Avodah Mailing List

Volume 32: Number 53

Tue, 25 Mar 2014

• 1. How to Teach History (Prof. Levine)
• 2. Re: Time for the Deceased (Micha Berger)
• 3. Re: Eitz HaDa'at (Micha Berger)
• 4. Re: Esther (Micha Berger)
• 5. Re: Fighting the Taf Guys (Lisa Liel)
• 6. Re: Rav Elya Lopian: tefillin and radio (Kenneth Miller)
• 7. This Chasam Sofer is Astounding! (Prof. Levine)
• 8. Re: Fighting the Taf Guys (Arie Folger)
• 9. The "integrated life" (David Cohen)
• 10. Re: Points to Consider (Micha Berger)

At 12:47 PM 3/24/2014, R. Arie Folger wrote:
>RHM wrote:
>> I am told that Rav Schwab was heavily influenced by the Lithuanian
>> type Yeshivos he attended. So much so that he had ?accepted the
>> Charedi view that ?RSRH only meant TIDE as a B'Dieved (as explained
>> to him by R' Baruch Ber Leibowitz, whiom he consulted about it). He
>> later rejected that view and returned to the view that RSRH meant it as
>> a L'Chatchila.

> No need to be told about it by others. I vaguely recall seeing an essys of
> RSSchwab himself describing everything you wrote above. I think it is in
> his collected writings, and I believe it to be the same essay where he ends
> up coming back to RSRH, but only halfway, distancing himself from RSRH's
> eulogy for Schiller.

Let me try to set the record straight.  The essay you refer to is at 
http://web.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/rsrh/tide_second_view.pdf
TIDE - A Second View written in 1990.

As a result of Rav Schwab's studying in Telshe and the Mir, he rejected
TIDE. He wrote Heimkehr ins Judentum, Frankfurt am Main: Hermon-Verlag,
1934 in which he made it clear that he was no longer in sympathy with
TIDE. See page 239 of the essay I referred to above.

In his monograph These and Those written in 1966 it is fairly clear
that his "sympathies" are more with the yeshiva world than with RSRH.
However, in the later years of his life, he was again a follower of
TIDE. Again see the above referred to essay.

Rav Schwab did not distance himself from RSRH's talk marking the 100
anniversary of Schiller's birth. (It was given by Rav Hirsch in his
yeshiva, and it was not a eulogy. Schiller died in 1805 before RSRH
was born.) One of the editors of the Rabbi Joseph Breur Publication
Society told me that when they were publishing the Collected Writings
of RSRH there was much discussion, in light of what the Germans did
to the Jews, about publishing Rav Hirsch's Schiller talk. Rav Schwab
was in favor of publishing it, but others were not. Thus is was not
included in the fist 8 volumes of the Collected Writings. However,
in the new 9th volume this talk is included.


At 12:47 PM 3/24/2014, r. Michael Poppers wrote:
> In Avodah V32n49, RDrYL wrote:
>> I knew Rabbi Schwab, ZT"L, personally... the fact the Rav Schwab was a
>> Hirschian

> RDrYL, kindly (a) define "Hirschian" and (b) list actual facts either
> supporting or not supporting your "RSS was a Hirschian" theorem.  Thanks.

For a definition of Hirschian, please read some of the essays that 
are at http://web.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/rsrh
You might start with 
Torah with Derekh Eretz by Mordechai Breuer
<http://web.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/rsrh/torah_with_derekh_eret
z_m_breuer.pdf>
and The "Torah-Im-Derekh-Eretz" of Samson Raphael Hirsch by Mordechai
Breuer
<http://web.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/rsrh/m_breuer_tide.pdf>

For support of the fact that Rabbi Shimon Schwab was a Hirschian read 
please read TIDE - A Second View
<http://web.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/rsrh/tide_second_view.pdf>

YL



R. Harry Maryles claimed that Rav Schwab's view of history was a result
of his study in Telshe and the Mir.

Rabbi Chaim Dov Rabinowitz, who was a Telzer and a Rosh Yeshiva in Telshe,
wrote a 2 volume history titled The History of the Jewish People -- From
Nechemia to the Present. In it he often points out the shortcomings of
well-known Jews from antiquity to the present. Thus, I really do not think
that Rav Schwab's attitude towards history was acquired in Lithuania.

