Avodah Mailing List
Volume 03 : Number 143
Thursday, July 29 1999
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Date: Thu, 29 Jul 1999 09:03:30 -0400 (EDT)
From: Eli Turkel <turkel@icase.edu>
Subject: kever of david
>
> The purported Kever of David Ha'Melech, so far as I recall, is also
> subject to much doubt. I wonder about the Kever of Shmuel Ha'Navi.
>
I think that already in the days of the second Temple the present
site was considered the kever of David. In any case its tradition is
much older than that of kever Rachel.
Nevertheless, no archaelogist believes that it can be the kever of David.
Tanach says that David was buried in "Ir David". While in second Temple days
the place of Ir David and Zion was lost and people thought the present
hat tsion was the original Jerusalem. However, with the diggings over
the last century we know that the original jerusalem was below the
temple mount and in fact "har tzion" became part of jerusalem relatively
late.
Most of the sites of kevers especially in the galil, like kever hillel
and various other tannanim are mainly due to the Ari.
Since there was no jewish population in the galilee for many centuries
most of these traditions disappeared over time.
In my various tours of these sites almost all of them are very questionable.
In the cemetery in tzfat is a tomb that supposedly is one of the neviim.
Here, the local kabbalists deny the story but it still goes on.
However, the kever of Yonasan ben uziel has become a very pouplar site.
Bottom line there is almost no kever (possibly excluding
Maarat hemechpala) that is generally accepted by archaelogists.
Most of the present traditions are based on various kabbalists who stated
that this was kever of some ancient.
Eli Turkel
Go to top.
Date: Thu, 29 Jul 1999 13:12:32 +0200
From: "Shlomo Godick" <shlomog@mehish.co.il>
Subject: Is all music value-neutral?
Apropos of our discussion of whether all music can be seen as
value-neutral and capable of being harnessed to kedusha, I
thought the following clip (as reported by Arutz Sheva News
Service (http://www.a7.org) on Monday, July 26, 1999 / Av 13, 5759)
would be of interest:
9. AN ANTI-SEMITE AND HIS MUSIC
The long-lasting controversy surrounding the performance of the known
anti-Semite Richard Wagner's works in Israel took an interesting twist this
past week when his great-grandson, Gottfried Wagner, spoke at a Hebrew
University conference on anti-Semitism last week. Ma'ariv reporter Gideon
Shmerling described the younger Wagner's speech on Arutz-7 today: "The
majority of the audience consisted of Holocaust survivors. A certain
tension filled the air when he got up to speak. They expected that Wagner,
like conductors Zubin Mehta and Daniel Birnbaum, would argue that people
should separate Richard Wagner's music from his pro-Nazi views." Mehta and
Birnbaum came under heavy fire in the past for conducting Wagner symphonies
in Israel, but defended their actions by saying that though the Nazis used
the music, it should be viewed only for its artistic value.
Shmerling recounted Gottfried Wagner's remarks: "Not only did my
great-grandfather write dozens of racist articles later used by the Nazis,
but in his music as well, he continually glorifies the image of the blond,
blue-eyed Aryan. It was not always so transparent, and sometimes you have
to read between the lines to detect it... He did not create art for art's
sake, but wanted to - and was successful at - influencing people's views
with his music.." The younger Wagner, himself a student of music, said
that Israelis simply do not understand his great-grandfather, and that if
they would research the matter more, they would understand that even
compositions that sound purely artistic contain strong traces of Wagner's
strongly-held racist views." Gottfried concluded by calling on his
audience not to play Richard Wagner's music, "since it is inseparable from
his racist views." Shmerling said that with this statement, "the tension
in the room dissipated noticeably, and amazed whispers filled the air..."
Go to top.
Date: Thu, 29 Jul 1999 07:23:23 -0700 (PDT)
From: Moshe Feldman <moshe_feldman@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: using mikvaos for non-halachic "conversions"
--- JZUCKESQ@aol.com wrote:
> I recall once reading that the Rav said that we should allow
> mikvaos to
> be used by Conservative and Reform rabbis for their "conversions."
