Avodah Mailing List

Volume 33: Number 146

Sun, 22 Nov 2015

• 1. Re: changing nusach hatefile (Zev Sero)
• 2. Re: R Zilberstein (Rabbi Barry Kornblau)
• 3. Re: R Zilberstein (Rich, Joel)
• 4. Re: R Zilberstein (Micha Berger)
• 5. Re: changing nusach hatefile (Akiva Miller)
• 6. Re: changing nusach hatefile (Zev Sero)
• 7. National Punishment (Micha Berger)
• 8. What do we believe about the Kesuvim? (Zev Sero)
• 9. Re: What do we believe about the Kesuvim? (Mordechai Harris)
• 10. Re: What do we believe about the Kesuvim? (Zev Sero)
• 11. Lessons From Jacob and Esau (Michael Poppers)
• 12. Re: What do we believe about the Kesuvim? (Lisa Liel)
• 13. basic parsha question from Chaya Sarah -- Yishmael's age (Sholom Simon)
• 14. basic parsha question from Toldos -- Ulai (Sholom Simon)
• 15. Re: basic parsha question from Toldos -- Ulai (Zev Sero)
• 16. Re: basic parsha question from Toldos -- Ulai (Gershon)

On 11/18/2015 04:00 PM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote:
> I understood RMF as paskeing that all chassidim MUST halachically return to
> nusach ashkenaz.

This is just not true.  Whoever told you such a thing must not have seen
the teshuvah inside, or misremembered it.


-- 
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".

On Wed, Nov 18, 2015, 4:39 PM Eli Turkel wrote:
> I had an argument today in Rav Zilberstein's shiur...
...
> psak of R. Zilberstein: We are only concerned with "chole be-fanenu" ,
> Halacha is not interested in strategy. We rely on G-d to solve the future
> problems. We solve the immediate problem and ignore the consequences that
> is G-d's problem i,e, a present :vadai" overrides a future "safek" no
> matter what. Hence, Churchill's decision was against halacha

R' Broyde article on military ethics argues that usual halachic rules
are suspended in wartime, ayeim sham. If so, achieving victory becomes
controlling desideratum, likely producing "rulings" different from
those.

Barry Kornblau

I argued that this is different than the classical "choleh le-fanenu" and
"safek and vadai" and that one must consider future consequences but R
Zilberstein said again that halacha does not allow taking into account the
consequences at the expense of a single life

(as an aside he discussed a CI about using a shield to deflect arrows to kill less people and claimed that it was not relevant to our case)

Again any opinions?

--
Eli Turkel
______________________________________________

two general comments:
1. We often see these issues addressed in a microhalachic basis whereas it seems to me that "hilchot milchama" would be the applicable approach

2. the whole deflect the arrow (trolleyology) area of ethics seems underdeveloped in halacha.

KOL TUV
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.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20151118/16fab469/attachment-0001.htm>

On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 10:28:53PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote:
: 2. the whole deflect the arrow (trolleyology) area of ethics seems
: underdeveloped in halacha.

As I noted here in the past, the Torah is deontological, rather than
consequentialist. IOW, the goal of the Torah's ethics is to minimize
the number of violators and depth of violation, nt the number of victims
and how badly they suffer. Focus on halakhah is consistent with that.

As are broader definitions of hashgachah peratis. I watch what I do,
let Hashem deal with how that impacts others.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Our greatest fear is not that we're inadequate,
mi...@aishdas.org        Our greatest fear is that we're powerful
http://www.aishdas.org   beyond measure
Fax: (270) 514-1507                        - Anonymous

R' Micha Berger wrote:

> See IM OC 2:24 -- what does he mean by resha'i"?

R' Eli Turkel answered:

> I understood RMF as paskeing that all chassidim MUST
> halachically return to nusach ashkenaz.

Please explain how you understood RMF that way. Turning "resha'i" (last
line of the second paragraph) into a chiyuv is a big step, and I don't see
where RMF takes it.

RMB again:

> Which gets back to the original topic -- when does
> kavanah and saying what you would like to say to your
> Creator override inherited nusach?

Look at that Igros Moshe again. He concedes (5-6 lines from the bottom of
paragraph two) that *adding* does not constitute a change of nusach, but on
the other hand, there are cases where "hamosif gore'a". RMF could have
given some examples of this, but he didn't. I suppose his answer to RMB
might be, "Do it VERY carefully."

Akiva Miller
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20151119/4e3ba559/attachment-0001.htm>

On 11/19/2015 06:02 AM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote:

>> I understood RMF as paskeing that all chassidim MUST
>> halachically return to nusach ashkenaz.

> Please explain how you understood RMF that way. Turning "resha'i"
> (last line of the second paragraph) into a chiyuv is a big step,
>  and I don't see where RMF takes it.

More than that, he explicitly refuses to do so (line beginning "gorea`").


