Avodah Mailing List

Volume 12 : Number 082

Friday, January 23 2004

• Q re Shoftim 6:11
• Re: Ramban/Shechinah
• Cardinals in the Beis Medrash
• Re: A tale of dishes
• Re: microwaves
• Re: Microwaves
• Re: Mi she'asa nisim
• Re: Middos of the Avos according to the Netziv
• Re: Middos of the Avos according to the Netziv
• Re: Middos of the Avos according to the Netziv
• Re: Middos of the Avos according to the Netziv
• Re: Ramban/Shechinah
• Re: A tale of dishes
• The Word "Crucial" and Holloween
• Re: 10 Tevet
• Re: 10 Tevet

Why is Yoash called "avi ho-ezri" instead of "ho-aviezri" (see RaShY ad
loc), and what's the implication for compound-noun names? Thanks.

P.S. Please excuse my not researching this issue before posting it --
I'm about to leave my cousin's house in Ramot for the Kosel and may not
have a chance to "hit the books" later today.

 - Michael Poppers via RIM pager

From: "Yosef Gavriel & Shoshanah M. Bechhofer" <rygb@aishdas.org>
> Why can the meeting, though not occurring in space per se, occur in time?

In this context you need to distinguish between God, Who is simple,
and angels, who were created in time (IIRC it's a machloketh in BR and
Tanhuma B which day) and therefore are subject to change.

If it's a direct meeting with God (which, in a simple reading of YHT 2:7,
never happens - though arguably the Rambam may not be describing nevuath
Moshe Rabeinu) then it occurs in time only because the recipients are
bound to time (compare the Rambam's comment on Avoth 5:5 (asarah devarim
nivr'u bein hashmashoth ...).

If it's an encounter with malachim, who are subject to time, then the
notions of prior and posterior can map into earlier and later. This
may not always be true, for example, medieval intepreters of Aristotle
attributed to him the belief that God is prior to the world but that
both are eternal, so that particular priority is not temporal.

David Riceman

In a private e-mail discussion regarding YU's decision to allow a group
of Cardinals into its main beis medrash to circulate among the students
and talk with them, I pointed to a teshuvah from R' Tzvi Pesach Frank
allowing a priest wearing a cross to enter a shul. The main issue involved
the cross worn by a priest and whether this symbol of a different religion
is appropriate for a synagogue.

Another participant actually looked up the teshuvah (which I had not
seen in years) and reported, correctly, that RTP Frank was dealing with
an uninvited priest. But he explicitly prohibits inviting a priest -
or anyone wearing a cross - into a synagogue. If they would respect the
synagogue and remove their crosses, this issue would presumably not arise.

Shu"t Har Tzvi, Orach Chaim vol. 1 no. 85

Gil Student
gil@aishdas.org
www.aishdas.org/student

Shoshana L. Boublil wrote:
>After the guests left, we stayed, my MIL, one SIL and our two youngest
>daughters . They too were affected by the special atmosphere that
>pervaded the cleanup -- and argued about doing more of the sweeping
>and floor washing! We finished around 2:30 am. The house was clean,
>the dishes all put away, the pots and pans were drying on the counters
>-- and we were all smiling, filled with a feeling of satisfaction and
>spiritual accomplishment.

Interesting! The following sources might be relevant.

Ran( Derasha #6): Someone who devotes his body and soul to G-d and
strongly desires to serve Him [even without being a scholar], will
reach a higher level than someone who is a scholar [but is lacking this
desire]. This principle is found in Berachos(20a). "Why did miracles
happen in previous generous but not now? It can't be because they were
more learned because in fact the current generation is more learned than
in the past? The answer is that they were willing to devote themselves
totally to G-d while the current generation is not so devoted." Thus
we see that G-d is most concerned with what is in a person's heart when
he does good deeds and not with knowledge per se. It follows from this
principle that when a person's motivation is to come closer to G-d -- 
then even when he is engaged in mundane activities such as business
-- his activity is actually total service of G-d. On the other hand
someone who isn't motivated to come closer to G-d -- even if he thinks
he is serving G-d -- is actually rebelling against Him. This issue
causes much error amongst the masses when they see tzadikim involved in
mundane activities. We also err when we learn that the Avos engaged in
activities such as farming or business. Error is produced when we learn
from our sages that Yaakov risked his life for some small jars. The
masses conclude from this that tzadikim -- despite all their piety -- 
act just like the common man. Woe is it to the people that see but
don't understand what they see. They can only see the action but not
the internal motivation behind it. In fact the righteous do everything
for much purer spiritual reasons than lesser individuals. This problem
is related to the observation that the masses can't distinguish between
a good and bad doctor. The explanation is that the activities of all
doctors seem identical in that they provide medicines and ointments. The
good doctor however prescribes the medicine to the right person at the
right time at the right dosage in contrast to the bad doctor. We can say
the same about the performance of mitzvos. The masses equate the pious
individual and the common man in terms of their activities. However
the activities of the pious person are of a higher nature because of
the higher level motivation which is the most important aspect of the
mitzva. Also concerning sin -- thought about transgressing can be as
damaging as the act itself (Yoma 29a).