> As I
> recall, the author of the article said this was because of the very
> high
> priority the Rav placed on avoiding disputes within the Jewish
> people. I
> thought the article was in the special issue of Jewish Action
> dedicated to
> the "Life and Legacy" of the Rav, but I cannot find it there. I
> therefore
> turn to the Avodah list with three questions:
>
> 1. Can anyone refer me to the article that I have just
> described?
Walter Wurtzburger in his article about the Rav as a Posek (in the
volume edited by Marc Angel) mentions this psak of the Rav. I don't
remember if he gave the reasoning.
_____________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Free instant messaging and more at http://messenger.yahoo.com
Go to top.
Date: Thu, 29 Jul 1999 07:33:37 -0700 (PDT)
From: Moshe Feldman <moshe_feldman@yahoo.com>
Subject: re: Fasting on Yom Kippur
--- Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org> wrote:
> Jeff Zuckerman asks:
> : He was not saying that this
> would happen;
> : only that it would be within the power of a future Sanhedrin to
> reinterpret
> : the meaning of "t'anu" -- and that we would be obligated to
> follow that
> : future Sanhedrin. How would you have responded?
>
> As far as I know, the technical definition of inui was never in
> doubt (about
> the major points). By doubt I don't necessarily mean uncertainty,
> but subject
> to halachic plurality. It's not like our current definition was one
> of many
> divrei E-lokim Chaim that has the weight of Sanhedrin behind it.
> Then, it's
> possible for a future Sanhedrin (gadol mimenu bichachma uvminyan)
> to legislate
> differently. Which is why, we find in Edios 1:5, rejected opinions
> were
> recorded in the Mishnah. Implied in that mishnah, had the minority
> (or
> otherwise rejected) opinion not existed, the future Sanhedrin would
> lack
> the power to "reinterpret".
I'm not sure of what Micha wrote. Doesn't a Sanhedrin have the right
to create drashot irrespective of whether there is a mesorah that a
minority once held that position? Would Boaz not have been able to
darshen (in contradiction to majority opinion until his generation)
"amoni v'lo amonit" in the absence of a kabbalah from prior dorot?
Kol tuv,
Moshe
_____________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Free instant messaging and more at http://messenger.yahoo.com
Go to top.
Date: Thu, 29 Jul 1999 11:14:53 -0400
From: "Noah Witty" <nwitty@ix.netcom.com>
Subject: Kever Rachel
Micha Berger wrote:
+ACI-I also don't appreciate the location being robbed of its emotional content
for purely theoretical intellectualist reasons. I'd have been happier being
in ignorance that any doubts existed.+ACI-
While the idea that Jews have prayed there validates the place as special is
a fine idea, I think that intellectual honesty--not only in tefilla but in
havanas hamikraos, i.e. T+ACI-T--requires that we pin down her location. It was
troubling to me also when I first heard it. If it's any solace, I have
heard that Kever Shmuel Hanavi is on a +ACI-rama+ACI- and that therefore that
actually may be kever rachel. And the Arabs have another location for Shmuel
Hanavi. And what proof do we have that Chana is really onthe other side of
the curtain? And so it goes.
NW
Go to top.
Date: Thu, 29 Jul 1999 11:24:45 -0400
From: "Noah Witty" <nwitty@ix.netcom.com>
Subject: R. Zevin on Army Service
As memory serves, following the tradition article there was an exchange of
letters in the following 2 or 3 editions. I think Nissan Wolpin had a
letter defending the Artscroll position and Terry Novetsky responded with a
blistering and pointed response. It's worth digging up because Novetsky
gave the lie to Artscroll's revisionism.
Similar, though much longer labor, is to be found in Rabbi J.J. Schechter's
article in the first or second Torah U'Maddah Journal decimating the
revisionism implied by the retraction of the English translation of +ACI-My
Uncle, The Netziv+ACI- by a charitable organization in Lakewood, which had
mailed the book as a fundraiser.
NW
P.S. LOBT? (let others be there? left out by technicality?)
Go to top.
Date: Thu, 29 Jul 1999 08:43:14 -0700 (PDT)
From: Moshe Feldman <moshe_feldman@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: divided community
--- Daniel Eidensohn <yadmoshe@netmedia.net.il> wrote:
> Moshe Feldman wrote:
>
> Of greater import is your assertions that only heretical views
> deserve
> condemnation.
Again, I differentiate between (1) disagreeing respectfully, even
vehemently, and (2) condemning to the extent that one disassociates
with the condemned party.
