Volume 33: Number 140
Tue, 03 Nov 2015
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Message: 1
From: Lisa Liel
Date: Fri, 30 Oct 2015 15:56:10 +0200
Subject: Re: [Avodah] killing a neutralized terrorist
On 10/30/2015 1:46 PM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote:
> Went to a shiur today on killing a neutralized terrorist...
> Rav Algazi stressed that the shiur is based on halachic sources and
> not just feelings. Much was based on hilchot rodef and strongly based
> on teshuvot of Achiezer.
I'm troubled to hear that it was largely based on hilchot rodef. I
would think that hilchot milchama would be far more pertinent.
Go to top.
Message: 2
From: Jay F. Shachter
Date: Fri, 30 Oct 2015 11:53:39 +0000 (WET DST)
Subject: Re: [Avodah] informing on death
> Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2015 18:13:03 -0400
> From: Micha Berger via Avodah <avo...@lists.aishdas.org>
> I never heard of such a thing. The permissibility of not telling a
> daughter, yes, eg if she is a cholah she'ein bah saqanah (which
> might be YD 337:1), but an actual ban on informing? News to me.
> Mar'eh meqomos?
I suspect that the source is one with which you are certainly already
familiar, but which someone else reads differently than you do, namely
Shulxan `Arukh Yoreh De`ah 402:12. There, as you no doubt know,
the Shulxan `Arukh rules that there is no obligation to tell a family
member of a death (and, parenthetically, does not except sons who are in
a position to say Qaddish -- the Rema says that, but the Shulxan `Arukh
does not), to which he then applies the phrase in Proverbs 10:18 which has
already been cited in this discussion. Now, although the Shulxan `Arukh
technically does not forbid telling the family member, it is possible to
view that as a hyperliteral reading, if the Shulxan `Arukh says that an
act is not obligatory, and then cites a verse that says that someone who
performs that act is a fool, one could read that as a ruling that the
act should not be performed. Apparently you did not read it that way,
which led to your request for a source that the act is forbidden.
Note that the Shulxan `Arukh does not permit lying, only refraining
from telling the truth, which we would know anyway even if it were not
explicitly stated, but in fact it is explicitly stated in Yoreh De`ah
402:12 that you may not lie and say that someone is alive when he is not.
There is a member of another mailing list who boasts that he lied to his
parents about the death of his son, but there is no hetter for that in
Yoreh De`ah 402:12.
Jay F. ("Yaakov") Shachter
j...@m5.chicago.il.us
http://m5.chicago.il.us
"Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur"
Go to top.
Message: 3
From: Marty Bluke
Date: Sun, 1 Nov 2015 11:11:04 +0200
Subject: [Avodah] What was the point of Avrahams tefilla/debate with
When Hashem informs Avraham that he is going to destroy Sdom, Avraham
launches into tefilla/debate with Hashem and tries to use logical/emotional
arguments to save Sdom. What was Avraham's point? Did he really think he
could influence Hashem's decision with logical/emotional arguments? How
does this fit into our general understanding of Tefilla?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20151101/c1c9e1a3/attachment-0001.htm>
Go to top.
Message: 4
From: menucha
Date: Sat, 31 Oct 2015 20:13:28 +0200
Subject: Re: [Avodah] killing a neutralized terrorist
Lisa Liel via Avodah wrote:
> On 10/30/2015 1:46 PM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote:
>
>> Went to a shiur today on killing a neutralized terrorist...
>> Rav Algazi stressed that the shiur is based on halachic sources and
>> not just feelings. Much was based on hilchot rodef and strongly based
>> on teshuvot of Achiezer.
>
>
> I'm troubled to hear that it was largely based on hilchot rodef. I
> would think that hilchot milchama would be far more pertinent.
Rav Lior in this weeks Gilui Daat
http://pisrael.com/giluy_daat/2015/275/#p=5 speaks about it in the
context of milchama.
Go to top.
Message: 5
From: Zev Sero
Date: Sun, 1 Nov 2015 13:40:39 -0500
Subject: Re: [Avodah] What was the point of Avrahams tefilla/debate
On 11/01/2015 04:11 AM, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote:
> Did he really think he could influence Hashem's decision with
> logical/emotional arguments?
