Avodah Mailing List

Volume 36: Number 93

Wed, 15 Aug 2018

• 1. Re: To Whom Should One Pray At A Tzaddik's Kever? (Danny Schoemann)
• 2. Re: To Whom Should One Pray At A Tzaddik's Kever? (Micha Berger)
• 3. Rav Moshe Feinstein on Abortion (Micha Berger)
• 4. Re: To Whom Should One Pray At A Tzaddik's Kever? (Zev Sero)
• 5. Re: Rav Moshe Feinstein on Abortion (Zev Sero)
• 6. Re: To Whom Should One Pray At A Tzaddik's Kever? (Danny Schoemann)
• 7. Would Rashi Have Been a Democrat? (Micha Berger)
• 8. Re: To Whom Should One Pray At A Tzaddik's Kever? (Danny Schoemann)
• 9. Re: To Whom Should One Pray At A Tzaddik's Kever? (Danny Schoemann)
• 10. Re: To Whom Should One Pray At A Tzaddik's Kever? (Micha Berger)
• 11. Re: one way to spend Tisha B'Av (Micha Berger)
• 12. Re: Halacha: "How to Shoplift" YouTube Videos (Micha Berger)
• 13. Re: New Raui LaAchilah Question (Micha Berger)

R' Micha Berger claimed:
> And in fact, asking a mal'akh is *more* problematic than asking the
> neshamah of a tzadiq. After all, when the same tzadiq was alive, asking
> him for a berakhah wouldn't have been an issue.

1. What is your source for this? Talking to dead people ("asking the
neshamah of a tzadiq", no?) seems to be Doresh El Hameisim - one of the
365 possible aveiros.

Where do we find an issue talking to angels? Those angel-related piyutim
that you skip are not of recent vintage...

2. On a related note: The Talmud in 15a brings a dispute as to why they
went to cemeteries after praying for rain in a drought year. R' Levi bar
Chama and R' Chanina: - One says to make a statement: "We're as good as
dead (if You don't send rain)". - The other says it's to cause the dead
to pray for us.

The Talmud says that difference is whether one goes to a non-Jewish
cemetery (if no Jewish one is available - Rashi).

Rambam in Taanis 4:18 says "they go to the cemetery and pray there,
i.e. they'll be dead like those there if they don't repent." I.e. like
the first reason. (He doesn't mention non-Jewish graves).

S"A O"C 579:3 paraphrases the Rambam. The Remo adds, thus if there no
Jewish graves one goes to non-Jewish ones.

So it would seem that the Poskim don't approve of the concept of the
dead praying for us. Or do you learn this sugya differently?


3. BTW: See the Be'er Heitev at the end of 559:10 quoting the Ari z"l
that one should never go to a cemetery except for a burial...

Kol Tuv,
- Danny

On Tue, Aug 14, 2018 at 04:59:18PM +0300, Danny Schoemann wrote:
: R' Micha Berger claimed:
:> And in fact, asking a mal'akh is *more* problematic than asking the
:> neshamah of a tzadiq. After all, when the same tzadiq was alive, asking
:> him for a berakhah wouldn't have been an issue.
: 
: 1. What is your source for this? Talking to dead people ("asking the
: neshamah of a tzadiq", no?) seems to be Doresh El Hameisim - one of the
: 365 possible aveiros.

Only if you are using magic so that they can answer back, that's why it's
in the pasuq with menasheish umechasheif and "ve'sho'eil ov veyid'oni
vedoreish el hameizim".

: Where do we find an issue talking to angels? Those angel-related piyutim
: that you skip are not of recent vintage...

I was talking philosophically, not halachically. People have bechirah,
and it makes sense to ask a living person for a berakhah. There is more
to compare to asking a niftar.

Angels and bechirah is a complicated topic. But I believe consensus is
that at least while in shamayim, they don't have any or don't have any
opportunity to use it.

As for a halachic argument, praying to angels is how dor Enosh invented
AZ. (Hil AZ 1:1-2.) As the Rambam later writes in 2:1:
    The essence of the commandment of AZ is not to worship any of the
    created, not a mal'akh, nor a sphere, nor a star, nor 1 of the 4
    elements nor anything made of them. Even though the worshipper knows
    that Hashem hu haElokim...

And thus, the Rambam's 5th iqar. (Where he also invokes the illogic of
making requests of something that has no bechirah.)