Rabbeinu Bachye( Shemos 18:21): Come and see how critically important it
is to have good character traits (midos). The tzadikim and prophets of the
Torah such as Noach, Avraham and Yaakov were not praised by their wisdom,
understanding and knowledge but rather by their character traits. "Noach
was a pure tzadik", Avraham was told "to be perfect", Yaakov was described
as a "perfect man" and Moshe was "extremely modest". All this comes
to teach that the most important thing is not knowledge but perfected
character traits. Just as a tree is not the most important thing but
rather its fruit...

Rav Yaakov Kaminetsky[Emes l'Yaakov Bereishis 14:14] writes that Avrahom
risked his life to save Lot. However the Torah does not require such
sacrifice. He notes that the Avos were referred to as yeshorim (Avoda
Zara 25a) which means they did that which was menshlich. This menshlikeit
is the same things as derech eretz kadmon l'Torah.

Daniel Eidensohn

See the thread in Avodah archives titled "Dud Shemesh".

Gil Student
gil@aishdas.org
www.aishdas.org/student

Re: microwaves (and solar ovens) on shabbat: see Rashi d"h d'shari Shabbat
39a ["d'ein derech bishulo b'kach"]. See also Minchat Chinuch 7 #5 quoting
the Pri Megadim in Mishbetzot Zahav s"k 6 on Orach Chayim 318 that bishul
b'chama in reality *is* like cooking with fire. See also the svara of the
Piskei haRID "lo chashiv bishul mi'shum she'ein chama m'vashelet heitev
k'mo bishul ba'eish" [ergo, if there would be a solar oven, it would be
"fire" and thus forbidden]. The Eglei Tal (Mlechet ha'Ofeh 19 s"k 44)
also discusses "shelo k'darka" on Shabbat as assur m'drabban [but only
because the result of the cooking is different. However, a solar oven
(or microwave) would engender the same results as a regular oven and
could be assur mi'doraita even though it's "chamah".

On a theoretical basis (we don't paskin this way] the Yerushalmi (Perek
ha'Kira halacha 5) and in the Korban ha'Eda and Pnei Moshe, and in the
Chiddushei haRambam (end of Avoda Zara) the issur (for using a solar
oven or microwave) may *only* be d'rabbanan.

[BTW we had this discussion recently on soc.culture.jewish.moderated and
I also mentioned other "relativistic" halachot (e.g. squeezing oranges on
shabbat for juice) as determined by culture. Same thing with solar ovens
and microwaves: when they first came out, they weren't the normal way
of cooking and lichora may have been permitted. But once they got into
use by the public, cooking with them became a "normal" way of cooking].

Josh

In a previous digest, GDubin asked:
: 1.Mi she'asa nisim la'avosenu
: 2. vega'al osam me'avdus lecherus
: Hu yig'al osanu bekarov.
: Why do we mention nissim if we're not asking for them?...

I saw RGD's post while on my way to eretz Yisroel and thought it good
enough to throw at my flying companion, but neither he nor I could come
up with an answer which satisfied me. Looking through Saifer HaMoadim
in my cousin's house, I see the nusach of Rav Amram Gaon, and it _does_
ask for nissim:

"Mi she'asah nissim la-avosainu umiMitzrayim g'alam, Hu yig-al osanu
v'yashiv banim ligvulam b'siman tov y'hai lanu rosh chodesh {p'loni}
b'yom {p'loni}, Hu ya'aseh i'manu nissim v'niflaos b'chol a'is uvchol
sha'ah, lanu ulchol a'mo Yisrael."

