Avodah Mailing List

Volume 12 : Number 011

Monday, October 13 2003

• Re: Hashgocha Pratis
• Re: newly found manuscripts of rishonim
• Fasting
• RE: Fasting before bar-mitzvah
• Re: O joining a C synagogue for qiruv
• Al Cheit and Sin.....
• Re: forcing oneself to cry on Yom Kippur
• Re: Al Chets
• Tekias Shofar on Shabbos RH
• trick to shake 4 minim on shabbos
• Re: newly found manuscripts of rishonim
• Fw: women going to hear Parshas Zochor
• Torah--closed system?
• Re: tefillin knots
• Re: Can women be domeh l'malachim?
• Re: Yona's fish
• RE: women going to hear Parshas Zochor

I'd like to modify a statement I made in my postings regarding hashgocha
protis. I had noted that I could not find a single non chassidic source
which cites the BESHT's view - including the writings of R' Aryeh Kaplan
in his Jewish Handbook and in The Light Beyond (anthology of chassidic
statements on hashkofa). Today R' Beryl Gershonfeld - held of Yeshiva
Machon Shlomo- pointed out a footnote in R' Kaplan's notes to Derech
HaShem Part Two #3 page 340.

"...There were some who maintained that this was a dispute between
the Rambam and Ramban with only the latter holding that individual
providence exists for each thing: cf Yaaros Devash 2:6...According to
this, the Rambam would hold that Providence might decree that a bird
should be captured but it would not decree the identity of the particular
bird. The Ramban on the other hand, would dispute this, and maintain that
even the identity of the individual bird is also predetermined. (See,
however, Ramban on Genesis 18:19 and 36:7 which would seem to contradict
this. Also see R Bachya on Genesis 18:19). This latter view was accepted
by most Chasidic masters....See, however, Yad Yesodey HaTorah 2:9 and
Moreh Nevuchim 1:69 where the Rambam apparently does not dispute the
fact that each individual act is ultimately determined by G-d along. See
Kalach Pis'chey Chochmah 13."

Bottom line. The insistence that HP applies to all beings is essentially
the chassidic perspective. The non chassidic position is that HP applies
only to man and that it varies upon ones spritual level. On the other
hand almost everyone would agree that G-d knows the details of every
molecule and that the knowledge of the course of each molecule was known
at Creation. This knowledge is not called HP.

Chassidim are generally makpid to teach only the view of the BESHT while
Litvaks - generally ignore the view of the BESHT and present the view
of the rishonim. It is not the accepted practice amongst the gedolim
(or even non gedolim) to present both views.

                         Daniel Eidensohn

R' [SBA] wrote <<< IIRC the reason being that HKBH would not have
allowed Klall Yisroel to be nichshol all these years - and had it been
relevant or indeed the halocho so - it would have been in our hands
centuries ago.>>>

To which R' [Joel Rich] asked <<< And the reason HKB"H allowed it to become
available now is??? (a test ?)>>>

It seems to me that if Shiv'im Panim LaTorah, then some might be relevant
and appropriate to one generation while being wholly inappropriate to
another generation. Perhaps HaShem kept those manuscripts hidden davka
because their time was not yet ripe.

Akiva Miller

My daughter will be bas mitzva IY"H Rosh Chodesh Cheshvan; I told her
to fast Y"K. She fasted pieces of previous ta'anios. My nephew, OTOH,
who will be bar mitzva in a few months, decided to fast Tzom Gedalia
"for practice", but it was his decision.

Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com

The Aruch haShulchan OC 616 # 7 mentions that even though "rov ha'tinokot
lomdim v'heim k'chushim v'chalushim" [quoting the BACH in TUR OC 616 and
the Magen Avraham OC 616 s"k 2] "aval hachinuch l'sha'oht ANU NOHAGIN GAM
BIZMAN HAZAH" (caps mine).  He mentions the sugya in Yoma 82a ("mechanchim
otan shana o shnatayim") and the TUR OC 616 re: this fasting (before bar
mitzvah) being m'drabanan (AH 616 #5).

