Avodah Mailing List

Volume 05 : Number 126

Wednesday, September 20 2000

• Re: Vicarious Atonement
• Re: harugei malkhut
• Re: Separation or Synthesis?
• Re: Hagbeh/Orur Asher Lo Yokum es Divrei Hatorah Hazos
• RE: Avodah V5 #125
• Re: "Shaarei Tshuvah" 3
• Re: Hodaah
• Re: Hagbeh/Orur Asher Lo Yokum es Divrei Hatorah Hazos
• Re: RO"Y and Minhag E"Y
• Re: nishtanu hatevaim
• Next Shemittah is De'oraisa?
• Re: harugei malkhut
• Re: Separation or Synthesis?
• Re: From "Shaarei Tshuvah"
• A Difference in Perspective
• Re: Separation or Synthesis?
• Nedarim 34a
• Hagbeh/Orur Asher Lo Yokum es Divrei Hatorah Hazos
• Hagbeh/Orur Asher Lo Yokum es Divrei Hatorah Hazos
• Re: Separation or Synthesis?
• hagba'ah
• re:Nishtana Hateva
• Seeing over Hearing
• Re: Separation or Synthesis?
• Re: Seeing over Hearing

In a message dated 9/19/00 11:31:26am EDT, Gil.Student@citicorp.com writes:
> Why does the gemara specifically mention tzadikim? Because the loss
> of a tzadik is a greater punishment than the loss of an average person
> so it brings the tzibbur much closer to receiving their full punishment
> and therefore to kaparah.

Bpashtus as it was there duty to make sure it doesn't happen, see also Rashi 
D"H Va'asimeim Dvorim 1:13 (Al Derech Kohein Godol and Rotzeiach see Rashi 
D"H Ad Mois Hakohein Hagodol Bamidbar 35:25).

Kol Tuv, KVCT,
Yitzchok Zirkind

Several footnotes...
The German custom is to OMIT the kinah Arzei Halevonon on Tisha b'av.
I have not found out the reason or the source, but afaik it is there
in the Roedelheim kinos but skipped - even by congregations that skip
nothing else...

The Roedelheim Machzor contains the slicha of Eileh Ezkarah on
YK. However, it is in Mincha - instead of Mussaf - as a "Chatanu
Tzurienu" Piyyut. Also several stanzas - while printed - are omitted. The
Shatz begins with Tihar R. Yishmoel and the last few stanzas are in
small print and are omitted...

Regards,
Rich Wolpoe
pmsrxw@ibivm.ibi.com

Historically there have been two perceptions of time.

The first is cyclical time. This is the position of Dor haHaflagah, or the
Aztec calendar, or Zen (as per RRW), or most ancient people. History repeats
itself endlessly; every so many years another mabul.

The second, which was really a gift Yahadus gave the world, is that of
linear time. A causal chain from Ma'aseh Bereishis until yemos hamoshiach.
Or, alternatively, a chain of purpose starting in the Final Tachlis
explaining the step before it, and so on, working its way back to being
the reason for Bereishis. (See <http://www.aishdas.org/asp/tikanta.html>
or email "view asp/tikanta.html" to <gabbai@aishdas.org>.)

The latter alone, though, is also flawed. Things don't linearly progress
just because technology does. While we may be on the shoulders of giants,
we're still midgets. The Adam II of galus Edom seems to think that if
technology progresses, everything else does.

Yahadus really presents the two views as a dialectic.

On the one hand, the shanah (note the shoresh) stresses repetition. Hayom
haras olam to reliving the Succah, Chanukah, Purim, to lir'os es atzmo
ke'ilu hu atzmo yatza miMitzrayim, the "hayom" of matan Torah, reliving
the crying of the meraglim's audience. Mo'adim, repeated appointements.

OTOH, yomim indicate growth and progress. See Rashi on Breishis 47:8.
Compare to "yam", a sea-bed, which hold the sea. A day, while itself
marked by a repetitive clock-tick of the sun, is measured by its
potential, not its repetition.

-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 09/19/2000 5:10:42pm EDT, gdubin@loebandtroper.com writes:
>    One more:  that the people who are oleh to hagba'ah and gelila
> should follow the sefer to the Aron.  (As should anyone else in the
> vicinity.)

If everyone does it, it can be impossible or a lot of elbowing if you want to 
chop it.  If no one does it it looks like yuhara if you do?  Any suggestions?