All the best from
 - Michael Poppers via RIM pager

[R' Yitzchok Brandriss:]
>The points are well taken, and perhaps I phrased my question poorly. My
>intent was not that Chesed and Torah are opposites. My intent was that
>the middah of chesed, usually associated with Avraham, is assigned by the
>Netziv to Yaakov; and the middah of Torah, usually assigned to Yaakov, is
>assigned by the Netziv to Avraham.

My impression was that "Shalom" (or the attainment of Shalom) was NOT
the equivalent of Chesed at all. In other words, I did not see where the
Netziv assigned the Middah of Chesed to Yaakov. In fact, when the Netziv
describes the "Characteristic" of Yaakov, it does not appear that he
refers to Chesed at all. Note the following (Bereishit 34, 1 Footnote
"Beit" in Harchev Davar): "... Avraham was called Yisrael and a proof
was brought from the Mikrah; Yitzchak was called Yisrael and a proof
was cited.... but the concept is as follows: every person has three
major needs in his life -- protection from enemies, a livelihood, and
the ability to maintain peace [for without peace, no blessing can last].
And, we have already explained that Avraham Avinu behaved in a supernal
fashion in regard to Protection (comment from me: the Netziv elsewhere
explains that such protection is due to "Ko'ach Hatorah" -- Reference
Bereishit 12:17) and Yitzchak in terms of livelihood (comment from me:
i.e., in a supernal fashion) but there was still lacking the third Middah
(of Shmirat Shalom) unti Yaakov came and made peace with Esav and Lavan
in a miraculous fashion..."

I am aware that earlier the Netziv mentions Yaakov in the context of
"Gemilut Chesed" -- however, I do not believe that this is what we
normally term "chesed" since the Netziv's example of Yaakov's "Gemilut
Chesed" is in the care that Yaakov took of Lavan's Sheep. Further, the
Netziv explicitly links the "Chesed" of Yaakov to the Shemirat Shalom
mentioned above. That is, it appears that Yaakov's "Chesed" here was in
his reliability and faithfulness in watching the Sheep.

>In other words, the Netziv's associations of Avraham and Yaakov with the
>middos of Torah and chesed, respectively, are the opposite of the way the
>"classical" formulation has them. While the convergences described in the
>reply above may be true, they do not seem to me to provide sufficient
>basis on which to merge the Netziv's overall thematic scheme with the
>"classical" one. It is hard to say that this is what he intended.

I do not claim to know the intent of the Netziv here. However, I think
that the approach taken was in response to Midrashim and Pesukim that
described the Torah aspects of Avraham and the Shalom aspects of Yaakov.
I believe that even if you follow the "classical" formulation, you still
have to be able to explain the pesukim and such cited by the Netziv --
which is why I feel that there is such a convergence here.

>That is what leads me to ask: What, indeed, is the provenance of the
>"classical" formulation? And why did the Netziv not at least acknowledge
>it, if only to explain why he departs from it, or in any case (i.e., even
>if the reconciliation suggested above could work)  why
>he substantially recasts it.

It may be that the Netziv actually understood the "classical" formulation
as he cast it....

[Email #2 -mi]

[Micha:]
>RZWeiss's reply (via RCSherer) seems to me to reduce to saying that
>because the amudim of torah and chessed support the same platform, there
>really isn't a tripod with three distinct legs. Lo zachisi lehavin.

That is not what I meant. Rather, it appears (if you look at the Netziv
in Breishit 12:17) that the Netziv did NOT understand Chesed as we
normally do -- at least not in terms of the Amudei HaOlam. Torah is the
"defining character" of Avraham; Avodah is the "defining character" of
Yitzchak; and "Gemilut Chesed" is the "defining character" of Yaakov.
HOwever, it does NOT appear (according to the Netziv) that there is a
direct correspondence between the middot as expressed in terms of Amudei
HaOlam as opposed to the Pasuk: "Titain Emet L'Yaakov, Chesed L'Avraham".
You may want to also note the Netziv in Breishit 15:1 where he notes that
HaShem assures Avraham (in the words "Anochi Magen Lach -- S'charcha
harbeh m'od") that "... all that I [HaShem] do for you, I do for you
for free.." which would certainly be a Chesed given TO Avraham....

