Avodah Mailing List

Volume 30: Number 150

Mon, 05 Nov 2012

• 1. Re: What did Avraham hope to accomplish by arguing with Hashem about Sdom? (Micha Berger)
• 2. Re: pronouncing shem hashem (h Lampel)
• 3. Re: pronouncing shem hashem (Micha Berger)
• 4. Re: Hasidim davening early (Micha Berger)
• 5. What did Avraham hope to accomplish by arguing with Hashem about Sdom? (hankman)
• 6. What did Avraham hope to accomplish by arguing with Hashem about Sdom? (Arie Folger)
• 7. Re: What did Avraham hope to accomplish by arguing with Hashem about Sdom? (Micha Berger)
• 8. Re: BELIEF (Micha Berger)
• 9. Re: What did Avraham hope to accomplish by arguing withHashem about Sdom? (hankman)
• 10. Revi?is dam nosati bochem (hankman)
• 11. Re: Web Site on Shabbos (Micha Berger)
• 12. Eivah (Joseph Kaplan)
• 13. Re: Eivah (Lisa Liel)
• 14. Re: eivah (Akiva Miller)

On Sun, Nov 04, 2012 at 11:22:44AM +0200, Marty Bluke wrote:
:       One answer given by a number of rishonim and acharonim is that tefila
: is for us, it makes us better people, changes us, makes us into a new
: person. Therefore, whatever din we had was on the old person but the new
: you now gets a new din which hopefully is better. However, this doesn't
: explain why Avraham Avinu would have an argument with Hashem and try to
: convince him to change [H]is ["M]ind["] using logical arguments...

I think it does. After all, pleading for HQBH to heal someone is just
as pointless as trying to out-reason Him. In any case, "letav avad"
trumps a person's begging or reasoning.

HQBH wanted Avraham to fight for obtaining Din and Rachamim for the people
of 5 Cities in order to make that more manifest in AA's character.
Perhaps that factor -- the effect of the appeal or distruction on
Avraham's development -- would be the straw that broke the camel's back
on the cities' fate in either direction.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             A person must be very patient
mi...@aishdas.org        even with himself.
http://www.aishdas.org         - attributed to R' Nachman of Breslov
Fax: (270) 514-1507

Fri, 2 Nov 2012 14:31:53 -0400 From: Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org>

>Rabbeynu Yehuda HaLevy in the the Kuzari (2:80)... makes the cholom neither an "oy" sound nor a long
>"a" sound (both which involve the sides of the tongue).

> There is an elaborate argument at
> http://opensiddur.org/wp-content/uploads/2
> 010/10/Siddur-Bnei-Ashkenaz-v.1.12.2.pdf#page=51
>
Fascinating. I was ready to hear that Rav Yehuda HaLevy was, after all, 
a Sefardi, so it may be irrlevant to Ashkenazi pronunciation. But this 
pdf says that the long ''O'' pronunciaton of a cholom was endorsed by 
the Gra, by the Kelm Talmud Torah according to R' Shlomo Wolbe, by Rav 
Eliyahu Dessler, Rav Yaakov Kaminetzky, Rav Moshe Feisnstein and Rav 
Mordechai Gifter. To all of which I can only remark, ''Oh!''
---Zvi Lampel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20121105/0e42ef84/attachment-0001.htm>

On Mon, Nov 05, 2012 at 11:54:30AM -0500, RZLampel wrote:
> Fascinating. I was ready to hear that Rav Yehuda HaLevy was, after all,  
> a Sefardi, so it may be irrlevant to Ashkenazi pronunciation. But this  
> pdf says that the long "O" pronunciaton of a cholom was endorsed by  
> the Gra, by the Kelm Talmud Torah according to R' Shlomo Wolbe, by Rav  
> Eliyahu Dessler, Rav Yaakov Kaminetzky, Rav Moshe Feisnstein and Rav  
> Mordechai Gifter. To all of which I can only remark, "Oh!"

Not quite the long /O/. That's actually a dipthong of qamatz + shuruq.
More like the cholam used by Sepharadim and Israelis, but a touch even
more rounded. Rather than sliding a qamatz into a shuruq to get a similar
feel of something in between.

If you know International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA) better than I do,
perhaps http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D6%B9#Pronunciation is of value.
( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPA_vowel_chart_with_audio might be of
help decoding.) You'll notice, though, that there are 4 Ashkenazic
cholams, just as per that essay.

