Avodah Mailing List

Volume 31: Number 76

Thu, 25 Apr 2013

• 1. Re: Ger Toshav on Shabbos (was: Israel Torah Community) (Doron Beckerman)
• 2. Re: Ger Toshav on Shabbos (was: Israel Torah Community) (Micha Berger)
• 3. Re: kosher shrimp (Kenneth Miller)
• 4. Re: Pesach Sheni (Kenneth Miller)
• 5. Re: kosher shrimp (Lisa Liel)
• 6. Re: kosher shrimp (Micha Berger)
• 7. Re: Ger Toshav on Shabbos (was: Israel Torah Community) (Doron Beckerman)
• 8. Re: kosher shrimp (Zev Sero)
• 9. Re: Rav SR Hirsch and the Raavad on Anthropomorphism (Micha Berger)
• 10. Re: Rav SR Hirsch and the Raavad on Anthropomorphism (Zvi Lampel)

I don't know what you want. There are two distinct issurim involved when it
comes to a nochri on Shabbos. 1) Issur amirah. 2) Issur Hanaa'h. The only
difference between a Ger Toshav and a regular nochri is regarding Issur no.
1, which is usually derabbanan, but for a Ger Toshav is a deoraysa. Issur
no. 2 is the same derabbanan; there are no separate issurim that apply to a
Ger Toshav deoraysa and to a regular nochri not at all.

I explicitly said that the kullos of shvus de'amirah lenochri or shvus
dishvus will not apply to a Ger Toshav, which include Choleh She'ain bo
sakkanah, tzorchei rabbim, etc. Remizah shelo bederech tzivui, though, is
not a kulla in Amirah, it is not bichlal amirah, see Mishnah Berurah
307:76. And it isn't wink, wink. It is telling a story by which an
intelligent person would get what to do and certainly one who is shown the
ropes in advance. It is easy.

So getting back to the original discussion, the conclusion is
straightforward.


On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 2:23 PM, Chana Luntz <Ch...@kolsassoon.org.uk>wrote:

