Avodah Mailing List

Volume 26: Number 194

Fri, 25 Sep 2009

• 1. Re: Tiqun Olam (rabbirichwol...@gmail.com)
• 2. Re: Tiqun Olam (Micha Berger)
• 3. A NICE HOLIDAY VORT (Chana Luntz)
• 4. Re: A NICE HOLIDAY VORT (Ben Waxman)
• 5. List of Basic Haskofo Seforim (Akiva Blum)
• 6. Re: List of Basic Haskofo Seforim (Micha Berger)
• 7. Basic bekiut [was:Re: List of Basic Haskofo Seforim] (David Riceman)
• 8. mechirat yosef (Eli Turkel)
• 9. Re: Machnisei Rachamim (rabbirichwol...@gmail.com)
• 10. truth and tzedaka (Saul.Z.New...@kp.org)
• 11. Re: truth and tzedaka (T6...@aol.com)
• 12. Re: truth and tzedaka (Samuel Svarc)
• 13. Fwd: And Rejoice in Trembling: the Mitzva of Seu?dat Erev Yom Kippur (Micha Berger)
• 14. psak and rationality (Saul.Z.New...@kp.org)
• 15. Kaparos (Zev Sero)
• 16. Re: Kaparos (Micha Berger)
• 17. In Judaism emotion must not be allowed to run away with the mind. (Yitzchok Levine)

Michael:
> - he brings
> Shemot Rabbah, Akedat Yitzhak, and Abarbanel (the latter two relying
> on Deut 4:9) as saying that gentiles are not prohibited from AZ -
> totally exempt l'gamre! Additionally, he notes that Rashbam and R'
> Hertz both interpret Deut. 4:9 in this same way. So how do we fit this
> with the halakhot of AZ? Tzarikh iyun.

Years ago I came up with a Hiluq

It is OK for an eino-yehudi to wroship "tzva hashamayim" beshittuf with HKBH
And
It is NOT OK for an eino-yehudi to worship "mAaseh y'dei adam". Such as
pessel, maseichah etc.

This may not be halachic, it is culled right out of Devarim 4 especially
v. 19 "... asher halaq lahem..."

Tzva Hashamayim is at least tolerable - shemesh yarei'ach, mazalos as
extensions of HKBH own Creations

OTOH Pessel and Tavnis that are man-made are totally intolerable - hence
Avraham Avinu's need to shatter his father's idols even for Non-Jews.

Tangentially
The issue of J of Nazareth is mamash on the border. As a spritiual
being - such as a mal'ach - that shittuf would be OK. As a human born
to a mother it is davka NOT OK.

So if Xtians worship the neshamah of J then maybe THAT shittuf is somewhat
Kosher. If they worship the human son of Mary who walked around then it
is Nisht Kosher

GT
RRW
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 6:31pm IDT, R Michael Makovi replied to me:
:> ...
:> But even so, that's not what Tiqun olam
:> actually is. In post-Ari qabbalah, it has to do with broken keilim and
:> metaphysical forces.

: I'm not concerned with what the Ari says...

Then don't be surprised when I tell you that I don't find citations
of R' Hertz, R' Dr David Berger or R' Prof Marc Shapiro to be overly
peruasive. You need to deal with the sources that passed "peer review".
The majority of your fellow shomerei Shabbos *do* care. But that said...

:                                           First, Aleinu uses the
: phrase differently than the Ari, and I think the Aleinu has more
: authority than the Ari...

So then quote what I said WRT the Aleinu's usage, which also isn't the
modern "perfecting society" stuff:
>                        "Tiqun olam" has to do with making a malkhus
> Shakkai. Which may very well be acheived by ethics and fiscal honesty
> to the world vekhol tosheveha. But even so, that's not what Tiqun olam
> actually is.

