Avodah Mailing List

Volume 24: Number 74

Sun, 25 Nov 2007

• 1. Kashrus Question (Prof. Levine)
• 2. Fables and Lies (kennethgmiller@juno.com)
• 3. Re: Mindfulness and does Judaism value it (T613K@aol.com)
• 4. Re: Fables and Lies (Rich, Joel)
• 5. Re: Apikores? (Marty Bluke)
• 6. Re: Apikores? (Micha Berger)
• 7. Re: proofs of G-d (Marty Bluke)
• 8. Re: proofs of G-d (Marty Bluke)
• 9. Re: Apikores? (Marty Bluke)
• 10. Re: proofs of G-d (Zev Sero)
• 11. Re: proofs of G-d (Micha Berger)
• 12. Re: Apikores? (Zev Sero)
• 13. Q re RYReisman's 24Nov2007 shiur (Michael Poppers)

As is well known, there are rabbis and rabbinical organizations that 
give supervision to stores owned by non-Jews that are open on 
Shabbos. Indeed, some of these stores are open 365 days a year. There 
are a number of Dunkin Donuts stores located throughout the country 
that are like this.

What is the kashrus status of coffee that the gentile store owner 
brews on Shabbos that a non-observant Jew who comes into the store on 
Shabbos afternoon drinks? What does it mean to say that Rabbi so and 
so or organization such and such supervises this store regarding 
other products that are heated up on Shabbos?

What is the kashrus status of donuts sold during Pesach at such a store?

One can ask similar questions about the plants that produce Thomas's 
and Arnold's baked goods during Pesach. I believe, but I may be 
wrong, that these products, having been baked on Pesach, appear in 
stores during Pesach with an OU on the label. If so, what does the OU 
on the label imply?

I am simply asking for clarification and wait to be enlightened.

Gut Voch.

Yitzchok Levine 

In the thread "proofs of G-d", we were discussing the scenario that some gedolim posit a linkage, that a specific tragedy was caused by a specific failing, and that they do this in order to inspire people to do teshuva, even though those gedolim are not neviim, and cannot say for a *fact* that this failing caused that tragedy.

In this context, R' Ben Waxman wrote in that thread:
> There is an even bigger problem that my wife pointed out to
> me: When positing an cause and effect when in fact no one
> really knows the cause, the people who are motivated to repent
> will basing their avodat Hashem based on a fable, and maybe
> even on a lie. Do we really want that?

At this time of year, it is common for American Christian families to teach their children a particular such "fable and lie", in order to motivate those children to good behavior. This is so widespread, in fact, that it is a rite of passage when those children come to learn the truth of this fiction.

For many years, I was particularly proud that all of the Midrashim, legends, and stories which we tell our children are true. And even if an occasional story might appear with different details in different versions, the main thrust is generally accepted as genuine. Torah Truth has no need for fiction.

And then, one Yom Kippur, during Ayleh Ezk'rah, I chanced upon a comment by ArtScroll. The same who is so often derided on these pages for taking a sanitized version of history, and passing it off as true. And even Rabbi Scroll had to admit:

> that while all ten of these righteous men were murdered by the
> Romans, their executions did not take place simultaneously, as
> described here, nor could they have, since two of the ten did
> not even live in the same generation as the other eight.
> ...
> The liturgical accounts of the martyrdom were not meant as
> historical records, but as dramatic accounts of the story, in
> order to evoke feelings of loss and repentance on the part of
> the congregation.

So it's not just the Christians. We too have fables, fictions, and lies. Perhaps it is only this one solitary example. But one is not zero.

My heart is still not fully healed from the pain of this disillusionment. And I apologize if this post has disillusioned any others. But I think that it is very relevant to the question which was asked in the previous thread. And given RBW's comment, I figured it might be worthwhile to spin it off into a new thread.

To repeat his question:
> the people who are motivated to repent will basing their avodat
> Hashem based on a fable, and maybe even on a lie. Do we really
> want that?

My gut reaction is to scream, "No! It is too dangerous! How will they react when the lie is discovered!" But that consideration does not seem to have bothered those who chose to include Ayleh Ezk'rah in the machzor.

Akiva Miller

 
 
From: Yonatan Kaganoff _ykaganoff@yahoo.com_ (mailto:ykaganoff@yahoo.com) 

>>  I find it disturbing when when young idealistic Jewish activists who have 
been  active in liberal, left-wing political causes, are told by Kiruv 
professional  that these ideas could be find in Judaism, when the Kiruv worker 
knows, quite  well how politically and culturally right-wing most Orthodox Jewish 
communities  are.<<

>>>>>
But most of the values that move young and idealistic Jewish activists  
really DO have their source in the Torah!  Of course, as these young  people learn 
more Torah, in most cases they will come to see how leftists have  misapplied 
and misinterpreted these values of righteousness and justice.   But the values 
are still Torah values.

