Avodah Mailing List

Volume 05 : Number 110

Tuesday, August 29 2000

• Tefillos for non Cholim, (was Areivim: surgery update)
• Re: Weddings in shul
• combing hair
• [none]
• Re: Hashesu'ah
• Re: Boneh/Boney Yerushalaim
• Re: Boneh/Boney Yerushalaim
• Re: Feelings...nothing more than feelings...
• Hashesu'ah
• Re: Boneh/Boney Yerushalaim
• Re: Hashesu'ah
• Re: electric eye?
• "Viyis-haleil" in Kaddish
• Re: Feelings...nothing more than feelings...

From: "Mrs. Gila Atwood  Subject: Re: surgery update
>> And I have also heard asked: Why is there no Tefilla in
>> the SE for our children to be Yerei Shomayim?

> ...HaKol bidei shamayim chutz meyiras shama'im....

======

From: Gershon Dubin
>> ....However, although there is a Tefilla for Refuos for the unwell
>> - why isn't there one for those who are BH feeling
>> well and wish to continue being so?

>         Tefilos in the form of bakashos are for needs.  Birchas hahoda'ah
> covers thanks for "chayenu hamesurim beyadecha".  Asher yotzar covers this
> more specifically,  but not as part of S"E.

I appreciate all that. But why isn't their a Bakosho in the SE
for something as important as our continued health and wellbeing?

> ... Again, not in S"E,  but in birchos haTorah: "venih'ye anachnu..
> yod'ei Shemecha..."

Ditto.

> Subquestion:  why is this not included in "hakol bidei Shamaim chutz
> miyiras Shamaim?

Maybe it is. However we do say such a Bakosho on our own behalf:
"Hashivenu...V'Korvenu Malkenu L'avodosecho, V'Hachzirenu
B'S'shuvo Shleimo Lefonecho.." (which possibly refers to the
Posuk Hashivenu Hashem Elecho...) on which one may ask the same question.

OTOH (this occured to me as I write) maybe the reason that this (and all
the other Bakoshos in SE are in Loshon Rabbim (HashivenU/vhachzirenU)
and not B'loshon Yochid (HashivenI) to include both us and our families.
Efsher.

From: Micha Berger
> ... the question is whether the chayim provides the yir'as Shamayim (YS),
> or the individual does. IOW, what are we asking for, that Hashem give us YS,
> or that He give us lives that aim us toward YS?

> In the first bakashah, where we are asking for YS directly, we can only ask
> for the latter. There is no direct hishtadlus for YS -- hakol biydei Shamayim
> chutz miYS.

> In the second, we are asking for a love of Torah and of YS; not YS itself,
> but a love of it. Therefore we can ask for more direct hishtadlus.

My friend Rav Shimon Opman has referred me to Rashi on Parshas Lech-Lecho
on the posuk (17:18 where Avrohom Ovinu begs Hashem): "Lu Yishmoel
Yichyeh Lefonecho".

Rashi explains "Yichyeh B'yirosecho..." AO was requesting that Yishmoel
be a Yerei Shomayim. (The source is Targum Yonoson).

And what do we see- 2 psukim later - Hashem answers him on this request:
"...Hineh Berachti Osoh Vehifresi Osoh V'hirbesi Osoh etc etc." Plenty
of brochos for his Yishmoel's Gashmiyus - but not a word about his
Yiras Shomayim...

RSO showed me a pshat on this from the Gorlitzer Rov zt"l (brought in
the sefer Ateres Chaim) who also asks, how could AO ask that Yishmoel
be a YS, after all - Hakol Biydei Shomaim..?

He answers (maybe this is what RMB was mechaven), that AO's request
was that Yishmoel should have no excuse for lack of YS - by the fact
that Hashem provide him with all his needs and necessities - Boneh,
Chayeh, Mezoneh - the want of of which often can cause a person not to
concentrate on his YS.

So the response of Hashem re Yishmoel: "Hineh Berachti Osoh v"hifres
osoh etc." answered AO's request.

V'al pi zeh we now have another pshat in Chaim Sheyesh Bohem Yiras
Shomyaim (again, similar to RMB above ?) - we are not asking that Hashem
makes us YS, but rather that he gives us all our needs so that we have
no holdbacks on becoming YS.

