Avodah Mailing List

Volume 28: Number 176

Fri, 26 Aug 2011

• 1. Re: She-lo Asani Isha (Esther and Aryeh Frimer)
• 2. Re: Fighting To Be Chazan? (Micha Berger)
• 3. Ancient Ashkenazi Hebrew (Micha Berger)
• 4. Re: moon and sun (Micha Berger)
• 5. sun and moon (Lampel)
• 6. Re: moon and sun (kennethgmil...@juno.com)
• 7. Re: sun and moon (Zev Sero)
• 8. sun and moon (Eli Turkel)
• 9. Re: Fighting To Be Chazan? (Ben Waxman)
• 10. Re: Fighting To Be Chazan? (Zev Sero)
• 11. Re: She-lo Asani Isha (Esther and Aryeh Frimer)
• 12. Re: king's groove on heads.....?? (kennethgmil...@juno.com)

DEar Chana,
    See the sources below who say explicitly what I cited, namely that an eved does not have the same level of kedushat Yisrael as a woman.
    R. Ben-Zion Meir Hai Uziel, Resp. Mishpetei Uziel, old ed.: III, H.M. sec. 3; new ed.: IV, Inyanim Kelaliyyim, sec.4. 
    R. Joseph B. Soloveitchik, cited in: R. Zvi Schachter, Erets haTsvi,
    sec. 12, no. 12, pp. 96-97; in R. Menachem Genack, Gan Shoshanim, sec.
    4, p. 10; and in Reshimot Shiurim, Shavuot-Nedarim II, R. Zvi Joseph
    Reichman, ed. [New York, 5756], Shavuot 30a, p. 7, end of note 12, p.
    8, s.v "Shoneh ha-ishah," and pp. 9-10, s.v. "Mistaber eifo," and note
    14.
    For similar but somewhat different formulations, see R. Elhanan Bunim
    Wasserman, Kovets Shiurim, Kiddushin, secs. 142-144; R. Menashe Klein,
    Mishne Halakhot, Mahadura Tinyana, III, sec. 83; R. Isaac Tuvia Weiss,
    cited in Birkhot haMitsvah keTikunan, p. 476. 

    As clarified by R. Ben-Zion Meir Hai Uziel and R. Joseph B.
    Soloveitchik, the mitsvot were issued to the nation of Israel as a
    whole, men and women alike. Accordingly, both men and women possess an
    equal degree of "kedushat Yisrael," Jewish sanctity. But despite
    sharing the general obligations of Kelal Yisrael (corporate Israel),
    women were granted a particular and individual exemption from the
    performance of time-determined commandments. 
    An eved is not a full member in corporate Israel and has therefore only received partial mitsvot. 
    For further discussion, See: "Women's Prayer Services: Theory and
    Practice. Part 1 - Theory," Aryeh A. Frimer and Dov I. Frimer,
    Tradition, 32:2, pp. 5-118 (Winter 1998). PDF File available online at:
    http://www.jofa.org/p
    df/Batch%201/0021.pdf; HTML file available at: http
    ://www.daat.ac.il/daat/english/tfila/frimmer1.htm#start; Word file
    available at: http://mj.bu.edu/rsrc/MailJewish/MjReaderContributions/WmnSrv
    Rev15-1.doc. - text at note 26 ff

        kol Tuv
            Aryeh
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110825/c574a74c/attachment-0001.htm>

On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 03:43:47PM -0400, Zev Sero wrote:
>> However if someone is mevateir, without fighting, to someone with a
>> greater claim, preserves the peace (ie acts like a mensch), that also gets
>> "credit".
>
> He gets the credit of shalom, which is surely great, but he's still missing
> the credit for kaddish...

Ein lekha keli machziq berakhah ela shalom.

And that's the final word. (As least, Rebbe thought so.) <grin>

Notice the context the mishnah (Uqtzin 3:12) gives that quote from R'
Shimon ben Chalafta. It stands to complement R' Yehoshua ben Levi saying,
"HQBH will give as a heritage to each and every tzaddiq 310 olamos..."

So, it would seem that exchanging Qaddish for shalom is a good trade.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             People were created to be loved.
mi...@aishdas.org        Things were created to be used.
http://www.aishdas.org   The reason why the world is in chaos is that
Fax: (270) 514-1507      things are being loved, people are being used.

On Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 11:17:31AM +0300, R D Bannett wrote on the thread
"THE HEAD MOVEMENTS OF SHEMA":
> This evidently happened some hundreds of years ago. Perhaps RSM could 
> tell us when, why, and how. But I've commented in the past on the many 
> changes in custom that have developed during my lifetime.

Neither German nor East European languages have the /dh/ sound that
begins the word "that", nor the /th/ of "thing", nor a soft gutteral
like a ches nor a voiced pharyngeal fricative like a Sepharadi, Teimani
or Teverian ayin. I don't think it takes RSM's expertise to figure out
why Ashkenazi Hebrew lacks these sounds. The only question is which were
lost, and which were never there to be lost.

Look how quickly the American reish became the same sound as in English.
The same process held in the past too. (Although now that we have
recordings, I would think such drift will be slowing down.)

Ayin in particular was likely not the Sepharadi sound. The evidence
of the nickname Yankl points more to the /ng/ of the Italkim.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Man is a drop of intellect drowning in a sea
mi...@aishdas.org        of instincts.
http://www.aishdas.org                         - Rav Yisrael Salanter
Fax: (270) 514-1507

On Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 12:13:40PM +0000, kennethgmil...@juno.com wrote:
: Yes, of course intelligent beings obey the laws of gravity. But our
: motions aren't always predictable. It is the very UNpredictability of
: our motion that demonstrates intelligence.

Early in the days of Artificial Intelligence, the discipline was
hijacked, IMHO, by all the attention given the Turing Test, proposed
Alan Turing in 1950. His paper "Computing Machinery and Intelligence"
<http://loebner.net/Prizef/TuringArticle.html> opens:

    I propose to consider the question, "Can machines think?" This should
    begin with definitions of the meaning of the terms "machine" and
    "think." The definitions might be framed so as to reflect so far as
    possible the normal use of the words, but this attitude is dangerous,
    If the meaning of the words "machine" and "think" are to be found
    by examining how they are commonly used it is difficult to escape
    the conclusion that the meaning and the answer to the question,
    "Can machines think?" is to be sought in a statistical survey such
    as a Gallup poll. But this is absurd. Instead of attempting such a
    definition I shall replace the question by another, which is closely
    related to it and is expressed in relatively unambiguous words.

    The new form of the problem can be described in terms of a game
    which we call the 'imitation game." It is played with three people,
    a man (A), a woman (B), and an interrogator (C) who may be of either
    sex. The interrogator stays in a room apart front the other two. The
    object of the game for the interrogator is to determine which of
    the other two is the man and which is the woman....

    In order that tones of voice may not help the interrogator the
    answers should be written, or better still, typewritten.... The best
    strategy for her is probably to give truthful answers. She can add
    such things as "I am the woman, don't listen to him!" to her answers,
    but it will avail nothing as the man can make similar remarks.

    We now ask the question, "What will happen when a machine takes the
    part of A in this game?" Will the interrogator decide wrongly as often
    when the game is played like this as he does when the game is played
    between a man and a woman? These questions replace our original,
    "Can machines think?"

IOW, while Turing was clear that he was replacing the original question,
it left a legacy of confusing the question of intelligence with that of
ACTING AS THOUGH it's intelligent. Arguably, it's possible that one can
prove that there is no way to act as though intelligent without involving
actual intelligence.

The test would miss intelligence in some alien species that views the
universe in a fundamentally different way than people do.

It would also miss the intelligence of someone trapped in an immobile
body, "locked in"
<http://www.ninds.nih.gov/disorders/lockedinsyndrome/lockedinsyndrome.h
tm>
Rachmana litzlan.

It is similarly possible the moon has an intelligence but can't act or
physically communicate to express it.

However, as I said, there is nothing in the moon to warrant believing
there is a physical process implementing that intelligence, no "seat of
the soul". And an intellect detatched from physical form is more of a
guiding mal'akh or sar than the moon itself. There is no reason to call
both the physical rock and the detached intellect "moon", except if you
propose it's a collective noun.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             The waste of time is the most extravagant
mi...@aishdas.org        of all expense.
http://www.aishdas.org                           -Theophrastus
Fax: (270) 514-1507

<Please define what you mean by the moon having intelligence. It 
certainly does not have free choice.>

See Moreh Nevuchim 2:4.

Zvi Lampel

I wrote:

> Yes, of course intelligent beings obey the laws of gravity.
> But our motions aren't always predictable. It is the very
> UNpredictability of our motion that demonstrates intelligence.

