Avodah Mailing List

Volume 30: Number 78

Fri, 29 Jun 2012

• 1. Re: Why four? (Micha Berger)
• 2. taamei ha mitzvot...what is there mesorah?? (Harvey Benton)
• 3. paskening from old/new infformation??? (Harvey Benton)
• 4. responders??? (Harvey Benton)
• 5. Re: Drops of wine (Micha Berger)
• 6. Re: Drops of wine (Micha Berger)
• 7. Re: Why four? (Lisa Liel)
• 8. Re: responders??? (Lisa Liel)
• 9. Re: Drops of wine (Lisa Liel)
• 10. Re: Why four? (Zev Sero)
• 11. Re: Kivrey Avos (T6...@aol.com)
• 12. Re: Don't take credit for your talents (Poppers, Michael)
• 13. Re: Kivrey Avos (Zev Sero)

On Fri, Jun 29, 2012 at 11:46:46AM -0700, Harvey Benton wrote:
: please explain the other fascinations eg, 3, 5, etc, 
: and what does 6 mean???

A peirush to Echad Mi Yodeiah would make a very deep hashkafah book.

3 is the human condition. Picture the cartoon representation of a battle
between the yeitzer hara and the yeitzer hatov. The conflicted person
has a little angel on one shoulder, and a little devil on the other.
All three -- devil, angel, and head in between -- bear the same face.

People live in a world of dialectic: body vs soul, yh"r vs yh"t, etc...
Add the person caught between the conflict and you have Id, Ego,
Superego; Child, Adult, Parent; or lehavdil Nefesh, Ruach, Neshamah.
Depending one which conflict you focus on as primary.

Maggid revolves around explaining three mitzvos (pesach, matzah, maror),
and 4 stages of redemption.

If three is man, four is Hashem's impact on man. Beyond three.

Sheloshah avos, the doers.
Arba imahos, the responders.

Chamishah chumeshei Torah. I don't know. Not enough mitzvos involve fives
for me to have a theory.

Shishah siderei mishnah. Halakhah pesuqah is divided into the "dimensions"
of olam hazeh. Thus, as the Maharal put it (Gevuros H' 46), a cube has
6 sides. 3 dimensions, each of which has 2 directions.

6 -- the physical world.

7 -- the holiness inherent in the world. And thus Shabbos and Shemittah
are the completion of creation by not constructing any new physical thing.

Eight is Shemini Atzeres. Beyond this world, even its inherent potential
for holiness to creating new holiness. The Jewish Mission. Shemonah yemei
milah.

Etc...

:-)BBii!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             None of us will leave this place alive.
mi...@aishdas.org        All that is left to us is
http://www.aishdas.org   to be as human as possible while we are here.
Fax: (270) 514-1507            - Anonymous MD, while a Nazi prisoner

i was reading an excerpt (sent in the mail pesach i think) from the
Rambam's taamei Hamitzvot frm Morei Nevuchim........for kilayim on
animals, (eg ox and donkey) he states that the reason is that they should
not come to inter- mingle (cross-breed) while, i remember Rashi (another
Rishon) bringing a medrash perhaps, stating the reason is because they
move at different paces and thus it is not fair to either one of them....

--How are we (mere humans) to come up with the Taamei Hamitzvot unless
there is a valid mesorah as to such???
HB (eg, dont argue with rishonim??)

hb

do we ever pasken from a beraita not in the mishna gemmarra (eg,
tosefta??) which would open up the door to findinng a set of dead sea set
of scrolls/egypt geniza set of sefarim, which would contain heretofore,
unknown sets of literature/commentary??

hb

in response to micha's interesting and elucidating email re: numbers

(responders?? i don't know what exactly that means???) didn't rivka
initiate the hate between eisav and yaakov (was she supposed to be
listening in??)
?
hb

On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 05:07:39PM -0400, Zev Sero wrote:
>> Again, that doesn't fit those many many who accept this explanation for
>> Chatzi Hallel on shevi'i shel Psach.
>
> Wrong.  See the Chavos Yair.

I did. As I wrote:
>> The Chavos Yair (#225) not only DOES tie CH on shevi'i shel Pesach to
>> "maasei Yadai", he says that's why we do not say any special ofanim,
>> either. (The latter makes much sense, actually.) It's a "yeis ta'am
>> acheir", but the CY doesn't reject it...

