Avodah Mailing List

Volume 32: Number 2

Mon, 06 Jan 2014

• 1. Re: shehechyanu on engagement ring (Moshe Y. Gluck)
• 2. Re: Lying for Shalom -- the Sake of Peace (Micha Berger)
• 3. eating out (Prof. Levine)
• 4. Re: eating out (Ben Waxman)
• 5. Friday the Professor did not go to Shul (Prof. Levine)
• 6. "Do Athiests Exist?" (Micha Berger)
• 7. Chodesh Proclaims Redemption From Sin and From Evil (Prof. Levine)
• 8. Shabbos Shira "Be Sure to Sing a Song to Your Children" (cantorwolberg@cox.net)
• 9. Lying for Shalom -- the Sake of Peace (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi)
• 10. Re: Is there any heter to wish someone Merry Xmas? (Daniel M. Israel)
• 11. Re: Is there any heter to wish someone Merry Xmas? (Zev Sero)
• 12. Re: Friday the Professor did not go to Shul (Daniel M. Israel)
• 13. The more you live for yourself the less you do live. (Prof. Levine)
• 14. Re: Chodesh Proclaims Redemption From Sin and From Evil (Micha Berger)

On Tue, Dec 31, 2013 at 8:24 AM, R' M. Cohen <mco...@touchlogic.com> wrote:
> It would appear that a girl s/ say shehechyanu on rcving the engagement ring
> (and so say poskim in print)

> It appears to me that the common minhag is not to say.

> Reasons?

How many engagement rings have you seen received that you can attest to
whether that is, indeed, the minhag?

KT,
MYG

On Tue, Dec 31, 2013 at 07:18:40PM -0500, T6...@aol.com wrote:
: The Gemara is not saying that one has to be less-than-fully-honest when the 
:  kallah is not so pretty.  The Gemara is saying that "every bride is  
: beautiful" is the REAL truth, more true than "Some are and some aren't."

The gemara (Kesuvos 17) says that Beis Shammai ask BH on this, and
BH answer, "According to your words, if someone made a bad purchase in
the marketplace, do you insult him to his face, or complement him to his
face? Of course you're say we should praise him." Continues the gemara,
"From here the Chakhamim said that a person's mind should be pleasant
with the beri'os."

What you said is how Rashi defends it being shinui rather than outright
sheqer, not that we're redefining the meaning of "emes" to be more
subjective.

But that would bother me less than the next idea, which I've also heard
before:
: Similarly -- I want to say I heard this from my father, but I don't  
: remember exactly how he put it -- but the idea was, every time you "change"  
: something for the sake of peace, for the sake of not hurting a person's feelings  
: -- peace is the real emes, and that kind of shinui is not a lie...

REED has a similar idea, that "emes" means "in accordance with Retzon
haBorei", rather than "truth". I'm wondering, though: Given either idea,
why do we have a machloqes over whether one may outright lie for shalom
or only leshanos es ha'emes? And why would it be called "leshanos es
haEMES", anyway?

But my real discomfort is from a deeper problem, once we allow
transvaluing the word emes, we can make words mean anything.

I would prefer, folloring the medrash, to acknowledge that Emes and
Shalom are conflicting values, and the only way humans get shalom (at
least in olam hazeh) is when Emes is thrown to the ground.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             When a king dies, his power ends,
mi...@aishdas.org        but when a prophet dies, his influence is just
http://www.aishdas.org   beginning.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                    - Soren Kierkegaard

At 01:29 PM 1/2/2014, R. Akiva Miller wrote:
>R' Yitzchok Levine wrote:
>
> > I have a friend whose parents never wanted their kids and
> > grandchildren to come to eat at their home.  They preferred
> > to eat in their basement on Pesach rather than go to their
> > son for Sedarim.
>
>Is there a typo somewhere in this section?
>
>The second sentence says that the grandparents are the sort of 
>people who only eat in their own home, and that is the idea which 
>this thread has been focusing on.
>
>But the *first* sentence seems to be on a different topic entirely. 
>It seems to be saying that the grandparents never wanted to HOST 
>their children and grandchildren. To me, that appears to be a 
>bizarre and unloving relationship, and very unnatural for grandparents.
>
>My only guess is that the first sentence expresses the grandparents' 
>hope that their children and grandchildren would take on the family 
>practice of not eating elsewhere, even in the home of a very close 
>relative. Am I close?