Which is likely from the Y-mi Berakhos 63a, which quotes R' Yudan [ie
Yehudah] speaking in his own name (mishmeih dideih). When a person has
a benefactor and is need, he goes to the benfactor's door and calls a
servant or ben bayis over and relays the message.
    But HQBH isn't like this. "If a person has a tzarah, he shouldn't
    pray to Michael or Gavriel, rather he should pray to Me, and I
    will answer him immediately."

Similarly, meforashim on Bereshis 48:16 work to explain away the problem
in "hamal'akh hago'el osi mikol ra".

The Chizquni refers back to the previous pasuq, where Yaaqov beraklhah
begins, "Ha-elokim asher..." and says it's a request to the Borei to have
the mal'akh who saves me bless the children. The Netziv gives a variant
of the same idea. Thus Tur says simply that "mal'akh" is a reference
to HQBH. The Or haChaim defines "mal'akh" here as "ma'amar Hashem".
According to the Malbim, Yaaqov is asking the mal'akh relationship that
we had with the RBSO should continue and thereby bless.

OTOH, Rashi and Ralbag (ad loc) are not bothered, apparently.

And then there is the whole "hiskhabdu mekhubadim" said to mal'akhim before
entering the bathroom. (E.g. Rambam, Tefillah 7:5) Which includes "izruni,
izruni, shimruni, shimruni" -- clearly baqashos. Or does it -- the
Bodleian MS. Huntington 80 autographed (!) manuscript doesn't have "izruni".

And the Ri ben Yaqar only has "shimruni" as well, and says it's like "va'aviv
shamar es hadavar" -- ie wait for me.

R' Yaaqov Emden (Mor uQetzia on Tur OC 3) says that because they're being
referred to as "mesharsei elion", we avoid violating the 5th iqar. And
yet in his Sidddur Beis Yaaqov he is against saying "Borchuni leShalom"
in Shalom Aleikhem (as is the aforementioned Gra).


So, there is some kind of line to be drawn when speaking to angels. The
Gra draws it in a more restrictive place than most, and thus curtails
saying piyutim that are commonplace.

Shalom Aleikhem was written in the early 17th century; it was only
around a century old when the Yaavetz objected to it, and something like
150 yrs old in the Gra's day.

Machnisei Rachamim, however, dates back to the late geonim, probably
around 900 CE or so. That's a LOT of peer review.

IOW, just because I can't bring myself to say something I am not sure
I can say without thoughts of AZ -- if I am thinking at all -- doesn't
mean I think no one else should say them. It is not so much that I
am convinced of shitas haGra, and even if I were, it's obviously the
mi'ut's opinion. Rather, the magnitude of AZ scares me. And even if
these piyutim are intended in a manner that is mutar, who is to say my
own kavanah threads that needle?

(FWIW, I say 4 verses of Shalom Aleikhem anyway. The number 4 was intended
to provide one verse to accompany the mal'akhim through each of the
4 olamos. However, there is a verse said after Borchuni according to
the Kaf haChaim, a nusach followed by the Edot haMizrach. I don't know
what their symbolism is for 5 verses. But by saying their BeShivtechem
leShalom instead, I preserve the number 4. And when guests are over,
or I am not home, I can just mumble the first word and not make an issue
of saying something other than "Borchuni".)


...
: 3. BTW: See the Be'er Heitev at the end of 559:10 quoting the Ari z"l
: that one should never go to a cemetery except for a burial...

Interestingly, that seems to be the practice of Beis Brisk, although I
am guessing their source isn't the Ari.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             One doesn't learn mussar to be a tzaddik,
mi...@aishdas.org        but to become a tzaddik.
http://www.aishdas.org                         - Rav Yisrael Salanter
Fax: (270) 514-1507

I don't know how many of you read the venues in which a discussion is
going on about whether halakhah is Pro-Life or Pro-Choice. (Basically,
it all started with Ben Shapiro confusing the dominant (AFAIK) halachic
position that abortion isn't murder with the conclusion that O is
"Pro-Life".

I think that even O Jews who feel they have to vote Pro-Life in order
to guarantee the possibility of abortion when halachically warranted
don't actually agree with Pro-Life ethics. IOW, not everything you think
should be legal do you think is actually moral. But getting back to
Torah...

As part of this contratempts in general media about what O Jews should
hold on abortion, I recently encountered this piece by Shlomo Brody
in the J-m Post
<https://www.jpost.com/Magazine/Abortion-Pro-life-or-pro-choice-564557>.

