Avodah Mailing List

Volume 25: Number 313

Thu, 04 Sep 2008

• 1. More Philosophy, If Anyone's Up to It (Ira Tick)
• 2. NASA, Dead-Sea Scrolls and G-D's holy name (Aryeh Herzig)
• 3. kingly G-d (Eli Turkel)
• 4. Re: Torah Only - Hora'as Sha'a (Micha Berger)
• 5. Re: NASA, Dead-Sea Scrolls and G-D's holy name (Moshe Y. Gluck)
• 6. Re: NASA, Dead-Sea Scrolls and G-D's holy name (Micha Berger)
• 7. Re: kingly G-d (Micha Berger)
• 8. Re: NASA, Dead-Sea Scrolls and G-D's holy name (Zev Sero)
• 9. Re: NASA, Dead-Sea Scrolls and G-D's holy name (Zev Sero)
• 10. Re: kingly G-d (Ira Tick)

I have to first apologize about some things:  My relationship to Torah often
mingles with my love of history and my search for greater philosophical
clarity.  These loves in turn stem from my inner conscience and my personal
relationship to G-d and my people.  I cannot understand Torah in a vacuum,
not academically, not personally.  And I cannot imagine my interests in
history or philosophy stemming only from purely intellectual curiosity.
They come from a desire for personal integrity.  Therefore, many of my posts
in general and my responses to others' will drift into discussions of
history or philosophy or science, when perhaps those discussions do not
belong on the same list as halachic or purely Torah topics, even if those
topics often include discussing the validity of history and science for
understanding or living the Torah.  So if anyone prefers I leave out the
more speculative stuff, let me know and I'll tone it down.

Anyway, here goes...

I posted an email on Areivim asking listmembers if they thought of Torah
obligations as personal, covenantal, or metaphysical and what they felt
about viewing religion and ethics as objective or subjective.  Several
people, including some Areivim moderators, felt that the post was better
suited for Avodah.  I have finally given in, so here it is:

I was just curious, do my fellow listmembers (as individuals, not the group
as a whole) view religious truths as metaphysical realities, personal norms,
covenantal vows?  How do you view the relationship (triangle) between
personal feelings/motivations, religious truths, and the actual goals of
religious life.

What inspires/drives your religious spirit or comittment?  Love of G-d,
religious or metaphysical reverence of Him, awe or appreciation of Divine
might, fear of it, love of family and friends, emotional attachment to
religious ethics, to metaphysical truths, respect for an orderly system of
living?

A related question for this week:  Anyone have any thoughts about the unity
of the soul?  Parallels to the unity of G-d?  How does our view of the soul
and our own assessment of our emotions toward others affect our
understanding of religious statements about people?  Do these push us
towards or away from a metaphysical understanding of religious statements?
Towards or away from a purely emotive understanding of such statements?

I understand I'm asking some heavy questions, but I'm starving to hear what
others have to say about them, even if in pieces at a time over long
periods.

Thanks for reading,

IJT
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20080902/7563734e/attachment-0001.htm>

The popular hareidi Mishpacha magazine has an article today about how NASA's technology is enhancing Dead Sea scroll images making them more readable.
It has a picture of a fragment which, on close examination, seems to be
pieces of Psalms 102.  Although all the words are in Ktav Ashuri, the
four-letter written name of HaShem is clearly spelled out (line 6) in
ancient Ktav Ivri.  This way of writing His Name was common practice in all
the scrolls - probably to emphasize the prohibition of its pronunciation.  
Had the editor of Mishpacha been been able to read it, he surely would not have included this picture.

My question to everyone:    Does the page require Geniza?  

More to the point, does anyone deal with the question of the Kedusha of
Ktav Ivri in our times?   An era in which most Jews do not even know what
it is.	Keep in mind that, according to Yerushalmi, this is the script the
Luchos were written in - MIchtav Elokim, no less  (Bavli differs on this
point).
Even if these scrolls may have been written by Zdokim and may require Sreifa, it is still prohibited to treat them disrespectfully.

