Avodah Mailing List

Volume 23: Number 205

Tue, 25 Sep 2007

• 1. Re: Halizah (or is it better for one person to do a vadai mitzva...) (Richard Wolpoe)
• 2. Re: rationalism and mysticism (Moshe Y. Gluck)
• 3. Re: Berich Shemei (Danny Schoemann)
• 4. 2 aninut/aveilut ? (Rich, Joel)
• 5. Re: Avodah Digest, Vol 23, Issue 203- R. Y.Emden on Chritinaity (JoshHoff@aol.com)
• 6. Re: Rav Yaakov Emden & Christianity (Daniel Eidensohn)
• 7. Re: The Rambam, rationalism and mysticism (Zoo Torah)
• 8. Berich Sheme (Minden)
• 9. Ledovid in German Siddurim (Jonathan Baker)
• 10. Re: lifnei iver/kanaus (Elazar M. Teitz)
• 11. Re: The Rambam, rationalism and mysticism (Yitzhak Grossman)
• 12. Re: The Rambam, rationalism and mysticism (Yitzhak Grossman)
• 13. Re: Halizah (or is it better for one person to do a vadai mitzva...) (Celejar)
• 14. Re: Berich Sheme (Richard Wolpoe)
• 15. Fwd: [Mesorah] FW: Re: Lashon Tanach vs. Lashon Hazal (Richard Wolpoe)

On 9/24/07, Chana Luntz <chana@kolsassoon.org.uk> wrote:
>
> RYG writes in response to RMB:
>
> >
> Well you seem to both be right.  The Encyclopedia Talmudit brings as a
> machlokus rishonim whether or not chalitza is a mitzva chiyuvis or not.
> The Mordechai, inter alia, appears to agree that it is a mitzvah
> chiyuvis, and therefore even if neither yevam or yevama wants to do
> chalitza, and the yevama has no intention of getting married, they
> should be forced like other mitzvos aseh.  On the other hand others
> appear to hold that if she does not want to get married again, and he
> does not mind the zika remaining, there is no need to do chalitza as the
> chalitza is only a heter for her to get married to somebody else, just
> like shechita is a mitzvah to permit the animal to be eaten.  See there
> (it is under section aleph, on the facing page to the beginning).  The
> Encyclopedia Talmudit does not (as is its way) provide any conclusion,
> and it would seem from the sources quoted that the machlokus extends to
> the achronim, so why not to Avodah.
>
>
>
> Regards
>
> Chana
>
>
FWIW, an elderly Yevama did Yibbum about 90 days after her late Husband's
petira w/o necessarily wishing to remarry.  I understood it to mean they
construed it as a requirement,
or at least were chosheish lema'aseh for those who do require it

-- 
Gmar Tov
Best Wishes for 5768,
RabbiRichWolpoe@Gmail.com
Please Visit:
http://nishmablog.blogspot.com/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/private.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20070924/664700b2/attachment.html 

R' RW:
Qabbalah is OTOH some kind of system [I was fuzzy as to exactly WHAT kind]
and he claimed it? has many questionable problems with Sephiros and other
structures which would never fit a purely Maimonidean concept of? Yichud
Hashem.? [for parallels see Selichos such as Macchnisei Rahcamim or "na kol
Middah nechona, etc."] 
<SNIP>
Years ago I taught a class on Ratonalism and Msyticism and I showed that
there were a series of many 'Rational Mystics."? Some Great Examplars
include the RambaN, Maharal miPrague and the Gra, RambaM might fit tis mold
too, albeit his mysticism seems divorced from pure Qabbalah . 


