Avodah Mailing List

Volume 35: Number 108

Fri, 01 Sep 2017

• 1. Re: Rav Moshe Feinstein on America (Elli Fischer)
• 2. Re: Rav Moshe Feinstein on America (Micha Berger)
• 3. Re: Why is it customary for women and not men to light the Shabbos candles? (Zev Sero)
• 4. The halachically correct way to spell "Harvey" (Micha Berger)
• 5. Re: The halachically correct way to spell "Harvey" (Zev Sero)
• 6. Re: Rav Moshe Feinstein on America (Zev Sero)
• 7. The role of gematria, and remez in general (Micha Berger)
• 8. Re: Rav Moshe Feinstein on America (Zev Sero)
• 9. Re: Rav Moshe Feinstein on America (Zev Sero)
• 10. Re: Rav Moshe Feinstein on America (Micha Berger)
• 11. Re: Why is it customary for women and not men to light the Shabbos candles? (Prof. Levine)
• 12. Re: Why is it customary for women and not men to light the Shabbos candles? (Zev Sero)
• 13. reactionary takanos and gezeiros (Sholom Simon)
• 14. Re: reactionary takanos and gezeiros (Micha Berger)
• 15. what mitzvos did Avos follow? (Sholom Simon)

On Fri, Sep 1, 2017 at 6:11 PM, Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org> wrote:
> Rashi's words: "... velo hayu maspiqin ladun, amdu vegalu misham",

He is paraphrasing the Gemara in AZ 8b, which implies that the problem was
not that there was too much volume, but that they did not want to convict
so many murderers.
???? ???? ?????? ??? ?????? ??? ???? ????? ???? ???? ???? ????? ????? ??
???? ??? ???????

-- 
Rabbi Elli Fischer
Translation/Editing/Writing/Heritage Travel Consulting
fischer.tir...@gmail.com
Twitter: @adderabbi

On Fri, Sep 01, 2017 at 01:49:36PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote:
: We therefore memorialize them in our hearts and with our mouths, so
: that we know that any religion or system of beliefs that wields power
: and sovereignty and does not rely only on its inherent light is hollow,
: false, and misleading. In truth, there is no light in them. This is why
: we continue to remember Amalek.

R/Lord/Dr J Sacks this week contrasted Amaleiq with Mitzrayim. For one, we
should never forget what they did. For the other, "lo sesa'eiv Mitzri
ki geir hayisa be'artzo" (23:8)

RJS contrasts the rational hatred the Egyptians had to a strong
up-and-coming threat "rav ve'atzum mimenu... venosaf gam hu al
son'einu..." with the hatred of an Amaleiq picking off the stragglers
of a bunch of reguees. He compares it to ahavah hateluyah bedavar to
she'einah telyah bedavar, saying the same is true for sin'ah. And just as
love that is not dependent on some feature, the love is eternal, there
is no getting rid of Amaleiqite antisemitism. Egyptian-style hatred can
can pass as soon as we stop being a threat.

Sin'ah she'einah telyah bedavar is usually called something else -- sin'as
chinam.

So it hit me when listening to RJS during my commute that perhaps we
continue to remember Amaleiq because it helps to remember how destructive
sin'as chinam can be in our battle against our own sin'ah.

This would fit well with the repeated command "zekhor es asher asah
lekha..." We are told to keep our animosity toward Amaleiq focused on
what they did, and not let it

Similarly, when it comes to Jews. Tosafos discuss periqas ol and why your
sonei's donkey comes first. Who is your sonei? If it's someone you're
supposed to hate, then why take efforts to overcome it. And if it isn't,
why are their halakhos recognizing the hate altogether? Tosafos contrast
the permitted hatred one may feel for a sinner with the additional hatred
we feel once we realize they hate us back.

The mitzvah of mechiyas Amaleiq seems quite an elaborate lesson in how
to address sin'as chinam.

