Avodah Mailing List

Volume 27: Number 169

Fri, 27 Aug 2010

• 1. Re: new editions (Arie Folger)
• 2. Re: Saying Tehillim for a sick person (Arie Folger)
• 3. Re: new editions (Chana Luntz)
• 4. Re: new editions (Arie Folger)
• 5. Re: SA and LH (SBA)
• 6. Avodah] Saying Tehillim for a sick person (SBA)
• 7. Ki Seitzei and Yaakov (nachm...@juno.com)
• 8. What Makes Us a Nation (Prof. Levine)
• 9. Re: anti-meat rhetoric "according to Judaism" (Micha Berger)
• 10. Bechirah - Scientific Proof it exists??? (Micha Berger)
• 11. SA and BY (Eli Turkel)
• 12. Re: SA and LH (Micha Berger)
• 13. Re: SA and BY (Arie Folger)
• 14. Re: SA and BY (Micha Berger)
• 15. Re: SA and BY (Eli Turkel)
• 16. parshat bikkurim (Eli Turkel)
• 17. Mesameah hasan im hakallah (David Riceman)

RMB wrote:
>On RAF's issue of whether that implies authorship date or
> acceptance date, in the case of the talmud bavli, we follow
> authorship. Even though redaction took generations, giving
> the savoraim a gray area status, there were centuries between
> chasimas hashas and talmud bavli being accepted as The
> Talmud Bavli. We don't consider the geonim of those centuries
> as authoritative as amoraim, though. Even if in their own day,
>  they didn't believe their opinions had to be measured by their
> distance from the gemara's masqanos. We, by accepting shas,
> created a situation where they have to be.

First of all, Geonim continued to innovate and we don't necessarily
reject those innovations (do YOU say hanoten laya'ef koa'h?), even
though these are often pisqei din we usually arrogate to the Talmud
only. Secondly, it is those same Geonim who labored to make the Bavli
be accepted, so in a sense they made themselves into a new era, just
like R' Yochanan essentially created the Amoraic era, by being a
leading proponent on not disagreeing with Tannaim. The people who
belabor for acceptance of a text as establishing an era are always in
a grey area, and they tend to be in sync with the era ending work. So
you can't prove anything from that.

It is my contention that this is a huge grey area and that it must be,
and that any attempt to create firm boundaries is bound to fail. I
challenge you to find any poseq prior to the 20th century who made a
difference between whether a responsum was written before or after
acceptance of the SA. In fact, I am not aware of anyone doing that in
the last 100 years, either.

-- 
Arie Folger,
Recent blog posts on http://ariefolger.wordpress.com/
* Cows moo-ve over: camel milk coming to Europe
* Scharfe Analyse der Gaza-Flotte auf ARD
* The New Face of Jewish Studitainment
* Should Humanity Call it Quits
* Sollten wir alle Kohanim sein?
* Videovortrag: Wer hat die Psalmen verfasst?

RDK wrote:
> It always surprises me when kehillos that rush their weekday
> shacharis make such a big thing out of the passuk-by-passuk
> recital of Tehillim for a choleh at the end, the mispallelim
> shockeling with furrowed brows as if to say, "Aha, now we're
> really davening!"  What have you been doing for the past 30
> minutes?! The same thing applies to the marbeh b'kaddishim
> plague, but that's for another post...

For a period of time when we wanted to add daily prayers because of
the situation in Israel, I suggested that when we recite psalm 20
before Uva leTziyon, it be recited slowly, passuq befassuq, instead of
adding another psalm. I was moved by some of the same concerns you
have.

-- 
Arie Folger,
Recent blog posts on http://ariefolger.wordpress.com/
* Cows moo-ve over: camel milk coming to Europe
* Scharfe Analyse der Gaza-Flotte auf ARD
* The New Face of Jewish Studitainment
* Should Humanity Call it Quits
* Sollten wir alle Kohanim sein?
* Videovortrag: Wer hat die Psalmen verfasst?