(I am not writing the magazine because they probably will not know what I'm talking about.)

Aryeh Herzig
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20080902/7fd76b39/attachment-0001.htm>

from areivim: IJT
When we say in Aleinu "Melech Malchei HaMLachim HaKadosh
Baruch Hu" are we not making religious statements about G-d that need
explaining? >>

Just as an aside in malchiot we quote 3 peskum in the Torah about G-d
being king.
These consist of 2 songs (poems - Az Yashir and Haazinu) from Moshe
Rabbenu and one from Bilaam. There is no fourth pasuk as so the one
used in Musaf is Shema Yisroel which doesn't mention melech.

Thus there is no pasuk in the Torah where G-d himself describes
himself as king. Only 3 verses of praise by men that use this
description

-- 
Eli Turkel

On Tue, Sep 02, 2008 at 01:56:33PM +0000, kennethgmiller@juno.com wrote:
: R' Yitzchok Levine wrote:
:> From page 209 of Rav Breuer - His Life and Legacy
:> A perusal of his writings makes it abundantly clear that
:> R. Hirsch held that Torah im Derech Eretz was never
:> intended as a temporary measure introduced because of a
:> specific problem during a specific historical period and
:> in a specific geographic area.

: It seems to me that the point of this thread is to determine and show
: what Rav Hirsch's true intentions were.

Content, not just intent.

It's not trying to 2nd guess what he was trying to accomplish, but to
simply read what he said. In RSRH's value system, the ghetto was something
we nebich had to endure and temporarily stunted out opportunity to live
according to the Torah.

That may have implications for today that RSRH didn't draw. And
ascribing those implications / extrapolations to RSRH is mindreading.
But the rav of today has to build atop the previous edifice, the
giants' shoulders, and thus has to know what he actually said.

: a) The principle "halacha v'ayn morin keyn" is directed specifically
: at the leaders, and tells them that in certain situations it is proper to
: pasken differently than the actual halacha..

Halakhah ve'ein morin kayn means that even if you think it's okay to
invite people who would drive to your seider, you can't announce that
it's permissable for them to do so. The halakhah is "mutar" (according to
this pesaq, and many are choleqim) but if you teach that in the street
the whole halakhah will fall apart. Which is how C, taking pretty much
the same technical position as this pesaq, ended up opening the
floodgates on driving on Shabbos -- they did teach it.

: Maybe deep down Rav Hirsch meant TIDE to be a temporary measure, and
: maybe he truly meant it to be for all times and places. Does it really
: matter? All that really matters is whether you, or I, or someone else,
: should use it as a guiding principle in his life. And that depends on
: a lot more than what Rav Hirsch really meant in his heart of hearts.

Again, we're not talking about his heart of hearts, we're talking about
what he (very poetically) wrote, despite the number of people in today's
Breuer's kehillah who interpret it otherwise.

Once we know what the giants said, then we of the lesser generation can
start constructing our own responses.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Our greatest fear is not that we're inadequate,
micha@aishdas.org        Our greatest fear is that we're powerful
http://www.aishdas.org   beyond measure
Fax: (270) 514-1507                        - Anonymous

R' Aryeh Herzig:
The popular hareidi Mishpacha magazine has an article today about how NASA's
technology is enhancing Dead Sea scroll images making them more readable.
It has a picture of a fragment which, on close examination, seems to be
pieces of Psalms 102.? Although all the words are in Ktav Ashuri, the
four-letter written name of HaShem is clearly spelled out (line 6)?in
ancient Ktav Ivri.? This way of writing His Name was common practice in all
the scrolls - probably to emphasize the prohibition of its pronunciation.? 
Had the?editor of Mishpacha been been able to read it, he surely would not
have included this picture.
-------------


was in Ksav Ivri? 