> I saw no such principle in Rabbi Rosensweig Spring
> 1992 article on
> eilu v'eilu. Your citation of the Maharal's brother - who strongly
> condemend the
> Shulchan Aruch - gives no indication that he smiled gently when
> doing so.
The question isn't whether he smiled gently. The question is whether
he threatened to pasel his shechitah or told his followers not to
associate with "Shulchan Arukh Jews"!
The attitude that you project seems to be black and white. I think
that there are plenty of shades of grey.
>
> Bottom line. Aside from your obvious upset about the lack of
> civility of
> disputants - neither of you has cited sources to justify your
> personal opinions
> (including your condemnations of the right wing) nor have you cited
> any gedolim
> who agree with your intuitions. You have to come up with something
> more
> substantial. All I am hearing is that the consequences of dispute
> are distressing
> (which I fully agree). You have not brought any support for your
> blanket
> condemnation of disputes and of those gedolim who have been
> involved in them.
Call me crazy, but I shlepped in my copy of "Rabbinic Authority and
Personal Autonomy" just to quote excerpts from R. Rosensweig's
article:
pp. 99-100: "[T]he diversity and range of perspective in parshanut
and hashkafa is impressive and wholly acceptable to Chazal.
Statements like: shivim panim la-torah . . . and u-kepatish yefotzetz
sela . . ., and the view expressed by Ramban . . . where he
formulates the notion of Torah as a divine text formed by the
infinite combinations of divine names, allowing it to serve as
creative exegetical source for all types of knowledge simulaneously
are representative of this approach. . . ."
"This approach pervades discussions of Jewish philosophy even when
positions that are developed are mutually exclusive. Debates rage on
such fundamentals as the eternity of the universe, free choice . . .
.. Passionate argumentation regarding the very legitimacy of such
basic orientations as philosophy, Kabbalah, Hasidut, and Musar
characterizes this approach . . . . Clearly, diversity of opinion
and multiplicity of meaning are not only acceptable but contribute to
and are consistent with the attainment of the religious ideal in
Judaism."
So R. Rosensweig describes passionate argumentation as compatible
with the ultimate recognition that elu v'elu divrei Elokim chayim.
He also quotes Maharshal from the introduction to Yam Shel Shlomo on
Bava Kamma(p. 108):
"One should not be astonished by the range of debate and
argumentation in matters of halakhah. . . . All these views are in
the category of divrei Elokim hayyim as if each was received directly
from Sinai through Moshe. This is so despite the fact that Moshe
never projected opposing perspectives with respect to any one issue.
The Kabbalists explained that the basis for this is that each
individual soul was present at Sinai and received the Torah by means
of the 49 paths (tzinorot). Each perceived the Torah from his own
perspective in accordance with his intellectual capacity as well as
the stature and unique character of his particular soul. This
accounts for the discrepancy in perception inasmuch as one concluded
that an object was tamei in the extreme, another perceived it to be
absolutely tahor, and yet a third individual argues the ambivalent
state of the object in question. All these are true and sensible
views. Thus, the wise men declared that in a debate between true
scholars, all positions articulated represent a form of truth."
R. Rosensweig states on pp. 120-1:
"R. Feinstein [intro to Iggerot Moshe] suggests that the underlying
principle of eilu ve-eilu divrei Elokim hayyim demand that we treat a
rejected opinion relating to a halakhic concept . . . with a full
measure of reverence even if we are familiar with and still not
convinced by its argument The climate of debate between Bet Shamai
and Bet Hillel as related in Yevamot (13b-14b) eloquently expresses
this theme:
"Though these forbade what the others permitted, and these
regarded as ineligible what the other others declared eligible, Beth
Shammai, nevertheless, did not refrain from marrying women from (the
families of) Beth Hillel. Nor did Beth Hillel (refrain from marrying
women) from (the families of ) Beth Shammai. . . . This is to teach
you that they showed love and friendship towards one another, this
putting into practice the Scriptual text, 'Love ye truth and peace.'"
Kol tuv,
Moshe
_____________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Free instant messaging and more at http://messenger.yahoo.com
Go to top.
