Avodah Mailing List

Volume 04 : Number 057

Saturday, October 23 1999

• Re: Mazal L'yisrael, Lishma, other he'aros
• Re: Dor Haflagah
• Grammar--Mechy's argument supports mine
• Fw: (Fwd) Parshat Lech Lecha 5760
• KRI KTIV

----- Original Message -----
From: <C1A1Brown@aol.com>
To: <avodah@aishdas.org>
Cc: <Yzkd@aol.com>

> 2. A few weeks ago mention was made that enjoyment in learning.mitzvot
does
> not detract from lishma, as discussed by the Eglei Tal in his
introduction.
> Of note is the fact that  R' Dessler (III p.143) based on R' Tzaddok
> disagress and assumes lishma is a state removed from all emotion.  R'
Dessler
> elsewhere (p.108) uses this to explain the shittas HaRambam in the last
> Mishna in Makkot.  However,  R' Dessler's elaboration does not answer up
the
> MaHaRaL's kashe from R"H 16 or the end of Kiddushin (Tif. Yisreal ch. 5)
so
> I'm not sure what he gains.


I did not see that in the Michtave Me'Eliyahu that you cite, and there are
several places in the fifth chelek that indicate that lishma is conguent, if
not identical, with enjoyment and spiritual pleasure. See his discussions on
Oneg shabbos, particularly the essay that begins on p. 262.

Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
Cong. Bais Tefila, 3555 W. Peterson Ave., Chicago, IL 60659
http://www.aishdas.org/baistefila    ygb@aishdas.org

----- Original Message -----
From: <raffyd@juno.com>
To: <avodah@aishdas.org>
Sent: Saturday, October 23, 1999 9:24 PM
Subject: Re: Dor Haflagah


> Re: David Glasner's question about the Dor Haflagah, I heard a similar
> approach to Micha's by Rav Yaakov Weinberg zt"l of Ner Israel.  He
> understood that the nations and their respective languages were all
> formed by Noah's grandchildren during the generations following the
> flood.  This means that Egypt, and other cultures existed long before the
> Migdal came on the scene.  The unity the nations retained was due to the
> fact that they all had one language in common, presumably Lashon
> HaKodesh, and/or as the Hizkuni suggests, that they understood each
> other's languages.  The Hizkuni writes that it is clear that the
> languages existed beforehand.  After all, he writes, new things don't
> just pop up like that.  V'Ayin Sham.
>

Perhaps lashon, meaning tongue, is different than safah, meaning lips. The
lashon is indicative of the inner speech, i.e., the culture - and that was
differentiated already before Migdal Bavel "l'lshonasom l'artzosam
b'goyeihem" (and we are "v'rommamtonu me'kol ha'leshons"). At Migadl Bavel
their "devarim achadim" was their common talk - i.e., plan of action. Their
safah was their actual spoken language. By confusing their safos, HKBH
undermined their devarim.

Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
Cong. Bais Tefila, 3555 W. Peterson Ave., Chicago, IL 60659
http://www.aishdas.org/baistefila    ygb@aishdas.org

Richard Walpole/Mechy comment on the Gematria - Grammar issue.

Actually Mechy's argument is EXACTLY what supports my argument

Mechy argues that the Piel does NOT always mean an INTENSE form

Fine!

So what are we saying. We are saying that NORMAL forms of the
verb are conjugated SHAMARTI, SHAMARTA...

But then we find OTHER forms of the verb that are conjugated
SHIMARTI, SHIMARTA

Furthermore in MANY cases the SHIMARTI form is an intense
form of the verb.

So what did the grammarians do....they invented a new form
called the PIEL and they said it applied when 
	>the conjugation has a CHIRIK
	>and the meaning is FREQUENTLY more intense

Everyone accepts this. Even Mechy. Mechy would walk into
a 3rd grade class, tell them how to recognize / conjugate with
the chirik, tell them NOT to believe that PIEL is ALWAYS 
a more intense form of the verb and all the children would
walk away believing that PIEL is a GRAMMATICAL FORM

Well I am doing the exact same thing with Malay / Chaser.
Namely


---I show everyone that frequently all forms of a word except one or two
are spelled with/without VAV/YUD (MALAY CHASER)

--I also tell them that FREQUENTLY the DEFICIENT spelling  indicates a
DEFICIENT person (like EPHRON was deficient and ESAUV was deficient
(Rivkahs twins etc).