> On Sat, Apr 20, 2013 at 09:30:48PM +0300, Doron Beckerman wrote:
> : Lemaaseh, we pasken that a Ger Toshav who is one's Eved must be
> restrained
> : from any melachah, and a Ger Toshav who is not one's Eved must not be
> : instructed to do melachah on behalf of a Jew. This is all Assur
> : Mide'oraisa. See Shulchan Aruch OC 304:1 with Mishnah Berurah note 1.
>
> And RMB replied:
>
> >Or, a pasuq I say weekly: Lo sa'aseh kol melakhah: atah, uvinekha
> uvitekha,
> avdekha va'amashka, uvhemtekha, VEGEIRKHA ASHER BISH'AREKHA.
>
> No, that is the pasuk in Devarim which is understood to be referring to a
> ger tzedek (Talmud Bavli Yevamos 48b), the pasuk that is understood to be
> talking about a ger toshav is Shemos 23:12:
>
>  ??? ???? ???? ????? ????? ?????? ???? ???? ???? ???? ????? ????? ?? ????
> ????
> Six days shall you do all your work and on the seventh you shall rest in
> order that shall rest your ox and your donkey and the soul the son of your
> maidservant and the ger.
>
>
> >The SA appears to say "or", not "and": an eved kenaani who was mal utaval
> lesheim grirus or one who wasnt mal utavel and therefore isn't formally an
> >eved but is therefore still like a geir toshav. He isn't calling the eved
> a
> GT, but that an informal eved has the din of one.
>
> The gemora in Yevamos 48b says clearly - "it is the opinion of everyone
> that
> the nefesh ben amatcha is an uncircumcised servant".  That is, the regular
> eved knani is referred to over in Devarim, along with the ger tzedek (also
> see the 10 dvarim).  It is that eved that a master must restrain, Over here
> in Shemos, the pasuk is dealing only with the uncircumcised servants, gerei
> toshav, and animals. That is, the group that are collectively allowed to do
> work for themselves to the extent they want just not for their master or
> other Jews.
>
> The Rishonim on whom this Shulchan Aruch is based state clearly that this
> uncircumcised eved has the din of a ger toshav, ie the last two categories
> in the pasuk in Shemos are equal in din - see Rambam Hilchot Shabbat perek
> 2
> halacha 14, the Mishna L'Melech there  - who helpfully divides the term
> eved
> into three different kinds (not counting an eved ivri) a classification
> referred to by many who come later) and  Shut HaRashba Chelek 1 siman 59.
>
> RDB also wrote:
>
> :[The Issur hanaah mimaaseh nochri is the same derabbanan with the same
> rules (Mishnah Berurah note 14 ad loc.)]
>
> I am not sure that is so clear.  That the hana'ah mimaaseh nochri is
> d'rabbanan is not disputed - not only is that what the Magen Avraham
> (304:8)
> states (as does the Mishna Brura you cite), but after all hana'ah mimaaseh
> of a Jew is also only d'rabbanan (as the Rambam states in hilchos shabbas
> perek 6 halacha 23 - as it says "v'shmartem es ha shabbas ki kodesh hi" -
> hi
> kodesh v'ain ma'aseh kodesh.  Hence we have these debates as to when a Jew
> can have benefit from a melacha on shabbas (bemezid - either never for him,
> or after shabbas for him, for others immediately after shabbas etc) which
> all would seem to be disputes in a din d'rabbanan.
>
> It would thus be surprising (despite some hints in the rishonim) if the
> hana'ah from a ma'aseh of a non Jew who is allowed to work on shabbas for
> himself would be assur d'orisa when hana'ah from a Jew who is forbidden to
> work on shabbas would only be d'rabbanan.
>
> However, I don't think the Mishna Brura and Magen Avraham are saying what
> you are saying ie that:
>
> :but once you get around the amirah (i.e., you do it shelo bederech
> tzivui),
> the halachos are the same.
>
> This is the Magen Avraham:
>
> Magen Avraham siman 304:8
>
> That he does not benefit: -  this is d?rabbanan like that which is written
> at the beginning of siman 276 and in siman 252 that it is forbidden to say
> to a tzadoki to do melacha on Yom Tov see there ...
>
> And the Mishna Brura:
>
> Mishna Brura Siman 304:14
> And so long as he does not benefit: - this is d?rabbanan and an eved is not
> more than the rest of non Jews that do melacha according to the intention
> of
> the Jew that it is forbidden for a Jew to benefit from that melacha on
> shabbat and like it seems to me at the beginning of siman 276.
>
> Ie you seem to be assuming the reference to siman 276 means that in fact
> all
> the leniencies brought there are the same for an eved, which is therefore
> the same for a ger toshav (such as a choleh she ain bo sakana)- whereas the
> Mishna Brura may well only be saying exactly what he states, that there are
> equivalent prohibitions.
>
> This seems more likely to me given that the Mishna Brura himself writes in
> si'if katan 24:
>
> A complete non Jew: - but if he accepts upon himself the seven mitzvos
> behold he is a ger toshav and it is forbidden for him to do work for a Jew
> even for one who is not his master and so it seems to me.
>
> Which does not suggest any qualification regarding needing amira.
>
> Secondly the Aruch HaShulchan writes (Siman 304 si'if 3):
>
> this is the ger toshav and the eved toshav that accepts upon himself the
> seven mitzvos and does not circumcise and does not immerse and his din is
> made clear there that for himself it is permitted for him to do melacha on
> Shabbat and this is for his own needs but for a Jew it is forbidden from
> the
> Torah that he does melacha whether for his master or whether for another
> Jew
> and the Tur that writes that he is forbidden in the work of his master he
> is
> referring to the normal way but this is the din that he is forbidden in the
> work of all Jews and so a ger toshav his law is so like that which the
> Rambam writes there.
>
> And the key teshuva on this is that of the Rashba Shut HaRashba Chelek 1
> siman 59- and his specific teshuva was about whether they could have an
> shifcha yishmaelis light a candle for a a choleh she ain bo sakana and warm
> up hot food for him.  And the Rashba held no.  That is while he held that a
> ger toshav or an an eved (when not acting for his master) could be assumed
> to be acting on his own daas even if he does it al daas Yisrael, he
> qualifies this by saying:
>
> ???? ???? ?? ????? ????? ??? ??? ?????? ???? ?????? ????? ??? ???? ??? ????
> ???. ??? ?????? ??????? ???? ??????? ???? ???? ????. ?????? ???? ????? ??
> ???? ???? ????? ?????? ?? ????? ????? ???? ??? ??? ?? ?????? ????? ??????
> /????/.
>
> But in any event we do not say these things except for things that a Jew
> does not use on Shabbat and does not have benefit from them.  But to have
> use of their work on Shabbat and to have benefit from them on Shabbat is
> assur. And even for a regular non Jew all that he does for the need of a
> Jew
> or even for his own needs that there is in it an addition for the need of a
> Jew is forbidden.
>
> So while this issur of hana'ah may be d'rabbanan (given the pasuk regarding
> kodesh hi), I don't see that it follows that you can happily incorporate
> heterim such as tzorchei rabbim or choleh sheyesh bo sakana into the
> prohibition vis a vis gerei toshav.  And if you can, why don't you say the
> same for the issur hana'ah regarding Jews, and quite happily let the non
> religious run the hospitals and electricity and the like (so long as we
> don't have any amira, which would violate lifnei iver, as the poskim
> discuss
> on this same siman 304).
>
> So if get back to the question we started with - namely the state of
> Israel:
> First of all, running a state on hints and winks and no amira (which is,
> assuming we are dealing with gerei toshav, assur from the Torah) hardly
> seems practical.  I doubt that is what is being discussed when shabbas
> goyim
> are utilised.
>
> And even were you able to manage it, I certainly don't believe it is clear
> from the above that heterim regarding tzorchei rabbim or choleh she ain bo
> sakana or tzorchei mitzvah that we have for a regular non Jew applies to a
> ger toshav any more than it applies to a non religious Jew.   Thus if we
> are
> going to run a state on Torah principles, it would seem imperative to work
> on solutions that deal with hospitals and electricity generators and the
> like that do not rely on non Jewish or non religious labour.
>
> Regards
>
> Chana
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20130425/81a1e579/attachment-0001.htm>

