Avodah Mailing List

Volume 25: Number 354

Tue, 07 Oct 2008

• 1. Re: Praying to angels (Yitzhak Grossman)
• 2. Aftura (Jonathan Baker)
• 3. Lashes on E.Y. (Cantor Wolberg)
• 4. Ad sheyeratzeh es chavero (SBA)
• 5. Re: Ad sheyeratzeh es chavero (T6...@aol.com)
• 6. Re: Gentiles in the Torah (Michael Makovi)
• 7. Re: Gentiles in Torah (Michael Makovi)
• 8. tora questions (Saul.Z.New...@kp.org)
• 9. Re; Pas Palter (Harry Weiss)
• 10. Re: Ad sheyeratzeh es chavero (Micha Berger)
• 11. Re: Gentiles in the Torah (Micha Berger)
• 12. Re: Lashes on E.Y. (Zev Sero)
• 13. Re: Gentiles in Torah (T6...@aol.com)
• 14. Tanya and Gentiles (Michael Makovi)

On Sun, 05 Oct 2008 17:44:16 -0400
Zev Sero <z...@sero.name> wrote:

...

> You are referring to the bowdlerised version of the piyyut.  The
> original version addresses "kol midah nechonah" in the second person
> feminine.  "Chali", "bakshi", "dechi", "vehit'chaneni Lo", etc.

You are right (I checked Goldschmidt).  Live and learn.

> Zev Sero               Something has gone seriously awry with this Court's

Yitzhak
--
Bein Din Ledin - bdl.freehostia.com
An advanced discussion of Hoshen Mishpat

Query for the collected knowledge here, which came up in our shul's
Shaleshudis shiur in Hilchos Shabbos:

What is "aftura"?

SA OH 328:28 talks about lancing and bandaging a boil on Shabbos. 
MB sk 90 refers to a related procedure called "an aftura on the arm",
which is some kind of hole that one might want to keep open over
Shabbos, particularly by stuffing beans (kitnis) into it.  This comes
from the Magen Avraham.  M"A discusses the "aftura in the arm" as a
separate issue from the lanced boil (which presumably could be anywhere
on the body?) 

Since it's a "hole", "aftura" would seem to be a transliteration of
"aperture".  The KSA at 91:13 offers "fontanelle, imperatur" as possible
synonyms for "aftura".  But I don't understand how either of those might
fit either, as a "fontanelle" is the soft spot on an infant's skull, and
"imperatur" sounds like an "emperor".

It's clear from the texts that this is a refuah, a remedy or part of a
medical procedure, not an accidental injury, hence the desire to keep
it open and/or protected.  Magen Avraham says it's from the Raavan
(13th century), and if both the MB and the AhS discuss it, it was still
a current procedure in the Early Modern period.

RD Josh Backon and I have been trying to figure this out, but no go. 
Josh has sent it on to R' Seth Mandel, who has the necessary linguistic
background, but I figured I'd throw it to the assembled masses, and see
if someone might know medical or surgical history.  

--
        name: jon baker              web: http://www.panix.com/~jjbaker
     address: jjba...@panix.com     blog: http://thanbook.blogspot.com

Has anyone ever heard of the minhag (stated in S.A.) to receive Malkus  
(39) on E.Y. in order to expedite the Teshuva process?
It's more of a symbolic gesture rather than painful lashes.
However, for heavy handed people, I think there should be an option to  
give 39 dollars instead.  (Although, for some, that might
be more painful).  :-)

G'mar chatima tova.
ri


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20081007/83eabc62/attachment-0001.htm>

"Aveiros shebein adam lechavero ein Yom Hakipurim mechaper ad sheyeratzeh es
chavero" (KSA 131:4)

Tonight during a Shiur on Halachos of YK, I asked azoi:

If I hurt someone as per above, and then notice that the same person is
saying 'Tefilas Zaka' - which includes: 
"...vehineni mochel bimechila gemureh lechol me shechoto negdi...oy diber
alay loshon hora v'afilu hotzo'as shem ra...velo yeonesh shum adam
besibosi..." 
- do I still need to ask his forgiveness?