Here's a nice opener, from the first paragraph: "I'll briefly explain
why the Orthodox position falls comfortably in the 'pro-life' camp yet
is more complex than other conservative positions."

   Jewish law grants moral status to a fetus. For this reason, we violate
   the Sabbath to save its life, even as we would not do the same to heal
   animals, which have a lower moral status. Most importantly, based on
   select verses in Genesis, the talmudic Sages conclude that as a general
   rule, feticide is prohibited under the seven Noahide laws for Jews and
   gentiles alike. As such, it remains prohibited to request or perform
   abortions not justified by Jewish law, with no distinction between the
   religion of the patient or doctor.
   ...
   While Jewish law may grant moral status to this future human being,
   this does not mean that it equates feticide with murder. If feticide is
   prohibited, but is not homicide, then what is it? Historically, many
   decisors viewed feticide as a lower-level form of manslaughter that is
   permitted only when it will save the mother's life. In that case alone,
   we treat the fetus as a rodef, a potential assailant, and assert that
   "the mother's blood is redder than that of the fetus," so to speak.
   This includes cases of direct physiological danger as well as mental
   imbalance to the point of becoming suicidal. Otherwise, abortion
   remains a very severe offense. This position was adopted in the 1960s
   and 1970s by, amongst others, British chief rabbi Immanuel Jakobovits,
   Israeli chief rabbi Isser Unterman, and America's most prominent
   rabbinic decisor, Rabbi Moshe Feinstein.

   Yet other scholars like Rabbis Yaakov Emden and Benzion Uziel
   significantly lowered the severity of abortion, even as they firmly
   maintained its general prohibition...

Is this really R' Moshe's position? As I wrote, I thought he did consider
abortion actual murder, and not "a lower-level form of manslaughter". But
rather, like murder of someone who was terminally ill, it's simply not
punishable -- but just as bad as any othere murder. Can someone look at
IM CM 2:69 and tell me which one of us got it right? Or am I looking at
the wrong teshuvah?

R' Unterman does indeed label it *abuzraihu deretzichah" (Noam vol
4 1-11). I just don't think R Moshe agrees.

(With other sevaros being chavalah; an issur on the same spectrum as
shichvas zera, but more severe; or a bitul asei of pirya verivya.)

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             The Maharal of Prague created a golem, and
mi...@aishdas.org        this was a great wonder. But it is much more
http://www.aishdas.org   wonderful to transform a corporeal person into a
Fax: (270) 514-1507      "mensch"!     -Rav Yisrael Salanter

On 14/08/18 09:59, Danny Schoemann via Avodah wrote:
> 1. What is your source for this? Talking to dead people ("asking the
> neshamah of a tzadiq", no?) seems to be Doresh El Hameisim - one of the
> 365 possible aveiros.

The Zohar explicitly dismisses this concern, saying that "meisim" here 
means resha`im, who are dead even when they're alive, and not tzadikim, 
who are alive even when they're dead. It then relates this to Koheles's 
"Meisim shekevar meisu", i.e. the tzadikim who are "dead" only in the 
superficial sense that they happen to have died, versus the "chayim 
asher heima chayim `odena", i.e. the resha`im who are "alive" only in 
the sense that they happen not yet to have died.

-- 
Zev Sero            A prosperous and healthy 5779 to all
z...@sero.name       Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper

On 14/08/18 17:04, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote:

 >    Historically, many decisors viewed feticide as a lower-level form
 >    of manslaughter that is permitted only when it will save the
 >    mother's life. In that case alone, we treat the fetus as a rodef,
 >    [...]  This position was adopted [..] by, amongst others, [..]
 >    Rabbi Moshe Feinstein.
>
> Is this really R' Moshe's position? As I wrote, I thought he did consider
> abortion actual murder, and not "a lower-level form of manslaughter". But
> rather, like murder of someone who was terminally ill, it's simply not
> punishable -- but just as bad as any othere murder. Can someone look at
> IM CM 2:69 and tell me which one of us got it right? Or am I looking at
> the wrong teshuvah?

You are correct, and I think the author was inexact in his use of the 
English term "manslaughter".   RMF explicitly says it is murder, exactly 
like killing a tereifa, and he says this is the position not just of the 
Rambam but also of Rashi & Tosfos and that there were no rishonim who 
held otherwise.