KVCT
Joel Rich

From: Yzkd@aol.com
> What does the prayer of Musaf on Yom Kippur have to do with 
> debunking xian belief,

On Yom Kippur we are atoning for our sins.  Therefore, it is important for
us to understand what "our" sins are (i.e., not our parents' sins, unless we
repeat them).  Especially if one believes that R. Elazar HaKalir lived in
tannaitic times (which I don't), it would make sense that he might be making
sure that people accept the Jewish rather than Xian version of tshuvah.  R.
Leiman's explanation makes sense to me (though I agree that it is conjecture
and that alternative explanations are likely as well).

While Zoharitic explanations are fine, I think that our tefillah is relevant
also to people who do not necessarily accept kabbalistic doctrines.

Kol tuv,
Moshe

R' Yaakov Feldman summarizes Rabbeinu Yonah as holding:
: Finally, Rabbeinu Yonah makes the point that hearing is an even more
: valuable sense than seeing since it can affect you more deeply.

"Ha'azinu hashamayim...."

However, if the ear really motivates more than the eye, then why is
it "v'lo sasuru acharei *einechem*"? Also, why is the letter that
represents perception ayin not ozen? 

(FWIW, the latter point might even be part of the reason for the
word "shema". Shin as in "vishinantam", mem as in 40 se'ah of mayim,
and ayin combine to form the root that means "understanding born
through the senses".)

-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, Sep 15, 2000 at 12:19:41AM -0400, Gershon Dubin wrote:
:         This is from the second ma'amar in Pachad Yitzchok on Chanuka:

First, let me thank RGD for correcting my mistake of thinking it was
"li-" vs "al" rather than "al" vs "she-".

:         Hoda'ah refers both to admitting something,  as in hoda'as ba'al
: din,  and thanking,  as in hoda'ah al he'ovar.

The concept of chessed is when the have allows his wealth to overflow to
the have-not.

It would seem that the common theme in these two meanings of hoda'ah is
acknowledging that one is a have-not in relation to the other.

:         When Leah said "hapa'am odeh es Hashem" Rashi comments "al
: shenatalti yoser mechelki";  a hoda'as ba'al din that she did not
: deserve,  be'din,  what she received,  at the same time as she thanked
: Hashem.

Again, she acknowledges her position as a recipient of chessed.

Interesting to note, if one takes the letter dalet, which l'fi meseches
Shabbos refers to the dal in "gomel dalim", and insert it into sheim
havayah, one gets Yehudah. HKBH provides shefa, we Yehudim recieve.

-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, Sep 15, 2000 at 04:52:03AM +1000, SBA wrote:
: Another thing that many don't know is that they should open (and keep
: open during Hagbeh) the Sefer Torah - 3 amudim...

Is this a remez for Avos 1:2?

Speaking of which during this time of year, the Maharal (sham) associates
"uteshuvah, utephillah, utzdakah" to the three amudei olam. One exists
in three worlds: one's own machashavos, olam ha'emes, and olam hazeh. In
each world one has a relationship to perfect: with oneself, with HKBH
and with other people, respectively.

The epitome of each relationship is addressed in the mishnah: Torah as
a means to temimus, and the antidote for "im pagah bach hayeitzer".
Avodah is obviously the purest mitzvah bein adam laMakom, and chessed
is bein adam lachaveiro.

When one wants to reaffirm his right to exist, he works to repair these
amudim: Teshuvah to restore lost temimus, tephillah to Hashem Yisbarach,
and tzeddakah to other people.

-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, Sep 15, 2000 at 11:42:51AM -0400, jjbaker@panix.com wrote:
:                                             The bracha of minim had 
: existed already, but the nature of minus had changed - different ideas
: were floating around, so they had to update the language of the bracha,
: and it needed to come from someone who was ideologically pure.  This
: implies that the bracha already existed.

This would imply that there was some need to lay out specific content
to birechas minim at a time when no other berachah of the Amidah was
similarly specified to that level of detail. (With the exception of
limiting the shevach of bir'chas avos to the expression used by Moshe
Rabbeinu.)

: David *in* it, was split in Bavel to render honor to the house of the
: Reish Galuta, the continuation of the Davidic line down to the time
: of the Geonim.

At the time there was a nasi in Eretz Yisrael who was no less Davidic.
But was there a reish galusa yet?

: So there were 18 in EY and 19 in Bavel probably all the way back, or
: close to it.

But the connection between "Tephillah" and the 18 vertebrae is given
in the Bavli. Clearly they knew that the 19th berachah wasn't part of
the ikkar.

