Avodah Mailing List

Volume 26: Number 41

Tue, 24 Feb 2009

• 1. Re: Can we force Hashem to do something? (David Riceman)
• 2. Re: Can we force Hashem to do something? (Zev Sero)
• 3. Re: Can we force Hashem to do something? (Micha Berger)
• 4. Re: Can we force Hashem to do something? (Zev Sero)
• 5. "The Angel Which Redeemed Me From All Evil" (Cantor Wolberg)
• 6. Re: Can we force Hashem to do something? (T6...@aol.com)
• 7. Re: Can we force Hashem to do something? (T6...@aol.com)
• 8. Can we force Hashem to do something? (Cantor Wolberg)
• 9. Re: Can we force Hashem to do something? (David Riceman)
• 10. Re: Can we force Hashem to do something? (rabbirichwolpoe@gmail.com)
• 11. Re: Can we force Hashem to do something? (Micha Berger)
• 12. hutra vs dechuya (Shlomo Pick)
• 13. Friday Nighr blessings (rebshr...@aol.com)
• 14. Re: Akeidah vs. Chet Eigel (Arie Folger)
• 15. Re: Wedding Rings for Men (Dov Ber Ballon)
• 16. Re: Wedding Rings for Men (Rich, Joel)
• 17. Re: Wedding Rings for Men (Harry Maryles)

RRW
> :> mal'akhim, since they
> :> (particularly when up in Shamayim I there is broader agreement) have no
> :> bekhirah. "
>
> : Source please?
>   
See Rashi on last week's parsha 23:21 s.v. "Ki lo yisa l'pish'achem": 
"Shehu min hakat she'ainan hotin", implying that not all angels are 
alike in this regard.

David Riceman

David Riceman wrote:
  
> See Rashi on last week's parsha 23:21 s.v. "Ki lo yisa l'pish'achem": 
> "Shehu min hakat she'ainan hotin", implying that not all angels are 
> alike in this regard.

Unless the "group that doesn't sin" refers to all angels.


-- 
Zev Sero                      The trouble with socialism is that you
z...@sero.name                 eventually run out of other people?s money
                                                     - Margaret Thatcher

On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 06:20:45PM -0500, Zev Sero wrote:
: David Riceman wrote:
: >See Rashi on last week's parsha 23:21 s.v. "Ki lo yisa l'pish'achem": 
: >"Shehu min hakat she'ainan hotin", implying that not all angels are 
: >alike in this regard.

: Unless the "group that doesn't sin" refers to all angels.

Not likely. Rashi was writing colloquial, not symbolic logic.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

Micha Berger wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 06:20:45PM -0500, Zev Sero wrote:
> : David Riceman wrote:
> : >See Rashi on last week's parsha 23:21 s.v. "Ki lo yisa l'pish'achem": 
> : >"Shehu min hakat she'ainan hotin", implying that not all angels are 
> : >alike in this regard.
> 
> : Unless the "group that doesn't sin" refers to all angels.
> 
> Not likely. Rashi was writing colloquial, not symbolic logic.

No symbolic logic necessary.  He might simply mean that angels *are*
"the group that doesn't sin", and therefore one must be careful around
them.   RDR assumes that "shehu min..." excludes some other group of
angels; I see no reason why it shouldn't instead exclude non-angels.
There is a kat that sins, i.e. humans, but he is from the kat that
doesn't, i.e. angels.


-- 
Zev Sero                      The trouble with socialism is that you
z...@sero.name                 eventually run out of other people?s money
                                                     - Margaret Thatcher

  R' Micha wrote:
Therefore one must cleanse one's heart every day before study and
  after it of impure attitudes and middos with a fear of sin and good  
deeds.

Wouldn't that be achieved by the brocho rishona and the brocho achrona?


R' Micha also wrote:
As I see it, a role of the keruvim on the aron is to protect those who
lack the middos from using the Torah to water their weeds.

Frankly, IMHO, if the Torah and Aron cannot protect those who lack
the middos, then I think it's somewhat naive to think that the keruvim
will do any better.

I cannot think of any need in childhood as strong as the need for a  
father's protection.
(And the Father is symbolically the Almighty -- not keruvim).

Sigmund Freud  (Parentheses: mine).
Kol tuv.
ri
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20090223/5cce6b6e/attachment-0001.htm>

 
btw whenever I see this subject line -- "Can we force Hashem to do  
something?" -- I have the urge to add the word "NO."
 
