Volume 32: Number 56
Fri, 28 Mar 2014
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Message: 1
From: Esther and Aryeh Frimer <frim...@zahav.net.il>
Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2014 21:41:56 +0200
Subject: Re: [Avodah] Aliyyot to the Blind vs Aliyyot for women vs
Regarding Zev Sero's query, kindly see our Tradition Paper at note 172.
Rabbi Soloveitchik notes that while we advise olim le-khattehila to
read along quietly following Rosh, in practice, we rule like Maharil.
Rav Soloveitchik cites three proofs, one being the case cited by Zev
Sero. Thus If one is called to the Torah while he is in the midst of
birkhot keri'at shema, the halakhic consensus of both Ashkenazi and
Sefardi Poskim is to accept the aliyya and recite the blessings, but
not to read along with the ba'al keri'ah, relying on Maharil. See: on
O.H., sec. 66, parag. 4, see: Levush; Kenesset ha-Gedola; Magen
Avraham, no. 8; Be'er Heitev, no. 10; Mishna Berura, no. 26; Arukh
ha-Shuhan, no. 9. See also: R. Yom Tov Lipmann-Heller, Divrei Hamudot,
Berakhot, ch. 2, no. 23; Sha'arei Efrayyim, Sha'ar 1, sec. 3; R. Hayyim
Palagi, Kaf ha-Hayyim, sec. 18, no. 11; Kaf ha-Hayyim, O.H., sec. 51,
no. 26 and 27.
As to the principle of Shome'ah ke-oneh, there is nothing dubious about
it at all! It happens to be an explicit Yerushalmi cited by the
Rishonim! Kindly read the paper and the documentation.
Kol Tuv
Aryeh
----------------------------------------
Dr. Aryeh A. Frimer
Ethel and David Resnick Professor
of Active Oxygen Chemistry
Chemistry Dept., Bar-Ilan University
Ramat Gan 5290002, ISRAEL
E-mail (office): Aryeh.Fri...@biu.ac.il
----- Original Message -----
From: "Zev Sero" <z...@sero.name>
To: "The Avodah Torah Discussion Group" <avo...@lists.aishdas.org>; "'Esther and Aryeh Frimer'" <frim...@zahav.net.il>
Cc: "'Prof. Dov Frimer'" <DFri...@frimerlaw.com>; "'Joel B. Wolowelsky'" <wolowel...@yahoo.com>
Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2014 2:54 AM
Subject: Re: [Avodah] Aliyyot to the Blind vs Aliyyot for women vs Aliyyot for minors
What is Sefardi practise when someone is called up while he is saying
birchot kriat shema? Does he go up and read, go up and not read, or not go?
Standard Ashkenazi practise is that he goes up and doesn't read; according to
you, though, why is this allowed? It's not a she'at had'chak like the case of
the blind man or the am ha'aretz, where, as you quote, it's terribly shaming
for him *never* to be called. This man is presumably called often enough, so
he won't be ashamed if he has to miss one aliyah, particularly if everyone can
see that he's in the middle of davening. And indeed, if he is standing shmoneh
esreh he *doesn't* go up, and we call someone else, and we're not worried about
embarrassing him, because everyone can see the situation. So if he's in birchot
kriat shema why is it such an emergency that we must rely on the (according to
you) dubious principle of shomea` ke`oneh?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20140327/efdfc982/attachment-0001.htm>
Go to top.
Message: 2
From: Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org>
Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2014 18:17:23 -0400
Subject: Re: [Avodah] Time for the Deceased
On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 01:52:30AM +0000, Kenneth Miller wrote:
:> And, this is why the Yad describes mal'akhim as tzuros beli
:> chomer, while the Moreh identifies them with Aristo's pure
:> intellects. An intellect without a body lacks a "when" and
:> "where" just like "1+1=2" does -- and for the same reason.
: I accept what you are saying about ideas. The same could be said about
: lots of things. "Green" lacks a when and a where too. Even "table" lacks
: a when and a where, because it is an abstraction. But if I'm talking about
: a *specific* table, then it is no longer an abstraction...
