Avodah Mailing List

Volume 05 : Number 111

Wednesday, August 30 2000

• Re: Feelings...nothing more than feelings...
• Yishallal in qaddish
• Re: Hashesu'ah
• Re: Feelings...nothing more than feelings...
• defining the word "sh'sua"
• Re: Boneh/Boney Yerushalaim
• Two halachic subtleties
• From "Shaarei Tshuvah"
• Clarification on Minhag Chabad
• Re: Feelings...nothing more than feelings...
• Re: Feelings...nothing more than feelings...
• Re: Avodah V5 #108

On Tue, Aug 29, 2000 at 09:55:20AM -0400, DFinchPC@aol.com wrote:
: To know Him is to love Him is not an intellectual stance. Nor it is an 
: emotional stance, strictly speaking. 

: It's like anthropomorphism....

No it's not. We're speaking of human emotions -- which are we obligated
to try to engender. There is no reason to resort to metaphor, as most
of us have experienced these emotions first-hand -- if not r"l WRT HKBH,
at least in other contexts.

Kavanah, d'veikus and da'as may not be definable into English. But not
because they're incomprehensible. Just because English was shaped by
something other than the Jewish traditional worldview. Its pigeonholes
may not match our concepts too well.

(Okay, I'll back off on d'veikus, as it may mean a mystical attachment
rather than an experiential one.)

So, to put it less cliched than last time: The Rambam (Yesodei haTorah
2:1-2) holds that the key to fulfilling ahavas and yir'as Hashem is to
study and gain some measure of yedi'as Hashem. Such yedi'ah leads to
machshavah and hakarah.

Note though, that the Rambam takes the mental states of ahavah and yir'ah
and turns them into a chiyuv to study -- an action. While the chiyuv is
bipo'al, the point of the po'al is a mental state.

-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

Regarding veyishallal in qaddish:

What you were told is completely correct, RYBS never said it, following
the Gra. The Tur (O'H, 56) quotes R. Amram Gaon as saying some say
"veyisqalles" (not veyishallal) and some don't. He explains that all agree
that there should be only 7 leshonos, corresponding to the 7 reqi'im,
and those who say it think that since we answered amen after yishtabah
(as was the custom in the time of the Geonim, see the Tur there and
the Rambam), it is not one of the count. That implies that those who
do not answer amen after yishtabah should not say it, and that was
the Vilner Gaon's reasoning. The current American "yeshiva minhag"
is very careful to follow the Gra on saying "yisgaddel" (as opposed
to minhag of kelal Yisroel up until that time of saying "yisgaddal"),
but is generally unaware of the issue of veyishallal. I know they are
two separate issues, and "yisgaddel" is based on Rashi in Sota and his
followers about it being Hebrew and not Aramaic. But the Gra was the one
who changed both of them, I have looked in older siddurim and all had
yisgaddal, and Sefaradim and Teimanim say that till today. So my point
is that it is strange that people make a point of the tsere, but are not
aware that the other is even a question, even though the Tur brings it.

Seth Mandel

I wrote:
: 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[n] bar Rabba....

For those who asked for the citation, Rashi's makor is R' Chanan bar
Rabba on Chullin 60b.

(I hadn't noticed when I wrote this that no one else cited the Gemara
that Rashi is quoting.)

-mi

In a message dated 8/29/2000 7:34:54am PDT, micha@aishdas.org writes:
> Kavanah, d'veikus and da'as may not be definable into English. But not
> because they're incomprehensible. Just because English was shaped by
> something other than the Jewish traditional worldview. Its pigeonholes
> may not match our concepts too well.

The pigeonholes of Hebrew and Aramaic might better match Judaic concepts,
certainly. But the pigeonholes of *any* language cannot match or even
attempt to describe the elevated states available to man when man
transcends to a closer relationship with HaShem. That's the point of
it all, right? What a nightmare it would be if in this world we were
limited to spiritual states that can be described by human words!

Anyhow, Judaic pigeonholes are a snare and a delusion. They've done more
harm to our people than the Nazis.

David Finch

Dear "Avodah",

In issue 109 I saw a discussion of what The "sh'sua" mentioned in Devarim
14-7 is. I would like to point out that in both the book "Sichat Chullin"
to Chullin(60b and see note 18 there) and in "Mazon Kasher Min Hachai"
(page 273) the sh'sua is defined as an animal with a deformity similar
to what we refer to as Siamese twins.

Thank-you,
Stuart Fischman

[As per the Rambam. -mi]

In a message dated 8/28/00 9:34:40am EDT, micha@aishdas.org writes:
>: 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.

As I see it Rashi is clear on the Difference between Hoiveh and Shem
Davar, a Shem Davar would be Loitesh (as the Gur Aryei writes Mfurosh)
this is frther found in Rashi Breishis 41:35 D"H Es Kol Oichel, a Hoiveh
has a Taam Lmatoh see also Rashi Breishis 15:17 D"H Vhinei Tanur Oshein.

Additional Hoiveh in Rashi see Bamidbar 25:17, Dvorim 1:16 (as an aside
see Rashi D"H Oz Yoshir Shmois 15:1)

So Bnidun Didan it would seem Boneh would be a builder, Bonei would be
one who builds, and see Breishis 4:17 "Boineh" Ir.

Kol Tuv
Yitzchok Zirkind

1-

We were discussing earlier in the thread "birkhat hagomel" about the four
categories of danger that require gomel, their derivation from Tehillim,
and the Gra's association of those dangers with yetzi'as Mitzrayim.