> Look at that Igros Moshe again. He concedes (5-6 lines from the
> bottom of paragraph two) that *adding* does not constitute a change
> of nusach, but on the other hand, there are cases where "hamosif
> gore'a".

He doesn't concede this at all.  On the contrary, he disputes it,
*because* there are cases when adding is subtracting.

-- 
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".

We were once again discussing on Areivim some rabbinic proclamation about
which sin led to which punishment -- this time, France, the Holocaust,
and last Shabbos's attacks.

Among the issues raised:

> Does thinking "whoa, he really got what's coming to him" make anyone a
> better Jew? Do you think those thoughts, even in the deepest recesses of
> your mind, when you hear about a kid killed in a car accident (because
> it wasn't an accident, right)? That type of thinking makes someone a
> better Oveid Hashem?

And -- if this were the reason, why France rather than Germany itself?


Then it was asked about the fact that most of the actual victims had
nothing to do with the Holocaust, and of those who did have a connection,
many of those hurt were more connected to the victims.

On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 7:49pm EST, R Zvi Lampel wrote on Areivim WRT
that last issue:
: I would like to make a suggestion regarding the meaning and
: rationale of collective punishment of nations:

: Each person is affected by the fortunes or misfortunes of others, as
: a member of that person's family, as a neighbor, etc. When things
: happen to individuals of a nation, every one of the nation's members
: relates to it in multiple ways: As, perhaps, a relative to a victim,
: someone who lives on the same street or same buiding or same city.

: Or as a member of the same nation. Think of how all Americans felt
: on 9/11, whether or not a relative or friend of someone physically
: harmed.

: I suggest that when Chazal or others speak of a nation being
: punished or rewarded for its actions, they are abstractly looking at
: one aspect of the effects, that which the nation qua nation
: experiences. They are not dealing with why one individual or
: another, or why or why not one individual and not another,
: experienced those consequences. G-d in His wisdom and perfect
: judgement coordinates everything appropriately.

: So when it is said that the Beis HaMikdash was destroyed because of
: sinnas hinnam, or idolatry, for instance, one does not legitimately
: object, "But this or that Tanna was among the victims! How can you
: assert he was guilty of such sins," or, "But so-and-so, who was
: guilty of that sin, escaped tragedy." The assertion did not mean to
: say that each individual was guilty of such sins and deserved that
: pain. It means that in the aspect of the nation qua nation, this is
: why it--the nation--was punished. This, too, is what is meant by
: saying a punishment or reward was brought upon a nation because of
: its king's actions, even though the individuals of the nation had no
: part in them. As to why this or that happened to this or that
: individual, that it something G-d in His infinite Wisdom and Justice
: decides and coordinates with the fortune of the nation as a whole.
: But whether or not the individual individually suffers, he
: nevertheless relates to the nation's general vicissitudes as a
: national, and it is fair, reasonable and legitimate to say that what
: happens to the "nation," qua nation, is a consequence of the
: actions of that nation, qua nation.

: The next issue is the legitimacy of pinpointing specific national
: behaviors as national crime that led to the national punishment. The
: next sentence read independently of all I said above will sound
: harsh, but hopefully will be read in the intended context: When the
: actions of a government or a nation as a whole are manifestly
: criminal, it is fair, reasonable and legitimate to attribute tragic
: events that occur to the nation as a whole to those criminal
: actions.

I was with you up to the last paragraph.

After all...

The relationship between avodas H' and one's material well being is
described very differently in the first and second paragraphs of
Shema. When speaking belashon yachid, Moshe tells us "Ve'havta...
uvkhol me'odekha". When speaking to us belashon rabbim, he instead says
"Vehayah im ... venasati eisev". An individual's weatlh is depicted as a
tool, the nation's wealth and stability are depicted as a consequence. How
do we deny this idea and still make sense of "vecharah af Hashem bakhem,
ve'atzar es hashamayim ..."?

(The tokhachos are less of an issue; they are arguably describing two
one-time events.)

Perhaps we could say it's specific to Hashem's relationship to the Jewish
People. But I see no motive to do so; limiting the question to Jewish
fate doesn't eliminate what is bothering those posing it.


And...

It fits the two reasons the Torah gives us for MRAH not entering EY. We
can understand Bamidbar 20:12 and 27:14 as saying that Moshe did not 
merit entering EY because of Mei Merivah. However, Devarim 1:37 ties
BY not meriting having Moshe lead us in EY to the cheit hameraglim.

Moshe was punished for one thing, BY for something else -- same event,
but each experiences it for a different reason.


This makes Iyov much easier to follow. We could picture that there were
numerous unwritten books -- one explaining why Iyov's wife experienced
all those tragedies, why each child died, etc... The book only explains,
Iyov's experiences, and thus why Iyov lived through each event. Not
the same even from everyone else's eyes.