So my students would walk out of the class thinking that MALAY CHASER
is a principle of grammar.

That is my point. THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE IN THE GRAMMATICALLITY
OF malay/chaser OR IN THE GRAMMATICALLITY of piel. They both
come from an association of a FORM and MEANING which does not
happen 100% or even 50% of the time.

BUT..and this is crucial you can not make GEMATRIA into a grammatical
rule
Indeed Gematria does not work frequently....there is no algorithmic
meaning
rule to allow Gematria to work even 1% of the time. Hence Gematria is
derush, while Piel and Malay chaser are peshat (and this despite the fact
that Piel/Malay/Chaser do not happen all the time)

Hope this clarifies my position

Russell


___________________________________________________________________
Get the Internet just the way you want it.
Free software, free e-mail, and free Internet access for a month!
Try Juno Web: http://dl.www.juno.com/dynoget/tagj.

Might be of interest to our group:

----- Original Message -----

> Dear Rabbi:
> This is always rewarding reading.  Subscription info at the bottom.
> Have a Good Shabbos!
> ------- Forwarded Message Follows -------
> Date sent:      Thu, 21 Oct 1999 23:41:13 +0200 (IST)
> From:           Nehemiah Klein <ndk@hakotel.edu>
> To:             sicha list <hk-nebenzahl@vjlists.com>
> Subject:        Parshat Lech Lecha 5760
>
>
> WEEKLY SICHA OF HARAV NEBENZAHL - PARSHAT LECH LECHA 5760
>
>
> The following is a translation of the sicha delivered by HaGaon
> HaRav Avigdor Nebenzahl every Monday night in the Beit Midrash of Yeshivat
> Hakotel.  We try our best to accurately present to you the Rav's words.
> The transition from spoken to written word and subsequent translation do
> not always allow for a literal word for word translation.  We would like
> to thank HaRav Nebenzahl for allowing us to send you this sicha without
> his first reviewing the translation.  Although it does expedite matters in
> getting this sicha out to you, it does mean that if there is anything in
> the sicha that may not be understood, the fault is with us and not with
> HaRav Nebenzahl.
>
> Shabbat Shalom,
>
> Nehemiah D. Klein
>
____________________________________________________________________________
>
> We would like to express our gratitude to Adam Smith & Company which has
> so generously donated and maintains the computer center at the Yeshiva in
> memory of HaRav Aryeh Bina zt"l, founder of Yeshivat Hakotel.  This
> enables us to communicate this sicha to you each week - "lehagdil Torah
> ulehaadira".
>
____________________________________________________________________________
>
> Please say a tefilla for refuah shlema for Baruch Yoseph ben Adina Batya
> he is the ten year old son of one of our alumni who is in great need
> of "rachamei Shamayim".
>
____________________________________________________________________________
>
> PARSHAT LECH LECHA
>
> On Erev Pesach, evening and morning, in accordance with the ruling
> of the Gemara "one who searches for Chametz must nullify it" [1] (Pesachim
> 6b), we nullify our Chametz and recite "kol chamira" "Any chametz or
> leaven that is in my possession, should be annulled and become ownerless,
> like the dust of the earth" [2]. Although "according to Biblical law mere
> nullification is sufficient" [3] (Pesachim 4b), the halacha requires us to
> burn the Chametz or at least sell it to a non-Jew.  Why is nullification
> of our Chametz not sufficient?
>
> Although we are devout religious Jews, Chazal were concerned lest
> our "bitul" not be totally sincere.  Do we not recite three times daily
> "and let my soul be like the dust of the earth to everyone" [4]? If
> immediately afterwards that someone would offend us in some way would we
> ignore it, for we are merely dust of the earth?  We would still take
> offense - just as this nullifying of our own worth lacks sincerity, Chazal
> feared that nullifying the Chametz would also not be with a full heart.
>
> In a tape by HaRav Ovadia Yoseph Shlit"a, he related the following
> incident.  R' Yonatan Eibshitz arrived in a town on Erev Yom Kippur and
> decided to daven Mincha in the local shule.  As is customary on Erev Yom
> Kippur, the "viduy" was recited.  He was so impressed by the fervor in
> which the man next to him recited "before I was formed I was unworthy, and
> now that I have been formed, it is as if I had not been formed.  I am dust
> in my life and will surely be so in my death" [5], that he requested to be