The Chidah writes in Sheim Hagedolim: "R' Chaim Vital wrote that the Shoresh
of the Rambam's Neshamah was from Peiah D'dikna D'Ze'eir Anpin Hasmalis, and
that's why the Rambam did not merit Chochmas HaZohar. In the beginning of
Sefer Migdal Oz it says that the Rambam occupied himself with Kabbalah
toward the end of his life. According to what we mentioned in R' Chaim
Vital's name, it could be that towards the end of his life he occupied
himself with the uses of certain holy Names, as is seen from a Megillas
Setarim attributed to the Rambam, and mentione (in Siman 117) by Maharam
Alshakar. However, I saw that Sefer Shushan Sodos (in manuscript) that
doubts whether that document is truly from the Rambam."

This doesn't necessarily contradict what R' RW is claiming about the Rambam,
and, I think, could be explained along the mysticism/Kabbalah delineations.

KT,
MYG

  

> We know the "yekkim" coined the phrase "minhag avoteinu Torah Hi".

Now have a source for KSA 199:10 which says: "... The minhag is to be
careful not to go into a house before washing hands when returning
from the cemetery, Uminhag avoteinu Torah."

:-)

- Danny

2 questions came up yesterday

1. Is saying sorry for your loss..... A form of nichum aveilim? If so,
what does one say to the onen in the funeral chapel before stimat
hagollel?

2.Does the avel have a requirement (or a positive disposition towards)
accepting nichum in general?(e.g. could a very private individual lock
themselves in their room for a week or must they sit, albeit not having
to say a word, so others can visit)?

GT
Joel Rich
THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE 
ADDRESSEE.  IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL 
INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE.  Dissemination, 
distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is 
strictly prohibited.  If you received this message in error, please notify us 
immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message.  
Thank you.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/private.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20070925/8b01d986/attachment.htm 

An article on this topic by the late Rabbi Oscar Z. Fasman is included  in 
one of the  volumes of The Jewish Library, edited by Rabbi Leo  Jung. 



************************************** See what's new at http://www.aol.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/private.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20070925/696ce732/attachment.html 

Prof. Marc Shapiro wrote:

There was an article in the Journal of Ecumenical Studies by a Harvey 
Falk. But you will want to see the recent Shalom Rosenberg Jubilee 
volume where Emden's piece appears in an annotated edition with an 
introduction.

There is an interesting new book on this topic that came out recently,
"Maimonides' Confrontation With Mysticism" by Menachem Kellner
(http://tinyurl.com/2gpbau). He argues, amongst other things, that Rambam
was opposed to Sefer Yetzirah, because Rambam held that the Hebrew letters
do not possess any mystical powers. (I am not sufficiently expert on
Maimonidean philosophy to be able to evaluate this claim).

Natan Slifkin

****
Learn about Torah and the animal kingdom at www.zootorah.com

Subscribe to the Zoo Torah essay series - send an e-mail to
essays-subscribe@zootorah.com

R' Arie Folger replied to RDBloom:
>> I may add that Baer and Heidenheim also don't print Thilim 27 LeDavid, H Ori VeYishi, which Litvaks say from RH Elul thru Sukkot.
>
> They do.

Is this Heidenheim or post-Heidenheim edited R?delheim? This Eastern ref-, er, innovation was only just being copied at that time, and even now still hasn't been accepted by "old Yekkes", as you can see with several from among your own sheep, who will talk, shake their heads or simply leave shul after the post-oleine kaddish (which isn't really MA itself, BTW, but don't tell). In fifty years' time, the latter behaviour will be entered in the sifre minhogem, too, I take it.

LPhM
http://lipmans.blogspot.com

From: Arie Folger <afolger@aishdas.org>
> RDBloom wrote:

> > I may add that Baer and Heidenheim also don't print Thilim 27 LeDavid, H
> > Ori VeYishi, which Litvaks say from RH Elul thru Sukkot.
 
> They do.
 
??

What's the antecedent to "They"?

Yes, Litvaks do say Ledovid H' Ori

But no, Baer and Heidenheim do not print it.  I just checked Baer, and
I use an 1826 (knockoff) Heidenheim for Yamim Noraim.  The Feldheim reprint
of the 1803 official edition has Ledovid added in the back, because the 
original doesn't have it (or shir shel yom, for that matter).

