Avodah Mailing List

Volume 14 : Number 019

Saturday, October 30 2004

• Being Yotzeh with someone else's Bracha
• Re: Zohar Forgery?
• Re: Dveykus vs. Shleymus, Parashas HaShavua
• Re: Josephus and Esrog
• Re: Age of the Universe
• RE: ZOHAR
• Re: Dveykus vs. Shleymus, Parashas HaShavua
• The evolution of Hebrew
• Re: Being Yotzeh with someone else's Bracha
• Halloween
• Re: The evolution of Hebrew
• Changing halacha -intergenerational conflicts
• Re: Changing halacha -intergenerational conflicts
• Re Sanhedrin Stuff
• RE: Josephus and etrog
• Noachide and blessings
• Berakhah for Misas Resha'im
• Re: Noachide and blessings
• Zohar
• My Drasha for the Bris of My New Grandson... Avraham Kirshner

Any general rules(with reasons) and exceptions (with reasons) as to
whether all things being equal it's better for each individual to make
a bracha or have one individual make it and other's be yotzeh?

KT
Joel Rich

On Tue, Oct 26, 2004 at 12:34:17PM +0200, Arie Folger wrote:
: Reb Lipman Phillip Minden wrote:
:> I second the appreciation for responses, and as well answers to the same 
:> questions regarding the Seifer Hazouhar. I'm aware that this is more 
:> delicate, and details are different. Are there opinions holding yes, it is
:> only 700 years old, but the author (Moushe de Leon or not) had knowledge
:> of sod matters?

: I believe that Rav Ya'aqov Emden held this to be the case. (actually,
: it is a bit more complex, but similar).

AIUI, RYE held that something that grew into the Zohar was written
by RSBY, but over a millenium of unpublished transmission, the Zohar
accumulated a lot of additional material, as well as undergoing changes.

On Sun, Oct 24, 2004 at 05:12:09PM -0700, D. Rabinowitz wrote:
: As to if the Zohar or parts therein are fogeries, the best discussion
: of this issue can be found in Tishby's Misnat HaZohar, vol. 1 the
: introduction...

I would like to propose a parallel to the "Kuzari Proof (*). One which
this position satisfies, but would argue against the Zohar being the
work of R' Moshe de Leon from scratch.

The essence of the "Kuzari Proof" is that someone couldn't sell the idea
of ma'amad Har Sinai to the entire nation had they not heard it before.
Why would they believe that this person alone was privvy to information
about something that momentus that happened to everyone's ancestors?

Had RMdL tried convincing them of an entire section of Torah that he
alone knew about, wouldn't the chachamim of that generation have made
a similar objection? Rather, it is more plausible that something along
the lines of either the existance of the Zohar or the majority of the
ideas in the Zohar was already yadu'ah.

Note that Teimanim, who had no mesorah akin to the idea of the Zohar
did summarily reject it outright.

(* Not that I believe the Kuzari intended it as a philsophical proof of
Matan Torah, but that's a different subject.)

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             Until he extends the circle of his compassion
micha@aishdas.org        to all living things,
http://www.aishdas.org   man will not himself find peace.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                        - Albert Schweitzer

On Wed, Oct 27, 2004 at 08:52:07AM -0400, RYGB wrote:
: On the other hand, the Maor Eynayim, for example, here and in Parashas
: Vayakhel, explains that the reason that Hachnosas Orchim is greater
: is because it consists *both* of dveykus - since mitzvah is me'lashon
: tzavta and one therefore experiences Kabbolas Pnei Shechinah in the
: act of Hachnosas Orchim as well - *and* Ha'alo'as HaNitzotzos by kiruv
: tachas Kanfei ha'Shechinah (note that the kiruv is not explained by the
: principle of Chesed and Hatavah but by Ha'alo'as Nitzotzos).

Ha'alas hanitzotzos is understood on either side of the fork.

In contrast to this, Nefesh haChaim 1:6 explains that only through
sheleimus can nitzotzos be modified. Only people are a combination of
all the forces from all the worlds. Therefore, only through a person
correcting the kochos within himself can changes occur between the realms.

I could also argue that ha'alas hanitzotzos is a third tine. Both
deveiqus and sheleimus are about the person -- either one's personal
relationship with the RSO, or one's personal state. Making avodah to be
about an external goal need not be cast into one of these two roles.