There is no typo.  I was pointing out that there are other reasons 
why children might not eat in their parents' besides kashrus reasons, 
and hence one should not paint with a broad brush and  call all those 
who do not eat in their parents' home as doing something that is  "menuvaldig."

These grandparents wanted to have their sedarim by themselves,  and 
it had nothing to do with kashrus,  AFAIK.   (They were not right 
wing people.  Indeed,  most would say they were MO.)  They ate all of 
their meals during Pesach in their basement.   When their son told me 
this,  I asked him why.  He replied that he really did not know. 
"This is just what they do," he said.

YL
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20140102/9cb18e71/attachment-0001.htm>

No one used broad brush, at least not in the original context of the 
discussion.

The issue isn't:
* Parent prefer a quiet meal and see the kids at other times 
(understandable)
* Parents and kids have issues so bad that a meal together would be 
torture for everyone involved (tragic)
* Even parents are MOs and the son has become chareidi with super strict 
kashrut practices**

The issue, as originally stated, a rav talmid chacham who keeps qula 
q'chumra, whose son is so "frum" that he won't eat with his parents.  
That scenario is what people called menuval behavior.

** I know several families who have a son who became chareidi. None of 
them took the approach of "here is a stam rabbinate heksher chicken, 
take it or leave it". None. They all said, you tell us what you need and 
we'll do it.

Ben

On 1/2/2014 10:54 PM, Prof. Levine wrote:

 >
 > There is no typo.  I was pointing out that there are other reasons 
why children might not eat in their parents' besides kashrus reasons, 
and hence one should not paint with a broad brush and  call all those 
who do not eat in their parents' home as doing something that is  
"menuvaldig."

(For those who are knowledgeable, I actually did know Harry 
Kemelman.  See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Kemelman)

I decided not to go to shul this morning.  It is 11 degrees here in 
Brooklyn this morning,  the NYC public schools are closed today 
(something that does not happen very often),  and it is still 
snowing.  I certainly was not going to try to drive to the Vo'sikin 
minyan that I usually daven at and did consider going to a nearby 
shul to daven.  However, I decided against it,  because of the 
extreme cold and the fact that I am afraid of falling.  I have 
arthritis in my knees, and if I fell, I might not be able to get 
up.  Lying in the snow in 11 degrees seemed to me not to be wise.

I made this decision without consulting a rabbi or a rebbe,  and I am 
convinced that for me this was the correct thing to do from a 
halachic standpoint.  Is not guarding one's health a mitzva D'oreisa?

I davened Vo'sikin in my warm and snow free dining room.

In light of this I would like to raise the following questions.

1.  Should the shuls in NYC have notified their congregants that they 
will be closed this morning and that people should not come to shul? 
Would this have been the proper thing to do from a Torah standpoint?

2.  If shuls should have been open this morning,  who should have 
been encouraged (told) not to come to shul to daven this morning?

What halachic guidelines apply to the situation in NYC as it is now 
regarding going outside?  (I did my shopping yesterday.)

YL

In the National Review Online (12/28/2013), Nichalas Frankovich appears
to have redicovered a significant facet of the Tanya's theology and
ontology. See http://j.mp/JO2htE , which is primarily about the Sunday
Assembly, a church of atheism started by two stand-up comics that evolved
into a serious network in a few cities.

So first Frankovich notes that an atheism that promotes spirituality
and transcendence is a religion. People talk of Conficianism, Taoism,
and Buddhism as religions, even though none of them have theologies.
(Although historically, Buddhism would reach a country and layer itself
on top of existing idolatry.)

Then there's the bit I'm talking about, the closing. It sounds lehavdil
like (oxymoron noted) the Baal haTanya's yeish mei'Ayin:

    Had he more space, [David] Albert [in a "withering review" of Lawrence
    M Krauss's "A Universe from Nothing: Why There Is Something Rather
    than Nothing] ight have mentioned that Krauss's first misstep was
    his attempt to identify nothing: To define "nothing" is to say what
    it is, when what it's intended to convey is an absence of being. You
    can't talk about nothing without treating it as something. And so,
    on close inspection, the question "Why is there not nothing?" turns
    out to be paradoxical -- as we should expect, given that "when
    the answer cannot be put into words, neither can the question," as
    Wittgenstein observed. Still, it's hard to let the question go; we
    intuit the intended meaning even as it eludes our ability to capture
    it in precise language. While the word "nothing" is self-contradictory
    and irrational when strictly interpreted, it does, like the number
    zero in mathematics, serve a purpose when used gingerly or with
    enough qualification.