And in fact, your own following citation doesn't fit the usage you're
giving:
:                         Rambam to Avot 1:2 says (commenting on al
: shelosha devarim ha-olem omed - al ha-torah, v'al ha-avodah, v'al
: gemilut hasadim), "Yomar, she'b'hokhmah, v'hi ha-torah; u'b'ma'alot
: ha-midot, v'hen gemilut hasadim; u'b'qium tzivei ha-torah, v'hen
: ha-qorbanot - hatmadat tiqun ha-olam v'sidur mitziuto al ha-ofen
: ha-shalem biyoter."
...
: But besides that, Rambam defined Avot's language "ha-olam omed" as
: "sidur mitziuto al ha-ofen ha-shalem biyot", and he then equated this
: with "hatmada tiqun ha-olam".

Tiqun olam is as much about bringing the world to avodah ("malkhus
Shakkai") as it is about gemilus chassadim. The Rambam identifies it
with all three amudim.

Tiqun olam doesn't mean social justice. The problem is doubled by the
fact that the majority of people who do use the term that way define a
just society in terms of a particular political philosophy to which I
don't subscribe.

As a halachic idiom, it appears to be a fiscal concept in particular.
But if we're looking more generally, I agree the Rambam is a great place
to start.

To quote your own blog
<http://michaelmakovi.blogspot.com/2009/05/haredism-of-national
-religious-in.html>:
: Rabbi Shelomoh Danziger, "Rediscovering the Hirschian Legacy", Jewish
: Action 5756/1996, p. 23,
: http://www.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/rsrh/Danziger.pdf, quoting Rabbi
: Hirsch's Commentary on Genesis 9:27:

:     [T]hese spiritual pursuits ... are meant to lead to proper action,
:     to the right response to the ever-changing conditions of life, in
:     order 'to prepare the world for the kingdom of G-d', as we put it in
:     our daily prayers.

Note that despite your usage of this quote to prove the opposite, RSRH
(as RSD understands him) considers tiqun olam to be *spiritual* pursuits.
If you go through RSRH's oevre, you'll be hard pressed to find the words
"tiqun olam".


Jumping back for a tangen on the bit I ellided.
:              ..., "Yomar, she'b'hokhmah, v'hi ha-torah; u'b'ma'alot
: ha-midot, v'hen gemilut hasadim; u'b'qium tzivei ha-torah, v'hen
: ha-qorbanot - hatmadat tiqun ha-olam v'sidur mitziuto al ha-ofen
: ha-shalem biyoter."
: Now, what is most interesting, I think, is that Rambam equates Avot's
: "ha-avodah" with "qorbanot", which he in turn equates with "qium
: tzivei ha-torah". This of course fits with Rambam's general view of
: the qorbanot in general, trying to deemphasize their importance, and
: all the more so delegitimize them as the sine qua non of Judaism
: (Kuzari).

That parenthetic comment is one you'll have to justify. As I see it, the
Rambam classifies the Torah into two parts: the main point, bringing
manking to the truth, and the preperatory piece, eliminating the wrong
ideas we created first. He classifies qorabnos in the latter.

Where does the Kuzari say that Qorbanos are "the sine qua non of Judaism"?

Back on topic...

: I could rest my case, but I will bring one random quote which I first
: saw yesterday. The quote is taken from Professor Marc Shapiro's review
: (www.edah.org/backend/JournalArticle/3_2_Shapiro.pdf)  of Rabbi
: Jonathan Sack's The Dignity of Difference. Professor Shapiro actually
: quotes Rabbi J. H. Hertz as preempting Rabbi Sack's general thesis;
: Professor Shapiro quotes a different passage of Rabbi Hertz's than I
: did, but he comes out to basically the same effect, that Judaism is
: concerned with gentiles' morality, not their theology...

1- About the subject line: Theology is part of tiqun olam. 

2- Further down you backtrack from making a statement this strong. I'll
bring it up there.

...
: Professor Shapiro's citation of Rabbi Isaac Palache: "R. Isaac Palache
: too regards the Noahide Laws as no longer binding on Gentiles by
: virtue of divine law, although he argues that one is still permitted
: (!) to instruct them in these laws because they have a strong
: utilitarian purpose, in that they make for a civilized society (tiqqun
: ha-olam)." My purpose here is not to argue whether the gentiles are
: obligated to keep the Noahide laws - see Shapiro there for this
: argument - but rather, I just want to call attention to how Rabbi
: Palache used tiqqun olam, as making for civilized society.