On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 03:02:05PM +0300, Doron Beckerman wrote:
: I don't know what you want. There are two distinct issurim involved when it
: comes to a nochri on Shabbos....

I won't speak for Chana, but I wasn't commenting on the general topic
of amira le'aku"m or hana'ah mimelekhes aku"m, just making textual notes
on the SA.

The ultimate source source is a well known pasuq (even if I pulled up the
wrong line of qiddush). More importantly (and this is what motivated my
bothering to write in), unlike your reading which spoke of a "ger toshav
who is one's eved", the SA actually talks about two mutually exclusive
cases:
1- a formal eved, and
2- a servant without milah utevilah -- who is just like a geir toshav.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 30th day, which is
mi...@aishdas.org        4 weeks and 2 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Gevurah sheb'Hod: When does capitulation
Fax: (270) 514-1507                  result in holding back from others?

R' Saul Newman posted:

> http://www.
> koshertoday.com/04-22-13---A-Leading-Kosher-Symbol-is-Used-in-Europe-o
> n-%E2%80%9CPork-style%E2%80%9D-Sausages/
> i dont understand why 1000's of uber-gashmi luxury items
> should get a hechsher, but fake pork not---- in fact why is
> that any different than pareve coffee whitener ---- an idea
> of meat and 'milk' that should equally disgust...

R"n Lisa Liel answered:

> Coffee is important.

At first, I thought that her answer was tongue-in-cheek, but upon
reflection I think she's making a very important point: The whitener is
merely tafel to the coffee; it improves the coffee, but there's nothing
ikar about it. Without the whitener, there are some who would not be able
to drink their coffee when they want to, but they don't run and drool over
the whitener the way some people run and drool over fake shrimp and fake
bacon.

Let me emphasize: There are some coffee aficionados who will run and drool
for their coffee, and will resent any inability to have their coffee when
they want it. And if you want to say that this taavah puts them in the
"naval birshus haTorah" category, then I won't argue. But this taavah is
for the *coffee*, not for the *whitener*. Such people are not running to
taste treifos, they simply want a coffee whose bitterness has been
ameliorated by the whitener (or however you want to explain it).