YL

On Sun, Mar 16, 2014 at 06:59:56PM +0000, Kenneth Miller wrote:
: We have digressed quite a bit from a question raised in early February,
: regarding whether or not the neshamos of deceased people are aware of
: the flow of time. R' Micha Berger took the position that they are *not*
: aware, while R"n Lisa Liel and I had trouble following his reasoning.

Awareness is the wrong term. Niftarim could well know about our being
in a flow in time. (I even cited a recent Y-mi yomi which seems to say
they do.)

Rather, I stated my belief that they are not personally immersed in the
flow of time. This is because I like REED's hashkafah on these issues
in general, and REED takes chazal as saying that Adam qodem lacheit and
babies before birth didn't experience a flow of time. I then backed off
and said that maybe departure from the flow of time requires personal
development, adjusting from the worldview they honed in olam hazeh to
something more spiritual. Which would be consistent with REED as well.

Secondly, the flow of time is not part of neumenal reality (the world as
it really is "out there"), part part of the phenomenological universe
(the world as interpreted by human minds). Neumenal time is probably
*closer* to Paul Davies' block time than to what we ourselves experience,
but anything neumenal is inherently guessed at only.

But whatever neumenal reality is behind our phenomenon of time, it, like
whatever causes the phenomenon of space, are part of olam hazeh. We have
experimental evidence that shown they're inseprable from eachother, from
velocity, and from gravity, etc...

I understood your question as being about whether they have their
own cause of a flow of time, despite lacking mass or a location in
olam hazeh's spacetime (or whatever spacetime approximates) nor being
subject to the laws of physics that relate velocity, gravity, spacetime
together. Either because there are other shitos out there than REED
or because nifratim are for some reason different than his examples.
And then in addition, we would assume that the flows are running parallel,
if not at the same speed. That later for us is later for them, even if
perhaps more or less later. Although saying the speeds of timeflow differ
would mean that our yahrzeit of their death wouldn't match theirs. But in
any case, maybe they do indeed live in a flow of time -- why would their
"later" sync up to our later, maybe it would be our earlier, our left,
or something we don't have a counterpart to?

...
: Fair question. My answer is: yes, we'd like you to demonstrate logically
: that olam haba (a/k/a shamayim) isn't a physical location. Several times,
: I cited R' Elya Lopian's analogy between radio waves and the kedusha of
: tefillin, and you never responded. Science is showing us things that we
: never dreamed possible.

Where is "1+1=2"? In one sense, everywhere. There is not part of the
universe in which 1+1 doesn't equal 2. In another sense, nowhere. An
idea doesn't take up space, have a location.

An idea is a tzurah beli chomer, pure form. This is why relating an idea
to someone else is called informing them -- you are literally giving
them a new form to keep in their brains. Forms are everything one can
know about the object. Every feature of a table, is shape, its color,
its hardness, the grain of its wood, is its form. The substance is what
distinguishes the table itself from the table. And like "1+1=2",
you can have much of the form of that table in your head, but that
knowledge doesn't take up table-shaped space. And that's only your own
knowledge, the form itself doesn't take up space at all, nor have
a location. Nor a when.

And, this is why the Yad describes mal'akhim as tzuros beli chomer,
while the Moreh identifies them with Aristo's pure intellects. An
intellect without a body lacks a "when" and "where" just like "1+1=2"
does -- and for the same reason.

Similarly, in Qabbalah terms, the tzuros of the physical world are
the comer of the world one step above it. And so on up the beam of
Or Ein Sof back to its Source. All those olamos, all those things
called shamayim are made up of things more like thoughts than
objects.

And a person's character, knowledge, etc... is their form. Yes, that
form is put in a body, as well as the more mammallian elements of the
body's form. (There is something very deep here about the soul-mind-body
relationship, but this discussion is broad enough.) That of a human which
survives olam hazeh, his soul or some set of aspects of his soul (does the
nefesh survive?), is similarly tzurah beli chomer in a world of tzuros
beli chomer. A mind in a world of minds and ideas. Truths are timeless.
Unless a niftar imagines up time for itself, where would it come from?

