Avodah Mailing List

Volume 32: Number 36

Fri, 07 Mar 2014

• 1. Re: Time for the Deceased (Kenneth Miller)
• 2. Re: Time for the Deceased (David Riceman)
• 3. Re: Time for the Deceased (Micha Berger)
• 4. MZ and toeiyva (M Cohen)
• 5. Re: Can Women Receive a Heter Ora'ah? (Kenneth Miller)
• 6. Re: Can Women Receive a Heter Ora'ah? (Micha Berger)
• 7. Re: Solar and Lunar Eclipses are bad omens (Zev Sero)
• 8. Re: Can Women Receive a Heter Ora'ah? (Zev Sero)
• 9. smelling Bacon (Eli Turkel)
• 10. Re: Can Women Receive a Heter Ora'ah? (Rich, Joel)
• 11. Partnership Minyanim and Aliyyot to the Blind (Esther and Aryeh Frimer)
• 12. Re: Time for the Deceased (Kenneth Miller)
• 13. Re: Eitz HaDa'at (was: Why does Moshe use logical arguments when davening to, save) (Micha Berger)
• 14. Re: smelling Bacon (Zev Sero)
• 15. Re: Eitz HaDa'at (was: Why does Moshe use logical arguments when davening to, save) (Lisa Liel)

R"n Lisa liel wrote:
> His intent /was/ the blueprint for Creation. So when the midrash
> says that He used the Torah as a blueprint for Creation, the
> meaning seems to be that the Torah contains and reflects Hashem's
> intent for all of Creation.>>

R' David Riceman wrote:
> Here's a loose translation of the relevant bit: ... The architect
> builds it, not on his da'as, but based on blueprints (diptharot),
> and he has tablets (pinkasot) to tell him how to build the rooms.
> In the same way God looked at the Torah and created the world."

It seems to me that you are both agreeing. BECAUSE the Torah includes a
mitzvah of Kibud Av v'Em, so THEREFORE He created us with a biology
involving two parents.

RDR's use of the word "architect" differs a bit from how I'd use it. I
prefer to talk of the white-collar designer (who requires a 3-foot board be
placed over here) and the blue-collar workman (who decides which type of
saw to cut that board with). In the metaphor, the Designer has laid out the
mitzvah of Kibud Av v'Em. More precisely, He is specifying the metaphysical
emanations which result when a person performs that mitzvah. Then the
Builder implements those goals and the means of reaching those goals, by
designing a biology which produces those emanations.

The only difference I see is that I think RDR considers the blueprints as external to God, but I don't see that in this particular midrash.

Akiva Miller
____________________________________________________________
Do THIS before eating carbs (every time)
1 EASY tip to increase fat-burning, lower blood sugar & decrease fat storage
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/5318884880a5684851dfst01vuc

RAM:
<< It seems to me that you are both agreeing. BECAUSE the Torah includes 
a mitzvah of Kibud Av v'Em, so THEREFORE He created us with a biology 
involving two parents.>>

What fun is that?

I think we're disagreeing.  I think that when the midrash uses the term 
"Torah" it is referring to the primordial Hochmah in Mishlei and 
identifying it with the Philonic Logos ("home" of the Platonic ideas).  
RLL takes "Torah" in the midrash literally (as do you).

David Riceman

On Thu, Mar 06, 2014 at 11:56:26AM -0500, David Riceman wrote:
> I think we're disagreeing.  I think that when the midrash uses the term  
> "Torah" it is referring to the primordial Hochmah in Mishlei and  
> identifying it with the Philonic Logos ("home" of the Platonic ideas).   
> RLL takes "Torah" in the midrash literally (as do you).

I am inclined to agree; I see Chazal's whole point as disputing Plato's
identification of the fundamental, most pure truths, being math. They
are in effect reply: No, they're the Torah.

(What the Seifer haYetzirah would have to say about this is a different
discussion; one I doubt any of us are qualified to start.)

The world is the shadow of the Torah on the cave wall.


I see Chazal making the point in another statement as well. The whole
bit about an infant learning Torah in utero, as I posted back in Nov
6, 2007 <http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol24/v24n045.shtml#12>, "Re:
women learning Torah":
> On Tue, November 6, 2007 4:13 pm, R Richard Wolpoe wrote:
>: WADR I think people are taking this aggada too literally.