On Fri, Jan 23, 2004 at 01:26:00AM -0600, R' Zvi Weiss wrote:
: My impression was that "Shalom" (or the attainment of Shalom) was NOT
: the equivalent of Chesed at all. In other words, I did not see where the
: Netziv assigned the Middah of Chesed to Yaakov...
...
: It may be that the Netziv actually understood the "classical" formulation
: as he cast it....

I don't think these two statements can co-exist.

Emes and shalom are conflicting goals. Which is why we find a discussion
of lying for the sake of shalom when HQBH paraphrases Sarah's "Va'adoni
zaqein" and where the brothers tell Yosef about a non-existant death-bed
request from Yaakov that Yosef not take nekamah.

Me, putting words in RZW's mouth:
: >RZWeiss's reply (via RCSherer) seems to me to reduce to saying that
: >because the amudim of torah and chessed support the same platform, there
: >really isn't a tripod with three distinct legs. Lo zachisi lehavin.

: That is not what I meant. Rather, it appears (if you look at the Netziv
: in Breishit 12:17) that the Netziv did NOT understand Chesed as we
: normally do -- at least not in terms of the Amudei HaOlam.

I don't know what that means. Chessed as simple kindness is not a
different thing than the chessed of "olam chessed yibaneh". There is
only one set of terms.

:-)BBii
-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             You will never "find" time for anything.
micha@aishdas.org        If you want time, you must make it.
http://www.aishdas.org                     - Charles Buxton
Fax: (413) 403-9905      

>On Fri, Jan 23, 2004 at 01:26:00AM -0600, R' Zvi Weiss wrote:
>: My impression was that "Shalom" (or the attainment of Shalom) was NOT
>: the equivalent of Chesed at all. In other words, I did not see where the
>: Netziv assigned the Middah of Chesed to Yaakov...
>...
>: It may be that the Netziv actually understood the "classical" formulation
>: as he cast it....

>I don't think these two statements can co-exist.

>Emes and shalom are conflicting goals. Which is why we find a discussion
>of lying for the sake of shalom when HQBH paraphrases Sarah's "Va'adoni
>zaqein" and where the brothers tell Yosef about a non-existant death-bed
>request from Yaakov that Yosef not take nekamah.

I do not believe that Emet and Chesed are necessarily conflicting goals.
There are times when -- in this world -- we may face such a conflict.
That does not mean that there is an intrinsic conflict. In fact, if you
look at some of the commentaries on Yaakov's "non-existent" request,
you will see that it not nearly so simple -- The Netziv notes -- for
example -- that Yosef was probably the son who was present RIGHT AT THE
Petirah and gives a fairly interesting explanation of what was meant.
Note, further, Netziv's comments regarding Avraham and Sarah.

>:                           Rather, it appears (if you look at the Netziv
>: in Breishit 12:17) that the Netziv did NOT understand Chesed as we
>: normally do -- at least not in terms of the Amudei HaOlam.

>I don't know what that means. Chessed as simple kindness is not a
>different thing than the chessed of "olam chessed yibaneh". There is only
>one set of terms.

While the Netziv himself cites Olam Chesed Yibaneh, it seems clear
from the discussion that I quoted easrlier that he does NOT apply that
definition (?) "Chesed" in the discussion of Yaakov. As noted earlier,
the citation of Yaakov in the context of "Gemilut Chesed" was specifically
in terms of Yaakov's taking care of the Sheep -- hardly the "usual"
example of Chesed.

--Zvi
-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------
weissz-2@nni.com

On Fri, Jan 23, 2004 at 03:40:51PM +0200, R' Zvi Weiss wrote:
:>: It may be that the Netziv actually understood the "classical" formulation
:>: as he cast it....

:>I don't think these two statements can co-exist.

:>Emes and shalom are conflicting goals. Which is why we find a discussion
:>of lying for the sake of shalom when HQBH paraphrases Sarah's "Va'adoni
:>zaqein" and where the brothers tell Yosef about a non-existant death-bed
:>request from Yaakov that Yosef not take nekamah.

: I do not believe that Emet and Chesed are necessarily conflicting goals.
: There are times when -- in this world -- we may face such a conflict.
: That does not mean that there is an intrinsic conflict...