One can also see avodah in a fourth perspective: national.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             For a mitzvah is a lamp,
micha@aishdas.org        And the Torah, its light.
http://www.aishdas.org                   - based on Mishlei 6:2
Fax: (270) 514-1507      

Mlevinmd@aol.com posted on 10/23/2004:
>However in Ant. 3.245 he [Josephus]says that it [an esrog]is perseia, an
>avocado like fruit. Also in Ant. 13.372 he says that it is a citron. 

I can't find these references in my edition of Josephus' Writings. I'm
using Whiston's translation, Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1998, which
explains its numbering system in an introductory N.B. to the Index.

Zvi Lampel 

Back on Sun, 12 Sep 2004 Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org:
> RAK invokes RYmA to insert time before the 6 days. He then identifies
> this time with the time science requires. But that places the yetzirah
> of objects ahead of day one! The Ramban (and therefore presumably RYmA)
> would not set the formation of currently existing tzurah before the 6
> days, that being the definition of the pereq.

If I'm reading Rabbi Berger's comment correctly, he is challenging
RAKaplan's understanding of the mekubal, RYmA. If this is the case,
then I suppose R. Berger did not mean to dismiss RAKahn's objections,
nor my objection to the shitta of the TY (and allegedly of Maharal),
by posting on, Mon, 23 Aug 2004, "This puts you in a worse position than
RAKahn's. He wants to challenge RAKaplan's understanding of a mequbal,
a pretty precarious place to be."

Apparently, RMB accepts the fact that R. Kahn, he and I are forced to
take precarious positions sometimes...

Zvi Lampel

Rabbi Ashlag, in his introduction to the Zohar, discusses the issue of
the authorship of the book. He states that he always found it difficult
to believe that RSBY wrote the Zohar because, due to the depth of its
understanding of G-d's world, he thought it must have been written by
Moshe Rabbeinu. If it was truly written by RMDL, Rabbi Ashlag says that
he stands in awe of him.

Kol tuv
Joseph Tabory

[Micha:]
>In contrast to this, Nefesh haChaim 1:6 explains that only through
>sheleimus can nitzotzos be modified. Only people are a combination of
>all the forces from all the worlds. Therefore, only through a person
>correcting the kochos within himself can changes occur between the realms.

>I could also argue that ha'alas hanitzotzos is a third tine. Both
>deveiqus and sheleimus are about the person -- either one's personal
>relationship with the RSO, or one's personal state. Making avodah to be
>about an external goal need not be cast into one of these two roles.

>One can also see avodah in a fourth perspective: national.

Does the NhC mention ha'alo'as nitzotzos explicitly (my sefer is 
unavailable at the moment)?

Expound on "national," please.

YGB

>: I remind all that the language
>: of Tanach does not show much progression over almost a 1000 years,
>: if you accept traditional dating of all books (as we must but that's
>: another discussion).

> One progression that demonstrates the true dating, and is difficult for
> the document hypotehticians to explain is the emergence of the prefix
> "she-".

> We don't find it at all in chumash.

I must disagree. THere is plenty other evidence against the critics.
At the end of parshas Noach - b'shagam hu basar can be translated as
'even though he is flesh'. Sha - is asher.

Also, even if ture - lo rayinu eino raya. Absense of an example does not
mean it did not exist. In any case, Shoftim is pretty early for me. Many
scholars think that the Song of Devorah is very early bse of its use of
many archaic expressions. If true, 'shakamti" suggest that this suffix
was already in use at that time.

M. Levin

In a message dated 10/27/2004 7:55:28pm EST, Joelirich@aol.com writes:
> Any general rules(with reasons) and exceptions (with reasons) as to
> whether all things being equal it's better for each individual to make
> a bracha or have one individual make it and other's be yotzeh?

While there is much on this topic, here is from the
Sefer Piskei Tshuvos on this topic, please point to:
<http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/faxes/PTBirchasHapeiros.pdf>

Kol Tuv,
Yitzchok Zirkind

I was alerted to this piece on www.hirhurim.blogspot.com on Avodah and
sent the attached in response. I don't know if "Simcha" is interested
as it seems to be too long for his comments section, but maybe people
on Avodah are.

Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2004 11:55:11 +0100
From: Chana Luntz <Chana@kolsassoon.org.uk>
Subject: Halloween
To: simcha365@hotmail.com

I tried to send this in as a comment on your Halloween piece, but was told
that for unupgraded accounts, the comment could only be 100 characters
long (or some such):

You write:
>When I first saw this, many years ago, I pointed out to R. Broyde that
>according to Tosafos in Avodah Zarah (26a), eivah only allows one
>to violate a rabbinic prohibition and not a biblical prohibition -
> and that is how later posekim rule.