R' Zev Sero asked:

> Hmm, so if were were stranded in space with a plentiful supply
> of air, food, water, entertainment, etc., enough to live for
> some time, but no jet pack or other means of propulsion, we'd
> suddenly lose our intelligence?!
> Is a person paralysed in bed somehow less intelligent than one
> who walks around?

You didn't notice my use of the word "demonstrates" !!!

A person who is immobile can certainly be very intelligence. But he is not
*demonstrating* any intelligence. If he does not speak, and does not move,
and does not communicate by telepathy or any other means, how can someone
determine that this person is intelligent?

It is only when the astronaut fires his rocket, or when the paralyzed
person blinks in morse code, that we notice that the pattern has been
broken, and that there is an intelligence at work.

I wrote:

> Trees also remain in one predictable place forever. But "chai
> nosay es atzmo" - only someone in the animal kingdom (or above)
> can pick himself up and move elsewhere.

and RSZ asked:

> And yet a turkey is not noticeably more intelligent than a tree.
> So self-directed motion is not a test of intelligence.

You never noticed a turkey looking at something, and then look elsewhere?
It will stand there gobbling away, and then walk a few feet and gobble some
more. The most a tree will do is to turn its leaves towards the sun, and
move those leaves over the course of the day, keeping them directed towards
the sun. Totally predictable.

I'll grant you that compared to humans, turkeys are pretty stupid. But compared to trees, well, they're absolute geniuses!!!

Akiva Miller


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

On 25/08/2011 3:17 PM, Eli Turkel wrote:
>  > We can ask a question on the Rambam what is the origin of his theory.
>
> Why would it occur to us to question it?  If he says it then he must
> surely have had it bekabalah; where else would he get it?>>
>
> Please define what you mean by the moon having intelligence.

Exactly what we usually mean by it.  The moon is a conscious, thinking
body.  It's been thinking for nearly 6000 years, so it may well have
solved all kinds of mathematical or philosophical puzzles, but since it
has no way to tell us about them we may never know unless some future
navi tells us.


> It certainly does not have free choice.

True.  The Rambam says that too.  Why do you think free choice is
necessary for intelligence?  Angels also have no bechira chofshit
and yet they have intelligence.



> I find it strange that the Rambam did not accept all the of chazal's
> science and we should accept the Rambam's science.

Unless we have some reason to question what he says, why would we want
to reject it?  Just because?  Especially since it's in line with what
Chazal say, e.g. the midrash we are discussing here.


-- 
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

                    
                

The Mahartz Chajes is in the back of the Vilna Shas on Chulin 60b and hevuot
9. He brings from
Tosafot that G-d created the moon with the sun in order that man not think
that the sun was
a god. However, after diminishing the moon, man was led to AZ that the sun
was unique in the world.
Hence, G-d needs a kapparah. He also connects this with various version of
the shabbat morning davening

-- 
Eli Turkel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110826/6595b8de/attachment-0001.htm>

Actually there is one more word:

In Rav Henkin's tsheuva on women saying Kaddish he writes that the Kaddish 
is worth what comes before it. If someone learns a blatt and then says 
Kaddish, that is something with weight. Someone mumbles a quick halacha and 
then says Kaddish, that is weightless (or almost weightless).

Therefore it stands to reason that if someone gets into a fight about being 
the STZ, his Kaddish is going to be less than weightless.

This is the non-magic approach.

Ben
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Micha Berger" <mi...@aishdas.org>
To: "A High-Level Torah Discussion Group" <avo...@lists.aishdas.org>
>
> Ein lekha keli machziq berakhah ela shalom.
>
> And that's the final word. (As least, Rebbe thought so.) <grin> 

On 25/08/2011 4:16 PM, Micha Berger wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 03:43:47PM -0400, Zev Sero wrote:
>>> However if someone is mevateir, without fighting, to someone with a
>>> greater claim, preserves the peace (ie acts like a mensch), that also gets
>>> "credit".

>> He gets the credit of shalom, which is surely great, but he's still missing
>> the credit for kaddish...

> Ein lekha keli machziq berakhah ela shalom. [...]
> So, it would seem that exchanging Qaddish for shalom is a good trade.

But surely not as good as shalom *and* kaddish.  Why not have both?