If you have blueprints for a building, they describe the building.
That description, the idea of the building, its tzurah, has no where or
when, it could be accurately described anywhere at any level of detail
one would choose to. In principal, we could describe the table in full
detail years after the physical table exists. The tzurah of a specific
table has no where or when. The tzurah the table has at a specific point
in time, accumulated scratches and all, could in theory be recorded
and recovered later. And if we had a way to predict it accurately, that
would be the tzurah *before* the table assumed it! An idea of a table
(which I believe the Rambam considered the same thing) has no where or
when. Sikhliim nivdalim and tzuros beli chomer, whether not-yet-alive
or dead souls or angels, would also not have a where or when.
The table itself, the tzurah imposed on chomer, is a physical object,
and is therefore has a duration and at every time within it, a location.
The above argument is more Aristotilian than I think either of us are. But
I think the parallel argument can be made if we speak in terms of multiple
olamos. And then my original argument was altogether different: that
they aren't experiencing physics, so they can't be experiencing the time
we do. And even if they had the same experience but caused by something
different, there is no reason why their future is our future, that the
idea of lining up timelines, even with stretching, has any meaning.
(And if you believe in gilgul, unlike the Rambam, then the not-yet-alive
soul and the post-mortem soul would have to be in the same condition.
For people between gilgulim, they're the same thing!)
...
: So it seems to me that if a mal'ach is an abstraction, then it has
: no more of a when and where than "1+1=2" does....
I said "idea", "abstraction" was your term. I hope that after this
reply, the difference is clearer.
My soul and your soul are also tzuros, but you and I are distinct
individuals.
...
: Let's say, for a moment, that two malachim really do accompany me home
: from shul on Friday night. I admit that I don't know what that means, but
: it certainly means *something*. I don't know whether these "mal'achim"
: have bechira or not. I can't touch them or see them. I don't think it
: counts as a nevuah because I'm really not at all aware of them.
: ... the Gemara told me two very
: important things about them: (1) They are *here*, accompanying me home,
: and not a mile away. (2) They are *now*, on Layl Shabbos, and not at
: other times. You can get as metaphoric as you like, and say that these
: mal'achim are not really beings but they are something else entirely...
I would say they are paying attention to you, who has a where and a when.
This is what I said on the Etz Hadaat thread in reply to Lisa. My
allegorization of the idea of HQBH placing keruvim at the gate to Eden
is not the gate to Eden, the place as a noun, but with the verb place,
identifying their location as where they are present reather than where
Hashem has them watching and (if hypothetically needed) acting.
-Micha
--
Micha Berger "'When Adar enters, we increase our joy'
mi...@aishdas.org 'Joy is nothing but Torah.'
http://www.aishdas.org 'And whoever does more, he is praiseworthy.'"
Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Dovid Lifshitz zt"l
Go to top.
Message: 3
From: "Chana Luntz" <Ch...@kolsassoon.org.uk>
Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2014 22:59:58 -0000
Subject: Re: [Avodah] Aliyyot to the Blind vs Aliyyot for women vs
RZS asks:
>What is Sefardi practise when someone is called up while he is saying
birchot kriat shema? Does he go up and read, go up and not read, or not go?
Not go.
Here's the Yalkut Yosef (chelek 1 hilchot kiryat Shema: 24 A cohen who is
reciting kriyat shema and they call him to go up to the Sefer Torah, does
not interrupt to go up to the sefer Torah, and even if the call him by name
[which the Yalkut Yosef doesn't particularly like, precisely because the man
might have a reason not to go, so he thinks they should be hinted to,
although I am not sure how widespread that custom actually is] he should not
go up, like the opinion of Maran the Shulchan Aruch that we accept his
rulings and not like those who disagree. (Yachave Da'at chelek 4 siman 11).
>Standard Ashkenazi practise is that he goes up and doesn't read;
But does say the brachot (which are themselves a hefsek?)
