Avodah Mailing List

Volume 32: Number 129

Sun, 31 Aug 2014

• 1. The Meaning of Am Hanivchar; the Source of Anti-Semitism (Prof. Levine)
• 2. the International Dateline and the shape of the earth (Eli Turkel)
• 3. Re: Golem (Kenneth Miller)
• 4. Re: Golem (Kenneth Miller)
• 5. Re: Golem (Zev Sero)
• 6. Re: Golem (Micha Berger)
• 7. Re: Of Elul, L'David, and Golems (Micha Berger)
• 8. Re: Golem (Zev Sero)
• 9. Re: Philosophical and theological challenges of, sacrifices (H Lampel)

 From http://www.torahweb.org/torah/2014/parsha/rsch_reeh.html

The Torah mentions several times that Bnei Yisroel are the am 
hanivchar. What exactly does that mean? Does it mean that just like 
parents sometimes favor one child over the others Hashem favors Klal 
Yisroel, and therefore we can get away with all kinds of mischief? 
This is clearly not the intention! First of all, the Gemorah points 
out (in the first perek of Messechet Shabbos) that the chumash 
clearly teaches us that it is improper for parents to have a favorite 
child, and the Torah clearly implies that all of the trouble 
surrounding mechiras Yosef and galus Mitzrayim came about because 
Yaakov Avinu treated Yosef differently than the other brothers.

Furthermore, our tradition has it that Bnei Yisroel are held to a 
higher standard than the umos ha'olam (see the midrash quoted by 
Rashi in Parshas Toldos on the possuk, "v'yitain lecho Elokim"). In 
general, one who is closer to Hashem has a greater degree of 
hashgocha protis both l'tav and l'mutov (good and bad); on the one 
hand the possuk tells us "raglei chassidov yishmor", i.e. that Hashem 
will protect one who is closer to Him in an unusual fashion; and on 
the other hand Hashem is m'dakdek im tzaddikov k'chut ha'saarah. For 
example, even with the ten explanations quoted by the Ohr Hachaim 
Hakaddosh we still don't know the exact nature of Moshe Rabbeinu's 
aveira which prevented him from entering Eretz Yisroel; all we know 
is that if anyone else would have done the same thing that Moshe 
Rabbeinu did, it probably would not have even be considered an 
aveira; but since he was so much closer to Hashem he was held to a 
much higher standard.

So what does it actually mean when the Torah tells us that Am Yisroel 
is the am hanivchar? The simple understanding seems to be that Bnei 
Yisroel are obligated to serve as an ohr lagoyim - a light unto the 
nations, as the novi Yeshaya mentioned on several occasions. Even 
before yetzias Mitzrayim Hashem referred to Bnei Yisroel as "beni 
bechori - my first born child". Does that possuk mean to say that all 
the nations of the world are bonim lamokom and Bnei Yisroel is the 
first born? The mishna in Pirkei Avos clearly rejects this 
understanding and states that only Bnei Yisroel have the cherished 
status of bonim lamokom. Only the neshomos of Bnei Yisroel carry in 
their "spiritual DNA" the middos of elokus in a manner similar to 
children carrying the physical DNA of their parents. The neshomos of 
umos ha'olam are fundamentally different, and as such the Zohar 
teaches us that when a nochri is misgayer it is literally true that 
ger sh'nisgayer k'koton sh'nolad domi because his old neshoma is 
replaced with a new one.

The notion of Bnei Yisroel being the first born, the bechor, means 
that just as a first born child is expected to help his parents raise 
their younger children, so too Bnei Yisroel are called upon to 
influence the other nations of the world. The avos, Avrohom, Yitzchok 
and Yaakov, were proactive in publicly preaching the lessons of 
monotheism. Apparently this charge was conveyed to Avrohom Avinu by 
Hashem when he told Avrohom, "V'nivrichu becha kol mishpichos 
ho'adoma" that all of the other families of the world should join 
along with you, just as one would graft a branch from one tree onto 
another (See Rashbam that the root of the word "v'nivrichu" is the 
word havracha, grafting).

After all of the shevotim were born, Yaakov Avinu understood that his 
responsibility to serve as an ohr lagoyim no longer required him to 
be proactive but should be fulfilled in a more passive fashion. 
Specifically, we can succeed in impressing upon all the nations of 
the world the values of honesty, integrity, and decency by acting 
properly ourselves and thus serving as a good example.

The Torah tells us in Parshas Ki Savo, "v'holachta bid'rachav" that 
we should preserve our tzelem Elokim by going in the ways of Hashem 
and then "when all of the nations of the world will see that you have 
succeeded in preserving your tzelem Elokim, they will learn from you 
how to act with yiras Shomayim" (see Aderes Eliyahu). The umos 
ha'olam also have tzelem Elokim and they can preserve that tzelem 
Elokim by following the ways of Hashem.

Hashem selected one nation to serve as a role model for all the 
others regarding how to go in His ways. The novi Yeshaya says, "am zu 
yotzarti", i.e. that the am ha'nivchar was a distinct creation of 
Hashem. According to nature, Klal Yisroel really should not exist, 
since the Chumash tells us that the imahos were akoros (unable to 
bear children), and the Talmud tells us (in Yevomos perek He'oreil) 
that Avrohom, Yitzchok, and Yaakov were akorim as well. As such, the 
whole existence of Klal Yisroel is l'maaleh min hatevah.

