Avodah Mailing List

Volume 24: Number 52

Tue, 13 Nov 2007

• 1. Lifnei iver (Michael Elzufon)
• 2. Re: skeptics (Richard Wolpoe)
• 3. Re: skeptics (Micha Berger)
• 4. Re: Vayeitze "Watch Whom You Marry" (Richard Wolpoe)
• 5. Re: Vayeitze "Watch Whom You Marry" (Richard Wolpoe)
• 6. Re: Vayeitze "Watch Whom You Marry" (T613K@aol.com)
• 7. Re: Vayeitze "Watch Whom You Marry" (Zev Sero)
• 8. Re: Vayeitze "Watch Whom You Marry" (T613K@aol.com)
• 9. Vayeitze "Watch Whom You Marry" (Liron Kopinsky)
• 10. Vayeitze "Watch Whom You Marry" (Richard Wolberg)
• 11. Vayeitze "Are You Sleeping or Are You Dreaming?" (Richard Wolberg)

RMK wrote.
"Amar Rav yehuda amar Rav: Kol mi sheyesh lo ma'os umalveh osan shelo
b'edim
oveir mishum v'lifnei iver lo sitein michsol, v'reish lakish omer gorem
klalah l'atzmo."  In this case, the gemara also refers to it as lifnei
iver,
even though there is clearly no transgression taking place except in the
unlikely circumstance that the loveh is kofeir.  This is most definitely
not
an issur of lifnei iveir.  It is at most a gezeirah/takanah.  (I have a
comment penciled in the margin of my gemara directing me to Ritva
Megilla
28a where he says that this is not an issur, but a middas chassidus.)
The
same should apply to the gemara in MK 17a which uses a similar lashon.

[[MJE]] In Moed Katan, shamta (a form of herem) is suggested for the
offender.  That does not sound like a middath hasiduth.

On Nov 13, 2007 4:15 PM, Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org> wrote:

> Three questions:
> 1- CAN Judaism be proven
> 2- IS one's religious stance usually the product of proof
> 3- Should it be
>
> CAN:
> I have a number of blog entries in which I argue (following the Kuzari
> over the Moreh) that the only real proof religion can have is the
> direct experience of living according to it
> <http://www.aishdas.org/asp/category/faith-and-proof>. Philosophical
> argument is never sounder than the combined weaknesses of all its
> postulates, which ultimately means is the product of numerous
> experiences. Anything as complex as religion will therefore be more a
> product of the person's willingness to accept the proof than the proof
> itself. It simply can't be objectively judged.
>

> SheTir'u baTov!
> -micha


That is perhaps why the Kafich's "leidah es Hasehm" is supeior over
"lehaamin..."  because knowing/experiencing is superior than either logical
belief or even "blind belief."

When one KNOWS that one is a parent or a spouse there is no need to
"believe" taht one has a relatiosnhip! Similarly when one experiences God
logic is unnecessary, rather one relates to God..    Similarly when one
KNOWS on is Jewish there is no need to believe that one is Jewish, and it
follows that one does Judaism [or Torah].  Exactly HOW one does Judaism is
another matter.

I would also NEVER posit that Judaism is the ONE TRUE RELIGION. Rather,
Torah is THE Covenant between an Israelite and God.  Non Jews need not apply
:-), I[Nor is Torah a prerequisite for perfection of one's Middos.]  IOW you
don't have to be JEWISH but if one is AWARE that one is Jewish it behooves
one to be the best Jew one can be.
-- 
Kol Tuv / Best Regards,
RabbiRichWolpoe@Gmail.com
Please Visit:
http://nishmablog.blogspot.com/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/private.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20071113/52ba0a76/attachment-0001.html 

On Tue, November 13, 2007 5:15 pm, Richard Wolpoe wrote:
: That is perhaps why the Kafich's "leidah es Hasehm" is supeior over
: "lehaamin..."  because knowing/experiencing is superior than either
: logical belief or even "blind belief."

I find it very difficult to believe that that's the distinction R'
el-Qafeh was making in insisting the Arabic should be translated as
yedi'ah rather than emunah. Look at Yesodei haTorah 2:1... The Rambam
clearly gives value to philosophical knowledge of G-d. Where does he
ever explicitly speak of direct experience? I think the Rambam, like
the philosophers of his time, didn't consider experience possible
without that philosophic preparation.

"Ratzah HQBH lezakos es Yisrael..." The Rambam says that this is to
give us many opportunities to have that epiphany into His Nature
necessary to get olam haba. Not because Hashem wanted us to have an
active relationship with Him.

And in fact, I've heard RYQ's "leidah" explained to mean just this --
intellectual knowledge rather than some "warm fuzzy" but less certain
faith...