This is a whole 'nother level away from wanting something where the *ikar*
is imitation treif. Personally, I have little or no problem with with fake
bacon and fake shrimp, and I hope I've explained why I object to fake milk
even less. (That said, I also have no solid argument against hechsherim
(such as the one mentioned in that article) which prohibits its
establishments from using these products.)

Akiva Miller
____________________________________________________________
How to Sleep Like a Rock
Obey this one natural trick to fall asleep and stay asleep all night.
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/51793c15f26693c1565f1st01vuc

I offered my ideas about comparing matzah on Pesach Sheni to the afikoman (which represents the Korban Pesach), and R' Akiva Blum asked:

> So why on the 14th? Korban pesach is only eaten on the 15th.

Yes, indeed it is. And the Pesach Sheni too, was eaten on the [evening of] the 15th.

But I have noticed over the years that there are certain halachos and/or
minhagim which we do when they are emotionally effective, even if a
different time would be more logically correct. I think the best example of
this might be Lechem Mishne, which actually fell from Shamayim on *Erev*
Shabbos.

Logically, we ought to use double loaves for our Friday meals. But there is
no obligation to eat bread on Friday, and I leave it to the reader to
imagine why Chazal did not impose such an obligation, for the sole purpose
of reminding us about the double portion of manna. Instead, they imposed it
at the Friday night meal, at the Shabbos day meal, and (according to
many/most poskim) even at the third meal -- even though much/most of
Friday's double portion of manna would have already been eaten and gone by
the time Shabbos began in the Midbar.

I propose that for similar reasons, the minhag developed to eat matzah on
the day of Iyar 14, which is when the Korban Pesach Sheni was shechted --
and NOT on the following evening in remembrance of when the Korban Pesach
Sheni was actually eaten.

We now see a big difference between the evening of 15 Nisan, and the
evening of 15 Iyar. On the evening of 15 Nisan, we have a chiyuv d'Oraisa
to eat matza and to tell the story, and many other mitzvos as well, and it
is entirely reasonable to use this occasion to eat another kezayis of matza
after the meal, as a zecher for eating the Korban Pesach. But these mitzvos
don't exist on 15 Iyar. Even for someone who actually did bring the Korban
Pesach Sheni, I don't think there was any *independent* mitzvah of matzah,
besides the matzah that had to be eaten *with* the Pesach Sheni. And today,
the korban is the only thing that we do a zecher of, so I can easily
understand those who would move this eating from the evening of the 15th
(as R' Akiva Blum suggests) to the afternoon of the 14th (which might be
more meaningful to most folks, like moving Lechem Mishneh from Friday to
Shabbos).

The problem with that last sentence is that I have not seen anyone say that
the matzah should be eaten in the *afternoon* of 14 Iyar. The only two
times I've seen are the evening of 15 Iyar, or some unspecified time during
the "day" of 14 Iyar. For those who want to look this up further, I'll
repost two links that I posted a few days ago:
http://www.torahlab.org/doitright/pesach_sheini/
http://www.sichosinenglish.org/books/letters-rebbe-3/100.htm

Akiva Miller
____________________________________________________________
How to Sleep Like a Rock
Obey this one natural trick to fall asleep and stay asleep all night.
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/517946e01ee0a46df4bdbst03vuc

On 4/25/2013 9:21 AM, Kenneth Miller wrote:
> R"n Lisa Liel answered:
>    
>> Coffee is important.
>>      
> At first, I thought that her answer was tongue-in-cheek, but upon
> reflection I think she's making a very important point: The whitener
> is merely tafel to the coffee; it improves the coffee, but there's
> nothing ikar about it. Without the whitener, there are some who would
> not be able to drink their coffee when they want to, but they don't
> run and drool over the whitener the way some people run and drool over
> fake shrimp and fake bacon.
>    

Well, it was snide, perhaps.  I've asked people why coffee beans aren't 
considered kitniyot, and the best I've been able to find out is that 
there are a lot of rabbis who aren't willing to do without their coffee.

Lisa

On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 12:47:35PM -0500, Lisa Liel wrote:
> Well, it was snide, perhaps.  I've asked people why coffee beans aren't  
> considered kitniyot, and the best I've been able to find out is that  
> there are a lot of rabbis who aren't willing to do without their coffee.