>according to you, though, why is this allowed? It's not a she'at had'chak
like the case of the blind man or the am ha'aretz, >where, as you quote,
it's terribly shaming for him *never* to be >called. This man is presumably
called often enough, so he won't be ashamed if he has to miss one aliyah,
particularly if everyone can see that he's in the middle of davening. And
indeed, if >he is standing shmoneh esreh he *doesn't* go up, and we call
someone else, and we're not worried about embarrassing him, because everyone
can see the situation. So if he's in birchot kriat >shema why is it such an
emergency that we must rely on the (according to
>you) dubious principle of shomea` ke`oneh
The shaming if he is never called is the Aruch HaShulchan, and one could
take two approaches: (a) it is a she'at hadchak, because of the idea that if
one is called by name and doesn't go it shortens his life (that is why the
Yalkut Yosef would prefer that one was never just called by name before it
was hinted to and it was clear he would accept); or (b) unlike the Aruch
HaShulchan and the Mishna Brura, who are clearly uncomfortable with
alternative halachic mechanisms, and want to limit their application to a
blind man, one can argue that actually both mechanisms work, in which case
one can rely on either or.
Ie as I was trying to point out in my logical analysis is that you don't
have to say that shomea k'oneh is dubious to allow for both mechanisms to
work. You could say that shomea k'oneh is a very fine principle for use in
those cases where reading along quietly is a problem, but so long as reading
along quietly is considered a valid mechanism, then RAF/RDF's thesis that
there brachot l'vatala occurring where shomea k'oneh does not occur is
invalid.
However the reality is that the Ashkenazi poskim do treat shomea k'oneh as
very dubious - as evidenced by what has to be two of the greatest Ashkenazi
poskim of more recent times, the Mishna Brura and the Aruch HaShulchan. And
you can still very much validate that, once one is called by name, it is a
pretty serious sha'as hadchak.
>Zev Sero A citizen may not be required to offer a 'good and
Regards
Chana
Go to top.
Message: 4
From: Zev Sero <z...@sero.name>
Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2014 22:01:41 -0400
Subject: Re: [Avodah] Aliyyot to the Blind vs Aliyyot for women vs
On 27/03/2014 6:59 PM, Chana Luntz wrote:
>> >Standard Ashkenazi practise is that he goes up and doesn't read;
> But does say the brachot (which are themselves a hefsek?)
Birchos hatorah, or saying amen to them, is a permitted hefsek in krias shma
and its brachos.
--
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
Go to top.
Message: 5
From: David Wacholder <dwachol...@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2014 05:20:17 -0400
Subject: [Avodah] On the Zemer Yonah Matz'ah - a link to Google Drive
RYHalevi & Yonah Matz'ah - 18 Kislev 5773.pptx -
https://drive.google.com/file/d/
1RzxSkbONtKG_MSkVJXdQ5U3KvM7dX-znwGa8Z6KOVqpalKl7Nqcp91ejOvEi/edit?usp=shar
ing
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20140328/cefe202c/attachment-0001.htm>
Go to top.
Message: 6
From: cantorwolb...@cox.net
Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2014 05:14:36 -0400
Subject: [Avodah] SHABBOS HACHODESH IN THE DEEP OF THE NIGHT
"This Month" It says (Ch.12:verse 2): "This month shall be for you...?
The Sages have taught that just as the moon disappears at the end
of each month but returns and grows to fullness, so it is with Israel,
which explains why Israel orders its calendar by the moon,
for it is used to living in the night of history.
This brings to mind the beautiful vort that the Hebrew word for Night, Laila,
spelled lamed, yud, lamed hey, contains the Name of G-d (Yud hey).
Hidden in the night is G-d (yud, hay).
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20140328/484ab9ef/attachment-0001.htm>
Go to top.
