Avodah Mailing List

Volume 32: Number 105

Mon, 14 Jul 2014

• 1. Kaddish (Martin Brody)
• 2. Re: said no... (Micha Berger)
• 3. Re: Shabbat in Alaska (Micha Berger)
• 4. Re: Kaddish (hankman)
• 5. Re: Kaddish (Zev Sero)
• 6. Re: said no... (Rich, Joel)
• 7. WHAT DO YOU THINK? ()
• 8. shabbat in Alaska (Eli Turkel)
• 9. Reading together with the baal korei (Zev Sero)
• 10. driverless car on shabbat (Eli Turkel)
• 11. Nadav, Avihu, Elazar, and Itamar (Kenneth Miller)
• 12. Re: Nadav, Avihu, Elazar, and Itamar (Zev Sero)
• 13. Sheim Elokus (Micha Berger)
• 14. text of Borei Nefashos ()
• 15. Re: Sheim Elokus (Kenneth Miller)
• 16. Re: Sheim Elokus ()

"I wonder what the learned chevra think about this:  what about an  adopted
child, born of Jewish parents, saying Kaddish for his adoptive parent[s]  if
his biological parents are still alive?  And further, what about aveilus
-- sitting shiva, keeping a month, keeping a year of aveilus?  For his
adoptive parents?  For his bio parents?
--Toby Katz"

You left out a couple of other possibilities, the egg and/or sperm donors!
(I assume it's an issue to some)
I'm not learned in anything, but as kaddish is a custom, I would think the
mourner should do what he feels honours his birth parents and his adoptive
parents the most, and whatever helps that mourner through the process.

Martin Brody
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20140710/89acca12/attachment-0001.htm>

Back on Wed, Jul 02, 2014 at 5:14pm EDT, I wrote:
: But I am bothered by the level of discourse. ...              the main
: point of davening isn't to get what you want.
...
: But regardless of whether you share either of my perspectives on
: tefillah, we do agree that prayer isn't about getting G-d to cave in 
: to His child's request. No?

: So why focus on "sometimes the answer is 'no'", and remind people
: what the question means?

The latest in R Aharon Ziegler's column on Torah Musings about the
Halachic position of RYBS is Silent and Loud Prayer
<http://www.torahmusings.com/2014/07/silent-loud-prayer> is on topic:

    The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chaim 101:2) states that the individual
    Shemoneh Esrei may not be recited in ones heart or mind but must
    be articulated and verbalized so that one hears it oneself. On
    the other hand, one must not recite it loud enough for others to
    hear. The Mishnah Berurah comments (note 7) that HaKadosh Baruch Hu
    hears even silent prayers.

    Although the individuals Shemoneh Esrei is recited silently, the
    Chazarat Ha-Shatz ... is recited aloud. Rav Soloveitchik explained
    the difference. The individual, no matter how righteous, has no
    right to claim anything from HaShem. G-d owes the individual nothing.
    When an individual prays, therefore, he must do so in the context
    of supplication, as a poor person at someones door, begging for
    a donation. The Shaliach Tzibbur..., on the other hand, prays on
    behalf of the entire congregation. He thus has the right to demand
    that HaShem fulfill His covenantal obligations. He indeed has the
    right and the obligation to pray aloud.

:-)BBii!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             When you come to a place of darkness,
mi...@aishdas.org        you don't chase out the darkness with a broom.
http://www.aishdas.org   You light a candle.
Fax: (270) 514-1507        - R' Yekusiel Halberstam of Klausenberg zt"l

On Wed, Jul 09, 2014 at 11:41:03AM -0400, I wrote:
: June 21, 2014 was the longest day of the year...
: 
: Troyes, where Rabbeinu Tam lived
:     alos:   4:01
:     sheqia: 9:44
:     span = 18:43

Alos should read: 3:01. I had problems cut-n-pasting from Excel to a
plaintext email, so when manually copying, I typoed. The span (ie 12
sha'os zemanios) is correct, and therefore this is not among any errors
I made that would impact the conclusion.

H/T REMT, who is too polite to make a minor correction on-list.

: NYC
...
:     span = 16:55
: 
: NY's maximum day is 90% the length of Troyes's, so that 72 min would only
: be scaled down to 65 min, well above the times RMF cited.
: 
: As a point of comparison, I decided to check the scale between geonic
: lattitudes and Troyes.
...
: Meaning that Rabbeinu Tam's 72 min would correspond to 62 min in
: ga'on speak. So, something's not quite right here: is it my math,
: of the understanding of RMF's shitah?