-- 
Zev Sero            A prosperous and healthy 5779 to all
z...@sero.name       Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper

I'm going to tackle these issues one by one, as I am trying to get to
clarity, and not to create a Megila-length post.

Part 1:

> : R' Micha Berger claimed:
> :> And in fact, asking a mal'akh is *more* problematic than asking the
> :> neshamah of a tzadiq. After all, when the same tzadiq was alive, asking
> :> him for a berakhah wouldn't have been an issue.

RDS: (me)
> : 1. What is your source for this? Talking to dead people ("asking the
> : neshamah of a tzadiq", no?) seems to be Doresh El Hameisim - one of the
> : 365 possible aveiros.

RMB responded:
> Only if you are using magic so that they can answer back, that's why it's
> in the pasuq with menasheish umechasheif and "ve'sho'eil ov veyid'oni
> vedoreish el hameizim".

I see that that's how the Rambam paskens and the SA (YD 179:13)
concurs. Didn't realize that, because of the Kitzur.

The Kitzur SA - which I'm more familiar with - in 128:13 says that
graveyards are conducive to having one's prayers answered because they
are a holy place (what?) since Tzadikim are buried there, and HKBH
will be kind to us in their merit.

BUT one shouldn't put one's hopes in those buried there as it closely
resembles Doresh El HaMeisim!!! rather one should pray to Hashem to
have mercy on us in their merit. (Sourced as OC 581: the Be'er Heitev
quotes the Maharil as saying that.)

So, now I have 2 questions, but not about your assertions :-)

1. Where does the Maharil get this "Chumra" from? Any ideas? The other
Rishonim seem to ignore this issue.

2. What's this business about cemeteries being Kodosh?

Kol Tuv

- Danny

Rashi, Sotah 45b, d"t "lo ba leyadeinu uftarunhu" discusses the gemara's
word that "uftarunhu" means "without food":
    ... that is, that "yadeinu lo shavkhu" means that he wasn't killed
    by our hands, that we departed from him without food, so that he
    would have to rob people on the road and thereby get killed.

So, Rashi blames the leaders of society for someone being forced into
a life of crime and getting himself killed. It's a hard Rashi for a
Republican to swallow, no? To force society to share blame with the
criminal?

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Mussar is like oil put in water,
mi...@aishdas.org        eventually it will rise to the top.
http://www.aishdas.org                    - Rav Yisrael Salanter
Fax: (270) 514-1507

As I said, I'm going to tackle these issues one by one, as I am trying
to get to clarity, and not to create a Megila-length post.

(Part 1 was cemeteries.)

Part 2- angels:

> : R' Micha Berger claimed:
> :> And in fact, asking a mal'akh is *more* problematic than asking the
> :> neshamah of a tzadiq. After all, when the same tzadiq was alive, asking
> :> him for a berakhah wouldn't have been an issue.

RDS: (me)
> : Where do we find an issue talking to angels? Those angel-related piyutim
> : that you skip are not of recent vintage...

RMB responded:
> I was talking philosophically, not halachically. People have bechirah,
> and it makes sense to ask a living person for a berakhah. There is more
> to compare to asking a niftar.

What does bechirah have to do with asking for a Bracha?

This is a new concept for me, and may finally help answer the age-old
question "what is a bracha and why does it work?"

RMB:
> Angels and bechirah is a complicated topic. But I believe consensus is
> that at least while in shamayim, they don't have any or don't have any
> opportunity to use it.

OK - completely unfamiliar territory for me.

But since you mentioned it, the two "Shalom Aleichem" angels are not
in heaven, they are here in our living room.

RMB:
> As for a halachic argument, praying to angels is how dor Enosh invented
> AZ. (Hil AZ 1:1-2.)

I don't see angels mentioned there only stars and galgalim (which in
Mada 3:1 is defined as physical astronomic layers).

RMB:
> As the Rambam later writes in 2:1:
>     The essence of the commandment of AZ is not to worship any of the
>     created, not a mal'akh, nor a sphere, nor a star, nor 1 of the 4
>     elements nor anything made of them. Even though the worshipper knows
>     that Hashem hu haElokim...

Yes, I see he snuck in the angels here.

RMB:
> And thus, the Rambam's 5th iqar. (Where he also invokes the illogic of
> making requests of something that has no bechirah.)

I'm curious as to why that is more illogical than praying to a person
who has/had bechira. IOW what has bechira to do with being a
conduit/emissary of prayer? (Back I am to the "what is prayer"
question).

