Avodah Mailing List

Volume 25: Number 46

Mon, 28 Jan 2008

• 1. Why "This Time?" (Richard Wolberg)
• 2. An interesting roshei teivos (Richard Wolberg)
• 3. Ramp On! (Richard Wolberg)
• 4. Re: Ramp On! (Micha Berger)
• 5. Re: Ramp On! (Michael Makovi)
• 6. Re: [Areivim] Binfol oyvekha al tismach? (Michael Makovi)
• 7. Re: Binfol oyivkha al tismach? (Micha Berger)
• 8. Religious participation in govt. today (Doron Beckerman)
• 9. Re: [Areivim] Binfol oyvekha al tismach? (Zev Sero)
• 10. Re: Binfol oyivkha al tismach? (Micha Berger)

"And the man said: 'This time it is bone of my bones, and flesh of my  
flesh; this shall be called Woman, because she was taken from man.'  
" (2:23)

QUESTION: The words "zot hapa'am" ? "this time" ? seem superfluous?  
Why is it used?

ANSWER: According to the Gemara (Niddah 31a), there are three partners  
in the formation of man: Through Hashem, he receives a soul, through  
the father the bones, nails, and brain, and through the mother, skin  
and flesh. Adam emphasized that this time, and only this time, the  
bone and the flesh both came all from the same Source.

ri
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20080127/dde7d02f/attachment-0001.html 

A remez that Havdalah is said in Attah Chonen; the letters of the  
hebrew word "Binah" represent: Bisamim, Yayin, Ner, Havdalah.   Be'er  
Haitaiv citing the Taz
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20080128/72fb0af1/attachment.htm 

The last sentence of the portion of Yisro states that ramps should  
lead to the altar. (Exodus 20:23)
Why are ramps used and not steps?  There are different reasons given,  
but the one I like most is that the Torah
already had sensitivity for the handicapped.

Our task is to learn from the ramps that led to the altar in the  
tabernacle. They teach that we must make sure
that all people can face the door and be welcomed making their way in  
-- either by foot, walker or wheelchair.
ri
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20080127/059311fc/attachment.html 

On Sun, Jan 27, 2008 at 09:48:22PM -0500, Richard Wolberg wrote:
: Why are ramps used and not steps?  There are different reasons given,  
: but the one I like most is that the Torah
: already had sensitivity for the handicapped.

Except that visibly handicapped people couldn't do the avodah, and thus
the ramp can't be for accessibility.

Nor would that general rule meet the ADA (the Americans with Disability
Act) by a long shot.

Which in itself is an interesting question. Why did HQBH choose to cater
to those who would find a disability distracting, or symbolic of giving
Hashem inferior service rather than invoking "tzadiqim yeilkhu vam,
uposh'im yikashlu vam" (Hosheia' 14:10)?

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger                 Life is complex.
micha@aishdas.org                Decisions are complex.
http://www.aishdas.org               The Torah is complex.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                                - R' Binyamin Hecht

>Why did HQBH choose to cater
> to those who would find a disability distracting, or symbolic of giving
> Hashem inferior service rather than invoking "tzadiqim yeilkhu vam,
> uposh'im yikashlu vam" (Hosheia' 14:10)?
>
> Tir'u baTov!
> -Micha

I'm going to guess that Rav Hirsch writes ten pages on this. But since
I don't have him in front of me, I'm going to wing what I think he
might say:

Something along the lines that our avodah must be whole and
unblemished, and so the executors too must be whole and unblemished,
as a symbolic representation. It's not that there's anything wrong per
se with a blemished person doing the avodah, but we need a visual
representation of the concept, and so the kohen and the animal both
need to be unblemished.

