Avodah Mailing List

Volume 25: Number 347

Sun, 28 Sep 2008

• 1. Re: Free Will vs. Physics (Zev Sero)
• 2. Re: Feeding fish at Tashlich (Ari Z. Zivotofsky)
• 3. Vayelech "Singular to Plural" (Cantor Wolberg)
• 4. Makri Question (Cantor Wolberg)
• 5. Re: Conflicting Sources (T6...@aol.com)
• 6. Re: Feeding fish at Tashlich (Zev Sero)
• 7. "OUT OF HAND LEADS TO OUT OF OUR HAND" (Cantor Wolberg)
• 8. Re: "OUT OF HAND LEADS TO OUT OF OUR HAND" (Micha Berger)
• 9. Stolen goods (Michael Kopinsky)
• 10. Re: Stolen goods (Zev Sero)

kennethgmil...@juno.com wrote:

> Consider this: A one-minute-old infant was not crying, and now starts
> to cry. This is not the result of any decision he made, but is a
> reflexive/instinctive reaction to certain influences.

I don't think even a newborn is an automaton, so that its crying or not
crying is the deterministic result of known inputs.  I think even a
newborn has free will, and decides whether to cry or not.  It isn't a
*reasoned* decision, but it's a decision nonetheless, in a way that's
completely different from that of a machine.  What improves over time
is the person's ability to reason, and thus to make decisions that have
some design, and serve some purpose.

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

see the attached article for a discussion of some of these issues.
http://www.ou.org/pdf/ja/5768/fall68/62_65.pdf


Danny Schoemann wrote:

 > In response to my Tashlich post (on "Halocho a Day") various people
 > wrote in requesting I inform the world that it's forbidden to feed the
 > fish at Tashlich.

"When l bring him to the land that I swore to his forefathers, which  
flows with milk and honey and he shall have eaten his fill and grow  
fat and turn to other gods and they serve them, and they provoked Me  
to anger and broke My covenant" (Devarim 31:20).

You will note that the first part of the verse is in the singular:  
"When I bring him to the land..." and the latter part of the verse is  
in the plural: "and they serve them..." (Interestingly, every chumash  
I have seen translates the first part also in the plural, even though  
it is in the singular).

Why?

Rav Moshe Feinstein offers the following brilliant explanation:

This verse warns us how important our actions are in relation to our  
surroundings. One person straying from the Torah's laws can cause a  
group of people to follow.  On the positive side, the converse is also  
true: following the word of God and acting righteously can have a  
tremendously positive effect on others who witness our actions ? and  
will furthermore influence them for good and righteous behavior.
In Bava Basra 60b it says "First adorn yourself, and then adorn  
others."  This saying does not mean that one should wait until one  
corrects oneself entirely before one can correct others (for that may  
take forever).  It means that one's self improvement will influence  
others and may cause them to follow suit.  The mere attempt is a great  
start.

Along these same lines R' Levi Yitzchok of Berdichev said, "When I  
became aware that the townsfolk were not heeding my words, I began to  
examine my own actions.  Then, when I saw that my own family members  
were not behaving respectfully toward me, I intensified my soul  
searching, and by the grace of God, I discovered various defects in my  
character and that others' attitudes toward me were my fault, not  
theirs.  I began efforts to improve myself.  Gradually my family's  
attitudes changed, and then the townsfolk began listening to  
me."  (Rabbi Abraham J. Twerski, Living Each Day, p. 229). Such  
humility for such a great man is an inspiration and an important  
lesson for all of us.

We pray that we can be a good example for others, as well as others, a  
good example for us. Then it's a Win Win situation. May this last  
Shabbos of the year be the turning point of going from singular to  
plural in the ethical, honorable and lawful way.

rw





-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20080927/818830fb/attachment-0001.htm>

I have never been able to find an answer to the following:

I'm aware of the halacha if the tokea doesn't conform to the strict  
halacha however, what if the makri calls out a wrong tekiah?
For example if in the second set of tekiot, the makri calls out a  
shevarim-teruah instead of just shevarim.
I would think the baal tokia would do the shevarim-teruah, but what  
happens if the baal tokia wasn't sure if the makri made a mistake or  
not?

ri

 
In a message dated 9/26/2008, gershon.du...@juno.com writes:

>>>There may be other more complex legalistic reasons, but the  simplest 
explanation is that the >>>chain of transmission became  confused over the 
centuries and people forgot things [--TK]

>>Did  not Rashi instruct his grandson how to put tefilin together?  When  
exactly was the Rashi vs. Rabbenu Tam tefilin forgotten or  confused?>>








>>>>>
I once looked up the years and found that Rabbeinu  Tam was only five years 
old when his grandfather Rashi passed away, so no, Rashi  probably did not 
instruct his grandson how to put on tefillin (let alone how to  make tefillin).  
The story that Rashi's daughters wore tefillin  has  been debunked, so probably 
Rabbeinu Tam's father taught him about tefillin  and it was different from 
the way Rashi did it, but in any case it could well be  that the confusion had 
already happened centuries /before/ Rashi and [at least]  two different 
opinions had been transmitted, one of which Rashi received or  deduced and declared 
the correct one, according to his mesorah or  understanding.
 


