Avodah Mailing List

Volume 35: Number 82

Tue, 13 Jun 2017

• 1. Re: Redemption (Simon Montagu)
• 2. Re: Redemption (Micha Berger)
• 3. Re: 10 tribes -- exile without redemption (Lisa Liel)
• 4. Re: 10 tribes -- exile without redemption (Micha Berger)
• 5. Re: Redemption (Micha Berger)
• 6. Re: Redemption (Akiva Miller)
• 7. Meraglim and Zionists (saul newman)
• 8. Re: Maharat (Ben Waxman)
• 9. Re: Redemption (Micha Berger)
• 10. Re: Redemption (Lisa Liel)
• 11. Re: Redemption (Akiva Miller)
• 12. Re: Redemption (Micha Berger)
• 13. restaurants (Rich, Joel)
• 14. Re: Redemption (Zev Sero)
• 15. Shelach (Cantor Wolberg)

On Sun, Jun 11, 2017 at 6:59 PM, Zev Sero <z...@sero.name> wrote:

> On 11/06/17 05:02, Simon Montagu via Avodah wrote:
>
>>
>> "will uphold their blood" would be "yakim damam". "Yinkom" and "yikkom"
>> (double k representing kuf with dagesh) are alternative forms of "will
>> avenge".
>>
>
> Is yinkom even a valid form?  AIUI it's a mistake, and the siddurim that
> have it in Av Harachamim are in error.
>
>
It's irregular, but I would hesitate to say it's a mistake: there are a few
exceptions to the rule that the initial nun assimilates, e.g. yintor in
Yirmiahu 3:5; yinkofu in Yeshayahu 29:1; or tintz'reni in Tehillim 140:2
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20170611/ca2ab270/attachment-0001.htm>

On Sat, Jun 10, 2017 at 11:56:06PM -0400, Zev Sero wrote:
: >: Not true; how can they be different when they're in the same phrase
: >: with the same object?  The pasuk is "lo sikom velo sitor es bnei
: >: amecha". It's impossible that they should apply to different
: >: objects.
: 
: >See the Avodas haMelekh on 7:8, who cites the Maharshal on the Semag.
: ><http://hebrewbooks.org/rambam.aspx?mfid=47445&;rid=159>
: 
: This doesn't answer the question...

But you didn't ask the question. You asserted that what I said was "not
true". Since the Maharshal and Avodas haMelekh said it, and I don't know
of a dissenting interpreter of the Rambam, I would assume it is indeed
true. This was a bit of a hasty judgement on your part.

But you said a great question, and worth exploring. Doesn't change that
the Rambam apparently does hold what I said he did:

> The lav of lo siqom is only on "chaveiro". The lav of lo sitor is on any
> Jew. Compare Dei'os 7:7, and 7:8.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             I long to accomplish a great and noble task,
mi...@aishdas.org        but it is my chief duty to accomplish small
http://www.aishdas.org   tasks as if they were great and noble.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                              - Helen Keller

On 6/11/2017 8:39 AM, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote:
> On 6/9/2017 4:32 PM, Lisa Liel wrote:
>> Avodah zarah (not tzara) was worse in the northern kingdom because of 
>> assimilation.  The northern kingdom had assimilated to the point 
>> where they were culturally as much Phoenician as they were 
>> Israelite.  But even that wouldn't be cause for permanent exile. . . 
>> . Not at all.  Jehu could have reunited the kingdom.  And there were 
>> people from the northern kingdom who came back to us when the guards 
>> that were first posted by Jeroboam I were removed.  But having two 
>> separate exilic populations of Bnei Yisrael would have been 
>> disastrous in very many ways. 
> That's a bit harsh. The ten tribes had to disappear in order for our 
> exile to have ended successfully?

Why harsh?  Causes have effects.

> The whole story leaves me with a bad taste in my mouth - the lack of 
> (or weak) attempts to reunite the tribes, the lack of memory of them 
> (how many kinot on Tisha b'Av deal with the Temple and how many deal 
> with the 10 tribes? we don't even have a fast day for them), this 
> feeling of "good riddance" and history being written by the victors, 
> it doesn't speak well of our history.

Oholivah and Oholivamah comes to mind.  And we don't gloat over their 
downfall.  Binfol oyivcha al tismach applies to fellow Jews, which they 
were.

And what kind of attempts would you have wanted?  Jeremiah brought some 
of them back.  I'm sure others joined us in Bavel after we were exiled.  
But their exile was their own doing.  Though it affected us as well.