But I stand by my question about the hei-vav-alef spelling of "hee",
and has as little to do with /w/ as choilam, choelem or cheilam might.
(And what ever happened to the common belief that Teimani havarah had the
least cause for distortion? In which case, Litvisher long /A/ is closer
than long /O/.)

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             You cannot propel yourself forward
mi...@aishdas.org        by patting yourself on the back.
http://www.aishdas.org                   -Anonymous
Fax: (270) 514-1507

On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 04:26:04PM -0400, David Riceman wrote:
> Suppose a person knew that it typically takes him three hours to  
> prepare to daven.  If he wanted to daven k'vasikin he might start  
> preparing, say, at 3 AM.  If some day his preparations are unusually  
> fast he could find himself finshing shacharis before alos hashahar.

> Yet I've never heard any stories about something like that happening.

> Why not?

If the idea is to maximize qavanah, then losing sleep is
counterproductive, no? It's better to set the alarm as needed and delay
Shacharis until they are mentally ready.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             A wise man is careful during the Purim banquet
mi...@aishdas.org        about things most people don't watch even on
http://www.aishdas.org   Yom Kippur.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                       - Rav Yisrael Salanter

RMB wrote:
However, Hashem is not a person who can be convinced. Hashem is perfect and
omniscient and therefore by definition you can't change Hashem's mind and
you are not going to raise an argument that he hasn't already considered
and rejected. Given the above, what was Avraham Avinu trying to accomplish
with his back and forth with Hashem?

In truth, this is really the age old question about tefila, if Hashem is
omniscient and perfect what is the point of davening? Hashem knows exactly
what we need/want and we can't, so to speak convince him to change his
mind.

CM remarks:
I was thinking along similar lines. In fact what happens here is that in
reality AA never actually got to a real case where he might make a
difference. There were no 50, 40, 30, 20 or 10 tzadikkim and he stopped at
10 because of the example of the mabul that was not saved.  So the only
actual case where AA could have made a difference (less than 10) wasn?t
even asked for. 

A friend of mine pointed out something that never occurred to me. Lot
accomplished more in terms of saving Sedom than AA. By fleeing to Tzoar,
one of the 5 cities to be destroyed, he saved it. So he actually saved 20%
from that destruction whereas AA did not save anyone. (You can of course
argue that saving Lot and Tzoar was all only bezchus AA).

Kol Tuv
Chaim Manaster

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20121105/aadc0958/attachment-0001.htm>

RMBluke asked what Avraham hoped to achieve while pleading form Sdom.
IMO, based on the Seforno, he got the hint that G"d wanted him to try, to
have compassion even with the people who were ra'im ve'hattaim laHshem
meod, and in the process, he found out what is the bare minimum of
righteous people you need to save a society: a minyan!

--
mit freundlichen Gr??en,
with kind regards,
Arie Folger

visit my blog at http://ariefolger.wordpress.com/
sent from my mobile device
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20121105/1f1bde76/attachment-0001.htm>

On Mon, Nov 05, 2012 at 12:40:22PM -0500, hankman wrote:
: A friend of mine pointed out something that never occurred to me. Lot
: accomplished more in terms of saving Sedom than AA. By fleeing to Tzoar,
: one of the 5 cities to be destroyed, he saved it. So he actually saved
: 20% from that destruction whereas AA did not save anyone. (You can of
: course argue that saving Lot and Tzoar was all only bezchus AA).

Yes, to the parenthetic. This does confuse cause and credit. Lot would
have caused Tzo'ar to be saved, but he isn't to be credited with its
salvation.

The same in the reverse, conflating cause and blame, often misleads
people to blaming a victim. The fact that something never would have
happened to them had they acted otherwise doesn't mean the act was to
blame for their being harmed.

Side quibble: Lot went there because it was small (19:20) "vehi
mitz'ar". Rashi 19:22 says it was renamed [from Bela] to Tzo'ar to
refer to Tza'ar. But perhaps in addition it is because the city was the
mitz'ar. Not 20%.

Maybe even Lot alone was the necessary percentage for tiny Tzo'ar that
Avraham was seeking in his bargaining.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             The true measure of a man
mi...@aishdas.org        is how he treats someone
http://www.aishdas.org   who can do him absolutely no good.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                   - Samuel Johnson

On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 11:03:24AM -0500, Lisa Liel wrote:
>                                             Nor am I sure that you're  
> right about belief in God being a commandment.  The Rambam says there's  
> a positive commandment to *know* that God exists.  So I guess I'm not  
> sure what you mean by "belief", either.