And after some further thought about the second mention "Sh'thei Bonu
Ahavas Torah v'YS (v'ayin RMB above) - maybe the request is that we
should have a love for Torah - ie Bnei Torah/Talmidei Chachomim and a
love for Tsadikim (Yerei Shomayim).

BTW I saw a pshat on this today from the Baal Torah Temima saying that
the request here is that we should combine Torah with YS - unlike those
who consider Torah to be a Chochma like other chochmos...

SHLOMO B ABELES
mailto:sba@blaze.net.au

Micha Berger wrote in Aovodah V5 #107:
> OTOH, R' Dovid Lifshitz made sure I would not choose a shul as the venue for
> our chasunah before accepting to be mesadeir kiddushin.  I don't know, 
> though, that bidi'eved he would have declined.

I think he would have declined. R. Dovid, zt"l, was mesader kiddushin
for a friend and insisted that it not be held in a shul-- otherwise he
would NOT attend. The wedding was held in a gym. In addition, he did
not attend my wedding which was held in a shul until AFTER the chuppah.
By the way, R. Soloveitchik, zt"l was mesader kiddushin.

Mark Dratch

I am posting for a friend, Stu Fishman.

the gemara in Nazir 42 specifically refers to nimin hameduldalin and
not to pulling hair out of the follicle (which is not meduldal).

Dear Avodah,

I've seen several questions about healthy people praying for continued
health. I would recommend seeing the Gemara in Shabbat 32a (which is
quoted in Torat Ha'Adam).

Sincerely. Stuart Fischman

In a message dated 8/25/00 4:35:38 PM EDT, sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu writes:
>> Does anyone have any information about the behayma temaya "Hashesu'ah"
>> mentioned in Rashi in this week's parsha (Devorim 14:7) "sh'yesh loh shnay
>> gabin u'shnay shedro'os"? I heard that this animal has been identified.

>  In my kids' Chumash it is identified as the double-humped camel 
>  (domedary?). Neat, huh?

The Sichas Chulin on Chulin 60 takes him to task on it, and says that
the Rambam rules that it has Simonei Kashrus, (it is understod as some
kind of siamese twin).

Kol Tuv
Yitzchok Zirkind

In a message dated 8/25/00 12:26:44 PM EDT, micha@aishdas.org recounts our
on and off list discussion on this topic, I would like to clarify my position.

Gil.Student@citicorp.com wrote to Avodah:
>> Rabbi Mordechai Cohen, professor of Bible at YU, told me that there is no
>> present tense in biblical Hebrew.  It is due to the influence of modern
>> hebrew that consider adjectives to be present tense verbs. 
 
On Wed, Aug 16, 2000 at 08:30:36PM -0400, Yzkd@aol.com replied:
>: A few of the questions that come to mind:
>: Breishis 13:5 "HaHoleich"
>: Breishis 23:10 Rashi D"H Vefron Yoshav
>: Breishis 24:62 "Boh Miboi"
>: Breishis 29:6 Rashi D"H Ba'ah Im Hatzoin

At this point in the conversation I was totaly puzzled as the original
poster seemed to indicate that there is no Hoveh in Loshon Hakodesh,
as this was supposed to answer the question why Dovid HO"H says Asher
Lo Holach in the past vs. the present, all of the above quotes were
to show a Hoveh in LH"K, however in further posts, it was clarified
that the issue is as in subject title WRT Hoveh and Shem Davar, hence
I brought the latter 2 Rashi's (also we discussed a 3rd Ukdilhalon).

WRT to the citation of Breishis 24:62 "Boh Miboi" RMB writes:

> This was the only one of the mekoros you cited that really proves that
> Rashi holds that lashon hoveh is different than sheim hapo'al. "Mibo"
> could be treated as "from coming" or "from being one-who-comes". However,
> "boh" becomes more difficult as a noun. It is much simpler to
> say that Yitzchak was coming [back] from coming to Be'eir Lachai
> Ro'i. Alternatively, we would have to say that Yitzchak was one who was
> coming from "being one who was coming to BLR"? But that's a state of
> being, not a location.

