Avodah Mailing List

Volume 28: Number 147

Tue, 02 Aug 2011

• 1. Re: Freeing a Slave (Zev Sero)
• 2. Re: Ein mafsikin b'massa'os (Elazar M. Teitz)
• 3. Feedback, causality & G-d (Daniel Eidensohn)
• 4. various outside groups (was karaites....) (Harvey Benton)
• 5. Re: various outside groups (was karaites....) (Zev Sero)
• 6. diff between small nick in koneh vs veshet (Hankman)
• 7. Re: Davening for Others [tefilah and the war with Midyan] (T613K@aol.com)
• 8. Re: "God who knows the future" (T6...@aol.com)
• 9. Re: Davening for Others [tefilah and the war with Midyan] (Micha Berger)
• 10. Re: diff between small nick in koneh vs veshet (Alan Rubin)
• 11. caeser & bar kamza (Harvey Benton)
• 12. Re: various outside groups (was karaites....) (Micha Berger)
• 13. Re: caeser & bar kamza (Zev Sero)

On 2/08/2011 9:15 AM, Micha Berger wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 02, 2011 at 12:55:10AM -0400, Zev Sero wrote:
>>> Because we don't make exceptions to the rule to enable things we don't
>>> want done.
>
>> What exception?!  Where do you see an  exception?!
>
> That's the whole point of the answer. We can't ask a question from an
> eved to chameitz bepesach, because the case of shikhrur eved is a special
> qulah.

Where do you get that?  All he says is that freeing a slave is easier
than transferring property; he doesn't say anything about a leniency.


> And the gemara notes that in fact the collateral holder doesn't
> have enough baalus to sell the eved, which is the norm we can compare
> to the lack of baalus over the chameitz.

Right.  Freeing a slave is not a transfer of property; it's an entirely
different kind of act, so there's no reason to expect it to follow the
same rules.  Its only connection with property is that the power to do
it comes together with baalus, and Rav says that this doesn't davka
mean the full baalus that allows one to sell the slave, or that makes
one responsible for chametz, but rather any sort of baalus at all.
That's not a kulah, it's just a din in shichrur (according to Rav).



>the Qorban haEdah (d"h "qal hu beshikhrur") "hiqhilu chakhamim
> beshikhrur, daa"p delo shelo hu legamrei..." And the Penei Moshe
> (same d"h), "... shani beshikhrur" -- note, "shani", an exception --
> "shehiqilu bo ..."

Im kabalah hi nekabel, but it's not in the words.  And it's certainly
not enough to create a machlokes between Bavli and Yerushalmi over
whether something is a mitzvah or an avera!

-- 
Zev Sero        If they use these guns against us once, at that moment
z...@sero.name   the Oslo Accord will be annulled and the IDF will
                 return to all the places that have been given to them.
                                            - Yitzchak Rabin

                    
                

     RMicha Berger transferred to Avodah the discussion which took place on
     Mesorah about why we discuss 42 massa'os, when there are only 41
     listed.  However, for some reason, there was an omission of an answer
     given by RSBAbeles which is not only an answer, but shows that  there
     is no question to begin with.  

     He refers to the last Rashi in Sefer Sh'mos, who says that "makom
     chaniyasan af hu karuy massa."  Since there were 42 resting places
     (the 41 from which they traveled, plus Arvos Moav, where they ended
     up), there are indeed 42 massa'os.  As the Chizkuni there explains,
     the pasuk says that the Anan HaShem was on the mishkan "b'chol
     maseihem," yet it was only when they were encamped that this was so;
     during the actual travels, the Anan led them.  Hence, maseihem refers
     to the encampments.

EMT


____________________________________________________________
Get Free Email with Video Mail & Video Chat!
http://www.juno.com/freeemail?refcd=JUTAGOUT1FREM0210

I am working on the issue of feedback. I can not find any Jewish sources
regarding feedback - to pick a reference and modify behavior or processes or
efforts to maximize the referent. This is a fundamental Western idea - but
not Jewish. It seems that the official Jewish view is that human effort does
not cause success but only provides merit which justifies G-d making you
successful. This issue  cuts across a wide range of issues from child abuse,
education, parnossa etc etc.

I also can't find where and when this idea developed in the Western World.

