Avodah Mailing List

Volume 25: Number 10

Mon, 07 Jan 2008

• 1. Re: Two dikduk questions (Simon Montagu)
• 2. "Blei Gissen"; should we believe in this? (Michael Makovi)
• 3. Re: Chiyuv l'kabel gerim (Michael Makovi)
• 4. Re: two dikduk questions (Doron Beckerman)
• 5. Re: accent on the right syllable in Kerias Shema (Doron Beckerman)
• 6. Re: 15 different fruits on Tu B'shvat (T613K@aol.com)
• 7. Re: 15 different fruits on Tu B'shvat (Liron Kopinsky)
• 8. Re: Apikores? (Yitzhak Grossman)
• 9. The Burning of the Golden Calf (Moshe Y. Gluck)
• 10. Rav Hirsch and Kabbalah (Michael Makovi)

The only answers I know to your questions are rather vague. A better
place to ask might be the Yahoo "leining" group,
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Leining/

On Jan 7, 2008 6:56 AM, Zev Steinhardt <zev@izev.com> wrote:
>
> I had two dikduk questions on the recent parshiyos that we just lained, and
> I was hoping someone could explain these odd dikduk cases to me.
>
> 1.  As most of us know, if a word that ends with two segols (kesef, degel,
> eretz) is placed at the end of a word (or by an esnachta), the first segol
> is changed to a kamatz (kasef, dagel, aretz).  Yet, in Parshas Shmos, there
> is a word at the end of the parsha, teven (5:7, 10, 12, 13) which is not
> changed even at the end of the parsha.  Is there some special reason that
> this word is not changed?

Some words do, some words don't. "Melech" is another example. I've
never seen any explanation for why.

>
> 2.  As a general rule, whenever a letter is preceded by a heh hayediah (a
> heh that defines a definite article), the first letter of the word received
> a dagesh (unless, of course, the letter is one of the five that don't take a
> dagesh).  However, in Va'era, there is a word, hatzefardi'im (7:29, 8:1, 3,
> 4 5, 7, 8, 9), where the dagesh is missing from the tzadi.  Interestingly,
> it is present in the singular form of the word (hatz'fardeah - 8:2), but not
> in the plural.  Does anyone know why this is?

As well as the five gutturals which as you say never take a dagesh,
various other letters often don't take a dagesh when they are pointed
with a sheva. These are vav, yud; mem, nun and lamed; the sibilants
sin, shin, samech and tzadi; and quf. The reason is apparently that
these consonants are longer or more emphatic in sound than others, and
naturally have a kind of "implicit dagesh".

Was: [Areivim] "Blei Gissen"; should we believe in this?

>I don't know what we've come to but in those circles where one is required
>to believe in the absolute literal truth of every medrash, where one must
>believe in spontaneous generation of lice, believe in mermaids, believe that
>Moshe Rabeinu was 20 feet tall or whatever -- well, once it's a mitzva to
>believe impossible things, I guess there's no end of impossible things to
>believe in.  Vechol hamarbeh harei zeh meshubach, I guess.
>--Toby Katz


In the Rav Hirsch website that was posted last week, one of the
articles on aggadah says everything about science and aggadah that
Rabbi Slifkin would say. So when Rabbi Slifkin gets put in cherem, it
makes one wonder...

As an aside, I remember when I read the shita that aggadot are
m'Sinai, I was aghast. I exclaimed, "But those aggadot were "just" the
shul sermons of the Rabbis; they were given to be simple to women and
children; they were simply stories "made up" to encapsulate a certain
moral theme, with the story itself secondary; many Rishonim said the
aggadot were the personal ideas of the Rabbis", etc.; "So now I have
to believe that Chazal received the stories themselves at Sinai, that
they'd later invent out of their own minds according to their own
personal (non-Sinaitic) thoughts?!". As one can see, I was sticking to
the previous shita, of aggadah not being Sinaitic, and trying to fit
it with the opposite shita of Maharal. So finally, I okimta'ed the
m'Sinai shita, until I concluded that Maharal's intent was that the
moral itself was Sinaitic, but not the story itself, and if there is a
conflict between two aggadot, it means their basic ideas are Sinaitic,
but the details are not (hence the conflict), and sometimes, the only
Sinaitic part of a drash might be the basic idea that there is no
superfluous word in the Torah, but the entire rest of the aggadah is
not Sinaitic at all. And I concluded this was Maharal's intent. Then I
found Rav Hertz's introduction to the Soncino Nezikin where he simply
says the aggadot are stories and fables, invented to teach a story. And
then of course I found more writings on the same point.