(Someone mentioned that RSZ Auerbach zt'l says that this refers only to
minor matters. But lechoreh the words in Tefilas Zaka are not mashma kein.)

Yelamdeinu Raboseinu...

SBA

 
 
In a message dated 10/7/2008 9:11:58 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,  s...@sba2.com writes:

If I  hurt someone as per above, and then notice that the same person is
saying  'Tefilas Zaka' - which includes: 
"...vehineni mochel bimechila gemureh  lechol me shechoto negdi...oy diber
alay loshon hora v'afilu hotzo'as shem  ra...velo yeonesh shum adam
besibosi..." 
- do I still need to ask his  forgiveness?



>>>>>
Yes.
 
But with one exception (IMO) -- if he doesn't know that you hurt him and 
your telling him what you did (e.g., that you gossiped about him) will only
 create hurt feelings and pain for him, then I think you should stifle it,
don't  hurt him just so that you can cleanse your own conscience, and be
grateful that  he is saying Tefilas Zaka.
 
Also I think that if you hurt him in a way that can still be fixed, without
 him finding out about it, you should fix it and not tell him.	Spare his 
feelings, is what I think.
 

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



**************New MapQuest Local shows what's happening at your
destination.  Dining, Movies, Events, News & more. Try it out (http://local.mapq
uest.com/?ncid=emlcntnew00000002)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20081007/a105a28f/attachment-0001.htm>

(This thread is related to "[Avodah] Gentiles in Torah", without "the")

R' Wolberg cites R' Micha's post to Aspaqlaria, following R' Ahron Soloveichik.

I found R' Ahron's own words (to the same effect as R' Wolberg
following R' Micha) quoted at great length at
http://uriltzedek.webnode.com/news/rav-ahron-sol
oveichik-civil-rights-and-the-dignity-of-man/.

Mikha'el Makovi

R' Yaakov Weiner speaks of detractors of Torah wishing to assert "'the
culturally developmental origin' of Jewish belief and practice,
following the historical 'trend' of societies becoming more universal
and more pluralistic as they come into contact with and become
dependent on foreign societies.  Every nation on earth began with the
idea of their moral or religious or physical or otherwise superior
status over everyone else."

Rabbi Dr. David Berger in a fantastic article ("Jews, Gentiles, and the Modern
Egalitarian Ethos: Some Tentative Thoughts."  In Formulating Responses
in an Egalitarian Age, ed. by Marc Stern, Lanham, 2005, pp. 83-108.)
makes the point that Medieval authorities did not have to face these
issues, as the gentiles were by and large unremittingly hostile, and
so our authorities then had no impetus to creatively reinterpret
problematically (apparently-)racist texts. Therefore, the question is
not why Rambam did not go with Meiri, but rather we have awe for Meiri
for being so ahead of his time. Beginning with the Christian
Disputations, we realized how our texts would have appeared in the
Christians' eyes, and we reevaluated our position. Even though the
Christians were certainly racist, we realized we were not entirely
innocent either.

Rabbi Eliezer Samson Rosenthal (smiha from Merkaz haRav, posek for
Professor Ephraim Urbach's Movement for Torah Judaism) perhaps agrees
(at (at http://www.lookstein.org/articles/reflections.pdf). In
relatively unclear words (page 10) which I am not sure I understand,
he says that we adopted universal values from the Enlightenment,
because for centuries we cried to the gentiles that we are their
brothers; we cannot now be hypocritical and deny brothership towards
them when they extend it towards us. See also page 17: "Our
relationship to people who are not of the Covenant [i.e., non-Jews]
is, first and foremost, a question of opinion and proper conduct. A
person?including a Torah sage?must determine his understanding of "the
law of persons" before moving on to the halakhot of {saving a gentile
on} the Sabbath, for the latter determination depends on the former,
rather than the other way around. A person must choose in this regard
between two fundamental and comprehensive opinions. On the one hand,
he may adhere to the fundamentalist position, includes nothing
(except, perhaps, for a greater or lesser measure of Jewish
chauvinism, perhaps mystical and certainly archaic) beyond what is
written in the usual halakhic decisional literature, construing its
simple words broadly. Alternatively, he may take the informed and
autonomous position of a man of culture, whose education and
understanding make it clear to him that "this is the book of human
history" [Gen. 5:1] is a great principle from which there is no
ethical or intellectual escape."

