Avodah Mailing List

Volume 16 : Number 026

Sunday, November 13 2005

• Mussar quote of the day
• Re: Eliyahu was not a Cohen?
• Correction Re: names
• Writting His name in full
• RE: Walking 4 amos in Eretz Yisrael
• Re: Kaballa todayh
• Kabbalah Today
• Re: 28 hour long days
• Starting Shmona Esrah together with the Tzibur
• Re: Starting Shmona Esrah together with the Tzibur
• Re: Kesav Ashuris
• Hagar mistreated?
• RE: Hagar mistreated?
• Re: TIDE
• RE: Eliyahu was not a Cohen?
• Re: Starting Shmona Esrah together with the Tzibur
• RE: Walking 4 amos in Eretz Yisrael
• RE: TIDE
• RE: Only one opinion
• RE: Ikkare Hashkafa

Nothing so soothes our vanity as a display of greater vanity in others;
it makes us vain, in fact, of our modesty. --Louis Kronenberger, writer
(1904-1980)

 -Toby  Katz
=============

>> For example if Eliyahu could touch the dead child because of pikuach
>> nefesh it raises the question of how he knew it would help and if he
>> can rely on nevuah to be metamei le-met.

>What's the problem?  He relied on nevuah to bring a korban on a bamah.

Bringing the korban was an "eis la'asos la-Shem." How does that apply
to the other case?

Gil Student,          Yashar Books
Gil@YasharBooks.com

I did it again - wrote before getting mind in gear. Of late my mind is
in neutral too much of the time.

I sent the last posting to Avodah and then went to bed. I went over
what I had written and - oy - I had made an error in translation.
Too tired to get up again.

This morning. I controlled myself not to run to the computer until after
breakfast. As I finished my granola, my wife came in from the garden with
instructions for her laborer. She must have an area dug up and turned over
immediately. So out I go to dig. Then the turiah handle broke and I had
to make a wedge and repair it. And, finally, here I am at the computer.

The shem Adanut does not mean "OUR Master". It means "MY Master" or,
incorrectly in this case, my Masters. ragli = my foot,. raglai = my feet -
not our foot or feet. In the case of the deity, the plural masters
is the honorific singular. Examples: Adonai, Adonai, El rahum ...
Elohim b'rov hasdekha, and, l'havdil, Shalom 'Aleikhem.

So Shalom Aleikhen to you all, -- or is this the makaKom where I should
write shalKom to be modern.

David

(from Areivim, as per the moderators)

>The Shach states that in other languages one may write  G-d's name
>out, however, it has become the Jewish way of writing  it.

The Kitzur SA in 6:3 says that one may not write His name in any other
language. He doesn't even allow writing Ad-ieu - the French for farewell,
but literally meaning "to G-d". (The forerunner of Goodbye [G-d be with
ye] as per http://www.answers.com/goodbye.)

- Danny, Technical PjM, Answers.com :-)

Many years ago my matza making chavura went each year to a spring near 
Pardes Hana for mayyim shelanu and a number of non-bakers joined us.

An elderly Rav, whose name I no longer remember, came along usually 
with the last arrivals a few minutes before sh'kiya and water 
gathering time. He then started to walk off away from the spring while 
we waited impatiently for his return.

Every year he walked further and then further and then still further 
much to our annoyance. But k'vod Torato made us polite.  And the arba' 
amot he added each year would make the CI look like a midget.


k"t

David 

R' Gil noted: Re; Ha-GR"A <<Similarly his attack on the Rambam in YD
> 179 is also a forgery. (Rav Shurkin)

I saw an academic article from about 50 years ago that ably proves
that this rumor was fabricated by maskilim, >>:

I refer you to http://www.yutorah.org/_shiurim/%2FTU8_Schachter.pdf 
where R' Jacob Schachter shows that the "attack" was made by the GR"A 
and is not a forgery of the maskilim.
(near end of article, page 12 IIRC)

RDE writes (looking for sources)
> 7) Kabbalah has always been accepted almost unanimously by gedolim
> throughout history. The only objection was to teaching it to the masses

R' Brill, in one of his recently posted lectures on Kabbalah, I think
the 2nd one (via www.yutorah.org), talks about kabbalah and the 40-year
age limit.