Date: Thu, 29 Jul 1999 11:53:26 -0400
From: David Glasner <DGLASNER@FTC.GOV>
Subject: Re: fasting on Yom Kippur
Micha Berger wrote:
<<<
Jeff Zuckerman asks:
: He was not saying that this would happen;
: only that it would be within the power of a future Sanhedrin to reinterpret
: the meaning of "t'anu" -- and that we would be obligated to follow that
: future Sanhedrin. How would you have responded?
As far as I know, the technical definition of inui was never in doubt (about
the major points). By doubt I don't necessarily mean uncertainty, but subject
to halachic plurality. It's not like our current definition was one of many
divrei E-lokim Chaim that has the weight of Sanhedrin behind it. Then, it's
possible for a future Sanhedrin (gadol mimenu bichachma uvminyan) to legislate
differently. Which is why, we find in Edios 1:5, rejected opinions were
recorded in the Mishnah. Implied in that mishnah, had the minority (or
otherwise rejected) opinion not existed, the future Sanhedrin would lack
the power to "reinterpret".
- -mi
>>>
Ra-iti shibush d'varim poh. According to the Rambam (Mamrim 2:1), the
Sanhedrin would be perfectly within its rights to redefine the meaning of t'anu.
The only limitation on that power, according to the Rambam, is that there are
some textual interpretations that are traditions mi-pi ha-sh'muah that, arguably,
even a Sanhedrin might not be able to tamper with, e.g., ayin tahat ayin,
mamon. However, the Rambam's basis for the existence of such mi-pi ha-
sh'muah interpretations, as has been observed, is less than secure. At any
rate, unless we posit that t'anu has a mi-pi ha-shemuah interpretation, there
would not seem to be any technical barrier, according to the Rambam, to the
reinterpretation of t'anu by a reconstituted Sanhedrin (bi-m'heirah b'yameinu).
I am puzzled by the usage "legislate differently." Are you referring to deciding
the halakhah based on the interpretation of an existing text? That's not what
we usually mean by the term "legislate" which implies the creation of an
authoritative text or the creation of a law that is not implicit in a pre-existing
text. But if that is how you are using the term, i.e., the Sanhedrin is "legislating"
the meaning of t'anu, then the Rambam in Mamrim 2:1 explicitly denies the
necessity for "gadol mimenu bichachma uvminyan." That is only necessary
(see Mamrim 2:2) for g'zeirot and takanot (corresponding to what I would think
of by "legislation"), not interpretation of Biblical texts. By the way, to restate a
hashkafic point, note that the principle of y'ridat ha-dorot and other related
concepts does not stand in the way of offering new halakhically binding
interpretations of old well-understood texts.
David Glasner
dglasner@ftc.gov
!
!
!
!
!
!
Go to top.
Date: Thu, 29 Jul 1999 12:23:02 -0400
From: Michael.Frankel@dtra.mil
Subject: Inui - technical definition
R micha berger writes:
< As far as I know, the technical definition of inui was never in doubt
(about the major points >
Not so. There is a halachic history to this that precisely turns on
differing takes to the technical definition of inui to drive some (modern)
halochoh li'ma'a(y)seh. Thus in consideration of the circumstances of a
choleh's obligation to fast on yom kippur, there is discussion whether inui
is identical with the (absence of the) act of eating, or just satiation -
with the nafkoh minoh exhibited when considering intravenous feeding. Lots
of people weighed in on this, with - i think (i'm at work now and can't
check) - R. Moshe (or maybe it was r Chayim ozer) coming out leniently on
intravenous because of his di'yuq from sefer divorim where "vayi'anchoh" is
juxtaposed with "vayarivechoh" indicating (at least to him) that inui must
mean a (lack of a) mayseh achiloh, which wouldn't be violated by
intravenous. however, others disagree.
Mechy Frankel W: (703) 325-1277
michael.frankel@dtra.mil H: (301) 593-3949
Go to top.
Date: Thu, 29 Jul 1999 19:35:03 +0200
From: "Shlomo Godick" <shlomog@mehish.co.il>
Subject: Dor HaPalaga
>How do we know how high the Dor Haflagah
>(or is that Dor haHaflagah?) thought shamayim was?
Dor Haflaga (or Dor haHaflagah) would mean the "generation of
sailing" or the "generation of exaggeration". The correct pronunciation
is Dor HaPalagah (the heh is heh ha-y'dia and not part of the word itself).
