Avodah Mailing List

Volume 13 : Number 053

Friday, July 23 2004

• RE: source for "No Talmidei Chachamim b'zman haZeh" needed
• Re: Maariv at Mincha minyan
• 9 Days Judaism Question
• Re: Evolution
• Re: Non Jews and Talmud Torah
• Re: 9 days question
• Re: 9 Days Judaism Question
• Re: nine days question
• Re: nine days question
• Fw: Tfillin not worn
• Who was Iyov (if he existed)?
• Mention of shem Hashem in tefila
• Re: Disputing Previous Generation and Halachah L'Moshe MiSin
• RE: Maariv at Mincha minyan
• heicha de'ika lemidrash darshinan
• Re: Divine knowledge of future righteousness
• Re: Evolution
• Re: The Dynamics of Anger
• Re: heicha de'ika lemidrash darshinan
• Re: Iyov
• RE: Maariv at Mincha minyan
• Tefillin and nonjews
• Re: Evolution

To qualify my question:

The article claimed that, even today, all things being equal, Talmidei
Chachamim get tzedakah funds before a non-T.C.

I can accept that -- for someone who is a true T.C.

But given today's situation -- where ANYONE who sits and learns is called
a T.C. -- I suspect the practical halacha is different.

Akiva
--
"If you want to build a ship, then don't drum up men to gather wood, give
orders, and divide the work. Rather, teach them to yearn for the far and
endless sea." - Antoine de Saint-Exupery

>R' Reisman discussed the
>issue and concluded that an individual does get credit for tefillah
>btzibbur even if he is davening a different tefillah than the tzibbur.

IIRC RHS in NhR says that RMS would recommend (those who come late to
shul on shabbat) davening Shaharit 18 when the tsibur is up to Musaf 18
to be yotse with tefilah be-tsibur.

Be-nehemat Tsiyon vi-Yerushalayim,
Yisrael

What are you doing or reading to get into an appropriate frame of mind
for the nine days and tisha b'av?

On a related question, do you feel a need to have a "message" from the
three weeks, the nine days & tisha b'av, whether that message be about
Teshuva or Jewish unity, or sinas chinam. Or does the act of remembering
and mourning sufficient?

In a message dated 7/21/2004 5:49:25 AM EDT, jcoh003@ec.auckland.ac.nz writes:
> You're suggesting an agreement between the Netziv and modern science
> in the same way that Schroeder suggests agreement between Bereshit and
> modern science....
> But tomorrow science will turn around and modify it's theories, and
> you'll have to start again, and you'll be discredited. This is the risk
> with getting into specific connections between Ma'ase Bereshit according
> to Jewish sources and according to science....
>                     I view all this as unnecessary. We can acknowledge
> that through modern science we are still attempting to follow one road in
> unlocking the secrets of Ma'ase Bereshit, and we'll be busy on that for a
> good long time. If we have the absolute emperical truth, we would expect
> the Torah to concur and we would have no problem interpeting the Torah
> to match it. If we had no guidance for emperical proofs, we would take
> the pshat of the Torah. At the moment, we are still in an intermediate
> stage of investigation. So the two realms cannot be combined without a
> ziyuf of one of them. Because science is not certain, the interpretation
> of the Torah to match science is not certain, and therefore relatively
> meaningless.....                Neither is there any reason to reject
> scientific evidence on the basis of the Torah, as we have discussed....

Basically I agree and express a gut gezogt!

However, we could be in a trend of reconcilliation in hich the war between
Torah and Science during the late 19th and 20th centuires, is now at the
point where the 2 systems are able to almost speak the same language.
It's a form of rapproachement that would allow for a bit of inter-action
between the two. IOW, if/when the 2 systems are close enough a dialectic
could ensue which could then bring us a quantum leap closer to the emes.
Keeping the 2 totally compartmentalized might cause us to miss this
opportunity

Kol Tuv;
Rich Wolpoe
RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com 

> There are similar concerns
> about teaching a non Jew Torah or mournng the death of non Jewish blood
> relatives or slaves.

What have the Acharonim made off the Rambam's heter for teaching
Christians Torah, and how extensively would he actually have applied it?

