Avodah Mailing List

Volume 26: Number 4

Wed, 07 Jan 2009

• 1. (RePhrased) Dream Interpretations (Harvey Benton)
• 2. A Prayer During Operation Cast Lead (Noah Witty)
• 3. Re: woman reading a ketuba (kennethgmil...@juno.com)
• 4. Re: Women reading the ketuba (Micha Berger)
• 5. Re: Women reading the ketuba (Zev Sero)
• 6. Care in reading a ketuba (Zev Sero)
• 7. Your Father Instructed that You Must Forgive Us (Meir Rabi)
• 8. Joseph's Brothers: What went Wrong? (Harvey Benton)
• 9. Paying teachers after one fled the war (Micha Berger)
• 10. Re: Paying teachers after one fled the war (Zev Sero)
• 11. Re: Your Father Instructed that You Must Forgive Us (Zev Sero)
• 12. Re: Paying teachers after one fled the war (Micha Berger)
• 13. Re: Your Father Instructed that You Must Forgive Us (Micha Berger)
• 14. Re: Paying teachers after one fled the war (Zev Sero)
• 15. Re: Paying teachers after one fled the war (Yitzhak Grossman)
• 16. Re: Your Father Instructed that You Must Forgive Us (Micha Berger)
• 17. Megirot and Bediqas Chameitz (Micha Berger)

> I attended a shiur Motzei Shabbos by Author and Lecturer Rabbi Y.Y.
> Rubinstien of the UK on Dreams and Dreamers.  He mentioned
> that dream interpreters are popular in EY and that he had
> heard that in BPark there are storefronts set up. 

  He mentioned an extraordinary case, of which he had personal knowledge,
  where someone correctly predicted that a Ketuba had only been signed by
  one witness, and was thus causing problems.  He also said that he had
  knowledge of other extraordinary cases, but despite this he cast doubt on
  the validity of such interpretive abilities.	

He said that nowadays there is no prophecy, and that any Kabbalist, who
might have any true insights, would not be advertising these abilities.  He
frowned upon taking money for such endeavours.	Does anyone have any
insights as to modern day dream interpretations??

 From Arutz-7 English language website, authored by Rav Mordechai Eliyahu.

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/129189

You can copy and paste it on a Word document; however, I found that in 
the copy-paste some part of it was transposed.  Read it before printing. 

Rabbi Yisrael Reisman suggested/recommended that any additional tefilla 
inserted in Shemoneh Esray be inserted in the bracha of re-ai na 
ve-'onyai-nu

I found the geographical reference interesting.  Precedent in the 
tefilla of the kohain gadol on Yom Kippur: "ve-al anshei ha-shomron . . 
 she-lo ye-hi-yu batei-hem kivrei-hem."

Any community in chu"l having a tehillim "mishmar" or on a rotational basis?

(BTW, would someone be kind enough to articulate the argument for not 
using Masorti tefilla, e.g. if you don't like the reference to 
'Imma-hoat, skip it.
2nd BTW: Their website URL is deceiving (intentionally or not) since 
Yeshivat Har Etzion has a VBM and these people are BMV.)

Noach Witty
-------------- next part --------------
-
-------------- next part --------------

No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
Version: 8.0.176 / Virus Database: 270.10.2/1874 - Release Date: 1/4/2009 4:32 PM

R"n Shoshana Boublil wrote:
> Rav Yaakov Ariel recommends that the Ketuba only be given
> to a rabbi qualified to pasken on the Ketuba. ... This is
> especially important nowadays, when many couples bring
> their own "hand made", decorated Ketuba - not realizing
> that there may be a problem of Nusach.

I'd like to mention a great example of this, which occurred at my
daughter's wedding this past summer. Their kesuba was hand-written. At one
point the calligrapher began writing the chasan's name, and after two
letters left a blank space and began the name again from the beginning.