R' Weiner says it is difficult to deny some sort of greater love for
Jews by Hashem. The way I have seen it is, all of mankind is His
children; when we err, He still loves us no less, just like any
parent. To be sure, a parent is closer to an obedient well-behaved
child, but this closer relationship does not imply greater love (the
parents out there will please explain and/or correct my words). I've
always thought that Jews cannot be any greater or worthier than
gentiles - for our entire purpose is to uplift them to closeness to
Hashem, and so any lack of worth in them is an equal lack of worth in
us - we cannot be worth more than our given task is! Now, there is a
midrash in Tanna debe Eliyahu that the Jewish people are more beloved
than the Torah, for it is only due to us that the Torah is kept; in
some way, the means is greater than the end if that means is an
indispensable one. If so, then Jews (the means) are greater than the
gentiles (the end), according to this perspective. But I would say
that looked at the ordinary way (that the end is more vital than the
means), Jews can at most be worth as much, but not more than, the
gentiles.

Mikha'el Makovi

1]  do/should  sifrei torah  in non-O institutions carry a chezkat 
kashrut?
2]is there an inyan of  'pidyon shvuyim'  on them?  do we say that   treif 

torahs wind up in treif shuls?
3]is there an issur to write a sefer for a non-O  institution?


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20081007/a26258e0/attachment-0001.htm>

Is there any reason to believe that even in the time of Chazal there was 
not some sort of hasgacha to check that way of baking was kosher.  It may 
have been less formalized that today with no trademarded symbols, but 
there probably was some Yotzei VeNichnas type of checking.

Regarding use of Bakery ovens.  There were references made to to Yiddim 
briging their cholents to the bakery to cook and deriving from that that 
non Jews also brought their tarfus to bakeries to cook.

I don't think the metzius matches the presumption.  Jews only brought 
Shabbos cholents to the bakery.  During the week people cooked at home.  I 
think even the cholents were first cooked at home and brought to the 
bakery to keep warm jsut before Shabbos when the baker was finished using 
the ovens because of Shabbos.

The issue wasn't a lack of ovens in the homes, but a Shabbos issue.  In a 
typical home setting even if wood was added just before Shabbos, by the 
time Shabbos lunch came around the oven would have cooled off.  Baker's 
ovens were larger and better insulated and had enough residual heat to 
last through Shbbos lunch.

Since the non Jew does not have the Shabbos prohibition of cooking on 
Shabbos, there was no need to bring things to the baker. In addition the 
non Jewish baker was using his oven to bake on  Shabbos.

Harry J. Weiss
hjwe...@panix.com

On Tue, Oct 07, 2008 at 02:29:59PM -0400, T6...@aol.com wrote:
: But with one exception (IMO) -- if he doesn't know that you hurt him
: and your telling him what you did (e.g., that you gossiped about him)
: will only create hurt feelings and pain for him, then I think you
: should stifle it, don't hurt him just so that you can cleanse your own
: conscience, and be grateful that he is saying Tefilas Zaka.

Without his saying Tefilas Zaka, this is a machloqes. The CC wrote that
you do have to come to him. RYS disagreed to the extent that he wouldn't
give the seifer CC a haskamah. So RYMK asked RYS to write a letter and
include the caveat that Rav Yisrael disagrees on this one point. RYS
replied that this was insufficient, since most such letters are only
noted for their letterhead and signature, and people tend not to read
the content.