> Particularly since it reads like an adaptation of an idea of Plato (or
> his from us, or common ancestor, etc...).

> From the Meno:
>> MENO:  Yes, Socrates; but what do you mean by saying that we do not
>> learn, and that what we call learning is only a process of
>> recollection?  Can you teach me how this is?
> ...
> [Geometry problem posed to Meno's slave deleted.]
> ...
>> SOCRATES:  But if he always possessed this knowledge he would always
>> have known; or if he has acquired the knowledge he could not have
>> acquired it in this life, unless he has been taught geometry; for he
>> may be made to do the same with all geometry and every other branch
>> of knowledge.  Now, has any one ever taught him all this?  You must
>> know about him, if, as you say, he was born and bred in your house.

>> MENO:  And I am certain that no one ever did teach him.

>> SOCRATES:  And yet he has the knowledge?

>> MENO:  The fact, Socrates, is undeniable.

>> SOCRATES:  But if he did not acquire the knowledge in this life, then
>> he must have had and learned it at some other time?

>> MENO:  Clearly he must.

>> SOCRATES:  Which must have been the time when he was not a man?

>> MENO:  Yes.

>> SOCRATES:  And if there have been always true thoughts in him, both
>> at the time when he was and was not a man, which only need to be
>> awakened into knowledge by putting questions to him, his soul must
>> have always possessed this knowledge, for he always either was or
>> was not a man?

>> MENO:  Obviously.

>> SOCRATES:  And if the truth of all things always existed in the soul,
>> then the soul is immortal.  Wherefore be of good cheer, and try to
>> recollect what you do not know, or rather what you do not remember.

> And so, Plato has Socrates prove that the real unchanging Platonic
> Truths are learned before birth, and "learning is recollection".

> Given this context, I think the chiddush isn't that we're prepared
> knowing Torah in order to make Torah learning easier. Rather, Chazal's
> point is that those Truths aren't limited to geometry or the
> rigorously provable, but are/include Torah.

> The history of the mashal does not suggest the mal'akh is an ikkar
> element.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             For those with faith there are no questions.
mi...@aishdas.org        For those who lack faith there are no answers.
http://www.aishdas.org                     - Rav Yaakov of Radzimin
Fax: (270) 514-1507

Several discussions here have noted that the torah uses the word toeiyva to
describe several issurim (MZ\false weights\bugs), 
and discussions have occurred as to what is the common denominator.

email me offline if you want a short shir from r Berkovits (RY of jer'm
kollel) on this (intro below)

mc

..The halochos of weights. The torah uses the language of toeiyva here. 
I have mentioned in the past that wherever the torah says toeiyva it's not
Hashem letting out His feelings, rather the torah obligates us to develop
this attitude. 

A person has to feel that to have an inaccurate scales is disgusting. being
deceitful isn't just asur its toeiyva. 
Rashi says if you do this you won't have anything. 
Being crooked is inviting hefsed, ultimately you lose it all. 
(Just in case you were tempted to do something disgusting because you think
its profitable understand that ultimately you are left with nothing) 

pashut a yid has to learn to live with integrity. We have to feel that to
cheat another yid is disgusting - toeiyva. 
"It's like eating a cockroach" (the torah uses the word toeiyva by (MZ\false
weights\bugs)...

R' Micha Berger asked:

> ... It's not simply open to anyone with ability. ... So, is
> hora'ah open to those who aren't in principle qualified to
> become dayanim? ... Has someone shown that hora'ah is indeed
> something performed by anyone who is capable?

Isn't the ger an adequate example?

> Let's go ad absurdum.... Let's say anyone who is empowered to
> give hora'ah should be given a heter to do so. Would you argue
> a non-Jew's pesaq has some kind of binding authority on the
> sho'el? (I don't know, maybe the "poseiq" didn't know he was
> adopted until the morning of his chag hasmichah and decided not
> to convert. A silly hypothetical can still have value.)

The gemara is *full* of such "silly hypotheticals"!

Perhaps we can find a precedent in the case of a non-Jew who paskens on a
taaroves, and tells us whether or not the taste of issur is present in the
mixture. According to pg 97 of Rabbi Binyomin Forst's "The Laws of Kashrus"
(ArtScroll), this works only if he is "masiach lefi tumo" (doesn't realize
we're relying on him) or if he is a professional taster; in these cases he
has no incentive to give us a permissive answer. I would guess that this
would apply to RMB's hypothetical non-Jewish poseiq, but only to the
pesakim that he gave before learning that he's not Jewish. Or, perhaps he
can be relied upon even for new psakim, provided that he gives his sources
and reasoning -- even if we don't verify it, the possibility will insure
his honesty.