As far as the symbolism goes, it would then make sense for the
individual offering the korban to be unblemished himself. But
obviously, it is not feasible to forbid a korban to anyone who is
himself unblemished, appropriate though the law would be in theory.
But to require the kohen and the behema to be unblemished? Ika
d'efshara efshara, leika d'efshara lo efshara. Or is it heicha
d'efshara efshara, heicha d'lo efshara lo efshara?
Mikha'el Makovi

:
> Did we ever come to a decision on this one after Arafat died?
>
> 'Cause with George Habash dead, I'm finding myself grinning...
>
> Tir'u baTov!
> -Micha

Well, we see that we definitely sang Shirat haYam. So apparently, we
are allowed to sin over mamash enemies.

But maybe it's not a matter of their being mamash enemies; maybe we
can sing over *anyone* who isn't a Jew, whether he murdered or merely
cut in line at the bank. As we see in the Midrash of Mordechai and
Haman, Haman's being a gentile nullified this prohibition of dancing
over the fall of your enemy.

But then why do we take ten drops of wine out on Pesach, and sing only
half-Hallel on the last day of Pesach? If we are allowed to rejoice
over the death of a gentile oiyev, why do we mourn on this last day?
We ought to have unmitigated joy!

The best answer I've seen (admitting that I haven't been on the search
for additional answers) is that of Rabbi Joseph Telushkin, who
suggests that while the immediate survivors of their *evil mamash*
enemies may rejoice (unmitigated joy) without any mourning whatsoever,
bystanders ( = the angels who sang) and the descendants of the
survivors ( = we, at the Seder) must mourn the death of a human (even
an evil one) even while we rejoice over our own salvation. So it's a
balance: celebrate what's good and mourn over what's bad, even as we
hate the sin but love the sinner. But for the immediate survivor, they
are allowed completely joy. The Holocaust survivors themselves need
not try to see the good in Hitler. Of course, for their descendants,
this is very difficult. I myself don't know how to celebrate Hitler's
defeat and yet acknowledge that he was after all a human b'tzalmo.

As for that Midrash of Mordechai and Haman, I don't have a good
answer. One must notice that Haman was not a stam gentile oiyev like
the guy who ticked you off by cutting in line, but rather he was a
real mamash rodef rasha etc. Mordechai says the pasuk applies to only
a Jewish oiyev, suggesting that one may rejoice over a gentile mamash
oiyev but not over a Jewish one. But can one imagine being magnamimous
to a Jewish rasha comparable to Haman? Adarabba, we pray for their
destruction in v'la'malshinim! So what comparison is Mordechai making
between a Jewish oiyev (who is apparently NOT a rodef like in the
Shemonei Esrei) and Haman? The two cannot be compared! Maybe the
reason for permission to rejoice over Haman's fall is not because he's
a gentile, but simply because he's not a mere everyday jerk!

Mikha'el Makovi

On Mon, January 28, 2008 6:47 am, R Michael Makovi wrote:
: Well, we see that we definitely sang Shirat haYam. So apparently, we
: are allowed to sin over mamash enemies.

And yet Pesiqta deR' Kahane tells us to take our lead from the
mal'akhim, and this is why we do not say full hallel on the
anniversary of the day. Also a hava amina in the gemara, which is not
rejected on grounds of the rejoicing being appropriate.

Rather than replay a thread that ran from before Pesach until July,
I'll point you to the summary of my conclusions from that thread at
<http://www.aishdas.org/asp/2007/07/compassion-for-our-enemies.shtml>.

Skipping all the sources, my maskanah:
> Here, the balance must be struck between two verses: "when your enemy
> falls do not rejoice" (Mishlei 24:17) and "with the destruction of
> evil there are shouts of happiness" (11:10). The Zohar writes that
> the happiness is only when the destruction is to cure the evil, and
> therefore comes with their atonement. When they die because they are
> oyevim, enemies, who need to be eliminated to save the good rather
> than in the right time for their own sake, there is no joy. The
> gemara?s resolution (Sanherin 39b) is that while Hashem does not
> rejoice, He does call upon man to rejoice. However the Maharsha
> relates this back to the story of "the work of My 'Hands' is
> drowning?" One should rejoice at being the beneficiary of G-d's good,
> even while recognizing the loss necessary for you to obtain that.
...
> So why doesn't "mi shemeracheim al ha'achzarim... ? one who is
> merciful to the cruel will in the end be cruel to the merciful"
> apply? Perhaps it is because we aren't talking about ignoring the
> very real need for their destruction. Unlike Sha'ul, who
> inappropriately saved Agag, we are not saying the Mitzriyim should
> have been spared. Rather, that it's sad that things had come to this.