The first Maxwell House Haggadah was published to advertise a teshuvah
about it.

They aren't legumes that grow in pods, as they are the pits of
berries. It's not used like a grain, like rice or corn are. They
aren't wheat-sized, so even if your poseiq has a problem with quinoa,
he wouldn't apply the same logic to coffee.

One might make a phenomenological argument that they should be banned,
as they are called beans in numerous languages. But (1) that's not /your/
speed, and (2) we do not (yet) see qitniyos being extended this way --
only by the botanical family (so most refrain from peanuts), usage
(and thus most added corn), and shape (mustard).

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 30th day, which is
mi...@aishdas.org        4 weeks and 2 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Gevurah sheb'Hod: When does capitulation
Fax: (270) 514-1507                  result in holding back from others?

> On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 4:28 PM, Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org> wrote:
>> I won't speak for Chana, but I wasn't commenting on the general topic
>> of amira le'aku"m or hana'ah mimelekhes aku"m, just making textual notes
>> on the SA. ...          More importantly (and this is what motivated my
>> bothering to write in), unlike your reading which spoke of a "ger toshav
>> who is one's eved", the SA actually talks about two mutually exclusive
>> cases:
>> 1- a formal eved, and
>> 2- a servant without milah utevilah -- who is just like a geir toshav.

On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 8:01 PM, Doron Beckerman <beck...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I was writing in shorthand, but you are correct, the proper term for an
> Eved who accepted only the Sheva Mitzvos is an Eved Toshav.

But there is a far more fundamental point that I misstated, though
not material to the original discussion. The prohibition of an Eved
Toshav and a Ger Toshav is actually identical; we may not instruct them
to perform melachah on our behalf, but they both may do melachah for
themselves. There is a machlokes, cited by the mechaber, whether an Eved
who has not even accepted the seven mitzvos may be instructed by Jews
who are not the Eved's master to do melachah on their behalf.

On 25/04/2013 1:47 PM, Lisa Liel wrote:
> Well, it was snide, perhaps. I've asked people why coffee beans
> aren't considered kitniyot, and the best I've been able to find out
> is that there are a lot of rabbis who aren't willing to do without
> their coffee.

What's the svara to even consider that possibility?  They grow on a tree!
In addition, this theory makes no sense because there are a *lot* of rabbis
who *do* do without coffee on Pesach, and yet it has not occurred to any
of them to raise the issue of kitniyos.


On 25/04/2013 3:55 PM, Micha Berger wrote:
> One might make a phenomenological argument that they should be banned,
> as they are called beans in numerous languages. But (1) that's not /your/
> speed, and (2) we do not (yet) see qitniyos being extended this way

That argument would cover jelly beans too!

I can understand not eating sweetbreads or breadfruit, because it's a
common minhag to avoid mentioning even the word "bread" on Pesach.
It would be the same theory under which some eaters of kitniyos don't
eat chickpeas, because of the name.  But I've never heard of this
zehirus extending to the names of kitniyos!

-- 
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

When we last visited this thread <http://j.mp/Y0of0X> (or
<http://www.aishdas.org/avod
ah/getindex.cgi?section=R#RAV%20SR%20HIRSCH%20AND%20THE%20RAAVAD%20ON%20ANT
HROPOMORPHISM>), last Sep, I wrote:

> The Rambam (Moreh I) argues that HQBH is so Other, so Unique, that we
> can't say anything about what He Is. Only about what He Isn't, and what
> He does.

> RMT's position appears to be that HQBH is so Other, so Unique, that we
> cannot make any deductions about Him altogether. Take logtic and reason
> off the table. And so, if the Torah says "Yad Hashem", what tools do we
> have to argue? It may not make sense to say Hashem has a Guf, but not
> fitting human sense is a given. In a way, his point isn't to assert that
> Hashem has a body as to attack the notion that we can deny it. We have
> to leave the question of G-d's Body unanswered and unanswerable.

> Notice there is no more room in [my understanding of] RMT's hashkafah
> for a personal relationship with G-d or Divine Immanence, than there is
> in the Rambam's. Both deal in purely transcendent terms.