:-)BBii!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Strength does not come from winning. Your
mi...@aishdas.org        struggles develop your strength When you go
http://www.aishdas.org   through hardship and decide not to surrender,
Fax: (270) 514-1507      that is strength.        - Arnold Schwarzenegger

On 31/08/17 22:43, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote:
> I agree that this does sound like "original sin", but only
> superficially, in the sense that this was the first sin, prior to any
> other sin. But when Christians refer to "original sin", they don't
> mean merely that it was first on the timeline. They mean that it
> became rooted in human nature so deeply that we are all hopelessly
> damned, unless... well... we don't really need to go there.

But we don't think of it merely as "the first sin, prior to any other 
sin [...]  first on the timeline" either.  We agree with them, or rather 
they agree with us, that it was fundamentally different from any future 
sin, that it's what made the concept of sin possible, and that it 
transformed the world and human nature for the worse until the End of 
Days.  It brought death and disease and physical hardship into the 
world, so that even the few who are truly without any sin of their own 
must still die.  We disagree on some very important details, of course; 
unlike us, they decided that it affected even the neshama (that which 
goes Up after death), and that there is nothing humans can do about it, 
even in the very long term.  But overall these are merely details.

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

I am taking this from an Areivim discussion of "Hurricane Harvey & gematrias"
and how many gematrias one can make depending on how one chooses to spell
"Harvey". Since we are now discussing halakhah.

On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 9:54pm EDT, R Ben Rothke wrote:
: As to the beis din, is there a 'right' spelling for Harvey? Or most foreign
: names?  As to Harvey, I can easily think of 6 combinations.  The use of
: aleph and ayin always makes things interesting.

The very point I was trying to make is that yes, there is. See EhE
126. Which is why BD will at times invest a lot of thought to find the
correct spelling. The AhS follows it with pages of spelling lessons
for Yiddish and local names, as well as Hebrew names that have multiple
spellings in Tanakh. And he mentions when special exceptions need to be
made for names that if one would use the default spelling rules they would
look too much like Hebrew words and therefore people will misread them.

It was an eye-opener; I had thought Yiddish spelling was much more like
gett spelling than it really is. (I had thought the same of Ladino and
Spanish pesaq in Hilkhos Gittin. Could still be true.)

My take is that the AhS would have you spell Harvey hei-reish-vav-vav-yud.

There is no alef after the hei, since only qamatz by default get an alef;
patach only gets an alef if we're forced to a fall-back spelling. We don't
use a veis for the /v/ sounds as double-vav is unambiguous (in most
contexts, again, this may get tweaked in a special case) but veis and beis
are identical. And the chiriq gets a yud.


On Fri, Sep 01, 2017 at 8:01am EDT, R Ben Rothke continued:
:> The very point I was trying to make is that yes,

: I don't see how you can say there is but one way to transliterate an
: English word into Hebrew.

: If you get a few separate batei dinim, they are unlikely to agree on 1
: spelling. Especially for more complicated names.

As I wrote above (and sent you before this 2nd email of yours)...
There are dinim about how to transliterate. There are many possible
transliterations of a name, but halakhah recommends one over the others.

I told you where to look. Take a look for yourself.

The only time deparate batei dinim would come up with different spellings
is if there is a debate about which accent is dominant or how to divide
English sounds among the established transliterations.

"Harvey" is easy. Not like "John", with that /dzh/ thing for the
"j". Russian names, with that sound that somewhere between a tzadi and
an English "ch".

The "-l" suffix in Yiddish nicnames posed an issue the AhS has to deal
with repeatedly. If the ending is emphasized, then it's yud-lamd, if it's
not, then it's just lamed. IOW, is the person usually called "Yentel" or
"Yentl". And if she is cause both, depending on who is talking... that's
where I could see debate.

Or the Russian softened vowels, with that /y/ like lead-in. Do you
transliterate Lyuba or Luba, when the yud sound is barely there, or only
said by some who know her?

:-)BBii!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Take time,
mi...@aishdas.org        be exact,
http://www.aishdas.org   unclutter the mind.
Fax: (270) 514-1507            - Rabbi Simcha Zissel Ziv, Alter of Kelm

On 31/08/17 19:08, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote:
> "Harvey" is easy. Not like "John", with that/dzh/  thing for the "j".