R Shach gave me an opportunity to say "barukh shekivanti" when he defines
(Avi Ezri, Hil' Teshuvah) "emunah" as being sure enough that something
is true that you can count on it. This would justify it being the same
shoresh as "nasata venatata be'emanunah", "vayehi omein es Hadassah",
and other uses indicating trust and trustworthiness.

Not relevant when discussing the Rambam, as it seems from people who speak
the language that the Rambam's Arabic is better translated as yedi'ah
rather than emunah. (Similarly, see R' Saadia Gaon's introduction to
Emunos veDei'os, as translated by RY el-Qafeh ("Kapach"), ch. 4
<http://www.daat.ac.il/daat/mahshevt/kapah/hakdama-2.htm#4>.

More relevant might be the classical definition of "episteme" - knowledge,
given by Plato. Knowledge is a justified true belief. Meaning, something
you believe, you have a good reason to believe, and that also happens to
be true.

They've poked holes in this definition in the 20th century.
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gettier_problems> But no one really has
put forward an accepted replacement. And besides, if we're assuming the
Rambam was trying for the Greek concept of episteme, Russel and Gettier
aren't relevant.

The Rambam held that the only real justification is philosophical proof.
In the days since the Idealists, the Realists, Des Cartes and Kant,
this isn't a popular idea among philosophers anymore.

R' Yehudah haLevi said that mesorah is a better justification system.

I've been arguing that the first-hand experience of keeping Shabbos,
learning Torah, and leading a life of observance provides first-hand
justification. Much the way observing a ball could justify the belief
that the given ball is blue. Or more closely: the mental experience one
gets from thinking about two lines with the same slope (assuming a "flat"
Euclidean space) justifies the belief that they'll never meet.

But it could be that one could fulfill the requirement the Rambam meant by
yedi'ah without developing *philosophical* justification in particular.
I'm not sure that when the Rambam requires yedi'ah he required we accept
his epistomological assumptions as well.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             We are great, and our foibles are great,
mi...@aishdas.org        and therefore our troubles are great --
http://www.aishdas.org   but our consolations will also be great.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                        - Rabbi AY Kook

RMB wrote:
Side quibble: Lot went there because it was small (19:20) "vehi
mitz'ar". Rashi 19:22 says it was renamed [from Bela] to Tzo'ar to
refer to Tza'ar. But perhaps in addition it is because the city was the
mitz'ar. Not 20%.

CM notes:
As I wrote ?20%? I was thinking that someone would quibble about that ? as you did ? but I just used it as a shorthand for one city out of five.?

RMB wrote:
Maybe even Lot alone was the necessary percentage for tiny Tzo'ar that
Avraham was seeking in his bargaining.

CM notes:
Actually I thought  along similar lines that perhaps AA could have asked
for all 5 cities even with less than 10 notwithstanding the prior precedent
of the Mabul for the same logic you proposed in your comment. Maybe less
than 10 wasn?t enough to save the entire world, but perhaps it might be
enough to save just 5 cities.

Kol tuv
Chaim Manaster
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20121105/c57a9b55/attachment-0001.htm>

In the daf yomi Sabbos 31b, R. Chisda states  ?omar HKB?H revi?is dam
nosati bochem? and Rashi explains that man?s life depends on it. In fact
(the typical ) man has about 5 liters of blood (varies with the size of the
individual). This is a lot more than one revi?is of dam. Nor is it possible
for this to means that if you lose blood, you can still survive on one
revi?is dam. I believe that is not the case either. From a quick google,
after about 40% blood loss you go into coma and without immediate help
(transfusion) will not survive long.

There is a similar gm? in Sota 5a brings R. Alaksandri who in his maimre
says, ?adam shain bo elo revi?is achas (some are goreis dam), and in
agreement with our gm? in Shabbos. Tos there brings a R?Channanel (if I
understand it correctly) that what the gm? means is that a revi?is is just
the volume of blood in the heart. How do you understand these gemaras, and
why is this revi?is more significant than the rest of one?s blood given
that with only the revi?is in the heart alone you certainly can not
survive.

Kol tuv
Chaim Manaster
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20121105/a9fcc001/attachment-0001.htm>

On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 09:43:34PM -0400, cantorwolb...@cox.net wrote:
: If you have a well for water, just by running the water, you cause
: the pump to activate. Wells have pumps for the water. Does that
: mean you should fill up receptacles with water prior to Shabbos?

As a pragmatic matter, I think the pump fills a water tower only when it
runs below some low-water mark. So it's not a given. More like risking
turning the heat on by opening the front door in the winter. Or opening
a refrigerator when the compressor is off, risking it going on.