Akiva Miller
____________________________________________________________
Never Eat This Carb
Literally Never! 1 Easy Tip to Increase Fat Burning, Lower Blood Sugar
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/5319355b1b796355a2a9dst01vuc

On Fri, Mar 07, 2014 at 02:55:40AM +0000, Kenneth Miller wrote:
: Perhaps we can find a precedent in the case of a non-Jew who paskens
: on a taaroves, and tells us whether or not the taste of issur is present
: in the mixture. According to pg 97 of Rabbi Binyomin Forst's "The Laws
: of Kashrus" (ArtScroll), this works only if he is "masiach lefi tumo"
: (doesn't realize we're relying on him) or if he is a professional taster;
: in these cases he has no incentive to give us a permissive answer. I would
: guess that this would apply to RMB's hypothetical non-Jewish poseiq...

This is a din in ne'emanus. The non-Jew isn't parsqening.

My question was specific to hora'ah, creating interpretations of halakhah
that would be binding on the sho'el or other members of your community.

Just as my question wouldn't apply to relying on my wife's hekhsher when
eating at my home. Nor, in the other direction, to relying on my wife
telling you what the AhS or MB say the halakhah is.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

On 6/03/2014 3:25 PM, Micha Berger wrote:
> We discussed the Mahara's answer to this a couple of years ago.
> <http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/getindex.cgi?section=R#REALITY>
> Be'er haGolah, sixth Be'er,

In the introduction to the Hartman edition, he shows that the title is
"Be'er Hagulah", with a melupum rather than a cholam.


> RDR says to try pg 145 in R Hartman's edition.

Make that vol 2 pg 148.

-- 
Zev Sero               A citizen may not be required to offer a 'good and
z...@sero.name          substantial reason' why he should be permitted to
                        exercise his rights. The right's existence is all
                        the reason he needs.
                            - Judge Benson E. Legg, Woollard v. Sheridan

On 6/03/2014 9:55 PM, Kenneth Miller wrote:
> Perhaps we can find a precedent in the case of a non-Jew who paskens
> on a taaroves, and tells us whether or not the taste of issur is
> present in the mixture.

He's not paskening, he's testifying.  Technically he's not even doing that,
since he's passul le'eidus.  Rather, his statement is itself evidence, which
kosher witnesses can then present to a beis din, or the beis din can witness
itself.  In similar circumstances, women's statements can also be used as
evidence for the truth of what they say.

-- 
Zev Sero               A citizen may not be required to offer a 'good and
z...@sero.name          substantial reason' why he should be permitted to
                        exercise his rights. The right's existence is all
                        the reason he needs.
                            - Judge Benson E. Legg, Woollard v. Sheridan

what is the prohibition of smelling Bacon
see
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2454617,00.
asp?mailingID=8B7E9DE8163CE008CA3C1EA3E3E32EF3

-- 
Eli Turkel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20140307/67ba0a1b/attachment-0001.htm>

This is a din in ne'emanus. The non-Jew isn't parsqening.

My question was specific to hora'ah, creating interpretations of halakhah
that would be binding on the sho'el or other members of your community.



Tir'u baTov!
-Micha
_______________________________________________
I would think that if you ask anyone for psak (vs. what are your thoughts),
there is a shita that you are bound to the response in the context of a
neder (e.g. that piece of meat becomes forbidden to you but if the exact
same question came up again, you wouldn't be bound).  The other approach
(gavra vs. cheftza) might not yield the same result.
KT
Joel Rich
THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE 
ADDRESSEE.  IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL 
INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE.  Dissemination, 
distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is 
strictly prohibited.  If you received this message in error, please notify us 
immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message.  
Thank you.

 In Avodah Digest, Vol 32, Issue 35, Liron Kopinsky asks why Aliyyot can't be given to women when aliyyot are given to the Blind.