RMB writes:
> ...
> :> Because I do not recall anyone in the previous discussion who
> considered
> :> the BY definitive. It's earlier than the SA, and far more
> theoretical
> :> than a presentation of halakhah ulemaaseh.
 And RAF replied:
> : The nosei keilim often use the BY to explain the SA, so they obviously
> : felt differently.

I would add, not just the nosei kellim, but the Rema seems to periodically
bring the Beis Yosef l'halacha.  

> I would say it's more concerned with existing shitos than the SA's own
> pesaq.

I'm not so sure.  An example I am thinking of (just because I happen to be
in the sugya at the moment) is Orech Chaim siman 313 si'if 6 (all about
binyan b'kelim).  The Beis Yosef himself says "Nireh" in relation to whether
the case needs to be one shedarko lhiyot refui (although indeed he then goes
on to say that this can be inferred from the Hagahos Ashri and the Kol Bo).
But he doesn't bring it l'halacha in the Shulchan Aruch preferring to stick
with the language of the Tur which leaves this out.  And the Rema then adds
it in.

 Of course, one shapes the other. But the chiluq we're discussing
> presupposes talking about a case where the two disagree. In which case,
> it is easily arguable that the BY was speaking lomdus, and the SA,
> lemaaseh.

Or perhaps the BY felt that his chiddush wasn't strong enough to be
transmitted as part of the final psak, but the Rema did.

The issue of where they appear to directly contradict seems less germane (he
retracted is another option) than where the Shulchan Aruch is silent and yet
an answer to the question can be found in the BY.  Certain Sephardim of the
"we follow Maran" type seem, from what I have seen, to generally regard that
as a kind of trump card, ie try the SA, but if not the SA but in the BY,
that will do instead (and even, if not in the SA and not in the BY, if in
the Kesef Mishna, that too will do).  I have certainly seen Sephardim use a
Kesef Mishna to trump some opinion of some Ashkenazi Achron, even ones as
authoritative as the Magen Avraham or the Taz.  That is certainly to my mind
treating R Yosef Caro as a rishon, and a super authoritative one at that.
But the again doubt an Ashkenazi posek would go that far.

> Tir'u baTov!
> -Micha

Regards

Chana Luntz

RMB wrote:
> The earlier ge'onim (or, according to R' Treibitz's theory that the point of
> the story of the four captives is about the widespread acceptance of shas,
> all ge'onim) didn't know they were ge'onim.

Actually, I think they were quite conscious. Just like starting with
R' Yochanan, there is a real consciousness that a new era has begun.
That kind of consciousness is lacking in later generations. The end of
Geonim is fluid, and so is the end of Rishonim, and, as I have
mentioned, there are sources saying explicitly that there is no
inherent reason preventing A'haronim to disagree with Rishonim. To
continue quote R'HS, that doesn't mean that each of us has the
authority to disagree, it takes very broad shoulders to do so, but it
is not inherently impermissible or infeasible.

-- 
Arie Folger,
Recent blog posts on http://ariefolger.wordpress.com/
* Where Will We Find Refuge ... from technology overload
* Video-Vortrag: Psalm 34
* We May Have Free Will, After All
* Equal Justice for All
* Brutal Women of Nazi Germany
* Gibt es in der Unterhaltungsliteratur eine Rolle f?r G"tt?
* If You Work With Garbage, You Will Get Dirty

From: Arie Folger 
RMCohen asked:
> does anyone have a good answer why SA doesn't mention hilchos LH?

Because it doesn't necessarily fit neatly into a cubicle. Depending on
one's understanding of LH, it may have a lot to do with dinei mamonot,
hezeq, but other aspects have to do with totally different issues of
motzi shem ra', etc. Perhaps therefore, RYQaro felt that the different
parts didn't belong together.
>>

Doesn't the CC address this matter anywhere in his sefer?

SBA 

From: Dov 
It always surprises me when kehillos that rush their weekday shacharis make
such a big thing out of the passuk-by-passuk recital of Tehillim for a
choleh at the end, the mispallelim shockeling with furrowed brows as if to
say, "Aha, now we're really davening!"  What have you been doing for the
past 30 minutes?! 
>>

That's been puzzling me too. Why not suffice with Refoeinu -adding the Yehi
Ratzon - a tefilah compiled by the AKHg -  which surely has all the
ingredients/segulos required for a refuah? And having said that, what's the
point of adding 'man-made' Tehillim?