Don't see either shir shel yom or ledovid in a 28th-printing Saks
Heidenheim Yom Kippur.  Doesn't have a date, but the translations
are printed in fraktur, so I would guess the original has to be prewar.

--
        name: jon baker              web: http://www.panix.com/~jjbaker
     address: jjbaker@panix.com     blog: http://thanbook.blogspot.com

<<But even if the Rav is not negligent, if the item is lost or stolen, then he has been put in the position of having to swear that he was not negligent.  Why should he be put in this position if what he did was not only mutar but a mitzvah?>>

<You could ask the same question on a Shomer Aveida, who is also involved in a Mitzvah and yet he is either a Shomer Chinam or a Shomer Sachar. (BK 56).>

     No comparison. In the case of aveida, the shmira is itself part of the mitzva.

EMT

On Mon, 24 Sep 2007 19:37:41 -0400
David Riceman <driceman@att.net> wrote:

> Celejar (or possibly RAF?) wrote:

I, Yitzhak Grossman.

> > While I am aware that there is evidence of
> > Sufi influence in the thought of various thinkers who lived and wrote
> > in Islamic civilizations, I would like to see justification for this
> > claim about the Rambam.
> >
> >   
> 
> > R. Abraham Maimonides says very flattering things about the Sufis (IIRC he describes them as, of his contemporaries, the closest in behavior to the Biblical prophets).  I don't know to what extent his father agreed with that opinion, but he's very careful never actually to disagree with his father.
> 
> David Riceman

I would have to sees the exact RA quote, but there's a difference
between "saying flattering things" about them and approving of their
behavior, on the one hand, and being influenced by their thought on the
other.

Yitzhak
--
Bein Din Ledin - bdl.freehostia.com
An advanced discussion of Hoshen Mishpat

On Mon, 24 Sep 2007 23:13:23 -0400
"Richard Wolpoe" <rabbirichwolpoe@gmail.com> wrote:

[snip]

> AISI in general, the Rambam - as a religious persons believing in a
> Transcendent God and and an immortal soul MUST have had elements of
> Mysticism in his outlook. He just did not have  a mystical system akin to
> "Qabblah". I am confident he saw Transcendental themes in the Merkava
> literature etc.

I'm not sure about this.  The Maimonideans believed that Aristotle
believed in an immortal soul and in a somewhat Transcendant God.

[snip]

> RabbiRichWolpoe@Gmail.com

Yitzhak
--
Bein Din Ledin - bdl.freehostia.com
An advanced discussion of Hoshen Mishpat

On Mon, 24 Sep 2007 11:47:55 +0100
"Chana Luntz" <chana@kolsassoon.org.uk> wrote:

[snip]

> Well you seem to both be right.  The Encyclopedia Talmudit brings as a
> machlokus rishonim whether or not chalitza is a mitzva chiyuvis or not.

An excellent discussion of both sides of the issue;  thank you!

> Regards
> 
> Chana

Yitzhak
--
Bein Din Ledin - bdl.freehostia.com
An advanced discussion of Hoshen Mishpat

On 9/25/07, Minden <phminden@arcor.de> wrote:
>
> R' Arie Folger replied to RDBloom:
> >> I may add that Baer and Heidenheim also don't print Thilim 27 LeDavid,
> H Ori VeYishi, which Litvaks say from RH Elul thru Sukkot.
> >
> > They do.
>
> Is this Heidenheim or post-Heidenheim edited R?delheim? This Eastern ref-,
> er, innovation was only just being copied at that time, and even now still
> hasn't been accepted by "old Yekkes", as you can see with several from among
> your own sheep, who will talk, shake their heads or simply leave shul after
> the post-oleine kaddish (which isn't really MA itself, BTW, but don't tell).
> In fifty years' time, the latter behaviour will be entered in the sifre
> minhogem, too, I take it.
>
> LPhM
> http://lipmans.blogspot.com
>

AFAIK Breuer's NEVER said Psalm 27 Ledovid
At my old Shul - Cong. Ohav Sholaum - "we split the baby in 2 and said iun
the morning after the yom but NOT in the evening.

