Avodah Mailing List

Volume 30: Number 186

Sun, 30 Dec 2012

• 1. Lying for Peace (Meir Rabi)
• 2. Re: Lying for Peace (Zev Sero)
• 3. The Rambam's Embrace of Miracles (h Lampel)
• 4. lying for peace (Eli Turkel)
• 5. IVF (Eli Turkel)
• 6. What date was the Torah given? The 6th of Sivan or the 7th? (Marty Bluke)
• 7. Re: What date was the Torah given? The 6th of Sivan or the 7th? (Marty Bluke)
• 8. Re: What date was the Torah given? The 6th of Sivan or the 7th? (Zev Sero)
• 9. Re: What date was the Torah given? The 6th of Sivan or the 7th? (Lisa Liel)
• 10. Re: Mesorah (h Lampel)

Reb Zev, thank you for your response and sources.

In 37:33 Rashi you say, has Yaacov playing it straight,

I think you mean that he accepted the story and although Yitzchak knew, he
did not relay this to Yakov, since he reasoned that if HKBH wont tell
neither should he.



49:9 Rashi says that he suspected Yehudah at the time but the Passuk
suggests that AliSa, does this not mean you ascended from that and Yakov is
saying in his blessing, ?I no longer suspected you.?



42:36 Rashi says that he suspects them of doing to Benyamin what they may
have done to Yosef.



So you seem to be proposing that Yakov reasoned that even if his worst
suspicions were true, he was still positive that Yosef would not seek
revenge. Therefore it is clear that the brothers were lying. And since
their lie was to promote peace, it was permitted or perhaps even a Mitzvah.

Does this mean that the Shevatim did not seek their father?s forgiveness?
Did they feel their actions were justified and they need not seek
forgiveness? Not even for the terrible pain and suffering they were
complicit in causing Yakov which essentially shut down his power to
communicate with HKBH for all those years?

Why was lying a better option than telling the truth to try to promote
peace?

And why did they not share their father?s confidence that Yosef would not
seek revenge?

And if they still felt that their actions were justified, did they lack the
confidence to broach such a discussion with Yosef?

Why were they surprised that following the death and burial of Yakov, Yosef
no longer wanted to have anything to do with them?

Best,

Meir G. Rabi
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20121230/6c4f370b/attachment-0001.htm>

On 29/12/2012 8:39 PM, Meir Rabi wrote:
> 49:9 Rashi says that he suspected Yehudah at the time but the Passuk
> suggests that AliSa, does this not mean you ascended from that and
> Yakov is saying in his blessing, ?I no longer suspected you.?

No, he's saying he no longer suspects him of having killed Yosef, since
that obviously didn't happen.  But it means he *had* suspected him at the
time.  So why doesn't Rashi mention these suspicions in 37:33?  I suggest
that at the time Yaacov couldn't face consciously harbouring this suspicion
so he suppressed it, but over the course of the next 20 years it made its
way into his consciousness.


> Does this mean that the Shevatim did not seek their father?s forgiveness?

That's right.  Because that would involve telling him what they had done.


> Did they feel their actions were justified and they need not seek forgiveness?

That may be so.  Note that even in 42:21, when they were beginning to regret
how they had treated Yosef, all of them but Reuven *still* thought they had
done the right thing, and only regretted ignoring his pleas and not having
had mercy; and even Reuven, who told them at the time that they were going
overboard, didn't claim that Yosef was innocent.  It may even be that at
this late stage they *still* thought they'd been right, and their plea to
Yosef may have been insincere.  But we're discussing Rashi here, and as far
as I recall Rashi doesn't address this entire issue at all.  He never talks
about what their machlokes was really about, or why the brothers acted as
they did, he never mentions them being motivated leshem shomayim, this
whole story line that we know from other sources seems not to be part of
Rashi's understanding of pshuto shel mikra for the ben chomesh.


> Why was lying a better option than telling the truth to try to promote peace?

What truth should they tell?  That Yaacov didn't say anything, but they
would rather not be killed, if it's all the same to Yosef?!


> And why did they not share their father?s confidence that Yosef would
> not seek revenge?

Why should they?  What indication did they have that he was not simply
pulling an Eisav -- "as soon as my father is gone, I'll settle my score
with my brothers"?


