Avodah Mailing List

Volume 34: Number 30

Wed, 09 Mar 2016

• 1. Re: ___melech, ____malach (Zev Sero)
• 2. Re: Length of Kilt ()
• 3. Re: ___melech, ____malach (Micha Berger)
• 4. Re: ___melech, ____malach (Zev Sero)
• 5. Re: ___melech, ____malach (Micha Berger)
• 6. Re: ___melech, ____malach (Zev Sero)
• 7. Re: ___melech, ____malach (Simon Montagu)
• 8. malchei yisrael (saul newman)
• 9. Re: ___melech, ____malach (Zev Sero)
• 10. Re: malchei yisrael (Zev Sero)
• 11. Re: ___melech, ____malach (Micha Berger)
• 12. Re: Mar'is Ayin - Hefsed Merubah (Micha Berger)
• 13. malchei yisrael (saul newman)
• 14. Re: ___melech, ____malach (Zev Sero)
• 15. Re: malchei yisrael (Zev Sero)

On 03/09/2016 03:45 PM, saul newman via Avodah wrote:
> if someone  states
>
> __  melech  __  malach  __ yimloch leolam vaed
>
> 1] can any answer other than RBSO  be correct ?
> 2] if any other answer  is inserted ,  is the result kefira?


Another answer may certainly be correct, and is not at all heretical.
But since this phrasing is usually used of Hashem, it seems to me that
using it of someone else, no matter how technically correct it may be,
is deliberately provocative and inappropriate, because it *calls to mind*
Hashem's melucha.  In the same way that it's forbidden to mention Malchus
Shomayim and Malchus Beis Dovid in the same context, it's wrong (though
AFAIK not actually forbidden) to refer to any king in a way that is
designed to bring to mind Malchus Shomayim.   A phrase that comes to mind
(though not 100% on target) is "de'istamesh besago".


  


-- 
Zev Sero               All around myself I will wave the green willow
z...@sero.name          The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week
                And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that
                I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes
                I'll explain it to you".

 
From: "Prof. Levine via Avodah"  <avo...@lists.aishdas.org>

Please see the clip at  
http://web.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/kilt_wed_dance.mp4

I know that a  lady's skirt is supposed to be long enough so that when
she sits down her  knees are covered. Am I to deduce from this video
that there is a   different standard for kilts?  If so, what is the
halachic source?  >:-}

YL

 
 
>>>>>>
 
 
 
It's a chiddush to you that a man is not halachically required to cover his 
 knees (or elbows)?
 
--Toby Katz
t6...@aol.com
..
=============




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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20160309/e319be06/attachment-0001.htm>

On Wed, Mar 09, 2016 at 12:45:44PM -0800, saul newman via Avodah wrote:
: if someone  states
: __  melech  __  malach  __ yimloch leolam vaed
: 
: 1] can any answer other than RBSO  be correct ?

No. To quote the poet:

    Master of the Universe / Eternal Master
    Who ruled before all of existence was created.
        When everything was made through His "Desire"
        His name was still called "King".
    And after everything is complete,
    He will still reign in awe.
        He Was, He Is,
        and He Will be in Splendor.
    He is One, there is no second,
    to be compared to Him. to consort with Him...

But never mind that poet. Ashrei ("Malkhusekha") or the pasuq from
Zekhariah most tack on to the end of Aleinu:
    Hashem with then be King over the whole world,
    on that day Hashem will be One, and His name, one.

: 2] if any other answer  is inserted ,  is the result kefira?

For Jews, Yes. Shituf is not a violation of Beris Noach.

Tir'u baTov!
-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 03/09/2016 05:19 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote:
> : 1] can any answer other than RBSO  be correct ?
>
> No. To quote the poet:
>
>      Master of the Universe / Eternal Master
>      Who ruled before all of existence was created.
>    When everything was made through His "Desire"
>    His name was still called "King".
>      And after everything is complete,
>      He will still reign in awe.
>    He Was, He Is,
>    and He Will be in Splendor.
>      He is One, there is no second,
>      to be compared to Him. to consort with Him...
>
> But never mind that poet. Ashrei ("Malkhusekha") or the pasuq from
> Zekhariah most tack on to the end of Aleinu:
>      Hashem with then be King over the whole world,
>      on that day Hashem will be One, and His name, one.


That this is true of Him doesn't mean it can't be true (in a much
more limited way, of course) of anyone else.   David was a king in the
past, since he didn't die he is still a king, and he will be a king in
the future, but his kingdom didn't start before creation, won't last
past the end of the world, and was only ever "me'ein" the kingdom of
Heaven.

-- 
Zev Sero               All around myself I will wave the green willow
z...@sero.name          The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week
                And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that
                I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes
                I'll explain it to you".