R' Zvi Lampel wrote (before my post, but referring to someone later than
the Rambam or RMT):
> RSRH writes similarly in his Chumash commentary on Breishis, end of 6:6  
...
>> Let us here make a general remark about anthropomorphic expressions
>> in Scripture.For so long people have philosophized all round these 
>> expressions to remove the danger of the slightest thought of any 
>> materiality or corporeality of G-d that, at the end, one runs very 
>> nearly into the danger of losing all idea of the personality of 
>> G-d....This is also the view of the /Ra'avad/, the distinctively Jewish
>> thinker: Belief in the Personality of G-d is more important than the
>> speculations of those who reject the attribution of material features to
>> G-d.

(I commented that "Personhood" is probably more what RSRH intended than
"Personality". That's obviously just a guess, as I didn't see the original
German nor could make that distinction even if I did. But I'm not assuming
that RSRH believed that Hashem's Rachamim is actual rather than "only"
perceived.)

This is leshitaso for RSRH, that he criticizes the Rambam for being too
cerebral, that the notion that knowing G-d means knowing philosophically
*about* G-d rather than having a personal relationship with Him comes
from Aristotle, not mesorah.

I'm reopening the thread because I'm attaching a recent blog post by
our chaver (former frequent poster) R' Chaim Brown, taken from
http://divreichaim.blogspot.com/2013/04/rambamraavad-on-corpor
eality-of-g-d.html
(Quoted in full.)

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

CC: RZL, RCB (So be sure to "G"roup reply any responses, and not assume
either is aggresively reading Avodah.)



   Divrei Chaim
   Divrei Torah & assorted musings on life.
   Wednesday, April 24, 2013

   Rambam/Ra'avad on the Corporeality of G-d

   Rav Moshe Avigdor Amiel in his sefer "L'Nevochei HaTekufa"
   <http://hebrewbooks.org/32990> writes that there are two different
   ways that one can come to recognize G-d: 1) Yediya - philosophical
   speculation; 2) Hakara - intuitive recognition. Chazal tell us that
   Avraham was three years old (according to one view) when "hikir es
   Bor'o," he recognized his Creator -- it does not say "yada es Bor'o,"
   but rather hikir, because Chazal are not speaking of metaphysical
   knowledge (a three year old is not Aristotle); Chazal speaking of an
   intuitive grasp. The philosophers apprehended G-d through yediya, and
   as a result, they perceived G-d as distant and removed; the prophets
   apprehended G-d through hakara, and therefore they perceived G-d as
   close and intertwined with their lives.

   Rambam and Ra'avad famously disagree as to whether someone who believes
   in the corporeality of G-d is an apikores. The Rambam writes (Hil
   Teshuvah ch 3) that someone who thinks that G-d has a body or a form is
   a heretic. Ra'avad sharply retorts that wiser and greater people than
   the Rambam have entertained such a belief based on their simple reading
   of the Biblical text; therefore, it cannot be categorized as heresy.
   (The Ra'avad's response is not a logical argument or based on a sugya
   of gemara, but rather sounds like a simple appeal to authority -
   "Rambam, you must be wrong because greater people than yourself
   thought differently.") What is the point of disagreement between
   the two opinions?

   R' Chaim Brisker is said to have explained that the machlokes revolves
   around whether there is a din apikores b'shogeg. The Ra'avad
   does not mean that one can accept that G-d has a body; he simply
   is arguing that people who arrive at such a belief inadvertently,
   based on their mistaken reading of Tanach, cannot be called guilty
   of willful heresy. The Rambam, on the other hand, held that "nebech
   an apikores," someone who is arrives at wrong beliefs simply out of
   ignorance, is still an apikores.

   R' Amiel takes a different approach entirely, and here's a link
   to the page for you to see inside and maybe help me understand it
   <http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=32990&;st=&pgnum=18>. He sees
   the Rambam and Ra'avad's disagreement as based on this chiluk between
   yediya and hakara. From the perspective of yediya, when wearing the hat
   of the philosopher, it is impossible to conceive of any relationship
   between G-d and bodily form. However, when you look at things from the
   perspective of hakarah-intuition, the idea is not foreign at all. To
   the contrary, it is precisely the fact that we feel G-d as immanent and
   present even within our selves, our bodies, that gives rise to hakara!

