blackened lishmah.
Whether the rest of the retzua must be black too is in doubt (see
Biur Halacha 33:3)




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

On Wed, Feb 02, 2011 at 04:45:08PM -0500, Zev Sero wrote:
>> 1- There is a hiddur of lishmah, not a chiyuv.

> "They must be blacked by an adult competent Jew, lishmah. If he blacked
> them shelo lishmah, or a nochri blacked them, it's passul even bediavad"
> (Kesset Hasofer 23:3).

Compare to SA OC 33:4 -- "tov sheyeishachreim Yisrael lishman".

And while the Rama says that retzu'os would be pasul even bedi'eved,
the MB says the Peri Megadim and "sha'arei ha'acharonim" disagree.
It's also unclear if the Rama is disagreeing with this half of
the SA, or the "Yisrael" part. See the Taz, MA, etc... who all discuss
whether a Yisrael can repaint them.

IOW, AFAIK, we don't hold this way.

>> 2- Saying "lesheim qedushas tefillin" is a tool to help lishmah, not
>>     even a hiddur.

> "And if he did not say it with his lips but only thought it in his
> heart, some rule it passul even bediavad, and some rule it kosher
> bediavad, and so seems to be the halacha" (Kesset Hasofer 4:1)

This is about writing, not coloring retzu'os.

But even WRT writing, I don't know where R' Shelomo Ganzfried gets it
from. So, it just shifts the question.

>> 3- The only part of the retzu'os that MUST be black are on the shel rosh
>>     up to the kesher, and the loop and the part up to going through the
>>     loop on the shel yad.

> The mimimum length of the Shel Rosh retzua is on both sides till the
> navel, and lechatchila the right one should go down to the milah.
...
> It's clear that *at least* that entire length must be black, and
> therefore that that at least that length must be blackened lishmah.
> Whether the rest of the retzua must be black too is in doubt (see
> Biur Halacha 33:3)

The "litefor mitzad yemin line" is as I gave it (33:5).

BeQitzur (pun intended) it seems to me that the QSA and soferim have
a mesorah to pasqen far beyond the shuras hadin one finds in the usual
sifrei halakhah.

I was unfair, though, to assume it was due to the first sofer I
encountered to articulate it.

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

On Sat, Jan 29, 2011 at 11:55:37PM +0200, Eli Turkel wrote:
: Following Micha's remarks I decided to revisit Bet Yishai (R Shlomo Fisher)
: where he disagrees with CI on why amoraim don'f disagree with tannaim.
...
:                He brings Rashi and others that clearly didnt interpret the
: gemara that way. In addition he objects to making conclusions based on an
: aggadata.

The CI doesn't, does he? He explains a halakhah that already predated him
based on an aggadita.

(And besides, we do reach halachic conclusions based on aggaditos --
there are exceptions to the kelal. I argued it's when the process allows
both, but this whole topic has been overdone on Avodah, IMHO.)

: He brings several gemarot where in fact amoraim outweigh tannaim. One famous one
: is the discussion (yoma 85b) why we violate shabbat to save a life. After the gemara
: bring several tannatic suggestions it concludes with Shmuel who brings
: the pasuk of "ve-chai bahem" and that is the one the gemara accepts.

But is there a nafqa mina lemaaseh that one can discuss halachic authority?

: In general according to CI he finds it difficult why amoraim and even
: rishonim can disagree on sources and interpretations of pesukim.

This is where my understanding of the CI differs greatly from what you
report RSF saying the CI said. The CI as I naively read him is syaing
that tanna vs amora is a derived concept. It's not that this one is a
tanna and that one is an amora, but this period is that of tannaitic
authority and that period of amoraic.

: In terms of another discussion CI states explicitly that the generation after Rebbe
: could not disagree because they are on a lower level. R  Fisher doesnt understand
: how that could happen within a generation. However, in any case CI clearly
: does NOT distinguish before and after the completion of the Mishnah.

RSF seems to be taking the CI's "lower level" to be of ability. But the
CI speaks in absolute calendrical terms. The notion of three bimillennial
eras was written into Maaseh Bereishis.

:                                            However, in any case CI clearly
: does NOT distinguish before and after the completion of the Mishnah.

But he DOES explicitly distinguish between the alpayim Torah and the
alpayim yemos hamashiach and places the mishnah at the line between
them. That's the centerpiece of this shitah! How does RSF explain the
CI to be saying otherwise?

