Avodah Mailing List

Volume 31: Number 195

Mon, 02 Dec 2013

• 1. Re: The canard of the Rabbinic redefinition of lineal descent in Judai sm (Micha Berger)
• 2. Thanksgiving on Chanukah (Prof. Levine)
• 3. eating out (Prof. Levine)
• 4. Re: eating out (Micha Berger)
• 5. Re: The Gym, the Carpool, and Tzniyus (Micha Berger)
• 6. The Gym, the Carpool, and Tzniyus (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi, its Kosher!)
• 7. Re: eating out (Harry Weiss)
• 8. Re: AHAVA (cantorwolb...@cox.net)
• 9. Re: AHAVA (Meir Shinnar)
• 10. Re: AHAVA (Meir Shinnar)
• 11. All That Glitters is not Gold (cantorwolb...@cox.net)
• 12. Re: eating out (Prof. Levine)
• 13. Re: Listening to Prominent Rabbis Today (Ben Waxman)
• 14. What is this thing called "Law"? (RCK)
• 15. Re: What is this thing called "Law"? (Micha Berger)
• 16. Dochek Raglei Shechina (Liron Kopinsky)
• 17. Re: Dochek Raglei Shechina (Micha Berger)
• 18. Re: Dochek Raglei Shechina (Liron Kopinsky)

On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 07:36:05PM +0000, Kenneth Miller wrote:
: The only example I can think of offhand would be Oved, the son of Boaz
: and Ruth. In that case, however, the written words ("Elokayich Elokai")
: do attest to some sort of conversion to Judaism.

Actually, while we're on the topic of da mah lehashiv, isn't there
also a kofer's theory that in the era in question, marriage constituted
conversion? IOW, the reason why patrilineal descent allegedy worked is
because the father's religion determined the whole household's. For which
one could point to Tziporah, Asnas, Shimshon's and Shelomo's wives, etc...

:-)BBii!
-Micha

At 12:19 PM 11/29/2013, R. Micha wrote:


>Historically speaking, I think it would be accurate to say that
>Thanksgiving is a holiday of American unity. While there were a few
>observances before 1863, they were few and weren't on the some date,
>or in Pres. Madison's case, not even in the fall. Today's Thanksgiving
>dates back to Lincoln's Thanksgiving proclomation.

The Civil War was not over until 1865.  Given this,  I doubt that 
those in the South were happy with Lincoln's Thanksgiving 
Proclamation and wanted nothing to do with unity.

>  He focuses on thanking
>"the Most High God" for "dealing with us in anger for our sins, hath
>nevertheless remembered mercy" during the years of Civil War and allowing
>the country to reach Reconstruction. (Complete text at
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thanksgiving_(United_S
>tates)#Lincoln_and_the_Civil_War
>) And it made sense for him to revive an observance that predates the
>formation of the Union, something the former Confederates would have no
>problem agreeing to.

In 1863 there were no former Confederates.  The war was still in full 
swing.  The Confederates were still 
Confederates.   Furthermore,  there was and still is a not 
insignificant element in the South that did not abandon their 
sympathy for the South's stance.  Even to this day one has people 
reenacting battles.  Years ago when I published my article about 
Pesach observance in the armies of the North and the South 
("<http://personal.stevens.edu/%7E
llevine/jp/Jewish%20Soldiers%20Observe%20Pesach%20During%20The%20Civil%20Wa
r.pdf>Jewish 
Soldiers Observe Pesach During The Civil War"  The Jewish Press, 
April 1, 2005 page 48. Glimpses into American Jewish History Part 1. 
),  I received an email from a fellow signed

>>>>>Your Obedient Servant,
>>>>>
>>>>>Colonel Michael Kelley, CSA
>>>>>Commanding, 37th Texas Cavalry (Terrell's)
>>>>><http://www.37thtexas.org>http://www.37thtexas.org
>>>>>http://thewargallery.com
>>>>>"We are a band of brothers!"

Initially I did not realize that CSA stands for Confederate States of America!