Apparently, there are one or two items in the midrash about waiting until
40 to learn mysticism, but nothing definitive. A number of sources say
to wait until one is 20 to learn kabbalah, and 40 only for the higher
levels of prophecy and use of divine names au Abulafia. Sefardim don't
have this 40 limit.

In 1760 or so, the Frankists came up, and converted to Catholicism,
on the grounds that Kabbalah proves that Chirstianity is the truth (it
doesn't do any such thing, of course). After that, the Vaad Arba Aratzot
decreed that the uneducated masses shouldn't study kabbalah until 40, but
talmidei chachamim could of course continue to study at an earlier age.
Since we are mostly the decendants of the uneducated masses of European
Jewry, we still have that tradition of the 40-limit.

As for "accepted almost unanimously by gedolim", well, first off, how do
you define kabbalah? Usually it's taken to mean the 4-worlds/10- sefirot
system that gained currency in the 13th century, generally after Ramban
and Raavad. R' Isaac Sagi Nahor did kabbalah (student of Raavad), R'
Yosef Gikatilla, and of course R' Moshe de Leon. It's apparently still
an open question among academics as to the age of the Zohar in toto -
there are parts that are clearly late, but there are parts that appear to
be quite early. Bear in mind that what we call the Zohar is largely an
invention of the printers in Cremona and Manuta in 1558, who assembled a
body of texts that were not necessarily linked in composition or content,
and called them "the Zohar".

Heichalot mysticism, such as is expressed in the 2nd chapter of Chagiga,
and older texts such as Pirkei Heichalot, are not kabbalah in the
current sense.

So, did gedolim always accept mysticism? Probably - Yechezkel, the 2nd
chapter of Chagiga, and Ex. 24:11 all seem to describe similar visions
or mystical ascents.

   - jon baker    jjbaker@panix.com     <http://www.panix.com/~jjbaker> -

On Mon, Nov 07, 2005 at 02:23:18PM -0500, Yisrael Dubitsky wrote:
: 2. R. Hanokh Zundel ben Joseph (d. 1867) in his commentary Ets Yosef
: to the siddur (Otsar ha-tefilot, p. 385) applies this teaching (without
: citing his source, contrary to his usual practice) to explain "yom zeh
: mekhubad MI-KOL yamim". In the Artscroll Zemirot book (Brooklyn 1979),
: p. 192 this Ets Yosef is quoted as if it was a [classical rabbinic]
: "homiletical Midrashic passage."

I'm wondering if it's also the zemirah author's intent when he wrote,
"vesham yanuchu yegi'ei ko'ach". If you read ko'ach as a gematria,
the other 6 days qualify as yegi'ei ko'ach.

More significantly, I wonder if the 28 hours in the original statement
is a reference to ko'ach. That Shabbos has some of the ko'ach of all of
the 6 other days, somehow.

-mi

A question:
The sha"tz decided to begin his shmona esrah when most of the 20 others
in the room were still in birchas shma. He had two others start with him.

I noticed in Rav Sternbuch's Teshuvos Vol 1 that Rav Dessler told him
that in Kelm they were very strict that the chazzan didn't start Tzur
Yisroel unless there were 10 ready to begin. That is also the inference
from the Pri Megadim brought down in the 2nd Biur Halacha in O"H 109.

Rav Moishe Z"l IM V 3 talks about joining into a Shmona Esrah mid way,
however I he is talking when there was already a minyan in progress.

It seems to me that they were certainly not yotzai tfilla betzibur
at all.

On Fri, 2005-11-11 at 15:26 -0500, Shlomo N Mandel wrote:
> I noticed in Rav Sternbuch's Teshuvos Vol 1 that Rav Dessler told him
> that in Kelm they were very strict that the chazzan didn't start Tzur
> Yisroel unless there were 10 ready to begin. That is also the inference
> from the Pri Megadim brought down in the 2nd Biur Halacha in O"H 109.