Jonathan Cohen
jcoh003@ec.auckland.ac.nz

In Avodah V13#52, RSBA responded to RSZN:
>> anyone aware of use of...2] use of elli tzion niggun for lecha dodi on
>> shabbat chazon?

> IIANM that is minhag Oberland and/or Pressburg [although not done here].
> And IIRC, it may have been so for all the Shabbosim of the 3 weeks.

The same mournful tune is sung for "L'cha Dodi" during all of "bain
ham'tzarim" in KAJ/"Breuer's" (minhag Frankfurt), but, to my amateur
ear, it's not exactly the tune that I've heard used for "Eli Tziyon"
in Elizabeth, NJ (it -is- the tune used for "Eli Tziyon" in KAJ).
Tangentially, the choir isn't in session during the summertime, but even
if it was, this tune is better sung IMHO between Vorbeter and Gemeinde
(Chazzan v'Qahal bilshon Ashqnaz) without aid from a choir -- would the
deliberate lack of a choir be availus b'farhesya any more than the tune
itself is [not]? (Maybe we need to discuss how a tzibbur could be guilty
of availus b'farhesya.)

RRW responded:
>> ...we do hamakom yenachme

> AFTER lecha Dodi in virutally every shul that welcoms an avel to shul
> during shiva. So the entire idea of aveilus befarhesya is a red herring
> during lecha dodi....Now during my shiv'a for my Mom someone said to
> me shabbos hi milnachem. I never heard this before Bar'chu before.

Especially considering what RSM has previously noted in this forum re
the saider "qabbolas Shabbos." Many listmembers accept Shabbos with the
saying of T'hilim 92, hence availim enter the shul, and are comforted
by the tzibbur via "Hamoqom y'nachaim...," before that point; in a
congregation which accepts Shabbos with "Bor'chu," like KAJ, availim enter
just beforehand (i.e. after T'hilim 93; "Bameh Madliqin" is said later,
after the chazoras "mai-ain shevah"). In any case, unless the concept of
tosefes Shabbos was mistakenly lost to a terrible misreading of the local
sundial and sky, it's not yet Shabbos when a tzibbur sings "L'cha Dodi."

All the best from
 - Michael Poppers via RIM pager

In a message dated 7/21/2004 11:49:48 PM EDT, ykaganoff@yahoo.com writes:
> What are you doing or reading to get into an appropriate frame of mind
> for the nine days and tisha b'av?

> On a related question, do you feel a need to have a "message" from the
> three weeks, the nine days &tisha b'av, whether that message be about
> Teshuva or Jewish unity, or sinas chinam. Or does the act of remembering
> and mourning sufficient

Studying Iyov along with "Out of the Whirlwind" excerpted from R'YDS.

I would think that following the pattern of Gm Taanit that we need
tshuva as part of the Taanit - after all they spent the 1st half of
the day IIRC in Milai Dmata - trying to fix themselves before moving
to tfila. IMHO this is an example ala R'YDS of needing both the kiyum
and the maaseh.

I was thinking that perhaps the reason that any learning is allowed on
Tisha Bav(vs. personal aveilut) might be because in order to get to the
proper level of "aveilut yishana" in which I am not an avel (or as R'YDS
put it - the gavra is not an avel but we are chayav in nihugei avelut),
it is necessary to steep oneself in others experiences of loss (ie it's
not just to avoid simcha but to have a kiyum in common avelut)

Thoughts?
KT
Joel Rich

Saul Newman asked:
>anyone aware of use of
>2] use of elli tzion niggun for lecha dodi on shabbat chazon?

>any pros and cons?

Con: 
Singing lecha dodi with a kinot tune sounds like bringing the aveilut
of the 9 ays/shavua she'hal bo to Shabbat. Since aveilut is forbidden
befarhesia on Shabbat, singing lecha dodi with a kinot tune should not
be done.

Dov A Bloom
dovb@netvision.net.il

Lekha Dodi isn't said on Shabbos -- except when you're running late and
it's said after sheki'ah. Would those who offered that answer say that
in such a minyan one can't use a mournful tune for it? Also, do people
in such a situation not say "Hamakom"; for that matter, do aveilim
enter earlier?