I think that your comments about unity are not accurate.

YL

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20131129/b2e65db9/attachment-0001.htm>

At 12:19 PM 11/29/2013, R. Joseph Kaplan wrote:
> is this gebnerally true, you cant eat at another's home who has
> different minhagim?"

>I always thought that one of the purposes of kashrut (yes, I know, we don't
>look for ta'amei hamitzvot) was to stop intermingling between us and "them,"
>not between us and us.  Or, as one insightful rabbi once put it in a sermon,
>we shouldn't state with pride how many Orthodox houses we don't eat in.

There are some within the O community who consider some of "us" to be
them. Doesn't one see this all the time with certain groups interacting
only with those from their particular group.?

YL

On Fri, Nov 29, 2013 at 12:46:09PM -0500, Prof. Levine wrote:
: There are some within the O community who consider some of "us" to be
: them. Doesn't one see this all the time with certain groups interacting
: only with those from their particular group.?

I need clarification:

So, in Torah terms are you arguing that yes, one may eat at the homes of
people who are meiqil on things you generally are not? That's it's only
nefarious motives that motivate people to act otherwise?

:-)BBii!
-Micha

On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 08:13:24PM -0500, Moshe Y. Gluck wrote:
: R' Meir Rabi:
:> Is it not correct to explain that Tznius is the Hashkafa of not shouting to
:> the world - Look At ME?

: That may not be incorrect but it's certainly not complete, as tznius is an
: obligation "afilu b'chadrei chadorim."

Although it's not mandatory bechaderei chadorim, only berabbaim.

I would draw a parallel to showing hakaras hatov and kavod to a pair of
challah, or Moshe's not being the one to initiate a makkah involving
the Ye'or or sand. Here too, not being the kind of person who shouts
"look at ME!" requires carrying through those habits even when there is
no one available to look.

:-)BBii!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             "Man wants to achieve greatness overnight,
mi...@aishdas.org        and he wants to sleep well that night too."
http://www.aishdas.org         - Rav Yosef Yozel Horwitz, Alter of Novarodok
Fax: (270) 514-1507

Reb Moshe reminds us that tznius is an obligation "afilu b'chadrei
chadorim" and is therefore not limited to shouting "look at ME".

Can we not consider that the way one behaves when in private does influence
the public persona?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20131130/d35b7cb1/attachment-0001.htm>

> From: "Joseph Kaplan" <jkap...@tenzerlunin.com>
>
> I always thought that one of the purposes of kashrut (yes, I know, we
> don't
> look for ta'amei hamitzvot) was to stop intermingling between us and
> "them,"
> not between us and us.  Or, as one insightful rabbi once put it in a
> sermon,
> we shouldn't state with pride how many Orthodox houses we don't eat in.
>
I remember reading a story about RSZA ztl  that  when asked by a student
whether she could eat by a family with lesser standards.  The Rav asked
was it kosher? when the respond was yes, he said she should definitely eat
there and that he himself ate at weddings which were lesser standards than
he used at home.

On Nov 29, 2013, at 2:34 PM, Meir Shinnar <chide...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Can someone who owns Orot haQodesh 3:323 let me know if they can tell
>> which was RAYK's intent by the coinage?

> Roughly, sinat hahinam is defined as the sin'a that the otzar hachayim
> expresses against what is opposed to it -- and this yitzra of sinat hinam
> embraces within it the secret of ahava, that like it is ahavat hinam --
> that the light of shalom and osier are just in it included.

> asher le'ahavat hinam vesinat hinam -- sheyesodan hu sin'u ra veehavu
> tov. And as the omek hara veromemut shorsho hu omek hatov -- nimtza
> sheomek hasina hu omek ha'ahava.
...
> Clearly, ahavat hinam and sinat hinam do not express the common notion
> of love and hate for no reason -- but metaphysical statements of a
> dialectical opposition.