The J sound comes up a lot more in Mediterranean names, so the Sefardi 
teshuvot discuss it.   IIRC in Italy, where the local language spells 
that sound "GI", the same convention arose in Hebrew, and in gittin it 
was spelt gimel yud.

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

On 01/09/17 11:19, Elli Fischer via Avodah wrote:
> He is paraphrasing the Gemara in AZ 8b, which implies that the problem was
> not that there was too much volume, but that they did not want to convict
> so many murderers.
> ???? ???? ?????? ??? ?????? ??? ???? ????? ???? ???? ???? ????? ????? ??
> ???? ??? ???????

Velo yachli doesn't mean they didn't want to.  On the contrary, it means 
they wanted to but couldn't.  We know the reason from historical records.

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

From the same Areivim thread, a discussion of the concept of gemateria
itself reached Avodah topicality.

On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 6:45am EDT, R Ben Rothke wrote on Areivim:
> True.  But there is a fundamental difference in that the use of Pesok li
> pesukach is detailed in the gemara and sanctioned by Chazal. I don't see
> how anyone could compare R' Brody's use of gematria to that.

> R' Hershel Schachter noted that in the braisa of R' Yishmael (and in other
> opinions giving different numbers than R' Yishmael's 13), gematria is not
> one of them methods used to darshan Torah.

And on Fri, Sep 01, 2017 at 12:12am PDT, R Simon Montagu replied:"
: Surely RHS didn't intend to dismiss gematria altogether! Hazal themselves
: use gematria, from the Mishna onwards (e.g. Uktzin 3:12) if not before

Thinking in terms of the Pardes model of four layers of Torah...

What is the role of Remez?

We know from famous examples like "ayin tachas ayin" that peshat teaches
mussar and derash teaches halakhah. For that matter, the link between
peshat and mussar is obvious in seifer Bereishis as well as most of Nakh
-- and you can't darshen Nakh. (Esther aside.)

Of course, in many cases, there is no divergence and the halakhah captures
the values in an intuiitive way. In those cases, the din is as per peshat
in the pasuq.

And sod... that's the big picture. That much the mequbaliem and the Rambam
agree on. They may debate whether one builds their worldview from Qabbalah
or Greek Philosophy, but both call their candidate "sod".

But remez? What's it for?

It seems I'm not alone. he.wikipdia.org (Hebrew wikipedia), "pardes", has
links to peshat, derash and sod, but remez... no entry.

:-)BBii!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             It is a glorious thing to be indifferent to
mi...@aishdas.org        suffering, but only to one's own suffering.
http://www.aishdas.org                 -Robert Lynd, writer (1879-1949)
Fax: (270) 514-1507

On 01/09/17 10:58, Elli Fischer via Avodah wrote:
> That's how I read the question of the Sanhedrin's self-imposed exile, but I
> don't think that it was only that they couldn't keep up with the demand.
> "Mi-sherabu ha-rotzchim" means that society itself did not value life, and
> so a Sanhedrin that enforces the Torah by taking life actually reinforces a
> negative trait that had been absorbed by society at large.

It seems to me the meaning is very different -- they had an obligation 
to conduct capital cases and execute the guilty, but they were unable to 
do so because the Roman government didn't let them, so they had no 
option but to exempt themselves from the obligation by not sitting in 
the LhG.

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

On 01/09/17 10:58, Elli Fischer via Avodah wrote:
> That's how I read the question of the Sanhedrin's self-imposed exile, but I
> don't think that it was only that they couldn't keep up with the demand.
> "Mi-sherabu ha-rotzchim" means that society itself did not value life, and
> so a Sanhedrin that enforces the Torah by taking life actually reinforces a
> negative trait that had been absorbed by society at large.

It seems to me the meaning is very different -- they had an obligation
to conduct capital cases and execute the guilty, but they were unable to
do so because the Roman government didn't let them, so they had no option
but to exempt themselves from the obligation by not sitting in the LhG.