Any and all help in this area would be appreciated. I also don't see that
there is any difference between chareidi, Modern Orthodox and Hirschian
theology regarding this issue.

*Chovas HaLevavos (4:4)* Even when you are fully aware that effort is
worthless without G-d's decree, nevertheless you must act like the farmer
who plows, removes the thorns, seeds and waters his field if there is no
rain. At the same time he trusts that G-d will make it fertile, guard it
from calamity, make a bountiful crop and bless it. In other words he knows
that it is wrong to leave the field unworked and unsown even though he has
full faith that G-d could decree that the land produce a crop even without
planting beforehand. Similarly workers, merchants and laborers are commanded
to earn a living in their occupation even though they have full trust in G-d
to provide them with sustenance. They make this effort despite the fact they
accept that everything is totally in His hands and according to His wishes
and that in fact He has promised them a livelihood. They understand that He
will provide this sustenance anyway He wants. Since everything is in G-d's
hands you shouldn't think that one profession is more likely to provide a
livelihood than another. Similarly you shouldn't take pride in what seems to
be professional success or even to make special efforts to achieve success.
Total involvement in a job serves merely to weaken trust in G-d because the
effort is in fact not the cause of success. Instead of depending totally on
your efforts you should be grateful to G-d for providing sustenance for you
after your efforts and that your efforts were not in vain


-- 

WebRep
Overall rating

WebRep
Overall rating
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110802/dfcbf98c/attachment-0001.htm>

don't they claim yichus going way back?
if we shouldn't marry them, based on yichus, then
why should we believe (and thus be able to marry) 
certain families claiming yichus going way back 
(like to the vilna gaon or whoever);
i would figure that any isolated community, with 
continual practices going back centuries, very similar
or akin to our own, and claiming that they follow toras
moshe, should at least on yichus grounds, have the same
mesorah value to their validity as say the yemenites, 
or shomronim, or any other isolated group ....; 
the key word here being isolated, in that their communities
didn't historically accept outsiders (as one poster noted) 
and this weren't much influenced along the way......

shouldn't the same limus test apply to all groups
vis a vis validity and marriage, 
regardless of their ideologies.....
i think that since they (and perhaps other non-main
stream groups going way back (not reform or conservative)
claim to have views that differ from our own, we view them
as possibly not being validly jewish.....
(eg, hatred or fear of the outsider)
-do yemenites have a better chazaka going way back???

-shomronim wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samaritan
-karaite wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karaite_Judaism
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110802/c0bddb74/attachment-0001.htm>

On 2/08/2011 12:21 PM, Harvey Benton wrote:
> don't they claim yichus going way back?

1. Not as far as I'm aware.  On the contrary, they're probably
descended of fake "gerim".   But even if they claimed a yichus, why
would we believe them?  They're pesulim le'edus, and thus presumed
liars.


> mesorah value to their validity as say the yemenites,
> or shomronim, or any other isolated group ....;

Shomronim?!  Chazal tell us that they are 100% goyim, because their
original conversion was discovered to have been fraudulent.  What sort
of "validity" do you imagine they have?

-- 
Zev Sero        If they use these guns against us once, at that moment
z...@sero.name   the Oslo Accord will be annulled and the IDF will
                 return to all the places that have been given to them.
                                            - Yitzchak Rabin

                    
                

RAR wrote:

A nick in the trachea is only going to harm the animal if it allows
blood and fluid into the trachea which runs down into the lungs. If it
allows air into the trachea that is not a problem, it is a normal
function of the trachea to transmit air to the lungs and indeed in a
tracheotomy an incision is made in the trachea precisely for this
purpose. At any rate I would guess that even a large nick in the
trachea will not kill an animal unless there is significant damage to
blood vessels. I frequently take fine needle aspiration cytology
specimens from the thyroid gland. Very occasionally the needle can
enter the trachea. This does not cause any ill effects and the patient
usually does not notice.

The problem with even a small nick in the oesophagus is that it can
lead to life threatening infection in the surrounding tissue. Ruptured
oesophagus is a serious medical emergency.

CM responds:

I presume from your response that you are a doctor so I will defer to your
knowledge in this area. However I would ask: are you comparing apples to
oranges? You compare the puncture by a "fine needle" in the trachea (not
serious) to a "rupture" of the oesophagus (very serious - subject to
infection). I would ask you if you compared apples to apples would you
still judge a puncture by a "fine needle" of the oesophagus to still be a
very serious life threatening event subject to infection or something the
patient may never even notice?