I realise that this is a complex issue being summarised in a few
sentences, but is that really the case - how about allowing non Jews to
take leckcha shifcha and peah (or are you distinguishing here between
eivah and darchei shalom)?

You then say:
> Only eivah that entails real danger to human life can allow one to
> violate a biblical prohibition.

This is presumably meant to bring in all the cases of doctors being
mechallel shabbas, but is the distinction as clear cut as you have made
it, not to mention that it is somewhat ambiguous whose human life you
are referring to here.

On the main issue under discussion, ie Halloween, please note that as
I live in England and grew up in Australia this is not halacha l'ma'ase
for me, because people don't generally trick or treat in either place,
nor for that matter do we even have candy, as they are called sweets
and biscuits here.

On the other hand, my problem with the discussion whenever it comes up
every year especially as we are frequently in the parsha is this:

If visitors had shown up on Avraham's doorstep looking for candy (by
whatever name) do you think he would have turned them away?

That is, giving food to visitors is about as Jewish as one can get and
turning them away seems about as unJewish as one can get.

It is one thing if the act in question is one with dubious origins.
But giving candy to visitors is hachnasos orchim, and I sruggle to
see how the pagan origins of tricking or treating (ie the reason these
people happen to turn up at one's door) operate overrule the obligations
of hachnasos orchim (if the goyim that Avraham entertained happened to
be travelling in the desert due to some pagan festival, as is more than
likely, are you saying he would not have invited them in?)

I can however see the merit in making it clear to one's guests what we do
and don't keep (as Avraham did in asking his visitors to bless HaShem) -
eg stating (as you give the candy) something like "Jews don't celebrate
Halloween, but we are happy to give candy to visitors whatever the day".

Regards
Chana

On Thu, Oct 28, 2004 at 09:57:18AM -0400, Mlevinmd@aol.com wrote:
: At the end of parshas Noach - b'shagam hu basar can be translated as
: 'even though he is flesh'. Sha - is asher.

It's not muchrach at all that this is teitch. Any more than "totafos"
is a contraction of two loan words. Rashi, for example, says the "besha"
is kemo, not actually the pair of prefixes. "Be-" + "sha-" would be
"through that fact that", the exact antonym of "even though".

But in any case, a shift in frequency from "almost never" is itself
a change in language. It needn't be all-or-nothing to be a new usage
style.

: Also, even if ture - lo rayinu eino raya. Absense of an example does
: not mean it did not exist. In any case, Shoftim is pretty early for
: me....

Yes, "sha-" would be dated to Shemu'el's day, or sometime after dor
hamidbar, and "she-" to two generations later, Shelomo. But of all the
occurances of "asher" in the chumash, only one "might be" of using the
contraction instead. A real difference in style.

But still showing that the language used in chumash is from a different
style than that used in Shofetim. By their own rules of argument, this
dismisses the notion of Devarim through Melachim being a single set of
documents from the D school and its mileu.

BTW, despite this, I think there was a D school. Moshe Rabbeinu's style
determined much of Devarim, his talmidim through the generations wrote
the rest of the texts attributed to D. However, by stringing them out
over venturies, my language problem evaporates.

-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: (270) 514-1507                        - Peter Marshall

I was just asked for help by a distraught parent. Her daughter is now
studying halacha intensely in Israel and has decided that her American
raised mother and father (who have lived in Israel for 20 years) have
not been keeping Shabbos properly. The problem is to list legitimate
differences between American halacha of 20 years ago that the mother
retains and the present Israeli approach. Secondly to identify significant
changes that have occurred between recent generations i.e., 1) 30-50's,
2) 60-80's, 3)90-present - in both America and Israel.

I am in need of concrete examples that demonstrate the consensus has
changed in the realm of Shabbos - with authoritative sources to support
the positions. The primary goal is to convince the learned daughter
that her mother and father have not been desecrating Shabbos all these
years. Her school - which is a well known modern orthodox establishment -
is teaching halacha as if there is only one correct answer and that it
has always been this way.

Daniel Eidensohn

On Thu, 2004-10-28 at 21:28 +0200, Daniel Eidensohn wrote:
> I am in need of concrete examples that demonstrate the consensus has
> changed in the realm of Shabbos - with authoritative sources to support
> the positions. The primary goal is to convince the learned daughter
> that her mother and father have not been desecrating Shabbos all these
> years. Her school - which is a well known modern orthodox establishment -
> is teaching halacha as if there is only one correct answer and that it
> has always been this way.