R' AH:?
My question to everyone:??? Does the page require Geniza?? 
?
More to the point, does anyone deal with the question of the Kedusha of Ktav
Ivri in our times????An era in which most Jews do not even know what it is.?
Keep in mind that, according to Yerushalmi, this is the script the Luchos
were written in - MIchtav Elokim, no less ?(Bavli differs on this point).
Even if these scrolls may have been written by Zdokim and may require
Sreifa, it is still prohibited to treat them disrespectfully.
------------------


I looked at the Trumas Hadeshen brought down by the Ramoh in YD 286:10
because I thought it might be germane. It isn't really, but I did see that
he seems to consider the Machshavah of the Koseiv as a prime factor in the
Kedushah of a written Sheim. So why wouldn't it have Kedushah, if the Koseiv
wrote it with that in mind? The fact that it's an ancient script doesn't
make it a non-language.

KT,
MYG

P.S. The Terumas Hadeshen I referenced (which is an interesting read, BTW -
dealing with the Kedushah of the Yud-Yud printed in Siddurim) is incorrectly
cited in the old SAs. It is really Siman 171 in the Pesakim.

On Tue, Sep 02, 2008 at 11:34:38PM -0400, Aryeh Herzig wrote:
: My question to everyone:    Does the page require Geniza?  

: More to the point, does anyone deal with the question of the Kedusha
: of Ktav Ivri in our times? ...

I would think the Qumranim would fall under "seifer Torah shekasvo min",
even if the whole thing were in Ashuris.

I am intrigued by your question, but I don't think the Dead Sea Scrolls
are a good example. To expand the question: Kesav Ivri vs kesav Ashuris
could be viewed in terms of Ivri being special as per the Y-mi. But what
if the sheimos were written in kesav "Rashi" or modern Hebrew script?

IOW, I'm breaking out your question to ask whether
1- any convention for writing Hebrew letters would count as sheimos
and if not,
2- would Ivri be special anyway?


You reminded me of something I asked in grade school, learning mesechtes
Megillah but got accused of being a "wise guy" instead of getting an
answer....

When reading a megillah in a foreign language (Megillah 18a), are there
limits on the kesav? Or do they mean writing Greek in Ashuris letters --
like Yiddish or Ladino?

The tie in: How could a megillah written (for Greek-speakers) in Greek
using Greek letters be more qadosh than one written in Hebrew using
non-Ashuris letters?


Also, what we colloquially call "sheimos" includes two things:
1- texts that contain the 7 actual sheimos
2- texts that contain Torah.
Even if the sheim weren't qadosh, we would still call the text "sheimos"
because of #2.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Nothing so soothes our vanity as a display of
micha@aishdas.org        greater vanity in others; it makes us vain,
http://www.aishdas.org   in fact, of our modesty.
Fax: (270) 514-1507              -Louis Kronenberger, writer (1904-1980)

On Wed, Sep 03, 2008 at 06:36:32PM +0300, Eli Turkel wrote:
: Thus there is no pasuk in the Torah where G-d himself describes
: himself as king. Only 3 verses of praise by men that use this
: description

Ein melekh belo am.

The key to declaring Him "Melekh" is that it means He rules with
the will of the people. Otherwise, the term would be "Mosheil". See
<http://www.aishdas.org/asp/2005/09/coronating-g-d.shtml> for my take
of the Gra's more lengthy discussion of this point.

But it would make sense then that it's people who declare Him "Melekh"

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             It's nice to be smart,
micha@aishdas.org        but it's smarter to be nice.
http://www.aishdas.org                   - R' Lazer Brody
Fax: (270) 514-1507

Moshe Y. Gluck wrote:

> I looked at the Trumas Hadeshen brought down by the Ramoh in YD 286:10
> because I thought it might be germane. It isn't really, but I did see that
> he seems to consider the Machshavah of the Koseiv as a prime factor in the
> Kedushah of a written Sheim. So why wouldn't it have Kedushah, if the Koseiv
> wrote it with that in mind? The fact that it's an ancient script doesn't
> make it a non-language.