> seated next to this gentleman for the entire Yom Kippur service.  The
> Gabbaim acquiesced, and R' Yonatan enjoyed hearing this beautiful davening
> at Maariv and again at Shacharit.  Then the time came for the Torah
> reading, and this same "humble" man began to shout that it was not right
> that one person received "shlishi" and another "shishi" and he received no
> such honor!
>
> A bit surprised, R' Yonatan approached the man asking him, did he
> not just declare himself to be mere dust of the earth.  If so, why should
> he be so concerned with honor?  The man answered that during the prayers
> he was speaking to Hashem, now he was speaking to the Gabbai! This
> typifies the insincerity of our "bitul".  We may mouth the words, but do
> we really mean it?
>
> When Avraham Avinu declared "I am but dust and ash" [6] (Bereishit
> 18:27), he really meant it.  Sarah shouted "the outrage against me is due
> to you" [7] (Bereishit 16:5), and he did not argue.  His response was
> "Behold! - your maidservant is in your hand; do to her as you see fit" [8]
> (ibid. 6).  This is how one should truly nullify oneself, not only in
> relation to Hashem but also to others, to Sarah.  Sarah was punished for
> her reaction, as Chazal tell us: "Whoever submits judgment of his fellow
> to Heaven, he is punished first" [9] (Rosh Hashana 16b).  Tosafot tell us
> that there was a local Beit Din available and if Sarah had any complaints
> against Avraham she should have turned to them, rather then turn it over
> to the Heavenly Court.  We have no right to criticize one on the level of
> Sarah Imeinu beyond what Chazal tell us.
>
> Avraham's humility is striking.  It was not only at this point
> that he refrained from arguing with Sarah.  Later on we read of Sarah's
> ordering him: "Drive out this slavewoman with her son" [10] (Bereishit
> 21:10).  Despite the fact that: "The matter greatly distressed Avraham"
> (ibid. 11), Avraham did not argue.  Hashem did assuage Avraham "Be not
> distressed over the youth or your slavewoman" (ibid. 12), but this came at
> a later time. Avraham truly felt himself as "mere dust and ash" that he
> was subservient to the wishes of Sarah.  Confrontation is called for in
> certain circumstances, we know that Avraham went to war against Amrafel
> and his wicked cohorts, yet in principle he considered himself submissive
> to others.
>
> Good character begins with our relationships with those closest to
> us.  It is not difficult to act as "the dust of the earth" when relating
> to someone we do not even know.  The difficulty is doing so when relating
> to our wives, relatives, and neighbors.  The prophet tells us "those who
> slaughter man shall kiss the calves". (Hoshea 13:2).  Although the calves
> in the pasuk refer specifically to those made by Yeravam, the expression
> is a more general one.  There are people who are willing to kill human
> beings yet kiss a calf.  All human beings are imbued with love to give to
> others.  The question is how to channel this.  It was known that that evil
> German, may his name be obliterated, who was responsible for an incredible
> amount of blood being spilled, both Jewish and non-Jewish, had a dog that
> he loved dearly.  One of his first anti-Jewish decrees was the forbidding
> of "shchita" on the grounds of cruelty to animals!
>
> Other people may not care about animals, but will channel their
> love to other nations rather than their own.  If, G-d forbid, an Arab
> refugee is suffering they will run to his aid.  Would they have the same
> response for their fellow Jew?  This does not only apply to the left-wing
> among us, but even within the religious camp.  There are those whose first
> priority is to draw in those further away, rather than befriending those
> close to us.  Our first priority is to take care of those on our side.
> We may not affiliate with the same political party, but we believe in the
> same Torah and study the same Gemara.  Our affinity must be first and
> foremost for those who study the Torah, only then can we be concerned with
> the needs of those further away.
>
> A few years ago I was witness to something that distresses me to
> this day.  It was either during the Oslo accords or some other decree.  A
> prayer gathering was organized in Zichron Moshe.  On the sign advertising
> the gathering, someone wrote that it is important to love these Jews as
> well, for today we are in great need of "ahavat chinam", love without
> reason.  Is this all that binds us to those people?  Are they not davening