If they are in Israel, why not read the Shimra[t/s] Shabba[t/s] w/ the
footnotes.  :)

just a thought.

[R' Zvi Lampel:]
> I was only aware of a Saducee presence in the Sanhedrin during the
> relatively short period right before Shimmon ben Shatach eliminated
> them, as stated in the Talmud. What evidence is there of the above?
> Zvi Lampel

well, no -- this is not stated in the Talmud which seems to know nothing
of this incident. Rather it is only mentioned in the "gemora" to an
otherwise obscure reference in m'gilas ta'anis composed at least 600
years after the events in question (i.e. the "g'moroh" not the m'giloh).
Nevertheless, the thrust of the tradition that the day commemorates
removal of Sadducees is undoubtedly true. shimon b. shetach, after all,
was a relative of the widowed queen, who, under his sway, reversed the
anti-p'rushi policies of her late husband Yanai Hammelekh and returned
the p'rushim to Sanhedrin power when she took office -- though the
elaborated tale describing how shimon b. shetach set them a task which
they failed etc. is undoubtedly an embellishment. But bain kakh u'vain
kakh, there is absolutely no reason to think that their estrangement
from the Sanhedrin was anything but temporary, as subsequent hashmonaic
kings reverted to their adversarial posture to the p'rushim. And there
is reason to think otherwise.

While the Talmud itself is mostly silent one way or the other with
regards to the explicit composition of the Sanhedrin, allon notes
various "hints" in Talmudic memory of the presence of saducess --
e.g Sanhedrin 52 which records an incident where a woman was put to
death according to the saducee interpretation of the arboh misos bais
din with the acknowledgement that it was a tzduqi dominated bais din,
or the tosefta which refers to the Sanhedrin hagg'doloh as a bais din
of cohanim, levites, and yisroel(s). non of this is quite explicit and
it can be argued that references to a cohen representation does not
automatically mean saducees, but it is nevertheless suggestive.

But beyond the Talmud, there are also numerous explicit references to
saducees in the Sanhedrin in both josephus and early Christian literature.
And as many of them are maisiach l'fi sumo there is no particular reason
to question their mutually reinforced -- including contemporary eyewitness
-- validity.

Mechy Franke
michael.frankel
michaeljfrankel@hotmail.com

 From Mlevinmd@aol.com:
> Here Josephus says that the Jews use citrons (Esrog) on Succos. However
> in Ant. 3.245 he says that it is perseia, an avocado like fruit. Also
> in Ant. 13.372 he says that it is a citron.

 From my father, Dr. Louis Feldman, professor of Classical Languages at YU:

If you will look at my edition of Josephus, Judean Antiquities 1-4,
published by E.J.Brill, 2000, paperback version 2004, p. 301, on Ant.
3.245, I cite the Septuagint's translation of pri etz hadar (Lev. 23:30)
as karpon xulon horaion, i.e. seasonable fruit of a tree. I cite Jacob N.
Epstein, Introduction to Tannaitic Literature: Mishna, Toephta and
Halakhic Midrashim [Hebrew], ed. Ezra Z. Melamed (Jerusalem: Magnes,
1957) 347-348, who notes the apparent contradiction between Ant. 3.245
and 13.372. Epstein concludes that Josephus is using two different
sources but felt no contradiction. He suggests that perhaps in case the
Israelites did not find a citron they could bring another type of fruit,
inasmuch as the Bible does not specify the fruit. But, we may add, why
the persea, the fruit of a tree that grows in Egypt? Perhaps if you look
in the Thesaurus Linguae Graecae under persea, where you will find all
occurrences of the word. You will find a selection of the occurrences
of this words in Liddell-Scott's Greek Lexicon.

Does anyone know whether Noachides say any Berachot?  What are they?  If
there are such berachot and we hear them being said -- do we say AMEN?

Shoshana L. Boublil

On scjm, they're discussing the appropriate berakhah to be said when
one learns that a son'eh Yisrael, a mass murderer, has died. (Recall
the difference in tenor between the groups when reading the quotes below.)

One person asked if the berakhah can be said when Arafat's death is
announced, given the likelihood (or at least the real possibility)
that they won't admit he's deceased until after the successor is ready
to assume power. (Soviet style. In fact, that poster figured Arafat is
already dead.)

I guess the basic question is whether the berakhah is on the event or
on learning about it, and if the latter, at what point does it become
history rather than the subject of a berakhah?

