Avodah Mailing List

Volume 12 : Number 089

Monday, February 9 2004

• kol isha al hayam?
• Re: Parshas Hamon Seguloh
• Re: Parshas Hamon Seguloh
• Re: Sefiros according to REED
• New teshuva against murex trunculus tekhelet
• Sukka
• parshas hamon/red bendel
• Parshas Hamon Seguloh
• some thoughts on Shiras HaYam
• Re: Parshas Hamon Seguloh
• Re: New teshuva against murex trunculus tekhelet
• Re: Sefiros according to REED
• Re: Sefiros according to REED
• hot pad self-heat warmer on shabbat
• TSBP
• S'char for a BT vs. FFB
• Re: Midrash and Method
• Re: Hasgachah Pratit/Klalit
• Ki qarov hu
• Re: Direction of Tefillah
• Re: New teshuva against murex trunculus tekhelet

<http://www.biu.ac.il/JH/Parasha/eng/beshalah/kos.html>

R' Warren Cinamon asked <<< Regarding "The segulah of saying Parshas Hamon
... can anyone shed some light on this "segula" in particular and others
in general - how is it that reciting, reading etc. one part of torah
(as opposed to another part) becomes mesugal for a particular thing? >>>

There are many segulos which I don't understand, but this is among the
ones which I think I do. Reading Parshas Hamon without understanding
it and internalizing it would be worthless, I think. But if one allows
it to make an impact on his trust and faith in HaShem, he will become
a new person, one to whom HaShem will want to react in kind, and give
that person the parnosah that he trusts HaShem for.

In a similar category is how being careful about lashon hara will have
wonderful effects. This is because since the person is careful not to
speak bad of others, the prosecutors in Shamayim are not allowed to
speak bad of him either.

Or at least, that's how these things were explained to me. Can anyone
explain the red threads (which many wear on their wrists) in a similar
vein?

Akiva Miller

R Warren Cinamon wrote:
> Regarding "The segulah of saying Parshas Hamon - shnayim mikro ve'echod
> targum." can anyone shed some light on this "segula" in particular and
> others in general - how is it that reciting, reading etc. one part of torah
> (as opposed to another part) becomes mesugal for a particular thing? The
> Torah is the chahmas HaShem given to us to learn and perfect ourselves
> accordingly - when we begin to use certain parts of it as segulos etc.- it
> seems dangerously close to using it in inappropriate ways...

We've discussed this a number of times in the past. I recommend hitting
www.aishdas.org/avodah and searching for "segulah | segula | segulos"
(those vertical lines are Google's "or" signs).

I recall us coming up with two approaches to segulos:

1- Metaphysics has laws just as physics does. It's no more abuse to use
metaphysical kochos to your own benefit than to use physical ones. Segulos
are no more problematic than buying more comfortable furniture.

2- A segulah aids in self-perfection (and/or deveiqus) such that the midah
keneged midah is the mesugal. Segulah is therefore simply an act with a known
sechar. It requires stressing that not all self-perfection is in ways in which
we are aware. This seems to be RAM's approach in the previous post. (*)

My problem with segulos, which is why the topic keeps getting raised, is not
with the "how", but with the "why" of the first, more supported, approach.
Physical law is necessary to support free will: first, in that it allows
people to plan ahead; second, in that it provides hesteir panim. Metaphysical
law does neither.

:-)BBii
-mi

*) Moderator's perk: I can reply knowing what order I'll be approving
the posts in.

-- 
Micha Berger             When we long for life without difficulties,
micha@aishdas.org        remind us that oaks grow strong in contrary
http://www.aishdas.org   winds, and diamonds are made under pressure.
Fax: (413) 403-9905                        - Peter Marshall

I wrote:
>> The following list is from a late night reading of MmE I, pg 311. Please
>> check yourself and post corrections:
>> 1- The 10 sefiros are how Hashem's actions look to us according to our
>> stance....

RYGB replied:
> In vol. 4 he describes the sefiros as a ladder for personal growth (of
> course me'ta'ta'ah l'eilah).