We can only "force" Him to do what He Himself wants to do and wants us to  
"force" Him to do.  Sort of like that Gemara story about the disagreement  
between R' Eliezer and R' Yehoshua (with R' Yehoshua saying "we don't decide  
halacha according to miracles or bas kol because lo bashamayim he") and HKBH  
laughing and saying, "Nitzchuni banai."  That is, "My children decided the  halacha 
not according to the way I wanted it but according to the way I REALLY  
wanted it, according to the rules I set up."  





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


--------------------
**************A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy 
steps! 
(http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1218822736x1201267884/aol?
redir=http:%2F%2Fwww.freecreditreport.com%2Fpm%2Fdefault.aspx%3Fsc%3D668072%26hmpgID<
/a>
%3D62%26bcd%3DfebemailfooterNO62)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20090223/3658f925/attachment-0001.htm>

 
From: Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org>
>> The Ramchal  gives a similar
explanation for the Sitra Achara's rebellion against HQBH --  it was an
error in facts. (His intent was to make bad and good equally  compelling
choices for people, and then got to thinking that this meant that  good
and bad were equal, and thus Hashem's authority and his were as  well.)<<





>>>>>
 
Where does Ramchal say this?  I thought that the idea of a Satan who  rebels 
against G-d and sets himself as an equal and a rival was a Christian idea  
(cf. Milton's *Paradise Lost*).  I thought we believed that a malach can  NOT 
rebel and that the Satan is a malach who performs the tafkid that Hashem  sets 
for him, just like any other malach.  It's just that his tafkid  is 1. to tempt 
us to sin -- hu yetzer hara  2. to prosecute us when we do  sin -- he is the 
kategor and 3-4. to punish us when we sin and also to take our  lives -- he is 
the avenger and he is the Malach Hamaves.
 
Christians read the Book of Job as being a kind of wager or contest between  
two equals or near-equals, G-d and Satan, respectively the G-d of Good and  
the Leader of Evil who rebelled against G-d and is responsible for all evil  in 
the world.  In their worldview evil does not come from Hashem but from  the 
independent, rebellious Satan.
 
In contrast, we read Sefer Iyov as a dialogue between Hashem and one of His  
minions, in which the Kategor says that Iyov isn't really that big a tzaddik  
because he's never been tested, and Hashem instructs the Satan to test Iyov -- 
 giving him precise instructions on how far he can go.  (The Satan and the  
Kategor being one and the same of course.)  Everything that is evil in the  
world -- all suffering -- comes from Hashem and only /appears/ evil to us  
because we lack the Divine perspective.
 
When we say that the yetzer hara "wants" to trap us we speak beloshon bnai  
Adam.  His JOB is to tempt us and in that sense he "wants" to do his  job.  But 
at a deeper level, at the level of emes, he truly wants us to  RESIST his 
blandishments and do Retzon Hashem.
 

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

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



**************A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy 
steps! 
(http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1218822736x1201267884/aol?
redir=http:%2F%2Fwww.freecreditreport.com%2Fpm%2Fdefault.aspx%3Fsc%3D668072%26hmpgID<
/a>
%3D62%26bcd%3DfebemailfooterNO62)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20090223/be6677b2/attachment-0001.htm>

Asking the question: Can we force Hashem to do something? is like  
asking can HaShem make a rock so heavy that He cannot lift it?
It's a supra rational and illogical question.

R' Micha wrote:
The notion that mal'akhim have no bechirah is implied by R' Yaaqov  
Qatina
who notes they are called omedim / nitzavim.

I thought that was a very common concept. I've learned it many times.  
And... as malachim have no bechirah, so, too,
it is brought down that animals have no bechirah (which some vets  
would take issue with), and that is why the synthesis
of the angel and animal is the only combination that gives bechirah.
Interestingly, ANgel and ANimal both begin with AN. It's what you do  
afterwards, that's crucial.

Kol tuv.
ri
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20090223/f4a906be/attachment-0001.htm>

Zev Sero wrote:
> No symbolic logic necessary.  He might simply mean that angels *are*
> "the group that doesn't sin", and therefore one must be careful around
> them.   RDR assumes that "shehu min..." excludes some other group of
> angels; I see no reason why it shouldn't instead exclude non-angels.
> There is a kat that sins, i.e. humans, but he is from the kat that
> doesn't, i.e. angels.
See Rashi Lech L'cha 19:22 s.v. "ki lo uchal la'asot".

David Riceman
>
>

Rebbetzin toby: 
> In contrast, we read Sefer Iyov as a dialogue between Hashem and one of
> His minions, in which the Kategor says that Iyov isn't really that big
> a tzaddik because he's never been tested, and Hashem instructs the Satan
> to test Iyov -- giving him precise instructions on how far he can go...