On Wed, Mar 09, 2016 at 05:31:20PM -0500, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote:
: That this is true of Him doesn't mean it can't be true (in a much
: more limited way, of course) of anyone else.   David was a king in the
: past, since he didn't die he is still a king, and he will be a king in
: the future, but his kingdom didn't start before creation, won't last
: past the end of the world, and was only ever "me'ein" the kingdom of
: Heaven.

So then it's not "le'olam va'ed". The formulation can only refer to the
One Who is lemaalah min hazman.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

On 03/09/2016 05:40 PM, Micha Berger wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 09, 2016 at 05:31:20PM -0500, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote:
> : That this is true of Him doesn't mean it can't be true (in a much
> : more limited way, of course) of anyone else.   David was a king in the
> : past, since he didn't die he is still a king, and he will be a king in
> : the future, but his kingdom didn't start before creation, won't last
> : past the end of the world, and was only ever "me'ein" the kingdom of
> : Heaven.
>
> So then it's not "le'olam va'ed". The formulation can only refer to the
> One Who is lemaalah min hazman.

The meaning of "le`olam" depends on its context.  There can be a "le`olam"
within a limited universe.
1."Yechi Adoni Hamelech David Le`olam".
2. "Ve'eshmera torasecha tamid le`olam va`ed".
3. "Veyashav sham `ad `olam".

-- 
Zev Sero               All around myself I will wave the green willow
z...@sero.name          The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week
                And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that
                I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes
                I'll explain it to you".

On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 12:31 AM, Zev Sero via Avodah <
avo...@lists.aishdas.org> wrote:
>
> David was a king in the
> past, since he didn't die he is still a king, and he will be a king in
> the future


Where is it written that David didn't die (other than in so far as any
tzaddik doesn't die)?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20160310/5d1f5f28/attachment-0001.htm>

the gmara describes conditions for which annointing oil was used , and in
which cases kings needed annointing .  as certain malchei yisrael [as
opposed to malchei yehuda ] were described as needing annointing , i am
wondering why chazal considers any validity to malchei yisrael in the first
place.

    this was a breakaway kingdom , away from mainstream halacha in terms of
idolatry;  and there is no biblical validity to a non-yehuda king.  in what
sense is it relevant to apply normative halachic principles to an abberant
 society ?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20160309/8040d481/attachment-0001.htm>

On 03/09/2016 06:38 PM, Simon Montagu wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 12:31 AM, Zev Sero via Avodah <avo...@lists.aishdas.org <mailto:avo...@lists.aishdas.org>> wrote:

>> David was a king in the
>> past, since he didn't die he is still a king, and he will be a king in
>> the future

> Where is it written that David didn't die (other than in so far as
> any tzaddik doesn't die)?

Melachim I 2:10 doesn't say that he died.  There are only two people
in Tanach whose passing from this world is described without the word
"and he died": Yaacov and David.   That is why we say "Yaacov Avinu
lo meis", and "David Melech Yisrael chai vekayam".   They experienced
some sort of process that removed them from life as we ordinarily think
of it, but they skipped the process called "death", whatever that is,
which everyone else experiences.

That all tzadikim, even after experiencing death, are called "alive", is
a different matter.  They are "the dead who have died", whom Shlomo
praises; i.e. they are dead only the sense that they have experienced
death, but not in any *real* sense.   (Shlomo contrasts them with "the
living who are still alive", i.e. resha'im who are alive only in the
sense that they haven't yet experienced death, but whose essential nature
is that of the dead.)   But Yaacov and David, alone of all tzadikim, are
not even "meisim shekvar meisu"; they are not meisim in any sense.

-- 
Zev Sero               All around myself I will wave the green willow
z...@sero.name          The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week
                And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that
                I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes
                I'll explain it to you".

On 03/09/2016 05:44 PM, saul newman via Avodah wrote:
> the gmara describes conditions for which annointing oil was used ,
> and in which cases kings needed annointing .  as certain malchei
> yisrael [as opposed to malchei yehuda ] were described as needing
> annointing , i am wondering why chazal considers any validity to
> malchei yisrael in the first place.
>
> this was a breakaway kingdom , away from mainstream halacha in terms
> of idolatry; and there is no biblical validity to a non-yehuda king.
> in what sense is it relevant to apply normative halachic principles
> to an abberant society ?

Malchei Yisrael were legitimate kings the same way any king is legitimate;
by the recognition of their people.  And their kingdoms did follow halacha
as the default.  When they deviated from it it *was* a deviation, exactly
as happened in the Southern kingdom.

For instance, Ach'av served kosher food in his hall, as discussed early
in  Chulin.


On 03/09/2016 05:44 PM, saul newman via Avodah wrote:
> the gmara describes conditions for which annointing oil was used ,
> and in which cases kings needed annointing .  as certain malchei
> yisrael [as opposed to malchei yehuda ] were described as needing
> annointing , i am wondering why chazal considers any validity to
> malchei yisrael in the first place.
>
> this was a breakaway kingdom , away from mainstream halacha in terms
> of idolatry; and there is no biblical validity to a non-yehuda king.
> in what sense is it relevant to apply normative halachic principles
> to an abberant society ?

