Avodah Mailing List

Volume 35: Number 144

Mon, 25 Dec 2017

• 1. Re: Historicity of Aggadta (H Lampel)
• 2. Re: New Cancer Treatment (Marty Bluke)
• 3. The Nature of Egyptian Society (Professor L. Levine)
• 4. Vay'chi (Richard Wolberg)
• 5. The Protection Offered by a Mezuza (Prof. Levine)
• 6. Rambam ,Hilchot Hannuka (Ben Waxman)
• 7. Re: The Protection Offered by a Mezuza (Lisa Liel)
• 8. Re: The Protection Offered by a Mezuza (Zev Sero)
• 9. Re: The Protection Offered by a Mezuza (Ben Waxman)
• 10. Re: Did the Patriarchs Speak Hebrew? (H Lampel)
• 11. Did the Patriarchs Speak Hebrew? (M Cohen)
• 12. Re: The Protection Offered by a Mezuza (Zev Sero)
• 13. Bishul Akum - Specific Products (Professor L. Levine)
• 14. Re: The Protection Offered by a Mezuza (Micha Berger)
• 15. Re: Historicity of Aggadta (Micha Berger)

On 12/24/2017 12:41 AM, Z?? Lampel wrote:
> R. Yehuda HaLevy (1:68)
Should be: R. Yehuda Halevy (Kuzari 2:68).

Zvi Lampel

RHS in his sefer (Eretz Hatzvi) points out that it seems to be 2 opinions
in Tosafos whether a mamzer can be created without a bias issur.

The Gemara in Yevamos 16b brings the opinion that eved v'akum haba al bas
yisrael havlad mamzer. Tosafos there asks the following question. They
understand how there can be an opinion that an eved creates mamzerus
because there is a specific issur for a Jewish woman to have biah with an
eved. However, they ask, by a Goy there is no issur biah min hatorah and
therefore how can anyone hold that the product of the biah of a goy and a
Jewish woman would create a mamzer? Tosafos gives 2 answers:
1. Even though there is no bias issur since kiddushin are not tofsin it
creates mamzerus.
2. A Goy and a Jewish woman do not create a mamzer min hatorah only
midrabbanan

If we apply these 2 opinions to IVF, according to the first answer since
kiddushin are not tofsin (since she is married) the child would be a mamzer
even though there was no bias issur. On the other hand, the second answer
holds that the determining factor of mamzerus is a bias issur and therefore
since in the case of IVF there is no bias issur there would be no mamzerus.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20171224/e2a547fd/attachment-0001.html>

The following is from RSRH" commentary on Bereishis 46:33


Now, when Pharaoh calls you and asks, What is your occupation?


33 In a state like Egypt, the individual is completely identified with his
occupation. Children are not born as human beings but as artisans,
peasants, soldiers, and so forth. Accordingly, Pharaoh's first question
to Yosef 's brothers would naturally concern their occupation.
They were instructed to answer Pharaoh's question candidly, to
tell him the truth, even though it would be unpleasant. For the
Egyptians' loathing for the brothers' occupation and, in general, the
nations' aversion to the Jews were to serve as primary factors in the
survival of this race, which was destined to journey through the ages
in isolation. As long as the moral morn had not dawned for the
nations, the barriers they erected to isolate the Jews served to protect
the Jews from becoming infected with the barbarism and demoralization
of the people in whose midst they had to walk for hundreds
of years.
Yosef therefore immediately emphasizes the aspect that will arouse
the aversion of the Egyptians. His clear intention is that, as a result, his
brothers will be allocated a separate province in which to dwell.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20171224/ee56cb2c/attachment-0001.html>

There?s an interesting medrash the k?li yakar brings down. It doesn?t say
Vayik?r?vu Yisroel Lamus, that Yisroel came close to die,? rather it says:
?Vayik?r?vu Y?MEI Yisroel lamus,? that the DAYS of Yisroel came close to
die. And the medresh says, the DAYS died, not the person.  This goes in
line with Vay?chi Ya?akov, and Jacob LIVED. In other words, his body died
but not he, himself.
(The question has been asked: Do you have a soul? The answer is NO, you ARE a soul with a body).
 
In the first pasuk (vs.28) the name Yaakov is used twice and then in vs.29
we see the name Yisroel used. The question is asked why does the name
change from Ya?akov to Yisroel. One answer is that Yisroel symbolizes the
prophecy of Ya?akov.  And that?s how he knew he was going to die because in
prophecy he understood and divinely inspired, he understood that he was
going to die.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20171223/1feeeccb/attachment-0001.html>

At 06:58 PM 12/23/2017, Harav Baruch Gigi wrote:
The following is from RSRH's commentary on Devorim 6:9  And write 
them upon the [door-]
posts of your house and upon your gates.