:-)BBii!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             What you get by achieving your goals
mi...@aishdas.org        is not as important as
http://www.aishdas.org   what you become by achieving your goals.
Fax: (270) 514-1507              - Henry David Thoreau

RZS wrote:

he owes them kibud av va'em even if he hates them (the mitzvah is to
honour them, not to love them), 

CM notes:

If hating and ?not loving? are equivalent (debatable) ? I would certainly imagine that hating is certainly dishonouring then so too ?not loving.?

Kol tuv

Chaim Manaster
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20140711/fe2efacf/attachment-0001.htm>

On 11/07/2014 8:51 AM, hankman wrote:
> RZS wrote:

>> he owes them kibud av va'em even if he hates them (the mitzvah is to
>> honour them, not to love them),

> If hating and ?not loving? are equivalent (debatable) ? I would
> certainly imagine that hating is certainly dishonouring then so too
> ?not loving.?

Hate is the opposite of love.  How is this debatable?  Obviously "hating" and
"not loving" are not equivalent, just as "cold" and "not hot" are not equivalent.
It is possible to be in the middle, neither loving nor hating, just as it can
be neither cold nor hot.

But either way, how does hating someone dishonour them?  What has how one
feels about someone got to do with how one treats them?  There is no more
mitzvah to love ones parents than any other Jew, nor more an avera to hate
than than any other Jew.  "Ve'ahavta lere'acha kamocha" and "lo tisna et
achicha bilvavecha" apply to them just as they do to any Jew, but so do the
exceptions.  If ones parents are not "re'acha" or "achicha" then there is
no mitzvah to love them, and it may be a mitzvah to hate them.  Unfortunately
there exist people who have good reason to hate their parents. But even in
such a case the mitzvot of kavod and mora apply.   Even a mamzer, who has
good reason to hate his parents, must honour and fear them too.  He can be
secretly overjoyed when they die, but must pretend otherwise.   If they're
not his biological parents, though, (or if he's a ger), then he has no such
obligation.


-- 
Zev Sero             Sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable
z...@sero.name        from malice.
                                                          - Eric Raymond

    Although the individuals Shemoneh Esrei is recited silently, the
    Chazarat Ha-Shatz ... is recited aloud. Rav Soloveitchik explained
    the difference. The individual, no matter how righteous, has no
    right to claim anything from HaShem. G-d owes the individual nothing.
    When an individual prays, therefore, he must do so in the context
    of supplication, as a poor person at someones door, begging for
    a donation. The Shaliach Tzibbur..., on the other hand, prays on
    behalf of the entire congregation. He thus has the right to demand
    that HaShem fulfill His covenantal obligations. He indeed has the
    right and the obligation to pray aloud.

:-)BBii!
-Micha

-- 
Which also explains why one is required to demur from being the shatz - while the shatz has the right/duty described above, who would feel worthy of doing so?
Bsorot Tovot
Joel Rich
THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE 
ADDRESSEE.  IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL 
INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE.  Dissemination, 
distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is 
strictly prohibited.  If you received this message in error, please notify us 
immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message.  
Thank you.

A very interesting thought question:

What do you think the scenario would have been if the Egel Hazahav
incident?s main character had been Pinchas instead of Aharon?

?If I must choose between righteousness and peace, I choose righteousness?
Theodore Roosevelt

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20140711/25f39723/attachment-0001.htm>

So I thought I'd give it a try. Feel free (of course!) to correct any
math errors.

June 21, 2014 was the longest day of the year. (The solstice was at 6:51am
EDT.)

Troyes, where Rabbeinu Tam lived
    alos:   4:01
    sheqia: 9:44
    span = 18:43 >>

All this assume modern astronomy. It doesnt seem that Rabbenu Tam knew that
the earth was a sphere and that the length of the day was different in
France than Babyonia or Israel

-- 
Eli Turkel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20140712/b171674e/attachment-0001.htm>

http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=31622&;pgnum=232

Specifically "those who sing and chant during krias hatorah the words and
pesukim that have nice and pleasing trop, and try to show off their knowledge
and their singing voice, and prevent the public from hearing the reading".

-- 
Zev Sero             Sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable
z...@sero.name        from malice.
                                                          - Eric Raymond

<<I see a big difference: An elevator follows a fixed route. Same for
trains, buses, and trolleys which I've heard are used by some under certain
conditions. But an auto is a very personal vehicle by its very nature. I'm
NOT saying that it would definitely be assur; I'm saying that we need more
information about how it would work and how it would be used, and maybe
then an answer might be proposed.>>

Agreed. At this stage the question is hypothetical.
Assume that one programs in the destination (much as is presently done on
planes) and time of departure and this is done on erev shabbat.