1- As they're both middos of HQBH, if one takes too lofty of a perspective,
they MUST be identical. As are shalom, gevurah, rachamim, din, etc... Talking
about separate middos is only guaranteed to make sense in this world.

2- Proving that emes and chessed *can* (rather than must) conflict is
enough to show that the Netziv couldn't have identified the emes of the
"'classical' formulation" with chessed.

:>I don't know what that means. Chessed as simple kindness is not a
:>different thing than the chessed of "olam chessed yibaneh". There is only
:>one set of terms.

: While the Netziv himself cites Olam Chesed Yibaneh, it seems clear
: from the discussion that I quoted easrlier that he does NOT apply that
: definition (?) "Chesed" in the discussion of Yaakov. As noted earlier,
: the citation of Yaakov in the context of "Gemilut Chesed" was specifically
: in terms of Yaakov's taking care of the Sheep -- hardly the "usual"
: example of Chesed.

I still don't understand, and again for two reasons:

1- Why isn't caring for sheep a usual example of chessed? We find it
WRT Avraham, Moshe, David... AIUI, chessed is the desire of the "have"
to share with the "have not". Is the middah different in kind when the
"have not" isn't a ben adam?

2- I don't see where the Netziv says that he is talking about a different
kind of "chessed". The way it looks to me is simply that when discussing
Yaaqov's chessed, he doesn't broaden the discussion of chessed to also
speak about Avos 1:2. As the Netziv wasn't writing on the mishnah,
his silence isn't necessarily something we can draw any conclusions from.

:-)BBii
-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             You will never "find" time for anything.
micha@aishdas.org        If you want time, you must make it.
http://www.aishdas.org                     - Charles Buxton
Fax: (413) 403-9905      

Yosef Gavriel & Shoshanah M. Bechhofer wrote:
>> How can you attribute location to something without substance (see H.
>> Yesodei HaTorah 1:11 where the Rambam denies that this is possible)?

> Why can the meeting, though not occurring in space per se, occur in time?

First, I reiterate that pereq 1 limits itself to speaking of Someone
beyond both tzurah and golem. Your use of the word "substance" obscures
the issue as it sounds like the Rambam is saying a lack of golem even
with tzurah can have no location.

Second, a personal problem, while space without time is possible in
Aristotle's universe, in Einstein's, they are inseprable ideas. If there
is a continuous axis of change in the "level" of shamayim associate with
angels, it may act like time, but it isn't time.

According to the Kotzker, there is no time in shamayim.

The sole explanation of ta'am hamitzvah that I ever found in SA haRav
is based on this notion as well. The SAhR explains that qedushas YT on
YT shein shel galiyos is just as real as that of YT rishon. There is a
supernal "Pesach" (lemashal) "up" in shamayim, but it is not associated
with any point in time, since it is lema'alah min hazeman. HQBH created
a link between the 15th day after qidush hachodesh and Chazal created a
link on the 16th. While the nature of the link is different, the thing
they link to is identical.

But mal'achim cause events in olam hazeh. In fact, the Rambam *defines*
a mal'ach as that seichel which causes each particular event of teva.

Perhaps I should step back and give an "Aristotilian Physics
in a Nutshell". Terms in parenthasis is the word rishonim usually
use. Aristotle had no concept of conservation of momentum or energy. And
in the real world you never actually see such things conserved, because
of friction.

Every causal chain starts with an intellect.

The intellect (seichel) imparts impetus to an object, and this causes
the object to move/change until that impetus runs out.

Impetus turns potential (koach) into actual (po'al).

It is this notion that impetus can run out that forced the Rambam to
conclude that the celestial spheres must have intellects. Since they
keep on spinning, something is imparting new impetus to them. It was
this reasoning, plus the definition of the word, that lead the Rambam
to identify the spheres with the ofanim.

It also means that in the Rambam's worldview, as I said before, some
intellect has to impart the impetus by which grass grows. Which is how
Chazal tells us there is a mal'ach standing over each blade.

In the Rambam's formulation of mal'achim, every mal'ach has one tafqid
is a consequence of the definition of mal'ach.

Back to the topic... Since a mal'ach imparts impetus within time and
space, a navi could see the mal'ach's action, if not the mal'ach itself. A
nevu'ah including a mal'ach could therefore be a chazon of events really
occuring, and not necessarily a message framed as a chalom.