Yes, he did.
> How does this fit into our general understanding of Tefilla?
I don't know about your general understanding of tefllah, but it fits
perfectly into my general understanding of it. Us'shuvah, usfilah,
utzdakah maavirin es roa` hagezerah.
--
Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow
z...@sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week
And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that
I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes
I'll explain it to you".
Go to top.
Message: 6
From: Micha Berger
Date: Sun, 1 Nov 2015 17:02:07 -0500
Subject: Re: [Avodah] What was the point of Avrahams tefilla/debate
On Sun, Nov 01, 2015 at 11:11:04AM +0200, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote:
: When Hashem informs Avraham that he is going to destroy Sdom, Avraham
: launches into tefilla/debate with Hashem and tries to use logical/emotional
: arguments to save Sdom. What was Avraham's point? Did he really think he
: could influence Hashem's decision with logical/emotional arguments? How
: does this fit into our general understanding of Tefilla?
To follow the general mehalekh of RSRH and RYBS on tefillah...
RQBH will do what's best, regardless of pleading.
However, turning to Him with our problems changes who we are. Thus the
hitpa'el (reflective) conjugation of "hitpalel". Prayer is something
we do to ourselves, and as a consequence changes how Hashem responds
to us.
Did Avraham expect to change Hashem's mind? No. Did he think that if
he protested, the situation might become one in which clemency is more
appropriate maybe. Maybe the whole point was to illicit the prayer.
But from this perspective, a chance of success is not necessarily
part of Avraham's calculus altogether. It is more about leaning on
Hashem as part of my support system than expecting something out
of it.
Mashal: I have spent many hours whining to my parents about the "joys"
of raising adolescents without any expectations they had solutions,
or at least not ones they hadn't already given me.
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
Go to top.
Message: 7
From: Marty Bluke
Date: Mon, 2 Nov 2015 11:09:25 +0200
Subject: Re: [Avodah] What was the point of Avrahams tefilla/debate
On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 12:02 AM, Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org> wrote:
> To follow the general mehalekh of RSRH and RYBS on tefillah...
> RQBH will do what's best, regardless of pleading.
...
> But from this perspective, a chance of success is not necessarily
> part of Avraham's calculus altogether. It is more about leaning on
> Hashem as part of my support system than expecting something out
> of it.
I understand all that, my problem is with Avraham making logical arguments
to Hashem. To pay even beg for clemency is one thing, to try to persuade
Hashem with logical arguments is a whole different ball game.
On Sun, Nov 1, 2015 at 8:40 PM, Zev Sero <z...@sero.name> wrote:
> On 11/01/2015 04:11 AM, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote:
>> Did he really think he could influence Hashem's decision with
>> logical/emotional arguments?
> Yes, he did.
> How does this fit into our general understanding of Tefilla?
> I don't know about your general understanding of tefllah, but it fits
> perfectly into my general understanding of it. Us'shuvah, usfilah,
> utzdakah maavirin es roa` hagezerah.
Tefilla is making logical arguments to Hashem as to why he is doing the
wrong thing? Does it make any sense to make logical arguments to an
omniscient perfect god?
The obvious question about Tefilla is why do we need to daven at all, after
all Hashem knows exactly what we need and is perfect, therefore what is the
point of tefilla? One approach is that Tefilla is for us to get closer to
Hashem, to change. However, that doesn't make much sense when your tefilla
is a set of logical arguments that God made a mistake. Another approach to
tefilla is that that is how Hashem made the system. Even though Hashem
doesn't need our tefillos he set up the system that to get things we need
to haven. Again, that doesn't really make sense when your tefilla is a set
of logical arguments as to why God is making a mistake.
How can logical/emotional arguments change an omniscient perfect God's
decision? The approaches to Tefilla that I am familiar with explain either
that Tefilla changes you the person davening and therefore the original
decision by God no longer relates to you as you are a different person. Or,
that the original decision was to grant you your wish on the condition that
you daven for it, but in no circumstances does Hashem change his mind.
Therefore, to make logical arguments to Hashem would seem to be pointless.
Go to top.