> on our behalf and on behalf of the Land of Israel?  Whom else did the
> Torah refer to when it commanded us: "ve-ahavta lere-acha kamocha" "you
> shall love your fellow as yourself" (Vayikra 19:18)?  It would be safe to
> assume that the gathering was made up of G-d fearing, Mitzvah observing
> Jews, and not the youth of Meretz!  Is the only reason to affiliate with
> them to promote "ahavat chinam"?  We owe them tremendous gratitude, it is
> perhaps due to them that we were sealed for a good life that Rosh Hashana.
>
> To think that we are commanded to love a secular Jew, whereas our
> only obligation to love a fellow religious Jew is out of "ahavat chinam"
> is a total distortion!  Religious Jews must be loved because they observe
> the Torah and Mitzvot just as we do.  We may disagree on specific points,
> but this is nothing new.  There are so many today who deny the existence
> of the Torah, should we not affiliate with those who acknowledge it?
> Whether or not there is even a concept of "ahavat chinam" regarding Jews
> who deny the Torah is open to discussion, but to apply it to those who
> study and observe the Torah?!
>
> David Hamelech said "I am a friend to all who fear You" [14]
> (Tehillim 119:63).  Friendship must first and foremost be with others who
> fear Hashem, despite differing political affiliations.  I am not telling
> you not to be befriend others, but first and foremost come other G-d
> fearing individuals.  It is difficult to tolerate everyone. There may be
> tension between relatives and neighbors, yet we must do our utmost to
> resolve these tensions and feel love for them.  This love begins with
> those closest to us, then other religious Jews, then other Jews.
>
> Avraham Avinu, was first and foremost good to his wife.  We do
> read how he tried to come to the aid of the people of Sodom, he even
> invited three Arabs into his home (I would not recommend doing that today
> for there is no guarantee that they really are angels).  Love for his
> wife, however, came before Sodom.  A story is told of a young man who saw
> a woman carrying two heavy baskets.  Observing the difficulty she was
> having, he ran to assist her, what a tremendous act of "chesed".  As he
> got closer, he realized that she was his wife, whereupon he left her to
> fend for herself.  Similarly, Rav Natan Zvi Finkel, the Sabba M'Slobodka,
> once asked a young man if he helps out at home with the Shabbat
> preparations.  The man responded: "What kind of a question is this, does
> it not say in the Shulchan Aruch that we all must involve ourselves with
> Shabbat preparations?".  The Sabba M'Slobodka responded by asking, would
> he have done so had it not been dictated in the Shulchan Aruch?  Is
> observing a woman working very hard on your behalf not sufficient reason
> to run to her aid?  Before studying the Shulchan Aruch, one must first and
> foremost be a mentch, a human being!
>
> We say in davening:  "whether he is a member of the covenant, or
> whether he is not a member of the covenant ... always be a person" [15].
> The Rav used to quote this and explain that before one worries about the
> distinctions between people, one must first and foremost be a human being.
> Man's task in this world is to cleave to Hashem and emulate His ways.
> Man was created "betzelem Elokim" in the image of G-d and we can work on
> completing this "tzelem".  Physical appearance alone is insufficient, his
> actions must display his G-dly image as well.
>
> The introductory section of the "Tomer Devora" is based upon the
> thirteen attributes of Hashem outlined in the book of Micha: "Who is a G-d
> like You, Who pardons iniquity and overlooks transgression" [16] (Micha
> 7:18).  Prior to describing how man can cleave to these attributes, he
> explains, that man's obligation to do so stems from being created in
> Hashem's image.
>
> The Gemara offers two interpretations to the pasuk: "zeh keli
> ve-anvehu" "this is my G-d and I will beautify Him" (Shmot 15:2).  The
> Tanna Kamma is of the opinion that this refers to having beautiful objects
> of Mitzvah such as nice Tzitzit, Tefillin, Sefer Torah, etc.  Abba Shaul
> is of the opinion that the Torah is telling us to emulate the ways of
> Hashem:  "Be like Him, just as G-d is gracious and compassionate, you also
> should be gracious and compassionate" [17] (Shabbat 133b). The "Tomer
> Devora" explains that these two views are not contradictory.  Abba Shaul