The parenthetic "tikun olam" is RIP's or R"P MS's? You're quoting the
Aqeidas Yitzchaq, which doesn't contain the term once, according to Bar
Ilan.

I think the problem is that you have a false dichotomy -- social justice
/ BALC or metaphysical repair.  And in trying to argue against the
latter, you jump to the former without real justification.

Tiqun olam is making the world the one G-d intended. All three amudim.
Making the messianic world progressively more manifest. Mequbalim can
discuss the metaphysics of that, but to the extent of the first two
sentences of the paragraph, it's the same basic message as the Rambam's.

:> What is qedushah? To be set aside for the purpose of imitating Hashem by
:> being good to His creatures.

: EXACTLY. Qedusha (for us, not for G-d) is to imitate G-d. As Hazal
: say, "How can one walk after G-d, a consuming fire? Rather, be
: merciful just as He is merciful, etc." Notice how Hazal never say,
: "Put on tefillin just as He puts on tefillin."...

Where does this Chazal mention the word qedushah?

That said, imitatio Dei is on ALL THREE AMUDIM. Recall the Rambam defines
Torah in terms of an internal refinement, which reflects in BALM as much
as BALC.

:                                  Hazal could very well have defined
: imitateo dei as wearing tefillin....

And didn't they when they assume our tefillin implies the existence of
Hashem metaphorically wearing tefillin reading "mi ke'amkha Yisrael"?

:> According to the Meshech Chokhmah, all qedushah derives from human
:> activity. There is no such thing as an inherently holy place or object.

: But while this works fantastically for Rambam, it is anathemous to
: Kuzari and Kabbalists. According to the Kuzari, tumah is something
: tangible that a sensitive individual can feel after he walks through a
: graveyard....

Source?

Kuzari 2:60-62 reads like RSRH's notion that tum'ah is that which
convinces us we are physical beings with only physical drives whose
existence ends in death.

    A dead body represents the highest degree of malignancy, and a leprous
    limb is as if dead. It is the same with lost sperma [Hertwig's
    translation spells it in Greek] because it had been endowed with
    living power, capable of engendering a human being. Its loss,
    therefore, forms a contrast to the living and breathing, and on
    account of its ideal potentiality only affects noble minds and highly
    strung souls which incline towards the divine, prophetic, visionary,
    and towards genuine imagination. There are people who feel depressed
    as long as they have not purified themselves after such an accident.

Does that sound like a metaphysical substance?

:> This [viz. R' Hirsch's view] might be "holiness", it certainly is Rudolph Otto's definition, but
:> if so it has nothing to do with qedushah. ... Otto is speaking from a Xian perspective,
:> where salvation is viewed as a gift. We work from the position where
:> man partners with G-d to redeem himself.

: I'm sorry, but you lost me. What has Rabbi Hirsch's view to do with
: Christian vicarious salvation? ...

What you misrepresent as RSRH's view is the notion of holiness being
bestowed by G-d to those who open themselves to receive it. The Xian
model of salvation through grace. Rather than the Jewish notion of
redemption through covenant.

Otto therefore considers holiness to be the "experience of the numinous".
G-d is holy, and man receives holiness from him. Man is an object,
not a subject.

In Yahadus, as in your own quote above about imitatio Dei, qedushah
comes from people committing themselves to G-d's purposes. Qedushah is
not an experience of the numinous, and RSRH wouldn't frame the issue
that way.

...
: I'm not learned in the laws of AZ vis a vis gentiles. But see Shapiro
: whom I cite above
: (www.edah.org/backend/JournalArticle/3_2_Shapiro.pdf) - he brings
: Shemot Rabbah, Akedat Yitzhak, and Abarbanel (the latter two relying
: on Deut 4:9) as saying that gentiles are not prohibited from AZ -
: totally exempt l'gamre! Additionally, he notes that Rashbam and R'
: Hertz both interpret Deut. 4:9 in this same way. So how do we fit this
: with the halakhot of AZ? Tzarikh iyun.

Note the others aren't the same as the Aqeidas Yitzchaq's claim that
the 7 mitzvos were conventional rather than be decree.

