Avodah Mailing List

Volume 40: Number 49

Mon, 18 Jul 2022

• 1. Re: Use of the word peshat in Moreh Nevuchim (Micha Berger)
• 2. Re: Use of the word peshat in Moreh Nevuchim (Micha Berger)
• 3. Re: Use of the word peshat in Moreh Nevuchim (Zvi Lampel)
• 4. Re: Is there a permissible way to make tea with a tea bag on Shabbos? (Micha Berger)
• 5. Ba'al Peor and Balfour (Prof. L. Levine)
• 6. Two Seals or Only One? (Prof. L. Levine)
• 7. Re: punishment for the wicked (Micha Berger)

On Mon, Jun 20, 2022 at 02:41:09PM +0300, Zvi Lampel via Avodah wrote:
> 1. So many Hebrew translators missed this.
> 
> 2. The Rambam never uses the term peshat regarding pesukim in the
> Moreh Nevuchim!

Most would consider idiom as as part of peshat. So, the Rambam's
discussion of literal vs idiomatic wouldn't require use of the word
"peshat".

I think this observation is equivalent to noting that nowhere in the Moreh
does the Rambam discuss the interplay between peshat and medrash. He cites
medrashim to prove points, but never head-on to explain a pasuq. (Or a
din, but how many dinim does the Moreh discuss either?)

:-)BBii!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger                 One who kills his inclination is as though he
http://www.aishdas.org/asp   brought an offering. But to bring an offering,
Author: Widen Your Tent      you must know where to slaughter and what
- https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF    parts to offer.        - R' Simcha Zissel Ziv

On Fri, Jul 15, 2022 at 04:46:53PM -0400, Zvi Lampel wrote:
>>> 2. The Rambam never uses the term peshat regarding pesukim in the
>>> Moreh Nevuchim!

RMB:
>> Most would consider idiom as as part of peshat.

> Agreed

>> So, the Rambam's discussion of literal vs idiomatic wouldn't require use of
>> the word "peshat".

> Why wouldn't he refer to the idiomatic meaning as ''peshat'' ?

He would!

But he would also refer to non-idiomatic phrases as peshat. So, there is
no reason in the Moreh to use the word. When all you talk about in parshanut
is the differences between two classes of peshat, it is unsurprising that
the need to say the word "peshat" doesn't come up.

Unlike when he discusses halakhah. Then, peshat vs derashah would come
up a lot. And so, as you wrote:
> Rambam discusses peshat vs. drash extensively in Sefer Hamitzvos...

Gut Voch!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger                 It isn't what you have, or who you are, or where
http://www.aishdas.org/asp   you are,  or what you are doing,  that makes you
Author: Widen Your Tent      happy or unhappy. It's what you think about.
- https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF                      - Dale Carnegie

On Fri, Jul 15, 2022 at 3:31 PM Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org> wrote:

On Mon, Jun 20, 2022 at 02:41:09PM +0300, Zvi Lampel via Avodah wrote:

> 1. So many Hebrew translators missed this.

>

> 2. The Rambam never uses the term peshat regarding pesukim in the

> Moreh Nevuchim!


> RMB: Most would consider idiom as as part of peshat.


ZL: Agreed

So, the Rambam's discussion of literal vs idiomatic wouldn't require use of
> the word
> "peshat".
>

ZL: Why wouldn't he refer to the idiomatic meaning as ''peshat'' ?

Rambam discusses peshat vs. drash extensively in Sefer Hamitzvos. I need to
get a hold of the Arabic version to see if he switched to Hebrew for the
word peshat, or used an Arabic translation; and if the latter, what the
translation means in English.