Message: 7
From: David Wacholder <dwachol...@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2014 06:45:20 -0400
Subject: [Avodah] SHITIN - CORK OF DAVID
Sukkah 53 - Although he was not allowed to build the Mikdash himself,
Hamelech David made preliminary foundation work. [May we surmise that parts
of Tehillim were sung in conjunction with this work?] As his team was
excavating the Shitin, the passages under the Mizbeiach altar which marks
the place from which the world was created. In his spiritual efforts,
Hamelech David attempted to uncork the Groundwater Source, and succeeded in
removing the stopper. A geyser erupted, and the aquifer began to rise. It
became dangerous.
The solution was to write one of Hashem's names on a shard of terracotta
a/k/a cheres. Speculatively, there was some Divine claim against the single
minded dedication of the People of Israel to Hashem, making a weakening in
the bonding. Speculatively, this is symbolized by the "cork" popping off,
and causing a danger of flooding. [If there is a source for that last bit,
please be so kind as to inform me!]
Why shard of Cheres? Rogatzover says that even a utensil of Cheres has no
identity and importance - no Yeish in Chasidic language - and therefore it
has no part that keeps above the Issur - so the entire utensil must be
broken, leaving nothing. That may be the symbolism of writing the parasha
specifically on Cheres - [uncompleted thought].
The solution to calming the situation - bringing the People of Israel back
to attentive connection with the Deity - was to emulate the Sotah ceremony
on a National level. He wrote the Name of Hashem on a piece of Cheres and
"applied the Stopper" onto the proper position [literally Hamelech David -
[using his unique sling-shot technique or the Bitachon and Emunah from that
epic battlewith Golyath] flung it down into the depths of water, and the
stopper itself miraculously placed itself and the ground waters stopped
flowing dangerously. In fact, his prayers were so efficacious that the
aquifer sank too low, and he had to say all 15 of the Shir Hamaalot praises
to raise the aquifer back to its proper height.
Rabi Yochanan continues that although Hamelech David was king, and knew the
solution, yet he was apprehensive that the step of writing Hashem's Name
and placing it where - unless there is a Neis miracle long term - it will
be presumed "erased" - that is disappeared over time. Is creating such an
eventuality - more specifically the potential for such an erasure -
considered an unbearable insult to Hashem's honor? Hamelech David wanted to
mitigate the stain on Hashem's reputation - by getting the Gedolim to
publicly agree; then enemies of the King will not be able to mock David
hamelech.
[Some may have had some hesitation believing the Mikdash would ever be
built, and thought it was Hamelech David looking for excuses that caused
the delays in the Mikdash being built. They then could have attributed the
flooding to Hamelech David's own faults. These naysayers may have been an
integral part of the problem. Nobody was more qualified to answer this sort
of question than Achitofel!]
Hamelech David understood the political hesitations of the Advisors and
even the Gedolim. He therefore forcefully demanded a Unity Government - Is
there anybody who will back my approach - who can make this a tacit
majority decision of the Chachamim? As this was a dangerous and risky step,
it would have been wrong for Hamelech David to do it - where there is a
debatable point if it is proper! He therefore politely demanded of
Achitofel to make a Halachic ruling.
The forceful character of Hamelech David was angry at the hesitation of the
Advisers to speak. To the King, it seemed they were spending too much
attention on the Political Consultant style weighing of different sides. To
force an answer he condemned anyone who does not give their opinion
forthrightly and openly.
Achitofel then made the comparison to a straying woman who has awakened
the suspicions of her husband, that the woman may not be faithful. This
suspicion - even if false - erodes the foundation of trust! Even the Name
of Hashem may be desecrated - in order to restore peace and harmony to the
household.
Ever so much more strongly, restoring Peace between Hashem and Bnai Yisrael
- Hashem himself will consider it an honor! Hamelech David l'shitato - Im
Ha'amahot halalu ittam ikaveida! - Hashem - shows that Hamelech David's
way of abnegation of Personal Honor for the sake of Kidush Hashem is
proper!