But...

The whole thesis of the book of Iyov is that we cannot fathom the answer
of why bad things happen! "Mi zeh machshikh eizah vemilin
beli-da'as?" (38:2)

So how do we understand numerous maamarei chazal that do appear to offer
such explanations?

My rebbe-chaver, R' Jack Love, noted that every discussion of why
something tragic happens -- what the sin of Nadav and Avihu was, or
churban bayis rishon or sheini, or even what sin causes tzara'as -- the
response is a multiway machloqes with numerous shitos. One could say that
that in itself is the gemara's point; we can grapple with such questios,
and not get a single answer.

As for me, as in prior iterations, I would suggest that chazal were
taking lessons from the event, not actually attributing a cause. If
thinking about the infighting that was only halted (and even that,
only temporarily -- as per Rabbi Aqiva's talmidim) by churban bayis
sheini motivates one to work on ahavas Yisrael then by all means,
run with that motivation. "Yefashpeish [or: yemashmeish] bema'asav"
doesn't mean successfully finding a cause, it means using the fact that
the routine was broken and one is fired up to change.

Alternatively, one might say that seifer Iyov is only about individuals,
hashgachah peratis, not nations and hashgachah kelalis. OTOH, there is
nothing in HQBYH's answer to Iyov to suggest that chiluq. "Eifo hayisa
beyasdi-aretz, hageid im-yadata vinah" (38:4) applies either way.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             "I think, therefore I am." - Renne Descartes
mi...@aishdas.org        "I am thought about, therefore I am -
http://www.aishdas.org   my existence depends upon the thought of a
Fax: (270) 514-1507      Supreme Being Who thinks me." - R' SR Hirsch
_______________________________________________
Areivim mailing list
Arei...@lists.aishdas.org
http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/areivim-aishdas.org

We know that the Torah was directly dictated by Hashem.   The nevi'im
had dreams, woke up knowing their meanings, and wrote them down in their
own words.   But what are kesuvim?  When the Sanhedrin decided that a
sefer belonged in the 24, what exactly were they saying about it?
Were they saying that the authors were "inspired", as the Xians say?
Yes, of course they were written with ruach hakodesh, but so were the
mishna, gemara, and all the rishonim and at least the early acharonim.
The Xian idea of "inspiration" is something more than that; they think
the authors of the Bible (including the Torah) were guided by Hashem
to such an extent that their words are really His.  Do we have a similar
belief?

The decision to include or exclude a sefer isn't really discussed in
those terms.  Including a sefer meant that 1) it was metamei the hands
(in order to protect it from mice); 2) it could be saved from a fire
on Shabbos; 3) it was permitted to read it.  And if we look at the
reason given for the exclusion of Sefer Ben Sirach, it's because not
everything in it is true.  Also the reason why Yechezkel almost didn't
make the cut, again it was because it contained things that didn't
appear to be true.   So it seems to me that all the Sanhedrin was
paskening by including the Kesuvim is that they are entirely true,
not that they are in Hashem's work in any greater way than the mishna
or the shulchan aruch, or even than a completely reliable science
textbook, if such a thing exists.  Remember that at the time TShBP
was not yet written down, so it needed no protection from mice or fire,
and thus there was no need to "canonise" it.  Perhaps if the mishna
had already existed  it too might have been "canonised".

Is anyone aware of a source that could either confirm or refute this?

-- 
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".

Is there a source which can be cited within Rabbinic literature for the
idea that the Ketuvim were written with Ruach HaKodesh? I know that
assumption is common, but Josephus is the earliest source that I'm aware of
who makes that claim, and he's not exactly within the classic Rabbinic
cannon. (Link to Josephus - look at paragraph 8 where he claims they are
Divine and note that he only has 22 books in Tanach...
http://earlyjewishwritings.com/text/josephus/apion1.html)

It was my impression from the discussion in the Gemara of whether or not to
include certain texts in the Cannon, that the criteria was simply - "does
this contain an eternally relevant and essential Torah message for the
Jewish people". Those things that did not were simply cut in the same
fashion as the many Neviim who only prophesied for their local/temporal
communities didn't make it into the cannon of Neviim. To make it there,
some aspect of the Nevuah needed to be eternally relevant to the Jewish
people across time.

- Mordechai
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20151120/d1df1d1a/attachment-0001.htm>

On 11/20/2015 08:55 AM, Mordechai Harris wrote:
> Is there a source which can be cited within Rabbinic literature for
> the idea that the Ketuvim were written with Ruach HaKodesh?

I found a source: Megilla 7a, which seems to work on the assumption that
"metamei es hayadayim" is linked to "nichteva beruach hakodesh".