Lisa

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

On Sun, Jun 11, 2017 at 10:32:22PM +0300, Lisa Liel via Avodah wrote:
: Oholivah and Oholivamah comes to mind.  And we don't gloat over
: their downfall.  Binfol oyivcha al tismach applies to fellow Jews,
: which they were.

(Quibbling about the orogin of the word "Jews" and whether or not
Malkhus Yisrael and their descendents qualify aside. We all know
we mean "Benei Yisrael", right?)

Actually, one of the topics raised was whether the descendents of
Malkhus Yisrael exist, bdyond the refugees absorbed into Malkhus
Yehudah. And if they do, R Chaim Brisker takes the gemara as
concluding the descendents are not part of the community of Beris
Sinai.

Yes, but in either case, as we cited numerous source showing in
the past, "binfol" is not only about the fall of fellow Jews...
Which I then collected into a blog post
<http://www.aishdas.org/asp/compassion-for-our-enemies>:

   The most common reason we pass around [for spilling wine at the mention
   of the makkos at the seder], however, is that we're diminishing our
   joy out of compassion for the suffering of other human beings, even
   the Egyptians. This reason is relatively new, but it is found in such
   authoritative locations as the hagaddah of R' SZ Aurbach and appears
   as a "yeish lomar" (it could be said) in that of R Elyashiv (pg 106,
   "dam va'eish")....
   ...
   The Pesiqta deRav Kahane (Mandelbaum Edition, siman 29, 189a) gives
   us a different reason [for chatzi hallel (CH) during the latter days
   of Pesach]. It tells the story of the angels singing/reciting poetry
   at the crossing of the Red Sea...
   ...
   This is midrash is quoted by the Midrash Harninu and the Yalqut
   Shim'oni (the Perishah points you to Parashas Emor, remez 566).

   The Midrash Harninu or the Shibolei haLeqet ...
   
   The Beis Yoseif (O"Ch 490:4, "Kol") cited the gemara, then quotes the
   Shibolei haLeqet as a second reason...

Sources from RAZZivitofsky (same blog post):

   The Taz gives this diminution of joy as the reason for CH on the 7th
   day (OC 490:3), as does the Chavos Ya'ir (225).

   The Kaf haChaim (O"Ch 685:29) brings down the Yafeh haLeiv (3:3) use
   this midrash to establish the idea that we mourn the downfall of our
   enemy in order to explain why there is no berakhah on Parashas Zakhor
   (remembering the requirement to destroy Amaleiq).

Amaleiq!

   R' Aharon Kotler (Mishnas R' Aharon vol III pg 3) ...

Then I listed others' suddestions here:
   ... R' Jacob Farkas found the Meshekh Chokhmah ...

   R' Dov Kay points us to the Netziv's intro to HaEimeq Davar...

(Since we're going from Maharat was to ethics wars, might as well play the
game to its fullest...)

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             I thank God for my handicaps, for, through them,
mi...@aishdas.org        I have found myself, my work, and my God.
http://www.aishdas.org                - Helen Keller
Fax: (270) 514-1507

On Fri, Jun 09, 2017 at 06:36:45PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote:
: I concede that to be a real pasuk, Tehillim 94:1. But when I see "HYD"
: actually spelled out (rather than just the rashei taivos), the nun is
: often missing. "Hashem yikom damam" - Hashem will uphold their blood.
: Not quite the same thing as vengeance. I've long wondered which is
: intended, when only the rashei taivos appear.
: 

Hashem yiqqom damam does indeed refer to revenge.

: In any case, even if Hashem *is* a God of Vengeance, that doesn't mean
: it's appropriate for us.

Keil neqamos H'. (A little obvious this discussion didn't span a Wed yet.)

But the whole point, to my mind, for sayibng HYD is a longing to see
Divine Justice in the world. HYD undoes the chilul hasheim of the
wicked prospering.

Hinasei shofit ha'atzetz... Ad masair recha'im ya'alozu...

If we were to take neqamah (qua neqamah; pre-empting a repeat attack
is a different thing) we rob most of the possibility of that happening.
Even the Six Day War gave people the opportunity to say it was luck or
human skill -- "Kol haKavod laTzahal"

Implied in HYD is that revenge is G-d's, not ours, to take.

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

.
When I'm wrong, I say I'm wrong. I was wrong, and I thank all the
chevreh who pointed out my error. "Yikom" does mean to avenge. Thank
you all.