Achitofel was less than whole-hearted in his alacrity to help the Klal
Yisrael - when Hamelech David demanded he step up. Even though he
eventually did make the key ruling giving the king authority, he had
already caused erosion of support by his "less than wholehearted" support
in this foundational crisis. This is called "kil'lat chacham - afilu al
tnai hi ba'ah! Not only total disobedience - but even less than solid
steadfast and courageous leadership - can undermine Hamelech David,
undermine the foundations of the klal Yisrael, of the Mikdash, and cause
irredeemable harm.
--
David Wacholder
Email: dwachol...@gmail.com
dwachol...@optonline.net
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20140328/0a7a09fa/attachment-0001.htm>
Go to top.
Message: 8
From: Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org>
Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2014 11:30:17 -0400
Subject: Re: [Avodah] SHABBOS HACHODESH IN THE DEEP OF THE NIGHT
On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 05:14:36AM -0400, cantorwolb...@cox.net wrote:
: "This Month" It says (Ch.12:verse 2): "This month shall be for you...?
: The Sages have taught that just as the moon disappears at the end
: of each month but returns and grows to fullness, so it is with Israel,
: which explains why Israel orders its calendar by the moon,
: for it is used to living in the night of history.
Although... calling the halachic calendar "lunar" is an overstatement.
Although Chinese Americans tend to call their calendar "lunar" as well,
and it closely resembles ours. Both use the notion of a cycle of 19
years in which 7 leap months are added.
And we do this to keep it in sync to the solar year. A Jewish Year
averages one solar year, even if our variance around that average is
kept large by our obligation to also use the correct average lunation
for the month.
The Torah wants us to leverage the natural feelings of a farmer at
various times of year to add depth to his experience of holidays,
and give meaning to the events they commemorate.
If you want to see a real lunar calendar, the Moslem calendar was designed
for a culture with a negligable number of farmers. No motivation to sync
the holidays to the seasons.
Interestingly, the role of the sun mark years is back in Bereishis 1:14.
This is before the moon is demoted to the "ma'or haqaton" (v. 16),
and well before the discussion of the month and the moon, which isn't
recorded until Shemos 12:2.
:-)BBii!
-Micha
--
Micha Berger The mind is a wonderful organ
mi...@aishdas.org for justifying decisions
http://www.aishdas.org the heart already reached.
Fax: (270) 514-1507
Go to top.
Message: 9
From: "Kenneth Miller" <kennethgmil...@juno.com>
Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2014 13:11:57 GMT
Subject: Re: [Avodah] Why We Drink
R' Micha Berger wrote:
> Nor would a revi'is of wine get anyone drunk enough to blur their
> categories (even if it would pasul a kohein for avodah). Chazal's
> wine required a minimum of 1:3 dilution. So the original 12%
> alcohol (the most the yeast can produce naturally before the
> alcohol kills them) is now at most 4%. Probably less -- we are
> better at sealing to prevent evaporation than they were, and
> alcohol evaporates far more readily than water. A CI revi'is is
> only 5.3 oz (150 cc), and evidence is the extant pesaq in Chazal's
> day was closer to RCNa'eh's 3 oz (86 cc).
You are taking legitimate facts about our wine and our yeast, but you're
applying it to *their* wine. Given that their wine was *undrinkable* unless
it was diluted, and ours is *easily* drinkable, I suspect that your
calculation is flawed.
I have no idea exactly which *part* of the comparison is flawed. I freely
admit that when we talk about "their wine", I have no idea what we're
talking about, oenologically speaking. Like techeles and mummification, it
seems to me like a lost art that we know mostly from descriptions, and have
very little intimate knowledge of.
In other words, I work under the presumption that a reviis of their wine
probably did pack quite a powerful punch, and our "wine" qualifies for
ritual purposes only because we have nothing better. Am I mistaken?
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/TGL3131/53357547203137546318est04vuc
Go to top.
Message: 10
From: Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org>
Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2014 12:24:03 -0400
Subject: Re: [Avodah] Why We Drink
On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 01:11:57PM +0000, Kenneth Miller wrote:
: You are taking legitimate facts about our wine and our yeast, but you're
: applying it to *their* wine. Given that their wine was *undrinkable*
: unless it was diluted, and ours is *easily* drinkable, I suspect that
: your calculation is flawed.