This was the impression the Abarbanel left me with, minus the bit about
seeing the action rather than the mal'ach itself, in his defense of
the Rambam's treatment of the visit of the three mal'achim in parashas
Vayeira.

Yosef Gavriel & Shoshanah M. Bechhofer wrote:
> Why can the meeting, though not occurring in space per se, occur in time?

It could be, but this would mean that the "sense" by which a navi has a
"chazon" also has no locality, that the location in which he thinks he
sees what is occuring in those other olamos, like the image, are garments
(meshalim) his mind dreated to deal with the experience.

(To repeat how I defined the terms:
Chazon: experiencing something really happening in higher olamos.
Chalom: the transmission of a message in a dream-like format.)

But , as above, if the navi sees the event, there has to be a "here and
now" that can be associated to what is being seen.

On Thu, Jan 22, 2004 at 08:14:50AM -0500, David Riceman wrote:
: If it's an encounter with malachim, who are subject to time, then the
: notions of prior and posterior can map into earlier and later. This
: may not always be true, for example, medieval intepreters of Aristotle
: attributed to him the belief that God is prior to the world but that
: both are eternal, so that particular priority is not temporal.

Averroes (ibn Rushd), who translated Aristotle's works, mistook Plotinus's
Enneads (the works that started neo-Platonism) to be Aristo's, and
therefore includes them in the translation. Therefore, everyone who got
Aristotle via the Arabic had strong neo-Platonic influences. Including
the Rambam, as we see in YhT 1 and 2, when the Rambam writes of Hashem
as Mamtzi (rather than using the lashon of "Borei"), and speaks of
each madreigah of mal'achim are mamtzi those "below" them (in 2:5,
already discussed in this thread). It's a model of emanation, as per
Plato, but modified to have these "quantum leaps" that RMLevin wrote of,
thereby allowing for specific nivra'im interposed between us and HQBH,
not to mention countable olamos rather than a continuum of them.

To mix metaphors, and now to the other branch of this thread:

RML:
> The issue is very complex and I do not know if I understand it correctly
> either. However, the two opinions of M. Rakanti and R. Dovid are
> brought ... in Shaaar4 of the Pardes. The first is that they are keilim and
> the 2nd that they are identical with the elokut of the ein sof, as fire is
> idnetical with the flame....

> The Ramchal appears to ahve a different view - that sefiros are sccreens or
> barriers to the Light of Ein Sof. In this way they are not truly independent
> realites but also not identical with the Ain Sof.

Chabad seems to have a fourth: That the sefiros primarily describe the human
condition, and it is only through the fact that we're discussing our
perception of G-d that we see 10 forms where there is really an Absolute
Unity.

(IOW, it's only after the shefa divides into sefiros in reaching down to us
that we look back up along those lines and see 10 divisions in the flow.)

Related to this and the original topic of this thread, all of this relates
back to the appropriateness of saying "lesheim yichud". The Rambam's notion of
Sh-echinah (which seems to be identical to the secon opinion above) could
never be separated from HQBH so as to require reunification.

The third and fourth opinion would interpret it as being about tiqun olam.

Meanwhile, the Chabad view would imply that unifying HQBH ushechintei is about
finding personal sheleimos so that the gap between our perception and the
reality would be reduced.

:-)BBii
-mi

--
Micha Berger             I slept and dreamt that life was joy.
micha@aishdas.org        I awoke and found that life was duty.
http://www.aishdas.org   I worked and, behold -- duty is joy.
Fax: (413) 403-9905                        - Rabindranath Tagore

Rt Shoshana L. Boublil wrote:
> On Chanukka a nephew of mine got married. The Kalla's side had many
>                                       and we also discussed the idea of
> housework being a part of a woman's spiritual journey, the idea (I heard
> from Chabad women) that housework parallels the work in Beit HaMikdash, with
> the wife fulfilling the parallel role of the kohen; how cleaning is keeping
> the mitzva of NOY and how such ideas impact on our life.

Well, RAA can tell us if he wishes whether Rt Gila
is a "Chabad woman", but see "Waxy Yellow Build Up"
<http://atwood.co.il/gila/torah/waxy.html>. I believe I saw it in a
magazine when visiting my parents once (thus forgetting what magazine,
and other details).

