Avodah Mailing List

Volume 30: Number 51

Wed, 30 May 2012

• 1. Re: Esther [was: Strengthening Our Belief in Hashem and His Beautiful Torah] (T613K@aol.com)
• 2. Re: When is exaggeration proper and improper? (T6...@aol.com)
• 3. When is exaggeration proper and improper? (Joseph Kaplan)
• 4. Sdei Chemed - Greeting People Who Are Not Wearing A Yarmulka (Prof. Levine)
• 5. Re: Torah Pre-Sinai (kennethgmil...@juno.com)
• 6. Re: Kamatz (Aharon Gal)
• 7. Re: Torah Pre-Sinai (Zev Sero)
• 8. Would Ruth's conversion be rejected today? (Gershon Dubin)
• 9. Re: Would Ruth's conversion be rejected today? (Zev Sero)
• 10. Re: Would Ruth's conversion be rejected today? (Micha Berger)
• 11. Re: Would Ruth's conversion be rejected today? (Zev Sero)
• 12. Re: Torah Pre-Sinai (Lisa Liel)
• 13. Why would HaShem make ...? (Meir Rabi)
• 14. G-d remembers (Eli Turkel)
• 15. Bene Israel of India (Rich, Joel)
• 16. Psak she'ein hatzibbur yecholin laamod bo (Liron Kopinsky)

 
From: Micha Berger _micha@aishdas.org_ (mailto:mi...@aishdas.org) 



>>Strengthening Our Belief in Hashem and His Beautiful  Torah
by Rabbi Chaim Jachter

[snip]
Rav Yoel Bin Nun on Megillat  Esther

One may wonder why so many intelligent people are not convinced of  the
truth of Hashem and Torah. ...
Rav Yoel notes that the Megillat Esther  at first glance seems quite 
secular. For
example, it contains no mention of  God and even seems to deliberately
omit mentioning Hashem's name (see, for  example, Esther 4:14-16). Rav
Yoel explains that one has to look behind the  superficial presentation
of events in Megillat Esther to discover Hashem,  such as why Esther
among all the beautiful women of the Persian Empire was  chosen as queen,
why Mordechai foiled a plot to kill Achashveirosh, and why  Achashveirosh
was sleepless and reading about Mordechai's actions the night  that Haman
came to ask permission to execute Mordechai.

Similarly, the  world functions today as it is depicted in Megillat
Esther. Hashem has placed  a secular veneer upon the world and we must
use our common sense to peel back  this secular layer in order to be able
to find  Hashem.....<<

 
>>>>>
 
The series of coincidences in Meg. Esther do of course point to the  
existence of Hashem, orchestrating events "behind the lattice wall."  So  much is 
a truism.
 
 
I would like to add though that there is one place where belief in Hashem  
is so obviously alluded to that it is /almost/ overt:  when Esther asks all  
the Jews to fast for three days and adds that she herself and her maids 
will  also fast.  Other than a religious reason, there is no conceivable 
secular  reason for everyone, or anyone, to fast.
 

--Toby  Katz
=============
Romney -- good  values, good family, good  hair


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








-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20120525/6f589f31/attachment-0001.htm>

 
From: "kennethgmil...@juno.com"  <kennethgmil...@juno.com>
-1

In an Areivim thread titled "Asifa  - Lose Olam Haba", RMB wrote:

> Anyone who was firmly within the  target audience
> realized it was guzma.

I don't read Areivim, nor  did I attend the Asifa, but the context of this 
statement doesn't really matter  too much. But it is a good opening to a 
question which has long bothered me.  Namely: Do Chazal or Poskim discuss when 
guzma is appropriate, and when it is  not?

Are they at all worried about people who will take their words too  
seriously? ....
I have always been something of a literalist, and when I hear  people 
saying things which are clear exaggerations, they tend to lose  credibility in my 
eyes. But as I have matured, I have come to understand that  guzma CAN be a 
legitimate rhetorical device....

Where is that line  between truth and guzma?  Once it gets blurred, to what 
extent can people  be held responsible for their disbelief? ....
The sticking point, in my mind,  is where to draw the line.....

 
 
>>>>>
 
 
Asei lecha rav.
 