One then enters the car (assuming no lights go on etc.) a little before the
scheduled departure. The car the automatically navigates to the final
destination (within the eruv) and one gets out of the car.

As the article states it probably is prohibited because of uvdin de-chol.
The question is whether there is a more basic problem.

Years ago there were suggestions for movable sidewalks in Israeli cities to
be used also on shabbat. At the time Yated Neeman sharply attacked the
suggestion.

-- 
Eli Turkel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20140712/52f1148f/attachment-0001.htm>

Rashi (Pinchas 25:13) points out that Pinchas was born before Aharon got
the kehuna, and was therefore not included in that event. It seems to me
that this glosses over the fact that Nadav, Avihu, Elazar, and Itamar were
also born before Aharon got the kehuna.

It seems that Rashi feels that Aharon's immediate sons were entitled to the
kehuna as a gift, but his grandsons (i.e., Pinchas) had to do something to
become entitled to it. I'm curious if anyone speaks about this.

In any case, that's just Rashi's view. The Ramban comments in/on the
wording of Shmos 28:1 -- "... Aharon your brother, and his sons with him
... Aharon, Nadav and Avihu, Elazar and Itamar, the sons of Aharon." Ramban
asks why the Torah needed to specify the names of the sons. Why wasn't it
enough to simply say, "his sons"? He answers: "It excludes Pinchas and the
other born ones who did not become kohanim. Only the four who were anointed
with him, and their descendants who would be born afterwards."

In other words, Ramban says that these five (Nadav, Avihu, Elazar, Itamar,
and Pinchas) were NOT the only descendants alive at the time Aharon became
kohen, but all the others would remain non-kohanim forever.

Ibn Ezra (also on Shmos 28:1) says similarly: "It specifies the names of Aharon's sons. Perhaps he had other sons besdies these."

So my question is this: According to Ramban and Ibn Ezra, by what merit did
Nadav, Avihu, Elazar, and Itamar become kohanim, to the exclusion of their
other brothers, if any?

Akiva Miller
____________________________________________________________
The End of the "Made-In-China" Era
The impossible (but real) technology that could make you impossibly rich.
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/53c2976b1857176a227bst02vuc

On 13/07/2014 10:26 AM, Kenneth Miller via Avodah wrote:
> Rashi (Pinchas 25:13) points out that Pinchas was born before Aharon
> got the kehuna, and was therefore not included in that event. It
> seems to me that this glosses over the fact that Nadav, Avihu,
> Elazar, and Itamar were also born before Aharon got the kehuna.

He's not glossing over anything.  The kehuna was explicitly given to Aharon
and his four sons, and nobody else.  It was then to be inherited at birth by
any son born to a kohen.  Pinchas was not one of the four sons, but had he
been born after his father became a kohen he would have been one automatically.
Therefore he must have been born earlier.  That's all Rashi is saying.


> It seems that Rashi feels that Aharon's immediate sons were entitled to the
>  kehuna as a gift, but his grandsons (i.e., Pinchas) had to do something to
>  become entitled to it.

There's no entitlement.  Aharon's sons became kohanim exactly the same
way he did -- by being directly appointed by Hashem.  Their kehuna doesn't
derive from his.  Now Pinchas got the same thing -- an independent appointment
to the kehuna that did not derive from his father's or his grandfather's.
(For that matter, the same is true of Moshe's kehuna, which did not derive
from anyone else's.)


> In any case, that's just Rashi's view. The Ramban comments in/on the
> wording of Shmos 28:1 -- "... Aharon your brother, and his sons with
> him ... Aharon, Nadav and Avihu, Elazar and Itamar, the sons of
> Aharon." Ramban asks why the Torah needed to specify the names of the
> sons. Why wasn't it enough to simply say, "his sons"? He answers: "It
> excludes Pinchas and the other born ones who did not become kohanim.
> Only the four who were anointed with him, and their descendants who
> would be born afterwards."

How does this contradict Rashi?


> In other words, Ramban says that these five (Nadav, Avihu, Elazar,
> Itamar, and Pinchas) were NOT the only descendants alive at the time
> Aharon became kohen, but all the others would remain non-kohanim forever.