SheTir'u baTov!
-micha

-- 
Micha Berger             One who kills his inclination is as though he
micha@aishdas.org        brought an offering. But to bring an offering,
http://www.aishdas.org   you must know where to slaughter and what
Fax: (270) 514-1507      parts to offer.        - R' Simcha Zissel Ziv

On Nov 12, 2007 8:59 PM, kennethgmiller@juno.com <kennethgmiller@juno.com>
wrote:

> R' Richard Wolpoe asked:
> > How did HKBH let Y'aaov Avinu have relations with Le'ah that
> > night when his Kesubbah said Rachel - which meant his bi'ah
> > was assur.
>
> I figure it's a kal vachomer from the heter to marry two sisters:


WADR: This does no address my question at all
Ya'akov CONCSIOUSLY married 2 sisters.  Whether he did the right thing or
the wrong thing he STILL had bechira.

In fact: Ya'akov had 3  options:

   1. Annul the marriage to Le'ah
   2. Give up on Rachel
   3. Add Rachel to  his existing marraige to  Le'ah

Ya'kov did NOT have to marry 2 sisters at all.  Even if he did #1 he still
could have  married Rachel whilst Le'ah was alive since after all it was a
Mikach Ta'us.  Why Ya'kov chose what he chose and did what he did has
already been justified to my satisfaction.

To reiterate: the original question is strictly about the case of HBKH
protecting tzadikkim from UNINTENDED acts.  And this impacted the
relationship with Le'ah and hurt Reuven in the sense he was in effect born
out of wedlock if you accept that Le'ah was impregnated that very night.


-- 
Kol Tuv / Best Regards,
RabbiRichWolpoe@Gmail.com
Please Visit:
http://nishmablog.blogspot.com/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/private.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20071113/4890bc2f/attachment.htm 

On Nov 12, 2007 4:40 PM, Zev Sero <zev@sero.name> wrote:

> Richard Wolpoe wrote:
>
>
> 2. Who says there was a written kesuba?  The Avos kept all the mitzvos,
> including d'rabbanans like Eruv Tavshilin, so presumably there was a
> kesuba, but Chazal seem to speak of written kesubos as a custom local
> to some places and not to others.  And if there was a written kesuba,
> who says it had to have the wife's name?  After all, the wife has the
> document, and if ch"v she has to collect on it she can just produce it
> and everyone knows who she is and who her husband was.
>
> --
> Zev Sero
>


My essential source was a shiur by Rabbi Maordechai Aderet.

He posited that AL PI SOD sod Reuven was handicapped as a "pachaz kammayyim"
at birth because the relationship that produced him was w/o benefit of
kesubbah. I guess you COULD say my question is on HIS SHIUR and not on the
event itself.

But to be fair, the assumption is that there WAS a kesubah is also based
upon the concept that Rashi says re: pilegesh was w/o kesubbah BEFORE
mattan  Torah etc.  The common PRESUMPTION is that avos used kesubbah.  The
idea of anORAL kesubah is possible of course because after all the Mishna
itself discusses it

-- 
Kol Tuv / Best Regards,
RabbiRichWolpoe@Gmail.com
Please Visit:
http://nishmablog.blogspot.com/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/private.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20071113/64efe95f/attachment.html 

 


>>Who says there was a written kesuba?  The Avos kept  all the mitzvos,
including d'rabbanans like Eruv Tavshilin, so presumably  there was a
kesuba, but Chazal seem to speak of written kesubos as a custom  local 
to some places and not to others.  And if there was a written  kesuba,
who says it had to have the wife's name?  After all, the wife  has the
document, and if ch"v she has to collect on it she can just produce  it 
and everyone knows who she is and who her husband  was.<<
[--RZS]  
 


>> The idea of  an ORAL kesubah is possible of course because after all the 
Mishna itself  discusses it<< [--RRW]





>>>>>
If the Mishna discusses it I guess such a thing  is possible but to me it 
sounds like an impossibility by definition.   Doesn't the very word "kesuba" 
/mean/ "something written"?  It's like  talking about "an oral manuscript" or "an 
unwritten  document."
 
And how could the wife keep an oral kesuba in a  safe hiding place, to be 
produced when needed?



--Toby  Katz
=============



************************************** See what's new at http://www.aol.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/private.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20071113/180fd132/attachment.htm 

T613K@aol.com wrote:

>> The idea of an ORAL kesubah is possible of course because
>> after all the Mishna itself discusses it<< [--RRW]


> If the Mishna discusses it I guess such a thing is possible but to me it 
> sounds like an impossibility by definition.  Doesn't the very word 
> "kesuba" /mean/ "something written"?  It's like talking about "an oral 
> manuscript" or "an unwritten document."