Change of topic:
: Speaking of science...
...
: Thank you. I do accept that, as a scientific explanation of how someone
: cant believe that the stars and planets are living, thinking beings...

Actually, Aristo is a bit further from current understanding than that.
He (and the Rambam and numerous other rishonim) attribute intellect
to the galgalim, the spheres, not the kokhavei lekhet, the planets,
moon and sun, themselves.

The galgalim were thought to be transparent shells that each of the
kokhavei lekhet were embedded within. (This gets more complex once you
deal with epicycles, but that was the original idea.) The outermost
galgal is dark and holds the stars. Today, the orbit of a planet isn't
thought to be an entity at all, but an consequence of gravity and laws
of physics. There is nothing today corresponting to galgalim, never mind
their intellects.

...
: BUT it turns out that the same phenomena can be explained in other ways
: too. Ways that did not occur to Aristotle or to the Rambam. Should we
: feel obligated to follow their beliefs and "proofs" simply because the
: Rambam believed Aristotle to be correct, even if our logic says otherwise?

In the vase of the Rambam, where umerous rishonim and acharonim thought
he stepped beyond the line because of his fealty to Aristo, I would
think not. If the Maharal and RSRH (to pick two examples I can back with
quotes) can dismiss his shitah, why can't I?

But in the case of other baalei mesorah.... I would think that if the
"peer review" of people far more adept in Torah than I reach a consensus
that someone's position draws from tradition, then I belive we need to
figure our where we cut the line between the Aristotilian kankan and
the Torah that is in it, and translate their words to today's worldviews.

Much like taking the idea of form is the root of information, and noting
that a bit is a minimal unit of tzurah. It tells you exactly one thing
about a system, but not whether the system represents a one as 5 volts,
1.7 volts (maybe even in some system a 1 is 0v and a 0 is 5v), the flow
of water through a pipe, magnet on tape, the edge of a hole in a DVD...

Or taking the Rambam's argument agains Eternity (the universe being
infinitely old) by noting that things lose useful form over time,
and therefore over infinite time, there would be no useful forms left,
and noting it's the ancestor to parallel arguments based on entropy.
(Which have problems, but I think can be shapened up using Chalmer's
entropy rather than theormodynamic. Again, ein kan hamaqom leha'arikh.)

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Education is not the filling of a bucket,
mi...@aishdas.org        but the lighting of a fire.
http://www.aishdas.org                - W.B. Yeats
Fax: (270) 514-1507

On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 12:30:44AM +0000, Kenneth Miller wrote:
: > And frankly, it could be a failure of imagination, but as far as
: > I can tell, space and time are the span of olam ha'asiyah (or
: > olam hazeh or whatever term you wish to use for the physical
: > universe) by definition. A place is a coordinate that points to
: > a part of this olam, and experimentally we know that time is
: > linked to location, velocity, acceleration and gravity.

: If I'm understanding you correctly, you're describing a "We are pixels
: in God's imagination" sort of universe....

I guess then I was not clear. Although I do believe that existence
could be understood in terms of something G-d is "Thinking", that
isn't the topic I was raiding here.

I'm saying that the world as Hashem made it is beyong human
comprehension. The world as we experience it is what happens when humans
force our categories on the incomprehensible. The flow of time isn't
fake, and I'm not saying it's real because what we think of as real is
actually fake. There really is something or somethings out there which,
when experienced by human-type minds will include a flow of time.

Unlike Kant, I would add that since Hashem made the world as an
arena for our free will, the point of it all is the experience.
The incomprehensible noumenal universe is Hashem's way of providing
the experience. In that sense, the flow of time is more primary than
the incomprehensible time.

Sof ma'aseh bemachashavah techilah -- when you plan a system, the ultimate
goal is usually identified fist, and they way to get there later. But when
you implement the system, the first step is the first cause... Ask Moshe
and Betzalel. Similarly here, causally, noumenal time came first. But
in terms of HQBH's design, it's the phenomon of time that was more
central to His Plan.

