Avodah Mailing List

Volume 31: Number 172

Sun, 06 Oct 2013

• 1. identity of Jews (Eli Turkel)
• 2. Subject: Re: How many Korban Pesachs could be (hankman)
• 3. Re: Midas Din, Midas Rachamim (Zev Sero)
• 4. Torah and Quantum Mechanics (M Cohen)
• 5. Re: identity of Jews (Zev Sero)
• 6. Re: identity of Jews (Kenneth Miller)
• 7. Re: identity of Jews (Brit Mitlah rejectors) (David Wacholder)
• 8. Re: identity of Jews (Zev Sero)
• 9. Re: identity of Jews (Eitan Levy)
• 10. lilshonosam/safah echas u'dvarim echadim (shalomy...@comcast.net)
• 11. otd custody (saul newman)
• 12. kneged kulam (saul newman)
• 13. It's 50/50 (cantorwolb...@cox.net)
• 14. There's Nothing Original About Sin... (cantorwolb...@cox.net)

<<Not having a brit seems clearly to be worse than chillul Shabbat, at
least in some ways.  It's one of only two mitzvot asei whose
non-performance carries a chiyuv kareit.  Both are associated with the
basic formation of our national identity in a way that few, if any,
other mitzvot do.>>

That indeed was part of the question
Shabbat is bot an asei and lo asei and chayav stoning

-- 
Eli Turkel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20131005/30f066ad/attachment-0001.htm>

R?n Chana Luntz wrote:

the only reason they brought the korban pesach in the second year of
the midbar was "al pi hadibur" - ie it was a hora'as sha'ah specifically
commanded by HKBH for that year.  GIven that, how is it clear that
this "dibur" included the aseh of eating a kezayis? Maybe it only included
the bringing of the korban and the requirement that it be eaten - not the
requirement that each person for whom it was brought must eat a kezayis.
That interpretation does give a slightly different spin to those who asked
for Pesach sheni though - ie one would have to say that they still wanted
to be "in on the pesach" even if they were not going to do anything such as
eating a kezayis - and perhaps one could then see Pesach sheni as an even
bigger reward - ie not only did they get to bring a Pesach, but since it
was probably only a relatively few who were included here, they would have
been able to eat of it also.

Chaim Manaster notes:

While what you assume is not immpossible I think it is highly improbable to
assume that because the Pesach was al pi Ha?Dibur that the assei of achilas
Pesach was not included. The gm? makes clear that the achila is the central
point of this korban. So making this shaky assertion  requires some serious
proof for anyone to accept the proposition. The expected assumption would
be that the mitzvo of achila would be the same unless given a strong reason
to assume otherwise. Also under your assumption there would not have been
any ?bigger reward? for also eating the Pesach.

Kol tuv

Chaim Manaster
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20131004/7555c3b5/attachment-0001.htm>

On 4/10/2013 10:32 AM, Lisa Liel wrote:
> The Torah answers that you can think of Hashem *as* having done that
> initially, (even though He didn't really) and then adding rachamim in
> because the world couldn't survive with nothing but a mechanistic
> universe (even though the reality is that the rachamim was there from
> the get-go).
>
> The same thing applies to the many universes that were destroyed
> before ours was created.  Those are metaphorical, and teach us (among
> other things) that the universe we live in needn't have been the way
> that it is.

Much the same applies to the maamar Chazal that the Torah preceded the world
by 2000 years.  Since time was part of the creation, how can the Torah have
"preceded" it?  The answer is that this does not refer to time.  The Torah
*logically* precedes the world, in the same way that in an argument the
premises precede the conclusion.  In other words, the world derives from the
Torah, rather than vice versa.  The "two thousand years" refers to the two
"alefs", in the pasuk "ve'a'alefcha chochma" (and I will train you in wisdom)
(Iyov 33:33) and the gemara "alof bina" (train in understanding) (Shabbos 104a).
The Torah is the chochma and the bina from which the world derives.


-- 
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

There was a fascinating article on Torah and Quantum Mechanics in the last
issue of Kolmus (Mishpacha magazine insert)

 

If anyone on Avodah has a scientific or mathematic interest, it's REALLY
interesting.

 

Email me offline if you want a copy.