 


An interesting thing about America is that both its major parties derive  
their fundamental principles from the Bible and therefore ultimately from us  
Jews. (The two parties are not nearly as far apart from each other as  people 
imagine -- the American political spectrum B'H doesn't go in for  extremism.)
 
I don't want to write a long megillah about this but to give a few  examples 
briefly:
 
.
1. tzadaka -- Dems say the govt should redistribute and equalize income,  
Reps say people should give tzadaka from their own pockets--but the very idea of  
taking from X and giving to Y, either way, ultimately came from us.  Torah  
prescriptions to give ma'aser, to share one's wealth and so on are quoted by  
both sides.   Other cultures -- e.g., Sodom, Sparta, Ayn Rand --  had no such 
notion.  
 
 
.
2.  equality -- Torah has a dialectic -- sorry for using buzzword --  many 
passages extolling equality and also many passages prescribing INequality  -- so 
you have on the one hand the notion that the king can do things a commoner  
cannot do, but OTOH a king cannot be exempt from mitzvos -- a talmid chacham  
gets precedence in certain things but OTOH a judge is not allowed to favor one  
side over the other in court proceedings -- etc.  The Dems grab on to idea  
of radical egalitarianism, equality of outcome regardless of merit, affirmative 
 action, income redistribution, women in the army, social  equality etc -- 
while Reps favor equality of opportunity, equality under  the law and so on -- 
but the ultimate if hazy origin of the American idea  of equality is the idea 
that all human beings are children of G-d, all are  tzelem Elokim and all have 
value in Hashem's eyes.
 
.
3.  Punishment in general and death penalty in particular -- the idea  that a 
just society will punish wrong-doers comes from the Torah, as does the  idea 
that the true, just punishment for murder is to forfeit your life.   OTOH the 
idea that judges must bend over backwards to prevent miscarriage of  justice, 
even if some malefactors go free, also comes from the Torah -- but let  me add 
that the Torah assumes that justice will ultimately be done, i.e., that  G-d 
will punish anyone who "gets away with" his crime in a human court.   Most 
libs today don't believe there is a G-d and don't believe that all  criminals 
will eventually be punished, but they do believe that society is  better off if 
some guilty people go free than if some innocent people are  unjustly punished. 
 (They aren't taking into their cheshbon the  loss of innocent people who get 
robbed or killed by criminals on parole but  that's another story.)   But in 
any case, the idea that  judicial proceedings must follow rules, that judges 
should not be allowed  to judge arbitrarily -- comes from Torah.    
 
.
So bottom line, both sides in the American culture wars are  
Biblically-derived, even if one side no longer sees or remembers its  own historic origins and 
even strenuously denies that this country was  built on the Bible. (Actually 
they're not consistent, because the side that  denies the Bible does sometimes 
quote the Bible to its own purposes, but  anyway....)
 
 And to tell a young idealist that his ideals can be found in the  Torah is 
not false.  However, over time he does need to be weaned from  manifestations 
of such idealism that represent a distortion or misinterpretation  of Torah.




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




**************************************Check out AOL's list of 2007's hottest 
products.
(http://money.aol.com/special/hot-products-2007?NCID=aoltop00030000000001)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/private.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20071124/69a314da/attachment-0001.htm 

 


To repeat his question:
> the people who are motivated to repent will basing their avodat Hashem

> based on a fable, and maybe even on a lie. Do we really want that?

My gut reaction is to scream, "No! It is too dangerous! How will they
react when the lie is discovered!" But that consideration does not seem
to have bothered those who chose to include Ayleh Ezk'rah in the
machzor.

Akiva Miller
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ayleh Ezk'rah - even R' Scroll had little choice given the mesora as to
when these individuals lived.  While our guts are in alignment, I
suspect klal yisrael has paskened differently, perhaps along the lines
of the prospective convert who wanted to be kohain gadol (listen to:
http://www.yutorah.org/showShiur.cfm/718602/Rabbi_Zevulun_Charlop/Can_a_
Non_Jew_Become_a_Kohen_Gadol )
KT
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.

R' Zev Sero wrote:
<Because now we know better.  Many rishonim lived before the discovery
of the Zohar, and all lived before the AriZal and the Baal Shem Tov,
so they were missing information.  The AriZal was taught by Eliyahu
Hanavi, and the Baal Shem Tov by Achiyah Hashiloni, and therefore knew
<things that had been completely forgotten in previous generations.