I have the same question regarding the Vidui said (at least in nussach
Sfard) after ShE. Isn't the AKHg's "Selach lanu " enough? 

I am sure there must be answers to this and would appreciate hearing them.

SBA

You're definitely on to something. R. Yitzchak Etshalom has developed this idea extensively here:

"Ki Seitzi/The first Jewish Family

http://www.torah.org/advanced/mikra/5757/dv/dt.57.5.06.html


He also cites Esnan Zonah (HaKeZonah: Dinah). Kedesha (Tamar), Amalek=Eisav, Snuah (Leah), bechor, yefei/Yefat Toar, Yibum (Tamar), Yaakov's Neder, etc.

And I would add: "Em al Banim" by Yaakov's prayer and Shiluach HaKan (noted in Bereishis Rabah 72:6, where Yaakov cites the Mitzvah in Parshas Ki Seitzei).

By all means, you should send him what you've found. It seems every year Motzoei Shabbos Ki Seitzi I have to Email new things we find in the Parshah


Kesivah VeChasimah Tovah
nachman

____________________________________________________________
Obama Urges Homeowners to Refinance
If you owe under $729k you probably qualify for Obama's Refi Program
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3141/4c767bdb7a2fc8b3c79st04vuc

RSRH writes the following in his commentary on Devarim 27: 9.

9 Thereupon Moshe and the priests, the Levi?im, 
spoke to all of Israel [saying]: Pay attention 
and hear, O Israel: On this day you have become a people to God, your God!

Today you have become a people! Your common
responsibility to the Torah, which now devolves on all of you, without
exception; your common guardianship of the Torah, to which you all
have been assigned ? these are the things that make you a nation. Today:
Not the impending possession of the Land, but the common possession
of the Torah ? that is what makes you a nation. You may vanish from
the Land, just as now you are about to take possession of it, but the Torah
and your eternal commitment to it will remain the everlasting, inalienable
bond that will keep you united as a nation.

This fact sets Israel apart from all other nations, and in this fact lies
the secret of the immortality of the Jewish people. This basic fact, with
all its implications for Israel?s future, is what gives momentous import
to the sentence ?HaYom hazeh niyaasah l'am la Shem Elokecha .?

Too bad that those who are not observant and are 
searching for ways to strengthen the connection 
to Judaism of Jewish youth do not seem to be 
cognizant of what Rabbiner Hirsch wrote regarding 
Torah observance being the core of the Jewish nation.  YL
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20100826/c7a06808/attachment-0001.htm>

There was a recent Scientific American article on self-awareness that
might be of value to our discussion of a couple of weeks ago. July 2010
issue.

    Me, Myself and I: How the Brain Maintains a Sense of Self
    by Uwe Herwig
    http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=me-myself-and-i
    ...
    The Layers of Self-Awareness
    ...
    In the mid-1990s neurologist Antonio R. Damasio, then at the
    University of Iowa, distilled the self's multiple layers into a
    three-part hierarchy. The lowest level, which Damasio calls the
    proto-self, corresponds to a simple, neural representation of
    the body. This proto-self oversees basic physical functions such
    as metabolism, body temperature and circadian rhythms. We are not
    conscious of the proto-self unless problems arise, eliciting attention
    from the core self (the intermediate level), which generates our
    immediate cognizance of the here and now. At this level of awareness,
    signals from the body give rise to nonverbal impulses -- feelings
    of hunger, sadness or cold. The autobiographical self, Damasio's top
    layer, enables us to evaluate our impulses rationally -- referencing
    earlier experiences and current goals -- and to guide our behavior
    in a targeted way.