Perhaps the CC would agree if tefillas Zaka is involved, perhaps not. I
personally would guess "not", since it seems he values the person
going through the excericise of asking mechilah more than the social
dynamics involved. I would think that if hurting the other's feelings
is insufficient reason not to have to ask mechilah, how would the fact
that they happen to be mocheil already be sufficient?

GCT!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             When you come to a place of darkness,
mi...@aishdas.org        you don't chase out the darkness with a broom.
http://www.aishdas.org   You light a candle.
Fax: (270) 514-1507        - R' Yekusiel Halberstam of Klausenberg zt"l

On Tue, Oct 07, 2008 at 03:20:24PM +0200, Michael Makovi wrote:
: R' Wolberg cites R' Micha's post to Aspaqlaria, following R' Ahron Soloveichik.

Although to be honest, I was quoting RHM's article in the Jewish Press
<http://www.jewishpress.com/page.do/17945/In_The_Image_Of_God.html>
as RHM quoted it on Avodah
<http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol23/v23n074.shtml#08>.

(Sorry, I could really use that geulah...)

GCT!
-Micha

CC: RHM

-- 
Micha Berger             In the days of our sages, man didn't sin unless
mi...@aishdas.org        he was overcome with a spirit of foolishness.
http://www.aishdas.org   Today, we don't do a mitzvah unless we receive
Fax: (270) 514-1507      a spirit of purity.      - Rabbi Israel Salanter

Cantor Wolberg wrote:
> Has anyone ever heard of the minhag (stated in S.A.) to receive Malkus 
> (39) on E.Y. in order to expedite the Teshuva process?

Yes. I'm surprised that anyone has *not* heard of it.

> It's more of a symbolic gesture rather than painful lashes.

Exactly.

> However, for heavy handed people, I think there should be an option to 
> give 39 dollars instead.  (Although, for some, that might
> be more painful).  :-)

There are two powerful incentives not to use a heavy hand:
1. It's erev yom kippur!
2. Usually two people give each other malkos; knowing that in a few
minutes the guy you're hitting will be holding the belt, or that a few
minutes ago he was hitting you and went lightly, should be enough.

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

 
From: "Yaakov Weiner" 

>>BTW, philosophically speaking, its hard to dismiss a the  notion of a
recognized sense of greater worth or at least a greater sense of  affection
by G-d and humanity for the Jews, based on a moral superiority  (which of
course is the clear attitude in Jewish thought, regardless of  dismissal of
other notions of superiority).  <<
 
 
>>>>
Don't forget that anybody can join the Jewish people  (if he is willing to
accept all the multiple obligations, as well as the  troubles and
tribulations to which the Jewish people have historically been	subject). 
And then the Torah is full of exhortations to be kind,	charitable,
welcoming, and sensitive to converts.
 



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



**************New MapQuest Local shows what's happening at your
destination.  Dining, Movies, Events, News & more. Try it out (http://local.mapq
uest.com/?ncid=emlcntnew00000002)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20081007/fff4418c/attachment.htm>

Some time ago, the discussion came up as to how Chadnikim can be so
universalistic towards gentiles as they are, given what the Tanya
says.

I found the following interesting, both sent to me by R' Rael Levinsohn:

http://www.bc.edu/research/cjl/meta-elements/texts/
cjrelations/resources/articles/Brill.htm
s.v. "An example of the possibilities...", and the ensuing paragraphs.

Also, Rabbi Tzvi Freeman (of Chabad.org) explained as follows:

"First of all, you have to realize that there is no new dogma in the
Tanya. The Tanya comes to enlighten us about ideas that are found in
classic Judaism, as you see the citation from the Gemarra. The whole
issue about the souls of non-Jews comes up in the Kuzari, the Maharal,
the Arizal and many other important works.

"The Tanya explains to us the Arizal's point of view. According to the
Arizal, everything that exists has a spark of G_dliness within
it--only that this spark may be very hidden. Sometimes it is so hidden
that this thing becomes totally self-centered, unable to do anything
that it does not benefit from.