Also Breuer's did not say Psalm 105 on Rosh Chodesh, COS did.

-- 
Gmar Tov
Best Wishes for 5768,
RabbiRichWolpoe@Gmail.com
Please Visit:
http://nishmablog.blogspot.com/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/private.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20070925/f00e95cd/attachment-0001.htm 

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Richard Wolpoe <rabbirichwolpoe@gmail.com>
Date: Sep 25, 2007 6:21 PM
Subject: Re: [Mesorah] FW: Re: Lashon Tanach vs. Lashon Hazal
To: David E Cohen <ddcohen@gmail.com>



On 9/25/07, David E Cohen <ddcohen@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> R' Rich Wolpoe wrote:
> > FWIW the Regalim paragrpah of EL. Vel. Avoseinu Melech
> > Rachaman should imho NEVER have retzei bimnuchoseinu.
> > {R. Artscroll is ambiguous.} Both Birnbaum and Heidenheim
> > consider this a paragraph about Reglaim and the reference
> > here to Shabbos is out of place. It belongs ONLY to the final
> > paragraph "v'hasi'einu which has a combined theme
>
> Using that logic, how about "selach umchal la`avonoseinu beyom hashabbas
> hazzeh uvyom hakkippurim hazzeh"?  I'm not referring to the final
> paragraph
> of the kedushas hayom berakhah, where we fully expect (and find) a mention
> of Shabbos, but to the paragraph between the "short" vidui and the "long"
> vidui.  Thematically speaking, the mention of Shabbos in that paragraph
> would seem to be out of place, yet it's there in every machzor I've
> checked.
>
> I suspect the difference is that once we're already mentioning the day
> ("beyom hakkippurim hazzeh"), we want to mention all of the kedushos that
> apply to the day.  "Retzei vimnuchaseinu," on the other hand, is simply
> another bakashah that has to do with the fact that it is Shabbos, is no
> more
> relevant to the paragraph of "melech rachaman racheim `aleinu" than it is
> to
> any other paragraph besides the concluding paragraph of the berakhah.
>
> --D.C.
>
>
Ein hachi Namei  You are right there are other inconsistencies.  E.G. we
certainly do not do a "gilgul" of YK or YT re: Birkas achas mei'ein sheva
[aka Magein Avos]!  Yet on Shabbos Hulo shel Mo'ed Sukkos, Sukkos is
mentioned in the Haftara Blessing even though "hulo shel Mo'ed" by itself
never triggers a Haftara!  Lich'ora just as YT/YK does not trigger "magain
avos" and therefore is ignored  same for HShM Sukkos and the Birkas
haftara!!

The case of Reztaei Bimnuchaseinu in Melech Rachaman however is specifcally
addressed by Birnbaum and implicitly by Heidneheim and Baer as not
belonging.  [Since Baer omits any mention in the notes, this is a fairly
strong indication that it was probably not even a "hava aminah" - if one is
permitted to construe from silence]

Disclaimer:  am not familar with Siddur Hagra nor much with Ya'vetz.. AISI,
Heidnheim,Baer, and Birnbaum [and as far as I can tell the Ba'al Hatanya]
really worked very hard at being consistent. I see other "authors" as
approaching nusach on a more ad hoc basis.
-- 
Gmar Tov
Best Wishes for 5768,
RabbiRichWolpoe@Gmail.com
Please Visit:
http://nishmablog.blogspot.com/


-- 
Gmar Tov
Best Wishes for 5768,
RabbiRichWolpoe@Gmail.com
Please Visit:
http://nishmablog.blogspot.com/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/private.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20070925/e3538f5c/attachment.html 

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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 23, Issue 205
***************************************

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..."