Avodah Mailing List

Volume 24: Number 32

Sat, 27 Oct 2007

• 1. Re: Steps/Stages (Menachem Posner)
• 2. Birkat Kohanim (Richard Wolberg)
• 3. Impurity (Galsaba@aol.com)
• 4. Re: Birkat Kohanim (Micha Berger)
• 5. Re: Religion and Falsifiability (Elliott Shevin)
• 6. Re: Minhag Yisroel (Yitzhak Grossman)
• 7. Re: A few notes on Parshas Vayeiro (kennethgmiller@juno.com)
• 8. Re: Religion and Falsifiability (Richard Wolpoe)
• 9. Re: An-im Zemiros (Zev Sero)
• 10. Re: An-im Zemiros (Zev Sero)
• 11. Avraham Avinu's Menu: Meshech Chochma P VaYera - BP MEAT is Parev (Meir Rabi)
• 12. collective punishment (Eli Turkel)

Rabbi S.Z. of Lyadi writes (Likkutei Torah Parshas Masay 88d) that the forty two Masaos correspond to Shem Ma”B and the seven Middos which comprise of six Middos each (I assume that he is excluding Malchus). He further compares it to Ana Bchoach which is made up of seven lines with six words in each. 

_____________________________________________________________
Click for a credit repair consultation, raise your FICO score.
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2111/fc/Ioyw6iifRtShK0cCwejVrKM7lzGx5itk7OeKCORKay5owyW3wv8odU/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/private.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20071026/294d8e6f/attachment-0001.html 

rw wrote:       The question then comes: if HaShem made His presence
manifest that

: made it clear He was greater than the sun, couldn't there be a more gentle

: way of informing us?...

 

mi wrote:   No. Yir'ah is related to fear for a real reason. Life is played
for high stakes; sometimes people need reminders of that.

 

What happened to midas chesed and rachamim?  Your position would more
accurately reflect Shammai. If that's what you like, I won't tell Hillel. J

 

:     rw wrote: With the poison, you're dealing with an inanimate

: situation, but with HaShem, you would expect more understanding. Also, the

: analogy, though appealing, really isn't satisfying (at least to me).

 

mi wrote:   The poison isn't equally "with Hashem"?

 

That's exactly my point. Poison isn't equally with HaShem, therefore, I
expect a lot more from HaShem.

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/private.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20071026/95f4d0db/attachment-0001.htm 

As far as I know a Seffer Torah will makes hands "Sheni Le'Tumah" (Secondary 
Impurity).
Does it mean that the Seffer Torah itself is Rishon Le'Tumaha? (First 
Impurity)
Is it Tamme at all?
 
Also,
Temme Meth ("Mes" - as Ashkenazim pronouce) is Av Tumah.  Does it means that 
Meth (dead person) is Tamme?
or Meth is only Metamme? 
Is the fact that Meth is Avi Avot Hatuma, make it also Tamme itself? or it is 
only Metamme but not Tamme?
I read somewhere that a Meth is not (the son of the Shunamit was Tahor when 
he woke up of his death).
 
Thanks,
 
galsaba




************************************** 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/20071026/982388ae/attachment-0001.html 

On Fri, October 26, 2007 7:17 am, Richard Wolberg wrote:
: mi wrote:   No. Yir'ah is related to fear for a real reason. Life is
: played for high stakes; sometimes people need reminders of that.

: What happened to midas chesed and rachamim?  Your position would more
: accurately reflect Shammai. If that's what you like, I won't tell
: Hillel.

What happened was simply that we were discussing a symbol of din. The
two coexist; discussing one says nothing about the other.

You err in your description of the tannaim. Hillel and Shammai rarely
disagreed. It was batei Hillel veShammai who had all the machloqesin.
And chazal say it is because they didn't spend enough time watching
their rabbeim. IOW, there was little philosophical difference between
the teachers, this was a failure in the students' picking up the
transmission. They got all the info, but not the feel, the emotional
responses. The Maharal says that since Hillel was the nasi, involved
in the community all day, the students confused the role with the
person and only saw his chessed -- not the balance. Similarly
Shammai's students only saw the av beis din, not the whole person.

::     rw wrote: With the poison, you're dealing with an inanimate
:: situation, but with HaShem, you would expect more understanding.
:: Also, the analogy, though appealing, really isn't satisfying (at
:: least to me).

: mi wrote:   The poison isn't equally "with Hashem"?

: That's exactly my point. Poison isn't equally with HaShem, therefore,
: I expect a lot more from HaShem.