Also rupture implies a significant tear not a minor nick, would a rupture
of the trachea not be serious and also readily subject to infection and
likely life threatening?

Also the comparison to a tracheotomy is perhaps not so simple either. In
the surgical context, you insure to keep the airway clean and open only to
air. In our context of treifa, the internal hole in the trachea will be
sucking in blood and other body fluids into the airway - not "clean" air as
in the tracheotomy.

Kol Tuv

Chaim Manaster

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110802/2be15d6a/attachment-0001.htm>

From: Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org>
Due to the relative  quiet lately, I'm forwarding these two posts from
R' Chaim Brown that  intrigued me to consciously try to generate  some
conversation.

http://divreichaim.blogspot.com/

:-)BBii!
-Micha

Thursday,  July 21, 2011
tefilah and the war with Midyan

How another person's  tefilos can effect my ruchniyus (what about my
bechirah?) is an interesting  philosophical question....
 
 
 
>>>>>
We daven every day for ourselves and for our offspring:
 
"Veharev na Hashem es divrei Torascha befinu uvefi amcha Bais Yisrael,  
veniheyeh anachnu vetze'etza'einu...kulanu yod'ei shemecha velomdei Torasecha  
lishma."
 
"Hashem please make the words of Your Torah sweet in our mouths and may we  
and our offspring all be among those who know Your name and who learn Your 
Torah  for its own sake...."
 
Those of us on the distaff side also daven every week when we bentsh  lecht:
 
"Vezakeinu legadel banim uvenai banim chachamim unevonim, ohavei Hashem,  
yir'ei Elokim, anshei emes, zera kodesh, b'Hashem deveikim..."
 
"And give us the merit to raise children and grandchildren who are wise and 
 understanding, who love Hashem, who fear G-d, men of truth, holy seed, 
clinging  to Hashem...."
 
Why do we have these tefillos if our children have bechira?  Why not  say, 
"It's not in Hashem's hands, He has given His creatures free will and they  
will be whatever they make of themselves"?
 
One partial answer is that when our children see how fervently we daven for 
 them to be holy, good and G-d-fearing people, that in itself helps them to 
 become what we are davening they will become.
 
However that only begs the question, because if Hashem has nothing to do  
with it, then our children could well ask, "Why are you davening?  Hashem  
doesn't make me good and holy, I make myself good and holy through the 
exercise  of my free will.  You should daven to me and ask me to make myself a  
G-d-fearing, holy person."
 
So there has to be another answer and I really think it's a very simple  
one.  Yes, Hashem has given us free will, with the scales of good and evil  
evenly matched or with the yetzer hatov and yetzer hara equally powerful -- so 
 that the choice is all ours -- BUT He puts His fingers on the scales a 
little  bit, the choices are not really evenly matched.  In reality, He makes 
it a  little bit easier for us to go one way than the other way. Our bechira 
is  not absolute because Hashem really makes it a little bit easier for us 
to be  good than otherwise, and He further tips the scales by always allowing 
us to  "undo the past" by doing teshuva.  He gives us do-overs.
 
To the extent that Hashem answers a mother's or a father's tefillah and  
puts thoughts into their child's head, thoughts like, "I want my parents to be 
 proud of me" and "I really don't want to be a wild child, deep down I want 
to be  a good child" -- or to the extent that He puts in the way of the 
child a person  or an incident that inspires the child to be a better Jew -- to 
some small  extent there is a slight diminution of absolute free will, and 
my understanding  is that we are davening for this -- that Hashem make it 
just that little bit  easier for us and our children to make the right choices.
 



--Toby Katz
================




_____________________  








-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110802/d8afe82f/attachment-0001.htm>

 
From: David Riceman <drice...@optimum.net>
>>...But  doesn't that last clause imply that God didn't know the future 
here? 
The  naive reading of this passage is that the Ramban agrees, if you'll 
pardon  the anachronism, with the Ralbag, who says that God can't know 
all the  details of the future because that would deny human free  will.<<

David Riceman






>>>>
From our human point of view G-d makes it appear "as if" He doesn't know  
what we will do -- He does that by the simple expedient of keeping US in the  
dark about the future.  But of course He does know and yet that does not  
take away our bechira, because WE don't know.
 