> And if they still felt that their actions were justified, did they lack
> the confidence to broach such a discussion with Yosef?

Of course.  Would *you* tell the king who can have you and your entire
family executed at a word, that you *don't* regret having harmed him?!
Or excusing your actions in any way?!


> Why were they surprised that following the death and burial of Yakov,
> Yosef no longer wanted to have anything to do with them?

1. Who says this was the case?  2. If it was, who says they were surprised
at it?  Where are you getting this whole idea?

-- 
Zev Sero               A citizen may not be required to offer a 'good and
z...@sero.name          substantial reason' why he should be permitted to
                        exercise his rights. The right's existence is all
                        the reason he needs.
                            - Judge Benson E. Legg, Woollard v. Sheridan

Since my original message with this subject line appeared with hard-to-read

formatting, I'm attempting to send it again with more legible formatting 
and

some editing:


  1. RMS (Mon, 17 Dec 2012) claims regarding the Rambam's stand on miracles:


    ...what is quite clear that this priniciple is extended /in dealing
    with any

    issue of a miracle  - one does one's best to explain it away -
    unless there

    is such a clear and irrevocable tradition that it is literal (not
    merely a

    lack of a tradition of allegory)./  (the case of the mabul would
    clearly be

    here - with the question of what is meant by specifically explained and

    impossible to explain it otherwise, as the mabul seems to violate olam

    keminhago noheg...).


I will deal with the passage RMS repeatedly cites to prove the Rambam holds

that ''in dealing with any issue of a miracle - one does one's best to

explain it away...'' and will show it is based on an incorrect translation.

But we need only look a little further on in the Maamar Techias HaMeisim

(Sheilat p. 367, lines 9-18) to see very clearly that RMS' notion is the

exact opposite of the Rambam's stand. (It is also the contra the Ibn 
Tibbon's

stand, as seen in the work RMS has called our attention to.) This is 
what the

Rambam says, speaking about miracles in general and the miracle of techias

ha-meisim in particular**:

    We have already explained in Moreh Nevuchim, when speaking of the
    world being

    created [rather than having an eternal past], that the belief in
    Creation

    necessarily entails the possibility of all miracles. The
    resurrection of the

    dead will therefore be possible as well. /And everything that is
    possible,

    when a prophet reports it--we will believe it, and we have no need to

    interpret it, and we do not take it out of peshuto./**


Note:

Any miracle reported by a prophet.

We will believe it. (And it is not in violation of ''olom k'minhago

holeich'')

There is no need to allegorize it.


I think this leaves no doubt that the Rambam held the precise opposite 
of the

notion that ''in dealing with any issue of a miracle  - one does one's best

to explain it away.'' But for the sake of savoring the Rambam's words, 
let's

go on:

    True, we need to interpret something whose peshuto is an
    impossibility, such

    as [pesukim whose literal meaning attributes] physicality to Hashem.
    But that

    which is possible stands as it is. ...


This is why the Rambam absolutely does /not/ explain away miracles, and

accepts as factual,** on the basis of the peshat of the pesukim alone (as

long as it does not contradict fundamental principles), all the miracles

written about by Moses and all the other prophets, including the miracles

that proved to Israel and Pharoah that Moses was Hashem's prophet, the

Egyptian plagues, the splitting of the sea, and so on.



2. So, what of the paragraph RMS cites to prove that Rambam held that ''/in

dealing with any issue of a miracle  - one does one's best to explain it 
away

- unless there is such a clear and irrevocable tradition that it is literal

(not merely a lack of a tradition of allegory)./'' Is the Rambam

contradicting himself? Well, let's investigate RMS's translation:

    And our efforts our to gather between the torah and the reasonable,

    and will manage all things according to a possible natural order,

    except /what is specifically explained that it is a miracle (mofet)/

    and it is impossible to explain it otherwise, then we will need to say

    that it is a miracle


The translation, ''except what is specifically explained that it is a 
miracle

(mofet)'' leads one to one wonder who it is that Rambam requires to do the

specific explaining? Does he indeed require that Chazal specifically insist

something was a miracle, and otherwise allow, and even demand, allegorizing

the miracle away?


Well, the question is really irrelevant, because the translation is wrong.