The exactly opposite phenomenon is found in the expression "netz
ha-chama", which really means "sun hawk". Sunrise in Hebrew should be
pronounced "henetz ha-chama" or "hanetz ha-chama" (I have seen the
nikud both ways (segol or kametz) -- does anyone know which is (more)
correct?). There the heh in "henetz" is *not* heh ha-y'dia (which in the
s'michut form would be grammatically incorrect anyway) but part of the word
itself (similar to heter, heset, hebet, hekesh, etc.).
Kol tuv,
Shlomo Godick
Go to top.
Date: Thu, 29 Jul 1999 12:50:43 -0400 (EDT)
From: micha@aishdas.org (Micha Berger)
Subject: Re: Inui - technical definition
Me:
> As far as I know, the technical definition of inui was never in doubt
> (about the major points)
Michael Frankel objected:
: Not so. ... Thus in consideration of the circumstances of a
: choleh's obligation to fast on yom kippur, there is discussion whether inui
: is identical with the (absence of the) act of eating, or just satiation
Which is why I said "major points". I intended to say that the word always
meant the five inuyim. The *details* of those inuyim have been subject to
debate.
David Glassner takes issue with a different point:
: Ra-iti shibush d'varim poh. According to the Rambam (Mamrim 2:1), the
: Sanhedrin would be perfectly within its rights to redefine the meaning of
: t'anu. The only limitation on that power, according to the Rambam, is that
: there are some textual interpretations that are traditions mi-pi ha-sh'muah
: that, arguably, even a Sanhedrin might not be able to tamper with, e.g., ayin
: tahat ayin, mamon.
I'm not sure the Rambam's "mipi hash'mua" is any different than my limitation
that the point has to have multiple shittos interpereting it. The Rambam holds
that item "mipi hash'mua" are never the subject of machlokes. I grabbed on
the second part, without insisting on the Rambam's suggested cause for the
lack of dispute.
IOW, the Rambam would insist that our understanding of "vi'inisem es
nafshoseichem" is mipi hash'mua.
Moshe Feldman asks:
: I'm not sure of what Micha wrote. Doesn't a Sanhedrin have the right
: to create drashot irrespective of whether there is a mesorah that a
: minority once held that position? Would Boaz not have been able to
: darshen (in contradiction to majority opinion until his generation)
: "amoni v'lo amonit" in the absence of a kabbalah from prior dorot?
This is a different situation -- it's not overturning an earlier p'sak.
Second, it is unclear to me (despite a common reading of Rashi ad loc, who may
be understood either way) that Boaz's d'rashah was new. Perek Cheilek insists
that d'rashos (as opposed to asmachtos) are miSinai, no? In which case, he's
doing exactly what I said -- choosing one of multiple divrei E-lokim Chaim,
and not creating a new shittah where until now there was an uncontested
different opinion.
-mi
--
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287 MMG"H for 29-Jul-99: Chamishi, Eikev
micha@aishdas.org A"H O"Ch 345:21-27
http://www.aishdas.org Pisachim 14b
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light. Kuzari V 13-16
Go to top.
Date: Thu, 29 Jul 1999 11:52:33 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer" <sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu>
Subject: Mol vs. Mul, Sha'Ata
I actually posted the question on MJ, but am happy to get a response from
RMFrankel wherever it comes!
I liked the first pshat based on "Mila" very much. I do not have it in
front of me, as I erased it by mistake. Was it your original?
Once we're doing grammar, explain please to me "sha'ata" instead of
"she'ata" (in Modim and other places in davening, based on a word in
Shoftim). I think we once might have discussed this years ago, but have
since forgotten.
YGB
Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
Cong. Bais Tefila, 3555 W. Peterson Ave., Chicago, IL, 60659
ygb@aishdas.org, http://www.aishdas.org/baistefila
Go to top.
Date: Thu, 29 Jul 1999 19:31:36 +0200
From: "The Stokar Family" <stokar@barak-online.net>
Subject: Allegorical interpretation - more sources
Some more references "kashering" allegorical interpreation of Scripture.