As for the text of Lekha Dodi itself, much of it is about Yerushalayim
haCharavah.
    The sanctuary of the king, city of royalty, / Come get up from the
    midst of the upheaval....
    Wake up! Get up from the dust! / Wear your clothing of splender, my
    nation [the clothes of the city -mi]...
    Wake yourself up! Wake yourself up! For your time has come, get up,
    be alert! ...

I hear "venivnisah ir al tilah" and think of the old city. A rebuilt city
where you can see: here was the Crusader wall, here was the Chashmona'i
wall, here was the bayis *rishon* wall -- truly "al tilah"... I think
of the city, "dressed" in tinoqos shel beis rabban running down the
steps after school, laughing together, each showing the various genetic
heritages of their ancestors' trek through galus, together, playing...

Which leads to the question of how do I prepare for 9 be'Av. Listening
to the news unfortunately has the ability to put me in the mood. [Oseh
shalom bimromav, hu ya'aseh shalom aleinu.]

I learn Eichah. Usually Iyov as well, as the "aval" of "aveilus", the
inability to embrace the truth one knows in the face of experiences
on can't embrace, is captured in Iyov. (This year, I was behind on my
Mishlei, so it didn't happen.)

Leiman's biography of "Akiba", running from churban bayis to Hadrian,
helps me feel the historical event. Many find the English somewhat
stilted, I heard others do not respond to the book as well as I do.

-mi

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

RMB (micha@aishdas.org ) wrote in Avodah V13 #51 on Mon, 19 Jul 2004
21:50:21 -0400 (EDT)
>Inherently, tefillin is a mitzvah qiyumis, not a chiyuv.

On the contrary, tefillin is the classic mitzva chiyuvit. One is
obligated to put on tefillin every day; this obligation is not dependent
on something else, as is the case of a mitzva qiyumit such as tzitzit .
The mitzva is tefillin is not dependent on the mitzva of qriat shma,
as RMB suggests.

>Unlike the mitzvos for which we did risk our necks, such as milah, where there is an issur involved
>in non-performance.

Not putting on tefillin is a bitul mitzvat aseh. There most certainly
is an issur in non-performance.

There are surely significant differences between milah and tefillin,
but as far as the chiyyuv is concerned, they seem to me to be virtually
the same.

Saul Mashbaum 

Posted by: Joelirich@aol.com
> B"B 14b ff has a long discussion citing numerous possibilities. I
> once heard R' N Helfgot discuss "the universal rule of conservation of
> personalities"(or something like that) as to why the gemora says things
> like Eliyahu hu Pinchas. Any ideas on why the Gemora here seems to take
> the flip side and identify so many different possible ID's especially
> since the Gemora seems to focus on Moshe as the author.

It's a great question. I sugest that this is because Yiov is mentioned as
a real person in Ychezkel 14,20, along with Daniel (but spelled without
a yud) and Noach. Why would Ychezkel quote him as an example if it was
really someone else.

Also, that rule does not apply for repeated, consistent mention of a
person, especially a central character. The rule is: if you have an
unknown person, his name does not really identify him and he could
have been called anonymously- man, person etc. So it must be someone
whose name does identify him farther. It does not apply to a central
character. Please see Midrash Pinchas for a discussion of this rule-
http://www.aishdas.org/midrash/5764/pinchas.html

How Ychezkel could quote him if he was a moshol remains a good
question. See <http://tinyurl.com/3qwzh> [Greenberg - Was Job Real -
A Topic of Medieval Exegesis.PDF] for a good article on the topic.

M.Levin

Is there a pattern to when we mention the shem Hashem in the berachos
of tefila (other than when it's a quote from a pasuk)?