-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 Tue, Sep 19, 2000 at 09:27:43AM -0400, Yzkd@aol.com wrote:
: IMHO Pashtus Hagemara is that Dagan adds intelligence, that thru ingesting 
: Dagan he is able to call Abba Vimma.

I was wondering about the physical development.

IF the letter vav was pronounced /v/ in Bavel (as opposed to /w/),
it can't be said by someone tooth-less, and therefore neither could
"vi'eemma".

OTOH, if the dagan were a porridge, it wouldn't require teeth to
be eaten anyway...

-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

If current trends continue, the majority of Jews alive in 5768 will live
in Eretz Yisrael.

Doesn't this mean that we're going to have to deal with dinei yoveil, in
which case shemittah is di'Oraisa?

-mi

On Tue, 19 Sep 2000 11:12:55 -0400 Yitzchok Zirkind said:
>>  Also,  the Torah at mekhirat Yosef only counts 9 brothers:
>>  recall, Yosef, Binyamin AND Reuven cannot be counted ...Yosef, because
>>  he was the victim, Binyamin and Reuven were both not there then.

>In the sources I quote in a different post, some hold that Reuvain is
>culpable.

Reuven MIGHT have been present, jsut not according to Rashi. The basic
psukim indicating the Midyanim picked Yoseif up and sold him to the
Yishmaelim and when Reuven cannot find Yoseif it is because we was
already sold - NOT that he was away.

There is a reason for this machlokes.

Rashi:  Other psukim in Tanach support the idea of a sale BY the
brothers and of Reuven's dissent...

Other position: (I think Sipporno and some others) is that the Midyanim
pulled Yoseif out.  What makes the 10 brother culpable is that Yoseif
was sold and they wer repsonsible.  This can play out one of several ways
1) Since they put Yoseif at risk by putting him in the bor, they are
chayav
2) while machshovo ro'o is not chayav, that's only if the ro'o does not
happen.  Here their plot to seel Yoseif actually took place, even though
they were pre-empted in fact by the Midyanim.

The story of the harugei malchus could actually flow BETTER if the
10 guilty borthers were only INDIRECTLY guilty
A) they would have had a teirutz, and that is what makes Hashem
stop their pleading
B) The indirect reponsibilty for the actions of their own Dor makes
more sense as a parallel to an indirect crime by the brothers than
a direct one.  IOW, no one would accuse R. Yishmoel and R. Akiva etc.
as committing evil themselves.  So how could they be perpetuaing the
sin of mechiras Yoseif, eino dome!  Rather the guilt is that they
ignored his pleas and as an indirecct result Yosef was sold, here
too the gedolim did not over act, rather they may have missed
being sensitive, hence the need for Kapparah...

This indirect responsiblity is closely analogous to the zkeinim
in the egla arufa which of course has its own connection to the
yoseif story...

KVCHT
Regards,
Rich Wolpoe
pmsrxw@ibivm.ibi.com

On Tue, Sep 19, 2000 at 05:58:44PM -0400, Micha Berger wrote:
: Historically there have been two perceptions of time.

Speaking of time, I noticed something about the peirushim on this week's
haftorah, Yeshaiah 62:6. The guards of the walls of Y'lem are placed
by various peirushim at various times.

Targum Yonasan places them in the past, the tzaddikim who lived in Y'lem.
Rashi says they are melachim, therefore contemporary to the shemirah.
Radak, however, says that they are those who are avlei Y'laim, after
the churban.

-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

Another explanation of the connection between bittul Torah and yissurim:

The Yalkut on Ki Savo (892) says that "visamachta bichol hatov" refers to
TOrah, and to which Moshe Rabbeinu adds "aseir ta'aseir". The Cheshav
Sofeir asks what the Yalkut means -- does one give ma'aseir on Torah?

He answers that when our gemara speaks of blaming yissurim on bittul Torah
it doesn't mean too much bittul, but too little! One should see if one was
learning when one is supposed to be doing chessed, the figurative ma'aseir
of the Yalkut.

-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

Last week's OhrNet points out two words that show the uniqueness of the
Torah perspective.

The first is somewhat obvious: the difference between charity and tzeddakah.
Tzeddakah implies that such donations are duty, not beyond duty.

Another is the contrast between "answering the call of duty" and "yotzei
yidei chovaso". An obligation is part of the etzem ha'adam, not a call from
the outside.

