Avodah Mailing List

Volume 25: Number 17

Thu, 10 Jan 2008

• 1. Re: Chiyuv l'kabel gerim (Michael Makovi)
• 2. Money Talks (Moshe Y. Gluck)
• 3. FW: chemotherapy (Rich, Joel)
• 4. Re: Accent on the Right Syllable in Krias Shema (David Cohen)
• 5. Re: FW: chemotherapy (Michael Makovi)
• 6. Re: Money Talks (Zev Sero)
• 7. Re: [Areivim] "Blei Gissen" should we believe in this? (Celejar)
• 8. Re: Chiyuv l'kabel gerim (Daniel Eidensohn)
• 9. Re: Chiyuv l'kabel gerim (Micha Berger)
• 10. kabbalah - a Torah concept? (Daniel Eidensohn)
• 11. Re: Chiyuv l'kabel gerim (Daniel Eidensohn)
• 12. Prohibition of Eating Blood (Richard Wolberg)

> The philosophy I'm following is easy to back up from the Tanach. As
> for sources in Chazal, I haven't seen them, but I assume Rav Hirsch
> (eg, see Artscroll Siddur to Aleinu L'shabeach) and the like must have
> had some Talmudic or Midrashic source somewhere.
> Mikha'el Makovi

Also, I have seen the same philosophy put forth in so many places
(trying to cite them would be like trying to cite where I've seen the
idea that Shabbat testifies to creation), it can't simply be some
canard someone made up. If I get the chance I'll try to find a few
specific places. But I know Rav Hirsch follows it (maybe 19 Letters or
Horeb has something), and all the philosophical justifications for the
Noachide laws that I've seen, say that these laws exist to show that
being Jewish is not a prerequisite to receiving Hashem's favor.

Mikha'el Makovi

I came upon an interesting version of the expression 'money talks' in Divrei
Emes, Kuntres Ha'anavah V'hayirah 3 by R' Alexander Moshe Lapides (a student
of R' Yisroel Salanter): "Mi She'yeish Lo Ha'mei'os Yeish Lo Ha'dei'os."

:-)

(He calls it "Maamar Ha'olam" but since I don't recall ever seeing it, I'm
sharing it here.)

KT,
MYG

Below you will find a portion of a comment to a Cross-Currents post and
my response.  As you can see, my response has received an extended
moderation period.  I have not received a response to my query to the
moderators so I thought I would ask the chevra their opinion on my
understanding of horrat shaah (BTW I assume the original commenter did
not really mean irrevocable but permanent)

KT
Joel Rich

> ______________________________________________ 
> From: 	Rich, Joel  
> Sent:	Wednesday, January 09, 2008 5:29 AM
> To:	'talkback@cross-currents.com.'
> Subject:	 chemotherapy
> 
> I'm curious as to which part of this post is causing the extended
> moderation period.
> KT
> Joel Rich
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> -----------------------
> Regarding the inyan of Hora'as Sha'ah, it seems to be that the writing
> of the Mishna was more than that - it was "Eis La'asos LaShem, Hefeiru
> Torasecha." I would not be surprised if those Sages who decided upon
> this knew that their move would be irrevocable
> ============================================
> I doubt it since aiui a horrat shaah is by definition revocable. IIRC
> R' Schwab in "Rav Schwab on Prayer" mentions that in the future all
> these sfarim will be in the museum but not used. Quite the opposite, I
> wonder if these sages knew that their temporary emergency measure
> would become permanent (separate question as to how), would they have
> enacted it anyway?
> KT
> Comment by joel rich - January 7, 2008 @ 6:40 am <\l >  Your comment
> is awaiting moderation. 
> 
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/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20080110/fc8ac544/attachment-0001.html 

R' Rich Wolpoe wrote:
> Dutch Sephardim did the Ayin like the French ng [as in Filet MIgnon]  or the
> Spanish n with a ~ on top [e.g. manana].  I am guessing that the
> Westernized Ashkanzim had a  simlar Ayyin,  like the ni in Onion

I was in Jerusalem this past Shabbos, and my curiosity took me to the
Italian shul, where they daven "nusach benei Romi."  The maftir
pronounced his `ayins just as RRW describes.

--D.C.