The mezuzah is not an amulet; in and of itself, it does not protect the
house. Only insofar as they shape their lives in accordance with the mezuzah 's
content can the people within the house expect help and protection
from God, the "All-Sovereign and All-Sufficing," in all the vicissitudes
of domestic life. With this intent it is our custom to adorn the
outside of the mezuzah with the Name shin-daled-yud.

A few take aways from Rambam Hilchot Hanukka Chapter 3

1) For the Rambam, Hallel is the ikkar element of Hanukka, not the 
candles (given that details Hallel first and only then goes on to the 
candles).
2) The Rambam gives a long detailed description on how to properly say 
Hallel in beit knesset. However the last halacha in the chapter 
basically says "I've been in a lot batei knesset and everyone does 
something different'. Meaning - you want to do a musical Hallel, 
different tunes, no tunes, responsive, everyone together, whatever you 
like - it is fine.
3) The Rambam raises the possibility of a woman or child or slave 
reading Hallel and everyone repeating what she or he said word by word. 
However, he doesn't add in the famous curse given in the Gemara. Meaning 
- the Rambam didn't hold by? Tavo Ma'arah (spelling?) (at least not here).

Ben

On 12/24/2017 12:38 PM, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote:
> At 06:58 PM 12/23/2017, Harav Baruch Gigi wrote:
...
> The mezuzah is not an amulet; in and of itself, it does not protect the
> house. Only insofar as they shape their lives in accordance with the mezuzah's
> content can the people within the house expect help and protection...

I know a mezuzah isn't an amulet, but when my apartment burned down back 
in the 90s, the fire burned through two sides of the apartment and 
jumped over my room only, which was the only one with a mezuzah.? I'm 
not saying it couldn't be a coincidence, I'm just saying that I didn't 
take it that way.

Lisa

On 24/12/17 05:38, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote:
> At 06:58 PM 12/23/2017, Harav Baruch Gigi wrote:
> The following is from RSRH's commentary on Devorim 6:9  And write
> them upon the [door-]
> posts of your house and upon your gates.
> 
> The mezuzah is not an amulet; in and of itself, it does not protect the
> house. Only insofar as they shape their lives in accordance with the mezuzah 's
> content can the people within the house expect help and protection
> from God, the "All-Sovereign and All-Sufficing," in all the vicissitudes
> of domestic life.

That may be RSRH's opinion, but if so it contradicts Chazal and 
millennia of Jewish belief and practise.  No, the mezuzah is not an 
amulet; if it were not a mitzvah it would have no inherent power.  But 
the *mitzvah* of mezuzah protects regardless of how those within the 
house "shape their lives".  Even a goy who puts up a mezuzah, choosing 
to voluntarily fulfil this mitzvah, can expect this protection.  The 
mitzvah protects those who fulfil it not only when they are inside the 
house it adorns, but wherever they are.  And, most astonishingly, 
although it is true that a mezuzah itself is not an amulet, there are 
legitimate grounds to believe that carrying it around "zecher lamitzvah" 
*does* give some level of protection, even though no mitzvah is being 
fulfilled.


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

I seriously doubt that anyone could come up with any statistical 
analysis showing this point to be true.

Ben

On 12/25/2017 12:10 AM, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote:
 > But the *mitzvah* of mezuzah protects regardless of how those within 
the house "shape their lives".

> Tue, 19 Dec 2017 "Mandel, Seth"<mand...@ou.org>  wrote:
>
> There is no proof that anyone spoke Hebrew. ... the Torah was written in Hebrew because that is
> what the Jews understood at the time of Moshe Rabbeinu and the N'vi'im.
> ... What did Yaakov speak to Rochel and
> Leah, who had never been in EY? ...
>   one cannot know from the T'NaKh who spoke what when and where.
Well, at least when the matriarchs and patriarchs stated the reasons for 
the names they gave their children, they were obviously speaking the 
same Hebrew spoken in the times of Moshe Rabbeinu.

The only way to question this would be to suggest that originally 
Yitzchak, for instance was called "HeShallLaugh" in some other language, 
and over the next 5 centuries the bnei Yisrael (or the descendants of 
HeWillStriveWithG-d, or whatever), knowing the meaning of the name, 
changed it to Yitzchak.And did the same with each one of all the other 
names given in the chronologies, which are also clearly contractions of 
Mattan Torah time Hebrew words.

And a similar convoluted explanation would have to be made when an 
allegedly unHebrew-speaking Eisav cracked ''Ha-chi kara shmo 
Yaakov--Vayak-veini zeh pa'amayyim...?!"