    Dov and I discuss the case of "Suma" in great length in our Tradition
    article  on Women's Aliyyot (See: ?Women, Kri?at haTorah and Aliyyot?
    Aryeh A. Frimer and Dov I. Frimer, Tradition, 46:4 (Winter, 2013),
    67-238  -  available at  http://www.rca
    rabbis.org/pdf/frimer_article.pdf).  See especially Sections VIA
    and B and note 172.  
    A Blind male is obligated in Keri'at haTorah like all males, but can't
    receive an aliya (according to Rosh and R. Yosef Caro) for technical
    reasons; namely, he can't read from the Torah scroll. R. Caro (Shulhan
    Arukh, O.H., sec 139, nos. 2 and 3, and sec. 141, no 2) rules according
    to Rosh and others that even in the presence of a ba?al korei, the oleh
    is obligated to read along quietly with the reader, lest the oleh?s
    berakhot be considered in vain (le-vatala). As a result, Rabbi Caro
    furthermore rules, that a blind or illiterate person is precluded from
    receiving an aliyya.   
    R. Moses Isserlish (Rema; Darkei Moshe, Tur, O.H., sec. 135, no.4 and
    sec. 141, no 1) concurs that normative halakha requires the oleh to
    read along with the reader - and hence a suma, who can't read from the
    Torah, should not be able to get an Aliyya. However, Rema (in his gloss
    to Shulhan Arukh, O.H., sec. 139, no 3) cites the leniency of R. Jacob
    Molin (Maharil) and others who permit a blind or illiterate individual
    to receive an aliyya, even though neither can read along with the ba?al
    korei from the Torah parchment. According to Maharil, the Ba'al Korei
    can read for the blind oleh via the mechanism of Shome'a ke-oneh
    because both the ba'al korei and the oleh are inherently obligated. 
    Hence there can be a transfer of the act of reading from the Ba'al
    korei to the oleh who makes the berakha. (We discuss this mechanism of
    Shomei'a ke-oneh at great length in Section II of the article.
    [We note that all this is in theory, however. As R. Soloveitchik
    himself notes (R. Joseph B. Soloveitchik, miBet Midrasho Shel haRav,
    Hilkhot Keri?at ha-Torah, sec. 141, no. 2, p. 50; R. Joseph B.
    Soloveitchik, Shiurei haRav haGaon Rabbi Yosef Dov haLevi Soloveitchik
    zatsa?l al Inyanei Tsitsit, Tefillen u-Keri?at haTorah, R. Zvi
    Schachter, ed. (Jerusalem, 5763), Hilkhot Keri?at ha-Torah, sec. 141,
    no. 2, p. 186), while we advise olim le-khatkhila to read along quietly
    following the Rosh, in practice, we rule like Maharil that the oleh
    need not read. Thus, it is a widespread custom, both amongst ashkenazim
    and sefaradim (contrary to the ruling of R. Ovadiah Yosef) to call to
    the Torah the blind, untrained and illiterate, who clearly cannot or
    will not read along from the scroll, In addition, the Rov, notes that
    if one is called to the Torah while he is in the midst of birkhot
    keri?at shema, the halakhic consensus is to accept the aliyya and
    recite the blessings, but not to
  read along with the ba?al korei ? again relying on Maharil. Finally, R.
  Moshe Soloveitchik ruled that for Parashat Zakhor, the oleh should not
  read along with the ba?al korei as required by Rosh. Rather, he should
  fulfill his obligations according to Maharil with the reading of the
  reader via shomei?a ke-oneh ? along with the rest of the community; see:
  R. Michel Zalman Shurkin, Harerei Kedem ? beInyanei haMoadim, I, sec.
  185, no. 2 (5760 ed.) and sec. 208, no. 2 (expanded 5769 ed.).]

    In contrast to Suma, Women are not obligated in Keri'at haTorah (this
    is the view of all known Rishonim and the overwhelming opinion of
    Aharonim - thoroughly documented in the article, Section III and note
    85). Hence shome'ah ke-oneh cannot work and the Berakha would be
    le-vatala.	As a result, there is no such dispute or ruling regarding
    women receiving aliyyot in the posekim.