-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 9/19/2000 5:02:20pm CDT, micha@aishdas.org writes:
> The first is cyclical time. This is the position of Dor haHaflagah, or the
> Aztec calendar, or Zen (as per RRW), or most ancient people. History repeats
> itself endlessly; every so many years another mabul.
 
> The second, which was really a gift Yahadus gave the world, is that of
> linear time. A causal chain from Ma'aseh Bereishis until yemos hamoshiach....

Perhaps there is a third view of time. As RYGB explained to his shiur,
the Rambam thought that HaShem's omniscience presumed His non-linear,
non-cyclical view of time, which enabled Him simultaneously to see the
"future" while permitting man to exercise free will. With other versions
of time, HaShem must in some sense either ignore the future or choose
not to use His powers to conceive of it, which would be problematic at
best and tragic at worst.

David Fi

There is a difficult (for me) RaN on Nedarim 34a in which he gives a pshat
after first quoting pshat of 'Rabosai.' To remind daf-yomi followers
(and anyoone else who cares to help, as below) the difficulty in the
Raa'N's own pshat is that he asserts that even if the issur hana'a was
that the finder can not benefit from owner of lost object, he could
still receive payment for his finding/returning efforts if that is the
local custom, and the receipt of this money from the owner of the lost
object would not constitute a violation of the neder, because--here's
the kicker--it's as if the money is in his hands already.

Now, RaSHa'SH has a question based on svara and Keren Orah asks against
RaN's premise based on yerushalmi which as quoted by K'O pulls the rug
out from under the RaN.

My question is whether anyone on-list has a sefer/reference or access
to Bar-Ilan Univ. tshuvos that suggest a pshat to this Ra'N or your own
thinking. Responses on- or off-list are fine.

Thanks in advance.
Noach Witty

From: Chana/Heather Luntz
>>During a trip to EY, I was introduced to a young TC who had published
>> a Kuntres on this subject ...

> Did this Kuntres touch on the question of whether or not shul design
> should be taking this into account?

Not as far as I can remember.

SBA

From: Joelirich@aol.com
>> ...on the correct method for Hagbeh. It's quite obvious from the Mishnah
>> Berurah that you should turn right and slowly go 360 degrees. The MB
>> (IIRC) compares it to the way the Cohanim turn for duchenen.

>   Why is it permissible for the magbia to turn his back to the aron kodesh?
> The MB says turning east to north - is that clear it's 360.  Did you find any
> other sources?

I see others have answered the 'back to aron hakodesh' issue.

IIRC (my memory isn't that great and at the moment I can't find the
Kuntres), there were no sources indicating doing Hagbeh in any other way.

The loshon hamechaber - seems to say - to show the Torah to the right
and left and in front and behind you.

However, one of the Maskimim (either Rav Wosner shlita or yblct the
Debreciner Rov zt'l writes "v'loshon haSA tzorich ktzas tikkun.." (ie
that the SA meant the 360 turn - even though the language doesn't this
clearly.)

SBA

On Tue, Sep 19, 2000 at 10:34:18PM -0400, DFinchPC@aol.com wrote:
: Perhaps there is a third view of time. As RYGB explained to his shiur,
: the Rambam thought that HaShem's omniscience presumed His non-linear,
: non-cyclical view of time, which enabled Him simultaneously to see the
: "future" while permitting man to exercise free will. With other versions
: of time, HaShem must in some sense either ignore the future or choose
: not to use His powers to conceive of it, which would be problematic at
: best and tragic at worst.

Well, human perspectives on time are from the "inside", while HKBH
"views" the subject more objectively. This is one connotation of the
Sheim Havayah, why Chazal describe it as a contraction of "yihyeh,
hoveh, hayah".

To give a metaphor, picture a timeline, such as the ones used to depict a
sequence of events in a history book. You can touch some point on the line
while looking at some point to the right of your finger. You can "interact
with some point in time", while "seeing the future". This is because you
are not personally experiencing the hypothetical time represented by the
timeline.

From G-d's perspective, the universe is closer (I hesitate to speak in
absolutes, as though I could really assume His perspective) to a four
dimensional sculpture than a changing three dimensional one.

As you write, though, G-d doesn't do this knowing "now" because He has no
"now". G-d knowing the future is as different from a person knowing the
future as your knowledge of the right of the timeline is different than
the nation represented by the timeline knowing the future represented
by the timeline. I think this is what the Ohr Samei'ach is saying in his
lengthy peice on "hakol tzafui".

