Avodah Mailing List

Volume 22: Number 16

Sat, 23 Dec 2006

• 1. Re: Keil melech neeman (Micha Berger)
• 2. Shitas R' Tam (Marty Bluke)
• 3. Re: zman hadloko erev Shabbos and motzoei Shabbos (Zev Sero)
• 4. Re: Keil melech neeman (Simon Montagu)
• 5. Re: History of Havarah (Zev Sero)
• 6. Re: zman hadloko erev Shabbos and motzoei Shabbos (kennethgmiller@juno.com)
• 7. Re: Keil melech neeman (kennethgmiller@juno.com)
• 8. Re: zman hadloko erev Shabbos and motzoei Shabbos (Akiva Blum)
• 9. Re: Keil melech neeman (David E Cohen)
• 10. Re: Yetzer HoRa Issues (Micha Berger)
• 11. Re: History of Havarah (Micha Berger)
• 12. Re: al pesach beiso mebachutz (Mike Wiesenberg)
• 13. Re: History of Havarah (Daniel Israel)
• 14. Why the woman is makneh herself (Shmuel Weidberg)

On Thu, Dec 21, 2006 at 02:34:20PM -0500, Zev Sero wrote:
: How about repeating "ani Hashem Elokechem"?

For the Morrocans, who hold that repetition doesn't ruin the semichah
between Shema and Emes veYatziv, you have a question. But AFAIK they
don't say Keil Melekh Ne'eman anyway. (RtSB, could you confirm?)

For the rest of us, it would mean inserting three words in between
rather than two. Not an advantage.

Side note:

I noted in the past that haKeil haGadol haGibbor vehaNorah could be read
as a noun with three adjectives, or a list of four nouns. I argued that
this showed an intentional lack of distinction between adjective and noun,
to sound like the Moreh for a minute: between accident and essence.

The same is true with Keil Melekh Ne'eman. I capitalized "Ne'eman" to
reflect the possibility that we read it "the Reliable One" rather than
that we are saying He is a reliable King. Not that I believe we should
think of those as distinct options, but as an English speak I find it
difficult to avoid.

:-)BBii!
-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             Like a bird, man can reach undreamed-of
micha@aishdas.org        heights as long as he works his wings.
http://www.aishdas.org   But if he relaxes them for but one minute,
Fax: (270) 514-1507      he plummets downward.   - Rav Yisrael Salanter

With all the discussion of R' Tam with regards to lighting Chanuka candles,
I would like to raise the following. R' Tam's shita has always really
bothered me. The Gra's question of hachush machish (reality contradicts R'
Tam)  is so powerful and obvious I don't understand how the Rishonim could
have said what they said. Did they never go outside an hour after sunset and
see that it was pitch black and you could see hundreds of stars? It is clear
from the Gemara that tzeis is an astronomical phenomenon because the Gemara
gives other astronomical simanim besides the shiur in mil.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20061222/d19a30f6/attachment-0001.html 

A & C Walters wrote:

>> Shabbos earlier than 72 minutes after sh'kiah in NYC.  Apart from the 
>> fact that R"T, the Ramban and other rishonim did not live in White
>> Russia, they were giving the z'man for Eretz Yisrael/Bavel, which
>> Rabbi Yehudah in the Gemara was no doubt discussing.

> You are right. The Gr"o himself makes this point, that the zman daled 
> mil is only in Bavel/EY. However he is a daas yochid in this point.

Daas Yochid?  What is the Baal Hatanya, chopped liver?


> Royv  hold that there is no difference in the oyfek.

I'm sorry, but this is insupportable.  It is simply not possible to
ignore the latitude, and to pretend that X minutes after sunset it is
just as dark at 52 degrees as it is at 32 degrees.  It's obvious that
the farther you are from the equator, the longer it takes the sun to
sink a given number of degrees below the horizon, and therefore to
reach a given degree of darkness.  Whatever degree of darkness you
consider to be tzh"k, if it takes 72 minutes to get there in EY at the
equinox, it will take longer anywhere north of EY, or at any other date.
And any shita that ignores this fact cannot be taken into account, no
matter how many achronim, ignorant of astronomy, thought that way.