I disagree with your point. Poison /is/ equally "with Hashem."

So then, what did David say to Gad when he asked to fall to Hashem
rather than people (as we repeat in Tachanun)? Well, when it comes to
people, Hashem could choose yenem's bechirah chafshi over saving me.
There are more factors in play in His decision. But I agree with REED
that when poison kills someone, that's Hashem choosing to follow
predictable rules so as to allow us the choice of ignoring Him.

Poison is no different than His creating a light to signal His
Presence, even though someone who accidentally look at it will suffer.
In both cases Hashem created something and let it obey rules that
allow harm to come to people.

SheTir'u baTov!
-micha

-- 
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

R. Richard Wolpoe wrote:
> > I am saying that the role and societal obligations of of certain individuals> transcends their requirement of self-perfection.> > If they self-perfect fine, but not at the sacrifice of their primary role,> 
Torah gives us rules of conduct for most human activity. If Torah is 
the blueprint for self-perfection, then following those rules is part of that. 
 
When you say the need to fulfill one's other obligations transcends the 
requirement of self-perfection, it seems to me you're assuming that 
if you're busy with the former, you're not working on the latter.
 
Adaraba. If you keep just weights, lend money for free, leave the ox 
unmuzzled when threshing--you're busy perfecting yourself, 
even if you're neither learning, meditating, or praying as you do.
 
Elly
_________________________________________________________________
Help yourself to FREE treats served up daily at the Messenger Caf?. Stop by today.
http://www.cafemessenger.com/info/info_sweetstuff2.html?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_OctWLtagline
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/private.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20071026/a8397dd4/attachment-0001.htm 

[snipped most of RMB's terrific discussion]

A quibble:

On Thu, 25 Oct 2007 18:31:47 -0400 (EDT)
"Micha Berger" <micha@aishdas.org> wrote:

> (BTW, the fact that RHS doesn't say "IMHO" shouldn't be taken to mean
> much. Everything written is in the author's opinion. "IMHO" stresses
> what should be self-evident. And doesn't belong in a polemic or in a
> teshuvah. Now, had the chiddush vs shinui bit appeared in a survey, or
> lomdus about the various shitos, then one could take issue with only
> including one opinion.)

IMHO doesn't belong in Teshuvos?  They are absolutely *full* of
"Le'aniyus Da'ati"s!

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

Regarding Yishmael, R"n Toby Katz wrote:
> Second of all, all his sins of "AZ, GA and shefichas damim
> and that he went out 'letarbus ra'" were subtle -- he hadn't
> yet done anything obvious and overt.

Please give me an example of committing shefichas damim in a "subtle" manner.

The only example I can think of is that embarrassing someone could be considered as a "subtle" form of killing them. Are you suggesting that Rashi was referring to Yishmael embarrassing someone?

Akiva Miller

On 10/26/07, Elliott Shevin <eshevin@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>  R. Richard Wolpoe wrote:
>
>
> Torah gives us rules of conduct for most human activity. If Torah is
> the blueprint for self-perfection, then following those rules is part of
> that.
>

Lo ki ela the Torah gives 613 mitzvos and NOT ONE person in Israel can
possibly do all l613
The Original Torah was NEVER meant for the indivdual,that is claer. If you
want to say the Torah morphed in the time of the Mussar Movement, then by
all means say THAT.

In fact RYBS talks about two Brissos - natilnal and covenental
Tora is about lilmod ulelamed. W/o a talmid there is no rav.
etc.

Justt becaue people choose to THINK that the Torah is about prrefection of
the indivdual does not mean it IS about perfection of the individual.
Illustration:
Shem vo'Ever were individuals. The Covenat went to Avrahm but he was an av
hamon Goyim.




>
>
> Adaraba. If you keep just weights, lend money for free, leave the ox
> unmuzzled when threshing--you're busy perfecting yourself,
> even if you're neither learning, meditating, or praying as you do.
>

Elly


Lo ki Ela If you cheat your neibghobor you create a Dor hamabu scoeityl. The
mitzva is about  how to behave in a society so as NOT to have people
cheating. The problem is homos not self-perfection per se. You can cheat
yourself all day and who would know or care?

-- 
Kol Tuv / Best Regards,
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/20071026/039ec5a3/attachment.html 

Micha Berger wrote:
> On Thu, October 25, 2007 6:09 pm, Zev Sero wrote:
> : Yet another example of similarities between L and B....
> 
> In my recent post, I placed chassidus and Brisk near different corners
> of a triangle: Brisk places textual process and halachic mechanics
> ahead of maximizing aggadic, tafqid haadam, concerns, whereas
> chassidus quite famously does the opposite. (The third corner being
> minhag avos / mimeticism.)