 

--Toby Katz
=============
Romney -- good values,  good family, good  hair


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

 


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20120525/3cf6379f/attachment-0001.htm>

I don't know when it's proper and I don't know where the line is.  But I do
know one way of spotting some (not all) exaggerations if the presentation
is in English. If the speaker says "literally" (e.g., it's literally
yahareg ve'al ya'avor) you know it's an exaggeration.

Joseph Kaplan

 From http://tinyurl.com/7qspgqm

There are two Dinim in Shulchan Aruch about wearing a 
Yarmulka.  First in OC 3:6 it says one should not walk four amos with 
a bare head.  In 91:3 it says that one may not mention Hashem's name 
with a bare head.  The Mogen Avrohom says that mentioning Hashem's 
name is an issur while walking four amos or even less is a Midas 
Chasidus.  The Taz disagrees and says that walking four amos is an 
issur of "B'Chukoseihem Lo Seileichu".

The Sdei Chemed says that based on this, you should not greet a 
bareheaded Jew with the greeting "Shalom" since he is likely to 
return this same greeting.  Since Shalom is one of the names of 
Hashem's, it would cause him to be oveir on this Din.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20120525/26dfbbff/attachment-0001.htm>

RMB wrote:

> RCVolozhiner holds like Rashi, and answers your question in
> NhC 1:21. He holds that they were aware enough of their souls
> to detect what was missing and intuit halakah.

R' Joel Rich wrote:

> They were at such a high level that they resonated to HKB"H's
> frequency.  (my summary of the Nefesh hachaim)

I'd like to expand on this a bit.

It is relatively easy to apply this to some mitzvos, such as kashrus: A
sufficiently spiritual person can figure out on his own that predatory
species are to be avoided, that the gentler species should be killed in a
way to minimize their pain and residual blood, and that the mixing of their
milk and meat is offensive. But other mitzvos, such as rituals like
tefillin and mezuzah are more difficult. And historical commemorations
before-the-fact are on yet another level.

But I don't have a problem with any of it. If we truly believe that certain
cycles are built into the briah, causing a climate of teshuva on this day
each year, and a climate of geulah on that day each year, I see it as
entirely possible that a sufficiently spiritual person might pick up on
that even before the events that we associate them with.

Here's a practical example, in my view, of how Klal Yisrael has collectively exercised this approach, as recently as in the past few centuries:

We have collectively understood that it is appropriate, after saying the
Shemoneh Esreh, to say Tehillim 6 and certain other tefillos known
collectively as Tachanun. At the very same time, we understood that on
certain days, we have (or *ought* to have) a level of simcha which renders
that act INappropriate. And there is a pretty low threshold of simcha
needed for this to kick in, resulting in a large number of days when we
skip Tachanun.

But there is another tefillah that we also say each morning - Tehillim 20,
Lamnatzeach. This is also skipped on joyful days, but the threshhold is at
a higher level of simcha, resulting in many days (of relatively small
levels of simcha) when we skip Tachanun but we do say Lamnatzeach.

How did this distinction develop? I don't think anyone ever sat down and
debated which days to say this and which days to say that. Rather, I
suspect that Klal Yisrael collectively intuited what is appropriate. And
whichever poskim set these rules down on paper, did so based primarily on
their observations of what Klal Yisrael had already decided, with perhaps
some adjustments based on their own Daas Torah.

I doubt there are any who say that the Avos went beyond Eruv Tavshilin, and
went so far as to say Tachanun and Lamnatzeach each morning, and even
skipped them on the days that we do. But if WE can intuit which is
appropriate and inappropriate, then if their antennae were long enough, why
couldn't they feel it too?

Akiva Miller

____________________________________________________________
53 Year Old Mom Looks 33
The Stunning Results of Her Wrinkle Trick Has Botox Doctors Worried
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/4fbf701923c4b170475est02vuc

My impression is that the American Ashkenazim have their own way of how to pronounce, which is not the traditional Ashkenazi, and not Sephardi.
In my mind, those who chose to pronounce kamatz as patach, must pronounce
kamatz katan like cholam.  Those that pronounce kamatz like a cholam can
pronounce kamatz katan as cholam.
otherwise it is tartei desatrei, and they need to be corrected.

galsaba

On 25/05/2012 7:41 AM, kennethgmil...@juno.com wrote:
> But there is another tefillah that we also say each morning - Tehillim
> 20, Lamnatzeach. This is also skipped on joyful days, but the
> threshhold is at a higher level of simcha, resulting in many days (of
> relatively small levels of simcha) when we skip Tachanun but we do say
> Lamnatzeach.
>
> How did this distinction develop? I don't think anyone ever sat down
> and debated which days to say this and which days to say that. Rather,
> I suspect that Klal Yisrael collectively intuited what is appropriate.