To say that if G-d has total foreknowledge, then we don't have free will,  
or if we have free will, then He doesn't have foreknowledge, is a plain  
contradiction to what Chazal said.  It's in Pirkei Avos.  "Hakol  tzafui 
vehareshus nesunah."
 
 

--Toby Katz
================




_____________________ 
 
 



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110802/ade09170/attachment-0001.htm>

On Tue, Aug 02, 2011 at 11:55:59AM -0400, T6...@aol.com wrote:
:  that the choice is all ours -- BUT He puts His fingers on the scales a 
: little  bit, the choices are not really evenly matched.  In reality, He makes 
: it a  little bit easier for us to go one way than the other way. Our bechira 
: is  not absolute because Hashem really makes it a little bit easier for us 
: to be  good than otherwise, and He further tips the scales by always allowing 
: us to  "undo the past" by doing teshuva.  He gives us do-overs.

This is aside from the original issue of how praying for others might
help them. After all, they didn't even go through the self-transformation
of prayer -- why should their outcome change?

RMWillig repeated this thought, roughly, besheim RYBS. When someone is
sent to jail, he is being punished. But so is his wife, who now has to
do without him, and perhaps has to go find more employment to replace
his income. His children no longer have his presence, as much of their
mother's time, are perhaps taunted in school, etc... His parents no longer
have his presence, they are quite probably embarassed of their son, etc...

When the RBSO punishes, every person involved -- from the one hurt to the
person who got a slightly more abrupt response from someone saddened by
reading about it in the newspaper -- got exactly what HQBH was planning
for them. (Assuming, as RYBS did, universal hashgachah peratis ["HP" in
Avodah-speak.)

If one of them davens, and thus improves what outcomes their life should
contain, that could be enough to drive the whole chain of events in a
different direction.


Now about bechirah in particular and one's prayer on behalf of others,
which involves bechirah vs. hashgachah.... This problem exists regardless
of whether one follows the rishonim or current thought on universal
HP, just the belief that one can have an instance of hashgachah in
response to tefillah.

A rat chooses (perhaps not freely, but this is just a mashal) which
turn to take at the branches in a maze, but the neuroscientist doing
the experiment desides the layout of the maze.

A different mashal to the rat-in-a-maze:

There are three classical games: chess, go, and backgammon. In chess,
you learn that some things are worth more than others. In go, every piece
is equal, but with a 19x19 board, you have to learn to not only rely on
deductive reasoning, but also to get a visual sense of the big picture.
But life is most like shesh-besh, a good player only maximizes his odds;
there are always aspects outside bother players' control.

Bechirah is deciding how to play your die rolls, even though you can't
control what the roll will be.


If a train breaks down, delaying its arrival so that it comes just in
time to block your child's view of that troubled boy from a few blocks
away, and an encounter that could have led to a destructive friendship
is altogether avoided, that's HQBH helping our kids.

If our kid does happen to encounter the boy and yet chooses a boring
afternoon over hanging out with him, that's bechirah.

Similarly, the guy who tried to car-bomb Times Square last year. Here's
how I put it in <http://www.aishdas.org/asp/2010/05/backgammon.shtml>:
    The following is probably fiction, but is certainly possible.

    Picture a salt truck in February 2008, running down a Manhattan
    street, its mechanism scattering salt behind it. One particular
    piece of salt is sprayed out of the back of the truck, balances on
    a pebble embedded in the asphalt for a moment...

    ... and falls to the left. There it enters a weak spot in the street,
    a crack where water accumulates. The salt and its effect on freezing
    water accelerates the growth of that crack.On May 1st 2010, a Nissan
    Pathfinder bounced over the crack. Something fell out of place in
    the crudely made incendiary device in the back of the truck. The
    effects were scary, but no one was harmed.

    ... and the salt falls to the right. The SUV doesn't get jarred,
    and the device remains functional. In this world -- Explosion,
    fireball. Possibly hundreds of lives ended or people maimed. The
    number of people whose fate would have permanently altered for the
    worse would have been large.

