Avodah Mailing List

Volume 36: Number 86

Tue, 24 Jul 2018

• 1. Re: B'not Tzelaphchad (Akiva Miller)
• 2. Re: B'not Tzelaphchad (Joshua Meisner)
• 3. Re: What is SinAs Chinam (Micha Berger)
• 4. Re: B'not Tzelaphchad (Micha Berger)
• 5. Aspaqlaria: What isn't Omnipotence? (Micha Berger)
• 6. Re: Looking for location of a Raavad that RSRH refers to (Micha Berger)
• 7. Tisha b'Av (A Bad Dream) (Cantor Wolberg)
• 8. Re: Looking for location of a Raavad that RSRH refers to (Simon Montagu)
• 9. Post Tisha bAv thoughts (Cantor Wolberg)
• 10. Re: Eicha (HOW did we let it happen)? (Michael Poppers)
• 11. Eyvar HaYarden (Zvi Lampel)
• 12. Vaeschanan "The sense of touch is strongest when you touch someone's heart" (Cantor Wolberg)
• 13. Rav Avigdor Miller on The Learning Boy (Prof. Levine)

.
R' Micha Berger asked
> How many times does the Torah record Moshe asking Hashem for a pesaq?

The mnemonic is "menatzpakh" (the five letters that have a final form):

Mekoshesh
Nokev Shem Hashem
TZelofchad
Pesach Sheni
Khozbi

(with thanks to http://lookstein.org/lookjed/read.php?1,17871,17885#msg-17885)

Akiva Miller

On Jul 19, 2018, at 3:36 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah <avo...@lists.aishdas.org> wrote:
> How many times does the Torah record Moshe asking Hashem for a pesaq?
> I can only recall Benos Tzelfchad and Pesach Sheini. With such a small
> sample set... Maybe it fits the system for Hashem to only give each
> detail as it is needed, requiring multiple questions. But the other time
> this came up at all, there was no later consequence forcing a second
> question.

We find that David was forced to ask a follow-up question of the Urim
V'Turim (or, more precisely, re-ask the second question that he asked
the first time) when he sought guidance on whether to go out to assist
the men of Ke'ilah. There are certainly many differences between the
two cases, but perhaps there are also similarities.

Josh
Sent from my iPhone

On Fri, Jul 20, 2018 at 10:46:28AM +1000, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote:
: When in one's car, warm and dry, on a rainy windy day, and in a hurry, it
: is too easy to overlook the discomfort of pedestrians.
: Why do we tend to inconvenience pedestrians, acting in ways we would never
: dream of, if we knew it was someone we love or even just know peripherally,
: or our beloved Rosh Yeshivah for example?
: 
: This is not hatred, it is dismissive. We've programmed ourselves to not see
: the humanity, the Tzelem Elokim of others who are outside our orbit.

And we know from Lei'ah, that "senu'ah" can be used to mean less loved.

...
: I would translate SinAs ChiNom as trampling upon others, not out of hatred
: but them just not being relevant.

Which fits other maamarei chazal about pre-churban society. But makes
the treatment of Bar Qamtza less typical of the problem.

This sounds more like R' Aqiva's students' generation -- that of Hadrian
harasha. They were "lo nahagu kavod zeh lazeh".


-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Zion will be redeemed through justice,
mi...@aishdas.org        and her returnees, through righteousness.
http://www.aishdas.org
Fax: (270) 514-1507

On Fri, Jul 20, 2018 at 07:53:57AM -0400, R Akiva Miller wrote:
: R' Micha Berger asked
:> How many times does the Torah record Moshe asking Hashem for a pesaq?

: The mnemonic is "menatzpakh" (the five letters that have a final form):
: Mekoshesh
: Nokev Shem Hashem
: TZelofchad
: Pesach Sheni
: Khozbi

Thanks, but... That seems to be a list of dinim Moshe didn't know, not
necessarily resolved by HQBH answering him. For example, qana'im pog'im
bo when it came to Kozbi was decided by Pinechas. Based on Torah already
taught, no?