    These three layers of self emanate from increasingly sophisticated
    processing centers in the brain. The proto-self is associated with
    the brain stem and the hypothalamus, structures found at the base
    of the brain near the spinal cord. The core self enlists areas
    in the interbrain, or diencephalon, which serve as a relay for
    visceral activities, and the amygdala, which is primarily involved
    in processing emotions. It also activates the cingulate cortex and
    the insula, which are connected to emotions, and the medial and
    dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, which act as an internal governor,
    forming plans of action and issuing commands. The autobiographical
    self, meanwhile, relies on linguistic abilities that only humans
    possess. Accordingly, it employs speech and memory centers in the
    hippocampus and Broca's area, as well as parts of the prefrontal
    cortex. Many of the areas related to the self are found along the
    brain's midline, where its two hemispheres meet.
    ...

I'm suggesting that what we call "suffering" requires the autobiographical
self. Animals have responses on the proto-self and a non-verbal self,
which puts them ahead of machines (at least all those that exist so far),
but their pain doesn't cause suffering, because the concept "I am in pain,
poor me!" can't be constructed.

And that, in turn, could explain how halakhah could morally allow causing
animals pain with a very low threshold of reasoning.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger                 Life is complex.
mi...@aishdas.org                Decisions are complex.
http://www.aishdas.org               The Torah is complex.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                                - R' Binyamin Hecht

The Physics Arxiv, put out by MIT's journal Technology Review, carried
a story yesterday about Quantum Mechanics and Free Will.

    Wednesday, August 25, 2010
    Quantum Entanglement Can be a Measure of Free Will
    The same experiments that reveal the nature of entanglement can also
    be interpreted as a measure of free will, say researchers.
    <http://technologyreview.com/blog/arxiv/25665>

QM has this weird feature (among many many others) called
entanglement. Two particles made in the same event will have related
properties. For example, because angular momentum has to be conserved,
the spin of one would have to be the opposite of the spin of the other,
if we started out with no spin. However, according to QM, properties only
exist in a statistical sense until measured. So, when two particles are
created in one event, and I measure one of them, that could determines
the corresponding property in the other. To continue the example,
when I measure the spin on A, that shifts particle B's spin from being
statistical to being definite.

It turns out (experimentally proven) that this happens instantaneously --
actually at the same time, not limited by the speed of light.

Well, the paper
    How much free will is needed to demonstrate nonlocality?
    Jonathan Barrett, Nicolas Gisin
    (Dated: August 24, 2010)
    <http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1008/1008.3612v1.pdf>
proves that if there is any information shared by the experimenters and
the particles they are to measure, then entanglement can be explained
by some kind of hidden process that is deterministic.

IOW, someone near A and someone near B MUST be capable of acting entirely
independently in how they choose to measure A or B respectively in order
for QM to work out as experiment has shown. Independently of each other,
and independently of the particles. (And of anything influenced by the
other person or the particles, and so on...)

So, either QM is flawed, or bechirah chafshi has been proven.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             The Maharal of Prague created a golem, and
mi...@aishdas.org        this was a great wonder. But it is much more
http://www.aishdas.org   wonderful to transform a corporeal person into a
Fax: (270) 514-1507      "mensch"!     -Rav Yisrael Salanter

The nosei keilim often use the BY to explain the SA, so they obviously
felt differently. The SA is rather the Cliff Notes to the BY,>>

except when they disagree

-- 
Eli Turkel

On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 12:48:12AM +1000, SBA wrote:
: Doesn't the CC address this matter anywhere in his sefer?

I tried a search of CC in wikisource, and didn't turn anything
up.
http://he.wikisource.org/wiki/%D7%97%D7%A4%D7%A5_%D7%97%D7%99%D7%99%D
7%9D

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 9:15 PM, Eli Turkel <elitur...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The nosei keilim often use the BY to explain the SA, so they obviously
> felt differently. The SA is rather the Cliff Notes to the BY,>>
>
> except when they disagree

Aderabba. This shows that the acceptance of SA wasn't comparable with
the redaction of either the Mishna or the Talmudim. Much more of a
grey area.