Gerama is only when it's a sure thing.

: If you have a septic system, the pump is activated when you flush 
: your toilets. Therefore, are you not allowed to flush toilets on Shabbos
: if you have a septic system?

Accoring to
http://www.kingcounty.gov/healthservices/health/ehs/wastewater
/owners/works.aspx

not all tanks are pump tanks. But those that are generally have floaters
in them operating a switch. So it would seem that this too is not a
sure thing that happens every flush.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Friendship is like stone. A stone has no value,
mi...@aishdas.org        but by rubbing one stone against another,
http://www.aishdas.org   sparks of fire emerge. 
Fax: (270) 514-1507                  - Rav Mordechai of Lechovitz

"Maybe that speaks to a weakness in our hashkafa nowadays.  Or our emunah.
And it isn't only Shabbat.

 

But I don't think that our weakness should lead us to try and claim that
doing those things is *right*.  It feels a lot better to justify ourselves,
but it's more honest to say, 'I did what I had to, but I know it was wrong.
I didn't have it in me to find a different way.'"

 

I would phrase it differently.  I think what most people would say, and I
believe it is hones to say this, is: "I did what I had to do although I was
taught that the halacha says to do otherwise.  I will defend myself before
God at the appropriate time, and if my action is found to be improper I will
accept the consequences."

 

Joseph 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20121105/45867097/attachment-0001.htm>

On 11/5/2012 12:53 PM, Joseph Kaplan wrote:
>
> "Maybe that speaks to a weakness in our hashkafa nowadays.  Or our 
> emunah.  And it isn't only Shabbat.
>
> But I don't think that our weakness should lead us to try and claim 
> that doing those things is *right*.  It feels a lot better to justify 
> ourselves, but it's more honest to say, 'I did what I had to, but I 
> know it was wrong.  I didn't have it in me to find a different way.'"
>
> I would phrase it differently.  I think what most people would say, 
> and I believe it is hones to say this, is: "I did what I had to do 
> although I was taught that the halacha says to do otherwise.  I will 
> defend myself before God at the appropriate time, and if my action is 
> found to be improper I will accept the consequences."
>

I kind of agree, but not entirely.  Because the way you suggest implies 
that I know better than Hashem.  It's a little chutzpahdik.  In some 
cases, I might say that, but I'd like to think that I'd be more likely 
to say that due to my own failings, or for whatever reason, I was unable 
to change my perspective to reflect His.

The ideal is asei retzono retzoncha.  Not asei retzoncha v'tasbir lama.

Lisa

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20121105/1c5c8989/attachment-0001.htm>

R"n Lisa Liel wrote:

> I don't deny that most Orthodox Jews would do what they 
> needed to and just accept the price of the transgression. Maybe
> that speaks to a weakness in our hashkafa nowadays.  Or our
> emunah.  And it isn't only Shabbat.
>
> But I don't think that our weakness should lead us to try and
> claim that doing those things is *right*. It feels a lot better
> to justify ourselves, but it's more honest to say, "I did what I
> had to, but I know it was wrong.  I didn't have it in me to find
> a different way."

I recently read a story which speaks to exactly this point, that of doing
what seems right, even if we know it to be assur. Actually I read it a
while ago also, so I think it might be a well-known story, and if someone
can document it, all the better.

As I recall it, a rav wanted to build a mikveh for the town, but the only
available location had previously been a shul, and although the shul was no
longer in use, the halacha is that one may not take down a shul to build a
mikvah. He consulted a well-known posek, who told him to do it anyway:
"Yes, this aveirah will go on your account, but the zechus that you'll be
giving to the community will make it worth it."

I don't remember who the posek in the story was, but I do remember that it
was a universally-respected one. And I turned the page shaking my head,
wondering where he got the "broad shoulders" with which to second-guess the
Ribono Shel Olam in this manner. I fear to imagine what might have happened
if Avraham Avinu had applied such "common sense" at the Akeidah.

This is not to say that I think the posek of the story was wrong. I is to explain why I am not such a posek.

Answers to these questions *DO* exist. But our teachers may not be able to
explain them well enough for my mind to understand. Or they may not be able
to articulate them at all, even to themselves; we have discussed this in
the past, that one cannot create a flow-chart on "How To Pasken", and that
sometimes it is done by feelings.

Akiva Miller
____________________________________________________________
Woman is 53 But Looks 25
Mom reveals 1 simple wrinkle trick that has angered doctors...
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/509820fb4260b20fb3634st01vuc


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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 30, Issue 150
***************************************

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..."