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






**************Looking for simple solutions to your real-life financial 
challenges?  Check out WalletPop for the latest news and information, tips and 
calculators.      (http://www.walletpop.com/?NCID=emlcntuswall00000001)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20080927/31e62d3b/attachment-0001.htm>

Zev Sero wrote:
> Danny Schoemann wrote:

>> More to the point: In 583:2 where the Remo mentions Tashlich, the
>> Machazis Hashekel protests vehemently against the Maharil and Eliya
>> Rabo who advocate feeding the fish.
> 
> Do they really advocate it?  That would surprise me, and I see
> nothing in the Machtzis Hashekel to suggest that they do.  I haven't
> got them to look inside; have you seen them, or their language
> quoted elsewhere?

And indeed, in the article RAZZ referred us to, he quotes the Maharil
as denouncing the practise, not advocating it.

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

Tzvi Freeman wrote: "We don't like it when we lose something. We  
think, "What gain could there be in loss?" But loss, too, is a way of  
growth.Much of growth is simply learning to let go, to loosen the cord  
that ties you to your "stuff" -- to your material things. Such as this  
thing you are missing. Only once that is achieved can you emerge onto  
a higher plane, a plane open wide enough to contain more light and  
life than before. The divine energy that before brought a loss, can  
now bring -- openly and clearly -- a blessing and much gain."

The above is so apropos to what has happened to our economy and  
probably the worst situation since the Great Depression. However, this  
may be a blessing in disguise -- a message to let us know that we are  
NOT in control.  Only the Almighty is in control and when things get  
out of hand, then our material possessions get out of our hand.

This makes us more aware that our hand should be used more for giving  
tzedaka, putting on tallis and tefillin, cooking for Shabbos, sounding  
the shofar and compassionately putting your hand on the shoulder of a  
relative,  friend or unfortunate soul.

rw




-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20080928/8e06bb7c/attachment-0001.htm>

On Sun, Sep 28, 2008 at 02:34:38AM -0400, Cantor Wolberg wrote:
: The above is so apropos to what has happened to our economy and  
: probably the worst situation since the Great Depression. However, this  
: may be a blessing in disguise -- a message to let us know that we are  
: NOT in control.  Only the Almighty is in control and when things get  
: out of hand, then our material possessions get out of our hand.

From <http://divreichaim.blogspot.com/2008/09/credit-crunch.html>,
by R' Chaim Brown (former regular here):
> R' Elchanan in one of his ma'amarim, which if I recall correctly has
> no date attached but must have been written in the '30s, writes that
> the failing of the economy (at the time of his writing) was not caused
> by a lack of money, as plenty of people still had fortunes and great
> wealth. The economy failed because of a loss of confidence in the
> institutions of finance - a loss of faith in the economic system. What
> was true then is certainly true today, as the credit crunch is
> primarily a loss of confidence and trust. The key to understanding
> this phenomenon is the principle of middah k'neged middah. R' Elchahan
> writes that a loss of faith in worldly institutions comes about
> because of the greater loss of faith in our spiritual institutions - a
> failing of emunah. And only through the strengthening of emunah can we
> find the tools to emerge from such a crisis.

> I am not a big fan of prophetically trying to attribute specific outcomes
> or events to specific sins, but I pass on R' Elchanan's insight for
> whatever it's worth. It's certainly worth spending a minute thinking
> about as the Dow and S & P find their way to lower and lower depths.

Given that the A-lmighty gave me a front seat for wathing this crisis,
while BH and ba"h so far keeping its harm down to my 401(k), I took
these words very much to heart. I have been exploring the topic of
what is bitachon and how to develop it, much of which ended up on my
blog. <http://www.aishdas.org/asp/category/bitachon>

I won't rehash the discussion of the CI's attack on the
chassidish/Novhardoker definition of bitachon, as it's been done here
with wome regularity, and I mention it in the above linked page.
However, I staked out this position for myself which is actually a
synthesis (IMHO) of the "everything will be as I want" and "everything
always is as per His plan" positions:
> Bitachon is awareness that the A-lmighty is acting in a covenental
> partnership with the you. It is from there that Rav Dessler's formula for
> hishtadlus emerges, one partner picking up what he does not expect from
> the Other's contribution. It is the Chazon Ish's awareness that every
> event in our lives is part of a plan. And yet we can avoid simplistic
> dismissals of suffering. Yes, Nachum Ish Gamzutells us that everything
> is for the best, eventually. But since I must remember that no story,
> no "eventually", is ever over, I can not find meaning or redemption
> in that fact. Pain remains pain. And yet, having bitachon demands that
> trust in "kochi ve'otzem yadi-- my strength and the might of my hand"
> is misplaced, and through my activities I can not avoid the tragic. It
> is part of the role I play in the Divine Plan, and to not accept them
> as from Him and part of the covenant would be disloyalty to it.