   If I understand him correctly, what Rav Amiel is suggesting that
   that the Ra'avad does not mean to defend the idea that c"v G-d
   has a bodily form. What he is saying is that G-d can be felt
   as being immanent in a body, which is a different thing entirely.
   If this is correct, I don't understand why the Ra'avad is so sharply
   critical of the Rambam, as surely the Rambam would not disagree.
   I also don't understand what the Ra'avad means when he argues that
   those who disagree with the Rambam were led down that road by their
   reading of "mikra." What does that have to do with the intuitive
   sense of G-d that comes from hakara? Does he mean to say that it
   is the perspective of the prophet, hakara, that the Tanach is built
   around, as opposed to the perspective of the philosopher, that is
   what gives rise to this view? That seems a bit of a stretch...
   I just don't see how it fits the words. I love Rav Amiel's writing,
   the chiluk between yediya and hakara is useful in many contexts,
   but am struggling here with the Rambam/Ra'avad connection.

   Posted by Chaim B. at 4:23 PM

2 comments:

    1. jake lasson 6:03 PM
       Admittedly, I did not yet look inside, but I want to better
       understand: is Rav Amiel saying a VShachanto B'Sochum (in all of
       us) idea? That Hakara of Hashem stems from "feeling" Hashem in
       our OWN bodies? I am confused.

    2. jake lasson 6:04 PM
       meaning...we feel Hashem in our own bodies and then we think
       that Hashem himself has a body or that his body is our body?...

On 4/25/2013 7:11 PM, Micha Berger quoted R' Chaim Brown:

 >    Rambam and Ra'avad famously disagree as to whether someone who 
believes
 >    in the corporeality of G-d is an apikores. The Rambam writes (Hil
 >    Teshuvah ch 3) that someone who thinks that G-d has a body or a 
form is
 >    a heretic. Ra'avad sharply retorts that wiser and greater people than
 >    the Rambam have entertained such a belief based on their simple 
reading
 >    of the Biblical text; therefore, it cannot be categorized as heresy.
 >    ... What is the point of disagreement between
 >    the two opinions?


 >
 >    R' Chaim Brisker is said to have explained that the machlokes revolves
 >    around whether there is a din apikores b'shogeg. ...

R' Yosef Albo's 15th century Sefer Ikkarim says this explicitly about 
all those whose denial of fundamentals is based on misreadings of 
scripture and Chazal: Although they are chotei b'shogeg and require 
kapara, they are not to be considered kofrim.
 >
 >    R' Amiel takes a different approach entirely, ...
 >    If I understand him correctly, what Rav Amiel is suggesting that
 >    that the Ra'avad does not mean to defend the idea that c"v G-d
 >    has a bodily form. What he is saying is that G-d can be felt
 >    as being immanent in a body, which is a different thing entirely.
 >    If this is correct, I don't understand why the Ra'avad is so sharply
 >    critical of the Rambam, as surely the Rambam would not disagree.

I'm not sure the Rambam would agree entirely to this idea, but I agree 
that the words of the Raavad do not indicate he thought the Rambam was 
talking about it.

 >    I also don't understand what the Ra'avad means when he argues that
 >    those who disagree with the Rambam were led down that road by their
 >    reading of "mikra." What does that have to do with the intuitive
 >    sense of G-d that comes from hakara?...>    I just don't see how 
it fits the words.

I agree to RCBrown's objection. Also, the way R'Amiel is using 
''hakara'' seems to me to fit more closely under the Rambam's categories 
of ahavas v'yiras Hashem, rather than y'dios Hashem. The Rambam himself 
uses the term ''hakara'' to describe Avraham Avinu's recognition that 
there exists a single Manhig who created the world, and whom alone it is 
proper to worship.

Rav Amiel posits that this is a case of  ''eilu v'eilu...'' and that 
Rambam and Raavad are not really talking about the same thing. If I am 
not mistaken, it seems he is suggesting that if each correctly 
understood what the other was saying, they wouldn't disagree. Either 
that, or that the true understanding of Chazal is really something in 
between what the Raavad and Rambam held.

Zvi Lampel


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


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 31, Issue 76
**************************************

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.)