In the days prior to the wedding, no one noticed this orphaned two-letter
word in the middle of the kesubah. But finally, at the chupah itself, it
did get noticed by the one who was reading it aloud, my rav and our
listmember, Rav Elazar Teitz. He noticed it immediately, decided that it
was NOT a problem, and read it aloud together with the rest of the kesuba.
No one listening noticed anything odd. Even now when I watched the video,
he paused only to catch his breath, no differently than at several other
points.

Why was this extra two-letter word not a problem? Because the chasan's name
was Mordechai Shmuel. So Rav Teitz merely read aloud exactly what was
written: "...v'kanina min Mar Mordechai Shmuel..."

Standard? Certainly not. But pasul? Even more certainly not.

Akiva Miller

____________________________________________________________
Need cash? Click to get a cash advance.
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2131/fc/
PnY6rbt6mLE4vHXZQdSS5t04SBxBZ8LGJqXqfsZwnVFbhu7VCcRDs/

On Sat, Jan 03, 2009 at 10:16:49PM -0500, Meir Shinnar wrote:
: The problem with RHS's tshuva is that it can be read in either of two
: ways - both of which are problematic, albeit for different reasons.

: If one takes the maximalist understanding (that RMB seems to have) -
: that giving public kibud to a woman is a problem because of kol kvuda
: bat melekh - which is not overridden by other chiyuvim - the fundamental
: issue in the MO community (including the YU community) is why is this
: kibbud any different than any other public kibbud given to women...
:                              The question is why is reading the ketuba
: fundamentally different - because, after all, as RHS acknowledges, it
: has no technical legal status - and the sole issue then seems to be the
: public role for women.

I'mn the only one who conflated this thought with RHS's position on
women reading the kesuvah. He wrote it WRT the woman's role in shul,
or lack thereof. Actually, RHS said there was no problem, just as the
wedding would be kosher if a monkey or parrot read it. (It's easy for
me to remember RHS's position, since there were people who took that
as an offensive comparison, not his intent of the gemara's argument
ad absurdum.)

: Now, that is a point of argument of the MO with the haredi community
: ...                 RMB understands to RHS to be making essentially a
: similar argument. However, this argument has been rejected by the MO
: and YU community - and I believe was already rejected by RYBS - so it
: is difficult to make that argument here.

: A more minimalist reading is that there are certain kibbudim that one
: should intrinsically decline, but someone has to do them. However, as
: a practical matter, no one approaches these kibbudim in this fashion (I
: haven't heard of anyone going to their rav saying, I am sorry that someone
: has to read the ketuba..) which makes this reading seem disingenuous,
: at the least....

This was RJK's point as well, when he wrote:
> I've been a member of the O community for more than a few decades and
> have davened in all types of different O minyanim and been to hundreds of
> O weddings ... And it's my perception that almost no one believes that
> being a shli'ach tzibur or, indeed, reading the ketubah at a wedding,
> is a "necessary evil." ... It seems to me that if we truly believed
> this, then a shul without a permanent chazan would have only one or
> two people who sacrifice themselves to lead the davening so as to save
> the others from this supposed "necessary evil." And that at weddings,
> there would be someone from the caterer or the band to read the ketubah
> so as to save the rabbanim and RYs from this supposed "necessary evil."

Actually, the tochakhah is considered a less-than-complementary aliyah,
and there is a minhag to bedavka give it to the rav so that the person
getting it would not be insulted. But that's just an objection to RJK's
phrasing, not his thesis.

More to the point, the fact that people know you're trying to honor them
and are honored by that thought, whether it's reading the kesuvah or
being appointed shaliach tzibur, doesn't mean they're supposed to. Or,
that one is supposed to accept this fate accompli and widen its scope
to include people who have no overriding duty.

But back to RMS and his minimalist vs maximalist readings of RHS...
I would agree with his categorization. I'm not sure what the "certain
kibudim" of the minimalist read would be. RHS's point was tzeni'us means
not being in the lime-light. Why would this be an issue for some public
functions and not others? That's why I assumed RHS was speaking
maximally, of every public role.