 

The author has some other essays available at 

http://www.pcez.com/~jmsc/bible-torah-sciencelink.html

 

mordechai cohen

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20131004/5b4ef0d2/attachment-0001.htm>

On 4/10/2013 10:38 AM, Lisa Liel wrote:
> And disallowing his marriage to another Jew would also be a tacit
> encouragement for him to marry a non-Jew, which is itself forbidden.

There is the principle that "hal`iteihu larasha veyamus".   Which principle
applies in which situation is a judgement call.


-- 
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

R' Ben Waxman wrote:
> Rav Kook has a tsheuva where he forbids performing a chuppa
> for someone who refuses to have a brit mila.

R' Zev Sero wrote:
> Of course he is [still a Jew].  Even a meshumad, from a long
> line of meshumadim, is Jewish. The minhag of requiring tevilah
> and kabalas hamitzvos is just a medieval takanah to drive home
> to people the seriousness of shmad; obviously it can't override
> the Torah law that the person is and remains a Jew.

These answers are not contradictory in any way. He is of course still
Jewish, and still has all the obligations pertaining thereunto, but has
LOST the privileges of his Jewishness, such as being counted to a minyan or
being buried in a Jewish cemetery. Rav Kook clearly held chupa in the same
category.

My understanding is that this loss of privilege, m'ikar hadin, applies to
any mechalel Shabbos b'farhesya. Recent generations are more tolerant of
mechalalei Shabbos, and more likely to allow them Tinok Shenishba status
(which saves them from this loss of privilege). But there are certain lines
which even our poor generation insists on, and actual conversion to another
religion is in that category. I can easily imagine that refusal to have a
bris milah would be seen in a similar light, even if the person claims to
be a proud Jew.

Akiva Miller
____________________________________________________________
Do THIS before eating carbs (every time)
1 EASY tip to increase fat-burning, lower blood sugar & decrease fat storage
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/524ef5cac21d75c96129st02vuc

Mosheich Be'Orlato - was a sin of Attempted Assimilation mentioned in the
Gmara.

The question of a group rejecting Milah is one category; the individual is
quite another.

There is a general regional context - - - if a rebellious group demands
Brit Milah, disallowing it can potentially at some early stage keep them in
the fold.  This strategic question - should we circumcise the sons of
Kara'im to take an example is a region widel question.

The individual may have received "advice" that there is some pain or danger
for the child; the refusal to allow Milah would than not be a "rebellious"
factor.

Many times I have seen Shomeir Shabbat used as a criterion for "Jew in Good
Standing" in constitutions of Shuls. has anybody seen "Areil Exclusions"?

-- 
David Wacholder
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20131006/63016564/attachment-0001.htm>

On 4/10/2013 1:06 PM, Kenneth Miller wrote:
> R' Ben Waxman wrote:
>> Rav Kook has a tsheuva where he forbids performing a chuppa
>> for someone who refuses to have a brit mila.
>
> R' Zev Sero wrote:
>> Of course he is [still a Jew].  Even a meshumad, from a long
>> line of meshumadim, is Jewish. The minhag of requiring tevilah
>> and kabalas hamitzvos is just a medieval takanah to drive home
>> to people the seriousness of shmad; obviously it can't override
>> the Torah law that the person is and remains a Jew.

> These answers are not contradictory in any way. He is of course still
> Jewish, and still has all the obligations pertaining thereunto, but
> has LOST the privileges of his Jewishness, such as being counted to a
> minyan or being buried in a Jewish cemetery. Rav Kook clearly held
> chupa in the same category.

The question was whether he can marry a Jew.  There is no question that
he can.  It is not a privilege, it is an inherent function of the fact
that he is a Jew.  Neither R Kook nor anybody else has the power to
prevent him.  Now R Kook might well have put someone in cherem, which
would mean that anyone who felt bound by this would refuse to participate
in his chupah, whether as mesader kidushin, eid, or member of a minyan,
but even if every rov in the world accepted this it wouldn't prevent him
from marrying without a rov, or affect the validity of such a marriage.

(The SA says one does not circumcise the sons of one who is in cherem.
It doesn't say anything about siddur kiddushin, but it would seem to follow
kal vachomer.)

-- 
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

From: Ben Waxman <ben1...@zahav.net.il> 
Date: 04/10/2013  16:46  (GMT+02:00) 
> Rav Kook has a tsheuva where he forbids performing a chuppa for someone
> who refuses to have a brit mila.