[Email #2]

On 01/09/17 11:19, Elli Fischer via Avodah wrote:
> He is paraphrasing the Gemara in AZ 8b, which implies that the problem was
> not that there was too much volume, but that they did not want to convict
> so many murderers.
> ??? ?? ? ???????? ??? ?????> ??????Velo yachli doesn't mean they didn't want to. On the contrary, it means
they wanted to but couldn't. We know the reason from historical records.

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

On Fri, Sep 01, 2017 at 11:52:04AM -0400, Zev Sero wrote:
: Velo yachli doesn't mean they didn't want to. On the contrary, it means
: they wanted to but couldn't. We know the reason from historical records.

The Rashi I already quoted says the reason was "lo hayu maspiqin". Which
would either mean:

1- They couldn't keep up with the caseload. A numerical insufficiency.
Which is hard to understand; if you can't fix the world, you shouldn't
try to fix what you can?

2- They felt they were insufficient in skill.

Or a third or fourth possibility.

I was suggesting the hypothesis that they found the task of enforcing
the religion beyond them, once there were so many who deserved death.
Part of that hypothesis is the observation that they did away with the
death penalty in a manner that also did away with corporal punishment.

And besides, the Romans did allow the death penalty. Yes, they had
to get permission for each execution individually, but is there any
indication that the occupational gov't wasn't liberal with giving them
out? Josephus mentions the Sanhedrin killing people (Antiquities 20:9,
the famous portion with the Yeishu interpolation). TA Burkil notes the
sign in Greek at the soreg, posted during Roman occupation, warning that
any entry closer to the BHMQ by nakhriim would be punisable by death.
He concludes from it that we were still putting people to death then.
R/Dr Lawrence Schiffman asserts that at least the non-rabbinic "Sanhedrin"
which makes its appearance in the Xian mythos did. But having only
read his popularizations, I don't know his argument. However, in one
place he describes this non-Pharaseic "Sanhedrin" as "a rump body of
collaborating priests", so it is possible they had a much easier time
getting permission to execute someone than they did.

But perhaps not. This need for permission isn't enough to prove Rashi
wrong.

:-)BBii!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Rescue me from the desire to win every
mi...@aishdas.org        argument and to always be right.
http://www.aishdas.org              - Rav Nassan of Breslav
Fax: (270) 514-1507                   Likutei Tefilos 94:964

At 11:31 AM 9/1/2017, R Akiva Miller wrote:



> > The Shulchan Aruch (ibid) explains that women were awarded
> > this mitzvah because they are the ones who primarily prepare
> > the home for Shabbos.
>
>Ummm... That's not what I see in the Shulchan Aruch cited, i.e. 263:3.
>The worded there is "muzharos", which does NOT mean this mitzva was
>"awarded" like some sort of gift or medal. "Muzharos" refers to a
>level of responsibility, and the Shulchan Aruch explains exactly why
>this responsibility is theirs: "The women are more muzharos in this,
>because they are found at home, and they are involved with the needs
>of the home."
>
>In simple terms: If a woman has the role of homemaker, then lighting
>the lights is part of that!

Am I to deduce from this that if the man has the role of 
homemaker,  then he should light the Shabbos candles?

Also,  today many Orthodox women work outside of the home,  given 
that it is very difficult for an Orthodox family to survive on one 
salary.  Even though women may stay home when the children are 
young,  most go to work once the kids are old enough for some sort of 
schooling. Given that roles today are much different than they were 
in the past,  does this mean that who lights the Shabbos candles 
should be shared,  one week the man and one week the women.  (I am 
simply playing the devil's advocate here.)


>Suffice it to say that as a matter of historical record, we *would* be
>in Gan Eden today if they had not done what they did. So why not do
>something to help repair the darkness that was caused by that sin? I
>think that's all the Tur is saying.

You wrote, if they had not done what *they* did.  Since both of them 
did this,  shouldn't both men and women repair this darkness,




>Finally, the OU writes:
>
> > Though men do not light the actual candles, the Mishnah
> > Berurah (263:12) writes that the husband should set up the
> > candles. Furthermore the Mishna Berura (264:28) informs us
> > that the minhag is that the husbands should light the wicks
> > and extinguish them so that when the wife lights the neiros
> > the wicks will easily catch fire.
>
>It is my opinion that the word "neiros" here must be carefully
>understood as oil lamps and NOT as candles. In my experience, a plain
>piece of fabric that has drawn the oil into it will be wet and
>difficult to ignite; this can be remedied by lighting it to create a
>charred end, which is extinguished and will be easier to light later.
>In my experience, if one tries this with a candle, it will be
>counterproductive, because the exposed wick will burn away and be
>*more* difficult to light later on.

