Avodah Mailing List

Volume 34: Number 3

Sat, 09 Jan 2016

• 1. Re: ?poteach et yadecha? (David Riceman)
• 2. tinok shenishba (Sholom Simon)
• 3. free will (Eli Turkel)
• 4. which is worse? (saul newman)
• 5. Re: which is worse? (Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer)
• 6. Jedi murder (Eli Turkel)
• 7. theodicity (Eli Turkel)
• 8. Re: Jedi murder (Zev Sero)
• 9. Re: Jedi murder (Simon Montagu)
• 10. Who is the Ribam? (Simon Montagu)
• 11. American Yeshiva Student Being Jewish (Prof. Levine)

RMB:

<<I might suggest that "yadekha" is meant in contrast to yeminkha -- ie, 
midas hadin in particular. Perhaps it's not a request that HQBH start 
giving as much as that He stop restraining Himself. The right hand, 
chessed, is always trying to give. Din, the need to let His children be 
their own people and suffer from their own mistakes, stops it.>>

See Rashi Shemos 15:6 s.v. "Yemincha yemincha", and see H. Avodas YHK 
4:1 right after (it's a long halacha) "kvar biarnu ..."

David Riceman

 

R Akiva Miller wrote: 

> I can't help but suspect that the
difference between Mechalel Shabbos
> B'farhesya and Mechalel Shabbos
B'tzin'a has nothing to do with being loyal
> and faithful to Hashem,
and actually has everything to do with maintaining
> order and not
rocking the boat. I hope I'm wrong.
> 
> It seems to me that the answers
to these questions should help us define
> the Tinok Shenishba. With a
clear understanding of WHY the halacha puts
> sanctions against a
Mechalel Shabbos B'farhesya (and not a Mechalel Shabbos
> B'tzin'a), we
should better understand whether or not those sanctions
> should be
applied to a Jew who has a limited exposure to what the Jewish
>
community and/or Hashem expects of him.

I heard a shiur recently (can't
remember the source, sorry!) that asserted that the difference between a
Mechalel Shabbos B'farhesya and a Mechalel Shabbos B'tzin'a was in the
realm of showing open disdain for H', formenting trouble, and that sort
of thing. More akin to a conscious open act of rebellion (Perhaps, for
some, it's similar to the difference of quietly being gay, and openly
parading it?) -- he's rebelling against Torah. 

As such, the maggid
shiur noted, the tinok shenishba of today doesn't fit the Mechalel
Shabbos B'farhesya category because he doesn't know enough to put him in
the category of rebelling against anything. (perhaps similar to the old
jokes that have the punchline "he doesn't know enough to be an
apikorus"?). I.e., how can he be rebelling against Torah when he doesn't
even know what's in the Torah? 

FWIW, 

-- Sholom 

 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-a
ishdas.org/attachments/20160105/8f2d4f9e/attachment.html>

Nadav Shnerb has an interesting chapter on hardening Paro's heart. I will
attempt to shorten his presentation.
Basic question: A pistol is pointed at someone's head and he is told to
commit some crime - does he have free will? The average person would
certainly say he had no choice. How about torture?

Rambam - this is still considered free will and so he has to explain that
Paro lost free will and acted as a robot
R Yosef Albo - Paro had free will but because of the plagues he lost any
rational choice.
According to this it is clear why the plagues progressively got harder.

Modern day application are to marriage and divorce. The gemara (BB 40b)
gives a case of a woman who demanded all the prospective's property as a
condition for marriage. He wrote the contract but the gemara concludes that
it is obvious that he wrote it under duress (ones) and so it is not valid!
How much pressure can be put on a husband to divorce his wife and it is
still considered freely given? Very unclear.

If a person states he really wants to diet but then eats a piece of cake
because he is overwhelmed does he have free choice. Nadav reports the
"theory"  that a part of his brain contains his "real" desire which is to
diet. However a different part of the brain accounts for external forces
including the desire to eat chocolate and makes a decision. However, in any
case the person "really" wants to diet.

He gives a mental experiment where one can take a pill that will force one
to always listen to the "real" inner self and ignore the temptations. Most
people he asked would refuse to take such a pill.