> Below you will find a portion of a comment to a Cross-Currents post and my
> response.  As you can see, my response has received an extended moderation
> period.  I have not received a response to my query to the moderators so I
> thought I would ask the chevra their opinion on my understanding of horrat
> shaah (BTW I assume the original commenter did not really mean irrevocable
> but permanent)
>
> KT
> Joel Rich
>
>
> Regarding the inyan of Hora'as Sha'ah, it seems to be that the writing of
> the Mishna was more than that - it was "Eis La'asos LaShem, Hefeiru
> Torasecha." I would not be surprised if those Sages who decided upon this
> knew that their move would be irrevocable
> ============================================
> I doubt it since aiui a horrat shaah is by definition revocable. IIRC R'
> Schwab in "Rav Schwab on Prayer" mentions that in the future all these
> sfarim will be in the museum but not used. Quite the opposite, I wonder if
> these sages knew that their temporary emergency measure would become
> permanent (separate question as to how), would they have enacted it anyway?
> KT
> Comment by joel rich ? January 7, 2008 @ 6:40 am Your comment is awaiting
> moderation.

What you say sounds reasonable. Indeed, I haven't ever seen an
Orthodox author claim that we can go against the Mishna and Talmud.
Even Rabbis Moshe Shmuel Glasner and Eliezer Berkovits, who emphasize
the human and evolutionary elements of TSBP, say that the Talmud is
sealed and we cannot go against it. So problem could there be with
your saying that whereas a hora'at sha'ah is revocable, an eit la'asot
lashem is not?

I might quibble with your terminology, for if a hora'at sha'ah is an
undesirable ruling done only for limited undesirable circumstances
(but which otherwise lacks true halachic desirability), then writing
TSBP was certainly a hora'at sha'ah. An eit la'asot lashem could
simply be a type of hora'at sha'ah, in which the halacha is actually
egregiously violated in order to save another area of Torah (a limb
amputated the save the body, as Rambam puts it). But aside from
terminology, the idea that most hora'ot sha'ah are reversible, but not
the writing of TSBP, seems sound.

What could be the objection?

Mikha'el Makovi

Moshe Y. Gluck wrote:
> I came upon an interesting version of the expression 'money talks' in Divrei
> Emes, Kuntres Ha'anavah V'hayirah 3 by R' Alexander Moshe Lapides (a student
> of R' Yisroel Salanter): "Mi She'yeish Lo Ha'mei'os Yeish Lo Ha'dei'os."
> 
> :-)
> 
> (He calls it "Maamar Ha'olam" but since I don't recall ever seeing it, I'm
> sharing it here.)

He's just translating a very common Yiddish expression: "der vos hot
di mei'eh hot di dei'eh".


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

[redirected from Areivim, as per moderator request]

On Sun, 6 Jan 2008 13:23:09 EST
T613K@aol.com wrote:

> From: "Marty Bluke" _marty.bluke@gmail.com_ (mailto:marty.bluke@gmail.com) 
> 
> >>In last week's English Hamodia there is a whole story printed  about a
> Rebbitzen who neutralizes ayin hara through "blei gissen"  that  is
> pouring of lead.....
> What have we come to? Is this what we believe in,  magic and
> superstition? Is this really al pi torah? This is printed in  a
> mainstream Charedi newspaper.<<
> 
> >>>>>
> 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.

Here's the Rambam , "who teaches wisdom to the foolish" [0]:

--- Begin Quote ---

The first [group], and it is most of what I have seen and whose works I
have seen, and about whom I have heard, believe them [the words of the
sage] literally, and they do not interpret them to possess any hidden
meaning at all, and the impossibilities are to them all necessarily
existent.  But they do this for they have not understood wisdom. and
they are far from understanding, and they do not have completeness in
order to understand on their own and they have not found an arouser to
arouse them.  They think that the sages ob"m did not intend, in all
their upright and correct statements, but what they have understood
according to their understanding, and [they believe] that they are all
literal, even though what is apparent from some of their statements
contains libel and that which is distant from logic, to the point that
if it were told, in its literal sense to simple people, certainly to
scholars, they would be amazed at their understanding, and they would
say "how can there exist in the world a person who thinks this or who
believes that this is a correct belief, a fortiori that it would appeal
to him.

And we should be saddened over the foolishness of this mentally
impoverished group, for they think that they are honoring and elevating
the sages, but they are really lowering them to the utmost lowliness,
and they do not understand this.

By the life of Hashem Yisbarach, this group is destroying the glory of
the Torah, and darkening its shine, and placing Hashem's Torah opposite
to its intent, for Hashem Yisbarach said in the complete Torah "that
they shall hear all these laws and they shall say 'but a wise an
understanding nation is this great folk'", whereas this group relates
the sentences of the sages ob"m in such a way that when the other
nations hear them they say "but a foolish and vulgar nation is this
little folk" ...