Louis Ginzberg wrote an article entitled "Allegorical Interpretation of
Scripture", published in the Jewish Encyclopedia and in a book of his essays
entitled "On Jewish Law and Lore" (JPS, 1955). Among many other sources he
cites, I think we should consider the following:
[1] Philo, who made extensive use of allegorical interpretation of
Scripture. Do the anti-allegorists consider him "unkosher" and thus
irrelevant ?
[2] Solomon ibn Gabirol, quoted by Ibn Ezra as offering allegorical
interpretations of the Garden of Eden and Jacob's dream (I Have been unable to
identify the precise reference; all Ginzburg says is "Gabirol's allegorical
interpretation as quoted by Ibn Ezra in his commentary to Genesis. Does
anyone know whre this Ibn Ezra is?)
[3] Saadia Gaon. Book VII of "The Book of Beliefs and Opinions" deals
with the subject of the resurrection of the dead. Saadia addresses the
question of whether we should treat the verses that prophesy this as
literal or as allegorical. He gives four rules which justify a
non-literal reading of a Biblical passage (the following quotes are
taken from the Rosenblatt translation published by Yale University
Press):
"And I so declare, first of all, that it is a well-known fact that
every statement in the Bible is to be understood in its literal sense
expect for those that cannot be so construed for one of the following four
reasons: It may, for example, either be rejected by the observation of the
senses ....Or else the literal sense may be negated by reason .....Again
[the literal meaning of a Biblical statement may be rendered impossible]
by an explicit text of a contradictory nature, in which case it would
become necessary to interpret the first statement in a non-literal nature ...
Finally, any Biblical statement to the meaning of which rabbinical tradition
has attached a certain reservation is to be interpreted by us in keeping
with this authentic tradition."
(Saadia gives examples for each. In order to avoid misinterpretations of the
last case, note that the example he gives is Deut 25:3, where Chazal changed
the number of "stripes" from 40 to 39) . Thus we see that Saadia allowed for
non-literal interpretation of the Bible if the verse contradicted either
[1] the senses or [2] reason. He did not seem to include Rav Bechhofer's
requirement that there be a previous rabbinic tradition for non-literal
interpretation of the verse.
Following the above quote, Saadia goes on to explain the dangers of non-literal
interpretions, viz, the allegorization of commandments and allegorization
of the "narrative portion" (he quotes the examples of an (incorrect)
allegorization of Kriyat Yam Suf (Exod. 14:22) and Josh 10:13). Although the
latter seems to argue against allegorizing the Flood (assuming it falls into
the category of narrative), I maintain Saadia in only against "frivolous"
allegorizing, since he explicitly allows allegorizing passages that contradict
reason or the senses. Vtzarich Iyun.
[4] Ginzburg states "First of the conservative allegorists who respected the
literal word was Jacod b. Abba Mari Anatoli, at the beginning of the thirteenth
century. In his Malmad ha-Talmidim (Goad for Scholars) he allegorizes the
story of Noah to the effect that, in order to preserve himself against the
waters of sin, every man must make himself an ark out of his good deeds,
and this ark must consist of three stories, the mathematical, physical and
metaphysical elements (Malmad Hatalmidim 12a)".
Does anyone have access to this source? Is this a bone-fide allegorical
interpretation or is it merely homiletics?
(Since I was unfamiliar with the above author, I'll quote the entry for
him in Halperin's Atlas Etz Haim (entry 1509 in the volume 5 (Rishonim):
"A Provence sage. Contemporary of Ramban. Son of R. Eliyahu b. Yitzchak
and son-in-law of R. Shmuel ibn Tibbon. Followed tbe philophical path of
Rambam. Wrote a book if homilies "Malmad haTalmidim". Called to the court
of Emperor Freidrich II to translate works from Arabic into Latin" )
Saul Stokar
Go to top.
Date: Thu, 29 Jul 1999 11:57:31 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer" <sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu>
Subject: Nefesh ha'Chaim
RMBerger's question on nochei'ach and nistar in the nusach ha'bracha
brings me to realize that many of us have never learnt Nefesh ha'Chaim.