Malchei Yisrael were legitimate kings the same way any king is legitimate;
by the recognition of their people.  And their kingdoms did follow halacha
as the default.  When they deviated from it it *was* a deviation, exactly
as happened in the Southern kingdom.

For instance, Ach'av served kosher food in his hall, as discussed early
in  Chulin.

-- 
Zev Sero               All around myself I will wave the green willow
z...@sero.name          The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week
                And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that
                I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes
                I'll explain it to you".

On Wed, Mar 09, 2016 at 06:49:00PM -0500, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote:
: Melachim I 2:10 doesn't say that he died...

But Chazal do. Tripping on a staircase ust before the end of Shabbos.
And Adam gives him only 70 of his years. But never mind that, Shelmo
makes him a funeral.

For that matter, Yaaqov is embalmed.

Taking that maamar as literal doesn't fit the pasuq or oter maamarim.
That is thin basis for positing miracles of that proportion.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             The thought of happiness that comes from outside
mi...@aishdas.org        the person, brings him sadness. But realizing
http://www.aishdas.org   the value of one's will and the freedom brought
Fax: (270) 514-1507      by uplifting its, brings great joy. - R' Kook

On Wed, Mar 09, 2016 at 02:22:44AM -0500, Moshe Yehuda Gluck via Avodah wrote:
: The Aruch Hashulchan OC 244 says a few times that in cases of Hefsed Merubah
: we're not worried about Mar'is Ayin. This is counter-intuitive to me - if
: it's a situation of Hefsed Merubah wouldn't people be more likely to think
: that he's doing something wrong so as not to lose his money? There's an even
: bigger reason, then, to worry about V'hiyisem N'kiyim. 

I dunno. I spend a lot of time on line; I have seen many people assume the
worst of people even when more plausible interpretations exist. And this
week is Pequdei -- even Moshe Rabbeinu wasn't safe from the cynics.

Personally I would not assume people are more likely to assume a profit
motive even if it more likely. Not when the other interpretation allows
the watcher to feel superior to the person watched.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             For a mitzvah is a lamp,
mi...@aishdas.org        And the Torah, its light.
http://www.aishdas.org                   - based on Mishlei 6:2
Fax: (270) 514-1507

please explain the halachic basis to allow  breaking away from the kingship
 of a scion of  david melech yisrael...
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20160309/8be46aae/attachment-0001.htm>

On 03/09/2016 08:58 PM, Micha Berger wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 09, 2016 at 06:49:00PM -0500, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote:
> : Melachim I 2:10 doesn't say that he died...
>
> But Chazal do. Tripping on a staircase ust before the end of Shabbos.
> And Adam gives him only 70 of his years. But never mind that, Shelmo
> makes him a funeral.

The pasuk says he "lay with his fathers".  But he didn't "die".  Whatever
"vayomos" means, it happens to everyone but not to him or to Yaacov.
Chazal don't say any different.   In fact it's Chazal who point out to
us that "Yaacov Lo meis".

> For that matter, Yaaqov is embalmed.

And the gemara points that out and asks whether it was for nothing,
and answers yes, it was for nothing.  They imagined that he had died
but he hadn't.    Me, I wonder why someone who hadn't died but had
both expired and lain with his fathers (in Yaacov's case both of these
expressions are used, while Dovid apparently didn't expire either)
wouldn't need embalming, lamenting, or burying.  Why was it for nothing
merely because he hadn't died.  But that is what the gemara asks and
answers, so apparently these things are not necessary without death.
Which answers your question about Shlomo too; he imagined that his
father needed a funeral, but he really didn't.


> Taking that maamar as literal doesn't fit the pasuq or oter maamarim.

Which ones?


> That is thin basis for positing miracles of that proportion.

What miracle did I posit?  All I derived from it is that David is
still a king and will be a king in the future.  That's not a miracle.

-- 
Zev Sero               All around myself I will wave the green willow
z...@sero.name          The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week
                And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that
                I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes
                I'll explain it to you".

On 03/09/2016 07:14 PM, saul newman via Avodah wrote:
> please explain the halachic basis to allow  breaking away from the kingship  of a scion of  david melech yisrael...

Well, for one thing they had a navi's endorsement.  But more generally,
it's the right of any nation to choose a king of their own liking.
A king's legitimacy ultimately stems from the people's recognition, and
if they stop recognising him then he's no longer their king.  Ein melech
belo `am.   Malchus is a relationship, not an entity in its own right;
that's why it represents speech.  And that's why it's so important that
we accept Hashem's kingdom every Rosh Hashana; it's the one thing He can't
impose on us against our will, because if it's imposed then by definition
it's not malchus.


-- 
Zev Sero               All around myself I will wave the green willow
z...@sero.name          The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week
                And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that
                I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes
                I'll explain it to you".


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



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


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


**************************************

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.)