The words RMS basis his proof on and translates as ''what is /specifically

explained/ that it is a miracle (mofet),'' are actually, ''ellah mah /sheh-

hiss-ba-er bo/ she-hu mofes.'' RMS' translation is a creative translation

based not on the Rambam's words, but on the epistomology RMS believes in.

''/Sheh-hiss-ba-er/ bo'' translates simply, ''What is itself clear.''  
I.e.,

the peshat of the posuk itself indicates it is depicting a miracle. The

criterion is just as Rambam says in the later paragraph I cited above: 
''not

to take the posuk out of its peshitus.''


And, consistent with what the Rambam says in that above-cited paragraph, 
that

itself is what ''makes it impossible to (legitimately) explain it 
otherwise''

(''v'lo yi-tachen l'faresh klall'').


The Rambam's objection is to inventing the occurrence of miracles where the

pesukim's peshat, or Chazal,*** do not warrant it (or accepting the literal

meaning of something that is a logical--versus natural--impossibility, such

as with anthropomorphisms).


Recognizing this also eliminates objections that one would otherwise raise:

(a) If the impossibility of allegorizing the miracles depends upon some

statements by Chazal that explicitly identify particular pesukim as really,

really talking about miracles, why does the Rambam explicitly accept 
miracles

recorded in pesukim that enjoy no such special treatment? What 
plainly-stated

miracles are there that enjoy less sponsorship than others by Chazal, and

whose factuality the Rambam thereupon discounts?


(b) It is never absolutely impossible to invent an allegorical meaning for

any posuk. Such can and has been done with virtually all pesukim by

Allegorists for centuries.


So, in response to RMS's accusation that,

    RZL;s position has far more to do with current haredi sensibilities
    than with

    the rambam (one remembers the rambam's parable of the palace and the
    role of

    talmudic scholars)


I will point out that it is RMS who is approaching the Rambam's words  
with a

bias; and that the Rambam's parable does not license distorting his 
words and

reading into them notions that he explicitly disparages. The fact that some

people interpreted the Rambam to mean the opposite of what he held, is a

phenomenon the Rambam himself suffered from and complained about in the 
very

Ma'amar Techias HaMeisim under discussion. Unfortunately, this phenomenon

haunts us to this day.


Zvi Lampel





**See (Shiat p. 366, lines 9-20):

There is no difference between it saying, ''If a man dies, shall he 
live?!''

and ''Shall we bring out water from the rock?!''for this would be not

natural, but impossible; yet the waters did indeed go out of the rock 
through

a miracle! ...And there is no difference between it saying, ''Shall a 
Cushite

change his skin?!'' and it saying, ''Shall the dead perform a 
wonder?!''---yet

the hand [of Moses] did indeed turn a [leprous] white in color! So if 
someone

would say it is impossible for a lifeless object to propel itself in

movement, he would be saying the truth according to what is in [the 
realm of]

nature; but this statement would not be denying the changing of ther 
staff to

a serpent, since that was a miracle. It is likewise with all the pesukim 
you

may find in Tanach that treat as far-fetched the notion of the dead 
returning

to life. That is speaking in the realm of what is in nature. But that does

not contradict their return to life when Hashem so wills it....You need not

interpret any of those pesukim with those despicable interpretations, too

far-fetched to accept, which one who denies the Resurrection uses to 
buttress

his stand.

***An example of where the Rambam accepts a miracle reported by Chazal even

though it does not necessarily follow from the posuk's peshat, is the 
miracle

done for Avraham Avinu in Ur Kasdim, which is embraced by the Rambam in

Hilchos Avodas Kochavim 1:3--''kivan sheh-gavar aleihem b'rai'osov, bikesh

ha-melech l'horgo, /v'na'a'sah neis/ v'yatzah l'Charan''. And I don't see

that Chazal are any more insistent about that miracle than any others.

  Zvi Lampel


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20121230/7f31c911/attachment-0001.htm>

<<Does this mean that Yakov knew all the facts, for otherwise how could he
have been so confident that Yosef would not seek revenge?
Is Rashi assuming that the Shevatim came to Yakov near his end in order to
beg his forgiveness and admitted to Yakov their activities against Yosef?>>

Rashi explicitly assumes that Yaakov knew that the brothers sold Yosef (see
Rashi on the the bracha of Yaakov to Yehuda (49:9) ). Of course how much of
the details is impossible to say.
I understand that according to Tamban Yaakov never was told about the sale
of Yosef.