Mikha'el Makovi

> There is no chiyuv to accept gerim because there is no obligation for a goy
> to become a ger.  He can get olam haba by keeping the Sheva Mitzvos.
>
>
> --Toby Katz

But that only explains why we try to dissuade him. But it doesn't
prove we have no chiyuv to be m'kabel gerim. Once a gentile shows a
sincere desire to be Jewish, it could very well be that we still have
no chiyuv to be m'kable, but all the same it could be that we DO have
a chiyuv to be m'kabel.

I believe we have been conflating several questions. Viz.,

Everyone agrees that we try to dissuade would-be gerim. No question.
Everyone agrees that once a would-be ger is accepted by the beit din,
there IS a chiyuv to be m'kabel. No question.

The question then is, once a gentile shows a sincere desire to be
Jewish, and he shows that he is capable of living as a proper Jew, BUT
the beit din has not yet accepted him, the question then is, does the
beit din have an obligation to accept him for conversion?

See my earlier post regarding Rabbi Henkin, where he is ambiguous
whether the chiyuv is only to receive them once they are accepted by
the beit din, or whether also there is a chiyuv for the beit din to
accept them when they show themselves to be sincere but haven't yet
been accepted.

Mikha'el Makovi

For the second question on HaTzefrade'im, see Emes L'Yaakov (R' Yaakov
Kamenetzky) to Shmos 7:27.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/private.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20080107/734ddc55/attachment.html 

I'd think it a Kal Vachomer from Kerias HaTorah (which is a Mitzvas
Keriah MiDerabbanan), where the Mishnah Berurah does mention Mileil and
Milra in Simman 142.

L'Maase, RSZA paskens in Halichos Shlomo that even for the first Parsha of
Kerias Shema (which most Rishonim hold is Deoraysa), if one erred in this
even in a way which changes the meaning he is Yotzei B'Dieved. (I can't find
it now, but I think the rationale is that sometimes due to other Klalei
Dikduk like Nasog Achor and the like, the word accent may get shifted
despite retaining its original meaning, and so the accent per se does not
define its meaning).
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/private.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20080107/eeaf5d2c/attachment.htm 

 
 
From: "Liron Kopinsky" _liron.kopinsky@gmail.com_ 
(mailto:liron.kopinsky@gmail.com) 

From  http://www.hillel.org/jewish/holidays/tubshevat/default

"...you will need  to purchase both red and white wine and 15 different types
of fruits and  nuts; five from each of the following three categories:

1) fruits or nuts  with an inedible outer shell and an edible inner core:
pineapple... banana,  ....


3) fruits which are edible throughout...
and include:  strawberry,... raspberry, blueberry,
cranberry....
Does anyone know a  source for needing 15 fruits specifically?  << 




>>>>
The URL you gave was to Hillel, which is a non-Orthodox organization,  
officially non-sectarian but defacto Conservative.  The post sounds like  made-up 
Conservative minhag to me.  Tu B'Shvat is the new year for /trees/  so any fruit 
whose bracha is "ha'adamah" seems to me to be  irrelevant.  Out go the 
pineapples, bananas, and berries.  
 
Many people do not realize, BTW, that "fruits and vegetables" are culinary  
but /not/ scientific categories of plants.  Scientifically the categories  are 
"fruits, seeds, stems, leaves, and roots."   Whoever made this  Hillel list, 
with bananas and pineapple, didn't realize that they could  just as easily have 
included in their Tu B'Shvat seder tomatoes, cucumbers, and  pumpkins, which 
are all scientific fruits.  Growing on trees or the  ground BTW is not 
relevant to whether something is a fruit, but IS relevant  to what bracha you make 
and whether it's suitable for Tu  B'Shvat.




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



**************Start the year off right.  Easy ways to stay in shape.     
http://body.aol.com/fitness/winter-exercise?NCID=aolcmp00300000002489
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/private.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20080107/bf724d9b/attachment.html 

Obviously, I don't consider the site as credible. I do wonder where the
number 15 came from though.

It's a relatively interesting challenge to try and find 15 different fruits
with a haEtz beracha since obviously pineapple, banana, strawberry etc.
don't count. Additionally, one cannot eat all of the 7 minim since
wheat/barley are not haEtz either. In fact, at this time of year it might
not even be possible unless you either go for very exotic expensive fruits,
or treat different kinds of oranges as the different types or to go with
fruits like nectarines which a Jew shouldn't be making (although eating is
fine).