Actualy I did not originaly bring it as proof for Hoveh vs. Shem Davar, as 
Rashi's Shita in this being a Shem Davar is not so clear see Rashi Breishis 
10:19 D"H Boacha, 

However the following sources seem to indicate that a "Taam Lmaloh" indicates 
a Shem Davar vs. "Taam Lmata" which indicates an adjactive.

> RYZKD, in private email, cited Rashi on Shemos 30:25. Rashi comments
> that "roKEI'ach" is a sheim davar. He is saying that the pasuk means
> "made by a grinder" not "made through grinding".

Rashi's "Hochocha" is from the fact that the Taam is Lmalah.


That is also how I understand the Rashi on Loteish (Breishis 4:22) that
explains the word Choreish as a Poeil and not a Shem Davar based on the
fact that it is written with a Tzeirei and the Taam is Lmatah, had it
been written with a Segol and Taam Lmaloh it would have been a Shem Davar,
see Gur Aryei who says that this distinction is know Bdikduk Haloshon.

A third example I brought is the Possuk Breishis 12:9 "Holoich Vnosoia",
(vs. Hoileich).

Kol Tuv
Yitzchok Zirkind

On Sun, Aug 27, 2000 at 03:53:13PM -0400, Yzkd@aol.com wrote:
: At this point in the conversation I was totaly puzzled as the original
: poster seemed to indicate that there is no Hoveh in Loshon Hakodesh,
: as this was supposed to answer the question why Dovid HO"H says Asher
: Lo Holach ...

Actually, I mentioned the ambiguity because I thought it indicated
something about how one views the world. Usually we think of the
world of a collection of objects to which events occur, and because
of those events, those objects relate to one another.

Only after I mentioned the ambiguity -- which I saw as an equivalence
-- did R' Gil Student quote R' Mordechai Cohen giving the liguists'
consensus: that sheim hapo'al is primary and lashon hoveh a later use
of that binyan.

So, returning to my haskafic observation: we see that the relationship
between two objects is primary, and that is used to name the objects
and let imply the existance of the event.

And so, lashon hakodesh speaks of someone being a builder -- IOW,
the relationship between the person and the building, as opposed to
discussing the act of building itself.

I found this perspective a hard one to assume, but a logical aspect of
a language that was written by One who is lima'alah min hazman.

The question of "asher lo halach" was introduced as the topic of RGS's
d'var Torah -- one which we never learned the body of. I therefore can't
comment about how RMC's he'arah relates to that pasuk. For all I know,
RMC was bringing a she'ailah on RGS.

: WRT to the citation of Breishis 24:62 "Boh Miboi" RMB writes:
...
: Actualy I did not originaly bring it as proof for Hoveh vs. Shem Davar, as 
: Rashi's Shita in this being a Shem Davar is not so clear see Rashi Breishis 
: 10:19 D"H Boacha, 

: However the following sources seem to indicate that a "Taam Lmaloh" indicates 
: a Shem Davar vs. "Taam Lmata" which indicates an adjective.

But the question of sheim davar vs. adjective isn't the same as whether
the sheim davar was used for hoveh. RMC's shitah is that instead of lashon
hoveh the pasuk would say that some noun qualified for some sheim davar.

Which, now that you've gotten me to be more clear on the difference
between shemei davar and adjectives, would be a better explanation of
what I said about rokei'ach:
:> RYZKD, in private email, cited Rashi on Shemos 30:25. Rashi comments
:> that "roKEI'ach" is a sheim davar. He is saying that the pasuk means
:> "made by a grinder" not "made through grinding".

: That is also how I understand the Rashi on Loteish (Breishis 4:22) that
: explains the word Choreish as a Poeil and not a Shem Davar...

It's still a sheim po'el, not an event described bilashon hoveh.

This weakens my philosophical point, as it distinguishes between events
and relationships, and says that the pasuk here is speaking about the
event.