> is bringing a different way of "beautifying Him".  Beauty manifests itself
> in character as well as physical appearance.
>
> The Gemara describes a discourse given by R' Elazar ben Arach on
> the topic of the "maase merkava".  His Rebbe, R' Yochanan ben Zakkai was
> in attendance and his reaction to the shiur was: "There are some who
> preach well but do not act well, others act well but do not preach well,
> but you preach well and act well [18]" (Chagiga 14b). How can we speak of
> preaching and acting well in the context of the "maase merkava".  Had he
> spoken on the laws of Shabbat or Loshon Hara, we could have readily
> understood this.  The "maase merkava" is not just an esoteric subject
> given only to in-depth analysis.  It is in fact a way of life, and thus
> the contents are an integral part of our "tzelem Elokim".  We are not
> capable of understanding just how, but what we do understand about the
> ways of Hashem should be put into action and not just studied.
>
> Yirmiyahu says "Thus said Hashem: 'let not the wise man glorify
> himself with his wisdom, and let not the strong man glorify himself with
> his strength, let not the rich man glorify himself with his wealth'" [19]
> (Yirmiyahu 9:22).  Yirmiyahu tells us how man in fact can glorify himself
> for his wisdom:  "For only with this may one glorify himself -
> contemplating and knowing Me, for I am Hashem Who does kindness, justice
> and righteousness in the land, for in these is My desire, the word of
> Hashem" [20] (ibid. 23).  Wisdom, in the simple sense of the word, is not
> reason for pride.  Wisdom used in pursuit of cleaving to Hashem and
> understanding His ways, however, is reason.
>
> Only man and wife together make up a complete "tzelem Elokim", as
> the Torah tells us:  "He created them male and female.  He blessed them
> and called their name Man on the day they were created" [21] (Bereishit
> 5:2). It is only man and woman together that is referred to as "Adam",
> man, they are the complete "tzelem Elokim".  The love between man and
> woman, if one can speak in such terms symbolizes the love between Hashem
> and the Jewish nation.  Shir HaShirim, describing the love between Hashem
> and His people, is written through the allegory of a love between man and
> woman.
>
> Hashem only gives, He has no reason to take, for there is nothing
> which he lacks.  One who only receives from others distances himself from
> Hashem.  The more one gives, on the other hand, the closer one comes to
> Hashem.  Man by his very nature must take from this world.  From the
> minute a person is born he has a need for air, milk, clothing, and a home.
> Receiving distances us from Hashem, our task is to give as much as we can
> in order to get as close as possible.
>
> I once heard the following idea from Rav Sholom Schwadron z"l.
> There can be two store owners in the same town providing the same service.
> One does so in order to provide for others.  If he gave away all his
> stock, his supply would be depleted and he would not have with what to
> replenish it.  In addition, if he would not be able to feed himself and
> his family, he would be unable to continue serving others.  The other
> owner's only interest is to make a profit.  Simply hanging up a sign that
> he is now available to receive money would not yield any results.  To lure
> people in he must provide them with a service.  Each store owner sells
> fish, meat, challot for Shabbat, and milk.  The former man's desire is to
> give to others, he receives in order to give.  He is drawing nearer to
> Hashem.  The latter, on the other hand is only interested in taking from
> others, he gives in order to take.  Such a person is distancing himself
> from Hashem.
>
> Man and wife can solidify their relationship only when each is
> interested in giving more and more to the other.  My Rebbe HaRav Dessler
> z"l used to counsel a "Chattan" and "Kallah" that if they wish to have a
> long-lasting relationship they must do their utmost to give as much as
> possible to each other.  The same can be said regarding the relationship
> between Hashem and the Jewish people.  Hashem gives to no end, our task is
> to do our utmost to fulfill Hashem's wishes.  Giving to others and doing
> as Hashem wishes serves to strengthen this union, otherwise, G-d forbid,
> the ties will be severed.
>
> Our obligation to the Yeshiva leaves less room for involvement in
> "chesed".  There is room, however, for "chesed" within the Yeshiva.  We
> can begin by trying to befriend the younger "bachurim" or our overseas