In cases where /someone/ has to do it, and there is no greater chiyuv
on men than on women, one could argue that RHS would agree with the MO
stance. (Although I agree with the side issue that RHS and RMW aren't MO
as RMS uses the term, or as I did when I counted myself in that camp.
In fact, I left with them, the same "slide to the right", but ended up
elsewhere.)

: There is another problem with all of this shitta, because, contra RHS,
: there is a hiyyuv - to be mesameach the hattan and kalla - and if it
: is their simcha and oneg that woman X (and not rabbi Y) should read the
: ketuba, why should the woman refuse??

RHS doesn't say she should.

: RMB writes about the slippery slope and being poretz geder - but one has to
: be careful about the meaning of poretz geder - because there actually has
: to be a geder. Recall the Seride Esh's tshuva about bat mitzva, and the
: question of when we say lo ra'inu eyno ra'aya - and when we can say that
: lo ra'inu is a ra'aya....

This misses the intended thrust of my suggestion. If poreitz geder refers
the fence that keeps one off the slippery slope, the question is how
slippery is the slope, not whether an issur already exists.

I obviously wasn't sufficiently clear, as RHB appears to me to have
reached the mistaken understanding of my intent. On Fri, Jan 02, 2009 at
02:05pm PST, R Harvey Benton wrote:
: R. Micha Berger wrote:
:> How big of a breach
:> can mimetic halakhah absorb and still survive to guide us.

: HB:
: In general, throughout history, what has guided the Jewish Nation in
: it's adoption and eventual acceptance of new Minhagim??...

: How are we supposed to know what is a valid practice, and what is a
: Minhag Shtus?  Do we only find out about a Minhag's validity after a 100
: years of its use??

(Side issue: I would say the only minhag shetus is one that is proven
to violate the din. One with no basis doesn't qualify. I belabored this
idea numerous times in the past)

If peritzas geder includes not only violations but also breeches in the
mimetic structure that leads down the slippery slope then the question
isn't what minhagim would be valid, or lo ra'inu eino ra'ayah. The
question is instead:
    Can we change our lifestyle in this drastic way without the whole
    system falling apart?

And for reading the kesuvah as a stand alone question, the answer is
probably yes. People with a better grasp of the social dynamic should be
able to give a more certain answer. However, as part of a broader swath
of societal changes to give women a greater role in issues of rite,
I'm equally inclined to believe we can't make those changes and still
preserve a viable observant community. The change is just to great and
too destabilizing, regardless of the justifixation of the content.

That's how I intended to equate slippery slope with poreitz geder.
According to this suggestion, are about not making changes that are
themselves technically justifiable, but destroy the means by which we
keep the project viable in the long term.

Now, is this really what "poreitz geder" means? On Sat, Jan 03, 2009 at
10:26pm EST, Rich, R Joel questioned:
: This would be a worthwhile research project but if you look at rashi on
: avodah zara 27b (uporetz geder) it seems to be defined based on being
: over on divrei chachamim, not on doing something new that was not
: practiced but was never banned.

This is also Rashi's position on Qoheles 10:8, "siyag shel chakhamim
la'avor al divreihem".

BTW, this discussion ties into our thread of last March, "shechtworthy".
In it we discussed the shocheit who kept halakhah, but was poreitz
geder. This then turned into a discussion of what PG means. RnCL
concluded, "the form of poretz geder that I could find seemed to be about
specific challenge to local rabbinic authority acting in their capacity
as such, more than just plain contrarianism. Nothing even remotely like
tableclothes, or galoshes, or even beard trimming."

Eating meat during whatever part of the 9 days your qehillah doesn't
is called peritzas geder (OC 551:11). Similarly, the AhS YD 89:7 uses
the term "poreitz geder" to someone who switched from a minhag of a
longer wait from meat to milk to a shorter one. No one is violating a
derabbanan either way, so that does broaden it somewhere beyond RJR's
and RnCL's phrasings.