RMB:
> Which is likely from the Y-mi Berakhos 63a, which quotes R' Yudan [ie
> Yehudah] speaking in his own name (mishmeih dideih). When a person has
> a benefactor and is need, he goes to the benfactor's door and calls a
> servant or ben bayis over and relays the message.
>     But HQBH isn't like this. "If a person has a tzarah, he shouldn't
>     pray to Michael or Gavriel, rather he should pray to Me, and I
>     will answer him immediately."

OK - that explains how he snuck in the angels, and why "it's silly" to
pray to angles when one could pray directly to Hashem.

But that argument would work regarding praying to people (dead or alive), too.

RMB:
> Similarly, meforashim on Bereshis 48:16 work to explain away the problem
> in "hamal'akh hago'el osi mikol ra".

Interestingly enough a lot of effort is put into matching the Written
Torah with the Oral Torah.

I would have thought that it would make more sense (as in: Pesukim
have to be taken literally - ein mikrh yotzeh miday pshuto) that the
Oral Teachings have to be "twisted and turned" (or discounted) to fit
in with the Written Torah.

Why do we do it backward?

RMB:
> The Chizquni refers back to the previous pasuq, where Yaaqov beraklhah
> begins, "Ha-elokim asher..." and says it's a request to the Borei to have
> the mal'akh who saves me bless the children. The Netziv gives a variant
> of the same idea.

Didn't you just say it was illogical to make requests of something
that has no bechirah?

So for us it's illogical, but for HKBH it's sensible? Please explain.

> The Tur says simply that "mal'akh" is a reference
> to HQBH.

Always? Can't be, since when HKBH says he will send an angel to lead
us, Moshe request he do so 'personally".
So just here? (once again seems backwards - squeezing the psukim to
fit the "agenda", so to speak.)

> The Or haChaim defines "mal'akh" here as "ma'amar Hashem".
> According to the Malbim, Yaaqov is asking the mal'akh relationship that
> we had with the RBSO should continue and thereby bless.

Once again the Malbim saves the day. (My late afternoon Oneg Shabbos
is learning Malbim)

> OTOH, Rashi and Ralbag (ad loc) are not bothered, apparently.

Hey, maybe they don't mind dealing with angels? is that illogical? </funny>

> And then there is the whole "hiskhabdu mekhubadim" said to mal'akhim before
> entering the bathroom. (E.g. Rambam, Tefillah 7:5) Which includes "izruni,
> izruni, shimruni, shimruni" -- clearly baqashos. Or does it -- the
> Bodleian MS. Huntington 80 autographed (!) manuscript doesn't have "izruni".
>
> And the Ri ben Yaqar only has "shimruni" as well, and says it's like "va'aviv
> shamar es hadavar" -- ie wait for me.
>
> R' Yaaqov Emden (Mor uQetzia on Tur OC 3) says that because they're being
> referred to as "mesharsei elion", we avoid violating the 5th iqar. And
> yet in his Sidddur Beis Yaaqov he is against saying "Borchuni leShalom"
> in Shalom Aleikhem (as is the aforementioned Gra).

Kol Tuv

- Danny

As I said, I'm going to tackle these issues one by one, as I am trying
to get to clarity, and not to create a Megila-length post.

(Part 1 was cemeteries.)
(Part 2 was angels.)

Part 3: Piyutim; trusting the previous generations.

RMB:
> So, there is some kind of line to be drawn when speaking to angels. The
> Gra draws it in a more restrictive place than most, and thus curtails
> saying piyutim that are commonplace.

And that should beg the question why the Gra didn't trust the wisdom
of earlier generations. But in general I'm suspicious of all "Gra
quotes" - especially since reading the Reb Chaim Volozhin's "haskomo"
to the Ma'aseh Rav (printed in the good-old Gra siddurim) where he
questions the Zecher-double-segol claim, claiming that in his days the
Gra didn't do that.

More to the point: Where do we see the Gra actually discussing this?

RMB:
> Shalom Aleikhem was written in the early 17th century; it was only
> around a century old when the Yaavetz objected to it, and something like
> 150 yrs old in the Gra's day.