I don't believe it is "Clearly" at all. The facts of Abraham's life are
very instructive regarding ahava for no "logical" reason. The Netziv
notes Abraham's actions in connection to S'dom. And there are other
examples with him as well as with Yitzchok and Yaakov.

[Email #2. -micha]

Could you give a practical, concrete example of your exegesis below?
In other words, what would be a practical application of what you describe
as "Roughly?"
(Could you "Smooth" it out)? :-)

Micha
> 
> Can someone who owns Orot haQodesh 3:323 let me know if they can tell
> which was RAYK's intent by the coinage?
> 
> :-)BBii!
> -Micha
> 
> 
Roughly, sinat hahinam is defined as the sin?a that the otzar hachayim
expresses against what is opposed to it - and this yitzra of sinat hinam
embraces within it the secret of ahava, that like it is ahavat hinam - that
the light of shalom and osier are just in it included.

asher le?ahavat hinam vesinat hinam - sheyesodan hu sin?u ra veehavu tov. 
And as the omek hara veromemut shorsho hu omek hatov - nimtza sheomek
hasina hu omek ha?ahava.

ve?im neheravnu veneherav haolam imanu al yede sin?at hinam - nashuv lehibanot - veha?olam imanu yibane - al yede ahavat hinam.


Clearly, ahavat hinam and sinat hinam do not express the common notion of
love and hate for no reason - but metaphysical statements of a dialectical
opposition.

 (the first time he uses sinat hahinam, while others he expresses sinat
 hinam - and seems to refer more to the hatred of the good and the existent
 to evil and nonexistence - but from a higher perspective, the root of evil
 is within the good - leads one to ahavat hinam?.loving the good that is at
 the root of the apparent evil?)

Meir Shinnar

I am not a Rav Kook expert, and practical examples of metaphysical ideas are problematic.
However, Rav Kook starts the article by arguing that all human debates and
wars are based on intrinsically minor differences.  The main major fight is
that of sinat hinam ( and I think hinam here translates to void -) - what
is created (and therefore good) - hates the void and evil - and ahavat
hinam is its correlate - the love of the good.	However, as from a higher
perspective the source of evil and hinam is good (remember yeshiva 45:7 -
yotzer ra  - very anti Manichean?), true ahavat hinam is the love that
recognizes the good and existent that is the source of the apparent evil.  
Therefore, the problem of sinat hinam that the rav kook sees is not as
commonly understood baseless - in a way, sinat hinam - as hatred of evil -
is the one hatred and fight that has a base - but that it is incomplete in
not going deeper into the source of the evil.

Your f/u example of Avraham and Sdom illustrates this - in the sense that Avraham senses that even Sdom, paradigmatic of evil - has an element of tov... 
(again, this is from the position (that is rav kook?s, as well as, from a
very different perspective, that of the rambam - that evil does not have a
real existence, but is more of an illusion from the human perspective -
there are clearly other positions out there)
Meir Shinnar
On Nov 29, 2013, at 3:11 PM, cantorwolb...@cox.net wrote:

> R? Meir,
> Could you give a practical, concrete example of your exegesis below?
> In other words, what would be a practical application of what you describe as ?Roughly??
> (Could you ?Smooth? it out)?  :-)
> 
> 
> On Nov 29, 2013, at 2:34 PM, Meir Shinnar <chide...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> Micha
>>> 
>>> Can someone who owns Orot haQodesh 3:323 let me know if they can tell
>>> which was RAYK's intent by the coinage?
>>> 
>>> :-)BBii!
>>> -Micha
>>> 
>>> 
>> Roughly, sinat hahinam is defined as the sin?a that the otzar
>> hachayim expresses against what is opposed to it - and this yitzra
>> of sinat hinam embraces within it the secret of ahava, that like
>> it is ahavat hinam - that the light of shalom and osier are just
>> in it included.
>> 
>> asher le?ahavat hinam vesinat hinam - sheyesodan hu sin?u ra
>> veehavu tov.  And as the omek hara veromemut shorsho hu omek hatov
>> - nimtza sheomek hasina hu omek ha?ahava.
>> 
>> ve?im neheravnu veneherav haolam imanu al yede sin?at hinam - nashuv lehibanot - veha?olam imanu yibane - al yede ahavat hinam.
>> 
>> 
>> Clearly, ahavat hinam and sinat hinam do not express the common
>> notion of love and hate for no reason - but metaphysical
>> statements of a dialectical opposition.
>> 
>> (the first time he uses sinat hahinam, while others he expresses
>> sinat hinam - and seems to refer more to the hatred of the good
>> and the existent to evil and nonexistence - but from a higher
>> perspective, the root of evil is within the good - leads one to
>> ahavat hinam?.loving the good that is at the root of the apparent
>> evil?)
>> 
>> Meir Shinnar
>> 
> 
> 
> 