> You are completely misrepresenting the CY.  He is not on your side on
> this.  First of all, he says that the real reason for half-hallel is the
> korbanos, and *not* the Mitzrim...

Yes. As I wrote, he says it's a "yeish ta'am acher". Not false, but
only a secondary reason. He supports the Beis Yoseif's answer and spends
space defending it. So spell out where you see the Chavor Yair actually
rejecting this ta'am acheir.

And yes, if you believe the Yalqut Shim'oni accurately records Chazal,
then there is room for the BY and all those others to disagree with
a gemara. (Never mind the Medrash Harininu, which even if we never
heard of before, does have the Shibolei haLeqet's vote of condience.)
But more likely they have some teirutz that distinguishes Haman and
Amaleiq from Mitzrayim. Just because you can't think of one, you can't
assume one doesn't exist.

You and Lisa can't seriously tell me that even though a dozen sources
quote "maasei Yadai" and "binfol oyivkha" WRT Chatzi Hallel, it's
unJewish. Or, as Lisa did, simply refuse to believe the BY said what
he did.

>> If you choose
>> to reject the Yalqut, the Shibolei haLeqet, the Beis Yoseif, the Taz,
>> the Maharil (in the name of Rashi), the Kav HaChaim [...], AND THE
>> CHAVOS YAIR, there could well be al mi lismoch.

> No, I am not rejecting them, the ones I checked *do not say what you
> claim they do*...

Yeah, just I read them that way, and so do the people you suggested I was
copying or relying upon. (Every thread in which you make that accusation,
BTW, you actually reassure me. If my read matches the common one, I am
less likely to wonder if perhaps I erred.) If you can deny an open Beis
Yoseif saying what he does, perhaps the problem is your own allegiance
to a particular view getting in the way of an objective assessment of
the sources?

I therefore also would want to see where you think the CY rejects his
"ta'am acheir".

:-)BBii!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             The fittingness of your matzos [for the seder]
mi...@aishdas.org        isn't complete with being careful in the laws
http://www.aishdas.org   of Passover. One must also be very careful in
Fax: (270) 514-1507      the laws of business.    - Rav Yisrael Salanter

On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 02:56:03PM -0500, Lisa Liel wrote:
>> But I also wonder why we would be expected to have a different response
>> than G-d's.

> I don't understand what you're wondering.  They were Hashem's maasei  
> yadayim.  Not ours...

What are Hashem's "Emotions" altogether when they are not lessons for
us to learn from?

And where do we ever find that we aren't supposed to be in alignment with
G-d's desiderata? If it's bad from His "Perspective" that they died, we
should be elevating our perspective to that we too see the bad.

>> Last, I think saying that when the Beis Yoseif et al tie "binfol oyivkha"
>> to Chatzi Hallel, they are not precluding feeling joy at our being free
>> from their oppressing us. I believe the point is to call for ambivalence:
>> sadness at the waste of tzelem E-lokim -- starting with what the Mitzrim
>> did to themselves and continuing with their death -- simultaneous with
>> happiness that justice was made manifest, that the wicked are no longer
>> around to harm us, etc...

> It's an interesting vort, but I don't think that sort of distinction  
> exists in the Beis Yosef.  When they tie binfol oyivcha to chatzi  
> hallel, they're saying what I wrote above.

That what, that it's for the Jews who died in the Yam Suf? Chatzi Hallel
is what we're saying, not Him.

I think the real difference between us is:
>                      Think about the Gemara's take on binfol oyivcha.   
> It applies to fellow Jews.  Why?  Because we're connected to them.   
> They're family.  Even if we aren't getting along with them, we're still  
> family....

If all Jews are brothers, all humans are first cousins. Ben Azzai omer,
"'Zeh seifer toledos adam' -- zeh kelal gadol mizeh."

>> Last, I think saying that when the Beis Yoseif et al tie "binfol oyivkha"
>> to Chatzi Hallel, they are not precluding feeling joy at our being free
>> from their oppressing us. I believe the point is to call for ambivalence:
>> sadness at the waste of tzelem E-lokim -- starting with what the Mitzrim
>> did to themselves and continuing with their death -- simultaneous with
>> happiness that justice was made manifest, that the wicked are no longer
>> around to harm us, etc...

> It's an interesting vort, but I don't think that sort of distinction  
> exists in the Beis Yosef.  When they tie binfol oyivcha to chatzi  
> hallel, they're saying what I wrote above.