Josh

Arie Folger wrote on Areivim:
> Actually, in one shul, the Utopia Jewish Center, RHS OKed a plan where
> locals became members of the then C synagogue, prayed in a separate room,
> gathered strength, and after 10 years called for a membership vote and
> turned the place O. In no time they put up a me'hitzah.

Very interesting. The big C shul in Teaneck has started an alternate
mechitzah minyan while they try to figure out what to do for the future
(the old rabbi retired, the new rabbi has just been fired, and membership
is a fraction of what it used to be). Someone asked me on Rosh Hashanah
whether he could daven at that mechitzah minyan. All I could tell him
was that I wouldn't.

There are mar'is ayin issues with walking into the building during
davening times, especially when the existence of a mechitzah minyan is
not well known (particularly on RH when the three-times-a-year Jews
come). Additionally, I came across an interesting teshuvah, probably
too extreme to be considered normative, by R' Moshe Grunwald (d. 1910)
in his Arugas ha-Bosem OC no. 30 in which he forbids the use of a shul
that once did not have a mechitzah even if it now has a kosher mechitzah.
He compared it to kohanim who served in Beis Chonyo (Avodah Zarah 52b).
I think the minhag in America is not like this, though.

But each case is different and I don't presume to be able to second
guess RHS.

Gil Student

From: Rebelkrim@aol.com
> Did anyone ever notice that there are no al chet's corresponding
> to Samech? Instead of samechs, the nusach presents two aveiros with
> 'sins' - (siach sifsoseinu and sikur ayin). When we go to Shin/Sin
> (which historians will declare were originally two different laters)
> we have one shin (shvuas shav) and a sin (sinas chinam).

[I suppose that 'sin' is more apt for 'al cheit'....]

Similar situation in Keil Odoyn...'Semeichim betseisom'.

BTW, using this 'exchange', I have been able to find a 'posuk' for my
granddaughter Simmy [Sima].

There is no posuk beginning with samech and ending with an aleph.
But there are plenty that begin with a shin/sin and end with alef.

Some problem/solution for Klonimus.

SBA

R' Mordechai Phyllostac wrote <<< Chaza"l say, IIRC, that ...even though
all the doors are closed ...the gates of tears are not closed. The
question is then asked, if they are never closed, why is there then a
door at all? ... Answer - to keep *false tears* out. >>>

Don't confuse *false* tears with *forced* tears.

He continued <<< I assume that false tears are rejected by HKB"H on Yom
Kippur as well....in fact may be even more reprehensible on such a holy
day....(although perhaps not all 'forced tears' are totally false -
that is another discussion - but assuming if they are.....). >>>

If forced tears are reprehensible on Yom Kippur, wouldn't that also be
true of forced smiles on other Yomim Tovim?

Perhaps R' Mordechai and I are understanding this concept of "forced"
differently. I'm confident that we agree that if a person is forcing
these tears in order to fool HaShem, that is foolish and reprehensible.

But if a person is trying to coax some tears out of his eyes, because
he hopes to bring some to of physical reality to his emotions, and to
thereby unlock the Gate Of Tears, what could possibly be wrong with that?

Suppose some unfortunate information is weighing heavily on a person's
mind on Yom Tov, putting him in a sad mood from which he hasn't found an
exit. But he forces himself to smile and say happy things to his family
and friends, in the hope that he will reach the proper mood. Is that a
false smile or a real one? Does it matter?

Akiva Miller

> R' Elly Krimsky asked <<< Did anyone ever notice that there are no al
> chet's corresponding to Samech? Instead of samechs, the nusach presents
> two aveiros with 'sins' - (siach sifsoseinu and sikur ayin). When we go
> to Shin/Sin (which historians will declare were originally two different
> laters) we have one shin (shvuas shav) and a sin (sinas chinam). >>>

This has bugged me for years. Worse, you've found just one example of this
phenomenon, which is repeated in many other places. I made up a list once,
but I can't find it now. Here's just a few as I peruse my siddur:

On Shabbos morning, Kel Adon has "s'maychim" (with a sin) in the place
for samech.