Do you know of anyone who lights the Chanukah neiros (which are 
usually oil with wicks), puts them out and then lights with the 
brochos?  I have never heard of this.  If there is no problem with 
Chanukah neiros,  then why is there a problem with Shabbos neiros?

YL

On 01/09/17 12:52, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote:
> Do you know of anyone who lights the Chanukah neiros (which are usually 
> oil with wicks), puts them out and then lights with the brochos?

Yes.  Don't everyone?   Not with the modern waxed wicks, but those who 
use old-fashioned cotton ones, isn't it obvious and common practise to 
do this?


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

Many times throughout history, the g'dolei hador make takanos or 
gezeiros in order to distinguish ourselves from other groups (often, 
from Jewish breakaway groups).

Probably the most famous one is to eat hot food on shabbos (to 
distinguish ourselves from tzadukim).  Another (lesser known one): 
the prohibition to have non-Jews play music at a simcha.  (IIRC, the 
S"A specifically allows it, and that Jews used to get married on 
Friday afternoons, combine it with a shabbos meal, and the band would 
play into the evening. After Reform used this "loophole" to permit 
organ playing at services, the g'dolei hador made a gezeira prohibiting it.)

My question is this:

I will be in a kiruv situation, and this subject will come up (as we 
are going to have a cholent on shabbos).  I would like to draw some 
sort of analogy between these rabbinical ordinances as reaction and 
something comparable in secular life.

Can anybody thing of a secular (ideally, American) law or common 
custom/practice that is done in order to distinguish ourselves from 
some other group/idealogy?

(E.g., a swastika, or something like it, appears as an ancient design 
in many other cultures -- but nobody would use it nowadays because of 
it's Nazi association.  But I'm looking for a better and more 
relevant example (because in American, before the 1930's, that wasn't 
a common design anyway)).

-- Sholom

On Fri, Sep 01, 2017 at 05:03:20PM -0400, Sholom Simon via Avodah wrote:
: I will be in a kiruv situation, and this subject will come up (as we
: are going to have a cholent on shabbos).  I would like to draw some
: sort of analogy between these rabbinical ordinances as reaction and
: something comparable in secular life.

Something so direct, it's not even an analogy.

Jewish: Yichud.

Contemporary cutlure: NYC PS (I think) and many colleges have a policy
about a teacher not closing the door when alone with a student of the
opposite gender.

:-)BBii!
-Micha

>The following are universally accepted
>1]  AAvinu [howsoever we explain his Jewish status] followed all 
>Halacha and even Minhag

Is this the case?

According to R Menachem Leibtag, Avot and the Mitzvot, 
<http://www.tanach
.org/breishit/toldot/toldots2.htm>http://www.tanach
.org/breishit/toldot/toldots2.htm 
, the Rishonim did not -- and he sites Rashbam, Chizkuni, Ibn Ezra & 
Radak who each have a different take (from most restrictive to most 
inclusive -- but none of them saying Taryag mitzvos).  He also 
mentions Rashi, Ramban, and Seforno who do include 613.  (As they 
each interpret "because Avraham listened to Me, and he kept 
mishmarti, mitzvotei, chukotei, v'toratei." (Bereshis 26:5) )

So . . . what about later in time (late Rishonim and onwards)?  Did 
everyone accept Rashi's view, or did some old by Rashbam, Ibn Ezra, et al?

(In my limited understanding, this seems analogous to RMB's 
discussion of Ma'aseh Bereshis, where most of the Jewish world didn't 
seem to take it *literally* as seven days until the last century or 
so.  So, in this case -- re the Avos and *every mitzva* -- when did 
the general opinion change?  Or did it?)

-- Sholom


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20170901/55659436/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.)