Which is what? You said we people aren't supposed to connect the two. So
how does that fit Chatzi Hallel, expression our praise of G-d for giving
us a joyous occasion?

It's the Meshekh Chokhmah's vort. I don't know who else in the chain agrees
or not.

>>> Even widely respected talmidei chachamim can err and confuse alien ideas
>>> as our own.  As witness the recent discussion about widely respected
>>> talmidei chachamim quoting "Ein navi b'iro" as though it's a Jewish
>>> thought, when it's actually from the treyfer sefer.

>> Some level of emunas chakhamim is required WRT matters of Torah, no?
>> Otherwise, TSBP is whatever you want it to be, ve'ish hayashar be'einav
>> ya'aseh.

> Right.  And emunat chachamim starts with the Gemara.  I don't buy the  
> Beis Yosef lacking emunat chachamim and disputing a mefurash Gemara...

So taitch the BY for us.

:-)BBii!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Brains to the lazy
mi...@aishdas.org        are like a torch to the blind --
http://www.aishdas.org   a useless burden.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                 - Bechinas HaOlam

^ is the standard convention for exponentiation.  So 2^2 is two squared.

7 is the number of directions.   Up, down, back, forth, left, right, and 
time, which we see as unidirectional.  So 7 represents the whole world, 
and is the number of days of creation.  Eight, being one more than 7, 
represents Hashem, who isn't bound by the world.  The gematria of YKVK 
is 26, which boils down to 8.  We find five in chomesh (while you could 
make a case that it's really 4, the Torah uses the term chomesh, so 
clearly we're intended to see 5 in it.  For 3, we have Torah, Neviim, 
Ketuvim, we have Avraham, Yitzchak and Yaakov.  We have Torah, Avodah, 
and Gemilut Chasadim.  We have three repetitions of lo tevashel gedi 
b'chalev imo.  We have three kings of a united kingdom of Israel.

There are only so many numbers.

Lisa


On 6/29/2012 1:46 PM, Harvey Benton wrote:
> please explain the other
> fascinations eg, 3, 5, etc,
> and  what does ^ mean???
> thanks
> hb
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From:* Lisa Liel <l...@starways.net>
> *To:* Harvey Benton <harvw...@yahoo.com>; The Avodah Torah Discussion 
> Group <avo...@lists.aishdas.org>
> *Sent:* Friday, June 29, 2012 11:32 AM
> *Subject:* Re: [Avodah] Why four?
>
> Because it's a fun number.  2+2, 2x2, 2^2.  The word four has four 
> letters in it.  So does arba.  And vier.
>
> Honestly, I don't get the question.  There's also a fascination with 
> 3.  And 5.  And 6.  And 7.  And 8.  Every number has its own 
> significance or significances.
>
> Lisa
>
> On 6/29/2012 12:44 PM, Harvey Benton wrote:
>> arba nichnas l'pardes
>> 4 sons
>> 4 questions
>> etc,
>>
>> why the fascination with four??
>>
>> hb
>> _______________________________________________
>> Avodah mailing list
>> Avo...@lists.aishdas.org  <mailto:Avo...@lists.aishdas.org>
>> http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org
>>
>>    
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20120629/f93f16f8/attachment-0001.htm>

Eisav hated Yaakov because of the bechora, which was way before Rivka 
got involved.

On 6/29/2012 3:35 PM, Harvey Benton wrote:
> in response to micha's interesting and elucidating email re: numbers
>
> (responders?? i don't know what exactly that means???) didn't rivka
> initiate the hate between eisav and yaakov (was she supposed to be
> listening in??)
>   
> hb
> _______________________________________________
> Avodah mailing list
> Avo...@lists.aishdas.org
> http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org
>    
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20120629/11a13ab8/attachment-0001.htm>

On 6/29/2012 4:10 PM, Micha Berger wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 02:56:03PM -0500, Lisa Liel wrote:
>    
>>> But I also wonder why we would be expected to have a different response
>>> than G-d's.
>>>        
>    
>> I don't understand what you're wondering.  They were Hashem's maasei
>> yadayim.  Not ours...
>>      
> What are Hashem's "Emotions" altogether when they are not lessons for
> us to learn from?
>    

You're learning the wrong thing.  What we learn here is that we don't 
rejoice when one of our own falls.