So there are only 6 mitzvos? Don't you think that screams "darsheini"?
How can I possibly accept this tertiary source against the very list
he's describing? Obviously he means patur, not mutar, whether as
according to my understanding of R' Aharon Soloveitchik or some other
line of reasoning.

It's not just tzarikh iyun -- it's your entire thesis needs to wait
until after that iyun is done. You base yourself on something you admit
you aren't fully understanding.

: Oh, don't misunderstand me! I'm not saying that belief in G-d is
: unimportant, G-d forbid! I'm only saying that a gentile is not
: OBLIGATED to believe in G-d, as far as reward and punishment goes.
...

The Rambam's yedi'ah-based model of redemption would obviously disagree.
Not that I know anyone else who teaches redemption through yedi'ah rather
than middos.

Clearly if we can debate whether the Notzri trinity is AZ, there is no
room to question the prohibition of AZ altogether. Tzarikh iyun indeed.

: Similarly, there is a difference between what is true and what is
: dogma; not everything that is true is a dogma whose denial causes a
: loss of olam ha-ba....

Thus the whole discussion of nachriim being allowed to believe in
shituf.

: The Yerushalmi, based on either Eicha or Yeremiyahu, says something to
: the effect that, "Though they didn't believe in me, if only they had
: nevertheless kept my Torah!" Now, if one doesn't believe in G-d, of
: what use is keeping the Torah - tefillin, kashrut, etc.? Therefore, it
: seems clear to me that by "Torah", the Yerushalmi means the mitzvot
: sikhliot. If I remember correctly, Rabbi Benjamin Blech, in the
: introduction to his Understanding Judaism, interprets this Yerushalmi
: similarly, something to the effect that G-d would rather we keep His
: mitzvot but not believe in Him rather than the reverse, but I'm not
: sure.

1- Another tertiary source? What does the Y-mi say when /you/ read
it? I would personally prefer to believe that HQBH prefers we keep
His mitzvos, and even in particular his mitzvos BALC and even more
particularly the ones like ve'asisa hatov vehayashar than believe in
Him. But that doesn't say anything about a lack of importance of belief.
(And I don't even know if I could prove my instinct.) Rather, it would
say something about the imporance of derekh eretz.

2- Sikhlios includes much of BALM too -- you shift terms by bringing
that up. Is not tefillah rational?

GCT!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             The purely righteous do not complain about evil,
mi...@aishdas.org        but add justice, don't complain about heresy,
http://www.aishdas.org   but add faith, don't complain about ignorance,
Fax: (270) 514-1507      but add wisdom.     - R AY Kook, Arpilei Tohar

 
RRW wrote:

> On a Rosh Hashanah which fell on Shabbat, R' Levi Yitzchak rose and  
> said, "Lord of the Universe, today You judge each person for the coming
year, and grant  
> him life or condemn him to death. But, on this Rosh Hashanah You are
forced by Your own 
> Torah to  write that You grant Your entire people a good life in the
coming year. After all, on Shabbat 
> You have  decreed that one cannot write. How then, can You fulfill 'On
Rosh Hashanah it is written down'?

I clearly must be missing something.  Last I heard, writing was not included
in ochel nefesh, and prohibited on Yom Tov too, so this ought to be true
every year.

> ri
 
Gmar Tov

Chana

The vort is based on the 1st Mishna in Perek 4 of Rosh Hashana. Yom Tov shel
RH sh'khal b'Shabbat . . . Why write "Yom Tov"? We already know that RH is a
Yom Tov. Rather, the Mishna is emphasizing that RH has a Yom Tov/Shabbat
aspect of pkuakh nefesh and therefore writing is only allowed to save
someone's life.

Ben
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Chana Luntz" <ch...@kolsassoon.org.uk>
 After all, on Shabbat
> > You have  decreed that one cannot write. How then, can You fulfill 'On
> Rosh Hashanah it is written down'?
>
> I clearly must be missing something.  Last I heard, writing was not
included
> in ochel nefesh, and prohibited on Yom Tov too, so this ought to be true
> every year.

