Avodah Mailing List

Volume 30: Number 153

Fri, 09 Nov 2012

• 1. Rabbi Dovid Sapirman: Round Table Discussion With R Sapirman (09/11/2012) (Prof. Levine)
• 2. Re: Eivah (Meir Shinnar)
• 3. Fwd: eivah (Eli Turkel)
• 4. Torah and Science (Eli Turkel)
• 5. Re: Torah and Science (Micha Berger)
• 6. Re: Eivah (Akiva Miller)
• 7. Re: pronouncing shem hashem (h Lampel)
• 8. Re: pronouncing shem hashem (Micha Berger)
• 9. Re: Teaching Emunah to the Next Generation (Micha Berger)
• 10. Re: BELIEF (Akiva Miller)
• 11. Re: BELIEF (Lisa Liel)
• 12. Brain, the Seat of The Soul? What is the Soul? (Meir Rabi)
• 13. Brain is the Link to HKBH (Meir Rabi)
• 14. Lama Li KeRa? Sevara Hu (Meir Rabi)

See http://tinyurl.com/adyod97

Rabbi Sapirman says at the beginning that a title for this talk might
be Yetzer Hara Mirages.

See http://www.torahanytime.com/Rabbi/Dovid_Sapirman/  for more
shiurim by Rabbi Sapirman.

YL

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20121106/6749f340/attachment-0001.htm>

RJK:
> RD Gerald (Ya'akov) Blidstein has told an interesting story about RYBS whose
> student Prof. Blidstein was .  A story had been printed in the Israeli press
> about a frum Jew who wouldn't help an ill non-Jew on Shabbat.  (The story
> proved to be completely false, as it turned out.)  This became an issue in
> the US and was brought up in shiur.  RYBS immediately said that the frum Jew
> had acted improperly and that he should have helped mishum eivah.  Prof.
> Blidstein asked (I'm paraphrasing but the story can be found, I believe in a
> Tradition article) but rebbe does that answer satisfy you morally?  RYBS
> thought and replied "no."

> The article is in a book ( I think Orthodox Forum series, but will check),

It was in a lecture at Stern.

RYBS did not merely say no, he then developed another rationale for
helping the non Jew on Shabbat - based on an extension of the Meiri's
idea that hazal's limitations towards non Jews applied to the immoral
idolaters of their times.

Also, People have cited the discussion between Rav Amital and Rav
Lichtenstein about cannibalism. I have seen cited (it was by a former
areivim member) that they had a similar discussion about saving a non
Jew on shabbat on a desert island (eg, no repercussions) - with Rav
Amital staiting it was a mitzva to help, and Rav Lichtenstein saying
that he would help and then do tshuva for hillul shabbat - but I have
not actually seen this in their writings or on the gush website.

Meir Shinnar

<<I think we should take out of the discussion anything that was a direct
command from God or one of God's prophets>>

Remember Yonah

-- 
Eli Turkel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20121107/09b5e23e/attachment-0001.htm>

<<By starting with the assumption that science and empirical reality are
the important yardstick, one unnecessarily creates problems. Let's say
Chazal are interested in refining souls, and science (or Natural Philosophy)
has nothing to do with it.

It's not that we ignore certain scientific realia. It's that we do not
look at the scientific realm altogether. Which goes hand-in-hand to
assuming that chazal spoke at times in scientific metaphor, and weren't
discussing science altogether.

What we care about is refining human souls, not abstract info about the
world in which they live.>>

Halacha deals with this world and not just refining souls.
Lice is the easy case

There are many harder cases. . According to halacha one is not mechallel
shabbat for a fetus in the 8th month (even as late as MB was mekil in the
beginning of the 9th). Today science knows of no such thing as a 7 month
pregnancy - the longer the better ie 8 months is better than 7 months.
Does Micha hold that we ignore scientific realia and still not save an 8th
month fetus on shabbat?

Note that Michat Yiotzchak indeed says so but as far as I know he is the
only one. He finds a technical out in that we dont really know that a fetus
is in the 8th month unless the father was away and home only for a few
days. - of course with modern pregnancy tests one can know shortly after
conception

-- 
Eli Turkel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20121107/666160cf/attachment-0001.htm>

On Wed, Nov 07, 2012 at 10:17:05AM +0200, Eli Turkel wrote:
:> What we care about is refining human souls, not abstract info about the
:> world in which they live.