(And even WRT ability, the shefa could have shut off like a faucet when
the timer ran out. So yes, it could in theory happen kehe'eref ayin.)

: R. Fisher also asks that if Rav is so great that he can disagree with Tannaim how
: come we pasken like R. Yochanan against Rav.

R' Yochanan was a tanna for part of his life. Perhaps we pasqen like R'
Yochanan against Rav because the two only met before the compiling of
the mishnah. (A test for this theory -- do we ever hold like R' YOchanan
in one quote over Rav cited from someplace else?)

But in any case, didn't this whole tangent begin with my questioning
how R' Chiyya Ruba -- and later we added Rav -- fit within the CI's model?

As I already said, the CI as I read him makes it all about millenia,
and he says millenia switch in less than a lifetime (eg our discussion of
"nefesh asher asu beCharan" and 2000 AM), and the mishnah marks the end
of the era of Torah then how does any of the above analysis fit?

Now I'm just /more/ confused about the CI's shitah. I don't need more
shitos or the other tzad's argument. I just want to understand how the
CI deals with these famous exceptions, and thus his shitah bichlal.
(As cases at the edge of the envelope usually cast the most light on
the kalal -- a central feature of shas.)

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             "And you shall love H' your G-d with your whole
mi...@aishdas.org        heart, your entire soul, and all you own."
http://www.aishdas.org   Love is not two who look at each other,
Fax: (270) 514-1507      It is two who look in the same direction.

On Tue, Feb 01, 2011 at 06:39:15AM -0500, Prof. Levine wrote:
> Question:  If this indeed the case, namely, that "from plumbing the  
> depths of the Torah he can know all the wisdom of the world,"  then why 
> is there no mention in the GRA's sefer Aiyel Meshulash of Torah sources 
> for the mathematics he presents?  YL

CM asks:

I  think the more interesting question is: Are all things (Chachmos, ideas
or logic) derived from Torah, themselves Torah? I have always assumed this
to be true (without any proof - axiomatic). If true, then the 6 chachmos
are themselves Torah too. If not, where do you draw the line between Torah
ideas and non-Torah ideas? If true, why am I not mekayeim limud Torah when
studying algebra, Geometry, Trig, Calculus, Diff. Eq.  etc. I limit my
examples to math since in this realm it is reasonably easy to discuss
chachmos we know to be definitely true. (Sh'ain bahem shum dofi). In the
other sciences it becomes more difficult to point to chachmos that are
absolutely true. Ie., Newtonian physics is pretty good, but as we all know
is but an approximation to the truth, ditto for classical physics vs
quantum mechanics both of which are extremely good approximations in their
areas of application, but both of which are false in the ultimate sense.
This becomes more true as we move to tho
 se sciences that depend on statistics and approximations for more and more
 of their content etc. But in theory, any kernel of truth in them that we
 know to be certainly true, the same question would apply, Why is this not
 Torah, if this is also derivable from Torah? [Also if "Chafoch bah
 vechafoch bah, decola bah," then why only 6 branches of chachma, why not
 all chachma - unless of course that beraisa categorizes ALL knowledge into
 6 branches.] [Not sure where that would leave Chemistry, Biology (DNA),
 etc, if we have distilled real kernels of truth or just very useful
 approximations).

The underlying assumption in all of this is that anything that is false
will of course not be derivable from Torah. Thus approximations that are in
the ultimate sense false (even though useful) would not be derivable or
part of "decola bah." Am I building castles in the air?

 Kol Tuv

Chaim Manaster
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110202/988bc816/attachment-0001.htm>

Correction - The Psukim I referred to in my previous post are in Melachim I
chapter 22 (not 18)

Aryeh Herzig
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110202/3e690814/attachment-0001.htm>

RAM wrote:
R' Chaim Manaster wrote:

> some in kiruv find a special imperative to be "mekarev" such
> "zera Yisrael" to geirus. But I know of no such halachic notion
> for consideration in geirus. I would appreciate any broadening
> of my horizons in this regard that anyone can offer from sifrei
> rishonim, achronim or tshuvot.

RAM responded:
IIRC, if a Jewish man has children from a non-Jewish woman, and then they convert, he *is* considered as their father for purposes of Mitzvas P'ru Ur'vu.