Much of the above appears as a comment to Rabbi Yuter's article cited by Liron Kopinsky 


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20140307/35c9cbd6/attachment-0001.htm>

I must thank R' Micha Berger and R' David Riceman for their introduction to
several concepts in philosophy. In particular, I thank RMB for reprinting
RRW's story of Meno and Socrates. To me, it is an example that what seems
to be a standalone Chazal is actually part of a larger discussion. In this
case, Meno and Socrates are doing actual research into the nature of
thought and originality, and Chazal's view is couched in terms of a fetus
learning from a mal'ach. (I do have a question that I could ask on Meno,
but I will not ask it here, because it has probably been asked many times
before, and it is better suited for a philosophy forum than for Avodah.)

To me, all this sounds very reminiscent of other interactions between
Chazal and the Greek sages, such as regarding the path taken by the sun at
night: does it go below the earth or above the sky? and many other
questions. For example, we asked about the idea that the neshamos of the
deceased experience some sort of elevation each year on their yahrzeit. But
that makes sense only if the neshamos can experience the passage of time,
so R' Micha Berger (in Avodah 32:25) turned to philosophers - Kant and Rav
Dessler - for the definition of time itself. This led to citations from yet
other philosophers - Rambam and Aristo - for an understanding of the nature
of angels and souls.

Now I must ask: Are we talking about science or about religion?

If we're talking religion, then I'd accept that the Rambam got these
Received Truths from his teachers, and they from theirs, back to Hashem on
Sinai. And I'd scratch my head and hope that someday I'd be zocheh to
understand even a tiny bit of this. And I'd accept the idea that neshamos
*DO* get elevated each year, simply because tradition says so. And the
arguments that "neshamos aren't physical, and therefore relativity doesn't
apply to them, and so they don't experience time" would be irrelevant,
because relativity is science, and subject to being replaced by a new
science.

But if we're talking science, then these truths aren't from Sinai; they're
from logic. Now, I am *not* going to denigrate logic, especially given how
the Gemara extols it. ("Lama li kra? Svara Hee!") And I have every
confidence that Rambam and Aristo sweated profusely over these questions.
But while Torah is eternal, science is not, and it is the nature of science
that time will bring new ideas to replace the disproven ones. If we're
talking science, then I have to read YhT 2:3 (cited by RMB in digest 32:32)
and note that the Rambam defined planets and stars as being a different
sort of creation than (earthbound) metals. But today's scientists have
reached different conclusions about planets and stars than the Rambam, and
I can't help but feel that the Rambam - brilliant scientist that he was -
would be willing to reconsider his ideas, if today's scientists would
explain their views to him.

So where does this leave me with what the Rambam says there in YhT 2:3 about angels? Is it science or is it Torah?

Akiva Miller

____________________________________________________________
Computer Crash Backup
What If Your PC Crashes Tomorrow? Back Up Your Data for $3.95/month.
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/5319d75e142a0575d6655st03vuc

On Mon, Mar 03, 2014 at 08:52:24PM +0100, Arie Folger wrote:
:> Prior to the Chet, Adam was very busy choosing names for all the animals.
:> These were not tov/ra choices, but very much in the emes/sheker area,
:> analyzing the essence of each creature and assigning a name to that
:> essence.

: Not wanting to get involved in the main issue of how to define time, I do
: want to point out that RAM's above remark about the nature of choice is not
: the only way to understand Adam before the cheit. In fact, his dichotomy
: distinctly follows Rambam in the Moreh, who assumed that Adam could only
: distinguish between tov vera' after the sin.

I have SERIOUS problems with this bit of the Rambam's hashkafah, which is
unfortunately pretty central to his worldview. The Moreh opens with this
discussion of the Eitz haDaas, and explaining that in the ideal all human
choice would be about emes vesheqer, and ends with a ranking of four
human perfections, placing hasagas maalos hasikhlios / hahigyonios above
maalos ha'ofi / hamidotios (tr. Schwartz / R "Kapach").
http://www.aishdas.org/asp/2013/02/rambam-and-mesorah.shtml
http://www.aishdas.org/asp/akrasia
Since RSRH takes the Rambam to task for making everything about the
intellect, that this is an Aristotilianism that defies the mesorah,
I don't feel too terrible about feeling the same way.

So this whole business about the Rambam seeing Adam's original choice
in terms of emes vs sheqer ties to an ancient psychological theory that
doesn't fit current beliefs or self-perceptions. But that doesn't
mean one can't get to the same point taking a different route.

So, to respond to RAF's point... Since we're discussing R Dessler's
opinion about time and perception, we should really be looking at REED's
opinion about the change to bechirah due to the eitz hada'as. I believe
the endpoint in that route is not that far from RAM's Maimonidian
assumptions.