But the main question is our attitude towards revenge in general. R'
Zev Sero wrote:

> It means that vengeance is a right and proper thing, not
> something to be ashamed of.

He seems to feel that there's nothing wrong with wanting to take
revenge in general, except that we're not allowed to do it if the
object of the revenge is a fellow Jew. I  suppose he might compare
vengeance to eating meat: right and proper in general, but sometimes
forbidden. (Pork in the case of meat, and Jews in the case of
revenge.)

Exactly *why* is it that we can't take nekama if the object is a Jew?
RZS gets it from "V'ahavta l'rayacha kamocha", but it seems to me that
"Lo sikom" [without the nun, I finally noticed!] is a more direct
source. But either way...

I must admit that I never before noticed that "lo sikom v'lo sitor"
only applies to Jews. I had always presumed it to be a general law of
morality and ethics, much like Lashon Hara. I never thought it to be
in the "Ribis" category.

There seem to be three categories: (A) Things that may may not do even
to non-Jews, such as stealing. (B) Things that are technically allowed
against non-Jews, but we are taught to avoid it, such as Lashon Hara.
(C) Things that we may not do to a Jew, but are clearly allowed with a
non-Jew, such as Ribis. I had thought Nekama was in category A, but I
admit my error. I would like to know more clearly whether it is in B
or C. (I can even imagine some saying that it is in a fourth category,
things that we may not to do a Jew, but are *encouraged* to do to a
non-Jew.)

Setting Nekama aside for a moment, does anyone know of a source which
goes through the various Bein Adam L'chaveiros, and categorizes them
in that manner? (I can easily imagine that most people would avoid
publishing such a list, to avoid supplying the anti-Semites with
ammunition, but I figured I'd ask.)

Akiva Miller

R Sommerfeld commented that the meraglim saw the sins of the jews in the
land down to the Zionists and therefore felt better not to enter the land
on behalf of such future sinners. The faithful two said don't mix into
hashem's business.	 And thus their sin was making cheshbonot on the
future even though they were right.  One surmises he would not have been
surprised that the sinning side succeeded in the land...

Sent from my iPhone

On 6/6/2017 8:18 PM, Micha Berger wrote:
 > Here might be a good place to detour and reply to RBW.
 >
 > Let's be honest, if pushed, they would admit that they mean "'kefirah'"
 > (in quotes), not "kefirah". E.g. were they worrying about whether DL
 > Jews handled their wine before bishul? Of course not!

However one defines the Chareidi opposition to Zionism and Zionists, the 
former wrote book after book justifying it and explaining why Zionism is 
so awful and why it is so wrong to participate in the Zionist 
enterprise.  It is still going on today. Back in the 20s, people used 
extremely strong language about Rav Kook, language which was much worse 
than anything used today, not to mention what the Satmar Rebbe wrote 
about RK.
 > There are two possible sources of division here.
 >
 > 1- A large change to the experience of observance, even if we were
 > only talking about trappings, will hit emotional opposition. My
 > predition is that shuls that vary that experience too far simply
 > de facto won't be visited by the vast majority of non-innovators,
 > and therefore in practice will be a separate community.
Here I have a couple of questions.

1) Like my wife always tells me, if someone is triggered by something he 
has to ask himself why. I know people who would walk out of shul if a 
woman gave the dvar Torah on Friday night. Yet the same people are 
perfectly OK having a Rosh Hashana tefilla that incorporates a lot of 
Sefardi piyuttim. Completely different prayers, tunes, flavor. But in 
order to have an experience of "b'yachad" we do it.

2) What what exactly would change? Does one see more women in shuls that 
have a maharat? Do the maharats come to Tuesday afternoon Mincha? If 
they do they're behind the mechitza, yes? What changes are people 
talking about?

Ben

On Mon, Jun 12, 2017 at 10:49:17PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote:
: I must admit that I never before noticed that "lo sikom v'lo sitor"
: only applies to Jews. I had always presumed it to be a general law of
: morality and ethics, much like Lashon Hara. I never thought it to be
: in the "Ribis" category.
: 
: There seem to be three categories: (A) Things that may may not do even
: to non-Jews, such as stealing. (B) Things that are technically allowed
: against non-Jews, but we are taught to avoid it, such as Lashon Hara.
: (C) Things that we may not do to a Jew, but are clearly allowed with a
: non-Jew, such as Ribis. I had thought Nekama was in category A, but I
: admit my error. I would like to know more clearly whether it is in B
: or C. (I can even imagine some saying that it is in a fourth category,
: things that we may not to do a Jew, but are *encouraged* to do to a
: non-Jew.)