When the brothers are planning on killing Yosef, Reuven saves him by
suggesting throwing him into the pit. The mefarshim ask what did
Reuven accomplish, the pit was very dangerous (full of snakes, etc.),
even life threatening. The Or Hachaim and the Alshich both answer as
follows. A person has bechira chofshis and therefore the brothers
could kill Yosef even if he was not supposed to die. However, animals
since they have no bechira chofshis they cannot kill someone if he is
not supposed to die. In other words, bechira trumps hashgocha pratis.
The Netziv gives this answer as well, however he qualifies it by
saying that this only applies to someone who is not a tzadik gamur,
but a tzadik gamur cannot be harmed even through bechira.

The Or Hachaim was a Kabbalist from the school of the Ari and yet he
still says this. The Alshich was a talmid of the Ari. And last but not
least the Netziv quotes as the source for this  pshat the Zohar.

On Sun, Nov 25, 2007 at 08:59:54AM +0200, Marty Bluke wrote:
: When the brothers are planning on killing Yosef, Reuven saves him by
: suggesting throwing him into the pit. The mefarshim ask what did
: Reuven accomplish, the pit was very dangerous (full of snakes, etc.),
: even life threatening. The Or Hachaim and the Alshich both answer as
: follows. A person has bechira chofshis and therefore the brothers
: could kill Yosef even if he was not supposed to die. However, animals
: since they have no bechira chofshis they cannot kill someone if he is
: not supposed to die. In other words, bechira trumps hashgocha pratis.

The SR in Vayo'el Moshe quotes the OhC, and says the4 OhC is based on
the Zohar. (As did the Netziv, as already noted by RMBluke.)

The SR comments on the machaneh henish'ar of last week's parashah that
HQBH always gives us an opportunity to save ourselves. The problem
(leshitaso) is that rather than choosing the route He offered us, we
chose Zionism. And therefore the SR has to show that bechirah can choose
things that HP would not have.

I have a problem with HP and bechirah, in part because one or two of the
issues I raised before Shabbos. With contemporary notions of the nature
of nature, what's the line between teva and neis nistar? Is there one?

HP isn't identical to sechar va'onesh; IOW, is it not personalized
providence when someone gets help he doesn't deserve? In which case,
when HQBH chooses to let people feel the consequences of our decisions,
is that HP or not? After all, He wants us to be autonomous.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Feeling grateful  to or appreciative of  someone
micha@aishdas.org        or something in your life actually attracts more
http://www.aishdas.org   of the things that you appreciate and value into
Fax: (270) 514-1507      your life.         - Christiane Northrup, M.D.

R' Zev Sero writes:
<As for the question of rishonim and acharonim and yeridas hadoros,
that model doesn't fit the Baal Shem Tov, whose rebbe was <Achiyah
Hashiloni.

To state that the Baal Shem Tov's Rebbe was Achiyah Hashiloni as an
undisputed fact is a bit much. The Gra certainly didn't believe that
the Baal Shem Tov's Rebbe was Achiyah Hashiloni. I don't think that
any of the Litvishe Gedolim (certainly not the Briskers) throughout
the generations ever believed this story. As RYBS would say it is a
chassidishe maase. To state that because of this maase the Baal Shem
Tov is not governed by the general klallim of yeridas hadoros and
rishonim is very dangerous.

RnTK writes:
<that Hashem exercises constant hashgacha over each and every
individual, moment  by moment, and that He has His reasons <why He
will sometimes protect people from  harm, and at other times not.  In
times of hester panim, His hashgacha  /appears/ <random and removed.

Both the Rambam and the Ramban explicitly disagree with you. They
write that a person who is not close to hashem will be exposed to
mikreh, chance.

Meshech Chochma( Shemos 13:9) sums it up as follows:

"Divine Providence is manifest for each Jew according to his spiritual
level as the Rambam explains in Moreh Nevuchim (3:18): Divine
Providence is not equal for everyone but rather is proportional to
their spiritual level. Consequently the Divine Providence for the
prophets is extremely powerful each according to their level of
prophecy. The Divine Providence for the pious and saintly is according
to their level of perfection. In contrast the fools and the rebels
lacking spirituality are in essence in the same category as animals...
This concept that Divine Providence is proportional to spiritual level
is one of foundations of Judaism..."

The same category as animals means that they have no hashgacha pratis at all.

R' Zev Sero wrote:
<Achiyah and Eliyahu are people, even if they don't live here with us.

This is not so pashut. Is Eliyahu Hanavi considered to be alive?