I noticed two different ways of relating the sefiros that are qochos
sheba'alom to the sefiros as descriptions of the self and of our own
middos (as in Tomer Devorah):

1- Flowing downward: We are made betzelem E-lokim. "E-lokim" is the sheim
that denotes "the Master of all the forces". Therefore that tzelem will
contain the sefiros.

2- Projecting upward: We are comprised of these 10 sephiros. Through
each of these "lenses" we see a different perception of Hashem's actions,
therefore we see those actions as being similarly divided.

REED seems to be saying the latter. Again, I would like someone to check
that I'm not reading too much into his words.

:-)BBii
-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             When we long for life without difficulties,
micha@aishdas.org        remind us that oaks grow strong in contrary
http://www.aishdas.org   winds, and diamonds are made under pressure.
Fax: (413) 403-9905                        - Peter Marshall

Rav Shlomo Miller, Shlit"a, of Toronto, recently wrote a teshuva
concerning murex tekhelet. His opinion is that murex trunculus could
not be the chilazon, and that people should *davka* not wear it.

I have posted a typed version of the letter on my web site,
www.chilazon.com, which is currently undergoing major revisions:

<http://www.chilazon.com/Rav_Miller_letter_Acrobat_V4.pdf>

mendel

RRL
>the gemara in Sukkah 7b and 8a has a whole discussion of Rebbi Yochanan
>and round sukkas, where he says that a round sukkah needs to be able
>to fit 24 people is kosher. The gemara uses some math to figure it out
>and concludes he wasn't being exact (lo dak). However, if you take one
>of the proposals given by the gemara -- the people are 1 amah squares,
>a 4x4 square inside a circle inside another circle,

Do you mean the inner circle is inside the square touching the square
at the midpoints on the lines, where we would draw N, S, E, and W?

RRL
> with the distance between the two circles 1 amah all around (to
> fit the people sitting on the inside of the outer circle) it turns out
> to be exactly 24 amahs -- the radius of the inner circle is 4 * sqrt(2),

Certainly you mean that the RADIUS of the inner circle is 2.  Do you not?
 From here I only get further confused.

Kol tuv,  Shlomo

Kenneth:

that is very nice - but I think when the average person says that
the saying of parshas hamon is a segula (or similar such things) they
mean much more than that - if your's was the correct understanding then
every part of the Torah should be a segulah according to those who speak
of segulos.

as for the red bendel see the tosefta in shabbos 7:1 who lists this
practice as darchei haemorei.

kt
wac

From owner-avodah@aishdas.org  Sat Feb  7 14:01:14 2004
Return-Path: <owner-avodah@aishdas.org>
Received: from majordomo1.host4u.net (majordomo1.host4u.net [209.150.128.43])
	by heras.host4u.net (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id i17K18W06944
	for <domo@aishdas.org>; Sat, 7 Feb 2004 14:01:14 -0600
Received: from heras.host4u.net (heras.host4u.net [209.150.128.13])
	by majordomo1.host4u.net (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id i17K0xh12656
	for <owner-avodah.heras@majordomo1.host4u.net>; Sat, 7 Feb 2004 14:01:01 -0600
Received: from majordomo1.host4u.net (majordomo1.host4u.net [209.150.128.43])
	by heras.host4u.net (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id i17K0sW06885
	for <owner-avodah@aishdas.org>; Sat, 7 Feb 2004 14:00:56 -0600
Received: (from majordomo@localhost)
	by majordomo1.host4u.net (8.11.6/8.11.6) id i17K0dH12652;
	Sat, 7 Feb 2004 14:00:39 -0600
Date: Sat, 7 Feb 2004 14:00:39 -0600
Message-Id: <200402072000.i17K0dH12652@majordomo1.host4u.net>
To: owner-avodah@aishdas.org
From: owner-avodah@aishdas.org
Subject: BOUNCE avodah@aishdas.org: Approval required:     
Status: RO
Content-Length: 2075
Lines: 48

From: Warren Cinamon <wcinamon@yahoo.com>
> Regarding "The segulah of saying Parshas Hamon - shnayim mikro ve'echod
> targum." can anyone shed some light on this "segula" in particular and
> others in general - how is it that reciting, reading etc. one part of
> torah (as opposed to another part) becomes mesugal for a particular
> thing? ...