: But it is easy to translate from this to that. Simply replace "time"
: and "space" with "perception of time" and "perception of space". And
: rules like "nothing can go faster than light" are replaced with "nothing
: can be perceived as going faster than light (even though the reality is
: that it really has no reality)". And so on.

But, as I recently posted, I'm saying that noumenal time and space
have no parallel in other olamos, and we have little reason that
phenomenal time and space exist either. They could, but it would
be inconsistent with the concepts we pour out of their Aristo
and neo-Platonic jugs. By speaking of minds and souls as forms,
they assumes their timelessness and spacelessness.

REED's position is consistant with this element common to both most of the
philosophical rishonim and the Mequabalim. (Mystical non-Qabbalists might
not agree, I can't be so bold as to say I know every rishon. Same reason
why I said "most of the philsophical", when I mean "all the ones I know
what they say on souls and form".)

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Rescue me from the desire to win every
mi...@aishdas.org        argument and to always be right.
http://www.aishdas.org              - Rav Nassan of Breslav
Fax: (270) 514-1507                   Likutei Tefilos 94:964

On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 08:57:28AM -0400, Sholom Simon wrote:
>> Since Hebrew doesn't have commas...

> Yes they do!  (sort of).  But we call them: esnachta, zakef, tipcha, etc 

I think this short-changes trope.

The usual punctuation signs show different levels of break, sometimes
hint to the relationship between two clauses ("," vs ":" vs "--" vs
"(") and distinguishes between questions, statements and exclamations.
Although not between facts and commands and declarations that themselves
perform things (eg stating an oath).

Trop does less to relate clauses or sentence types, but then, we have
the words for that. But it not only has more levels of pause, it has
different levels of connection. Nothing in English punctuation groupds
the adjective to the noun, or tells you the binding of subclauses. Trop
tells you less about the nature of the content of the sentence, but more
about its structure. The entire sentence diagram is encoded in trop.
(See <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentence_diagram> if you're too young
to have been forced to do them in school)

Aside from cases like distinguishing a rhetorical question from a
statement, trop comes our way ahead!

BTW, like niqud, there were three systems of trop as well.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cantillation#History for more info.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Friendship is like stone. A stone has no value,
mi...@aishdas.org        but by rubbing one stone against another,
http://www.aishdas.org   sparks of fire emerge. 
Fax: (270) 514-1507                  - Rav Mordechai of Lechovitz

On 3/24/2014 12:28 PM, T6...@mail.aol.com wrote:
> From: Arie Folger <afol...@aishdas.org>
>> There are six (in fact seven, but that got lost a long time ago,
>> leaving only a trace in Sefer Yetzirah) letters that are pronounced
>> differently depending on whether or not they are provided with a
>> dagesh qal. Thus, not only is tav difrerent from saf and beis different
>> from veis like kaf from khaf and pei from fei, but so, too, are dalet
>> different from thalet (th as in the) and gimmel different from rimmel
>> (r as in the French r, not to be miustaken with the oft mispronounced
>> reish, to be pronounced like the Spanish r).
> I have heard someone make kiddush distinguishing between gimmel and
> jimmel, but I never heard rimmel.
There is no jimmel.  Yemenites assimilated that sound from Arabic in 
much the same way Ashkenazim started pronouncing a tsadi like "tz" 
because of German.  The real sound is an emphatic "s".

I wouldn't call it rimmel.  It's ghimmel.  If you want to see how it 
sounds, gh is to g as kh is to k.  The French pronounce their "r" the 
way a gimmel without a dagesh was originally pronounced.  A real Hebrew 
"r" is closer to a dalet.  It's a flip of the tongue against the roof of 
the mouth.  That's why we elongate the dalet in Shema. Because echad and 
echar are /extremely/ close in pronounciation.  Echadh (or echadhhhh) 
makes the difference plain.