If people have pragmatic ideas as to how to gain more bitachon, I'm
in the market for them. For that matter, I am pretty bullish on that
market, as I'm sure I'm not alone.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             The purely righteous do not complain about evil,
mi...@aishdas.org        but add justice, don't complain about heresy,
http://www.aishdas.org   but add faith, don't complain about ignorance,
Fax: (270) 514-1507      but add wisdom.     - R AY Kook, Arpilei Tohar

(Carried over from Areivim)

On Fri, Sep 26, 2008 at 2:17 PM, Zev Sero <z...@sero.name> wrote:

> Stadlan, Noam wrote:
>
>> While some may note that halacha may state that there is no obligation
>> to return the objects of non-Jews, imagine this scenario.  A person
>> steals money, and then offers the money to people, all the while
>> pronouncing to one and all that the money that is being offered is
>> stolen, and even pointing out the victim of the theft.  Does halacha
>> really allow you to stand in line for a hand out from this person?
>>
>
> I don't see why not.  It would of course be a midas chassidus and a
> great kiddush hashem if one were then to return ones share to the victim,
> but one certainly need not be moser nefesh for that.
>

The CC in Sefer Hamitzvos Hakatzar writes that the issur of geneiva is to
steal, or to deal with stolen goods.  (I also thought it was a pele gadol
that he said that.)  The chinuch (224) does not include it in the
description of the issur, but does include the following in dinei hamitzvah:

"umah she'amru she'asur liknos miyad ganav, mipnei shemachzik y'dei ovrei
aveirah, v'chein kol davar shechezkaso shehu ganuv asur likach oso,
ul'fichach amru z"l she'ein lokchin min har'oim tzemer chalav ug'dayim,
v'chein ein lokchim mishomrei eitzim o peirors ela bimkomos yiduim, v'derech
klal amru: v'chulam she'amru "hatmen" asur likach meheim."

It is worth noting that he holds (unlike the CC) that the problem of buying
stolen goods is machzik y'dei ovrei aveirah, not geneivah.  (I'm tempted to
say that's what the CC meant, but there's no way to fit that into the
lashon.)

While this is still not enough reason to be moseir nefesh, this seems to be
an issue of issur, not just midas chassidus.

KT,
Michael
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20080928/a46f069c/attachment-0001.htm>

Michael Kopinsky wrote:
> (Carried over from Areivim)
> Zev Sero <z...@sero.name <mailto:z...@sero.name>> wrote:
>> Stadlan, Noam wrote:
> 
>>>While some may note that halacha may state that there is no obligation
>>>to return the objects of non-Jews, imagine this scenario.  A person
>>>steals money, and then offers the money to people, all the while
>>>pronouncing to one and all that the money that is being offered is
>>>stolen, and even pointing out the victim of the theft.  Does halacha
>>>really allow you to stand in line for a hand out from this person?

>> I don't see why not.  It would of course be a midas chassidus and a
>> great kiddush hashem if one were then to return ones share to the
>> victim, but one certainly need not be moser nefesh for that.

> The CC in Sefer Hamitzvos Hakatzar writes that the issur of geneiva is 
> to steal, or to deal with stolen goods.  (I also thought it was a pele 
> gadol that he said that.)

I don't think one can place this much reliance on a sefer of that
kind, to make drashot based on diyukim in its language.  Much more
likely "lo dak".


> The chinuch (224) [...] holds (unlike the CC) that the problem of 
> buying stolen goods is machzik y'dei ovrei aveirah, not geneivah. 
> While this is still not enough reason to be moseir nefesh, this seems
> to be an issue of issur, not just midas chassidus.

Even when the victim is not "rei`acha", and therefore there is no
mitzvah of hashavat aveidah, or any issur on `oshek?  Remember that
is the hypo RNS posed, and which I answered.

As I see it, the makor of the issur to buy stolen goods is from the
gemara "lo `achbera ganav ela chora ganav".  By creating a market in
stolen goods we cause thieves to steal more.  Thus the victim of a
fence is not the owner of the goods he buys, but rather the thief's
*next* victim, as well as the victims of all the other thieves who
steal only because they know this market exists.

None of this would seem to apply, though, in our hypo, because we are
not *buying* the stolen goods but accepting them as a gift.  I'm not
sure we can say that doing so "creates a market" in Robin-Hoodism to
the extent that it should be assur as a "chora" that invites more
"`achbarim".  And certainly not to the extent that we should rather die
than accept the stolen goods, especially when the owner is one whose
aveidot do not have to be returned.  (Nevertheless, I think one is
entitled to be machmir on oneself and be moser nefesh if one wants to,
in order to create a kiddush Hashem, or simply because one doesn't
want to benefit from something that belongs to someone else.)

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


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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 25, Issue 347
***************************************

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..."