But are they using "ruach hakodesh" in the same sense that we do when we
say that the mishna, gemara, and all the sefarim that were accepted by
klal yisrael until Shach and Taz were written with ruach hakodesh,
or are they using it in a different and higher sense?   1) Was Koheles
written with more ruach hakodesh than the mishnayos, or 2) are mishnayos
metamei es hayodaim, or 3) is the only reason that they're not because
they didn't exist when the gezeira was made?


-- 
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".

In Avodah V33n145, RDrYL wrote:
> This essay by RSRH at *Lessons From Jacob and Esau*
<http://web.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/rsrh/lessons_jacob_esau_col_vii.p
df>
is well worth a read by all parents. <
I think it should be read by all -- its points impact upon how every
Torah-true Jew should lead his or her life.

All the best from
*Michael Poppers* * Elizabeth, NJ, USA
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20151120/80809f7a/attachment-0001.htm>

On 11/20/2015 7:02 AM, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote:
> We know that the Torah was directly dictated by Hashem.   The nevi'im
> had dreams, woke up knowing their meanings, and wrote them down in their
> own words.   But what are kesuvim?  When the Sanhedrin decided that a
> sefer belonged in the 24, what exactly were they saying about it?
> Were they saying that the authors were "inspired", as the Xians say?
> Yes, of course they were written with ruach hakodesh, but so were the
> mishna, gemara, and all the rishonim and at least the early acharonim.

Is there any source for that?  I mean for the Mishna and Gemara, let 
alone the others, having been written with Ruach HaKodesh?  I mean, I 
understand (though I may be mistaken) that some Hasidim even consider 
their rebbes to have Ruach HaKodesh, but I'm not entirely sure what is 
meant by that.

As I understand it, based on books by R' Aryeh Kaplan, the "influence" 
under which Tanach was written is a continuum.  That is, Torah, Nevua 
and Ruach HaKodesh are different degrees of perception of Hashem's 
Mind/Will/Intent.  And that when we use the term "ruach hakodesh" for 
other things, it's not even on the level of the Ruach HaKodesh with 
which the books of Ketuvim were written.

The fact that the inclusion of Ben Sira in Ketuvim still hadn't been 
settled by the time the Gemara was redacted suggests that we didn't know 
for sure in every case whether something was written b'Ruach HaKodesh.

Lisa

Shavua tov,

Much ado is made of Sarah's age as described in Torah (100 years and 
20 years and 7 years).  But at the end of the parsha, the same syntax 
is used for Avraham and for Yishmael (100 years and 30 years and 5 
years).  I *did* see meforshim explain why his age is mentioned at 
all, but I didn't see why it used "shana" three times, like it says for Sarah.

Thoughts anyone?

-- Sholom

Shavua tov,

Much ado is made of the world "Ulai" that the servant {Eliezer] used 
(at 24:5) when he said "perhaps the woman" will not want to come back 
-- as though he wished that possibility would happen.  As opposed to 
if he had used the word "pen".

But in Toldos (29:12) Yaakov says the same thing: "Ulai" my father 
will discover me.  I looked at a Mikraos Gedolos and didn't really 
see anything on that word (not that I'm very fluent).  Surely 
somebody must talk about the similarity in language, no?

(My own thought is that perhaps Yaakov (Mr. Emes) was so 
uncomfortable that he had subconscious thoughts that we wanted to get caught).

Thoughts anyone?

-- Sholom

On 11/21/2015 07:40 PM, Sholom Simon via Avodah wrote:
>
> Much ado is made of the world "Ulai" that the servant {Eliezer] used
> (at 24:5) when he said "perhaps the woman" will not want to come back
> -- as though he wished that possibility would happen. As opposed to
> if he had used the word "pen".

Your premise is incorrect.   No ado at all is made of "ulai" in 24:5.
There is no other word that the servant could have used.  "Pen" means
"lest", not "maybe".   It would not have worked in that sentence at all.
The comment you refer to is on 24:39, where "ulai" is spelt without a vav.
27:12 is spelt correctly, with a vav, and thus there is no question.

-- 
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".

On Nov 21, 2015, at 7:40 PM, Sholom Simon wrote:
> Much ado is made of the world "Ulai" that the servant {Eliezer] used
> (at 24:5) when he said "perhaps the woman" will not want to come back --
> as though he wished that possibility would happen. As opposed to if he
> had used the word "pen".

> But in Toldos (29:12) Yaakov says the same thing: "Ulai" my father
> will discover me...

> (My own thought is that perhaps Yaakov (Mr. Emes) was so uncomfortable
> that he had subconscious thoughts that we wanted to get caught).

I don't remember where but I saw this precise explanation. 

[I heard it in a Shabbos morning derashah or two. Given both of our
memories, I Googled: It's in haKesav vehaQabbalah. Written by R' Yaakov
Zvi Mecklenberg, Germany 1834. Another site cited the Maharatz Chajes,
but since they didn't give a location, I couldn't confirm.
-micha]


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



_______________________________________________
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.)