: Halacha deals with this world and not just refining souls.
...
: There are many harder cases. . According to halacha one is not mechallel
: shabbat for a fetus in the 8th month (even as late as MB was mekil in the
: beginning of the 9th). Today science knows of no such thing as a 7 month
: pregnancy - the longer the better ie 8 months is better than 7 months.
: Does Micha hold that we ignore scientific realia and still not save an 8th
: month fetus on shabbat?

No, I am saying that we do not ignore the scientific reality because in
this case it's not abstract info. Without the mediation -- and emotional
remove -- of a microscope -- one would never encounter the eggs of the
qinim in question. That is not true of sick babies.

But the gemara's pesaq about 8 month babies doesn't rest on the idea
that sometimes gestation is supposed to be for 7 months. That's the
basis for saving 7 month babies, not for Shabbos trumping the saving of
8 month ones.

What changed the halakhah (ignoring a daas yachid) is the change in
neonatal medicine and care, not the science. What makes halakhah is
whether such babies can be saved in the present, not theories about why
they couldn't in the past.

A halachic discussion only requires knowing the observed and
directly observable reality. Being right or wrong on scientific theory
is irrelevent because it's off topic for pesaq. What I'm adding is that
things that can only be observed by technological mediation are lumped
with "theory". Our relationship to these ideas is indirect, and thus
they lack soul-changing impact.

And so my theory explains why there are posqim who are still meiqil on
beitzei qinim but require chilul Shabbos for sick 8th month babies.


Side-note: I posted on list in June the Y-mi's take on the subject.
According to TY Yavamos 2:4, vilna 24b, one does save a 7-month fetus that
was born late. The gemara is only talking about not saving unsalvagable
preemies. This means that in Israel, perhaps because they were in the
Roman Empire and Rome was ahead of Persia in these things, people knew
of babies born after 8 months who could survive and required care even
on Shabbos.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Life isn't about finding yourself
mi...@aishdas.org        Life is about creating yourself.
http://www.aishdas.org                - Bernard Shaw
Fax: (270) 514-1507

R' Marty Bluke wrote:

> That is a very slippery slope, where does it stop? When do we
> say no more and observe the halacha? The Conservative movement
> used similar reasoning to allow people to drive on Shabbos,
> everyone here agrees that they went too far, but how do we
> know that? ...

If, as you say, "everyone here agrees that they went too far," it is only
because we've been taught to believe that. I, for one, am not convinced of
it. I remember reading that "responsum" once, and my impression was that
although the sum total went way too far for my tastes, I was unable to
point to any single point where they crossed the line. This is especially
so if we think honestly about some of the inventive logic used by some of
our own favorite poskim.

R' Micha Berger's response was:

> There are a number of kiruv organizations that got real
> bonofied-O pesaqim to take a don't ask don't tell attitude
> toward people who drive to their programming on Shabbos. Your
> poseiq may not like their pesaq, but can you call a position
> taken by Lub and Aish to be beyond the limits of legitimate
> halachic process?

Just because a pesak was issued by someone who pays dues to an organization
affiliated with the Orthodox movement, that doesn't guarantee that the
pesak is within the limits of legitimate halachic process.

But don't misunderstand me - I am not really suggesting that such psakim
are outside the limits. What I *am* asking -- like R' Marty Bluke asked --
is how we know that the Conservative approach is outside the limits.

Regarding the sale of a shul to be a mikveh, R' Micha Berger wrote:

> (RMF in IM CM 1:42 reaches the same conclusion, but argues
> that since one may sell a seifer Torah to marry a woman
> (Megillah 27a) and qedushas ST outranks that of a shul (prior
> mishnah, 25b), then qal vakhomer one may sell a shul to build
> a miqvah. Thus defusing this example for the sake of our
> discussion.)

Rather than defusing this example, I think it is a *great* example of the
"inventive logic" that I referred to above. Do you think that these
arguments did not occur to earlier poskim? Yet they don't seem to have
mitigated the psak of the Mishna (Megillah, 2nd one on 27b) and Shulchan
Aruch (OC 153:9). I do concede that the poskim mention some exceptions to
this halacha (for example, see MB 153:56) but RMF's powerful arguments
would seem to not need those exceptions.

Akiva Miler
____________________________________________________________
Woman is 57 But Looks 27
Mom publishes simple facelift trick that angered doctors...
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/509a604198d2e604153a0st03vuc

ZL:
>>  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!"

RMB:
> Not quite the long /O/. That's actually a dipthong of qamatz + shuruq.

I don't understand your disagreement. That's what the article says: 
The pronunciation is a dipthong of qamatz + shuruq, prononounced like 
the "o" in the English word "go."

RMB:
> 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.