I'm looking for a list of source seforim that are the basis for normative jewish thought.

I have some ideas like Ramban al haTorah etc. Not a full range of all
various practices, just the stuff that more or less we all agree on. Also
no late seforim that summarize the early works.

I seem to recall seeing a list like here a few years ago but I can't find it in the archives.

Thanks

Gmar Chasima Tovah to all.

Akiva

On Wed, Sep 23, 2009 at 07:39:52PM +0300, Akiva Blum wrote:
: I'm looking for a list of source seforim that are the basis for
: normative jewish thought.

Were you perhaps thinking of the list that became RRW's blog post
at
<http://nishmablog.blogspot.com/2009/07/8-semester-course-on
-machsheves-yisrael.html>?
The first six semesters qualidy, although I think there is too much
Rambam for your goal of "more or less we all agree on"/ Kuzari Yes, but
Or Hashem (which isn't on the list) is also very close to the currently
more popular streams of belief. And if you just need to include the
Rambam because how else can you claim to cover the subject, you need
some R' Saadia Gaon's Emunos veDei'os too.

Last, semester 8 (ie RRW's "acharonim semester 2") is particular to his
talmidim's population:
    19 Letters, Dayan Grunfelds intro to and selections from Horeb
    MmE
    RAYK and
    AL haTeshuvah

GCT!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger                 Time flies...
mi...@aishdas.org                    ... but you're the pilot.
http://www.aishdas.org                       - R' Zelig Pliskin
Fax: (270) 514-1507

Micha Berger wrote:
> Were you perhaps thinking of the list that became RRW's blog post
> at
> <http://nishmablog.blogspot.com/2009/07/8-semester
> -course-on-machsheves-yisrael.html>?
>   
I looked at the link and noticed the other post there (of methods of 
acquiring basic bekiut).  It leaves out my favorite option: Mishna with 
peirush haRambam.

David Riceman

We have discussed in the past connections between the kinot on tisha ba-av/YK
and the sin of selling yosef.

I recently saw the Abarbanel that connects the bringing of the two
"seerim" (goats)
on Yom Kippur as a kappara for the sin of selling yosef

-- 
Eli Turkel

> So how *do* we describe what we are doing in these situations?
 
I heard an insight in the name of Rav S. Schwav OBM. Viz. 
 
First we see say Machnisei Rachamim 
And then we clarify ourselves by declaring: 
"Maran divishmaya lach mischaneinan" 
 
IOW only to Maran divishmaya are we addressing our Techinos 
 
Gmar Tov 
RRW 
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

http://www.vosizneias.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/print5.jpg
while it is true  that this story was  retracted, one wonders  to what 
extent those who raise funds for/from the tzibbur ARE allowed to 
exaggerate in order 
to raise  needed funds?

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20090923/fb6827cc/attachment-0001.htm>

Please remind me who the Grish is -- TK
 
 
In a message dated 9/23/2009 4:21:40 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,  
Saul.Z.New...@kp.org writes:


http://www.vosizneias.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/print5.jpg
while  it is true  that this story was  retracted, one wonders  to  what 
extent those who raise funds for/from the tzibbur ARE allowed to  exaggerate 
in order 
to raise  needed funds?



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20090923/c99947ef/attachment-0001.htm>

On Wed, Sep 23, 2009 at 4:21 PM,  <Saul.Z.New...@kp.org> wrote:
>
> http://www.vosizneias.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/print5.jpg
> while it is true ?that this story was ?retracted, one wonders ?to what
> extent those who raise funds for/from the tzibbur ARE allowed to exaggerate
> in order
> to raise ?needed funds?

I can't imagine it being muttar; I have never seen tzeddakah in any of
the various places where we permit some latitude with truthfulness.
Regardless, I can't imagine it ever being too practical. What does an
individual or organization seeking funds have if not their reputation?

KT,
MSS

Lekhavod the chevrah's other cofounder, I'm sharing this thought on one
of the topics most central to his machashavah.