~Liron

On Jan 7, 2008 11:59 AM, <T613K@aol.com> wrote:

>   From: "Liron Kopinsky" liron.kopinsky@gmail.com
>
> >From http://www.hillel.org/jewish/holidays/tubshevat/default
>
> "...you will need to purchase both red and white wine and 15 different
> types
> of fruits and nuts; five from each of the following three categories:
>
> 1) fruits or nuts with an inedible outer shell and an edible inner core:
> pineapple... banana, ....
>
>
> 3) fruits which are edible throughout...
> and include: strawberry,... raspberry, blueberry,
> cranberry....
> Does anyone know a source for needing 15 fruits specifically? <<
>
> >>>>
> The URL you gave was to Hillel, which is a non-Orthodox organization,
> officially non-sectarian but defacto Conservative.  The post sounds like
> made-up Conservative minhag to me.  Tu B'Shvat is the new year for /trees/
> so any fruit whose bracha is "ha'adamah" seems to me to be irrelevant.  Out
> go the pineapples, bananas, and berries.
>
> Many people do not realize, BTW, that "fruits and vegetables" are culinary
> but /not/ scientific categories of plants.  Scientifically the categories
> are "fruits, seeds, stems, leaves, and roots."   Whoever made this
> Hillel list, with bananas and pineapple, didn't realize that they could just
> as easily have included in their Tu B'Shvat seder tomatoes, cucumbers, and
> pumpkins, which are all scientific fruits.  Growing on trees or the
> ground BTW is not relevant to whether something is a fruit, but IS relevant
> to what bracha you make and whether it's suitable for Tu B'Shvat.
>
> **
> *--Toby Katz
> =============*
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
> Start the year off right. Easy ways to stay in shape<http://body.aol.com/fitness/winter-exercise?NCID=aolcmp00300000002489>in the new year.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/private.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20080107/7a1d0827/attachment.htm 

[Catching up on an Avodah backlog]

On Tue, 18 Dec 2007 16:26:03 -0500 (EST)
"Micha Berger" <micha@aishdas.org> wrote:

> On Thu, December 13, 2007 12:38 pm, R Yitzhak Grossman wrote:
> : What would be wrong with the Inquisition, assuming that a) the
> : theology behind it is correct and b) it is not abused by its
> : implementers for personal gain?...
> : Do you simply mean that bad theology and / or corruption are
> : inevitable?
> 
> I'm missing something because it seems self-evident. Torture and death
> are often worse evils than the ones being avoided. HQBH places the
> suffering of others near the top of othe list of my own religious
> duties. An Inquisition requires people convincing themselves that
> another's suffering in olam hazeh is irrelevant given the gain in olam
> haba. Not merely lesser, but ignorable.

While I'm no expert on Christianity, it seems obvious to me that the
damnation of a soul for eternity is a worse evil than death or torture.

> :> Despite "mah Ani ... af atah ..." our moral choices differ. Hashem
> :> banned murder even though He takes lives regularly.
> 
> : But He permitted, and even commanded, judicial / executive enforcement
> : of Halachah.
> 
> But when Sanhedrin saw that the masses weren't on the same page, and
> oneshim would turn Inquisition-esque, they exiled themselves to
> prevent the eventuality.

I don't know that its moratorium on capital punishment was due to a
fear that "oneshim would turn Inquisition-esque".  [I have subsequently
seen your further explication of this point but I remain unconvinced;
it seems to be your reading of the Gemara, but not the Gemara's
ineluctable interpretation.]

> SheTir'u baTov!
> -micha

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

[I'm not sure if this is an Areivim or Avodah question, so I'm sending to
both and the respective moderators will decide.]

The Pasuk (Shemos 32:20) recounts that Moshe burned, then ground the Eigel.
Ibn Ezra explains that 'burned' doesn't mean 'melted' as one might have
thought (given that the Eigel was Zahav), but that there is a substance that
when inserted into a fire with gold makes it irreversibly black. Does anyone
know what this substance is?

KT,
MYG

We recently received the URL http://www.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/rsrh  from
our friend, and I remarked that I was especially interested in Rabbi
Danziger's review, as he said on Kabbalah that which I have been saying, as
against what Rabbi Elias says in his perush to 19 Letters and Dayan Grunfeld
says in his introduction to Horeb (and which is the shita held by a yeshiva
mate of mine, who I've been unsuccessful in prevailing upon). B'kitzur,
Rabbi Danziger says that Rav Hirsch accepted the Kabbalah and the Zohar per
se, but read them as one does Midrash Rabbah, stripping Kabbalah of all
theosophy and theurgy; Dayan Grunfeld and Rabbi Elias on the other hand say
that Rav Hirsch chose to emphasize his own ethical/moral practical/worldly
philosophy only to complement not dispute/replace the mystical philosophy.
Rabbi Danziger replies that Rabbi Hirsch's anthropological philosophy of
Judaism leaves no place for mysticism in Torah; in many places, Rav Hirsch
says the Torah is concerned *exclusively* with mitzvot and the knowledge we
need to carry them out; any theology per se for its own sake is illegitimate
in Torah.