The Hoshanos "Adon Hamoshia", "Adam Ub'hema", "Adama May'erer", "Lmaan
Aysan" and "E'eroch Shooee" all use a word with a sin where you'd expect
a samech.

The Kinah "Eli Tzion" has "simchas" (with a sin) where a samech should go.

The piyut "Haaderes V'ha'emunah" has two words for each letter, and for
samech it interestingly uses both a samech word ("siguy") and a sin word
("segev").

So too, "Amitz Ko'ach" on Yom Kippur has one sin word ("siach") mixed
in with seven legitimate samech words.

I've heard it said that many poems are set to the alphabetical acrostic
pattern in order to get the entire aleph-bais involved, and thus show
how the beauty of the poem permeates all or reality, and/or invokes the
higher spiritual powers of the aleph-beis, and other such explanations.
It's entirely possible that those explanations are legitimate for the
poems which succeed at following the acrostic totally, but I'm not sure
what to make of these exceptions.

It's very tempting to suggest that the authors of the exceptions listed
above simply took some poetic license when they couldn't find a good
enough word with a samech, but why is samech the only exception? I don't
recall ever seeing a poem where the author switched an aleph for an ayin
when he was stuck for a word. Nor was a taf ever used in place of a tes.
And I'm talking even about authors who lived in places where the same
sound was used for both letters.

There must be something vey unusual about samech and sin, and I for one
do not know what it is.

Regarding REK's second point, about the relationship of sin and shin --
it seems to me that when the poets get to the line between "resh" and
"tav", they will use sin or shin words indiscriminately, whichever fits
the meaning best. Has anyone else noticed any patterns there?

Akiva Miller

From: "Danny Schoemann" dannyschoemann@hotmail.com
<<I was wondering if one may put the 4-minim in a place where
one could move it on Shabbes (e.g. L'Zorech its place) and thus
accidentally-on-purpose fulfill the mitzvah.>>

Sorry. The heter of tzorech gufo/mekomo would apply only to a keli
shemelachto le'isur, not to muktza machmas gufo as the arba minim are.
The remaining options are tiltul al yedei davar echad, which doesn't
help much for the kiyum hamitzva, or tiltul begufo (not lefi the CI)
which is not any better.

<<With a tefilla that we all fulfill the mitzva of 4-minim d'Oraysa
this year>>

Amen; however Moshiach won't come erev Shabbos or erev Yom Tov, and not
on Shabbos or Y"T either, so it's a little late for it this year.

Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com

> I was wondering if one may put the 4-minim in a place where
> one could move it on Shabbes (e.g. L'Zorech its place) and
> thus accidentally-on-purpose fulfill the mitzvah.

Isn't the halacha that only a muktza item in the category of kli
shemelachto l'issur may be moved l'tzorech m'komo? (I haven't checked
my hilchos mukztah in a while so I may be wrong about this.) Arba minim
would more likely fall into the category of muktzah machmas mitzvah and
accordingly may not be moved even l'tzorech m'komo.

Avi Burstein

In a message dated 10/09/2003 10:53:00 PM EDT, kennethgmiller@juno.com
writes:
> It seems to me that if Shiv'im Panim LaTorah, then some might be relevant
> and appropriate to one generation while being wholly inappropriate to
> another generation. Perhaps HaShem kept those manuscripts hidden davka
> because their time was not yet ripe.

and now it's ripe just for intellectual purposes but not Lmaaseh (ie
the jury is instructed to ignore this evidence)?

SS & Gmar Tov,
Joel Rich

There is a great deal of variation in women going to shul. Yekke women go
often, including Friday night; so do many sephardi women. True, central
and eastern Eurpeans do not but isn't that itself possibly a minhag tous.

