Avodah Mailing List

Volume 25: Number 68

Tue, 12 Feb 2008

• 1. Re: Not Making Kiddush Between 6 p.m. and 7 p.m. (kennethgmiller@juno.com)
• 2. Re: Does God Change His Mind? (David Riceman)
• 3. Re: Does God Change His Mind? (David Riceman)
• 4. Does God Change His mind? (Cantor Wolberg)
• 5. Does God Change His Mind? (Cantor Wolberg)
• 6. Re: Why Jewish Women should NOT wear a Burka (Micha Berger)
• 7. Re: The influence of Nusach Sefard on Nusach Ashkenaz (Micha Berger)
• 8. Re: Shiluach Hakan (Gila Atwood)
• 9. Re: The influence of Nusach Sefard on Nusach Ashkenaz (Michael Poppers)
• 10. Re: Does God Change His Mind? (Michael Makovi)
• 11. Re: Does God Change His Mind? (David Riceman)
• 12. Baruch Shelo Asani Eved (Galsaba@aol.com)
• 13. Re: Baruch Shelo Asani Eved (Zev Sero)
• 14. Re: Baruch Shelo Asani Eved (Micha Berger)

I wrote:
> Why would a star's turn be longer during a summer daytime
> than a winter daytime, or than a summer night? ....

R' Micha Berger asked:
> But I will ask about your basic assumption: that the
> planets get turns of equal duration. Why? Who knows why
> would planets get turns influencing events on earth
> altogether. Why is "equal" more reasonable than a
> celestian unit, the solar hour? Not saying it's less;
> just that I don't understand any of it, and therefore
> will question any assumption of what makes more sense.

Excellent points, and very well put. Thanks for bringing them to my
attention. The truth is, I don't understand any of it either. But just as a
wild guess, I'd say that since the sun is one of those seven stars, then it
is more likely for the sun to be *subject to* whatever rules govern this
stuff, and less likely that it is a factor in determining the length of
each "hour".

> And if they do, why is it subject to where on earth you
> are? Why not simply assume even shesi'ah time, and not
> make qiddush between 1am and 2am EST Shabbos morning? The
> fact that it is related to your location on the planet
> /would/ better fit solar time.

Because: (1) The people who wrote the Gemara Shabbos 129b lived in Bavel;
and (2) We can presume that they understood how to implement it on a
practical level; and (3) My personal presumption is that they implemented
it according to local time, and did not convert it to "even shesi'ah time".
If those three points are correct, then they observed all that stuff about
an hour earlier than people in Eretz Yisrael.

Akiva Miller 
_____________________________________________________________
Click for free info on detox treatments for drug & alcohol dependency.
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2121/fc
/Ioyw6i3nCaGD5Olw3wxIt0FyPVFfiL0NMvFVwWUvUenzZNtggMQ7Dk/

Michael Makovi wrote:
> At this point, I'll add a similar point that occurs to me: According
> to Rambam and those like him, certain Chazalic texts were declared to
> be forgeries (for example, Shiur Koma), because they offended the
> religious sensibilities of Rambam etc., and they could not imagine
> Chazal holding by such texts. Today, we know that such texts are
> certainly authentic.
>   
I guess I must have missed a breakthrough.  How do we know this?

David Riceman

I wrote:
> I guess I must have missed a breakthrough. How do we know this?
To amplify a bit: see Rabbi Rakeffet's book "The Rav", section 13.04, 
which I think accurately echos the Rambam's opinion about Shiur Komah.

David Riceman

M.M. wrote:
That's why I said that He does change with respect to us.
Let me make a comparison to calculus: If I have y = x^2 (squared),
then the equation does not change. It is constantly y=x^2. BUT, at any
given point, the rate of change of y changes. dy = d(x^2)dx --> dy =
2x. The rate of change at any given point is double what x is at that
point.

The above analogy does not hold. M.M. implies the rate of change is  
dependent on X.
The rate of change is NOT dependent on X. How do you know that your  
calculus equation shouldn't be y=2x and therefore dy/dx is equal to 2  
which is a constant?  2x is a constant change and y=x2 does not have a  
constant change.

Also, differential calculus which is the study of how functions change  
when their inputs change, has as its primary object of study the  
derivative. From a theological analogy, one could say that God is the  
Primary derivative, so giving the above example stating that God does  
change with respect to us, is meaningless and strictly subjective and  
doesn't prove a thing.
Everything you're trying to attribute to God comes from the need to  
relate the infinite to the finite. It just won't work. It's like one  
tree trying to explain to another tree how other forms of life can  
exist without being attached to the ground.