This may be a machlokes the Rambam and other Rishonim. The Ramabm was
mechadesh that if all the chachmei yisrael in EY get together they can
be mechadesh semicha. A number of Acharonim explain that the Rambam
was bothered by the following question. How will the Sanhedrin be
reconstituted when moshiach comes? Who will give semicha? Therefore he
came up with his chiddush. Why not Eliyahu Hanavi? He was a samuch and
he will herald Moshiach's arrival. It would seem that the Rambam holds
that Eliyahu Hanavi is not considered alive and could not give
semicha. If that is the case then anything he teaches is "lo
bashamayim" and not part of the mesora.

Marty Bluke wrote:
> R' Zev Sero writes:
> <As for the question of rishonim and acharonim and yeridas hadoros,
> that model doesn't fit the Baal Shem Tov, whose rebbe was <Achiyah
> Hashiloni.
> 
> To state that the Baal Shem Tov's Rebbe was Achiyah Hashiloni as an
> undisputed fact is a bit much. The Gra certainly didn't believe that
> the Baal Shem Tov's Rebbe was Achiyah Hashiloni. I don't think that
> any of the Litvishe Gedolim (certainly not the Briskers) throughout
> the generations ever believed this story. As RYBS would say it is a
> chassidishe maase. To state that because of this maase the Baal Shem
> Tov is not governed by the general klallim of yeridas hadoros and
> rishonim is very dangerous.


You have two choices. Either it's a fact, or he was a liar.  And *that*
is a very dangerous position.

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

On Sun, Nov 25, 2007 at 09:14:46AM -0500, Zev Sero wrote:
: You have two choices. Either it's a fact, or he was a liar...

Or he was mistaken. Or words were attributed to him that he never said.
Or, he said "as if", and his talmidim missed those two words in the
retelling. Or...

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

Marty Bluke wrote:
> R' Zev Sero wrote:
> <Achiyah and Eliyahu are people, even if they don't live here with us.
> 
> This is not so pashut. Is Eliyahu Hanavi considered to be alive?
> 
> This may be a machlokes the Rambam and other Rishonim. The Ramabm was
> mechadesh that if all the chachmei yisrael in EY get together they can
> be mechadesh semicha. A number of Acharonim explain that the Rambam
> was bothered by the following question. How will the Sanhedrin be
> reconstituted when moshiach comes? Who will give semicha? Therefore he
> came up with his chiddush. Why not Eliyahu Hanavi? He was a samuch and
> he will herald Moshiach's arrival. It would seem that the Rambam holds
> that Eliyahu Hanavi is not considered alive and could not give
> semicha. If that is the case then anything he teaches is "lo
> bashamayim" and not part of the mesora.

Not so.  The Rambam's problem with relying on Eliyahu Hanavi is that
he does not hold that it is necessary that the Eliyah(u) Hanavi in
Malachi is the same person as the Eliyahu Hanavi in Melachim.  Look
in Hilchot Melachim where he carefully does *not* say that Eliyahu
Hanavi will return to announce the geulah.  According to him that may
or may not happen; there's no halachic requirement that it must happen,
and if a candidate moshiach comes without it (as Bar Kochva did) this
is not grounds to reject him.  So he is left with a question: what if
Eliyahu doesn't come back, and the navi in Malachi is someone else?
Then who will renew the smicha?  And that's why he gives his own answer.

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

This motzoei-Shabbos P'Vayishlach shiur dealt with the Kohanic middah of
qapdanus.  For those who heard or will hear it, I have a tangential
question re RYR's elucidation of the term "chashmonai/chashmona'i." (I also
have a related Q re this term which b'li neder I'll send to Mesorah...and
re both Qs, if someone could FWD them to RYR [and give regards to him from
Elizabethean Sruli Safrin], I would be much obliged.)  IIRC, he said that
according to those (e.g. Chida) who consider it a noun and pronounce it
"chashmonai" (patach-[aleph-]yud), it's apparently a Greek term a la
"Yannai"; acc. to those (e.g. Beis Yoseif) who consider it an adjective
(from T'hilim 68:32 -- the commentaries ad loc. seem to see in this word an
indication for it being a noun rather than an adjective, but I guess one
can read them either way...) and pronounce it "chashmona'i"
(qamatz-aleph-chiriq-yud), it's clearly a Hebrew word.  Why would he assume
that "chashmonai" is a Greek term when it seems to indicate that the family
came from Cheshmon (Y'hoshua 15:27, and as Baer notes in Siddur Avodas
Yisrael, see Seider Olam Zuta)?  Does his assumption stem from Cheshmon
being a city in nachalas Y'hudah, which would raise interesting
implications for a priestly family which took malchus upon itself (an issue
which RYR discussed a bit later on in his shiur)? Thanks.

Gut Voch and all the best from
--Michael Poppers via RIM pager
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/private.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20071125/044e1e08/attachment.html 

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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 24, Issue 74
**************************************

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..."