> brethren. Chazal tell us: "it is better to show one's white teeth (by
> smiling affectionately) to his friend than to give him a glass of milk"
> [22] (Ketubot 111b).  How are we to understand this adage?  Is it not
> better to provide someone with a nutritious glass of milk than to simply
> smile at him?  The answer is that the effects of a glass of milk do not
> last more than a day or two.  The effects of a smile, however, are
> everlasting.  A simple smile can bring the one on the receiving end closer
> to Hashem.  If one were to enter the Yeshiva and see all the smiling,
> happy faces, one would be more likely to want to study in the Yeshiva and
> provide such an education for his children and grandchildren as well. That
> one smile can produce many years of a life of Torah.  I am not trying to
> say that if someone is in need of a glass of milk we should prevent him
> from having it, but we must keep in mind that the smile is worth much
> more.
>
> On a similar note, Chazal tell us:  "Anyone who gives even a penny
> to a pauper is blessed with six blessings, and one who comforts a pauper
> with words, is blessed with eleven blessings" [23] (Baba Batra 9b).  Such
> a person not only gives of his money to the poor, but his soul as well:
> "vetafek laraev nafshechah" "and offer your soul to the hungry" [24]
> (Yeshayahu 58:10).  My Rebbe HaRav Chaim Shmuelevitz would cite a Gemara
> relating the angel of death's attempt to take the soul of R' Chiya.  R'
> Chiya was so involved in Torah and in providing for others, that the angel
> of death was unable to approach him.  The angel of death decided to dress
> himself up as a poor man approaching R' Chiya asking for a slice of bread.
> R' Chiya complied, to which the angel of death asked him if his compassion
> for the poor is so great, perhaps he should show compassion for the angel
> of death and give him his soul. R' Chiya complied with this request as
> well.  How are we to understand this?  If one is prepared to give someone
> a slice of bread, does that mean he is willing to give his soul?  Can we
> assume that a person willing to give a poor man a few pennies, would be
> willing to give him thousands of dollars? What we learn from this incident
> is that when R' Chiya gave a poor man a slice of bread, it was with his
> entire soul.  It is for this reason that giving to the poor is no
> different than giving away his soul.  When a poor man comes for help, it
> is not enough to give him a slice of bread, we must give from the soul -
> give him a smile.
>
> When Avraham Avinu gave his guests bread, butter, and milk, he
> gave them the opportunity to bless Hashem as well.  Not only "vayita
> eshel" "and he planted an 'eshel'" (explained by Chazal as a guest house)
> [25], but "he proclaimed the Name of Hashem, G-d of the Universe" [26]
> (Bereishit 21:33).  The "chesed" he provided was spiritual as well as
> physical - he provided them with entry into the next world.
>
> Chazal tell us that "maskil leEitan haEzrachi" (Tehillim 89:1)
> refers to Avraham Avinu.  How fitting this psalm is for Avraham.  It
> begins with "Of Hashem's kindness I will sing forever; I will make Your
> faithfulness know to every generations with my mouth" [27] (ibid. 2)
> "For I said: 'forever will Your kindness be built; the heavens, You
> establish Your faithfulness in them'" [28] (ibid. 3).  Acts of kindness
> and faith in Hashem go hand in hand. The kindness and faith are what
> Avraham Avinu provided for his guests.
>
> A smile that costs less than a "lentil stew" [29] (Bereishit
> 25:34), can spread the Torah for generations to come.  A person who smiles
> now has a basket full of Mitzvot to his credit.
>
> Although there are six hundred thirteen Mitzvot, the Mishna tells
> us: "On three things the world stands: on the Torah, on the Temple
> service, and on deeds of lovingkindness" [30] (Pirke Avot 1:2). These
> three represent three ways in which one can become closer to Hashem.
> Study of Torah brings us closer intellectually. We can never reach
> Hashem's level: "As high as the heavens over the earth, so are My ways
> higher than your ways, and My thoughts than your thoughts" [31]
> (Yeshayahyu 55:9).  Chazal tell us that just as one cannot taste the
> fruits of a tall tree unless the fruits fall to the ground, so too the way
> we taste Hashem's wisdom is via the Torah that was brought down to us.
> Each of us can understand the Torah's wisdom, in accordance with our own