That person asked:
> I have a halachik problem. If this is confirmed do I say "Shehechiyanu"
> or "Hatov vehamativ"?

Our chaver, R' Shlomo Argamon <argamon@NOargamonSPAM.com> responded:
> I would think "hatov vehametiv", since it benefits all of us.  Rabbi
> Doctor Colonel(?) Josh, you have any sources??

To which RDCJBackon replied:
> Correct. See: Orach Chayim 222:1. Curiously, see OC 224:3 ['ha'ro'eh
>  b'chol h'rish'a] which is a special blessing.

I was curious if anyone had meqoros from after WWII...

:-)BBii!
-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             "And you shall love H' your G-d with your whole
micha@aishdas.org        heart, your entire soul, and all you own."
http://www.aishdas.org   Love is not two who look at each other,
Fax: (270) 514-1507      It is two who look in the same direction.

Shoshana L. Boublil wrote:
>Does anyone know whether Noachides say any Berachot?  What are they?  If
>there are such berachot and we hear them being said -- do we say AMEN?

Regarding the second question:

Shulchan Aruch 115:2 "one is obligated to answer amen after a Jew's
beracha however if the one saying the beracha was an apikorus, kusi,
or child or adult who altered the wording of the beracha one should not
say amen. REMA: we answer amen after the beracha of an idol worshiper
[non Jew] if we heard the entire beracha from him.

Mishna Berura (115:12) because it is not typical for the idol worshiper
[non Jew] to have intent for avoda zara when he mentions Gd's name [it
apparently the same concerning who converted from Judaism] nevertheless
the Taz says that there is no obligation to answer amen after a non Jew
but it is optional.

Biur Halacha: Many achronim hold that the Rambam's opinion is never to
answer amen to a non Jew's beracha. It would appear that lmaaseh one
should be lenient [and say amen] since there are poskim who hold that
even if one did not hear the entire beracha that it is necessary to say
amen as is clear from the Yerushalmi and this is the ruling of the Gra.
Therefore if one wants to be machmir it should only be that he hears
the entire beracha before answering amen.

Daniel Eidensohn

Posted by: taborj@mail.biu.ac.il
> Rabbi Ashlag, in his introduction to the Zohar, discusses the issue of
> the authorship of the book. He states that he always found it difficult
> to believe that RSBY wrote the Zohar because, due to the depth of its
> understanding of G-d's world, he thought it must have been written by
> Moshe Rabbeinu. If it was truly written by RMDL, Rabbi Ashlag says that
> he stands in awe of him.

An important work on this subject is Kadmut Hazohar by R. Dovid Luria.

I don't think that anyone would claim that the Zohar was passed over word
for word for all these years,unless you side with the story that it was
rediscovered as a secluded away manuscript. There were probably different
source midrashim and manuscripts, including those from the Rashbi, and
various Amoraim mentioned there that were availabe throughout the ages
that were edited into the final Zohar that R. MDleon wrote down. That
also explains later references, words and usages that are often cited
as proof of later origin.

Remember, Zohar was personally investigated by R. Yitshak of Acco, who
spoke to all people invovled. ALthough his account of that is missing the
crucial conclusion, his later works fully accept the Zohar as authored
by Rashbi. R.Arye Kaplan cited this as strong evidence in Meditation
and Kabbala.

BTW, R. Yudel Rosenberg wrote in his Hebrew translation of Zohar
that he saw a letter in some book in which R. Y. Emden retracted
his position (his position essentially is identical to what I just
wrote). That letter or book is now widely thought to have never
existed. R. Rosenberg wrote also the stories of teh Mahral and the
Golem. He was a Rav in Montreal and grandfather of hth writer Mordecai
Richler. <http://www.bookrags.com/biography/mordecai-richler/>

M. Levin

Pasuk yud beis in Devarim, Perek Lamed says: "Lo BaShamyim Hee"...the
Torah is not in heaven... "Leimor",...for you to say...: "Mi Yaaleh Lanu
HaShamaymah"...who will ascend for us to Heaven?! The next Pasuk continues
"Ki Karuv Eilecha HaDavar Meod B'Phicha uBilvavcha, Laasoso!" The Torah
is very near to you... in your mouth and in your heart... to do it.

The Roshei Tevos of "Mi Yaaleh Lanu HaShamaymah" make up the word: Milah.

This is a Remez that... through the Zechus of the Mitzvah of Milah...
Moshe Rabbenu went up to Shamyim be Mekabel the Torah.