> Someone who r"l needs to have a leg amputated should have it removed.
> He'll mourn its loss and the loss of everything he could have done
> with it, but will still give his okay for its removal. "Mi
> shemeracheim" is the doctor who lets the patient die because he had
> pity on the leg.

That said, I wonder about the applicability of "ba'avod resha'im rina"
when the rasha -- like George Habash y"sh, whose death cause the start
of the Areivim thread -- hadn't posed a threat in years. OT1H, his
death is not a yeshu'ah; Marxism isn't a popular goal for today's
Palestinians. OTOH, the chilul Hashem of a sonei Yisrael surviving has
ended.

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

As a spin-off from the what a Torah govt. would look like, I just skimmed a
very interesting piece of Torah, all sourced, from a Charedi RY (written in
the 80s I think) advocating a total separation of religion and state, and
just focusing on Kiruv Levavos like in America. Not because Kefiyah Datit is
wrong, but because it is counter-productive. He makes a very interesting
case that all the  benefits of having the State involved in religion are
really illusory:

1) Marriage and Divorce:
Kidushin - the Chilonim are violating Kares anyhow - so what if she isn't a
Penuyah. Halitehu LaRasha...
Gitin - W/o Siddur Kiddushin in  the first place they would be Panui and
Penuyah, and we have no Chazakah of Ain Adam Oseh Beilaso etc. for these
people, and there is alot of room to be lenient that there is no requirement
for a Get.
(There may be  a percentage who would marry by a Rav and when one side
refuses to give a Get they will live in sin, but even so, the people who are
distant from Emunah have ways to circumvent the law and do what they please
anyway.

With all that, the Sinah that it engenders with claims of religious
coercion, when we should concentrate on Kiruv Levavos, isn't worth it.

2) Shabbos and Yom Tov:
No public buses on Shabbos just means drivers who drive home after Shekia on
Fri night and driving early before the end of Shabbos to start the run on
Motzaei Shabbos immediately. Many more private cars and cabs on Shabbos
really is more Chillul Shabbos.

3) Sale of pork:
They are eating things that are as bad as Chazir or worse anyhow. He has
strong words here: "The very effort for this law in particularm shows that
it is not Halachah which is the driving force, rather the national emotion
and revulsion from Chazir in particular... one who gives reasons of national
unity, or Shabbos being a wonderful day of family bonding, or flying in the
skies with a plane of the State with an Israeli flag is in opposition to the
pride of the Nation, (!!!), is a distortion of Torah, emptying it of all its
holiness, and is driving a wedge between the Giver of the Torah and His
Torah.

4) Abortions:
The law is not limited to Pikuach Nefesh anyway - just "health concerns". So
now that the religious were Maskim to this the Chillul Hashem and Ziyuf
HaTorah is far worse!  A woman who wants an abortion will do it anyway. The
doctor will say it was a health risk.

The whole concept forces the Rabbinate to accept compromises on the Torah,
because there is the threat of cancellation of the above laws which are
considered sacrosanct. Kabbalas Gerim is constantly being affected by
extra-Halachic concerns due to the will of the govt. on this issue. The
whole "Who is a Jew" conflict should be utterly irrelevant - just don't
follow what the Teudat Zehut says and have our own files. Intermarriage is
done anyway and will continue at a quickening pace (never mind all the
Russian gentiles that were imported) - the only Eitzah is Chinuch. We can't
lower the threshold for Giyur which Halachah requires (he's obviously
requiring full Kabbalas Torah UMitzvos) for the sake of preventing
intermarriage - such means of distortion of Halachah cannot be acceptable
even for such a goal. If a person knows a Jew who is going to marry a
non-Jewess, and he has the opportunity to marry him to a Jewess who will not
keep Taharas HaMishpachah, this RY holds that it is Assur to offer him this
Shidduch because of Lifnei Iver. (He discusses the well-known Rambam in
Isurei Biah, and says that the RESULT of marrying a gentile is worse, but
the AVERAH of Beilas NIddah is worse, and for Lifnei Iver the only thing
that matters is the Aveirah.