Lisa

R' David Riceman seems to understand my point, though he disagrees with it. He wrote:

> You cite REL saying "If even one letter is defective, the
> connection is lost and the kedusha is blocked." I think you're
> implying without saying that the function of tefillin is to
> receive shefa, or "waves of kedusha", or something of such nature.
>
> I don't know of any sources which say that. The Rambam (in the
> introduction to the MT where he describes Sefer Ahava, p. 21 in
> Frankel's edition) says their function is "to induce love of God
> and to remember Him continually". Sefer HaHinuch says something
> very similar. If you have access to the Recannati's book on
> ta'amei hamitzvos you'll find interesting stuff about tefillin in
> it, but I don't think it fits your paradigm.

There can be MANY reasons for a particular mitzvah. What I've written is in addition to what you pointed out, not instead of it.

The tiny bits of kabala that I've seen seem to frequently talk about the shefa of mitzvos, and of aveiros too.

For example, here's a portion of ArtScroll's Translation of Tefilas Zakkah:
After mentioning "evil fantasies", the tefillah says: <<< Thereby
I have created corrupting, destructive spirits that are known as 'plagues
of human beings.' Woe is to me that instead of the good thoughts through
which would have created holy angels that would have been good defenders
and advocates of my benefit, in their place I have created destroyers to
harm myself... >>> I won't pretend to fully understand this, but
it sure sounds like good angels get created as a direct result of mitzvos,
and destructive ones get created as an output of sins.

Or the Y'hee Ratzon after Tekios D'Myushav (ArtScroll's translation):
<<< May it be Your will... that those angels that are evoked by
the shofar, by the tekiah, by the teruah, by the
tekiah-shevarim-teruah-tekiah, by the tekiah-shevarim-tekiah, and by the
tekiah-teruah-tekiah, ascend before the Throne of Your Glory and invoke
goodness on our behalf, to pardon all our sins. >>> Note that we
don't refer to the zechus of the mitzvah of blowing these sounds -- the
reference is to the sounds themselves. The sounds themselves evoke these
angels, and we pray (to God, not to the angels!) that the angels will
succeed in their task of invoking goodness on our behalf.

I'll be the first to admit that I don't know for sure what an "angel" is.
But it seems to be a reference to methods and procedures that Hashem uses
to carry out His will. Some on this list have included forces of nature in
this category, and that suits me fine. I've been using the term
"metaphysical machine", and I don't see that as any different.

I suspect some people have been interpreting "metaphysical machine" as a
"perfectly functioning machine", but I don't mean that at all. My car is
not in peak condition, and for the past few weeks, each time I get in it, I
say or think a short prayer that it will start up. Similarly, we worry that
the Tokeah may not have done a perfect job of blowing the shofar, and so we
pray for the success of the forces which that shofar but into motion. I
don't see much difference.

RDR asked:

> Normally I think of a machine as having been designed to serve a
> particular function (like a radio). ... What (to reiterate) do you
> think the function of tefillin are, and how do you know?

I honestly don't know what the function of tefillin are. But the tefillah I
quoted above seems to make a pretty strong case that one of the functions
of the shofar is to advocate for us and "invoke goodness on our behalf, to
pardon all our sins".

To accomplish this function, I suspect that the shofar's operation involves
several other, more elementary "metaphysical machines", such as "mida
k'neged mida". I really don't think I'm saying anything new, when I suggest
that the shofar is some kind of conduit which takes the mesiras nefesh of
Avraham and Yitzchak, and sends it back to shamayim to accomplish things
for us. And that's just the ikar of the mitzva d'Oraisa. Just as a radio
can have add-on enhancements, our minhag is to amplify the shofar by
multiplying it by the hundred sobs of Sisera's mother.

I don't pretend to fully understand this stuff, but I do see some interesting patterns.

As I wrote before, I don't need to understand the function of every
component of my car, but as long I have an adequate knowledge of how it
*works*, then I am able to *operate* it. The analogy is this: It doesn't
really matter whether the earth goes around the sun, or if the sun goes
around the earth. Either way, if you can take the phenomena and develop
accurate formulas which explain your observations, then you'll be able to
predict the next eclipse.

A layman can drive his car as long as he fills the gas tank frequently and
changes the oil regularly. He doesn't really understand how the engine
works, though, and that means that he better not make his own modifications
to the engine. That's the car mechanic's job. So too in halacha: A layman
can wear his tefillin as long as he follows what the Shulchan Aruch says,
even though he doesn't understand the significance of those halachos. But a
sufficiently great chacham will be able to look at the parshios and
understand why the steering has been a bit off-center lately. And how to
fix it.