According to prof Irving Agus HKBH made an ongoing BD lema'aleh to
detemine one central issue: Viz. Is creation/Adam worthwhile or is it
all too flawed and HKBH should roll back to tohu vavohu.

Iyyov is a big mashal of this larger issue

My friend R Joel Stern gave this word:
Q: Why did the malach sent to destroy Sodom come to visit Avraham Avinu?

A: Hashem wanted to show the malach chavala that not all man was evil
as Sodom and he should check out AA first before making any negative
judgment.

I think this dovetails with this concept. And evert RH we get re-assessed.

Undoubtedly Micha recalls. Q from star trek TNG whose opening salvo was
the same thing -- are humans kedai to keep around?

As such. R Toby and I agree that Satan is in the role of kateigor. But
he is after all a part of the system, not a rebel.

OTOH the peirush on Tanna Devei Eliyahu does accept fallen angels ONLY
when they take on flesh. This seems to be the story of bnei elokim and
bnos adam. So malachim in spirit have no yetzer horo but when acquring
flesh can and do acquire a YH too.

We see that Moshe Rabbeinu was able to get along with mal'ach hamaves
so his role is obviously part of this system.

W/o torah, hessed and teshuva, etc. the whole world would really fall so
short that it would fall back into the abyss.

So Rambam in Hilchos Teshuva teaches us that each individual is a
machria. And so it is. Iyyov is a lesson all about this model in great
detail.

KT
RRW
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 07:04:30PM -0500, T6...@aol.com wrote:
:> The Ramchal  gives a similar
:> explanation for the Sitra Achara's rebellion against HQBH --  it was an
:> error in facts. (His intent was to make bad and good equally  compelling
:> choices for people, and then got to thinking that this meant that  good
:> and bad were equal, and thus Hashem's authority and his were as  well.)<<

: Where does Ramchal say this?  I thought that the idea of a Satan who  rebels 
: against G-d and sets himself as an equal and a rival was a Christian idea  
: (cf. Milton's *Paradise Lost*).  I thought we believed that a malach can  NOT 
: rebel and that the Satan is a malach who performs the tafkid that Hashem  sets 
: for him, just like any other malach....

Da'as Tevunos vol. II in Ginzei Ramchal pp. 40-42.

I personally believe like you do, but we must recognize that the mehalekh
popular in contemporary times isn't the only one promulgated by baalei
mesorah.

The difference is that the Notzri devil rebelled against god. This is an
image of a mal'akh charged with providing the choice of evil who
confuses it with being given charge of an equal domain with equal power.
After all, if HQBH allowed His greater power to reach the world, what
would happen to zeh le'umas zeh? Thus, he erred in facts, not in a love
of evil or fallen prey to pride.

The other, bigger, difference is that one popular Notzri vision of the
devil actually has him managing a history-long battle, as though they
actually are equals (or at least in the same ballpark). Rather than an
angel who mistakenly thinks he's equal.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             "The worst thing that can happen to a
mi...@aishdas.org        person is to remain asleep and untamed."
http://www.aishdas.org          - Rabbi Simcha Zissel Ziv, Alter of Kelm
Fax: (270) 514-1507

 

>I am giving a shiur on whether shabbat/pikuach nefesh is hutra or dechuya

 

>does anyone know a source that discusses in general hutra vs dechuya and
examples of hutra most aseh docheh lo taaseh seem to be dechuya

 

Nice that you said "seem to be".  Each case must be dealt independently.
Pikuach nefesh on shabbos is generally accepted to be dechuya, but that's
the rambam's opinion and has been accepted as halakha. However, Maharam
meRothenburg held it to be hutra!  I expect that's the topic of your shiur.

Pesach haba'a betuma is accepted as being hutra, but there is an opinion in
pesahim, that it is dechuya.

Similarly, I believe that shabbos in the mikdash is the same problem.

shlomo

 

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20090224/e0c89067/attachment-0001.htm>

It has been acknowledged that the Bircat Habanim is a Minhag (perhaps from
the time of Yaakov, Ephraim and Menasheh), but may not apply to children
who already have their own households.???At all the?Erev Shabbat meals that
I have attended as a guest I have seen the Baal Habayit bless their
children regardless?of age or marital status.?? Since this is a Minhag, I
would be interested in the experience and action of other people on this
list.?? I bless my daughter after which she blesses her three year old
son.?? To me this is a true representation of Mesorah (though only Minhag)
and?the embodiment of our people's timelessness, as hopefully my daughter
will bless her eventual grown son and he will then?turn around and bless
his children.?? Finally, do we have? a source as to how old Ephratm and
Menashe were at the time of their blessings from Yaakov and?if they had
families at that time?