5) About the claim that we cannot give the impression that we are Maskim to
such violatins as above, even if the practical benefit is negligible,
because of the Chillul Hashem of not having such laws. He says that a State
that says that it is Muttar for a Jew to violate Shabbos in public, Muttar
to be an atheist, Muttar to have consensual illicit relations, that
hesitates to place the Name of Hashem on its Megillat Atzmaut, we can't be
responsible to place a "Dati" sign on such a State and adorn it with some
religious legislation, its just a sham which magnifies the falsehood and is
a Nezem Zahav B'Af Chazir. The only way to avoid the Chillul Hashem is by
declaring that these laws and lawmakers do not reflect the eternal Jewish
Nation in existence since Sinai who say that this Nation is a Nation only by
virtue of its Torah.

There is never any license to be Mattir anything which is Assur for the sake
of a perceived greater good - that's the RBSHO's Cheshbon. (Lots of sources
for this - Meiri Sanhedrin 7a a very interesting one)

There is no Chiyuv Tochachah on these Tinokos Shenishbu, the laws don't
count as Tochachah anyway, and they are just causing the irreligious to be
Nichshal in Lo Tisna... And we can't force them based on Afrushei MeIssura
either - it doesn't work L'Maaseh.

He emphasizes that we have no MORAL problem with religious coercion - just
as the police prevent parents from killing their own children - but L'Maaseh
since we can't do it we are Pattur.

He then goes on to explain the good of this separation,  I think they are
fairly clear to people who grew up in Anglo countries.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20080128/06abfd3b/attachment-0001.htm 

Michael Makovi wrote:

> But then why do we take ten drops of wine out on Pesach, and sing only
> half-Hallel on the last day of Pesach? If we are allowed to rejoice
> over the death of a gentile oiyev, why do we mourn on this last day?
> We ought to have unmitigated joy!

If you check the archives you'll find that we've been over this a
time or two.  But let me just say that "pouring makkos" has *nothing*
to do with "mourning" for the Mitzrim y"sh.  That is a silly modern
explanation that has no source.  You will find various reasons if you
look, but not this one.  See, e.g. the Alter Rebbe's siddur for an
explanation in kabbalistic terms that translates without much effort
into one that can be easily understood by everyone.


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

On Mon, January 28, 2008 12:19 pm, Zev Sero wrote:
: If you check the archives you'll find that we've been over this a
: time or two.  But let me just say that "pouring makkos" has *nothing*
: to do with "mourning" for the Mitzrim y"sh.  That is a silly modern
: explanation that has no source....

Wow! Three plus months of debate, and you left it with the same
cocksuredness with which you entered.

1- You make it sound like "pouring makos" is the primary issue. Not
Chatzi Hallel on the 22nd of Nissan, or binfol oyivkha itself.

2- There are sources for "pouring makos" being related to their tza'ar
having to be mixed in to our joy. RYEliashiv and RSZAurbach don't
simply give out "silly modern explanations".

Bottom line, the lack of full Hallel on the anniversary of qerias Yam
Suf is connected to the death of the mitzriyim by at least one tanna,
numerous rishonim (including the Beis Yoseif), and carried through and
accepted by a large trail of mesorah until today.

The notion that you can't simply dismiss the tragic cost necessary to
accomplish HQBH's goal isn't modern liberalism.

To add something new to the discussion.... RAEK has an essay "Shetayim
sheheim Achas", about the unity of "Ashrei yoshevei veisakha" or
"Ashrei temimei derekh" OT1H, and "Ashrei sheyocheiz venipeitz
olelayikh..." (Teh' 137:9) on the other.

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



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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 25, Issue 46
**************************************

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..."