    Used loosely, "nothing" is put to practical use every day. Dawkins
    makes it a placeholder for "God." By invoking "nothing," he can
    point to the source of the universe without implying that You Know
    Who had anything to do with it. So much anxiety rides on the "G"
    word and what Dawkins evidently regards as the undue respect it might
    connote. He treats it as if it were a proper name, which it isn't,
    as David Bentley Hart patiently points out in his gem of a new
    book, The Experience of God: Being, Consciousness, Bliss. Still,
    on their own terms, antitheists are correct to be mindful of the
    halo that surrounds "God" in everyday usage; some observant Jews
    omit the vowel, for example, treating it almost as if it were the
    Tetragrammaton itself.

    It's become too familiar, this ordinary English word for what we
    tend to talk around rather than talk about. So forget "God." Call him
    "Nothing," if you prefer....

Discussion of John 1:1 ellided.

    otice how "nothing" can function for the atheist as "God" does for
    the theist. Are the two only using different linguistic tokens in
    parallel efforts to express the same ineffable thought? Their fear
    and trembling at the prospect of the "eternal nada," Jones and Evans
    explain, moves them to cultivate their appreciation for the physical
    world (Christians call it "Creation") that tickles our sense organs
    in the here and now: "Transcendence can be found in a breath of wind
    on your face or in a mouthful of custard tart," they write. They
    pronounce nature "awesome," a word whose recently acquired colloquial
    sense still shades into its older, literal sense. Open the door to
    just that much transcendence, however, and all of it comes rushing in,
    like a strong wind. Atheists instinctively try to resist it, while
    those of us who have been blown away by it recommend the experience.

    "Wonder more," the Sunday Assembly urges, and adherents of
    monotheistic religions echo the advice back to them. No, following
    wonder to its logical conclusion does not by itself make an atheist
    suddenly Jewish, Christian, or Muslim. It only means he's not an
    atheist. Someone should tell him.


:-)BBii!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Brains to the lazy
mi...@aishdas.org        are like a torch to the blind --
http://www.aishdas.org   a useless burden.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                 - Bechinas haOlam

The following is a small part of RSRH's 
commentary on Shemos 12 : 1 - 2.  There is much 
more that and it is all worth reading.

121 And God said to Moshe and Aharon in the land of Egypt as follows:

2 This renewal of the moon shall be for you a 
beginning of new moons; it shall be for you the 
first among the months of the year.

Chodesh thus proclaims redemption from sin and from evil, and that is
why this institution is placed at the commencement of our national
upbuilding. The truth that it teaches forms the foundation stone of our
Jewish consciousness and sharply distinguishes this consciousness from
all paganism.

Paganism knows no Chidush, neither in the world, nor in man, nor in
its God or gods which it sets over world and man. Everything is determined
by ironclad necessity. Today evolves from yesterday, and tomorrow
from today ? by ironclad necessity. Just as paganism denies Yesh Ma Ayin,
the free creation by the free will of a Creator, it also denies the
possibility of Yesh Ma Ayin in man?s moral nature and in his destiny. Guilt
and evil are bound to beget only guilt and evil, in an endless procession.
To paganism, no godlike freedom dwells in the human breast, no free
God holds sway in and over the world. Everything is swept along in a
blind stream of unchanging necessity, all freedom is but an illusion,
anything new was already present in the old.

<Snip>

This Chidush, however, is nothing but the direct corollary of the meaning
of the Name Ha Shem: the God Who freely fashions each coming moment.
By this Name every Jew, in the depths of his heart, silently worships
his God.

<Snip>

Thus we have two beginnings to our year, just as we have two beginnings
to our day. We have a year that begins in the fall, and though
it also has a spring and a summer, it ends again in the fall; and we have
a year that begins in the spring, and though it also has a fall and a winter,
it ends again in the spring. So, too, we have a day that begins in the
evening, and though it rises to morning and to noon, it ends again in
the evening; and we have a day that begins in the morning, and though
it sinks into evening and night, it ends again in the morning. Outside
the Sanctuary the day begins and ends with night; inside the Sanctuary
the day begins and ends with morning (see Commentary to Vayikra 6:2).
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20140103/fa89efcf/attachment-0001.htm>