Good question. (Reminds me of when I was once davening in a Monsey
shteibel, and the Torah reader stopped mid-posuk, pointed to the word,
and said, "It says "hee," but it's supposed to be "HEE!")

--Zvi Lampel

On Wed, Nov 07, 2012 at 10:57:12PM EST, R Zvi Lampel wrote:
>> Not quite the long /O/. That's actually a dipthong of qamatz + shuruq.

> I don't understand your disagreement. That's what the article says: 
> The pronunciation is a dipthong of qamatz + shuruq, prononounced like 
> the "o" in the English word "go."

I am doubting the Gra and Kelm (including RZL's citation of R's Dessler
and Wolbe) advocated the long /O/ dipthong, but rather something closer
to the Israeli cholam. Instead of moving the lips from qamatz to shuruq,
keeping them in a position somewhere in between.


>> 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.

> Good question. (Reminds me of when I was once davening in a Monsey
> shteibel, and the Torah reader stopped mid-posuk, pointed to the word,
> and said, "It says "hee," but it's supposed to be "HEE!")

Happened at my bar mitzvah. Parashas Pinechas. In Levi, you run through
the count of BY and name the mishpachos of each sheivet. I mispronounced
"liNmu'el" as "linMi'el". R' Margolis a"h corrected (roughly -- my bar
mitzvah wasn't yestday ya'know), "Nain! Far ir es iz 'NeMOO'ail'!" (which
was correct as far as the shuruq, but he broke the tzeirei).

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Despair is the worst of ailments. No worries
mi...@aishdas.org        are justified except: "Why am I so worried?"
http://www.aishdas.org                         - Rav Yisrael Salanter
Fax: (270) 514-1507

On Sun, Nov 04, 2012 at 06:21:10PM -0500, Prof. Levine wrote:
> Teaching Emunah to the Next Generation  Torah Umesorah May 2008
> A passionate presentation by Rabbi Dovid Sapirman demonstrating the  
> urgent need to proactively instill the ikrei emunah in our children.
> This talk can be listened to at http://tinyurl.com/bhfnefe

The majority of the time is spent on a mussar shmuess for mechankhim.
Reducing it to a dry paragraph:

Every child has questions. Therefore, don't treat the child who asks a
fundamental question as though they had one foot out the door and a bad
influence. (Horror stories deleted.) And we need to have at least one
mechanekh per school who is willing to sit down and talk these things
out. Until prevailing attitudes change, this may have to be done with
promises of confidentiality about questions asked.

What I got out of the talk that was new to me:

RDS presented the following taxonomy of how youth relate to fundamental
questions:

1- We have the success stories, the believers who have a firm foundation.

2- The one who has no questions because it's not their nature to be bothered
by these things.

3- The one who has questions, but are invested enough in the system to
be a maamin despite them.

4- The one who has questions, but lives the lifestyle mitzvos anashim
meilumada.

5- Those on their way out.

RDS closes by mentioning that all our youth, even those from the most
self-contained of our communities, are exposed to more sexuality than
generations past. We need to teach this from a Jewish viewpoint as well.

But RDS doesn't link this observation with the idea that for most people
(if not all), the difference between whether they find the questions
insignificant to their lives, rob their lives of meaning or they uproot
their entire emuna (ie the lines between his his categories 3, 4, & 5)
are negi'os (in the mussar rather than EhE se'if 21 sense), not intellect
and cold reason. And in fact, a child with sufficient negi'os (such as
someone who went down the rabbit-hole of sexuality) will choose a
philosophical shtantz in which none of these answers are convincing.

To quote R' Yehudah haLevi (Kuzari 1:13):
    The Chakham: That which you describe is religion based on speculation
    and system, the research of thought, but is open to many doubts. Now
    ask the philosophers, and you will find that they do not agree on
    one action or one principle, since some doctrines can be established
    by philosophical arguments, which are only partially satisfactory,
    and still much less capable of being proved.

We pick our postulates based on which ideas seem self-evident from
where we currently stand. All these philosophical arguments build on
those givens, and so philosophers can each prove, seemingly impeccably,
conflicting ideas. The Scholastic era gave way to Des Cartes, Kant,
etc... when philosophers themselves so the limits of their speculations.

RDS's entire approach relies on the problem being intellectual, if we just
taught them the fundamentals we would stem most of the departures. Our
approach is to pair the machashavah with programming that would operate
on more experiential and emotional levels.

But meanwhile, it's true that few of us studied the fundamentals
of Yahadus beyond what we learned in preschool. (Although Avodah in
particular self-selects to produce an atypical density of such people.)