--- End Quote ---

It would be intellectually dishonest, however, to refrain from
mentioning the Rambam's continuation, that those who understand Hazal
literally but instead smugly ridicule them for their unsophistication
are even more foolish than the previous group, since they are
cavalierly ridiculing great scholars whom they do not have the
background to understand.

[0] Commentary to the Mishnah, Sanhedrin, Helek s.v. Ha'ri'shonah

> --Toby  Katz

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

Continuing the assertion that there is in fact no mitzva to convert.

The Maharal also indicates that there is no mitzva for beis din to 
convert non-Jews but rather the obligation is for the non-Jew to be 
converted. The Mishna Halachos that I cited before also cited this 
gemora as proof for this assertion.

*Yevamos(48b): *R? Chanaiah son of Rabban Gamliel said: Why are converts 
in the present time oppressed and suffering? It is because they hadn?t 
fulfilled the Seven Mitzvos of Noach [before conversion - Rashi]. R? 
Yose disagreed noting that one who converts is like a new born child 
[and thus is not punished for his past ? Rashi]. So then why are they 
suffering? It is because they are not as knowledgeable of the details of 
mitzva observance as are those who are born Jewish. Abba Chanan said in 
the name of R? Eleazar that they suffer because they do not do mitzvos 
out of love but from fear [of divine punishment ? Rashi]. Other?s say 
because they delayed their conversion. R? Abahu or R? Chanina said what 
verse supports this understanding? Ruth (2:12) praised Ruth, ?You came 
[quickly and didn?t delay - Rashi] to take refuge under His wings.? 

*Maharal(Yevamos 48b): Why are converts in the present time oppressed 
and suffering?? Because they delay their conversion. *It seems that the 
proof is the verse [Ruth 2:12] saying that she came under His wings and 
that there is reward for this. If so it is logical that there is also 
punishment for not coming. If conversion was only joining the Jewish 
peole then there would not be punishment in not joining as soon as 
possible. Why should he have to join because merely joining the Jewish 
people is not required to be done or punishable if not done. However 
since conversion is receiving refuge under the wings of the Shechina 
since he is coming now - he should have come before - because up until 
now he was far from G?d. Therefore there is punishment for his delay and 
there is no need of proof except that for the fact that there is reward 
for his coming under the wings of the Shechina. From this you can deduce 
that there is a sin when he doesn?t come as  soon as possible since  he 
is now converting...


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


???? ?? ???? ???? ??? ??????, ??????? ???? ?????? ???? ??? ????? ??? 
???? ??? ??; ??? ???? ????: ?? ??????? ???? ????? ???, ??? ???? ?? 
??????? ??? ???? ?????? ??????? ???? ??????; ??? ??? ???? ???? ?' ?????: 
??? ???? ????? ????? ??? ?????; ????? ??????: ???? ???? ???? ????? ??? 
???? ??????. ??? ?' ????, ??????? ?' ?????: ??? ????? (??? ?:??) ???? ?' 
???? ???? ??????? ???? ??? ?' ???? ????? ??? ??? ????? ??? ?????.

[2] <#_ftnref2>  *???"? (?????? ????? - ????? ??:):*  *???? ?' ????? ??? 
?? ?"? ???? ???? ?? ???? ???? ??? ?????? ???':* *???? ???? ???? ??? ???? 
????? ???'*. ???? ???? ???? ????? ?????, ????? ??? ??? ????? ??? ????? 
??? ?? ??? ????, ??"? ????? ?? ???? ??? ?? ?? ???. ??? ?? ??? ????? ??? 
?? ?????? ??????, ??? ??? ???? ?? ??? ?? ???, ?? ??? ??? [??] ??? ?? ?? 
??? ??? ??? ???? ???? ??? ????, ??? ???? ???? ??? ?? ????? ??? ???? 
?????, ???? ?? ??? ??? ?"? ??? ?? ??? ??? ???? ?? ??? ???? ?? ??"?, 
?????? ?? ????, ???? ???? ????? ????? ?? ??? ??? ?? ???? ?? ????? ??? 
???? ?????? ???? ??? ???? ??? ??? ??? ??? ?? ?? ??? ???? ???? ?? ????????

On Thu, January 10, 2008 3:28 pm, Daniel Eidensohn wrote:
: The Maharal also indicates that there is no mitzva for beis din to
: convert non-Jews but rather the obligation is for the non-Jew to be
: converted. The Mishna Halachos that I cited before also cited this
: gemora as proof for this assertion.