However, it doesn't address RMC's shitah, as Rashi isn't insisting that
the usage is hoveh.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 When you come to a place of darkness,
micha@aishdas.org            you do not chase out the darkness with a broom.
http://www.aishdas.org       You light a candle.
(973) 916-0287                  - R' Yekusiel Halbserstam of Klausenberg zt"l

On Fri, Aug 25, 2000 at 01:45:14PM -0700, Harry Maryles wrote:
:                                                        The more perfect
: one is in fulfilling the Mitzvos at the highest level, the more Temimusdik
: one becomes. This has nothing to do with emotions, IMHO. Perfection
: equals doing G-d's will to the utmost of one's natural ability.

This is the point on which we disagree. I assume temimus involves the
entire self -- including emotional reactions. Therefore, part of temimus
means a certain emotional state.

For that matter, I think that lima'aseh one couldn't acheive your kind
of temimus without "aseih retzono kirtzoncha" (Avos 2:4) -- which is
one kind of emotional readjustment.

:                             Emotions are often uncontrollable. To say
: that an uncontrollable occurance is the goal of Yahadus seems to me not
: the likely will of an Omnipotent G-d.

The Rambam (Yesodei haTorah 2:2) discusses how to acheive ahavas Hashem
via ma'aseh. We also have his discussion of Teshuvah -- another emotional
state -- where (Teshuvah 1:1) he phrases the chiyuv as being one of vidui
(!). Again, we are mechuyav in a ma'aseh with the intent of changing
attitude.

:                                              The emotional component
: is only relevant as an aid to Kavana and has no other relavence,
: in my mind. If we feel joy in fulfilling the Mitzvah... fine, but no
: extra credit is due one who feels that way. The Mitzvah's execution is
: the point.

Very Brisker -- the mitzvah is its own point. But it's a non-answer, as
it is circular.

:> According to the Rambam, the key is deveikus through yedi'ah. And "ratzah
:> HKBH lizakos es Yisrael, lifichach hirbah lahem Torah umitzvos" to give
:> plenty of opportunities to have an epiphany and gain that yedi'ah.

: Does the Rambam speak of D'veikus?

He speaks of yichud hayodei'ah vihayidu'ah, and the centrality of yedi'as
Hashem (see Moreh 3:51). I would suggest that this is an intellectual
deveikus -- the ikkar is to clear to Hashem, but the means is yedi'ah,
not an emotional bond.

In either case, lishitaso, the tachlis of "hirbah lahem Torah umitzvos"
(see Peirush haMishnayos sham) is to have many opportunities to gain
that yedi'ah. And, as we see in Yesodei haTorah, the Rambam literally
holds that to know Him is to love Him -- da'as is da'as, after all. IOW,
the point of the mitzvah ma'asis is to make a change in the person's
intellect. At least a consequence of that change, if not the tachlis, is
a change in emotional stance.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 When you come to a place of darkness,
micha@aishdas.org            you do not chase out the darkness with a broom.
http://www.aishdas.org       You light a candle.
(973) 916-0287                  - R' Yekusiel Halbserstam of Klausenberg zt"l

RYGB wrote:
> In my kids' Chumash it is identified as the double-humped camel. Neat,
> huh?

Sefer Sichas Chullin (the one with the great pictures) on Chullin daf 59
or 60, rejects the two humped bactrian camel definition because it does
not have two spines. He leans towards a Siamese twin deformed animal
definition, at least according to Rav-- see the machlokes Rav and Shmuel
in Niddah 24a whether shesu'ah can survive outside of the womb--yet the
gemorah (there according to Shmuel?) in Chullin 60b calls it a "beria
bifnei atzmoh" which may indicate a distinct species.

KT
Avrohom Weidberg

RM Berger wrote:
: The question of "asher lo halach" was introduced as the topic of RGS's 
: d'var Torah -- one which we never learned the body of. I therefore 
: can't comment about how RMC's he'arah relates to that pasuk. For all I 
: know, RMC was bringing a she'ailah on RGS.

Correct. RM Cohen was asking a kashya on my devar Torah. The devar Torah
started with the question why the pasuk uses lashon avar instead of hoveh.
RM Cohen then pointed out that there is no hoveh in biblical Hebrew.
From what I understood from RY Zirkind's comments was that the question
could then be reworded into why did the pasuk uses lashon avar instead
of a shem hapo'al. Fair enough.