I think all that is extremely unlikely, even without invoking the 
masorah (of no less import than the Masorah that HQBH dictated the Torah 
to Moshe Rabbeinu in the eponymous Biblical Hebrew) that the shevatim in 
Moshe Rabbeinu's time retained the names given to their ancestors (cited 
in many places including BeMidbar Rabbah 13:20 s.v. Bayom HaShishi and 
Midrash Tehillim 114:4).

Zvi Lampel

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20171225/703c25dc/attachment-0001.html>

Fyi that the best sefer that I have seen on the subject of Hebrew and
ancient Hebrew history is 
Lashon HaKodesh: History, Holiness & Hebrew by Rabbi Reuven Chaim Klein.
Feldheim.
http://www.feldheim.com/lashon-hakodesh.html

Haskomos from R Leff, R Breitowitz, R Lopiansky

It deals with the subject of ancient Hebrew history, using both on chazal
and current linguistic and archeological sources

Did Adam harishon speak Hebrew ?
Did the world speak Hebrew until tower of Babel?
Did Avraham speak Hebrew ?
Foreign influences on Hebrew 
Hebrew vs Aramaic. Sources. History. Development.

You will find exhaustive source material and answers there.

Mordechai Cohen




=======
Email scanned by PC Tools - No viruses or spyware found.
(Email Guard: 9.1.0.2894, Virus/Spyware Database: 6.22240)
http://free.pctools.com/
=======

On 24/12/17 22:58, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote:
> On 12/25/2017 12:10 AM, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote:

>> But the *mitzvah* of mezuzah protects regardless of how those within 
>> the house "shape their lives".

 > I seriously doubt that anyone could come up with any statistical
 > analysis showing this point to be true.

Why do we need statistical analysis?  Judaism tell us it's true, 
therefore it is.


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

Please see the file at

https://goo.gl/LnRQjF


YL

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20171225/8573e55e/attachment-0001.html>

On Mon, Dec 25, 2017 at 05:58am IST, Ben Waxman wrote:
: On 12/25/2017 12:10 AM, Zev Sero wrote:
:> But the *mitzvah* of mezuzah protects regardless of how those
:> within the house "shape their lives".

: I seriously doubt that anyone could come up with any statistical
: analysis showing this point to be true.

(I won't bother arguing against Zev's inability to acknowledge the
existence of other shitos than his. "[I]t contradicts Chazal and millennia
of Jewish belief and practise." "Judaism tell us it's true" indeed. It's
a machloqes of the Rambam and the Ramach, with various teirutzim given
for the Rambam. Not open-and-shut at all.)

You want to statistically decide which hashkafah is true???

I lean the way you do. But it's a machloqes. I already pointed to
<http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol35/v35n142.shtml#07>, a
discussion of sources both ways. It would be weird to think it
boils down to a machloqes in metzi'us.


You remind me of a problem I have saying a particular line of Tehillim
(37:25) with kavanah, and it comes up at the appendix to bentching,
"Naar hayisi..." But I have seen a tzadiq whose kids miss meals and have
to beg. Haven't you?

The best I can do, rather than tamper with the minhag of saying it,
is to focus on the word "ne'ezav" -- so, his kids don't have food,
but it's not because HQBH abandoned the tzadiq. But I can't really feel
that's peshat in the pasuq. It allows me to saven with qavanah, but as
an answer -- the question is better than this resolution.

Bitachon and emunah that actually fit the data can be more challenging
than if we just shut off critical thought.

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

On Sun, Dec 24, 2017 at 12:41:29AM -0500, H Lampel via Avodah wrote:
: Under the subject line of Re: [Avodah] Did the Patriarchs Speak Hebrew?, 
: RSM raises a claim that RMB and I have argued over in the past. He writes,
: 
: > Medrashim of Chazal teaches us important ideas, but are not meant to
: > be literally true. They do not intend to be a historical document,
: > but rather contain important moral and ethical teachings which are
: > 'emes in the spiritual sense.

Which need not say anything about the story's lilterally truth. Just
that the story isn't *about* its literal historical claim, and therefore
doesn't testify to history one way or the other.

And so, I agree with:
: So, the Rambam does not maintain that the literal meaning of  /all/ 
: drashos is to be rejected. Some are indeed meant literally, and some are 
: not.

And yet still won't bother worrying about contradicting any medrash's
historical claims.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Life is a stage and we are the actors,
mi...@aishdas.org        but only some of us have the script.
http://www.aishdas.org               - Rav Menachem Nissel
Fax: (270) 514-1507


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



_______________________________________________
Avodah mailing list
Avo...@lists.aishdas.org
http://www.aishdas.org/lists/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://www.aishdas.org/lists/avodah/avodahareivim-membership-agreement/


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.)