GCT!
-micha

-- Forwarded message from TorahWeb <torah...@torahweb.org> -- 
Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2009 20:29:36 -- 0400
From: TorahWeb <torah...@torahweb.org>
Subject: Rabbi Yakov Haber -- And Rejoice in Trembling: the Mitzva of Seu?dat Erev Yom Kippur
To: weekl...@torahweb2.org

Permanent Link <http:www.torahweb.orgtorah2009moadimrhab yk.html>

And Rejoice in Trembling: the Mitzva of Seu'dat Erev Yom Kippur
Rabbi Yakov Haber
TorahWeb

The mitzvah of eating on Erev Yom Kippur at first glance presents an
enigma. The festive nature of the meal seems to contradict the serious
mood of the next day which is filled with beseeching, pleading, and
multiple confessions repeated ten times in five separate t'filot.

Rabbeinu Yona (Sha'arei T'shuva 4:8) offers three explanations for this
meal. First, a person expresses joy anticipating the day when his sins
will be forgiven. This joy indicates a person's concern about his sins
and their effects and his yearning for them to be removed. Second, just
as a festive meal is served on Yom Tov, so too we have a festive meal on
Erev Yom Kippur reflecting the joy of Yom Kippur. This meal cannot take
place on Yom Kippur because of the obligation to fast so it takes place
a day earlier. Third, we prepare for the service of the day to pray and
confess our sins by strengthening ourselves beforehand by partaking of
a meal. Much discussion as to the halachic ramifications of these three
reasons appears in poskim. [See Moa'dim b'Halacha for an overview.]

This meal further demonstrates a dual theme begun on Rosh HaShana. On
the one hand, the Shofar blasts instill a sense of dread and awe; in the
language of Rambam, the Shofar calls out "Awaken O you slumberers and
examine your deeds!" On the other hand, we partake of festive meals in
accordance with the passage in Ezra "go and eat savory foods -- for the
joy of G-d is your stronghold!" (Nechemia 8:10). So too on Yom Kippur,
the climax of the Ten Days of Repentance, we are filled with dread at
the final day of the "sealing of the Judgment" of Rosh HaShana, the day
when the beinonim will be judged if their repentance merits their being
inscribed in the "Book of Life". But on the other hand, in the language
of Rabbi Akiva (Yoma 8:10), "praiseworthy are you, Israel, before Whom
are you purified and Who purifies you? your Father in Heaven! -- Hashem
is the mikveh of Israel. Just as a mikveh purifies the impure, so too the
Holy One Blessed Be He, purifies Israel." Rabbeinu Yona's first reason
especially highlights these seemingly contradictory themes. We are happy,
says Rabbeinu Yona, for the opportunity to have our sins forgiven. But
this very happiness "serves as testimony about his worry over his sin,
and his sorrow over his iniquities."

"V'gilu bir'ada" (Tehillim 2) and be joyful with trembling is an
oft-quoted verse expressing this commonly occurring duality of fear and
love, trembling and joy (see B'rachot 30b). It is especially relevant
for Yom HaKippurim, a day suffused with Hashem's Divine Presence,
the mikveh referenced by R. Akiva causing the purification from sin
as explained by many commentaries. Being in the presence of the Divine
is frightening but uplifting, paralyzing but gladdening. The same dual
sense of awe overcoming the Kohein Gadol entering the kodesh kadashim
with the incense -- clearly accompanied by his joy of serving as the
agent of achieving atonement for the sins of Israel -- guides us in
our synagogues, our mikd'shei m'at (minor sanctuaries), on this unique
day. Rav Y. D. Soloveitchik zt"l suggests that the vidui (confession)
on Yom Kippur serves not in the classic role of the vidui of t'shuva
but as a vidui on a korban. The one bringing the korban must lean his
hands on it and mention the sin for which it was brought. This is in
addition to the vidui and t'shuva process already begun before bringing
the offering. So too on Yom Kippur, the t'shuva process was already to
have begun before Yom Kippur. We recite vidui on the vehicle of atonement
which is the Day of Atonement itself. Chassidic masters would only refer
to this day as Yom HaKadosh. The Talmud calls it Yoma, "the Day". Its
holiness and mystery not surprisingly fill us each year with the sense
of "gilu bir'ada!" May we merit with our t'shuva and our confession
the dual promise of kappara and tahara, atonement and purification,
"Ki vayom hazeh y'chapeir aleichem l'taheir eschem mikol chatoseichem,
lifnei Hashem titharu!"