> level.  Even Moshe Rabenu, who attained a higher level than anyone else,
> could not reach Hashem's level, for "only G-d understands its way" [32]
> (Iyov 28:23).
>
> The next way to cleave to Hashem is emotionally.  Although the
> Mishna's use of the term "avoda" refers to the service in the Beit
> Hamikdash, in the absence of the Beit Hamikdash we have our prayers.
> Each of us must feel a longing to be sacrificed upon the altar.  Being
> that Hashem does not permit this, animals are offered in our stead.  When
> we daven, we must feel that our conversations with Hashem are as a child
> to a father.  What joy it brings to be able to have a private conversation
> three times a day with the King of kings! This is the feeling we should
> have, not to sit and wonder when the davening will be over.
>
> The final way to cleave to Hashem is to emulate His actions and
> attributes.  This is accomplished through acts of "chesed".  We do not
> truly understand why it is that Hashem created the world, we cannot
> attribute any reason for what He does, for He is above all reason.  Based
> on our finite ability to comprehend, we imaging to ourselves that He
> created the world in order to provide "chesed" for His creations.
>
> Chazal tell us: "The World to Come is not like this world, in the
> World to Come there is no eating, no drinking ... rather, the righteous
> sit with their crowns on their heads and delight in the radiance of the
> Divine Presence" [33] (Brachot 17a). One "delights in the radiance of the
> Divine Presence" by intellectual achievements not possible in this world.
>
> In order to reach this level, we require a vessel with in to
> contain these accomplishments.  In this world, vessels are made from
> earthenware, metal, or wood.  In the next world they are made from our
> soul.  Only a soul filled with good character is capable of receiving the
> G-dly light of the next world.  One lacking such character will sit in the
> next world unable to receive what it has to offer.
>
> Avraham Avinu and Moshe Rabenu are proof that positive character
> traits and humility are the ways in which we can receive the Torah.
> Avraham knew the entire Torah because he considered himself as "dust and
> ash".  It was Moshe Rabenu, the most humble of all men, who was the one
> who had the merit of bringing the Torah down to the Jewish people.  In
> fact, whereas most of us have some of our own character that prevents us
> from fully receiving the Torah, Moshe Rabenu is the "clear glass" [34]
> (Yevamot 49b).  The more "dust and ash" that we feel, the less separation
> there is between ourselves and the Torah, and the more Torah we will be
> able to receive in the next world.
>
> One with a true desire for Torah will not sit and ponder whether
> or not it is worth his while.  Adam HaRishon was forbidden from eating
> from the "etz hadaat tov vara" "the tree of knowledge of good and bad"
> (Berishit 2:9).  Would it have been so terrible if Adam specifically, and
> man in general knew how to differentiate between good and bad.  Does
> Hashem wish that we all remain imbeciles?  The Rambam explains that prior
> to the sin, man knew what was truth and what was falsehood.  After the
> sin, he began to make decisions based on what was good and bad for him. If
> one were to ask a merchant what two times two was, he may tell you that if
> he is buying then it is three, if he is selling then it is five.  He is
> not interested in absolute truth but in what is good and bad for him.
>
> The greatness of Avraham Avinu is that he does not make such
> calculations: "You found his heart faithful before You" [35] (Nehemiah
> 9:8).  Of Moshe Rabenu Hashem says:  "in My entire House he is the trusted
> one" [36] (Bamidbar 12:7), he does what Hashem wishes and not necessarily
> what is good for him.  Such people are able to receive the Torah.  We may
> not be on the level of our forefathers, but our goal must be to reach as
> close to that level as possible.  If this is truly our goal we can merit
> receiving the Torah and the G-dly light of the next world.
> __________________________________________________________________________
>
> APPENDIX (TRANSLITERATIONS OF SOURCES)
>
> [1] "habodek tzarich sheyevatel"
>
> [2] "kol chamira vachamia deika birshutei ... livtel velehavei hefker
>      ke-afra de-ara"
>
> [3] "miDeorayta bitul be-alma sagi lei"
>
> [4] "venafshi ke-afar lakol tihye"
>
> [5] "ad shelo shelo notzarti eini kedai, achshav shenotzarti ke-ilu lo