>
> RMB: I think this observation is equivalent to noting that nowhere in the
> Moreh
> does the Rambam discuss the interplay between peshat and medrash. He cites
> medrashim to prove points, but never head-on to explain a pasuq. ...
>

 MN 3:43 (Friedlander translation) would be an exception:

 [O]ur Sages employ biblical texts merely as poetical expressions, the
> meaning of which is clear to every reasonable reader.... Our Sages say, in
> reference to the words, ? and a paddle (yated) thou shalt have upon thy
> weapon" [azeneka, Deut. xxiii. 14]: Do not read azeneka, ? thy weapon, ?
> but ozneka, ? thy ear?' You are thus told, that if you hear a person
> uttering something disgraceful, put your fingers into your ears. Now, I
> wonder whether those ignorant persons [who take the Midrashic
> interpretations literally] believe that the author of this saying gave it
> as the true interpretation of the text quoted, and as the meaning of this
> precept: that in truth yated, ? the paddle, ? is used for" the finger, ?
> and azeneka denotes" thy ear?' I cannot think that any person whose
> intellect is sound can admit this. The author employed the text as a
> beautiful poetical phrase, in teaching an excellent moral lesson, namely
> this: It is as bad to listen to bad language as it is to use it. This
> lesson is poetically connected with the above text. In the same sense you
> must understand the phrase, ? Do not read so, but so, ? wherever it occurs
> in the Midrash



Zvi Lampel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20220715/4fc68ce4/attachment-0001.htm>

On Tue, Jul 05, 2022 at 12:34:52PM +0000, Prof. L. Levine via Avodah wrote:
> From today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis
...
>> However, Rav Moshe Feinstein zt"l (Igros Moshe OC 4:74, Bishul 15)
>> writes that he does not believe that tea is kalei ha'bishul, and even
>> if it were, he is not convinced that anything can be cooked in a kli
>> shlishi. Some point out that the Pri Megadim (Aishel Avrohom 318:35)
>> is seemingly lenient to allow placing tea into a kli shlishi, however,
>> others read the Pri Megadim in a way that does not allow for this
>> leniency...

It would be interesting to know how bishul differs from cooking in this
regard; IOW, if there are any differences between the technical definition
of "bishul" when used in hilkhos Shabbos and the word "cooking" is used
colloquially in modern English.

(It is also possible that the melakhah is more about bishul using a derekh
bishul than bishul itself. Like the exclusion of solar cooking, etc..)

Anyway...

I buy whole-leaf teas imported from China, Japan, and Taiwan (which the
tea trade still calls Formosa). And I have asked a few experts this very
question. (I also got a few importers to get hekhsheirim, although Star-K
holds that traditional teas, like the better-known case of traditional
beers don't need one.)

In terms of cooking, making tea doesn't cook the leaves. The teas are
left in the same shape whether the tea is made with hot water in minutes
(or seconds, Google "gungfu tea") or cold brewed over hours. The right
model could well be more like tavlin than kalei bishul. Or, maybe the
acceleration of the tea brewing process via above yad-soloedes-bo heat is
"bishul", even if not "cooking" as they use the word.

:-)BBii!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger                 A person must be very patient
http://www.aishdas.org/asp   even with himself.
Author: Widen Your Tent            - attributed to R' Nachman of Breslov
- https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF

Bamidbar 25:3  ???????????? ??????????? ???????? ????????

3Israel became attached to Baal Peor, and the anger of the Lord flared against Israel.

The following is from Rav Schwab on Chumash page 468

In the margin of Rav Schwab's Chumash Devarim, on this pasuk, the
Rav wrote as follows:

Ba'al Pear is related to the matter of  the restriction against
adding mitzvos, because the very desire to denigrate idolatry and to
shame it in a way that has not been commanded by the Torah brings
to avodah zarah and this was the sin of Ba'al Pear. People inherently
possess a yetzer hara to invent new mitzvos that are contrary to the
Torah. Moshe Rabbeinu was buried on Har Neva, opposite the Pear
idol, to atone for this sin of Klal Yisrael's, which was an expression of
this yetzer hara. The "yetzer hara for mitzvos" can destroy the whole
Torah. Such a yetzer hara is the force behind every mashiach sheker,
false messiah. The ma'apilim of the Torah, who wished to force their
way into Eretz Yisrael, held that the mitzvah of settling Eretz Yisrael was
greater than that of listening to Hashem and their Torah teachers.
The Balfour Declaration of 191 7 established the right of Jews to return
to the Holy Land. Some Zionists took this as an impetus to create new
mitzvos, i.e., the settling of Eretz Yisrael above all other mitzvos. This
they did despite Chaza/'s warning of -Don't rebel against
the nations of the world (Kesubos 111 a), trying to force the hand of
Mashiach.

And the Rav mused: "Is there any lesson to be learned from the
similarity of the words Ba' al Pear and Balfour?"

I am sure that many will have comments on the last sentence above.

Yitzchok Levine
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20220717/eb3b35d1/attachment-0001.htm>

From today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis


Q. I understand that some foods require two seal to guarantee that they
were delivered from a kosher source, while one seal is sufficient for other
items. Can you please elucidate?

A. The Gemara (Avoda Zara 39a) writes that filleted fish, meat, wine
(non-mevushal), and techeiles (tzitzis strings dyed blue) require two
seals. Bread and cheese require only one seal. There are three explanations
for these distinctions:


Shulchan Aruch writes that whenever there is a possible Torah prohibition,
as is the case with meat and fish, we require two seals. In contrast,
gevinas akum (cheese made by a non-Jew) and pas akum (bread baked by a non 
 Jew, even though all the ingredients are kosher) are rabbinic
prohibitions, and one seal suffices.

  *   Rashi explains that expensive items such as meat and fish require two
  seals because the incentive to misrepresent the product as kosher is
  greater. Inexpensive items such as cheese and bread require only one
  seal.
  *   The Ran maintains that items which may be completely non-kosher, such
  as meat and fish, require two seals. Foods that, at worst, would have a
  mixture of non-kosher ingredients, require only one seal.

The Shach (YD 118:5) rules that we should be strict and require two seals if any of these three reasons apply.

YL

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20220718/e9ee5b5c/attachment-0001.htm>

On Tue, Jul 05, 2022 at 05:13:22PM -0400, Joel Rich via Avodah wrote:
> So perhaps you can help me think this through? The Rambam in hilchot tshuva
> (8:1) seems to imply that the punishment for the wicked is that they will
> cease to exist -- meaning to me that they will not participate in the world
> to come. If this is so, it seems to me that Pascal's wager seems less of a
> challenge...

First, there aren't too many if any shitos in which fear of eternal
punishment is realistic. After all, the list of people in Sanhedrin 10:1
who have no cheileq le'olam haba are heretics not likely to embrace any
traditional hashkafah. And mishnah 2 adds all of 7 people; mishnah 3 --
Noach's generation, the 5 cities around Sodom & Amora, the generation the
left Mitzrayim (!). And mishnah 4 is back to heretics (like mishnah 1),
the residents of an ir hanidachas.

All in all, it seems that it's someone who doesn't believe there is an
olam haba or a Dayan who doesn't get there. So, they're not worried.
Or, someone you don't have to worry about being because they lived
millennia ago.

So, whether this mishnah here is discussing who gets revived (Bartenura,
or the Ramban's take on "olam haba") or who gets reward in the post-death
existence (whether that reward is in opposition to punishment or to
cessation), normal people have some portion of reward. Eternal torment
is for exceptional cases. (Again, most of whom wouldn't be worried about
it.)

Second, I think more people are more afraid of not existing than of
existing in torment.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger                 If a person does not recognize one's own worth,
http://www.aishdas.org/asp   how can he appreciate the worth of another?
Author: Widen Your Tent                - Rabbi Yaakov Yosef of Polnoye,
- https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF                author of Toldos Yaakov Yosef


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



_______________________________________________
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.)