This particular segula is quoted besheim the Rebbe Reb Mendel Rimanover
zt'l. However there is a Chazal [IIRC] that one who says Parshas Hamon
daily is assured of he will not lack parnoso.

SBA

I thought that the following hearos might be worth sharing with the list
re Shiras Hayam:

1) Why were Klal Yisrael scared and frightened at the Yam Suf? Perhaps,
as Ibn Ezra points out, Klal Yisrael still had a slave mentality and
had no idea of what it meant to engage in warfare, especially against
the dominant political empire of Egypt.

2) RYBS points out that Hallel was first said by Klal Yisrael after
Yam Suf,as opposed to the incidents of the Asarah Macos and Pesach
Mitzrayim. RYBS pointed out further that the affirmative act of walking
into the sea, like the affirmative acts of Moshe in writing down and
transmitting the Luchos Shniyos and other acts of kedusha, require man to
step forward, as opposed to being the recipient of HaShem's grace. That's
why the nusach for YT is different than Shabbos and why nedarim sanctify
one's speech. IOW, the positive act, as opposed to the passive act,
defines kedusha.

Steve Brizel
Zeliglaw@aol.com

On 8 Feb 2004 at 2:07, sba@iprimus.com.au wrote:
> This particular segula is quoted besheim the Rebbe Reb Mendel
> Rimanover zt'l. However there is a Chazal [IIRC] that one who says
> Parshas Hamon daily is assured of he will not lack parnoso.

So I heard this and I started saying Parshas HaMon in shul after davening
about a year ago. Hasn't helped much as far as I can tell....

Then, a few weeks ago, a chaveir comes up to me after minyan and says
"You know why Parshas HaMon is not in the Siddur HaGra among the things
you say after davening? Because the Ariza"l held that it shouldn't be said
in shul, but rather at home on your table." So I've started saying it at
home at the table, but now I'm saying it out of a chumash and without
all the Yehi Ratzon's before and after that make it explicit why I'm
saying it. But it doesn't really feel right.... Did the Ariza"l really
say that? (I know, this question sounds like a real beginner's question,
but I have to resolve it).

 - Carl
mailto:cmsherer@fandz.com      mailto:sherer@actcom.co.il

Please daven and learn for a Refuah Shleima for my son,
Baruch Yosef ben Adina Batya among the sick of Israel.
Thank you very much.

At 03:17 PM 2/6/2004, you wrote:
>Rav Shlomo Miller, Shlit"a, of Toronto, recently wrote a teshuva
>concerning murex tekhelet. His opinion is that murex trunculus could
>not be the chilazon, and that people should *davka* not wear it.

I fail to understand how the chemical similarity between techeles from
murex trunculus and the kaleh ilan dye from plant sources makes m.
trunculus = kaleh ilan. This is very sizable lomdishe leap that Rabbi
Miller - great talmid chochom as he is, and he certainly does not need
my haskomo (on the contrary, I have one on my eruvin book from him!) -
is making, and I do not understand how it can be made unless one assumes
that Chazal classified the dye of kaleh ilan on the basis of chemical
analysis. There does not seem to be any basis for this assumption.

It is not clear to me why those who do not hold m. trunculus to be valid
techeles simply say that there is no need for them to wear it - and, of
course, they are right about that. Why not leave those who do wear it do
so in peace? Surely there are far greater problems in Orthodox Jewry today
than some people wearing m. trunculus techeles? There is ample precedent
for shev v'al ta'aseh - which is what rov minyan u'binyan Am Yisroel did
in the face of the Radziner's techeles. You do not find (to the best of
my knowledge) from that time literature attacking those who did decide
to wear it. Yet today, with a far more likely candidate, that is the case.

I do not see the advocates of m. trunclus techeles stridently and
aggressively promoting their product. That does not make them right,
by any stretch of the imagination, but the other side might take a lesson.