This probably explains the mysterious phenomenon of anti-Semitism 
which persists throughout all generations. A body naturally rejects 
foreign objects (and therefore when surgeons do an organ transplant 
they have to be concerned about the organ being rejected), and Klal 
Yisroel does not fit in to the natural system which makes up the rest 
of the world; Klal Yisroel was created as a separate yitzira which is 
l'maaleh min ha'teva. Thus we can understand quite well why all of 
the nations of the world, which are all part of teva, would naturally 
reject the "foreign body" of Klal Yisroel which does not fit in with 
the natural scheme of things!

We ought to cherish and appreciate the responsibility of being the am 
hanivchar, i.e. serving as the ohr lagoyim - the role model for all 
other nations.

Editor's note: for further discussion on the topic of Am Hanivchar by 
Rav Schachter see the following:
<http://www.torahweb.org/torah/2002/parsha/rsch_eikev.html>Are We 
Still the Am Hanivchar?
<http://www.torahweb.org/audioFrameset.html#audio=rsch_050204>Am Hanivchar
<http://www.torahweb.org/torah/special/2004/rsch_mikdash.html>The 
Temple and the Mikdash Me'at


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20140828/56d7b9f1/attachment-0001.htm>

<<The earliest source I can find for the nusach "goleil or mipenei choshekh"
is Abayei, Berakhos 10a. Or maybe Buber's edition of Medrash Tehillim
96:4. In any case, this was in the body of the berakhah since at least
part of Chazal's day.

As the AhS points out (OC 236:2), "goleil or mipenei choshech" works
well for the geocentric or heliocentric universe. But what "rolling"
would "goleil" refer to in the Persian (or a flat-earth) universe? >>

In the Persian version the heavens (or at least the sun) rotates

-- 
Eli Turkel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20140830/211c48c3/attachment-0001.htm>

What I'd like to know is the havamina: Why would it ever occur to someone
that a golem *would* count for a minyan. It does not have a Jewish mother,
and no one (that I've heard) says that it converted. So where does the
question even begin?

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/TGL3131/540102f1dd1a82f1483ast01vuc

In my previous post, I asked for the argument in favor of counting the
golem towards a minyan. I now apologize for not looking at the souce cited
by R' Zev Sero:

>The writer also misquotes the Chacham Tzvi.  He was not at all undecided about
>whether a golem counts in a minyan.  He definitely concludes that it does not.
>http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=19566&;pgnum=163

Shailah 93 there gives the havamina very clearly in the first paragraph: If
one raises a child, that child is considered to be his. And if so, then the
golem - which is the maaseh yadayim of the tzadik - should also be
considered his child.

To me, that is an interesting but preposterous supposition.  If a tzadik
would raise a non-Jewish child, would that child count towards a minyan
without geirus? Of course not. But that's not the approach that the Chacham
Tzvi takes.

Instead, in the second paragraph, he points to the golem that R' Zeira
killed. The Chacham Tzvi explains that murder only applies to human
victims, defined as one born of a mother. But even if killing a golem
doesn't count as murder, R' Zeira still wouldn't have done it if the golem
would have been useful, such as for helping to make the minyan.

Therefore, since R' Zeira DID kill the golem, the Chacham Tzvi concludes that a golem can NOT count to a minyan.

I hope I've understood and explained this teshuva accurately. If not, I hope someone will correct me.

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/TGL3131/5402854763c515455807st03vuc

On 29/08/2014 6:46 PM, Kenneth Miller via Avodah wrote:
> What I'd like to know is the havamina: Why would it ever occur to
> someone that a golem*would*  count for a minyan. It does not have a
> Jewish mother, and no one (that I've heard) says that it converted.
> So where does the question even begin?

The hava amina is because it's the handiwork of a tzadik, and thus in a way
it's his child, just as the pasuk calls Michal the mother of Merav's children
because she raised them.

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

On Sat, Aug 30, 2014 at 10:28:43PM -0400, Zev Sero wrote:
: On 29/08/2014 6:46 PM, Kenneth Miller wrote:
:> What I'd like to know is the havamina: Why would it ever occur to
:> someone that a golem*would*  count for a minyan. It does not have a
:> Jewish mother, and no one (that I've heard) says that it converted.
:> So where does the question even begin?

: The hava amina is because it's the handiwork of a tzadik, and thus in a way
: it's his child, just as the pasuk calls Michal the mother of Merav's children
: because she raised them.

My gut agrees with RAM. If we took this pasuq halachically, a far more
compelling parallel to Michal's case would have us not require geirus
when adopting a non-Jewish child. Since that isn't even considered
(outside the Reform movement), how would Jewish upbringing impact the
case of the golem.

For that matter, in the same idiom Moshe is credited with parenting
Elazar and Itamar. And Moshe himself would be a Mitzri, one of the erev
rav. Or else we would call him Yekusiel Rabbeinu.