Next week being Shabbos Shira, I am reminded of a puzzling paradox.
We are all in awe of the splitting of the Sea and as well, the Sages 
teach in the Mekhilta that ?even a simple maidservant at the Sea perceived
a higher degree of Revelation than that of Ezekiel in his Heavenly 
vision? (described in the Book of Ezekiel, Chapter one). What is fascinating
is that the miracle of the Manna was no less awe-inspiring than the crossing 
of the Red Sea, and yet we hear no outpouring of song, no ?Oz Yoshir.? On the
contrary?far from being moved to gratitude and praise of God , they 
grumbled and complained. If you stop and think of it, it makes no sense.
Some have attempted to explain the miracle at the Red Sea as a wind blowing
all night, etc. Nobody could ever explain food coming from heaven and tasting
like anything you wanted it to taste like. I recall as a child; we all were in awe
of the miracle of the Red Sea but we spoke about the manna as if we were 
talking about the weather. The complaining reminds me of many bar mitzvah
or wedding receptions where all you hear are complaints about the food.
It was too hot, it was too cold, it had no flavor, there was no variety, etc. etc.  
Other than the fact that Jews have always complained about food, I have never
seen a reasonable explanation. It?s just probably genetic. 


I recently came across an amazing insight which many of us may never have 
realized or thought about. One of the oft quoted phrases of all Talmudic literature 
is the Mishnah ?Moshe kibeil Torah miSinai umsoroh Li(Ye)hoshua. This opening 
sentence from Pirkei Ovos obviously contains basic Jewish theology. It is a direct 
statement that on further analysis leaves an odd sensation, almost a feeling of sadness. 
Why? One would have thought the Mishnah should have read:  
Moshe kibeil Torah miSinai um?soroh l?Gershom u?l?Eliezer

Instead of Moses passing the mantle of leadership to his children, which would be the
logical, natural progression, he passes it to a non family member; his disciple, true, but
still not of his own flesh and blood. One of life?s tragedies is that often the greats are unable
to convey their greatness to their children. They teach others but not their own children. 
Moses reached the heavens, but could not reach his sons. To further this thesis, look and
you will find a man so engrossed in great causes that he forgot to circumcise his own son,
Eliezer (Shmos 4:25). It was his wife, Zipporah, who was the Mohel. What a tragedy for the 
greatest prophet and teacher to experience. Also, it was not Moses who raised his sons but
his father-in-law, Jethro.

?Blessed are the parents who recognize their personal responsibility to their own children?

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20140104/63d34c68/attachment-0001.htm>

MeInyan LeInyan BeOso Inyan
Why was it necessary for HKBH to lie at all?

Would it not have been enough for HKBH to ask Avraham, "Why did Sara laugh?
Why does she think she cant have children? Is HaShem not able to do all
things?"

So it appears that we should lie in order to take the initiative and put in
a good word, make a pre-emptive strike - if one may borrow a phrase


Meir G. Rabi
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20140105/e44680cb/attachment-0001.htm>

On Dec 27, 2013, at 2:21 PM, Zev Sero <z...@sero.name> wrote:
> On Haloween we hear arguments that even though it's secular today, its origins
> are in AZ, and therefore it remains assur, at least for Jews to celebrate it.
> But on Xmas we don't even have that argument.   Its origin is davka in kedusha;
> it was founded as a yomtov for Hashem, and it was only later that idolaters
> introduced AZ to it.  Now that the AZ has been removed, it should revert to
> being muttar.

I followed you up to here.  Can you please tell me what referring to?  How is it's origin in kedusha?

--
Daniel M. Israel
d...@cornell.edu

On 5/01/2014 11:13 PM, Daniel M. Israel wrote:
> On Dec 27, 2013, at 2:21 PM, Zev Sero<z...@sero.name>  wrote:

>> >On Haloween we hear arguments that even though it's secular today, its origins
>> >are in AZ, and therefore it remains assur, at least for Jews to celebrate it.
>> >But on Xmas we don't even have that argument.   Its origin is davka in kedusha;
>> >it was founded as a yomtov for Hashem, and it was only later that idolaters
>> >introduced AZ to it.  Now that the AZ has been removed, it should revert to
>> >being muttar.

> I followed you up to here.  Can you please tell me what referring to?
> How is it's origin in kedusha?

It was founded by Adam Harishon as a yomtov for Hashem.  (AZ 8a)

-- 
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 Jan 3, 2014, at 6:07 AM, Prof. Levine <llev...@stevens.edu> wrote:
> I decided not to go to shul this morning.	It is 11 degrees here in
> Brooklyn this morning,  the NYC public schools are closed today
> (something that does not happen very often),  and it is still
> snowing...
> 
> I made this decision without consulting a rabbi or a rebbe,  and I am
> convinced that for me this was the correct thing to do from a halachic
> standpoint.  Is not guarding one's health a mitzva D'oreisa?