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

I had posted:

> ... this mitzvah is not really any different than any other
> positive mitzvah in this regard. You can't simply decide to
> do a mitzva, and then expect it to happen by magic; there is
> almost always some sort of preparation required.
>
> You can't do the mitzvah of matzah on Pesach unless you
> purchase some, or bake it yourself. ... And if one doesn't
> believe, he needs to work on that. Exactly how one does that
> will vary with the individual ... One will work through the
> intellectual "proofs", and another will simply spend time
> among believers and allow them to make an impression on him.

Offlist, a friend pointed out a big difference between this mitzvah and others in this regard.

Granted that it is foolish to sit down at the table and expect matzah to
appear magically without personal preparation of some sort. But if one does
have the wherewithal, he can practically guarantee that he'll be able to
either purchase the matzah or bake it himself, and then eat it that night.
And if one lacks the money or the ingredients, or is otherwise genuinely
unable to do the mitzvah -- such as one who is captive by criminals or by
illness -- we'd agree that he is either patur or oness.

No such guarantees exist for the one who is trying to believe. There are
ways of acquiring faith, but they are not guaranteed. And even more than
that: My offlist friend pointed out that these methods have been known to
backfire. One person may pursue faith and remain unconvinced, but another
may become convinced that G-d does *not* exist. Or even worse, he may come
to believe in another god.

These thoughts are leading me to wonder how the Torah can obligate us to
believe. We are basar v'dam with frail and limited intellects and senses;
we are not mal'achim who are on intimate terms with the upper worlds.
Perhaps there is an obligation to *try* to believe, but I don't know how
success there can be legislated.

Some might respond that this is again no different than matzah -- all you
really need to do is to try to eat matzah and your success or failure is
irrelevant. But I think belief is in a uniquely different category, given
the lacks of a surefire way of accomplishing it.

Or maybe not. This is not the only mitzvah where our emotions are
commanded. Others include: V'samachta b'chagecha. V'ahavta l'rayacha. Or,
for that matter, V'ahavta Es HaShem Elokecha. What if I simply don't feel
that way? How can I force myself to feel a certain way? Is belief really
any different than those?

Akiva Miller
____________________________________________________________
Woman is 53 But Looks 25
Mom reveals 1 simple wrinkle trick that has angered doctors...
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/509ad34e9be8b534e77e3st01vuc

On 11/7/2012 3:30 PM, Akiva Miller wrote:
>
> Some might respond that this is again no different than matzah -- all
> you really need to do is to try to eat matzah and your success or
> failure is irrelevant. But I think belief is in a uniquely different
> category, given the lacks of a surefire way of accomplishing it.
>
> Or maybe not. This is not the only mitzvah where our emotions are
> commanded. Others include: V'samachta b'chagecha. V'ahavta l'rayacha.
> Or, for that matter, V'ahavta Es HaShem Elokecha. What if I simply
> don't feel that way? How can I force myself to feel a certain way? Is
> belief really any different than those?
>    

I think it's a lot easier than any of this.  Suppose I tell you that I 
flipped a coin 100 times, and it came up heads every time.  And let's 
assume it's a kosher coin.  You'd probably find it hard to believe.  It 
would strain your credulity.  There's no way to force yourself to 
believe it, but what you can do is say, "Let's say it's true.  Because 
it's possible, however unlikely it may seem to me."  And you can act on 
that assumption of truth.

You can do the same thing with God.  Even if you can't wrap your mind 
around God (as if anyone can), and even if it strains your credulity, 
you can still say, "I'm going to assume, even though it's not proven, 
that God exists and gave us the Torah and all that."  And you can act on 
that premise.

I don't think Hashem requires more of us in terms of yediah than that.  
I don't think He's requiring 100% certainty.

Lisa

DaAs Tevunos is composed as a discussion between the parts within the
person; the seeker of spiritual meaning and the source from which this
spiritual meaning is sought.

If we were to select the names of the participants, we would choose the
Neshama to be the provider of all this wisdom, since it is connected to
HKBH and the thinking part of the person to be the seeker.

However, Reb M Ch Luzzatto has the Neshama as the seeker and the Seichel as
the source of guidance.

The Neshama is that part that seeks that feels the emptiness and craves
connection, but it has no idea how to attain that.

And the brain the Seichel, does it have no feelings?

Best,

Meir G. Rabi
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20121109/ffeafc5c/attachment.htm>

The Maharal famously says, it is better for us to struggle with
understanding the Halacha and applying it, even if we get it wrong, than to
avoid that struggle by consulting a rabbi or a Sefer, and getting it  right.