Message: 8
From: Micha Berger
Date: Mon, 2 Nov 2015 06:00:31 -0500
Subject: Re: [Avodah] What was the point of Avrahams tefilla/debate
On Mon, Nov 02, 2015 at 11:09:25AM +0200, Marty Bluke wrote:
: On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 12:02 AM, Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org> wrote:
:> To follow the general mehalekh of RSRH and RYBS on tefillah...
:> HQBH will do what's best, regardless of pleading.
: ...
:> But from this perspective, a chance of success is not necessarily
:> part of Avraham's calculus altogether. It is more about leaning on
:> Hashem as part of my support system than expecting something out
:> of it.
: I understand all that, my problem is with Avraham making logical arguments
: to Hashem. To pay even beg for clemency is one thing, to try to persuade
: Hashem with logical arguments is a whole different ball game.
Except that from this position, baqashos aren't begging or persuasion.
As I wrote, "a chance of success is not necessarily part of Avraham's
calculus altogether. It is more about leaning on Hashem as part of my
support system than expecting something out of it."
The bargaining-looking bit isn't an attempt to pursuade if tefillah
is never about pursuasion or begging.
It is Avraham airing just how unfair he thinks it all is. It is his
maintaining a relationship with the Borei, as an end in itself.
Tir'u baTov!
-Micha
--
Micha Berger A sick person never rejects a healing procedure
mi...@aishdas.org as "unbefitting." Why, then, do we care what
http://www.aishdas.org other people think when dealing with spiritual
Fax: (270) 514-1507 matters? - Rav Yisrael Salanter
Go to top.
Message: 9
From: Lisa Liel
Date: Mon, 2 Nov 2015 15:30:16 +0200
Subject: Re: [Avodah] What was the point of Avrahams tefilla/debate
He wasn't trying to convince Hashem of anything. We don't do that.
Tefillah is all about us and not at all about Hashem. Hashem wants us
to daven because He wants us to get it. Get that we don't control the
world. And when it comes to the "bargaining" with Avraham, that was
more a lesson for Avraham (and for us) than anything else. Making the
argument was good for Avraham. I mean, do you think Hashem didn't know
that there weren't even 10 tzaddikim in Sdom? At any point during the
discussion, He could have said, "Look, Abe, let's cut to the chase.
This is pointless, because there aren't even 10 tzaddikim in Sdom. Give
it up." He didn't. Why? Not because He wanted to see how far Avraham
would take it. He wanted /Avraham/ to see how far Avraham would take
it. And He wanted /us/ to see how far Avraham would take it. And /how/
he would take it that far.
The Phoenicians had a type of sacrifice that scholars render as /mulk/.
No vowels, of course, because their language was a close relative of
Hebrew, so the sacrifice was probably called a molekh sacrifice. This
sacrifice was brought for the purpose of changing a god's mind. It was
a suasion offering. It usually consisted of sheep, actually, but when
things were really tough, they'd sacrifice the child of a noble or
royal. The name of the offering itself comes from the same root as the
Hebrew /l'himmalekh/ (to change one's mind) or the Akkadian /malaku/
(advisor). The commandment not to sacrifice /l'molekh /may not mean "to
a deity called Molekh". It may be parallel to bringing a korban
/l'olah/, and no one suggests that Olah was the name of some deity.
We don't try and change Hashem's mind. It would be blasphemous. It's
the reason we phrase so many things as "yehi ratzon milfanecha". We're
stating /our/ hope that this is what Hashem wants. Not asking Him to
want it.
Lisa
On 11/2/2015 11:09 AM, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote:
> I understand all that, my problem is with Avraham making logical
> arguments to Hashem. To pay even beg for clemency is one thing, to try
> to persuade Hashem with logical arguments is a whole different ball game.
Go to top.
Message: 10
From: Marty Bluke
Date: Mon, 2 Nov 2015 16:18:43 +0200
Subject: Re: [Avodah] What was the point of Avrahams tefilla/debate
On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 1:00 PM, Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org> wrote:
> Except that from this position, baqashos aren't begging or persuasion.
...
> The bargaining-looking bit isn't an attempt to pursuade if tefillah
> is never about pursuasion or begging.
> It is Avraham airing just how unfair he thinks it all is. It is his
> maintaining a relationship with the Borei, as an end in itself.