But this is still the violation of a minhag.

The Kelei Yaqar (Bereishis 4:7) explains a Yalqut by calling Amaleiq
a "poreitz geder" because "zehu inyan pesichas hapesach shehizkarnu,
she'al yedei hapesichah rabim boq'in bo..." To the KY, as he continues,
poreitz geder is one who makes an opening for his yeitzer, by which his
yeitzer would do worse thing. Such as in Yuma 39b, a person who allows
himself to become a little tamei will be made very tamei.

The KY's example is one of issur, his definition is the possibility I
raised of slippery slope. Similarly numerous mefareshim use the term
"poreitz geder" WRT maaseh Zimri and his enabling others to say it's
not so bad.

ROY (YO vol 1 OC 38)defined the PG as someone who is meiqil on a minhag
"shekol minhag yeish lo shoresh vetzinor lema'alah".

So, it would seem that poreitz geder does refer to a slipper slope, but
only a violation of something, at least local pesaq/minhag, that enables
the slippery slope. A perusal of the Bar Ilan shu"t web site didn't show
up a definite maqor for using the term for slippery slopes in general.

The only possible exception is the Tashbatz (vol 2, 132,239) where the
mesacheiq bequbiyah is poreitz geder. There it's not clear there is an
issur, although since he can't give eidus, it's definitely considered
negative.

I still think, though, that even without the usability of the PG
concept itself, my basic thesis is still somewhat salvagable. There is
still a distinction made based on societal / political concern. They
aren't entirely divorcable from pesaq.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Man can aspire to spiritual-moral greatness
mi...@aishdas.org        which is seldom fully achieved and easily lost
http://www.aishdas.org   again. Fullfillment lies not in a final goal,
Fax: (270) 514-1507      but in an eternal striving for perfection. -RSRH

Micha Berger wrote:

> Actually, the tochakhah is considered a less-than-complementary aliyah,
> and there is a minhag to bedavka give it to the rav so that the person
> getting it would not be insulted. But that's just an objection to RJK's
> phrasing, not his thesis.

I've never seen that - where is it practised?  The minhag with which I'm
familiar actually fits the model we're discussing: the gabbai doesn't call
anyone at all, so b'leis breira the baal koreh says the brochos himself.
(I also remember, as a child, being shooed away from in front of the bimah
during that aliyah, so that when the BK read the curses, in the second
person, they should not appear to be aimed at whoever was standing in front
of him.)

-- 
Zev Sero                                     May the light of Chanukah
z...@sero.name                                brighten your life

We've been discussing what qualifications are desirable in the person who
reads the ketubah.  Since the whole reading is unnecessary, it follows that
really anyone can do it, but I suggested that it's embarrassing when the
person given this "kibbud" can't read it without breaking his teeth.  Others
suggested that the reading does perform one useful function - it provides a
fresh set of eyes to spot any mistakes, and therefore the job should be given
to someone who is qualified to notice and pasken on any mistakes he might
come across as he's reading.

kennethgmil...@juno.com wrote:
> But finally, at the chupah itself, it did get noticed by the one who was
> reading it aloud, my rav and our listmember, Rav Elazar Teitz. He noticed
> it immediately, decided that it was NOT a problem, and read it aloud
> together with the rest of the kesuba.

Unfortunately many people who read ketubot aloud aren't nearly this
attentive.  Yesterday I was at a chupah where the ketuba-reader misread
the name "Dov" as "Dovid", every time it appeared.  Fortunately a check
of the actual document revealed that it had been written correctly, so all
was well.   I was also at a chupah a few years ago where a prominent rosh
yeshivah kept misreading "Elozor" as "Eliezer" (that is one mistake that
REMT would have been sure not to make!)  This same RY was also clearly
flummoxed by the name Dovber, spelt dalet vav beit ayin reish, and took a
guess at how to pronounce it.  If the reading is to function as a final
proofreading it would be well for the reader to ascertain the names of the
parties in advance.