M. Levin

RnTK wrote on Areivim:
> We DO have to go outside the system, willy nilly, before we can even
> start,  for an ur-statement that is something like:  "G-d created
> the world and gave us  the following system, which is ipso facto
> true." That ur-statement is one we  intuitively know is true,
> although it cannot be proven within the system, but  arises prior to
> the system.

> We are in Godel territory here.

Goedelian closed systems start with postulates as well.

A closed system starts with forms, and rules for manipulating those
forms. If the system is rich enough that it can be mapped to the
givens that yield arithmetic and the rules for deducing conclusions
from those givens, Goedel's theorem applies.

Goedel's theorem is that any finite closed system must be either
inconsistant or incomplete. Inconsistant: that somewhere out there is
an idea X for which the system can both prove X and not-X. Incomplete:
that somewhere out these is a correct theorem Y which the system can
not prove.

(The proof of this theorem, in VERY handwaving terms, involves making
a statement within the system of the form "this statement can not be
proven within this system". Either the system proves it as true, which
means the system has a proof for a false statement. Or, the system
doesn't prove it, in which case it's a true statement that is a gap in
the proving system.)

In any case, stating off with postulates doesn't change that. The
finite list of initial postulates (including the rules of deduction)
is what the word "finite" in "finite closed system" is describing.

We can prove within Torah that G-d is immanent and that G-d is
transcendent. We can prove that non-bet yosef meat is assur de'oraisa,
and that it's kosher lechatchilah. As RYGB writes, we can prove that a
mezuzah on a doorway to a balcony must be on the right as you enter
the house, and we can prove that it must be on the right as you leave.
(And doing both is bal tosif. See
<http://www.aishdas.org/rygb/eilu.htm>.) Eilu va'eilu embraces
inconsistancy. Therefore, on the level of divrei E-lokim Chaim, the
Torah can be Goedelian and yet still be complete. His proof involves
rejecting the possibility of proving both X and not-X; but the Torah
contains such proofs.

As I wrote on Areivim, but want to repeat here, this is a consequence
of the Torah's purpose. People are rife with antinomies, unresolved
dialectics and ambivalence. This is R' Tzadoq's point (see RYGB's
article for numerous references from the Ritva onward) about the olam
hamachshavah -- it's impossible to consider X without momentarily
toying with not-X AT THE SAME TIME. The subject the Torah addresses
encompasses non-boolean logic, therefore so does the Torah.

The role of the poseiq is to reduce that plurality of the olam
haseichel to the black-and-white boolean truth of the olam hapo'el.
(Actually, judging from the shoresh of the word "pesaq", his role is
to terminate the viability of the rejected shitos.) However, the
poseiq's means for doing so goes beyond the closed system of Torah and
deals with historical precedent, the situation of the sho'el, etc...
Not being closed, it need not be complete -- it simply tends toward
completion. This fits with the "midgets atop giants" metaphor's
implication that we're still progressing, but by ever-smaller amounts.

:-)BBii
 -mi

 -- 
Micha Berger           It isn't what you have, or who you are, or where
micha@aishdas.org      you are,  or what you are doing,  that makes you
http://www.aishdas.org happy or unhappy. It's what you think about.
Fax: (413) 403-9905                        - Dale Carnegie

R Seth Mandel wrote:
> The script that is called " Phoenician" on the web page you gave
> reference to matches this description exactly: only the 'ayin and
> tes were circles....

Actually, I said closed figures. "Beneis hayo omedim" merely requires
sections of "white" that are not attached to the outside of the letter.

If the luchos were in Phoenician script (as per
<http://www.ancientscripts.com/phoenician.html>), then alef, beis,
dalet, ches, quf and reish were also beneis hayu omedim. The
same is true for the very similar early Aramaic script
(<http://www.ancientscripts.com/aramaic.html>).

BTW, note that in this script, tes is tav with a circle around it,
and ayin is a circle alone. It suggests that the users of this script
thought tes:tav :: ayin : silence.