But is that a statement about the person's halachic status or a sort of
'knas'?

(Sent from my phone using voice to text)
Peace and Blessings,
-Eitan Levy
www.rabbieitan.com

A question from Parashah Noach: 

In Ch 10, we are told several times that Toldos Noach are listed 
...lilshonsam... 

But, immediately following in Ch 11 we are told "Va'yhi col ha'aretz 
safah echas u'dvarim echadim". 

Is the implication that the listing of the descendents of Noach give 
their eventual distribution in the time of Matan Torah, but the time of 
Migdal Bavel came before the descendents of Noach spread out? Or, 
is there some other explanation? 

Thanks. 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20131007/1cb896e3/attachment-0001.htm>

>>>>Her own father testified against her in the custody battle, some of her
close friends said. Both her father and her ex-husband?s new wife
besmirched Tambor to the point where her own children did not want to see
her anymore.


------   does [or should]  an off the derech  ex spouse  have  primary or
any custody rights to children ?  aren't they a meisit umeideeach?  [
rather this not be on avodah]
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20131003/d8e25b44/attachment-0001.htm>

http://www.rationalistjudaism.com/2013/10/keneged-kulam-redux.html

using  the  opposite case in the tosefta , a discussion of what  'keneged
kulam' means....
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20131002/ddeadd50/attachment-0001.htm>

        I came across the following interesting midrash:

        "The first two words of this coming week's sidra, lamed chof,  have the same numerical value, 50. 
        And they can be read lach or l'cha, meaning "for you," in either masculine or feminine gender.
        This suggests that G-d is explaining to Abraham an overall philosophy of the Torah system, 
        as well as the interplay between Man and God. It is a 50-50 proposition, a sharing of rights 
        and responsibilities, a give-and-take harmony that maintains perfect equilibrium. We have
        our tasks to perform, and G-d has His; and we have our rights and entitlements, no less than G-d."
 
        After learning the midrash I realized the following:  If you take the same two words you get 100. 
        The lesson, therefore, is that if the interplay between Man and G-d is a 50-50 proposition and 
        the sharing of rights and responsibilities, as well as a give-and-take harmony, then we've got 
        the perfect score--100%.

      I never put on a pair of shoes until I?ve worn them at least five
      years.								   
									   
									   
									   
									   
									   
									   
					    Samuel Goldwyn


I never put on a pair of shoes until I've worn them at least five years.
Samuel Goldwyn 
Read more at http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/keywords/shoes_2.html#yjQpRP46TfV
cc1fi.99  


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20131005/2ce1a1c4/attachment-0001.htm>

        As Jews we obviously do not believe in original sin and it is antithetical to our faith.
        Christianity teaches that we all die because Adam and Eve ate from the
        Eitz Hada'as. This is simply not so, according to the Torah. G-d never intended 
        man to live forever in this life and the proof is that G-d banished them from 
        Gan Eden so as to prevent they eating from the Tree of Life. This proves they were
        not meant to live forever. In other words, they were driven out of the Garden
        precisely because G-d did not intend them to become immortal. Another 
        interesting element to note:  The word 'sin' is not even used in reference to
        Adam and Eve. The first time the word 'sin' is used in the Torah is in reference
        to the Cain and Abel story (4:7). 

        There is one verse I find very striking in Parashas Noach, Chapter 8, vs.21:
         ?ba'avur ha'adam ki yetzer lev ha'adam RA min'u'rav?
        What G-d is saying is that the nature of man is evil from his youth. Some might
        infer that is the same as original sin, but in Judaism it is not the same. 

        I vividly recall my childhood years and I can tell you that the expression "innocent children"
        is the furthest thing from the truth. There were many mean kids?many!  Children (and I'm
        not referring to toddlers) are far from innocent and can be very cruel and hurtful.
        This is where parenting comes in and must be a constant. We all remember the school
        bullies and how cool it was to be on the side of the aggressor. I can tell you that the child
        who defended the underdog was in the minority.  So the verse above (8:21) is quite true. 

       Shabbat shalom.

       "We are punished BY our sins not FOR them" 
        Elbert Hubbard    

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20131004/a0beebd3/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 31, Issue 172
***************************************

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