So the 17th-century Rabbonim (early Achronim) saw no reason to stop it
from becoming popular.
Did angels have bechirah in their time? ;-)

RMB:
> Machnisei Rachamim, however, dates back to the late geonim, probably
> around 900 CE or so. That's a LOT of peer review.
>
> IOW, just because I can't bring myself to say something I am not sure
> I can say without thoughts of AZ -- if I am thinking at all -- doesn't
> mean I think no one else should say them. It is not so much that I
> am convinced of shitas haGra, and even if I were, it's obviously the
> mi'ut's opinion. Rather, the magnitude of AZ scares me. And even if
> these piyutim are intended in a manner that is mutar, who is to say my
> own kavanah threads that needle?

Back to what I wrote in Part 2: Maybe it would be better to convince
yourself of the "validity" of the Piyut, instead of assuming the Piyut
is flawed. (I'm not about to explain to The Mussar Man RMB the
importance of Mind Control.)

What would you say to an "anti-going-to-work Yid" who skips the
VeOsafta Degonecho verse in Shma because it seems to imply - what in
his mind is AZ - you need to go out to work?

RMB:
> (FWIW, I say 4 verses of Shalom Aleikhem anyway. The number 4 was intended
> to provide one verse to accompany the mal'akhim through each of the
> 4 olamos. However, there is a verse said after Borchuni according to
> the Kaf haChaim, a nusach followed by the Edot haMizrach. I don't know
> what their symbolism is for 5 verses. But by saying their BeShivtechem
> leShalom instead, I preserve the number 4. And when guests are over,
> or I am not home, I can just mumble the first word and not make an issue
> of saying something other than "Borchuni".)

Wait... there's no issur of AZ thoughts on Friday night? ;-)

RDS: (me)
> : 3. BTW: See the Be'er Heitev at the end of 559:10 quoting the Ari z"l
> : that one should never go to a cemetery except for a burial...

RMB:
> Interestingly, that seems to be the practice of Beis Brisk, although I
> am guessing their source isn't the Ari.

Frankly, in the "good old days" I suspect all Yidden kept away from
cemeteries, so as not to have to deal with the 7-day purification
period.

We see in Chagiga 22b that an Am HaAretz is believed regarding the
relatively rare Tumas-Mes impurity.

It's this fascination with visiting cemeteries that is new, I think.
My grandparents z"l considered graveyards to be no-entry zones, except
for burials. I was with my mother when she went into a graveyard for
the first time; she still prefers to keep away (biz zum 120). No Brisk
or Ari z"l Mesora involved with us Yekkes.

As I wrote, I'm trying to get to clarity on these issues;  I'm sure
you have thought this through and can sort this all out.

Kol Tuv

- Danny

On Wed, Aug 15, 2018 at 04:59:27PM +0300, Danny Schoemann wrote:
:> I was talking philosophically, not halachically. People have bechirah,
:> and it makes sense to ask a living person for a berakhah. There is more
:> to compare to asking a niftar.

: What does bechirah have to do with asking for a Bracha?

That's a question for the Rambam, as I later said this is mentioned in
his description of the 5th iqar. To quote the translation at
<https://www.mhcny.org/qt/1005.pdf>, adding EMPHASIS:
    The Fifth Fundamental Principle: Only He, blessed be He, is rightfully
    worshipped, magnified, and obeyed. One must not pray to anything
    beneath Him in existence: angels, stars, planets or elements, or
    anything composed of these. ALL OF THEM ARE NATURAL PROCESSES WITHOUT
    SELF-DETERMINATION OR FREE WILL. ONLY GOD IS FREE AND PUISSANT. HENCE,
    WE MUST NOT WORSHIP THOSE POWERS WHICH CAN SERVE ONLY AS MEANS TO
    BRING US NEARER TO HIM. We must think only of Him, leaving to one
    side all else. The fifth fundamental principle has all Biblical
    warning against idolatry as its warrant, in other words, the bulk
    of the Torah.

(Yes, it's pathetic that in 2018, the digest software still can't handle
a more authoritative Hebrew. I am pretty sure it's a misconfiguration,
and not a limitation of the software itself. If I ever get a staycation,
I'll work on it. Unless someone is volunteering...)

It seems that to the Rambam, mal'akhim have no free will because they are
only conduits of His Will. And worshipping anything that only exist to
connect us to Him is the essanece of the Rambam's conception of AZ. As
per his description of Dor Enosh in the Yad.