> Do you disagree with this characterization WRT L?

Yes, L are chassidish Litvaks, or maybe Litvishe chassidim, but still
Litvaks.

My Litvishe uncle, who has had to contend with assorted L relatives,
says: These Lubavitchers are crazy.  On Pesach, when I'm enjoying my
kneidlach and I offer them some, they say "oh no, we can't eat that,
we're Chassidim".  But on Shmini Atzeres, when I'm freezing in my
sukkah, and my Chassidishe neighbours are sitting nice and warm in
their homes, here come the Lubavitchers to join me.  "Today we're
Litvaks", they say.  Smart people would choose to be Litvaks on Pesach
and Chassidim on SA.


> If so, how do you account for typical L minyan times?

Proper L wake up early and start preparing for davening, but L teaching
is that it's unthinkable to daven without proper hachonos, which should
take at least an hour or two, and on Shabbos when there's more time the
hachonos should take longer.  The result is that the chossid who started
preparing at 7 or 7:30 isn't up to Hodu until 9:30 or 10 (L minyanim
start from the end of R Yishmael Omer, not from brochos).   And proper
L chassidim do follow this policy, and can be seen at shul quite early.

The reality nowadays is somewhat different, because in practise there
are many L-lite who roll out of bed at 9 and are up to Hodu by 10,
and could be finished by 10:30 if the minyan didn't slow them down,
so instead they talk until the chazan is up to borchu and then catch up.
In mixed neighbourhoods there are also many non-L who take advantage
of L minyanim to daven late.  But if we're talking about an abstract
definition of what L is, rather than the practise on the ground, then
this is the explanation.

PS: The above should not be taken as a claim that I am any better than
the people I describe.  I'm merely answering the question.


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

Moshe Y. Gluck wrote:
> R' Zev Sero:
>> Al pi nigleh the reason not to look at the Cohanim, or at anything
>> else, is so as not to be distracted from hearing the bracha.  It has
>> long seemed to me that going under a talles with several people,
>> including screaming kids, is *less* conducive to focusing on the bracha
>> than forgoing the talles and just closing ones eyes.   Also, a talles
>> with several people under it gets hot and stuffy, especially if the
>> Cohanim sing at great length between words, and by the end one is
>> waiting impatiently for it to be over, which is not what it's about.
> 
> 
> R' Yaakov Emden agrees with you - he says (in his Siddur - he references
> "Chiburi" which I assume is Mor U'Ketziah, where I assume he explains his
> reasoning) that both the Kohanim and the rest of the people should not cover
> their faces with their talleisim.

Sorry, that's not what I'm saying.  The Shulchan Aruch says to cover
ones face with the talles; my point is that this doesn't mean crowding
a whole group under one talles, and that doing so misses the point.
If one is not wearing a talles, then IMHO it's better to just close
ones eyes than to go under a talles with more than 2 other people,
especially with young children who are not ones own.  (Ones own children
is another story; for one thing, one has to take care of them anyway.)


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

Yitzchok Zirkind responded to, How does the Meshech Chochma know that BP may
be cooked with milk?

 

See Pischei Tshuva Y"D 87 ois 14, and Darkei Tshuva ibid s"k 72, for  

Machlokes Achronim on this and their Limudim.

 

 

I checked the PT to be sure of my recollection, have not the DT on hand to
verify my memory but both of these discuss the MILK of the BPekuah being
Chalav Shechutah which is an established Halachah: milk extracted from a
slaughtered cow is not Milchig. However no one to my knowledge, other than
the M'Ch, suggests that the MEAT of the BP is nor Fleishig.

 

meir

 

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/private.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20071028/e4ffeaf6/attachment.htm 

We have previously discussed the destruction of Amalek which implies collective
punishment. R. Medan points out that this the debate between Abraham
and G-d over sedom.
G-d wants to destroy the entire city including Lot and family while
Abraham argues for saving the entire city because of a few. Neither
suggests just saving the righteous only.
This is only the compromise reached because of Abraham's pleading.
Similarly when Yonah goes to Ninveh the situation seems to be that if
the entire city will not repent then the whole city will be destroyed
not just the wicked.

The question is that G-d seems to accept Abraham's argument. So how
about the other cases? Obviously this has many modern day applications

-- 
Eli Turkel


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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 24, Issue 32
**************************************

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..."