-- 
Zev Sero                                     May the light of Chanukah
z...@sero.name                                brighten your life

Joseph's brothers began to realise that the implications of their father's
death.

"What if Joseph is still holding a grudge against us? He is likely to pay us
back for all the evil we did him."

They instructed messengers to tell Joseph, "Before he died your father gave
us final instructions. He said, 'This is what you must say to Joseph:
Forgive the spiteful deed and the sin your brothers committed when they did
evil to you.' Now forgive the spiteful deed that we the servants of your
father's Gd have done." (Genesis 50:15-17, The Living Torah)

 

Can a person be bludgeoned into submission and forced to forgive their
oppressor?

As our Sages explain this was a fabrication, the father did not leave such
an instruction.

But our problem is, It makes no sense. A forced confession is not a
confession and a forced apology is not an apology and a forced forgiveness
is not forgiveness.

 

Meir Rabi

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20090106/64ef35bb/attachment-0001.htm>

What exactly did Josef?s Brothers do wrong?  And what exactly did he have to forgive them for, in order for the AHMalchut not to have taken place?

BEIT DIN: 
We are told that the brothers convened a Beit Din to try Joseph for either:
A. Being Mored BMalchut (either against Yaakov - the Gadol Hador, or Yehuda
- the rightful heir to the Kingship).  Or B.  For being a rodef, indirectly
attempting to kill them, by moisering to Yaakov; their fear being they
would be cursed by Yaakov, and them dying (early), like what had happened
to Rochel Imenu.

Mored BMalchut ? Bet Din valid:
If the Beit Din was VALID, then what did the brothers do wrong?  Were they
supposed to show mercy in the judgment Proceedings, or afterwards during
the Sentencing?  
Procedings: We are told that a Sanhedrin who killed someone every 7 (or 70)
years is considered a murderous court.	The Sanhedrin thus tried ways to
find people not guilty of the death penalty.  Should the brothers have
found a way to exempt Joseph from the death penalty?  Was this their crime?
Sentencing:  We are told, that the Brothers heard Joseph?s screams from the
pit, and showed him no mercy, which would have been after the trial, and
during execution of any (valid) sentence.  But since when is a Court
supposed to listen to cries from a convicted defendant?  (If a convicted
thief or murderer begs for mercy, should we listen?)

Mored BMalchut ? Bet Din not valid:
If the Bet Din was not valid, perhaps because the brothers were Krovim,
then why are we not told that their forming such a Bet Din and passing (a
thus invalid judgment)	was what they did wrong?  (The Krovim issue might
be explained by the fact that before the Torah was given, Krovim were
perhaps not exempt from being on a Beit Din.  I find this hard to follow
however, because if the Brothers claimed that they were not-Jewish in
relation to their Beit Din/Krovim status, then why would they claim to be
Jewish when it came to the eating of Aver Min Hachai, (e.g. eating from the
animal while the animal was still moving)?  = Not consistent?)

Joseph as a Rodef/Moiser:
If someone goes to the Gadol Hador and moisers on you, is that person
guilty of the death penalty?  If we are forbidden to approach legitimate
authorities of ongoing possible illegal activity (in this case Aver Min
Hachai) because we might be found guilty of being a Rodef, then the entire
Justice System could not operate.  No one would inform Police or a Beit Din
if the crime being committed potentially entailed the death penalty.  (I.e.
Murderers would go free?.)

Asarah Harugei Malchut:
So the question is, what exactly was Joseph supposed to forgive them for, in order for the AHMalchut not to have happened?
Further, the Brothers were involved in the deception of Yaakov, their Father (if not directly then indirectly).  Did Yaakov ever forgive them for this??