CM responds:

I am afraid that is not correct. If you check the Minchas Chinuch, Mitzva
1, you will find that in your case you are not mekayeim Pru Urvu. He says:
"vezeh pashut." However he has another case you might be confusing with
yours. If a goy has kids and then he and they are megeiyer that these kids
do count toward Pru Urvu. (According to some the geirus of the kids is not
necessary). He explains that the governing principle is yachas at time of
birth. He presents a third case: A goy has a kid from a Jewess and is then
megeiyer, that this kid does not count toward Pru Urvu due to his lack of
yachas to this child.

Kol tuv

Chaim Manaster
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110202/7680badc/attachment-0001.htm>

I had this discussion with someone recently and I wonder what the Chevra
think: Is Hashem a Loving God? Or is he a Just God? 

This is in the context of the question I was addressing, "How can a Loving
God do ___(many terrible things)_____ to me?" My answer to the gentleman, in
a nutshell, was that although Hashem loves us and has mercy on us, he is not
a Loving God, which, I think, is a Christian conceit, but a Just God. As
humans we suffer from not having the ability to scan the entire scope of the
human experience so as to understand the justness of what Hashem does, but
He is always just, our perceptions notwithstanding. 

My interlocutor responded that he spoke to many people about this question
of his, all way more scholarly than I am, and none of them responded like I
did, proving that I am wrong. 

What does the Chevra think? Am I right? Wrong? Or is there more than one
right answer here?

 

KT,

MYG

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110202/ee152cd5/attachment-0001.htm>

?
?
?
--- On Wed, 2/2/11, Moshe Y. Gluck <mgl...@gmail.com> wrote:




I had this discussion with someone recently and I wonder what the Chevra think: Is Hashem a Loving God? Or is he a Just God? 
This is in the context of the question I was addressing, ?How can a Loving
God do ___(many terrible things)_____ to me?? My answer to the gentleman,
in a nutshell, was that although Hashem loves us and has mercy on us, he is
not a Loving God, which, I think, is a Christian conceit, but a Just God.
As humans we suffer from not having the ability to scan the entire scope of
the human experience so as to understand the justness of what Hashem does,
but He is always just, our perceptions notwithstanding. 
My interlocutor responded that he spoke to many people about this question
of his, all way more scholarly than I am, and none of them responded like I
did, proving that I am wrong. 
What does the Chevra think? Am I right? Wrong? Or is there more than one right answer here?
-----------------------------------------------------------
?
I think you're right. Love is an emotion. Emotions are entirely human - not
Divine. The Midas HaDin - Justice - is not an emotion but an ethic
reflecting the concept?of of right?versus wrong. If one looks at the Shlosh
Esreh Midos Shel Rachamim - one will not see Ahava as one of them. One?may
see Rachamnim as reflecting love but that is really an?ethical construct -
not an emotional one.?It express?one of the ways?God interacts with us. Not
how?God 'feels' about us.??
?
Just some quick thoughts.
?
HM


Want Emes and Emunah in your life? 

Try this: http://haemtza.blogspot.com/


?


      
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110202/5e792ad9/attachment-0001.htm>

I don't see any evidence for what Micha is saying at all. If you look at
the shaar blatt it says that the manuscript was found "b'amtachat kitvei
Hagaon Hachasid ....... Elyahu M'vilna ...."and that those brining it to
print divided it into sections, added mareh mekomos etc. They are
clearly identifying it as the Gra's work.  Perhaps there is no
corroboration for it and it is impossible to know how much they may have
altered content as part of the preparation for print. But in any event
the Gra's authorship was attributed from the first printing. 

On Tue, Feb 01, 2011 at 06:39:15AM -0500, Prof. Levine wrote:

> Question: If this indeed the case, namely, that "from plumbing the 

> depths of the Torah he can know all the wisdom of the world," then 

> why is there no mention in the GRA's sefer Aiyel Meshulash of Torah 

> sources for the mathematics he presents? YL

Micha's response

The Gra didn't write Ayil MeShulash, he pushed R' Barukh Shklover to do
it. The book was finally completed by R' Menachem Man (R' Barukh's

son) and R' Simchah Ziml (grandson). C.f. this 1833 edition title page
<http://books.google.com/books?id=LeVDAAAAYAAJ&;pg=PT4#v=onepage
<http://books.google.com/books?id=LeVDAAAAYAAJ&;pg=PT4> >. I know later
editions attribute it to the Gra, but that's simply incorrect.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20110203/c31245cc/attachment.htm>

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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 28, Issue 19
**************************************

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..."