-- 
Zev Sero               Something has gone seriously awry with this Court's
zev@sero.name          interpretation of the Constitution.
                       	                          - Clarence Thomas

On 12/21/06, Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org> wrote:
> the Moroccan minhag is for the Chazan to repeat "Hashem
> E-lokeikhem" and the qahal answers "Emes". This avoids anyone going from Shema
> to the berakhah and then back to Shema again. No hefseiq.

In my experience of Moroccan and other Sephardic minhag it's the other
way around: after the Hhazan finishes Shema` with "Hashem E lokeichem"
the qahal answers "Emet", and then the Hhazan repeats "Hashem E
lokeichem Emet" and continues "veyatziv venachon..." or "ve'emuna kol
zot..."

Micha Berger wrote:

> I recall asking it on Mesorah. However, there I got answers about the history
> of havarah evolution, and few (your reply excepted) from the direction of the
> halakhos of Shema and leining. (And, as RMF points out in his teshuvah,
> chalitzah, where the difference could be an issur eishes ish and mamzeirim!)

?  Yevama lachutz is only a lav, and therefore her children are not
mamzerim.

-- 
Zev Sero               Something has gone seriously awry with this Court's
zev@sero.name          interpretation of the Constitution.
                       	                          - Clarence Thomas

Akiva Blum wrote: <<< My kashe is based on that biur halocho. He 
claims the difference between RT which is 1 1/5 hours after shkiah 
and plag which is 1 1/4 hours before tzeis is 1/20 of an hour. It 
would seem that you are mixing hours to reach 3 minutes. >>>

Nope, it's not "you" (=ACWalters) who is mixing the hours. It is the 
Beur Halacha who is doing it.

Akiva Blum wrote: <<< If the biur halocho is also using 72 minutes, 
it appears that he is mixing "hours"; those from dawn to tzais for 
plag, and those from sunrise to sunset for 72 minutes. >>>

I think I see it differently. The Beur Halacha is saying that Plag is 
not 1 1/4 hours before shkia, but that it is 1 1/4 hours before 
tzeis. That, on its own, is not problematic. But then he calculates 
those 1 1/4 hours as 75 fixed clock minutes, or perhaps 1 1/4 
twelfths of the time from sunrise to sunset, instead of the 
calculation which I would have expected, namely 1 1/4 twelfths of the 
time from alos to tzeis.

I do not know why the Beur Halacha chose to do the calculation in 
that manner, but it is undeniable that he did. Translation provided 
on request.

Akiva Miller

R' Joel Rich asked:
> Does anyone know why we say this before shma when we are
> saying it byichidut (& it seems a hefsek) ...

It only appears to be a hefsek if one presumes the previous line to 
be a Birkas Hamitzvah. But if one discounts this possibility, then 
these three words -- which are very on-topic to what we're saying 
before and after it -- are no more problematic than any other piyut 
which is added to that portion of the davening.

Thus, the fact that these three words are accepted as a valid 
practice, is evidence that the previous line is NOT a Birkas 
HaMitzvah.

Alternatively, if one objects to adding piyutim to Birkas Krias 
Shema, then this is just another example of it, and does not need to 
be singled out as being unusual.