The whole dispute reminds me of a series of pamphlets back and forth in
a pitched battle between two antagonists that was being waged back when I
was in the Mir on the critical topic of whether the proper pronunciation
is "morid ha'gashem" or "morid ha'geshem,"

I suggest that instead of advocating for or against techeles let us
advocate for middos tovos and sholom al Yisroel. I suspect that people who
wear techeles are not as bad as Ovdei Avodah Zarah, and sholom protected
the OAZ b'doro sherl Achav. We could use some of that protection...

YGB 

From: "Micha Berger" <micha@aishdas.org>

> I noticed two different ways of relating the sefiros that are qochos
> sheba'alom to the sefiros as descriptions of the self and of our own
> middos (as in Tomer Devorah):

> 1- Flowing downward: ...

> 2- Projecting upward: ...

> REED seems to be saying the latter. Again, I would like someone to check
> that I'm not reading too much into his words.

You imply that the two are contradictory rather than complementary.  I don't
understand why.

David Riceman

On Sun, Feb 08, 2004 at 12:03:23PM -0500, David Riceman wrote:
: From: "Micha Berger" <micha@aishdas.org>
: > I noticed two different ways of relating the sefiros that are qochos
: > sheba'alom to the sefiros as descriptions of the self and of our own
: > middos (as in Tomer Devorah):

: > 1- Flowing downward: ...

: > 2- Projecting upward: ...

: > REED seems to be saying the latter. Again, I would like someone to check
: > that I'm not reading too much into his words.

: You imply that the two are contradictory rather than complementary.  I don't
: understand why.

They're different causal streams. Approach #1 is that THE sefiros are
logically prior to the sefiros qua middos within the person. Approach #2
makes the middos logically prior.

When I read your email I wondered if you weren't right. After all, if they're
mutually consistant and both were oleh al Da'as haBorei simultaneously (or
whatever is the right term for lema'alah min hazeman Thought), why not?

But then I realized it wouldn't work. #1 also implies that THE sefiros have
real existance. #2 says they're perceptions, and exist only in the eyes of
their beholders.

-mi

PS: Why was this off list?

-- 
Micha Berger             I slept and dreamt that life was joy.
micha@aishdas.org        I awoke and found that life was duty.
http://www.aishdas.org   I worked and, behold -- duty is joy.
Fax: (413) 403-9905                        - Rabindranath Tagore

To follow up and slightly modify my earlier post on this subject.
I have some practical experience with iron and other metal powders -
as well as credentials as a chemist. Normal iron powders - even if
finely divided, do not heat up in dry air. You can buy them in some
quantity in glass or plastic jars under air. There are pyrophoric iron
powders that are produced from iron compounds in the absence of oxygen.
These will spontaneously ignite in air and may even produce a flame,
but they are not normal commercial items due to their hazard in shipping.
It would be shocking if the Korean manufacturers were to actually market
such pyrophoric materials for sale in the US, and I would certainly not
recommend that they be used. However, the self-heating warmers under
discussion are presumably not made with such a hazardous metal powder.
That is why I emphasized that aish is presumably not involved in the
use of such a product on shabbat. I had not considered the question
of bishul. Since there is water in the product, the question may be
addressed to those here who are more familiar with the details of what
is and what is not considered bishul.

I do wish to modify my earlier technical discussion. It doesn't change
the end result, but does bring another mechanism into the picture.

 From some additional product information available on the internet it
seems that some resellers of these hot pads would have the user break
open the outer package and shake the prouct to mix it with the air and
water ingredients. This suggests that both oxygen from the air and water
are involved in the heat producing reaction. I suspect, then, that,
an electrochemical rusting reaction is involved wherein active sites
on each iron grain are oxidized by a combination of water and oxygen
to fully oxidized iron (rust). The electrochemical reaction is much
faster than the direct oxidation of the oxide covered iron particles
by air and more exothermic (heat producing) than the direct reaction
of iron with water that I had mentioned earlier. Other than a possible
question of bishul, the issues remain nolad and hatmanah bemosif hevel.
I leave the question of whether these issues actually apply to hand or
foot warmers in more expert hands.