Nevertheless, the custom in some places was not to write a kesuba, but
to rely on the takonas chachomim that every marriage is subject to the
terms of the standard kesuba.  This is not a custom that exists anywhere
nowadays, but it did exist in the times of the Mishna, and therefore
there is no reason to be certain that the Avos (who only kept the mitzvos
derabanan in the first place as a personal hiddur, not as an obligation)
gave their wives written kesubos.
 

> And how could the wife keep an oral kesuba in a safe hiding place, to be 
> produced when needed?

She couldn't.  If there was a dispute over whether they were ever
married, she'd have to bring witnesses to prove it.  Similarly if
there was a dispute over whether the terms were those of a besula
she'd have to produce witnesses who saw her go to the chupah under
a veil, which was only customary for besulos, etc.  This was
obviously a less-than-desirable situation, which is why a written
kesuba is much to be preferred, and is now universally required.

-- 
Zev Sero               Something has gone seriously awry with this Court's
zev@sero.name          interpretation of the Constitution.
                       	                          - Clarence Thomas

 
 
R' Akiva Miller wrote:
>> Why did Rachel have to resort to  subterfuge to accomplish all this? Why 
couldn't she go to Yaakov and say,  "Listen, we have a problem. I can't marry 
you while Leah is still single." The  only answer I can come up with is that 
she feared Yaakov would have cancelled  the whole thing. Anyone else?<<






>>>>>
Yakov would have said, "Fine, we'll wait until Leah gets married.  She  can 
marry her zivug, my brother Esav."  The thought of which was the very  thing 
that so distressed Leah.  Rochel had compassion on Leah and wanted to  help her 
avoid that "fate worse than death."


--Toby  Katz
=============



************************************** See what's new at http://www.aol.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/private.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20071113/4cb7a25a/attachment.html 

Lurker piping in here for a second.
1) I don't have a source, but I heard once that Ramban says that Ya'akov
only kept all of the mitzvot while he was in Eretz Yisrael.
2) It has always bothered me how Rashi could say that Ya'akov kept Taryag
Mitzvot when we know explicitly that he didn't by marrying Rachel.
Kol Tuv,
~Liron Kopinsky
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/private.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20071113/fc7b127a/attachment.htm 

Richard Wolpoe asks:  Question: How did HKBH let Y'aaov Avinu have relations
with Le'ah  that night when his Kesubah said Rachel - which meant his bi'ah
was  assur.

 

There is a fundamental theological concept here. HKBH didn't let Ya'akov
have relations with Leah. God has endowed us with "bechira chofshis" which
means that He allowed Ya'akov to fall prey to the subterfuge because that
was the machination of Laban who exercised his free will. (There was no
nepotism there). And to further expand on this:

Akiva Miller asks: Here's my (somewhat related) question on this parsha: Why
did Rachel have to relate to subterfuge to accomplish all this? Why couldn't
she go to Yaakov and say, "Listen, we have a problem. I can't marry you
while Leah is still single." The only answer I can come up with is that she
feared Yaakov would have cancelled the whole thing. Anyone else?

My response to your question would be "mida k'neged mida." This was a result
of Yaakov's famous deception when he disguised himself as Esav. 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/private.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20071113/839a08e1/attachment.html 

I don't know if the following question has ever been asked.  Chapter 28,
verse 16 states: "Vayikatz Ya'akov mishnaso," And Jacob awoke from his
sleep..." Now my question is: if it says "Jacob awoke," then why does it
have to say "from his sleep?"  Of course it was from his sleep. All it had
to say was: "And Jacob awoke."  

Further, if you look at verses 11 and 12, it says "...vayishkav bamakom
ha-hu. Vayachalom..." "...and he lay down in that place. And he dreamt..."
Now why didn't it say: "...and he lay down in that place AND HE SLEPT," and
THEN "And he dreamt..."?  

 

So in the first instance it says Jacob awoke "from his sleep" which is
redundant and the second example it says he lay down and dreamt. There is
should have included (he lay down) AND HE SLEPT and dreamt. You might say
that the fact that he dreamt indicated that of course he slept. However, if
that's the case, then the Torah should have been consistent and the first
time should just have said "And Jacob awoke..."  

 

I propose the following possible answer: In the first instance, when he had
the dream, it was really a prophetic vision and it wasn't an ordinary sleep,
hence, the word sleep was omitted.  However, after the dream, he slipped
into a regular sleep, and therefore it says he "awoke from his sleep."

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/private.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20071113/99c3ae3c/attachment.htm 

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


Avodah mailing list
Avodah@lists.aishdas.org
http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 24, Issue 52
**************************************

Send Avodah mailing list submissions to
	avodah@lists.aishdas.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
	http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
	avodah-request@lists.aishdas.org

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..."