Only Ashkenazim seem to have intuited this, though :-)

-- 
Zev Sero        "Natural resources are not finite in any meaningful
z...@sero.name    economic sense, mind-boggling though this assertion
                  may be. The stocks of them are not fixed but rather
                 are expanding through human ingenuity."
                                            - Julian Simon

From Areivim...

There are so many quotes and requotes [on Areivim -micha] that I can't
figure out who said what.

My recollection (sources on request, but after Y"T) is that according to
one man de'amar in the Gemara, Boaz collected the 10 zekenim to publicize
the pesak of Moavi velo Moavis (The other IIRC was that it was for sheva
berachos; more accurately birchas nisuin since it was alman ve'almana))
It was not in dispute but (this is not in the Gemara; I believe I saw it
in one of the meforshim) not "lemaaseh" since Moav was always a bitter
enemy and intermarriage was not a major problem. Ploni Almoni did not
DISPUTE the pesak; he questioned it. He said "pen ashchi es nachalasi"
meaning he was afraid that down the line his yichus would be questioned
and he wasn't prepared to risk that (also meforshim I think) Finally,
Doeg did question the pesak at the time that Dovid took on Golyas and
was up for the position of son in law to Shaul as a result ("ben mi ze
ha'elem") This is also a Gemara. I don't know if I added anything beyond
clearing up all the quote marks.

Gershon
gershon.du...@juno.com

On 25/05/2012 10:56 AM, Gershon Dubin wrote:
> My recollection (sources on request, but after Y"T) is that according
> to one man de'amar in the Gemara, Boaz collected the 10 zekenim to
> publicize the pesak of Moavi velo Moavis

Which had nothing at all to do with the validity of Ruth's giyur; there
is no indication that anybody ever doubted that, then or later.

> Ploni Almoni did not DISPUTE the pesak; he questioned it [...] Doeg did
> question the pesak

Again, nothing to do with her conversion.

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

On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 11:06:27AM -0400, Zev Sero wrote:
> Again, nothing to do with her conversion.

For some reason Zev is choosing to be oblique. So, to spell things
out.

Devarim 23:2-4 has three prohibitions phrased as "lo yavo ... beqehal
Hashem. Pasuq 2 -- "petzua daka ukherus shofkhah", pasuq 3 -- "mamzeir",
and pasuq 4 -- "amoni umoavi".

Pesuqim 8-9 permit an Adomi and Mitzri after three generations "yavo lahem
beqehal Hashem.

As is clear from the other pesuqim (or Rashi on ours), we are talking
about marriage, not geirus.

Just as is well known about a mamzer, a Moavi too can marry a mamzeres or
a giyores. And like a mamzer (but unlike a Jew who is ethnically Adomi
or Mitzri), the child is also excluded "gam dor ha'asi lo yavo lahem
beqehal Hashem" but here it is added "ad olam".

Anyone know the difference in implication?

:-)BBii!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 48th day, which is
mi...@aishdas.org        6 weeks and 6 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Yesod sheb'Malchus: What binds different
Fax: (270) 514-1507             people together into one cohesive whole?

On 25/05/2012 11:56 AM, Micha Berger wrote:
> On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 11:06:27AM -0400, Zev Sero wrote:

>> Again, nothing to do with her conversion.

> For some reason Zev is choosing to be oblique.

I didn't think I was being oblique.  Is it really a common
misconception that "biah bekahal" means conversion?!  It never
occurred to me that so many people would make this mistake.
Is this like people who think Esther was Mordechai's niece?


> Just as is well known about a mamzer, a Moavi too can marry a
> mamzeres or a giyores.

In other words someone who is not in "kehal Hashem".


> And like a mamzer (but unlike a Jew who is ethnically Adomi
> or Mitzri), the child is also excluded "gam dor ha'asi lo yavo
> lahem beqehal Hashem" but here it is added "ad olam".
> Anyone know the difference in implication?