I came across a remarkable midrash that blew my mind.

When G-d saw the people dancing around the Golden Calf,
He said he would wipe them out, to which the following 
is found in Midrash Rabbah :

?Since You have told me of their making a Golden Calf long
before You did deliver them,? argued Moshe, ?why do You seek
to slay them now that they have made it?? (It was for this reason
that Moses mentioned the Exodus from Egypt in his plea for mercy).

What is amazing is that in essence, Moses is saying: ?You already
KNEW that they would be making a Golden Calf, so where was their
free choice?? 

Obviously, Moses? plea made sense to G-d because He forgave them.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20131130/02dcc67f/attachment-0001.htm>

At 01:09 PM 11/29/2013, Micha Berger wrote:
>On Fri, Nov 29, 2013 at 12:46:09PM -0500, Prof. Levine wrote:
>: There are some within the O community who consider some of "us" to be
>: them. Doesn't one see this all the time with certain groups interacting
>: only with those from their particular group.?

>I need clarification:

>So, in Torah terms are you arguing that yes, one may eat at the homes of
>people who are meiqil on things you generally are not? That's it's only
>nefarious motives that motivate people to act otherwise?

Personally I do not eat in anyone's home save for my own. Surely you
know this from earlier posts.

I do not pasken for others. As the Jewish Press used to say, "Consult
your local competent Orthodox rabbi."

Also, there is a world of difference between "may" and "should."
There are many things that one may do, but that one should not do.
Rav Shimon Schwab, ZT"L, once replied when I asked him the source for
something he told me, "The Five Chalek of the SA, common sense."

YL

Be sure to read the artilce from the last few weeks, in which documents 
from the gaonic period have been reviewed.

Ben

On 11/29/2013 7:19 PM, Micha Berger wrote:
> (I also found the review of Otzar haGe'onim fascinating. But this topic
> of halachic authority is an Avodah perennial.)

This article might be of interest to the members of this list
http://mosaicmagazine.com/essay/2013/12/what-is-this-thing-called-law/

Reuven Chaim Klein

On Mon, Dec 02, 2013 at 8:51pm +0200, R'RCK wrote:
: This article might be of interest to the members of this list
: http://mosaicmagazine.com/essay/2013/12/what-is-this-thing-called-law

You might have noticed that that article has only one comment so far.
What I wrote was:

    The article about law starts (in historical order) with an
    unsupportable claim: "What about what is often called history's first
    law code, the Code of Hammurabi, which dates all the way back to the
    early second millennium B.C.E.? As scholars have reluctantly come to
    conclude, that famous document is in fact no code at all.... So if
    CH wasn't a collection of laws, what was it? Both it and other such
    collections are anthologies of judgments -- snapshots of decisions
    rendered by judges or perhaps even by the king himself."

    First, and most obviously, the tense in almost every line would
    be wrong!

    Second, the Code of Hammurabi is not the only law code of that
    era. There is a Code of Ur-Nammu, the Laws of Eshunna, the Egyptians
    had a codex of Isis, the Hittites had a law book... The genre
    clearly existed.

    Third, Google couldn't find for me who these unnamed experts with
    this novel interpretation are. So he's presenting an avant-garde
    theory as thought it's gaining ground in the mainstream.