The Medrash Tanchumah (Parshas Mishpatim -- Os Heh) relates that Ekiles
(or some say it was Unkelos) said to Adrianus,:

 "If a man is not Nimul, he will not be able to learn Torah. As it
says "Magid Devarav L'Yaakov" which is to say... The Torah should be
taught to one who is Mal... like Yaakov. "Lo Asah Kein L'Chol Goy"
You should not do so to the non Jew...because... they are Areilim."
They are uncircumcised.

R. Akiva Eiger tells us B'Shem HaOlalos Efraim... that the reason there is
a Milah Pnimios of Aralas Halev is because of the Milah HaChitznios. And
only when there is Aralas haLev... The heart has to be circumcised and
its compartments opened up... only then... can it properly receive the
true understanding of Torah and Mitzvos.

Now... we Paskin like the Raivad, the Tur, and the Rama in Yoreh
Deyah in the beginning of (Resh Samech Heh)...that if the Avi Haben
is unavailable to be at the Bris, the Minhag is that the Sandek makes
the Bracha "L'Hachniso Bivrisoi Shel Avraham Avinu", never-the-less
if the baby is (Chas V'Shalom) a Yosom, the grandfather of the Nimul
(the fathers' father) should say it, as he is more worthy than the
Sandek. Why?...Because it is the grandfather who is now Zocheh to be
mahul the Orlas Levovo with Torah U'Mitzvos since it is...HE... upon
which the Chiuv of teaching Torah now falls. So the Mitzvah of Bris
Milah has more Shaichus to him.

As the Levush points out: the Bracha of "L'Hachniso" is on the "pulling
in" of the grandfather...through this Mitzvah... of Milah...to the
Chiuv to teach his grandsonTorah.... Aralas HaLev, being the necessary
requirement to learning.

Now...the Daas Zekainim indicates that the essence of Moshe Rabbenu's
ascentiaon to Heaven to be Mekabel the Torah was achieved precisely due
to through the Z'chus of Milah.

Rabbi Matis Blum in his Sefer Torah L'Daas explains this in the following
way:

The Medrash in Parshas Yisro tells us...on the Pasuk "U'Moshe Alah
el Elokim"... that at the moment that Moshe went up to be Mekabel the
Torah, the Malachei HaShareis sought to intercede. Hakadosh Baruch Hu
then changed Moshe's appearance to look like Avraham Avinu and then said
to the Malachim, "If you are embarrassed of him then you are not from
those who went to be Mevaker Choleh him and to eat in his house.

We can now interpret the Daas Zekainim as follows: Since it was in
the Nisayon of on the most painful...3rd day after Milah that Avraham
Avinu was sent the Melachim and the Malachim were reminded of it during
Moshe's Kabbalas haTorah when they wanted to prevent him from receiving
it. HaKadosh Baruch Hu reminded them of what happened in the House of
Avrahm Avinu... and were then Maskim to giving the Torah to Moshe. The
Malachim were thusly reminded and Moshe was told that it is through the
Zechus of Araham Avinu that you received the Torah.

We can now understand the connection of the Pasuk: "Mi Yaaleh Lanu
HaShamaymah". The Torah came down to Bnei Yisrael...through... the Z'chus
of Milah.

It can now be seen how integral Milah is to the proper understanding
of Torah uMitzvos. And I am confident that in the house of Neal and
Tova Kirshner... the Milah Hachitzonius of my grandson Avraham has a
corresponding Aralas HaLev. The Kirshner family, is a family that is
full of heart. I have yet to see anyone speak with as much heart felt
sincereity as does my son-in-law Neal. It can always be said about his
words... "Devarim HaYotzim Min HaLev Nichnas LaLev.

Neal and Tova's dedication to proper Chinuch for their children is
set. Because...THEY... have a commitment to Torah and Mitzvos that is
sincere... AND... sincerely expressed.

I am not the teary eyed type. But when I heard Neal speak at the Sholom
Zachar, I almost did tear because... once again I saw as I have so many
other times, what this family is made of.... that the environment... the
S'vivah... that this house will provide for their children will be one
of very high spiritual caliber. It will be a home of Torah, Avodah,
and Gemilas Chasadim. May HaKadosh Baruch Hu grant them as much Nachas
as I have thus far had from all of my children.

I'd like to conclude with a Brichas Mazel Tov to the entire Maryles and
Kirshner Mishpacha.

HM

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


[ 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         ]