This work is a basic building block, if not *the* basis for Litvishe
Hashkofo. Even talmidim and talmide talmidav of RYBSoloveitchik who
forbore from learning "Kabbala" are mushpa'im - perhaps without their
knowledge - by the Nefesh ha'Chayim, whose philosophy underlies,
implicitly (and perhaps explicitly) such major ideas such as RYBS's
perspective on Tzimtzum. Beis Brisk is, afterall, consciously,
unconsciously or subconsciously, a continuation of Beis Midrasho shel
ha'Gro and Volozhin.
If it be feasible, I would be happy to join a chabura of fellow Ovdim on
Avodah/Aishdas and participate in a vritual Seder in Nefesh ha'Chaim.
YGB
Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
Cong. Bais Tefila, 3555 W. Peterson Ave., Chicago, IL, 60659
ygb@aishdas.org, http://www.aishdas.org/baistefila
Go to top.
Date: Thu, 29 Jul 1999 13:00:22 -0400 (EDT)
From: micha@aishdas.org (Micha Berger)
Subject: Re: Mol vs. Mul, Sha'Ata
Here's a footnote from "Ashirah Lashem", on "Modim anachnu lach Sha-Ata":
: Grammatically, this should read "sheata", with a segol, and such is the
: Sepharadi custom. The only time this word is used with reference to the
: sacred, is when Gid'on speaks to an angel (Shoftim 16:7). There it is
: vocallized with a kamatz, "Sha-Ata", it means "that the You", a specific
: reference to the Creator.
In the siddur, where I hyphenate all sheimos (to some people's dismay), I
therefore hyphenate "Sha-Ata" as well.
-mi
--
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287 MMG"H for 29-Jul-99: Chamishi, Eikev
micha@aishdas.org A"H O"Ch 345:21-27
http://www.aishdas.org Pisachim 14b
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light. Kuzari V 13-16
Go to top.
Date: Thu, 29 Jul 1999 10:35:42 -0700 (PDT)
From: Moshe Feldman <moshe_feldman@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Inui - technical definition
--- Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org> wrote:
> Second, it is unclear to me (despite a common reading of Rashi ad
> loc, who may
> be understood either way) that Boaz's d'rashah was new. Perek
> Cheilek insists
> that d'rashos (as opposed to asmachtos) are miSinai, no? In which
> case, he's
> doing exactly what I said -- choosing one of multiple divrei
> E-lokim Chaim,
> and not creating a new shittah where until now there was an
> uncontested
> different opinion.
I don't have any sources in front of me, but I seem to recall that R.
Schachter said that according to the [Rambam] drashot can be new and
do not have to come from Sinai.
Kol tuv,
Moshe
_____________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Free instant messaging and more at http://messenger.yahoo.com
Go to top.
Date: Thu, 29 Jul 1999 10:44:06 -0700 (PDT)
From: Moshe Feldman <moshe_feldman@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Mol vs. Mul, Sha'Ata
--- "Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer"
> Once we're doing grammar, explain please to me "sha'ata" instead of
> "she'ata" (in Modim and other places in davening, based on a word
> in
> Shoftim).
I seem to recall that when we studied Sefer Shoftim (I think the
pasuk of "ad sha'kamti devorah" in Shirat Devorah), Rabbi Carmy said
that the "sha" form is the ancient predecessor to "sheh" (i.e., the
Hebrew language evolved).
Kol tuv,
Moshe
_____________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Free instant messaging and more at http://messenger.yahoo.com
Go to top.
Date: Thu, 29 Jul 1999 13:06:55 -0400
From: richard_wolpoe@ibi.com
Subject: Second vs. Third Person in B'rachos
>>
From: micha@aishdas.org (Micha Berger)
Someone on soc.culture.jewish asked about the shift from 2nd to 3rd person in
many b'rachos. Every b'rachah begins "baruch *Ata* Hashem", and yet many
conclude "kidshanu bimitzvo*sav*" or "nasan lanu es Tora*so*".
People provided some ideas, but nothing with a makor, and nothing that really
satisfied me. Any thoughts?
- -mi
<<
Re: thoughts, Buber made a career re: this issue!
Rich Wolpoe
Go to top.
*********************
[ Distributed to the Avodah mailing list, digested version. ]
[ To post: mail to avodah@aishdas.org ]
[ For back issues: mail "get avodah-digest vXX.nYYY" to majordomo@aishdas.org ]
[ or, the archive can be found at http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/ ]
[ For general requests: mail the word "help" to majordomo@aishdas.org ]