In any case, of the 4 or 5 examples too, it could be that only one
had secondary effects, and the other questions didn't so much get more
completely answered as not have a possibility of being partially answered
in the same way.

-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Zion will be redeemed through justice,
mi...@aishdas.org        and her returnees, through righteousness.
http://www.aishdas.org
Fax: (270) 514-1507

My latest blog post
<http://www.aishdas.org/asp/what-isnt-omnipotence>.
As I say in the post of the original in Mi Yodeya (the Jewish Stack
Exhange), I like how it came out. So, before waiting long enough to
realize that repeating it everywhere it probably annoying...

Tzom qal everyone (unless he happens to come in the short time
left),
-micha

----- Forwarded message from micha <mi...@aishdas.org> -----
Aspaqlaria has posted a new item, 'What isn't Omnipotence?'

Orion[1] asked on Mi Yodeya[2]:

  Hashem's infinite power

  I've heard many times that Hashem is infinitely powerful. But how do
  we know this? Perhaps he's just very powerful or even all powerful
  (possessing all power there is, which is possibly finite). Is there
  a source for the `infinite'?

I liked how my answer came out, so here it is:

The Rambam says that "all powerful" is actually a description of what
G-d isn't. (Moreh Nevuchim, 1:15). And if G-d did have attributes,
there would have to be a cause for that composite coming together.
Since G-d is the Creator, not a created entity, He must be Purely One,
without any real attributes. (ibid book 2, intro. postulate #21.) These
"attributes" are really approximate statements based on what Hashem isn't.

(Philosophers call this approach to theology the Via Negativa -- the path
of denials. The Rambam also describes a second kind of "attribute of G-d",
those that describe how his Action looks to us. "Just as He is called
compassionate, so too should you be compassionate." - Hilkhos Dei'os 1:6)

Let me start with an easier example of a negative "attribute":
Omnipresence.

Where is "1 + 1 = 2". On the one hand, you can say it's everywhere,
because there is no place in the universe where 1 + 1 will equal anything
but 2. On the other hand, it's a concept. It doesn't have a volume;
it doesn't take up space. One can also say "1 + 1 = 2" is nowhere.

Similarly, location isn't really applicable to Hashem, so one can
describe G-d as both everywhere and nowhere, depending on perspective.
Although we tend to use "shebashayim -- Who is in heaven" rather than
"nowhere" to mean spaceless existence.

We talk about G-d always having Been and always will Be. But again, in
reality what we are approximating is the idea that Hashem is "lemaalah min
hazman -- beyond time." "When" isn't a meaningful thing to say about G-d.

With those two examples setting a pattern, let's look at Omnipotence.

We aren't so much saying that Hashem has Infinite Power vs A Real Lot
of Power. Rather, the expression means that Hashem doesn't even involve
the concept of power. Hashem's Will simply becomes reality in a way that
doesn't involve power. Therefore He can't have too little power to get
anything done.

Which is the same effect to our eyes as if Hashem had infinite power --
anything He Wills to happen will happen. Omnipotence.

References:
1. https://judaism.stackexchange.com/users/16266/orion
2. https://judaism.stackexchange.com/q/94073/1570

On Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 01:32:26PM +0000, Gershon Seif via Avodah wrote:
: Would anyone here know where I can find the Raavad that RSRH refers to
: here? https://tinyurl.com/ycb2fuxdAs

We don't have the Raavad the Kesef Mishnah quotes. But the secondary
sources I found who quote the KM tend to assume that it's a lost raavad
ad loc, Yesodei haTorah 1:10. Someone (unfortunately, I lost whom before
I gave up the search for the Raavad) pointed to the lack of mar'eh maqom
in the KM as indication that none was needed because it is supposed to
be right there.

: 2) Hirsch writes that in that particular series of pesukim (about Hashem's
: decision to bring about the mabul) we are taught about man's free will as
: well as Hashem unchanging free will, and how the two work with each other.