-- 
Eli Turkel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20121230/05f0afe1/attachment-0001.htm>

I teach a shiur on halacha and medical ethics and was discussing IVF.
I brought from R. Zilberstein and Rav Elyashiv that there is no mitzvah to
use artificial means to do the mitzvah and pru u_revu and that they in fact
did not like the idea of IVF. R. Zilberstein stated that if the purpose was
for the needs of the couple he could not object (assuming various halachic
technicalities were observed) but did not encourage it from a Torah view.

I have always assumed that most/all poskim (including RMF) felt there was
no halachik requirement to use IVF.

Afterwards one of the participants send me an email of someone who
disagreed (given later).
Does anyone have more information about the heter or requirement to use IVF
when needed.

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


leading Talmidim of Rav Moshe Feinstein
Dayan Lopian is one of the worlds leading Poskim on matters of Ishus, Nidah
and Marital Issues * *- his Psak is as follows
The requirement of Pirya VeRivya extends to IVF unless the following issues
are present - *and if these following problems **are present, a qualified
Rav
should be consulted*

   1. There is a medical/Psychological reason why IVF is not appropriate
   2. There would be a severe financial burden on the couple - how severe
   the financial burden is a discussion in the Achronim - most notably the Pri
   Megadim who discusses the idea of financial burden v the Mitzva o0f Pirya
   VeRivya

In any event if these problems are not present then it would be incumbent
on the couple to do everything in their power to fulfill the Mitzva
including IVF


-- 
Eli Turkel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20121230/07598136/attachment-0001.htm>

The Daf Yomi is in the middle of the sugya dealing with the date the Torah
was given. The Gemara in Shabbos on 87-88 has a dispute between R' Yosi
and the Chachamim whether the Torah was given on the 6th or the 7th of
Sivan. The dispute hinges on how many days was the perisha before the Torah
was given, 2 (Chachamim) or 3 (R' Yosi).

The obvious question is how can there be a dispute about the date of Matan
Torah? Matan Torah was/is THE most important event by far in Jewish
history, how can we not know what date it took place? In fact, you would
think that every last detail about matan torah would be burned into
everyone's memory including everything that happened that week, so how can
we not know whether there were 2 days of perisha or 3? The fact is that
each one tries to prove his position by darshening the pesukim their way
but no one brings a mesora and says I have a kabbala that matan torah was
on this date. Why not?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20121230/a7e5d2f4/attachment-0001.htm>

There is an additional dispute in the sugya which is just as troubling. On
what day of the week did the Jewish people leave Egypt? Thursday or Friday?
The Gemara on 87B quotes 2 beraysas that they left on Thursday. However, on
88A, the gemara quotes from the Seder Olam that they left on Friday. Again,
the same question can be asked, yetzias mitzrayim is the second biggest
event in Jewish history, how can there be a dispute about what day
of the week it happened? Additionally, there is a Pirkei d'Rebbi Eliezer
(ch. 46) that maintains that the Torah was given on Friday (and not on
Shabbos as the Gemara maintains according to both R' Yosi
and the Chachamim).
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20121230/36181eb1/attachment-0001.htm>

On 30/12/2012 3:48 AM, Marty Bluke wrote:
> The obvious question is how can there be a dispute about the date of
> Matan Torah? Matan Torah was/is THE most important event by far in
> Jewish history, how can we not know what date it took place? In fact,
> you would think that every last detail about matan torah would be
> burned into everyone's memory including everything that happened that
> week, so how can we not know whether there were 2 days of perisha or
> 3? The fact is that each one tries to prove his position by darshening
> the pesukim their way but no one brings a mesora and says I have a
> kabbala that matan torah was on this date. Why not?

The whole calendar was brand-new at the time; people weren't as calendar-
obsessed as we are today, insisting that we must record and remember the
exact date of everything or it didn't happen.