I just found out (Igros Moshe O"Ch 2:59) that R' Moshe holds that the ikkar
of sefinah isn't crossing the sea but not being on land. Which is why
he holds that an air flight requires gomel even without crossing the
sea or desert.

IOW, gomel isn't about being in danger, but not having one's normal
providers of security. Which would explain why we would bench gomel
even when airflight is safe.



2-

Orlah isn't a mitzvah hatuluyah ba'aretz! Kiddushin 37a states that any
mitzvah hateluyah ba'aretz is only chal in E"Y (based on Devarim 12:1).

So, if orlah's ta'am hamitzvah isn't land-related, what is it?


-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

    I've been invited to present material from Shaarei Tshuvah for Elul.  I 
decided to offer what Rabbeinu Yonah suggests are the six instances in which 
we're likely to be moved to tshuvah (part 2), and to present them a week at a 
time.  That will take us through Asseres Y'mai Tshuvah, and will hopefully 
inspire us all to do true tshuvah.
    This material is based on my new translation with comments to Shaarei 
Tshuvah ("The Gates of Repentance", Jason Aronson Publishers).

    There are six instances in which you’re likely to be moved to tshuvah, 
Rabbeinu Yonah declares.  Six cirumstances or stages in life that are likely 
to attune you to tshuvah.  Should we just wait for "the right moment" then?  
RY advises that we'd do well to try to do tshuvah every day.  But how, if 
we're thrust in the middle of a pedestrian, less than inspiring moment?  By 
remembering G-d's presence (¶1). 
    Here then is the first of those six propitious instances: 
    *When afflictions strike*
    The first question that arises under such circumstances is, "Why me?".  
RY advises that we're to realize that it was our sins that brought on 
afflictions, and to use the moment to return to G-d (¶2). 
    Expanding on the idea of afflictions, RY suggests that we also realize 
that G-d only chastises us (i.e., afflicts us) to either forgive us or move 
us to tshuvah (¶3). 
    RY offers then that we're to rejoice in our afflictions, actually-- when 
we improve ourselves as a consequence of them (¶4). 
    We're counseled to trust in G-d in all instances, though, and hope that 
our affliction will serve a good end; fast, do tshuvah in fact, pray, and 
know that suffering increases our ultimate reward (and here's the rub)-- if 
we purify ourselves as a consequence (¶5). 
    The same holds true of doing tshuvah and whole heartedly returning to G-d 
on the day of death.  Though it's not as effective as other instances of 
tshuvah, RY suggests, it's nonetheless certainly effective (¶6).

    -- Yaakov Feldman
    Please join us for our detailed, slow study of Derech Hashem ("The Way of 
G-d") at    www.egroups.com/group/luzzatto

In a previous post I wrote:
> Chabad says Lshana Tova Tikoseiv Vsichoseim even to Nkeivois (vs. Tikoseivee 
> Vseichoseimee), 

While my source for this is M'pi Hashmuoh, I was alerted off list by a
distinguished lurker that this is not recorded in the Sifrei Minhogei Chabad.

Kol Tuv
Yitzchok Zirkind

On Tue, Aug 29, 2000 at 01:57:21PM -0400, DFinchPC@aol.com wrote:
: The pigeonholes of Hebrew and Aramaic might better match Judaic concepts,
: certainly. But the pigeonholes of *any* language cannot match or even
: attempt to describe the elevated states available to man when man
: transcends to a closer relationship with HaShem.

What does this have to do with the matter at hand? Are you arguing that
people don't experience yedi'ah, hakarah and ahavah often enough to
know what the words mean? Or are you assuming that the Rambam (of all
people) meant something mystical when he said "ahavas Hashem" and that
the expression has little to do with the word "ahavah" as normally used?

: Anyhow, Judaic pigeonholes are a snare and a delusion. They've done more
: harm to our people than the Nazis.

Pigeonholing people, perhaps. But without putting ideas into pigeonholes
there is no concept of "word", and therefore no speech and no text!

To give you an idea of what I mean: a shulchan is a table. However, to an
English speaker, the concept "table" may not include desks. The choice
of language means that real-world ideas are grouped differently. We need
to be able to group real objects and ideas, because words (with the
possible exception of proper names) refer to these groups. Every word is
therefore a pigeonhole.

-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

In a message dated 8/30/2000 5:33:15am PDT, micha@aishdas.org writes:
> Every word is therefore a pigeonhole.

That's the problem. Most linguists would agree that words don't
merely describe or convey thought, they *create* thought. Transcendent
experiences are "transcendent" because they transcend words, and are
thus incapable of complete description in any language.

Look at this this way: A pigeonhole is a box. As we draw closer to HaShem,
we want to think and feel out of the box. The effort to create lots of
little linguistic pigeonholes to describe the subtleties of transcendent
thought and feeling is, by definition, doomed to failure.

The point of all of this? HaShem created mysteries in the universe. Some
of the mysteries are mysterious because we're stuck using words.

David Finch

>        you know davka that by stepping in front of a particular house shabbos
>night you are turning on a sensor -- walking in front of that house is no
>different than you walking through your front door if you forgot to disable
>your sensor before shabbos.

In the walking through a front door you are doing a ma'aseh - by moving the 
door - I do not know how walking in front of an invisible beam of electrons 
can be considered a ma'aseh, certainly not more than a d'rabbonon.

KT
YGB

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


[ 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         ]