I don't know what "free will" means when everything is obvious and the
One about Whom we are speaking is lemaalah min hazman. Either issue
alone make the concept of "choice" hasrd to apply. The question of free
will even among mal'akhim raises the question of whether they had enough
clarity for any potential free will to never get utilized.

-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Zion will be redeemed through justice,
mi...@aishdas.org        and her returnees, through righteousness.
http://www.aishdas.org
Fax: (270) 514-1507

For some reason I couldn?t sleep most of the night.
I find it interesting that it occurred on Tisha b?Av.
So as a result, I studied many different aspects about
the saddest day of the Jewish year.

I came across the following insight which I found amazing.
There is a halacha that if you have a bad dream Friday night,
you are not only allowed but should fast (the rest of) Shabbos.
The reason given is that you feel so badly for whatever this dream
signifies or symbolizes and you have to fast as an atonement of sorts.

So the question is asked: What about when Tisha b?Av falls on Shabbos?
If someone feels the same pain and anguish for the Destruction of the B?H,
why is he or she not allowed to fast on Shabbos and must observe Tisha b?Av
on Sunday, whereas if that same individual has a bad dream on Friday night,
he must fast on Shabbos? Certainly the pain of mourning the beis hamikdash
equals or surpasses that of a bad dream.

The answer given is that on Shabbos, the Beis Hamikdash exists. In other words,
on Shabbos, there is a construct of the beis hamikdash extant which adds to the
kedusha of Shabbos. So there is no reason to mourn the destruction of the beis hamikdash
because it has been temporarily restored. On the other hand, a bad dream on Friday night,
specifically has to do with Shabbos because that is when the person had the dream.

May we see the coming of the Moshiach, bimheyra b?yameinu, Amen!
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20180722/09624906/attachment-0001.html>

On Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 4:32 PM, Gershon Seif via Avodah <
avo...@lists.aishdas.org> wrote:

> Hi All,
>
> Would anyone here know where I can find the Raavad that RSRH refers to
> here? https://tinyurl.com/ycb2fuxdAs I understand Hirsch's explanation
>

The next sentence has run in to the link here making it invalid. It should
be https://tinyurl.com/ycb2fuxd <https://tinyurl.com/ycb2fuxdAs>


> or the Raavad, we have more to lose by making God too abstract than by
> perceiving Him too material. and that's why the Torah takes the risk
> and talks about Hashem seeing and Hashem's heart, etc.
>
> 1) I assume that's because without this, we won't have any means for
> a relationship.
>
> 2) Hirsch writes that in that particular series of pesukim (about Hashem's
> decision to bring about the mabul) we are taught about man's free will as
> well as Hashem unchanging free will, and how the two work with each other.
>
> 1 is my assumption. 2 is what Hirsch writes.
>
> TIA,
> Gershon Seif
>
>
> [Email #2. -- micha]
>
> A friend of mine, Rabbi Moshe Katz of CTN, just found it for me.
> Raavad Yesodei Hatorah 1:10.
>

Couldn't it be the first Raavad on Hilchot Teshuva 3:7, on whether
believing that HKBH has a body makes one a min?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20180722/78987e20/attachment-0001.html>

Yesterday I learned a fascinating concept
relating to the two words: Galut and Geulah.

Galut is spelled gimel, lamed, vav, tav. 
Geulah is spelled gimel, aleph, vav, lamed, hey.

Galut is the Exile in which we are at present.
Geulah is the Redemption for which we strive in the future.

If you remove the Hebrew letters that each of the words have
in common ? gimel, lamed, and vav,
you are left with aleph, tav, hey ? ATAH.

So what is the lesson? If you want to go from Exile to Redemption,
the key is YOU (atah). It is only up to YOU!