This idea touches also on the Ramban's shitah about nissim. In Sh'mos he
asks why the need for nissim doesn't imply that beri'ah was imperfect
and needs tweaking, which in turn would mean that HKBH erred. The
Ramban answers that nissim, such as k'rias Yam Suf, were written into
the beri'ah.

Since Hashem is non-temporal, we can view all of His "acts" as one --
they aren't seperated by time. Perhaps it is more accurate to refer to
them as relationships than as verbs, since verbs are time-localized
events. (A thought I raised during our discussion of whether Lashon
haKodesh really has a lashon hoveh.) The term "ma'aseh bereishis" /is/
used by Chazal to refer not only to creation but to the running of the
universe. In Hil Yesodei haTorah the Rambam expands "ma'aseh bereishis"
into a discussion of Aristotilian physics.

Hasem created time, which means that the very moment you read this was
created as part of the same Act of Creation. From the Divine Perspective,
this moment, or that of k'rias Yam Suf, is no less created, and therefore
no less part of ma'aseh bereishis, than the first instant of Day One.

IOW, perhaps the Ramban isn't so much moving Hashem's "act" of the neis
of k'rias Yam Suf earlier in time as removing it from time altogether.

-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 was asked by a lurker to post two more details of hagba'ah/gelila:

1.  Despite tendencies in some shuls otherwise,  gelila is preferably given
    to an adult.

2.  Hagba'ah has greater schar than an oleh,  even schar keneged kulam.

Gershon
gdubin@loebandtroper.com
gershon.dubin@juno.com

There is an entire sefer on the subject: Hishtanut HaTevaiim BeHalacha, by
Rav Neria Gutal.

David Hojda

> "Ha'azinu hashamayim...."
> However, if the ear really motivates more than the eye...

See Yerushalmi Kiddushin 20a, R' Ze'irah would not quote shemu'os of R' 
Sheshes because he was blind - hearing is incomplete without seeing.

KT,
YGB

> Perhaps there is a third view of time. As RYGB explained to his shiur,
> the Rambam thought that HaShem's omniscience presumed His non-linear,
> non-cyclical view of time, which enabled Him simultaneously to see the
> "future" while permitting man to exercise free will...

And a 4th view is that it has an beginning point and an end point which
can be a line but that line starts and ends with Hashem.

And that makes it travel in a circle.

And the progression is not always level, but in waves. Some doros are
higher spiritually than others. Progress is real in the long term,
but it can go up and down in the short term

What I meant about taoism (more properly than zen) is that the universe
is round and wavy and not linear. but I do agree that we are not in an
infinte tight loop going in circles.

I would have described Micha's paradigm as spiral-like.

EG Every year we return to Rosh haShanah, but hopefully we have grown and
evoled a bit during the past year. So we have come full cycle on one plane
but at a higehr level on another plane. This resembles an upward spiral.

A pure taoist model would be coming full circle. We do not.

A pure linear model would imply we never revisit the same positions (such
as the postion of the earth/sun at the same time of year). But we do.

The spiral model synthesises the circular aspect and the linear
progression aspect, but is by no means the last word on the matter.

The beginnning point and end point being the same is that he start from
En Sof and end there.

We split off from HKBH to venture forth as His children in the world He
craeted. All the while we chant Hashiveinu and Hashem responds Shuvah
Yisrael..

Lashuv means to return.

All of the last 5761 years we have wondered in Galus. We were all exiled
from Gan Eden Mikedem. In Eichah we plead Chadesh yameinu kekdem. We
want to go "BACK to the Future." <smile>

We want to return form whence we came.

Linera or circular the end of galus is not just the Beis haMikdash it
is that Gan Eden miKeddem, it is the ultimate re-unification of our
neshamos with Hashem...

Regards,
Rich Wolpoe
pmsrxw@ibivm.ibi.com

On Wed, Sep 20, 2000 at 08:44:22AM -0500, Yosef Gavriel and Shoshanah M. Bechhofer wrote:
:> However, if the ear really motivates more than the eye...

: See Yerushalmi Kiddushin 20a, R' Ze'irah would not quote shemu'os of R' 
: Sheshes because he was blind - hearing is incomplete without seeing.

This doesn't say that one is more primary. Rather, that the two together
have a synergy, so that neither alone is of the same quality.

IOW, how do we know that R' Zeirah wouldn't consider sight incomplete
without hearing as well?

-mi

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


[ 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         ]