More balebatish-ly: It makes no sense to make a request of anything from
someone who can't choose whether or not to bestow it. Like asking a rock
not to fall. That's not an explanation as to why it would be assur,
but you asked "what does bechirah have to do with asking for..." and
it does show the two are linked. No bechira = "asking for" is silly.
Unlike making requests of people.

:> Angels and bechirah is a complicated topic. But I believe consensus is
:> that at least while in shamayim, they don't have any or don't have any
:> opportunity to use it.

: OK - completely unfamiliar territory for me.

: But since you mentioned it, the two "Shalom Aleichem" angels are not
: in heaven, they are here in our living room.

To discuss this we have to leave the Rambam. And we saw this issur as
framed by the Rambam. But even though the Rambam grounds the issur in
their lack of free will, that doesn't mean that if we assert they have
free will, the issur goes away.

After all, we could easily see other reasons to prohibit turning to
anyone but the Borei, even if prayer could sway them to help. Again,
the Y-mi Berakhos didn't talk about bechirah.

But then we need to know how to draw the line. Why is asking a mal'akh
assur, and asking a living tzadiq is laudible.  Then we can know which
side of the line a niftar is on.

This is different than the Machnisei Rachamim / Borkhuni leShalom
question, which to my mind revolves more on the content of the request
and why the request doesn't cross the line. Machnisei Rachamim has one
thing going for it: Asking mal'akhim to help you get your tefillos heard
might have a whole different set of theological issues. (Like: why would
H' "need" any such help, he knows every though and utterance?) But it
doesn't run the risk of the mal'akh eclipsing Hashem in one's avodah.


The "at least while in shamayim" piece was RYGB's harmonization of the
notion that mal'akhim have no bechirah while still supporting stories
where mal'akhim sin. E.g. the Benei HaElohim (Elokim?) according to Rashi
on Yuma 67b; and according to Rashi Bereishis 22:4-5 says they failed
in gaavah. And during creation, we have the mal'akhim who chose to make
eitz oseh peri. Meanwhile, the same Rashi says that a mal'akh can only
do one thing when ti comes to having one mission.

If by "have no bechirah" we mean (as per the Or Sameiach and RMF on
Vayeira) that they could have it in principle, but in practice everything
is so clear to them that they have no decisions to be made, then maybe
one can say that once they leave shamayim and enter this olam hafuch,
they could indeed have clouded perception, and thus have choices to make.

It's as good a resolution as any, but people still go on talking about
how mal'akhim have no bechirah and people still tell stories with
apparently disobedient mal'akhim in them.

...
: I would have thought that it would make more sense (as in: Pesukim
: have to be taken literally - ein mikrh yotzeh miday pshuto) that the
: Oral Teachings have to be "twisted and turned" (or discounted) to fit
: in with the Written Torah.
: 
: Why do we do it backward?

Because it's assur. It can't be that the pasuq is porraying Yaaqov here
as doing an issur.

: RMB:
: > The Chizquni refers back to the previous pasuq, where Yaaqov beraklhah
: > begins, "Ha-elokim asher..." and says it's a request to the Borei to have
: > the mal'akh who saves me bless the children. The Netziv gives a variant
: > of the same idea.
: 
: Didn't you just say it was illogical to make requests of something
: that has no bechirah?
: 
: So for us it's illogical, but for HKBH it's sensible? Please explain.

Hashem wouldn't be making His request, He would be programming His robot.

: > The Tur says simply that "mal'akh" is a reference
: > to HQBH.

: So just here? (once again seems backwards - squeezing the psukim to
: fit the "agenda", so to speak.)

He says it here. And again, the "agenda" is to understand how this
tefillah is praiseworthy, given the issur under discussion.

I mentioned the Yaavatz and the Gra (to give a Mar'eh Maqom: Siddur
haGra on Shalom Aleikhem").

Another source: The Maharal (Nesivos Olam, Nesiv haAvodah ch. 12)
asks about Machnisei Rachamam. He has a yeish lomar to make a distinction
between a baqashah and a tzivui. "Ve'im kol zeh hu davar she'ein ra'ui."
Final resolution, we are asking Hashem that the Machnisei Rachamam et al
bring our tefillos to Him.

In the metaphor I gave above, we are asking Hashem to program His robots
to bring rachameinu...

In Ish haHalakhah (pg 45, possibly a primary source of my own attitude,
which was shaped by my upbringing and thus my father) RYBS talks about
the many gedolei Yisrael who skipped
   midas harachamim aleinu hisgalgeli, velifnei QOneikh tenikhanaskha
   hapili...