> Rav Moishe Z"l IM V 3 talks about joining into a Shmona Esrah mid way,
> however I he is talking when there was already a minyan in progress.

Something I learned from a shiur of Rav Meir Goldvicht that there's a
difference between davening b'tzibbur which one needs 10 people davening
together, and saying certain things that require a minyan (i.e. kedusha,
kaddish...)

Minyan does not equate to tzibbur if the 10 people that make up the minyan
(i.e. 6 + 4 extras) are not davening together. So while one can still
say the items that require a minyan, one doesn't get the "extra oomph"
(my words, not R' Goldvicht's) that "tefilla b'tzibbur" is supposed
to provide. You are basically davening b'yichidut, just can say the
things that require a minyan.

Way back in v8n118 (Feb 2002) RDRiceman wrote
<http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol08/v08n118.shtml#03>:
> Micha Berger wrote:
>> (I might point out that while the letters were carved all the way through,
>> there was already a neis in the geometry involved, since they were not
>> backwards on the other side. Li nir'eh both are the same neis involving
>> the abnormality of the carving.)

> Rabbi Hartman understand's the Maharal's understanding of Rashi's ...
> differently from this. See his edition of Gur Aryeh Ki Tissah 32:15 D"H
> Mishnei Evreihem and footnotes 63-64.

(See
<http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/getindex.cgi?section=K#KESAV%20ASHURIS>
for the full discussion.)

The subject came up just now on scjm. Which reminded me that I never found
this reference. Could you just post a summary?

Gut Voch!
-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             You will never "find" time for anything.
micha@aishdas.org        If you want time, you must make it.
http://www.aishdas.org                     - Charles Buxton
Fax: (270) 514-1507      

On Fri, Nov 11, 2005 at 08:02:32AM -0500, Yitzchok Levine wrote [to
Areivim]:
: The Ramban agrees that Hagar was mistreated. In his commentary on 
: Lech Lecha 16.6 he wrote (quoting from R. Chavel's translation, page 
: 213), "And Sarai dealt harshly with her, and she fled from her face. 
: Our mother did transgress by this affliction, and Abraham also by his 
: permitting her to do so. And so, G-d heard her, [Hagar's] affliction 
: and gave her a son who would be a wild-ass of a man, to afflict the 
: seed of Abraham and Sarah with all kinds of affliction."

: Apparently the affliction of Hagar was so harsh that we are still 
: paying for it today!

According to the Ramban, this would explain why the end of galus Mitzrayim
was 400 years counted from Yitzchaq's birth. The mistreatment began
when Yitzchaq entered the picture. Which means that de facto, if not
explicitly stated, we start counting the galus from the anguish of Hagar,
a princess of Egypt.

Gut Voch!
-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             One who kills his inclination is as though he
micha@aishdas.org        brought an offering. But to bring an offering,
http://www.aishdas.org   you must know where to slaughter and what
Fax: (270) 514-1507      parts to offer.        - R' Simcha Zissel Ziv

Micha Berger wrote:
> According to the Ramban, this would explain why the end of galus Mitzrayim
> was 400 years counted from Yitzchaq's birth. The mistreatment began
> when Yitzchaq entered the picture. Which means that de facto, if not
> explicitly stated, we start counting the galus from the anguish of Hagar,
> a princess of Egypt.

Three problems with the above cheshbon.

First of all the incident in question occurred at least 17 years before
Yitzchok's birth. 

Second, the incident at Yitzchok's birth was not even considered as a sin
by the Ramban. Chazal say that the term mitzachek by Yishmael refers to AZ
and I don't recall the Ramban arguing with Chazal on this point. Besides,
Hashem himself told Avraham "kol asher tomar licha sara shma bikola"
so it doesn't seem possible to extend the Ramban's criticism to the
incident with Yitzchok.