I would faster see putting the (presumably male!) tzadiq who made the
golem in the same role as Merav. After all, both are the physical cause
of existence, which appears to be how we determine inherited Jewishness.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             I slept and dreamt that life was joy.
mi...@aishdas.org        I awoke and found that life was duty.
http://www.aishdas.org   I worked and, behold -- duty is joy.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                        - Rabindranath Tagore

On Thu, Aug 28, 2014 at 03:14:14PM -0400, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote:
: For the record,  Minhag Frankfurt and,  IIRC,  Sanzer Chassidim, and
: others do not say L'Dovid at all.

Nor minhag haGra. But for different reasons. Frankfurt questions all
innovations, Sanz questions Chemdas Yamim as being Sabbatean. The Gra
wouldn't have you tampering with shir shel yom by adding other peraqim
of Tehillim.

We've discussed this previous Eluls. Yes it's true that the connection
between LeDavid and Elul slightly (a couple of decades) predates the
oldest known publishing of Chemdas Yamim. However, the notion of saying
it twice daily at the end of davening is from CY. People made it part
of seclihos, but event that wasn't promulgated as a minhag for the rabbim.

The popularization and the format are CY. But since the motivation is
found in non-suspect sources, is that an issue? (Derekh emori, maybe?)

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger                 Life is complex.
mi...@aishdas.org                Decisions are complex.
http://www.aishdas.org               The Torah is complex.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                                - R' Binyamin Hecht

On 31/08/2014 1:47 PM, Micha Berger wrote:
> My gut agrees with RAM. If we took this pasuq halachically, a far more
> compelling parallel to Michal's case would have us not require geirus
> when adopting a non-Jewish child. Since that isn't even considered
> (outside the Reform movement), how would Jewish upbringing impact the
> case of the golem.

Why even go there?  A much stronger proof is that the yasom you raise is
allowed to marry your daughter!  And you are allowed to marry the yesomah
that you raise!   But it's only a hava amina that's dismissed, so there's no
real need to demolish it any further.   The gemara often raises weak hava
aminas that don't stand up to serious scrutiny.


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

On 8/25/2014 2:14 PM, Micha Berger wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 07, 2014 at 03:56:57PM -0400, H Lampel via Avodah wrote:
> : If I correctly recall, Rav Hirsch attributes his symbology to the
> : usage in Tanach and Midrashim...
>
> The specific symbols? The nearest I recall -- although I am no RSRH
> expert -- is the beginning of Collected Writings vol III. But in there,
> he points out the use of symbolism and metaphor in nevu'ah and medrash
> as a means of proving that symbolism is a traditional Jewish means of
> relaying truths to be internalized. ...
> IOW, I recall him anchoring the mode of communication in Tanakh and
> medrash, not his particular symbols.

Also no RSRH expert, my impression, in retrospect, was formed by 
passages in his writings such as this one from his Chumash commentary on 
Shmos 25:8:

In our discussion in Jeshurun V. p. 232 et seq., we have proved that
in the Tanach, metals in general, in accordance with their physical 
property
of hardness, are used as a metaphor for firmness and strength (e.g., Jer.
1 .. 15, Job VI,12, Isaiah XLVIII,4) and in accordance with their being
valuable, as a metaphor for valuing spiritual values (e.g., Prov. 11,10, 
Ps. XIX,
11, Job XXVIII), but quite specially in accordance with their metallurgical
properties as the most suitable metaphor for all /goodness and truth in 
every
stage of admixture with evil and the untrue, /and also for /all the 
processes
of tests and purifying and refining /applied to morality and truth 
(e.g., Job
XXIII,10; Zacch. XIII,9; Mal. 111,3; Is. XLVIIl,10; Prov. XXV, 4, 10_, 20
& XXVI,23; Jer. VI,29 & 30; Ps. CXIX,119; Ez. XXII,18; Is. I,22; Dan.
11, 32 & 33). In**all these places metals are used to designate the various
degrees of moral purity and truth. ...

Rav Hirsch himself maintains (Collected Writings III pp. 14-16) that

     The recipient of the symbol must work on his own to ascertain its 
message, and for this reason he can search for its meaning     nowhere 
else but within the range of ideas with which he is already familiar.

And that

     The person to whom the symbol is addressed must already have some 
knowledge of the symbolic object and the idea it is         intended to 
symbolize, [although] it has not yet occurred to him that there may be a 
connection between the two.

 From passages of the Chumash commentary such as the one cited above, I 
concluded that the connection the recipient was expected to recognize 
was based on his knowledge of biblical usage, and that it is in this 
sense that RSRH preceded the abive comments with the words,

     Foremost among the conditions we have set down for the analysis of 
a symbol is the requirement that the symbol must be         considered 
in association with both the person who instituted it and the person to  
whom it is addressed. ... [T]he purpose     of communication by means of 
symbols is not to reveal previously unknown truths but only to impress 
upon the recipient, in a     manner more pro?found and enduring than 
mere words, truths that have already been made known to him earlier.

I would have to do some more research to see what RSRH's mekoros are for 
the symbolism he attributes to zerikas hadam.

ZL



---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20140831/caccea1d/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.)