The other thing I learned was the reason we don?t say tachanun on
Tisha bAv. The talmud refers to Tisha bAv as a moed, and
tachanun is not recited on a moed. 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20180723/ed1e3153/attachment-0001.html>

In Avodah V36n85, RCRW wrote:
>  That is not the only connection between Tisha bAv and our Parasha. The
second Temple was destroyed because of sinas chinam, unwarranted,
inappropriate and uncalled for hatred of others (Yuma 9b). Moshe taught
us that even if we are about to attack our enemy, we must first make an
attempt at peace -- even if we are convinced it is doomed to fail. How
much more so(!) must we try to patch things up among ourselves. Need I
say more? <
To me, one blatant connection is not only the narrative of the *m'rag'lim*
but the loaded phrase "ki eineni b'qirb'chem" immediately thereafter (in
response to the *ma'pilim*, also basically seen in P'Shlach) -- IMHO,
_that_ is what we lost with the Churban.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20180723/68655385/attachment-0001.html>

Ever HaYarden

The first verse Bible critics (such as Spinoza) invoke to allegedly prove  
that the Torah was written after Moshe passed away is from last the parsha  
of last week, parshas Devarim. The first verse states, These ?are the  
words that Moshe spoke...b?Ever HaYarden. Now, they reason, Moshe would  
not have referred to the eastern side of ?the Jordan as the other side of  
it or the Transjordan, because that is where he was! (I suspect the  
critics were using a translation that, in order to be helpful, translated  
Eyvar ?HaYarden as the Transjordan, which is referring specifically to  
?the eastern side.) Only someone stationed on the western side of ?the  
Jordan, they reason, would refer to the eastern side, where ?Moshe was, as  
the other side of the Jordan. So it must have ?been written by someone  
after the Hebrews entered Canaan ?proper, and since Moshe never entered  
the land, he could not have authored that narrative.?

Now, if this were solid reasoning, based on a tad of biblical  
?scholarship, it might ctually serve as support for Chazal. They condemn  
the idea that Moshe, rather than Hashem, authored ?the Torah. Hashem  
above, being Eretz-Yisroel-proper-centric, could refer to Moshe?s position  
as being on the eastern side of ?the Jordan as the other side of the  
Jordan even though that was ?the side Moshe was on.?
But it is not solid reasoning, and it demonstrates lack of biblical  
?scholarship.?
The reasoning is loose, because the Hebrews had been living in ?Canaan and  
Egypt for centuries. They could be expected to ?have long labeled the east  
side of the Jordan as the other side, ?because both Canaan and Egypt are  
to the Jordan?s west, and would likely maintain that name even when  
temporarily situated on that eastern side. After all, one refers to Chutz  
?LaAretz regardless of whether he is in Israel or not, and one refers to  
the Lower East Side as such regardless of where he lives.

On literary grounds, Devarim 3:20 demonstrates the silliness of the  
argument. There, Moshe, who ?is of course on the eastern side of the  
Jordan, refers to the 2-1/2 tribes on that same eastern side of the Jordon  
as dwelling b?Eyver ?HaYarden. And a mere four verses later [3:25] relates  
Moshe beseeching Hashem, Let me pass and see the good land in the ?Ever  
HaYarden. So Eyvar HaYarden was used by the same ?person in the same place  
to describe either side of the Jordan.?

Indeed, there are several other passages where one stationed to the east  
of the Jordan is still quoted as referring to it as the Ever ?HaYarden,  
and vice versa. Likewise in narratives, Ever ?HaYarden is used for either  
side. For there was an Eyver ?HaYarden (Kaydmah) Mizrachah, and an Eyver  
Yarden ?Maaravah.?

======================================================

Examples:?

Moshe on the eastern side of the Jordon refers to it as Eyvar ?HaYarden:  
Bamidbar specifying Eyvar HaYarden Mizrachah) ??32:19, Bamidbar 34:15  
(Eyvar HaYarden Kaydmah Mizrachah-??- although this may be the narrative)  
Devarim 1:8, And of course Devarim 3:20, noted above.?

As noted above, in Devarim 3:25, Moshe standing on the eastern side of the  
Jordan refers to the western side as Eyvar ?HaYarden.?