According to REED (MmE II, pg 138), the cheit internalized the yh"r.
Until now Adam and Chava related to it in the third person, now they
felt its desires as part of "I". This is why the original temptation is
associated to an outsider, the nachash.

(Along these lines RYGB has a beautiful thought using Pinnochio as
a foil for Adam. http://www.aishdas.org/rygb/pinny.htm Adam qodem
lachaeit identified with doing what was right, but that snake talked
him into something else. Pinnochio was set up to fail; he was told
he was basically bad, and it was his yh"t-cricket who is the outsider
nagging him. RYGB focuses on the congr4egation that turns their rav into
their Jiminy Cricket. It's our job to watch TV, his job to yell at us
for it. But more significant IMHO, there is Mussar haskel about how we
should hone our own self-perceptions. "Internalizing the conscience -
bringing the extrinsic Jiminy Cricket into one's inner essence - is the
process of becoming fully 'human.'")

Getting back to why I thought RAM's assumptions were close enough:
When temptation is from the outside, and one's inherent interests are
entirely to do Retzon haBorei, the snake's only possible argument
is to misrepresent His Ratzon. Adam's drive is good, the only way
to get him to choose evil would be to force him to try to distinguish
real tov from counterfeit.

:-)BBii!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             The waste of time is the most extravagant
mi...@aishdas.org        of all expense.
http://www.aishdas.org                           -Theophrastus
Fax: (270) 514-1507

On 7/03/2014 6:35 AM, Eli Turkel wrote:
> what is the prohibition of smelling Bacon

Who says there is any?

-- 
Zev Sero
z...@sero.name

On 3/7/2014 11:55 AM, Micha Berger wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 03, 2014 at 08:52:24PM +0100, Arie Folger wrote:
> :> Prior to the Chet, Adam was very busy choosing names for all the animals.
> :> These were not tov/ra choices, but very much in the emes/sheker area,
> :> analyzing the essence of each creature and assigning a name to that
> :> essence.
>
> : Not wanting to get involved in the main issue of how to define time, I do
> : want to point out that RAM's above remark about the nature of choice is not
> : the only way to understand Adam before the cheit. In fact, his dichotomy
> : distinctly follows Rambam in the Moreh, who assumed that Adam could only
> : distinguish between tov vera' after the sin.
>
> I have SERIOUS problems with this bit of the Rambam's hashkafah, which is
> unfortunately pretty central to his worldview. The Moreh opens with this
> discussion of the Eitz haDaas, and explaining that in the ideal all human
> choice would be about emes vesheqer, and ends with a ranking of four
> human perfections, placing hasagas maalos hasikhlios / hahigyonios above
> maalos ha'ofi / hamidotios (tr. Schwartz / R "Kapach").
> http://www.aishdas.org/asp/2013/02/rambam-and-mesorah.shtml
> http://www.aishdas.org/asp/akrasia
> Since RSRH takes the Rambam to task for making everything about the
> intellect, that this is an Aristotilianism that defies the mesorah,
> I don't feel too terrible about feeling the same way.

I'm with Rambam.  The only reason maalot ha-ofi or ha-midotiot are an 
issue is because of our failure to see emet v'sheker clearly.

When someone says today that logic is more important than manners, it 
comes across as saying that being right is more important than being 
nice.  And I don't think the Rambam would have agreed with that at all.  
What's more, I'm going to give RSRH the benefit of the doubt and say 
that he never thought that of the Rambam either, but was only speaking 
to refute those who misunderstood the Rambam in that way.

If I tell my daughter, "Your drawing looks terrible", I'm an awful 
mother, and so I would never do that.  But why?  Because lacking the 
original, pre-Eitz sense of emet v'sheker, statements like that are felt 
as personal affronts.  Given our current reality, where that's how we do 
sense things, middot become very important.  In an ideal world, they 
wouldn't even be necessary.

Adam and Havah certainly knew they weren't clothed before they ate from 
the Eitz.  But it was just a fact.  A truth.  No judgment attached to 
it.  No judgment *could* attach to it.  After the Eitz, it became all 
about feelings.

Lisa


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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 32, Issue 36
**************************************

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..."


A list of common acronyms is available at
        http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/acronyms.cgi
(They are also visible in the web archive copy of each digest.)