In this case maybe I can see that, that Avraham is simply saying it is
unfair. However, we find both in the Torah itself and in Chazal tefila as
logical arguments that are very hard to understand this way. When Moshe
Rabenu on various occasions tells Hashem not to destroy the Jewish people
because what will the Egyptians say? It is pretty clear that he is
attempting to persuade. How else can you explain it? Similarly in todays
daf in Sotah (7b) the Gemara mentions that Yehuda's bones had no rest in
the Midbar until Moshe Rabenu davened to Hashem saying Yehuda's bones
should have rest because Yehuda is the one who caused Reuven to admit (when
he did whatever he did with Bilha) by providing an example of admission
with Tamar. Clearly Moshe Rabenu was providing logical arguments to
persuade. Otherwise what was he saying? What was the point of mentioning
that Yehuda caused Reuven to admit?
If Avraham was just airing how unfair he thinks it is then he would have
sufficed with saying how can you kill the righteous with the wicked?
However, Avraham enters what seems to be a protracted negotiation with
Hashem starting out at 50 and going down until he reaches 10. That doesn't
sound like just airing out his grievances and just maintaining a
relationship, it sounds like a negotiation and an attempt at persuasion.
Otherwise why persist and negotiate over how many tzadikim there needs to
be see save Sdom?
On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 3:30 PM, Lisa Liel <l...@starways.net> wrote:
> He wasn't trying to convince Hashem of anything. We don't do that.
> Tefillah is all about us and not at all about Hashem...
> And when it comes to the "bargaining" with Avraham, that was more a lesson
> for Avraham (and for us) than anything else. Making the argument was good
> for Avraham. I mean, do you think Hashem didn't know that there weren't
> even 10 tzaddikim in Sdom? At any point during the discussion, He could
> have said, "Look, Abe, let's cut to the chase...."
It would be blasphemous and yet that it was it looks like Avraham was
doing (and what Moshe does in many places). You didn't explain what
Avraham was trying to do by bargaining with Hashem. What was Avraham
trying to accomplish? Why is Avraham bargaining? Didn't Avraham know that
nothing would change? Similarly how do you understand Moshe's prayer to
Hashem when Hashem wants to destroy the Jewish people and Moshe tells
Hashem what will the Egyptians say? What was Moshe's point if not to
change Hashem's mind? How else can you understand that claim?
Go to top.
Message: 11
From: Zev Sero
Date: Mon, 2 Nov 2015 12:51:00 -0500
Subject: Re: [Avodah] What was the point of Avrahams tefilla/debate
On 11/02/2015 04:14 AM, Marty Bluke wrote:
>
> Tefilla is making logical arguments to Hashem as to why he is doing
> the wrong thing? Does it make any sense to make logical arguments to
> an omniscient perfect god?
Moshe Rabbenu did the same thing. So clearly this is a proper mode
of tefillah, and any model that doesn't account for it is defective.
> in no circumstances does Hashem change his mind.
"Vayinachem Hashem".
If you like you can see it this way: There are different aspects to
His decisions, and sometimes we time-bound creatures perceive one of
them "first" and another "next".
--
Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow
z...@sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week
And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that
I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes
I'll explain it to you".
Go to top.
Message: 12
From: Micha Berger
Date: Mon, 2 Nov 2015 13:59:19 -0500
Subject: Re: [Avodah] What was the point of Avrahams tefilla/debate
On Mon, Nov 02, 2015 at 04:18:43PM +0200, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote:
: > It is Avraham airing just how unfair he thinks it all is. It is his
: > maintaining a relationship with the Borei, as an end in itself.
:
: In this case maybe I can see that, that Avraham is simply saying it is
: unfair...
And spelling out in detail every element of why it seems unfair to him.
: ... When Moshe
: Rabenu on various occasions tells Hashem not to destroy the Jewish people
: because what will the Egyptians say? It is pretty clear that he is
: attempting to persuade....
Or explaining in detail why he finds Hashem's decision surprising.
Etc...
When you call someone you love and discuss how your day went, do you
give a one line summary of its problems?
Tir'u baTov!
-Micha
--
Micha Berger "As long as the candle is still burning,
mi...@aishdas.org it is still possible to accomplish and to
http://www.aishdas.org mend."
Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Anonymous shoemaker to R' Yisrael Salanter
Go to top.
Message: 13
From: Marty Bluke
Date: Tue, 3 Nov 2015 14:02:37 +0200
Subject: Re: [Avodah] What was the point of Avrahams tefilla/debate
On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 7:51 PM, Zev Sero <z...@sero.name> wrote:
> On 11/02/2015 04:14 AM, Marty Bluke wrote:
>> Tefilla is making logical arguments to Hashem as to why he is doing
>> the wrong thing? Does it make any sense to make logical arguments to
>> an omniscient perfect god?
> Moshe Rabbenu did the same thing. So clearly this is a proper mode
> of tefillah, and any model that doesn't account for it is defective.
So what is your model of tefilla that takes into account the omniscience
and perfection of God on one hand and the examples that we see in Chumash
on the other hand?
[Email #2]
On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 8:59 PM, Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org> wrote:
> Or explaining in detail why he finds Hashem's decision surprising.
...
> When you call someone you love and discuss how your day went, do you
> give a one line summary of its problems?
WADR, the chumash doesn't seem to read that way. When you read these
incidents it really reads like they are trying to persuade Hashem to change
his mind, not explaining why things seem unfair and maintaining his
relationship. You are reading it this way because you already have a
preconception of what you think Tefilla is, I think that anyone just
reading the Chumash without preconceptions would not interpret it that way.
Or put differently the pshat in the pesukim doesn't read like your
explanation.
[Email #3]
Lets look at Rashi and see how he explains things here. I would like to
focus in on 2 Rashis, one at the beginning of the story and one at the end.
1. Pasuk 23: Vavigash Avraham - Rashi explains that the word "hagasha"
means 3 different things in Tanach, a. war b. piyus, reconciliation, c.
tefilla. Rashi then comments that Avraham was coming to engage in ALL 3
(war, pious, and tefilla) with Hashem. War (which Rashi states is distinct
from Tefilla) clearly implies that Avraham was trying to change Hashem's
decision. How else can you understand war in this context, especially when
tefilla is mentioned separately?
2. Pasuk 33: Vayelech hashem - Rashi comments as follows, that since the
sonaygor, the defence attorney (Avraham), had nothing more to say, the
dayan, the judge (Hashem), left. Rashi describes the exchange between
Avraham and Hashem as some kind of trial with Avraham being the defence
attorney and Hashem being the judge. A defence attorney's job is to
convince the judge to rule in favour of his client. Again, Rashi clearly
seems to be saying that Avraham was trying to change Hashem's decision not
simply airing his grievances.
Go to top.
Message: 14
From: Zev Sero
Date: Tue, 3 Nov 2015 09:41:57 -0500
Subject: Re: [Avodah] What was the point of Avrahams tefilla/debate
On 11/03/2015 03:46 AM, Marty Bluke wrote:
>
> So what is your model of tefilla that takes into account the
> omniscience and perfection of God on one hand and the examples that we
> see in Chumash on the other hand?
I don't have a comprehensive model; as the Rivash said, "ani mitpalel
leda`at zeh hatinok", I pray without models, just as I speak without
formal rules of grammar. Models are descriptive, not prescriptive, and
therefore, while useful, they are not necessary. The territory precedes
the map, and one can walk it without a map; and if it's found not to
conform to the map then the fault is with the map.
For some ideas, though, see the chapter Shoresh Mitzvas Hatefillah
in Derech Mitzvosecha by the Tzemach Tzedek of Lubavitch. But also
think about time; the fact that we perceive Hashem and His decisions
and actions through it necessarily distorts our understanding of them.
It seems to me that, just as with the predestination/free-will problem,
most of the difficulties here are rooted in this fact. Just as a colour-
blind person can understand intellectually that there are things his
eyes are not telling him, and that some of the difficulties he perceives
in the world would disappear if only he could see the normal spectrum,
so we can understand that some of the difficulties we perceive would
disappear if we could see timeless things as they are. In other words,
that strange object we see in the telescope may be a bit of dirt on the
lens.
--
Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow
z...@sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week
And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that
I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes
I'll explain it to you".
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
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.)