Yehoshua, on the western side of the Jordon, calls the eastern ?side the  
Jordan, Eyvar HaYarden (Yehoshua 1:14), and then in ??9:1 refers to the  
eastern side by that name.

The narrative calls the western side of the Jordan Eyvar ?HaYarden:  
Breishis 50:10 (where the family of Yosef traveled west from Egypt to the  
Eyvar HaYarden of Canaan to bury him. Will ?the critics claim the narrator  
must have lived on the eastern side to call it the Eyvar HaYarden?!), and  
of course Devarim ??1:1 does the same, as does Devarim 11:30 which may  
either be the narrative or Moshe speaking.
?
Zvi Lampel  ?

Chapter 4, vs.28 

  ????????????-???? ????????, ???????? ????? ?????:  ??? ???????--??????
  ???-???????? ????? ???????????, ????? ????????? ????? ????????.	 28
  "There you will serve gods, the work of men's hands, of wood and stone,
  which do not see, and do not hear, and do not eat, and do not smell."
Here's what's fascinating.  The five senses are Sight, Smell, Touch, Taste
and hearing. The above verse has four of the five senses. In wondering why
the sense of touch was not included, I researched "touch" and came up with
the following: "The most common receptors are heat, cold, pain, and
pressure or touch receptors. Pain receptors are probably the most important
for your safety because they can protect you by warning your brain that
your body is hurt!"
If you notice in the verse, the four senses mentioned are in the negative:
"which do NOT see, do NOT hear, do NOT eat, do NOT smell." From this I
inferred that since the sense of touch is the most important for safety and
protects by warning your brain that your body is hurt, it is not mentioned
regarding idolatry because by "serving gods", one's safety and protection
is gone. Had the verse also said "the gods of wood and stone do not touch,"
one would have had a false sense of security.


An acronym for S.I.N ? Self Inflicted Narcissism
An acronym for GPS ? Good People Sin

Tidbit: There are exactly 620 letters in the Aseret Hadibrot. It is brought down that 
number corresponds to the 613 Torah Mitzvot plus the 7 Rabbinic Mitzvot.

The question was asked how do we know there are exactly 613 mitzvot in the Torah. It is learned out from the gematria of
Torah which is 611. Moshe wrote everything that was dictated to him but HaShem spoke the first two Commandments which
added to the 611 added up to 613.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20180724/28f868a7/attachment-0001.html>

Rav Avigdor Miller on The Learning Boy

Q:
What should a girl do if her chosson says that he intends to learn forever?
A:
She should change her mind about him and she should look for somebody 
else. Every man has the right to learn for a certain amount of time 
but he must be clear in his conviction that eventually he must 
support his family. If a young man makes a condition with his kallah 
that he will be learning forever no matter what, then he is not a 
useful person at all. Forget about him.

Now, it could be that sometimes things work out. He might, let's say, 
get a very big stipend from a Kollel. Or sometimes he might, for 
example, get an opportunity to give shiur in a high-level Mesivta. 
He's saying a shiur for talmidei chachomim and he's making a parnasa. 
That's a pleasure! And then he can learn forever. Sure, why not?
But if he makes a stipulation beforehand - if he tells you, "I'm 
never going to work," then I think that you should forget about him.
TAPE # E-180

You may find the article 
"<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.jewishpress.com%2Findepth%2Ffront-page%2Fthe-obligation-to-support-a-family%2F2015%2F02%2F18%2F0%2F%3Fprint&;data=02%7C01%7Cllevine%40stevens.edu%7C958f5038400441b165bb08d5f17b1306%7C8d1a69ec03b54345ae21dad112f5fb4f%7C0%7C1%7C636680433289986310&sdata=N7H27LHkJI89NHFpUdlSXx%2FXKCByt%2Bj4bh0R06KaeAE%3D&reserved=0>The 
Obligation to Support a Family"  The Jewish Press, February 18, 2015, 
front page.  on this topic also of interest.
YL

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20180724/1d8a3c08/attachment.html>

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



_______________________________________________
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.)