Kol Tov,

Stu Grant?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20090224/36d9abf2/attachment-0001.htm>

RRW wrote:
> To me the original sin was Adam's coverup. Similar to shaul he could not
> confess when caught unlike david hamelech and l'havdil George Washington

Actually, while Adam doesn't confess, unlike, say Kayin, he actually
feels shame. I would say that there was charata, just no vidui. But,
given the magnitude of the sin, that may have been a most major
lacuna.

KT,
-- 
Arie Folger
http://ariefolger.wordpress.com/
http://www.ariefolger.googlepages.com

 On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 11:37 PM, Yitzhak Grossman <cele...@gmail.com>wrote:


> It became the custom for US soldiers going to war to publicise their
> marital status by the wearing of a man's wedding ring. They were happy
> to make public their commitment to their wife by the wearing of a
> public symbol that declared that commitment to all. Given that this
> habit of wearing men's wedding bands was reasonably new it was all the
> more creditable that these men were willing to forego the marital
> obscurity available to them from not wearing a ring and actively chose
> to make a public statement about their choice.
>
> Men's wedding rings have become increasingly more common since that
> time."
>

Perhaps this alone is a reason for men NOT to wear the ring. The need to
anounce to others your marital status is far more significant in a culture
where the norn is to flirt with members of the oposite sex. The ring
declares that this one is not available. For a man who anyway would not
flirt or wish to be flirted with, the ring does not declare his loyalty.

Micha wrote:
>>And a man who goes to work with a flirtatious woman is better off with her
not even trying.

True, but that might not justify a widespread acceptance of a new minhag. In
his particular case, if he's attractive, and she is unaware and etc.
perhaps.

Akiva
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20090224/62a53eaa/attachment-0001.htm>

 


                 

         
        Perhaps this alone is a reason for men NOT to wear the ring. The
need to anounce to others your marital status is far more significant in
a culture where the norn is to flirt with members of the oposite sex.
The ring declares that this one is not available. For a man who anyway
would not flirt or wish to be flirted with, the ring does not declare
his loyalty.
         
        Micha wrote:
        >>And a man who goes to work with a flirtatious woman is better
off with her not even trying.
         
        True, but that might not justify a widespread acceptance of a
new minhag. In his particular case, if he's attractive, and she is
unaware and etc. perhaps.
         
        Akiva 
        ==================================================
        I don't know why this rises to the level of "minhag" any more
than a doctor wearing a white lab coat - so if you take the Gaon's
approach by chukat hagoyim across the board, maybe you shouldn't wear a
ring (or a tie but that's for a different post).  If you take the more
standard approach, it's certainly not a chiyuv for a male in the
workforce to wear a ring but it certainly sounds like an eitzah tova
unless there's a reason not to (e.g. to be different than - who?  -
especially assuming your covering your head)
        
        KT
        Joel Rich
         
         


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/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20090224/37d7c10b/attachment-0001.htm>

--- On Tue, 2/24/09, Rich, Joel <JR...@sibson.com> wrote:







?
I don't know why this rises to the level of?"minhag" any more than a doctor
wearing a white lab coat - so if you take the?Gaon's approach by chukat
hagoyim across the board, maybe you shouldn't wear a ring (or a tie but
that's for a different post).? If you take the more standard approach, it's
certainly not a chiyuv for a male in the workforce to wear a ring but it
certainly sounds like an eitzah tova unless there's a reason not to (e.g.
to be different than - who?? - especially assuming your covering your head)

?
=========================
?
I haven't been following this thread that closely and apologize if
something like this has alreay been mentioned. But there is another reason
that comes to mind that argues against wearing a wedding band.
?
The wedding band is not just a symbol of marriage. It is the Tabba'as of
kinyan - the 'Kesef' of Kidushin that a woman accepts and is thereby
consecrated. By a man wearing a wedding?band he might give the impression
that he is wearing some sort fo male counterpart to this - as though he
received a Taba'as from her as a Kinyan. 
?
And that - as we know - can invalidate the Kiddushin if it were done under
the Chupa in immediate sequence to her acceptance?of his ring (because it
looks like she is giving him back the ring she just got from him - unless
it is clearly spelled out that that is not what she is doing.)
?
HM

Want Emes and Emunah in your life? 

Try this: http://haemtza.blogspot.com/




      
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20090224/1f8afad4/attachment.htm>

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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 26, Issue 41
**************************************

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..."