But again, as I said, I am not a Granik or a Brisker. I am not claiming
this is the pesaq I received or the minhag I inherited. Just noting how
difficult it is to say these things with a kavanah that is mutar. Just
see the Maharal! And so, I am personally scared of getting that close
to a yeihareig ve'al ya'avor if there are shitos that allow me to avoid
it.

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

On Fri, Jul 27, 2018 at 04:14:07AM -0400, Toby Katz via Avodah wrote:
:                                  ... also whether or not R' Soloveitchik
: was a straight right-wing charedi, the way he is portrayed by his nephew,
: R' Moshe Meiselman, in his famous book <<Contra Slifkin>> oops I meant
: <<Torah, Chazal and Science>>

: We find in this short passage a fine example of both R' Soloveitchik's
: legendary erudition as well as his equally legendary finesse at eluding
: easy capture....

As long as we don't think this is an RYBS specific phenomnon.

There are many gedolim throughout history who attracted a following due
in part to the same brilliance and subtlety of thought that made them
very hard to emulate.

And so, Talmidim are left touching only part of the elephant, one
accurately (or somewhat so) that the rebbe taught about fans, and the
other (about as accurately) inisting, "No, rebbe spoke about walls!"

Just look at how many different versions of Derekh haBaal Shem Tov
emerged among just the very first generation of his talmidim!

Among baalei machashavah, pigeonholes and party lines only match when
looking at the gadol who defined the party line. Otherwise, you're bound
to find that they have enough of their own perspective to not be typical
of any camp.

You know, like a Hirschian Gerer Chassid.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             The waste of time is the most extravagant
mi...@aishdas.org        of all expense.
http://www.aishdas.org                           -Theophrastus
Fax: (270) 514-1507

On Mon, Aug 06, 2018 at 03:26:13PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote:
: As RSBA often reminds us, "hastu nachgeschaut?"  If you had, you
: would have found that OC 165 is "The law of one who went to the
: toilet and wishes to eat".

: Never mind, the reference is obviously to OC 156.

RYH, who was quoted, could simply have typoed 165 when meaning 156.
I often do such "dyslexic" typoes. Aside from every other type of typo.
But 29b vs 30b...

:> The Mogain Avrohom rules in accordance with Rabbi Yehudah, not the
:> Tanna Kamma.

: This is simply not true.  He explicitly paskens that one must teach
: ones child a trade *or how to do business*, in other words like the
: Tana Kama and against R Yehuda.

Not just "like", exact quote with citation
    ... Qidushin daf 30 amud B: Chayav adam lelamid beno umenus o
    la'asoq bischorah
    ve'im eino oseh kein, ke'ilu melamdo listim.
    Shabbos daf 129...

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             If a person does not recognize one's own worth,
mi...@aishdas.org        how can he appreciate the worth of another?
http://www.aishdas.org             - Rabbi Yaakov Yosef of Polnoye,
Fax: (270) 514-1507                  author of Toldos Yaakov Yosef

On Tue, Jul 31, 2018 at 12:49:57AM -0400, mgluck--- via Avodah wrote:
:> 1- Could they be used for hot foods al pi din?

: From the abstract: "Chitin is an abundant biopolymer whose natural
...
: So we're talking about nanofibers of the crab shell (which, depending on the
: crab, may well be edible). Per https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22539071,
...

Reading up more, I think it's the same halachic issues as gelatin --
assuming the original crab shell was edible. They are mechanically
separated out, then modified chemically (acetylated). At what point are
the resulting polysaccharides (the family of biochemicals that includes
chitin) no longer shellfish? Wiki says the same chitin is "a primary
component of cell walls in fungi, the exoskeletons of arthropods, such as
crustaceans (e.g., crabs, lobsters and shrimps) and insects, the radulae
of molluscs, cephalopod beaks, and the scales of fish and lissamphibians."
Does the fact that for convenience we used a crab rather than getting the
same result from salmon scales or mushrooms permamently taint the result?

Ah, with one other difference. C is no longer a threat. Their inevitable
choice to be meiqil is not a social factor in choosing chumerah. Although
consistency with gelatin probably is.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             What you get by achieving your goals
mi...@aishdas.org        is not as important as
http://www.aishdas.org   what you become by achieving your goals.
Fax: (270) 514-1507              - Henry David Thoreau


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



_______________________________________________
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.)