Akiva Miller

I wrote:
   >
   >> I don't understand this cheshbon.
   >> Accoring to RT, visable shkiah is irrelavant. It should follow that 
   >> calculating the length of a 'hour' would include the 72 minutes after 
   >> shkiah and 72 before haneitz. Total minutes in a day is 864 (instead of 
   >> 720 acc. To Gra).
   >> One hour is 864/12=72 minutes. One and a quater hours is 72*1.25=90 
   >> minutes. So plag is 90 minutes before 72 after shkiah which is... 18 
   >> minutes (zmanios, in the winter)  before shkiah.
   >
   >See Biur Halocho 261 d"h "lehakdim" who explains very clearly.
   >
 Let me try again.
My kashe is based on that biur halocho. He claims the difference between RT which is 1 1/5 hours after shkiah and plag which is 1 1/4 hours before tzeis is 1/20 of an hour. It would seem that you are mixing hours to reach 3 minutes.
RT can be calculated based on 40 mil from sunrise to sunset or 40 mil from dawn to tzais. To achieve a figure of 72 minutes, you must be working from sunrise to sunset: 40 mil in 12 hours is 72 minutes for 4 mil. The other cheshbon would arrive at 90 minutes or even 96.
The biur halocho works with plag 1 1/4 hours before tzais. This, I contend, must be 1 1/4 of 12 "hours" from dawn to tzais if we are to use it working back from tzais.Plag hamincha is a portion of the day. Thus 1 1/4 "hours" is  ((12 hours+8 mil)/12) * 1 1/4 which is 93.75 (if 4 mil is 90 min) or 95 minutes (if 4 mil is 96 min), or 90 (if 4 mil is 72 min)  leaving the difference between plag and shkiah at 3 3/4 minutes (90) before shkiah or one minute (96) after shkiah.
However, if RT is at 72 minutes, as you assume, then 1 1/4 "hours is ((720+72+72)/12) * 1.25 =90, and plag is18 minutes before shkiah.

If the biur halocho is also using 72 minutes, it appears that he is mixing "hours"; those from dawn to tzais for plag, and those from sunrise to sunset for 72 minutes.

Akiva

R' Joel Rich asked:
> Does anyone know why we say this before shma when we are saying it
> byichidut (& it seems a hefsek) rather than repeating hashem eilokeichem
> emet at the end of the shma (as the chazan does)?

This exact question is addressed in Chapter 15 (p. 285) of Prof. Ta-Shma's
"Minhag Ashkenzaz ha-Kadmon."

If those who don't have access to it are interested, I can b"n write up a
short summary after Shabbos.

--D.C.

On Wed, December 20, 2006 7:54 pm, kennethgmiller@juno.com wrote:
:> So it would seem to me that people consistently define YH as a
:> yeitzer whose results tend to be evil: impulsivity, unbridled
:> imagination (both in contrast to seichel), hedonism (in contrast
:> to sanctity), etc... Not one whose actions are defined as a draw
:> to evil itself.

: Great! Now, we can attempt to fine-tune it a bit...

This is already a difference in focus. You're looking to construct a
definition of YhR (shifting the acronym to make room for YhT), whereas I'm
looking at definitions provided by ba'alei mesorah. Even though it's closest
to

: The way I put it was that the YH is a drive to do the things which
: one understands to be evil, regardless of whether or not they
: actually *are* evil.

: I must confess to having reservations about that definition.

I do as well. Which may explain why I didn't see it when looking at meqoros.
Even though "a drive to do evil" as I think it's defined would be the more
literal translation.

: Can it really be that a person is driven to do things which he
: himself considers to be evil?
...
: Rather, someone who is controlled by his yetzer hara is someone who
: does what he wants, for reasons which appeal to him. It's not that he
: is *trying* to be evil, but that he doesn't *care* whether he is
: doing right or wrong. Or, more precisely, he defines "good" in his
: own way -- will this benefit his family, his friends, himself --
: without caring whether or not G-d or society deem it to be good or
: evil.

: Es chato'ai ani mazkir hayom -- How often have I said, or thought, "I
: really ought to be doing ABC, and not XYZ, but I just don't care."

The question, LAD, is what kind of "good" he is pursuing. Tov lema'achal is
also "tov", and people do knowingly satisfy that ta'avah while fully aware
that they ought to be choosing otherwise. Yes, every choice is motivated by
incentive (to borrow a phrase from some economics textbook or another), which
means that every choice has some value by the way it was measured. The
measurement could be wrong, the value could be inferior to the value lost on
some other axis. But if he could see it were ra in every way, the person
wouldn't choose it.