>      notzarti, afar ani bechayai kal vachomer bemitati"
>
> [6] "ve-anochi afar vaefer"
>
> [7] "chamasi alecha"
>
> [8] "hinei shifchatech beyadech asi la katov be-einaich"
>
> [9] "kol hamoser din al chavero hu ne-enash tchila"
>
> [10] "garesh haama hazot ve-et bna"
>
> [11] "vayera hadavar me-od be-einei Avraham"
>
> [12] "al yera be-einecha al hanaar ve-al amatecha"
>
> [13] "zovchei adam agalim yishakun"
>
> [14] "chaver ani lekol asher yereiucha"
>
> [15] "bein shehu ben brit ubein she-eino ben brit .. leolam yehei adam"
>
> [16] "mi kel kamocha nosei avon ve-over al pesha"
>
> [17] "hevei domei lo, ma hu rachum vechanun af ata hevei rachum vechanun"
>
> [18] "yesh naeh doresh ve-ein naeh mekayem, naeh mekayem ve-eino naeh
>       doresh, ata naeh doresh venaeh mekayem"
>
> [19] "ko amar Hashem al yithalel chacham bechochmato ve-al yithalel
>       hagibor bigvurato al yithalel ashir be-ashro"
>
> [20] "ki im bezot yithalel hamithalel haskel veyadoa oti ki ani Hashem
>       oseh chesed mishpat utzdaka baaretz ki be-ele chafatzti neum Hashem"
>
> [21] "zachar unekeva braam vayevarech otam vayikra et shmam adam beyom
>       hibaram"
>
> [22] "tov hamalbin shinayim lechavero mimashkehu chalav"
>
> [23] "kol hanoten prutah le-ani mitbarech beshesh brachot, vechol
>       hamefayso bidvarim mitbarech be-achad asar brachot"
>
> [24] "vetafek laraev nafshechah"
>
> [25] "vayita eshel"
>
> [26] "vayikra sham beshem Hashem kel olam"
>
> [27] "chasdei Hashem olam ashira ledor vador odia emunatcha befi"
>
> [28] "ki amarti olam chesed yibane shamayim tachin emunatcha bahem"
>
> [29] "nezid adashim"
>
> [30] "al shlosha devarim haolam omed al haTorah, ve-al haavoda, ve-al
>       gemillut chasadim"
>
> [31] "ki gavhu shamayim me-aretz ken gavhu drachai midarecheichem
>       umachshevotai mimachshevoteichem"
>
> [32] "haElokim hevin darka"
>
> [33] "lo kaolam hazeh haolam haba, haolam haba ein bo lo achila ushtia ...
>       ela tzadikkim yoshvin ve-atroteihem berosheihem venehenim miziv
>       haShchina"
>
> [34] "aspaklaria hameiara"
>
> [35] "umatzata et levavo ne-eman lefanecha"
>
> [36] "bechol beiti ne-eman hu"
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
>      This sicha is brought to you by
> Yeshivat Hakotel - The Wohl Torah Center - Old City of Jerusalem, Israel
>               Visit our website at http://www.hakotel.edu
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
> English version
> To subscribe, send email to: subscribe-hk-nebenzahl@vjlists.com
> To unsubscribe, send email to: unsubscribe-hk-nebenzahl@vjlists.com
>
> Hebrew version
> To subscribe, send email to: subscribe-hk-hnebenzahl@vjlists.com
> To unsubscribe, send email to: unsubscribe-hk-hnebenzahl@vjlists.com
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
> The HaRav Nebenzahl parsha archives can be found at
> http://www.hakotel.edu/torah/rn.html
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
> Also try:
> HaRav Podolsky on the parsha (subscribe-hk-podolsky@vjlists.com)
> HaRav Steinberger on the rambam (subscribe-hk-rambam@vjlists.com)
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
> (C) 5760/1999 by American Friends of Yeshivat Hakotel
> The information published here is protected under international copyright
> law. You are welcome to copy or print (intact) copies of this information
> for personal use only. You may also send (intact) copies to other people -
> whom you personally know - without prior permission. All other forms of
> reproduction or republishing are prohibited without prior written
> permission from the copyright owner(s). Such permission is usually given
> freely, but must be obtained.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Robert A. Miller
> TAFA Material Technologies, Inc.
> 1702 Mykawa Road
> Pearland TX 77581 USA
> PHONE: 281-485-7765
> FAX:   281-485-0211
> EMAIL: miller@tafa.com
>
>
>
>

Just a quick answer to Reuven Millers posting on Kri Ktiv

As I already indicated there is an explicit Minchat shai which goes
thru all the alleged verses that Chazal changed and shows this
is not the case.

If someone really wants the reference I will look it up and
post it

Russell
___________________________________________________________________
Get the Internet just the way you want it.
Free software, free e-mail, and free Internet access for a month!
Try Juno Web: http://dl.www.juno.com/dynoget/tagj.

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


[ 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         ]