RSR again:

> I agree that there are spiritual laws as well as physical laws,
> but I don't see that that supports the analogy with radio. Unlike
> some machines which were invented before they were understood,
> radios were developed decades after Maxwell's equations, and
> transmitters and receivers were well understood. We do have
> instructions for making tefillin, but why do you think that every
> detail is functional. In particular, you write "without them, the
> tefillin will either work poorly (kosher b'dieved) or not at all
> (pasul l'gamrei)." Where does the equation of "working poorly" and
> "kosher b'dieved" come from?

I do not necessarily think that every single detail *is* functional, but I
prefer to hope that Hashem is not so arbitrary as to decree something for
no reason at all. To decree something for a reason beyond our
comprehension, that's fine. But for no reason at all, .. why would He do
that? I have no real evidence, but Occam would say to bet that He does have
His reasons.

As it turns out, my father, a"h, had a retail business selling radios and
tape players. I once asked him, when I was pretty young, what the
difference was between the $20 radio and the $75 radio. He tried to tell me
something about "quality", but I was too young to understand. I figured
that if I can hear the words and the music, what more does anyone need? It
took a long time for me to understand and appreciate the difference between
the scratchy sound from the cheap radios, and the rich sound of the
expensive ones. I suppose this is analogous to the difference between
tefillin (or esrogim, or tefilos, or other mitzvos) which are "kosher for a
bracha" and those which are "mehadrin mit alle maales". The former will
accomplish their goal, but just barely. The latter will do so beautifully
and powerfully.

Again, just in case I didn't make it clear before: I don't claim to have
all the answers. I don't even claim to be sure about what I've written
here. I'm not trying to convince anyone. But it does make sense to me, and
if makes sense to even one other person, then dayenu.

Akiva Miller
____________________________________________________________
LifeLock&#174 Services
24/7 Credit Fraud Monitoring Plan. Proactive Credit Fraud Protection.
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/5330f0826c8b5708212f5st04vuc

From 
<http://www.rationalistjudaism.com/2014/03/this-chasam-sofer-is-a
stounding.html>http://www.rationalistjudaism.com/2014/03/this-chasam-sofer-is-a
stounding.html 


But, says Chasam Sofer, but, this is only true in the Diaspora. [That 
one should learn and not work. YL]   In the Diaspora, there is no 
reason to work at a trade except to earn a living; furthermore, 
enhancing the economy of one's host country accentuates the fact that 
the Jews are in exile. Accordingly, if one can truly dedicate oneself 
to Torah and succeed that way, there is no reason to work, and this 
is what Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai was referring to (and Chasam Sofer 
argues that even Rabbi Yishmael would agree).

In Israel, on the other hand, it's entirely different. Here, Chasam 
Sofer says, one does not only work the fields in order to make a 
living. There is also the mitzvah of yishuv ha'aretz, settling the 
land. In the same way as one stops learning Torah to put on tefillin, 
says Chasam Sofer, one stops learning Torah to farm the land, which 
is the mitzvah of yishuv ha'aretz. Chasam Sofer explains that yishuv 
ha'aretz does not just mean living in Israel; it means developing the 
country. He further says that not just farming, but all industries 
and professions, are part of settling the land and giving it honor. 
Chasam Sofer adds that it would be a deficiency in the honor of 
Israel if a certain profession does not exist there, requiring 
products to be imported from abroad.

YL


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20140325/0223ad08/attachment-0001.htm>

RDrSM wrote:
> But I will say for the record that no community I know of uses the
> "correct" pronunciation of aleph as a glottal stop.

In 2004 I met the late Av Beth Din of Paris, Rbeh Nissim Rbiboh (Rav Nissim
Rebibo) zatsal, who clearly did pronounce the alef. His slef sounded like
many other people's 'ayin, and I leave it up to your imagination how he
pronounced the 'ayin (hint: it was strong, and how).