My favorite example is getting up in the morning. I am fully capable of
knowing that I'm choosing to roll over rather than make it to minyan, and yet
still roll over. Because I'm choosing "tov lema'achal" (well, tov on a
physical axis) over

That is what I think motivates shitah #1.

1- Impulsivity vs seikhel: In this model, the YhR is impulsivity, acting on
the ta'avah without allowing the "I ought" to filter our actions.

And from there, it's a short step to #2:

2- Dimyon vs seikhel: Velo sasuru acharei levavkhem ve'acharei eineikhem.
Dimyon, whether of things imagined (levavkhem) or seen (eineikhem), is the
direct ancestor of ta'avah.

I think these two models really differ in that looking at impulsivity means
that one is focusing on a lack of filtering being the primary cause of
following ta'avos. Whereas in the second model, it's an issue of choosing the
ta'avah.

There are the times when that choice would create such cognitive dissonance
that the ta'avah clouds our judgement and we construct rationalizations.
Impulsivity doesn't quite cover it. (Perhaps it's about impulsively making the
decision, before the seikhel is fully involved, and then letting it lead the
seikhel.) The dimyon model better fits the notion of dimyon leading the
seikhel astray. But these models are weak in this regard.

But in any case, perhaps I should have numbered them 1a and 1b because I think
they are both really different etiologies for ta'avah vs seichel.


RYS opens the Igeres haMussar "Ha'adam chafshi bedimyono ve-assur bemuskalo", 
and then lamenting how dimyon could lead one away from din. As I recently
wrote in my blog <http://www.aishdas.org/asp/2006/12/ruach-memalela.shtml>
sec. 3, I think this is best mapped to the YhR-YhT dialectic by identifying
the YhR with the freedom of dimyon, not with dimyon itself. As I wrote here in
a comment that spawned that blog entry, nevu'ah involves dimyon too. But once
you make dimyon its own master, it becomes a lo sosuru problem.

The problem I have with both of these models is that it presumes that the
seichel is on the right track. RYS is speaking to someone who knows there is a
yom hadin, but can be distracted from it by dimyon. They both fail to describe
the problems that lead to epicureanism (as it evolved, not Epicurus's version)
-- "eat drink and be merry", "wine women and song" or "sex, drugs and
rock-n-roll", where someone is convinced it's logical to pursue ta'avah. Would
you call this following the YhT? Are they arguing the position is inherently
irrational, and can only be reached by enslaving seichel to ta'avah?

3- Rav Hirsch doesn't identify this with YhR vs YhT, but his writings
repeatedly refer to the choice between man's higher calling vs his more
bestial nature. It's kind of like ruchnius vs gashmius, except that it doesn't
carry connotations of man correctly identifying what his calling is. Thus it's
also not quite tov vs. ra; for that matter, even ruchnius vs gashmius itself
wouldn't be.

This is also very central to Victor Frankel's pyschological model. As his
book's title presumes, man has a quest for Meaning no less innate than his
quest for physical pleasures. That meaning could be defined religiously, or it
could be like his description of his own drive to make it through the camp in
Terezin just to see his wife again. But it's a drive to live for more than
just myself.

This then feeds the Gra's version of Naran, and leads into one of my pet
topics (discussed here and on Aspaqlaria ad nauseum).

I think my preferance for this last model shined through in how I treated
each. But they're models -- oversimplified metaphors that explain meaningful
chunks of a bigger problem. Just because the models contradict doesn't mean
they are necessarily disputing about the nature of the thing being described.
It's a big elephant; each blind man describes his part. They describe
different aspects of the whole.


Looking at the linguistics:

First, "yeitzer" means "that which causes a tzurah", not "inclination".