Kol tuv/Best regards.
ri 
  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avo
dah-aishdas.org/attachments/20080211/7b2c8861/attachment-0001.html 

M.M. wrote: "Thus, G-d's Mercy is a description of how He acts to us."

In attempting to describe God, you are limiting Him. To understand His  
essence is an oxymoron. Also, God doesn't "act" to us; God IS to us.
ri
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20080211/5240f927/attachment-0001.htm 

On Sun, Feb 10, 2008 at 09:27:01AM -0600, Ken Bloom wrote:
:> tzeni'us has two meanings. Originally, it referred to not calling
:> undue attention to oneself, trying to avoid the spotlight. Because sex
:> is such an attention getter, that grew to include covering ervah....

:> Here is a case where people go to such extent to cover ervah that they
:> do draw undue attention to themselves. Ironically, by being tzanu'os,
:> they are violating tzeni'us (switching meanings of the word
:> midsentence).

: I doubt that the word tzeni'ut has two meanings...

In theory, that should be true. That's what I meant by speaking of the
meaning growing and derived meanings.

However, the word tzeni'us WRT covering ervah is used in teshuvos. Even
when speaking of how one comports oneself as alone. One isn't drawing
the attention of the beams of one's home. So, while this is a derived
rather than the original and mishnaic usage of the term, I didn't simply
dismiss it.

I would still agree with your point:
:                                                  More likely, covering
: erva is only tzeni'ut to the extent that it eliminates an
: attention-getter. Once the covering would becomes an attention getter in
: and of itself, it would no longer be tzeni'ut in *any* sense of the
: word. Does this seem more correct?

Covering ervah in a way that draws attention is not tzeni'us in mishnaic
Hebrew. In any way shape or form. But it's still covering ervah, which
acharonim and perhaps even rishonim also called "tzeni'us". It's not
tzevei dinim, it's two descrete and very different concepts that happen
to now share a word.

So, rather than worrying about senses of the word, let's just agree that
the primary value which in mishnaic Hebrew is the only meaning of the
word "tzanu'ah" is not being fulfilled in any way by such clothes. And
in that sense, we agree.

-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             "'When Adar enters, we increase our joy'
micha@aishdas.org         'Joy is nothing but Torah.'
http://www.aishdas.org    'And whoever does more, he is praiseworthy.'"
Fax: (270) 514-1507                     - Rav Dovid Lifshitz zt"l

On Sun, Feb 10, 2008 at 02:24:28PM -0500, Richard Wolpoe wrote:
: Tanegntially since minhag avos was throwrn out with regard to Baruch Hashem
: l'olam and Tefilln on Hulo shel Moed, why bother keeping it with Kitniyyos?

I would argue that you're still conflating definitions of the word
minhag. But either way...

What outweighs minhag WRT qitniyos? Tefillin on chol hamo'ed violates
an aggadic value, if you base your agadic values on the Zohar, and not
saying Barukh H' leOlam is in contrast to the textual sources. Qitniyos
violates what? Simchas Yom Tov?

...
: At least for the most part [excpet probably for the innovation of  dancing
: on Simchas Torah] Yekkes are pretty consistent.

Only because they share your weighting of minhag avos over nearly everything
else. Although RSRH was known for establishing new minhagim. I think because
of the aggadic value factor, that will be true for any founder of an Ism.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Mussar is like oil put in water,
micha@aishdas.org        eventually it will rise to the top.
http://www.aishdas.org                    - Rabbi Israel Salanter
Fax: (270) 514-1507

> Now I am aware of the promised rewards for shiluach hakan but I cannot
> believe we are supposed to be tramping through woods frightening birds
> to secure long life.
>
> Alan Rubin
> _______________________________________________
Finding nests of kosher birds in the woods is quite difficult but happily 
it's unnecessary since rock doves alias feral pigeons/town pigeons are 
kosher, or rather, tahor, birds that breed plentifully around human 
habitation. Finding their nests is quite easy. (any ledge above eye level is 
good for them).  The main halachic problem with them is making sure the 
place they're nesting is hefker. (Can the ba'al habayit mafkir the place 
after the bird has already nested?) In Israel the same is also true for 
Laughing doves.  Best done at night when the female incubates (also early 
morning in case of laughing doves)

In the woods most tahor birds nest high in trees making their nests 
inaccessible but gamebirds such as quail, grouse, partridge nest on the 
ground. Their nests can be tricky to find because they're well camouflaged. 
If the clutch is large (usually the case with these birds) the loss of one 
or two eggs will not constitute tzaar baalei chaim or a conservation issue. 
Delicious too if your mesora allows you to eat them. (they are all tahor 
birds related to quail)

In Avodah Digest V25#66, RRW wrote:
> At least for the most part [excpet probably for the innovation of
dancing on Simchas Torah] Yekkes are pretty consistent. <
I'm not sure if dancing (or lack thereof) qualifies, strictly speaking, as
a nusach-hat'filah Yekke-inconsistency (i.e. infiltration of outside
minhagim per se into the nusach) issue, but how about "Yizkor" on the
r'galim?