    Last, the reason to obey halakhah is that it's from G-d. If someone
    thinks the nature of earlier, non-prophetic, texts is really
    deterministic of the nature of the Torah, then why worry about
    halakhah to begin with?

    As for halakhah, it does change, but through a process. In exile,
    without a Sanhedrin convening in the Temple, many of the tools for
    responding to changes in criteria have been hobbled. But back to the
    days of the Mishnah (Eduyot 1:4,5) precedent has been considered a
    defining feature of law, which means that an increase in rigidity over
    time, as precedents collect, is inevitable. I share the desire for
    the flexibility of old, but I want the same legal process as of old
    as well! Without that continuity, in what sense is the flexible system
    that would result still an implementation of the Sinai Covenant?

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             It is harder to eat the day before Yom Kippur
mi...@aishdas.org        with the proper intent than to fast on Yom
http://www.aishdas.org   Kippur with that intent.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                       - Rav Yisrael Salanter

I was just learning today (Kiddushin 31) that if someone does an aveira
b'seter, they are "dochek raglei shechina" because the pasuk says
"hashamayim kis'i, v'haaretz hadom raglai".

I was just thinking that this means that practically speaking, our entire
relationship with Hashem is through his feet.

The physical world is the "dvarim she'HKBH dash b'akeivav". Just as Hashem
is careful and cares about those things, so to we have to be careful with
all the little mitzvot, as we learn from Parshat Eikev.

Kol Tuv,
Liron

-- 
Liron Kopinsky
liron.kopin...@gmail.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20131202/33e25d58/attachment-0001.htm>

On Mon, Dec 02, 2013 at 09:40:55PM +0200, Liron Kopinsky wrote:
: I was just thinking that this means that practically speaking, our entire
: relationship with Hashem is through his feet.
: 
: The physical world is the "dvarim she'HKBH dash b'akeivav"...

"Hadom Raglav", too. Eikhah 2:1 uses the idiom to refer to the BHMQ,
Yeshiah 66:1 has HQBH saying "Hashmayim kis'i, veha'aretz hadom Raglai."
In Tehillim 11:2, David haMelekh writes, "ad asis oyevekha hadom
leraglekha -- until I make your enemies a footstool for Your Feet." Whic
is actually a more hopeful spin than hoping he can kill them; David wants
to make them a vehicle for Divine Presence. Whether through teshuvah or
as a cationary example was probably intentionally left open.

And RSRH comments when man is named Adam for adamah that
    Adam : Adamah  ::  HQBH : man
and both are a "hadom raglav" relationship.

Nice he'ara.

: is careful and cares about those things, so to we have to be careful with
: all the little mitzvot, as we learn from Parshat Eikev.

Can we also tie this to Yaaqov (note the shoresh) being the tzuras
ha'adam on the kisei hakavod?

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             You will never "find" time for anything.
mi...@aishdas.org        If you want time, you must make it.
http://www.aishdas.org                     - Charles Buxton
Fax: (270) 514-1507

On Mon, Dec 2, 2013 at 10:02 PM, Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org> wrote:

> On Mon, Dec 02, 2013 at 09:40:55PM +0200, Liron Kopinsky wrote:
> : I was just thinking that this means that practically speaking, our entire
> : relationship with Hashem is through his feet.
> :
> : The physical world is the "dvarim she'HKBH dash b'akeivav"...
>
>
> Can we also tie this to Yaaqov (note the shoresh) being the tzuras
> ha'adam on the kisei hakavod?
>

Yaakov is in many ways epitomized as being very caring of the little things
- being super meticulous with the sheep, going back for pachim k'tanim etc.
I wrote a little about the connection between Yaakov and Eikev here:
http://mydvar.com/2009/11/the-little-things-in-life/

Kol Tuv,
-- 
Liron Kopinsky
liron.kopin...@gmail.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20131202/2925bbc8/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 195
***************************************

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.)