Copyright ? 2009 by The TorahWeb Foundation. All rights reserved.

in relation to a  comment  that  a  certain gadol  paskened  that  goyim 
have different numbers of  teeththan jews , someone online  remarked--

Technically speaking, saying that Jews have a different number of teeth 
than non-Jews isn't irrational, it is empirically false

does a  posek's belief  in what  appears to be false  beliefs  figure in 
ones' assessment of whether one should generally follow  a particular 
posek?

is this maybe just  an eidah related issue  ie  some eidot  won't be 
bothered  by  such beliefs; and other eidot would never follow  such 
leaders anyways?


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20090924/1cfb73f2/attachment-0001.htm>

On the reason for using davka a rooster, see Maharal, Netivot Olam,
Netiv Ahavat Hashem ch 1:
http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=34216&;pgnum=201

  The rooster represents the human soul [...] it was not for nothing
  that they established the custom of slaughtering a rooster on Erev
  Yom Kippur, that it be a substitute for ones soul.

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

On Thu, Sep 24, 2009 at 04:14:03PM -0400, Zev Sero wrote:
: On the reason for using davka a rooster, see Maharal, Netivot Olam,
: Netiv Ahavat Hashem ch 1:
: http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=34216&;pgnum=201
:  The rooster represents the human soul [...] it was not for nothing
:  that they established the custom of slaughtering a rooster on Erev
:  Yom Kippur, that it be a substitute for ones soul.

"Sechvi" appears once in Tanakh, Iyov 38:36, where Targum translates
"liba" -- or "tarnigol", depending on version. (It may be that Iyov's
"SECHvi" means heart, but "sechVI" means "rooster".)

Like the double entendre of "hanosein lasechvi vina", where sechvi refers
both to the crowing rooster (Rashi, Tosafor)and a person's heart
(Rabbeinu Yonah, the Rosh).

This Maharal appears to be along the same lines.
Thank you.

GCT!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             In the days of our sages, man didn't sin unless
mi...@aishdas.org        he was overcome with a spirit of foolishness.
http://www.aishdas.org   Today, we don't do a mitzvah unless we receive
Fax: (270) 514-1507      a spirit of purity.      - Rav Yisrael Salanter

The following is from the second part of RSRH's essay Tishri VI,  II 
: "Belief: and "Knowledge" (page 143).  I have posted this part of 
this essay in its entirety at 
http://www.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/rsrh/tishri_vi_belief.pdf   YL

It is on this clear historic basis, on realities confirmed by the
concrete experience of an entire nation, that Judaism stands, in both
theory and practice. In Judaism emotion must not be allowed to run
away with the mind. Rather, the emotions must be guided by realities
which were clearly apprehended by the senses, grasped by the lucid
intellect and considered by logical thought so that they serve as guides
for every aspect of our lives. Our reflections on these realities must
produce a firm, solemn resolve on our part to fashion our lives on
earth in accordance with the words of God which were addressed to
the thinking mind. Clear reasoning and vigorous willpower: these are
the forces on which Judaism counts; in Judaism, the heart and the
emotions only serve to mediate between intellect and action.

Not "belief" but "knowledge," not "sentiment" but "determination
and accomplishment;" these are the energies through which the
"Jewish religion" becomes manifest. And for that very reason Judaism
is not a "religion." It has no part with any of the facets that other
"religions" emphasize as the "essence of religion." He who would drag
Judaism down to the level of "belief' divorced from knowledge, who
would place also at the head of the "Jewish faith" all the nebulous
subjectivism which indulges in "devout impulses" and have these
notions constitute the basic requirements of the Jewish "religion,"
cannot be one of the "priests of the Lord." He is in reality one of the
priestlings of paganism who exploit vague sentiment and sensibilities
for the worship of their own delusions, whose harvest, therefore, has
mostly been grief and mourning, misery and distress.   
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20090924/b440671b/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 194
***************************************

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..."