Indeed, neither of my grandfathers had any memory of their birth dates;
one remembered that it was "the last light of chanukah", but not whether
that was the 2nd or 3rd of Tevet, the other didn't even clearly remember
which month it was in.  Once someone was bar mitzvah, it no longer mattered,
so it faded from memory.  So I can easily see that the "date" of matan
torah was passed down as "Shavuot", without worrying about the fact that
Shavuot can be on the 5th, 6th, or 7th of Sivan.


> Again, the same question can be asked, yetzias mitzrayim is the second
> biggest event in Jewish history, how can there be a dispute about what
> day of the week it happened?

This one's even easier.  Who remembers details like that?  On what day
of the week was the Kennedy assassination, or the moon landing, or VE
and VJ days?  Does anyone remember without looking them up?  What about
the Declaration of Independence?  Or the second Churban?  Who knows?
Even the 11-Sep-2001 attacks, if there hadn't been an election that day,
and it hadn't been the week of Selichot, I don't think I would remember
the day of week.


-- 
Zev Sero               A citizen may not be required to offer a 'good and
z...@sero.name          substantial reason' why he should be permitted to
                        exercise his rights. The right's existence is all
                        the reason he needs.
                            - Judge Benson E. Legg, Woollard v. Sheridan

On 12/30/2012 2:48 AM, Marty Bluke wrote:
> The obvious question is how can there be a dispute about the date of 
> Matan Torah? Matan Torah was/is THE most important event by far in 
> Jewish history, how can we not know what date it took place? In fact, 
> you would think that every last detail about matan torah would be 
> burned into everyone's memory...

Because it doesn't really matter what date it was.  It was 50 days after 
Yetziyat Mitzrayim.

Lisa

Avodah: Volume 30, Number 18 Meir Shinnar Thu, 27 Dec 2012 12:43:36 
-0500wrote

    To respond in general to Micha, where I think phrasing issues
    matter: We agree that the Rambam believed that his approach
    represented the true mesora, albeit hidden, of hazal, and that his
    understanding of tanach and midrash as consonant with truth was the
    true self understanding of hazal.

Yes.

    ... This is where the fundamental disagreement is - that his
    [Rambam's--ZL] understandings of both tanach and midrash is not
    based on a statement that hazal say so (as RZL insists),

Again, no. Both RMB and I have repeatedly corrected this kind of 
misrepresentation of our stand. We are not saying the Rambam was bound 
to offer only peirushim already stated by Chazal. We are only insisting 
that they must not be inconsistent with Chazal (as would be the 
supplanting the plain meaning with an allegorical contra Chazal or, as 
RMB emphasizes, supplanting an allegorical meaning with a literal one, 
if contra Chazal.)

If I wrote something that said or implied I thought the Rambam could not 
offer his own peshat to a posuk without a Chazal to back up that 
particular peshat, please point it out to me and I will retract. The 
general point is that the Rambam would not claim pesukim meant something 
he thought was inconsistent with what the consensus of Chazal thought. 
And if it would appear so, he (and those who have defended him through 
the ages) appeal to darkei peshat (becuse Chazal taught that ein mikra 
yptzie meedei peshuto), specific ma'marei Chazal, and/or their 
principles (such as olom k'minhago holeich) to show otherwise. (And as 
we have seen, in the pesukim about the wolf and lamb in Messianic times, 
the Rambam also defends his position by citing former, respected 
commentators who already gave the allegorical explanation before he did.)

And in particular, we are talking about making a fundamental uprooting 
of a pesukim's meanings--namely, to allegorical, when Chazal took it as 
factual/historical or literal (such as the Mabul).

(I think RMB diverges with me on the criterion of peshat, but listen, 
we're Jews, so of course we won't agree on everything...)


      ...However, his understanding of the true meaning of tanach and TSBP
      is NOT predicated by the need for specific statements by hazal


And neither RMB nor I have suggested so, if one takes ''specific 
statements'' in the narrow sense you seem to).

And yes, the Rambam was able to use the wisdom of his time to use his 
sechel to complement the explanations Chazal gave to pesukim, But not to 
disagree with the consensus of Chazal or invent a meaning to their words 
that they could not have plausibly meant.

Zvi Lampel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20121230/b211cdf5/attachment.htm>

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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 30, Issue 186
***************************************

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..."


A list of common acronyms is available at at
        http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/acronyms.cgi
(They are also visible in the web archive copy of each digest.)