:-)BBii
 -mi

 -- 
Micha Berger             It isn't what you have, or who you are, or where
micha@aishdas.org        you are,  or what you are doing,  that makes you
http://www.aishdas.org   happy or unhappy. It's what you think about.
Fax: (413) 403-9905                        - Dale Carnegie

Brown, Charles.F wrote:
> 3 halachos that should be parallel, but aren't:

To me this seems to imply that men are comparible to mal'achim in more
ways than women, not that women entirely can't.

Mal'achim differ from people in at least the following two ways:
1- They are on a higher level spiritually.
2- They lack [opportunity for] bechirah chafshi. Therefore they are
omedim, stationary beings; as opposed to people who can progress.

(With mal'akhim, essence precedes existance. This is like a table or
a house. Its essence exists, or at least can exist, in plans before
the object itself does. People, being constantly dynamic, are beings
whose existance precedes our essences.)

Mal'akhim start out higher but don't progress.

Women start out higher than men, but have fewer mitzvos with which
to progress. Therefore men have a greater need to invoke this dimyon;
rather than necessarily having more similarity.

> 1) MG"A (end of siman 610) writes that women should not wear white
> on Y"K because they cannot be domeh to malachim. M"B paskens against
> him (sha'ar hatziun 11)

Wearing white is a symbol of taharah. This involves my first point
of contrast.

> 2) M"B writes that the minhag in 619:5 of standing for tefillah at
> day/night does not apply to women because since we stand to be domeh
> to malachim, and women cannot be domeh to malachim, they are
> excluded. He references (in sha'ar hatziun) you back to siman 610 -
> but this is a stirah to his psak there?

The single leg of the mal'akh is because they are omedim; the second
point of contrast.

> 3) 619:2 On Y"K we say out loud "baruch shem kvod...". Reason (based
> on midrash in devarim) is because this is shiras hamalachim and on
> Y"K we are dugmas malachim. My wife pointed out she has never heard
> (and I see nothing in m"b on it; haven't checked MG"A yet) of women
> not doing this despite the opinion that women cannot be domeh
> l'malachim?

This too is an inyan of the loftier level that a mal'akh is on. This,
I wouldn expect to be consistant with wearing white.

BTW, another possibility on why it's said out loud on Yom Kippur. It's
a reference not to the mal'achim, but to the avodas YhK, "keshehayu
shom'im as hasheim hanichbad vehanorah... veomerim ..." However, this
need not contradict. It could be the attendee in the Beis haMiqdosh who
is domeh lemal'akh, and therefore says the pasuq out loud, and we are
commemorating them -- not being medameh ourselve to mal'akhim directly.

:-)BBii
 -mi

 -- 
Micha Berger           It isn't what you have, or who you are, or where
micha@aishdas.org      you are,  or what you are doing,  that makes you
http://www.aishdas.org happy or unhappy. It's what you think about.
Fax: (413) 403-9905                                 - Dale Carnegie

On Wed, Oct 08, 2003 at 01:32:05PM -0400, Mlevinmd@aol.com wrote:
: Three days is the number for change, transformation and rebirth.
: There may also be a connection to the kabbalistic idea discussed here
: in the past of the neshomos of tsadikim reincarnated inside specifically
: fish.

Particularly with the Gra's peirush, in which Yonah = neshamah and the
entire story is about gilgul. However, I looked and didn't see anything
about gilgul of tzaddiqim and fish.

:-)BBii
 -mi

> There is a great deal of variation in women going to shul. Yekke women
> go often, including Friday night; so do many sephardi women. True, central
> and eastern Eurpeans do not but isn't that itself possibly a minhag tous.

I can only tell you that neither Sefardi nor Yekke women here go to
shul in large numbers or percentages in the chareidi neighborhoods in
the Yerushalayim area. They also don't hold that there is a chiyuv to
hear shofar [for women] and they do not do yizkor as well.

However, this does not mean that the above groups don't daven on Friday
nights, since they do -- at home.

---Rena 

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


[ 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         ]