"In most parlance, this is not called evil. This is called how human
beings operate. Psychology, sociology--all the human sciences are
based on the premise that whatever we do, we do to avoid pain and/or
receive pleasure. Truly, 99% of the mitzvahs that the common Jew does
falls in the same category.

"But in the parlance of the Arizal and the Tanya, this is called evil
or klipah and sitra achra--the opposite side of holiness. The Tanya
doesn't put anyone down--it simply raises the bar.

"Nevertheless, within every human being there is a spark of true good.
After all, as the Torah repeats four times in Genesis, and again in
the Mishnah, all human beings are made in "the image of G_d." If
anyone knows of the equality and dignity of all human beings, they got
it from one source and one source alone and that is the Torah.

"The job of the Jew is to release that spark. And in those non-Jews
who are Bnai Noach, there is already a certain redemption of that
holiness. This should answer what you write about the "average
American today". As the Rebbe spoke, we have already succeeded in the
birur of Esau. Western civilization since the Reformation is really
nothing more than goyim acting like Jews.

"(Although, I must add this: When we gather all the nations of the
world together what do they resolve? That Israel must be condemned.
And not just Africa and Asia, but Europe believes so, as well. And in
Washington, the State Department never let go of its animosity,
continuing today into James Baker's nefarious ploy to sidestep and
sabotage Israel. From the Rebbe's perspective, the birur is complete.
From our perspective, it seems there is still much to be done.)

"So what is the relation of Jews and non-Jews? Look at it this way:
For an ordinary Jew to discover and awaken the spark within, he needs
a tzadik, as explained in chapter 2 of Tanya. Quite simply, what the
tzadik is to the Jew, the Jew is to the non-Jew.

"The non-Jew recognizes this, albeit in a distorted manner. Paul
Johnson describes anti-semitism as "patricide". Thomas Cahill, an
Irishman, writes that the non-Jew hates the Jew because he reminds him
of G_d. In fact, they worship a Jew--a tortured, agonized Jew. They
got it right and wrong all at once.

"A common accusation is that Judaism is racism. This simply doesn't
work. Jews are not a race. They come in all colors--white, black,
brown and yellow. There are no racial distinctions on who can become a
Jew. Furthermore, ask yourself: Is there any other faith that says you
don't have to become one of us in order to have a share in the world
to come? Believe what you want, eat what you want, smoke what you
want--as long as you keep the basic rules of Noach, you're in."

If I understand him correctly, he seems to be saying that the Tanya's
claim is not an absolute ontological one, but rather, that it is a
very time-based judgment. That is, in the time of the Tanya, most
gentiles were self-absorbed and focused on self-gratification; in
Tanya-itic terminology, their souls were in/from(?) the klipah(ot).
But any gentile, ancient or contemporary, who is moral and upstanding,
his soul would not be in/from the klipah(ot). The judgment of the
Tanya's was not on gentiles per se, but rather, precisely on only
those gentiles who lived at his time, and even those gentiles could
have freed their souls from the klipah had they so chosen. This would
be the same as the Meiri's claim (viz. the Gemara's ancient gentiles
were evil and immoral, with but few exceptions, but our gentiles today
are not so), albeit in Kabbalistic terminology.

I remember seeing in the "Lessons in Tanya" perush, a footnote in
chapter one on this whole issue; it claimed ancient gentiles were from
the klipah, but today's are not. I found this immensely disingenuous
and displeasing, for I interpreted the perush as saying that in the
past, gentiles were ontologically and metaphysically distinct, but
today, a mysterious and inexplicable change in their souls has
occurred. But according to Rabbi Freeman's interpretation, the perush
makes sense: in the past, gentiles happened to have been selfish and
self-absorbed (= klipah), but it was their own doing, and not a
metaphysical or ontological necessity. Today, if gentiles are
different, it is because they themselves have freed themselves from
the klipot by their own behavior (probably due to our educational
efforts, but this is not relevant to our present discussion, why they
chose to change; the point is that they chose to change, and it was
not blind necessity).

Mikha'el Makovi


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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 25, Issue 354
***************************************

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..."