Today most scientists no longer accept Freud that each person has some
subconscious that can't be identified that controls many of man's actions.
Rambam states that bet din can beat a man to give a get because the person
really wants to divorce his wife but his desire (yitzro) overcomes him.

The standard way of understanding this is that every Jew has an inner
desire/soul to keep mitzvot and only this person doesn't recognize it and
so beating uncovers the subconscious wish to do the "right" thing. Shnerb
rejects this on the basis that if so one can make this claim about every
action of a person that his subconscious really wants the opposite of his
actions and there is no way of disproving such a statement. Rather the
interpretation of the Rambam is that every Jew wants to be part of the
Jewish people (especially in the old days). Therefore the bet din has the
right to say that belonging to the Jewish people includes divorcing his
wife and they beat him until he admits to this fact.

A "nafka mina" between the two is what if the Jew says he has no desire to
be part of the Jewish people and no care for halacha. According to the
first interpretation it makes no difference. He is still Jewish and has a
Jewish soul and "really" wants to divorce his wife. According to the second
interpretation if he puts himself outside of any halachic framework the bet
din is powerless.  Note that Maharam Shich states that the bet din can't
help the wife of a mumar who refuses to give a get.

Finally what happens if a person is "forced" to do a sin and so is
permitted but enjoys the sin. The Haflaah asks a question: Many pasken that
one need not divorce a childless woman after 10 years if they live outside
EY since they are living in "sin". OTOH tosafot brings that one need not
make aliyah in his times because the roads are dangerous. So the Haflaah
asks then it no longer a sin to live outside EY and so why doesn';t one
have to divorce the wife after 10 years. Haflaah answers that it is not a
sin only if ones lives abroad because of the dangers. However once one
enjoys living outside of EY it becomes a sin. Similarly the middle Chabad
rebbe told some Jewish soldiers in Russia that they were allowed to eat
treif food but they can't "lick the bones".

However in this case it is no longer clear why G-d hardened Paro's heart.
Now Paro listened to Moshe but Paro should still be punished because G-d
knew that Paro in his heart still wanted to punish the Jewish people.

-- 
Eli Turkel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20160105/fbc70455/attachment-0001.htm>

bizayon hatorah or  eishes ish? i was surprised to see that a world
renowned RY says the former . and i wonder based on what parameter and what
source.  eg  is  the former subject also to yeihareig v'al yaavor?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20160107/8bb464e8/attachment-0001.htm>

On 01/07/2016 04:56 PM, saul newman via Avodah wrote:
> bizayon hatorah or  eishes ish? i was surprised to see that a world 
> renowned RY says the former . and i wonder based on what parameter and 
> what source.  eg  is  the former subject also to yeihareig v'al yaavor?

Probably based on the chilukkei kapparah in Yoma. Chillul Hashem is 
worse than anything else.

KT,
YGB

If a Jedi or Sith kills someone with a force choke, is he liable for
execution? On the one hand, he directly caused a death and should be
punished. On the other, I assume that any hand motions of a Jedi?the
?grip-like gesture??are unnecessary and that really Darth Vader can perform
a force choke with his hands tied behind his back. If so, he technically
committed no action. Can someone be executed for merely thinking about
murder?
Rabbi Student then connects to the recent parsha with Moshe killing the
Egyptian
https://www.ou.org/life/inspiration/jedis-in-halacha/?utm
_source=SilverpopMailing&;utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Shabbat%
20Shalom%20-%20Parshat%20Vaeira%205776%20(1)&utm_content=&spMailing
ID=12567893&spUserID=MjM3MDk4NTYxOTES1&spJobID=663210280&spRepo
rtId=NjYzMjEwMjgwS0

-- 
Eli Turkel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20160108/ef611c56/attachment-0001.htm>

Why do the righteous suffer??[
<http://www.kolhamevaser.com/2015/11/of-sensitivity-and-humility-an-
exposition-of-rabbi-aharon-lichtensteins-approach-to-the-suffering-of-other
s/#_edn5>

This central question causes some to pontificate about why such an event
took place. In doing so, they consider the surrounding circumstances,
location, people involved, and time of the event. ...