First, to help bring the ge'ulah.... I remember where I got that idea
from: RSMandel, 2002
http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol09/v09n005.shtml#06
The same 12% rule applies to wehatever you ferment; moonshiners use it
too. It's the alcohol concentration that kills yeast, what the alcohol
is diluted in doesn't seem to help or hinder the yeast's ability to
avoid poisoning. This is a matter of biology, not art.
Today we've bred yeast that can survive in 14%, and "turbos" can get
as high as 24%. I guess you can invoke nishtaneh hateva and say that in
chazal's day, the yeast could survive concentrations as high as 48% --
and would be as strong as our wine after dilution. But we have realy no
reason to go as far as assuming yeast changed from that to the 12% that
is more common today.
I think it makes more sense to assume that the 4 kosos weren't aimed
at getting people drunk.
RSM used this point to (among other things) buttress RMF's pesaq that
there is no problem using grape juice for the 4 kosos.
:-)BBii!
-Micha
--
Micha Berger Mussar is like oil put in water,
mi...@aishdas.org eventually it will rise to the top.
http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yisrael Salanter
Fax: (270) 514-1507
Go to top.
Message: 11
From: Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org>
Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2014 12:48:49 -0400
Subject: Re: [Avodah] Etz hada'at
On Sun, Mar 23, 2014 at 04:34:34PM -0400, H Lampel wrote:
: The Hebrew (Ibn Tibbon's) reads "kol makom sheh-nizkar bo /re'eeyas/
: malach o' diburo," "Every place that mentions within it /the seeing/
...
: We agree that the Rambam holds that an angel is by definition a
: non-physical being. Therefore, he holds, it cannot be perceived by man's
: five senses. So any description that, on the surface, attributes physical
: properties to an angel, or subjects it to physical boundaries (such
: as locomotion or location, such as in describing the angel as having
: been placed somewhere) must be understood non-literally...
I would tease out two points RZL is making, just for clarity:
1- Sensing an angel would require prophetic senses, not physical ones.
2- Angels canno have physical boundaries, like motion, location...
We're discussing a source that focuses on #1. But Yesodei haTorah 2:6
(already mentioned a couple of times) takes #2 for granted. The "height"
of an angel is its greatness, not its location.
: The Rambam adds a thesis to this in MN 2:49. If I understand you
: correctly, you take the Rambam to be adding that once a narrative
: attributes physicalities to an angel, not only must that bit of the
: narrative be understood as a vision and a mashal, but so must the entire
: narrative surrounding it. Once the character of an angel involved in
: physicalities (such as location) is introduced, even if at the very end of
: a narrative, that is a cue that the entire narrative, from the beginning,
: is that of a vision or mashal.
I"m not comfortable with saying the Rambam takes something "as a vision
and a mashal" for a different reason. I prefer the Abarbanel's peshat
in the Moreh (in his peirush on MN 2:42), where nevu'ah isn't a "mashal"
as most readers would take it to mean. I believe I mentioned it already
in this thread.
The Abarbanel understands the Rambam as saying that nevu'ah is a vision,
but of something actually occuring. I turned this into a whole machloqes
about what nevu'ah and in fact the goal of avodas H' is at
http://www.aishdas.org/mesukim/5764/mishpatim.pdf
Here is how I described the Abarbanel:
The Ramban takes issue with this understanding. After all, did
these malachim not then proceed to Sodom where they saved Lot? Was
Lot not really saved? According to the Ramban, the story physically
occurred. Avraham saw the malachim in the regular sense, actually
fed them food, etc (Bereishis 18:2)
What does the Rambam do with the Ramban's question? The Abarbanel,
in his commentary on the Moreh Nevuchim, writes that according to
the Rambam, things seen in prophecy really occur. They are visions
of events happening in higher planes of reality. The prophet's mind
and pen may make sense of the vision by interpreting its contents
as things familiar from normal sensory experience, but the event
seen is real. This is consistent with the Rambams position on our
verse. Since G-d does not have a body in any plane of existence,
their vision had to be of kevod Hashem, something created to be a
metaphor for them to see.