Yitzchok Zlochower

We once discussed the nature of the "ei atah rshai" to write down the
oral law and discussed approaches to the "ongoing" eit laasot(if that
is the reason for the writing)

In R' Schwab on Prayer(P358) he states "However, when Mashiach comes,the
Shas and other printed sefarim will be relegated to museums, and the
original-and ideal-system of learning TSBP will be reinstituted. For
now, Torah learning from written sefarim is only a temporary measure,
a marker, to stay the course, and keep us familiar with the Torah, until
Bias Hamashiach, when the ideal way of learning be'al paeh, orally,
will be reinstituted"

Anyone know sources for this opinion? How does this comport with the Gm
saying (San 99a) only difference will be lack of shibud malchiyot (does
this mean we'll all be learning in Kollel all day and other nations will
support us?) Why is it so clear that there will not be a time prior to
mashiach that the eit laasot will disappear? Lishitato will the museum
copies be sealed and the oral transmission start from there or will all
written psakim be "ignored"? etc.

KT
Joel Rich

There is a well-known (Gemara?) that in a place where a baal teshuva
stands, a tzadik gamur cannot stand.

My understanding of this has been that the baal teshuva knows why he is
avoiding treif, and he remembers its taste, so he is not merely avoiding
it passively the way a frum-from-birth does. Rather, his avoidance has a
positive aspect to it which the FFB's avoidance lacks. This is closely
related to the concept of "z'donos naaseh zechuyos", when sufficient
teshuva occurs.

My b'chor challenged all of the above. His point is that the BT has a
clear understanding of right and wrong, and has deliberately chosen to
keep the Torah. He has defeated his yetzer hara for these things. The
FFB should therefore get more s'char than the BT, because the FFB has
to keep fighting his yetzer hara.

This logic seems very similar to how men get more s'char for Mitzvos Aseh
Shehazman Graman than women do -- women chose to do it, and men have to
fight their yetzer haras. The cases are not identical, because the BT
has acknowledged that these are inescapable obligations (while the woman
is never fully obligated) but that seems to be a minor point. The main
point, my Elly says, is that the yetzer tov/ra balance is very different
in the BT than the FFB.

Any comments?

Akiva Miller

In Avodah V12 #88 dated 2/6/04, From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>
> AishDas is proud to be hosting a new email list by Rav Meir Levin titled
> "Midrash and Method". Here's an excerpt from the introduction (complete text
> at <http://www.aishdas.org/midrash/intro.htm>:
>     Our approach will be as follows. We will present the verse or passage
>     along with its Midrashic comment....
>    You can get a taste of the material by looking at this week's issue, 
> below.

You MUST read Simi Peters' book if you have not already done so.
It's called *Learning to Read Midrash* and it is just brilliant.

To see what it looks like and get an idea what it's about go to her
publisher's website and have a look. It is NOT a collection of medrashim,
but more like an instruction book for how to read a medrash.

[See <http://tinyurl.com/2umty> at Urim Publications. -mi]

 -Toby Katz

Micha Berger wrote
> First, how does "letovah" differ from "letav avad"? Both use the
> preposition "le-". If one means to include the consequences (which is
> nishmah from the "le-") wouldn't the other.
> I saw a different chiluq. NIG assumes that "gam zu letovah" applies
> to every zu, to every act in his life. He takes as a given hashgachah
> peratis in every facet of his life.

The same thing occured to me, and I think that that is the correct focus.
That is... the chiluk is based on the 'zu' - and I understood it to mean
that 'zu' that act or facet in his life was letovah, rather than seeing
it on the general background of 'kol man de'avid rachamana'. However it
is quite possible that my subsequent thoughts are an extrapolation which
is not supported because NIG does still say litovah, not simply tovah.
In any case I find the idea itriguing in any case, and would like to
know if there is support or opposition to it in the sources.

> Second, how do you divorce the question of worth of an activity from that
> of its consequences, or a choice from its purposes? What does "worthwhile
> in and of itself" mean once divorced from "lead[ing] to good results"?