R'nTK wrote:
>  I have heard someone make kiddush distinguishing between gimmel
> and jimmel, but I never heard rimmel.

RMB made a related comment wondering where the djimmel came from.

Almost all Jews pronounce a quf either like a kaf or, better, like an
emphatic kaf (hence /q/uf). Likewise, we almost all pronounce a gimmel
degusha as a hard G, and some of those in the know pronounce it when
without a dagesh as fricative g, hence a French R.

However, Yemenites pronounce the quf as guf with a hard G and the gimmel
degusha as djimmel.

That parallels Arabic, where what in some dialects is pronounced as q
shifts in other dialects to a hard g, and what in the former group is
pronounced as a hard g shifts to the dj sound. An example of the former is
the many ways to spell Muamar the Dictator's last name:
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2009/09/how-m
any-different-ways-can-you-spell-gaddafi

However, it is rather clear that you have been deprived of a fairly common
and valuable messorah, of how to distinguish the gimmel she'ena degusha
from a gimmel degusha (and of course, really, I should have spelled that
derusha all along, as the daleth is dotted with a qomass, so that the
following letter would not take a daresh 'hazaq, and there being no reason
for a daresh qal at that position in teh word, it would be daresh, not
dagesh ;-)).

--
mit freundlichen Gr??en,
with kind regards,
Arie Folger

visit my blog at http://ariefolger.wordpress.com/
sent from my mobile device
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20140325/4167d74d/attachment-0001.htm>

Rn' Toby Katz wrote:
> Most Ashkenazi charedim in Israel do make a distinction between the
> pronunciation of street Hebrew and that used for davening or leining.
> They do distinguish between Ivrit and Loshon Hakodesh. They connect
> very well with tefilla and krias haTorah -- with an attitude of
> reverence and an understanding that a siddur or Chumash is not the same
> as a newspaper.

As I mentioned earlier, I'm conflicted about this issue, and there is a
chance that if it would have been up to me :-), dati-le'umi Ashkenazim
would be doing the same.

That being said. though, the contrast of this "havdala-emphasis" approach
with the "integrated life" approach that I mentioned in my previous post
brings to mind the underlying hashkafic issue.  I'm going to  change the
subject entirely, but the Avodah forum seems like an appropriate place to
explore the issue.  While I identify with the dati-leumi community, I can
only claim to speak for myself, and I am more interested in hearing an
analysis of my worldview on its own merits than I am in whether or not it
corresponds to any"official" dati-leumi "party line."

I remember that many years ago, the nuances of and distinctions between
"Torah umadda" and "Torah im derech eretz" were discussed here extensively.
 My feeling is that these concepts, while very valuable for functioning in
chutz la'aretz,  are much less relevant in Israel.  Much of the charedi
community rejects these concepts between because Torah should be
everything, and it shouldn't be "Torah and..." or "Torah with..."  I
fundamentally agree with this point.  The difference is that my view of a
Torah-based lifestyle includes the inherent value of learning about the
world (so-called "secular" studies), room for cultural expression
(including appreciation of the cultural contributions of other nations,
when they don't contradict Torah values), and even a fair dose of "Western"
liberal values.  The "integrated life" means that we don't need to feel
that we are dual citizens, shuttling back and forth between two worlds.

Yes, there are dangers in this blurring of the boundaries between kodesh
and chol.  I do not want my children thinking that a siddur or chumash is
the same as a newspaper.  But I would like them to feel that reading a
newspaper can be a natural part of the day, just like reading a siddur or
chumash is, and that it does not entail temporarily taking off one's Torah
Jew (metaphorical) hat and switching to a *different* "informed citizen of
the world" hat.  (One cannot help but note the contrast with Rav Hirsch's
Realschule, where the talmidim literally took off their hats when switching
to limudei chol...  I'm not saying this to be critical.  Frankfurt of the
5620s is very different from Jerualem of the 5770s.)