The Ramban, on the other hand, understands prophecy to be the
relaying of a message by the medium of a metaphor. He, therefore,
is not bothered by the idea that the metaphor they were given was
an anthropomorphic one, that of Hashem sitting on a throne.
Whether the vision is necessarily a metaphor, as RZL assumes... Well,
the perceived metaphysical entity, in our case the angel, is cast
by the mind into terms it's used to from normal vision and hearing.
That's a kind of metaphor.
And then, many physical events occur because we can learn from them
through metaphor. But the event still occured. The same could be true
of metaphysical events seen by a navi.
...
: My answer is that the Rambam holds that the word "malach" can denote
: any being or natural force, such as the elements or human urges, through
: which Hashem fulfills His Will. Such would have been the understanding
: of the "malach" that blocked his way, without invoking the phenomenon
: of a vision. (RMB would categorize this as use of idiom, rather than
: allegory.) Yes, it is understood non-literally but, so far, the Rambam
: would not tag it as a vision. He would understand it to mean that Bilaam
: was physically, in real life, on his way, and Hashem caused something
: natural to block his donkey. (He actually says this MN 2:6). (And while
: it is conceivable that Hashem could miraculously make a donkey talk,
: it is impossible for a donkey to hear or perceive an angel talking,
: and the malach in such a case could not be an angel.)
You got me down right. "Mal'akh" means messenger, which to the Rambam
could be the intellects of Aristo's metaphysics or physical objects
doing G-d's will. It's just two different usages of the same word,
neither is an allegory.
BTW, idioms usually run the other way -- the physical usage is the primary
meaning, and the intangible meaning usually the use of the physical image
idiomatically. Like halachic "yad", in the sense of control or domain,
deriving from the organ we use to manipulate things. The Rambam might
consider the calling of the intellects "mal'akhim" the idiomatic use. Or
maybe neither is a more primary meaning -- a messenger is a messenger
no matter what it consists of.
And while he discusses this homonymity explicitly in 2:6, I don't
see him categorizing the mal'akh in this particul story one way or
the other.
: Only when, at the end of the narrative, it, in Rambam's words, "becomes
: clear that this being was an angel" (I suppose the Rambam is referring
: to the report that it was previously invisible to Bilaam, and only now
: Hashem "opened his eyes" for him to perceive it) must we conclude that
: (since angels are non-physical and unperceivable through physical means)
: this was a matter of a vision.
I don't get your meaing here. Are you saying that the mal'akh who
blocked the ason was a physical thing doing Hashem's will, but the one
who speaks to him at the end of the maaseh was non-physical and seen in
prophetic vision? Or that he had a chat with something that physically
talked and relayed Hashem's message?
On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 02:56:26PM -0400, David Riceman wrote:
: But look at the Abarbanel on Breishis (near the end of perek gimel, p.
: 116 in the Jerusalem 5724 reprint, beginning of column 1):"Aval
: b'ytziras ha'adam hashniyah uvytziras ha'isha min hatzela v'eitz
: hahayyim v'etz hada'as
: v'hanahash ud'varav la'ishah v'divrei ha'ishah imo v'achilas ha'eitz
: v'shiluho min hagan v'lahat haherev kol zeh yahshov harav [=haRambam]
: she'ein hadavar kfi pshuto aval nichtav l'lamdainu dvarim mad'iyim min
: hahochmah."
Tir'u baTov!
-Micha
--
Micha Berger Nearly all men can stand adversity,
mi...@aishdas.org but if you want to test a man's character,
http://www.aishdas.org give him power.
Fax: (270) 514-1507 -Abraham Lincoln
------------------------------
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 56
**************************************
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.)