I'm going to use the word "chiyuv", since "mitzvah" is ambiguous.
Clearly geirus is a mitzvah, in the sense of the word that writing a
get is a mitzvah. The question is whether there is a chiyuv to help
someone for whom it's a zekhus (IOW, they show all signs of becoming
shomerei Torah umitzvos), a reshus (mitzvah qiyumis), or a hechsher
mitzvah, or....

I'm missing something. What's the nafqa mina between saying BD has a
chiyuv geirus, and saying the geir has a chiyuv to convert ASAP, he
can't do so without a beis din, and therefore BD must help him?

It's a little parallel to piryah verivyah for women, except that there
"lasheves yatzrah" guarantees even less of a nafqa mina.

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

It was recently pointed out to me that the Torah does not contain the 
word "kibail" - received. The concept of mesora is typically expressed 
by "kabblah".  A brief survey seems to indicate that transmission that 
continues to be a manifestation of the source is expressed by this term. 
Thus our mesorah from Sinai is our kabbala. It seems to be qualitatively 
different than saying something was given or taken whereby the object is 
either in one domain or the other. In other words in Torah terminolgy 
the Torah was given. Thus it is not in Heaven anymore but in the domain 
of man on earth. In contrast in the terms of Chazal the concept of 
kabbala would connote that the Torah of Heaven was transmitted through 
Moshe to us - but it is still in Heaven. Thus kabbala increases the 
participation but does not constitute an absolute transfer. We also find 
that the Prophets are referred to as "divrei kabbala" and we know that 
Torah can not be learned from divrei kabbala. "Kabbala" seems to be a 
neoplatonic understanding of reality. As in Kabbala itself - everything 
is contained in everything else. Without the term kabbala - reality is 
as you see it and it is not a manifestation of a deeper reality.

What I am trying to clarify is whether the concept of "kabbala" is 
expressed in the Torah at all - even it the term "kabbala" doesn't 
appear. Does the term "kabbala" indicate a radical change in 
understanding relationships that is alien to the peshat of the Torah? Or 
am I simply making too much out of the issue.

Daniel Eidensohn

R' Micha Berger wrote:
>
> I'm missing something. What's the nafqa mina between saying BD has a
> chiyuv geirus, and saying the geir has a chiyuv to convert ASAP, he
> can't do so without a beis din, and therefore BD must help him?
>
>   
It is the issue of who has the obligation to be the nudge. According to 
the R' Menashe Klein the burden of making sure the geirus is done is on 
the ger himself. If he delays converting it is his sin (Yevamos 48b). 
Beis din thus plays a relatively passive role. Sort of like an avel has 
the obligation to say kaddish and thus must insure that there is a 
minyan. The minyan merely provides the enivironment but does not push 
the avel to say kaddish. Beis din is thus provides the opportunity but 
doesn't push that the mitzva be done. If the prospective convert is 
uncertain as to whether to proceed or is merely curious about converting 
- there is no requirement for beis din to be involved. They only step in 
when they acknowledge he is a sincere and genuine candidate for 
conversion and he insists it be done now.

On the other hand if the mitzva is on beis din to convert non-Jews than 
they most create pressure such as Avraham did when he was engaged in 
convincing people that G-d exists. They need to reach out and give 
public speeches, weekend seminars etc  etc. as we  find in the kiruv and 
missionary programs. They have to create motivation - not just respond 
when asked.

Daniel Eidensohn

It is interesting to note that with modern forensic medicine we have  
found that once the slightest amount of blood is left on any object,  
there is no way of removing every trace of it. There is a substance  
called luminol. Luminol is a versatile chemical that exhibits  
chemiluminescence, with a striking blue glow, when mixed with an  
appropriate oxidizing agent. It is a white to slightly yellow  
crystalline solid that is soluble in water and most polar organic  
solvents.
Luminol is used by forensic investigators to detect trace amounts of  
blood left at crime scenes. It is also used by biologists in cellular  
assays (tests) for the detection of copper, iron, and cyanides. There  
is no way in eliminating every trace of blood once it has appeared.
It would seem to me that perhaps the prohibition of blood centers  
around the fact that the tamei it conveys can never be fully eliminated.
I see a parallel between the paradox of the ashes of the para aduma  
and blood. As the ashes can render someone tahor who is tamei, and  
someone tamei who is tahor, likewise, without blood already inside of  
you, you would die. And conversely taking blood from the outside in,  
will cause a spiritual death.
ri
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20080110/c43c8eb9/attachment.htm 

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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 25, Issue 17
**************************************

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..."