HB 

If anyone has any thoughts, please post.  HB

I got the following from
http://www.vosizneias.com/25269/2009/01/06/je
rusalem-psak-halacha-must-pay-wages-despite-the-war/
, by a R' Ezra Reichman.

> Rav Shmuel David Hakohen Gross [rav of Chassidei Gur in Ashdod] said
> that he had received a number of questions concerning payment to
> kindergarten teachers and morning babysitters.

(The schools were relocated to someplace further from the front.)

> His ruling which was publicized said:

> "I was asked if those who left Ashdod will have to pay the wages of
> their teachers, kindergarten teachers or babysitters, especially since
> they are now paying for these services in the places they are now
> residing and don't want to pay twice. Even though different details
> may affect the ruling, in general it appears that in many cases, they
> are obligated to pay at least part of the amount. One should not
> assume that they won't have to pay."

SheTir'u baTov!
-micha

-- 
Micha Berger             "Man wants to achieve greatness overnight,
mi...@aishdas.org        and he wants to sleep well that night too."
http://www.aishdas.org     - Rav Yosef Yozel Horwitz, Alter of Novarodok
Fax: (270) 514-1507

Micha Berger wrote:

>> "I was asked if those who left Ashdod will have to pay the wages of
>> their teachers, kindergarten teachers or babysitters, especially since
>> they are now paying for these services in the places they are now
>> residing and don't want to pay twice. Even though different details
>> may affect the ruling, in general it appears that in many cases, they
>> are obligated to pay at least part of the amount. One should not
>> assume that they won't have to pay."

Do they have to pay their usual supermarket also, despite not having
bought food there?  If they buy clothes where they fled, do they have
to pay a commission to the store where they would have bought had they
been home?  How about the beggars in the Ashdod shuk - when people return
to Ashdod do they have to give the beggars what they would have given them
had they gone shopping every day?  Perhaps the beggars in the north, who
profited from the person's move, should send a commission to the ones in
the south?

Does all of this apply whenever someone goes away, for a vacation, etc?

-- 
Zev Sero                                     May the light of Chanukah
z...@sero.name                                brighten your life

Meir Rabi wrote:

> But our problem is, It makes no sense. A forced confession is not a 
> confession and a forced apology is not an apology and a forced 
> forgiveness is not forgiveness.

It doesn't matter.  So long as he continues to act as if he forgave them,
and doesn't kill them all now that Yaacov is safely dead (as Esav had
planned to do to Yaacov), they don't care whether he truly forgives them.

I wonder whether at this point they had *yet* realised that they'd been
wrong about Yosef all those years ago.  Not just that they were wrong to
have been so heartless as to have ignored his pleading, and that they
should have had mercy and reduced his sentence, but that they'd misjudged
him in the first place.  Perhaps it was only now, when he continued to
treat them well despite Yaacov being gone, that they came to realise it,
or perhaps they never did, and thought that he was another Esav, whose
only virtue was kibbud av.


-- 
Zev Sero                                     May the light of Chanukah
z...@sero.name                                brighten your life

Teachers are generally paid annually. If a child is sick for two
weeks, do you pay the school less?

I would guess this is a nistakhpah sadeihu, in the sense of being a
high cost, very unlikely instance of the assumed risk.

SheTir'u baTov!
-micha

On Tue, January 6, 2009 2:56 pm, Zev Sero wrote:
: Meir Rabi wrote:
:> But our problem is, It makes no sense. A forced confession is not a
:> confession and a forced apology is not an apology and a forced
:> forgiveness is not forgiveness.
:
: It doesn't matter.  So long as he continues to act as if he forgave
: them, and doesn't kill them all now that Yaacov is safely dead (as
: Esav had planned to do to Yaacov), they don't care whether he truly
: forgives them.

More charitably, they despaired of being forgiven, and were willing to
settle for saving their lives.