All the best from
--Michael Poppers via RIM pager
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-a
ishdas.org/attachments/20080211/8cc9bf11/attachment.html 

On Feb 12, 2008 2:12 AM, David Riceman <driceman@att.net> wrote:
> Michael Makovi wrote:
> > At this point, I'll add a similar point that occurs to me: According
> > to Rambam and those like him, certain Chazalic texts were declared to
> > be forgeries (for example, Shiur Koma), because they offended the
> > religious sensibilities of Rambam etc., and they could not imagine
> > Chazal holding by such texts. Today, we know that such texts are
> > certainly authentic.
> >
> I guess I must have missed a breakthrough.  How do we know this?
>
> David Riceman

I guess because we've found many other Chazalic Maaseh Merkavah works
(the Hekhalot), and Shiur Koma fits in with these texts perfectly, and
there's no basis for doubting its authenticity.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merkabah#Ma.27asei_Merkavah
Scroll down for mention of "Shi'ur Qoma"

Mikha'el Makovi

Michael Makovi wrote:
> I guess because we've found many other Chazalic Maaseh Merkavah works
> (the Hekhalot), and Shiur Koma fits in with these texts perfectly, and
> there's no basis for doubting its authenticity.
>   
This is not true.  As far as I know Shiur Koma is the only merkava text 
which purports to describe God rather than a lesser creature.

Furthermore it misses the main point.  It is true that there was a group 
of Merkava mystics in EY at some point.  Their relationship with Hazal 
is (as far as I know) unknown.  For example, Shiur Koma purports to have 
been written by R. Yishmael (R. Akiva's bar plugta, not his grandfather 
the mystic).  I sincerely doubt that you will find any scholar who 
accepts this.

If I understand the Rambam's position, he doesn't doubt that Shiur Koma 
was written during the times of Hazal, he doubts it was written by 
someone mentioned in Talmud or Midrash, someone we would recognize as 
one of Hazal.

David Riceman

In birchot HaShachar, the phase "Baruch Shelo Asani Eved"
does it refer to an Eved Kenani, or Eved Ivri?
 
Todah,
 
galsaba



**************The year's hottest artists on the red carpet at the Grammy 
Awards. Go to AOL Music.      
(http://music.aol.com/grammys?NCID=aolcmp00300000002565)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20080212/e156f036/attachment-0001.htm 

Galsaba@aol.com wrote:
> In birchot HaShachar, the phase "Baruch Shelo Asani Eved"
> does it refer to an Eved Kenani, or Eved Ivri?

An eved kenaani, who's not obligated in many mitzvot, and isn't part
of am yisrael.  An eved ivri is obligated in all mitzvot, and his
master must allow him to practise them, he just happens to be in
temporarily straitened circumstances.  That doesn't fit the theme.
Especially if you take into account the kabbalistic reason for saying
these brachot every day rather than once in a lifetime, which is that
we're thanking Hashem for not attaching such a soul to us in the night,
then it makes no sense to worry about the soul of an eved ivri, which
is no different than that of anybody else.

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

On Tue, February 12, 2008 3:53 pm, R Zev Sero wrote:
: An eved kenaani, who's not obligated in many mitzvot, and isn't part
: of am yisrael.  An eved ivri is obligated in all mitzvot, and his
: master must allow him to practise them, he just happens to be in
: temporarily straitened circumstances.  That doesn't fit the theme.

Back a step... RZS presumes you know that Rashi explains R' Meir as
thanking HQBH for not being someone with fewer chiyuvim. Back in
<http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol08/v08n094.shtml#12> I bring a
ra'ayah from this from the Xian bible. (Not that Rashi needs such
ra'ayos; but it's helpful in a da mah lehashiv situation WRT "shelo
asani ishah".)

Tangent: Ashkenazim and Teimanim say "aved", unlike the subject line.
Sepharadim say "borei beri hagefen", so I'm not surprised to see one
post "shelo asani eved".

SheTir'u baTov!
-micha

-- 
Micha Berger             "Man wants to achieve greatness overnight,
micha@aishdas.org        and he wants to sleep well that night too."
http://www.aishdas.org     - Rav Yosef Yozel Horwitz, Alter of Novarodok
Fax: (270) 514-1507



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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 25, Issue 68
**************************************

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..."