Gil Student

On Fri, Aug 25, 2000 at 03:46:26PM -0400, Edward Weidberg wrote:
: Does anyone have any information about the behayma temaya "Hashesu'ah"
: mentioned in Rashi in this week's parsha (Devorim 14:7) "sh'yesh loh shnay
: gabin u'shnay shedro'os"? I heard that this animal has been identified.

Why is "hashesu'ah" considered a member of the list? Every other beheimah
timei'ah listed is prefaced with "es" or "vi'es", only the taharos are
listed without "es". What would otherwise be the first animal in the
list is "es hagamal", the only item without the vav hachibur. I would
therefore have though that "hashesu'ah" is part of the description of
simanim, and not in the list. It also better fits the trop to group it
with "shosa'as shesa" and not with "es hagamal".

This is how the Rambam apparantly reads the pasuk. He ends his quote
of the simanim after "hash-su'ah" (Ma'achalos Asuros 1:6). However,
he still holds like R' Chana bar Rabba. Shesu'ah does refer to two
shedros but not as a min, rather as a shinui haberios. A mum (in the
non-technical sense) that would render the animal temei'ah. As would
a beheimah that looks like an owf.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 When you come to a place of darkness,
micha@aishdas.org            you do not chase out the darkness with a broom.
http://www.aishdas.org       You light a candle.
(973) 916-0287                  - R' Yekusiel Halbserstam of Klausenberg zt"l

> An important heter based on the fact that you count each action
> separately is in regard to electric eyes. ...

R' Gil S comments:
> I think that the heter used is that this is a pesik reisha delo
> nicha leih bederabbanan which does not work for incandescent lights.
> Rav Chaim Soloveitchik held like the Aruch that pesik reisha delo nicha
> leih is permissible and that would include incandescent lights.

As R' mi- has pointed out indirectly, the subject is not electric eyes
but infrared detection that turns on yard lights.

I don't think that RGS is suggesting that the incandescent lamp is
derabbanan. The infrared detector itself might be considered derabbanan.

Rabbi Halperin of the Institute for Science and Halakha has written on
this. On one hand, the addition of light to the sidewalk where you are
walking could be considered nicha lei, an aid to walking. On the other
hand, it is usually not needed to enable safe walking. Also, as the
range of the detectors is limited, only in few cases is walking on the
street close enough to make it a pesik reishei. And it is lo mitkaven.
Of course, if one knows where these "danger points" are, one should avoid
them, at least to the far edge of the sidewalk or a sufficient distance
that it as not a pesik reisha.

biv'rakha,
David

I was told in private email that RYBS followed the Gra's nusach in not
saying Viyis-halel in Kaddish.

Anyone know why? (And does anyone remember RYBS saying or not saying it?)

-mi

In a message dated 8/28/2000 6:34:52am PDT, micha@aishdas.org writes:
> In either case, lishitaso, the tachlis of "hirbah lahem Torah umitzvos"
> (see Peirush haMishnayos sham) is to have many opportunities to gain
> that yedi'ah. And, as we see in Yesodei haTorah, the Rambam literally
> holds that to know Him is to love Him -- da'as is da'as, after all. IOW,
> the point of the mitzvah ma'asis is to make a change in the person's
> intellect. At least a consequence of that change, if not the tachlis, is
> a change in emotional stance.

To know Him is to love Him is not an intellectual stance. Nor it is an 
emotional stance, strictly speaking. 

It's like anthropomorphism. We know HaShem is not limited by humanoid 
physical or psychological properties, but human language (and cognition) 
isn't particularly sophisticated, and we're stuck with saying things like, 
"HaShem spoke," "HaShem thought," or "HaShem saw." We're similarly stuck with 
indefinable terms like kavannah, deveikus, and da'as to describe the 
indescribable states of being to which we are elevated by when we establish 
connections with HaShem, either through the practice of mitzvot or through 
other derivative exercises in spirituality. All of these terms are relative 
and self-defining. They have no instrinsic meaning. To argue over them is a 
vanity.

David Finch

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


[ 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         ]