-- 
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

                    
                

In continuation of my previous post to Chana Luntz, my brother (R. Prof.) Dov Frimer writes:

Aryeh, we already anticipated this in our WPG article around footnote 26- 
or more accurately the Rav did. See RHS, Eretz Hatzvi pp 96, at length,
where the Rav explains that an eved has only miktzat keddushat yisrael -
and therefore has certain partial OBLIGATIONS - while a woman has complete
kiddushat yisrael with partial EXEMPTIONS. While the bottom line may be
similar with regards to the performance of mitzvoth aseh shz?g, the
starting points are at exactly opposite poles. (It is like the question
whether the day and a half shitah for YT Sheni in Israel is one day with
chumros or two days with kolos.) The Rav gives an interesting nafkah minah:
 women can make a berakha on MAShZG according to Rabbenu Tam; Avadim cannot
even according to RT. See ad loc. RHS's rather lengthy footnotes. 

--------------------------------
Dr. Aryeh A. Frimer
Chemistry Dept., Bar-Ilan University
Ramat Gan 52900, ISRAEL
E-mail (office): Aryeh.Fri...@biu.ac.il or Fri...@biu.ac.il
E-mail (home): Frim...@zahav.net.il
----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Esther and Aryeh Frimer 
  To: Chana Luntz 
  Cc: avo...@lists.aishdas.org 
  Sent: Thursday, August 25, 2011 11:03 PM
  Subject: Re: She-lo Asani Isha


  DEar Chana,
      See the sources below who say explicitly what I cited, namely that an eved does not have the same level of kedushat Yisrael as a woman.
      R. Ben-Zion Meir Hai Uziel, Resp. Mishpetei Uziel, old ed.: III, H.M. sec. 3; new ed.: IV, Inyanim Kelaliyyim, sec.4. 
      R. Joseph B. Soloveitchik, cited in: R. Zvi Schachter, Erets haTsvi,
      sec. 12, no. 12, pp. 96-97; in R. Menachem Genack, Gan Shoshanim,
      sec. 4, p. 10; and in Reshimot Shiurim, Shavuot-Nedarim II, R. Zvi
      Joseph Reichman, ed. [New York, 5756], Shavuot 30a, p. 7, end of note
      12, p. 8, s.v ?Shoneh ha-ishah,? and pp. 9-10, s.v. ?Mistaber eifo,?
      and note 14.
      For similar but somewhat different formulations, see R. Elhanan Bunim
      Wasserman, Kovets Shiurim, Kiddushin, secs. 142-144; R. Menashe
      Klein, Mishne Halakhot, Mahadura Tinyana, III, sec. 83; R. Isaac
      Tuvia Weiss, cited in Birkhot haMitsvah keTikunan, p. 476. 

      As clarified by R. Ben-Zion Meir Hai Uziel and R. Joseph B.
      Soloveitchik, the mitsvot were issued to the nation of Israel as a
      whole, men and women alike. Accordingly, both men and women possess
      an equal degree of ?kedushat Yisrael,? Jewish sanctity. But despite
      sharing the general obligations of Kelal Yisrael (corporate Israel),
      women were granted a particular and individual exemption from the
      performance of time-determined commandments. 
      An eved is not a full member in corporate Israel and has therefore only received partial mitsvot. 
      For further discussion, See: ?Women's Prayer Services: Theory and
      Practice. Part 1 - Theory,? Aryeh A. Frimer and Dov I. Frimer,
      Tradition, 32:2, pp. 5-118 (Winter 1998). PDF File available online
      at: http://www.jofa.org
      /pdf/Batch%201/0021.pdf; HTML file available at: ht
      tp://www.daat.ac.il/daat/english/tfila/frimmer1.htm#start; Word
      file available at: http://mj.bu.edu/rsrc/MailJewish/MjReaderContributions/Wm
      nSrvRev15-1.doc. - text at note 26 ff

          kol Tuv
              Aryeh
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110826/a1976d25/attachment-0001.htm>

R' Harvey Benton asked:

> i read a gemmarra or perush or medrash that states the kings of
> israel had a groove on their heads so that the crowns would fit
> (there was a groove allegedly on the crowns) is this true?

I have a groove on both sides of my head, which seems to be the result of
wearing eyeglasses for the past 50 years. It seems that my head kept
growing, except where the frames of the eyeglasses would not allow it to
grow. Listmembers (of the male persuasion) are welcome to feel this groove
for themselves.

We're getting into "cause and effect" territory. If RHB's source suggests
that this groove existed before the king began wearing his crown, and its
purpose is to make the crown fit better, then I have no explanation. But if
the groove developed *after* the king wore his crown for a while, then
what's actually happened is that the head grew to fit the crown, not that
the crown fits the head.

Akiva Miller


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


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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 28, Issue 176
***************************************

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..."