What I found interesting then, is one of the aggadah articles on that same
URL; there, Rav Hirsch says that he was never interested in the details of
olam haba and techiyat hameitim, because these are irrelevant to mitzvot
performance. It seems logical, to me, that if Rav Hirsch never interested
himself in these as he felt them to be relatively unimportant, then kal
vachomer he'd hold that mysticism and theosophy and theurgy are absolutely
not part of Judaism (I choose to disregard dayyo).

Actually, Rav Hirsch there refuses to take a stand on astrology and magic
between the Rambam and Ramban, saying the two are prohibited in any case, so
it makes no difference. It seems to me that therefore, he may actually be
willing to admit that perhaps, there are such things as upper worlds and
such that we affect, but he'd say that if so, theosophy and theurgy are
nevertheless beyond the concern of Judaism, for what difference do they
make? A thought to ponder, if nothing more.

One question remains, however. Rav Hirsch says Kabbalah was misunderstood to
be theosophy and theurgy. Dayan Grunfeld takes Rav Hirsch to mean that
Kabbalah was misunderstood *by the masses*, to be *gross* theosophy and
theurgy; Dayan Grunfeld is sure that Rav Hirsch holds that the Kabbalists
themselves properly understood Kabbalah, and that Rav Hirsch himself holds
by their interpretation, which is mystical (but not grossly so, as was
misunderstood by the masses to be the case). But there is a question on the
shita of Rabbi Danziger (according to whom Rav Hirsch rejected any mystical
interpretation of Kabbalah): just who did Rav Hirsch hold misunderstood the
Kabbalah (Letter 18, he says that Kabbalah was misunderstood; but by whom)?
Rav Hirsch accepted the Zohar, but did he hold *everyone* misunderstood the
Zohar except himself (and perhaps a few others), or did he hold (read:
assume, if I may be so bold) that most of the Kabbalists held the same
midrashic/allegorical non-theosophic/theurgic interpretation that he held
by, and that the masses alone interpreted Kabbalah (wrongly) as mysticism?
In either case, Rav Hirsch himself rejects mysticism, but the nafka mina is,
would he ever countenance studying the Arizal, or would he say the Arizal
misunderstood the Kabbalah? And lest we say Rav Hirsch would never say such
a thing, Rav Hirsch certainly had no difficulty saying the Rambam
misunderstood Torah hashkafah.

A last question: Is there any serious Torah authority, besides Rabbi Yihyeh
Kapach and the Dor Dorim (sp?), that holds by the academic (eg. Gershom
Scholem) view of Kabbalah being a product of Gnosticism, Neoplatonism, and
the like? I myself hold by Rav Hirsch's anthropological/this-wordly view of
Judaism, but I reject his interpretation of Kabbalah itself; it seems
difficult (to me) to say that it was meant originally as anything except
davka theosophy and theurgy (whether one takes that as a good thing or a bad
thing, is a separate subject). I have read a quote by Rabbi Saul Lieberman
(introducing Prof. Scholem) that Rabbi Lieberman said Kabbalah is nonsense
(but the academic study of nonsense is scholarship); does anyone know the
authenticity of this quote? And I know that Rav Hertz rejects that Kabbalah
is a product of Neoplatonism (he tries to show that the mystical yearning is
a univeral human one, for which we can also see echoes in the Nevi'im), but
he nevertheless upholds the basic idea that Kabbalah is speculative and
unreliable, and a product of its times one way or the other (he goes so far
as to say that the idea that the Hebrew letters have mystical power, based
on a leap the idea that the Torah is min shamayim, is "one of the diseases
of the human mind")(in his Sermons, Addresses, and Studies, Vol 3). I lack
Rabbi Isidore Epstein's book Judaism on hand at the moment to see what he
says on Kabbalah (his approach is generally historical, so I am sure he has
something interesting to say, one way or the other). Does anyone know of any
other "modern" type Orthodox authorities that have anything similarly daring
to say on the subject? I am sure there are quite enough on the other side
(Rabbi Kanievsky declaring Rabbi Yihyeh Kapach a heretic for his views on
Kabbalah).

Mikha'el Makovi
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/private.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20080108/dddd8c00/attachment.html 

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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 25, Issue 10
**************************************

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..."