Third, the bris bein haBisarim occurred before either one of the incidents
with Hagar occurred so it would seem unlikely (although perhaps possible)
to attribute the punishment of 400 years to a future iniquity of Avraham
and Sara that hasn't even occurred yet and that is taluy on their bechira.

Simcha Coffer

On Sat, Nov 12, 2005 at 09:39:55PM -0500, S & R Coffer wrote:
: So are you saying that RSRH was entirely unaware of the potential hazards
: of such a shita and if so, how is imputing such a lack of vision to RSRH
: any better than postulating that his shita was meant for his generation
: as opposed to other more ideal circumstances?

Lehefech!

RSRH clearly saw TIDE as the ideal, and therefore promoted it despite
knowing some would abuse it. Had he thought it was only a hora'as sha'ah,
how would he justify a compromise with reality that leads some astray?

In any case, perhaps RSRH had a very solid estimate of how many would
go to an O-lite and how many would leave altogether with and without
promulgating TIDE. Why do you think these same people would have not
looked to water things down or leave in some other way?

Gut Voch!
-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             "The worst thing that can happen to a
micha@aishdas.org        person is to remain asleep and untamed."
http://www.aishdas.org          - Rabbi Simcha Zissel Ziv, Alter of Kelm
Fax: (270) 514-1507      

R' Gil Student wrote;
>>> For example if Eliyahu could touch the dead child because of pikuach
>>> nefesh it raises the question of how he knew it would help and if he
>>> can rely on nevuah to be metamei le-met.

>>What's the problem?  He relied on nevuah to bring a korban on a bamah.

> Bringing the korban was an "eis la'asos la-Shem." How does that apply
> to the other case?

Whom says a navi needs the technical parameters of eiss la'asos to
temporarily change something in the Torah? Eiss la'asos has to be used
by people who are not neveim in order to contravene the Torah such as
the sages at the time of Chasimas haTalmud (to write down Torah shba'al
peh) but all a navi requires is a message from Hashem and as long as the
purported message does not permanently undermine one of the mitzvos in
the Torah his nevua is considered valid. Obviously the assumption here
is that Eliyahu understood from Hashem that what he was doing was proper.

Simcha Coffer

I believe that we may have discussed this before. Iirc it was a
machloket r moshe and r oy as to whether one gets credit for tfilaa
btzibur if one has ten but some have already davened.

Kt
joel rich

R' Avigdor Feldstein wrote:
> In a related note, R' Yosef Chaim Zonenfeld lived in Batei Machseh,
> and frequently visited Meah She'arim. On the way to MS he would exit
> the old city through Sha'ar Sh'chem and on the way back he would enter
> through Shaar Yaffo (or vice versa), saying that with taking this route
> he is mekayim the pasuk sobi tziyon v'hakifuho...

When R' Shmuel Salant, the Rav before Rav Yosef Chaim, came to eretz
Yisrael, he was seen counting the houses and other edifices as he walked.
When questioned regarding his behaviour, he quoted the second half
of the above pasuk, "sifru migdaleha, shisu libchem licheyla, pasgu
arminoseha"...

Simcha Coffer

R' Micha Berger wrote:
> RSC is correct that for many, invoking TuM or TIDE became an excuse for
> being O-lite. However, that doesn't justify misrepresenting RSRH's
> shitah.

So are you saying that RSRH was entirely unaware of the potential hazards
of such a shita and if so, how is imputing such a lack of vision to RSRH
any better than postulating that his shita was meant for his generation
as opposed to other more ideal circumstances?

Simcha Coffer 

R' Samuel Svarc wrote:
> My gut feeling was like what you had written, but then I saw the list
> in Avodah V16 #23 from R' Daniel Eidensohn. I even reviewed the previous
> posts to see if maybe you had been talking about something in Gemara and
> that would be your distinction. However, it appears to me that when you
> say "maamarey Chazal", especially after RBK saying "aggadah pf Chazal"
> that your referring to Midrashim as well.