As an aside, since I realize that that decades are not often referenced the
way that I referenced them above, I will point out that it is this same
outlook that leads me to feel strongly about use of the Hebrew calendar in
everyday life.  I have a hard time with the idea that yamim tovim and
yahrzeits are "religious" things that we observe on one calendar, but
birthdays and business meetings are "secular" things for which we use an
entirely different calendar.  In chu"l, that is simply how it is, because
the surrounding society is not Jewish, and there is no reason for them to
be using the Hebrew calendar.  But in Israel, where there is already
partial "everyday" use of the Hebrew calendar (it appears on all official
documents, you can write it on your checks, it determines all school
vacations except the summer, etc.), striving for its more widespread
everyday use is a reasonable goal.

I acknowledge that the reality, even in Israel, is that there are times
that one needs to separate oneself from the surrounding general culture.
 But at the same time, one can also seek to influence that culture and
bring it closer to being the integrated Torah culture that is the ideal.
 If we were to assume that the "ideal" culture involves *only* shiurei
Torah, then the idea of helping to shape a general culture is a
non-starter, since it is obvious that general culture will never give up
the theater, and so all that is left for us to do is to view ourselves as
"outsiders" from that culture.  But if we assume that a full, healthy
culture -- even in a society consisting entirely of shomrei mitzvos --
ought to include the theater, then the goal of helping to make that theater
reflect our values becomes worthwhile.

-- D.C.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20140325/845b6ede/attachment-0001.htm>

On Sun, Mar 23, 2014 at 02:56:13AM +0000, Kenneth Miller wrote:
:> whether people who lived before the mabul were allowed egg and
:> milk.

: Given that poultry and milk is only d'rabanan, my guess is: No.

My question was baed on the fact that eggs and milk must
come from kosher species. And not neveilos.

Nothing to to with basar bevahalav.

My thought is that if kashrus is a means to sanctify and permit that which
was already prohibited, then this would imply that milk and eggs were
initually prohibited.

:> Were they vegetarians, prohibited meat because of the necessary
:> death involved? Or is the kashrus of Beris Sinai a way to matir
:> those things that were prohibited by an original Adamic veganism?

: Sanhedrin 56b discusses Ever Min Hachai, and Tosfos ("Achal") asks:
: "But we said below (59b) that when we said that Adam Harishon was not
: allowed to eat meat, that refers to killing and eating. But if it died
: on its own it was allowed. Ever Min Hachai comes to tell you that even
: if it fell off on its own, it is forbidden." I think Rashi says something
: similar near the top of 57a, "L'mishray basar hu d'asa."

Rashi ad loc says that Adam was a vegetarian. The Rambam agrees.

I checked RAYKook's Talelei Orot ch. 8, that favorite of vegetarians,
and he simply takes Rashi's shitah as a given. I didn't notice his
addressing other shitos.

Tosafos assume that Adam was given eiver min hachai, which would be
superfluous if those venerations were obligated to be vegetarian.
Tosafos therefore say that they were allowed to eat meat, it was
killing meat for food that was prohibited. (As RAM wrotes.) But
the eaten meat must be dead.

The Kesef Mishnah says the Rambam was aware of the problem Tosafos
raise, which is why the Rambam holds that Adam was *not* given
the issur of eiver min hachai.

The Medrash (Bereishis Rabba 16:6) says on "mikol eitz hagan okhal
tokheil" that Adam was commanded in sehichtah and aganst eiver min hachai.

My neighbor and former member R' Chaim Markowitz found a Yedei Moshe
on this medrash that says the shechitah was to permit qorbanos, basar
ta'avah was assur to eat in any case. Maybe Tosafos would understand
the medrash to mean that qorbanos need shechitah but basar taavah can
only be eaten if the animal didn't require killing.

In any case, my question would not work according to Tosafos, who make
the issur more about killing for meat than meat. In contrast, that
research brought up a different way of understanding kashrus -- not as
a matir for something that in a more perfect world would remain assur,
but a linkage to qorbanos (as per Medrash Rabba) and a means to
sanctify the act of eating meat.

Gut Voch!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Feeling grateful  to or appreciative of  someone
mi...@aishdas.org        or something in your life actually attracts more
http://www.aishdas.org   of the things that you appreciate and value into
Fax: (270) 514-1507      your life.         - Christiane Northrup, M.D.


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


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 53
**************************************

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.)