SheTir'u baTov!
-micha

Micha Berger wrote:
> Teachers are generally paid annually.

If this were so then what would the question be?  The parents demanding
a refund?  Clearly the question here was about tutors who are paid by
the session, like babysitters.  And I don't see why they're entitled to
be paid for services that were not required and not supplied.  If your
kid goes to camp, do you pay the tutors anyway?


-- 
Zev Sero                                     May the light of Chanukah
z...@sero.name                                brighten your life

On Tue, 06 Jan 2009 15:03:17 -0500
Zev Sero <z...@sero.name> wrote:

> Micha Berger wrote:
> 
> >> "I was asked if those who left Ashdod will have to pay the wages of
> >> their teachers, kindergarten teachers or babysitters, especially since

...

> Do they have to pay their usual supermarket also, despite not having
> bought food there?  If they buy clothes where they fled, do they have
> to pay a commission to the store where they would have bought had they

The obvious difference is that one generally has no contractual
commitment to his grocery and clothier, while he often does to his
school and child care provider.

> Zev Sero                                     May the light of Chanukah

Yitzhak
--
Bein Din Ledin - http://bdl.freehostia.com
A discussion of Hoshen Mishpat, Even Ha'Ezer and other matters

R' Jonathan Sacks' take on the subject. It doesn't answer the question,
but I figured that if people were interested in the topic, it might
appeal.

-micha

Covenant And Conversation
Rabbi Jonathan Sacks
Office of the Chief Rabbi

The White Lie

Is it permitted to tell a white lie? If a murderer is at large,
brandishing a gun, and his intended victim takes refuge in your house,
are you obligated to tell the truth when the would-be killer knocks on
your door and asks, "Is he here"? Immanuel Kant, the greatest philosopher
of modern times, said Yes. We should always tell the truth, whatever
the circumstances and consequences. Judaism says No. Not only is it
permitted to tell a white lie to save a life. It is also permitted to
do so for the sake of peace.

The sages derived this from two episodes, one in this week's sedra. Jacob
has died. The brothers fear that Joseph will now take revenge for the
fact that they sold him into slavery. They devise a stratagem:

"They sent word to Joseph, saying, 'Your father left these instructions
before he died: 'This is what you are to say to Joseph: I ask you to
forgive your brothers the sins and the wrongs they committed in treating
you so badly.' Now please forgive the sins of the servants of the G-d
of your father.' When their message came to him, Joseph wept."

There is no evidence that Jacob ever said the words attributed to him. The
sages therefore assumed that what the brothers said was a lie. They
concluded that "It is permitted to change [to tell a white lie] for the
sake of peace." They derived the same principle from a second source
as well.

When three visitors came to Abraham in his old age and said that in a
year's time Sarah would have a child, Sarah laughed, saying to herself:
"After I am worn out and my husband is old, will I now have this
pleasure?" G-d tells Abraham that Sarah disbelieves: "Why did Sarah laugh
and say, 'Will I really have a child, now that I am old?'" Tactfully,
He omits reference to Sarah's remark about her husband being old. This
too served the sages as proof of the rule.

Both sources are necessary. If we only had the evidence of Joseph's
brothers, we could not infer that what they did was right. Perhaps they
were wrong to lie. And if we only had the evidence of G-d's words to
Abraham, we could only infer that a half-truth is permitted [G-d does
not say anything false; He merely omits some of Sarah's words], not an
actual falsehood. Putting them together, the rule is established. Peace
takes precedence over truth.

To understand a civilization, it is necessary not only to know
the values and virtues it embraces, but also the order of priority
among them. Many cultures value freedom and equality. The difficult
question is: which takes precedence? Communism values equality more than
freedom. Laissez-faire capitalism values freedom more than equality. They
share the same ideals, but because they assign them different places in
the ethical hierarchy, they result in completely different societies.