> And where do we ever find that we aren't supposed to be in alignment with
> G-d's desiderata? If it's bad from His "Perspective" that they died, we
> should be elevating our perspective to that we too see the bad.
>    

You're dropping context.  It isn't bad from His perspective that 
Egyptians died.  It's bad from His perspective that His maasei yadayim 
died.  We too should see the bad in our children or fellow Jews 
falling.  You're seeing them as Egyptians, but what you're missing is 
that what the Egyptians were to us, and what the Egyptians were to 
Hashem, are two different things.  We are not supposed to see the 
Mitzrim as our maasei yadayim, because that isn't emulating Hashem; 
that's just sheker.

Judaism doesn't blur distinctions.  Mitzrim are not our relatives.  They 
are, so to speak, Hashem's.  The lesson we learn from Hashem is that you 
don't rejoice when your relatives fall.

>>> Last, I think saying that when the Beis Yoseif et al tie "binfol oyivkha"
>>> to Chatzi Hallel, they are not precluding feeling joy at our being free
>>> from their oppressing us. I believe the point is to call for ambivalence:
>>> sadness at the waste of tzelem E-lokim -- starting with what the Mitzrim
>>> did to themselves and continuing with their death -- simultaneous with
>>> happiness that justice was made manifest, that the wicked are no longer
>>> around to harm us, etc...
>>>        
>    
>> It's an interesting vort, but I don't think that sort of distinction
>> exists in the Beis Yosef.  When they tie binfol oyivcha to chatzi
>> hallel, they're saying what I wrote above.
>>      
> That what, that it's for the Jews who died in the Yam Suf? Chatzi Hallel
> is what we're saying, not Him.
>    
No.  Hashem just lost children.  We can still sing praises to Him, but 
to include parts that condemn Hashem's children is tasteless and tacky, 
so we don't do it.  That's what we omit in Chatzi Hallel.  Just two 
pieces that contain condemnations of human beings.  Because to include 
them on Shevii shel Pesach would be like going into a shiva house and 
speaking ill of the niftar.

Are you bothered by the idea that we're supposed to empathize with 
Hashem?  Because I don't see that as problematic in the least.

> I think the real difference between us is:
>    
>>                       Think about the Gemara's take on binfol oyivcha.
>> It applies to fellow Jews.  Why?  Because we're connected to them.
>> They're family.  Even if we aren't getting along with them, we're still
>> family....
>>      
> If all Jews are brothers, all humans are first cousins. Ben Azzai omer,
> "'Zeh seifer toledos adam' -- zeh kelal gadol mizeh."
>    
Meh.  We make a major distinction between us and them.  You can't turn 
Judaism into some sort of universalist pap.  Lo tikom v'lo titor et bnei 
amecha, among many, many others.  And for the record, I think you're 
misinterpreting Ben Azzai as well.  Atem nikraim adam.

>>> Last, I think saying that when the Beis Yoseif et al tie "binfol oyivkha"
>>> to Chatzi Hallel, they are not precluding feeling joy at our being free
>>> from their oppressing us. I believe the point is to call for ambivalence:
>>> sadness at the waste of tzelem E-lokim -- starting with what the Mitzrim
>>> did to themselves and continuing with their death -- simultaneous with
>>> happiness that justice was made manifest, that the wicked are no longer
>>> around to harm us, etc...
>>>        
>    
>> It's an interesting vort, but I don't think that sort of distinction
>> exists in the Beis Yosef.  When they tie binfol oyivcha to chatzi
>> hallel, they're saying what I wrote above.
>>      
> Which is what? You said we people aren't supposed to connect the two. So
> how does that fit Chatzi Hallel, expression our praise of G-d for giving
> us a joyous occasion?
>    

I honestly don't see what I said that's so ambiguous.  You know, maybe 
what I need to do is what Rabbi Bar Hayim asked me to do a couple of 
years ago, and write the whole thing up with inline sources quoted, so 
that there's no confusion.