IOW:

(A) Things that are morally wrong to the point of being prohibited.

(B) Things that are morally wrong, but only to the point of prohibition
when you do them against your sibling.

(C) Things that not not morally wrong, simply a betrayal of the family
nature of Kelal Yisrael. "Vekhi yamukh ACHIKHA... Al tiqqach mei'ito
neshekh vesarbit".

As for neqamah, I argued from quotes like kol hama'avir al midosav and
ne'elavim ve'eino olvin that it's in (B). I would add now that this is
implied by the Rambam's inclusion of these two issurim (lo siqom velo
sitor) in Hil' Dei'os p' 7 that he is considering the middah bad, not
only the act wrong. Interesting to note, the Rambam puts them after LH.

Also, I noted that the only commentaries on the Rambam that I could
find that discuss his change in terminology between Dei'os 7:7 and 7:8
explain that he is prohibiting neqamah against all chaveirim but netirah
"mei'echad meYisrael". Meaning you now need a B' and C' where the category
is only observant Jews. (And I still have a nagging recollection that
the Rambam's "chaveirim" in general includes geirei toshav and other
observant Noachides.) And neqamah is in one of those. So, (B').

How you get such a distinction in two issurim that are written in the
pasuq as verbs sharing the same object is a good one.

But the Avodas haMelekh says that the Maharshal reaches the same
conclusion in his commentary to the Semag, and I see the Semag uses
the same difference in nouns. Lav #11 - "[Lo siqom.] Hanoqeim al
chaveiro". #12 - "Kol hanoteir le'echad miYisrael".

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Man is equipped with such far-reaching vision,
mi...@aishdas.org        yet the smallest coin can obstruct his view.
http://www.aishdas.org                         - Rav Yisrael Salanter
Fax: (270) 514-1507

On 6/13/2017 1:09 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote:
> IOW:
>
> (A) Things that are morally wrong to the point of being prohibited.
>
> (B) Things that are morally wrong, but only to the point of prohibition
> when you do them against your sibling.
>
> (C) Things that not not morally wrong, simply a betrayal of the family
> nature of Kelal Yisrael. "Vekhi yamukh ACHIKHA... Al tiqqach mei'ito
> neshekh vesarbit".

I would argue that the very idea of (B) implies the imposition of an 
outside ideology onto the Torah.  Because the Torah certainly doesn't 
label anything as morally wrong and yet permitted against non-Jews.  
Anything in (B) is necessarily a subjective and personal judgment that 
should not be attributed to the Torah.

Lisa

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

R"n Lisa Liel wrote:
> Anything in (B) is necessarily a subjective and personal
> judgment that should not be attributed to the Torah.

My example of B was Lashon Hara. Would you put Lashon Hara in Category
A (Assur D'Oraisa to talk lashon hara about non-Jews) or Category C
(Mutar - even D'rabanan - to talk Lashon Hara about non-Jews)?

Akiva Miller

On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 01:53:18PM +0300, Lisa Liel wrote:
...
: >(B) Things that are morally wrong, but only to the point of prohibition
: >when you do them against your sibling.
...
: 
: I would argue that the very idea of (B) implies the imposition of an
: outside ideology onto the Torah.  Because the Torah certainly
: doesn't label anything as morally wrong and yet permitted against
: non-Jews.  Anything in (B) is necessarily a subjective and personal
: judgment that should not be attributed to the Torah.

But there are things that are morally wrong and yet not prohibited.
"Stretch goals" like the Rambam's take on ego and anger in Dei'os pereq
2, the Ramban's "hatov vehayashar".

Here, the gemara talks about (1) a ma'avir al midosav, (2) taking insult
and not responding, it even says (3) a tzadiq is one who never takes
revenge -- which, if it were about neqamah when assur, would be heaping
overly high praise on someone for just keeping the din. So, two or three
times that I am aware of, the gemara talks positively of the middos that
would avoid ever taking revenge.

It seems neqamah in particular is a moral wrong even when the black-letter
halakhah allows the act.

The Torah does manage to relay to us goals beyond those it prohibit or
demand in black-letter halakhah. (Something Chassidus and Mussar were
each founded on...)