None in the first three or in Chonen hada'as
Hashivenu Avinu, Selach lanu Avinu
None in beginning of geulah...ki Go'el chazak Ata
Refa'enu Hashem venerafeh (OK, quote from pasuk)...ki Kel Melech Rofeh...
Barech alenu Hashem Elokenu
Teka beshofar, none
Hashivenu, none in beginning...umeloch alenu Ata Hashem
Birchas haminim, none
Al hatzadikim, none in beginning...yehemu na rachamecha Hashem Elokenu
Yerushalayim, none
Es tzemach David, none
Shema kolenu Hashem Elokenu...ki Kel Shomea...
Retze Hashem Elokenu...
Hodaah, none in beginning (I think?)...Ho'Kel yeshu'asenu
Sholom, none in beginning...ki ve'or panecha nasata lanu Hashem Elokenu

Some of these are different in nusach sefard.

Thoughts?

Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com

RZL and I bumped into eachother on the street corner. I described my
position a little more clearly, and I'd like to do so again on-list.

First, I need to define my terms:

middos: rules about derashos. "Kelal uperat ukelal" is one middah.

instance of derashah: a single derashah of a particular text. Such as "al
kol davar pesha (kelal) al shor al chamor (perat) al kol aveidah (kelal)".

medrash: the entire art

What were we given miSinai, the middos or particular instances of
derashos?

The Rambam's shitah is almost Euclidean. HQBH gave us TSBK, a few dozen
HLM, and middos and logic with which we deduce the rest. The role of
medrash is generative -- it's used to make new interpretations. Including
details about the middos themselves, in true recursive fashion.

The Rambam's position about middos being generative is far from
universally accepted. And frankly since the rise of popularity of
particular forms of apiqursus, acharonim have been tending to take the
other side.

RSRH, in CW vol V, writes about Hillel, Rabbi Yishmael and Rabbi Aqiva
using different systems to categorize the middos. Even though the basic
middos are the same.

I can understand this two ways:

1- Hashem gave us at Sinai many rules of derashos. Hillel grouped them
into 7 categories, RY 13, and RA into 19. Generalization from smaller
rules to broader ones.

2- Hashem gave us the individual instances of derashah. From which we
deduced patterns -- generalization from example. Much the way Brisker
lomdus finds patterns in shitos; the pattern is inherent in the material,
but never spelled out. RSM has in the past written similarly about diqduq;
the rules of diqduq are deduced given the examples found in Tanach.

The problem is that Rabbi Yishma'el sometimes uses ribui umi'ut and
Rabbi Aqiva will use a kelal uperat. Which would seem to mean that each
encountered derashos that didn't fit their system. This is very hard
to understand leshittas haRambam. It's also difficult according to the
first understanding in RSRH. If every instance derashah fits within RY's
middos as well as RA's why is RY explaining his instance of derashah
using RA's middah?

I therefore would suggest that the middos are deduced from example. And,
like diqduq (which is why I gave the example), you sometimes derive
general principles, something that tells you about the overall picture,
but are still left with exceptions.

My suggestion was that Rabbi Yishma'el's view of TSBK is one that focusses
on content. From this derives his notion that "diberah Torah belashon
benei adam", and from this he deduced his middos. His cases where
syntax leads to derashah he's treating as exceptions, special cases,
not defining the primary role of the text.

OTOH, I suggest, Rabbi Aqiva viewed TSBK very syntactically, where
instances of derashah almost always come from words regardless of semantic
context. Yes, he has cases where the basis of the derashah in semantic,
but those are the exceptions. The basic middos that define the gestalt
of derashah are syntactic ones.

According to this suggestion, there is still no pragmatic difference
between RY and RA -- as RSRH writes. Because the actual instances of
derashah, from which the halakhah derives, are givens. However, there
is a deep philosophical one.

I hope this is clearer.

I should also be clear that I'm not proposing the idea because it's
"what I believe". It's just an idea to explore.

-mi

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

> IIRC RHS in NhR says that RMS would recommend (those who come late
> to shul on shabbat) davening Shaharit 18 when the tsibur is up to
> Musaf 18 to be yotse with tefilah be-tsibur.

When using the term 18, are you referring to is the shemoneh esrei
tefila? Because AFAIK, there is no Shacharit 18 on shabbat, and never
has been a Musaf 18 that I know of.

Avi Burstein

Does "heicha de'ika lemidrash darshinan" mean one *has* to darshen,
or that one *may* darshen? Or does it mean something else?