Do you mean that not going was the correct thing to do, or making the
decision without consulting a Rabbi?  Assuming the latter, which sounds
reasonable to me, why should a shul issue any guidance (as per you
questions not reposted)?  Let everyone decide for themselves, just as you
did.

--
Daniel M. Israel
d...@cornell.edu

The following is from RSRH's essay Shevat I.

Everyone who wishes to be numbered among those who are
numbered in Israel must give, spend, work, produce-produce for
God, work for God, give and hand out to God. Only giving and
spending and working and producing for God comes into the reckoning,
only in it does each personality in Israel find its significance and
justification. Alas for you if selfishness and lack of feeling and pride
teach you to live only to yourself and for yourself. The more you live
for yourself the less you do live. The more securely you fancy you are
laying the foundations of your being, your position, and your importance,
with your selfish behaviour, the more surely are you undermining
and effacing them. Whoever in the realm of God does not live
and work for God is non-existent in the domain of God, and extinction
is the lot of him who counts himself in without contributing
anything.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20140106/bd0dfa56/attachment-0001.htm>

On Fri, Jan 03, 2014 at 12:47:33PM -0500, Prof. Levine wrote:
> The following is a small part of RSRH's commentary on Shemos 12 : 1 - 2.  
...
> Chodesh thus proclaims redemption from sin and from evil, and that is
> why this institution is placed at the commencement of our national
> upbuilding. The truth that it teaches forms the foundation stone of our
> Jewish consciousness and sharply distinguishes this consciousness from
> all paganism.
>
> Paganism knows no Chidush, neither in the world, nor in man, nor in
> its God or gods which it sets over world and man...

I wish I had known that RSRH when I wrote the following from
http://www.aishdas.org/asp/small-jugs

    A famous gemara (Chullin 60b), quoted by Rashi, points out an
    inconsistency in the verse. R. Shimon ben Pazi asks why the Torah
    first describes the sun and moon as "the two large luminaries", but
    then it calls the sun "the large luminary" and the moon is called
    the small one. The Gemara answers with a story (paraphrased).

    Originally the sun and moon were the same size. But the moon
    complained to Hashem, "Can there exist two kings sharing the same
    crown?" How can both the sun and the moon share the glory?...

    Hashem commands, "bring a kaparah, a korban of forgiveness, in My
    Name, for I have wronged the moon."

    Reish Lakish points out that this qorban is indicated in the Torah
    in parashas Pinechas, describing the offering for Rosh Chodesh, the
    start of the new month. The pasuq says, "And one sa'ir, he-goat, for
    a chatas Lashem, an expiation-offering unto G-d" (Bamidbar 28:15). No
    other holiday's chatas offering include this last word, that the
    korban is for G-d. On Rosh Chodesh, when the moon is not visible,
    the qorban chatas is to "atone" for G-d "wronging" (so to speak)
    the moon.

    The Maharsha explains this gemara's metaphor by explaining that the
    moon symbolizes the Jewish people who appear small in this world. The
    midrash is a discussion about the need for Israel to be oppressed in
    this world, so that they may shine brighter in the next. He identifies
    the sa'ir, the he-goat of the Rosh Chodesh chatas offering, with
    Rome the children of Ya'akov's brother Eisav. The sai'r represents
    the inheritor of Har Sei'ir. Both "eisav" and "se'ir" refer to
    hairiness. Surely of all of the nations of the world, history is
    dominated by Rome and the western civilization it spawned. And,
    like the moon, Israel's fortunes rise, fall and rise again under
    its shadow.

    ... Chanukah taught us to form the ideal Jewish people. On Chanukah
    [galus Yavan] we learned "Ashrei Yosheivei veisekha -- Enriched
    are those who dwell in Your House, they shall ever praise You --
    Selah!" We are now [Galus Edom] learning "Ashrei ha'am shekakhah lo --
    Enriched is the nation that is like this..." Unity. So that we can
    acheive the both -- "Asherei ha'am sheH' E-lokav -- Enriched is the
    nation for whom Hashem is its G-d." This is why our current struggle
    is with Edom, the failed vision of Eisav. The two can work together,
    the "sun" needn't compete with the "moon"....

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

--
Micha Berger             I always give much away,
mi...@aishdas.org        and so gather happiness instead of pleasure.
http://www.aishdas.org           -  Rachel Levin Varnhagen
Fax: (270) 514-1507


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


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 32, Issue 2
*************************************

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.)