Second, I raised question in the past: Do we say "yetzer hara" or "hayetzer
hara"? I find both quite often. However, a semichut wouldn't get a hei
hayedi'ah on the first word. "Beis haMiqdash" not "haBeis haMiddash". So,
"YhR" would be "the form-giver of evil". On the other hand, "hYhR" would be
noun and adjective, where both do get the prefix, and would be calling the YhR
the more evil of the two yetzarim.

IOW, it is within simple peshat of the words to talk about hYhR being an
inclination which gives a shape to one's actions that happens to be more often
destructive than that of hYhT. But only if both words take the hei hayedi'ah.

Tir'u baTov!
-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             Spirituality is like a bird: if you tighten
micha@aishdas.org        your grip on it, it chokes; slacken your grip,
http://www.aishdas.org   and it flies away.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                            - Rav Yisrael Salanter

On Thu, December 21, 2006 6:50 pm, R Daniel Israel wrote:
: In this light I sometimes wonder if it is possible to say that the
: shift having occured, should we now change it?  This relates to
: your (RMB's) recent comments about minhagim.  In areas of minhag
: and sometimes even we often don't roll back a mesorah even when we
: find something funny about the origin....

Yes, I posted a number of times my belief that a mihag ta'us is one that is
shown to lead to wrong behavior rather than also including one whose basis was
found to be flawed and therefore exists for no good reason.

You just explained why I feel my question is more valid WRT sheva,
mile'eil-milera, ayin and ches, where it would be minhag vs din. In which
case, if we know it's not well grounded, do we have permission not to fulfill
Shema as per the gemara (and Rambam)? Isn't that clearly a ta'us?

Tir'u baTov!
-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             Spirituality is like a bird: if you tighten
micha@aishdas.org        your grip on it, it chokes; slacken your grip,
http://www.aishdas.org   and it flies away.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                            - Rav Yisrael Salanter

RYSE paskens that nowadays all in Eretz Yisrael should light outside,
because
the heter for lighting inside does not apply. His teshuva argues with a
teshuva from
a former posek of the Tel Aviv area, I think the Shut Dvar Yehoshua it is
called, who
says that a couple of rishonim(one is the ohr zarua) seem to apply the move
to lighting inside is permanent.
RYSE claims that is not the correct reading of those rishonim, and that the
pashtus of
the halacha is that the heter to light inside is only beshas hasakana.


>>The reason is that kmat all poskim hold it's better to to light inside.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20061222/e19e08db/attachment.htm 

Micha Berger wrote:
> On Thu, December 21, 2006 6:50 pm, R Daniel Israel wrote:
> : In this light I sometimes wonder if it is possible to say that the
> : shift having occured, should we now change it?
> 
> You just explained why I feel my question is more valid WRT sheva,
> mile'eil-milera, ayin and ches, where it would be minhag vs din. In which
> case, if we know it's not well grounded, do we have permission not to fulfill
> Shema as per the gemara (and Rambam)? Isn't that clearly a ta'us?

I've heard this idea from several sources, but my only question is 
whether it is possible that the gemara is only giving examples.  IOW, 
how clear is it that these specific sounds have some more important 
status?  Or is it only that these were sounds that were commonly mixd up 
in the gemara's time?  I have the same question about people who are 
very m'dakdek in the pronunciation of "tizkaru": is the intention of the 
SA in pointing out this word that it is a particular problem, or just an 
example.

-- 
Daniel M. Israel
dmi1@cornell.edu

I think the reason that the Torah required that a woman give up her
right to exit a marriage of her own free will is because nashim daatan
kalos. Women would be too quick to enter a marriage if it was too easy
to exit. Likewise, they would exit the marriage more easily in the
face of a temporary setback.

The gemara gives this reason for the takana that the husband has to
write a kesuba.

-Shmuel


------------------------------


Avodah mailing list
Avodah@lists.aishdas.org
http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 5, Issue 16
*************************************

Send Avodah mailing list submissions to
	avodah@lists.aishdas.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
	http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
	avodah-request@lists.aishdas.org

You can reach the person managing the list at
	avodah-owner@lists.aishdas.org

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Avodah digest..."