I keep coming across the phrase in the Mizrachi to justify Rashi's
readings, but when I search engined it in the gemara (Pesachim 24b and
77b), I couldn't figure out from context what it meant. It's meaning is
not clear in the Mizrachi either because his examples seem to cut both
ways. Can someone help me on this?

Kol tuv,
Simi Peters

T613K@aol.com wrote:
> Zivug rishon and zivug sheini are not necessarily first and second
> marriage. Your first zivug is your ideal mate, your soul mate, the one
> the bas kol announces before you're born. Depending on your deeds and
> the way your character develops as you mature, you may or may not ever
> even meet this person. You may meet her but not choose to marry her.
> Your first wife may be your zivug sheini--the one you got because you
> didn't "earn" your zivug rishon, or the two of you just grew apart
> (without ever having met).

An interesting notion, but how does it fit our Rashi?

Rashi concludes that zivug rishon is mazal, and zivug sheini is determined
by zechus.
Seems the opposite.

-mi

jcoh003@ec.auckland.ac.nz wrote:
> ..... I view all this as unnecessary. We can acknowledge
> that through modern science we are still attempting to follow one road in
> unlocking the secrets of Ma'ase Bereshit, and we'll be busy on that for a
> good long time. If we have the absolute emperical truth, we would expect
> the Torah to concur and we would have no problem interpeting the Torah
> to match it. If we had no guidance for emperical proofs, we would take
> the pshat of the Torah. At the moment, we are still in an intermediate
> stage of investigation. So the two realms cannot be combined without a
> ziyuf of one of them. Because science is not certain, the interpretation
> of the Torah to match science is not certain, and therefore relatively
> meaningless....

The scientific process is infinite. Theories are constantly refined,
on rare occasions totally disproven, and no final theory will ever
be reached.

Therefore, I would think RJC's suggestion (which I would otherwise find
attractive) would mean that we should simply never expect resolution,
and simply trust one exists.

-mi

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

R Moshe Feldman wrote:
> R. Micha Berger wrote:
>>In Iggeres haRamban, the Ramban says that ka'as come from too little
>>anavah. R' Dr Alan Morinis is convinced this is because anger comes
>>from a "Why did this happen to ME?" And without that overemphasis on ME,
>>anger wouldn't follow.

> Interestingly, the chief fault which Moshe Rabbeinu had (according to
> many) was anger, yet he was anav m'kol ha'adam.

Someone raised this question in R Dr Morinis's lecture. He complimented
the question, and didn't have an answer to suggest.

I can only think of one example of Hashem faulting him for having
a temper. Losing your temper once in your entire lifetime would be
amazing! And yet, could still have been his worst flaw.

> I therefore believe that the Ramban's statement (along with many of the
> statements cited by R. Daniel Eidensohn) was referring to a particular
> type of anger--anger deriving from resentment, especially resentment of
> divine punishment. But there are other types of anger: anger deriving
> from impatience, self-righteousness, etc.

Except that the Ramban seems to be writing of ka'as in general, and your
explanation would fit my ka'as is anti-bitachon theory far more than his
anti-anivus shitah. A lack of patience -- overvaluing one's own time over
the needs of others; self-righteousness -- clearly anti-anivus. Etc...

-mi

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

Simi Peters wrote:
>Does "heicha de'ika lemidrash darshinan" mean one *has* to darshen,
>or that one *may* darshen? Or does it mean something else?

>I keep coming across the phrase in the Mizrachi to justify Rashi's
>readings, but when I search engined it in the gemara (Pesachim 24b and
>77b), I couldn't figure out from context what it meant....

This is discussed in the Mar Karshisha [page 124] of the Chavis Yair. It
seems from a quick perusal that he feels that where there is a possiblity
for a derasha - it is legitimate to ask why it wasn't used. He does note
that this is not consistent across shas.