This is found in Nesivos Olam, Nesiv Torah end Ch 15.

It certainly is predicated upon the assertion that HKBH does NOT hold us to
account for what we have or have not DONE, but we are held accountable for
the things we have and have not learned and tried to evaluate ourselves.

Certainly not everyone is capable of analysing everything or perhaps even
most things BUT the question HKBH will ask us is DID YOU TRY?



Lo Bashamayim Hi, means Gd wants us to apply our minds to determine
Halacha.



Reb Chaim Volosiner FORBIDS accepting what ones Rebbe Paskens or advises if
one has questions on it.

In the same vein he explains that HaVey MisAbek BeAfar RagLeyHem ? means
not to sit at their feet but TO GO INTO BATTLE with them.

Of course Poskim ought to be consulted, the question is what is our
attitude our posture to Halacha, to Yiddishkeit. Is it blind obedience or
is it a matter to be investigated to our best ability and is a process in
which Gd wants us to be engaged?
Is the Posek or Sefer to be challenged or bowed down to?

Similarly the principle of Lama Li KeRa SeVara Hu, indicates that
what emerges from the human mind and what is a product of our Gd given
ability to think IS GREATER than what Gd has disclosed to us at Sinai.

I have no doubt that if we ask an ordinary guy in the Beis HaMedrash,  -:
Do you believe it is better to receive instruction from The Almighty or
figure out the same thing yourself? 10 out of 10 will say, Of course it is
better to get it from HaShem. Religion, as it is understood today, dictates
that what comes from Gd is holy. Of course we prefer to receive holy
instruction which is perfect and infallible, rather than use our own human
fallible and imperfect brains to figure out HKBH?s instructions.



I strongly suspect that this tendency toward NOT using our minds to
determine Halcha, the distorted focus of thinking that Avodas HaShem is all
about getting the right thing DONE, has led us down a path where we dismiss
the Halachos of Bittul. It?s all about getting the rightthing done,
ensuring there is NO non-K component in the food. But in truth, as much as
it is Kefira to dismiss the prohibition of eating pig, is it Kefira to
dismiss the Halachos of Bittul and Rov.


Best,

Meir G. Rabi
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20121109/b0f4a074/attachment.htm>

consider the following; Milk, like any other component of a cow, giraffe,
sheep, deer or goat, is prohibited if taken from a living beast.
Accordingly, there is no such thing as Kosher milk unless it is collected
from a cow that has been Shechted.

The Gemara explains however, that the Torah provides a special exemption
for milk. Without this special exemption, milk from a living cow would not
be Kosher.

When milk is processed to manufacture cheese, it is split into two
components: curds and whey. Only the curds are identified as milk. The whey
however, is not milk. By Torah Law it may be cooked with meat.



RaMBaM applies this re-definition rigorously. Since it is not milk, it does
not enjoy the special exemption conferred upon milk, and it is prohibited
as a product taken from a living beast. He concludes that since whey is no
longer milk, it may be cooked with meat. If it was milk, we would not be
permitted to even cook it with meat and meat cooked with whey would be
banned from all benefit. We may not use it as pet food for example.
However, since whey is not milk it may be cooked with meat. At the same
time though, whey is not Kosher, so the meat we are permitted to cook with
it is not Kosher. It may be used though, as pet food.

The Rosh [Chulin Ch8] quotes Rabbenu Simcha who, with a stroke of genius,
suggests that the whey can simultaneously be both milk and not milk.
It is milk with respect to enjoying the special exemption that ensures it
remains Kosher. However, it is not milk with regard to cooking it with
meat.

He explains that the Torah prohibits cooking meat in its mother's milk.
This phrase is not just a poetic term, but a Halachic qualification. The
only milk that may not be cooked with meat, is milk that emerges from a
mother. Once it is altered and is no longer the same as it was when first
emerging from the cow, it is transformed into a product that may be cooked
with meat. [It might be a problem understanding in this case why the curds
are deemed to be meat]



I think the greatest Chiddush of this discussion is the genius of Rabbenu
Simcha. Where does he draw the substance of his Chiddush? The answer is,
there is no Gemara that supports this interpretation, it is only the power
of the human mind. LaMa Li KeRa? SeVaRa Hu. No verse in the Torah is
required to teach us that which is self evident.



I think Rabbenu Simcha is a testimony to HKBH's plan, that we use our minds
to see what seems reasonable and have the confidence to understand that
this is the Torah that HKBH wants us to follow.

Best,

Meir G. Rabi
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20121109/e4e0b7cf/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 153
***************************************

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..."