:-)BBii
-mi

Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org> wrote [on Areivim]:
> Think about it: the word "crucial" was coined by people who think that the
> cross is the most important thing in their lives. And one would only speak of
> the "crux of the matter" if they consider the cross to be central.

> BTW, since this is an issue of AZ, it's not clear how saying that people don't
> realize the origins helps. Do frum Jews celebrate Holloween because its pagan
> roots are lost in history?

You have brought up a very interesting question and I indeed now wonder
about usage of words like "crux" and "crucial".

Can it be that common usage of words that are only derived from AZ sources
are not in and of themselves Assur? Isn't it possible to differentiate
between Holloween, an AZ holiday that has evolved into a secular one,
and a word that has lost all religious signicance and that but for the
few who know the etymology would in no way realize the refference to
the cross that the word "crucial" has?

And as long as were on the subject of Holloween, does "trick or treating"
qualify as AZ in any sense of the word? Is it indeed Assur to do because
of AZ? I'll bet it isn't unless "trick or treating" was in any way the
original AZ Holloween was celebrated. My guess is that "trick or treating"
was manufactured by advertising agencies for the candy industry long
after the original AZ Holloween and that it has no connection to Avodah
Zarah at all.

Let me make clear, I am not advocating "trick or treating". It may be
Assur for other reasons like Lo Selachu. But I wonder if something
practiced on Holloween that has absolutely no relation to the Pagan
holiday of old but simply practiced by children as a means to get
candy and is related in only the remotest and non-AZ of ways... can be
considered Assur M'Shum AZ.

HM

[Micha, about the LXX:]
> The content is lauded as being the product of ru'ach haqodesh, so
> that the translators avoided potential misinterpretation with the same
> circumlocutions. And the translators are called chachamim who were taken
> captive. It would seem that the content is fine, produced by people who
> know what proper content is.
...
>: The situation is analagous to our own rather negative attitude to the
>: King James Bible, whose magnificence and influence are unsurpassed,
>: as compared with the more humble Koren Jerusalem Bible.

> The KJV is un-Jewish in both intent AND content.

What I find interesting is that most of the Greek translations were of
Jewish origin, unlike Latin translations.

LIII is by 70 zkeinim, lathough Christian elements got inserted later
(f.e. Hashem malach in Tehilim 98 got an addition "from the cross" R"L!)

Aquilas according to Yerushalmi in Kidushin and Megila was under the
direction of R. Yehoshua and Eliezer

Symmacheus is generally thought to have been translated by an Ebionite
( A sect that upheld the mitsvos and saw J. as a man who was so good
in keeping the 613 that he was selected for atonement). One authority
idenitfies him with Sumchus, the student of R. Meir.

That leaves Theodotius and Origen as gentile translators.

SO, I think that we have to seek the explanation for Chzal's disleasure
in the concept of translation itself, and not its non-jewish authors.

A copy of E. Tove's article on Septugiant is posted at
http://www.ericlevy.com/Revel/Revel.htm

M. Levin 

On Fri, Jan 23, 2004 at 09:48:37AM -0500, Mlevinmd@aol.com wrote:
: What I find interesting is that most of the Greek translations were
: of Jewish origin, unlike Latin translations.

: LIII is by 70 zkeinim, lathough Christian elements got inserted later
...
: SO, I think that we have to seek the explanation for Chzal's disleasure
: in the concept of translation itself, and not its non-jewish authors.

I'm not sure why you raise this question. You reopen the question without
explaining what you feel is wrong with my suggestion in the post to which
you're replying, that the problem was in the motive? The LXX was produced
under duress, because of coersion applied by Ptolmy. I therefore suggested
that it was as treif in motive as the KJV -- one was in order to allow
the accretion of the Jewish religion into the Hellenist one, the other
to allow its inclusion in a religion derived from the the Hellenist one.

:-)BBii
-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             You will never "find" time for anything.
micha@aishdas.org        If you want time, you must make it.
http://www.aishdas.org                     - Charles Buxton
Fax: (413) 403-9905      

*********************


[ Distributed to the Avodah mailing list, digested version.                   ]
[ To post: mail to avodah@aishdas.org                                         ]
[ For back issues: mail "get avodah-digest vXX.nYYY" to majordomo@aishdas.org ]
[ or, the archive can be found at http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/              ]
[ For general requests: mail the word "help" to majordomo@aishdas.org         ]