>>>> Even widely respected talmidei chachamim can err and confuse alien ideas
>>>> as our own.  As witness the recent discussion about widely respected
>>>> talmidei chachamim quoting "Ein navi b'iro" as though it's a Jewish
>>>> thought, when it's actually from the treyfer sefer.
>>>>          
>    
>>> Some level of emunas chakhamim is required WRT matters of Torah, no?
>>> Otherwise, TSBP is whatever you want it to be, ve'ish hayashar be'einav
>>> ya'aseh.
>>>        
>    
>> Right.  And emunat chachamim starts with the Gemara.  I don't buy the
>> Beis Yosef lacking emunat chachamim and disputing a mefurash Gemara...
>>      
> So taitch the BY for us.
>    
<sigh> Again?  Really?  What part of what I've explained is unclear?  
The Beis Yosef is saying this:

========
We say Chatzi Hallel (omit the parts of Hallel that are condemnations of 
Hashem's children) on Shevii shel Pesach because this is the day when 
Hashem had to drown His children in the Red Sea, and it would be crass, 
crude, and just plain mean spirited to include condemnations of others 
of His children in our praises of Him on that day.  Now... why would we 
think that Hashem was sad about drowning the Mitzrim?  After all, they 
were rotten and bad and nasty and all around villains, right?  Well, 
there are two reasons we think that.  One is the way He stopped the 
malachim from singing shira.  The other is "binfol oyivcha al tismach".  
Just as we understand this as applying to our fellow Jews, so that even 
if the fellow Jew in question is a rotten no-goodnik, we refrain from 
rejoicing, because he's still *ours*, Hashem's relationship, so to 
speak, with the Mitzrim is no less than our relationship with our fellow 
Jews.
========

If there's any part of that that's unclear, please, tell me what it is.  
Because God knows I can't think of any way to say it more clearly.

Lisa

On 29/06/2012 3:41 PM, Micha Berger wrote:
> Shishah siderei mishnah. Halakhah pesuqah is divided into the "dimensions"
> of olam hazeh. Thus, as the Maharal put it (Gevuros H' 46), a cube has
> 6 sides. 3 dimensions, each of which has 2 directions.
>
> 6 -- the physical world.
> 7 -- the holiness inherent in the world

Also, if you surround a circle with other circles of the same size,
it takes exactly six to completely surround it.  Try it with coins of
the same denomination.    Thus Shabbos is surrounded by the workdays,
and fills exactly the hole they create.


-- 
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: Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org>

On Mon, Jun 25,  2012 Rich, Joel wrote:
:> The machlokes in the gemara whether "meisim  yod'im" refers only to what
:> is happening outside the cemetery. Lechol  hade'os they know what is
:> happening inside.

: Again: See tosfot  sotah 34b D"H avotai as well as michtav meliyahu -yamim
: noraim where he  posits those of high ruchanit stature know nothing of
: this world once they  leave it.

Except that Tosafos also include them knowing what is said in  tefillos.

-- 
Micha Berger 
mi...@aishdas.org  

>>>>>




This week's parsha, Chukas -- see Bamidbar 20:15.  "The Egyptians did  evil 
to us and to our fathers."  A more natural way to have said this would  
have been "...to our fathers and to us."  
 
Rashi therefore comments, "Mikan sheha'avos mitzta'arim bakever  
keshepur'anus ba'ah al Yisrael."
 
"From here we see that the Avos grieve in their graves when punishment  
comes upon Yisrael."
 

--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/20120629/15ae3135/attachment-0001.htm>

In Avodah V30n77, R'Micha noted a d'var Torah from Shlomo Katz, quoting
RShWolbe z'l'.	I don't know if it was intentionally quoted this particular
week, but it seems to be especially relevant in light of one explanation
for the Mei-M'rivah punishment (in this week's sedra) upon Moshe Rabbeinu
(and Aharon) re his saying "notzi," "*we* will bring forth," instead of
pointedly mentioning H'. 

A gut'n Shabbes/Shabbas Shalom and all the best from 
-- Michael Poppers via BB pager

On 29/06/2012 5:29 PM, T6...@aol.com wrote:
> This week's parsha, Chukas -- see Bamidbar 20:15.	"The Egyptians did
> evil to us and to our fathers."  A more natural way to have said this
> would have been "...to our fathers and to us."
> Rashi therefore comments, "Mikan sheha'avos mitzta'arim bakever keshepur'anus ba'ah al Yisrael."
> "From here we see that the Avos grieve in their graves when punishment comes upon Yisrael."

Yes.  The question is how they know.  Of course when people are being
killed, those neshamos can go and inform them.  But when, for instance,
the world needs rain but nobody has yet died from its lack, how do they
know?  And the Zohar says that we must inform the local meisim, who will
then go and inform the Avos.

-- 
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


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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 30, Issue 78
**************************************

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..."