        We are very lucky.
                -- New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, May 1, 2010 CE
                   (as quoted in the Wall Street Journal)


The key to understanding the topic, IMHO, is getting out of the mindset
of a chain of causes and effects, and instead remember that every event
is the convergence of numerous causes. Saying that hashgachah is a cause
says nothing about whether or not bechirah is another cause.

A boy's bad choice of friend, or a bomber's success at murdering hundreds,
depends on numerous causes. Which choices they are confronted with,
how they decide, and then whether the other pieces are in place for the
outcome to fit their plans. We can daven for two of the three.

-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Zion will be redeemed through justice,
mi...@aishdas.org        and her returnees, through righteousness.
http://www.aishdas.org
Fax: (270) 514-1507

On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 4:29 PM, Hankman <sal...@videotron.ca> wrote:
> RAR wrote:
> I presume from your response that you are a?doctor so I will defer to your
> knowledge in this area. However I would ask: are you comparing apples to
> oranges?

I do think that a similar size tear would be much more dangerous in
the oesophagus. Infection would be much less of an issue with a nick
in the trachea which is much 'cleaner' than the oesophagus.  In the
oesophagus food which isn't sterile is being pushed downwards so if
there is a nick in the oesophagus something will leak out. Of course
no one as far as I know has done the experiment so it is all
speculation.

Another thing to consider is that with the oesophagus being placed
behind the trachea any injury to the oesophagus is likely to be
accompanied by injury to other structures, in particular blood
vessels. The trachea is much more superficial and it is easier to
imagine an injury to the trachea which does little damage to other
structures.

Alan Rubin

i attended a shiur last nite where the rov mentioned that basically everyone
(from the chachamim (not standing up for bar kamza), to the shamash (who sent 
the message
to the wrong person), to the host (mevazeh, etc) to bar kamza (moser), was to 
blame for the destruction related to the bar kamza story.....
the only one (acc to him) that acted properly in this case was caeser, because 
he asked for 

proof, that indeed the jews were rebelling and were not acting properly (and did 
not just take
someone's word for it). 
my question is; (gitin daf nun v (amud aleph i think), 
why didn't the chachamim or those in charge of the beis hamikdash, 
simply go and show the ceaser the blemishes that had been cut by 
bar kamza, and explain to him, that we would have gladly accepted an unblemished 
animal, 

but that this one before us (offered by caeser or his people) but then cut by 
bar kamza (eye & lip?)
had been tainted. .....
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110802/876eed65/attachment-0001.htm>

On Tue, Aug 02, 2011 at 12:28:47PM -0400, Zev Sero wrote:
> Shomronim?!  Chazal tell us that they are 100% goyim, because their
> original conversion was discovered to have been fraudulent.  What sort
> of "validity" do you imagine they have?

Also, most minim who fit the description in the subject line would only
have sifrei yuchesin for the male line. E.g. Tzeduqim were and Qaraim
are patrilineal.

-Micha

On 2/08/2011 5:54 PM, Harvey Benton wrote:
> i attended a shiur last nite where the rov mentioned that basically everyone
> (from the chachamim (not standing up for bar kamza), to the shamash (who sent the message
> to the wrong person), to the host (mevazeh, etc) to bar kamza (moser), was to
> blame for the destruction related to the bar kamza story.....

Interesting, because R Avigdor Miller explains it just the opposite
way: everyone except Bar Kamtza acted correctly, and the point of the
story is not to blame anyone; on the contrary the point is that the
churban came about through the trivial mishap of a messenger confusing
two similar names.  The advantage of this pshat is that it's consistent
with the other two stories in the triplet, which both have that exact
same point, that a tiny mishap caused a major disaster.  "For want of a
nail the kingdom was lost."  If the first story in the set has all these
mussar lessons, and is blaming people for the churban, then how does it
fit in the same set as the other two stories?

> why didn't the chachamim or those in charge of the beis hamikdash,
> simply go and show the ceaser the blemishes that had been cut by
> bar kamza, and explain to him, that we would have gladly accepted an unblemished animal,
> but that this one before us (offered by caeser or his people) but then cut by bar kamza (eye & lip?)
> had been tainted. .....

The gemara says why: in goyishe law this is not considered a blemish,
so he wouldn't have accepted that explanation.

-- 
Zev Sero
z...@sero.name


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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 28, Issue 147
***************************************

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..."