-- 
Arie Folger,
Recent blog posts on http://ariefolger.wordpress.com/
* Where Will We Find Refuge ... from technology overload
* Video-Vortrag: Psalm 34
* We May Have Free Will, After All
* Equal Justice for All
* Brutal Women of Nazi Germany
* Gibt es in der Unterhaltungsliteratur eine Rolle f?r G"tt?
* If You Work With Garbage, You Will Get Dirty

On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 10:01:11PM +0200, Arie Folger wrote:
: On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 9:15 PM, Eli Turkel <elitur...@gmail.com> wrote:
: > The nosei keilim often use the BY to explain the SA, so they obviously
: > felt differently. The SA is rather the Cliff Notes to the BY,>>

: > except when they disagree

: Aderabba. This shows that the acceptance of SA wasn't comparable with
: the redaction of either the Mishna or the Talmudim. Much more of a
: grey area.

I think RET's "they disagree" was the SA and BY disagreeing, which
is after all the only case where one would have to ask which is more
authoritative. When the SA and BY disagree, obviously the SA isn't
serving as a summary of the BY.

But in any case...

The mishnah was definitely a special case, and I think the CI's argument
about the mishnah being tied to the end of the 2 millenia of Torah would
explain why.

However, both the shas and SA were not accepted as "the code" in terms
of being a list of laws as we must practice them (even allowing for a
small number of exceptions to the rule). I instead described the
acceptance in these terms:
> By accepting the SA as "*the* codex" (at least in the Seph universe),
> we're saying that the SA is our baseline for assessing all arguments
> since its composition. That anyone post SA who wishes to disagree with
> it would feel a requirement to justify the machloqes by bringing sources.

If "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof", we use the SA to
measure the extraordinariness of a claim.

Which again, would make a difference between how we treat rabbanim who
came before that yardstick and those who came after. It's the diffrence
between who themselves we would subject to the same definition of
"extraordinaty claim" and therefore require their own such proof.

And there were acharonim who defy the line, at least in the eyes of
their own qehillos. Litvaks who follow the Gra, Chassidim who follow
the Besh"t, etc... even against rishonim and the SA w/ Rama.

(I don't know why you said "the Talmudim" -- in what sense is the Y-mi
accepted as a final code by any community, any more than the Tosefta or
the Tur?)

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             You will never "find" time for anything.
mi...@aishdas.org        If you want time, you must make it.
http://www.aishdas.org                     - Charles Buxton
Fax: (270) 514-1507

Certainly in ashkenazi circles the SA was not accepted completely
as seen by the all the commentaries that disagree. In sephardic circles
it was accepted much more. ROY makes it a principle point through
even in his case there are exceptions.

Note we certainly dont always pasken like the mishna not even a stam mishna
and there are cases where we dont pasken like the gemara but mesechet soferim
or other sources

Eli Turkel



On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 11:01 PM, Arie Folger <afol...@aishdas.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 9:15 PM, Eli Turkel <elitur...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> The nosei keilim often use the BY to explain the SA, so they obviously
>> felt differently. The SA is rather the Cliff Notes to the BY,>>
>>
>> except when they disagree
>
> Aderabba. This shows that the acceptance of SA wasn't comparable with
> the redaction of either the Mishna or the Talmudim. Much more of a
> grey area.
>
> --



-- 
Eli Turkel

The emphasis of this week's parsha is thanking G-d for giving us the
land of Israel. Thus only the 7 fruits of EY have bikkurim brought.
The Mishna (3:1) says that when designating fruits for bikkurim one
ties a ribbon
for example around grapes, figs and pomegranates.
R Zemba brings in the name of the Ari Zal. that these 3 examples are brought
as a tikkun for the sin of the spies. These are precisely the 3
examples the spies
brought back and bikkurim reminds us to thank G-d for giving us EY.

-- 
Eli Turkel

The SA says that the mitzvah is mesameah hasan v'kallah, so why the
asymmetry in the bracha? Notice that the SA gives a recipe for praising the
bride but not the groom; another asymmetry.

I suggest that the source of the mitzvah is v'simah es ishto asher lakah. 
Hence the asymmetry: we're making him happy and instructing him how to make
his wife happy; the ikkar mitzvah for the guests at wedding is hinuch.

I'd add more evidence if typing on this machine weren't such a drag.

David Riceman

Sent from my iPad

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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 27, Issue 169
***************************************

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..."