How could the Ramban possibly know that?  We have no record of any such
grandsons, so we don't know whether they existed.  The Ramban is simply
explaining that it was necessary to name the sons because if the Torah
had merely said "banav" we would mistakenly think it included all his
descendants, and we know he had *at least* one grandson at the time.  Was
Pinchas the only grandson?  Maybe. The Ramban doesn't say he wasn't, he
just points out that we have no reason to believe so.


> Ibn Ezra (also on Shmos 28:1) says similarly: "It specifies the names
>  of Aharon's sons. Perhaps he had other sons besdies these."

Again, speculation.  It's *possible*.  But if so you'd think they'd be
mentioned in at least one of the listings of the family tree.  So it seems
to me much more likely that there weren't any other sons, but there's no
reason to believe there was only one grandson.  Pinchas isn't mentioned
in most of the family tree listings either, so there's no reason why his
hypothetical brothers would be mentioned.


> So my question is this: According to Ramban and Ibn Ezra, by what
> merit did Nadav, Avihu, Elazar, and Itamar become kohanim, to the
> exclusion of their other brothers, if any?

The Ramban doesn't say anything about extra sons.  And the Ibn Ezra could
say there doesn't have to have been a reason, or maybe it was something
simple, e.g. they were too young.


-- 
Zev Sero             Sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable
z...@sero.name        from malice.
                                                          - Eric Raymond

In a message dated 7/14/2014 11:08am EDT, I wrote to Areivim:
: ... "El" and "Elohim" predates Judaism. I don't know if the first usage was
: by monotheists or pagans.

On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 1:40pm EDT, RnTK <T6...@aol.com> replied there:
: ... That is a controversial statement, bordering on kefirah. "Histakel 
: ba'Oraisa uvara alma" -- the Torah came before everything else. 

: Without getting into questions of the age of the universe or how long the
: six "days" of Creation were, or what existed before this world -- we
: certainly can't say that the Hebrew language (or related languages), and the use 
: of "elohim" to refer to pagan gods, predated the Torah.

It would be more an issue of how we understand Migdal Bavel than Beri'ah.

: Even if you are defining "Judaism" as starting with Matan Torah, you must
: admit that Adam, Noach and Avraham worshipped Hashem, not idols, and that
: the worship of idols started some time /after/ the creation of the world.
: How can you read the first pasuk in Bereishis and say "I don't know if the
: first use of the word 'elohim' was by pagans"?! "Bereish bara ELOKIM es
: hashamayim ve'es ha'aretz" -- and it seems to you that maybe there were pagans
: around /before that/, worshipping idols?

Who was the first person to refer to the Borei as "Keil" or "E-lokim"?
The beings recorded as using this apelation in early history are Chavah to
the nachash (3:3), Adam when naming Sheis (4:25), and then we skip ahead
millennia to Malkitzedeq's invoking "Keil Elyon"i (14:19). But anyone that
late in history could be using the noun for god or authority/power (like
the Benei haElohim) rather than a name -- idolatry was popular by then.

BUT, among the answers to "ushemi Hashem lo nodati lahem" despite Hashem
using sheim havayah when talking to the avos is the possibility that
the quotes in Bereishis could be paraphrase.

On the third hand, it's possible this answer is specific to recordings
of Hashem's words, since nevu'ah might be recorded as a vision mapped
back to content. The straight words in the chumash doesn't fit the
Rambam's description of non-Mosaic prophecy. So, it could be that in
Hashem's message he refered to Himself in a manner that is closest to
that connoted by sheim havayah, but since Avraham had no first-hand
experience of that, he perceived it as something else.

As I said, I don't know who used the term first.

It is also far from clear to me that "hitaqeil beOraisa uvara alma"
refers to words of TSBP rather than the ideas of the Torah. It's from
the Zohar (Shemos 161b), not an exoteric source, so even searching for
the intent is above my pay grade.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             The greatest discovery of all time is that
mi...@aishdas.org        a person can change their future
http://www.aishdas.org   by merely changing their attitude.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                   - Oprah Winfrey

 
 
[My husband, R' Michael Katz, asked me to post the following question for  
him]
 

--Toby Katz
t6...@aol.com
..
=============


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


 
It seems that the prevalent custom for the text of Borei Nefashos is to say 
 "shebarasa" and not "shebara."  Flipping through various siddurim, both  
Ashekenaz and Sefard, and taking a limited survey, it would seem that  
"shebarasa" has become the norm.
 