The Sifri says that "dor asiri" implies that the 11th generation
is permitted.  Thus the plain meaning of the pasuk about a mamzer
would seem to mean that the disability is not forever.  But then the
pasuk about Amoni uMoavi says "gam dor asiri...ad olam".  If their
issur is forever then why mention the 10th generation?  What's
special about it?  So the Sifri says it's mentioned in order to make
a gezera shava to mamzer, and to teach us that a mamzer's disability
is also forever.

But this doesn't explain why the Torah couldn't have just spoken
plainly, said "ad olam" in both cases, and not mentioned the 10th
generation at all.

-- 
Zev Sero        "Natural resources are not finite in any meaningful
z...@sero.name    economic sense, mind-boggling though this assertion
                  may be. The stocks of them are not fixed but rather
                 are expanding through human ingenuity."
                                            - Julian Simon

On 5/25/2012 6:41 AM, kennethgmil...@juno.com wrote:
> It is relatively easy to apply this to some mitzvos, such as kashrus: 
> A sufficiently spiritual person can figure out on his own that 
> predatory species are to be avoided, that the gentler species should 
> be killed in a way to minimize their pain and residual blood, and that 
> the mixing of their milk and meat is offensive.

Offensive?

> But other mitzvos, such as rituals like tefillin and mezuzah are more 
> difficult. And historical commemorations before-the-fact are on yet 
> another level.
> But I don't have a problem with any of it. If we truly believe that
> certain cycles are built into the briah, causing a climate of teshuva
> on this day each year, and a climate of geulah on that day each year,
> I see it as entirely possible that a sufficiently spiritual person
> might pick up on that even before the events that we associate them
> with.
>    

I agree with this.  But I don't agree that the Avot *literally* kept all 
the mitzvot.  For one thing, since people weren't born Jews at the time, 
the basic infrastructure of much of Torah law was simply inapplicable.  
I'm aware that this is used as a excuse for Yaakov Avinu marrying two 
sisters, but it doesn't explain him giving the bechora to Yosef.

Midrashim have a purpose.  They are tainted when people insist on taking 
them all literally.

Lisa

Is the classic response to this question: why would Hashem make the best
talmidei chachamim forget something???; not, - because HaShem wants to
convey some message to the Beis Din and to the people? This must fall in
the ambit of Midah KeNeged Midah, and the Beis Din that admits it made a
mistake AshRey HaDor whose Nassi admits its unintentional errors.

BTW what is the meaning of the continuation, they will most certainly admit
their deliberate sins? If someone is honest enough to admit his unintended
mistakes that hardly proves he will admit his deliberate sins.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20120528/406696ba/attachment-0001.htm>

In Bechosai - 26:42 That G-d will remember the covenant with  Yaakov and
even Yitzchak and even Avraham and the land will remember

Oznain LeTorah explains the order that the highest level is Yaakov = the
Jew that learns Torah, next is Yitzchak=Jew who does avodah, comes to shul
if not than Avraham= chesed the Jew who does charitable works and if none
of these apply than G-d will remember the land - even the Jew whose only
merit is working the land in Israel will be remembered

-- 
Eli Turkel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20120530/3c9677ec/attachment-0001.htm>

Interesting article in the current issue of Conversations on "Learning from
the Bene Israel of India".  They have an oral tradition which Rabbi Shafner
somewhat describes.  My questions is how do we know we got it right and
they need to switch to our understanding of halacha?  If they need to
switch, why did later deviations (e.g. ashkenaz vs. sfard) not have to pick
one approach once they rediscovered each other?
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/20120530/46538f51/attachment-0001.htm>

Everyone has been talking about whether a "psak" was given that bans the
internet.

Is there any significance to the fact that it is called a "psak" and not a
"gezerah"? If a gezerah is made that the tzibbur just can't keep, my
understanding is that the gezerah does not end up taking effect. But
presumably, if it's a "psak" then it's based on already existant and
accepted halachot, is it intended that we have no choice?

Kol Tuv,

-- 
Liron Kopinsky
liron.kopin...@gmail.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20120530/ecb5943b/attachment.htm>

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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 30, Issue 51
**************************************

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..."