Truth and truthfulness are fundamental values in Judaism. We call the
Torah "the law of truth." The sages called truth the signature of G-d. Yet
truth is not the highest value in Judaism. Peace is. Why so? For this,
there are two reasons.

The first is the extraordinary value Judaism attributes to peace. The
nineteenth century historian, Sir Henry Sumner Maine, said: "War is as old
as mankind. Peace is a modern invention." He had much evidence to support
him. Virtually every culture until modern times was militaristic. Heroes
were mighty men of valour who fought and often died on the field of
battle. Legends were about great victories in war. Conflict (between the
gods, or the elements, or the children of light against the children of
darkness) was written into the human script.

Against this, the prophets of ancient Israel were the first people
in history to see peace as an ideal. That is why the words of Isaiah,
echoed by Micah, have never lost their power:

"He will judge between the nations and will settle disputes for many
peoples. They will beat their swords into plowshares and their spears
into pruning hooks. Nation will not take up sword against nation, nor
will they train for war anymore."

This vision of a world at peace was not centuries but millennia ahead
of its time.

At the same time, Judaism took a more subtle view of truth than did
the philosophers of antiquity. In logic, a sentence is either true or
false. There is no third alternative. In Judaism, by contrast, truth
is many-faceted and elusive. Of the disputes between the schools of
Hillel and Shammai, the Talmud says, "These and those are the words
of the living G-d." Some believe that, though now the law is in accord
with the school of Hillel, in the Messianic Age it will follow the view
of Shammai. Ultimate truth forever eludes us. Maimonides held that we
can only know what G-d is not; not what He is. "If I could know G-d,"
said one sage, "I would be G-d."

There is such a thing as truth in the eye of the beholder. The school
of Hillel held that one should always say at a wedding, "The bride is
beautiful and gracious." But what if she isn't, asked Shammai? Will you
tell a lie? In the eyes of her husband, she is beautiful, answered Hillel.

Truth matters, but peace matters more. That is Judaism's considered
judgement. Many of the greatest crimes in history were committed by
those who believed they were in possession of the truth while their
opponents were sunk in error. To make peace between husband and wife
(Abraham and Sarah) and between brothers (Joseph and Jacob's other
sons) the Torah sanctions a statement that is less than the whole
truth. Dishonesty? No. Tact, sensitivity, discretion? Yes. That is an
idea both eminently sensible and humane.

On Wed, Jan 07, 2009 at 11:23:58AM +0200, Shoshana L. Boublil lamented
on Areivim about the devolution of the Megirot Movement (?):
: The original idea was based on Avodat Hashem shel Nashim. The
: drawers were used as a focus for Tikun HaMidot...

An approach I have pushed for to bediqas chameitz by both genders.

The Ari haQadosh is quoted as saying that whomever is careful not to have
any chameitz in the home will be blessed with being saved from cheit the
following year. It is from this notion that we have such a haqpadah on
bal yiraeh bal yimatzei on less than a kezayis. So, we go frantic for
a month "spring cleaning" off this havtachah.

However, is it possible to avoid aveirah if one cleans up all the
chameitz but leaves internally all the ga'avah, thoughtlessness, apathy
or procrastination?

In case you're wondering about that list of middos ra'os, I am trying
for the antonym of matzah:
    - lekhem oni
    - lekhem she'onim alav devarim harbei
    - the matzah of the qorban, "choq le'loam" -- obedience and
      commitment
    - shelo hispiq betzeiqam lehachmitz

And so, the spring cleaning phase of pre-Pasach preparations can be
a chance to go through the drawers -- and closets, and the car seats,
and ... -- with an eye to how the associations they bring up relate to
these four middos in particular.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

PS: I just hope it's not inyana deyoma yet for any in the chevrah. <g>

-- 
Micha Berger             When memories exceed dreams,
mi...@aishdas.org        The end is near.
http://www.aishdas.org                   - Rav Moshe Sherer
Fax: (270) 514-1507


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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 26, Issue 4
*************************************

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..."