Rabbi Lichtenstein describes this general group of interpreters in his
sermon delivered after the Indian Ocean tsunami. He writes: ?Some people
concern themselves with the question of why it happened, voicing opinions
on why the tragedy occurred specifically in that place and that time. These
same people, in different circumstances, also explain why infants and young
children die. Apparently, they consider themselves experts in the ways of
Divine Providence.? This tongue-in-cheek quote reflects the basic
assumption of the group of interpreters Rabbi Lichtenstein takes issue
with; they deem themselves capable of understanding the ways of God.

for more see

http://www.kolhamevaser.com/2015/11/of-sensitivity-and-humility-an-exposi
tion-of-rabbi-aharon-lichtensteins-approach-to-the-suffering-of-others/

-- 
Eli Turkel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20160108/f51268b8/attachment-0001.htm>

On 01/08/2016 04:09 AM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote:
> If a Jedi or Sith kills someone with a force choke, is he liable for
> execution? On the one hand, he directly caused a death and should be
> punished. On the other, I assume that any hand motions of a Jedi?the
> ?grip-like gesture??are unnecessary and that really Darth Vader can
> perform a force choke with his hands tied behind his back. If so, he
> technically committed no action. Can someone be executed for merely
> thinking about murder?

https://www.ou.org/life/inspiration/jedis-in-halacha/

The comparison to killing with a Shem is not sustainable.  Specifically
the application of R Chaim Palaggi's opinion is IMHO completely mistaken.
The Force is not a moral agent, as Hashem is.  It is not person with its
own volition.  It's a passive force that anyone in tune with it can use
to do his will.  RCP notes that killing with a Shem really means asking
Hashem to kill the person; Hashem can either do so or not, as He chooses,
and therefore the responsibility falls on Him, not on the person who asked
Him to do it.  The Force has no such volition; killing with it is no
different from killing with a voice-activated gun, or for that matter
with a thought-activated gun.  I think everyone would agree that that
is murder, and in principle punishable by execution, if one could figure
out a way for there to be eidim.

I couldn't find the Chida online, but I think he would also agree that
a thought-activated gun is different from a look.  I don't think RShBY
*intended* his looks to kill.  It just happened.  And certainly there's
nothing inherently, naturally lethal about the look of a tzadik.
Whereas a thought-activated gun, or a Force choke, is naturally lethal,
in a way that can be explained and understood by one familiar with the
underlying mechanism.
-- 
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 Fri, Jan 8, 2016 at 6:01 PM, Zev Sero via Avodah <
avo...@lists.aishdas.org> wrote:
>
> I couldn't find the Chida online, but I think he would also agree that
> a thought-activated gun is different from a look.  I don't think RShBY
> *intended* his looks to kill.  It just happened.


http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=19580&;st=&pgnum=78 (For some
reason this appears in HebrewBooks' index with the wrong title)

If I am understanding the Hida correctly, he is saying that the process of
killing with a look is completely non-physical. The tzaddik can draw into
himself the spark of kedusha from the rasha so that only a heap of bones
remains. I assume (though he doesn't say) that this is only possible when
the spark of kedusha is relatively small.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20160109/014a2e92/attachment-0001.htm>

The Maharsha at the beginning of hiddushei aggadot on Sanhedrin 42a refers
to "perush haRibam (reish yud bet mem) on the end of perek Tefillat
Hashahar.

From my dictionary of abbreviations this could be R. Yosef ben Meir
(Migash), R. Yosef ben Meir (Shnitoch), R. Yaacov ben Meshulam Yissachar
(Halevi Ish-Horowitz), R. Yitzhak ben Meir, R. Yitzhak ben Mordechai (of
Regensburg) or R. Yitzhak Ben Moshe (Or Zarua), and I dare say there are
other possibilities as well.

I've made a number of searches in HebrewBooks but can't identify what the
source is.
Can anyone help me find it?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20160109/12bfab9a/attachment-0001.htm>

The following is from page 66 of the bio of RSRH:

Reb Shraga Feivel Mendlowitz, the first great Torah educator in 
America, told his students, "I cannot understand how it is possible 
for an American yeshiva student to be Jewish without The Nineteen Letters"

YL
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20160109/893fa54c/attachment-0001.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.)