> |I would love to see this Ramban. I await your response with baited breath.
> |(Please don't point to the Ramban in the vikuach who says nothing like
> |what you mentioned)

> After seeing the Ramban in translation from RDE (and dimly remembering
> it from memory) I really would like to hear your p'shat in it.
> Superficially, I don't see any difference.

RDE wrote a comprehensive email on this subject and there were several
comments from others such as RGS and RET. In order to do this subject
justice, I need several hours of preparation time which I don't have
right now. I hope to get to this most important of subjects by the end
of the week. As far as my "pshat" in the Ramban in the vikuach, most
people understand the Ramban's words in the context of his debate with
Pablo Christiani (see Shevel offen ort). He was merely being docheh him
b'kash because he knew Pablo could never fathom the profound meaning of
Chazal in the aggados and would only use them as a "kardum lachtzov bo"
in the debate. Anyone who learns the Ramban knows the respect the he
has for aggados Chazal and to think otherwise is to ignore the Ramban in
countless places. More needs to be said about this Ramban in the vikuach
but not for now.

Simcha Coffer 

> On Fri, Nov 04, 2005 at 04:36:50PM -0500, S & R Coffer wrote:
>: I don't believe you are correct on either count. The Rambam states that
>: this Mishana is the most appropriate place to mention the 13 Ikkarim
>: however this doesn't mean that the primary significance of the Ikkarim is
>: to act as a definition of eligibility for olam habba....

> I don't know what you mean by this since you write later in the
> same post:
>: The reason the Rambam chooses this Mishna to state his thirteen ikkarim
>: is because the salient feature of an Ikkar is that its denial (or its
>: ignorance) leads to a loss of olam habba....

I'll give you an example that will illustrate my meaning in the above
paragraph. A Chevy Corvette is a car that is able to accelerate quickly and
maintain relatively high speeds. Thus, the "definition" of a Chevy Corvette
is "a car" and the salient feature of this car is that it travels at
accelerated speeds relative to other cars but that does not mean that I
would define a Corvette as "accelerated speed". 

>: ...                                                   And your definition
>: of the Ikkrim's term of Ikkar is, IMO, definitely incorrect.

> This may be your opinion, but it's made without providing source.

First paragraph in Chelek aleph perek dalet (understood best when in
conjunction with other statements by the Ikkrim).

> It's
> clear from the structure of Seifer haIkkarim that R Yoseif Albo used
> ikkarim primarily from which to derive the rest of the faith. This isn't
> simply one citation, it's the organizational structure of the entire work.

O.K. So please explain to me how the Baal haIkkrin derived the issur of,
say, sha'atnez from one of the three ikkrim.

>: Betey denim l'giyur go lichumra because there's no reason to go likula
>: when it comes to giyur. This doesn't mean that we pasken like the Rambam
>: in all contingencies...

> I would agree with that last sentence, but only because of the word
> "all". There are times to be meiqil. But black-letter halakhah is
> according to the Rambam. Other cases where we hold like the Rambam where
> the issue isn't as permanent as yuchsin... It's enshrined in the siddur.
> The current debate over the kashrus of messianist L wine or shechitah is
> always phrased in terms of comparing messianism with the Rambam's ikkarim
> (in some broad form, not necessarily as the Rambam meant them).

Although the belief in mashiach is not necessarily an ikkar (depending on
the machlokes the Rambam and the Ikkrim) that doesn't mean that a lack
in belief of mashiach would not invalidate one's wine halachically. The
only difference between the Ikkrim and the Rambam is in semantics,
that is, what is technically able to be referred to as an ikkar as I
defined it in my last post. However, even the Ikkrim would hold like
the Rambam regarding the invalidation of one's wine regarding 11 out
of the thirteen Ikkarim of the Rambam except that he doesn't call them
Ikkarim. He calls the se'ifim or anafim.

BTY, my shita re L wine is that belief in the Rebbe as mashiach does
not invalidate the believer's wine however belief in his divinity chs'v
does. If the aforementioned picks up sped on Avodah, I will outline
my approach in more detail however, the subject may be to politically
charged for the moderator...let's wait and see.

Simcha Coffer

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


[ 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         ]