This is amazing when almost all major poskim who deal with nusach prefer  
"shebara."  Starting with the gemara in Berachos, Tur,  the Gra,  Chayei 
Adam, Kitzur Shulchan Aruch and Mishna Berura.  Aruch haShulchan  also seems to 
prefer "shebara" since he lists it first.  It seems  that only a small 
minority of poskim quoted by Magen Avraham favor  "shebarasa."
 
How then did "shebarasa" become dominant?  Is it Kabbalistic,  Chassidic?  
Can you shed some light?


 
--Michael Katz
_m613k@aol.com_ (mailto:m6...@aol.com) 
..
=============



-------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20140714/c58e7404/attachment-0001.htm>

On Areivim, R' Micha Berger wrote:
> "El" and "Elohim" predates Judaism. I don't know if the first
> usage was by monotheists or pagans.

R"n Toby Katz asked:
> How can you read the first pasuk in Bereishis and say "I don't know
> if the first use of the word 'elohim' was by pagans"?! "Bereish bara
> ELOKIM es hashamayim ve'es ha'aretz" -- and it seems to you that
> maybe there were pagans around /before that/, worshipping idols?

R"n Katz, could you explain your point better, please? As I see it, that
pasuk tells us, in terms that we can understand, Who did the creating, what
He created, and such. It doesn't tell us anything about the development of
Hebrew language, and it certainly doesn't suggest that any people were
around prior to creation.

Akiva Miller
____________________________________________________________
NEVER eat this fish
Also discover 15 foods that DAMAGE your heart health
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/53c483abee4c3aa28b8st04vuc

From Toby Katz
 
In a message dated 7/14/2014, kennethgmil...@juno.com  writes:

On  Areivim, R' Micha Berger wrote:
> "El" and "Elohim" predates Judaism. I  don't know if the first
> usage was by monotheists or pagans.

R"n  Toby Katz asked:
> How can you read the first pasuk in Bereishis and say  "I don't know
> if the first use of the word 'elohim' was by pagans"?!  "Bereish bara
> ELOKIM es hashamayim ve'es ha'aretz" -- and it seems to  you that
> maybe there were pagans around /before that/, worshipping  idols?

R"n Katz, could you explain your point better, please? As I see  it, that 
pasuk tells us, in terms that we can understand, Who did the  creating, what 
He created, and such. It doesn't tell us anything about the  development of 
Hebrew language, and it certainly doesn't suggest that any  people were 
around prior to creation.

Akiva  Miller





>>>>
 
Your point is my point!  Contra Reb Micha!  
 
He is the one who seems to be saying that pagans came first and monotheism  
came later -- also suggesting that some other proto-Semitic language came 
first,  and Loshon Hakodesh came later (he seems to be saying that the words  
"el" and "elohim" were first used to refer to idols and only later to refer 
to  Hashem)
 
 
 
My understanding is that there were no people around before Bereshis,  
unless they were in the other worlds that Hashem created and destroyed before  
this one.  But in this world, the first people were Adam and Chava, and  they 
knew Hashem, and they spoke Hebrew.
 
There are some who understand that when the Talmud says there were 974  
generations before Adam (a mysterious statement with varying interpretations)  
that it means that there were 974 generations of proto-man before Adam but  
he was the first actual human -- the first with a soul (and presumably the 
first  with the power of speech).  That's very much a minority opinion.  If  
so, maybe they lived on Thursday of Creation (which maybe lasted thousands  
or millions of years).  I don't discount it as a possibility but leave it  
as a mystery. 
 
 
But the most obvious and straightforward understanding of the Torah is that 
 Adam knew Hashem, that there were no men before him, and that subsequent  
generations declined into idolatry.  R' Micha's understanding that there  
were many generations that used the word "el" or "elohim" to refer to pagan 
gods  BEFORE there were people who used these terms (Kel and Elokim) to refer 
to G-d,  seems to me a completely secular understanding of history -- the 
idea that  paganism came first and monotheism was a gradual, later 
development, also the  idea that Hebrew gradually developed from some other earlier 
language.
 
The standard reading of Torah is that monotheism came first, with the  
creation of Adam, that mankind later degenerated into paganism, that Noach knew  
Hashem but mankind again degenerated, and that Avraham rediscovered and  
recognized Hashem.
 
 

--Toby Katz
t6...@aol.com
..
=============




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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20140714/3719ce83/attachment.htm>

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



_______________________________________________
Avodah mailing list
Avo...@lists.aishdas.org
http://www.aishdas.org/avodah
http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org


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


***************************************

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.)