The whole concept removes 'tov' from the realm of human understanding,
just as 'dayan ha'emet' implies a greater definition of 'emet' than one
we can understand, a la Asara harugei Malchut, and just as we don't say
'tov v'yashar', but 'tov v'yashar b'enei Hashem'. This type of approach
seems to me to be muchrach at the higher level where we realise that
Hashem is not bound by time, and so every event which takes place must
also have significance in some way removed from the continuity of time.
That fact that Hashem allows it to occur means it must be significant.
One brick of a bridge is not significant because it leads to another
brick, rather it has significance in relation to it's position in space
and relationship with other bricks through its position. Any conception
of a causative effect between the bricks would be dismissed as incorrect
to a being that does not experience space in a sequential fashion.
So if causality is only a result of our perception and the fact that
Hashem has created Laws of Nature/Physics/Mathematics, how can we, on
the fundamental level, assign worth to an event in a causal fashion? (it
has worth because it lead to something that has worth).

 -Jonathan Cohen, jcoh003@ec.auckland.ac.nz

Shabbos morning, my LOR suggested another peshat (in addition to the
ones RMPoppers reposted from R' Eliezer Chrysler) for "ki qarov hu".

Such a return would be qarov to them. Such is the power of hergel,
even avdus can become something one could be made comfortable with and
close to.

 -mi

On Thu, Feb 05, 2004 at 11:23:40PM -0500, Russell Levy wrote:
: >But thinking about it, what calculation is necessary altogether? What you
: >need is a sqrt(2) or pi ammah long rope, which can be produced by geometric
: >construction given only Euclid. No algebra of any precision to produce a
: >rope as accurately measured at the 10 ammah rope used for techumim.

: Just on the idea of measuring things with ropes or such to get more
: accurate calculations vs. estimating, the gemara in Sukkah 7b and 8a has
: a whole discussion of Rebbi Yochanan and round sukkas, where he says that
: a round sukkah needs to be able to fit 24 people is kosher....

And my question was why does the gemara rely on calculation and relying
on pi and the square-root of 2 altogether?

Create an equilateral right triangle with compass and straight edge.
If the sides are 1 amah each, you can use the hypoteneus to measure out
a ruler or rope that measures in sqrt(2) amah (STA) units.

Given such a ruler, we can disringuish quite clearly between two of the
shitos in Mes Succah with less ambiguity than the form actually used.

A Sukkah that must be 4 amos in diameter (as far across as a 4x4 minimal
Sukkah) can have the diameter measured. Why get into questions of what
that would make the circumferance?

Similarly, one that must be able to fully include a 4x4 Sukkah could
have its diameter measured to be 4 STAs using a ruler constructed as
above. Again, why do algebra to figure out the length when you can
construct it geometrically without needing to approximate the number of
amos in the diameter or circumferance.

It's only if the 4x4 shi'ur is taken to be an area that one can't rely on
construction, and must rely on calculation and therefore on estimation.
There is no way to "square the circle" as it's put.

In which case, my original position would stand: Both sqrt(2) and pi
are irrational numbers. There is no way to use them without rounding.
So, it's just a discussion of what the shi'ur is for such rounding,
not whether or not to approximate.

 -mi

 -- 
Micha Berger             I slept and dreamt that life was joy.
micha@aishdas.org        I awoke and found that life was duty.
http://www.aishdas.org   I worked and, behold -- duty is joy.
Fax: (413) 403-9905                        - Rabindranath Tagore

Mendel Singer wrote:
> Rav Shlomo Miller, Shlit"a, of Toronto, recently wrote a teshuva
> concerning murex tekhelet. His opinion is that murex trunculus could
> not be the chilazon, and that people should *davka* not wear it.
...
> <http://www.chilazon.com/Rav_Miller_letter_Acrobat_V4.pdf>

If I am reading it correctly, there is an incorrect word in the 4th line
of the paragraph beginning u'v'ikar svaras haGraCh... -- the word
l'chumra should be l'kula.

is that correct?

elly

--
Elly Bachrach
Engineering Intent http://www.EngineeringIntent.com
mailto:EBachrach@EngineeringIntent.com

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


[ 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         ]