In a message dated 7/23/2004 8:32:45 AM EDT, Joelirich writes:
>Thanks for the cites-they were very helpful in my preparation for
>tisha baav shiur

I was thinking about this question, how could Chazal say Yiov
never existed when there is a reference to him in two places in
Yechezkel. Afterwords I remembered M. Greenberg suggestion. He notes
that Rambam's version is Yiov l'moshol haya, not moshol haya, that is
that he was a real person who was used for literary purposes. This would
answer the question but opens other questions for me.

What does it mean to say that Tanach ascribed events that never were
to real people? Where does it lead us in terms of historical reality,
or is that restricted to the book of Iyov only?

M. Levin

Of course not. I meant it as shorthand for the amidah. After all, even
on weekdays it isnt 18!

Maybe yatsa sekharo be-hefsedo. sorry for the misunderstanding...
uve-nehemat Tsiyon vi-Yerushalayim

This directive from RDJosh: 
 Forward my post and your comments to AVODA (and to RYGB and REMT)

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

and here it is:

In <cdp29c$q41$1@falcon.steinthal.us> backon@vms.huji.ac.il writes:

>Let's start from scratch.

>1. Every NOCHRI (gentile) is required to follow the 7 Mitzvot Bnei Noach
>(we listed them previously)

>2. According to the gemara in Erchin 29a the category of Ger Toshav is
>only in effect when the YOVEL (50 year Jubilee cycle) was observed.

>3. The definition of Ger Toshav (as a gentile who comes before a bet din
>[court] and states that he wishes to formally observe the 7 Mitzvot BN
>because he wants to serve God)is discussed in the gemara in Avoda Zara
>64b.

>4. There is NO specific category of ben noach !

>5. What the Rambam refers to as ben noach is one who is a ger toshav
>(in a prior post, I listed the two sources in the Rambam)

>6. When the Rambam refers to a gentile who has not formally accepted
>the 7 Mitzvot BN, they are termed NOCHRI (e.g. Hilchot Shabbat 6:1).

>7. The Rambam was extremely precise in his wording. See Hilchot Melachim
>8:11. His next chapter (9) then starts with the requirements of every BN.
>Had he referred to a gentile in  Hilchot Melachim 10:10, he would
>have referred to the term "NOCHRI" rather than Ben Noach.

So he says nothing one way or another about a NOCHRI except that a
NOCHRI is obligated in the 7 mitzvot, whether or not he becomes a
GER TOSHAV formally or not.  He only talks about reward or punishment
for a GER TOSHAV, a category which does not exist today.

>8. Thus, Ben Noach (a formal category that doesn't exist today even though
>by definition gentiles are obligated to follow "the" 7 mitzvot BN) used
>in Hilchot Melachim 10:10 does **NOT** refer to gentiles today. Ergo,
>a gentile today (who is not a BN) is not permitted to observe any mitzvot
>other than the 7 he was commanded to follow. And certainly not permitted
>to put on tefillin [even a Jew who doesn't have a clean body or who can't
>concentrate is forbidden to put on tefillin!].

That doesn't follow.  A Ben Noach can observe other mitzvot for the
s'char, but not out of a sense of obligation (10:10).  A Nochri
can do anything he wants, because Rambam doesn't say anything about
him and his actions aside from the obligation to follow the 7 Mitzvos.
Maybe he'll get s'char, maybe he won't - at most his actions are
meaningless, but the Rambam does not specify an ISSUR on a NOCHRI
performing mitzva-style acts.

--
    Jonathan Baker     |  Mishenichnas av mim'atin besmicha.
    jjbaker@panix.com  |  Puns suspended for the duration.
           Web page: <http://www.panix.com/~jjbaker>

Micha Berger wrote:
> The scientific process is infinite. Theories are constantly refined,
> on rare occasions totally disproven, and no final theory will ever
> be reached.

> Therefore, I would think RJC's suggestion (which I would otherwise find
> attractive) would mean that we should simply never expect resolution,
> and simply trust one exists.

But given that, as you say, total overthrow of established theory is 
rare we might expect an asymptotic approach to a resolution.

-- 
Daniel M. Israel
<israel@email.arizona.edu>		1130 North Mountain Ave.
Dept. of Aerospace & Mechanical		The University of Arizona
   Engineering				Tucson, AZ  85711

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


[ 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         ]