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             "Someday I will do it." - is self-deceptive. 
mi...@aishdas.org        "I want to do it." - is weak. 
http://www.aishdas.org   "I am doing it." - that is the right way.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                   - Reb Menachem Mendel of Kotzk

From the OU:
 Igros Moshe (OC II:40) was asked whether one may enter a non-kosher
 restaurant to purchase something kosher. He writes that this would be a
 violation of both maris ayin (possibly causing those who witness the
 action to become more lax in their Torah observance) and chashad (giving
 the appearance of impropriety). However, he rules that if one is extremely
 uncomfortable and there is no other available location to buy food (or use
 the bathroom) it is permissible to enter the store. He explains (based on
 the Gemara Kesubos 60a) that the prohibition is waived in situations of
 financial loss or extreme discomfort. Nonetheless, every effort should be
 made to minimize the maris ayin if possible. (Editor's note: For example,
 one should enter when there are no people standing outside the facility.
 Alternatively, it would be better to wear a baseball cap rather than a
 yarmulke.) If there is no choice and there are Jews outside the store, Rav
 Moshe Feinstein, zt"l writes that one should
  explain to the bystanders that he is entering because of the need to purchase kosher food.

Question - Are marit atin and chashad social construct based?  For example,
in our society if you see a man in a suit and kippah in a treif restaurant,
what is the general reaction? Is there a certain % threshold for concern?
KT
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/20170613/950973ce/attachment-0001.htm>

On 12/06/17 22:49, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote:
> 
> Exactly*why*  is it that we can't take nekama if the object is a Jew?
> RZS gets it from "V'ahavta l'rayacha kamocha", but it seems to me that
> "Lo sikom" [without the nun, I finally noticed!] is a more direct
> source. But either way...

It seems to me that all the mitzvos that enjoin special consideration 
for one's fellow yidden are based on the mitzvah of V'ahavta.  Since you 
must love him, therefore you must not hold grudges against him, let 
alone take revenge, must lend him what he needs without charging 
interest, must not gossip about him, must not stand by while he's in 
danger, etc.


> There seem to be three categories: (A) Things that may may not do even
> to non-Jews, such as stealing. (B) Things that are technically allowed
> against non-Jews, but we are taught to avoid it, such as Lashon Hara.

Where do you see that LH about strangers is to be avoided?  The pasuk 
says "lo telech rachil *be`amecha*", and "makeh *re`ehu* basater".


> (C) Things that we may not do to a Jew, but are clearly allowed with a
> non-Jew, such as Ribis. I had thought Nekama was in category A, but I
> admit my error. I would like to know more clearly whether it is in B
> or C. (I can even imagine some saying that it is in a fourth category,
> things that we may not to do a Jew, but are *encouraged*  to do to a
> non-Jew.)

Ribis.  Lanochri tashich is a mitzvat asei.


-- 
Zev Sero                May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah,
z...@sero.name           be a brilliant year for us all

" We seemed like grasshoppers in our own eyes, and we looked the same to them." (Numbers 13:32-33). 
One of the greatest teachers of Torah of our age, Nechama Leibowitz, zt'l, in one of her essays on this parsha, 
asks an important question: how did the spies know what the "giants" thought of them?  If they really were giant beings, 
then one could understand the feeling that "we seemed like grasshoppers in our own eyes," but how did they know if the "giants" even noticed them? 
Unfortunately, although Nechama Leibowitz posed this great question, she
didn't give any hint as to an answer.  The following is a Midrash in which
God rebukes the spies:
"I take no objection to your saying: 'we looked like grasshoppers to
ourselves,' but I take offense when you say 'so we must have looked to
them.' How do you know how I made you to look to them? 
Perhaps you appeared to them as angels!" (based on Numbers Rabbah 16:11).
 
On the other hand, Rashi says that the spies reported overhearing the
giants talking to one another, saying that "there are ants in the vineyard
that resemble human beings.? 
(Rashi is also quoting an ancient midrash from the Talmud).
 
Judaism's preference of the optimist over the pessimist is made clear not only by what the Torah has to say on the subject of the spies 
but even more so by the first remark attributed to the Creator upon His
completion of the work of creation. "And God saw all the He made, and
behold it was very good..."  (Gen. 1:31).
 
A pessimist is one who makes difficulties of his opportunities and an optimist is one who makes opportunities of his difficulties.
Harry S Truman
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20170610/eb8ebeb8/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/lists/avodah/avodah-acronyms
(They are also visible in the web archive copy of each digest.)