Surely what matters is the machshava not of the ancient scribe who
wrote the original scroll, but of the magazine publisher who reproduced
it.


> P.S. The Terumas Hadeshen I referenced (which is an interesting read, BTW -
> dealing with the Kedushah of the Yud-Yud printed in Siddurim) is incorrectly
> cited in the old SAs. It is really Siman 171 in the Pesakim.

See also Kuntres Ba'er Bisdei, by R Chaim Chizkiyah Medini, defending the
title of his S'dei Chemed.


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

Micha Berger wrote:

> I would think the Qumranim would fall under "seifer Torah shekasvo min",
> even if the whole thing were in Ashuris.

My own theory, which I can't prove, is that the "min" in the law that
distinguishes "ST sheksavo min" from "ST sheksavo akum" is davka
a Christian.  What makes a min different from an akum for this
purpose is what he means when he writes the Name.  An akum means
"the Jewish god, in whom I don't believe".  Since he wrote it to
refer to Hashem, it has kedusha, regardless of what he actually
believes *about* Hashem.  But when a Xian writes the same letters
he doesn't even *mean* Hashem; he means his god.  He thinks that is
the name of his god, and that the pasuk is about his god.  Therefore
it has no kedusha.   For this purpose, an ordinary heretic is like
an akum, not like a Xian, and therefore I believe a Name that he
writes does have kedusha, and yiganez, not yisaref.




> You reminded me of something I asked in grade school, learning mesechtes
> Megillah but got accused of being a "wise guy" instead of getting an
> answer....
> 
> When reading a megillah in a foreign language (Megillah 18a), are there
> limits on the kesav? Or do they mean writing Greek in Ashuris letters --
> like Yiddish or Ladino?

Bear in mind that Greek letters were used in the BHMK because "yaft
Elokim leYefet, veyishkon beoholei Shem".  So the Greek alphabet also
has a special significance.


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

On Wed, Sep 3, 2008 at 12:12 PM, Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org> wrote:

> On Wed, Sep 03, 2008 at 06:36:32PM +0300, Eli Turkel wrote:
> : Thus there is no pasuk in the Torah where G-d himself describes
> : himself as king. Only 3 verses of praise by men that use this
> : description
>
> Ein melekh belo am.
>
> The key to declaring Him "Melekh" is that it means He rules with
> the will of the people. Otherwise, the term would be "Mosheil". See
> <http://www.aishdas.org/asp/2005/09/coronating-g-d.shtml> for my take
> of the Gra's more lengthy discussion of this point.
>
> But it would make sense then that it's people who declare Him "Melekh"
>
> Tir'u baTov!
> -Micha


As I understood it, a Mosheil is a sort of pragmatic dictatorship, and
Melech connotes rulership that is deserved, that is reflective of *worth*,
not just popular reverence.  In fact, in Jewish Law, a melech is not a
melech if his powers are subject at all to popular will.  Is this just a
form of grandfathered supremacy, like the Consuls of Rome?  Or do we mean
that a melech need not gain permission from the people, but they need
permission from Him!  I never understood Divine Authority to be a social
contract, though I understand that many of the sources can be understood
that way...Just as many can be understood to establish G-d as the Boss, and
not because He's bigger than you or me.  Note that I included the
description of G-d as HaKadosh, as well as Melech.  Now please don't tell me
that Kadosh is just some bland description of G-d's "otherness."  Everybody
knows deep down inside that Kadosh and kedusha are value judgments, not
abstract philosophical measures of non-value qualities.

As for the dictum "Ein Melech B'lo Am"  I think that refers to the fact that
G-d goes unappreciated without people to revere Him, and that all His power
and authority are unfulfilled  without creation to take part in it.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20080903/7a0fa65e/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 313
***************************************

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..."